Poor infrastructure, lack of monitoring, and chronic underfunding in the environmental sector compromise Moldova’s real chances of aligning with European standards. In an extensive interview with IPN, the national co-leader of the Green Agenda Project and former Minister of the Environment, Rodica Iordanov, talks about the challenges in this area, the historical gap with EU countries, and the danger of paying dearly for inaction. European integration, she says, is not for Brussels, but for Moldovan citizens—and the quality of air, water, and soil is directly linked to the life expectancy of each of us.
IPN: Ms. Iordanov, what are the biggest challenges facing Moldova in terms of implementing the EU acquis in the environmental sector?
The most expensive aspect of European integration is environmental infrastructure
Rodica Iordanov: Everything related to the EU acquis in the field of the environment, as you mentioned, is very clear: it is clear what “quality” means, who determines quality, what the infrastructure components are, and what activities contribute to either pollution or maintaining a high-quality environment.
FOR THE MOST IMPORTANT NEWS, FOLLOW US ON TWITTER!
When it comes to challenges, it should be noted that the Republic of Moldova is doing quite well in terms of transposing the regulatory framework. Work has been done and continues to be done. It is a fairly well-structured process of creating legislation.
However, implementation is more complicated. The most difficult—and most expensive—part of the European integration process is directly related to what we call “environmental infrastructure”.
For example, if we want good-quality water, we need to have a well-developed monitoring system. These systems must provide accurate results that can be used as a basis for decisions in the economic, agricultural, or environmental fields.
We need laboratories – well-equipped and functional laboratories. We need specialists. We need a comprehensive and well-integrated process. And at this moment, the environmental infrastructure in the Republic of Moldova is either poorly developed or completely lacking.
We have the same problem when it comes to air quality. We need effective monitoring systems—both at the level of industrial units, which are responsible for conducting their own assessments, and at the national level.
There needs to be good cooperation between authorities, but also a clear hierarchy and subordination between the institutions involved. This is, in fact, another major challenge: the lack of a well-developed monitoring and control infrastructure.
Another important challenge is that European environmental legislation (the acquis) has been developed over decades. EU Member States began strengthening their environmental legislation as early as 1972, with the famous Stockholm Declaration, when the right to a healthy environment was recognized for the first time at international level.
In the Republic of Moldova, we only began discussing environmental legislation in line with EU standards in 2007–2008. So, from the outset, we are talking about a very short period of time, and this gap is noticeable.
Even though it is being discussed today, even though legislation is being transposed and constantly improved, the environment has never been a priority in terms of investment. And without serious investment in environmental infrastructure, we cannot talk about real implementation.
IPN: However, for a poor country like the Republic of Moldova, people’s basic needs are still a priority.
Rodica Iordanov: Yes, but we don’t learn from the mistakes of others—on the contrary, we continue to repeat our own mistakes. And that means that a poor country like Moldova cannot afford to endanger people’s health.
If we do not invest in the quality of the environment, we end up spending much more on medicines, medical equipment, and everything related to the healthcare system. Instead of solving the problem at its source—i.e., pollution and environmental degradation—we focus on the consequences, such as the poor health of the population. Many European countries have understood this and have pursued economic development and environmental protection in parallel, investing in both areas. They have not made them separate or competing priorities, but have treated them as complementary components of sustainable development. One versus the other, and it works.
IPN: But it’s also about people’s general culture, and I’ll give a very basic example: when you go on a picnic in the woods, clean up after yourself, don’t leave that plastic lying around, because we know very well what plastic means in nature and exactly how many hundreds of years it will stay there. So, this is where it starts: when you really care about your surroundings, the people around you, and how you contribute, positively or negatively, to this.
Rodica Iordanov: You are absolutely right. Culture and education are fundamental elements—not only for ordinary citizens, but also for decision-makers, those who determine the direction the state should take.
We are not just talking about picnics and plastic litter in nature, but about all aspects of waste collection, rational use of resources, identification of polluters, and application of the “polluter pays” principle.
We make green investments, we rehabilitate, we bring nature back to life, we behave decently towards our surroundings. This is a form of education that does not come only from school or kindergarten, but essentially also from the family.
We need to have an active promotion, a large-scale national campaign on responsible behavior in nature, as well as on the proper management of natural resources.
Last but not least, waste management—from our homes to industrial activities—must comply with clear requirements. A good administrator is one who considers both the impact on the environment and the efficient use of resources.
European integration is not for the EU, but for the benefit of the Republic of Moldova
IPN: Indeed, we cannot rely solely on the discernment of each citizen, because everyone has a certain level of culture. However, it is about those standards and policies set “from above” – and, above all, about the correct application of sanctions when they are violated. You mentioned earlier the lack of infrastructure, which is a major gap in this system and a major obstacle to progress in the environmental field. How does the lack of environmental infrastructure—I am referring here to wastewater treatment plants, waste collection systems, monitoring laboratories—actually affect Moldova’s ability to meet and align with European Union requirements? And to what extent does this hinder the process of European integration? What specifically needs to be done in this case?
Rodica Iordanov: There are several options that we need to seriously discuss and for which we need to find real solutions. Obviously, the ideal option—also for the Republic of Moldova—is to understand that European integration is not being done for the European Union, but for the direct benefit of the Republic of Moldova. Therefore, our interest and opportunity at this moment is to identify the minimum necessary—those basic conditions—in order to be able to start working seriously on quality and make the first investments or even more substantial investments in environmental infrastructure. You know very well: in the field of waste management, work is being done, quite a lot of work is being done. But I think we need to find concrete levers to accelerate these processes, because sometimes they are blocked by too much bureaucracy. On the other hand, as I mentioned earlier, it is also about culture and the perception of solidarity in the environmental field. Much of the stagnation is due to the fact that citizens are not receptive, and neither are the authorities.
Failure to comply with the transition period may result in penalties
IPN: They are provided with bins, but what if there is no vehicle to collect the garbage?
Rodica Iordanov: Or we hear statements like: “Why are you building the treatment plant or transfer station right in our town? We don’t need to pollute our town! Why does all the waste from the entire district have to come to us?” Such approaches are not correct and do not lead to development. The biggest problem, however, remains communication. Another solution would obviously be to request a transition period during negotiations on certain components. But we must understand that this transition period—as far as I can tell—can be a maximum of five years. If we fail to cope by then, the situation will become more complicated.
IPN: What exactly would this transition entail?
Rodica Iordanov: For some components, we could request a longer implementation period, given that we have set 2030 as our target date for being recognized as part of the European Union. This would mean that, during negotiations, we could request a transition period of up to five years, including the years of preparation until 2030. So, we have some leeway, but this would mean that once this period expires, no further transition will be offered. Why can’t it last until 2030? Because we have a maximum of 5-10 years for implementation, which is very ambitious, and we must recognize that we all have to make an effort. If this transition period is not respected, we will be warned once, twice, and then a third time. Subsequently, we may receive what is called an infringement procedure, which can lead to a trial, where we will be found not to comply with the minimum standards required by law. Then penalties will follow, and these are very high. That is why it is important to understand now that we must make an effort to avoid the penalty stage. These penalties are borne solely by the state budget, and it is better to invest now at least the minimum necessary to demonstrate our openness, ability, and willingness to comply with EU legislation.
IPN: How do you think those investments are being made at the moment, the minimum investment necessary to get the ball rolling and make this change in the environment, in the quality of the environment, somehow noticeable?
Rodica Iordanov: As far as I know, there are already investments that have been approved and are currently being implemented, including in the field of waste management.
If we make additional efforts and urge our colleagues to speed things up, the process will yield results by the time negotiations begin. We will be able to demonstrate our openness and capacity, because it is essential to prove these basic aspects: in terms of afforestation, nature restoration, environmental protection, and biodiversity. And here, too, investments have already been launched. For example, the first steps have been taken towards creating key performance indicators (KPIs) to bring greater clarity to the processes. It is also necessary to make efforts in this regard and to alert our colleagues, because nurseries must be built, they must exist and function efficiently. There is also openness regarding the monitoring infrastructure. We know that the State Hydrometeorological Service benefits from the support of the World Bank to improve monitoring networks. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) also has several projects that provide support in collaboration with the European Union. The European Commission, for its part, has launched two important projects in the Republic of Moldova in the field of climate change. These investments are essential. They were launched relatively recently – in the period 2024–2025.
Waste management projects have been active since 2019, and these first steps are helping to strengthen infrastructure. In terms of water resources, we only have one or two larger projects. I would say that more intervention is needed here—especially for the restoration and revitalization of watercourses. Past mistakes, combined with the effects of climate change, have had a major impact. We have lost many basins and bodies of water, some of which have been completely silted up. It is therefore essential to restore them, but it must be made clear that these interventions require large investments.
The Dniester and Prut rivers are safe, but inland rivers face critical pollution
IPN: You have touched upon a very important topic—in fact, it was my next question: water quality in the Republic of Moldova. In many areas of the country, people are faced with poor water quality. We have numerous news reports on this topic, and as an expert in the field, I wanted to ask you: what concrete and effective measures do you see as necessary in this sector, and how could we align ourselves with European Union directives on drinking water and wastewater?
Rodica Iordanov: In reality, in the Republic of Moldova, the Dniester and Prut rivers have good water quality because they are flowing rivers. These waters are better preserved because they naturally clean themselves as they flow. Unfortunately, the situation is much worse on internal rivers – small rivers – where water quality is much poorer and, in some cases, even critical. This situation is due, in most cases, to the lack of wastewater treatment infrastructure. In many localities in the country, there are no treatment systems at all, and this directly affects water quality. We must also acknowledge that some businesses and economic activities do not comply with national legislation on wastewater treatment. Either they do not treat the water properly, or they do not enter into contracts with the country’s water and sewerage agencies or structures, which should ensure this process.
IPN: Why aren’t they taxed?
Rodica Iordanov: They are.
IPN: People.
Rodica Iordanov: They are taxed—I have had many discussions with my colleagues at Apa-Canal Chisinau. They are taxed, and economic agents, in turn, are taxed by the Environmental Protection Inspectorate. However, the situation is more complicated and, in a way, even interesting – but it is already a topic of discussion for lawyers, because, as a rule, the penalty reports are challenged in court. Economic agents are dissatisfied, they contest the fines, and the proceedings are either delayed or blocked, also taking into account the fact that the courts are very busy. So everything remains in a continuous and uncertain process.
Another major problem is the lack of a monitoring system at the industrial unit level. For example, we have only one accredited laboratory, the one at Apa-Canal Chisinau, which can analyze wastewater quality. There are many factors contributing to the situation where, although the economic agent is taxed, not all the money actually ends up in the state budget. Why? Because the current mechanism is cumbersome, complicated, and sometimes inefficient—and economic agents are simply trying to survive in this system. I would not say that this is a gap per se, but rather a reality that we are faced with, generated by the lack of adequate infrastructure.
No independent laboratories, no safety in the system
IPN: A vicious circle.
Rodica Iordanov: It is, in fact, a vicious circle, because the lack of an independent laboratory system means that we have no contradictory evidence. We only have the evidence provided by Apă-Canal, but we have no second opinion, no separate analysis to confirm or refute the results presented. This is a situation that, unfortunately, remains unresolved and is a topic of discussion that requires significant investment. When it comes to wastewater, the lack of treatment systems in localities and along watercourses directly contributes to the decline in water quality. In addition, as mentioned earlier, management in the agricultural system is not always environmentally friendly, especially with regard to water. You have probably noticed that more and more businesses and farmers are building reservoirs to collect water from groundwater sources.
This is actually a positive trend, both for agriculture and the environment: water is not wasted, it can be stored for dry periods, the risk of flash floods caused by torrential rains is reduced, and water resources can be managed more efficiently. However, it remains essential to restore forests, because they maintain water quality, reduce fertile soil loss, help limit erosion, and prevent river silting. Just recently, I saw videos on social media of strong winds blowing away the fertile layer from fields. This happened because we do not have protective forests, the land has been dried out and cut down, and the drought has amplified the effects.
All these phenomena are connected and contribute together to the degradation of natural resources. What are we doing about drinking water? We need modern water treatment systems, we need to develop water supply networks, and the pipes through which water flows must meet technical requirements—we can no longer use old or easily degradable pipes. Investment in the network is essential, and we must ensure that drinking water, not technical water, reaches the network. Water must be treated properly, right from the moment it is pumped from underground. We can no longer allow water that reaches citizens’ taps to be labeled as “technical water” but at the same time be used for cooking or drinking—this is neither fair, legal, nor healthy.
IPN: So, in conclusion, we can say that the quality of the environment—whether we are talking about water, air, or the food we consume—is directly proportional to the life expectancy of people in a community. Therefore, responsibility lies primarily with those in government, who should implement appropriate policies that have a real impact on the quality of the environment. However, it is equally up to each of us to take responsibility and be aware that we must care about the environment in which we live. It is not enough just to complain; we must take concrete action in this direction.
Rodica Iordanov: You concluded very nicely. I believe that the moment of “increasing discontent,” of complaining to each other, should remain in the past. Now is the time to be proactive. We must understand that every question must find a solution. And the solutions must be discussed openly, identifying the best alternative—one that is not in the interest of a group or a party, but in the interest of the state in its broadest sense: with all citizens, with all infrastructure, with the entire business environment. The state, in this broad sense, must have the welfare of its citizens as its absolute priority.