Ruse District

RUSE > Population (2014) 228,735 > Area (sq. km) 2,803.4 Ivanovo > Number of settlements 88 Tsenovo DVE MOGILI > Share of urban population (%) 77.4 BOROVO BYALA Overview

DP per capita decreased by over 14% in 2009 and proved slowly and has remained below country aver- G2010 in the district, and although the economy age levels. recovered in the successive years and exceeded its Ruse was among the districts with the oldest popula- pre-crisis production levels, GDP per capita has still tion in 2014 as well. It has continued to be among the lagged behind the country average. Foreign direct five districts with the highest share of urban popula- investments per capita are half the country average, tion. The insufficient number of general practitioners and the district ranks second in terms of least funds still poses a problem in the field of healthcare. General- per capita utilised by municipalities. The district’s ly, the number of crimes against the person and against labour market features diminishing activity and em- property, registered in time, has been smaller than the ployment shrinkage. Being an important transport country average relative to the population. Courts are centre, the district’s infrastructure is more developed not too overloaded and work more effectively. The dis- than in most districts, but the quality of roads has im- trict’s cultural life is relatively well developed.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Weak Unsatisfactory Average Good Very good Weak Unsatisfactory Average Good Very good

Income and Living Conditions Demography

Labor Market Education

Investment Healthcare

Infrastructure Security and Justice

Taxes and Fees Environment

Administration Culture

Ruse District 77 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Income and Living Conditions Ruse District ranked ninth in GDP per capita in 2012 with ary 2015 (a total of 70 m BGN) compared to the national 8,442 BGN. Still, the district’s GDP was below the country average of 564.9 BGN per capita. Byala Municipality has average of 10,958 BGN per capita. The difference from utilised most – 1,469 BGN per capita, and Vetovo Munici- the rest of is due to the GDP slump in 2009 and pality has drawn down least – 37.7 BGN per capita. especially in 2010, when it shrank by more than 14%. Salaries and households’ incomes have remained close, but below, country averages. Their growth, compared to Infrastructure the pre-crisis year of 2008, has also been slower than it was nationwide. Ruse is an important transport centre. The road and rail- way networks feature high density and are located rela- The indicators regarding living conditions and poverty tively evenly along the entire territory of the district. The are relatively favourable. The share of people living in Ruse–Gorna Oryahovitsa and Ruse–Varna railways lines, households with low work intensity was two times low- the river port and the Bridge (between Ruse and er than the country average in 2012 – 6% compared to Giurgiu) are the most significant in economic terms. De- 11.6%. The share of the population living in material spite the relatively intensive traffic, the quality of roads deprivation was also considerably lower – 26.6% com- has remained below the country average. 30.2% of roads pared to the country average of 43%, and the share of were in good condition in 2014 compared to 40.5% for people living below the district’s poverty line was 16.9% Bulgaria. Access to the Internet and its use are better compared to the country average of 21%. than the nationwide averages. 64.6% of households had Internet access in 2014 compared to the country aver- Labour Market age of 56.7%, and 62.7% of residents had used the In- Unemployment was higher in the district than the coun- ternet the previous year compared to Bulgaria’s average try average before the crisis, but it has quickly decreased of 59.2%. since 2009 and is currently below than the national av- erage. The unemployment rate was 10.8% in 2014 com- pared to the country average of 11.4%, and the reason Taxes and Fees for the drop was not increasing employment, but rather The general level of local taxes and fees is lower in Ruse the diminishing economic activity of the district’s popu- District than the country average, and has generally re- lation. The economic activity rate decreased by 3.8 pp mained unchanged in recent years. The biggest differ- from 2008 to 2014, reaching 48.3%, while its national ence, relative to the country average, is in the annual counterpart increased by 0.3 pp, reaching 54.1% in waste collection charge for properties of legal entities 2014. Employment in the district has also constantly de- – lower than the country average by almost one third creased since 2008, reaching 43.1% in 2014, or almost in 2015. The immovable property tax for legal entities 5 pp less than the country average. The demographic is lower by 25%. The municipalities of Tsenovo and By- replacement rate deteriorated in 2014 to 56.6%, mean- ala have generally preserved lower local taxes and fees; ing that there were 57 people aged 15–19 about to join higher in the municipalities of Dve Mogili and Borovo. the labour market, per 100 people aged 60–64, about to leave it. The national indicator was 61.9% in 2014, or higher by 5.3 pp than that of Ruse. Administration Investment Generally speaking, administrative services in the district have not been evaluated highly. The territory included Investment in the district has been lower than the coun- in cadastral maps is half the country average – 10.2% of try average. Moreover, the district exhibits relatively low the district’s territory was included in cadastral maps in entrepreneurship activity. 47 enterprises per 1,000 peo- 2014 compared to the country average of 18.1%. The de- ple operated in 2013 in Ruse, while the national figure velopment of administrative one-stop shop services is was 52 per 1,000 people. Expenditure on acquiring FTAs commensurate with the country average, but the level per capita was lower by 25% than the country average of local government e-services is considerably lower. In in 2013, and cumulative foreign direct investments per 2015, the Active Transparency Rating of local govern- capita were about two times smaller than they were in ment bodies (54.9 points) is also about the average (54.5 the other districts. Ruse District has utilised the least EU out of the maximum of 88.4 points). Ruse Municipality funds after Kyustendil. The funds under operational pro- has the highest result – 62.2 points while they are lowest grammes, utilised by the municipalities of Ruse District, in the municipalities of Byala and Vetovo – 22.1 points amounted to 308.9 BGN per capita as at the end of Janu- and 27.2 points respectively.

78 Regional Profiles 2015 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Demography Security and Justice Despite not being among the districts with the most se- The number of registered crimes against the person and vere demographic crisis, Ruse District has demonstrated property has traditionally been lower than the country less favourable indicators regarding the age dependen- averages, relative to the population. 4.1 crimes against cy for years compared to the country average. The rate the person per 10,000 people, compared to 5.9 crimes of natural increase is also unfavourable – it is –8.5‰ for the country, and 85.2 crimes against the property per compared to the country average of –5.7‰ – but over 10,000 people, compared to the country average of 89, the years the fall has been slowing down relative to the were registered in 2014. Ruse District ranked second (af- national figure. The net migration rate, despite the nega- ter Kardzhali District) in 2013 with the highest share of tive values in 2014: –0.7‰ has remained higher than the criminal cases heard by the District Court and closed in national average. Ruse is one of the five districts with the first 3 months (98% compared to the country’s aver- the largest share of urban population – 77.4% of the age of 88.4%) and it also ranked second (after Vratsa Dis- population lived in towns and cities in 2014 compared trict) in lowest share of pending cases (3.1% compared to the country average of 73.1%. to the country’s average of 8.5%). It should be noted that judges’ workloads have traditionally been lower in Education the district compared to Bulgaria. 6.6 cases per judge, per month, were processed by Ruse District Court in The enrolment rate (grades 5th through 8th) is 78.6%, and 2013, and the country average was 8.3 cases per judge, the share of dropouts from primary and secondary edu- per month. cation equals the national average of 2.4%. The share of repeaters was 1.1% in 2014 compared to Bulgaria’s aver- age of 1.4%. The share of poor grades at state matricu- Environment lation exams was lower in 2015: 5.2% compared to the Emissions of carbon dioxide have traditionally been low- country average of 6.4%. this comparison, however should er in Ruse District than Bulgaria’s average, and they have take into account the surge of this indicator for the coun- decreased for the past two years in line with the nation- try (mainly due to the sudden increase in the districts of al trends. The volume of household waste collected per Kardzhali, Kyustendil and ). At the same time, aver- capita of serviced population also remained higher in age grades at state matriculation exams equalled the na- 2013. The relative share of the population living in set- tional average of Good (4.2). With 10,000 students at the tlements with public sewerage systems (67.7%) contin- University of Ruse, Ruse is among the districts with a rela- ued to be lower than national figures (74.7%) in 2013. Si- tively high share of university students to the population. multaneously, newly-built waste water treatment plants At the same time, the share of people with tertiary educa- have increased the share of the population with access tion is lower than the country average (23.6% compared to public sewerage systems connected to waste water to 27%), which implies that not all students continue to treatment plants in recent years and it is now higher live and work in the district after graduation. than the country average. In 2012 expenditure on envi- ronmental protection soared from 20 m BGN in 2011 to Healthcare more than 50 m BGN, mainly due to the construction of a Ruse is among the four districts with the highest insuffi- new waste water treatment plant in Ruse City. In 2013 it ciency of general practitioners. 2,061 people per general dropped to 41 m BGN, which removed the district from practitioner were treated in 2014, while the nationwide the country average rate, relative to the population. figure was 1,596 people per general practitioner. The district’s healthcare also suffers from the lack of some key health professionals. For instance, one specialist in Culture Internal Medicine takes care of 5,902 people on average Cultural life is well developed in the district. Regarding in Bulgaria, while this figure is 9,531 people for Ruse. In visits to cinemas and libraries, relative to the population, 2014 the district still had a smaller number of beds, 3.7 higher average rates were again reported in 2014, com- beds per 1,000 people in multi-profile hospitals for ac- pared to the country average. In terms of the number of tive treatment, compared to the country average of 4.8 visits to theatres, Ruse District continued to keep its sec- per 1,000 people. Simultaneously, morbidity rates of the ond rank (following the capital city) in 2014, featuring population have also gone down judging by the number 569.3 visits per 1,000 people compared to the country of hospitalisations. In view of the lack of health profes- average of 319 per 1,000 people. The district has lagged sionals, however, the relatively small number of cases of only in visits to museums. 358 visits per 1,000 people hospitalisation could imply that many people have re- of the population were registered in 2014, while the na- sorted to health services outside the district. tional average was 662 visits per 1,000 people.

Ruse District 79 Key Indicators for the District of Ruse

Economic Development 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

GDP per capita (BGN, current prices) 7,299 6,515 8,022 8,442 n.a. n.a.

Average annual income per household member (BGN) 3,418 3,655 4,071 4,416 4,504 4,553

Average annual gross salary (BGN) 6,112 6,354 6,783 7,155 7,589 n.a.

Relative share of people living below the district’s poverty line (%) 17.0 18.5 17.0 16.9 n.a. n.a.

Annual average economic activity rate of the population 15+ (%) 53.4 51.3 51.0 51.1 50.5 48.3

Annual average employment rate of the population 15+ (%) 50.5 47.9 45.1 44.5 44.2 43.1

Annual average unemployment rate (%) 5.4 6.8 11.6 12.9 12.5 10.8

Number of non-financial companies per 1,000 people 46 47 47 47 47 n.a.

Expenditure on the acquisition of fixed tangible assets per capita (BGN) 1,810 1,403 1,647 1,813 1,907 n.a.

Cumulative FDI to non-financial enterprises per capita (EUR) 1,378 1,465 1,428 1,493 1,630 n.a.

Relative share of households with Internet access (%) 25.2 34.8 43.2 51.4 57.6 64.6

Share of roads in good condition (%) n.a. 30.6 23.9 26.0 29.0 30.2

Share of territory included in cadastral maps (%) 8.8 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2

Social Development 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Rate of natural increase (‰) –6.0 –6.5 –8.1 –8.1 –8.0 –8.5

Net migration rate (‰) –2.4 –3.5 0.8 –1.4 0.2 –0.7

Relative share of the population aged 25–64 with tertiary education (%) 19.3 20.4 22.0 22.1 23.6 23.6

Average grades at state matriculation exams 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.1 4.3 4.2

Percent of failed students at state matriculation exams 4.5 3.6 3.7 6.0 4.6 5.6

Health insured persons as share of the population (%) 88.4 86.0 89.4 88.2 86.6 87.1

Cases of hospitalization in general hospitals 148.6 139.2 152.4 164.0 185.5 162.7

Crimes against the property per 10,000 people 86.3 92.2 88.6 88.6 100.4 85.2

Share of pending criminal cases (%) 4.2 3.2 4.4 3.9 3.1 n.a.

Expenditure on environmental protection per capita (BGN) 79.9 77.5 86.2 218.2 178.4 n.a.

Share of the population living in settlements with public 0.0 0.0 63.7 63.9 64.2 n.a. sewerage systems, connected to WTTP (%)

Number of visits to cinemas per 1,000 people 0.0 139.4 1097.1 753.5 759.9 769.4

Number of visits to theatres per 1,000 people 384.9 389.3 474.1 444.5 514.7 569.3

80 Regional Profiles 2015