‘Whose Side Are You On?’: Activists Stunned At ERAs Penalty Reduction Proposals For Environmental Offences
Activists Moviment Graffitti have spoken out against a legal amendment that has been drafted by the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA), that could lower fines for environmental offenses.
Some offenders could have their penalties canceled altogether.
“Moviment Graffitti is hereby expressing its disagreement with these legal amendments that will lower fines for many environmental offences and give offenders the opportunity to have their fines canceled,” they wrote in their statement.
In their letter, they maintained that the contrary was, in fact, needed.
“It is incomprehensible how, whilst many Maltese are alarmed at the degradation of our environment and quality of life, the ERA deemed it fit to propose more leniency towards breaches of environmental regulations.”
The activists stated which of the observed draft laws are objectionable, and on many counts. Particularly in response to the halving of fines tied to unauthorized emissions, failure to obtain an environmental permit, and failing to submit reports on emissions.
“The new regulations would make the offender liable to pay only one fine at one time, even when engaging in multiple irregularities.”
ERA also proposed the inclusion of grounds which the Environment and Planning Review (EPRT) can cancel or lower fines by including “opaque, open-ended provisions via legal loopholes such as ‘such as’ and ‘humanitarian reasons’.”
“The document proposes that offenders who obtain a permit after having carried out an illegal activity, pay only the accumulated daily fine or the regularisation fine, whichever the higher.”
“The ERA’s proposal for a law that would reduce already-meager fines, as well as complicate their effective application, will certainly strengthen the perception that the authorities are on the side of those exploiting our environment for their personal gain, rather than striving to protect our environment and quality of life.”
“ERA, which side are you on?”
Do you think that environmental offences should be more severly punished by law?