Agriculture Minister Georgi Tahov is convinced that cooperatives will make the sector more competitive.
Participants agreed: “At the ‘Bulgarian Farmer’ forum, we started the conversation; at the next one, we must continue building a vision to present to politicians.”

Cooperation is a sign of trust and entrepreneurial spirit. The benefits are clear. First and foremost, it allows for easier risk management and better control over production costs. A united professional community can respond more adequately to all challenges. Cooperatives contribute to a fairer distribution of added value along the entire supply chain. Through cooperation, we can more easily implement innovative approaches, plan more effectively, achieve greater transparency and efficiency, and become more competitive.

This was stated by Agriculture Minister Georgi Tahov during the discussion on “Cooperation in the Agricultural Sector – Past, Present, and Future,” organized by Bulgarian Farmer newspaper in partnership with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

The event took place at the National Palace of Culture (NDK) with the participation of representatives from all sub-sectors – fruit and vegetable growers, grain producers, livestock breeders, and processors.

According to the minister, cooperation is undoubtedly of strategic importance to the entire sector, which is foundational for our economy.

“Good cooperation shortens supply chains. That’s why I am convinced this is a topic that can contribute to more sustainable development in the sector,” Tahov added.

The discussion included three panels – current cooperation policies in Bulgaria, science and practical models of cooperation, and perspectives and visions for cooperation in agriculture.

Deputy Minister Lozana Vasileva spoke on the first topic, emphasizing that cooperation is voluntary and must be initiated by producers.

“We make every effort to stimulate associations through interventions and campaigns. We highly value the efforts of industry associations, which actively help promote the benefits,” said Vasileva.

According to her, there are currently 69 producer groups. Under the Rural Development Program, 20 of them are funded with a budget of €4.6 million, and under the Strategic Plan, 37 projects have been submitted totaling €12.5 million.

Minister Tahov explained that an intervention for short supply chains has been added:

“We are testing this mechanism because, when cooperation involves financial input, trust is lacking. It was lost long ago and is hard to rebuild. Currently, unification is based on territorial principles. A Cooperative Law alone won’t restore trust,” he said.
However, he noted that such a law could help regain trust and overcome territorial limitations in cooperation.

Rositsa Bronevska-Kozhuharova, Chief Expert at the Directorate of Market Measures and Producer Organizations, and Gergana Kalinova, Chief Expert at the Directorate of Rural Development, presented funding opportunities for cooperation.

During the debate, former agriculture minister Kiril Vatev explained that cooperation today is difficult because 100% of land is privately owned.

“Farm sizes are varied. Large producers have no interest in cooperating. Small ones prefer selling on the black market,” he said.
He gave an example of a cooperative in France uniting over 160 companies to sell meat. In Spain, cooperatives manage to compete with major retail chains.

“Why aren’t cooperatives recognized as producer organizations?” asked Todor Dzhikov, Chair of the National Association of Potato Producers.

The Ministry responded: “They can be, but they must meet recognition criteria.”

Dimitar Zorov, Co-chair of the National Union of Cattle Breeders, added:

“The main question is whether we are ready. What results will cooperation bring—positive or negative? An analysis is needed. There’s a risk of fake associations formed just to absorb funds.”

Dimitchka Tarpanova, Deputy Chair of the Dobruja Fruit Growers Union, stressed:

“If we don’t unite, we won’t last much longer.”

Iliya Prodanov, Co-chair of the Bulgarian Agrarian Chamber, added:

“Only 700 people have joined associations. Progress is slow. We have 100 associated producers who tried negotiating for raw materials, but suppliers refused, preferring distributors.”
He called on the state to intervene and solve this issue.

Ventsislav Vurbanov, Chair of the Bulgarian Food Chamber, told Minister Tahov:

“We tried negotiating directly for fertilizers and plant protection products, but manufacturers prefer working with distributors. If cooperation is to become a policy, it should be done via tax relief, not financial aid.”

While observing the debate, the publisher of Media Group Bulgaria proposed that the next discussion be held with the Parliamentary Agriculture Committee.

During the second panel on science and cooperation, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Boryana Ivanova, Rector of the Agricultural University in Plovdiv, agreed with Minister Tahov that low levels of cooperation stem from national psychology.

“The ministry’s approach to supporting producers with financial incentives is currently appropriate, but the debate on cooperation is just beginning. It will be difficult—but not impossible,” she said.

Prof. Dr. Ivan Boevski from New Bulgarian University added:

“The key for those who join cooperatives is to have at least one common, clearly understood interest—that together, they will achieve more than individually.”

Florian Amersdorfer, a project leader in the field of cooperation, shared that farmers opt for cooperatives because they offer benefits:

“Small cooperatives of about 20 farmers are formed. Checks are done every two years. They enter as commercial entities and use the programs.”

In the third panel, Iliya Prodanov, Ventsislav Vurbanov, and Yavor Gechev—Presidential Advisor, former Minister of Agriculture, and Chair of the Union of Cooperatives—took part.

“Bulgaria must choose the path of cooperation. Our goal should be sectoral and integrated cooperation. First, sectors must unite, then associations at industry level,” said Prodanov.
“To me, cooperation is the identity, the brand, the vision of the sector. But people within must work in symbiosis—and that can only happen with clear rules.”
He added that bad examples must be analyzed to know what to avoid when forming associations.

Yavor Gechev stressed that cooperation must be approached carefully:

“There are various types of cooperatives, and everyone sees cooperation from their own perspective. There are no clear definitions yet.”

“The major absentee here is the Ministry of Economy,” he added.
“Kiril Vatev envisions purely commercial cooperatives. But if individuals unite to sell collectively, that too is a cooperative. If 10 people produce tomatoes, why can’t they produce them together as a business entity?”
Gechev insisted that a cooperative should function with or without support, because
“Every cent put on the table distorts the free market, and Europe has gone too far with subsidies.”

He continued:

“When developing legislation, everything should come in a package—tax relief, the Cooperative Law, and definitions of what a farmer is. This is the experience Europe has achieved. We must stop arguing and write the necessary texts to get things moving.”

Ventsislav Vurbanov concluded:

“We must define what kind of cooperation we’re talking about. If we don’t know our exact goal, we’ll never feel the real need and won’t take action. We already cooperate in certain areas and know that together we’re stronger. But something’s still not working in practice.
We see a desire from the ministry for progress, but there needs to be an analysis of why things haven’t worked so far. Previous efforts were fragmented. In Germany, there are benefits—that’s how it should be here too.”

He also emphasized the need for clarity on whether cooperatives will be allowed to engage in commercial activities.

Source: 24 Chasa