The Ministry is still debating the electronic record of spraying. And the farmers are already sowing. Who thought of a work schedule for field work?

The 2026/2027 planting season is already underway, and the debate in the Sejm on how farmers are to keep electronic records of plant protection measures is still ongoing. During the meeting of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee on October 7, the ministry announced that training on the new application would not begin until December. However, in January many farms will have already completed their first treatments during the new season. Has anyone thought about what the change in the way production is documented means during the ongoing growing cycle? The solution that farmers need today is still the subject of official preparations.

Agriculture has its own calendar. It is not determined by the meetings of parliamentary committees, legislative deadlines, or the schedule for launching applications. It is determined by weather, soil, plant growth stages, and agrotechnical deadlines. When conditions allow for planting, the farmer enters the field. When a need arises to carry out a plant protection treatment, the decision is made based on the situation on the plantation, not whether the administration has prepared the appropriate form in advance.

Therefore, the debate that took place on October 7, 2026 during the meeting of the Sejm’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development leaves the fundamental question: why are we only now discussing the practical implementation of electronic records of plant protection measures, when the 2026/2027 season has already begun?

This is not a dispute about whether agriculture should be digitized. It is about the method and the timing of implementing the changes.

The 2026/2027 season is already underway. And the state e-registry of procedures is just being prepared

October is one of the most important periods of field work for many farms. The sowing of winter cereals is underway, as is the preparation of the fields, fertilization, and treatments related to the protection of autumn crops. Some farmers who grow winter rapeseed have already completed the first herbicide, fungicide, or growth-regulating treatments. Others are carrying out further treatments depending on the weather conditions and the condition of the plantations. All these work fall within the same production season, which began in autumn 2026 and will not end until the harvests in 2027.

Meanwhile, as of January 1, 2027, new requirements regarding electronic documentation for plant protection treatments will come into effect. Formally, this is a specific date. From the perspective of the farm management – a measure that has already begun the production process. A farmer who today records treatments on paper and in January will start using the new program will have to ensure the continuity of the field history. Enter or import fields, assign crops, organize previous information and learn to use the new tool. Not every application will make this as easy.

Is the beginning of January, the middle of the ongoing growing season, really the best time to organize electronic documentation of the farm from scratch? From the perspective of a farmer, the answer seems obvious. Such preparations should begin before the season, not when production is already underway.

The Commission is debating penalties, and farmers need a tool

During the meeting on October 7, the committee considered the parliamentary draft law amending the Plant Protection Measures Act, document number 3040. The draft does not move the implementation date for the electronic recordkeeping of treatments. It does, however, limit the sanctions for certain deficiencies related to documentation in electronic format to the end of 2029. This is a necessary solution. It offers an opportunity to treat farmers more leniently during the period of adjustment to the requirements. But does it address the most important problem?

Krzysztof Kozak from the Lublin Agricultural Association drew attention during the committee to the fact that the mere cancellation of fines does not provide farms with the ability to maintain an efficient record-keeping system.

– „This project is not comprehensive, it does not solve any problem” – he stated.

He then indicated what kind of solutions he expects:

– „Here, a simple spreadsheet-type tool is enough, where there are a few fields to fill out.”.

This is one of the most important statements of the entire meeting. Because it shows the fundamental difference between the administration's perspective and the perspective of the household.

The administration is talking about deadlines, sanctions, regulations, and the next steps in the implementation. The farmer simply needs a place where he can record the work he has done, link it to the cultivation, and be able to return to it when needed.

Moreover, representatives of the agricultural community pointed out the difficulties associated with the EPPO codes and the BBCH scale. This shows that preparing a proper e-register of treatments requires not only creating a form, but also thinking through how to use it in a specific farm.

The Ministry announces training sessions starting in December. Why only then?

In response to the allegations, Deputy Minister of Agriculture Małgorzata Gromadzka informed that a special tab is being prepared within the Rolnik Portal to enable the keeping of records of plant protection products.

– „We tried to make this application, this record-keeping system, intuitive, to collect data so that the farmer would have to click as little as possible,” she assured.

She also announced that on December 1st training sessions organized by the State Plant Protection and Seedling Inspection Agency and agricultural advisory centers will begin.

This means that from the start of the planned training sessions until January 1, 2027, there will only be one month left.

The Ministry emphasizes that the application should be simple, intuitive, and require only the necessary information. It also announced that it will continue to be technically improved. But from the management perspective, the problem is not solely whether the program is intuitive. It is primarily about the time required to implement the new way of working.

If a farmer is to use a specific tool throughout the season, they should have the opportunity to familiarize themselves with it before the sowing season begins, to test it on their own fields and to verify that the way the data is recorded corresponds to their actual needs. Not until the history of the operations is partially recorded elsewhere. And it was this perspective on the continuity of the production season that was lacking in the main statements during the committee meeting.

No one changes the production documentation system halfway through the process and does not expect it to be without problems.

Imagine a manufacturing company where the product-manufacturing process takes several months. The company plans the raw materials, organizes deliveries, starts production, registers the next steps, and controls costs. And then, halfway through the cycle, someone informs that from the new year all activities will have to be documented in a new system. And that employees will only learn about this system during a training one month before the change.

Would we consider such an approach to be sensible production management?

In agriculture, the situation is even more complex. A farmer cannot stop plant growth, postpone the treatment, or suspend the production process just because he has to implement new software. Growing winter crops from autumn 2026 to summer 2027 is, after all, one continuous process. Each treatment is an element of a specific production technology.

Changing the tool for keeping documentation during the middle of the season is like replacing the production management system in a factory that is already operating. Of course, it is possible to do this. You can transfer the data, configure a new program, and train the users. But why bother yourself with the work if you could have prepared in advance?

It is this aspect that should take an important place in the debate about electronic records of plant protection products.

It is also worth clarifying that the introduction of new requirements starting from January 1, 2027 does not automatically mean that the entire previous farm history must be transferred to one program on that day. The regulations provide for specific rules and deadlines for transferring documentation to electronic format. However, this does not change the practical problem: it is most convenient to keep a season history from the beginning, in one place.

Agricultural applications are emerging one after another. But do they all understand the farmer?

The digitalization of agriculture has created a market for new IT solutions. More and more applications are being developed to manage fields, record treatments, analyze costs, and keep documentation. However, the mere fact that another program has appeared does not mean that it will be useful in the farm. A farmer does not need another administrative panel, a complicated form, or a program where performing a simple entry requires going through several screens. He needs a tool that understands the logic of the farm. Because the history of a field does not begin with spraying. It begins with choosing a crop, preparing the field, purchasing production inputs, planting, and subsequent work. It ends with harvesting, cost accounting, and evaluating the results.

Therefore, a well-designed electronic field card should allow not only recording which crop protection measure was applied, but also linking this measure to the entire production season. It should answer the questions that a farmer actually asks: what was done on that field, how much was spent on the measures, what costs were incurred, and what remains in the warehouse?

And above all, it should not require the farmer to put in more work than is necessary.

KartaPola.pl was created on a farm, not at an official office

A good example of another approach to the digitalization of agriculture is KartaPola.pl. The solution is spearheaded by Jacek Skowroński, who runs his own farm. He initially created the application for his own needs to organize the documentation of work and operations, and then made it available to other farmers. This story is significant. Skowroński did not start with the question of what functions could be included in the next computer program. The starting point was the specific needs of the farm and the daily problems with documentation. Thanks to this, KartaPola.pl was designed as a tool that would accompany the farmer throughout the entire season – from the first field work to harvesting and accounting for production. KartaPola.pl is already operational. There is no need to wait until December for training or until January to begin documenting the new season. The farmer can already create an account, add fields and crops, and start keeping an electronic record of their farm.
Electronic recordkeeping of plant protection treatments That's not all. The farmer needs the entire history of the field.

KartaPola.pl combines the functions related to crop documentation and farm management in a single system. It allows you to keep records of plant protection treatments, fertilization, and other field work, as well as record information regarding purchases, inventory, invoices, costs, and yields. An important feature is the ability to link the performed activities to a specific field and the growing season. Therefore, the farmer does not have to treat the e-registration of spraying as a separate document detached from the rest of the production.

The system also provides for the import of field and crop data from eWniosekPlus documents with the support of artificial intelligence. This allows for reducing the manual input of data that the farm already has. KartaPola.pl was designed with consideration for the requirements of electronic recordkeeping for the ŚOR system from 2027 onwards, including the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/564 with subsequent amendments. However, the supplier’s declaration regarding these requirements is not equivalent to official software certification.

This approach shows an important difference between an application solely intended to fulfill a new obligation and a program that helps run a farm. In the first case, the farmer performs the work because the regulations require it. In the second case, the documentation is created in conjunction with registering the activities that are already part of his daily routine.

The farmer created a solution for farmers

Another interesting topic arises during the debate about the e-register of treatments. During the committee meeting, MP Robert Telus drew attention to the possibility of using and developing the already existing eDWIN system. In his opinion, instead of creating new solutions, it would be worth looking at the tools that have previously been invested with public money. This is a valid starting point for a broader discussion. Should the goal of digitalization be the creation of new platforms or ensuring that farmers have access to a functional tool?

KartaPola.pl is not a government app. It does not replace regulations or the farmer’s responsibility to maintain proper documentation. However, it shows that practical solutions can be created bottom-up, without waiting for the completion of subsequent administrative steps. And that the farmer himself can be the creator of an effective tool for farms.

This is especially important in the case of software whose usefulness depends on understanding the seasonality of work, changing crops, protecting plants, fertilizing, and the actual organization of the farm.

Easing penalties until 2029 does not solve the problem of the digitalization of farms

The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development supported the draft regulations restricting fines for certain irregularities related to electronic records of treatments. 26 MPs voted in favor of the positive recommendation, while one was against. This is a step towards reducing the financial risk for farmers who will need more time to adapt to the new requirements.

However, even the best transition period will not replace a well-functioning tool. A farmer who starts today with electronic field history will have less work to do with documentation in the future. Someone who puts everything off until later may have to transfer data, play back records, and learn the new system during the season itself.

Of course, not every change in the program must lead to problems. Much depends on the available export and import functions, the completeness of the records, and the ability to maintain the continuity of the documentation. However, the basic principle of good work organization remains the same: it is better to prepare the system before starting the production process than to implement it halfway through.

Not another debate, but a ready-made tool. Agriculture needs practical solutions

In Poland, for years, there has been talk about the digitization of agriculture, reducing bureaucracy, and simplifying administrative procedures. Each successive change in the regulations brings new questions, interpretations, and announcements of improvements. Meanwhile, the season is not waiting for farms. The grains have already been sown or are just being sown. Winter rapeseed is growing. Plant protection measures are being carried out and documented. Production costs are already emerging. Therefore, the discussion about electronic records of plant protection products should take greater account of when and how the farmer actually works. The Ministry has the right to develop its own system, and the legislator should ensure reasonable transitional regulations. This does not change the fact that the electronic field card is needed for farms now, at the beginning of the 2026/2027 season, and not only when the new obligations come into effect.

The KartaPola.pl example shows that a solution can arise from a real need of a farmer and then be made available to other farms. Perhaps this should be the starting point for any discussion about the digitalization of agriculture: not from which systems the administration wants to implement, but from which tools farmers need during their daily work. Because a farmer does not start a new season on January 1 just because such a date is written in the regulations. And good agricultural software should understand this simple principle.

We have been connecting agro brands with farmers for over 20 years.

Talk to us about your campaign and start reaching the right audience.