TMID Editorial: Crimes we don’t see

Environmental crime does not always happen in plain sight, and that is precisely the problem. Insights from the Police Environmental Protection Unit (EPU) highlight a reality that is easy to overlook: many of these offences take place away from witnesses. Illegal hunting, dumping, and other environmental breaches are often carried out in isolated areas, at times when detection is least likely. By the time they are discovered, the damage has already been done. This is not a minor operational challenge. It is a structural one. When crimes happen out of view, enforcement cannot rely on traditional methods alone. It depends on intelligence, reporting, and, at times, coincidence. The EPU itself acknowledged that the absence of witnesses makes investigations significantly more difficult, even as the nature of environmental crime becomes more complex and, in some cases, more organised. The result is a system that is largely reactive. Authorities step in once harm has occurred, once protected species have been targeted, once waste has been dumped, once illegal activity has already taken place. While enforcement remains essential, it is not designed to operate in isolation. Without stronger preventative structures, it risks constantly playing catch-up. This same reactive approach is evident in another area flagged by the EPU: the rise in dangerous and exotic animal ownership. Cases involving such animals tend to surface only when something goes wrong - when animals are found in poor conditions, when they pose a risk, or when authorities are forced to intervene. Yet the question of what happens next remains far less clear. As Senior Inspector Elliott Magro from the EPU explained, once seized, these animals effectively become the responsibility of the State, yet in practice, they often remain in the same place where they were found. Confiscating these animals is not a straightforward process. It requires expertise, facilities, and long-term care arrangements that Malta does not have the capacity to provide. In the absence of these structures, enforcement risks stopping short of a complete solution. It is here that policy needs to move ahead of the problem. In an interview last year, animal activist Althea Galea had pointed to a key gap in Malta's regulatory framework: the reliance on a negative list system, which outlines which animals cannot be owned. As she explained, this approach leaves room for loopholes, with individuals able to bypass restrictions by claiming variations or sub-species that fall outside the defined list. Her proposal- a positive list - offers a more structured alternative. Rather than attempting to prohibit specific animals, it would clearly define which species can be owned, based on the country's ability to regulate and care for them. Common domestic animals would remain permissible, while exotic and dangerous species would fall outside that scope. Such a system would not only reduce ambiguity but also shift the approach from reactive to preventative. At the same time, any serious framework must address what happens to animals already in circulation. This means investing in safe confiscation procedures and, where necessary, establishing partnerships with sanctuaries abroad that are equipped to handle species Malta cannot adequately care for. Without this, enforcement risks being caught in a cycle - intervening when problems arise, without the tools to resolve them sustainably. The broader issue, however, remains consistent across both areas. Environmental crime in Malta is often hidden, evolving, and difficult to detect. Responding to it requires more than enforcement alone. It requires systems that anticipate, and manage risk before it materialises. Otherwise, Malta will continue to chase environmental crime after the fact, rather than preventing it in the first place.
2026-04-16 06:39:00