PROPERTY RELATIONS AND MARKET AGRICULTURE IN BULGARIA IN ITS

ACCESSION TO EROPEAN UNION

Milena Benovska-Sabkova

Having acceded to the European Union in 2007, Bulgaria is at the start of new sweeping

changes. This has been particularly valid for the Bulgarian agriculture, adversely affected by

all the cataclysms during the 20th century, rife with trials and tribulations. It is the purpose of

this paper to map out the fundamental trends in the development of Bulgarian agriculture at

the start of the accession process, in order to provide the basis for the study of the impact of

the European membership and, more specifically, of the European funds. I will focus on the

market-oriented agricultural production, which itself is actually the object of impact of the

European funds. Subsistence oriented agriculture continues to be the mass practice among the

broad strata of the Bulgarian population. According to a 2001 census, 1.5 million households

in Bulgaria keep up petty subsistence-oriented household farms1. Notwithstanding their major

social significance, these farms will not be discussed here as they are considered

economically ineffective.

In order to clarify the present-day situation, I have to make a short reference to the post-

socialist development in Bulgarian agriculture. By force of the 1991 law on the restitution of

the agricultural lands, a de-collectivization was carried out in Bulgaria and these lands have

been returned to their former owners or their heirs (Kaneff 1996: 85-114; Giordano, Kostova

1997: 135-149; Kaneff 1998: 16-32). The actual return of the land, however, has been a

complicated and contradictory process continuing for years after the law had come into force.

The agrarian reforms in the post-socialist countries have been subordinated to different

conceptions2 (Hann 2003: 1-47; Kaneff, Yalcin-Heckmann 2003: 219-257). The Bulgarian

restitution bill of 1991 was based on “the sanguinist principle”: the land was returned to its

former owners or to their successors “within real borders”3. This caused a large-scale

desertion of the agricultural lands – a phenomenon, familiar in the other post-socialist

countries, as well. Although by the end of the 1990s, the share of the deserted lands started to

decrease, in Bulgaria the problem has remained grave. This has been a major challenge to the

Bulgarian agriculture at prior the country’s accession to the European Union.

The following research questions need to be asked within this most general context: What

types of agricultural ownership or what types of management of this ownership have been

established in Bulgaria during the first decade of the 21st century? What have been the

processes of redistribution and transformation of this ownership? What social actors are

taking part in these processes? What has been the interest in the different types of agricultural

producers in the European funds and agricultural subsidies? Whether and how far will the

European funds and agricultural subsidies stimulate the development of market agriculture

and whether they will contribute to the development of the rural regions?

For the time being it is early to expect final answers to these questions. However, there are

clearly discernible trends, which I will present by comparing of ethnographic snapshots from

three settlements in Bulgaria – two villages and a small town, viz. the villages of Selanovtsi

and Zverino (both in the region of Vratsa) and the town of Purvomai, Plovdiv region. The

1 I have dedicated several publications to the subsistence-oriented farms, see for example: Benovska-Sabkova

1997: 113-123. 2 Extensive literature has been dedicated to the postsocialist transformations of the agricultural property. I quote

here titles which are most relevant to my topic. 3 It means that the leading principle is to reconstruct the property in its pre-socialist borders, neglecting the

transformations which took place during the decades of socialism.

three examples show the importance of the socio-economic and natural and climatic factors,

which have determined the development of agriculture in Bulgaria. Two settlements in plains

(the village of Selanovtsi, Vratsa region, and the town of Purvomai) and a mountainous one

(the village of Zverino, Vratsa region) have been included in the comparison. The settlements

in the plain point to the significance of the factor “size of farm ownership” (the village of

Selanovtsi) and the significance of traditions in the development of activities bringing in

higher revenues like vegetable growing and fruit growing in a region (the town of Purvomai).

Factors like “(small) town – village” have not been relevant for my study. In all the three

settlements chosen, stockbreeding is not a priority activity and will not be an object of

attention.

The paper is based on three short field trips, conducted from April to the end of August,

2007 and including observations and a total of 15 semi-structured interviews.

For a start I present a statistics of the Ministry of Agriculture: “The Structure of the Farms

in Bulgaria, 2005”. The statistics is comparing data from 2003 and 2005, outline fundamental

trends in the development of Bulgarian agriculture in the first decade of the 21st century4.

Holdings and their agricultural area by farm status

Holdings 2003 2005

(number) 654 808 520 529

Area 29 044 796,0 27 293 901,3

farm status:

2003 г. 2005 г.

Natural persons:

number 648 274 515 300

area (dca) 8 796 778,2 9 9 147 394,6

Sole traders:

number 2870 2159

area (dca) 3 408 613,8 3 545 969,4

Co-operatives:

number 1973 1525

area (dca) 11 693 094,7 8 908 700,4

Companies:

number 1 331 1 312

area (dca) 4 691 970,9 5 225 591,5

Civil associations and others:

number 360 234

area (dca) 454 338,7 466 245,4

It shows that agricultural activity in Bulgaria has been developing five types of holdings

which considerably differ in the size of the ownership and the manner in which it is managed.

These are natural persons, sole traders, agricultural cooperatives, companies, and the category

4 The table presented here is based on an official source, but is not identical one, see:

www.mzgar.government.bg/StatPazari/ Agrostatistika/pdf/publication_FSS

referred to as civil associations and others5. From 2003 to 2005, the total number of the

holdings decreased by 134 279, the arable land, respectively, decreased by

175 089.5 ha. The processes taking place, however, have not been unidirectional. The

negative trend can be observed essentially at the expense of the agricultural cooperatives.

Their number dropped by 448, whereby the land, cultivated by them, also decreased by

278 439.4 ha. However, consolidation of the property has been observed among the other

types of holdings, regardless whether the number of the holdings themselves has decreased or

increased. Most often the consolidation is at the expense of the petty owners, who either sell

their land or lease it out. Therefore, statistics bring to the fore two opposite trends: hardships

and reduction of the activities of the largest-scale holdings (the agricultural cooperatives), and

the consolidation of the property in the remaining four categories of holdings. The further

analysis of the three examples will try to give an explanation for these processes, showing

them on a micro-level.

The Village of Selanovtsi, Vratsa Region

Under socialism this was one of the largest villages in Bulgaria: in 1992 it had 6 600

inhabitants; now the population has dropped to about 4 700. The village is located in

Northwest Bulgaria in the Danubian Plain in moderate continental climate, at an altitude of

170 m above sea level, 7 km away from the bank of the Danube. The land belonging to the

village is considered big for the Bulgarian standards – 10 568.6 ha, the size of the individual

land property is large too, the soils are fertile _ “carbonate black earth”. Property exceeding

10 ha is not rare. Under socialism, the local cooperative farm was one of the most prospering

in the region, but a significant share of its assets were scattered or plundered during its

liquidation in 1991-1992. Despite of that, in the spring of 2007 the local people were proud of

the fact that the entire agricultural land of the village was being cultivated and that there were

no deserted lands6.

In Selanovtsi now there are almost all kinds of agricultural holdings, presented by the

national statistics. An uncompromising battle is waged among the social actors managing

them for the redistribution of the main resource – the arable land; the incoming European

funds and subsidies are an additional catalyst in this respect. On the micro level it is

practically difficult to make a difference between the companies and the sole traders, or even

between the agricultural cooperative and the sole trader. This is due to the disparity between

the emic terms accepted for these holdings, on the one hand, and the etic terms: the juridical

and statistical terminology – on the other. Thereby, according to the local inhabitants,

operating in the village have been three agricultural cooperatives, while according to an

experienced local agronomist, only one of these structures is an agricultural cooperative,

whereas the other two he defines as “arendatori” - private leaseholders (a term I shall

elucidate later). In order to avoid confusion, I shall use the emic terms, adopted by the local

residents, whereby I will elucidate which juridical terms they correspond to.

Let me remind that the now existing agricultural cooperatives were established after 1993 in

place and to some extent with part of the resources of the former socialist cooperative farms,

after the liquidation of these cooperative farms in 1991-1992 (see Kaneff 1996: 85-114). The

shortcomings of the law on the restitution have created a favourable niche for the formation of

the new cooperatives. These cooperatives are based on private property and are organizations

of owners, who are not in a position to cultivate their land themselves for various reasons:

lack of farming equipment, fragmentation of the property, advanced age, residence far from

the agricultural property, etc. More than one agricultural cooperative (two or three) quite often

5 This is the original terminology used by the statistics which has been published both in Bulgarian and in

English. 6 The data have been provided by the local Land Commission in Oriachovo.

have been established in one and the same settlement, which has often reflected also the

political oppositions in the country: between the “democrats” and the supporters of the

Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP) (former Bulgarian Communist Party – BCP). As this has

already been shown in anthropological literature, the cooperatives whose leaderships feel

nostalgia for the socialist cooperative farms, have been striving to develop besides production,

socially oriented activities, too.

The large agricultural cooperative7 in the village of Selanovtsi is of a similar type. It has

been set up in 1993 under the name Agro Firm Solaris, right after the liquidation of the local

socialist cooperative and operating with part of the resources of the latter (arable land, farm

yard, agricultural machinery). Initially, Solaris pooled 3 000 ha of land and was engaged

almost entirely in grain production (wheat, maize, barley, sunflower). From its establishment

to date chairman of the cooperative has been M.P., deputy chairman of the socialist

cooperative farm prior to 1989. The contracts with the owners (mostly petty owners) are for a

term of 5 years and envisage the payment of rent to them. The rent consists practically in

payment in kind: wheat, maize and cooking oil. In 2007 the rent is to the tune of a minimum

of 10 Leva for 0.1 h of land contributed. There is also an element of social activity: the

cooperative supplies part of the wheat to the local bakery for the making of bread. In this way

the owners get bread free of charge or at a price, lower than the one in the market. Against

payment, the cooperative provides its members the machine cultivation of small plots of land

(from 0.1 to 0.3 ha), which the owners still cultivate personally.8

The precise economic parameters of the activity of Solaris are hard to establish. This

information is not accessible, because it is an important tool in the struggle for redistribution

of the agricultural resources among the different agricultural entrepreneurs. Thus, according

to M.P., chairman of Solaris, currently it has 3 500 ha; meanwhile, opponents of the chairman

claim that cooperative operates with 1 500 ha. Latter statement is used as an argument, which

is to present the activities of Solaris as unsuccessful and to serve as a catalyst in redirecting

the owners to other entrepreneurs, offering similar contracts.

The story of Solaris is indicative of the vicissitudes, entailing bankruptcies and the

closedown of agricultural cooperatives – a process, clearly testified by statistics. In the mid-

1990s, another cooperative, operating in Selanovtsi, went bankrupt. The 1 500 ha cultivated

by it were added to Solaris and the lands of the latter extended to 4 500 ha. The instability of

the present-day agricultural cooperatives is evident in Bulgaria. Apart from the years of low

yields, errors in the management, the monopoly of big economic gamers on determining the

prices of the agricultural output, hardships in getting credits, the economic losses and

bankruptcies are due to other factors, as well. Such a factor has been the acute struggles of

different entrepreneurs for the redistribution of the agricultural land. Solaris also suffered

considerable losses in 2006 for similar reasons. The heaviest loss resulted from a contract for

the sub-renting of lands of the cooperative by A., aged 37, another agricultural entrepreneur.

The contract between him and Solaris was not implemented by A., and the loss for Solaris

was to the tune of 653 000 Leva9. As A. had not paid the rent to the members of the

cooperative, either, M.P purchased wheat using personal finances to guarantee the rent. The

conflict sharply escalated because of the claims of A. for the produce of Solaris and went as

far as physical encounter between the ex-partners, now enemies. A. succeeded in getting part

of the produce – with the help of the police, where, according to M.P. he had family relations.

Confidence in the stability of Solaris eroded and part of the land owners, together with

7 This term corresponds to the “cooperatives” in the terms of the national statistics referred to above. 8 This is practice, familiar for the activities of most of the post-socialist cooperatives in Bulgaria. On this matter,

cf. also Benovska 1997. 9 Approximately, 327 000 Euro.

1 700 ha of land went over to a competing entrepreneur. The trust and the social capital that

M.P. has had as agricultural leader for many years even since socialism has been an important

factor for the survival of Solaris/Skakutz in the difficult situation.

Solaris went into liquidation on March 28, 2007 and was re-established under the name

Skakuts. My fieldwork in Selanovtsi proceeded two weeks after that event and I therefore was

witness to the preparations for and the signing of the new contracts of Skakuts with the

owners; 1200 new contracts were already signed.

I have dwelt in greater detail on the Solaris (now Skakuts) agricultural cooperative,

because being the largest holding in Selanovtsi, it has been the target of the attacks of rival

entrepreneurs. One of them is known in the village as “the agricultural cooperative” of S.P.

The latter is called “chasten arendator” - a private leaseholder” by the entrepreneurs. In the

language of law the so-called “private leaseholders” are sole traders, whose holdings operate

through cooperation of the rented land. The difference between the agricultural cooperative in

its pure form and the arendatori (private leaseholders) is essentially in the fact that the latter

do not engage in socially-oriented activities (concerning arendatori see Giordano, Kostova

2002: 74-92; Giordano, Kostova 2004: 379-396 ).

S.P. is a former partner and assistant of M.P. from Solaris. It is precisely to S.P. that the

owners, who withdrew from Solaris in 2006, have leased out their lands extending to 1700 ha.

B.M., the son of the chairman of Solaris/Skakuts is also working as a “private leaseholder”.

The son manages 1000 ha of land, but has many more farming machines; there is an active

cooperation and practically fusing of activities and resources between the holdings managed

by the father and the son. Another “private leaseholder”, S.I. from the neighbouring town of

Knezha, operates with about 2000 ha of land, 500 of which in the territory of Selanovtsi. S.I.

has no scruples in the competitive struggle for gaining control over greater areas of land. He

promises a rent of 150 Leva for a hectare of land, but “nobody has signed the contracts”.

Sometimes he takes control of other people’s lands (of which he is neither owner, nor has any

rights on them), cultivating them during nighttime. “He is working at night, sowing 200 ha

for one night – and it is already his”. This case of occupation of someone else’s property has

not been the only one in Selanovtsi. More important however, are the doubts concerning the

origin of the capitals of the large-scale entrepreneurs, the doubts of political clientelism and of

corruption. “Deputies, banks, the funds of the mass privatization are standing behind the big

leaseholders.”

The private initiative in its pure form is represented in Selanovtsi by the “sole traders” and

by the “natural persons”, in terms of the statistics referred to above10. Partners from two

chastni firmi (literarily, private companies) from Sofia had purchased 184 ha of land in

Selanovtsi, with the help of Z.A., a local agronomist and ex-leader from the socialist times.

The agronomist deals with the purchasing of land and is a member in the common holding as

he owns 20 ha. The property of 204 ha thus consolidated is also engaged in the cultivation of

grain, but also includes 2.2 ha of orchards. The farm is successfully working and is managed

by Z.A. who is satisfied with the results, stating that he has finally earned some money. In

this case, again, the social capital and the cultural capital have been decisive factors. Z.A.

emphasizes that the purchase of land is impossible without the trust in him as a former “boss”.

This is a clear evidence of the direct transformation of the social capital into economic.

Although there is no open conflict between the cooperatives and the sole traders, there are

tensions between them, insofar as they compete for and are rivals in the access to the main

resource – the land. The sole traders feel unequally treated by a law, passed on February 9,

200711, according to which those wishing to sell land have to offer it “first to the leaseholder,

10 It is difficult to differentiate between “sole traders” and “companies” in the actual economic practice in

Bulgaria. Economic actors I describe here are registered as “sole traders” and I will use this term. 11 Published in the Durzhaven Vestnik [State Gazette] on February 13, 2007.

which, according to Z.A., is not fair. They want the consolidation to take place in this way.

And each one to cultivate someone else’s land.”

The physical persons (individual farmers – chastni stopani) in Selanovtsi with properties

of about 10 or more ha are between 40 and 50 and about 10% of the arable land of the village

is controlled by them. The instability and insecurity among this group are even greater.

During the past two years alone, two of them, each owning more than 10 ha, went bankrupt. I

talked to one of them personally: he has 11.1 ha and a tractor, but he has not been operating

for two years now and has leased out his land to the Solaris cooperative. The other one has

accumulated debts to the tune of about 1 million Leva12. The phenomenon denoted by the

metaphor “elasticity of land” (see Verdery 1994: 1071-1109) is well known among the big

entrepreneurs as well as the individual farmers (chastni stopani). One of them tells about the

claims of a fellow villager on 0.4 ha of his own land, when air photos show clearly the

borderlines between the properties. Some of the holders pool their lands in order to apply for

European agricultural subsidies. However, there is skepticism regarding the future of the

individual farmers (chastni stopani): it is considered that the holding has to be at least 50 ha in

size in order to be efficient. “We cannot do it on our own; you have to have at least 50 ha, so

that something could be done”. The competition of the big entrepreneurs is likewise stifling:

“one poor owner cannot succeed because of the leaseholders, he cannot develop

agriculture”.

Outside the reach of attention remained the smallest owners of property below 1 ha. They

usually either lease out their land to the cooperatives and private leaseholders, or sell it.

Apparently, they are no candidates for European subsidies, either. But owners of all

categories and the entrepreneurs referred to, are registered and apply for the agricultural

subsidies of the European Union, while unanimously complaining of the red tape of the

procedure.

The situation in Selanovtsi is not unique for the plain parts of the Vratsa region, where in

other bigger villages the agricultural property is also comparatively large for the Bulgarian

standards. The deserted lands are decreasing, grain production is a priority activity, but this

also refers to the de-capitalization of the agricultural sector. The large size of the properties

and the ways of their consolidation show a certain, though incomplete parallel with the picture

in the Dobroudja, outlined by Giordano and Kostova (2002, 2003). The access to the

European funds and subsidies is a moderate hope for the smaller producers and a catalyst for a

fierce battle among the large-scale entrepreneurs.

The Town of Purvomai, Plovdiv Region

The town of Purvomai is in the Thracian lowlands, 42 km east of Plovdiv, at an altitude of

134 m above sea level. The climate here is a transitional Mediterranean, most of the soils are

fertile “black earth”. The town is a centre of a municipality of the same name with a total

population of 32 441, 17 832 living in the town, and the rest – in 16 villages. The lands of the

town cover 1 275.9 ha, while the town itself looks like an agrotown. The deserted areas are

25.6 ha and one of the underlying causes is the fragmentation of the property, which makes its

cultivation more difficult13. The town of Purvomai and the municipality have had a successful

experience from the socialist period in the development of market gardening. The favourable

climate and second largest city Plovdiv being close provide a stimulus in this respect,

notwithstanding that the size of the arable land is more than eight times smaller than that of

Selanovtsi; the personal property is also smaller (an average of between 3 and 5 ha).

Greenhouse market gardening is emblematic for Purvomai: about 150 ha of land are occupied

12 Approximately 500 000 Euro. 13 I own these data to the Land commission in Parvomai.

by greenhouses, 40 ha of them are industrial (glass), the rest about 110 ha are polyethylene

greenhouses in “the petty sector”, including also the ones in the people’s courtyards.

Like in Selanovtsi, in Purvomai exist almost all types of agricultural holdings. The

Edinstvo [Unity] ’94 Agricultural Cooperative was set up in 1994 and the present-day

mayor of Purvomai Angel Papazov, an agronomist, is among its founders. Two cooperatives

were established with opposite political orientations in 1994. One of them filed bankrupt in

2002 and its arable land “poured” into Edinstvo’94. Now the latter cultivates about 900 ha of

land, 100 ha of which belong to the neighbouring villages, and the rest – 800 ha – to

Purvomai. The cooperative happens to be the largest holding in size in Purvomai. It engages

in grain production. The fact that in 2006 it made a significant investment buying a combine

harvester is an evidence of its successful development. Here, too, the cooperative develops

socially-oriented activities: providing cheaper bread to the owners (at the expense of the rent),

securing seed to the owners, doing the mechanical cultivation of the small plots, personally

cultivated by them.

There are also “chastni arendatori” 14 (private leaseholders) in the Purvomai municipality,

cultivating no land of their own, but leased land. One of them, S.B., deals with grain

production (sunflower and maize) on 1 500 ha in the lands of the village of Bryagovo and

other 100 ha in the lands of the village of Porojna; the owners – members of his holding, are

about 450 people. The terms of the contracts with them are between 5 to 9 years. The “chastni

arendatori ” buy themselves the agricultural equipment; they have not inherited it from the

former cooperative farms. S.B. owns four combine harvesters, eight tractors and other

machinery. He is not engaged in socially oriented activities but is proud by the fact that he

distributes approximately 800 tons of wheat on the average every year as a rent: “these are

160 000 Leva, coming into the village”. S.B. became “chasten arendator” in 1998. In the

1990s he had worked in the office of the Klass company for agricultural machinery and had

managed to buy on lease tractors, which to rent. “Initially I was in the services15. In 1998 I

started sowing on my own.” The expectations of S.B., related to the agricultural subsidies of

the EU, are completely optimistic: “There are prospects in agriculture, but quite a lot of

money is needed. Ten Leva per 0.1 ha [European subsidy] – this is a lot of money! If they

start subsidizing us, agriculture will be put right.”

Innovative have been the activities of the private association of two sole traders. They

call themselves agricultural producers (zemedelski proizvoditeli): the Lendor limited

liability trador and Zemedelski proizvoditel [Agricultural Producer] company. It is average in

size for the Bulgarian conditions and has been in existence since 1995. Their farm has the

reputation of “elite farmers”. They cultivate together 40 ha of lands, leased out anew from

the Edinstvo ’94 agricultural cooperative. Integrated here is also the producers’ own land. The

farm employs 70 permanent and 30 temporary workers. It has 4 tractors, two watering

installations and other equipment. It is managed by I.F. and Y.Z. The former was elected

“Farmer of the Year” for 2006. Their most promising and innovative project is the growing of

lettuce and melons for English chains of supermarkets in cooperation with an English

company, which supplies the seeds and markets the produce. The lettuce has traditionally

been an early spring vegetable in Bulgaria, whereas the varieties imported from England are

also cultivated in late spring and in the summer. This year the first lettuces were planted on

March 8, and by the end of August 17 heavy-duty trucks of produce were exported. At the end

of August (during my field work) a new series of 5 ha of lettuce was planted and seedlings for

other 12 ha were prepared. 6.7 ha are planted to melons. The English trade chains exercise

stringent on-site supervision while the two producers take pride in the fact that in 2006 they

had been registered as bio-producers. The prompt payments of the English partners make

14 Plural from „chasten arendator“. 15 S.B. means he used to provide agricultural technique to the farmers.

possible reinvestments in new productions. This makes up for the great delays in the payment,

by the local vegetable processing factories, for the peppers, cultivated on 12 ha. Y. and I.

whose working day starts at 5 in the morning and continues until 11 at night, also grow

cucumbers, tomatoes, etc. on smaller areas. The tractors of Y. and I. are running on biological

fuel (sunflower oil); the farmers make use of “agryl”, a material for covering greenhouses,

which is new for Bulgaria.

In this case, one should note the mixed character of the property. Production is based

mostly on (re)rented agricultural land, but the agricultural techniques is privately owned by

the producers and I expect in the future they will gradually buy and the land they cultivate on.

Y. and I. are overcoming numerous obstacles from a financial and organizational

character every day (difficult access to credits, irregular payment of part of the produce,

shortage of manpower, a high rent for the land), but precisely their activities have been

bringing to the fore the real possibilities of agricultural production in Bulgaria and its

prospects for development in the European Union.

Resting completely on private property is the activity of the partners Y.B. and N.V., sole

traders, owners of 24 ha of glass greenhouses with 350 workers, producing mainly

cucumbers. One of the partners, Y.B., has experience in agriculture from the socialist period

and has been actively engaged in agricultural production since 1993-1994: he used to grow

vegetables in the open and in rented greenhouse areas. The glass greenhouses were

established in 1966 in Purvomai. In the early 1990s they were still state property, but due to

the big debts, they changed their owners twice. In 1994 the Obedineni Oranzherii

[Consolidated Greenhouses] private company supplied them with gas and resumed the

suspended production. A devastating hailstorm completely destroyed them on August 13,

1999. Then Y.B. rented part of the damaged greenhouses and restored it; on the following

year the greenhouses were declared for sale. Dating from that time is also his association with

N.V. With the help of funds coming from the SAPARD programme, they bought 12 ha of

greenhouses (later extended to 24 ha), and gathered the first crop in 2001. The cucumbers

yield a fine profit on the Bulgarian market and in a number of European countries.

Improvements were made in the greenhouses and new technologies were introduced. Despite

of the existing unemployment in Purvomai, the shortage of manpower does not allow, for the

time being, any further expansion of greenhouse production.

In this case, one can follow the shift from production based on rented lands to production

based on private property. The role of the pre-accession funds of the European Union has

been obvious. The partners pin their hopes on the European subsidies for the future

development of new agricultural productions. In January 2007 and apple garden was created

on an area of 24 ha and at the end of August the fruit from it is already being picked. “If they

open the programmes [of the European Union], I have another 55 ha prepared [for apple tree

orchards]. [Agriculture] will be definitely stirred”. (Y.B.). The access to the subsidies and

funds stimulates the partners to extend their property and they are buying new agricultural

real estate as a preparation for the launching of new productions.

The owners of the greenhouses see as main obstacles to their activities the fragmentation

of the agricultural lands and the lack of a strategy of the Bulgarian state regarding the future

of greenhouse production; they point as a positive example the policy of the Romanian state

along these lines. They likewise voice fears that in Bulgaria there is not sufficient knowledge

and capacity for the drafting of successful projects for the use of the European funds.

Despite of the availability of deserted lands, as well as a number of other problems,

dominating in Purvomai is the spirit of initiative and entrepreneurship. New technologies are

being introduced, like, for instance, the local manufacturing of biological fuel (sunflower oil)

with a Dutch installation. Irrigate agriculture is applied to most of the arable land. According

to data of the Land Commission in Purvomai16, the agricultural producers from Purvomai (the

town and the municipality) registered for the European subsidies are 1035 in number. Some of

the petty owners have integrated in order to meet the requirements for application for the

subsidies. The municipal leadership and the village mayors have been actively involved in the

explanatory campaign and in the registration. During my fieldwork, the land commission was

informing by letters the registered applicants of their identification numbers. By all visible

signs, in Purvomai there is interest and serious expectations regarding the agricultural

subsidies of the European Union.

The relatively successful agricultural development in Purvomai can be explained not only

by the propitious climatic factors but also by the mobilization of a significant social capital,

cultural capital and economic capital. The role of the social capital can be seen more clearly in

the activities of the large-scale agricultural holdings – the agricultural cooperative, “the

private leaseholder”: access to resources, connected with former activities in the past –

connection with the former cooperative farm; work in a company marketing farming

equipment. The cultural capital is an important factor for all kinds of agricultural producers

and consists in the education, competence and former experience (in “tradition” from the

socialist period) in the growing of vegetable for the market. The economic capital is

connected with the other two types. Vegetable growing for the market under socialism had

brought in economic capital (usually modest, and sometimes – more significant), which has

made possible the investment in that production during the postsocialist development.

The picture in Purvomai is not unique either; it is rather indicative of the development of

agriculture in the regions of Plovdiv and Pazardjik.

The Village of Zverino, Vratsa Region

The village of Zverino is located in Northwest Bulgaria, in the region of the Western

Balkan Range mountains, in the gorge of the Iskur, about 40 km from the town of Vratsa17. Its

population is about 2000. The size of the agricultural lands is strongly restricted, and the soils

are not fertile. Under socialism it was a prospering village: one of the few in the region, which

increased its population.

According to data provided by the mayor, there is not a single registered agricultural

producer in the village now, not a single applicant for the agricultural subsidies of the

European Union, either. The mayor himself is trying to learn from me the conditions for

application for the agricultural subsidies of the European Union, despite the information

materials and letters received, carrying the signature of the minister of agriculture. There is no

agricultural cooperative in Zverino either. After the liquidation of the former cooperative farm

in 1992, what has been preserved and is functioning from its property are the small Hristo

Botev factory for woolen fabrics, and the small preserved part of the glass greenhouses,

established in 1969-1971 on an area of 11 ha.

The example of Zverino runs counter to the preceding two examples and brings to the fore

important questions. What are the reasons for the disengagement from agriculture in a village,

which had been prospering under socialism? These are the size of the agricultural property,

the natural and climatic factors and some specificities of the socialist development, which

have predetermine the present-day picture. The small size of the arable land and the

mountainous location are strongly adverse to the development of market agriculture. As early

as during the first half of the 20th century, agriculture was insufficiently productive and had

been ousted by or combined with craftsmanship and petty trade. Under socialism, as Gerald

Creed (1998) has shown, in such conditions the socialist leaders in the countryside looked for

a solution, creating employment by opening small industrial or manufacturing enterprises.

16 According to the System of Identification of the Agricultural Plots (SIAP). 17 About this village see Benovska-Sabkova 2001.

Such is also the case of Zverino, where industrial production developed under socialism.

During the 1980s, for instance, operating there was a Contact Elements Plant employing about

1000 workers, who enjoyed notable social benefits. The local leaders tried to compensate the

adverse conditions for agriculture by introducing modern technologies and developing a

small-scale processing industry within the frameworks of the cooperative farm. In this way

greenhouses were launched in 1969-1971 in the village, after the resistance of the Ministry of

Agriculture of that time had been overcome. The Ministry’s strategy envisaged that

greenhouse production be developed only in South Bulgaria. As everywhere else in Bulgaria,

the greenhouses in Zverino went bankrupt in the 1990s owing to the high prices of fuels. Now

the leadership of what used to be the Contact Elements Plant, renamed to Inco Ms, is making

attempts to reconstruct a small section of the greenhouses – an undertaking, which does not

inspire optimism among the local people. Unlike Purvomai, the local people in Zverino do not

have capitals, using which to privatize and restore at least part of the greenhouses. To put it in

other words, part of the personal capitals of the citizens of Purvomai come from the

agricultural production under socialism and in some of the cases considered they have been

invested as starting capital in agricultural production in the post-socialist years. The process

of disengagement from market agricultural production has been outspoken even in the

socialist period, while the results of it are just being established today. The inhabitants of

Zverino inspect with admiration and envy my photos of the fields with melons and lettuce

from Purvomai….Zverino is not a unique case, either, and comes to show, though in an

extreme form, the adverse development in the mountainous regions of Bulgaria.

The three ethnographic snapshots show just a part of the most diverse developments in the

sphere of market agriculture existing in Bulgaria and determine the attitude to the EU

agricultural subsidies. Going back to the research questions, formulated in the beginning, a

few concise conclusions can be made. Notwithstanding the private character of agricultural

proprerty, guaranteed by the law in Bulgaria, equally important for the use of the agricultural

lands are both the property and its management. The poor owners most often rent out their

lands to the agricultural cooperatives or to “private leaseholders”. The latter consolidate the

agricultural properties and develop production. In this way it turns out that the access to the

property of others and its management can be more important than de jure property. In other

words, the cooperatives and “the private leaseholders” show that the actual control of the land

via the right to use it is more effective at this stage than juridical property. This hybrid form of

property, however, is unstable because of its temporary character and this is also one of the

serious factors determining the instability of the agricultural cooperatives. This is likewise the

cause for the acute struggle for the redistribution of property with the clear intension of its

transformation into consolidated private property. The European subsidies, though at the very

start of their use, are a powerful stimulus along these lines. For the same reasons the prospects

of the “physical persons” (individual farmers) having average property for the Bulgarian

conditions conceal even greater instability.

A foreseeable conclusion is that the large-scale private property offers better prospects for

development and the examples of Purvomai have shown that in practice. The agricultural

subsidies of the European Union will benefit in the first place precisely the big landowners

and agricultural enterpreneurs. This comes to explain the striving of “the private leaseholders”

to become big private owners by purchasing land. These processes will deepen the social

differentiation in the Bulgarian village. The social actors, standing behind them, are different.

The petty owners are the medium- and long-term losers. They will not be able to benefit from

the European subsidies. The large entrepreneurs, those who are also owners, in the first place,

are in a position to transform to their benefit political resources as well, via the means of

political clientelism. For the time being the poor mountainous regions have poor chances of

putting to use the European Uunion agricultural subsidies, but the people occupying a

favourable ecological niche and/or having at their disposal a more significant resource of

property see in these subsidies a source of optimism. Both the cases of positive development

and the negative examples perfectly illustrate the long-term impact of the socialist heritage.

There is ample evidence that “the initial accumulation of capital” has been an incomplete

process in the rural environment in Bulgaria. I guess that the access to the subsidies and funds

of the European Union will accelerate its completion.

Literature:

Benovska-Sabkova, M. 1997: Tradition as a Means of Survival Under the Conditions of

Economic Crisis in Bulgaria. – Ethnologia Balkanica, 1, 113-123.

Benovska-Sabkova, M. 2001: The Political Transition and Everyday Culture. Sofia, Prof.

Marin Drinov Academic Publishing House (in Bulgarian).

Creed, G. 1998: Domesticating Revolution: From Socialist Reform to Ambivalent Transition

in a Bulgarian Village. University park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Giordano, C., D. Kostova 1997: Bulgarian Land Reprivatisation Without Peasants. –

Ethnologia balkanica, 1, 135-149.

Giordano, C., D. Kostova 2002: The Social Production of Mistrust. – In: Hann, C. (ed)

Postsocialism: Ideals, Ideologies and Practices in Eurasia. London: Routledge, 74-92.

Giordano, C., D. Kostova 2004: From Local Nomenklaturists to Capitalist Enterpreneurs.

Transformation and Continuity in Rural Bulgaria. – In: Roth, K. (Hg) Arbeit im Sozialismus –

Arbeit im Postsozialismus. Münster LIT, 379-396.

Hann, C. 2003: Introduction: Decollectivisation and the Moral Economy. – In: Hann, C. (ed)

The Postsocialist Agrarian Question. Property Relations and the Rural Condition. LIT Verlag,

Münster, 1-46.

Kaneff, D. 1996: Responses to the “Democratic” Land Reforms in a Bulgarian Village. – In:

Abrahams, R. (ed) After Socialism: Land Reform and Social Change in Eastern Europe.

Oxford, Berghahn, 85-114.

Kaneff, D. 1998: When “Land” Becomes Territory: Land Privatisation and Ethnicity in Rural

Bulgaria. – In: Bridger, S., F. Pine (eds) Surviving Postsocialism: Local Strategies and

Regional Responses in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. London, Routledge, 16-

32.

Kaneff, D., L. Yalcin-Heckmann 2003: Retreat to the Cooperative or to the Household? – In:

Hann, C. (ed) The Postsocialist Agrarian Question. Property Relations and the Rural

Condition. LIT Verlag, Münster, 219-257.

Verdery, K. 1994: The Elasticity of Land: Problems of Property Restitution in Transylvania. –

Slavic Review 53 (4), 1071-1109.

Verdery, K. 2000: Ghosts on the Landscape: Restoring Private Ownership in Eastern Europe.

– Focaal, 36, 145-163.