The EU has provisionally agreed to update its environmental crimes and sanctions rules, with Parliament and Council negotiators clinching a deal to introduce an updated list of offences and related sanctions.

The agreement concludes six months of negotiations and culminates in the finalisation of the revised EU Environmental Crime Directive (ECD), marking what observers called a notable advancement in the bloc’s efforts to strengthen and harmonise criminal law responses to environmental offences.

The directive now includes a broader range of offences than before, such as underwater noise pollution, deforestation, and crimes involving Annex C species of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations, which cover species of high conservation value.

Key aspects of the new rules include:

• A comprehensive list of environmental offences, such as the import and use of mercury, fluorinated GHGs, illegal depletion of water resources, and pollution by ships.
• Stricter sanctions for severe offences, including those causing ecosystem destruction or significant damage to air, soil, or water quality. These could include crimes comparable to ecocide, like widespread pollution or large-scale forest fires.

Sanctions outlined in the agreement include:

• Individuals, including company representatives, responsible for environmental offences leading to death could face up to 10 years in prison.
• Qualified offences may result in eight years of imprisonment, while other criminal offences could lead to a five-year sentence, depending on the damage’s severity and reversibility.
• Additional sanctions include fines, obligations to restore damaged environments, or compensation for damages caused. Companies may face similar penalties, including licence withdrawal, bans on public funding, or closure.

The agreement also emphasises the protection of whistleblowers, and calls for more specialised training and resources for enforcement and judicial authorities, along with strengthened national strategies and data collection.

Member states are encouraged to run awareness campaigns to reduce environmental crime and may establish funds to support prevention and tackle the consequences of environmental offences.

In cross-border cases, national authorities are required to cooperate with each other and with bodies like Eurojust, Europol, or the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.

European Parliament rapporteur Antonius Manders highlighted the zero-tolerance approach to environmental crimes, stressing the need for harmonised, dissuasive, and effective sanctions at the EU level.

He also emphasised the importance of prevention, resource allocation, research, training, and awareness campaigns.

The draft law awaits formal approval by the Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee, as well as by the entire legislature and the Council before it can be enacted.

This move comes in response to the increasing number of environmental criminal offences, and aims to make the law future-proof by regularly updating the list of offences.

WWF’s European Policy Office commended the “high integrity and overall ambition of the final compromise text, especially in light of the significant challenges that the co-legislators faced in finding common ground, navigating through their different perspectives, which ranged from a good Commission proposal, a conservative Council general approach, to an extremely ambitious Parliament report.”

WWF said a notable aspect of the law is the introduction of common sanction levels for both natural and legal persons, which the campaigners said is key to deterring offenders and supporting cross-border cooperation.

“However, due to the Council’s resistance, the agreed sanction levels fall short of expectations. In particular, certain offences are only punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least three years which will limit authorities’ capacity to properly investigate and prosecute these crimes. In addition, the fines for legal persons remain insufficiently dissuasive, with varying calculation methods hindering harmonisation across EU member states.”

WWF added that the exclusion of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing (IUU fishing) from the directive is a missed opportunity to tackle what it said is one of the most lucrative forms of environmental crime.

news@carbon-pulse.com