Authors:   H. Bachev, Doctor of Sciences (Economics), Professor, ORCID ID: 0000-0003-0555-7468
Institute of Agricultural Economics, Sofia, Bulgaria
G. Kharlamova, Doctor of Sciences (Economics), Associate Professor, ORCID ID: 0000-0003-3614-712X
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine

Annotation: The products and the variety of direct and indirect benefits that humans receive from nature and the various ecosystems are commonly known as ecosystem services. Agricultural ecosystems of different types and their specific “agro-ecosystem” services are among the most widespread in the world. In recent years increasing attention is given to the system of (“good”) governance as a key to achieving public, collective, corporate, and private goals in relation to conservation and improvement of (agro)ecosystem services. Nevertheless, in Bulgaria, like in many other countries, there are few studies on the specific mechanisms, modes, factors, and efficiency of agro-ecosystem survives governance.

This article presents the initial results of a large-scale study on the governance of diverse ecosystem services in Bulgarian agriculture. Firstly, it identifies the type, amount, and importance of various ecosystem services maintained and “produced” by the Bulgarian farms. The study has found out that country’s farms provide a great number of essential ecosystem services among which provisioning food and feed, and conservation of elements of the natural environment prevail. Secondly, it identifies and assesses the efficiency and complementarities of specific modes and mechanisms of governance of ecosystem services used by agricultural holdings. The study has found out that a great variety of private, market, collective, public and hybrid modes of governance of farm activity related to agroecosystem services are applied. There is significant differentiation of employed managerial forms depending on the type of ecosystem services and the specialization of agricultural farms. Furthermore, the management of agroecosystem services is associated with a considerable increase in the production and transaction costs of participating farms as well as big socio-economic and environmental effects for agricultural holdings and other parties. The factors that mostly stimulate the activity of agricultural producers in Bulgaria for protection of (agro)ecosystems services are participation in public support programs, access to farmers’ advice, professional training, available information, and innovation received direct subsidies from the EU and national government, personal conviction and satisfaction, positive experience of others, long-term and immediate benefits for the farm, and integration with suppliers, buyers, and processors. The suggested holistic and interdisciplinary framework for analyzing the system of governance of agro-ecosystem services is to be further extended and improved, and more widely and periodically applied in the future. The latter requires systematic indepth multidisciplinary research in this new area, as well as the collection of original micro- and macro information on ecosystem survives, forms, efficiency, and factors of their management. The accuracy of analyzes is to be improved by increasing representativeness through enlarging the number of surveyed farms and related agents, applying statistical methods, special “training” of participants, etc. as well as improving the official system for collecting agricultural, agro-economic, and agrienvironmental information in the country.

Keywords: ecosystems, services, governance, efficiency, agriculture, farms

Received: 16/11/2021
1st Revision: 03/12/2021
Accepted: 15/12/2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17721/1728-2667.2021/217-4/1

References
1. Adhikari B. and G. Boag (2013): Designing payments for ecosystem services schemes: some considerations, Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:72–77.
2. Allen J., J.y DuVander, I. Kubiszewski, E. Ostrom (2011): Institutions for Managing Ecosystem Services Solutions, Vol. 2, 6, 44-49.
3. Bachev H (2011): Management of Agro-Ecosystem Services: Framework of Analysis, Case of Bulgaria, in J. Daniels (editor), Advances in
Environmental Research. Vol. 17, New York: Nova Science, 119-164.
4. Bachev H. (2009): Governing of Agro-ecosystem Services. Modes, Efficiency, Perspectives, VDM Verlag.
5. Bachev H. (2010): Governance of Agrarian Sustainability, New York: Nova Science Publishers.
6. Bachev H. (2012): Governing of Agro-Ecosystem Services in Bulgaria, in A. Rezitis (editor), Research Topics in Agricultural and Applied
Economics, Vol. 3, Bentham Science Publisher, 94-129.
7. Bachev H. (2018): The Sustainability of Farming Enterprises in Bulgaria, Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
8. Bachev H. (2020): Defining, analyzing and improving the governance of agroecosystem services, Economic Thought, 4, 31-55.
9. Bachev H. (2020): Understanding and improving the governance of ecosystem services: The case of agriculture, Journal of Economics
Bibliography, Volume 7, Issue 3, 170-195.
10. Bachev H. (2021): A Study on Amount and Importance of Ecosystem Services from Bulgarian Agriculture, Journal of Business
Analytics and Data Visualization, Volume-2, Issue-1, 7-27.
11. Bachev H. (2021): Modes of Governance for Ecosystem Services in Bulgarian Farms, Икономически изследвания, 8.
12. Bachev H. and D. Terziev (2019): Sustainability of Agricultural Industries in Bulgaria, Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, Volume 14,
Issue 1.
13. Bachev H., B.Ivanov and A.Sarov (2020):Unpacking Governance Sustainability of Bulgarian Agriculture, Икономически изследвания, 6, 106-137.
14. Bašev H. (2009): Upravlenie na uslugite na agro-ekosistemite, Ikonomika i upravlenie na selskoto stopanstvo No 6, 3-20.
15. Bašev H. (2012): Efektivnost na fermite i agrarnite organizacii, Ikonomičeska misǎl, br. 4, 46-77.
16. Bašev H. (2014): Ekoupravlenie v selskoto stopanstvo, Ikonomičeska misǎl, br.1, 29-55.
17. Bašev H. (2020): DEFINIRANE, ANALIZIRANE I USǍVǍRŠENSTVANE NA UPRAVLENIETO NA USLUGITE NA AGROEKOSITEMITE, Ikonomičeska misǎl, br. 4, 3-30.
18. Bašev H. (2020): PODHOD ZA ANALIZ I USǍVǍRŠENSTVANE NA UPRAVLENIETO NA USLUGITE NA AGRO-EKOSITEMITE, Ikonomika i upravlenie na selskoto stopanstvo, br. 3, 27-48.
19. Bašev H., B. Ivanov, D. Mitova, P. Marinov, K. Todorova, A. Mitov (2020): PODHOD ZA OCENKA NA UPRAVLENIETO NA USLUGITE NA AGROEKOSISTEMITE V BǍLGARIJa, IAI – Sofija.
20. Bašev H., B. Ivanov, D. Toteva (2019): Ocenka na socialnoikonomičeskata i ekologična ustojčivost na agrarnite ekosistemi v Bǎlgarija,
Ikonomičeska misǎl, br.2, 33-56.
21. BashevH. (2016): Defining and assessment of the sustainability of farms, Economic Studies Journal, 158-188.
22. Boelee, E. (Editor) (2013): Managing water and agroecosystems for food security, CABI.
23. Čipev N., Sv. Bratanova – Dončeva, K. Gočeva, M. Žijanski, M. Mondeška, Ja. Jordanov, I. Apostolova, D. Sopotlieva, N. Velev,
E. Rafailova, J. Uzunov, V. Karamfilov, Radka Fikova, St. Vergiev (2017): Metodologična ramka za ocenka i kartirane na sǎstojanieto na ekosistemite i ekosistemnite uslugi v bǎlgarija rǎkovodstvo za monitoring na sǎstojanieto i razvitieto na ekosistemite i ekosistemnite uslugi, IAOS.
24. Cross Compliance National Report: Bulgaria. URL: https://ieep.eu/publications/cross-compliance-national-report-bulgaria
25. De Groot R., Wilson M, Boumans R. (2002): A typology for the description, classification, and valuation of ecosystem functions goods
services. Ecol Econ 41:393–408
26. EEA (2015): Ecosystem services in the EU, European Environment Agency.
27. FAO (2016): Mainstreaming ecosystem services and biodiversity into agricultural production and management in East Africa, Technical
guidance document, FAO.
28. Fremier A., F. DeClerck, N.Bosque-Pérez, N. Carmona, R, Hill, T. Joyal, L. Keesecker, P. Klos, A. Martínez-Salinas, R. Niemeyer, A. Sanfiorenzo, K. Welsh, J. Wulfhorst (2013): Understanding Spatiotemporal Lags in Ecosystem Services to Improve Incentives, BioScience Vol. 63 No. 6.
29. Gao H., T. Fu, J. Liu, H. Liang and L. Han (2018): Ecosystem Services Management Based on Differentiation and Regionalization along
Vertical Gradient, China, Sustainability, 10, 986
30. Garbach K., J. Milder, M Montenegroand, F. DeClerck (2014): Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Agroecosystems, Elsevier.
31. Gemmill-Herren B. (2018): Pollination Services to Agriculture Sustaining and enhancing a key ecosystem service, Routledge.
32. Grigorova Y. & Kazakova Y. (2008): High Nature Value farmlands: Recognizing the importance of South East European landscapes, Case
study report, Western Stara Planina, WWF (EFNCP).
33. Habib T., S. Heckbert, J. Wilson, A.Vandenbroeck, J. and D. Farr (2016): Impacts of land-use management on ecosystem services and
biodiversity: an agent-based modelling approach. PeerJ 4:e2814.
34. IAOS (2020): Ekosistemi i ekosistemni uslugi, Izpǎlnitelnata agencija po okolna sreda (IAOS).
35. INRA (2017): A framework for assessing ecosystem services from human-impacted ecosystems. EFESE
36. Jordanov Ja., D. Mihalev, V. Vasilev, S. Bratanova- Dončeva, K. Gočeva, N. Čipev (2017): Metodika za ocenka i kartirane na sǎstojanieto
na zemedelskite ekosistemi i tehnite uslugi v bǎlgarija, IAOS.
37. Kanianska R. (2019): Agriculture and Its Impact on Land-Use, Environment, and Ecosystem Services, INTECH.
38. Kazakova Ja. (2016): Zemedelie s visoka prirodna stojnost (obučenie, inovacii, znanija), UNSS.
39. Laurans Y. and L.Mermet (2014): Ecosystem services economic valuation, decision-support system or advocacy? Ecosystem Services, Vol. 7,
98-105.
40. Lescourret F., D. Magda, G. Richard, A. Adam-Blondon, M. Bardy, J. Baudry, I. Doussan, B. Dumont, F. Lefèvre, I. Litrico, R. Martin-Clouaire,
B. Montuelle, S. Pellerin, M. Plantegenest, E. Tancoigne, A.Thomas, H. Guyomard, J. Soussana (2015): A social–ecological approach to
managing multiple agro-ecosystem services, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Vol. 14, 68-75.
41. Marta-Pedroso C., L. Laporta, I. Gama, T. Domingos (2018): Economic valuation and mapping of Ecosystem Services in the context of
protected area management, One Ecosystem 3: e26722
42. MEA (2005): Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being, Island Press, Washington, DC.
43. Munang R., I. Thiaw, K. Alverson, J. Liu and Z. Han (2013): The role of ecosystem services in climate change adaptation and disaster risk
reduction, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5:47–52.
44. Nedkov S. (2016): KONCEPCIJa ZA Ekosistemni uslugi, Prezentacija, rabotna srešta 31 maj 2016g.
45. Nikolov S. (2018): Ekosistemni uslugi i tjahnoto ocenjavane – kratǎk pregled, Journal of the Bulgarian Geographical Society, Volume 39,
51–54.
46. Novikova A., L. Rocchi, V. Vitunskienė (2017): Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent
class approach, Land Use Policy, Vol. 68, 277-286.
47. Nunes P., P. Kumar, T. Dedeurwaerdere (2014): Handbook on the Economics of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity, Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham.
48. Petteri V., D. D’Amato, M. Forsius, P. Angelstam, C. Baessler, P. Balvanera, B. Boldgiv, P. Bourgeron, J. Dick, R. Kanka, S. Klotz,
M. Maass, V. Melecis, P. Petrık, H. Shibata, J. Tang, J. Thompson and S. Zacharias (2013): Using long-term ecosystem service and biodiversity
data to study the impacts and adaptation options in response to climate change: insights from the global ILTER sites network, Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:53–66.
49. Power, A. (2010): Ecosystem services and agriculture: Tradeoffs and synergies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 365, 2959–2971.
ЕКОНОМІКА. 4(217)/2021 ~ 25 ~ ISSN 1728-2667
50. Scholes R, B. Reyers, R. Biggs, M. Spierenburg and A. Duriappah (2013): Multi-scale and cross-scale assessments of social-ecological
systems and their ecosystem services, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5:16–25.
51. The Bulgarian Code of Good Agricultural Practice. URL: http://www.bsnn.org/pdf/GoodAgriculturalPractice-DRPII-21728.pdf
52. Todorova K. (2017): Adoption of ecosystem-based measures in farmlands – new opportunities for flood risk management, Trakia Journal of
Sciences, Vol. 15, 1, 152-157.
53. Todorova K. (2017): Upravlenie na riska ot navodnenija črez ekosistemni uslugi ot zemedelskite stopanstva, Disertacija, UNSS, WWF
(2019): Ekosistemite i tehnite “uslugi”, WWF.
54. Tsiafouli M., E. Drakou, A. Orgiazzi, K. Hedlund and K. Ritz (2017): Optimizing the Delivery of Multiple Ecosystem Goods and Services in
Agricultural Systems, Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, vol.5, art. 9715

55. UN (2005). The Millennium Development Goals Report. United Nations, New York.
56. Van Oudenhoven, A. (2020): Quantifying the effects of management on ecosystem services, https://www.wur.nl/en/show/Quantifying-the-effects-of-management-on-ecosystem-services.htm
57. Wang S., B. Fu, Y. Wei, C. Lyle (2013): Ecosystem services management: an integrated approach, Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 5:11–15.
58. Wood S., D. Karp, F. DeClerck, C. Kremen, S. Naeem, C. Palm (2015): Functional traits in agriculture: agrobiodiversity and ecosystem
services, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 1–9.
59. Zhan J. (Editor) (2015): Impacts of Land-use Change on Ecosystem Services, Springer.