Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1409324
9 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 12 SEPTEMBER 2021 INTERVIEW important? That people have a place to live; or that land-owners make as much money as possi- ble? The right of people to have a dignified life; or the right of capital to make more capital out of itself…? Fair enough: but the rent issue was ultimately about an archaic law that fixed actual rent prices at post-war levels… translat- ing into tenants paying almost literally a few cents a year, for a property worth hundreds of thousands… MARIO: Malcolm and I be- lieve that this case is not all that different. The State should pro- tect farmers, in the same way as it protected tenants, for at least three reasons that immediately spring to mind. The first is the contribution of agriculture to our rural landscape. Malta's landscape is part of our national heritage; and farmers are, undoubtedly, the real guard- ians of this heritage. Whatever others may say, most of our rural areas can be enjoyed and appre- ciated today, because of Maltese farmers who – over the centu- ries – took care of the land, and shaped it into the typical Mal- tese landscape we now know and recognise. Rubble walls, giebjuni [reservoirs], terraced fields… all that is the result of centuries of hard work by farmers; and even if the work was done for purely practical reasons, related to their profession… it still all comes to- gether to form a thing of beauty, that we all love and identify with. We argue that this, too, should be considered, when it comes to giving agricultural land a value. Because our national heritage – and the quality of life of our citi- zens – also has an intrinsic value of its own. The second reason is envi- ronmental: the issue of 'carbon miles'. And it also ties in with the European competition factor you mentioned. It is true that, ever since we joined the EU, the market for local agriculture has become very precarious. Iron- ically, when the State invested so much (rightly) in creating a good, direct sea-link between Malta and Sicily… it resulted in a blow to Maltese farmers. Be- cause if you want to influence, say, the price of 'qarghabaghli'; all you have to do is go to Sicily, flood the local market with Sicil- ian 'qarghabaghli', and… from one day to the next, the price plummets. Now: it is also true that the con- sumer has benefitted from this, in terms of more variety, and better prices… but it all comes at an environmental cost. The further away you import your fruit and veg from, the more transport is involved in getting them here: and that means more carbon miles. And this is some- thing we have to be far-sighted enough to be proactive about. The third reason is the issue of food sovereignty. Even at the best of times, it would be un- wise for a country to become totally dependent on importa- tion – and only importation - for something as essential as its food supply. What would happen in the event of a national emergen- cy? Like, for instance, the crisis we came close to experiencing during Covid: when several har- bours, on which we usually rely for food importation, were tem- porarily closed…? MALCOLM: Finance Minister Clyde Caruana himself admitted that he had difficulties sleeping last year, worrying about a pos- sible food scarcity crisis… MARIO: Precisely. So under these circumstances: wouldn't it be wiser to have an agricultural sector that is sufficiently resil- ient, to be able to guarantee a food source for the population even in times of emergency? Do you mind if I add a fourth reason? Quality. Maltese fruit and veg – our grapes, our peaches, our potatoes, etc. – are often acknowledged to be superior to most imported products. We even have indige- nous varieties, like 'tadam catt' [flat tomatoes], that you can't find anywhere else. Why, then, does Maltese produce struggle so hard to compete with im- ported varieties? And what, if anything, is being done to pre- serve our unique products? MALCOLM: Unfortunately, the truth is that we've already lost most of those unique products you mention. Take the 'bamb- inella', for instance… which hap- pens to be in season right now. It is so unique, it is even known in English as 'the Maltese pear'. You can go anywhere you like in the word; but you'll never find it any- where else but here. But today, you will hardly find 'bambinell' here, either. It has been all but completely wiped out … So, just as we (rightly) make a big fuss about the 'qabru' [Mal- tese freshwater crab]… and all the other indigenous species, that are unique to these islands – shouldn't we also make the same fuss about our indigenous foodstuffs, too? Is it possible that we don't have the national pride to appreciate those truly Maltese products: the things that our grandparents, and great-par- ents, were brought up eating; and which were passed down from one generation to the next? Coming back to the issue of tenant farmers: your own agri- cultural co-operatives are two of 18 NGOs that have petitioned the government to "urgently intervene with a solution that would be fair for everybody." What sort of response have you received so far? And what sort of solution do you have in mind? MALCOLM: First of all, we must acknowledge that – from government's perspective – all this cropped up at the worst pos- sible time. There is an election coming up; so it's not really an ideal moment for government to intervene in an issue as contro- versial as this: which may touch upon the price of property; and where many farmers have their livelihoods threatened. Having said this; there are in- dications that government is willing to protect farmers. The question therefore becomes: what can it actually do? This is not, at the end of the day, a uniquely Maltese issue. The issue itself may be more problematic here, because land is so scarce. But other countries have faced the same problems; and they came up with their own solutions. In Italy, for instance – and similar systems exist in Spain, France, etc. – they have what is known as 'catasto'. It is a system of land registration, introduced in 1866, which attaches a mon- etary value to [agricultural] land, based specifically on the produc- tivity of the earth. So the worth of every parcel of farmland, is pegged to how much that land can actually produce. The value itself is not fixed; it fluctuates according to de- mand, the cost of living etc. But the system prevents any specu- lation from taking place. So if I was a landowner, and you were a buyer offering a higher price than the 'catasto'… government would intervene. You're not al- lowed to do that. Now: is that an infringement of the landowner's rights, to reap the benefits of his own property? I would say 'no': because that right has to be offset by the gov- ernment's prerogative to have a strong, sustainable and func- tional agricultural sector. And with 'catasto', the Italian gov- ernment simply set parameters within which agricultural land could be protected, while at the same time, the owners could still reap benefits… MARIO: Ultimately, our argu- ment is that the benchmark to be used, in evaluating agricultur- al land, cannot be speculation. It has to be based on the agricul- tural worth of the land – in all the senses we've been talking about: not just the commercial value of the products them- selves, but also its contribution to our cultural heritage. Because again: when you place everything on the scales of social justice… what is really more im- portant? That some people have a little open space in the coun- try, to use for their Sunday out- ings: maybe setting up a make- shift barbecue, and a couple of deckchairs? Or for the country as a whole to have its own food supply? To protect our beauti- ful landscape? And for people to earn an honest living, by pro- ducing food for others to eat? That, at the end of the day, is the question what we are ask- ing…