Agriculture under the public eye

Agriculture Under the Public Eye will be the title of the upcoming agricultural ministerial meeting hosted by the current Dutch presidency. It is a very apt subject, ripe as a late summer fruit, as it were, in the present Maltese agricultural scenario.

The role played by governments in all that makes up our lives is an ever changing and very dynamic one. No doubt, since the fall of Communism the dark shadow of "Big brother" has been blown away by the radiance of more freedom, at least that is the perception. Less government has been the quick-and-easy recipe of many countries, or at least they tried to do away with heavy government interference.

Nowhere I have yet seen any reference in the local context of looking at agriculture from this perspective. My short experience so far in this sector has been subsidies and a sector that needs more than an overhaul and revamp. The latest from the opposition has been that this sector has a future - an admittance that is welcomed heartily as this future will be within the EU framework that this government has assiduously followed for decades and not within the "partnership option".

Until recently the opposition was only seeing doom and gloom where agriculture (and fisheries) is concerned. The biggest contradiction in the recent policy update of the MLP is to say that Maltese agriculture needs "more help" (read more subsidy) for farmers and at the same time that more subsidies ruin the farmer even more!

Yet, this is a very complex and dynamic subject. One would miss an opportunity of a lifetime if one were not to walk the extra mile beyond political rhetoric and seek a national consensus on such an important matter.

Agriculture may represent only a very small percentage of the GDP but "all woe upon us" if we, as a small nation, forsake this strategically important industry.

Three buzzwords will be in the air in the Hague meeting; sustainable, competitive and socially acceptable agriculture. The different and changing roles played by governments, the EU and the private sector will be discussed. Among the new developments that question these relationships are globalisation of world trade, consumer-led quality requirements, environmental concerns - concerns expressed by policies towards more food safety, food quality, product differentiation, animal welfare, environmental quality and conservation of nature.

We can all learn from one another. Economies of scale need not be always one way and that is against us. We all have our local examples of "small is beautiful" and I believe that in many a field we can find our natural niche. The bumper spring potato crop this year put us at the top and was significant in maintaining high our farmer's annual income.

There are other important changes occurring in the structure of the food industry. The development of well-integrated global supply chains is changing the way trade is carried out between countries and between regions, if these have any meaning at all in some cases. A case in point is that now we cannot talk of exporting any of our agricultural products towards the other 24 EU nations as much as we cannot talk of importing from these same 24. This is the reality of the internal market.

It is also well known that too many regulations impede sustainable development. Within the agro-food sector Europe has been unable to keep the competitive edge versus the rest of the world. This problem is addressed in the Lisbon strategy and Malta also needs to reduce the administrative burden. The setting up of producers' organisations is only one way of getting there - unfortunately much scare-mongering has harmed their setting up in an orderly and professional way. Opposition and farmers' cooperatives must also demonstrate their support for these to flourish.

One vital question is what is the role of the government and that of the private sector? In a way it is the market versus the government. Again, the price of potato "export" or the (commercial) agreements reached between tomato producers and tomato processors are good local examples.

Should the government merely determine certain conditions and where should we draw the line? What should be regulated by the EU and what should be left to the individual member states?

So far Malta has negotiated a certain package. How can we ensure that out in the field we do get the best results? In the local context one crucial change is the way the Pitkali is run. It is not only the government that is always asked to fork out public money to improve the latest crops and presentation of the product but also the way transactions occur and addressing the unacceptable gap between what the primary producer (read small farmer) gets and what the consumer (read Maltese housewife) pays.

It is important that we understand that apart from production, other expectations are coming to the fore in the public's mind. To name a few: Animal welfare, the environment, food safety and taxpayer's money. Sustainability means three Ps - people (both as consumer and farmers and fishermen), planet (ecology, environment) and profit (competition, economic viability).

In the future, CAP subsidies will increasingly be paid independently of the volume of production. Organic farming is in itself such a choice. In fact, the main thrust of our policy in line also with the EU action plan is to abolish the link between subsidies and production. With the introduction of compulsory cross compliance the new "single farm payments" will be linked to these policies. Again I appeal to the opposition, MEPs and farmers' organisations to support these policies.

The food chain itself is undergoing significant changes. The horizontal consolidation of firms and an increased awareness about food safety need not necessarily dampen our perspective. Our BSE-free herds and our relatively good food safety record have to be emphasised especially as a significant part of our food is actually consumed by tourists.

The aspect of certification raises a number of issues, some expensive yet mandatory - for example for meat supply chains guaranteeing the ability to trace fresh and processed meat back to the original farm and animal. Malta has made a "first" among EU countries in the computerisation of its livestock data. Unfortunately, some of our so-called journalists (especially those of an investigative kind) do not find such achievements newsworthy!

Some argue that there is no future for the small trader or farmer. While it is true that in some (northern) EU countries concentration has meant that among grocery retailers the larger are getting larger, in Italy, Greece and Spain distribution of food is organised in a more traditional way, whereas the role of multinationals is far from dominating. This to me is encouraging news coming from such southern Mediterranean lands.

Reading the policy update of the MLP quoting certain agricultural procedures that apply economies of scale in larger tracts of land (as in Sicily) makes me wonder what economic rationale lies behind such arguments. Since we do not have such large tracts are we comparing like with like? I think our geographical diversity allows for viable solutions that allow us to operate in the wider market.

Another issue under scrutiny is duality - the government regulatory function and self-regulation by the industry itself. The insistence on traceability from plough to plate or stable to table can come from companies themselves and there are local companies which have invested heavily in such measures. Others - perhaps tempted by the "partnership" option chose to leave for later, hence missing the pre-accession bus if not also the post-accession bus.

However, in our context I do believe the government should never abdicate its role of what the Romans used to proclaim Salus populi suprema lex - the health of the people above all else.

The creation of a Food Authority - a reality at the European level - and a more focused ministry ( as in the UK, The Netherlands and Germany) is much needed at the local level.

The public eye and certainly local farmers - not all illiterate but still a majority of them - would greatly appreciate the reduction in the burden of "papers". The Lisbon strategy takes cognisance of this fact in that up to three to five per cent of the EU-15s' GDP is administrative burden! Our civil service has given good service for example in the recent applications for subsidies for various crops, yet much more need to be done in this area to alleviate the burden.

Particularly thorny is the formulation of business plans that would have to be submitted by small farmers, herdsmen, fishermen, cottage industry workers and similar categories - affecting many individuals and their families - in order to qualify for certain assistance.

The EU action plan is about simpler regulations, co- and self-regulation and we should insist that this is translated into the local sector as well.

Finally the question still remains: Who should be responsible for what?

The earlier we address this question the better for the overall outlook for Maltese agriculture.

Dr Agius is Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture and Fisheries.