Presumably, other producers will soon do the same.

In a statement on Friday, the Association of Farmers’ secretary general Peter Axisa said farmers, who are feeling that they have been let down by the “packet” recently negotiated between the Maltese government and the European Commission, are bombarding the association.

This was made clear to many ministry officials some three weeks ago when the blow began to be felt and association officials kept trying to get through to them practically every day since then.

It is therefore very surprising, Mr Axisa said, that the ministry chose to cover up the real issues, which are at present causing grave hardship to the farmers in its press conference on Thursday.

There is no dispute over the success of the potato crop this year and this proves how right the Association of Farmers was when for many years it insisted that liberalisation should take place. Had they listened to it, instead of frightening farmers that if the government were to liberalise the market potato growers would be doomed, the farmers would be much better off today and they would have had a much better head start.

On the other hand, potatoes fetching good prices hardly consoles the other farmers who do not grow potatoes. Farmers who happened to have melons, watermelons, carrots, tomatoes and so on have suffered huge financial losses this season despite assurances that the whole system is “being monitored”.

Monitoring committees had to include farmers’ representatives. This is a promise the association would like to see honoured by the government.

Mr Axisa claimed that a safeguard clause which was supposed to guarantee that “farmers incomes would at the worst, be as well off as they were prior to Malta joining the EU” is simply not being implemented by the government with the result that many growers have suffered great financial losses. The association was recently assured that the mechanism of this safety-measure had been modified to further improve its benefits for the Maltese farmer. However, the last weeks have shown that in spite of all the modifications, the system has proved to be a non-starter. Moreover, Thursday night’s statement by the ministry proves its point further after hearing that everything possible is being done to avoid making use of the clause. This is the biggest promise that the association would like to see honoured.

To add insult to injury, in an attempt to stop farmers from “panicking”, the government recently published the figures of the subsidies that growers received last year and indications of what they will be receiving this year. What the government forgot to publish, Mr Axisa added, were what the figures of the prices in the Pitkalija were for fruit and vegetables last May (2003) and their equivalent for May 2004. It is also worth recording that the association has been pleading with the authorities to exercise their right and view these figures as promised but access so far has been denied. Another promise it would like to see honoured.

Many farmers have calculated that the subsidies they were given merely make up for the 50 per cent extra premiums they are paying for their National Insurance contributions, after the government stopped paying its share, let alone for the loss of income. And this after being promised that the 50 per cent extra that the farmers now had to pay would be substituted by a crop insurance. So far, the farmers are paying the extra 50 per cent but the crop insurance is nowhere to be seen. Yet another promise they would like to see honoured.

The above, as well as other preoccupying issues, has left the association’s officials no option but to call an urgent meeting for all farmers on Friday 4 June at 7.30pm at St Agatha’s College, Rabat, to see what action is to be taken, with the aim of assuring that what was promised before the election and the referendum, is fully honoured.

Reaction to farmers’ claims

As predicted, as soon as the cold winds of competition reached our shores, the agricultural and agri-industrial sectors, accustomed to protection (for which read: consumers paying higher prices to make good for their inefficiencies), already want to invoke this extreme measure, said a member of the public who called in.

Not even one month has passed since accession and pressure is already being brought to bear on the government to stop all imports until they have had time to restructure.

Well, a member of the public replied, considering Malta applied to join the EU in 1990, received the avis in 1995, and entry was approved by referendum over a year ago, why should we give farmers more time to restructure? What have they, and indeed the authorities, been doing in the past 12 years?

Moreover, should it not also be mentioned that farmers are receiving extensive EU funds to assist them in so-called restructuring? Besides this assistance do they also require a ban on imports? If this were so, what benefit would the consumer, (for which read each and every one of us) have got by EU entry?

Not only would we Maltese keep on indirectly subsidising our farmers and their inefficiencies by paying higher prices, but we are now having to pay their direct subsidies in the form of assistance. For, make no mistake, while the EU may be contributing, most of the funding for this assistance is coming from the Maltese taxpayers.

Finally, this safeguard clause is meant to be an extreme measure, invoked only when the sector in question is about to collapse, not when it has lost just a part of its market.

Surely taxpayers, and the importers involved, have a right to know when this clause can be triggered off. Surely farmers expected that they would lose part of their market; they should be making up for this by improving efficiencies and endeavouring to export our excellent fresh produce to nearby States, which will not invoke any such clause. The ministry and the farmers’ associations should be instructing their members to find new niches which can be exploited profitably. The recent potato exports are a case in point. But there must be even more lucrative niches like organic farming, or the farming of crops with a far higher value, like almonds, grapes and so on. Malta must be credible. We joined a single market and should have been prepared for it. We must now put up a fight and, if we can’t survive, by all means let’s ask for a reprieve, but let’s first make a fight of it, not go crying foul after less than a month. Let’s use this new-found competition to offer consumers better prices and a wider choice, bringing down the cost of living and improving the quality of life.

At any rate, it is the EU Commission that must approve Malta’s request for the invocation of the safeguard clause and one can only be credible in so doing if one can demonstrate that we undertook the necessary restructuring prior to accession (and not used the funds received as part of our farmers’ income), that we did our best to compete, and that with some temporary controls we can make it.

Surely we don’t want the Maltese consumer to continue paying through the nose for five more years only to find that the Maltese agro-industrial sector can’t survive anyway.