Press-release
on the organization of the debate “The economical and political importance of Moldova’s Agreement with the IMF and the political ability to implement it”, Developing Political Culture through Public Debates” Series
Public debates series held by the news agency IPN in its conference room with the support of the German Foundation “Hanns Seidel”
Held on 22 August 2016, Debate 58 brought together the economic and financial experts Roman Chirca, Veaceslav Negruta (also with political extensions) and Natan Garstea; and Igor Botan as the Project's standing expert, with a field of expertise that mostly covers political and legal issues.
Why this topic and why this selection of participants? This topic, because a potential Agreement with the IMF could offer Moldova a chance to unblock a host of standstills and solve numerous issues, but also because this is quite a specific subject that needs to be brought to the general public in a more chewable form, in light of our Project's scope that focuses on political culture. Overall, the debate discussed the prospective Moldova-IMF Memorandum as an important economic opportunity for Moldova which can only be brought to fruition with adequate political will and capacity on the part of the Moldovan authorities and society as a whole.
Why this selection of speakers? Objectively speaking, considering the speakers' reputation, expertise and diversity of opinions, this panel was really competent and balanced, just what a true debate needs. However, this was in some way a “reserve team”, because ideally the debate should have had political, in particular governmental representatives among its speakers. Regretfully enough though, the attempt to invite such representatives wasn't successful despite a first invitation being sent more than three weeks before the event. Moreover, the original invitation involved the participation of IMF Resident Representative as well and we received assurances that Ms. Armine Khachatryan would join us, regardless of whether government representatives participated. Shortly before the event Ms. Khachatryan announced she would not make it. We were assured this was not related to the host organization, or to the vacation period, the invariable excuse used by government representatives during all this time.
From that moment, the topic became even more important and more worthy of being largely debated, because such behavior might point to certain frictions in Moldova's relationship with the IMF, as precedents indicate. Or at least we should make sure this was not the case. In fact, a debate was the only way to verify this, considering the expertise of the invited speakers. Anyway, the main topic remains as stated in the headline: the importance of the prospective IMF Memorandum and the authorities' capacity to implement it.
The general conclusion of the debate was shared by all the speakers: “If Moldova signs a document with the IMF, this will send a signal of predictability for both the Moldovans and our development partners”. In particular, economic expert Veaceslav Negruta expects that more international financing for Moldova could be unfrozen by the end of October, when a decision on the signing of the IMF Memorandum with Moldova is taken in Washington. “There will be some improvement as regards the Ministry of Finance’s ability to fulfill budgetary commitments. What will follow, as regards the authorities’ commitments, is unpredictable and we might not get the decision we want from the board in Washington”, said Veaceslav Negruta. According to him, an agreement with the IMF would offer the government a break and a financial injection via both the Fund and other development partners.
Finance and economy expert Natan Garstea thinks that during the negotiations with Moldova, the IMF was more willing to meet us halfway than usually. “The IMF is interested in positive changes here. For them it is more important to have a memorandum on the basis of which they can monitor in real time what is happening here”, opined Garstea.
Roman Chirca, also a financial and economic expert, thinks that the situation of public finances is bad, but slightly improving. According to him, the IMF agreement is not what everyone is expecting, because the government’s political will to become authentic is more important than any formal road-map. “Unfortunately, the relationship with the IMF is a necessary stage, given its consequences and infrastructure projects that can be implemented after signing the agreement. I hope and I expect it to be signed. I am also worried about how it will be implemented and about its importance as a stage of transition”, said Chirca.
The Project’s permanent expert Igor Botan is optimistic, as he feels the government is cornered and has no choice but to accept the IMF conditions. “I am in favor of these harsh conditions if this is the price for getting Moldova out of this slump and for pushing out the current political leaders because of these reforms that must be done for the good of Moldova. It would be the honest thing to do for them and for us”, said Botan.
The Agency published 5 news stories on the debate (see the English version of www.ipn.md): on 22.08.16, „ Some of IMF money could be used to cover budget deficit, IPN debates” - http://www.ipn.md/en/economie/78467; on 23.08.16, „Veaceslav Negruta: IMF agreement is last lifeline for Moldova” - http://www.ipn.md/en/economie-business/78469; „Roman Chirca: Effects of IMF agreement are political rather than economic” - http://www.ipn.md/en/economie-business/78470; „Igor Botan: Government has no leeway against IMF” - http://www.ipn.md/en/special/78471; „Natan Garstea: IMF wants changes in the banking system” - http://www.ipn.md/en/economie-business/78472.
Valeriu Vasilica, director of IPN