Annals of the Academy of Romanian Scientists
Series on Agriculture, Silviculture and Veterinary Medicine
ISSN 2344-2085
Volume
15
, Number
2
/
2026
48
ANALYSIS OF FINANCING OF AGRICULTURAL PROJECTS
AT THE LEVEL OF BIHOR COUNTY, ROMANIA
F
lorin
BORODAN
6
,
B
rindusa
COVACI
7
,
Raul-Dacian VIDICAN
8
,
D
avid
E
manuel
BARA
9
,
I
oana
-G
eorgiana
MERKA
10
,
Radu BREJEA
11
Abstract.
The article presents the analysis of agricultural and rural financing trends
related to Bihor County. The empirical analysis was carried out through statistical
simulations. The results of the analysis demonstrate that the most important impact on
agro-rural development, through external funds, is the measure for young farmers, which
has the largest number of contracted and completed projects. Financing young farmers is
of critical importance for agricultural development, having a significant positive impact
on rural development and communities. The high project completion rate reflects the
success of the measure in achieving agricultural and rural development objectives. The
low number of terminated projects suggests that this financing is well managed and
sustainable, contributing to the sustainable development of agriculture in the region.
Keywords:
Agricultural and rural financing; young farmers; European funds; Bihor
County; project implementation.
DOI
10.56082/annalsarsciagri.2026.2.48
1.
Introduction
Agricultural project financing supports farm modernisation and the rural economy by
enabling investment in production capacity, technology and diversified activities.
European
funds
can
reduce
beneficiaries'
financial
constraints
and
support
the
development of farms and rural communities [3, 7].
In Romania, funding provided through the National Rural Development Programme
(NRDP) has created opportunities for agricultural investment and rural business
development [6]. Assessing this funding requires examining both contracted resources
6
PhD
Student
Florin
BORODAN,
The
Doctoral
School
Engineering
Sciences,
Agronomy
University of Oradea. E-mail: borodan81@gmail.com
7
Prof. dr. Brindusa COVACI, CBM International University & Center for Mountain Economy. E-
mail: covacibrindusa@gmail.com
8
1
Assist. Prof. PhD student., Raul-Dacian VIDICAN, Doctoral School Engineering Sciences,
Agronomy, University of Oradea. E-mail:
raulvidican@yahoo.com
9
PhD Student David Emanuel BARA, The Doctoral School Engineering Sciences, Agronomy
University of Oradea. E-mail: bara_david10@yahoo.com
10
PhD Student Ioana Georgiana MERKA, The Doctoral School Engineering Sciences, Agronomy
University of Oradea. E-mail:
filipgeorgi@yahoo.com
11
Prof. Hab. PhD., Petru Radu BREJEA, University of Oradea, Full Member of Academy of the
Romanian Scientists. E-mail: rbrejea@uoradea.ro
Analysis of Financing of Agricultural Projects at the Level of Bihor County, Romania
49
and implementation progress. The numbers of contracted, completed, ongoing and
terminated
projects,
together
with
their
corresponding
financial
values,
provide
indicators of how available support is translated into implemented investments.
Support for setting up young farmers is a relevant component of agricultural financing
[2]. Developing viable businesses is important for the long-term competitiveness and
sustainability of agriculture. Generational renewal also depends on access to land,
professional training and opportunities to develop viable farms. May et al. [10] show
that financial incentives interact with social and motivational factors in young farmers'
willingness to remain in farming.
The relevance of this funding direction to Bihor County is also reflected in the
literature. Cuc et al. [5] analysed applications under Submeasure 6.1 in mountain areas,
including Bihor County, using project selection reports. Their study highlights interest
in setting up young farmers and provides a starting point for examining the territorial
distribution
of
support.
Local
research
helps
relate
funding
instruments
to
the
characteristics of beneficiaries and the areas where projects are implemented. Research
on financing trends among young farmers in Romania also provides a broader context
for this county-level analysis [4].
Assessing agricultural financing at county level makes it possible to identify frequently
accessed support measures and differences between implementation stages. Comparing
project numbers with funding values can reveal distinct support profiles: a measure
with numerous projects does not necessarily account for the largest financial value.
Interpretation must therefore combine quantitative project indicators with the financial
scale
of
investments.
This
territorial
perspective
is
also
relevant
to
regional
development planning [1].
This article analyses agricultural and rural project financing in Bihor County by support
measure and implementation stage. It examines project numbers, financial values and
payments to identify the main characteristics of funding uptake and implementation,
with attention to support relevant to young farmers.
Materials and methods
The research was designed as a quantitative, descriptive and comparative case study of
Bihor County. The documentary material consisted of administrative data from the
Agency for Financing Rural Investments (AFIR), reproduced in the doctoral thesis,
concerning projects funded through the NRDP. The analysis examined the distribution
of projects and financial resources across support measures and implementation stages.
National statistical sources provide wider agricultural context [8, 9].
The indicators included the numbers of contracted, ongoing, completed and terminated
projects, the corresponding financial values, and payments made. Financial values were
Florin
Borodan
, Brindusa
Covaci
, Raul-Dacian
Vidican
,
David Emanuel
Bara
, Ioana-Georgiana
Merka
, Radu
Brejea
50
expressed in euros. The unit of analysis was the funding measure, for which the
available county-level aggregated data were examined.
Data
processing
compared
measures
by
project
numbers
and
funding
values.
Descriptive statistical analysis covered absolute frequencies and percentage shares, with
results summarised in tables. Each measure's share was calculated against the total for
the corresponding indicator to establish its contribution to the structure of agricultural
and rural financing in the county.
Comparison of implementation stages aimed to describe project progress and identify
differences between support measures. Project numbers were analysed together with
financial values, since a high project frequency does not necessarily imply the largest
share of funding. Contracted projects were treated as the reference total and were not
added to the implementation categories, thereby avoiding double counting.
Particular attention was paid to Measure 6 and support for setting up young farmers.
Interpretation respected the level of data aggregation, distinguishing Measure 6 results
from
those
specifically
attributable
to
Submeasure
6.1
whenever
the
available
information allowed this distinction [2, 5].
The results were interpreted as indicators of funding structure and administrative
implementation progress. The aggregated nature of the data limits assessment of effects
on individual farms and does not allow a causal economic impact to be attributed solely
to the financing examined. The findings describe a portfolio snapshot; its reporting date
was not specified in the source section.
Results and discussions
The analysis of agricultural and rural project financing in Bihor County reveals
differences between support measures in both project numbers and contracted values.
At the reference date of the administrative snapshot, 5,232 contracted projects were
recorded, with a total value of EUR 322.98 million. Of these, 3,605 were completed,
1,175 were ongoing and 452 were terminated. Table 1 presents the distribution of
projects and financial values by implementation stage.
Table 1.
Distribution of projects and contracted values by implementation stage in Bihor County
Project status
Number of
projects
Share of projects
(%)
Value (EUR million)
Share of value (%)
Completed
3,605
68.90
126.74
39.24
Ongoing
1,175
22.46
184.23
57.04
Terminated
452
8.64
12.01
3.72
Total contracted
5,232
100.00
322.98
100.00
Analysis of Financing of Agricultural Projects at the Level of Bihor County, Romania
51
Completed projects represented 68.90% of the total number of contracted projects,
indicating that most had reached the end of implementation. However, their value
accounted for only 39.24% of total contracted value. Ongoing projects represented
22.46% of contracts but concentrated 57.04% of their value. This difference
indicates that projects still being implemented were, on average, financially larger
than
completed
projects.
Assessing
progress
therefore
requires
simultaneous
examination of project numbers and financial values.
The distribution by measure shows the predominance of Measure 6 in terms of
project numbers. It comprised 4,288 contracted projects, representing 81.96% of
the county total. By comparison, Measure 4 included 207 projects and Measure 7
included 121. The ranking differed in financial terms: Measure 4 held first place,
with EUR 151.82 million, or 47.01% of total contracted value (Table 2).
Table 2
. Project numbers and contracted values for the main funding measures
Measure
Contracted
projects
Share of projects
(%)
Contracted value (EUR
million)
Share of value (%)
M4
207
3.96
151.82
47.01
M6
4,288
81.96
84.27
26.09
M7
121
2.31
68.45
21.19
Other measures
616
11.77
18.43
5.71
Total
5,232
100.00
322.98
100.00
Together, these three measures concentrated 94.29% of total contracted value.
Measure 6 was characterised by numerous projects with relatively low individual
values,
averaging
approximately
EUR
19,653
per
contracted
project.
The
corresponding average was approximately EUR 733,447 for Measure 4 and EUR
565,733 for Measure 7. These differences illustrate distinct funding profiles and
show that numerical predominance does not imply financial predominance. The
averages describe the portfolios examined and do not represent individual support
ceilings.
Within Measure 6, 3,034 of the 4,288 contracted projects were completed, 840
were ongoing and 414 were terminated. Completed projects represented 70.76%
of the measure's contracts, slightly above the county-level share of 68.90%.
Measure 6 also accounted for 84.16% of all completed projects, confirming its
major contribution to the number of projects implemented.
Termination figures nevertheless require careful interpretation. The 414 terminated
projects under Measure 6 represented 9.65% of its contracts and 91.59% of all
terminated projects in the county. Although completed projects predominated, the
proportion of terminations within the measure exceeded the county-level figure of
Florin
Borodan
, Brindusa
Covaci
, Raul-Dacian
Vidican
,
David Emanuel
Bara
, Ioana-Georgiana
Merka
, Radu
Brejea
52
8.64%.
This
finding
supports
further
examination
of
termination
causes
and
beneficiaries' support needs during implementation. The available aggregated data do
not identify the specific reasons for contract termination.
In financial terms, terminated projects were worth EUR 12.01 million, representing
3.72% of total contracted value. This share was below their numerical share of
8.64%, indicating a lower average value for terminated contracts than for the portfolio
as a whole. The indicator expresses the value of terminated contracts and should not
be interpreted as an actual financial loss of the same amount.
Payments totalled EUR 212.99 million, equivalent to 65.95% of total contracted
value. This ratio describes the financial progress of the portfolio examined and is not
the absorption rate of the entire programme. Payments are not confined to completed
projects and may include amounts disbursed for projects still being implemented.
The findings support the relevance of Measure 6 to the structure of agricultural and
rural financing in Bihor County. However, the data are aggregated by measure and do
not allow all projects to be attributed to support for setting up young farmers. A
separate assessment of this beneficiary category requires Submeasure 6.1 data. The
distinction is important when relating the present findings to research specifically
addressing
young
farmers
[4,
5,
10].
Accordingly,
the
results
describe
project
concentration and implementation progress, while effects on productivity, income
and rural community development require additional beneficiary-level indicators.
Overall,
Measure
6
predominated
numerically
and
Measure
4
financially.
The
findings highlight the need to monitor high-value ongoing projects and examine
terminations to improve beneficiary assistance.
Conclusions
The analysis of agricultural and rural project financing in Bihor County identified a
portfolio of 5,232 contracted projects worth EUR 322.98 million. Completed projects
represented 68.90% of the total number, ongoing projects 22.46% and terminated
projects 8.64%. These findings indicate substantial implementation progress while
also demonstrating the need to continue monitoring unfinished projects.
The distribution of financing reveals differences between the numerical and financial
importance of support measures. Measure 6 concentrated 81.96% of contracted
projects and 26.09% of total contracted value, whereas Measure 4 accounted for
47.01% of contracted value. Assessment should therefore consider project numbers,
investment scale and implementation stage together.
Within Measure 6, the share of completed projects was 70.76%, above the county-
level
proportion.
Nevertheless,
terminated
projects
represented
9.65%
of
the
measure's contracts, supporting further investigation of beneficiaries' difficulties and
Analysis of Financing of Agricultural Projects at the Level of Bihor County, Romania
53
improvements in implementation assistance. Results aggregated under Measure 6
cannot be attributed entirely to the submeasure supporting young farmers.
Payments amounted to EUR 212.99 million, equivalent to 65.95% of contracted
value. Ongoing projects concentrated 57.04% of total contract value, highlighting
the importance of completing financially larger investments.
Separate monitoring of submeasures, investigation of termination causes and
assessment of farm performance after completion are recommended. The findings
describe funding structure and implementation progress; effects on productivity,
income and rural development require beneficiary-level data.
R E F E R E N C E S
[1]
Agenția pentru Dezvoltare Regională Nord-Vest, Planul
de dezvoltare regională Nord-Vest 2021–2027 [North-West Regional Development Plan
2021–2027], 2021.
[2]
Agenția
pentru
Finanțarea
Investițiilor
Rurale,
Ghidul
solicitantului – Submăsura 6.1: Sprijin pentru instalarea tinerilor fermieri [Applicant's guide
– Submeasure 6.1: Support for setting up young farmers], 2021.
[3]
Bârgăoanu, A., Finanțare europeană [European financing],
Editura Comunicare.ro, 2004.
[4]
Borodan, F., Brejea, R., Covaci, B., Covaci, M., Ciotea,
A., Bara, D.E., Analysis of financing trends of young farmers in Romania, Annals of the
University of Oradea, Fascicle: Environmental Protection, pp. 1–6, 2024.
[5]
Cuc, N., Dan, M.M., Satmari, L.L., Chereji, A.I., Access
analysis of Submeasure 6.1 Young Farmer Installation related to NRDP 2014–2020. Case
study – Montana area, Bihor County, Lucrări Științifice Management Agricol, vol. 24(3),
316, 2022.
[6]
Dinu, M., Pătărlăgeanu, S.R., Chiripuci, B., Constantin,
M., Accessing the European funds for agriculture and rural development in Romania for the
2014–2020 period, Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, vol.
14(1), 717–727, 2020. doi:10.2478/picbe-2020-0068.
[7]
Dornean, A., Gestiunea fondurilor structurale europene
[Management of European structural funds], Editura C.H. Beck, 2013.
[8]
Eurostat, Agricultural statistics database, 2025.
[9]
Institutul
Național
de
Statistică,
TEMPO-Online
[Database], 2025.
[10]
May,
D.,
Arancibia,
S.,
Behrendt,
K.,
Adams,
J.,
Preventing young farmers from leaving the farm: Investigating the effectiveness of the young
farmer payment using a behavioural approach, Land Use Policy, vol. 82, pp. 317–327, 2019.
doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.12.019.