Razkrivamo bizarne projekte, ki bi jih financirali z vašim denarjem – preklicani 3,5-milijonski razpis!

The recent decision by Minister for Agriculture Janez Cigler Kralj to cancel a public tender worth 3.5 million euros has sparked significant controversy and debate within Slovenia’s political and academic circles. The tender, which was announced just days before its deadline by the previous team under the leadership of Matej Čalušić (Svoboda), had been intended to fund a range of projects aimed at supporting agricultural research and innovation. However, the cancellation has raised questions about transparency, accountability, and the alignment of such initiatives with the actual needs of Slovenian farmers and rural communities.

According to reports circulating on social media and shared by journalists, the proposed project themes were largely crafted in the language typical of academic tenders—filled with technical jargon and impressive-sounding terminology. These themes appeared more aligned with green agenda priorities than with practical solutions for local challenges such as low purchase prices, bureaucratic hurdles, droughts, and access to land. Instead of addressing these pressing issues, many of the proposed projects focused on climate activism and ecological visions, which critics argue have little direct benefit for the agricultural sector.

Minister Cigler Kralj justified his decision by stating that the tender contained too much "activism." He emphasized that under his leadership, public funds would no longer flow unchecked into projects that lack clear connections to the needs of farmers and agricultural sectors. In place of the canceled tender, he announced plans for a new one that would prioritize practical solutions over ideological agendas.

This move has triggered strong reactions from both sides of the spectrum. Some members of the academic community have expressed outrage over what they describe as censorship and last-minute cancellation of a tender that had already received months of preparation. Others, however, welcome the change, viewing it as a necessary correction to a system where previous government teams had used public funding to support politically motivated initiatives rather than genuine development efforts.

The timing of the cancellation—just two hours before the deadline—has further fueled speculation and criticism. It suggests either poor planning by the outgoing team or deliberate disregard for warnings and concerns raised by stakeholders. This perception has been reinforced by the ongoing investigation into a separate scandal involving a luxury yacht, the Bavaria Vida 33, linked to former minister Andrej Krmec. The yacht, owned by the company Goistra d.o.o., was reportedly used for private excursions by Čalušić and his partner, despite being funded by public money for a project called “Anima Istra,” which promoted wine tourism along the coast. According to sources, the project ultimately resulted in nothing more than a ten-meter boat that primarily sat unused in a remote marine area.

These revelations have deepened public skepticism about the integrity of past government spending decisions and raised broader concerns about how public funds are managed and allocated. The situation highlights the growing divide between those who advocate for transparent, results-driven policies and those who believe that public funding should be used to advance specific ideological goals.

As the controversy continues to unfold, there is increasing pressure on the current government to provide clearer explanations regarding the cancellation of the tender and the circumstances surrounding the yacht scandal. Meanwhile, calls for greater oversight and accountability in the use of public funds are gaining momentum, reflecting a wider demand for reform in how such resources are handled in the future.