In just five years, agricultural land has decreased by more than a fifth, while the number of farms has declined by 10 percent. The most challenging situation is in livestock farming, where the number of pigs, goats, cattle, and even sheep and poultry has seen a drastic drop.
As reported by RTS, experts emphasize that this is a serious alarm for the urgent implementation of measures to halt further destruction of Serbian agriculture. Without swift action, Serbia risks losing its food security, becoming dependent on food imports.
On average, agricultural households in Serbia cultivate 6.4 hectares, raising one cattle, five pigs, three sheep, 43 poultry, and maintaining three beehives.
Those engaged in agriculture have an average age of 60, with only one in eleven farm managers being younger than 40. The workforce in this sector is now 14 percent smaller than in 2018 when the Agricultural Survey was conducted.
“The initial census results are quite shocking for me. All of us involved in analysis were aware that agricultural parameters were declining both in terms of production and capacity, but this is truly disheartening. When you have a situation where available land has decreased by 20 percent in just five years, cultivated land is down by 6.3 percent, and we’ve lost 48.2 percent of forests, you wonder where it has all gone and what is happening,” says Žarko Galetin, an agricultural analyst.
The loss of agricultural land is a significant problem, according to Dragana Latković, the president of the Board of Directors of the Institute for Field and Vegetable Crops, a nationally significant institute for Serbia.
“Our agricultural analysts have warned that Serbia is losing about 25,000 hectares of arable land annually. Much of the agricultural land is used for infrastructure development, residential areas, and industrial zones. I’m not saying these shouldn’t be built, but we are losing precious land,” Latković explains.
She suggests that, when selecting locations for development, efforts should be made to choose areas less suitable for agricultural production, if possible.
The issue of land loss becomes more significant as land is a non-renewable resource. Latković reminds that the census statistics haven’t accounted for a drastic decline in the quality of Serbian agricultural land.
“Our land is degraded, with less humus and organic matter. We have very little livestock and lack organic fertilizers. In Vojvodina, there used to be up to five percent humus in the soil; now it’s less than three percent. It takes up to 100 years to increase humus by one percent,” she points out.
“Someone needs to take action. We need to treat the land with respect because it’s not just the ground we walk on; it’s the source of life and food. We must have food. We are witnesses to climate change. With less organic matter, the land cannot retain water. Additionally, very little land is irrigated,” Latković emphasizes.
Nevertheless, she notes that there is still a significant amount of untilled land in Serbia.
“We cannot allow this because even more developed countries do not permit it. It is an opportunity to pay attention to this and put it into use,” she explains.
The decline in livestock production has been ongoing for decades, according to Milan Prostran, an agro-economic analyst.
Livestock farming was primarily present in the private sector, especially among small farms that couldn’t compete effectively.
“This is now coming back to haunt us, as we have become major meat importers. In the last two to three years alone, we spent between 70 and 80 million euros annually on pork imports, whether as half carcasses or piglets for fattening. Reviving this production requires a massive investment cycle. Some have tried for years to convince me that increased productivity per head of livestock would compensate for the reduced number of animals, but that is impossible,” Prostran points out.
The development of Serbian agriculture, he warns, is hindered by imports.
“It’s very dangerous. Earlier, annual imports were around one billion and three hundred million dollars, and now it has exceeded two billion and three hundred million. Those responsible for crafting agricultural policy should reflect on these figures. As we strive for the EU, we must have a policy somewhat complementary to their Common Agricultural Policy, which is evident by the protests in France, Germany, Italy, Spain,” says the RTS interviewee.
“They say there are substantial funds allocated to agriculture in the budget. These are not substantial funds. We hear these days that in the EU, one-third of the total Union budget is earmarked for this sector. In our case, the share of the agrarian budget in the total budget has now reached nearly seven percent. You can see the difference,” Prostran concludes.
