A draft law that, according to the government, aims to adapt the protection of agricultural land to “modern agriculture” has sparked a clash in Parliament. Socialist MP Erion Braçe raised strong doubts over the fact that the limits for the use of agricultural land by photovoltaic and wind parks are not being clearly enshrined in law, but are instead being left to decisions of the Council of Ministers.
The debate opened over limits for energy projects on agricultural land
During the review of amendments to the law “On the protection of agricultural land,” Braçe called for the limits on the development of photovoltaic and wind projects to be clearly written into the law. According to him, leaving these definitions at the level of government decisions creates room for uncontrolled expansion into areas that should remain in agricultural production.
He warned that if the wording remains unclear, considerable areas of agricultural land across the country could be put at risk. At the core of his objection was the idea that agricultural land cannot be treated as an endless reserve for activities outside its main function.
Braçe asked for figures on licenses and permits issued
The Socialist MP also raised specific questions about the number of licenses and permits issued so far for wind and agro-photovoltaic parks on agricultural land. He asked how many of them had been approved on land with a bonitet rating of 9 to 10, meaning land of high quality for agriculture.
This is a significant detail in the debate, because it touches not only on the principle of land protection, but also on the way decisions have been made so far. From the material made public, it does not appear that these figures were provided during the session.
Andis Salla defended the draft law with the argument of modernization
Agriculture Minister Andis Salla presented the draft law as a limited but necessary intervention to adapt the law to developments in modern agriculture. According to the minister’s version, the changes do not affect the main function of agricultural land, which remains production.
Salla argued that new technologies can help improve the use of water, nutrients and natural resources, increasing productivity. He also defended the formula under which some criteria would be set by decision of the Council of Ministers, saying this would be done under strict rules.
The main point of the clash: law or government decision
Braçe objected precisely to this architecture of the draft law. According to him, the limits should not remain open to be determined later by the government, but should be clear in the very articles of the law. He called for changes to Article 2, point 6, so that the limits for each park are defined without ambiguity.
His message was politically direct: the land is for agriculture, not industry. If the law leaves unclear space, then according to him the protection of agricultural land is weakened and the government gains greater discretion over a limited asset.
The debate in Parliament highlighted not only a clash between a majority MP and the Agriculture minister, but also a broader issue: how clearly the state is setting the boundaries between agricultural production and energy projects.
For the moment, the government insists that this is about modernization and not encroachment on land. But the questions over existing licenses, high-bonitet land and the powers left to the Council of Ministers remain open.