The feasibility study in an ONTA application, criterion by criterion

1. 1. Why does the study weigh more than the other documents?

An ONTA application file has eight items. Six are supporting documents: identity, commitment letter, receipt, qualifications. Only two describe the project: the feasibility study and the proof of financial capacity.

The committee does not rank identities. When several applicants target the same plot, it compares them on the criteria in Article 6 of the order of 11 November 2012. Five of the six are read in the study. The sixth, financial capacity, is read in the study and in its proof.

Two applicants of the same priority rank are therefore told apart almost entirely by their studies. That is where a contested call is won.

2. 2. Study, modernisation project, business plan: what do the texts ask for?

The vocabulary changes with the land regime. The expected content largely overlaps.

A technical applicant on a Law 10-03 farm does not need two documents. A well-built study contains the modernisation project: the farm's current state, what you will change, with what means and on what timeline.

On land to develop, the business plan also becomes part of the contract. It is annexed to the cahier des charges and becomes the yardstick for ONTA's inspections. Whatever you promise in the file, you will have to deliver.

3. 3. Which part of the study answers each of the six criteria?

The table below links each Article 6 criterion to the section where the committee will look for it. It is our working grid, not an official list.

A criterion with no matching section is a criterion where you score zero. The last one is often missing from studies, though it can separate two close files.

The call may add its own criteria, as Article 6 allows. Add a section for each of them.

4. 4. Why start from the plot rather than the project?

The call fixes three facts the study cannot change: the main crop, the available area and the location. A study written before the plot is chosen runs into one of them.

The main crop. On 22 October 2026, 191 of the 223 plots open on the platform were classed as cereals. An orchard project on a cereal plot can be defended, but it has to explain the switch: the water, the soil, the outlets. Otherwise the committee reads a study written for another piece of land.

The available area. In an EAC only a share is offered. On 22 October 2026 all 77 EAC plots on display were partial shares, with a median of 12.7 ha in farms with a median total area of 51 ha. A study sized on the total area overstates everything: output, turnover, jobs.

Water. The platform does not state the plot's water resources, yet water sets the yield and therefore the return. A site visit and a conversation with the local agricultural office beat a yield assumption copied from a national average.

To compare plots before choosing, filter them by crop and area in our list of open ONTA calls.

5. 5. How do you prove financial capacity without contradicting yourself?

The platform asks for separate proof of financial capacity, and Decree 21-432 requires it for land to develop (Article 14). The committee reads that proof next to the study's financing plan, and this is where many files contradict themselves.

The rule is simple. Every dinar of contribution in the financing plan needs a document behind it: a bank statement, a balance certificate, a lender's agreement in principle. A contribution of ten million dinars backed by a statement showing three million weakens the whole file, including the parts that are true.

A smaller project that is fully funded beats an ambitious one financed by promises. The committee judges capacity, not intentions.

6. 6. Which timeline should you announce, and why does it bind you?

Completion timelines are a selection criterion. They then become an obligation.

On land to develop, Article 11 of Decree 21-432 requires works to start within six months of installation, following the approved programme. The model cahier des charges lists failure to start among the breaches that lead to cancellation. An over-optimistic schedule can win you the call, then cost you the concession.

On Law 10-03 farms, Article 29 of the law counts leaving the farm unfarmed for a year as a breach. Your schedule should plan cultivation from the first season.

Build the schedule on real farming seasons. A borehole authorised in March does not allow a November cereal sowing if the equipment has not arrived. Jobs follow the same logic: separate permanent and seasonal posts, year by year.

7. 7. What makes a study fail before the committee?

The reasons an agricultural study is rejected resemble those for economic land, which we cover in six reasons a feasibility study is rejected. Four flaws are specific to ONTA calls:

• a study sized on an EAC's total area instead of the share on offer;
• a crop unrelated to the plot's main crop, with no justification;
• a yield taken from a national average without checking the plot's water;
• a technical applicant with no consolidation and modernisation project, although Article 6 of the order requires one.

The first is fixed by rereading the call. The last costs the applicant the benefit of the third priority rank under Article 17. To place your file in the full procedure, see our guide to ONTA calls for applications.

FAQ — Frequently asked questions

BENSAID Farouk

Financial & Economic Research Consultant — ProfitPilot NextGen Consulting

Certified sole trader and expert in financial studies, risk analysis and market research for SMEs, startups and investors in Algeria. View full profile