2006年-世界发展银行全球_Moldova_-_Agricultural_Policy_Notes___Policy_Priorities_for_Agricultural_Development_Volume_2_Public_Expenditures_64页_393kb

报告摘要

Moldova: Agricultural Policy Notes Summary

Core Content

This document is a World Bank Policy Note titled "Moldova: Agricultural Policy Notes – Volume II—Public Expenditures", published on June 1, 2006. It focuses on the inefficiency of public agricultural expenditures and the need for strategic realignment to promote sustainable agricultural development and poverty reduction in Moldova.

Main Objectives

The report aims to:

Assist the Government of Moldova in improving the effectiveness of public spending in agriculture.
Enhance the contribution of agriculture to economic growth and poverty reduction.
Provide a sector-wide analysis of the magnitude and structure of public spending on agriculture.
Guide future priority public expenditures and expenditure allocation shifts.

Key Findings

1. Public Expenditures in Moldova

The agricultural sector accounts for a low share of total public spending (around 2-4%), compared to 6-8% in developing countries and 3-5% in developed countries.
Most expenditures are recurrent, covering salaries and operating costs.
Investment expenditures are negligible, with only a small portion of the budget allocated to agricultural infrastructure and services.
The Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) has been introduced to improve budget planning and execution, but its implementation has been limited.

2. Reliance on Subsidies

Subsidies have become a major component of public agricultural spending.
The share of farm subsidies in total agricultural public expenditures reached 37% in 2004.
Subsidies are often targeted at large corporate farms, which are less productive than individual family farms.
Many subsidy programs are ad hoc, non-transparent, and inefficient, with unclear eligibility criteria and lack of strategic alignment.

3. Extra-Budgetary Funds

The use of extra-budgetary funds (special funds outside the MAFI budget) is growing, which reduces transparency and strategic planning.
These funds are often used to subsidize specific activities, such as walnut production and fall plowing, but do not align with sector priorities.
The increasing number of special funds complicates financial management and budget integration.

4. Debt Forgiveness and Fiscal Impact

Debt forgiveness and tax holidays have become de facto subsidies, leading to significant fiscal losses.
In 2004, debt service obligations cost the government MDL 156 million, equivalent to more than the value of IFI-financed investments.
These fiscal vacations create soft budget constraints, reducing the incentive for reform and wasting public resources.

Recommendations

1. Strengthen Public Expenditure Management

Improve strategic planning by aligning spending with sector priorities and policy goals.
Consolidate donor-financed investments, extra-budgetary funds, and the State Social Insurance Fund into the national public budget.
Integrate "special funds" into the budget process to enhance transparency and coordination.
Improve coordination between central and local agricultural administrations.
Streamline accounting systems and budget regulations to enhance cash management.

2. Re-Align Agricultural Expenditures

Shift public support from wasteful subsidies to growth-enhancing investments and services.
Focus on individual family farmers, who are more productive and hold greater growth potential.
Reduce or remove subsidies that discriminate against small farmers (e.g., vineyard and walnut planting subsidies).
Sustainably reform irrigation support, veterinary services, and agricultural education and research.
Rationalize the delivery of services to match the needs of private farmers.

3. Use Foreign-Financed Projects

Leverage foreign direct investment (FDI) and donor projects to address short-term investment gaps.
Mainstream donor-supported interventions into the national budget for sustainability and transparency.
Use the EGPRSP as a framework for coordinating donor activities and aligning with national priorities.

4. Create a Stable Policy Environment

Promote investment and productivity growth by creating a stable and predictable policy environment.
Remove non-tariff trade barriers and eliminate preferential treatment of certain enterprises.
Develop standardization and certification systems based on EU and international market requirements.
Improve information and public services to support the introduction of improved technologies.

Key Institutions and Acronyms

MAFI – Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry
MOE – Ministry of Economy
MOF – Ministry of Finance
MTEF – Medium-Term Expenditure Framework
RISP – Rural Investment and Services Project
PFM – Public Financial Management Project
EGPRSP – Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
IFI – International Financial Institution
WB – World Bank
USAID – United States Agency for International Development
IFAD – International Fund for Agricultural Development
IMF – International Monetary Fund
FDI – Foreign Direct Investment
MDL – Moldovan Leu
UNDP – United Nations Development Programme
TACIS – Technical Assistance to CIS (European Commission)
SIDA – Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
DFID – Department for International Development (UK government)
EBRD – European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
SCAs – Savings and Credit Associations
MTS – Machinery Technology Stations
NBM – National Bank of Moldova
VAT – Value-Added Tax
CPI – Consumer Price Inflation
CIS – Commonwealth of Independent States
SME – Small- and Medium-Size Enterprise
TA – Technical Assistance

Conclusion

The report emphasizes the need for a strategic and efficient use of public resources in agriculture, reducing wasteful subsidies, and aligning public spending with market-oriented reforms. It calls for improved coordination, greater transparency, and integration of donor and public funds to support sustainable agricultural development and poverty reduction in Moldova.

展开完整摘要