Last week I had to write about Malta’s latest agricultural land law. However, I gave it time to see what revisions would be made. The proposed legislation, which empowers a central authority irrespective of the Public Administration Act to intervene in privately held agricultural land, echoes the kind of top-down governance many hoped Malta had abandoned years ago. It is certainly a move that risks undermining trust, property rights, and the very principles of democratic land stewardship.
True, we can take the best foreign models and apply them to Malta. Consider France, where agricultural land is managed through Safer (Sociétés d’Aménagement Foncier et d’Établissement Rural). Safer was established in 1960 with a regional structure of non-profit agencies operating under government supervision. Their mission is to regulate the rural land market, prevent speculation, and ensure land is allocated to those who will cultivate it productively. Indeed, Safer can intervene in land sales, but only with clear public interest motives, and they must resell the land within five years. Their actions are transparent, legally bound, and subject to oversight by both the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Finance, with one ministry checking the other for accountability.
France’s model is built on planning, structure, and long-term vision. Malta’s new law, by contrast, appears to empower a director, appointed by ministerial discretion under the Public Administration Act, to make sweeping decisions. However, this week a leading newspaper reported that the new guidelines now provide for a judicial review system in case a party feels aggrieved by a decision of the director of agriculture. And rightly so. This is what I advocated for when I read the powers conferred upon a director in the proposed legislation. Frankly, this centralisation of power places an undue burden on landowners, many of whom inherited their property generations ago or bought land without knowing the obligations that would come a few years down the line.
The revised law retained minimum requirements for agricultural land, meaning it must be tilled once a year and kept in good condition in line with the CAP. What I criticised was the retroactive nature of the law, voicing the concern of many. Instead of phasing in the law starting with government-owned land and gradually expanding with clear guidelines, the legislation imposes immediate compliance. This should have been done four years ago, especially when prices for agricultural land began to rise. A phased approach would have allowed for proper planning, contained prices, included stakeholder engagement, and provided a fair transition.
If Malta truly wants to support young farmers and promote food security, as I advocated during my MEP campaign under the Security Pillar 4 for an intergenerational renewal, then the government must build a system that empowers rather than controls. Safer was created in France to help young farmers access land, consolidate fragmented parcels, and modernise agriculture. It was a response to real economic needs, not a tool for temporary expropriation or occupation, whatever it is now being called. Crucially, Safer operates within a legal framework that respects ownership while promoting agricultural productivity.
Malta’s proposed law risks reviving old fears within the Labour Party about expropriation. True, when the market fails, the government must intervene to correct it. However, this new law threatens to undo the trust we’ve built over the past decade on private property. It reintroduces the spectre of state overreach. There are economic and legal obligations, yes, but political optics matter too.
Imagine inheriting a small share of agricultural land passed down through generations from your great-grandfather. It has been perpetuated in the system for over a century, surviving even two world wars, and now you are obliged to bear the brunt of decades of laissez-faire economics, because over 40 years our politicians degraded most of the agricultural land, with much falling within development zones. Under this law, you must register it, tilth it, or risk having it reassigned with a notice. The agency may decide on an exemption due to the complexity of the inheritance, but in all honesty the system is fragile. The burden of proof and action falls entirely on the landowner, while the government reserves the right to intervene. Something is not adding up, and whoever drafted this legislation likely did so carefully for reasons only they understand, and far beyond our insights.
Imagine needing to conduct all the searches through a public notary, paying over a €1000 or more just to register your small share. Or at least I hope it is done this way. Personally, I believe that the government could have moved forward without the occupation of agricultural land and the occupation notice. Moreover, the new agency tasked with implementing this law lacks the necessary expertise. Aspiring to copy France is commendable, but aspiration alone is not enough. Safers are staffed by professionals, governed by diverse boards, and operate under strict legal mandates.
If we are serious about agricultural reform, we must start with government land. The government must avoid granting land within development zones for speculative purposes and must review the practice of building private roads that pass through agricultural land, to consume less virgin land, if such land is truly scarce. Certainly, we must introduce pilot schemes and then build capacity for such a transition. More importantly, we must legislate with foresight, not reactively.
Reform should never feel like an ambush on citizens. It should be a collaborative process that respects history, ownership, and the complexity of rural land management in an EU member state. Agriculture should be a source of pride, not paranoia among the few who believe agricultural land was overtaken by Maltese aliens who bought it for recreational purposes. We need a system that reflects our values, one that supports young farmers, promotes food security, and respects property rights. But it must be adapted thoughtfully, not rushed. Malta deserves better than reactive governance. It deserves a proper national and strategic implementation plan. And we must stop claiming that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t apply to Malta at EU level, because we are contradicting ourselves. Ultimately, we are looking at countries like France, whose policies are EU policies tailor-made for them, but applied by the rest of us.
