Farmers in EU Malta

I read with interest Charles Micallef's letter on agro production (March 10).

Mr Micallef was very thorough in his explanation of the way things actually are and I wish to add a little more to what he said especially on the point he made about the farmers receiving a "pittance for their endeavours" as well as on the statement that "consumers not being better off".

There seems to be a common strategy within the European Union (Malta is no exception) about the manner in which farmers are accused of "sponging off taxpayers' money". The trick is to divide, conquer and subsequently rule. We've heard time and time again about the millions of liri going towards subsidising Maltese farmers in the coming years. As a consumer, I would be the first one to wonder why these farmers should expect to keep sponging off our backs. Why should they be different to other sectors of society? Why not let them fend for themselves?

These are very valid questions and one should really delve into the real reasons why the greater proportion of the EU budget is going towards agriculture. One must not forget that, as more time goes by, the amount is gradually dwindling away. If I start on this subject I will need the whole newspaper to express my thoughts so I will leave readers to really wonder why so much money goes towards our sector and I recommend they do not satisfy their thoughts by accepting the first reasons that come to mind. It really needs a bit of deeper thinking.

We are told that, in the year 2004, farmers' income (including subsidies) was Lm400,000 more than in the previous year. We were not told if this was down to an increase in production or why. I've yet to know of an auditor who works out a profit and loss account taking only the "income" into consideration. Besides, if you divide Lm400,000 by 13,500 (i.e. 1,500 full-time and 12,000 part-time farmers) you come up with the "extraordinary figure" of Lm29.62. This is the average "extra income" the farmer made last year.

Again, you do not even have to be a qualified auditor to consider this as nothing more than a fluctuation that takes place in any normal business. So, basically, the farmer is on the same level as in the previous year. But is he? Not if you deduct the subsidies we so often hear the farmers received.

This is where the worrying part lies. If, with the subsidies included, the farmer's income remained on the levels of the preceding year, this proves how grave the problem is and unless someone comes up with enough projects that make sense and not merely "wishful thinking" to compensate for the otherwise acknowledged disaster ahead, the farmers will be doomed once these subsidies are over.

The Association of Farmers (AOF) has been saying this all along and we long for the day we are proved wrong. The Special Market Policy Programme for Maltese Agriculture negotiated between the Maltese government and the EU is merely a temporary measure and we have not got much time to look for alternatives. The AOF is promoting the setting up of a producers' group (PG). This PG will soon qualify for recognition by the authorities. This should help farmers present their products better to the consumers but we need more ideas.

Looking at matters from the consumers' perspective, Mr Micallef is right again. The worst part about it is that Mr Micallef (as well as all other consumers) is not going to find much refuge in the EU on this point either. I have been asking and I am asking again, how can the EU, with all those institutions in place, allow the scandals that the supermarkets and the likes of them are getting up to? The mark-ups are ridiculous, they have so much power that the farmers are subjected to accepting whatever prices the supermarkets decide to dish out and, in turn, consumers are subjected to paying whatever prices the supermarkets decide to charge. This is not quite happening in Malta yet but this is the reality in the EU. I've just come back from a seminar for small family farms in the UK and the main obstacle for farmers and consumers alike was precisely this. Farmers are complaining that farm-gate prices are getting lower while consumers are facing higher prices. This is what the EU should resolve.

As for the safeguard clause, this is the biggest letdown the government could have succumbed to vis-à-vis the Maltese and Gozitan farmer. I've said this and I am saying it again; what was promised to us is not what went down in the treaty. This is a very serious accusation and a situation the AOF is not going to accept. It seems that in spite of having asked the Prime Minister to intervene, the authorities remain adamant and will not accept implementing the clause as promised but as put down in the treaty behind our backs. So we now have no choice but to look to other pastures.

I did not grasp whether Mr Micallef is a farmer or a consumer but, in any case, we seem to be in the same boat!