Subsidised to help environmental agriculture, in ha (a)–sustainable agriculture, Figure
Subsidised to support environmental agriculture, in ha (a)–sustainable agriculture, Figure four. Land subsidised to assistance environmental agriculture, in ha (a)–sustainable agriculture, (b)–protection of soils and waters,(b)–protection of soils and waters, regular varieties of fruit trees, (d)–preservation of endangered plant (c)–preservation of orchards with (c)–preservation of orchards with regular varieties of fruit trees, (d)–preservation of endangered plant genetic sources in agriculture).Supply: own elabogenetic sources in agriculture).Source: own elaboration. ration.protection the category of “environmental (from 2100200 ha inside the Total payments beneath of soils and waters: totalc.129,000 haagriculture” related to provinces of c.408,600 ha–fromLesser Poland, Subcarpathia and to c.65,400toc.22,200 ha in Pomerania) (see Figure 4b); c.3200 ha in Lesser Poland up Silesia up ha in Pomerania (by com- ha in Czarna Dbr ka in tree orchards: 565 ha in total (from three ha in Opole Province preservation of regular Pomerania, Dolhobycz in Lublin Provmune, 3000400 ince and Kozl into 134 ha in Lesser Poland) (seeFigure 5a). In the total area covered by Warmia-Masuria; see Table three, Figure 4c); preservation of endangered 31.eight . This percentagein agriculture: a total of c.11,000 ha pro-environmental payments, these represent plant genetic sources is heavily spatially (from zero in Opole Province commune in Lublin Province) (see Figure 4d). and regionally differentiated (Table 3) and in the toc.2800 halevel (Figure 5b). Total payments below the category of “environmental agriculture” associated to c.408,600 ha–from c.3200 ha in Lesser Poland as much as c.65,400 ha in Pomerania (by com-Land 2021, ten,ten ofmune, 3000400 ha in Czarna Dabr ka in Pomerania, Dolhobycz in Lublin Province and Kozl in Warmia-Masuria; see Table three, Figure 5a). Inside the total area covered by pro-environmental payments, these represent 31.eight . This percentage is heavily spatially and regionally differentiated (Table three) and in the commune level (Figure 5b).Table 3. Pro-environmental forms of CAP assistance: distribution of subsidised land by help sort (100 = 2282 communities).Kind Subtype No. 1 2 three 4 5 6 7 8 9 ten 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Quantity of Communities 117 62 73 54 37 67 34 42 472 92 131 61 36 78 39 37 260 101 57 35 74 33 34 37 42 62 81 34 5.1 2.7 three.2 2.four 1.6 2.9 1.5 1.8 20.7 4.0 5.7 two.7 1.six three.four 1.7 1.six 11.four 4.4 2.5 1.five three.two 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.eight 2.7 3.5 1.5 6 5 five four 4 4 three 3 0 0 1 0 1 two 1 2 0 1 0 0 two 1 1 2 0 three 3 2 Delimitation of Structures of Pro-Environmental CAP Support Organic–O Environmental–E 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 2 six 5 5 four four four 3 3 0 0 1 two 0 1 two 1 three 3 12 of 21 0 2 Habitat–H 0 0 1 0 1 two two 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 six five five 4 4 4 3 3 3 0 3O.1 Organic farming–O (486 communities) O.E.1 Environmental agriculture–E (946 communities) E.H.1 Habitat farming–H (631 communities) H.21, 10, x FOR PEER Equal share of directions–ES Evaluation(219 communities) Quantity of quotients (see Section 2). Source: own study based on data from ARMA and LDB.(a)(b)Figure 5. Region of land subsidised with support for environmental LY294002 Epigenetic Reader Domain agriculture (a), and its share in Figure five. Location of land subsidised with assistance for environmental agriculture (a), and its share in the total region covered by the total region covered by Source: own elaboration. pro-environmental RDP assistance (b).pro-environmental RDP support (b). Source: own elaboration.The research also SBP-3264 web distinguished the category of.