COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission recommendations for Malta’s CAP strategic plan Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Recommendations to the Member States as regards their strategic plan for the Common Agricultural Policy
Date: 2020-12-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: EU strategy, Malta, agricultural policy, climate change policy, common agricultural policy, cooperation on agriculture, digitisation, food security, innovation, rural development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 18.12.2020  SWD(2020) 387 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission recommendations for Malta’s CAP strategic plan Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Recommendations to the Member States as regards their strategic plan for the Common Agricultural Policy    {COM(2020) 846 final} - {SWD(2020) 367 final} - {SWD(2020) 368 final} - {SWD(2020) 369 final} - {SWD(2020) 370 final} - {SWD(2020) 371 final} - {SWD(2020) 372 final} - {SWD(2020) 373 final} - {SWD(2020) 374 final} - {SWD(2020) 375 final} - {SWD(2020) 376 final} - {SWD(2020) 377 final} - {SWD(2020) 379 final} - {SWD(2020) 384 final} - {SWD(2020) 385 final} - {SWD(2020) 386 final} - {SWD(2020) 388 final} - {SWD(2020) 389 final} - {SWD(2020) 390 final} - {SWD(2020) 391 final} - {SWD(2020) 392 final} - {SWD(2020) 393 final} - {SWD(2020) 394 final} - {SWD(2020) 395 final} - {SWD(2020) 396 final} - {SWD(2020) 397 final} - {SWD(2020) 398 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1. 

COMMISSION  RECOMMENDATIONS  FOR  MALTA’S  CAP 
STRATEGIC PLAN ........................................................................................ 2 

1.1 

1.2 

1.3 

1.4 

Foster  a  smart,  resilient  and  diversified  agricultural 
sector ensuring food security ............................................................ 2 

Bolster  environmental  care  and  climate  action  and 
contribute  to  the  environmental-  and  climate-related 
objectives of the Union ...................................................................... 3 

Strengthen  the  socio-economic  fabric  of  rural  areas  and 
address societal concerns .................................................................. 3 

Modernising  the  sector  by  fostering  and  sharing  of 
knowledge, 
and 
encouraging their uptake .................................................................. 4 

digitalisation, 

innovation 

and 

1.5 

Recommendations .............................................................................. 5 

2. 

ANALYSIS 
DEVELOPMENT IN MALTA ...................................................................... 7 

AGRICULTURE 

RURAL 

AND 

OF 

2.1 

2.2 

2.3 

2.4 

2.5 

2.6 

2.7 

2.8 

2.9 

Support viable farm income and resilience across the EU 
territory to enhance food security .................................................... 7 

Enhance market orientation and increase competitiveness 
including  greater  focus  on  research,  technology  and 
digitalisation ....................................................................................... 9 

Improve farmers' position in the value chain ............................... 10 

Contribute  to  climate  change  mitigation  and  adaptation, 
as well as sustainable energy .......................................................... 11 

Foster sustainable development and efficient management 
of natural resources such as water, soil and air ............................ 13 

Contribute  to  the  protection  of  biodiversity,  enhance 
ecosystem services and preserve habitats and landscapes ........... 15 

Attract 
and 
development in rural areas ............................................................. 17 

facilitate 

business 

farmers 

young 

Promote  employment,  growth,  social  inclusion  and  local 
development  in  rural  areas,  including  bio-economy  and 
sustainable forestry ......................................................................... 18 

Improve  the  response  of  EU  agriculture  to  societal 
demands  on  food  and  health,  including  safe,  nutritious 
and sustainable food, as well as animal welfare ............................ 20 

2.10 

Cross-cutting  objective  on  knowledge,  innovation  and 
digitalisation ..................................................................................... 23 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
1.  COMMISSION  RECOMMENDATIONS  FOR  MALTA’S  CAP  STRATEGIC 

PLAN 

In  the  framework  of  the  structured  dialogue  for  the  preparation  of  the  common 
agricultural policy (CAP) strategic plan, this document contains the recommendations for 
the CAP strategic plan of Malta. The recommendations are based on analysis of the state 
of  play,  the  needs  and  the  priorities  for  agriculture  and  rural  areas  in  Malta.  The 
recommendations address the specific economic, environmental and social objectives of 
the future Common Agricultural Policy and in particular the ambition and specific targets 
of  the  Farm  to  Fork  Strategy  and  the  Biodiversity  Strategy  for  2030.  As  stated  in  the 
Farm to  Fork Strategy, the Commission invites Malta, in  its  CAP Strategic Plan, to  set 
explicit  national  values  for  the  Green  Deal  targets1,  taking  into  account  its  specific 
situation and these recommendations. 

1.1  Foster a smart, resilient and diversified agricultural sector ensuring food 

security 

The Maltese agricultural sector is  characterised by  small and micro farm  holdings with 
fragmented parcels, making it difficult to achieve economies of scale and be competitive 
on  the  international  market.  Furthermore,  Malta’s  island  characteristics,  limited 
agricultural land and  lack of natural resources, make Malta dependent on imports from 
other countries (especially for feed), which further increases production costs. Downward 
trends in agricultural income per worker and in the productivity of the agricultural sector 
after joining the European Union in 2004 show how difficult it is for Maltese farmers to 
compete  on  the  international  market.  Moreover,  cooperation  in  Malta’s  agricultural 
sector is poor, with a significantly low share of value added going to the farming sector. 
In addition, in order to foster the resilience of agriculture (e.g. against extreme weather 
events linked to climate change), Malta should rely on risk management tools and try to 
solve  the  specific  issues  that  prevented  it  from  activating  these  tools  in  the  last 
programming period. 

Rather than competing based on price, Malta’s farm sector should focus more on adding 
value to agricultural products and orientate towards producing for niche markets. In this 
way,  it  would  be  able  to  charge  premium  prices  for  its  products  and  become  a  more 
sustainable sector. The use of EU quality labels, like protected designation of origin and 
protected  geographical  indications,  can  help  Malta  to  improve  the  marketing  and 
branding of its products and eventually increase its farming income. To reduce Malta’s 
import dependence on fodder for livestock production, the sector should explore growing 
protein and fodder crops for animal feed; this would also reduce production costs.  

Collaboration  among  farmers  should  be  stimulated  to  improve  knowledge  sharing, 
reduce  production  costs  and  gain  more  bargaining  power  by  pooling  resources  and 
placing products on the market together, in particular for the fruit and vegetables sector. 
Promoting knowledge exchange,  advisory services, innovation  and  education is  vital  to 
moving the sector towards more cooperation on  value added production  and increasing 
the sector’s efficiency and productivity.  

1  It  concerns  the  targets  related  to  use  and  risk  of  pesticides,  sales  of  antimicrobials,  nutrient  loss,  area 

under organic farming, high diversity landscape features and access to fast broadband internet. 

2 

 
 
                                                 
1.2  Bolster environmental care and climate action and contribute to the 

environmental- and climate-related objectives of the Union 

Malta’s agricultural sector has high emissions of greenhouse gasses (GHG) per hectare, 
mainly coming from livestock. The country should focus on measures and investment to 
decrease  methane  emissions  from  enteric  fermentation  and  manure,  in  line  with  the 
methane  strategy.  The  land  use,  land-use  change  and  forestry  (LULUCF)  sector  emits 
more carbon dioxide that it absorbs, making Malta one of the few Member States where 
this sector is a source and not a sink.  

The  share  of  ammonia  emissions  from  agriculture  is  still  relatively  high  and  Malta  has 
been  found  to  be  at  high  risk  of  non-compliance  with  its  ammonia  emission  reduction 
commitments. Actions to reverse this situation are planned. 

The agriculture sector’s energy consumption is relatively high, and continues to increase. 
Malta  has  the  potential  for  renewable  energy  exploitation  in  rural  areas,  which  would 
ensure an efficient energy transition.  

Malta has a high risk of soil erosion and faces severe water challenges, both in terms of 
water quantity and water quality. In terms of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), not 
all of Malta’s water bodies are in good status yet and agriculture is identified as the most 
significant pressure. This situation could be further worsened by decreasing precipitation, 
increasing  risk  of  droughts  and  extreme  heat.  Climate  change  will  further  exacerbate 
these  risks,  with  the  agricultural  sector  being  particularly  vulnerable  to  its  impacts.  
Livestock  production  could  also  become  increasingly  difficult,  with  heat  stress  on 
animals and forage crop failure growth. Increased water demand for irrigation may lead 
to competition with other sectors. In response, targeted investment in more eco-friendly 
and adaptive systems, as well as less water-intensive farming, should be explored.  

Malta’s  particular  situation  and  its  poor  soil  conditions  constitute  real  obstacles  to 
tackling  biodiversity  issues  and  preserving  habitats  and  landscape.  Nevertheless,  the 
potential of the agricultural sector to help maintain and improve biodiversity is not fully 
exploited.  Maintenance  of  landscape  features  and  voluntary  schemes,  addressing  an 
enhanced management of those elements, could make a contribution in this direction. In 
addition, Malta’s strategic plan could also contribute to the enforcement of the Birds and 
Habitat Directives by supporting the funding of measures for the management of Natura 
2000  sites,  as  well  as  measures  beneficial  to  species  and  habitats  that  show  declining 
trends. The plan should also take into account the prioritised action framework (PAF) for 
Malta,  which  sets  the  key  priorities  and  financial  needs  for  implementing  the  Natura 
2000 network.  

Although forests do not hold any economic significance in Malta, they are still important 
in terms of environmental and social benefits. 

1.3  Strengthen the socio-economic fabric of rural areas and address societal 

concerns 

The  socio-economic  fabric  of  Malta’s  rural  areas  is  threatened  by  several  factors, 
including an ageing farming population and a shrinking number of registered female and 
young  farmers.  Furthermore,  a  difficult  business  environment  makes  the  sector 
unattractive.  In  fact,  the  primary  sector  contribution  to  gross  value  added  (GVA)  is 
declining  as  farm  income  becomes  more  irregular.  Capital  investment  in  agricultural 
innovation and digital skills training is severely limited.  

3 

 
The concentration of economic activities, basic services, and quality job opportunities in 
urban  centres  results  in  intensive  commuting  and  creates  a  territorial  imbalance,  which 
has  a  negative  impact  on  both  urban  and  rural  areas,  as  well  as  the  environment. 
Although  all  of  Malta  is  covered  by  next  generation  broadband,  only  50%  of  its  rural 
population had basic or above basic digital skills in 2019. Natural areas are threatened by 
both  urban  sprawl  and  climate  change.  The  transition  towards  green  and  modern 
agriculture is  an opportunity to respond to the challenge of generational renewal,  while 
diversifying  economic  activities  and  investments  in  this  area  represents  untapped 
opportunities for Maltese farmers.  

Furthermore, Malta should carefully consider the specific needs of women in agriculture 
and  rural  areas  in  order  to  deliver  on  gender  equality  and  close  the  gender  gaps  in 
employment, pay, pensions, care and decision making. 

In  general,  ensuring  the  protection  of  agricultural  workers,  especially  the  precarious, 
seasonal  and  undeclared  ones,  will  play  a  major  role  in  ensuring  the  respect  of  rights 
enshrined  in  legislation.  This  is  an  essential  element  of  the  fair  EU  food  system 
envisaged under the Farm to Fork strategy. 

There are clear weaknesses in Malta’s ability to ensure that antimicrobials are used in a 
prudent  manner, where monitoring procedures  and  veterinarians are lacking. Moreover, 
Malta  should  make  efforts  to  improve  animal  welfare  and  support  more  sustainable 
livestock management practices. The use of pesticides decreased by 16 % between 2017 
and 2018, but pressures linked to the use of pesticides still exist. Malta’s national action 
plan  (NAP)  for  sustainable  use  of  pesticides  was  only  partially  enforced,  especially  as 
regards the general principle for integrated pest management and controls on all type of 
operators. 

Furthermore, food waste prevention and recycling practices do not yet appear to be well 
established  in  Malta.  Dietary  habits  are  shifting  away  from  the  Mediterranean  diet  to 
favour  ready-made  meals  and  sugar-rich  processed  food,  with  obesity  and  overweight 
levels  on  the  rise  among  the  population,  including  in  children.  Malta  should  make  an 
effort to shift towards healthier, more sustainable diets as it has very high overweight and 
obesity rates. 

1.4  Modernising the sector by fostering and sharing of knowledge, innovation 

and digitalisation, and encouraging their uptake  

Tackling  the  economic,  environmental  and  social  challenges  outlined  in  the  previous 
paragraphs  is  an  essential  step  in  the  transition  towards  sustainable  food  production, 
which will also require an effort to bring to the field new technologies and innovation.  
A  well-functioning  agricultural  knowledge  and  innovation  system  (AKIS)  should 
facilitate an efficient flow of knowledge between actors to respond to farmer’s growing 
information needs, for quicker innovation and better valorisation of existing knowledge 
to  achieve  the  CAP  objectives.  AKIS  covers  not  only  agriculture,  but  also  other  rural 
activities related to the landscape, environment, climate, biodiversity, food and non-food 
systems. 

However, the Maltese AKIS is fragmented and its shortcomings may limit the country’s 
ability to transition towards the greener and more digital agriculture foreseen by the Farm 
to  Fork  strategy.  Malta  programmed  8.2%  of  its  total  rural  development  envelope  for 
knowledge,  advice and innovation,  but  so  far, none of the programmed funds has been 

4 

 
spent.  Collaboration  of  researchers  and  advisors  with  farmers  should  be  stimulated  to 
improve  knowledge  exchange  and  to  focus  the  co-creation  of  knowledge  on  farmers’ 
specific needs and challenges.  

It  is  essential  to  improve  links  between  public  and  private  advisors,  and  invest  in  their 
training and skills. Additionally, advisors should be supported to help capture innovative 
ideas  coming  from  the  grass  roots  and  to  develop  these  ideas  by  setting  up  and 
implementing  European  innovation  partnership  (EIP)  operational  group  innovation 
projects.  

1.5  Recommendations 

To  address  the  above  challenges,  the  Commission  considers  that  the  Maltese  CAP 
strategic  plan  needs  to  focus  its  priorities  and  concentrate  its  interventions  on  the 
following points, while adequately taking into account the high territorial diversity of the 
Maltese agriculture and rural areas: 

Foster a smart, resilient and diversified agricultural sector ensuring food security 

 

Improving value added in the agricultural sector by supporting investments in 
cost  reduction,  in  quality  production  –  for  example  through  national  and  EU 
quality schemes – and in developing niche markets. 

  Enhancing  the  position  of  the  farmer  in  the  value  chain  by  supporting 
increased membership of producer organisations, leading to improved knowledge 
exchange  and  co-operation.  Improved  co-operation  should  take  place  between 
farmers  (in  particular  in  the  fruit  and  vegetable  sector)  but  should  also  involve 
farmers more in downstream activities. 

Bolster  environmental  care  and  climate  action  and  to  contribute  to  the  environmental- 
and climate-related objectives of the Union  

  Reducing GHG emissions and increase removals of CO2 to contribute to the 
EU 2050 climate neutrality objective by boosting climate change adaptation and 
mitigation  in  agriculture  and  forestry.  It  can  be  achieved  by:  improving  the 
overall  carbon  farming  capacity  and  reversing  the  trend  in  emissions  from 
cropland, supporting the reintroduction of local breeds and crop varieties that are 
more  resilient  in  drier  conditions,  promoting  afforestation,  improving  energy 
efficiency and fostering renewable energy production. 

  Cutting  ammonia  emissions  in  agriculture  by  supporting  low-emission 
management practices and related investments, including precision farming. 

  Halting  and  reversing  the  depletion  of  natural  resources  in  agriculture  by 
supporting  management  practices  which  reduce  water-induced  soil  erosion,  and 
in  modern  productive  systems,  enhancing  sustainable  water 
investments 
management and other practices lowering nutrient losses to water and air. 

  Improving  biodiversity  on  farmland  and  natural  areas  by  fostering 
landscape  features  and 
maintenance  and  development  of  high-diversity 
supporting  appropriate  sustainable  management  practices  –  especially  within 

5 

 
collective  approaches  –  including  (but  not  limited  to)  organic  farming,  in  line 
with the prioritised action framework for CAP funding. 

Strengthen the socio-economic fabric of rural areas and address societal demands 

  Enhancing  agricultural  modernisation  and 

improving  farm  business 
development  to  attract  young  farmers  by  addressing  the  entry  barriers  to  the 
sector  (i.e.  access  to  land)  and  incentivizing  the  use  of  smart,  green  and  digital 
technologies. 

  Increasing  employment  and  creation  of  high-quality  jobs  in  rural  areas  by 

investments in diverse economic activities and in developing basic services. 

  Contributing  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  on  reducing  antimicrobial 
resistance  by  putting  in  place  sizeable  efforts  to  significantly  reduce  the  use  of 
antimicrobials  in  farming,  considering  that  the  figures  indicate  sales  of 
antimicrobials  above  the  EU  average.  Malta  is  encouraged  to  use  all  available 
tools,  including  instruments  under  the  CAP,  to  support  the  farmers  e.g.  by 
promoting best  practices on reduced  and prudent  use of  antimicrobials,  together 
with  improved  livestock  management,  biosecurity,  infection  prevention  and 
control. 

  Improving  animal  welfare  by  supporting,  among  others,  more  sustainable 

livestock management practices. 

  Contributing  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  on  reducing  the  risk  and  use  of 
pesticides by supporting lower use and the use of less hazardous pesticides, via 
schemes fostering a switch to sustainable farming practices, including integrated 
pest management practices. 

Fostering  and  sharing  of  knowledge,  innovation  and  digitalisation  in  agriculture  and 
rural areas, and encouraging their uptake 

  Supporting and ensure uptake of various AKIS actions, including integration 
of advisors (strengthening the link between the farming community, advisors and 
researchers),  promotion  of  collaboration  and  learning,  ensuring  that  innovation 
support services are available to capture grassroots innovative ideas. 

  Training  farmers  how  to  access  and  deploy  smart  digital  technologies  and 
innovation  capacities,  supporting  the  provision  of  relevant  data  to  increase  the 
effectiveness of digital technologies and productivity and sustainability. 

6 

 
 
 
2.  ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN 

MALTA 

Malta  is  the  smallest  member  of  the  European  Union  and  the  one  with  the  highest 
population  density.  Together  with  scarcity  of  natural  resources  and  specific  territorial 
constraints, these characteristics have an important impact on the agricultural sector. The 
country  relies  on  import  for  many  agricultural  products.  The  sector  is  characterizes  by 
small  and  micro  farms  with  an  average  size  of  1  hectare,  with  a  low  degree  of 
competitiveness  and  productivity.  Competiveness  and  productivity  will  be  likely 
hampered  also  by  climate  change,  which  may  have  important  repercussions  on  natural 
resources, already scarce. 

The urban sprawl and the increase in the population have impacts on the exploitation of 
natural resources and on the protection of biodiversity and natural landscapes. 

Rural areas are closely interlinked with urban ones and counts for 13% of the territory. 
Within the rural areas different social-economic conditions are present. Next generation 
broadband cover all the territory. 

Against this context CAP funds are pivotal to improve current situation by enhancing the 
production of quality products, boost farmers income, foster cooperative actions, sustain 
biodiversity and natural areas protection and adopting advanced farming techniques and 
technologies. 

2.1  Support viable farm income and resilience across the EU territory to 

enhance food security 

to 

The  Maltese  agricultural  sector  has  some  particular  characteristics  with  very  small  and 
micro  farm  holdings,  due 
land  structure,  and  many  part-
its  fragmented 
time/recreational  farmers  (with  about  30%  of  farms  consuming  more  than  50%  of 
production themselves). Malta has 15 420 persons1 working in the agricultural sector on 
9 210 farms2, equal to about 5 340 full-time equivalent jobs.  To illustrate the importance 
of  part-time  farmers,  70%  of  the  persons  work  in  agriculture  work  less  than  25%  of  a 
full-time  equivalent  job,  whereas  about  1 350  farms  work  more  or  equivalent  to  a  full 
time  job3.  Moreover,  around  5 000  Maltese  farms  have  a  production  of  less  than  EUR 
2 000  in  standard  output,  and  are  therefore  considered  as  very  small4.  In  2018,  5 070 
farmers receive direct payments, equal to 55% of the farming population5. The amount of 
registered farmers is thus high, but the population of farmers that professionally produces 
food for the Maltese island and beyond is limited. This has an effect on the possibility to 
benefit from economies of scale and thus affect the income position of Maltese farmers. 

The development of the income position in Malta is not favourable considering the trend 
in the agricultural factor income per worker, as shown in the graph below, and the total 
entrepreneurial income in the sector. The agricultural factor income per worker reduced 
over time from about EUR 14 500 in 2005 to EUR 11 100 in 2018, whereas the income 
trend  in  the  EU  is  positive.  Moreover,  the  attractiveness  of  working  in  the  agricultural 
sector reduces as the agricultural income decreased to about 50% of the average income 
in  Malta in  2018. An important  explanation is  the increase in  labour in  the agricultural 
sector  (by  23%  between  2005  and  2017).  The  continuous  reduction  in  livestock 
(especially in  pigs  but  also  in  cattle) by 35% between 2007 and 2016 reduced the total 
(animal) output, goes together with a substitution to more labour intensive production in 
Malta like horticulture and fruit production which probably explains this trend. 

7 

 
Total  subsidies  (both  direct  payments  and  rural  development)  amount,  on  average,  to 
18%6 of factor income of the sector for Maltese farms between 2013 and 2017 (among 
which about 10% for direct payments). However, these support rates are higher for cattle 
and dairy farms, with the direct payment received per hectare being significantly higher 
for  dairy  farms  and  farmers  with  larger  farm  sizes.  These  higher  shares  are  partly 
explained by the current implementation of voluntary coupled support for dairy and beef 
(which together receive about EUR 2 million or a bit less than 20% of the annual direct 
payment envelope), in addition to sheep and tomato production used for  Kunserva. The 
dairy  and  tomato  industry  form  the  most  important  sectors  in  Malta  in  terms  of 
agricultural production output, with beef production being an offshoot of the dairy sector. 
The  tomato  production  is  one  of  the  most  important  crops  considering  the  processing 
industry attached to it and the employment it provides on the island. 

The insularity of Malta combined with its dependency on bought-in feed for the livestock 
sector,  makes  Maltese  livestock  farmers  more  sensitive  to  external  price  fluctuations. 
Even  though  climatic  conditions  are  favourable  with  long  growing  seasons,  Malta  has 
higher yield risks than the EU average for arable, dairy and egg production linked to its 
dependency  on  rainfall7.  To  mitigate  the  risks  from  the  market,  risk  management 
instruments  can  provide  a  solution.  However,  the  small  farm  size/sector  and  lack  of 
knowledge  forms  as  obstacles  for  Maltese  farms  to  implement  or  use  well-functioning 
instruments. For example, no relevant livestock insurance or mutual funds exist currently 
in  Malta.  Such  a  measures  was  included  in  the  2014-2020  RDP  but  due  to  the  lack  of 
local  expertise  in  agriculture  insurance  schemes  and  absence  of  historical  data  (mainly 
quantification  of  damages)  this  measure  was  never  activated.  Better  farmer  advisory 
systems and more cooperation between farmers could be a possibility to make these tools 
more attractive. 

Trend in agricultural income (versus average wage in the economy) in Malta 

Agricultural factor income per AWU in real terms  

Agricultural income as % of average wage in the economy in Malta 

Agricultural income as % of average wage in the economy – EU-27 

Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development. CAP context indicators C.25 Agricultural 
factor income and CAP context indicator C.26 Agricultural entrepreneurial income. Income based on 
EUROSTAT [aact_eaa04], [aact_ali01] and [aact_eaa06], adding back the compensation of employees to 
the entrepreneurial income and divided by the total number of annual working units. Note: 2019 data 
estimated. The Average wage in the economy based on EUROSTAT [nama_10_a10_e] thousand hours 
worked using employees domestic concept and [nama_10_a10], item wages and salaries. 

8 

 
2.2  Enhance market orientation and increase competitiveness including greater 

focus on research, technology and digitalisation 

The  structure  of  the  Maltese  agricultural  sector  and  its  insular  characteristics  result  in 
specific physical and structural constraints that hamper its competitiveness as compared 
to other European countries. As Malta is a small, densely populated island with relatively 
little agricultural land, it is dependent on imports of inputs, in particular feed for the dairy 
industry.  In  addition,  small-scale  farming  limits  bargaining  power.  Moreover,  the 
fragmentation of agricultural land parcels, linked to unfavourable inheritance law3, does 
not allow generating sufficient economies of scale. 

Different agricultural sectors face problems with their competitiveness. For example, due 
to land scarcity and small farm sizes, several products like wine and egg cannot compete 
on quantity. Due to a lack of sufficient and reliable rainfall there are no pasture areas for 
grazing,  a  shortage  of  high  quality  fodder  crops  and  a  lack  of  cereals  produced  on  the 
islands3. As the cattle industry is an off-shoot of the dairy sector, the Holstein Frisian are 
not  as  competitive  with  other  beef  cattle  breeds.  More  importantly,  due  to  the  land 
scarcity,  livestock  remains  inside:  increasing  housing,  feed  and  energy  costs.  Pig 
producers  required  to  restructure  and  invest  once  the  market  opened  up  after  EU 
accession to  comply with EU standards, but  lost market  share while being in  transition 
and profitability in this sector disappeared. With respect to sheep and goats, the sector is 
fragmented with many small herds. The production and total herd is in decline while the 
farm population is ageing and no investments are taking place. 

Given the unfavourable production conditions as compared to other European countries, 
most agricultural products are produced for domestic consumption, with the exception of 
some vegetables (mainly in the form of tomato paste) and spring potatoes. The need to 
import agricultural products is also reflected in the agri-food balance, which is strongly 
negative and declining even stronger over time. About 1/3 of the agri-food products are 
imported from Italy, which is the most important origin of agri-food trade. Nonetheless, 
considering  the  agri-food  trade  balance  with  non-EU  member  states,  the  balance  is 
modestly negative with the Middle East being the main destination (account for 25% of 
the  total  agri-food  exports  with  UAE  and  Saudi  Arabia  being  the  most  important 
countries).  

Apart from an unfavourable competitiveness that  requires a boost, also the productivity 
of  the  sector  needs  an  improvement.  The  total  factor  productivity,  reflecting  input  and 
output ratios, is decreasing over time in Malta after its accession to the EU in 2004. All 
components of the factor productivity follow a downward trend between 2005 and 2018 
as indicated in the graph below. Several factors explain this trend. From the output side, 
as  indicated  in  section  2.1,  the  total  animal  output  declined  after  2007,  which  was  not 
compensated in an increase in output from other sectors. On the input side, labour input 
increased,  explaining  partly  the  downward  trend  in  labour  productivity.  The  labour 
productivity (at about EUR 12 000 per worker) is at 60% of the EU average8.  

Investments  can  improve  the  productivity  in  the  sector.  After  EU-accession  in  2004, 
dairy  farmers  made  high  investments  (among  others  through  the  rural  development 
programme) to modernise their farm to improve their sustainability as the Maltese market 
orientation increased. Those farms not able to invest left the sector, while those who did 
invest  increased  their  financial  burden.  Up  to  2010,  total  annual  farm  investments 
followed a positive trend with  a doubling from  about  EUR 5 to  10 million a  year after 
EU accession. After the financial crisis, the investments went down, being around EUR 
8.5 million on average between 2016 and 2018, which is 16.4% of the gross value added 

9 

 
in Maltese agriculture, almost half the EU average9. However, the return on investments 
was not high enough to increase significantly output, which explains the downward trend 
in capital productivity. 

Finally,  in  addition  to  land,  labour  and  capital,  entrepreneurship  and  human  capital  is 
considered as the forth production factor. In terms of innovation and skills, the traditional 
mentality  of  some  older  farm  managers  constraints  on-farm  investments  for  younger 
generations.  Innovative  initiatives  takes  place  occasionally  and  on  an  individual  basis. 
Due  to  the  fragmentation  and  the  individualism,  most  sectors  are  not  ready  to  benefit 
from innovative initiatives due to the lack of networks and investors3. 

Total factor productivity in agriculture in Malta (Index 2005 = 100) 

Total factor productivity 

Land productivity 

Labour productivity 

Intermediate costs productivity 

Capital productivity 

TFP EU-27 

European Commission. CAP context indicator C.27 Total factor productivity. Based on EUROSTAT 

[aact_eaa05], [aact_eaa04], [aact_ali01], [apro_cpsh1] and [ef_mptenure] and FADN 

2.3  Improve farmers' position in the value chain 

As highlighted under section 2.1 and 2.2, the small and micro farm holdings typical  of 
the Maltese agricultural sector are characterised by a lack of economies of scales in their 
agricultural  activity.  Increased  economies  of  scale,  however,  could  be  effectively 
generated  through  cooperation  amongst  farmers/producers  (collective  acquisition  and 
provision  of  goods,  placing  produce  on  market,  services  etc.).  This  would  increase  the 
bargaining power, which should lead to lower overheads and enhance profits.  

The share of the value added for primary producers in the food chain is decreasing over 
time in Malta in favour of the food and beverage consumer services10. In 2017, only 11% 
went to primary producers, which is well below the EU average of 27%11.  

This  demonstrates  that  there  is  unexplored  potential  for  farmers  and  cooperative 
structures to join forces as most of products are mainly sold on local markets. There are 
four  cooperatives  in  Malta  in  the  wine  sector,  of  which  one  is  recognised  producer 
organisation12.  Besides  this  producer  organisation,  different  forms  of  cooperation 
structures  exist  in  Malta  providing  also  basic  services  to  farmers.  Facilitation  of 
cooperation  activities  of  farmers  through  pooling  of  farmers  through  knowledge, 
mentoring  activities  and  good  practices  is  another  aspect.  There  is  no  interbranch 
organisations (IBO) recognised so far in Malta.13 

Most farms in Malta are livestock farms (30%) and horticultural  farms (17%) followed 
by some other agricultural activities (potatoes, vegetables and wine)14. The  dairy sector 
(excluding  sheep  and  goats)  is  organised  through  a  vertical  structure  where  the  milk 
producer  cooperative  has  managed  to  shorten  the  supply  chain  and  produce  a  range  of 
dairy  products  through  effective  marketing  and  branding  exercises.  This  sector  can  be 
used  as  a  best  practise  model  for  other  Maltese  farming  sectors  that  are  still  less 

10 

 
organised  and  depend  more  on  intermediaries  or  processors  for  decision-making. 
However, market niche products (ice creams, cheese milk drinks, new ranges of yoghurts 
and cheese spreads) are not yet fully explored. Furthermore, healthy food that the Farm 
to  Fork  Strategy  calls  for  (fruits,  vegetables,  animal  products  with  reduced  salt  and  fat 
levels) has a potential. 

Spring  potatoes  are  exclusively  grown  for  the  export  to  among  others  the  Netherlands 
and Germany, making it the most important cash crop in Malta. Tomato  processing for 
the  traditional  Kunserva  tomato  paste  and  other  products  has  a  traditional  link  to  open 
field cultivation.  

Crop farming in Malta is composed of arable farming that relies on rain to grow mostly 
fodder,  onions,  garlic,  broad  beans,  potatoes  and  some  permanent  crops  such  as  vines, 
olive trees and fruit trees, and irrigated farmland, which is used to grow a wider range of 
fruit and vegetables.  

The  performance  of  agro  processing  industry  varies  depending  on  sector,  types  of 
processing and dimensions of its activity. Some sectors such as dairy, tomato processing 
and wine production have developed a strong processing industry. Whilst other such as 
the sheep cheese and honey sectors are more producer based and carried out on a small 
scale. Meat  processing historically intended for swine meat  now is  further expanded to 
other meat sectors (beef, chicken, rabbit, goat, lamb, and horse).  

Malta  does  not  have  any  specific  legislative  instrument  to  address  Unfair  Trading 
Practices15. 

Value added for primary producers in the food chain in Malta (in million EUR) 

Primary producers 
Food and beverage consumer services 

Food and beverage manufacturing 
% for primary producers (right axis) 

Food and beverage distribution 
% for primary producers – EU-27 

Source: European Commission. CAP indicators – Data explorer. 
CAP Result indicator RPI_03 Value for primary producers in the food chain.  

2.4  Contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation, as well as 

sustainable energy  

In 2018, agricultural emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) in Malta amounted to 65 400 
tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalents, down 14.4% since 1990.16 The overall share 
of the agricultural sector in total national emissions has not fluctuated much in the past, 
starting at 3.6% in 1990 and being around 3% in 2018,17 a low value compared to the EU 
average (around 12% in 2016).18 However, Malta has the third highest figure among the 
Member  States  in  terms  of  GHG  emissions  from  the  agricultural  sector  per  hectare  of 
agriculture  land  of  5.6  CO2  equivalent  (EU  average  of  2.38  tonnes,  CO2  equivalent).19 

11 

 
Malta  has  also  the  second  highest  total  livestock density  in  the  EU  (2.9  livestock  units 
per hectare compared to 0.8 at EU average)20. 

With  49%,  emissions  from  enteric  fermentation  account  for  the  largest  share  of 
agricultural  emissions  (primarily  cattle,  followed  by  sheep  and  swine),  followed  by 
emissions from agricultural soils (29%) and emissions from manure management (23%) 
in  2018.  Methane  emissions  from  enteric  fermentation  and  manure  management  have 
declined  since  1990  levels  because  of  decreasing  livestock  populations  (except  for 
rabbits and horses) due to a rise in the import of meat and dairy products.21 Anyway, the 
high  share  of  emissions  from  manure  management  is  the  result  of  a  national  manure 
management  system  still  largely  rudimental  and  with  limited  enforcement.22  The  total 
agricultural  area  and  area  with  fodder  crops  have  also  decreased  since  1990. 
Consequently, so have the nitrogen application rates and the nitrous oxide emissions.23 

In  2018,  Malta  has  reported  net  GHG  emissions  linked  to  land  use,  change  of  use  of 
agricultural  land  and  forestry  (LULUCF)  amounting  to  around  4 000  tonnes  of  CO2 
equivalents,  the  same  level  reported  in  1990,  with  cropland  having  produced  3 000 
tonnes  of  CO2  equivalents.24  Emissions  from  cropland  have  significantly  increased  in 
recent  years.  Between 1990 and 2002, the sector’s contribution  had decreased (in 2002 
net  emissions were slightly above 1 000 tonnes of CO2 equivalents), but  between 2002 
and 2018 it went back to the 1990 levels.25 Since Malta lacks permanent tree crops and 
woodland cover compared to other Mediterranean islands (Malta’s woodland areas total 
about 200 hectares),26 many afforestation projects have been undertaken in recent  years 
to enhance CO2 removals, but the scale of such projects is expected to be very limited.27 
Furthermore, due to the inadequacy of some areas for afforestation because of geological 
and microclimatic conditions, enhancing sinks in LULUCF in Malta remains difficult.28 
However,  a  range  of  permanent  fruit  trees  or  fodder  crops  that  are  adapted  to  warmer 
climates could be tested in Maltese conditions to identify areas of intervention for carbon 
sink  creation purpose in  the future. Trees that  are considered permanent  crops for their 
ability to provide a commercial viability to farmers (e.g. olive trees, figs and stone fruit 
trees)  should  be  promoted  in  recreational  farms  and  along  margins  of  commercial 
farms.29  For  this  purpose,  the  rural  development  programme  2014-2020  dedicates  an 
investment  measure for  afforestation purposes. Considering its  high population  density, 
its  limited  land  availability  and  the  local  climatic  conditions  (such  as  limited  rainfall), 
Malta’s potential for further reduction of CO2 emissions through carbon sequestration in 
vegetation is envisaged to be minimal.30 

According  to  its  National  Energy  and  Climate  Plan,  total  GHG  emissions  in  the 
agricultural sectors are expected to be stable around 65 600 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per 
year  in  the  period  from  2021  to  2030.  Nitrous  oxide  (N2O)  emissions  from  the  use  of 
fertiliser is expected to decrease over time as improved cultivation practices are adopted, 
principally  through  the  application  of  the  Code  of  Good  Agricultural  Practice  and  the 
Nitrates Action Programme.31  

In  2018,  the  share  of  agriculture  in  the  production  of  total  renewable  energy  in  Malta 
amounted to 4.8%, well below the EU-27 average (12.1%).32 No renewable energy was 
produced  from  the  forestry  sector.  Energy  consumption  in  Maltese  agriculture  and 
forestry has the second lowest share in total final energy consumption (0.9%) in the EU-
27,  whereas  direct  use  of  energy  in  food  processing  amounted  to  1.2%,  reflecting  the 
small scale of the agricultural sector compared to the rest of the EU.33 However, in terms 
of  energy  efficiency,  energy  consumption  by  agriculture  and  forestry  per  hectare  is 
increasing over time (by 67% between 2013 and 2018, which is significantly higher than 

12 

 
the EU level, 8%). Moreover, energy consumption per hectare is already 2.5 times higher 
in  Malta  than  the  EU  average34,  Agricultural  measures  that  link  with  climate  change 
mitigation  include  renewable  energy  initiatives  such  as  the  installation  of  solar 
photovoltaic panels on farm structures like barns that are more suitable for the Maltese 
climatic  conditions  and  aim  towards  meeting  future  challenges.  Generation  of  energy 
from manure or crop residues also has a great potential value. 

Malta’s agricultural sector is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.35 
Malta’s  National  Strategy  for  Climate  Change  and  Adaptation  (2012)  identified  four 
major concerns connected with climate change: (i) reduction in crop yield and quality as 
the result of reduced water availability and precipitation variability,  (ii) direct  financial 
loss  for  stakeholders  exacerbated  by  the  need  for  increased  spending  as  a  result  of 
damage caused by extreme weather events (iii) reduced crop yields caused by increased 
summer  temperatures  and  drought  risk  and  (iv)  additional  problems  arising  from  the 
introduction of new pests and disease.  

Total Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture (including and excluding 
LULUCF) in Malta (in million tonnes of CO2 equivalents) 

Grassland 
Cropland 
Agriculture 
% of agriculture in total GHG emissions (exc. LULUCF) 
% of agriculture (incl. emissions from cropland and grassland) in total GHG emissions (incl. LULUCF) 
EU-27 % of agriculture (incl. Emissions from cropland and grassland) in total GHG emissions (incl. LULUCF) 
Source: European Environmental Agency. As in EUROSTAT [env_air_gge] 

2.5  Foster  sustainable  development  and  efficient  management  of  natural 

resources such as water, soil and air 

Air:  Despite  an  uptick  in  2018,  ammonia  emissions  in  Malta  have  decreased  between 
2013  and  2017,  bucking  the  recent  trend  in  the  EU-28.36  This  is  also  the  case  for 
ammonia emissions from agriculture37. The share of ammonia emissions from agriculture 
in  total  ammonia  emissions  in  Malta  (almost  94%)  is  above  the  EU-28  average.38  This 
also  applies  to  NH3  emissions  from  agriculture  per  hectare.39  Linked  to  this  is  the  fact 
that, due to a high livestock density40, the relative contribution of the livestock sector to 
ammonia  emissions  from  agriculture  in  Malta  is  considerably  higher  than  the  EU-28 
average.41 The reduction in NH3 emissions from agriculture over time is largely due to a 
decrease  in  livestock  (density  and  numbers).42  The  latest  reported  ammonia  emission 
levels (2018) are below Malta’s NECD (National Emission Ceiling Directive) emission 
ceiling  for  ammonia  for  this  year43.  However,  reviews  of  the  Maltese  National  Air 
Pollution  Control  Programme  (NAPCP)  and  air  pollutant  emission  projection, 
commissioned  by  the  European  Commission,  have  found  that  Malta  is  at  high  risk  of 

13 

 
non-compliance  with  the  2020-2029  and  the  2030  onwards  reduction  commitments  for 
NH3.44 

Soil:  Agricultural  land  fragmentation  and  abandonment,  limited  soil  agriculture 
suitability,  certain  agricultural  practices  (such  as  100%  of  tillable  area  being  under 
conventional  tillage)45,  rapid  urbanisation,  limited  water  resources,  and  rapidly 
modernising  social  structure  further  exacerbate  soil  erosion  pressures.46  The  mean  soil 
organic carbon content (15.6 g/kg) concentration in Malta is considerably lower than the 
EU28  average.47  Soil  sealing  index  grown  from  100.1  in  2009  to  100.8  in  2015.48  The 
share  of  the  estimated  agricultural  area  affected  by  moderate  to  severe  erosion  due  to 
water  (>11  tonnes  per  hectare  per  year)  is  higher  than  the  EU28  average49,  as  is  the 
estimated rate of soil loss by water erosion50. As at 2019, around 7.5% of the agricultural 
area in Malta was under contracts to improve soil management and/or prevent erosion.51 
In  the  future,  Malta  can  address  these  key  issues  in  synergy  with  activities  under  the 
Horizon Europe mission on Soil Health.  

Water quantity and quality: Malta is a country that faces severe water challenges.52 Malta 
has the lowest volume of freshwater resources per person in the EU.53 Practically all of 
its naturally occurring freshwater comes from groundwater bodies, which are threatened 
by  over-extraction  as  well  as  nitrate  pollution.  Although  monitoring  data  suggests  that 
the  imbalance  between  abstraction  and  recharge  is  progressively  being  reduced54,  there 
are  still  significant  problems  with  the  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies  in 
Malta55.  In  relation  to  the  Water  Framework  Directive  around  51%  are  in  unknown 
ecological status with 12% failing to achieve good ecological status and around 47% of 
surface waters are also failing to achieve good chemical status. For groundwater 13% are 
failing  to  achieve  good  quantitative  status  (but  not  all  water  bodies  are  monitored  for 
quantitative  status)  and  80%  of  ground  waters  are  failing  good  chemical  status56.  The 
most significant pressure on ground waters was diffuse agricultural pollution followed by 
abstraction  or  flow  diversion  for  agriculture  As  groundwater  is  recharged  largely  by 
rainwater,  climate  change  is  expected  to  result  in  additional  pressure  on  groundwater 
resources,  as  changes  in  drainage  of  soils  caused  by  reduced  rainfall  may  lead  to 
increased  soil  salinity  and  damage  to  soil  structure  leading  to  desertification.  Despite  a 
significant decrease between 2007 and 2011, both nitrogen and phosphorus surpluses in 
Malta are still comparatively high and have remained stable in  recent  years.57 Nitrogen 
usage  efficiency  is  also  quite  low,  although  there  is  a  positive  trend.58  Half  of  all 
monitored  ground  water  stations  in  Malta  are  of  poor  quality  and  on  average  equal  or 
exceed 50 milligrams of nitrate per litre.59 For groundwater bodies, the most significant 
pressure is agriculture.60 Linked to this, Malta has one of the highest livestock densities 
in the EU. With an irrigable area of 31%61, Malta also has one of the highest irrigation 
intensities  worldwide62,  and  irrigation  accounts  for  48%  of  all  water  abstractions63.  In 
addition,  irrigation  could  further  reduce  the  water  availability  for  habitats/species.  The 
entire  Maltese  islands  are  a  designated  nitrate  vulnerable  zone64  so  sustainable  water 
management  is  critical  in  terms  of  meeting  future  water  demands  and  for  compliance 
with EU regulations to minimise agricultural pollution. In 2018, over 4% of agricultural 
land  in  Malta  was  under  contracts  to  improve  water  management.65  In  this  regard,  the 
National  Agricultural  Policy  for  the  Maltese  Islands  highlights  the  necessity  of 
investment in water in order to secure climate change resilience. Some measures aimed at 
optimising  the  management  of  rainwater  runoff  through  valley  management  initiatives 
and the development  of  on-field  storage facilities, in  particular  aimed at  addressing the 
demand of the agricultural sector, have already been taken.66 

14 

 
 
Potential surplus of N and P on agricultural land in Malta 

Potential surplus of nitrogen on agricultural land (in kg N/ha/year) 

Potential surplus of phosphorus on agricultural land (in kg P/ha/year) 
EU-27 GNB for Nitrogen 

European Commission. CAP context indicator C.40 Water quality. Based on EUROSTAT [aei_pr_gnb] 

2.6  Contribute to the protection of biodiversity, enhance ecosystem services 

and preserve habitats and landscapes 

The  agricultural  area  in  Malta  increased  over  time  from  10 250  in  2005  to  11 580 
hectares in 2016. This increase is coupled with land parcelling and fragmentation while 
the  total  farming  population  is  decreasing.  Yet,  more  than  70%  of  all  agricultural 
holdings  cover  less  than  one  hectare67  and  the  total  area  of  grasslands  represents 
approximately 4.5% of the agricultural area (527 hectares)68. 

The implementation of agri-environment and climate measures is programmed to cover 
13%  of  Maltese  agricultural  area  in  the  current  programming  period69.  The  budget 
allocation  is  insufficient  according  to  the  Strategic  Environmental  Assessment  on  the 
rural  development  programme  for  2014-2020,  which  makes  it  even  more  difficult  to 
achieve  organic  farming  and  environmental-friendly  practices.  The  share  of  land  under 
contracts supporting biodiversity is 15.5%70, in line with the EU average (15% in 2018). 
The share of the agricultural  area protected under  Natura 2000 is  8 % (11% for EU-28 
average71) and 70% of the network is located within functional urban areas. Natura 2000 
is  complete for the terrestrial network but  not  for the marine. The  Farmland bird index 
was  81.972  in  Malta  in  2013,  which  is  low  compared  to  the  EU  average  the  same  year 
(8373).  The  majority  of  protected  habitats  assessments  are  unfavourable  conservation 
status  (2013-2018  data),  including  all  protected  grassland  habitats  assessments  and  the 
vast majority of the forest habitat assessments. 

Organic  farming  practices  can  benefit  biodiversity.  However  only  0.4%  of  total 
agricultural  area  is  estimated  to  be  organic  (55  hectares  of  organic  crop  in  2019  or  14 
farmers producing organic food74). This is the lowest share in the EU. The EU average 
has  increased  progressively  to  reach  8%  in  2018  while  it  is  fluctuating  in  Malta75.  A 
major challenge for organic farming is the small parcel size and the fragmented Maltese 
farmland,  due 
to  possible  sources  of  contamination  between  parcels.  Besides 
fragmentation,  issues  encountered  by  organic  farmers  include  proximity  to  roads  and 
conventional farmers, windy conditions resulting on pesticide drift, poor soil conditions 
and  the  availability  of  allowed  plant  protection  products  for  organic  farming76.  In 
addition,  the  administrative  burden,  often  perceived  as  long  and  complex  dissuade 
farmers from converting to organic farming4. 

15 

 
As urban sprawl in Malta is one of the highest in Europe, overdevelopment is a cause of 
loss  of  biodiversity  and  natural  landscapes.  However,  national  strategies  address  these 
issues  in  Malta.  The  National  Biodiversity  Strategy  and  Action  Plan  (2012-2020) 
promotes  the  build-up  and  maintenance  of  soil  organic  matter  and  the  enhancement  of 
soil  biodiversity.  The  National  Environment  Policy  (2012-2020)77,  address  long-term 
sustainability  priorities  such  as  air  and  water  quality,  biodiversity,  and  climate  change. 
Overall,  the  particular  situation  of  Malta  and  its  poor  soil  conditions  constitute  real 
obstacles to tackle biodiversity issues and preserve habitats and landscape. 

The land laying fallow contributes to the area under high-biodiversity landscape features. 
In Malta 9.3% of the total agricultural areas is land laying fallow in 2018 (versus 4.1% at 
EU-27).  In 2019, under the current  greening measures only 1% of arable land in Malta 
fell under the Ecological Focus Area obligation for the benefits of biodiversity, equal to 
51 hectares (versus 69% in the EU)78. This figure is low for Malta as farmers with more 
than  15  hectares  are  subject  to  the  EFA  obligation.    The  coverage  of  the  EFA  were 
limited to nitrogen fixing crops (81%) and fallow land (19%). However, according to a 
study performed by the JRC based on the LUCAS survey, in 2015, the share of landscape 
elements as a percentage of the agricultural area was 0%79. The agricultural sector must 
help  maintain  and  improve  biodiversity,  by  creating  a  green  infrastructure  based  on 
stonewalls,  plant hedges, and vegetation  buffers for example between conventional  and 
organic farming. Anyhow, important investments are ongoing under the measure 4.4 of 
the  RDP  2014-2020,  where  about  18%  of  the  financial  envelop  is  dedicated  to  non-
productive investment aimed at restoring, preserving and enhancing biodiversity, such as 
rubble walls among other interventions. 

Area under organic farming in Malta 

Hectares under organic farming 
% of area under organic farming in the EU-27 
European Commission. CAP context indicator C.19 Agricultural area under organic farming. 

% of agricultural area under organic farming 

Based on EUROSTAT [org_cropar_h1] and [org_cropar] 

16 

 
 
 
Share of agricultural area covered by  
Share of agricultural area covered by high-diversity landscape features 
high-diversity landscape features  
in the EU 

E
B

G
B

Z
C

K
D

E
D

E
E

E
I

L
E

S
E

R
F

R
H

T
I

Y
C

V
L

T
L

U
L

U
H

T
M

L
N

T
A

L
P

T
P

I

O S
R

I

K F
S

E
S

20

15

10

5

0

7
2
U
E

fallow land as % of agricultural area
Fallow land as % of agricultural area 

landscape elements as % of agricultural area*
Landscape features as % of agricultural area* 

Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development. Based on EUROSTAT for land laying fallow 
and Joint Research Centre based on LUCAS survey for estimation of landscape elements. 

* Linear elements considered here: Grass margins, shrub margins, single trees bushes, lines of trees, 
hedges and ditches. This estimation is to be taken with caution because of methodological caveats. 

2.7  Attract young farmers and facilitate business development in rural areas 

The number of farm in Malta is declining due to both productivity growth in agriculture, 
low  profitability  of  farming  and  better  working  opportunities  in  other  part  of  the 
economy.  Against  this  general  context  Malta  has  one  of  the  lowest  share  of  young 
farmers (3.8%) in 2016 in the total number of farm managers, below the EU-28 average 
(5.1%),  and  this  share  decreased  by  about  40%  in  2005  to  2016.  Among  the  young 
farmers, the share of women is among the lowest in the EU. The average economic farm 
size in Malta is the highest for farmers up to 44 years old. Finally the share of farmers 
with 55 years or older is 65.8%80.  

Levels of education and training among the farm labour force are often low, which has 
obvious  knock-on  effects  upon  standards  of  agricultural  practice.81  The  share  of  farm 
managers  below  35  years  of  age  with  at  least  a  basic  level  of  agricultural  training  has 
improved  in  Malta,  today  is  above  the  EU  average  (54%  in  2016).  This  share  is  also 
higher  than  the  total  share  of  farm  managers  with  at  least  a  basic  agricultural  training 
(31%)82.  Yet  in  rural  areas  there  is  a  growing  number  of  young  people  neither  in 
employment, nor in education or training aged 15-2483. 
Despite a limited statistical evidence for rural areas, it is possible to highlight that over 
54%  of  farms  have  a  production  of  less  than  EUR  2 000  in  standard  output,  and  are 
therefore  considered  as  very  small84.  The  gross  added  value  of  the  primary  sector  is 
declining  since  2010  from  1.7%  to  1.0%  as  well  as  agricultural  income  decreased  to 
about  50%  of  the  average  income  in  Malta  in  201885.  In  addition,  the  professional 
farmers working in the sector are about 55% of the registered farming population86. This 
has  an  effect  on  the  possibility  to  benefit  from  economies  of  scale  and  thus  affect  the 
income  position  of  Maltese  farmers.  Furthermore,  the  employment  rate  for  male  is 
around the 80% for different age categories and level of education87. While low educated 
female in rural areas only reach the 33%88. In the primary sector the share of woman as 
part of the agriculture labour force is declining from 14.6% to 14.2% between 2013 and 
2016. 

17 

 
 
Faced with a situation of an ageing farming population without the ability to foster new 
farmers  in  a  difficult  business  environment,  Malta’s  farming  system  risks  collapse 
bringing down with it the socio-environmental fabric of rural areas. This poses a serious 
challenge for generation renewal.  

Only through an improvement in the working conditions and economic feasibility of the 
farming  package  could  young  farmers  be  incentivised  to  remain  active  in  the  sector. 
Farming is an industry that has traditionally been inherited since most skills are acquired 
through  practice  and  can  be  improved  through  education  and  capacity  building. 
Moreover,  certain  basic  resources  such  as  farmland  or  animal  farms  are  not  easily 
obtainable  by  persons  coming  from  outside  the  sector.  Capital  investment  is  also  very 
high  and  when  one  compares  the  profit  margins,  a  farmer  must  have  a  considerable 
amount  of  productivity  to  make  a  living  from  the  sector.  In  fact,  most  active  farmers 
argue  that  it  is  no  longer  possible  to  make  a  living  with  small  land  holdings  or  small 
animal farms.89 

Under the CAP, Malta provides only few specific support to young farmers. Under Pillar 
I, Malta spent only 0.05% (out of the dedicated 0.4%) of the direct payment envelope to 
the Young Farmer Payment (YFP) in claim year 2018. The average annual YFP amounts 
per hectare and beneficiary are  also  very low:  both  at  around EUR 2090.  This  could  be 
one of the reasons why the number of YFP beneficiaries exhibits a negative trend. It is 
rather  exceptional  in  the  EU.  Under  rural  development,  Malta  provides  about  EUR  5.7 
million to the installation for young farmers under measure 6 with a lump sum of EUR 
70 000/beneficiary. By the end of 2019, the rural development programme (sub-measure 
6.1) provided support to 60 young farmers91. 

Share of farm managers < 35 years by gender in Malta 

Share of male farm managers below 35 years 

Share of female farm managers < 35 years 

Share of farm managers below 35 years – EU-27 

Ratio < 35 y.o />= 55 y.o. (right axis) 

EUROSTAT. [ef_m_farmang] 

2.8  Promote employment, growth, social inclusion and local development in 

rural areas, including bio-economy and sustainable forestry 

The  total  area  of  the  Maltese  archipelago  is  of  316.18  km2  and  this  includes  11,706 
hectares  of  agricultural  land  (circa  37%  of  the  total  area).  In  Malta  the  degree  of 
urbanization92 for Local Administrative Units93 indicates that rural areas are located close 
to  urban  centres  and,  represent  the  13.6%  of  the  whole  territory.  The  daily  commuting 
between rural areas and urban centres is high and has social and environmental impacts 
due to air pollution. Commuting is especially high between Gozo and Malta due to lack 
of basic services and quality job opportunities in Gozo. 94 

18 

 
Malta  ranks  first  in  EU  for  population  density95  1450  inhab/km2,  and  the  archipelago 
registered a population  growth of 12.3% between 2015-201996. Urban sprawl is rapidly 
growing and soil-sealing index increased from 100.1 in 2009 to 104.2 in 2015, NATURA 
2000 areas have also declined by 0.5% between 201397. This is threatening the islands’ 
ecosystems. Ecosystem services related to land use are critical to Malta’s economy (e.g. 
for  lost  income  coming  from  nature-oriented  tourism,  loss  of  biodiversity  and 
agriculture) and quality of life. 

The employment rate in Malta is steadily increasing from 57% in 2000 to 73% in 2017, 
with  similar  values  in  rural  areas  reaching  75.3%  in  2017.  In  2017  only  0.7%  of 
population was employed in the agricultural sector, 1.9% in the food industry and 7.6% 
in  the  tourism  sector,  with  growth  (2012-2017)  registered  only  in  the  food  industry  (1 
percent  point  increase)  and  tourism  (2.6  percent  point  increase)98.  Nevertheless  the 
employment  rate  for  women  in  rural  areas  has  decreased  between  2013-2016  (from 
14.6% to 14.2%)99 and only 6% of farm manager are woman, well below EU average of 
28%.  The  rate  of  young  people  not  in  education  or  training  (aged  15-24)  fluctuated 
between 2009 and 2018 and it is on the rise over 11% again in rural areas100. 

The  structure  of  the  economy  evolved  over  the  period  2012  to  2018.  In  terms  of  gross 
value  added  (GVA)  the  primary  sector  contribution  declined  from  1.7%  to  1%.  This 
sector suffers from the high parcelling of the agricultural land in small farms as well as 
from the lack of cooperation among farmers. In the same period also the secondary sector 
(which  includes  the  food  industry)  showed  a  larger  drop  from  20.1%  to  13.7%101.  The 
Maltese economy confirms the importance of the tertiary sector. However, the total gross 
domestic  product  (GDP)  per  capita  in  Malta  is  increasing  and  converging  towards  the 
EU-average  between  2009  and  2017,  coming  from  about  80  points  in  2009102.  Despite 
this trend, the risk of poverty or social exclusion remains stable at circa 19% at national 
level.  

Local  action  groups  (LAGs)  play  an  important  role  in  local  development.  RDP  2014-
2020 allocated about EUR 5 million counting for 5% of the total budget to the LEADER 
projects. Currently there are 3 LAGs whose area of operation covers the whole territory 
and  rural  population.  Their  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  co-
financed  projects  mainly  aim  at  improved  possibilities  for  cultural  heritage  and 
developing green infrastructure and services for local people. 

Malta is the EU country with the least forest cover (only 0.46% of the island surface in 
2018103). Forests are in their entirety plantations (semi-natural) and the large majority is 
public owned. Unsustainable practices and poor management within the sector are posing 
serious  risks  for  the  economy  and  the  protection  of  biodiversity  and  landscape.  In 
addition, the country disaster-risk management, and sectoral plans do not always include 
an  assessment  of  how  climate  change  may  affect  disaster  risks  while  Malta  is  already 
affected by climatic changes104 (see also section 2.1). 

Tourism is a relevant activity for the Maltese archipelago. 97% of tourists choose to stay 
in hotels and only a limited number in other accommodations. Rural tourism represents 
only 1.8% of the total touristic offer in Malta105. Rural tourism initiatives took off in the 
archipelago in the last few years supported by rural development programmes 2007-2013 
and 2014-2020. Yet  the  sector in  rural  areas has  untapped  growing potential that could 
support farm viability and boost economic diversification. 

19 

 
2.9  Improve  the  response  of  EU  agriculture  to  societal  demands  on  food  and 
health,  including  safe,  nutritious  and  sustainable  food,  as  well  as  animal 
welfare 

(i) 

Societal demands on food and health 

Societal expectations are shaping food markets developments in terms of health, animal 
welfare,  climate  change  and  environmental  concerns,  looking  as  well  to  convenience. 
These  concerns  represent  an  opportunity  to  tap  into  alternative  production  systems 
opportunities  such  as  local,  organic,  or  other  certified  products,  being  increasingly  in 
demand. Yet as result of busy lifestyles it has been registered an increase of purchase of 
ready  meals,  snacks  and  on-the-go  food,  which  are  not  always  compatible  with  the 
factors described above106. Moreover, in Malta as result of urbanization and globalization 
food consumption patterns among the Maltese population have evolved over the past few 
decades. A greater variety of food is available, and dietary habits no longer correspond to 
the  traditional  Mediterranean  diet.  A  national  food  consumption  survey  conducted  in 
2010 revealed that Maltese adults tend to consume high amounts of pasta and sweets107. 
By contrast, according to the latest surveys, one in every ten people over the age of 16 
years  had  either  some  or  a  severe  inability  to  afford  a  meal  with  chicken,  fish,  or 
vegetarian equivalent in 2018108. The proportion was even higher (13.8 %) among people 
aged  between  55  and  64  years.  However,  the  estimated  consumption  of  red  meat109  is 
very high. Malta has a high burden from non-communicable diseases due to dietary risk 
factors  expressed  as  Disability  Adjusted  Life  Year  (DALYs)  per  100 000  population 
attributable to diet110. This DALY’s value is influenced by a number of dietary factors.  
Furthermore, a very high part of Malta’s population is overweight or obese111. Statistical 
data reported that the overweight  rates  currently  stand at  62.2% in  Malta112. Regarding 
obesity,  the  number  stands  at  25.7%.  Those  percentages  are  even  higher  among 
children113.Malta has a National Food and Nutrition Policy (2015 -2020) pursuing health 
while  reducing  the  burden  of  food  related  diseases  and  improve  socio-economic 
conditions114. Efforts  should focus on shifting towards healthy sustainable diets, in  line 
with national recommendations in order to contribute to reducing overweight and obesity 
rates  and  the  incidence  of  non-communicable  diseases  while  simultaneously  improving 
the  overall  environmental  impact  of  the  food  system.  This  would  include  moving  to  a 
more plant based diet  with less red meat  and more fruits and vegetables, whole  grains, 
legumes, nuts and seeds. 

(ii) 

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) 

Malta  has  a  comprehensive  AMR  strategy115  setting  out  a  range  of  strategic  aims  and 
specific actions which provides a sound basis for national efforts to combat AMR. The 
guiding principle leading the Strategy is that of One Health. This principle recognises the 
inextricable  link  between  humans,  animals  and  the  environment  and  emphasis  that 
achieving optimal health outcomes for people and animals requires the collaboration and 
cooperation between the human health, animal health and the environment sectors. 

The DG SANTE report of the AMR One Health country visit carried out with ECDC in 
2017116  concludes  that  the  AMR  strategy  would  benefit  from  further  consultation  and 
involvement of relevant organisations from the veterinary and environmental sectors. On 
the veterinary side, it revealed notable weaknesses regarding both the ability to monitor 
the levels of AMR in the veterinary area and, more importantly, the distribution and use 
of antimicrobials. These weaknesses, which seemed to be further compounded by a lack 
of  veterinarians,  limit  the  knowledge  about  the  situation  in  Malta  and  seriously 
undermine the ability to ensure that antimicrobials are used in a prudent manner and only 

20 

 
when  considered  necessary  by  a  veterinarian.  There  were  however  indications  that 
farmers and veterinarians were increasingly aware of AMR-related issues and steps were 
being  taken  to  use  antimicrobials  more  prudently;  however  there  was  considerable 
potential  to  support  and  encourage  these  efforts  further.  In  2018,  the  sales  in 
antimicrobials in Malta expressed in milligrams per population correction unit (mg/PCU) 
amount to 150.9 mg/PCU, well above the EU average (118.3 mg/PCU)117. 

For animal health, the data on AMR surveillance remains extremely sparse and restricted 
to a very limited set of isolates tested annually at the National Veterinary Laboratory, in 
compliance  with  EU  minimal  requirements.  Even  from  this  limited  information,  it 
appears that antimicrobial resistance in animals is a significant problem118. 

In human health, the data suggest that major challenges are possibly due to a culture of 
over-prescribing antimicrobials as well as to doctors acceding to patient demands. Whilst 
non-prescribed  use  of  antimicrobials  has  reduced  drastically  in  the  past  decade  (from 
over  18%  in  2002  to  around  1%  of  total  usage  as  reported  by  the  2016  Eurobarometer 
survey), the same cannot be said for inappropriate prescribing.  

(iii)  Animal welfare actions 

Animal  welfare  is  vital  for  the  sustainability  of  food  systems.  In  relation  to  animal 
welfare,  the  main  issue  in  Malta  is  that  the  tail  docking  of  pigs  is  a  routine  practice, 
although  this  is  prohibited  as  a  routine  measure  by  EU  rules.  The  percentage  of  pigs 
reared  with  intact  tails  has  barely  changed  since  2016  and  conditions  on  farm  must 
improve if the number of tail-docked pigs is to start to decrease.   

(iv) 

Sustainable use of pesticides 

Pesticide  usage  in  Malta  follows  the  typical  pattern  of  the  Mediterranean  climate. 
Herbicide applications are mainly used in the beginning of the rainy season, which starts 
in September, when the weed seeds begin to sprout. Treatment with herbicides reached 
its  peak  in  January  whereas  dry  conditions  in  the  April/September  season  retard  weed 
growth.  Fungicide  use  occurred  throughout  the  whole  season,  with  the  main  period  of 
application  occurring  April  to  July,  reaching  a  peak  in  June.  In  2014,  according  to  the 
Pesticides  Use  Survey,  carried  out  by  the  National  Statistics  Office  (NSO),  the  area 
treated with plant protection products amounted to 4 071.8 hectares or 44.4% of the area 
surveyed.  With  higher  shares  of  area  treated  for  vegetables  and  potatoes  (above  90%), 
vines (86%), stone fruit (78%) and citrus (45%)119.  

Harmonised risk  indicator 1 (HRI1) shows a 19 % decrease in  risks linked to  pesticide 
use in 2018, compared to the baseline period 2011-2013. Although this reduction of risk 
was slightly higher than the EU average of 17 %, the use of more hazardous pesticides 
(candidates  for  substitution)  was  high  and  increasing  as  a  percentage  of  total  pesticide 
sales. 

Malta’s first National Action Plan (NAP) for Sustainable Use of Pesticides covering the 
period  2013-2018,  set  out  a  national  strategy  and  established  objectives,  targets, 
measures, and timelines to reduce risks and impacts of pesticide use on human health and 
the  environment,  whilst  encouraging  Integrated  pest  management  and  alternative 
approaches or techniques to reduce pesticide-use dependency120. This plan was updated 
in 2019 (reviewed at least every five years)121. Based on the Commission’s assessment of 
the SUD implementation, Malta lacks enforcement of the general principle for integrated 
pest management at farm level.  

21 

 
When  revising  the  NAP  2013-2018,  the  health,  social,  economic  and  environmental 
Impacts of the outlined measures have been taken into account as well as specific local 
conditions and all relevant stakeholder groups’ opinion including the public. The result is 
a combination of legislative measures and other Initiatives to maintain an efficient tool to 
support the sustainable use of pesticides with clear indicators on progress. 

(v) 

Food waste and food loss 

According to a 2016 dissertation122, food wastage accounts for 52.1% of municipal solid 
waste  in  the  Maltese  Islands.  Leftovers,  fresh  vegetables/unused  vegetables/rotting 
vegetables and bread are the most commonly wasted foods. The  most common reasons 
why  food  gets  wasted  in  Maltese  households,  include:  ‘too  much  food  is  cooked’, 
‘leftovers are not re-used or eaten’, and ‘food in the freezer or fridge goes off (or left for 
too  long).  The  study  also  indicated  that  household  food  waste  increases  proportionally 
with food shopping frequency. Misunderstanding of the ‘Use By Date’ and ‘Best Before 
Date’  might  be  a  significant  driver  of  food  waste  among  respondents.  Food  waste 
prevention does not yet appear to be well established in the Maltese Islands. This could 
be tackled by implementing the national food waste prevention programme required by 
Article 29(2a) of the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC. 

Sales of veterinary antimicrobial agents marketed 
mainly for food-producing animals in Malta 

Sales in mg/PCU 

EU-27 

European Medicines Agency, European Surveillance of Veterinary Antimicrobial consumption (ESVAC). 
Sales of veterinary antimicrobial agents in 31 countries in 2018 – trends from 2010 to 2018 Tenth ESVAC 
Report. EMA/24309/2020. 

Harmonised Risk Indicator 1 for pesticides in Malta 
(2011-2013 = 100) 

HRI 1 

HRI 1 for EU-27 

European Commission. Harmonised Risk Indicator for pesticides (HRI 1), by group of active substance. As 
in EUROSTAT [SDG_02_51] 

22 

 
2.10  Cross-cutting objective on knowledge, innovation and digitalisation 

The  PRO-AKIS  study123  performed  in  2015  classified  the  Maltese  Agricultural 
Knowledge  and  Innovation  system  as  fragmented.  Its  strength  and  reach  is  around  the 
European average. The research already carried out is fragmented and its dissemination is 
minimal, with very little beneficial effect for the farming community124. There are only 
two  higher  educational  institutions  training  people  in  agriculture.  Their  collaboration 
with  farmers  to  generate  information  on  the  impact  of  innovation  and  technology  is 
limited,  due  to  scarce  human  and  financial  resources  and  a  limited  pool  of  experts 
keeping  up  to  date  with  international  developments  in  agriculture.  The  link  existing 
between the industry and the academia is weak, with a low level of integration of agri-
business graduates within the local agricultural sector. 

Under  the  2014-2020  period,  Malta  committed  to  strengthen  knowledge  transfer  and 
innovation in agriculture trough training and advisory initiatives and address some of the 
problems  mentioned  above.  Malta  programmed  8.2%  of  their  total  rural  development 
envelope  (EU  financing  +  national  contribution)  under  Measure  1  (M.01)  (knowledge 
transfer and information actions, to  which 3.4% of the envelope is programmed), M.02 
(advisory  services,  farm  management  and  farm  relief  services,  to  which  1.9%  of  the 
envelope  is  programmed)  and  M.16  (Co-operation-European  Innovation  Platform,  to 
which  2.9%  of  the  envelope  is  programmed).  This  figure  was  the  highest  in  the  EU, 
where the average amounts to 3.6%. In terms of implementation, however, Malta has so 
far spent 0% of the funds programmed under M.01, M.02 and M.16, while the average 
for the rest of EU countries amount to, respectively, 34.4%, 19.5% and 21.9%.125 

The rural development programme 2014-2020 aimed to provide funds for the creation of 
advisory  services  that  assist  farmers  on  adding  value  to  their  production  either  through 
functional  extension  services  or  a  public-private  partnership,  both  funded  by  the 
programme126. Further, Malta targets to have four Operational Groups in the context  of 
the  European  Innovation  Partnership  for  Agricultural  Productivity  and  Sustainability 
(EIP-AGRI) to strengthen the link between agriculture and research.127 So far, there are 
in total 5 co-operation groups of which 1 is being included under the EIP. 

In  2016,  31.1%  of  the  total  farm  managers  in  Malta  attained  basic  or  full  agricultural 
training, in line with the EU average for the same year (31.6%).128 More specifically, the 
share  of  farmers  who  attained  full  agricultural  training  is  considerably  low  in  Malta 
compared to the EU average, with the former amounting to 1.7% and the latter equal to 
9.1% in 2016. However, the figures show a positive trend compared to 2013, when the 
total farm managers who attained basic or full agricultural training amounted to 13% in 
Malta, with managers who attained full training amounting to 0.9%.129 

Regarding  digitalisation,  the  overall  Digital  Economy  and  Society  Index130  (2020  data) 
places Malta at the fifth place in the EU, with a performance above the EU average in all 
the  five  dimensions  of  the  index.  Although  all  area  in  Malta  is  covered  by  next 
generation broadband, only 50% of rural population has basic or above basic digital skills 
in 2019. 

Despite the use of e-government services and open data policies still not perfectly in line 
with EU average, Malta generally performs very well on broadband connectivity, human 
capital  specialized in  ICT, use of  Internet  by  the general  public  and use  of big data by 
businesses.131  Against  this  background,  the  level  of  digitalisation  in  the  agricultural 
sector is lagging behind. While Malta is the EU country with the highest concentration of 
R&D personnel in the  ICT sector in 2017, only scarce financial resources are available 

23 

 
for  research  in  the  digitalisation  of  agriculture132.  Further,  despite  general  broadband 
connectivity  is  available  in  more  than  82%  of  households,  there  is  a  significant  gap 
between  urban  and  rural  areas  take-up  in  Malta  (with  households  with  connectivity  in 
rural areas below 63%)133. Lastly, even though Malta has the highest figure in the EU of 
businesses  using  big  data  technologies  (24%),  there  exist  no  established  practice  of 
agronomic  data  gathering  and  storing  in  its  farming  community  yet.  So  far,  such 
technologies have been deployed only in small farms setups134. 

Agricultural training of farm managers in Malta 

Managers with full 
agricultural training 

Managers with basic 
agricultural training 

Full training EU average 

Basic training EU average 

European Commission. CAP context indicator C.24 Agricultural training of farm managers. Based on 
EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training 

Broadband coverage in Malta 

NGA broadband (% of rural households) 

Broadband access (% of rural households) 

NGA broadband (% of total households) 

European Commission. Digital Economy and Society Index. DESI individual indicators – 1b1 Fast BB 
(NGA) coverage [desi_1b1_fbbc]  

24 

 
1   EUROSTAT. [ef_lf_leg] 
2   EUROSTAT. [ef_m_farmang] 
3   National Agricultural Policy for the Maltese Islands 2018-2028. Final report prepared for the Ministry 

for the Environment, Sustainable Development and Climate change. February 2018. 

4   EUROSTAT. [ef_m_farmang] 
5   European Commission. CAP Indicator Dashboard Farming Income support 
6   Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development.  Share  of  direct  payments  and  total 
subsidies  in  agricultural  factor  income  (2014-2018  average).  ://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-
farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-expenditure-graph5_en.pdf  

7   General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development,  ECORYS  and  Wageningen  Economic  Research. 
Study on risk management in EU agriculture. Publication Office of the EU, Brussels 2018. 302 pages. 
8   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.14  Labour  productivity  in  agriculture.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [aact_eaa01] and [aact_ali01] 

9   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.28  Gross  fixed  capital  formation.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [nama_10r_3gva] and [nama_10r_2gfcf] 

in 

in 

10   European  Commission.  CAP  indicators  –  Data  explorer.  CAP  Result  indicator  RPI_03  Value  for 
food  chain.  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-

the 
primary  producers 
fisheries/by_country/documents/analytical_factsheet_mt.pdf 

11   European  Commission.  CAP  indicators  –  Data  explorer.  CAP  Result  indicator  RPI_03  Value  for 
food  chain.  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-

primary  producers 
the 
fisheries/by_country/documents/analytical_factsheet_mt.pdf 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/AddingValue.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1 
12   Arcadia International E.E.I.G , Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (European 
Commission)  ,  EY..  Study  of  the  best  ways  for  producer  organisations  to  be  formed,  carry  out  their 
activities 
from: 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/2c31a562-eef5-11e9-a32c-01aa75ed71a1  

supported. 

Retrieved 

pages. 

Study 

2019. 

171 

and 

be 

13   Arcadia  International,  LEI  -  Wageningen  UR,  Dr.  Luc  Bodiguel,  and  national  experts.  Study  on 
from: 

interbranch  organisation 
http://www.rederural.gov.pt/centro-de-recursos/send/14-organizacao-producao/30-study-on-
agricultural-interbranch-organisations-in-the-eu 

the  EU.  Study  2016.  156  pages.  Retrieved 

(IBO) 

14   Eurostat. Agricultural output per sector production value at basic prices in 2017.   
15   European  Commission  Staff  Working  Document.  Impact  assessment.  Initiative  to  improve  the  food 
supply chain (unfair trading practices), Table No 1. SWD(2018) 92 final. 172 pages. Retrieved from: 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52018SC0092&from=EN 

in 

16   European  Environmental  Agency 

– 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/data-viewers/greenhouse-gases-viewer  
(NECP), 

(EEA).  EEA 

greenhouse 

17   Malta 

National 

Climate 

Energy 

Final 

Plan 

and 

gas 

data 

viewer 

p. 

133. 

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/mt_final_necp_main_en.pdf 

18   European Commission. CAP impact indicator I.07 Emissions from agriculture. Based on EUROSTAT 

[env_air_gge]  

19   European  Commission,  EUROSTAT,  Statistics  explained,  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

explained/pdfscache/16817.pdf , figure 10.  

20   European  Commission,  EUROSTAT,  Statistics  explained,  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

explained/index.php?title=Agri-environmental_indicator_-_livestock_patterns  

21   The  Malta  Resources  Authority  on  behalf  of  the  Ministry  for  the  Environment,  Sustainable 
Development  and  Climate  Change,  Malta’s  National  Inventory  of  Greenhouse  Gas  Emissions  and 
Removals, 2019, p.141. 

22   Ministry  for  the  Environment,  Sustainable  Development  and  Climate  Change,  Malta’s  low  carbon  
development 
14. 
https://meae.gov.mt/en/Public_Consultations/MSDEC/Documents/MSDEC%20LCDS%20Vision.PDF 
23   The  Malta  Resources  Authority  on  behalf  of  the  Ministry  for  the  Environment,  Sustainable 
Development  and  Climate  Change  Malta’s  National  Inventory  of  Greenhouse  Gas  Emissions  and 
Removals, 2019, p.141.  

strategy, 

2017, 

p. 

24   European 

Environment  Agency 

(EEA). 

EEA 

greenhouse 

gas 

– 

data 

viewer. 

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/data-viewers/greenhouse-gases-viewer  
25   Malta’s National Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Removals, 2019, p.141. 
26   National Agricultural Policy for the Maltese Islands, p. 197. 
27   MT Final NECP, p. 62. 

25 

 
 
                                                 
 
28   National Agricultural Policy for the Maltese Islands, p. 192. 
29   National Agricultural Policy for the Maltese Islands, p. 198. 
30   MT Final NECP, p. 28. 
31   MT Final NECP, p. 61. 
32   European Commission.  CAP context indicator C.43 Production of renewable energy from agriculture 

and forestry. Based on EUROSTAT [nrg_bal_c] and [nrg_cb_rw], and Strategie Grains 

33   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.44  Energy  use  in  agriculture,  forestry  and  food 

industry. Based on EUROSTAT [nrg_bal_s] 

34   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.44  Energy  use  in  agriculture,  forestry  and  food 

industry. Based on EUROSTAT [nrg_bal_s]. 

35   European  Commission.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  –  Country  Report  Malta  2020. 

SWD(2020) 517 final. 
 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020SC0517&from=EN 

36   European Environment Agency. [DAS-14-en  

Published  25  Jun  2020].  https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Aironline/views/NECDDataviewer-
2020/AirEmissionsinEurope?:embed_code_version=3&:iid=2&:embed=y&:isGuestRedirectFromVizp
ortal=y&:loadOrderID=0&:display_count=n&:showVizHome=n&:origin=viz_share_link   

37   Total  annual NH3 emissions  from agriculture  in MT dropped from 1,345t in 2013 to 1,196t in 2018, 
whereas in the EU28, they rose from 3,524,000t in 2013 to 3,584,000t in 2018. (European Environment 
Agency. [DAS-14-en  
Published  25  Jun  2020].  https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Aironline/views/NECDDataviewer-
2020/AirEmissionsinEurope?:embed_code_version=3&:iid=2&:embed=y&:isGuestRedirectFromVizp
ortal=y&:loadOrderID=0&:display_count=n&:showVizHome=n&:origin=viz_share_link)   

38   In 2018, ammonia emissions from agriculture make up 98% of total ammonia emissions in MT (EU28: 

93%). (European Environment Agency. [[DAS-14-en  
Published  25  Jun  2020].  https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Aironline/views/NECDDataviewer-
2020/AirEmissionsinEurope?:embed_code_version=3&:iid=2&:embed=y&:isGuestRedirectFromVizp
ortal=y&:loadOrderID=0&:display_count=n&:showVizHome=n&:origin=viz_share_link)  

39   EU28: 0.02154/ha – total annual NH3 emissions from agriculture: 3,859,000t [2018] divided by UAA: 
179 144 580 [2018]. For MT: 0.10328t/ha - total annual NH3 emissions from agriculture=1 196t [2018] 
(EUROSTAT.  [sdg_02_60].  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/bookmark/e00797cd-aa80-4ecb-
[TAG00025]. 
9d7d-580efd0f1ef1?lang=en)  divided  by  UAA=11,580ha 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/bookmark/7811a4d8-e8a1-4f42-b8b4-
b9650e0a37e3?lang=en) 

(EUROSTAT. 

[2018] 

40   EUROSTAT.  [TAI09].  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/bookmark/aad38c4f-e41c-42f3-b103-

fbcf85ada72d?lang=en 

41   In 2018, 98% of the ammonia emissions from agriculture in MT came from the livestock sector (EU28: 
73%),  whereas  the  crops  sector  emitted  2%  (EU28:  27%).  (European  Environment  Agency. 
[ZKT34F1GUW]. 
https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Aironline/views/LRTAPDataviewer2020/LRTAPEmissions?:e
mbed_code_version=3&:iid=1&:embed=y&:isGuestRedirectFromVizportal=y&:loadOrderID=0&:disp
lay_count=n&:showVizHome=n&:origin=viz_share_link) 

42   In the EU, only the NL has a higher livestock density than MT with 3.8 [2016]. MT’s livestock units 
per  ha  is  2.92  [2016],  which  is  a  decrease  by  40%  compared  to  2007.  (EUROSTAT.  [TAI09]. 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/bookmark/aad38c4f-e41c-42f3-b103-fbcf85ada72d?lang=en)   
Livestock  numbers  decreased  from  49,630  in  2007  to  32,470  in  2016.  (European  Commission.  CAP 
context 
[demo_r_gind3] 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-
indicators-table_2019_en.pdf) 
Cf.  also  Malta’s  National  Air  Pollution  Control  Programme  2019,  p.  41,  available  online  here: 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pdf/reduction_napcp/MT%20final%20NAPCP%2018March20.pdf 
43   -4% by 2020 and  -24% by 2030 (base year: 2005) (cf. Annex II of Directive (EU) 2016/2284 on the 

EUROSTAT 

population. 

indicator 

Based 

C.01 

on 

reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants) 
44   Neither under the existing nor under the additional measures scenario. 
45   EUROSTAT.  [EF_MP_PRAC].  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/bookmark/e761ba7a-4ddb-

481a-a44e-cff2bc153374?lang=en  

46   While central and north-eastern areas show the lowest erosion risk, north-western and Gozitan areas are 
characterised  by  a  large  range  in  erosion  rates.  The  highest  estimated  erosion  rates  occur  in  steeply 
inclined arable land where poor management and conservation practices are applied.  

26 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
 
Cf.    Sultana,  D.  ,  ‘Numerical  Modelling  of  Soil  Erosion  Susceptibility  in  the  Maltese  Islands  using 
Geographic  Information  Systems  and  the  Revised  Universal  Soil  Loss  Equation  (RUSLE)’,  Xjenza 
Online, Vol. 3:::, Iss. 1, 2000, pp. 41-50. 

47   15.70 g/kg in MT compared to 43.10 g/kg in the EU28 [2015]. (European Commission. CAP context 
indicator C.41 Soil organic matter in arable land. Joint Research Center (JRC) based on LUCAS Land 
Use Survey 2015. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-
indicators-table_2019_en.pdf) 

48   12.95  %  in  MT  compared  to  7.97  %  in  the  EU28  [2016].  (European  Commission.  CAP  context 
Joint  Research  Center. 
by  water.  Original 

indicator  C.42 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-
indicators-table_2019_en.pdf) 

erosion 

source: 

Soil 

49   12.95  %  in  MT  compared  to  7.97  %  in  the  EU28  [2016].  (European  Commission.  CAP  context 

indicator C.42 Soil erosion by water. Original source: Joint Research Center. 
 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-
indicators-
table_2019_en.pdf)https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html#  
50   5.98t/ha/yr  in  MT  compared  to  2.46t/ha/yr  in  the  EU28  [2016].  5.98t/ha/yr  in  MT  compared  to 
2.46t/ha/yr  in  the  EU28  [2016].  5.98t/ha/yr  in  MT  compared  to  2.46t/ha/yr  in  the  EU28  [2016]. 
(European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.42  Soil  erosion  by  water.  Original  source:  Joint 
Research Center. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-
indicators-table_2019_en.pdf) 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html#  

51   Annual implementation report Malta – Rural Development Programme (National), Version [2019.0] 
52   “Recommendations  – National Water Management Plan” by the  Malta Business Bureau’s EU  LIFE+ 

Investing in Water Project (2014), available online here 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showFile&rep=file&
fil=InvestinginWater_Recommendations_NAT_Mar2014.pdf 

53   177 m³ (EUROSTAT. [ENV_WAT_RES]. 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/bookmark/fa06b831-e44b-4f71-8ca4-3584eff7d335?lang=en) 
54   European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document – The EU Environmental Implementation 
Review  2019    Country  Report  -  MALTA.  SWD(2019)  127  final,  p.  21,  available  online  here: 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/pdf/report_mt_en.pdf 

55   With 80%, MT reported the highest proportion of groundwater bodies in poor quantitative status in the 
EU  and  abstracts  over  80%  of  the  available  groundwater  to  meet  its  water  needs.  (cf.  p.  57  of  EEA 
Report No 7/2018 “European Waters – Assessment of status and pressures 2018”, available online here: 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water) 

56   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=SWD:2019:48:FIN&qid=1551205988853&from=EN 

57   In  2017,  MT  had  nitrogen  and  phosphorus  surpluses  of  147  kg/N/ha  and  30  kg/P/ha,  respectively, 
compared  to  the  EU28  averages  of  49  kg/N/ha  and  1  kg/P/ha,  respectively.  (European  Commission. 
CAP  context  indicator  C.40  Water  quality.  Based  on  EUROSTAT  [aei_pr_gnb]  and  European 
Environment  Agency  as  in  Waterbase  –  Water  Quality,  CSI020,  based  on  data  reported  to  EIONET, 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-
indicators-table_2019_en.pdf)   

58   EUROSTAT.  [AEI_PR_GNB].  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/bookmark/62344177-1fe3-

4d29-9aca-0703bec129eb?lang=en  

59   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.40 Water quality. Based on EUROSTAT [aei_pr_gnb] 
and European Environment Agency as in Waterbase – Water Quality, CSI020, based on data reported 
to  EIONET,  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-
context-indicators-table_2019_en.pdf  

60   European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document – The EU Environmental Implementation 
Review  2019    Country  Report  -  MALTA.  SWD(2019)  127  final  p.  20  ,  available  online  here: 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/pdf/report_mt_en.pdf 

61   It is followed by EL with 24% [2016]. (European Commission.  CAP context indicator C.20 Irrigated 

land. Based on EUROSTAT [ef_poirrig] and [ef_m_farmleg], 
 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-
indicators-table_2019_en.pdf  

27 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
 
62   Mateo-Sagasta,  J.  and  Turral,  Hugh,  ‘Global  Derivers  of  Water  Pollution  From  Agriculture’,  More 
people, more food, worse water? a global review of water pollution from agriculture. Published by the 
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome, 2018, pp. 15-38, available online here: 
http://www.fao.org/3/ca0146en/CA0146EN.pdf 

63   EUROSTAT.  [TEN00006].  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/bookmark/3926496c-639e-49dd-

bdec-41fcd703a5c0?lang=en  

64   European  Commission.  Report  from  the  Commission  on  the  implementation  of  Council  Directive 
91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural 
sources  based    on  Member  State  reports  for  the  period  2012–2015.  SWD(2018)  246  final,  available 
online here: 
 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0257&from=en 

65   Rural Development Programme of Malta, 2014-2020, Version [5.2] 
66   European  Commission.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  –  Country  Report  Malta  2020 
accompanying  the  document  Communication  from  the  Commission  2020  European  Semester: 
Assessment  of  progress  on  structural  reforms,  prevention  and  correction  of  macroeconomic 
imbalances,  and  results  of  in-depth  reviews  under  Regulation  (EU)  No  1176/2011.  SWD(2020)  150 
final, 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020SC0517&from=EN, p.57. 

available 

online 

here: 

67   European Commission. Staff Working Document – The EU environmental implementation review 2019 

Country report – Malta. SWD(2019) 127 final. Brussels 2019. 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/pdf/report_mt_en.pdf  

68   Prioritised Action Framework (PAF) submitted by Malta to the Commission on 30/04/2019 
69   Rural Development Programme of Malta, 2014-2020, Version [5.2]   
70   Annual implementation report Malta – Rural Development Programme, version [2019.0] 
71   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.34  Natura  2000  areas.  Based  on  NATURA  2000 

Barometer and European Environmental Agency, Corine Land Cover 2018 

72   Prioritised Action Framework (PAF) submitted by Malta to the Commission on 30/04/2019 
73   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.35  Farmland  birds  index  (FBI).  As  in  EUROSTAT 

[env_bio2], original source: EBCC, BirdLife, RSPB and CSO 

74   EUROSTAT [org_cropar_h1] and [org_cropar] 
75   CAP  context  indicator  C.19  Agricultural  area  under  organic  farming.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[org_cropar_h1] and [org_cropar] 

76   Atriga  Consult.  National  Agricultural  Policy  for  the  Maltese  Islands  2018–2028  –  Final  Report 
prepared for the Ministry for the Environment,  Sustainable Development and Climate Change.  2018. 
https://meae.gov.mt/en/Public_Consultations/MSDEC/Documents/National%20Agricultural%20Policy
%20for%20the%20Maltese%20Islands%202018%20-%202028.pdf  

77   European Commission. Staff Working Document – The EU environmental implementation review 2019 

Country report – Malta. SWD(2019) 127 final. Brussels 2019. 

78   Source: Member State notification under greening measures in ISAMM Member state notifications to 

the Directorate general for Agriculture and Rural Development 

79   EU agriculture in numbers 
80   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.23  Age  structure  of  farm  managers.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmang] 

81   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.24 Agricultural training of farm managers.  Based on 

EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training] 

82   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.24 Agricultural training of farm managers.  Based on 

EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training] 

83   European Commission.  EUROSTAT [lfsi_neet_q] 
84   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.23  Agricultural  standard  output.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmleg] 

85   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.11  Structure  of  the  employment.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [nama_10r_3empers] 

86   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.23  Age  structure  of  farm  managers.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmang] 

87   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.05  Employment  rate.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[lfst_r_ergau] 

88   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.05  Employment  rate.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[lfst_r_erednu] 

89   National Agricultural Policy for the Maltese Islands 2016 – 2025: Issues Paper of Malta.  

28 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
 
90   European  Commission,  CAP  SPECIFIC  OBJECTIVES…explained,  Brief  No  7.  Based  on  DG 

Agriculture and Rural Development, CATS, Payment for young famers [O.25_PI] [O.26_PI]  

91   Annual implementation report Malta – Rural Development Programme, version [2019.0]. 
92   The  Degree  of  urbanization  (DEGURBA)  indicates  the  character  of  an  area.  Based on  a  the  share  of 
local  population  living  in  urban  clusters  and  in  urban  centres  it  classifies  Local  Administrative  Units 
(LAU) into three types of area: Cities, Towns and suburbs, Rural areas. 
 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/degree-of-urbanisation/background  

93   The system of Local Administrative Units (LAUs) is used by Eurostat to meet the demand for statistics 
at local level. LAUs are building blocks of the NUTS and comprise the municipalities and communes 
of the European Union. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nuts/local-administrative-units 

94   European  Commission,  Commission  Staff  Working  Document-  Country  Report  Malta  2019. 

SWD(2019) 1017 final. 

95   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.04  Population  density.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[demo_r_d3dens] and [urt_d3dens] 

96   EUROSTAT [urt_gind3] 
97   European  Environmental  Agency 

(EEA).  Biodiversity 

Information  System 

for  Europe. 

https://biodiversity.europa.eu/countries/malta 

98   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.08  GDP  per  capita.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[nama_10r_3gdp] and [nama_10r_3popgdp] 

99   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.13  Employment  by  economic  activity.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [lfst_r_lfe2en2] and [ef_lf_size] 

100  EUROSTAT [edat_lfse_29] 
101  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.11  Structure  of  the  employment.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [nama_10r_3empers] 

102  European Commission. CAP context indicator C.10 Structure of the economy. Based on EUROSTAT 

[lfst_r_lfu3rt], GDP/capita I relation to EU-average 
103  FAO. 2020 Global Forest Resources Assessment.  
104  European  Environmental  Agency 

(EEA).  Biodiversity 

Information  System 

for  Europe. 

https://biodiversity.europa.eu/countries/malta 

105  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.30  Tourism  infrastructure.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[tour_cap_nuts2d] 

106  https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/eu-agricultural-outlook-2019-2030-societal-demands-driving-food-
market-developments-combining-affordability-sustainability-and-convenience-2019-dec-10_en 
Maltese 

food 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=15028&langId=en 

107  European 

Commission, 

basket, 

the 

doi:10.2767/991483, 

108  EUROSTAT – From Farm to Fork– a statistical journey  
109  Defined as beef, lamb and pork, 233,03g/per capita/d,  net of waste in the EU 2010,  GBD study 2017 

and M. Springmann 

110  https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/health-knowledge-gateway/societal-impacts/burden 
111  EUROSTAT – From Farm to Fork– a statistical journey  
112  EU-SILC; 2017 
113  European  Commission,  The  Maltese 

food  basket 

  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-

/publication/bdc06689-b82d-11e5-8d3c-01aa75ed71a1/language-en  

114  Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Directorate Parliamentary Secretariat for Health September 

2014 , Food and Nutrition Policy and Action Plan for Malta 2015 – 2020  

115  A  Strategy  and  Action  Plan  for  the  Prevention  and  Containment  of  Antimicrobial  Resistance  in 
MALTA  2018  –  2025  -  A  ONE  HEALTH  RESPONSE  TO  THE  THREAT  OF  AMR 
(https://meae.gov.mt/en/Public_Consultations/MEH-
HEALTH/Documents/AMR%20Strategy_FINAL_EN_%20Public%20Consultation_NOV2018.pdf) 
116  FINAL REPORT OF A COUNTRY VISIT CARRIED OUT IN MALTA FROM 03 JULY 2017 TO 07 
JULY  2017  IN  ORDER  TO  REPORT  OF  A  ONE  HEALTH  COUNTRY  VISIT  TO  MALTA  TO 
DISCUSS POLICIES RELATING TO ANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE (DG(SANTE) 2017-6248) 
117  European  Medicines  Agency,  European  Surveillance  of  Veterinary  Antimicrobial  consumption 
(ESVAC). Sales of veterinary antimicrobial agents in 31 countries in 2018 – trends from 2010 to 2018 
Tenth ESVAC Report. EMA/24309/2020. 

118  A  Strategy  and  Action  Plan  for  the  Prevention  and  Containment  of  Antimicrobial  Resistance  in 

MALTA 2018 – 2025  

119  Malta's National Action Plan for the Sustainable Use of Pesticides 2019-2023 
120   Malta’s National Action Plan for Sustainable Use of Pesticides 2013 – 2018 
121  Malta's National Action Plan for the Sustainable Use of Pesticides 2019-2023 

29 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
 
122  Analysing 

food 
(https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/22105) 

household 

waste 

in 

the  Maltese 

islands, 

Daniel 

Vella 

123  Knierim,  A. and Prager, K.  Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems in EUROPE  – weak or 

strong, fragmented or integrated?. July 2015.  PRO-AKIS.  

124  See endnote 3 
125  European  Commission.  CAP  Indicator  -  Data  explorer.  CAP  output  indicator  OIR_01  Total  public 

expenditure 
126  See endnote 3 
127  Member State notifications to the Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development  
128  European Commission. CAP context indicator C.24 Agricultural training of farm managers.  Based on 

EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training] 

129  European Commission. CAP context indicator C.24 Agricultural training of farm managers. Based on 

EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training] 

130  European Commission. Digital Economy and Society Index. DESI composite index.  
131  Commission. Digital Economy and Society Index Country Profile, Malta. 
132  See endnote 3 
133  European Commission. Digital Economy and Society Index. DESI individual indicators – 1b1 Fast BB 

(NGA) coverage [desi_1b1_fbbc] 

134  See endnote 3 

30