In the spring of 1973 the country's political and governmental leadership expressed serious concern about the uneven growth of agriculture over a period of several years. Although wheat production had progressed satisfactorily and reached a record level in 1972, and good results had also been obtained in the cultivation of tobacco and tomatoes—both of which are important export crops—the expansionary trend in fruit growing was reversed in 1968, and cattle raising had stagnated for at least a decade.

The situation was particularly disappointing to the leadership because in 1970 it had embarked on a comprehensive long-range program for raising agricultural productivity and output through the introduction of industrial production methods on the farms. To that end the country's farms were consolidated into 170 agroindustrial complexes intended to bring the advantages of scientific organization, concentration and specialization of production, mechanization, and automation to all phases of agricultural work. Planning for these complexes has been concentrated at the highest government level, and any modification of the obligatory plans requires the approval of the Council of Ministers.

In this process the traditional distinction between state and collective property has been blurred and is slated for gradual elimination; the same is true for the differences in status of industrial and farm workers. The new approach to farm organization was taken despite severe shortages of adequately trained management and technical personnel and in the face of the demonstrated superior productivity of tiny farm plots cultivated for their own benefit by individual farm and industrial workers.

It is difficult to arrive at a comprehensive and balanced assessment of agricultural development and of the situation in the 1972/73 agricultural year because of the continuing changes in the agricultural regime and the lack of essential data. All published information, including critical comments, emanates from controlled official sources. The press output tends to concentrate on problem areas, treating other aspects in uninformative generalities. Officials and press have been especially silent on the question of the farmers' reactions to the new agricultural order, beyond claiming the farmers' whole-hearted support for every new agricultural edict.

CLIMATE AND SOILS

Natural conditions are generally favorable for agriculture. Fertile soils and a varied climate make possible the cultivation of a wide variety of field crops, fruits, and vegetables, including warm-weather crops, such as cotton, tobacco, rice, sesame, and grapes. Frequent summer droughts, however, lead to wide fluctuations in crop yields and necessitate extensive irrigation.

The Stara Planina (literally, Old Mountain), or Balkan Mountains, divide the country into several climatic and agricultural regions. The broad Danubian tableland that lies north of these mountains has a continental climate, except for a narrow strip along the Black Sea coast. Cold winter winds sweep across the plateau from the Eurasian land mass, causing prolonged periods of frost, which tend to damage orchards and vineyards. There are 180 to 215 frost-free days in the year, and summers are hot. A continental climate also prevails in the Sofia Basin and in the region surrounding the headwaters of the Struma River.

In the Thracian Plain, south of the Stara Planina, the continental climate is modified somewhat by the influence of the Mediterranean Sea. Compared to the Danubian plateau, winters are less severe, and summers are longer and warmer. The number of frost-free days per year ranges from 198 to 206. A near-Mediterranean climate prevails in the valleys of the lower Struma, Mesta, and Maritsa rivers; in the Arda basin; and on the southern slopes of the Rodopi (or Rhodope Mountains) (see ch. 3). The mountains protect the inland valleys and basins from strong winds; summers there are hot, and winters are mild. Yet winters are not mild enough for the cultivation of Mediterranean crops, such as olives and citrus fruits.

The Black Sea coast is warmer than the interior of the country in winter but cooler in summer; from 241 to 260 days in the year are frost free. Frequent gale storms and hot winds resembling the African sirocco, however, have an adverse influence on crops.

Although annual rainfall is reported to average about forty inches on the higher mountain slopes and to reach seventy-five inches in the Rila mountain range, precipitation in most farming areas averages only twenty to twenty-five inches per year. Rainfall measures even less than twenty inches in the Plovdiv area and in the coastal districts of the Dobrudzha region in the northeast. Most of the rainfall occurs in the summer months, but the amount and timing of precipitation are often unfavorable for optimum crop growth. Drought conditions reached crisis proportions in 1958 and 1963 and were serious also in 1968. In 1972 most crops were adversely affected by a spring drought and excessive rains in the early fall; the grape crop was an almost total loss.

Soils of superior and intermediate quality make up almost three-fourths of the country's surface. The Danubian plateau contains several grades of chernozem (black earth), which gradually give way to gray forest soils in the foothills of the Stara Planina. A degraded chernozem called smolnitsa, or pitch soil, predominates in the Thracian Plain, the Tundzha and Burgas lowlands, and the Sofia Basin. This central region is encircled at higher elevations by a belt of chestnut and brown forest soils. Similar chestnut soils are also found in the Strandzha upland, in the basins of the eastern Rodopi region, and in the Struma and Maritsa valleys. Brown forest soils and mountain meadow soils occur in the Stara Planina and in the Rila, Pirin, and western Rodopi. Alluvial soils, often of good quality, are found alongside the rivers, particularly the Danube and Maritsa, and also in several basins.

LAND USE

In 1970 agricultural land comprised almost 15 million acres, or 53 percent of the country's land area. Sixty-nine percent of the agricultural land was suitable for field crops; 4 percent consisted of meadows; and about 6 percent was devoted to vineyards, orchards, and other perennial crops. Natural pastures constituted more than 20 percent of the agricultural land. Bulgarian economists have repeatedly pointed out that the per capita acreage of farmland in the country, excluding pastures, is among the lowest in the world.

According to official statistics the area of agricultural land increased by 840,000 acres in the 1960s as a result of the expansion of grazing areas by 1.1 million acres and the simultaneous loss of 270,000 acres of cultivated land. The loss of cultivated acreage was caused by the diversion of land to industrial and other uses and by severe soil erosion. The acreage devoted to vineyards and orchards nevertheless increased by 100,000 acres, or 12 percent.

Land Protection

More than half the cultivated acreage is subject to erosion. Increasingly large areas degraded by erosion have remained uncultivated each year, but they continue to be included in the annual statistics on farmland acreage. The unused area of plowland expanded from 720,000 acres in 1960 to 1.26 million acres in 1970. Another 1.5 million to 2 million acres have been reported to suffer from erosion to a degree that will make it necessary to abandon them unless corrective measures are quickly taken. Only 70 percent of the acreage under fruit trees and vineyards bore fruit in 1970.

The government has long been aware of the need to arrest the loss of cultivated farmland. An intensive program of reforestation has been carried on over many years, but the rate of replanting has not been high enough to halt the ravages of erosion. Proposals advanced by agricultural experts to clear abandoned mountain farmland of noxious weeds and to develop these areas into improved pastures—measures that would also help control erosion—have not been acted upon.

In 1967 the continued loss of valuable farmland led to the promulgation of a special law for the preservation of land; details of this law are not available. In 1972 the Council of Ministers issued an order, effective January 1, 1973, that provided, in part, for payments to be made into a special land improvement fund in the event of diversion of farmland for construction purposes. Depending upon the quality of the land, payments into the fund range from 162 leva (for the value of the lev—see Glossary) to 48,560 leva per acre. Land used for afforestation, cemeteries, and housing or public works under the jurisdiction of town authorities is exempt from the payment requirement. The exemption also applies to land used for open pit mining on condition that the land is rehabilitated in accordance with plans and within time limits approved by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Food Industry (hereafter referred to as the Ministry of Agriculture).

In 1970 the government created special district councils for the preservation of cultivated land and, in May 1971, placed the councils under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Agriculture. The decree of 1971 required the ministry and district governments to take decisive measures for the increased protection of farmland. The decree also directed the chief prosecutor's office to increase control over the expropriation of farmland for construction and other nonagricultural purposes and to impose severe penalties on violators of the land protection law.

The land protection measures were not sufficiently effective. The acreage abandoned in the 1966-70 period was three times larger than the area abandoned in the preceding five years. In January 1973 an inspector of the Committee for State Control stated publicly that the farmland problem had become increasingly more serious and that the committee was obliged to intervene in order to identify shortcomings in the land preservation work and to assist in eliminating the deficiencies. At the same time the Council of Ministers reprimanded a deputy minister of agriculture and the heads of two district governments for grave shortcomings in the preservation and use of farmland.

In an effort to gain control over the deteriorating farmland situation, a new land protection law that replaced the law of 1967 was passed in March 1973. The new law explicitly provided that only land unsuitable for agricultural purposes or farmland of low productivity could be put to nonagricultural use. Under the law expansion of towns and villages was to be allowed only after a specified density of construction had been reached. Construction of country homes and resort facilities was restricted to land unsuitable for agriculture. Provision was made for regulations that would offer material and moral incentives to use unproductive land for construction purposes, and more severe penalties were prescribed for violations that result in the waste of arable land.

Irrigation

Somewhat better results have been achieved in the expansion of irrigation. In the 1965-70 period the irrigable area increased at an annual average of 44,000 acres from 2.25 million to 2.47 million acres, or 21 percent of the cultivated land. Under the Sixth Five-Year Plan (1971-75) 494,000 acres are to be added to the irrigable area, raising the total irrigable acreage to 26 percent of the cultivated land. During the first two years of the plan period 124,000 acres were equipped for irrigation, and 80,000 acres were to be made irrigable in 1973. In order to complete the five-year irrigation program on schedule, therefore, it would be necessary to bring under irrigation 270,000 acres in the last two years of the plan period—a task not likely to be accomplished in the light of past experience and of available resources.

Only about 70 percent of the irrigable acreage was actually irrigated in the 1965-70 period. Although the irrigated area of 1.7 million acres in 1970 represented an increase of 21 percent of the acreage irrigated in 1965, it was 17 percent smaller than the acreage irrigated in 1968.

Primitive gravity irrigation is practiced on about nine-tenths of the irrigated area. Water is distributed over the fields from unlined earthen canals by means of furrows dug with a hoe. The work entails hard manual labor, and a single worker can handle only about 1.25 to 2.5 acres per day. The timing of the water application and the quantity of water used are not properly adjusted to the needs of the various crops, so that the increase in yields is only half as great as that obtained under optimum conditions, and about half the water is wasted. The network of irrigation ditches also impedes mechanical cultivation of the fields. Improper irrigation and drainage techniques have raised the groundwater level excessively in several districts and have caused various degrees of soil salinization in areas totaling more than 39,000 acres.

The five-year plan program for new irrigated areas calls for the construction of stationary sprinkler systems over 25,000 acres; 469,000 acres are to be provided with portable sprinkler systems. Reconstruction and modernization of existing basic facilities are to be limited to the lining of canals. The ultimate longer term goal is to establish fully automated stationary sprinkler systems in most irrigated districts. The main problems in carrying out the irrigation program, in the view of an irrigation authority official, are posed by the paucity of investment funds allotted for this purpose and the contradictory nature of some of the program's aims. Additional difficulties are presented by the shortage of irrigation pipes and materials for their fabrication, inadequate experience in the manufacture of advanced irrigation equipment, and the lack of facilities for experimentation and testing.

Cropping Pattern

The area of field crops amounted to almost 9 million acres in 1970; it had declined by 887,000 acres after 1960. The proportions of this acreage devoted to the major types of crops were: grains, 62.5 percent; industrial crops, 14.6 percent; feed crops, 18.7 percent; and vegetables, potatoes, and melons, 4.2 percent. In accord with the government's policy of intensifying agricultural production, the acreage of bread grains had steadily declined, so that in 1970 it constituted somewhat less than half the total grain acreage. The area of feed grains remained fairly stable; a decline in corn acreage was virtually balanced by an increase in the acreage of barley. A slight reduction also took place in the acreage of pulses, but the area under rice expanded by 70 percent.

Whereas the total area of industrial crops changed very little in the 1960-70 period, a significant shift took place in the relative size of the individual crop areas. While the acreages of oilseeds and tobacco expanded significantly, the acreages of fibers, particularly cotton, and of essential oils and medicinal plants declined sharply.

The area devoted to vegetables expanded by 20 percent. The tomato acreage expanded at about twice that rate and accounted for one-fourth of the vegetable acreage in 1970; tomatoes constitute an important export crop. The potato acreage, on the other hand, declined by roughly 20 percent during the period.

The area of fodder crops suffered a substantial decline, particularly in the case of annual grasses and silage crops. The loss was only partially offset by the expansion of the perennial grass acreage.

Rapid expansion also took place in the areas of apple orchards and vineyards. The acreage of bearing apple trees increased by about 70 percent in the 1970-70 period. During the same period the acreage of producing vineyards grew by 24 percent, while the acreage of table grapes increased by 2.3 times. Fruits and grapes are also important export commodities. Expansion of the total acreage under fruit trees and berries, however, was much slower—17 percent in the 1960-68 period—and a decline in the acreage set in after 1968. In the spring of 1973 Todor Zhivkov, the communist party leader, called for decisive action to halt the unfavorable trend. He reported that plans for orchard and berry plantings were not fulfilled in 1972; that from 27,000 to 40,000 acres of orchards had been uprooted over a period of a few years; and that the vineyard acreage had declined by 25,000 acres compared with the acreage in 1968. Reasons for these developments had not been made public.

The little information available on the subject suggests that price considerations have been the major reason for the crop acreage changes. The price system and official regulations governing farm production have not always operated in the manner planned by the government. Farms, for instance, have steadfastly refused to enlarge the acreage of irrigated corn to the extent demanded by the government, preferring to use irrigation for more profitable crops. In 1971 the farms failed to plant the prescribed acreage of feed crops or to expand the production of vegetables. Public statements by the government on the reasons for these problems have been most guarded. After a thorough review of the situation in the spring of 1972, the Committee for State Control issued a release that concluded by stating that the reasons for the problems were analyzed in detail and that, after discussion, specific proposals were made to the appropriate ministries.

ORGANIZATION

The organizational structure of agriculture in all its aspects is in a state of transition, which will not be completed for several years. The reorganization was decided upon by the Central Committee of the BKP (Bulgarian Communist Party—see Glossary) in April 1970 on the initiative of Zhivkov. The latest of several laws and decrees published in this context appeared in June 1972 with an effective date of January 1, 1973. The new organizational policy represents a tightening of central controls over agriculture.

Agroindustrial Complexes

The basic unit in the new organizational system, which is relied upon to realize the leadership's agricultural policies, is the agroindustrial complex. The agroindustrial complex is an organization comprising several previously independent, contiguous collective and (or) state farms having similar climatic and soil conditions. The complex may also include other organizations that are engaged in the production, processing, and distribution of farm products or in other activities related predominantly to agriculture.

In the fall of 1972 there were 170 agroindustrial complexes formed through the consolidation of 845 collective farms and 170 state farms; including the private plots of collective and state farmers, they contained 92.5 percent of the cultivated land and accounted for 95.4 percent of the farm output. Except for a few experimental units created in 1969, most agroindustrial complexes were established toward the end of 1970 and in early 1971. Only a small number of private farms located in difficult mountain areas remained outside the new system.

The average agroindustrial complex is composed of five or six farms having a cultivated area variously reported as 59,000 to 68,000 acres and a permanent work force of about 6,500 people. Although the large size of the complexes has been questioned by several economists on grounds of efficiency, Zhivkov was reported to have suggested the possibility of eventually merging the existing complexes into only twenty-eight districtwide units.

Types and Aims

The announced purpose of the reorganization is to increase productivity through concentration and specialization of agriculture on an industrial basis in accord with the requirements of the current scientific and technical revolution and with the achieved level of maturity of the country's economy. The reorganization is intended to increase output, improve quality, reduce costs, and increase the exportable surplus. It is also expected to bring about social improvement in the countryside by raising the farmworkers' incomes and helping to reduce the differences between town and country. Government officials intend to complete the transition to the new organizational structure by 1980.

The original aim of the new farm policy in the late 1960s was to create large-scale regional organizations to handle all aspects of the production, processing, and distribution of foods and the supply of machinery, fertilizers, and other farm needs through vertical integration of the consolidated farm organizations with industrial and distribution enterprises. This aspect of farm policy is to be realized gradually over a period of years. In the meantime vertical integration will be based predominantly on contractual relations.

A first step in vertical integration of agriculture and the food industry was taken in December 1972 with the establishment of an agroindustrial trust called Bulgarian Sugar. Seven agroindustrial complexes were to be created around an equal number of sugar mills grouped in the newly formed trust. The complexes were to average 100,000 acres in size, one-fourth of which would be used each year for the production of sugar beets. The first such complex was established in Ruse in January 1973. The crop rotation is to include wheat, corn, and fodder crops which, together with by-products from the sugar production, are to provide the feed base for livestock keeping. All farmlands in the new organization are to become state property, and farmworkers are to acquire the status of industrial workers subject to the provisions of the Labor Code.

Two basic types of agroindustrial complexes are provided for by the regulations. The first type is a membership organization in which the constituent farms retain their juridical identity and a certain measure of economic independence. The second type is a centralized organization in which the constituent farms are merged and lose their separate identities. A further distinction is made depending upon the nature of the constituent farms and other economic organizations. Agroindustrial complexes composed only of collective farms and other collective organizations are called cooperative complexes. Those constituted by state farms and other state economic organizations are known as state complexes. If both state and collective farms or other organizations are members, the complex is referred to as state-cooperative. The distinctions have both legal and economic implications.

In early 1971 the form of the 139 agroindustrial complexes established up to that time was: collective, seventy-seven; state, seven; and state-cooperative, fifty-five. Six complexes were created as centralized organizations in which the constituent farms lost their legal independence. The largest of these complexes covered an area of 145,000 acres.

Legal and Economic Aspects

The legal and economic aspects of the farm consolidation are extremely involved, and most of the problems raised by consolidation have not been worked out even theoretically. Activities of cooperative and state-cooperative complexes are governed by the Provisional Regulation issued in October 1970 and by earlier regulations concerning collective organizations in matters not covered by the Provisional Regulation. State agroindustrial complexes are subject to the same regulations that apply to all state economic associations (trusts). The Ministry of Agriculture was directed to prepare a draft statute for agroindustrial complexes by the end of 1972, which was to be submitted at an indefinite future date to the first agroindustrial complex conference for discussion and adoption.

Official statements and documents have emphasized the voluntary and democratic nature of agroindustrial complexes. Zhivkov's report to the Central Committee plenum stated that farms would be free to opt whether or not to join a complex and which complex to join if they decided to do so. They were also to have freedom of decision concerning the establishment of joint enterprises. The plenum's decision used a broader formulation by referring only to voluntarism in the formation of agroindustrial complexes on the basis of mutual advantage. The Provisional Regulation contains a clause that permits farms and other organizations to withdraw from the agroindustrial complex at their own request.

Other provisions governing the establishment of agroindustrial complexes, however, conflicted with the principle of voluntarism. The composition, size, and production specialization of each complex was to have a scientific foundation, and arbitrary decisions—as they were called—as to which farms to include in a particular complex were not to be tolerated. The requirement of territorial unity also nullified the right of independent choice for most farms. Except for those located on the borders of adjoining complexes, farms had perforce to join the complex formed in their area. The speed with which the agroindustrial complexes were formed throughout the entire country, with considerable loss of independence for the farms, also suggests that the voluntary nature of the complexes is a fiction. Available sources have contained no reference to any change in the affiliation of farms from one complex to another, let alone to the withdrawal of any farm from a complex. The decree on the organization and management of agriculture that went into effect on January 1, 1973, contained no provision for a farm's withdrawal from an agroindustrial complex.

The major tasks assigned to the agroindustrial complexes include: the creation of large specialized units for the various types of agricultural production; the introduction of mechanized industrial methods of production; the efficient application of human and material resources; and the equitable distribution of income to workers and managers in a manner that will provide an incentive for conscientious work. Only preliminary official directives have been issued to guide the agroindustrial complexes in these matters. Economists, agricultural scientists, and officials have labored to develop a scientific basis for the effective solution of the problems of transition.

One of the basic issues raised by the creation of agroindustrial complexes concerns the ownership of land in the new organizations, particularly in complexes that unite collective and state farms. Legally, collective farm members retained ownership of the land they contributed to the collective, although they have been unable to exercise any ownership rights. Until 1961 collective farm members received a rental payment for the land in the annual distribution of the farm's income. There is an apparent official reluctance for political reasons abruptly to convert collective property to state ownership. Public statements have indicated that the difference between collective and state property may be eliminated by transforming both into national property. Under the prevailing economic system the distinction between state and national property is purely verbal.

Private Farm Plots

In the current reorganization of agriculture there is no intention to eliminate the time-honored institution of private subsidiary farm plots held by collective farm members, state farm and industrial workers, artisans, and other individuals. In the 1965-70 period private plots constituted only 10 percent of the farmland, yet in 1968 they accounted for 22 percent of the crop output and 33 percent of the livestock output. In 1970 the proportions of livestock products contributed by the private plots were: milk, 23 percent; meat and wool, 31 percent; eggs, 50 percent; honey, 70 percent; and silk, 89 percent.

Despite the support of private farm plots by the leadership, many local officials consider them to be incompatible with the socialist system and place various obstacles, often illegal, in the way of their operation. In the directives for the Sixth Five-Year Plan the party reaffirmed the importance of private farm plots as a reserve for the increase of farm output and particularly of livestock production. In a subsequently published decree, which lifted restrictions on livestock rearing on private plots, the party and government again stressed that private plots will be an important source of products for their owners and for sale to the state.

The growing importance of private plots for collective farmers was disclosed by income data published in the spring of 1973. In the 1960-70 period the average annual income of permanently employed collective farmers from private plots increased from 251 leva to 620 leva, while the average remuneration for work performed on the collective property rose from 458 leva to 847 leva. Whereas the growth of income from collective farm work amounted to 85 percent, income from private plots advanced by 147 percent.

PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

Agricultural planning has been highly centralized by the decree effective January 1, 1973. The system of planning has been made to conform to the system used for other sectors of the economy, with some allowances for the specific conditions of agricultural organization and production. Planning is to encompass long-range (ten to fifteen-years), five-year, and annual plans that must be coordinated with a general plan for regional development.

Planning in agriculture is to be based on the balancing of inputs and outputs and the use of government-determined long-range norms, limits, and indexes. Wide use is to be made of econometric models in the search for optimal solutions. The norms, limits, and indexes are to be elaborated in direct relation to the natural and economic conditions of individual agroindustrial complexes, crop varieties, kinds and breeds of livestock, farm technology, and the availability of physical resources and manpower. The norms, limits, and indexes are to be of such a nature as to contribute to a continuous upgrading of agricultural efficiency, that is, they will become increasingly more demanding as time progresses. They are binding for planners and managers at all levels from the central government authorities down to the farm.

In essence the agricultural plan consists of state-imposed production targets and estimates of resources to be allocated for their attainment, together with detailed directives for the use of the resources and for the introduction of technological improvements. Responsibility for fulfilling the planned tasks rests upon the management of the agroindustrial complexes. The planned targets and conditions for their attainment are formulated for each individual complex by the State Planning Committee together with the Ministry of Agriculture and the local district people's council; all plans are approved by the Council of Ministers.

Ten groups of norms, limits, and indexes enter into the formulation of plan targets. They specify progressive technical measures to be introduced; the physical volume of each crop and livestock product to be sold to the state; the volume of capital investment and its specific uses; consumption norms for all materials, parts, and products in accordance with a list approved by the Council of Ministers; allowable expenditures for each 100 leva of farm products and for labor remuneration per 100 leva of total income; norms for the formation of various operating and reserve funds and for material incentives; and limits for the development of social amenities within the agroindustrial complex.

The five-year plan tasks are broken down by years and may be changed only in exceptional cases. The required changes may be made by the Ministry of Agriculture, with the approval of the State Planning Committee, upon request made by the executive committee of the district people's council. Whenever a specific change is introduced, all necessary corrections must be made to maintain the overall balance of the plan.

The agroindustrial complexes must distribute the planned tasks handed to them from above among their constituent units in accordance with standards and conditions spelled out by the Ministry of Agriculture. The district people's councils are required to take an active part in the process of coordinating the plan and in measures for its attainment among the units of the agroindustrial complex. On the basis of the state plan each agroindustrial complex and its constituent parts must prepare what has been called a counterplan, that is, a plan that sets higher goals than those officially established.

The large size and diversified operations of the agroindustrial complexes place a heavy demand upon the expertise of management. Most of the available specialists do not have the requisite training to solve the numerous problems posed by planning and operational direction under the new conditions. Adaptation of agricultural school curricula to the new requirements and speedy retraining of specialists are therefore considered to be most urgent.

Some optimistic agricultural officials place high hopes in the introduction of computer-based automatic control systems. An electronic computer center was established at the Ministry of Agriculture in 1969, staffed by a group of 104 enthusiastic young specialists. They undertook the task of developing a single automated control system for agriculture and food production in the entire country by 1975, to be based on a number of integrated local and regional computer centers. By the end of 1970 the computer center had worked out annual plans for several farms and a plan for hothouse production in the country. It was in the process of finding a solution to a basic problem of the feed industry—a solution that would also drastically reduce the industry's transportation costs.

Considerable attention has also been given to the problem of communication in connection with the internal direction of the agroindustrial complexes' varied activities. Here, too, the idea has been advanced for automated control centers from which instructions would be issued to all operating divisions and workers in the field through radiotelephones or similar equipment. In this context a university instructor analyzing the management problems of agroindustrial complexes remarked that it was premature to speak of modern administrative and management methods as long as it was easier and faster to go by car from the farm center to any of the neighboring villages than to reach them by telephone.

LABOR AND WAGES

Official data on manpower and employment in agriculture are incomplete and incommensurate. The number of people gainfully employed in agriculture in 1970 was reported to have been 35.2 percent of the total in the economy, compared to 54.7 percent in 1960 and 44.9 percent in 1965. Full-time employment on farms of the agroindustrial complexes in 1970 was reported as 1,117,000 people—a reduction of 278,000 from the 1,395,000 employed in 1965. Yet the number of female collective farmworkers alone in 1969 was reported to have been 1,682,000, more than 1 million of whom participated full or part time in the collective work of the farms. No explanation concerning the discrepancies in these reported figures was available. The Sixth Five-Year Plan is variously reported to call for the transfer of an additional 220,000 or 350,000 people from the farms to nonagricultural employment.

The out-migration, mostly of young people, from agriculture brought about a deterioration in the age structure of the remaining farm population. The proportion of the sixteen- to twenty-five-year-old age group on farms was only 9.2 percent in 1969, compared to 22.3 percent in industry. Conversely, the proportion of persons fifty-five years and older was 29.1 percent in agriculture, compared to 8.6 percent in industry. The program for the modernization and intensification of agricultural production and, more particularly, the planned high level of mechanization demand the employment of large numbers of highly skilled young people. A series of economic, social, and cultural measures is therefore urgently needed to halt the drain of young manpower from the farms.

By 1971 the agricultural school system had not adapted its training programs to the actual needs of the emerging agroindustrial complexes. At the same time a serious problem in the employment of available technicians was presented by the scornful attitude of many farm managers toward specialists with secondary education. In 1971 farms employed more than 4,000 people without the requisite training in various professional positions. Although some of them may have compensated by experience for the lack of training, the situation was considered deplorable by a number of agricultural economists.

Under previously prevailing conditions, payments to farmworkers differed widely, depending upon the income levels of the individual farms. Under the new law wages for all farmworkers are to be gradually standardized on the principle of equal wages for equal work. Work input is to be measured on the basis of uniform labor norms differentiated according to natural conditions. In determining the wage level, consideration will also be given to increases in productivity, cost reduction, and the accumulation of investment funds by the farms. Distribution of the farm's income is to be carried out on the basis of a resolution by the Council of Ministers, details of which were not available in early 1973. Its main import is that the total remuneration of farmworkers, over and above their wages, will remain dependent upon the overall results of the individual farms. All farmworkers are entitled to a minimum wage of 80 leva per month, and members of previously independent collective farms retain their right to advance payments against their estimated final income shares.

Little substantive information is available on the current practice of remunerating people working on farms. The decree that went into effect on January 1, 1973, directed that the formation and distribution of incomes of all agroindustrial complexes and their constituent farms be based on a uniform system and on the principle that each farm must be fully self-supporting. Each farm must establish a wage fund calculated as a percentage of its total income. In the event that this fund is inadequate to cover legitimate wage requirements, the farms may draw upon two other obligatory funds or resort to bank credits.

INVESTMENT AND MECHANIZATION

Investment

In the 1960-71 period annual investment in agriculture increased from 381 million to 548 million leva, but it declined as a proportion of total investment from 28 to 15 percent. A substantial portion of the agricultural investment was used to equip new state farms established on previously collective farmlands. Investment funds were used for the construction of farm buildings, machinery repair stations, and irrigation facilities and for the acquisition of farm machinery. On the basis of cultivated acreage, state farms received more investment than collective farms, but the disproportion was gradually reduced and become quite small by 1970. In that year state farms had about 15 percent more fixed assets per acre of cultivated land than the collective farms.

With the formation of agricultural complexes discrimination in investment between the two types of farms is being eliminated along with other distinctions. Investment plans are to be uniformly based on the needs of the entire complex regardless of the former status of its constituent farms. Needs will be evaluated mainly on the basis of government programs for individual kinds of production, the availability of manpower, and the natural conditions of the farms and complexes.Agricultural investment in the 1971-75 period was planned at about 2.7 billion leva. This sum constitutes only 13.5 percent of the total planned investment and implies the maintenance of annual agricultural investment at the level of 1970. It also reflects the continued underinvestment in agriculture in favor of industry, despite the grandiose, plans for agricultural transformation, considering that agriculture contributed 22 percent of the national income in 1970. In that year a Soviet economist observed that the small proportion of national resources allotted to agriculture in the past was responsible for the slow growth of that important economic sector and that the increase in the mechanization of farms was not sufficient to offset the loss of manpower. The leadership's policy of placing agriculture on an industrial footing and mechanizing production demands increased investment in machinery and other physical facilities. The low investment decreed for the 1971-75 period is not in keeping with that policy.

A national conference on construction in agriculture, convened in the spring of 1972, was devoted to the study of shortcomings in capital construction. The underlying causes of unsatisfactory performance were analyzed, and persons responsible for the failures were identified. The findings of the conference were not published, but an account of the conference contained references to inadequate project planning, poor design, acceptance of inferior equipment, delays in the completion of construction, and cost overruns. A sympathetic foreign observer noted a disproportionately large allocation of investment funds to building construction compared with the funds allotted for farm machinery.

Mechanization

At the beginning of 1971 Bulgarian agriculture possessed about 53,600 tractors with a total of 1.4 million horsepower—the equivalent of about sixteen horsepower per 100 acres of plowed land. The horsepower of the tractor inventory increased by 2.3 times after 1960, but a portion of that increase was offset by the loss of more than 358,000 horses and buffalo. In 1970 Bulgaria had more tractor power per acre than any other Eastern European communist country except Czechoslovakia and more horses per acre than any of these countries with the exception of Hungary, which had a slightly larger number.

Grain combines on farms numbered 9,340, or 2.4 combines for each 1,000 acres of grain crops. In this regard Bulgaria ranked above the Soviet Union and at the average of the other Eastern European communist countries. Nevertheless, according to the minister of agriculture, only about 50 percent of the labor in wheat production was mechanized in 1972, even though wheat production was considered to be the most highly mechanized branch of agriculture. In other production branches the level of mechanization was extremely low.

According to scattered Bulgarian press reports the supply of farm machinery is inadequate for the needs, unbalanced as to composition, and inferior in design and physical condition. Many of the available tractors and combines are overage and obsolete. The situation is aggravated by chronic shortages of spare parts for both domestic and imported equipment. Production of parts is inhibited by its relatively low profitability, despite incentives offered by the government.

Under the Sixth Five-Year Plan farm machinery valued at 780 million leva is to be delivered to agriculture from domestic sources and from the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON—see Glossary). This machinery is to include more powerful tractors and grain combines, milking machines, and sprinkler irrigation systems. Machinery is also to be provided for the harvesting of corn, sugar beets, cotton, rice, fruits, and vegetables and for the harvesting and processing of feed crops. Adequate information on the progress of the mechanization program during the first two years of the five-year period is not available, but there is evidence that shortages of spare parts and trained operators continued to immobilize substantial numbers of farm machines.

MARKETING

The marketing of farm products has been geared to the fixed five-year plan quotas for sales to the state. It is based on bilateral contracts between trusts in the food-processing industry and agroindustrial complexes or their constituent units. Contracts are concluded for a five-year period and are broken down by years. They cover the entire farm output specified in the counterplans at prices officially revised on January 1, 1973. The price system includes bonuses for quality; these bonuses are payable only after a specified portion of the contracted quantity has been delivered and vary in relation to the total volume of product delivered. The intent of the bonuses is to stimulate product improvement without encouraging production beyond the planned limits. Excess production would destroy the balance of the plan.

Provisions of the marketing contracts were worked out by the Ministry of Agriculture and the State Arbitration Commission with the agreement of the government departments involved. Provisions concerning the performance of contractual obligations were strengthened compared with those previously in force. They established financial incentives and sanctions not only for the contracting organizations but also for their top managers as individuals, based upon the end results of their joint work.

Each food-processing trust engaged in the procurement of farm products must establish a fund for the promotion of their production, for improving farming methods, and for modernizing the farm's physical facilities. The funds are to be used in the first place for stimulating the output of products required on the domestic market and for export. The allocation of promotional funds is to be in accord with a program worked out jointly by the trust and the agroindustrial complex; the program constitutes an integral part of the procurement contract.

Farms, individual farmers, and private agricultural producers may sell some of their products at retail directly to consumers in cooperative markets at prices not exceeding those charged by state retail stores. In some instances and for some products sale on a commission basis through state and cooperative outlets is also allowed. The sale of meat, meat products, and alcoholic beverages in cooperative markets is prohibited as is also the sale of any product through middlemen. Cooperative markets are subordinated to the trade organs of municipal authorities. Violations of applicable regulations are subject to penalties the severity of which depends upon the nature of the offenses. Information on the total volume of direct sales by agricultural producers is not available. The share of collective farms in cooperative market sales, however, declined from 53 percent in 1959 to 16 percent in 1970.

PRODUCTION

Growth and Structure

As a result of continued emphasis on the country's industrialization, the share of agriculture in national income (net material product) was only 22 percent in 1970, compared to 31 percent ten years earlier. According to official sources, however, output continued to rise. It increased at an average annual rate of 4.8 percent in the 1960-67 period, declined by 10 percent in 1968, and regained the 1967 level in 1970. An increase of 8 percent in the next two years raised the farm output in 1972 to a level 50 percent above the output level in 1960. For the entire period the average annual increase in farm output was 3.4 percent.

Livestock production was reported to have increased more rapidly than crop production in the 1960-70 period; the respective average annual rates of growth in output were 4.1 and 2.9 percent. Crop output in 1970 was 33 percent larger than output in 1960, whereas livestock output was 50 percent higher. Available data are inadequate to reconcile the reported growth in the value of livestock production with a seemingly inconsistent rise in the physical output of livestock products and changes in livestock herds.

The structure of farm output in 1970 did not differ materially from the structure in 1960. The share of crops in the total output declined from 67.3 to 64.7 percent, while the share of livestock production rose correspondingly from 32.7 to 35.3 percent. The proportions of grains and technical crops were identical in both years. The share of vegetables, potatoes, and melons declined slightly, but the proportion of feed crops dropped from 9.2 to 6.2 percent. The lag in the growth rate of feed production has contributed to the difficulties in the livestock sector.

Crops

With the exception of rye, potatoes, hemp, and cotton, output of all major crops increased substantially in the 1960s (see table 16). The production of rye declined sharply as a result of the diversion of rye acreage to the production of more valuable crops. By 1970 rye output had become insignificant—less than 1 percent of the volume of wheat produced in that year. The decline in potato production was minor, but the output of raw cotton declined by 15 percent. The largest increases were attained in the production of alfalfa and table grapes—crops that are important for livestock production and export, respectively. Barley output, important for livestock and beer production, rose by 82 percent. Wheat output surpassed 3 million tons in 1970; it reached 3.56 million tons in 1972.

Table 16. Bulgaria, Production of Major Crops, Annual Average,
Selected Years, 1958-60 to 1966-70, and 1970 (in thousands of tons)

Virtually all wheat grown in the country is a hard red winter wheat of good quality, somewhat softer than durum wheat. Cultivation of durum wheat has been almost completely abandoned because of its low yield. The possibility has been suggested, however, that production of durum may be resumed eventually on the basis of newly developed, more productive varieties. Durum wheat requirements for the manufacture of noodles, semolina, and other products have been imported against payment in foreign currencies.Increases in the output and yields of crops were reported to have been achieved through the introduction of improved plant varieties and seeds, better cultivation practices, expanded irrigation, greater use of fertilizers, and more effective disease and pest control. The supply of fertilizers to agriculture, in terms of plant nutrients, increased from about 49,000 tons in 1956 to 842,000 tons in 1968 but thereafter declined sharply to only 692,000 tons in 1969 and 635,000 tons in 1971. In 1972 the fertilizer supply improved by a mere 10,000 tons. The bulk of the decline was in phosphates and potash, imports of which were drastically curtailed after 1968, presumably because of the shortage of foreign exchange.

The supply of pesticides also depends very largely upon imports. Deliveries to agriculture rose from less than 10,000 tons in 1960 to almost 12,900 tons in 1965, declined to 11,150 tons in 1969, and then surpassed the 1965 supply by 300 tons in 1971. The need for a drastic increase in the use of pesticides and fungicides is indicated by the official estimate that annual losses from crop diseases, pests, and weeds amount to from 150 to 200 million leva.

Despite the progress made, agricultural technicians continue to call attention to the persistence of faulty practices in all phases of crop production—practices that tend to lower crop yields and retard agricultural growth. Traditionally a single variety of wheat has been grown throughout the entire country, despite variations in soil and climatic conditions. Although yields generally rose with the successive introduction of better varieties, they remained low and of inferior quality in areas poorly adapted for the cultivation of a particular variety. Specialists have stressed the need for diversification of varieties, particularly under conditions of regionally defined agroindustrial complexes.

A task force for scientific and technical aid to agriculture, formed by the government at the end of 1965, uncovered the appearance and rapid dispersion of new grain diseases. Dry rot, which had assumed significant proportions in 1961, caused the most severe losses of wheat in 1970 and 1971, when 1.2 million acres were affected by the disease, mainly in the northern grain-growing part of the country. Wheat flower blight, long known in Bulgaria, became particularly widespread in 1965 after the introduction of a new wheat variety highly susceptible to that disease. Losses from this source reached about 15 to 20 percent.

Propagation of diseases has been aided by faulty cultivation practices. Excessively heavy seeding has been used increasingly to compensate for inadequate soil preparation. The resultant overly thick stands of grain are prone to lodging, which facilitates the spread of disease through greater contact of the wheatstalks. The tendency to lodging and, thus, to the spreading of disease is also encouraged by the improper use of fertilizers. To compensate for the shortage of phosphatic fertilizers an erroneous practice has developed of increasing the application of nitrogenous fertilizers, thereby upsetting the proper balance of plant nutrients. The resultant excessive vegetative growth weakens the grain stalks and induces lodging of the grain. Lodging also causes heavy losses through the germination of kernels and through major difficulties in harvesting.

Damage to wheat and barley crops from improper use of phosphatic fertilizers has also been reported. Substantial losses have been incurred in the production of sunflower seeds through inexpert use of fertilizers and insecticides, inadequate thinning and weeding, improper crop rotation, and poor harvesting methods. The basic underlying cause of these difficulties is the widespread lack of familiarity with modern production methods and the inadequate supply of technically trained personnel to guide farmers.

Livestock and Livestock Products

Despite repeated government decrees concerning measures for raising livestock production, including various incentives, no significant success was attained in increasing livestock herds in the period 1961 to January 1971 (see table 17). The numbers of cattle, hogs, and rabbits actually declined; the flocks of sheep grew by less than 4 percent; and only the numbers of goats and poultry increased substantially. An increase in all categories of livestock other than sheep, however, took place in 1971. In comparison with 1948 the total number of cattle in 1971 was lower by 28 percent, and the number of cows had declined by 16 percent. The poor performance of the livestock sector, particularly with regard to cattle, has been a source of great concern for the leadership because of the leadership's promise of a better standard of living for the population and the obligation to meet export commitments to COMECON partners, particularly the Soviet Union. Exports of livestock are also important as a source of convertible foreign exchange.

Table 17. Bulgaria, Livestock Numbers, Selected Years, 1948-72* (in thousands)

Although agriculture is almost entirely socialized, substantial numbers of livestock are nevertheless privately owned by farm and urban workers, artisans, and the few remaining individual farmers. In 1971 these groups possessed virtually all the goats and rabbits, more than half the poultry, and about two-fifths of the sheep. They also owned 27 percent of the hogs and 22 percent of the cattle, including 30 percent of the cows. On socialized farms all types of livestock were reduced in numbers during the 1961-70 period except for cows and poultry. Among private owners the decline in the numbers of cattle and hogs was more pronounced, but substantial gains were made in the stock of sheep, goats, and poultry. Government policies concerning prices, incentives, and feed allocation were mainly responsible for the differences in development within the socialized and private sectors.

Expansion of livestock herds and production has been hampered by an inadequate feed supply. The feed shortage in the 1966-70 period was estimated by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences to have approximated 30 percent. Domestically produced feed concentrates have been of poor quality and nutritionally unbalanced. In 1972 more than 45 percent of the mixed feeds and concentrates were substandard, and requirements for these feeds were met by less than 55 percent.

The production of feed crops increased in absolute terms during the 1960-70 period, but its rate of growth lagged by comparison with other crops and with official plans. In 1971 and 1972 the alfalfa acreage was supposed to be 990,000 acres, but only 840,000 acres were actually cropped. In 1972 only 57 percent of the requirements for alfalfa and meadow hay were met on farms of the agroindustrial complexes, and the quality of the hay was extremely low. The inadequacy of the feed supply in relation to the government's livestock program has been designated by the leadership as one of the most crucial problems of agriculture.

In the 1971-75 period improvement in the feed supply is to be achieved mainly through an increase in feed crop yields, but a certain increase in acreage has also been planned. Results in the first two years of the five-year period have jeopardized the attainment of the goal for 1975. Substantial investment funds are to be provided for the modernization of dairy barns and for the construction of feed mills with assistance from the Soviet Union. With a view to raising productivity and output, livestock production is to be increasingly concentrated on large specialized farms. This policy ignored the demonstrated superiority of livestock production on small farm plots.

Major problems in the expansion of cattle herds and livestock production are also posed by poor management and inadequate veterinary services. The reproduction rate of cattle is abnormally low because of the high percentage of old, sterile cows in the herds. The incidence of diseases of the reproductive system and of mastitis among cows is rapidly increasing, and mortality among cattle is high. Young breeding stock is reared in unsuitable surroundings, is ill fed, and consequently remains underdeveloped. A large proportion of newly born calves succumb to various diseases. There is a shortage of trained veterinarians, but veterinarians stationed on farms and in district veterinary hospitals are reported to feel no responsibility for the deplorable conditions. The care of livestock also suffers from a lack of adequately trained workers and a high labor turnover in the livestock sections of the agroindustrial complexes. Managers and specialists at the higher levels of the agroindustrial complexes fail to provide systematic supervision and guidance and often exhibit a lack of interest in the livestock enterprise. These conditions were reported to the General Assembly by a deputy minister of agriculture.

Despite the shortage of feed, increased yields per animal were attained in the 1960-71 period. For agriculture as a whole the output of milk per cow rose from 1,482 to 2,281 quarts, the number of eggs per hen increased from ninety-one to 115, and the amount of wool per sheep rose from 5.3 to 7.4 pounds. In 1972, however, yields per cow and per hen declined. In the socialized sector the decline in milk yield had begun in 1968 and reached serious proportions in 1972; the egg yield remained stable through 1970 (data for later years were not available in 1973). In the private sector the milk yield continued to rise at least until 1970; the egg yield remained stable through 1969 and rose in 1970. In the spring of 1973 several agricultural officials, including a deputy minister of agriculture, were reprimanded by the Council of Ministers Bureau for permitting the decline in yields of milk and eggs.

A study of milk production during the 1965-67 period found that farms having milk yields of 2,110 to 2,640 quarts per cow sustained an annual loss of 56 leva for each animal, whereas farms with yields of 3,170 to 4,287 quarts earned a net income of 111 leva per cow. The reported national average milk yield per cow therefore indicates that most farms produced milk at a loss.

The officially reported meat output increased by 74 percent in the 1960-68 period but declined by 11 percent in the next two years. By far the largest increase in production to 1968—2.9 times—was reported for beef and veal, while production of poultry meat and of sheep, and goat meat almost doubled (see table 18). The decline in output after 1968 affected all types of meat except for poultry and rabbits. For the entire period of 1960 through 1970, meat output rose by 55 percent, including production increases of 150 percent for beef and veal, 160 percent for poultry, and 82 percent for sheep and goat meat. Pork production, however, had risen by only 10 percent, and the output of rabbit meat declined by about one-third. The reported increase in meat production cannot be correlated with available data on changes in the size of livestock herds. An improvement in the supply of all types of meat other than beef and veal took place in 1971.

Production of milk and eggs also increased substantially during the 1960-71 period (see table 19). Nevertheless, domestic market supplies of livestock products remained chronically and seriously short of demand, in part because of the magnitude of exports. Exports of agricultural raw materials and processed foods exceeded 1 billion leva in 1970; they had increased 2.7 times during the decade and were equivalent to 44 percent of agriculture's contribution to the national income. Exports of food products alone had increased more than 3.5 times during the decade to a total of 732 million leva.

Table 18. Bulgaria, Production of Meat, Selected Years, 1948-71 (in thousands of tons)

Table 19. Bulgaria, Production of Milk, Eggs, and Wool, Selected Years, 1960-71