Diversification of Agricultural Output Intensity across the European Union in Light of the Assumptions of Sustainable Development

Abstract

The strength of the bond between agriculture and the natural environment is measured by output intensity. This work aimed to evaluate the diversity of agriculture across the European Union in terms of agricultural output intensity from the perspective of the assumptions of the concept of sustainable development. Surveys were conducted using selected indicators based on data derived from EUROSTAT, FAOSTAT, and FADN from 2010–2019. The adopted indicators were used for developing a ranking of member states according to output intensity, which, in confrontation with the level of agricultural efficiency, can form a basis for an individual approach to the development strategies of respective member states. Their findings imply that, in the analyzed period, differences in output intensity among member states declined insignificantly. From 2010 to 2019, most countries forming the so-called ‘old 15′ featured higher output intensity than new member states. The Netherlands and Malta recorded the highest cost of intermediate consumption per 1 ha of utilized agricultural area. By contrast, agricultural production was the least intensive in Bulgaria. Land productivity was also very strongly variable. The difference between the old and new member states was clearly marked. Dutch agriculture reached the highest land productivity from 2010 to 2019, where agricultural production levels per 1 ha were five times higher than on average in the European Union.

1. Introduction

Agriculture is a sector of the economy that has special links with the natural environment. On the one hand, its efficiency depends on the environmental resources; on the other hand, agricultural production often takes advantage of the natural environment (e.g., degrades soil and water quality and reduces biological diversity), which is detrimental to environmental sustainability [1,2]. Agriculture is a source of half of the local emissions of greenhouse gases other than CO₂ in the European Union (EU), and one-third of water intake is utilized for its needs [3]. In addition, Zegar [4] noted that agriculture significantly impacts the climate, accounting for nearly one-third of anthropogenic changes and, to some extent, for the loss of biological diversity. The industrial agriculture model, which became very efficient but generated global negative environmental and social effects, proved to be a particular burden to the natural environment [5]. Since the paradigm of European agriculture after the period of its industrialization needed to be altered, the sustainability of agriculture was deemed a priority direction of development reflected by the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union [6,7]. A review of the literature led to a conclusion that, despite the great popularity of the notion of sustainable development, it has not been precisely defined [8,9]. The model of sustainable agriculture can be identified with a harmonious link among the efficient production of goods and services (economic function), the management of natural resources (environmental function), and improved living standards in rural areas (social function) [7,10,11]. The economic, environmental, and social dimensions of sustainable agriculture are, to some extent, complementary. Prosperous and efficient agriculture is capable of investing in environment-friendly production, and environment-friendly production and low prices of agricultural products are beneficial from the point of view of the whole society. However, these three dimensions of sustainable agriculture can be conflicting as intensive agricultural production degrades the natural environment. Therefore, the objectives of CAP have been reoriented towards a model of agriculture and regulating mechanisms having a beneficial impact on the natural environment [12]. The intensification of production itself is not a negative phenomenon since it supports achieving economic and social goals. However, excessively intensive production, through its adverse impact on the natural environment, imposes limitations on achieving the environmental goals of sustainable development. Sustainable agriculture is a global, dynamic process within these three areas, occurring at five levels: field, agricultural holding, local community, national, and international levels [13,14]. Czyżewski and Stanisławski [15] underlined that the development of agriculture consistent with the paradigm of sustainable development became particularly important in industrialized countries where the development of the agricultural sector previously followed the industrial model. However, it proved unreliable in the long run. Surveys dedicated to sustainable agriculture suggest that sustainability reduces certain social costs generated by industrial agriculture. Furthermore, the higher the socio-economic stability of respective countries is, the more often they demonstrate green attitudes and participate in agri-environmental programs [16,17].

Since agriculture is deemed the main keeper of the natural environment, it should become a leader in the change towards sustainable development through promoting innovative technologies and governance models [18,19]. The care for the quality of nature and natural resources is not only a requirement of civilization but also a prerequisite for agricultural production [20]. The impact of agriculture on the natural environment depends on its output intensity. In the age of industrialization, in order to meet a high requirement for food, measures to the extent of agriculture aimed to intensify agricultural production. This was accomplished by increasing the capital expenditure per land resource unit in order to achieve an increase in production [21]. Keys and McConnell [22] defined the intensification of agriculture as a process of increasing input per area unit or increasing output per area unit. Agricultural output intensity can be described by various indicators referring to structural and organizational, natural and agrotechnological, and economic and organizational conditions [23,24]. The most popular indicators of agricultural output intensity are labor and capital inputs per unit of utilized agricultural area (UAA) [25]. Many scientific papers also refer to a measure of land productivity, that is, crop yield [25,26,27]. Ruiz-Martinez et al. [28] reviewed studies and indicators that refer to assessing agricultural output intensity, grouping them as input-oriented and output-oriented measures. The latter includes land productivity, an indicator of the relationship between the value of production and the utilized agricultural area. Regional surveys also measure agricultural output intensity regarding an area needed to produce one production unit [29]. By contrast, Levers et al. [27] attempted to design agricultural intensity patterns across Europe. They analyzed the spatial conditions for change in the intensity of agricultural production using a set of biophysical and socio-economic variables. They demonstrated that higher crop yield was usually associated with an increased use of fertilizers, high soil quality, and high labor efficiency. At present, intensification factors pose no threat to the natural environment; the quality of products and consumer health are particularly important [30]. According to Zegar [4], agricultural intensification compliant with the need for sustainability, that is, ecological intensification, should be promoted and supported. This is reflected by the directions of development set out in the Common Agricultural Policy. Thus, agricultural intensification is not only a measure aimed at increasing food production but also a huge challenge to global ecosystems [31].

The challenges to the development of present-day agriculture include living up to the competitors. In addition, a fundamental development dilemma arises: how to reconcile sustainable development with intensifying competition, that is, how to achieve a competitive advantage [21]. The quality of agricultural production space and the level of output intensity impact both the level of farmers’ income and the quality of agricultural products. Therefore, taking care of the fertility and prolificacy of agricultural land and moderating the intensity of production processes are important challenges. It is obvious that, in view of the growing global population, it is necessary to increase agricultural production [32,33,34]. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the diversity of output intensity, on the one hand, showing the degree of impact of agriculture on the natural environment [35] and, on the other hand, possible options of increasing the production output. The role of such surveys is also due to the fact that, in the coming decades, the competition between food production and other uses of water and land will probably increase [36]. The need for evaluating the intensity of agricultural production in the European Union is dictated by the fact that agriculture varies among respective members in terms of production potential, efficiency of its use, and area structure. Research conducted by many authors implies that new member states have a lower potential of agricultural development, including an agrarian structure not supporting high production efficiency [37,38]. This is due to, among other things, the central planning of the economy and limited access to production factors in most of them after World War II. An exception is the agriculture in Slovakia and Czechia as these countries have a more favorable agrarian structure. In the countries of Western Europe, land was subject to concentration. This process, in contrast to collectivization, was not controlled by political decisions but was forced by the market situation. Such an agrarian structure determines manufacturing technologies and related output intensity. Large and very large agricultural holdings tend to apply development strategies based on specialization and intensification, while small ones are more often susceptible to diversification [39,40]. Thus, working on development strategies for sustainable agriculture, structural characteristics should be taken into account next to differences in output intensity among EU member states. As regards the differentiation of agriculture in the European Union and the absence of a uniform approach to output intensity, a research gap in the comprehensive assessment of agricultural output intensity can be identified in all EU member states, in particular in the long term. Available studies most often refer to single, isolated measures or to selected EU member states only. Incorporating a wide range of diagnostic features describing agricultural output intensity in all member states in the assessment constitutes this paper’s added value. In addition, such assessments are rarely made in light of sustainable development assumptions.

In view of the relationship of agriculture with the natural environment, this study aimed to evaluate the diversity of agriculture in the member states of the European Union in terms of agricultural production diversity. This assessment was performed in the context of sustainable development assumptions. This work is structured as follows. The following section contains a description of the research methods. In Section 3, we present a ranking of EU member states according to output intensity, confronted with the level of land productivity. An important element of research is the thorough analysis of output intensity, taking into account additional features expressing the relationship among production factors and, in particular, labor and land. The last section presents conclusions from the analyses.

2. Materials and Methods

The surveys were based on selected indicators designed using data from the EUROSTAT, FAOSTAT, and FADN database. The analysis covered the years 2010–2019, which allowed us to determine changes in the intensity of production over a decade. Twenty-eight member states of the European Union were the subjects of the study. The United Kingdom is no longer a member of the EU, but, in the examined period, it remained within its structures.

In general, intensity refers to the degree of any phenomenon or human activity involved in the process of production. It reflects the actual expenditure on the process of production. Agricultural output intensity is a measure of the degree of utilization of land by means of other factors. Therefore, the basic measure of output intensity was the cost of agricultural production per 1 ha of utilized agricultural area. To this end, the costs of intermediate consumption were used that, according to the methodology of FADN and EUROSTAT, include direct costs (including products made and used in the process of production on a farm) and general economic costs accompanying the operations in the accounting year [41]. Thus, output intensity and the impact of agriculture on the natural environment increases with the increase in the level of intermediate consumption per 1 UAA. In addition, output intensity was evaluated based on the consumption of nitrogen, potash, and phosphorus per 1 ha of utilized agricultural area and the cost of plant protection products, herbicides, insecticides, and pesticides per 1 ha UAA. The characteristics were selected based on their substantive merits and a review of the reference literature. At the second stage of research, based on the measured values of output intensity indica-tors, a synthetic index of output intensity for respective member states of the European Union in 2010–2019 was designed. It was assumed that the total output intensity increased at higher level of respective indicators. To this end, each indicator was regarded as a stimulant and normalized as follows:

$$z_{ij}=\frac{x_{ij}-\min {(x_{ij})}_i}{\max {(x_{ij})}_i-\min {(x_{ij})}_i}\to (i=1,2, \dots , n; j=1,2, \dots , m)$$

(1)

where mini{x_ij} is the minimum value of feature j, maxi{x_ij} is the maximum value of feature j, and i is the object (country).

As a result of this operation, values of respective indicators fell within the range [0, 1]. Values closer to 1 mean that the specific variable (indicator) is better and, to the contrary, values closer to 0 mean that the specific indicator is worse. Next, synthetic indices of output intensity were calculated for respective EU member states. The indicator was an arithmetic mean consisting of standardized partial indicators [42]. The synthetic measure was used for developing a ranking of member states according to output intensity, which, in confrontation with the level of agricultural efficiency, can form a basis for an individual approach to the sustainable development strategies of respective member states of the EU.

The analysis also covered the structure of utilized agricultural area managed by agricultural holdings featuring low, medium, and high input intensities per 1 ha. According to FADN, farms are classified into three intensity categories according to the estimated input per 1 hectare of utilized agricultural area. Inputs taken into account include fertilizers, pesticides, other crop protection chemicals, and purchased feed. A low-intensity farm is one for which inputs are lower or equal to the value of intensity associated with the 33rd quantile (Q33). A high-intensity entity is one with inputs exceeding the value of intensity determined by the 66th quantile (Q66). Farms with the level of inputs exceeding the value of intensity described by Q33 but lower than the value described by Q66 are classified as medium-intensity ones [3].

The evaluation also covered labor input per 100 hectares (ha) of UAA and land productivity measured as the production value per 1 ha of utilized agricultural area. In addition, the relationship between the level of intermediate consumption per 1 ha of UAA and land productivity was examined using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. A comparison of the level of output intensity with land productivity will be the basis for identifying countries in which, due to the low level of expenditure, further intensification processes are not contrary to the concept of sustainable development.

In addition, the significance of differences in indicators describes output intensity between new (EU-15) and old (EU-13) member states of the EU. The analysis was preceded by the verification of the assumptions of the Student’s t-test for the normality of distribution (Shapiro–Wilk test) and for the homogeneity of variance (Levene’s test). In the case of variables for which at least one assumption was not met, the Mann–Whitney test was applied during analysis. The analysis used Excel and a statistical package, Jamovi.

3. Results and Discussion

The literature shows a big diversity across the European Union both in terms of employment, costs of labor in agriculture, productivity, and production [43,44]. In this study, the output intensity level was expressed as the cost of production per 1 ha of utilized agricultural area. Figure 1 presents their average values from 2010 to 2019 in the member states of the EU in an ascending order.

It should also be highlighted that, from 2010 to 2019, the level of intermediate consumption per 1 ha of UAA changed. In Poland, the analyzed indicator increased by 24.7%. The cost per 1 ha of UAA also increased by more than 20% in Estonia, Romania, Latvia, and Austria. In contrast, the highest extensification was observed in Belgium and Cyprus (Figure 2).

Fertilization is a fundamental yield-forming factor and the consumption of fertilizers is one of the indicators for assessing the intensity of management [45,46]. The level and dynamics of using fertilizers are definitely determined by the economic development status of the respective country [47]. Therefore, the analysis covered the consumption of nitrogen, potash, and phosphorus per 1 ha of utilized agricultural area and the cost of plant protection products, herbicides, insecticides, and pesticides per 1 ha UAA (

Table 1. Consumption of mineral fertilizers and plant protection products, herbicides, insecticides, and pesticides per 1 ha in the EU member states from 2010 to 2019.

Member State	Nitrogen (N) Consumption in Mineral Fertilizers	Phosphate (P2O5) Consumption in Mineral Fertilizers	Potash (K2O) Consumption in Mineral Fertilizers	Cost of Using Plant Protection Products, Herbicides, Insecticides, and Pesticides
	kg/ha	kg/ha	kg/ha	EUR/ha
Austria	78.7	20.3	23.7	45.1
Belgium	201.2	25.3	75.5	165.8
Bulgaria	90.1	16.8	8.4	31.3
Croatia	103.9	51.2	41.4	60.5
Cyprus	66.1	40.5	27.7	154.0
Czechia	131.1	18.4	11.6	59.9
Denmark	86.1	13.9	27.2	67.1
Estonia	52.6	11.8	16.7	23.2
Finland	63.5	11.4	15.5	36.0
France	111.1	20.9	23.2	105.2
Germany	134.4	21.5	35.4	93.6
Greece	53.5	16.5	13.3	40.0
Hungary	78.9	18.5	18.3	68.6
Ireland	163.0	47.9	107.4	15.2
Italy	62.5	18.6	13.7	60.8
Latvia	57.5	18.4	20.9	28.3
Lithuania	71.5	20.3	26.8	39.6
Luxembourg	211.8	17.5	15.9	60.9
Malta	55.1	9.1	12.7	53.4
Netherlands	206.2	14.0	41.0	211.3
Poland	96.1	31.1	44.3	65.8
Portugal	59.5	21.7	18.4	31.5
Romania	38.7	15.0	5.4	19.2
Slovakia	84.1	15.9	11.7	61.1
Slovenia	115.9	38.4	46.8	43.1
Spain	57.8	23.9	21.3	38.8
Sweden	68.7	10.8	12.3	31.9
United Kingdom	167.4	31.3	43.8	58.1

Source: own calculation.

). The presented data imply that, in the study period, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Belgium were among the leaders in the consumption of nitrogen for agricultural production, consuming more than 200 kg N/ha. As regards phosphorus, Croatia, Ireland, and Cyprus stand out. By contrast, Ireland and Belgium were the biggest consumers of potash. It should be noted that, next to the economic effects, the intensive growing of crops using a high dosage of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potash leads to risks for the natural environment. The concept of sustainable development searches for a compromise between economic and environmental criteria. It assumes that permanent and fair development relies on, among other things, a combination of the laws of ecology and economics in the decision-making process. The authors of various reference literature discuss issues related to the intensity of fertilization and the chemical protection of plants in the context of environmental protection and a nature conservation policy [48,49]. The excessive use of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers is particularly hazardous at low levels of lime fertilizers [50]. Meanwhile, studies by Zalewski [51] implied that, from 2010 to 2018, the member states of the European Union increased the total value of fertilizers and plant protection products used. The value of the analyzed means of production for agriculture per 1 ha UAA, and their share in intermediate consumption, also increased. Analyzing the cost of plant protection products, herbicides, insecticides, and pesticides per 1 ha, it can be noted that it is highly differentiated across the EU. The Netherlands, Belgium, and Cyprus stand out clearly, with the abovementioned cost amounting to EUR 211.3, EUR 165.8, and EUR 154 per 1 ha UAA, respectively. By contrast, countries featuring a relatively low cost of plant protection products were Ireland, Romania, and Latvia (Table 1).

At the next stage of research, a synthetic measure of output intensity was calculated for respective member states of the EU based on standardized indicators given in Table 1. Figure 3 presents the ranking of member states, implying that agricultural output intensity is the highest in the Netherlands, Belgium and Ireland. The ranking is closed by Romania featuring the weakest impact of agriculture on the natural environment.

In the contemporary economic theory, the prevailing view is the necessity of orienting innovation towards input-saving production techniques [52]. Therefore, innovativeness should aim to reduce the use of production resources in the production process. In particular, this refers to agriculture being the main keeper of the natural environment. Thus, it is desirable to disseminate technologies that simultaneously reduce the costs per unit of agricultural production and the negative environmental impact of production. In the European Union, an important instrument in this respect is the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), with objectives that have evolved to support the sustainable management of the natural resources, reduce adverse impacts of agricultural production on the natural resources, and prevent climate change [53]. According to the European Commission, a reduction in the level of pesticides used in agriculture is essential to the natural environment, consumer health, and the economy. Currently, the production of many fertilizers and pesticides relies on limited fossil resources [54]. Therefore, in the fertilizers’ sector, transformation into a circular economy (CE) focusing on the efficient utilization of resources is justified. References to the fertilizers’ sector in the EU and the consumption of fertilizers in agriculture are also present in the new EU growth strategy, that is, in the European Green Deal. It provides for a projected considerable reduction in the volume of wastes and reducing the impact of agricultural fertilizers on the natural environment.

In 2019, the utilized agricultural area in the European Union managed by low input intensity farms accounted for 31.6% of the overall utilized agricultural area, whereas the area at the disposal of farms with a medium and high level of input corresponded to 27.4% and 41%, respectively (

Table 2. The structure of utilized agricultural area managed by agricultural holdings according to the intensity of production inputs in the member states of the EU in 2010 and 2019 (%).

Country	High Input Intensity		Medium Input Intensity		Low Input Intensity
	2010	2019	2010	2019	2010	2019
Belgium	31.4	15.1	34.9	22.0	33.7	62.9
Bulgaria	45.1	72.0	25.2	14.8	29.7	13.2
Czechia	40.2	45.7	27.6	26.6	32.2	27.7
Denmark	34.1	27.3	36.2	31.9	29.7	40.8
Germany	37.7	42.5	34.1	29.1	28.2	28.4
Estonia	52.1	56.0	21.5	13.7	26.4	30.3
Ireland	32.6	40.0	31.4	28.8	36.0	31.2
Greece	32.1	28.8	32.5	31.5	35.4	39.7
Spain	36.3	40.8	29.0	30.4	34.7	28.8
France	33.7	37.4	33.9	29.7	32.4	32.9
Croatia	33.5 *	52.9	34.1 *	23.8	32.4 *	23.3
Italy	33.7	33.8	30.8	31.0	35.5	35.2
Cyprus	34.2	17.0	33.6	31.3	32.2	51.7
Latvia	35.7	52.5	31.8	19.5	32.5	28.0
Lithuania	31.3	46.1	32.6	21.0	36.1	32.9
Luxembourg	39.7	50.4	34.5	21.1	25.8	28.5
Hungary	39.9	40.2	33.9	33.9	26.2	25.9
Malta	31.4	28.2	33.6	30.3	35	41.5
Netherlands	34.4	49.1	32.7	28.3	32.9	22.6
Austria	34.2	51.0	35.5	25.7	30.3	23.3
Poland	31.4	30.6	34.1	34.7	34.5	34.7
Portugal	32.7	40.5	30.0	30.8	37.3	28.7
Romania	33.0	72.3	34.0	20.1	33.0	7.6
Slovenia	34.4	31.8	35.9	32.4	29.7	35.8
Slovakia	48.7	54.9	24.3	20.5	27.0	24.6
Finland	30.3	26.4	30.8	36.8	38.9	36.8
Sweden	34.2	33.0	31.8	34.8	34.0	32.2
United Kingdom	32.2	32.3	33.8	33.1	34.0	34.6
EU-28	35.7	41.0	31.9	27.4	32.4	31.6

* Data for 2013.

). Countries with the largest share of the utilized agricultural area remaining at the disposal of farms featuring the highest output intensity on the scale of the specific country in 2019 were Romania, Estonia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Czechia. At the same time, it can be noted that in each of these countries, the percentage of UAA managed by agricultural holdings with high input intensity increased compared to that noted in 2010. This means that output intensified in those countries. However, considering the absolute value of inputs, intensification in countries with low output intensity does not mean the same for the environment as intensification in a country where this level is high. Belgium and Denmark, where the production has been clearly extensive but with a considerably higher level of inputs per 1 ha than on average in the EU, are worth noting. Next to output intensity, the intensity of production organization, expressed, for instance, as the stocking density per ha UAA, is also worth noting. This indicator reflects the environmental pressure of animal husbandry. According to EUROSTAT [55], in 2016, the stocking density of farm livestock in the EU-28 was 0.8 livestock units (LSU) per one hectare of utilized agricultural area (UAA). This level was slightly higher than in the previous EU survey of agricultural holdings conducted in 2013. A member state with the highest farm livestock density, amounting to 3.8 LSU/ha, was the Netherlands, followed by Malta and Belgium. These three countries noted the highest grazing livestock density. The lowest total farm livestock density among the member states was observed in Bulgaria (0.2 LSU/ha). However, from 2013 to 2016, this indicator noted the highest increase among the member states (by 11.1%). Kopiński [56] underlined that the organization of production in animal husbandry becomes more extensive (specialized) and simultaneously more intensive (concentrated), which can increase environmental pressure on areas where animal husbandry is very concentrated, leading to, among other things, the deterioration of the quality of surface and ground water.

Recently, the number of workers employed in agriculture has decreased and that in the services sector has increased in Poland and the majority of developed economies. A significant element of the analysis of the economic situation of agriculture is the relationship among production factors. An indicator describing the type of production techniques used is the number of workers per 100 ha of utilized agricultural area. From 2010 to 2019, that ratio ranged from 1.7 AWU in the United Kingdom to 43.1 AWU in Malta. Poland had, on average, 13 workers per 100 ha (Figure 4). The surveys support the view that, in Poland, excessive employment in agriculture and a negative labor–land ratio still persist. Parzonko [57] underlined that this results from an adverse agrarian structure, the so-called covert unemployment in agriculture. In the examined period, the analyzed ratio declined in most member states (except the Netherlands, Austria, Malta, Slovenia, the United Kingdom, and Greece).

The significance of differences in agricultural output intensity indicators between old (EU-15) and new (EU-13) member states was analyzed using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test comparing the significance of differences between the two groups. The level of significance was adopted as α = 0.05 (

Table 3. Assessment of the significance of differences between EU-15 and EU-13 groups (Mann-Whitney test results).

Variables					95% CI
	U		p	rrb	Lower	Upper
Intermediate consumption costs per hectare of UAA	41.00	**	0.008	−0.58	−0.80	−0.22
Nitrogen (N) consumption in mineral fertilizers per ha	69.00		0.201	−0.29	−0.63	0.13
Phosphate (P2O5) consumption in mineral fertilizers per ha	96.00		0.964	−0.02	−0.42	0.40
Potash (K2O) consumption in mineral fertilizers per ha	74.00		0.294	−0.24	−0.59	0.19
The number of full-time equivalents in agriculture per 100 ha of UAA	145.00	*	0.029	0.49	0.10	0.75
Cost of using plant protection products, herbicides, insecticides, and pesticides per ha	82.00		0.496	−0.16	−0.53	0.27

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

).

The results of the Mann–Whitney test point to significant differences between the examined groups of countries as regards the following two variables:

–

Intermediate consumption costs per hectare of UAA: the observed effect size (rrb) was very big and the results in the EU-15 group were significantly higher than in the EU-13 group.

–

The number of full-time equivalents in agriculture per 100 ha of UAA: the observed effect size (rrb) was very big and the results were significantly higher in the EU-13 category than in the EU-15 category.

Productivity is a measure of efficiency in agriculture, and land productivity is an expression of the value of agricultural output per 1 ha of utilized agricultural area. Analyzing the productivity of production factors in agriculture in the EU, Tarnowska [58] found that, in ‘new’ member states of the EU, the involvement of land inputs in achieving agricultural output from 2005 to 2012 was less productive (in terms of value) than in the EU-15. Data in Table 3 imply that land productivity in the EU was diverse and increased in most member states from 2010 to 2019. According to Tarnowska [58], this increase was determined by biological, chemical, technological, and organizational developments. Simultaneously, clear disparities in land productivity can be observed between old and new member states. This reflects differences in output intensity, as Pearson’s correlation coefficient for these two variables amounted to 0.984. The average value of agricultural production per 1 ha of utilized agricultural area in the EU from 2010 to 2019 was EUR 2779.70 (

Table 4. Land productivity in the member states of the European Union from 2010 to 2019 (EUR per 1 ha).

Country	2010	2019	2010–2019	Dynamics (2010 = 100)
Austria	1875.3	2482.1	2284	132.4
Belgium	5768.5	6464.8	6084.8	112.1
Bulgaria	690	724.1	697.3	104.9
Croatia	2135	1792.9	1883.4	84
Cyprus	5696.9	5992	5753.8	105.2
Czechia	1128.5	1286.5	1256.9	114
Denmark	3584.1	4477.2	3938.2	124.9
Estonia	647.3	926.8	780.8	143.2
Finland	1627.4	1687.2	1614.3	103.7
France	2257.3	2354.4	2326.5	104.3
Germany	2956.9	2953.4	2980.1	99.9
Greece	1874.6	2057.1	1959.5	109.7
Hungary	1121.9	1490.5	1343.6	132.9
Ireland	1274.3	1657.1	1456.1	130
Italy	3505.2	3318.6	3454.1	94.7
Latvia	488	676.8	586.1	138.7
Lithuania	699.9	883.8	834.3	126.3
Luxembourg	2389.9	2606.4	2517.7	109.1
Malta	10405.2	8910.2	9608.1	85.6
Netherlands	13,103.1	14,241.4	13,734.1	108.7
Poland	1343.3	1554.9	1464.5	115.8
Portugal	1752.5	1898.2	1809	108.3
Romania	995.5	1263.9	1115.8	127
Slovakia	916.5	1046.7	1051.8	114.2
Slovenia	2282.5	2481.7	2304.4	108.7
Spain	1653.3	2039.4	1831.8	123.4
Sweden	1622.4	1976.2	1769.4	121.8
United Kingdom	1310	1461.1	1390.2	111.5
EU-28	2682.3	2882.3	2779.7	107.5
Coefficient of variation (%)	108.3	101.3	104.4	-

). Out of the countries that joined the EU in or after 2004, Cyprus was the only one with a productivity index exceeding its mean value in the EU. In the examined years, in Poland, the value of agricultural output per 1 ha of UAA was on average EUR 1554.90 and the dynamics were 115.8. Zhang et al. [59] proved that the misallocation of resources in agriculture was the main reason for decreased productivity in countries/regions featuring a lower level of development. Thus, in countries with a lower output intensity, there is a potential for growth in land productivity, which should, however, be accompanied by sustainable production intensification taking the environmental objectives of sustainable development into account.

Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the position of respective countries separately for the old and new member states, depending on the cost of intermediate consumption per 1 ha of UAA and land productivity. By contrast, the size of the balls refers to the percentage of the EU’s agricultural production. To improve the readability of charts, the outliers were removed. For the EU-15, it was the Netherlands, and for the EU-13, Malta and Cyprus. The position of the Netherlands standing out from that of other countries is due to a very high output intensity and land productivity. In addition, from 2010 to 2019, it accounted for 6.7% of the EU’s agricultural output value. Belgium and Denmark are also far from the cluster of other countries, although their shares in the EU’s output were considerably lower and amounted to 2.2% and 2.8%, respectively. Additionally, Germany, Italy, and France are three countries that are worth noting for their high significance to agricultural production in the EU. In the analyzed period, they generated 43.1% of the overall agricultural output in the EU. Cyprus and Malta (deleted from the chart as outliers) are notable among new EU member states, featuring relatively high output intensity and land productivity. However, considering their share in the agricultural output of the EU, they cannot be deemed significant to European agriculture (0.21% of total share). The position of Slovenia implies slightly higher values of indicators used for determining the location of respective countries, but its share in the EU’s agricultural output was only 0.3%. Countries that stand out from the analyzed group are Poland and Romania. From 2010 to 2019, they accounted for the highest percentage of agricultural output in the EU-13, that is, 5.7% and 4.1%, respectively. Hungary and Czechia had a similar position in terms of output intensity and land productivity, although they had considerably lower shares of the EU’s output (1.9% and 1.2%, respectively).

Pawlak et al. [60] underlined that a long-term ability to maintain the high efficiency of agriculture affects its competitiveness and is also the basis for the transition from an industrial to a sustainable agriculture. According to the sustainable agriculture paradigm, natural resources can be used efficiently to achieve a satisfactory level of income from agricultural activity while respecting the laws of nature. However, it is difficult to specify the threshold of inputs that allow accomplishing sustainable development objectives. Ruiz-Martinez et al. [28] emphasized that few works define such thresholds using specific indicators. Some papers, such as those by Temme and Verburg [61], suggested future scenarios, including intensity thresholds based on nitrogen input. By contrast, Staniszewski [62] noted that, in countries such as Romania and Poland, increased resource productivity in agriculture is necessary for this sector’s continuing growth and ensuring its competitiveness in the common EU market. At the same time, he pointed out that, in line with the concept of sustainable intensification in agriculture, this sector should achieve an increase in resource productivity without a detriment to the natural environment by implementing innovative production methods. Hunter et al. [34] highlighted that the objectives of sustainable intensification go beyond production output and performance to the extent of environmental protection. Additional political efforts are needed to manage the demand for food by reducing food wasting and changing eating habits [34,63,64].

Sustainable development is one of the greatest challenges to the world today, and accomplishing its objectives requires a compromise between economic growth and the environment [65]. Programs for sustainable development have been implemented for years; but, although the desired direction of change was set in agriculture, it is still insufficient for the perceived needs. At present, such opportunities should be sought in the European Green Deal that is expected to give rise to subsequent international measures to achieve ambitious climatic and environmental goals. However, the potential impact of that strategy on economic objectives remains a moot point. The ecological transformation postulated by the European Green Deal throws down challenges to countries, societies, agricultural producers, and institutions. These challenges refer to collaboration in research and production but also to undertaking measures to increase the social acceptance of environmental goals. We should also be aware that environmental protection and related environmental competitiveness are not only European but also global problems, implying a need for global solutions. Balancing the output intensity and environmental objectives requires an integrated approach at all levels of human activity.

4. Conclusions

Interest in the intensity of agricultural output stems from various challenges that agriculture needs to face. A major one is a need to orient it toward sustainable agriculture. Conventional agriculture was a product of the agriculture industrialization process, including output intensification, the concentration of the production potential, and the specialization of agricultural holdings. However, industrial agriculture’s incontestable production and economic success were achieved at a considerable cost to the environment. This became a prerequisite for seeking new development directions based on the concept of sustainability. On these grounds, the diversification of agricultural output in the European Union member states was analyzed. This is an attempt at filling the research gap, which provides the basis for extended research considering a wider range of variables describing the production process in agriculture and its relationship with the natural environment. This paper has an interdisciplinary value as it combines economic and environmental aspects of agriculture that are relevant to sustainable development.

The results allowed us to formulate an answer to the abovementioned research questions concerning diversification of agricultural output intensity in the EU. Surveys showed that, from 2010 to 2019, member states of the European Union differed in terms of output intensity. However, these differences slightly decreased in the analyzed period, which is reflected in a reduced variability of costs per 1 ha of UAA. Most of the old EU member states from 2010 to 2019 were characterized by a higher output intensity than countries that joined the Community in or after 2004. In the analyzed period, the average value of intermediate consumption per 1 ha of utilized agricultural area in 13 new member states of the EU amounted to EUR 1275, while the mean for the EU-15 was EUR 2006.70. The land–labor ratio in the examined years ranged from 1.7 workers per 100 ha in the United Kingdom to 43 workers per 100 ha in Malta. Apart from Malta, countries with the highest number of workers per 100 ha were other new member states of the EU, particularly Slovenia, Cyprus, Croatia, Poland, and Romania. It was associated with the nature of agricultural structures in respective countries. Land productivity in EU member states was highly variable. The difference between the old and new member states was clearly marked. The highest land productivity from 2010 to 2019 was reached by agriculture in the Netherlands, where agricultural production levels per 1 ha were five times higher than on average in the European Union.

The surveys’ outcomes imply a need for a diversified approach to sustainable agriculture within the EU, with a particular focus on differences between old and new member states. This applies to both the Common Agricultural Policy and national policies. Obviously, the challenges regarding changes in the development of agriculture should be different in countries where the levels of productivity and inputs are very high than in low-intensity ones. Considering the results of our research, one of the main challenges for the EU countries in the coming years should be pursuing a balance among economic, social, and environmental objectives in agricultural production.

Our research is not free of limitations and should be deemed preliminary. Measuring agricultural output intensity is subject to multiple issues regarding the methods due to the lack of unanimity in its evaluation. In addition, there are no limit thresholds for the analyzed indicators to allow evaluating agricultural output intensity. Thus, there is a need for continuing research using advanced econometric modeling techniques. This study will be aimed at designing a synthetic measure of sustainability of agriculture in the EU member states and assessing its dependence on agricultural output intensity.