Why does the State Fund for Agriculture (SFA) hide information about the distribution of EU subsidies? Is there corruption in agriculture? Is the money from the European funds directed to specific beneficiaries? Are there preconditions for corruption?
An interesting decision of the SFA from the beginning of August this year took us to these questions, refusing to prepare and provide a report on the 300 companies that have won the most European subsidies for agriculture since 2007, year after year. This was confirmed to Iskra.bg by Ms. Seva Pamukchieva, who, in her capacity as a lawyer specializing in agricultural cases, requested the data in question.
However, the institution replied that such information was not in the public interest and there was no point in making such a reference. This led lawyer Pamukchieva to file a lawsuit against the SFA. The decision of the Executive Director of the Fund states:
“The requested information is not public information within the meaning of the Access to Public Information Act (APIA). It is not related to the public life of the Republic of Bulgaria and will not provide an opportunity to form its own opinion on the activities of the State Fund „Agriculture“ – Paying Agency. This information in no way provides data on how the institution operates and how its work is organized. The names of these beneficiaries, as a list of persons meeting the set criteria, are not of a public nature and do not carry public significance.”
A complaint from a lawyer followed. Pamukchieva against the judgment of the SFA, in which convincing reasons are set out, some of which are:
- The requested information, as indicated in item 2 of the application, is public in the sense of Art. 2, para 1 of the APIA, because it meets the two cumulatively required conditions: to be related to the public life in the country and to enable the citizens to form their own opinion about the activity of the obligated subject;
- An important reason for noting is that the SFA is a body that makes decisions for spending funds from the European Union or providing the use of such funds for programs and projects in the sense of Decision № 3431 of 11.3.2019. according to adm.d. 10673/2017 Therefore, the information on which entities the funds for support from the two funds have been distributed is related to the public life in the country;
- From the list of funded entities, conclusions can be drawn for compliance with legal requirements, as well as the applicable criteria for receiving support with European funds;
- From this list one can draw a conclusion about the activity of the Agriculture Fund as an obligated entity within the meaning of the APIA in terms of the distribution and spending of public funds;
The Tarnovo Administrative Court has ruled in favor of lawyer Pamukchieva. In fact, in the inquiry, the lawyer asked two questions, the first being: ‘What amount of support from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development has been paid for each year since 2007? „In this regard, she says:
“I received this information. However, this is the aggregate amount for each individual year. My second question, related to the 300 companies, was denied. In reality, the SFA website has information about the beneficiaries only for the last two years. For the previous such data are missing.”
Listen to what else the lawyer shares. Pamukchieva:
“The EU understands this very well, because in better developed European economies it is so – land is a value that small farmers take care of, so there are funds dedicated to agriculture, for which huge sums are given every year. And what is happening in Bulgaria is that the money of the European taxpayer is poured into the farms of people who cultivate tens and hundreds of thousands of acres of land. If you have such a large resource, it is absolutely illogical to need additional subsidies. The idea of European funds is to enable the individual small farmer to gain a foothold in the market and to be able to develop, work the land and derive benefits from it. The huge untapped potential of Bulgaria is precisely in these people – small farmers who really need support. I think that if we pay attention to this rather shady area of the economy – the distribution of European money to millionaires in agriculture, people will become more critical and committed to the topic.”
Now the ball has been transferred again to the State Fund „Agriculture“, which must now comply with the decision of the Administrative Court in Veliko Tarnovo and prepare the requested report. Lawyer Pamukchieva finished:
“Unfortunately, there is no deadline for when the relevant report must be prepared. But in the end, the SFA must comply with the court’s decision. I assume that more motives will be set out on their part, with which they will refuse again. Then, of course, a complaint will follow.”
According to the lawyer, there is currently a lack of transparency in the distribution of funds from European agricultural funds. This makes people doubt and cannot form an opinion about the activities of the institution. Instead, instead of promoting the competitiveness and development of small farms, the incentives for far larger producers continue.
