IPN analysis: The EU’s preliminary strategic support framework for 2014-2017 mobilizes the institutions of Chisinau to attracting funds.
---
The epistolary genre restarted to be used as a form of exercising governance. A proof is the recent letter sent by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Economy Valeriu Lazar to Prime Minister Iurie Leanca. The letter comes in reaction to the fact that some of the media outlets described the discussions about these priorities as a banal political struggle for managing financial resources. As direct representatives of the media, we are obliged to become involved in discussions, even if it became something ordinary for the government, ministers and lawmakers to accuse the journalists of not understanding or misinterpreting something, of quoting selectively and of interpreting tendentiously, etc.
It’s true that the media broadcast a series of comments and analyses about the process of identifying the priorities and the conclusion reached almost every time is that the openness shown by Europe, especially to its funds, mobilizes certain groups, areas and institutions to securing beforehand access to these funds. However, Valeriu Lazar does what the media didn’t do – gives this struggle a political character. This makes us look for the standards of certain parties on the battlefield.
What does the letter say? We quote: “The Ministry of Economy considers that the choice between regional and rural development, on the one hand, and agriculture, on the other hand, as a priority of Moldova in using the EU assistance is a false dilemma. Both are as important and complementary for achieving the development objectives. Thus, regional and rural development envisions the strengthening of infrastructures and economic diversification in rural areas, both of the objectives being convergent with the development of a competitive agricultural sector. The Ministry of Economy proposed including the fourth priority in the EU’s preliminary strategic support framework for 2014-2017 – development of competitive agriculture, in addition to the three priorities identified within the previous programming missions of the EU, namely the public administration reform, agriculture and rural development, and the police reform and border management.
As a matter of fact, it is for the first time that Minister Lazar declares agriculture a priority. This makes us think that he yielded up to incontestable realities or in the dialogue he probably has with his party colleagues, who are agrarians with weight not only in the field, but also in the party (it is about the VAT of 20% in agriculture proposed by the Ministry of Economy). However, it seems that this yielding up is a formal one as, in the format proposed by Lazar, agriculture only closes the row of priorities.
Though the whole list of priorities deserves a thorough analysis, we can question the need to declare the regional and rural development a priority. The identification of regions in a small country that in fact does not have South and North seems more than absurd. The villages, as actually the district centers too, whose economy should be in the care of the Ministry of Economy, are equally poor, while the formulation and implementation (and thus financing) of programs, by which the strengthening of infrastructures and economic diversification in rural areas will be balanced, form part of particular theories that do not represent us. First of all, because two of the identified regions enjoy support in different forms either from Russia or from Turkey. Secondly, a series of studies show clearly that the development of infrastructure does not bring the people’s home or does not keep them at home, the given problem having solutions only for the creation of highly-paying jobs.
Though, in a recent interview, Deputy Prime Minister Valeriu Lazar said he was the greatest patriot of the agrifood sector, the Ministry of Economy disproved of the strategy for developing agriculture and rural areas and other initiatives of the Ministry of Agriculture, aimed at improving the state of affairs in the field. Patriotism has a positive component, but namely this component is missing in Lazar’s actions in relation to agriculture.
In general, when Moldova should show maximum openness in its relationship with the European community, patriotism is an obligatory element, even if the same Valeriu Lazar says, in the same interview, that the agricultural policy of the European Union is ridiculous! This statement can generate different effects. Some of them may influence the tone of the discussions that Moldova has with its development partners. Others can slightly change the not yet definite characteristic of patriot of agriculture.
Constantin Olteanu, for IPN
