Fifteen years ago, I was asked on Radio 4 whether environmental law was emerging as a practice area in its own right and if so, whether it would underpin a real system of environmental justice in this country.

I answered both questions with a large degree of scepticism.

Looking back over the years and taking on board research on the issue that has been published recently, it would seem that such scepticism was entirely justified.

What we have seen is the spectacle of one claim after another by the ordinary citizen and by environmental groups foundering as judges have turned down judicial reviews, death, injury and property claims.

Public prosecutions have failed or resulted in the imposition of fines that are trivial for industry.

Claims in relation to key issues of our time such as the nuclear industry, tobacco, electromagnetic fields, atmospheric pollution, polluted water, and some drugs or medical devices have met with the same stony-faced response.

As a result of judge-inspired procedural hurdles, many of these actions have never even reached trial.

Two years ago, the then Environment Minister, Michael Meacher, invited a number of lawyers to discuss with him the state of the British legal system in terms of access to justice in environmental matters.

In that debate it was clear to all involved that there was universal concern about the existing system.

As a result, Carol Hatton, the World Wildlife Fund's solicitor, Pam Castle, chairwoman of the Environmental Law Foundation, and I set up the Environment Justice Project.

It was designed to undertake a wide-ranging review as to how the environmental justice system is perceived by practitioners and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) involved in the field.

Over the following year we canvassed the views of more than 50 leading environmental law firms and environmental NGOs on the effectiveness of the civil law system; 97% said the system does not provide environmental justice, and they identified the current rules on costs as the most significant barrier, followed by a lack of judicial understanding of environmental issues, the limited scope of judicial review and an inability to obtain injunctions.

Two-thirds of respondents to the survey said the courts did not understand environmental issues and many public lawyers perceive some form of inherent discrimination within the judiciary.

As a result, nearly half of those questioned recommend judicial environmental training.

The project advocates the establishment of a specialist environmental court or tribunal, for which the achievement of environmental justice is a constitutional requirement.

We also recommended the appointment of judges from beyond the bar, including appropriately qualified solicitors and academics

Environmental protection is a fundamental principle of sustainable development and, as such, is deserving of special treatment by the courts.

Much environmental law is based on scientific and technical issues, the understanding of which would be enhanced by the regular handling of such cases in a specialist court.

Such a court would have the social benefit of significantly simplifying the structure and procedure for potential claimants and applicants, thereby providing real access to justice.

Martyn Day is the senior partner of London-based law firm Leigh Day& Co