Noel Farrugia's shopping list

Noel Farrugia, MP, the Opposition's spokes-man on agriculture, fisheries and rural develop-ment, last Sunday wrote an article listing a number of questions to the Prime Minister, Dr Lawrence Gonzi.

I have failed to grasp the logic of the article. Why should the PM bother to answer any of the questions posed, when an ordinary citizen like me has all the answers in hand? I sincerely hope that Mr Farrugia too has the answers as otherwise he or his associates are just not updating themselves, are out of tune, or simply have a bad memory.

But let us for a moment accept that Mr Farrugia does not have the answers; why does he want to get his answers from the PM? Why should we ordinary citizens want Mr Farrugia's questions answered by the PM?

Mr Farrugia is correct to say that the business sector requires accurate information, but the business sector too has the answers. Therefore, a reply from the PM will not make an iota of a difference in their strategic plans. Am I to assume that Mr Farrugia is finally treating farmers and growers as part of the business community or does he have others in mind when he refers to the business sector?

The least I expect from the Labour spokesman on agricultural matters is to inform us, his fellow citizens, and our farmers and growers, how he and his party are viewing the agriculture sector and what prospects they perceive for the future. What changes should we expect, and how could the sector improve? Rather than asking so many unimportant questions to the PM, how about talking about agricultural matters in a business-like manner?

Consensus on agricultural matters

The sector is crying out for consensus on agricultural matters, and Mr Farrugia should translate his fine words of concern for the business community into action and help to pave the way for an apolitical approach to our volatile agriculture sector during this delicate transition period from a protected market to an open market.

Since the SMPPMA (the Special Market Policy Programme for Maltese Agriculture) is entrenched in the EU accession treaty and the bulk of its funding will be coming in the form of state aid, and, given the precarious financial situation of our country, is Mr Farrugia having second thoughts about its validity? Is he planning other avenues of assistance when Labour is in power?

Is he going to defend the SMPPMA tooth and nail should the Nationalist government decide to backtrack on its political promises? Although entrenched in the treaty, this only guarantees that the Maltese government can finance the SMPPMA out of public funds (state aid).

The Maltese government could, for argument's sake, decide to lower the financing programme. What will Mr Farrugia's position be in this case? I am not implying that the SMPPMA is a foolproof package and I am sure that the sector stakeholders would only be too pleased to give their views on this assistance programme to Mr Farrugia should he find the time to invite them to discus this and other agriculture-related matters.

After all the SMPPMA is only a part of the new tools that farmers and growers have to come to grips with. Agriculture has become a professional subject and should be treated as such.

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) we negotiated to join has already changed. In the absence of serious stakeholders' discussions on the reformed CAP could Malta be losing out in some areas? Should we have chosen to go for the Single Farm Payment Scheme and negotiated a lower minimum farm holding area? How are we going to administer the national reserves in the new CAP?

How are Mr Farrugia and the Labour Party going to get support for Malta's positions from the EU Parliament when no Maltese MEPs are sitting on its Agriculture and Rural Development Committee? What are Mr Farrugia's views on the way the EU is proposing reforms for rural development for the period 2007-2013? Is he satisfied with the level of EU funding for rural deve-lopment?

What concrete steps will Mr Farrugia and his party be taking to ensure that the proposed EU budget (2007-2013) will see more funding for agriculture so that European agriculture will remain based on the principles of family farming, regain its competitiveness and become sustainable both economically and environmentally?

Farmers and growers are crying out for these answers because they are serious people in business and they would like to take calculated risks based on short-, medium-, and long-term perceptions, and therefore in the new realities that our country is facing, we give great importance to what Mr Farrugia and the MLP have to say on these and a host of other important issues.

Is Mr Farrugia interested in the creation of a Maltese Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, or a sub-committee within the Foreign and European Affairs Committee dealing specifically with agriculture and rural development?

Will he insist that Maltese MPs sitting on this committee should regularly invite farmers, growers, and their representatives for talks on the volumes of EU legislation that they discuss on food safety, animal welfare, and the likes, and which are of great concern to them as important players along the food chain?

Matter of grave concern

There is an element in Mr Farrugia's article that has caused me a lot of concern. He refers to a MIC document issued in January 2003 outlining certain benefits for Maltese consumers as a result of the removal of levies and also to an amount of €25.37 million as compensation to the egg and poultry farmers.

The correct figure for the egg and poultry sector can be found in the accession treaty (€20.25 million), however this mistake has exposed him to the fact that he is quoting from the very same document that certain importers of agricultural products are quoting in their shocking advertisements that also appeared last weekend, where they are implying or trying to give the impression that local products are inferior (see adverts that appeared on the back page of The Times and The Sunday Times on August 21 and 22).

Hence, Mr Farrugia has some answering to do.

There is, in fact, a question that farmers and growers are interested to ask the PM. When is the PM going to give the sector a ministry and a minister responsible for Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural Development? The creation of a Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture and Fisheries was a step in the right direction and Dr Francis Agius has brought in a much-needed, fresh approach. Why not take the next logical step and create a ministry?

This is not a capricious request and is based on the fact that we require a dedicated person to oversee policies, day in day out, to deal with the millions of problems that are unfolding, to instil the confidence that farmers and growers require to face the changes that have to take place, and to meet and tackle his counterparts in Europe to ensure that Malta gets the best out of EU membership in this volatile sector.

He will also need to motivate the stakeholders to use EU funding and to maximise the benefits of EU membership, to oversee the judicious administration of state aid and EU financing that is running into millions of euros (and we should be attracting many more millions), to ensure that Malta becomes an important player in this sector in the EU's neighbourhood policy and the Euro-Med process, and to be able to deal with and co-operate with the Maltese Commissioner, the Agriculture Commissioner, the EU institutions, the European and Mediterranean Agriculture ministers, and the five Maltese MEPs, to defend the Maltese and European model of family farming for the benefit of our farmers and growers, our country and Europe in general. Is this really happening? We can make it, indeed we should make it, happen!

Mr Naudi, who is writing in a personal capacity, is SIM representative on MEUSAC, member of the COPA presidium (the European Professional Agricultural Organisation, recognised by the EU), a member of IFAP's Mediterranean Committee (the world farmers' body recognised by the UN), and is chairman of the Malta Agriculture Lobby.