COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission recommendations for Bulgaria’s CAP strategic plan Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Recommendations to the Member States as regards their strategic plan for the Common Agricultural Policy
Date: 2020-12-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Bulgaria, EU strategy, agricultural policy, climate change policy, common agricultural policy, cooperation on agriculture, digitisation, food security, innovation, rural development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 18.12.2020  SWD(2020) 369 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission recommendations for Bulgaria’s CAP strategic plan Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Recommendations to the Member States as regards their strategic plan for the Common Agricultural Policy   {COM(2020) 846 final} - {SWD(2020) 367 final} - {SWD(2020) 368 final} - {SWD(2020) 370 final} - {SWD(2020) 371 final} - {SWD(2020) 372 final} - {SWD(2020) 373 final} - {SWD(2020) 374 final} - {SWD(2020) 375 final} - {SWD(2020) 376 final} - {SWD(2020) 377 final} - {SWD(2020) 379 final} - {SWD(2020) 384 final} - {SWD(2020) 385 final} - {SWD(2020) 386 final} - {SWD(2020) 387 final} - {SWD(2020) 388 final} - {SWD(2020) 389 final} - {SWD(2020) 390 final} - {SWD(2020) 391 final} - {SWD(2020) 392 final} - {SWD(2020) 393 final} - {SWD(2020) 394 final} - {SWD(2020) 395 final} - {SWD(2020) 396 final} - {SWD(2020) 397 final} - {SWD(2020) 398 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1.  COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BULGARIA’S CAP 

STRATEGIC PLAN ............................................................................................... 2 

1.1  Foster a smart, resilient and diversified agricultural sector ensuring food 
security ............................................................................................................ 2 

1.2  Bolster environmental care and climate action and contribute to the 

environmental- and climate-related objectives of the Union ..................... 3 

1.3  Strengthen the socio-economic fabric of rural areas and address societal 

concerns .......................................................................................................... 4 

1.4  Modernising the sector by fostering and sharing of knowledge, 

innovation and digitalisation, and encouraging their uptake .................... 5 

1.5  Recommendations .......................................................................................... 6 

2.  ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN 

BULGARIA ............................................................................................................. 9 

2.1  Support viable farm income and resilience across the EU territory to 

enhance food security .................................................................................... 9 

2.2  Enhance market orientation and increase competitiveness including 

greater focus on research, technology and digitalisation ......................... 10 

2.3  Improve farmers' position in the value chain ............................................ 12 

2.4  Contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation, as well as 

sustainable energy ....................................................................................... 14 

2.5  Foster sustainable development and efficient management of natural 

resources such as water, soil and air .......................................................... 16 

2.6  Contribute to the protection of biodiversity, enhance ecosystem services 

and preserve habitats and landscapes ....................................................... 18 

2.7  Attract young farmers and facilitate business development in rural areas

 ....................................................................................................................... 21 

2.8  Promote employment, growth, social inclusion and local development in 

rural areas, including bio-economy and sustainable forestry ................. 22 

2.9  Improve the response of EU agriculture to societal demands on food and 
health, including safe, nutritious and sustainable food, as well as animal 
welfare........................................................................................................... 23 

2.10  Cross-cutting objective on knowledge, innovation and digitalisation ..... 25 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
1.  COMMISSION  RECOMMENDATIONS 

FOR  BULGARIA’S  CAP 

STRATEGIC PLAN 

In  the  framework  of  the  structured  dialogue  for  the  preparation  of  the  common 
agricultural policy (CAP) strategic plan, this document contains the recommendations for 
the  CAP  strategic  plan  of  Bulgaria.  The  recommendations  are  based  on  analysis  of  the 
state of play, the needs and the priorities for agriculture and rural areas in Bulgaria. The 
recommendations address the specific economic, environmental and social objectives of 
the  future  CAP  and  in  particular  the  ambition  and  specific  targets  of  the  Farm  to  Fork 
Strategy and the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. As stated in the Farm to Fork Strategy, 
the Commission invites Bulgaria, in its CAP Strategic Plan, to set explicit national values 
for  the  Green  Deal  targets1,  taking  into  account  its  specific  situation  and  these 
recommendations. 

1.1  Foster  a  smart,  resilient  and  diversified  agricultural  sector  ensuring 
food security 

The shift to a sustainable food system presents both important economic opportunities as 
well  as  challenges  for  Bulgarian  farmers.  Analysis  of  changes  in  the  organisational 
structure of Bulgaria’s agricultural sector in the recent  years shows positive trends such 
as  increasing  farm  size,  increasing  levels  of  specialisation  and  concentration  of 
production  and  improved  market  orientation.  Nevertheless,  the  structure  of  the  sector 
continues  to  be  characterised  by  the  predominance  of  micro  and  small  farms  with  low 
income (mostly in the dairy, meat, fruit and vegetables sectors) and a limited number of 
big farms with much higher income levels (mostly in the cereals sector).  

Agricultural  income  is  on  average  close  to  the  income  in  other  economic  sectors. 
However,  variation  between  the  small  and  large  income  classes  in  agriculture  is 
substantial  and the dependence of agricultural  income on direct  payment and payments 
for areas with natural constraints payments is significant. To support agricultural income 
more  efficiently,  Bulgaria  should  continue  improving  the  effectiveness  of  the  direct 
payments  and  other  income  support  tools.  This  can  be  achieved  in  particular  through 
better targeting of farms with higher income support needs and of territorial differences.  

Despite its increase, the average economic size of farms in Bulgaria is lower than the EU 
average. There are significant differences in the economic potential of specialised farms, 
with a clear advantage for those specialising in arable crops, pigs and poultry production. 
The average net income is increasing but is still lower than in many EU Member States. 
This  is  due  to  the  predominance  of  low  value  added  production,  lower  productivity, 
extensive  farming  and  lower  efficiency.  In  addition,  in  Bulgaria  labour  productivity  in 
agriculture is about half of the EU’s.  

Bulgarian agriculture faces problems of low profitability, most notably in cost-intensive 
sectors  (e.g.  livestock  and  fruit  and  vegetables  production),  where  production  is 
shrinking. The marketing of agricultural products is below the EU average due to a large 
number of small semi-subsistence farms with difficulties in accessing markets and a low 
level  of  organisation.  The  agricultural  sector  holds  a  significant  place  in  the  country’s 
overall  trade  balance,  representing  almost  one  fifth  of  exports  in  2017,  although 
unprocessed products with low value added still dominate exports. Bulgaria demonstrates 

1   It concerns the targets related to use and risk of pesticides, sale of antimicrobials, nutrient loss, area 
under organic farming, high diversity landscape features and access to fast broadband internet. 

2 

 
 
                                                           
high export potential for rose and lavender oil, honey, pig meat and poultry. Significant 
potential lies also in the use of quality schemes and organic farming, as a path to generate 
more  value  added.  However,  the  very  weak  cooperation  among  stakeholders  in  the 
organic farming sector is a clear obstacle to the development of niche products. 

The agri-food value chain shows a certain inefficiency and tends tofavour processors and 
traders.  The  main  reasons  for  this  are  the  low  level  of  organisation  of  farmers,  limited 
vertical  integration  with  the  processing  sector  and  the  unused  potential  for  developing 
short supply chains. 

Some  sectors  of  the  food  industry  have  become  dependent  on  import  of  raw  materials, 
most notably of milk, meat and fruit and vegetables. This trend may also lead to loss of 
external markets due to Bulgarian primary production’s lack of a comparative advantage. 

The  agricultural  sector  faces  significant  human  resources  challenges.  62%  of  the  work 
force left the sector between 2005 and 2017. The vast  majority of  farm managers have 
low qualification and lack specialised education.  

Despite the challenges, there is a clear potential for development. 

1.2  Bolster  environmental  care  and  climate  action  and  contribute  to  the 

environmental- and climate-related objectives of the Union 

Bulgarian agriculture’s performance on sustainable management of natural resources and 
climate  change  mitigation  has  been  uneven.  Bulgaria  reduced  green  house  gas  (GHG) 
emissions  compared  to  1990,  although  the  most  recent  years  and  medium-term 
projections  show  an  upward  trend.  The  increase  has  been  driven  by  agricultural  soils, 
which are also a prevailing source of non-CO2 agricultural emissions. However, Bulgaria 
remains an EU country with a relatively low emission intensity of production, apart from 
in the area of manure management.  

At the same time, Bulgaria is experiencing a decrease in net GHG removals in LULUCF 
sectors,  mainly  due  to  the  changing  structure  of  forests.  While  the  share  of  areas  of 
grassland in agricultural land remained stable, GHG removals from grasslands decreased 
significantly  in  the  last  decade.  Carbon  stocks  could  be  enhanced,  based  where 
appropriate on carbon farming approaches, through: (i) improved forest management; (ii) 
support to sustainable production and use of biomass in the bio-economy: (iii) catch and 
cover crops; or (iv) the conversion of arable land to grassland. 

Energy use in  agriculture/forestry  remains much lower than the EU  average. While the 
production of renewable energy showed a strong increase and per unit production from 
vegetal  sources  exceeds  the  EU  average,  the  possibilities  for  sustainable  renewable 
energy production from anaerobic sources could still be used more efficiently.  

Bulgaria  is  one  of  the  EU’s  most  hail  prone  countries.  Like  in  other  countries  in  the 
southern regions of the EU, increasing heatwaves and lower precipitation due to climate 
change  make  Bulgarian  agriculture  vulnerable  to  higher  yield  variability  and  heat-
induced stress for animals, though there are also  some opportunities linked to increased 
productivity or new crops.  

Despite the high proportion of Bulgarian territory being part of the Natura 2000 network 
(over 34%), nearly 20% of which is agricultural land and over 50% is forest, the share of 
land  under  contracts  supporting  biodiversity  and/or  landscape  and  forests  is  lower  than 
the  average  EU  level.  The  state  of  farmland  biodiversity  requires  urgent  attention  as 
3 

 
 
exemplified  by  the  worsening  status  of  farmland  birds1,  while  intensive  agricultural 
practices are identified as one of the greatest pressures on protected habitats and species. 

Bulgaria is also one of the Member States with the highest loss of land with high nature 
value (HNV) due to intensification of farming. Addressing these challenges will require 
fostering  sustainable  farming  practices  to  reduce  pressures  on  farmland  biodiversity 
combined  with  habitat  management  measures  for  wild  pollinators,  farmland  birds,  and 
the Turtle dove in accordance with the Prioritised Action Framework. 

Despite  recent  improvements,  the  share  of  land  dedicated  to  organic  farming  is  much 
lower  than  the  EU-27  level  and  the  opportunities  provided  by  this  type  of  farming, 
including in terms of positive benefits to biodiversity, are still to be explored.  

Compared to EU levels, agriculture in Bulgaria accounts for a relatively lower share of 
the country’s ammonia emissions to air, although these emissions have increased in the 
last couple of years.  

In  terms  of  soil  quality,  Bulgaria  is  in  the  category  of  EU  Member  States  with  lower 
content of organic matter.  Its soils are deficient in phosphorus, and would benefit from a 
rebalancing  fertilisation  practices.  Rebalancing  would  also  benefit  climate  and  air 
quality.  The  country  has  relatively  abundant  freshwater  resources  but  all  river  basin 
districts  face  water  quantity  related  problems.  Prioritising  practices  that  specifically 
address soil and local water quantity challenges will be important in the successful green 
transition of Bulgarian agriculture. This would strengthen the ongoing transformation to 
more  organic  production,  thus  contributing  to  the  reduction  of  pesticides  and  nutrients 
and increasing production of bioenergy. 

1.3  Strengthen  the  socio-economic  fabric  of  rural  areas  and  address  societal 

concerns 

Rural  areas  represent  about  22%  of  the  territory  of  Bulgaria,  while  intermediate  areas 
cover  77%.  Many  rural  areas  face  the  twin  challenges  of  rapid  population  decline  and 
low GDP per capita. The GDP per capita in predominantly rural areas is the lowest in the 
EU and the country remains the EU Member State with the highest risk of rural poverty 
and social  exclusion. At the same time, ensuring the protection of agricultural workers, 
especially  precarious,  seasonal  and  undeclared  workers,  will  play  a  major  role  in 
delivering on the respect of rights enshrined in legislation which is an essential element 
of the fair EU food system envisaged by the Farm to Fork Strategy. 

Limited  employment  opportunities  and  lower  quality  of  life  are  key  factors  for  the 
depopulation  of  rural  areas.  Infrastructure  and  services  (e.g.  water  supply  and  sewage, 
schools,  etc.)  are  often  limited  and  of  poor  quality2.  Although  the  percentage  of  young 
farmers  in  Bulgaria  is  above  the  EU  average,  it  is  evident  that  attracting  them  to  the 
profession  is  hindered  by  numerous  factors  such  as  difficult  working  conditions  due  to 
low  technological  development  of  the  sector,  insufficient  own  capital  for  investing  in 
innovation and modernisation of farms, and difficult access to credit. 

Despite the positive effects of support provided under the two pillars of the CAP, young 
farmers  face  difficulties  in  preparing  bank  loan  applications,  project  proposals  and 
business  plans.  The  capacity  of  the  national  agriculture  advisory  service  (NAAS)  to 
provide  easily  accessible  and  competent  advisory/consulting  services  is  not  always 
sufficient.  

4 

 
 
The low level of training and education is one of the most acute issues in rural areas. The 
number of  young people not in employment, education or training in  rural  areas is still 
significantly  higher  than  the  national  average  (26%  vs  15%  in  2018).  The  rate  of  farm 
managers below 35 years with at least basic training is one of the lowest in the EU and 
only  4%  of  agricultural  producers  have  specialised  education  and/or  training  in 
agriculture.  The  lack  of  next  generation  access  (NGA)  broadband  connection  and  the 
limited  availability  of  broadband  connection  additionally  hinder  access  to  training  and 
support. 

is 

the 

tendency 

increasing  demand  for,  and  orientation 

towards 
A  positive 
environmentally  friendly  agricultural  practices.  The  existing  laws  in  this  field  can  be 
strengthened  and  measures  for  sustainable  use  of  pesticides  can  be  improved. 
Improvements are needed also on the sales of antimicrobials where Bulgaria is above the 
EU  average,  on  farm  biosecurity  management  and  farm  registration  and  animal 
identification  in  view  of  the  presence  of  African  Swine  Fever.  Improvements  are  also 
needed on animal welfare.  

Data on sales of pesticides show that candidates  for substitution comprised a relatively 
high  and  stable  proportion  of  total  pesticide  sales  in  Bulgaria  in  the  2015-2017  period. 
This  indicates  that  Bulgaria  is  not  on  target  to  meet  the  Farm  to  Fork  target  of  a  50% 
reduction in the use of the more hazardous pesticides by 2030. 

Bulgaria should also make an effort to shift towards healthier diets as it has a very high 
prevalence of non-communicable diseases due to dietary risk factors. 

1.4  Modernising the sector by fostering and sharing of knowledge, innovation 

and digitalisation, and encouraging their uptake 

A well-functioning agricultural knowledge and innovation system (AKIS) should deliver 
a conducive environment to respond to the growing information needs of farmers. This 
can lead to quicker innovation and better valorisation of existing knowledge to  achieve 
the CAP objectives.  

Currently, the fragmentation of the Bulgarian AKIS and the lack of strategic coordination 
among its components  detracts from the flow of knowledge and innovation. The number 
of institutes and organisations is high, but activities are hard to trace and their quality is 
unclear.  Cooperation  and  links  with  support  provided  by  other  structural  funds  (e.g. 
ERDF-financed  centres  of  competence  and  excellence  or  the  new  state  agency  for 
research and innovation) should be ensured in order to have a better added value for the 
Bulgarian economy.  

The  planned  rural  development  programme  budget  for  knowledge  exchange,  training, 
advice  and innovation  for the  current  period (2014-2020) is  quite limited  and spending 
seems  difficult.  No  European  innovation  partnership  operational  groups  have  been 
reported  yet.  Moreover,  considering  the  relatively  low  level  of  education  and 
professional  training  of  Bulgarian  farmers,  the  lack  of  innovation  support  services  and 
insufficient capacity in the national advisory service, the Bulgarian AKIS’s shortcomings 
may  limit  the  ability  to  transition  towards  a  greener  and  more  digital  agriculture,  as 
intended by the Farm to Fork Strategy. 

It is essential to improve links between public and private advisors and to invest in their 
training  and  skills.  Advisors  should  be  supported  to  help  capture  individual  grass  roots 
innovative  ideas  and  to  develop  them  by  setting  up  and  implementing  EIP  operational 

5 

 
 
group projects. Such “innovation support services” will become obligatory for Member 
States post 20203. 

A stronger AKIS could also support an increase in the digitalisation of Bulgarian farms 
and  rural  areas,  which  are  now  lagging  behind  other  Member  States  and  the  non-rural 
areas of the country. The availability of a flawless broadband coverage will be crucial to 
enhance the uptake of digital technologies and to improve the digital skills of Bulgaria’s 
rural population. 

1.5  Recommendations 

To  address  the  above  interconnected  economic,  environmental/climate  and  social 
challenges,  the  Commission  considers  that  the  Bulgarian  CAP  strategic  plan  needs  to 
focus its priorities and concentrate its interventions on the following points: 

Foster a smart, resilient and diversified agricultural sector ensuring food security 

  Improving  the  viability  and  profitability  of  the  sector  by  supporting 
optimisation  of  farm  structure,  development  of  sectors  such  as  vegetables, 
orchards and herbivores, and investments in modernisation of production. 

  Enhancing the competitiveness and market orientation of the sector, notably 
by supporting higher availability and uptake of technology, innovation, marketing 
initiatives, professional training of farmers and increased use of risk management 
instruments. 

  Improving  the  viability  of  smaller  and  medium-sized  farms  with  higher 
development  potential,  through  a  more  effective  targeting  of  income  support, 
with  the  application,  for  example,  of  the  complementary  redistributive  income 
support for sustainability and the reduction of payments. 

  Improving  the  position  of  farmers  in  the  food  supply  chain.  Recommended 
approaches  include:  supporting  the  processing  and  marketing  of  agricultural 
products  with  high  added  value  (for  example  under  EU  and  national  quality 
schemes);  and  enhancing  the  position  of  the  farmer  by  stimulating  knowledge 
exchange  and  encouraging  various  forms  of  cooperation,  in  particular  between 
organic farmers. 

Bolster environmental care and climate action and contribute to the environmental- and 
climate-related objectives of the Union  

  Addressing the increasing trends of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions and 
ammonia from soils, notably brought about by increased fertilisation. To this 
end,  Bulgaria  should  improve  soil  organic  matter  and  preserve  soil  fertility  by 
encouraging longer and more diverse crop rotations, appropriate soil cover, better 
management of residues, more balanced and efficient nutrient  management,  and 
alternative  measures  to  address  the  remaining  cases  of  open  burning  of 
agricultural  residues.  Bulgaria  should  consider  combining  these  measures  with 
more ambitious soil management techniques to reverse soil erosion in the regions 
most affected by this problem.  

6 

 
 
  Reducing air pollution and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions by improving 
manure  management  (application,  storage)  and  by  using  manure  for  the 
sustainable production of biogas, in line with the EU Methane Strategy. 

  Improving  farm  and  forest  sectors’  adaptability  to  climate  change  by 
supporting farm/drought resilience plans; water savings through crop adaptation, 
environmentally  sound  water  reuse,  and  efficient  irrigation  systems  in  regions 
depending on irrigation; valorising/increasing presence of landscape features such 
as trees that allow protection against hail or other extreme weather events. 

  Contributing to the EU Green Deal target on high-diversity farm landscape 
features  by  supporting  suitable  farming  practices,  including  the  creation  and 
maintenance of landscape features on agricultural land and increasing support to 
maintain  and  enhance  High  Nature  Value  farmland.  These  efforts  should  also 
support  the  restoration  and  maintenance  of  protected  habitats  and  species 
including  those  identified  in  the  prioritized  action  framework  (PAF)  for  CAP 
funding. 

  Fostering  a  sustainable  management  of  forestry  land  and  afforestation, 
enhancing  multi-functionality,  forest  protection  and  restoration  of  forests 
ecosystems to reach good condition of habitats and species linked to the forests 
and  to  build  resilience  to  threats  such  as  climate  change  impacts.  To  this  end, 
forest  management  strategies  that  maximise  species,  genetic  and  structural 
diversity should be promoted.  

  Contributing to the EU Green Deal target on organic farming by supporting 
conversion to and maintenance of organic farming, for the benefit of wildlife and 
ecosystems (as well as potential economic gains). 

Strengthen the socio-economic fabric of rural areas and address societal demands 

  Creating  employment  opportunities  and  improving  conditions  for  business 
development  in  rural  areas  through  targeted  investments  in  bio-economy, 
forestry, increased NGA broadband coverage and improved access to finance for 
new entrants and young farmers. 

  Reducing  poverty,  depopulation  and  social  exclusion  in  rural  areas  by 
continuing  to  support  strategic  longer-term  investments  in  infrastructure  (e.g. 
rural  roads  and  sewage  systems)  and  in  services  (related  to  medical  provision, 
education and leisure). All such support should take into account the dynamically 
changing  situation  in  those  areas  and  possible  synergies  with  other  EU  and 
national funds. 

  Contributing  to  the  achievement  of  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  on  sales  of 
antimicrobials by putting in place sizeable efforts to significantly reduce use of 
antimicrobials in livestock farming, considering that sales in Bulgaria are above 
the  EU  average,  by  using  all  available  tools,  including  instruments  under  the 
CAP, to support farmers by e.g. promoting best practices on reduced and prudent 
use of antimicrobials, together with improved livestock management, biosecurity, 
infection prevention and control. 

7 

 
 
  Substantially  improving  farm  biosecurity  and  animal  welfare  by  supporting 
improved livestock management practices, especially for pigs, and by promoting 
best practices for improved animal husbandry, infection prevention and control. 

  Contributing to the EU Green Deal targets on pesticides by strengthening the 
efforts to decrease the quantities and risks of the most hazardous used pesticides 
and by promoting the sustainable use of pesticides, in particular by ensuring the 
uptake of integrated pest management practices. 

Fostering  and  sharing  of  knowledge,  innovation  and  digitalisation  in  agriculture  and 
rural areas, and encouraging their uptake 

  Contributing  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  on  broadband  by  timely 
completing  investments  for  100%  fast  broadband  connection  coverage  in 
rural areas, while accelerating the development  of digital and knowledge skills 
in  rural  areas  and  agriculture.  Synergies  with  available  funding  from  other  EU 
and national funds should be ensured when addressing this recommendation.  

  Tackling  fragmentation  of  the  Agricultural  Knowledge  and  Innovation 
System  by  using  interventions  aimed  at  strengthening  advisory  services  and 
interlinking  them,  including  with  the  other  AKIS  components,  encouraging 
knowledge-building  and  knowledge  exchange,  investing  in  innovation  support 
services and the training of advisors and farmers. This would increase the uptake 
of sustainable farming practices, the level of digitalisation and the co-creation of 
innovations which can foster environmental sustainability and competitiveness of 
the agricultural sector. 

8 

 
 
 
 
2.  ANALYSIS  OF  AGRICULTURE  AND  RURAL  DEVELOPMENT  IN 

BULGARIA 

Bulgarian  agricultural  sector represents  around 3% of the GDP and employs about  183 
000  people,  corresponding  to  5.7%  of  the  total  employment  in  the  country.  The 
agriculture sector holds a significant place in the country’s economy in terms of GDP and 
employment and contributes positively to the trade balance.  

Since 1990, the sector is in transition and faces major challenges such as outflow of work 
force,  decreased  profitability  of  production,  insufficient  modernisation  and  innovation 
and lack of adequate knowledge and training of farmers.   

Rural  areas  represent  22%  of  the  territory  of  Bulgaria  and  are  home  to  13%  of  the 
population4.  Compared  to  urban  areas,  they  are  characterised  by  higher  poverty  and 
population  decline.  Other  challenges  include  ageing  population  and  lower  economic 
activity,  accompanied  by  poor  quality  of  basic  services  and  outdated  public 
infrastructure, social and cultural facilities. 

2.1  Support  viable  farm  income  and  resilience  across  the  EU  territory  to 

enhance food security 

In  Bulgaria,  the  average  agricultural  income  is  about  83%  of  the  average  wage  of  the 
economy. This is above the EU-average. The gap seems to close over the last years5. 

The  average  agricultural  factor  income  is  regularly  increasing  since  2009.  It  increases 
constantly  with  farm  physical  and  economic  size.  It  shows  highest  values  for  Cereals 
Oilseeds  and  Protein  farms  (COP)  and  granivores  farms,  and  lowest  for  horticulture, 
orchards – fruits, cattle, sheep and goat and mixed crops and livestock farms. The income 
is significantly lower in areas facing natural constraints (ANC), especially in mountains 
(by ca. 50%). At regional level, two regions (Yugozapaden and Yuzhen Tsentralen) have 
considerably  lower  income  compared  to  the  other  four  (Severozapaden,  Severen 
Tsentralen, Severoiztochen and Yuhoiztochen). The last two results illustrate the income 
level disparities between territories.6 

In  the  period  2015-2018,  20%  of  the  beneficiaries  farmed  about  89%  of  the  land  and 
received  83%  of  the  direct  payments.  Direct  payments  form  35%  of  the  factor  income 
whereas  payments  under  Pillar  II7  are  around  7%.  However  the  weight  of  rural 
development  support  is  higher  for  ANC,  in  particular  in  mountain  areas  (at  20%).  The 
average  direct  payment  per  hectare  decreases  regularly  with  increasing  farm  physical 
size,  as  illustrated  by  Indicator  R6  Redistribution  towards  smaller  farms.  Bulgaria 
reinforces  the  unit  amount  of  direct  payments  to  smaller  farms;  nevertheless,  there  are 
still  important  income  differences  between  small  and  large  farms.  Despite  having  the 
highest average direct payment per hectare, horticulture farms have the lowest income as 
well as a low share of direct payments in income. On the other hand, although the direct 
payment per hectare is among the lowest for COP farms, the share of direct payments for 
those farms is still high compared to other sectors more in needs, and their factor income 
is the highest. For cattle farms, direct payments and rural development support represents 
almost  100%  of  their  income,  but  the  income  level  is  still  among  the  lowest  and  the 
direct payment per hectares is only 131% of national average. The horticulture and cattle 
farms belong to the class of small farms (average hectare per farm is below 20 hectare), 
while the COP farms belong to the larger farms (average above 200 hectares)8. 

9 

 
 
In  Bulgaria,  the  level  of  price,  yield  and  income  risk  is  considered  higher  than  the  EU 
average.  Nationally  funded  schemes  for  crop  and  livestock  insurance  exist  covering 
climatic  and  veterinary  risks;  however  the  uptake  is  very  low  (below  5%).  Rural 
Development funded tools have not been developed due to lack of experience and trust.9 

Income (FNVA/AWU) and DP/ha by physical size in Bulgaria 

EUR/AWU 

DP/ha 

Income other than operating subsidies 

DP/AWU 

Other operating subsidies / AWU 

DP/ha 

Source: DG AGRI based on FADN 2018 
Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development own calculations based on FADN data 

Farm physical size classes 

2.2  Enhance market orientation and increase competitiveness including greater 

focus on research, technology and digitalisation 

The Bulgarian agricultural sector represents around 3% of the GDP and employs about 
183  000  people,  corresponding  to  5.7%  of  the  total  employment  in  the  country10.  The 
income per family worker was, in 2019, at about the same level as the average wage for 
the  whole  economy11.  Direct  payments  play  an  important  part  in  farm  income:  33%  in 
2018. In 2016, 7.4% of farm managers in Bulgaria were below 35 years old (5.1% in the 
EU)12. Women accounted for 34% of the young farmers, the highest share in the EU. 

Between  2013  and  2018,  total  factor  productivity  rose  by  7.2%,  mainly  due  to  an 
increase in labour productivity (62% of the work force left agriculture between 2005 and 
2017). Still, productivity lags behind EU average, with labour productivity at about half 
of the EU’s average. The number of farms has more than halved between 2005 (535 000) 
and 2016 (203 000). Conversely, the average farm size increased from 10 to 25 hectares 
in the same period. Access to agricultural land is comparatively easy in Bulgaria (average 
farm  size  larger  than  the  EU-average,  lower  cost  than  EU  average)  which  should 
facilitate  structural  adjustment13.  The  prevalence  of  semi-subsistence  farms  has 
diminished, notably in  pig and poultry meat  sectors, but  remains  relatively  high  –  with 
consequences  in  terms  of  market  orientation  and  organization,  as  well  as  sectoral 
orientation14.  The  share  of  farms  with  more  than  50%  of  regular  labour  from  family 
members was at 95% in 201615. 

10 

 
 
 
The agricultural area declined by 2%, from 5.12 million hectares in 2007 to 5.02 million 
hectares in 201616. In the decade leading to 2016, permanent grassland decreased to the 
benefit of arable land, the number of livestock units and livestock density decreased and 
the area of extensive grazing remained stable. 

Farmer  investments  (gross  fixed  capital  formation)  kept  a  stable  trajectory  for  the  last 
decade and a half, with a slight tendency to decline between 2015 and 2017. 74% of the 
output  at  production  value  in  Bulgaria  in  2017  comes  from  crop  production.  Cereals 
(32%) and industrial crops – oilseed, protein and tobacco - (26%) together form almost 
60%  of  the  total  output,  followed  by  milk  9%,  vegetables  and  fruit  5.1%17. 
Entrepreneurial income,  with  ups and downs, shows a significant  decline in  the last 15 
years of available data. The dependency on subsidies is higher than EU average, which 
might raise sustainability concerns18. 

Bulgaria presents a positive agri-food trade balance with the rest of the EU and vis-a-vis 
the rest of the world. While the trade balance with the EU Member-States is stable, the 
balance with  the non-EU world  shows a downward trend  after the peak of 201319. The 
agricultural  sector  holds  a  significant  place  in  the  overall  country’s  trade  balance, 
originating almost one fifth of the exports in 2017, although unprocessed products with 
low value added still dominate exports20. In 2018, the main export products in value were 
wheat  (16.7%)  and  oilseeds,  mostly  sunflower  (12.0%).  Organic  farming  reached  only 
2.6% of total UAA in 201821. 

The low and insufficient level of innovation and R&D deployments has led to a decline 
in  price  competitiveness  and  a  low  level  of  profitability  of  agriculture.  The  use  of 
innovative  solutions  by  farmers  and  agri-processors  under  cooperation  by  using  ICT, 
digital, and other new technologies is essential.  Due to difficulties in accessing finance 
and  information,  as  well  as  broadband  availability  deficiencies,  the  take-up  of  digital 
technologies  (e-business,  cloud  computing  services,  big  data,  online  sales  etc.)  by 
farmers and rural businesses is lagging behind. 

Cost  and  revenue  structure  over  time  (as  in  statistical  and  analytical  factsheets)  from 
2005  to  2018  split  by  different  costs  and  output  (revenue  according  to  Economic 
accounts of Agriculture). 

11 

 
 
Cost and revenue structure of agricultural income (real prices in million EUR) in Bulgaria 

Crop output 
Agricultural services output 

Fertilisers 
Rents 
Entrepreneurial income 

Animal output 

Non-agricultural secondary 
Plant/animal protection 
Interest 

Product subsidies 

Seeds 
Feeding stuffs 
Taxes 

Source: EUROSTAT. [aact_eaa01] 

2.3  Improve farmers' position in the value chain 

Other subsidies 
Energy 
Labour 
Other costs 

The  share  of  the  value  added  for  primary  producers  in  the  food  chain  in  Bulgaria  is 
decreasing  in  favour  of  the  food  and  beverage  consumer  services.  In  2017,  52%  of  the 
value added in the food chain went to primary producers, which is twice the average in 
the EU (27% in 2017)22.  

The farm structure in Bulgaria is characterised by a significant share of small agricultural 
holdings. In particular, this is the case for the dairy, meat, fruit and vegetables sectors.  

The  agri-food  value  chain  shows  certain  inefficiency  and  tends  to  be  in  favour  of 
processors  and  traders.  The  main  reasons  for  that  are  the  low  level  of  organisation  of 
farmers,  low  level  of  vertical  integration  with  the  processing  sector  and  the  unused 
potential for developing short supply chains. 

Cooperation and collaborative approach to farming is lagging behind. There are historical 
and  cultural  barriers  for  farmers  to  cooperate.  A  large  proportion  of  farmers  are  not 
integrated in  the value  chain  and important  differences are observed across  the sectors. 
This  also  has  contributed  to  the  low  development  of  vertical  integration  with  the 
processing sector mainly due to the significant transaction and logistical costs including 
lack of necessary management skills.  

There  are  36  recognised  producer  organisations  (PO)  in  Bulgaria23.  According  to  the 
Bulgarian Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, 0.29% of the cow milk and 0.02% 
of  the  sheep  milk  were  marketed  through  POs.  Regarding  fruits  and  vegetables  this 
percentage varies between 4.38 and 4.80% for the period 2016-2018. In 2019, however, 
only 1% of fruit and vegetables were marketed through POs24. 

Bringing farmers together would increase their chances to have stronger market positions 
and  better  outlets  for  their  production,  which  will  in  turn  lead  to  producers  of  primary 
agricultural products creating more added value. This would also increase the bargaining 
power when facing the processing industry and big retailers. No interbranch organisation 

12 

 
 
(IBO) has been recognised in Bulgaria so far: their development could also contribute to 
better vertical cooperation within the food supply chain. 

Further  attention  could  also  be  brought  to  quality  schemes25  (mainly  to  the  Union  and 
national  ones)  as  a  path  to  generate  more  value  added.  There  is  a  potential  in  the  EU 
quality  schemes  to  strengthen  the  farmers  position  in  the  value  chain.  According  to 
Bulgarian  authorities  there  has  been  a  gradual  reduction  in  the  production  of  protected 
wine  with  protected  designations  (protected  designation  of  origin  (PDO)  and  protected 
geographical indication (PGI)). 

As the Commission’s Farm to Fork Strategy calls for a more plant-based diet with more 
fruits & vegetables and better animal welfare, Bulgaria could build on its relatively large 
crops sector and help farmers expand plant-based production, especially by focusing on 
fruits and vegetables for human consumption.  

The  total  area  under  organic  farming  is  increasing  in  Bulgaria  (2.6%  of  total  utilised 
agricultural area (UAA)), although it is less than the EU27 average (8%)26 in 2018. The 
share  of  UAA  under  conversion  to  organic  is  decreasing  and  in  2018  was  the  lowest 
noted  since  2014,  which  strongly  limits  the  potential  for  growth.  The  areas  cultivated 
with  organic  production  methods  have  been  growing  in  Bulgaria  mainly  in  mountain 
territories  (90%)  and  in  small  family  farms.  On  top  of  that,  the  very  weak  cooperation 
among  stakeholders  in  organic  farming  is  a  clear  obstacle  to  the  marketing  of  niche 
products.  Organic  products  account  for  7.6%  of  the  total  food  market  in  Bulgaria  in 
comparison to conventional products. In recent years, the share of organic livestock has 
increased in the country.  

Achieving Farm to Fork objective of sustainable food systems will require adequate and 
adapted strategy on how to address  constantly growing demand for organic foods. This 
should include correct identification of potential in local food production and food chain 
structures that shall be further strengthened and developed. 

In order to  strengthen the position of micro and small-sized farmers in  the food  supply 
chain  and  certain  sectors,  there  is  a  need  to  facilitate  the  pooling  of  farmers  through 
knowledge,  management  skills  (of  a  marketing  organisation)  and  good  practices  in  the 
marketing of products through cooperation. 

Bulgaria  already  protects  the  position  of  farmers  in  the  food  supply  chain  through  its 
national  unfair  trade  practices  legislation27.  Further  steps  forward  need  to  be  taken  in 
relation to the price setting with traders and intermediaries and the practice of misleading 
labelling.  

Value  added  in  the  agri-food  chain  split  by  primary  producers,  processing,  distribution 
and  services  +  share  to  primary  producers  from  2008  to  2017  and  share  to  primary 
producers at EU level. 

13 

 
 
 
Value added for primary producers in the food chain in Bulgaria (in million EUR) 

Primary production 
Food and beverage consumer services 

Food and beverage manufacturing 
% for primary producers (right axis) 

Food and beverage distribution 
% for primary producers – EU-27 

 Source: European Commission. CAP indicators – Data explorer. CAP Result indicator RPI_03 Value for 
primary producers in the food chain. 

2.4  Contribute  to  climate  change  mitigation  and  adaptation,  as  well  as 

sustainable energy 

Non-CO2 agricultural emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) (without the land use land 
use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector) amounted to 6.4 million tonnes of CO2 eq. in 
2018,  representing  11%  of  total  Bulgarian  GHG  emissions,  slightly  higher  than  the 
average  EU  share  (10%).  This  corresponds  to  a  decrease  of  nearly  50%  compared  to 
1990  levels.  However,  since  2005  emissions  have  been  rising:  by  24%  in  the  period 
2005-2018 (EU: -0.74%) and 12% in the period 2013-2018 period (EU: +1.80%).28 

Specific  to  Bulgaria  is  a  high  dominance  of  agricultural  soils  in  agricultural  emissions 
(65%, EU: 38%). The remaining 23% stem from enteric fermentation of livestock (EU: 
44%),  mainly  cattle,  9%  from  manure  management,  2%  from  rice  cultivation  and  1% 
from  field  burning  of  agricultural  residues  (2018).  Emissions  from  soils  increased  by 
22%  in  the  2013-2018  period  (EU:  +2%)29  alongside  with  intensified  crop  production 
and  increasing  mineral  fertilisation  and  are  the  driver  for  the  increase  in  agricultural 
emissions.  

However, the emissions of CH4 and N2O per hectare of UAA in Bulgaria are the lowest 
in  the  EU  (about  half  the  EU-28  average,  2015).30  Focusing  on  the  sources,  manure 
emissions  of  GHG  per  Livestock  Unit  (LSU)  (0.55  TCO2eq/LSU)  are  higher  than  EU 
average  (0.48  TCO2eq/LSU)  (2016)  while  the  per-unit  emissions  from  ruminants 
(enteric) and from soils are below EU average (2016, 2018 respectively).31 Following a 
decline around 2010s, the areas of permanent grassland and their share in UAA stabilised 
in  2013  reaching  28%  in  2018  with  1.4  mln  ha,  which  situates  Bulgaria  below  EU 
average  (31%)32.  In  contrast,  the  areas  and  the  share  under  the  direct  payment  system 
indicate a positive trend (increasing to  13.5% of agricultural  land in  2019).33 Peatlands 
cover  only  about  0.5%  of  soils  in  Bulgaria.34Concerning  the  land  use,  land  use  change 
and forestry (LULUCF) sector, besides the significant role of forest as a CO2 sink, where 
agricultural soils are concerned grasslands act as a sink of CO2 while croplands add to 
emissions. Both  forest  and grassland removals have been declining in  the last  20  years 
while the role of cropland reversed into a source of carbon in  late 2000s.  In the period 
2013-2018,  grassland  removals  fell  by  27%  (EU:  by  9%).35  Production  of  energy  from 
forest  and  agriculture  increased  by  47%  between  2013  and  2018  with  an  increase  in 

14 

0,0%25,0%50,0%75,0%100,0% - 2.000 4.000 6.0002008200920102011201220132014201520162017Value added for primary producers in the food chain in million EUR in BulgariaEU-27food and beverage manufacturingfood and beverage distributionfood and beverage consumer services% for primary producers (right axis)% for primary producers - EU-27 
 
 
several  related  agricultural  sources,  the  stronger  being  the  anaerobic  fermentation 
(+7123%). By 2016, production from anaerobic fermentation per livestock unit remained 
below EU average (2.28 Gigajoule, EU: 3.93) while by 2018 the per hectare production 
from vegetal materials and residues exceeded the EU average (1.61 Gigajoule, EU: 1,04). 
The share of agriculture and  forestry in  total  renewable energy production increased to 
66% in 2018 from 59% in 2015, mainly driven by increasing production from agriculture 
(6.6%  share  in  renewable  energy  in  2018  compared  to  1.5%  in  2015).  The  sector’s 
contribution  is  higher  than  EU  average  which  also  relies  slightly  more  on  agriculture 
(EU: 12%) and less on forestry (41%)36.  

In  2018,  agriculture  and  forestry  accounted  for  1.9%  of  total  energy  consumption  in 
Bulgaria, below EU average of 2.9%.37 The energy consumption per ha of UUA/forestry 
of  20.9  kgoe/ha38  (36.8  kgoe/ha  if  only  UAA  is  taken  into  account39)  was  the  second 
lowest in EU. Instead, the energy use in food production, accounting for 2.6%, is about 
EU average (2.9%). Overall, the energy use remained relatively stable compared to 2008. 
40 

In 2018 Bulgaria dedicated some 5% of its Rural Development Programme expenditure 
under  priority  5  promoting  resource  efficiency  and  supporting  the  shift  towards  a  low 
carbon  and  resilient  economy.  This  translated  into  0.6%  of  agricultural  land  under 
management commitments targeting reduction of GHG and/or ammonia emissions.41  

In  terms  of  climate  adaptation,  like  other  countries  in  the  Southern  region  of  the  EU, 
Bulgaria  faces  increased  heatwaves  in  spring/summer,  droughts,  and  less  rainfall  in 
winter/spring with a reduction of optimal crop areas and increasing risk of soil erosion. 
Bulgaria is also the most hail prone EU countries. This makes  its agriculture vulnerable 
to  higher  yield  variability  (negative  impact  on  main  crops  of  winter  wheat,  corn, 
in 
sunflowers),  heat  stress  for  animals 
spring/summer  (impact  e.g.  on  horticultural  production  in  the  south  dependant  on 
irrigation  and  water  allocation).  In  contrast,  opportunities  could  come  from  increased 
productivity  such  as  vineyards,  if  water  is  ensured,  new  crops  and  increased  pasture 
production through warmer winter. Depending on forests’ species adaptability, changing 
climate could impact forests’ composition and productivity exacerbated by other natural 
disturbances and invasive species, with potential threats for rare habitats42 (see also point 
2.6).  

in  mountain  regions,  hydric  deficits 

Helping farmers improve their climate performance would require stepping up training, 
advice, awareness raising combined with promotion of risk-transfer strategies. 

The  integrated  energy  and  climate  plan  (IECP)  of  Bulgaria43  projects  20%  increase  in 
emissions of CH4 and N2O in agriculture due to the expected growth of the sector. The 
plan  attributes  the  decline  of  forest  removals  to  their  lower  growth  rate  because  of 
average age and the decreasing share of artificial afforestation and projects it to continue 
while  the  grassland  removals  are  to  increase  slightly  by  2030;  no  significant  change  in 
land  uses  and  in  the  removal  potential  are  nonetheless  projected  in  this  timescale.  The 
IECP reports that the third national climate change action plan (implementation horizon 
beyond  2030)  and  the  national  air  quality  control  programme  (2020-2030)  include 
measures  aiming  to  reduce/optimise  agricultural  emissions  and  to  raise  climate 
awareness. These include crop rotation focusing on nitrogen-fixing crops, regeneration of 
degraded  agricultural  land  through  biological  cultivation  using  indigenous  grasses  or 
anti-corrosion  and  soil  erosion  measures,  irrigation/water/energy  saving  technologies, 
promoting extensive farming; measures to reduce methane emissions from fermentation 

15 

 
 
in livestock, better manure management practices and awareness activities concerning the 
use of vegetation residues and risks of after-crop burning.  

Total Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture (including and excluding 
LULUCF) in Bulgaria (in million tonnes of CO2 equivalents) 

Grassland 
Cropland 
Agriculture 
% of agriculture in total GHG emissions (exc. LULUCF) 
% of agriculture (incl. emissions from cropland and grassland) in total GHG emissions (incl. LULUCF) 
EU-27 % of agriculture (incl. Emissions from cropland and grassland) in total GHG emissions (incl. LULUCF) 

Source: European Environmental Agency. As in EUROSTAT [env_air_gge] 

2.5  Foster  sustainable  development  and  efficient  management  of  natural 

resources such as water, soil and air 

Bulgaria  is  among  the  EU  countries  with  the  lowest  share  of  UAA  managed  by  farms 
with  high  input  intensity  per  hectare  (2016:  6%,  EU:  29%)  and  while  half  of  the  land 
remains  managed  by  farms  with  low  input  intensity  (52%,  EU:  39%)  this  share  has 
decreased towards medium intensity farms.44 Bulgarian agriculture is also characterized 
by the lowest livestock density per ha in the EU45 (see point 2.6).  

While  the  total  use  of  mineral  nitrogen  and  phosphate  fertilisers  increased  by  56% 
between 2008-2011 and 2012-2015, Bulgaria is also one of the EU Member States where 
the use of nitrogen and phosphorous originating from animal manure decreased between 
2008-2011 and 2012-2014 by more than 5%.46 In parallel, despite overall low livestock 
density, the available information signals that local concentration of animals, where not 
corresponding to the available space and the local needs of the crops, creates surplus of 
nutrients with resulting impact on water and air. 

Ammonia  (NH3)  emissions  from  agriculture  in  Bulgaria  decreased  compared  to  1990s 
level reaching 39500 tonnes in 2005 and 34000 tonnes in 2010 and 2011, with, however, 
the upward trend in the following four years and slightly lower emissions in 2017 and 2018 
reaching  in  the  latter  year  37180  tonnes  (6%  reduction  compared  to  2005  levels).  Since 
early  2000s  the  contribution  of  agriculture  to  the  overall  ammonia  emissions  oscillated 
around  80%;  in  2018  agriculture  was  responsible  for  83%  of  all  ammonia  emissions  in 
Bulgaria (EU-28: 93%).47  

According  to  the  2018  data,  livestock  is  responsible  for  59%  (EU-28:  73%)  of  all 
agriculture-related NH3 emissions while crops for the remaining 41% (EU-28 23%).48. Per 
2017  data,  38%  of  the  NH3  emissions  in  Bulgarian  agriculture  came  from  the  use  of 
inorganic  fertilisers, 16% from manure management in dairy  cattle sector,  10% from the 
pork and 7% from laying hens sectors49.  

16 

 
 
 
Despite the reductions, according to the Commission assessment50, Bulgaria would be at 
high-risk of non-compliance with the ammonia reduction commitments established by the 
NEC Directive (3% for any year for 2020-2029 and 12% for any year from 2030 against 
2005 baseline). 

The state of soil in Bulgaria raises some challenges for agriculture.  The cumulative soil 
organic carbon stocks, both of arable areas and grasslands, situate Bulgaria in the middle 
range  of  EU  countries  though  the  stocks  decreased  in  the  period  2009-2015,  with  the 
highest rate of loss in cropland stocks (0.14% loss in SOC stocks compared to the 0.04% 
at EU level) experienced in the south east part of the country.51 On average Bulgaria is in 
the  category  of  the  EU  Member  States  with  lower  soil  organic  carbon  (SOC)  content 
(mean  SOC  of  18.3g/kg,  EU-28:  43.1g/kg  with  MS  data  ranging  from  14.9g/kg  to 
82.4g/kg, 2015)52. While conditions for creation of humus are favourable in the country, 
this is being offset by effects of intensive monoculture, incorrect rotation, limited organic 
and  unbalanced  nitrogen  fertilisations  and  the  remaining  burning  of  arable  stubble. 
According to LUCAS topsoil data, relative to other EU Member States, Bulgaria has also 
one of the lowest phosphorus content in the agricultural soils53.  

The  country’s  soils  are  relatively  less  affected  by  water  erosion  (2016):  4%  of 
agricultural area is affected by moderate to severe water erosion (EU-28: 6.6% with MS 
values ranging from 0.0% to 32.8%). Bulgaria loses about 2.2 tonnes of soil per hectare 
annually compared to the average 2,5 tonne loss for EU-28 (MS ranging from 0.1 to 8.6). 
Notwithstanding,  at  local  level,  some  provinces  are  marked  by  severe  water  erosion 
levels  of  around  10%  and  losses  per  hectare  reaching  3.6  tonnes  annually54.  Bulgaria 
(especially the eastern part) is one of the regions with the highest wind erosion rates in 
the EU55. The agricultural practices need to change to address these issues given that in 
2016, 45%56 of arable land was left without winter cover and 57%57 of tillable area was 
tilled  conventionally.  In  contrast,  soil  sealing  remains  low  compared  to  other  EU 
Member States.58  

In 2018, only 2% of agricultural land in Bulgaria was under rural development contracts 
to improve soil management59.  

Approximately 45% of Bulgarian surface waters are in less than good ecological status 
and approximately 2% of surface waters fail to achieve good chemical status though the 
chemical  status  of  the  64%  of  waters  is  unknown.  For  groundwater  approximately  5% 
fail  to  achieve  good  quantitative  status  and  34%  fail  to  achieve  good  chemical  status. 
Diffuse  pollution  from  agriculture  is  the  most  significant  pressure  on  groundwater  and 
the second most significant pressure on surface water. The most significant impacts come 
from nutrient pollution, organic pollution and chemical pollution. 60 

The status of groundwaters with regard to pollution by nitrates deteriorated between 2012 
and 2017. While in 2012, 9% of groundwater stations were recorded to be of poor quality 
and  26%  of  moderate,  the  figures  for  2017  were  11%  and  29%,  respectively;  thus  the 
share of high quality waters decreased from 64% to 60%.61  

The nitrogen surplus in Bulgaria has been fluctuating between 42 kg in 1996 and 12 kg 
N/ha/year  in  2011.  From  2015,  it  remained  below  the  EU  average  (49  kg  N/ha/year), 
however, the most recent data (2017) indicate a substantial deviation of nitrogen surplus 
amounting  to  66  kg  N/ha,  partially  due  to  a  large  increase  in  the  consumption  of  N-
fertilisers.  2017  data  is  also  different  to  the  observations  of  previous  years  in  that  it 
records  a  positive  phosphorus  balance  (1  kg/ha/year);  the  negative  balance  has  indeed 
been diminishing since 2013. 62  

17 

 
 
Bulgaria  is  the  6th  country  in  EU-27  in  terms  of  availability  of  renewable  freshwater 
resources  (annual  average  of  14,3  million  m³  per  1000  habitants).63  As  reflected  in  the 
evolution  of  Water  Exploitation  Index  +  (WEI+),    at  country  level  the  annual  use  of 
renewable freshwater resources (a difference between water abstraction and return after 
use to the environment) has oscillated around 2% of renewable freshwater since 1995.64 
Taking account  of seasonal  variations,  in  some southern parts of the country the WEI+ 
could reach up to 15-20%65 (20% or more implying water stress). Overall, the assessment 
of the Second River Basin Management Plan for Bulgaria concluded that all river basin 
districts face water quantity related problems. 66 

In 2017, irrigation was responsible for  11.4% of the total water abstraction.67 Based on 
the 2016 data, the share of actually irrigated areas in UAA (2,1%) was limited compared 
to  the  EU-27  average  (6.5%),  but  with    regional  variations  and  concentration  in  the 
southern part of the country. The share slightly increased (by 2.6%) compared to 2010.68 
Considering irrigable  areas, that is  areas equipped for irrigation, they  comprised 3% of 
the Bulgarian UAA  (2016) compared to  EU-28’s 8.9%, with  the highest  share of 9.7% 
UAA in the southern region of Juzhen tsentralen. The irrigable areas decreased compared 
to  2005  (4.1%  of  all  UAA,  19.9%  in  the  Juzhen  tsentralen  region)  and,  with  regional 
variations, remained relatively stable compared to 2010 (3.1%).69According to available 
information the existing irrigation infrastructure is largely outdated and in bad condition. 

2%  of  Bulgarian  agricultural  land  was  under  rural  development  contracts  to  improve 
water management in 201870. 

Kg N(or P)/ha/year 

Potential surplus of N and P on agricultural land in Bulgaria 

Potential surplus of nitrogen on agricultural land (in kg N/ha/year) 

Potential surplus of phosphorus on agricultural land (in kg P/ha/year) 
EU-27 GNB for Nitrogen 

Source: European Commission. CAP context indicator C.40 Water quality. Based on EUROSTAT 
[aei_pr_gnb] 

2.6  Contribute  to  the  protection  of  biodiversity,  enhance  ecosystem  services 

and preserve habitats and landscapes 

As  an  overall  picture  of  the  biodiversity  in  Bulgaria,  the  indicators  used  to  assess  the 
biodiversity  (and  the  protection  of  areas)  show  an  unfavourable  negative  trend  with 
figures  generally  lower  than  the  EU  averages.  This  is  mainly  due  to  an  increase  of 
farming input intensity  (even if it remains relatively low in  comparison to  most of the 
MS) as well as conversion of land to more arable land. The maintenance and support of 
low and medium intensity farming practices in the country, such as organic, integrated 
and conservation agriculture, is very important as these practices significantly contribute 
to  the  conservation  of  the  habitats  of  valuable  plant  and  animal  biological  resources. 

18 

-20,0-10,00,010,020,030,040,050,060,0200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015Potential surplus of N and P on agricultural landin Bulgariapotential surplus of nitrogen on agricultural land (in kg N/ha/year)potential surplus of phosphorus on agricultural land (in kg P/ha/year)EU-27 Gross Nutrient Balance for Nitrogen-20,0-10,00,010,020,030,040,050,060,0200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015Potential surplus of N and P on agricultural landin Bulgariapotential surplus of nitrogen on agricultural land (in kg N/ha/year)potential surplus of phosphorus on agricultural land (in kg P/ha/year)EU-27 Gross Nutrient Balance for Nitrogen 
 
Some  favorable  indicators  for  the  biodiversity  (for  example  the  areas  under  extensive 
grazing) are more a consequence of the less developed production system in the country 
in comparison to most the rest of the EU. 

The  forest  area  increased  from  3.7  million  hectares  in  2010  to  3.9  million  hectares  in 
2020, which means that forests cover 36% of the land (compared to 45% average for EU-
27).  Meanwhile,  the  growing  stock  (standing  trees  in  the  forests)  increased  from  646.5 
million  m3  over  bark  in  2010  to  766.9  million  m3  over  bark  in  2020.  The  natural 
grassland share is about 4% which is higher compared to the EU27 (about 2%). 

At the same time the average growing stock per hectare “density of the forest” increased 
from 173 m3/ha in 2010 to 197 m3/ha in 2020. It means that not only the forest area has 
increased but also the amount of living wood on it.  

Bulgaria  is  among  the  EU  countries  with  the  lowest  share  of  UAA  managed  by  farms 
with  high  input  intensity  per  hectare  (2016:  6%,  EU:  29%)  and  while  half  of  the  land 
remains  managed  by  farms  with  low  input  intensity  (52%,  EU:  39%),  the  share  of 
medium intensity farms is increasing. As regards grazing, 27.4 % of the total UUA ((the 
value  for  the  EU27  is  19.8%)  is  dedicated  to  extensive  grazing  (with  the  highest  %  in 
Yugozapaden region with 62%), this value being stable over the period of analysis.  For 
livestock  density71,  Bulgaria  has  the  lowest  in  the  EU  (0.2  against  0.8  for  the  EU;  for 
comparison the figure is 3.4 in the NL in 2016).   

The farmland bird indicator decreased from 89 to 80 between 2005 and 201572 showing a 
similar trend as for the EU. In 2018, the index slightly increased to 80.7. The percentage 
of species and habitats of Community interest related to agriculture decreased regarding 
the ‘favourable’ status from 2012 to 2019 (from 53% to 38%)73.   

The  conservation  status  of  grassland  habitats  shows  a  ‘favourable’  status  in  2012  for 
about 15% only (21 % for the EU27)74, that decreased (as for the EU in general) to 8% 
(20 % for the EU27.). While in 2012 no ‘unfavorable bad’ status were recorded, 5.1 % 
got this status in 2018 (2.7% for the EU). In terms of the proportion of Environmentally 
Sensitive Permanent Grassland (ESPG), less than 15% only is declared by farmers under 
greening (2018)75.  

The  share  of  land  under  contracts  supporting  biodiversity  and/or  landscape  and  forests 
amounts is lower than the EU average (12% against 15 %). 

The share of UAA dedicated to organic farming is much lower that the EU 27 level (2.6 
% against 8%) with less support than for the EU:  57% of the organic farming in Bulgaria 
benefits  from  CAP  support  against  65%  for  the  EU-27  (in  2018).    The  share  of  UAA 
under conversion to organic has decreased in the last four years which limits the potential 
for growth76. 

The implementation of the Ecological Focus Areas indicates a substantial share of arable 
land  allocated  to  Nitrogen  fixing  crops,  a  share  much  higher  compared  to  EU  average. 
Regarding  the  fallow,  it  represents  (in  2018)  a  share  of  3.8%  (while  for  the  EU  it  is 
4,1%). The catch crops  are much lower than for the EU, as are the landscape elements 
(0.2 % against 0.5% as % of UAA). 

Natura  2000  sites  network77  in  2018  occupy  34,5  %  of  the  territory  (45%  in  Yuzhen 
Tsentralen region) which is much higher than the EU figure (19.8 %).  The agricultural 
area under Natura 2000  is  much higher than for  the EU  (19.3  % against  9.9 %).    The 

19 

 
 
forest  under  Natura  2000  represents  about  54%  (31%  for  EU27).  The  2019 
Environmental Implementation Review for Bulgaria identified three key priority actions 
for the Natura 2000 network, namely:  completion of the SAC designation process  with 
site-specific conservation objectives and measures for habitats and species in all Natura 
2000 sites; establishment of efficient management structures for the Natura 2000 network 
with  sufficient  administrative  and  financial  capacity  and  completing  the  process  of  full 
implementation and integration of nature directives into other sectoral policies.   

High nature value (HNV) farmland accounts  for  32% of  UAA in  Bulgaria78.  However, 
Bulgaria is one of the EU Member States with the highest loss of land with high nature 
value (HNV) due to intensification of farming79. The biggest losses (>0,2% of UAA) are 
in the Danube plain and the region of Dobrudzha80. 

In 2015 only 2.5% of the forest and other wooded land (FOWL) was subject to minimum 
intervention to conserve biodiversity and 0% was under active management (6.8% for the 
EU). 

For the ANC, only 27,6 % of the area in 2019 fall in this category (57.9 % for the EU) 
with about 19% due to mountains (17% for EU27 %). 

Bulgaria has progressed in providing support for mapping and assessment of ecosystems 
and  services  and  for  valuation  and  development  of  natural  capital  accounting  systems 
since  2017.  However,  implementation  of  nature  protection  legislation  remains  a 
challenge.  Insufficient  financing,  inefficient  spending  of  available  financing  and  poor 
enforcement of environmental legislation and conservation laws are resulting in the loss 
of habitats.81 

Area under organic farming in Bulgaria 

Hectares under organic farming 
% of area under organic farming in the EU-27 

% of agricultural area under organic farming 

Source: EUROSTAT [org_cropar_h1 and org_cropar] 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Share of agricultural area covered by high-diversity landscape features 
Share of agricultural area covered by  
high-diversity landscape features  
in the EU 

20

15

10

5

0

7
2
U
E

E
B

G
B

Z
C

K
D

E
D

E
E

E
I

L
E

S
E

R
F

R
H

T
I

Y
C

V
L

T
L

U
L

U
H

T
M

L
N

T
A

L
P

T
P

I

O S
R

I

K F
S

E
S

Fallow land as % of agricultural area 
fallow land as % of agricultural area

landscape elements as % of agricultural area*
Landscape features as % of agricultural area 

Source: DG AGRI based on Eurostat and JRC based on LUCAS survey. 

* Linear elements considered here: Grass margins, shrub margins, single trees bushes, lines of trees, 
hedges and ditches. This estimation is to be taken with caution because of methodological caveats. 

2.7  Attract young farmers and facilitate business development in rural areas 

In Bulgaria in 2016, 7.4% of farm managers were below 35 years old. Whereas the EU 
trend decreased between 2010 and 2016, Bulgaria saw an increase over the same period 
in the share of young farmers. Also the ratio of young managers to elderly increased over 
time. 34% of the young farmers are women, which is the highest share in the EU82,83. 

Almost 60% of young farmers in Bulgaria are looking for working capital loans. Young 
farmers  and  new  entrants,  in  need  of  longer  term  finance  to  buy  land  and  farm 
infrastructure to start their business, face particular difficulties in accessing finance. The 
main  problems  that  hinder  young  farmers’  access  to  finance  are  related  to  the  lack  of 
appropriate collateral and the lack of credit history and accounting records. Absence of 
banks  specialised  in  agriculture  finance,  high  interest  rates  and  high  collateral 
requirements pose difficulties in accessing finance. 33% of the group of young farmers 
demanded more attractive conditions for obtaining loans in the future, given the currently 
relatively high interest rates84. 

In order to manage risk, banks tend to allow lending mainly to farmers who benefit from 
the financial support of the RDP measures, with loans only being approved when grant 
support has been secured by the farmer. There is a general problem in Bulgaria with the 
initial funding and subsidising of start-up companies, including those in the agricultural 
sector and young farmers. 

Annually, Bulgaria granted 0,1-0,6% of the direct payment envelope for the years 2015-
2019  to  young  farmers  under  the  first  pillar  of  the  CAP,  which  is  less  than  the  EU 
average of 1,3%. In addition, the amount by young farmers received in business start-up 
aid under rural development for the programming period 2014-2019 was 57 million EUR 
(out of EUR 112.5 million requested). 

Young farmers lack help in the preparation of bank loan applications, project proposals 
and  business  plans,  including  the  application  for  support  under  the  RDP.  Despite  the 
existence  of  the  recently  downsized  national  agriculture  advisory  service  (NAAS),  the 
lack  of  necessary  capacity  and  resources  creates  the  need  for  an  easily  accessible  and 
competent advisory/consulting service85. 42% of the group of young farmers noted they 
need support when applying for bank loans requiring submission of a business plan. 

21 

 
 
The rate of farm managers below 35  years old  with at least basic training is one of the 
lowest in the EU (23%)86. A small number (only 4%) of agricultural producers (including 
young farmers) have specialised education and/or training in agriculture and most of the 
problems for  farmers stem  from a lack of or low level  of education. There is  a lack of 
infrastructure  like  next  generation  access  (NGA)  broadband  connection  (only  60%  of 
households have broadband connection in rural areas, of which half NGA broadband)87. 
This in combination with the unsatisfactory assistance of NAAS does not help farmers to 
set up and implement their projects, to get innovation support, educational and vocational 
training.  

Share of farm managers < 35 years by gender in Bulgaria 

Share of male farm managers below 35 years 

Share of female farm managers < 35 years 

Share of farm managers below 35 years – EU-27 

Ratio < 35 y.o />= 55 y.o. (right axis) 

Source: EUROSTAT. [ef_m_farmang] 

2.8  Promote  employment,  growth,  social  inclusion  and  local  development  in 

rural areas, including bio-economy and sustainable forestry 

Bulgaria has relatively less rural (22%) and more intermediate areas (77%) than the EU-
27  average  (45%  and  46%  respectively)88.  13%  of  the  population  live  in  rural  areas, 
which is less than the EU average of 19%89.   

Many rural  areas  face the twin-challenge of rapid population  decline and low GDP per 
head.  In  the  period  2015-2019  rural  population  decreased  by  4,5%,  the  tendency  being 
even  more  prominent  among  those  between  15  and  64  years.  Depopulation  and  ageing 
are  particularly  prominent  in  the  north-west  and  the  north-central  regions.  The  average 
GDP  per  capita  in  predominantly  rural  areas  in  Bulgaria  for  the  period  2013-2015  was 
32%  of  the  EU-28  average,  the  lowest  in  the  EU90.  While  the  GDP  per  capita  in  the 
intermediate regions is similar at 34% of the EU-28 average, GDP in urban areas equals 
the  EU-28  average,  thus  demonstrating  serious  disparities  between  rural  and  urban 
regions91.  Compared  to  the  EU-average,  the  GDP  per  inhabitant  in  rural  areas  has 
remained rather stable in  the period 2005-201792. The rural  poverty rate is  going down 
over time93 but nevertheless Bulgaria remains the EU Member State with the highest risk 
of poverty and social exclusion.  

Limited employment opportunities and quality of life are often considered key factors for 
depopulation of rural areas. Access to services (such as childcare, good quality education, 
healthcare,  housing,  leisure  and  cultural  activities)  or  the  availability  and  quality  of 
infrastructure  (such  as  roads,  rail,  energy  supply,  access  to  internet)  are  important 
elements for ensuring quality of life in rural areas.  

The employment rate in predominantly rural areas has been increasing94 since 2013 but is 
still lower  than  the  average  employment  rate  in  Bulgaria  and  well  below  the  EU-  rural 
employment  rate95.  Female  employment  is  generally  lower  than  male  one  for  all 

22 

 
 
categories of education96. In 2016 the share of women in the agricultural labour force was 
35%97.  The  percentage  of  women-farm  managers  in  2016  was  25%,  slightly  below  the 
EU average of 28%. 

The  rural  unemployment  rate  remains  an  issue,  especially  its  higher  rate  among  young 
people (18%) and the related high rates of early leavers from education and training and 
young  people  not  in  education  or  training.  Although  decreasing  since  2013,  youth 
unemployment in Bulgaria is higher than the EU average98. The number of young people 
not in employment, education or training in rural areas is also decreasing since 2014 and 
reached  26%  in  2018  but  is  still  significantly  higher  than  the  national  average  of  15%. 
The  number  of  young  people  not  in  employment,  education  or  training  is  considerably 
higher among Roma population99. The average employment rate for Roma (49%) is also 
significantly  lower  compared  to  the  general  population  employment  rate  in  the  country 
(67%). 

Participation  in  cultural  and  sport  activities  in  rural  areas  is  much  lower  than  the  EU-
average100,  while  the  level  of  crime  and  violence  is  higher101  than  the  EU  average  and 
started  to  decrease  only  in  2018.  Despite  the  upward  trend  in  the  past  6  years,  the 
percentage of rural households in Bulgaria having NGA broadband and broadband is still 
quite low102.  

In  2017  16%  of  the  rural  population  was  covered  by  Local  Development  Strategies. 
Implementation of LEADER has contributed to setting up small businesses in rural areas 
and establishing successful partnerships in local communities103. 

In 2018, 9% of the total GVA came from rural areas.  In 2015, around 56% of the total 
RE production in Bulgaria came from agriculture and forestry. Despite the upward trend 
in  the  production  of  renewable  energy  from  agriculture  and  forestry  per  hectare,  the 
situation  has  been  rather  stable  as  of  2012.  In  2015,  35,9%  of  land  in  Bulgaria  was 
covered with forests, which is lower than the EU-27 average of 39,8%104. Productivity in 
the forestry sector is also lower than the EU-27 average (20 GVA in thousand EUR per 
person employed vs 50 in 2017)105.  

The  turnover  in  bio-economy,  the  number  of  people  employed  and  the  turnover  per 
person  employed  is  slowly  increasing.  Nevertheless,  in  2015  the  turnover  per  person 
employed  in  the  bio-economy  in  Bulgaria  was  considerably  lower  than  the  EU 
average106. In 2015 agriculture and food, beverage and tobacco had the highest share of 
turnover in the bio-economy – 28% and 46% respectively. 

2.9  Improve  the  response  of  EU  agriculture  to  societal  demands  on  food  and 
health,  including  safe,  nutritious  and  sustainable  food,  as  well  as  animal 
welfare 

is  an 

There 
towards 
environmentally and animal welfare friendly agricultural practices.  

increasing  demand  and  orientation 

the  application  of 

Bulgaria adopted its national action plan (NAP) for the sustainable use of pesticides, for 
the  period  2013-2017.  The  plan  has  not  been  reviewed  within  a  five  year  period  as 
required  and  lacks  quantifiable  targets  for  the  reduction  of  risks  and  the  impact  of 
pesticide use107. According to the ESTAT calculation of the harmonised risk indicator 1 
(HRI 1), the use and risk linked to pesticides decreased in Bulgaria by 17% in the period 
of 2011-2018, compared to a 20% decline in the EU.108.    

23 

 
 
Eurostat’s analysis of data reported on the sales of pesticides under Regulation (EC) No 
1185/2009 shows that candidates for substitution comprised a relatively high and stable 
proportion of total pesticide sales in Bulgaria in the 2015/2017 period. This indicates that 
Bulgaria is not on target to meet the Farm to Fork target of a 50% reduction in the use of 
the more hazardous pesticides by 2030109.  

Although national legislation is in place and the NAP contains a range of measures and 
actions  to  achieve  the  sustainable  use  of  pesticides,  serious  weaknesses  were  identified 
with  regard  to  their  implementation.  Application  equipment  in  use,  including  sprayers 
and  other  specific  items,  are  not  subjected  to  regular  inspections.  Also  training  and 
certification  of  plant  protection  products  (PPP)  do  not  meet  the  requirements  of  the 
sustainable  use  directive.  There  is  also  no  transposition  of  the  directive  on  the 
harmonised risk indicators in national legislation. 

Antimicrobial  resistance  (AMR)  linked  to  the  excessive  and  inappropriate  use  of 
antimicrobials  in  animal  and  human  healthcare  needs  to  be  addressed.  While  sales  of 
veterinary  antimicrobial  agents  were  significantly  below  the  EU  average  in  2014  and 
2015, they have been considerably higher since, recording sales (slightly) above the EU 
average  for  the  three  most  recent  years  for  which  data  are  available.  This  apparent 
increase  may  be  linked  (at  least  in  part)  to  Bulgaria  having  made  data  collection  on 
antimicrobials mandatory as of 2015. The increase is in particular related to cattle and pig 
sector.  Awareness  concerning  AMR  is  generally  very  low  and  few  effective  initiatives 
have  been  taken  by  the  national  authorities  to  date.  Bulgaria  has  an  overall  sale  of 
antimicrobials  of  119.6  mg/PCU110  (European  surveillance  of  veterinary  antimicrobial 
consumption  (ESVAC)  project),  which  is  just  slightly  above  the  EU  average  of  118.3 
mg/PCU in 2018 and well above the target of 50% reduction by 2030 at EU level. 

45% of all EU exports of live ruminants  exit the EU by road from  Bulgaria to Turkey, 
with more than 5,600 consignments of mostly cattle in 2016111. Based on the last audit 
report on animal welfare and transport inspections the authorities do not record or report 
cases when animals arrived in temperatures above 35°C. Another issue on animal welfare 
is  the  tail  docking  of  pigs  which  is  a  routine  practice,  although  this  is  prohibited  as  a 
routine  measure  by  EU  rules.  In  view  of  tackling  the  issue,  Bulgaria  has  drawn  up  an 
action  plan  for  improving  controls  over  prevention  of  pig  tail  biting  and  avoiding  tail 
docking in compliance with Directive 2008/120/ЕC of the Council of 18 December 2008 
on laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Sales of veterinary antimicrobial agents marketed 
mainly for food-producing animals in Bulgaria 

Harmonised Risk Indicator 1 for pesticides in Bulgaria 
(2011-2013 = 100) 

Sales in mg/PCU 

EU-27 

HRI 1 

HRI 1 for EU-27 

Source: European Medicines Agency, European 
Surveillance of Veterinary Antimicrobial 
consumption (ESVAC). Sales of veterinary 
antimicrobial agents in 31 countries in 2018 – 
trends from 2010 to 2018 Tenth ESVAC Report. 
EMA/24309/2020. 

Source (right graph): EUROSTAT [aei_hri] 

Farm biosecurity is also a major challenge, considering that Bulgaria is listed among the 
countries  affected by  African swine fever  (ASF)  where farms with  low biosecurity  and 
poor  controls  pose  higher  risk  for  animal  disease  infections  and  spread.  At  present  the 
country  implements  the  adopted  plan  on  control  and  prevention  of  spread  of  African 
swine  fever  in  2020.  Nevertheless,  strong  action  is  still  needed  to  establish, 
revise/upgrade  biosecurity,  registration  of  farms,  animal  identification  and  animal 
movements. 

Bulgaria  has  a  very  high  burden  from  non-communicable  diseases  due  to  dietary  risk 
factors  expressed  as  disability  adjusted  life  year  (DALYs)  per  100,000  population 
attributable  to  diet112.  This  DALY’s  value,  as  well  as  the  high  rate  of  overweight113, is 
influenced  by  a  number  of  dietary  factors.  Bulgaria  has  a  very  high  estimated 
consumption  of  red  meat114  and  a  very  low  consumption  of  fruit  and  vegetables115. 
Efforts  should  focus  on  shifting  towards  healthy  and  sustainable  diets,  in  line  with 
national recommendations in order to contribute to reducing overweight and obesity rates 
and  the  incidence  of  non-communicable  diseases  while  simultaneously  improving  the 
overall environmental impact of the food system. This would include moving to a more 
plant  based  diet  with  less  red  meat  and  more  fruits  and  vegetables,  whole  grains, 
legumes, nuts and seeds.  

Concerning  food  loss  and  waste  no  data  is  yet  available.  Moreover,  the  national  waste 
prevention  programme  (2014-2020)116  gives  little  attention  to  food  loss  and  waste 
occurring at the primary production level and the early stages of the supply chain. This 
could be tackled in the upcoming national food waste prevention programme as required 
by Article 29(2a) of the waste framework directive 2008/98/EC. 

2.10  

Cross-cutting objective on knowledge, innovation and digitalisation 

The  agriculture  knowledge  and  innovation  system  (AKIS)  in  not  fully  functional  in 
Bulgaria. It consists of numerous organisations but the information for their activities is 
incomplete which makes its analysis and management rather difficult. According to the 
2014 Pro-AKIS Study it is moderate strong and relatively integrated. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
The  budget  for  agricultural  research  and  development  has  significantly  decreased  over 
the years, which has resulted in a decrease in the number of employees and difficulties to 
attract younger scholars. The vocational training in the field of agriculture is carried out 
in a large number of high schools or universities but this does not always correspond to 
the needs of the business.117 

In Bulgaria, only 9% of the total farm managers attained basic or full agricultural training 
in  2016.  This  share  is  increasing  over  time.  Compared  to  the  EU,  the  share  of  farmers 
that attained full agricultural training118 is little lower in Bulgaria. The share of managers 
with basic agricultural training is well below the level in the EU.119 

Under  the  programming  period  2014-2020,  Bulgaria  programmed  2.8%  of  their  total 
rural  development  envelope  (EAFRD  +  national  contribution)  under  M01:  knowledge 
transfer  and  information  actions  (1%),  M02:  advisory  services,  farm  management  and 
farm relief services (0,7%) and M16: Co-operation-EIP (1,2%). This is below to the EU-
28  average  of  3.6%  but  even  that  amount  has  not  been  fully  utilised:  actual  spending 
dated second quarter of 2020 is 0% for M1 and 0% for M16, and 38% for M2. 

Bulgaria  has  an  established  national  agricultural  advisory  service  (NAAS),  which 
provides free agricultural advice to farmers. Besides national funding, the activities and 
administrative  capacity  of  NAAS  are  also  supported  through  EAFRD.  The  number  of 
farmers  using  the  services  of  NAAS,  as  well  as  the  scope  of  these  services  has  been 
increasing  over  the  years.  A  number  of  private  organisations,  scientific  institutes  or 
professional organisations are also active in providing consultancy services to farmers. 

Bulgaria  did  not  manage  to  use  fully  the  opportunities  provided  by  the  EIP  since  EIP 
OGs could apply for funding only in 2020 for the first time. No Operational Groups have 
been notified yet. Little information is available about networking activities organised at 
the national or regional level to connect research actors, such as universities and partners 
of Horizon 2020 projects with farmers, advisors and rural businesses. The future national 
CAP network can play a much bigger role in promoting synergies between the CAP and 
European research area (ERA).  The best way to do so is to keep in close touch with the 
Horizon  Europe  national  contact  point  and  to  intensify  the  dissemination  of  the 
information on the EIP website. Moreover, when collecting and sharing of information, 
the  CAP  can  finance  interventions  that  help  to  make  use  of  up-to-date  scientific 
information  for  agricultural  practices,  for  instance  through  the  CAP  network  and  its 
knowledge platforms and knowledge reservoirs, and by setting up advisory back-offices 
where the latest knowledge and innovation is collected and shared with the field advisors 
and  the  farmers.  Modernisation  is  a  key  element  of  the  support  provided  to  farmers. 
Nevertheless,  the  degree  of  introduction  of  new  production  methods,  digitalisation  and 
automatisation  of  processes  is  very  low,  with  big  differences  between  regions,  sectors 
and  types  of  farms120.  For  example,  significant  synergies  and  better  impact  can  be 
achieved by linking CAP actions to activities on soil health living labs (experiments and 
innovation  in  laboratory  on  the  ground)  and  light  houses  (places  to  showcase  good 
practices),  demonstration  and  soil  monitoring  under  the  forthcoming  Horizon  Europe 
mission on soil health. 

Bulgaria ranks last in the EU in the digital economy and society index (DESI) for 2020, 
in spite of some steps taken to drive forward the country’s digital transformation.  It is 
well  below  the  EU  average  for  all  dimensions,  with  internet  user  skills  and  take-up  of 
broadband  at  the  bottom  of  the  ranking.  As  far  as  the  infrastructure  is  concerned, 
Bulgaria  performs  significantly  below  the  EU  average  on  the  availability  of  fixed 
broadband, while for 4G coverage it is once again at the bottom of the DESI ranking. A 

26 

 
 
steady and swift effort in increasing the low NGA coverage of households in rural areas 
should  be  a  high  priority  area  of  investment.  Fast  internet  is  a  key  enabler  for  job  and 
business  creation  in  rural  areas,  as  well  as  for  improving  quality  of  life  by  supporting 
services  in  areas  such  as  healthcare,  education,  entertainment  and  e-government. 
Investments in NGA broadband can also facilitate access of farmers to advisory services 
and to online integrated support for transition to more sustainable practices. 

Bulgaria  has  not  yet  opted  for  the  use  of  satellite-based  means  to  monitor  CAP 
implementation and is currently not part of EU projects dealing with the uptake of new 
technologies  for  the  modernisation  of  CAP  administrations,  CAP  controls  and 
interactions with farmers. 

Broadband coverage in Bulgaria 

NGA broadband (% of rural households) 

Broadband access (% of rural households) 

NGA broadband (% of total households) 

European Commission. Digital Economy and Society Index. DESI individual indicators – 1b1 Fast BB 
(NGA) coverage [desi_1b1_fbbc] 

27 

 
 
 
 
1   The  FBI  for  Bulgaria  declined  from  100  to  79  (-21%)  in  the  period  2005-2013.  Source: 

http://www.bspb.org/monitoring/en/Trends.html 

2   Мишев,  П.,  Александрова,  Св.,  Стоянова,  З.,  Харизанова,  Хр.,  Харизанова,  Цв.,  Казакова,  Я, 
Кабаджова,  М.,  Димитрова,  А.  Резюме  на  доклад  Анализ  на  социалното  и  икономическо 
развитие на селските райони. 82 стр. ( SWOT анализ,  SO8) 

3   On  the  basis  of  Article  13(4)(e)  of  the  Commission  proposal  for  the  CAP  Strategic  Plan  Regulation 

(COM(2018) 392) 

4   BG rural area factsheet. Please note that there are different ways to define “rural areas”. The text above 
is  based  on  the  so-called  “urban-rural  typology”  in  line  with  the  CAP  common  context  indicators. 
However,  according  to  the  definition  based  on  the  “degree  of  urbanisation  typology”,  in  Bulgaria 
56,7% of the territory are rural areas and 23,3% of the population lives in rural areas. Source: Eurostat. 
5   Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development.  Common  Agriculture  Policy  context 
indicator  C.26  Agricultural  entrepreneurial  income.  Income  based  on  EUROSTAT  [aact_eaa04], 
[aact_ali01]  and  [aact_eaa06],  adding  back  the  compensation  of  employees  to  the  entrepreneurial 
income  and  divided  by  the  total  number  of  annual  working  units.  Note:  2019  data  estimated.  The 
Average wage in the economy based on EUROSTAT [nama_10_a10_e] thousand hours worked using 
employees domestic concept and [nama_10_a10], item wages and salaries. 

6   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development own calculations based on FADN data. 
7   RD support except investment support. 
8   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development own calculations based on FADN data. 
9   Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development,  ECORYS  ,  Wageningen  Economic 

Research, Study on risk management in EU agriculture, 2018 (ECORYS study). 

10   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.13  Employment  by  economic  activity.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [lfst_r_lfe2en2] 

11   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.26  Agricultural  entrepreneurial  income.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [aact_eaa04] and [aact_ali01] 

12   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.23  Age  structure  of  farm  managers.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmang] 

13   Институт  по  аграрна  икономика,  Анализ  на  състоянието  на  селското  стопанство  и 

хранително-вкусовата промишленост. SWOT анализ. Юни 2020. 78 стр. 

14   Институт  по  аграрна  икономика,  Анализ  на  състоянието  на  селското  стопанство  и 

хранително-вкусовата промишленост. SWOT анализ. Юни 2020. 78 стр. 

15   EUROSTAT, 

Farm 

Survey, 
explained/index.php?title=Agriculture_statistics_-
_family_farming_in_the_EU&oldid=467588#Structural_profile_of_farms_-
_analysis_of_EU_Member_States] 

Structure 

2016 

[https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

16   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.18  Agricultural  area.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[apro_cpsh1] 

17   https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-

fisheries/by_country/documents/analytical_factsheet_bg.pdf 

18   Институт  по  аграрна  икономика,  Анализ  на  състоянието  на  селското  стопанство  и 

хранително-вкусовата промишленост. SWOT анализ. Юни 2020. 78 стр. 

19   EUROSTAT, Comext database 
20   Институт  по  аграрна  икономика,  Анализ  на  състоянието  на  селското  стопанство  и 

хранително-вкусовата промишленост. SWOT анализ. Юни 2020. 78 стр. 

21   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.19 Agricultural area under organic farming. Based on 

EUROSTAT [org_cropar_h1] and [org_cropar] 

22   European  Commission.  CAP  indicators  –  Data  explorer.  CAP  Result  indicator  RPI_03  Value  for 
primary 
from:  
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/AddingValue.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1 
|  Министерство  на  земеделието,  храните  и  горите 

23   Организации  на  производители 

producers 

Retrieved 

chain. 

food 

the 

in 

(government.bg) 

producers 

24   European  Commission.  CAP  indicators  –  Data  explorer.  CAP  Result  indicator  RPI_03  Value  for 
primary 
from:  
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/AddingValue.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1 
from: 

geographical 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/food-safety-and-quality/certification/quality-
labels/geographical-indications-register/ 

25   European 

Commission. 

indications 

Retrieved 

Retrieved 

register. 

chain. 

food 

EU 

the 

in 

28 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
26   EUROSTAT.  Organic  crop  area  by  agricultural  production  methods  and  crops  (from  2012  onwards). 
[ORG_CROPAR] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/org_cropar/default/table?lang=en 
27   European  Commission.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document.  Impact  assessment.  Initiative  to 
improve the food supply chain (unfair trading practices), Table No 1. SWD(2018) 92 final. 172 pages. 
Retrieved 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52018SC0092&from=EN 

from: 

28   European Environmental Agency (EEA). EEA greenhouse gas – data viewer  
29   European Environmental Agency (EEA). EEA greenhouse gas – data viewer 
30   EUROSTAT Statistics Explained, Aggregated emissions of CH4 and N2O per hectare of UAA, 2015. 
31   European Environmental Agency (EEA). EEA greenhouse gas – data viewer, EUROSTAT 
32   European Commission. CAP indicators – Data explorer. R.12_PI Share of grassland in total UAA 
33   European  Commission,  DG  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  analysis  based  on  Member  States’ 

notifications pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 

34   European Commission, Joint Research Centre. Relative cover (%) of peat soils (0–30cm), per country 
35   European Environmental Agency (EEA). EEA greenhouse gas – data viewer 
36   European Commission.  CAP context indicator C.43 Production of renewable energy from agriculture 

and forestry. Based on EUROSTAT [nrg_bal_c] and [nrg_cb_rw], and Strategie Grains 

37   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.44  Energy  use  in  agriculture,  forestry  and  food 

industry. Based on EUROSTAT [nrg_bal_s] 

38   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.44  Energy  use  in  agriculture,  forestry  and  food 

industry. Based on EUROSTAT [nrg_bal_s] 

39   EUROSTAT. [tai04] 
40   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.44  Energy  use  in  agriculture,  forestry  and  food 

industry. Based on EUROSTAT [nrg_bal_s] 

41   European  Commission.  CAP  indicators  –  Data  explorer.  CAP  Result  indicator  R.17  Percentage  of 
agricultural land under  management contracts targeting reduction of GHG  and/or ammonia emissions 
(focus area 5D) 

42   Among others, LIFE AgriAdapt project. https://awa.agriadapt.eu/en/ 
43   Ministry of Energy, Ministry of the Environment and Water, Republic of Bulgaria.   Integrated Energy 

and Climate Plan of the Republic of Bulgaria 2021-2013 
According  to  the  plan:  non-ETS  sector  –  national  objective  0%  (against  2005  levels);  and  LULUCF 
sector  – to ensure that 2021/2025 and 2026/2030 GHG emissions do not exceed removals =  no-debit 
commitment 

44   EUROSTAT.  Utilised  agricultural  area  (UAA)  managed  by  low-,  medium-  and  high-input  farms 

(source: FADN) (aei_ps_inp) 

45   EUROSTAT. [TAI09] 
46   European Commission.  Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on 
the  implementation  of  Council  Directive  91/676/EEC  concerning  the  protection  of  waters  against 
pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources based on Member State  reports for the period 
2012–2015. COM(2018)257 final.  

47   European Environmental Agency (EEA). EEA air pollutant emissions data viewer 
48   European Environmental Agency (EEA). EEA air pollutant emissions data viewer 
49   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.45 Emissions from agriculture. Based on EUROSTAT 

[env_air_emis], original source European Environmental Agency (UNFCC_v22). 

50   European Commission.  Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on 
the  progress  made  on  the  implementation  of  Directive  (EU)  2016/2284  on  the  reduction  of  national 
emissions  of  certain  atmospheric  pollutants.  COM(2020)266  final;  assessment  of  the  risk  of  non-
compliance  with  the  emission  reduction  commitments  based  on  a  joint  analysis  of  the  quality  of 
projections,  the  credibility  of  the  policies  and  measures  selected  for  adoption  in  the  National  Air 
Pollution Control Programmes, and the projected margin of compliance 

51   Panagos et al 2020. Soil-related indicators to support agri-environmental policies 
52   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.41 Soil organic matter in arable land. Joint Research 

Center (JRC) based on LUCAS Land Use Survey 2015 

53   TOTH  Gergely;  ANTOFIE  TIBERIU-EUGEN;  JONES  Arwyn;  APOSTOL  BOGDAN,  The  LUCAS 
2012 TOPSOIL survey and derived cropland and grassland soil properties of Bulgaria and Romania 
54   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.42  Soil  erosion  by  water.  Original  source:  Joint 

Research Center 

55   Source: Borrelli, P., Lugato, E., Montanarella, L. and Panagos, P., 2017. A new assessment of soil loss 
due to wind erosion in European agricultural soils using a  quantitative spatially distributed modelling 
approach. Land Degradation & Development, 28(1), pp.335-344. 

29 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
56   https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-_soil_cover 
57   https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-

_tillage_practices 

58   European  Environment  Agency  (EEA),  Briefing  Urban  Land  Take;  https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-

european/high-resolution-layers/imperviousness/status-maps/imperviousness-density-2018  

59   European  Commission.  CAP  indicators  –  Data  explorer.  CAP  Result  indicator  R.10  Percentage  of 
agricultural land under management contracts to improve soil management and/or prevent soil erosion 
(focus area 4C). 

60   European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document - Second River Basin Management Plans 

- Member State: Bulgaria. SWD(2019) 39 final.  

61   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.40 Water quality. Based on EUROSTAT [aei_pr_gnb] 
and European Environmental Agency as in Waterbase – Water Quality, CSI020, based on data reported 
to EIONET 

62   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.40 Water quality. Based on EUROSTAT [aei_pr_gnb] 
and European Environmental Agency as in Waterbase – Water Quality, CSI020, based on data reported 
to EIONET 

63   Eurostat (env_wat_res) 
64   European Environmental agency (EEA). Use of freshwater resources in Europe 
65   European Environmental agency (EEA). Use of freshwater resources in Europe 
66   European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document - Second River Basin Management Plans 

- Member State: Bulgaria. SWD(2019) 39 final.  

67   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.39  Water  abstraction  in  agriculture.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [env_wat_abs] 

68   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.39  Water  abstraction  in  agriculture.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [env_wat_abs] 

69   EUROSTAT. [tai03] 
70   European  Commission.  CAP  indicators  –  Data  explorer.  CAP  Result  indicator.  R.08  Percentage  of 

agricultural land under management contracts to improve water management (focus area 4B) 

71   DG AGRI  
72   Аграрен  Университет  Пловдив,  Анализ  на  влиянието  на  селското  стопанство  върху 
състоянието на околната среда и климатичните промени. 2020. 89 стр.  SWOT анализ SO6 

73   Ibid. 
74   DG AGRI – similar to SWOT 
75   DG AGRI analysis based on Member States’ notifications pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 
76   https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/org_cropar/default/table?lang=en 
77   BG SWOT analysis SO6 and DG AGRI  
78   Context indicator C37, SWOT analysis for SO6. 
79   Eurostat 
80   Context indicator C37, SWOT analysis for SO6. 
81   SWD(2019) 113 final. Commission Staff Working Document. The EU Environmental Implementation 
Review 2019. Country Report – Bulgaria. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/pdf/report_bg_en.pdf 
82   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.23  Age  structure  of  farm  managers.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmang] 
83   EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmang] 
84   fi-compass, 2020, Financial needs in the agriculture and agri-food sectors in Bulgaria, Study report 
85   fi-compass, 2020, Financial needs in the agriculture and agri-food sectors in Bulgaria, Study report, 
86   EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmang] 
87   Factsheet rural areas – Bulgaria, DG AGRI 
88   Factsheet rural areas – Bulgaria, DG AGRI 
89   Please note that there are different ways to define “rural areas”. The text above is based on the so-called 
“urban-rural  typology”  in  line  with  the  CAP  common  context  indicators.  However,  according  to  the 
definition based on the “degree of urbanisation typology”, in Bulgaria 56,7% of the territory are rural 
areas and 23,3% of the population lives in rural areas. Source: Eurostat. 

90   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.08  GDP  per  capita.  based  on  EUROSTAT 

[nama_10r_3gdp] and [nama_10r_3popgdp]. 

91   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.08  GDP  per  capita.  based  on  EUROSTAT 

[nama_10r_3gdp] and [nama_10r_3popgdp]. 

92   Factsheet rural areas – Bulgaria, DG AGRI 
93   Rural poverty rate has decreased from 67% in 2005 to 52% in 2017. Analytical factsheet Bulgaria, DG 

AGRI 

30 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
94   The rate of rural employment reached 61.9% in 2017. Factsheet rural areas – Bulgaria, DG AGRI 
95   EU average rural employment rate was 72,6% in 2017. Factsheet rural areas – Bulgaria, DG AGRI 
96   Factsheet rural areas – Bulgaria, DG AGRI 
97   Factsheet rural areas – Bulgaria, DG AGRI 
98   EU  youth  unemployment  in  2015  was  15%.  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.07 

Unemployment rate. Based on EUROSTAT [lfst_r_lfu3rt] 

99   65% in 2015. EUROSTAT. [ef_lf_leg]. 
100  In 2015 the EU average for participation of rural population in cultural and sport activities was 60%. In 

Bulgaria it was 13%. Factsheet rural areas – Bulgaria, DG AGRI 

101  The level of crime and violence in rural areas in Bulgaria is 15%, while in EU it is 5%. Factsheet rural 

areas – Bulgaria, DG AGRI 

102  26,7% of rural area households had access to NGA broadband in 2018 and 59% of the households had 

access to broadband. Factsheet rural areas – Bulgaria, DG AGRI 

103  Мишев,  П.,  Александрова,  Св.,  Стоянова,  З.,  Харизанова,  Хр.,  Харизанова,  Цв.,  Казакова,  Я, 
Кабаджова,  М.,  Димитрова,  А.  Резюме  на  доклад  Анализ  на  социалното  и  икономическо 
развитие на селските райони. 82 стр. ( SWOT анализ,  SO8) 

104  Internet 

access 

to 

the 

database, 

e.g.: 

https://fra-

platform.herokuapp.com/AUT/assessment/fra2020/extentOfForest/ 

105  Factsheet rural areas – Bulgaria, DG AGRI 
106  In 2015 the turnover per person employed in the bio-economy in Bulgaria was 31 851 EUR, while the 

EU-27 average is 119 000 EUR. Source: BG Rural area factsheet 

107   Letter Commissioner Kyriakides to BG (Ares(2020)2643693 - 20/05/2020) 
108  Eurostat [aei_hri] 
109  It  concerns  the  targets  related  to  use  and  risk  of  pesticides,  sale  of  antimicrobials,  nutrient  loss,  area 

under organic farming, high diversity landscape features and access to fast broadband internet. 

110  European  Medicines  Agency,  European  Surveillance  of  Veterinary  Antimicrobial  consumption 
(ESVAC). Sales of veterinary antimicrobial agents in 31 countries in 2018 – trends from 2010 to 2018 
Tenth ESVAC Report. EMA/24309/2020. 

111  European Commission, Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, Final Report of a fact finding 
mission  in  Bulgaria  from  06  to  09  June  2017  on  Animal  Welfare  during  transport  to  Non-EU 
Countries, https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit_reports/details.cfm?rep_id=3880 

112  https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/health-knowledge-gateway/societal-impacts/burden 
113  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/sdg_02_10/default/table?lang=en, overweight rate above 

EU27 average 

114  defined as beef, lamb and pork, 222,77g/per capita/d,  net of waste in the EU 2010,  GBD study 2017 

and M. Springmann 

115  consumption of ≥ 5 portions is below EU27 average and one of the 2 additional criteria is met: a) 1-4 
average, 
b) 

portions 
https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=hlth_ehis_fv3c&lang=en 

average, 

portions 

below 

above 

EU27 

EU27 

0 

116  http://www.moew.government.bg/wp-

content/uploads/filebase/Waste/NACIONALEN_PLAN/_/NPUO_2014-2020.pdf 

117  Институт  по  аграрна  икономика,  Анализ  на  състоянието  на  селското  стопанство  и 
хранително-вкусовата  промишленост.  SWOT  анализ.  Юни  2020.  78  стр.  (Analysis  of  the  cross-
cutting objective) 

118  Full agricultural training is any training course continuing for the equivalent of at least two years full 
time training after the end of compulsory education and completed at an agricultural college, university 
or other institute of higher education in agriculture 

119  DG AGRI - EUROSTAT 
120  Source: BG SWOT analysis on the cross-cutting objective 

31