Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1490058
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 15 JANUARY 2023 OPINION 11 Miguel Azzopardi Farmers need fair valuation for their land why it's actually all quite irrele- vant, at the end of the day. It's a strange thing to have to even point out, at this late stage: but government is not propos- ing to amend Malta's abortion law, simply for the benefit of Andrea Prudente herself. Leaving aside that… well, it's a little late for that now, don't you think?... the fact remains that Andrea Prudente was but one of several cases of PPROM (among other potentially life-threaten- ing complications) to have spo- radically surfaced in Malta, over the years; and in ALL such cas- es, there is simply no legal pro- vision, of any kind whatsoever, to either safeguard the life of the mother, or protect the medical profession… even in cases where abortion becomes necessary for purely medical reasons. Now: having said that, I am not quite naïve enough to believe that the timing of this proposal had 'nothing to do with Andrea Prudente', either. No, it's fairly obvious that the government IS, in fact, responding to pressures associated with that one, specific incident (in particular, from the international press)… … but the bill itself is still aimed at addressing a legal anomaly that we all know exists, anyway; and which may conceivably af- fect ANY pregnant woman, at any time in the future. To quote 'Doctors For Choice' once more: "In practice, this means doctors cannot actively terminate a non-viable or bare- ly viable pregnancy unless the woman is at the point of dying, and can only watch and wait un- til nature takes its course. The woman is observed for signs of deterioration and is given anti- biotics if needed, but the woman and her doctor cannot elect to terminate such dangerous preg- nancies until the last minute under the current law, by which time it may be too late." This remains the situation, regardless what happened (or might have happened) in An- drea Prudente's case. Which also means that, even if the most ne- farious (and bizarre) conspiracy theories about her actually turn out to be true: and she really WAS some kind of 'pro-choice secret-agent', who 'infiltrat- ed Malta' with the intention to somehow force us to change our national legislation (etc., etc.)… … it still wouldn't change the core dynamics of Bill 28, one tiny bit. Other women will still remain just as vulnerable to the same sort of medical malprac- tice, as they are today; and there would still be no legal protection – for either women, or doctors – in all those other cases that we all know (once again, on the basis of 'statistical probabilities') will definitely, 100%, keep recur- ring in future. And this – to quote the same NGO for the final time – "is why Bill 28 needs to pass: to allow women with serious complica- tions to prioritise their health and lives and allow their doctors to terminate their pregnancy." (Honestly, though: it really isn't THAT difficult to understand, is it?). THE government recently introduced a new bill governing the price of agricultural land. This bill, referred to as Bill no. 15, introduc- es important changes to the way agricultural land is valued, as, up until now, the govern- ment has provided no guidelines or rules for the evaluation of agricultural land. This has significant implications for farmers, as it can determine whether farmers can continue to afford paying rent for the land they work to grow local food and, in turn, sustain their livelihood. The value of agricultural land is usually assessed using an evaluation known as the comparative method. Under this method, the price of agricultural land is evaluated by an architect, who takes into account the market value of the surrounding plots of land. This exposes farmers to the effects of rampant spec- ulation in the property market, as the price of the land is dis- connected from its agricultural c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , forcing them to pay unaffordable sums of money to continue working the land. The new bill at- tempts to address the lack of guide- lines governing the evaluations of agricultural land, but it falls signif- icantly short. It says that farmers should pay a rent equivalent to 1.5% of the value of the land, without giving explicit guidelines on the method used to value the land. If the compar- ative method is used, as will likely be the case, then it is still at a rate that is unaffordable for most farmers. Meanwhile, important terms in the bill such as 'genuine farmer' are not de- fined – leaving it open for recreational farm- ers or developers masquerading as farmers to make use of more favourable rates. Instead of continuing the use of the com- parative method, most concerned organisa- tions including Moviment Graffitti, the Malta Youth in Agriculture (MaYa) Foundation and Għaqda Bdiewa Attivi among others propose using the income-based method, which is the norm in other EU countries. According to this method, rent on the land is a percentage of what the farmer earns and the agricultural characteristics of the land, rather than relying on the whims and inflated prices of unreliable and speculative markets. Moviment Graffitti and MaYa Foundation have released feedback on this bill, and, along with 9 other agricultural organisations, sent a letter to the Prime Minister highlighting their concerns. However, these have fallen on deaf ears as the bill was passed largely unchanged. Additionally, there has been little to no con- sultation with agricultural organisations, with the bill having no consultation period and NGOs only learning of the bill shortly before it was passed. At the time, NGOs and agricultural organisations were preoccupied with giving feedback on a white paper and only found out about the bill by chance. On a bill as important as this, it is completely unacceptable that the government reduces the consultation pro- cess to a box ticking exercise. Currently, there are around 130 farmers or more in court fac- ing possible eviction following a judgement by the Constitutional Court on the qbiela laws. The bill as cur- rently proposed will make it more difficult for farmers to secure a fair price for their land. We cannot let speculative interests jeopardise the farm- ing sector by turning agricultural land in- to something to be bought and sold to the highest bidder. As pri- mary producers of food, farmers must have fair access to land, otherwise there is little guarantee of the continued existence of local agriculture and, by association, our contin- ued access to local food. In the context of an aggravating climate and ecological crisis and increasing global food insecurity, we cannot afford to take farmers' concerns for granted. Malta is highly depend- ent on imports for food and other essential goods. And we know how fragile our eco- nomic system is. The pandemic threw supply chains into cha- os. The war in Ukraine led to major shortages in wheat and fertilisers. A denial to confront the climate crisis is increasingly leading to less rain and more extreme weather. If any- thing else goes wrong and the system collaps- es, we will not be prepared. Miguel Azzopardi is an activist with Moviment Graffitti The bill as currently proposed will make it more difficult for farmers to secure a fair price for their land. We cannot let speculative interests jeopardise the farming sector by turning agricultural land into something to be bought and sold to the highest bidder.