Open AccessArticle

Twenty Years of Poland’s EU Membership: What Is Progress in the Agri-Food Sector?

Karolina Pawlak

and

Walenty Poczta

Department of Economics and Economic Policy in Agribusiness, Faculty of Economics, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 28, 60-637 Poznan, Poland

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Agriculture 2025, 15(1), 49; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15010049

Submission received: 25 November 2024 / Revised: 25 December 2024 / Accepted: 27 December 2024 / Published: 28 December 2024

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Agricultural Markets and Agrifood Supply Chains)

Download

Browse Figures

Versions Notes

Abstract

The paper aims to assess the dynamics of production and income in Polish agriculture against the agriculture in the entire EU and estimate the trade-related effects of participation in the Single European Market over the 20 years of Poland’s EU membership. The analyses showed that a positive phenomenon observed in Polish agriculture after joining the EU was a stable upward trend in agricultural production and the strengthening of farm links with the agricultural market. This was followed by increased agricultural income. Incorporation into the Single European Market triggered an increase in the value of Polish trade in agri-food products. Poland strengthened its position as a net exporter of agri-food products and proved the ability of the food industry to compete effectively in foreign markets. Except for cognitive value, the research can be a benchmark for other countries aspiring to EU membership and constitute a justification for their move toward accession. Long-run ex post analysis of trends in production, income, and foreign trade offers a background for assessing the efficiency of agricultural and trade policy actions taken up to date. The recommendation arising from the analysis and the new conditions related to the European Green Deal and the liberalization of trade policy for the import of agri-food products from outside the European Union is as follows: given the benefits of the liberalization of foreign trade in agri-food products, it should be supported, but it should not be allowed to make agricultural production in the country unprofitable or threaten food self-sufficiency.

Keywords:

agricultural production; agricultural income; agri-food trade; regional integration; EU’s Common Agricultural Policy; EU’s Common Commercial Policy; Single European Market; EU accession; Poland; EU countries

1. Introduction

Agriculture and the food industry are among the strategic and most regulated sectors in the economy due to their role in securing the population’s basic needs. Poland is one of the largest producers and exporters of agri-food products in the EU market. The importance of this sector in Poland is best evidenced by the rapidly growing and currently more than 15% share of agri-food exports in total exports [1]. The expansion into foreign markets and the development of Poland’s agri-food sector over the past 20 years have been made possible by modernization aimed at increasingly making better use of production potential and strengthening the comparative advantages generated in the Single European Market (SEM) and beyond [2,3,4,5,6,7]. These processes were carried out using funds from the EU and thanks to foreign direct investment inflow [7,8,9]. The key factor in the transformations observed in the agri-food sector in Poland after 2004 was, therefore, membership in the European Union, resulting in Poland’s inclusion in the mechanisms of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy and the EU’s Common Commercial Policy [10].

The 20-year retrospective of Poland’s membership in the EU provides a rationale for undertaking ex post analyses of the effects of accession at the macroeconomic and sectoral levels. From the theory of regional economic integration, it follows that the primary goal of integration is to increase economic welfare at the macro level. At the mesoeconomic level, however, it is always possible to identify sectors referred to as winners or losers. Despite the numerous concerns formulated from the beginning of the negotiations for Poland’s membership in the EU, it can be said with full conviction that the Polish agri-food sector was in the former group. How much benefit was achieved? What would the importance of this economic sector and Poland’s place in international trade be today if it had not joined EU structures in 2004? These two research questions provided the rationale for undertaking a study to assess the position of Polish agriculture against the agriculture in the entire EU in the context of 20 years of accession, with a particular focus on regulations and instruments resulting from the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the EU’s Common Commercial Policy (CCP). This assessment leads to a third, equally important research question: How will the importance of agriculture and Poland’s place in international agricultural trade change in a situation of revolutionary variation in the operating conditions associated with the tightening of environmental requirements and the increasingly wide opening of the European market for agricultural products coming from outside the European Union?

The combined impact of the demand and supply factors resulting from Poland’s accession to the EU, and in particular the CAP-related agricultural support and participation in the Single European Market (SEM) broadening and creating new markets for the products of the agri-food sector, is the magnitude of the benefits that Polish agriculture has received as a result of accession. The benefits that agriculture has enjoyed are reflected both at the microeconomic level, and at the sectoral and macroeconomic levels. The benefits at the farm level are reflected in an increase in their development opportunities, resulting mainly from an improved income and realized investments. During the period under review, rural poverty, reduced agricultural employment, and farm modernization declined significantly. After absorbing the shock of transformation in the 1990s, small farms acted as a buffer for some workers laid off from decommissioned industrial and mining plants, providing them with ostensible employment but without the ability to work productively [11]. Problems also affected larger farms, which were underinvested and ill-suited to operate in the common European market. However, this situation gradually improved due to funding from pre-accession programs, CAP funds, and structural funds. Modernization of farms, investment in fixed assets, and implementation of new technologies allowed the production of competitive agricultural products due to the price and quality. In turn, the opening of the labor market of Western European Union countries and the gradual improvement of the economic situation in the country made it possible to release unproductive surplus labor engaged in agricultural production. Lower employment and higher incomes, supplemented by transfers from European Union funds, have improved the economic situation of Polish farms (cf. [10,12]). At the same time, Polish agricultural products, which are competitive in price and quality, have become attractive export commodities [7]. After Poland’s accession to the EU, the sector’s structural transformation is particularly evident at the sectoral level, and at the macroeconomic level, the gains from foreign trade in agri-food products through the sector’s contribution to the country’s trade balance are most often indicated [10].

Therefore, the paper aims to assess the dynamics of production and income in Polish agriculture against the agriculture in the entire EU and estimate the trade-related effects of participation in the Single European Market over the 20 years of Poland’s EU membership. The analysis carried out is not only of great cognitive value as allows us to estimate the scale of benefits obtained in the agri-food sector thanks to Poland’s membership in the EU. The research performed can be treated as an empirical verification of the theory of regional economic integration, forming the basis for assessing the validity of decisions taken in economic policy. In a broader context, they can support us in evaluating the effectiveness of the EU’s agricultural and trade policies and provide a starting point for discussions on the possible and necessary directions of its further transformations. This issue acquires particular importance in the context of the challenges for the agri-food sector set by, among others, the implementation of the European Green Deal strategy, the protracted Russian–Ukrainian war, and the negotiation of the EU free trade agreement with MERCOSUR. The need to implement the idea of sustainable development of agriculture, where physical access to food for all is ensured from environmentally friendly agricultural practices that are profitable and can improve agricultural income, lies at the heart of the above-mentioned events and makes the foundations for our analyses. The study’s unique contribution is the combination of the inference derived from the ex post analysis with the question of an uncertain future in the changing conditions of Polish agriculture.

The structure of this paper is as follows. In the next Section, we provide the background of the literature and clarify the research gap addressed by the study. Next, we discuss the materials and methods employed in our analyses. Section 4 presents the production, income- and trade-related impacts of Poland’s membership in the EU on the agri-food sector. It includes lessons learned and considers possible future developments of the investigated variables. The last Section concludes with a summary of the main findings and a description of the study’s practical contributions and policy implications.

2. Literature Background

Since agriculture produces the food products needed to meet the population’s basic needs, it plays a significant role in any economy. Agriculture also plays a critical role in lowering poverty by generating income and job opportunities [13]. Agriculture’s production capacity is crucial to enhancing food security when considering food’s economic and physical availability [14,15,16,17]. Land, labor, and capital resources make up agriculture’s production potential, which enables it to achieve particular output and income from farming. Several studies have focused on agricultural potential, quality, and productivity issues. Among others, Baráth and Fertö [18], Nowak and Różańska-Boczula [19], Jaroszewska and Rembisz [20], Kijek et al. [21], Tłuczak [22], Smędzik-Ambroży and Sapa [23], and Guth and Smędzik-Ambroży [24] have examined the differences in agricultural potential and productivity among EU nations. Changes in the production and economic effects of agricultural activity after Poland’s accession to the EU were also discussed by Poczta et al. [25]. The results from these studies show that Poland’s agricultural sector represents a significant competitive potential in the EU, especially among the EU member states from Central and Eastern Europe. In particular, it is reflected in the utilized agricultural area and labor resources. However, defective ratios between production factors resulting from relatively weak structural transformations hinder a more dynamic agricultural performance. Polish agriculture against the agriculture of the whole EU is characterized by low land-to-labor and capital-to-labor ratios, which makes labor productivity low. The capital-to-land ratio in Polish agriculture is also one of the lowest in the EU, which determines the relatively low intensity of production and, thus, the low land productivity. As a result of structural transformation, the polarization of the farm structure has been observed since Poland joined the EU. Despite a significantly fast growth rate of the economically large farms, the accession did not lead to a fundamental reevaluation of the economic structure of farms.

Considering the international experience to date, which indicates that the generational change of farmers largely conditions the transformation of agrarian structures, one could not expect an extraordinarily stimulating effect of the CAP on structural changes in Polish agriculture in the short run. It makes sense to evaluate this process and its impact on agricultural production and farmers’ income in the long term. That is why now, after 20 years of Poland’s membership in the EU, it is possible and desired at the same time to assess the dynamics of production and income in Polish agriculture. A comparative analysis of all EU countries, including old and new member states, allows us to conclude the efficiency of Polish farms when operating under the Single European Market conditions and the CAP and CCP mechanisms. Analyses presented in the paper are among the first attempts to evaluate production and income effects for Polish agriculture resulting from accession to the EU in the long run. As we employed relevant statistical data sets, our study is empirical. This is the advantage of our research over many descriptive papers. Additionally, we used time-series data to provide year-by-year analysis and avoid comparing two single periods. This way, we excluded the risk that our results could have been disturbed by extraordinary factors and have not given us an objective assessment of the agricultural performance.

The performance and competitiveness of the agriculture sector are also significantly impacted by agricultural trade and support policies [26,27,28,29]. According to Dunmore [30], government actions such as those about domestic macroeconomic conditions, domestic farm policies, and international trade and agriculture policies have a more significant long-term impact on competitiveness than natural endowments. It should be emphasized that there is a lot of empirical research on the Polish agri-food sector’s trade competitiveness. Nonetheless, most of them evaluate the level and duration of Poland’s comparative trade advantages in international markets [2,31,32] or within the EU [3,33,34,35,36]. Based on those studies, it can be said that Poland’s agri-food trade grew due to its EU membership, while its comparative advantages in the world market and the Single European Market have been steadily growing. However, most analyses refer to the first years of Poland’s membership in the EU and exclude the period after such exogenous shocks as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russia–Ukraine war. Verifying whether it was possible to maintain the high trade dynamics observed in the initial period of Poland’s membership in the SEM under the overlapping impact of these external shocks is a topical issue. Identifying agri-food trade dynamics after 2018 allows us to assess whether the EU policies are powerful and flexible enough to respond effectively and mitigate the impact of such unpredictable phenomena. Ex post analyses covering a twenty-year period offer an objective and not commonly presented in previous studies assessment of the trade-related effects of Poland’s membership in the EU.

Given this, the existing literature needs comprehensive analyses covering both production and income effects and changes in Poland’s foreign trade in agri-food products in the first two decades of EU membership. A combined approach of the three aforementioned aspects is indispensable for objectively assessing the scale of the benefits for the agri-food sector resulting from Poland’s accession to the EU and the impact of CAP and CCP mechanisms. The studies that were conducted meet this demand and allow us to recognize the dynamics of changes in production, income, and agri-food trade arising from Poland’s participation in the Single European Market in the long term. They exemplify the effects of the inclusion of a country with a lower level of economic development in the customs union with more developed countries and prove the importance of institutional factors in forming the international competitive position of the agri-food sector. Research results can help us assess how well the EU’s trade and agriculture policies have been working up to date and serve as a premise for giving recommendations about the essential and feasible paths for their future tailoring changes. The difficulties facing the agri-food industry, including the lengthy Russian–Ukrainian conflict, the existing and prospective EU free trade agreements, including the EU–MERCOSUR trade deal, and the execution of the European Green Deal agenda, give this topic particular significance.

3. Materials and Methods

The study used statistical data from the European Statistical Office (Eurostat). Eurostat data provided data comparable at the international scale collected in line with the uniform statistical regime. The analyses cover the years 2005 to 2022 to identify long-term changes in the pattern of agricultural production and income volumes. Based on the time-series data for the period 2004–2023, trade-related effects were investigated. In both cases, the time frame of the analyses includes all currently available data for the entire EU without any gaps in time series. Such a methodological approach allows the study to conclude by estimating the effects of participation in the Single European Market over the 20 years that Poland has been a member of the EU. The selected timeframe was both necessary and long enough to assess the efficiency of agricultural and trade policy actions taken up to date and make recommendations for future policy developments.

To assess the production and income effects of Poland’s accession to the EU in the agricultural sector, the value and growth of agricultural production in the EU-27 (to maintain comparability of data throughout the analyzed period, the study did not include the UK but included Croatia) and selected member countries, as well as the level and dynamics of income in EU agriculture were determined. In both cases, calculations were made in constant 2015 prices, and a linear trend function was estimated to illustrate the stable growth rate of the studied variables. A linear trend was employed to highlight a steady increase in the analyzed variables. After testing alternative regression models, it was possible to take a linear trend as the most reliable one, as its R-square values were around 0.8 or higher.

Changes in foreign trade in agri-food products were examined in nominal terms across 24 agri-food product groups distinguished according to the Harmonized System (HS). The dynamics of trade with EU and non-EU countries, the shares of intra-EU trade in total trade, and the geographic and commodity structure of trade were determined. It is a commonly known regularity that progressing integration and liberalization of trade lead to changes in the pattern of comparative advantages and specialization, and inter-industry trade evolves into intra-industry trade. The traditional Grubel–Lloyd index was calculated to verify the intensity of Poland’s intra-industry trade in agri-food products [37]:

I I T = \frac{(X_{k} + M_{k}) - | X_{k} - M_{k} |}{(X_{k} + M_{k})} \times 100 %

(1)

where X—exports, M—imports, k—country.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Agricultural Production and Farmers’ Income

The development and stabilization of agriculture’s supply capacity is a basic condition for ensuring food security through the supply of agricultural products for direct consumption and raw materials for food processing, as well as a direct and indirect contribution to the export capacity of the entire agri-food sector. Improving food security has been and remains one of the objectives of the CAP. Successive enlargements of the EU affected the situation of the new member states in the agricultural sector. Structural changes in the agricultural sector (including those of a systemic nature), new conditions for competition within the Single European Market, and agricultural and trade policies affected the volume of agricultural production. Typically, the so-called “old” member states placed more emphasis on environmental issues and supporting farmers’ incomes, while the “new” member states emphasized developmental, supply-side support more. The demand volume in the EU as a whole and in individual member states, as well as differently distributed instruments of agricultural support from CAP funds, resulted in diversified production growth rates. Moreover, in the so-called “new” member states, the agricultural sector was less developed, and in most of them, it underwent a significant collapse in production during the period of political transition. Hence, after accession to the EU, these countries, rebuilding and modernizing agriculture, generally recorded higher growth rates in agricultural production. A similar state of affairs also applied to the countries of the so-called southern enlargement (e.g., Spain).

In the analyzed period 2005–2022, the volume of agricultural production in the EU in constant 2015 prices grew at an average rate of 0.71% per year (Table 1). It also varied in the countries of the largest agricultural producers in the EU (the six countries presented in Table 1 produced more than 72% of agricultural output in the entire EU). Agricultural production grew most rapidly in Spain (at a rate of 2.34% per year) and Poland (1.77% per year). In the other countries mentioned, growth did not exceed 1%, and in Italy, the volume of agricultural production in constant 2015 prices even recorded a decline. A faster rate of agricultural production growth in Poland than the EU average resulted in an increase in the share of agricultural production in relation to that produced in the EU from 5.6% in 2005 to 6.7% in 2022.

Also noteworthy is the stability of agricultural production growth in Poland during the EU accession period. The determination coefficient R² established for the linear trend function was 0.93, which was higher than that established for the EU-27, which was 0.86 in the same period (Figure 1). The relative growth of value added in Polish agriculture was also higher than in the EU-27 as a whole, as it grew at a rate of 1.80%, while in the EU-27 this rate was 0.87%. However, the growth of gross value added created in Polish agriculture was much less stable than in the entire EU-27. Namely, the determination coefficient R² established for the linear trend function of value added in Polish agriculture was 0.55, while that of the entire EU-27 was equal to 0.79. Thus, the growth rate of value added in Polish agriculture, although higher than in the entire EU, was far less stable. The lower rate of growth of value added than the rate of growth of production can partly be explained by the not-very favorable formation of price scissors for European and Polish agriculture in many years of the period in question.

During the accession period, Polish agriculture, like that of the entire EU, was supported by significant income-improving measures. The amount of realized direct payments in the 2004–2022 campaign (until 30 June 2023) totaled nearly PLN 240 billion, which means that only support from area payments accounts for 36.5% of farmers’ income. During the same period, farmers also received payments from the second pillar of the CAP (from the Rural Development Programme), which amounted to about PLN 153 billion, of which about 75% was directed to farms. Thus, in total, farms in the post-accession period were supported with funds of about PLN 350 billion (at current prices). This indicates that the share of CAP funds in farmers’ income is more than 50% [10]. The high support value, with a relatively low tax burden, meant that the balance of subsidies and taxes to production in Polish agriculture was favorable throughout the accession period. In addition, Polish agriculture is also relatively lower burdened by the costs of hired factors of production (land lease costs and hired labor costs). This is due to the low involvement of hired factors of production and their generally lower price, i.e., the lower use of leased agricultural land than on average in EU agriculture and the low use of hired labor, usually less well paid compared to Western European countries.

Figure 2 shows the dynamics of farmers’ real income (the so-called agricultural entrepreneurial income; the values on the basis of which income dynamics were determined were expressed in euros) in Poland against the background of EU-27 agriculture. The level of real income in the whole sector was almost twice as high in Poland in 2022 relative to the first years after accession, while in the same period, farmers’ income in the EU-27 as a whole increased by 30%. Even higher dynamics took place in terms of income per person of the family labor force (Family Work Unit—FWU) due to the reduction in the number of people working in agriculture. In Poland, income per full-time family worker more than tripled between 2004 and 2020, while in EU agriculture, it more than doubled. However, if one were to disregard the exceptionally high incomes of farmers in 2022 (the high incomes were due to unusually high prices for agricultural products after the Russian aggression in Ukraine [39], which were largely derived from inputs purchased at 2021 prices), the increase in income per FWU in Poland relative to the first years after accession can be estimated at about 150%, and in the EU-27 at 80–90%. It is worth noting the high and stable growth rate of these incomes, which in the analyzed years amounted to more than 6.9% on average per year in Polish agriculture, and the determination coefficient R² established for the linear trend line amounted to 0.85, against the growth rate in the EU-27 of 4.7%, with the same R² = 0.85. This analysis indicates that another important factor in the growth of agricultural income per capita, in addition to subsidy support, was the reduction in the number of employees.

Slightly different is the share of agricultural output produced in Polish agriculture determined at current prices (Table 2). It amounts to 7.6% (thus, it is 0.9 p.p. higher than that determined at 2015 prices). This indicates that Polish farmers in 2022 received higher prices for their agricultural products in relation to farmers in other countries than they did in 2015 (Figure 3). The level of agricultural production presented in current prices indicates that Polish agriculture in 2022 ranks fifth in the EU in terms of the value of agricultural output (it produces agricultural output of higher value than Dutch agriculture).

The data in Table 2 also prove that Polish agriculture is more input-intensive than the EU average, as its share in the value of total intermediate consumption in the EU-27 is 8%, which is more than in the production value (7.6%). A similar regularity generally applies to agriculture in northern countries, and with a large share of livestock production. This results in a noticeably smaller share of Polish agriculture in the EU value added, and is only 6.5%. This means that the income-generating role of agricultural production in Polish agriculture compared to agriculture in the whole EU is inferior to the production role (6.5% vs. 7.6%).

On the other hand, the favorable balance of production subsidies and taxes in Polish agriculture makes its share in the factor income grow significantly (7.9% in 2022). The share is even higher in terms of income obtained by Polish farmers (the so-called agricultural entrepreneurial income), as it rises to 10.1% of the income value in the whole EU agriculture. This is due to the already-mentioned low involvement of hired factors of production, i.e., less use of leased agricultural land than on average in EU agriculture, and little use of hired labor. The more than 10% share of Polish agriculture in the total income of an agricultural entrepreneur across the EU-27 indicates the higher-than-average profitability of land in Polish agriculture, as the share of Polish agriculture is about 9.4% of the total agricultural land in the EU. On the other hand, the income problem of numerous farms in Poland is a derivative of too small utilized agricultural areas on these farms and/or too high labor resources relative to the land resources used.

The analyses show that both the value of agricultural production and farmers’ income supported by subsidies increased after Poland’s accession to the EU. The physical size of agricultural production and economic access to food are critical to ensuring the country’s food security. The CAP instruments used proved to be effective in practice. For several decades, the physical availability of food has yet to be explicitly emphasized among CAP priorities. In the 21st century, food security issues were back on the CAP agenda, and food safety issues and sustainable agricultural production found their place. The need to develop agricultural production systems to end hunger, achieve food security, improve nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture is also reflected in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [40]. On the one hand, from the perspective of agricultural production volume and agricultural factor income, successive CAP reforms intensified agricultural activities across the EU. On the other hand, agriculture is a significant contributor to global environmental problems, including greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss [41]. According to estimates by Crippa et al. [42], food systems generate a third of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The EU, which stands among the leading world agricultural producers, consumers, and traders, is a key contributor to such issues [43]. Sustainable and healthy food systems require changes in agricultural practices, reducing food losses along the supply chain, and shifting diets [44]. A challenge for decision-makers is to tailor future agricultural policies to combine supply and demand measures for changing farm technology and management, reducing food losses, and shifting consumption toward healthier diets containing more plant-based products, with measures aiming at mitigating the increase in environmental pressures [45]. The European Green Deal Strategy launched in 2019 attempts to achieve this aim.

4.2. Foreign Trade in Agri-Food Products

4.2.1. Trade Values and Shares

The CAP is not only about developing or stabilizing the supply side of the market for raw materials and agricultural products. It is also about building a common market for these goods. Thus, the CAP ensures the physical dimension of food security throughout the EU by stimulating or stabilizing supply and optimizing the spatial allocation of production across member states. Poland’s accession into the SEM area intensified the increase in trade in agri-food products already initiated in 2003 as a result of the “two-zero agreement” signed a year earlier and triggered the typical trade creation and diversion effects of inclusion in the customs union. From 2004 to 2023, the value of Poland’s agri-food exports increased by almost 11 times and imports by 8 times, reaching EUR 52.0 billion and EUR 33.1 billion, respectively, in the last year under review (Figure 4). The resulting positive trade balance amounted to almost EUR 19.0 billion and was more than 41 times higher than in the first year of Poland’s membership in the EU. Compared to 2003, the trade surplus generated in 2004 was nearly twice as large (EUR 896 million vs. EUR 447 million) and, in addition to the elimination of trade barriers under the SEM, was due to several factors.

The faster growth of exports than imports, contributing to the creation of a positive balance of trade was determined by the increase in demand for Polish products, both in EU markets and in the markets of larger non-EU partners (including, among others, Russia and developing countries), as well as the very good preparation of agri-food enterprises to operate on the SEM, good knowledge of the procedures applicable to intra-EU trade, and the rapid acquisition of certificates authorizing sales to EU markets [4,5,6,7,46]. Throughout the analyzed period, the value of exports of agri-food products from Poland to the markets of other EU member states increased by more than 11 times, and imports by 8 times. In 2023, agri-food products worth EUR 38.1 billion were exported from Poland to the SEM, while at the same time, EUR 26.1 billion were allocated to imports of the discussed assortment group from other EU countries (Figure 4).

With the greatest power, the effect of trade creation within the SEM was revealed in the first years of Poland’s membership in the EU. After an export growth rate of about 40 percent observed in 2004–2005, in 2006 and 2007, the growth rate of exports to the markets of other EU countries was about 20 percent per year, and in the period 2008–2017, it averaged 10–15 percent per year. In 2018–2020, the growth rate of exports to the SEM slowed further. In 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic spread, the value of Poland’s agri-food exports to the SEM increased by 5% compared to 2019 (Table 3). Importantly, however, due to the strategic nature of agri-food products and their importance in meeting basic needs, as well as the low price and income elasticity of food demand, agri-food trade proved more resilient to supply chain disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic than trade in other industrial products and services [47,48]. Overall, the growth rate in the value of exports and imports increased steadily from 2019 to 2022, while relations with other EU countries already saw an increasing growth rate in trade from 2021 onward.

With few exceptions, the rate of growth of intra-EU trade throughout the analyzed period was higher than with non-EU countries (Table 3). On the one hand, the increase in exports to countries with established market economies testifies to the increasing ability of the Polish food economy to compete in foreign markets [46]. On the other hand, it indicates the importance of the SEM in shaping the scale of trade flows and trade balance in the agri-food sector (throughout the period after EU accession, Poland was a net exporter of agri-food products—Figure 4), and as a result, the role of the entire sector in improving the trade balance at the macro level. The increase in the absolute value of trade in the agri-food sector was followed by an increase in its importance in total foreign trade. Between 2004 and 2023, the share of agri-food exports in total exports increased by more than eight percentage points, from 7.0% to 15.3%, and the share of agri-food imports in Poland’s total merchandise imports increased from 8.0% in 2004 to 9.6% in 2023 (Figure 5).

The strong trade creation effect has made Poland one of the most important participants in international agricultural trade among EU countries. While in 2004, Poland was the tenth and twelfth exporter and importer, respectively, of agri-food products in the EU, in 2023 it ranked as the seventh exporter and importer of this assortment group, second only to countries such as the Netherlands, Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Belgium in this respect (Figure 6 and Figure 7). As a result of trade creation and diversion effects, Poland’s agri-food trade is also heavily concentrated in the SEM area. Between 2004 and 2023, trade within the SEM averaged about 75–80% of Poland’s total trade in agri-food products (Figure 8). To sum up the analysis of trade dynamics, Poland’s incorporation into the Single European Market triggered an increase in the value of agri-food trade. Poland strengthened its position as a net exporter of agri-food products and proved the ability of the food industry to compete effectively in foreign markets.

4.2.2. Trade Structures

In 2004–2023, Germany remained the largest trading partner in the agri-food sector, receiving more than 25% of all agri-food exports from Poland. Food imports from this country, in turn, absorbed from 18.5% (2004) to about 22% (2023) of total spending on agri-food imports to Poland (Table 4). In 2023 other important export trade partners were the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, France, Italy, and the Czech Republic. In 2023, the UK was the only representative of non-EU countries in the group of Poland’s top ten export partners. In the period since 2004, both Russia and the US lost such status (Table 4). A total of 55% of Poland’s total exports of agri-food products went to these six countries. The development of exports was determined by geographical proximity, historical conditions, similarity of demand structures (Czech Republic, Germany), and complementarity of agricultural production structures (France, Italy), among other factors. Excluding the German market, most food was imported to Poland from the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Belgium, and Ukraine (Table 4). In 2023, the share of the seven largest suppliers in the structure of agri-food imports to Poland reached 60%. It can be noted that the leading import trade partners were primarily the countries of the largest European food re-exporters (Germany, the Netherlands), countries with comparative advantages in exporting products complementary to those produced in Poland (Italy, Spain), and Ukraine, which, as of 2017, traded with EU countries under the Association Agreement between the European Union and its member states, on the one hand, and Ukraine, on the other (Official Journal of the EU 2014 L 161).

Poland mainly imported residues and waste from the food industries, fish and seafood, fruits and nuts, meat and edible meat offal, fats and oils, cocoa and cocoa preparations, tobacco and tobacco products, soft drinks and alcoholic beverages, and dairy products. In 2023, imports of these assortment groups together accounted for more than 60%, and, including various food preparations in the account, almost 66% of total food import spending (Table 5). From 2004 to 2023, the trade deficit in fish and seafood, fruits and nuts, fats and oils, and residues and wastes from the food industries deepened. In the last year, the analyzed negative trade balance reached its highest value (EUR 1.1 billion) in the exchange of horticultural products. Mostly, this was due to the necessary import of fresh fruits grown in other climatic zones or produced in Poland only seasonally. However, it should be emphasized that due to the clearly complementary nature of the species structures of fruit exports and imports, the trade deficit occurring in this regard should be considered a positive phenomenon, testifying to the expansion of the market offer and better satisfaction of the demand reported by a society with growing purchasing power.

The negative trade balance in fish and seafood can be assessed similarly. In recent years, Poland’s food self-sufficiency rate for this assortment group was about 40–42%, meaning that domestic demand was more than half met by imports, mainly from Norway, Denmark, China, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Iceland. A negative balance of trade, exceeding EUR 0.5 billion in 2023, was also recorded in trade in fats and oils, as well as residues and waste from the food industries. The exchange of oilseeds and oils and fats was an example of intra-industry trade caused, as in the case of fruits, by the complementarity of production structures (of the oilseed crops, only rapeseed is grown on a large scale in Poland), while the deficit in trade in residues and wastes from the food industries was mainly due to imports of residues from soybean oil extraction from non-EU countries, mainly from the Americas, and intra-EU imports of animal feed.

In 2023, the most important commodity items in Poland’s agri-food exports were meat and offal, tobacco and tobacco products, cereal preparations, dairy products, cereals, preparations of meat or of fish, cocoa and cocoa preparations, and fish and seafood. Together, the listed assortment groups provided Poland with almost 65% of total food export revenues (Figure 3). These were (except for dairy products, whose exports increased more than 6 times) also commodity groups whose exports after Poland’s accession to the EU increased more dynamically than total trade (from more than 11 times for meat and offal and cocoa and cocoa preparations to 98 times for cereals) (Table 5).

Analyzing the commodity structure of Poland’s foreign trade in agri-food products, one can conclude that it is in line with the classical theories of absolute and comparative advantages. Indeed, imports are dominated by products not produced in Poland at all (citrus fruits, coffee, tea) and those produced in other varieties or in insufficient quantities—those for which absolute or comparative advantages are held by Poland’s trading partners (fish, corn for grain, vegetable oils and post-extraction cake used as feed, certain alcoholic beverages such as wine and whiskey, cheese, and products containing cocoa). The subject of exports, in turn, are products in the scope of which Poland has comparative advantages, resulting from production potential, quality advantages of offered products, and cost-price advantages obtained both at the stage of agricultural production and food processing (meat, meat offal and meat preparations, cereals and cereal preparations, tobacco products). On this basis, it can be concluded that the comparative advantages achieved by Poland in foreign markets are a source of favorable export specialization.

It can also be noted that trade deficits most often appeared in the exchange of those product groups for which strong intra-industry specialization was realized (Table 5). High intensity of intra-industry trade (IIT>70%), consisting of simultaneous export and import of products produced in the same branches of the food industry, increases the variety of products available to consumers in trading partner countries, and allows food industry companies to achieve economies of scale and increase income. Thus, it can be seen as a manifestation of the Polish agri-food sector’s ability to compete in foreign markets, expressed in the ability to flexibly adapt the export offer to the preferences of foreign consumers and conduct effective exports to properly identified target markets. This is another argument confirming the positive dimension of the trade deficit determined by the complementarity of agricultural production structures. The exchange of products referred to as export specialties, providing a trade balance surplus, was usually characterized by a lower intensity of intra-industry trade, which, on the one hand, testifies to the ability to exploit its comparative advantages in exports, and, on the other hand, indicates the rationality of its import policy and the import of domestically produced goods in surplus to domestic demand mainly during periods of market shortages.

Optimizing the commodity trade structure to achieve or maintain a positive trade balance and have a net positive environmental impact will further design future trade policy toward the EU agri-food sector. One of the most topical ideas is redesigning EU trade agreements toward sustainable trade agreements, prioritizing trade in environmentally friendly items while deprioritizing environmentally detrimental commodities. This will be challenging in the agri-food sector. Considering the European Green Deal Strategy, the question arises of how restrictive the production requirements applied in the EU will be to imported products. Possible restrictions on free trade, including, among other things, tariffs on imports from countries with less stringent climate protection regulations, could lead to an increase in the cost of trade and, as a result, a reduction in the volume of imports and the degree to which demand reported in the domestic market is met. This could prove particularly dangerous for products whose imports are essential, i.e., those that are not produced at all or produced domestically in insufficient quantities to meet reported demand. However, suppose the degree of restrictiveness of the trade policy pursued does not increase. In that case, one can expect an increase in imports from regions not subject to such stringent environmental requirements as in the EU, which, together with a decrease in exports, could cause a significant deterioration in the balance of trade. Beckman et al. [49] and Matthews [50] provided more detailed analyses of adopting the European Green Deal Strategy for agri-food production and trade, considering the varying degrees of restrictiveness of the environmental rules introduced for non-EU countries. In this context, it is highly recommended that EU trade policy demands a thorough evaluation of costs in terms of both economic and environmental goals. It is crucial to support trade ties that allow for a balance between the financial and environmental trade aspects.

4.2.3. Lessons Learned and Possible Future Developments

The functioning of agriculture in the last twenty years under the conditions defined by the CAP and the SEM has caused several positive effects on the agri-food sector. A positive phenomenon observed in Polish agriculture after joining the EU was a stable upward trend in agricultural production and the strengthening of farm links with the agricultural market. The value of agricultural production in Poland, expressed in constant 2015 prices, increased by more than 30% from 2005 to 2022, and the rate of agricultural production growth in Poland was faster than in the EU on average. As a result, Poland’s contribution to the total EU agricultural production increased from 5.6% in 2005 to 6.7% in 2022. Changes in the agricultural production value were followed by an increase in farmers’ income. The level of real income in the whole agricultural sector was almost twice as high in Poland in 2022 compared to 2005, while at the same time, farmers’ income in the EU-27 as a whole increased by 30%. Worryingly, the income improvement was mainly due to subsidies received by agricultural producers. Importantly, however, under the conditions of the agri-food market co-determined by the CAP and CCP, the physical availability of food has improved significantly, enhancing export capacity. This is significant insofar as both the provision of decent farm incomes and the improvement of food self-sufficiency have been an expression of the fundamental objectives of EU agricultural policy since its inception.

Incorporation into the SEM area and the adoption of the EU Common Commercial Policy triggered an increase in the volume and a change in the geographic structure of Polish trade in agri-food products. In 2004–2023, the value of Poland’s agri-food product exports to the markets of other EU member states increased by more than 11 times, and imports by 8 times. The strong trade creation effect with the other EU countries proved that tariffs and quantitative and technical restrictions in place during the pre-accession period were a significant barrier to the development of mutual trade relations. Furthermore, it confirmed that Polish food industry enterprises were well prepared for the new competitive conditions. Due to trade creation and diversion effects, Poland’s agri-food trade is highly concentrated in the SEM region. In 2023, trade within the SEM accounted for 73% and 78% of Poland’s overall export and import agri-food products, respectively. From 2004 to 2023, Poland also strengthened its position as a net exporter of agri-food products, and the growing trade surplus acted as a balancing factor for the total merchandise trade deficit. After EU accession, exports became a factor determining the level of balance in agricultural markets and stimulating the development of many food industries. Poland’s export specialties included both products that are the backbone of the domestic food market, produced in enterprises of the meat, dairy, fruit and vegetable, sugar confectionery, and bakery industries, as well as products that do not play a strategic role in feeding society, such as tobacco products or animal fodder.

In addition to its cognitive value, the analyses performed have application value. They empirically validate the idea of regional economic integration and show how the agri-food sector can benefit from agricultural support and free access to the preferential trade area. However, one should be cautious as there are always other factors that influence the analyzed variables, not only those related to the regional integration processes. These factors describing the domestic economy and its agri-food sector or coming from the international environment were out of the scope of this study. Despite these limitations, our findings can be a benchmark for other countries aspiring to EU membership and constitute a justification for their move toward accession. Long-run ex post analysis of trends in production, income, and foreign trade offers a background for assessing the efficiency of agricultural and trade policy actions taken up to date and is a starting point for giving recommendations for future policy developments. The identified trends allow for the formulation of recommendations regarding the use of agricultural policy instruments that stimulate productivity at the farm level.

The sustained growth of Poland’s agri-food exports and the diversification of its export offer testify to the ability of the Polish food industry to compete effectively in foreign markets, even under conditions of exogenous shocks leading to disruptions in supply chains. An example of the high resilience of the agri-food sector to adverse changes in business conditions was the functioning and performance of the sector’s entities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Observing the international environment and taking into account potential changes in the EU’s agricultural and trade policies, in the course of further research, it is possible to ask whether the tendencies observed in the past 20 years to improve agricultural production and income and the results obtained in foreign trade in agri-food products will be sustained under the conditions of the possible accession of Ukraine to the EU and the signing of the EU free trade agreement with MERCOSUR. Ex ante analyses allowing the identification of sectoral effects of market integration of the mentioned economies would be valuable not only from the cognitive point of view. When negotiating economic cooperation agreements, they would provide a basis for formulating recommendations for decision-makers of designed policies to optimize the gains and losses of planned agreements.

An issue of particular importance is the possible confluence of unfavorable events from the point of view of Polish farms, consisting of the simultaneous implementation of restrictive environmental regulations within the framework of the European Green Deal strategy and an increased influx of food from countries where its production is cheaper. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), implementing the EGD solutions will reduce food production in the European Union by 12.0% and increase its prices by an average of 17.0%. As a result, food exports will decrease by 20%, and imports will increase by 2% [49]. Analyses of Polish agriculture indicate that implementing the EGD will translate into a decrease in farmers’ income by at least 11% and will cause an increase in food prices. At the same time, the value of crop production will fall by 13%, and the acreage under cultivation will decrease by 6% [51]. Such a situation could threaten farm incomes and the European Union’s food self-sufficiency, which could jeopardize the potential disruptive situation of international supply chains [52]. Also of concern is the issue of ensuring the safety of food imported from outside the EU, the impact of its production on the environment, and the scale of a possible decline in prices received by farms in Poland and the European Union.

5. Conclusions

An analysis of the 20 years of Poland’s membership in the European Union allows us to conclude that in the field of trade policy, it is advisable to continue promoting preferential liberalization of trade in agri-food products. Supporting policymakers by presenting alternative scenarios for future policy actions is particularly important in the context of contemporary challenges related to building sustainable food systems ready to face increasing competitive pressures in global markets, as well as making food value chains more resilient to unexpected external shocks, such as the long-lasting Russian–Ukrainian war. However, possible changes in the situation related to the tightening of environmental requirements for agricultural production in the European Union dictate that we also point out potential threats related to further liberalization of foreign trade. Problems are increasingly being signaled regarding the import of cheap agricultural products from Ukraine, whose agriculture is based on large-scale, highly productive agricultural holdings. It is also unclear whether agricultural production in MERCOSUR countries will be subject to the same environmental restrictions and quality standards as in the European Union. The changing situation may, over the next few years, completely change the frame of reference relevant to the analysis presented in the paper. The importance of agriculture and Poland’s place in international agricultural trade in a situation of revolutionary change in operating conditions associated with the tightening of environmental requirements will depend on the ability of farms to adapt to the new conditions. Polish agriculture has significant production potential and many structural burdens resulting from the past. Positive changes, especially those that increase productivity, should be encouraged to enable this adaptation, and an externally conditioned loss of production profitability should be protected.

In this regard, a carefully formulated recommendation for trade policy is as follows: Given the benefits of liberalizing foreign trade in agri-food products, it should be supported. However, this must not be a paradigm pushed uncritically. First and foremost, agricultural production should not be allowed to become unprofitable or food self-sufficiency threatened.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.P. and W.P.; methodology, K.P. and W.P.; software, K.P. and W.P.; validation, K.P. and W.P.; formal analysis, K.P. and W.P.; investigation, K.P. and W.P.; resources, K.P. and W.P.; writing—original draft preparation, K.P.; writing—review and editing, K.P.; visualization, K.P. and W.P.; supervision, K.P. and W.P.; project administration, K.P. and W.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. These data can be found here: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database (accessed on 30 March 2024); https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/comext/newxtweb/ (accessed on 21 July 2024).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

Comext-Eurostat. International Trade Data. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/comext/newxtweb/ (accessed on 21 July 2024).
Szczepaniak, I. Changes in comparative advantages of the Polish food sector in world trade. Equilibrium. Q. J. Econ. Econ. Policy 2019, 14, 463–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Szczepaniak, I. Comparative advantages in Polish export to the European Union—Food products vs selected groups of non-food products. Oeconomia Copernic. 2018, 9, 287–308. [Google Scholar]
Poczta, W.; Hardt, Ł. Skutki integracji Polski z UE dla rolnictwa i obszarów wiejskich—Próba oceny (Effects of Poland’s integration with the EU on agriculture and rural areas—An attempt at assessment). In Polska w Unii Europejskiej—Doświadczenia Pierwszego Roku Członkostwa (Poland in the European Union—Experience of the First Year of Membership); UKIE: Warsaw, Poland, 2005; pp. 115–166. [Google Scholar]
Seremak-Bulge, J.; Łopaciuk, W. Ogólna ocena polskiego handlu zagranicznego produktami rolno-spożywczymi w latach 1995–2009 (Overall assessment of Polish foreign trade in agri-food products in 1995–2009). In Handel Zagraniczny Produktami Rolno-Spożywczymi w Latach 1995–2009 (Foreign Trade in Agri-Food Products in 1995–2009); Studies and Monographs, 152; Seremak-Bulge, J., Ed.; IERiGŻ-PIB: Warsaw, Poland, 2011; pp. 12–40. [Google Scholar]
Dybowski, G.; Nosecka, B.; Pawlak, K.; Woźniak, L. Szanse dla Polskiego Sektora Rolno-Żywnościowego Wynikające z Doświadczeń Globalnych i Regionalnych Oraz Rozwoju Opartego na Wiedzy (Opportunities for the Polish Agri-Food Sector from Global and Regional Experience and Knowledge-Based Development); Raport PW 2015–2019 No. 88; IERiGŻ-PIB: Warsaw, Poland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
Szczepaniak, I.; Ambroziak, Ł.; Kosior, K. Konkurencyjność sektora rolno-spożywczego w Polsce na tle uwarunkowań makroekonomicznych (Competitiveness of the agri-food sector in Poland in light of macroeconomic determinants). Stud. BAS 2018, 3, 73–105. [Google Scholar]
Chechelski, P. Wpływ Procesów Globalizacji na Polski Przemysł Spożywczy (The Impact of Globalization Processes on the Polish Food Industry); Studies and Monographs 145; IERiGŻ-PIB: Warsaw, Poland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
Chechelski, P. Zmiany zachodzące w przemyśle spożywczym w Polsce pod wpływem korporacji transnarodowych w XXI wieku (Changes in food industry in Poland under the impact of transnational corporations in the 21st century). Zagadnienia Ekon. Rolnej 2017, 4, 50–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Poczta, W. Wpływ akcesji Polski do Unii Europejskiej na sytuację rolnictwa i rolników (The impact of Poland’s accession to the European Union on the situation of agriculture and farmers). In Polska w Unii Europejskiej. Bilans Korzyści (Poland in the European Union. Balance of Benefits); Kluza, S., Ed.; Wydawnictwo Jedność: Warsaw, Poland, 2023; pp. 91–128. [Google Scholar]
Kołodziejczak, W.; Wysocki, F. Determinanty Aktywności Ekonomicznej Ludności Wiejskiej w Polsce (Determinants of Economic Activity of the Rural Population in Poland); Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Przyrodniczego w Poznaniu: Poznań, Poland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
Kołodziejczak, W. Employment and Gross Value Added in Agriculture Versus Other Sectors of the European Union Economy. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kim, Y.; Lee, J.Y. Effects of Government Payments on Agricultural Productivity: The Case of South Korea. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Smutka, L.; Steininger, M.; Miffek, O. World agricultural production and consumption. Agris -Line Pap. Econ. Inform. 2009, 1, 3–12. [Google Scholar]
Otsuka, K. Food insecurity, income inequality, and the changing comparative advantage in world agriculture. Agric. Econ. 2013, 44 (Suppl. S1), 7–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Yu, B.; You, L. A Typology of Food Security in Developing Countries. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2013, 5, 118–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pawlak, K.; Kołodziejczak, M. The Role of Agriculture in Ensuring Food Security in Developing Countries: Considerations in the Context of the Problem of Sustainable Food Production. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Baráth, L.; Fertö, I. Productivity and Convergence in European Agriculture; Discussion papers MT-DP-2016/26; Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences: Budapest, Hungary, 2016. [Google Scholar]
Nowak, A.; Różańska-Boczula, M. Differentiation in the production potential and efficiency of farms in the member states of the European Union. Agric. Econ. 2019, 65, 395–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jaroszewska, J.; Rembisz, W. Relacje czynnikowe i produktywnościowe w rolnictwie Unii Europejskiej (Factor and Productivity Relations in EU Agriculture). Wieś I Rol. 2019, 2, 31–55. [Google Scholar]
Kijek, A.; Kijek, T.; Nowak, A.; Skrzypek, A. Productivity and its convergence in agriculture in new and old European Union member states. Agric. Econ. 2019, 65, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Tłuczak, A. Diversity of the selected elements of agricultural potential in the European Union countries. Agric. Econ. 2020, 66, 260–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Smędzik-Ambroży, K.; Sapa, A. Efficiency and technical progress in agricultural productivity in the European Union. Res. Pap. Wrocław Univ. Econ. 2019, 63, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Guth, M.; Smędzik-Ambroży, K. Economic resources versus the efficiency of different types of agricultural production in regions of the European Union. Econ. Res. -Ekon. Istraživanja 2020, 33, 1036–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Poczta, W.; Pawlak, K.; Czubak, W. Produktions- und Einkommenssituation im landwirtschaftlichen Sektor Polens nach dem Beitritt zur Europäischen Union. Berichte Űber Landwirtsch. 2012, 90, 133–158. [Google Scholar]
Rizov, M.; Pokrivcak, J.; Ciaian, P. CAP Subsidies and Productivity of the EU Farms. J. Agric. Econ. 2013, 64, 537–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Brooks, J.; Matthews, A. Trade Dimensions of Food Security; Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 77; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2015. [Google Scholar]
Dithmer, J.; Abdulai, A. Does trade openness contribute to food security? A dynamic panel analysis. Food Policy 2017, 69, 218–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Garonne, M.; Dorien, E.; Olper, A.; Swinnen, J.F.M. Subsidies and Agricultural Productivity: CAP Payments and Labour Productivity (Convergence) in EU Agriculture; LICOS Discussion Paper No. 409; Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, LICOS Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance: Leuven, Belgium, 2018; Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/200493 (accessed on 16 August 2020).
Dunmore, J.C. Competitiveness and Comparative Advantage of U.S. Agriculture. In Proceedings of the 1986 National Public Policy Education Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 16 September 1986. [Google Scholar]
Bojnec, Š.; Fertő, I. Agri-Food Export Competitiveness in European Union Countries. J. Common Mark. Stud. 2015, 53, 476–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bojnec, Š.; Fertö, I. Are new EU member states catching up with older ones on global agri-food markets? Post-Communist Econ. 2015, 27, 205–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pawlak, K.; Kolodziejczak, M.; Kolodziejczak, W. Competitiveness of the Agri-Food Sectors of the New EU Member States in the European Single Market. Zagadnienia Ekon. Rolnej 2010, 1, 126–142. [Google Scholar]
Rytko, A. Competitiveness of Polish and Slovak Agri-Food Products on the European Market. Eur. Policies Financ. Mark. 2014, 12, 187–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bojnec, Š.; Fertö, I. European Enlargement and Agro-Food Trade. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 2008, 56, 563–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bojnec, Š.; Fertö, I. Agro-food trade competitiveness of Central European and Balkan countries. Food Policy 2009, 34, 417–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Grubel, H.G.; Lloyd, P.J. Intra-Industry Trade: The Theory and Measurement of International Trade in Differentiated Products; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
Eurostat. Economic Accounts for Agriculture. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database (accessed on 30 March 2024).
Hamulczuk, M.; Pawlak, K.; Stefańczyk, J.; Gołębiewski, J. Agri-Food Supply and Retail Food Prices during the Russia–Ukraine Conflict’s Early Stage: Implications for Food Security. Agriculture 2023, 13, 2154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hurduzeu, G.; Pânzaru, R.L.; Medelete, D.M.; Ciobanu, A.; Enea, C. The Development of Sustainable Agriculture in EU Countries and the Potential Achievement of Sustainable Development Goals Specific Targets (SDG 2). Sustainability 2022, 14, 15798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dudley, N.; Alexander, S. Agriculture and biodiversity: A review. Biodiversity 2017, 18, 45–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Crippa, M.; Solazzo, E.; Guizzardi, D.; Monforti-Ferrario, F.; Tubiello, F.N.; Leip, A. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 198–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Zhang, J.; Drury, M. Sustainable agriculture in the EU and China: A comparative critical policy analysis approach. Environ. Sci. Policy 2024, 157, 103789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Guyomard, H.; Soler, L.G.; Détang-Dessendre, C.; Réquillart, V. The European Green Deal improves the sustainability of food systems but has uneven economic impacts on consumers and farmers. Commun. Earth Environ. 2023, 4, 358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Springmann, M.; Clark, M.; Mason-D’Croz, D.; Wiebe, K.; Bodirsky, B.L.; Lassaletta, L.; de Vries, W.; Vermeulen, S.J.; Herrero, M.; Carlson, K.M.; et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 2018, 562, 519–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Wigier, M. Handel zagraniczny z UE oraz krajami kandydującymi przed i po integracji. Przemysł Spożywczy 2003, 57, 12–16. [Google Scholar]
Arita, S.; Grant, J.; Sydow, S.; Beckman, J. Has global agricultural trade been resilient under the coronavirus (COVID-19)? Findings from an econometric assessment of 2020. Food Policy 2022, 107, 102204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pawlak, K.; Malak-Rawlikowska, A.; Hamulczuk, M.; Skrzypczyk, M. Has food security in the EU countries worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic? Analysis of physical and economic access to food. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0302072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Beckman, J.; Ivanic, M.; Jelliffe, J.L.; Baquedano, F.G.; Scott, S.G. Economic and Food Security Impacts of Agricultural Input Reduction Under the European Union Green Deal’s Farm to Fork and Biodiversity Strategies; ERS USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
Matthews, A. Implications of the European Green Deal for Agri-Food Trade with Developing Countries; European Landowners’ Organization: Brussels, Belgium, 2022. [Google Scholar]
Gradziuk, P.; Matyka, M.; Poczta, W.; Czerniak, A.; Czubak, W.; Jończyk, K.; Kopiński, J.; Kozyra, J.; Pawlak, K.; Sadowski, A.; et al. Wpływ Europejskiego Zielonego Ładu na Polskie Rolnictwo (The Impact of the European Green Deal on Polish Agriculture); Polityka Insight Sp. z o.o.: Warsaw, Poland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
Kołodziejczak, M. Samowystarczalność żywnościowa państw Unii Europejskiej w latach 2012–2022 (Food self-sufficiency of European Union countries from 2012 to 2022). Wieś I Rol. 2024, 3. in press. [Google Scholar]

Figure 1. Dynamics of production and value added in agriculture of EU-27 and Poland (real values—2005 = 100). Source: [38]; own calculations. Note: Gross value added is defined as output (at basic prices) minus intermediate consumption (at purchaser prices); intermediate consumption measures the value of the goods and services consumed as inputs (excluding fixed assets) by the process of production. Dashed lines depict the determined trend lines. The text boxes corresponding to the color of the trend line indicate the trend equations and the values of the coefficients of determination, which measure how the regression function fits the empirical data.

Figure 2. Dynamics of real income of an agricultural entrepreneur (2015 = 100). Source: [38]; own calculations. Note: Agricultural entrepreneurial income measures the income derived from agricultural activities that can be used for the remuneration of own production factors; FWU depicts a Family Work Unit, which is equal to a family Agricultural Working Unit (AWU), equivalent to one person working full-time on the holding. Dashed lines depict the determined trend lines. The text boxes corresponding to the color of the trend line indicate the trend equations and the values of the coefficients of determination, which measure how the regression function fits the empirical data.

Figure 3. Real selling prices of agricultural products in 2004–2022 (2015 = 100). Source: [38].

Figure 4. Poland’s foreign trade in agri-food products in 2004–2023 (billion euro). Source: [1]; own elaboration.

Figure 5. Share of agri-food trade in Poland’s total trade in 2004–2023 (%). Source: [1]; own calculations.

Figure 6. Exports of agri-food products in EU countries in 2004 and 2023 (billion euros). Source: [1]; own elaboration.

Figure 7. Imports of agri-food products in EU countries in 2004 and 2023 (billion euros). Source: [1]; own elaboration.

Figure 8. Share of intra-EU agri-food trade in total Polish agri-food trade in 2004–2023 (%). Source: [1]; own calculations.

Table 1. Value of agricultural production in the EU-27 and selected member countries, constant 2015 prices (billion euro at basic prices).

Specification	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	Average Annual Growth Rate (%)
EU-27	347.1	343.6	346.0	356.6	357.5	353.1	360.5	350.0	356.8	373.2	370.7	373.8	377.8	379.4	384.7	385.2	390.2	376.4	0.71
Germany	50.8	50.8	50.7	52.3	53.3	51.8	52.7	52.1	51.9	55.0	52.4	52.4	52.7	48.8	51.6	53.6	55.4	54.8	0.27
Spain	34.6	35.4	39.2	38.3	38.7	40.1	41.2	39.0	41.9	44.4	44.4	47.6	46.7	50.2	50.8	51.5	52.5	47.9	2.34
France	70.1	68.5	69.6	70.8	71.0	69.5	71.1	69.9	69.2	74.0	72.9	68.5	71.1	72.0	71.7	69.6	69.1	67.8	0.00
Italy	53.2	52.3	52.3	53.3	52.2	52.1	52.0	50.3	50.8	49.7	51.5	51.5	49.7	51.0	50.4	50.7	50.4	49.4	−0.30
Netherlands	23.4	23.5	24.0	24.7	25.2	25.3	25.3	25.3	25.6	25.8	26.1	26.6	26.8	26.3	26.7	26.6	26.9	26.2	0.75
Poland	19.3	19.1	20.3	20.4	21.6	20.9	20.9	21.2	21.3	22.9	22.2	24.1	24.4	24.3	24.1	26.0	25.5	25.3	1.77
Share of Poland in total EU agricultural production (EU-27 = 100)	5.6	5.6	5.9	5.7	6.0	5.9	5.8	6.1	6.0	6.1	6.0	6.4	6.5	6.4	6.3	6.7	6.5	6.7	x

Note: The basic price is the amount receivable by the producer from the purchaser for a unit of a good or service produced as output minus any tax payable, and plus any subsidy receivable, by the producer as a consequence of its production or sale. Source: [38]; own calculations.

Table 2. Production and income in EU agriculture in 2022, current 2022 prices (million euro, base prices).

Countries	Agricultural Production		Intermediate Consumption		Value Added		Factor Income		Agricultural Entrepreneurial Income
Countries	Million	%	Million	%	Million	%	Million	%	Million	%
EU-27	517,169	100.0	316,744	100.0	220,745	100.0	199,688	100.0	133,101	100.0
Belgium	11,890	2.3	9072	2.9	2855	1.3	2625	1.3	1393	1.0
Bulgaria	6457	1.2	3573	1.1	3023	1.4	3695	1.9	1633	1.2
Czechia	7566	1.5	5203	1.6	2607	1.2	2985	1.5	1041	0.8
Denmark	13,961	2.7	10,507	3.3	3579	1.6	3101	1.6	1968	1.5
Germany	75,268	14.6	46,192	14.6	30,030	13.6	25,394	12.7	16,064	12.1
Estonia	1577	0.3	1142	0.4	488	0.2	539	0.3	274	0.2
Ireland	12,893	2.5	7919	2.5	4975	2.3	5665	2.8	4118	3.1
Greece	13,282	2.6	7402	2.3	6856	3.1	7739	3.9	6279	4.7
Spain	62,125	12.0	33,723	10.6	29,275	13.3	28,747	14.4	20,978	15.8
France	93,383	18.1	55,419	17.5	41,637	18.9	35,702	17.9	24,040	18.1
Croatia	3183	0.6	1528	0.5	1717	0.8	1932	1.0	1698	1.3
Italy	65,370	12.6	34,709	11.0	36,826	16.7	29,807	14.9	18,128	13.6
Cyprus	810	0.2	490	0.2	338	0.2	387	0.2	271	0.2
Latvia	2183	0.4	1540	0.5	797	0.4	948	0.5	666	0.5
Lithuania	4782	0.9	3290	1.0	2031	0.9	1806	0.9	1144	0.9
Luxembourg	560	0.1	409	0.1	187	0.1	149	0.1	91	0.1
Hungary	10,254	2.0	6949	2.2	3450	1.6	3786	1.9	1987	1.5
Malta	128	0.0	84	0.0	51	0.0	68	0.0	61	0.0
Netherlands	34,103	6.6	23,890	7.5	12,186	5.5	8077	4.0	3417	2.6
Austria	9964	1.9	6078	1.9	4467	2.0	3634	1.8	2819	2.1
Poland	39,381	7.6	25,293	8.0	14 253	6.5	15,846	7.9	13,451	10.1
Portugal	10,304	2.0	7272	2.3	3373	1.5	3373	1.7	1957	1.5
Romania	20,368	3.9	12,274	3.9	9945	4.5	7550	3.8	5910	4.4
Slovenia	1592	0.3	1068	0.3	524	0.2	515	0.3	408	0.3
Slovakia	2836	0.5	2112	0.7	889	0.4	1066	0.5	320	0.2
Finland	5081	1.0	4123	1.3	1703	0.8	2052	1.0	1296	1.0
Sweden	7866	1.5	5482	1.7	2683	1.2	2500	1.3	1688	1.3

Note: Agricultural factor income measures the remuneration of all factors of production (land, labor, capital) regardless of whether they are owned or borrowed/rented. Source: [38]; own calculations.

Table 3. Dynamics of Polish foreign trade in agri-food products in 2004–2023 (previous year = 100).

Years	Export			Imports
Years	Total	Intra-EU	Extra-EU	Total	Intra-EU	Extra-EU
2005	146.4	151.7	133.4	127.1	134.2	108.5
2006	120.3	122.8	113.3	117.5	116.0	122.6
2007	118.1	119.2	114.7	124.8	126.6	119.4
2008	115.4	115.9	113.9	126.4	130.5	112.9
2009	98.4	98.1	99.5	90.5	90.5	90.7
2010	117.8	115.5	125.1	117.5	118.5	113.5
2011	111.9	110.3	116.5	114.8	113.5	120.2
2012	118.9	116.0	126.8	109.3	108.0	114.2
2013	113.4	114.5	110.6	104.5	106.8	96.3
2014	107.4	108.9	103.5	105.8	105.0	108.9
2015	110.1	112.0	104.9	106.2	104.9	111.0
2016	101.4	99.9	105.8	107.1	108.4	102.5
2017	115.2	115.0	115.7	111.6	112.4	108.6
2018	106.7	107.6	104.0	103.7	103.2	105.3
2019	107.2	106.2	109.9	105.9	105.0	109.0
2020	107.2	105.1	113.0	106.6	105.6	110.2
2021	109.7	112.6	102.3	111.6	113.2	105.7
2022	127.0	128.6	122.5	128.4	121.2	155.4
2023	110.2	108.6	115.0	104.3	109.7	88.7

Source: [1]; own calculations.

Table 4. Poland’s main partners in foreign trade of agri-food products in 2004 and 2022.

2004				2023
Export
No.	Country	Million euros	%	No.	Country	Million euros	%
1	Germany	1225	25.7	1	Germany	13,359	25.7
2	Russian Federation	348	7.3	2	United Kingdom	4193	8.1
3	Netherlands	306	6.4	3	Netherlands	3195	6.1
4	United Kingdom	289	6.1	4	France	3009	5.8
5	Italy	273	5.7	5	Italy	2511	4.8
6	Czechia	260	5.4	6	Czechia	2417	4.6
7	France	170	3.6	7	Spain	1770	3.4
8	Hungary	157	3.3	8	Hungary	1271	2.4
9	Denmark	137	2.9	9	Romania	1267	2.4
10	USA	125	2.6	10	Belgium	1146	2.2
Total		4770	100.0	Total		52,000	100.0
Imports
No.	Country	Million euros	%	No.	Country	Million euros	%
1	Germany	798	18.5	1	Germany	7404	22.2
2	Netherlands	558	12.9	2	Netherlands	3759	11.3
3	Spain	300	7.0	3	Italy	1830	5.5
4	Italy	216	5.0	4	Spain	1797	5.4
5	France	214	5.0	5	Denmark	1764	5.3
6	Argentina	209	4.9	6	Belgium	1755	5.3
7	Denmark	191	4.4	7	Ukraine	1666	5.0
8	Czechia	165	3.8	8	France	1363	4.1
9	Belgium	154	3.6	9	Sweden	1337	4.0
10	Hungary	139	3.2	10	Brazil	1030	3.1
Total		4316	100.0	Total		33,341	100.0

Source: [1]; own calculations.

Table 5. Commodity structure of Polish foreign trade in agri-food products in 2004 and 2023.

Products	Trade Structure (2023)		Trade Balance		IIT
	Export	Imports	2004	2023	2004	2023
	%		Million Euros		%
Live animals	0.3	3.7	155.4	−1088.0	46.3	21.3
Meat and edible meat offal	14.5	6.7	393.3	5291.5	54.8	45.7
Fish and seafood	4.5	9.1	−118.9	−696.8	75.6	87.0
Dairy produce	7.0	5.0	496.2	1962.7	20.9	62.8
Products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included	0.8	1.0	−64.5	98.9	67.7	87.1
Live trees and other plants	0.4	1.6	−52.0	−323.6	70.2	57.7
Edible vegetables	3.3	4.7	272.0	162.2	53.4	95.0
Edible fruit and nuts	2.9	7.6	−124.9	−1058.5	87.4	73.8
Coffee, tea, mate, and spices	1.5	3.5	−134.0	−389.9	46.6	80.3
Cereals	6.9	2.2	−145.2	2853.9	33.5	33.6
Products of the milling industry	0.9	1.6	−42.1	−50.5	69.6	95.1
Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits	1.7	2.7	−8.7	18.5	96.2	99.0
Lac; gums, resins, and other vegetable saps and extracts	0.1	0.5	−34.6	−117.6	20.3	37.4
Vegetable plaiting materials	0.0	0.2	0.8	−61.0	85.6	22.9
Animal or vegetable fats and oils	2.8	6.0	−220.1	−575.2	26.2	83.3
Preparations of meat, or of fish	6.0	1.6	132.3	2571.8	43.1	29.3
Sugars and sugar confectionery	2.7	2.3	172.6	652.7	50.5	69.7
Cocoa and cocoa preparations	4.9	5.3	−21.0	772.0	95.5	82.0
Preparations of cereals	9.0	4.9	116.2	3008.1	71.1	52.3
Preparations of fruit and vegetables	4.1	3.8	238.5	857.1	58.7	74.6
Miscellaneous edible preparations	6.5	5.3	−91.9	1630.5	82.8	68.3
Beverages, spirits, and vinegar	3.1	5.1	−21.7	−52.5	93.3	98.4
Residues and waste from the food industries; animal fodder	5.8	10.6	−377.4	−532.3	37.6	91.9
Tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes	10.5	5.2	−66.7	3725.0	64.5	48.1
Total	100.0	100.0	453.7	18,658.7	95.0	78.1

Source: [1]; own calculations.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pawlak, K.; Poczta, W. Twenty Years of Poland’s EU Membership: What Is Progress in the Agri-Food Sector? Agriculture 2025, 15, 49. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15010049

AMA Style

Pawlak K, Poczta W. Twenty Years of Poland’s EU Membership: What Is Progress in the Agri-Food Sector? Agriculture. 2025; 15(1):49. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15010049

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pawlak, Karolina, and Walenty Poczta. 2025. "Twenty Years of Poland’s EU Membership: What Is Progress in the Agri-Food Sector?" Agriculture 15, no. 1: 49. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15010049

APA Style

Pawlak, K., & Poczta, W. (2025). Twenty Years of Poland’s EU Membership: What Is Progress in the Agri-Food Sector? Agriculture, 15(1), 49. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15010049

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Menu

Twenty Years of Poland’s EU Membership: What Is Progress in the Agri-Food Sector?

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Literature Background

3. Materials and Methods

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Agricultural Production and Farmers’ Income

4.2. Foreign Trade in Agri-Food Products

4.2.1. Trade Values and Shares

4.2.2. Trade Structures

4.2.3. Lessons Learned and Possible Future Developments

5. Conclusions

Author Contributions

Funding

Institutional Review Board Statement

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of Interest

References

Share and Cite

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI