Protected Cultivation of Vegetables in Moldova Report

PROTECTED CULTIVATION OF VEGETABLES IN MOLDOVA
(CENSUSREPORT)
Chisinau, 2009
AGRIBUSINESS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
CZU:635.1/.8:631.544(478) This publication was developed and printed by the Agribusiness Development Project in Moldova implemented by CNFA, with financial support provided by the U.S. Agency for International Development. This report provides results of a two-phase national survey of vegetable crop cultivation under protective cover. It represents an in depth analysis of the data collected from a two-phase survey of the Moldovan greenhouse sector. The publication is unique in that and it represents the first ever national census (Phase I) that provides detailed information on the actual area under different types of protected constructions for indoor production of vegetables in Moldova. The Phase II sample survey reflects the particularities of the sector and identifies the producers, the type of legal organizations their location, crops grown, equipment and technology used, access to information and finances and problems faced. This report can be used by various groups of readers including: policy makers, financial organizations, local administrations, educational and research institutions, greenhouse growers, input suppliers, students and other organizations and experts working in field related to protected cultivation of vegetables. Authors: Victor ROSCA, PhD, Agribusiness Development Specialist, ADP Team Leader Ludmila GOGU, Agribusiness Development Advisor, ADP Alexandru BELSCHI, Agribusiness Development Advisor, ADP Nicolae ZAHARIA, Agribusiness Development Advisor, ADP Conrad FRITSCH, Chief of Party, ADP Project ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the local community administration and cadastral office specialists from the Moldovan mayoralties for their cooperation and assistance in carrying out this study. We thank Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry staff, Mr. Anatol Spivacenco, First-Deputy Minister and Mr. Mihai Suvac, Head of the Field Crops, Seed Production, Horticulture and Nursery Department for their support in coordinating survey activities with local authorities and providing approval for the ADP staff to carry out the study. We appreciate the work done by Magenta Ltd for developing the second phase sampling frame and collecting the data and providing the initial statistical analyses for this phase of the study. We would also like to thank Ms. Rodica Miron, Agreements Officer Technical Representative, USAID Moldova, for her valuable comments and guidance during the implementation of this study. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessary reflect the views of the U.S. Agency for International Development.
2009 by ADP project. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the written permission of the publisher and the authors
Protected Cultivation of Vegetables in Moldova
PAGE ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................................1 PHASE I: GREENHOUSE SECTOR INVENTORY- QUANTITATIVE RESULTS.......................................4 CHAPTER I: GROWERS AND AREA UNDER PROTECTED CULTIVATION OF VEGETABLES ..........4 CHAPTER II: DISTRIBUTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROTECTED CULTIVATION AREA BY ZONE AND ADMINISTRATIVE-TERRITORIAL UNITS (RAYON)..............................................................6 CHAPTER III: DISTRIBUTION OF PROTECTED COVER CULTIVATION AREA BY TYPE OF BUSINESS ORGANIZATION. ....................................................................................................................11 PHASE II: INVENTORY OF THE GREENHOUSE SECTOR - QUALITATIVE STUDY OF CONSTRUCTION, INPUT USE, FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS AND PROJECTIONS ..........................19 CHAPTER V: GREEN HOUSE CONSTRUCTION TYPE..........................................................................19 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5. 5.6. 5.7. Basic crops grown in greenhouses ....................................................................................... 19 Greenhouse construction types ............................................................................................ 20 Greenhouse covering material .............................................................................................. 22 Greenhouse age profile.........................................................................................................23 Origin of greenhouse construction material in Moldova........................................................ 24 Type of fuel used for greenhouse heating ............................................................................ 26 Period of use for greenhouse structures............................................................................... 27
CHAPTER VI: INPUT SUPPLY LEVEL AND QUALITY OF PRODUCTION MATERIALS......................28 CHAPTER VII: MAJOR GREENHOUSE PRODUCTION CONSTRAINTS...............................................29 CHAPTER VIII: PRODUCTION OF VEGETABLES ..................................................................................30 8.1. 8.2. 8.3. 8.4. 9.1. 9.2. 9.3. 9.4. 9.5. 9.6. 10.1. 10.2. 10.3. 10.4. 10.5. Preference of the greenhouse growers for local and foreign varieties ................................. 30 Use of seedlings for vegetable production in greenhouses .................................................. 31 Media for growing vegetables in greenhouses ..................................................................... 31 Number of crops cultivated per year ..................................................................................... 32 Level of professional/technical education ............................................................................. 34 Growers attendance at specialized training courses ............................................................ 35 Possession and availability of specialized literature for greenhouse growers...................... 35 Availability of consulting services.......................................................................................... 37 Visits to other greenhouses growers..................................................................................... 39 Sources of information related to greenhouse production and marketing of vegetables...... 40 Possession of the Information about sources of financing ............................................... 41 Sources of finance for capital investment in greenhouse construction............................. 42 Grants obtained................................................................................................................. 43 Farmers plans to use Bank loans in the future................................................................. 44 Leasing.............................................................................................................................. 45
PAGE iii
CHAPTER IX: GROWERS EDUCATION AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION .....................................34
CHAPTER X: FINANCIAL RESOURCES..................................................................................................41
CHAPTER XI: GREENHOUSE PRODUCT SALES...................................................................................48 11.1. 11.2. 11.3. 11.4. 11.5. 12.1. 12.2. 12.3. 12.4. Sales method .................................................................................................................... 48 Transportation to the place of sale.................................................................................... 50 Sales mechanisms ............................................................................................................ 50 Payment method for delivered vegetables........................................................................ 52 Major grower problems in selling greenhouse vegetables................................................ 53 Greenhouse production area expansion plans ................................................................. 55 Projection for extension of different types of green house construction ........................... 57 Subvention use.................................................................................................................. 57 Crops that farmers intend to grow in the future in greenhouses....................................... 58
CHAPTER XII: DEVELOPMENT PLANS ..................................................................................................55
ANNEX I PHASE 1 SURVEY INSTRUMENT.............................................................................................60 ANNEX II PHASE 2 SURVEY INSTRUMENT............................................................................................61 ANNEX III STATISTICAL TABLES............................................................................................................68 Table 1 Growers and administrative units using protected cover technologies, 2008 ...................... 68 Table 2 Villages with major areas using protected cover technologies, 2008 .................................. 69 Table 3 Distribution of per capita protected cover production area by population base, 2008 ......... 70 Table 4 Distribution of glass greenhouse growers by size of production unit, 2008 ......................... 71 Table 5 Distribution of plastic greenhouse growers by size of production unit, 2008 ....................... 72 Table 6 Distribution of low tunnel growers by size of production unit, 2008 ..................................... 73 Table 7 Distribution of growers using Spotbond (agril) cover by size of production unit, 2008 ........ 74
PAGE iv
SUMMARY
According to Moldovan statistical data, the area of protected vegetable cultivation prior to 1990 was 576 ha. At that time, the area of the constructions for growing vegetables covered with plastic was much larger than that of glasshouses: 410 ha compared to 66 ha. Collective farms (kolkhozes) owned most plastic covered greenhouses and nearly 100% of glass greenhouses were owned by State companies. In 1990, almost all glass greenhouse vegetables were exported and most production from plastic greenhouses was consumed locally. When the process of agricultural privatization started, kolkhozes were restructured into new entities, and former kolkhoz assets (land and machinery) were distributed to eligible citizens as a participatory share. The plastic greenhouses owned by collective farms (kolkhozes), were distributed to former kolkhoz members. As a result, most of the plastic greenhouses were dismantled or destroyed. Most of the glass greenhouses were not privatized, and remain in state ownership. Little investment on renovation or upgrading technology for growing winter vegetables has taken place. At this moment functional glass greenhouse constructions are used as unheated facilities which allow them to be used for production only from the April to October period. Under these conditions, Moldova rapidly became an importer of fresh vegetables, produced by foreign greenhouse growers. Currently, Moldova imports over 25,000 MT of greenhouse vegetables. Government has taken several steps in recent years to rehabilitate the greenhouse sector and to substitute fresh vegetable imports in spring and autumn. Government policy initiatives include: subsidies to growers for new greenhouse construction, improvement of legislation to support formation of associations and cooperatives, training and technical assistance, etc. However, while these interventions have been useful they have not been sufficient to attract the large investment funds needed to address the existing constraints. To address these constraints, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry in cooperation with other institutions and organizations is in the process of preparing a Ten Year Strategy for Development of Greenhouse Sector (SDGS) in Moldova. They approved the undertaking of the current survey and the results of the National Protected Cover Crop Area Census (completed during the January to May 2009 period) and the follow-on sample survey to provide the baseline and technical analysis from which to identify actions for further development of the Moldovan greenhouse sector. The study identified and analyzed all types of constructions for protected cultivation of vegetables including glass and plastic greenhouses, high and low tunnels, and temporary protected crops covered with Spotbond (agril). Survey data indicates that vegetable producers in areas under some form of protected cover are located in 51% of Moldovan mayoralties. In total, the survey identified 8,141 vegetable growers with protected cover area. About half of them (4,295 growers) are in Criuleni rayon. The other rayons with a large number of growers using protected cover production technologies are Dubasari, Cahul and Anenii Noi. The survey identified 40 growers using glass covered green houses along with 7,896 growers using plastic covered greenhouses. Criuleni rayon has the largest number of growers using plastic greenhouses (4,288) with Dubasari, Cahul and Anenii Noi following with 611, 392 and 209 growers respectively. It is important to mention that about 87% of all vegetable producers with plastic greenhouses are small-scale growers with less then 500 m2 of production area. Total covered area for production of vegetables in 2008 was 544 ha, which includes 40.4 hectares of glass greenhouses; 412.33 hectares of greenhouses and high tunnels covered with plastic foil; 9.7 hectares of low tunnels and 81.9 hectares of fields covered with Spotbond (agril). The area under protected cover vegetable production represents about 1.59 m2 per person. Family Farms (FF), Individual Enterprises (IE) and Physical Persons (PhP) /home gardens, own about 77% of the area used for protected cultivation of vegetables. Legal entities like Ltds hold about 19% of all covered area in Moldova. The survey identified that 54% of all area for indoor production of vegetables are represented by Physical persons (PhP) that grow indoor vegetables for their own family consumption and for sale on the local market. They operate over 275 ha or 66.8% of the area
Protected Cultivation of Vegetables in Moldova Page 1 of 76
under plastic greenhouses that are located on home garden plots or on land plots received near the family home during the land privatization. Usually, this group of growers does not hire outside labor and family members do all operations for growing vegetables. Analysis of greenhouse type reveals that 58% of the greenhouses are single arched, covered with one layer of polyethylene plastic (87%). Most of the greenhouses are of metal construction (53%), with the remaining 47% of wood construction. Vegetable producers using their own materials (88%) build most plastic greenhouses and the remaining 12% are built of frames supplied by outside companies. About 43% of plastic greenhouses were constructed or reconstructed within the past 5 years. Glass and plastic greenhouses are used mainly from March until October. In 47% of the cases, green houses are heated with wood, while 43% do not have any heating systems. In addition, the majority of heated greenhouses heat only the air (95%). Ground heating is provided as well in the remaining five percent of the greenhouses. Most of the planting materials used by respondents are of foreign origin (54%). About 41% of greenhouse growers use local varieties, and the remaining 5% grow vegetables using both foreign and local varieties. Seedlings used for future planting are in the majority of cases grown by the farmers themselves (83%). Those who grow seedlings themselves in 58% of the cases stated that they grow seedlings in pots. Nutritive mixtures are used as substrata for vegetable production in 51% of cases, the other 47% use soil that is available under the greenhouse conditions, while 2% use artificial substrates. Over the calendar year, the majority of farmers grow one crop (52%) while 36% grow two crops per year and remaining 12% grow three crops per year. Thirty-two percent of the respondents have completed vocational training and 68% of farmers have no formal training in the field. However, 77% of the respondents read specialized literature and of those who do not have access to these materials 94% are interested in having access to them. Regarding the sufficiency of specialized literature half of the respondents consider that there is not enough edited technical literature, while at same time 40% stated that there is enough technical literature. The majority of greenhouse growers build protected cultivations and operational costs from their own financial resources (90%). The rest finance their activity using grants subsidies or bank loans. The in depth analysis shows that only a minority of farmers indicated that they are sufficiently informed about different financing sources, including: governmental subsidies (41%) and bank loans (23%). As regards International donor financing programs including RISP, IFAD and CFR, they are very poorly understood by respondents, respectively 13%, 8% and 5%. Most (60%) of those that obtained grants mentioned that the value of the grant covers from 51% to 75% of the investment amount for construction of greenhouses. Another 32% obtained grants covering less than 20% of the financial need. Moreover, 35% of the interviewees are open to obtain bank loans to finance their activity. Those who do not want to get a bank loan, give as reasons for this preference, that interest rates are too high (62% cases) and they consider that there is a high risk of not being able to pay it back (17% cases). About 34% of interviewed people are interested in purchasing a new greenhouse via leasing. Product marketing in 95% of the cases is done without a formal contract or informal agreement. Most greenhouse producers (72% of cases) sell some of their greenhouse vegetables on the retail market. The main problems reported by interviewees are low prices (67%) and high levels of competition especially with regard to imported products (49%). Over 60% of the respondents indicated that they are interested in expanding their greenhouse area and a majority of these respondents (77%) would prefer to use polyethylene plastic cover, which is currently the most common covering material. The majority of respondents are willing to continue growing tomatoes (86%), cucumbers (70%) and half of the respondents would consider growing sweet pepper. However, only 35% of the respondents are willing to grow seedlings for own use and for sale to other growers.
METHODOLOGY To obtain the most accurate and full information on the state of the greenhouse sector in Moldova the survey was completed in two phases. The first phase represented a census inventory of the greenhouse sector. ADP staff developed a questionnaire (annex 1), which was completed by the cadastral officer of each mayoralty. From the total number of 897 Mayoralties in Moldova 98% provided the basic statistical information regarding the approximately eight thousand resident greenhouse vegetable producers. The information collected provided a geographical distribution of producers, total surface of the protected area by type of greenhouse, cultivated corps and their yield, basic problems facing producers, and plans for development. The Phase II in-depth questionnaire (annex 2) consisted of closed ended questions prepared in two languages Romanian and Russian, and addressed the following topics: Identifying the types of glass construction, Determining construction materials used, their source, availability and accessibility, and availability of heating; Determining greenhouse production technologies; Determining the major sources of information and of the level of information to support greenhouse crop cultivation; Identifying financial sources used for greenhouse crops cultivation; Identifying the marketing modalities for greenhouse products; Determining the trends for the greenhouse expansion; The Phase I study provided the population list of villages and the concentration of greenhouse surface area in each village that served as the basis for the Phase II stratified random sample to select villages and interviewees for the in depth qualitative producer survey. The specialized survey agency Magenta Consulting Ltd was engaged to select a random sample of 350 respondents from the village population list stratified by three levels of greenhouse surface area: less than 300 m2, 300-1000 m2 and more than 1,000 m2 to provide a sampling error of 5% with a probability of 95% at the national level. This survey was conducted in all rayons of the Republic of Moldova regions to obtain a significant territorial representation. No more than two interviews were completed in any one village to retain a representative sampling distribution. The primary data interpretation was made using SPSS statistical software with descriptive statistic and multilateral interpretation.
Page 3 of 76
Phase I: Greenhouse Sector Inventory- Quantitative Results

CHAPTERI:GROWERSANDAREAUNDERPROTECTEDCULTIVATIONOFVEGETABLES
Moldova is located on the 5th Light Zone, which ensures favorable climatic conditions for growing vegetables in protected area in all regions of the country. Moldovas climate is moderately continental, with some modification from its proximity to the Black Sea. The summers are warm and long, with temperatures between 20C and 25C, but can sometimes reach 35-40C during heat waves in July and August. The winters are moderately cold and dry, with daytime January temperatures between 4C and -7C, with occasional spells with temperatures -20 to -23C. Intensive sunshine and many sunny days in winter and spring are good preconditions for vegetable growing in covered areas. Results of the inventory show that the population of Moldova uses the climate condition advantages and protected cultivation of vegetables is done in all 35 territorial-administrative units. Most of the vegetables produced in greenhouses and other forms of protected field cover are sold on local (community) and regional markets, thus, it was important to determine the size of the local population that is provided with locally produced vegetables and the degree of community self-sufficiency. Survey results indicated that producers of vegetables in protected area (Annex III table 1) are located in just over half of the communities (51.34%). The survey identified 8,141 growers using some form of protected cover technology including, glass and plastic greenhouses, low tunnels and Spotbond (agril) which is material used to cover open field crops in early spring to protect them against frost (Annex III table 1). Criuleni has the largest number of growers using protected cover technology with 4,295, representing more than half the total number of in the country. The other three rayons with a large number of growers using protected cover technologies are Dubasari (612 growers), Cahul (466 growers), and Anenii Noi (214 growers). These rayons have a historical tradition of growing early vegetables and supply retail markets in main Moldovan cities located close to the production area. In each of these rayons there are well-known villages specializing in production of greenhouse vegetables including Dubasarii Vechi, Corjovo, Slobozia Dusca in Criuleni rayon, Pirita village in Dubasari rayon, Pugaceni, Serpeni village in Anenii Noi, etc. In some of these villages there are more than 600 growers using plastic cover technology. Figure 1 provides a visual display of covered production density by rayon. The number of growers using greenhouse technology differs from the total number using protected cover technology as some growers use only low tunnels or Spotbond (agril) which are open field technologies and others use a combination of these technologies. The survey identified 7,896 growers with plastic greenhouses, 919 using low tunnels and 4,417 growers using Spotbond (agril). As most of the greenhouse grown vegetables are sold in local markets it was important to identify the distribution of covered area production by administrative territory units (rayon) population base. The national average per capita covered production area is 1.59 m2. However, this indicator is very high in some rayons for example, Criuleni: 23.83 m2 per capita, Anenii Noi: 8.87 m2 per capita, Dubasari: 5.72 m2 per capita. The lowest distribution was registered in Gagauzia: 0.20 m2 per capita, Causeni:
Page 4 of 76
0.24, Basarabeasca: 0.28 m2, Leova: 0.28 m2 per capita which 5 8 times lower than the average country indicator. The distribution for all rayons is shown in Annex III table 3.
Fig. 1 Number of greenhouse growers per rayon, Moldova, 2008

CHAPTER II: DISTRIBUTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROTECTED CULTIVATION AREA BY ZONEANDADMINISTRATIVETERRITORIALUNITS(RAYON).

The data show that largest number of villages in which there are covered area vegetable producers are located in the North (187) and Center (177), while in the South (97) there are less than half the number of mayoralties with production of greenhouse vegetables or vegetable production under other types of covered area (table 2.1). In spite of the fact that the number of villages in which there are vegetable producers in covered area is nearly the same in the North and Center, 75.4% of all covered area growers are located in the center, compared with 14.8% in the North and 9.8% in the South. Table 2.1 Protected cultivation of vegetable in different geographic zones Mayoralties with producers of covered area vegetables % of Number total per country 187 177 97 461 40.56 38.40 21.04 100.00 Growers of covered area vegetables % of total per country 14.80 75.40 9.80 100.00 Area of protected vegetable cultivation % of total per country 18.07 70.50 11.43 100.00
Geographic zone
Number 1205 6,138 798 8,141
ha 98.33 383.70 62.23 544.26
North Center South TOTAL
The Ministry of Local Public Administration (http://www.mapl.gov.md) estimates the Moldovan population at 3,419,430 inhabitants1 (table 2.2). Nearly 50% of the population lives in the Central zone of Moldova (1,616,370 inhabitants) and this zone contains about 70% of the total area under covered greenhouse production. Viewed on a per capita distribution this zone contains 2.37 m2 of covered greenhouse production per person, compared to 0.88 m2 and 0.92 m2 in the North and in the South respectively. In some rayons in the Center zone this indicator is very high: 23.8 m2 in Criuleni and, 8.9 m2 in Anenii Noi (fig. 2). These producers provide fresh vegetables to the nearby large population centers and have access to good sources of irrigation water and other input supplies and access to a sufficient supply of well-trained labor and professional managers. The existence of a relatively large number of vocational schools, colleges, institutions of higher education and research centers can more easily provide training and other assistance to greenhouse vegetable growers than is the case in other geographic zones. However, the Southern zone provides better lighting and temperature conditions to grow early vegetables in covered constructions.
The figure excludes the population of Transnistria and Moldovan citizens working out of the country.
Page 6 of 76
Table 2.2 Per capita provision with area for protected cultivation of vegetables
Geographic zone North Center South TOTAL
Population ('000 persons)
Protected cover area (m )
Protected cover area per capita 2 (m )
1,126.66 1,616.37 679.4 3,419.43
983,269 3,837,069 622,347 5,442,684
0.88 2.37 0.92 1.59
At the other extreme, the per capita area distributions in the North and South are considerably lower, reaching a maximum of 4.4 m2 per capita in Soldanesti in the North and a maximum of 2.9 m2 per capita in Cahul in the South. However, as in the Central zone these maximum distributions correspond to major population centers in each of these regions.
Central zone
North zone
South zone
Fig. 2 Per capita distribution of area for protected cultivation of vegetables in different Moldovan geographic zones, m2/per capita
Page 7 of 76
As seen in table 2.3 over 97% of the glass greenhouses are located in the center geographic zone primarily in Anenii Noi rayon and in Chisinau. They are mostly very old constructions (35-45 years old), were formerly used for winter vegetable production but are no longer suitable for this purpose. The remaining 3% are located in the Northern and Southern zones. They are small-scale units, are not industrial frame constructions and are only used for vegetable production starting in the FebruaryMarch period. Figure 3 shows a typical glass greenhouse of Soviet era construction located in Anenii Noi. Table 2.3 Distribution of different types of construction for protected cultivation of vegetables, by geographic zone, 2008
Total protected covered area
Zone
Glass greenhouse area
Plastic greenhouse area
Low tunnels area
Area covered with Spotbond (agril)
Ha
Ha
ha
Ha
North Center South Total
98.33 383.71 62.23 544.27
0.26 39.19 0.93 40.37
1 97 2 100
67.26 300.16 44.91 412.33
16 73 11 100
2.60 4.79 2.25 9.64
27 50 23 100
28.21 39.57 14.16 81.93
34 48 17 100
Fig. 3 Glass greenhouse Speia village, Anenii Noi
Page 8 of 76
Table 2.3 also shows that 73% of all plastic greenhouses, and 50% of low tunnels are also located in the Central zone with 27% and 23% located in the North and South zones, respectively. Low tunnels (fig.4) are very simple and cheap construction used by growers for temporary protection of vegetables for spring frosts. This type of protected cultivation area is not very common in Moldova (9.64 ha) and is used mainly by small-scale vegetable producers.
Fig. 4 Vegetable production in low tunnels. Vindex-agro Ltd, Malaesti village, Orhei
In the past 4-5 years, very rapid growth has been experienced in the use of a new covering material called Spotbond or agril, which is applied over early-planted seedlings planted without any supporting frame to protect them against late spring frosts (fig 5). While growers in the Center zone use 48% of the agril material, growers in the North use twice as much agril covering than in the South (34% compared to 17%). The greater use in the Center and North is most likely because late frosts are more common in these areas so open field growers are more likely to need protective cover to reduce losses due to low temperatures. In 2008 about 82 hectares of land was covered with agril, compared with 28 hectares in the North, 40 hectares in the Center and 14 hectares in the South. It is expected that this type of protected production area will continue to increase significantly in the future.
Page 9 of 76
Fig. 5 Early cabbage under Agril cover, Sant Agro Ltd, Cunicia village, Floresti rayon
The Inventory also identified about 17 hectares of other type of construction for protected cover vegetable production area. This includes greenhouses covered with other materials including grass and film (polycarbonate, plastic panels, 2-3 combined cover materials on one and the same construction) and other small scale constructions such as hotbeds covered with polycarbonate. They are not typical constructions, some of them will disappear in the near future, and thus all are included in this report as other constructions. More detailed information on types of construction used by vegetable producers is described in Phase II of this report.
Page 10 of 76
CHAPTER III: DISTRIBUTION OF PROTECTED COVER CULTIVATION AREA BY TYPE OF BUSINESSORGANIZATION.

All indoor growers of vegetables belong to two groups by legal statute: legal entities and physical persons. Four main types of business organizations are identified: Agriculture/Production Cooperatives (Coop), Private Company limited by shares (Ltd), Family Farms (FF) and Individual Enterprises (IE). Individual growers that have no legal registration are considered as Physical persons (PhP). Other business organizations such as Research Stations, Institutes, Universities, Joint Stock Companies, etc. were included in one separate group under the general name Other. All legal business entities engaged in covered vegetable production are organized based on the Law of Entrepreneurship and Enterprises, adopted on 3 January 1992. One of the most widely used forms of legal commercial business activity is the Limited Liability Company (Ltd). It can be organized by one or more individuals, and its equity is divided between the owners (if applicable) based on the amount of invested capital. The financial responsibility of the owner or owners is limited to the value of the capital invested in the Ltd. The Individual Enterprise (IE) is a legal commercial business entity organized by one or more individuals. This form of business activity is organized under the Law of Entrepreneurship and Enterprises, adopted on 3 January 1992. Unlike a Limited Liability Company, the company owner is financially responsible with all his/her property for the activity of the owned company. Family Farm (FF) is a form of Individual enterprise specific only for agribusiness. [Art.14/1] and owners of FF are financially responsible with all his/her property. The Cooperative (Coop) is a commercial organization (enterprise) acting under the status of a legal entity, whose members are legal and/or physical entities that conduct entrepreneurial activity. 1. The main goal of the cooperative is to contribute to obtain profit by its members. 2. The cooperative operates based on the present law, its charter and regulations. 3. The cooperative may be created on primary principles (without legal predecessors) as well as by reorganization of other enterprises or unions (with legal predecessors). 4. The cooperative shall be created by at least five legal and/or physical entities. 5. If the number of cooperative members diminishes under the limit provided in item (4), the cooperative shall be obligated, within 3 months from the date of this diminishing, to: (a) enlarge the number of members up to the limit provided in item (5); or (b) reorganize into a different legal form of organization or into a union of enterprises; or (c) liquidate based on the decision of the general meeting. The survey identified that Physical persons (PhP) that grow vegetables for their own family consumption and for sale to the local market (fig. 6) represent 54% of all area for covered production of vegetables. Over 275 ha or 66.8% of the covered production area accounted for by plastic greenhouses are operated by physical persons. They grow vegetables in protected constructions that are located on home garden plots or on land plots received near the family home during the land privatization process. Usually, this group of growers does not hire outside labor and family members do all vegetable growing operations.
Page 11 of 76
3% 1%
19%
54% 2%
COOP Ltd FF IE PhP OTHER
21%
Fig. 6 Structure of indoor vegetable production area by type of business organizations

FF and Ltds farm about 40% of the area dedicated to indoor cultivation of vegetables. These commercially oriented legal entities produce vegetables to supply both local and export markets. Nearly 80% of glass greenhouses are organized as Ltds and about 15% by IE. Cooperatives take about 1% of the total area designated for protected cultivation of vegetables.
0.18% 0.27%
0.99%
12.58% 0.25%
85.71% COOP 0.18% Ltd 0.99% FF 12.58% IE 0.25% PhP 85.71% Other 0.27%
Fig. 7 Structure of indoor growers by type of business organization

The PhP group represents almost 86% of growers when sorted by type of business organization and another 12.6% are FF growers. The remaining types of business organizations are represented by less then 1% of growers per each (fig 7). The Center zone of Moldova is characterized by the highest concentration of different types of business organizations involved in indoor vegetable production (fig. 8) and this zone has the largest number of indoor producers. It is also the closest to large urban markets, has a higher level of commercial development and owners have an advanced knowledge of different types of business organization and management practices.
Page 12 of 76
ha, vegetable indoor production
250.00 200.00 150.00 100.00 50.00 0.00 COOP Ltd FF IE PhP Other Type of business organization North Center South
Fig. 8 Geographical distribution of different types of business organizations producing indoor vegetables
500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 C OOP L td FF IE PhP Other 2% 2% 1% 28% 23% 44%
Fig. 9 Distribution of area for protected cultivation of vegetables by type of business organization, North zone of Moldova
Page 13 of 76
2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 COOP L td FF IE 20% 19%
54%
1%
3% PhP
4%
Other
Fig. 10 Distribution of area for indoor cultivation of vegetables by type of business organization, Center zone of Moldova
Cooperatives and Individual enterprises are less popular, among indoor vegetable producers in all zones, compared with other types of business organizations (fig. 9, 10, 11) with only 1-3% of area of protected cultivation of vegetables in each zone of the country managed by Coop or IE organizations. PhP farm the largest indoor area of vegetable production in all parts of Moldova: North -44%, Center 54%, South-71%. The second largest group of producers is FF and Ltd. These legal entities are present in all zones: FF in the North 28%, Center 19%, South 21%, Ltd in the North -23%, Center 20%, South -5%. Since PhP operations, are not legally registered organizations and do not provide reports to regional Statistical Departments, they are generally excluded from data reported by official statistical sources. However, as identified in this survey they account for more than two-thirds of the total plastic greenhouse production area in Moldova, and therefore need to be taken into account when making national development plans and when implementing the Food Safety System on indoor production of vegetables and supply local consumers.
500,000 71%
400,000
300,000
200,000
21% 5%
100,000
0%
0%
3%
0 C OOP L td FF IE PhP Other
Fig. 11 Distribution of area for protected cultivation of vegetables by type of business organization, South zone of Moldova
Page 14 of 76
The largest area (in hectares) of glass greenhouse (79.8%) is used by Ltd type of legal entities, while the majority of plastic greenhouse area (66.8%) is farmed by PhP (table 3.1). FF more often uses low tunnels and land covered with agril, 45.8% and 41.9% respectively. Table 3.1 Distribution of different types of construction area for indoor cultivation of vegetables by type of business organization, ha Type of construction Glass greenhouse Plastic greenhouse Low tunnels Area covered with Agril TOTAL Type of business organizations Ltd FF IE PhP 32.22 1.02 6.00 0.99 2.5% 14.9% 2.4% 79.8% 45.9 73.5 2.7 275.5 11.1% 17.8% 0.6% 66.8% 1.1 4.4 0.4 2.5 11.6% 3.9% 25.9% 45.8% 26.3 34.4 2.3 14.9 32.1% 2.7% 18.2% 41.9% 105.6 113.3 11.3 293.8 19.4% 20.8% 2.1% 54.0% TOTAL 40.38 100% 412.3 100% 9.6 100.0% 81.9 100% 544.3 100%
COOP 0.10 0.2% 6.4 1.6% 1.2 12.5% 2.0 2.4% 9.7 1.8%
Other 0.05 0.1% 8.3 2.0% 0.0 0.3% 2.1 2.6% 10.5 1.9%
Page 15 of 76
Chapter IV: Growers and production area distribution by type of construction for covered cultivation of vegetables and farm size
For strategic development and efficient interventions to revitalize the Moldovan greenhouse sector, it is important to identify the current target group of greenhouse growers and to analyze their distribution by production area size. The table below shows the number of growers producing under different types of construction and their distribution by size of production area (table 4.1). Table 4.1 Grower distribution by type of covered area and production area size, 2008
Type of protected covered area Glass greenhouses Plastic greenhouses Low tunnels Area covered with Agril Total Total growers 40 100% 7,896 100% 910 100% 4,417 100% 13,266 100% Number of growers distribution by size of production area < 500 m2 19 47.5% 6,832 86.5% 867 95.3% 52 1.2% 7,172 54.1% 500-999 m2 11 27.5% 505 6.4% 17 1.9% 44 1.0% 577 4.4% 1000-4999 m2 3 7.5% 495 6.3% 23 2.5% 3,687 83.5% 4,810 36.3% 5000-9999 m2 1 2.5% 33 0.4% 2 0.2% 18 0.4% 54 0.4% >1 ha 6 15.0% 31 0.4% 1 0.1% 616 14.0% 654 4.9%
The inventory results show that there are only 40 glass greenhouses growers in Moldova. Of this total 26 are located in the center zone including nine in Ialoveni rayon, five in Anenii Noi, and four in Chisinau. Eight glass greenhouses are located in the Southern zone: seven in Stefan Voda, and one in Causeni (Annex III, table 4). Most of these glass greenhouse growers (30 farms) are very small (<500 m2.) or small (500-999 m2). Only six glass greenhouses are larger than one hectare and are located in Anenii Noi and Chisinau. They represent the major glass greenhouse complexes built during the Soviet period. One of them, Serele Moldovei JSC, is located in Speia village in Anenii Noi rayon, and has a surface of 24 ha in Speia village and six ha in Pugaceni village. All this area is rented to four producers. Another complex has a surface of seven hectares and is situated in Chisinau. Therefore, these five producers influence the common statistics figures in the way that the average size of glass greenhouses in Moldova becomes equal to approximately one hectare, while in fact, not considering these two old complexes, the average size of the remaining glass greenhouses is less than 1000 m2. The largest group of vegetable producers with covered constructions (7,896 growers) uses plastic covered greenhouses for growing early vegetables (table 4.1). This group represents about 60% of total growers involved in protected cultivation of vegetables. The largest number of plastic greenhouse vegetable producers is located in Criuleni rayon (4,288 growers). This rayon represents 54% of the total number of Moldovan plastic greenhouse producers (Annex III, table 5). Over 86% of them are very small (<500sq.m.) producers that have built greenhouses on home garden land or on
Page 16 of 76
land plots received during the privatization process (Annex III, table 5). Only a very limited number (31 growers) of plastic greenhouse growers have covered areas that are larger than one hectare in size. Fewer than 1,000 growers use low tunnels for production of early vegetables (table 4.1). Low tunnels are simple and inexpensive constructions, which make them affordable for small growers. This type of construction is used for temporary crop protection against late spring frosts. It is important to mention that the largest number of growers (867 growers or 95, 3%) that use low tunnels operate small land areas of <500 m2.). No large-scale producers use low tunnels, as this is a labor-intensive production system suitable primarily for use on farms that operate only with family labor. Installation and removing of low tunnels is done manually and on sunny days the temperature inside the tunnels rise very rapidly and the plastic must be opened to prevent crop damage. In the evening they must again be closed. In some rayons including Basarabeasca, Cimislia, Leova and the municipalities of Balti, and Chisinau there is no recorded use of low tunnels. Spotbond (agril) cover became a very popular type of protected cultivation area for Moldovan growers over the past five years. In 2008, the survey identified 4,417 vegetable growers that applied Spotbond over the crop to protect plants for 2-4 weeks against late spring frosts (table 4.1). The highest concentration (4,201 farms or over 95%) of growers that use agril are located in Criuleni and Dubasari rayons (Annex III table 7). Similar to growers that use low tunnels most (96,3%) operate on small areas with less 500 m2. However, in comparison with low tunnels here there is a larger number of growers using agril on areas greater than one hectare. Table 4.2 Protected cultivation area distribution by type of covered area and size of farm, 2008
Area (ha) managed by growers with different farm size:
Type of protected covered area Glass greenhouses Plastic greenhouses Low tunnels Area covered with Agril Total
Production area, (ha) 40.38 100% 412.3 100% 9.6 100% 81.9 100% 544.27 100%
< 500 m2 0.31 0.8% 213.46 51.8% 2.07 21.4% 1.28 1.6% 217.12 39.9%
500-999 m2 0.71 1.7% 32.29 7.8% 1.08 11.2% 2.59 3.2% 36.66 6.7%
1000-4999 m2 0.75 1.9% 79.04 19.2% 4.49 46.6% 15.89 19.4% 100.16 18.4%
5000-9999 m2 0.50 1.2% 20.31 4.9% 1.00 10.4% 9.40 11.5% 31.21 5.7%
>1 ha 38 94.4% 67.22 16.3% 1.00 10.4% 52.78 64.4% 159.12 29.2%
Producers that manage production areas that are greater than one hectare (table 4.2) represent over 94% of glass greenhouse area and nearly 75% of these constructions are located in Anenii Noi (30 hectares). As noted above these large constructions were built during the Soviet Union era.
Page 17 of 76
The majority (51%) of plastic greenhouse area is operated by very small growers that have less than 500 m2 production area. Growers that have a total production area greater than one hectare use only 16.3% of plastic greenhouse area. Low tunnels are most common for mid size growing areas, with 46.6 % used by growers with production area from 1000 to 4999 m2.
Page 18 of 76
Phase II: Inventory of the greenhouse sector - qualitative study of construction, input use, financial requirements and projections
CHAPTERV:GREENHOUSECONSTRUCTIONTYPE
This section describes issues related to the qualitative aspects of the Moldovan greenhouse sector as identified by owners and managers included in the Phase II interviews. As the bulk of the indoor vegetable production area is represented by glass and plastic greenhouse construction information relating to low tunnels or area covered with agril is excluded. Information in this section is most useful for the specialists in production and marketing of fresh market vegetables and for potential investors. 5.1. Basic crops grown in greenhouses Tomato was the most common crop grown by greenhouse growers in 2008 (64% of the growers) followed by cucumber (17%), sweet pepper (7%), early cabbage (4%) and radish (1%) (fig. 12). The final seven percent of growers grew crops including lettuce, parsley, dill, egg plants, etc. It is useful to mention that in 1980s cucumber was the main greenhouse crop (65-70%). That was the parthenocarpic long type of cucumber sold mainly to export markets in other Soviet Union countries. After Moldovan independence, the
1% 4% 7%
7%
Tomato Cucumbers Sweetpepper Cabbage Radish Other
market for this type of cucumber was lost and local markets required more of the short type cornichons or gherkins. Profitability of these varieties is lower than for the parthenocarpic cucumber leading to the increase in tomato as the major product supplied to the local
17% 64%
market.
Fig. 12 Basic crops grown in greenhouses, N=350

As it can be seen from table 5.1, the central geographical zone has the largest share of tomato grown in greenhouses (72% of the respondents) compared to 57% in the South and 54% in the North. Table 5.1 Basic crops grown in greenhouses, by zone
Geographi cal Zone North Center South Total Count 123 144 83 % 100 100 100 Cabbage Cou nt 0 4 11 % 0 3 13 Tomato Coun t 70 104 45 % 57 72 54 Radish Count 0 3 0 % 0 2 0 Cucumbers Count 29 14 18 % 24 10 22 Sweet pepper Count 7 11 8 % 6 8 10 Other Coun t 17 8 1 % 14 6 1
Page 19 of 76
5.2. Greenhouse construction types Moldovan growers use different frame types, shapes and sizes. Construction materials selected by farmers take into consideration the crop to be grown, production season, heating possibilities and financial resources. Moldova growers use a large number of different types of greenhouse constructions and for easy classification they are grouped by shape of the frame: arch and gable shape. Each of these frames can be erected as single construction or can be gutter connected (block type).
Fig. 13 Single arched greenhouse. Interconsult-MD Ltd, Criuleni

Analysis of the type of greenhouses construction reveals that 58% of greenhouses are single arch shaped frame (fig.13). Another 28% are single greenhouse with gable roof, and 13% are arched gutter connected (block type) constructions (fig.14). Only 1% of greenhouses are block type with a gable roof (fig.15).
1% 28%
Archedsingle Archedblocktype Singledoubleslant Doubleslantblock type
58% 13%
Fig. 14 Distribution of greenhouse by type of construction, N=350
Page 20 of 76
Fig. 15 Plastic covered arched block type of greenhouse, Asconi Ltd. Geamana village, Anenii Noi
As shown in table 5.2 the preferred type of greenhouse construction differs from one geographical zone to another. The great majority of greenhouses in North (56%) are of the single construction with gable roof, which is much more than the average in the country (28%). The share of the single arched greenhouses in North is a little lower than the average in the country (42% compared to 67% in the center and 65% in the South). Single greenhouse construction with gable roof are less used by large growers (18% vs. 28% on average) and more often by small and medium ones. Table 5.2 Greenhouses type, multi-factor analysis
Single with gable roof Count Geographical Zone Center North South Small Medium Large Metal Wood 18 69 10 56 32 9 27 70 N% 13 56 12 31 27 18 14 43 Block type gable roof Count 3 2 3 2 2 3 N% 2 2 3 4 1 2 Single arched Count 96 52 54 97 72 33 150 52 N% 67 42 65 53 61 66 80 32 Block type arched Count N % 27 2 17 29 11 6 8 38 19 2 20 16 9 12 4 23 Total Coun t 144 123 83 182 118 50 187 163 N% 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Size Green House Structure
Page 21 of 76
Nearly 70% of single constructions with gable roof are made of wood, and the remaining 30% have metal frames. Arched single greenhouse constructions are more often made of metal frame (75%), which is the opposite of the greenhouses with gable roof. 5.3. Greenhouse covering material In the majority of cases, greenhouses are covered with one layer of polyethylene membrane (87%), and another 12% of greenhouses are covered with double-layered polyethylene film. However, only 1% of these constructions are covered with glass (fig.16).
12%
1%
Onelayerpolyethylene membrane Doublelayeredpolyethylene membrane Glass Polycarbonate
87%
Fig. 16 Structure of greenhouse covering material used by Moldovan growers, N=350

A multi-factor analysis of the data shows that in the South zone 91% of greenhouses are covered with single layer film, compared with 86% in the Center and in the North (table 5.3). Table 5.3 Covering material, multi-factor analysis
One layer polyethylene film Count Geographical Zone Center North South Small Size Medium Large Cabbage Tomato Basic Crop Radish Cucumbers Sweet pepper Other 124 106 75 165 97 43 13 193 3 52 24 20 % 86 86 90 91 82 86 87 88 100 85 92 77 Double layered polyethylene film Count 17 16 8 14 21 6 2 24 8 2 5 % 12 13 10 8 18 12 13 11 13 8 19 Glass Coun t 2 1 2 1 2 1 % 1 1 1 2 1 2 Polycarbonat Total e Coun Coun % % t t 1 1 144 100 1 1 1 4 123 83 182 118 50 15 219 3 61 26 26 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Most vegetables are grown in plastic greenhouses covered with single layer film (77-100%). About 88% of tomato is grown in plastic greenhouses with one layer of film, 24% in plastic greenhouses with double foil and about 1 % in glass greenhouses.
Page 22 of 76
Tomato producers tend to use double-layered polyethylene film more often than producers of other vegetables (24% vs. 2-5%). The extra insulating protection provided by the double layer enables growers to start the season about 15-20 days earlier than with single layer film. Building materials such as: metal, wood, plastic posts, concrete are used for greenhouse construction. The most common greenhouse construction frame is made of metal pipe/profile and wood bars. The data indicates that in 53% of the cases the greenhouse frame is made of metal, and in 47% of wood (fig.17).
53% 47%
0%
20% Metal
40% Wood
60%
80%
100%
Fig. 17 Greenhouses frames construction material, N=350

Large producers tend to use metal frame more often (60%) than wood (table 5.4). This is because large greenhouses are designed for long-term commercial production and entail a larger initial investment cost that is depreciated over a longer time period and managed in a more professional manner than the smaller ones that represent a lower investment and less intensive production. Table 5.4 Size of the farm and material used for greenhouse construction* Total Size Small Medium Large Count 182 118 50 % 100 100 100 Count 93 64 30 Metal % 51 54 60 Count 89 54 20 Wood % 49 46 40
Less than one present of all metal greenhouse frames are galvanized, the rest of the metal constructions are covered with paint or are unpainted, which reduces significantly the expected life of the plastic covering. 5.4. Greenhouse age profile More than 90% of the greenhouses were built since Moldova gained independence. Forty-three percent were built from 1 to 5 years ago, and an additional 27% were built 5 to 10 years ago. Eighteen percent were built 10 to 20 years ago and other 7% are more than 20 years old (fig.18) and were built during the Soviet era. Finally, 5% of the greenhouses were less than one year old. Unfortunately, the collected data does not permit developing a trend of the total greenhouse area construction size during the last years, because of the absence of the reliable information on the reference point and also a lack of information about the area of greenhouses that were demolished.
Page 23 of 76
7% 18%
5%
Lessthan1year 15years 510years 1020years Morethan 20years 43%
27%
Fig. 18 Greenhouses age, N=350

No new greenhouses were constructed during the past year in the Southern zone. In the Center, the number of new constructed greenhouses in the last year is twice high as in the North (table.5.5). In addition, there were no recently built gable block type greenhouses and greenhouses covered with polycarbonate. Currently most growers prefer to build arched roof greenhouses covered with one layer of plastic film. New greenhouses built by small growers between 2003 and 2007 were twice as numerous as medium sized growers, but the number of new greenhouses completed by small and medium size growers during the past year are the same. Table 5.5 Greenhouse age, multi-factor analysis
Less than 1 year Count % Geographical Zone Center North South Small Size Medium Large Arched single Green House Type Arched block type Single double slant Double slant block type One layer polyethylene membrane Double layered polyethylene membrane Glass Polycarbonate 12 5 8 8 1 11 4 2 12 4 1 8 4 4 7 2 5 9 2 4 10 33 1-5 years Count 65 54 33 89 42 21 94 23 35 139 13 % 45 44 40 49 36 42 47 50 36 46 32 5-10 years Count 31 31 32 50 33 11 45 11 35 3 82 11 1 % 22 25 39 27 28 22 22 24 36 60 27 27 100 10-20 years Count 22 25 16 26 27 10 36 5 20 2 53 9 1 % 15 20 19 14 23 20 18 11 21 40 17 22 33 More than 20 years Count % 14 8 2 9 8 7 16 3 5 19 4 1 10 7 2 5 7 14 8 7 5 6 10 33 -
Covering material
5.5. Origin of greenhouse construction material in Moldova Most greenhouses were built mainly using own materials (88%), and another 10% were bought readymade (fig. 19). Current owners received only 2% of the greenhouses as part of the privatization process.
Page 24 of 76
10%
2%
Assembledfromownmaterials Boughtreadymade Recieveditasprivatizationshare
88%
Fig. 19 Origin of greenhouse construction materials, N=350

The above figures are consistent with data presented earlier showing that smaller scale growers who make up the large majority of growers tend to use their own construction materials. It may also indicate that the supply infrastructure of greenhouse frames is not sufficiently developed or offered by commercial companies greenhouse constructions or are too expensive. Multi-factor analysis of the data shows that growers from the North (table 5.6) are more likely to buy ready made greenhouses than the average in the country (14% vs. 10%). Table 5.6 Greenhouse construction material origin, multi-factor analysis
Bought ready made Count Geographical Zone Center North South Small Size Medium Large Arched single Greenhouse Type Arched block type Single double slant Double slant block type Less than 1 year Greenhouse age 1-5 years 5-10 years 10-20 years More than 20 years 20 9 6 8 14 13 30 1 2 2 3 12 9 8 3 % 14 7 7 4 12 26 15 2 2 40 18 8 10 13 13 Assembled from own materials Count % 119 111 77 171 103 33 169 42 93 3 13 138 85 53 18 83 90 93 94 87 66 84 91 96 60 76 91 90 84 75 Received it as privatization share Count % 5 3 3 1 4 3 3 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 8 1 7 2 6 1 3 13 Total Count 144 123 83 182 118 50 202 46 97 5 17 152 94 63 24 % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Gable block type greenhouses are more likely to be purchased than other types (40% vs. 2-15%). This can be explained by the fact that these are more complex constructions that are difficult to build with own producers materials. Growers with large areas under greenhouse cover, also tend to buy ready-made greenhouses more often (26% vs. 10% on average). In addition, the share of purchased greenhouses is higher among the recently constructed ones (18%) so we can suggest that it may be a trend in future to buy greenhouses rather than to build them.
Page 25 of 76
5.6. Type of fuel used for greenhouse heating Nearly half (43%) of the respondents indicated that their greenhouses are unheated (fig. 20). The rest of growers are heating the greenhouses mainly for temporary crop protection against late spring frosts. It is important to understand the type of fuel being used and the expectation for future types of fuel use. The data indicates that 82% of respondents heat with wood. In addition, heating fuel used includes natural gas (7%), straw (5%) and coal (5%) and diesel oil about 1% (fig. 21).
5% 1%
5% 7%
43% 57%
82%
Heated
Unheated
W ood NaturalG as S traw C oal Dies elO il
Fig. 20 Growers use of heat
Fig. 21 Type of fuel for heating greenhouses
As shown in table 5.7 producers from South tend to heat greenhouses less than average in the country (53% not heated vs. 47% in average). This can be explained by higher average temperature in the region and growers need less energy to produce early vegetables. Table 5.7 Multi-factor analysis of fuel used for greenhouse heating in Moldova
Wood Count Geographic North al Zone South Small Size Medium Large Cabbage Tomato Radish Basic Crop Cucumbers Sweet pepper Other One layer plastic film Double Covering layered film material Glass Polycarbona te Center 70 64 32 85 62 19 10 95 1 32 17 11 144 22 % 49 52 39 47 53 38 67 43 33 52 65 42 47 54 Natural Gas Count 7 3 4 6 2 6 10 1 3 11 3 % 5 2 5 3 2 12 5 4 12 4 7 Straw Count 6 1 2 5 3 1 5 1 3 7 2 % 4 1 2 3 3 2 2 33 5 2 5 Coal Count 8 1 1 2 7 1 5 4 1 5 5 6 1 1 1 6 2 2 7 4 2 12 Diesel Oil % Count 1 1 1 1 % 1 1 4 Not heated Count 53 53 44 83 44 23 5 104 1 22 8 10 137 9 3 1 % 37 43 53 46 37 46 33 47 33 36 31 38 45 22 100 100 Total Count 144 123 83 182 118 50 15 219 3 61 26 26 305 41 3 1 % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Large producers more often than average heat greenhouses with natural gas (12% vs. 4%). Greenhouses with double layered polyethylene film are heated more often (78%) compared with greenhouses covered with other type of material. It is also worth mentioning that 95% of growers that heat their greenhouses heat only the air while the remaining 5% heat both air and soil (fig 22). Subsoil
heating systems are very efficient methods of heating substrata where the plant roots are developing, but they are rather expensive, which explains the limited number of growers heating the soil in which they grow vegetables.
95% 5%
0%
20% Air
40% Air and Soil
60% Soil
80%
100%
Fig. 22 Greenhouse media that is heated, N=200

5.7. Period of use for greenhouse structures Only 6% of the greenhouse growers indicated that their greenhouses were used in January to initiate the winter-spring crop. Almost half of the respondents (47%) start using greenhouses in March, another 28% start their activity in April, 14% start in February and 4% in May (table 5.8). Table 5.8 Period when growers start greenhouse use for growing different vegetable crops, 2008 Crop Cabbage Tomato Radish Cucumbers Sweet pepper Other All Month when starting greenhouse use Feb Mar Apr 42% 37% 0% 8% 43% 39% 43% 52% 0% 5% 60% 29% 0% 59% 18% 31% 50% 6% 14% 47% 28%
Jan 21% 5% 4% 5% 0% 13% 6%
Mai 0% 4% 0% 2% 24% 0% 4%
Efficient greenhouse use during the season is the key to successful greenhouse production. Of the growers that plant cabbage, 21% indicate that planting starts in January with 42% planting in February and 37% in March. Most other vegetables are first planted in March, including 43% of tomato; 52% radish; 60% of cucumbers and 59% of sweet pepper. In addition, 43% of radish growers start planting in February. Most frequently respondents end greenhouse production activity in October (24%) and November (23%). Another 35% of interviewed farmers complete greenhouse cropping in July, August and September (fig. 23).
5% 9% 4% 23% 11% 5thmonth 6thmonth 7thmonth 8thmonth 9thmonth 10thmonth 11thmonth 13% 12thmonth
24%
11%
Fig. 23 The ending month of greenhouse use, N=350
Page 27 of 76
CHAPTERVI:INPUTSUPPLYLEVELANDQUALITYOFPRODUCTIONMATERIALS
This chapter identifies grower perceptions of the availability of suppliers of ready-made greenhouses, types of available greenhouses, quality and price factors, frame and covering materials, availability of seeds, fertilizers and pesticides and identifies major problems related to production inputs including water and greenhouse heating. Respondents were asked to evaluate supply levels on a 5-point scale, where 1 represents extremely poor and 5 represents excellent. Table 6.1 Availability and quality of inputs for greenhouse production Input Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 Readymade greenhouses frames Materials for the building greenhouse frames Covering materials Seeds Pesticides Fertilizers Number of suppliers 4.01 4.24 4.39 4.45 4.12 4.21 Assortment 4.03 4.18 4.39 4.47 4.15 4.19 Quality 4.03 4.10 4.23 4.06 4.13 4.20 Price 2.03 1.98 2.03 2.11 2.06 2.13
Table 6.1 provides scores for the perceived availability of suppliers and all production inputs, their assortment and quality. All scores are higher than 4.0, suggesting that growers have a high perception of the availability of input supplies and their quality. However, the consistent low ranking of the price variable indicates that the majority of respondents believe that prices are too high (averaging 2.05). Producers estimation of the availability of suppliers differs minimally from region to region and averages 4.2. An exception is the three Southern rayons (Gagauzia, Cahul, Taraclia), where respondents scored the availability of pesticides at 3.0.
Page 28 of 76
CHAPTERVII:MAJORGREENHOUSEPRODUCTIONCONSTRAINTS
Respondents were asked to identify the major problems on their farm among three choices: high cost for heating, water quality or lack of water resources. Multiple responses were permitted. Results of the survey show that the cost of heating is the major problem for most of the growers. This was confirmed by 85% of the respondents. Another 22% identified lack of water resources as the major operating constraint, with 6% identifying water quality as the major constraint in growing vegetables in greenhouses. The high cost of heating was a less acute problem for producers from the Center (78%) than the average for the North but especially for the South (table 7.1). Since wood is the most commonly used fuel in all the regions and there is a lower availability of wood in the South this may account for the difference in response. Moreover, in the South the straw yield is very low and is used mainly as forage for livestock, and is not available as fuel for heating of greenhouses. The lack of water resources is seen as larger problem than poor quality of water across all zones with a greater degree of difference in the Center and the South. Both of these areas have less natural rainfall than the North and as a result will have less access to surface and underground water supply for greenhouse use. Table 7.1 Major problems for greenhouse vegetable production, multi-factor analysis High costs for greenhouses heating Count % 83 78 100 87 68 91 126 81 89 91 36 84 13 93 145 81 2 67 53 96 20 80 18 90 127 87 11 100 3 50 7 88 1 100 Quality of water supply Count % 9 8 4 3 6 8 10 6 6 6 3 7 2 14 15 8 1 2 1 5 10 7 Lack of water resources Count % 33 31 11 10 22 29 37 24 19 19 10 23 4 29 43 24 1 33 7 13 10 40 1 5 33 23 -
N Center North South Small Medium Large Cabbage Tomato Radish Cucumbers Sweet pepper Other Wood Gas Straws Coal Diesel Oil 107 115 75 156 98 43 14 180 3 55 25 20 146 11 6 8 1
Geographical Zone Size of farm
Basic Crop
Fuel for heating greenhouse
All producers that heat greenhouses with gas indicated the high cost of heating as a major problem but only 50% of the producers that heat greenhouses with straw identified the high cost of heating, as a major constraint, which is far below the average. Therefore, we can consider this type of fuel for heating less expensive. No correlation between the producers size and the studied variables was observed.
Page 29 of 76
CHAPTERVIII:PRODUCTIONOFVEGETABLES
This chapter describes greenhouse sector production issues including seedling production and use, method of cultivation and number of crops grown per year. The information can be useful for the sector professionals and marketing specialists. 8.1. Preference of the greenhouse growers for local and foreign varieties Foreign varieties of vegetable are more popular for greenhouse growers than local varieties: more than half of the respondents (54%) buy foreign seeds (fig. 24). Only 5% of growers indicated that they use both foreign and local varieties.
5% Localsorts Foreignsorts Bought,localandforeignsorts 41%
54%
Fig. 24 Preference of greenhouse growers for local and foreign varieties

A correlation between geographical zone and preference of greenhouse growers for local or foreign varieties was not identified (table 8.1). However, small-scale producers tend to use more local varieties/ hybrids 54%, while the large producers tend to use more foreign ones 74%. In addition, local cabbage and cucumber varieties are less popular than foreign varieties (87% foreign cabbage varieties and 72% foreign cucumber varieties). All radish varieties are foreign along with 58% of tomato varieties, but foreign sweet pepper the foreign seedlings are used often than local varieties (38% foreign varieties). Table 8.1 Local and foreign variety use, multi-factor analysis Local varieties Count 73 54 34 99 46 16 2 106 19 17 17 % 51 44 41 54 39 32 13 48 31 65 65 Foreign varieties Count % 81 56 70 57 56 67 94 52 76 64 37 74 13 87 127 58 3 100 44 72 10 38 10 38
N Center North South Small Medium Large Cabbage Tomato Radish Cucumbers Sweet pepper Other 144 123 83 182 118 50 15 219 3 61 26 26
Geographical Zone
Size of farm
Basic Crop
Page 30 of 76
8.2. Use of seedlings for vegetable production in greenhouses Most farmers grow seedlings themselves (83%), the rest buy young plants from other growers or from specialized nurseries. Greenhouse growers use seedlings produced by different methods. The majority use seedlings grown in containers, but 17 % responded that they use bare root seedlings (fig. 25). Most seedlings (58%) used for greenhouse production of vegetables are grown in plastic pots, being strong and well developed plants at the nursery stage. In addition, 30% of farmers use tray seedlings.
70 60 50 % 40 30 20 10 0 Tray seedlings Claettes seedlings Pot seedlings Bareroot seedlings 9 30 17 58
Fig. 25 Type of seedlings used for planting vegetables in greenhouses.

8.3. Media for growing vegetables in greenhouses
In the majority of cases (51%) substrata for growing vegetables in greenhouses consist of nutritive mixtures of different organic and mineral ingredients, and another 47% use the natural soil on which the greenhouse was built (fig. 26). It is worth noting that only 2% of respondents use artificial substrate (fig. 27) such as perlite or rock wool.
Page 31 of 76
Fig. 26 Glass greenhouse tomato in soil culture, Pro Caspar Ltd, Speia village
2%
51%
47%
Soil
Soil mixture
Artificial substrate
Fig. 27 Substrates used for growing vegetables in greenhouses

8.4. Number of crops cultivated per year
More than half (52%) of greenhouse growers cultivate only one crop per year (fig. 28). Another 36% of respondents grow two crops per season and 12% stated that they grow three crops.
Page 32 of 76
12%
52% 36%
One crop
Two crops
Three crops
Fig. 28 Distribution of greenhouse growers by number of crops grown per year

The primary crop for first rotation or grown during an entire season is tomato, cultivated by 56% of respondents, another 15% grow cucumber (fig. 29). Tomatoes and cucumbers are planted 41% and 27% of the time respectively as a second crop. Growers that successively grow three crops per year most often plant cabbage, tomato or sweet pepper (22% each) as the third crop. Another variation is planting a first crop of seedlings for sale to other growers followed by vegetables for fresh market sales. Tomato is the main crop under these rotations as well.
Threecultures, N=37 Twocultures, N=164 Oneculture, N=348 0% 5
22
22
19
22
41
27
16
7 20% Cabbage Tomatto
56 40% Radish 60% Cucumbers
15 80% Sweetpepper
10 100% Other
Fig. 29 Share of different vegetables grown per each crop

Tomato t
Page 33 of 76
CHAPTERIX:GROWERSEDUCATIONANDSOURCESOFINFORMATION
This chapter describes the professional/technical skill levels of greenhouse vegetable producers, their level of specialized studies and the possibility to access professional technical information. This information can be useful for the providers of extension services, educational institution and mass media.
9.1. Level of professional/technical education
The level of professional/technical knowledge of greenhouse growers can influence overall business efficiency. The data indicates that the majority of greenhouse growers (68%) do not have any professional/technical education (fig. 30). At the same time, 18% have graduated from an agricultural college and 13% hold a university degree in agriculture or related agricultural science.
1%
13% 18%
68% No studies Collage education University education Other
Fig. 30 Distribution of greenhouse growers by level of professional/technical education

A higher proportion of greenhouse vegetable producers from the North do not have specialized technical education than in the Center or South (75% compared with 66% and 60% respectively) (table 9.1). Moreover, 12% of growers in the North have university education compared with 17% in the Center and only 7% in the South.
Table 9.1 Professional education of greenhouse growers, multi-factor analysis
No studies Count Geographical Zone Center North South Small Size Medium Large 82 88 44 129 68 17 % 66 75 60 73 64 52 College Count 21 16 21 30 21 7 % 17 14 29 17 20 21 Univ. education Count % 21 14 5 16 15 9 17 12 7 9 14 27 Other Count 3 1 2 % 4 1 2 Total Count 124 118 73 176 106 33 N% 100 100 100 100 100 100
Large-scale greenhouse growers more often have a higher education and hold a university diploma (27%), than do small and medium growers (9% and 14% respectively). This suggests that larger scale growers are more commercially and market oriented and regularly tends to hire specialists with higher education and professional knowledge.
Page 34 of 76
9.2. Growers attendance at specialized training courses
Fifty-three percent of the respondents indicated that they attended specialized courses on growing vegetables in protected areas, the other 47% did not attend any kind of training (fig. 31). It is worth mentioning that of all 350 respondents only one person showed no interest in attending such courses.
53% 47%
0%
20%
Yes
40%
No
60%
80% I don't need
100%
Fig. 31 Participation of greenhouse growers on professional training courses

The detailed analysis (table 9.2) shows that all greenhouse producers from the North indicated that they attended specialized courses in greenhouse management compared with 24% in the Center and 31% in the South. One reason for the high attendance may be that there are fewer growers in this region and extension service providers may also be more active and able to organize courses for a larger proportion of growers. As discussed earlier while there is a high concentration of greenhouse growers in the Center the available consulting and training providers can not cover all of them.
Table 9.2 Grower participation on professional training courses, multi-factor analysis
I don't need Count Geographic al Zone Center North South Small Size Medium Large One layer polyethylene membrane Double layered polyethylene membrane Glass Polycarbonate 1 1 1 % 1 1 0 109 56 91 51 23 152 10 2 1 No Count % 76 67 50 43 46 50 24 67 100 35 123 26 91 66 27 152 31 1 Yes Count % 24 100 31 50 56 54 50 76 33 Total Count 144 123 83 182 118 50 305 41 3 1 % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Covering material
Mainly small producers attend specialized courses (91%) and there is an opposite correlation in dependence of the greenhouse size (66% of medium and 27% of large producers attended such courses). This can be explained by the fact that larger companies can afford to directly hire more university prepared professional staff and fewer growers require additional consulting or training. It is also interesting to note that 76% of the producers who use double-layered polyethylene film attended specialized courses. Possibly, the choice of this covering is a result of attending of training courses and receiving useful information about this type of cover as efficient method of saving energy on greenhouse vegetable production.
9.3. Possession and availability of specialized literature for greenhouse growers
Not all of farmers can participate on training courses, but having technical reference material at home can assist them to improve their greenhouse business. Specialized literature includes guides,
Page 35 of 76
textbooks, recommendations, information newsletters and periodical publications. About 77% out of 350 respondents mentioned that they have specialized literature at home, but 23 % stated that they have no any literature on vegetable production in covered areas (fig. 32).
77% 0% 20% Yes 40% No 60% 80% 23% 100%
Fig. 32 Possession of professional literature

The figures from table 9.3 show that 92% of producers from the North said that they have specialized literature available, which is far above the average of 73%.
Table 9.3 Possession of specialized literature, multi-factor analysis
Yes Count Geographical Zone Center North South Small Size Medium Large 96 113 59 133 89 46 % 67 92 71 73 75 92 Count 48 10 24 49 29 4 No % 33 8 29 27 25 8 144 123 83 182 118 50 Total Count % 100 100 100 100 100 100
Large companies have more specialized literature than the smaller ones (92% vs. 73% on average) Of those not having literature, only 6% declared that they do not need specialized literature (fig. 33).
94% 0% 20% I need 40% 60% I don't need 80% 6 100%
Fig. 33 Interest of greenhouse growers to have specialized literature

It was observed that half of the large-scale growers said they do not need additional literature, because most of them already have sufficient specialized literature. To the question regarding the sufficiency of specialized literature 40% of respondents stated that there is enough, while other 50% think the opposite (fig. 34).
Page 36 of 76
Yes Don'tknow No 40% 50%
10%
Fig. 34 Availability of professional literature

The data shows that 64% of producers from the North indicate that local bookstores carry an insufficient amount of specialized technical literature (table 9.4) compared with 34% in the Center and 57% in the South. Table 9.4 shows that producers from the North have more literature in their private libraries than producers from the rest of the country. This reinforces previous information that growers in the North attend more specialized training courses than growers from the other zones. The combination of an already quite high access to technical literature with the indication of a lack of availability suggests that growers in the North have a higher professional interest and willingness to improve their knowledge than growers in the other two regions.
Table 9.4 Availability of specialized literature, multi-factor analysis
Yes Count Geographical Zone Center North South Small Size Medium Large Cabbage Tomato Basic Crop Radish Cucumbers Sweet pepper Other 70 37 34 63 52 26 107 1 17 8 8 N% 49 30 41 35 44 52 49 33 28 31 31 Don't know Count 25 7 2 25 8 1 3 22 2 4 3 N% 17 6 2 14 7 2 20 10 67 7 12 49 79 47 94 58 23 12 90 40 18 15 No Count N% 34 64 57 52 49 46 80 41 66 69 58 Total Count 144 123 83 182 118 50 15 219 3 61 26 26 N% 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
A somewhat different picture emerges when the availability of specialized literature is sorted by crops as 80% of those who cultivate cabbage, 69% of those cultivating sweet pepper and 66% of those cultivating cucumber indicate that there is insufficient literature available. However, only 40% of tomato producers are not satisfied with the amount of available technical literature.
9.4. Availability of consulting services
The study also obtained some indications about the main consulting service providers to greenhouse growers using a multiple response question. At the aggregate level growers indicate that they rely mostly on individual experts and consultants for technical information (45%) or on ACSA regional offices (35%). In addition, 12% of the respondents address AGROinform offices, and other 16% address universities and agricultural research institutions (fig. 35).
Page 37 of 76
50 40 30 20 10 0 Agr. University Agr. Colledges 8 2 8 1 12 5 5 36
45
28
Inst.of Academyof ACSAOffices Agroinform PDBA/CNFA Farmers Consultants/ Scientific Sciences Offices Project Federation Individual Research Experts
Other
Fig. 35 Consulting services provided to greenhouse growers, %, N=260

Table 9.5 provides a disaggregated analysis of grower access to consulting services. Growers from the Center and the North (55% and 51%) hire individual consultants compared to 23% in the South. However, 49% and 42% respectively of growers in the North and South also rely on ACSA regional consultants, compared to only 23% in the Center. By size, 49% of the large-scale growers, 45% of the mid-scale growers, but only 35% of the large-scale growers rely on individual experts or consultants. However, large-scale growers are more likely to use University experts (14%) compare to 9% of midscale growers and 6% of small-scale growers.
Table 9.5 Grower access to consulting services, multi-factor analysis
Consulta Inst. of Academy ACSA Agra. PDBA/ Agra. Agr. Farmers nts/ of Office Office CNFA Scientific Other Fed Individual N* University Colleges Sciences s s Project Res. Exp. N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Center Geographical North Zone South Small Size Medium Large 115 79 66 131 92 37 14 5 2 8 8 5 12 6 3 6 9 14 2 2 2 4 2 2 3 3 3 2 16 4 1 10 8 3 14 5 2 8 9 8 1 1 2 1 2 2 27 23 11 10 39 49 17 22 28 42 39 42 14 38 2 9 4 3 10 11 41 31 17 13 3 9 1 5 6 2 3 2 4 7 5 8 3 4 6 3 7 3 5 3 7 8 63 40 15 64 41 13 55 51 23 49 45 35 32 28 21 27 21 32 35 27 27 29 12 32 11 2
* N count, number of respondents These data further support the higher use of available technical resources in the North where 51% of respondents use individual experts and consultants and 49% used ACSA consultants. In the Center 55% used independent experts but only 23% used ACSA regional consultants while in the South only 23% indicated that they used independent consultant but 42% used ACSA regional consultants. Somewhat surprisingly, however, 49% of the small-scale growers indicated that they used independent experts and 31% of them used ACSA consultants in comparison to 45% and 42% respectively for mid-size growers and 35% and 38% for large-scale growers. While ACSA advisors have a reasonably good reputation among medium size vegetable growers (42%), at the same time they need to increase their exposure to small-scale growers, as only 31% of small growers stated that they use at present ACSA service.
Page 38 of 76
9.5. Visits to other greenhouses growers
A good source of new experience and knowledge are visits to other growers, which can be individual visits or visits to field days, seminars or other training events. Visiting other growers enables producers to share experiences and progress with similar growers and this can lead to development of grower networks that may be useful for developing common industry policy positions. At the national level, 78% of respondents have made visits such aiming to acquire practical knowledge from other greenhouse growers (fig 36). At the regional level, 82% of growers in the North and Center indicate that they have visited other growers compared with 65% in the South.
78%
22%
0%
20%
Yes
40%
No
60%
80%
100%
Fig. 36 Greenhouse growers making visits to other similar farmers, %, N=349

Table 9.6 Grower visits to other greenhouse growers, multi-factor analysis
Yes Count Geographical Zone Center North South 118 101 53 N% 82 82 65 Count 26 22 29 No N% 18 18 35 144 123 82 Total Count N% 100 100 100
Respondents also indicated that most often they visit producers from the same region (67%) or other regions of the country (53%) with 15% also visiting greenhouses abroad (fig. 37).
80 60 40 20 0 Local Inotherregions Inothercountries 15 67 53
Fig. 37 Location of greenhouse growers visited by respondents, %, N=252

Table 9.7 Visits to other green house farmers, multi-factor analysis
Local Count Geographical Zone Center North South Small Size Medium Large 119 90 43 132 82 38 81 75 13 91 55 23 N% 68 83 30 69 67 61 In other regions Count N% 62 46 26 59 49 26 52 51 60 45 60 68 In other countries Count N % 14 19 5 11 15 12 12 21 12 8 18 32
Page 39 of 76
Growers from the South were more likely to visit growers from other regions, and less likely to visit growers in their own region (60% compared with 30%). This is most likely an indication that greenhouse production is less developed than in other regions (table 9.7). Large producers indicated a greater access to foreign countries than small and medium scale growers (32% compared respectively to 18% and 8%)
9.6. Sources of information related to greenhouse production and marketing of vegetables
Apart from reliance on specialized consultants 54% of respondent growers indicated that they get technical information from newspapers and magazines (54%). TV programs are used by 37% of growers, 34% get information from suppliers, and 22% from radio. Next to newspapers and magazines, Internet access was mentioned by 37% of respondents as a source of technical information (fig. 38).
60
54 37 22
40
34 23 15
20
0 Newspapers/ magazines TV Radio Internet Supplyers Other
Fig. 38 Sources of information for greenhouse growers, %, N=283

By region, growers in the North accessed public information sources more frequently than growers in the Center and South: 82% got information from suppliers, 75% from TV and 58% from radio; compared to the Center with 19%, 8% and 30%; and in the South with 0%, 1% and 5% (table 9.8). However, growers in the South relied to a higher degree on information from TV (57%) and from Internet (28%).
Table 9.8 Sources of information for greenhouse growers, multi-factor analysis
Newspapers/ TV Radio magazines Count N % Count N % Count N % 59 36 57 77 53 22 50 41 75 51 56 61 36 66 4 56 38 12 30 75 5 37 40 33 10 51 1 31 22 9 8 58 1 20 23 25 Internet Count 9 13 21 18 15 10 8 15 28 12 16 28 Suppliers 23 72 49 33 13 19 82 32 35 36 Other 45 1 18 37 22 5 38 1 24 24 23 14
N Center 119 88 76 152 95 36
N % Count N % Count N %
Geographical North Zone South Small Size
Medium Large
Large-scale growers relied more heavily on Internet information than did medium and small-scale growers (28% compared with 16% and 12%), but access to other information sources did not show major differences by size of grower.
Page 40 of 76
CHAPTERX:FINANCIALRESOURCES
This chapter identifies and discusses methods used by producers for financing investments and their current financial needs. This information can be used by donor organizations, government, commercial banks and leasing organizations in order to adjust their approach towards the greenhouse sector.
10.1. Possession of the Information about sources of financing
The in-depth analysis shows that only a minority of farmers indicated that they are sufficiently informed about different financing sources, including: governmental subsidies (41%) and bank loans (23%). As regards International donor financing programs including RISP, IFAD and CFR, they are very poorly understood by respondents, respectively 13%, 8% and correspondingly 5%. Other financing sources include loans from physical persons and other micro financing organizations. Figure 39 illustrates the structure of information on financing sources.
60 41 40 23 20 13 5 0 Commercial banks RISP CFR IFAD Governamental subsidies Other 8 38
Fig. 39 Information about different sources of financing, %, N=142

Producers from North have less information about commercial bank loans (5% vs. 23% in average) and Governmental subsidies. While this result suggests that the Ministry of Agriculture and commercial banks should put greater emphasis on making this information available to growers in the North, growers from the North also are less likely to want to use bank credit than growers from other regions (table 10.1)
Table 10.1 Information about different sources of financing, multi-factor analysis
Commerci al banks Cou nt % 17 26 1 14 12 12 8 5 25 17 24 33 RISP Co unt % 13 20 5 3 10 5 25 4 20 21 CFR Coun t % 6 9 1 2 2 3 5 3 4 13 IFAD Co unt % 7 11 5 4 4 4 25 6 8 17 Governmental subsidies Count 28 2 28 27 22 9 % 42 10 50 39 45 38 Other Co unt % 24 36 13 17 31 16 7 65 30 45 33 29
N Center North South Small Size Medium Large 66 20 56 69 49 24
Geographical Zone
Producers from the South have virtually no information about funding offered by RISP, CFR and IFAD. (0% vs. 13%, 5%, and 8% respectively) Thus, donor organizations should promote their services more actively in this region. However, their counterparts in the North and Center are also not well informed about these programs.
The data indicate that large-scale producers are usually better informed about all types of financial sources than either medium or small-scale producers, but only one-third of large-scale producers were informed about commercial bank financing, 21% about RISP and 17% about IFAD. However, it is interesting that large companies are slightly less informed about the Governmental subsidies than the small and medium ones, while the initial assumption was that they were better informed about all possible types of financing.
10.2. Sources of finance for capital investment in greenhouse construction
Most respondents (90%) stated that construction of greenhouses is done mainly from own resources (fig. 40). However, only 11% indicated that they finance their activity using grants or subsidies and only 9% used bank loans.
100 80 60 40 20 0 Ownresources Grant/subsidies Bankcredit Othertypesof credit Leasing 11 9 3 90
Fig. 40 Sourcing capital investments used for greenhouse construction, %, N=340

As is seen from table 10.2, there was virtually no correlation identified between the source of capital investments financed by geographical zone or company size.
Table 10.2 Sourcing capital investments for greenhouse construction, multi-factor analysis
Own resources Count 132 96 77 165 97 43 % 92 84 94 93 84 90 Other types of credit Count 1 8 1 5 3 2 % 1 7 1 3 3 4 Grant/subsi dies % 1 1 Count 17 14 8 11 14 14 % 12 12 10 6 12 29
Bank credit Count 15 8 6 6 15 8 % 10 7 7 3 13 17
Leasing Count 1 1 -
Geographi cal Zone
100 80 60 40 20 0
90
11 6 Ownresources Bankcredit Othertypesofcredit
Fig. 41 Sources of financing for operational costs, %, N=350
Page 42 of 76
Working capital for growing greenhouse vegetables is a significant part of the operating budget. Figure 41 shows that 90% of working capital needed for production is obtained from the growers own resources.
Table 10.3 Sourcing working capital needs, multi-factor analysis
Own resources Count 104 132 78 170 99 45 % 85 92 94 93 84 90 Bank credit Count 16 17 7 10 20 10 % 13 12 8 5 17 20 Other types of credit Count 13 6 2 10 7 4 % 11 4 2 5 6 8
N North Center South Small Medium Large 123 144 83 182 118 50
Geographical Zone
Size
Table 10.3 shows that medium and large producers more often apply for bank credits to supplement working capital (17 and 20% vs. 11% on average). This confirms the assumption that bank credit is less accessible for small companies, but at the same time, only 17% of the large-scale growers indicated use of bank credit to support working capital needs. The data suggest, on the one hand, a massive failure by the banking sector and donor financial support system to provide information about working and investment capital needs to the commercial greenhouse production sector. However, another interpretation is that growers are not seeking out this information because the cost of available credit is so high that they are unwilling to accept the associated risk.
10.3. Grants obtained
It was discovered that only 7% of the respondents benefited from grants or State Subsidies to erect a greenhouse. In 60% of the cases farmers indicated that the value of grants covered from 51% to 75% of the investment amount (fig. 42). Another 32% of farmers indicated that the grant covered less than 20% of the financial need, while 8% indicated that the grant covered more than 75% of the investment need.
8% 32% Lessthan20% 2150% 5175% Morethan 75%
60%
Fig. 42 Share covered by grant-in-aid %, N=25,
Page 43 of 76
Given the small number of respondents to this set of questions, the regional distributions need to be interpreted with caution. However, the largest proportion of grant recipients was from the Central region, both by number and proportion of the total sample from each region. 11.1 %( 16 of 144 respondents) - from the Center 3.3 % (4 of 123 respondents) from the North 8.3% (5 of 83 respondents) from the South
10.4. Farmers plans to use Bank loans in the future
Of the overall number of interviewed persons, 35% are interested in using bank loans to finance their greenhouse activity, but most respondents (65%) do not plan to apply for a bank loan (fig. 43) in the near future.
35% 0% 20% 40% 60%
65% 80% 100%
Yes
No
Fig. 43 Desire to take bank credits, %, N=350

Table 10.4 Desire to take bank credits, multi-factor analysis
No Center Geographical Zone North South Small Size Medium Large Green House Structure Metal Wood Less than 1 year Green house's age 1-5 years 5-10 years 10-20 years Count 75 99 54 135 68 25 111 117 9 88 65 52 % 52 80 65 74 58 50 59 72 53 58 69 83 Yes Count 69 24 29 47 50 25 76 46 8 64 29 11 % 48 20 35 26 42 50 41 28 47 42 31 17 Total Count 144 123 83 182 118 50 187 163 17 152 94 63 % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Companies in the central zone of the country are more willing to use commercial bank credit (48% vs. 35% on average), while growers from North are less interested in obtaining bank credit (20%). The owners of relatively new greenhouses (up to 1 and 1- 5 years old) have a greater interest in getting a bank loan - 47% and 42% respectfully. These growers may be younger than the average and the new greenhouses may also be larger and more efficient and have the higher income stream needed to repay formal credit requirements (table 10.4). There is a clear correlation between size and desire to take bank credit with 50% of large-scale growers but only 42% and 26% of medium and small-scale growers providing a positive response to this question. Growers with metal frame construction are also more likely to be interested in acquiring bank credit than growers with wood frame construction (41% compared to 28%).
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1
62
27 17 5 2 3 Toomuch Othercauses bureaucracy
Haveown Theinterestis Nolongterm Nomortgage Riscofnon finances toohigh credits payment
Fig. 44 Reasons for not wanting to take bank credits, %, N=208

The main reason for not wanting to take bank credits for financing greenhouse construction is the high prevailing interest rates (62%) and high risk of not being able to pay it off (17%) (Fig. 44). Table 10.5 dramatically summarizes the above analysis as it indicates that 99% of the respondents do not have sufficient own financial resources for business development, but at the same time they do not want to apply for a bank loan. That can be considered as a major constraint for the future development of the greenhouse sector in Moldova.
Table 10.5 Reasons for not wanting to take bank credits, multi-factor analysis
Have own finances Count Center Geographic al Zone North South Small Size Mediu m Large 68 90 50 125 62 21 2 2 The interest is too high % 51 90 26 62 60 71 No longterm credits Count 7 3 4 3 3 % 10 3 3 5 14 No mortgage Count 4 4 Risk of non payment % 18 1 44 16 18 19 Too much bureaucracy Count 5 2 5 1 1 % 7 2 4 2 5 Other causes Count 25 6 25 35 19 2 % 3 7 7 5 0 2 8 3 1 1 0
% Count 2 2 35 81 13 77 37 15
% Count 6 3 12 1 22 20 11 4
Producers from the North (table 10.5) much more often than the average consider that the banks interest rates are too high (90% vs. 62%), while in the South the main reason for not applying to credits is risk of bankruptcy and having no possibility to pay the loan back (44% vs. 17%). In many respects, these two reasons are the opposite sides of the same coin as the probability of loan forfeiture is directly related to high interest rates.
10.5. Leasing
Financial leasing provides an alternative financing method in the absence of medium and long-term bank credit. This option is also available in Moldova. The survey included questions to determine the interest by greenhouse vegetable growers to use financial leasing to finance greenhouse construction and the purchase of equipment. Of total number of people interviewed 34% indicated that they were
Page 45 of 76
interested in using financial leasing (fig. 45). This is about 10% higher than the proportion that indicated an interest in using bank credit. Again, respondents in the North were considerably less interested in using financial leasing than those in the Center or South (18% compared with 47% and 36% respectively (table 10.6).
34%
66%
0%
20%
Yes
40%
No
60%
80%
100%
Fig. 45 Grower interest in using financial leasing, %, N=350

Although less than half of the large-scale growers (44%) indicated an interest in using financial leasing this is still larger than for medium and small-scale growers (40% and 27% respectively) (table 10.6).
Table 10.6 Grower interest in using financial leasing, multi-factor analysis
No Center Geographical Zone North South Small Size Medium Large Count 77 101 53 132 71 28 % 53 82 64 73 60 56 Yes Count 67 22 30 50 47 22 % 47 18 36 27 40 44 Total Count 144 123 83 182 118 50 % 100 100 100 100 100 100
Farmers would not use leasing as a financing method in 59% of the cases because they were not satisfied with the conditions offered by leasing companies, another 19% would not use leasing because are not aware of the terms (fig. 46).
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Don'tknow theconditions Wasn'tsatisfiedbythe conditions Othercauses 19 24
59
Fig. 46 Reasons for not using financial leasing, %, N=219

When asked to provide reasons for non-consideration of financial leasing growers from the North displayed a higher degree of understanding of financial leasing considerations with 94% giving lack of satisfaction with leasing conditions as the reason for not using this form of credit purchase. Similar to bank credit responses, small-scale growers tend to know less about leasing conditions (table 10.7).
Page 46 of 76
Table 10.7 Reasons for not using financial leasing, multi-factor analysis
Don't know the conditions Count 21 6 14 31 6 4 % 28 6 27 25 9 14 Wasn't satisfied by the conditions Count 29 87 13 68 41 20 % 39 94 25 54 63 71 Other causes Count 28 25 30 18 5 % 38 48 24 28 18
Geographical Zone
Page 47 of 76
CHAPTER XI: GREENHOUSE PRODUCT SALES

This chapter describes the issues related to the sales of greenhouse agricultural products. They include distribution, contracting, transportation and problems that growers experience when selling their produce.
11.1. Sales method
Most Moldovan fresh vegetable products are sold mostly in regional and local wholesale and retail markets. In western countries, around 80% of Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) are sold through supermarkets and hypermarkets, while in Moldova marketing experts indicate that considerably less than 20% of Moldovan grower sales go through this market channel. The main reasons include the lack of urban population concentration and income levels associated with the rise of supermarket fresh produce sales, the existence of small-scale producers that are unable to meet quantity requirements, the relatively high per unit production cost of Moldovas small-scale producers and unwillingness or inability to comply with strict supermarket quality, packaging, delivery and terms of payment. Moreover, by definition, small-scale growers able to produce a quality product can make more money by selling to high value niche retail markets, when they are available. However, with current limited demand local supermarkets can serve as viable outlets for some fresh in season greenhouse produced fruits such as strawberries and raspberries. Survey data indicate that 72% of respondents sold some or all of their produce directly on the retail market, and 24% sold some or all of their products directly on wholesale markets (fig. 47). The lack of formal quality, quantity and packaging requirements of supermarkets or hypermarkets may be a major limiting factor explaining the small percentage of sales to supermarkets or hypermarkets (1%). Less than 1% of the sample respondents indicated that they made direct or indirect export sales.
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 72
24 18 8 3 1 1 1 Indirect export
Ownstore/ booth
Directlyon Indirectlyon Directlyon Indirectlyon Inthe Directexport theretail theretail the the supermarkets market market wholesale wholesale market market
Fig. 47 Type of market and sales method for greenhouse vegetables, %, N=335
Only 8% of the greenhouse vegetable growers sold products through their own shops and booths. The high investment costs of land and buildings and the high rental cost associated with centrally located private booths or sales points are the major constraints given for not selling more products in privately owned stores or booths.
Page 48 of 76
Data from the table 11.1 indicates that respondents that sell products directly to retail markets sell about 87% of their products through this form of market. Growers selling directly to wholesale markets sell about 68% of this produce through this market channel while growers selling through their own booth indicated that just over half of their sales (54%) go through this channel.
Table 11.1 Average market share by market and sales method, N=335
Mean Own store/booth, share Directly on the retail market, share Indirectly on the retail market, share Directly on the wholesale market, share Indirectly on the wholesale market, share In the supermarkets, share Direct export, share Indirect export, share 53.93 86.68 72.37 68.27 56.50 40.00 40.00 70.00
Greenhouse producers in the Center (table 11.2) less often sell their products directly to retail markets (57%) compared with growers from the North and South (81% and 82 % respectively). This is most likely because they have less direct access to retail outlets and sell more to wholesale markets (32%) and other intermediate markets than in the less populated North and South regions. The lower sales to direct retail markets also implies lower per unit returns as most of the value added is being taken by intermediaries and consequently consumers also will pay more for the product.
Table 11.2 Market type and sales method, multi-factor analysis
Own store/ booth N N Geogra Center phical North Zone South Small Size Medium Large 141 113 83 171 116 50 17 3 8 13 9 6 N % 12 3 10 8 8 12 Me an 64 65 28 65 47 41 Directly on the retail market N 81 91 68 126 79 35 N % 57 81 82 74 68 70 Indirectly on the retail market N % 32 1 17 20 13 22 Me an 72 71 82 66 50 Directly on the wholesale market N Indirectly on the wholesale market N Me % an 6 1 1 4 6 57 50 75 55 47 In the supermar kets N 1 4 3 2 M N ea N % n 1 50 4 38 1 1 2 Direct export Indirect export
M ea N n 57 45 81 1 82 14 74 34 68 15 70 11
M N % ea N n 41 29 64 9 24 13 11 34 40 74 1 68 71 2 70 5 62 3 11 19 40 20
M N N Me ea N % % an n - 2 1 70 1 1 4 50 30 1 1 2 90 50
100 27
3 47 4 30
40 1
Only 13% of growers in the South sell to wholesale markets but 82% sell directly to retail markets. In the Center, the distributions are 24% and 81%. Sales through own booths or stores are similar in the Center and South (12% and 10% respectively) but considerably lower in the North (3%). One possible reason for the low sales through own stores or booths may be related to the fact that Moldovans are accustomed to buying vegetables in open markets rather than in formal shops, supermarkets and/or hypermarkets. Large and medium-scale producers more often sell directly on the wholesale market (29% and 24% vs. 13% for small enterprises).Small greenhouse growers tend to sell mainly on retail market (74%).
Page 49 of 76
11.2.
Transportation to the place of sale
Most often (85.2%) the products grown in greenhouses are transported to the place of sale by the producer (fig. 48) but very infrequently do buyers pick up produce from the farm (6.3%) and 8.5% of the growers indicated that both producers and buyers transport produce from the farm to the market.
85.2%
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
8.5%
6.3%
By producer
By both
By buyer
Fig. 48 Product Transportation Type, %, N=331

In the North and South almost all produce is transported to the market by the grower (96% and 98% respectively (table 11.3) and only in the center do buyers significantly pick up produce from the greenhouse (24%). This most likely is again because of the better developed intermediary services of the Chisinau markets. Buyers are more likely to pick up produce from larger growers (28%) than for medium or small-scale growers (15% and 10% respectively).
Table 11.3 Produce transportation to market, multi-factor analysis
Transported by the buyer Count 33 9 6 17 17 14 N% 24 8 7 10 15 28 Mean 73 63 70 79 75 56 Transported by the producer N Count Mean % 121 88 93 108 80 157 104 48 96 98 93 92 96 98 97 98 96 88
N Center Geographical Zone North South Small Size Medium Large 137 112 82 168 113 50
11.3.
Sales mechanisms
Ninety-five percent of growers reported that they sell their products without either written or verbal pre-sales agreement with 9% reporting some verbal pre-sale agreements and only 5% reporting that they may use written agreements prior to sale.
Page 50 of 76
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
95
5 Preliminarycontract
Unwrittenagreement
Nopreliminarycontract/no agreement
Fig. 49 Contract method, %, N=319

For the 9% of growers reporting sales using verbal pre-agreements, these sales accounted for just over half of the total sales (53%), while the 5% reporting some sales using written contracts sold 61% of their produce using this mechanism. The data suggest that while the overwhelming majority of growers sell their products without pre-arranged verbal or written agreements, the small number who do use either verbal or written sales agreements sell most of their products this way.
Table 11.4 Share of greenhouse vegetables sold by different method, N=319
Mean 53.13 61.03 95.76
Preliminary contract, sales share reement, sales share No preliminary contract/no agreement, sales share
By size group, 97% of small-scale growers, compared with 94% and 92% of medium and large-scale growers sell their products without a preliminary written or verbal contract. By region, 98% of growers in the South compared to 96% in the North and 93% in the Center sell produce without any pre-sales agreements (table 11.5). While these data indicate that growers in all regions still sell fresh vegetables on the spot market, growers in the Central region are beginning to utilize more formal export and supermarket channels.
Table 11.5 Method of sale of greenhouse vegetables, multi-factor analysis
Preliminary contract Row N% Count Mean 6 5 60 8 7 54 2 2 30 4 3 43 5 4 66 7 14 50 Unwritten agreement Row N% Count Mean 21 18 59 7 6 65 1 1 80 5 3 72 16 14 58 8 16 60 No preliminary contract/no agreement Row N% Count Mean 112 93 92 111 96 96 81 98 100 154 97 99 105 94 95 45 92 88
N Center North South Small Medium Large 120 116 83 158 112 49
Geographical Zone
Size
As expected large-scale growers are more likely to sell under written agreements (14% of the growers) compared with medium and small-scale growers 4% and 3%. Verbal agreements are used by 16% and 14% of large and medium-scale growers, respectively, while virtually no small-scale
Page 51 of 76
growers use written pre-sale agreements (3%). In part, this situation is determined by the legal aspects of solving commercial disputes that may last up to 3-4 years and have significantly high costs for both sides. As a result, most business relationships are based on trust and reputation of the stakeholders. As Moldovan greenhouse growers expand export and domestic supermarket sales it can be expected that more formal contracting will take place. This is true for all sizes of growers as the export and supermarket buyers require greater volumes with standardized quality and packaging requirements. To meet these emerging markets, more growers will be required to form commercial business marketing cooperatives.
11.4. Payment method for delivered vegetables
Most often (66%) payment is made when the produce is delivered, with 35% of growers reporting that sometimes they receive payment during the selling process. Only 2% of respondents report advance payments while 2 % indicate that they receive payment after delivery (fig. 50).
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
66 35 3
Paymentondelivery Astheproductionissold itisgraduallypaidfor Payment afterdelivery
2
Advancepayment
Fig. 50 Method of payment, %, N=324

Table 11.6 provides insights into the importance of product sales under different payment schemes. Growers reporting advance payment report that about 35% of these sales involve advance payments. However, growers reporting after sales payment indicate that this happens with 96% of their sales.
Table 11.6 Share of sales by different payment methods, average
Mean
Advance payment, sales share Payment on product delivery, sales share As the production is sold it is gradually paid for, sales share Payment made after delivery, sales share 34.67 95.88 96.20 55.00
Table 11.7 indicates that producers from the North more often practice payment on product delivery (97%). Producers from the Center and South more often accept payment as the production is sold (50%), while in the North no respondent used this method of payment. Large producers more often receive advance payment (10%) and less often receive money as production is sold (28%). Here we can mention that the normal international practice is that the payment is made on delivery or after a certain period (15-45 days). The situation when the payment is made as the product is sold is not a normal practice and shows the buyers have greater bargaining power then the producers. As noted above, 35% of producers sell vegetables using this method.
Page 52 of 76
Table 11.7 Share of sales by different payment methods, average, multi-factor analysis
Payment on product delivery N % 53 97 42 65 63 76 As the production is sold it is gradually paid for N Count % 62 53 58 43 14 50 64 36 38 28 The payment made after delivery N % 6 3 1 4 10
Respondents
Advance payment
Count Center North Geographical Zone South Small Medium Size Large 125 116 83 162 112 50 4 2 1 5
N% 3 2 1 10
Count 66 113 35 105 71 38
Count 7 4 1 5 5
11.5.
Major grower problems in selling greenhouse vegetables
The main perceived marketing problems faced by producers include low prices (67%), high competition level, especially from imported products (49%), and difficulty in opening an own sales point (42%). However, 11% of the respondents stated that they do not face any problems (fig. 51). In addition, non-payment by buyers is not reported to be a problem.
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Thebuyers Thebuyers Thequality Notsatisfied The Theroadto Thebyer Itisdifficult The The bythe realization thegreen doesnotbuy toopen own competition competition donot payin returnthe standards time production aretoohigh production pointsare housesistoo thewhole distribution istoostrong ofimported goodsistoo sold price toofar bad negociated point strong quantity 20 14 12 1 1 1 49 42 38 67
Fig. 51 Main problems in selling greenhouse production, % N = 309

It is interesting to note that while only a small number of growers (9) reported sales to supermarkets or for export these growers reported low prices as a major problem (80% and 100% respectively) although from 57% to 70% of all other growers indicated that low prices were the major problem. (table 11.8). Moreover, both growers reporting export sales also indicated that strong competition on the local market was a major problem. Of further interest is the fact that 70% of growers selling directly to retail markets indicated that low prices were a major problem, but only 57% of growers selling indirectly to the retail market were unsatisfied by the price. While it can be expected that farmers selling directly to retail markets would
get higher prices than growers selling indirectly to retail markets, the difference in perception of low prices may be related to lower price expectations by growers selling indirectly to retail markets. Growers selling through own stores or booth also note low prices with less frequency than growers that sell through most other channels.
Table 11.8 Main problems faced by growers in selling greenhouse vegetables, multifactor analysis
The buyer does not buy the whole negotiated quantity Count % 3 26 13 12 It is difficult to open own distribution point Count % 6 86 26 41 The competition of imported goods is too strong Count % 8 109 35 52
N Own store/ booth Directly on the retail market Indirectly on the retail market Directly on the wholesale market Indirectly on the wholesale market In the supermark ets Direct export Indirect export 23 210
Not satisfied by the price Count % 13 146 57 70
The market place is too far Count % 5 37 22 18
The competition is too strong Count % 7 88 30 42
56
32
57
17
30
21
38
15
27
15
27
74
49
66
17
23
10
14
45
61
25
34
43
58
67
44
11
44
22
56
5 2 2
4 2 2
80 100 100
0 0 1
0 0 50
0 1 0
0 50 0
2 0 1
40 0 50
2 2 1
40 100 50
3 0 1
60 0 50
Producers who already have their own store indicate that it was not a major problem to open their own distribution point. Only 26% of them mentioned it as a problem compared with the 42% average opinion. Producers who sell indirectly (via intermediaries) to retail and wholesale markets less often feel the competition (27% and 22%) in comparison with farmers that are selling directly to the market (42% and 34% respectively). Although, as mentioned above, these producers are the ones who are most unsatisfied by the price proposed by intermediaries we may assume that the risk of competition in this case is supported by the intermediaries, but it is remunerated by their mark up. The competition from the imported products is mostly seen by those producers who sell directly in supermarkets or retail and wholesale markets (60%, 52% and 58% vs. 49% on average).
Page 54 of 76
CHAPTERXII:DEVELOPMENTPLANS
This chapter describes growers plans and intentions for future development. Strategic development of the greenhouse sector in Moldova needs to take into consideration market trends and grower intentions. The information can be useful for governmental officials, policy makers, donor organizations, financial institutions and input suppliers.
12.1. Greenhouse production area expansion plans
While the study identified constraints to further expansion (especially those related to acquiring credit), many growers remain rather optimistic for future business development. Data shows that over 60% of the respondents planned to expand greenhouse construction in the future (fig. 52), while 17% gave a negative reply, and 21% were uncertain.
Yes 21% No IDoubt
17%
62%
Fig. 52 Plans for extending greenhouse production area, N=350

There was no significant difference between producers from different parts of Moldova that are willing to expand their greenhouse production areas (table 12.1). Small companies more often wish to extend their greenhouse production area 45.2% of respondents, compared with 18% for large growers. It is important to mention that, growers with greenhouses built 1-5 years ago are more willing to expand the area (47%). This suggests that the greenhouse business for them is efficient. Those growers who have greenhouses covered with one layer polyethylene film are also more interested in expanding their greenhouses production area (82.9%). These are cheaper constructions than glass or double polyethylene cover and are more acceptable to growers. This conclusion needs to be taken into consideration by greenhouse construction suppliers.
Page 55 of 76
Table 12.1 Plans for extending greenhouse production area, multi-factor analysis 2008 Respondents wishing to extend greenhouse area Count %
Geographical Zone
Center North South

Total
Size of farm
Small Medium Large

Total One layer polyethylene membrane
75 83 59 217 98 80 39 217 180 35 2 0 217 15 102 51 35 14 217
34.6 38.2 27.2 100 45.2 36.8 18.0 100 82.9 16.2 0.9 0.0 100 6.9 47.0 23.5 16.1 6.5 100
Covering material used by farmer
Green house's age
Double layered polyethylene membrane Glass Polycarbonate Total Less than 1 year 1-5 years 5-10 years 10-20 years More than 20 years Total
Page 56 of 76
12.2.
Projection for extension of different types of green house construction
Of growers interested in expanding their greenhouses, the majority (76%) would prefer to build new plastic greenhouses, which are most commonly used at present. About 22% of respondents are interested in investing in glass greenhouse construction, but only 2% of respondents plan to invest in low tunnels (fig. 53).
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 % 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Glass greenhouses 22%
76%
2% Plastic greenhouse Low tunnels
Fig. 53 Preference of farmers for different types of new protected area constructions, %, N=216
12.3. Subvention use
New greenhouse construction and renovation requires major investment funds and many growers do not have easy access to such funds. In response to this need, the Government of Moldova allocates funds to provide subventions for new greenhouse construction and renovation of existing constructions. In 2008, the Moldovan Government allocated 20 mln lei as subsidies for greenhouse renovation and reconstruction. In 2009, only 10 mln lei were approved and at the end of the second quarter fund solicitations were received from growers amounting to 600 thousands lei. To determine the potential use of these subventions growers were asked to identify preferred uses for these funds. In response, 62% of the growers indicated the funds would be used for new greenhouse construction (fig. 54), 34% indicated that they would use the funds to purchase equipment and tools and 20% indicated that they would use the funds to renovate existing greenhouses. These figures suggest that most subventions would be used to construct new greenhouses.
Page 57 of 76
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Constructionofnew greenhouses Renovationofexistent Acquirementof greenhouses equipmentforthegreen houses Other 20 4 34 62
Fig. 54 Farmers preference for subvention use, %, N=312

12.4. Crops that farmers intend to grow in the future in greenhouses
To gain an understanding of the types of crops growers want to grow in the future, respondents were asked to state their preferences. A large majority (86%) indicated a willingness to continue to grow tomato, which, as discussed earlier, currently provides the most profit for growers. Seventy percent of the respondents expressed interest in growing cucumber, 50% sweet pepper 31% cabbage, and 24% radish (fig. 55). Other crops supported by growers included eggplants (18%) herbs (11%) and flowers (9%). Almost 35% of respondents indicated that they would also be interested in growing seedlings to plant in own greenhouse and for sale to other growers.
100 86 80 60 49 40 20 0 Tomatoes Sweet Cucumbers Cabbage pepper Radish Aubergine Greens Flowers Seedings 31 24 18 11 9 35 70
Fig. 55 Priorities for different crops to be grown in the future in greenhouse area, %, N=338
Data presented in the table 12.2 indicates that 47% of the producers from the North would be interested in growing seedlings (vs. 35% on average), whereas they would likely grow fewer vegetables than in Center and South. The exception is aubergine, which 26% of growers in the North indicated as a potential crop compared with a national average of 18% average. This supports existing patterns in that production of seedlings in greenhouses for planting outdoor vegetables is more developed in the North than in other regions; and fewer vegetables are produced.
Page 58 of 76
Flower production was more popular in the Center (14% compared with a 9% national average). The closeness to the main market of the flowers commercialization (Chisinau) is supportive of this outcome.
Table 12.2 Future preference for growing vegetable crops, multi-factor analysis
Tomatoes N Count N % Count Center Geograph North ical Zone South Small Size Medium Large Cabbage Tomato Basic Crop Radish Cucumbers Sweet pepper Other 138 117 83 175 115 48 15 211 3 58 26 25 124 90 76 147 98 45 13 199 2 43 20 13 90 77 92 84 85 94 87 94 67 74 77 52 70 48 47 74 60 31 7 108 0 21 22 7 Sweet pepper N % 51 41 57 42 52 65 47 51 0 36 85 28 Cucumbers Cabbage Radish Count N % 99 74 62 113 78 44 8 152 3 48 12 12 72 63 75 65 68 92 53 72 100 83 46 48 Co Cou N % un nt t 36 26 30 26 43 43 37 25 12 66 13 7 7 22 52 25 32 52 80 31 22 27 28 21 29 30 33 17 1 59 2 9 7 2 Eggpla Seedlin Greens Flowers nt gs Co N Co N Co N Co N N % un % unt % unt % unt % t 22 15 11 21 15 20 14 45 33 18 35 17 29 35 7 28 67 16 27 8 30 26 14 12 15 18 3 4 6 30 17 11 9 3 9 6 1 7 1 5 8 4 5 55 47 18 22 50 29
20 17 14 12 17 15 45 39 10 21 13 27 5 7 7 9 27 28 6 2 4 10 8 16 13 23 48 7 9 4 1 4 33 15 76 36
41 19 26 12 18
12 22 38 20 15 60
Large and medium scale growers have a higher interest in growing a wider variety of crops than do small-scale producers, with small-scale producers concentrating their selections around tomato (84%) and cucumber (65%). Producers that grow tomato are mostly going to continue this business (94%) as well as the ones growing sweet pepper (77%) and cucumbers (83%).
Page 59 of 76
ANNEXIPHASE1SURVEYINSTRUMENT
GENERAL INFORMATION Raion City Mayoralty (name, contact phones) Village PRODUCERS AND THE STRUCTURE OF THE PROTECTED AREA
The type of the producer (physical entity, FF, IE, LTD, JSC, COOP) Te total including by type, s.m. surface of glass the plastic low tunnel, surfaces under greenho protected greenhouse and s.m. agril, s.m. area, s.m. use, tunnel, s.m. s.m. Annual yield per crop tomatoes, tons Cucumbers, tons Sweet peppers, tons other vegetables, tons Flowers, thousand. Pcs
Enterprise name or the producer
Contact person
Phone/Fax Contacts
Please answer to the following questions taking into consideration the comment received from the vegetable growers:
1. What are the major problems that vegetable growers face to? * a) Lack of the suppliers of greenhouse construction b) Lack of own financial sources c) High bank interest rate d) Lack of the knowledge in vegetable production e) Lack of the distribution market f) Low prices on local market g) Reduced possibilities to export h) High energy costs for greenhouse heating i) Poor water quality for irrigation j) Lack of the water sources for irrigation k) Big distances to the distribution market 2.Do the local producers have the intention to extend the surfaces under protected area in the near future?: YES* NO* NOT SURE* If yes, what will be the extension plans for next 2-3 years? Glass Covered greenhouses, m2 plastic covered greenhouses, m2 Low tunnels,m2 Surfaces under agril, m2 What would be the priorities use of subventions? (select just one option) Construction of new greenhouses Renovation of the existent greenhouses Equipment procurements for greenhouses Others
Position: Date:
3. What are the request of vegetable producers from your region?:
* Tag the cell

Filled by: Name:
Page 60 of 76
ANNEXIIPHASE2SURVEYINSTRUMENT
THE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE OF VEGETABLES PRODUCTION IN PROTECTED AREA, PHASE 2
Questionnaire Code 1. GENERAL INFORMATION Respondent Name Phone Number North The total surface of the protected area, sq. m. Main crop (tick only one)
Region
Center
South
Tomatoes Sweet pepper Cucumbers
Cabbage
Radish
Others
2. THE SPECIFICATION OF GREENHOUSE CONSTRUCTION 2.1. Type of greenhouse 2.2. Covering material Single tunnel Plastic, one layer Bloc tunnel Plastic, double layer Double gable, single Glass Double gable, bloc Polycarbonate 2.3. The greenhouse frame is produced of: Wood 2.4. Greenhouse age: up to one year 1 - 5 years 5 - 10 years 10 - 20 years Over 20 years 2.6. Greenhouse heating No heat Type of fuel for heating: Natural gas Diesel wood coal hay 2.7. Greenhouse operating period: Beginning of season(month/ decade) End of season (month/ decade)
, Metal
2.5.The greenhouse was: bought from a supplier constructed by myself got as quota
Heat media: air air & ground only ground
3. THE IMPUT SUPPLY LEVEL & THE QUALITY OF PRODUCTION MATERIALS 3.1. Please, evaluate the supply level and the quality of production materials*: Are you satisfied by? Items Constructed greenhouses The greenhouse frame construction materials The greenhouse cover materials Seeds/ seedlings Pesticides Fertilizers * Here and below in case of quantitative evaluation is used the following scale: 1 absolutly unsatisfactory / little/ not important at all 2 unsatisfactory/ a little/ not important 3 satisfactory/ sufficient/ quite important 4 good/ many/ important 5 excelent/a lot/ very important 3.2. Which one of the following problems are the major ones for production? (tick all) High cost of greenhouse heating sources Low quality of water sources for greenhouse irrigation No water for greenhouse irrigation 4. VEGETABLES PRODUCTION 4.1.For production is used : Local variety & hybrids Imported variety & hybrids 4.3. What type of seedlings do you use? Seedlings in small celll cartridge Seedlings in big celll cartridge Seedlings in pots Seedlings in traditional beds 4.4. The crop is set up: in ground in nutritive substrate in artificial substrate (hydroponics) in straw bale others (describe please): 4.2. Seedlings for greenhouse are: bought produced by own
nr. of distributors Assortment
(1 - 5)
Price
Quality
4.5. How many crops do you produce during one season? a) One crop (indicate the crop and the period) Tomatoes Planting date (month/ decade) Sweet peppers First harvest date (month/ decade)
Cucumbers Cabbage Radish Others b) Two crops (indicate Tomatoes Sweet peppers Cucumbers Cabbage Radish Others
Last harvest date (month/ decade)
the second crop and the period) Planting date (month/ decade) First harvest date (month/ decade) Last harvest date (month/ decade)
c) Three crops (indicate the third crop and the period) Tomatoes Planting date (month/ decade) Sweet peppers First harvest date (month/ decade) Cucumbers Last harvest date (month/ decade) Cabbage Radish Others 5. KNOWLEDGE, TRAININGS AND OTHER INFORMATION 5.1. What professional education has the farm owner/manager in vegetables production? No Medium education High education Others
Please, explain:
5.2. Have you in previously 2-3 years attended specialized training courses (including seminars, forums, round tables) related vegetables production in protected fields? Yes No Dont need 5.3. Have you a personal library related vegetables production in protected fields? YES NOW If NO: Dont need Would like to have 5.4. Do you think there is sufficient literature available related to vegetables production in protected area? Yes No Dont know
Page 63 of 76
5.5. To which of the following institutions and organizations do you apply for consultation or TA support in production of vegetables in protected fields? Agrarian University Agricultural College Scientific and research institutions Scientific Academy ACSA Offices Agroinform Offices ADP/CNFA Project Farmers Federation Consultants/ individual experts Others 5.6. Have you previously visited others producers of vegetables in protected fields? NO YES If Yes: In the same community In other regions In other countries 5.7. What mass-media sources do you use to be informed related vegetables production in protected fields? Newspapers/journals TV Radio Internet Distributors Others 6. FINANCING 6.1. Are you sufficiently informed about financing possibilities and conditions in agricultural sector offered by the following financial institutions and organizations? Commercial banks RISP RFC IFAD State Subventions Others
6.2. What financial sources have you used to construct the greenhouse? a) Own financial/ family sources b) Bank credit c) Other credits d) Leasing e) Partially or totally from offered grant and subventions 6.3. What is the source of working capital?
a) Own financial/ family sources b) Bank credit c) Other credits 6.4. If you previously benefited for construction of greenhouse from the state subventions or grants, please indicate the state or grant contribution percent? 20 % 21 - 50 % 51 - 75 % 75 % 6.5. If it will be necessary to increase the present greenhouse surface, please indicate would you apply for bank credit? YES NO If NO, why not? I have the sufficient own sources High bank credit percent No long term credits No sufficient collateral High risk for credit reimbursement High bureaucracy in process of credit obtaining Other reasons 6.6. If you will decide to construct a new greenhouse, please indicate would you like to apply for a distributor of greenhouse in leasing? YES NO If NO, why not? Not familiar with leasing conditions Not satisfied by leasing conditions Other reasons 7. SALES 7.1. Please indicate all distribution channels used by you. Channel Own shop/ kiosk Directly at retail market Via intermediaries at retail market Directly at wholesale market Via intermediaries at wholesale market Supermarkets chains Direct Export Export via intermediaries 7.2. Product transportation. The products are bought from the site by buyer The products are delivered to point of sale by producer
tick
7.3. Please indicate the contracting modality practiced by you. tick Modality Have preliminary contract with the buyer Have preliminary oral agreement with the buyer Have neither contract nor agreement 7.3. Please indicate the payment modality practiced by you. Modality Advance payment Payment is made on product delivery Payment is made according to product selling Payment is made in X days after delivery (days nr.)
tick
7.4. What are the areas of product sales activity where you experience the problems? Not satisfied by selling price Long distance to main sales points Unsatisfied infrastructure up to greenhouse Buyers dont purchase the negotiated volume Buyers dont respect payment terms Buyers return unsold products High requirements respect to quality and delivery conditions Difficulties in opening the sales point of own products High level of concurrence between local producers High level of concurrence conditioned by imported products 8. DEVELOPMENT PLANS 8.1. Have you intentions in the next 3 years to increase the present greenhouse surface?: YES NO
Uncertainty
If YES, how much would be increased in following 2-3 years the greenhouse surface? Glass, m2 Plastic , m2 Low tunnels,m2 8.2. For what activities would you be most likely to use a governmental subvention? New greenhouse construction Present greenhouse renovation Equipment purchasing for greenhouses Others 8.3. What crops do you plan to plant in greenhouse in future? Tomato Sweet pepper Cucumbers Cabbage Garden radish Eggplant
Potherbs Flowers Sprout
Thank You for collaboration!
Page 67 of 76
ANNEXIIISTATISTICALTABLES Table 1 Growers and administrative units using protected cover technologies, 2008
Mayoralties in which there are producers of vegetables in covered area
Number % from total mayoralties per rayon
Rayon
Total mayoralties
Number of growers
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Anenii Noi Bli Basarabeasca Briceni Cahul Calarasi Cantemir Causeni Chisinau Cimislia Criuleni Dondueni Drochia Dubasari Edinet Falesti Floresti Glodeni Hincesti Ialoveni Leova Nisporeni Ocnita Orhei Rezina Riscani Singerei Soldanesti Soroca Stefan Voda Straseni Taraclia Telenesti Ungheni Utag TOTAL
26 3 7 28 37 28 27 27 19 23 25 22 28 11 32 33 40 19 39 25 25 23 20 39 25 28 26 23 35 23 27 15 31 33 26 898
17 1 2 15 18 18 12 9 7 7 19 8 18 4 16 12 11 15 26 9 7 16 4 25 13 12 12 18 18 18 13 12 14 23 12 461
65.38 33.33 28.57 53.57 48.65 64.29 44.44 33.33 36.84 30.43 76.00 36.36 64.29 36.36 50.00 36.36 27.50 78.95 66.67 36.00 28.00 69.57 20.00 64.10 52.00 42.86 46.15 78.26 51.43 78.26 48.15 80.00 45.16 69.70 46.15 51.34
214 44 7 90 466 94 57 37 62 31 4,295 17 127 612 67 173 66 83 136 221 12 93 22 190 32 50 114 63 203 99 51 50 54 170 39 8,141
Page 68 of 76
Table 2 Villages with major areas using protected cover technologies, 2008
# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Rayon Criuleni Criuleni Dubsari Cahul Ialoveni Fleti Anenii Noi Soroca Sngerei Orhei Ungheni Bli Chiinu Anenii Noi Cahul Mayoralty Dubasarii Vechi Slobozia Dusca Pirita Vadul Lui Isac Nimoreni Toxobeni Gura Bicului Cosauti Singereii Noi Braviceni Sculeni Elizaveta Condrita Speia Valeni Number of producers Total covered area, ha
3,600 603 600 284 151 127 69 60 56 56 56 44 35 31 31
150.0 10.0 19.1 26.5 2.3 14.2 12.9 4.9 2.4 3.4 4.3 4.2 0.4 37.3 1.8
Page 69 of 76
Table 3 Distribution of per capita protected cover production area by population base, 2008
# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Rayon Anenii Noi Balti Basarabeasca Briceni Cahul Calarasi Cantemir Causeni Chisinau Cimislia Criuleni Donduseni Drochia Dubasari Edinet Falesti Floresti Glodeni Hincesti Ialoveni Leova Nisporeni Ocnita Orhei Rezina Riscani Singerei Soldanesti Soroca Stefan Voda Straseni Taraclia Telenesti Ungheni Utag TOTAL Population ('000 persons) Protected cover area (m2) Protected cover area per capita (m2)
82.34 126.98 28.84 76.05 118.91 74.04 61.36 89.88 755.88 60.18 71.98 44.68 85.99 35.01 81.87 89.32 87.21 59.75 119.18 98.37 51.77 64.80 55.26 115.34 50.47 68.01 87.07 41.51 99.62 70.31 88.76 42.60 69.87 110.67 155.55 3,419.43
730,326 41,900 8,180 42,710 343,841 92,799 32,601 21,364 332,298 29,790 1,715,041 15,796 45,832 200,160 47,368 159,585 108,586 20,657 81,264 210,456 14,707 29,639 29,498 198,292 24,905 35,914 41,818 184,176 144,014 94,299 30,142 46,864 40,510 216,651 30,701 5,442,684
8.87 0.33 0.28 0.56 2.89 1.25 0.53 0.24 0.44 0.50 23.83 0.35 0.53 5.72 0.58 1.79 1.25 0.35 0.68 2.14 0.28 0.46 0.53 1.72 0.49 0.53 0.48 4.44 1.45 1.34 0.34 1.10 0.58 1.96 0.20 1.59
* Note: Protected cover area includes glass and plastic greenhouses, low tunnels and agril cover
Page 70 of 76
Table 4 Distribution of glass greenhouse growers by size of production unit, 2008

Rayon Anenii Noi Causeni Chisinau Criuleni Dubasari Falesti Glodeni Hincesti Ialoveni Nisporeni Ocnita Orhei Soldanesti Soroca Stefan Voda TOTAL Total growers Number of growers with glass greenhouse area of: 500-999 1000-4999 5000-9999 >1 ha < 500 m2 m2 m2 m2
5 1 4 1 1 1 1 0 9 2 2 3 1 2 7 40 100%
1 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 2 2 19 47.5%
4 1 1 4 1 2 2 11 27.5% 3 3 7.5% 1 2
1 2.5%
6 15.0%
Page 71 of 76
Table 5 Distribution of plastic greenhouse growers by size of production unit, 2008

Rayon Anenii Noi Balti Basarabeasca Briceni Cahul Calarasi Cantemir Causeni Chisinau Cimislia Criuleni Donduseni Drochia Dubasari Edinet Falesti Floresti Glodeni Hincesti Ialoveni Leova Nisporeni Ocnita Orhei Rezina Riscani Singerei Soldanesti Soroca Stefan Voda Straseni Taraclia Telenesti Ungheni Utag TOTAL Total growers Number of growers with covered area of: 500-999 5000-9999 1000-4999 m2 m2 m2
< 500 m2
>1 ha
209 44 7 88 392 89 49 31 60 30 4,288 17 122 611 66 172 65 77 133 210 10 86 22 185 32 49 114 52 183 89 47 50 43 157 17 7,896 100%
108 18 6 75 143 54 30 17 37 12 4,262 8 94 607 39 40 56 74 114 195 7 78 16 144 24 40 89 42 111 76 41 41 26 102 6 6,832 86.5%
42 10 6 123 11 11 12 11 5 9 7 20 2 17 42 4 2 8 12 2 5 4 16 1 4 19 4 49 7 1 3 6 24 6 505 6.4%
50 16 7 126 24 7 2 3 13 10 2 8 2 9 90 3 1 10 2 3 2 14 7 3 5 5 19 5 3 4 10 29 1 495 6.2%
1 1
1 1 4 8 3
1 2 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 4 2 2 1 1 4 33 0.4% 5 1
1 31 0.4%
Page 72 of 76
Table 6 Distribution of low tunnel growers by size of production unit, 2008

Rayon Anenii Noi Balti Basarabeasca Briceni Cahul Calarasi Cantemir Causeni Chisinau Cimislia Criuleni Donduseni Drochia Dubasari Edinet Falesti Floresti Glodeni Hincesti Ialoveni Leova Nisporeni Ocnita Orhei Rezina Riscani Singerei Soldanesti Soroca Stefan Voda Straseni Taraclia Telenesti Ungheni Utag TOTAL Total growers Number of growers with covered area of: 5000-9999 1000-4999 < 500 m2 500-999 m2 m2 m2
>1 ha
2 0 0 10 11 12 12 11 0 0 3 1 20 600 6 1 14 21 8 1 0 6 3 5 2 3 1 18 63 13 5 9 12 14 23 910 100%
1 8 9 6 10 7
1 2 2 5 1
1 4 1
1 20 600 6 1 14 19 6 1 4 3 3 2 2 1 16 62 10 4 9 9 10 23 867 95.27%
2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 17 1.87% 1 1 1 1
3 23 2.53% 2 0.22% 1 0.11%
Page 73 of 76
Table 7 Distribution of growers using Spotbond (agril) cover by size of production unit, 2008
Rayon # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Anenii Noi Balti Basarabeasca Briceni Cahul Calarasi Cantemir Causeni Chisinau Cimislia Criuleni Donduseni Drochia Dubasari Edinet Falesti Floresti Glodeni Hincesti Ialoveni Leova Nisporeni Ocnita Orhei Rezina Riscani Singerei Soldanesti Soroca Stefan Voda Straseni Taraclia Telenesti Ungheni Utag TOTAL Total growers < 500 m2 Number of growers with covered area of: 500-999 1000-4999 5000-9999 m2 m2 m2 >1 ha
12 0 0 3 83 9 1 3 3 2 3,604 3 0 600 3 1 17 7 3 10 2 5 2 1 1 0 2 4 0 14 6 2 3 11 0 4,417 100%
1 1 18 3 2 1 3,601 2 600 1 6 1
4 1 36 4 1 1 1 1 1 12 1 3 1 4
3 1
29 2 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
3 1 3 1 1
2 1 4 2 1
1 3 5 7 4,252 96.26% 1 1 1 1 44 1.00%
2 1 8 1 2 2 87 1.97%
1 1
1 1 1 1
18 0.41%
16 0.36%
Page 74 of 76
Fig.1Numberofgreenhousegrowersperrayon,Moldova,2008......................................................................... 5 Fig.2PercapitadistributionofareaforprotectedcultivationofvegetablesindifferentMoldovangeographic zones,m2/percapita............................................................................................................................................... 7 Fig.3GlassgreenhouseSpeiavillage,AneniiNoi................................................................................................... 8 Fig.4Vegetableproductioninlowtunnels.VindexagroLtd,Malaestivillage,Orhei........................................... 9 Fig.5EarlycabbageunderAgrilcover,SantAgroLtd,Cuniciavillage,Florestirayon ......................................... 10 Fig.6Structureofindoorvegetableproductionareabytypeofbusinessorganizations.................................... 12 Fig.7Structureofindoorgrowersbytypeofbusinessorganization ................................................................... 12 Fig.8Geographicaldistributionofdifferenttypesofbusinessorganizationsproducingindoorvegetables ...... 13 Fig.9Distributionofareaforprotectedcultivationofvegetablesbytypeofbusinessorganization,Northpart ofMoldova ........................................................................................................................................................... 13 Fig.10Distributionofareaforindoorcultivationofvegetablesbytypeofbusinessorganization,Centerpartof Moldova................................................................................................................................................................ 14 Fig.11Distributionofareaforprotectedcultivationofvegetablesbytypeofbusinessorganization,Southpart ofMoldova ........................................................................................................................................................... 14 Fig.12Basiccropsgrowningreenhouses,N=350................................................................................................ 19 Fig.13Singlearchedgreenhouse.InterconsultMDLtd,Criuleni ........................................................................ 20 Fig.14Distributionofgreenhousebytypeofconstruction,N=350..................................................................... 20 Fig.15Plasticcoveredarchedblocktypeofgreenhouse,AsconiLtd.Geamanavillage,AneniiNoi ................... 21 Fig.16StructureofgreenhousecoveringmaterialusedbyMoldaviangrowers,N=350 .................................... 22 Fig.17Greenhousesframesconstructionmaterial,N=350 ................................................................................ 23 Fig.18Greenhousesage,N=350 ......................................................................................................................... 24 Fig.19Originofgreenhouseconstructionmaterials,N=350 ............................................................................... 25 Fig.20GrowersuseofheatFig.21Typeoffuelforheatinggreenhouses ................................... 26 Fig.22Greenhousemediathatisheated,N=200 ................................................................................................ 27 Fig.23Theendingmonthofgreenhouseuse,N=350.......................................................................................... 27 Fig.24Preferenceofgreenhousegrowersforlocalandforeignvarieties.......................................................... 30 Fig.25Typeofseedlingsusedforplantingvegetablesingreenhouses.............................................................. 31 Fig.26Glassgreenhousetomatoinsoilculture,ProCasparLtd,Speiavillage................................................... 32 Fig.27Substratesusedforgrowingvegetablesingreenhouses......................................................................... 32 Fig.28Distributionofgreenhousegrowersbynumberofcropsgrownperyear ............................................... 33 Fig.29Shareofdifferentvegetablesgrownpereachcrop................................................................................. 33 Fig.30Distributionofgreenhousegrowersbylevelofprofessional/technicaleducation ................................. 34 Fig.31Participationofgreenhousegrowersonprofessionaltrainingcourses................................................... 35 Fig.32Possessionofprofessionalliterature ....................................................................................................... 36 Fig.33Interestofgreenhousegrowerstohavespecializedliterature ................................................................ 36 Fig.34Availabilityofprofessionalliterature ........................................................................................................ 37 Fig.35Consultingservicesprovidedtogreenhousegrowers,%,N=260 ............................................................. 38 Fig.36Greenhousegrowersmakingvisitstoothersimilarfarmers,%,N=349................................................... 39 Fig.37Locationofgreenhousegrowersvisitedbyrespondents,%,N=252 ....................................................... 39 Fig.38Sourcesofinformationforgreenhousegrowers,%,N=283 .................................................................... 40 Fig.39Informationaboutdifferentsourcesoffinancing,%,N=142................................................................... 41 Fig.40Sourcingcapitalinvestmentsusedforgreenhouseconstruction,%,N=340............................................ 42 Fig.41Sourcesoffinancingforoperationalcosts,%,N=350............................................................................... 42 Fig.42Sharecoveredbygrantinaid%,N=25,.................................................................................................... 43 Fig.43Desiretotakebankcredits,%,N=350 ...................................................................................................... 44 Fig.44Reasonsfornotwantingtotakebankcredits,%,N=208 ......................................................................... 45 Fig.45Growerinterestinusingfinancialleasing,%,N=350................................................................................ 46 Fig.46Reasonsfornotusingfinancialleasing,%,N=219 .................................................................................... 46 Fig.47Typeofmarketandsalesmethodforgreenhousevegetables,%,N=335................................................ 48 Fig.48ProductTransportationType,%,N=331 ................................................................................................... 50 Fig.49Contractmethod,%,N=319...................................................................................................................... 51 Fig.50Methodofpayment,%,N=324 ................................................................................................................. 52
Fig.51Mainproblemsinsellinggreenhouseproduction,%N=309 .................................................................. 53 Fig.52Plansforextendinggreenhouseproductionarea,N=350 ........................................................................ 55 Fig.53Preferenceoffarmersfordifferenttypesofnewprotectedareaconstructions,%,N=216 .................... 57 Fig.54Farmerspreferenceforsubventionuse,%,N=312.................................................................................. 58 Fig.55Prioritiesfordifferentcropstobegrowninthefutureingreenhousearea,%,N=338 ........................... 58
Page 76 of 76

Protected Cultivation of Vegetables in Moldova Report

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Protected Cultivation of Vegetables in Moldova Report

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PROTECTED CULTIVATION OF VEGETABLES IN MOLDOVA

AGRIBUSINESS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT