Rural Poland. Rural development report.

Rural Poland2014

Rural Poland2014RURAL DeveLoPmentRePoRt

Scientific editors:Iwona Nurzyska and Walenty Poczta

Warszawa 2014

team of authors: Agnieszka Baer-Nawrocka, Andrzej Czyewski, Barbara Fedyszak-Radziejowska, Izasaw Frenkel, Jerzy Guszyski, Jerzy Kozyra, Anna Matuszczak, Iwona Nurzyska, Walenty Poczta, Grzegorz Siebielec, Jerzy Wilkin

Cover design: Katarzyna Juras

ISBN 978-83-7383-727-0

Copyright by Fundacja na rzecz Rozwoju Polskiego Rolnictwa (FDPA), Warszawa 2014

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the FDPA.

Cover photo Mariusz Szczygie / Fotolia.com

The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the FDPA.

Fundacja na rzecz Rozwoju Polskiego Rolnictwa ul Gombrowicza 19, 01-682 Warszawa www.fdpa.org.pl; e-mail: [email protected]

Typesetted byWydawnictwo Naukowe Scholarul. Krakowskie Przedmiecie 62 00-322 Warszawawww.scholar.com.pl; e-mail: [email protected]

Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................. 9

Chapter 1. The balance of the decade of Polands membership in the European Union in terms of agriculture and the rural areas Jerzy Wilkin ...............................................................................................11 1.1. The Double Jubilee ..............................................................................11 1.2. Agriculture and rural areas a difficult area of transformation

and integration .................................................................................... 12 1.3. SAPARD introduction to the European integration ...........................15 1.4. The first years of Polands membership in the EU the effects

to agriculture and the rural areas ......................................................... 15 1.5. Streams of money transfers to agriculture .......................................... 16 1.6. Transformations in the agricultural holding structure ......................... 19 1.7. Other positive results of accession in terms of agriculture and the

rural areas in Poland ............................................................................ 21 1.8. Development of the agri-food industry and trade in foodstuffs .......... 22 1.9. The second side of the balance: problems to solve ............................. 221.10. Final remarks ...................................................................................... 25

Chapter 2. Population of rural areas Izasaw Frenkel ......................... 272.1. Change tendencies in the rural population numbers ............................. 272.2. Demographic factors of rural population changes ................................ 292.3. Changes in administrative division into urban and rural areas ............. 462.4. Structure of rural population in terms of age, gender and education

level. ...................................................................................................... 462.5. Employment .......................................................................................... 512.6. Unemployment in rural areas ................................................................ 632.7. Summary ............................................................................................... 76

Chapter 3. Transformation of agriculture Agnieszka Baer- Nawrocka, Walenty Poczta .......................................................................... 853.1. Agriculture and national economy ........................................................ 873.2. Changes in the availability of production factors ................................. 883.3. Structural transformation of agricultural holdings ................................ 95

3.4. Changes in production and incomes .................................................... 983.5. Changes in the economic conditions of production ............................ 1073.6. The role of foreign trade in the process of transformations in the

agri-food sector ................................................................................... 1093.7. Summary .............................................................................................111

Chapter 4. Transformations in the rural economy structures Iwona Nurzyska ..................................................................................... 1234.1. Structure of the rural economy in Poland and its transformation

against other countries ........................................................................ 1244.2. Transformations in the socio-economic structure and sources

of income of the rural population ........................................................ 1274.3. Non-agricultural activities in rural areas ............................................ 1354.4. Level of rural incomes ....................................................................... 1414.5. Selected Common Agricultural Policy instruments and the level

of rural incomes .................................................................................. 1444.6. Summary ............................................................................................. 148

Chapter 5. Rural communities 10 years after accession: Attitudes, values and socio-economic conditions Barbara Fedyszak- Radziejowska ............................................................................................. 1495.1. The rural areas and farmers in the process of change; condition

of the human and social capital ........................................................... 1515.2. Attitudes, aspirations and the financial situation of the rural

inhabitants .......................................................................................... 1615.3. The rural inhabitants and farmers about the European Union

from skepticism to acceptance ........................................................... 1675.4. Summary ............................................................................................. 169

Chapter 6. The condition of the natural environment in rural areas Jerzy Kozyra, Grzegorz Siebielec ................................................. 1716.1. Factors affecting the condition of the natural environment

in rural areas ........................................................................................ 1726.2. Unsolved environmental problems ..................................................... 1826.3. Assessment of the instruments supporting the preservation of

natural resources in rural areas ............................................................ 1876.4. Summary ............................................................................................. 192

Chapter 7. The political self-image of rural inhabitants Jerzy Guszyski.................................................................................................. 1957.1. The political rural heritage ................................................................. 196

7.2. The political power of the rural areas ................................................. 2077.3. Summary ............................................................................................. 217

Chapter 8. The Polish agricultural budget before and after accession to the European Union: level, dynamics, trends Andrzej Czyewski, Anna Matuszczak ...................................................... 2218.1. Macroeconomic surroundings of the agricultural budget in Poland

in 1989-2014 ....................................................................................... 2228.2. Expenditure on the agricultural sector in the Polish budget in

the passing 25 years (1989-2014): The initial period of transformation of the Polish economy ................................................ 227

8.3. Budget expenditures on the paying agency activities stabilising the agricultural markets and modernising agriculture. ....................... 233

8.4. Social insurance of the rural inhabitants (KRUS) ............................... 2448.5. EU funds in the Polish agricultural budget ......................................... 2478.6. Summary ............................................................................................. 249

9

Introduction

The consecutive, eighth edition of the Report on the condition of rural areas. Rural Poland 2014 is issued at a specific time, when Poland celebrates a double jubilee: 25 years since the launching of the system reforms and the 10th anniversary of the accession to the European Union. Both these crucial and historic events were of particular importance to the rural areas in our coun-try. In the consecutive reports on the condition of rural areas which have been issued since 2000 we are trying to familiarize the Readers with the picture of dynamically changing agriculture and the rural areas, particularly after the ac-cession to the EU in 2004. Similar to the previous years, in this Report on the condition of rural areas we responded to the ambitious challenge of tracing the changes which occurred as a result of post-socialist system and economic reforms; changes forced by the difficult period of Polands integration with the Community structures and those which we observe in the conditions of full membership and exercising the rights to the benefits from the Community policies. It is a perfect time for summing up the achievements and successes, but also a time for reflection and indication to what has not yet been done.

From the 14 year perspective we can proudly say that the initiators of this unique research project, and particularly Prof. Jerzy Wilkin, the years-long editor and scientific co-editor of the report, succeeded in filling the severe gap in the system of studying and dissemination of knowledge about the ag-ricultural sector and the rural areas in Poland. Knowledge about that sector of the Polish economy which, despite the negative opinions before our acces-sion to the EU, not only had not become a barrier, hampering the integration of Poland with the EU, but became a significant participant of the European Single Market and one of the locomotives of Polish exports.

We are giving you a Report the uniqueness of which is also expressed in its interdisciplinary character and the comprehensive way of presenting the rural areas. One of the more important features of our research undertaking is its regularity and repeatability of methodological assumptions, which facilitate the monitoring of the dynamics of change. The informative dimension of the Report is of considerable importance and the fact that it is issued in two lan-guage versions: in Polish and in English. The Polish version is issued both in hardcopy and electronic versions. Both language versions are made accessible free of charge in the web sites of the Foundation for the Development of Pol-ish Agriculture (FDPA), which has been commissioning the elaboration and publication of the Rural Developement reports since the begining.

IntroductIon

10

Continuation of the methodological assumptions means that also this Report on the condition of rural areas. Rural Poland 2014 has a synthetic form. This forces the scientific editors to concentrate on issues which they be-lieve the most important. Therefore, for years now the Reader could trace the demographic changes in rural areas, the situation in agriculture, the changing socio-economic structure of the rural areas, changes in the natural environ-ment or the evolution of the political views of rural inhabitants. We do not avoid difficult (education in rural areas, entrepreneurship), nor painful (rural poverty) topics, which were and will be presented, as special subjects, in con-secutive editions.

This years edition of the Rural Development Report: Rural Poland 2014 is focused on an attempt at summing up the 25 years of socio-economic trans-formations in rural areas and in agriculture and the assessment of the decade of experience in the EU membership, complete with the appraisal of the im-pact of the European integration and the Common Agricultural Policy. Pre-sentation of so broad and rich research material in a concise way would not be possible without the valuable and unique contribution from the members of the team of authors, among whom there are persons who are cooperating from the beginning of this unique research initiative. We wish to thank them for their persistence and their substantial support.

And last but not least we wish to thank and acknowledge the Scholar pub-lishing house, whose professionalism has for years been a support to the Au-thors and the Scientific Editors.

Iwona Nurzyska and Walenty PocztaScientific editors

11

Jerzy Wilkin*

Chapter 1. The balance of the decade of Polands membership in the European Union in terms of agriculture and the rural areas

1.1. The Double JubileeIn 2014 we shall celebrate two jubilees, extremely important for our coun-

try: the first is the 25th anniversary of the so-called post-socialist system trans-formation, the second being the 10th anniversary of Polands accession to the EU. Both these historical processes are closely interlinked. our accession to the EU became possible because of the reforms implemented earlier, which included all the most essential areas of economic, political and social life. Post-socialist transformation, initiated in Poland in 1989, was not just a regu-lar process of adjustment to the changing conditions, which must be on-going in the development of every country; it was a reconstruction of the institution-al foundations of the economy and the state, which happens relatively seldom in history. In this case we are speaking about a system transformation, hence a fundamental change of the system both political and economic.

As early as 15 years after the memorable 4th June 1989, we could say that over that period Poland built both the basis for a democratic system and an efficiently operating market economy. Those were the most essential condi-tions for the acceptance of our country into the EU. The consecutive years, following our accession to the Union in 2004, created opportunities to verify the efficiency and effectiveness of the institutions built after 1989 on the one hand, and on the other, they allowed, with the community support, their de-velopment, improvement and supplementation. Therefore, when assessing the decade of our membership in the EU, this period should be seen in the per-spective of the 25 years of the system transformation.

The changes which occurred in Poland during the 25 years of the post-so-cialist transformation and the 10 year period following the accession are of a fundamental and epochal nature; they have significantly contributed to the modelling of the basis of civilization of the development of our country for decades to come. As a result our country is an important player and beneficiary

* Prof. dr hab. Jerzy Wilkin, Institute of Rural Development and Agriculture at the Polish Academy of Sciences.

1. the Balance of the decade...

12

of European integration, increasingly participating in the international division of labour and benefits from numerous other positive effects of globalisation.

The year 2014, in the case of Poland, is the 23rd year of continuous eco-nomic growth, reflected in the doubled value of the GDP as compared with that of 1989, and reduced distance between our country and the well developed EU member states. These are the most synthetic measures of the development success in Poland. What is the share of the rural areas and agriculture in this success and the benefits thus achieved? An attempt to answer this question is the major goal of this chapter and many further chapters of this report.

1.2. Agriculture and rural areas a difficult area of transformation and integration

As early as the first years of the system transformation shown that agri-culture and the rural population bear particularly high costs and great burdens of the process. During the period of the so-called transformation re-cession (in Poland these were the years 1990 and 1991) a drop in the demand for agricultural produce was observed, the cost of credits soared rapidly with simultaneous deterioration of the relation between the agricultural produce prices and the prices of goods and services the farmers had to purchase (the so-called price scissors). The situation of the employees of the state-owned farms, which were liquidated or transformed, suddenly became dramatic. The so-called agricultural income parity (the indicator illustrating the agricultural income per an employed person to the average income of persons employed outside agriculture ratio) is the synthetic indicator of the farmers econom-ic standing. Deregulation of agricultural prices in the late eighties brought a short-term improvement in the agricultural producers incomes (up to the parity indicator above 100%), but as early as 1991-92 there was a consider-able drop in the agricultural income parity (to 49%). With the improvement of the economic conditions in Poland (in 1993-1996), the farmers incomes also increased (the agricultural income parity at that time exceeded 60%), but to-wards the end of the decade the agricultural income translated per employee, as compared to the average income in the economy fell to the level of 38-40%. This indicator was improved only after Polands accession to the EU.

The first Report on the Polish Rural Areas by FDPA was published in 2000, that means in a very difficult period for agriculture and rural areas. It comprised the following statement: The lack of jobs is the greatest eco-nomic problem in the Polish rural areas. Over 43% of registered unemployed in the country live in rural areas. Open (1059 thousand persons) and hid-den (about 900 thousand persons) unemployment is the main reason of rural

PolIsh rural areas 2014. rePort on the rural area status

13

poverty.1 Not accidentally one special chapter in that report was dedicated to rural poverty. The author of that chapter states, i.a.: The rural inhabitants, both the farmers and employees who make use of the agricultural holdings suddenly fell among those social and professional categories which encountered the great-est increment of the poor during the nineties. () Long-term poverty is mainly rural poverty () poverty in rural areas is much deeper than the average.2

Many reasons contributed to the particularly difficult situation in rural areas and in agriculture during the first decade of transformation. The first of them, of a macro-economic nature, was the slow down of economic growth in Poland in the late nineties, associated with the growth of the rate of registered unemploy-ment to 20%. Many people, who lost their jobs in towns (these were mainly inhabitants of workers hotels and the so-called part-time farmers) returned to the rural areas. There was also high hidden unemployment in agriculture. This difficult situation was also caused by the deteriorating economic standing of the majority of agricultural holdings. The low level of agricultural incomes and the lack of opportunities to acquire income from non-agricultural sources did not al-low modernization of agricultural holdings, or even preventing their decapitali-sation. The nineties witnessed the growing number of very small holdings (with surface areas of up to 3 ha), as these were the basis for self-supply of food for a large part of the rural population, the decreasing number of small and medium holdings (3-15 ha) which could not provide a basis for subsistence of agricul-tural families and a noticeable growth in the number of larger holdings.

Till the time of Polands accession to the EU, the support for agricul-ture from the national budget was small, and almost negligible during the initial years of the transformation. The low level of internal financial ca-pacity to support the development of the agricultural sector in Poland was not adequately supplemented with streams of support from the state budget, due to the limited potential of the public finance and the deepening crisis of those finances. The share of expenditure on agriculture (without KRUS) in the total budget expenditure in 1990-2002 oscillated at 2-3% with a down trend. This expenditure made about 0.5% of the Gross Domestic Product.3

During the first fifteen years of the transformation the lack of a long-term strategy and frequent replacements of the ministers of agriculture also did not foster the development of agriculture. The agricultural policy changed too often and was not based on a comprehensive and long-term strategy. this limited its efficiency and effectiveness. Only the preparations for the imple-mentation of pre-accession programmes in Poland, particularly the SAPARD

1 Polska wie 2000. Raport o stanie wsi, FDPA, Warszawa 2001, p. 37.2 Ibid., p. 92-96.3 Analiza produkcyjno-ekonomicznej sytuacji rolnictwa i gospodarki ywnociowej w 2001 roku, IERiG,

Warszawa 2002, p. 54-55.

programme, focused on supporting the development in agriculture and rural ar-eas, as well as agri-food processing, forced the Polish government in 1999 to prepare a strategic document Coherent structural policy of development of ag-riculture and rural areas.4 Development of such a strategy was the condition for launching the financial measures from the Community funds under SAPARD.

The possibility of using the pre-accession funds and the EU member-ship perspective became a strong incentive for building new institutional frameworks required to introduce a new type of agricultural policy, a rural area support system and the development of agri-food processing. The process was successful and resulted both in full and proper up-take of the funds allocated to Poland under SAPARD and in the efficient incorporation into the Common Agricultural Policy mechanism after 1st May 2004. The payments disbursed to the beneficiaries under the SAPARD programme to-talled EUR 1,068 billion (it was about PLN 4.5 billion).

Summing up the experience relating to the Polish agriculture over the nine-ties and the beginning of the following decade (after the EU accession), we may state as follows:

The rate of structural changes in agriculture at that time was very low, hence it did not foster any improvement in the competitiveness of the Pol-ish agriculture nor improvement in the incomes of the population whose sustenance depended mainly or exclusively on agriculture. Financial con-ditions which were particularly disadvantageous for agriculture occurred after 1996. The situation on the non-agricultural labour market was an im-portant factor which petrified the structure of our agriculture.The economic condition of the majority of agricultural holdings in Po-land deteriorated over that period, primarily because of the disadvanta-geous price relations and the lack of financial potential for modernisation of holdings and improvement of their productivity. Development capacity was manifested by less than 10% of holdings.Support for agriculture from public funds during the said period was small as compared with the existing needs, and was focused on funding benefits of social nature (KRUS). The policy of supporting prices and incomes of agricultural producers was pursued mainly with the use of trade policy in-struments (high import duties) and subsidies to credits for farmers. Between 1991 and as late as 2003 the balance in agri-food product turn-over was negative and a considerable part of the production potential in our agriculture was not used.Pessimistic moods, dissatisfaction with the agricultural policy and anxiety with respect to the effects of Poland's accession to the EU prevailed in rural areas.

4 Spjna polityka strukturalna rozwoju obszarw wiejskich i rolnictwa, MRiRW, Warszawa 1999.


14


15

1.3. SAPARD introduction to the European integration

With the commencement of formal EU membership negotiations, which took place in 1998, our country gained access to the special pre-accession aids, facilitating institutional and infrastructural adjustment, making the pro-cess of inclusion into the Community structures more efficient. It was a com-plex and expensive process, which had to be implemented for several years. The pre-accession SAPARD Programme (Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development) was to support both the preparation of institutional structures (legal standards and respective organisations), and the modernization of essential sectors of agriculture, agri-food processing and the rural infrastructure. By the end of 2006 the SAPARD beneficiaries received PLN 4.4 billion.5 The institutions built during the pre-accession period and the experience acquired in the implementation of the Community programmes facilitated efficient up-take of much greater Community aids allocated to Poland after 1 May 2004. the inflow of the first Union aids to agriculture, processing and to the rural areas had a noticeably positive impact on the rural populations attitude to the integration of our country with the EU.

As early as in 2001 increased exports of the agri-food products to the EU occurred, and by 2003 it led to the achievement of a positive balance in trade in these products.6 A very strong growth in the exports and positive balance in agri-food product turnover were observed in Poland in the first year of our membership in the EU. This trend was also maintained in the following years.

Poland signed the Accession Treaty in March 2003, and on 7-8 June 2003 the Polish society accepted our accession with the EU on 1 May 2004 by way of a referendum. The accession was supported by 66% of rural inhabitants (at the national level this indicator was 77%).

1.4. The first years of Polands membership in the EU the effects to agriculture and the rural areas

Despite the initial anxiety, fairly broadly expressed in rural areas, mem-bership in the European Union proved beneficial to the Polish agri-

5 The four measures taken into account in SAPARD: 1. Improvement in processing and marketing of food and fishery products, 2. Investments in agricultural holdings, 3. Development of rural infrastructure, 4. Diversification of economic activities in rural areas.

6 The perspective of the coming accession by Poland to the EU encouraged the foreign investors to make direct investments (FDI) in our country, inclusive with those in the agri-food sector. This sector was also EU supported at the pre-accession stage (SAPARD).

culture from the very first year. The report by the European Integration Committee Office, summing up the effects of the first year states: Polands accession to the EU brought improvement in the conditions in agriculture in the first months after accession. The Polish products proved very advanta-geous to the Community importers in terms of prices and confirmed quality. The growth in exports and demand for food and agricultural products from Poland contributed to a significant rise in purchase prices, which more than compensated the increase in the prices of the means of agricultural produc-tion. This improved the price scissors indicator. The direct payment disburse-ments allow improvement in the agricultural income situation. This should provide agriculture with a better start to consecutive production cycles.7 As early as 2003-2006 incomes of the farmer households (per capita) grew by 45%.

The very quick launching of direct payments should be considered as the success of the first months of membership, they were sought (submit-ted applications) by 1.4 million of agricultural producers. Among the 10 new members accepted by the Union in 2004, Poland was the first country to launch direct payments for farmers, despite the high complexity of the task due to the enormous number of beneficiaries. Apart from the noticeable increase in the EU fund inflow into Poland, allocated to the support of agriculture, the im-provement of the farmer and rural population income situation was fostered by the dynamics of the GDP growth (up to 6.6% in 2007), reduction in the rate of unemployment and the positive results of the implementation of other EU programmes, financed from the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund. The rural moods changed, optimism grew and so did the support for Polands integration with the EU.8

1.5. Streams of money transfers to agriculture

Both in the general opinion and in many press releases or presentations by politicians, the benefits from the EU membership are very often illustrat-ed solely by the volume of money transfer streams allocated to Poland from

7 W. Poczta, . Hardt, Skutki integracji Polski z UE dla rolnictwa i obszarw wiejskich prba oceny, [in:] Polska w Unii Europejskiej. Dowiadczenia pierwszego roku czonkostwa, UKIE, Warsza- wa 2005.

8 In the report Polish rural areas 2008 B. Fedyszak-Radziejowska wrote: Three years after accession to the EU both the rural inhabitants and the farmers believed there was a future for them, that changes oc-cur in the right direction and though their situation is only slightly better than that of the retired and the unemployed, they felt similar to the rest of the society in their opinions. After years of marginalisation via Brussels the Polish rural areas returned to Poland (B. Fedyszak-Radziejowska, Polska wie w cztery lata po akcesji wymiar demarginalizacji, [in:] I. Nurzyska, J. Wilkin (eds.), Polska wie 2008. Raport o stanie wsi, FDPA, Warszawa 2008.


16

the Union budget. This approach is particularly general in the assessment of benefits from the membership, enjoyed by the agriculture. This is i.a. the result of the fact that the majority of budget funds allocated to the pursu-ance of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) go straight to the farmers pocket. No wonder, therefore, that the farmers themselves or their political representatives strive to increase that part of the transfers, at the cost of in-direct support (e.g. by moving a part of the funds from pillar II (rural devel-opment) of the CAP to pillar I (particularly for direct payments). Obviously these transfers are very important, but they cannot overshadow other sources of benefits to farmers and the rural population, derived from the EU membership.

The CAP financial transfers from the EU to Poland grew quickly during the period of membership. During the first year of membership (remember-ing, however, that it was not a full year) they totalled EUR 298 million, in 2006 (by the end of the 2000-2006 EU financial perspective) they grew to EUR 2,155 million, and in 2012 they reached as much as EUR 4,739 mil-lion, i.e. almost 16 times more than at the beginning.9 The share of the CAP in the general financial transfers from the EU in 2004-2012 was 31.2% on the average.

Despite the significant Union support for the Polish agriculture and rural areas after accession, it was also necessary to increase the funds for this support from the national budget. This resulted both from the need to fund the supplementary payments for the farmers and the joint funding of mea-sures under pillar II of the CAP. The share of the expenditure on agriculture in the national budget grew threefold as compared with the period before accession (in 2008 it exceeded 8% of the total Polish budget).10 Taking ad-vantage of the benefits from the Common Agricultural Policy required therefore also a considerable financial effort covered from the national funds.

Since 2007, when Poland could participate in the implementation of the whole financial perspective (2007-2013), considerable regional differences appeared in the up-take of the Union funds allocated to the support of Polish agriculture. The greatest benefits were recorded in those voivode-ships which are featured by relatively well developed agriculture. The largest amount of payments wet to the following voivodeships: Mazowieckie, Wiel-kopolskie, Lubelskie and Podlaskie.

9 B. Wieliczko (ed.), Ocena wpywu budetu rolnego Wsplnoty na lata 2014-2020 na kondycj finansow krajowego rolnictwa i caa gospodark, IERiG PIB, Warszawa 2013, p. 21.

10 I. Nurzyska, Syntetyczny obraz krajowej i unijnej polityki wobec obszarw wiejskich, [in:] I. Nu-rzyska, J. Wilkin (eds.), Polska wie 2012. Raport o stanie wsi, FDPA, Warszawa 2012.


17

table 1.1. direct payment and the ProW 2007-2013 in million Pln

Voivodeship2007-2013

TOTALJPO UPO PROW

Dolnolskie 3,273 1.489 3.416 8.178,46

Kujawsko-pomorskie 3,869 1,923 3,806 9,598.35

lubelskie 5,000 2,180 6,345 13,525.11

lubuskie 1,472 573 1,895 3,940.40

dzkie 3,619 1,421 4,687 9,726.51

Maopolskie 1,891 654 3,559 6,104.61

Mazowieckie 7,007 2,802 9,138 18,946.91

opolskie 1,881 969 1,631 4,481.02

Podkarpackie 1,995 708 3,475 6,177.77

Podlaskie 3,807 1,656 4,338 9,800.99

Pomorskie 2,631 1,137 2,913 6,680.90

lskie 1,266 502 1,994 3,762.68

witokrzyskie 1,846 704 2,961 5,511.11

Warmisko-mazurskie 3,579 1,515 3,733 8,826.99

Wielkopolskie 6,419 3,000 7,131 16,549.74

Zachodniopomorskie 3,001 1,261 3,253 7,515.35

total 52,553.98 22,495.69 65,574.61 140,624.28

JPo single area payment, uPo supplementary area payment, ProW rural development Programme.Source: K. Zawaliska, Wpyw WPR na rozwj gospodarczy regionw Polski, [in:] I. Nurzyska, M. Drygas (eds.), Rozwj obszarw wiejskich w Polsce. Diagnozy, strategie, koncepcje polityki, IrWir Pan, Warszawa 2011.

Apart from the agricultural policy, from the very beginning of our pres-ence in the EU the farmers and rural inhabitants could benefit from measures under other EU supported policies or programmes. Such support was allocat-ed also i.a. to the infrastructure development policy, the environmental pro-tection policy, the human resource development policy, the entrepreneurship policy and many others. All the rural inhabitants benefit from the improve-ment of the macro-economic situation in the country, illustrated by such in-dicators as the rate of GDP growth, the rate of unemployment and the rate of inflation. The positive effect of Polands membership in the EU on these indicators is noticed and acknowledged by the economic growth analysts, but its effect with respect to single sectors of the economy and the society, e.g. agriculture and the rural areas, is not always noticed. After accession to the EU Poland experienced an acceleration of the economic growth rate, the Polish currency was strengthened, the inflow of direct foreign investments grew, the dynamics of exports and domestic investment improved and many other positive effects occurred. The fact that Poland did not register any drop


18

in the GDP during the period of crisis which emerged in 2008, is assigned, apart from good macro-economic policy of the government and the central bank, to a considerable inflow of the Union funds to our country and their proper use.

When assessing the results of the first five years of Polands membership in the EU, the authors of the report estimated that as a result of the integration, the GPD in the new Member States grew additionally by 1.75% annually.11 Research done later by K. Zawaliska showed clearly the development pro-moting impact of funds and measures under pillars I and II of the CAP in Po-land. This impact, particularly with respect to the GDP, real income and con-sumption, was the strongest in the poorest voivodeships, but at the same time these are the voivodeships where the agriculture plays relatively a more essen-tial role: Lubelskie, Podlaskie, Warmisko-mazurskie and witokrzyskie.12 Expenditure on the CAP implementation also causes a multiplier effect; it stimulates income growth not only in agriculture, but also in industry and services. In Poland, the CAP related instruments and funds affect the im-provement of the socio-financial cohesion in the regional and group pat-tern. They foster improvement in the situation of the population particularly in those voivodeships where the level of incomes before accession belonged to the lowest in the country. During the post-accession period the incomes of agricultural producers in Poland grew by about 120%. Over a half of these incomes is acquired from subsidies, among which the direct payments are the most important.

Despite the cohesion policy pursued for many years, there is a progressing economic differentiation between regions within the EU. Without the cohe-sion policy this differentiation would probably be much greater. The essential role of money transfers under the CAP, which are addressed to agricultural regions and those happen to be the least developed in Poland, does not only promote improvement in agricultural incomes, it fosters rural development and also contributes to the improvement of economic and spatial cohesion in our country. The Podlaskie and Lubelskie voivodeships are a good illustration of that influence.

1.6. Transformations in the agricultural holding structure

Poland inherited from the former, socialist system, a huge number of small area agricultural holdings in the private sector (over 2 million) and

11 5 lat Polski w Unii Europejskiej, UKIE, Warszawa 2009, p. 15.12 K. Zawaliska, op. cit., p. 29.


19

about 2.5 thousand farms in the so-called state-owned agricultural sector, particularly in the state-owned farm sector. Inasmuch as the first sector (in-dividual agricultural holdings) was a retention store of considerable labour resources, a basis for self-supply of agricultural produce for about 1/4 of the inhabitants of the country and in general it served as a buffer or shock absorber for the system transformations, the second one (the state-owned farms) became a basis (resource) for the newly re-emerging sector of large private farms.

In 2003, on the eve of accession, there were 2,172 thousand agricultural holdings in Poland. In view of the high rate of unemployment and difficult conditions in the rural areas and in the whole economy, the farmers were unwilling to sell or lease land during the pre-accession period. The com-ing accession also offered hope for increasing land prices and additional benefits for farmers from the CAP, which proved true. During the 2003-2010 period the greatest drop in the number of agricultural holdings, reaching about 60%, was recorded in the group of holdings with the least surface area: 0-2 ha. These holdings were too small to benefit from direct payments and from other CAP instruments. The number of agricultural holdings with a 2-30 ha surface area changed fairly slowly and the number of larger holdings of 30 ha and more grew. Since 2003 we can observe in Poland land transfer from small and medium size agricultural holdings to larger holdings, particularly such with surface areas of 50 ha and more. These agricultural holdings are the providers of the majority of commercial production of Polish agriculture. However, the indicator of land concentration in large agricultural hold-ings (50 ha and more) in Poland is still low as compared with other EU Member States (about 30%). In this respect we only have the 24th position in the EU. Lower land concentration in the EU is only in: Cyprus, Greece, Slovenia and Malta. The three leading positions in terms of land concentra-tion in large agricultural holdings are held by: Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Great Britain.13

According to W. Jzwiak, larger holdings, with the size of 16 and more ESU, displaying competitive capacity and potential for development, pro-vided about 63% of the national agricultural produce in Poland in 2010. These holdings did not exceed 5% of the total number of agricultural holdings in our country.14

13 GUS 2013, p. 18.14 W. Jzwiak, Polskie rolnictwo i gospodarstwa rolne w pierwszej i drugiej dekadzie XXI wieku,

IERiG PIB, Warszawa 2012, p. 31.


20

1.7. Other positive results of accession in terms of agriculture and the rural areas in Poland

As of 2004, in the consecutive Reports on the Rural Areas, we presented the results of accession to the EU for Polish agriculture and the rural areas. A relatively full picture of these results was presented in the report Rural Poland 2012. This report supplements certain information and conclusions in this area. Apart from the effects of the accession on the rural areas and agri-culture specified earlier, the following should be mentioned:

Enhanced ecological awareness and understanding among the farmers. The majority of the CAP measures are associated with environmental re-quirements, starting with the direct payments through agri-environmental programmes.Dissemination of knowledge about the importance of animal welfare and implementation of measures to improve that welfare.General inclusion of farmers into the banking-financial system. The use of direct payments and other payments related to the implementation of the CAP required the possession of a bank account, and the majority of in-vestment projects some funding scheme and co-financing from various sources. Prior to the accession only a small part of farmers had an account with a bank and used the opportunities offered by the modern financial system. The number of financial institutions which offered micro credits to rural inhabitants grew considerably.Noticeable improvement in the technical, social and economic infrastruc-ture in rural areas. Over 60% of the rural population use the Internet and the so-called digital exclusion in rural areas is no longer an essential prob-lem and a barrier to rural development.The improvement of the living conditions, infrastructure included, in rural

area is confirmed by the positive balance of migration to rural areas, on-going in Poland for the past decade, and by the satisfaction of the rural inhabitants with living there, not in towns (indicators of the order of 80-90%).15 We may observe significant approximation of indicators illustrating the social moods in rural areas and in towns, as we reported in consecutive Reports on Rural Areas. The feeling of hurt and deprivation among rural inhabit-ants lessened. The rural family income indicator, converted into per capita value, remains for the past few years at the level of about 80% of the aver-age family income at national level. In view of the lower level of education of the rural population, low productivity of labour in agriculture and the cost

15 I. Nurzyska, Syntetyczny obraz..., op. cit., p. 200.


21

of living in rural areas slightly lower than in towns, the above mentioned dif-ferences in incomes do not cause anxiety and they have objective reasons.

1.8. Development of the agri-food industry and trade in foodstuffs

The processes which took place in the agri-food industry and in other food economy sectors were extremely important to the development of Polish ag-riculture. The opening of the Polish economy to foreign competition, which occurred as early as the first year of transformation, followed by gradually growing participation in the integrated European market, enhanced the impor-tance of competitiveness of the Polish agriculture and the agri-food industry. Adequate development of that industry was prerequisite both for the growth of the domestic demand for agricultural products and for broadening the ex-port opportunities of the Polish economy. The high dynamics of export and the positive balance in agri-food product turnover, maintained since 2003, is sometimes perceived primarily as the success of the Polish agriculture. With-out prejudice to the contribution of agriculture into this success, it should be highlighted, however, that it is primarily the effect of modernization and quick development of the agri-food industry and inclusion of the com-mercial agricultural farms into the modern food chains (processing and distribution). R. Urban says: The agriculture is a net importer, the balance of trade in agricultural products is negative, amounting to almost EUR 0.9 billion, and the food industry is a net exporter, reaching a surplus of exports over imports reaching about EUR 3 billion. () It may be assessed that the agri-food processing industry is the main source of economic potential of the Polish food economy and its competitive capacity.16

This processing industry fell into a crisis in the early nineties, but later on it displayed dynamics of growth which was much higher than that of the agricul-tural production. In the past decade (2001-2010) the rate of growth in the food production industry was, on the average, almost twice that of the dynamics of agricultural production.

1.9. The second side of the balance: problems to solve

A decade is not a long period in the history of societies, but in relation to the Polish agriculture and rural areas the decade of EU membership

16 R. Urban, Ocena spjnoci procesw rozwojowych rolnictwa i przemysu spoywczego, Zagadnienia Ekonomiki Rolnej, 1/2012.


22

is a whole epoch. During this time our agriculture and its environs encoun-tered changes which usually take decades to accomplish. While appreciating these changes and achievements, it is necessary to indicate to several areas and spheres of phenomena, where the changes are too slow and the past so-lutions of institutional or political nature fail altogether or their effects are meagre. The most important areas of negligence and the ensuing problems are as follows:

1. Ineffective structure of the Polish agriculture. As we all know, the improvement of structures in economy is a major source of economic growth and development. Unsuitable structures do not allow making full use of the possessed resources. Structural adjustments are usually forced and controlled by the market mechanism, but an important role is also played by the eco-nomic policy, as well as other policies, e.g. the social policy of the state. The past agricultural policy pursued in our country, inclusive with the period of the CAP implementation in our country, did not extort a respectively quick improvement of the structure of Polish agriculture, fostering a major increase in the productivity of the means of production, particularly of labour. Em-ployment in agriculture in Poland is excessive and it decreases slowly. To a major extent this is the result of both the agricultural and social policy pursued with respect to the agricultural population. Protection and support to small agricultural holdings, the majority of which have no chance of develop-ment as production entities in agriculture, exclusion of the farmers from a vast part of the tax system, KRUS and excessively easy access to the CAP instru-ments, encourage thousands of farmers to remain in agriculture as a so-cial niche. This niche includes less productive labour resources, a consider-able part of agricultural land and other components of agricultural production assets. In the opinion of the leading agricultural economists, only about 100 thousand agricultural holdings in Poland, which achieve the economic size of 16 ESU (European Size Units) and more, will be capable of developing and reaching parity incomes.17 Additional 100-150 thousand may still provide commercial production, but their existence will largely depend on acquisition of additional income from non-agricultural sources. The relatively slow rate of structural transformations in agriculture, which does not foster growth in commercial production, may pose a barrier to the development of the food-processing industry, or cause its growing dependence on the imports of the agricultural raw materials.

2. Land policy. The EU does not have any clear policy addressed to this basic means of production, i.e. agricultural land, but the CAP instruments have a significant impact on land management. The burden of the land policy

17 Such a conclusion is formulated i.a. by: W. Poczta, Przemiany w rolnictwie, [in:] I. Nurzyska, J. Wil-kin (ed.), Polska wie 2010. Raport o stanie wsi, FDPA, Warszawa 2010, and also W. Jzwiak, op. cit.


23

pursuance is borne by individual member states. In Poland and in numerous other countries the EU does not pursue any clear and coherent policy in this area. The quick loss of agricultural land in many countries, including Poland, is the most noticeable and the most alarming result of this status quo. This production resource is not sufficiently protected in our country. During the post-war period Poland encountered a loss of over 5 million ha of farm-land. This was more than the surface area of farmland in the Czech Republic and 2.5 times the farmland area in the Netherlands. Over 2002-2010 there was further depletion (according to the Central Statistical Office) of 1.4 million ha of farmland in our country, which accounts for 8.3% of total farmland.18 A large part of land, still classified as farmland, shall probably never used for agricultural purposes again, due to its fragmentation and disadvantageous physical planning. There are no efficient mechanisms in Poland, extort-ing the transfer of land from scarcely productive agricultural holdings or such which do not make appropriate use of the land to agricultural holdings which are more effective in this scope. The EU payments, linked to agricultural land, have a strong impact on land prices and strengthen its capitalization. Upon accession the prices of agricultural land in private trade grew at a rate of almost 40% per year, while in 1996-2004 this rate was only 7% per annum. This rate had no justification at all in the dynamics of agricul-tural production.

3. The problem of small agricultural holdings. Over half of agricul-tural holdings in our country should be counted among those. Only a small part of them has any chance for development in agriculture, but both for social and political reasons these holdings are included into the Common Agricultural Policy and moreover they benefit from certain instruments ad-dressed specifically to them. The effectiveness of these instruments is low, as e.g. lump sum payments for semi-subsistence agricultural farms, intro-duced in 2004. I have already mentioned in point 1 of this paper that the unsolved problem of small agricultural holdings obstructs the rationalisa-tion of the structure of Polish agriculture. I believe that agricultural policy, both that pursued by the EU and our national one with respect to small agricultural holdings is inefficient, ineffective and it generates wrong (irrational and improper) signals. In the new EU financial perspective for 2014-2020 only relatively small changes have been introduced into this part of the CAP, which do not offer conditions for solving the small agricultural holding problem.19

18 Land Use: The General Agricultural Census 2010, Central Statistical Office, Warsaw 2011.19 A broad review of the economic and social problems encountered in small agricultural holdings in

Poland is presented in the series of articles published in the quarterly Wie i Rolnictwo, 2013, No 2.


24

1.10. Final remarks

The passing decade of Polands membership in the EU was undoubtedly the best and most advantageous period in the history of Polish agriculture. Never before had the rural areas and agricultural holdings in our country received so many funds supporting investments, modernization and im-proving the living conditions of the rural inhabitants. the funds allocated to Poland from the Community 2014-2020 budget, particularly those related to the CAP and the cohesion policy, create real basis for continuation of the positive trends in the development of Polish agriculture and rural areas in the coming years. The defined funds have been allocated to Poland, but their effective use is a task to do and an opportunity to win. Function-ing within the EU framework and the pursuance of the Community policies, with particular focus on the common agricultural policy, do not diminish the importance of national policies, complete with the agricultural policy, which broadly determine the benefits from European integration. In my opinion, the awareness of these opportunities and capacities, and the use of benefits thus gained, is insufficient in our country.


25

Izasaw Frenkel*

Chapter 2. Population of rural areas

This Chapter presents the overview of the basic changes in terms of situ-ation, demographic structure and professional activity of the rural population over the period of the recent 2-3 years compared to the previously observed trends, that partially cover the time since the transformation. Similarly to the Report Rural Poland 2012 the tendencies occurring in the Polish rural areas are being compared to the changes occurring in the Polish urban areas and in other EU Member States. When analysing the background of changes in Poland the attempts were also made to determine their links with Polands EU membership. This study used mainly the current Central Statistical Office (CSO) demographic and occupational statistics and Eurostat data. Addition-ally, certain results of the 2010 Agricultural Census (PSR 2010), the 2002 Na-tional Census of Population and Housing (NSP 2002) and the 2011 National Census of Population and Housing (NSP 2011) were taken into account.

2.1. Change tendencies in the rural population numbers1

In 2008, after ten years of downfall the Polands population number has started to grow. However, the tendency has appeared to last very short time because after an increase in 2008-2010 (0,2%) the population growth in 2010-2012 was practically at the zero level with the real growth only in 2011 (by about 8 thousand), whereas in 2012 the Polands population number decreased (by about 5 thousand).2 In both periods the differences in dynamics of rural

* Izasaw Frenkel, Institute of Rural and Agricultural Development, Polish Academy of Science.1 In this paper the rural areas are meant to be the areas situated beyond the administrative limits of ur-

ban areas. Terms rural areas and countryside are equivalent. Unless otherwise stated, the data provided apply to the population actually residing within a given territorial division unit. This category includes the population permanently residing (registered for permanent residence) within a given unit and the population staying temporarily there (registered for temporary residence) for more than 3 months (see Demographic Yearbook 2013, CSO, Warsaw 2013, p. 67). The registration criterion applicable to this definition means that the category of population actually residing (also referred to as actual population) includes also all persons registered in Poland but staying abroad (regardless of the period of their absence).

2 According to the CSO preliminary data further drop in population number also occurred in 2013 and it was much more pronounced than in the preceding year (by about 37 thousand) (see Basic information of the demography of Poland up to 2013, CSO, Warsaw 2014). 27

and urban population lasting for over two decades remained the same: as pre-viously, the number of urban population has been falling while that of rural population was growing. The pace of decrease in urban population number has accelerated considerably (from 0.1% in 2008-2010 to 0.4% in 2010-2012) whereas the growth of rural population remained at the same level of 0.6% throughout both periods.

Table 2.1. Population according to place of residence (urban-rural areas) and rural population according to voivodeships in 2008, 2010 and 2012a

VoivodeshipsIn thousands Increment (loss), [%]

Rural population as % of total population

20082010b

2012 2008-2010A2010B-2012 2008

2010b2012

A B A BPoland 38136 38200 38530 38533 0.2 0.0 38.9 39.1 39.2 39.4

urban areas 23288 23264 23429 23336 -0.1 -0.4 x x x x

rural areas 14848 14936 15100 15197 0.6 0.6 x x x x

Dolnolskie 849 861 877 886 1.4 1.1 29.5 29.9 30.1 30.4

Kujawsko-pomorskie 808 817 827 834 1.0 0.8 39.1 39.5 39.4 39.8

lubelskie 1156 1149 1166 1160 -0.6 -0.4 53.5 53.4 53.5 53.6

lubuskie 366 369 373 376 0.9 0.6 36.3 36.5 36.5 36.7

dzkie 910 912 917 919 0.2 0.1 35.7 36.0 36.1 36.4

Maopolskie 1670 1682 1695 1715 0.7 1.2 50.8 50.8 50.8 51.1

Mazowieckie 1840 1857 1886 1899 0.9 0.7 35.4 35.4 35.8 35.8

opolskie 491 491 484 483 -0.1 -0.4 47.6 47.7 47.6 47.8

Podkarpackie 1240 1234 1246 1249 -0.5 0.3 59.1 58.6 58.5 58.6

Podlaskie 481 471 479 475 -2.3 -0.7 40.4 39.6 39.8 39.7

Pomorskie 744 763 776 793 2.4 2.1 33.5 34.0 34.1 34.6

lskie 1011 1022 1027 1036 1.1 0.8 21.8 22.0 22.2 22.4

witokrzyskie 697 696 704 702 -0.1 -0.2 54.7 55.0 54.9 55.1

Warmisko-mazurskie 572 575 589 590 0.4 0.2 40.1 40.3 40.5 40.7

Wielkopolskie 1483 1509 1519 1542 1.7 1.5 43.6 44.1 44.1 44.5

Zachodnio-pomorskie 529 529 535 538 -0.1 0.5 31.2 31.2 31.0 31.2

a as of 31.12, b 2010 a data before adjustments taking into account the results of 2011 census, 2010 B data after taking into account the results of 2011 census.

source: Demographic Yearbook 2009, 2011 i 2013, cso, Warsaw 2009, 2011 and 2013, data from the cso website (www.stat.gov.pl - demographic database) and own calculations.

In 2010-2012 the number of the rural population increased in 12 voivode-ships: from 0.1% in d voivodeship to 2.1% in Pomorskie voivodeship;

2. PoPulatIon of rural areas

28

while in other voivodeships a decrease in population was reported: by 0.2% in witokrzyskie voivodeship, by 0.4% in Lubelskie and Opolskie voivode-ships and by 0.7% in Podlaskie voivodeship. As in 2008-2010 an increase and a decrease were found in the same voivodeships with the exception of Pod-karpackie and Zachodniopomorskie voivodeships where the rural population number decreased at that time.3

As in the case of the absolute number of rural population, in the years 2010-2012 its share in the total number of population grew further from 39.2% up to 39.4%. An increase was recorded in all voivodeships, except for Mazowieckie voivodeship where this share has not changed (35.8%) and Podlaskie voivodeship where it slightly decreased (from 39.8% to 39.7%). In 2012 the proportion of rural population ranged from 22.4% in Silesia voivode-ship to 58.6% in Podkarpackie voivodeship. Also in Maoposkie voivodeship (51.1%), Lubelskie voivodeship (53.6%) and witokrzyskie voivodeship (55.1%) proportions exceeding 50% were recorded. Differences among the voivodeships in the proportion of rural population were very similar to those in 2008 and 2010 (Table 2.1).

2.2. Demographic factors of rural population changes4

2.2.1. Natural increase of population

The fall in population growth rate among the rural population observed in 2008-2010 has significantly accelerated in the following years: generally, the natural increase of population in rural areas fell from 1.4 per 1000 population in 2010 to 0.7 in 2012 (in the urban areas natural increase by 0.6 turned into a fall by 0.4, whereas on the national level the growth of 0.9 has been reduced to zero).

In 2012, the positive natural increase of population broken down into voivodeships was reported in nine of them and a negative one in five voivode-ships (namely, Lubelskie, dzkie, Opolskie, Podlaskie and witokrzyskie voivodeships). In the remaining two voivodeships (Lower Silesia and Mazo-wieckie) the natural increase was nil. Breakdown into the voivodeships with positive and negative natural increase was identical as in 2010, except for

3 When comparing the changes in population numbers in 20082010 and 20102012 the 2010 state was taken as a basis in two CSO versions: before the adjustments resulting from the 2011 National Census and after the adjustments. The data of the first version were used for calculation of the dynamics of changes in 20082010, whereas the second version was used for the calculations of 20102012 statistics. All popu-lation number data refer to the state as on 31 December.

4 Unless otherwise stated all data provided in this subsection and in subsection 2.2 are derived from the current population statistics. For the year 2010 the version adjusted based on 2011 Census was adopted.


29

Lower Silesia and Mazowieckie voivodeships where the natural increase was positive at that time. In all voivodeships with positive natural increase it was lower in 2012, whereas in the voivodeships with negative natural increase it was higher than in 2010 (Table 2.2).

table 2.2. rate of natural increase in urban and rural areas and urban-rural net migra-tion rate in rural areas by voivodeships in 2008, 2010 and 2012

Voivodeships

Natural increase Rural-urban NMR in rural areasurban areas rural areas

2008 2010 2012 2008 2010 2012 2008 2010 2012

per 1000 of urban populationa per 1000 of rural population

a

Poland 0.5 0.6 -0.4 1.5 1.4 0.7 2.6 3.0 2.3

Dolnolskie -0.6 -0.5 -1.6 0.7 0.9 0.0 5.1 6.0 5.1

Kujawsko-pom. 0.3 0.1 -1.0 3.6 2.5 2.0 2.8 3.0 2.4

lubelskie 1.4 1.4 0.7 -1.6 -1.6 -1.8 0.0 0.3 -0.3

lubuskie 1.4 1.1 0.4 2.3 1.9 1.3 2.5 2.9 2.5

dzkie -2.8 -2.4 -3.4 -1.5 -1.9 -2.2 2.9 3.7 2.6

Maopolskie 1.0 1.3 0.2 3.3 3.1 2.4 2.8 3.3 2.7

Mazowieckie 1.3 1.8 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.0 3.2 4.0 2.8

opolskie -0.4 -0.5 -1.2 -0.8 -0.9 -1.2 2.1 1.5 1.4

Podkarpackie 2.0 2.0 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.3

Podlaskie 1.9 1.9 1.1 -2.2 -2.7 -3.2 -0.1 0.4 -0.5

Pomorskie 1.8 1.8 0.4 7.0 6.4 5.1 4.7 5.4 4.6

lskie -0.4 -0.2 -1.3 0.4 0.9 0.2 4.7 5.1 4.2

witokrzyskie -0.6 -0.5 -1.7 -1.1 -1.8 -2.1 0.5 0.9 0.7

Warmisko-maz. 1.7 1.2 0.0 3.5 3.1 1.5 -0.8 0.5 -1.1

Wielkopolskie 1.9 2.0 0.8 4.1 4.0 3.1 4.7 4.6 4.2

Zachodniopom. 0.6 -0.2 -1.1 2.2 2.0 1.5 2.2 2.6 1.2

a In 2008 r. - registered for permanet stay, in 2010 and 2012 actually residing (this also applies to the demo-graphic rates in other Tables). All 2010 rates have been calculated for the population number after recalculation based on 2011 census results. for the majority of voivodeships they do not differ from the data available before recalculation. As for the vital events minor differences occur in the towns of Lubelskie, Lubuskie, dzkie, and Podlaskie voivodeships where the natural increase was 1.5, 1.2, -2.5 and 2.0, respectively, before recalculation, whereas in the rural areas only in Pomorskie voivodeship where it amounted to 6.5. for migration the differen-ces between the data before and after recalculation also are very low and apply to the nationwide rate which amounted to 3.1 before recalculation and the rates in Dolnolskie and Pomorskie voivodeships where they amounted to 6.1 and 5.5 at that time.

source: Demographic Yearbook 2009, 2011 and 2013. cso. Warsaw 2009, 2011 and 2013; data derived from the CSO website (www.stat.gov.pl baza demografia) and own calculations.


30

2.2.2. Births and women fertility

In 2010-2012 the decreasing natural population growth in rural areas was caused by a drop in birth rates with the mortality rate remaining at the same level. On the other hand, the birth rate drop itself was due to a decreasing total fertility rate of women5 as the number of women in reproductive age (15-49 year old), including the proportion of women in the most procreative age (20-34 year old), almost has not changed. In the years 2010-2012:

the birth rate in rural areas fell from 11.4 to 10.7 per 1 000 population (from 10.3 to 9.6 in the urban areas);the total fertility rate of women in rural areas fell from 1.51 to 1.43 (from 1.29 to 1.21 in the urban areas); the number of women in reproductive age rose by about 3 thousand in the rural areas, including about 2 000 in the most procreative age (it fell by 129 thousand and 110 thousand, respectively, in the urban areas); the proportion of women in the most procreative age remained at the same level of 46.2% of all women in reproductive age in the rural areas (it fell from 48.9% to 48.1% in the urban areas); birth and fertility rates of women decreased in all voivodeships, except for Opolskie voivodeship where both rates have remained at the same level (Table 2.3 and 2.4).

table 2.3. selected vital and migration statistics of population as well as structure of women in reproductive age (15-49) in urban and rural areas in 2008, 2010 and 2012

Specification

Urban areas Rural areas

20082010a

2012 20082010a

2012A B A B

Vital statistics per 1000 population

live births 10.4 10.4 10.3 9.6 11.6 11.4 11.4 10.7

deaths 9.9 9.8 9.7 10.0 10.1 10.1 10.0 10.0

natural increase 0.5 0.6 0.6 -0.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 0.7

total fertility rate of womenb 1.30 1.31 1.29 1.21 1.53 1.49 1.51 1.43

fertility of womenc aged

15-19 15.2 14.6 14.1 13.5 17.6 16.1 16.6 14.9

20-24 51.4 47.4 45.3 40.9 74.7 67.6 72.2 64.4

5 The number of children a woman would have had during her whole reproductive life period (assum-ing that she would have had children at the particular phases of this period with an intensity observed in the year of survey).


31

SpecificationUrban areas Rural areas

20082010a

2012 20082010a

2012A B A B

25-29 89.9 89.1 88.2 82.1 107.3 103.0 105.8 100.9

30-34 72.6 75.4 75.4 71.6 72.2 74.5 71.4 69.5

35-39 28.1 31.7 31.8 31.0 28.4 30.5 29.7 29.7

40-44 5.0 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.4 6.5

45-49 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3

number of women in reproductive age thousand

5927 5772 5790 5660 3693 3694 3725 3728

including those aged 20-34 thousand 2879 2814 2831 2721 1700 1725 1722 1724

% 48.6 48.7 48.9 48.1 46.0 46.7 46.2 46.2

Infant deaths per 1000 of live births 5.6 5.0 x 4.5 5.6 5.0 x 4.8

life expectancy

men 71.6 72.6 x 73.1 70.7 71.4 x 72.1

women 79.8 80.6 x 81.0 80.2 80.7 x 81.0

women - men 8.2 8.0 x 7.8 9.5 9.3 x 8.9

Internal migration for permanent stayd thousand

from rural areas to towns 91.5 93.8 x 92.2 -91.5 -93.8 x -92.2

from towns to rural areas -130.4 -139.7 x -127.6 130.4 139.7 x 127.6

net migration -38.9 -46.0 x -35.4 38.9 46.0 x 35.4

Permanent international migrationd thousand

emigration 21.1 13.2 x 15.9 9.1 4.2 x 5.3

immigration 10.9 11.0 x 10.6 4.3 4.2 x 3.9

net migration -10.1 -2.2 x -5.2 -4.7 0.1 x -1.4

staying abroad temporarilyde thousand 62.5 53.1f x 45.7 25.8 15.8f x 9.6

a 2010 a data before adjustments taking into account the results of 2011 census, 2010 B data after the results of 2011 census have been taken into account.b number of children born by a women during the whole reproduction period.c number of live births per 1000 women at a given age.d Persons who notified their migration to the general registry.e More than 3 months.f In 2009.

source: Demographic Yearbook 2009, 2011 and 2013, cso, Warsaw 2009, 2011 and 2013, and own calculations.

Table 2.3 cont.


32

tabl

e 2.

4. B

irths

and

wom

en fe

rtilit

y in

the

rura

l are

as b

y vo

ivod

eshi

ps in

200

8, 2

010

and

2012

Voiv

odes

hips

Live

birt

hspe

r 100

0 po

pula

tion

Tota

l fer

tility

rate

of w

omen

aFe

rtili

ty in

rura

l are

as a

s %

of

fert

ility

in to

wns

2008

2010

b

2012

2008

2010

b

2012

2008

2010

b

2012

AB

AB

AB

Pol

and

11.6

11.4

11.4

10.7

1.53

1.49

1.51

1.43

117.

511

3.5

116.

511

7.6

Dol

nol

ski

e11

.111

.010

.810

.01.

411.

401.

391.

3111

0.5

110.

811

2.4

113.

5K

ujaw

sko-

Pom

orsk

ie12

.812

.011

.911

.21.

641.

521.

571.

4912

5.9

116.

912

2.9

127.

7lu

bels

kie

11.0

10.6

10.6

10.1

1.55

1.46

1.47

1.41

122.

711

3.5

117.

412

0.1

lubu

skie

12.1

11.6

11.5

10.7

1.52

1.45

1.49

1.40

114.

911

3.3

117.

311

2.3

dz

kie

10.9

10.7

10.7

10.2

1.52

1.46

1.50

1.45

123.

411

5.1

117.

712

0.9

Ma

opol

skie

12.1

11.9

11.8

11.2

1.56

1.51

1.53

1.45

122.

811

6.8

121.

212

3.3

Maz

owie

ckie

11.2

11.7

11.6

10.8

1.55

1.59

1.58

1.48

113.

611

4.7

114.

511

4.5

opo

lski

e8.

98.

99.

19.

11.

141.

131.

171.

1710

0.7

99.5

101.

910

4.7

Pod

karp

acki

e11

.010

.810

.810

.31.

421.

381.

411.

3511

6.2

114.

111

9.3

118.

2P

odla

skie

10.3

10.1

10.0

9.4

1.54

1.47

1.47

1.38

128.

612

0.0

120.

912

0.5

Pom

orsk

ie14

.714

.013

.812

.91.

841.

721.

741.

6413

1.1

124.

012

8.7

130.

3

lsk

ie10

.410

.910

.810

.31.

351.

391.

421.

3510

4.6

106.

110

7.3

108.

1

wi

tokr

zysk

ie10

.610

.210

.19.

51.

441.

371.

391.

3112

0.7

113.

111

5.7

115.

8W

arm

isk

o-M

azur

skie

12.7

12.1

12.0

10.9

1.64

1.56

1.58

1.45

123.

712

0.8

126.

112

6.0

Wie

lkop

olsk

ie13

.112

.712

.711

.81.

651.

581.

611.

5012

0.8

113.

411

7.0

118.

5Za

chod

niop

omor

skie

11.7

11.5

11.5

10.6

1.50

1.48

1.52

1.42

114.

311

9.0

125.

712

5.5

coe

ffici

ent o

f var

iatio

n11

.810

.410

.19.

010

.18.

88.

47.

3x

xx

xa n

umbe

r of c

hild

ren

born

by

a w

oman

dur

ing

the

who

le re

prod

uctio

n pe

riod;

b 20

10 a

d

ata

befo

re 2

011

cen

sus

resu

lts a

djus

tmen

ts, 2

010

B

dat

a af

ter t

he re

sults

of 2

011

cen

sus

have

bee

n ta

ken

into

acc

ount

.

sou

rce:

Dem

ogra

phic

Yea

rboo

k 20

09, 2

011

and

2013

, cs

o, W

arsa

w 2

009,

201

1 an

d 20

13, a

nd o

wn

calc

ulat

ions

.


33

The following tendencies also deserve to be taken into consideration:Differences between urban and rural areas in fertility terms quickly dimin-ish: in 2002 the fertility rate of women in rural areas was over one third higher than in the urban areas; in 2006 it was higher by one fifth, whereas in 2010-2012 by about 17-18%. The smallest and the highest differences were found in Opolskie voivodeship and Pomorskie voivodeship, i.e. 4.7% and 30.3% respectively, in 2012.The tendency for the voivodeship differences to diminish both in terms of birth rate and fertility prevails: in the rural areas the variation coefficient of the birth rate fell from 11.8% in 2008 to 9.0% in 2012, whereas for the fertility rate it fell from 10.1% to 7.3%.Similarly to the women in the urban areas, the growing number of women in rural areas decide to delay motherhood till the older age, mostly till the age of 25-29 years (while a decade earlier it was at the age of 20-24 years).The birth rate is increasing among the women aged 30-34 as well; in 2012 in the rural areas it was higher by 1/10 than among women aged 20-24 while at the beginning of the century it was lower almost by half (in 2012 the birth rate among women aged 30-34 in the urban areas was by 3/4 higher than that of women aged 20-24, and it was lower by about 1/3 at the beginning of the century). The fertility of women aged 35-39 also has increased; in rural areas it was by 15% higher in 2012 than at the beginning of the century (it was higher by about 2/3 in the towns).In 2012 in the rural areas the total fertility rate was by about 1/3 below the level of replacement rate6 (by 42% lower in the urban areas); also in all voivodeships it was below this level and ranged from about 22% in the Pomeranian voivodeship to about 44% in Opolskie voivodeship (in the urban areas of the Mazowieckie voivodeship and witokrzyskie and Za-chodniopomorskie voivodeships it ranged from about 38% to about 46%, respectively).In 2012 the total fertility rate in the Polish rural areas was below the aver-age total fertility rate in the EU Member States, and lower as compared to the majority of countries in this region. In all EU Member States the fertility rate did not ensure the replacement rate, although in a few of them (Finland, France, Ireland, Island, Sweden and Great Britain) it was close to that rate (Table 2.5).

6 About 2.1 births per woman.


34

tabl

e 2.

5. s

elec

ted

ferti

lity

and

mor

talit

y ra

tes

and

popu

latio

n ag

e st

ruct

ure

in th

e e

u M

embe

r sta

tes

in 2

012

Mem

ber s

tate

tota

lferti

lity

rate

of

wom

en

aver

age

life

expe

ctan

cyd

iffer

ence

in li

fe

expe

ctan

cy o

f m

en a

nd w

omen

dea

ths

of in

fant

s pe

r 100

0 of

live

bi

rths

Per

cent

age

of

popu

latio

n ag

ed

65 a

nd m

orec

Med

ian

agec

men

wom

en

eu

28

1.57

a76

.7a

82.5

a5.

83.

9eu

27,a

17.9

41.5

eu

27

eu

15

1.56

a77

.4e

u16

,b83

.0e

u16

,b5.

63.

4a18

.7e

u16

42.5

aus

tria

1.44

77.7

82.8

5.1

3.2

17.8

42.4

Bel

gium

1.79

77.1

82.4

5.3

3.3

17.3

41.0

Bul

garia

1.50

70.6

77.4

6.8

7.8

18.8

42.7

cro

atia

1.51

73.2

79.9

6.7

4.7a

17.9

41.7

cyp

rus

1.39

78.2

82.6

4.4

3.1a

12.8

35.8

cze

ch r

epub

lic1.

4574

.380

.46.

12.

616

.240

.1

den

mar

k1.

7377

.481

.44.

03.

417

.340

.8

est

onia

1.55

70.7

80.9

10.2

3.6

17.6

40.0

finl

and

1.80

76.9

82.9

6.0

2.4

18.1

42.2

fran

ce2.

00a

78.0

a85

.0a

7.0

3.3

17.1

40.4

Gre

ece

1.34

77.3

82.6

5.3

3.4a

19.7

42.6

spa

in1.

3278

.784

.76.

03.

517

.440

.7

the

net

herla

nds

1.72

78.6

82.3

3.7

3.6a

16.2

41.3

Irela

nd2.

0178

.082

.44.

43.

5a11

.935

.0

Icel

and

2.04

80.6

83.4

2.8

0.9a

12.9

35.3

lith

uani

a1.

6067

.778

.911

.23.

918

.141

.6

luxe

mbo

urg

1.57

78.3

83.0

4.7

2.5

14.0

39.1


35

Mem

ber s

tate

tota

lferti

lity

rate

of

wom

en

aver

age

life

expe

ctan

cyd

iffer

ence

in li

fe

expe

ctan

cy o

f m

en a

nd w

omen

dea

ths

of in

fant

s pe

r 100

0 of

live

bi

rths

Per

cent

age

of

popu

latio

n ag

ed

65 a

nd m

orec

Med

ian

agec

men

wom

en

latv

ia1.

4468

.478

.39.

96.

318

.641

.8

Mal

ta1.

4378

.082

.54.

56.

3a16

.440

.4

Ger

man

y1.

3877

.982

.64.

73.

420

.645

.0

Pol

and

1.30

72.7

81.0

8.3

4.6

14.2

38.7

u

rban

are

as1.

2173

.181

.07.

84.

515

.037

.8

r

ural

are

as1.

4372

.181

.08.

94.

813

.136

.9

Por

tuga

l1.

2876

.682

.96.

33.

419

.042

.3

rom

ania

1.53

70.8

77.9

7.1

9.0

16.3

39.0

slo

vaki

a1.

3472

.079

.37.

35.

812

.837

.7

slo

veni

a1.

5876

.282

.56.

31.

616

.842

.0

sw

eden

1.91

79.1

82.8

3.7

2.6

18.8

40.8

hun

gary

1.34

70.9

78.1

7.2

4.9

16.9

40.3

Gre

ate

Brit

ain

1.91

a78

.4a

82.3

a3.

94.

2a16

.839

.7

Italy

1.43

79.4

a84

.5a

5.1

3.2a

20.8

43.8

a 201

1, b

2009

, c a

s of

31.

XII.

Sou

rce:

CS

O d

ata

for P

olan

d; E

uros

tat d

ata

for o

ther

cou

ntrie

s (h

ttp://

ww

w.s

tat.g

ov.p

l)

Tabl

e 2.

5

cont

.


36

2.2.3. Mortality rate and life expectancy

In 2010-2012 the following trends emerged: In these years the general mortality rate remained at the same level of 10.0 in the rural areas, while the age-specific rates were falling in al-most all age groups (in the urban areas the general rate grew from 9.7 up to 10.0 with an almost general fall of all age-specific rates as well).7 The infant mortality was still falling down though slower compared to the urban areas (from 5.0 to 4.8 and from 5.0 to 4.5 of deaths per 1000 live births, respectively). In 2012 the lowest infant mortality rate in the rural areas (4.0) was recorded in dzkie and Zachodniopomorskie voivode-ships, whereas the highest one (7.7) in Lubuskie (as for the urban areas in witokrzyskie (2.7) and in Opolskie (6.8) voivodeships, respectively).The average life expectancy continued to rise: in 2012, among the rural popu-lation it was 72.1 years for men (71.4 years in 2010) and 81.0 years for wom-en (80.7 years in 2010). Mens life is shorter in rural areas than in towns, and the gap has been growing until recently to the benefit of urban areas: In 2010 it was 1.2 year compared to 0.9 and 0.6 in 2008 and 2006, respectively. In 2012 this difference fell to 1 year. Compared to the men, the women in rural areas live longer than their counterparts in the urban areas, however, this gap is gradually falling from 0.4 in 2008 to zero level in 2012).In the rural areas the extension of the average life expectancy was recorded for all men in all voivodeships, and for women in the majority of voivode-ships: in two voivodeships (Opolskie and Wielkopolskie) this rate values were the same in 2010 and 2012 while in two voivodeships they were low-er (namely: Dolnolskie and Warmisko-Mazurskie). In 2012 the highest average life expectancy of men in rural areas (73.6 years) was recorded in Maopolskie Voivodeship, whereas the lowest (70.0 years) was recorded in Warmisko-Mazurskie Voivodeship (in the urban areas the highest value (75.6 years) and the lowest one (70.7 years) were recorded in Podkarpackie Voivodeship and in dzkie Voivodeship, respectively. Among the women who live in rural areas the highest life expectancy (82.1 years) was record-ed in Podkarpackie Voivodeship, whereas the lowest (79.7 years) was re-corded in Zachodniopomorskie Voivodeship (in the urban areas the highest figure (82.5 years) and the lowest (79.5 years) were recorded in Podlaskie Voivodeship and in dzkie Voivodeship, respectively.As on the average across the country, a lower life expectancy among the men in rural areas than in towns was recorded in all voivodeships in 2012,

7 Five year interval groups have been taken into account. Inconsistency of the stability of general mor-tality rate (and even an increase in the towns) with the universal decrease in fractional rates is only apparent, as the total changes reflect also the impact of the changes on the age and gender structure of population.


37

except for lskie and Opolskie voivodeships, where it was higher by 0.9 and 0.1 year, respectively. As opposed to a smoothed life expectancy in the rural and urban areas at the country level, among the women population this rate values were lower in rural areas in the majority of voivodeships, except for dzkie and lskie voivodeships where they were higher by 0.8 and 1.3 year, respectively, and Maopolskie and witokrzyskie voivode-ships where they were almost the same as in the urban areas (Table 2.6).

table 2.6. average life expectancy in urban and rural areas by gender and voivode-ships in 2008, 2010 and 2012

VoivodeshipsUrban areas Rural areas Rural/urban diff.

2008 2010 2012 2008 2010 2012 2008 2010 2012Men

Poland 71.6 72.6 73.1 70.7 71.4 72.1 -0.9 -1.2 -1.0

Dolnolskie 70.8 72.1 72.6 69.6 70.7 71.4 -1.2 -1.4 -1.2

Kujawsko-pomorskie 71.3 71.7 73.2 70.7 70.9 72.1 -0.6 -0.8 -1.1

lubelskie 71.8 72.7 73.9 69.0 70.1 71.3 -2.8 -2.6 -2.6

lubuskie 71.0 72.3 72.8 69.4 70.4 71.4 -1.6 -1.9 -1.4

dzkie 69.0 70.3 70.7 69.1 70.0 70.5 0.1 -0.3 -0.2

Maopolskie 73.4 74.2 74.4 72.4 73.3 73.6 -1.0 -0.9 -0.8

Mazowieckie 72.5 73.6 73.9 70.2 70.8 71.3 -2.3 -2.9 -2.6

opolskie 72.0 73.0 73.1 71.8 72.9 73.2 -0.2 -0.1 0.1

Podkarpackie 73.6 74.5 75.6 72.6 73.2 73.4 -1.0 -1.2 -2.2

Podlaskie 72.9 73.5 74.0 70.8 71.3 72.0 -2.1 -2.2 -2.0

Pomorskie 72.6 73.4 73.9 71.1 71.9 72.0 -1.5 -1.5 -1.9

lskie 70.8 71.5 71.8 71.3 72.0 72.6 0.5 0.5 0.9

witokrzyskie 71.6 72.9 73.3 70.9 70.8 72.1 -0.7 -2.1 -1.1

Warmisko-maz. 71.3 72.2 73.0 69.4 70.0 70.0 -1.9 -2.1 -3.0

Wielkopolskie 72.3 73.1 73.6 71.2 71.8 72.8 -1.1 -1.3 -0.8

Zachodniopomorskie 71.3 72.1 73.1 69.0 69.6 71.2 -2.3 -2.5 -1.9

WomenPoland 79.8 80.6 81.0 80.2 80.7 81.0 0.4 0.1 0.0

Dolnolskie 79.1 80.2 80.5 78.8 80.2 79.8 -0.3 0.0 -0.7

Kujawsko-Pomorskie 79.5 79.9 80.4 79.6 79.6 80.2 0.1 -0.3 -0.2

lubelskie 80.7 80.8 81.6 80.3 81.2 81.4 -0.4 0.4 -0.2

lubuskie 79.5 80.3 80.6 79.0 79.6 79.7 -0.5 -0.7 -0.9

dzkie 78.4 79.2 79.5 79.8 80.0 80.3 1.4 0.8 0.8

Maopolskie 80.7 81.4 81.9 81.0 81.4 81.8 0.3 -0.0 -0.1

Mazowieckie 80.5 81.2 81.4 80.8 80.8 81.1 0.3 -0.4 -0.3


38

VoivodeshipsUrban areas Rural areas Rural/urban diff.

2008 2010 2012 2008 2010 2012 2008 2010 2012opolskie 80.0 80.4 80.9 80.1 80.4 80.4 0.1 0.1 -0.5

Podkarpackie 81.1 82.1 82.4 81.4 81.5 81.9 0.3 -0.6 -0.5

Podlaskie 81.4 82.2 82.5 81.4 81.4 82.0 0.0 -0.8 -0.4

Pomorskie 80.2 81.0 81.1 79.1 80.0 80.4 -1.1 -1.0 -0.7

lskie 78.7 79.5 79.7 80.0 80.5 81.0 1.3 1.0 1.3

witokrzyskie 80.5 81.0 81.6 80.8 80.8 81.5 0.3 -0.2 -0.0

Warmisko-maz. 80.2 80.4 81.4 79.2 80.3 80.1 -1.0 -0.1 -1.3

Wielkopolskie 80.0 80.4 80.9 79.7 80.5 80.5 -0.3 0.1 -0.4

Zachodniopomorskie 79.7 80.3 80.7 79.2 79.4 79.9 -0.5 -0.9 -0.8

source: Demographic Yearbook 2009, 2011, 2013, cso, Warsaw 2009, 2011, 2013, and own calculations.

Compared to the old Member States of the EU 15, in 2012 in the Polish rural areas:

The average life expectancy among the men was shorter by 4.5 to 7.3 and 8.4 years than that of the total population of men in Portugal, Italy and Island, respectively.The life expectancy of women was shorter by 1.9 to 5.2 and 6.1 years than that of the total population of women in France, the Netherlands and Swe-den as well as Island, respectively.The differences between the life expectancy of men and that of women were by 2.3 years higher than the average in France and up to 5.2 years higher than those in the Netherlands and Sweden.Infant mortality, which oscillated between 0.9 per 1000 live births in Island up to 2.4 in Finland and 4.2 in Great Britain, was higher. On the other hand, compared to the new Member States, life expectancy

and infant mortality rates in the rural areas are more favourable in Poland, with a few exceptions (mainly Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Lithuania and Slovenia) (Table 2.5).

2.2.4. Migration8

Apart from the natural increase, migration from rural areas to towns and vice versa for permanent residence is another element that contributes to an increase in rural population number. In the years 2010-2012:

8 Statistics of migration in Poland, both internal and international, are based on the population registry data of residence place changes: for permanent residence based on the registration for permanent stay data, for temporary residence based on the registration for temporary

Rural Poland. Rural development report.

Environment

Transcript of Rural Poland. Rural development report.