Evaluation and problems of the implementation of Direct payments per area | Оценка и проблеми при прилагането на директните плащания на площ

This survey is based on three-years experience of implementing the financial supports per area under the CAP to assess the progress of its application and reveal problems that restraint it. The subject of this survey are the direct payments per area, mainly the Single payment scheme SAPS, National complementary payments scheme NCPS, Measure 211 Natural handicap payments to farmers in mountain areas LFA1, Measure Payments for environmental constraints, other than mountain LFA2. Characterization and evaluation of the implementation of direct payments per area is achieved through a system of indicators. The Payment Agency data used refers to the period 2007-2009. The survey results show that successfully are utilized the funds only on the SAPS and the NCPS, while in other schemes and measures progress is unsatisfactory, particularly for Measure 214 Agri-environmental payments - 2% and are pointed the main reasons for this. The major part of the beneficiaries-candidates is concentrated in the SAPS – 82% and the NCPS and 18% for LFA. The significantly lower number of candidates than the beneficiaries authorized for financial support is an indication of significant violation of the conditions for eligibility. The biggest difference is for LFA. The beneficiaries-physical persons are more than 90%, but they manage much smaller area than the legal persons. The same trend was observed in the supported land by SAPS and NCPS, which is concentrated mainly in few beneficiaries with very large-sized grain-cropping farms, mostly in the plane areas of the country. Measures related to sustainable land management in rural areas - Аxis 2 have much lower absorption of the funds and represent a lower proportion of beneficiaries, supported area and the supporting amount. This indicates that in these regions and small farmers working under conditions of natural and agro-ecological constraints. Objectively they obtain a lower level of income and need this financial support and compensation, being granted the lowest share of financial resources. The groups of farms by size of supported area show a additional deepening of the unfavorable ratios/ polarization/ due to subsidies, mostly for legal persons. In the case of the LFA is present a striving for a largesize land using but it is less pronounced due to natural constrains and additional conditions, most of which can be considered as appropriate for their replication in the SAPS and the NCPS. Of the three types of penalties the highest shares occupy the penalties for future periods, and at LFA. Reducing them is great potential to enhance progress in these measures, especially for legal persons. After 2008 positive changes are observed, concerning the structure and the dynamic of the number of beneficiaries and supported area. The authorized amount is also influenced by changes in the level of rates of payment per hectare and the ratio between larger-size and smaller-size holdings in LFA. There are changes in the ratio of EU funds and national budget.