Content uploaded by Marcin Mazur
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marcin Mazur on Sep 05, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
JerzyBański
MarcinMazur
Transformation
ofAgricultural Sector in
theCentral and Eastern
Europe after 1989
Transformation of Agricultural Sector in the
Central and Eastern Europe after 1989
JerzyBański • MarcinMazur
Transformation of
Agricultural Sector in the
Central and Eastern Europe
after 1989
ISBN 978-3-030-73765-8 ISBN 978-3-030-73766-5 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73766-5
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microlms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specic statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional afliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
JerzyBański
Institute of Geography and Spatial
Organization
Polish Academy of Sciences
Warsaw, Poland
MarcinMazur
Institute of Geography and Spatial
Organization
Polish Academy of Sciences
Warsaw, Poland
v
Publication prepared under the research projects of the National Science Centre, nb.
UMO-2016/23/B/HS4/00421, Models of agriculture transformation in the countries of Central
and Eastern Europe after the fall of the Eastern Bloc– review of achievements, determinants and
development scenarios.
vii
Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 The Conditioning of Agricultural Development in Central
and Eastern Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Socioeconomic Conditioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Natural Conditioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3 A Review of Ownership Changes in the Agricultural Sector . . . . . . 19
Part I Structural Transformation in the Agricultural Economy
4 The Agricultural Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5 Agricultural Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6 Farms’ Agrarian Structure and the Market for Land. . . . . . . . . . . . 53
7 Crop-Growing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Cereals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Legumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Root, Bulb and Rhizome Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Vegetables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Fruit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Drugs and Spices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Crops Grown to Produce Sugar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Crops Grown for Their Oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Crops Grown for Their Fibre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
8 Livestock-Rearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Goats, Sheep and Fur-Bearing Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Pigs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Insects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
viii
9 Means of Production in Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Fertilisers and Plant Protection Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
The Irrigation of Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Part II Overall Change in the Agricultural Sector
and Prospects for Its Development
10 Changes in the Role of the Farming Sector
in the Economies of the CEECs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
11 The Level and Structure of Agricultural Production . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
12 Farming Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Farming Crop Efciency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Livestock Efciency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
13 An Identification of Directions of Change in Agriculture
in the CEECs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
The Transformation of Farms’ Ownership and Size Structure . . . . . . . . 175
Trends for the Area of Land Under Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
A Synthetic Conceptualisation of the Crop-Cultivation
and Livestock Structures in the Region as a Whole
and Its Individual Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
14 An Attempt at Scenarios for the Future
of Agriculture in the CEECs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Phenomena and Factors Shaping the Future
of the Agriculture Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Three Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
The Optimistic Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
The Pessimistic Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
The Most-Probable Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
15 A Presentation of the Contemporary Farm
in the CEECs Using Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
A Review of the Farms Researched . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
A Family Farm Engaging in the Commercial Production
of Cereals – Owner Florin Moldovano (Valcelele – Romania) . . . . . 224
The Agro Prest Iliuta SRL Production Enterprise – Large- Scale
Crop Production – Owner Vasile Iliuta (Valcelele – Romania) . . . . . 225
The Agrofam Production Group – Large-Scale
(Highly- Commercial) Crop Production – Director
Stefan Poienaru (Fetesti – Romania) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Family Farm – Commercial Production of Fruit – Owner
Ferenc Somodi (Suburban Zone
Around Kecskemet – Hungary) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Contents
ix
Multifunctional Family Farm – Plant Production
and Services in Agritourism – Owner Tanya Kujani
(Vicinity of Kecskemet – Hungary) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
Family Farm – Breeding Pigs – Owners the Kőszegi
Family (Kiskunfélegyháza – Hungary) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
Organic Farming – Production of Vegetables – Owner
Matyas Nemes (Fülöpjakab – Hungary) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Family Farm – Commercial Grain Production – Owner
László Kovács (Kecskemet Area – Hungary) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
The Ziołowy Zakątek and Dary natury Farm
Enterprises – Producing Herbs and Supplying
Agritourist Services – Owner Mirosław Angielczyk
(Village of Koryciny, Podlaskie Voivodeship, Poland) . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
16 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
Contents
1© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Bański, M. Mazur, Transformation of Agricultural Sector in the Central and
Eastern Europe after 1989, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73766-5_1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Thirty years have now passed since the fall of the old Eastern Bloc and the adoption
of a new socioeconomic and political system by successive Central and Eastern
European Countries (CEECs). The results of that were changes in all sectors of the
economy, as well as in the social and cultural life of these states’ citizens. Dynamic
change also swept through the food and beverages sector, this rst and foremost
entailing the privatisation of assets and the results of production, technological
modernisation of farms, improved efciency of production and a rise in levels of
output, and the sector’s opening up to competition on the global scale (Bański 2001,
2004; Csaki and Lerman 2000; Halamska 2013; Petrick and Weingarten 2004; Rusu
and Florian 2003). There was also a transformation in socio-cultural life on farms in
rural areas as broadly conceived. The family model changed, activity in the com-
munity intensied (along with the aspirations of rural inhabitants), farmers’ levels
of education and skill at managing their farms increased, and so on.
Equally, for a large group of country-dwellers working in agriculture, the changes
referred to were more in the nature of shocks. The state and cooperative sector in
agriculture fell, giving rise to changes in land-use structure, types of production and
the distribution of food products; as well as new conditions on the labour market
(Bański and Bednarek 2008; Csatari and Farkas 2008; Doucha etal. 2005; Burger
2001). There was also a polarisation of social structure within the populations resi-
dent in rural areas, with levels of poverty growing, and a large socially-excluded
group making its appearance.
One example helping portray the dynamics and diversity of change in the agri-
cultural sector of the CEECs involves the (re)privatisation of what was termed sek-
tor uspołeczniony– as typically rendered in English (not too effectively) as “the
socialised sector”. In the communist era, the collectivisation of agriculture pro-
ceeded through to its conclusion in most Eastern-Bloc countries (Van Dijk 2003),
albeit taking various forms and involving a number of different means (Meurs 1999;
Pryor 1992). Only in Poland and the former Yugoslavia did private farming continue
2
to play a key role in the communist-era economy. There was also a relatively large
amount of farmland remaining in private hands in Hungary.
The early 1990s brought radical change in the ownership structure of land
(Swinnen 1996). In Hungary, for example, the change was vast, with the share of
land used by the private sector increasing from 14% in 1990 to 54% in 2000 (Kovacs
2005). This was associated with a process of farm fragmentation as the number of
large farms decreased, while small ones proliferated. The number of owners of land
in this way increased to 2.2 million, with each having 3.65ha of land at their dis-
posal, on average. In contrast, Poland witnessed more limited change that was also
more regional in nature. Privatisation put a very abrupt stop to the activity of the
country’s State Farms, even though some of them had been in a good economic
condition, and more in need of restructuring than liquidation (Bański 2007).
The story in Slovakia proved to be different again, with privatisation taking place
on a similar scale to what Hungary had witnessed, but in line with a quite different
model. Here, the communist-era Cooperatives and State Farms were converted into
private enterprises, but in large measure continued in the same hands (Spišiak 1997).
Only a limited share of the farmland in Slovakia is thus in fact owned by individual
small farmers, with the result that fragmentation has been avoided.
Especially in the southern part of the study region there was a decline in the
numbers of large entities; while the number of small farms increased. In Bulgaria in
the early 2000s there were an estimated 8.7M farm plots, under the ownership of
some 5.1 M citizens of Bulgaria – or 65% of the country’s entire population
(Bencheva 2005; Kopeva 2003). The furthest-reaching change from this point of
view affected Romania, where the transformation increased the numbers of owners
of land steadily, to around 4 million (Benedek 2000).
Accession of the CEECs to the EU; and the associated opportunities to benet
from direct payments, the Structural Funds and special programmes of nance tar-
geted at agriculture further increased the dynamic of change in the farming sector
(Rural Development … 2008). However, this took place via a variety of different
scenarios and mechanisms by no means adequately recognised and evaluated.
Moreover, current CEEC domestic policies regarding the food sector are also
diverse, to the extent that differing inuences on future development are bound to
be exerted.
Meanwhile, the relevant policy of the EU itself also changes, not least given the
now long-established and further-developing approach to steadily limit support for”
pure” agricultural activity, with a view to this being directed instead at farming’s
multifunctional development, with a key role being played by the services farms can
also render, as well as craftsmanship and small-scale production, and the generation
of energy from renewable sources. This all serves to increase the value for money
obtained from public funding, while also ensuring the further diversication of eco-
nomic activity in rural areas.
While it is true that the agricultural sector is of lesser importance to the CEEC
economies than it was 10–20years ago (the shares of GDP it accounted for in 2012
were 4.2% in Bulgaria, 0.9% in the Czech Republic, 2.7% in Hungary, 2.4% in
Poland, 4.7% in Romania and 0.8% in Slovakia), it needs to be recalled that farming
1 Introduction
3
is the guarantor of food security that ultimately represents a strategic challenge in
every country, while it also shapes the rural landscape, ensures work for a large
group of rural inhabitants and impacts upon the quality and attractiveness of the
natural environment. In the case of Poland, but also Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria,
agriculture goes on discharging very important economic functions (for example
providing jobs for over 10% of the occupationally active population in Poland, and
ensuring that exports of the produce and products of this sector account for around
15% of Polish exports), as well as those of a socio-cultural nature (counteracting
unemployment, helping with the upholding of tradition, and so on).
In the face of these remarks it would seem clear that there could be much of inter-
est and research importance in the diagnosing and evaluation of the social and eco-
nomic processes that have taken place in agriculture in the CEECs, as well as the
determining of possible near-future changes. These are matters of major cognitive
and practical signicance for the farming sector in the above countries, which on the
one hand participate in cooperative ventures with other EU Member States, while
on the other hand remaining in competition with them on Europe’s Single Market
(for food), as well as markets globally.
And a key challenge facing farming, both in the region and in its individual coun-
tries, related to the choice of a proper model of development taking local natural and
socio-economic conditions into account, along with the history of the last few
decades.
Thus for example, as the farm sector modernises, this does not mean it should
follow blindly along the “Western” path leading to intensication and industrial
agriculture. Rather, it should strive to head more in a sustainable, multi-functional
direction that sees a decent income earned by households living in the countryside
as they pursue varied forms of economic activity. In that regard, it obviously needs
to be borne in mind that intensication of farming limits job opportunities in rural
areas greatly, enforcing a process of migration that is nothing more or less than a
major problem for Central Europe.
The transformations that have taken place in the agricultural sectors of the
CEECs have been the subject of a very large number of scientic studies and expert
reports proving diverse in terms of subject matter. Land use is one issue, but then
there is work on optimising conditions for production, and the roles played by
knowledge, experience and skill when it comes to running a farm properly in this
day and age. Indeed, the subject literature is so broad that it is hard to single out
particular key studies addressing given topics. However, what have proved in the
event to be especially valuable sources are the specialised scientic journals and
other publications that often make available the results of up-to-date studies in
regard to agricultural transformations in the CEECs. Publications whose positions
and prestige are assured internationally include the Journal of Rural Studies,
Agricultural Economics, Eastern European Countryside, Land Use Policy and oth-
ers, while there are also national-level journals- including in the Polish case Studia
Obszarów Wiejskich (Rural Studies), Wie ś i Rolnictwo (Village and Agriculture),
Roczniki Naukowe Ekonomii Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Obszarów Wiejskich (Annals of
1 Introduction
4
Agricultural Economics and Rural Development), as well as in Hungary Studies of
Agricultural Economics, and so on).
Against that background, we may for example note how Studies of Agricultural
Economics came out with an interesting report comparing structural changes in
Polish and Hungarian agriculture following these countries’ EU accessions (Potori
etal. 2014). In turn, Studia Obszarów Wiejskich has included a volume devoted to
Contemporary changes of agriculture in East-Central Europe, which brings together
articles on transformation of the farm sector in Latvia, Poland, the Czech Republic,
Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary (Bański and Bednarek 2008). Similar
subject matter is also taken up by the Rural areas and development series published
by the European Rural Development Network (Bański and Owsiński 2003; Certan
etal. 2015).
So, we can reasonably contend that a wealth of information is on offer in the
literature discussing agriculture, as it appears today in the countries of the region
under study. It therefore needs to be stressed with particular force that the scope of
these many publications is typically conned to detailed research topics that take
account of only a small section of the very broad agriculture-related subject matter
(e.g. Bański 2014; Doucha etal. 2005; Dumitru etal. 2004; Ilieva and Iliev 1995).
Moreover, the authors of studies for the most part focus on their home regions or
countries (e.g. Burger 2001; Csaki and Kray 2005; Ilieva and Iliev 1995; Kovacs
2003; Orłowski 2001; Spišiak 1997).
This all ensures that there remain relatively few analytical conceptualisations
reecting research on the food economy in several, many or most of the CEECs
simultaneously. Efforts of this kind have been made from time to time, but again the
typical situation is for these authors’ texts to be brought together under joint editor-
ship, and hence with connected– but still extremely diverse– subject matter. There
thus remains a clear lack of studies that would bring together knowledge or seek to
assess the transformations achieved thus far in the region’s agriculture, following
the fall of communism and successive accessions to the EU.Moreover, little note
seems to have been taken of the by-no-means-minor matter of the future of farming,
conceivable or expected directions of development, and functions to be served in the
decades to come.
This study has therefore proceeded in line with set goals that are cognitive on the
one hand and applied on the other. This reects the need for both a reconnaissance
and an assessment of the study region’s agricultural economy over a quarter of a
century, and from the relevant social and economic points of view; with account
taken of both certain expected similarities and differences. A further aspect relates
to anticipated transformations in the farm sector by reference to expert knowledge
and the investigation of both strategic documents and the subject literature. Findings
presented here thus extend to agrarian structure, land use, level of technical or tech-
nological infrastructure, the structure associated with types of crop grown and live-
stock raised, and agricultural efciency. As alluded to above, there are two
hypotheses advanced here, i.e. that:
1 Introduction
5
1) given the inuence exerted by the need to adapt to the requirements of the EU,
and then the CAP, the farming sector in the CEECs has undergone some standardi-
sation, and is characterised by similar social and economic processes that are
reducing agriculture’s diversity and limiting the degree to which transformations
are multi-dimensional.
2) contemporary economic processes characterising farming in the CEECs is rst
and foremost favouring the development of farms that produce using industrial
methods, with this standing in the way of agriculture’s development in a multifunc-
tional direction and working to eliminate traditional farms of limited or zero com-
mercial viability; instead ensuring the generation of a variety of social, economic
and natural problems in rural areas.
In the event, and given the limits of knowledge systematisation, it proved possi-
ble to point to both differences and similarities in the processes ongoing in the farm-
ing sectors of the region’s different countries, in the assessments of them arrived at,
and in indications as to the most effective solutions capable of generating favour-
able change in rural areas in future. As all this was done, resort to the subject litera-
ture and strategic documents was suitably supplemented by inputs of knowledge
from experts in selected CEECs.
It is in this way that the present study is able to supply practical knowledge on
contemporary transformations in the agriculture of the CEECs that will prove suit-
able for use by the regional and national institutions shaping policy regarding the
development of the agricultural sector.
While it has already been made clear that our work is devoted to Central and
Eastern Europe (and hence what are known as the CEECs), it has been pursued in
full awareness of varied relevant historical and political connotations, as well as
denitions even regarding the region’s actual location in space (Halecki 1994;
Hoffman 1989; Kłoczowski 2000, 2003). Contemporary conceptualisations of this
region mainly see it as comprising states that arose as an when the communist bloc
fell. However, post-War, the term Central and Eastern Europe took in all of the
states present on the map between Scandinavia, Germany, Italy and the Soviet
Union– with Austria and the old GDR also therefore included. Indeed, from a his-
torical point of view, western parts of (today’s) Belarus and Ukraine also seem
worthy of inclusion (Fig. 1.1).
Faced with a region of such a prole, one would need to see it as something of a”
soft” entity or polity, given– for example– the historical, religious and ethnic dis-
tinctiveness of both the Balkans and the area along the Danube. In the view of
S.Huntington (1997), the region in question actually straddles a dividing line that
has taken shape since the time the Roman Empire in the west fell. The separation in
this context is between a Latin civilisation and an eastern (Byzantine) one.
In the view of A.Podraza (2004), the great division of Europe needs to be supple-
mented by a third one that came into being as the Middle Ages came to an end and
the Modern Era commenced. Emerging at this point were two differing economic
zones separated by the Elbe, and further on by a line running to the Adriatic via the
Czech Lands and Austria. To the west of that line, dynamic capitalist economic
development took place, while to the east of it economies long remained dormant,
1 Introduction
6
thanks to the continued upholding of a feudal system in agriculture. The disparate
development of social and economic relations attendant upon this division of the
continent would later be associated with an eastern part under heavy Russian and
then Soviet inuence– with the latter assuming total dominance for half a century.
In this scenario, it was only with the enlargement of NATO and the European Union
that the line shifted eastward, with the present-day boundary not differing greatly
from that of the old USSR per se, albeit with today’s Baltic States on the western
side of the dividing line, and with the roles of Ukraine and Belarus looking
ambiguous.
This leaves Central and Eastern Europe and the CEECs within it as a kind of
third part of Europe that is neither “West” nor “East”. From the point of view of this
study, the CEECs forming this region having once been part of the communist bloc,
and having later acceded to the European Union, comprise Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic/Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania,
Croatia, Slovenia and Bulgaria.
It is in the context of these states that the authors have sought, not only to describe
the differentiation characterising agriculture, but also to evaluate the specic fea-
tures of this area encompassed by the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy. To this
Fig. 1.1 The research area
in Central and Eastern
Europe
Source: authors’ own
elaboration
1 Introduction
7
end, different features of agriculture in the region– and their evolution– have in
many places been set against the situation in the” Old EU”. The tracing of the direc-
tions this region’s agricultural transformation has followed has denoted a reference
point enjoying a certain degree of constancy. Irrespective of the time interval, we
have in that “Old EU” a group of 15 countries that were already Member States of
the Union in the twentieth century– as augmented by Cyprus and Malta, i.e. coun-
tries that did join the Community later, but were never part of the “Eastern Bloc”.
Together, this gives the “EU 17″. It is by deploying this kind of conceptualisation
that it is possible to observe convergence (frequently) and divergence (rarely), when
it comes to features of agriculture in the CEECs.
This study has drawn on a rich scientic literature, plus other sources materials–
mainly in the form of statistical data from national statistical ofces, Eurostat and
the FAO.It is worth stressing how diverse the available statistical data actually are,
from the subject-matter point of view; and how– furthermore – these data were
gathered using very varied methodologies. The denition of various statistical cat-
egories also differs from one country to another, hence (in part) the disparate nature
of values for given indicators that make comparative analysis either difcult or
impossible. As an example, one might take the matter of the area of agricultural land
in Croatia– which was 1,563,000 ha as of 2015, according to FAOSTAT and the
Croatian Bureau of Statistics. In contrast, an expert report entitled The agriculture
sector in Croatia– published in the same 2015 – gave a corresponding gure of
3,150,000– which is to say twice as much.
Such a discrepancy is of course most likely to reect different adopted deni-
tions either taking or not taking account of areas with extensive pastureland. In the
face of such issues, the work presented here proceeded on the assumption that com-
parative analyses of features rst and foremost use data from a single source. Two
spatial scales are also taken account of– the national and the regional.
1 Introduction
9© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Bański, M. Mazur, Transformation of Agricultural Sector in the Central and
Eastern Europe after 1989, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73766-5_2
Chapter 2
The Conditioning ofAgricultural
Development inCentral andEastern
Europe
Socioeconomic Conditioning
The socioeconomic change taking place in the CEECs post-1989 ensured the
unfolding there of step-by-step if diametric change in the impact key factors have
been exerting on the development of the farming sector. The social, economic and
political conditioning was all transformed. In rural communities, there was a major
rise in the level of interest in raising educational qualications and otherwise
upskilling; as well as in the need to nd employment away from agriculture in the
traditional sense. The consequence was a steady outow of young people (above all
women) from agricultural areas. In parallel with the decline in the agricultural pop-
ulation, there was progressing automation, specialisation and concentration of farm
output. Changes in economic conditioning mainly entailed a change in the price
relationship between the means of agricultural production and agricultural produce
and products – to the detriment of the sector’s protability in comparison with
industry or services. As a result, any staying on in farming was mainly made pos-
sible by direct payments, subsidies and grants of external origin, as well as a steady
increase in levels of efciency in terms of mass per unit area of farm, as well as
outlays of capital and labour. In turn, the political changes gave rise to a reorienta-
tion of directions of foreign trade in farm produce and products, as well as the
structure characterising the demand for these. The CEECs’ accession to the EU had
the effect of further reducing the diversity of farming operations, with similarity of
trends reecting the impact of the CAP.In contrast, high levels of nancial support
and new export opportunities where food products were concerned brought about an
intensication and specialisation of farm production.
In any country, it is agriculture that proves the component of the domestic econ-
omy most sensitive to all kinds of change. And, while a functioning free-market
economy is most likely in place in the given country, a strong inuence of state
10
policy is always exerted on farming … and there is no indication that this kind of
state- or EU-level interventionism is going to ease off.
The CEECs of the communist era mostly witnessed a high level of state subsidi-
sation of agriculture, primarily reecting an ownership structure dominated by the
state or Cooperatives under its de facto control. A somewhat analogous situation has
continued into post-communist times, in that the sector has generally continued to
receive rm support, even if the very rst period of transformation– associated with
the liberalisation of trade and freeing up of food prices– was indeed associated with
a transient– and dramatic– decline in state assistance. However, this initial shock
of the 1990s was followed by interventionist action to stabilise the farming sector–
and of course this coincided with our region’s states making their preparations for
European Union membership.
There thus remains no country anywhere in Europe that leaves agriculture
entirely “at the mercy” of free-market forces. Indeed, a realistic thesis might be that
the agricultural economy is actually looking more and more dependent on overall
economic policy pursued at state level. There are many reasons for this, and they
begin with the overproduction of food long synonymous with Europe, in inevitable
association with limited real protability and high levels of subsidy. The problem
became plain to see in the United Kingdom as long ago as in the 1980s, with the
“productivism crisis” referred to by Lowe etal. (1993); or what was termed more
vaguely the crisis in agriculture (Woods 2005). In the CEECs, it was more in the
1990s that such a problem made its appearance (Hruska etal. 2015), only to inten-
sify once the region came under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy.
The necessary result was a paradigm shift whereby European farming moved
away from quantity of output in the direction of quality (Bureau 2012), with the
share of the EU budget accounted for by agriculture falling in the process from 70%
to around 40% (European Commission 2014). There was likewise more and more
attention paid to (and appreciation of) the non-productive signicance of agricul-
ture, as well as its numerous links with non-farming functions rural areas are able to
serve. The maintenance of agricultural activity in areas where this is of limited
economic efciency is thus seen to pay off, and not only in terms of enhanced food
security. For in this way support is also extended to local traditions and identities, as
well as to the upkeep of valuable natural and landscape-related features, and the
nurturing of potential for rural tourism to develop, with local resources of various
kinds also promoted.
In an era of growing personal mobility and the development of the information
society, elements linked rmly with farming like the rural landscape, cultural diver-
sity, an attractive natural environment and calm atmosphere all came to look like
valuable resources (Woods 2011). Moreover, the agricultural activity in areas of this
kind goes on playing its major social function– as simply the main source of upkeep
of the greater part of all inhabitants. This all leaves it worthwhile for some nancial
backing to be extended to agriculture, even as there may be appropriate shaping of
the directions in which productive activity is heading.
A reection of all of that content is inherent in the level of economic assistance
the EU has been willing and ready to target at rural areas– and above all their farms.
2 The Conditioning ofAgricultural Development inCentral andEastern Europe
11
Around half of the Community budget was long earmarked for different types of
agricultural subsidy and payment. And, while it is true that nancial support for the
farming sector has fallen in recent decades, this remains the most-supported part of
the economy across the EU.
The rst decisions on policy concerning the development of rural areas and agri-
culture in Associated Countries were as set out in the Treaty of Rome signed by the
Six on March 25th 1957 with a view to the European Economic Community (EEC)
being established. Treaty signatories committed to the pursuit of common policy
regarding the development of rural areas– by way of structural policy, regional
policy and agricultural policy. The objectives here included the achievement of
social and economic cohesion within the Community, with disparities in levels of
development between regions evened out. That meant that less well-developed areas
would be encompassed by various forms of assistance.
Similar targets for action were designated in the TEU signed at Maastricht on
February 7th 1992. The Member States declared that, through the application of the
Structural Funds, they would support the development of rural areas and agricul-
ture, with a view to this leading to balanced economic growth among all EU regions.
Equally, from the mid-1980s onwards, the Associated Countries had played host to
debate on change in policy towards rural areas and farming. This was to involve a
departure from the concept of maximised output in favour of multifunctional rural
development, the liberalisation of the market for farm produce and products, and the
gradual limitation of production. This way of thinking gained its conrmation in–
for example – a Commission-devised 1998 document of the EEC entitled The
Future of Rural Society. This assumed a declining role for agriculture when it came
to employment in rural areas, with stress thus placed on the need for rural areas to
be treated cohesively, in their entirety.
However, EU farm policy through to 1992 continued to be predicated mainly on
the maintenance of high prices for what farmers were able to produce. Key objec-
tives were increased productivity, a stabilised market and raised levels of income
among those still working in agriculture. These were in turn achieved by way of
intervention buying, the granting of assistance to exporters and protection of the
market from excessive imports.
However, in 1992, the then EU Commissioner for Agriculture Ray MacSharry
proposed a reform of the Common Agricultural Policy that would enhance the com-
petitiveness of EU agriculture through support for farm income. However, action
would also be taken to limit the burden on the bloc’s budget imposed by the CAP).
The reform of this prole was thus a rst step towards more-extensive and diversi-
ed agriculture, as well as linkage between farm policy and that applying to the
development of rural areas. The measures also recognised the importance of envi-
ronmental requirements, with new programmes ushered in to link agricultural and
environmental issues. The setting-aside of land came to exemplify the conditions
under which assistance in the form of direct payments could be claimed, with these
helping to offset the reduce levels of price support.
As further years passed, a series of EU documents and studies appeared in which
the development of agriculture was seen in a still-wider context, i.e. through the
Socioeconomic Conditioning
12
prism of the development of rural areas (hence for example the European Charter
for Rural Areas and The Cork “Living Countryside” Declaration). All such docu-
ments noted the need for the development of new forms of economic activity in
rural areas that would favour multifunctionality and sustainable development.
However, the multifunctional development that was kept in mind was mainly to
entail the said diversication of economic activity through the introduction of non-
agricultural functions and the social and economic activation of rural inhabitants.
In the time since, activity has had as a key aim the diversication of sources of
income among country-dwellers, with efforts made to ensure the emergence of new
job opportunities helping to combat unemployment. The concept founded upon
multifunctional rural areas was thus seeking to limit the role of farming vis-à-vis
other economic functions. However, in no way was that to mean agriculture being
marginalised. Rather, it was a matter of harmonious linkage with other economic
activity, on the further condition that the natural balance was not disturbed exces-
sively in the process.
And so to the related concept of sustainable development– as perceived to entail
consistent, persistent and durable social, economic and cultural development in
such a way that the aforesaid balance of nature is retained, inter alia in the sense that
processes inherent to nature would always be able to go on operating. In fact, sus-
tainable development was brought into the Polish language and Polish practice as
rozwój zrównoważony (which– as the name suggests– has as much to do with bal-
ance as with durability/persistence). However, the term would later give way to the
more explicit ekorozwój concept, rather self-evidently looking for rozwój (develop-
ment) of a green or “ecological” kind, in line with natural principles. A further
condition harking back to the original vision of sustainable development was that
the needs of society today would be met in a way that did not preclude future gen-
erations making optimal use of environmental resources.
The main thrusts to policy on rural areas and agriculture in the 2000–2006 period
were as set out in Agenda 2000 For A Stronger And Wider Union, which the
European Commission brought out on July 18th 1997. This included a package of
reforms (i.a. relevant to negotiations with Candidate Countries), and of course laid
down conditions for the EU’s nancial and budget activity over the entire 7-year
period. The Community’s key objectives at this point were the diversication of
incomes, a decent standard of living for the inhabitants of rural areas, stability of
farming income, the search for alternative sources of income for farmers and their
families, and the pursuit of sustainable agriculture.
The shape of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for the years 2007–2013
inclusive was as provided for in an agreement concluded at Luxembourg by EU
Ministers of Agriculture on June 26th 2003, as well as what was agreed by the
Council on April 22nd 2004. The fundamental element of the EU’s new farm policy
was the system of direct payments under which each farm (which needed to meet
dened requirements and standards as regards the environment, human and animal
health and the marking of livestock) would have a unit payment per hectare of land
calculated for it. This meant payment being decoupled from production, in a manner
that simplied both application procedures and the accessing of the actual funds
2 The Conditioning ofAgricultural Development inCentral andEastern Europe
13
available for farmers. In the view of specialists, the system ensured that production
(in terms of both structure and level) was more in tune with signals coming in from
the wider market, with this therefore providing for enhanced business efciency of
the agriculture sector. The 2003 reform of the CAP also assumed a higher level of
funding for the development of rural areas.
The assumptions underpinning pursuit of the Common Agricultural Policy under
the 2014–2020 Financial Perspective are of fundamental signicance to agriculture
in the CEECs, and to the shaping of its directions of development. Moreover, sup-
port directed to the region under the Cohesion Fund contributes to the development
of rural areas and an improvement in living conditions. Indeed, a downward trend is
now being observed for disparities in levels of socioeconomic development between
rural areas and the urban agglomerations representing the main centres of growth
(which had worsened markedly in the 1990s). It is precisely because of the CEECs’
integration with the EU that polarisation between these areas has become less
distinct.
The EU’s Structural Funds have allowed for many important infrastructural
developments and other activities supporting rural areas; and in this way the situa-
tion of the rural population in the region under study has changed for the better in
many ways. Specically, the situations of country-dwellers as regards income,
infrastructure and education all improved. This is the consequence of Cohesion
Policy – as an EU policy addressed specically to rural areas, especially those
developed to only a limited extent and lagging behind; as well as a Common
Agricultural Policy also designated to assist the rural population (Wilkin 2016).
The subject literature and statistics both point to the huge signicance of pro-
grammes of assistance put in place for the agroeconomy of the CEECs (Bański
2018; Wilkin 2016; Page and Popa 2013; Todorová 2016). Farming folk and the
rural areas of their countries they inhabit became the greatest beneciaries of fund-
ing of this kind, with EU accession bringing each new Member State an inux of
money allocated to socioeconomic development in the broadest sense, and to the
adaptation of management- and administration-related structures to Community
requirements. Rural areas and farming have been able to take advantage of dedi-
cated programmes within the wider CAP framework, as well as others seeking to
ensure the development of different kinds of activity in society, and of an economic
nature, principally under the Structural Funds.
Indeed, agriculture here rst began to gain EU support when states still had the
status of Candidates for accession. And alongside the nancial assistance offered in
support of new developments in rural areas, there were special projects addressed to
young farmers, as well as encouragement given to producers’ groups. That all went
hand in hand with training to facilitate knowledge acquisition and upskilling among
country-dwellers.
Specically, PHARE was the rst pre-accession programme (originally denoting
Poland and Hungary: Assistance for Restructuring their Economies, but later
expanded beyond this range). This European Commission concept rst saw the light
of day in 1989, with material assistance extended to the above two states already
categorised as Candidate States.
Socioeconomic Conditioning
14
However, as soon as in 1990, PHARE was extended to take in Bulgaria and the
then Czechoslovakia. Romania, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia followed on, and the
process continued to the point where PHARE had been of benet to 17 countries by
the time the new millennium arrived. Poland was the greatest beneciary, with its
PHARE allocation over the whole 1990–2003 period amounting to some 3.9 bn
euros. This funding was mainly designated for the development of infrastructure,
environmental protection, education and scientic research, as well as– of course–
for the development of the agricultural sector.
However, it was typical for the main implementers of PHARE projects to be the
stronger and more capable of Poland’s administrative units. This meant that, where
regions were only developed to a limited extent, with farming of low or zero com-
mercial viability on highly-fragmented farms, funding proved hard to gain, because
it was likewise hard to nd qualied personnel able to prepare creative and competi-
tive project applications.
Somewhat later, a second pre-accession instrument dedicated more specically
to agriculture and rural areas made its appearance. Known as SAPARD (Special
Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development), it swung into oper-
ation in 1999, so that Candidate Countries could be helped with their preparations
for participation in the Common Agricultural Policy. The assumption was that coun-
tries enjoying EU Associated status would in this way adapt their farming to market-
economy conditions. The focus was on stimulated local development in rural areas
through projects linked to the diversication of economic activity among rural
inhabitants, as well as the installation of new infrastructure. SAPARD was wound
up in 2006in most of the CEECs, though an exception was Croatia, which was
authorised to go on receiving funding under the programme (later named IPARD) in
the years through to 2013 inclusive.
Enjoying the different status of “Community Initiative”, LEADER proved very
important in improving the quality of life of rural inhabitants in the CEECs, through-
out the 1991–2006 period. LEADER in fact went through three editions, and in each
case the aim was to support local development in rural areas, with particular account
taken of those that were lagging behind– up to and including depopulating periph-
eral parts of given countries.
With ultimate accession of the region’s states to the EU came the switch to a
universal system of area payments for farmers. The CEECs obtained a huge amount
of support under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development
(EFRROW). In the context of the 2007–2013 Financial Perspective, it was rural
areas of Poland and Romania that were the main beneciaries of this, receiving
several times as much funding as any other states in the region under
consideration.
However, notwithstanding the many years of preparation for EU accession, a
great deal more time had to pass for agriculture in the CEECs to take full advantage
of their de facto participation on the Single Market. Indeed, it can reasonably be
suggested that the initial period of membership saw a worsening of disparities
between categories of farms and sectors of production. Thus, while Bulgaria’s EU
accession did help raise farmers’ incomes, this was only true of those specialising
2 The Conditioning ofAgricultural Development inCentral andEastern Europe
15
in cereal-growing. Farmers orientated towards vegetable, fruit and vine production
experienced a major decline in sales and a fall in income. Moreover, the small farms
having no capital of their own and not characterised as very competitive simply saw
themselves “left for later” (Todorová 2016). Meanwhile, a further cause of the eco-
nomic marginalisation of such farms lay in the lack of relevant knowledge on CAP-
related criteria, opportunities, and means of obtaining funding. A further barrier to
drawing down any EU funds was (and remains) the ubiquitous paperwork of the
“red tape” kind.
As the work done by the aforementioned S.Todorová (2016) makes clear, the
selection of means assigned to Bulgaria’s farmers under EFRROW was very much
dependent on farms’ forms of organisation. Thus, family farms have used funding
under a special programme for young farmers (actually irrespective of the ages of
those who run farms), as well as a programme helping to restructure farms of lim-
ited commercial viability. In contrast, farms enjoying Cooperative status or legal
personality mainly draw benet from pools of funding for farm modernisation, as
well as the increased value of output from farming and forestry. As the above author
also shows, it is more or less universal for all categories of farm in receipt of funding
to assign that money to purchasing new means of production, rst and foremost
agricultural machinery and other equipment (Todorová 2016).
In the case of the Czech Republic, accession to the EU in 2004 brought about a
clear improvement in the protability of production, and increased income in the
farming sector (Veznik et al. 2013). Nevertheless, the share of GDP the sector
accounted for declined steadily, along with levels of employment. By the year 2000,
around 170,000 people were employed in agriculture (4.4% of the country’s profes-
sionally active people), yet a further 10years brought a decline by another 70,000.
Alongside the described external conditioning of the region’s agriculture that is
of a political and economic nature, there is also demographic and social condition-
ing exerting a major inuence on differentiation and directions of change. A feature
characteristic for most areas of Central and Eastern Europe with a leading agricul-
tural function is a steady outow of young inhabitants who are typically more active
and entrepreneurial then those living around them. There is also a prevalence of
women among those who move away, hence unfavourable change when it comes to
gender and age balance in the populations left residing in many agricultural areas.
These processes intensied from the early 1990s onwards, when the development of
the economy in a free-market direction revealed just how much excess workforce
had been engaged in farming (Bański 2007). In Poland, this was a major issue for
areas where the ownership of farmland was highly fragmented. And, as the years
passed, the tendency for many or most younger inhabitants of farming areas to leave
them was maintained, also as a result of ongoing specialisation and mechanisation
in agriculture itself.
In spite of the unfavourable demographic conditioning already referred to, it is
possible to note a diversication of socio-occupational structure in many parts of
the studied region, as well as a marked rise over the last several decades in the levels
of specialist knowledge and education farmers possess. Formal levels of education
do continue lower in areas with a prevalent agricultural function– as a reection of
Socioeconomic Conditioning
16
the more limited spatial and economic accessibility of the educational system, espe-
cially where its higher tiers are concerned (Irvin etal. 2012). However, thanks to
development and the use of ICT, the importance of these barriers has been declining
markedly since the beginning of the twenty-rst century. A further matter of impor-
tance is the way in which farmers have changed their attitudes to education and a
constant process of upskilling and updating knowledge (Czapiewski and Janc 2019).
The importance of these factors for a farm’s development is now
better-appreciated.
Indeed, change in the structure of the country-dwelling population in terms of its
level education combined with support via the CAP to produce a “rejuvenation” of
the farm-ownership structure, with this increasing the appetite for risk and level of
entrepreneurism, as inter alia manifested in a diversication of sources of income
through the linking of agricultural and non-agricultural activity on farms
(Bański 2007).
Natural Conditioning
Contemporary changes in Central and Eastern Europe’s farming sector are very
much a reection of the natural conditioning; rst and foremost climatic factors.
However, it is changes in climate of global reach that have been posing particular
challenges in recent decades, with these also impacting on other elements of the
natural environment (e.g. hydrological conditions). As the current trends indicated
are for a steady increase in air temperature, as well as greater frequencies of occur-
rence of extreme weather phenomena like heatwaves, cloudbursts, oods, droughts
and cyclones, it is worth considering how this may be inuencing farming in the
region under study.
In a north-south direction, the region extends from the shores of the Gulf of
Finland (at 60°N) south almost to those of the Aegean Sea (at 41°N). Climates thus
range from the cool temperate through to the sub-tropical, while there are also dif-
ferences in day length, soil conditions and relief; which all ensure natural condition-
ing supporting a wide range of different kinds of agricultural output.
In the north, annual totals obtained by summing mean 24-hour temperatures only
reach some 1000°C, i.e. the lower thermal boundary for the cultivation of crops of
economic signicance. However, the northernmost parts of our region still manage
to achieve some 1400°C in total, with this allowing crops (albeit less-demanding
ones like early potatoes, fodder beets, swedes and fodder turnips) to be grown. And,
while most areas of the CEECs are in fact suitable for the cultivation of most of
Europe’s key crops, there are a number like winter wheat, sweet corn, sugar beet,
sunowers, soya beans and vines that are likely to be cultivated with much greater
commercial success in the south as opposed to the north, given the more favourable
thermal conditions (Falkowski and Kostrowicki 2001).
Beyond the matter of temperature, there are large parts of our region’s north– in
the Baltic States and lowland Poland– in which more-demanding crops can only be
2 The Conditioning ofAgricultural Development inCentral andEastern Europe
17
grown to a limited degree, on account of the presence of extensive areas featuring
poor podsolic soils. This is a contrast with the south of the region, in which there is
a greater share of brown earths and albeluvisols, and sometimes even chernozems,
representing suitable conditions for crop-growing. On the other hand, over large
areas of Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovenia, farming is adapted to condition-
ing that reects rather varied relief. Mountainous areas, with their harsher climate,
less well-developed soil cover and often steep slopes, are home to livestock- (espe-
cially sheep-) raising, while lower south-facing slopes support vines.
Farming is dependent on climate and atmospheric phenomena to an extent that
no other branch of the economy is. Serious impacts on it can be exerted by even the
smallest-scale anomaly of climate or abrupt weather phenomenon. Equally, events
of this kind are of short duration, and they encompass only limited areas. Quite dif-
ferent effects can be expected to follow on from long-term climate change of global
reach. The latter will probably bring about changes in the extent of areas of cultiva-
tion of different crops, the times at which given types of work in the elds are car-
ried out, times of harvesting and so on. And this is already forcing farmers to seek
out new solutions as regards both methods and types of production. On the other
hand, climate change is actually induced by agricultural activity, with the felling of
large tracts of forest to allow for cultivation being just one way in which this hap-
pens, with conversion to monocultures and irrigation also having their impacts.
Equally, notwithstanding the two-way nature of the interaction, it would seem that
the climate exerts a far greater impact on agriculture than agriculture does on
climate.
Bearing in mind this climatic impact on conditions for farming, full account
needs to be taken of our region’s distinct differentiation from this point of view. The
Baltic States and northern part of Poland fall within the zone of cool temperate cli-
mate, under which the growing season is relatively short and there are only limited
possibilities for warmth-loving crop plants to grow. The largest lowland part of the
region is that extending from Poland in the north through to Romania in the south,
and characterised by a transitional climate in which thermal conditions are variable,
but the growing season is sufcient for most of the plants typical for the zone to be
grown. In contrast, the southern (Balkan) region has a warm temperate or
Mediterranean climate that allows for a very diversied crop structure, while at the
same time being aficted with the worst water-shortage problems. An irrigation
system is here an indispensable component of technical infrastructure that deter-
mines the success of agricultural production.
It is thanks to its rather favourable conditions for agriculture in terms of soil,
warmth, hydrology and relief that the zone of temperate climates serves as the bread
basket (better the food basket) of the world. However, today’s changes of climate do
pose new challenges for some parts of this zone– to the extent that output can be
impacted upon. On the one hand, observable changes are ensuring a lengthening of
the growing season in our region’s central and northern part– something that will
most likely allow production to increase. On the other hand, increased productivity
of farmland could well mean a reduction in its overall area, and a decline in numbers
of farms. The knock-on effect of that might well be the departure from agriculture
Natural Conditioning
18
of a large further group of people employed in it, and hence increased demand on
the labour market. This is just one of a number of examples that make clear the
complexity of the relationship between climate and the food economy (Bański and
Błażejczyk 2006; Kozyra and Górski 2004).
Equally, there are some climatologists who suggest that the phenomena of exten-
sion of the growing season and the shift of agroclimatic zones will be associated
with a decline in the area of land that is most productive, rst and foremost on
account of moisture decits. The process of this kind is likely to be ongoing most
visibly in the lowlands, where a decline in amounts of precipitation is to be antici-
pated. In contrast, sub-mountainous, foothills-type regions are likely to see their
climatic circumstances for farming improve (Trnka etal. 2011).
Globally, warming will most probably produce a spatial polarisation when it
comes to food grown. Potential will mainly increase at higher latitudes, where coun-
tries are anyway better-developed economically. In contrast, in the tropics and sub-
tropics there might be at least a relative decline in farming’s productive potential. A
consequence of all this might be for food to be overproduced in the rich world, at
just the same time as shortfalls make themselves felt in countries only developed to
a limited degree.
In the region under study, relationships between agriculture and environmental
conditions also relate to the shaping of spatial structure in rural areas. Thus, for
example, the fragmented agriculture of Poland, Croatia and Romania may go on
shaping a mosaic-like situation as regards both the landscape and biodiversity. The
downside of this model for the agricultural economy is of course its low level of
efciency, hence the conict with the needs of environmental protection that mostly
characterises agricultural activity. A typical way of achieving an increase in on-farm
income entails intensied, more-specialised production, which almost by denition
denotes enhanced use of chemicals, mechanisation, an increase in plot or eld size
and an end put to multifaceted farming. And the negative impact of that for biodi-
versity and the natural environment more generally are plain for all to see.
Conversely, farms in areas facing environmental limitations prove less favourable
when it comes to achieving higher output.
2 The Conditioning ofAgricultural Development inCentral andEastern Europe
19© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Bański, M. Mazur, Transformation of Agricultural Sector in the Central and
Eastern Europe after 1989, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73766-5_3
Chapter 3
A Review ofOwnership Changes
intheAgricultural Sector
The changes of ownership taking place after 1989in formerly-communist countries
assumed various forms and dynamics. However, they depended rst and foremost
on the earlier degree of development of the sector subject to a kind of nationalisa-
tion often referred to as “socialisation”; as well as the particular nature of the system
adopted decades later to restore rights of ownership to farmland, as well as other
assets associated with agriculture. While the attention of the authors of relevant
academic literature on ownership change has tended to be drawn to land- management
issues, it needs to be recalled how processes of the privatisation and restitution of
rights of ownership also took in land excluded from agricultural production, as well
as buildings and technical infrastructure falling into a variety of different categories.
Bulgaria was one of the rst of the CEECs to pass legislation on the restitution
of private property. In the peak period under communism, the area of the country’s
land managed for agriculture was around 6.2 million ha, denoting 55% of the total.
Almost 90% of all farmland was not under private management, hence the 1991
enactment of an Act on the ownership and management of arable land that provided
for the return of property seized previously (Zadura 2005). The former owners or
their heirs were in a position to either receive land or bonds (of various different
types) in compensation for the loss. However, unlike in other communist countries,
Bulgaria did not literally nationalise land– rather sustaining a situation whereby
enterprises of the aforementioned “socialised” sector took charge of its manage-
ment. The key point here is that owners never actually lost ownership title in respect
of the land concerned (Property Restitution… 2007).
However, agricultural reform failed to gain appropriate support from state policy,
and thus began without prior preparation– or any setting-out of a vision for the
future development of farming. This lack of cohesion, and of a transparent pro-
gramme of structural reform, combined with the deciencies of the privatisation
plan and attempts to ensure that certain circles had their interests safeguarded to
ensure that a negative impact was exerted on both farming and farmers (Bencheva
2005). The process of the restitution of property lasted through from 1992 to
20
December 2000– this being the time needed for more than 99% of the land ear-
marked for this to nd itself back in the hands of rightful owners (De Arriba 2007).
Negative consequences were the extensication of farm production (Moteva etal.
2014), as well as severe fragmentation of areas of cultivated elds, and an increase
in the number of small farms (Bencheva 2005). By the early 2000s, it was estimated
that some 8.7 million plots were in existence, their owners being no fewer than 5.1
million of Bulgaria’s inhabitants (or some 65% of the entire population) (Kopeva
2003). According to data from the Bulgarian ofce of the UNDP, the agricultural
land was being utilised by over 1.5 million households, or half of all those present
in the country (UNDP 2004). But a lack of funds at the same time prevented new
owners from maintaining the technical infrastructure already in place, and some
land was even abandoned. According to estimates from the Bulgarian Ministry of
Agriculture, 90% of the farmland on small farms is in need of consolidation.
Unsurprisingly then, the Agricultural Census run in Bulgaria in 2003 revealed very
marked polarisation of the situations farms faced. On the one hand, there was a huge
group of small farms covering less than 2ha, and together utilising under 10% of all
farmland. On the other hand, there were a few very large companies and cooperatives
in operation that had over 70% of all agricultural land naturally at their disposal. This
kind of structure is entirely sufcient to shape production trends, with the small enti-
ties actively engaged in labour-intensive growing (of vegetables, fruit and vines),
while the large farms focus on cereals and crop species grown for their oil.
In the Croatia of the period of communism à la Tito, it was private agriculture that
continued to predominate. Thus privatisation, when it came along, took in small areas
only, with the rate of transformation being very low. Croatia adopted an Act on the
Restitution of Property in 1990, though the war in the Balkans ensured the suspension
of the associated legislative process. It was only therefore in 1996 that another Act
relating to the land seized in the old Yugoslavia came into force. This in fact prohibited
the lodging of claims by citizens from outside Croatia. A legal entitlement allowing
foreigners to make claims for the reinstatement of nationalised assets– or to be paid
damages– was only conferred in 2002 (Property Restitution… 2007) (Table3.1).
Table 3.1 The place of the
“socialised” sector (State
Farms and Production
Cooperatives) in the farmland-
ownership structure charact-
eristic of countries of the old
Eastern Bloc
Country
Percentage share of
agricultural land
that was
nationalised
1960 1988
Bulgaria 91.0 89.9
Czechoslovakia 88.0 93.9
Yugoslavia 14.0 15.7
The GDR 92.4 90.2
Poland 13.1 22.8
Romania 94.2 90.5
Hungary 95.5 85.8
The USSR 99.0 98.2
Source: Historia Polski w licz-
bach... (1991)
3 A Review ofOwnership Changes intheAgricultural Sector
21
In Croatia, privatisation and the transition from a planned to a market economy
proved a slow, unstable process, surrounded by an aura of mistrust. This reected
widespread corruption and cronyism whose result was the sale of many state enter-
prises at below-market prices. Naturally, such a state of affairs favoured neither true
reform of the economy nor foreign investment. As of the late 1990s, therefore,
around 70% of Croatia’s largest enterprises remained in state hands (Benczes 2014).
Change then came in the new millennium, with a new government and the ultimate
pursuit of key structural reforms. Through to 2001, the farming sector was still a
matter of 93% of state-owned farmland being leased, with only 3% as yet subject to
privatisation. However, in that same year, new regulations came in to provide for the
preparation of programmes for the privatisation and leasing of state land at the
level– and in the hands – of units of local-government administration. Also laid
down was a requirement that state assets might only be privatised by public tender,
with priority in such tendering assigned to farmers and artisans associated with the
food sector. By the end of 2002, half of the relevant local-government programmes
had been approved, with these designating 44% of land for sale, 41% for leasing,
and 15% for other purposes.
2013 saw Croatia accede to the EU as the last of the CEECs to do so. A new
chapter in the history of that country thus commenced, with new opportunities inter
alia available to those working in farming, who now became fully-entitled recipi-
ents of direct payments. Nevertheless, it was only in 2015 that procedures associ-
ated with the restitution of property conscated by the old communist regime in
Yugoslavia came to be enacted. A 2015 report revealed that family farms were
engaged in cultivating around 80% of all Croatia’s farmland, with the remainder
being in state hands (The agriculture …. 2015). However, the results of privatisation
through to that time had tended to be negative, i.a. leading to an increase in the area
of abandoned land.
In communist-era Czechoslovakia there was “socialisation” of almost all land.
Thus, within the borders of what is today the Czech Republic, the Cooperatives
accounted for 65% of the farmland, and the State Farms for 35%.1 Unit eld size
had been increased as a result of collectivisation, with full access for large items of
farm machinery facilitated in this way. While the land-use structure did not change,
the rural landscape did– very markedly– with all the attendant negative impacts on
the environment, not least a marked reduction in biodiversity (Doucha and Foltyn
2008). Further noteworthy impact involved land degradation, in particular through
ongoing erosion by water and wind, with the humus layer of topsoil often lost as a
result. Another harmful occurrence arising regularly is the takeover of prime
farmland (of high quality soil) for non-agricultural use. Naturally, this is especially
1 In the case of the former Czechoslovakia, a distinction needs to be drawn between the notions of
land ownership and land use. During the communist era, private owners of land were not allowed
to use it, as its management was in the hands of either the Cooperatives or the State Farms. Such
owners came to be termed “naked”, as their land was used without them receiving any compensa-
tion (Bandlerova and Marisova 2003). In communist-era Slovakia, around 65% of all agricultural
land was actually under private ownership.
3 A Review ofOwnership Changes intheAgricultural Sector
22
the case in the vicinity of towns and cities, with farmland redesignated to allow it to
be built on (Janku etal. 2016).
Post-1989, the new authorities of the Czech Republic and Slovakia recognised
that there had been a suspension of ownership of private land over the 1948–1989
period, hence the presence of a legal basis for reinstatement. Applications seeking
the return of farmland plots (of up to 150ha) could then be submitted by persons
with permanent residence in the then Czechoslovakia who were owners of land back
in 1948 or are the heirs thereof. Where the restitution of particular assets proved
impossible, a substitute might be offered in its place, or else compensation in the
form of Treasury bonds. The result of the privatisation process was a transfer into
private hands of some 3.4 million ha of farmland, with just 400,000ha therefore
remaining at the disposal of the state (Bicik and Jelecek 2009). State-owned land
administered by the State Land Fund is utilised by individual farmers, companies or
Cooperatives; and from 1999 on it became possible for this to be sold to any perma-
nent resident of the Czech Republic.
Similar processes took place in Slovakia. The restitution of land there was very
much obstructed by the compact nature of the distribution of elds– whose separa-
tion into plots would not have made economic sense. In the rst decade of the new
state’s existence right of ownership was conferred upon, or restored to, around half
of the total area of agricultural land. Remaining land remained under the manage-
ment of the Slovakian Land Fund. Some of the land not under particular ownership
was nationalised and given over to local authorities for their use. However, despite
far-reaching ownership change, a decided majority of agricultural land continues to
be utilised by the former Cooperatives, which have now transformed into
commercial- law companies.
In Estonia, as in Latvia and Lithuania, private agriculture was dominant in the
period prior to the loss of independence. After 1940, family farms lost their land,
being left solely with small plots located close to their dwellings. Agricultural land
as such was managed by the “socialised” sector (in enterprises of the Kolkhoz or
Sovkhoz types– i.e. Collectives and State Farms). While the number of such farms
had risen to around 3000 by 1950, a process of mergers into larger units reduced the
number to 300 by 1989. An Act passed in 1991 to achieve the reform of agriculture
provided for the restitution of rights of ownership to land. In the year following, a
further Act closing down the Collectives was passed. An initial phase of this kind of
restitution resulted in an abrupt fragmentation of farmland. Around 200,000 farms
made their appearance in rural areas of Estonia, though World Bank credit and sup-
port from the Dutch Government brought a rapid consolidation of land, such that
there were 56,000 entities in farming in 2001, and just 17,000 as of 2016. Among
these, large enterprises engaging in specialised output played the most major role.
In the period immediately prior to World War II, agriculture in Lithuania was
dominated by small family farms. However, a process of collectivisation was set in
train in 1947, with 90% of private farms already encompassed by it by 1951 (Jepsen
etal. 2015). Once independence was nally regained, the country immediately pro-
ceeded with privatisation and restitution within the agriculture sector. 1990 brought
3 A Review ofOwnership Changes intheAgricultural Sector
23
the enactment of an Act on the use of land in rural areas, while another to provide
for the restitution of rights of ownership of land followed a year later (going on to
be amended subsequently). Under the Acts adopted (with privatisation regulated by
both the Act on restitution and that concerning agricultural reform), land could only
be taken on by citizens of Lithuania, whose maximum entitlement for the return of
farmland was 50ha (later increased to 150, though in this case together with forest
and areas under water). As in other countries, restitution was an option for former
owners or their heirs. Those not wishing to obtain land could also receive compen-
sation in place of that. However, given a difcult situation in which there was a
sudden need for the basic requirements of rural inhabitants to be met, the authorities
in Lithuania gave the green light for a measure to allot 3ha of land to the families
of former Kolkhoz workers, with other country-dwellers entitled to 2ha. Alongside
its positive social impact, this solution generated a new problem of land fragmenta-
tion, as a large number of very small farms made their appearance (bereft of both
capital and necessary knowledge), while there were also a very small number of
very large farms managing the greater part of all agricultural land in the country
(Daugaliene 2008).
During the peak period for communism in Latvia, the “socialised” sector used
more than 90% of all farmland. It was not until 1991 that an Act on agricultural
reform was passed, providing for the transfer of land into private hands. Land
nationalised under the communists was to be returned to its former owners and their
heirs, or to be conferred upon those who had hitherto been using it. The process of
land restitution pursued by the Central Land Commission only extended to citizens
of Latvia, and came to an end in 2001. In the reform’s rst phase alone, 800 large
Collectives or State Farms gave rise to 200,000 private farms (Tisenkopfs 1999).
Nevertheless, the reinstatement of ownership over land did not lead to the fragmen-
tation of land or farms; and– according to A.Zadura (2005)– around 60% of the
real estate recovered via this process took the form of a single piece of land. Thus,
there was no repeat here of the situation that had aficted Bulgaria and Romania,
entailing mass fragmentation of the agrarian structure. As of 2016, the number of
farms in Latvia was 82,400, while their mean area was no less than 36ha.
A feature of Poland was the way in which private land ownership prevailed
throughout the communist era, with family farms predominant. In general, these
were very small units of just a few hectares each, and some served only to offer
additional work and income for an owner otherwise employed in some other cir-
cumstance. The “socialised” part of the process was mainly a feature of western and
northern parts– in which large patches of land found themselves unowned in the
wake of the Second World War. Most of the farmers that had been there had emi-
grated out to Germany. As of 1989, there were 1666 State Farms (Zgliński 2003).
These had spent more than 40 years serving a variety of economic and socio-
political functions and had become an apparent constant in the rural landscape.
Immediately prior to the transformation, some 19% of Poland’s agricultural land
was in their possession, with the sector accounting for 18% of the total output from
agriculture (Zgliński 1997).
3 A Review ofOwnership Changes intheAgricultural Sector
24
The privatisation of agricultural land in Poland took a different course and
focused mainly on areas in which the State Farms had operated previously. Returns
of property were not therefore as universal as in other studied countries of our
region, being rather an occasional matter characterised by an extended period of
legal procedure. Unlike in the Czech Republic or Slovakia (where the State Farms
formed a basis for the founding of large holdings), the State Farms of Poland were
ultimately slated for total shutdown. The result of the phenomenon of this kind was
an abrupt increase in unemployment, devastation of agricultural infrastructure, the
impoverishment and disintegration of local communities, limited access to cultural
and educational infrastructure, and in general a major decline in agricultural output
in areas hanging over from the era of the State Farms. It is hard to estimate the losses
borne by Poland as a result of its decision to privatise the state agriculture sector, as
combined with apolitical forms of implementation often being at least somewhat
corruption-related (Zgliński 1997). Today it is all the more typical for people to
criticise the reforms of the agricultural economy introduced at the beginning of the
1990s, arising out of a wider package of economic and systemic reform– the so-
called Balcerowicz Plan2).
The last State Farms were closed down in 1994. While most were less-making,
there were also those coping quite well enough in the new economic reality (Bański
2011; Zgliński 2003). In order to take on the land in the State Land Fund, as well as
the closed State Farms– the Polish government called into being the Agricultural
Property Agency of the State Treasury (APA). It was rst and foremost into the
hands of legal persons (mainly capital companies) that land passed. Natural persons
were only involved to a more limited degree. The legal persons tended to buy
large(r) parcels of land (exceeding 100ha), while the natural persons– mainly indi-
vidual farmers– acquired smaller areas. At times, the owners of larger properties
had actually been the Directors of farms who had held their posts in the communist
period, and thus with the approval of the Party. This in turn prolonged the existence
of earlier coteries and groups of no formal structure seeking to exert inuence.
Indeed, their economic and political inuence might be marked at local level, and
even at times regionally.
In Romania, the communist authorities nationalised the property of the Church
and the Royal Family, as well as privately-owned land where this covered more than
50 ha. The process of the collectivisation and nationalisation of agriculture took
place in the 1950s; such that by the 1960s only 15% of farmland remained in private
hands, with most of that of low quality. As of 1989, the main form of land ownership
was the production Cooperative (of which there were 3776, accounting for 59% of
all agricultural land), as well as the State Farm (of which there were 411 managing
almost 30% of all agricultural land) (Balteanu and Popovici 2010). That left 10% of
farmland in private hands – and mainly in more-mountainous areas of less-
favourable agroclimatic conditions and limited accessibility (Page and Popa 2013).
2 The popular name for this reform is owing to the surname of the main person pursuing it, i.e. Prof.
Leszek Balcerowicz– the then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance in the government
of Prime Minister Tadeusz Mazowiecki.
3 A Review ofOwnership Changes intheAgricultural Sector
25
The Romanian model for the privatisation of agricultural land was based around
the 1991 Land Fund Act, which provided for the return of up to 10ha of land to
former owners of land that had been forced to hand their land over to the Cooperatives.
The Act limited possibilities for rights of ownership of such land to be transferred,
and also set out a 100ha limit for the permitted area of a farm. However, subsequent
years brought the adoption of new Acts liberalising provisions where rights of own-
ership were concerned. The consequence of this ownership transformation was the
return to former owners of almost 9 million ha of land. The privatisation of state
agriculture in turn required the founding of a State Property Agency, which gained
the right to sell and lease land to commercial-law companies that had been
established.
Slovenia’s agriculture resembled that of Poland and Croatia in remaining basi-
cally private throughout the communist era. Here, around 90% of farmland remained
in private hands. The only farmland to be nationalised was in the form of plots
covering more than 45ha, until a 1953 Act obliged private farms to transfer to state
entities any land in excess of 10ha (Zadura 2005). Post-1991, it became possible for
former owners to have that old “excess” land returned, or else to seek some other
form of restitution (e.g. as bonds or certicates of ownership). By the early 2000s,
around half of the land that had been taken had been handed back. Remaining state-
owned land is leased to the private farms or companies making their appearance in
place of the State Farms.
In Hungary, post-War agricultural reform initially favoured an increase in the
number of private farms. However, a process of collectivisation, ongoing and inten-
sifying in the 1948–1962 period led to the takeover of private land ownership by
newly-established State Farms and Cooperatives. It was typical for the large landed
estates of old to be taken on by the state, while small farmers were forced to band
together to establish Cooperatives, which then gained economic and administrative
support from the state. In the peak period, around 75% of agricultural land belonged
to Cooperatives, of which there were 1500in Hungary as of 1990– along with 124
State Farms (Kovacs 2005).
Hungary’s reprivatisation reform was pursued in the years 1992–1996, and
entailed lost assets being compensated for (by way of tradeable coupons), with the
Cooperatives being made over into other forms, while the State Farms were subject
to privatisation. A total of 2.7Mha was designated for the satisfaction of reprivati-
sation claims, while remaining land was disposes of among members of Cooperatives,
or else sold to private owners and the former personnel of the State Farms. An esti-
mated 1.5 million people received land that had hitherto been under shared owner-
ship, while half a million people had land returned to them. A further half a million
people received the so-called “golden crown” land3 (Kovacs 2005).
Privatisation and restitution combined to produce far-reaching change in the
ownership structure. By 2011, around 80% of farmland was in private hands (Toth-
Naar et al. 2014). The results was the shaping of two main types of farm, i.e.
3 The old unit of measurement of the quality of farmland used in Hungary.
3 A Review ofOwnership Changes intheAgricultural Sector
26
agricultural enterprises (mainly enjoying cooperative or production company sta-
tus) and typical small farms. Data from the Hungarian Central Statistical Ofce
from 2013 reveal that there were then almost 8800 farms of the former type (making
use of some 2,122,000 ha of agricultural land), as well as 482,500 of the latter
(extending over 2,468,000ha). The private owners were predominantly those run-
ning small farms of just a few hectares– a marked contrast from the agro-enterprises
that each have several hundred hectares at least.
Thanks to land redistribution, 8 million ha of farm and forest land found itself
back in the hands of some 1.8 million owners (among a total national population of
10 million). The mean area of a farm stood at 4.4ha at this point. The thousands of
new landowners making their appearance included pensioners and people inheriting
plots. The latter were not in fact involved in farming at all, with a majority of them
not even resident in rural areas. So instead of involving themselves in cultivation,
they leased out the land to corporate or individual farmers, whose production costs
therefore rose considerably. While 1994 had brought the passing of a new Act for-
bidding Cooperatives, rms and foreigners from purchasing farmland, it became
clear after accession that these regulations contravened those of the EU (Burger and
Szép 2006).
It did prove possible to complete the twin processes of restitution and agricul-
tural reform. Most of the CEECs pursued them in line with a Western European
model for the organisation of agriculture in which the main system is based around
typical farms of a rather traditional type (Zadura 2009). The result across the region
was a fragmentation of agrarian structure – albeit with this problem affecting
Bulgaria and Romania most of all (Nedalkov 2005; Swinnen etal. 2006). But there
were many cases in which the reactivation of family farms emerged as a minor eco-
nomic disaster where people who took land on had no means to mobilise their eco-
nomic activity more fully. Rapid sale of their land was the inevitable consequence
for a great many beneciaries of land restitution who lacked either the qualications
or the motivation to engage in farming. A further obstacle was provided by condi-
tions unfavourable to the development of private enterprises, especially prior to our
studied countries’ accessions to the EU.The surplus of agricultural land that arose
in this way in the initial phase led to falls in land prices and increases in the area of
land left fallow. The responses to such problems on the part of Romania, Hungary
and Croatia was to establish relevant institutions that were in a position to manage
the land in question. In turn, in Latvia, the task of managing “unwanted” land was
conferred upon existing administrative structures (Trnka and Pivcova 2005).
As has been noted, it is today family farms that play the dominant role in most of
the CEECs. These are then entities managed and serviced mainly by members of
households. This category of farm is also the most widespread to be noted in the
countries of Western Europe. According to Eurostat, as of 2016, over one-third (i.e.
34.5%) of the EU’s 10.4 million family farms were located in Romania. A fairly
large share of all farms of this type (13.6%) are also present in Poland. In most
countries in the region (i.e. in Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Croatia and
Poland), family farms are within the group of small entities dealing with less than
10ha of land on average. However, family farms actually extend across a rather
3 A Review ofOwnership Changes intheAgricultural Sector
27
wide range of categories– from small entities of limited commercial viability, via
multifunctional ones with diverse economic activity obtaining income from farm-
ing, services and processing, through to large farms with a higher degree of speciali-
sation, and production orientated rmly at the market.
3 A Review ofOwnership Changes intheAgricultural Sector
Part I
Structural Transformation in the
Agricultural Economy
31© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Bański, M. Mazur, Transformation of Agricultural Sector in the Central and
Eastern Europe after 1989, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73766-5_4
Chapter 4
The Agricultural Population
In recent decades, rural areas in the CEECs have experienced signicant changes in
population that have been varied in both nature and direction. Thus, Poland and
Slovakia have for example experienced an increase in the number of rural inhabit-
ants. In Poland, this increase is “statistical” only, i.e. is very much an artefact. For
the direction of demographic change has not changed signicantly, and it is still
possible to note depopulation in traditional rural areas also further aficted by
developing disproportions where the structure of the population by gender is con-
cerned (as young women are the rst to leave rural areas), as well as by the ageing
of society. At the other extreme there are rural areas located close to large cities and
key industrial districts that are losing their rurality, having more in common with the
town or city in a functional sense, and when it comes to the employment structure
of inhabitants. The people owing into such areas from urban areas are wealthy and
well-educated. It is this kind of inux of formerly-urban inhabitants into areas of
suburbs and satellite towns that have been regarded as rural in the statistics that has
caused an overall increase in the percentage of the population that is rural.
The reverse process– a decline in the rural population– characterised Bulgaria,
Romania and Hungary in the 1992–2014 period. In large measure, this was due to
natural decrease, as well as intensied migration to urban areas. The phenomenon
is true of countries with a very monocentric settlement system (in which the capital
city is markedly dominant, while there is a lack of regional or sub-regional centres
capable of generating socioeconomic growth).
Thus, in just the 2007–2012 period, Bulgaria experienced a more-than-10% loss
of population from rural areas, mainly thanks to natural decrease (a marked prepon-
derance of mortality over birth), though also to a lesser extent in relation to migra-
tory outow to towns and cities. Beyond that, it is possible to observe shortfalls in
numbers of families with young children, with the effect that rural schools and
kindergartens close down (along with other local social infrastructure), and the
quality of life in rural areas declines further. The consequences of negative social
and demographic trends are only enhanced by unfavourable changes in agriculture
32
itself, with inadequate use made of the productive potential of Bulgarian agriculture
when it comes to kinds of livestock-raising and crop cultivation that require greater
outlays of labour (as with vegetable- and fruit-growing). Only in the cases of cereals
and oil crops (sunowers) is self-sufciency achieved, and even a major surplus
(Velikov 2013).
The process by which population ows out of rural areas into cities is a perma-
nent one attesting to a country’s urbanisation and ongoing economic development.
However, an excessive loss of population has to be seen as negative, as conse-
quences ensuing from it include certain areas’ demographic and economic stagna-
tion. The most unfavourable aspect of the process of migratory outow is that the
largest group among the migrants mostly tend to be young, well-educated, active
people– also with a prevalence of women over men. The further consequence of
that is a decline in the rate of natural increase– resulting in ongoing social and eco-
nomic polarisation at national level. While on the one hand it is possible to observe
the dynamic development of agglomerations and the areas surrounding them, on the
other the depopulated areas take further shape– acting as foci for socioeconomic
problems of various kinds (Table4.1).
As of 2017, around ten million people in the EU were working in agriculture (i.e.
some 4.4% of all people in work – Agriculture … 2017). However, the CEECs
(other than the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Estonia) were characterised by par-
ticularly high gures against that general background, albeit with the still-weakly-
developed Greece and Portugal resembling them (with respective percentages of
10.7 and 9.0). Equally, it needs to be stressed how a far greater number of people do
actually work on farms even though this is not their full-time occupation– hence
non-inclusion among the ofcial statistics. This means that the overall farm work-
forces in different countries are larger, with Eurostat estimates suggesting that 20.5
million people might have been doing farm work in 2016– on a variety of different
bases. The suggestion would thus be of around 9.5 million workers doing the job
Table 4.1 Selected features of the populations of the CEECs as of 2016
Country Population size (M)
Percentage of the
population that was
rural
Percentage of the
population working in
agriculture
Bulgaria 7150 25.4 17.5
Croatia 4240 40.4 6.3
Czechia 10,543 25.4 2.7
Estonia 1313 32.6 2.7
Hungary 9855 28.4 5.7
Latvia 1970 31.9 5.4
Lithuania 2878 31.0 7.0
Poland 38,612 39.7 10.6
Romania 19,511 45.1 23.0
Slovakia 5426 46.1 2.1
Slovenia 2068 50.1 7.2
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on Eurostat data
4 The Agricultural Population
33
full-time (this therefore corresponding closely with the gure for total employment
in agriculture). And among the countries of interest in this study, it was the Czech
Republic that had the highest percentage level of full-time employment in agricul-
ture (somewhat over 50%). This was then in marked contrast to Romania, where
just 1.5% of those employed in agriculture at that time were actually working on it
full-time.
What is more, a steady decline in numbers of people working in farming has
been occurring since the immediate post-War years. Thus, back in 1960, no fewer
than 26% of all professionally-active people in the then Czechoslovakia were in
agriculture, while the corresponding gures for Poland and Hungary were of 48 and
38%. By 1990, the respective percentages for the three countries were 10, 27.5 and
17.5 (El-Agraa Ali 1990). Processes analogous with these ones (if of varying inten-
sities) have been observable in recent decades in all of the CEECs. Thus, Eurostat
data for Bulgaria set a 1990 gure for employment in agriculture of around 25%
against a 2017 gure of around 17.5%.1 Still, our region typically goes on having a
far higher share of employment accounted for by agriculture than would be true of
the EU as a whole (on 4.2%). Only in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Estonia are
percentage shares of all employment more or less as low as in Western European
states (Table4.2).
The decline in numbers of people employed in agriculture was associated with
the closure of the State Farms following an initial (generally dramatic) increase
associated with the reprivatisation process. Among other reasons were economic
optimisation of production, and mechanisation. Moreover, there was a decline in the
role played by the farming sector in the region’s economies. A further matter– of
particular signicance in Bulgaria, Romania and Poland, for example – were
1 According to FAOSTAT data, the Bulgarian farming sector gave employment to 221,000 people
in 2017, or around 7% of the total number in work.
Table 4.2 Percentage changes in the shares of all people employed accounted for by the
agricultural sectors in the different CEECs under study
Country 2000 2005 2010 2015 2017
Bulgaria 13.1 8.9 6.8 6.9 7.0
Croatia No data 17.3 14.2 9.2 7.0
Czechia 5.2 4.0 3.1 2.9 2.8
Estonia 6.4 5.2 4.2 3.9 3.5
Latvia 14.9 12.1 8.6 7.9 6.9
Lithuania 19.2 14.3 8.8 9.1 7.8
Hungary 6.5 4.9 4.5 4.9 5.0
Poland 18.7 17.4 13.1 11.5 10.2
Romania 45.2 32.3 31.0 25.6 22.8
Slovakia 6.9 4.7 3.2 3.2 2.7
Slovenia 9.5 9.1 8.8 7.0 5.5
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
4 The Agricultural Population
34
declines in numbers of farms– whose former owners were also joined by family
members in seeking employment in other sectors of the economy.
Recent years have seen relative stability in the levels of employment accounted
for by agriculture – in particular in the cases of the Czech Republic, Slovakia,
Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Bulgaria. This is probably a sign that agriculture in
these countries has reached its optimum level of employment, which will therefore
in all likelihood remain rather steady from now on. In contrast, in Poland, Croatia,
Slovenia and Romania, the index is still the subject of major change– thereby sus-
taining a conclusion that the farming sector in those countries continues to be char-
acterised by excess employment. Something of an exception is provided by Hungary.
There too, a decline in numbers employed in agriculture took place, only for that to
reverse in more recent times. This most likely marks a change in employment struc-
ture, with some of those employed now enjoying a more legalised status. This is a
process that in the main affects family farms, where quite a large number of de facto
workers are not really paid for what they do, being members of a farming family. On
the other hand, the young generation is content to leave this kind of work on the
farm behind, its replacement by hired labour that can gain employment on a farm
legally. Again though, until recently, people in the latter group were regarded as ad
hoc labourers and basically treated as unemployed (Figs. 4.1 and 4.2).
Fig. 4.1 Employment in agriculture of selected countries in the period 2002–2017
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
4 The Agricultural Population
35
Alongside quantitative change in numbers of people employed in agriculture
there have also been changes in age structure that reect overall demographic trends
in Europe in general and the analysed region in particular. Throughout Europe the
statistic for the number of children born to each woman go on declining, just as
average longevity increase, with the result that societies everywhere age. Europe is
doing this at a rate that may be thought of as shocking. While 13.9% of people were
over 65in 1990, that had risen to 19% by 2017. UN forecasts for the Europe of
2050in turn suggest that the 65+ group will by then account for 28% of all the con-
tinent’s inhabitants, with this raising the gure for demographic burden to 49.0
(from the already-high 26.4 reported for 2015).
The age structure characterising Europe’s population is thus one in which people
of productive age account for an ever-smaller share, while the opposite is true for
those of post-productive age. Young families tend to conform to the 2+ 1 model,
inter alia as they elect to put career in rst place, putting off the time of arrival of
the rst child to ever-greater average ages. Part of this issue related to cultural con-
ditioning that has, for example, provoked certain conicts between traditional and
modern understanding of the role of women. This is writ large in Eastern Europe,
and in particularly where habits in urban and rural areas are compared. Naturally,
opinion-formers active in the traditional media treat the city way of doing things as
progressive and modern and striving to generate a more and more “correct” way of
living. The corollary of that is of course that country-dwellers (and especially those
inhabiting far-ung areas furthest from the main urban centres) are seen as
Fig. 4.2 Share of those in employment working in the agricultural sector as of 2017
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
4 The Agricultural Population
36
conservative, “backward-looking” and over-inclined to take in what the Church (be
it Catholic of Orthodox) has to say.
This kind of polarisation in society is to some extent a matter of active shaping,
as left-wing movements apparently garner the support of “Brussels” as they face off
against strengthening right-wing forces seeking to respond to what they perceive as
the loss or threatened loss of certain key elements of national identity typical for our
part of Europe. And at the core of that belief is a sense that cultural inuences deriv-
ing from the West are currently too strong.
At a practical level, an ageing society means a decline in levels of consumption,
associated with increasing demand and expectations vis-à-vis the welfare and
healthcare systems. This scenario obviously brings its economic problems, as these
systems will be needing ever-greater outlays, and the aforementioned demographic
burdening of people of productive age may reach such a pitch that social provision-
ing in line with need becomes an impossibility. An already-tangible problem sees
the means capable of being generated by those in employment today already need-
ing to be augmented to a signicant degree from the state budget (i.e. the taxpayer),
in order for the needs of today’s pensioners to be met. This process can only
intensify.
Analysis of the age structure of the workforce in the EU-28 as of 2016 shows
how the average age of those working in farming is higher than in the workforce as
a whole. Around 32% of agricultural employees were under 40 at that point, as
compared with 42% in the labour force more widely. In turn, people in the 65+ age
group accounted for just 2.4% of all those in work across the EU, even as the gure
in agriculture was as high as 9%.
The statistics are far more pronounced when it is the owners of farms that are
considered, as opposed to just those working in agriculture. Data for the CEECs
from Eurostat show how every fourth owner of a farm is aged 65+. Furthermore,
this feature proves a highly-diversied one in the context of the region under study,
in terms of both the index itself and the trends noted for it over the last 10–20years.
The oldest farm-owners are in Bulgaria and Romania. In 2007– the year of the
former’s accession to the EU– only 8.1% of those employed in agriculture were
under 35, while 33.6% were over 64. This forms part of a worsening trend in which
the contemporary demographic situation is less and less favourable. The process of
depopulation of rural areas in Bulgaria is the most intensive to be noted in any of the
CEECs, but in general it gives rise to a number of other negative trends, including a
decline in numbers of marriages and births, problems on the labour market, a decline
in household incomes and falling levels of consumption. Thus progressing depopu-
lation gives rise to destabilisation in social, economic and settlement-related terms
(Mladenov and Ilieva 2012) (Figs.4.3 and 4.4).
A similar problem aficts agriculture in Romania, in which the share of farm-
owners who are elderly continues to rise. This was already indicated in an earlier
part of the report, with it being stressed there how the process of reprivatisation in
the sector gave rise to a very large number of small farms mainly owned by people
of advancing years. The correlations between the ages of farmers and sizes of farms
in Romania therefore come as no surprise. Among farms covering less than 20ha,
4 The Agricultural Population
37
around 70% of their owners are over 55, while just 13% are under 45. In turn, when
it comes to farms of more than 100ha in area, 37% of the farmers are over 55, while
35% are under 45 (Page and Popa 2013).
The phenomenon is of somewhat lesser intensity in Hungary, but in Czechia
there is a very marked increase in the share of farm-owners that are older.
Paradoxically, the analogous phenomenon that might be expected for Slovakia
(until recently included along with the Czechs in a single country) is actually quite
the reverse, though the reasons for that really ought to be the subject of separate
Fig. 4.3 Percentages of all farms whose owners were 65 or over in 2005 and 2013
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data
Fig. 4.4 Percentage of farms in 2013 with an owner aged 40 or less
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data
4 The Agricultural Population
38
study. Relatively the smallest share of older owners of farms is seen to characterise
Polish agriculture, with this reecting the different history of this sector of the econ-
omy during the communist era, as well as the age-old tradition of “father-to-son”
inheritance, and a policy of extending active support to young farmers. It also
emerges that Polish agriculture features the highest share of young owners (aged
under 40).
2016 Labour Force Survey data on levels of activity in the economy show that the
proportion of women working in agriculture across the EU was far lower than the
share of all occupationally active people– the respective gures being 35.1% and
45.9%. There are three countries in the region in which more than 40% of the labour
force in agriculture is female, i.e. Romania, Poland and Slovenia– on 43, 41 and
41% respectively. Only two other countries elsewhere in the EU cross that thresh-
old, i.e. Austria and Greece. Interestingly, the CEECs have higher shares of women
who manage farms. Eurostat data for 2013 show that over 45% of all farm managers
in Lithuania and Latvia were women, while the values was above 30% in Estonia,
Romania and Poland (Agriculture… 2017). For comparison, the values for this indi-
cator in the European Union as a whole is just 27.9%.
As of 2016, the ISCED gure for the educational attainments of people working
in agriculture across the EU-28 differed markedly from that characterising people in
work generally. While in the entire working population, people lacking education or
having been educated to primarily level represent 17.9% of the total, the corre-
sponding gure for those in farming is of 40.7%. The two groups do not differ much
where the share with secondary education is concerned (as the respective gures are
48% among all workers and 50.2% among farmers). Equally, while on the labour
market as a whole 33.9% of workers have higher education, the gure for the farm-
ing sector is of just 8.9% (Table4.3).
Table 4.3 Levels of education among the professionally active in the CEECs and whole EU
as of 2016
Country
Working population total Working population in agriculture
low medium high low medium high
Bulgaria 10.3 57.2 32.4 42.9 49.8 7.3
Croatia 10.3 61.9 27.9 47.8 46.6 5.6
Czechia 4.1 71.9 24.0 4.1 84.5 11.4
Estonia 9.8 50.2 40.1 27.2 52.9 19.9
Hungary 12.0 61.8 26.1 26.3 62.6 11.1
Latvia 7.6 55.1 37.1 18.3 70.7 11.0
Lithuania 3.5 52.2 44.3 10.9 76.0 13.1
Poland 5.3 61.1 33.6 15.6 77.9 6.5
Romania 20.5 59.0 20.5 54.9 43.5 1.6
Slovakia 4.3 72.0 23.6 5.3 87.9 6.8
Slovenia 8.8 56.6 34.6 37.2 53.8 9.0
EU-28 17.9 48.0 33.9 40.7 50.2 8.9
Source: EUROSTAT (Agriculture … 2017)
4 The Agricultural Population
39
Though less well-educated than representatives of other sector of the economy,
the agricultural population is characterised by a great deal of differentiation from
country to country in terms of this feature. Generalising, as of 2016, it was farmers
in the Czech Republic that could be regarded as the “best-educated” overall, given
that just 4.1% of them had primary education only. In turn, relatively the lowest
level of education characterised Romanian farmers, among whom only 1.6% had
higher education. The level of education in Bulgarian farming is also relatively low.
More than half of workers had primary or secondary education, while just 3% of
farm managers had been educated in agriculture (Pochaleev and Todorova 2011).
This poses tangible problems when it comes to the implementation of the CAP, as
appropriate qualications are required for that, including knowledge of ICT, man-
agement, environmental good practice and so on. Moreover, the low level (or lack)
of mechanisation on some farms and use of what is mainly old equipment (more
than 80% of what is used is more than 10years old) help explain why primitive,
low-efciency production is continued with, and represents a major source of lim-
ited competitiveness (Todorová 2016). Lack of knowledge and experience com-
bines with a lack of resources and equipment on the farm to encourage owners to
sell their land on to large farms and cooperatives, in exchange for leaseholding of
various kinds.
Activity engaged in by farm managers across the EU has more to do with practi-
cal experience than with knowledge acquired at training centres. As of 2016, the
Farm Structure Survey was showing that somewhat more than 68% of the group had
no formal education in agriculture, while as few as 9% had a full education of that
prole. That left a group of around 23% of the total who had some primary-level
education on how to farm. It is in fact in the CEECs that we nd the greatest dispari-
ties in the levels of education of farmer-managers. Thus the Czech Republic proves
to be one of the leaders anywhere in the EU, with 39% of all managers of farms
having full education in the relevant eld (with only Luxembourg performing bet-
ter– on 52.5%). At the other end of the scale, Romania is a country in which 97%
of those who manage farms have nothing more than their practical experience to
rely on; while the level of the above statistic is at just 0.4%.
At this point it of course needs stressing that agriculture is a specic sector of
the economy in which acquired experience in running a farm may indeed play a
greater role than specialist knowledge acquired at some institution of higher edu-
cation. That said, a farm manager who has at least a basic grounding in agriculture
as a scientic discipline undoubtedly has a better chance of achieving economic
success. Disparities in the education gained by farmers in the CEECs have varied
bases. In Czechia, where the number of farms is not great and the transformation
largely arose from changes in forms of ownership, there has long been a model of
management in which the manager has a high level of competence when it comes
to knowledge of agriculture. In contrast, as Poland has a tradition of farms being
handed down through families– and did manage to maintain a largely unchanged
ownership structure over more than a century– its numbers of farm managers
with a full agricultural education is far lower. Nevertheless, this has improved
steadily down the decades, as more and more young farmers pick up relevant
4 The Agricultural Population
40
knowledge in special agricultural schools and colleges at both the secondary and
tertiary levels. An extreme example is provided by Romania, and to some extent
Hungary, given processes of privatisation and restitution that saw farmland
received by people specically decient in both a farming-related education and
practical experience. This explains the high share of farm “managers” qualied by
national statistics as having practical experience only, but in fact having no such
experience. Hence the rapid decline in numbers of small farms in both countries
referred to.
As has already been noted, a great part of those working in agriculture do so less
than full-time. Diversication of employment and the development of non-
agricultural activity are linked with an abandoning of the traditional model of rural
life. The fact that the labour market in rural areas has become diversied must be
seen as a good thing, bearing in mind what is overall an excess of people in employ-
ment in farming, in particular in Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland and Hungary.
The development of rural economic activity not entailing farming is indeed some-
thing desirable, and hence fully supported by European Community policy. It is,
furthermore, a more and more important source of farm income even where the
main source continues to be agriculture, and it also helps reduce the labour force
where this is oversized.
Differences in the efciency of agriculture across the CEECs also attest to major
disparities when it comes to outlays of labour each year, i.e. the so-called Annual
Work Unit (AWU) per 100 working people aged 15–64. Visible here once again is
the leader status of farming in Czechia, Slovakia and Estonia when it comes to ef-
ciency, with each country looking to be in a very favourable situation even where
the average for the EU as a whole is taken account of. In turn, the greatest outlays
of labour going into farming (not well-correlated at all with farming’s share of
GDP) are to be noted in Romania, as well as Poland, Lithuania and Hungary. The
agriculture sectors in these states are thus characterised by far lower efciency
when it comes to outlays of labour, with simply an excessive level of employment
in agriculture when set against the actual need there. Equally, the 2005–2015 period
brought falls in outlays of labour in the farming sector in every state in the region,
albeit most marked in percentage terms in Bulgaria, where the labour outlay ended
up less than half of what it had been. Such a positive trend is ensuring that farming
in the CEECs is more closely approaching the model noted in Western European
countries, where production has gone on rising despite lower outlays of labour. The
consequence is an increase in the level of efciency of agriculture.
A similar trend is to be observed in the case of the outlay of labour (in terms of
AWU) per 100 ha of agricultural land. The greatest (almost ve-fold) fall in this
outlay over the 2005–2015 period was noted in Bulgaria. A marked fall in outlays
of labour per 100ha of land over this period was characteristic for almost all of the
region’s states except Romania and Slovenia, which reported higher levels in 2016
than in 2010. In this regard, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Estonia are again the
leaders– reporting the lowest values for the index– as a reection of the major role
played by large farms (Fig.4.5).
4 The Agricultural Population
41
There is a decline in numbers of people whose sole source of upkeep is agricul-
ture, as well as an increase in the proportion of all people whose livelihood now
depends on benets (or pensions of different kinds), as well as people in the upkeep
of others. People in farming are among the least-wealthy social strata, especially
when it comes to the family farms of least commercial viability. According to
A.Tickamyer (2006), the phenomenon of poverty within the population engaged in
farming is especially visible in peripheral areas characterised by the long-term pres-
ence of barriers to development (a weak internal market, poor technical and social
infrastructure, and limited access to public services). 2004–2015 research on the
scale and conditioning of poverty among farming families in Poland showed that the
phenomenon links up with economic conditions more widely (on the agricultural
market, but also in the economy as a whole), while also obviously connecting with
the level of support received in the context of direct payments. Poverty in the agri-
cultural population of Poland is a factor for those running the country’s smallest
farms (of less than 10ha), and not engaging in any activity outside agriculture–
often as a reection of low or zero levels of professional qualications (Dudek 2017).
As of 2013in the EU-28, what were in essence family farms (on which only
members of the owning family worked) accounted for 93.3% of the total (FSS
2013). Thus the farms not employing family members are mainly of very large size,
which are relatively small in number but still account for more than a third (i.e.
around 34%) of the entire area of agricultural land. The largest mean size of farms
of other categories (not worked on by family members) is the 766ha to be noted in
the Czech Republic. It reects the transformation of the large former Cooperatives
into new forms of Cooperative, or else companies (Fig.4.6).
Fig. 4.5 Outlays of labour (in terms of Annual Work Units) per 100ha of agricultural land
Source: authors’ own elaborations based on EUROSTAT data
4 The Agricultural Population
42
It is in the CEECs that farms manned solely by members of the same family are
best-represented, with the share of all farms accounted for exceeded 80% in each of
the countries under study. It is nevertheless possible to identify two groups of coun-
tries here, i.e. three with (relatively!) the lowest shares of family farms, i.e. the
Czech Republic (82.1%), Slovakia (85.6%) and Estonia (86.5%), with all of these
values far from the mean for the EU-28 (which is 93.4%). As of 2016, these three
countries also feature the region’s highest gures for the share of agricultural work-
ers not employed on family farms (over 48% of those working in agriculture in the
case of Estonia; followed by Slovakia on around 29% and the Czech Republic on
28%). The agrarian structure of these countries is characterised by the most limited
fragmentation, while the roles played by large farms are the most major to be noted
anywhere in the region. These factors account for the way in which the share of
farms not employing members of the owner’s family are highest.
A second group of quite different structure of employment in farming comprises
countries characterised by relatively far-reaching fragmentation of agrarian struc-
ture (i.e. Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Croatia). The shares of all farms employ-
ing family members only is close to 100% in these cases– as in Slovenia (99.3%)
and Romania (99.2%).
Other CEECs (Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia and Hungary) have a transitional type
employment structure between the above groups. This is also reected in the agrar-
ian structure of these countries, which is very much fragmented, even as the share
of all farms that employ family members only is very high. Moreover, in the coun-
tries in question there is a much larger share of family farms with a lesser or greater
share of those employed from beyond the family.
Fig. 4.6 Shares of farms in the CEECs according to the structure of employed workers, 2013
Source: authors’ own elaborations based on EUROSTAT data
4 The Agricultural Population
43© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Bański, M. Mazur, Transformation of Agricultural Sector in the Central and
Eastern Europe after 1989, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73766-5_5
Chapter 5
Agricultural Land Use
Agriculture represents an important element of land-use structure in most European
countries. Where those in the region under study are concerned, at the beginning of
the period of transformation the largest shares of land taken by farming were those
in Hungary (around 70%), followed by Romania (62%), Poland (60%) and the then
Czechoslovakia1 (53%). In the 25years that followed, the values of the relevant
indicator declined most in Hungary and Poland. This leaves a current situation in
which it is possible to note among the CEECs two groups of countries that differ
greatly in the role in overall land use played by agricultural land. The rst group
comprises Romania, Hungary, Czechia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Bulgaria,
in which farmland predominates in the structure overall, with gures in the 40 to
almost-60% range. The remaining four countries (Estonia, Latvia, Slovenia and
Croatia) have relatively large areas of forest or unmanaged land. Indeed, more than
60% of Slovenia is under forest, while in Croatia there are extensive areas of moun-
tain and coast in which more than half of the land actually suitable for cultivation is
not being made regular use of (The agriculture… 2015). This reects a variety of
factors, including migratory outow, the commercial non-viability of production on
small farm plots, and also war in the mid-1990s contributing to a degradation of
land-use structure. Overall, the low shares of land used in farming reect unfavour-
able edaphic and climatic conditions in the case of the Baltic States, as well as relief
where the Balkan countries are concerned (Fig.5.1).
From the point of view of the absolute area of land under the management of the
agricultural sector, it is unsurprisingly the region’s two largest countries– Poland
and Romania– that stand out. In each case, around 14 million ha of land is involved,
and in total there is a great deal more farmland there than in all of the region’s
remaining states put together (Figs.5.2 and5.3).
1 It was on January 1st 1993 that the place of Czechoslovakia was taken by the two new states of
the Czech Republic (more recently also called Czechia) and Slovakia.
44
In all countries in the study region, the fall of the Eastern Bloc was associated
with a decline in the area of agricultural land. However, this represents a further part
of a long-lasting process that in essence dates back to the beginning of the twentieth
century, and is the results of socioeconomic development – in its various aspects
including ongoing urbanisation and industrialisation, as well as development of the
network of technological and communications infrastructure. Nevertheless, states
obviously differ from one another to some extent, though the greatest absolute areal
changes unsurprisingly involve the two largest (also with the greatest acreage of
farmland), i.e. Poland and Romania. The scale of the change is very great, though,
with just the 20years 1993–2013 bringing a decline in the two taken together equal
to as much as 6,563,000ha, which is actually more than the entire area of farmland
in Czechia and Slovakia taken together. The loss mainly occurs close to large cities,
where there is very dynamic development of single-family housing. The land needed
for this rst ceases to be used in agriculture, before being divided up into small
building plots. A further loss of farmland reects intensive expansion and remodel-
ling of the network of expressways and motorways– and it is well known that the
funding for this comes very largely within the framework of the EU Structural
Fig. 5.1 The share of
regions’ land area taken by
agricultural land as of 2016
Source: authors’ own
elaboration based on
EUROSTAT data
5 Agricultural Land Use
45
Funds. A third cause of the shrinkage in the area of agriculturally-managed land is
economic, and results mainly from a rationalisation of production in the food sector.
In this case, a function in farming is mainly being lost by areas in which the natural
conditions disfavour agriculture and/or there are locations for a large group of farms
not able to engage in efcient production– with the land they once utilised being
abandoned altogether and reafforested (or else allowed to regrow forest spontane-
ously thanks to the operation of natural processes).
Other than in the Czech Republic (where the share of the total land area taken by
agricultural land has fallen only very slowly), the collapse of the old Eastern Bloc
Fig. 5.2 The share of the total area of the CEECs accounted for agricultural land in 2017
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
Fig. 5.3 Areas of farmland in the CEECs in 2017
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
5 Agricultural Land Use
46
has resulted in the region’s largest countries losing up to 10% of that area. However,
as recently as in the 1990s, the changes under analysis still tended to be limited– in
connection with the crisis of the old, outgoing system and a slow construction or
installation of a market economy. Only at the turn of the new century did a very
dynamic transformation start to take hold. Generalising, it can be suggested that the
intensity of the phenomenon that is the loss of agricultural land gathered strength
from the time countries began to prepare for membership of the European Union,
i.e. at a time when the dynamic of all social and economic processes increased
(Table 5.1 and Fig.5.4).
Only in the case of Czechia is it possible to speak of a stable land-use structure
with only a very minor loss of agricultural land. This reects the way in which a
high level of urbanisation and development of technical infrastructure in that
Table 5.1 Area of land under agricultural management in the CEECs in 2017 (‘000ha)
Country Total land area Agricultural land Arable land Permanent crops Grassland
Bulgaria 10,856 5030 3489 148 1392
Croatia 5659 1497 817 72 608
Czechia 7721 3521 2498 45 978
Estonia 4347 1002 684 4 314
Hungary 9126 5303 4323 176 804
Latvia 6211 1933 1290 8 635
Lithuania 6264 2935 2104 36 796
Poland 30,619 14,462 10,907 384 371
Romania 23,008 13,378 8543 415 4420
Slovakia 4808 1879 1343 18 518
Slovenia 2013 615 184 54 377
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
Fig. 5.4 Changes in the share of all land in the CEECs accounted for by agricultural land
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data
5 Agricultural Land Use
47
country was put in place some time ago. Even in Czechia, there are marked differ-
ences in how much change in land use has taken place to be noted at regional level.
The most major loss of farmland has unsurprisingly taken place in the vicinity of
Prague, where housing has developed further, together with the associated infra-
structure. In contrast, land use is indeed rather stable in the Moravian Lowland.
The most marked fall in the share of land accounted for by agriculture has taken
place in Poland, and this for several reasons. In the rst place, city limits have been
extending outwards, with residential areas in the suburbs and satellite towns and
villages appearing in consequence. This phenomenon only intensied with the
arrival of the new millennium. Some farmland has also made way for new transport
developments, notably the newly-built expressways, as well as more general mod-
ernisation of the transport network in metropolitan areas. On the other hand, the
pursuit of environmental programmes has ensured the reafforestation of low-quality
agricultural land, on which production was anyway of limited or zero protability.
The disappearance of farmland can also be linked with such unfavourable demo-
graphic phenomena as the ageing of the rural population, inter alia with the migra-
tory outow of the young and active. Areas hit by these processes are failing to
develop, and the farms present there (mostly unable to compete) go to the wall.
However, similar processes are to be identied in marginal areas of the Czech
Republic (like the northern parts of Bohemia and Moravia), and indeed other coun-
tries– where the limited or zero commercial viability of farming results from infe-
rior agroenvironmental conditions that encourage outward migration movements to
other parts of a given country (Bicik and Jelecek 2009; Gajdos 2005; Balteanu and
Popovici 2010). This explains the importance development policy attaches to the
stimulated development of sectors of the economy other than agriculture, i.a. in the
direction of multifunctional rural areas. This exerts further impacts on the land-use
system. Aspects involved here include the adaptation of land to better meet the
needs of tourism and recreation, the growing of herbs and other crops used in cos-
metics, the cultivation of crops as sources of energy, and the transfer of the worst-
quality arable land over to other forms of agricultural use, rst and foremost
grassland (Havránek etal. 2007) (Plate 5.1).
Plate 5.1(a, b) Examples of abandoned farms on marginal land in eastern Poland (photographed
by J.Bański)
5 Agricultural Land Use
48
Crop-growing plays a very important role in the agriculture of the region under
study, with cereals and industrial crops proving to be of particular importance. This
can account for the way in which the prevalent form of agricultural land here is actu-
ally arable. A remaining key component to the land-use structure typical for agricul-
ture is in the form of grassland. That leaves– basically as a trace component where
different countries are concerned– production based around more-permanent culti-
vation of certain plants. In most of the CEECs, more than 60% of all land under
agricultural management is devoted to eld crops. Only in the cases of Croatia and
especially Slovenia (where much of the land is hilly or mountainous) is there a
smaller share of farmland taken by arable land. At the same time, it is in these two
countries in particular that more-permanent kinds of cultivation play a key role, rst
and foremost given the possibilities the climate affords for both vineyards and olive
groves to develop. For its part, Croatia has some 59,000ha of land under vines –
owned by a relatively small group of entities (i.e. 30 large wine-making enterprises,
35 Cooperatives and 250 family-owned businesses) (Fig.5.5).
The disappearance of farmland in the CEECs has been associated with changes
in land-use structure, albeit ones differing in both direction and nature from one
country to another. That structure was in general stable (only uctuating to a limited
degree) in countries with large areas of land managed by the farming sector, such as
Poland and Romania. It nevertheless proves possible to note an increase in the share
of land taken by meadows and pastures in Romania (at the expense of permanent
crops and arable land); while Poland has rst and foremost witnessed a rise in the
share of permanent crops (denoting greater emphasis on the production of fruit and
processed fruit products– both of which in fact became key– and well-renowned–
Polish exports). Certain kinds of orchard also attracted high levels of payment
Fig. 5.5 The structure assumed by areas of agricultural land in the CEECs as of 2017
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
5 Agricultural Land Use
49
following Poland’s EU accession, with this helping to account for new planting, and
the introduction of species and varieties producing fruit more abundantly and ef-
ciently. Nevertheless, not all of the investments into the development of orchards
could really be justied, this particularly being true of the founding of new orchards
in areas with no tradition of this kind of growing and characterised by unsuitable
climatic and edaphic conditions. The prime example would be the walnut orchards
set up in Pomerania in the context of a change of land ownership. Media reports
show how these orchards were backed by investors (more accurately “speculators”)
lacking agricultural experience and/or wanting to “get rich quick” on the back of the
EU payments owing into Poland. The rst step towards that was always the pur-
chase of land– mostly cheap and of low quality (Fig.5.6).
It is a notable fact that most of the countries in the south of the region have wit-
nessed major declines in the growing of permanent crops (i.e. grapes in vineyards
and fruit in orchards). This attests to an extensication of production structure that
has seen highly-specialised forms of cultivation resigned from (Takacs 2008). And
this is above all true of Romania, Slovakia and Bulgaria, as well as Hungary to a
lesser degree. A factor underpinning these kinds of processes is ownership change
Arable land
Permanent grassland
Permanent crops
Kitchen gardens
Unutilised agricultural area
Wooded areas
Other areas on the farms
A d r ia t i c S e
a
B l a c k S e
a
B a l t i c S e a
0100 200 km
Fig. 5.6 Structure of land
used by agricultural
holdings in 2015
Source: authors’ own
elaboration based on
FAOSTAT data
5 Agricultural Land Use
50
and the associated eschewal by small farmers of labour-intensive cultivation that
requires major inputs of various kinds, as well as modern technology and appropri-
ate technical infrastructure. An ongoing phenomenon of this kind is conrmed by
detailed land-use research done in Romania, on the basis of CORINE Land Cover
data (Popovici etal. 2013). This shows how farmers resigned from intensive cultiva-
tion over the 1990–2000 period, with new landowners in some regions abandoning
cultivation altogether, given a lack of capabilities to undertake the work involved (in
terms of both available funding and appropriate occupational skill and training).
Only in Slovenia– where farming has found itself in a more favourable economic
situation – has the importance of permanent types of cultivation increased
(Table5.2).
In Bulgaria, it was not only the share of permanent crops, but also that of grass-
lands, that decreased, to the benet of eld crops. That would seem a justied trend,
given the way that over 53% of all farmland in that country has deep, fertile soil. A
key role in the crop structure is played currently by wheat and sweet corn, which are
even viewed as strategic food crops (Moteva etal. 2014). An increased importance
of industrial crops is also to be noted, rst and foremost in the case of the oil crops
grown to make biofuels.
Croatia witnessed an increase in the share taken by eld crops, with the key roles
played by sweet corn and wheat. Levels of production of these grains were entirely
sufcient to meet the country’s own needs. Indeed, maize grown for its grain is
earmarked mainly for the home market, with any surplus there proving saleable in
the neighbouring Bosnia, North Macedonia and Montenegro. In 1998, the farms
growing sweet corn began to receive area payments taking the place of the earlier
production subsidies. However, a condition for support to be received was posses-
sion of at least 3ha under the crop. In recent years, the area under sugar beet has
also increase– as a result of preferences being shown for Croatia and other Balkan
countries when it came to sugar exports to EU Member States.
Table 5.2 Changes in the percentage shares accounted for by different kinds of agricultural land
use in the CEECs
Country
Arable land Permanent crops Grassland
1995 2000 2017 1995 2000 2017 1995 2000 2017
Bulgaria 64.9 63.2 69.4 3.3 4.5 2.9 31.8 32.3 27.7
Croatia 47.9 72.0 54.6 5.0 5.9 4.8 47.1 22.1 40.6
Czechia 77.1 75.8 70.9 1.8 1.8 1.3 21.1 22.5 27.8
Estonia 88.2 85.5 68.3 1.2 1.2 0.4 10.6 13.3 31.3
Hungary 77.8 78.6 81.5 3.6 3.4 3.3 18.6 18.0 15.2
Latvia 54.7 61.1 66.7 1.6 0.8 0.4 43.7 38.2 32.9
Lithuania 84.0 84.2 71.7 1.3 1.3 1.2 14.7 14.5 27.1
Poland 76.3 76.0 75.4 2.0 1.8 2.7 21.7 22.2 21.9
Romania 63.1 63.1 63.9 3.9 3.5 3.1 33.0 33.3 33.0
Slovakia 63.7 62.6 71.5 2.0 1.9 1.0 34.3 35.5 27.6
Slovenia 36.4 33.4 29.9 6.1 6.0 8.8 57.4 60.6 61.3
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
5 Agricultural Land Use
51
In the Czech Republic there was mainly an increase in the share of land accounted
for by grassland, inter alia as a result of the fall of the State Farms in the mountain-
ous or hilly areas characterised by low-quality agroecological conditions. A lack of
taxpayer support for farming led people to resign from arable cultivation of limited
commercial viability, with the result that land was turned over to meadow or grass-
land, or else reafforested. Equally, however, a fall in domestic consumption of beef,
milk and cheese brought change to cattle-rearing techniques. While the 1990s had
seen a dominance of a closed system that required fodder to be grown on arable
land, the new system involved cattle being grazed out on grasslands for 7–8months
of the year (Bicik and Jelecek 2009).
The changes occurring in the Baltic States were of differing proles. In Estonia
and Lithuania there was a marked increase in the share of grasslands at the expense
of arable land, while in Latvia the converse was true. Equally, in the 1990s it was the
latter country that had clearly the highest share of land under grass in any of the
three countries. While changes since then have been major, the share remains rather
higher in Latvia than in Estonia or Lithuania. Particularly major change in land-use
structure was to be noted in Estonia, perhaps as a result of the widespread tendency
for land to be purchase for non-farming purposes. For changes of designation of
farmland in the direction of building land went untaxed there. According to
A.Zadura (2005), transactions of this kind were made mainly in the vicinity of the
country’s large urban centres (Tallin and Tartu), where it is likely that most of the
land was arable (Fig.5.7).
Fig. 5.7 Changes in agricultural land-use structure in the CEECs between 1995 and 2017
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
5 Agricultural Land Use
53© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Bański, M. Mazur, Transformation of Agricultural Sector in the Central and
Eastern Europe after 1989, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73766-5_6
Chapter 6
Farms’ Agrarian Structure andtheMarket
forLand
Eurostat data show that, as of 2016, the CEECs considered here feature in excess of
5.9 million farms making use of agricultural land. However, marked spatial differ-
entiation between one and another was easy enough to discern. By the standards of
the EU overall, the Czech Republic and Slovakia can be said to have relatively few
farms, while Hungary, Romania and Poland have very many. The total for these
three last countries (at around 5.2 million) exceeds the number of farms in all of the
remaining EU states. Closely connected with this disparate situation are differences
in farm size, given that an average farm in Czechia has more than 130ha of farm-
land compared with just 3.6ha in Romania (Table6.1 and Fig. 6.1).
In the 1990s, the privatisation and restitution of land encouraged a huge increase
in numbers of individual users of agricultural land, above all in Hungary, Bulgaria
and Romania– i.e. the countries with large areas of agriculturally-managed land to
dispose of. Reforms resulted in the development of a dualist model for farm size
structure in these countries, whereby entities with large areas of land appeared on
the one hand, alongside huge numbers of tiny farms. Bulgaria is therefore left with
a situation in which the number of large farms is small, but these still own or man-
age a majority of the country’s farmland. At the same time, there are still an enor-
mous number of small farms, which together account for only a small part of the
overall area of agricultural land. As of 2010, the National Agricultural Census
revealed more specically that 67% of all farms in Bulgaria covered less than a
hectare (where actual farmland was concerned), with this category in total account-
ing for just 10% of the area of the country in agricultural use. At the other extreme,
the category of farms larger than 50ha (not necessarily massive therefore) repre-
sented just 2% of the total, yet these entities taken together were managing some
84% of all farmland. What was more, more than 40% of the land managed for farm-
ing purposes was found to be in the hands of newly-established Cooperative-type
entities. Even so, the last 2 decades have brought a (necessary) process of land
consolidation also facilitated by the inux of EU funds. Beyond that, many of the
54
Table 6.1 Numbers of entities in selected countries of the region utilising agricultural land
Country/Year 2005 2007 2010 2013 2016
Czech Republic 41,180 38,490 22,580 25,950 26,530
Hungary 662,370 565,950 534,020 453,090 430,000
Poland 2,465,830 2,380,120 1,498,660 1,421,560 1,410,000
Romania 4,121,250 3,851,790 3,724,330 3,563,770 3,422,030
Slovakia 66,360 66,520 23,720 22,050 25,660
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data
Fig. 6.1 Numbers of
farms by region, 2016
Source: authors’ own
elaboration based on
EUROSTAT data
new owners of land deliberately handed their property assets over for Cooperatives
to use– in exchange for different forms of leaseholding rights.
A similarly-unfavourable agrarian structure of farms characterises Croatia,
where there is a preponderance of small family farms covering an average of 5.6ha
each. Together these utilise around 76% of all agricultural land. At the other extreme
are the large agricultural enterprises belonging to the state (The Agriculture …
2015; Svrznjak and Franic 2012). The region’s remaining countries – other than
6 Farms’ Agrarian Structure andtheMarket forLand
55
Poland– also noted an increase in numbers of individually-owned or run farms, if
only a small one. As most farmland in Poland was in private hands, the privatisation
of State Farms (concentrated in the north of the country) was not associated with an
increase in the number of farms. This was because land undergoing privatisation
usually passed into the hands of (typically larger and more mechanised) farms
already in existence.
1990s Hungary had more than 1.4 million farms (Hartsa etal. 1998), but this
number declined rapidly as the years passed. In the years 1990–2000 an estimated
30% of the total number of farms were lost, while in the 2000–2010 period the g-
ure reached around 50%. There were many reasons for this situation, though rst
and foremost it was a matter of the limited protability of agricultural production,
the tendency for most small farms to be nothing more than self-supplying, the fact
that farm owners were often employed in other sectors of the economy at one and
the same time, and the process of population ageing that was ongoing in rural areas
(Sadowski and Takacs-György 2005; Toth-Naar etal. 2014). At the same time, it
was possible to observe a steady increase in numbers of large farms. The current
agrarian structure in Hungary thus shows a kind of “bipolar” trend. On the one hand,
there are a very large number of small farms (covering less than 5ha); while on the
other there are also a relatively large number of corporate farms covering more than
300ha each. The larger entities (of 50ha and upwards) are mainly Cooperatives and
they in fact play the leading role when it comes to output, as they have around 60%
of all farmland at their disposal, and can thus account for a 70% share of cereal
production, as well as 60 and 50% shares respectively where pigs and poultry are
concerned.
In Romania’s case, there was a dramatic increase in the number of farms in the
rst period of transformation, only for the numbers to decline rather slowly after
that. A negative impact of rights of ownership being restored was that the land that
had been used in a consolidated way by the communist-era Cooperatives now came
to be divided into small plots. The systemic transformation has the effect of increas-
ing the number of users of farmland to around 4 million (Benedek 2000). And it was
estimated that more than 60% of the farmers regaining land were elderly people,
who bequeathed or handed on their farms to others in a way that ensured yet-further
fragmentation. After a brief period of stabilisation, the number of Romanian farms
passed into a phase of steady decline– to around 3.5 million by 2016.
Privatisation-induced agrarian fragmentation proved to be a more severe phe-
nomenon in Romania than in any of the other CEECs. Around 2.8 million farms (or
some 71% of the total) still cover less than a hectare. Such farms cover a total area
of 5 million ha altogether, which is just around 35% of the total area of agricultural
land in Romania. In turn, there are over a million farms there (27% of the total)
whose areas range from 1–10ha. These are seen as entities of limited commercial
viability and together have some 3.1 million ha at their disposal (i.e. 21.2% of all of
the farmland in Romania). The main orientation of these farms is towards produc-
tion to meet own needs (Otiman 2013). That leaves just under 60,000 farms in
Romania (just 1.6% of the national total) in which sizes are in the 10–100ha range.
Together these occupy 1.49Mha of land (or somewhat over 10% of all farmland).
6 Farms’ Agrarian Structure andtheMarket forLand
56
However, only some 12,000 farms (0.3% of the total, of average size 100ha) engage
in true commercial activity. And they are making use of no less than 34% of
Romania’s total area of farmland (Otiman 2013).
As the privatisation process in the CEECs’ agricultural sector was brought to an
end, the shortlived increase in numbers of individual farms likewise ceased, by way
of a reversal that immediately saw numbers of farms decreasing. However, while
this trend was indeed characteristic for every country in the region, the dynamics of
the processes involved varied greatly. The farms going to the wall were above all the
small, economically-weak ones, and/or those in the hands of elderly people lacking
heirs. The fact of accession of the CEECs to the EU only intensied the process,
given the impact of loss of competitiveness on the market for food. Thus, in Bulgaria
in the years 2003–2010 alone, the numbers of farms declined by as much as 56%-
from 665,500in 2003 to 370,200 as of 2010. This process rst and foremost affected
the smallest farms of less than 5ha in area, with the group of farms above 10ha in
size at this stage continuing to experience and increase in numbers (Velikov 2013).
However, a further decrease in numbers of individual farms is to be anticipated,
with this process mainly involving the entities lacking in commercial viability–
which as has been noted represented rather a large share of all farms in this region
of Europe. Changes of this kind will related to Poland, Romania and Bulgaria above
all (Fig.6.2).
Interesting conclusions arise out of analysis of farm-size structure, which proves
to be highly differentiated. That said, the 11 countries under study here can be
assigned to three different groups in line with similarities of structure. The rst of
these groups consists of Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary– and is characterised by
the presence of very large numbers of tiny farms (accounting for around 70% of the
Fig. 6.2 The change in the number of farms in the CEECs in the 2005–2016 period (*Croatia 2007)
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data
6 Farms’ Agrarian Structure andtheMarket forLand
57
national totals). It is likely that the land involved in these cases will pass to larger
farms in the near future. In many cases farms of these kinds are little more than
statistical artifacts, as their land is being made use of by larger entities of greater
economic strength. The second of the groups referred to in turn comprises Croatia,
Lithuania, Poland and Slovenia– where the size structure is characterised by a pre-
valance of small farms covering less than 10ha. The third group is made up of the
Czech Republic, Slovakia, Latvia and Estonia, and there is relatively large number
of small farms, but also a very important category made up of medium-sized or
large entities. This reects a transformation of the farming sector in the countries
emerging from the old Czechoslavkia that retains the earlier size structure of farms
that changed their form of activity in a legal and administrative sense (only)– e.g.
converting from the Cooperatives of the communist era into commercial-law com-
panies). In contrast, in Hungary and Romania a major fragmentation of ownership
has taken place, with this then being reected at the level of the actual use made of
land (Fig.6.3).
These changes in farm-size structure were very dynamic and of a dual nature.
While the period of privatisation and restitution in the agricultural sector brought a
dramatic increase in numbers of farms (including the smallest of all and the small),
today the prevalent trend is for the numbers of the smallest farms to decline– as a
result of an increase in the shares accounted for by medium-sized and large farms.
It is therefore possible to refer to favourable and economically-justied structural
change. Though of differing intensities, these processes have been a feature of agri-
culture in most of the countries in the region under study. An exception is Romania,
in which (in terms of numbers), there was an increase the role played by the smallest
Fig. 6.3 Farm structure by areas of farmland in 2016
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data
6 Farms’ Agrarian Structure andtheMarket forLand
58
farms at the expense of small ones. This probably reects the dividing-up of farms
among heirs (Table6.2 and Fig.6.4).
Correlated with farm-size structure is the overall structuring of the use of land by
groups of farms organised by size. The CEECs can be divided into two main groups
from this point of view. The rst includes countries in which a decided majority of
the farmland is managed by large farms– as in Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Hungary,
Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia. The second group is characterised by the high
degree of fragmentation of land use that has taken place, albeit with land divided
among different groups where farm size is concerned – as in Croatia, Poland,
Romania and Slovenia (Fig.6.5).
Similar changes have affected the area of utilised agricultural land as considered
in relation to categories of farm size. However, given the lack of statistical data for
the 1990s, the analysis was conned to the last ten years or so– a period in which
most of the countries under study had already been brought within the European
Union structures. In most cases, the trend was for an increase in the area of farmland
included within medium-sized and large farms, at the expense of the small ones.
While the actual intensity may have differed, a phenomenon of this kind was at
work in Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary. Importantly, land managed for
agriculture was lost by farms covering less than 20ha, with the large farms being
the beneciaries. In contrast, in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, land was lost by
both the largest and the smallest even as increase in size were to be noted for all
other size-categories of farm. However, it needs to be stressed that the changes in
operation here were not large-scale. Thus in the case of Czechia, the trend for the
largest farms (of more than 100ha), in the study period (2005–2016) was to lose a
mere 0.8% of land. In contrast, in Slovakia, the analogous gure was 3.2%.
Relatively the most major changes were the ones taking place in the Baltic coun-
tries, where the share of agricultural land only increased on the largest farms– at the
Table 6.2 Numbers of farms by area of farmland in the CEECs in 2016
Country 0ha
0.1–
1.9ha
2.0–
4.9ha
5.0–
9.9ha
10.0–
19.9ha
20.0–
29.9ha
30.0–
49.9ha
50.0–
99.9ha
100ha
or
more
Bulgaria 16,330 130,870 20,270 9860 7300 3980 4370 3660 6060
Croatia 1780 50,810 40,840 20,080 9470 3160 3160 3540 1620
Czechia 360 2710 1890 5180 4470 2370 2380 2450 4710
Estonia 620 2010 3240 3490 2700 1170 1120 1050 1900
Hungary 64,890 243,120 42,110 27,560 20,060 8450 7760 7280 8760
Latvia 290 12,370 11,950 15,880 14,560 4990 3760 2890 3250
Lithuania 190 22,330 52,680 32,770 19,320 6880 5370 5490 5290
Poland 5540 299,340 461,600 306,220 202,350 60,820 40,390 22,440 12,010
Romania 79,840 2,400,930 660,000 194,200 50,210 10,990 7530 6010 12,310
Slovakia 1750 5660 6880 3570 2540 1000 920 940 2400
Slovenia 80 17,440 25,050 16,060 8230 2180 1250 500 120
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data
6 Farms’ Agrarian Structure andtheMarket forLand
59
Fig. 6.4 Changes in numbers of farms by area of farmland in the 2005–2016 period
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data
Fig. 6.5 Farm structure by area of agricultural land in 2016
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data
6 Farms’ Agrarian Structure andtheMarket forLand
60
Table 6.3 Farm areas [ha] in relation to the agricultural land at their disposal in the different CEECs as of 2016
Country 0,1–1,9ha 2,0–4,9ha 5,0–9,9ha 10,0–19,9ha 20,0–29,9ha 30,0–49,9ha 50,0–99,9ha 100ha or more
Bulgaria 109,270 124,710 75,440 103,820 154,170 234,650 360,510 3,807,110
Croatia 87,710 162,180 158,860 141,770 82,620 123,210 250,600 680,370
Czechia 3040 8470 41,430 83,340 61,660 96,220 209,170 4,328,900
Estonia 11,630 34,980 61,070 74,410 41,690 58,810 89,680 824,250
Hungary 148,840 168,250 225,640 323,900 226,760 325,150 559,930 4,254,450
Latvia 129,270 108,320 305,800 388,770 202,860 215,650 292,240 1,381,860
Lithuania 50,880 215,870 269,670 317,230 183,100 228,720 405,660 1,493,010
Poland 586,750 1,869,470 2,541,890 3,129,520 1,621,110 1,649,120 1,611,800 3,214,580
Romania 1,778,810 2,187,540 1,375,450 706,710 300,560 309,770 600,530 6,595,260
Slovakia 9210 23,430 32,990 68,610 27,540 44,430 73,720 2,796,880
Slovenia 56,630 173,810 242,140 218,570 81,390 60,420 37,960 35,450
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data
6 Farms’ Agrarian Structure andtheMarket forLand
61
expense of all remaining size categories of farms– in Estonia by 12.2%; in Latvia
by 23.9% and in Lithuania by 21.6% (Table6.3 and Fig.6.6).
Requiring particular attention is the matter of land-leasing– which can much-
modify the real-life use structure where farmland is concerned where it is taken into
account. The point is that leasing often occurs by virtue of informal contracts, hence
the difculties with obtaining reliable data. Moreover, what are typically the low
costs associated with leasing may tend to curtail other activity on the market for land.
Where the CEECs under consideration here are concerned, it is Czechia, Slovakia
and Hungary in which leasing is seen to be practised most widely. In the rst of
these countries, estimates from the beginning of the twenty-rst century showed
that perhaps as much as 90% of all farmland was subject to lease (Doucha etal.
2005). And from among 3.5 million owners of land having 0.44ha at their disposal
on average, fewer than 1% actually engaged in farming activity (Bicik and Jelecek
2009). Remaining owners of land do not in fact farm it, rather leasing it out to pro-
duction companies or a small group of individual farms. The leasing of farmland is
provided for in law and the cost of doing this has been at 1% of the ofcial cost of
land. However, an owner and a lessee have the right to agree on another value. Much
depends on the location of land and the quality of the agroecological conditions (i.e.
the possibility of a given kind of crop-growing being engaged in). Work by
F.Strelecek etal. (2011) pointed to a strong dependent relationship between the size
of a least and the price of land. In contrast, in Hungary leasing costs correlate with
the quality of farmland (Toth-Naar et al. 2014). And around 93% of agricultural
land under the management of Hungarian production companies is made available
by way of lease.
It is estimated that every fth hectare of farmland in Poland is leased, though
there is a lack of reliable data, as such cases are often of an informal nature where
they involved various farmers at the individual level, the contracts therefore being
of a verbal nature. That leaves prices hard to assess, though Statistics Poland (GUS)
produced a 2017 gure of 200 euros per ha on average. Where land leased by the
Treasury is concerned, the rent is usually set by reference to market principles, on
the basis of tendering. Rates are set by reference to both current and average wheat
prices as noted by GUS.
The privatisation and restitution of property increased the possibilities for land to
be traded in. However, at the beginning of the transformation period, the market for
agricultural land was a dormant one– for a variety of reasons that differed from one
are to another and reected the specic nature of legal solutions and the general
socioeconomic situation in different CEECs. Thus, in the Czech Republic, over the
1992–2002 period just 174,000ha of agricultural land were subject to market trad-
ing (Zadura 2005). Most often, this land was located in areas attractive from the
point of view of tourism, or in the vicinity of large urban centres. Purchasers thus
most likely sought a change of designation from farmland to building land (serving
a new residential function). A similar phenomenon was to be observed in other
CEECs, with Romania for example witnessing an increase in the area near large
cities that was built on equal to 42,000ha over the 2000–2006 period. This was
likewise mainly at the expense of land that hitherto been used agriculturally.
6 Farms’ Agrarian Structure andtheMarket forLand
62
While Poland also saw only limited amounts of land changing hands, that was
due to somewhat different circumstances, i.e. the limited supply of land available
and restrictions on its purchase by foreigners. The most movement on the market for
land naturally took place where the abolished State Farms had been located. The
years 1996–2004 thus say some 100–190,000ha of land sold annually. In the early
years, the low level of sales was also linked to inadequately-prepared privatisation-
from the formal and legal point of view, but also due to deciencies with surveys
and the delimitation of plot boundaries. That made it essential for Land Registers to
be updated, or else made ready from scratch. From 2003 on, any natural person was
in a position to purchase farmland in Poland, with no limits any longer set on the
size of the tract(s) of land that might be acquired. The relevant 2003 Act provided
that agricultural land might be purchased by persons with basic farming education,
any kind of secondary or tertiary education, or else relevant experience of work in
agriculture. However, farms might not exceed 500 ha in area. Rules of this type
seeking to ensure the retention of appropriate land-use structure are in place in
Western European countries (Granberg etal. 2001).
Fig. 6.6 Changes in the areas of farms by reference to the area of land accounted for by agricul-
ture in the years 2005–2016
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data
6 Farms’ Agrarian Structure andtheMarket forLand
63
A separate issue concerns the aforementioned limitations on the purchase of land
by foreigners. As an example, Poland’s EU accession of 2004 was followed by
some lifting of restrictions in this area (in respect of nationals of EU Member States,
obviously), but a transition period of no fewer than 12years was applied in the case
of agricultural and forest land, which therefore continued to be purchasable by
Polish citizens only. The period of this kind applying in other countries acceding to
the EU at the same time as Poland (e.g. Czechia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and
Slovakia) was shorter, standing at “just” 7years (Burger and Szép 2006).
To this day, the prices payable for farmland across the CEECs remain far lower
than those noted further west, even as a steady rise in the years after 1989 could be
noted. Eurostat data make it clear that the average price paid for farmland in the
Czech Republic rose from 1555 to 2249 euros per ha in the 2000–2009 period, as
compared with an increase from 895 to 1256 euros in Slovakia. Where Romania
was concerned, the increase noted for the years 2000–2005 was from 351 to 879
euros per ha. Thereafter, prices of agricultural land went on risking, albeit with
trends varying quite markedly from one country to another, and in relation to the
prevailing agroenvironmental conditions (Figs.6.7 and 6.8).
Land prices prove to be very location-dependent, though plot size and designa-
tion are also of course important. As of 2011, a hectare of farmland in the Czech
Republic might be bought for prices in the 260- do 5500-euro range,1 even as the
average gure was around 2000 euros (Strelecek etal. 2011). In 2007, the value of
small plots of up to a hectare, whose designations are very often non-agricultural,
reached prices equivalent to 59.000 euros per ha, only to rise by as much as 73%
after that. In turn, prices of areas of land over 5ha which retained their agricultural
designations were of 1324 euros per ha on average, and in fact fell by around 15%
1 In line with an exchange rate whereby 100 CZK=3.7 Euro.
Fig. 6.7 Prices of arable land in selected CEECs
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data
6 Farms’ Agrarian Structure andtheMarket forLand
64
in the analogous period. In Hungary, price increases occurred rst and foremost in
anticipation of the EU accession– in line with the associated possibilities of real
estate being purchase by foreigners, and of advantage being taken of farm subsidies
(Pop and Stauder 2003).
In Poland, the average price of 1ha of agricultural land sold privately in 1992
stood at 298ha … only to rise to 9169 by 2016. Indeed, the whole period under a
market economy has seen the average price of farmland rise. The change involved
more of a sharp jump following the country’s accession to the EU, in the light of
limited supply and the eligibility of farmers for farm payments. The land hitting
record prices was that located next to large cities and the main transport routes,
given purchasers’ intention to take the land in question out of agriculture, on the
basis of a change of designation inlocal plans for physical development (to building
or recreational land). What was interesting was the way in which the most-marked
price increases (even of 20% in the course of a year) related to land least suitable for
agriculture. Such land is easy to take out of production, and then to achieve a change
of designation making housing construction possible (Wasilewski and Krukowski
2004). And following such a change of designation, it proved quite possible for
prices of land to experience ten-fold increases or even more. Land is then divided up
into small buildings plots and sold at very favourable prices. Today, a buildings plot
in the Warsaw or Kraków areas might fetch a price in excess of 100 euros per square
metre. The development of housing in rural areas adjacent to large agglomerations
proved to be the strongest trigger of increases in land prices (Ihlanfeldt 2007; Mayer
and Somerville 2000) (Fig.6.9).
In regional terms it is in the south of Poland that the highest prices for agricul-
tural land are reached– and it is there that fragmentation ensures only very limited
Fig. 6.8 Examples of average prices of 1 hectare of arable land in selected countries of the
European Union as of 2002 (*2001)
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data
6 Farms’ Agrarian Structure andtheMarket forLand
65
income for farmers. Land prices are inuenced by the propagation of the custom of
assets being passed down within families, to the extent that the supply of land is
very limited. Moreover, ownership of land there has a kind of backup function for
situations in which a job outside agriculture is lost. For a long time now, land has
been the most favourable place in which to locate capital.
0
1000
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
Euro
Fig. 6.9 Change in the average price of a hectare of arable land in Poland
Source: Takacs-György et al. 2011 plus author’s own calculations based on data from
Statistics Poland
6 Farms’ Agrarian Structure andtheMarket forLand
67© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Bański, M. Mazur, Transformation of Agricultural Sector in the Central and
Eastern Europe after 1989, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73766-5_7
Chapter 7
Crop-Growing
Europe’s farms grow more than 100 species of crop plant, and the diversity charac-
terising the eld cultivation structure in the CEECs results rst and foremost from
geographical (including also climatic and hydrological) conditions. Thus, wheat is
most prevalent in the states in the northern and central parts of the region under
study. These areas enjoy the most favourable conditions when it comes to the afore-
mentioned climate and hydrology. In contrast, a lower share for this particular spe-
cies of cereal characterises the CEECs located further south (other than Bulgaria),
given the leading role played there by maize. Climatic conditions have their clear
determining inuence when it comes to types of industrial crop that are grown, and
that is all the more true of crops grown to produce oil. Further north (from the Czech
Republic through to the Baltic States) it is the growing of rape and eld mustard that
is of most signicance. In contrast, in the centre and South of the region, a key role
is played by rape and sunowers. Other crops like potatoes and sugar beet have less-
distinct spatial specics, being distributed more in line with the tradition and struc-
turing of the food industry (Figs.7.1 and 7.2).
It is cereals that prevail in the areal structure characterising crop-growing across
the European Union, as well as in the CEECs. In the whole EU, these crops’ share
by area reaches 63.1%, with the comparable gure for our region as high as 68.8%.
In both cases, it is wheat that takes the lion’s share, even as the breakdown for
remaining key species can vary markedly. While in the CEECs, maize comes sec-
ond after wheat, as followed by rape, the structure for the EU 17 features barley in
second place– the area sown with it being greater than that planted with all the other
cereals (other than wheat) put together. Among the CEECs, larger areas are planted
with both rape and sunowers than with barley. Thus, the crop structure for cereals
in our region as opposed to the whole EU differs primarily in the higher share of
maize at the expense of barley, while sunower is the more important of the crops
grown to produce oil (mainly here at the expense of olives). At the same time, the
trends for area under different kinds of crop are basically similar in the region stud-
ied to in the EU as whole, with rape and wheat increasing their shares markedly,
68
while the proportion of farmland planted with potatoes and barley declines. The
region is further distinguished by the growing importance of sunowers and triti-
cale, as well as the decline in the share accounted for by rye (Fig.7.3).
In the whole northern part of the CEEC region large shares within the areal struc-
ture of crop production are taken by barley, oats and other less-popular cereals, as
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
90%
100%
80%
10%
0%
Bulgaria Croatia Czechia
Wheat Barley Oats Rye Maize Rapeseed Sunflower Potatoes Sugarbeet
Estonia Hungary Latvia Lithuania Poland Romania Slovakia Slovenia
Fig. 7.1 Structure characterising the presence of the main crop plants on arable land in the CEECs
as of 1989
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
90%
100%
80%
10%
0%
Bulgaria Croatia Czechia
Wheat Barley Oats Rye Maize Rapeseed Sunflower Potatoes Sugarbeet
Estonia Hungary Latvia Lithuania Poland Romania Slovakia Slovenia
Fig. 7.2 Structure characterising the presence of the main crop plants on arable land in the CEECs
as of 2017
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
7 Crop-Growing
69
well as rapeseed. In contrast, there is only limited production of sweet corn for
grain, spices and species used to make drugs. Moreover, the structure in the Baltic
countries at least differs in the high shares accounted for by wheat and beans, as
well as the low shares to be noted for triticale and cereal mixtures, plus different
kinds of fruit, sugar beet and minor crops. In terms of trends characterising changes
in crop-growing, countries in the region’s whole northern part show an above-
average increase in the importance of wheat and other less-popular cereals, as well
as a declines in the shares taken by rye and potatoes. Moreover, it is possible to note
above-average increases in the shares of peas and rape, as well as an increased share
for beans, and an exceptionally marked decline in the signicance of barley. More
specically, the transformation in crop structure in Estonia has been featuring an
above-average decline in the shares of oats and cereal mixtures, as well as stabilisa-
tion in the cases of sugar beet and triticale. On the other hand, Latvia has experi-
enced a marked decline in the shares taken by oats and sugar beet, while crop
structure in neighbouring Lithuania stands out for its decline in the share the group
of less-popular crops accounts for (Table7.1).
Poland’s crop structure by area is characterised by relatively high shares of triti-
cale, rye and cereal mixes, as well as potatoes and various kinds of fruit. A feature
Fig. 7.3 Areal structure of crop cultivation in the CEECs and EU (data for the countries of the
“Old” EU) as of 1989 and 2017
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
7 Crop-Growing
70
characteristic for the country has been an above-average increase in the role of triti-
cale, a greater signicance of fruit-growing, and a marked decline in the share taken
by oats.
Crop structure in neighbouring Czechia features relatively large shares of
wheat and barley, as well as spices, drugs, sugar beet and rape. In turn, changes
over the last three decades have mainly involved an increased share of wheat, as
well as of rape, spices and drugs– at the expense of barley and other less-wide-
spread crop plants. Moving on to Slovakia, and that small state has noted a marked
increase in the shares of rape and soya beans, as well as a decline in the impor-
tance of barley and spices, plus drugs. For its part, Hungary features a relatively
stable crop structure in which changes have mainly been involving increased areas
planted with soya beans and sunowers– at the expense of less-popular crops
(Table7.2).
Characteristic features of the areal crop structure in the south-westernmost
CEECs include high shares noted for maize, vines and other fruit trees, as well as
low shares for wheat, rye and cereal mixes, plus rape. Slovenia and Croatia also
have relatively large shares of their farmland taken by spices, drugs, soya beans and
olives. Hence the change of structure following the collapse of communism rst and
foremost entailed above-average increases in the shares of less-popular cereals, as
well as soya beans and olives, with declines in the role played by maize. Moreover,
Slovenia has been experiencing increases in the shares of land taken by both vege-
tables and vines. On the other hand, Croatia witnessed an increase in the share of
green maize grown to feed livestock, as well as oats, cereal mixes, sugar beet and
the less-popular crops. Conversely, declines in the signicance of vegetables and
vines were to be noted there.
The areal structure characterising crop-growing in our region’s central and
south- eastern countries entails a relatively high share accounted for by sunow-
ers, with conversely low shares for triticale, rye, oats and cereal mixes, as well as
Table 7.1 Areas supporting selected categories of crop in the CEECs as of 2017 (hectares)
Country Cereals Fruit Vegetables
Bulgaria 1,729,758 83,197 23,382
Croatia 494,500 51,278 7930
Czechia 1,357,136 35,023 12,557
Estonia 330,677 7021 3042
Hungary 2,438,706 161,727 27,819
Latvia 633,500 6664 8184
Lithuania 1,199,510 26,947 12,451
Poland 7,607,232 409,386 162,678
Romania 5,195,942 343,521 242,764
Slovakia 718,582 12,914 3917
Slovenia 99,498 19,975 5168
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
7 Crop-Growing
71
Table 7.2 Areas sown with the main types of crop plant in the CEECs as of 2017
Country Barley Maize Oats Potatoes Rapeseed Rye Sugarbeet Sunower Wheat
Bulgaria 128,365 398,643 13,266 12,806 160,650 8237 0 898,844 1,144,519
Croatia 53,950 275,407 23,139 9833 48,616 774 19,533 37,152 118,380
Czechia 327,707 85,995 44,065 23,418 394,262 22,221 66,101 21,601 832,062
Estonia 102,487 0 33,649 5388 73,786 13,314 0 0 169,753
Hungary 268,081 1,025,446 37,254 16,364 303,005 26,480 15,941 694,543 966,400
Latvia 70,300 0 54,000 21,500 112,200 31,800 0 0 446,800
Lithuania 141,645 9929 75,987 19,351 180,932 25,843 17,146 0 811,947
Poland 953,784 567,341 491,241 329,323 914,266 873,222 231,716 3238 2,391,853
Romania 455,029 2,407,833 165,550 171,379 597,558 9584 28,099 999,162 2,051,664
Slovakia 120,329 188,922 14,821 7450 150,082 9970 22,377 87,348 373,667
Slovenia 20,369 38,290 1448 3165 3435 1081 0 299 28,016
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
7 Crop-Growing
72
sugar beet and less-popular crops. Typical trends in turn relate to an above-aver-
age increase in the share of sunowers, as well as declines noted for various
kinds of fruit, spices and drugs. Moreover, the structure reported for Romania
features high shares of maize and vegetables, while features typifying next-door
Bulgaria are the high shares taken by wheat and soya beans.
It is worth noting that every state in the region is experiencing (if at varying
intensities) an increase in the share of farmland given over to organic farming. In
this case, certication of produce is associated with a conversion of farmland
from conventional to environment-friendly forms of management – under the
supervision of accreditation institutions. Depending on the crop concerned, this
is a process that usually takes some 2–3years. As of 2012, the land designated
for organic farming across the CEECs represented some 17% of the overall area
of this kind in all 28 Member States of the European Union (Bruma 2014).
Currently, the highest shares of farmland allocated to organic farming methods
are noted in Estonia, Czechia and Latvia; the lowest in Bulgaria and Romania
(Fig.7.4).
Estonia is among the leaders in organic farming at the level of the EU as a whole:
in terms of the share of land accounted for it comes second only to Austria. Estonia’s
organic farms are mostly of a mixed character, combining crop production with
livestock-rearing in a way that is facilitated by an average farm area of 80ha. In
turn, in Latvia, the land of this kind mainly supports livestock, as over 80% of that
assigned to the category is in the form of pasture or elds designated for the grow-
ing of fodder crops. The same can be said of Poland, where around 70% of the land
certied is under grassland.
Fig. 7.4 Shares of agricultural land given over to organic farming
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
7 Crop-Growing
73
Cereals
The region’s states are together in a position to grow all the cereal crops popular in
Europe. And indeed, they are among the key areas anywhere in the world when it
comes to the cultivation of these kinds of crop. Since the beginning of the twenty-
rst century, there has been a steady and rather dynamic increase in the output of
cereals here, mainly as a consequence of increased yields. Indeed, in the period,
values for the production of cereals per inhabitant were ever more likely to exceed
averages for the EU 17. The only country now reporting a level below the EU aver-
age is Slovenia, while values close to the average still characterise Poland, Czechia,
Slovakia and Croatia. A high level of production of cereals as expressed per inhabit-
ant is therefore seen to be present in two parts of the region, i.e. the Baltic States and
the south-east. However, given the quite-different natural conditions in these two
areas, there are of course differences in the structure when it comes to the cultiva-
tion of different types of cereal crop (Fig.7.5).
Cereals are the most important component of crop cultivation in all of the region’s
states. In the period under analysis (1990–2016), the area sown with them tended to
be stable, albeit with a limited downward trend. It is possible to anticipate a further
slow decline in the area concerned– in connection with an overall loss of land from
agriculture. There is also a decline in their share within the areal crop structure that
can be associated with the introduction of new, higher-yielding varieties providing
for a higher level of production even on a smaller area of land. In turn, this poses
some threat of overproduction arising, with a consequent decline in the protability
of cereal-growing.
Over the study period, the most-marked mean annual uctuations in areas under
cereals were to be noted in the south-east of the region, i.e. in Bulgaria (7.1%) and
Fig. 7.5 Overall production of cereals per inhabitant
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data
Cereals
74
Romania (6.1%). This reected dynamic change for ownership, with a consequent
unstable overall situation on the market for food produce. Large mean annual uc-
tuations relating to cereals could also be noted in the region’s northernmost parts,
i.e. in Estonia and Latvia (each with a gure of 6.3%). As a consequence, the value
for this indicator in the region as a whole was of 3.4%– and was therefore much
higher than for the EU 17 (at 2.4%). It is also worth noting the distinct changes over
time when it comes to uctuations in areas of land given over to cereals. From the
end of the last century through to the year of (most countries’) EU accessions, there
were increases in the areal share of the CEECs planted with cereals of 3.0% annu-
ally in the 1991–1995 period, and of 5.4% through the years 2001–2005 inclusive.
Equally, in the period after that, the corresponding area stabilised, to the point where
the mean annual change in the period 2011–2017 was of just 1.5% (Fig.7.6).
Given a range of varieties adapted to various suites of natural conditions, wheat
is the cereal grown most widely in our region. This is mostly the typical wheat that
supplies grain to make our, but the species may also be grown as a key component
of animal feed (supplied above all in the form of stems and chaff). Wheat demands
a fertile soil, hence its being grown only more rarely in the northern part of the
region (where soils are mainly sandy and in need of heavy applications of fertiliser).
The climate may also stand in the way of wheat-growing in the region, not least
because rainfall totals are lower than in Western Europe, albeit unfavourably con-
centrated– in terms of both amount and intensity – in summer. Nevertheless, the
CEECs taken together achieve a 37% share of overall wheat production across the
EU.Wheat plays the most major role in overall crop structure in the south of Poland
and central part of the Czech Republic, as well as on the fertile soils present on the
plains of Hungary and Wallachia, the Dobruja region, and northern Bulgaria.
Fig. 7.6 Changes in the areas under cereal crops in selected CEECs
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
7 Crop-Growing
75
The lead-producers are thus Romania, Poland, Bulgaria and Hungary– the four
countries together accounting for more than 72% of the region’s overall output of
wheat. A further large producer of the crop, at least when set against its (small) area
and population, is Lithuania, which by itself grows 6.6% of all the region’s wheat.
The leading role for wheat in the agriculture of the CEECs reects its potentially
high yields and near-ubiquitous use in the feeding of both people (mainly via bread)
and livestock (in feed). For example, in Poland, the products made from cereals
going for human consumption are 78% derived from wheat grains. Rye takes sec-
ond place, but accounts for a corresponding gure of just 18%. In Bulgaria too,
wheat is a strategic crop which combines with maize to account for 53% of the
entire area under cultivation. That said, Bulgaria is notable for the quality of its
soils, with around 53% of farmland boasting deep and very fertile soil favourable to
the growing of this cereal crop.
The area devoted to wheat-growing tends to remain at a similar level in different
countries, with only limited periodic uctuations. An exception is Romania, where
the area under wheat changed in a more major way, especially after EU accession in
2006. Earlier, the mean annual change in wheat cultivation had grown from 20.3%
in the 1991–1995 period to 29.9% in the years 2001–2005. After that, a gradual
stabilisation set in, with the mean annual change gure for 2011–2017 being of just
3.4%. A similar trend could be noted for most countries in the region, if admittedly
on a more limited scale. Thus the mean annual change in the area under wheat went
from the 6.9% noted for 1991–1995 to the gure of 12.0% characterising 2001–2005.
Thereafter, in the 2011–2017 period, there was a decline to 6.8%.
While the above stabilisation has been noted for wheat, in the region it continues
to be subject to a variability far greater than has been recorded for “the old EU”.
There, the gure for mean annual change in the years 2011–2017 inclusive was of
3.2%. The phenomenon this denotes for the CEECs is most likely linked to the
aforementioned process of change of ownership of land, leading to the emergence
of a very large number of small farms of mixed prole. Where farms are small, the
area under cereals reects costs of livestock production– given that this is the main
source of income for the farms in question. Hence the way in which variations in
numbers of pigs, for example, may affect the interest in cereal-growing. Beyond
that, the fall of the so-called “socialised” sector came to leave technical infrastruc-
ture in a rather devastated state– rst and foremost as regards irrigation. The fact
that droughts arise periodically may do much to limit farming activity (and espe-
cially eld cultivation), or even discourage people altogether from engaging in it
(Fig.7.7).
Rye is a cheaper and lower-yielding cereal than wheat that is used in bread-
making and animal feed. The CEECs constitute the world’s key centre for the grow-
ing of this species, whose soil requirements are less-exacting and whose
frost-resistance is greater (in fact the highest to be noted for any of the winter-sown
cereals.) This leaves rye as a very popular crop for the region’s northern part. That
said, even here rye-growing has been in decline, as wheat-growing becomes possi-
ble on ever-poorer soils, and thus takes its place. While rye yields are higher than in
1989, harvests of the species noted for the CEECs more than halved in the middle
Cereals
76
part of the twenty-rst century’s second decade. The decline in output here is far
larger than elsewhere, and– as was suggested above– this has mainly reected a
limiting of the area planted. Over a quarter-century (1990–2015), the decline here
was of over 70%. Thus, while the CEECs accounted for (the equivalent of) 71% of
the EU farmland area given over to rye, by 2015 the corresponding gure was at just
45%. While average yields noted for rye in this region did increase, the 1991 gure
whereby the region accounted for (the equivalent of) 60% of overall EU production
compared with the 2015 gure of just 33%. Poland is (remains) the world’s second-
most- important producer of rye– after Germany. That is further reected by a situ-
ation in which Poland grows almost ve times as much rye as the other CEECs put
together. Among the remaining states, it is the Czech Republic that leads, as fol-
lowed by Hungary and Latvia. Indeed, in the region’s more-southerly parts, this
species is conned to the mountains (mainly of Czechia and Slovakia), or else to
soil of lower quality (mainly in Hungary) (Fig.7.8).
Triticale arose when wheat was crossed with rye, with a view to the productivity
of wheat being combined with the greater resilience in unfavourable climatic and
edaphic conditions that is typical for rye. The rst triticale varieties of commercial
signicance appeared in Hungary in the 1960s and in Poland in the 1980s. It was the
latter country that developed the varieties of triticale now most widespread world-
wide. The grain in this case is used in both animal feed and breadmaking. Post-1989,
production in the EU and CEECs increased markedly. However, it remains in
Central and Eastern Europe that this cereal enjoys most popularity, with it currently
accounting for 61% of the area of land in the EU given over to the hybrids, as well
as 53% of the overall output. Markedly the world’s largest producer is Poland –
where the level is twice what is achieved by the second-placed Germany. Triticale is
a popular cereal option in southern and central parts of Poland in particular. The
Fig. 7.7 Changes in the area under wheat in selected CEECs
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
7 Crop-Growing
77
amount grown in this country is almost 3.5 times that in all the region’s remaining
countries taken together. In the other CEECs, further places in the ranking for the
production of triticale are taken by Romania, Hungary and the Czech Republic.
The cultivation of barley is much more widespread. As of 2018, the CEECs grew
18% of the barley produced in the European Union. As much as 64% of this is
accounted for by the region’s three largest producers, i.e. Poland, Romania and the
Czech Republic. A relatively high level of production of the crop is also achieved by
Lithuania and Estonia, with these countries together growing 9.5% of all the barley
produced by the CEECs. The area planted with barley has declined somewhat since
the 1990s, hence the greater output managed by some countries is mainly attribut-
able to increased yields.
In the region it is the growing of spring barley that prevails, given the short grow-
ing season and better adaptation to a cool climate. In line with this, the range of
cultivation extends far to the north and into mountain areas. Winter barley, being
rather poorly frost-resistant, is grown much less commonly in the region. On the
other hand, on account of its greater tolerance of heatwaves and droughts, this is
grown to a limited extent in the southern part of the region. The purposes for which
the crop is grown in this region have changed greatly, with the signicance in terms
of alimentation marginalised, as the role of the crop in animal feed increases. In
particular, the grain serves as food for pigs, while of course also meeting the needs
of brewing. In relation to designation, varieties of barley differ in their protein con-
tents. The soil requirements of this cereal species are similar to those in high-
yielding varieties of wheat, hence its status as a competitor crop, rst and foremost
where there is a demand for the more expensive brewing barley exerted by a local
brewing industry. A contiguous area of cultivation of brewing barley is therefore
present in the Czech Republic, Moravia and Silesia. On the other hand, the
Fig. 7.8 Change in the area of rye cultivation in selected CEECs
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
Cereals
78
less-lucrative barley meeting the needs of animal feed is grown on soils of poorer
quality (Fig.7.9).
Oats resemble barley in needing a short growing season, being resistant to cool
and damp during the owering season, and being rather non-demanding when it
comes to soil conditions. For that reason, this is one of the key cereal crops in the
northern part of the region, as well as in mountainous areas, as in the Czech
Republic, Poland and Slovakia. Hard frosts are still a problem for this species, but
the occasional spring frost is well tolerated. Drought is not, however. Hence, oat
cultivation is not especially successful where the climate is dry and warm, leaving
this species as a rare crop in the southern part of the region. In Western Europe, oats
owe much of their popularity to a healthfood status in the context of akes used to
make porridges, as well as our or bran. Equally, in the CEECs, this crop is mainly
grown as a fodder plant, above all as food for horses. This is why, as mechanisation
progressed in the region and the use of horses on farms declined, the area planted
with oats fell markedly– such that production was down even as yields increased.
Currently, the CEECs’ share in the overall EU production of oats is at 30%.
Most cultivation of oats takes place in the northern part. The key producer–
accounting for as much as 50% of the regional total– is Poland, which from this
point of view is second only to Spain in the entire European Union. Further rela-
tively major producers of oats are all three Baltic countries, which together account
for 19% of total output from the CEECs (Fig.7.10).
In the CEECs in general, and in Poland in particular, cereal mixes enjoy quite
considerable popularity. The advantage is more-predictable and stable yielding,
which looks particularly important in a transitional climate that produces variable
weather. Hence, where the weather conditions in a given year do not favour one of
the species in a mix, a more favourable yield may be achieved by the other kinds of
Fig. 7.9 Changes in the area planted with barley in selected CEECs
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
7 Crop-Growing
79
cereal, with the result that losses are in part compensated for. Cereal mixes also
display enhanced resistance to disease, thanks to the spacing-out of individuals of
any given species. A particular role in this case is played by the most-resistant spe-
cies, oats– which play a kind barrier role when it comes to the spread of infectious
disease. An important role in the mixes is also played by barley as the species with
habitat requirements most distinct from those needed by oats. This helps ensure
some balance within the mix. Frequently, a key admixture species is triticale.
Cereal mixes are of signicance as sources of animal feed. If cultivation is des-
ignated for the feeding of cattle and horses, barley and oats prevail in the mix. The
feeding of pigs and poultry requires feed of greater value, hence the dominance of
barley and wheat in mixes serving that purpose. However, such mixes can be grown
in relatively fertile soils. And given the fact that livestock-rearing is concentrated on
an ever-smaller number of specialised farms, the cultivation of cereal mixes declined
somewhat after 1989. The CEECs still account for as much as an 82% share in the
overall production of mixed cereals in the European Union. The world’s largest
producer of these is Poland, with as much as 75% of world production (almost 7
times the level of second-placed France). The fact that this level is so high may be
attested to by the fact that Poland grows over 50 times more of these than all of the
remaining CEECs taken together. The largest of these remaining growers are
Lithuania and Latvia.
In the twentieth century, our region witnessed an almost total disappearance
from cereal cultivation of proso millet, which had been designated mainly for the
production of millet groats. To some extent the species is also ground to make our
or used for birdseed. Thankfully, recent years of EU payments have combined with
a recognition of healthfood status (and knowledge of millet’s gluten-free status) to
encourage a resurgence of the popularity of this species among the different cereals
on the European market. Proso favours a dry climate and fertile soils, hence the 38%
Fig. 7.10 Changes in the areas of farmland planted with oats in selected CEECs
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
Cereals
80
share of EU production accounted for by countries in the region under study. The
key producer here (accounting for 66% of the CEEC total) is Poland, which also
comes second only to France in the context of the Union as a whole. As other more
major producers in the region are Bulgaria and Hungary, the three countries taken
together grow 91.1% of the region’s millet. The so-called foxtail millet– a separate
species, not merely a variety– is grown to make animal feed, in Hungary mainly.
Sorghum is another grain of considerable nutritional value, consumed directly, or
turned into our or akes. It also goes into animal feed. While this is one of the
world’s most important crops, it is grown in only small quantities in Europe, as the
climate is mostly just too cool. A key feature in that context is resilience in the face
of heatwaves and drought. Furthermore, a higher level of resistance to disease
ensures that this species sometimes takes the place of maize. The CEECs currently
account for a 19% share of EU output. Growing is concentrated in the South-east,
with key producers being Romania and Hungary – which account for 75% of
regional output. Romania comes third in the EU ranking for this species, after
France and Italy. Among other countries in the region, Bulgaria is of relatively
major importance with its 24% share of the regional total.
Buckwheats are members of the family Polygonaceae (along with the bistorts)
hence their status as pseudo-cereals. Marketwise, they resemble millet in having
virtually disappeared from Europe’s cereal crop structure (east and west), only to
enjoy something of a renaissance in more-recent times. While buckwheat is grown
for groats, as well as akes, and only occasionally given to livestock, Tatar (bitter)
buckwheat is another species that goes solely into animal feed. The protein present
in these grains is actually more valuable than that from cereals in the conventional
sense– so much so that it almost matches legumes. Buckwheat is nutritious where
it is grown in areas in which the temperatures go higher. A further positive feature
is the nectar the plant supplies to honeybees.
The role of the CEECs in the cultivation of buckwheat is rather a key one, with
49% of overall production within the EU accounted for. Growing this species is usu-
ally a matter for the poorest soils in the northern part of the region where growing
other kinds of cereal is largely ruled out. Buckwheat has a very short growing sea-
son, is cold-resistant and is not demanding as regards soil conditions. Nevertheless,
these are frost-prone species that do not like to be rained on too much as they are
owering and fruiting. Our region’s major producers are Poland and Lithuania –
with these together taking an 81% share of regional output. A relatively high level
of production of the crop also characterises Latvia, with its 14% regional share. In
the EU as a whole these three countries take second, third and fourth places –
after France.
While a number of different varieties can be tried, a common feature in maize-
growing is that a long growing season is needed, as well as quite large amounts of
warmth, light and humidity from the time of planting through to the owering
period. Ultimately, therefore, desirable results are mainly obtainable in the warmest,
southerly parts of our region. In contrast, the soil and water requirements are not
especially exacting, even though better results are naturally achieved where soil
is better.
7 Crop-Growing
81
Maize-growing for grain that can be eaten as a vegetable fresh, canned or frozen,
or as an ingredient in other products, is more demanding than the species grown as
a fodder crop, hence a range limit more or less reached at the southern edge of the
Carpathians. The Danube Valley obviously offers especially favourable conditions,
hence the role of this crop throughout Hungary, though most of all in its south-
eastern part; as well as on the Wallachian Plain. In both Romania and Croatia, maize
is grown over a larger area of cropland than wheat. The share of sown cereals is also
large in the southern part of Czechia and Slovakia, in Slovenia and in northern
Bulgaria. In Croatia, maize is among the few kinds of produce yielding a trade sur-
plus. While the level of Croatian exports of the crop are not comparable with those
achieved by Hungary, the signicance in trade with Bosnia, North Macedonia and
Montenegro is greater. Further north, maize is grown only far more rarely, and
mainly as a fodder crop to be supplied to cattle and pigs, fresh or in the form of
silage. The northern range limit for the crop runs across Poland, hence the almost-
total lack of maize-growing in the Baltic countries.
As in the case of barley, there has been a change in the area within the region
given over to the growing of maize. Currently it is of marginal signicance as a
direct sources of food, instead being used almost in its entirety for the manufacture
of animal feed, or else (much more rarely) as an industrial crop. The CEECs take a
56% share in overall EU production. The Union’s leading producer of this crop in
the EU as a whole (and therefore also among the CEECs) is Romania, which
accounts for 46% of overall production in the region. Third place in the EU (after
France) is then taken by Hungary, which generates a further 21%. While the
post-1989 increase in the growing of maize as green fodder was notable across the
Union, that increase was exceptionally dynamic in the CEECs. While the region’s
share in relation to overall EU output was at 33% in 1992, the gure (now from
within the EU) had risen to 56% by 2018.
In most of the CEECs, the area planted with maize has remained at a similar
level, if with periodic uctuations. However, cultivation is becoming a more popular
option in Poland, as a reection of favourable prices, as well as a development of
green-maize growing for the production of bioethanol. Thus, the rst decade of the
twenty-rst century saw cultivation of this crop rise by 400% in Poland, with this
being the largest increase noted for any of the country’s crops. It was in 2012 that
the area sown with maize rst exceeded 1 million hectares. And at the present time,
around 550,000 ha of that is for grain, while the remaining area supports maize
grown to serve as fodder for livestock.
Of by no means limited signicance in accounting for change in the area planted
with maize is climate change allowing cultivation to become a more widespread
phenomenon than before. New, early varieties are also now being grown, given than
these are more resistant to volatile weather. Equally, a growing threat to maize-
growing in southern Europe reects the increasing frequency of periods of drought,
with this tending to raise the economic viability of growing maize at higher latitudes
(Fig.7.11).
Rice is only grown over a very small area of our region, along stretches of the
Danube Valley in Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. These generate just
Cereals
82
4.1% of the rice grown in the European Union as a whole. As recently as in the
1980s, it was Romania that was the region’s leading producer of rice. Currently,
however, the country has lost this dominant position, though together with neigh-
bouring Bulgaria it does contribute to 90% of all rice-growing in the region. Natural
conditions do much to limit the cultivation of this crop, as good results will always
be impaired by the region’s coolness and limited numbers of sunny days.
Furthermore, rice needs both a heavy soil and a large amount of rain. This is
famously the most “thirsty” cereal crop.
A niche role is played by the production of birdseed from canary grass (which
hails from the Mediterranean region). Sprays of stems with seeds are also some-
times dried to make decorative elements for ower-arranging. The crop requires
compact soils of high humidity. Although its cultivation in Central and Eastern
Europe is of local signicance only, this region still supplies 93.9% of the entire
production of canary grass in the European Union. Furthermore, it is worth noting
that– across the EU and therefore principally among the CEECs– the signicance
of this crop has grown very markedly since 1989. Decidedly the leading producer of
this species in the EU is Hungary, which accounts for more than 82% of overall
production. Czechia takes second place.
The areal structure of sown cereals differs greatly in different CEECs. Wheat
takes the largest share, with maize (grown for its grain) in second place. A key dif-
ference with the European Union as a whole is a far greater share accounted for by
maize, at the expense of barley. Nevertheless, when the comparison is with 1989, it
is possible to observe a trend towards a more-comparable structure for sown cereals.
As recently as in 1992, the share of sown wheat was 31% lower here than in the area
accounted for by the EU 17; while as recently as in 1999, the share taken by rye was
as much as 2.7 times greater. Currently, the proportions accounted for by these two
species of cereals leave the region looking quite similar to the EU as a whole.
Fig. 7.11 Change in the area planted with maize in selected CEECs
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
7 Crop-Growing
83
Generalising, it may therefore be suggested that current changes in the growing of
cereals in the CEECs have brought about an advanced stage of convergence vis-à-
vis the Union overall.
All of the countries in the region’s northern part feature a large share of oats and
buckwheat, as well as a low share of cultivated maize and less-well-known cereals.
A characteristic direction taken by the this region’s transformation involving sown
cereal crops entails an above-average decline in rye-growing. A further feature
where the Baltic States are concerned involves the respectively high and low shares
taken by wheat on the one hand and triticale and cereal mixtures on the other; while
another feature typifying the transformation in these countries is an above-average
increase in the shares taken by wheat and buckwheat, as well as a marked fall in the
share accounted for by barley. Among the Baltic States, Estonia therefore stands out
rather, in the still-high share of cereals accounted for by barley, as well as in an
above-average reduction in the role of cereal mixtures, as well as stabilisation when
it comes to the share taken by triticale. A feature characteristic for Latvia is a stabili-
sation of the gures for the share taken by wheat, while Lithuania has experienced
an increase in the share of oats among cereal crops. Where cereal-growing in Poland
is concerned, the shares of triticale, rye and cereal mixtures are high. However,
alongside changes typical for the entire northern part of the region under study,
Poland also witnessed an above-average increase in the share taken by wheat, and
other increases relating to the less-well-known cereal crops, as well as falls in the
area of land assigned to the cultivation of oats and cereal mixtures.
The states in the study region’s central part have low shares of triticale, rye, oats
and cereal mixtures. In contrast, the directions of change relating to cereal crop
structure include a steady share for triticale. Against the background of the group,
the Czech Republic stands out for its high shares of wheat and barley. In contrast,
Slovakia looks typical from the point of view of the central CEECs.
In all countries of our region’s south-western part a characteristic feature of the
analysed structure is the high share taken by maize; and on the other hand a low
share noted for wheat, rye and cereal mixtures. Change today entails an increase in
the share of barley and a stabilisation in the share of rye, along with an above-
average increase in the share of buckwheat. A characteristic feature for sown cereals
in Hungary was an above-average decline in the shares the less-popular cereal crops
accounted for. However, both countries of the former Yugoslavia noted an increase
in the share of those same less-popular cereals, as well as relative declines for maize.
In the case of Croatia, what needs stressing is the high share of maize grown for its
greenery, as this has been increasing steadily for two decades now. The share of oats
also rose in Romania. In turn, the structure noted for sown cereals in Bulgaria stands
out for the high share of wheat (Figs.7.12, 7.13, and 7.14).
Cereals
84
Fig. 7.12 Structure noted for sown cereals by country as of 1989
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
Fig. 7.13 Structure noted for sown cereals by country as of 2017
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
7 Crop-Growing
85
Legumes
Plants of the pea and bean family Leguminosae or Fabaceae play a relatively limited
role in the region’s crop-cultivation structure. The various crops include beans of
different kinds, chickpeas, broad beans, lentils, peas and other species.
Varieties of bean (the key legumes grown around the world) are very diversied
and adapted to different natural conditions. While beans in general need a warm
climate, the CEECs account for a high and rising level of production of these plants.
Across the whole EU, the loss of area of farmland under beans post-1989 has been
compensated for by a dynamic raising of yields. As of 2018, the region under study
gave rise to 79% of the EU’s overall production of beans, with two countries
Lithuania and Latvia– accounting for 73% of that. Moreover, the region accounts
for 12% of the overall production of green beans. The leading producer in the region
is Romania, with a 66% share. Also relatively large is the share associated with
Hungary (19% of the production from the CEECs).
Grain, mixe
d
Grain, mixed Grain, mixed
Grain, mixed
Maize
Maize Maize
Maize
Wheat
Wheat Wheat
Other cereals
Other cereals Other cereals
CEECs 1989
EU 17 1989 EU 17 2017
CEECs 2017
Other cereals
Wheat
Oats
Oats
Oats
Oats
Triticale
Triticale Triticale
Triticale
Rye
Rye
Rye
Rye
Barley
Barley Barley
Barley
Fig. 7.14 Structure noted for sown cereals in the CEECs and countries of the “Old EU”
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
Legumes
86
Unlike typical varieties, green beans are prized for the edible nature of the whole
pod– eaten young– as opposed to merely the seeds within. This is a vegetable of
high nutritional value, of which larger-scale production is engaged in by Poland
(accounting for about 13% of production at EU level).
Legumes grown in smaller amounts include (as most popular) the chickpea,
which bears some resemblance to peas in terms of appearance and properties.
However, this is a species most popular in Mediterranean cuisine that only more
rarely goes into animal feed. Post-1989 there was a marked increase in its popularity
across the EU.The CEECs account for 28% of overall production in the EU, with
the lead producer– Bulgaria– accounting for as much as 96% of the CEEC total.
Indeed, in the EU as a whole, Bulgaria is second only to Spain from this point
of view.
Lentils are nutritious seeds, eaten once cooked or turned into our. The crop can
also be used to feed livestock. The CEECs currently have just 3.1% of the farmland
in the EU given over to growing of lentils. And as much as 90% of the production
in the region is concentrated in Bulgaria.
Broad beans go mainly for consumption, though there is a variety that turned into
animal feed. Production of both has declined greatly in the CEECs since 1989, to
the point where just 0.3% of the overall production in the EU is now accounted for.
Of that, as much as 62% of the total is concentrated in Czechia. Slovakia is also a
fairly major producer, accounting for a further 17%.
Various other kinds of bean or legume are grown to feed both livestock and
people– in the former case a popular crop is common vetch, of which 4% of the EU
output is grown in our region. Among the CEECs, Poland is the lead producer,
accounting for as much as 77% of the total.
Cowpeas are drought- and heat-resistant crops, and– on account of the high
protein content– the seeds gain much use in vegetarian cuisine. The growing of this
kind of crop has become far more popular in Croatia in recent times, with the result
that this country is responsible for 93.5% of all that is produced in the region, and
93.7% of the EU total.
The carob is another legume whose beans also go by the name of St. John’s
bread. As something of a last resort for people, this is mainly used to feed animals.
Locally, it was once used to supply sugar, and the fruit can serve as an ingredient in
baking and cake-making– as a thickener. There are also uses in the manufacture or
both cosmetics and cigarettes. The species is cultivated around the Mediterranean,
hence the key role– albeit only on the regional scale– for Croatia. The latter coun-
try is nevertheless responsible for just 0.46% of overall production of the crop
within the European Union. That said, the trend for the EU as a whole is very mark-
edly downward, even as interest in Croatia has grown very dynamically.
The growing of peas requires a cooler and moister climate. The species is eaten
fresh, frozen of canned. Currently, the CEECs account for about a 34% share of the
peas grown in the EU.The major producers here are Lithuania and Romania, from
which 54% of the region’s production derives. In the case of peas grown for their
greenery, the region accounts for 18% of the EU’s overall production, with the key
country in this case being Hungary, which makes up 56% of the regional total.
7 Crop-Growing
87
A key role is played by the growing of small-seeded legumes used solely in ani-
mal feed, such as lucerne, clover and lupins. These also have their key role in
replenishing levels of nitrogen in soils. The lupin is a protein-rich fodder plant, of
which Poland is the EU’s largest producer. Indeed, Poland takes second place in the
entire world from this point of view (after Australia), and it accounts for 67% of
overall EU output of this kind. The region as a whole accounts for 70%.
Root, Bulb andRhizome Crops
Within this group, only the potato plays a more-major role in our region, as more
widely in the temperate zone. Somewhat remarkably, this species plays a less and
less major role in feeding human beings, just as it more and more often provides
food for animals (especially pigs). It is also a major industrial crop. The fact that this
crop remains spread across the entire region (including in cooler area and/or on
post-glacial soils) is a reection of its not-especially-exacting soil requirements. On
the other hand, achieving good results with its production is more difcult where
summer temperatures are high. A characteristic feature of potato cultivation is the
need to weed, dig and scatter– hence the labour-intensive nature of the effort. This
was not a major obstacle in the past, given the excess workforce present in the
region’s agriculture.
Most of the CEECs have been part of the steady decline noted for the area of
farmland under potatoes, with no increase in yields able to compensate for that
process. As a fodder plant, the potato is also giving way to other root crops, while
where direct consumption is concerned, the demand is declining as interest in other
vegetables increases. Further explanations lie in the ongoing mechanisation of
farming and higher labour costs to be noted on the market. As of 1990, the region
under analysis was responsible for 53% of the production of potatoes in the context
of the then area of the European Union. By 2018, the corresponding gure was of
just 25%. Markedly the main producer of potatoes in the region is Poland, from
which 58% of overall output derives. In the whole European Union, Poland takes
third place from this point of view– after Germany and France.
Vegetables
Throughout our region vegetable-growing is being engaged in on smaller and
smaller areas of land, even as both yields and quality increase. The species structure
of the plants grown is changing, with an ever-greater role assigned to “tasty” vege-
tables and/or those bringing in a good income for those who cultivate them. In
decline are the shares of this market accounted for by cabbage, carrots or turnips,
while the beneciaries of the switched attention are tomatoes, cucumbers, lettuces,
cauliower, broccoli, aubergine, kohlrabi, radishes, spinach and asparagus. The
Vegetables
88
increases in levels of production of most species of vegetable mainly reect greater
wealth and ever-more-varied tastes among the region’s inhabitants. Vegetable pro-
duction in the CEECs is characterised by a move away from suburbs serving as the
hinterland traditionally supplying towns and cities in fresh produce. A key factor in
such situations was once competitive costs of transport to market, but now areas
ever-further from the cities can benet from the more-favourable natural conditions
they have to offer, as well as lower labour costs. This was made possible by a fall in
transport costs, just as technology for ensuring the preservation of crops improved
steadily. There has tended to be an increase in the level of specialisation of different
regions in different kinds of vegetable-growing. For example, in Bulgaria it is pos-
sible to note some regions specialising in production for the export of early vegeta-
bles further north (tomatoes and peppers in particular). Vegetable-growing regions
in this way capitalise on the early starts to the growing season they may experience
(Fig.7.15).
The CEECs take a major world share of the production of such vegetables as
onions and cabbages. In 2018, the region accounted for 52% of all the cabbage
grown in the EU.The two main players in this respect are Romania and Poland,
together supplying 86% of all the cabbage grown in Eastern and Central Europe.
Carrots are cultivated in a number of different varieties and as both vegetable and
fodder crop. The species is used raw or in different processed forms and in the
manufacture of juices. Like cabbage it is a by-volume vegetable that is a dominant
element in Europe in those terms. Demands as regards climate are not especially
exacting, though the species does best where soil has a slightly-acid reaction.
Turnips also resemble carrots in being cultivated for both human consumption
and animal fodder. The plant is widespread across the temperate zone and is in fact
a subspecies of napa cabbage. While cultivation with human consumption in mind
Fig. 7.15 Change in areas of farmland planted with vegetables in selected CEECs
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
7 Crop-Growing
89
centres around the edible bulbs, the growing of turnips for fodder focuses on the
leaves, which have a greater dry mass and more protein. Given their better tolerance
of cold, turnips may be grown in place of carrots in circumstances of a cooler cli-
mate. However, the species is vulnerable to drought and does less well on light and
permeable soils. As of 2018, the CEECs accounted for 22% of the EU’s overall
production of carrots and turnips. Poland is the main producer, and takes second
place in the EU for these root vegetables (after the now-exited United Kingdom).
Poland at the same time accounts for 59% of the output of these species achieved by
all the CEECs taken together.
Onions are widespread around the world, though the species experiences its most
favourable conditions in the temperate zone. It is mainly sensitive to the presence of
too much or too little water, as well as soil of an acid reaction. The CEECs together
take a 19% share of EU onion production. Poland is again the region’s chief pro-
ducer of this crop, taking third place in the whole European Union after The
Netherlands and Spain. However, Romania is also a major grower, ensuring that the
region’s two large countries together account for 80% of its onion-growing.
Garlic is a perennial and, while classed as a vegetable, is mainly applied in cui-
sine as a kind of condiment or herb. It is particular popular in cooking around the
Mediterranean. Garlic nds a use in the pickling of cucumbers, while also being
added to enhance the avour of meat and soups. It is considered to possess healing/
medicinal properties. The fact that it comes in a number of different varieties allows
for its cultivation under a wide range of climatic conditions. It proves resistant to
lower temperatures, though does need fertile soils that are not too heavy. Good
results with garlic-growing are often achieved where levels of insolation are high,
though there should also ideally be abundant May and June rainfall. The CEECs
grow about 18% of the garlic grown overall in the European Union. However, within
that total as much as 78% is actually grown in Romania, as the EU’s second-largest
producer after Spain.
The leek is a biennial species related to onions and garlic. Its requirements as
regards warmth are limited, and indeed it is rather frost-tolerant. However, it does
need high humidity, with a vulnerability to drought at germination time. Good
results will also mainly be achieved where there is plenty of sunlight. Over the last
3 decades, quantities of leeks (and other onion-family crops) grown in the CEECs
have increased very dynamically. Currently the region takes a 16% share of the
output of vegetables in this group. Poland is the largest producer– taking third place
in the EU after Belgium and France. It is Poland that accounts for more than 91% of
the production of onion-family vegetables across the whole region.
The tomato comes in many different varieties adapted to a range of climatic con-
ditions. Its fruits are mainly red in colour, but can assume various different shapes
and sizes. They are eaten raw or added to various dishes. Tomatoes are also turned
into juices, purees and pastes. Their cultivation requires a fertile soil that is rather
porous, as well as a place sheltered from wind and sun. The CEECs currently take a
12% share of all EU production, with the south-eastern part of the region assuming
greatest importance in this respect. Nevertheless, Poland is the main producer,
Vegetables
90
followed by Romania. Together, these two countries account for 79% of the overall
production of the species in the region.
Cucumbers and gherkins are plants of the cucumber and gourd family that
include the cucumber grown widely in all climatic zones, if in several different
varieties. The fruit is eaten raw, or else pickled, fermented or marinated. The nutri-
tional value is famously limited, though the taste can be satisfying and– in certain
forms at least– the vegetables can aid digestion. Gherkin is a term often applied to
ground-growing cucumbers of small size. The CEECs produce around 32% of the
EU’s cucumber crop, with Poland being the major producer (of 59% of the cucum-
bers and gherkins grown in the region). That puts the country in second place in the
whole EU, after Spain.
Lettuce and chicory are rather close relatives within the daisy family which are
consumed for their leaves. The CEECs take only a 3.5% share of the EU’s output of
these species. And here it is Poland that is by far and away the main producer of
these salad vegetables within its region– as it accounts for a 43% share. A relatively
high level of output also characterises Slovenia, with its 20% regional share.
Sweet varieties of pepper– mostly numerous cultivars of the species Capsicum
annuum– are consumed as vegetables. The main growing within the EU is done in
the region under study, with Bulgaria being the main producer.
Cauliower and broccoli are basically further variants of cabbage. They are
much prized for their taste and nutritional composition. In the case of cauliower it
is the eshy stems that are eaten. The crop is grown successfully where soil is fertile
and there is sunlight. Broccoli proves somewhat less demanding from this point of
view, and can also be cultivated in a cooler climate, being more frost-tolerant.
However, this vegetable grows less well in more-acidic soils. As of 2017, the CEECs
were accounting for 16% of overall production of cauliowers and broccoli across
the entire EU.Markedly the main producer in the region is Poland, which accounts
for 76% of output in this case. This leaves it in third place in the Union after Spain
and Italy.
Aubergine or eggplant is the name given to a species of the family Solanaceae.
Much warmth is needed if it is to be grown, leaving the microclimatic conditions as
rather specic ones. Across the CEECs, the production of this crop has grown mark-
edly, to the point where the region accounted for 18% of overall production in the
EU.Furthermore, Romania is far and away the region’s main grower of aubergines,
given that it accounts for almost 91% of CEEC output. This also puts it in third
place in the European Union, after Italy and Spain.
Pumpkins, marrows and gourds are all in the cucurbit (gourd and cucumber)
family. Pumpkin serves as a vegetable or else is used as fodder. It is more suitable
for cultivation in warmer areas where levels of insolation are high. It is a thirsty
crop, but can cope with poorer soils. Marrows are kinds of squash of smaller dimen-
sions. They are of limited nutritional value and so are mainly prized for their taste.
They can be eaten raw, fried, baked or boiled. On the other hand the growing of
bottle-gourds is engaged in primarily for the supply of fruit with edible pulp. In a
temperate climate, these are grown only rarely, given the thermal requirements,
even as this crop is tolerant from the point of view of soil quality.
7 Crop-Growing
91
While the European Union production of crops of this group increased in the
analysed period, there was a major decline in the CEECs. By 2018, the region
accounted for around 10% of overall production in the EU.Markedly the largest
producer in the region is Poland, which accounts for 53% of overall production.
Another relatively major producer of squashes and related vegetables is Bulgaria,
which accounts for 14% of all production.
Spinach is one of the vegetables cultivated most widely, very much prized for its
leaves with their high contents of vitamins, protein, dietary bre and carotenoids.
The leaves can be consumed raw or cooked. The growing of spinach is not a costly
endeavour, the growing season being a mere 60days– possible through most of the
year. This is a matter of signicance as the fresh leaves are considered to contain far
more of the most valuable nutrients present. However, fertile, non-acid soils are a
requirement.
In spite of these various advantages, the CEECs supply just 2.4% of the total
amount of spinach grown across the EU. The main producer here is anyway
Hungary, which grows as much as 60% of the region’s spinach.
The region also engages in the growing of (still smaller amounts of) vegetables
like asparagus and artichokes. In the case of the former, the edible part is the young
stem of a plant hailing from the Mediterranean region but now cultivated over much
of Europe, and on other continents too. This species likes fertile soils, but it needs
them to be dry and slightly alkaline. Plentiful sunlight is a further requirement. As
of 2018, the CEECs were growing just 5.2% of the EU’s asparagus crop. Within that
total, the key producers are Bulgaria and Hungary– together accounting for 73%.
The region is even less signicant when it comes to (so-called globe) artichokes,
given that just 0.13% of the EU total is grown here. Within that tiny share, as much
as 88% originates in Romania, though Lithuania also grows the vegetable in some-
what greater quantities. In no other countries in the region does this species play any
kind of signicant role.
Fruit
So called hard fruit is the sub-category of the greatest (and still-growing) economic
signicance to the CEECs. This means apples and pears, but also the stone fruits
like cherries (sour and sweet), plums, apricots, peaches and nectarines. The CEECs
together form one of the world’s most important regions for growing these crops,
and the region literally has the largest area anywhere given over to the cultivation of
the different species and varieties of apple. The prevalent produce takes the form of
apples for consumption fresh, however a further issue of great signicance is the use
of apples in both juice- and jam-making. Recent years have also produced a dra-
matic increase in the level of interest in cider. As of 2018, the CEECs accounted for
around 42% of overall EU production of apples. In the whole world, Poland is third
only to China and the USA in apple-growing, making it easily the key producer in
both the EU and the region including the CEECs (accounting for 29 and 68% shares
respectively) (Fig.7.16).
Fruit
92
Pears are also eaten as they are, even as they also nd their way into various
processed food products. As the requirements regarding warmth are somewhat more
exacting, pear-growing does not take place as far north as the cultivation of apples.
Pears also require a fertile soil. Over the last 30years or so, the CEECs have actu-
ally been producing fewer and fewer pears– and by 2018 the region’s share of
overall EU output was at just around 7.7%. The main producers are Poland (again),
but also Romania– and together the two countries account for around 76% of all the
pears the region harvests.
The quince is a fruit made highly palatable by cooking, and gaining various uses
including in jam-making. A fertile soil is needed, and this must always be moist.
This is combined with a need for large amounts of light, in a fruit-tree species that
is not very frost-resistant. Given these demands, it is perhaps not surprising that
quince-growing has been in decline in recent decades, in the wider EU and also in
the CEECs. The latter currently accounts for 29% of production within the former.
The EU’s number-one grower is Spain, but that is followed by Romania, whose
share of the CEEC total is at some 63%. A further major player in this respect is
Hungary, which grows around 26% of all the EU’s quinces.
The production of sour and sweet cherries goes mainly for the making of pre-
serves. The former species arose in the rst place through hybridisation between the
sweet or bird cherry and the dwarf cherry, and on this basis it is a more-tolerant tree
that can therefore be grown further north. The species does best on light soils, hence
its relative drought-tolerance, even as it is vulnerable to frosts. The best results are
obtained in sunny spots. As noted above, the fruit goes into jams, juices, wines and
liqueurs, with only a small share of output assigned to consumption in the raw state.
Cherry wood is also a valuable resource, being both hard and easy to work. Uses
include the manufacture of furniture and musical instruments, though a characteris-
tic pleasing aroma also assures its value in the smoking of meats. As of 2018, as
Fig. 7.16 Change in the area assigned to fruit cultivation in selected CEECs
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
7 Crop-Growing
93
much as 91% of the EU’s sour-cherry production was taking place in the CEECs.
The number-3 producer in the world (after Russia and Ukraine) is Poland, which
accounts for 60% of production in the EU as a whole. Elsewhere, Hungary stands
out rather for supplying around 25% of the overall crop.
Sweet cherries gain much more widespread use in the fresh-fruit state, though
they also go into jams, wines and drinks. As of 2018, the CEECs were responsible
for 35% of overall output in the EU, with the largest producer– Romania– taking
third place in the Union after Italy and Spain. Many sweet cherries are also grown
in Poland and Bulgaria, with the effect that the three countries referred to supply
92% of the overall production of this fruit in the region under study.
Different types of plum and sloe are also sold regularly in the raw state or dried
(e.g. as prunes). Otherwise they may go into the production of alcoholic beverages.
The CEECs together take a 62% share of the overall production of such fruit in the
European Union. The world’s number-2 producer (after China) is Romania, which
accounts for 48% of output in this category across the EU as a whole.
Apricots, peaches and nectarines are the stone-fruits regarded as most demand-
ing from the point of view of thermal conditions. They are usually dried or assigned
to the production of alcoholic beverages or other processed forms. As of 2018, the
CEECs were the source of about 10% of all the apricots produced in the EU.This
kind of growing is mainly a feature of the region’s south-eastern corner, with the
main producer being Romania– the supplier of 50% of all the apricots the region
grows. Further relatively major producers are Hungary and Bulgaria, together
accounting for 39% of the production.
Peaches and nectarines in turn represent varieties of the same species of fruit
tree, and they differ from apricots in mainly being consumed in the fresh (raw) state,
only more rarely being turned into jam, juice, compotes or liqueurs, or else being
dried to produce a cake-baking ingredient. The cultivation of peaches and nectarines
demands plenty of sunshine and warmth– on soils that should be nutrient-rich as
well as being light. Growing in a temperate climate can be held back by the appear-
ance of spring frosts. While output of peaches and nectarines increased across the
area of today’s EU, the region encompassing the CEECs experienced a decline in
the 1990s. So only around 3% of current EU production actually originates in the
region under study. The growing of these types of fruit concentrates mainly in the
SE, with the region’s main producers being Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, as
together accounting for 78% of all production. A large amount of fruit of these spe-
cies also comes from Slovenia.
Of lesser signicance where the breakdown of agricultural output in the region is
concerned are various small fruits and berries. This is in part a reection of the
major outlays of labour needed with such species, as opposed to in the case of
harder and larger fruits.
Strawberries are naturally a regional favourite under widespread cultivation, and
continuing to display an upward trend. The growing season is short, though the soil
requirements are not very exacting. While apparently ubiquitous, strawberries from
the CEECs represent a mere 19% of the European Union output (even as they take
a 55% share where raspberries are concerned). In both cases Poland is the key
Fruit
94
producer, and in fact no state anywhere in the EU grows more raspberries (with
Poland taking a 50% share of Union-wide production). In the case of EU strawberry-
growing, Poland is only surpassed by Spain, though its share of overall EU output
looks less impressive. Within our region, however, the Polish share in the produc-
tion of strawberries stands at 80%.
Currants are mainly of the red and black species, which grow best in moist soils
and prove rather frost-resistant. The fruit generated mainly goes into jams, juices,
compotes, wines and liqueurs – with a (surprisingly) small share actually being
consumed in the raw state. What is more, the growing of these kinds of fruit in the
EU has declined greatly (even if the process is slower in the CEECs). Hence the
region’s capacity to provide more than 78% of all the currants grown in the
EU.Poland is again the world’s number-2 producer (after Russia), which obviously
ensures the country lead place in the EU.As much as 75% of overall EU production
in fact comes from Poland.
Gooseberries are related to currants, and tend to nd similar uses. The bushes
nevertheless have stricter requirements when it comes to the fertility and humidity
of soils, and they also show a preference for mild acidity. Unlike currants, gooseber-
ries are being grown in steadily declining quantity in the CEECs, which today
account for around 12% of EU output. The lead position in the region (and in fact a
93% share) is again taken by Poland, which is third only to Germany and Russia in
the entire world.
Blueberries are an edible fruit eaten raw or processed into preserves. The CEECs
produce 23% of the entire EU crop, with Poland clearly the major producer in the
region. The country supplies 95% of the region’s output, thereby placing it second
in the EU as a whole after Spain. A relative is the cranberry, which supplies edible
fruits also made over into jellies and sauces served with game or turkey. The species
is also used in the manufacture of cosmetics and medicines. However, production in
the European Union is in decline, and concentrated almost entirely in the CEECs.
The main producers of cranberries in the EU are Romania and Latvia, from which
as much as 92% of overall production derives.
Grapes are a popular crop in the region and are present wherever the natural
conditions allow. The limit value for such vine-growing is a harvest-period (i.e. in
the CEECs a September) temperature above 12°C.That harvest is likely to be good
where there is the sunny late-summer and early-autumn weather most typical for the
Mediterranean. Furthermore, the soil will need to be well-drained, and the site
sunny. Hence the famous link between vine-growing and south-facing slopes.
Requirements as regards soil are on the other hand limited, while the plants are
drought-resistant to the point where sites unsuitable for other kinds of crop can be
planted up. Grapes are mostly grown for winemaking, though desert grapes are
consumed as they are, while other varieties are grown for drying– to make raisins,
sultanas and so on. Grapes also go into juices, jams, vinegar, seed oil and further
types of alcoholic drink. Residue from the pressing of grapes joins the leaves in fod-
der for animals. And the nature of the grapes grown can differ quite markedly in line
with even limited differences in natural conditions and weather present from place
to place but also year to year.
7 Crop-Growing
95
The CEECs generate just 8.5% of the tonnage of grapes grown in the EU, and the
northern limit for cultivation is basically reached along the southern slopes of the
Sudety and Carpathian Mountains. Clearly the largest producer in the region is
Romania, where vineyards are mainly situated on the south-facing Carpathian
slopes, in Transylvania and Dobruja. Romania is able to account for around half of
the region’s production. A further major operator in winemaking is Hungary, which
is known for types of wine grown around Tokay and Eger, as well as by the shore of
Lake Balaton. In fact, however, the whole of Hungary engages in vine cultivation,
albeit with lower-quality plants on the less-fertile soils. Hungary produces 23% of
the grapes originating in the CEECs, with the next place in the ranking from this
point of view taken by Slovenia.
In Croatia as of 2012, some 29,000ha was under vines, making this the country’s
key cultivated fruit (The Agriculture… 2015)– if mainly a matter for small farms
growing to meet their own needs. According to I.Pohajda (2013), while most (i.e.
around 150,000) Croatian farms have a registered vineyard area, in more than 95%
of cases the area involved is of 0.5ha or less, hence “hobby” status and meeting the
needs of the farm and its neighbourhood. In contrast, winemaking for the market is
concentrated into the hands of some 30 enterprises, 35 production Cooperatives and
around 250 individual-level producers.
The warmest parts of the region also allow for the cultivation of watermelons, as
a member of the cucumber family. These are warmth- and light-loving plants that
require large amounts of water, even as they are drought-resistant to some extent.
Optimal effects are achieved in fertile soils. A particularly marked increase in out-
put was noted in the 1990s, and the region under study currently accounts for some
26% of the EU total. Watermelon-growing is concentrated in our region’s south-
eastern and central parts, with decidedly the most major producer being Romania
(accounting for 63% of the total). After that, it is Hungary that supplies most of this
fruit, with its 21% share of overall production in the region.
To be mentioned among the remaining fruits the region grows are two main
kinds of nut, i.e. walnuts and hazelnuts. The walnut is a thermophilous and light-
demanding boradleaved tree that is even present in the wild state in the Balkans. The
fruit is a rich source of nourishment, while the wood is prized by furniture-makers.
The most effective cultivation is again achieved on fertile soils. The CEECs together
supply about 39% of all walnuts produced in the EU, with the major producer again
being Romania (accounting for 27% of the EU total, and around 70% of all that is
grown in the studied region).
In our part of Europe, interest in growing hazelnuts was seen to rise in the anal-
ysed period. Indeed, while the increase in the level of production has been long-
term, the last decade saw the upward trend in the region maintained– to the extent
that output actually doubled. At present, the CEECs under study account for around
6% of the hazelnuts grown EU-wide, while the popularity of this kind of crop-
growing is very much determined by CAP payments. Poland is this region’s main
producer, accounting for 65% of the regional total, while Croatia is worth mention-
ing among the remaining states, being responsible for a further 17%.
Fruit
96
The signicance when it comes to EU production of other fruit is indeed limited,
with just 4.4% of its melons grown here, 1.5% of the overall crop of gs, 0.63% of
the sweet chestnuts, 0.48% of the persimmons, 0.31% of the almonds and– 0.05%
of the kiwi fruits.
Melons are species of cucumber with large, round edible fruits mainly eaten as
they are, in the raw state. The years since the 1990s have brought a decline in melon
production in the CEECs, with this helping to account for a decline in the region’s
role vis-à-vis that of the EU from 30% in 1991 (of course at a time prior to acces-
sion) down to 4.4% in 2018. The region’s main producer of melons is Romania,
which accounts for 80% of the total. Almost the entire remaining involvement of the
region in melon-growing is attributable to Hungary.
Figs are common fruits of the mulberry family that are quite widespread around
the Mediterranean. They are consumed raw or after processing, for example repre-
senting a cake or jam ingredient, and sometimes also going into compotes or wines.
The g tree also gains widespread use as a windbreak tree surrounding vineyards.
EU-wide production of gs has fallen in recent decades, while in our region produc-
tion is very largely focused in countries of the former Yugoslavia. Indeed, as many
as 96% of all gs produced originate in Croatia, with the rest being grown in
Slovenia.
Sweet chestnuts are in essence fruit trees of the beech family. The “nuts” can be
eaten fresh and raw, after drying, after roasting or in various preserved forms. In
Hungary and Slovakia they are made into a paste used in both cakes and meat dishes.
Markedly the region’s biggest producer is Bulgaria (56%), while Slovenia takes a
major share of the rest– being responsible for 24% of regional output.
The Japanese persimmon or kaki (best known in some countries by the trade
name” Sharon fruit”) grows on a tree cultivable in southern parts of Europe. The
fruit can be eaten raw or after drying. Interest in cultivating this species in the coun-
tries now forming the European Union grew post-1989, though it was only in the
rst years of the twenty-rst century that it reached our region’s only grower –
Slovenia. And even as of 2018, the only other EU countries to really engage in the
cultivation of the persimmon are Spain and Italy.
Almonds are eaten as they are or else processed. By far our region’s main pro-
ducer of them is Bulgaria, from which some 88% of all those produced derive.
Edible kiwi fruits are produced by several different woody plants of the genus
Actinidia. Given the way they may be stored for rather a long time without more
major loss of nutritional value, kiwi fruits are above all eaten in the fresh state, also
in fruit salads. Only more rarely are they turned into jams, juices, liqueurs and spar-
kling wines. The CEECs began to grow this species from 2003 onwards, and clearly
the major producer here is Slovenia, which accounts for 76% of the regional total.
Bulgaria is responsible for most of the remaining production.
There are parts of the studied region– mainly warm areas of Croatia– in which
small quantities of citrus fruit are grown. These are mandarins, clementines, oranges,
lemons and limes. Mandarins have by the far greatest signicance among the citrus
the region produces. They differ from oranges in size terms, and (often) in allowing
for easier separation of fruit from peel. They are mainly consumed in the raw state,
7 Crop-Growing
97
though part of the production is earmarked for preserves, mainly jams. Clementines
arose through hybridisation between mandarins and bitter oranges. Oranges are
mainly used raw, as well as in juice-making, and more rarely in the manufacture of
marmalades and candied peels for cake-making. Their cultivation requires a high
temperature, sunshine and a large amount of water. Lemons are the citrus fruits
most resistant to low temperatures. However, they require light soils and regular
precipitation. Limes are less vitamin-rich and less sensitive to unfavourable habitat
conditions. Lemons and limes are mainly used in the production of juices, drinks,
citric acid and ethereal oils. The production of lemons and limes in Croatia has
declined, much more than in the remaining areas of the EU.However, this was never
a major region for the production of citrus fruit in Europe, and even today Croatia
only takes a 1.6% share of EU mandarin and clementine production, a 0.007% share
when it comes to oranges, and 0.02% shares of the production of lemons and limes.
Drugs andSpices
The only stimulant produced on a larger scale in the CEECs is tobacco. However,
quality is very much dependent on natural conditions, and a general statement might
be that cultivation is possible in a temperate climate, where there is meetings of
requirements regarding a fertile if light soil, considerable amounts of heat and sun-
light, a lack of ground frosts in late spring and early autumn and stability of humid-
ity achieved without many of the downpours capable of damaging leaves. The
growing season should be of 150days or more. The many varieties adapted to local
conditions are of diverse properties when it comes to the size and exibility of
leaves, as well as the nicotine content. Tobacco grown on more permeable soil is
lighter and serves in the production of cigarettes, while the crop produced in more
compact soils is heavier and used in pipes. Given the need for planting by hand and
working of the soil, tobacco-growing is a labour-intensive option. Alongside
American varieties, Brazilian or Aztec tobacco is grown for its enhanced amounts
of nicotine– as used for example in the manufacture of snuff.
In the last few decades, there has been a decline in the amount of tobacco pro-
duced among the CEECs– something that can be seen as pointing to the changed
signicance of the agriculture and food sector in the region. In 1972 (which marked
a kind of peak of development for this much-subsidised sector in the context of the
communist-era economy), the CEECs accounted for no less than 53% of all the
tobacco grown in the area equivalent to today’s EU. In contrast, the year 2000,
which more or less brought an end to the restructuring of agriculture, and its adapta-
tion to the requirements of the free-market economy plus EU Common Agricultural
Policy, saw our region responsible for just 21%. In subsequent years, the level of
production fell yet further, with record lows hit again and again. By 2018, the level
was down to just 14% of what it had been at the time of the 1970s peak. Equally, as
the decline in output to be noted in Western Europe since the start of the new cen-
tury has been even more intense, the paradoxical effect is that the share of EU
Drugs andSpices
98
output accounted for by the CEECs increased through the 2000–2018 period– from
21 to 32%.
As a general rule, tobacco cultivation can be said to take place mainly in the sun-
niest areas. However, it is not just the level of production of tobacco in the CEECs
that has been changing, as recent decades have also brought change when it comes
to the shares accounted for by different varieties. Above all, there has been a steady
decline in the share taken by the so-called Aztec tobacco.
Furthermore, tobacco-growing in the region has gone through a signicant trans-
formation where its distribution and centre of gravity are concerned. From the 1960s
onwards, the major producers were Bulgaria and Poland. Bulgaria in fact led,
through to the early 1990s; though in any case the overall share accounted for by the
two countries taken together was of 67% in 1963 and of 79% in 1970. However, the
transformation of the early 1990s had a particularly unfavourable impact on tobacco-
growing in Bulgaria. So it was that, in 1994, Poland for the rst time grew more
tobacco than any other country in its region, even as the share accounted for by the
two countries together had fallen to 58% by 1995. However, Bulgaria then rebuilt its
levels of production, to the point where post-1996 it was again responsible for the
largest harvests anywhere in the region. Before it acceded to the EU in 2006,
Bulgaria took a dominant position in the region, in 2003 and 2004 achieving a
record ca. 54% share of all production. Then, post-accession, the production of
tobacco in Bulgaria fell back once more, allowing Poland to resume its position as
regional leader, as it were by default, given the fact that production of tobacco there
had stabilised. Currently, the country stands out as markedly the leading producer of
tobacco in the CEECs (with a 59% share). Even in the EU as a whole, Poland comes
second only to Italy from this point of view. Among the remaining countries, the
main producers are Bulgaria (with a 15% share) and Croatia (13%). Bulgaria’s
tobacco cultivation is concentrated in the southern part of the country, where the
specialisation is in aromatic oriental tobaccos (which are costlier, and low- yielding).
In contrast, in Croatia it is varieties of American origin that prevail.
The common hop is a perennial species belonging to the hemp family which is
grown for its cone-shaped fruits. In essence these are used familiarly as a spice in
the brewing industry; but also in medicine and in the manufacture of cosmetics.
Success with the growing of this crop is achieved in sunny places and on fertile soils
of somewhat alkaline reaction. The CEECs together take a 23% share of the EU
total. The region’s main producers– together supplying 79% of all output– are the
Czech Republic and Slovenia. The two countries join Poland as the three following
on behind Germany alone as principal producer in the European Union.
Only of much lesser signicance in the region is the growing of herbs and
spices– never an activity engaged in on any kind of mass-production scale, and
rather local in signicance. That said, the key point here is of course the lucrative
nature of what can be grown even over a very small area. Hence the share in terms
of the value of what is produced is far higher than the share of the area of arable
land. Furthermore, in the majority of cases, the species grown in our region for this
purpose do not have very specic requirements when it comes to natural condi-
tions– hence the possibility of their being cultivated in various different areas. Even
7 Crop-Growing
99
preservation measures are not too special once plants have been harvested, while
what is produced is light enough to make even very long-distance transport a fea-
sible and straightforward option. Crops in this group include the opium poppy,
whose seeds are consumed, while the oil derived from them has both technological
and medicinal applications. The residue remaining after pressing can serve as nutri-
tious fodder for livestock.
Output of this particular crop is increasing in the EU (within its present border),
as well as across the CEECs. In fact, the region under study generates 54% of all the
poppy seeds produced in the Union. Very clearly the key producer from this point of
view is the Czech Republic, which accounts for 54%. Indeed, in the entire world,
that country is second only to Turkey. Poppies are also grown in relatively large
numbers in Croatia and Slovakia.
Many members of the umbellifer family are also included in this category, not
least caraway and cumin, coriander, aniseed, fennel, dill and samphire. The seeds
and dried fruits are what gain use in consumption. It is the leaves that are consumed
in the case of thyme, marjoram, rosemary, peppermint and bayleaf.
The region under study is an important producer of the (carrot-family) umbelli-
fers in particular, with a 75% share accounted for within the EU.Most of the species
referred to in fact originate around the Mediterranean, hence a somewhat higher
level of production in warmer southern parts. The highest level is achieved by
Bulgaria, Hungary and Lithuania. From this point of view, Bulgaria is in fact the
leader in the entire EU, while Hungary and Lithuania only (also) come below Spain
in the ranking. It is from these countries alone that as much as 63% of the overall
production of umbellifer crops takes place.
Those in search of a stronger taste will often turn to white mustard, which our
region does produce, as well as various types of strong pepper, produced from dried
and ground fruits. White mustard is a member of the cabbage family whose seeds
are added as a spice in mustard, marinades, meat and other dishes, as well as serving
medicinal purposes. Young plants can also serve as animal feed. Post-1989, this
region’s production of mustard actually rose, so at present 47% of total EU output
is accounted for. Decidedly the leading producer of white mustard in the region is
the Czech Republic, which produces 53% of the regional total. From this point of
view, the country is only outranked by France. A rather large amount is also pro-
duced in one further CEEC, i.e. Slovakia.
Peppers are imbued with their strong avour thanks to the presence of capsaicin
in the fruit. While in fact an analgesic, this also irritates the skin and mucous mem-
brane, in turn generating a sensation of heat there. As of 2018, the CEECs accounted
for as much as 92% of overall EU production of dried hot pepper, as well as 17% of
the harvest where fresh hot pepper is concerned. Clearly the most major producer of
the former in Europe is Romania, which takes a 62% share. Among remaining EU
Member States, Hungary is responsible for a high level of production– on 24%.
Romania is also markedly the region’s leading producer of fresh hot pepper,
accounting for 53% of the total. In turn, it is from Hungary that around 26% of the
production of this kind of spice derives.
Drugs andSpices
100
Another strong spice is peppermint, derived from a plant that is not demanding
and has a level of frost-resistance sufcient to allow for cultivation all around the
CEECs. However, it still does best on fertile soils and in sunny sites. This is never-
theless a plant whose cultivation is becoming less popular around the EU, even as
the situation in Bulgaria has actually been the reverse. In the rst years of the
twenty-rst century, production increased there, to the point where a 95% share of
output within the EU was achieved in 2010. This dominance was not quite main-
tained, with Bulgaria currently producing around 56% of the Union’s peppermint.
Chicory is a plant of the daisy family that supplies leaves and root tops for con-
sumption. Herbalists make use of it, it can form a spice, and the ground and roasted
roots may represent a key component of roasted grain drink (as a substitute for cof-
fee). However, the period since the 1990s has brought a steady decline in the
amounts of chicory root produced in the CEECs– to the point where the region
accounts for just 3.3% of the output achieved by the European Union as a whole.
Within that total, Poland is markedly the most major producer, responsible for 75%.
The rest of the production comes mainly from Croatia.
Fungi have long formed part of the traditional cuisine in Central and Eastern
Europe, but always tended to be picked fresh from the countryside. Only rather
recently has commercial cultivation begun, above all of common mushrooms, oys-
ter mushrooms and trufes. And the production of mushrooms in the CEECs has
increased far more rapidly than elsewhere in the EU.While the region accounted for
13% of the EU total as 2001, that gure has already reached 27%. Poland is leading
the way, as it is responsible for no less than 83% of the region’s production. That
leaves it as second only to The Netherlands within the European Union.
Crops Grown toProduce Sugar
The crop grown to produce sugar in the region, as in the rest of Europe, is sugar
beet. Levels of production of sugar from the saccharose present in the roots of this
crop species depend on the price relationship with sugar cane, which can enjoy an
advantage given the lower costs of labour in countries in which it is cultivated. In
turn, beet-sugar can gain the advantage where transport costs are low– given that
the crop may often be grown close to major sources of demand. It is on this kind of
basis that trading conditions for sugar produced from beet are determined, though
even then the market for sugar in the EU is not a free one as production quotas are
in place, and do have an impact on the behaviour of farmers. As of 2016, the highest
shares of production had been achieved by France (31%), Germany (23%) and
Poland (12%).
Sugar beet is a rather frost-resistant crop, though it does require 5months with-
out ground frosts, a growing season of duration 180days or more, and a soil that is
fertile but not heavy. Good results tend to be obtained were rainfall is spread out
rather evenly through the growing season, albeit with a sunny summer of average
temperature 20°C or so, and a dry autumn. In any case, this is a labour-intensive
7 Crop-Growing
101
crop, as various tending measures– and even harvesting– may often need to be
done by hand. As was suggested above, a key location factor for the growing of
sugar beet is the presence of a beet factory in the vicinity. That in turn reects the
bulky nature of this root crop, which leaves transport over longer distances uneco-
nomical. The opportunity to use leaves and pulp as fodder for livestock encourages
location of the latter industry in the vicinity of areas where sugar beet is grown.
Further by-products may be molasses (black treacle), which can be used in spirit
distilling, as well as yeast.
The CEECs take a 19% share in the overall production of sugar beet in the
EU.And Poland is the Union’s third-largest producer, after France and Germany;
while it accounts for 62% of the regional total.
Crops Grown forTheir Oil
The most important oil-producing crop in the world is the soybean (or soya bean),
which within our region is mainly conned to the south. Its high protein content
ensures its status as an important component of animal feed, as well as a key food
for human beings. Extracts from this crop go into a great many different food prod-
ucts, the effect being to raise their nutritional value. But soya is above all used in the
production of oil. The region of interest here supplies 37% of the soya grown in the
EU, with the leading producers being Romania (second only to Italy anywhere in
the EU) and Croatia. Together, the two countries referred to account for 68% of the
soya beans grown in the region.
Oilseed rape and turnip rape (or eld mustard) are the region’s key oleiferous
(oil-producing) crops. Cooking fats– like margarine– are also made from them,
while rape oil goes into biofuels (biodiesel). The pressed remnants can provide fod-
der for animals, while the owers are also important as they are frequented by bees
and turned into honey.
Post-1989, there was a marked increase in the level of production of both rape
and eld mustard across the area that is today’s EU, as well as in Central Europe–
even as there were major uctuations in trading conditions where rapeseed was
concerned. Indeed, price uctuations are capable of altering the area under this crop
markedly from 1 year to the next. A distinct increase of interest in growing rape fol-
lowed on from the CEECs’ incorporation within European Union structures. Thanks
to Community farm policy, the growing of rape became a far more viable proposi-
tion economically, and this was above all thanks to increased demand in the manu-
facturing of biofuels (Fig.7.17).
The CEECs currently contribute 41% to the overall EU harvest of this crop. The
largest producers of rape and turnip rape are Poland, Romania and the Czech
Republic– from which (altogether) 64% of overall regional output derives. Poland,
as the region’s leading producer of rape, comes third in the EU after France and
Germany.
Crops Grown forTheir Oil
102
Of comparable signicance is the production of the edible oil that derives from
sunower-growing. This is used as an edible fat and in margarine-making, but also
in technological contexts, e.g. in the manufacture of soap. The seeds also serve in
smaller amounts as a vegetable. Furthermore, as a by-product, this species gains use
in animal feed as residue after seed-pressing, along with leaves and stems. It is easy
to grow, but does prefer more fertile soils and sunny spots. It is drought-resistant,
and, given that kind of resilience, the crop is mainly cultivated in areas too dry to
allow other oil-producing crops to be grown. In the period under analysis, the pro-
duction of sunower seeds rose more in our region that in the remaining part of the
EU as it is construed today. As of 2018, the CEECs were taking a 72% share of the
total production of sunower seeds in the Union. It is in our region that the EU’s
three main producers of sunowers are to be found, i.e. Romania, Bulgaria and
Hungary (which together account for as much as 68% of union-wide output).
Romania and Hungary are also some of the key exporters of sunower oil anywhere
in the world (Fig.7.18).
The peanut is a plant of the pea and bean family that differs from other members
in being cultivated primarily for the production of oil. In smaller amounts, the nuts
are also eaten raw as a vegetable, or else roasted and salted as a snack. Peanut butter
can also be made from them. The Balkans once represented one of the world’s more
major peanut-growing regions, but there then came a time when the activity started
to decline and even vanish. As of now, the region takes just a 12% share in EU pea-
nut production. The leading grower here is Bulgaria, but in the EU it takes third
place in this respect– after Greece and Spain.
An oil-yielding plant of limited importance in the region is safower. The seeds
are used in the production of the oil referred to, while the owers provide a dye used
in paintmaking. Cultivation was commenced with in Hungary in the early 1990s,
Fig. 7.17 Changes in the area planted with rape in selected CEECs
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
7 Crop-Growing
103
but the area involved remains small. Thus, while even here the effort is of local
reach only, the country is still the only producer in the EU other than Spain.
The only crop yielding oil that derives from plants grown long-term (sometimes
very much so) is the olive; and this species is conned to the southernmost areas of
our region, where a subtropical maritime climate is able to penetrate. The land
involved is mainly unsuited to other kinds of crop, with varied relief. The species is
characterised by both a wide-ranging root system and leathery leaves, and together
these adaptations allow it to persist through dry and hot periods, even where slopes
are present, and soils shallow and stony. However, the cultivation of olives requires
major inputs of labour at harvest time, with output mostly going into the production
of the valuable, delicate olive oil. However, olives as fruit may also be dried, salted
or marinated.
All that said, our region takes just a 0.24% share of the overall production of
olives across the EU.Within that total, the absolutely dominant producer is Croatia,
which takes an 88% regional share. The remainder of the production originates in
Slovenia.
Oil is also a by-product of the growing of certain plants otherwise known mainly
for the way they generate bres, such as ax or hemp. Large-seeded varieties of ax
offer far greater opportunities for oil-production, which involves pressing of the
seeds. These varieties also tend to be more resistant to high temperatures and a dry
climate, with the production of linseed oil therefore playing a more major role in the
southern part of the region. An important property of the oil obtained from ax
relates to the way it dries rapidly. This leaves it as a component valuable in the pro-
duction of paints, lacquers, oilcloths and so on, as well as– in smaller quantities–
soap. Only a small amount of linseed oil is actually consumed. In the region, the
1990s brought a far more rapid decline in the level of production in the CEECs than
elsewhere in Europe. Currently the region supplies around 12% of all the linseed
Fig. 7.18 Changes in areas planted with sunowers in selected CEECs
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
Crops Grown forTheir Oil
104
produced in The EU.The largest producer is Poland, which accounts for 45% of the
overall total regionally.
Oil produced from hemp is also usually a by-product, such that cultivation
mainly dedicated to the production of oil is a rarity. Hempseed oil has similar prop-
erties to linseed oil, but is of far more limited regional signicance. It is mainly used
to make soap and fuel, just like linseed oil. Only a small amount of what is produced
is consumed. While the area today making up the EU witnessed a major increase in
the level of production of hempseed oil in the 1990s (primarily as a reection of a
new use as an additive to biofuel), among the CEECs the level of output fell mark-
edly at the same time. The region’s share in the production of this oil thus declined
to as little as 0.40%. Its leading producer of hempseed oil is Hungary, with a 78%
regional share. Small quantities of the plant are also grown in Romania and Poland.
The cultivation of cotton in this part of Europe is much hindered by the cool
climate. In consequence, the species is grown as an oil-yielding plant only, and
anyway conned to places with a growing season longer than 200days. It also
requires a high level of humidity in the phase of development, as well as dry weather
at harvest time. Cottonseed oil is used in the food industry, in the manufacture of
margarines and other cooking fats. Remnants of pressed seeds go into animal feed
or manure. In the period under analysis, cotton production declined in both the EU
within its present borders and the CEECs. However, reference to the EU in fact
denotes just three countries, i.e. Greece and Spain as the main producers, with third
place in the Union now taken by Bulgaria, on account of Romania’s total with-
drawal from cotton cultivation at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries. Even in
Bulgaria, the signicance of cottonseed production is extremely limited, given that
the country accounted for just 0.3% of overall output as of 2018.
Crops Grown forTheir Fibre
The world’s most important crop grown for its (durable, low-cost and diverse) bres
is cotton– a species adapted to a variety of different climatic conditions. However,
this is mainly a crop for Bulgaria and southern Romania (into which areas it was
introduced by the Turks). At the present time, production of this group has more or
less been abandoned. As with the production of cottonseed, so also the growing of
this species for its bres is continued with by just three countries in the EU, with the
clear leaders from this point of view being Greece and Spain, as joined by just one
country from among the CEECs, i.e. Bulgaria. However, where bre production is
concerned, the share of the EU total is still-smaller, at just 0.21%. Though cotton
does not have especially rened needs when it comes to the soil, a fundamental
limitation in the region is an excessively long cool period during the year, as well as
insufcient sunshine. A further obstacle is rainy weather as the plants are maturing,
which has the effect of darkening the bres. Overall, the natural conditions here
ensure that the valuable long bres are basically not obtained in cultivation of the
species.
7 Crop-Growing
105
Far greater signicance as a bre-generating crop is achieved by ax, which
grows best in a cool and rather moist climate. Flax shows considerable tolerance
when it comes to soil conditions, but a downside is the extremely labour-intensive
nature of both the cultivation process and the way in which the bres are obtained.
Consecutively, the harvested crop is dried, threshed (or rippled), moistened for the
purpose of retting, broken and scotched, before the bres are combed and sorted.
Nevertheless, while linen bres are far more expensive to produce than those of cot-
ton, this can be justied by the more-extensive nature of the product and its resis-
tance to damp. Linen can therefore be an ideal material for making thread, string
and rope. In contrast, its use in the manufacture of cloth is rarer and rarer. As recently
as in the 1970s, Poland was a leader in the production of ax and linen. However, it
lost out more and more in terms of protability as linen was compared with articial
bres, cotton or wool, and the result was a dramatic decline year after year. Other
countries in the central part of our region faced rather similar circumstances, not
least the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Hungary. Indeed, while the period
under analysis actually brought a marked increase in the production of linen in the
EU as a whole, the disappearance from the CEECs was almost total, so that the
signicance is much more limited than in the case of the manufacture of linseed oil.
So currently it accounts for just 0.073% of the overall production of linen bres and
tow in the EU.In any case, the effort to generate these products in the CEECs is
distributed very differently from that involving the cultivation of ax to make lin-
seed oil. While the seeds are mainly produced in Poland, the main producers of
linen and tow are Latvia and Romania, together accounting for 57% of regional
output. Remaining somewhat more major producers are Bulgaria (with 17% of the
regional total) and Slovakia (16%).
Hemp bres– which are obtained from the stems of the plant– are similar in
their properties to ax bres and are used to make rope, lines, sacks, paper, and
canvas for sails. The processing of the harvested crop also resembles that applying
in the case of ax. The seeds used to produce oil or bird-food most often represent
a by-product. Where amounts of moisture are high and soil fertile, it is possible to
grow these Cannabis plants even where the growing season is of as few as 120days
a year. That provides for the possibility of cultivation even in the northernmost areas
of our region. However, the cool climate in the Baltic countries does have an impact,
in that yields are lower than further south. As with ax, so also with hemp, both the
cultivation of the plant and obtainment of bre from it are time-consuming and
expensive, leaving the end product largely uncompetitive in terms of price. This is
why the production of hemp in our region remains small in scale– and has indeed
declined quite markedly in the last 3 decades. Notwithstanding this fall, the fact that
ax production has collapsed even more visibly means that hemp is anyway the
most important bre-producing crop in our region. And while the CEECs grow ax
above all for its seeds and to make oil, hemp plays a much more major role where
bres are concerned. Currently, our region supplies a 14% share in overall EU pro-
duction (while the comparable gure for 1989 would have been at close to 100%).
As with ax, the distribution differs in line with the designation, with easily the
main producer of hemp for bres being Romania (accounting for 75%), as com-
pared with Hungary playing the key role when it comes to seed production.
Crops Grown forTheir Fibre
107© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Bański, M. Mazur, Transformation of Agricultural Sector in the Central and
Eastern Europe after 1989, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73766-5_8
Chapter 8
Livestock-Rearing
The agricultural output that takes animal form is by denition a secondary one,
given that it involves animals in the processing of products of plant origin. This is in
some sense less efcient than direct human consumption of plants for nutrition,
though animal products are of greater nutritional value, above all from the point of
view of their protein and fat content. Key animal products do not merely take the
form of meat, as there is also milk, as well as bres, eggs, skin and fur. It is worth
recalling here that more major factors inuencing species diversity among livestock
animals (especially those raised for meat) take the form of customs and religious
practices. As it happens, these play less of a role in the region under study that they
do, for example, along the Deccan Peninsula, or around the Middle East. Most of
the animals reared in the region provide meat, though milk also of course comes
from cows, as well as goats and sheep in far more limited quantities. Hides, skins
and fur are also among the products provided by a majority of animals that are
farmed, while bres derive from sheep, rabbits and goats in the main. Different
kinds of poultry supply both meat and eggs, though the latter derive to a very great
extent from hens. Also of a certain amount of signicance in the case of poultry are
the feathers that can be plucked from these birds. Bees in turn provide honey and
wax, while most livestock animals supply manure as a form of fertiliser
by-product.
In the region, the keeping and raising of farm animals is primarily a matter of the
supply of meat and milk; as well as eggs, hides and honey to a far more limited
extent. Within the EU, the largest numbers of head of livestock are present in Spain,
Germany, France, the UK (now exiting) and Italy. In turn, Germany and Spain have
more pigs than any other countries, France, Germany and the UK more cattle, the
UK again more sheep, and Greece and Spain more goats. When the livestock situa-
tion in the whole EU is set against that of the CEECs, the latter can be seen to fea-
ture a somewhat greater level of balance. The share in terms of livestock units taken
by the key large species– cattle and pigs– is rather lower here (at 68.3% as opposed
to 74.1% in the whole EU). Sheep and goats also account for smaller shares, while
108
that accounted for by poultry is markedly larger. Also relatively greater is the role of
such further animal species or breeds as horses, donkeys, mules and rabbits
(Table8.1).
Although the share accounted for by cattle is lower in the region than is average
for the whole EU, what is involved here is even so around half of the total number
of livestock units, making this clearly the key component of the overall herd of ani-
mals. The share in general is lowered because of the relatively small shares cattle
account for in the livestock structure characterising Hungary (at 25%) and Romania
(at 33%). Hungary is the region’s only country in which there is a greater number of
pigs (expressed in terms of livestock units at least) than there are cattle. The shares
cattle account for in Poland, Bulgaria and Croatia are quite close to the regional
average. Elsewhere (including in all of the Baltic countries), markedly over half of
all livestock units are present in the form of cattle (Fig.8.1).
Pigs come second to cattle when it comes to countries’ structure for number of
head of livestock. An average, almost ¼ of all livestock units are in this form. The
smallest share in this case characterises Slovenia (with just 13%). In contrast, shares
of the overall herd of livestock accounted for by pigs are high in the central part of
the region, most especially in Hungary and Croatia (a gure of 30% in each case),
as well as in Poland (28%). The third most important element of the structure
expressed in terms of livestock units takes the form of poultry. Moreover, differ-
ences in shares from country to country are not too marked, even as gures do range
from Hungary on 37%, to Poland on 24%, and Slovakia on 21%. The proportion of
all livestock constituted by poultry is lowest in the Baltic countries (Estonia 6.8%,
Latvia 11%, Lithuania 14%), as well as in Croatia and Slovenia (around 14% each)
(Table8.2).
Other livestock species are characterised by more varied distributions. Thus the
shares taken by sheep in the structure are high in countries in the southern part of
the region, i.e. Romania (19%), Bulgaria (12%) and Croatia (10%). In contrast, in
Table 8.1 Number of (million) head of the main livestock species in the CEECs as of 2016
Country Cattle Pigs Sheep Goats
Bulgaria 0.57 0.62 1.36 0.24
Croatia 0.46 1.16 0,62 0.08
Czechia 1.38 1.48 No data No data
Estonia 0.25 0.27 No data No data
Hungary 0.84 2.89 1.16 0.08
Latvia 0.41 0.34 No data No data
Lithuania 0.69 0.66 0.16 0.01
Poland 5.97 11.11 No data No data
Romania 2.05 4.71 9.88 1.48
Slovakia 0.45 0.59 0.37 0.04
Slovenia 0.49 0.27 No data No data
Source: Source: authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data
8 Livestock-Rearing
109
Poland, Czechia and Lithuania their share in terms of livestock units does not
exceed 2.5%.
In the CEECs, a characteristic feature where livestock structure is concerned is
the continued tangible presence of draft animals like horses, donkeys and mules.
Numbers of these are around 50% higher here than in other EU Member States.
Today, however, this is primarily an effect of the situation in the region’s southern
part. There, numbers of small, economically-weak farms are large, while more-
varied terrain can sometimes hinder mechanisation of farm work. A share of live-
stock accounted for by draft animals that is above-average for the region continues
to characterise three countries, i.e. Romania (6.0%), Bulgaria (4.9%) and
Slovenia (3.0%).
The proportion of all livestock constituting goats is now much lower than it was
several decades ago. At 0.86%, this is very close to the mean value for the whole EU
(of 0.88%). Where spatial distribution is concerned, this is seen to be rather similar
Fig. 8.1 Number-of-head structure for main livestock species in the CEECs in 2016 (as expressed
in terms of livestock units)
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data
Table 8.2 Changes in livestock populations among the CEECs (11 of the EU Member States)
Animal species 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Cattle (head) 18,374,130 15,352,290 13,958,384 13,604,378 13,588,739
Chicken (‘000 head) 226,488 221,065 311,303 346,151 328,003
Goats (head) 1,992,095 2,195,885 1,848,248 1,637,634 2,037,651
Horses (head) 1,798,043 1,775,216 1,495,572 1,294,141 972,351
Pigs (head) 44,387,612 38,485,553 37,212,003 30,980,281 25,441,863
Sheep (head) 17,186,579 13,060,128 12,307,187 13,567,580 13,911,919
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
8 Livestock-Rearing
110
to the situation regarding sheep. It is Poland that reports the smallest share of goats
among livestock (just 0.05%), while the highest observed values characterise our
region’s south-east, with Romania on 2.8% and Bulgaria on 2.4%. Finally, it is rab-
bits that account for the smallest proportion of livestock, even as there are relatively
most of these animals in Croatia and Latvia (where the share is 0.2% in each case)
(Fig.8.2).
Cattle
While milk could theoretically be obtained from almost all mammals kept as live-
stock, bovines in fact represent the main source. While some parts of the world
specialise in the raising of beef cattle, in the CEECs it is breeds of dairy cattle that
clearly prevail. The production of veal (mainly from bullocks) and of beef plays a
much less-major role, even though efciency is rather high. A small and steadily-
declining part is now played by general-purpose cattle, while are mainly still a fea-
ture of small farms meeting own needs only. In turn, the deployment of cattle as
draft animals is a phenomenon to be met with from time to time in the southern part
of the region.
Natural conditions have a direct impact on cattle-raising, as regards the choice of
breed; as well as indirectly when it comes to the amount and type of feed available
for the beasts. A generalisation would be to say that the temperate zone is optimal
for cattle, given a milder climate that allows for the supply of fodder, with a long
growing season ensuring that pastureland achieves rather high levels of productiv-
ity. And this kind of land use allows prot to be taken from areas in which cultiva-
tion of the land would prove problematical. This would for example be true of areas
with varied terrain and less-fertile soils which would need to be designated for rota-
tion. Equally, the need for milk to be kept cool denotes that its production in the
Fig. 8.2 Structure by livestock units in the CEECs and countries of the “Old EU” in 2016
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data
8 Livestock-Rearing
111
context of a commercial operation is mainly favoured where there is a large market
for the supply on hand; or at least a dairy able to process and otherwise deal with the
milk appropriately.
The CEECs have just 15% of the EU’s cattle, in this way taking a 12% share of
the Union’s overall production of beef, as well as an 18% share in its production of
(cow’s) milk. Markedly, the highest share of all the region’s cattle (45%) are in
Poland, which at the same time takes 61 and 48% shares of CEEC beef and milk
production respectively. In turn, a relatively major producer of cow’s milk is Estonia.
Where density of cattle kept is concerned, Slovenia is found to have as many as 79
per 100ha of farmland. Given the relatively large size of Poland, its corresponding
gure of 42 is impressive-looking.
The domestic water buffalo is obviously present in far smaller numbers, often
serving as a draft animal, though also in a position to supply meat, hides and milk.
The species certainly produces less milk than the standard cow, though that is milk
much richer in fat. The CEECs have just around 3.0% of the buffalo present in the
EU, and these animals produce 0.6% of the total amount of meat obtained from the
species, as well as 4.5% of the milk. Unsurprisingly, the raising of buffalo is a mat-
ter for the region’s southernmost part– mainly lowland Bulgaria. The only country
to have more of the animals– and produce more buffalo milk– than Bulgaria is
Italy. The latter also surpasses Bulgaria when it comes to the supply of buffalo meat;
and so does Greece.
The countries in the region have displayed rather uniform trends when it comes
to changes in numbers of head of different livestock. The 1990s and early 2000s
witnessed steady declines, as communist-era farms specialising in the raising of
livestock closed down, while EU requirements and quotas as regards milk produc-
tion had to be met. That tended to mean stability of numbers of cattle (principally
dairy cattle) since accession to the EU, or else a slight upward trend (Fig.8.3).
Fig. 8.3 Changes in numbers of cattle in selected CEECs
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data
Cattle
112
Goats, Sheep andFur-Bearing Animals
Cattle are joined as suppliers of milk by goats and sheep, both of which prove better
able to adapt to more-difcult natural conditions. Various climates can be adapted
to, while needs are less exacting when it comes to food, so these two animals can
both give satisfactory results in areas too dry– and/or land too steep– for cattle. For
the above reasons, the keeping of goats and sheep in most of our region’s countries
has been pushed out to pastures in areas absolutely unfavourable to other forms of
agricultural land use.
Goat-keeping in the region was once a rather widespread feature, with milk,
meat and hides all provided. However, the practice has almost entirely disappeared
in recent decades. Currently, only a low share of all livestock is constituted by goats,
and that mainly in the region’s southern part. Equally, the CEECs are seen to account
for about 16% of the EU’s overall population of this species, with 19% of the
Union’s goat meat produced there, as opposed to just 4.7% of its goat’s milk. The
largest national herd of goats is in Romania (which accounts for 72% of the animals
found in the entire region). That allows Romania to supply 75% of the region’s goat
meat. Across the EU, it is only in Greece and Spain that the populations of goats are
higher. Equally, the region’s leading producer of goat’s milk (with a 45% share) is
Bulgaria. A relatively high level of production of milk is also achieved by Croatia.
Sheep are of markedly greater signicance– and are present over a far greater
area of the region– than goats. They supply meat, milk and hides, though the key
goal of raising sheep here is the production of wool. And the quality of that product
depends on the breed of sheep on the one hand, and on climate conditions on the
other. The cool climate here ensures that most sheep kept have a rather thick eece
often going into sheepskin products. The wool as such is far less-prized on world
markets then the thin, long and uffy wool that Merino sheep produce. The latter are
only present much more rarely in the region under analysis. Mutton is not a popular
feature of the cuisine in most of the CEECs, though locally it may assume greater
signicance. But, paradoxically, the market price can be high here– comparable
with that achieved for beef of good quality.
While sheep-raising is indeed of greater signicance than the equivalent practice
with goats, the concentration in the southern part of the region is almost the same.
Elsewhere in this part of Europe the signicance is local at best. Overall, then, the
CEECs account for just 15% of the population of sheep around the EU, with the
share of the EU production of mutton and lamb being even lower than that– at 12%.
In contrast, the role in the overall production of sheep’s milk is greater, with a 24%
share; even as the signicance to the Union of the production of wool is made clear
by just a 6.1% share. Clearly the largest population of sheep in any of the CEECs is
maintained by Romania (69%). Furthermore, that country provides 73% of the
region’s sheep meat and 87% of its sheep’s milk. Nowhere in the EU in fact has
more sheep, expect the United Kingdom and Spain; and nowhere but Greece makes
8 Livestock-Rearing
113
more of the milk– which is mostly use in the manufacture of cheese. In contrast, the
region’s major suppliers of wool are Hungary and Bulgaria, which together account
for 65% of the region’s output. A further 10% of wool in the region comes from
Croatia.
Despite a degree of uctuation, the numbers of goats here have remained roughly
similar through the whole period of agricultural transformation. Thus there were
1,640,000 of the animals in 2010– compared with 2,200,000in 2000– and further
stabilisation seems to have taken place (even with a slight upward trend to be noted
over the last decade).
Where sheep are concerned, changes in the number of head have been far greater.
Through to the early 2000s, numbers of sheep in the region declined relentlessly
from 31.9M in 1990 to as few as 11.5M in 2002, i.e. by more than half. Subsequent
years saw the overall size of the herd rebuilt somewhat, such that by 2018 there were
some 14.4 million head (Fig.8.4).
A limited role in regional wool production is played by rabbits. Depending on
the breed in question, these animals are kept for their meat or their fur. Nearly
always, the raising is done in closed conditions, with both quality and bulk feed
supplied. Competing for the fur market with rabbits are foxes, mink and coypus rst
and foremost. The CEECs have some 35% of all the rabbits in the European Union,
while accounting for 24% of EU production of rabbit meat.
The rearing of animals for their fur is very much a concentrated and specialised
endeavour. Most production is achieved on a very small group of farms, which are
subjected to regular attacks by animal-rights activists. The result has been a steady
stream of closures of fur farms. Nevertheless, after Italy in rst place, it is three
CEECs that top the EU ranking for fur-farming, i.e. Romania, Hungary and Slovakia.
Together these account for some 83% of all the region’s fur-bearing animals.
Fig. 8.4 Changes in overall populations of sheep and goats as livestock in the CEECs
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data
Goats, Sheep andFur-Bearing Animals
114
Pigs
Unlike other livestock animals, pigs are bred and raised almost solely with the sin-
gle aim of supplying meat and fat. The production of pigskin is of marginal signi-
cance. Pigs are characterised by the most favourable ratio between the amount of
feed consumed and the weight put on as meat. On the minus side, the feed in ques-
tion does need to be richer nutritionally than that supplied to cattle, for example. For
this reason, pigs tend to be raised in closed connes. Where smaller-scale pig pro-
duction is engaged in, feed may take the form of the by-products of crop growing,
as well as household refuse. Where operations are on an industrial scale, the fodder
in turn takes the form of grain, potatoes or other root crops grown especially as
animal fodder.
Pig-keeping is relatively widespread across the region, as the production of pork
to meet a farm’s own needs requires neither a great deal of space nor any higher
level of specialisation; while the relationship between nancial outlays and income
is a rather favourable one. It further allows the surplus workforce to be gainfully
involved in some activity on a small farm during the winter. Beyond that, the keep-
ing of pigs does not require any dened natural conditions, hence a further factor
accounting for the rather universal nature of the activity. It is true that a warmer and
moister climate will be helpful when it comes to the production of pig-feed, but on
the other hand pigs kept in such conditions prove more vulnerable to parasites and
disease. Overall, natural conditions do less to affect the locations of pig-breeding
efforts, with this being more a matter of the level of demand for the meat and the
availability of feed. In the north of the region, the latter comes rst and foremost in
the form of potatoes and other root crops, as well as barley, rye and milk. Equally,
in southern and central parts (e.g. along the Danube), it is maize that constitutes the
primary food of pigs.
The CEECs account for 16% of the EU pig population, and the region’s role in
the actual production of pork is on the same level. Poland is the leader when it
comes to pig-keeping, with 48% of the EU’s animals. The country in turn accounts
for 57% of the pork the CEECs produce. Numbers of pigs per 100ha of farmland
are 79in Poland, as compared with 55in Hungary. Recent decades have brought a
steady decline in pig populations going even beyond the periodic uctuations to be
noted in all of the region’s states. This links up with changing consumption patterns
in society, not least with the constant propounding of a healthy lifestyle that antici-
pates reduced consumption of animal fats and red meat. This leaves consumption of
vegetables and plant products on the rise, with pork also giving way to poultry and
sh (Fig.8.5).
8 Livestock-Rearing
115
Poultry
Among the many species of bird (or fowl) kept in the region, the one to which by far
the greatest signicance needs to be attached is the hen or chicken, as a descendant
of the original jungle fowl. The species supplies eggs and meat, which are products
easy to dispense and not requiring any more complicated processing. Irrespective of
ock size, the birds mainly feed on grain, as well as various on-farm by-products.
On the other hand, industrial-scale battery farming of hens makes use of the by-
products and wastes of the food industry. For these and other reasons it is in the
raising of hens that we achieve the highest value of the product in relation to the
nancial outlays that go into producing it. Moreover, the rate of increase in mass of
meat is greater in broilers (hens of live weight 1–2kg) than in any other kind of
livestock. As not too much space is required, even industrial-scale production can be
engaged in over just small areas– e.g. in the vicinity of absorbent markets for what
is produced.
The CEECs support about 26% of the hens present in the EU as a whole, while
they are responsible for 21% of the EU-wide production of hens’ eggs, and 24% of
the output where chicken meat is concerned. Poland in fact has more birds of this
species than any other country in the EU, while the level of production of the meat
is second only to that achieved in the UK.In that light, Poland is found to support
half of all the hens present in all the CEECs taken together. It likewise supplies 44%
of all the eggs the region produces, as well as 51% of its chicken-meat production.
Among remaining” poultry” species, those of greatest signicance include
ducks, geese, guineafowl and turkeys, whose raising plays a relatively major role in
the CEECs. The region accounts for 35% of the ducks bred for consumption in the
EU, for 92.2% of the geese and guineafowl, and for 21% of the turkeys. However,
Fig. 8.5 Changes in the pig populations of selected CEECs
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data
Poultr y
116
the shares the region takes in the actual production of meat from these birds are
lower– at 31, 86 and 15% respectively. This clearly attests to the still-limited ef-
ciency of production in this sphere. While ducks and turkeys are mainly earmarked
for meat production, rather more diverse use is made of geese– given that these also
supply a valuable fat, as well as feathers.
The largest population of domestic ducks in the region is present in Hungary, as
followed by Poland and Romania. Together, these three countries concentrate 83%
of the region’s farmed ducks. Indeed, after France as top producer, these three coun-
tries take the subsequent positions in the hierarchy for the European Union as a
whole. In contrast, when it comes to output of duck meat, the clear leader in the
region is Hungary, with its 61% regional share. Apart from France, no other EU
Member States engages in a higher level of production of meat from this species.
The EU’s largest populations of geese and guineafowl are to be found in Poland
and Romania– the two states together accounting for 88% of these birds present in
the entire region. Absolutely the key EU players in the supply of goose meat are
Poland and Hungary– together responsible for producing 84% of this meat. Poland
is also the leader where turkeys are concerned, with 73% of the birds in the region.
Indeed, in the whole EU only Italy and France have more turkeys. Poland’s share in
the region’s production of turkey meat is rather lower, at 65%, while another 25%
of that production is achieved by Hungary.
Of far more limited signicance is the rearing of pheasants, pigeons and
ostriches– grown for their meat, eggs and valuable leg-skin in Poland, among other
countries. The CEEC most concentrating this production of meat from the less-
popular species of fowl is Bulgaria, which accounts for 1.2% of overall production
in the EU.
Insects
Silkworms are raised to produce natural silk. However, as this is a process with high
attendant costs, the production of silk cannot compete on price with the cultivation
of cotton, wool or ax, and even more so with synthetic bres. For that reason, no
major share of production is accounted for, even as silk still has a certain economic
signicance given its luxury-good status. Nevertheless, it is the CEECs that in fact
account for 89% of the overall production of silk achieved in the EU.An important
location factor when it comes to the rearing of silkworms (which are in fact silk-
moth caterpillars) is the present of a low-cost but also skilled workforce. Romania
thus occupies a dominant position anywhere in the EU when it comes to the produc-
tion of silk– given the 84% share that it attains.
Extending across a greater range in the region is beekeeping. Honeybees also
play a very key role in agricultural production in general, not only because they are
the producers of honey and wax (albeit with these products having largely given
way in terms of economic relevance to sugar, as well as plant waxes or parafn
wax); but also above all because they pollinate crop plants. The CEECs can in fact
8 Livestock-Rearing
117
be seen to constitute a key region for beekeeping, not least as home to around 47%
of all the hives in the European Union. The share taken in the Union-wide produc-
tion of honey as such is similar, though the role played in the production of wax is
more limited– the gure noted being 19%. The greatest numbers of beehives are
present in Romania, Poland and Hungary. It is in these three countries that we nd
63% of all the hives present in the region. Among the Member States of the EU 17
only Spain has more hives than Romania and Poland. This is also the only EU coun-
try that outdoes Romania, Hungary and Poland when it comes to the production of
honey. The combined share achieved by these three leading producers in the
CEECs is 66%.
Bulgaria and the Czech Republic are in turn the largest producers of beeswax,
with the share of the whole region’s output being 84% in this case. Most of the rest
of the wax from the CEECs is produced in Slovakia. However, growing use of plant
protection agents in recent decades has had a negative impact on populations of
honeybees. Indeed, intensive spraying at the time plants are in ower can have the
effect of killing off entire swarms of bees.
Insects
119© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Bański, M. Mazur, Transformation of Agricultural Sector in the Central and
Eastern Europe after 1989, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73766-5_9
Chapter 9
Means ofProduction inAgriculture
Farm Machinery
From the time human civilisation rst emerged, people made efforts to ensure their
own work might be substituted for by that of animals, and later also by ever-more-
sophisticated mechanical devices. The hoe gave way to the oxen-drawn ard or
scratch plough, with this then being replaced by the multi-furrow plough moved by
tractor. The sickle or scythe gave way to the reaper, and later to the combine har-
vester. Tractors both reduce working time and save farmers physical effort, while
also allowing for faster and deeper ploughing of elds and curbing then need for
draft animals to be kept. Other machine implements mechanised labour on the farm,
which therefore become both lighter and more efcient. Steady improvements in
machinery and other equipment have tended to displace animal muscle in farming,
though there remain certain farms on which human and animal labour have contin-
ued to play the leading role. And sometimes there is just no way a machine can take
the place of a human being or draft animal.
Progress with the mechanisation of agriculture has been taking place before our
very eyes. At the end of the twentieth century, the sight of a horse drawing a plough
or cart was widespread in the CEECs and aroused no interest (other than in certain
visiting foreigners). Today, however, the greater part of all farm work is being done
by machines, with the result that both the efciency of work and commercial viabil-
ity of agriculture are raised. The fullest stage of mechanisation yet achieved is auto-
mation, whereby machines and agricultural equipment are even able to operate
without steady human supervision. However, this requires considerable skill and
specialist knowledge, which a farmer may gain on training courses, even as the
process also of course requires appropriate nancial outlays.
The level of equipping of farms in tractors, machinery and farm implements
depends on the level of socioeconomic development of a given country. The higher
this, the greater the degree of mechanisation. The degree to which farms in the
CEECs are equipped from the technical and technological points of view varies
greatly, and reects, not only the level of economic development achieved by the
given country in the region, but also the transformation that has taken place,
120
including via a process of privatisation. For, in considering on-farm mechanisation,
it can be considered that this is very low in the countries (e.g. Romania, Bulgaria
and Hungary) that experienced a fragmentation of farmland, with a large number of
small farms arising. The latter almost invariably lack machinery and equipment. So,
for example, the 2010 Agricultural Census of Bulgaria revealed that around 370,000
farms had no machinery whatsoever; with only some 40,000 being equipped to
some degree. A tractor was present on 34,322 of the farms. In contrast, in countries
that retained an agrarian structure with no more-major changes (such as the Czech
Republic and Slovakia), agricultural mechanisation is found to be on a relatively
high level even comparable with that present in Western Europe (Figs.9.1 and 9.2).
From the point of view of farms being outtted in tractors, the most favourable
situation characterises Slovenia as well as the Czech Republic– even though these
two countries differ markedly in terms of their agrarian structure. Slovenia is a
predominantly mountainous country with a large share of small farms. In turn, in
Czechia there is a prevalence of large or very large farms. Agrarian structure relates
to numbers and sizes of tractors (as measured in terms of their horsepower). In the
Czech Republic these will tend to be the tractors of considerable power to which
large pieces of machinery can be attached, with a view to large areas of farmland
being worked. In contrast, in Slovenia, the tractors tend to be small ones that allow
work on variable terrain, including in areas with steep slopes, to be carried out. The
small number of large farms in Czechia denotes a need for a relatively small num-
ber of powerful tractors, while the large number of small, individually-owned
farms in Slovenia translates into a large demand for small tractors.
Fig. 9.1 The percentage shares of farms equipped with machinery, 2013
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data
9 Means ofProduction inAgriculture
121
A good case in point for differences in numbers and power outputs of tractors in
relation to farm size and location is provided by Poland, where more than half of all
farms do indeed possess a tractor. However, the history of mechanisation is an inter-
esting context present in Polish agriculture, but also exemplifying the situation else-
where in the region. Farms covering only small areas, very much fragmented into
plots often separated by some distance, combined with agrarian overpopulation and
the presence of an excessive labour force to slow down the mechanisation of work
in the countryside. Furthermore, small farms were simply unable to afford the pur-
chase price of farm machinery, to say nothing of the excessive subsequent costs
associated with maintenance and fuelling. Polish on-farm mechanisation was there-
fore mainly a matter for the large State Farms and Cooperatives in receipt of consid-
erable funding from the communist state.
Peasant farms thus continued to operate on the basis of the work doable by
people and livestock. Thus, as of 1950, there were just 0.12 tractors per 100ha of
farmland in Poland. It was only in the 1970s that a wave of economic development
came together with new investment in industry and increasing imports to raise the
level of availability of farm machinery and mechanical implements. At this stage,
farming at the level of the individually-owned farm proved rather rapidly capable
of making up for lost time. Thus, by 1979, there were around 3 tractors per 100ha
of farmland in Poland, with the upward trend continuing – to the point where
today’s gure is at around 9. Poland’s EU accession exerted a further very favour-
able inuence when it came to agricultural mechanisation. As early as in the pre-
accession period, farmers enjoyed the chance to use nancial support specically
aimed at modernisation (under both PHARE and SAPARD). Post-accession the
Fig. 9.2 Numbers of items of farm machinery per 100ha of farmland, 2013
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data
9 Means ofProduction inAgriculture
122
possibilities for investing in means of production opened up still further, though it
is true to say that they were taken advantage rst and foremost by the country’s
larger and richer farms.
Ostensibly the most-favourable situation when it comes to farms’ equipping in
tractors characterises the country’s south– in which the greatest numbers of the
machines are located, such that 1 tractor on average serves about 7ha of farmland.
It nevertheless needs to be appreciated that most of these are old tractors of limited
power output. For many owners it was a matter of prestige to have a tractor, just as
it was to possess a combine harvester. This explains a denitely excessive number
of the latter machines when the situation is looked at from a per 100ha of land
point of view. While there are fewer tractors in the north of the country, these are
machines of higher power that can work the generally-larger farms present there
(Fig.9.3).
The least-favourable situations when it comes to farms being outtted in machin-
ery and mechanical implements are to be noted in Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary–
and this is as a direct result of the privatisation process. While the communist-era
farms were in operation, the level of mechanisation was actually relatively high.
However, the fall of the system and consequent emergence of huge numbers of
small, poor, individually-owned and run farms resulted in far less adequate equip-
ping of units with the means of production they needed. Tiny farms lack the funds
to devote to mechanisation that their predecessors had possessed, with the result
that it was not just the case that further development came to a halt. Rather, things
tended to go backwards as much machinery and infrastructure from before simply
fell into ruin or became fatally degraded (like for example certain systems of eld
irrigation).
23
%
10
8
6
5
0
0100 200 km
Fig. 9.3 Numbers of
tractors per 100ha of all
agricultural land in
Poland, 2002
Source: author’s own
elaboration referring to
data from Statistics Poland.
(In the Powszechny Spis
Rolny Agricultural Census
of 2002)
9 Means ofProduction inAgriculture
123
Fertilisers andPlant Protection Agents
Plant nutrition mainly involves mineral components taken up from the soil via root
systems. A typical division of these is between macroelements (nitrogen, phospho-
rus, potassium, magnesium and calcium) and microelements (iron, molybdenum,
manganese, zinc, copper and chlorine). In contrast, carbon, oxygen and hydrogen–
also essential ingredients in the lives of plants– are obtained both via the leaves and
through the roots.
A farmer may enhance the nutrient status of soil by manuring, or by applying
fertilisers, with the aim being to raise crop yields. Nevertheless, the overuse of fer-
tilisers is not precluded, and its effect is impairment of the crop obtained, in both
qualitative and quantitative terms. Furthermore, the harmful effects do not remain
conned to the soil to which the sources of nutrients (articial or natural) are added,
instead nding their way into the entire natural system – in particular harming
groundwater and surface waters in terms of their quality. The components supplied
to soil should therefore be in the appropriate amounts that will secure plants’ opti-
mal growth and development. A lack or excess of a certain soil nutritional compo-
nent makes itself felt, not only in a yield of lesser size and quality, but also in terms
of appearance (as a plant may be deformed, discoloured, wilted, desiccated, and so
on). An iron decit for example gives rise to thin and short stems, as well as yellow
leaves. In contrast, a shortfall in the amount of nitrogen produces unfavourable
change in the root system, while also limiting ower- and fruit-formation. At the
other extreme, where nitrogen is present in excess, vegetation grows too luxuriantly
and the appearance is also not as it should be.
During farming’s early phase of development, people sought to enhance mineral
levels in the soil by burning natural vegetation. There were also other well-favoured
places, like the Nile Valley, where nature itself produced continued enhancements
of soil quality via the delivery of silt in the context of normal ow or ooding along
rivers. Winds were also capable of delivering (but also removing) nutritious dust. As
time passed, farmers realised there were other ways of helping soil to produce better
harvests, for example by incorporating material of plant, animal or mineral origin.
By classical times, manuring and compost-making were understood and being pur-
sued, while river or lake muds and sediments were also used, leaf litter from forests,
ash, lime and gypsum. It was nevertheless only with the rst delivery of articial
fertilisers that a rst agricultural revolution was made possible– in the key sense of
harvests being noticeably increased in size.
It was in the seventeenth century that experiments began to try and determine the
nature of plant nutrition. These came up with the nding that the atmosphere is the
main source of the carbon present in plants, while it is soil that supplies water and
the nutrients originally termed ash components. In 1840, German chemist Justus
von Liebig published results of his work on the growth of plants, noting how their
proper nutrition demanded a series of mineral components taken up by them from
both the soil and the air.
Fertilisers andPlant Protection Agents
124
The new theory of plant mineral nutrition encouraged an acceleration and inten-
sication of work to determine how the soil might then be enriched in these kinds
of mineral components. In 1842, British chemist J.B.Lawes devised a method for
the production of superphosphate (as the rst articial fertiliser– obtained by react-
ing sulphuric acid with bones), while the very next year the rst plant manufactur-
ing this fertiliser was founded, again in Britain. Germany followed on in 1860 with
the production of potash fertilisers.
Other popular fertilisers came on to the market at the end of the nineteenth cen-
tury and the early twentieth century. And today it is impossible to imagine a high-
powered and commercially-viable agricultural economy without the application of
fertilisers. However, this at the same time poses a certain threat to human health and
the natural environment. Today’s society is more and more aware of the unfavour-
able phenomena linking up with the use of articial fertilisers and plant protection
agents, so pressure is now mounting on farming for it to return to natural methods
of supplying nutrients and producing healthy, organic food. This is all a reection of
the overuse of chemicals in agriculture in the most-developed countries, with these
certainly increasing yields, but also standing accused of lowering the actual quality
of the food produced.
Articial fertilisers may be synthetic substances produced by the fertiliser indus-
try, or else industrial wastes or rened minerals. It is possible to draw a distinction
between single-component fertilisers (e.g. mainly of nitrogen, phosphorus, potas-
sium, calcium or magnesium) and multi-component ones that offer mixtures of all
the main nutrients. The fertilisers used most often are superphosphate, ammonium
sulphate, magnesium sulphate, wapno magnezowe-tlenkowe (calcium carbonate,
calcium oxide and magnesium oxide), various polifoska fertilisers (mostly of NPK),
saletrzak (main ingredient ammonium nitrate), wapniak rolniczy (calcium carbon-
ate + calcium oxide), granulated urea, ammonium nitrate and sylvinite.
The use of mineral fertilisers is characterised by far-reaching spatial differentia-
tion. However, in regions were levels of application are low there may be compensa-
tion in the form of greater use of manures of various kinds. The use of fertilisers per
unit area is nevertheless one of the key measures used to ascertain the level of devel-
opment of agriculture in a given area of country. This reects the way in which the
greater use of fertilisers is taken as attesting to intensive and “modern” agricultural
management.
The chemicals in most widespread use are nitrogenous fertilisers, whose highest
levels of application per ha of arable land are to be noted in Slovenia and the Czech
Republic. Analysis of changes in level of use over the last two decades point clearly
to increases in the intensity of agricultural production in all of the CEECs. However,
change has been progressing at differing intensities. An important factor determin-
ing the level of use of articial fertilisers is price, and the inuence that exerts on
production costs in farming. According to Eurostat data, as of the years 2004–2010,
average prices of farm produce on the world market were around 50% higher than
in the 1986–2003 period. By comparison, in the same period, the prices of fertiliser
rose 150%– mainly on account of the price increases noted for the raw materials
used in the production and fertilisers, i.e. above all the crude oil and natural gas that
9 Means ofProduction inAgriculture
125
are also used to fuel means of transport that help distribute these chemicals
(Agriculture … 2017) (Figs.9.4 and 9.5).
Crops face various dangers that can reduce their yields. They are not only at the
mercy of various atmospheric phenomena, but are also impacted upon by diseases,
pests and the excessive development of the unwanted plants otherwise termed
weeds. To at least in part ght against these phenomena, methods of cultivating
farmland need to be correct, as do the means of management of surrounding land.
Equally, it mostly emerges that the measures involved in this are inadequate, hence
Fig. 9.4 The use of nitrogen fertilisers in kg per ha of arable land in 2017
Source: author’s own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data
Fig. 9.5 The use of nitrogen fertilisers expressed in kg per ha of arable land
Source: author’s own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
Fertilisers andPlant Protection Agents
126
the need to apply agents safeguarding against various risks that the chemical indus-
try has been able to develop and manufacture. These include pesticides (chemical
agents helping to combat plant diseases), herbicides (basically speaking weedkill-
ers) and insecticides (chemicals that help combat pest insects).
The use of plant protection agents has its side effects, as traces of toxins danger-
ous to the health of people and livestock may linger in both crops and the soil.
Furthermore, the effort to combat pest insects often harms desirable species also,
not least natural predators of pests, and honeybees. Overall, it may be hard to say
just how harmful to us the application of agricultural chemicals may be– even more
so given the fact that impacts following application may be noted far away in terms
of both space and time. This is all reected in a growing movement in support of the
reduced use of chemicals in agriculture, and a return to more natural methods of
production in farming.
The CEECs still engage in far more limited use of plant protection agents than
their Western European counterparts and fellow Member States of the EU.Expressed
per ha of arable land, it is Slovenia that makes by far the largest use of fungicides
and bactericides, with a level exceeding 4kg of pesticides overall. The next place in
the ranking is taken by Hungary– but there the level is only a quarter as high as in
Slovenia (whose high index reects large areas of pesticide-treated permanent plan-
tations that do not therefore qualify as arable land). Where herbicides are concerned,
differences from one part of the analysed region to another are far more limited
(Fig.9.6).
The use of plant protection agents varies from place to place, in line with farm
sizes and types. For example, according to a study by Polski Klub Ekologiczny car-
ried out in 2002, potato elds on 7500 farms received a mean level of application as
high as 3.5 kg of active substance per ha of crop. Highest levels of use in turn
Fig. 9.6 The agricultural use of fungicides, bactericides and herbicides in the CEECs (in kg per
ha of arable land)
Source: author’s own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data
9 Means ofProduction inAgriculture
127
characterised western regions of the country (where the gure could reach 6kg per
ha– as compared with 1.5kg/ha in the east). These gures are several times above
the national average, but can be regarded as reliable. Indeed, as a large group of
farmers use no plant protection agents at all (for economic reasons and in line with
their limited relevant knowledge), applications are very much limited to a small
number of farms– where the levels of use reached can indeed then be high.
The Irrigation ofLand
The considerable latitudinal extent of the region under study nds its reection in a
diversied climate, and in the level of signicance hydrological conditions have for
the agricultural economy. A lack of regular precipitation and ever-more-frequent
weather anomalies associated with prolonged periods without rain pose serious
threats to agriculture. This is most true of the southern and central parts of the
region. This is why the cultivated elds to be found there are in need of constant
irrigation. It therefore comes as no surprise that the largest shares of land that is
irrigated are present in Bulgaria and Hungary, while percentages not much lower
also characterise Romania, Croatia and Slovakia. In contrast, low gures for the
share of irrigated land are noted for Poland and Lithuania; while there is no such
land at all in Estonia and Latvia (Fig.9.7).
Countries in the southern and central parts of the region under study have wit-
nessed an increase in the share of land that is irrigated. However, it needs to empha-
sised that, in the case of Romania and Bulgaria at least, the irrigation system
worked far better under communism than at present. The small farms coming into
existence as a result of privatisation lacked the means to maintain a redeveloped
irrigation system. Moreover, the lack of necessary skill among new owners of
farms resulted in a steady decapitalisation of infrastructure, and ultimately to its
devastation.
It is Bulgaria that has the greatest problems with supplying water to its agricul-
ture, as the amounts available to each citizen annually are only half as great as in
Central Europe. Particularly tangible shortages arise in the north-east of the country,
in which it is the cultivation of cereals that predominates. Existing systems and
installations serving melioration are in general in a critically bad state, and in
essence do not work. Water is becoming more and more expensive, to the point
where farmers have no choice but to resign from irrigation services. Generally
better- off for water resources are the mountainous areas in the south of the country,
whereas the plain and hilly areas in which crop-growing is concentrated suffer from
constant shortages of water (Mondeshka etal. 2006).
The irrigation system put in place in communist-era Bulgaria was adapted to
serving the large Cooperatives, and is not suitable for the irrigation of the country’s
currently-existing individually-owned farms. At the same time, all available sce-
narios for climate change point to more-protracted periods without rain, as well as
prolonged periods of drought on the Bulgarian plains (especially at the peak of the
The Irrigation ofLand
128
growing season). For this reason too it looks imperative that efcient irrigation sys-
tems should be redeveloped to ensure appropriate levels of soil humidity. At the
same time, new developments in regard to irrigation are vanishingly limited at the
present time, most probably in connection with the fragmentation of land ownership
and the lack of appropriate amounts of capital in the farms of very limited commer-
cial viability that have arisen as a result of that process. The systems of irrigation
channels built in the 1980s are now largely in ruin and do not perform their appointed
functions adequately. At the start of the second decade of this century, potential
irrigation was only in place for around 9% of the country’s farmland (Moteva etal.
2014). It was rst and foremost cereal crops and vegetables that were watered, as
well as land on which permanent crops are present. Actual irrigation as of 2012 was
present over just 1.5% of the overall are of arable land in Bulgaria (Velikov 2013).
Fig. 9.7 Percentage share
of all farmland that is
irrigated, by NUTS 2
region, 2016. Source:
author’s own elaboration
based on EUROSTAT data
9 Means ofProduction inAgriculture
Part II
Overall Change in the Agricultural Sector
and Prospects for Its Development
131© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Bański, M. Mazur, Transformation of Agricultural Sector in the Central and
Eastern Europe after 1989, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73766-5_10
Chapter 10
Changes intheRole oftheFarming Sector
intheEconomies oftheCEECs
The structure characterising agricultural output reects the action of different fac-
tors that are large in number, if capable of being assigned to just two main groups:
as shapers of production (and then assignable to either the natural or non-natural
categories) or as inuencers of the demand for what agriculture is able to produce
and supply. This is a sector of the economy playing a major role regionally through-
out the period under analysis in the region. However, the CEECs are obviously far
from uniform from the point of view of the food sector. As its largest countries,
Poland and Romania are especially important, with the added value generated being
largest of all in the former. Poland is anyway the region’s major economy overall.
As of 1989, its added value due to farming exceeded that in Bulgaria, Croatia,
Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia put together.
The rather high share to be noted in Romania is specic, given the degree to which
agriculture remains a key economic sector for that country. Taken together, Poland
and Romania took a 49% share of the region’s added value back in 1989– and that
gure has today exceeded 50% (Fig.10.1).
In fact, Poland’s role in agriculture’s generation of added value in the region
declined between 1989 and the moment of EU accession, only to re-increase
post-2004, before stabilising in recent times at a level around 30%. Romania’s situ-
ation was somewhat the reverse, with the country growing in regional signicance
in the rst years of transition, only to decline steadily from this point of view from
the mid-1990s onwards. Today, the relevant gure is only just over 20%.
In general (at least pre-pandemic), the economies of the CEECs have been on a
continued upward trend, which is reected in their growing share of the EU’s over-
all GDP. That said, this remains at a very low level (notwithstanding the trend)–
having reached just 8.7%. At the same time, the fact that agriculture continues to
play a far more major role in this region than it does in Western Europe is what
ensures a contribution to agricultural value EU-wide that is more than twice as great
as the contribution to GDP overall. That said, it is worth noting that the decline in
the region’s signicance at the start of the period of transformation (as opposed to
132
in the EU now) was more protracted in agriculture, lasting through to the end of the
twentieth century. As of 1989, the added value due to farming in Central and Eastern
Europe was at the level of 18% of overall added value for all the countries that are
now Member States. By 2000, this was down to 11%. And, despite later growth, the
1989 level has not been re-achieved in relation to farming, even though for the
economy as a whole that situation was regained at the beginning of the new century.
Thus, while it has been possible to refer to increased agricultural signicance of the
CEECs within the EU in the twentieth century, the growth continues to be less
dynamic than in other economic sectors. As recently as in 1989, the region had
almost a 3.5-fold greater role in farming as opposed to GDP when the comparison
made was with the countries in the then EU.By 2005, that ratio was of around 2.5,
and most recently it was at a level around 2 (Fig.10.2).
In Europe we have long been dealing with a deagrarianisation of the economy.
Thus, even by 1989, the added value summed for all the polities that are now the 28
EU Member States was at the level of just 3.4% of their overall GDP.Recently, it
has been at 1.5%. The process has in fact been more abrupt for the CEECs, with the
proportion as of 2018 being around a quarter of what had been noted in 1989. This
is in connection with values equal to 11% in 1989, 6.5% in 1995, 4.4% in 2000 and
2.7% in 2018. As these statistics may imply, in none of the 11 CEECs has the value
even with such dramatic change reached the EU average level. And that simply
attests to an above-average role for the farming sector in the economies of the coun-
tries in question (Fig.10.3).
The lowest such values is noted for Slovenia, where farming generates just 2.1%
of GDP. At the other end of the spectrum are Bulgaria and Romania, where the
respective gures are 3.4% and 4.3%. Interestingly, while Slovakia was the “least
agricultural” country from this point of view as of 1989 (with a gure of 3.4%), its
current situation is close to the average (at 2.4%). As may perhaps be anticipated,
Fig. 10.1 Shares taken by different CEECs in the overall generation of added value from agricul-
tural sector
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
10 Changes intheRole oftheFarming Sector intheEconomies oftheCEECs
133
the change was greater where the value for the indicator had been high before,
hence Estonia has experienced a 15% change, Latvia 19%, Lithuania 24%, Poland
and Romania 13% each, and Hungary 12%. In both Estonia and Poland the share
was below average for the region already, in the rst half of the 1990s.
Irrespective of this somewhat disparate role played by the primary sector in the
economies of the region’s different states, there are also markedly differing levels
when it comes to added value per inhabitant. A drastic decline in the signicance of
farming to the economies of the EU 17in the 1990s combined with changes in the
relationship between prices of produce and prices of the means of production to
Fig. 10.2 The role of the CEECs in added values from farming and GDP overall in all of the
countries now belonging to the EU
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
Fig. 10.3 The added-value shares agriculture accounts for in the GDP of the different states
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
10 Changes intheRole oftheFarming Sector intheEconomies oftheCEECs
134
ensure a decline in added value due to agriculture expressed per person– from
around 480 USD in 1989 to around 410 USD as of 2000. In turn, the rst decade of
the new century brought a return to increase in the values for the indicator, which
reached around 540 USD in 2010, only to stablilise at a level around 570 USD in
recent times.
Similar trends also appeared in farming among the CEECs, where the values for
the index under analysis declined from around 340 USD in 1989 to just around 170
USD in 2000, only to rise again in the rst decade of the twenty-rst century to
around 350 USD.Today’s value for this index among the CEECs is of around 430
USD. Hence, in the rst years of systemic transformation, the countries of the
region departed markedly from the “Old EU” Member States, just as gures for the
beginning of the present century support the idea that development of the farm sec-
tor here has been more dynamic than on average in the EU.As of 1989, the added
value in agriculture expressed per inhabitant was 29% lower in the CEECs than in
the countries of the EU 17, with the 1995 difference being of as much as 58%.
Today, the CEECs are at a level which is lower by just 24%.
Furthermore, through analysis of the per-inhabitant added value in agriculture in
different CEECs, it is possible to note trends in the direction of less-marked dispari-
ties among them. An interesting example here is Slovakia, where the gure for this
index (initially the lowest in the region) was subject to a threefold increase post-1989,
with the result that the mean for the CEECs is now exceeded. The country in ques-
tion began its transformation with only rather a limited role for agriculture in the
overall structure of its economy.
On the other hand, among the CEECs that were above the regional average as of
1989, only Hungary has managed a further increase in the value for that indicator
greater than 20%. Remaining countries (i.e. Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Estonia
and Czechia) simply came closer to the regional average level, to which they also of
course contributed (Fig.10.4 and Table 10.1).
Fig. 10.4 Added value in agriculture expressed per inhabitant
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT and EUROSTAT data
10 Changes intheRole oftheFarming Sector intheEconomies oftheCEECs
135
Table 10.1 The CEECs as set against the EU 28, from the point of view of the production of
selected agricultural raw materials in 1989 and 2018
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
10 Changes intheRole oftheFarming Sector intheEconomies oftheCEECs
137© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Bański, M. Mazur, Transformation of Agricultural Sector in the Central and
Eastern Europe after 1989, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73766-5_11
Chapter 11
The Level andStructure ofAgricultural
Production
The share the region comprising the CEECs took within the value of agricultural
production1 in the EU as a whole increased from 15% in 2005 to 17% in 2019.
However, the role in this played by the different constituent countries is seen to vary
markedly, rst and foremost in line with the degree to which the farming pursued in
the given state is viable commercially. Production in the region’s two largest econo-
mies, i.e. Poland and Romania, accounted for as much as 60% of the overall value
of farm production in the region, and in fact rose by around 3% points even after
2005. Furthermore, this was mainly the effect of dynamic increase noted in Poland,
whose share in fact rose from 32% to 36% (at the same time, Romania’s share was
actually in decline– falling to 24% from 26%). This was despite the fact that the
absolute values for the index in question increased by 47% (Fig.11.1).
The only CEEC to experience (in comparison with 2005) both a fall in the value
of production and a decline in the share of regional production accounted for (from
5.2% to 3.1%) was Croatia. This is probably the probably a reection of the way in
which – for most of the period under analysis – the country was not eligible to
receive any larger amounts of support for the food sector under the EU’s Common
Agricultural Policy.
In the rst decade of the new century (i.e. the period in which most of the CEECs
joined the EU), the region-wide share of the overall value of agricultural production
that was accounted for by livestock remained very similar, and sometimes even
slightly exceeded the mean for the area of the EU-28 taken together. As of 2005, the
share in question was 43%. Thereafter, the corresponding gure for the whole EU
1 The value of agricultural production referred to in this place and further on in this study concerns
goods; and does not therefore take account of the services rendered in farming. Furthermore, the
value in question relates to basic current prices and is expressed in millions of euros. It also needs
to be stressed that the value quoted for production take no account of the costs of various kinds
associated with that production. That denotes a need for this measure to be treated as distinct from
others like income from farm production, or added value in agriculture.
138
proved to be relatively stable, while that for the region under study declined to 38%.
However, at a more-detailed level, that change proved to be somewhat differentiated
spatially, denoting a divergence in the prole of agricultural production from one
area to another.
As of 2005, the structure as regards production achieved by different countries
was more uniform than it is at present. In areas where livestock production is of
major signicance the share of production structure accounted for either remained
at a rather similar level or in fact rose (as in Poland). On the other hand, in countries
where the role played by livestock was low, the signicance of crop-growing con-
tinued to rise. It is in the northern part of the region that the share accounted for by
livestock production is higher, with Poland as the country leading from this point of
view– reporting a gure in excess of 50%. In turn, it is in the south-east (in Bulgaria
and Romania) that the highest rate of decline in the role of livestock farming has
been noted; and this has led to a situation whereby the value of crop production is
over three times greater than that associated with the raising of livestock (Fig.11.2).
Where the value of plant production in the EU 17 was concerned, the greatest
shares were taken by vegetables and garden plants (28%), as followed by cereals
(19%). On the other hand among the CEECs it was cereals that played the key role–
as of 2005 accounting for 34% of the overall value of production achieved from
farmers’ cultivation of plants. By 2019, that share had even reached 38%. In turn,
vegetables and garden plants achieved a region-wide share of plant production equal
to 19%. This difference points to the greater intensication of growing that has been
achieved in the countries of Western Europe. A further example might relate to the
production of wine (as a product deriving from plant production). While in the
EU-17, wine takes a 12% share of the overall value of plant production, in the
CEECs the relevant gure is a mere 1.8%.
Only relatively minor changes are seen to have taken place over the last decade,
when it comes to the EU-wide breakdown of data for the value of plant production.
The shares accounted for by cereals, potatoes, industrial crops, vegetables and
Fig. 11.1 The share taken by different CEECs in the overall value of agricultural production in the
region. (Source: authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data)
11 The Level andStructure ofAgricultural Production
139
garden production all rose, as did that noted for wine; while there were declines in
the shares attributable to fruit, olives and fodder crops. The structure characterising
plant production thus underwent a diversication.
For their part, the CEECs have been witnessing a further-reaching remodelling
of structure as regards the value of plant production. The shares taken by industrial
crops and cereals have risen, while there was a simultaneous decline in the shares
attributable to fruit and potatoes. Cereals have remained the decided dominants
when it comes to the value attributable to crop production, while the region’s most
tangible decline has characterised the share of value taken by fodder crops
(Fig.11.3).
The value structure characterising produce of plant origin in the region proves to
be diverse in its spatial dimension, with this reecting the range of different natural
conditions that can shape crop-growing trends, and the yields that prove to be
achievable. Cereals represent the key category within the analysed structure in most
of the countries. As has been noted already, this is a feature capable of distinguish-
ing agriculture within this sub-part of the wider EU.Only in Slovenia, Croatia and
Poland does the breakdown of date for the value of production attributable to plants
look more diverse, with the contribution made by cereals at a level below one-third.
In the hierarchy to be noted for Slovenia, cereals come below fodder crops, the
production of wine, and vegetables + garden produce (Fig.11.4).
In comparison with 2005, the share taken by cereals rose most in the Baltic coun-
tries, as well as Romania and Bulgaria. It may therefore be concluded that the areas
referred to have experienced an extensication of crop production. In turn, in
Slovenia, Poland and Hungary it is the reverse process that has taken place, with
declining signicance of cereals noted in comparison with the overall value of plant
production (Fig. 11.5).
Fig. 11.2 2005 and 2019 shares of the overall value of agricultural production accounted for by
animal production. (Source: authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data)
11 The Level andStructure ofAgricultural Production
140
potatoes
potatoes
potatoes potatoes
vegetables and
horticultural
vegetables and
horticultural vegetables and
horticultural
vegetables and
horticultural
fruits
fruits fruits
fruits
forage
forage forage
forage
other crops
CEECs 2005
EU 17 200
5E
U 17 2019
CEECs 2019
other crops other crops
other
crops
cereals
cereals cereals
cereals
industrial
industrial industrial
industrial
wine
wine wine
wine
olive oil
olive oil olive oil
olive oil
Fig. 11.3 Breakdowns of data for the value of plant production in the CEECs and Member States
of “the Old EU”, 2005–2019. (Source: authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data)
Fig. 11.4 Breakdowns of data for the value of plant production in the CEECs as of 2005. (Source:
authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data)
11 The Level andStructure ofAgricultural Production
141
Where industrial crops are concerned, the share of the value of plant production
accounted for in the CEECs is above the average for the EU, and also much above
the 2005 level. This probably reects increase protability associated with the pro-
duction of this category of crop that receives intensive CAP support. An example is
the increased production of rape and eld mustard associated with the promotion
and popularisation of biodiesel, and the policy entailing the development of renew-
able energy sources. In most of the countries in our region, industrial crops take
second place in the breakdown by type, after cereals. However, exceptions here
would be Slovenia, Croatia, Poland and Romania.
In Slovenia, industrial crops outrank not only cereals, when it comes to the value
of what is produced, but also vegetables and garden plants, as well as fodder crops,
wine and fruit. In Croatia, in turn, it is cereals and vegetables that prove to be of
greater signicance; in Poland– cereals, vegetables and garden plants and fruit; and
in Romania– alongside these categories referred to– also fodder crops.
In the period since 2005, the increase in the share of value attributable to indus-
trial crops has been accompanied by a deconcentration of this kind of cultivation.
The signicance attached to the production of such plants is seen to have risen
markedly in Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary, as well as in the Baltic countries–
most especially Lithuania and Estonia.
In comparison with the EU average, the regional gure here for vegetables and
garden plants as a share of plant production is not a high one. The lowest values of
all to be noted for this index characterised Lithuania, Bulgaria and Slovakia. In
Bulgaria, this was very much inuenced by the decline in value noted for this kind
Fig. 11.5 Breakdowns of data for the value of plant production in the CEECs as of 2019. (Source:
authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data)
11 The Level andStructure ofAgricultural Production
142
of production in the last few years. After 2005, the value of the vegetables and gar-
den plans produced in the country declined by 57%, even as the simultaneous
increase on the scale of the region as a whole was of 78%. In Bulgaria it was merely
a matter of a decade following the EU accession for a country in which production
of vegetables and garden plants was higher than anywhere else in the region to
become a state with one of the lowest values for this index. This attests to a serious
crisis aficting Bulgarian agriculture that has seen crop production subjected to far-
reaching extensication. A relatively limited share attributable to vegetables and
garden plants is also a feature of the agriculture practised in Czechia, Slovakia,
Lithuania and Latvia, in which less than 1/10 of the overall value of plant produc-
tion is accounted for in each case.
The last 10–20years have brought a decline in the share of overall regional plant
production taken by fodder crops. This has ensured that these now have a signi-
cance below-average for the EU as a whole. Declines in shares have been noted for
Romania, Slovenia, Poland and all three of the Baltic countries. In turn, a major
increase in the importance of fodder crops within the overall structure has charac-
terised Croatia and Slovakia (where– as of 2005– the share in question was among
the region’s lowest), as well as the Czech Republic. The changes referred to brought
about a deconcentration in the value of production associated with fodder crops–
this now being spread more evenly across the region. Relatively the smallest shares
taken by fodder crops are noted for Bulgaria, as well as Poland and Hungary.
The share of the region’s overall value for plant production taken by fruit is not
just lower than the EU average. For, in the period since 2005, there has actually been
a decline that stands in contrast with the increase noted for EU Member States over-
all. The largest declines have taken place throughout the south of the region (i.e. in
Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia and Slovenia), as well as in Latvia.
Until recently, the potato was a very key crop in both the northern and central
parts of the region. As of 2005, the relevant share within the overall value of plant
production was almost twice as high in the CEECs as was average across the area of
the EU-17. Today, the region’s gure is actually very close to the mean for the
Union as a whole. Now the potato is only seen to be of above-average signicance
in Latvia, Poland and Romania. In comparison with 2005, the most-marked loss of
value from potatoes characterised the Baltic countries, especially Estonia and
Lithuania.
Unsurprisingly, the most-concentrated kind of production proves to be that
involving wine and olives– as a clear reection of requirements when it comes to
natural conditions. The value of the wine produced in the CEECs remains at under
one-sixth of the proportional value within overall plant production that characterises
the EU-17. Wine production is mainly a matter for the south of the region, while
olive-growing is even more concentrated spatially, not in fact playing any more-
signicant role in the region’s crop structure where the value of production is con-
cerned. The main grower of olives in this part of Europe is Croatia, as well as
Slovenia to a much lesser degree.
In comparison with that in the EU-17, agriculture in the CEECs displays a higher
degree of specialisation when it comes to the value of production of livestock. This
11 The Level andStructure ofAgricultural Production
143
is rst and foremost a consequence of specics of the data breakdown for meat
produced and consumed. Pork proves to be decided dominant, while the share taken
by meat from poultry almost equals that of beef. In connection with this, in 2005 the
largest shares within the breakdown of data for the value of production due to live-
stock were taken by milk, and by pig products, with the two together accounting for
61% of the total (as compared with 54% in the EU-17). Milk accounted for a rather
smaller share in our region than among the EU-17, even as the share attributable to
pigs was larger.
By 2019, animal production in the region had diversied further, with the overall
share of value due to the two above elements down to 53% (and hence lower than in
the EU-17, where the gure had increased to 58%). This change of situation reected
in a decline in the share taken by pig products in the CEECs– from 28% to 21%. In
contrast, the value arising out of milk produced maintained its position, accounting
for around 32% of the value farmed animals were able to generate.
The CEECs are also typied by their above-average signicance of poultry
within the framework of animal production, hence a share larger than in the EU-17
for the value of derived products (eggs and meat). What is more, unlike in the
EU-17, the poultry products other than eggs achieve greater value than the non-
dairy products deriving from cattle. On the other hand, the value of eggs produced
in the region achieves a share twice the size of that noted in the EU-17. Equally, a
feature common to both parts of the Union is the way in which poultry products
within the structure by value for animal products overall are of growing importance.
During the study period, the values of poultry production noted for the CEECs
(even excluding eggs) became one of the three most important elements characteris-
ing the breakdown of data for animal production by category. This mainly happened
at the expense of pig products, which are seen to have been eclipsed when the value
of eggs is taken into consideration. In the case of countries of the “Old EU”, poultry
production mainly grew in signicance at the expense of the share taken by non-
dairy cattle products– the latter now being of less value in that group of countries
than the value of production attributable to pigs (Fig.11.6).
Notwithstanding the above changes, the CEECs continue to stand out most from
the EU-17in relation to the share that is due to non-dairy cattle products. It is fur-
thermore worth noting how the two areas compared have both experienced a major
decline in the share in the overall value of animal production that is taken by prod-
ucts deriving from sheep and goats. In general, however, it is possible to suggest that
the breakdowns of data for the value of animal production are relatively similar in
the EU-17 and the CEECs.
In Estonia, Latvia and the Czech Republic, it is the value of milk produced that
accounts for the largest share of the value of overall production attributable to live-
stock. In comparison with the 2005 situation, each of these countries saw an increase
in the share of overall production attributable to milk. In turn, in Hungary and
Croatia the corresponding share was lower by 2019 than in 2005, meaning that this
is no longer the leading component, as it comes below pig products in the hierarchy,
as well as (depending on the country involved) poultry-derived products or non-
dairy products from cattle. Shares taken by milk that are close to the regional
11 The Level andStructure ofAgricultural Production
144
average in turn characterise Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia and Bulgaria (Figs.11.7
and 11.8).
Post-2005, the production value generated by pigs and their products tended to
remain stable in the region– hence the decline in the share accounted for overall.
Only in Croatia and Bulgaria was there an actual increase (albeit small) in the share
accounted for by pigs. On the other hand, major declines in this sphere could be
noted for Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Lithuania. Today,
pigs take top position (account for the largest share of livestock production by value)
in Croatia. Their products are also of major signicance in the breakdowns of data
noted for other countries in the region’s southern and central parts (i.e. Hungary,
Romania, Slovakia and Bulgaria).
Post-2005, it was only in Croatia and Czechia among the CEECs that it proved
possible to note a small decline in the share of production value attributable to poul-
try (excluding eggs). In turn, the largest increases for this category characterised the
northern part of the region, especially Poland, Lithuania and Latvia, as well as
wool and
silkworm
CEECs 2005 CEECs 2019
EU 17 2005 EU 17 2019
wool and
silkworm
cattle cattle
pigs
cattle
cattle
pigs
pigs pigs
equines
equines
equines equines
sheep and
goats
sheep and
goats
sheep and
goats
sheep and
goats
wool and
silkworm
wool and
silkworm
eggs eggs
other animals other animals
other animals
other animals
poultry poultry
poultry poultry
eggs eggs
milk milk
milk milk
Fig. 11.6 Breakdowns of data for the value of animal production characterising the CEECs and
“the Old EU” in 2005 and 2019. (Source: authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data)
11 The Level andStructure ofAgricultural Production
145
Fig. 11.7 National-level breakdowns of data for the value of animal production as of 2005.
(Source: authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data)
Fig. 11.8 National-level breakdowns of data for the value of animal production as of 2019.
(Source: authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data)
Slovenia. In Hungary, these products contribute greater value than any other form of
livestock-related production. On the other hand, a position second only to milk
characterised this item in the cases of Poland, Bulgaria and Lithuania.
11 The Level andStructure ofAgricultural Production
146
In different countries of the region, the share of value taken by non-dairy cattle-
derived products looks quite varied. The signicance seems to be greatest in the
countries emerging from the old Yugoslavia. Second place after milk itself charac-
terises Slovenia, while in Croatia only production from pigs is on a higher level
proportionally. There, more than ¼ of the overall value of livestock production is
generated in this way. In turn, Romania offers an example of a country in which the
share taken is just one-fth as high. It was therefore there that the post-2005 decline
in the signicance of non-dairy cattle products proved to be largest.
Most CEECs differ from their EU-17 counterparts in having a far-higher share of
the value of animal production taken by eggs. Exceptions here are Estonia, Lithuania
and Czechia. In turn, eggs are of the greatest signicance in Romania, Slovakia
and Poland.
Value attributable to other animal-derived products (notably those from sheep
and goats) proves to most concentrated in spatial terms. Most sheep and goats are in
the region’s south, so it is also there that (non-wool) products derived from them
emerge as of greatest signicance. Particular cases in point are Bulgaria and Croatia,
though it was in fact these countries that experienced the largest post-2005 declines
in the shares of value accounted for. Where wool itself is concerned, the largest
shares noted were those characterising Romania and Lithuania – both of which
increased production from 2005 onwards.
11 The Level andStructure ofAgricultural Production
147© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Bański, M. Mazur, Transformation of Agricultural Sector in the Central and
Eastern Europe after 1989, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73766-5_12
Chapter 12
Farming Efciency
There are various ways to measure the efciency of agricultural production. Land-
related efciency for examples sets the level or monetary value of production
achieved against the area to give a per-unit-area gure. In turn, efciency of labour
compares the level or monetary value of production with the input of human labour,
as for example expressed simply in line with numbers employed or hours worked.
Efciency of the investment of capital can be assessed by reference to the rate of
return on capital located in a venture and/or in xed assets or the development of
human capital, while environmental efciency can be looked at in “footprint” terms,
in line with the level or value of production that proves possible as set against the
burden imposed on the immediate (or more-distant) surroundings, in terms of pol-
lution emitted, degree of biodegradability of inputs and products, noise produced
and so on).
Thus, depending on the issues at which the measure of efciency is targeted, as
well as the measures adopted to measure production itself, consideration of ef-
ciency is able to express information of a dened kind, with different objectives
served. And each of the types of efciency mentioned above may– if to a greater or
lesser degree– determine the rationale for engaging in a dened type of agricultural-
production activity.
Faced with this kind of complexity inherent in the notion of efciency, this study
has elected to focus on particular, specic aspects of farm production. The ef-
ciency of plant production has been dened by measuring the level achieved annu-
ally per unit area of cropland. These are therefore basic yields per hectare. The
efciency of animal production has in turn been expressed by reference to the level
of production of the dened product as expressed per unit of the livestock species
supplying the given produce or product. These measures allow conclusions to be
drawn regarding the level of development of agriculture in the given area. Moreover,
they are applied widely, and thus ensure comparability of results with those con-
tained in other studies. The use of level of production as a measure of results is
deliberate. While gures obtained in this way do not differentiate in relation to
148
quality of produce or product, they are independent of price differences for different
products in different parts of the world or region, as well as of uctuations in these
prices over time.
Farming Crop Efciency
In each of the CEECs, most of the crops grown are seen to be being produced much
more efciently than in the past. It is typical for the increase to be more marked in
this region than in the remaining part of Europe, but that reects the much lower
level of efciency present at the start of the period of transformation– as compared
with the situation in the “old” Member States of the EU.
Thus, for example, yields per ha of land planted with wheat increased steadily
post-1989, both in the area of today’s EU and in Central and Eastern Europe.
Equally, that increase can be seen to have perpetuated a trend established even
before that time. Poland may offer an instructive example of this as, prior to World
War II it was possible to harvest between 9 and 17 q per ha of land planted with
wheat– as compared with 38.5 by 1989. Post-1989, the lowest mean yields of wheat
achieved in the region were of 28.8 q per ha (in 2003). This gure can be set against
peak values (for 2017) as high as 50.5 q per ha (Fig.12.1).
Alongside this kind of information, it is further possible to note how– after the
rst few years of systemic transformation– disparities in wheat yields separating
the CEECs and the EU-17 began to decline. The largest gap was of 49% in 1996,
while the 2016 gure for the region departed from that in the EU-17 by as little as
17%. The regular increase in yields of wheat in the CEECs from 1989 onwards was
basically true of most of the region’s constituent states. However, this was mainly a
successful making up for losses borne in the period of transformation of the econ-
omy of the 1990s. In each of the 11 states studied, mean yields of wheat in the
period 1994–1998 were lower than those noted for 1989–1993. This kind of period
of reduced yields lasted longest in the region’s central area– in the Czech Republic,
Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia and Romania a re-increase in yields was only noted
from the beginning of the new century.
At present, the lowest yields of wheat characterise the northern part of the region
(in which poor post-glacial soils predominate), as well as Romania, where agricul-
ture has experienced a crisis reecting agrarian fragmentation and partial degrada-
tion of technical infrastructure.
Like wheat, barley manifests considerable variability in yields. In the analysed
(post-1989) period, the highest yield noted for this species in the CEECs taken
together was of 43.6 q/ha (recorded in 2017). The lowest gure was in turn of just
25.6 q/ha (in 2000). This still denotes that our region’s agriculture is unable to match
the average reported for the EU-17. Thus, for example, over the 2014–2018 period
yields here were 20% lower. However, accession of a majority of the region’s coun-
tries to the EU (in 2004) was associated with a high rate of increase in barley yields,
with the result that disparities vis-à-vis the Community average started to decline
12 Far ming Efciency
149
steadily. Prior to that time, yields of barley in most of the countries had been on the
decline. Only in the Baltic countries did yields increase continually from the start of
the selected study period, and this is anyway associated with the fact that levels
were so low at the outset. Among the other states in the region, Bulgaria experi-
enced the most transient decline in yields. In contrast, the decline noted in Poland
proved to be more persistent, though far less severe, and a similar situation also
applied in Slovenia (Fig.12.2).
Today, barley resembles wheat in that the lowest yields are achieved in the north-
ern part of the region, and in Romania. Highest values in turn characterise the cen-
tral area, most especially the Czech Republic and Hungary. It may be concluded that
the state agricultural sector prevailing in the communist era was characterised by
good results when it came to the production of cereals, and this was still able to
transfer through into the rst years of the systemic transformation following on
from communism’s fall. This then gave way to several, or even 10–20, years of
crisis, during which yields fell or were maintained at a low level. This was then the
effect of privatisation, the fragmentation of land ownership, a lack of money for
investment, and decapitalisation of technical infrastructure and the means of pro-
duction. Following the years of crisis, the private sector “grew t” once more– to a
tangible degree in the last decade at least. This was naturally helped along by nan-
cial means made available under support programmes for agriculture of both domes-
tic and EU origin.
Yields of other popular cereal crops showed rather similar trends. This is to say
that those noted are somewhat lower than on average among the EU-17, albeit with
steady increase characterising the twenty-rst century, following on from the
decline in the 1990s. The increase proved to be largest in relative terms in the last
decade, with the effect that disparities in levels of cereal production in the studied
Fig. 12.1 Yields of wheat
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
Farming Crop Efciency
150
region on the one hand and in Western Europe on the other grew progressively
smaller. In the CEECs overall, the lowest post-1989 yields were noted in 1992in the
case of triticale, and in 2000 where rye and oats were concerned. The highest yields
of these cereals have In turn been noted in recent years. In the case of triticale and
rye this was 2014, and for oats– 2017 (Figs.12.3, 12.4 and 12.5).
A rather different distribution is to be noted for better and worse yields among
the cereals less demanding than wheat and barley in terms of soil and climate.
Rather poor effects of growing triticale have been observable in Bulgaria, Lithuania,
Fig. 12.2 Yields of barley
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
Fig. 12.3 Yields of triticale
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
12 Far ming Efciency
151
Latvia, Slovakia and Poland. In slight contrast, in the case of rye the low yields are
to be noted in Lithuania, Romania and Poland. In turn, high efciency in the cultiva-
tion of oats is a feature of Czechia, Slovenia, Croatia, Poland and Hungary.
Summarising for the group of cereals as a whole (albeit with a special focus on
those that are not especially demanding agroenvironentally), it can be suggested
that efciency of production is greater in our region’s central part, with yields lower
both to the south and the north of there.
Fig. 12.4 Yields of rye
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
Fig. 12.5 Yields of oats
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
Farming Crop Efciency
152
The area of land planted with potatoes has been in decline, even as the role of the
species as food for human consumption and animal fodder remains a key one.
Post-1989, potato yields increased throughout the CEECs, even as clear (unfavour-
able) disparities were seen to remain when the comparison was with the achieve-
ments in the western part of Europe. The lowest yield of all was the 130 q per ha
attained in 1994, while the record high value was the 238 q per ha achieved in 2017.
This example shows how marked the disproportions may be where yields of this
particular crop are concerned. This is in turn a reection of weather conditions at the
main time of growth of potatoes; though it also very much reects the “farming
culture” on display in the region.
When trends for potato-growing are set against those noted for cereals, it can be
seen that most countries only experienced more-limited change in the early years of
the study period. The decline is only really tangible in the cases of Estonia, Poland,
Czechia, Slovakia and Bulgaria. In the last several years, the highest yields of pota-
toes were obtained in the region’s central part, in particular in the Czech Republic,
Slovenia, Poland and Hungary. The least-favourable results were in turn those
achieved by Lithuania and Bulgaria (Fig.12.6).
Both the area of the EU (within its current boundaries) and the region of Central
and Eastern Europe witnessed a steady post-1989 increase in yields achieved with
sugar beet. The lowest mean gure to be noted for the CEECs appeared in 1992,
with a gure of just 262 q per ha. In turn, a record result came along in 2014, when
661 q per ha was achieved. The CEECs in fact reported a more rapid increase in
yields of sugar beet than did remaining countries in the (current) EU, with the result
that the gap between the region and countries of Western Europe was reduced
steadily.
As the transformation in the CEECs got underway, yields of sugar beet were
below the average for the EU-17, with the disparity being of as much as 42%. On
Fig. 12.6 Yields of potatoes
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
12 Far ming Efciency
153
the other hand, by the 2014–2018 period, the mean gure was only lower by 23%.
In absolute terms, average yields in consecutive years have exceeded 130 q per ha,
with certain states even achieving 225 q per ha. This shows how “sensitive” to
changes in the weather this crop may prove to be, with key aspects being the nature
and distribution of precipitation, as well as sunshine totals. In addition, yields of
course depend greatly on how good the sown material is, and when it goes into the
ground (Jaskulska etal. 2017).
As with potatoes, so also in the case of yields of sugar beet, most CEECs did not
note any more-protracted worsening of results in the rst years of the study period.
The longest such periods of declining yields – lasting through to the end of the
twentieth century– were those observable in Croatia and Romania. A shorter period
of falling yields in turn characterised Bulgaria. The growing of sugar beet is closely
linked to the distribution and nancial condition of the sugar industry, as well as the
possibilities for cheaper sugar to be imported. In some of the region’s states, sugar
factories were simply closed down, with the effect that sugar-beet cultivation was
abandoned altogether in certain areas. This was, for example, true of Estonia in
1998, while in the cases of Bulgaria, Slovenia and Latvia, the same phenomenon
more or less coincided with the period following EU accession (2007in Slovenia, a
year later in the other two countries). Interestingly in that context, as of 1994–1998
Slovenia was achieving the region’s highest yields of sugar beet; while a decade
later (in the 2004–2008 period), it was only in 5th place among the CEECs. In turn,
where Croatia was concerned, the opportunity to increase exports of sugar to other
EU states in the late 2000s and early 2010s ensured an increase in the area planted
with sugar beet. In the 2012–2013 period alone, the production of the crop rose by
nearly 10% there, with sugar then achieving a status as one of the country’s key
agricultural products for export. In recent years, the region’s highest yields to be
noted for sugar beet have characterised Hungary, the Czech Republic, Croatia,
Poland and Slovakia (Fig.12.7).
In 1989, yields of rape achieved in the CEECs were only 6% lower than across
the area of the EU-17 countries. However, following a long period of decline, 2003
brought the lowest gure to be noted at any time in the post-1989 era. At this point,
yields of rape were 44% lower than their counterparts achieved in the countries of
the EU-17. However, from the time of EU accession onwards, most of the CEECs
began to make good their losses, achieving steady increases in their yields of rape.
Nevertheless, only in the present decade has it been possible to speak of a clear
reduction in the disparities between rape yields to be noted in east and west. Thus
far, the peak effects were reported in 2014 (Fig.12.8).
Achievements in vegetable-growing in the CEECs prove markedly different
from one country to another, as well as in line with the species. Results are very
much conditioned by the level of specialisation and intensication of production. In
extremis, cabbage yields in Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Estonia are all
higher than the average for countries of the EU-17, even though the lowest yields
characterising the growing of this crop in Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Croatia and
Lithuania look far less favourable. In general, yields of cabbage have been on a slow
rise in both the EU as a whole and our region. Thus the lowest gure noted was the
Farming Crop Efciency
154
222 q per 1 for 1992, while the record high was of 309in 2014. Nevertheless, the
trends for yields have differed greatly from one country to another. In Latvia,
Romania and Bulgaria, the efciency present at the start of the period (in the early
1990s) has not been built on further. In contrast, the two countries achieving the
lowest yields of cabbage at the outset (Croatia and Estonia) have been recording
levels more than 2½ times as high as that in recent years (Fig.12.9).
After a period of decline noted during the rst several years of the study period,
yields of onions in the CEECs began to follow an upward trend. The lowest level (of
Fig. 12.7 Yields of sugar beet
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
Fig. 12.8 Yields of rape
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
12 Far ming Efciency
155
Fig. 12.9 Yields of cabbage
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
122 q per ha) was therefore noted in 1992, while the highest was the 192 q per ha
characterising 2014. However, this overall increase in yields regionally conceals a
variety of different trends. For example, by the end of the study period, Estonia had
still not managed to rebuild yields to those seen at the beginning of the period. The
value of 97 q per ha the country achieved in 1993 was only exceeded once– in 2008.
In contrast, Croatia managed a more-than-fourfold increase in yields of onions over
the study period.
That said, a key feature with the crop of onions is that– unlike in the case of cab-
bages– our region continues to be seen in a very unfavourable light compared with
the EU-17. Yields during the study period were at only just over half the level noted
in Western Europe, with improvements only proceeding rather slowly. Low values
have in particular been noted in the Baltic countries, as well as the south-eastern
part of the region (Fig.12.10).
An interesting example is offered by the results obtained for the cultivation of
tomatoes. Here too, it is possible to note improved yields in the region under study.
However, the increases are actually slower than those taking place at the same time
in the EU-17, notwithstanding a twofold difference between these areas. Disparities
of this kind in fact worsened markedly at the beginning of the study period, as yields
of tomatoes simply declined across the CEECs. The low point came in 1997, when
our region reported 118 per ha for this crop. After that, most of the change noted
was in a favourable direction, to the point where 2018 brought a record gure for
tomatoes in the region– of 341 q per ha. Nevertheless, the amount of catch-up with
Western Europe that is required remains very large.
While changes and trends for tomato yields are very much differentiated from
one area to another, it is still possible to distinguish two main groups of countries.
Farming Crop Efciency
156
The rst group, which achieved a very considerable increase in yields, comprises
Croatia, Poland and Hungary. There – in the course of less than 3 decades – the
improvement was a several-fold one, to the point where Hungary has recently been
achieving yields above the average for the EU-17 countries. The second group is
formed by the remaining countries, in which yields again in general increased,
albeit in an unstable way, and to only a limited extent. Today, low yields for the crop
of tomatoes are rst and foremost a feature of the Baltic countries, as well as
Romania and Czechia (Fig.12.11).
Fig. 12.11 Yields of tomatoes
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
Fig. 12.10 Yields of onions
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
12 Far ming Efciency
157
Other examples only serve to conrm the very specic and individualised causes
of spatial differentiation in vegetable yields. These require detailed analyses and an
effective recognising of the production conditions holding sway in particular coun-
tries– a matter that extends beyond the remit of this study. In this case, however, it
is possible to seek some kind of general principles. And the more-limited intensi-
cation of plant production in the CEECs can be taken as ensuring that, while there
are distinctly positive trends to be noted when it comes to the yields of particular
vegetables, the gap separating the region from the other part of the EU remains a
very large one (Figs.12.12 and 12.13).
Fig. 12.12 Yields of carrots
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
Fig. 12.13 Yields of cucumbers
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
Farming Crop Efciency
158
It is yields of fruit that emerge as most dependent on climate conditions. These
crops are therefore most favoured in the south of the region, where the growing
season lasts longest and there is a great deal of sunshine. It therefore comes as no
surprise that the highest yields noted for most species of fruit relate to Slovenia,
Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary.
Yields of applies, which can be cultivated throughout the CEECs, are still very
much dependent on weather conditions. A particularly crucial period is that during
which apple trees are in blossom and thus setting their fruit. The frosts that are quite
possible here at the end of April and beginning of May can do much to negate all the
hard work and effort that orchard-keepers put in. While Poland is the leader in the
production of apples anywhere in Europe, spring frosts there are major factors
determining levels achieved in any given year. In 1987, Poland’s largest region of
orchards (located somewhat to the south of Warsaw) was hit by sharp frosts that
froze some 70% of all the fruit trees. For at least a period, fruit-producers were hit
by a major economic shock in this way. In truth, some positive sides to the event
may be noted from a longer-term point of view, as many old orchards were grubbed
up at that point, with their places taken by more-productive varieties of apple.
Notwithstanding the major year-on-year uctuations in yields noted for the
CEECs (of 19% on average across the 1989–2018 period), and still bearing in mind
the falls noted in the rst part of the study period, it can be concluded overall that
yields obtained in the CEECs are on the rise, to the extent that there is a steady
reduction in the distance separating them from the “Old EU” (or EU-17). The low-
est gure for yield was noted in the region under study in 1995 (77 q per ha). In
contrast, 2018 brought a record high values of 204 q per ha (Fig.12.14).
Overall, the region’s yields of apples can now be said to be at about half the aver-
age levels noted for the EU-17. However, the trends for change differ markedly
Fig. 12.14 Yields of apples
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
12 Far ming Efciency
159
among the CEECs. While Estonia, Latvia and Bulgaria have failed to re-achieve the
level reached at the beginning of the study period (with Estonia’s peak of 52 q per
ha recorded as long ago as in 1993 and Bulgaria’s peak gure of 206 even dating
back to 1989), Poland, Croatia and Hungary have managed a steady increase over
the whole period following their initial decline in yields.
Decidedly the largest harvests of apples per ha were those achieved in Slovenia–
the only country in the region in which yields exceed the EU-17 average. A still-
greater advantage of Slovenian orchard production applies in the case of yields of
sweet cherries, which are almost ve times as high as those in the EU-17 region as
averaged.
Furthermore, high yields of applies can be seen as a feature in the whole central
part of our region– comprising in particular Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic
and Slovakia. On the other hand, the smallest harvests of apples per ha planted with
the species were to be noted in the three Baltic countries– and were thus the direct
result of climatic conditions less favourable for the cultivation of the species.
In regard to the production efciency achievable with different stone fruits, the
situation in the CEECs proves to be disparate, and very much dependent on the spe-
cies grown. As an example, one might compare the efciency noted in growing
plums and sweet cherries. In the former case, it is only possible to speak of a slow
bridging of the gap separating the CEECs from Western Europe when the post-
accession period was reached. As of 2014–2018, the difference in average yields of
plums was still relatively large– at 45%. In turn, rather different circumstances
characterised the yields of sweet cherries the CEECs were able to manage. In this
case, it was possible to note an increase as soon as in the early 1990s. However, both
the turn of the century and the turn of the decade brought a distinct stagnation, and
even a small decline, in the efciency of cherry-growing. Equally, as yields of sweet
cherries fell markedly among the EU-17, twenty-rst-century results achieved in
the CEECs looked better, with the differences in recent years continuing to increase.
Where the two species of fruit are concerned, the best production results of all have
been obtained in Slovenia and Romania, as compared with the worst in the north-
ernmost states comprising the Baltic countries.
The evaluation of the CEECs’ production efciency regarding soft fruit is again
a diverse one, with type of cultivation being a key factor– as the examples of straw-
berries and raspberries can make clear. In the former case, the 1990s brought a
marked decline in yields; and, while the region rather quickly began to witness a
steady re-increase for strawberries (continuing through to the present day), there is
still in fact no full return to the level achieved at the very beginning of the analysed
period– with record 1989 yields of strawberries never regained. In the early 1990s,
those yields in the region were not even at 30% of the average noted for this kind of
fruit in the case of the EU-17. And in later years, those differences only increased
further. Recently, mean yields noted for strawberries in the CEECs have been at less
than 20% of analogous values for Western Europe. On the other hand, as time
passes, there is ever-greater recognition of the taste and healthfulness value ascrib-
able to the strawberries the CEECs produce, often using traditional methods that
entail smaller nancial outlays, but greater inputs of labour. Such valuable features
Farming Crop Efciency
160
are not encapsulated by the quantitative methods used (here and elsewhere) to mea-
sure efciency of production.
In turn, the lowest yields of strawberries characterise the northern part of the
region– i.e. the Baltic countries and Poland.
Unlike strawberries, raspberries were the subject of markedly increased yields
from the early 1990s onwards, with the twenty-rst century therefore bringing a
stabilisation at a constant high level. However, while the rst years of EU member-
ship for the CEECs brought the aforementioned increased yields of raspberries, the
trend to be noted in recent years is once again downward. The highest yields in the
region are at present those achieved in Bulgaria and Poland. Meanwhile, across the
EU-17, the time since the mid-1990s has seen a constant, dynamic increase in the
efciency with which raspberries are produced. In connection with this, differences
in mean yields for the species achieved in respect of the “Old EU” have increased
from 27% for 1994–1998 to as much as 69% for the 2014–2018 period. The differ-
ences noted previously were as they were, but maintenance of the current trend for
raspberries will mean that differences in yields obtained in the parts of the EU com-
pared here will come to resemble those applying to strawberries. This is leading–
straightforwardly enough– to a situation in which the Community area is divided
more and more distinctly from the point of view of the type, objective and speciali-
sation of soft-fruit growing. Thus Western Europe is ever-more specialised in the
intensive production of soft fruit, targeted at quantitative efciency; while the
CEECs specialise more and more clearly in production engaged in on the basis of
more-traditional methods, in which the targeting is at the efcient obtainment of
valuable features of quality (Table12.1).
Livestock Efciency
Animal production has been withdrawn-from steadily in smaller, less commercially-
oriented economies that have lost out in competition with entities specialising in the
raising of livestock. In this connection, both the region as a whole and its separate
countries have experienced declines in the populations of some livestock species,
with the result that levels of production have stagnated or even gone down. Such a
trend has concerned dened directions of faring activity and given rise to a change
in structure. For example, over the analysed 1989–2018 period as a whole, there
were declines in levels of production of both milk and pork, even as production of
these increased on the scale of the entire European Union. Still-larger declines in
production characterised beef and lamb/mutton. In turn, in the case of poultry, the
region’s dynamic in the direction of increased production was at above the aver-
age level.
Nevertheless, structural changes in agriculture exerted their signicant inuence,
not only on the amounts of different products of animal origin generated by the
CEECs, but also on the spatial distribution and efciency of this production.
Withdrawal from the raising of livestock in areas with less-favourable natural
12 Far ming Efciency
161
Table 12.1 The position of the CEECs and EU in terms of the efciency of production of selected
crops through the study period
Produce
Efciency of production compared with
the EU-17
Change in efciency of
productiona
1989–1993
2014–
2018 The CEECs EU-17
Wheat −28.3% −24.5% +27.9% +21.4%
Barley −25.3% −19.9% +34.7% +25.7%
Triticale −21.3% −24.2% +13.4% +17.7%
Rye −31.6% −36.8% +20.6% +30.5%
Oats −31.8% −20.6% +18.1% +1.4%
Peas −55.2% −11.4% +21.2% −38.6%
Beans +12.6% −14.5% +115.0% +183.2%
Green peas −33.3% −12.0% −10.6% −32.2%
Potatoes −43.8% −44.2% +36.2% +37.0%
Cabbage +2.3% −11.5% +11.5% +28.9%
Onions −57.4% −57.9% +29.6% +31.1%
Tomatoes −63.6% −59.1% +73.2% +54.4%
Carrots and turnips −50.1% −48.1% +39.2% +33.8%
Cucumbers and
gherkins
−82.1% −73.3% +130.4% +54.5%
Cauliowers and
broccoli
+8.1% +10.6% +13.3% +10.8%
Apples −55.6% −52.6% +50.9% +41.3%
Plums and sloes −40.4% −45.4% +51.6% +65.6%
Strawberries −71.8% −80.5% −1.6% +42.2%
Raspberries −37.2% −69.1% +12.6% +128.8%
Cherries −13.6% +46.3% +41.2% −16.6%
Sugar beet −41.9% −23.0% +96.7% +48.4%
Rape −20.3% −15.9% +31.3% +24.5%
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
aDifference in the mean for the 1989–1993 and 2014–2018 periods
conditions, or on farms not adapted to this structurally and economically, has often
worked to further concentrate and specialise this kind of production, with the obvi-
ous attendant increases in efciency. For farms that cover larger areas and are more
specialised enjoy much greater opportunities to intensify, with better results there-
fore obtained. Overall then, while populations of livestock species have declined in
the region, there has been a simultaneous rise in the efciency with which produce
of animal origin is generated. The result has been greater efciency, and a steady
limiting of the gap separating the region and its states from agriculture in the
“Old EU”.
That said, in some countries of the region, falls in numbers of the main livestock
species were so large that even increases in efciency could not offset them fully. In
Livestock Efciency
162
the Czech Republic, for example, reductions in the number of head of pigs and
cattle ended the country’s self-sufciency in meat production, necessitating a resort
to imports (Svatos and Smutka 2012). The reason for the end put to livestock- rearing
on many farms was limited commercial viability. In the case of pigs, a root cause
was the rising cost of feed, accompanied by price uctuations and the onset of the
importation of cheaper pork. On the other hand, insufciency when it came to the
production of beef was the result of a fall in numbers of beef cattle combined with
favourable prices noted for this meat internationally. The effect was enhanced
exports of cattle and calves for slaughter abroad.
Stocking with animals expressed in terms of livestock units per 100ha of farm-
land is quite differentiated spatially, albeit still at a lower level than is characteristic
for Western Europe’s intensive agriculture. While the CEECs report an average g-
ure of 47 per 100ha, the mean value for the EU-17 is as high as 88. However, among
the CEECs there are obviously above-average values by regional (or even EU) stan-
dards – with Slovenia leading (on 105 livestock units per 100 ha), followed by
Poland (66), Hungary (52), the Czech Republic (51) and Croatia (48) (Fig.12.15).
The breakdown of data for animal production in the region also reveals consider-
able differentiation, ensuring that the shares different countries take in the produc-
tion of milk or meat expressed per inhabitant differ rather from what the level of
stocking of the given animals would indicate. The highest level of production of
milk per inhabitant (in fact above the average for the EU-17 of 337kg) is to be noted
in the three Baltic countries (Estonia 603, Lithuania 561 and Latvia 510), as well as
in Poland (374kg). Above-average values for this index are also noted in Slovenia
(303kg) and the Czech Republic (298kg). These gures compare with the CEEC-
wide average of 296kg.
Where trends for milk production per inhabitant are concerned, the period of
decline at the beginning of the period was short-lived, but tangible and harmful. The
Fig. 12.15 Stocking expressed in terms of livestock units per 100ha of farmland in 2016
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data
12 Far ming Efciency
163
years 1989–1995 brought a decline from 363kg (about 1% above the mean value
noted for the EU-17) to 265kg (21% below the value for the 17). The only increase
at that time was the none noted for Romania, whose 1989 level of production of
milk per inhabitant was the region’s lowest. The most-limited decline was in turn
that noted for Slovenia.
Leaving aside temporary reductions in milk production per inhabitant of the
region in the 2005–2010 period (in large measure linked with these countries’
adjustment to the milk quotas in the EU they were acceding to), the post-1995 situ-
ation in the CEECs featured a slow but steady increase in per-capita production.
Nevertheless, in connection with the generally limited dynamic associated with this
increase (as i.a. curbed as CAP rules were applied), the situation resembled that
with meat, in that in proved impossible for the countries in the region to catch up
with their Western European counterparts. At present, the level of production of
milk expressed per inhabitant in the CEECs is some 12% lower than in the EU-17.
However, it is worth pointing to diverse trends for the statistic from one country in
the region to another. While, as of 2018, some 4 countries were producing less milk
per inhabitant than they had done in 1995 (markedly so in the cases of Slovakia and
Bulgaria), the largest post-1995 increases could be seen in Latvia, Estonia and
Poland. That said, no state had proved able to fully make good the losses arising
between 1989 and 1995. Indeed, the only country with a net-positive outcome over
the period as whole is Romania– the only country to avoid losses of the aforemen-
tioned kinds.
All this said, it needs to be recalled how– for more than 30years (post-1984)–
the dairy sector in the EU operated within the connes of milk quotas seeking to
limit excess production. Such activity also affected milk producers in the CEECs.
The quota system in fact came to an end in 2015, so the time may nally have come
for milk production in the region to build beyond what it was (in statistical terms at
least) at the start of the period of transformation (Fig.12.16).
Differences in the efciency with which milk is produced depend rst and fore-
most on the level of intensication, of which aspects include the selection of dairy
cattle, the means of feeding and quality of feed, and (to a lesser extent) the natural
conditions. The highest-producing dairy cattle will be those that receive painstaking
care– and that will be a hallmark of a farm’s advanced degree of specialisation in
this. Among the CEECs, the mean amount of milk produced from dairy cattle has
been increasing steadily, with the periods over which cows continue to supply milk
also extending. In the rst years of systemic transformation, there was both a fall in
numbers of cows and in their level of production of milk. Thus, production as of
1989 was 28% lower than in the EU-17, compared with 39% by 1995. The largest
declines in output were noted in Estonia and Lithuania. On the other hand, there are
four countries in the region which were already producing more milk by 1995 than
in 1989. Of these, the one showing by far the largest increase was Romania. And by
2000, it was only in Bulgaria that the situation remained less favourable than
in 1989.
In general, in the twenty-rst century, reductions in numbers of head of cattle
occurring throughout the region were counteracted by an ongoing increase in
Livestock Efciency
164
animals’ efciency at supplying milk. What is more, the gap separating our region
from the EU-17 was reduced steadily, such that by 2018, the Western member states
were only ahead by 25%. While the region’s post-1995 trend for increased milk
production per cow appears as a steady one, the rates from one country to another
did differ. It was in the south-east (where cow’s milk is relatively speaking of the
most limited signicance) that milk yields of cows rose least. Below-average
increase also characterised Croatia and Hungary. Elsewhere, the level doubled,
while in Estonia it even tripled. Overall, these changes enhanced disparities across
the region, and today milk production is lowest in Croatia, Romania and Bulgaria.
At the other extreme, gures for Estonia, the Czech Republic and Hungary actually
exceed the average characterising the EU-17 (Fig.12.17).
The breakdown of data for milk produced in the CEECs resembles that for the
EU-17in the clear predominance maintained by cow’s milk. In most cases, other
kinds of milk are of nothing more than “trace” importance. Nevertheless, when the
recent situation is set against that of 1989, the two parts of the EU under study here
are both seen to have experienced slight increases in the shares attributable to the
milk obtained from goats and sheep. Markedly the smallest share among the differ-
ent kinds of milk is that taken by buffalo-milk.
Thus the specic nature of the breakdown of the data for milk production among
the CEECs is rst and foremost one in which differences or disparities are limited.
The two least-important components, i.e. milk from goats and buffalo, represent just
0.35% of the overall amount of milk produced, while the corresponding gure for
the EU-17 is as high as 1.6% or so. In turn, the share taken by goat’s milk in the
region under study is 2.4%– as compared with a lower gure (of around 1.6%) in
Western Europe.
Fig. 12.16 Overall production of milk per capita
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
12 Far ming Efciency
165
The widest diversity of types of milk produced is found in the south of the region,
i.e. in Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia. The proportions of milk other than from cows
in these countries are at the levels of 14, 12 and 3.0% respectively. In Romania,
cow’s milk is augmented to a relatively large degree on the market by sheep’s milk,
while in Bulgaria the latter accounts for about 7.0% of milk produced. Milk from
goats in turn takes highest shares in Bulgaria (4.2%), Croatia (1.9%), Slovakia
(0.91%) and the Czech Republic (0.40%). In turn, buffalo-milk is mainly produced
in Bulgaria, where it accounts for a respectable 1.1% of all milk produced
(Fig.12.18).
It is also in the south of the region that the most major changes in the breakdown
of data for milk produced have taken place compared with the 1989 situation.
Bulgaria noted the most-marked decline in the signicance of sheep’s milk, while in
Hungary the role played by cow’s milk increased. In turn, in Romania and Croatia
it was the reverse process that was in operation, with the former seeing an increase
in sheep’s milk at the expense of that from cows, while the latter experienced an
increase in the share taken by goat’s milk. That said, it should be emphasised that
the changes involved were minor.
The highest values for the index expressing the amount of meat produced per
inhabitant (which exceed the average for the EU-17 equal to 97kg) are to be noted
for Poland (118kg) and Hungary (107kg). Third place in the region is taken by
Lithuania (on 89kg). However, values for the indicator analysed declined markedly
in all 11 CEECs during the 1990s. As of 1989, the combined value was still almost
the same as in the EU-17– at 88kg per inhabitant. However, as of 2000, that gure
had fallen to just 66kg, and was thus around 30% below the analogous gure for
Western Europe. The period’s most-limited decline in the level of production of
meat per inhabitant characterised Poland, while the most-severe negative change
aficted the Baltic countries. In Estonia and Lithuania there was something like a
Fig. 12.17 Mean annual milk production per cow
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
Livestock Efciency
166
2.5-fold decrease in the production of meat per inhabitant across the decade under
analysis. In Latvia, the corresponding decline was almost vefold (Fig. 12.19).
Nevertheless, subsequent years saw production of meat bounce back in the
region to some extent, though thus far it has never taken agriculture in the CEECs
back to the level it had had at the end of the communist era. As of 2018, 81kg of
meat were produced per inhabitant in the region– a gure 16% below the average
reported for the EU-17. In ve of the CEECs, the production of meat per inhabitant
declined further over the 2000–2018 period, and this was particularly the case for
Slovakia and Bulgaria, where there was nearly a halving. On the other hand, Croatia
and Latvia noted a near-doubling of the value of production from the 2000 level.
Other dynamic increases were experienced by Lithuania, Poland and Estonia, even
Fig. 12.18 Breakdown of data for milk produced in the CEECs and in the EU-17in 2018
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
Fig. 12.19 Overall production of meat per capita
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
12 Far ming Efciency
167
though it was only in Croatia and Poland that farming actually managed to build on
the level of production of meat per inhabitant achieved in 1989.
In the early 1990s, both a majority of the countries that would be within the
Community by 2018 and the region of Central and Eastern Europe, had levels of
pork production that exceeded the production due to all remaining livestock used
for meat taken together. However, the structure characterising production at that
level has undergone major change since that time, as the activity is still concen-
trated, but now in the dual directions of pork and poultry. In reality, the latter kind
of meat derives very much from the large-scale rearing of hens.
In the EU as a whole, these two categories account for 74% of all meat produced
(as compared with 80% in the region focused on here). The marked increase in the
share in the EU attributable to poultry mainly took place at the expense of beef,
whose production largely contracted as a result of the epidemic of BSE (Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy or “Mad Cow Disease”, potentially causing
Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease or CJD in people). The disease of cattle spread through
Western Europe in the 1990s– with the threat to people becoming most clear from
1996 onwards. In the CEECs, the breakdown of data for meat produced is seen to
have changed more than it did in the EU-17. Between 1989 and 2018, the share of
all meat assuming the form of chicken increased there from 16 to 35%, just as the
corresponding change for the EU-17 was from 16 to 23%. Beyond that, the share of
all meat that was of avian (bird) origin increased over the study period from 18 to
41% in the CEECs, as opposed to from 20 to 28% in the countries of the “Old EU”.
The CEECs thus have a specic structure to the meat they produce which differs
from that in other EU Member States, and which has reected major change during
the transformation period. The increased signicance of poultry among the meat
produced in the CEECs corresponded with declines in the shares attributable to pork
and beef. While the shares taken by these two species were 57 and 21% respectively
in 1989, the lower gures for 2018 were of 45% and 12%. This reected lower
protability of producing pork, as well as a change in prevalent models of nutrition
that saw emphasis shift to the consumption– and hence also the production – of
poultry. In the meantime, in the EU-17, there was a decline in the share of meat
taken by beef from 26 to 18%, even as the share attributable to pork there grew from
48 to 51% (Fig.12.20 and Table 12.3).
In 1989, the region of the CEECs stood out from Western Europe in a greater
share taken by pork, with the share of beef smaller. By 2018, the changes detailed
above ensured that the breakdown of data for meat production in the region above
all has a larger share of chicken, with both beef and pork plating a less-signicant
role. A diversication can also be said to have taken place. Overall production of all
types of meat outside the three top categories increase from a 5.7% share in 1989 to
an 8.4% share in 2018. In contrast, the corresponding gure for the EU-17 declined
from 10% to 8.2%. Thus, among the 16 types of meat under study, those in which
the share of production is greater in the CEECs than in the EU-17 are chicken
(35%), duck (1.8%), rabbit, goose and guineafowl (0.7% each) and horse (0.2%).
The breakdown of data for meat produced in the region does manifest its spatial
differentiation. Equally, there is no country in which pork and poultry are not the
Livestock Efciency
168
two main types of meat produced. Immediately after the communist-era economy
met its end, pork was taking the largest shares (above the regional average) in
Poland, Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary. Poland was then second among all current
states of the EU in terms of the production of this meat (after Germany). Equally,
since the time in question, all four countries have been through declines in the share
of overall meat production attributable to pork. Poland is the only country within
that group in which absolute amounts of pork produce rose in the 1989–2018
period– ensuring that this is today the region’s number 1 producer, and the fourth
in the EU after Germany, Spain and France (Figs. 12.21 and 12.22).
Efciency in the production of pork as expressed per pig increased over the
1990–2018 period in both the EU as a whole and the CEECs. However, in the region
under study, that increase was of 66%– denoting a faster rate than in Western
European agriculture. The increase in efciency of meat production noted for the
region’s pigs for fattening was not a constant process, as a decline in this respect
could be noted between 2000 and 2005. Only post-accession was a more dynamic
increase in the efciency of pork production noted, with this by 2018 reducing to
just 5% this particular gap between our region and the countries of Western Europe
(Figs.12.23).
The EU-17 average value for the efciency of production of pork was exceeded
by Polish breeders of the livestock in 2015, with their Hungarian counterparts fol-
lowing suit in more-recent years. In turn, the largest increases in efciency above
goose
and
guinea
fowl
goose and
guinea fowl
turkey
turkey
duck duck
goat
goat
sheep
sheep
chicken
chicken
cattle
pig
pig
cattle
other birds other birds
rabbit rabbit
game
game
other other
buffalo
buffalo
mule
mule
horse
horse
ass
ass
CEECs 1989 CEECs 2018
goose and
guinea fowl
goose and
guinea fowl
turkey turkey
duck duck
goat
goat
sheep
sheep
chicken
chicken
cattle
cattle
pig pig
other
birds
other
birds
rabbit rabbit
game game
other other
buffalo
mule
horse
ass
buffalo
mule
horse
ass
EU 17 1989 EU 17 2018
Fig. 12.20 The breakdown of data for meat produced in the CEECs and EU-17
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
12 Far ming Efciency
169
and beyond 1989 levels has characterised Slovenia and Croatia, as well as Estonia,
Romania and Poland. The example furnished by pork resembles those involving
other kinds of meat in revealing major differences from one area to anther when it
comes to both efciency of production and the trends noted for it. This is most likely
linked to the keeping of particular breeds, the ways of supplying food and quality of
Fig. 12.22 Breakdown of data for countries’ production of meat in 2018
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
Fig. 12.21 Breakdown of data for countries’ production of meat in 1989
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
Livestock Efciency
170
feed supplied, the level of knowledge and experience of those raising the livestock,
and the level of intensication at which this is carried out.
Pork’s largest share of all meat produced is to be noted in Estonian farming, the
level there exceeding that for all the other kinds of meat put together. Estonia is also
the only CEEC in which the share of pork amongst all the different kinds of meat is
actually greater than in the countries of Western Europe. Relatively large shares
attributable to pork are also typical for meat production in Croatia (49%), Poland
(48%) and Hungary (48%). Equally, in Lithuania and Slovenia, changes in the
breakdown of data for meat production moved in a different direction. While pork’s
share of all meat was already low, it declined further– to the point where the share
has been below 30% of all meat produced in each of these countries. However, in
this respect these states stand out markedly from others in the region, with the top
places taken either by poultry (basically chicken), or beef in the case of Slovenia.
Throughout the CEECs, the importance of poultry has risen, with the dominant
role within this category of course taken by chicken. The largest shares for the cat-
egory currently characterise Slovenia, Slovakia, Lithuania and Bulgaria. In
Lithuania, chicken production outdoes that noted for all the other species bred for
their meat taken together. In turn, the Slovenian situation is one in which chicken
took a very high share even back in 1989. On the other hand, where Slovakia is
concerned, the more major role for poultry reects dynamic development in this
direction– at the expense of the production of pork and beef. Slovakia increased its
share of all meat accounted for by chicken from a mere 10% or so in 1989 through
to almost 50% as of 2017. An almost similar rate of increase of this kind cold also
be seen in Lithuania.
Fig. 12.23 Annual production of pork meet expressed in relation to the number of pigs
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
12 Far ming Efciency
171
Relatively the most limited shares of meat production attributable to chicken are
those reported for Croatia (23%), Estonia (26%), the Czech Republic (31%),
Hungary (32%) and Poland (33%). Nevertheless, the region under study can be
considered to have specialised in producing chicken, as only in Croatia is its share
of all meat produced currently below the average for the EU-17.
Poland offers an instructive example. From the mid-1990s onwards, Poland
became the region’s leading producer of chicken. And all the more so after its 2004
EU accession, with the country’s role in the production of the species growing
steadily. At the end of the rst decade of the twenty-rst century, Polish agriculture
was able to supply more than half of the region’s entire output of this kind of meat.
Among all countries of the Community, it came second only to the UK from this
point of view. However, although Polish agriculture was producing 4.5 times as
much of this kind of meat in 2018, as compared with 1989, the domestic share of all
meat attributable to chicken has remained below the regional average level.
A general rule would be that countries where the share due to chicken is rather
low produce larger amounts of other types of “poultry”. While turkey meat plays a
markedly more-minor role in meat production among the CEECs, the dynamic
increase in its signicance that has taken place is nevertheless noteworthy. Recently,
the highest shares for turkey have characterised Hungary (7% of all meat produced),
Croatia (4.7%), Poland (4.1%) and Slovenia (3.8%). It is only in the rst two of
these countries, that shares noted for turkey go beyond the average for the EU-17.
In the case of Hungary, the increased signicance of turkey has been a feature of the
last three decades as a whole. In contrast, in Croatia and Slovenia, the upswing in
production was an early feature, with stabilisation occurring over most of the study
period. In turn, in Latvia, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and
Bulgaria, the production of meat from turkeys continues to be a matter of largely
marginal signicance.
In terms of amounts produced, duck is the third most important “poultry” spe-
cies. As in the case of turkey, production of this meat has risen steadily, but is con-
centrated in spatial terms. Production of this meat is of greatest signicance in
Bulgaria (where a 10% share of all meat is taken), as well as in Hungary (9%) and
the Czech Republic (2.2%). Hungary is the regional leader where the production of
duck is concerned, and indeed over the last three decades production there has
grown threefold. Indeed, in the whole of the EU, Hungary is only surpassed by
France where the production of duck is concerned. Poland takes third place.
Where other bird species are concerned, the least signicance in overall meat
production (also still in decline) is that to be attached to goose and guineafowl. Even
so, our region’s agriculture does include the key producers of these meats in Europe.
Thus, in the EU as a whole, Poland, Hungary and France (in that order) are the lead-
ing producers of meat from these two species of bird. However, at the start of the
period of economic transformation, Hungary was in fact the lead producer. But it
was Polish agriculture that took a dynamic step forward with its production, hence
the change of status with the second decade of the twenty-rst century. That said,
when seen from the domestic point of view, the share of all meat produced in Poland
that can be attributed to goose and guineafowl is actually below the average gure
Livestock Efciency
172
for the CEECs. In these terms, Hungary can still be seen as a key producer, since
2.5% of all the meat that country generates is in the form of either goose or
guineafowl.
Other kinds of bird meat (e.g. pigeon) play a vanishingly limited role overall
within the region. Only in Bulgaria is there even a trace gure of this kind (with
0.006% of all meat accounted for). Equally, the production in question is somehow
a newish feature, as it only began to characterise Bulgaria at the end of the last cen-
tury. Yet, by 2018, the only countries in the EU to produce more meat of this species
were France and Cyprus.
Beef takes third place (after pork and poultry) when it comes to the share of all
meat produced among the CEECs. However, it is the leading meat product in
Slovenia, Croatia and the Baltic countries. Equally, Slovenian agriculture is the only
one in the region to manifest a breakdown of data for meat in which the share attrib-
utable to beef is ahead of that of pork. Beyond that it joins the agriculture practised
in Croatia, Latvia and Lithuania in being characterised by a share in meat produc-
tion attributable to beef that exceeds the EU average. It is nevertheless worth noting
how– post-1989– the three Baltic countries experienced the largest loss for the
share of all meat accounted for by beef. Meanwhile, the lowest-of-all shares noted
for beef are the 2.9% seen in Hungary, Slovakia’s 6.8%, Bulgaria’s 6,9% and
Romania’s 8,6%.
On the other hand, meat from buffalo (as another species of bovine alongside
cattle) is of limited signicance in Bulgaria only (with a 0.64% share). Through to
the end of the twentieth century, Bulgaria was nevertheless the largest producer of
this kind of meat anywhere among the countries making up today’s EU.Production
declined thereafter, however – to the point where the 2018 gure was well under
one-tenth of that noted for 1989. Currently, Bulgaria is well below Italy and Greece
when it comes to amounts of buffalo-meat produced.
Lamb and mutton are not popular meats in the CEECs. However, within that
region, the production is concentrated in the south– to the point where the shares in
overall amounts of meat produced reach 6.2, 4.1 and 2.3% in Romania, Bulgaria
and Croatia respectively. Furthermore, in Romania, Slovenia and Croatia, the shares
taken by meat from sheep in the overall structure have increased. On the other hand,
Bulgaria has seen the reverse process. Of still-less signicance than lamb and mut-
ton is goat meat, whose production is also concentrated in the south, rst and fore-
most in Romania (0.83%), Bulgaria (0.64%) and Slovenia (0.27%).
Rabbit meat remains of very limited signicance, even as its largest shares in the
overall structure for meat produced are to be noted in Czechia, Slovakia and
Bulgaria. Horsemeat is in turn something of a niche interest, whose level of produc-
tion within the CEECs has remained at a similar level for some decades now (even
as the EU as a whole has witnessed a major decline). Horse takes the largest share
of all meat produced (of 1.5%) in the case of Croatia, while the corresponding gure
for Romania is of just 0.53%. These are almost therefore trace amounts. The region’s
largest producer of this kind of meat is actually Poland– which even takes second
place in the EU as a whole (after Spain). However, Polish horsemeat mainly goes
for export– above all to Italy, as well as France and Belgium.
12 Far ming Efciency
173
Game also accounts for a small proportion of the meat produced in the region.
The largest share it takes in any country is the 0.40% noted in Romania, as followed
by the Czech Republic (on 0.24%) and Poland (0.18%). Where trends are con-
cerned, it can be noted that– since the 1990s– the kind of meat (or origin of meat)
in question has assumed a degree of extra signicance– to the point where it is also
becoming tangible when it comes to meat production in both Slovakia and Lithuania.
Perhaps counterintuitively, Poland is the only state in the region reporting a decline
in the share of overall meat production taken by game. The country nevertheless
remains the region’s leading producer of game, and is also a leader in the EU as a
whole– taking third place after Germany and Sweden (Tables 12.2. and 12.3).
Table 12.2 The position of the CEECs taken together and set against the EU from the point of
view of the efciency of production of selected animal products in 1989 and 2018
Index
Efciency of production
compared with the EU-17
Change in efciency of
production 1989–2018a
1989–1993 2014–2018 CEECs EU-17
Milk yield of cows −27.7% −24.7% +71.3% +64.4%
Pork produced per pig −26.9% −5.0% +65.8% +27.5%
Beef produced per head of
cattle
−29.2% −23.9% +9.8% +2.2%
Lamb and mutton
produced per sheep
−34.6% −23.9% +9.8% −5.6%
Chicken meat produced
per bird
−26.7% −8.5% +94.5% +55.8%
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
aDifference in the mean for the 1989–1993 and 2014–2018 periods
Table 12.3 Production of meat by species (thousand tonnes carcass weight), 2016
Country Cattle Pigs Sheep Goats Poultry
Bulgaria 7 66 No data No data 106
Croatia 44 80 1 No data 64
Czechia 72 220 0 0 157
Estonia 9 43 0 0 No data
Hungary 28 432 1 0 508
Latvia 18 31 0 0 30
Lithuania 42 60 0 0 104
Poland 501 1963 1 No data 2268
Romania 58 337 8 0 391
Slovakia 8 48 1 0 No data
Slovenia 36 23 0 0 64
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on EUROSTAT data
Livestock Efciency
175© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Bański, M. Mazur, Transformation of Agricultural Sector in the Central and
Eastern Europe after 1989, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73766-5_13
Chapter 13
An Identication ofDirections ofChange
inAgriculture intheCEECs
The Transformation ofFarms’ Ownership andSize Structure
The period of the last 25years has brought very major ownership change in the
farming sectors of the CEECs– as a reection of the privatisation of State Farms
and Cooperatives, as well as the return of assets taken from their owners during
communist times. The process brought change to all structural components within
the farming sector, from size structure, via trends for what was actually being pro-
duced, to the numbers of farms in existence. The most visible result of privatisation
and restitution in the agriculture of the region under study was a worsening of the
situation where land fragmentation was concerned, as M.Hartvigsen (2013, 2014)
has emphasised. And this has been true of both the ownership of land and the forms
of use to which it is being put.
In the subject literature focused on spatial organisation, it is typical to nd the
fragmentation of land regarded as a key land-use problem (Bentley 1987; King and
Burton 1982; Van Dijk 2003). This reects the way in which additional costs are
generated; accessibility is impaired with travel times increased; the use of larger
machines is prevented and work in the elds hindered; plot boundaries are length-
ened disproportionately with boundary zones typically going un(der)utilised; a
dense(r) network of eld tracks needs to be put in place to allow access; land regis-
tration is rather needlessly made more complex; and it is not unheard of for conicts
between owners to arise.
Bearing in mind form of land ownership and form of land use, it is possible to
distinguish between three categories of relationship between them, i.e.:
(a) the owner of the land does not make use of it,
(b) the owner of the land is also its user,
(c) the user is not the land’s owner (the land is leased) (Fig.13.1).
176
From the theoretical point of view it is then possible to identify several scenarios
for the fragmentation of land. The rst of these entails ownership being fragmented,
with the result that the number of users of the land also increases (hence numbers in
categories a, b and c all increase). A second scenario foresees division of ownership,
albeit with the land-use structure remaining unchanged, e.g. as land is leased (with
numbers a and b therefore on the rise). It is also possible to envisage the fragmenta-
tion of ownership simultaneously with ongoing fragmentation when it comes to
users (such that numbers b and c increase).
The result of the fragmentation of ownership in the countries studied has been a
polarisation regarding farm size that triggers a series of other phenomena relating to
the use made of land in agriculture. On the one hand, a large group of small and
uncompetitive farms have come into existence, while on the other the transforma-
tion of the old Cooperatives have given rise to agricultural companies or other legal
entities whose productive potential is considerable. A good example would be the
size structure of farms in the Czech Republic, where– as of 2007– over 66% of all
farms did not exceed 10ha in size, but altogether those involved used just 2.2% of
the country’s overall area of farmland. On the other hand, farms covering more than
500ha are just 3.8% of the total, even though they utilise more than 72% of all
farmland in the country (Basek and Divila 2008).
A key aspect of the Czech transformation in agriculture entailed a privatisation
of large agricultural holdings whose initial impact was to worsen the economic situ-
ation in the food sector. This came in association with a reduction in the level of use
of fertilisers and plant protection agents, a lack of cohesion where land management
was concerned, and an increase in the area of land left unploughed and fallow. After
50years of the “socialisation” of the farming sector, land was returned to owners, or
acquired by new private entities. Some state land was leased out. The privatisation
process played a very key role when it comes to the current situation as regards land
use, as the consequence has been economic and organisational change vis-à-vis
production conditions. Certain farms with only small areas under cultivation prove
inefcient and are probably condemned to closure in the future. In contrast, the
Cooperatives mainly transformed into commercial-law companies, with the result
that large production units were able to remain intact.
Fig. 13.1 A schematic representation of relationships between the owner of farmland (W) and its
user (U): a– the owner of the land is not its user, b– the owner of the land is at the same time its
user, c– the user of the land is not its owner, on account of land having been leased out. (After Van
Dijk 2003)
13 An Identication ofDirections ofChange inAgriculture intheCEECs
177
The fragmentation of ownership in the Czech Republic and Slovakia did give rise
to fragmented land use– but only to a limited degree that posed no threat of the
farming sector as a whole becoming dysfunctional. Processes of privatisation threat-
ened the fragmentation of land use, but it emerged that the most optimal and rational
form by which to organise production entailed large agricultural enterprises. In this
context it is possible to regard the decision to close down all the State Farms
(Państwowe Gospodarstwa Rolne) in neighbouring Poland as too hasty and not
really thought-through. According to the then proponents of the drastic approach,
the Farms (as a manifestation of the communist system) could not adjust and sur-
vive in the free-market context. Yet some of those enterprises were actually in a
good state economically, and could– with some overhaul– have competed success-
fully on the market. The State Farms did actually possess specialised and well-
trained personnel, a considerable eet of farm machinery and relevant technical
infrastructure, and large areas of land at their disposal. They also played an impor-
tant role when it came to stabilising the rural labour market and (as it were) subsi-
dising various elements of social and cultural infrastructure. Upon their fall, what
very largely took their place were areas of poverty and social exclusion aficted by
very high levels of unemployment and a wide range of social ills.
In Hungary a clear polarisation of farms has taken place, with small farms of just
a couple of hectares on the one hand and large production holdings on the other.
Farms of the rst category have only a small area of land at their disposal and play
only a minor role when it comes to output. They may nevertheless represent a key
element in social terms, as they help stabilise the labour market and safeguard mini-
mum income. A similar role is played by the small “social” farms in Poland or
Romania, on which the greater part of what is produced serves mainly to meet own
needs of those farming and their fellow householders. Farms of the second category
are of course rather few in number compared to the family-owned ones, but they
have in excess of 70% of all agricultural land at their disposal. The signicance of
these kinds of farms are only like to grow as time passes, given their possession of
their own resources to invest, not least in modern methods of both production and
management.
This kind of trend gains conrmation in data on EU farm subsidies. In the rst
years of EU membership, around 90% of all the farm payments in Hungary made
their way to just 100 entities (Land … 2013). Owners of small farms therefore drew
no benet whatever from EU subsidies (indeed, an estimated 93% of all farmers
were excluded). A common fate was for the farms in question to go bankrupt. As of
2009, the situation had moved on a little, but 8.6% of farms were in receipt of 72%
of the overall sum supplied as farm payments. Given the dynamic loss of individually-
owned farms already referred to, this example can only attest to growing disparities
in farm size and economic status to be noted in Hungary, but equally well elsewhere.
Ownership transformation in Romania has featured far-reaching fragmentation
of both the ownership and utilisation of agricultural land. Out of the large “socialised”
farms operating pre-1990 it proved possible to found no fewer than 4million farms.
However, in a clear majority of cases these were entities weak in economic terms,
lacking own funds to be invested, proving to be of limited commercial viability for
The Transformation ofFarms’ Ownership andSize Structure
178
this and other reasons, and often at best seeking to ensure self-sufciency of the
farming household in food. As in Hungary, there is a decline in numbers of farms
capable of attesting to a concentration of land in all units, albeit with the pace of
change being rather slow. The process of attrition among the smallest farms should
be expected to intensify, even as a brake on the process may be applied by very
marked increases in the prices of farmland. Rationalisation of size structure may
also be encouraged actively through land-consolidation programmes. However, it
emerges that Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia are the only CEECs to have
made ready national programmes of land consolidation (Hartvigsen 2014).
Programmes of this kind are therefore lacking in Hungary and Romania, even
though these states are in particular need of an improved size structure for their
farms, given recent changes of ownership.
In the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and to some extent also Hungary, it is pos-
sible to speak of marked disparities between the ownership of land and its use, in the
sense that most of the agricultural land is managed by large-scale entities, even as
the ownership is in the hands of a large group of small-scale owners. However, what
would have been in some sense the worst-case scenario of far-reaching fragmenta-
tion of land use did not play out, thanks to the widespread possibility of land being
leased (Doucha etal. 2005). We may therefore draw a very generalised conclusion
that the presence of large farms correlates with the share of land leased– the greater
the share in the land-use structure for farms that is taken by large farms, the greater
the share of the land that will be the subject of leasehold.
It is worth noting how (other than in Poland where the farming system had long
continued to be based around family farming) the analysed countries’ efforts to
restore or do much to increase the role of typical farms did not enjoy much success.
On the market for food there, the entities of key signicance are different organisa-
tional formats bringing together producers (i.e. holdings, cooperatives, companies,
etc.) that have large areas of farmland at their disposal. This is conrmed by the
work of A.Zadura (2009)– which shows how the failure of private activity in the
agriculture sector arose out of, not only technical/technological and social factors,
but also the disappearance of private entrepreneurship. Lacking professional quali-
cations, the beneciaries of the restitution of land wanted to sell that land rapidly,
with oversupply being the result, followed by an initial stabilisation– or even a
fall– in land prices, as well as an increase in the amount of land being set aside or
left fallow.
A further indirect consequence of privatisation processes was a reduction in the
area of agricultural land. Thus for example in Romania, new owners of land aban-
doned its cultivation on account of the limited commercial viability of production,
a lack of funds to invest, and the fact that other options for activity available to them
were likely to generate far more income. A similar phenomenon was at work in
Hungary.
Furthermore, it needs to be noted just how many of the owners of farms in
Romania were elderly people, who eschewed activity in the agriculture sector for
that reason alone. Moreover, the closedown of the Cooperatives was associated with
a deterioration in the state of technical infrastructure (as maintenance,
13 An Identication ofDirections ofChange inAgriculture intheCEECs
179
modernisation and management were all lacking). The result was a limiting of pos-
sibilities to produce somewhat out of the reach of the individual farmer. According
to Balteanu and Popovici (2010), as of 1989 more than 20% of agricultural land in
Romania had been encompassed by the irrigation system. Yet by 2006, that propor-
tion had fallen to 3%. The drought arising in 2000 was thus able to reduce cereal
output by 40% in comparison with the previous year. Such phenomena were more
than enough to encourage many farms to give up farming.
Ownership processes slowed down the ow of land within the farming sector, but
also out of it and into other branches of the economy. Changes of land designation
in a non-agricultural direction were rst and foremost a feature of the land sur-
rounding cities, or else of circumstances in which agroenvironmental quality was
low. In the rst case, once grace periods had come to an end, owners took advantage
of the opportunity to acquire land at high price, while in the second they withdrew
from productive activity and designated the land for reafforestation. It was reason-
able to foresee that privatisation in agriculture would enhanced ow on the market
for land. Certainly, compared with during the communist era, that market was a
much freer one, while land prices in the CEECs could be thought of as very low
compared to those in Western countries. However, farming could not be said to pay
very well at all at that stage– mediating against an effort to raise protability on a
larger farm– and all the more so as changes in the designation of land were very
much restricted by law. Also contributing to a stagnation on the market for land was
low-cost leasing.
In the Czech Republic, for example, leaseholding could be achieved for around
1.5% of the ofcial price for land,1 leaving this quite effective in discouraging those
leasing land to actually take the next step and purchase. Sales of land were also
limited by an abrupt price-rise in the period prior to EU membership and immedi-
ately thereafter, all the more so with a longer-lasting prohibition on the purchase of
land by foreigners. In Poland, the market for agricultural land was very much con-
ditioned from the supply side. The number of transactions has mainly depended on
owners of land being inclined to sell. A high rate of unemployment and uncertainty
regarding employment only emphasised the need for security, hence a lack of eager-
ness to dispose of land seen as a good place in which to locate capital.
An unfavourable result of privatisation processes in the CEECs entailed take-
overs by members of the so-called nomenklatura, who had hitherto been Board
Members of the Cooperatives and State Farms, were derived solely from Communist
Party circles and yet enjoyed spectacular success once tenders characteristic for the
free market were ushered in– given their special insider knowledge of the farms that
had become subject to privatisation. A widespread phenomenon involved the pur-
chase of vouchers or shares relating to privatised farms– from former members of
their farming teams. In this way, certain individuals made a smooth and lucrative
transition from the old communist-era structures through to the status of owners of
large and productive farms. A new economic system proved a ne occasion for
1 The price takes account of climatic conditions, relief and soil quality.
The Transformation ofFarms’ Ownership andSize Structure
180
these people to advance their economic status further. And the knock-on effect of
that was for informal local setups and coteries to embed themselves smoothly and
rmly enough in newly-established local-government structures.
Through the early 1990s the agricultural economies of CEECs other than Poland
were entirely dominated by the so-called “socialised” sector, denoting State Farms
and production Cooperatives. In contrast, agriculture based around individually-
owned farms was of marginal signicance only. Subsequent years that saw privati-
sation pursued, as well as a return of assets seized during the communist era, gave
rise to a diversication of land use in agriculture, in relation to forms of both owner-
ship and utilisation.
To put things very generally, it may be suggested that the countries under analy-
sis espoused similar concepts when it came to privatisation and the restitution of
land assets, even though the effects of these processes were differentiated to a con-
siderable extent from one to another. The privatisation of farmland took place in line
with a “Western” model of organisation of agriculture that assigned a core role to
the family-owned farm, when it came to the overall system. However, the results
ultimately failed to verify this trend. In the Czech Republic, Slovakia and in part
also Hungary, large agricultural enterprises (as the most effective form) remained in
existence, even as there was a change in the means of management.
In all of the CEECs, the onset of the period of transformation led to an abrupt
fragmentation of agricultural land and later action concentrated on efforts to reverse
that process, i.e. on land consolidation (Rembold 2003; Sabates-Wheeler 2002).
Not everywhere was that a success. A major result of the change of ownership was
a dynamic increase in the number of individually-owned farms. That process took
place in all ve of the countries studied (the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania,
Hungary and Poland), while it was particular intensive in Hungary and Romania.
The result that transpired involved the appearance of a large number of small, low-
viability farms, i.e. something irrational that has had to be followed by 10–20years
of the gradual disappearance of such farms from the countries in question, as well
as to an increase in the signicance of large production enterprises. In turn, in the
Czech Republic and Slovakia, the fact that land had been privatised did not preclude
its remaining under the management of large holdings and companies. To gener-
alise, in the CEECs other than Poland, the situation taking shape is one in which a
dominant role is played by large farms that are basically the successors of the old
Cooperatives and State Farms of the communist era.
Other than Poland, the CEECs experienced “total” changes of ownership, with
the disappearance of the enterprises characteristic of the communist era and the
appearance of a large number of private owners. In the Czech Republic and Slovakia,
small-scale owners have been leasing land to large holdings. And, thanks to that, the
fragmentation of ownership did not bring about a fragmentation of the use of land.
A similar situation applies in Hungary, though there the appearance of a rather large
group of family farms allows it to be suggested that the fragmentation in land use
was further-reaching than in the Czech Republic. In contrast, the result in Romania
was a high degree of fragmentation of both the ownership and use of land, with the
result that farming there had both its efciency and competitiveness impaired. In
13 An Identication ofDirections ofChange inAgriculture intheCEECs
181
turn, analogous changes in Poland were more regional in character, only encom-
passing around 20% of the area of the country in agriculture. The result was again
fragmentation of both land and use, albeit on a far more limited scale than in
Romania (Fig.13.2).
Trends fortheArea ofLand Under Crops
Bearing in mind the need to point to the main trends characterising transformations
in crop-growing that agriculture in the CEECs has been through, a focus here has
been the changes in areas planted with selected crops in the different countries
through the 1990–2018 period. The particular emphasis has been on the most wide-
spread species or groups of crops. That said, to allow trends to be compared across
the whole region, the more in-depth study present here assumed that the crops or
groups thereof should be present in each of the analysed CEECs. Naturally, that
posed a more major problem, given the latitudinal extent of the region involved–
which in turn (as has been noted already) does much to shape diversity when it
comes to crop structure and the presence of given species of plant. Thus, when it
comes to the main crop grown for its oil, that would be rape and eld mustard in the
Fig. 13.2 Models for the
relationship between the
owner (W) and user (U) of
land as an effect of
ownership change in the
agriculture of the CEECs.
(Source: authors’ own
elaboration)
Trends fortheArea ofLand Under Crops
182
north of the region, but sunowers in the south. It was for this reason that universally-
occurring crops (like wheat and potatoes) had to be augmented by dened groups.
Ultimately the analysis took in:
• cereals in general,
• wheat,
• barley,
• potatoes,
• crops producing oil (rape and eld mustard, as well as sunowers),
• crops producing sugar (sugar beet and sugar cane),
• vegetables,
• fruit.
Separate research concerned changes in the area in which different species or
groups of crop are grown, with these changes then being assigned to one of the
categories identied for possible trends. The rst feature was a determination of the
trend nationally for the 1990–2018 period,2 which was characterised in the follow-
ing terms:
1. (W)– an increase in the area cultivated with the crop (of more than 10% above
the value for the rst year),
2. (S)– a stabilisation of the area cultivated with the crop (a change in relation to
the value for the rst year within the −10% to +10% interval),
3. (U)– a decline in the area cultivated with the crop (beyond −10% in relation to
the value for the rst year).
A second feature was then a determination of variability in the national trend
across different time intervals. The analysis thus encompassed ve such intervals,
i.e. 1990–1995,3 1995–2000, 2000–2005, 2005–2010 and 2010–2015. Two main
categories were made use of in the characterisation that followed:
1. a sustained trend (T)– in the case of an increase in the area of the crop (W) over
the years 1990–2015 and in all ve of the constituent time intervals, or in the
case of a decrease (U) a decline in all of the ve time intervals, or in the case of
stabilisation (S) over the years 1990–2015 a change compared with the initial
state that was within the −10% to +10% range in all ve time intervals,
2. a non-sustained trend (Z)– in all other cases.
The third feature was an assessment of directions of change as compared with
the trend for the CEECs overall,4 with the possibilities being:
1. (w)– an upward trend (of more than 10% above the mean for the region),
2 In the cases of Czechia and Slovakia the analysis took in the 1993–2015 period, as opposed to
1992–2005in the cases of Croatia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Slovenia.
3 In the cases of Czechia and Slovakia the rst time interval was 1993–1995. Otherwise, it was
1992–1995.
4 The 1993–2015 period was chosen in line with the availability of data for all of the CEECs.
13 An Identication ofDirections ofChange inAgriculture intheCEECs
183
2. (s)– no major trend/stabilisation (within the −10% to +10% interval either side
of the mean for the region)
3. (u)– a downward trend (past −10% of the mean value for the region).
Analysis of the change in area characterising the main plant species cultivated in
the CEECs allowed for the dening of certain general trends characteristic for the
region, as well as particular countries within it. the rst of these is a sustained trend
for loss of area of land planted with potatoes that proves to be typical for all of the
CEECs and in general corresponds with the average loss for the region as a whole.
It was practically in Romania alone that the decline in the area accounted for by
potatoes was slower than the average for the region. The reverse trend was in turn
applicable to oil-producing crops (rape and eld mustard as well as sunowers).
There were certain CEECs in which the 1990–2015 period as a whole brought a
several- or even a 10–20-fold increase in the area under these crops. However, in no
case was this truly a sustained trend, as there were periods of loss of area of these
crops, as well as increase (Tables13.1 and 13.2).
Changes for other crops analysed were not as clear-cut, though certain general
regularities could nevertheless be discerned. For example, where sugar beet was
concerned, there was a clear trend for the area planted with this species to decline
(in all of the countries except Croatia, where there was a stabilisation). The changes
in different periods were usually variable in nature, meaning increases in area across
certain time intervals. Indeed, the same could be said about vegetables, whose areas
under cultivation in the region declined. Only in Croatia did the level increase, while
in Slovenia it was stable. In all the remaining CEECs it was a decline in the area
Country
Types of crop
Cereals
Wheat
Barley
Maize
Potatoes
Oil crops
Sugar beet
Vegetables
Fruit
Bulgaria UZsSZu UZu WZs UZs WZw UTu UZu UTu
Croatia UZs UZu WZw UZu UZs WZw SZw WZw UZu
Czechia UZs WZs UZs WZw UTs WZu UZw UZu UZs
Estonia SZs WZw UZsX UTs WZwX UZs UTu
Lithuania SZw WZw UTu WZw UZs WZw UZs UZu UZs
Latvia SZs WZw UZuX UTs WZw UZu UZs UZu
Poland UZs SZs UZw WTw UTs WZu UTs UZs WZw
Romania SZsSZu UZwSZu UZw WZw UZu UZw UZs
Slovakia SZs SZs UZs WZw UTs WZs UZw UZu UTu
Slovenia SZs UZu WTw UZu UTs WZu UZu SZw SZw
HungarySZs UZs SZsSZs UTsWZw UZuUZs UTu
Table 13.1 Trends for the area under selected crops in the CEECs, 1990–2015
Source: authors’ own elaboration
W – increase, S – stabilisation, U – decrease; T– sustained trend, Z– non-
sustained (variable) trend; in– upward trend, s– stabilised, u– downward trend
Trends fortheArea ofLand Under Crops
184
taken by these plants that was noted. A loss of area was also characteristic for fruit,
other than in the case of the increase noted for Poland and the maintenance at the
same level that characterised Slovenia. While changes of area under different crops
proved to be rather variable in nature (with individual periods of increase also
noted), where fruit-growing was concerned the trend for a decline in area was a
sustained (i.e. steadily maintained) one in Bulgaria, Estonia, Slovakia and Hungary.
Changes in the area accounted for by all cereals and several key species thereof
proved to be very varied, to the extent that it proved difcult to make out trends.
Generally speaking, where cereals overall are concerned it is possible to refer to loss
of area or stabilisation, depending on which country is involved. Beyond that, in the
case of barley there was a loss of area of cultivated land in most of the countries–
and that contrasted rather with the opposite phenomenon (an increase in area) that
proved to be typical for maize.
Where Bulgarian agriculture is concerned, there has been a marked and (by the
standards of the region) above-average increase in the area under oil-producing
crops, i.e. rapeseed and sunowers, albeit to differing extents. Another increase
involved maize, though this corresponded with the average situation noted in the
region. The growing of other crops was curbed. In turn, changes in Croatian agricul-
ture have been more disparate in nature, though with symptoms more favourable
than those noted for Bulgarian farming. As well as an above-average rise for oil-
producing plants, there were also others notable by the standards of the region as a
whole in the cases of barley and vegetables. At the same time, the area planted with
sugar beet stabilised. Where the Czech Republic is concerned, it is possible to speak
of extensication of production, given the connection with an increased area devoted
to cereal-growing over large areas of monoculture, as well as a reduced role for the
cultivation of plants whose role is intensifying, and dependent on greater inputs of
labour. Czech agriculture has witnessed an increase in area planted with wheat,
maize and oleiferous plants (though in the latter case, the changes were below the
average level for the region). Other crops under study (barley, potatoes, sugar beet,
Table 13.2 Changes in area of selected crops planted in the CEECs (11 EU Member States)
Kind of crop 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Apples 370,373 361,175 353,775 305,822 311,215
Barley 4,189,437 3,490,541 3,599,995 3,037,796 2,782,646
Maize 5,222,415 5,210,057 5,059,883 4,444,136 5,498,522
Oats 1,148,451 1,130,886 1,091,427 1,063,538 922,122
Potatoes 2,321,964 1,993,601 1,136,263 810,931 624,387
Rape 1,010,404 1,145,236 1,391,064 2,954,558 2,535,638
Rye 2,884,417 2,503,956 1,658,450 1,264,783 905,120
Sugar beet 838,574 600,080 541,851 355,163 327,426
Sunower 1,877,644 1,757,151 2,283,869 2,154,107 2,557,198
Wheat 9,116,795 8 760,172 8,910,834 8,733,826 9,465,768
Cereals Primary 24,843,275 23 663,131 23,553,049 21,590,300 22,581,158
Fruit Primary 16,18,393 1,525,101 1,366,029 1,201,490 1,138,547
Vegetables Primary 939,040 839,290 668,782 590,744 589,922
Source: authors’ own elaboration based on FAOSTAT data
13 An Identication ofDirections ofChange inAgriculture intheCEECs
185
vegetables and fruit) came to be cultivated over smaller areas, even as the changes
in question did not appear to be more permanent.
Agriculture in the Baltic countries (meaning Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia in this
context) has been characterised by similar trends where crop structure is concerned.
The area planted with cereals has remained rather stable, though there are periodic
uctuations to be noted. As regards cereal crops, the role of wheat has increased
markedly– its area increasing in all three countries by rates above-average for the
CEECs overall. Similar to the change seen in other countries is the rise in the area
planted with rape and eld mustard, even if the increase was somewhat larger here
than elsewhere. Other crops analysed were seen to have declined in importance.
When set against that in other countries of the region, Polish farming differs most
in the way that the area growing fruit has increased. This is clearly a departure of a
positive nature in comparison with what has been happening in other CEECs. Also
noteworthy is the stabilisation in the area planted with wheat, even as the signi-
cance of maize increased. Similar changes characterised agriculture in Romania,
though extensication has certainly been noticeable there. The area planted with
cereals (including wheat and maize) proves stable, while the increase noted for
crops grown to produce oil resembles that in all countries of the region. Crops of
other categories have been the subject of downward trends. A country seen to have
trends similar to those in Romania is Slovakia, even if one difference is the faster
rate of increase in the area planted with maize.
In Slovenian agriculture, the trends for crop structure were probably the most
favourable ones from the point of view of possible farm income. This reects the
way in which these changes point to intensication, as well as a focus on the more-
protable species. The area planted with cereals remained stable, but– for exam-
ple– the area under barley increased markedly, at the expense of an average loss of
area of wheat. Leaving aside the increase in the areas of land devoted to crops that
produce oil, other categories changed little– with no more major change noted for
either vegetables or fruit– something relatively unusual for the region under study.
In turn, In Hungary, it is rather extensication of crop-growing that has been observ-
able. While there is a stable situation as regards cereals overall, changes in the inter-
nal structure within this category are visible– at the expense of wheat there has been
an increase in the areas under barley and maize. Besides the usual increase in area
noted for oleiferous crops, in all the remaining categories (sugar beet, vegetables,
potatoes and fruit) the trend was towards a reduction in area.
A Synthetic Conceptualisation oftheCrop-Cultivation
andLivestock Structures intheRegion asaWhole andIts
Individual Countries
To sum up the detailed analysis of the distribution and differentiation of crop pro-
duction through the CEECs, a typology was developed to describe the structure. The
equivalent process was also applied to the populations of different livestock species.
In this, use was made of the “D’Hondt Method”– involving consecutive quotients.
A Synthetic Conceptualisation of the Crop-Cultivation and Livestock Structures…
186
This method gains frequent use in assigning parliamentary seats among party lists
in the context of elections, in systems focusing on proportional representation
(Medzihorsky 2019). There have also been successful attempts to use it in analysing
trends for farm production (Kulikowski 1981), and the use of land (Bański 1997).
Here, the method is deployed to achieve a synthetic conceptualisation of (areal)
crop-growing structure, as well as the structure characterising the number of head
of livestock (though in fact as expressed in terms of livestock units) – both in the
CEECs taken together, and in the individual countries. It is typical for studies of
land use (including crop-growing structure) to apply between six and ten consecu-
tive quotients. And bearing in mind the way that the frame of reference in this work
is at whole-country level, the objective of retaining an appropriate level of generali-
sation of types distinguished was served by applying six consecutive quotients. A
given element plays a greater role in the structure if it appears in greater number, as
well as in earlier quotients.
From among the categories of crop identied in previous analysis (see Chap.
7)– which is to say cereals, legumes, bulbs and root crop, vegetables, fruit, drugs
and spices; as well as crops used in the production of sugar, oil and bres– it is
cereals that prevail in the areal structure characterising crop-growing in the
EU.Beyond that, there is a greater or lesser role for crops grown to produce oil.
Only in Slovenia does the areal structure characterising crop-growing entail a sig-
nicant inherent role for fruit. Thus it is possible to put forward a general statement
that cereals dominate rather more fully in the CEECs than they do in the remaining
part of the EU.This would be especially true of the northern part of the region under
study. In Bulgaria and Hungary, an area comparable with that assigned to cereals is
taken by oleiferous crops. And while many other plants grown have their important
role to play in plant production across the region, the usually-intensive nature of this
cultivation always tends to ensure lesser signicance where the areal structure is
concerned. This is especially the case for legumes (which assume relatively the
greatest signicance in the north of the region), as well as for fruit– whose largest
contribution to the structure is in turn made in the study region’s southern part
(Table13.3).
The areal structure for the cereal crops cultivated is found to be rather diversied.
While wheat prevails in most of our region’s states, its contribution is more limited
here than in the case of the EU-17. A clearly-prevalent role for wheat is to be noted
in the structures characterising the Baltic countries, the Czech Republic and
Slovakia, as well as Bulgaria. Otherwise, maize is of greater signicance to the
CEECs than to the EU-17 (to the point where it looks comparable with wheat),
albeit with the prevalence being characteristic of the region’s southern part. In con-
trast, the importance of barley is rather more limited here than in “Western” Europe,
though once again the south of the region proves a special case– as areas planted
with barley are far more limited there. Thus, for example, in the areal structure
characterising Estonia’s cereal-growing, barley proves comparable with wheat,
even as the share accounted for by this species is very limited anywhere to the south
of Czechia and Slovakia. The most-diversied crop structure is found in Poland,
where triticale plays a major role alongside wheat, as well as cereal mixtures and
13 An Identication ofDirections ofChange inAgriculture intheCEECs
187
Table 13.3 Types of areal structure characterising crop-growing overall, 2018
Area
Consecutive quotient
Name of type1 2 3 4 5 6
CEECs Cereals Cereals Cereals Oil Cereals Cereals Pre-eminent cereal with participation of oil-producing
EU-17 Cereals Cereals Oil Cereals Cereals Cereals Pre-eminent cereal with participation of oil-producing
Bulgaria Cereals Oil Cereals Cereals Oil Cereals Cereal with participation of oil-producing
Croatia Cereals Cereals Oil Cereals Cereals Cereals Pre-eminent cereal with participation of oil-producing
Czechia Cereals Cereals Oil Cereals Cereals Cereals Pre-eminent cereal with participation of oil-producing
Estonia Cereals Cereals Cereals Cereals Oil Cereals Pre-eminent cereal with participation of oil-producing
Hungary Cereals Cereals Oil Cereals Cereals Oil Cereal with participation of oil-producing
Latvia Cereals Cereals Cereals Cereals Cereals Oil Pre-eminent cereal with participation of oil-producing
Lithuania Cereals Cereals Cereals Cereals Cereals Oil Pre-eminent cereal with participation of oil-producing
Poland Cereals Cereals Cereals Cereals Cereals Cereals Extreme cereal
Romania Cereals Cereals Oil Cereals Cereals Cereals Pre-eminent cereal with participation of oil-producing
Slovakia Cereals Cereals Oil Cereals Cereals Cereals Pre-eminent cereal with participation of oil-producing
Slovenia Cereals Cereals Cereals Cereals Cereals Fruits Pre-eminent cereal with participation of fruit
Source: author’s own elaboration
A Synthetic Conceptualisation of the Crop-Cultivation and Livestock Structures…
188
rye, and even a quite major role for barley. That said, this diversity of structure is
largely explicable (and justiable) when account is taken of the diverse natural con-
ditions present within the borders of what is the region’s largest country, of consid-
erable latitudinal extent (Table13.4).
The areal structure characterising the growing of oleiferous crops throughout the
CEECs proves to be a varied one that is also differentiated in spatial terms. Moreover,
and as with cereals, there is seen to be a marked difference when the comparison is
made with the structure identiable for farming in the EU-17. The key difference is
linked with the role of olives. Their cultivation is (only) of major signicance in
southern Europe, hence the noteworthy nature of this species within the structure
characterising Slovenia. However, even there does not represent the most important
element. In this region, the prevalent shares in the structure for oil-producing crops
are those taken by rape and sunowers. As with the two cereal crops that prevail in
the region, so here too a reference to latitude is relevant to the way the proportion
vary. While the Baltic countries, Poland and the Czech Republic have an extreme
rape orientation, in Hungary and Romania the structure is sunower-dominant. In
Bulgaria that is even pre-eminently true. This kind of “rule” for spatial differentia-
tion in crop-growing structure across the region is somewhat complicated by the
rather less regular distribution of soya cultivation. The share within the overall
structure taken by this species is greater in Slovenia, Slovakia and Croatia. Indeed,
in the last of the countries mentioned, soya covers a larger area of cropland that any
other species in the category (Table13.5).
It is where fruit-growing is concerned that the areal structure for crops in the
CEECs departs most from that characterising the remaining part of the
EU.Furthermore, in this case there is considerable differentiation (also of a spatial
nature). Overall, fruit-growing has the greatest role to play in the agriculture of the
southern part of Europe. Both in the CEECs and the EU-17, this is a reection of the
greatest share being taken by vines and grapes. A role comparable with that of
olives among the oleiferous plants can be assigned to vines, though the role is still
far more limited in the CEECs than in “Western” Europe. Moreover, where the
EU-17 are concerned, the main admixture species alongside the prevalent grapes is
the almond, whose cultivation is even more concentrated in the southern part of the
continent. In contrast, in the CEECs, the preponderance of grape vines is balanced
by the temperate-zone dominance of apple trees, as followed by the somewhat more
thermophilous (heat-loving) plums and sloes.
As with the categories of crop mentioned earlier, the spatial differentiation char-
acterising types of areal structure in fruit-growing among the CEECs shows a clear
gradient running north-south. Grapes prevail in countries located to the south of the
Western Carpathian and Sudety Mountains. However, a characteristic feature is the
way in which a pre-eminently grape trend for structure does not occur in the south-
ernmost parts of the region, but rather in countries with a considerable presence of
south-facing slopes. This condition is met most fully in Slovenia and Slovakia,
whose northern parts are crossed east-west by belts of mountains, albeit with land
generally at a lower level as one heads further south. In turn, where the structure
characterising Poland and the Baltic countries is concerned, it is the growing of
13 An Identication ofDirections ofChange inAgriculture intheCEECs
189
Table 13.4 Types of areal structure characterising cereal-growing, 2018
Area
Consecutive quotient
Name of type1 2 3 4 5 6
CEECs Wheat Maize Wheat Wheat Barley Maize Wheat-maize with participation of barley
EU-17 Wheat Barley Wheat Wheat Barley Wheat Wheat with participation of barley
Bulgaria Wheat Wheat Maize Wheat Wheat Wheat Pre-eminent wheat with participation of maize
Croatia Maize Wheat Maize Maize Wheat Maize Maize with participation of wheat
Czechia Wheat Wheat Barley Wheat Wheat Wheat Pre-eminent wheat with participation of barley
Estonia Wheat Barley Wheat Barley Wheat Barley Wheat-barley
Hungary Wheat Maize Wheat Maize Wheat Maize Wheat-maize
Latvia Wheat Wheat Wheat Barley Wheat Oats Wheat with participation of barley and oat
Lithuania Wheat Wheat Wheat Barley Wheat Wheat Pre-eminent wheat with participation of barley
Poland Wheat Triticale Wheat Mixed cereals Barley Rye Mixed with prevalence of wheat
Romania Maize Wheat Maize Wheat Maize Wheat Maize-wheat
Slovakia Wheat Wheat Maize Wheat Barley Wheat Wheat with participation of maize and barley
Slovenia Maize Wheat Barley Maize Wheat Maize Maize-wheat with participation of barley
Source: authors’ own elaboration
A Synthetic Conceptualisation of the Crop-Cultivation and Livestock Structures…
190
Table 13.5 Types of areal structure characterising the cultivation of oil-producing crops, 2018
Area
Consecutive quotient
Name of type1 2 3 4 5 6
CEECs Rapeseed Sunower Rapeseed Sunower Rapeseed Sunower Rape-sunower
EU-17 Olives Rapeseed Olives Rapeseed Olives Sunower Olive-rape with participation of sunower
Bulgaria Sunower Sunower Sunower Sunower Rapeseed Sunower Pre-eminent sunower with participation of rape
Croatia Soya Rapeseed Soya Sunower Rapeseed Soya Soya-rape with participation of sunower
Czechia Rapeseed Rapeseed Rapeseed Rapeseed Rapeseed Rapeseed Extreme rape
Estonia Rapeseed Rapeseed Rapeseed Rapeseed Rapeseed Rapeseed Extreme rape
Hungary Sunower Rapeseed Sunower Sunower Rapeseed Sunower Sunower with participation of rape
Latvia Rapeseed Rapeseed Rapeseed Rapeseed Rapeseed Rapeseed Extreme rape
Lithuania Rapeseed Rapeseed Rapeseed Rapeseed Rapeseed Rapeseed Extreme rape
Poland Rapeseed Rapeseed Rapeseed Rapeseed Rapeseed Rapeseed Extreme rape
Romania Sunower Rapeseed Sunower Sunower Rapeseed Sunower Sunower with participation of rape
Slovakia Rapeseed Rapeseed Sunower Rapeseed Soya Rapeseed Rape with participation of sunower and soya
Slovenia Rapeseed Soya Rapeseed Olives Rapeseed Soya Rape-soya with participation of olive
Source: author’s own elaboration
13 An Identication ofDirections ofChange inAgriculture intheCEECs
191
apples that prevails. It is notably only in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and
Romania that an important role in the fruit-growing structure is played by both
vines and apple-trees. The countries in question thus represent a specic kind of
transition zone between the fruit-growing structure typical for the southern part of
the region (where apples do not play a major role) and that typical for its northern
area, in which there is no larger-scale cultivation of vines (Table13.6).
In spite of the broad diversity of fruit trees constituting an admixture for vines
and/or apple trees in the region’s different countries, there are certain spatial prin-
ciples to be noted here too. In the south-east of the region, the cultivation of vines is
accompanied to a signicant degree by stone fruits like plums and sweet cherries. In
Slovenia and Croatia, these are augmented to the largest extent by nuts, in this case
walnuts and hazelnuts. In contrast, soft fruit plays a key role in countries whose
crop-growing structure reveals a prevalence of apples. While in Poland a major role
in the structure is played by strawberries and currants, in the Baltic countries it is
large shares taken by currants and berries that are a characteristic feature.
As among the EU 17, so in the region of the CEECs there is diversied growing
of legumes, albeit with peas playing the most major role in both cases. In the EU-17
area broad beans occupy a similar area to peas, even though the former species does
not really play a signicant role in the region under analysis. Beans and lupins take
decidedly larger shares here.
It further needs stressing that the different CEECs differ greatly when it comes to
the breakdown by area noted for legume crops. Unlike with the types of crop
referred to above, the specics in different countries are more dependent on tradi-
tion than on natural conditions. Peas are markedly dominant in the Czech Republic
and Slovakia, as well as in Romania. Equally, in Croatia and Slovenia they are of
relatively limited signicance, giving way to beans. The latter are markedly domi-
nant in the crop structure noted in Latvia, even though in neighbouring Estonia and
Lithuania the crop is grown over a much smaller area than peas. Furthermore,
throughout the central and south-eastern parts of the region no more-major role is
played. There is an uneven distribution when it comes to the growing of lupins (the
third most important element to the region’s legume-crop structure). While the cul-
tivation of this species in Poland accounts for a larger area than all of the other
legumes, in no other country is the share of lupin within the overall structure of any
signicance. Likewise, the growing of other kinds of legume only has major signi-
cance in one of the CEECs, with no greater role whatever played in any of the oth-
ers. Examples here might be chickpeas, which are dominant among the legumes
grown in Bulgaria; as well as green peas, which are the most-grown of all the
legumes where Hungary is concerned. A key role– if also very conned spatially–
is played by the asparagus bean, green bean and carob. The shares of these are only
more signicant in Croatia, with green beans also present in neighbouring Slovenia
(Table13.7).
In the case of the vegetables grown in the CEECs, the areal structure is very
much differentiated in spatial terms– more so than in the EU-17. In these two com-
pared regions the key crops include tomatoes, present in a further quotient in the
CEECs; as well as onions– which here form one of the earlier quotients. In turn, a
A Synthetic Conceptualisation of the Crop-Cultivation and Livestock Structures…
192
Table 13.6 Types of areal structure characterising fruit-growing, 2018
Area
Consecutive quotient
Name of type1 2 3 4 5 6
CEECs Grape Apple Grape Apple Grape Plum Grape-apple with participation of plum
EU-17 Grape Grape Grape Almond Grape Grape Pre-eminent grape with participation of almond
Bulgaria Grape Grape Grape Cherry Grape Plum Grape with participation of sweet cherry and plum
Croatia Grape Grape Grape Walnut Grape Hazelnut Grape with participation of walnut and hazelnut
Czechia Grape Grape Apple Grape Grape Apple Grape with participation of apple
Estonia Apple Berries Apple Berries Apple Currant Apple-berry with participation of currant
Hungary Grape Grape Apple Grape Grape Apple Grape with participation of apple
Latvia Apple Apple Apple Apple Currant Others Apple with participation of currant and other fruit
Lithuania Apple Berry Apple Apple Berry Apple Apple with participation of berry
Poland Apple Apple Apple Strawberry Currant Apple Apple with participation of strawberry and currant
Romania Grape Grape Plum Grape Apple Grape Grape with participation of plum and apple
Slovakia Grape Grape Grape Apple Grape Grape Pre-eminent grape with participation of apple
Slovenia Grape Grape Grape Grape Grape Grape Extreme grape
Source: authors’ own elaboration
13 An Identication ofDirections ofChange inAgriculture intheCEECs
193
largest difference between the breakdowns by area for the two regions lies in the
fact that cabbage occupies a large area of cropland in the CEECs, even as it fails to
nd a place among the most-popular vegetables in the EU-17. Moreover, in the
CEECs such most-popular vegetables include hot pepper and carrots as well as
rape, while in “Western” Europe, key further species are cauliower, broccoli, let-
tuce and chicory. While lettuce + chicory indeed represents a key element of the
crop structure to be noted for Slovenia (where the pairing accounts for the largest
area of any vegetable grown), cauliower does not have the most important role in
any of the 11 states analysed.
As the areal structure characterising the vegetable crops grown in different coun-
tries of the region is also highly differentiated, there is a prevalence here of different
mixed-type variants. It is most typical for a key role to be played by cabbage, with
this only lacking from all 6 quotients in the case of the Czech Republic (even though
lesser signicance can be said to apply to Slovakia and Bulgaria as well). In con-
trast, areas for cabbage that are the largest associated with any vegetable apply to
Table 13.7 Types of areal structure characterising legume-growing, 2018
Area
Consecutive quotient
Name of type1 2 3 4 5 6
CEECs Pea Pea Bean Pea Others Lupine Pea-bean-lupin-
mixed
EU-17 Pea Broad
bean
Pea Others Broad
bean
Pea Pea-broad
bean-mixed
Bulgaria Chickpea Chickpea Pea Chickpea Chickpea Pea Chickpea with
participation of pea
Croatia Bean Cow pea Bean Green
bean
Green
pea
Carob Mixed with
prevalence of bean
Czechia Pea Pea Pea Pea Pea Others Pre-eminent pea
with participation of
other legumes
Estonia Pea Bean Pea Pea Bean Pea Pea with
participation of bean
Hungary Green
pea
Pea Green
pea
Pea Green
pea
Green
pea
Green pea with
participation of pea
Latvia Bean Bean Bean Pea Bean Bean Pre-eminent bean
with participation of
pea
Lithuania Pea Bean Pea Pea Bean Pea Pea with
participation of bean
Poland Others Lupin Others Lupin Others Pea Lupin-mixed with
participation of pea
Romania Pea Pea Pea Pea Pea Pea Extreme pea
Slovakia Pea Pea Pea Pea Pea Pea Extreme pea
Slovenia Bean Green
bean
Pea Bean Green
bean
Pea Mixed with
prevalence of bean,
green bean and pea
Source: author’s own elaboration
A Synthetic Conceptualisation of the Crop-Cultivation and Livestock Structures…
194
the Baltic countries, as well as southernmost states in the region, i.e. Croatia and
Romania. The onion proves to be of equal signicance, though in its case it is hard
to point to any particular spatial regularities. It is not present among any of the rst
six quotients describing either Estonia or Hungary, while the largest area assigned
to any vegetable characterises this species in Slovakia, with a very important role
also being played in the Czech Republic, Poland and Bulgaria. In turn, tomato-
growing does show a degree of spatial concentration in the southern part of the
region. It accounts for a larger area than does any other cultivated vegetable in
Bulgaria, while also playing an important structural role in all of the southern
CEECs. Moreover, this has traditionally been a popular crop across the entire area
of what was once the Kingdom of Hungary– hence the status as an exceptionally
key element in both modern-day Hungary itself and Slovakia. A still-greater con-
centration is to be noted for paprika, which is not a signicant item within the crop
structure of most countries in the region, in its northern part in particular. Hot pep-
per (otherwise chilli) is one of the more-important elements to vegetable-growing in
the Czech Republic and Romania, while sweet paprika is relevant to Bulgaria and
Croatia. In turn, carrot-growing is of greater signicance to the structure in coun-
tries of the region’s north. This is a key element to the structure in Baltic countries
and in Poland, as well as in Hungary, where more space is occupied by this species
than by any other vegetable. Among the other species, cucumbers and gherkins
sometimes play the most important role, and can be seen as an important element of
the crop structure characterising Poland (Table13.8).
A description of “not very diverse, but differentiated spatially” might be applied
to the areal structure of the drugs and spices grown in the CEECs. In comparison
with the states of the EU-17, the region stands out in the more-limited prevalence of
poppies and tobacco, as well as the greater signicance between the two of the for-
mer, when it comes to the area under cultivation. From among the other species
yielding spices and drugs, a key structural element is mustard, along with such
umbellifers as anise, fennel and coriander. Unlike in the agriculture of the EU-17, in
only a small part of this region does the cultivation of hops play any more major role.
In general, the CEECs feature a mixed type of structure where the growing of
drugs and spices is concerned, with different shares of the various species accounted
for. A mixed and relatively evenly-spread structure prevails in the central and south-
ern parts of the region, with the former (along with Romania) associated with a
leading role for the production of poppy seed. In turn, in the southern part, a more
major role– relatively speaking– is played by tobacco (in Bulgaria and Croatia in
particular), as well as umbellifers (especially in Bulgaria and Romania). In contrast,
mustard is a more or less important element in almost all of the region’s countries.
Moreover, in Bulgaria, hot peppers have a key role to play, while Hungary special-
ises in several other less-popular spices (Table13.9).
Some CEECs manifest a very distinct specialisation in the growing of these
kinds of plants, and this is seen to be linked to the level of development of particular
branches among the agricultural and food-processing industries. An example here
might be Slovenia, in which the clearly-dominant item among the drugs and spices
is the hop, whose cultivation in other CEECs does not in fact occupy larger areas of
13 An Identication ofDirections ofChange inAgriculture intheCEECs
195
Table 13.8 Types of areal structure characterising vegetable-growing, 2018
Area
Consecutive quotient
Name of type1 2 3 4 5 6
CEECs Cabbage Onion Tomato Chilli
dry
Other fresh Carrot Mixed
EU-17 Other
fresh
Tomato Other
fresh
Onion Cauliower Lettuce Mixed
Bulgaria Other
fresh
Tomato Onion Chilli
green
Other fresh Cabbage Mixed
Croatia Cabbage Other
fresh
Chilli
green
Onion Cabbage Tomato Mixed with
prevalence of
cabbage
Czechia Other
fresh
Chilli
dry
Onion Other
fresh
Chilli dry Other
fresh
Hot pepper-
mixed with
participation of
onion
Estonia Other
fresh
Other
fresh
Cabbage Carrot Other fresh Other
fresh
Mixed with
participation of
cabbage and
carrot
Hungary Other
fresh
Other
fresh
Carrot Cabbage Other fresh Tomato Carrot-cabbage-
tomato-mixed
Latvia Other
fresh
Cabbage Carrot Onion Other fresh Cabbage Mixed with
prevalence of
cabbage
Lithuania Other
fresh
Cabbage Carrot Onion Other fresh Cabbage Mixed with
prevalence of
cabbage
Poland Other
fresh
Cabbage Onion Carrot Other fresh Cucumber Mixed
Romania Chilli
dry
Cabbage Tomato Onion Chilli dry Cabbage Mixed with
prevalence of
hot pepper and
cabbage
Slovakia Onion Tomato Onion Other
fresh
Cabbage Tomato Mixed with
prevalence of
onion and
tomato
Slovenia Lettuce Other
fresh
Cabbage Lettuce Carrot Onion Mixed with
prevalence of
lettuce
Source: authors’ own elaborations
A Synthetic Conceptualisation of the Crop-Cultivation and Livestock Structures…
196
Table 13.9 Types of areal structure characterising drug- and spice-growing, 2018
Area
Consecutive quotient
Name of type1 2 3 4 5 6
CEECs Poppy
seed
Tobacco Mustard Poppy
seed
Anise Tobacco Mixed with
prevalence of poppy
seed and tobacco
EU-17 Tobacco Poppy
seed
Tobacco Hop Tobacco Poppy
seed
Tobacco-poppy seed
with participation of
hop
Bulgaria Anise Tobacco Anise Mustard Tobacco Pepper Mixed with
prevalence of
umbellifer and
tobacco
Croatia Tobacco Poppy
seed
Tobacco Poppy
seed
Tobacco Poppy
seed
Tobacco-poppy seed
Czechia Poppy
seed
Poppy
seed
Mustard Poppy
seed
Poppy
seed
Mustard Poppy seed with
participation of
mustard
Hungary Poppy
seed
Mustard Tobacco Poppy
seed
Anise Others Mixed with
prevalence of poppy
seed
Lithuania Anise Anise Anise Anise Anise Anise Extreme umbellifer
Poland Tobacco Tobacco Tobacco Tobacco Tobacco Tobacco Extreme tobacco
Romania Poppy
seed
Mustard Poppy
seed
Anise Mustard Poppy
seed
Poppy seed-mustard
with participation of
umbellifer
Slovakia Mustard Poppy
seed
Mustard Poppy
seed
Mustard Poppy
seed
Mustard-poppy seed
Slovenia Hop Hop Hop Hop Hop Hop Extreme hop
Source: authors’ own elaboration
land at the present time. Even in the Czech Republic– a country renowned for its
long brewing tradition– hops cannot be viewed as playing a more major role within
the category of crop plant under analysis. Thus concentration within the structure
noted for drug- and spice-growing is rst and foremost a feature of the region’s
northern countries. For example, the structure present in Poland is dominated by
tobacco, while that in Lithuania is oriented towards umbellifers. Where the other
two Baltic countries are concerned, plants in this category do not play any major
role whatsoever.
While the bre-producing crops do not play a more major role in the region’s
overall crop-growing structure, they do offer an interesting example of polarisation
of trends relating to it, on the scale of both the whole EU (the CEECs versus the
EU-17), and within the region. Only two kinds of plant within this category are of
greater signicance, so there is no differentiation to such a dual structure. Spatially
speaking, there is a clear contrast only partially explicable by reference to natural
conditions. While among the EU-17 states it is ax that is the bre-generating crop
13 An Identication ofDirections ofChange inAgriculture intheCEECs
197
that dominates in areal terms, in the CEECs this only supplements the cultivation of
hemp to a limited degree. Hemp is certainly the basic crop grown for its bre where
the region’s central part extending from the Czech Republic via Hungary to Romania
is concerned. At the same time, ax is the decided dominant in the northernmost
part of the region (Estonia and Latvia) as well as in the far south (Bulgaria), and in
Slovakia. In Lithuania, as well as Croatia and Slovenia, the growing of plants to
produce bres does not now occur on any larger scale. Poland is the only country in
which hemp- and ax-growing is in relative balance (in terms of area planted)
(Table13.10).
The main crop within the “bulb and root” category proves to be the potato, and
this is true of both the CEECs and the EU-17. From among the CEECs, it is only in
Slovenia that other plant species in this category represent a major admixture within
the structure. In turn, among the plants grown for their sugar content it is sugar beet
that predominates throughout the EU and in different countries of our region.
However, it is worth recalling that, in the cases of Bulgaria, Slovenia and Estonia,
the cultivation of crops in this category has been resigned from altogether.
The structure characterising the livestock population in the CEECs resembles
that in the EU-17, though a major difference reects the greater role for chickens, at
the expense of cattle. More-marked differences arise from country to country within
the region, though most of these concern the proportions between the three main
structural components. Cattle represent the main, most-important component to the
overall livestock population in almost all of the CEECs, though an exception would
be Hungary, in which the leading role relates to pigs.
A pre-eminently cattle-type structure is apparent in the northern countries of
Estonia and Latvia. A clear prevalence of cattle is also to be noted in Lithuania and
the Czech Republic. In contrast, in the south of the region the role of cattle within
countries’ data-breakdowns for livestock is diversied less uniformly. While
Slovenia has a clearer dominance of cattle than any other CEEC, the livestock farm-
ing pursued in Romania is seen to have a mixed structure, with only a slight pre-
dominance of cattle (Table13.11).
In a similar way, pigs represent a key structural component, but one that never-
theless shows a high degree of spatial differentiation. Equally, Hungary is the only
country in which pigs prevail over cattle, though in Bulgaria they take the place, not
only of bovines, but also of chickens. The same is true of Romania, though there
pigs account for a far smaller share of the livestock population than do cattle and
chickens. In turn, in Croatia and Poland, pigs and cattle are comparable structural
elements. Pigs are of most limited importance in the Baltic countries, as well as
Slovakia and Slovenia.
Chickens prove to be of greatest signicance within the populations of livestock
raised in Slovakia, as well as the south of the region. But in general, the birds repre-
sent a key structural component in most of the CEECS barring Estonia, Latvia and
Slovenia– in which cattle are decidedly dominant with no chicken appearing in any
of the 6 consecutive quotients.
Other animals appearing within the analysed structure are basically just sheep–
as within the breakdown of data for Bulgaria, where the species actually plays a
rather limited role.
A Synthetic Conceptualisation of the Crop-Cultivation and Livestock Structures…
198
Table 13.10 Types of areal structure characterising the growing of bre-producing crops, 2018
Area
Consecutive quotient
Name of type1 2 3 4 5 6
CEECs Hemp Hemp Hemp Hemp Flax Hemp Pre-eminent hemp with participation of ax
EU-17 Flax Flax Flax Flax Flax Flax Extreme ax
Bulgaria Flax Flax Flax Flax Flax Flax Extreme ax
Czechia Hemp Hemp Hemp Hemp Hemp Hemp Extreme hemp
Estonia Flax Flax Flax Flax Flax Flax Extreme ax
Hungary Hemp Hemp Hemp Hemp Hemp Hemp Extreme hemp
Latvia Flax Flax Flax Flax Flax Flax Extreme ax
Poland Flax Hemp Flax Hemp Flax Hemp Flax-hemp
Romania Hemp Hemp Hemp Hemp Hemp Hemp Extreme hemp
Slovakia Flax Flax Flax Flax Flax Flax Extreme ax
Source: authors’ own elaboration
13 An Identication ofDirections ofChange inAgriculture intheCEECs
199
Table 13.11 Types of structure characterising livestock populations, 2018
Area
Consecutive quotient
Name of type1 2 3 4 5 6
CEECs Cattle Pig Chicken Cattle Cattle Pig Cattle-pig with participation of chickens
EU-17 Cattle Pig Cattle Cattle Chicken Pig Cattle-pig with participation of chickens
Bulgaria Cattle Cattle Chicken Pig Sheep Cattle Cattle-chicken-pig-sheep
Croatia Cattle Pig Chicken Cattle Pig Cattle Cattle-pig with participation of chickens
Czechia Cattle Cattle Pig Cattle Chicken Cattle Cattle with participation of pigs and chickens
Estonia Cattle Cattle Pig Cattle Cattle Cattle Pre-eminent cattle with participation of pigs
Hungary Pig Cattle Chicken Pig Cattle Chicken Mixed with a prevalence of pigs, cattle and chickens
Latvia Cattle Cattle Cattle Cattle Pig Cattle Pre-eminent cattle with participation of pigs
Lithuania Cattle Cattle Cattle Chicken Pig Cattle Cattle with participation of chickens and pigs
Poland Cattle Pig Chicken Cattle Cattle Pig Cattle-pig with participation of chickens
Romania Cattle Chicken Pig Sheep Cattle Chicken Mixed with prevalence of cattle and chickens
Slovakia Cattle Chicken Cattle Pig Cattle Chicken Cattle-chicken with participation of pigs
Slovenia Cattle Cattle Cattle Cattle Cattle Pig Pre-eminent cattle with participation of pigs
Source: author’s own elaboration
A Synthetic Conceptualisation of the Crop-Cultivation and Livestock Structures…
201© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Bański, M. Mazur, Transformation of Agricultural Sector in the Central and
Eastern Europe after 1989, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73766-5_14
Chapter 14
An Attempt atScenarios fortheFuture
ofAgriculture intheCEECs
The future represents more and more popular subject matter for research, rst and
foremost in the face of widespread fear or concern as regards trends for climate
change. However, other key issues of a more sociological, cultural and economic
nature related to the ageing society and issues with handovers between the genera-
tions. Rural studies tend to focus in on analysis of the variability characterising
future socioeconomic phenomena, as well as evaluation of possible directions and
trends as regards different sectors of the economy and differing spatial scales
(Hogan and Young 2013; Shucksmith 2012; Paul 2013; Ekands and Praestholm
2008). These kinds of study are above all of a social/societal prole, looking into
changes of social and demographic structure (Goux-Baudiment etal. 2011; Kimura
2010; Scott etal. 2011).
In general, work relating to the farming sector is focused on identifying and
assessing possible changes of climate (Bański and Błażejczyk 2006; Gregory etal.
2005; Iglesias etal. 2009; Kozyra and Górski 2004; Mader etal. 2008). As an earlier
part of the present work emphasised, there is no branch of the economy as depen-
dent on climate and atmospheric phenomena as agriculture, with the effect that
farmers have no option but to seek out new solutions and methods of production.
Unfortunately, however, out state of knowledge on the possible consequences of
climate change for food security and socioeconomic conditioning is fragmentary.
And where it does exist, it related primarily to selected regions and/or individual
cases (Dalla Marta etal. 2015; Kazandijev etal. 2011; Salinger etal. 2000).
Increased productive potential in the zone of temperate climates will most prob-
ably allow for– and usher in– far-reaching change when it comes to ways of man-
aging land. The structure describing crops planted will most likely change in line
with a (further) decline in the role played by both potatoes and rye, whose ranges
will be able to extend far to the north. Should optimistic assumptions come true, it
will be possible to have grass-eating livestock grazing out of doors year-round. In
turn, twice-yearly harvests of some crops may prove possible. Opportunities to sup-
ply more fodder will arise out of possibilities to sandwich the cultivation of given
202
crops with both forecrops and aftercrops. At the same time, it will be necessary to
square up to the possible even-more regular occurrence of extreme weather phe-
nomena, which may put production at high risk from time to time, possibly erasing
the chances “improved” climate might offer for increased production. Certainly,
temperature rise in the south is likely to be associated with a further reduction in
precipitation totals, with the so-called steppication then ensuing. Attempts to con-
tinue as before in the face of the change will risk degrading the environment, with
valuable natural features lost in the process, and rational management made even
more difcult.
Future changes in agriculture in the CEECs that reects climate change are actu-
ally just part (if an important part) of wider issues that bring together anticipated
processes and phenomena in the economic, socio-demographic, political and regu-
latory sphere. And only if account is taken of all of these will a full depiction of the
region’s future agricultural economy prove possible.
Upcoming programming and strategic decision-making in various spheres of life
will need to be based rmly on scientically-characterised natural, social and eco-
nomic phenomena. One of the potential elements in any research procedure is that
seeking to plan events by reference to a variety of proposed alternative solutions or
scenarios that can be deemed more or less probable (Gierszewska and Romanowska
2009). These may be assembled in line with very varied principles, but in essence it
is possible to identify four approaches as these are being drawn up (Kuhlman etal.
2006). The rst of these entails an extrapolation of current trends, the second an
wish to draw on expert knowledge, the third an integrated approach to the descrip-
tion of future reality, and the fourth an innovative solution making use of the three
approaches referred to.
Scenarios may be exploratory or anticipatory in nature, where the former
approach entails the logical formulation of sequences of events that lead to a pos-
sible future, albeit with account taken of key trends at work in the surroundings. In
turn, in the latter case we take on board one depiction of the future or another (a kind
of “vision”), and then look at events capable of impacting upon reality in such a way
that the depicted future scenario is actually arrived at.
In this study, it is the rst type (of the exploratory scenario) that is made use of,
with estimates therefore made of the likelihood that dened trends will arise, and
taken together with view on the impacts exerted should this happen– in this case
when it comes to the farming sector in the CEECs of the future. The further devel-
opment of this train of thought involved the identication of ve spheres whereby
impact on agriculture is indeed exerted. It was then acknowledged that each of these
spheres might contain indications as regards anticipated events, processes and phe-
nomena. What are involved here are the spheres that can be termed economic, legal
and nancial, political, socio-demographic and natural. Within each of these the key
events and phenomena analysed were those viewed by experts as doing most to
inuence and impact upon the farming sector that will present in the CEECs in the
future (Fig.14.1).
The method applied provides for the development of four types of scenario:
14 An Attempt atScenarios fortheFuture ofAgriculture intheCEECs
203
• optimistic– whereby account is taken of trends most favourable to the develop-
ment of agriculture;
• pessimistic – in contradistinction to the above and with the least-favourable
trends in farming taken account of;
• most-probable– otherwise denable as most realistic;
• “surprise”– whereby chance is taken account of, as well as least-probable trends
for change in the agriculture sector (as resigned from in the context of the pres-
ent study).
Given the nature of the work, a major role in the generation of the scenarios in
question has been played by the knowledge and experience of the experts chosen, as
they identify and appraise the factors that are to shape the agricultural sector over
the next 10years. The experts in question represent relevant academic centres in six
of the CEECs, and their research interests centre around social geography, including
in particular rural geography and the geography of agriculture.1
The procedure by which scenarios were developed was of three stages, though
each stage comprised a number of steps. The rst stage involved the identication
of the key events, phenomena and factors expected to shape the future of farming in
the CEECs. The experts were able to propose four components each, for each of the
6 spheres of impact on the agriculture sector referred to above. The second stage
then entailed an assessment of the impact on the farming sector in line with three
possible trends, i.e. upward or downward, or else the absence of a trend taken to
denote stabilisation. The rst step in the above stage then saw assessments made of
the impacts with each of the three possible trends, with the scale applied being from
−5 (a very negative impact) to +5 (a very positive impact). A second step then
entailed an indication of the probability of occurrence of dened trends, albeit with
1 Expert 1 – Antonin Vaishar (Mendel University, Brno, CZECHIA), Expert 2 – Ioan Ionas
(Bucharest University, ROMANIA), Expert 3 – Jezsef Lennert (Institute for Regional Studies,
Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, HUNGARY),
Expert 4 – Jerzy Bański (Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization, Polish Academy of
Sciences, POLAND), Expert 5– Boian Koulov (National Institute of Geophysics, Geodesy and
Geography, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, BULGARIA), Expert 6– Donatas Bruneika (Vilnius
University– LITHUANIA).
Fig. 14.1 Spheres
encompassing factors that
impact upon agricultural
sector. (Source: authors’
own elaboration)
14 An Attempt atScenarios fortheFuture ofAgriculture intheCEECs
204
the value for the probability within each component needing to add up to 1. A third
stage saw scenarios formulated. In line with the optimistic version, it was trends
most favourable for agriculture that were taken account of within each indicated
component. In turn, under the pessimistic scenario what were selected were the
least-favourable trends. That left the most-probable scenario, which involved– in
relation to each component– trends selected that attained probability values.
Phenomena andFactors Shaping theFuture
oftheAgriculture Sector
The experts identied a diverse range of economic conditioning, albeit with two
main groups to the fore. One of these related to the demand for what agriculture
produces, as well as the associated issues of competitiveness on the market for
food and opportunities for export. The second group in turn linked up with the
sizes of entities engaged in production, plus the possibilities for these to grow
further, and also therefore scale up production. The nature of what is produced on
a farm obviously links up with this group of factors. The experts drew attention to
the way in which the development of agriculture in the CEECs will depend, not
only on the possibility for farms as production units to be expanded, but also on
the related automation, capitalisation and modernisation of the production
processes.
The features in question are thus those typical for industrial-scale farming and
mass production, yet activity of this nature does not really coincide with the trends
we observe at present in Western agriculture, or indeed the farm policy of the EU
as it is being shaped – given the emphasis of the latter on diversied on-farm
activity, environment-friendly means and methods of production, healthy food,
and even a reduction where the generation of certain types of produce or products
is concerned.
It is thus possible that this distinct approach taken by the experts, when it comes
to proposed forms and methods of production, reects the need to address the
CEECs’ lagging behind for some decades in regard to both the productivity and
efciency of the agriculture sector. What are at stake here in particular are dispari-
ties persisting through to the present time when it comes to yields, the efciency of
labour and the mechanisation of production (Table14.1).
Where socio-demographic conditioning is concerned the focus is around three
matters, i.e. (1) the level of employment on farms, (2) changes in the age structure
of the rural population, and (3) migration out of rural areas. In the individual cases,
attention was paid to the level of education of farm owners in areas in which social
exclusion seemed to be taking hold. There was something of a consensus among the
experts regarding the need for employment in farming to fall, even as the impact of
14 An Attempt atScenarios fortheFuture ofAgriculture intheCEECs
205
Table 14.1 Identication of economic factors and assessment of their inuence on the future of
the agriculture sector as perceived by the experts
Expert Factor Trend Impact Probability
Expert 1 Limited creation of added value Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
−5
−3
+2
0.4
0.3
0.3
Modernisation of agriculture Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
+4
+2
−5
0.6
0.3
0.1
Major dependence on EU subsidies Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
−5
−3
+1
0.3
0.2
0.5
Foreign competition Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
−3
−1
+2
0.5
0.3
0.2
Expert 2 Size of farms Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
+4
+1
−1
0.3
0.5
0.2
Capitalisation of farms Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
+5
−1
−4
0.1
0.8
0.1
Farmers’ professionalism Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
+3
+1
−2
0.4
0.5
0.1
Employment in agriculture Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
+2
+1
−3
0.5
0.3
0.2
Expert 3 Change in GDP per capita Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
+3
+1
−2
0.2
0.4
0.4
Employment rate Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
−3
−1
+1
0.1
0.6
0.3
Automation in agriculture Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
+4
−2
−4
0.6
0.2
0.2
Production of renewable energy Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
−2
−1
+2
0.5
0.4
0.1
(continued)
this on the development agriculture could not be evaluated with the same degree of
unanimity. A very negative assessment was ascribed to the problem of the ageing
rural society typical across Europe– whose probability of continuation was very
high, according to the experts. Needing to be assigned a similarly high probability
Phenomena andFactors Shaping theFuture oftheAgriculture Sector
206
is the phenomenon of sustained outow of population from rural areas, which is
again assessed very negatively (Table14.2).
When it came to the natural conditioning likely to be exerting its impact on agri-
culture in the upcoming decade, it was on more-ecological farming that the experts
focused, as well as the shaping of optimal soil conditions, changed climatic condi-
tions and water management. But that said, the experts differed considerably in the
way they assessed both the trends for and the impacts of the various factors. In
general, what they foresee is a rise in the signicance of agriculture when it comes
Table 14.1 (continued)
Expert Factor Trend Impact Probability
Expert 4 Industrialisation of agricultural production Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
+4
+1
−3
0.7
0.2
0.1
Size of farms Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
+4
−2
−4
0.8
0.1
0.1
Level of GDP in the country Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
+5
−2
−5
0.7
0.2
0.1
Food export Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
+3
+1
−3
0.6
0.3
0.1
Expert 5 Market demand Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
+5
+2
−5
0.7
0.2
0.1
Supply of industrial inputs Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
+4
+1
−2
0.5
0.3
0.2
Domestic resources Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
+5
+2
−1
0.4
0.5
0.1
Land availability Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
+5
+1
+3
0.2
0.5
0.3
Expert 6 Prices of agricultural products Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
−4
+2
+4
0.4
0.3
0.3
Grain and other agricultural production in Eastern
Europe
Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
−4
+1
+1
0.6
0.3
0.1
Production costs (salaries, fertilisers, fuel...) Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
−2
+1
+3
0.5
0.3
0.2
Growth of niche consumer markets in Lithuania
and abroad
Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
+3
+1
−2
0.6
0.2
0.2
Source: author’s own elaboration
14 An Attempt atScenarios fortheFuture ofAgriculture intheCEECs
207
Table 14.2 The identication of socio-demographic factors and assessment of their inuence on
the future of the agriculture sector as perceived by the experts
Expert Factor Trend Impact Probability
Expert 1 Loss of attitude to land as ancestral heritage Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
−5
−4
+4
0.4
0.5
0.1
Stabilisation of workforce Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
+4
+2
−3
0.5
0.3
0.2
Dependence of rural development on agriculture Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
+3
+1
−3
0.7
0.2
0.1
Expert 2 Labour force Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
−1
+2
−1
0.1
0.3
0.6
Depopulation Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
−4
−1
+2
0.7
0.1
0.2
Poverty Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
−3
−2
+1
0.3
0.3
0.4
In-migration Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
+2
−1
−2
0.2
0.5
0.3
Expert 3 Depopulation of rural areas Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
−5
−3
−1
0.7
0.2
0.1
Ageing of rural population Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
−5
−2
+1
0.6
0.3
0.1
Socio-economic inequalities (Gini index) Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
−3
−1
+2
0.45
0.35
0.2
Conscious consumption Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
+2
+1
−1
0.4
0.3
0.3
Expert 4 Ageing of rural society Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
−4
+1
+3
0.7
0.2
0.1
Migration outow from rural areas Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
−3
+1
+2
0.2
0.5
0.3
Level of farmer education Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
+3
−1
−3
0.6
0.3
0.1
Employment opportunities on the farm Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
+3
+1
−3
0.2
0.3
0.5
(continued)
Phenomena andFactors Shaping theFuture oftheAgriculture Sector
208
to the generation of green energy and more environment-friendly production, even
as this is seen to rather contradict the economic factors referred to earlier. For it is
assumed that levels of agricultural output will rise, also in connection with industri-
alisation of the food sector. Mentioned among the kinds of natural conditioning
posing a challenge to farming are the degradation of farmland induced by the exces-
sive use of chemicals, as well as the transfer of land out of farming and in the direc-
tion of other economic functions, as well as the need to adapt what farmers grow or
raise to changing climatic conditions and attendant issues with the supply of water
(Table14.3).
When it comes to the impact of political conditioning, it is possible to suggest
that the experts felt the impact of relevant factors in shaping farming in the CEECs
would be more limited. They drew attention to: (1) political representatives standing
up for the interests of rural areas and agriculture, (2) the signicance of farm policy
in EU Member States and its modication in line with policy priorities as regards
energy, climate, exports and so on, and (3) internal and external competition on the
market for food. In most cases, the expert assessments suggested that stabilisation
was the main trend anticipated (Table14.4).
Table 14.2 (continued)
Expert Factor Trend Impact Probability
Expert 5 Rural population Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
+2
−1
+5
0.1
0.2
0.7
Level of employment Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
+4
−1
+1
0.3
0.5
0.2
Population age Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
−3
+3
+5
0.3
0.2
0.5
Level of social infrastructure in rural areas Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
+4
+2
−2
0.4
0.5
0.1
Expert 6 Ageing of rural population Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
−4
+1
+2
0.7
0.2
0.1
Emigration Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
−3
+4
+2
0.3
0.4
0.3
Social inequality in rural areas Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
+2
+1
−2
0.4
0.3
0.3
Inow of urban population (suburbanisation) Growth
Stabilisation
Decrease
−4
+1
+1
0.7
0.2
0.1
Source: authors’ own elaboration
14 An Attempt atScenarios fortheFuture ofAgriculture intheCEECs
209
Table 14.3 The identication of natural factors and assessment of their inuence on the future of
the agriculture sector as perceived by the experts
Expert Factor Trend Impact Probability
Expert 1 Devastation of soils Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−5
−3
+3
0.5
0.4
0.1
Use of chemical matters Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−4
−2
+2
0.2
0.4
0.4
Ecological farming in LFA Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+3
+1
−3
0.5
0.4
0.1
Expert 2 Environmental education of farmers Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+3
+1
−2
0.4
0.4
0.2
Rational land exploitation Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+2
+1
−2
0.3
0.4
0.3
Optimal and correct application of fertilisers Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+4
−1
−3
0.2
0.4
0.4
Agricultural waste management Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+3
−2
−3
0.4
0.4
0.2
Expert 3 Suburbanisation/urban sprawl Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−4
−2
−1
0.3
0.4
0.3
Development of transport infrastructure Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−2
−1
+1
0.3
0.4
0.3
Climate change (more frequent) Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−4
−2
−1
0.5
0.4
0.1
Development of irrigation systems Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+5
+3
−1
0.2
0.7
0.1
Expert 4 Importance of green energy Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+3
+2
−1
0.6
0.3
0.1
Protected areas Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−3
+1
+2
0.5
0.4
0.1
Livestock epidemics Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−3
+1
+3
0.3
0.5
0.2
Extreme climatic events Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−4
−1
+3
0.3
0.6
0.1
(continued)
Phenomena andFactors Shaping theFuture oftheAgriculture Sector
210
Table 14.3 (continued)
Expert Factor Trend Impact Probability
Expert 5 Relief Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−4
+5
−5
0.1
0.8
0.1
Local climate Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−4
+5
−5
0.1
0.8
0.1
Availability of fresh water Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−5
+3
+5
0.1
0.4
0.5
Soil quality Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+1
+3
−2
0.2
0.4
0.4
Expert 6 Reduction of CO2 emissions Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−3
+1
+3
0.6
0.2
0.2
Development of a network of protected areas Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−3
−1
+2
0.1
0.5
0.4
Soil depletion Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−4
−1
+4
0.6
0.3
0.1
Regulations on the use of agrochemicals Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−3
+1
+2
0.6
0.3
0.1
Source: authors’ own elaboration
Table 14.4 The identication of political factors and assessment of their inuence on the future
of the agriculture sector as perceived by the experts
Expert Factor Trend Impact Probability
Expert 1 Level of political representation of the countryside
and agriculture
Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+4
−3
−4
0.3
0.5
0.2
Tensions relating to ministerial portfolios
(agricultural. environmental. regional
development)
Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−3
−1
+2
0.2
0.6
0.2
Expert 2 Citizen participation inlocal self-governance Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+3
−1
−2
0.5
0.4
0.1
National rural policies Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+2
+1
−2
0.4
0.4
0.2
Rural political elites Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+1
−1
−1
0.3
0.4
0.3
European regulations on the agricultural market Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−1
+1
−1
0.5
0.3
0.2
(continued)
14 An Attempt atScenarios fortheFuture ofAgriculture intheCEECs
211
Table 14.4 (continued)
Expert Factor Trend Impact Probability
Expert 3 Emphasis on nature conservation Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−1
+1
−2
0.2
0.4
0.4
Emphasis on adaptation to climate change Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+3
−1
−4
0.4
0.3
0.3
Free-market approaches Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−2
+1
−2
0.3
0.4
0.3
Support for international labour migration Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+2
−1
−3
0.3
0.6
0.1
Expert 4 Regional conicts Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−4
+1
+4
0.3
0.5
0.2
“Three Seas’ Initiative” idea Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+3
+1
−2
0.5
0.3
0.2
Number of EU Member States Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+3
+1
−1
0.5
0.4
0.1
Level of dependence on EU policies Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−2
+1
+1
0.3
0.4
0.3
Expert 5 Internal stability Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+5
+3
−5
0.2
0.4
0.4
International markets Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+5
+3
−4
0.4
0.5
0.1
Foreign policy Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+3
+4
−1
0.1
0.7
0.2
Level of centralisation/monopolisation Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−3
+1
+5
0.7
0.2
0.1
Expert 6 Change of CAP in a more liberal direction Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−2
+1
+3
0.3
0.4
0.3
Growth of role of regional policy in rural
development in Lithuania
Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+3
+2
−2
0.4
0.3
0.3
Shift of ruling parties to more pro-urban attitudes Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−2
−1
+2
0.4
0.4
0.2
Loss of ruling party of Peasants and Greens in
forthcoming parliamentary elections in 2020
Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+1
+1
−1
0.5
0.2
0.3
Source: authors’ own elaboration
Three Scenarios
212
Within the category of regulatory and nancial conditioning, the experts pointed
to access to funding under EU policy for agriculture and the development of rural
areas, regulations as regards land management, and the bureaucracy and regulatory
requirements associated with the running of a farm. Assessments imply that the
impacts of such trends set against one another will be rather major, making it clear
that the experts assign considerable weight to challenges arising out of nancial and
regulatory conditioning (Table14.5).
Table 14.5 The identication of regulatory and nancial factors and assessment of their inuence
on the future of the agriculture sector as perceived by the experts
Expert Factor Trend Impact Probability
Expert 1 Protection of agricultural land Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+3
−3
−4
0.4
0.3
0.3
Confused legislation– Many laws, frequent
changes, bureaucracy
Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−4
−3
+3
0.7
0.2
0.1
Expert 2 Farmers’ access to credit Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+3
−1
−2
0.3
0.3
0.4
Legislation supporting agriculture Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+4
+1
−3
0.5
0.4
0.1
Land grabs Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−4
−2
+3
0.6
0.3
0.1
Fiscal erosion Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−3
−2
+3
0.2
0.5
0.3
Expert 3 Financial support for modernisation Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+4
−1
−3
0.3
0.4
0.3
EU agricultural subsidies Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−1
+3
+1
0.1
0.3
0.6
Land-use regulations/constraints Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+3
−1
−2
0.3
0.4
0.3
Land-purchase regulations Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−2
+1
−2
0.3
0.4
0.3
Expert 4 EU support for agriculture Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+5
+3
−5
0.3
0.6
0.1
Regulatory facilitation for agriculture Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+3
−1
−3
0.2
0.6
0.2
Level of bureaucracy Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−3
−1
+3
0.5
0.3
0.2
(continued)
14 An Attempt atScenarios fortheFuture ofAgriculture intheCEECs
213
Table 14.5 (continued)
Expert Factor Trend Impact Probability
Expert 5 National regulatory framework Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+5
+1
−5
0.5
0.4
0.1
FDI Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+5
+1
−5
0.3
0.4
0.3
Domestic investment Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+5
+1
−4
0.1
0.5
0.4
EU regulations Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−5
−1
+5
0.5
0.4
0.1
Expert 6 Personal taxation of farmers (income, social
insurance)
Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−4
−1
+3
0.3
0.4
0.3
More stringent regulations on using the immigrant
labour force
Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
−2
+1
−3
0.5
0.4
0.1
Reduction of regulations on agricultural land
ownership
Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+2
+1
+3
0.2
0.6
0.2
EU support for agriculture Growth
Stabilization
Decrease
+4
+1
−3
0.3
0.4
0.3
Source: author’s own elaboration
Three Scenarios
The Optimistic Scenario
There is a great deal of diversity to the experts’ factors identied within the ve
anticipated spheres of inuence on the food sector. Ultimately, this gives rise to a
conclusion that each CEEC represented by a different expert will see changes in
farming that depend markedly on other events, processes and types of
conditioning.
It is nevertheless possible to discern several main groups of factors indicated by
all of those involved in the work, or at least a majority of them. These would for
example be climate change, the state of the Common Agricultural Policy and
depopulation and/or population ageing in rural areas. Differences in the condition-
ing identied do reect geographical location, but also the results of privatisation
and the situation agriculture nds itself in economically in the different CEECs.
There are relatively high averaged values for the strength of impact of particular
different factors within the optimistic scenarios applying to each of the ve
Three Scenarios
214
categories studied. The most optimistic changes are to be anticipated in the regula-
tory/nancial and economic spheres, even as the experts see least-positive impacts
among the socio-demographic factors. The participants in fact express clear opti-
mism when it comes to the favourable nature of economic factors, with these taken
to arise out of modernisation, increases in food prices, greater competitiveness of
agriculture in the CEECs under study, growth in productivity, nancial support from
the EU and a favourable CAP.
In the view of the rst expert, the trends most favourable to the development of
rural areas are those relating to sociodemographic conditioning, as followed lower
down the list by political factors, and those of a regulatory and nancial nature.
Where optimistic processes are assumed it is possible to anticipate a stabilisation on
the agricultural labour market, an increase in the signicance of the political elites
hailing from rural areas– and hence of agriculture itself, legal protection of agricul-
tural land and a limitation of red tape. In contrast, the least optimism is expressed in
relation to the economic factors.
The opinion supplied by the second expert differed considerably, as the most-
favourable reference in this case is to economic conditioning. In this person’s view
the leading positive impacts to be exerted on farming would relate to greater average
farm size, capitalisation in agriculture and increased professionalism among farm
managers. Considerable weight is also attached to favourable changes in the group
of regulatory-nancial as well as natural factors, with far less optimism expressed
over the other two groups (socio-demographic and political).
The third expert assigns the most-positive role to factors of a regulatory-nancial
as well as economic nature, with these taken to include EU programmes acting in
support of farming, policy pursued in regard to the regulation of land use, the mod-
ernisation of farms, and general progress in the national economy. In contrast, the
lowest level of optimism in this case related to natural and socio-demographic
factors.
The fourth expert opined in a rather similar way, though his assessment sets the
impact of trends among the factors identied at a far-higher level. In the case of the
economic factors what is indicated is a powerful potential effect of economic growth
at the level of the country as a whole, the industrialisation of production processes
in the sector, the enlargement of farms and greater opportunities for food products
to be exported. When it comes to factors of a regulatory and nancial nature, the
expert sought to underline the signicance of the not-unrelated issues of EU funding
and the cutting of red tape.
In turn, in the view of expert number 5, all of the groups of factors should be in
a position to exert a very strong impact, providing that trends for the development
of the farming sector are indeed favourable. However, this person attached rather
greater signicance to the group of regulatory and nancial factors, with the politi-
cal and economic only appearing lower down the list.
Finally, the sixth and last expert expressed an opinion similar to the previous one,
attaching equal weight to all ve groups of factors, albeit with only a far more lim-
ited impact on agricultural management (Table14.6).
14 An Attempt atScenarios fortheFuture ofAgriculture intheCEECs
215
Analysis of the conditioning underpinning the optimistic depiction of agriculture
in the CEECs through to 2030 allows for the development of a most-favourable
scenario for changes in the sector. This rst and foremost assumes a key role for EU
agricultural policy in supporting farms by way of its system of subsidy payments, as
well as programmes seeking to encourage modernisation, diversication, additional
business activity, a higher level of environment-friendliness and enhanced wellbe-
ing. At the same time, a reduction in the raft of regulations is foreseen, facilitating
access to nancial support and limiting the currently-major role played by interme-
diary rms that help with the preparation of project applications. Under the sce-
nario, regulations become more transparent and there is a reduction in the amount
of time people need to acquaint themselves with these, and managers of farms then
need to put them into effect. A major result of legislative change would be the secur-
ing of farmland against excessive, uncontrolled redesignation in the direction of
alternative economic functions.
The optimistic scenario foresees an increase in average farm size, with an atten-
dant improvement in competitiveness, facilitation of efforts to modernise and rais-
ing of levels of production. There is a decline in employment in the agricultural
sector, associated with an increase in knowledge and levels of education among
farm managers. The signicance of large farms engaging in mass production and
industrial methods is raised, but there is a simultaneous development of environ-
mentally friendly farms that make use of local resources and generate niche prod-
ucts. Farms become more multifunctional as they for example participate in the
production of renewable energy, process food more, and play they part in the ren-
dering of local services. The countryside of the future will be making greater use of
alternative sources of energy– above all raw materials from forestry and agricul-
ture– and this will raise the level of functional diversication. Specialisation in the
production of food with various favourable attributes will ensure that products from
the CEECs will be both sought after on the domestic market and willingly pur-
chased abroad.
Country people in general and farmers in general will have a higher level of
environmental awareness, and thanks to that there will be an increase in numbers of
environment-friendly farms on which the use of articial fertilisers and plant
Table 14.6 Averaged values for the inuence of factors in the different groups studied, under the
optimistic scenario
Group of factors Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 Expert 5 Expert 6
Mean
inuence
Economic 2.25 3.50 2.50 4.00 4.75 2.75 3.29
Socio-demographic 3.67 1.75 1.00 2.75 4.50 2.25 2.65
Natural 2.67 3.00 1.00 2.75 4.50 2.75 2.78
Political 3.00 1.75 1.75 2.75 4.75 2.25 2.71
Regulatory and
nancial
3.00 3.25 2.75 3.67 5.00 2.75 3.40
Source: author’s own elaboration
Three Scenarios
216
protection agents is curbed (i.e. optimised). The diversity of crops grown and live-
stock raised will be greater than before, and their level of adaptation to local condi-
tions will be greater. Such adaptation to local conditions will help limit the impact
of climatic factors (including also extreme phenomena) on agricultural production.
As the water-supply system is improved, so the unfavourable inuence of prolonged
droughts will be limited.
Economic success for farms will also ensue if the political elite acting in the
name of agriculture increases in signicance, and if there is improved local-
government awareness of country-dwellers and their lives and needs. Indeed, peo-
ple living in rural areas are increasingly active in NGOs and political organisations.
The introduction of new, more-transparent election procedures are serving to
weaken the toeing of the different party lines within local authorities, ensuring the
breakup of coteries existing in certain regions and apparently dedicated to the fur-
thering of local politicians’ own interests rst and foremost. Other regulations and
procedures will also help curb nepotism and cronyism locally.
With new CEECs acceding to the EU, our region’s clout vis-à-vis the pursuit of
Community policies will go on increasing. At the same time, there will be some
further curbing of the role of the EU in shaping domestic legal and administrative
procedures. Equally, the Union’s role must be seen as increasing when it comes to
programmes of adaptation to climate change and efforts to reduce pollutant emis-
sions, with the signicance of green energy raised, further efforts made to limit
monopolies, and so on.
Rural population will go on declining slowly as the region urbanises further, city
limits extend outwards and natural increase continues at a low level. However, a
stemming of out-migrations to the towns and cities may be anticipated as transport
access goes on improving and infrastructure also becomes steadily better. The rural
areas in close proximity to cities will continue to be colonised by active, entrepre-
neurial former city-dwellers. This will be enough to shift the age structure in “rural”
areas in a more favourable direction, even if this change will be a spatially selective
one primarily involving suburbs and satellite villages. The processes referred to will
raise the level of social capital in rural areas and reduce social exclusion, social ills,
and other negative phenomena.
The Pessimistic Scenario
The average level of impact of the negative trends for different factors the pessimis-
tic scenario takes account of will be greater than in the optimistic scenario. However,
most of the expert see these as relatively unlikely to occur. And, as they map out this
pessimistic scenario most expert assume that the unfavourable processes ongoing in
rural areas will arise out of unfavourable change of an economic, natural and regula-
tory/nancial nature.
In the view of the rst expert, factors of all groups will have a very strong nega-
tive inuence on farming in the region. In general terms, the unfavourable changes
14 An Attempt atScenarios fortheFuture ofAgriculture intheCEECs
217
will reect the sector’s declining role in the economy and its more-restricted inu-
ence when it comes to EU policy. In association with this, it is possible to anticipate
a reduced level of subsidy for farms in line with the role played in generating
GDP. In turn, modernisation of agriculture that does take place will degrade the
production space.
The pessimistic appraisal of the second expert is likewise balanced among the
ve groups of factors analysed, though the impact of the unfavourable trends is
deemed to be more limited. The most-negative effects may be those attributable to
the regulatory and nancial factors, above all nancial services offered to farms.
The third expert sees the most unfavourable trends within the conditioning of a
socioeconomic nature. However, they will arise out of the depopulation of rural
areas and the ongoing ageing process within rural society. The view is then a differ-
ent one from that taken by the fourth expert, whose pessimistic scenario is most
shaped by factors that are economic (weakness of the economy, as well as a low
level of GDP nationally) or else regulatory and nancial (involving a reduction in
EU support plus bureaucracy).
In turn, the most unfavourable phenomena perceived by the fth expert link up
with natural factors (i.e. unfavourable climatic conditions and hindered access to
water), as well as those of a regulatory and nancial nature (domestic and EU nan-
cial frameworks). Finally, in the view of the sixth expert, the pessimistic scenario
will be shaped equally by economic, socio-demographic and natural factors. In con-
trast, the expert sees the trends in the remaining two groups as having only a limited
impact on the agroeconomy (Table14.7).
The opinions from the expert allow for the development of a pessimistic scenario
as follows. Most-negative changes will be those relating to regulatory-nancial as
well as natural factors. Anticipated under this scenario is a steady limiting of nan-
cial support available to farms across the EU.Reductions in levels of direct pay-
ments will extend to the Single Area Payment, as well as those designated for the
environment, young farmers and so on; and there will also be impacts on other
forms of support for farmers of both domestic and EU origin. At the same time, the
level of bureaucracy will be still-higher than it has been so far, and the legislative
Table 14.7 Averaged values for the inuence of factors in the different groups studied, under the
pessimistic scenario
Group of factors Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 Expert 5 Expert 6
Mean
inuence
Economic −4.50 −2.50 −2.75 −3.75 −1.75 −3.00 −3.04
Socio-demographic −3.67 −2.50 −3.50 −3.25 −1.75 −3.25 −2.99
Natural −4.00 −2.50 −2.75 −2.75 −4.25 −3.25 −3.25
Political −3.50 −1.50 −2.75 −2.25 −3.25 −1.75 −2.58
Regulatory and
nancial
−4.00 −3.00 −2.00 −3.67 −4.75 −2.25 −3.28
Source: author’s own elaboration
Three Scenarios
218
burden imposed upon farmers will likewise be greater. Acting together, factors in
this group will weaken farms’ economic condition and possibilities for investment,
as well as increasing their need to avail of the services of advisory and intermediary
rms as they seek to implement programmes of funding. The growing role of
“Brussels” in determining legal procedures and enforcing the law will curb self-
determination and encourage a further growth of the bureaucracy already seen to be
“blossoming”.
Suburbanisation and the development of transport infrastructure will go on
reducing the area of land managed for agriculture, leading to its further devastation.
There is an increase in soil contamination associated with the intensive use of fertil-
isers. Weatherwise, the frequency of occurrence of extreme phenomena would grow
further, with unfavourable local impacts including problems with access to water.
Where unfavourable economic processes are concerned, the decline in the sig-
nicance of the farming sector to the economies of the CEECs would be main-
tained. However, this will not merely result from the dynamic development of other
sectors of the economy– which it would be possible to see as something positive;
given that it will also reect economic degradation on farms– as a result of the
continued existence of huge numbers of small and economically-weak units, declin-
ing levels of nancial support, competition with cheaper food from abroad, a low
level of export of food products and spiralling costs of production.
There is an intensication of the processes of outow of country-dwellers to the
towns and cities, with the result being erosion of the demographic structure in rural
areas. The share of the population of “post-productive” age goes on rising, as do the
numbers of people who can be regarded as poor and suffering from social exclusion.
Problems with workforce shortages also begin to emerge in farming. Anticipated
consequences of these processes will be a spatial polarisation in society in the coun-
tryside, not least as the contrast grows between wealthy suburban villages and
impoverished peripheral ones.
When it comes to political conditioning, there is seen to be a reduced level of
interest in programmes acting in support of rural areas and agriculture, both domes-
tically and at EU level. Country-dwellers fail to gain the appropriate representation
in political and local-government structures that ought to attend to their interests.
The internal stability of the EU anyway weakens – to the point where certain
Member States may seek to exit the Union; and there is also an intensication of
regional conicts foreseen, as well as reduced importance attached to the idea of the
so-called “Three Seas” Initiative.
The Most-Probable Scenario
The scenario envisaging the most probable role of the analysed group of factors is
closer to equilibrium, and the values expressing their inuence are generally low–
in a manner that tends to conrm the experts’ rational approach when it comes to the
opinions they offer. In the face of three groups of factors (economic, natural and
14 An Attempt atScenarios fortheFuture ofAgriculture intheCEECs
219
political), it is possible to anticipate positive change in the upcoming decade, even
as socioeconomic and regulatory and nancial factors operate to exert negative
impacts on the sector, in the area of Europe under study.
The opinions of different experts nevertheless differ markedly. For example, the
rst perceives a relatively powerful negative inuence of political factors arising out
of a lack of political representation of rural areas and farming, as well as tensions
reecting conicting remits between government ofcials responsible for rural-
development policy on the one hand and agriculture on the other.
The second expert then seeks to evaluate the strength of impact of different
groups of factor across the −1.25 to 1.5 range– this rather being a reection of the
stabilisation of processes and phenomena ongoing in the analysed sector. In his
opinion, the most-negative changes will relate to the socio-demographic situation
linked with a steady and stable migratory outow and hence with rural depopula-
tion. In contrast, the expert anticipates a favourable change of natural conditioning
entailing increased environmental awareness among farmers, as well as improved
closed-cycle management within the economy.
The third expert rst and foremost notes the high probability of further depopula-
tion and ageing in rural areas. An unfavourable assessment is offered when it comes
to the potential processes linked to suburbanisation and the instability of climatic
factors.
In turn, the fourth expert anticipates very positive economic change arising out
of the industrialisation of farm production, increase in average farm size, further
GDP growth and a higher level of food exports achieved. There will also be favour-
able processes where the political conditioning is concerned, including a weakening
of regional conicts, further enlargement of the EU and a strengthening of the
“Three Seas” Region.
Even greater optimism is on display when it comes to the fth expert, for whom
only regulatory and nancial factors would be in a position to shape negative pro-
cesses over the next few years. The inuence of all remaining groups of factors
should be very favourable, with the strength of impact of the proposed trends on a
ve-point scale assigned values between the 1.75 applied to the group of political
factors, through to 4.5in the case of natural factors.
The nal (sixth) expert had a markedly-pessimistic opinion to offer concerning
most likely trends in the agricultural sector in the CEECs. In his opinion, when it
comes to natural factors we may expect degradation of soils, further-rising emis-
sions of CO2, and a development of agrochemical regulations that hinder produc-
tion. In turn, where the economic factors are concerned, there will be unfavourable
results associated with a rise in prices for produce and products and an increase in
production costs (Table14.8).
The experts’ averaged values for the impact of trends within the ve groups of
conditioning allow it to be claimed that the most-probable scenario foresees a stabi-
lised development of the agriculture sector. The most-powerful unfavourable impact
is expected to be that of regulatory and nancial factors (−0.43), even as economic
factors exert the most favourable impact (1.12).
Three Scenarios
220
In line with this most-probable scenario, the next decade will bring better equip-
ping of farms in the machines, techniques and technologies allowing them to mod-
ernise the production process. This will favour an industrialisation of farming, with
average farm size increasing as the level of employment stabilises. While the role of
agriculture as a generator of GDP goes on declining, its efciency increases.
However, socio-demographic processes will be negative in their consequences, rst
and foremost as country-dwellers move away, ensuring ongoing increase in the
share of country-dwellers that are of post-productive age. The level of education of
farm managers will improve, however, so rural poverty should also be in decline.
But as rural areas will be home to those employed in cities, the potential social and
economic disparities present in rural (especially suburban) areas will grow.
Individual natural factors will have a major impact on agricultural management,
but the duality of the impact is such that the overall inuence exerted by this group
may be minimised. On the one hand, the industrialisation of agriculture and effort
to raise productivity will degrade productive space (including soil). But on the other
increased environmental awareness and ecological knowledge will combine with
wise use and the encompassing of further areas of land within protected areas to
limit unfavourable change in the environment. Unexpected climatic phenomena
plus problems with access to water will hinder production, but knowledge and expe-
rience gained will combine with remedial measures to limit the harm the unfavour-
able changes are able to do.
Only to a very limited degree will political factors prove capable of stimulating
farms’ development. New and benecial strategic solutions helping shape rural
areas and agriculture are to be expected, but there is no reason to anticipate any
increase in the signicance of politicians representing rural areas and farmers in
their constituencies. Regulatory and nancial conditioning will stabilise the situa-
tion in the sector, but it is still possible to foresee some worsening. This is mainly a
matter of no further increase– or a small decline– in nancial support available to
farms both domestically and from the EU.
Table 14.8 Averaged values for the inuence of factors in the different groups studied, under the
most-probable scenario
Group of factors Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 Expert 5 Expert 6
Mean
inuence
Economic −0.75 0.75 0.50 4.00 4.00 −1.75 1.12
Socio-demographic 1.00 −1.25 −2.75 −0.75 2.75 −0.50 −0.25
Natural 0.00 1.50 −1.00 0.00 4.50 −2.75 0.37
Political −2.00 0.75 1.00 2.25 1.75 1.00 0.74
Regulatory and
nancial
−0.50 −1.00 0.00 −0.33 −0.5 −0.25 −0.43
Source: author’s own elaboration
14 An Attempt atScenarios fortheFuture ofAgriculture intheCEECs
221
Conclusions
The average values depicting the impact of the studied group of factors offer an
“objectivised” depiction of possible development in the agricultural sector of the
Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs). A decidedly greater strength of
impact characterises experts’ anticipated trends under the pessimistic or optimistic
scenarios as opposed to their most-probable scenarios. In the optimistic approach
there is some balance between the different factors, albeit with a greater inuence
expected to be exerted by economic and regulatory and nancial factors. A similar
situation applies to the pessimistic scenario, under which the two groups of factors
referred to are joined by a stronger negative inuence due to natural conditioning.
Among the most-probable phenomena the experts expect are a strong inuence of
economic and political factors. Equally, it needs to be emphasised that the impacts
of trends under the most-probable scenario are positive for three groups of condi-
tioning, with this attesting to a general level of optimism among the experts.
The depiction of agriculture in the CEECs in the next 10years does not envisage
especially far-reaching change, even as it can be hypothesised that farming will be
both more diversied and more active economically. The diversity will reect pos-
sible trends for farm production that natural conditions are able to shape. In con-
trast, where the social and economic features are concerned, it is possible to
anticipate a reverse trend– in the direction of a more homogenous situation. A rais-
ing of the level of efciency of production is to be anticipated everywhere, along
with better outtting in technology and technical equipment, a diversication of
opportunities for export, and a raising of farmers’ levels of knowledge and education.
Three Scenarios
223© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Bański, M. Mazur, Transformation of Agricultural Sector in the Central and
Eastern Europe after 1989, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73766-5_15
Chapter 15
A Presentation oftheContemporary Farm
intheCEECs Using Case Studies
The changes– transformations– in farming in the CEECs that have been discussed
here in the earlier chapters point to both quantitative and qualitative impacts, even
as the features involved prove to be linked together quite strongly. Irrespective of
specic trends for farm production, it is possible to note a concentration on large,
modern and competitive farms in relation to those in other parts of Europe and the
world. Thanks to socio-cultural and economic change in rural areas– together with
major support from the EU– the formerly-communist CEECs have witnessed an
emergence of modern, well-managed farms now comparable with their counterparts
in Western Europe. Given the scale of output, size and multifunctional nature (with
both produce and processed products generated and distributed, and services ren-
dered as regards the hiring-out of farm machinery, and so on), some of these can be
regarded as production enterprises.
However, this must not and does not mean that only the large-scale enterprises
are noteworthy– given the way that small(er) farms have also been obtaining favour-
able results. Examples would be farms that have undergone far-reaching specialisa-
tion or are engaged in the generation of unique product (not least health foods and
organic produce). The owners in such cases have often set themselves ambitious and
unusual objectives, in this way serving as ne examples to others of the entrepre-
neurial approaches that may be taken.
In the 2018–2019 period, eldwork was carried out in Poland, Romania and
Hungary, in order to better identify, encapsulate and appreciate current develop-
ments, along with the dilemmas and challenges faced by the farms that have never-
theless achieved economic success.
As the previous sentence suggests, the farms focused in on were those that had
managed above-average economic development (not least in comparison with other
farms in their vicinity). Extended, in-depth interviews were organised on most of
the farms in question, with the result that owners’ opinions were gathered regarding
current phenomena and processes associated with the transformation of agriculture
224
in the wake of the fall of the communist system, as well as the opportunities and
threats arising. Information in the press and online was also utilised.
The selection made in Poland related to two examples of farms located in the east
(in the Lublin and Podlasie regions). Both of these feature a rather low level of
socio-economic development and a decided prevalence of agricultural functions in
rural areas. In turn, in Romania the focus was on three prospering farms (production
enterprises) located in the South Muntenia region. This denotes the fertile Danube
Valley area in which there are chernozems and alluvial soils. In contrast, in Hungary,
the 5 farms under study were located around the town of Kecskemet, as capital of
the Bacs-Kiskun region.
A Review oftheFarms Researched
A Family Farm Engaging intheCommercial Production
ofCereals– Owner Florin Moldovano (Valcelele– Romania)
This is a private family farm covering around 500ha, of which 240 are under the
ownership of an under-40 farmer with technical education in farming. Six hired
hands work on the farm. From the point of view of area, this is a very atypical farm
for Romania, where the fall of communism was associated with the furthest-
reaching fragmentation of land ownership and associated appearance of a huge
number of (more than 3million) farms of zero commercial viability. Nevertheless,
the Calarasi area offers many examples of entities of equally large size that special-
ise mainly in large-scale crop growing on soil of very high quality. In general, these
have their own major resources of land, but also lease from other owners not engaged
in agricultural activity. The farm specialises in producing cereals (wheat, barley and
maize). It is fully equipped with its own necessary means of production (tractors,
combine harvesters and other farm machinery)– and these were purchased with
nancial support received under the Common Agricultural Policy.
The farm’s owner is satised with his work, which not only supplies sufcient
income, but also allows him to pursue his interests and hobby (given his status as an
owner and breeder of horses). The greatest challenge posed to on-farm development
in his case is access to water. In that context, it must be stressed that the farm is
located in the valley of one of Europe’s pre-eminent rivers, though admittedly sepa-
rated from the Danube by about 25km. Shortages of water arise rst and foremost
during the period in which cereals are growing, and the farmer has no drip irrigation
or similar system, with the result that yields are hit during periods of drought. The
famer is seeking to invest in a eld irrigation system in the nearest future. However,
when asked, he is critical of state farm policy, and does not perceive the assistance
extended by the state as being of any signicance. He draws support– and takes
advice– from advisory rms present on the market.
15 A Presentation oftheContemporary Farm intheCEECs Using Case Studies
225
The Agro Prest Iliuta SRL Production Enterprise– Large- Scale
Crop Production– Owner Vasile Iliuta (Valcelele– Romania)
The second Romanian example of economic success concerns a farming enterprise
called Agro Prest Iliuta SRL, which emerged out of one of the State Farms existing
during the communist era. Formally founded in 2003, it covers several thousand
hectares of land. The main focuses of its activity are on both cereal-growing (of
wheat, barley and maize) and the raising of livestock (dairy cattle and pigs). The
enterprise, which is a limited liability company, employs around 160 people, with
average remuneration on the level 750 euros a month net.
The head of Agro Prest Iliuta SRL is Vasile Iliuta, a farm economist by educating
and one of the Calarasi region’s wealthiest inhabitants. He commenced with his
economic activity in 1991– soon after the communist system was brought to an
end– on the basis of 50ha of agricultural land that his family received in the context
of the programme of restitution. Today, he is the owner of some 450ha of very
good-quality land, on which it is rst and foremost maize that is grown (over around
half of the area), as well as wheat and barley. He gained further experience in both
tending the land and raising livestock in the course of visits to The Netherlands,
France and Italy.
Press information reveals how the enterprise received major support from EU
Funds in 2010 (a sum of 2.8M Euros), with this inter alia allowing for engagement
in super-modern cattle- and pig-breeding, as well as the purchase of modern farm
equipment (https://adevarul.ro). Today Agro Prest Iliuta SRL has a full range of
machinery at its disposal, as well as an effective irrigation system.
Vasile Iliuta combines his work in agriculture with both social and political
activity. He holds or has held both political and managerial positions, inter alia as a
member of the Romanian Parliament’s Chamber of Deputies and as President of
Calasari District. He assigned the largest part of the interview to issues of land own-
ership, i.e. the opportunity for foreigners to purchase land freely. Thus, in the area
of operation of his enterprise there is much competition with investors from both
Italy and the Arab World.
The Agrofam Production Group– Large-Scale
(Highly- Commercial) Crop Production– Director Stefan
Poienaru (Fetesti– Romania)
As the name might suggest, Agrofam is a family-run enterprise. Founded in 1992, it
is run by people highly-qualied in the agricultural sciences. The rst means for the
development of this farm-enterprise came from commercial activity involving sh
products. This included trading in caviar by the current D-G of the rm. Even at the
outset, this enterprise had some 150ha of land at its disposal; but this area was
increased steadily. By the year 2000 some 10,000ha of land under the ownership of
A Review of the Farms Researched
226
the Agricultural Academy in Bucharest was being leased, and today the holding
extends over the still-greater area of 16,000ha or so, on which the main crops grown
are cereals (wheat and barley), maize and sunowers. However, the farm also
engages in livestock-rearing (having some 3000 sheep and 1500 goats), the trade in
farm produce and (to a limited degree) the processing of that produce into products.
Equally, intensied activity in food processing has been rejected as a concept for the
rm, given the level of competition possible with other, more-specialised rms. The
possibilities for a market for what is grown to be secured have in practice posed a
further problem sufcient to account for the lack of activity of this kind.
General Director Stefan Poienaru explains:
… The difference between ourselves and the big players in Romanian agriculture lies in the
way that we are branch specialists. My wife is an agronomist too. Farming activity in
Romania can pay, even where backup is lacking. But it has to be done in the right way;
cultivation should involve a high level of knowledge and experience, but your heart also
needs to be in it.
A major aspect of this opinion needing to be paid attention to concerns the
importance of the possession of knowledge, as well as the need for it to link up with
experience. In the cases of the three Romanian farms or farming enterprises scruti-
nised here, each has an owner with agricultural training completed – alongside
many years of activity in the food sector as broadly conceived. That said, it must be
stressed that this is not the typical situation for Romanian agriculture, as a decided
majority of the small, non-commercial farms still present in abundance in the coun-
try are managed by people of limited educational attainments whose main founda-
tion in what they do derives from experience, rather than acquired knowledge of
other kinds. This shortfall is a key factor hindering further modernisation, as well as
the drawdown of funding from the stream owing in from Brussels.
The rm Agrofam employs some 200 workers, each of whom enjoys the right to
a so-called “grain allowance” which can be provided in either material form or as
the equivalent in cash. Beyond that, each employee receives free food on a daily
basis, with further support in the form of loyalty bonuses, participation in prots
made (also through the payment of bonuses), as well as employment opportunities
for children who have graduated from an agricultural training establishment. The
General Director has no doubt that these kinds of incentives combine with standard-
level remuneration to encourage the workers of the enterprise into loyal and ef-
cient work.
Agrofam offers a number of benets to potential investors, including ideally-
located farmland on Great Brăila Island in the Danube, not far from main motor-
ways and port facilities.
“…We have extensive fertile land on the island. Our equipment is good, and we have a ne
team of workers; as well as abundant water for irrigation and efcient transport links close
by”– says Stefan Poienaru, adding that: “Romania has exceptionally fertile soil– and when
you love the land, the land loves you back”.
Asked about problems and challenges appearing in the country following the fall
of the communist system, he above all mentioned strong competition with foreign
15 A Presentation oftheContemporary Farm intheCEECs Using Case Studies
227
agricultural enterprises resorting to industrial methods, as well as rms operating in
the interests of agriculture (servicing it, helping with trade and commercial aspects,
actually manufacturing the food products and so on). What are involved here are
both rms operating abroad and foreign ones active on the Romanian market. The
dominance and control of that market and consequent imposition of prices (e.g. of
agricultural chemicals) obstruct the activity of farms and home-grown agricultural
enterprises.
On top of that, there is criticism of state assistance for agriculture, or in fact what
the interviewee sees of the lack thereof. An example of this supplied immediately
concerns the serious obstacles to actually employing anyone on a farm that ever-
present bureaucracy are capable of providing. This is of course enhanced by
instances of corruption or other irregularities in administration as well as the exces-
sive spread of the relevant decision-making. Concrete examples are forthcoming,
e.g. with farmland becoming available following the fall of the State Farms are
Cooperatives being snapped up by Romanian politicians hailing from among the
“red nomenklatura”. While these people were often unlikely farmers, they were
able to sell on the land they had purchased a while later, taking major advantage of
prices that had risen greatly in the meantime. This speaks for itself when it is noted
how 1ha of arable land cost some 100–200 euros in 1992, as opposed to 6000–7000
now. Agrofam’s owner estimates that 50% of all agricultural land in the Great Brăila
area is now in foreign hands (with Lebanon and Qatar especially
well-represented).
Family Farm– Commercial Production ofFruit– Owner Ferenc
Somodi (Suburban Zone Around Kecskemet– Hungary)
This is a large, modern orchard-farm albeit with very long traditions in fruit- growing
(going back to 1720). At present, the farm has 30ha of land planted with fruit trees,
along with 10ha of forest. This became a collective during the communist era, and
the then owner– the present owner’s grandfather– was categorised as a Kulak and
made subject to repression (even coming close to death at one point). The land taken
over by the state came within a multi-aspect Cooperative, in which the present own-
er’s father– with high-level professional qualications– served as Chief Specialist
in orchard-keeping. Once communism in Hungary fell, the Somodi family received
back 22ha of land as compensation for what had been lost. IN later years, they
purchased a further 8ha, thereby increasing the land owned to the present total of
30. In 2017, the farm took the title of Most beautiful orchard in Hungary.
The farm’s owner completed his agricultural studies and also did internships in
Italy, Switzerland and Germany. Particularly good experience in orchard manage-
ment was gained during his time in Germany, where he spent about half a year. His
farm now specialises in apricots and plums; while a small number of apple trees are
A Review of the Farms Researched
228
also cultivated. The farm engages in intensive production of a modern prole
(Plate 15.1).
Produce is sold on both the domestic and foreign markets, with customers includ-
ing Lidl. Everything produced is contracted for, with the market for the fruit pro-
duced posing the most major challenge, according to the farmer. Intermediary rms
operating between the farm and commercial entities impose unfavourable pricing
conditions, which makes production less protable while limiting competitiveness
vis-à-vis foreign producers.
The farm has four hired workers, while around 40 more (from the local area of
more generally within Romania) are given work when the fruit is in season.
However, the farmer stresses that it is more and more difcult to nd hands. Fruit
production is capable of supplying a satisfactory income, and the owner has no
plans to extent the farm further, instead seeking to focus on modernisation. Today it
has modern machinery, cold-stores and storage premises, as well as nets to protect
against hail.
The fruit farm is not associated with others in a producer’s organisation, but is in
constant touch with others of a similar prole. When asked, the owner remarked that
cooperation between fruit producers had become essential, mainly given the chance
to safeguard interests against dishonest rms acting as go-betweens as regards mar-
kets for the produce. However, he prefers informal links between fruit-growers, as
his view of producers’ organisations is a critical one, given what he sees as the pres-
ence there of participants who are not really farmers, but merely people interested
in making a quick prot. A further important challenge is ongoing adaptation of
what is produced to changing climatic conditions. Indeed, it is for this reason that
Plate 15.1 Part of the orchard with guards on Ferenc Somodi’s farm. (Photo by J.Bański)
15 A Presentation oftheContemporary Farm intheCEECs Using Case Studies
229
the owner has been withdrawing from apple-growing in favour of plums and apri-
cots– both of which can be regarded as better adapted to today’s conditions locally.
The owner has beneted from EU funds and intends to go on doing so. He ear-
marked them rst and foremost for the purchase of machinery and upgrading of the
technical infrastructure. He has professional assistance with the administering of
EU projects, and is rather optimistic about the future of his farm. Furthermore, he
has nothing too negative to say about the activity of the Hungarian state in regard to
agriculture, even if he accepts that there are delays and cases of inadequate imple-
mentation. This level of optimism is only underlined by the expressed opinion that
he would not wish to change anything in his life and is content with the results his
activity achieves.
Multifunctional Family Farm– Plant Production andServices
inAgritourism– Owner Tanya Kujani (Vicinity
ofKecskemet– Hungary)
The farm is multifunctional in nature, meaning an involvement in both production
and services. The focus here is again on fruit-growing (mainly plums, apricots and
sweet cherries), which is carried over around 16ha of land. To be added to that total
are some 14ha of vineyards. However, the latter had to be cut in the wake of damage
done by a 2017 hailstorm. Niche plants are also being experimented with, and
include herbs. The farm also renders services in agritourism and as regards the con-
vening of conferences.
The land used in farming was purchased by the family following the fall of com-
munism. The owner has land in another part of the country (near Paks), which he
received as compensation for property lost in that era. That land is currently being
leased out to another user.
Both husband and wife are trained in crop protection, while their daughter is at
an agricultural university. As well as running the farm, they also have a rm that
distributes pesticides, herbicides and other plant protection agents, as well as fertil-
isers. These services are currently being provided to around 100 other farms. The
enterprise also deals with pest monitoring and the supply of relevant information, as
well as pest forecasting. This leaves the rm as the primary source of income, with
the farm only supplementing that.
According to the owner, the most major challenge now facing the farm concerns
the market for its produce and products. Unfortunately, prices often fall below the
costs of production, hence the need for other sources of income and an ongoing
search for new forms of activity. One idea involves tourism, though with no over-
night accommodation base. The farm offers to organise and host conferences, as
well as integration meetings and other events for 10–20 people, or even several tens.
An educational trail has been laid out around the piece of land, and this allows visi-
tors to acquaint themselves better with interesting plant species, including herbs.
A Review of the Farms Researched
230
Work to construct the trail was co-nanced by EU money designated in support of
development in rural areas. Part of the output and activity on the farm is basically a
result of “hobby farming”, but the owners are open to new ideas, and always on the
lookout for new forms of on-farm activity (Plate 15.2).
At present there is actually no contracted market for what the farm is able to
produce. Most of that is sold at market locally, though cooperation has been put in
place with the Kamra-túra local network of producers. This cooperation for exam-
ple allowed for the marketing of produce on the main Market Square in Kecskemet
on Market Day.
It is above all members of the family that work on the farm. However, at harvest
time these are augmented by as many as 80 seasonal workers– primarily Roma
people and Romanians.
The owner is not very positive about the role of state policy, for example drawing
attention to a lack of exibility and failure to adjust agricultural regulations to the
needs of the real world. She is nevertheless pleased with her occupation, and is
considering how to develop the business further. In her view, a key task now would
be to diversify output, as well as to invest in the overnight accommodation base in
order to allow participants at conferences and other meetings to make an overnight
stay on the site.
Plate 15.2 Part of the educational trail featuring a variety of different plant species. (Photo by
J.Bański)
15 A Presentation oftheContemporary Farm intheCEECs Using Case Studies
231
Family Farm– Breeding Pigs– Owners theKőszegi Family
(Kiskunfélegyháza– Hungary)
The farm specialises in the breeding of pigs, and especially piglets. It utilises 40ha
of agricultural land, of which 30 belongs to the Kőszegi family, while the remaining
10ha is on lease. Land was received once communism fell– as compensation for
what had been lost back then when collectivisation was being pursued. Earlier, this
farm specialised in vegetable-growing, but a lack of farm hands to do the work
forced a departure from intensive plant production. Workforce that might possibly
have been hired was absorbed into the recently-built Mercedes plant in Kecskemet,
which employs around 5000. Thus today’s farm workers are family members only,
i.e. the parents plus a son and a daughter. Interestingly then, all members of the fam-
ily are formally employed away from the farm, with the pig-breeding therefore
treated as nothing more than a supplementary activity. While the parents have no
formal education in farming, their children did complete higher studies in garden
engineering. Indeed, the daughter who was the subject of an extended interview
even has a doctorate.
Production on the farm is indeed subordinated to livestock breeding, the crops
grown on arable land being mainly cereals, which serve as feed for the animals. At
the core of the effort are around 30 sows capable of giving birth to some 200–250
piglets a year. These are taken on by other farms in the Kecskemet area specialising
in the fattening of pigs. Piglets are also sold to people from other parts of Hungary,
and there is even interest among Romanian farmers. There is no contracted produc-
tion here, with piglets instead being sold ad hoc. The owner is nevertheless planning
to develop production, when it comes to both an increase in the area devoted to fod-
der crops and a raising of the numbers of sows kept. However, a major curb on these
ambitions results from difculties with purchasing more land, and this proves to be
a very limited market. That is a reection of the status of land as the best place in
which to locate capital. A similar phenomenon can be observed in other countries in
the region under study.
When Irén Kőszegi was asked about the key challenges facing the farm, she
pointed to two main factors determining the productive activity they were able to
engage in, i.e. difculties with hiring hands and changes of climate. The rst factor
limits opportunities to expand production, while the second poses a threat to the
farm’s economic condition. In particular, the drought that affected Hungary a short
while ago gave rise to losses in amounts of feed for the pigs produced. Swine u
also poses a serious and constant threat to all farms engaged in the breeding and
raising of pigs.
The farm is not associated with any group of producers, though there is an infor-
mal network in operation. As the study-participant emphasises: “Hungary’s farmers
do have serious difculties trusting one another– and that’s a result of bad experi-
ences during the communist era, but also in more recent decades– following the fall
of the old regime”.
A Review of the Farms Researched
232
Organic Farming– Production ofVegetables– Owner Matyas
Nemes (Fülöpjakab– Hungary)
This farm specialises in organic vegetable-growing over 3ha of land. Much of the
cultivation is achieved within polythene tunnels, and the farm has the necessary
certication allowing it to produce “healthy food”. Just two people are at work here,
i.e. Mr. and Mrs. Nemes themselves, though when harvests are at their peak hired
hands are also taken on.
Like almost every country-dweller in Hungary, the owner here had his communist-
era garden cultivated right next to the house and used in the “hobby” sense to ensure
a steady supply of vegetables. By profession, this man was a soldier– hence a total
lack of knowledge on or experience with farming. However, when his military
career ended and Mr. Nemes retired, he elected to purchase the farm from its previ-
ous owner. By that time it was in a poor state, with the buildings largely in ruins and
the land choked with weeds and scrub. That said, it proved possible to both renovate
the buildings and rehabilitate the arable land, with the result that the commence-
ment of organic vegetable farming became possible.
Produce is sold in special health-food shops in Budapest, on the eco-market, and
even to households, to which the output can be sent directly. Vegetables are har-
vested each week more or less year-round, hence the attention paid to freshness.
Even foreign intermediaries are interested in what is produced, though– as there is
no guaranteeing contract of any kind for the vegetables concerned– the owner has
withdrawn from this kind of cooperation (Plate 15.3).
Plate 15.3 Cultivation in a polythene tunnel. (Photo by J.Bański)
15 A Presentation oftheContemporary Farm intheCEECs Using Case Studies
233
The farm produces a wide variety of vegetables. Some of the output is a direct
reection of the farmer’s desire to indulge his hobby, i.e. experimentation with
unusual and exotic plant species. For example, he is a producer of old-style sweet
potatoes, whose cultivation proves to be of economic benet. In the view of the
owner, the steady income from his vegetable-growing is satisfactory, and the pro-
cess is a major source of satisfaction that also guarantees a healthy lifestyle.
Unsurprisingly, then, the owner is seeking to develop the interests further, and to
increase the area under cultivation.
The farm has no association with other growers, but there are contacts with pro-
ducers on the market for health food. The farmer inter alia cooperates with his two
sons, who pursue the same kind of activity elsewhere in his village. There are also
informal linkages with a group of eco-farmers.
The most major challenge now facing the farm revolves around the securing of
adequate amounts of water for crop-growing. At present this comes from a deep
well. Precipitation here is very irregular and periods of drought seem to persist for
longer and longer, posing a threat of total devastation. However, the farmer has been
able to buy solar panels with EU funding, and the electricity generated not only sup-
plies the household, but also sustains a comprehensive water-treatment system. The
plan is for the farm to become self-sufcient in energy.
Family Farm– Commercial Grain Production– Owner László
Kovács (Kecskemet Area– Hungary)
Here we have a family farm covering around 200ha of arable land and run by a
father-and-son team. This family has its long-term tradition in farming and con-
fesses to having a strong attachment to the land. While most of that land is farm-
owned, some several tens of hectares are leased from another owner. When
communism fell, the Kovács family received 120ha of land as recompense for what
had been taken away by the state for collectivisation. However, this allocation was
not deemed satisfactory by the owner, who considered that the losses of other prop-
erty had not been compensated for, let alone the income he could potentially have
gained over more than 40years of productive activity on the land denied to his family.
Current production is more or less entirely crop-related, hence the focus on ara-
ble land. It is mainly cereals that are produced (above all wheat and barley, as well
as maize). There is also a small area of grassland. The farm is well-equipped with
machinery for large-scale work (mainly John Deer), and the purchase was made
possible by agri-environmental support from the EU.Union funding also provided
for new investment in eld irrigation (with around 50% of the costs covered); the
spraying goes some way to making good decits of humidity associated with the
droughts that seem to be more and more tangible in Hungary. The development also
makes diversication more realistic than it otherwise would be, and a start in
vegetable- growing is now foreseen.
A Review of the Farms Researched
234
Like other study participants, those farming here are not part of a producers’
association, and this most likely gains reection in a critical view of the current state
of Hungarian agriculture. The interviewees referred to excessive bureaucracy, inap-
propriate and repressive legal regulations, and a lack of real support from institu-
tions tasked with offering just that. Many negative features of the food sector are
also referred to, with excessive regulation, and unjustied payments and taxes that
all hinder work in farming. It is stressed that Hungarian regulations go further than
those in the EU more generally, with the focus being on extracting money from
farms. Regulatory and scrutinising provisions prove to be inexible, yet the remarks
made and concerns raised by farmers seem to be ignored. Such problems limit the
commercial viability of the production engaged in on the land currently in use.
Indeed, in the view of the farmers here, the farm should be producing wheat over
500ha in order for it to supply a decent income under present conditions. Under
those circumstances, diversication looked like an alternative solution– whose pur-
suit is now being tried.
Owners’ critical remarks are also addressed to the joint process by which land
was privatised and assets seized during the communist era made the subject of res-
titution. This is said to have opened up “deep wounds and conicts between peo-
ple”. For individuals who had been in position to sit “close to the re” (or “by the
trough”, as Poles would have it) had high-level posts in the “socialised” forms of
agriculture that were closed down, with linkages to the old elite therefore strong
enough to allow them to benet most from the privatisation, securing for themselves
the best bits of the Cooperatives (best land, land with good infrastructure, machin-
ery and so on). What has recently been taking shape is therefore a kind of “rural
aristocracy” only strengthened– guratively and perhaps even literally at times– by
“arranged marriages”.
The Ziołowy Zakątek andDary natury Farm Enterprises–
Producing Herbs andSupplying Agritourist Services– Owner
Mirosław Angielczyk (Village ofKoryciny, Podlaskie
Voivodeship, Poland)
This farm falls outside typical or traditional denitions, given its status as a multi-
functional enterprise dealing with herb-production and herbalism and organic food,
but also rendering services in tourism and gastronomy and engaging in educational
activity. The rm was founded by Mirosław Angielczyk as the systemic transforma-
tion in Poland was beginning. The entrepreneur in fact graduated from his studies in
1989, the goal having been to make work in large-scale farming possible. However,
the changes encouraged a return to Angielczyk’s home village of Koryciny, with the
new intention being to set up a business that would grow and buy up herbs– as a
major natural resource in the Podlasie region of eastern Poland.
15 A Presentation oftheContemporary Farm intheCEECs Using Case Studies
235
From his very earliest days, the farm-owner/entrepreneur had shown consider-
able interest in nature, and especially herb plants. He began to pursue this passion
while still a student– with those studies taken up following success achieved in an
inter-school nature competition. The practical manifestation was the supply of herbs
gathered in the Koryciny region to a shop in Warsaw. After graduating, he founded
his own rm purchasing herbs and supplying the Warsaw market with them.
Poland’s steadily increasing interest in herbalism and dynamic development of the
market for herbs encouraged the farmer-entrepreneur into commencing with his
own production of the plants in question. He purchased several plots from local
farmers that were then consolidated into a larger eld on which herb-growing started
up. Today, he owns some 40ha, on which a very diverse range of herbs are indeed
grown (Plate 15.4).
The farm run by Mirosław Angielczyk in fact comprises two component parts,
i.e. the rm Dary Natury, producing health food and active on the market for herbs
rst and foremost; as well as the other rm Ziołowy Zakątek representing a form of
agritourist farm. The latter offers overnight accommodation for more than 100 peo-
ple in heritage farm architecture transferred here from various regions of Poland,
with healthy meals served at the inn on the site, workshops and green schools run,
educational trails available to be walked and a 14-hectare botanical garden with
more than 1000 species of herb to be visited. The rm mainly employs people from
local villages. A particularly key feature is the steadily-growing Podlaski Ogród
Ziołowy (Podlasie Herb Garden), in which experimental work is carried out by
undergraduate and postgraduate students of Warsaw University of Life Sciences
(SGGW). Pupils of technical schools engaged in the training of farmers also do
Plate 15.4 Part of the Ziołowy Zakątek agritourist farm in Koryciny. (Photo by J.Bański)
A Review of the Farms Researched
236
vocational training here. In 2012, Ziołowy Zakątek took the title of “Best Tourist
Product” in Podlaskie Voivodeship.
The twin rms have an extensive and visually attractive website detailing their
activity, as well as the goods they produce and services offered. On the Ziołowy
Zakątek website, we may read that:
Ziołowy Zakątek (the Herbal Corner) “… offers its guests an extensive accommodation
base for more than 150 people. The rooms are located in historic farmhouses from the
mid- 19th century, removed from various villages of Podlasie…” Ziołowy Zakątek also has a
ceramics workshop that has traditional crafts on offer, as well as training. It further offers
herbal baths to guests… To meet the needs of the Ziołowy Zakątek restaurant, the supply of
organic vegetables is also organised here, on the basis of traditional methods. Meanwhile
the Podlaski Botanical Garden includes more than 1500 species across 12 hectares of land.
Today, the farm strives to propagate and promote knowledge of herbalism, seeking to
ensure the survival of knowledge on traditions and customs in this eld, and also engaging
in implementation work– from the outset in cooperation with the Department of Medicinal
Plants of Warsaw University of Life Sciences (https://ziolowyzakatek.pl/O- nas,38.html).
In turn, the rm Dary natury presents itself in the following way:
This is a rm active in the herbal-medicines and healthfood branch of the economy. It is
seated in the southern part of Podlaskie Voivodeship, in Siemiatyce county, and in the small
village of Koryciny located within extensive woodland. Indeed, the area around the HQ has
exceptionally high forest cover and diversity of landscape, and these kinds of conditions
favour the presence of a wide variety of ora capable of being gathered as raw material for
use in herbalism. For generations now, this kind of tradition of collecting herbs from nature
has been in place here. Today, 9 of the Sub-Districts within this Forest District from which
we obtain our raw material have been certied ecologically– meaning 10-20,000 ha of
land that can be utilised by us. Thanks to that scale, our activity by which we obtain plant
material from nature does not do much to inuence the environment around us … At the
same time, the process of gathering herbs to meet our needs is a matter for as many as 300
workers. We seek to ensure our herbs are gathered at a time optimal for each species indi-
vidually. And chemical checks on the material we take from this region conrm how clean
a corner of Poland this is, with no major environmental pollution present. … Currently we
are also involved in propagating knowledge of herbalism, seeking to ensure that this is
preserved, along with certain relevant customs; and we also do work on wellness, in the
process also cooperating– from the outset – with the Medicinal Plants Department at
Warsaw University of Life Sciences (SGGW) (https://darynatury.pl/Podstrony/O- nas,1).
15 A Presentation oftheContemporary Farm intheCEECs Using Case Studies
237© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Bański, M. Mazur, Transformation of Agricultural Sector in the Central and
Eastern Europe after 1989, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73766-5_16
Chapter 16
Summary
In the last three decades agriculture in the CEECs has been subjected to very far-
reaching change. These have above all been consequences of the fall of commu-
nism, which had played a dominant role in the farming sectors of most of the
region’s countries. The adoption of a free-market system entailed a return of land
and assets that had been seized during that time, with privatisation ensuing, along
with a freeing of prices for both the output of farms and the means of production.
But a second, also key, phenomenon shaping this or any depiction of agriculture
in the CEECs involved these countries’ European Union accessions, as preceded by
several years of preparation for membership. Farms transformed very dynamically
at this time too, as they needed to adapt to EU requirements, as well as conditions
for market competition domestically and Europe-wide. Some failed to face up to
these challenges, fell, and/or are in the process of liquidation. Equally, a large group
of farms were able to seize the opportunity to develop, proving able to engage effec-
tively in productive activity under the new conditions.
A negative phenomenon characterising the transformation’s rst stage in coun-
tries hitherto subordinated to” socialist” forms of agriculture involved the deindus-
trialisation of rural areas, with a non-thought-through and over-hasty close-down of
Cooperatives and State Farms taking place within the agricultural sector. This was
capped by not-too-effective measures providing for the restitution of lost land
assets, whose impacts included the fragmentation of agricultural land and a devasta-
tion of technical and technological infrastructure (notably that which had earlier
provided for irrigation in the southern part of the region).
In turn, the periods of preparation for EU membership and following accession
produced negative phenomena that reected competition with better-organised and
better-supported entities in Western Europe, the lack of any barriers to imports of
agricultural products, CAP-mediated support that did not always seem to be tar-
geted appropriately, and shortfalls when it came to farm policy domestically.
Notwithstanding this series of negative phenomena arising during the period of eco-
nomic and systemic transformation in the CEECs, the overall impact of what
238
happened has undoubtedly been positive. Production efciency has risen, there has
been an improvement in both the agrarian structure and the economic condition of
farms, the level of specialisation of farms has risen, and there has been an expansion
of the market when it comes to the potential consumers of food produced.
Agriculture in the CEECs is characterised by considerable spatial differentiation
in the use of agricultural land, as well as the crop structure typical for arable land.
Generally, all of the region’s countries except Slovenia have a prevalence of eld
cultivation within the area of land under agricultural management. However, the
south of the studied region has a relatively large share of land under permanent
crops– in reection of climatic conditions favourable to that. Crop structure dif-
ferentiates our region’s north and south in quite a clear way, as the former has preva-
lent cereal (above all wheat) cultivation, while the latter features a more-diverse
crop structure, with more industrial crops grown alongside a wide range of cereals.
A decline in the area of agricultural land post-1990 has been a feature typical
across the region, reecting the territorial expansion of cities, and development of
road and rail infrastructure, as well as greater rationality of crop production inter
alia involving exclusion from further agriculture of land of the lowest agroecologi-
cal value – which tends to be earmarked for reafforestation. These phenomena
intensied once the phase of privatisation and the restitution of land had taken place.
Changes in the structure of agricultural land-use did differ from country to country
in the region, though it was possible to observe overall losses (other than in Poland)
where the more-permanent uses were concerned– with arable land beneting, or
more rarely grasslands. Overall, the trends for the main components of agricultural
land-use were associated with agroecological conditions, as increased rationality of
cultivation made clear. Where countries have productive space of lower quality,
there tended to be an overall increase in the share taken by grasslands. In contrast,
where farming (especially soil-related) conditions are more favourable, it was the
share of arable land that increased.
Farm production plays an important role where the economies of the CEECs are
concerned. This is reected in macroeconomic data, with the region’s contribution
to added value in EU-wide agriculture being more than twice as great as the contri-
bution made to GDP overall. That said, it also needs to be noted that, while the
region’s role has increased markedly in both cases since the 1990s, in the case of the
agriculture sector the step backwards taking place with the onset of the period of
transformation lasted longer, while the subsequent overcoming of arrears as com-
pared with “Western” Europe took longer than in other sectors of the economy.
Furthermore, the economies of the different CEECs (and in consequence also
their agriculture) are seen to differ markedly in terms of their dimensions. Almost
half of the entire added value in farming is generated in just two of the region’s
economies, i.e. Poland and Romania. The size of Poland’s role results rst and fore-
most from the size of the economy of the country, while the high share accounted
for by Romania is also inuenced signicantly by the still relatively great signi-
cance of the agriculture sector in the country’s economic structure.
When it comes to the areas planted with different kinds of crop or stocked with
livestock, efciency of production in our region has been going up more
16 Summary
239
dynamically than in the remaining EU Member States– most especially following
the several initial years of transformation of the economic and administrative sys-
tems, during which years a break in production often resulted.
The CEECs show certain specic features when set against the European Union
as a whole. What is involved here is not merely a lower level of intensication over-
all, but also structural features. In general, there is a smaller number of head of
livestock per unit area of agricultural land, as well as a lesser share accounted for by
animal production. The structure characterising plant production in the region in
turn features a decidedly higher share than in “Western” Europe of the two main
elements represented by cereals and industrial crops, even as the shares taken by
vegetables and fruit are markedly lower. Where cereals are concerned, Poland is
among the EU’s leading producers of wheat, rye, cereal mixtures and oats; though
Hungary and Romania are key countries when it comes to maize. In turn, the struc-
ture in terms of head of livestock is more even than in the EU-17. Within it, there is
a noticeably smaller share of the two main elements– i.e. cattle and pigs, while
poultry species account for a higher share.
Given the region’s considerable latitudinal extent, it is far from homogeneous
from the point of view of production structure. This is determined by both the diver-
sity of climatic and soil conditions and the relief. While cereals and fodder crops are
of greater signicance in the north of the region, levels of production there are lower
when it comes to vegetables and fruit, as well as products characteristic for a sub-
tropical climate like wine and olive oil. Moreover, the north of the region also has a
larger population of livestock animals, with a larger share within that taken by cat-
tle; and with the shares accounted for by poultry, sheep and goats being lower, along
with that taken by potential draft animals used in work in the elds.
There would seem to be ever-great inuence of national farm policy and that of
the EU on the agricultural production structure. Subsidies, payments and other
forms of nancial support for the sector are shaped by dened preferences for cer-
tain crops and livestock breeding among farm-owners. Equally, given the leading
role played by large farms using industrial methods, the nature of production in the
CEECs looks in some conict with the new trend for the CAP to espouse biodiver-
sity and a more-organic production of food. In this respect, anticipated changes will
probably raise the level of diversity of crop and animal production. Moreover,
warming of the climate is causing a spatial polarisation of food production, both
regionally and globally. Productive potential will above all increase at the higher
latitudes in which the CEECs are primarily located. Equally, our region’s southern-
most part is likely to witness a “relative” decline in the productive potential of agri-
culture– mainly as a reection of progressing water shortages.
16 Summary
241© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
J. Bański, M. Mazur, Transformation of Agricultural Sector in the Central and
Eastern Europe after 1989, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73766-5
References
Agriculture, forestry and shery statistics, 2017, Statistical Books, Eurostat, Luxembourg.
Balteanu D., Popovici E., 2010, Land use changes and land degradation in post-socialist Romania,
Romanian Journal of Geography, 54, 2, pp.95–105.
Bandlerova A., Marisova E., 2003. Importance of ownership and lease of agricultural land in
Slovakia in the pre-accession period. Agricultural Economics, 49, 5, pp.213–216.
Bański J., 1997, Przemiany rolniczego użytkowania ziemi w Polsce w latach 1975-1988 [“Changes
in the agricultural use of land in Poland in the years 1975-1988”], Prace Geogr., 168, IGiPZ
PAN, Warsaw, Poland.
Bański J., (ed.), 2001, Wieś i rolnictwo u progu Unii Europejskiej [“The countryside and farming
on the threshold of the European Union”], Studia Obszarów Wiejskich, 1, PTG, IGiPZ PAN,
Warsaw, Poland.
Bański J., 2007, Geograa rolnictwa Polski [“The geography of Polish agriculture”], PWN,
Warsaw, Poland.
Bański J., (ed.), 2004, Changing functions of rural areas in the Baltic Sea Region, ERDN, 2,
IERiGŻ, IGiPZ PAN, Warsaw, Poland.
Bański J., 2011, Changes in agricultural land ownership in Poland in the period of the market
economy, Agricultural Economics, 57, 2, pp.93–101.
Bański J., 2014, Structure and Ownership of Agricultural Land in Poland in the First Years of New
Millennium, Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology B, 4, pp.85–93.
Bański J., 2018, Phases to the transformation of agriculture in Central Europe – selected pro-
cesses and their results, Agricultural Economics, 64, pp.546–553.
Bański J., Bednarek M. (eds.), 2008, Contemporary changes of agriculture in East-Central
Europe, Rural Studies (Studia Obszarów Wiejskich), 15, IGiPZ PAN, PTG, Warsaw, Poland.
Bański J., Błażejczyk K., 2006, Globalne zmiany klimatu i ich wpływ na rolnictwo [“Global
changes in climate and their inuence on agriculture”], [in:] Kostrzewski A., Czerniawska
J. (ed.), Przemiany środowiska geogracznego Polski północno-zachodniej, UAM, Poznań,
Poland, Bogucki Wyd. Naukowe, 119–129.
Bański J., Owsiński J. (eds.), 2003, Alternatives for European Rural Areas, ERDN, 1, IERiGŻ,
IGiPZ PAN, Warsaw, Poland.
Basek V., Divila E., 2008, Struktura czeskich gospodarstw rolnych– dziś i jutro [”The structure
of Czech farms – today and tomorrow”], [in:] Dziś i jutro gospodarstw rolnych w krajach
Centralnej i Wschodniej Europy, Prace IERiGŻ, 98, 53–66, Warsaw, Poland.
Benczes I., 2014, Decit and Debt in Transition: The Political Economy of Public Finances in
Central and Eastern Europe, Central European University Press, p.203.
242
Bencheva, N., 2005, Transition of Bulgarian agriculture: present situation, problems and perspec-
tives for development, Journal of Central European Agriculture, 6 (4), pp.473–480.
Benedek, J., 2000, Land reform in Romania after 1989: towards market oriented agriculture?
[in:] P. Tillack, E.Schulze, (eds.), Land Ownership, Land Markets and Their Inuence on
the Efciency of Agricultural Production in Central and Eastern Europe. IAMO, Halle/Saale,
Germany.
Bentley W., 1987, Economic and ecological approaches to land fragmentation: In defence of a
much-maligned phenomenon, Annual Review of Anthropology, 16, 31–67.
Bicik I., Jelecek L., 2009, Land use and landscape changes in Czechia during the period of transi-
tion 1990-2007, Geograe, 114, 4, pp.263–281.
Bruma I.S., 2014, The evolution of organic agricultural land areas in the emerging countries of the
European Union, Journal of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, 2, pp.167–179.
Bureau J., 2012, Where is the Common Agricultural Policy Heading? Intereconomics/Review of
European Economic Policy, 47, pp.316–321.
Burger A., 2001, Agricultural development and concentration of land in a Central European coun-
try: a case study of Hungary, Land Use Policy, 18, pp.259–268.
Burger, A. – Szép, K. 2006: The Economic Situation of Individual (Family) Farms, Agroinform,
Budapest.
Certan I., Chmieliński P., Voicilas M., (ed.), 2015, Rural development in Central-Eastern Europe
and neighbourhood countries, Rural areas and development, Volume 12, Warszawa-Bucharest.
Csaki C., Kray H., 2005, Romanian Food and Agriculture from a European Perspective, ECSSD-
Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development, Working Paper, 39, WB, Bucuresti,
Romania.
Csaki C., Lerman Z., (ed.), 2000, Structural change in the farming sector in Central and Eastern
Europe, World Bank Technical Paper, 465, Washington D.C., USA.
Csatari B., Farkas Z., 2008, Agrarian and Rural Development in Hungary, 1990–2005, [in:]
Bański J., Bednarek M. (eds.), Contemporary changes of agriculture in East-Central Europe,
Rural Studies, 15, IGiPZ PAN, PTG, Warsaw, Poland, 147–164.
Czapiewski K., Janc K., 2019, Education, Human Capital and Knowledge – The Paradigm
Shift and Future Scenarios on Polish Rural Areas, [in:] J.Bański, J. (ed.), Three Decades of
Transformation in the East-Central European Countryside, Springer, Cham, 351–367.
Dalla Marta A., Orlando F., Mancinia M., Guasconia F., Mothad R., Qud J., Orlandini S., 2015, A
simplied index for an early estimation of durum wheat yield in Tuscany (Central Italy), Field
Crops Research 170, pp.1–6.
Daugaliene V. 2008, Land Consolidation – an Instrument for Sustainable Rural Development.
Presentation on the General Assembly of European Association for Rural Development
Institutions (AEIAR) Vilnius, Lithuania pp.1–5.
De Arriba R., 2007, Evaluating land reform and market in Bulgaria, Journal of Economics and
Business, 10, 1, pp.11–33.
Doucha T., Divila E., Fischer M., 2005, Land use and ownership and the Czech farm develop-
ment, Rural Areas and Development, European Rural Development Network (ERDN), vol. 3,
pp.1–13.
Doucha T., Foltyn I., 2008, Czech agriculture after the accession to the European Union– impacts
on the development of its multifunctionality. Agricultural Economics, 54, 4.
Dudek M., 2017, Skala i uwarunkowania ubóstwa rodzin rolniczych w Polsce [“The scale and
conditioning of poverty among farming families in Poland”], Wieś i Rolnitwo, 2(175), IRWIR
PAN, pp.7–27.
Dumitru M., Diminescu D., Lazea V., 2004, Rural Development and the Reform of Romanian
Agriculture, Collection Studii IER, 10–11, European Institute in Romania, Bucuresti, Romania.
Ekands B.H.M., Praestholm S., 2008, Landowners` perspectives on the rural future and the role of
forest across Europe, Journal of Rural Studies, 24, pp.72–85.
El-Agraa Ali M., The Economics of the European Community, Redwood Books, 1990, European
Commission, Report on Implementation of the Commission's Work Programme for 1996, 1996.
References
243
European Commission, 2014, Budget, Brussels.
Falkowski J., Kostrowicki J., 2001, Geograa rolnictwa świata [”The geography of world agricul-
ture”], PWN, Warsaw, Poland.
Farm Structure Survey (FSS), 2013, Eurostat.
Gajdos P., 2005, Marginal regions in Slovakia and their developmental disposabilities, Agricultural
Economics, 51, 12, pp.555–563.
Gierszewska G., Romanowska M., 2009, Analiza strategiczna przedsiębiorstwa [“A strategic anal-
ysis of entrepreneurship”], PWE, Warsaw, Poland.
Goux-Baudiment F., Ghișa M., Dator J.a., Cole S, 2011, Designing a foresight exercise for the
future of rural communities in Romania, Future, 43, 9, pp.996–1008, Elsevier Science.
Granberg l. , Kovach I., Tovey H., (eds.), 2001, Europe’s Green Ring, Aldershot, Ashgate, UK.
Gregory, P., Ingram J., Brklacich M., 2005, Climate change and food security, Philosophical
Transactions of The Royal Society, B, 360.
Halamska M., 2013, Wiejska Polska na początku XXI wieku. Rozważania o gospodarce i
społeczeństwie [“Rural Poland at the beginning of the 21st century. Considerations regarding
the economy and society”], Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, Warsaw, Poland.
Halecki O., 1994, Historia Europy– jej granice i podziały [“The history of Europe– its borders
and divisions”], Instytut Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej, Lublin, Poland.
Hartsa I., Kovach I., Szelenyi I., 1998, The price of privatization. The post-communist transforma-
tional crisis of the Hungarian agrarian system, [in:] I.Szelenyi (ed.), Privatising the land. Rural
political economy in post-communist societies. Routledge. London, UK.
Hartvigsen M., 2013, Land reform in Central and Eastern Europe after 1989 and its outcome in the
form of farm structures and land fragmentation. Land Tenure Working Paper, 24, FAO.
Hartvigsen M., 2014, Land Mobility in a Central and Eastern European Land Consolidation
Context, Nordic Journal of Surveying and Real Estate Research, 10, 1, pp.23–46.
Havránek F., Pavliš J., Hučko B., Czudek R., 2007, Alternative Utilisation of Agricultural Land,
FAO, Rembrandt s.r.o.
Historia Polski w liczbach. Rolnictwo. Leśnictwo [“Poland’s history in numbers. Farming.
Forestry”], 1991, Warsaw, Poland.
Hoffman G.W. (ed.), 1989, Europe in the 1990`s. A geographical analysis, Wiley & Sons.
Hogan A., Young M., 2013, Visioning a future for rural and regional Australia, Cambridge Journal
of Regions, Economy and Society, 6, pp.319–330.
Hruska V., Sivicek T., Czapiewski K., 2015, On non-agricultural and non-tourism economic indus-
tries in rural areas, [in:] V.Hruska (ed.), Post-agricultural rural space of the Visegrad coun-
tries: economies, entrepreneurship and policies, Studia Obszarów Wiejskich, vol. 39, pp.9–20.
Huntington S.P., 1997, Zderzenie cywilizacji i nowy kształt ładu światowego, Warszawskie Wyd.
Literackie MUZA, Warsaw, Poland.
Iglesias A., Garrote L., Quiroga S., Moneo M., 2009, Impacts of climate change in agriculture
in Europe. PESETA-Agriculture study, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, EUR
24107 EN.
Ihlanfeldt K.R., 2007, The effect of land use regulation on housing and land prices, Journal of
Urban Economics, 61, pp.420–435.
Ilieva M., Iliev I., 1995, Changes in the ownership and farmland use in Bulgaria during the tran-
sition to a market economy, Problemi na geograata, Geografski Institut BAN, 4, pp.16–22.
Irvin M.J., Byun S.Y., Meece, J.L., Farmer, T.W., Hutchins, B.C., 2012, Educational barriers
of rural youth: Relation of individual and contextual difference variables. Journal of Career
Assessment, 20(1), 71–87.
Janku J., Sekac P., Barakova J., Kozak J., 2016, Land use analysis in terms of farmland protection
in the Czech Republic, Soil and Water Res., 11, 1, pp.20–28.
Jaskulska I., Jaskulski D., Gałęzewski L., Kotwica K., Doroszewski A., Jóźwicki T., 2017, Plony
i jakość technologiczna korzeni odmian buraka cukrowego oraz ich zmienność w województ-
wach wielkopolskim i kujawsko-pomorskim [“Yields and root technological quality of sugar-
References
244
beet varieties and their variability in Wielkopolskie and Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodeships”],
Fragmenta Agronomica, 34, 2, pp.18–27.
Jepsen, M. R.; Kuemmerle, T.; Müller, et al. (2015). Transition in European land-management
regimes between 1800 and 2010, Land use policy, 49, pp.53–64. Oxford, Elsevier.
Kazandjiev V., Moteva M., Georgieva V., 2011, Near and far future hydro-thermal tendencies for
crop growing in Bulgaria. 16th International Water Technology Conference, IWTC16 2012,
Istanbul, Turkey.
Kimura R., 2010, Visioning the Future of Rural Communities: How were Appreciative Inquiry and
Discontinuous Leap Approaches Applied in Japan’s Progressive Rural Revitalization Cases?
Ritsumeikan Journal of Asia Pacic Studies, 28, 1–17.
King R., Burton S., 1982, Land fragmentation: Notes on a fundamental rural spatial problem,
Progress in Human Geography, 6, 4, pp.475–494.
Kłoczowski J. (ed.), 2000, Historia Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej [”The history of East-Central
Europe”], vols. 1 and 2, Instytut Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej, Lublin, Poland.
Kłoczowski J., 2003, Młodsza Europa. Europa Środkowo-Wschodnia w kręgu cywilizacji
chrześcijańskiej średniowiecza [”A younger Europe. East-Central Europe within the circles of
Mediaeval Christian civilisation”], PIW– State Publishing Institute, Warsaw, Poland.
Kopeva D., 2003, Land market in Bulgaria, Land Reform, 3, pp.41–58.
Kovacs K., 2003, The agricultural restructuring in Hungary 1990–2001, Geographia Polonica,
76, 1, pp.55–72.
Kovacs T., 2005, Restructuring Agriculture, [in:] Barta G., Fekete E., Szorenyine I., Timar
J. (eds.), Hungarian Spaces and Places: Pattern of Transition, Centre for Regional Studies,
Pecs, Hungary, pp.259–271.
Kozyra J., Górski T., 2004, Wpływ zmian klimatu na uprawę roślin w Polsce [”The inuence of
climate change on the cultivation of plants in Poland”], Klimat– Środowisko-Człowiek. Polski
Klub Ekologiczny, Wrocław, Poland: pp.41–50.
Kuhlman, T., LeMouël, P., Wilson, C., 2006, Baseline scenario storylines, Deliverable 2.1.1,
SENSOR project, http://edepot.wur.nl/993 (20.02.2020).
Kulikowski R., 1981, Technique of successive quotients to determine agricultural land use ori-
entations, [in:] Noor Mohammad (ed.), Perspectives of Agricultural Geography, 1, Concept
Publishing Company, New Delhi, pp.417–427.
Land concentration, land grabbing and people`s struggles in Europe, 2013, Transnational Institute
(TNI) for European Coordination Via Campesina and Hands off the Land network, FIAN.
Lowe P., Murdoch J., Marsden T., Munton R., Flynn A., 1993, Regulating the new rural spaces: the
uneven development of land, Journal of Rural Studies, 9, pp.205–222.
Mader K.L, Mader T., Harrington J., Hahn G., Davis M., 2008, Climate change effects on livestock
production in the Great Plains, [in:] R.Stowell etal. (eds.), American Society of Agricultural
Engineering, St Joseph, Michigan, United States.
Mayer C.J., Somerville C.T., 2000, Land use regulation and new construction, Regional Science
and Urban Economics, 30, pp.639–662.
Medzihorsky J., 2019, Rethinking the D'Hondt method, Political Research Exchange, An ECPR
Journal, 1, 1, pp.1–15.
Meurs M., 1999, Many Shades of Red: State Policy and Collective Agriculture, Rowman and
Littleeld, Maryland, United States.
Mladenov C., Ilieva M., 2012, The depopulation of the Bulgarian villages, Bulletin of Geography.
Socioeconomic Series No. 17, pp.99–107.
Mondeshka M., Ruseva S., Marinov I.. Tabakov B., Lazarov A., Slavov D., Boteva D., Malinova
L., Stoyanov H., Petrova R., 2006, Soil Degradation Processes and Options for Sustainable
Land Management in Bulgaria. Minerva Publishing, Soa, Bulgaria.
Moteva M., Mondeshka M., Stoeva A., Yarlovska N., 2014, Contemporary issues of land use and
water management for agriculture in Bulgaria, Lucrari Stiintice, 57, 2, pp.59–68.
Nedalkov N. 2005: Country report in Bulgaria. Celkcenter, Budapest, Hungary.
References
245
Orłowski W., 2001, Makroekonomiczne uwarunkowania rozwoju rolnictwa polskiego w długim
okresie [“Macroeconomic conditioning of Polish agriculture’s long-term development”], Wieś
i Rolnictwo, 2, IRWiR PAN, Warsaw, Poland, pp.19–27.
Otiman, P., 2013, Romania’s present agrarian structure, Romanian Academy, Bucharest.
Page N, Popa R., 2013, Family farming in Romania, Fundația ADEPT Transilvania.
Paul V., 2013, Hopes for the countryside`s future. An analysis of two endogenous development
experiences in south-eastern Galicia, Journal of Urban and Regional Analysis, vol. V, 2,
pp.169–192.
Petrick M., Weingarten P., 2004, The Role of Agriculture in Central and Eastern European Rural
Development: Engine of Change or Social Buffer? Institute of Agricultural Development in
Central and Eastern Europe IAMO, Halle, Germany.
Pochaleev, P., Todorova S., 2011, Problems of Bulgarian Farms concerning the Process of
Adjusting to the Conditions of the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Community.
The Economies of the Balkan and Eastern Europe Countries in the Changed World, Cambridge
Scholars Publishing, pp.84–105
Podraza A., 2004, Europa Środkowa jako region historyczny [“Central Europe as a historical
region”], Materiały 17 Powszechnego Zjazdu Historyków Polskich, Kraków, Poland (http://
jazon.hist.uj.edu.pl/zjazd/).
Pohajda I., 2013, Integrated agricultural production in Croatia, Conference VIVUS –
Environmentalism, Agriculture, Food Production and Processing, 24–25 April 2013, Naklo,
Slovenia, Collection of Papers, pp.197–205.
Pop J., Stauder M., 2003, Land market in Hungary, Agricultural Economic, 49, 4, pp.173–178.
Popovici E., Balteanu D., Kucsicsa G., 2013, Assessment of changes in land-use and land-cover
pattern in Romania using the Corine Land Cover database, Carpathian Journal of Earth and
Environmental Sciences, 8, 4, pp195–208.
Potori, N. Chmieliński, P., Fieldsend, A.F., (eds.), 2014, Structural Changes in Polish and
Hungarian Agriculture since EU Accession: Lessons Learned and Implications for the Design
of Future Agricultural Policies, Research Institute of Agricultural Economics, Budapest,
Hungary.
Property Restitution in Central and Eastern Europe, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs,
Washington, DC, USA, October 3, 2007
Pryor F.L., 1992, The Red and the Green: The Rise and Fall of Collectivised Agriculture in Marxist
Regimes, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Rembold F., 2003, Land fragmentation and its impact in Central and Eastern European countries
and the Commonwealth of Independent States, Land Reform, 1, FAO.
Rural Development in the European Union. Statistical and Economic Information. Report 2008.
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission.
Rusu M., Florian V., 2003, Rural space and rural development in Romania, [in:] Bański J.,
Owsiński J. (eds.), Alternatives for European rural areas, European Rural Development
Network, 1, Warsaw, pp.39–56.
Sabates-Wheeler R., 2002, Consolidation initiatives after land reform: Responses to multiple
dimensions of land fragmentation in Eastern European agriculture, Journal of International
Development, 14, pp.1005–1018.
Sadowski, A., Takacs-György, K., 2005, Results of agricultural reform: Land use and land reform
in Poland and Hungary. Studies in Agricultural Economics, 103, 53–70, Budapest.
Salinger M.J., Stigter C.J., Das H.P., 2000, Agrometeorological adaptation strategies to increasing
climate variability and climate change. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 103, pp.167–184.
Scott A.J., Shorten J., Owen R., Owen I., 2011, What kind of countryside do the public want: com-
munity visions from Wales UK?, GeoJournal, 76, pp.417–436.
Spišiak, P., 1997, Agriculture of Slovakia and its Prospects, Second Czech-Slovak Scientic
Seminar: “Transformation Processes in Society and Changes in Environment in Europe”,
Prague, pp.11–16, (in Slovak).
References
246
Shucksmith M., 2012, Future direction in rural development? Carnegie UK Trust, Andrew
Carnegie House.
Strelecek F., Jelinek L., Lososova J., Zdenek R., 2011, Relationship between the land rent and
agricultural land prices in the Czech Republic, Statistika, 48,2, pp.49–59.
Svatos M., Smutka L. 2012, Development of agricultural trade and competitiveness of commod-
ity structures of individual countries of the Visegrad Group, Agricultural Economics, 58, 5,
pp.222–238.
Svrznjak K., Franic R., 2012, Developing agrarian structure through the disposal of state-
owned agricultural land in Croatia, Papers of 132nd Seminar of the European Association of
Agricultural Economists, Skopje, 25–27 October 2012.
Swinnen J.F.M., 1996, An explanation of land reform choices in Central and Eastern Europe,
Working Papers, 5, Policy Research Group, Leuven, Belgium.
Swinnen J., Vranken L., Stanley V. 2006, Emerging Challenges of Land Rental Markets. A Review
of Available Evidence for the Europe and Central Asia Region, The World Bank, pp.1–68.
The agriculture sector in Croatia, 2015, Flanders Investment and Trade Market Survey, Zagreb,
Croatia.
Takacs I., 2008, Longitudinal analysis of changing partial efciency of assets in the EU agriculture
at the beginning of the new 21st century, Annals of the Polish Association of Agricultural and
Agribusiness Economists, 10, 5, pp.149–154.
Takacs-György K., Erdelyi T., Sadowski A., 2011, Land use and property changes in Poland and in
Hungary after EU accession, EAAE 2011 Congress, ETH Zurich, Switzerland.
Tickamyer A.L., 2006, Rural poverty, (in:) Clocke P., Marsden T., Mooney P. (ed.), Handbook of
Rural Studies, Oxford, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp.411–426.
Tisenkopfs T., 1999, Constructed Countryside: Post-Socialist and Late Modern Mixture in
Rural Change, Humanities and Social Sciences Latvia. Latvia in Europe Sociologically, 1,
pp.72–111.
Todorová S., 2016, Bulgarian agriculture in the conditions of the EU Common Agricultural Policy,
Journal of Central European Agriculture, 17 (1), pp.107–118.
Toth-Naar Z., Molnar M., Vinogradov S., 2014, Impact of land use changes on land value in
Hungary, Roczniki Naukowe, Stowarzyszenie Ekonomistów Rolnictwa i Agrobiznesu, 16, 6,
pp.500–504.
Trnka J., Pivcova J. 2005, The Situation of Land Management and Reparcelling in the Czech
Republic (in:) Land Consolidation and Territorial Organization. FAO International Workshop.
Prague, Czechia.
Trnka M., Eitzinger J., Semerádová D., Hlavinka P., Balek J., Dubrovský M., Kubu G., Štepánek
P., Thaler S., Možný M., Žalud Z., 2011, Expected changes in agroclimatic conditions in
Central Europe, Climatic Change, 108, pp.261–289.
UNDP, 2004, National Human Development Report Bulgaria 2003. Rural Regions: Overcoming
Development Disparities, Soa, United Nations Development Programme.
Van Dijk T., 2003, Scenarios of Central European land fragmentation, Land Use Policy, 20,
pp.149–158.
Velikov I., 2013, Development in agriculture and rural areas of Bulgaria, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung,
Belgrade, Serbia.
Veznik A., Kral M., Svobodova H., 2013, Agriculture of the Czech Republic in the 21st century:
from productivism to post-productivism, Quaestiones Geographicae, 32, 4, pp.7–14.
Wasilewski A., Krukowski K., 2004, Land Conversion for Suburban Housing: A Study of
Urbanization Around Warsaw and Olsztyn, Poland, Environmental Management, 34, 2,
pp.291–303.
Wilkin J. 2016, Polska wieś na tle kraju i Europy– synteza raportu [“The Polish countryside against
the national and European background– Report Synthesis”], (in:), Wilkin J., Nurzyńska I. 2016,
(ed.) Polska wieś 2016. Raport o stanie wsi., Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, Warsaw, Poland.
Woods M., 2005, Rural Geography: Processes, responses and experiences in rural restructuring,
SAGE, London, UK.
References
247
Woods M., 2011, Rural, Routledge, London, UK.
Zadura A., 2005, Zarządzanie gruntami rolnymi w krajach Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej,
Ekonomiczne i społeczne uwarynkowania rozwoju polskiej gospodarki żywnościowej po
wstąpieniu Polski do Unii Europejskiej, Program Wieloletni 2005-2009 [“Farmland manage-
ment in the CEECs. Economic and social conditioning of the development of Poland’s food
economy following the country’s accession to the EU. 2005-2009 Long-term Programme”], 6,
IERiGŻ (Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics), Warsaw, Poland.
Zadura A., 2009. Transformacja ustrojowa rolnictwa w krajach Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej
[“The systemic transformation of agriculture in the CEECs”]. Roczniki Nauk Rolniczych,
Seria G, 96, 4, pp.248–255.
Zgliński W., 1997, Przekształcenia państwowego rolnictwa w Polsce– skutki społeczne, ekonom-
iczne i przestrzenne [“Transformations of state agriculture in Poland– social. economic and
spatial consequences”], Zeszyty KPZK PAN, 48.
Zgliński W., 2003, Skutki transformacji Państwowych Gospodarstw Rolnych w ujęciu przestrzen-
nym [“The effects of transforming the State Farms as conceptualised spatially”] [in:] A.Stasiak
(ed.), Przemiany zagospodarowania terenów wiejskich w Polsce, Biuletyn KPZK PAN, 207,
pp.151–192.
References
