Important

The Republic of Moldova has concluded a new parliamentary session with significant steps toward European integration, but also with challenges that will need to be addressed in the coming period. This is according to Marcel Spatari, chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on European Integration. In an interview with IPN, the MP spoke about the launch of negotiation clusters with the European Union, the adoption of legislation necessary to align with European standards, and efforts to communicate with citizens about the benefits of accession.

Mr. Spatari, the parliamentary session ended on Thursday evening. If you were to take stock, what are the most important decisions made by Parliament that have brought the Republic of Moldova closest to the European Union, and why?

If we were to look back at this first semester of the year, the important things for the Republic of Moldova’s accession to the European Union are the following – first of all, the opening of two negotiation clusters with the European Union, the political opening of these clusters. This means that we have already received concrete criteria for the first cluster, on justice reform and security. We have received the intermediate criteria, we know exactly what we need to deliver for the European Union to move on to the next stage.

And the negotiations on foreign relations have begun. There, our negotiating position is easier to implement. We do not have many exemptions that we request from the European Union. I anticipate that the negotiations on the two chapters related to foreign relations will be simpler.

Furthermore, other achievements include the implementation, as you mentioned, of dozens of legislative projects that have been adopted in Parliament for the transposition of European directives and regulations. Here, however, the largest volume of work will be in the second semester.

For this year, we have planned over 300 laws, of which, I don’t know exactly, I haven’t checked the figures, but I believe around 50 have been adopted in the first semester, and the rest will be in the second semester and the volume will increase. Another achievement, from our perspective, of the Parliamentary Commission for European Integration, is the construction of an interparliamentary relations network. Because we have been quite active in the dimension of parliamentary diplomacy this year, we had two very important visits to the Republic of Moldova.

In March, we were visited by the heads of the European affairs committees from the Baltic and Nordic states. It was an important visit then, and in June we were visited by representatives of the countries from the Mediterranean area – Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece – and the heads of the European affairs committees. It is important to obtain political support in all capitals of the European Union, because decisions on opening negotiations on clusters or closing negotiation chapters are today taken unanimously in the European Union. Therefore, every country must support the Republic of Moldova.

Since you mentioned political support, I recently saw that, in the past few weeks, Hungary has once again blocked the opening of Clusters 2 and 3 for the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine. How great is the risk, however, that the Republic of Moldova’s European path will become hostage to political disputes, or are we not discussing this?

I don’t think we’re talking about risks. We have, especially on clusters 2 and 3, which are related to the functioning of the internal market, a very extensive National Accession Program, meaning a series of laws, government decisions and sectoral orders that need to be implemented, and here we have a lot of work, regardless of the moment of opening negotiations. Technical negotiations continue with the European Commission and, regardless of the moment of opening political negotiations, we will only be able to close chapters when we are ready.

Accordingly, we still have at least half a year of work in Parliament on these two clusters to implement all the necessary legislation, and then we will start to accelerate the transposition or implementation of the laws that we will vote on. This is about implementing standards, about the interoperability of information systems, about the development of new information systems, that is, to put into practice what we will adopt in Parliament, and this we need to accelerate next year.

So, what I want to say is that there is indeed a period this summer when the European Union, the member states, and Hungary are participating in these discussions, trying to reach a consensus, especially regarding Ukraine, but this does not hinder us, it does not slow down our pace of transposing legislation. And as it has been proven in the past, solutions are found. Because, at the beginning of the year, if you remember, there was exactly the same deadlock, again from Hungary, again for Ukraine and on cluster 1, and yet we managed to open cluster 1 and cluster 6.

Back then, the old leadership was still in place, but now things are different. That leadership allowed the situation to be resolved; it was more flexible. So what’s happening now?

I tell you that we should not be alarmed by the fact that the European Union is discussing, and our opinion is that we are ready to open the clusters. This does not mean that if we open them now, we will close them in the fall.

You must understand that we will only close negotiation chapters when the European Union says that all legislation is implemented and functioning in the Republic of Moldova. Accordingly, to implement it and to show that it works, we still need, as I explained to you, about a year, for all legislation to be aligned. If you look at the National Accession Plan, you will see that practically 95% of all the community acquis, on the legislation side, needs to be transposed by next spring.

You have repeatedly mentioned that the Republic of Moldova is in a race against time. Where, however, does the greatest risk lie today—that we will not pass the laws quickly enough, or that we will fail to implement them?

It’s a somewhat philosophical question. The government is working very hard today on preparing legislation and coordinating it with the European Commission. All the bills proposed by the Government are sent to the European Commission, in Brussels, which is a kind of government of the European Union. And Brussels checks these laws and validates them, provides the opinion, makes proposals for their improvement, after which the Government sends them to Parliament. The procedure in Parliament is simpler, because it’s about the political vote of these bills.

Where the Government does not reach a consensus with all the parties involved, the Parliament intervenes with additional public consultations. We will do this, for example, in August. Accordingly, the part of approving laws in Parliament is simpler from this perspective.

And after that, you asked about implementation. Implementation takes time. Now it depends on the field, it depends on the complexity.

In agriculture, for example, we need to change the way agriculture is subsidized, the way land parcels, crops, history and prices are reported. We need to implement a new information system, where we collect all data regarding all agricultural lands and what is grown on them. Also, for livestock farming, we need to improve transparency and collect data, so that later we can implement the European mechanisms for subsidizing agriculture through the Common Agricultural Policy.

Upon accession, agricultural subsidies will no longer be funded from the state budget of the Republic of Moldova, but will be financed from the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union, just as it happens in other countries. And we need to prepare the institutions, we also need to prepare the farmers, to be able to absorb these resources of the European Union from the moment of accession.

During this session—and, well, it was the same in the previous session—we have seen, however, that the opposition’s position has not yet changed, especially regarding the many bills that were, in a sense, rushed through, partly out of necessity, because they likely had to be approved in this manner. But how do you comment on these matters, though? The opposition says that, in fact, the bills need more time for consultation, including so that they can propose various amendments.

These opposition views usually appear before the first reading vote. Because indeed, the Government often takes time to finalize the bills and, as I explained, the bills are also sent to the European Commission. The European Commission has its own capacities and sometimes responds later than we would like. This is because we send a lot of projects, our institutions are very efficient from this perspective, we send a lot to Brussels and, therefore, often, the Government approves in session the bills that it forwards to the Parliament very close to the deadlines that we have set in the calendar.

And indeed, it often happens that, from the moment the project enters Parliament until the first reading, there is a short period of a few days or a week. And, during this period, it is true that not all deputies manage to read the bills. We should improve efficiency, probably also at the Government level, so that we, in Parliament, have more time.

At the same time, there is a two-week period between the two readings, during which deputies can read the draft laws and intervene on them with amendments. From this perspective, there is enough time for the draft laws to be improved in Parliament and for public consultations to be organized, if necessary. So, it’s more a matter of efficiency at different stages.

And indeed, it would be optimal to have more time before the first reading in Parliament, but we have to choose between time and schedule, because we have some commitments.

The European Union also has a calendar. I’ll give you an example. Every year, the European Commission publishes the Enlargement Report. The Enlargement Report is that document which shows the progress of all candidate states towards accession. This enlargement report is published in November, but the data for the report are collected twice a year, in May and September.

Accordingly, we need to report what we have done and, if an achievement is important to us, we must manage to tick it off, to finalize it by August, so that we can report it in September, so that it is taken into account. You realize, there is only one report per year and that report greatly influences the political opinion of the member states, to see how much progress the Republic of Moldova has made in all chapters. Therefore, we hurry when the achievements are important and from a political point of view, we ensure enough time between the two readings, but we need to deliver so that the report looks good.

And you saw, last year, the report looked very good, even from this perspective. The Republic of Moldova had the greatest progress among all candidate states in last year’s report. Now, this year, we need to maintain at least the same pace, the speed at which we are moving. It’s true that other states started earlier. Montenegro and Albania started earlier, they are more advanced, but we need to catch up with these states.

I’d also like to talk a little about disinformation. EU integration is often a target of disinformation. One of the most effective—let’s say—weapons against disinformation is accurate information. Beyond passing laws, what is Parliament doing to ensure that citizens receive this information so they can understand what accession actually means?

Regular public hearings are organized. We, at the Commission for European Integration, invite the Government, on average once every two weeks, as it was in this session, to report on the progress made.

There are 33 negotiation chapters. We have had hearings of the working groups on all chapters, in Parliament. They are public, they are broadcast live. I’m not sure how many people watch these broadcasts, but those who are interested can access them, they are kept.

Additionally, on the most sensitive legislative projects, supplementary public hearings are organized. There is also the official communication of the Parliament, there is the Facebook page, the informational pages, the Parliament’s website. And when certain topics arise or anti-EU propaganda exploits misinformation, we intervene with clarifications, including the deputies.

I’ll give you an example, to make it more concrete. I recently had a hearing on the implementation of the European Union’s Growth Plan and, in response to a question I asked, the government representative said that a portion of the total fund is intended for communication and civil society. And she mistakenly mentioned the amount of 100 million euros. It’s not about 100 million euros. The government’s clarification came immediately afterwards. Well, it was a mistake, the government representative didn’t have that information at hand, she estimated, things were immediately clarified, the government responded.

However, you know how it is, this information has snowballed and anti-European politicians have picked it up, exploiting this sum of 100 million euros for the media and civil society. Once again, there is no separate package in the Growth Plan for the media and civil society. It’s not about a separate package of 100 million euros for the media and civil society. It doesn’t exist.

Just that the anti-European propaganda exploits people’s sensitivity and says that, look, this money is for pro-government propaganda and it inflames spirits. Especially since ordinary people do not handle such amounts. When they hear about millions of euros, they don’t exactly realize what that means. It seems like a lot. And that’s normal.

For both me and you, it is difficult to operate with these amounts. The sums we are talking about in the Growth Plan represent tens, hundreds of projects that are included in a plan and we can discuss each of them. When we talk at a general level, people get the impression that this money comes or stays somewhere.

It’s not about a bag of money. It’s about several projects that, when added up, amount to these sums. So communication is very important. It is, indeed, sometimes too technical for people to understand what is happening. And things are complicated. The European Union is not a simple structure.

There are 27 states, each with their own democracies, with their own traditions. They are sovereign states that have decided, at one point, to create a common market, to play by the same rules, to cede a part of their right to decide the rules to Brussels, to the European Parliament, which adopts directives. And, in this complex system, it is hard to simply understand.

Of course, we try to translate into a more accessible language what the European Union brings. First of all, security. Secondly, opportunities for economic development.

Of course, but when we talk about the resources coming from the European Union, it’s more complicated to explain to people how exactly these resources reach the Republic of Moldova.

All right, there were also issues that were perhaps sometimes simpler and easier to understand. When we talk about migrants and migration, that, too, was a topic that came up quite often, with claims that the EU was forcing us to accept migrant quotas.

We have migrated to the European Union. The European Union does not impose on us. We, from the Parliamentary Commission, also go into the field. We have been in districts, we meet with local public authorities, with civil society, with the media, with students from districts and we discuss.

We discuss and explain what European integration means at the local level. Because most of the standards, European directives, need to be implemented by the business environment and local authorities.

For example, in the field of environmental protection, water quality, air quality, all standards are imposed by European rules and they can become costly for local public authorities, to ensure that, for example, the water that is used for production in the food industry meets minimum standards, so that those food products are safe for human consumption and can be exported from the Republic of Moldova to the European Union. Or, at the time of accession, they can be put on sale on the single European market. Now, we need to understand why these things happen, why the European Union imposes minimum environmental standards for all states.

Because these minimum environmental standards represent costs. And because European countries have agreed to have a single market, where a producer from Poland can sell his goods in Germany or Italy, and the one from Italy can sell it in Portugal or Spain. All countries must implement minimum levels of food safety and quality, so that a producer from one country does not have an unjustified competitive advantage, which would be harmful to consumers.

For instance, if a milk producer from the Republic of Moldova would want to export milk to the European Union today, they would need to demonstrate that the level of microorganisms in the milk is at most at the standard imposed by the European Union. And, for this, investments in technologies, in milk cooling are necessary. Consequently, these investments are costly.

Unfortunately, we, the Republic of Moldova, still cannot export milk to the European Union because, although we have the same standards as the European Union, our producers cannot demonstrate that these standards are respected throughout the supply chain. Because, I believe, 90% or 80% of the milk is still collected from the peasant households in the Republic of Moldova. Consequently, competitors on the European milk market will argue that it would be an unjustified advantage for Moldovan producers, who have not made investments the same way we have, will come with lower prices, but with poorer quality.

Therefore, European producers will not allow Moldovan producers to export, in this case, milk, until the investments ensuring the same standard, the same level, are made. And this refers to several sectors. In order to ensure a market with fair and equitable competition among all, everyone must abide by the same rules of the game.

For this reason, investments will be necessary in some sectors. However, the opportunities that are opening up – we are talking about a market of 450 million consumers – are very large for our business environment.

This market is very close to us. We’re right on the border with the European market. By the way, Romania has already been a well-known advocate for the Republic of Moldova. How are relations with our neighbors across the Prut River these days?

We are doing very well. We, at the parliamentary level, have had visits. Colleagues from Romania, from both Chambers of the Parliament, both deputies and senators, have come to the Republic of Moldova, they visited us. And we, likewise, have been on a return visit to Bucharest. Both visits were in the first semester. We have a very close relationship with the deputies from Romania.

I stand by the Committee for European Affairs. I know there are very good relations at the governmental level as well. Look, the first visit of Prime Minister Vasile Tofan was to Bucharest. He met with the interim Prime Minister and the sectoral ministers. The Minister of Energy, the Minister of Infrastructure and Regional Development met with their counterparts there. There have been several visits over the course of this semester, as far as I know. There is also a good relationship between the presidents. Romania continues to support us.

We also have many joint infrastructure projects that we’re working on together.

Romania has helped us renovate kindergartens in recent years. It has assisted us with many cultural projects. There are several projects that have been funded by Romania in the Republic of Moldova.

Parliament is sort of taking a break now, but I don’t think the integration process can take a break. Is there a chance you’ll meet again during this period, before the next session begins?

Yes, it has already been announced and just because, as I was explaining, the Government does not always manage to deliver the bills with enough time before they are included on the Parliament’s agenda in the first reading. Therefore, and here we must say that it is not just the Government’s fault or not necessarily the Government’s fault. The volume is very large.

There are certain subjects that we, in the Republic of Moldova, do not necessarily have all the necessary competencies for and we are assisted by foreign experts, because there are areas in which we have not yet regulated financial services. For example, derivative services, derivative products on the cryptocurrency market and so on, which we have not regulated so far and need to regulate. Already, by the way, these projects have entered Parliament. Now, when the Government approves them in session – plus we also had the resignation of the Munteanu Government, this, also, has prolonged the process a bit – we lost two weeks. The interim Government could not adopt bills, so we had to wait for the investiture of the Tofan Government.

They have accumulated, I believe there are around 18 projects for the transposition of the community acquis, which were approved in the first reading only at the end of the spring-summer session. Therefore, it is necessary, from the calendar perspective, what I was telling you earlier, that we need to deliver by the end of August, so that these legislative projects can be taken into account in the Expansion Report in November.

So we need to adopt them in the second, final reading in August. Now, we have also left time for consultations, because these projects need to be analyzed between the two readings, as I was telling you, and the opposition can come up with amendment proposals. Accordingly, for these projects that were voted on in the first reading, it will be necessary to convene the Parliament, and it has already been announced for the 24-25 of August, to be voted on in the second reading.

A week earlier, in the week starting on August 17, public consultations will be organized in Parliament on many of these laws, in order to finalize the process and to check if there are, I know, divergent positions of the involved actors. So, from this perspective, yes, we will convene once again, in August, to finalize the processes that were planned for the first half of the year.

Mr. Spatari, thank you very much for this conversation!

Thank you!

Irina Boțu, IPN

This article was produced as part of the “Europe Up Close: Information, Dialogue and Cooperation” project, funded by the Department for Relations with the Republic of Moldova and implemented by the IPN News Agency. The content of this article does not represent the official position of the Department for Relations with the Republic of Moldova.