One could rejoice at this fact. Following the MAIA Minister Ludmila Catlabuga, one could decide that many requests for subsidies mean a lot of investments in real business, a belief in the prospects of agriculture, in the state system and in the Moldovan authorities. It is all the more pleasant that this time farmers, who are usually not too “easy on their feet”, have hustled up and in less than two months (since the issuance of the order of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry of MAIA, opening the barrier to the flow of applications for post-investment subsidies) have literally flooded the AIPA agency with relevant requests.
However, the reason for such activity, according to the associations of agricultural producers, is prosaic. Next year, a new system of subsidies for the agri-food sector will come into effect, in which post-investment subsidies (in their current form of partial compensation of costs) will simply not exist. Hence farmers’ fears and the desire to have time to get their due.
The problem is that the 2025 applications to AIPA for post-investment subsidies, amounting to almost 1.5 billion lei, will increase the debts on this item of public expenditures. In the previous few years, debts on agricultural subsidies accumulated annually by almost one billion lei. They were partially repaid, but not all of them. Thus, this year, the debts for 2024 were not fully closed. In the new year, according to expert estimates, the total amount of debts on agricultural subsidies will reach about 4 billion lei. This amount is almost twice as much as the approved budget of the National Fund for Agriculture and Rural Development for 2026.
Why is it so? Some experts see the reason for the growing debt in many categories of subsidies in the fact that in recent years the government has focused on direct payments – “per head of animals,” “per kilogram of milk,” “per Lider program,” etc., while other subsidies, in particular, the government has focused on direct payments. Whereas other subsidies, particularly post-investment subsidies, were left “for later”. By and large, this is what happened in 2025.
By the way, in the new subsidy system “direct payments” are preserved, moreover, their number is increasing. What will happen to the “historical” debts in the end?
According to experts of agrarian organizations, there may be many options for solving the problem, but all of them are at least unreliable. No one seriously considers radical measures like refusal to repay debts on agricultural subsidies, considering it an “indirect default”. In such a case, the political risks are too great, even in the context of the fact that many people give the current government a life expectancy of a year at most.
A more realistic scenario is to screen out as many farm applications as possible at the AIPA vetting stage. Experts believe that, theoretically, applications totaling several hundred million lei could be rejected due to some procedural inconsistencies and irregularities. However, even an extremely strict selection will not solve the “4 billion lei problem”.
In this regard, it should be taken into account that post-investment subsidies have a solid base – built production or infrastructure facilities, planted orchards and vineyards, purchased agricultural machinery and equipment. That is, it is basically business, not deliberate fraud. By rejecting a lot of applications for formal, bureaucratic reasons, ministries and agencies take great reputational risks.
In this regard, it is worth noting that in October-December this year, more than 2.5 thousand potential beneficiaries submitted applications for post-investment subsidies to AIPA. Moreover, most of the requests, just over 1.5 thousand, came from farmers in the “micro” category. Another almost 1 thousand requests were sent to the specialized agency by small and medium-sized farmers. Only 106 requests were received by AIPA from large-scale farmers. This means that the problem of arrears in agricultural subsidies has a pronounced social character, because it affects not so much the interests of dozens of “agricultural holdings” with their city offices, but thousands of “natural farmers” – more or less wealthy (and independent) villagers. They protest loudly.
A more realistic scenario is delaying the payment of “historical” subsidy debts. This is also a bad method, worsening the investment climate and undermining faith in the financial discipline and solvency of the state.
All the more so that in the “corridors of the government”, according to knowledgeable persons, at the suggestion of the Minister of Finance, the prospect of issuing government bonds at an attractive interest rate and with a short maturity – specifically for the task of paying off debts on agricultural subsidies – is being discussed. But it is unlikely that these bonds will be purchased by farmers en masse, even if they are allowed to use these securities as collateral for loans. Only banks can dare to finance the growing domestic borrowings of the government.
