Reference is made to the article entitled ‘Farmer who exposed bad practice being investigated’ appearing in Times of Malta on August 15. The article gives the impression that the farmer in question has somehow become the subject of ‘intense scrutiny’ by the Directorate of Agriculture by way of retaliation for having publicly expressed himself in the past on related matters.
The Directorate of Agriculture can confirm that Mr Abela’s agricultural activity was inspected following receipt of a complaint from a member of the public.
The undertaking of inspections following the lodging of complaints is standard practice and can be said to be a quasi-automatic mechanism.
Inspections are carried out to establish facts and to ensure compliance. Indeed, given that Mr Abela himself was insisting on the launch of an investigation in respect of similar reports filed by him it is unclear why Mr Abela should profess surprise at having his farming practices inspected and followed up by a letter identifying what prima facie appeared to the directorate to be a breach.
The letter invited Mr Abela to regularise his position within a given time frame and also outlined potential consequences in case of default.
The letter is based on a template and is as ‘stern’ as the language of the law requires it to be since it is obviously intended to make the recipient fully aware of the severity of the matter should a breach remain unaddressed following multiple warnings.
Mr Abela took immediate action that included also having a fertiliser plan drawn up as is required in terms of Regulation 4(1) of Legal Notice 321 of 2011. It is disappointing to note that while Times of Malta saw fit to publish Mr Abela's “hope that they (the authorities) are also checking those who are really not abiding by the rules”, it however omitted the directorate's reply to the journalist's specific question: “Did the agriculture department also send such a letter to the neighbouring farmers, who Paul Abela reported for dumping slurry?'
The reply read: “The farmers whom Mr Abela reported were also inspected and where breaches were found, steps were taken including the issuing of a monetary penalty in one case where warning letters had already been sent. One of these farmers contacted the directorate which clarified his obligations, and he subsequently brought himself in compliance through the drawing up of a fertiliser plan by a farm advisory service.”
The simple truth of the matter is that scores of farmers have received exactly the same letter and have been treated in precisely the same manner as Mr Abela as a result of having committed the very same commonplace breach, the remedy for which is the drawing up of a fertiliser plan.
It is therefore clear that far from there being any form of harassment or intimidation, Mr Abela's contact with the Directorate of Agriculture was no more or less than that experienced by others in the same circumstances.