The promised fairer distribution of subsidies to small-scale farmers in Bulgaria recently acquired specific dimensions – the government stated it intended to up subsidies for the smallest farms of 0.1 to 30 hectares by 50 percent. Thus, instead of the current 150 euro per hectare they will now receive 225. While the owners of plots of over 30,000 hectares will continue to get their 150 euro per hectare. This is the first step towards surmounting the drastic polarization in the assistance rendered to small and to large scale farmers, that arose over the first period of European subsidies in this country (2007-2013) and tipping the scales in favour of the former. Evening out this imbalance in the subsidies to large and small-scale farmers is part of the new EU Common Agricultural Policy, which affords an opportunity to redirect up to 10 percent of the direct assistance to the farmers who have so far been at a disadvantage.

Paradoxically,

Bulgaria alongside Romania are the countries developing the largest scale agriculture within the EU. Around 80 percent of the arable land in this country is distributed among farms with an average of 672 hectares, plots that are two-three times bigger than the large scale farms in the EU, where the average is 264 hectares. There are farmers in this country working their own land or plots taken on lease of over 100,000 hectares. At the same time the smallest farms of 0.1- 0.2 hectares are also in Bulgaria. The arable land in Bulgarian farms averages a little over 10 hectares.

The way subsidies used to be distributed benefited cereal-growers most because cereals are grown on the largest plots of land. The traditional for Bulgaria sectors such as fruit and vegetable growing and stockbreeding have fallen into oblivion. The result of this policy is that from a major exporter of fruit and vegetables some 20-30 years ago, Bulgaria now imports 80 percent of its fruit and vegetables and around 90 percent of its meat. It is these sectors that are now expected to get some, albeit modest breathing space.

An incentive to develop serious agriculture or a step towards keeping Bulgarians in the villages where the population is constantly dwindling?

According to many analysts the 50 percent increase in direct subsidies is still an insignificant shot in the arm of small-scale farming in this country. In the words of Dimitar Grekov, Minister of Agriculture and Food this initiative pursues purely social objectives. One is to encourage small-scale farmers not to give up on agriculture, to preserve some kind of livelihood in villages and to keep people there. Statistics indicate that 40 percent of the small farms have disappeared in the first three years after the first European subsidies were granted in the agricultural sector in 2007. To the benefit of the larger farms, as seen from the above information. Minister Grekov says this is just the first step and in the coming years the support to small farms will be better differentiated and more efficient, depending on how labour-intensive growing a given crop is. The idea is to help them step over into the next category, that of average-sized farms. Hence a more balanced picture of ownership in Bulgarian agriculture.

Suspicions of pre-election speculation

As soon as these steps were made public, accusations were made that handing out small sums “a piece” to around 50 to 100,000 small-scale farmers is a mere pre-election move for attracting more votes to the ruling Bulgarian Socialist Party and the Movement for Rights and Freedoms, whose electorate is mostly to be found in villages.

The stumbling blocks

The 50 percent rise in subsidies to the smallest farms could prompt many of the large-scale farmers to parcel their plots out so as to be able to benefit from them. Reactions of unjustified envy came from the organization of cereal growers, who have so far been the principal beneficiary of the European money. Deputy Agriculture Minister Byurhan Abazov stated a decree was currently being drafted that would rule out any such speculations. The second risk arising from the additional modest support to small-scale farmers is that instead of prompting them towards higher profits, it may “lull” them into apathy by ensuring they have additional revenues.

English version: Milena Daynova