Opposition insists land transfer motion should apply to all farmers

Opposition agriculture spokesman Noel Farrugia said in Parliament yesterday that the opposition agreed with a government motion to transfer land on emphyteusis to farmers in the dairy and pig-breeding sectors, but it was insisting that similar arrangements also be made for poultry producers, rabbit breeders, and other farmers, such as those who produced mushrooms.

Replying, Rural Affairs Minister George Pullicino said the arrangement would be extended in due time but priority was being given to those two sectors because of their urgent need to upgrade.

The government motion, which was later approved, provides that registered dairy and pig breeders whose farms are located on rented government land can have that land transferred to them on 50-year emphyteusis on condition that the use of the land is not changed. The purpose of the motion is to make it easier for farmers to access funds for upgrading.

Mr Farrugia insisted that the government should also guarantee that production levels would not be curbed in an effort to reduce the production of manure because of nitrate levels. The government should explain its stocking density policy, more so as Malta already produced more manure for its size than EU rules allowed. Dutch farmers had already been asked to reduce production.

Mr Farrugia said the government should help farmers whose long established farms had suddenly found themselves in urban areas because development had mushroomed all around them, endangering their future. Would the government consider swapping those sites with other properties in rural areas?

Mr Farrugia said that despite what the government claimed, farmers who were carrying out major improvements were saying that the assistance they were being given was not enough.

The government should show greater appreciation of the benefits of farming for the country, which were not restricted to food production but had a major impact on environmental protection. In this context, the government should also come up with a plan to promote agro-tourism. It was good that the government was promoting the consumption of fresh produce, but then it made no sense that state hospitals were buying imported frozen chicken.

If the government really wanted to be practical, it should heed the opposition's observations and act on them, so that the agricultural body would not eventually turn against the government and lose all faith in it. It was already indicative that certain breeders were not renewing their producers' licences after their market had fallen by 30 per cent.

Joseph Cassar (PN) said this motion involved important, long-lasting help to pig and cattle breeders and he was therefore surprised at the opposition's remarks.

On a point of order, Mr Farrugia said he had made clear the opposition's support for the motion but had said it was too little, too late. Continuing, Dr Cassar said nobody could harbour any doubts as to the extent of the govrnment's assistance to agriculture.

There was a whole range of assistance schemes for farmers, including the Special Market Programme whereby farmers were being given Lm3.7 million in assistance from the EU and the government. Milk producers were being granted Lm630,000 and another Lm750,000 were going to pig breeders.

Livestock breeders had also received more than Lm2.5 million to help them improve waste management systems.

In 2004, 277 herdsmen had received more than Lm300,000 in subsidies, 75 per cent of which came from the EU and 25 per cent from the state. This year dairy breeders will receive Lm2,362,673 and Lm101,255 from the EU.

Aid for investment in agricultural holdings would total more than Lm900,000 in 2004/5.

Dr Cassar asked why the opposition was sowing doubts and questioning perfectly positive developments. Where was the opposition's alternative?

Parliamentary Secretary Frans Agius said this motion was yet another government measure to help breeders to be competitive. But the opposition had never mentioned the word competitiveness.

Mr Farrugia had spoken about the hospitals buying imported chickens. But competition now applied for everything. What the government was seeking to do was raise local standards and make local products more competitive.

Dr Agius said the opposition had also been negative in its comments about subsidies. In 2004, Lm944,000 had been given in subsidies on fodder, equivalent to Lm104 per head of cattle. This did not mean that the government was throwing funds around.

Society agreed that farmers were deserving of financial assistance to upgrade their sector. This assistance was investment in the future and he had every confidence that the agriculture sector would overcome the challenges it faced.

The fact that the emphyteutical grant would run for 50 years was guarantee enough of the government's stocking density policy.

Animal welfare was a top consideration in the EU. Up to some years ago Malta's image in the Council of Europe was one of callous mistreatment of birds and animals. The upgrading of local farms was one step to overcome that perception.

Competitiveness was improving so much that Malta had been asked by Italy for more pork products. This, too, was the fruit of improved standards on the local scene.

Mr Agius said everybody should have noted the improvement in the quality of Maltese dairy products, thanks to the enhancements made through subsidies. This in turn strengthened competitiveness.

Winding up, Rural Affairs Minister George Pullicino reacted to Mr Farrugia's remarks, saying the government intended to extend the emphyteusis scheme to other sectors in due time, but it had given priority to farmers in the dairy and pig-breeding sectors because of their urgent needs.

As for Mr Farrugia's remarks on possible production limits because of nitrate levels in manure, Mr Pullicino said nitrate levels would be reduced because that was what would benefit Malta, and not because what the EU was saying.

Malta could no longer tolerate excessive nitrate levels filtering down to the water table. The reductions would be on the basis of agreements reached with the EU. For example, while the number of cows would be reduced over a period of 10 years, milk production was projected to increase and quality would improve. Similarly dairy and pig breeders knew they had to upgrade their operations, or pack up.

Mr Pullicino said that despite the opposition's criticism, what farmers should remember was that had Malta not joined the EU, they would have been open to competition as at present, but without the subsidies running to Lm7 million over three years which they were receiving jointly from the government and the EU.

Concluding, he said the resolution had been moved to give breeders and producers the peace of mind of security of tenure of their farms, so that they could make any investment they deemed fit. A number of them were already reaping the fruits of their restructuring and even exporting their produce. The necessary changes would make Maltese products better and more competitive.

The motion was approved unanimously.