The farmers’ revolt

In October 2019, Dutch livestock farmers were up in arms against the national authorities. They conducted a series of demonstrations characterised by the use of tractors to block roads and occupy public spaces. The protests were against a proposal in parliament to halve the country’s livestock in an attempt to limit agricultural pollution in the Netherlands, but the protesting farmers were motivated by a perceived lack of respect for their profession by the Dutch populace, media and politicians.

The protests combined several action groups and an amalgamation of larger goals, which included less government regulation for farmers, more air time for pro-farmer sentiments and more policy to punish other industries for their part in the emission crisis.

Last February, such protests spread like wildfire across Europe, including Malta. Maltese farmers swamped the country’s main roads with their tractors to show solidarity with their European counterparts, who were against the existing and proposed new EU policies that threatened their livelihood. The last time Maltese farmers protested was 40 years ago.

The challenges that many European farmers, not least Maltese, faced during the last decades were significant. They contended with economic hardships born out of rapidly declining farm prices, prohibitively high tariffs on items they needed to purchase and foreign competition. One of the largest challenges they faced was overproduction, where the glut of their products in the marketplace drove the price lower and lower.

The more they produced, the lower prices dropped. To a hard-working farmer, the notion that their own overproduction was the greatest contributing factor to their debt was a completely foreign concept.

The cost of running farms and fields, with time, was driven up by increasingly expensive fertilisers, fuel, electricity and pesticides.

European farmers complained about red tape and restrictions on water usage, as well as competition from Ukrainian imports let into the European Union to help its economy during the war.

Their blockades and pickets exposed a clash between the EU’s drive to cut CO2 emissions and its aim of becoming more self-sufficient in the production of food and other essentials following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The revolt fuelled a narrative that the EU was riding roughshod over farmers, who are struggling to adapt to stringent environmental regulations amid an inflation shock.

Opinion polls showed farmers’ grievances resonated with the public. The European public considered the EU, with its Common Agricultural Policy, to be a handicap for farmers, not an asset. Europe was putting them on a drip to let them die silently.

A New Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was initially declared to be greener and fairer. To improve farmers’ situations, a fairer distribution of CAP income support among farmers was promised by the European Commission. But it was never to be.

Farmers faced big challenges, obstacles and a lack of support.

The initial response by increasingly frustrated and angry farmers was to organise into groups that were similar to early labour unions. Taking note of how the industrial labour movement had unfolded in the last quarter of the century, farmers began to understand that a collective voice could create significant pressure among political leaders and produce substantive change. While farmers had their challenges, including those of geography and diverse needs among different types of farmers, they believed this model to be useful to their cause.

These protests came after a new farmers’ party scored highly in the Dutch elections.

Just a few weeks before elections to the European Parliament, those protests could amplify a shift to the right in the European Parliament and imperil the EU’s green agenda. Poll projections show an “anti-climate policy action coalition” could be formed in the new legislature in June.

Consequent to those protests across all of Europe, national governments scrambled to address farmers’ concerns, with France and Germany both watering down proposals to end tax breaks on agricultural diesel. The European Commission also announced new measures.

Coming back to Malta, the government must be more than ever determined to protect the Maltese agricultural model so that farmers can make a decent living from their work, simplify their lives, and support them in an environmental transition that will ensure the long-term future of their profession.

Many Maltese farmers apply sustainable and ethical farming practices. Most make it their mission to promote a Mediterranean diet and make eating a local and nutritious diet simple, affordable and accessible to people in Malta.

The prices of vegetables and fruits pose a challenge. The price difference between organic and commercially produced vegetables and fruits is high.

This is why the general public would rather buy commercially produced vegetables and fruits.

It’s a challenge to provide organically produced vegetables and fruits to the general public and, at the same time, make a living from it. This fact describes one reason why organic farming is not an option for many farmers in Malta and is therefore one milestone to overcome to make farming greener in Malta and more sustainable.

The lack of a workforce in farming is another major challenge. Another challenge lies in the accessibility of land. This makes it impossible for young people and those interested in farming to start up.

We must support our local farmers with our political and, when possible, economic decisions.

On an EU level, the Maltese government must make its voice heard to ensure that agriculture production and the market are not threatened by the uncontrolled inflow of farm produce from outside the EU.