Special CAPitals Agrifood Brief: A closer look at CAP plans

EURACTIV's network digs deeper into the Common Agricultural Policy plans.

National strategic plans (NSPs) are one of the main novelties of the reformed Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which will run from 2023 to 2027.

Through these plans, EU countries detail how they will meet the nine EU-wide objectives of the reformed CAP while responding to the needs of farmers and rural communities.

In other words, while the European Commission will be setting out the general direction of the future CAP, the “how” will be up to national administrations this time.

Member states had until the end of 2021 to submit their national plans to the Commission for its approval, a process that is currently underway.

Most EU countries, with a few notable exceptions, have managed to submit their plans. But, as everyone is so fond of saying here in the bubble, the devil is in the details.

So what is in store for the EU’s farmers? EURACTIV’s network digs deeper.


Commission warns France not to backtrack on its draft plan. Among the priorities put forward by France’s CAP plan, submitted on 22 December 2021, are the development of the production of legumes, the doubling of surface area farmed organically by 2027 and the development of synergies between crops and livestock, as well as the incentive to various agroecological practices through the eco-schemes.

The aim is both to stabilise agricultural incomes and to guarantee the food supply of Europeans at “reasonable” prices while supporting the agro-ecological transition, according to the ministry. But how far the plan goes towards achieving this is up for debate.  

The main French agricultural union, FNSEA, stressed the need to guarantee the economic sustainability of agricultural businesses. But Loïc Madeline, national secretary in charge of the CAP of the National Federation of Organic Agriculture (FNAB) told EURACTIV France the draft was a “national strategic deception plan” which serves only to maintain the status quo.

A key concern is that the eco-scheme on organic farming will be ‘diluted’ by the High Environmental Value (HVE) label, under which organic farming and the HVE will be rewarded equally for environmental benefits, despite the fact that farmers contend that the first is much more demanding than the latter.

Meanwhile, all eyes are on how France will cope with a potential change of government, particularly given that some candidates have been outspoken on agricultural issues.

Preempting potential disruptions, a Commission official told EURACTIV.com that French parties must not change the country’s national strategic plan in the event of a change of government after the elections in April.

“You don’t change the rule of the game in the middle of the game,” he warned, adding that while there are possibilities to change elements of the plan with annual amendments, it will not be possible to change “core elements”.

For the FNSEA, all eyes are now on the near future. The organisation has stressed the need to know the rules of the game “by July at the latest” for the plan to be “solidified” before the summer. However, a Commission official told EURACTIV.com that plans are unlikely to be adopted before September. (Natasha Foote | EURACTIV.com)


New government makes no major changes to plan after delaying submission for months. After a delay of one and a half months, Germany finally handed in its strategic plan on Monday (21 February). The bulky document of 1,800 pages sets out national measures as well as regional ones for each individual federal state.

While many had wondered whether new Green minister Cem Özdemir would rework the plan after taking office in December, the document that was finally submitted is seen by most observers as a continuation of what his conservative predecessor had already hammered out.

Özdemir himself has made no secret of the fact that he would have favoured a deeper overhaul but lacked the time. 

“In terms of rewarding public services, the fresh start for EU agriculture subsidies could have been bolder,” he said the same day as turning over the document to the Commission.

As such, stakeholders’ main grievances about the plan remain. From the perspective of environmentalists, the document is not ambitious enough for the country to reach green goals. Campaigners have also bemoaned that the document leaves blank the voluntary section on the plan’s alignment with the EU Green Deal.

Meanwhile, the German farmers’ association DBV has slammed the plans concerning the CAP’s “green architecture” – the instruments for rewarding sustainable farming practices – as “not practicable” and “not economically viable”.

However, the main concern cited by stakeholders – that organic farms might not be able to take part in the eco-schemes – has been addressed.

Compared to earlier plans, the document that was finally submitted improves the coherence between eco-schemes and second-pillar support for organic farming. The plan also incorporates the new governments’ organics target of 30% of farming areas by 2030.

While Özdemir said the submission of the plan was an “important step” towards planning security for farmers, it remains unclear how the late submission will affect the timeline for approval. Commission officials have warned that this could be delayed for countries that did not hand in their plans on time. (Julia Dahm | EURACTIV.de)


Austria’s plan places key focus on organic after staunch backlash. Austria already submitted its plan in December 2021 and is now working on the relevant national legislation. As one of the countries with the relatively largest organic farming sectors in Europe, funding for organic farms has been a key point of debate when it comes to Austria’s CAP plan.

Originally, the country’s conservative agriculture minister, Elisabeth Köstinger, had planned to scrap the separate support measure for organic farming that had so far been part of the country’s agri-environment measures.

However, after this was met with fierce backlash from stakeholders, the minister did a U-turn on the issue and the plan submitted to the Commission now includes a separate organic farming scheme.

Meanwhile, the country also aims to distribute funds more evenly by capping support for big farms at €100,000 and shifting 10% of direct payments to small farms.

Stakeholders’ reception of the plan was split: The national farmers union welcomed the document, saying the measures foreseen in the plan would benefit not only farmers but all Austrians by ensuring affordable food products and flourishing rural areas. Environmentalists, on the other hand, bemoaned lacking ambition when it comes to pesticide reduction, fading out glyphosate, and biodiversity protection.

According to the ministry, Austria is now working “at high pressure” to make further specifications to the plan through national directives and to set up a digital platform set to be used for the administration of CAP funds. (Julia Dahm | EURACTIV.de)


Some steps forward, but no giant leaps. Ireland’s draft CAP plan was submitted to the European Commission on 31 December 2021, with approval expected in September 2022, according to the Irish Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (see here for a full timeline).

At the time, Agriculture Minister Charlie McConalogue called the new CAP deal “farmer-friendly and fair”, adding that it is better funded than its predecessor.

“The funding agreed represents a significant increase on the existing Rural Development Programme, with a total support package of €9.8 billion over the 2023-2027 period,” he said.

The minister added this is being targeted in particular at measures designed to achieve improved climate and environmental outcomes, while at the same time ensuring the “fairest and most balanced treatment possible for all farmers”.

However, while one policy analysis found that Ireland’s CAP plan represents “some steps forward” compared to the current programming period, it points out that, compared to the flexibility granted by the EU legislation, Ireland shows minimal ambition.

Meanwhile, the plan has been widely criticised by Irish farm bodies, who took particular umbrage with the decision to allocate 25% of Ireland’s CAP budget to new eco schemes.

The Irish farmers association raised concerns over the thorny issue of convergence, that is, the process to redistribute and flatten the value of CAP payment entitlements between farmers. The issue has been one of Ireland’s biggest bones of contention throughout the drafting of the plans.

“The CAP results in money being redistributed amongst farmers through convergence, complementary redistributive income support for sustainability, and eco schemes. It is very complex and many farmers will be in for a big shock when they see the cut in their basic payment in 2023,” Tim Cullinan, president of the Irish farmers association, said.

Meanwhile, Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association (ICMSA) president Pat McCormack said that that was “so much wrong that farmers were nearly confused about where to start”.

The department is now preparing to hold a series of public information sessions relating to Ireland’s draft plan. These will take place at 11 venues across the country over the month of March.

These sessions are designed to provide important information to farmers about the changes that will occur when the new CAP commences in 2023, covering changes to direct payments including entitlements, active farmer checks, agricultural activity and land eligibility changes.

However, any information provided will be based on the draft plan submitted to the EU Commission and, therefore, will be subject to change up until the CSP is approved by the European Commission. (Natasha Foote | EURACTIV.com)


Farmers take to the streets in Spain to protest the CAP plan. The Spanish strategic plan for the national implementation of the CAP was submitted to the European Commission for approval at the end of December 2021. 

The first version of the strategic plan is 219 pages long. However, a 1,300 pages long strategic environmental study is attached, indicating ​​the importance given to environmental sustainability practices.

Regional governments, agricultural organisations and environmental associations have raised many objections to the initial Spanish strategic plan.

In addition, a decree on the convergence between the regions came into effect in Spain, in order to bring the payment rights for each farmer closer to the new system.

Meanwhile, the Spanish government has also presented a law to implement a new and “more efficient” CAP management and plans to approve 17 more decrees to develop the new CAP regime.

Farmers’ organisations continue to voice concern about the increase in costs that the green approach of the CAP will entail.

They especially question the percentage of aid within the eco-schemes, claiming that farmers will be forced to make very expensive investments to get the CAP support.

Among the most critical reactions, those of the farmers and the government of Andalusia stand out.

Andalucía is the main recipient of CAP funding among the Spanish regions and is home to 33% of the Spanish producers. Andalusian stakeholders reject the reduction and classification of the number of agronomic regions, arguing that the new CAP will make them lose hundreds of millions of euros.

The dissatisfaction with the eco-schemes and the new green requirements is one of the main reasons for the current demonstrations of farmers and their cooperatives in Spain. Protestors aim to draw attention to their lack of economic viability and the price increase of inputs. Another demonstration is set to be held in Madrid on 20 March.

On the other side, the “Coalition for Another CAP” – which brings together environmental NGOs – has also strongly criticised the Spanish plan for lacking ambition when it comes to environmental measures.

The main focus of their criticism is on the eco-schemes, arguing that the use of phytosanitary products is allowed and calling for changes regarding the emission of greenhouse gases and organic production.

Spain will send a final version of the plan with any necessary adjustments after an environmental evaluation, together with observations collected from a public consultation (which closed on 4 February) and the observations from Brussels. (Mercedes Salas | EFEAGRO)


Italian minister does not see ‘wide-ranging’ objections to the plan from Brussels. The Italian ministry of agriculture submitted the plan to Brussels at the end of 2021. The main objectives of the plan are to enhance the competitiveness of the agricultural system from a sustainable perspective and strengthen the resilience and vitality of rural areas.

The plan also sets out to promote quality agricultural and forestry work and safety in the workplace and to support the ability to activate exchanges of knowledge, research and innovation.

To achieve this, the plan earmarks €10 billion for environmental practices, including €2.5 billion for organic farming, €1.8 billion for improving animal welfare conditions and €3 billion for new risk management tools.

The document is currently being evaluated in Brussels. In the meantime, the Italian government is “discussing with the regions on the FeAsr division, that is, on the regional allocation of the resources of the second pillar”, Stefano Patuanelli, Italian minister of Agriculture, told EURACTIV Italy.

Regarding the response of the EU executive, Patuanelli said he is awaiting the assessments of the Commission. “We think that some observations from Bruxelles may arrive on how to apply the eco-schemes, but I don’t think they will be wide-ranging objections,” he said.

“For the first time since the establishment of the CAP in 1962, the compliance with the EU workers’ rights legislation is inserted as a prerequisite in order to benefit from the funds of the Common Agricultural Policy,” Paolo De Castro, member of the Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Parliament, told EURACTIV.

He pointed out that this measure is “not only fair but also has the ambition of increasing the support of our citizens toward the EU interventions in the field of agriculture.”

The plan, however, has not satisfied the environmental NGOs.

The Cambiamo Agricultura coalition (which includes FederBio, Legambiente, WWF, Slow Food, and Lipu) said in a statement that the plan is “against nature” because the part on biodiversity conservation has disappeared from the final version. The coalition also criticised the fact that the set of measures envisaged is uncertain. 

“Insisting on investments all concentrated on conventional agriculture opens up a worrying prospect also on the economic and employment level,” the NGOs warned. 

They pointed out that while Italy seems to distance itself from organic farming, of which it is also among the European leaders, other countries make opposite choices, which “risks making us lose the leadership gained over the years”.

According to De Castro, the most difficult decision about the plan is the process of sharing out income support equally, known as ‘convergence’, which will see a considerable re-allocation of direct payment resources. This is designed to specifically advantage rural areas with development problems, as well as mountainous areas and some inland hill areas. 

At the same time, 10% of the national envelope is allocated to redistributive support, focusing attention on small and medium-sized farms. (EURACTIV.it)


Production costs continue to cause Greek breeders headaches. Greece was among the first EU countries that submitted its national strategic plan for the 2023-27 CAP, which focuses on measures to revive rural areas after years of uncertainty. However, it seems overhead costs still pose a challenge for Greek breeders.

Speaking to EURACTIV Greece, the president of the Livestock Association, Panagiotis Peveretos, said what was really worrying is the lack of a “realistic strategy” for Greek livestock in the national plan.

Particularly, the sector has submitted proposals to address high production costs in animal feed and energy. 

“We ask for verified and precise direct payments to producers in all sectors and the immediate favourable settlement of the bank debts of breeders,” he said. 

Peveretos also described the abolition of a special consumption tax on agricultural oil as a necessary condition to “avoid suffocation in the primary sector.”

According to data, animal feed costs have seen a 40% increase the last year and it’s not expected to deescalate for the next 6-7 months. 

Meanwhile, the cost of electricity has skyrocketed in Greece, making it one of the most expensive across the bloc.

For his part, the secretary-general for agricultural policy and EU funds management, Konstantinos Baginetas, said the initial reactions from Brussels to the Greek plan are positive, pointing out that an inclusive consultation process was carried out.  

He explained that, among other things, the Greek plan focuses on measures supporting agricultural income with a “fairer distribution of payments”.

Through the new CAP, Athens wants to revive the sector which was hit hard by a 10-year economic crisis as well as the pandemic. 

The government, therefore, wants to exploit the new CAP to attract young people in the sector and, above all, improve farmers’ position in the value chain.

Baginetas said a key element in this direction is market-oriented measures aimed at increasing competitiveness.

“We will put greater emphasis on the interconnection of research, education, training and consulting services for the introduction of innovation and the digitisation of the primary sector,” he said. (Georgia Evangelia Karagianni | EURACTIV.gr)


The nearly 800 pages long Polish CAP plan made its way to the European Commission on 22 December 2021. Its implementation could mean that as much as €25 billion would reach Polish farmers in the form of direct payments and other benefits.

The plan will, however, require amendments. On 10 February, Janusz Wojciechowski, EU Commissioner for Agriculture, said the current plan is “too conservative” and does not utilise all of the opportunities that the new CAP presents.

This seemingly contradicts his previous statements promising that the plan will heavily feature elements of the EU’s Green Deal. 

Wojciechowski also reiterated a call for farmers’ input into the national Strategic Plan. Polish Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development Henryk Kowalczyk seems to have agreed with Wojciechowski, describing the plans as “moderate and totally feasible for Polish farmers”.  

During a meeting of the lower house of the Polish Parliament on 12 February, the minister also proposed changes to the plan, one of which was to formalise lease agreements. He also mentioned the perspectives that carbon farming could provide for Polish agriculture, as well as trying to solve issues connected to high fertiliser prices. 

For his part, Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki stressed the top priority of rebuilding the Polish food processing industry. 

However, in another meeting on 15 February, the Presidential Council for Agriculture and Rural Affairs analysed the plan and called the Commissions’ agricultural goals “too ambitious for its tight budget”. 

The Council also called for more coordination between the CAP and other EU programs, such as the Cohesion Policy and Recovery plan for Europe. 

The plan has often been criticised in recent months, especially by the farming community. One of the main concerns is over the definition of an active farmer, which then would dictate the eligibility to receive funds earmarked for the CAP. 

The definition proposed by the ministry of agriculture has been met with protests from farmers and some Chambers of Agriculture who have demanded more regional representation in processes relating to the strategic plan.

The entire plan has also been dubbed as “unconstitutional” by the regional agricultural authority, as it only benefits farms no larger than 50 hectares.

Former minister of agriculture Jan Krzysztof Ardanowski was also critical, saying the plan will not meet the demands of Polish farmers. He also criticised the EU’s supposed decrease of agricultural funding while increasing its demands towards farmers, lambasting Commissioner Wojciechowski for underestimating the negative effects of the Green Deal on Polish agriculture.

However, minister Kowalczyk remains optimistic and claims that even though there are still some issues with the Strategic Plan, farmers often learn that “the CAP isn’t as scary as they think […] and that it is feasible”.

It is expected that the Council, led by former agriculture minister Jan Krzysztof Ardanowski, will publish its remarks on the plan and its implementation strategy in the near future. (Jakub Krystek | EURACTIV.pl)


The Slovak government approved its strategic plan on 10 February and then sent it to the European Commission for review.

Perhaps the most controversial topic in preparing the strategic plan was the redistribution of funding from the first pillar between large and small farms.

Slovakia has one of the largest average farm sizes in the EU, both in terms of the size of cultivated land but also the concentration of direct payments, which is the highest of all EU member states. A fifth of the largest recipients receive approximately 94% of all direct payments.

The controversy mainly centres around differing views on whether large or small and family farmers are more efficient in producing food. 

The ministry opted for the second option. For the new programming period, the Slovak government will introduce for the first time a cap of €100,000 on direct payments and also redistributive payments worth €80 for the first 100 hectares and €40 for the next 50 hectares. 

In addition, young farmers will also receive a complementary payment. Hence, farmers under 40 years of age owning farms of up to 150 hectares will receive €300 per hectare, which is almost €200 more than “standard” farmers.

Slovakia’s largest agricultural organisation (SPPK), which brings together mainly large farms, has long rejected these proposals, calling them “a populist and demagogue” and warning it will not help either small farmers or the productivity of the sector.

However, feeling social pressure, the association has finally accepted them.

“Small farmers will now have the opportunity to show if they can grow what we need with decoupled payments. So they will definitely have room for that,” the head of SPPK Emil Macho said after the approval of the document.

Another key challenge in Slovakia is land fragmentation, which was inherited from the era of collectivism and communism. 

To address this, the ministry of agriculture planned to allocate up to €200 million from the Rural Development Program.  

According to SPPK, this is a cross-society and cross-sectoral problem that should not be solved with money intended for farmers and rural development. Farmers therefore rejected the proposals and were even ready to protest against this, Macho told EURACTIV Slovakia. 

The ministry eventually backed down, instead setting aside €40 million to adjust land ownership.

In general, however, farmers view the plan favourably and, in the final phase of approval, no major reservations were raised against it.

Quite surprisingly, the document is also positively evaluated by the environmentalists who were involved in its preparation. The new eco-schemes, which are to be focused mainly on the protection of farmland biodiversity and soil health, are considered the biggest game-changer, according to them.

“After many years of calling for a fundamental change in support, we are finally seeing the right development. There has been no such positive step since our accession to the European Union,” Jozef Ridzoň from the Slovak Ornithological Society / BirdLife Slovakia told Dennik N daily. (Marián Koreň | EURACTIV.sk)


Romania: Plan delayed for more consultations, but there are still complaints. Romania is one of the few remaining member states that has still not submitted its CAP plan. Adrian Chesnoiu, the Romanian minister for agriculture, asked the European Commission for some leeway in drafting the plans as the CAP legislation was approved with delays

“We need time to avoid sending an incomplete and incoherent document to the Commission,” the minister said back in December. He added the farmers need time to familiarise themselves with the new CAP rules and said a two-month delay should be allowed by Brussels.

Accordingly, the ministry did not publish its draft for the CAP plan until 17 February and, after 10 days of public debate, it aims to deliver it to the Commission on 27 February.

Before that, the ministry held a few rounds of consultations with the stakeholders, but Chesnoiu previously stated a paradigm shift was required.

“The [farmers’] needs are the same, but the approach is different,” the minister said in an interview with the Agerpres news agency. He went on to explain that the plan needs to include the Farm to Fork strategy, the Green Deal and not be based on the realities of the CAP for the previous programming period.

After 12 working group meetings during the months of January and February, the minister claims the plan was “designed to meet the systemic needs of farmers and the Romanian village, focusing on priority areas of Romanian agriculture.”

Chesnoiu added that the farming sector and the food industry would have needed much more generous financing, but tried to assure farmers that the authorities will make efforts to make “a modern, stable and predictable agricultural sector” with all the available funding at their disposal.

But the plan is not without controversies. 

For example, farmers complained that the amount set aside for young farmers is too small, as the ageing of the population in rural areas is a major problem both in the EU as a whole, but especially in Romania. The total funding for young farmers is €250 million for all the five years covered by the NSP, and the maximum limit is set at €70,000 per agricultural holding. 

Stakeholders also point out that the total budget is a downgrade from the previous MFF. In 2021, a budget of €100 million for young farmers proved to be insufficient to cover all requests, so halving the amount over the next five years is seen as unfair and counter-productive by associations representing young farmers.

Meanwhile, the farmers from areas with natural or specific constraints are facing an even steeper decrease in support. The maximum income support payment for mountain areas will fall this year from €97/ha to €40 per hectare in 2023-2027.

Minister Chesnoiu says all the measures included in the NSP aim to make it a well-balanced funding program. “It is built so that it supports firstly the small farm and the medium farm, but also comes with measures aimed at larger farms,” Chesnoiu said.

Chesnoiu added that payments for cattle breeders included in the eco-schemes are complementary to the coupled support, so that the farmers are encouraged, and not discouraged, to continue their animal husbandry activities.

Meanwhile, environmental activists are unhappy with the funds allocated for forest protection. The National Strategic Plan allotted only €160 million for forests, ten times less than is required to halt phenomena like illegal logging, according WWF Romania. By contrast, the organisation requested the allocation of at least 10% of the total NSP budget for forests.

Forests account for 29% of Romania’s territory, but their financing through rural development policies has never exceeded 1% of the money allocated to the country, WWF also said. (Bogdan Neagu | EURACTIV.ro)


Farmers are not ready for Croatia’s green ambitions. Communication with the European Commission on certain parts of the Croatian NSP has been ongoing since March 2020, when drafts of the first SWOT analysis were sent. As part of the aforementioned structured dialogue, the Commission also sent recommendations for the drafting of the plan.

“Given the volume of the document, the entire draft as such cannot be communicated with the interested public, but the main determinants of the strategic plan are continuously consulted with all stakeholders,” the agriculture ministry emphasised. 

A ministry representative explained that 25 events were held with more than 1,100 participants in the second half of 2021 alone, where they received important information about the plan and had the opportunity to express their opinions, give comments and remarks.

Agriculture Minister Marija Vučković explained that the main focus in drafting all strategic documents is to “strengthen competitiveness, productivity and resilience while respecting digital and green ambition”. 

“This strategic plan defines many important topics such as the active farmer and the redistribution of direct payments. We also continuously advocate the flexibility of the rules to be fair and give equal opportunities to our farmers compared to other European farmers, as well as for small, medium and young farmers and to reduce administration”, she said.

The biggest objections from the expert community were to the document that served as a foundation for drafting the plan – that is, the analysis of agricultural experts gathered around the World Bank. 

At the round tables, members of the Croatian Chamber of Agriculture warned that the document was only “about good wishes and plans with many unused natural resources without concrete measures such as strengthening competitiveness, encouraging association, regionalisation of production and greater investment in final products.”

According to a study published on 14 February by the consulting firm Smarter, the new CAP will bring a “number of novelties, but it is clear that for certain measures and more successful withdrawals from EU funds, especially from rural development, one of the key conditions for easier and more cost-effective obtaining funds will be that farmers are part of producer organisations”.

“That is why it is important to speed up their initiation, connection and establishment in order to prepare in time for the use of measures for which association will be one of the key conditions”, the study added. 

However, a lot of producers have openly stated their anxieties that a strong focus on ecological and “green” production will be a huge obstacle because the Croatian farm system is still not prepared for that step, especially small producers. (EURACTIV.hr)


Political discussions are delaying Bulgaria’s strategic plan. For the first time since Bulgaria joined the EU in 2007, the national budget will allocate most of the money under the new EU program for rural development. 

The total budget will be €3.5 billion, of which €1.41 billion comes from the EU budget. The remaining €2.11 billion will be Bulgarian co-financing. 

Bulgaria is expected to submit the national plan to the European Commission on 24 Friday, after it is approved by the Council of Ministers the day before. 

The delay in submission has been put down to ongoing negotiations in the four-party ruling coalition and with farmers’ organisations. The new Bulgarian government took office in December and agriculture was not covered in detail during preliminary political talks.

That being said, it has been agreed to limit direct support to large farmers so that more money remains for small and medium-sized producers.

The limit will be up to €100,000 after farmers deduct the cost of employees’ salaries, something agriculture minister Ivan Ivanov told lawmakers in the agriculture committee on 17 February was both “possible and applicable,”  

A novelty in the Bulgarian plan, yet to be officially published, is the support for the cultivation of cotton, which will be eligible in only four member states. Bulgaria has also managed to negotiate additional support for farmers engaged in sustainable agriculture.

Of the greatest interest for Bulgarian farmers are direct payments, which are linked to a specific production. This type of support will be used primarily for the sectors in crisis, which for Bulgaria are fruit and vegetable growing and animal husbandry. Bulgaria will pay special attention to the selection of animals.

In the cultivation of fruits and vegetables, priority will be given to certified crops, which guarantee higher yields and are in demand on the market. There will also be a programme to support protein crops. (Krasen Nikolov | EURACTIV.bg)


Measure co-financed by the European Union

The content of this page and articles represents the views of the author only and is his/her sole responsibility. The European Commission does not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains.

From Twitter

Subscribe to our newsletters