Discussion Papers 2009.
Old and New Borderlines /Frontiers/ Margins 81-88. p.
PROBLEMS OF BORDER REGIONS IN BULGARIA
CHAVDAR MLADENOV – BORIS KAZAKOV
Introduction
The paper reveals some socio-economic and demographic issues of the municipali-
ties that form a belt along the national borders of Bulgaria. For a long period of
time, those areas have been in an unfavourable geographic position compared to
the areas inside the country, because of wars and following border changes, and
during the period between 1944 and 1989, those areas continued to suffer from
isolation due to political reasons.
It should be noted that municipalities along the Black Sea are not considered as
border regions. The paper concentrates on the areas along the southern, western
and the northern national borders only.
In the years of the so called transition to the market economy, the border re-
gions of Bulgaria (especially those along the southern and western border) became
accessible and are no longer restricted areas. However, the impact of long-term
isolation is apparently not so easy to overcome. Despite the new border check
points that have recently been opened, Bulgarian borders still seem to be a sepa-
rating line rather than contact lines of the national territory with neighbouring
countries. To some extent, an explanation of that situation is the terrain itself – with
very few exceptions, all the municipalities along the southern and western border
are situated in mountainous and hilly areas, which poses many problems for trans-
portation and economic development. On the other hand, an additional effect
seems to have the degree of development of border regions of the neighbouring
countries’ themselves.
The modern national borders of Bulgaria were outlined back in 1940. Due to
geopolitical reasons, border regions used to be treated as buffer zones used for
military purposes, and therefore those areas were neglected and the investments
limited. After the WW 2, because of the block separation and confrontation, border
areas developed slower than the rest of the country. As a result, border regions
became a less developed periphery of an unfavourable geographic location. On the
other hand, the western and southern borders of Bulgaria are situated in mountain-
ous regions, which further increased their isolation.
In this paper, the municipalities along the Black sea coast are not regarded as
border regions (except for the northernmost and the southernmost). Only regions
along the south-eastern, the southern, the western and the northern border have
Chavdar Mladenov - Boris Kazakov : Problems of Border Regions in Bulgaria.
In: Old and New Borderlines /Frontiers/ Margins.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 81-88. p. Discussion Papers, Special
82
CHAVDAR MLADENOV – BORIS KAZAKOV
been taken in consideration. The delimitated border areas include a total of 82 mu-
nicipalities (31 % of all Bulgarian municipalities), which cover 24% of the national
territory and give home to 15 % of the Bulgarian population (Figure 1). The ma-
jority of border municipalities are sparsely populated and generally unattractive,
which results in a population density of only 41 people per square kilometre or
almost two times lower than the national average (Figure 2).
The natural potential of border regions is quite limited and insufficient. The
mountainous terrain is a major obstacle for transport development and cross-border
cooperation. The density of the road network is less than 20 km/100 sq km and the
roads are of a low class and hard to maintain. There are settlements deprived of
access to roads with hard (asphalt) covering. The Rodopi and Strandzha regions,
have very low railroad accessibility. The idea of linking the Bulgarian railroad net-
work to that of Greece, by continuing the railway from Podkova toward the White
Sea (corridor No 9), has not been accomplished yet. Along the southern borders of
Bulgaria, there are only 6 BCPs, two of which were launched after 2000. The Da-
nube River represents the longer part of the northern border with Romania and a
natural barrier for cross-border cooperation. Along 470 km there is only one
bridge at Ruse–Giurgiu, while the construction of the second, at Vidin–Calafat, has
not even begun.
There are four ferryboat lines along the Danube River, and at least one more is
expected to be launched. Along the land border with Romania, there are three
BCPs which are generally not busy and have little effect on the local economy.
Figure 1
Number and share of border and nonborder region municipalities
in Bulgaria
31%
BORDER REGION MUN
NON BORDER REGION MUN
69%
Source: Authors’ construction.
Chavdar Mladenov - Boris Kazakov : Problems of Border Regions in Bulgaria.
In: Old and New Borderlines /Frontiers/ Margins.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 81-88. p. Discussion Papers, Special
PROBLEMS OF BORDER REGIONS IN BULGARIA
83
Figure 2
Population density in border region municipalities (2006)
350,0
300,0
250,0
200,0
BORDER MUNICIP
BULGARIA
150,0
people per sq km
100,0
50,0
0,0
Source: Authors’ construction
The western border with Serbia and FYROM there is crossed by only one rail-
way (at Kalotina BCP), while the railway networks of Bulgaria and FYROM have
not been linked yet. The western border can be crossed at 8 BPSs, in comparatively
hard terrain, which results in limited opportunities for cross-border cooperation. All
regions on both sides of the western border are less developed due to natural and
economic conditions, and therefore, despite all expectations, economic revival
triggered by cross-border cooperation has not been observed so far. Limited com-
munication has a negative effect on the general socio-economic development of
border regions and the country as a whole.
As far as nature resources are concerned, there are conditions for development
of timber and ore output industry in some border regions, though the ore output
was significantly reduced after 1992. During the years of transition to the market
economy, the timber industry developed, as well as other activities such as mush-
room and herb gathering etc. The existing tourist and recreational potential of bor-
der areas, has not been utilized to a sufficient level. There are also some unutilised
waters in border areas whose exploitation is a matter of bilateral agreements. Very
Chavdar Mladenov - Boris Kazakov : Problems of Border Regions in Bulgaria.
In: Old and New Borderlines /Frontiers/ Margins.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 81-88. p. Discussion Papers, Special
84
CHAVDAR MLADENOV – BORIS KAZAKOV
little of the huge potential of the Danube River is used, especially for agriculture,
tourism, industry etc.
During the years of transition to market economy and the fall of strict border
access regimes, together with the NATO and EU membership of Bulgaria, border
regions, especially those along the southern and the western border, became more
accessible and are no longer restricted areas. However, due to long periods of iso-
lation, those regions inherited a whole range of demographic and socio-economic
problems, many of which still wait to be solved, despite the variety of regional
development programmes and strategies in place.
The border regions of Bulgaria suffer from a significant demographic crisis.
Some of those areas began to depopulate in the early 1960s of the 20th century (es-
pecially the municipalities along the western and the south-eastern border), due to
large scale migration outflows toward the inner parts of the country. For the period
between 1992 and 2007 the population of border regions has decreased by 300,000
people or 17.5%. The average annual decrease is quite stable at levels of 19,600
people (1992–2001) and 18 900 people (2002–2007). The highest level of popula-
tion losses is typical for the least developed municipalities such as Boynitsa,
George Damyanovo and Chiprovtsi and Nevestino municipalities along the western
border, which have decreased their population by 40 to 42 % for the period be-
tween 1992 and 2007. Some municipalities suffered a similar loss due to emigra-
tion of Bulgarian Turks (representing the majority of their population) to the Re-
public of Turkey (Krumovgrad municipality – 40 % decrease of population).
The reproduction of population in border regions as whole is a regressive type.
All border municipalities have seen a natural decrease of the population since
1990, except for some municipalities populated by Bulgarian Muslims, or Pomaks,
in the Western Rodopi region along the Bulgarian–Greek border. The average natu-
ral increase of the border regions population is –8.3‰, which is lower than the na-
tional average (–5.5‰). In modern days, the negative natural increase is the lead-
ing factor for loss of population in border areas. That natural decrease of Bulgarian
population is a result of extremely low birth rates of 8.1‰ (9.2‰ – national aver-
age) and high death rates, reaching 16.3‰ (14.7‰ national average). The repro-
duction parameters are the worst in municipalities along the western border
(–18.8‰ natural increase). The regressive type of reproduction leads to problems
of various nature – destabilization of municipalities due to the lack of demographic
potential, ageing of the population and the respective social and healthcare needs
that follow, of school closures due to an insufficient number of students etc. (Fig-
ure 3).
The emigration flow in border regions is generated mainly in municipalities
with predominantly Turkish population. The internal migration rate is also negative
(around –4‰) which contributes to the depopulation of border regions. The immi-
gration to migration rate is 18‰ to 22‰. The highest emigration rate is measured
Chavdar Mladenov - Boris Kazakov : Problems of Border Regions in Bulgaria.
In: Old and New Borderlines /Frontiers/ Margins.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 81-88. p. Discussion Papers, Special
PROBLEMS OF BORDER REGIONS IN BULGARIA
85
in municipalities along the Bulgarian–Greek border (–6.5‰) and the Bulgarian-
Romanian border (–3.5‰). This is a reflection of unfavourable socio-economic
conditions together with a sufficient demographic potential to form an emigration
flow. The formation of such a flow is possible due mainly to high unemployment
levels. In flat terrain areas, high levels of unemployment are due to agriculture
structural reformations, which result in the preference of highly mechanised agri-
culture (mainly grain and sunflower production). The opposite immigration flow
toward border regions is generated mostly by elderly residents as well as unem-
ployed people, who return to their homes.
Figure 3
Crude birth rate (N), death rate (M) and natural increase (NI)
of the population (2005)
20,0
15,0
10,0
BORDER REGIONS
1000
5,0
BULGARIA
per
0,0
-5,0
-10,0
N
M
NI
Source: Authors’ construction
Another major problem of population in border regions is ageing. Generally,
border areas do not differ from the rest of the country as far as the 0–14 demo-
graphic group is concerned (15.2%), and as for the 60+ group – the share of that
group is only 2 percentage points higher in border regions (24.5%) compared to the
national average. The active age population group ages as well and accumulation
Chavdar Mladenov - Boris Kazakov : Problems of Border Regions in Bulgaria.
In: Old and New Borderlines /Frontiers/ Margins.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 81-88. p. Discussion Papers, Special
86
CHAVDAR MLADENOV – BORIS KAZAKOV
of population in higher ages within that group is continuous. In the near future that
process will result in a large-scale shortage of labour force in border areas, which is
going to pose major difficulties for the eventual improvement of the policies tar-
geting labour force demographic characteristics. Aging of border regions popula-
tion poses also the question of the income and social security of elderly residents.
The Bulgarian pension system operates on conditions of low investments interests,
high levels of unemployment, low production efficiency, a large share of grey
economy etc., factors which further worsen the situation. The higher share of peo-
ple over 60, leads to a low living standard and a lack of opportunity for a decent
existence in many border areas. The existing healthcare system was not made to
handle such high portions of population over 60 years of age, considering that
healthcare expenses grow dramatically when that population group is concerned.
Another ageing feature is the shrinking of the fundament of the age-sex pyra-
mid, which also leads to a chain of negative consequences such as decreasing
chances for a normal reproduction of the population, deterioration of the school
and other facilities network etc. In many of the smaller border municipalities, it is
impossible to form classes or groups of students and to sustain a normal education
process. The closure of schools triggers the emigration of families with children
which contributes to the depopulation process.
The unemployment level in border regions is 11.5% (2006), which, as men-
tioned above, is 2.4 points higher than the national average (9.1%). A quarter of all
unemployed people in the country reside in border regions. However, that rela-
tively low unemployment level is a result of the extremely low unemployment
levels in some of the larger cities in border areas, such as Ruse, Blagoevgrad etc. In
fact, the unemployment level in 25 border municipalities (nearly 1/3 of all border
municipalities) is over 20% (Dimovo – 40%, Ruzhintsi – 38%, Bregovo – 29%,
Kaynardzha – 36% etc.). This is a result of closing a range of industries during the
transition to market economy – reducing the ore output, closing of branch-
factories, arable land restitution, liquidation of cooperative farms etc. On the other
hand, those areas are unattractive for local and foreign investors – mostly Greek
and Turkish, who open only small firms in the field of shoes and clothing indus-
tries – requiring fewer investments. Such firms function for a period of one to three
years or even less, using only the cheap labor force and client/customer supplied
materials. Therefore, border regions have little contribution for the national indus-
try. Labor efficiency in border areas is twice lower than the national average and
thus the industry generated income (per capita) is only 40% of the national average.
Thus, the “center – periphery” problem is sharpened additionally and the standard
of living in border regions is worsened.
In general, problems of border areas can be defined as follows:
1. Legislative changes – the formerly distinguished target regions, such as
backward rural regions, regions for cross-border cooperation etc., do not ex-
Chavdar Mladenov - Boris Kazakov : Problems of Border Regions in Bulgaria.
In: Old and New Borderlines /Frontiers/ Margins.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 81-88. p. Discussion Papers, Special
PROBLEMS OF BORDER REGIONS IN BULGARIA
87
ist anymore and the target regions in the district development strategies have
not been defined yet;
2. As a result of geographic location, the attention paid to the regional eco-
nomic relations is not enough. Therefore, border areas remain disconnected
from the neighbouring countries. The last represents a major obstacle for
intensifying economic activities in those areas;
3. Relatively weak transport infrastructure, distant from the major Eurocorri-
dors and urbanisation axes of Bulgaria. That transport isolation, together
with the existing relations with neighboring countries, hinders the formation
of higher concentration of population and industries on both sides of the
border – something typical for border areas in developed EU countries;
4. Constantly spreading depopulation, leading to the degradation of the settle-
ment network and making economic stimulation and revival impossible;
5. The highly deteriorated age structure of the population in some areas leads to
a very high economic burden for the active population and to a constricted
reproduction of the population;
6. The regressive type of reproduction narrows the fundament of the sex-age
pyramid of the population and its widening at the top, which leads to nega-
tive subsequent changes in the educational, social and healthcare infrastruc-
ture;
7. Sustainable emigration flows leading to a constant depopulation and age
structure deterioration;
8. The lack of national priorities for border regions development and the lack
of coordination between the regional development strategies make it impos-
sible to implement the Lisbon Strategy requirements for developing a
knowledge-based and competitive economy.
The aforementioned demographic problems of border regions of Bulgaria re-
flect a more complex socio-economic situation in those regions which additionally
can be described using other examples, such as GDP per capita, HDI etc., which
however are less accurate on a municipal level and harder to calculate on such a
level.
However, when talking about border regions in Bulgaria there are several basic
conclusions that can be made:
The launch of new BCPs is generally overestimated in their efficiency, be-
cause on their own, they are not able to solve the majority of economic and
employment issues in border municipalities;
The Bulgarian legislative body and the government (at central and local lev-
els) work without the coordination of place and time, which is fundamental
part of efficient regional development, which is regarded more as a problem
only of the Regional development ministry, rather than an integral problem of
Chavdar Mladenov - Boris Kazakov : Problems of Border Regions in Bulgaria.
In: Old and New Borderlines /Frontiers/ Margins.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 81-88. p. Discussion Papers, Special
88
CHAVDAR MLADENOV – BORIS KAZAKOV
almost each ministry. Therefore, we can not expect faster development, in-
crease of the living standard and overcoming the “centre–periphery” prob-
lems, unless the separate ministries come out of their “separate” approach
and the integral approach is legitimated.
Because of the distant geographic location of Bulgaria (considering the loca-
tion of the economic centre of Europe), the Balkan countries should seek a
closer contact in order to achieve better economic relations and cross-border
cooperation. The existing lack of connectivity between the transport network
of Bulgaria and its neighbouring countries represents a huge barrier on the
way to achieve that goal.
Unlike the more developed European regions, border regions in the Balkan
countries are less developed and sparsely populated, which is a result of de-
liberate isolation of those regions for political reasons. Therefore, the forma-
tion of Euroregions between Bulgaria and its neighbouring countries would
not be efficient because those regions would consist of equally underdevel-
oped border regions.
Cross-border cooperation could reduce the negative effect of economic isola-
tion of border areas, although “miracles” cannot be expected in the short-
term. In the long-term, however, cross-border cooperation is an optimal solu-
tion of socio-economic problems of border areas.
References
Geography of Bulgaria 2002: pp. 439–517, pp. 669–737, Sofia, ForCom Publishing house (in
Bulgarian).
Geshev, G. 1999: Problems of regional development and regional policy of Bulgaria. pp. 33–39 (in
Bulgarian)
Mladenov, Ch. – Dimitrov, E. 1998: Migration of the population in the Western border areas.
Proceedings of The International Scientific Conference “100 years Sofia University”, Sofia, pp.
203–210. (in Bulgarian)
Mladenov, Ch. 1998: Demographic situation in the Danube Regions. Problems of Geography. 1–2.
Sofia.
Kazakov, B. Spatial distribution and dynamics of the rural population in Burgas district in the period
1992 – 2001. Year’s book of Sofia University, vol. 98/2007, book 2 – Geography, pp. 203 – 219
(in Bulgarian)
Kazakov, B. 2008: Dynamics of the rural population in Sliven and Yambol districts in the period
1992–2001. Year’s book of Sofia University. Vol. 99. book 2 – Geography, pp. 215–225 (in
Bulgarian).
Population. National Statistical Institute: 2003–2007, Sofia.