|
I read with interest Mr Karm Farrugia’s article ‘Restructure, Reconstruct, Regenerate’ in MaltaToday 20 June and would like to make the following points:
Whilst I do not recall mentioning the word ‘reconstruct’ but rather used the word ‘restructure’ I would like to clarify that on reflection, Mr. Farrugia as well as your other readers, may very well have misunderstood what I when I said: “How can you restructure when you’ve reached full production?”
Mr Farrugia is right because this example was quoted in the wrong context. I’m not sure if it was mistake on my part or I was misquoted, but what I meant to say was; how can we increase productivity to remain competitive when we have already reached full production? In other words, increasing productivity is not going to be the solution, but as Mr. Farrugia rightly asks, “Where is the changeover to crops which do not need protecting?”
The changeover cannot start to take place until at least a year has gone by and after having experienced what has been affected and to what extent before deciding what has to be reduced, forgotten, increased or introduced.
The last few paragraphs of Mr Farrugia’s article makes me wonder if he read my article in full before commenting in the way he did. If he did, then I would like to ask why he interpreted my version of the meaning of restructuring in the manner he did. Nowhere did I state that “we want to continue producing the same crops as before” or that “the Government should re-impose levies” etc. in eternum.
In my opinion, the introduction of levies in the first place, was the ruination of agriculture because I, for one, invested in an artificial market and am now facing the consequences the same artificial market brought about. On the other hand, that’s why the Special Market Policy Programme for the Maltese islands (SMPPMA) was negotiated. This is merely a temporary measure to give the sector time to adjust (restructure).
I am sure that Mr. Farrugia and myself are in full agreement that farmers should not sponge off taxpayers‚ money. I am not sure if Mr. Farrugia agrees with me or not, but I am a strong believer in the rule of ‘supply and demand’. Again, one wonders why governments all over the world boast of the subsidies they hand over to their respective farmers.
Surely Mr. Farrugia does not put this down to Governments having a soft spot for farmers?
Interviewing journalist Mr Karl Schembri could not possibly put every comment I made to him down on paper but I’m sure he would be willing to confirm that whilst talking about aid/help for this and that, I mentioned that the best possible help the farmers could get all over the world would be; “no help at all,” as our ancestors use to say, “halli is-suq isuq” (let supply and demand rule).
On the other hand, this rule does not necessarily guarantee you continuous supply, so it has its disadvantages for the consumer. Once you have tampered with the rule of supply and demand, which is precisely what has happened in the EU and elsewhere, you have to allow the affected farmers to re-adjust (restructure) according to the new arrangements. The introduction of levies disrupted the whole issue and their removal-disrupted matters even further. One has now got to find one’s feet again in these new circumstances. Hence the SMPPMA!
At the end of the day, the spirit of the negotiations was merely to try and have a smooth turn-around (restructuring) in the hope of maintaining the present activity in the Maltese countryside, ensuring an acceptable living for the Maltese farmers and providing fresh tasty fruit and vegetables to the consumers in the process.
I have no doubt that every one, including Mr. Farrugia, believes that a pact is a pact. Let’s not ‘Restructure, Reconstruct, Regenerate’ what has already been structured, constructed and generated.
This is what the issue is all about. Let’s discuss pacts, contracts, agreements, promises and treaties!
Peter Axisa
Secretary General
Association of Farmers
Rabat
|
