Sustainable Development of Agriculture in Member States of the European Union

Abstract

The main aim of this study was to evaluate the sustainable development of agriculture in the member states of the European Union (EU). Sustainable development is the main objective of Polish agriculture. Sustainable development encompasses three pillars: economic, social and environmental. In recent years, Polish agriculture has undergone a considerable change to integrate and adapt the agricultural sector to the EU standards. The achievement of the sustainable development goals in European agriculture was evaluated based on the Eurostat data as well as the analysis of the literature. The discussion on sustainable development of agriculture is rich. However, little attention is paid to the measurement of sustainable development. Our intention was to fill in the gap in the literature and provide a method to evaluate sustainable development. The paper contributes to the measurement of sustainable development based on Hellwig’s method. The changes in sustainable agricultural development were assessed with an index that was normalized with the zero unitarization method. In the first step, descriptive statistics for the variables applied in the process of calculating the sustainable development index were analyzed. The taxonomic measure of development (TMD) was then calculated for the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. In the following stage, 27 EU member states were divided into sustainable development classes based on the mean values of the TMD for each of the three pillars of sustainability. The conducted research revealed changes between the European Union countries in terms of sustainable development. In 2018, the highest values of the sustainable development index were noted in the Netherlands, Germany, France and the United Kingdom.

1. Introduction

Sustainable development is a concept that has been widely described in the literature. This paradigm has attracted the attention of researchers and scientific institutions around the world [1]. Sustainable development plays a special role in agriculture, and it applies to the economic, social and environmental aspects of food production, land cultivation, livestock breeding and farming and consumption. Sustainable agricultural development is of critical importance because 7.41 billion people inhabit the Earth and occupy 6.38 billion hectares of land. Around 1.3 billion people worldwide work in agriculture and produce food [2].

Sustainability can be characterized as a multidisciplinary issue including social, technological and natural sciences and their interactions aimed at achieving needs of society [3,4].

In 2020, the world population was 7,794,799 thousand people, and by 2050, the world population is projected to increase to 9,735,034 thousand people, and then increase to 10,875,394 thousand people in 2100. In 2019, the agricultural area was 4752.5 million hectares, with 883,513.6 thousand people employed in agriculture [5]. In the agricultural sector, sustainable development focuses mainly on increasing the productivity of soil. Agricultural soils should be maintained in good condition; they should be adequately hydrated, aerated and characterized by the optimal content of organic matter as well as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur and other nutrients. The content of heavy metals and residues of plant protection products should be minimized in agricultural soils. Organic farming, where mineral fertilizers and chemical plant protection products are not used, represents a sustainable approach to agriculture [6].

Despite the fact that sustainability plays a crucial role in agriculture, sustainable agricultural development is difficult to measure. Assessments of sustainable development should be based on indicators that quantify agricultural outputs in terms of their economic, social and environmental impact [7].

Sustainable development faces numerous challenges that exert long-term effects on agricultural production. The relationships between these problems and sustainable development should be analyzed to assess the social and environmental implications of the existing food production systems. The interactions between the key factors of sustainability need to be explored to improve the decision-making processes that contribute to sustainable strategies in agriculture [8].

Sustainable agricultural development is critical because it integrates social, biological, chemical, physical, ecological and other factors which promote the implementation of the agricultural practices that are safe and do not damage the natural environment. Sustainable development fosters sustainable agriculture which resolves the fundamental problems in food production in an environmentally friendly manner [9].

The main environmental problems in the agricultural sector include deteriorating water quality, excessive pesticide use, hydrological modifications that increase the risk of flooding and decrease the quality of life and animal well-being and greenhouse gas emissions that lead to air pollution and environmental degradation [10]. The impact of the growing human population on the global food system necessitates the implementation of sustainable development principles. Agriculture plays a vital role in global food security and the achievement of economic, social and environmental goals [11].

Sustainable development requires integrated measures and policies to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and toxic substances, mitigate climate change, promote technological development in the farming sector and promote renewable energy solutions in agriculture [12]. Sustainable development is a vital concept not only in agriculture, but also in the entire economy. This concept has contributed to the emergence of the circular economy and green economy paradigms. These models of production and consumption focus on eliminating waste, recycling materials and products, protecting the natural environment and ecofriendly development [13].

The concept of sustainable development has been described in the literature. It was introduced by the Brundtland Commission in 1983, and it was defined as development that meets the society’s present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs [14]. Sustainable development is oriented towards the development of a model that meets socioeconomic needs while significantly reducing the impacts that threaten the environment and natural resources [15]. Sustainable development focuses on dilemmas including standard of living, environmental awareness of society, economic growth and ecological system to help the planet to thrive [16]. The development of sustainability requires changes of culture, production systems, energy supply, agriculture and transformations to deliver healthier goods [17]. The development of sustainability also requires management which helps to monitor the environmental, social and economic factors leading to a longer and healthier progress of the whole economy [18]. United Nation’s Agenda 2030 elaborated goals of sustainable development including providing people the opportunities for peaceful life, reducing poverty and hunger, increasing global health and protecting the environment [19]. The concept of sustainable development has dominated political and economic agendas and has been embraced by national governments in the process of designing and implementing development strategies. In the European Union (EU), sustainability is widely debated in various contexts, including intelligent development, innovation and employment [20].

However, little attention is paid to the sustainability of farms. Our intention was to fill in the gap in the literature concerning European Union farms. To develop the problem of sustainable development of farms, we used the taxonomic measure of development (TMD) elaborated by Z. Hellwig. This method has many advantages and can be used to measure the sustainable development of farms. In addition, the zero-order unitization method [21] was used, which is a method of standardizing variables. We can use different indicators to evaluate the development. We can also compare farms, countries and other units using this method. The taxonomic measure of development (TMD) helps to rank objects from the worst to the best based on the level of development [22]. Using a number of indicators made it possible to measure the multidimensional phenomenon of sustainable development [23].

The main objective of this study was to assess the level of sustainable agricultural development in the EU member states, in particular, by evaluating the extent of changes in the values of sustainable development indicators in 2011 and 2018. An attempt was made to answer the following research questions:

• Have the EU countries progressed towards sustainable development in the social, economic and environmental dimensions?
• Has the enlargement of the EU contributed to sustainable development?
• Which EU countries have made the greatest progress towards sustainable development?

The following research hypotheses were formulated based on a review of the literature:

Hypothesis 1 (H1).

Energy and environmental policies have enabled most EU countries to progress towards sustainable development goals.

Hypothesis 2 (H2).

Countries that have joined the EU since 2004 have made less progress towards sustainable development.

The paper is organized as follows. Section 1 is the Introduction. Section 2 characterizes sustainable agriculture as a development paradigm. In Section 3, the methodology is explained. Then, we presented the results of the analysis. The final part is the Discussion and the Conclusion.

Sustainable Agriculture as a Development Paradigm

Agriculture is a branch of the national economy that influences the economic situation of the country. Recently, sustainable agriculture has been of particular importance as it treats the economic, social and environmental issues equally. The interest in the sustainable development of agriculture results from a number of premises, including the increase in agricultural production, the negative impact of agriculture on the environment and the great importance of agriculture for the quality of human life [24,25].

There is a lot of discussion about sustainable development. Slangen [26] distinguishes between the weak balance and the strong balance. Weak sustainability assumes the maximization of wealth, and the availability of resources for the next generations depends on human creativity and a technique ensuring that resources are secured against their consumption. On the other hand, the strong equilibrium presupposes the absolute preservation of the welfare of the natural environment.

The future of sustainable development is determined by a number of factors and phenomena, i.e., the technical progress in agriculture, social changes related to democracy, international cooperation and armed conflicts [27].

Sustainable development of agriculture is a very important issue for farms which have to choose the way of improving the financial situation in accordance with the environment. Sustainable agriculture is a part of sustainable development and it creates economic stability for people in developing countries. It is considered as a constant development paradigm enhanced by people [28]. Sustainable agriculture can also be supported by a circular economy which helps to establish a recycling society. Circular economy can help the sustainable agricultural development to catch up with the modern trends [29]. Sustainable development helps to achieve socioeconomic needs in harmony with environmental issues. Sustainable development supports integration of producers with the resilience of ecological systems [30].

On the farm level, sustainable agriculture can be achieved by supporting investment which helps to achieve better productivity and maintain compliance with the environment [31]. Choosing this way, farmers can improve the quality of their life. Moreover, the sustainable food production can be ensured [32]. The interests of sustainable agriculture come from global intensive farming. This kind of agriculture is based on large inputs and it generates environmental and ecological consequences [33].

Sustainable agricultural practices include methods which can help to produce food taking the environment into consideration. These practices include methods and production technologies, saving water with irrigation systems, leading organic production and elimination of chemical fertilizers [34].

The sustainable development of agriculture can be threatened by soil degradation. It is the effect of wind and water erosion, losses of organic matter, nutrients, etc. Soil can also be threatened by the indiscriminate use of fertilizers leading to pollution, reduced pH and productivity [2,35]. It is not easy to have sustainable production using fewer inputs and maximizing the output. This particularly concerns feeding animals connected with manure production, high production costs and heavy environmental pollution. However, nanotechnologies may improve the feeding efficiency [36].

The issue of sustainability of farms in the EU (European Union) has been measured by different authors. Bórawski et al. [37] measured the economic sustainability of dairy farms. They found that the highest economic sustainability had been achieved by farms in the Czech Republic, Denmark, Slovakia and Sweden. The lowest economic sustainability was achieved by dairy farms in Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, Romania and Slovenia. Organic agriculture is considered to be more sustainable than traditional agriculture [38]. The largest organic milk producers in the so-called old EU countries are Austria, Switzerland, Italy and Sweden, while among the countries that joined the EU after 2004, the largest organic milk production is in Latvia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia [39].

The EU agriculture struggles against competition of foreign producers, lower food consumption, novel foods, small incomes and a higher demand for quality food. The situation has led to the development of organic farming. To be sustainable, agriculture must invest in the local environment [40].

The sustainable development of agriculture is supported by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the EU. The policy includes the ecologization of production including cross-compliance aimed at reducing the negative impact of agriculture on the environment. Moreover, the CAP supports the development of organic agriculture by various funds. The “Europa 2020” strategy is also an example of actions undertaken by the CAP focused on socioeconomic development [41]. The CAP has been economically ineffective because farmers make decisions about specific production based on the possibility of obtaining higher subsidies and not on market conditions and is also socially unjust because the criteria of granting the financial aid directed to farms under the CAP favor larger farms. The CAP should promote agricultural entrepreneurship and sustainable development [42]. The policy helps to facilitate the sustainable management of natural resources and decrease the negative impact of economic development [43].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

To compare the level of sustainable development, indicators (variables) were selected, guided by substantive, formal and statistical criteria. The formal criteria were aimed at selecting indicators with specific statistical characteristics, such as measurability and completeness of data, enabling the comparison of 2011 and 2018. Content-related selection of indicators was made with the aim of assessing three areas of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental [44]. The indicators were selected taking into account, inter alia, the assessment of impact on soil and air protection, protection and management of water resources, landscape and biodiversity protection and management, quality of life of farming families, animal welfare, management of nonrenewable resources, ethics, product quality, awareness, farm profitability, technical adaptation, employment and the coherence of the three areas [38,45,46,47,48,49,50,51].

Originally, 35 indicators were selected for the study of the level of sustainable development of agriculture, which were divided into three areas corresponding to the three pillars of sustainability. Then, the variables were subjected to statistical verification in order to eliminate indicators with a low degree of variability. Indicators with the standard deviation below 10%, with the exception of the variable “share of agriculture in government expenditure in %” were eliminated. Then, the variables were polished together. All the variables with the correlation index above 80% were removed. Statistical verification aimed to eliminate indicators representing similar characteristics and low levels of variation. As a result of statistical verification, 15 indicators remained, including eight stimulants, or “positive indicators” (the higher the value of the indicator, the higher the level of development), and seven destimulants, or “negative indicators” (the lower the value of the indicator, the higher the level of development) (Figure 1).

Sustainable development of agriculture in Poland and other EU member states was compared based on the statistical data for 2011 and 2018 generated by the FADN, Statistics Poland, EUROSTAT and FAOSTAT. The data for Croatia were not available, and this country was not included in the analysis. The sustainable development indicators were assessed in three categories: economic, social and environmental. Five indicators were identified in each category (

Table 1. Indicators of sustainable agricultural development in the EU countries.

Symbol	Indicators	Stimulant (Positive Indicator)/Destimulant (Negative Indicator)
Economic indicators
X1	Utilized agricultural area (UAA) per annual work unit (AWU) (SE025/SE010) in ha/AWU	Stimulant
X2	Net investment on fixed assets in EUR (SE521)	Stimulant
X3	Cash flows in EUR (SE526)	Stimulant
X4	Equity capital in EUR per hectare	Stimulant
X5	Total liabilities in EUR (SE485)	Destimulant
Social indicators
X6	Employment in agriculture (in thousands of jobs)	Destimulant
X7	Domestic consumption of farm products (SE260)	Stimulant
X8	Income per person in EUR (SE430)	Stimulant
X9	Total number of work-related accidents (fatal and nonfatal) per year	Destimulant
X10	Share of agriculture in government expenditure in %	Stimulant
Environmental indicators
X11	Ammonia emissions from agriculture in kg/ha per year	Destimulant
X12	Share of permanent grassland in the UAA in %	Stimulant
X13	Harmonized risk indicator 1 for pesticides by category of active ingredients (Directive 2009/128/EC) per year	Destimulant
X14	Final energy consumption in agriculture/forestry per hectare of agricultural area in kilograms of oil equivalent per hectare (KgOE/ha)	Destimulant
X15	Consumption of inorganic fertilizers in tons of nitrogen (N)/year	Destimulant

Source: own elaboration based on [52,53,54,55,56].

).

2.2. Methods

The methods of multivariate comparative analysis make it possible to assess the impact of selected factors on the level of development [57]. The purpose of a multivariate comparative analysis is to build a synthetic measure, while the task of a synthetic measure is to compare objects that are described with the participation of many variables. Linear ordering methods are used to determine the order of objects [58].

To study the level of sustainable development of agriculture in the European Union, the model method of the taxonomic measure of development by Z. Hellwig was used, which was presented by its author under the name “measure of economic development” in 1968 [59].

All the indicators were normalized by means of the zero unitarization method with the use of the following equations [60]:

$${\mathrm{Z}}_{\mathrm{ij}}=\frac{{\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{ij}}-{\min }_{\mathrm{ij}}\left\{{\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{ij}}\right\}}{{\max }_{\mathrm{ij}}\left\{{\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{ij}}\right\}-{\min }_{\mathrm{ij}}\left\{{\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{ij}}\right\}} \mathrm{for} \mathrm{stimulants}$$

(1)

$${\mathrm{Z}}_{\mathrm{ij}}=\frac{{\mathrm{maxX}}_{\mathrm{ij}}\left\{{\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{ij}}\right\}-{\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{ij}}}{{\max }_{\mathrm{ij}}\left\{{\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{ij}}\right\}-{\min }_{\mathrm{ij}}\left\{{\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{ij}}\right\}} \mathrm{for} \mathrm{destimulants}$$

(2)

The above indicators were analyzed with the use of Hellwig’s taxonomic measure of development to evaluate the impact of the selected indicators on the development of agriculture.

The coordinates of the development pattern were determined with the use of the following formulas:

$${\mathrm{Z}}_{\mathrm{oj}}=\left\{\begin{array}{c}\underset{\mathrm{i}}{\max }\left\{{\mathrm{Z}}_{\mathrm{ij}}\right\} \mathrm{for} \mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{t} \mathrm{v}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{b}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\\ \underset{\mathrm{i}}{\min }\left\{{\mathrm{Z}}_{\mathrm{ij}}\right\} \mathrm{f}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r} \mathrm{d}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{t} \mathrm{v}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{b}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\end{array}\right.$$

(3)

The above operations were performed in the following order: (Z_ij − Z_0j)². The results were summed up, and the square root of the sum was calculated. The result denotes the distance d_i0 between the pattern and each object. The following formula was used to calculate the distance between each object and the pattern in Hellwig’s method:

$${\mathrm{d}}_{\mathrm{i}0}=\sqrt{{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{\mathrm{j}=1}^{\mathrm{m}}{\left({\mathrm{Z}}_{\mathrm{ij}}-{\mathrm{Z}}_{0\mathrm{j}}\right)}^2}$$

(4)

where d_i0—Euclidean distance between the ith and the kth object, Z_ij—normalized value of the jth variable (measure) in the ith object.

In the following stage, aggregated index d_i, also known as the taxonomic measure of development (TMD), was calculated with the use of the following formula:

$$\left(\mathrm{TMD}\right){\mathrm{d}}_{\mathrm{i}}=1-\frac{{\mathrm{d}}_{\mathrm{i}0}}{{\mathrm{d}}_0}$$

(5)

where d_i—development index for the ith object, and d₀ was calculated as follows:

$${\mathrm{d}}_0={\overline{\mathrm{d}}}_0+2{\mathrm{S}}_{\mathrm{d}},$$

(6)

where d₀ is the arithmetic mean and S_d is the standard deviation of the distance from the standard. The standard deviation of distance S_d was determined with the following formula:

$${\mathrm{S}}_{\mathrm{d}}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}{\left({\mathrm{d}}_{\mathrm{i}0}-{\overline{\mathrm{d}}}_0\right)}^2}$$

(7)

3. Results

3.1. Economic Dimension of Sustainable Agricultural Development

The mean value of indicator X1 (hectares of the utilized agricultural area per annual work unit, ha/AWU) increased by 9.52% between 2011 and 2018, whereas the median value of indicator X1 increased by 13.46% between 2011 and 2018. The minimum value of indicator X1 was 9.36% higher in 2018 than in 2011, whereas the maximum value of indicator X1 was 2.85% higher in 2018 than in 2011. The range for indicator X1 also increased by 2.68% between 2011 and 2018. The coefficient of variation for indicator X1 was 4.73% higher in 2011 than in 2018, whereas the standard deviation was 4.44% higher in 2018 than in 2011.

The mean value of indicator X2 (net investment on fixed assets) decreased by 23.66% between 2011 and 2018, and the median was 2.04% lower in 2011 than in 2018. The minimum value of indicator X2 was determined at €−3312.00 in 2011, and it increased by 38.85% in 2018. The maximum value of indicator X2 reached €35,515.00 in 2011 and was 28.48% higher than in 2018. The range for indicator X2 was 29.36% higher in 2011 than in 2018. The coefficient of variation for indicator X2 was determined at 1.39% in 2011 and 2018, whereas the standard deviation was 28.09% higher in 2011 than in 2018.

The mean value of indicator X3 (cash flows) reached €42,316.00 in 2011 and was 11.25% lower than in 2018, whereas the median value increased by 35.74% between 2011 and 2018. The minimum value of indicator X3 was determined at €5894.00 in 2011 and was 63.14% lower than in 2018, whereas the maximum value increased by 39.16% between 2011 and 2018. The range for indicator X3 was 37.7% lower in 2011 than in 2018. The coefficient of variation increased by 0.67% between 2011 and 2018, whereas the standard deviation increased by 11.94% between 2011 and 2018.

The mean value of indicator X4 (equity capital) was determined at €11,443.00/ha in 2011 and was 8.31% lower than in 2018, whereas the median value of indicator X4 was 7.14% lower in 2011 than in 2018. The minimum value of indicator X4 increased by 29.73% between 2011 and 2018, whereas the maximum value increased by 5.66% between 2011 and 2018. The range for indicator X4 was 5.22% lower in 2011 than in 2018. The coefficient of variation for indicator X4 increased by 5.61% between 2011 and 2018, whereas the standard deviation increased by 14.41% between 2011 and 2018.

The mean value of indicator X5 (total liabilities) was determined at €156,230.00 in 2011, and it increased by 21.62% in 2018. The median value of indicator X5 increased by 63.26% between 2011 and 2018. The minimum value of indicator X5 reached €562.00 in 2011 and was 91.28% higher than in 2018. The maximum value of X5 was determined at €1,494,200.00 in 2011 and was 7.12% lower than in 2018. The range for indicator X5 increased by 7.15% between 2011 and 2018. The coefficient of variation for total liabilities reached 2.002% in 2011 and was 10.98% higher than in 2018, whereas the standard deviation increased by 8.3% between 2011 and 2018 (

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for the economic indicators in 2011 and 2018.

Statistical Measure	X1	X2	X3	X4	X5
2011
Mean	29.663	7551.000	42,316.000	11,443.000	156,230.000
Median	26.523	2643.000	28,820.000	7618.700	38,518.000
Minimum	1.879	−3312.000	5894.000	1153.200	562.000
Maximum	74.076	35,515.000	102,250.000	64,375.000	1,494,200.000
Standard deviation	20.048	10,494.000	31,370.000	13,660.000	312,690.000
Coefficient of variation	0.676	1.390	0.741	1.194	2.002
Range	72.197	38,827.000	96 356.000	63,221.800	1,493,638.000
2018
Mean	32.489	5764.300	47,079.000	12,395.000	190,010.000
Median	30.094	2697.000	39,121.000	8162.000	62,885.000
Minimum	2.055	−2025.000	9616.000	1496.100	49.000
Maximum	76.193	25,399.000	142,300.000	68,023.000	1,600,500.000
Standard deviation	20.938	7545.700	35,118.000	15,629.000	338,670.000
Coefficient of variation	0.644	1.309	0.746	1.261	1.782
Range	74.138	27,424.000	132,684.000	66,526.900	1,600,451.000

Source: own elaboration based on [52].

).

Below, the TMD values calculated in the economic dimension of agricultural sustainability for the EU countries in 2011 and 2018 are presented. Sustainable agricultural development in the economic dimension was compared between the analyzed countries in both years, and changes in the EU countries’ ranking between 2011 and 2018 are also shown. The analysis revealed that in 2011, the greatest progress towards sustainable development goals in the economic dimension was made by Denmark (TMD, 0.549), followed by the Netherlands (TMD, 0.543) and Luxembourg (TMD, 0.462). In 2018, the Netherlands ranked first (TMD, 0.581), Denmark ranked second (TMD, 0.417) and the United Kingdom ranked third (TMD, 0.41) in the group of 27 EU countries in the evaluated dimension. The reasons why these countries reached the highest economic development were the largest utilized agricultural area, investment and equity. Farms in these countries are characterized by large area and a big turnover. Large farms use most agricultural land, get subsidies and achieve the best economic results [61]. The results of the analysis can provide guidance for farms in less developed countries such as Romania, Greece and Poland that traditional economic factors are responsible for the development of farms. Less developed countries should increase the utilized agricultural area of farms. Additionally, investment should be a crucial factor in the development.

In both 2011 and 2018, Romania made the smallest progress towards sustainable agricultural development in the economic dimension (TMD in 2011—0.083, in 2018—0.085), and it ranked 27th in the analyzed group of countries. In 2011 and 2018, Greece occupied the 26th position (TMD in 2011—0.114, in 2018—0.089) and Poland occupied the 25th position (TMD in 2011—0.119, in 2018—0.102) in the ranking (Figure 2).

3.2. Social Dimension of Sustainable Agricultural Development

In 2018, the mean value of indicator X6 (employment in agriculture in thousands of jobs) reached 354,000 jobs, marking a decrease of 7.7% from 2011, whereas the median value increased by 0.34% between 2011 and 2018. We considered the variable as a destimulant because the higher the employment in agriculture, the lower the level of agricultural development. A larger number of people employed in agriculture have worse possibilities to get jobs outside agriculture. The agriculture where more people are employed is not developed technologically and uses old production methods. The minimum value of indicator X6 decreased by 5.26% between 2011 and 2018, whereas the maximum value of X6 decreased by 32.14% between 2011 and 2018. The range for indicator X6 decreased by 32.16% between 2011 and 2018. The coefficient of variation decreased by 4.8% between 2011 and 2018, whereas the standard deviation decreased by 12.12% between 2011 and 2018.

The mean value of indicator X7 (domestic consumption of farm products in EUR) decreased by 20.92% between 2011 and 2018, and the median value decreased by 15.5% between 2011 and 2018. The minimum value of indicator X7 reached €18.00 in 2011 and was 5.55% higher than in 2018. The maximum value of X7 reached €1513.00 in 2011 and was 15.53% higher than in 2018. The range for indicator X7 was 15.65% higher in 2011 than in 2018. The coefficient of variation increased by 5.01% between 2011 and 2018, whereas the standard deviation was 16.96% higher in 2011 than in 2018.

The mean value of indicator X8 (income per person in EUR) was determined at €19,449.00/person in 2011, and it increased by 8.28% in 2018, whereas the median value was 4.22% higher in 2011 than in 2018. The minimum value of indicator X8 increased by 45.67% between 2011 and 2018, whereas the maximum value of X8 increased by 15.79% between 2011 and 2018. The range for indicator X8 reached €45,766.00/person in 2011 and was 13.49% lower than in 2018. The coefficient of variation increased by 10.05% between 2011 and 2018, whereas the standard deviation reached €11,618.00/person in 2011 and was 19.17% lower than in 2018.

The mean value of indicator X9 (total number of fatal and nonfatal accidents at work per year) decreased by 8.68% between 2011 and 2018, whereas the median value of X9 increased by 13.34% between 2011 and 2018. The minimum value of indicator X9 reached 31.00/year in 2011 and was 12.9% higher than in 2018. The maximum value of X9 decreased by 28.67% between 2011 and 2018. The range for indicator X9 was 28.68% higher in 2011 than in 2018. The coefficient of variation for indicator X9 decreased by 16.57% between 2011 and 2018, whereas the standard deviation reached 14,939.000/year in 2011 and was 23.81% higher than in 2018.

The mean value of indicator X10 (share of agriculture in government expenditure in %) was determined at 1.322% in 2011 and was 56.86% higher than in 2018, whereas the median value decreased by 25.07% between 2011 and 2018. The minimum value of indicator X10 reached 0.093 in 2011 and was 74.19% lower than in 2018. The maximum value of X10 decreased by 34.53% between 2011 and 2018. The range for indicator X10 was 37.36% higher in 2011 than in 2018. The coefficient of variation for X10 decreased by 19.58% between 2011 and 2018, whereas the standard deviation reached 1.019% in 2011 and was 46.22% higher than in 2018 (

Table 3. Descriptive statistics for the social indicators in 2011 and 2018.

Statistical Measure	X6	X7	X8	X9	X10
2011
Mean	383.560	463.300	19,449.000	6101.100	1.322
Median	146.000	374.000	20,174.000	547.000	1.005
Minimum	2.000	18.000	3524.200	31.000	0.093
Maximum	2884.000	1513.000	49,291.000	66,919.000	3.669
Standard deviation	574.210	397.450	11,618.000	14,939.000	1.019
Coefficient of variation	1.497	0.858	0.597	2.449	0.771
Range	2882.000	1495.000	45,766.800	66,888.000	3.576
2018
Mean	354.000	366.370	21,061.000	5571.400	0.884
Median	146.500	316.000	19,322.000	620.000	0.753
Minimum	1.900	17.000	5133.470	27.000	0.162
Maximum	1957.000	1278.000	57,075.190	47,728.000	2.402
Standard deviation	504.570	330.030	13,846.000	11,382.000	0.548
Coefficient of variation	1.425	0.901	0.657	2.043	0.620
Range	1955.100	1261.000	51,941.720	47,701.000	2.240

Source: own elaboration based on [52,53,54,56].

).

TMD values calculated in the social dimension of agricultural sustainability for the EU countries in 2011 and 2018 are presented below. Sustainable agricultural development in the social dimension was compared between the analyzed countries in both years, and changes in the EU countries’ ranking between 2011 and 2018 are also shown in Figure 3. In both 2011 and 2018, the greatest progress towards sustainable development goals in the social dimension was made by Italy (TMD in 2011—0.285, in 2018—0.347), followed by Slovakia in 2011 (TMD, 0.278) and Germany in 2011 (TMD, 0.259). In 2018, France ranked second (TMD, 0.317) and Spain ranked third (TMD, 0.306) in the group of 27 EU countries in the evaluated dimension. Among the factors which had the largest impact on the social dimension of sustainable development of farms were employment in agriculture and income per person. These countries had positive changes in the social dimension and income per farmer. These countries are also the most competitive in the European Union [62].

Sweden made the smallest progress towards sustainable agricultural development in the social dimension, and it ranked 27th in both 2011 and 2018 (TMD in 2011—0.004, in 2018—0.00). The 26th position was occupied by Belgium in 2011 (TMD, 0.047) and by Denmark in 2018 (TMD, 0.01), whereas the 25th position was occupied by the Netherlands in 2011 (TMD, 0.057) and by Belgium in 2018 (TMD, 0.078) (Figure 3).

3.3. Environmental Dimension of Sustainable Agricultural Development

The mean value of indicator X11 (ammonia emissions in agriculture in kg/ha/year) decreased by 2.32% between 2011 and 2018. The median value decreased by 3.14% between 2011 and 2018. The minimum value of indicator X11 reached 6.5 kg/ha/year in 2011 and 2018, whereas the maximum value was 8.42% lower in 2018 than in 2011. The range for X11 decreased by 8.94% between 2011 and 2018. The coefficient of variation decreased by 6.81% between 2011 and 2018, whereas the standard deviation was 8.94% lower in 2018 than in 2011.

The mean value of indicator X12 (share of permanent grassland in the UAA in %) increased by 1.4% between 2011 and 2018 (27.813%), whereas the median value increased by 4.1% between 2011 and 2018. The minimum value of indicator X12 was determined at 0.000% in 2011 and 2018, whereas the maximum value increased by 3.81% between 2011 and 2018. The range for indicator X12 was 3.81% lower in 2011 than in 2018. The coefficient of variation decreased by 1.9% between 2011 and 2018, whereas the standard deviation reached 20.197% in 2011 and was 0.6% higher than in 2018.

The mean value of indicator X13 (harmonized risk indicator 1 for pesticides by category of active ingredients per year; Directive 2009/128/EC) reached 107.96% in 2011 and was 19.75% higher than in 2018; the median value was 19.6% higher in 2011 than in 2018. The minimum value of X13 reached 84.000% in 2011 and was 42.85% higher than in 2018, whereas the maximum value of X13 decreased by 40.49% between 2011 and 2018. The range for X13 was 39.24% higher in 2011 than in 2018. The coefficient of variation increased by 18.14% between 2011 and 2018, whereas the standard deviation was determined at 29.171% in 2011 and was 5.34% higher than in 2018.

The mean value of indicator X14 (final energy consumption in agriculture/forestry per hectare of agricultural area in kilograms of oil equivalent per hectare (KgOE/ha)) decreased by 6.07% in the analyzed period, from 232.22 KgOE/ha in 2011 to 246.32 KgOE/ha in 2018, whereas the median value increased by 8.64% between 2011 and 2018. The minimum value of indicator X14 reached 31.09 KgOE/ha in 2011 and was 17.72% lower than in 2018. The maximum value of X14 increased by 11.39% between 2011 and 2018. The range for X14 was 11.29% lower in 2011 than in 2018. The coefficient of variation for indicator X14 increased by 4.53% between 2011 and 2018, and the standard deviation increased by 10.85% in the analyzed period, from 363.28 KgOE/a in 2011 to 402.7 KgOE/ha in 2018.

The mean value of indicator X15 (consumption of inorganic fertilizers in tons of nitrogen (N)/year) increased by 3.55% from 398,560.000 t N/year in 2011 to 412,720.000 t N/year, whereas the median value increased by 1.54% between 2011 and 2018. The minimum value of X15 was determined at 471.000 t N/year in 2011 and was 24.41% lower than in 2018. The maximum value of X15 reached 2,332,400.000 t N/year in 2011 and was 8.18% higher than in 2018. The range for indicator X15 was 8.18% higher in 2011 than in 2018. The coefficient of variation decreased by 10.71% between 2011 and 2018, whereas the standard deviation was 7.54% higher in 2011 than in 2018 (

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for the environmental indicators in 2011 and 2018.

Statistical Measure	X11	X12	X13	X14	X15
2011
Mean	25.978	27.428	107.960	232.220	398,560.000
Median	19.100	24.749	102.000	143.520	181,390.000
Minimum	6.500	0.000	84.000	31.090	471.000
Maximum	112.700	87.434	242.000	1938.100	2,332,400.000
Standard deviation	22.852	20.197	29.171	363.280	565,640.000
Coefficient of variation	0.880	0.736	0.270	1.564	1.419
Range	106.200	87.434	158.000	1907.010	2,331,929.000
2018
Mean	25.374	27.813	86.630	246.320	412,720.000
Median	18.500	25.766	82.000	155.920	184,200.000
Minimum	6.500	0.000	48.000	36.530	586.000
Maximum	103.200	90.771	144.000	2158.900	2,141,600.000
Standard deviation	20.809	20.075	27.613	402.700	522,960.000
Coefficient of variation	0.820	0.722	0.319	1.635	1.267
Range	96.700	90.771	96.000	2122.370	2,141,014.000

Source: own elaboration based on [52,53].

).

TMD values calculated in the environmental dimension of agricultural sustainability for the EU countries in 2011 and 2018 are shown below. Sustainable agricultural development in the environmental dimension was compared between the analyzed countries in both years, and changes in the EU countries’ ranking between 2011 and 2018 are also shown in Figure 4. In both 2011 and 2018, the greatest progress towards sustainable development goals in the environmental dimension was made by the Netherlands (TMD in 2011—0.351, in 2018—0.367), followed by Germany in 2011 (TMD, 0.242) and Belgium in 2011 (TMD, 0.236). In 2018, France ranked second (TMD, 0.274) and Germany ranked third (TMD, 0.269) in the group of 27 EU countries in the evaluated dimension. Environmental indicators are starting to play a more important role in the sustainable development of agriculture. Preservation of nature plays a crucial role in the sustainable development of agriculture because this sector delivers public goods. The economic development has a smaller impact on the environment [63].

The smallest progress towards sustainable agricultural development in the environmental dimension was made by Lithuania in 2011 (TMD, 0.046) and by Romania in 2018 (TMD, 0.034). The 26th position was occupied by Estonia in 2011 (TMD, 0.058) and by Greece in 2018 (TMD, 0.042). The 25th position in the environmental dimension of sustainable agricultural development was occupied by Greece in 2011 (TMD, 0.059) and by Denmark in 2018 (TMD, 0.047) (Figure 4).

3.4. Economic, Social and Environmental Dimensions of Sustainable Agricultural Development

Sustainable agricultural development in all the three evaluated dimensions was compared between the analyzed countries in both years, and changes in the EU countries’ ranking between 2011 and 2018 are also presented in

Table 5. Mean values of the taxonomic measure of development (TMD) in the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable agricultural development in 2011 and 2018 and the ranking of the EU countries.

No.	Country	2011		2018		Change in Rank between 2011 and 2018
		TMD (Mean)	Rank	TMD (Mean)	Rank
1	Austria	0.204	11	0.224	8	3
2	Belgium	0.212	9	0.232	7	2
3	Bulgaria	0.131	20	0.138	21	−1
4	Cyprus	0.129	21	0.137	22	−1
5	Czechia	0.242	5	0.208	10	−5
6	Denmark	0.236	6	0.158	17	−11
7	Estonia	0.165	15	0.189	13	2
8	Finland	0.153	17	0.183	15	2
9	France	0.234	7	0.285	3	4
10	Germany	0.281	2	0.309	2	0
11	Greece	0.087	27	0.090	27	0
12	Hungary	0.126	22	0.146	19	3
13	Ireland	0.181	13	0.195	11	2
14	Italy	0.210	10	0.233	6	4
15	Latvia	0.123	23	0.156	18	5
16	Lithuania	0.119	25	0.129	24	1
17	Luxembourg	0.258	4	0.233	5	−1
18	Malta	0.133	19	0.145	20	−1
19	Netherlands	0.317	1	0.353	1	0
20	Poland	0.174	14	0.166	16	−2
21	Portugal	0.111	26	0.117	26	0
22	Romania	0.119	24	0.130	23	1
23	Slovakia	0.222	8	0.194	12	−4
24	Slovenia	0.137	18	0.183	14	4
25	Spain	0.181	12	0.222	9	3
26	Sweden	0.154	16	0.124	25	−9
27	United Kingdom	0.265	3	0.263	4	−1

Source: own elaboration based on [52,53,54,56].

. The Netherlands ranked first and made the greatest progress towards sustainable agricultural development in all the evaluated dimensions in both 2011 and 2018. Germany ranked second in both years, whereas the United Kingdom ranked third in 2011, and France ranked third in 2018. In both the evaluated years, the smallest progress towards sustainable agricultural development was made by Greece (27th) and Portugal (26th). The mean values of the TMD calculated for the EU countries in the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable agricultural development for 2011 and 2018 are presented in Table 5.

In the next step of the analysis, the group of 27 EU countries was divided into sustainable development classes (

Table 6. Division of the EU countries into sustainable development classes in 2011 and 2018.

Class	2011		2018
	Country	Taxonomic Measure of Development, TMD (Mean)	Country	Taxonomic Measure of Development, TMD (Mean)
I	Netherlands	0.317	Netherlands	0.353
	Germany	0.281	Germany	0.309
	United Kingdom	0.265	France	0.285
	Luxembourg	0.258	United Kingdom	0.263
	Czechia	0.242	Luxembourg	0.233
	Denmark	0.236	Italy	0.233
II	France	0.234	Belgium	0.232
	Slovakia	0.222	Austria	0.224
	Belgium	0.212	Spain	0.222
	Italy	0.210	Czechia	0.208
	Austria	0.204	Ireland	0.195
	Spain	0.181	Slovakia	0.194
	Ireland	0.181	Estonia	0.189
III	Poland	0.174	Slovenia	0.183
	Estonia	0.165	Finland	0.183
	Sweden	0.154	Poland	0.166
	Finland	0.153	Denmark	0.158
	Slovenia	0.137	Latvia	0.156
	Malta	0.133	Hungary	0.146
	Bulgaria	0.131	Malta	0.145
IV	Cyprus	0.129	Bulgaria	0.138
	Hungary	0.126	Cyprus	0.137
	Latvia	0.123	Romania	0.130
	Romania	0.119	Lithuania	0.129
	Lithuania	0.119	Sweden	0.124
	Portugal	0.111	Portugal	0.117
	Greece	0.087	Greece	0.090

Source: own elaboration based on [52,53,54,56].

) based on the mean values of the TMD calculated in the economic, social and environmental dimensions. The identified classes had the following characteristics:

Class I—very high progress towards sustainable development goals (six countries),

Class II—high progress towards sustainable development goals (seven countries),

Class III—moderate progress towards sustainable development goals (seven countries),

Class IV—low progress towards sustainable development goals (seven countries).

In 2011, the Netherlands, Germany, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg, Czechia and Denmark made a very high progress towards sustainable agricultural development (class I). In 2018, Czechia moved down in the ranking from class I to class II, whereas Denmark’s position declined from class I to class III. In 2011, class II comprised France, Slovakia, Belgium, Italy, Austria, Spain and Ireland. In 2018, France and Italy moved up from class II to class I. In 2011, class III comprised Poland, Estonia, Sweden, Finland, Slovenia, Malta and Bulgaria. In 2018, Estonia moved up from class III to class II, whereas Bulgaria’s and Sweden’s performance declined to class IV. In 2011, class IV comprised Cyprus, Hungary, Latvia, Romania, Lithuania, Portugal and Greece. In 2018, Latvia and Hungary moved up in the ranking from class IV to class III (Table 6).

The best sustainable development was achieved in 2018 by the Netherlands, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg and Italy. These are the most developed countries of the EU-15. Smaller sustainable development was achieved in 2018 by Bulgaria, Cyprus, Romania, Lithuania, Sweden and Portugal. These are mostly the countries which joined the European Union in 2004 and 2007. Sweden and Portugal are countries without good conditions for the development of agriculture. These results demonstrate the large disparities in the development of agriculture in the European Union (Figure 5).

4. Discussion

Sustainable development poses the greatest challenge in the contemporary world. The achievement of sustainable development goals requires a compromise between economic growth and the environment [14]. Sustainable development emphasizes the need for environmental protection in an attempt to combine meeting human needs with addressing numerous environmental challenges [15].

The sustainable development concept requires sectoral policies and an integrated approach at all levels of human activity. The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy is one of such approaches that aim to improve living standards in rural areas and stabilize agricultural incomes [20]. Our research proved that the European Union countries achieved better economic development. However, the development was achieved through net investment and total liabilities which had the biggest coefficient of variation. This was the effect of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) which supports the investment in farms.

Sustainable development is a complex concept that addresses numerous issues, including dynamic development, organic farming, environmental development, global economic systems, recycling and consumption [64]. The evolution of economic systems and increased global competitiveness are driven by economic growth and economic development that accounts for the social and environmental factors contributing to sustainability [65].

Our results show large disparities in the sustainable development of agriculture in the European Union. Such countries as the Netherlands, Germany, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg, Czechia and Denmark are classified in the first development group. Other countries achieved lower levels of development. Agricultural specialization enables farmers to gain a competitive advantage on the market. Specialization minimizes differences in agricultural productivity and improves agricultural efficiency. Diversification is a reverse process which leads to greater variation between farms and contributes to multifunctionality in agriculture. Agricultural specialization is the preferred strategy for improving the economic performance of farms. However, the diversification of agricultural production generates more desirable outcomes in the environmental and social dimensions and contributes to sustainable development [66]. Our research proved the development of the social dimension of sustainable development of farms. It depends on employment which decreased in the European Union’s agriculture because it is becoming more modernized. The social dimension proved the development of the human capital, which is an important factor for economic growth and development [67].

The agricultural sector is responsible for food production, and farmland occupies nearly 40% of the global land surface, therefore it exerts a massive impact on the environment and rural areas [68]. Agriculture can benefit the environment via extensive livestock farming systems, traditional cropping systems as well as organic farming systems where mineral fertilizers and chemical plant protection products are not applied. However, modern farms can also deliver public goods by relying on modern technological solutions that improve water management, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve the quality of agricultural soils [69,70]. Our research proved the development of the environmental dimension of sustainable development. The largest coefficient of variation was observed in the consumption of inorganic fertilizers and the final energy consumption in agriculture and forestry. Our research demonstrates that modern agriculture requires outlays on environmental protection. Such investment can reduce water and energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions [71].

In the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals [72], changes to agriculture are aimed at improving human health and the environment. It is a direction of changes in agriculture necessary to achieve the goals of the international program of social development and environmental protection [73]. Agriculture is essential to provide high-quality food for people, but food production puts pressure on the environment, which is expressed in the loss of biodiversity, water and air consumption and pollution, which affect climate change [74,75,76].

The last positions in the ranking of sustainable development in the European Union are taken by Bulgaria, Cyprus, Romania, Lithuania, Sweden, Portugal and Greece. In the EU, unfavorable changes in the natural environment still take place, which results in the deterioration of the condition of valuable natural habitats in the agricultural landscape. There was a decrease in the population of wild bees and the number of birds typical of the agricultural landscape [77,78,79]. This poses a significant threat to the Natura 2000 sites and areas extensively used by agriculture in the vicinity of valuable environmental elements designated as part of the definition of the boundaries of high nature value farmlands (HNVfs) in the EU [80,81,82,83]. European agriculture, thanks to the actions of the European Union (EU), aims to be the world leader in achieving the goals of sustainable development [84], as evidenced by the European Green Deal [85] presented by the European Commission, whose task is to preserve the deteriorating state of the natural environment in the EU and climate change [86].

5. Conclusions

The study demonstrated that the 27 member states of the EU generally made progress towards sustainable agricultural development between 2011 and 2018. The analysis helped to divide the European Union countries into four clusters (groups) of similar level of sustainable development.

The lowest mean value of the TMD increased from 0.087 in 2011 to 0.09 in 2018, whereas the highest value of the TMD increased from 0.317 in 2011 to 0.353 in 2018. In the group of 27 EU member states, seven countries (Czechia, Denmark, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden and the United Kingdom) moved down in the ranking of sustainable agricultural development classes between 2011 and 2018.

The value of the TMD increased in the economic dimension of sustainable agricultural development. Romania made the smallest progress towards sustainable agriculture in the economic dimension in both 2011 and 2018 (TMD in 2011—0.083; TMD in 2018—0.085). The first position in the ranking was occupied by Denmark in 2011 (TMD, 0.549) and by the Netherlands in 2018 (TMD, 0.581). Poland moved down in the ranking in the evaluated period (TMD in 2011—0.119; TMD in 2018—0.102). These results demonstrate that the European Union is still divided between countries achieving better and worse sustainable development of agriculture. The countries belonging to EU-13 are less developed in terms of sustainability.

In the social dimension of sustainable agricultural development, the lowest TMD value decreased and the highest TMD value increased in the studied period. The smallest progress towards agricultural sustainability in the social dimension was made by Sweden in both 2011 (TMD, 0.004) and 2018 (TMD, 0.000). The highest values of the TMD in the social dimension were noted in Italy in 2011 (0.285) and 2018 (0.347). Poland’s performance in the social dimension of sustainable agricultural development declined between 2011 (TMD, 0.21) and 2018 (TMD, 0.196). These results demonstrate that the social dimension of sustainable development requires particular attention of the common agricultural development. New incentives should be elaborated to strengthen the dimension because more farmers are becoming older and the agricultural sector is depopulating.

The conducted research showed the disproportions between the European Union countries in terms of sustainable development. In 2018, the lowest mean value of the TMD decreased, whereas the highest value of the TMD increased in the environmental dimension of sustainable agricultural development relative to 2011. The last place in the ranking was occupied by Lithuania in 2011 (TMD, 0.046) and by Romania in 2018 (TMD, 0.034). The greatest progress towards sustainable agricultural development in the environmental dimension was made by the Netherlands in both 2011 (TMD, 0.351) and 2018 (TMD, 0.367). Poland’s performance in the evaluated dimension improved between 2011 (TMD, 0.193) and 2018 (TMD, 0.2).