In most EU countries, tens of thousands of farmers mounted on their tractors are taking their anger to the streets of capital cities.
Already struggling due to high inflation and rising costs, they have come out in force to air their grievances on various aspects of the EU’s sustainability policy and what they see as unfair competition from non-EU countries.
Maltese farmers face many of the challenges of other European farmers but are also affected by different local threats to their livelihood.
The Għaqda Bdiewa Attivi led a local farmers’ protest to pressure political leaders to guarantee the future of farming in the country against the threat of unfair competition and what they see as oppressive EU directives on the use of pesticides.
Michael Caruana, a successful local farmer, spoke on behalf of local farmers to express their frustration with unfair competition from non-EU imports.
He argues, “Europe spent years getting to where it is and banning dangerous chemicals. But agricultural products grown outside the EU can use those chemicals and then be sold in Europe."
European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen announced she will scrap the contentious Sustainable Use of Pesticides Regulation that involves ambitious and legally binding plans to make the continent climate-neutral by 2050.
She told the European Parliament: “The Commission proposed the SUR with the aim of reducing the risks of chemical plant protection products. But the SUR proposal has become a symbol of polarisation.”
Maltese farmers face an even more significant competition challenge as they also must compete with other EU farmers, most of whom have adopted an industrial model of agriculture. This model is not feasible in Malta due to the country’s physical limitations.
Local farming practices remain mainly traditional, thereby not benefitting from the economies of scale of industrial farming. So, the existential threats to local farmers must be addressed with different tactics.
Another threat to European farmers is a Commission proposal requiring farmers to leave farmland fallow for the sake of biodiversity.
Danilo Calvani, leader of the Comitato Agricoltori Traditi in Italy, addressing journalists at a farmers’ protest in Rome, said: “We do not agree with the proposal to give money to those farmers who leave their fields fallow.”
He said Italian farmers will continue to protest and insisted: “We want facts. We demand the cancellation of all bilateral agriculture agreements with non-EU countries that are killing us.”
Von der Leyen was correct when she said there was a need for more dialogue and a different approach: “Nature conservation can be successful if we approach it from the bottom up and based on incentives. We can only invest in the future if our farmers can earn a living from the land.”
The survival of local farming as an industry can only be guaranteed if the state subsidises farmers enough to neutralise the harmful effects of unfair competition and other obstacles caused by the small size of agricultural holdings.
We need our farmers to cultivate the land, not just to mitigate our massive dependence on imported agricultural produce. We must also ensure that our farmers preserve what is left of our countryside, which has suffered irreparable damage in the last two decades due to the obsession with property development.
Laws to protect the tenancy of agricultural holdings must be a top priority for our lawmakers to put the minds of the few remaining active farmers at rest about the future.
It would be tragic if we had no choice but to rely solely only on imported agricultural produce.