Case study in Besaparski hills area

(pilot area in BSPB HNV Grasslands project )

P

Policy questions and lessons learned

from current experience and

Recommendations for CAP-post 2013 policy support

Yanka Kazakova and Vyara Stefanova,

EFNCP-Bulgaria

January 2013 Contents

Introduction ...... 2

Part One Bessaparski Hills biodiversity values and farming systems ...... 3

Biodiversity importance...... 3

Administrative units ...... 6

Agriculture in the Bessaparski Hills region ...... 6

Land use...... 7

Farm size...... 8

Farming systems...... 9

HNV farming systems ...... 12

Part Two Policy Support Schemes ...... 15

National support schemes...... 15

BSPB Small Grants Scheme...... 18

1 Introduction

The Bessaparski Hills zone is situated in a transitional area between the lowlands of Thracia valley and the northern hills of Phodopi Mountains. They are characterized by eroded karst slopes, an open non-forested landscape and an almost complete lack of water.

The Bessaparski Hills are very important for the conservation of birds and vascular plants and are an Important Birds Area and a proposed Important Plant Area. The Bessaparski Hills are officially designated as Specially Protected Area (SPA) under the Birds Directive (Code BG 0002057) with a total area of 14 765 ha. Geographically, this area contains entirely a proposed Site of Community Interest (pSCI) under the Habitats Directive (code BG 0000254) which covers 6 743 ha.

The Bessaparski Hills have a good mixture of well-preserved nature and traditional agricultural practices. It is characterised by a mosaic landscape of arable land, permanent crops and pastures and meadows.

The largest part of the SPA (close to 60%) is dependent on extensive grazing practices. Together with the small scale mosaic land use (horticulture and orchards) both within and outside the Natura 2000 zone the region is considered a High Nature Value farming area. The arable lands, mostly small mosaic-like plots, are situated mainly in the western and south-eastern part, while grasslands are mainly in the central, eastern and southern parts.

Being at the borderline between the lowlands and mountains, this HNV farming area is particularly threatened by intensification of agricultural practices and abandonment of grazing on more marginal areas: Vegetable production is confined to areas where irrigation is available, and habitat wise these areas are not competing with pastures, i.e. they do not present a threat to the important habitat species. However, from income-generation perspective, many farmers abandon pastoralism in one area and resort to vegetable production in another, which is one of the main threats for the area– abandonment of pastures. Another significant pressure is coming from increasing areas for arable crops, including rape-seed cultivation. Herbs and rose growing which are cultivated for their aromatic oils, still represent a small scale displacement of semi-natural grassland habitats, but are competing ecologically with pasture biodiversity.

The analysis throughout the report is centered on two main levels: the first one is only the Natura 2000 zone under the Birds Directive whenever data is available and the second one covers the five municipalities that are included (partly) in the Natura 2000 zone. The report looks at the region’s characteristics in terms of farming systems and biodiversity values and then examines the relevance and sufficiency of policy support schemes (current and post-2013).

2 Part One Bessaparski Hills biodiversity values and farming systems

Biodiversity importance The Besaparski Hills are rich in endemic, relict, rare and protected species and habitats.

The flora of the Besaparski Hills is typically calciphilic comprising 568 higher plant species (excluding the mosses), which represents 14.5% of the total composition of the flora of Bulgaria. The sub- Mediterranean (44.5%) and the Pontic (23%) floral elements predominate, followed by the Central European (9.1%) and the Eurasian (7.7%) ones. Its most characteristic features are the high presence of the xerophytes (63%) and the spring ephemers and ephemeroids (40%), as well as the strong presence of the hamephytes (8%) and especially of the therophytes (32%).

The most widespread grassland communities on the territory of Bessaparski Hills are these of the Breadgrass (Dichantium ischaemum) due to the fact that the species are very resistant to grazing, trampling and especially erosion. They are of a primary importance for the vegetation cover composition. D. Ischaemum forage quality is medium with not very high productivity, but due to its wide distribution, it is of a high economic importance, as well as importance as soil strengthener.

The Bread-grass communities, maintained trough traditional pastoralism practiced there for centuries, are characterized by a diverse and very rich floristical composition and have high conservation significance. The Bread-grass dominated grasslands include some 230 species, mostly sub-Mediterranean and Pontic elements. They are rich in endemics and rare species (45 species).

Map 1 The Bessaparski Hills Natura 2000 zones

3 Habitats of conservation importance at national and European level in Bessaparski Hills

(Habitats directive)

5210. Arborescent matorral with Juniperus spp. [32.1311 Communities of Juniperus oxycedrus];

6110 Rupicolous calcareous or basophilic grasslands of the Alysso-Sedion albi

6220. Pseudo-steppe with grasses and annuals of the Thero-Brachypodietea (34. 532 Helleno- Balkanic short grass and therophyte communities);

6240. Sub-Pannonic steppic grasslands [34. 311 Helleno_balkanic savory steppe, 34. 31612 Moesio- Carpathian andropogonoid steppes и 34. 31611 Moesio-Carpathian feathergrass-fescue steppes];

62A0. Eastern sub-Mediterranean dry grasslands (Scorzoneratalia villosae)

8210 Calcareous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation;

91AA. Eastern white oak woods;

Habitats 5210, 6220 and 6240 have a representative character in the Bessaparski Hills which increases their conservation value.

There are also many species of mammals (31) which are typical for the low elevation of the region such as golden jackal – another species of conservation importance at the national and European level.

The Bessaparski Hills are of a great importance for the protection of the Souslik not only in Bulgaria, but also at the European level. The Souslik has become extinct in many regions of its western range due to intensification of agriculture. Although the Souslik population in Bulgaria is not as critical as in other countries, there is an ongoing trend of decline and even extinction in several regions. The colonies of the Souslik near Bessaparski Hills are among the most preserved ones in the country, which underlines the importance of the permanent grassland communities there for the preservation of the species.

In the region of Bessaparski Hills Imperial and Lesser Spotted eagles were registered, as well as Shorttoed Eagle, Common Buzzard, Saker Falcon, the Long-legged Buzzard and the Kestrel.

Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates are the main grassland habitat in Besaparski hills and cover almost 60% of its territory.

4 Table 1 Main grassland habitats in Besaparski Hills SPA (14765 ha)

Area Share in SPA Code Grassland habitat (ha) (%) 5210 Arborescent matorral with Juniperus spp. 280.9 1.9

Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies 6210 on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) (* 7730.2 52.4 important orchid sites) Pseudo-steppe with grasses and annuals of the 6220 496.3 3.4 Thero-Brachypodietea 62A0 Eastern sub-mediteranean dry grasslands 135.9 0.9

Total grassland habitats 8643.3 58.6 Source: Besaparski hills short overview, http://bspb-grasslands.org/

5 Administrative units

The Bessaparski Hills Natura 2000 zone falls within the boundaries of five municipalities (LAU1 level) – Bratsigovo, Peshtera and Pazardjik in Pazardjik district and Stamboliiski and Krichim in Plovdiv district covering 13,2% of their total area (111 774 ha). The biggest municipality is Pazardjik (63 672ha) but the largest territory of the Natura 2000 zone is in Bratsigovo municipality.

The average population density is 153 people per sq.km characterizing a lively region close to two big cities – Pazardjik and Plovdiv. Nevertheless, as elsewhere in the country, there is an ongoing trend of a decreasing population (-14% for a period of 5 years). The biggest decrease is observed in Peshtera municipality (-19%) while in its neighbouring Bratsigovo municipality it is ‘only’ minus 10%.

Table 2 Territory and population in Bessaparski Hills municipalities (2011) Municipality Territory Population Population Population (LAU 1 level) (ha) (no.) change density (sq.km) 2011 2011-2007 (%) 2011 Pazardjik district (NUTS III level) Bratsigovo 22 943 9536 -10 42 Pazardjik 63 672 114091 -14 179 Peshtera 13 543 18 850 -19 139 Plovdiv district (NUTS III level) Krichim 5 490 8 370 -15 152 Stamboliiski 6 127 20 584 -11 336 TOTAL 111 774 171 431 -14 153

Agriculture in the Bessaparski Hills region According to the socio-economic study carried out by the BSPB grasslands project team in 2008, the area is characterised by a majority of farmers who have small holdings of arable land (0,1 - 0,3 ha or 0,5 - 1.5 ha) and on average 1 - 3 cows or sheep. Their produce is almost entirely for domestic consumption and the animals are kept within the household grounds in the village. There are a relatively small number of larger herds, mainly sheep, the grazing of which is done freely on any available land regardless of its long-term use legal status.

The long-term uncultivated agricultural land is freely available. This has resulted in the ‘de facto’ use of arable land for pasture, especially the ones close to the villages and for which rent is often not paid.

Livestock farmers do not have legal documentation, such as land tenure agreements to link their pasture land use to a specific area. In cases of municipal and state owned pasture (commons) this informal system of resource use is still tolerated. On the one hand this is a result of the economic difficulties faced by farmers and the willingness of local government to allow rent free access as a form of assistance to small farmers. On the other hand many municipal authorities are themselves confused as to how to implement existing legal regulations.

6 In cases of privately owned uncultivated arable land, some informal agreements for grazing were made. Nevertheless, the majority of land belongs to absentee landlords who have not sought rents. Today more and more of this land is re-converted to arable land use thus reducing the grazing resources and threatening the biodiversity value of the region.

Land use The official land cadaster data for the five municipalities reports total agricultural land of 60 952ha (54,5% of the total territory). It is dominated by arable land (73%) while pastures and meri cover 13% and permanent crops only 6%. The changes in land use types between 2011 and 2008 do not seem too big. However the land cadaster registers changes mostly when there are changes in land ownership. All other land use changes which do not alter the general use of land for agriculture are not required for registering in the land cadaster.

Table 3 Land use in the five municipalities, Land cadaster data, 2008-2011

Area in ha 2008 2011 Diff. Arable land 45 025 44 670 -355 Permanent crops 3 618 3 731 114 Vineyards 1 182 1 426 244 Meadows 1 644 1 632 -12 Pastures & meri 7 814 7 797 -18 Scrubland 523 493 -30 Forests in agri land 1 097 1 203 106 Total 60 903 60 952 49

In 2010, land use in the Bessaparski Hills zone is balanced – arable land (irrigated and non-irrigated) cover 43% and grasslands (pastures and meadows) cover 46%. There are 4% with orchards, berries and vineyards while the scrubby grasslands and small trees cover 7%.

Table 4 Land use in Bessaparski Hills zone, BSPB team data, 2010

Agriculture land Ha Non-irrigated arable land 3 639,52 Irrigated arable land 1 843,18 Vineyards 264,51 Orchards and berries 218,67 Pastures 2 510,46 Meadows 3 308,5 Scrubby grasslands 77,69 Transitional scrubs and trees 764,91 Total 12 627,44

7 BSPB team has been monitoring the land use in the Bessaparski Hills Natura 2000 zone since 2006. The land use changes recorded by them show a more dynamic trend (table 3) as compared to land cadaster data. Arable land is increased by 1194 ha (10% of the agricultural land in the zone) while pastures have decreased by 1656 ha (-13%). At the same time, there is an increase of 325 ha (2,5%) in the areas covered with scrubby grasslands and small trees. This reveals a dominant trend of losing permanent pastures due to intensification (1194ha) while some are also lost due to reduced use or abandonment (325ha).

Table 5 Land use change in Bessaparski Hills zone, BSPB team data, 2010

Farm size The average farm size in the five municipalities increased from 1,6 to 4 ha/farm between 2003 and 2010 when Agriculture Census were carried out at national level. This is irrespective of the variability of average farm size within the five municipalities. In 2003, it was as little as 0,3 ha/farm in Krichim and 2,3 ha/farm in Pazardjik municipalities. In 2010, these are increased to 1,1 ha/farm and 5,4 ha/farm respectively.

Table 6 Average farm size in the five municipalities, calculated from Agriculture Census data, 2010

Municipality Average farm size UAA (LAU 1 level) (ha /farm) (ha) 2003 2010 2010 Pazardjik district (NUTS III level) Bratsigovo 0.6 1.6 2 040 Pazardjik 2.3 5.4 28 350 Peshtera 1.2 2.8 1 860 Plovdiv district (NUTS III level) Krichim 0.3 1.1 290 Stamboliiski 0.5 0.9 880 Aver./Total 1.6 4.0 33 450

8 This trend is determined by the fact that there is a 45% decrease in the total number of farms in the five municipalities from more than 15 000 in 2003 to 8 400 in 2010. The agricultural land that was utilized in 2003 was around 25 000 ha. In 2010, the utilized agricultural land increases to more than 33 450 ha. This area excludes the land used in common grazing by farmers.

Comparing the three different data-sets we observe a clear mis-match of data in the different classes (tables 2, 3 and 5). The most obvious one is that meadows in Bessaparski Hills exceed three times the total area of meadows in the five municipalities but it is supposed to be only a sub-set of it. Additionally, the arable land recorded in the land cadaster is 44 670 ha while the total utilized agricultural area reported by farmers is 33 450 ha. Our experience shows that the remaining land is being used for free grazing by local people but it is never recorded officially. The key reason is that most of the farms are small either in land or animals owned or in both and re thus excluded from policy support.

The share of farms in economic size group of less than 2 000 Euro is 60% (graph 1). This means that more than 5000 farms (out of 8400) are not eligible for any type of support not even support for semi-subsistence farms (measure 141 under RDP). The eligibility condition for semi-subsistence support allows farms between 1 and 4 ESU to be supported – this is potentially possible for 29% of the farms in the region (2 400). Bigger farms (generating more than 15 000 Euro and more) are only 5% of all.

Farming systems The distribution of the farming systems between the five municipalities varies considerably. The municipality with the highest number of farms specializing in grazing livestock is Peshtera – 28% of all farms while in Pazardjik they are only 6%. Bratsigovo municipality which hosts the largest area of Bessaparski Hills zone has the highest number of farms specializing in arable crops (44%) and 10% specializing in grazing livestock.

The farming systems which are potentially of High Nature Value are related to the farms specializing in grazing livestock (10% of all farms in the five municipalities), the holdings of mixed cropping (8%), mixed livestock holdings (4%) and mixed livestock and crops holdings (11%). Approximately one third of all holdings (2700) in the five municipalities are farming in potentially HNV systems.

9 Livestock husbandry

High nature value on grasslands in the area is maintained by grazing livestock – cattle and sheep are key while there are also some goat herds. Dairy cattle systems still utilize natural grazing resources as opposed to housing systems only. Overall, in 2012, there are 3600 dairy cattle in the five municipalities, of which more than 2000 are in the municipality of Pazardjik alone.

An important aspect to consider in dairy farming is the ability and willingness of farmers to invest in their farm facilities to meet EU hygiene regulations. Farms that comply with all hygiene regulations about their buildings and milk quality are categorized as “group I”. Farms that comply with requirements about buildings but still have to meet the milk quality requirements are “group II”. Farms that still have to meet both building and milk quality requirements are “group III”. The latest extension (from October 2011) of the derogation period for all farms to become “group I” sets the deadline at 31 December 2013.

Bulgaria has adopted a special condition – registration of on-farm milk storage premise is possible only for farms with more than five dairy cows. Legaly, this means that only farms with more than five cows can become “group I”. In practice, the register of “group I” farms reveals there are also farms categorized with 1 animal only.

Looking at the numbers for the five municipalities (data from 3 December 2012) we that on average 75% of all farms are in “group III” with less than 5 animals but they comprise only 24% of all animals. This is the group that is most threatened by disappearance in the coming couple of years – 425 farms with 870 dairy cattle in these five municipalities only.

The sub-group in the most challenging situation is “group III” with 5 to 9 dairy cattle. They comply with the requirement for the minimum number of animals for being able to register a milk storage premise on the farm. However they are below the minimum size of farms for receiving national headage aid for farm restructuring – which is set at minimum 10 dairy cattle and maximum 49. This is indeed the smallest group of all with only 6% of farms and 7% of animals but the practices of these

10 two sub-groups are important for the management of common grazing land and its associated biodiversity. Their disappearance will bring a decrease in the biodiversity values.

Graphs Dairy cattle and dairy farms by category in the five municipalities, 2012

BSPB operational data (2010) for the Bessaparski Hills SPA show that there were more than 2100 cattle and 12 300 sheep and goats in this area only. Discussions with local farmers and the 2012 data (above) show that there is a rapid decrease in the number of animals in these municipalities. A sheep farmer from Krichim explained that while 3-4 years ago there were several herds grazing in his municipality, nowadays (summer 2012) it was only his herd.

11 HNV farming systems Besaparski Hills is characterised by a mosaic landscape of arable land, permanent crops, grasslands and meadows. Since grasslands represent the major type of land use, livestock breeding was relatively well developed, although declining in recent years. The region is characterized also by growing vegetables, orchards and vineyards as well as comparatively small scale cereals production. These are of great significance for the region, but their ongoing expansion and intensification represents serious threat on the grassland ecosystems. Based on the regional land distribution we can estimate the area of HNV farmland in Bessaparski Hills SPA. HNV farmland ‘Type 1’ having a high proportion of semi-natural vegetation This type groups pastures and meadows as well as agricultural land with significant share of natural vegetation, areas with rare vegetation, and transitional scrubs and bushes. Its total area in Bessaparski Hills SPA is 5734,46 ha (38%). The biggest part is in Bratsigovo municipality (43%) and Pazardjik (29%).

HNV farmland ‘Type 2’ having a mosaic of habitats and/or low-intensity land uses

This type groups complexes of fragmented agricultural lands, and orchards and berries. The total ‘type 2’area is 1606 ha (10%). Its largest area is in Bratsigovo municipality (65%), Krichim (18%) and Stamboliiski (8%).

Trends in HNV farming and low nature farming systems in Bessaparski Hills

At field level High Nature Value Low Nature Value

Permanent EXTENSIVE MANAGEMENT INTENSIFICATION Grasslands • No chemical inputs • Increasing livestock units per ha, • Late mowing (July) especially near the villages • Low livestock density • Early mowing (before 15 June) • Conversion into arable land, orchards or vineyards • Use of chemicals after conversion

ABANDONMENT • Transitional scrubby vegetation • Burning of scrubs and grassland cover

Uncultivated arable • No chemical inputs • Burning of the grassland cover land • Used for grazing • Ploughing • Use of chemicals after conversion

Traditional • No or low use of chemicals • Replacement by intensive orchards and orchards and • Grass cover between rows, vineyards

12 vyneyards that is usually mowed and/or • Intensive use of pesticides and fertilizers grazed

Horticulture • Small scale plots • Increased fields • Low use of chemicals • Loss of field boundaries • Labour intensive • Increased use of chemicals • Problems with irrigation • More precise irrigation technologies practices

At lanscape level High Nature Value Low Nature Value

Hedges • Maintenance • Removal

Mosaic Landscape • Combination of diverse land • Land consolidation use • Mono –crops cultivation

The following aspects of the local livestock practices need to be underlined again:

- Due to the variable climatic conditions, the low altitude and karstic terrain only around 10% of the animal feed is provided through grazing and haymaking from permanent pastures (BSPB baseline studies for the region).

- In 2006, there were many arable lands near the villages that have been uncultivated and used by farmers for grazing their animals, irrespective of their legal documentation for arable land. However with the EU accession and the introduction of the single area-based direct payments scheme (SAPS) there is a rapid conversion of these areas again into arable land, orchards or vineyards. This is considered as the most significant threat for the ecosystems in the Bessaparski Hills area;

- The land cadaster data defining the official land use status demonstrates that designated pasture areas are relatively few. Given that these are the legal base for the evaluation of the land use in protected areas the threats to biodiversity are truly adverse because there would be no official actions taken to remedy the loss of long-term grazing areas.

- There are no forms of official cooperation amongst the farmers. The only traditional form of practical cooperation is the so-called ‘village herds’. They are composed of the villagers’ animals and grazed against a fee by a shepherd or grazed on a rotational system by the owners of the animals. This form of collaboration assists individual animals kept for family- use to be grazed while the owners have alternative occupations or due to age could no longer look after the animals alone.

- During the recent years the livestock practices are in decline (especially the dairy ones), since the farmers cannot meet the new hygiene and quality standards and prefer to or are forced to cease their activities.

13 The changing farming practices have a direct impact on ecosystems and habitats of national and European conservation importance. The BSPB team has identified the following relations between the farming practices in the region and their impact on biodiversity:

Threats Negative impacts on Ploughing and conversion of grassland habitats to European Souslik arable lands – cereals, rape-seed, etc. Nesting birds

Reintroduction of permanent crops – orchards, European Souslik; vineyards, herbs Grassland ecosystems

Burnings of stubbles and pastures All flora and fauna in the region Pesticide use European Souslik Grassland ecosystems Decrease of pastured livestock in the region European Souslik Abandonment of the traditional agricultural European Souslik; practices – boundary strips, woodland and shrub Birds vegetation

The Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds has implemented a four-year project funded by GEF to support biodiversity-friendly farming practices in High Nature Value farming areas, one of which was Bessaparski Hills area. The support scheme under this project and the results will be discussed in the following section of the report alongside with the national support schemes.

14 Part Two Policy Support Schemes

National support schemes There are four main types of national policy support that is available to farmers throughout the country:

1) Single area-based payment scheme (SAPS), including that national top-up payments;

2) National livestock headage payments;

3) Rural development area-based payments such as agri-environment, Natura 2000 compensations and less-favoured areas payments;

4) Rural development investment measures.

None of these is targeted or tailored to Bessaparski Hills therefore farmers from the area apply conforming to the nation-wide requirements. In practice the minimum thresholds for these schemes leave most of the farmers from the region outside the scope of support.

Table 7 Minimum eligibility thresholds of national support schemes

Scheme Requirements

SAPS and national Min 1 ha per farms and 0,3 ha per parcel; top-up payment Only in economically disadvantaged municipalities in Southern National livestock Bulgaria; headage payments Min 10 cows Min sheep/ewes or goats Agri-environment – min 0,1 /0,3/0,5 ha depending on sub-scheme; RD area-based LFAs – min 0,5 ha; payments Natura 2000 – min 0,3 ha per farm, and 0,1 ha per parcel

Looking at the average farm size in the five municipalities we see that in three municipalities – Krichim, Stamboliiski and Bratsigovo the average farm size is around the minimum threshold levels – 0.9ha, 1.1ha and 1.6ha respectively. This is data about the active farming size and not the land ownership size which means that the majority of farmers are not eligible for applying under the SAPS scheme.

In addition, the problems for farmers managing grasslands are mostly related to the eligibility of their lands given the karstic terrain of the region – the satellite and aerial photos of the area are probably made in the summer as they are interpreted as bare soils and stones making the grasslands ineligible for support. On the other side of the spectrum are the grasslands which have too many shrubs and trees which also makes them ineligible for support.

15 The minimum requirements for the national livestock support leave more than 80% of the dairy cattle farms in the five municipalities outside of the scope of support. We don’t have precise data about the number and size of sheep farms but the ratio is more or less the same. There are one to three farmers per village that have larger herds (on average more than 200 sheep). All others have less than 50 animals meaning that they are not able to benefit from this support.

These minimum thresholds are purely national decisions and it is very difficult to explain their logic to small farmers. Thus they feel unappreciated and unwanted which is a miserable situation to be in. It also creates tension with the official system and resistance to cooperation.

In terms of agri-environmental support – the minimum requirements are reduced and thus small farmers are eligible for support. However the implementation approach of the measure has flawed its potential positive results. There is very low national uptake of the measure due to poor communication campaigns, payments delayed for more than 2 years in the initial years, high penalties were imposed without explanation, the LPIS ‘layers’, including HNV farmland layer, were changing constantly even within one year. At the same time, national advisory services support for agri-environment was only possible till the end of 2010. By the time both advisors and farmers started doing it properly, the measure was stopped. The Mid-term evaluation report encouraged extending it till the end of the programming period but the Ministry of Agriculture has taken no steps in this direction.

Support for less-favoured areas is only available to some of the villages from the five municipalities and overall, this is one of the most successful types of support that was available to smaller and larger farms alike at national levels.

The Natura 2000 payments were introduced in 2011 and were based on restrictions on the agricultural activities in the orders for designation of the sites. In Besaparski hills 3 types of restrictions are compensated. These are: - Restrictions to remove landscape characteristics - standing trees, field boundaries, hedges, bushes, etc.; - Restrictions to plough or afforest meadows and pastures or transforming them into arable lands; - Restrictions on use of pesticides and mineral fertilizers. There are two compensatory payments available for the farmers: - For pastures and meadows – 78,5 EUR/ ha; - For arable lands – 20 EUR/ha. The uptake of the Natura 2000 measure is much better than the uptake of the agri-environmental measure despite the more or less similar requirements. This is mostly explained by the much better communication campaign and the experience gained in the regional agriculture administrations by the start of Natura 2000 measure.

In 2011, there were 79 and 218 applications under the agri-environmental measures in Pazardjik and Plovdiv districts. Under Natura 2000 measure there were 233 and 204 applications respectively. It is difficult to estimate how many of them are in the Bessaparski Hills municipalities but having in mind the overall number of farms it is a rather limited overall uptake.

16 Map 2 Number of applications under Agri-environmental and Natura 2000 measures per district

Source: State Fund Agriculture, 2012

17 BSPB Small Grants Scheme BSPB project „Conservation of globally important biodiversity in high nature value semi-natural grasslands through support for the traditional local economy” was implemented in three Important Bird Areas in Bulgaria abundant in biodiversity richness and having different socio-economic and land use characteristics -“Ponor”, “Bessaparski Hill”, and “Western Balkan”.

The project launched a Grant Scheme (GS) which tested pilot measures that were not supported by the National Rural Development Programme (NRDP), but that could have been included in the RDP if proven effective. It was implemented for two years in 2010 and 2011 and attracted 48 and 56 applications respectively. The total contracted and spent amount was 415 400 BGN.

The pilot tested compensatory measures comprised a mixture of area-based payments and investment support measures as well as advisory support provided by mobile teams:

Area-based measures Investment measures

 Natura 2000 compensatory payment  Non-productive investments  Agri-environment payment  Productive investments Mobile Advisory Teams Both for the grant scheme applications and Public support schemes Source: Adapted from Final evaluation of the Grant Scheme report, 2012

Target groups and eligible beneficiaries

The grant scheme supported farmers, organisations of farmers (associations and co-operations) and NGOs that were active in the areas of the five municipalities and were registered in the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS)1. Additional eligibility criteria were related to: Farmed area Minimum 0,2 ha and maximum 5 ha. Avoiding double Applicants for area-based measures (A&B) cannot be at the same time funding beneficiaries of measure 214 Agri-environment payments in the NRDP Avoiding support to Applicants should implement at least one area-based measure (under the investments only Grant Scheme or NRDP) to be eligible for the investment measures.

1 The Ministry of Agriculture manages the IACS which allows registration of applicants (physical persons or legal entities and their respective associations, registered as agricultural producers and whose holdings are located on the territory of Bulgaria, and who apply for receiving support through the measures of the Common Agricultural Policy) and applications for financial support. The areas used by the farmers during the respective year are identified in the system. It is used by the project team to safeguard both the control and the calculation of the grants.

18 The assessment of the Grant Scheme revealed that most of the supported farmers managed more than 5 ha of land. The astonishing fact was that most of them, especially in Bessaparski Hills, have never before received support for their pastures from the public support schemes. The support for the 5 ha under the Grant Scheme was their first financial payment and they appreciated it highly. This was also something that made them value their pasturing areas better.

Another interesting aspect of the implementation is the increase of the average size of supported land in the second year of the Grant Scheme. In 2011, the share of land in the maximum size (4-5 ha) increased to 78% of supported beneficiaries (from 54% in 2010). This increase was due to securing documents for the land already used, than including new land in active management.

The share of farmers in the smallest area group (0-1 ha) remained stable at 6% but it is important to consider it since these farmers were actively managing their land and selling produce on the market. At the same time, they are ineligible for the public SAPS scheme.

Size of supported areas under the GS area-based measures in 2010 and 2011

Source: Final evaluation of the Grant Scheme report, 2012

Most of the beneficiaries of the BSPB/GEF Grant Scheme also participated in the public support measures managed by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Paying Agency. All interviewed beneficiaries applied for directs payments per area (SAPS direct payments). The share of participation in other area-based measures varied depending on the national level eligibility requirements. This reveals that the Grant Scheme supported active farmers who were willing to comply with requirements and to benefit from support in order to develop their farms and businesses. A different aspect of this is how many of them were actually supported by the national support schemes given the penalties and sanctions imposed to farmers (especially in HNV regions) due to issues with land eligibility and right-of-use documents.

19 Number of GS beneficiaries who have applied for public support

Source: Final evaluation of the Grant Scheme report, 2012

A notable part of the interviewed beneficiaries (all but one) were supported mostly by the mobile advisory teams of BSPB for their public support applications. The role of the official sectoral (Ministry of Agriculture and Food, State Fund ‘Agriculture’/Paying Agency) and advisory (National Agriculture Advisory Service - NAAS) institutions is much limited at local level in the project areas as their offices are in the district center. This explains the willingness of local people to continue the cooperation with BSPB mobile teams. This was the most valued aspect of the Grant Scheme support as well.

Number of farmers receiving consultation support (N=15)

Source: Final evaluation of the Grant Scheme report, 2012

The key reasons for success seem to be:

- The scheme is designed specifically for the project areas and covers to the real needs of the farmers in the project sites to maintain the HNV grasslands; the payments offered correspond to the required area-based activities.

- The small investment component gives the farmers the opportunity to modernise their farms and to continue their business while applying nature-friendly agricultural practices.

20 - The mobile teams and especially the personal contact at farm and household level are very important in order to be able to motivate farmers to participate. This also puts a very heavy responsibility onto the consultants’ shoulders, since the farmers come to rely on their advice.

- The contrast between the grant scheme and the RDP is significant. The former delivers payment in a very short time after the application is submitted, whereas the latter involves at best a long wait.

Recommendations for improving national level policy support on the basis of BSPB experience

The following recommendations2 were developed for transferring the experience and knowledge from the GS to future policy making in public support schemes for biodiversity-friendly farming activities.

1. Public policy development:  Regionalization: The implementation of the Grant Scheme clearly demonstrated that biodiversity-friendly support schemes can be very successful only if they are designed according to the specific regional characteristics and socio-economic conditions. It is highly recommended that this approach is at least tested on a national level from 2014 onwards.  Farmers are interested mainly in investment schemes that have direct and immediate impact of their productive activities. This is also true for non-productive investments with direct contribution to farming activities. For better uptake of non-productive investments contributing mainly to biodiversity conservation, they can be made complementary or be tied up to productive investments but with higher level of support.  Farmers find it easier and more affordable to have a possibility to buy second hand equipment which also leads to more efficient use of the grant support.  For small-scale farmers who have difficulty in ensuring the co-financing, the farmers own labour should be counted as in-kind co-financing in investment support projects.  Purchase of grazing animals for farmers in HNV farming areas and Natura 2000 zones should be supported at the national level as one of the key factors for preventing grasslands abandonment and related biodiversity loss.  In terms of area-based support, pastures and grazing areas should have an improved legal definition followed by an improved areal interpretation in LPIS and an improved understanding during the on-the-spot controls to allow real support reaching traditional grazing areas such as karstic grasslands, scrubby grasslands and other regional-specific grasslands.

2. Information and consultation:

 Farmers prefer to receive information directly on the farm or at municipal level. They need regular consultations on biodiversity conservation issues and the relation between their activities and nature conservation. Often they lack the time and resources to move to the district center and thus prefer to receive such information on their farm.

2 Final evaluation of the Grant Scheme report, 2012 21 Thus, it is recommended that the setting up and targeting the work of mobile advisory teams at local level is included as an important delivery mechanism for the future NRDP. This will contribute to covering more areas and having a higher impact on biodiversity conservation at national level.

3. Implementation:

 The whole process of Grant Scheme implementation was simplified, transparent and efficient as opposed to the NRDP implementation. One way to make it work for the next RDP is to lobby for delegating the implementation of biodiversity-friendly schemes to the NGOs working in that field. This approach will enable a more efficient and results -oriented use of the available resources.

4. Cooperation:  Cooperation between farmers and environmental NGO has proven very successful for the implementation of biodiversity-friendly schemes. Additionally, the cooperation between environmental NGOs and national ministries also led to utilizing the GS experience in developing national policy measures. Therefore, these forms of cooperation should be supported in the next programming period by:  The Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of Environment and Waters should support and encourage environmental NGOs to participate in national policy formulation;  The Ministry of Agriculture and Food should delegate the implementation of the local biodiversity conservation schemes to environmental NGOs by developing and implementing thematic HNV farming programmes as proposed by the rural development regulation for the 2014-2020 period;  The Ministry of Environment and Waters should delegate the development and implementation of Natura 2000 management plans which adequately integrate farming needs and requirements to environmental NGOs.

5. Promotion and direct marketing of local products and livelihoods

 Sale of farm produce is still the main source of income of farmers in HNV farming areas and support offered for marketing is highly appreciated. Support for meeting official direct marketing requirements should be provided at higher grant level for small-scale farmers in HNV farming areas and Natura 2000 zones;  Participation in local food events, open days and fairs contributes to adding value to products and increases income but also increases consumers’ appreciation of farmers’ role as producers of food and public goods such as traditional landscape, biodiversity, etc. There should be special support for such activities in the next RDP – and the mechanism for this needs to be included by the Ministry of Agriculture with support from the interested stakeholders.

22