By Martina Camilleri
The Aarhus Convention is an international treaty (agreement) that gives people and NGOs three key rights when it comes to environmental matters:
- Access to Information – People have the right to know about pollution, land use, and environmental risks.
- Public Participation – Citizens should have a say in decisions about major projects, policies, and laws.
- Access to Justice – If authorities fail to protect the environment, people should be able to challenge them in court.
In theory, Malta signed this treaty. In practice, these rights are not fully upheld and many obstacles remain. As part of the recent public consultation on the Convention’s implementation in Malta, Friends of the Earth Malta submitted recommendations to address some of these concerns in order to strengthen transparency, accountability, and environmental democracy.
Access to Environmental Information: Why is it so hard to get data?
There’s a serious lack of environmental data that’s easy to find and use. Malta lacks a centralised, user-friendly data portal, making basic information – such as land ownership and air pollution levels – difficult to access. Official websites often publish reports in clunky PDFs rather than open, user-friendly, searchable formats, and key data is sometimes unavailable for months. Most people have to jump between different agencies like ERA, PA, the Lands Authority, and Transport Malta in search of such data, often getting nowhere.
Without access to information, people cannot make informed decisions about their health or the environment. A single, public platform for all environmental data is urgently needed.
Even when NGOs and the public rely on official channels like submitting Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, these requests are frequently delayed or rejected, despite the fact that the requested data should be readily available.
FoEM also highlighted the lack of transparency regarding environmental offences. Illegal dumping, pollution, and rule-breaking often go unpunished. When people report issues through official channels, there is little clarity on what happens next. There is no system to track the progress of such reports, and repeated offenders are not flagged in a meaningful way. Despite advances in technology, enforcement authorities still rely on outdated systems, and cooperation between different departments remains weak. A public database of environmental offences would help ensure that repeat offenders are held accountable.
- Public Participation: A tick-box exercise?
Public consultations are often treated as a formality rather than a real chance to influence decisions. NGOs are usually consulted at the last minute when plans are practically finalised, leaving little room for meaningful changes. The consultation periods are also too short for NGOs – many of which operate with limited resources and rely on volunteers – to properly analyse proposals and respond.
Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) are another weak point. Sometimes, projects with major environmental consequences are allowed to go ahead without an EIA because developers split them into smaller chunks to avoid triggering the requirement for an EIA (a tactic known as ‘salami slicing’). When EIAs do happen, they tend to focus on a narrow set of impacts rather than looking at the bigger picture, such as climate change and biodiversity loss. ERA should have independent monitors to ensure EIAs are properly done and enforced.
- Access to Justice: Why It’s Hard to Fight for the Environment
Taking legal action to protect the environment is costly and slow. Unlike in other countries, Maltese NGOs don’t qualify for legal aid and if they lose a case, they might have to pay the other party’s legal fees. Court cases can also drag on for years, by which point, even if an NGO wins a case, the environmental damage may already have been done. Even when a court rules in favour of environmental protection, enforcement is often weak or non-existent. Legal aid should be available for NGOs acting in the public interest and environmental cases should be sped up.
Another major concern is the government’s proposed changes to the inquiry process, which would make it harder for people and NGOs to push for investigations into environmental crimes. These changes could put Malta in violation of its Aarhus Convention commitments.
Strengthening Environmental Democracy
FoEM has put forward several recommendations to improve the implementation of the Aarhus Convention in Malta, including:
- Creating a central, user-friendly environmental data portal
- Increasing transparency on enforcement actions and offenders
- Ensuring earlier and more meaningful public and NGO participation in decision-making
- Strengthening EIA processes to prevent loopholes
- Providing legal aid for environmental cases
- Training legal professionals in environmental law to ensure stronger enforcement.
These measures would help uphold environmental rights and improve cooperation between government agencies, leading to better environmental governance. If you are interested in learning more, you can read our feedback submission, sign up for our newsletter, or become a member to support our ongoing work!