From Farms to Forests: An Exploration of Afforestation Efforts in Poland Under the Rural Development Programme (2007–2020)

Abstract

Forests are important in mitigating climate change and addressing biodiversity loss. In Poland, where forest cover has steadily increased since World War II, afforestation of agricultural land has emerged as a key strategy supported by both EU and national policies. This study evaluates the implementation of Poland’s afforestation programs under the Rural Development Programme (RDP) for the periods of 2007–2013 and 2014–2020 using data provided by the Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture (ARMA) and focusing on the financial incentives offered to private landowners and regional variations in their uptake. Results show that afforestation under the RDP aligned with the EU climate neutrality goals, with a total of 37,721 hectares afforested and PLN 243.5 million handed as financial support, predominantly (81%) over the first studied period. The largest afforestation efforts were observed in the Mazowieckie and Warmińsko-Mazurskie voivodeships, with Warszawa, Poland’s capital, achieving the highest municipal afforestation area across both periods. Financial considerations influenced farmer participation, but rising land prices and historical land use patterns were contributing factors. Urban afforestation and increasing demand for woody biomass further highlight the benefits of afforestation. However, conifer-dominated stands, prevalent on low-quality land, can present challenges to ecosystem stability under future climate scenarios, necessitating diversification towards deciduous species. Additionally, low uptake during the 2014–2020 period showcases the need for improved incentives to bolster participation. Still, afforestation presents significant economic and environmental opportunities, advancing long-term policy objectives while addressing critical challenges in climate.

1. Introduction

Forests cover approximately 35% of Europe’s land area [1]. Over the past two centuries, Europe has experienced a “forest transition,” shifting from widespread deforestation to gradual forest expansion. This transition began in different regions at various times, spanning from the 19th century to the latter half of the 20th century [2,3]. A key driver of this trend has been the abandonment of agricultural land, which is still observed today [4,5]. Between 2015 and 2030, up to 11% of EU agricultural land—over 20 million hectares—is projected to face abandonment, with Spain and Poland accounting for a third of these areas [6]. On long-term abandoned land, forests can regenerate naturally through succession, complementing targeted afforestation as a means of increasing forest cover [7]. Afforestation of former agricultural land is increasingly perceived as a way to address the dual challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss in the European Union (EU). However, the impacts on biodiversity remain complex and context-dependent, with studies suggesting both potential benefits and risks [8,9].

1.1. Afforestation and Forestry as Climate Tools

The European Climate Law [10] sets the goal of achieving climate neutrality by 2050. Recognising forests’ critical role in mitigating climate change, the EU’s climate policy emphasises their importance as a transitional tool while moving towards a fossil-free economy. Under the Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) Regulation [11], the EU aims to achieve an additional net removal of 42 MtCO₂e by 2030 compared to the 2016–2018 average. Increased afforestation is identified as a key measure with significant mitigation potential within the LULUCF sectors. The EU forest strategy for 2030 [12], one of the flagship initiatives of the European Green Deal, is expected to support the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 and achieve climate neutrality by 2050. As part of this strategy, the EU has committed to planting 3 billion additional trees by 2030. Also, at the global level, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlights that afforestation is crucial for the policies aimed at limiting global temperature increases, though its CO₂ sequestration potential may decrease over time as forests become saturated [13].

Between 2012 and 2021, global net CO₂ emissions from the LULUCF sector averaged 1.2 ± 0.7 PgC year⁻¹ (4.5 ± 2.6 PgCO₂ year⁻¹). The primary gross source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in LULUCF was deforestation (1.8 ± 0.4 PgC year⁻¹) = 6.7 ± 1.5 PgCO₂ year⁻¹. Sequestration through afforestation, reafforestation, and forestry offset approximately half of these emissions at 3.4 ± 1.1 PgCO₂ year⁻¹ (0.9 ± 0.3 PgC year⁻¹) [14]. Forest-based natural climate solutions (F-NCSs) hold the potential to mitigate GHG further. Globally, F-NCSs could provide up to 7 PgCO₂ equivalents of climate mitigation annually by 2030 at a carbon price of USD 100 per Mg CO₂e [15]. In Europe, climate-smart forestry practices, including afforestation, are projected to enhance carbon sequestration in forests by an estimated 0.44 PgCO₂ year⁻¹ by 2050 [16]. Thus, increasing forest cover is a key strategy for achieving climate objectives. Using durable wood-based products instead of energy-intensive alternatives can further reduce the carbon footprint compared to their functionally equivalent products made from energy-intensive materials [17].

At present, forests, as a critical component of the global carbon cycle, store an estimated 870 ± 61 PgC, with the carbon density (Mg C ha⁻¹) in forests increasing over the past several decades. The majority of this carbon is stored in living biomass (43%) and in soils (45%), with smaller proportions in dead wood (8%) and litter (4%) [18]. However, forests are increasingly vulnerable to disturbances in the future, which could undermine their capacity to sequester and store carbon [19,20,21,22]. Additionally, climate change is expected to significantly alter the distribution of forest tree species [23,24,25]. Regions at the border of the climate envelope have been identified as hotspots for vulnerability [22]. Rising wood harvest rates in recent years have also contributed to a noticeable decline in the forest carbon sink on the EU level [26]. This makes the implementation of future forest-based natural climate solutions F-NCSs even more challenging.

1.2. Afforestation in Response to Growing Demand for Wood

According to FAO [27], global consumption of primary processed wood products in 2050 may increase by 37% compared to 2020, reaching 3.1 billion m³ roundwood equivalents (RWE). In the case of industrial roundwood, global demand may increase by 25–45%, up to 2.9 billion m³. Additionally, an increase in demand for wood products to substitute non-renewable materials up to 471 million m³ is expected (wood products and industrial roundwood together). Future global wood fuel consumption is also likely to increase over the next decades, with significant variation depending on the scenario. To satisfy future wood demand, expanding areas for production is necessary [18].

The Polish timber sector contributes about 2.5% to the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) and directly employs about 350,000 people [28]. Poland imports raw wood and fuel wood, which account for about 57% of its imports, and exports mainly raw wood and wood packaging, which account for about 45% [29]. In the second half of 2021, there was a decrease in imports due to the introduction of EU sanctions on wood from Belarus, which was the main direction of biomass imports to the Polish market. At the end of February 2022, another decrease in imports was recorded, caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The increase in demand in Poland and the loss of supplies from Belarus and Ukraine resulted in a shortage of approximately 3.5 million tons of raw material per year in the market [30]. The limited amount of wood raw materials affected the increase in prices [31]. Over the long term, afforestation of agricultural land may also contribute by providing a sustainable supply of timber, aligning environmental benefits with market demands.

1.3. The Importance of Women in Rural Life and Farming

In European Union (EU) countries, most farms are run by smallholders in extensive agriculture, and around 30% of farms are run by women [32]. The results from almost all 27 EU countries suggest that women, like men, can be considered valuable contributors to the agricultural sector [32]. The number of farms run by women and men in most EU countries has decreased by almost 29% compared to 2005. Only three countries have recorded positive trends in the number of farms run by women (an increase of 13% in Sweden, 10% in Luxembourg, and 4% in Spain) compared to the number of farms run by men (a decrease of 21%, 24%, and 17%, respectively). In Poland, the decline was more pronounced for women, dropping by 47.54% compared to 40.92% for men, resulting in an overall average decline of 43.04%.

Nevertheless, Polish women hold a relatively high percentage of managerial positions on farms compared to most European countries, including Sweden, which is a leader in terms of gender equality. However, these farms are usually smaller, less mechanised and less profitable than those managed by men [33]. Women’s involvement in rural areas is also visible through administrative activities. In 2010, women made up only one-third of village heads, but this percentage has now increased to almost half. Among the provinces, Zachodniopomorskie voivodeship has stood out in this respect for years, with the highest percentage of women in village head positions (55% in 2022) [34]. In addition, in recent years, rural areas have been characterised by a higher percentage of young married women (aged 20–29) than urban areas (68.1% and 52.8%, respectively [35], which indicates that urban women stay in education longer and start families later. Due to the growing involvement of women in rural life, in this study we attempted to present women’s participation in the afforestation of agricultural land as one of the forms of management in rural areas.

1.4. Afforestation and Support Programs for Private Land in Poland

The country’s forests currently cover over 9.2 million hectares, with 80.8% under public ownership and 19.2% privately held [36]. Approximately 30% of Poland’s forests now occupy former agricultural land, some of which had transitioned into wastelands before reforestation efforts [37]. Forest cover in Poland has been steadily increasing since World War II, which shifted borders and reduced the country’s area by one-third [38]. In 1946, Poland’s forest cover was only 20.8%, and the country’s initial target was an increase to 28%. By 1950, forests covered 21.7% of the country, expanding to 27.8% by 1990 [36]. Since then, afforestation has been carried out within the framework of the National Programme for Augmentation of Forest Cover (PL: Krajowy Program Zwiększania Lesistości) [39]. This programme, which ran from 1995 to 2020, was intended to be a stepping stone toward achieving a forest cover of 33% by 2050 while ensuring optimal spatial and temporal distribution of afforestation and regional afforestation preferences. The current National Environmental Policy 2030—Development Strategy in the Field of Environment and Water Management (PL: Polityka ekologiczna państwa 2030—strategia rozwoju w obszarze środowiska i gospodarki wodnej) sets intermediate targets for forest cover: 30% by 2020 and 31% by 2030 [40]. In 2023, official forest cover reached 29.6% [36]. The highest (49.4%) forest cover is in Lubuskie voivodeship, slightly lower in Podkarpackie (38.2%), Zachodniopomorskie (35.9%), and Pomorskie (34.2%) voivodeships [36]. However, official forest cover excludes forests not recorded in the Land and Building Register (EGiB) despite their compliance with the Kyoto Protocol criteria [41]. Based on remote sensing data, these additional forests are estimated to span over 1 million hectares, equivalent to approximately 3% of the country’s territory [42].

Until recently, the expansion of forested areas in Poland was primarily driven by the afforestation of low-quality land, including agricultural areas owned by the State Treasury. These lands were transferred to the State Forests National Holding (PL: Państwowe Gospodarstwo Leśne Lasy Państwowe), a government agency that manages most publicly owned forests, except those within national parks or municipal jurisdictions. However, with the depletion of state-owned land resources and the transition to a market economy, a new phenomenon emerged: private landowners increasingly chose to plant trees on their own land [43]. Poland’s accession to the European Union in 2004 introduced new mechanisms to stimulate the afforestation of marginal land. Thanks to financial incentives, the increase in forest area covered more private than public-owned land in the first two decades of the twenty-first century [36]. Afforestation was an important part of the Rural Development Programme (RDP) for the periods of 2004–2006, 2007–2013, and 2014–2020.

RDPs offered a one-time payment per hectare afforested to compensate for the costs of afforestation and its protection. The amount depends on the group of tree species used for afforestation (deciduous species were preferred), the type of land, the slope of the terrain, or the method of securing the forest crop. In addition, a separate five-year premium was paid for caring for the planted trees. Along with this premium, farmers could receive an afforestation premium for 15 years under RDP 2007–2013 [44] and 12 years under RDP 2014–2020 [45]. This premium was supposed to offset the payment a farmer would qualify for under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). In the 2014–2020 RDP, farmers could also receive the last two premiums for agricultural land covered by naturally regenerating tree stands. These areas were included in the total afforested area.

Research on land use change, particularly the afforestation of private forests, has been extensively analysed in the scientific literature [46,47,48,49]. However, according to our knowledge, no study has summarised and evaluated the afforestation of agricultural land using ARMA data across two accounting periods: 2007–2013 and 2014–2020. The aim of this article was to evaluate the implementation of the afforestation programme under the second and third frameworks of the RDP for the periods of 2007–2013 and 2014–2020. Specifically, we analysed the level of subsidies obtained by farmers who opted to afforest agricultural land during this time. Additionally, we highlighted the regional variation in the use of this form of support mechanism for farmers and its potential contribution to increasing forest cover across different areas.

2. Materials and Methods

In this study, we analysed data on afforestation in Poland, a Central European country with a temperate climate. During the reference period of 1991–2020, the mean annual temperature was 8.83 °C. Since the middle of the 20th century, however, the mean temperature has risen from 7.61 °C in 1951–1960 to 9.33 °C in 2010–2020. Annual precipitation during 1991–2020 exceeded 600 mm, with the highest levels recorded in the southern highlands and along the Baltic coast and the lowest (400–500 mm) in central and central-western Poland [50]. Poland’s population stands at 38.04 mln, with 59.8% living in urban areas. The population comprises 48.3% males and 51.7% females, though the sex ratio in rural areas is evenly balanced at 1:1 [51].

We utilised data obtained from the Agency of Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture (ARMA) (PL: Agencja Restrukturyzacji i Modernizacji Rolnictwa), the government agency responsible for managing the afforestation subsidies under RDP. The data was obtained in multiple stages. The first stage concerned complete data for the period of 2017–2013, which was collected in 2019, while complete data for the period of 2014–2020 was collected in 2023 and 2024. The data covers two specific tasks: Task 221/223, “Afforestation of agricultural land and land other than agricultural” for the period of 2007–2013 (afforestation carried out from 2007 to 2014), and Task M8, “Investment in the development of forested areas and forest sustainability” for the period of 2014–2020 (afforestation carried out from 2015 to 2022).

The data includes all cases where farmers declared afforestation, received approval, and obtained the first payment for afforestation support. However, it does not include data on subsequent payments, such as the care or afforestation premium. It should be noted that some forests established during the study period were subsequently eliminated. These losses were attributable to external factors, such as fires or snow damage, as well as owners’ decisions. In cases where forests were removed by the owners, beneficiaries were required to return part or all of the funds received from ARMA.

We analysed the outcomes of the programme’s implementation in the following years, considering the administrative division of Poland into voivodeships (Figure 1). To account for historical agricultural development patterns shaped by differing legal frameworks that influenced factors such as farm size structure, we also included an approximation of Poland’s partition borders as of 1914.

All analyses and visualisations were conducted using the Python (version 3.11.9) [54] environment, with additional support from pandas (version 2.1.1) [55] and stats models (version 0.14.0) [56] packages. Data cleaning involved removing duplicate rows to eliminate identical records of farmers with respect to area and payment amount. Ultimately, we finished with the dataset containing 19,593 rows, which was used for the analysis of the area afforested, including species composition and funding distribution. This dataset was then further restricted to include only farmers’ first application (resulting in 12,389 rows) and to records with information on gender and age available, excluding persons of age under 18 years (narrowing to 9817 rows). It is important to note that while data on gender and age were available for all natural persons in the RDP 2007–2013 period, the RDP 2014–2020 period contained only low-quality data for 7–20% of applicants, depending on the year. In both periods, incomplete gender and/or age information was identified and removed. All steps for the data preparation process are depicted in Figure 2.

The data underwent aggregation using key columns, ‘year’ and ‘voivodeship’ for all statistics visualised with bar plots, and ‘municipality’ for maps, to group and organise it effectively. This approach enabled a structured examination of patterns within the data subsets. Following aggregation, a comprehensive analysis was conducted by calculating a range of statistical metrics such as the mean (to measure central tendency), standard deviation (to assess variability), and minimum and maximum values (to capture the data’s range). Additionally, the percentage share analysis for men and women was computed to provide deeper insights aligned with the analysis objectives. All metrics facilitated the visualisation of trends and relationships, enhancing our understanding of both general and specific characteristics of the dataset. An example of the data aggregation process is illustrated in Figure 3.

To compare the age distribution between men and women, we used the Mann–Whitney U test due to the significant difference in group size. To examine the differences in the proportion of men and women across both years and voivodeships, we conducted tests using the Mann–Whitney U test. The methodology was applied to assess differences in the percentage shares of coniferous and deciduous species. A significance level (p-value) of 0.05 was adopted for all statistical tests.

3. Results

3.1. Applications and Applicants

A total of 12,287 individual farmers (11,216 men, 4577 women) received support during both periods, with the majority (15,315 farmers, 78%) benefiting from the RDP 2007–2013. Another 102 observations were either law entities or local government units. Starting in 2013, only a small number of entities, not exceeding 1000, joined the program, with a further drop in the years 2020–2022 (Figure 4). The highest number of applicants came from the eastern voivodeships: Mazowieckie (2451, including 132 from the capital city, Warszawa), Podkarpackie (1632), Lubelskie (1711), Łódzkie (1307), and Świętokrzyskie (1228). In contrast, the western voivodeships had the fewest applicants: Opolskie (108), Lubuskie (116), Zachodniopomorskie (200), and Śląskie (233; see Figure 4).

In the paragraph below, the results are provided for both RDPs combined. When the data was restricted to the 2007–2013 RDP, different values were indicated as /*. The beneficiaries were overwhelmingly individual farmers (99%), with only 1% being legal entities. The average applicant was male and 43.6 (±11.67, mean ± SD) years old, with ages ranging from 18 to 84. The mean age of female applicants (42.5 ± 11.87, median 43/*42 years) was slightly lower than that of male applicants (44.2 ± 11.57, median 45 years). These two groups differed significantly in terms of median age (Mann–Whitney, p < 0.0001). In subsequent years, the mean age of applicants remained in the 40–50/*42–45 age range. The proportion of women in subsequent years did not exceed 40%/*32% (Figure 5, left panel) and varied significantly between the voivodeships (Mann–Whitney; p < 0.0001). This proportion ranged from 24% in Warmińsko-Mazurskie/* and Kujawsko-Pomorskie to 38% in Małopolskie/*35% and Świętokrzyskie (Figure 5, right panel). Considerable variation was also observed between individual municipalities, with women being over-represented in some cases. However, no clear regional spatial pattern was identifiable as determined through spatial analysis (Figure 6).

3.2. Area Afforested and Amount of Support for Afforestation

During both RDP frameworks, a total of 37,721 hectares were afforested, with the vast majority (87%, or 32,917 ha) afforested under the RDP 2007–2013 (years 2007–2014). However, in subsequent years, the amount of area afforested annually declined sharply. (Figure 4). For the RDP 2014–2020 (years 2015–2022), only 4804 ha were afforested, of which 222 ha were at least partially covered by young trees due to natural succession. Contrary to the significantly reduced interest in the program, the average area afforested by individual farmers did not decrease in the RDP 2014–2020 (Figure 7). Afforestation was more prominent in the eastern voivodeships, particularly in Mazowieckie (nearly 22% of the total area, or 8167 ha) and Warmińsko-Mazurskie (12%, or 4561 ha), with the majority of afforestation occurring under RDP 2007–2013. In RDP 2014–2020, only Mazowieckie and Lubelskie exceeded 500 ha of afforested land (883 and 664 ha, respectively), while other voivodeships saw much smaller areas, ranging from 25 (Opolskie) to just 444 ha (Łódzkie). In general, more afforestation was carried out in the eastern part of the country (Figure 4, Figure 8 and Figure 9).

The municipality with the largest area of afforestation in both periods was the capital city of Warszawa, with 1574 ha. Similarly, other major cities (Wrocław: 266 ha, Kraków: 169 ha, Poznań: 187 ha, and Gdańsk: 102 ha) had more afforested agricultural land than in neighbouring rural or urban-rural municipalities. In the Upper Silesian Conurbation (PL: Konurbacja Górnośląska; Śląskie voivodeship), the most industrialised region of Poland that includes several cities with the largest being Katowice, 287 ha were afforested (Figure 8 and Figure 9).

A different pattern can be seen in terms of the average area afforested by individual farmers. Here the highest values were recorded in the western voivodeships: Zachodniopomorskie (4.90 ± 5.30 ha), Pomorskie (4.58 ± 6.00 ha), Lubuskie (3.36 ± 3.52 ha), Dolnośląskie (2.92 ± 3.47 ha), and Wielkopolskie (2.26 ± 2.68 ha). The exception was Warmińsko-Mazurskie (4.00 ± 4.53 ha), located in the eastern part of the country; however, it was third in terms of the average area afforested by farmers. All of these voivodeships were part of Prussia (later Germany) until 1914 (Figure 1). On the other hand, the smallest average afforested area per farmer was recorded in the voivodeships of eastern and central Poland, Podkarpackie (1.03 ± 1.37 ha), Świętokrzyskie (1.17 ± 1.58 ha), Małopolskie (1.21 ± 2.04 ha), Łódzkie (1.32 ± 1.30 ha), and Lubelskie (1.38 ± 1.58 ha) which were part of the Austrian Empire (Świętokrzyskie and most of the area of Małopolskie) or the Russian Empire (Figure 1 and Figure 7).

The amounts paid to farmers for afforestation costs followed a pattern very similar to the afforested area (Figure 4 and Figure 7), with some deviations due to the support calculation mechanism (e.g., corrections for topographic conditions, share of deciduous trees, fencing, etc.). In both RDPs combined, 81% of the support was transferred by the end of 2014, mostly to the eastern part of Poland. However, the amount transferred to a single farmer was higher in the western part, with the exception of the Warmińsko-Mazurskie voivodeship (Figure 7). The total amount paid under both RDPs was PLN 243,450,325, with PLN 198,248,351 allocated under RDP 2007–2013 and PLN 45,201,974 under RDP 2014–2020.

3.3. Species Composition

Overall, newly established forests were less than half composed of deciduous species, with the lowest proportion of 37% in 2007 and the highest of 47% in 2013 and 2014 (Figure 10). Significant differences in the proportions of coniferous and deciduous species were observed across both years and voivodeships (Mann–Whitney, p < 0.0001). The share of deciduous species exceeded 40% in 8 out of 16 voivodeships, mainly in the eastern and northern parts of Poland: Podkarpackie (57%), Warmińsko-Mazurskie (56%), Małopolskie (52%), Lubelskie (49%), and Zachodniopomorskie (45%). In contrast, the share of deciduous species was lower, not exceeding 35%, in central (Łódzkie, 28%), south-western (Śląskie, 34%), and western (Wielkopolskie, 32%) regions (Figure 10). However, the species composition was not uniform within the voivodeships. For example, in Warmińsko-Mazurskie, the highest share of deciduous species was recorded in the municipalities located in the western part of the voivodeship and in Lubelskie, in the southern part (Figure 11).

4. Discussion

Forests in Poland are dominated by coniferous species (68.7%, of which 58.7% is Scots pine Pinus sylvestris L.), and their share is considered too high compared to potential natural vegetation [57]. However, this unfavourable situation has gradually improved due to the stand conversion efforts in Poland’s predominantly state-owned forests over recent decades. Between 1945 and 2022, the share of deciduous forests in state forests increased from 13.0% to 24.6% [42,58]. Forests established on former agricultural land, particularly coniferous monocultures, often exhibit low stability, e.g., through susceptibility to fungal diseases and insect infestations. For this reason, successive editions of the Principles of Silviculture (PL: Zasady hodowli lasu—ZHL) have identified such stands for conversion based on their health status [59,60].

The need to modify the species composition of afforestation emerged as early as the 1990s, leading to recommendations favouring deciduous species and lower planting densities [61]. Afforestation requirements under the RDPs [62] align with the recommendations in the ZHL. In the current version of ZHL [60], the recommended species composition for afforestation of former agricultural land includes a reduced proportion of coniferous species compared to artificial stand regeneration. Nevertheless, conifer dominance of up to 80% is still recommended for low-productivity land, which is mainly afforested under RDPs.

Our analyses indicate that regions with a higher proportion of coniferous species (in the lowlands, primarily Scots pine with smaller contributions from European larch Larix decidua Mill.) correspond to areas where potential natural vegetation would include a greater share of coniferous and mixed coniferous forests. This composition may reflect the current environmental conditions in Poland [57]. However, considering future climate scenarios, increasing challenges related to the stability of newly established stands can be expected. According to the most recent study by the authors of [25], the most economically important coniferous species (e.g., Scots pine, Norway spruce Picea abies (L.) H.Karst, and European larch) may lose their climatic optimum in Poland as early as in 2041–2060, not only under a pessimistic (SPS585) but even under a moderate scenario SSP245 [63]). Other important species (e.g., pedunculate oak Quercus robur L. and sessile oak Q. petraea (Matt.) Liebl., or common beech Fagus sylvatica L.) may experience a significant fragmentation of areas suitable for their growth under SPS 585 scenario in longer perspective [25] This suggests that currently, afforested areas may face increased mortality of trees before they begin to produce income for their owners. To increase the stability of future stands, species which are forecasted to retain their climate niche in Poland should be considered whenever possible, although, currently, they are of lower economic importance (e.g., common hornbeam Carpinus betulus L., sycamore maple Acer pseudoplatanus L. or large-leaved lime Tilia platyphyllos Scop.) [25].

Regional differences in both total and average forest area in Poland can be attributed to historical factors, especially the development of agrarian structures under different legal systems during the partitions of Poland (Figure 1). The Prussian partition (western part of the country) was ahead in agricultural development [64] compared to the Russian and Austrian partitions (eastern part). This disparity emerged primarily from the higher technological level of rural economies in Prussian territories, the earlier implementation of liberation reforms, and the distinct structure of peasant farms. Subsequent agricultural reforms in Poland [65,66,67] failed to fully bridge these disproportions.

Following World War II, the introduction of a socialist economy significantly impacted land use, particularly in the north-western and north-eastern regions of Poland. In these areas, the State Agricultural Farms (PL: Państwowe Gospodarstwa Rolne—PGR) [68] played a dominant role. Today, these regions, located predominantly in the Zachodniopomorskie and Warmińsko-Mazurskie voivodeships, are characterised by larger farms, often exceeding 15 hectares [69], with some even reaching 26.1–32.9 hectares [35]. In contrast, the Podkarpackie and Małopolskie voivodeships, historically part of the Austrian partition, have the highest number of small farms, often under 5 hectares, reflecting the historical fragmentation of landholdings. In the eastern regions formerly under the Russian partition, small peasant farms were accompanied by larger manor estates, often managed as forest estates [70]. This historical pattern explains the contemporary substantial share of private forests (41.0–45.0%) in Mazowieckie, Lubelskie, and Małopolskie voivodeships and slightly lower (28.6–34.3%) in Świętokrzyskie, Podlaskie, and Łódzkie voivodeships, compared to regions such as Lubuskie, Zachodniopomorskie, Dolnośląskie or Opolskie with as little as 1.9–5.2% private forests [58,71]. We speculate that the prevalence of private forest ownership in certain regions may be a factor encouraging farmers to afforest their own land as a form of ‘social support’ for the afforestation decision. In these regions, farmers may perceive forest ownership as a normal part of the rural economy and have the necessary skills to manage their own forests. In contrast, in areas without private forests, farmers may not see afforestation as a sensible long-term investment. Therefore, it should be emphasised that the reasons for regional differences in afforestation should be sought in historical conditions (as stressed in the introduction).

It should be emphasised that farmland prices have increased significantly over the last decade [72]. This increase was driven primarily by the desire of farm owners to expand their assets. Simultaneously, there has been considerable interest in acquiring non-agricultural land, particularly forest land. The growing demand for forest land can be attributed to the State Forest’s active efforts to purchase parcels from private owners [73]. State Forests are especially interested in acquiring land that directly borders their managed areas or parcels where co-ownership can be dissolved or the field-forest boundary can be regularised.

The spatial policy of large cities cannot be effectively developed without considering land management principles. In Polish cities, agricultural land often constitutes a significant portion of the urban area. For example, in Warszawa, agricultural land accounts for 22.5% of the city’s area, while the proportions are even higher in other main cities: 31.3% in Poznań, 34.5% in Gdańsk, 39.7% in Wrocław, and 43.4% in Kraków [74]. Forests typically occupy smaller areas within cities. For example, the forest cover in Warszawa is currently around 15% (8222 ha) [63], whereas in Kraków, it is over two times lower at 6% (1891 ha) [75]. Urban afforestation has notable benefits, including reducing the intensity of the urban heat island effect and improving air quality [65,76,77]. The relatively large afforested areas in the municipalities of Poland’s largest cities may also reflect the influence of regional programmes aimed at increasing forest cover, such as those implemented in Wrocław or Kraków [78,79].

Women were in the minority among applicants for both periods investigated. Historically, women’s work on farms was often viewed as supporting male family members [80] rather than as active management. However, this dynamic has shifted, with women increasingly taking on co-management roles. In 2020, the share of women working on farms in Poland was 31.3% [81], which corresponds to the share of female applicants in afforestation programmes under the RDPs. This represents a 0.4% increase compared to 2010. It should be emphasised that in the first period of afforestation (2007–2013), women played a significant role in afforesting agricultural land. This trend may be linked to the lower labour intensity required for managing afforested areas compared to cultivating agricultural land.

Farmers have diverse and complex value systems, and their motivations for afforestation vary considerably [82]. In the case of Irish farmers, the premium system alone was not enough to encourage participation in afforestation [83]. In our opinion, an effective incentive for afforestation would be to extend the payment of the afforestation premium until the owner could generate income from the sale of timber from their forest. An increase in the level of subsidies, taking into account the value of ecosystem services provided by the afforested land, could also encourage farmers to join the scheme. During the second settlement period, the Single Area Payment (SAPS), which did not require land cultivation, further motivated afforestation. As rural societies are, through tradition, deeply attached to the idea of land ownership, this plays an important role in these decisions. For some farmers, converting agricultural land to forest may be preferable to selling it, as the land remains within the family and can be passed down to future generations. Afforestation can, therefore, be treated as a gift to the heirs who can profit from the sale of timber when the trees reach an age when they can be cut down [84].

In this context, forests can be seen as long-term investments, offering both social [85] and economic [36,86,87] benefits. Many countries, including Poland, have regulations restricting the re-conversion of forested land to other uses, assuming the shift permanence after a certain period of time following afforestation. This is beneficial for LULUCF carbon sequestration policies [88]. These restrictions, however, may discourage some farmers from joining afforestation programmes [82,84,89]. In Poland, no later than in the fifth year from the afforestation start under the RDP, the head of the county (PL: powiat, an administrative division below the regional level) evaluates the young stand for coverage and possible damages, then reclassifies the land as forest land. Once reclassified, the area is governed by the provisions of the Forestry Act, with hardly any possibility of re-conversion back to agricultural use. Exceptions are rare and require individual assessment of the landowner’s application. Additionally, if afforestation is reversed within 5 years, counting from the date of disbursement of support for afforestation, the farmer is obligated to repay the funds. When considering the time dynamics of the afforestation process, it is important to keep in mind the legal framework that defines the parameters of agricultural land that can be designated for afforestation. These resources diminish with the duration of the programmes. If increasing forest cover is an important government policy objective, maintaining the momentum of afforestation may require a change in the relevant legislation, together with a search for more effective economic and social incentives. However, potential conflicts with other environmental objectives, such as the protection of biodiversity [8,9], should be taken into account.

Prospects for deferred income from timber sales can be a significant factor influencing afforestation decisions, particularly in the context of increasing demand for wood. The economic outcome of afforestation may be reduced by the possibly lower quality of wood produced on former agricultural land [90]. This may limit the range of industrial uses; however, it will not adversely affect its use in the energy sector. In Europe, including Poland, wood is an important source of renewable energy. Between 2000 and 2020, the use of woody biomass for energy production rose in nearly all EU Member States. By 2021, woody biomass accounted for 56% (125 million tonnes of oil equivalent, Mtoe) of the EU’s total renewable gross final energy consumption [91,92]. In Poland, the annual consumption of woody biomass for energy production increased by 9.5 million m³ between 2004 and 2020, a 69% increase from 13.8 million m³ to 23.4 million m³ [93]. Additionally, Poland ranked seventh in Europe for wood pellet production in 2022, producing 1300 MT [94], a 62% increase compared to 2016. The future expansion of protected areas, e.g., as a result of the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 [95], could exacerbate the problems in meeting domestic wood demand. The current average gross timber volume per hectare in private forests in Poland is slightly lower than in state-owned forests, with an average annual increment of more than 9 m³ per year [36,42]. The expanding area of private forests in Poland could help address potential raw material shortages [96] as trees in these afforested areas mature to harvestable age and size.

5. Conclusions

Afforestation of agricultural land is increasingly recognised as part of a strategy to address climate change challenges in the European Union. With the depletion of public land resources and the transition to a market economy, private landowners have decided to plant trees on their land. Rising land prices have shifted the approach to real estate, showing that agricultural real estate and forest land are, or can be, a safe capital investment. However, despite financial incentives like additional single area payment (JPO, introduced 2015), the level of afforestation during the 2014–2020 period remained significantly low, suggesting that farmers are not consistently motivated to convert agricultural land to forests. For those who decided to discontinue agricultural activities, afforestation provided a source of additional income while reclassifying the farm as an agro-forestry system. On the other hand, forest land is a convenient solution for heirs who do not have to be tied to the place where the afforestation took place. Moreover, the increasing use of wood biomass for energy production underscores the economic and environmental potential of wood, reinforcing forest management as a key sector in supporting climate policies. By contributing to renewable energy and carbon sequestration goals, afforestation not only addresses environmental challenges but also aligns with long-term market and policy demands. The issues raised in this article provide the foundation for further research in the field of economic and environmental approaches.