Government agricultural policies between rhetoric and difficult rural reality

At the conclusion of the first day of the so-called “National Dialogue on Agriculture and Rural Development,” Prime Minister Rama announced the suspension of AKU’s (Food Safety and Veterinary Agency) activities as a drastic measure, reasoning that this agency “does more harm than good.”

This statement, although dramatic and politically striking, is a delayed admission of institutional failure of one of the most important links for food safety and fulfilling the standards of European integration in the agro-food sector.

But is this suspension a reformative act, or an attempt to shift political responsibility from the government to a technical institution?

This agency, which should have been the primary protector of food standards and one of the pillars of harmonization with the EU acquis communautaire, has been left for years without sufficient support, without quality training, and under political pressure, with leadership appointments mostly made by the prime minister without meritocracy.

Instead of using its failure as an opportunity for institutional reform, the government chose suspension, which fundamentally solves nothing except creating public noise and a media smokescreen that covers its direct responsibilities.

Another major promise made by the prime minister was to complete the legalization process of agricultural production structures by August.

A delayed action, which for years has prevented farmers from accessing public funds, bank loans, and EU support programs.

Legalization has been presented as a simple bureaucratic action, but at its core, it is a longstanding failure of the state to regulate the relationship between land, producers, and public policy.

In the absence of a real design of agricultural infrastructure and a functional agricultural cadastre, any effort for “localizations” is nothing but a formal reorganization of practical chaos.

The announcement of a €250 million credit line with low interest rates may sound like good news for farmers.

But the reality is that loans without clear legal guarantees, without legalized infrastructure, and without risk mechanisms are simply unavailable loans for the majority of the Albanian agricultural sector, which remains informal, fragmented, and with minimal access to financial services.

If these loans are to be actually used, conditions, number of beneficiaries, geographical coverage, and economic impact indicators must be published immediately.

So far, there is no official report on the progress of access to national funds or IPARD concerning analysis and responsibilities.

The voice of experts — ceremonial symbolism or real involvement?

The participation of experts in drafting and implementing agricultural policies in Albania has chronically been a more ceremonial than functional process. Although every public discussion or official strategy mentions the need for “cooperation with academia” or “the role of local expertise,” in practice this involvement is often superficial, informal, and reduced to one-day events or spontaneous media comments.

The recent case of forming a “commission with the Agricultural University of Tirana” to review AKU’s functioning is illustrative of this tendency.

While university involvement is welcomed in concept, it becomes a symbolic act if not accompanied by:

• Real decision-making competencies to analyze AKU’s institutional structure and propose changes that the executive must consider;
• Full access to data and operational documentation to enable objective performance assessment;
• Clear mandates, timelines, and measurable objectives, supported by contracts agreed upon by the parties;
• An official mechanism for monitoring and implementing recommendations, so they do not remain shelved as many previous documents have.

In the absence of these elements, the role of experts and academic institutions is reduced to a figurative role, used to legitimize previously made political decisions or to soften public pressure during crises, such as the suspension of AKU’s activity.

This approach is not only problematic from a policy quality standpoint but also counterproductive for the EU integration process, which requires documented and sustained participation of stakeholders, including academia, in formulating and implementing sectoral policies.

To move from formal involvement to a real partnership with experts and universities, a paradigm shift is needed: from ceremonial public invitations to contracting knowledge and expertise through structured, competitive, and monitorable projects.

Only in this way can local knowledge serve as institutional capital, rather than rhetorical decoration for a political system that often substitutes expertise with propaganda.

Integration and agricultural policy: step by step, out of sync with the EU

The integration process in Chapter 11 (Agriculture and Rural Development) and Chapter 12 (Food Safety) requires not only legislative alignment but practical institutional functionality.

The government has adopted numerous laws formalizing standards, but in the absence of implementing capacities like AKU and fund control mechanisms, compliance remains only on paper.

In this context, it is essential to create a measuring mechanism for real compliance with EU standards, including:

• The percentage of completed legalizations;
• The number of farms certified with European standards;
• The volume of IPARD projects implemented;
• The effect on the agricultural value chain.

Current government agricultural policies remain fragmented and incapable of producing structural transformation in rural areas. Every major promise — whether the suspension of AKU, low-interest credit, or completing legalizations — comes after a long delay that has left behind a weakened sector unprepared for integration.

Agricultural reforms cannot be only a stage for political communication.

They require long-term planning, genuine dialogue with producing communities, and above all, real functioning institutions that cannot be suspended by verbal order.

Otherwise, the Albanian agricultural sector will remain not only outside the EU but outside development altogether.