The Council of Europe’s New Convention on Environmental Crime: A Missed Opportunity or a Step Forward?
By Abbi Hedges and Sukeerti Ganesh*
With environmental crime ranking as the fourth largest criminal activity globally, the debate on its regulation has been a hot topic - steadily growing hotter - over recent years. Both within and outside of Europe, activists are (increasingly successfully) seeking to criminalise the most severe forms of environmental damage through both national and international law. Whilst much attention has been given to the dramatic developments at the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) with Vanuatu’s 2024 ecocide proposal, as well as the European Union’s (“EU”) Environmental Crime Directive, the treaty adopted in May 2025 by the Council of Europe (“CoE”) has snuck under the radar with undeservedly little attention.
On 14 May 2025, the CoE adopted a treaty which seeks to establish and harmonise key environmental crimes across Council of Europe member states and potentially beyond. The Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law (the “Convention”) sets important minimum standards in this fast-developing domain, including provisions relating to specific criminal offences, as well as international collaboration, resourcing, jurisdiction, sanctions and corporate liability. Alongside specific criminal offences relating to pollution, waste, ships and biodiversity (among others), the Convention also requires the introduction of a complementary “particularly serious offence” which is widely being referred to as an ecocide provision in all but name.
The adoption of the Convention is undoubtedly a noteworthy step forward in the fight for environmental justice, but has been severely criticised by activists. Many criticise the Convention’s failure to recognise the right to a healthy environment, its unreasonably high liability thresholds and its limited real-life impact due to its regional scope. This legal blog post will first discuss the history and content of the Convention, before delving further into a discussion of some of these strengths and weaknesses.
The Convention’s background and history
The CoE was founded in 1949 with the aim of unifying Europe after the horrors of the Second World War. Its purpose is “the safeguarding and realising of the ideals and principles which are [the member states’] common heritage and facilitating their economic and social progress” (Article 1(a) Statute of the CoE). This aim is to be achieved by “agreements and common action...and in the maintenance and further realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms” (Article 1(b) Statute of the CoE).
Importantly, the CoE is an entirely separate organisation from the EU. Whilst all 27 EU member states are also members of the CoE, the CoE has a broader membership totalling 46 states. The states which are members of the CoE but not members of the EU include (but are not limited to) the UK, Albania, Turkey, Switzerland and Norway.
In pursuit of the CoE’s mission, the CoE drafts, adopts and monitors the implementation of international conventions, the most famous being the European Convention of Human Rights (“ECHR”). However, the CoE has drafted many more treaties (over 220) than just the ECHR, covering topics such as (but not limited to) human trafficking, the prevention of terrorism and state immunity. Whilst treaties drafted by the CoE are not automatically binding on all member states, all are open to signature by them, as well as certain other non-member states (discussed further below).
Given the serious human rights implications of environmental crime, it is unsurprising that the CoE has sought to take action in this area. The CoE moved to unify the regulation of environmental crimes as early as 1998 by adopting the first Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law. Whilst this 1998 convention was much more limited in terms of content than the 2025 Convention, it was seen as groundbreaking when compared to domestic legislation of the time. As such, the 1998 convention’s ambition may ultimately have led to its downfall, resulting in only 14 signatures and 1 ratification.
In 2022, with social and political support for the regulation of environmental crimes significantly increased and comparable legislation now in existence within the domestic systems of many states, the CoE recommenced its work in this area. In 2025, the Convention was formally opened for signature.
This time round, the CoE was not alone in focusing on environmental crime. On 11 April 2024 (13 months before the Convention was adopted), the EU adopted its Environmental Crime Directive. The 2025 Convention broadly mirrors the provisions of the Environmental Crime Directive, but with some key differences which will be discussed further below.
The Convention’s substantive criminal offences
Sections 1-6 of the Convention require signatories to implement into national law specific criminal offences in the following areas:
Unlawful pollution (Article 12)
Activities relating to unlawful products (such as those containing radioactive substances, mercury or ozone depleting substances) (Article 13-18)
Unlawful management of hazardous waste (Article 19)
Unlawful operation of dangerous installations (Articles 20-21)
Unlawful recycling of ships (Article 22) or discharge of pollutants from ships (Article 23)
Unlawful extraction of surface or groundwater (Article 24)
Trade of unlawfully harvested timber (Article 25)
Unlawful mining (Article 26)
Unlawful destruction or trade in fauna or flora (Article 27-28)
Unlawful degradation of protected habitats or species (Article 29)
Unlawful activities relating to invasive species (Article 30)
Articles 12-16, 19-21, 26 and 30 are qualified by the requirement that they must cause or be likely to cause injury, death or substantial environmental damage to constitute an offence.
In all provisions, the definition of “unlawful” is defined as the breach of pre-existing national legislation, as well as any applicable international agreements. Furthermore, all offences have a mens rea element requiring intention, thus setting an arguably high legal bar albeit that this standard is not uncommon in many domestic criminal laws. Although the Explanatory Report to the Convention emphasises that states could lower this requirement as necessary, critics emphasise that this is more restrictive - and arguably more outdated - than in the Environmental Crime Directive. The Environmental Crime Directive lowers the mental element for certain offences to at least serious negligence (Article 3(1) Environmental Crime Directive), which is discussed further below.
Interestingly, the Convention also sets out a list of aggravating factors under Article 36 which may be taken into account when national judges impose sanctions for the aforementioned offences. The list includes where “the offence caused severe and widespread, or severe and long-term, or severe and irreversible damage to an ecosystem”. This wording is highly reflective of the ‘particularly serious offence’ established in Article 31 of the Convention which will be outlined next.
Particularly serious offence - ecocide in all but name?
Article 31 of the Convention (comparable to Article 3(3) of the Environmental Crime Directive) has been the focus of much of the Convention’s commentary so far. To an extent, this is for good reason. Article 31 contains an offence which is complementary to the other offences within the Convention and contains notable echoes of a groundbreaking ecocide offence:
Parties shall take the necessary legislative measures to establish as a particularly serious offence any of the offences established in accordance with this Convention, when committed intentionally, and when such an offence causes destruction or causes irreversible, widespread and substantial damage, or causes long-lasting, widespread and substantial damage to an ecosystem of considerable size or environmental value, or to a habitat within a protected site, or to the quality of air, soil or water.
For comparison, the Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide (June 2021) proposed the following definition for an international crime of ecocide:
“[E]cocide” 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.
This latter definition is also echoed in Vanuatu’s proposal to the International Criminal Court which is discussed later in this blog and was also discussed in a previous legal blog which can be found here.
Nonetheless, despite the clear overlap, the term “ecocide” itself is only referenced in passing at the start of the preamble of the Convention and in the Explanatory Report (paragraphs 19 and 172). This is possibly indicative of a political will to placate those critical of the crime’s introduction. In any case, the Convention does not require specific types or levels of sanctions for Article 31 offences (see Explanatory Report, paragraph 173), which in practice could mean that this offence has little real-world impact.
Beyond substantive offences: collaboration, jurisdiction, sanctions and corporate liability
Whilst the substantive offences of the Convention are the most headline grabbing, arguably the Convention’s most important features are its somewhat less glamorous procedural provisions. These include articles on jurisdiction (Article 33), sanctions ranging from monetary fines to terms of imprisonment (Article 35) and extensive collaboration, resourcing, prevention and awareness provisions (e.g., Articles 5, 7, 10 and 11).
Of particular interest is the Convention’s approach to corporate liability. Articles 34 and 35 clearly share common ground with the ongoing attempts at national, regional and international levels to codify social and environmental corporate obligations. For example, although outside the scope of this blog, Articles 34 and 35 have echoes of the EU’s CSDDD and CSRD, notwithstanding their ongoing revision. What is clear is that these articles of the Convention are built on the same underlying motivation shared by supporters of increased corporate accountability around the world, namely that companies are so often responsible for the worst social and environmental harms, but very rarely held accountable.
Under the Convention, corporate liability can be established when one of the offences is committed by someone in a leading position at a company (Article 34(1)) or by someone under the entity’s authority - such as an agent or employee - who was under the supervision of a leading person (Article 34(2)). The exact type of liability (civil, criminal or administrative) and sanctions are ultimately left to each state’s discretion (Article 34(3)). However, in addition to monetary penalties, these sanctions could include disqualification from commercial activity, cancellation of permits, due diligence obligations or judicial supervision (amongst others, see Article 35(2)). What is more, Article 3 broadens the definition of unlawfulness, preventing corporations from evading liability when permits or licences for regulated activities have been obtained through fraud, corruption, extortion or coercion.
Small victories – multiplied?
Next, this blog will delve further into the strengths of the Convention by showing how it tackles cross-border environmental harm and addresses long-standing gaps in accountability. Furthermore, it discusses the Convention’s expansion of criminal offences, contribution to the growing recognition of ecocide and its strengthening of corporate responsibility through enforceable legal measures. Lastly, the discussion highlights the Convention’s procedural safeguards for victims and whistleblowers promoting access to justice and public participation. Collectively, these attributes of the Convention reflect a practical and forward-looking approach to environmental protection.
Recognition of the transboundary nature of environmental crime
Historically, environmental agreements have primarily relied on regulatory frameworks and civil liability only, often failing to adequately address environmental harms through criminal prosecution. The Trail Smelter arbitration case laid the groundwork for the State's duty to prevent transboundary environmental damage. The Convention builds on this principle and seeks to harmonise and codify environmental offences at the international level. By mandating cooperation among state parties, it reinforces the understanding that environmental harm often transcends national borders. The Contracting party is obligated to take necessary legislative measures, for crimes committed not only within its territory, but also extra-territorially. Additionally, Parties must consider taking legislative measures when an offence is committed against one of their nationals (Article 33). In doing so, the Convention addresses long-standing regulatory gaps and strengthens accountability, making it harder for environmental offenders to evade justice through jurisdictional loopholes.
Comprehensive legal framework: expansion of environmental criminalization
A key feature of the Convention is its broad scope of criminalization, covering offences such as pollution, chemical substance misuse, ship-source pollution, mining, biodiversity destruction, habitat degradation and invasive alien species, among others. Previously, these issues were often addressed in isolation and not always with criminal repercussions, but the Convention consolidates it into a unified legal framework. Upon ratification, State Parties will be legally required to introduce or amend domestic laws criminalizing these offences across multiple legislative domains. For example, under Article 19, if a company illegally ships waste to another country without proper authorisation, it could be prosecuted under multiple areas of law such as environmental protection statutes, corporate regulations or criminal law depending upon the nature of the offences and the parties involved.
Recognition of offences comparable to ecocide at a regional and national level
Article 31 of the Convention criminalizes severe environmental offences that cause irreversible, widespread and substantial damage to ecosystems. This provision reflects ongoing international efforts to recognize ecocide as a crime under international criminal law, alongside crimes such as genocide and crimes against humanity. Crucially, in September 2024, Vanuatu, Fiji and Samoa submitted a formal proposal to the ICC regarding the introduction of ecocide as a fifth international crime under the Rome Statute. This proposal is still under consideration. Whilst the CoE’s Convention is primarily regional (not international) in scope, its uptake, provisions and generalised support for its introduction within legal and political spheres may positively influence the expansion of international legal frameworks such as the introduction of an international crime of ecocide within the Rome Statute.
The Convention provides for the prosecution of offences within national legal systems, allowing for arguably more effective prosecution of environmental offences. By addressing corporate responsibility and cross-border environmental harm, the Convention offers a practical and enforceable approach to holding perpetrators - both natural and legal - accountable and strengthening environmental protection. Thus, in many respects, the Convention offers a pragmatic approach to achieving environmental protection.
Finally, it must be noted that the CoE’s Convention may also encourage other regional bodies to take similar action regarding environmental crime, as well as further emboldening legislative action at the national level in Europe and beyond. Belgium has already introduced a domestic ecocide provision in 2024, as well as similar legislation progressing in numerous other countries such as Peru, Brazil, Scotland, Italy and Mexico. The Convention will undoubtedly stoke this flame to burn brighter both by its direct application in CoE member states, and by indirectly influencing legislative change outside of the CoE.
Corporate liability and accountability
The Convention requires states to ensure that legal persons, i.e. companies, business entities and other corporate entities, can be held liable when offences are committed for their benefit by natural persons in positions of control or representation (Article 34). The Convention prescribes that sanctions for offences committed would be “effective, proportionate and dissuasive” including monetary penalties, disqualification from public contracts, judicial winding-up orders and, where appropriate, obligations to implement environmental due diligence schemes.
Article 33(1)(d) also obliges the States to assert jurisdiction not only on the offence committed within its borders but also abroad. This could therefore prevent corporations from evading liability for offences committed outside of their home state, which is so often the case with multinational companies operating internationally. Nevertheless, the Convention does provide an option for ratifying states to ‘reserve’ the application of the Article 33(1)(d) which is discussed below in the section of limitations.
On a more positive note, the Convention places a lot of emphasis on transparency, with judicial authorities permitted to publish legal decisions in cases of public interest. Thus, this encourages enhanced public participation and engagement with crucial environmental issues. The monitoring mechanism (consisting of the representatives of the Parties to the Convention) also serves as an important safeguard to ensure the Convention’s long-term effectiveness, compliance and relevance over years to come.
Victim and whistleblower protections: strengthening access to justice
Another key asset of the Convention is its introduction of protection mechanisms for witnesses, whistleblowers and individuals cooperating with investigations or prosecutions. This ensures safeguards against retaliation and intimidation (Articles 43-45) which are depressingly vital for environmental defenders. The protection even extends to family members and close associates of affected individuals as well.
Additionally, Article 39 grants individuals with sufficient legal interest, including non-governmental organizations, the right to participate in criminal proceedings as civil parties. This provision enhances public access to justice, ensuring that victims and advocacy groups can actively contribute to environmental prosecutions.
Missed opportunities and areas for improvement
Despite these aforementioned advancements, the Convention faces critical limitations that may hinder its effectiveness. These challenges stem from ratification requirements, legal inconsistencies, limitations of corporate liability provisions and jurisdictional constraints, all of which impact its implementation across member states.
Challenges in ratification and regional scope
For the Convention to enter into force, it requires a minimum of ten ratifications, including at least eight from CoE member states. While it would be binding upon any state which becomes a party to it after this threshold is reached - which could include states outside of the CoE in theory (under Articles 53 and 54, discussed below) - in reality the Convention’s scope remains largely regional, raising concerns about its limited global influence.
Even within Europe, questions can be raised as to whether this Convention really breaks any new ground. As mentioned above, the EU’s Environmental Crime Directive is seen by some to have outshone the Convention in terms of timing, efficacy and enforcement. It is true that, given the Convention’s alignment with the EU Directive, ratification of the Convention is expected relatively soon by most EU member states, as these EU states are already bound to transpose the Directive into national law by 2026. However, it would arguably mean the Convention has very little added benefit if its only signatories are EU member states.
The Convention’s true effectiveness will only be realized once non-EU states ratify it under Article 53 or 54 of the Convention, ensuring broader implementation beyond the EU. First and foremost, it will be interesting to see whether CoE states which are not members of the EU - for example, the UK, Switzerland or Turkey - will opt to ratify the CoE Convention. What is more, this specific Convention is open to signature by states who are not members of the CoE when they have been involved in the drafting process (Article 53) or are approved by signatories to the convention and the CoE’s Committee of Ministers (Article 54). If such non-EU states would take up this opportunity, the Convention would hold the potential to surpass the Environmental Crime Directive in terms of geographical scope.
Weakening of provisions and corporate liability concerns
The Convention is strongly influenced by the EU’s Environmental Crime Directive, reflecting the dominant role of EU member states in negotiations. However, certain provisions have been weakened, likely due to lobbying efforts. A key distinction between the Directive and the Convention is the mens rea threshold for criminal liability. The Directive allows for the prosecution of certain offences "where the conduct is unlawful and carried out with at least serious negligence," particularly when the environmental harm results in death, injury, or major damage. Conversely, the threshold in the Convention requires intent, which is notoriously difficult to prove in relation to companies. Thus, the Convention’s higher threshold will likely result in a smaller number of successful corporate prosecutions. Additionally, the high standard of proof required for criminal cases further complicates enforcement, particularly against corporate offenders. Without the inclusion of serious negligence as a basis for liability for any offence, the Convention raises the burden on the prosecution, potentially limiting its effectiveness in holding corporations accountable for severe environmental harm.
Failure to recognize the right to a healthy environment
Despite its advancements, the Convention fails to formally recognize the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment as a fundamental human right. Europe remains the only continent that has yet to enshrine this right in its legal framework, despite growing international consensus. As Senior Attorney Sebastian Duyck of the Center for International Environmental Law stated: “It’s outrageous that in 2025, Europe still hasn’t legally recognised the right to a healthy environment as a basic human right.” While the Reykjavík Declaration, referenced in the Convention’s preamble, reinforces the CoE’s commitment to human rights, democracy, and the rule of law and recent positive decisions of the European Court of Human Rights for climate activists have been upheld, the Convention still fails to establish a binding legal obligation for environmental rights. This omission weakens the Convention’s impact, reducing environmental protection to a policy goal rather than an enforceable right, thus limiting its effectiveness in ensuring accountability for environmental harm.
Implementation challenges across member states
Difficulties could also arise in terms of inconsistent implementation of the Convention within CoE member states due to variations in domestic criminal provisions, enforcement mechanisms, jurisdictional constraints, public support and parliamentary will. While the Convention allows flexibility in defining serious offences and relies heavily on national environmental provisions, this could lead to inconsistent enforcement and implementation.
For example, some jurisdictions generally favour civil or regulatory offences over criminal prosecution, which could weaken the Convention's intended deterrent effect in practice. Likewise, while the Convention mandates corporate accountability (Article 34), states explicitly retain discretion in terms of corporate liability type (criminal, civil or administrative) and enforcement mechanisms vary. This is seen tangibly in the fact that certain states already criminalize corporate environmental offences while others rely on civil penalties, or none at all. Jurisdictional constraints also affect enforcement, particularly for transnational environmental crimes, as provisions for extradition, mutual assistance and cross-border cooperation requires strong collaboration amongst Parties. Differences in extradition laws will likely hinder prosecution against corporations operating in multiple jurisdictions.
Jurisdictional reservations
A further challenge is the reservation clause (Article 56) which allows states “the right not to apply or apply only in specific cases” Article 33(1)(d) which concerns jurisdiction over offences committed by their nationals abroad. While this flexibility is meant to encourage broader ratification, it may inadvertently lead to creating enforcement gaps. Corporations could exploit these gaps by relocating environmentally harmful activities to jurisdictions of non-ratifying states. To an extent this could increase environmental damage in regions where stringent regulations are not a priority, particularly in the Global South. Nonetheless, this is a risky strategy for corporations to take, as contracting states can withdraw such a reservation at any time by means of declaration and align themselves with other contracting parties, therefore reducing divergences across states and exposing evasive corporations to liability.
Concluding remarks
The CoE’s new Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law marks a significant step forward in addressing environmental crimes, even though it stops short of explicitly recognising ecocide. Much of the strength of the Convention lies in its ability to address transboundary environmental harm, impose criminal liability on both natural and legal persons, as well as enhance transparency by supporting involvement of NGOs and increasing public information. While the omission of a formally recognized right to a healthy environment and an explicit ecocide offence are disappointing limitations, they do not diminish the Convention’s practical utility in prosecuting offences comparable to ecocide, nor the fact that the Convention undoubtedly lays the groundwork for stronger international accountability mechanisms.
Looking forward, the Convention’s effectiveness will depend on quick ratification across both European and non-European states. While the adoption of the Convention itself is a unanimous decision, it remains to be seen if the unanimity holds during the ratification process. Ultimately, the success of the Convention now rests on the political will of states to ensure its ambitious framework is translated into meaningful enforcement through national laws and effective cooperation.
Europe has long spoken of its role as a guardian of the environment, a continent where ecological consciousness is woven into its political identity. This Convention as presently conceived, gesturing towards legislative commitment, if substantively enacted could transcend into meaningful stewardship. Whether this marks a significant step forward in addressing environmental offences remains a question which only time and action can answer.
*Abbi Hedges is an English and Welsh law solicitor and holds an LLM in Public International Law from the University of Amsterdam. Abbi has worked within a diverse range of public interest law firms and NGOs, with significant experience advising on environmental corporate accountability in Europe and South America. She is a member of WYCJ’s Global Legal Taskforce.
* Sukeerti Ganesh is a practicing advocate in India. She holds a Joint Masters degree in Nordic Environmental Law from Uppsala University, University of Eastern Finland and UiT Arctic University of Norway. Her interest lies in marine environmental law and climate change. Sukeerti is a member of WYCJ’s Global Legal Taskforce.
