Why Are Moldova’s Farmers Back on the Streets?

Symbolic protest actions will not change the existing trends in the national agricultural sector, which offer little to no prospects for small and medium-sized farmers  

Vladimir ROTARI, RTA: In the country’s socio-political life, the following pattern has become familiar: another crisis is brewing in agriculture; farmers face difficulties and put forward demands to the government; failing to receive the desired support from the authorities, they take to the streets in the capital and/or in the regions. The final act usually consists of invitations to dialogue – at the presidency, the government, or the Ministry of Agriculture – and a temporary easing of discontent through symbolic support measures. However, nothing fundamentally changes in the sector, which is why the cycle repeats itself after some time. In such a closed cycle, farmers have been operating throughout recent years, and their situation has been steadily deteriorating. The sector’s long-standing “ailments” – low labor productivity and yields, insufficient technological development, and a minimal share of irrigated land – are being significantly exacerbated by a range of crisis-related factors. Farmers have had to cope not only with familiar droughts, but also with extraordinary shocks such as the war in Ukraine, an influx of imported agricultural products, and the energy crisis. One of the most recent severe blows to agricultural producers was the sharp rise in diesel fuel prices – precisely at the start of the spring sowing campaign. In April, the Association “Forța Fermierilor” (“The Power of Farmers”) stated that the grain and oilseed sector was facing a prolonged crisis affecting around 85% of the country’s agricultural land. The authorities were accused of providing “negligible state support”, lacking any strategy for adapting agriculture to climate change, and introducing planned adverse measures – for example, raising VAT on agricultural products to 20%. Taken together, according to the Association’s members, these developments “virtually deprive small and medium-sized farmers of any chance of survival”. As a result, a substantial list of demands was presented to the country’s leadership. These included a request for funds from the European Union for emergency financial support to farmers, full and ongoing reimbursement of excise duty on diesel fuel used in agricultural work starting this year, partial VAT refunds on fuel and fertilizers purchased after March 1, 2026, the introduction of a simplified VAT refund mechanism directly to farmers’ accounts, the preservation of interest-rate subsidies for small and medium-sized farms, and other measures. Interestingly, one of the proposals called for the introduction of direct payments per hectare of cultivated land for small farmers, modeled on the European Union system. Analyzing these demands, it can be stated quite unequivocally that the chances of their being met were minimal from the outset. I have previously examined in detail why this is the case, and the arguments made then remain valid to this day. Leaving aside more exotic or conspiratorial interpretations suggesting that the authorities may be deliberately allowing the ruin of farmers for one reason or another, it can be said that the state simply lacks the resources required to provide the level of support the sector demands. On the contrary, we observe efforts to consolidate budget revenues by increasing the burden on both ordinary citizens and businesses. In this context, insisting on reducing that burden specifically for farmers is, of course, possible but somewhat naive. Forța Fermierilor, when issuing its “soft ultimatum”, warned that in the absence of an adequate response from state institutions it would resort to protests and even “radical measures”, including blocking customs checkpoints and roads. However, the latter is difficult to take entirely seriously. The association’s representatives are well aware of the ruling regime’s capacity to discredit both protests and their organizers. Moreover, a quiet but effective campaign of discrediting farmers has been ongoing for quite some time and has already produced results: in society, this category of agricultural producers is increasingly perceived as perpetual petitioners, “freeloaders” extracting scarce public resources from the state. Many officials and members of parliament implicitly, and at times openly, argue that developments in agriculture are of a natural character, lack dramatic overtones, and do not constitute any kind of national tragedy. It is, in essence, a rather capitalist approach: only the strongest survive, and inefficient actors have no place in the market. It is therefore hardly surprising that the latest protests are taking place in a rather “impotent” form, with a minimal number of participants and a deliberate denial of political rhetoric. In this format, they are unlikely to compel the government to allocate additional support funds or to significantly change its policy in this area. Undoubtedly, some assistance will be provided, but, as in previous years, it will clearly be insufficient, especially in a context where the state’s VAT arrears to farmers amount to billions of lei, with no real prospects of repayment in the near future. In essence, at present the only encouraging signal for the sector is the government’s promise to appeal to the European Union for additional targeted funding. At the same time, it is easy to assume that since such requests have previously gone unanswered, for example, the proposal to create a solidarity fund for Moldovan agriculture, the outcome will likely be the same this time as well. And this is entirely logical, since the EU itself, as I have noted earlier, is undergoing a process of consolidation of farms and the gradual marginalization of small and medium-sized producers, whose level of support tends to decline. There is no doubt that European farmers are still in a much better position compared to their Moldovan counterparts. However, the trend is clear, and its implementation is being slowed only by the strong reaction of agricultural producers within the EU, who are not willing to accept changes in the political priorities of European Union budget expenditures without resistance. For instance, when German authorities, as part of fiscal consolidation measures, decided to strip farmers of diesel fuel discounts and tax exemptions, the country was swept by a wave of protests, forcing the government to adjust its plans. Nevertheless, no protests prevented the signing of a free trade agreement between the European Union and the South American bloc MERCOSUR, which will lead to an influx of cheap agricultural products from overseas into the European market, with obvious consequences for local producers. It is therefore logical that the situation in our agricultural sector is developing along the same trajectory, and that food imports into the republic already exceed exports. Struggling farmers are effectively offered only two options: to cope on their own with minimal state assistance, or to sink completely. Country’s leadership, it appears, has no intention of rescuing loss-making farms.