Sept. 17, 2024 • Reading time: 16 Min
Imagine a world where environmental crimes such as ecocide no longer go unpunished. The new Ecocide Directive could make just that possible by creating international standards for the protection of our planet. The Environmental Crime Directive is a ground-breaking proposal that redefines international law in the field of environmental protection. It aims to classify environmental crimes as serious offenses that can have not only national, but also European and international consequences. The legal framework provided by the directive creates a mechanism that enables member states to take concrete action against environmental crime. In this blog post, you will gain in-depth insights into the topic of ecocide and the associated directive. Dive into this important discussion with us and find out what concrete changes are to be expected and what role companies play in this context.
Ecocide refers to the extensive damage or destruction of ecosystems by human activities. This can have serious consequences for the environment and society. Examples of ecocides include the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, the environmental disaster in Bhopal in 1984, the clearing of the rainforest in the Amazon region and acts of war that can lead to significant environmental destruction.
The issue of ecocide plays an important role for companies, as their business activities are inextricably linked to the environment. Public perception of environmental issues has changed and sustainability is increasingly demanded by consumers and investors. In addition, governments around the world are working on laws to punish environmentally harmful behavior and are putting pressure on companies. Companies must be aware that violations of environmental laws can have serious consequences.
An important step in this direction was the adoption of the "Ecocide" Directive by the Council of the European Union in March 2024. This directive serves to protect the environment under criminal law and aims to introduce environmental offenses into national criminal law systems. The member states have until May 2026 to transpose it into national law.
The directive contains 20 different criminal offenses, including pollution of air, soil and water, the placing on the market of environmentally harmful products, the production and use of hazardous substances and the illegal recycling of ship parts.
Individuals who fail to comply with the directive can be sentenced to up to ten years in prison. This applies in particular to managing directors and board members, who can be imprisoned for up to eight years for environmental crimes or even ten years in the event of death. Companies risk high fines of up to 40 or 24 million euros. In addition, further punitive measures such as claims for damages, exclusion from financing, restrictions on business activities, withdrawal of permits or even the dissolution of the company can be imposed.
Overall, with the Ecocide Directive, the EU is aiming to strengthen environmental protection and promote the legal responsibility of companies and individuals for environmentally destructive actions.
In the field of environmental protection and sustainability, the introduction of laws to protect against environmental degradation is constantly being discussed. But what exactly is meant by the term "ecocide" and do corresponding laws already exist? Ecocide refers to massive environmental damage caused by human activities that endanger the livelihoods of many people and animal species.
However, the term is not yet clearly defined in law and there are as yet no internationally recognized laws that explicitly regulate ecocide. Nevertheless, there are efforts to punish environmental crimes more severely at a global level and to hold companies and governments accountable for environmental damage.
One definition is "unlawful or intentional acts committed in the knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood that those acts will cause serious and either widespread or long-term environmental damage". A group of 12 lawyers formulated the definition in 2021, which is supported by Stop Ecocide International.
In summary, ecocide refers to the deliberate massive destruction of ecosystems through human activities. This can occur, for example, through environmental pollution, deforestation or the exploitation of natural resources. The consequences of environmental destruction are devastating: loss of biodiversity, climate change and negative effects on human health and ecological integrity.
The importance of the term lies in particular in the recognition that this environmental destruction not only has ecological consequences, but also has social and economic effects. The violation of nature often goes hand in hand with violations of human rights and endangers the livelihoods of future generations.
It is important to understand the concept of ecocide, as it calls for us to take responsibility for our planet and find sustainable solutions. Only by rethinking the way we use natural resources can we prevent the impending collapse of ecosystems and guarantee a future worth living for all.
The term "ecocide" was coined in the 1970s by biologist Arthur Galston and first used at the Conference on War and National Responsibility in Washington DC. Galston proposed an international treaty to prohibit the massive damage and destruction of ecosystems. He recognized the problematic defoliating effect of a chemical that later became known as Agent Orange.
At the Stockholm Conference of the United Nations in 1972, talks were held on ecocide in the Vietnam War. Various world leaders such as Olof Palme from Sweden and Indira Gandhi from India considered the war a crime against humanity and the environment. A working group was set up and in 1973 a draft ecocide convention was presented at the United Nations to punish ecocidal warfare. Experts such as Richard A. Falk and Robert Jay Lifton supported this project with the aim of ensuring environmental protection even in times of war.
In the 1980s, the Whitaker Report discussed expanding the definition of genocide to include cultural genocide, "ethnocide" and environmental crimes "ecocide". These include harmful environmental changes that can threaten entire populations, whether caused intentionally or through negligence. Benjamin Whitaker prepared the report on behalf of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.
The discussion on international crimes was continued in 1987 in the International Law Commission, with the proposal to include "ecocide" as an international crime in order to protect and preserve the environment.
The International Law Commission's 1991 Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind contained 12 crimes, including "willful damage to the environment". By March 1993, various countries had responded to the draft, with only three countries - the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States of America - opposing the inclusion of an environmental crime. Some countries also argued against the need for a high intent test for environmental crimes. Austria, for example, argued that intent should not be a condition for criminal liability, as environmental damage is often caused for profit. The discussion on intent requirements for environmental damage thus remained controversial. The 1998 draft served as a template for the Rome Statute, which formed the basis for the International Criminal Court. Although environmental degradation was not dealt with separately in the Rome Statute, environmental damage was anchored in connection with war crimes. The test for environmental degradation in war was clarified by an amendment to the Rome Statute. This was limited to cases where an attack would knowingly cause extensive and serious damage to the natural environment.
In March 2010, British lawyer Polly Higgins submitted an amendment to the Rome Statute to the United Nations to recognize ecocide as a fifth international crime. The concept was discussed at various conferences and supported by the Pope, among others. Experts recognized environmental crime as transnational organized crime and re-examined its introduction as an international crime. In 2019, Vanuatu and the Maldives called for ecocide to be included in the Statute.
At the end of November 2020, an international committee of 12 lawyers began drafting a legislative proposal on behalf of the Stop Ecocide Foundation. In June 2021, a legal definition was presented that defines unlawful acts that can cause significant damage to the environment.
"Ecocide means unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts."
The panel proposed to include the definition of ecocide as a fifth crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
In January 2021, the European Parliament called on the EU and its member states to support the recognition of the crime as an international crime. Just two years later, on March 21, 2023, the European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee voted unanimously in favor of condemning "ecocide" under EU law. On March 29, 2023, the European Parliament supported the inclusion of environmental crimes in the revised EU Directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law. On March 26, 2024, the Council of the European Union adopted a directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law, with Germany being the only country to vote against it.
In the context of the current discourse on environmental protection and sustainability, the term is becoming increasingly important. It serves as a warning of the consequences of irresponsible actions towards nature and calls for a rethink. Many stakeholders are calling for ecocide to be recognized as an international criminal offence in order to combat environmental destruction more effectively and hold those responsible to account.
The debate on environmental degradation reflects the growing awareness of the urgency of environmental protection and shows that environmental issues can no longer be neglected. By examining the history and meaning of the term, we can better understand why the protection of our natural resources is so important and what the consequences of failure in this area can be.
Unfortunately, there are numerous cases of (possible) ecocides that have led to considerable environmental damage.
A well-known example is the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, when millions of liters of oil leaked into the sea and caused massive damage to flora and fauna.
Another sad event was the environmental disaster in Bhopal in 1984, when a chemical plant released a toxic gas cloud that claimed the lives of thousands of people and caused long-term damage to their health.
Another worrying example is the clearing of the rainforest in the Amazon region, which has not only led to the destruction of important habitats for numerous animal and plant species, but also to a massive loss of biodiversity.
Furthermore, acts of war can also cause environmental destruction on an unimaginable scale. One example of this is the harrowing images of June 6, 2023, which have gone deep into the world's collective memory. On this fateful day, huge explosions occurred in the Kakhovka Dam, an important hydraulic structure in south-eastern Ukraine. As a result, the dam bursts and the masses of water unleash an overwhelming flood that rolls over the surrounding countryside at unimaginable speed.
Within a very short space of time, entire villages are flooded, rivers change their course and countless people are faced with the ruins of their existence. Tens of thousands of those affected are suddenly confronted with the loss of their homes, their livelihoods and in many cases even the loss of family members. The exact number of fatalities is still unclear to this day, which further illustrates the scale of this catastrophe.
In addition to the human suffering, this tragedy is also a serious blow to the environment. According to Ukrainian authorities, around 600 tons of crude oil leaked out, damaging industrial facilities and entering the ground and waterways. This massive spill has catastrophic consequences for the environment: water, soil and ecosystems are heavily polluted and agricultural land is contaminated. The heavy chemicals leaking from destroyed factories spread into the environment and endanger not only the flora and fauna, but also the health of the people in the region.
United Nations experts emphasize the far-reaching ecological consequences of this disaster. The impact of war on the environment is often seen as secondary, but these events clearly demonstrate that war is not only a human tragedy, but also an ecological disaster with long-term consequences for future generations. The destruction of habitats and the threat to biodiversity are just some of the serious problems that have been exacerbated by this incident.
In view of this situation, it is clear that the issue of environmental destruction must be placed on the international agenda. The restoration and protection of natural resources must go hand in hand with humanitarian aid in order to combat the ecological horror of war.
These examples illustrate the devastating consequences of ecocides and show how important it is to take action to protect our environment. Companies and governments must take responsibility and promote sustainable practices to prevent future disasters. Only through joint efforts can we ensure a future worth living for generations to come.
The impact of environmental crimes on society and the environment is devastating and far-reaching. Destructive acts such as ecocide not only cause irreversible damage to ecosystems, but also affect the social fabric. The destruction of habitats endangers the livelihoods of many people and leads to a loss of biodiversity. Environmental crime not only threatens nature, but also the health and well-being of the population. It is therefore crucial to stop these negative effects and hold those responsible to account.
Environmental crime is also present in Europe, as the European Environmental Bureau points out in its report on combating environmental crime. Examples include the illegal fishing of bluefin tuna, agro-industrial pollution of protected areas, illegal hunting practices and fraud on the carbon market. These crimes have not yet been punished as they were not included in the old directive.
On March 26, 2024, the "Ecocide" Directive was adopted by the Council of the European Union with a large majority of 499 votes in favor, 100 against and 23 abstentions. Prior to this, the EU Parliament and the Council had agreed on a draft directive on December 7, 2023, which was approved by the Parliament on February 27, 2024. This directive serves to protect the environment under criminal law and replaces Directives 2008/99/EC and 2009/123/EC. The Environmental Crime Directive was subsequently published in the Official Journal on April 30, 2024 and entered into force on May 20, 2024. Member states have until May 21, 2026 to transpose it into national law. This directive introduces environmental offenses into national criminal law that cause significant damage to nature, comparable to "ecocide".
The Environmental Crime Directive could represent a turning point in international environmental protection by creating a clear legal framework for dealing with environmental crime. The Directive requires the Member States of the European Union to actively address the issue and enact appropriate national legislation. This initiative demonstrates not only the urgency of political action, but also the commitment of European parliaments to take the protection of our planet to a new level.
It is important that this initiative does not remain isolated, but is seen in the context of global efforts to protect the environment. The directive could thus serve as a catalyst for far-reaching changes and send a clear message: Environmental crimes are intolerable. With the entry into force of this directive, we could take a decisive step towards a fairer and sustainable future in which environmental protection is enshrined in law.
In the debate on environmental protection and responsibility for environmental damage, the issue of environmental degradation is increasingly coming to the fore.
One important aspect that is gaining in significance is the demand for recognition as a crime in its own right.
The legal aspects of this issue are complex and raise many questions. If ecocide were indeed to be defined as a crime in its own right, international laws and agreements would have to be adapted to create a uniform legal basis. In addition, the definition of ecocide would be crucial - at what point is environmental damage considered so serious that it should be prosecuted?
Some experts argue that recognizing ecocide as a crime in its own right is necessary to effectively combat environmental degradation and hold those responsible to account. This could help to strengthen environmental protection measures and promote the protection of nature on a global level.
The debate on this issue shows how important it is not only to view environmental protection as a moral obligation, but also to enshrine it in law. Recognizing ecocide as a crime in its own right could help to make companies and governments more accountable and combat environmental destruction more consistently.
It will be interesting to see how this discussion develops and what impact a possible recognition could have.
There is a provision in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court that classifies environmental damage as a war crime.
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the ICC Statute makes it a crime to "intentionally launch an attack knowing that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment, which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated".
In 2010, lawyer Polly Higgins proposed adding the offense of ecocide to the statute, defined as: "The extensive damage, destruction or loss of ecosystems of a particular territory, whether by human action or by other causes, to such an extent that the peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory is seriously impaired." This broad definition of environmental damage encompassed damage caused by individuals, corporations or the state, including environmental degradation from other causes. The proposal was not adopted by the International Law Commission.
At the 18th session of the States Parties to the International Criminal Court in December 2019, Vanuatu and the Maldives called for the inclusion of ecocide as a crime in the Statute to be examined.
The Anthropocene is proposed as a potential geochronological epoch because human activities are affecting the natural environment on an unprecedented scale. Industrialization has led to increased emissions of greenhouse gases, which in turn causes man-made climate change. Experts warn of the long-term consequences of this behavior and argue that capitalism's ruthless exploitation of nature is leading to a global environmental crime.
Although there is no international law on ecocide, in 1977 the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques in War. This prohibits the use of such techniques to destroy other states. However, it lacks a precise definition of "widespread, protracted or severe". In addition, Article III emphasizes that peaceful environmental change must not be impeded. In July 2019, a group of scientists called for ecocide in conflict zones to be treated as a war crime, even if indirectly linked to the conflict.
In cases of environmental degradation, it is often difficult to identify the people responsible. This is because environmental damage is often the result of a variety of actors, including government agencies, criminal organizations and companies with different national backgrounds. Criminal prosecution of such acts can take various forms, such as indirect perpetration, complicity, incitement and aiding and abetting. This is a response to complex networks in which several parties can potentially be responsible for environmental crime.
The attribution of damages resulting from breaches of preventive protection obligations to avoid environmental damage is a complex legal and ethical issue. Fundamental to such attribution is the requirement that both the damage caused and its extent are considered foreseeable in advance. This means that companies and organizations must take proactive measures to identify and prevent potential environmental damage. If this does not happen and damage nevertheless occurs, questions of responsibility and liability arise.
The prosecution of environmental crimes under the Ecocide Directive is an important step in the fight against environmental crime and pollution. Clear rules ensure that perpetrators are held accountable for their actions. Both national and international bodies play a crucial role in this. The EU Commission and Member States are working together to protect the environment from further damage. Businesses need to be aware that breaches of environmental laws can have serious consequences. The Environmental Crime Directive sends a clear signal to stop environmentally harmful practices and highlights the need for a sustainable approach to our environment. Only through consistent measures and criminal prosecution can positive change be achieved in the long term.
The Directive contains 20 different offenses, which can be found in Article 3(2) of the Directive. Both known and novel offenses are covered. The offences focus on the result of the offence in the form of death, serious injury to persons or significant damage to an ecosystem, animals or plants - whether through acts already committed or the potential of the conduct to cause such damage.
The following acts are punishable by law:
In the trilogue, an aggravated penalty was agreed for serious environmental offenses in order to assess damage to the environment that destroys or irreversibly and significantly damages important ecosystems, habitats in protected areas or the quality of air, soil or water. The minimum maximum sentence is 8 years. This approach replaces the previously discussed general clause due to compatibility problems with the list approach of the directive. In many cases, criminal liability for environmental crimes is also to be introduced for gross negligence.
Natural persons face up to ten years in prison
The directive sets out specific penalty ranges for sanctions against natural persons, which are to be three, five, eight and ten years' imprisonment. For natural persons, such as managing directors and board members, environmental crimes can be punished with prison sentences of up to eight years, rising to ten years in the event of death.
The existing system of German criminal law with penalties of one, two, three, five and ten years could require adjustments in order to meet the new requirements. Additional legal consequences such as the restoration of the environmental status, the prohibition of executive positions in companies and the temporary exclusion from public office may be optional.
High fines are possible Legal entities can be subject to fixed minimum sanctions of 40 or 24 million euros instead of the turnover-based sanctions of 5% or 3%. Member states can choose between the two types of sanctions when implementing the law.
The possibility of imposing fines extends beyond the current maximum amount of EUR 10 million under the so-called association fines in Sections 30 and 130 OWiG. In Germany, there is a need for adjustment with regard to fines against companies.
The directive allows companies to claim mitigating circumstances by taking measures to limit damage and cooperating with investigations. Companies must immediately investigate suspected cases of environmental damage internally in order to benefit from these measures.
Further sanctions
The directive provides for further sanctions for individuals and companies, such as compensation for damages, exclusion from public financing and withdrawal of permits in the event of violations.
Individuals may be banned from holding management positions or public office. Legal entities can be placed under court supervision and must set up environmental compliance systems. Other possible sanctions for legal entities include bans on business activities, court-ordered dissolution and closure of facilities. Court rulings on criminal offenses committed and penalties imposed on legal entities are to be published in full or in part.
Public participation
Article 15 of the Directive provides for the comprehensive participation of persons and environmental associations that assert a strong interest or legal violations. The participation of environmental associations was planned without exception in the original proposal, but met with reservations due to German criminal law. In the form adopted, individuals and associations will only receive as many procedural rights as provided for in the national codes of criminal procedure.
Special features in relation to administrative law
German environmental criminal law (Section 19 of the German Criminal Code, Sections 324 et seq. of the German Criminal Code) regulates offenses against the environment. The central principle is the so-called administrative accessoriness, according to which criminal offenses only exist if administrative obligations are violated. Actions without the required approval, contrary to a prohibition or legal provision as well as unauthorized actions constitute criminal offences. Mere knowledge of the material defectiveness is not sufficient - valid permits lead to impunity and thus to legal loopholes.
This regulation has now been relaxed. The directive states that even approvals that obviously violate legal requirements should not be punishable by law. Previously, this only applied to void administrative acts with serious errors. The directive leads to a further tightening of the regulations in German environmental criminal law.
Preserving our environment has become increasingly urgent in recent decades. One initiative that plays an important role in this is Stop Ecocide International (SEI). This movement campaigns for the recognition of ecocide as an international crime.
Twelve countries have codified ecocide as a crime in peacetime, including Armenia, Belarus, Ecuador, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. The definition is based on Article 26 of the draft of the International Law Commission (ILC). Although none of these countries have introduced procedures to measure intent, the effectiveness of these laws depends on various factors, such as the availability of enforcement procedures and the independence of the judiciary.
Last year, the first ecocide bills were passed in Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain, among others. Draft legislation has also been introduced in Peru this year.
Here are some countries that have recognized the crime in recent years and have passed corresponding laws:
2021: France The law on climate protection and resilience (Loi climat et résilience) was passed in August 2021, including up to 10-year prison sentences for ecocide offenses (L'article 231-3) and the government's obligation to report on progress towards an international crime of ecocide (L'article 296).
2023: Chile On August 17, a new law, Law 21.595(Ley 21595), was published in Chile. It amends the penal code in relation to economic offenses and includes a new section on "attacks against the environment", which contains several elements of the legal definition of the Stop Ecocide Foundation.
2024: Belgium In February 2024, the Belgian federal parliament voted in favour of a new criminal code for the country, which for the first time provides for the recognition of the crime of ecocide at both national and international level. At national level, the aim is to prevent and punish the most serious cases of environmental destruction, such as large-scale oil spills, for individuals in the highest positions of decision-making power and for companies.
2024: European Council
On March 26, 2024, the European Council approved a new EU environmental directive with stricter sanctions and extended criminal offences. This directive criminalizes cases that are considered "comparable to ecocide". It is known as the Ecocide Directive or the Environmental Crime Directive. The member states now have a 24-month period to adapt national legislation to the newly adopted directive.
Implementation represents an immense challenge that encompasses numerous aspects. First of all, the Member States of the European Union must adapt their national legislation to meet the new international standards. The implementation of the Environmental Crime Directive in the EU Member States faces a number of challenges and obstacles.
A key issue is the definition and delimitation of ecocide as an independent criminal offense in the European legal system. The complexity and multi-layered nature of environmental damage make it difficult to clearly identify acts of ecocide. In addition, there are different legal traditions in the Member States, which can make uniform implementation difficult.
There is also a risk that economic interests and lobbying activities will hinder progress. Another critical point is the need to educate the public about the relevance of this directive. Only through a shared awareness of environmental responsibility can pressure be exerted on political decision-makers.
International cooperation also plays a key role, as environmental damage often crosses borders. It is up to European parliamentarians and the Commission to create the necessary framework to successfully implement the Ecocide Directive in practice and bring about sustainable change.
The question of the enforceability and effectiveness of the directive in an international context raises further challenges. Coordinated action by the Member States and close cooperation with international partners are crucial to ensure effective protection of the environment against criminal activities.
Despite these obstacles, consistent implementation of the directive is essential in order to effectively stop environmental crime and protect natural resources in the long term.
In recent years, the topic of ecocide has become increasingly important, especially against the backdrop of global efforts to combat climate change and protect biodiversity. But what does this serious issue have to do with companies?
First of all, we need to look at the responsibility of companies in the modern world. Economic activities are inextricably linked to the environment, and companies play a crucial role in the use of natural resources. This use brings not only opportunities for profit and growth, but also significant risks for the environment. In many cases, business decisions can have far-reaching impacts on ecosystems - whether through deforestation, water pollution or the overconsumption of resources.
In addition, public awareness of environmental issues is recognized as an increasingly important factor for business success. Consumers increasingly value sustainability and ethical behavior from companies. Society expects companies to actively contribute to the reduction of environmental degradation and implement responsible practices. In this context, ignoring environmental responsibility can be seen as a form of ecocide if corporate actions cause serious environmental damage.
Another aspect that reinforces the link between environmental degradation and business is the regulatory framework. Governments around the world are working to enact laws and policies to punish environmentally damaging behavior. Companies that are unable to comply with these regulations or implement protocols to prevent harm expose themselves to serious legal consequences. These developments make it clear that compliance with environmentally friendly practices is not only a moral obligation, but also a potential business risk.
In addition, transparency with regard to environmental standards is playing an increasingly decisive role for investors. Sustainability reporting and environmental assessment have become important criteria for potential investors. Investors are looking for highly sustainable companies to deploy their capital efficiently and minimize the risk of reputational damage related to environmentally harmful practices. Therefore, companies should take the implementation of effective environmental strategies seriously.
Overall, it is clear that environmental crime and corporate behavior are closely linked. The responsibility to uphold environmental integrity lies not only with governments and individuals; it extends particularly to companies in all industries. By being proactive and establishing sustainable practices, companies can not only have a positive impact on the environment, but also safeguard their own future - both in terms of reputation and financial performance. Environmental risks should therefore be seen as a key consideration in any company's strategic planning.
The Environmental Crime Directive is a promising step towards combating environmentally harmful activities in Europe. This proposal, launched by the European Commission, opens up the opportunity to create a comprehensive legal framework that not only strengthens existing national laws, but can also serve as a model for international standards. The recognition of environmental crime as a crime is a decisive step forward that will enable Member States and the European Parliament to take joint and coordinated action against ecocide.
This landmark initiative will create a solid basis for holding individuals and companies accountable when their negligent or deliberate actions cause significant damage to our environment. The possibility of introducing legal consequences for ecologically destructive behavior could act as a deterrent to potential offenders from engaging in harmful activities.
The Ecocide Directive has the potential not only to promote individual responsibility, but also to create a strong awareness in society of the urgency of environmental protection. Giving civil societies and organizations the power and tools to take action against environmental crimes will lead to a broader mobilization for environmental justice. Involving citizens in the process of legal certainty could create a sense of collective responsibility and emphasize the urgency of protecting our common resources.
If the Ecocide Directive is finally integrated into the legal systems of the European states, this will not only create new perspectives on how to deal with environmental challenges, but will also ensure that the proven principles of environmental protection have a firm place in the legal structure of Europe. This reorientation has the potential to establish effective measures to combat environmental crime and thus protect our planet for future generations.
Overall, the Environmental Crime Directive not only provides a legal basis to combat environmental crime, but also encourages a deeper societal engagement with the environmental challenges we face. By adopting and consistently implementing such regulations, we can work together to sustainably protect our environment and promote a harmonious coexistence between humans and nature.
The Ecocide Directive represents a significant step forward in the fight against environmental crime and could revolutionize the legal basis for the protection of our planet. This proposal, initiated by the European Commission, aims to hold Member States and their institutions accountable for promoting environmentally responsible actions and defining ecocide as a crime. This will not only create a legal framework, but also send a clear signal that environmental crimes will no longer be tolerated.
The international comparison shows that many countries are striving for similar regulations, so that a coordinated approach against environmental crimes is necessary. Implementation could ultimately lead to future generations being able to live in an intact environment and responsibility for our planet not remaining just a wish.
The fight against environmental crime requires consistent prosecution. The Environmental Crime Directive provides a clear legal framework to combat environmental crime effectively. Businesses play a crucial role in complying with this directive and must take responsibility. International cooperation is essential to effectively stop environmental crime and prevent cross-border environmental damage. EU Member States are required to implement the measures consistently and prosecute environmental crime.
Everything you need to know about the Ecocide Directive
Recognizing ecocide as an international crime would bring about several important changes:
The EU is committed to ensuring a high level of environmental protection and improving the quality of the environment. This includes the protection of all natural resources such as air, water, soil, ecosystems, wild animals and plants and their habitats.
According to Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the overall objective of the European Union's environmental policy is to ensure a high level of protection of the environment, while taking due account of the specific regional circumstances and differences within the Member States. This means that environmental policy measures should not only be generally applicable, but must also be flexible in order to take account of the diverse environmental and social contexts in the different regions of the EU.
The basic principles of this environmental policy are the precautionary principle, the prevention principle and the polluter pays principle. The precautionary principle requires that potential environmental risks are already identified and appropriate measures are taken to prevent negative impacts on the environment - before they can have fatal consequences. The preventive principle moves in a similar direction by emphasizing that significant damage to the environment should be prevented through proactive action. The focus here is on taking preventative action rather than reacting to problems.
The polluter pays principle states that those who cause environmental damage should also be held responsible for the costs of remediation and prevention. This principle not only promotes a fairer distribution of the costs of environmental damage, but also motivates companies and individuals to operate more sustainably and adapt their behavior accordingly.
Another key aspect of this environmental policy approach is to combat environmental pollution at its source. This means that measures to reduce pollution should be taken as a matter of priority when the harmful influences are most effective. This can be done through a variety of regulations - from stricter rules on industrial emissions to incentives for more environmentally friendly technologies.
At the same time, the fight against environmental crime at EU level is crucial. The increase in environmental crime in the EU is worrying as the crimes are transnational and affect environmental law. An effective response therefore requires effective cross-border cooperation.
This type of crime includes illegal practices such as the illegal disposal of waste or the violation of environmental regulations. By taking targeted measures to combat these criminal activities, the EU is making a decisive contribution to protecting the fundamental rights of its citizens. This includes access to a clean and healthy environment as well as protection against health hazards caused by environmentally harmful behavior.
Overall, it is clear that the EU's environmental policy not only aims to achieve a high level of protection, but is also designed to promote awareness of environmental responsibility at both individual and corporate level. This is a step towards a more sustainable future and a further strengthening of trust in the European institutions - because everyone has a right to an intact natural environment and a healthy living environment.
Article 1 of the Directive lays down minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offenses and sanctions in order to ensure more effective environmental protection. It also lays down measures to prevent and combat environmental crime and to ensure the effective enforcement of Union environmental law.
The criminal offenses that are relevant in the context of this Directive are listed in detail in Article 3. This article forms the basis for understanding the various environmental offenses that are considered punishable and can therefore have consequences. In total, the relevant catalog includes a large number of 20 specific environmental crimes.
The careful listing of these environmental crimes in the Directive is essential to create a clear legal framework that obliges both states and companies to adopt and maintain environmentally responsible practices. Such regulations not only help to protect the environment, but also promote responsible behavior within society.
It is therefore of the utmost importance that companies and organizations take a close look at the contents of Article 3 of the Directive. In this way, they can not only avoid potential legal consequences, but also actively contribute to the preservation and improvement of the environment. A sound knowledge of the specific environmental offenses makes it possible to implement appropriate preventive measures and to promote an awareness of sustainability within operations and corporate culture.
Article 3(3) defines a qualifying offense as an act that either
a) destroys an ecosystem of significant size or ecological value, a habitat within a protected area or the quality of air, soil or water; or
b) either irreversibly or permanently causes extensive and substantial damage.
It is generally accepted that gross negligence always occurs when the due care required in traffic is breached to a particularly serious degree. Under the Directive, gross negligence is punished in all cases referred to in Article 3(2), with the exception of e and h.
Responsibility for the implementation and interpretation of the Directive lies with the individual Member States of the European Union. Article 3(5) of the Directive also allows Member States to define additional criminal offenses in accordance with their national law. This flexibility allows countries to take into account the specific circumstances and challenges of their respective legal systems.
This regulation is of great importance as it ensures that the legal framework is not only harmonized, but also addresses the specific requirements and circumstances of each individual country. The implementation of such additional criminal offenses can help to implement more effective measures against possible violations and thus strengthen confidence in the rule of law.
In the relevant cases, Article 3(6) of the Directive takes into account the following criteria:
According to Article 3(7) of the Directive, there are three criteria for assessment:
The relevant cases can be found in Article 3(2)(f)(i) and in points (g), (n), (o) and (p). These are waste and trade in wild animal or plant species, raw materials and products of deforestation.
The assessment shall be carried out in accordance with paragraph 8 on the basis of quantitative consideration. The following criteria are used to determine whether a quantity is to be classified as significant or insignificant:
These acts are punishable by law. It is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure that inciting and aiding and abetting these acts are also prosecuted. In addition, the attempt to commit the aforementioned offenses should also be punishable, provided that the cases referred to in Article 3(2)(a-d), (f), (g), (i-m), (o), (p), (r), (s) or (t) are involved. Therefore, there are only a few criminal offenses for which the attempt is not already punishable.
Article 5 of the Directive is devoted to sanctions, which should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
For offenses under paragraph 2 letters a-d, f, j, k, l, r (offenses involving dangerous substances, materials and equipment), a prison sentence of at least ten years shall be imposed if the death of a person was caused by these acts.
Offenses under paragraph 3 (qualified offenses) may be punished with a maximum prison sentence of at least eight years.
Offenses falling under Article 3 paragraph 4 and relating to Article 3 paragraph 2 letters a-d, f, j, k and l may be punishable by terms of imprisonment of at least five years if they cause the death of a person.
The offenses referred to in paragraph 2 letters a-l, p, s, t may be punished with custodial sentences of a maximum of at least five years.
The offenses referred to in paragraph 2 letters m, n, o, q and r (mainly concerning flora and fauna) may be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least three years.
Member States are obliged under Article 5(3) of the Directive to ensure that the necessary measures against natural persons include the following:
Article 6 is dedicated to the liability of legal persons. Legal persons are held liable if the offense was committed for the benefit of the legal person who acted either alone or as part of an organ of the legal person concerned and who holds a leading position within this legal person. This may, for example, be the power of representation.
Legal persons may also be held liable if criminal offenses are committed by subordinates in accordance with the aforementioned articles due to a lack of supervision or control by managers.
It is important to note that the liability of the legal entity does not exclude the possibility that natural persons may also be prosecuted if they are involved as perpetrators, instigators or accomplices in the aforementioned criminal offenses.
Article 7(2) provides for a wide range of sanctions against legal entities that commit environmental offenses. Member States are required to impose measures such as fines, environmental restorations, compensation payments, financing bans and business restrictions on such companies. If necessary, additional sanctions such as supervision by courts or even dissolution can be imposed. Companies that have facilitated criminal acts can be closed down. Companies must also implement systems to ensure compliance with environmental standards. Court decisions regarding environmental offenses may be made public if there is a public interest.
Member States should set appropriate financial penalties for legal persons who commit criminal offenses (paragraph 3). These penalties should be proportionate to the seriousness of the offense and the financial situation of the company. A minimum level of penalties must also be observed.
For the offenses referred to in Article 3(2)(a) to (l), (p), (s) and (t), the Directive provides that legal persons must pay a fine of either 5% of their total worldwide turnover in the corresponding financial year or EUR 40,000,000.
For the remaining offenses under Article 3(2)(m), (n), (o), (q) and (r), fines of either 3% of the company's total worldwide turnover or EUR 24 million may be imposed.
Where it is not possible to calculate the amount of the fine on the basis of turnover, Member States may lay down alternative rules. Furthermore, Member States shall ensure that legal persons responsible for qualifying offenses referred to in Article 3(3) may be subject to more severe sanctions than for offenses referred to in Article 3(2).
Article 8 requires Member States to ensure that certain circumstances are taken into account as aggravating circumstances for relevant offenses, provided that they do not constitute constituent elements of those offenses.
Aggravating circumstances include the destruction of ecosystems, participation in criminal organizations, the use of falsified documents, abuse of authority, previous convictions for similar offences and the unlawful obtaining of financial benefits. The destruction of evidence, intimidation of witnesses by the perpetrator and crimes committed in protected areas or areas of Community importance are also considered aggravating circumstances.
Member States have the possibility to consider certain circumstances as mitigating in relation to certain offenses and to take appropriate measures (see Article 9). These include restoring the environment, minimizing damage prior to criminal investigations and providing information to authorities to assist in the prosecution of offenders or the collection of evidence.
Member States shall lay down limitation periods in order to combat criminal offenses effectively. The limitation periods for criminal offenses shall be based on the maximum possible penalty (Article 11(2)):
Member States must also set an appropriate limitation period to allow sanctions to be enforced for a reasonable period of time after a final conviction for certain offenses. The limitation periods following final convictions vary according to the seriousness of the offense (Article 11(3)):
Article 14 of the Directive refers to the protection of persons who report or assist in the investigation of environmental crimes.
Whistleblower protection refers to the legal framework that protects individuals who report information about illegal or unethical behavior within an organization. These individuals, often referred to as whistleblowers, play an essential role in exposing wrongdoing, fraud or environmental pollution. Protecting these whistleblowers ensures that they do not have to fear negative consequences, such as reprisals or even dismissal, if they point out wrongdoing.
The Ecocide Directive, on the other hand, aims to define serious environmental offenses as criminal acts and thus create a legal framework that protects nature and the planet. In this context, the role of whistleblowers is of particular importance. After all, in order to prevent ecological damage such as deforestation, water pollution or other environmentally harmful activities, informed employees and citizens must be able to report such incidents without fear of negative consequences.
People who report breaches of Union environmental law make an important contribution to protecting the environment and the common good. These so-called whistleblowers are protected by Directive (EU) 2019/1937, which replaces the previous Directives 2008/99/EC and 2009/123/EC. The protection is intended to ensure that people who report irregularities are protected from retaliation. This is crucial as potential whistleblowers are often reluctant to speak out about their concerns. The Directive ensures balanced and effective protection for these courageous individuals.
Persons outside the reporting system of EU Directive 2019/1937 could also have important information about environmental offenses. This includes active environmentalists or members of affected communities. It is crucial that persons reporting or assisting in the prosecution of environmental crimes receive adequate support during criminal proceedings in order to avoid potential disadvantages and receive support instead. These support measures should be available to those involved in accordance with their national procedural rights and should be at least equivalent to those provided to other parties in criminal proceedings. Persons reporting environmental crimes or participating in criminal proceedings should be protected from prosecution in accordance with their rights. The exact nature of the support and assistance measures shall be determined by the Member States.
Member States must ensure that persons who are or may be subject to certain criminal offenses have adequate procedural rights in the relevant proceedings (Article 15). This also applies to non-governmental organizations that promote environmental protection and meet national requirements. Member States must also ensure that the public is informed about the progress of proceedings.
The Directive does not necessarily require the introduction of new procedural rights for the public concerned. However, if comparable rights exist in a Member State for other criminal offenses, they should also apply in environmental criminal proceedings. It is important to keep the distinction between "members of the public concerned" and "victims" clear. States do not have to apply victims' rights to members of the public and are not obliged to grant these groups the same procedural rights as other persons.