Greening CAP Challenges for Romanian Agriculture

CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
OF SUSTAINABLE RURAL DEVELOPMENT:
INTERNATIONALAPPROACHES
AND EXPERIENCES
OF EASTERN EUROPE AND RUSSIA
Monograph
Stavropol
«AGRUS»
2014
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2385986

UDK 338.43
BBK 65.32
C56
Authors:
V. Erokhin, A. Ivolga (executive editors),
J. V. Andrei, D. Cvijanović, R. A. Ion, I. Ivolga, M. Jeločnik, O. Labenko,
J. Subić, A. Trukhachev, A. Turek Rahoveanu, M. M. Turek Rahoveanu,
P. Vuković
Reviewers:
Prof. Dr. Wim HEIJMAN
Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, the Netherlands
Prof. Dr. Zoran NJEGOVAN
Faculty of Agriculture, University Novi Sad, Republic of Serbia
Prof. Dr. Mirela STOIAN
Bucharest University of Economic Studies,
Bucharest, Romania
Contemporary issues of sustainable rural development: inter-
national approaches and experiences of Eastern Europe and Russia :
monograph / V. Erokhin, A. Ivolga, J. V. Andrei et al. – Stavropol :
AGRUS of Stavropol State Agrarian University, 2014. – 172 p.
ISBN 978-5-9596-0953-5
Monograph for researches, teachers, PhD students and undergraduates of
higher educational establishments in economics, humanities, agriculture, and
tourism, and all those interested in the current state and perspectives of sustain-
able rural development, approaches to its ensurance and experiences of various
countries, including European Union in general and Eastern Europe in particu-
lar, Commonwealth of Independent States and Russia. Apart from rural devel-
opment the monograph considers issues of sustainable agricultural production,
food security problems, contemporary aspects of international trade in agricul-
tural commodities and food in the conditions of trade liberalization, perspec-
tives of rural tourism as a driver of sustainable rural development, and issues
of rational nature management and utilization of environmental and resort re-
sources in various countries.
Monograph is published at the costs of Stavropol State Agrarian Universi-
ty’s grant in the sphere of science and innovations for young researchers.
UDK 338.43
BBK 65.32
ISBN 978-5-9596-0953-5 © Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher
Professional Education Stavropol StateAgrarian University,
2014
C56

СОВРЕМЕННЫЕ АСПЕКТЫ
УСТОЙЧИВОГО РАЗВИТИЯ
СЕЛЬСКОЙ МЕСТНОСТИ:
МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЕ ПОДХОДЫ
И ОПЫТ СТРАН ВОСТОЧНОЙ ЕВРОПЫ
И РОССИИ
Монография
Cтаврополь
«АГРУС»
2014

УДК 338.43
ББК 65.32
C56
Авторы:
В. Л. Ерохин, А. Г. Иволга (ответственные редакторы);
Ж. В. Андрей; Д. Цвийанович; Р. А. Ион; И. Г. Иволга; M. Йелочник;
O. Лабенко; Ж. Субич; А. В. Трухачев;
A. Турек Раховеану; M. M. Турек Раховеану; П. Вукович
Рецензенты:
Вим ХЕЙМАН
профессор, кафедра социальных наук, Университет Вагенинген, Нидерланды;
Зоран НЬЕГОВАН
профессор, аграрный факультет, Университет Нови Сад, Сербия;
Мирела СТОЙАН
профессор, Бухарестский университет экономических наук, Румыния
Современные аспекты устойчивого развития сельской местности:
международные подходы и опыт стран Восточной Европы и России :
монография / В. Л. Ерохин, А. Г. Иволга, Ж. В. Андрей и др. – Ставро-
поль : АГРУС Ставропольского гос. аграрного ун-та, 2014. – 172 с.
ISBN 978-5-9596-0953-5
Монография предназначена для научных сотрудников, преподавателей,
аспирантов и студентов вузов экономических, гуманитарных, сельскохозяй-
ственных и туристических специальностей, а также всех интересующихся
современным состоянием и перспективами устойчивого развития сельских
территорий, подходами к обеспечению устойчивого развития в разных стра-
нах мира, включая Европейский Союз в целом и регион Восточной Европы
в частности, Содружество Независимых Государств и Россию. Кроме вопро-
сов устойчивого развития сельских территорий в монографии рассмотре-
ны аспекты повышения устойчивости сельскохозяйственного производства,
проблемы обеспечения продовольственной безопасности, современные тен-
денции международной торговли сельскохозяйственной продукцией и про-
довольствием в условиях либерализации торговых отношений, перспективы
развития сельского туризма как фактора обеспечения устойчивого развития
сельских территорий, а также направления рационального природопользова-
ния и реализации природного и ресурсного потенциала различных стран.
Монография издана за счет средств гранта ФГБОУ ВПО Ставрополь-
ский ГАУ в области науки и инноваций для молодых ученых.
УДК 338.43
ББК 65.32
ISBN 978-5-9596-0953-5 © ФГБОУ ВПО Ставропольский государственный
аграрный университет, 2014
C56

5
LIST OF AUTHORS1
CHAPTER I: Raluca Andreea ION
Jean Vasile ANDREI
CHAPTER II: Drago CVIJANOVIĆ
Predrag VUKOVIĆ
CHAPTER III: Vasily EROKHIN
Anna IVOLGA
CHAPTER IV: Vasily EROKHIN
Ivan IVOLGA
CHAPTER V: Anna IVOLGA
Alexander TRUKHACHEV
CHAPTER VI: Maria Magdalena TUREK RAHOVEANU
Adrian TUREK RAHOVEANU
CHAPTER VII: Jonel SUBIĆ
Marko JELOČNIK
CHAPTER VIII: Oleksandr LABENKO
1
See Authors’ Index for details

6
FOREWORD
Growing attention is paid by economists worldwide to research and assess-
ment of economic sustainability. The relevance of ensurance of sustainable de-
velopment is explained by the necessity to provide certain conditions for sus-
tainable development and raising of living standards by means of effective uti-
lization of the existing resources.
The range of definitions, which describe the essence of sustainable devel-
opment, are interpreted broadly, but all definitions agree that sustainable devel-
opment considers a correspondence of current and future life necessities. How-
ever, the issue of sustainable rural development is even broader, since it unites
the complex aggregation of economic, agricultural, environmental, infrastruc-
tural, cultural, and social aspects. Besides, it is necessary to consider the re-
gional specifics of particular rural territories.
We believe that such complexity of issues related to ensurance of sustaina-
ble rural development should be researched through an effective combination
of national and international approaches. While the national approach lets to
study particular problems of rural territories within the country (or even more
locally, within a region or territory), international approach provides a broad-
er vision of those problems, gives an opportunity to study experiences of oth-
er countries and to gain the best practices from them.
This monograph is a result of joint research of international team from four
countries: Russia, Serbia, Romania, and Ukraine. It addresses a wide range of
issues related to ensurance of sustainable rural development by means of inter-
national and national agrarian policies, liberalization of international trade, ru-
ral tourism, development of resort areas, utilization of environmental and re-
sort potentials of Europe, CIS and Russia.
Apart from general issues of sustainable development on the internation-
al and national levels (international trade, liberalization, food security, state
support of agriculture, international and state agrarian policies, etc.), the mon-
ograph presents the case studies of several regions, including Danube region
and Caucasus Mineral Waters resort area. It considers perspectives of rural
tourism as a driver of sustainable rural development, issues of rational nature
management and utilization of environmental and resort resources in various
countries, financial aspects of sustainable development and perspectives of ag-
ricultural cooperative structures in rural territories.
The special consideration is given to environmental issues of sustainable
rural development. The researches present their investigations of ecological
sustainability within agriculture, environmental aspects of European reforms

7
and new Common Agricultural Policies, and problems of effective preserva-
tion and increase of rational implementation of environmental, climatic, natu-
ral curative and recreational resources.
We appreciate all authors of the monograph for their high level of profes-
sionalism, invaluable contributions, manifold approaches and research meth-
ods implemented, as well as for their devotion to the problems of sustaina-
ble development. We believe that the results of the given research would im-
pact into the ensurance of sustainable rural development in our countries, and
would be beneficial to other related researches worldwide.
Executive Editors:
Vasily Erokhin, Ph.D.
Anna Ivolga, Ph.D.

8
CHAPTER I
GREENING THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY.
CHALLENGES AND PERSPECTIVES
FOR ROMANIAN AGRICULTURE TOWARDS
EUROPEAN NEW REFORMS
Raluca Andreea ION, Jean Vasile ANDREI
ABSTRACT
Romanian agriculture has experienced major challenges and changes
after the integration into European Union in 2007. The whole process of
adapting the national agriculture to the EU-27 agricultural paradigm has im-
posed redesigning the inland financing mechanism. The new CAP reform
brings both new opportunities and major constrains for Romanian agricul-
ture. In this context, the main aim of this chapter is to present a descriptive
analysis regarding the effects of greening the CAP mechanism on Romanian
agriculture, during the 2014-2020 financial framework.
KEY WORDS: agriculture, direct payments, CAP, greening measures,
environment, rural communities, agricultural revenues.
INTRODUCTION
Agriculture, despite being a key economic sector, with broad implications for
the entire European economic system, not only for food security of the population
or the high volume of human, financial and material resources mobilized, faces
massive and profound paradigm shifts. European agriculture transform itself un-
der the strong pressure of global competitiveness, on the one hand, and, on the oth-
er hand, Member States are forced to trough this sector to the requirements of en-
suring a certain level of life to rural communities which are increasingly numerous.
The offer of public goods, essential in preserving natural resources and preserva-
tion of cultural and rural areas, with a massive contribution to the objectives of the
European Union in the field of energy and climate, is added to it.
Although through the art.39 of the Treaty of the European Union a series of im-
perative objectives regarding CommonAgricultural Policy (CAP) creation and im-
plementation are established, such as: increasing agricultural productivity, agricul-
tural prices and markets’stability, and guarantees for an improved standard of liv-
ing for rural population; these have not been achieved to the level projected, and,
over more, the degree of agricultural market stability decreased and, as such, the
possibility of achieving constant production for assuring a high level of standard of
living and stability in ensuring food security for Community people.
Agriculture has a significant share in achieving functionality of Europe-
an economic mechanism through its interdependence with other communi-

9
ty sectors. The role of agriculture is not just about providing food to the pop-
ulation, generating a complex of indirect effects hard to measure and con-
trol. It has impact upon environment and it is influenced by it as well. Even
more, a significant decrease in the share of this sector in the global econo-
my of the EU would produce a massive imbalance, which consists in reduc-
ing the contribution to the GDP Community, of employment of labor in up-
stream and downstream sectors of the industry, especially on rural commu-
nities and the environment.
Recent studies show that ‘the climate change is increasingly being recog-
nized as a serious threat to dominant modes of social organization, inspiring
suggestions that capitalism itself needs to be transformed if we are to ‘decar-
bonizes’ the global economy.2
Reconsidering CAP must take into account just the harmonization and re-
duction of these effects at community level. Increasing the competitiveness
of European agriculture requires an integrative approach where CAP ensures
the promotion of an effective both in terms of territorial balance of agricul-
tural production systems and especially to meet environmental requirements
by greener agricultural practices and incurred financial mechanism and sub-
sidies and farm payments developed by CAP. If at first the use of direct pay-
ments represented an increase incentives for both the agricultural sector and
to boost the competitiveness of farmers by making supplementary productions
but also to adapt to the requirements of the Community market, by decoupling
them, as a rethinking of the CAP, this currently contributes to the improvement
of farmers’ income and to support the achieving public goods. As noted in of-
ficial documents,3
EU agriculture is nowadays in a more competitive environ-
ment with high demands, and as the world economy becomes more integrat-
ed, the trading system is increasingly liberalized, contributing to the instabili-
ty in agricultural markets.
The effects of agriculture on the environment have been the subject of nu-
merous research papers and debates worldwide. Some authors4
believe that ag-
riculture has a positive contribution to environmental protection, to maintain
the quality of the landscape and tourism. Contribution to revitalizing rural en-
vironment and community is evident in a number of countries and geographi-
cal areas of the world. Many programs developed by national and internation-
2
Böhm, S., Misoczky, M. C., Moog, S. (2012): Greening Capitalism? A Marx-
ist Critique of Carbon Markets, Organization Studies, vol. 33(11), pp. 1617-
1638.
3
European Commission (2010): Agriculture and Rural Development (2010),
Promoting European Union Farm Product: A Helping Hand, Brussels, Euro-
pean Commission.
4
Zahiu, L. (1992): Agricultura mondială si mecanismele pietei, Editura Arta
Grafică, Bucuresti.

10
al bodies promote maintaining populations in rural areas to ensure their wel-
fare and make them active.
At EU-27 level, financial resources are allocated through the rural devel-
opment measures to unlocking the potential of rural communities live side be-
yond agriculture and valorization of their specificity within multifunctional
agriculture. Multifunctional agriculture may reduce the differences between
different social categories and improve the way of living through education,
science and technology as ‘a basic concept beyond of understanding the wel-
fare/poverty’ as argues.5
Harnessing the resources of the agricultural holdings must take into consid-
eration the shift from intensive to extensive system of agriculture, considering
the environment. In this regard, measures to reorient financial payments under
the CAP aims to greening the agricultural practices. Also, worldwide, policies
are programs are implemented, containing concrete measures for the enhance-
ment of the benefits of sustainable agriculture and especially the component to
improve environmental quality and to limit its potential adverse incidents upon
agricultural production and communities.
In literature6
,7
,8
there are many opinions regarding the role of green agri-
culture in strengthening the general economic frame and rural communities in
particular, the most of them underling the need of greening agricultural prac-
tices and their close to the environment.
Other authors4,9,10
think that human activity carried out in agriculture has
negative effects: chemical pollution of soil and food, water and atmospheric
pollution, soil erosion etc. Moreover, agriculture must meet the challenge of
feeding a population increasingly numerous, with needs increasingly more di-
versified, which often conflicts with the needs of sustainable development ob-
5
Muresan J. D, Ivan M. V. (2009): Education, Science and Technology: Essential
Concepts for Understanding the Welfare/Poverty Binomial, The 12th IBIMA
Conference on Creating Global Economies through Innovation and Knowledge
Management, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, pp. 513-517.
6
Lazar, C., Lazar, M., Dimian, G. (2010): The implications of the global eco-
nomic crisis on the Romanian sustainable development, Calitatea Acces la Suc-
ces, vol. 11(113), pp. 140–143.
7
Adrian, T. R., Magdalena, T. R., Dinu, T. (2011): Optimization of production
structures in order to increase competitiveness of agricultural holdings, Eco-
nomics of agriculture, vol. LVIII, pp. 187-194.
8
Giurcă, D., Alexandri, C., Rusu, M. (2012): Reforma Politicii Agricole Comune
în contextual perspective bugetare post-2013, Studii de Strategie şi Politici
(SPOS 2011), Studiul nr. 1, Institutul European din România, Bucureşti.
9
Chambon, N., Fernandes, S. (2010): How to Reform CAP to improve agricul-
ture’s contribution to the Europe 2020 Strategy?, Notre Europe.
10
Wijkman, A., Rockstrom, J. (2013): Falimentarea naturii: negarealimitelor
planetei, EdituraCompania, Bucuresti, p. 93.

11
jectives. The economic crisis is a favorable instrument in further deepening the
economic imbalances11
including agricultural sector.
Food security of the population is a major challenge to climate change be-
cause agriculture is the sector of the economy that contributes most to climate
change. It is estimated that approximately one third of emissions of greenhouse
gases comes from agriculture. At the same time, agriculture is the sector most
affected by climate change. We can say that the relationship agriculture – cli-
mate change is a two-way path: agriculture contributes to global warming and
climate change affects agriculture.
Agriculture is the largest contributor to climate change, chemical pollution
through the use of nitrogen and phosphorus, to the loss of biodiversity. It is the
largest consumer of water. The effects of agriculture on the environment are
emissions of greenhouse gases, chemical soil pollution, soil erosion, deforest-
ation. From the perspective of environmental requirements and achieve sus-
tainable management of natural resources, the CAP is called to correct some of
the imbalances existing in previous practices based on this policy, through the
following measures:12
− Ensuring sustainable agricultural production practices and environmen-
tally friendly to ensure the provision of environmental public goods,
since many of the public benefits from agriculture are not remunerated
by a proper and normal operation of the markets;
− Encourage the adoption of new technologies that allow both the de-
velopment of competitive organic products, but also to ensure the im-
provement of agricultural production processes, stimulating the emer-
gence of new patterns of demand in the context of the emerging bio-
economy;
− Develop action plans to mitigate the effects of climate change and com-
bating the negative effects induced by agricultural practices unfriendly
to the environment.
The pressure of agriculture on the environment increased as the intensifica-
tion of agricultural systems through the widespread use of pesticides and fer-
tilizers, mechanization and the intensive exploitation of animals. Also, in re-
verse, climate change affects agriculture. Considering these, it is well recog-
nized the need for a common policy to regulate aspects of the single European
market, however, for policy areas such as the environment and rural develop-
ment any policy must take account of the local circumstances: a one-size-fits-
all approach will fail to deliver the desired outcomes.
11
Haralambie, G. (2010): Effect of the current crisis on global economy, Ovidius
University Annals of Economics Sciences Series, vol. X (2), pp. 330-335.
12
pean Commission.

12
Agricultural production is threatened by pollution incidence of polluting
sources such as:13
,14
,15
− increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide increases the greenhouse
effect and affect plant metabolism;
− increase of the earth's ozone layer, which reduces yields per hectare;
− soil pollution by noxious chemicals and physical agents, which decreas-
es food quality and increased risk of serious illness;
− the global climate change, which can have serious consequences for
vegetation and rainfall periods;
− industrial accidents that caused heavy pollution of soil and water re-
sources in the long term.
Climate change affects differently the regions of the world. In the temper-
ate zone, on short term, crop yields due to a warmer and wetter climate will in-
crease. On medium term, however, it is possible that average yields to decline
due to crop diseases. Some regions may be able to obtain short-term benefits
due to carbon fertilization, because high levels of carbon dioxide are benefi-
cial for plants, in particular cereals: wheat, rye, oats and barley, when grown
in the temperate regions.
Countries that have so far been the major cause of climate change will be
affected only marginally or not at all, except Australia and South West of the
United States, which are threatened by extreme weather. In poor areas of the
world, whose contribution to climate change is negligible, agriculture will be
seriously affected. As noticed in official documents of European Union,16
the
future CAP should no longer be a policy that addresses the activity of a small,
albeit essential, segment of the EU economy, but one that impacts on more
than half of the EU territory and all of EU consumers, and is of strategic im-
portance for food security and safety, the environment, climate change and ter-
ritorial balance. From this perspective, the effects of CAP reform and especial-
ly its sharp shift to the green component will impose a financial mechanism to
13
European Commission (2011): Commission Staff Working Paper Impact As-
sessment, Common Agricultural Policy towards 2020, SEC (2011) 1153 final/2,
Brussels.
14
European Commission (2011b): Common Agricultural Policy towards 2020,
Commission staff working papers, Executive summary of the impact assess-
ment, SEC(2011)1154 final, Brussels.
15
European Parliament (2012): Draft report on the proposal for a regulation of
the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct pay-
ments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common
agricultural policy, 2012, www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=//
EP//TEXT+COMPARL+PE-474.052+01+NOT+XML+V0//PL
16
European Commission (2011): Legal proposals for the CAP after 2013, http://
ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/legal-roposals/index_en.htm

13
support relocation by allocating additional financial resources and balancing
the two pillars of the CAP as a major impact on the agricultural sector it has on
the economy, as a whole.
In essence, CAP has to contribute significantly to the achievement of a
functional coexistence of local, regional and community components, which
leads to (European Parliament, 2007):
− defining a strong agricultural sector that generates high levels of add-
ed value, by the nature of production obtained and its high level of
processing, giving it a strong position in global agricultural market;
− an agriculture open not only to local and regional markets, especially
linking to the global market;
− and the last but not least, as it is found in (European Parliament reso-
lution of 8 July 2010 on the future of the CAP after 2013 (2009/ 2236
(INI) an agriculture oriented to the local markets, which takes into ac-
count small-scale farmers with limited incomes who, if they had to
abandon farming, would face difficulties to find a job outside the agri-
cultural sector, because of their age, qualifications or lifestyle choices,
especially in times of economic downturn and high unemployment.
Returning to the need of reconsidering the CAP in the light of greening
farming practices at Community level, some options were not satisfactory for
all Member States. Greening European agriculture requires a shift from the old
agricultural practices oriented to high production yields, driven by financial al-
locations system and allocated massive subsidies to farmers to achieve a mul-
tifunctional agriculture, to agricultural practices that tend to have a much re-
duced role than in the past. As it is shown in numerous studies17
,18
,19
the policy
instruments in reconsidering the CAP reforms plays major roles in achieving
the best goals, but sometimes the effects are doubtfully.
From this perspective, as was natural, there are a number of disagree-
ments, sometimes insurmountable, between the old EU member states and
the new member states, conflicts due to a slight incompatibility between
these systems and agricultural practices. In Table 1.1, three scenarios of re-
forming CAP are presented, considering the main components of interven-
tion used in applying this policy: market instruments, direct payments and
rural development.
17
Gelauff, G., Grillo, I., Lejour, A. (2008): Subsidiarity and Economic Reform in
Europe, Heidelberg: Springer – Verlag, Berlin.
18
Grant, W. (2010): Policy instruments in the Common Agricultural Policy, West
European Politics, vol. 33(1), pp. 22–38.
19
PBL Note (2012): Greening the CAP. An analysis of the effects of the European
Commission’s proposals for the Common Agricultural Policy 2014-2020, PBL
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

14
Table 1.1. Outline of main policy options by scenario and policy instrument
Scenario
Market instruments
(Council Regulation
(EC) No 1234/2007)
Direct Payments
(Council Regulation
(EC) No 73/2009)
Rural Development
(Council Regulation
(EC) No 1698/2005)
Adjustment:
Emphasizing
the CAP's
achievements and
addressing major
shortcomings
Streamlining and
simplification of
existing instruments
Improving farmers'
cooperation within
competition rules.
Redistribution;
enhanced cross
compliance
Moderate increase
in budget; used for
competitiveness
/ innovation or
environment
Integration:
Improving the
targeting of the
CAP to its
objectives
Streamlining and
simplification of
existing instruments
Focus on food
chain and improved
bargaining power of
farmers
Redistribution;
new direct
payment
architecture;
«greening»
Enhanced cross
compliance;
capping; small
farmer scheme;
young farmer
scheme
Redistribution
between Member
States
Innovation,
climate change and
environment as
guiding principles;
Reinforced strategic
targeting and common
strategic framework
with other funds
Re-focus:
Limiting the
scope of CAP
interventions to
environmental
aspects
Abolished Phased-out Substantially
increased funding;
focus on climate
change and
environment
Source: Authors own adaptation based on European Commission, Common Agri-
cultural Policy towards 2020, Commission staff working papers, 2011, p. 45.
The proposed measures contribute significantly to redesign the framework
and means of intervention used in the consolidation and harmonization of CAP
at Community level, especially in terms of its adaptation to environmental de-
mands. Creating a green agricultural policy that promotes sustainable produc-
tion practices and environmental friendly practices, beyond that is a sine qua
non requirement of the new CAP; it will generate dissonant effects for European
farmers. Moving from a largely intensive agricultural production, to an ecologi-
cal one, the system will require a large financial support. As noticed in Table 1.1,
the policy options for greening the CAP component is combined with the mech-
anism of cross compliance and focus on climate change and environment.
Rethinking the direct payment system practiced in the CAP should con-
tribute significantly to the improvement of the European agricultural sector,
providing a functional shift towards environmentally responsible farming, and

15
also to provide adequate income levels for farmers, who intend to implement
measures of greening the agricultural production.
Giving up some agricultural practices less environmentally friendly and
promoting organic production must be compensated by at least comparative
levels of farmers’ income. In this regard, direct payments as proposed by the
European Parliament should follow some principles, such as:20
− providing basic decoupled direct payments, for improving effects in aid
for basic income, which should ensure a uniform level of financial sup-
port mandatory for all European farmers;
− introducing a "green" element compulsory in direct payments to ensure
sustainable growth of the environmental performance of the CAP;
− promote sustainable development of agriculture in areas with specific
natural constraints by introducing additional financial help if farmers'
income in the form of a payment per area, to supplement the aid given
under the second pillar hill;
− provision of further voluntary coupled support for those regions or
farmers with high economic or social significance;
− vitality of rural areas by applying a simple and specific schemes for
small farmers that contribute to the competitiveness of these areas;
− simplifying cross compliance rules.
As seen in some official Britain documents,21
the principal purpose of the
CAP is to support food production and, in the long term, the goal for the CAP
must be delivering sustainable food production. In developing these proposals
the Commission appears not to have considered food security and how “green-
ing” will interact with efficient farm production. In our view the Commission
has missed the opportunity to encourage sustainable intensification of food pro-
duction. Limits captured in this finding further need for integrative approaches in
terms of promoting a process of greening agricultural policies that take into ac-
count the effects on farmers income and production systems in the EU.
Efficient production from an environmentally approach must ensure ade-
quate gain for farmers who are forced to quit a part of their productions ob-
tained by using, in the past, an intensive system of production. A correlation
between the level of losses imposed by the application of such systems, farm-
ers will to apply environmentally friendly production methods and the expect-
ed gain later must be realized. It is therefore relevant to observe the evolution
of CAP payments in the EU, at least in the last 20 years, largely highlighting
20
pean Commission.
21
House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (2010):
Greening the Common Agricultural Policy, First Report of Session 2012–13,
House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited, Incorporating HC
1654-i to-iv, Session 2010–12, p. 25.

16
paradigm shift that occurred in the agricultural European sector. In Figure 1.1,
the evolution of CAP expenditure (in constant prices of 2007), in the period
1980-2009, is presented.
Figure 1.1. The Evolution of CAP Expenditure during 1980-2009
(Constant Prices of 2007)
Source: based on European Commission (2011), Common Agricultural Policy to-
wards 2020, SEC (2011) 1153 final/2.
As can be seen from Figure 1.1, agricultural market support measures and
export subsidies have owned significant shares in the period from 1980 to
1993, and, after that, the CAP reoriented direct payments and mechanisms to
support agricultural production, which thus began to hold significant shares in
European agricultural budget.
ROMANIA AND MEASURES OF GREENING
THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY
Romania’s integration in the European economic area imposed the need
of rethinking integrally the national economic system, which must therefore
adapt to the demands of a competitive economic environment, which is in con-
stant change and search for its own identity. Although based on the principles
of economic liberalism, faced with high demands of a market economy, agri-
culture has become a sounding system for the entire philosophy of European
construction. Under the circumstances, the Romanian agriculture should not
only to adapt to new conditions of European policy, but to develop its own path
of development, which combines the national specificity with the European re-

17
quirements in the field. Romanian agriculture, being strong dependent on the
financial allocations of CAP, swings between domestic capitalization, to the
extent that it is still possible, and to adapt to agricultural policy measures.
Greening the CAP puts pressure on the agricultural sectors of the New EU
Member States, which are forced to adapt themselves to a system largely un-
favorable to them. Conditioning financial payments to the environment-friend-
ly farming practices will increase further discrepancies in the European agri-
cultural sector. Farmers in the Old Member States already have a competitive
advantage over New Member States. Massive financial support that they have
received for more than 50 years is now paying off. European agriculture now
polarize around the Old Member States, strongly capitalized farmers, who will
continue to resist competition from the field, while in the newly integrated
countries, farmers will have increasingly less financial measures for financing
agriculture. In Table 1.2 an overview of the financial assignments of Member
States, which will receive a direct payment under 90% of the EU average and
among which Romania is part, is presented.
Table 1.2. Member states that will benefit of
a direct payment under 90% of the EU average
Member states
that will benefit
of direct payment
reallocation
Eligible area
(ha)
Current
direct pay-
ment
(EUR)
The sum
of direct pay-
ment that are
not increased
(mil. EUR)
The future
direct
payment
(EUR)
The total fu-
ture sum
of direct
payment
(mil. EUR)
Bulgaria*
3.492.383 233,2 814,42 236,46 825,81
Estonia 865.061 116,9 101,13 158,90 137,46
Spain 21.027.315 229,0 4.815,26 233,66 4.913,24
Latvia 1.546.362 94,7 146,44 144,13 222,88
Lithuania 2.640.799 143,8 379,75 176,86 467,05
Poland 14.150.577 215,1 3.043,79 224,40 3.175,39
Portugal 2.917.979 194,0 566,09 210,33 613,74
Romania*
9.720.864 183,2 1.780,86 202,80 1.971,39
Slovakia 1.876.009 205,6 38,57 218,06 409,08
Sweden 3.053.508 235,0 717,57 237,66 725,70
United Kingdom 15.941.629 229,0 3.650,63 233,66 3.724,92
Total 57.592.748 - 16.940,91 - 17.676,70
The difference needed to be compensated each year 789,80 mil. EUR
* In the case of Romania and Bulgaria, the integral value of direct payments will
be achieved in 2016.
cultural Policy towards 2020, Impact Assessment, Brussels, 2011.

18
Since Romania, according to EU Commission calculations, has a finan-
cial allocation under the level of it has initially, this requires a balancing of the
CAP direct payments between European countries, so much so that to diminish
the gap between these states. In Romania it would take therefore a transfer of
789,796,105 EUR/year in the 11 states with above average European financial
allocations, even after achieving convergence procedure, the total financial al-
location is 7.5 billion EUR, more than in the previous budget, standing at 12.4
billion EUR. This situation becomes alarming if we consider the number and
structure of agricultural holdings which, in the case of Romania, further reduc-
es the possibility of absorption of EU allowances. Figure 1.2 presents the dis-
tribution of average farm size and farms below 5 ha of Utilized Agricultural
Area in the EU-27 Member States.
Figure 1.2. The average farm size and farms below 5 ha UAA in EU-27
wards 2020, SEC (2011) 1153 final/2, p. 64.
Significant proportion of small farms in Romanian agriculture can contrib-
ute, on the one hand, to improve the quality of the rural environment, providing
some of the revenue that the state cannot accomplish, by its functions. Small
farms are thus vectors of social protection for rural communities. Small Roma-
nian farmers will benefit of reduced financial allocations compared to the Eu-
ropean average and will have fewer opportunities to develop their work, if they
cannot combine the two sources of funding from SPS and grants for rural de-
velopment and multifunctional agriculture.

19
Measures of greening direct payments under Pillar I of the CAP spark a
wide debate in the literature. One of the more informed opinion said that a
large extent22
‘CAP’ greening ‘component could become a sort of super policy
of cross compliance.’ On the other hand, the working documents of the Brit-
ish authorities, after extensive debate on European agricultural policy greening
approach, reach the situation where23
‘we recommend that future agri-environ-
ment schemes should include measures to incentives farmers to manage their
EFAs for biodiversity and other environmental benefits, for example through
sowing pollen and nectar seed mixes or through locating their EFAs so as to
create a coherent network’.
The current financing measures under Pillar I have owned significant shares
in the general budget of the CAP and in particular addressed to directly sup-
porting farms by direct payment per holding. With the new philosophy of CAP
and review the payment and agricultural subsidies, the green component was
imposed as a need. In these conditions, an approximation of direct payments
for environmental requirements by imposing restrictions that 30% of the total
direct payments to be granted only to the extent that farms meet environmen-
tal standards was imposed.
Traditional agricultural practices and promoting organic agriculture on
farm and rural landscape protection measures and promoting traditional ru-
ral values were stimulated. In these conditions, as observed in literature24
the
effects of greening the policy will generate `lower agricultural income for
each euro spent, compared to SPS ‘, because the income support pay to farm-
ers through CAP will be considerably less than in 2009-2013. Given these
considerations, in Figure 1.3 is presented the level of total operating subsi-
dies and direct payments as a percentage of agricultural factor income, av-
erage 2007-2009.
22
Tangermann, S. (2011): Direct payments in the CAP post 2013, European Par-
liament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, Brussels, Janu-
ary, p. 23.
23
House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (2010):
1654-i to-iv, Session 2010–12, p. 25.
24
Tangermann, S. (2011): Direct payments in the CAP post 2013, European Par-
ary, p. 23.

20
Figure 1.3. Level of direct payments and total operating subsidies
as a percentage of agricultural factor income (avg. 2007-2009)
Source: adapted from European Commission (2011), Common Agricultural Policy
towards 2020, SEC (2011) 1153 final/2.
As results from the data presented in the chart above, it is clear that the total
operating subsidies in agricultural factor income registered a stable level over the
period 2007-2009, both in terms of direct payments and the total operating sub-
sidies for EU-12 and EU-15, but with wide variations between Member States.
The total operating subsidies is very high in those states which have a relatively
small agricultural area, but which have active policies to support small farms, for
instance: Finland, Lithuania, Latvia and Czech Republic. Instead, they are high
levels of direct payments for countries with a strong agricultural sector, such as
France, Germany or the UK. In Romania the share of these two components is
relatively low, despite the important agricultural area from which they benefit.
As results from the data presented in Figure 1.4, it can be noticed a non-
equivalent distribution of payments per hectare between old and new Member
States underling serious differences and functional deficiencies of European
agricultural system components and in its way of working, which emphasiz-
es differences in productivity of the EU economy sector. As seen in European
documents,25
on one hand, ‘while the volume of support reflects, at least part-
ly, objective criteria, it does not reflect the fact that farm structures and pro-
duction patterns have changed since the reference periods’, and, on the other
hand, ‘the large number of small beneficiaries adds considerably to the admin-
istrative burden and require support that is better targeted to their needs‘.
25
European Court of Auditors (2011): Special Report No 5/2011: Single payment
scheme (SPS): issues to be addressed to improve its sound financial manage-
ment, http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/8096819.PDF

21
Figure 1.4. Average payments per beneficiary and per hectare, in 2008
wards 2020, SEC (2011) 1153 final/2, p. 29.
Based on these findings, applying into practical business the greening meas-
ures of CAP will generate, for all European countries, a reduction in financial sup-
port to farmers, with different effects. The fact is that the significant decreases of
farmers’income will lead to reconsidering the agricultural practices that will be felt
directly and immediately in reducing the level of production and a rise in the price
of agricultural products. Most of the Member States will face a significant loss of
financial allocations in agriculture, regardless of which option they apply. Howev-
er, the high requirements imposed by greening the CAP amplifies the existing risk
that some countries, such as Romania, to do not use the full amounts allocated and,
thus, to deepen the gaps between their agricultural systems and the European agri-
cultural model. Table 1.3 presents the results for the estimation of direct payments
in the context of “greening” the Pillar I of the CAP by the European Commission.
As can be seen from the data presented in Table 1.3, the procedure of greening
direct payments of Pillar I of the CAP will generate negative results overall per-
formance, for most of the EU-27, with very few exceptions: Ireland, Latvia, Esto-
nia, France, Hungary and Lithuania. Applying any of the variants of greening the
payments for Romania will generate predominantly negative effects, except for
variants 3 and 5. The biggest loss is recorded in the case of the second variant, the
amount is reduced by -3.5% and the highest gain of 3.3% belongs to the fifth ap-
plication. For the rest of the simulated alternatives, the loss varies in the range of
-2.7% to -4.4% for the first embodiment and in the case of the second embodiment
applied. Greening direct payments is a potentially ambiguous measure, given that
environmental measures are generally supported by the CAP Pillar II.26
26
Andrei, J., Dusmanescu, D. (2012): Some Romanian experience in achieving
the best Common Agricultural Policy results. How much has the agricultural
sector has beneficiate?, Proceedings of the International Scientific Meeting

22
Table 1.3. Direct payment estimation in the context of “greening” CAP Pillar I
Country
FNVA/AWU
(€/AWU)
FNVA/AWU-comparisonwiththeBasisin2020
MFF EUR
per
AWU
MFFDP
distribution
MFFDP
distribution
MFFDP
distribution
MFFDP
distribution
Min90%
andobj.
crit.
Basis 1 2 3 4 5
30% DP,
70%diver,
5% set-as,
70% GC,
PP, OF
30% DP,
50%diver,
5% set-as,
70% GC,
PP, OF
30% DP,
70%diver,
10% set-as,
70% GC,
PP, OF
25% DP,
70%diver,
5% set-as,
70% GC,
PP, OF
30% DP,
70%diver,
5% set-as,
70% GC,
PP, OF
Belgium 61,583 -5.1% -5.9% -5.7% -5.1% -7.2%
Bulgaria 9,470 -2.8% -4.0% -1.4% -2.8% -1.8%
Czech RP. 23,372 -4.5% -4.2% 1.0% -4.5% -4.5%
Denmark 71,177 -3.1% -4.3% -4.9% -3.1% -6.2%
Germany 44,364 -4.8% -5.9% -3.5% -4.8% -6.2%
Spain 29,192 -1.8% -2.0% -0.3% -1.8% -1.6%
Estonia 24,949 -3.2% -3.1% 1.0% -3.2% 19.3%
France 38,466 -2.9% -2.9% 0.1% -2.9% -4.0%
Hungary 27,795 -2.6% -3.6% 1.1% -2.6% -2.6%
Ireland 27,237 -2.7% -1.9% 0.8% -2.7% -2.7%
Italy 35,189 -0.5% -0.6% 0.1% -0.5% -2.4%
Austria 32,384 -2.3% -2.5% -0.9% -2.3% -2.3%
Poland 12,991 -3.5% -3.8% -1.3% -3.5% -1.4%
Portugal 11,357 -3.6% -4.8% -3.6% -3.6% 2.1%
Romania 4,882 -2.7% -4.4% 0.0% -2.7% 3.3%
Finland 28,456 -1.9% -2.2% 0.9% -1.9% -1.3%
Sweden 43,959 -4.0% -4.4% -1.1% -4.0% -3.1%
Slovakia 20,563 -2.3% -1.9% 3.2% -2.3% 3.8%
UK 50,363 -4.8% -5.1% -2.9% -4.8% -3.3%
EU-27 23,717 -2.8% -3.2% -1.4% -2.8% -2.8%
Where: FNVA= Farm net value added; AWU = annual work unit; DP = direct pay-
ment; diver = diversification; GC = green component; PP = permanent pasture; OF =
organic farming; set-aside = the areas cultivated in non-profit scope.
cultural Policy towards 2020, Impact Assessment, Brussels, 2011.
„Sustainable agriculture and rural development in terms of the Republic of Ser-
bia strategic goals realization within the Danube region – preservation of rural
values”, Tara, Serbia, December 6-8th
, pp. 801-819.

23
Another opinion expressed in this respect by a group of French authors27
ar-
gues that changing the orientation of the budget and environmental payments
is unconvincing. First, Pillar I has a limited budget and finances a wide range
of heterogeneous measures that are not environmentally friendly. In this con-
text, the CAP greening measures will limited even more recent development
of the agricultural sector in the countries integrated in EU-27, which are sub-
ject to particularly radical transformation of agricultural development financ-
ing process. Against this background, Romania might contradict European es-
timates, and could turn into a potential recipient of state financial allocations
for greening of direct payments, given that a large part of national agricultur-
al area can be allocated to organic farming and achievement environmental re-
quirements. If we consider the fact that in the last time Romanian farmers were
affected by a complex process of underfunding and massive de-capitalization
of holdings, thus involuntarily forced to maintain ecological label land with-
out recognizing the potential positive effects. In Table 1.4 is highlighted the
impact of “greening” the CAP on various sectors of agriculture in the Mem-
ber States.
Table 1.4. Analysis of the impact of “greening” CAP upon
agricultural sectors of EU member states
FNVA/
AWL
(€/UAL)*
FNVA/AWL – compared to base 2020
80% DP
distributed
80% DP
distributed
80% DP
distributed
80% DP
distributed
80% DP
distributed
80%-120%
tunnel
Base 1 2 3 4 5
30% DP,
70% diver,
5% set-
aside, 70%
GC, PP, OF
30% DP,
70% diver,
5% set-
aside, 70%
GC, PP, OF
30% DP,
70% diver,
5% set-
aside, 70%
GC, PP, OF
30% DP,
70% diver,
5% set-
aside, 70%
GC, PP, OF
30% DP,
70% diver,
5% set-
aside, 70%
GC, PP,
OF
Crops 24.612 -1,5% -2,5% 3,3% -1,5% -1,4%
Horticulture 36.121 -1,0% -1,6% -2,3% -1,1% -1,1%
Wine 35.005 -0,4% -0,4% 0,1% -0,4% -0,6%
27
Bureau, J. C, Mahé, L. P. (2008): CAP reform beyond 2013: An idea for a lon-
ger view, Notre Europe, Study, no. 64, p. 49.

24
FNVA/
AWL
(€/UAL)*
FNVA/AWL – compared to base 2020
80% DP
distributed
80% DP
distributed
80% DP
distributed
80% DP
distributed
80% DP
distributed
80%-120%
tunnel
Base 1 2 3 4 5
30% DP,
70% diver,
5% set-
aside, 70%
GC, PP, OF
30% DP,
70% diver,
5% set-
aside, 70%
GC, PP, OF
30% DP,
70% diver,
5% set-
aside, 70%
GC, PP, OF
30% DP,
70% diver,
5% set-
aside, 70%
GC, PP, OF
30% DP,
70% diver,
5% set-
aside, 70%
GC, PP,
OF
Other
permanent
crops
20.938 -0,8% -0,9% -0,8% -0,8% -1,4%
Milk 25.939 7,2% 6,8% 6,6% 7,1% 7,3%
Other pas-
tures
22.501 -2,0% -1,6% 0,4% -1,9% -2,2%
Granivo-
rous
23.397 -12,1% -17,3% -27,5% -12,1% -12,1%
Mix 14.511 -2,8% -3,5% -1,0% -2,8% -2,1%
Total 23.326 -0,7% -1,3% 0,5% -0,7% -0,7%
* FNVA= Farm net value added; AWU = annual work unit; DP = direct payment;
diver = diversification; GC = green component; PP = permanent pasture; OF = organic
farming; set-aside = the areas cultivated in non-profit scope.
Source: adaptation after European Commission (2011).
The process of greening the CAP aims to reduce the direct support for Eu-
ropean farmers and to establish a new direction of achieving agricultural poli-
cies in member states. In this context, the mainstream of the new CAP philos-
ophy, which consists in the need of increasing the ecological component of ag-
ricultural production, doubled by the multifunctional approach of agriculture,
will deepen the instability of rural communities, reducing their financial se-
curity and standard of living of people. As results in other research,28
if in the
28
Andrei, J., Dusmanescu, D. (2012): Some Romanian experience in achieving
the best Common Agricultural Policy results. How much has the agricultural
sector has beneficiate?, Proceedings of the International Scientific Meeting

25
past, CAP reforms used to have only short term objectives, in order to answer
the endogenous challenges, like agricultural surpluses, because of its complex-
ity, the new financial framework holds the new orientation of CAP towards
market and rural development.
Applying these measures of greening CAP creates premises for strong dis-
criminations between member states EU-27. The current gaps will deepen in
the context of reducing financial support for direct payments, and farmers will
need to shift to the new change in CAP philosophy. The New Member States
will not benefit of supplementary financial measures, but, in a contrary, these
allocations are reduced to the maximum limit of greening of 30% of the direct
payments. The bulk of European states will not benefit of the premises of fa-
vorable corrections of gaps in agricultural sectors, but will face measures that
will deepen even more their dependence on agricultural imports from the com-
munity. They will transform themselves into satellites of an agricultural poli-
cy more discriminative. In the new context, CAP aims to realize a process of
reorientation and translation to the direct support of agricultural production to
the rural development of rural community, in the light of a massive dependen-
cy financial allocation of EU funds. The ecological component of CAP gains
an important share in agricultural community, with higher implications on Eu-
ropean agricultural model.
EUROPEAN FARMS AND MEASURES
OF GREENING THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY
Greening the Common Agricultural Policy has direct and inevitable reper-
cussions on agricultural production structures, equally shaping their econom-
ic behavior. As Brouwer and Silvis argue in their study,29
between agriculture
and environment exists direct constrains, both being influenced one by another,
with a straight outcome on farmers revenues and behavior. The income effect
over the farmers’ budget will be significant, even if they will choose to fully
greening agricultural production. Conditioning farmers through financial con-
straints to achieve green practices will undoubtedly result in a redistribution
of the farmers’ budget. As noted in the Commission’s analysis30
for EU-27, the
various options of greening would result in a decrease in the average income
, pp. 801-819.
29
Brouwer, F., Silvis, H. (2010): Rural Areas and the Environment, In: Oskam,
A., Meester, G., Silvis, H. (eds.), EU Policy for Agriculture, Food and Rural
Areas, Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
30
Brussels.

26
ranging from -3.2% and -1.4%. Figure 1.5 is shown the distribution of farms
according to greening costs.
Figure 1.5. The distribution of farms according to greening costs
wards 2020, SEC (2011) 1153 final/2, p. 58.
In this context, the highest costs arising from the implementation of green
measures are being felt in small and very small farms (19%-21%) and also
in the case of farms of 15-30 ha (29%). They overlap over a discount up to
5% of grain production. Also in the same document of analysis of the Com-
mission31
stands out a ,,reduction of the domestic cereal and oilseed pro-
duction that would generate some price increase (+2% for cereals and un-
changed for oilseeds), with production in the animal sector expected to de-
cline slightly (from 0% and -1.5%) whereas producer prices would increase
by about +1%.” In these conditions becomes more appropriate the question
whether the effects of CAP greening measures transposed in reducing of the
agricultural production will generate subsequently benefits for the environ-
ment and communities or will only pursue a pressure reduction of Europe-
an agricultural market generated by agricultural overproduction and lack of
markets. In Figure 1.6 is shown the evolution of the CAP greening costs for
each Member State.
31
Brussels

27
Figure 1.6. Average total cost of greening per Member State in EU-27
wards 2020, SEC (2011) 1153 final/2, p. 56.
From the data presented in the figure above, it can thereby be seen an un-
even distribution of the costs concerning the greening measures of CAP in
the Member States. In the case of Romania is distinguished a roughly equiv-
alent proportion between green measures. So, are noteworthy the findings ac-
cording to which the clause 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 73/2009 of 19
January 2009, the abolition, in accordance with this Regulation, of compul-
sory set aside within the single payment scheme could in certain cases have
adverse effects on the environment, in particular as regards certain landscape
features. Considering Option 1 on greening the CAP, it is clear from the
available data from Figure 1.6 that the cost per hectare varies in the mar-
gin 30-40 EUR/ha in the EU-27, only a few states recording levels above the
margin, as in the case: Germany, Belgium, Sweden or Holland. The appli-
cation of these measures will require a reorientation of European farmers to
ecological systems but with much diminished productivity from those used
previously. In Figure 1.7 are shown the effects for farms bearing the costs of
greening measures.

28
Figure 1.7. Share of farms bearing the costs of greening measures
wards 2020, SEC (2011)1153 final/2, p. 56.
In Romania, the share of farms bearing the costs of greening measures is
of about 71%, comparable to that of Latvia, but being under EU-27 average of
70%. The effects of greening the CAP are thereby difficult to commensurate to
the extent that they generate both a reduction in production but also additional
costs of adaptation to new requirements. Mainstreaming measures adopted un-
der the new CAP reform is needed more than ever, given that the developments
in the European agricultural sector are heading more towards environmental
concepts than for compliance and improvement of environmentally friendly
agricultural practices. Romanian agriculture is so in front of some massive
transformation of European agriculture sector which, if it fails to manage them
properly, will deepen more the gap towards national agricultural model. Poor-
ly capitalized, with many farms but very fragmented, the national agricultural
sector will either have to adapt to the new European demanding, not at all favo-
rable, or to move to a bigger decline in yields, both situations agreeing in small
measure with the hopes of its revitalization along with EU integration.
REFERENCES
1. Adrian, T. R., Magdalena, T. R., Dinu, T. (2011): Optimization of production
structures in order to increase competitiveness of agricultural holdings, Eco-
nomics of agriculture, vol. LVIII, pp. 187-194.
2. Andrei, J., Dusmanescu, D. (2012): Some Romanian experience in achieving
the best Common Agricultural Policy results. How much has the agricultur-
al sector has beneficiate?, Proceedings of the International Scientific Meeting
, pp. 801-819.

29
3. Böhm, S., Misoczky, M. C., Moog, S. (2012): Greening Capitalism? A Marx-
ist Critique of Carbon Markets, Organization Studies, vol. 33(11), pp. 1617-
1638.
4. Brouwer, F., Silvis, H. (2010): Rural Areas and the Environment, In: Oskam,
A., Meester, G., Silvis, H. (eds.), EU Policy for Agriculture, Food and Rural Ar-
eas, Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
5. Bureau, J. C, Mahé, L. P. (2008): CAP reform beyond 2013: An idea for a long-
er view, Notre Europe, Study, no. 64, p. 49.
6. Chambon, N., Fernandes, S. (2010): How to Reform CAP to improve agricul-
ture’s contribution to the Europe 2020 Strategy?, Notre Europe.
7. Comunicarea Comisieicătre Parlamentul European, Consiliu, Comitetul Eco-
nomic si Social European si Comitetul Regiunilor (2010): PAC înperspecti-
vaanului 2020: Cum răspundem provocărilo rviitorului legate de alimentatie,
resurse natural si teritorii, COM (2010) 672 final, Brussels.
8. Dg. Agri. (2011): Rural Development in the EU– Statistical and economic in-
formation report 2011, Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Develop-
ment, European Union, Luxembourg, 2012.
9. European Commission (2010): Agriculture and Rural Development (2010),
Promoting European Union Farm Product: A Helping Hand, Brussels, Europe-
an Commission.
10. European Commission (2011): Commission Staff Working Paper Impact As-
Brussels.
11. European Commission (2011): Legal proposals for the CAP after 2013, http://
ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/legal-roposals/index_en.htm
12. European Commission (2011a): The CAP in perspective: from market interven-
tion to policy innovation, DG Agriculture and Rural Development, Agricultur-
al Policy Analysis and Perspectives Unit, Brussels, http://ec.europa.eu/agricul-
ture/publi/appbriefs/01_en.pdf
13. European Commission (2011b): Common Agricultural Policy towards 2020,
Commission staff working papers, Executive summary of the impact assess-
ment, SEC(2011)1154 final, Brussels.
14. European Court of Auditors (2011): Special Report No 5/2011: Single payment
scheme (SPS): issues to be addressed to improve its sound financial manage-
ment, http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/8096819.PDF
15. European Parliament (2012): Draft report on the proposal for a regulation of
the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct pay-
ments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common
agricultural policy, 2012, www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=//
EP//TEXT+COMPARL+PE-474.052+01+NOT+XML+V0//PL
16. European Parliament, Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development
(2011): Draft Report on The CAP toward 2020: meeting the food, natural re-
source and territorial challenges of the future, Document PR857600EN.
doc., http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/agri/
pr/857/857600/857600en.pdf.
17. Gelauff, G., Grillo, I., Lejour, A. (2008): Subsidiarity and Economic Reform in
Europe, Heidelberg: Springer – Verlag, Berlin.

30
18. Giurcă, D., Alexandri, C., Rusu, M. (2012): Reforma Politicii Agricole Comune
în contextual perspective bugetare post-2013, Studii de Strategie şi Politici
(SPOS 2011), Studiul nr. 1, Institutul European din România, Bucureşti.
19. Grant, W. (2010): Policy instruments in the Common Agricultural Policy, West
European Politics, vol. 33(1), pp. 22–38.
20. Haralambie, G. (2010): Effect of the current crisis on global economy, Ovidius
University Annals of Economics Sciences Series, vol. X (2), pp. 330-335.
21. House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (2010):
1654-i to-iv, Session 2010–12, p. 25.
22. Lazar, C., Lazar, M., Dimian, G. (2010): The implications of the global eco-
nomic crisis on the Romanian sustainable development, Calitatea Acces la Suc-
ces, vol. 11(113), pp. 140–143.
23. Muresan J. D, Ivan M. V. (2009): Education, Science and Technology: Essential
Concepts for Understanding the Welfare/Poverty Binomial, The 12th IBIMA
Conference on Creating Global Economies through Innovation and Knowledge
Management, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, pp. 513-517.
24. Parlamentul European (2007): Comisia pentru agricultură şi dezvoltare rurală,
Rezoluţia Parlamentului European din 29 martie 2007 privind integrare anoilor
state membreînpoliticaagricolăcomună (2006/2042(INI)), Integrare anoilor
state membre în PAC, P6_TA(2007)0101.
25. PBL Note (2012): Greening the CAP. An analysis of the effects of the European
Commission’s proposals for the Common Agricultural Policy 2014-2020, PBL
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
26. Tangermann, S. (2011): Direct payments in the CAP post 2013, European Par-
ary, p. 23.
27. Wijkman, A., Rockstrom, J. (2013): Falimentarea naturii: negarealimitelor
planetei, EdituraCompania, Bucuresti, p. 93.
28. Zahiu, L. (1992): Agricultura mondială si mecanismele pietei, Editura Arta
Grafică, Bucuresti.

31
CHAPTER II
RURAL TOURISM IN THE DANUBE REGION
OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA –
COMPARATIVE EXPERIENCES
AND DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVES32
Drago CVIJANOVIĆ, Predrag VUKOVIĆ
ABSTRACT
Rural areas with preserved nature and reach anthropogenic tradition of dif-
ferentruralareashavealwaysattractedpeopleforholidaysandtostay.Inrecent
years that kind of needs increase. A large number of factors affect the growth
and development interests people from urban areas. Primarily environmental
pollution, the increasing alienation of people from the natural environment, uni-
formity and standardization that provides a modern way of life in urban city are-
as, etc. Serbia has obviously great resources opportunities for development ru-
ral tourism. The attitude based on the fact of the presence of a large number of
natural and human (anthropogenic) sources which are located in rural areas. As
one of the important natural attractiveness in Serbia represents the Danube Riv-
er which extends for 588 km and it is fully navigable. Due to its length, it is neces-
sary to describe Danube in three spatial geographic entities: the upper Danube,
Metropolitan area (Belgrade – Novi Sad) and the Lower Danube. Natural attrac-
tivenesswhicharepresentinallthreeareasandalsosignificantanthropogenicre-
sources, make base for tourism development. All resources are comfortable for
development tourism of special interest. This area has great potential for devel-
opment of the rural tourism. Attitude based primarily on the size of the territo-
ry that covers rural areas. This paper work analysed natural and social resources
whichareimportantforthedevelopmentoftourismwithspecialemphasisonthe
development of rural tourism in all three areas. Paper work will point out the stra-
tegic directions for its further tourist development primarily starting from market-
ing and management approach to developing rural tourism destinations.
KEY WORDS: destination, tourism, rural area development, agriculture
INTRODUCTION
TheRepublicofSerbiahasnotgivensufficientattentiontodevelopmentofruraltour-
ism. In different parts rural tourism has taken on different forms. Previous development
canbeassessedashaphazardly,ratherthanplannedanddirectedstrategicallydriven.
32
This paper work is result of the project No. 46006 – III “Sustainable agriculture
and rural development in function realizing strategic goals of the Republic of
Serbia in framework of Danube region” financing by the Ministry of Education
and Science of the Republic of Serbia in period 2011-2014

32
Recently started with some projects which aimed to revive the rural areas
which burdened with many problems, such as, for example, depopulation, mi-
gration to urban centres, and the low level of investment and so on. It is ex-
pected that rural tourism will contribute to the elimination of these negative
trends. Tourism with synergetic character and multiple impacts on the overall
economic and social life will strengthen the Serbian village.
CONCEPT OF RURAL TOURISM
In the literature, there is currently no uniform and universally accepted defini-
tion of rural tourism. The reason lies in the complexity of the issue, because rural
tourism touches on two important industries – agriculture and tourism. By the early
nineties was the dominant definition given by the Council of Europe in 1986: “Ru-
ral tourism includes all forms of tourism activities in rural areas, not just those that
can be strictly linked to the farm, or can be defined as agro-tourism.”33
The definition is fairly general, and as such is deficient; therefore it has of-
ten been criticized. Roberts and Hall’s (2003)34
noted that the definition which
is, or at the beginning of the nineties adopted by the European Union (Europe-
an Community), created problems of dual nature:
First, it moved away from the activities predominantly related to the farm
from which rural tourism or “draws” its existence. In support of this claim that
the rural tourism is often used synonyms “agro”/”agri”/“farm”.
Second, the definition is confusing, because it involves a wide range of rec-
reational activities that take place in a rural setting, whether it is a rural area far
from any urban centre, whether it is rural in its immediate vicinity.
In order to effectively illustrate the confusion that carries this approach to
define and substantiate their views at the same time raised the question: “Do
some recreational activity that takes place in the “Central Park” or the Finnish
thematic park “Santa Clause”, may appoint “rural tourism”; given that it takes
place in a rural setting, and is not strictly related to the farm?”
Previous research and provides definitions of rural tourism have been pub-
lished in various scientific journals spectrum. Since some of known are, for ex-
ample, “Sociology Ruralis”,35
“Annals of Tourism Research”,36
Journal of Sus-
33
Thibal, S. (1988): Rural Tourism in Europe, Council of Europe, Strasbourg.
34
Roberts, L., Hall, D. (2003): Rural Tourism and Recreation: Principles to Practice,
Leisure and Tourism Management Department, The Scottish Agriculture College,
Auchincruive, Ayr, UK, CABI Publishing, p.15.
35
Bessière, J. (1998): Local Development and Heritage: Traditional Food and Cuisine
as Tourist Attractions in Rural Areas, Journal Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 38, No. 1.
36
Fleischer, A., Felsenstein, D. (2000): Support for Rural Tourism – Does it Make a
Difference?,Annals ofTourism Research,Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 1007-1024; Campbell,
L. M. (1999): Ecotourism in Rural Developing Communities, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 534–553.

33
tainable Tourism,37
International Journal of Tourism Research,38
Journal Tourism
Management,39
etc., as well as in various reports of international organizations,
of which it should be stressed, reports: OECD in 1994,40
UNFAO report from
2004, “EuroGites “report of 2005.41
UN FAO (2004)42
distinguishes the following types of tourism that are taking
place in rural areas: ecotourism, agro-tourism, agro-eco-tourism and eco-organic
tourism. The division is explained as follows: Ecotourism involves activities that
support the preservation and improvement of quality of life resources.
Agro-tourism represents the symbiotic relationship between tourism and
agriculture. It is a key element of an environmentally and socially responsible
tourism in rural areas. Rural hospitality offers new employment and income
generating opportunities for rural populations, including agro-tourism as ex-
pression and cultural exchange of agricultural practices, artistic heritage and
craftsmanship and culinary traditions. Agro-tourism may take several forms:
holiday farms, farmhouse bed-and-breakfast, farm camping, mountain resorts,
equestrian centres and other forms of rural accommodations. Such facilities
are an innovative payment system for environmental services generated on and
around agricultural lands.
Agro-ecotourism. While ecotourism is nature-based and agro-tourism is
farm-based, agro-ecotourism is a combination of both. The rural landscape,
usually a combination of wild and agro-ecosystems, is the most important re-
source for tourism development. It is obvious that a diversified agricultural
landscape, with semi-natural habitats, has a greater aesthetic and recreational
potential over uniform, degraded and/or polluted agricultural areas. In Europe,
agri-environmental policies often promoted organic agricultural activities as a
most effective means for landscape conservation. Agro-ecotourism in certain
37
Bramwell, W., Lane, B. (1993): Sustainable Tourism: An Evolving Global Approach,
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, No. 1, pp. 1-5; Lane, B. (1994): What is Rural Tour-
ism?, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 2, No.1&2, pp. 7-22.
38
Sharpley, R., Roberts, L. (2004): Rural Tourism – 10 Years On, International Journal
of Tourism Research, No. 6, pp.119-124.
39
Fleischer, A., Tchetchik, A. (2005): Does Rural Tourism Benefit from Agricul-
ture?, Journal Tourism Management, vol. 26, pp. 493–501; Getz, D., Carlsen, J.
(2000): Characteristics and Goals of Family and Owner-operated Businesses
in the Rural Tourism and Hospitality Sectors, Journal Tourism Management,
vol. 21, pp. 547-560.
40
Tourism Strategies and Rural Development (1994), Organization for Economic Co-
Operation and Development, Paris, OECD.
41
http://www.eurogites.org/documents/ and Ružić, P. (2009): Rural tourism, In-
stitute for agriculture and tourism, Poreč, p. 16.
42
El-Hage Scialabba, N., Williamson, D. (2004): The Scope of Organic Agriculture,
Sustainable Forest Management and Eco forestry in Protected Area Management,
working paper No. 18, p.16-17, FAO, UN, Rome, ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/
y5558e/y5558e00.pdf

34
locations provides a strong economic incentive to small farmers to commit to
biodiversity-friendly agriculture management.
Eco-organic tourism. When agro-ecotourism involves around an organic
farm, it is referred to as eco-organic tourism. The valorisation of specific ele-
ments of the agro-ecosystem landscape offers an additional economic resource
for environmental protection. Conversion to organic management in agricul-
tural areas and the development of connected activities such as tourism are in-
creasing. When farms are organically-managed, they increase the motivation
for tourists’ visits. New tourist expectations have enhanced the quality of the
supply such as diversified farm landscape, environmentally-sound farm-house
architecture and local/typical gastronomy.
European Federation of Rural Tourism (“EuroGites”) at the general meet-
ing held on 29th
September 2005 on the meeting held at Yalta in Ukraine adopt-
ed a “general standards of rural tourism.” Standards are, as pointed out, equal
to the area of the whole of Europe and are valid for all members of the federa-
tion to the present (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1. The criteria for defining the framework of rural tourism by the European
Federation of Rural Tourism (“EUROGITES”) from 2005
No. Criterion Explanation
1. Position of the household in the natural
environment, a village or small town
Less than 5,000 residents in the
village / town or in typical / traditional
neighbourhoods.
2. Rural area with emphasize
characteristics of traditional agriculture
and the outstanding natural values
Outstanding natural values (natural park,
etc.). Traditional agriculture excluded
industry
3. Tourism is not the main or predominant
activity or source of income in the
surrounding area.
The ratio of the number of tourist beds
and residents in rural areas should not
exceed 1:1 ratio.
4. Good environment, quiet and peaceful
location, no noise and pollution
Acceptable noise and odours that is
characteristic of traditional agricultural
production.
5. Authentic accommodation and
environment
-
6. Hospitality Personal care host about the guest
(tourists).
7. Small capacity units The upper limit capacity is 40 beds, if
not legally designated or prescribed by
internal standardization by members.
8. Respect the legal criteria for evaluation Respect for standards adapted to evaluate
quality

35
No. Criterion Explanation
9. Social sustainability in the context of
multi-functional activities in rural areas
The application of the criteria of «Agenda
21» for tourism1
.
10. Connection with the local community
and traditional culture.
Minimum integration activities within the
communities in the region, guests have
the opportunity to make contact with local
realities if they want to.
11. Local products and gastronomy Available in the environment.
12. Culture (folklore, handicrafts, customs,
heritage, etc.)
Available in the environment.
13. Excluding criteria:
– Urban and industrial locality and
their surroundings.
– Areas of extreme mass and
developed tourism.
– Noise, pollution etc.
-
Source: Ružić, P., (2009): Rural tourism, Institute for agriculture and tourism,
Poreč, p.16.
In the documents “Strategy for the Development Tourism in Serbia”
(2005),43
Strategy for Sustainable Rural Tourism Development in Serbia,
(2011),44
Master Plan for Sustainable Rural Tourism Development in Serbia,
(2011),45
the term rural tourism involves a series of activities, services and oth-
er services that organize the rural population on family farms in order to attract
tourists and create additional income while respecting principle sustainable de-
velopment and conservation of natural resources.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LOWER DANUBE AREA
AND THE POTENTIAL FOR TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
As a natural potential that are important for the development of tourism in
the “Lower Danube” area, stand out:
− National Park "Đerdrap." It is located in the Danube River from Golu-
bac to Kladovo. The total surface area of 63,608 ha. It is one of five na-
tional parks in Serbia. It is characterized by a high concentration of ge-
43
Strategy of Development Tourism in Republic of Serbia, first phase report, the Min-
istry of Trade, Tourism and Services Rep Serbia, 24th
November 2005, p. 69.
44
Strategy for Sustainable Rural Tourism Development in Serbia, (2011), UNDP
programme, Ministry of Economy and Regional development, Republic of Serbia,
Belgrade.
45
Master Plan for Sustainable Rural Tourism Development in Serbia, (2011), Minis-
try of Economy and Regional development, Belgrade, Republic of Serbia.

36
omorphological, hydrological and biogeographically resources.Around
the national park covers are located protective zones with a total area
90.629 ha;
− Danube River with costal area;
− "Đerdap Lake" – which is the largest artificial lake in Serbia. Depend-
ing on the work of HPP "Đerdap" surface varies from 170 to 253 km2.
− Good geographical and traffic position – European Corridor 7 (Danube)
and the connection to Corridor 10 through Požarevac city;
− moderate continental climate;
− flora and fauna;
− diversity of spatial areas characterized by:
– urban centres: Veliko Gradište, Golubac, Majdanpek, Kladovo and
Negotin.
– numerous of rural environmental entities,
– widespread rural area.
Some of these natural resources have been put into developing tourism, but
the hope is that tourism will get more and more important role, due to the ef-
fects which can have on the entire economic life of the area.
Tourism from the aspect geomorphology is characterized by a high degree
of attractiveness. In the first place, as well as specific characteristic of this are-
as stand out “Đerdap” as the biggest gorge in Europe. Spatially speaking, Iron
Gate consists of four smaller gorges and three valleys. Special attraction of the
area is reflected in the fact that here measured the biggest depth of the Danube
River in the whole course (2,000 m), which is normally measured near Don-
ji Milanovac city.
As social conditions important for the development of tourism emphasize:
− Potential for the development of urban forms of tourism in the munic-
ipalities of Veliko Gradište, Golubac, Majdanpek, Kladovo and Nego-
tin. This area has 121,306 inhabitants per the 2002 Census.
− Then, there are a numerous of rural environmental entities as represent-
atives of rural way of life.
− Numerous cultural and historical monuments. It is important primarily
to emphasize archaeological sites, "Lepenski Vir", "Diana", "Golubac
city" remains "Trajan's Bridge" and "Trajan's Tablet", various castles,
and also "Serbian rural architecture."
− Typical architecture in urban and rural areas;
− Multi-ethnic composition of the population – which assumes a wide
range of different contents related to customs and life of local areas
where the focus should be in the cultural offer of the area.
− folklore and folk handcrafts – as an integral part of the tradition of local
population.
According to the available data (National tourist organization of Serbia and
Regional Chamber of Commerce) in the entire area, “Lower Danube” operates

37
19 facilities registered to accommodate guests. In all, there are 833 rooms that
are 1,942 beds. Total operates six hotels with 595 rooms and 1,294 beds. The
degree of occupancy was 25.3%. Average length of stay of tourist is 2.4 days.
The majority of guests are domestic tourists. The relative share of foreign
tourist traffic is less than 6% of total tourist traffic areas, which can be de-
scribed as very lower. Official information on accommodation in private hous-
es, primarily in rural area i.e. rural tourism, is not yet available.
The most perspective tourist products in this area include:
− Nautics – The area provides excellent opportunities for the develop-
ment of boating (Danube River), which could attract large number of
tourists interested in the area of Veliko Gradište, Golubac, Donji Mi-
lanovac, Tekija, Kladovo, Mihajlovac.
− Excursions – which include visits to archaeological sites, "Lepenski
Vir", "Diana", "Golubac" remnants of "Trajan's bridge," as well as hy-
droelectric power plant "Iron Gate".
− Short breaks – for this kind of tourism the area has the capacity to Sil-
ver Lake, Kladovo, Donji Milanovac and the National Park “Đerdap”.
− Business tourism – there are some present activities in the urban centres
of the Donji Milanovac, Kladovo, Golubac, etc.
− Rural (agro) tourism – for this kind of tourism there are good prospects
in the Negotin area and settlements in the area around the National Park
of “Đerdap”.
− Hunting tourism – with investments outside the National Park could be
regulated some location with adequate hunting infrastructures and to be
available to develop this type of tourism.
− Fishing tourism – the entire area of the Danube basin provides excellent
conditions for the development of fishing tourism.
− Photo safari – the National Park “Đerdap” provides ideal conditions for
the development of this form of tourism that today there is a great de-
mand in Western European countries and also in the United States and
Japan.
− "Food tourism" – the many gastronomic specialties typical for this
area.
Vision for the area, “Lower Danube” is that in this area should develop
tourism through the principles of sustainable tourism development that valued
primarily rich and well preserved natural environment in NP “Đerdap”, and
then a rich legacy of anthropogenic entire of area. Tourism should be devel-
oped through evaluation of:
− natural resources of the National Park "Đerdap”
− Danube River with all the perspective aspects of tourism that can devel-
op on it, and in its coastal areas,
− unique cultural and historical heritage of the whole area,
− hunting and fishing grounds,

38
− widespread rural environment.
Strategic basis for the proposed vision for tourism development based on:
environmental conservation, biodiversity areas, man-made heritage, different
ambient environments, great opportunities for the development of cross-bor-
der cooperation with the Republic of Romania, and currently underutilized po-
tential investment in the economy of tourism development.
CONDITIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF RURAL TOURISM IN THE LOWER DANUBE
Due to the natural, ecologically and environmental characteristics, differ-
ent rural areas in the “Lower Danube” area are very interesting and perspective
area for the development of rural tourism.
Adequate built houses in a preserved natural environment, characterized by
peace and quiet, would represent “natural oasis” for the people from high ur-
ban, industrial centres (Belgrade, Pozarevac, Smederevo, Kragujevac, Nego-
tin, Bor, etc.). Sadly, today the entire area of “Lower Danube”, rural tourism
is not got a place and role that it could have and should play in the overall de-
velopment of tourism.
In this regard, special attention should be given to rural tourism and all its
manifestal forms (agri tourism, farm tourism, different activities in various ru-
ral areas, tourism of special interest, as well as many others). Regarding to this,
the first steps could be determined primarily investing in appropriate tourism
infrastructure – primarily receptive, traffic, and then the one that would com-
plement out accommodation tourist industry. It is necessary to train the local
people to provide appropriate quality services to tourists who would come to
the area. An important role in all issue should have: relevant line of Ministries,
the National Tourism Organization (TOS), local governments, and represent-
atives from industry who may find their interest in investing in the develop-
ment of rural tourism.
Numerous villages are the basis on which should be based planning, espe-
cially considering the current trends in the development of rural tourism (the
so-called “return to roots”, the concept of “healthy organic food”, the growing
popularity of the typical ethno issues – music, folk art, naive art, handicrafts,
introducing tourists with the old customs, etc.).
The local economy in particular SMEs should find interest in marketing
their agricultural and food products to tourists. This would be the connection
of Agriculture, Trade and Tourism, strengthen local economies and eliminate
some of the many negative trends plaguing the life of the inhabitants of the
area.
In the following years, it is necessary to work on the image of the “Low-
er Danube” area as a tourist destination. This is based on the assumption that
area could be subject of making position on potential tourist markets, thereby

39
caught the attention specific segments of tourism demand. Building tourist im-
age should take place with the construction of a complementary image of Ser-
bia as a country in terms of tourism development on macro and micro level as
a tourist destination.
Serbia, unfortunately, is not present at the international tourism market in
an appropriate manner however its tourist image is not adequately built. The
reasons for this lie in:
− Political situation that was present on the Western Balkans in the past
twenty years.
− Insufficient investment in tourism as an economic activity.
− The absence of adequate implementation of the tourism development
strategy in the long term, etc.
Strategic positioning of tourist products “Lower Danube region” and their
branding must be target driven based on a certain number of products that have
been already exploited tourist, or for which there is some possibility that in a
short time into developing.
The products: Nautics and cruising and touring excursions, short breaks,
business tourism, rural tourism, tourism of specific interest. The main prod-
ucts of special interest tourism would be: hunting and fishing, “photo safari”,
“cycling tourism” and events (a good example of the rural events that fit into
the increasingly popular concept of “Food tourism”, namely: “Fair honey and
wine” held in Negotin, event “St. Tryphon” that takes place in honour of the
wine, then the exhibition of honey and bee products, which meets regularly in
Kladovo, etc.).
A crucial place at market performance, in the short and long term, should
have a domestic market. Such a view is based on the proximity of large ur-
ban centres in Belgrade, Novi Sad, Pozarevac, Kragujevac, Smederevo, which
are potentially great tourism generating centres. Long term should be focus on
the surrounding countries. Primarily Romania, Hungary and Croatia. With Ro-
mania should be establish an appropriate level of cross-border cooperation,
in view of the Danube River, which is a common “bond” between two coun-
tries.
CHARACTERISTICS OF METROPOLITAN AREA
“BELGRADE – NOVI SAD” AND THE CONDITIONS
FOR TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
This area primarily characterized possibility for developing tourism related
to urban resources. This attitude, primarily because Belgrade, Novi Sad, Sme-
derevo, Pancevo, and many other urban centres, located in this region, are the
most developed part of Serbia.
The area characterized by numerous natural resources, that are, for the nat-
ural and geographical characteristics, features and terrain shape, each other

40
very different. Of the Pannonia Plain in the north to the mountainous areas in
the south area part.
Due to the large number of natural and social resources, based primarily
on the set form and scope of this paper work, we will only briefly summarize
some of the resources specific to this area.
In the Belgrade city area, as natural conditions important for the develop-
ment of tourism, can be distinguished:
in the urban area: The old town of Belgrade, old town of Zemun, Coastal
area of Danube river, Sava amphitheatre;
then aquatic zone: aquatory of the Danube with the backwaters and canals,
aquatory of the Sava River and Sava Lake, Veliko Blato Lake located between
Ovca and Borca, Deep Lake Stream in Barajevo;
Park and recreation area: Košutnjak / Topčider Banjička forest, Zemun –
Forest Park, Stepin Lug – Forest Park;
Ecology – a significant tourist zone for tourism development: Ada Cigan-
lija/Ada Medjica/Makiš, Ratno ostrvo/island Čaplјa, Ada Huja i Velikoselski
wetland, Avala mountain wiht Zavojnica river;
Rural tourism zone are: Srem/Banat, area under the Avala and Kosmaj
mountains, Livocko/Obranovacka areas.
In the city of Novi Sad, natural conditions important for the development of
tourism are: National Park “Fruska Gora”, the Danube River with a watershed,
Nature Reserves Koviljsko Petrovaradin Marsh and Begečka pit.
In the city of Smederevo to the resort “Jugovo” then “Šalanačka Forest”
with rare species of flora (it is important to emphasize Querceto / fraxinetum
serbicum) and fauna Šalanačko Lakes.
Due to the large number of social resources in this area it will not be men-
tioned. The most common tourism products currently in this area are:
− Business and MICE tourism.
− Nautical tourism, which is in the development stage. Some infrastruc-
ture facilities for the development of this type of tourism are built, and
gave some results so far, and some are in the very beginning of con-
struction.
− Special interest tourism – which is based on the cultural history herit-
age of the city, to different possibilities provided by the National Park
"Fruska Gora", art, gastronomy, sports facilities, etc..
− Hunting tourism – which can complement the tourist offer of the re-
gion. In this area operates a number of hunting clubs.
− Fishing tourism – which would rely primarily on the location area of the
Danube River and on its tributaries, etc..
− Rural tourism and agro-tourism, for which there are objectively good
resource perspective, which could be developed in the hinterland
towns.

41
CONDITIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF RURAL TOURISM IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA
“BELGRADE – NOVI SAD”
Development of Rural tourism in this area has assumed different forms.
Thus, for example, in the vicinity of Novi Sad, typical farm destination well
known as “salash”. Building of this kind of farms are with all the features re-
lated to the life and customs of the people who lives in Vojvodina, while in the
territory of Belgrade and Smederevo, assumed the form of rural tourist excur-
sion destination.
During the 2004 in aim to promote Serbia as a “transit destination” towards
the “Athens Olympic games” was built two typical farms (salash/ranch). They
are: “Salash 137”, “Salash 84”, and later were built “Brkin salash” and “Our
salash” that complement the tourist offer of this region. Today in this area are
present a numerous of farms (ranch/salash) that are aimed to promoting local
values of the population who lives in this area. However, if we want more it is
not enough.
So far, very little has been done to promote agro-tourism (specific types of
rural tourism, typical for villages in these areas). In this area is present a typi-
cal rural ambient units which is specific for the region of Vojvodina (North Ser-
bia). These units characterized, for example, architecture, traditions, way of
life, and make it different from other parts of the Republic of Serbia.
Exactly, in the villages of Vojvodina, which until now are little present in
the Serbian tourist offer, lies a great potential for the development of agro-
tourism.
In the Belgrade area until now very little has been developed about ru-
ral tourism. The focus of development is primarily placed on excursion in ru-
ral tourist destinations. As an area that currently has the most developed rural
tourism is allocates one that is located below the mountains Avala and Kosmaj.
First of all, it is about hiking in the countryside, farm stay tourism in villages
“Babe” and “Koraćica”. These rural tourist destinations are equipped with the
infrastructure to meet the needs of tourists staying for no longer up to 4 days.
Those for which travel demand expressed particular interest in the met-
ropolitan area, are “food – tourism” and wine tourism. In this sense evolved
“events” that are aimed at promoting local values.
Market research of indigenous food products in Vojvodina, which was part-
ly carried out in Novi Sad points to the fact that some indigenous products
more or less known and that they have different representation in the diet of
consumers.
As the most famous food products for which there is tourist demand are:
Vojvodina ham an original authentic food product. Because of character-
istics it is a product with high price and it significantly limits the tourist con-
sumption.

42
“Petrovac Cullen” (sausages) features local indigenous products in cen-
tral and southern Backa. Because of the authentic production, meat quality and
specific spices has potential to grow into a traditional brand, with good pros-
pects of increasing rank.
“Sremska sausage” is produced in a traditional way in the households and
the industrial way capacity. Technology industrial production, industrial pros-
pects taste Sremska sausage significantly differ from those produced by house-
holds.
Aspic old indigenous product with extremely seasonal character of con-
sumption (in the winter). Limiting factors of increasing investments are specif-
ic modes of transport and attachment for the winter season.
Greaves has a long tradition in the consumption of which is linked to tradi-
tional Vojvodina pig slaughter. With the right packaging can increase sales.
Homemade bacon for which the world’s growing demand especially made
from pig mangulica due to lower cholesterol content.
Futog sauerkraut has local character and tradition. Demand is highly sea-
sonal.
Mulberry brandy called. “Mulberry” in the past has been the traditional
beverage. With the disappearance of the mulberry trees from the streets of vil-
lages and towns, it loses its significance. It has characteristics of indigenous
products. Having a character organic production has an important perspective
on the market. Stricter control of production (no added artificial sugars), better
packaging design, and with an emphasis on the organic character of produc-
tion to marketing activities.
Strudel has been produced by households but today is producing and less
bakers and industrial capacity. With the use of high quality raw materials (good
quality and special purpose flour poppy) can develop into a top brand.
Pumpkin pie is predominantly consumed by households. There is seasonal
consumption. Frozen pumpkin pie has significant prospects of export with the
promotional activities that suggest an organic character and high quality.
Steamed rolled cheese has a regional character and is related mainly to do-
mestic production. There are significant differences in production technology
and quality achieved in individual micro-sites of production.
Bermet wine production is related to the micro locality Fruska Gora or at
Sremski Karlovci. Has a long tradition in manufacturing. With better distribu-
tion and marketing activities can become a top brand. The limiting factor is the
production. It is assumed that the annual production of 15 to 20 thousand bot-
tles.
Events that are organized in municipalities which gravitate mostly to the
Danube River as the topic have a wine. The reason is developed viticulture pro-
duction and wine production Beočin, Sremski Karlovci, Smederevo, etc. The
best known are the following events: “Karlovac grape”, “Grape Banoštorski
days”, “Smederevo autumn”, etc.

Greening CAP Challenges for Romanian Agriculture

Greening CAP Challenges for Romanian Agriculture

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Greening CAP Challenges for Romanian Agriculture

Similar to Greening CAP Challenges for Romanian Agriculture (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Greening CAP Challenges for Romanian Agriculture