Meanwhile, the majority of existing agri-food non-governmental organizations remain opposed to the “farm palace system”
Background
The idea to create chambers of agriculture in Moldova “in the image and likeness” of such organizations of farmers in the EU countries appeared about three years ago. It originated somewhere in the corridors of power between the “Ministry of Boli” (MAIA), the European Commission and USAID. At least, the publications of those years in the Moldovan media mention this now disgraced US government agency among the co-participants in the process of developing the concept of agricultural chambers in Moldova.
However, “according to the common European integration plan” is more of an intention than a reality. Experts note that out of 27 EU member states, seven have created agricultural chambers according to a more or less similar conceptual model. The optimists note – “but what kind of countries they are “, alluding to their status of EU old-timers, as well as the high cultural level of agribusiness and society as a whole.
Skeptics point out that even in the different states of the Federal Republic of Germany, the “principles and competencies” of agricultural chambers are different. And in neighboring Romania, such farmer associations, despite their century-long (but occasional) history, have not taken root at the systemic level.
What are they like – these agricultural chambers?
Formally, this (and all other questions) is answered by the Law on the Organization and Functioning of Agricultural Chambers (No. 39 of 06.03.25). In short, they are non-profit organizations designed to ensure a dialogue between the authorities and farmers at the local and national levels.
Accordingly, it is envisaged to create ten regional chambers in Moldova, which establish one national level chamber. Apart from the mission to become a platform for exchange of signals between farmers and the authorities, the tasks and opportunities of agricultural chambers are numerous – from consulting and training (including on a paid basis) in agro-technologies, to collecting information on member farmers – area of cultivated land, production structure, employment, etc.
Agricultural chambers have the right to take loans, engage experts, create staff management and control bodies. De jure, they are independent from the state. De facto, in addition to membership fees and patrons’ contributions, they are entitled to receive funding from the National Fund for Agricultural and Rural Development, i.e. from the state budget.
Last but not least, the agricultural chambers should become an institutional and intellectual mechanism for the adsorption by Moldovan farming of funding from the EU funds.
By the way, Ludmila Catlabuga assured in a recent TV program that “without any doubt, there will be funds”. All that remains is to stock up a spoon, or better – a whole set at the local and national levels, in order to effectively divide and consume this cake.
The system of agricultural chambers is about influence, not agribusiness
Farmers and their organizations understand this, and they don’t like it. Everyone remembers well that the concept of agricultural chambers was born and solidified at a time when the MAIA Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry was in a tough clash with agri-food associations during a difficult electoral period. All had problems with the COVID-19 pandemic, energy crisis, frosts, droughts, over importation, etc. Everyone wanted MAIA and the government to take an active part in solving these problems. In the wake of this social demand, a noisy and visible, pro-European and opposition Forța Fermierilor rose up.
Then, the ruling elite suddenly doubted the loyalty of the existing farmers’ organizations. Symptomatically, during this period, new agri-food associations began to appear, as if parallel to the existing ones. Finally, in order not to be divided into specifics, the global idea of “agricultural chambers for dialog” emerged.
Those associations that previously suffered from the fact that “the authorities do not hear them or do not listen to them” the idea of parallel dialog through agricultural chambers “took it in stride”. And those associations that can independently seek and find funding from international donors and development partners, and share this knowledge and skills with future, formally non-governmental and generally independent structures, are also in no hurry.
As a result, in order to make their voice louder, one and a half dozen agri-food organizations from Moldova united in the Council of CAPA associations. By the way, in the mentioned TV program Ludmila Catlabuga noted that the MAIA Ministry discusses many issues with CAPA, including agricultural chambers.
In their turn, the representatives of the council claim that they invariably confirm their negative attitude towards agricultural chambers, considering them to be purely bureaucratic, authoritarian and costly structures. However, this position is not reflected in the Ministry’s press releases.
What will the Constitutional Court decide?
Our Party MPs have challenged certain provisions of the law on agricultural boards in the Constitutional Court.
One of the main claims is the compulsory membership of farmers in the agricultural chamber, which, on the one hand, requires contributions, on the other hand, creates “protection” in the process of access to donor and state funding. The law does not directly, imperatively say about it, but it seems to be implied.
For his part, the head of MAIA notes that the law came into force at the beginning of this year, and the future ruling of the Constitutional Court regarding certain provisions does not cancel the law at this time.
However, even without that, as representatives of agricultural producers’ associations believe, the law contains many nuances that require interpretation and clear practice of application. For example, the law establishes a “size limit” for farmers – a certain area of farmland and number of animals. All those who are smaller – remain without membership.
In addition, for individuals and legal entities, membership in only one regional agricultural chamber is allowed. Moreover, the head of MAIA Ludmila Katlabuga directly points out that “associations should be part of agricultural chambers”.
However, mass associations, for example, the National Association of Beekeepers ANARM, unites many thousands of participants from all regions of Moldova. Which of the regional agricultural chambers will ANARM join? And will this multi-thousand legal entity have the same voice as a sole farmer?
Agricultural chambers – companions of the administrative-territorial reform?
It may be a mere coincidence, but the law measures ten regional agricultural chambers. There used to be ten judezos in the Republic of Moldova.
How many new regions will appear in the country as a result of the announced administrative-territorial reform? Will they coincide geographically with the “grid” of agricultural chambers? And is it a reservation that the MAIA leadership calls the process of creating agricultural chambers a “reform”?
