In 2017 the Labour electoral manifesto promised to set up a court that specialised in environmental matters as part of a structure that combined the fight for climate change with strengthened prosecution efforts by ERA and by the environmental police.

It actually stated that the new government would set up this Qorti Ambjentali, which it described as “a tribunal, presided over by a magistrate”. I’m translating from the Maltese version: “to hear and decide cases related to environmental offences within a reasonable time”. It also stated that environmental protection would form part of the Constitution, so the creation of such a specialised court should not be read in a legal vacuum. If you don’t believe me, check out pages 117 and 118 of the L-Aqwa Żmien manifesto. I’m referring to the first nine proposals under the Ambjent subtitle.

That manifesto promoted the idea of a citizen with or without any juridical interest, to report or compel a competent authority to take action on land falling under the public domain before the proposed environmental court. It also promised that if the individual wins the case, the legal costs will be reimbursed.

Anyone who is versed in environmental justice knows the significance of having such a crucial institution operating within the legal system. It consolidates enforcement efforts not just of the police or ERA’s but of the other 20 agencies, authorities, directorates and departments enforcing a myriad of environmental laws. There is such a fragmentation of enforcement because of the different specialisations that the idea of an environmental court makes so much sense.

Practising in a court of law brings more to the table than the court decision itself: it challenges the law by showing where it’s not working and where it does not cater for something that needs to be addressed. Bringing together all the professionals involved in the field under one roof, metaphorically, creates that synergy that the law, on paper, cannot provide. This actual daily legal practice activates the law in such a way that environmental protection goes beyond being simply an academic exercise.

Planning legislation is well catered for by the existing tribunal, which is why the gap in the environmental justice system is so obvious.

But the promise remained on paper and was nowhere to be found in the 2022 Labour electoral programme. It simply vanished from the agenda. There are only two specific courts mentioned in the document: the Gozitan and the Family Courts. There is an oblique reference to animal protection being backed by the courts but nothing else on environmental law. What struck me was the proposal for mandatory mediation to alleviate the pressure created on local councils in dealing with the payment of fines: so how about extending mediation to an enhanced environmental court system? Mediation already co-exists with adjudication, just look at the Family Court as an example of good practice.

There are foreign court systems, which I have discussed in my other article on Green Courts two years ago, that incorporate mediation as a service. I had written about this court in this newspaper in April 2020, hoping that the idea was still in the pipeline. I had seen a media coverage a few months before about having 55% of the manifesto implemented and was naively eager to see this court taking shape.

As a geographer and a graduate in environmental management, my focus shifted recently to training community officers in eco-offence enforcement. Personally, I cannot ignore it, not with my familiarity with the policing, enforcement, case investigation and prosecution before law courts. It becomes natural to me to appreciate how a specialised court can boost the enforcement efforts of all the agencies involved and get us out of this green limbo. But who cares about green when the country is greylisted? Grey has become the new green.

There’s enough room for the culprits to get away with it and keep partying. Who’s there to truly consolidate a fragmented system? Which institution can truly feed the legislative branch of government with the most basic input on the operability of the law?

It’s not the only court that was included in the 2017 manifesto, by the way. The Qorti Marittima was also proposed to strengthen the related clusters within that sector. This goes to show that there was an openness to the idea for new courts, for that institutional capping that is so necessary to integrate and ultimately strengthen the system, compelling it even further to produce results.