Romania has introduced a broad set of policies to tackle the “triple challenge” facing food systems. Food markets in Romania are functioning well, although farmer cooperation and integration into global value chains is relatively low. This chapter explores the agro-food supply chain and selected food system related policy areas, including market regulation and competition, food assistance programmes and food waste. The chapter also examines Romania’s policies for encouraging healthy diets and consumption choices and the approach for promoting policy coherence and ensuring stakeholder involvement in the regulatory process.
Policies for the Future of Farming and Food in Romania
Abstract
Romania, as for most OECD countries, does not have a co-ordination body or mechanism that comprehensively covers food systems policies. Inter-ministerial co-ordination for food systems-related policies is key to facilitate the identification of potential synergies and trade-offs and to offer an opportunity to discuss the best way to address them.
Low farmer cooperation and weak participation in producer organisations are missed opportunities. Enhancing cooperation and participation in associative forms could increase agricultural competitiveness, especially for small and medium-sized farms.
One-fourth of all deaths in Romania annually can be attributed to dietary risks. Daily consumption of fruits and vegetables is the lowest in the European Union and is decreasing. Various policies to encourage healthier food choices exist, but recent trends call for strengthening this policy mix, maximising potential synergies, and improving co-ordination among actors.
Romania lacks reliable data on food waste levels, limiting the capacity of public authorities to monitor goals and evaluate its performance. Based on existing data, food waste treatment is low and decreasing.
Despite notable improvements in its regulatory policy since the early 2000s, the use and quality of regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) is uneven and there is no requirement for the periodic review of existing regulations. When it comes to negotiating and transposing EU directives and regulation, Romania relies solely on the EC’s RIA and stakeholder engagement.
Food systems cover all the elements and activities related to producing and consuming food, as well as their effects (OECD, 2021[1]). They comprise all the institutions, people, places and activities that participate in growing, processing, transporting, selling, marketing, and consuming food (Food Systems Dashboard, n.d.[2]). In this spirit, this section will describe the landscape of the agricultural supply chain to provide context for the rest of the chapter.
While it does address policies, this section has a more descriptive nature. It looks into the distribution of value added across the agro-food supply chain (5.1.1), market concentration in processing and retail (5.1.2), co-operation (5.1.3), integration into global value chains (5.1.4) and responsible business conduct in agricultural supply chains (5.1.5).
5.1.1. Distribution of value added across the agro-food supply chain
Primary production accounts for more than half of the food value added in Romania
As explained in Chapter 1, the contribution of agriculture to Romania’s total value added (4.2%) is significantly higher than EU (1.8%) and OECD (2.8%) averages. The importance of primary production is equally seen in the whole food value chain, where it accounted for 54% of the total food value added in 2020 (down from 60% in 2010). This is the highest share among EU member countries and well above the EU average (26%). The remaining value added was distributed among food and beverages distribution services (28%), food and beverages manufacturing (14%) and consumer services (5%) (Figure 5.1). In the 2010-20 period, the segment with the highest growth was distribution services with a 10 percentage points increase (from 18% in 2010 to 28% in 2020).
Share in total food value added, by segment
Source: European Commission (2023), CAP Result indicator RPI_03 Value for primary producers in the food chain, https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1.
5.1.2. Market concentration in processing and retail
Market concentration is relatively low in the food and beverages processing and retail sectors
Market concentration in the food and beverages processing sector is low for food products.1 In 2018 the four main players (CR4) in food manufacturing controlled 12% of the market (4 percentage points higher than in 2009). The main player was Groupe Lactalis with a market share of 5%. There were 16 other companies with at least 1% market share, three of which were only present in the Romanian market (Van Dam et al., 2021[3]). Market concentration in soft drinks is higher but moderate, with the four main players (CR4) having 44% of the market share in 2018 (9 percentage points lower than in 2009). The market leader was The Coca-Cola Co. with 23% market share, while there were 11 more companies having at least 1% market share. Of these eleven companies, six were exclusively present in the Romanian market (Van Dam et al., 2021[3]).
Romania had 41 modern grocery retailers per 100 000 inhabitants in 2021, which is below the average for eastern Europe (Food Systems Dashboard, n.d.[4]).2 In 2018, market concentration in the grocery retail sector was low (CR4 of 37%) and the market leader was Schwarz Beteiligungs with an 18% share. Seven other companies had more than 1% market share, one of which works exclusively in the Romanian market (Van Dam et al., 2021[3]).
5.1.3. Co-operation and other interventions to improve farmers’ position in the value chain
Participation in producer organisations and other associative forms is low, despite a recent increase in the number of agricultural co-operatives
Similarly to other post-socialist economies, co-operation among farmers in Romania is very low (see Section 1.3.1) and only 1% are part of any type of associative structure (Dobay, 2022[5]). Regarding associative forms recognised by the EU common organisation of agricultural products (see Box 5.1), in May 2024 there were 23 recognised associations of producer organisations (APOs/POs), all of which operate in the fruit and vegetable sector, and five inter-branch organisations (IBOs) (MARD, 2022[6]). In relative terms this means that in 2020 Romania had around 12 recognised POs per one million holdings, while the EU average for the same year was 410.3 Romania also has 226 producer groups (PGs).
Despite the low participation of farmers in POs and other associative forms, the recent increase in the number of co-operatives is a positive signal. Indeed, 737 new co-operatives were established in 2021, which is significantly higher than previous years, as only 1 749 co-operatives were created in the 2005-20 period (Dobay, 2022[5]).4 Key enablers for this increase include an improved legal framework, the possibility to access EU and national funds, and special fiscal benefits (Dobay, 2024[7]) (Tudor and Roşu, 2022[8]).5
Producer organisations (POs), associations of producer organisations (APOs) and inter-branch organisations (IBOs) are the main associative structures recognised by the common organisation of markets in agricultural products contained in Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013 and Regulation (EU) No. 2021/2017 (CMO Regulation). Producer organisations can be defined as any entity, including co-operatives, that has been formed and is controlled by producers in a specific sector to jointly pursue one or more of the objectives set forth in the CMO Regulation. APOs are associations of POs, while IBOs are groups composed of farmers and processors and/or traders.
When POs, IBOs and APOs meet certain characteristics, they can be recognised by the EU Member States, which allow them to receive EU financial support and benefit from certain derogations from competition rules. CAP regulations have long provided for derogations from EU competition rules for some sectors (e.g. dairy, pork, sugar, fruit and vegetables, wine) to allow farmers to co-operate through POs, APOs, and IBOs. The Omnibus Regulation (EU) No. 2017/2393 extended to all production sectors the possibility for these groups to collectively negotiate contracts for the supply of agricultural products, including price contracts.
Source: (EC, 2018[9]), (OECD, 2023[10]).
The contribution of producer organisations to the economy is remarkably low
Across the European Union, recognised POs play an important role in the fruit and vegetables sector, as can be seen in the high percentage of the total production that they market. While the EU average was 46.7% in 2021, in Romania it was less than 1% (Figure 5.2). Romania’s CSP has set the goal of increasing the share of production marketed by POs in total fruit and vegetable production to 1% by 2027 (MARD, 2022[6]).6
Share of production marketed by POs in total fruit and vegetables production
Note: Data unavailability for Estonia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, and, Malta.
Source: European Commission (2023). CAP indicators, Adding Value. https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/Qlik_Downloads/Adding-Value-sources.
The potential of greater co-operation is seen as a key opportunity under the CSP
Participation in POs, co-operatives and other associative forms could have multiple benefits. A recent EU-wide study suggests that the more straightforward impact of PO membership is on soft factors, e.g. access to market, improvement of marketing procedures, stability and security (Ecorys et al., 2023[11]). Romania’s CSP sees POs as a tool for farmers to improve and adapt their production to market requirements, perform marketing activities, optimise costs, and access EU funds7 (MARD, 2022[6]). There is also evidence suggesting that agriculture co-operatives in Romania were generally profitable and more resilient to the shocks generated by the Covid-19 pandemic (Dobay, 2022[5]) (see Section 1.3.1). Under this premise, strengthening co-operation among farmers is seen as key to achieving the 2023-27 CAP’s objective of improving the position of farmers in the value chain.
Various interventions under Romania’s CSP aim at improving co-operation, but similar measures have had very low uptake in the past
As discussed in Chapter 2, key objectives of Romania’s CSP are increasing the viability of farms as well as strengthening their market orientation, by intensifying co-operation, encouraging collective investment, modernisation of farms, investment to improve productivity while developing, and modernising the food industry. Key interventions focusing on improving the position of farmers in the value chain include setting up PGs in the agricultural/fruit sector (EUR 15 million), diverse measures for the fruit and vegetable sector (EUR 8.6 million) and developing co-operation in the value chain through short supply chains (EUR 20 million) (see Section 2.4.5). The objective is that 63 producer groups, representing 922 agricultural holdings, to benefit from these interventions during the current programming period. This goal seems very low and represents only 0.03% of all farmers.
EUR 20 million has been planned to support 71 EIP operational groups (OGs), which bring together farmers and researchers, as well as innovation brokers and advisors to tackle practical problems or explore emerging opportunities that may lead to innovative solutions and increased innovation in the agricultural sector (MARD, 2022[6]). These Operational Groups are a key tool to foster collaboration among AKIS actors (see Section 4.4.2). Furthermore, 206 local development strategies will be put in place (with a support of EUR 500 million) under LEADER, the community-led local development approach bringing together public, private and civil-society stakeholders to find shared solutions for rural areas (see Section 2.3.5). The Romanian Government has also supported other innovative community-led approaches to increase the value added of primary production, foster co-operation and diversify the rural economy, such as the local gastronomic points (Box 5.2).
Local gastronomic points have emerged as a way for farmers and rural communities to benefit from the opportunities that tourism and local gastronomy offer
Local gastronomy has always been important for rural areas, but small-scale units have traditionally operated informally, with limited visibility, no sanitary requirements and without access to government support. Since 2016, and as a response to community demands, local gastronomic points (LGP) emerged as a way to formalise existing catering activities and allow rural communities to benefit more from the opportunities that tourism offers. In 2019, the concept was formally created by Order no. 106/2019 of the National Sanitary Veterinary and Food Safety Authority (NSVFSA).
LGPs are small catering units in rural areas which serve traditional culinary products to up to 12 people, using raw materials predominantly from primary production at the level of own holding, as well as from local producers. LGPs must comply with sanitary and phytosanitary regulation issued by NSVFSA and source from authorised producers. Unlike restaurants, LGPs offer tourists the opportunity to benefit from traditional local dishes, produced and served directly by family members in their own household.
The National Agency of Mountain Areas and MARD have organised an information and educational campaign to encourage participation in LGPs and multiple LGP projects have benefitted from EU resources. Increasing educational measures and improving the regulatory of fiscal framework could strengthen the development of LGPs.
In 2022, there were 542 registered LGPs and feedback from producers, rural communities and consumers has generally been positive.
Source: (World Bank, 2023[12]), (Ungureanu, Țaran Baciu and Candrea, 2022[13]), (Dobay and Apetroaie, 2023[14]), information provided by MARD.
Experience shows that interest for these measures has been low in the past. Among the 21 measures of the 2014-2022 Rural Development Programme, those aiming at fostering POs and co-operation had the lowest uptake (see Section 2.3.2). In the case of measures for the establishment of PGs and POs (M09), EUR 40 million had been budgeted, but only EUR 17 million was spent. This could be linked to broader limitations that POs face for the implementation of their operational programmes (OPs), such as administrative burdens, low managerial skills, and lack of knowledge and awareness among POs about OPs (Ecorys et al., 2023[11]). The fact that beneficiaries must be recognised PGs can also explain the low uptake. Similarly, for co-operation (M16),8 only EUR 20 million was spent out of a EUR 81 million planned budget.
5.1.4. Integration of the food industry into global value chains
The integration of Romania into global value chains is relatively low
As shown in Chapter 1, the food, beverages, and tobacco industry in Romania has achieved a slightly higher integration into global value chains (GVCs) than primary agriculture, although its GVC participation is lower than in most peer countries. The indicators of participation of the food industry in GVCs have increased since 2000, as has the content of foreign services value-added in food exports.
Almost one-third (32%) of the value added in Romania’s domestic demand for food, beverages and tobacco comes from foreign sources (Figure 5.3). This is below the shares recorded in most peer countries and lower than the EU and OECD averages. Services was the most important foreign source industry, accounting for 14% of the value added in the food sector’s final demand. Considering the performance of OECD economies of similar size, there is ample room for Romania to deepen its integration in global value chains (OECD, 2022[15]).
Origin of value added in the domestic demand for food, beverages, and tobacco, 2020
Note: The values for EU and OECD are simple averages of the values of their members. In TiVA indicators, aggregates (in this case the EU and the OECD) are treated as a single economy (intra-region flows of value added are considered as domestic flows).
Countries are sorted according to Domestic Agricultural value in 2020.
Source: OECD (2023), Trade in Value Added (TiVA) [database], https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/trade-in-value-added.html (consulted in December 2023).
5.1.5. Responsible Agricultural Supply Chains
Romania promotes the use of the OECD-FAO Guidance for Responsible Agricultural Supply Chains, but has not yet adhered to the Recommendation of the Council
Romania is an adherent to the Council Recommendation on the OECD Due Diligence Guidelines for RBC (Guidelines) and established its National Contact Point9 since 2005. Romania has also adhered to other RBC-related instruments, including Recommendations related to sector-specific guidance. Romania is not an adherent to the Recommendation of the Council on the OECD-FAO Guidance for Responsible Agricultural Supply Chains (OECD-FAO Guidance).
Despite not being an adherent, Romania has undertaken promotional activity to encourage the use of the OECD-FAO Guidance. Beyond these types of promotional activities, some adherents to the OECD-FAO Guidance Recommendation have undertaken additional actions, including incentivising the use of the OECD-FAO Guidance in company management systems, and conditioning public procurement on demonstrated implementation of the Guidance (OECD, 2022[16]).
Food systems around the world are expected to deliver on a formidable “triple challenge”. The first requirement is to ensure food security and nutrition for all. The second is to provide livelihoods to farmers and others in the food chain and promote rural development. The third is to do all this while ensuring environmental sustainability – i.e. using natural resources sustainably (including protecting valuable ecosystems and biodiversity) and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as well as meeting other societal expectations such as animal welfare (OECD, 2021[1]). The “triple challenge” framing and the relevance of a food systems approach has been recognised by the 2022 OECD Agricultural Ministers Declarations to which Romania has adhered to.10
Romania does not have a food systems law or integrated policy that simultaneously looks at the three elements of the triple challenge. Agricultural policy follows three main drivers: the CAP objectives and the strategic vision for the sector is mainly contained in the CSP; the Strategy for the development of the agri-food sector in the medium and long term 2020-2030; and the National Sustainable Development Strategy 2030 (see Section 2.5.1). Additionally, multiple other food systems-related policies co-exist and fall under the responsibility of authorities scattered across jurisdictions, government agencies and levels of government. This structure is frequent given the complexity of food systems (OECD, 2021[1]).
While an exhaustive overview of all food system-related policies would exceed the scope of this accession review, this section will briefly look at specific topics related to each of the three challenges faced by food systems:
1. Food security and nutrition: emphasis will be given to the existence of school meals programmes, food vouchers and food banks, three important types of food assistance programmes in OECD countries (Giner and Placzek, 2022[17]).
2. Improved livelihoods of farmers and others: emphasis will be given to market regulation and competition issues.
3. Environmental sustainability: while the most relevant issues related to agriculture and natural resource management are analysed in Chapter 3, here emphasis will be given to food waste, a topic of growing interest for OECD members.11
5.2.1. Food assistance programmes
Food insecurity in Romania increased following the COVID-19 pandemic
In 2022, nearly one-fourth (22.1%) of all people in Romania were unable to afford a meal with meat, chicken, fish, or a vegetarian equivalent every second day (EC, 2024[18]). Furthermore, the 2019-21 period represented a setback for Romania in terms of reducing the prevalence of severe food insecurity in its population, which surpassed 2015 levels in 2021 (Figure 5.4), after a steady decline between 2015 (5.6%) and 2019 (3.4%). While this is a trend also seen in other OECD and EU countries after the COVID‑19 pandemic, it calls for stepping up efforts to tackle food insecurity.12
Responses to food insecurity are not limited to food assistance programmes analysed in this section and could instead focus on livelihood assistance such as increasing universal social security payments or providing cash transfers or universal basic income (Giner and Placzek, 2022[17]).
Source: World bank (2023), World Development Indicators, https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators, accessed November 2023.
School meal programmes are important in Romania but could be strengthened
Romania has a school meal programme in force which, in the 2020-21 school year, delivered fruits, vegetables and dairy products to 1.9 million children in public and private schools and covered 60% of primary and secondary school-age children (GCNF, 2021[19]). Furthermore, its coverage significantly increased since 2016, with 2022 numbers showing a 21% increase in the number of beneficiaries and a nearly a three-fold increase in the number of participating schools and kindergartens (S.C. CC SAS S.R.L., 2023[20]).
The main objectives of the school meal programme are to (i) promote and raise awareness of healthy eating habits, (ii) increase short-term and long-term consumption of fruits and vegetables in children, and (iii) increase the degree of information children have about local food products and about fighting food waste (MARD, 2022[6]). At the same time, the programme is seen as an opportunity for the dairy, fruit and vegetables sectors, with potential to supporting local producers (MARD, 2022[6]).
The school meal programme in Romania benefits from resources of the EU school scheme,13 which supports the distribution of certain products to school children, ranging from nursery to secondary school, and includes educational measures, with the aim of increasing the consumption of the covered products, and contribute to shaping healthier diets (EC, 2022[21]).
According to a 2021 survey conducted by the Global Child Nutrition Foundation, recent successes include the extension of the hot meals pilot programme which passed from operating in 50 schools in 2016 to 150 schools in the 2020-2021 school year and to 450 in 2022 (EC, 2023[22]). This pilot has recently evolved into the “Healthy Meal” national programme, which aims at providing hot meals to 1 000 schools in 2024 (Government of Romania, 2024[23]).
Challenges include shortage of space for preparing and serving hot meals, lack of human resources, and insufficient funding (GCNF, 2021[19]). Additionally, recommendations from an evaluation of the programme for the 2017-22 period include (a) simplifying procurement procedures, (b) increasing the use of digital tools to simplify internal procedures and improve monitoring, (c) providing schools with cooling and storage infrastructure, (d) encouraging a more active involvement of educational institutions and local authorities, and (e) increasing funding (S.C. CC SAS S.R.L., 2023[20]). In the same line, a recent EU-wide evaluation found that the variety of fruit and vegetable products distributed at Romanian schools has significantly decreased, payment and selection procedures are lengthy and burdensome, and educational measures are not very effective (EC, 2022[21]) (EC, 2023[24]). Furthermore, unlike most EU Member States, the interaction between the school scheme and national health initiatives was weak (EC, 2022[21]).
Co-ordination of food banks has improved but they are not able to meet the growing needs
Food banks are not-for-profit organisations that collect and distribute food to people struggling with food insecurity. While they were initially developed as an emergency tool for a hungry population, they still play a major role for food insecure households in many OECD countries and across the world. In Europe, over 350 food banks from 30 countries, including Romania, are brought together under the umbrella of the European Food Banks Federation (FEBA). The daily mission of FEBA members consists of recovering, collecting, sorting, storing, and redistributing safe and nutritious food for free to charities that assist families and people in need (Giner and Placzek, 2022[17]).
In Romania, the Federation of Food Banks of Romania (FBAR)14 was created in 2020 and became fully operational in 2022, with the objective of co-ordinating food banks and act as a representative body to FEBA (FEBA, 2022[25]). FBAR has grown rapidly and now brings together 121 donor companies for the benefit of 650 beneficiary NGOs and to date it has achieved the distribution of around 18 000 tonnes of food, reaching around 225 000 people (Banca pentru Alimente, n.d.[26]). Despite the progress, food banks in Romania are not able to meet the increasing needs revealed by charity organisations (FEBA, 2022[27]).
Romania has recently started using food e-vouchers
In May 2022, and as a response to high inflation, the Romanian Government introduced a series of temporary measures to support some of the most vulnerable segments of the population. One of these measures was the creation of “social” e-vouchers to be used for purchase food products and hot meals, as part of two national programmes15 funded by the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)16 (Government of Romania, 2022[28]). These e-vouchers are provided every two months for a value of RON 250 (EUR 50) and beneficiaries include homeless people, social assistance recipients and low-income pensioners and single-parents. The government estimates that around 3 million people will benefit annually from these vouchers (Human European Consultancy, 2024[29]). The provision of these e-vouchers has been extended until 2027, but with reduced amounts and frequency between 2025-27.
Using food vouchers, particularly e-vouchers, can have certain benefits, such as reducing the costs and administrative burden of the contracting authority, increase efficiency for implementing organisations, and potential to give recipients a greater sense of dignity and autonomy (EC, 2021[30]). Some OECD countries are also exploring how to link the use of food vouchers with healthier food choices.17
5.2.2. Market regulation and competition issues
Market regulation in the agro-food sector is in line with EU regulation
Upon its EU accession, Romania became part of the EU single market and measures related to the trade of agro-food products, such as tariffs and tariff rate quotas (TRQs) are defined and co-ordinated at the EU level, as is the large majority of legislation related to Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures and technical barriers to trade (TBT).
Equally, Romania is subject to the common organisation of agricultural products contained in Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 and Regulation EU 2021/2117, which regulates the use of market-support tools, exceptional measures, and aid schemes for certain sectors. In the context of market and economic crises, also the previous CAP 2014-22 (Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013) included several measures that could be activated, notably the traditional instruments of public intervention and support for private storage, which were augmented by provisions for exceptional measures in the event of a market disturbance (Articles 219-222) for all products (OECD, 2023[10]). These articles provide considerable discretion to the European Commission to handle market crises, including the use of voluntary supply controls and financial support packages. In addition, Member States can be authorised to provide national assistance to their farmers under state aid rules, an option often used in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the energy price hike induced by the war in Ukraine (OECD, 2023[10]). Romania’s government implemented several emergency measures to mitigate the exceptional circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic. These included specific support for the livestock sector, as well as various other measures under the Regional Development Programme for an amount of nearly EUR 180 million (see Sections 2.3.2 and 2.5.3). Specific measures to tackle recent crises and fight food inflation are described in Section 2.6.2.
Romania’s legislation tackles unfair commercial practices in the agro-food supply chain, in line with EU Directive
As regards to competition in the agro-food sector, Law 81/2022 on unfair commercial practices between enterprises within the agricultural and food supply chain transposes into Romania’s national legislation the provisions of the Directive (EU) 2019/633 unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain.
The EU Directive 2019/633 distinguishes between “black”, which are always prohibited, and “grey” practices, which are only allowed if the supplier and the buyer agree on them beforehand in a clear and unambiguous manner. Black unfair trading practices include short notice cancellations of perishable agri-food products, unilateral contract changes by the buyer, risk of loss and deterioration transferred to the supplier, misuse of trade secrets by the buyer. Grey practices, on the other hand, include return of unsold products; payment of the supplier for stocking, display, and listing; payment of the supplier for promotion, marketing, and advertising.
Administrative burden and regulatory complexity make markets less competition-friendly than in other OECD countries
According to the OECD Product Market Regulation Indicators,18 product market regulation in Romania (score of 1.86 on a scale from 0 to 6) is fairly less competition-friendly than in most OECD countries (OECD average was 1.43) (OECD, 2018[31]). While this is an economy-wide indicator, it highlights areas where Romania’s regulatory framework is below EU average and which can affect businesses, including those along the food supply chain. For instance, the indicator for simplification and evaluation of regulations (2.15) is significantly higher than the EU average (1.59) (OECD, 2018[31]; OECD, 2022[15]). On the other hand, regulatory restrictions to trade and investment are low (aggregated score of 0.52) are less than the EU average (average of 0.69) (Figure 5.5).
Note: The PMR values range between (0) and (6) from the most to the least competition-friendly regulatory regime.
Source: OECD 2018 PMR database. Consulted December 2023.
While PMR sectoral indicators do not cover the agro-food sector, they do include an indicator for retail which considers, among others, information on how easy it is to establish a retail outlet for selling food and beverages. In Romania, no registration (beyond a general commercial or trade registry) is needed to establish a new retail outlet for selling food and beverages, but an additional permit must be obtained, and an authorisation is required depending on the outlet size (Figure 5.6).
Note: Asterisks (*) in bars make reference to Romania’s answers. For authorisation, the threshold has been set to be between 500 and 1 999 sq.
Source: OECD 2018 PMR database. Consulted December 2023.
5.2.3. Food waste
Efforts to reduce food waste in Romania are hindered by the limited amount of reliable information
It is hard to gauge the level of food waste in Romania. Despite the existence of certain estimations done in the past,19 available information on food waste is very limited, and there is no publicly available data complying with the methodologies for the measurement of food waste adopted at the EU level.20 This explains why Romania is one of the EU Member States for which there is no food waste data available in Eurostat. The lack of data limits the capacity of public authorities to monitor food waste reduction goals and to evaluate performance against peer countries.
In the context of a project supported by the MARD,21 it was found that the food waste values, expressed as the share of waste in the annual volume of products, was higher for hotels, restaurants and cafeterias (8.6%) followed by urban households (6.5%), primary production (4.2%), food processing (3.8%) and distribution (0.9%) (Dumitru, Iorga and Mustatea, 2021[32]). In the case of urban households, the 6.5% figure shows progress since 2016, when the average share of waste in the annual volume of products was estimated to be 10.4%. According to a prospective analysis up to 2030, the share is expected to decrease to 2% by 2030.22
Share of food waste in the total volume of products, by sector
Note: The average values are expressed as the share of food waste in the annual volume of products.
Source: For all sectors except consumers from urban areas: (Dumitru, Iorga and Mustatea, 2021[32]). For consumers from urban areas: (Dumitru, Iorga and Sanmartin, 2021[33]).
Law 217/2016 on food waste reduction contains several measures to reduce this type of waste throughout the food supply chain and established the obligation for actors in the agro-food sector to undertake actions to prevent and reduce food waste (EEA, 2023[34]). Subsequent amendments of this law in 2019 facilitated food donation by simplifying donation contracts and clarifying which food business operators could redistribute food. This has facilitated collaboration between the private sector and non-governmental actors involved with food redistribution (EEA, 2023[34]). A recent amendment to Law 217/2016 requires economic operators to implement measures to reduce food waste and report data to a national platform, which is scheduled to be operational by June 2025 (Romanian Parliament, 2024[35]).
Food waste treatment in Romania is lagging behind
According to the EU hierarchy for prioritisation of food surplus, by-products, and food waste prevention strategies, recycling nutrients is the preferred strategy when prevention, re-use or recycling food waste is not possible (EC, 2020[36]). Recycling of nutrients is usually done through composting or anaerobic digestion, the two most common treatment methods for bio-waste (EEA, 2020[37]).
Romania’s levels of composting and anaerobic digestion of municipal food waste are low compared to EU countries and are decreasing, against the regional trend (Figure 5.8). Indeed, per capita levels of municipal waste treated through composting or anaerobic digestion decreased from 22 kg in 2011 (vs 66 kg in the EU) to 14 kg in 2021 (vs 95 kg in the EU).
Evolution of composting and digestion
Source: Eurostat (2023), Environment and energy indicators/Waste [env_wasmun]. Accessed October 2023.
While the data for composting and digestion included in Figure 5.8 only refers to municipal waste and does not cover food waste from the food manufacturing sector and agricultural food waste, it is still a useful proxy of a country’s capacity to treat food waste. At the end, bio-waste is the largest component of all municipal waste in Europe (34%) and about 60% of this municipal bio-waste is food waste (EEA, 2020[37]).
Increasing the levels of composting and digestion requires availability of biowaste, which in turns relies on having separate collection systems (EEA, 2020[37]). In 2017, Romania only separately collected 7% of its estimated potential total biowaste, which is low compared to the EU average of 32% (European Compost Network, 2022[38]). This percentage decreases to just 3% for food waste,23 also below the EU average of 16% (European Compost Network, 2022[38]). EU Member States are required to ensure separate collection of bio‑waste by the end of 2023.24
5.3.1. Selected dietary risks
The rate of adult obesity is Romania is lower than the EU average, but overweight is high and is increasing in younger population
Overweight and obesity are major risk factors for various non-communicable diseases including cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and certain cancers (OECD/European Union, 2022[39]). Furthermore, both conditions are leading behavioural factors increasing the risk of disability and cause more than 1.2 million deaths across Europe annually (WHO, 2022[40]).
In 2019, 56% of the Romanian population aged 15 years and over was overweight or obese, which is above the EU average (51.2%). Obesity rate, however, was 10% in 2019, significantly lower than the EU average of 16% (Figure 5.9). In the case of children aged 7-9, the prevalence of obesity was 12%, in line with the average of countries participating in the fifth round of the WHO Childhood Obesity Surveillance Initiative (COSI) (WHO, 2022[41]). Overweight in adolescents is high, with one in four 15-year-olds self-reporting being overweight in 2022, which is above the EU average (OECD/European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, 2023[42]).
Evolution of body mass index, share of total population
Note: Underweight: BMI less than 18.5. Normal weight: BMI between 18.5 and less than 25. Pre-obese (overweight): BMI between 25 and less than 30. Obese: BMI equal or greater than 30.
Source: Eurostat (2023), Population and social conditions indicators [hlth_ehis_bm1e]. Accessed October 2023.
The large majority of Romanians do not consume fruits and vegetables on a daily basis
In Romania, one-fourth of all deaths can be attributed to dietary risks, one of the highest rates in the European Union and well above the EU average (17%) (OECD/European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, 2023[42]). These dietary risks include high sugar and salt intake, as well as low fruit and vegetable consumption (OECD/European Union, 2022[39]).
While regular consumption of fruits and vegetables is an important element of a healthy and balanced diet and is associated with lower risk of cardiovascular diseases and certain types of cancer (OECD/European Union, 2022[39]), Romania is the EU Member State with the poorest fruit and vegetable consumption record, with nearly three-quarters of its population consuming zero daily portions of fruits and vegetables (Figure 5.10). Furthermore, consumption of fruits and vegetables decreased in the 2014-19 period, against the trend in most EU countries.
Distribution of daily consumption of fruits and vegetables, share of total population over 15 years old
Note: Data for 2019 excludes fruit or vegetable juices or soups (cold and worm). Data for 2014 includes juices squeezed from fresh fruit and vegetables.
Source: Eurostat (2023), Population and social conditions indicators/Health determinants [hlth_ehis_fv3e]. Accessed October 2023.
5.3.2. Policies to encourage healthier and sustainable food choices
Romania has implemented different policy measures across the four-track approach…
The high prevalence of non-communicable diseases associated with dietary risk factors underscores the need for Romania to transition to healthier diets. There are, however, multiple ways in which governments can integrate public health considerations into policies for the food sector. Previous OECD analysis of policies that encourage healthier food choices (Giner and Brooks, 2019[43]) suggests a four-track policy approach to reconcile food security and nutrition objectives with wider food systems objectives (Box 5.3). Romania has implemented multiple policy actions to encourage healthier diets, ranging across all four tracks (Table 5.1).
The large and growing burden that unhealthy consumption habits impose on public health has underpinned the legitimacy of government intervention. Accordingly, governments have resorted to a wide range of health-related policies, from nutritional guidelines to fiscal policy, to address obesity and other main dietary risks. As in other policy areas, there is no “silver bullet” and the right set of instruments is to be carefully chosen by policy makers, considering the specific characteristics of their respective food systems.
Recognising the diversity of policy responses, the potential synergies among them and the need to find the right policy combination for each context, previous OECD work has proposed a “four-track policy approach” to encourage healthier food choices. This four-track approach can also be easily adapted to encourage more sustainable choices.
The four tracks proposed under this approach are:
a) Demand-side public interventions (e.g. education programmes or providing dietary information).
b) Voluntary collaborations with the food industry at the supply-demand interface (e.g. food reformulation, food labelling).
c) Firmer regulations when public-private incentives are misaligned (e.g. rules on advertising aimed at children).
d) Fiscal measures to make the price of certain processed food products more closely reflect their social cost (e.g. excise or sales taxes).
Source: (Giner and Brooks, 2019[43]), (OECD, 2021[1]).
Non-exhaustive list of measures to encourage healthier food choices.
Simplified front-of-pack (FOP) food labelling schemes are increasingly used in OECD countries. EU Member States can implement these schemes on a voluntary basis, until a mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling is adopted at the EU level (Giner, Rodríguez and Elasri, 2023[45]).25 While some countries have developed their own labelling schemes or adopted the schemes of other EU Member States, Romania has not done so. Since February 2024, the National Authority for Consumer Protection (ANPC) imposed a ban on the use of Nutri-score, the simplified FOP food labelling scheme adopted by France in 2017 and which has been adopted in other EU Member States.
…but further government action could help Romania reduce dietary risks
Romania’s policy framework to promote healthier diet outcomes could be strengthened by exploring further government action in key areas. For instance, Romania currently has few or no policies dealing with marketing restrictions to young people, financial incentives for healthier food choices, simplified nutritional labelling, and nutritional training for educators, health professionals and caterers in public settings (World Cancer Research Fund International, 2023[44]). Table 5.2 briefly describes some examples of relevant policies that have been implemented in OECD and accession countries in some of these areas.
In the context of the triple challenge, policy makers are facing multiple objectives and policy instruments, inherent to which are synergies and trade-offs. Furthermore, policy makers need to overcome disagreements over facts, diverging interests, and differences over values, which often complicate policy-design and political decisions-making processes (OECD, 2021[1]). This section explores how Romania is dealing with these paradigms, looking at elements that have proven useful in navigating the complexities of the triple challenge, such as policy coherence, impact assessment and evaluation of policies, and stakeholder engagement (OECD, 2021[1]).
5.4.1. Policy assessment and evaluation
Romania has a fragmented strategic framework, but recent reforms may lead to more policy coherence
The Romanian Government has implemented multiple whole-of-government and cross-cutting strategies, on different time horizons. On the long-term, the strategic planning is guided the Sustainable Development Strategy (NSDS) 2030 and the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP). The medium-term planning is shaped by the Medium-term Government Programme (Decision No. 42 of November 25, 2021), the National Reform Programme, the Fiscal-budgetary strategy for the period 2022-2024, and Nationally Determined Contributions. The short-term planning is influenced by the Annual Government Work-Plan (Decision No. 414 of 2013) and the Annual State Budget Law (Law No. 317/2021 of 28 December 2021) (OECD, 2024[48]). These strategies are, nonetheless, all led by different government institutions, are not fully aligned and there is not a clear hierarchisation among them (OECD, 2024[48]). The recent establishing of a methodology for the development, implementation, evaluation and updating of government strategies26 is a welcome development towards a better strategic framework (OECD, 2024[48]).
The use and quality of RIAs is uneven and there is no requirement for the periodical review of existing regulations
Romania has gradually developed its regulatory policy since the early 2000s, including by introducing a formal requirement to conduct regulatory impact assessment (RIA) to inform the development of primary laws and subordinate regulations. The Consultative Council for the Impact Assessment of Normative Acts (CCEIAN) was also established in 2022 to analyse draft legislative acts and to issue opinions on impact studies. However, the use and quality of RIA remains uneven, with many RIAs remaining superficial (OECD, 2024[48]; OECD, 2022[49]). Capacity-building for civil servants is key for improving the quality of RIAs. A recent in-depth RIA in the livestock sector supported by the World Bank is a good example of sound RIAs that help inform policy actions, while increasing the capacities of MARD personnel (Box 5.4).
In the context of the project “Impact studies for better regulation”, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) and the National Agency for Zootechny (NAZ) recently benefitted from the support of the World Bank to undertake a RIA in relation to breeding in animal farming.
The assessment sought to address the fact that breeding programmes implemented in Romania have historically not been financially or operationally sustainable. This has resulted in an increased import dependency, low competitiveness and reduced number of local breeds. The work included defining the problem and possible second-order consequences, setting objectives, proposing five potential policy options (including a baseline), and conducting the impact assessment of the different scenarios. While the report recognises that tackling the problem requires a policy mix which combines regulatory and institutional reforms, the impact assessment focused solely on regulatory changes needed to ensure the financial sustainability of breeding activities, from the farmers’ perspectives. Following the impact assessment, some regulatory interventions were recommended.
Beyond the scenarios and impact assessment, which will be of great use to MARD and NAZ, the process was important in itself. One of the key objectives of this exercise was precisely to strengthen the capacity of MARD and NAZ to use RIAs and, more broadly, to encourage a culture where decisions are taken based on data, information and the analysis of the problems in question.
On the side of the Romanian Government, a working group composed of 14 staff members from MARD and NAZ co-ordinated the work and led the discussions. The report captures the discussions of the working group and the opinions of multiple stakeholders consulted during the process.
Indeed, Romania’s performance is weaker than OECD and EU countries in terms of reviewing existing regulations (Figure 5.11). Ex-post evaluation is conducted on an ad hoc basis by ministries and there is neither methodological guidance nor a requirement for the periodical review of existing regulations. Romania would benefit from systemising ex post evaluation to inform the development of new policies and to assess whether existing laws and regulations are meeting their objectives (OECD, 2022[49]).
Composite indicator for ex post evaluations of primary laws, which equally weights methodology, oversight, adoption, and transparency
Note: Methodology gathers information on different assessments included in the ex-post evaluations; Oversight and Quality Control records mechanisms to monitor and ensure the quality of ex post evaluations; Systematic Adoption records formal requirements and how often ex post evaluations are conducted; Transparency records how open ex post evaluation processes are. The maximum score for each category is 1. The total score for the composite indicator ranges from 0 to 4. Data for 2015 is based on the 34 countries that were OECD members in 2014 and the European Union, which included 20 of the current 27 EU Member States. The OECD average is based on the 38 member countries at the time of the survey. Data for 2018 and 2021 includes the remaining EU Member States of Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Cyprus1 and Malta. The more regulatory practices as advocated in the 2012 Recommendation a country has implemented, the higher its iREG score. This figure shows data for primary laws only.
Source: Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance Surveys 2014, 2017 and 2021.
5.4.2. Stakeholder engagement and policy co-ordination
Stakeholder engagement has improved but certain groups remain underrepresented
Romania's public consultation process in decision-making is regulated by the Law no. 52/2003, which requires authorities to engage the public, consider feedback, and justify any decisions that are made. As reported by the European Commission in the most recent Rule of Law Reports (see for example (EC, 2024[51]), the effectiveness of public consultations prior to the adoption of laws should be improved, both as regards their length and the authorities’ feedback on the input collected. Law no. 52/2003 also requires ministries to publish all regulations for comments on their websites. Romania updated its central consultation portal in 2019 which is now more frequently used. However, the minimum period for submitting comments is only ten days. The consultation portal also redirects members of the public-to-public consultations held by the European Commission. Romania recently began publishing yearly reports on the performance of consultation practices on draft laws and regulations (OECD, 2022[52]).
In Romania, the focus on involving stakeholders is often legalistic and formal, with scope to engage in more innovative participatory practices, and to benefit from greater experimentation. Efforts to involve stakeholders tend to focus on organised stakeholders, such as civil society organisations (CSOs), trade unions and other formalised actors, rather than ordinary citizens. Engagement by CSOs is low at the sub-national level (OECD, 2024[48]). To encourage further engagement from citizens and/or from specific-groups, OECD countries have resorted to alternative deliberative processes, such as citizen’s assemblies, juries, and panels. These types of exercises are increasingly being used in the context of food systems (OECD, 2021[1]).
Romania could strengthen the use of regulatory management tools in negotiating EU initiatives and transposing regulation
In shared competence policy areas like agriculture, EU Member States benefit from reaching the negotiation phase with a good understanding of the potential impacts of EU directives and regulations, including on domestic citizens and businesses. The regulatory management tools used by the European Commission are a key to this end. The European Commission’s impact assessments are a functional and published resource that EU Member States can easily use and that is available several weeks in advance of the negotiation. EU citizens are offered various opportunities to contribute to EU law-making process as it evolves, including through broad public consultations (OECD, 2022[49]).
In addition to the European Commission’s RIAs and stakeholder engagement, EU Member States often take additional actions to enhance those processes or to complement them with additional evidence. For instance, most EU Member States inform their stakeholders about EC consultations (Figure 5.12, panel a) and require conducting their own RIA (Figure 5.12, panel b) to define their national negotiating position. Some EU Member States also conduct their own stakeholder consultations. This is not the case for Romania. When it comes to transposing EU directives into national law, Romania is the only EU Member State without a requirement to conduct its own RIA (Figure 5.12, panel c).
Source: Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance (REG) Survey 2021.
Relying solely on the original impact assessment of the European Commission when transposing EU directives or defining negotiating positions can lead to overlooking potentially relevant effects for Romania. Indeed, these tools do not necessarily assess the impacts on individual countries, nor do they consider subsequent amendments made by the Council of the European Union and by the European Parliament. The vast majority of EU Member States apply the same RIA requirements when transposing EU directives as they do for laws originating domestically, while most have different requirements when defining their negotiating positions. In EU Member States where domestic RIAs are not conducted systematically, their use is generally determined based on proportionality (OECD, 2022[49]).27
Similarly, using only the results of the European Commission’s consultations to define its national position means that stakeholders’ input is considered by Romanian authorities at a relatively late stage, losing the benefits of early-stage consultations. Furthermore, considering the different interests and methods of work of the EC and EU Member States, the same stakeholder input could influence policy development differently if submitted to the European Commission than if presented to an individual Member State (OECD, 2022[49]).
Inter-ministerial co-ordination and information-sharing on food systems-related policy areas is limited
Inter-ministerial co-ordination is essential to achieve food systems transformation. Strong inter-institutional mechanisms should integrate relevant actors and engage them in strategy development. Such mechanisms facilitate the identification of potential synergies and trade-offs and offer the opportunity to discuss the best way to address them (UN Food Systems Coordination Hub, 2021[53]). As explained in Section 5.2, Romania does not have a food systems law or integrated policy that simultaneously looks at the three elements from the triple challenge. In addition, and similar to most OECD countries, there is no single co-ordination body or mechanisms that comprehensively covers food systems-related issues.
Inter-ministerial committees have emerged as a key tool for co-ordination within the Romanian government in recent years. These committees, however, often overlap in scope, and their composition, frequency and functions vary widely across bodies. Other tools used by OECD countries to enhance inter-ministerial co-ordination include bilateral agreements (e.g. Memorandum of Understanding) and deploying networks and peer-learning opportunities (OECD, 2024[48]).
Participation in Food Systems Summit-related initiatives has been low
The UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) took place in September 2021. The UNFSS gave participants an opportunity to discuss five axes or action areas, with follow-up stocktaking meetings to be held every two years.28 Engagement by OECD countries has been high in relation to the different official and unofficial initiatives in the context of the UNFSS. For example, 33 out of the 38 OECD countries, and the European Union, have participated in at least one of the UNFSS coalitions, and 27 OECD countries, and the European Union, have presented national pathways (Figure 5.13). So far Romania has not participated in any of the coalitions created in the context of the UNFSS, nor has it presented a national pathway.
Food markets in Romania are functioning well, even if integration into global value chains is relatively low. Market concentration is mostly moderate to low across the value chain. With the largest number of farmers in the European Union, primary production contributes to over half of the total food value added.
Co-operation among farmers is very low in Romania and the contribution of recognised producer organisations to the fruits and vegetables sector is the lowest across the European Union. Despite a recent increase in the number of registered co-operatives, farmers have little knowledge of the co-operative system. Romania’s 2023-27 CSP includes interventions to promote co-operation and short supply chains, but past experience shows that uptake and interest from farmers for these types of interventions has been low.
Romania is an adherent to the Council Recommendation on the OECD Due Diligence Guidelines for RBC (Guidelines) and other OECD RBC-related instruments. Romania has not adhered to the Recommendation of the Council on the OECD-FAO Guidance, although activities have been undertaken to promote their use.
Romania does not have a food systems law, integrated policy or coordination body that simultaneously looks at the three elements of the triple challenge. Instead, as in most OECD countries, Romania has multiple policies guiding specific food system-related issues with responsible authorities scattered across jurisdictions, government agencies and levels of government. That said, overall, Romania has been taking action on shared OECD priorities with respect to meeting the triple challenge. Co-ordination tools used in the context of the National Sustainable Development Strategy 2030 could be explored to improve horizontal co-ordination for food systems transformation.
Severe food insecurity has increased in Romania following the COVID-19 pandemic. The creation and rapid growth of the Federation of Food Banks of Romania is a positive development. Romania has recently introduced e-vouchers as a food assistance programme for certain low-income households with potential to improve dietary habits.
Romania has enacted regulation and taken measures to reduce food waste, but these efforts are hindered by the limited reliable information available. The levels of food waste treatment, through composting and digestion, are very low and declining.
In Romania, one-fourth of all deaths can be attributed to dietary risks and reported levels of fruit and vegetable consumption are the lowest in the European Union. This suggests there is space for Romania to strengthen its policy mix to encourage healthier food choices, and to explore synergies with environmental sustainability goals. To this end, Romania could benefit from exploring the different measures implemented so far by other countries.
Romania has gradually developed its regulatory policy since the early 2000s. Despite progress made, the use and quality of RIA is uneven and there is no requirement for the periodical review of existing regulations. Stakeholder engagement has improved but mostly covers organised stakeholders, and participation is low at the sub-national level.
The strategic vision of agriculture and food systems is to a great extent defined at the EU level. Romania largely relies on regulations, decisions and discussions at the EU level, without fostering national discussions or exploring policy actions to complement EU regulations. For negotiating and transposing EU directives and regulation, Romania relies solely on the EC’s RIA and stakeholder engagement.
Romania’s participation in UN Food Systems Summit’s initiatives seems to be lower than that of most OECD and accession candidate countries. A more active engagement in initiatives such as the coalitions or national pathways could help Romania strengthen its food systems vision, improve the capacities of policymakers, and increase the country’s influence at the international level.
References
[26] Banca pentru Alimente (n.d.), Banca pentru Alimente Webiste, https://bancapentrualimente.ro.
[7] Dobay, K. (2024), “Agricultural Cooperatives in the Romanian Agri Food System”, Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Vol. 2023/1, pp. 135-143, https://doi.org/10.59277/AERD.2023.2.03.
[5] Dobay, K. (2022), “The resilience of agricultural cooperatives in the COVID-19 pandemic time. Evidence from Romania”, Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Vol. XIX/1, pp. 13-20, http://www.eadr.ro/RePEc/iag/iag_pdf/AERD2201_13-30.pdf.
[14] Dobay, K. and C. Apetroaie (2023), Local Gastronomic Points –an innovative transition path towards sustainable food systems, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371700266_Local_Gastronomic_Points_-an_innovative_transition_path_towards_sustainable_food_systems (accessed on 25 April 2024).
[32] Dumitru, O., C. Iorga and G. Mustatea (2021), “Food waste along the food chain in romania: An impact analysis”, Foods, Vol. 10/10, https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10102280.
[33] Dumitru, O., S. Iorga and Á. Sanmartin (2021), “Food waste impact on Romanian households”, Romanian Biotechnological Letters, Vol. 26/1, pp. 2207-2213, https://doi.org/10.25083/rbl/26.1/2207.2213.
[51] EC (2024), 2024 Rule of Law Report. Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/6abcf25f-9e2d-46c0-93f0-4eebb0e10224_en?filename=52_1_58080_coun_chap_romania_en.pdf.
[18] EC (2024), State of Food Security in the EU - Spring 2024 – Nr 2, https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/a91b3841-6021-489e-b877-7f0f5278c88c_en?filename=efscm-assessment-spring-2024_en.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2024).
[22] EC (2023), Eurydice - Romania - National reforms in school education, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/romania/national-reforms-school-education (accessed on 14 January 2024).
[24] EC (2023), Synthesis and analysis of the public consultation and evaluation reports of Member States pertaining to the EU school fruit, vegetables and milk Scheme 2017-2022, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/35b2f516-73a6-11ee-9220-01aa75ed71a1 (accessed on 15 April 2024).
[21] EC (2022), Synthesis of evaluation reports from Member States regarding their national strategies for sustainable 2013-2018 operational programmes in the fruit and vegetables sector..
[30] EC (2021), E-Vouchers for the most deprived - A study complementing the ESF+ impact assessment : final report, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/dee6c869-86d3-11eb-ac4c-01aa75ed71a1/language-ro (accessed on 15 March 2024).
[36] EC (2020), Brief on food waste in the European Union, https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/publication/brief-food-waste-european-union_en.
[58] EC (2020), Commission recommendations for Romania’s CAP strategic plan Accompanying the document. Recommendations to the Member States as regards their strategic plan for the Common Agricultural Policy.
[55] EC (2019), CAP Specific Objectives explained - Brief No. 3: Farmers position in value chains, https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/6d7791a2-5643-4b38-9673-ca57fa25dc70_en?filename=cap-specific-objectives-brief-3-farmer-position-in-value-chains_en.pdf (accessed on 7 February 2024).
[9] EC (2018), The contribution of producer organisations to an efficient agri-food supply chain.
[60] EC (2011), Preparatory study on food waste across EU 27 – Final report, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2779/85947.
[11] Ecorys et al. (2023), Establishing an operational programme: supporting the producer organisations to contribute to strengthening farmer’s position in the agri-food supply chain and improving the economic, social and environmental sustainability of farm., European Commission, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a9e96080-7d25-11ee-99ba-01aa75ed71a1/language-en (accessed on 16 April 2024).
[34] EEA (2023), Waste prevention country profile - Romania.
[37] EEA (2020), Bio-waste in Europe — turning challenges into opportunities.
[59] EU (2008), Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives.
[38] European Compost Network (2022), Guidance on Separate Collection: The untapped potential and steps forward for separate collection of household food waste for high-quality recycling.
[57] FAO (2023), Hunger and food insecurity, FAO | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, https://www.fao.org/hunger/en/ (accessed on 11 December 2023).
[27] FEBA (2022), “Impact of the socio-economic crisis on FEBA Members”.
[25] FEBA (2022), “Strengthening food systems by supporting the resilience and capacity of Food Banks”.
[2] Food Systems Dashboard (n.d.), About food systems, https://www.foodsystemsdashboard.org/information/about-food-systems (accessed on 9 April 2024).
[4] Food Systems Dashboard (n.d.), Food Systems Dashboard, Food Environment, https://www.foodsystemsdashboard.org/countries/bgr#supply-of-vegetables (accessed on 22 January 2024).
[19] GCNF (2021), Global Survey of School Meal Programs Country Report, Romania., Global Child Nutrition Foundation (GCNF).
[43] Giner, C. and J. Brooks (2019), “Policies for encouraging healthier food choices”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 137, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/11a42b51-en.
[17] Giner, C. and O. Placzek (2022), “Food insecurity and food assistance programmes across OECD countries: Overcoming evidence gaps”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 183, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/42b4a7fa-en.
[45] Giner, C., D. Rodríguez and A. Elasri (2023), “Developing food labels for improved health outcomes: Insights into simplified nutrition labelling policies”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 203, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c1f4d81d-en.
[23] Government of Romania (2024), The “Healthy Meal” National Program was adopted by Government decision, https://oportunitati-ue.gov.ro/en/programul-national-masa-sanatoasa-a-fost-adoptat-prin-hotarare-de-guvern/ (accessed on 22 July 2024).
[28] Government of Romania (2022), Emergency Ordinance no. 63, https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/255025 (accessed on 27 June 2024).
[29] Human European Consultancy (2024), Franet National contribution to the Fundamental Rights Report 2024, https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/frr2024_romania_en.pdf (accessed on 27 June 2024).
[6] MARD (2022), CAP Plan 2023-2027 for Romania. Version 1.2, https://www.madr.ro/planul-national-strategic-pac-post-2020/programare-ps-pac-2023-2027/consultari-pns.html.
[56] OECD (2025), “Beyond food loss and waste reduction targets: Translating reduction ambitions into policy outcomes”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 214, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/59cf6c95-en.
[48] OECD (2024), Ensuring Policy Coherence through Better Policy Development, Co-ordination and Stakeholder Participation in Romania (GOV/PGC(2024)2), https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/ensuring-policy-coherence-through-better-policy-development-co-ordination-and-stakeholder-participation-in-romania_a9d50cc9-en.html.
[10] OECD (2023), Policies for the Future of Farming and Food in the European Union, OECD Agriculture and Food Policy Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/32810cf6-en.
[49] OECD (2022), Better Regulation Practices across the European Union 2022, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6e4b095d-en.
[47] OECD (2022), Healthy Eating and Active Lifestyles: Best Practices in Public Health, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/40f65568-en.
[52] OECD (2022), Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance - Country Profiles - Romania, https://web-archive.oecd.org/2022-08-03/638950-Romania-country-profile-EU-report-2022.pdf (accessed on 18 March 2024).
[15] OECD (2022), OECD Economic Surveys: Romania 2022, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e2174606-en.
[16] OECD (2022), Report on the Implementation of the OECD Recommendation on the OECD-FAO Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct [C(2022)99], https://one.oecd.org/document/C(2022)99/en/pdf (accessed on 5 March 2024).
[1] OECD (2021), Making Better Policies for Food Systems, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ddfba4de-en.
[31] OECD (2018), OECD Product Market Regulation (PMR) Indicators.
[42] OECD/European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies (2023), Romania: Country Health Profile 2023, State of Health in the EU, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f478769b-en.
[39] OECD/European Union (2022), Health at a Glance: Europe 2022: State of Health in the EU Cycle, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/507433b0-en.
[35] Romanian Parliament (2024), Law no. 49, https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocumentAfis/280058 (accessed on 29 June 2024).
[20] S.C. CC SAS S.R.L. (2023), Evaluation report of the Romania for the period 2017-2022.
[8] Tudor, M. and E. Roşu (2022), “Agricultural cooperatives in Romania – evolution and structure”, in ”The crisis after the crisis. When and how the New Normal will be”, Sciendo, https://doi.org/10.2478/9788366675889-099.
[53] UN Food Systems Coordination Hub (2021), Policy Brief - Governance of Food Systems Transformation, https://www.unfoodsystemshub.org/docs/unfoodsystemslibraries/fss-community/chapter-2/policybrief_governanceunfss.pdf?sfvrsn=edae3afc_1 (accessed on 1 March 2024).
[54] UN Food Systems Coordination Hub (n.d.), UN Food Systems Coordination Hub Website, https://www.unfoodsystemshub.org/en (accessed on 18 December 2023).
[13] Ungureanu, D., V. Țaran Baciu and M. Candrea (2022), “From Farm to Consumer: Enhancing the value of agri-food products from mountain country farms through local gastronomic points”, Lucrări Ştiinţifice, seria Agronomie, Vol. 65/2, https://www.uaiasi.ro/revagrois/PDF/2022-2/paper/41.pdf (accessed on 25 April 2024).
[3] Van Dam, I. et al. (2021), “A detailed mapping of the food industry in the European single market: similarities and differences in market structure across countries and sectors”, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, Vol. 18/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-021-01117-8.
[41] WHO (2022), WHO European Childhood Obesity Surveillance Initiative (COSI), https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/WHO-EURO-2022-6594-46360-67071 (accessed on 9 January 2024).
[40] WHO (2022), WHO European Regional Obesity : Report 2022.
[12] World Bank (2023), Romania - Reimbursable Advisory Services Agreement on Romania Mountain Area Development Support : Output 4 - Draft Outline of the Integrated Strategy for the Development of Romania’s Mountain Area, https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/099030624103912466/p176070110b0bd0e819e611f55f4324b980 (accessed on 25 April 2024).
[50] World Bank and General Secretariat of the Government (SGG) (2023), “In-depth Impact Assessment Study: Breeding in animal farming in Romania”.
[44] World Cancer Research Fund International (2023), Romania: nutrition policy snapshot, https://www.wcrf.org/policy/romania-nutrition-policy-snapshot/ (accessed on 9 February 2024).
[46] World Cancer Research Fund International (n.d.), Nutrition policy database, https://policydatabase.wcrf.org/nourishing-moving-search (accessed on 21 February 2024).
← 1. The analysis made by (Van Dam et al., 2021[3]) covers 14 product categories based on Euromonitor’s food categorisation system.
← 2. The “modern grocery retailer” category includes hypermarkets, supermarkets, discounters, forecourt retailers (grocery outlets attached to gas/petrol stations), and convenience stores.
← 3. In 2020, 2 887 070 agricultural holdings in Romania, while at the EU level there were 3 719 recognised POs and APOs and 9 067 300 agricultural holdings (Eurostat).
← 4. These numbers refer to co-operatives, most of which are not considered as recognised POs.
← 5. Laws 164/2016, 21/2019 and Decree 23/2019 provide for two types of tax benefits for agriculture co‑operatives. On the one hand, these norms create an income tax exemption during three to five years, depending on the activities performed by the co-operative. On the other hand, the regulation provides certain tax exemptions or reduced rates for the production marketed by the co-operative, rental fees and local taxes (Tudor and Roşu, 2022[8]).
← 6. Another indicator used to measure the importance of POs for primary producers, at the EU level, is the share of raw milk delivered by POs and APOs in the total production. Information for Romania on this indicator is not available in Eurostat.
← 7. This is of particular importance in sectors like fruit and vegetables or olive oil, where sectoral structural interventions are channelled through Pos (EC, 2019[55]).
← 8. This measure focuses on the so-called “co-operation groups”, which included networks, clusters and EIP Operational Groups.
← 9. The Romanian Agency for Investment and Foreign Trade holds the National Contact Point for the Guidelines.
← 10. Romania has adhered to both the 2022 OECD Declaration on Transformative Solutions for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems and the 2016 Declaration on Better Policies to Achieve a Productive, Sustainable and Resilient Global Food System.
← 11. The 2022 OECD Declaration on Transformative Solutions for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems refers to food loss and waste both in the commitments section, as well as in the call for the OECD to develop data, common metrics and analysis that helps measure progress. The OECD (2025[56]) report “Beyond food loss and waste reduction targets: Translating reduction ambitions into policy outcomes” includes a commitment to reduce food loss and waste and improve its measurement, as well as a call for the OECD to develop data, common metrics and analysis that helps measure progress.
← 12. Food insecurity is defined by FAO as the “lack of regular access to enough safe and nutritious food for normal growth and development and an active and healthy life” (FAO, 2023[57]).
← 13. In 2017 EU aid scheme for the supply of fruit and vegetables, bananas, and milk in educational establishments, known as the “school scheme”, was established by combining two previous schemes (the school milk scheme and the school fruit and vegetables scheme) under a single framework. https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/market-measures/school-fruit-vegetables-and-milk-scheme/school-scheme-explained_en.
← 14. Băncilor pentru Alimente din România (FBAR).
← 15. The Inclusion and Social Dignity Operational Programme and the Disadvantaged Persons Assistance Operational Programme.
← 16. The European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) now provides EU Member States with the possibility to use e-vouchers to strengthen their food assistance programmes.
← 17. See (Giner and Placzek, 2022[17]) for more information on food voucher programmes across OECD countries.
← 18. The OECD’s Product Market Regulation Indicators assesses the alignment of a country’s regulatory framework with internationally accepted best practices. The Economy-wide Indicator measures the distortions to competition that can be induced through the involvement of the State in the Economy, as well as the barriers to entry and expansion that domestic and foreign firms face in different sectors of the economy (OECD, 2018[31]).
← 19. There have been attempts to measure per capita levels of food waste in the past, but they range from 107 kg to 250 kg per capita (EC, 2020[58]) (EC, 2011[60]).
← 20. Commission delegated decision (EU) 2019/1597 (supplementing Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards a common methodology and minimum quality requirements for the uniform measurement of levels of food waste).
← 21. ADER Project 18.1.2 “Methods for reducing food waste in the agri-food chain, at national level, in order to prevent and reduce the socio-economic impact, by 2030”.
← 22. Information provided by the MARD in response to the OECD fact-finding questionnaire.
← 23. Biowaste is composed of food waste and garden.
← 24. Article 22 of Directive 2008/98/EC indicates that, by 31 December 2023, Member States shall ensure bio-waste is either separated and recycled at source or is collected separately and is not mixed with other types of waste (EU, 2008[59]).
← 25. Simplified nutrition labelling policies provide supplementary nutritional information in an easy-to-understand label displayed on food products at the front-of-pack. The adoption of a mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling within the European Union was announced in the Farm to Fork Strategy of May 2020 (Giner, Rodríguez and Elasri, 2023[45]).
← 26. Government Decision No. 379 of 23 March 2022.
← 27. EU Member States use various methods to identify European Commission legislative proposals that will undergo a domestic RIA, predominantly based on proportionality and particularly on the significance of their impacts, including on national and EU budgets or non-budgetary domestic effects (OECD, 2022[49]).
← 28. (1) Nourish All People; (2) Boost Nature-based Solutions; (3) Advance Equitable Livelihoods, Decent Work and Empowered Communities; (4) Build Resilience to Vulnerabilities, Shocks and Stresses; and (5) Accelerating the Means of Implementation.