Romania has made remarkable economic and social progress over the past two decades, notably since joining the European Union. Nonetheless, the country continues to face significant economic, social and environmental challenges, with persistent regional disparities, rural depopulation, poverty and population ageing. This chapter reviews the structural transformation of the agro-food sector in Romania, examining demographic and land‑use trends, as well as developments in production and trade. While the weight of agriculture in the Romanian economy is declining, Romania remains the country with the highest number of farms in the European Union. This reflects the pronounced dual structure of the Romanian agriculture sector, with numerous small farms coexisting alongside a smaller group of large, highly productive holdings.
Policies for the Future of Farming and Food in Romania
Abstract
Romania has made impressive economic and social progress over the last two decades, especially after its accession to the European Union. However, the country continues to face significant economic, social and environmental sustainability challenges: economic prosperity is unevenly distributed, and rural areas are still characterised by depopulation, poverty and an ageing population.
Even though the structural transformation of the country is characterised by a declining role of agriculture, Romania still has the largest share of agriculture in the Gross Domestic Product (4.2%) and the highest number of farms (2.9 million) in the European Union.
The main characteristic of Romanian agriculture is its dual structure, with around 90% of farms smaller than 5 ha and a small group of very large farms that manage more than half of the country’s agricultural land.
Romania’s agriculture is characterised by a slowly emerging sector of medium-sized professional “family farms”, but land fragmentation and access to credit are barriers to farm restructuring.
Generational renewal remains a major challenge: most farm managers are 55 years old or older. However, the increase in the number of young farmers both in absolute and in relative terms over the recent years is a very positive development.
Romania’s high labour migration to other countries impacts all sectors, but the agricultural sector has been one of the most negatively affected. Structural change, migration and farmland abandonment led to a decrease of agricultural labour by 60% between 2005 and 2022.
Agricultural output has seen a steady growth over the past decades as result of a significant improvement of yields, determined by better technical equipment, especially for large holdings.
The importance of agro-food in trade, particularly in exports, is increasing. Export patterns have changed in the last two decades: cereals, oilseeds and tobacco gained importance, while live animals, fruits and vegetables saw reduced shares in exports. Intra-EU exchanges dominate and the gap between intra-EU trade and trade with other partners widened after the accession to the European Union.
Romania has made impressive strides in economic performance over the past few decades, transitioning to a market-based economic since 1991, acceding to the European Union in 2007, and reaching high income status. Nevertheless, overcoming the legacy of more than 40 years of communist rule was a slow process. Following the revolution of 1989 that led to the fall of the communist regime, a new constitution, approved by popular referendum in 1991, was adopted, proclaiming Romania a democracy and a market economy. Since 1991, Romania succeeded in privatising most industrial state-owned enterprises and has made great progress in institutionalising democratic principles, civil liberties, and respect for human rights. In 2003 citizens voted in favour of major amendments to the constitution in a nationwide referendum to bring Romania’s law into compliance with EU standards, leading to the official accession in 2007. At present, Romania is a semi-presidential republic with a president as head of the state and a prime minister as head of government. Executive functions are held by both government and the president.
1.1.1. General features of the economy
After the accession to the European Union the Romanian economy has made significant progress…
With a total land area of over 230 000 km2, Romania is the 12th largest country in the European Union. In 2021, the country had an estimated population of 19.2 million inhabitants and a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) measured in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms of USD 620.61 billion (Table 1.1). Romania’s growth rate is one of the highest in the European Union, boosting convergence in living standards with the EU average. GDP per capita reached 63% of the OECD average in 2019, from around 30% in the early 2000s. After being hit hard by the global financial crisis and before the outset of the coronavirus pandemic, Romania’s convergence in living standards progressed rapidly, with GDP and productivity growth rates persistently exceeding those in the OECD (OECD, 2022[1]).
Note: *or closest available year.
Source: OECD statistical databases; UN Comtrade; World Bank, WDI and national data.
Since the transition from a planned to a market economy initiated in 1991, and especially after joining the European Union in 2007, the Romanian economy has become increasingly sophisticated and open with high levels of foreign direct investment. Structural reforms required for the EU accession, included state-owned enterprises and judiciary, and a prudent monetary policy contributed to its strong economic performance. Romania remains a dual economy, where high-performing foreign-owned companies coexist with low-productivity domestic firms. Local firms are relatively small, under-capitalised and not well integrated in global value chains (OECD, 2022[1]).
Structural transformation has been shifting the sectoral contribution to growth, with a declining role of agriculture and an increased contributions from services. The ICT sector is one of the main contributors to growth and was the eighth largest in the European Union as a share of GDP (6.3%) as of 2021 (World Bank, 2023[2]).
… but the country is still facing important economic, social and environmental challenges
Despite strong economic growth experienced over the past two decades, Romania continues to face substantive economic, social and environmental sustainability challenges, since prosperity is unevenly distributed, regional disparities in income and service delivery are wide, with poverty and inequality rates among the highest in the European Union (World Bank, 2023[3]). Despite substantial improvements, Romania still lags behind most OECD countries in terms of access to high-quality education, healthcare, housing, and transport infrastructure. Demographic trends such as ageing and emigration, undermine economic development, notably by exacerbating labour shortages. Romania lost around 4.06 million inhabitants since 1991 and had one of the strongest declines in the working age population over the past decade (OECD, 2022[1]). Romania’s poverty rate is the highest in the European Union and the country’s growth has followed a volatile path that questions its sustainability (World Bank, 2023[3]).
1.1.2. Political and institutional features
Romania is a country at the crossroads of central and southeast Europe, bordered by Ukraine to the north and east, Hungary to the west, Serbia to the southwest, Bulgaria to the south, Moldova to the east, and the Black Sea to the southeast. Its capital and largest city is Bucharest. The country is divided into four macro-regions and eight regional divisions (the so-called “Regiunile de dezvoltare ale României” – “development regions” of Romania). The eight development regions that correspond to NUTS 2-level divisions in EU Member States, are: Nord-Est (North-East), Sud-Est (South-East), Sud-Muntenia (South-Muntenia), Sud-Vest Oltenia (South-West Oltenia), Vest (West), Nord-Vest (North-West), Centru (Centre), and București - Ilfov (Bucharest - Ilfov) (Figure 1.1). The eight regions were established to co-ordinate regional development as the country progressed towards accession to the European Union.
Although Romania’s development regions are becoming increasingly significant in regional development projects, they do not have an administrative status and do not have a legislative or executive council or government. In 1999 the Romanian Government established eight Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), which are non-governmental, non-profit organisations accountable to their region’s Regional Development Council. These agencies are tasked with strategic planning (e.g. regional development plan, smart specialisation strategy) and are the Managing Authorities for EU Cohesion Policy Regional Programmes in Romania (OECD, 2023[4]).
From an administrative point of view, counties and municipalities are the two tiers of subnational government. The country is subdivided in 41 counties and the municipality of Bucharest County. Each county is administered by a county council, responsible for local affairs, and a prefect responsible for administering national affairs at county level. In addition to counties, also municipalities are another important tier of subnational government, even though many small municipalities face capacity constraints. Romanian municipalities are relatively small, averaging fewer than 7 000 inhabitants, and county councils are responsible for the overall co-ordination of their constituent local councils.
Source: (INS, 2023[5]).
1.1.3. Characteristics of rural areas
Depopulation and poverty are particularly severe in rural areas
Romania is predominantly a rural country:1 more than two-thirds of the Romanian territory is considered rural and 47% of the population still lives in rural areas, which also retain an important role in the national economy by accounting for 37% of GVA and 55% of employment (Figure 1.2).
Many rural areas are characterised by depopulation, poverty and an ageing population. Although the share of rural population is still among the highest in the European Union, in the period 2002-22 the population in rural areas decreased by 11% and the share of residents aged less than 30 decreased from 40% to 33% (NIS, 2024[6]). The emigration of young people from rural to urban areas is perceived as a threat to both social sustainability and the capacity of the agro-food sector to innovate (MARD, 2023[7]). This trend has been reversed recently, with a net migration flow towards rural areas (see Section 1.5 below).
In rural areas, the share of population at-risk-of-poverty is nearly six times higher than in cities, and the country has the fourth-highest level of income inequality between urban and rural areas in the European Union, after Bulgaria, Lithuania, and Latvia. Since 2010 the poverty rates in both urban and rural areas decreased by 7% and 36% respectively, but remain higher than the EU average. In 2018, the rural poverty rate in Romania was around 46%, significantly higher than the EU average poverty rate in rural areas (24%) (OECD, 2022[1]). The disparities in living standards are large, rural areas are poorly interconnected and suffer from a concentration of lower-skilled segments of the labour force, and a weaker labour market (World Bank, 2023[3]).
Source: Eurostat (2023), Labour market statistics by other typologies [URT_D3AREA, URT_PJANAGGR3, URT_10R_3GVA, URT_LFE3EMP], consulted October 2023.
1.2.1. The role of agriculture in the economy
Romania has one-third of EU farms, but most of them are very small and semi-subsistence holdings
Romania is one of the countries with the most pronounced agricultural profile in the European Union. During the last two decades the number of farms has fallen by more than a third, from about 4.5 million in 2001 to about 2.9 million in 2020. The country has the highest number of farms within the European Union accounting for about one-third (31.8%) of all EU farms, which occupy 8.1% of EU utilised agricultural area, and produce 3.3% of the EU’s standard agricultural output (Eurostat, 2022[8]).
Romania’s agriculture is divided into two very different groups of farms (Figure 1.3). Around 90% of farms are smaller than 5 ha, yet they only cover 23% of the total Utilised Agricultural Area (UAA); on the other hand, a small group of very large farms with more than 50 ha represents less than 1% of the total number of farms but owns almost 54% of the UAA. Between these two extremes, there is a small and heterogeneous group of medium-size farms (5-50 ha). The average farm size is 4.4 ha, which is the third lowest size in the European Union. The EU average farm size in 2020 was 17.4 ha (Eurostat, 2022[8]).
Source: Eurostat (2023), Farm indicators by agricultural area, type of farm, standard output, legal form and NUTS 2 regions [EF_M_FARMLEG] Accessed July 2023.
Almost all Romanian farms (99.1%) are family farms2 (Eurostat, 2023[9]), and the large majority of the smaller farms (under 5 ha) are semi-subsistence holdings which continue to farm because they have no alternative. Often such farms exploit very narrow strips of land without achieving economic efficiency, and much of their agricultural output is destined to self-consumption (Petrescu-Mag, Petrescu and Petrescu-Mag, 2017[10]). Land fragmentation (see Section 1.4) aggravates the efficiency and technical problems of small holdings, with restricted access to mechanisation and losses by creating a vicious cycle, especially for the smallest and semi-subsistence farms.
Over the last two decades the farming sector has experienced a deep transformation
The sector contributed to 4.2% of Romania’s total value added in 2020, well above the average share of the European Union (1.8%) and OECD (2.8%), it represents 13% of the country exports and 10% of its total good imports, above the EU average (see Section 1.6).
Since 2000 in Romania the agriculture share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has fallen to a larger extent than in other selected peer countries,3 (Figure 1.4). However, Romania still has the largest share of agriculture in the Gross Domestic Product among EU countries, and the sector still plays a significant role in the country’s overall economy (World Bank, 2023[2]). There are significant regional differences in the decrease of agriculture’s share in GDP, with declining trends more accentuated in central and western regions, which proved to be more attractive for investments outside the agricultural sectors and that benefit from greater accessibility (Ianoş and Secăreanu, 2020[11]).
Source: World bank (2022), World development indicators, Eurostat (2022) [LFSA_EGAN22D] & [NAMA_10_A10], OECD (2022) National accounts at a glance.
1.2.2. Land use
Farmland abandonment is the main reason of the decline of agricultural area
The total Utilised Agricultural Area (UAA) in Romania is around 13.1 million ha, approximately 57% of the total territory, while forest land occupies 30% of Romania’s landmass (Figure 1.5, panel a). Almost two‑thirds of UAA is arable land, permanent grassland accounts for 31.3%, and the remaining area (3.1%) is used for permanent crops such as fruit and grape production.
The strong decline in the number of farms observed over the last two decades has been accompanied by a reduction of 1.6 million ha of UAA (Figure 1.5, panel b). The reduction of the agricultural area is mainly the result of farmland abandonment that has mainly affected permanent meadows and pastures, low productivity arable land and some perennial crops.
The drastic and rapid changes in Romania’s political and socioeconomic structures since the collapse of socialist regime involved changes in land property situation and in many cases created a large class of absentee landowners. This and other less known factors resulted in significant cropland abandonment that affected areas of high productivity during the 1990s (Müller et al., 2009[12]). This land has since been largely “recultivated”, especially following Romania’s accession to the European Union in 2007. This was also driven by the introduction in 2011 of a national penalty system for unmanaged farmland (Griffiths et al., 2013[13]).
Source: FAOSTAT (2023), [Land use indicators] Accessed July 2023.
Romania has High Nature Value farmed landscapes
In Romania approximately 50% of the 4 million ha of pasture and meadows are species rich, semi-natural – the so-called High Nature Value (HNV) grasslands, mainly concentrated in mountainous areas (IEEP, 2014[14]). The country has some of Europe’s most important HNV farmed landscapes, which have been created by traditional farming practices and that deliver valuable cultural landscapes, high quality water and food, quality of life, recreation opportunities, carbon sequestration and flood control (Fundația ADEPT Transilvania, 2016[15]).
1.2.3. Land ownership
The dual structure of the Romanian farming sector is the result of the land reform in the 1990s
During the socialist era productive land was concentrated into state and collective farms and local communities saw an almost complete elimination of private property rights. The post socialist land reforms of the 1990s aimed at radically changing agrarian relations. The aim was to bring social justice and increase the economic efficiency of the agricultural sector (Dorondel, Rodima-Taylor and Rusu, 2022[16]).
The agrarian reform of the 1990s, and in particular the adoption and implementation of the Land Fund Law (no. 18/1991), drove the proliferation of small farms in Romania. Indeed, in the context of the transition from the socialist era to the market economy, one of the first initiatives of the post-revolution government was the return of collectivised farmland to its cultivators: some four million small parcels representing around 80% of the arable surface were returned to the original owners or their heirs.
Farm restructuring and privatisation in Romania included two different processes: first, de-collectivisation, mainly through the restitution of land used by Agricultural Production Co-operatives to previous owners, and distribution of the remaining land to farm workers and other eligible Romanian citizens; and second, privatisation of state-owned land through sales, lease and concessions (OECD, 2000[17]). These processes resulted in a rather equitable distribution of land ownership and prevented a sharp decline in agricultural production as in other former Soviet Union countries. Nevertheless, the land restitution to the former owners and their heirs led to excessive land fragmentation and to the sprawl of a large number of small-sized agricultural holdings and a small number of large agricultural holdings, in terms of both physical and economic size (Burja and Burja, 2016[18]).
New owners were in many cases elderly, or else city-dwelling heirs of former owners, some of which lacked the financial resources, or technical means, to make use of the land (Ianoş and Secăreanu, 2020[11]). Fifty‑seven per cent of people who received the land were over 65 years old and only 9% were under 40 years. In 1997, 41% of the rural population consisted of pensioners who had received 65% of the land (Verdery, 2003[19]). This contributed to the maintenance of subsistence-oriented production patterns and to keep small farmers relatively excluded from markets. Unfortunately, the transition process was also accompanied by the abandonment of infrastructures, such as irrigation pipes, machinery, buildings, and processing plants (Ianoş and Secăreanu, 2020[11]). Overall, the accession to the European Union appears to have had limited impact on addressing the duality in Romanian farm structure. Furthermore, the implementation of the CAP, particularly direct payments, seems to have even slowed down structural change of the farming sector (Hubbard et al., 2014[20]).4
Romania is among the EU countries where the acquisition of agricultural land by foreign investors has been most extensive
After Romania joined the European Union in 2007, the higher availability of funding such as for the development and improvement of farms, producer groups, the development of irrigation systems or afforestation, increased interest in investing and cultivating the land. Romanian´s natural endowments make the country appealing for the development of intensive agriculture by foreigner investors. Even though there is no official statistical information on the foreign ownership of agricultural land in Romania, in a study commissioned by the European Parliament, the Transnational Institute (Kay, Peuch and Franco, 2015[21]) estimated that 30-40% of agricultural land was controlled by foreign investors in 2015, of which around one-third were by non-EU investors. More recent studies also confirmed that Romania is among the EU countries where foreign acquisition has been most extensive (Burja, Tamas-Szora and Dobra, 2020[22]; Chiurciu, 2023[23]). Foreigner investors also have greater capacity to access funding from the European Union: among the ten companies that received the highest support from the Agency for Payments and Intervention in Agriculture (APIA) in 2019, five had foreign capital (Chiurciu, 2023[23]).
The relatively low price of land compared to other EU Member States, together with a permissive legislation and political support for land consolidation to increase land productivity are key factors that favoured large-scale land acquisitions (Eco Ruralis, 2015[24]). Multinational private companies were attracted by the investment opportunities and either invested their capital into land acquisitions – and then leased or sold to third party companies – or leased the bulk of land and directed their capital into agro-industrial development and exploitation. Such companies are highly export-oriented and usually manage land through contract farming. Financial institutions and investment funds are also important actors that buy land for commercial reasons: usually they do not engage in agricultural exploitation and lease the land to other companies in processes that some commentators have described as lacking in transparency (Eco Ruralis, 2015[24]).
The acquisition of land by foreigner investors may raise opportunities for productive investment, as well as favouring agro-industrial development, land consolidation and the orientation toward a more market-oriented and exporting farming sector. At the same time, if not well monitored, this process may have unforeseen economic and social consequences, such as pricing out local farmers, depriving them of access to land and favouring rural exodus (Burja, Tamas-Szora and Dobra, 2020[22]). While the new regulation on farmland sales, including large scale land acquisition, is a step forward (see Section 2.4.4), the lack of official statistics prevents a sounded evaluation of the effects of this phenomenon on the process of structural adjustment of the Romanian farming sector. While the new regulation on farmland sales, including large scale land acquisition, is a step forward, the lack of official statistics prevents a sounded evaluation of the effects of this phenomenon on the process of structural adjustment of the Romanian farming sector, in particular the medium-sized farms.
1.2.4. Financial gaps and needs
Romania is the EU country with the highest financing gap in the agricultural sector
Access to credit is a common problem among Romanian farmers. Less than 7% of Romanian farmers applied for a loan in 2017. Rejection rates in Romania are above 25%, well above the average of the 24 EU Member States monitored5 (fi-compass, 2020[25]). About 80% of all farmers who used financing indicated that they relied exclusively on friends and family. Rejection rates are particularly high for livestock farmers due to the perceived higher risk of the sector for its high historical default rates, price risks and animal diseases, as well as for the high vulnerability of the sector, especially smaller farms, due to climate change risks and a lack of income diversification.
Assets, liabilities and net worth, selected EU countries, thousand euros, 2022
Note: Left panel reported by country, right panel for Romania in 2022 reported by subsector. FADN data is based on a survey of farm operations and is not a complete reporting of the farm population.
Note by Türkiye: The information in this document with reference to “Cyprus” relates to the southern part of the Island. There is no single authority representing both Turkish and Greek Cypriot people on the Island. Türkiye recognises the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Until a lasting and equitable solution is found within the context of the United Nations, Türkiye shall preserve its position concerning the “Cyprus issue”. Note by all the European Union Member States of the OECD and the European Union: The Republic of Cyprus is recognised by all members of the United Nations with the exception of Türkiye. The information in this document relates to the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.
Source: FADN database, Total Assets SE436, Total Liabilities SE485, Net worth SE501 accessed 12/09/2024 https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/FADNPublicDatabase/FADNPublicDatabase.html.
In recent years, the financing gap6 grew dramatically, increasing from EUR 5.2 billion in 2017 to EUR 11.4 billion in 2022, the highest financing gap in the agricultural sector among the 24 EU Member States monitored by fi-Compass. Romania also has the highest financial gap in relation to Gross Value Added (GVA) (89%) (fi-compass, 2023[26]).
On average, Romanian farms also have the lowest assets and liabilities compared to some of the more productive countries in the European Union (Figure 1.6, left panel). Average net worth was EUR 80 500 in 2022. However, the balance sheet of the average farm for different commodities shows substantial variation (Figure 1.6, right panel). Pork and poultry farms have relatively high assets (net worth around EUR 300 000), while horticulture have a net worth below EUR 40 000.
Access to finance is low
In Romania access to finance for individuals in still low, in 2020 only 58% of individuals had a bank account, compared to the EU average of 98%. Romanians are also less likely to use their account to make or receive payments, save, or borrow. Only 47% of individuals make or receive digital payments (EU average: 92%), 14% saved at a financial institution (EU average: 49%), and 20% borrowed money or used a credit card (EU average: 46%) (World Bank, 2020[27]).
Financial institutions are generally considered to have a lack of understanding of farming operations. Many do not have dedicated agricultural finance strategies, products, or teams. Access to finance is particularly important when farmers develop projects supported by EU programmes. Financing is less accessible to agriculture and to businesses located in rural areas. Young farmers and start-ups also face difficulties in accessing loans due to the lack of credit history (MARD, 2023[7]). Farmers are associated with an increased credit risk due to climate change and price volatility, while the availability of financial resources is seen as an obstacle to investing in climate change adaptation by around 46% of companies in agriculture, regardless of their size (National Bank of Romania, 2023[28]).
1.3.1. Evolution of farm holdings
The Romanian agricultural landscape is still dominated by small family farms, but medium-size farms are slowly emerging
During the last decade there has been an overall decline of 1.4 million farms, mainly driven by the decrease of farms with less than 5 ha (-27.4%), while there has been an increase in the number of farms in all size classes above 5 ha (Figure 1.7, panel a). Similarly, the share of agricultural areas cultivated by farms with more than 5 ha also increased over the same period (Figure 1.7, panel b). Overall, between the two extremes of small and large farms, there is a slowly emerging sector of medium-sized, increasingly professional, “family farms” which have been recognised as the main focus of the government’s commitment to promoting the structural reform and increase competitiveness of Romanian agriculture (MARD, 2015[29]).
Source: Eurostat (2023), Farm indicators by agricultural area, type of farm, standard output, legal form and NUTS 2 regions [EF_M_FARMLEG] accessed July 2023.
Only larger holdings have increased their output in the last decade
In Romania, the average economic output of a family farm was EUR 2 750 in 2020 compared with an average EUR 165 456 for non-family farms, confirming that many family farms can be considered as subsistence farms (Eurostat, 2023[9]). The decrease of farms under 5 ha between 2010 and 2020 was also accompanied by a significant reduction of their standard output (Figure 1.8). The overall increase by 22.5% of the standard output was mainly driven by farms with 20-50 ha and of farms with more than 50 ha. Such categories were the only ones that also grew in number, in particular farms with 20-50 ha almost doubled.
Source: Eurostat (2023), Farm indicators by agricultural area, type of farm, standard output, legal form and NUTS 2 regions [EF_M_FARMLEG] accessed July 2023.
Farmers’ associations and co-operatives could help to improve the competitiveness of small and medium-size farms
The formation of farmers’ associations and co-operatives could help to address some of the key problems that Romanian small and medium-size farms are facing, including the disadvantages in contracts with retailers (see Chapter 5), but also the difficulties in accessing to some of the main policy tools to support their development (see Chapter 2). Agricultural co-operatives may also have a major impact in improving the trade balance, increasing the added value of primary production and strengthening the role of producers in the agricultural and food chains.
As in the other post-socialist economies, private family farmers in Romania have shown a strong resistance in forming or joining formal organisations. Nevertheless, over the last decade agricultural cooperatives seem to become more popular among Romanian farmers (Wolz, Möllers and Micu, 2019[30]). Although a significant increase was registered especially during the 2014-20 programming period, the number of Romanian farmers that are currently in an associative structure (around 1%) is still much lower than the EU average (34%). Moreover, there seems to be a “middle-size bias” when forming co-operatives: the smaller and poorer farmers, as well as the richer and larger farmers, often do not join co-operatives (Wolz, Möllers and Micu, 2019[30]).
In its first analysis of entire agricultural co-operative sector in Romania, CRPE – the Romanian Centre for European Policies – highlighted that among the 1 083 agricultural co-operatives existing “on paper” in 2017, there were only a few economically sustainable (Ganea and Toderiță, 2018[31]). In the updated research, CRPE recorded a significant increase in the number of legally registered agricultural cooperatives, even though most of them are still facing numerous challenges and very often they have low economic performance (Toderiță, Ganea and Popescu, 2020[32]; Dobay, 2022[33]). According to the official data published by MARD (2024[34]), Romania had around 2 400 registered agricultural co-operatives in 2022, more than twice as many as in 2017.
Evidence confirms that that Rural Development Policies, and in particular LEADER measures have not played a major role in the formation of agricultural co-operatives. However, Laws no. 164/2016 and 21/2019 introduced relevant amendments of the Law on agricultural co-operation and operationalised tax incentives for co-operatives. This could potentially stimulate the formation of farmers’ associations and co-operatives (Toderiță, Ganea and Popescu, 2020[32]; Tudor and Roşu, 2022[35]).
1.3.2. Farm labour and income
Strong decline in agricultural employment since EU accession, but significant increase of income
Agricultural labour, measured in Annual Working Units (AWU), decreased by 60% between 2005 and 2022 (Figure 1.9, panel a). The share of salaried labour has experienced a slight increase from around 10% in 2005 to 17% in 2022. On the other hand, the annual average farm income – expressed as average farm net value added (FNVA) per AWU7 experienced an important increase after Romania’s EU accession up to 2018; however, in 2021 it declined to EUR 7 684, well below the EU average of EUR 28 786 (Figure 1.9, panel b).
There are divergences in farm value added depending on the activity of the farm, with the highest value (EUR 29 561) for granivores, followed by field crops (EUR 13 854), wine (EUR 9 542) and other permanent crops (EUR 7 233), while mixed farms (EUR 4 099) and horticulture (EUR 3 184) have the lowest income (FADN, 2023[36]).
Note: AWU are Agricultural Working Units, FNVA is the Farm Net Value Added (EUR/AWU).
Source: a. Eurostat (2023), Agricultural labour input statistics [AACT_ALI01]. Accessed July 2023; b. FADN (2023), (FNVA) Farm Net Value Added (€/AWU)], accessed August 2023.
1.3.3. Trends in production and yields
Crop products are driving output growth
Agricultural output has seen a steady growth over the past decades. This has been mainly driven by a growth in crop products that have the largest share in total agricultural output (Table 1.2). Cereals (maize and wheat) compose a large part of this category. Since 2005 soybeans and sunflowers experienced a substantial increase in terms of share in the agricultural output. Other forage plants, although less than in the past, maintain a moderate importance. The main livestock activities are milk and pigmeat production.
Changes in the composition of agricultural production
Note: Production values at current prices. “Maize” includes fodder maize.
Source: Eurostat (2023). Economic accounts for agriculture - values at current prices [aact_eaa01], accessed October 2023.
Since 2015 the production of most crops has experienced significant increases, while slight decreasing trends were observed for some animal products such as milk, pigs and eggs (Figure 1.10). The most significant output growth was observed for oilseeds, fruits and sunflowers. All crops recovered well after the severe droughts that affected the country in 2012 and 2020, when all outputs experienced a significant drop. In particular in 2020 Romania experienced the worst drought in the last 50 years, and then in 2022, the country experienced another severe drought that was estimated to have wiped EUR 1billion from the Romanian agricultural sector (MARD and the World Bank, 2023[37]).
Note: “Maize” includes fodder maize.
Source: Eurostat (2023). Economic accounts for agriculture - values at current prices [aact_eaa01], accessed October 2023.
Romania succeeded in narrowing the yields gap
The observed increase of crop outputs is the result of a significant improvement of yields. As shown in Figure 1.11, over the last 20 years Romania succeeded in narrowing the yields gap compared to the EU average for two of the most important crops – wheat and maize – while sunflower yields are above EU average and higher than in countries such Bulgaria, Poland and Italy. The increase of yields was driven by better technical equipment availability, especially for large holdings. For the period 2010-19, the number of agricultural tractors increased by 18.6% (MARD, 2023[7]). Nevertheless, around two-thirds of the currently existing farm equipment has exceeded its lifespan. In Romania, a tractor is used for an average of 100 000 hours compared to 3 000 to 4 000 hours for the European average (fi-compass, 2020[25]).
Note: The EU average includes only the Member States that reported data.
Source: FAOSTAT (2023), Crops and livestock products. Accessed August 2023.
1.3.4. Trends in organic farming
After an initial boom due to CAP payments, organic farming is experiencing sustained growth
Romanian organic agriculture has expanded since 2000, after the adoption of the National Organic Farming Law (34/2000). The number of certified organic producers began to increase in 2005, when organic production started to receive compensatory payments. This growth was then further enhanced with the EU accession in 2007. While the sector continued to grow until 2013, when around 15 000 organic producers were registered, the number of organic producers dropped to 8 500 in 2018. From 2018 onwards the growth of organic farming picked up again and Romania has now overcome the turning point, with 12 000 organic producers in 2021 (Lozan and Arndt, 2022[38]).
However, processing and marketing structures have not followed the same growth trends as organic production and in many cases organic farmers are unable to market their products at higher prices than non-organic producers (Lozan and Arndt, 2022[38]). Almost 90% of the production of organic cereals and oilseeds is not processed locally but sold in bulk to be processed in other EU countries (Brumă et al., 2024[39]). Local demand is still low due to lack of awareness and the consumption market of products deriving from organic farming is mostly covered by companies importing processed organic products from other countries (Jităreanu et al., 2022[40]; Giucă et al., 2023[41]).
From 2012 to 2021 the organic area (fully converted and under conversion) doubled from 288 000 to 579 000 ha (see Chapter 3 for further details) (Eurostat, 2023[42]). The increase of certified areas has been driven by policy support (Measure 215 of the National Rural Development Programme 2007-13 and Measure 11 of the National Rural Development Programme 2014-22, see Chapter 2) and higher profitability for farms cultivating organic arable crops on large surfaces in the plains. Organic production mostly concerns large arable farms concentrated in the Banat and Wallachia regions. In Transylvania, organic farms tend to be smaller and more engaged in horticulture, beekeeping and ruminant livestock (Lozan and Arndt, 2022[38]). The average farm size of an organic certified farm in 2021 was 50 ha – significantly higher than the national average of 4.8 ha.
1.4.1. Generational renewal
The share of young farmers is increasing
The composition of Romanian farms by the age of their managers (Figure 1.12), reveals that 59% of them are 55 years or older. Overall, the process of generational renewal is mainly driven by the closure of less competitive holdings run by older farmers. Nonetheless, since 2016 not only the number of holdings managed by older farmers and their share in all farm holdings have decreased, but young farmers also increased consistently both in absolute and in relative terms. As a result, the ratio of farmers younger than 35 to farmers older than 55 significantly increased. The number of farm managers between 35 and 54 years old is also increasing, accounting for 35% of total holdings.
Note: Percentages refer to the share of farmer’s age over total farmers.
Source: Eurostat (2023). Farm indicators [EF_M_FARMANG], consulted in July 2023.
Access to land and financing are the main barriers for young farmers
Young farmers face numerous barriers, including difficulties in access to land and to credit. The survey on the financial gaps in Romania’s farming sector found that young farmers and new entrants are discouraged from applying for loans due to lack of financial literacy. Their loan applications are also often rejected because insufficient collateral (fi-compass, 2020[25]). A 2015 study on young farmers’ needs in Romania found that young farmers have difficulties in finding qualified labour and getting advice on extension services (EC, 2015[43]).
Competition with large investors and the subsequent concentration of land in extensive and in large-scale industrialised monocultures (see Section 1.3.3), was also identified as one of the main barriers for the young generation to access agricultural land (Burja, Tamas-Szora and Dobra, 2020[22]; Popovici, Mitrică and Mocanu, 2018[44]).
1.4.2. Gender
The importance of women in the agricultural sector is higher in Romania than in other EU countries…
In 2020 about 63% of farm holders were male (Figure 1.13), this is below the EU value of 68% (Eurostat, 2022[45]). The percentage of males is much higher across all age groups, except for older farm managers (more than 65 years old), where females have almost the same relative weight as males.
Source: Eurostat (2023). Farm indicators [EF_M_FARMANG] Consulted on July 2023 Migration.
…but the share of the total female employment working in the agricultural sector is decreasing
Although agriculture is a relatively more important sector for female employment in Romania compared to the peer countries and the European Union, the share of the total female labour working in the agricultural sector decreased from 32% in 2010 to around 18% in 2021 (Figure 1.14). The decline in agriculture was offset by the increased proportion of women working in the services sector. This trend follows the overall reduction of employment in the sector, but the decrease of the female workforce is larger than that of the male counterpart over the same decade.
Source: World Bank (2023). World Development Indicators [database]. Accessed November 2023.
1.4.3. Migration
The agricultural sector is highly affected by outmigration
In Romania up to 4 million people born in the country have emigrated during the last two decades, around 20% of the total population (INS, 2023[46]). Agriculture has been one of the most affected sectors of the economy and is the sector where migration has created the most labour shortages (Oprea, Vlǎdescu and Băncescu, 2021[47]). In 2018 the out-migration of people involved in agricultural activities mainly occurred from counties of southern Romania, which correspond to the areas characterised by a higher prevalence of small farms (Galluzzo, 2023[48]; Mitrică et al., 2022[49]). The share of foreign labour in the agricultural work force is 0.2%, according to the data from the General Inspectorate for Immigration (MARD, 2023[7]). For the first time, in 2022 immigration in Romania was the main cause of population growth. The number of immigrants exceeded the number of emigrants by just over 85 000 people (INS, 2023[50]). The positive balance of migration flows was partly caused by the war in Ukraine.8
Since 1997, internal migration exhibits a trend marked by a net migration flow towards rural areas (Andrei and Mirica, 2019[51]). In 2022, 144 674 people (15 per 1 000 inhabitants) migrated from urban to rural areas while only 98 414 people (8 per 1 000 inhabitants) moved from rural to urban areas (INS, 2023[5]).
1.4.4. Minorities
National minorities work mainly in agriculture
The integration of national minorities is of high relevance in Romania, which was among the first countries that signed the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in February 1995 and the first State to ratify it on 29 April 1995 (Government of Romania, 2023[52]). Romania’s main minority are the Roma people. According to the 2021 population and housing census, there are 569 477 self-declared Roma people in Romania, representing 3% of the general population (NIS, 2023[53]).9 As some Roma do not carry official documents, estimating the size of the Roma population is one of the biggest challenges for the Romanian Government and the real number might be much higher (EC, 2022[54]).
A significant number of Roma people live in very poor socio-economic conditions. The social exclusion, discrimination and segregation they face are mutually reinforcing and the difficulties encountered by Roma people in entering in the labour market often result in low income and poor health compared with non-Roma people (European Parliament, 2023[55]). Their main source of income is social support, and some form of paid work on low-skill jobs, in manufacturing (19.7%), agriculture, forestry and fishing (16.2%), wholesale and retail trade (12.5%), or construction (12.1%) (NIS, 2023[53]). The lack of skills is a direct consequence of low access to education. In a recent survey, only 22% of young Roma between 18 and 24 reported completing upper-secondary education, against 83% of the total population (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2023[56]).
The integration of Roma people in the labour market is particular difficult given that about one-third of the Roma population is under the age of 15 (compared to the rest of population where one-fifth is below the age of 15). The Romanian Government is implementing a strategy on the inclusion of citizens belonging to the Roma minority for the period 2022 to 2027 (EC, 2022[54]). The strategy identifies six main objectives: improving living conditions, ensuring access to quality inclusive education, increasing the employment rate, improving the health status, supporting research, conservation and promotion of Roma cultural heritage and cultural identity, combating discrimination.
1.5.1. Evolution of agro-food trade
Agro-food products have an increasing share in Romania’s exports
In 2022, agro-food products made up 13% of Romania’s total goods exports and 10.3% of imports. The sector’s importance in trade, particularly in exports, has increased from 3.5% of exports and 7.4% of imports in 2000. Romania had an agro-food trade deficit of varying size in most years of 2000-22 (Figure 1.15, panel A). Primary goods for industry make up the largest share of exports (60.6%), whereas the largest share of imports (59.6%) corresponds to processed goods for consumption (Figure 1.15, panel B).
Note: Agro-food definition does not include fish and fish products. Agro-food codes in H0: 01, 02, 04 to 24 (excluding 1504, 1603, 1604 and 1605), 3301, 3501 to 3505, 4101 to 4103, 4301, 5001 to 5003, 5101 to 5103, 5201 to 5203, 5301, 5302, 290543/44, 380910, 382360.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on UN Comtrade (database), http://comtrade.un.org/ [accessed November 2023].
Between 2013 and 2022, agro-food exports grew at an average annual rate of 10.1%, slightly above the average annual growth of imports (8.5%). This represents a deceleration with respect to the previous decade, particularly on the export side: in 2003-12, exports grew at an average of 30.2% and imports at 19.4%. Agro-food trade rebounded in the most recent years, particularly in 2021 − in line with the recovery trend often observed following the COVID-19 pandemic. The positive growth continued in 2022, although at more moderate rates.
Cereals and oilseeds are important drivers of the trade surplus in vegetable products
In 2022, Romania had a trade surplus in vegetable products (Chapters 06 to 15 of the Harmonised System). However, it was not sufficient to compensate the value of the negative balances observed in the trade of animal products (Chapters 01-05) and of foodstuffs (Chapters 16-24), resulting in an overall agro-food trade deficit (Figure 1.16).
Trade balance by product group, 2022
Note: Animal and animal products do not include fish and its products.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on UN (2022), UN Comtrade (database), http://comtrade.un.org/ [accessed November 2023].
The top ten headings exported in 2022 represented 71.6% of agro-food exports (Table 1.3). They include cereals (wheat, maize and barley), oilseeds (sunflowers and rapeseed), tobacco and its products, live sheep, and bread. Imports are less concentrated: the top 10 headings made up the 37.7% of agro-food imports. Pork meat was the top import product, followed by bread, sunflower seeds, maize, cheese, chocolate, coffee, and other food and feed preparations.
Top 10 agro-food products exported and imported, 2022
Note: The HS descriptions have been simplified and are provided only as a reference.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on UN (2022), UN Comtrade (database), http://comtrade.un.org/ [accessed November 2023].
Cereals, oilseeds and tobacco increasingly dominate exports
The concentration of Romanian agro-food exports on cereals and oilseeds has increased over the last decades (Figure 1.17). In 2000, they made up 20.1% of exports. This share has increased to 53.4% of exports in 2022. Tobacco also gained importance, growing from 0.7% to 12.3% of exports in the same period. As of 2022, Romania occupied the tenth and eleventh places among world exporters of cereals and oilseeds respectively and was the seventh exporter of tobacco (ITC, 2023[57]).
Three products − live animals, fruits and vegetables − stand out as having reduced shares in exports. In all cases the value exported increased across the period, but they lost relative importance as other products gained it (UN Comtrade, 2023[58]).
Composition of agro-food exports, 2000, 2010 and 2022
Note: Export sectors defined at the HS chapter level: live animals (01), vegetables (07), fruits (08), cereals (10), oilseeds (12), beverages (22), tobacco (24).
Source: Authors’ calculations based on UN Comtrade (database), http://comtrade.un.org/ [accessed November 2023].
On the import side, notable changes in 2000-22 include a decrease in the import share of live animals (from 2.2% to 1.4%) and an increase in the relative importance of meat (from 7.8% to 10.0%). Other products that stand out as having gained relative importance in agro-food imports between 2000 and 2022 include dairy products (from 2.7% to 7.6%), oilseeds and oleaginous fruits (from 2.6% to 8.5%) and cereal preparations (from 2.3% to 6.2%) (UN Comtrade, 2023[58]).
Romania mainly trades agro-food products with EU partners
Intra-EU trade made up 58.3% of Romania’s 2022 agro-food exports and 75.9% of imports. The top destinations for exports within the European Union were Italy (8.6%), Bulgaria (6.7%), the Netherlands (6.1%), Spain (5.8%) and Hungary (5.7%). Outside of the European Union, exports went to markets such as Egypt (5.1%), Jordan (4.9%) and Japan (3.3%).
Main export destinations for agricultural and food products, 2022
Source: Authors’ calculations based on UN (2023), UN Comtrade (database), http://comtrade.un.org/ [accessed November 2023].
Germany originated the largest share of agro-food imports (14.6%), followed by Hungary (11.6%), Poland (8.8%) and the Netherlands (7.3%). A surge in imports from Ukraine in 2022 put it at the top of non-EU import sources, with a share of 8.2% (against 1.3% in 2021). Other important non-EU sources include Moldova (3.5%), Türkiye (3.3%) and Brazil (2.7%).
Main import sources for agricultural and food products, 2022
Source: Authors’ calculations based on UN (2023), UN Comtrade (database), http://comtrade.un.org/ [accessed November 2023].
Trade with EU Member States has shown more dynamism than with non-EU partners, particularly after EU accession
The value of agro-food trade with EU Members was higher than with non-EU partners, even before Romania’s EU accession. After 2008, the gap between intra-EU trade and trade with other partners widened, particularly for imports. Exports to non-EU partners have grown at a higher rate after 2008 and the gap between both groups has narrowed in some of the most recent years (Figure 1.20).
Evolution of agro-food trade with EU and non-EU trading partners, 2000-22
Note: EU data refers to the EU-28 (including the United Kingdom) up to 2019 and the EU-27 thereafter.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on UN Comtrade (database), http://comtrade.un.org/ [accessed November 2023].
1.5.2. Integration of the agro-food sector in international markets
The agriculture and food sectors have deepened their participation in global value chains
The OECD Trade in Value Added (TiVA) database considers the value added by each country in the production of goods and services that are consumed worldwide, providing a broad view of where value is created along each stage of global value chains (GVCs). An examination of international value-added flows related to the agro-food sector (Box 1.1) gives a perspective of countries’ integration into GVCs that goes beyond conventional trade data. 10
TiVA data also reveal international flows of value added that are not captured by traditional trade statistics. In some cases, the top destinations of value-added exports and sources of value-added in domestic demand differ from the top trading partners in terms of gross exports and imports. For example, higher shares of Romania’s value added exports go to Germany, the United States, France and the People’s Republic of China (hereafter China) than their share in Romania’s gross exports. On the import side, while China represents less than 1% of agro-food imports, it is among the top five sources11 of agro-food value added in Romania’s domestic demand.
Exploring trade in value added provides insight into the different types of value creation for the agricultural sector. Direct exports of agricultural value added occur from the sector itself through primary product exports. Indirect exports of agricultural value added embodied in other exports represent the agricultural value added that is exported by other domestic industries, for example in processed or transformed products. At the same time, there are important shares of value addition from services and industrial sectors in the export value of agricultural products. Services represent a wide range of activities including business services (such as agricultural consultants and contractors), transport and trade services, which, in the same way as food processing, can increase domestic value creation.
OECD research has identified two value adding pathways related to trade and GVC engagement. The first is a processing pathway, where domestic value addition to agriculture and links to trade and GVCs occur through downstream processing sectors. The second is a primary pathway, where domestic value addition is made to the primary product, and the sector’s engagement in trade and GVCs is via direct exports for foreign processing or foreign final demand. The research found that countries participating in trade and GVCs via the primary pathway generated equivalent overall trade-related domestic value-added returns as those participating via the processing pathway. A key difference was the share of services value-added, which was higher in countries that followed the primary pathway.
These two pathways are captured in two key indicators that measure a country’s degree of engagement in GVCs: i) backward participation, which measures the share of imported intermediates embedded in the country’s exports and represents the processing pathway; and ii) forward participation, which measures the share of exports that form an intermediate into other countries’ exports and represents the primary pathway.
Romania’s agriculture and food industry have increased their forward and backward linkages with global production networks since 2000 (Table 1.4), although the foreign value-added content of agriculture exports from Romania to the world had a slight decrease between 2010 and 2020. The share of Romanian value added embodied in other countries’ exports of both sectors increased across the period. Both sectors also increased their reliance in foreign demand, but growth was much stronger for agriculture. As of 2020, most indicators of linkages with GVCs were lower than the EU average, except the indicator of forward linkages for the food industry.
Evolution of indicators of participation in global value chains
Note: The value for the EU is a simple average of the values for its members in the corresponding year. The table refers to the TiVA indicators EXGR_FVASH (foreign value added embodied in the industry’s exports as a percentage of industry’s total exports); EXGR_DVAFXSH (domestic value added content embodied in the exports of the industry in foreign countries, as a percentage of country’s gross exports), and VALU_FFDDVA (share of the industry’s value added that ultimately meets foreign final demand (whether as a direct or an indirect export)).
Source: OECD (2023), Trade in Value Added (TiVA) [database], https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/trade-in-value-added.html (consulted November 2023).
The foreign value-added (FVA) content of agriculture (19.7%) and food exports (23.7%) are below or close to the FVA share observed in 2020 for the Romanian economy (24.4%). The highest FVA shares in the economy are found in industries such as motor vehicles (39.2%) and rubber and plastics (39%). Romania is below the peer group in terms of the FVA content of exports of both agriculture and food. Romania scored the third lowest foreign value added shares in its 2020 agricultural export. For the food industry, Romania had the third lowest FVA share (Figure 1.21).
Evolution of foreign value added in exports between 2000 and 2020
Source: OECD (2023), Trade in Value Added (TiVA) [database], https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/trade-in-value-added.html (consulted November 2023).
Agro-food exports have an increasing content of foreign services
TiVA indicators also highlight the trend of “servicification” of global value chains,12 reflected in an increase in exports of services value-added, both direct and indirect (in particular services embodied as inputs in the exports of goods). For Romania, the total services content (domestic and foreign) is slightly higher for the food industry than for agriculture (25.5% vs. 24% in 2020) and has increased since 2000, although it remains lower than that of the European Union (Table 1.5). The foreign services content in Romania is lower than the European Union average for both sectors.
Evolution of the services value-added content of exports
Note: The value for the EU is a simple average of the values for its members in the corresponding year. Share of value-added originating from all domestic and foreign service industries in total gross exports by industry. Service industries include construction, wholesale and retail, hotels and restaurants, transport and communications, finance, real estate and business services as well as public services.
Source: OECD (2023), Trade in Value Added (TiVA) 2022 edition (database), https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/trade-in-value-added.html (consulted November 2023).
Romania has made significant economic progress over the past few decades, and its economy has become increasingly open and sophisticated. Nevertheless, its poverty rate is still the highest in the European Union and income inequality and disparities in living standards between urban and rural areas are large.
Over the last two decades the role of agriculture in the economy has fallen to a larger extent than in other selected peer countries, but Romania has the largest share of agriculture in the Gross Domestic Product in the European Union and the farming sector still employs 20% of the workforce. The share of employment in farming is declining, and agricultural area is decreasing, mainly as result of farmland abandonment.
Romania accounts for almost one-third of all farms in the European Union, but the structure of the sector is characterised by a large number of small and semi-subsistence family farms that manage less than one-quarter of the agricultural land and a small group of very large farms that owns more than half of the agricultural land. Medium-size farms are slowly emerging.
As result of the positive development of the regulatory framework, a significant increase of agricultural co-operatives was registered over the last decade, but the number of Romanian farmers that are currently in an associative structure (around 1%) is still much lower than the EU average (34%).
Access to credit and to land are key barriers for the structural change of the farming sector. Romania is the EU country with the highest financing gap in the agricultural sector and is among the countries that have the most severe problems of land fragmentation. The significant increase in the number of young farmers is an encouraging development in light of this challenging context.
Agriculture is a relatively more important sector for female employment in Romania compared to the peer countries and the European Union, however over the last decade the share of agriculture in the total female employment has decreased.
The crops sector is driving agricultural output growth, also because the country managed to reduce the yield gap with the European Union for some of its major crops. On the other hand, the livestock sector is in slight decline.
Agriculture is important in trade and agro-food exports are increasing. Romania’s exports are dominated by primary products and there is a concentration of exports on grain, oilseeds and tobacco. Integration of the agro-food sector into global value chains has increased over time, but it is relatively low when compared to peer countries.
References
[51] Andrei, T. and A. Mirica (2019), “Key Features of the Internal Migration Process in Romania - An Economic and Historical Perspective”, Romanian Statistical Review, Vol. 2, pp. 3-20.
[39] Brumă, C. et al. (2024), “The Evolution of the Romanian Organic Agriculture in a Global Context”, Romanioan Agricultural Research, Vol. 41, pp. 67-77, https://doi.org/10.59665/rar4107.
[18] Burja, C. and V. Burja (2016), “The Economic Farm Size And Sustainable Value Disparities Between Romania And The Eu States”, Annals - Economy Series, Vol. 1, pp. 50-57.
[22] Burja, V., A. Tamas-Szora and I. Dobra (2020), “Land Concentration, Land Grabbing and Sustainable Development of Agriculture in Romania”, Sustainability, Vol. 12/5, p. 2137, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12052137.
[57] Centre, I. (ed.) (2023), TradeMap - Trade Indicators (database), https://www.trademap.org/ (accessed on November 2023).
[23] Chiurciu, I. (2023), “Land grabbing phenomena in the context of rural development”, Scientific Papers Series Management, Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural Development, Vol. 23/1, pp. 131-138.
[63] Council of Europe (2012), Document prepared by the Support Team of the Special Representative of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe for Roma Issues, https://rm.coe.int/1680088ea9.
[33] 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.
[16] Dorondel, S., D. Rodima-Taylor and M. Rusu (2022), “CHAPTER 7 Reinventing Land Mortgage in Postsocialist Europe: The Romanian Case”, in Land and the Mortgage, Berghahn Books, https://doi.org/10.1515/9781800733497-011.
[54] EC (2022), Strategy of the Romanian Government on the inclusion of Romanian citizens belonging to the Roma minority for the period 2022-2027, https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-10/1_1romania_national_roma_strategic_framework_2022_2027.pdf.
[43] EC (2015), Young farmers’ needs in Romania - Annex I.23 to the Pilot project: Exchange programmes for young farmers.
[24] Eco Ruralis (2015), Land Grabbing in Romania, https://www.accesstoland.eu/IMG/pdf/land_grabbing_in_romania_report_eco_ruralis_2015_finalsmall.pdf.
[55] European Parliament (2023), Understanding EU action on Roma inclusion - Briefing.
[56] European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2023), Roma in 10 European Countries. Main results Roma survey 2021, Publications Office of the European Union, https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2022-roma-survey-2021-mainresults2_en.pdf.
[9] Eurostat (2023), Agriculture statistics - family farming in the EU, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Agriculture_statistics_-_family_farming_in_the_EU.
[42] Eurostat (2023), Developments in organic farming, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Developments_in_organic_farming&oldid=614575#Organic_production.
[45] Eurostat (2022), Farmers and the agricultural labour force - statistics, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Farmers_and_the_agricultural_labour_force_-_statistics.
[8] Eurostat (2022), Farms and farmland in the European Union - statistics, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Farms_and_farmland_in_the_European_Union_-_statistics#The_evolution_of_farms_and_farmland_between_2005_and_2020.
[61] Eurostat (2020), Territorial typologies manual - urban-rural typology, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Territorial_typologies_manual_-_urban-rural_typology#Classes_for_the_typology_and_their_conditions.
[36] FADN (2023), FADN Public Database - (SE425) Farm Net Value Added (€/AWU), https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/FADNPublicDatabase/FADNPublicDatabase.html (accessed on 3 November 2023).
[26] fi-compass (2023), Factsheet – Financing gap in the agriculture and agri-food sectors in the EU, https://www.fi-compass.eu/library/market-analysis/financing-gap-eu-agricultural-and-agri-food-sectors.
[25] fi-compass (2020), Financial needs in agriculture and agri-food sectors in Romania, https://www.fi-compass.eu/sites/default/files/publications/financial_needs_agriculture_agrifood_sectors_Romania.pdf.
[15] Fundația ADEPT Transilvania, W. (2016), Rural Development and High Nature Value Farmland in Romania, https://www.agridea.ch/en/page/hnv-roumania/.
[48] Galluzzo, N. (2023), “Emigration and Common Agricultural Policy in Romanian Rural Areas: An Analysis of Patterns of Inefficiency”, Agricultural & Rural Studies, Vol. 1/1, https://doi.org/10.59978/ar01010003.
[31] Ganea, O. and A. Toderiță (2018), Crearea și dezvoltarea cooperativelor agricole, https://www.crpe.ro/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/CREAREA-%C8%98I-DEZVOLTAREA-COOPERATIVELOR-AGRICOLE_CRPE-Policy-Memo-74.pdf.
[41] Giucă, G. et al. (2023), The Market of Organic Agri-Food Products in Romania, https://doi.org/10.2478/9788367405546-018.
[52] Government of Romania (2023), Comments of the Government of Romania to the Fifth Opinion of the Advisory Committee on the implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by Romania. GVT/COM/V(2023)005, https://rm.coe.int/5th-com-romania-en/1680ac6205.
[59] Greenville, J., K. Kawasaki and M. Jouanjean (2019), “Value Adding Pathways in Agriculture and Food Trade: The Role of GVCs and Services”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 123, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bb8bb93d-en.
[13] Griffiths, P. et al. (2013), “Agricultural land change in the Carpathian ecoregion after the breakdown of socialism and expansion of the European Union”, Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 8/4, p. 045024, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045024.
[20] Hubbard, C. et al. (2014), “Semi‐subsistence Farming in Romania and Bulgaria: a Survival Strategy?”, EuroChoices, Vol. 13/1, pp. 46-51, https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692x.12052.
[11] Ianoş, I. and G. Secăreanu (2020), “Romanian post-communist agriculture – structural dynamics and challenges”, Studia Obszarów Wiejskich, Vol. 56, pp. 73-102, https://doi.org/10.7163/sow.56.3.
[14] IEEP (2014), High Nature Value farming throughout EU-27 and its financial support under the CAP., https://www.efncp.org/news/news20140601.php.
[46] INS (2023), National Institute of Statistics, https://insse.ro/cms/en.
[50] INS (2023), National Institute of Statistics - Press release.
[5] INS (2023), POP311A - Structure of urban and rural internal migration flows determined by permanent residence changing, http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/#/pages/tables/insse-table.
[40] Jităreanu, A. et al. (2022), “Dynamic of Ecological Agriculture Certification in Romania Facing the EU Organic Action Plan”, Sustainability, Vol. 14/17, p. 11105, https://doi.org/10.3390/su141711105.
[21] Kay, S., J. Peuch and J. Franco (2015), Extent of farmland grabbing in the EU, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/540369/IPOL_STU(2015)540369_EN.pdf.
[38] Lozan, A. and C. Arndt (2022), Report on the status of organic agriculture and industry in Romania.
[34] MARD (2024), Cooperative agricole, https://madr.ro/cooperative-agricole.html (accessed on 11 June 2024).
[7] MARD (2023), Agricultural Accession Review Questionnaire.
[29] MARD (2015), Strategia pentru dezvoltarea sectorului agroalimentar pe termen mediu și lung, https://www.madr.ro/strategia-pentru-dezvoltarea-sectorului-agroalimentar-pe-termen-mediu-si-lung-orizont-2020-2030.html.
[37] MARD and the World Bank (2023), Romanian Mountain Area Agri-food Sector: A Deep Dive.
[49] Mitrică, B. et al. (2022), “Out-migration and social and technological marginalization in Romania. Regional disparities”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 175, p. 121370, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121370.
[12] Müller, D. et al. (2009), “Lost in transition: determinants of post-socialist cropland abandonment in Romania”, Journal of Land Use Science, Vol. 4/1-2, pp. 109-129, https://doi.org/10.1080/17474230802645881.
[28] National Bank of Romania (2023), Survey on the access to finance of non-financial corporations in Romania, June 2023.
[6] NIS (2024), POP106A - Usually resident population by age group and ages, sex, urban/ rural area, macroregions, development regions and counties, at July 1st., http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/#/pages/tables/insse-table.
[53] NIS (2023), Rezultate definitive: Caracteristici etno-culturale demografice, https://www.recensamantromania.ro/rezultate-rpl-2021/rezultate-definitive-caracteristici-etno-culturale-demografice/.
[4] OECD (2023), Enhancing Strategic Planning and Innovation Services: Supporting Romanian Regional Development Agencies, OECD Regional Development Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8d80ef62-en.
[62] 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.
[1] OECD (2022), OECD Economic Surveys: Romania 2022, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e2174606-en.
[60] OECD (2020), “Global value chains in agriculture and food: A synthesis of OECD analysis”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 139, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6e3993fa-en.
[17] OECD (2000), OECD Review of Agricultural Policies: Romania 2000, OECD Review of Agricultural Policies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264187825-en.
[47] Oprea, M., M. Vlǎdescu and I. Băncescu (2021), The impact of external migration from rural areas on the labor force in the fields of agriculture, forestry and fisheries in Romania, In: Agrarian Economy and Rural Development - Realities and Perspectives for Romania. International Symposium., The Research Institute for Agricultural Economy and Rural Development (ICEADR), http://hdl.handle.net/10419/263045.
[10] Petrescu-Mag, R., D. Petrescu and I. Petrescu-Mag (2017), “Whereto land fragmentation–land grabbing in Romania? The place of negotiation in reaching win–win community-based solutions”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 64, pp. 174-185, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.01.049.
[44] Popovici, E., B. Mitrică and I. Mocanu (2018), “Land concentration and land grabbing: Implications for the socio-economic development of rural communities in south-eastern Romania”, Outlook on Agriculture, Vol. 47/3, pp. 204-213, https://doi.org/10.1177/0030727018781138.
[32] Toderiță, A., O. Ganea and R. Popescu (2020), Evoluția sectorului cooperativelor agricole din România perioada 2017-2020, https://www.crpe.ro/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Raport-cooperative-agricole-si-sondaj-GAL-uri-CRPE-2.pdf.
[35] 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.
[58] UN Comtrade (2023), United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics (database), https://comtradeplus.un.org/ (accessed on July 2023).
[19] Verdery, K. (2003), How hectares vanished: decollectivization politics in Vlaicu, Cornell University Press, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctv1nhm40.11.
[30] Wolz, A., J. Möllers and M. Micu (2019), “Options for agricultural service cooperatives in a postsocialist economy: Evidence from Romania”, Outlook on Agriculture, Vol. 49/1, pp. 57-65, https://doi.org/10.1177/0030727019861973.
[3] World Bank (2023), Romania - Systematic Country Diagnostic Update, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/40192.
[2] World Bank (2023), World Development Indicators, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.KD?locations=RO.
[27] World Bank (2020), Financial Inclusion in Romania, World Bank, Washington, DC, https://doi.org/10.1596/33629.
← 1. The EU territory is subdivided into regions at three levels, from larger to smaller units (NUTS 1, 2 and 3). The urban-rural typology is applied to NUTS 3 regions. “Predominantly rural” regions are those where at least 50% of the population live in rural grid cells, or 1 km² cells with a population density of less than 300 inhabitants per km² and/or fewer than 5 000 inhabitants (Eurostat, 2020[61]).
← 2. Eurostat defines a family farm any farm under family management where 50% or more of the agricultural labour force is provided by family workers. This is based on the FAO definition of a family farm, which is “an agricultural holding [...] managed and operated by a household and where farm labour is largely supplied by that household”,
← 3. The choice of illustrative peer countries for Romania includes a mixture of significant EU trading partners, small non-EU OECD Members and fellow OECD accession candidate countries.
← 4. For a more detailed discussion on the effect of CAP direct payments on the structural transformation of agriculture see OECD (2023[62]).
← 5. Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.
← 6. Fi-compass, the platform for advisory services on financial instruments under EU shared management, defines this gap as the unmet financing demand from economically viable farms and agri-food SMEs. It includes loans applied for but not obtained, financing refused by the potential borrower, and loans not applied for due to fear of rejection.
← 7. Average farm net value added (FNVA) per AWU is equal to gross farm income minus the depreciation costs. It takes into account agricultural support and income taxes. Measuring farm income per AWU allows to account for the different farm scales and provides a better measurement of agricultural labour productivity.
← 8. Immigrants are defined by the Romanian National Institute of Statistics as people (of Romanian citizenship, foreign or stateless) who immigrate to Romania for a period of at least 12 months. During the period of the war in Ukraine, based on the additional clarifications developed by Eurostat, in the measurement of the immigration phenomenon, Ukrainian citizens who obtained a form of temporary international protection are also taken into account. See https://insse.ro/cms/files/statistici/comunicate/ com_anuale/populatie/Precizari_metodologice_poprezidenta_1ian2023.pdf.
← 9. The number of Roma people in Romania might be much higher. The Council of Europe estimates that 1 850 000 Roma are living in Romania, about 8% of the population (Council of Europe, 2012[63]).
← 10. Conventional measures of international trade not always reflect the flows of goods and services within global production chains. The TiVA approach better reflects the significantly higher contribution made by services in GVCs, the role of imports in export performance, and the true nature of economic interdependencies.
← 11. Note that foreign value added of the agriculture or food sectors may be embodied in imports of other industries.
← 12. This phenomenon describes the trend of manufacturing sectors increasingly relying on services, whether as inputs, as activities within firms or as output sold bundled with goods. It relates to GVCs, as services are often deployed through international production networks.