Annex 3 Summary of ms assessments

Bulgaria

Agricultural land (UAA) in Bulgaria covers 48% of the country surface and woodland area covers 34% of the country surface. Rural areas in Bulgaria represent 81% of the territory, 42% of the population and 80% of the total employment. Subsistence farms account for 60.7% of the agriculture employment.

There are substantial differences between the size of the holdings managed by natural persons and those managed by registered entities (cooperatives, limited companies, sole traders, partnerships). In 2003, the vast majority of the agricultural holdings were managed by natural persons (658 000). These were predominantly small agricultural holdings, 99% of which had less than 5 ha of UAA. There were about 6 500 agricultural holdings managed by legal entities in 2003 (including sole traders and cooperatives). They accounted for 70% of the UAA of all holdings included in the 2003 Census, with an average of 290 ha per holding. This group includes about 2 000 cooperatives, which farmed 40% of the UAA.

While large farms specialize in cereal and industrial crops production (mainly monocultures of sunflower, cereals, tobacco), small farms have a diverse production strategy: fruits, vegetables, grapes and root crops. Subsistence farms with rear about 61% of the livestock in Bulgaria.

The share of Less Favoured Areas (LFA) in Bulgarian territory is 48% of the overall country. Primarily, the LFA in Bulgaria are mountainous areas (38% of territory) and the remainder are designated as other less favoured areas (10% of the territory). In 2004, 12,300 ha were farmed organically, representing 0.23% of the UAA. Increasing the area of organic farming to 8% of UAA is one operational objective of the RDP.

Water, soil erosion and loss of biodiversity are the main environmental problems in Bulgaria. In some regions where monocultures (cereals, corn) dominate, quality of ground and surface waters is affected due to an unbalanced input of Nitrogen fertilizers, for example in Dobrudzha region. In the Rodopi Mountains, little or no fertilizers are currently applied, but the growing importance of monocultures (tobacco and potatoes) might affect or deplete the soil structure in the near future, resulting in soil acidification. There are already approximately 193,000 ha of agricultural land with levels of acidity that impede agricultural production. Water quality is also affected by lack of safe manure storage on farms and lack of sewer systems in many settlements (the water supply network consists of asbestos cement pipes, which are old and in poor condition).

Another important problem in the water-supply sector is water shortages that occur in some of the regions, leading to rationing of water. These shortages are caused by internal losses of the distribution networks or lack of storage equipment. To overcome the water supply problems the Government has plans to rehabilitate the existing water supply system and to further explore groundwater sources and construct small dams, some of which are partially completed.

Share of the public budget among the three axes

Axis II corresponds to 24% of the total public expenditure, while axis I and III allocate 37% and 27% of the total public expenditure, respectively. Modernisation of agricultural holdings (121) and Basic Services for the Economy and Rural Population (321) represent 30% of the total public expenditure and, therefore, have he highest priorities in terms of budget provided.

The guidelines of the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF) are used to monitor the impacts of RDP measures. Output, result and impact CMEF indicators are assessed for all measures. Programme-specific indicators were also developed to complement CMEF indicators for some of the measures. The RDP presents no table with objective and context related baseline indicators.

The report provides three indicators to assess the quality of the water but no indicators for water quantity. These indicators measure the nitrogen balance and the percentage of samples non-compliant with nitrates, pesticides and microbiological standards. Water indicators do not assess the impact at measure level but are evaluated at national level. There is no detailed information about baselines or target values for indicators.

Three types of control measures are planned to control implementation of the RDP: administrative controls, on-spot controls and ex-post controls. The RDP does not provide more information regarding the frequency of controls, penalty mechanisms, measure specific controls and the share of projects that will be subjected to on-the-spot control.

A fixed review of the RDP is planned for the mid-term evaluation to be carried out by 2010. Although the review process does not mention the Water Framework Directive (WFD) directly, water indicators aimed at improving water quality will be reviewed as a part of the monitoring system.

Main strengths and weakness of the RD program as regards to water

Water quality problems are a key priority, as measures in axis I, II and III target this issue (111, 114, 121, 123, 143, 211, 212, 214, 223, 321). Although water quality is addressed as a key environmental priority, the programme provides no targets or baseline values for water quality improvement and expects only 160,000ha (3% of the UAA) to be under agri-environmental measures (AEMs).

The results of the findings under the WFD article 5 were used to select projects funded under measure 121 focusing on the modernisation of farming (18% of the total public expenditure). Water quality and availability is expected to be improved through promoting the construction of new infrastructure to: a) substitute asbestos cement pipes, b) create safe places for storing manure on farm and c) improve sewer systems. Further, irrigation projects funded under this payment must be in line with WFD. The problem of water access and internal water losses due to lack of a proper distribution networks and storage equipment is also addressed by measure 321 (13% of the public expenditure).

Also, measure 111, 114 and 143 (3% of the total public expenditure) state the priority of providing training, information and extension services to address environmental protection problems and compliance with the Nitrates directive. Food or wood processing companies can also be funded to develop wastewater management systems (measure 123), which could reduce point source water pollution if the environmental projects are prioritised.

The use of Leader programs to address WFD is limited, as local action groups cannot apply for measures 211, 212 and 214. This could lead to lack of incentives for these groups to develop a multi-stakeholder process to improve watershed management.

In addition, 13% of the total public expenditure is sed to implement agri-environmental payments (214) that encourage and support farmers to start using environmentally friendly agricultural production methods, such as organic farming, management of High Nature Value Farmland Scheme or requirements set under the Soil and Water Protection Scheme. Most important is that farmers who want to participate in agri-environmental scheme are required to take part in basic agri-environment information actions under Measure 111.

The RDP considers the objective of improving the quality and quantity of water through providing several measures distributed among 3 axes. The measures modernisation of agricultural holdings (121), AEMs (214) and basic services for the economy (321) are, in terms of budget and expected impacts on water quality, important to implement the WFD.

The modernization of the agricultural sector and the agri-food processing industry is crucial for the economic development of rural areas in Bulgaria and an increase in intensification of the sector can be expected. This modernisation should be carefully monitored with regard to negative environmental impacts. If environmental quality decreased, a revision of the RDP should ensure strengthen measures falling under axis II.

As water indicators were set at national level, it would be useful to have water indicators at measure level, so that the effectiveness of measures can be evaluated more precisely.