o Specialist environmental courts and tribunals (ECTs) are often seen as key to resolving environmental disputes and enforcing biodiversity protections. But, they may risk reinforcing proceduralism, institutional constraints and include risks including how “knowledge” and scientific expertise is treated, and how "biodiversity" is understood. Shifting legal categories and inconsistencies between statutes, create significant complexity for courts and practitioners. This workshop invites critical and comparative engagement with the role of ECTs as institutions. Drawing on recent scholarship, case-studies and diverse experiences, we ask whether ECTs help move beyond procedural review toward substantive protection and restoration of biodiversity and under what conditions. In particular: How do ECTs influence biodiversity governance, directly (e.g. through rulings) or indirectly (e.g. through deterrence, capacity-building, or procedural design)? When and why do specialist courts outperform generalist forums? When do they risk marginalising broader ecological / justice concerns? What is the role of institutional design, technical expertise/expert witnesses, standing, and access to justice in shaping outcomes? How do ECTs and evolving legal frameworks interact, including recognition of rights of nature, Indigenous legal orders, and earth systems law? Do biodiversity outcomes depend on judicial forums themselves or on broader political, legal, or epistemic conditions? How do historical legal categories and fragmented statutory regimes shape the way biodiversity is defined, protected, or left vulnerable in specialist courts? Are courts appropriate fora for determining contested matters of science and is the precautionary principle working appropriately in those scenarios?