The problem with environmental protection in Malta is that it still lives in the shadow of planning and cannot be truly independent, or even ambitious in its sustainable development efforts.

Last week I wrote about the need to re-design the police’s environmental enforcement unit, ALE, and tied up the argument with the proposed environmental court mentioned in Labour’s manifesto. It looks like the proposed court, however, is going to be a more polished version of the existing planning tribunal, which would be a lost opportunity to shape up environmental enforcement in its totality.

The UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development promotes access to environmental justice and looks favourably upon the establishment of green courts for good reason. After all, enforcement efforts would be crowned by such an institution and can create a ripple  effect on the efficiency and effectiveness of local enforcement agencies.

According to UNEP there are around 1,200 environmental courts and tribunals in 44 countries, as of 2016. There is no one-size-fits-all and some examples are truly unique, hybrid creations that are shaped by the country’s environmental ethos.

For example, Belgium’s green court only has criminal jurisdiction whereas those in Sweden, Vermont (USA) and the Australian courts in New South Wales and Queensland have civil, administrative and criminal powers. In recent years, Thailand set up an environmental division within the Supreme Court system, whereas Finland and Sweden have specialised trial courts  as well as supreme administrative appeals courts.

And that’s just the beginning. A court creates a structure that embraces the different aspects of justice such as prosecution, alternative dispute resolution and restorative justice, just to mention a few elements. There are a few good practice examples that deserve a mention, such as Brazil’s public prosecutor for the environment, who has both civil and criminal powers to investigate and can solve cases without the need to go to court through out-of-court settlement. The American Department of Justice has an environmental prosecutor as well.

The Queensland as well as the New Zealand green courts have their hybrid example of ‘multi-door courthouse’ which refers to mediation of environmental disputes and like courts in Scandinavia and Canada, use innovative sentencing methods such as community service, ordering offenders to fund environmental watchdogs rather than just collect a hefty fine, or order them to fund environmental activities. Another best practice adopted by these courts is employing a case manager whose role is to monitor the progress of cases and is also available to the public for guidance on how to proceed with a case.

I don’t want to be too legalistic or technical about this, so I’ll draw parallels with existing courts in Malta to help the reader visualize how a truly environmental court would look like in Malta. Take the Family Court, which has three judges that handle the massive caseload before it, mediators and their coordinator, and child advocates. The Juvenile Court is assisted by two experts in the field. So we do have specialized courts that are already set in place upon which a green court can be moulded.

As in the NSW court, the environmental court in Malta could deal with both planning and environmental matters. It can have its own in-house amicus curiae, like the Juvenile Court, only with a pool of environmental experts.

Such a court can include civil matters such as ‘buon vicinato’ cases. These are the kind of cases tackling neighbour disputes and can be treated both as criminal and civil cases.  A few years back, for example, the magistrate presiding over the St Julian’s police sitting rapped all parties involved for not moving fast enough to tackle good neighbourliness issues plaguing the locality for noises emanating from air conditioners, just to mention one example. This active demonstration of principles of good order and of public order is exactly what specialised environmental enforcement units would need to thrive.

Not only that, but having a green court does away with forum-shopping, relieving the prosecution from taking wrong decisions. Added advantages of having a green court would be faster resolution of cases, consistency in case treatment and upholding the principle that justice needs to be seen to be done.

It’s time for Malta to be more ambitious in protecting its environment through a green court.