In an island nation with the dubious privilege of being endowed with the second highest population density in the world (coming second only to high-rise-reliant Singapore), it stands to reason that competition for space by different vested interests will be cut-throat.
‘Access’ has become even more of a clichéd term during the past few months and weeks, with different strategies being employed by those with deep pockets to secure access to the most scenic, remote and even productive swathes of the island.
Topical debacles over access to the Fomm ir-Riħ coastal embayment as well as to arable land that has been farmed for eons spring to mind within this context, even though access-related issues surface annually within the bathing season, in the form of encroachment tactics by a number of beach concessions.
The sentences meted out by the constitutional court last November, ruling in favour of landowners of agricultural land leased out to farmers, opened a veritable can of worms in terms of its potential implications for full-time, genuine farmers and for local consumers of Maltese produce (which, basically, includes a broad bracket of inhabitants of these islands).
Given the predictable surge in constitutional court cases being instituted by landowners in the wake of the previous landmark ruling last November and the potential impact this might have on public coffers through compensation payments, the government will probably look in earnest at a probable overhaul of the law. Such an exercise, however, has to be executed with silk gloves, given the implications that this will have on land usage and on the livelihoods within the already ailing farming sector.
In ruling that the agricultural leases act was unconstitutional, the eponymous court made a sweeping statement that should not be applied across the board given the many shades of grey that colour the whole issue.
For instance, the same ruling was delivered with reference to a 5,000-square-metre agricultural lease in Żabbar for which a paltry annual rent total (less than €60) was being paid by the farmer in question, whose status (full-time or part-time) was not reported.
Within such a context, the court’s rationale was legitimate as it sought to redress the gross injustice endured by the landowners. One may even argue that the pecuniary compensation prescribed by the same court (namely, €22,000, after being slashed from an initial awarded sum of €100,000) is probably inadequate in the face of almost 40 years of missed enjoyment of the same property.
Genuine, full-time farmers are living in fear of eviction, despite having toiled all their lives to deliver fresh produce for a pittance- Alan Deidun
Besides the Żabbar case, I am aware of a number of additional, even more flagrant, cases of injustice endured by landowners as a result of shortcomings of the law in fore. Such injustices include farmers who have illegally built garages on the land leased to them, profiting financially from the use of these garages, only for the landowner to face daily charges for such illegalities.
However, upon swinging the pendulum to the other extreme, one realises that there are genuine full-time farmers out there who might be wronged by the ramifications of the ‘landmark’ constitutional court’s deliberations. For instance, a sizeable (14-15 tumoli) agricultural holding in Burmarrad was bought for a pittance almost 20 years ago by a resourceful entrepreneur who is only very remotely connected with the farming world. Since then, he has resorted, to no avail, to many a legal remedy to evict the full-time farmer from this parcel of land, only to resort to the constitutional court, which might, once again, mete out compensation from the public coffers or even order the eviction of the same septuagenarian farmer.
As rightly underscored by a number of NGOs representing the farmers’ lobby, this farmer as well as other genuine, full-time farmers are living in fear of eviction despite having toiled all their lives to deliver fresh produce for a pittance and despite being willing to pay considerably higher rents for the land they till.
The latter ‘concession’, although not granted by all lease beneficiaries, could potentially help to unblock a number of similar deadlocks, although it is not without its baggage, given that a number of farmers might be unable to absorb the new financial burden and, thus, be forced out of their practice or might opt to pass on the extra cost to the consumer, making local produce less competitive.
Within the regime of the current agricultural leases act, landowners can only claim back their parcels of land for farming or for development purposes. Detractors of this law are right in denouncing such a provision given the sheer abuse (such as lease beneficiaries posing as farmers, only to resort to the planting of rain-fed, fodder crops or to renting out the same land for trapping or hunting purposes) and injustice (such as landowners not having the capital to develop the land and, thus, being unable to terminate the lease in question) that this is leading to.
However, while the need for a revision is felt, one has to be careful to make the distinction between agricultural land located within ODZ areas and within development boundaries as well as not to promote a proliferation of development on former agricultural land and to conserve the ever-shrinking critical mass of farmland on these islands.
For instance, one of the eligible conditions for ending a lease should be that the rightful landowner should ensure that it retains its active farmland status, especially if sited within an ODZ area.