54 E. Majewski, P. Sulewski, M. Raggi, D. ViaggiIn most cases of the regions the differences between answers in Baseline and NoCAP scenario were not statistically significant (at the α = 0.01 level) with the exceptionof of Noord-Holland (Netherlands), Podlaskie (Poland) and South-East Planning Region(Bulgaria). Assuming a less restricted α = 0.05 significant differences could be observedin Andalusia (Spain) and Centre (France) as well.A strong variation of answers between scenarios was also found as regards the issueof non-farm activities (Figure 4). In the most of the regions declarations about “increaseof scale of non-farming activity” was more frequent in case of the CAP abandonmentscenario. It suggest that farmers under pressure of worse economic situation would bemore willing to search for non agricultural sources of household income, what seemsto be especially important in the context of new challenges for agricultural policy likemultifunctional development of rural areas or diversification of farmers’ incomes. However,again farmers reaction to this question was not univocal in all the regions. Verydifferent way of thinking characterized farmers from Emilia Romagna and Podlaskie whoexpressed less interest in non farm activities. Attitude of Podlaskie farmers is in line withtheir determination to continue farming under both policy scenarios (Figure 1) and can beeasily explained – Podlaskie is a typical agricultural, relatively low populated region ofthe country and farmers don’t foresee any real opportunities for non-farm activities.Both in Podlaskie region and in the majority of others, the differences between scenarioswere statistically significant.% farmers45%40%35%30%25%20%15%10%5%0%PL NL GR IT UK ES BG FR1 FR2 DE1 DE2 TotalFig. 4.Rys. 4.BaselineNo CAPPercent of farmers declaring „ an increase” of non-farm activity scaleOdsetek rolników deklarujących podjęcie lub zwiększenie rozmiarów działalności pozarolniczychSource: CAP-IRE Deliverable no. D2.13-23, 2010.Źródło: Opracowanie projektu CAP-IRE D2.13-23, 2010.CONCLUSIONSIn this paper we carried out an analysis of the effects of different CAP scenariosbased on stated intentions collected through a survey of farm-households. The researchrevealed significant differences between regions of the EU countries represented in thestudy. Differences concern not only natural conditions for agricultural production, scaleand intensity of agricultural activities and level of farms’ modernity but also possibleActa Sci. Pol.
Differences in possible reactions of eu farmers from selected european regions... 55farmers’ reactions to changes of the Common Agricultural Policy. These differences inreactions may result from different local conditions and historical experiences of farmersfrom the “new” and “old” members of the EU, as well as from current financial situationand different farmers’ expectations regarding the future. It indicates the crucial challengefor the CAP which is to maintain a Common policy framework while fitting to a varietyof regional conditions and expectations of policy beneficiaries.However, the limited statistical significance between number of farmers declaring,“an increase” for specified structural parameters questions in Baseline and No CAP Scenarioin many regions suggests that the design of the CAP, or even the CAP as a whole, isnot the only and exclusive factor determining future farmers decisions. An important issuefor further research is then to analyze farmers’ answers in connection to their regionalcontext, in order to elicit further factors that can affect future changes in farming sector.The results also lead to the conclusion that the strongest connections between CAPScenarios and the kind of answers were usually noted among farmers from Podlaskie(Poland) and from South-East Planning Region (Bulgaria). It suggests that farmers fromthese regions usually assume farms development (increase) only in case of receiving supportfrom CAP or, in general, are more dependent on the policy than it is the case in otherregions. This may strengthen the existing policy concern about a re-alignment of the CAPdesign between Old and New Member States, though it does not provide a clear answerabout the most suitable direction to be taken in such re-alignment process.REFERENCESDeliverable n. D2.13–23, Survey Description, Project: Assessing the multiple Impacts of the CommonAgricultural Policies (CAP) on Rural Economies, 2010.EC 2008a. Commision Staff Working Document SEC (2008)1885; Brussels, 20.05.2008.EC 2008b. IP/08/1749: Agriculture: CAP Health Check will help farmers meet new challenges,Brussels, 20.11.2008SCENAR 2020. Scenario study on agriculture and the rural Word. European Communities, 2007Wieck Ch. Dominiguez I.P., Britz W., 2003. New Chalenges for the European Agriculture: ModellingAgricultural Reform Under the New WTO Proposals; mat. konferencyjne Capri 23–26czerwca 2003. EC 2010: Communication From the Commission to the Council, TheEuropean Parliament, the European Economic And Social Committee and the Committeeof the Regions. The CAP towards 2020: meeting the food, natural resource and territorialchallenges of the future.Cristoiu A., Sammeth F., Gomez Paloma S.: Prospective Scenarios Deliverable no. 8.1; CAP-IREProject.Czyżewski A., Stępień S., 2009. Reforma mechanizmu WPR w ramach “Health Check” a potrzebastabilizacji rynków rolnych UE. [w:] Common Agricultural Policy of The EU – Conditionings,Mechanisms, Efects.IDEMA 2007. The Impact of Decoupling and Modulation in the European Union: a sectoral and farmlevel assessment, Final Report, 2007.Lobely M., Butler A., 2010. The impact of CAP reform on farmers’ plans for the future: Some evidencefrom South West England, Food Policy, volume 35.Majewski E. i in., 2009. Wspólna Polityka Rolna UE i próby modelowego ujęcia wpływu jej zmian nasytuację w rolnictwie. [w:] Wpływ zmian we wspólnej polityce rolnej na wyniki ekonomicznegospodarstw towarowych w Polsce w perspektywie 2014 roku. Wyd. <strong>SGGW</strong>, Warszawa.Oeconomia 10 (1) 2011
- Page 6 and 7: 6 A. Gawrońska, S. Paszkowskicultu
- Page 8 and 9: 8 A. Gawrońska, S. Paszkowskinumbe
- Page 10 and 11: 10 A. Gawrońska, S. PaszkowskiTabl
- Page 12: 12 A. Gawrońska, S. PaszkowskiTabl
- Page 15 and 16: The distribution of social security
- Page 17 and 18: %180,0160,0140,0120,0100,080,060,04
- Page 19: The distribution of social security
- Page 22 and 23: 22 R. Hryniewski, W. Mądry, D. Goz
- Page 24 and 25: 24 R. Hryniewski, W. Mądry, D. Goz
- Page 26 and 27: 26 R. Hryniewski, W. Mądry, D. Goz
- Page 28 and 29: 28 R. Hryniewski, W. Mądry, D. Goz
- Page 30 and 31: 30 R. Hryniewski, W. Mądry, D. Goz
- Page 32 and 33: 32 R. Hryniewski, W. Mądry, D. Goz
- Page 35 and 36: Oeconomia 10 (1) 2011, 35-43EDUCATI
- Page 37 and 38: Education as an element of competit
- Page 39 and 40: Education as an element of competit
- Page 41 and 42: Education as an element of competit
- Page 43: Education as an element of competit
- Page 46 and 47: 46 E. Majewski, P. Sulewski, M. Rag
- Page 48 and 49: 48 E. Majewski, P. Sulewski, M. Rag
- Page 50 and 51: 50 E. Majewski, P. Sulewski, M. Rag
- Page 52 and 53: 52 E. Majewski, P. Sulewski, M. Rag
- Page 56 and 57: 56 E. Majewski, P. Sulewski, M. Rag
- Page 58 and 59: 58 L. Mazal, K.J. RowlesIn the West
- Page 60 and 61: 60 L. Mazal, K.J. RowlesThe most im
- Page 62 and 63: 62 L. Mazal, K.J. RowlesGDPt= GDP0+
- Page 64 and 65: 64 L. Mazal, K.J. RowlesTHE TIME SE
- Page 66 and 67: 66 L. Mazal, K.J. RowlesTable 4. Ac
- Page 68 and 69: 68 L. Mazal, K.J. RowlesNelson Ch.R
- Page 70 and 71: 70 A. Ptak-Chmielewskastatistics, w
- Page 72 and 73: 72 A. Ptak-Chmielewska3025birth rat
- Page 74 and 75: 74 A. Ptak-ChmielewskaSECTOR OF ACT
- Page 76 and 77: 76 A. Ptak-Chmielewskabirth rate fo
- Page 78 and 79: 78 A. Ptak-Chmielewskawere trade fi
- Page 80 and 81: 80 A. Ptak-ChmielewskaREFERENCESBal
- Page 83 and 84: Oeconomia 10 (1) 2011, 83-95THE EFF
- Page 85 and 86: The effi ciency of selected real es
- Page 87 and 88: The effi ciency of selected real es
- Page 89 and 90: Table 1. Efficiency of real estate
- Page 91 and 92: The effi ciency of selected real es
- Page 93 and 94: The effi ciency of selected real es
- Page 95: The effi ciency of selected real es
- Page 98 and 99: 98 J. Sosnowski, G.A. CiepielaJalin
- Page 100 and 101: 100 J. Sosnowski, G.A. Ciepiela2007
- Page 102 and 103: 102 J. Sosnowski, G.A. CiepielaTabl
- Page 104 and 105:
104 J. Sosnowski, G.A. CiepielaTabl
- Page 106 and 107:
106 J. Sosnowski, G.A. Ciepiela1400
- Page 108 and 109:
108 J. Sosnowski, G.A. CiepielaOsek
- Page 110 and 111:
110 E. SzymańskaProducts by Activi
- Page 112 and 113:
112 E. Szymańskatroduced TFI which
- Page 114 and 115:
114 E. Szymańskabers of companies
- Page 116 and 117:
116 E. SzymańskaTable 3. Tourism v
- Page 118 and 119:
118 E. SzymańskaREFERENCESCoccossi
- Page 120 and 121:
120 J. WiśniewskaEvery society can
- Page 122 and 123:
122 J. WiśniewskaStatistical analy
- Page 124 and 125:
124 J. WiśniewskaCommon Agricultur
- Page 126 and 127:
126 J. WiśniewskaTable 3. An attem
- Page 128 and 129:
128 J. Wiśniewskathe application o
- Page 130 and 131:
130 J. Wiśniewskainstitutional cos
- Page 132 and 133:
132 J. Wiśniewskaemployed in agric
- Page 134 and 135:
134 J. WiśniewskaLong term viabili
- Page 136 and 137:
136 J. Wiśniewska--The level of re
- Page 139 and 140:
Oeconomia 10 (1) 2011, 139-148INNOV
- Page 141 and 142:
Innovativeness of food production e
- Page 143 and 144:
Innovativeness of food production e
- Page 145 and 146:
Innovativeness of food production e
- Page 147 and 148:
Innovativeness of food production e
- Page 149 and 150:
Oeconomia 10 (1) 2011, 149-158LOCAL
- Page 151 and 152:
Local governance activities in supp
- Page 153 and 154:
Local governance activities in supp
- Page 155 and 156:
Local governance activities in supp
- Page 157 and 158:
Local governance activities in supp
- Page 159 and 160:
Oeconomia 10 (1) 2011, 159-169CHANG
- Page 161 and 162:
Changes in rural women’s movement
- Page 163 and 164:
Changes in rural women’s movement
- Page 165 and 166:
Changes in rural women’s movement
- Page 167 and 168:
Changes in rural women’s movement
- Page 169:
Changes in rural women’s movement
- Page 172:
Ewa SzymańskaTourism function of M