COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the protection of the environment through criminal law and replacing Directive 2008/99/EC
Date: 2021-12-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: criminal liability, cross-border cooperation, environmental law, environmental offence, environmental protection, environmental statistics, fight against crime, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, penalty, pollution control measures

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 15.12.2021  SWD(2021) 465 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL   on the protection of the environment through criminal law and replacing Directive 2008/99/EC       {COM(2021) 851 final} - {SEC(2021) 428 final} - {SWD(2021) 466 final}  
 
 
             Table of Contents 

1 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ................................................................. 9 

  THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME DIRECTIVE ............................................................................................... 10 
  EVALUATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME DIRECTIVE ..................................................................... 10 
  EU CONTEXT ........................................................................................................................................... 12 
INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT....................................................................................................................... 13 

2 

PROBLEM DEFINITION AND DRIVERS ........................................................................................... 14 

  WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS AND DRIVERS THAT THE REVIEW OF THE DIRECTIVE SEEKS TO ADDRESS? .... 14 
Problem  1:  The  Directive’s  scope  is  outdated  and  defined  in  a  complex  way,  hindering 

effective investigations, prosecutions and cross-border cooperation. ..................................................................... 14 

Problem  2:  Unclear  definitions  of  environmental  crime  which  may  hinder  effective 

investigations, prosecutions and cross-border cooperation .................................................................................... 20 

Problem  3:  Sanction  levels  are  not  sufficiently  effective  and  dissuasive  in  all  Member 

States  21 

Problem 4: Insufficient cross-border cooperation. ................................................................................... 25 
Problem 5: lack of statistical data............................................................................................................. 26 
Problem 6: ineffective enforcement chain ................................................................................................. 28 

  HOW WILL THE PROBLEMS EVOLVE WITHOUT INTERVENTION (BASELINE)? ............................................. 29 

3  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? .............................................................................................................. 32 

  LEGAL BASIS ........................................................................................................................................... 32 
  SUBSIDIARITY: NECESSITY OF EU ACTION AND ADDED VALUE OF EU ACTION ....................................... 32 

4 

OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? ................................................................................... 34 

  GENERAL OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................. 35 
  SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................... 36 

5  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? ........................................................................ 36 

  OPTIONS DISCARDED AT AN EARLY STAGE .............................................................................................. 36 

Repeal the Directive .................................................................................................................................. 36 
Address the identified problems only through non-binding measures ...................................................... 37 

  RELEVANT POLICY OPTION: REPLACING THE DIRECTIVE ......................................................................... 38 

6 
DESCRIPTION, ASSESSMENT AND COMPARISON OF THE SUB-OPTIONS UNDER THE 
OPTION TO AMEND THE DIRECTIVE ....................................................................................................... 38 

  OBJECTIVE 1: UPDATING THE SCOPE OF THE DIRECTIVE; INTRODUCE A SIMPLE MECHANISM TO KEEP THE 
DIRECTIVE UP-TO-DATE ALSO IN THE FUTURE ................................................................................................... 39 
  Option 1 a): Update the existing list of legislation in the annexes, add new relevant crime 

categories to Article 3.............................................................................................................................................. 40 

  Option  1  b)  Change  the  approach  to  define  ‘unlawfulness’  and  define  more  precisely 

which breaches of sectoral legislation are criminally relevant. .............................................................................. 41 

  Option  1  c):  Define  environmental  crime  in  the  Directive  without  the  requirement  of  a 

breach of relevant EU sectoral legislation .............................................................................................................. 42 
  Comparison of the options/preferred option ............................................................................................. 43 

  OBJECTIVE 2: CLEARER DEFINITIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME .......................................................... 43 

  Option 2 a): Define unclear terms more precisely in the Directive .......................................................... 44 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Option  2  b):  Eliminate  undefined  terms,  including  by  criminalising  risky  behaviour 

(endangerment crime).............................................................................................................................................. 45 
  Option 2 c): a combination of option 2a) and 2b) ..................................................................................... 46 
Stakeholder opinions ................................................................................................................................. 46 
  Comparison of the options/Preferred option ............................................................................................. 46 

  OBJECTIVE 3: IMPROVING THE PROPORTIONALITY AND DISSUASIVENESS OF SANCTION TYPES AND LEVELS

47 

  Option 3 a): Introduce minimum maximum sanctions levels .................................................................... 47 
  Option 3 b): Option 3a) plus aggravating circumstances and accessory sanctions ................................. 48 
  Option  3  c):  Option  3  b)  plus  an  obligation  to  link  the  level  of  fines  to  the  financial 

situation of legal person and/or illegal profits ........................................................................................................ 51 

All  options:  non-binding  guidance  e.g.  on  determining  of  illegal  benefits,  calculation  of 

illegal profits, financial situation of legal persons etc. ........................................................................................... 53 

  Coherence with EU sectoral legislation - relationship between criminal and administrative 

sanctioning systems ................................................................................................................................................. 53 
Stakeholder opinions ................................................................................................................................. 54 
  Comparison of the options/preferred option ............................................................................................. 55 

  OBJECTIVE 4: IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVE COOPERATION AND COORDINATION BETWEEN MEMBER STATES

55 

  Option – introducing a package of provisions directly fostering cross-border cooperation .................... 56 
Effectiveness, legal feasibility and coherence ........................................................................................... 56 
Efficiency ................................................................................................................................................... 57 
  Conclusion................................................................................................................................................. 58 

  OBJECTIVE 5: IMPROVING  DATA COLLECTION, STATISTICS AND REPORTING ON ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME

58 

  Option  5  a):  Oblige  Member  States  to  collect  and  regularly  report  to  the  Commission 

statistical data on environmental crime proceedings combined with further supporting measures ........................ 58 

  Option  5  b):  Option  5  a)  plus  an  obligation  of  the  Member  States  to  collect  and  report 

statistical data according to harmonised common standards ................................................................................. 60 
Efficiency ................................................................................................................................................... 61 
  Comparison of the options/preferred option ............................................................................................. 64 

  OBJECTIVE 6: IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVE OPERATION OF THE ENFORCEMENT CHAIN.............................. 64 
Insert  in  the  Directive  obligations  that  directly  strengthen  the  effectiveness  of  the  law 

enforcement chain ................................................................................................................................................... 64 
Stakeholder opinions ................................................................................................................................. 67 
Efficiency ................................................................................................................................................... 67 
  Conclusion................................................................................................................................................. 70 

7 

8 

INDIRECT IMPACTS OF A MORE EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME DIRECTIVE ... 70 

PREFERRED PACKAGE ........................................................................................................................ 72 

9  MONITORING MEASURES................................................................................................................... 76 

Annexes 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION................................................................................................. 80 

ANNEX 2A: METHODS .................................................................................................................................... 83 

ANNEX 2B: ANALYTICAL MODELS - COSTS ........................................................................................... 85 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3: WHO IS CONCERNED AND HOW? ......................................................................................... 123 

ANNEX 4: BASELINES ................................................................................................................................... 127 

ANNEX 5: ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS ............................................... 167 

ANNEX 6: COMPARATIVE TABLE PROVISIONS ON PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION ............ 207 

ANNEX 7: PUBLIC CONSULTATION REPORT ....................................................................................... 234 

ANNEX 8: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION –SYNOPSIS REPORT ................................................. 268 

ANNEX 9: INTERVENTION LOGIC ............................................................................................................ 293 

ANNEX 10: OPTIONS TABLE ....................................................................................................................... 293 

List of tables for the Impact Assessment 

Number and name of the Table  

Page of the Table  

Table 1, Number of article 3 offences per maximum prison sanction 
per Member States 

P.23 

Table  2,  EU  objectives  in  the  current  version  of  the  
Directive  versus  the  objectives  proposed  for  the 
review of the Directive 

P.35 

Table 3, estimated annual costs of establishing and maintaining focal 
points in the Member States 

P.57 

Table 4, Member State cost for Option 5a) 

Table 5, Member State costs for Option 5 b) 

Table 6, Member States cost estimates  for additional 
training along the enforcement chain1 
Table 7, Reference data about the costs of awareness 
raising activities 
Table  8,    Estimated  cost  of  developing  national 
strategies in the Member States 

Table 9, Cost for the Commission implied by the Directive 

Table 10, Costs for Member States implied by the Directive 

P.61 

P.63 

P.68 

P.69 

P.70 

P.74 

P.75 

Glossary 

1 Details per Member State could be found in the study in annex. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

ADR 

CEPOL 

CITES 

CJEU 

CoE 

CPS 

CZK 

DG 

DGT 

Agreement 

European 
the 
International  Carriage  of  Dangerous  Goods  by 
Road 

concerning 

European Union Agency for Law Enforcement 
Training 

Convention 
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 

International  Trade 

on 

in 

Court of Justice of the European Union 

Council of Europe 

UK’s Crown Prosecution Service 

Czech koruna 

Directorate-General 

Directorate-General for Translation 

Duty holder 

Person  or  entity  bound  by  environmental 
legislation 

EA 

EC 

ECJ 

EEB 

EESC 

EFFACE 

Enforcement Action 

European Community 

European Court of Justice 

European Environmental Bureau 

European Economic and Social Committee 

European Union Action to Fight Environmental 

4 

 
 
EIO 

EJTN 

ELD 

ENCA 

ENEC 

ENPE 

Crime 

European Investigation Order 

European Judicial Training Network 

Environmental Liability Directive 

European Nature Conservancy Agency 

European  Network  against  Environmental 
Crime 

European  Network  of  Prosecutors  for  the 
Environment 

EnviCrimeNet 

Environmental Crime Network 

EMPACT 

EPA Network 

ESTAT 

EU 

EUFJE 

EUR 

Eurojust 

Europol 

European  Multidisciplinary  Platform  Against 
Criminal Threats 

Network  of  Heads  of  Environment  Protection 
Agencies 

European Statistics 

European Union 

European  Union  Forum  of  Judges  for  the 
Environment 

Euro 

European  Union  Agency  for  Criminal  Justice 
Cooperation 

European Union Agency for Law Enforcement 
Cooperation 

5 

 
 
EUTR 

GENVAL 

GNR/SEPNA 

IFJ 

IMO 

IMPEL 

Interpol 

IPA 

IPEC 

ISF 

ISF-P 

EU Timber Regulation 

Working  Party  on  General  Matters  including 
Evaluations 

Nature  and  Environmental  Protection  Service 
of the Republican National Guard 

Judicial Training Institute 

International Maritime Organisation 

Union 

European 
Implementation 
Environmental Law 

Network 

for 
Enforcement 

and 

the 
of 

The International Criminal Police Organization 

Croatia’s 
Assistance 

Instrument 

for 

Pre-accession 

Intelligence Project Environmental Crime 

Internal Security Fund 

Internal Security Fund (Police) 

IUU fishing 

Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing 

JHA 

KPI 

Market Abuse 
Directive 

Justice and Home Affairs  

key performance indicator 

Directive  2014/57/EU  of 
the  European 
Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 
on criminal sanctions for market abuse (market 
abuse directive) 

6 

 
 
MARPOL 

The 
International  Convention 
Prevention of Pollution from Ships 

for 

the 

Montreal Protocol 

Montreal  Protocol  on  Substances  that  Deplete 
the Ozone Layer 

MS 

NGO 

N/A 

OECD 

OJ 

OLAF 

OPC 

OWiG 

Ozone Regulation 

PIF-Directive 

PoPs Regulation 

Member States 

Non-Governmental Organisation 

not available or not applicable 

Organisation  for  Economic  Co-operation  and 
Development 

Official Journal of the European Union 

European Anti-Fraud Office  

Open Public Consultation 

German  Administrative  Offences  Act 
(Ordnungswidrigkeitengesetz) 

(EC)  No  1005/2009  of 

the 
Regulation 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16 
September 2009 on substances that deplete the 
ozone layer 

Directive  (EU)  2017/1371  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  5  July  2017 
on  the  fight  against  fraud  to  the  Union's 
financial interests by means of criminal law 

Regulation  (EU)  2019/1021  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 
on persistent organic pollutants 

7 

 
 
PSP 

REACH 

REFIT 

RIA 

RSB 

Public Security Police 

Registration,  Evaluation,  Authorisation  and 
Restriction of Chemicals 

European  Commission's  regulatory  fitness  and 
performance programme 

Regulatory Impact Assessment 

Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

SEO/BirdLife 

Sociedad  Española  de  Ornitología  –  BirdLife 
(Spanish Society of Ornithology – BirdLife) 

Stockholm Convention 

Stockholm  Convention  on  Persistent  Organic 
Pollutants 

SWD 

TECUM 

TFEU 

TFS 

UN 

UNEP 

UNODC 

USD 

WEEE 

Staff Working Document 

Tackling  Environmental  Crime 
Standardised Methodologies Project 

through 

Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European 
Union 

Transfrontier Shipment of Waste 

United Nations 

United Nations Environment Programme 

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 

United States Dollar 

Waste electrical and electronic equipment 

8 

 
 
 
1 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

Environmental crime is a growing concern causing significant damage to the environment and 
to citizens’ health within and beyond the Union.2 Providing perpetrators with very high profits 
and  relatively  low  risks  of  detection,  organised  crime  groups  operating  across  the  Union’s 
internal  and  external  borders  are  increasingly  attracted  to  environmental  crime  activities. 
Perpetrators  often  go  unpunished  despite  the  seriousness  of  the  economic,  social  and 
environmental impacts environmental crime can have.  

Over the past decade, the need of environmental protection has become a major concern for 
the  EU,  which  gradually  stepped  up  its  efforts  to  combat  offences  that  are  harmful  to  the 
environment. The Commission has acknowledged that crimes like illegal deforestation, water, 
air and soil pollution, traffic  in ozone-depleting  substances,  poaching, overfishing  and other 
offences  heavily  damage  biodiversity,  harm  human  health  and  destroy  whole  ecosystems. 
Environmental  crime  often  comes  with  corruption,  money  laundering,  violence,  organised 
crime and documents forgery.  

Environmental crime also causes high economic costs including too low market prices and the 
loss of business of legal operators due to unfair competition from illegal operators (e.g. in the 
waste management sector). This further entails the loss of fiscal revenues.  

According to estimates of UNEP and Interpol,3 published in June 2016, the annual loss related 
to environmental crime has been estimated to range between US$ 91–258 billion. This makes 
environmental crime the fourth  largest  criminal  activity in  the world  after drugs trafficking, 
human trafficking, and counterfeiting. It is growing at annual rates of between 5 and 7%. The 
top four environmental crimes are illegal trafficking in waste and in wildlife species, pollution 
crimes, and illegal trading in hazardous substances.4 

 Figures  for  the  EU  and  the  Member  States  are  scattered  and  not  collected  according  to 
comparable  standards  and  are  available  only  for  certain  sub-markets.  A  recently  published 
study5 provides estimates on the most profitable criminal markets in the EU among which are 
illicit waste trafficking and illegal wildlife trade (glass eels only). According to the study, in 
2019  annual  revenues  deriving  from  illicit  non-hazardous  waste  trafficking  (both  within 
national  boundaries  and  abroad)  range  between  EUR  1.7  billion  and  EUR  12.9  billion.  For 

2 According to Interpol and the United Nations Environment Programme, environmental crime is the fourth largest criminal 
activity in the world, growing at a rate between 5%-7% per year. UNEP-INTERPOL Rapid Response Assessment: The Rise 
of Environmental Crime, June 2016. 
3 UNEP-INTERPOL Rapid Response Assessment: The Rise of Environmental Crime, June 2016. 
4  European  Union  Agency  for  Criminal  Justice  Cooperation.  (2021).  Report  on  Eurojust’s  Casework  on  Environmental 
Crime. Criminal justice across borders.  
5 Mapping the risk of serious and organised crime infiltrating legitimate businesses, final report, study commissioned by DG 
Home and Migration, March 2021. 

9 

 
 
                                                 
hazardous  waste  trafficking,  annual  revenues  range  between  EUR  2.1  billion  and  EUR  2.4 
billion.6  

A  2017  EUIPO  study  found  that  for  the  EU  as  a  whole,  the  estimated  total  sales  lost  by 
legitimate  manufacturers  of  pesticides  due  to  counterfeiting  amounted  to  13.8%  of  sales  or 
EUR 1.3 billion each year.7 As an indirect economic impact, i.e. resulting from lost sales in 
other sectors as well, the study estimated an additional annual loss of EUR 1.5 billion.8 Trade 
in  illicit  pesticides  impacts  government  revenue  as  well  (household  income  taxes,  social 
security contributions and corporate income taxes), which were roughly estimated at EUR 238 
million.9  

  1.1 

The Environmental Crime Directive 

The  Environmental  Crime  Directive10  (hereafter  ‘the  Directive’)  is  the  main  horizontal  EU 
instrument  to  protect  the  environment  through  criminal  law.  The  Directive’s  approach  to 
defining  a  set  of  EU  environmental  crimes  requires  an  infringement  of  relevant  sectoral 
legislation  as  listed  in  two  annexes  to  the  Directive.  Article  3  of  the  Directive  describes 
additional  constituent  elements  for  various  environmental  crime  categories  that  make 
infringing sectoral legislation an environmental crime.  

The  Directive  obliges  Member  States  to  ensure  effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive 
sanctions  for  environmental  crime  (Article  5).  Determining  the  type  and  level  of  criminal 
penalties did not fall within EC competence at that time (pre-Lisbon). The Directive does not 
require criminal liability of legal persons (Arts. 6, 7).  

  1.2 

Evaluation of the Environmental Crime Directive 

The Commission has evaluated the Directive in 2019/20 and published its results in October 
2020.11  It  has  found  that  the  Directive  had  added  value,  as  it  defined  for  the  first  time  a 
common  legal  framework  for  environmental  criminal  offences  and  required  effective, 
dissuasive and proportionate sanctions. However, the Directive did not  have much effect on 
the ground: the number of environmental crime cases successfully investigated and sentenced 

6  When  examining  the  volume  of  hazardous  waste  disappearing  as  a  proportion  of  waste  generated,  the  UK  (64%), 
Slovakia (57%), Lithuania (54%) and Austria (54%) record the highest, whilst Bulgaria (1%), Estonia (1%) and Greece (3%) 
record the lowest.  
7 European Union Intellectual Property Office (2017). The Economic Cost of IPR Infringement in the Pesticides Sector, p. 13 
https://euipo.europa.eu/tunnel-web/secure/webdav/guest/document_library/observatory/resources/research-and-
studies/ip_infringement/study10/pesticides_sector_en.pdf. 
8 Ibid., p. 16. 
9 Ibid., p. 17. 
10  Directive  2008/99/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  protection  of  the  environment  through 
criminal law (Environmental Crime Directive) of 19 November 2008, OJ L 328, 6.12.2008, pp. 28–37.  
11 Commission staff working document, Evaluation of Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of  19  November  2008  on  the  protection of  the  environment  through  criminal  law  (Environmental  Crime  Directive),  SWD 
(2020) 259 final of 28 October 2020 (part I, part II, executive summary).  

10 

 
 
                                                 
stayed at a very low level and generally did not show any significant upward trends over the 
past 10 years.  

Figure: Number of convictions for environmental crime in HR, CZ, DE, LV, PT and ES12 
from 2008 to 2018.13 

Moreover,  the  sanction  levels  imposed  were  too  low  to  be  dissuasive  and  cross-border 
cooperation did not take place in a systematic manner.  

The  Directive’s  lack  of  effectiveness  in  practice  is  partly  due  to  the  generic  nature  of  its 
provisions. This can be explained by the EC-legislator’s limited competences in the field of 
criminal  law  under  pre-Lisbon  conditions,  which  did  not  allow  going  into  more  detail, 
especially on sanctions.14  

In  addition,  poor  enforcement  in  the  Member  States  contributes  largely  to  the  Directive  not 
having much effect on the ground. The evaluation found considerable enforcement gaps in all 
Member  States  and  at  all  levels  of  the  enforcement  chain  (police,  prosecution  and  criminal 
courts). Deficiencies in the Member States include a lack of resources, specialised knowledge, 
awareness  and  prioritisation,  cooperation  and  information  sharing  and  an  absence  of 
overarching  national  strategies  to  combat  environmental  crime  involving  all  levels  of  the 
enforcement  chain  and  a  multi-disciplinary  approach15.  Moreover,  the  lack  of  coordination 
between the administrative and criminal law enforcement and sanctioning tracks often hinders 
effectiveness.  

It  was  also  found  that  the  lack  of  reliable,  accurate  and  complete  statistical  data  on 
environmental  crime  proceedings  in  the  Member  States  did  not  only  hamper  the 
Commission’s  evaluation  but  also  prevents  national  policy-makers  and  practitioners  from 
monitoring the effectiveness of their measures.  

12 ES shows, however, a stable upwards trend. It must be noted that ES environmental criminal law criminalised every breach 
of sectoral relevant legislation. Moreover, ES has established functioning cross-border cooperation with PT and invested into 
specialisation of law enforcement authorities, the latter being regarded as most important measure for effective environmental 
crime measures. 
13  Source:  Member  States  data  sheet,  provided by  national  ministries  for  HR,  CZ,  DE,  LV, PT,  and,  for  ES:  8th  Round of 
Mutual  Evaluations  -  'The  practical  implementation  and  operation  of  European  policies  on  preventing  and  combating 
Environmental Crime'. Report on Spain, 2019, p. 24. 
14 See: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 October 2007.Commission of the European Communities v Council of 
the European Union. Case C-440/05, para 70. 
15 Evaluation report, pp. 32-33. See p. 33 of the Evaluation report for further details on sources. 

11 

 
 
 
                                                 
Based on the results of the evaluation, the Commission decided to review the Directive. The 
Commission  Work Programme  2021  schedules a legislative  proposal  for  the revision of the 
Directive16 in December 2021.  

  1.3 

EU context 

The current  Commission  adopted  the Green Deal  Communication along with  a Biodiversity 
strategy.  In  July  2021,  the  Commission  presented  a  package  with  concrete  proposals  for  a 
Green New Deal, aimed at reducing emissions by 55% by 2030 and at making Europe climate 
neutral  by  205017.  It  states  that  ‘the  Commission  will  (…)  promote  action  by  the  EU,  its 
Member  States  and  the  international  community  to  step  up  efforts  against  environmental 
crime’.  

In  2016,  the  Commission  adopted  the  EU  Action  Plan  against  Wildlife  Trafficking18  to 
improve environmental compliance in  the field  of wildlife trafficking.  This  was followed in 
2018  by  an  Action  Plan  to  improve  environmental  compliance  and  governance.19  In  this 
context, the Commission set up the Environmental Compliance and Governance Forum as a 
high-level expert group to steer the Action Plan’s implementation and to serve as a platform 
for exchanges. Participants of the Forum are European networks of environmental inspectors 
(IMPEL),20  specialised  police  (EnviCrimeNet),  environmental  prosecutors  (ENPE),21  judges 
(EUFJE)22  focusing  on  national  environmental  crime  strategies,  specialised  training  of 
practitioners, sharing information and best practices, and cross-border cooperation.  

The EU Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment (EU SOCTA) 2021 has identified 
“environmental  crime”  amongst  the  key  crime  threats  facing  the  EU.23  On  this  basis, 
environmental crime has been included in the EMPACT 2022 – 2025.24  

The  new  EU  Strategy  to  tackle  Organised  Crime  covering  the  period  from  2021  to  2025  – 
presented by the Commission in April 2021 – keeps environmental crime as one of the future 
priorities of the EU’s fight against organised crime.25  

16  2021  Commission  Work  Programme,  https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2021-commission-work-programme-key 
documents_en.. 
17  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  'Fit  for 55': delivering  the  EU's  2030  Climate  Target  on  the  way  to  climate 
neutrality COM/2021/550 final; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0550.  
18  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking, COM/2016/087 final; https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2016%3A87%3AFIN.  
19Commission Communication, EU actions to improve environmental compliance and governance, COM (2018) 10 final of 
18 January 2018. 
20 https://www.impel.eu//. 
21 https://www.environmentalprosecutors.eu/. 
22 https://www.eufje.org/index.php?lang=en. 
23https://www.europol.europa.eu/activities-services/main-reports/european-union-serious-and-organised-crime-threat-
assessment.  
24 Already the preceding EMPACT 2018–2021 contained environmental crime as a priority, but with a more limited scope.  
25  EU  Strategy 
say/initiatives/12735-Fighting-organised-crime-EU-strategy-for-2021-25_en.  

tackle  Organised  Crime  2021-2025;  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-

to 

12 

 
 
                                                 
The EU Security Union Strategy26 presented by the Commission in June 2020 also identifies 
environmental  crime  as  an  increasingly  profitable  business  for  organised  crime,  requiring 
further actions 

  1.4 

International context 

EU action in the area of environmental crime takes place in a wider context of international 
agreements  and  moves  to  combat  crime,  such  as  the  UN  Convention  against  Transnational 
Organised  Crime  (UNTOC)27  and  the  UN  Conventions  against  corruption28  and  money 
laundering29.  The  UNTOC  e.g.  sets  a  framework  for  international  cooperation  to  combat 
transnational  organised crime groups.  It  applies  to  crimes that according to  national  law  are 
punishable by a maximum sanction of at least four years.30 However, most Member States do 
not provide for the required level of sanctions31 and thus the Convention is not applicable to 
most environmental crimes.  

The  Council  of  Europe  (CoE)  is  currently  reviewing32  its  1998  Environmental  Crime 
Convention.  The  Convention  has  been  the  first  international  instrument  to  define 
environmental crime and require adequate sanctions.33 

More  recently,  the  UN  General  Assembly  has  called  on  its  Member  States34  to  make  illicit 
trafficking in protected species of wild fauna and flora a serious crime to ensure that effective 
international cooperation takes place under the UN Convention. 

Further, the G7 countries recently committed to strengthening international and transboundary 
cooperation to tackle and address illegal wildlife trade as a serious crime.35 

The  G20  countries  recently  reiterated  their  determination  to  step  up  efforts  to  end  illicit 
threats to nature and crimes, including illegal logging and illegal wildlife trade, as well as to 
intensify  cooperation  to  combat  illicit  financial  flows  deriving  from  crimes  that  affect  the 

26 Communication from the Commission on the EU Security Union Strategy. COM(2020) 605  
27United Nations Conventions against Transnational Organized Crime, General Assembly resolution 55/25 of 15 November 
2000; the UN Security Council recognised that, as a transnational organized crime, environmental crime sometimes benefits 
non-state armed groups and terrorist organizations. More specifically: “the illicit trade in natural resources including gold and 
other precious metals and stones, minerals, wildlife, charcoal and oil”. Resolution 2195(2014), 19 December 2014. 
28 United Nations Convention Against Corruption,UN General Assembly Resolution 58/4 of 31 October 2003. 
29  Financial  Action  Task  Force  (FATF),  International  standards  on  combatting  money  laundering  and  the  financing  of 
terrorism & proliferation, 2012. 
30 United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, Art. 3.  
31 EnviCrimeNet, Report on Environmental Crime, May 2016, p. 28. 
32 A working group has been established on how to revise the Convention to make it acceptable to Member States. The study 
would include substantial criminal law (including the link between criminal law and administrative law), sanctions (including 
reinstatement  of  the  environment),  cross-border  cooperation  and  investigative  tools  (including  concrete  implementation 
methods). Accordingly, there is a large overlap with the Environmental Crime Directive.  
33  Council  of  Europe,  Convention  on  the  Protection  of  the  Environment  through  Criminal  Law,  ETS  n°172,  4  November 
1998;  R.  Pereira,  ‘The  External  Dimensions  of  the  EU  Legislative  Initiatives  to  Combat  Environment  Crime’,  Spanish 
Yearbook of International Law, 2015, p. 252. 
34 UN General Assembly Resolution on Tackling illicit trafficking in wildlife, A/RES/75/311 (23 July 2021).  
35 G7 UK Presidency 2021, Climate and Environment Ministers’ Communique (21 May 2021). 

13 

 
 
                                                 
environment,  by  implementing,  inter  alia,  the  global  standards  and  recommendations  of  the 
Financial Action Task Force (FATF).36 

A number of environmental sectors are regulated by international agreements and instruments 
notably  the  Convention  on  International  Trade  in  Endangered  Species  of  Wild  Fauna  and 
Flora (CITES),37 the Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous 
Wastes and their Disposal (Basel Convention)38 or the Convention for Prevention of Pollution 
from  Ships  (MARPOL).39  These  international  instruments  have  been  transposed  into  EU 
sectoral  legislation.  Serious  violations  of  these  rules  have  been  addressed  by    EU  criminal 
law,  including  the  Environmental  Crime  Directive  and  sanctions  provisions  in  sectoral 
legislation.40 In general, sectoral legislation leaves it to the Member States to decide whether 
the sanctioning regime for violations should be criminal or non-criminal. 

2  PROBLEM DEFINITION AND DRIVERS  

  2.1 

What are the problems and drivers that the review of the Directive seeks 

to address? 

The  review  seeks  to  address  six  main  problems  inherent  in  the  Directive’s  current  limited 
scope  and  content  that  were  identified  during  the  evaluation  of  the  Directive  and  which   
contribute  to  the  Directive’s  ineffectiveness.  These  six  main  problem  are  described  in  more 
detail  below,  along  with  their  regulatory  and  practical  drivers.  The  order  of  presentation 
follows  the  structure  of  the  current  Directive  and  does  not  necessarily  correspond  to  the 
importance of the problems in terms of their effects. Actually, the problems interact and have 
a cumulative impact on the Directive’s (lack of) effectiveness.  

  2.1.1  Problem 1: The Directive’s scope is outdated and defined in a complex way, 

hindering effective investigations, prosecutions and cross-border cooperation. 

Criminal offences as defined by the Directive presuppose ‘unlawful’ behaviour defined as a 
breach of EU sectoral legislation listed in two annexes to the Directive. The listed legislation 
is  linked  to  nine categories of environmental criminal offences  described under Article 3 of 
the Directive (including pollution, waste management, shipment of waste, operation of a plant 
involving  dangerous  activities  or  materials,  the  handling  of  hazardous  materials,  wildlife 
crime,    the  handling  of  ozone-depleting  substances).  Most  of  these  crime  categories  require 
further  material  elements  that  make  a  breach  of  sectoral  legislation  a  crime  -  such  as 
substantial  damage  to  the  environment  or  serious  injury  to  persons.  Some  crime  categories 

36  G20  Environment  Communique  (July  2021).  FATF  Standards  identify  environmental  crimes  as  one  of  the  designated 
categories of crimes for money laundering. This means that countries should criminalise a sufficient range of environmental 
crimes for money laundering in line with their risk environment, see Report, Money Laundering from Environmental Crime 
(July 2021). 
37 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Washington, 3 March 1973.  
38 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, 22 March 1989.  
39 The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), London, 2 November 1973. 
40  For  example,  CITES  Regulation,  Directive  2005/35/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  7 September 
2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, pp. 11–21.  

14 

 
 
                                                 
 
criminalise the violation of relevant sectoral obligations without requiring any damage to be 
caused,  e.g.  Article  3  c)  regarding  the  shipment  of  waste,  or  Article  3  i)  regarding  ozone-
depleting substances, which both exclude negligible cases. 

The corresponding environmental legislation in the annexes is largely outdated, as 46 out of 
the  72  pieces  of  listed  legislation  meanwhile  have  been  repealed  or  replaced.  New  Union 
legislation,  such  as  the  Reach  Regulation  on  chemical  products  or  the  Plant  Protection 
Regulation  on  pesticides,  and  new  crime  categories,  such  as  forestry  crime,  illegal  logging 
and timber trade, ship-source pollution or trade in f-gases, have not been included since the 
Directive entered into force.  

Independently  of  the  Directive,  Member  States  are  generally  required  to  have  sanctions  for 
infringements  of  EU  sectoral  legislation41,  but  they  can  choose  to  have  administrative-law 
sanctions or criminal-law sanctions or a combination of these. EU environmental legislation 
does not, and cannot, set specific levels and types of criminal sanctions, only a criminal law 
directive can based on Article 83 TFEU. 

In addition, where crime areas are not covered by the Directive, it is for the Member States to 
decide whether or not to provide for criminal liability in their national legal frameworks and 
how  to  define  the  crime.42  Where  Member  States  do  not  at  all  criminalise  a  given 
environmental  crime  area,  cross-border  cooperation  becomes  difficult  for  lack  of  dual 
criminality.  Thus,  criminal  investigations  initiated  in  one  Member  State  have  to  be 
discontinued  or  limited.  The  same  issue  occurs  where  Member  States  define  differently  an 
environmental crime category. 

This  situation  adds  to  the  complexity  of  environmental  criminal  law  already  driven  by  its 
dependency on administrative legislation. Law enforcement practitioners are confronted with 
a  complex  and  scattered  legal  framework  at  both  EU-and  national  level,  which  lacks  an 
internal logic. This leads to environmental crime proceedings rather not being initiated, as the 
applicable rules are confusing and thus the prospects of success of a criminal investigations – 
in particular with regard to cross-border implications – are hard to evaluate.  

There  are  no  statistics  on  how  many  environmental  crime  cases  were  not  successfully 
investigated due to this issue. Statistics, however, evidence that the number of investigations 
and convictions has remained at a very low level across Member States over the past decade. 
A  large  majority  of  the  practitioners  and  their  networks  confirmed,  within  the  targeted 
stakeholder consultations that gaps in and uncertainties about the scope and the complexity of 
environmental crime as described above contribute to the ineffectiveness of the Directive.  

The  Directive  has  not  been  updated  in  line  with  the  development  of  EU  environmental  law 
and it does not respond to current challenges and new trends in environmental crime. It does 

41 See Case 68/88 Commission v Hellenic Republic [1989] ECR 2965, paras 23, 24 and 25. 
42  EU  Sectoral  legislation  contains  requirements  to  sanction  as  well,  but  leaves  typically  to  Member  States  whether  the 
sanctions would be criminal or non-criminal. 

15 

 
 
                                                 
not  cover  categories  of  offences  linked  to  EU  environmental  legislation  adopted  after  2008 
(see examples below).  

In particular, the Directive does not cover such activities harmful to  the environment and to 
human health  as illegal trade in  timber, unlawful manufacture, importation of placement on 
the market of chemical substances, including those which are banned or restricted, placing on 
the market of products breaching standards, which as a result of the product’s mass use cause 
damage to the environment or human health, illegal execution of development projects which 
cause  substantial  damage,  illegal  recycling  of  ships,  illegal  abstraction  of  water,  intentional 
introduction  or  spread  of  invasive  alien  species  of  Union  concern,  illegal  placing  on  the 
market of fluorinated greenhouse gases. The acceleration of climate change, biodiversity loss 
and  environmental  degradation,  paired  with  tangible  examples  of  their  devastating  effects, 
have  led  to  the  necessity  to  step  up  enforcement  action  against  illegal  harmful  activities 
accelerating such harmful effects. In these areas, even if sectoral law is advanced, there is still 
an  important  gap  in  terms  of  enforcement  (see  examples  below).  Infringers  often  face  low 
risks  of  detection,  and  even  lower  risks  of  prosecution  and  sanctioning,  while  financially 
gaining  from  the  avoidance  of  environmental  safeguards.  This  also  gives  rise  to  organised 
crime harming the environment.  

Also,  for  some  offences  under  the  current  Directive,  the  protection  is  of  limited  scope  and 
thus do not have the desirable effect to protect  the environment. For example, this concerns 
offences  linked  to  the  protection  of  wildlife.  In  the  last  four  decades,  global  wildlife 
populations fell by 60% as a result of human activities43. Globally, up to one million species 
are threatened with extinction. Biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse are one of the biggest 
threats facing humanity in the next decade.  

Example: Ship Recycling Regulation 

The adoption of Regulation (No) 1257/2013 on ship recycling (SRR) introduced obligations 
for ship owners regarding the recycling of large commercial seagoing vessels flying the  flag 
of  EU  Member  States.  This  Regulation  is  aimed  to  ‘prevent,  reduce,  minimise  and,  to  the 
extent practicable, eliminate accidents, injuries and other adverse effects on human health and 
the environment caused by ship recycling’.44 It seems, however, that the SRR has had so far 
limited effects because ship owners have managed to circumvent their legal obligations45. As 
the Regulation only applies to ship registered under EU/EEA flag, ship owners could  easily 
re-flagged  their  ship  and  avoid  any  sanction  for  non-compliance  with  the  previously 
mentioned regulation. Re-flagging appears in fact, to be the major problem of ship recycling 

43 World Wildlife Fund (2018), Living Planet Report - 2018: Aiming Higher. 
44 Regulation (EU) No 1257/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on ship recycling and 
amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  1013/2006  and  Directive  2009/16/EC,  article  1;  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32013R1257. 
45 According to the NGO Shipbreaking Platform, European shipping companies own 40% of the world fleet but only 5% of 
end-of-life  ships  were  registered  under  EU/EEA  flag  in  2020.  See  NGO  Shipbreaking  Platform,  Press  Release  –  Platform 
publishes list of ships dismantled worldwide in 2020; Press Release - Platform publishes list of ships dismantled worldwide 
in 2020 (shipbreakingplatform.org). 

16 

 
 
                                                 
according to recent data (OECD report, 2019).46 This has consequences for the economy, the 
environment  and  human  health.  Non-compliance  with  Article  6(2)(a)  of  that  Regulation 
which  requires  the  ship-owners  to  ensure  that  their  ships  destined  for  recycling  are  only 
recycled  in  the  specific  facilities  included  on  the  EU  List  of  ship  recycling  facilities  is 
currently not a subject to a strong regulative response.  

The use of ‘flag of convenience’ has allowed ship owners to avoid the sanctions under SRR 
Regulation47. Besides, the level of sanctions has not deterred ship owners from such practice 
as  most  Member  States  have  favoured  administrative  sanctions  over  criminal  ones  (e.g. 
Lithuania,  Hungary,  Latvia,  Belgium).48  Illegal  ship  recycling  is  sometimes  linked  to  other 
criminal conducts such as money laundering and terrorism. The transboundary nature of the 
offences requires a stronger legal framework at EU level to ensure greater responsibility and 
justifies using criminal sanctions.  

Example: EU Timber Regulation 
Illegal  logging  and  related  illegal  timber  trade  represent  a  persistent  problem  with  global 
consequences as it leads to deforestation. These crimes belong to the most profitable crimes 
worldwide and cause costs valued at US$51–152 billion annually according to a recent WWF 
report.49 According to another WWF report,50 the EU is responsible for almost EUR 3 billion 
of losses due to illegal logging, with  an import of around 20 million cubic meters of illegal 
timber  every  year.  These  undermine  efforts  to  reduce  emissions  from  the  forest  sector  and 
support  sustainable  management  of  forests.51  An  analysis  of  available  statistics  shows  that 
especially illegal logging is a frequent offence in Member States like BG, RO, HU, LV, and 
LT.52 To combat illegal timber trade, the EU has adopted the Timber Regulation (EUTR),53 
which  prohibits  the  placing  of  illegally  harvested  timber  and  products  and  includes  a 
provision on  sanctions. However, the EUTR is not included in the annexes of the Directive 
and there is no relevant offence in Article 3 ECD. Member States have put in place different 
types of sanctions, including criminal sanctions introduced in some Member States. However, 

46 OECD (2019), Ship recycling: An overview OECD science, technology and industry policy paper;  Ship recycling (oecd-
ilibrary.org). 
47  European  Commission  (June  2016).  Financial  instrument  to  facilitate  safe  and  sound  ship  recycling:  Final  report; 
financial_instrument_ship_recycling.pdf (europa.eu), p. 95. 
48  European  Commission  (2020). Relevant  national  laws  relating  to  the  enforcement  of  the  EU Ship  Recycling  Regulation 
and 
penalties; 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/pdf/waste/ships/MS%20enforcement%20provisions%20SRR%20(website).pdf.  
49  WWF.  (2019).  WWF  Enforcement  Review  of  the  EU  Timber  Regulation  (EUTR).  EU  Synthesis  Report. 
wwf_eutr_implementation_eu_synthesis_report_2019.pdf (panda.org), p. 3.  
50  WWF, 
Failing 
https://wwfeu.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/failingforests.pdf  
51  WWF.  (2019).  WWF  Enforcement  Review  of  the  EU  Timber  Regulation  (EUTR).  EU  Synthesis  Report. 
wwf_eutr_implementation_eu_synthesis_report_2019.pdf (panda.org), p. 3. 
52 See also Council of the European Union, “HR and HU Replies to Questionnaire 10954/19 on the State of Environmental 
Law in the EU.” 
53  Regulation  (EU)  No  995/2010  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  October  2010  laying  down  the 
obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market, OJ L 295, 12.11.2010, pp. 23–34. 

applicable 

Available 

Europe’s 

Forests 

timber 

illegal 

2016. 

trade. 

the 

at: 

17 

 
 
                                                 
there are large disparities54 and too low sanctions are imposed in practice, which hinders the 
effectiveness  and  the  credibility  of  the  national  enforcement  systems55  and  undermines  the 
effective implementation of EUTR.    
Example: chemicals legislation 
Numerous  reports  point  out  problems  with  the  enforcement  chemicals  legislation,  such  as 
REACH56, CLP57 and POPs58, and risks for human health and environmental which require a 
stronger legal framework.59  
Enforcement challenges and low sanctions imposed for breaches hamper the effectiveness of 
legislation and are an obstacle for a level playing field. For instance, regarding REACH and 
CLP, there are large disparities between national sanctioning systems and in several Member 
States the most serious infringements are addressed by relatively low administrative sanctions 
only. A study from 2020 showed clear differences in the enforcement practices of the Member 
States,  with  two  countries,  namely  Germany  and  Sweden,  accounting  for  two  thirds  of  the 
total  referrals  to  the  state  prosecutor  office,  and  one  country  imposing  40%  of  the 
administrative fines in the Union in the reporting period.60  

The  enforcement  shortcomings  prompted  the  Commission  to  commit  to  a  ‘zero  tolerance 
approach to non-compliance’61 as outlined in the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability. In this 
regard, extending the scope of chemicals offence under the Environmental Crime Directive is 
crucial  as  ‘currently  almost  30%  of  the  alerts  on  dangerous  products  on  the  market  involve 
risks due to chemicals, with almost 90% of those products coming from outside the EU and 

fin. 

668 

2017. 

COM(2018) 

54 For example, fines also vary from one country to another ‘ranging from €2,500 to €24,000,000, while in some cases there 
are  no  fixed  fines’,  see  WWF.  (2019).  WWF  Enforcement  Review  of  the  EU  Timber  Regulation  (EUTR).  EU  Synthesis 
Report. wwf_eutr_implementation_eu_synthesis_report_2019.pdf (panda.org).  
55 European Commission. (2018). Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Regulation (EU) 
No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 laying down the obligations of operators 
who place timber and timber products on the market (the EU Timber Regulation) Biennial report for the period March 2015 - 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
February 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0668&from=EN.  
56  Regulation  (EC)  No  1907/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  18  December  2006  concerning  the 
Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, 
amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 
1488/94  as  well  as  Council  Directive  76/769/EEC  and  Commission  Directives  91/155/EEC,  93/67/EEC,  93/105/EC  and 
2000/21/EC, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02006R1907-20211001. 
57  Regulation  (EC)  No  1272/2008  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16  December  2008  on  classification, 
labelling  and  packaging  of  substances  and  mixtures,  amending  and  repealing  Directives  67/548/EEC  and 1999/45/EC,  and 
amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  1907/2006,  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02008R1272-
20211001.  
58  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1021  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  June  2019  on  persistent  organic 
pollutants (recast), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02019R1021-20210315.  
59  European  Commission.  (2020).  Communication  from  the  commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the 
European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions:  Chemicals  Strategy  for  Sustainability 
Towards a Toxic-Free Environment. COM(2020) 667 final, resource.html (europa.eu), p. 9. 
60 European Commission. (2020). Technical assistance to review the existing Member States reporting questionnaire under 
articles 117(1) of REACH and 46(2) of CLP Final report. Final report_REACH-CLP MS reporting_2020.pdf (europa.eu), p. 
104. 
61  European  Commission.  (2020).  Communication  from  the  commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the 
European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions:  Chemicals  Strategy  for  Sustainability 
Towards a Toxic-Free Environment. COM(2020) 667 final, resource.html (europa.eu), p. 17. 

18 

 
 
 
                                                 
imported  articles  and  online  sales  representing  a  particular  challenge.62  Hence,  EU  action 
appear  to  be  necessary  to  ensure  harmonization  of  the  national  enforcement  systems  and  to 
strengthen the enforcement of REACH at the EU’s borders.63 
Example: Invasive Alien Species Regulation 
The illegal spread of Invasive Alien Species (IAS) can seriously harm the environment (e.g. 
extinction  of  indigenous  species)  and  the  economy  (e.g.  reducing  yields  from  agriculture, 
forestry  and  fisheries).  IAS  cost  the  European  economy  12  billion  euros  per  year64  and  are 
risky for the human health (e.g. serious allergies and skin problems; burns caused by the giant 
hogweed). IAS is one of the five major causes of biodiversity loss in Europe and in the world. 
According to the IUCN Red List, among the 1872 species considered as threatened in Europe, 
354 are directly  affected by  IAS.65 The increase of  IAS  is  linked to  intentional  introduction 
(e.g. pets, horticulture) and absence of effective control measures.  
Article  15  of  the  IAS  Regulation  provides  that  Member  States  shall  have  in  place  fully 
functioning  structures  to  carry  out  the  official  controls  necessary  to  prevent  the  intentional 
introduction of IAS of Union concern but several challenges appear in practice.  
Article  30  of  the  IAS  Regulation  requests  MS  to  ensure  that  infringements  of  IAS  related 
offences  are  punished  by  penalties,66  including  fines,  seizure  of  the  non-compliant  invasive 
alien  species  of  Union  concern  or  immediate  suspension  or  withdrawal  of  a  permit.  Some 
Member States have introduced criminal sanctions but there are serious discrepancies among 
them concerning the types and levels of criminal penalties. For example, the lowest maximum 
imprisonment  penalty  is  one  month  (Luxembourg)  while  Italy  and  Belgium  (Flanders) 
provide  for  the  highest  maximum  imprisonment  term  of  three  years  and  five  years, 
respectively.67 Sanctions are not comparable and in many instances not dissuasive which can 
hamper  tackling  illegal  IAS  related  activities  and  effective  cross-border  cooperation. 
Challenges exist also as regards detection of breaches and identification of offenders. 

Drivers 

There are two drivers to  the problem  of the Directive becoming outdated over time and not 
covering all relevant legislation.  

  The approach of the Directive to define environmental law is based on the breach  of 
sectoral  legislation  referred  to  in  the  annexes.  Although  this  reference  is  a  dynamic 
one  and  refers  to  the  legislation  in  annexes  in  its  up-to-date  form,  new  relevant 
sectoral legislation is not automatically covered. 

62 Ibid. 
63 Ibid, p. 18. 
64 Kettunen M. et al. (2009). Assessment of the impacts of IAS in Europe and the EU. 
65 Genovesi P, Carnevali L, Scalera R (2015). The impact of invasive alien species on native threatened species in Europe. 
66 Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
introduction 
management 
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1417443504720&uri=CELEX:32014R114.  
67 Viñuales J.E. 2019. Analysis of national provisions on penalties  – Article 30. Technical note prepared by IUCN  for the 
European Commission, p. 73. 

invasive 

species; 

spread 

alien 

and 

the 

of 

of 

19 

 
 
 
                                                 
  There is no easy and functioning  mechanism to update the Directive and its annexes 

and bring new legislation under its scope.  

Currently,  recital  15  of  the  Directive  states  “Whenever  subsequent  legislation  on 
environmental matters is adopted, it should specify where appropriate that this Directive will 
apply. Where necessary, Article 3 should be amended.” In practice, although new legislation 
has been adopted since 2008, it does not refer to the Environmental Crime Directive nor has 
Article  3  ever  been  amended  to  include  such  new  crime  categories.  Instead,  sectoral 
environmental  legislation  includes  its  own  rules  on  sanctioning  and  penalties  that  are  often 
generic  and  leave  the  choice  of  whether  and  when  criminal  sanctions  should  apply  to  the 
Member States. Ultimately, this is an issue of incoherence between the Directive and sectoral 
legislation that is addressed below under section 6.3.5.  

  2.1.2  Problem  2:  Unclear  definitions  of  environmental  crime  which  may  hinder 

effective investigations, prosecutions and cross-border cooperation 

Definitions in Article 3 contain flexible but unclear legal terms such as ‘substantial damage’, 
‘non-negligible  quantity’,  ‘negligible  quantity’,  ‘dangerous  activity’,  and  ‘significant 
deterioration‘, and thus leave much  room for interpretation. Their meaning  also  depends on 
the  circumstances  of  the  individual  case  and  the  environmental  crime  area  concerned.. 
Differences  in  interpretation  do  not  only  occur  between  Member  States,  but  even  within 
Member States.68 Uncertainty about the meaning of terms used to define environmental crime 
can lead to environmental crime investigations not be taken up69. Different views of what is a 
crime  can  also  lead  to  investigations  coming  to  a  halt,  hampering  cross-border  cooperation, 
for  example  that  a  European  Investigation  Order  or  European  Arrest  Warrant  is  not 
executed.70  This  contributes  to  a  situation  in  2020  where  environmental  crime  -  although 
deemed the fourth most profitable criminal activity in the world  - only accounted for 1% of 
the  cases  dealt  with  by  Eurojust71,  while  only  2148  out  of  1,2  million  (0.2%)  messages 
exchanged through Europol’s SIENA platform72 were related to environmental crime. There 
are no statistics on environmental crime cases that were not investigated or were stopped due 
to uncertainty about the legal terms used to define environmental crime. Yet, practitioners and 
their networks in the targeted stakeholder consultations confirmed that this problem is real.  

Drivers 

Member  States  have  mostly  not  defined  these  terms  further  in  their  transposing  laws.  For 
example, the term ‘substantial damage’ that is used under Article 3 a), b), d) and e) has been 

68 For a detailed overview of the Member States’ approach towards transposing the Directive on this point see SWD (2020) 
259 final, section 5.1.1. (undefined legal terms) and section 6.1.1. (level playing field). 
69 Europol response to stakeholder consultation. 
70 Eurojust, Report on Eurojust’s Casework on Environmental Crime - January 2021, p. 13. 
71 Ibid., p. 7. 
72 Secure Information Exchange Network Application (SIENA), a platform that enables the swift and user-friendly exchange 
of  operational  and  strategic  crime-related  messages  among  law  enforcement  officers  in  Member  States,  Europol  liaison 
officers and third parties with which Europol has agreements. 

20 

 
 
                                                 
transposed  by  most  Member  States  either  literally  or  by  using  similar  wording  such  as 
‘significant  damage’  or  ‘substantial  harm’,  without  further  refining  its  meaning73.  Where 
Member States did define this term, they did so in different ways. Some defined it financially 
(e.g.  with  regard  to  profits  lost  or  to  money  needed  to  restore  the  status  quo  ante),  while 
others focused on the quality of the environmental loss (e.g. in terms of size of the geographic 
area  polluted  or  destroyed,  in  terms  of  the time  and  effort  needed  to  restore  the  damage,  in 
terms of damage duration)74.   

  2.1.3  Problem 3: Sanction levels are not sufficiently effective and dissuasive in all 

Member States  

Although  after  the  Directive  entered  into  force,  sanction  levels  went  up  significantly  in  the 
Member States, there are still Member States that do not provide for maximum sanction levels 
that ensure effectiveness, dissuasiveness and proportionality- as shown in more detail below. 

Maximum  sanction  levels  available  in  Member  States  national  law  vary  largely  and 
are often not dissuasive. 

The following graph illustrates large differences in available maximum fines for e.g. Article 
3(h) offenses.  

73 See evaluation report for further details. 
74 CZ and SK define ‘substantial damage’ financially, with values ranging from €20,000 (CZ) to 26,660 (SK). CY, FI, LV, 
PT and RO use qualitative criteria, such as the damage being irreversible or long lasting. FR has issued detailed instructions 
in a Circulaire along the same lines. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure:  Maximum  levels  of  criminal  fines,  applicable  to  natural  persons  (EUR)  in  EU  Member  States  for  Article  3(h) 
offense, and median fine75 

The levels of maximum prison  penalties also  vary  significantly.  The  graph below illustrates 
large  differences  for  crimes  covered  by  Article  3(h).  A  common  understanding  of  what  are 
effective and dissuasive sanction levels has not emerged.  

Figure. Maximum criminal prison sentences available in national law for Article 3 (h) offenses. 50 
years=life imprisonment (Source: Evaluation report) 

Natural persons 

FR, IT, LT provide for maximum levels of financial penalties for natural persons below EUR 
100  000  for  some  Article  3  criminal  offenses,  while  BG,  NL,  RO,  and  SE  provide  for 
maximum fines below this threshold for all Article 3 offenses. The evaluation found that this 
amount  was  well  below  the  average  of  all  Member  States  together  and  unlikely  to  be 
dissuasive  in  all  circumstances,  given  that  environmental  crime  causes  enormous  harm  and 
illegal profits can amount to millions of euros. 

Also  with  regard  to  prison  penalties,  a  number  of  Member  States  only  provide  maximum 
penalties  of  3  years  or  less  in  their  national  law  for  environmental  crimes.  These  penalty 

75 A number of MS are not represented in the graph; this is the case for DE and BE, for technical reasons: they have very high 
maximum fines applicable to natural persons (MEUR 10.8 in DE, MEUR 0.8 in BE at Federal level, MEUR 4 in Flanders, 
MEUR 8 in Wallonia and in Brussels). Other Member States are not represented on the graph for the following reasons: in 
DK, no minimum or maximum fine levels are set by law; in HR, EE, FI and SI, the level of the fine is linked to the offender’s 
income, and in IT, the law only provides for a minimum fine, not a maximum one. 

22 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
levels  are  low  compared  to  minimum  levels  for  maximum  sanctions  in  other  Directives  on 
serious  crimes,  such  as  the  Anti-Money  laundering  Directive  (4  years),76  the  Counterfeiting 
Directive (5 to 8 years, depending on the crime),77 or serious drug trafficking offenses listed 
in the Council Framework Decision (5 to 10 years, depending on the crime).78  

Table 1, Number of article 3 offences per maximum prison sanction per Member States  

Legal persons  

Legal  persons  typically  have  much  more  financial  flexibility  and  capacity  to  compensate 
financial  penalties  than  natural  persons,  as  the  potential  risk  of  financial  penalties  can  be 
calculated and passed on to consumers.  

As  with  sanctions  for  natural  persons,  maximum  levels  of  fines  for  legal  persons  diverge 
significantly across Member States. E.g. maximum fines for offenses under Article 3(c), range 
from around MEUR 0.2 in LU to MEUR 250 in SE. Overall, many Member States remain at 
or below MEUR 0.5 for a number of Article 3 offences (BE, BG, CY, EL, FR, IT, LU, RO).  

Moreover,  although  linking  the  level  of  fines  to  the  level  of  illegal  profits  or  the  financial 
situation of the legal person can be an effective way to define proportionate sanction levels, 
only a few Member States use this approach in their national laws: NL, PL and AT base the 
level of fines on the annual turnover or income of the legal person79. HU takes into account 
the financial advantage gained from the offence or the financial situation of the legal persons. 

Sanction levels imposed in practice are too low to be dissuasive.  

Even where national criminal law provides for high maximum sanction levels, criminal judges 
do  not  make  full  use  of  the  available  sanction  range,  but  rather  stay  in  the  lowest  segment. 
Imprisonment sanctions are rare, and suspended in practice.80 

Example: Smuggling in Rotterdam  

76  Directive  (EU)  2018/1673  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  October  2018  on  combating  money 
laundering by criminal law OJ L 284, 12.11.2018, pp. 22–30. 
77 Directive 2014/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the protection of the euro and 
other currencies against counterfeiting by criminal law, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA OJ L 151, 
21.5.2014, pp. 1–8. 
78  Council  Framework  Decision  2004/757/JHA  of  25  October  2004  laying  down  minimum  provisions  on  the  constituent 
elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking OJ L 335, 11.11.2004, pp. 8–11. 
79 Evaluation report, p. 32. 
80 Europol in an interview highlighted that even if certain prison sentences are available in principle, their suspension might 
impact the effectiveness and dissuasiveness of the sanctions.  

23 

 
 
 
                                                 
In 2019, in the NL, the prosecution required an unsuspended prison sentence of 20 months for 
the import of six containers of illegal and environmentally harmful crop protection products 
of  an  estimated  value  of  MEUR  5  and  an  estimated  potential  illegal  profit  above  MEUR  4. 
The judge imposed a suspended sentence of 6 months and a fine of EUR 400 00081, while the 
smuggling  of  small  amounts  of  drugs  in  the  NL  is  typically  sanctioned  by  a  year 
imprisonment.  

Statistical data on the level of fines imposed are scarce (problem 5); notably some data exists 
for  FR,  IE  and  LV  on  average  fines.  For  natural  persons,  in  2016,  levels  of  fines  for 
environmental crime were in the order of EUR 5500 in FR, EUR 3500 in IE, and EUR 2000 
in LV.82 In IE, between 2004 and 2014, average fines of EUR 140083 were imposed. In FI and 
FR, average prison sentences of 5 months were given in 2016, whilst it was 21.5 months in 
LV.84  

For  legal  person,  several  studies  (on  DE85  and  other  Member  States86)  raised  doubts  on  the 
sanction levels imposed in practice. In IE, for the period 2004-2014, average fines amounted 
to EUR 700087. In 2016, average fines were EUR 21 000 in FI, EUR 16 000 in FR and EUR 
3500 in IE. In NL, the average criminal fine for companies was less than 1% of annual profit 
in  90%  of  cases88.  Given  the  high  profits  for  environmental  crimes  that  can  amounting  to 
millions of Euros, these levels are inappropriate. 

Additional consequences for cross-border cooperation (objective 4) 

Access  to  special  investigative  techniques  such  as  surveillance  of  telecommunications  and 
undercover  investigations  is  normally  conditional  on  the  seriousness  of  the  environmental 
crime defined by a certain minimum or maximum level of penalties that is available for the 
suspected crime. Member States that regard environmental offences as minor will only have 
the standard investigative tools at their disposal. This can prevent cross-border cooperation,89 
for example if surveillance measures, which are often linked to the penalty threshold, ordered 
in  one  Member  State  cannot  be  continued  or  complemented  in  another  Member  State 
involved.  

81 ‘Rechtssysteem schrikt pleger milieudelict onvoldoende af’, NRC Handelsblad, 8 July 2021, Interview with Rob de Rijck, 
national coordinating prosecutor for environmental crime in the Netherlands. 
82 Evaluation report, p. 246. 
83 Michael J. Lynch, Paul B. Stretesky & Michael A. Long (2019) Environmental crime prosecutions in Ireland, 2004–2014, 
International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 43:4, 277-293, p. 285. 
84 Evaluation report, p. 251. 
85 OECD as cited by Sina, S., “Environmental criminal law in Germany”, in Farmer, A., Faure, M.G. & Vagliasindi, G.M. 
(eds.), Environmental Crime in Europe, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2017, pp. 95-117. 
86 M. Faure, Environmental Liability of Companies, 2020, p. 84. 
87 Michael J. Lynch, Paul B. Stretesky & Michael A. Long (2019) Environmental crime prosecutions in Ireland, 2004–2014, 
International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 43:4, 277-293, p. 285. 
88 Netherlands Court of Auditors, Enforcing in the Dark: Combating to environmental crime and violations, part 2, 2021, p. 
56. 
89 Report on Eurojust’s Casework on Environmental Crime – January 2021, p. 13. 

24 

 
 
                                                 
Low maximum sanction levels  can also  hamper  the use of  EU- or international  cooperation 
instruments.  For  example,  the  UNTOC  –  that  sets  out  a  framework  for  international 
cooperation for serious crime – makes the use of investigative tools provided therein subject 
to a maximum penalty of at least 4 years of imprisonment, and the European Arrest Warrant 
to  a  maximum  penalty  of  at  least  1  year  of  imprisonment.  Here  also,  effective  criminal 
proceedings and cross-border cooperation can be hampered, if not made impossible.  

Stakeholders 

Stakeholders consider that fines and imprisonment sanction levels imposed in practice are not 
dissuasive:  65%  of  public  consultation  respondents  did  not  find  sanction  levels  sufficiently 
deterring and only 10% considered them satisfactory90. Whilst law enforcement practitioners 
repeatedly pointed out the low, non-dissuasive sanction levels imposed in practice.91 

Drivers 

The  main  problem  driver  is  the  lack  of  specificity  of  the  Directive,  which  only  requires 
sanctions to  be ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive’.  Pre-Lisbon,92 the  EC  legislator did 
not have the competence to regulate on sanction types and levels. This is now possible under 
the new Article 83 (2) TFEU. Hence, EU criminal law instruments adopted after the entry into 
force of the Lisbon Treaty contain minimum maximum levels of fines and prison sentences. 
For legal persons, there is often a catalogue of possible accessory sanction that Member States 
should make available, such as exclusion from public procurement procedures and grants.  

In  addition,  lack  of  awareness  of  the  harmfulness  of  environmental  crime  contributes  to 
criminal  judges  imposing  non-dissuasive  sanctions  (see  below  problem  6),  as  confirmed  by 
the  police  and  judiciary.  Thus,  many  cases  are  dismissed  in  court,  or  only  very  lenient 
sanctions imposed.93 

  2.1.4  Problem 4: Insufficient cross-border cooperation. 

The Directive did not prove to be a decisive element for fostering cross-border cooperation in 
practice.  Environmental  crime  cases  currently  amount  to  only  1%  of  total  Eurojust  cases,94 
although  environmental  crime  is  the  fourth  most  profitable  criminal  activity  globally,  and 
important environmental crime categories, such as waste trafficking and wildlife trafficking, 
frequently  involve  criminal  activity  in  several  Member  States.95  Europol  and  Eurojust 

90 Results of the open public consultation, Question 4, point c, 68% of respondents considered this the case to a large extent. 
The answers of businesses only are similar (50% agree, and 16% consider sanction levels to be sufficient). 
91 Evaluation report, p. 40, interview with Europol. 
92 The Commission had, in case C 176/03 (2005) been given the power to propose legislation in the area of community law 
(“first  pillar”)  requiring  Member  States  to  impose  effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive  criminal  penalties  for 
environmental offenses, although the MS retained the choice to determine the precise quantum and nature of penalties (para. 
49). 
93  IPEC  (Intelligence  Project  on  Environmental  Crime),  based  mainly  on  a  questionnaire  sent  to  EU  countries,  non-EU 
countries, and international organisations. 
94  Note  that  environmental  crime  cases  may  be  hidden  in  other  crime  cases  dealt  with  by  Europol,  e.g.  under  the  crime 
categories ‘organised crime’.  
95 Eurojust, Report onEurojust’s Casework on Environmental Crime, January 2021, p. 7. 

25 

 
 
                                                 
reported  small  improvements  in  cooperation  in  recent  years,  but  these  remain  overall 
insufficient.  For example, while in 2020 Eurojust reported 1264 new cases on swindling and 
fraud,  595  on  money  laundering  and  562  on  drug  trafficking,  only  20  new  cases  on 
environmental  crime  were  opened.  In  the  same  year,  only  3  out  of  74  newly  signed  Joint 
Investigation  Teams  and  6  out  of  260  existing  Joint  Investigation  Teams  related  to 
environmental crime.96 

Cooperation  and  coordination  are  also  necessary  within  Member  States,  since  detection, 
investigation  and  prosecution  may  all  involve  different  authorities.  Weak  domestic 
cooperation and coordination are also an issue mentioned under problem 6 below.  

Drivers  

transnational,  cross-border  environmental  crime. 

The  lack  of  a  more  harmonized  approach  to  fight  environmental  crime  creates  legal  and 
operational  obstacles  to  Member  State  authorities  to  effectively  cooperate  and  jointly 
intrusive 
investigate 
investigative tools are not available in all Member States. Further, as demonstrated above the 
limited scope of the Directive and vague terms used in the Directive to define environmental 
crime  can  result  in  dual  criminality  issues  during  cross-border  investigations.  The  Directive 
does  not  contain  provisions  directly  fostering  cross-border  cooperation  such  as  harmonised 
rules on jurisdiction, investigative tools or the set-up of national contact points.97 

In  particular, 

The Directive does not include any provision obliging Member States to work better together, 
e.g.  through  Europol,  Eurojust,  OLAF  and  the  professional  networks  during  investigations. 
These agencies and bodies play  a key role in facilitating cross-border cooperation on crime, 
including  environmental  crime.  However,  Eurojust  as  the  main  operational  body  to  foster 
cross-border  judicial  cooperation  depends  on  Member  States  requesting  their  support. 
Stakeholders confirm a lack of knowledge of practitioners of the role of Eurojust and Europol 
and of how to use the existing tools, such as Joint Investigations Teams.  

Only few environmental crime cases lead to few cross–border cooperation. As shown further 
below, the lack of implementation contributes largely to this situation.   

  2.1.5  Problem 5: lack of statistical data  

In  all  Member  States,  there  is  a  lack  of  statistical  data  on  investigations,  prosecutions, 
convictions,  dismissed  cases,  number  of  legal  persons  involved,  and  the  level  and  type  of 
sanctions imposed. This was shown in the evaluation of the Directive and in the results of the 
8th  Mutual  Evaluations  on  the  effectiveness  of  EU  policies  on  environmental  crime.  At  EU 
level, Eurostat has a mandate to develop comparable statistics on crime and criminal justice, 
but the national authorities are responsible for the official figures sent to Eurostat according to 
their own methodologies and documentation systems. 

96 Eurojust, Annual Report 2020, p. 27. 
97 Such provisions are present in other EU-criminal law instruments, see annex 6. 

26 

 
 
                                                 
A  lack  of  statistical  data  results  in  limited  information  on  the  entire  flow  of  cases  over  the 
whole  law  enforcement  chain,  from  administrative  inspections  and  police  and  prosecution 
services to the criminal courts. Against this backdrop, Member States’ performance cannot be 
compared.  Such  lack  of  data  also  makes  it  difficult  for  policymakers  and  practitioners  to 
monitor the effectiveness of their policies, to identify obstacles in the law enforcement chain 
and to take targeted and informed decisions98. The evaluation found this lack of statistical data 
to  drive  other  problems,  notably  the  general  public’s  lack  of  awareness  of  the  scale  and 
impacts of environmental crime, the lack of political prioritisation of environmental crime and 
the  lack  of  the  necessary  budget,  human  and  financial  resources  for  law  enforcement 
authorities.99  

Drivers 

Also this problem has several drivers. Firstly, in most Member States, relevant statistics are 
fragmented  and  based  on  multiple  individual  statistical  sources,  as  they  are  collected 
separately by each individual authority involved in preventing and combating environmental 
crime, without coordination or integration.100 

Secondly, each Member State establishes its own criminal laws, crimes, legal proceedings and 
justice  responses,  as  well  as  specifications  for  official  crime  statistics.  Such  methodological 
differences make it very difficult  to  compare statistical  data.  The crime and criminal  justice 
related metadata and quality reports101 detail these key methodological differences:  

 

 

 

 

 

different stages of data collection (input, process or output statistics for offences recorded 
by the police; or before and after appeal for court statistics);  
different  accounting  units  (offence,  case,  incident  for  police  statistics,  or  number  of 
people charged or proceedings for court statistics);  
counting rules for multiple (serial) offences of the same type;  
counting rules when an offence is committed by more than one person;  
use of principal offence rule, and others. 

Thirdly, perpetrators are often prosecuted under other crime categories,102, such as organised 
crime,  fraud,  falsification  of  documents,  trafficking  of  goods  or  economic  crime.  Serious 
environmental  wrongdoing  is  thus  often  hidden  in  existing  statistics  and  its  impact  on  the 
environment is seldom the focus of prosecutions.103  

The Directive does not include any provision to address collection and reporting of statistical 
data, or provide a framework to collect data in a comparable manner across Member States. 

98  See  for  example,  the  Ntherlands  Court  of  Auditors,  Handhaven  in  het  Duister:  De  aanpak  van  milieucriminaliteit  en 
overtredingen  (2021),  p.4;  the  lack  of  statistical  data  leads  to  a  lack  of  insight  into  the  problem  and  to  inadequate  policy 
interventions. 
99 SWD Evaluation of Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the 
protection of the environment through criminal law (Environmental Crime Directive), p. 32. 
100 See the findings on statistical data in the final report of the 8th Mutual Evaluations, see Footnote 10. 
101 Crime and criminal justice ESMS (reference metadata in Euro SDMX metadata structure), compiled by Eurostat, available 
at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/en/crim_esms.htm#relatedmd1594302694764.  
102 Council of the European Union, Report on Belgium (8th Mutual Evaluations Round). 
103 Giovanni F. Perilongo and Emanuele Corn, ‘The Ecocrime Directive and Its Translation into Legal Practice’, 2017. 

27 

 
 
                                                 
  2.1.6  Problem 6: ineffective enforcement chain 

Effective  crime  detection,  investigation,  prosecution  and  adjudication  (“the  enforcement 
chain”)  are  essential  for  the  Directive  to  be  effective  in  practice.  The  evaluation  found  that 
offences under the Directive are not sufficiently investigated, prosecuted and tried in practice. 
Numerous  studies  (see  evaluation  report,  section  5.1.4.  –  ‘practical  implementation’)  have 
identified  the  need  for  improvement  at  all  levels  of  the  enforcement  chain  (detection, 
investigation,  prosecution,  conviction)  and  in  all  Member  States.  Recently,  the  European 
Parliament  in  a  2021  Resolution  on  the  liability  of  legal  person  for  environmental  damage 
stressed the need to ensure the effective enforcement of existing legislation on environmental 
crime (Recommendation 11).104  

According to the results of the 2019 Council 8th Mutual Evaluations, all Member States have 
shortcomings  in  one  or  more  points  of  the  criminal  law  enforcement  chain.105  Every  single 
point is important for the functioning of the enforcement chain as a whole. An overview on 
the situation in the individual Member States is provided in annex 4.106 

Specific  issues  important  for effective implementation  such as cross-border cooperation, the 
collection  of  statistical  data,  the  availability  of  appropriate  investigate  tools  and  adequate 
sanctioning in practice are addressed separately above under problems 3, 4 and 5.  

Drivers 

The  reasons  driving  the  problems  concerning  detection,  investigation  and  prosecution  of 
environmental crime in the Member States stem from weaknesses of enforcement efforts, lack 
of awareness and political prioritisation. 

First, as described under problem 5, the lack of statistics on environmental crime and a lack of 
specialised  knowledge  of  many  law  enforcement  authorities  on  the  harmfulness  of 
environmental  crime  leads  to  a  lack  of  awareness  of  the  harmfulness  and  size  of 
environmental crime with decision makers on both political and implementation level. This in 
turn  leads  to  a  lack  of  prioritisation.  Necessary  resources  and  efforts  are  allocated  to  other 
crime areas.  

Enforcement authorities do not have the necessary financial and human resources, there is a 
lack of training and specialisation, data – and information collection and sharing.  Integrated 
strategies  tying  together  all  levels  of  the  enforcement  chain  (detection,  investigation, 
prosecution, sanctioning) are missing in most Member States.  

104  European  Parliament  resolution  of  20  May  2021  on  the  liability  of  companies  for  environmental  damage 
(2020/2027(INI)).  
105 Council of the European Union (2019), Final report of the Eighth round of mutual evaluations on environmental Crime. 
106 The overview takes account of changes made or announced by Member States in reaction to the recommendations to them 
in the framework of the 8th Mutual Evaluations Round.  

28 

 
 
                                                 
Eurojust  reports  a  the  lack  of  specialised  knowledge  and  experience,  along  with  a  lack  of 
resources  and  the  existence  of  other  priorities.107  The  evaluation  of  the  Directive  also 
confirmed that also judges lack specialised knowledge and awareness of the harmful effects of 
environmental crime. This leads to judges unduly dismissing cases or imposing very lenient 
sanctions even where more severe sanctions are available.108 

Training  and  specialisation  have  been  mentioned  by  all  practitioners  and  their  EU-wide 
networks as being of paramount importance for successful investigations, especially as in the 
field  of  environmental  crime  often  potentially  large-scale,  complex  and  international 
investigations  are  necessary  and  specialised  knowledge  is  required.  Training  activities  at 
national  level  are  seen  by  practitioners  as  far  from  being  sufficient,  tailored  and  well-
organised.  The EU support to training, e.g. via  the European Judicial Training Network, the 
relevant  practitioners’  networks  and  some  LIFE  and  ISF-Police  projects,  is  considered  in 
general useful, in particular concerning establishing common understanding, identification of 
good practices and preparation of training materials, but not sufficient to compensate for the 
shortcomings at national level.  

Although Member States have already today  an obligation not only to transpose EU law by 
letter  but  also  to  ensure  implementation  in  practice,  the  described  problems  have  been  long 
lasting.  Therefore,  the  need  for  binding  provisions  on  strengthening  the  enforcement  chain 
was  particularly  stressed  during  the  consultations  by  enforcement  practitioners  and  other 
stakeholders, in particular as regards ensuring adequate resources and specialisation/training, 
cooperation, coordination, data collection and strategic approaches.  

  2.2 

How will the problems evolve without intervention (baseline)?   

As  further  described  below,  in  recent  years  have  efforts  were  made  at  EU  level  to  improve 
environmental  criminal  law  enforcement.  Hence,  improvements  are  likely  in  some  areas.  In 
others, in particular on problems deriving due to the Directive being outdated, the issues will  
worsen over time.  

a)  Relevant  emerging  crime  areas  remain  unregulated  at  EU  level,  while  legal 

uncertainty persists regarding certain crime definitions (problems 1 and 2) 

The issues of the Directive’s scope being out of date and not containing all environmentally 
relevant areas and the vagueness of some of its crime definitions will continue to hamper its 
effectiveness and thus the effective enforcement against environmental crime on the ground. 
New environmental crime areas under the Article 3 and the annexes of the Directive can only 
be  introduced  through  legislative  action.  As  legislation  in  the  environmental  area  is  fast 
evolving,  the  problem  of  the  Directive  becoming  outdated  would  further  accelerate  in  the 
future.  

107 Report on Eurojust’s Caseworkon Environmental Crime, January 2021, p. 13. 
108 SWD Evaluation of Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the 
protection of the environment through criminal law (Environmental Crime Directive), p. 45, based on stakeholder interviews 
and a questionnaire by IPEC (Intelligence Project on Environmental Crime). 

29 

 
 
                                                 
Guidelines at Member State level on undefined legal terms, as recommended by the Council’s 
8th mutual evaluation report, may lead to a certain extent to a greater common understanding 
between  Member  States  and  help  facilitate  the  work  of  law  enforcement  authorities.109 
However,  national  guidelines  on  interpretation  would  –  in  any  event  –  not  be  binding  for 
others  and  would  also  not  solve  the  problem  of  differing  interpretations  of  the  Directive  in 
national law.  

b)  Insufficient sanctioning would persist resulting in limited deterrence (problem 3) 

There are large differences between the criminal sanctions provided for environmental crimes 
in  Member  States.  The  existing  criminal  sanctions  are  not  sufficiently  stringent  to  ensure  a 
high level of environmental protection throughout the Union. As a result, sanctioning practice 
will continue to diverge across the EU in the absence of further intervention at Union level. 
The  Commission  issued  ‘Guidance110  on  combating  environmental  crimes  and  related 
infringements’ (endorsed by the Environmental Compliance and Governance Forum in 2021) 
describes  inter  alia  good  practices  in  sentencing.  The  publication  and  promotion  of  this 
document  may  contribute  to  raise  awareness  on  the  importance  of  dissuasive  penalties  and 
more harmonised sanctioning in practice. So may the work of the Forum and its sub-group on 
sanctioning,  created  in  202,  and  the  work  of  the  European  environmental  enforcement 
networks, such as IMPEL, EnviCrimeNet, ENPE and EUFJE. 

c)  Legal and operational obstacles for effective cross-border cooperation among Member 

States would remain (problem 4) 

Several initiatives helped to step up cross-border cooperation over the past few years. 

Environmental  crime  became  an  EU  Crime  Priority  within  the  current  EMPACT  2018-
2021.111  In  that  context,  Europol  has  set  up  a  focal  point  and  developed  a  multi-annual 
strategic  plan  and  an  operational  action  plan  to  facilitate  cooperation  in  the  area  of 
environmental  crime.  Due  to  the  increasing  need  for  cooperation,  Europol’s  environmental 
cases and messages exchanged through SIENA112 increased sharply since the first operational 
year under the EU policy  cycle (2018). Environmental  crime remains  also  a priority  also  in 
the subsequent EMPACT 2022 – 2026.  

Eurojust  has  issued  a  report  on  its  environmental  crime  cases  with  the  aim  to  highlight 
obstacles of judicial cooperation in this area and to share the best practices to overcome them.  

The  ‘Guidance  on  combating  environmental  crimes  and  related  infringements’  mentioned 
above under b) devotes a chapter to  cooperation and coordination mechanisms, including at 

109 Such guidelines on the term ‘substantive damage’ exist already for the Environmental Liability Directive.  
110 European Commission, Environmental Compliance Assurance Guidance Document Combating environmental crimes and 
related infringements.  
111 EMPACT - European multidisciplinary platform against criminal threats. 
112 Secure Information Exchange Network Application (SIENA), a platform that enables the swift and user-friendly exchange 
of  operational  and  strategic  crime-related  messages  among  law  enforcement  officers  in  Member  States,  Europol  liaison 
officers and third parties with which Europol has agreements. 

30 

 
 
                                                 
European  and  international  levels.  Promotion  of  this  Guidance  can  contribute  to  better 
awareness  of  existing  tools  and  mechanisms.  However,  this  cannot  completely  address  the 
difficulties related to divergences between national legislation.  

Digitalisation of communication and data exchange in judicial cooperation including criminal 
law  proceedings  should  further  facilitate  cross-border  cooperation.  The  Commission  is 
working  on  a  regulation,  which  will  make  the  digital  channel  the  default  means  of 
communication in cross-border judicial cooperation.113  

Cross-border  judicial  cooperation  is  increasingly  required  by  national  authorities  to  address 
the  complex  and  international  set  up  of  organized  crime  groups  behind  environmental 
crime.114 But without further intervention at the Union level, legal and operational obstacles 
will however persist in cross-border cooperation  among Member States’  administrative, law 
enforcement  and  judicial  authorities  across  Member  States  particularly  regarding  the 
increasing phenomenon on organised, transnational environmental crime.   

d)  The  lack  of  deterrent  law  enforcement  and  the  impunity  of  criminals  may  persist 

(problems 5 and 6) 

The Council’s 8th round of mutual evaluations addressed the issue of proper implementation 
of  European  policies  on  prevention  and  combating  environmental  crime.  It  found  that  law 
enforcement was deficient in various areas under scrutiny (such as statistical data collection, 
financial  resources,  national  strategies  to  combat  environmental  crime,  cross-border 
cooperation  etc.).  In  its  2019  final  report,  it  recommended  that  Member  States  improve 
implementation.  At  the  point  of  finalising  this  Impact  Assessment,  13  Member  States  have 
replied so far to inform on measures.   

The Commission has also taken steps to improve the effectiveness of Member States’ efforts 
to combat environmental crime. In 2018, the Commission set up a high-level expert group on 
environmental  compliance,  the  Environmental  Compliance  and  Governance  Forum.  It  also 
adopted an Action Plan, which supports the work of the European environmental enforcement 
networks mentioned above. In this context, the ‘Guidance on combating environmental crimes 
and related infringements’ mentioned above under b) and c) was issued. It describes in detail 
good practices relevant to all parts of the enforcement chain from detection to sentencing and 
its  intended  publication  and  dissemination  should  help  strengthen  the  operation  of  the 
enforcement chain. The LIFE Regulation and the Internal Security Fund-Police also provide 

judicial  cooperation 

113Roadmap  for  Digitalisation  of  cross-border 
regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12547-Digitalisation-of-justice-in-the-EU_en.  
114 Eurojust, tasked with facilitating and fostering cross-border judicial cooperation, has issued a report on its environmental 
crime  cases  with  the  aim  to  highlight  obstacles  of  judicial  cooperation  in  the  area  of  environmental  crime,  including  best 
practices  to  address  the  identified  issues,  see  https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/report-environmental-crime-stresses-need-
further-cooperation,  Among  others,  joint  investigation  teams  (JITs)  are  an  efficient  instrument  that,  according  to  Eurojust, 
has not been used to its full potential (see above under chapter 2- problem description cross-border cooperation). JITs can 
assure  the  needed  multidisciplinary  approach  to  the  investigations  and  ensure  the  exchange  of  information  and  evidence 
across borders and thus a broader and stronger prosecution in the affected Member States. 

initiative:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-

31 

 
 
                                                 
 
financial support to the European enforcement networks and national authorities, as they can 
raise awareness, share good practices and develop practical tools. 

e)  Conclusion 

Overall, independent of this review, a range of non-binding measures and guidance already in 
place  could  be  further  developed  to  support  effective  criminal  law  enforcement.  However, 
without further legislative intervention at EU level, the lack of a deterring enforcement system 
and  impunity  for  environmental  crime  are  likely  to  persist  in  EU  Member  States  (see  also 
below: section 5.1.2 –discarded options – non-binding measures).  

3  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

  3.1 

Legal basis 

The legal bases for the proposed Directive are Articles 82(2) and 83(2) TFEU. Article 83(2) 
sets out the Union’s competence to establish minimum rules with regard to the  definition of 
criminal  offences  and  sanctions  in  Union  policy  areas,  which  have  been  subject  to 
harmonization  measures,  if  this  is  necessary  for  the  effective  enforcement. Article  82(2) 
TFEU  sets  out  the  Union’s  competence  to  establish  minimum  rules  necessary  to  facilitate 
mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions and police and judicial cooperation in 
criminal  matters  having  a  cross-border  dimension.  It  is  relevant  for  provisions  on  rights  of 
individuals in criminal procedure.  

The  current  Directive  is  as  a  pre-Lisbon  instrument  adopted  on  the  basis  Article  175  TEC 
(now  Article  192  TFEU)  which  had  been  a  legal  basis  for  EU  policy  on  environment 
protection.  According  to  an  ECJ  judgment  this  article  comprised  also  the  competence  to 
ensure  full  compliance  with  Community  legislation  through  criminal  law  (judgment  of  13 
September  2005,  C-176/03,  paragraph  48).  In  a  second  judgment,  the  ECJ  clarified  that  the 
definition  of  types  and  levels  of  criminal  penalties  does  not  fall  within  the  Community’s 
sphere of competence (judgment of 23 October 2007, C-440/05, paragraph 70). But with the 
Lisbon Treaty, the Union has received a genuine competence for criminal law measures in EU 
policy areas, including the definition of sanction types and levels. (Article 83(2)).  

  3.2 

Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action and added value of EU action 

Necessity of EU action 

Criminal activities related to the environment very often have a cross-border dimension, as an 
environmental crime can impact several countries (for example the illicit trafficking of waste, 
wildlife  or  chemicals  or  the  pollution  of  air,  water  and  soil,  see  above  section  1  – 
introduction)  or  have  cross-border  effects  (e.g.  in  case  of  cross-border  pollution).115  Cross-
border cooperation between law enforcement and judicial authorities is therefore essential. 

115 Report on Eurojust’s Casework on Environmental Crime - January 2021, p. 8. See a UNEP and Interpol Rapid Response 
Assessment,  ‘The  rise  of  environmental  crime.  A  growing  threat  to  natural  resources,  peace,  development  and  security’, 
2016, p. 7. 

32 

 
 
                                                 
The existing Directive aimed to provide such harmonised framework to facilitate cross-border 
cooperation. However, as detailed in the evaluation report, despite the progress in creating an 
EU-wide  common  set  of  definitions  of  environmental  crimes  and  requiring  more  dissuasive 
sanction levels, Member States on their own have not been able to reconcile their respective 
understandings of environmental crime within the room for maneuver the Directive has left. 
Similarly,  the  insufficient  sanction  levels  in  a  number  of  Member  States  prevent  a  level 
playing  field  across  the  EU  and  mutual  recognition  instruments  from  applying  (such  as  the 
EAW and the EIO).  

Despite the Directive, the number of cross-border investigations and convictions in the EU of 
environmental crime did not grow substantially. In the meantime, in contrast, environmental 
crime is growing at annual rates of 5 to 7% globally116, creating lasting damage for habitats, 
species, health of citizens and revenues of governments and businesses. 

Added value of EU action 

With  a  more  effective  Directive,  the  EU  can  provide  the  harmonised  framework  for  a 
common  understanding  of  definitions  of  environmental  crimes  and  for  effective  access  to 
cross-border  investigative  tools.  By  providing  more  clarity  on  legal  definitions  and  by 
approximating sanction levels, as well as by providing tools and obligations for cross-border 
cooperation  among  Member  States,  the  revised  Directive  will  create  a  more  even  level 
playing field with equivalent criminal law protection for the environment across the EU and 
facilitate  cross-border  cooperation  on  investigations  and  prosecutions.  By  facilitating  cross-
border  investigations,  prosecutions  and  convictions,  EU  action  will  provide  for  clear  added 
value  on  countering  environmental  crimes  which  typically  have  transnational  dimensions 
compared to what Member States acting alone can achieve. 

As  environmental  crime  often  undermines  legal  and  tax  paying  businesses,  who  share  an 
unknown but  likely large share of the  estimated  annual  global  loss  related  to  environmental 
crime  of  between  USD  91  and  259  billion117,  an  effective  EU  legislative  framework  on 
environmental crime will have an effect on the functioning of the EU single market as well. 
Without  such  EU  wide  legislation,  companies  operating  in  Member  States  with  limited 
definitions  of  environmental  crimes  or  lenient  enforcement  regimes  can  have  a  competitive 
advantage over the companies established in Member States with stricter legal frameworks.  

An  effective  EU  wide  policy  on  environmental  crime  may  also  benefit  other  EU  policy 
objectives.  Environmental  crimes  are  often  linked  to  other  forms  of  crime  such  as  money 
laundering,  terrorism,  tax  fraud,  forgery  or  other  forms  of  organised  crime118  against  which 
the EU has adopted a range of legislation in recent years. A more effective EU legislation on 

116 UNEP and Interpol Rapid Response Assessment, ‘The rise of environmental crime. A growing threat to natural resources, 
peace, development and security’, 2016, p. 7. 
117 UNEP and Interpol Rapid Response Assessment, ‘The rise of environmental crime. A growing threat to natural resources, 
peace, development and security’, 2016, p. 17. 
118 UNEP and Interpol Rapid Response Assessment, ‘The rise of environmental crime. A growing threat to natural resources, 
peace, development and security’, 2016, p. 30. 

33 

 
 
                                                 
environmental  crime  would  contribute  to  effective  criminal  law  enforcement  strategies,  at 
EU- and national level that address all relevant aspects of criminal interaction.   

4  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED?  

The methodological challenges encountered during the evaluation of the Directive, which also 
was  subject  to  a  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board’s  opinion,  provided  valuable  lessons  for  this 
impact assessment: Ultimately, the policy ambition is to better protect the environment. This 
fundamental  ambition  objective  drives  all  EU  legislation  in  the  area  of  environmental 
legislation and it applies to criminal law measures as well. The concrete objectives, however, 
must be goals that can be achieved through criminal law and which allow to measure progress 
through appropriate indicators. This led us to drop the original general objective of reducing 
environmental  crime  and  the  specific  objectives  of  reducing  illegal  trade,  protecting  fair 
competition and preventing ‘safe havens’ in the EU for criminals. Success of these objectives 
could not be measured against a baseline, as the amount of undetected environmental crime or 
illegal  trade  before  and  after  the  Directive  is  unknown.  For  the  same  reason,  the  extent  of 
progress  towards  the  former  objectives  of  protecting  fair  playing  businesses  and  preventing 
‘safe havens’ was difficult to assess. Moreover, as explained in detail in the evaluation report, 
these  objectives  are  influenced  by  many  factors  other  than  criminal  law.  The  numbers  of 
environmental  crime  and  illegal  trade  and  the  prevention  of  ‘safe  havens’  depend  on  the 
development  of  global  trade  (with  steep  upwards  trends),  on  new  opportunities  through 
digitalisation and the interplay of criminal sanctioning systems with civil- and administrative 
sanctioning systems in the Member States.  

Therefore, the focus of this review will be narrowed to what could be achieved by means of 
criminal  law  in  the  first  place.  As  there  is  consensus  that  environmental  crime  is  driven  by 
high profits combined with a low detection risk, the objectives of this review must be to foster 
effective investigations, prosecutions and sanctioning.  

Success  will  be  measured  through  the  numbers  of  environmental  law  cases  successfully 
investigated and prosecuted, the numbers of convictions, and the type and levels of sanctions 
imposed  that  must  become  more  effective,  dissuasive  and  proportionate  in  practice. 
Developments have to be interpreted in context: today, in the Member States, there are only 
few environmental crime cases completed successfully and sanction levels are systematically 
too  low.  There  have  been  no  upward-trends  in  the  past  decade  (see  above,  section  1.2  – 
‘evaluation of the Directive ‘and the evaluation final report). In this situation, stable upwards 
trends  in  environmental  cases  in  all  Member  States  would  point  to  the  Directive’s 
effectiveness. As environmental crime is growing globally at percentage between 5 and 7 % 
globally,119  a  matching  growth  rate  of  successful  investigations  and  convictions  would  be 
considered a success. By contrast, if - at a later stage - environmental cases were to decrease, 
this might indicate that the Directive was successful in deterring criminals.  

119 See section 1 – introduction. 

34 

 
 
                                                 
The evaluation has, however, also shown that statistical data on the numbers of investigations, 
prosecutions,  convictions,  dismissed  cases  and  sanctions  imposed  needed  as  indicators  to 
evaluate and monitor success of EU-environmental crime policies  either  do not exist, or are 
fragmented, not collected according to uniform standards or inaccurate. Improving statistical 
data  collection  must  therefore  also  be  an  objective  of  the  Directive  (see  also  section  8  on 
monitoring  the  success  of  the  Directive).  The  table  below  shows  existing  EU  objectives  as 
defined for the current version of the Directive versus the objectives proposed for the review 
of the Directive: 

Table 2, EU objectives in the current version of the Directive versus the objectives proposed for the review of the Directive  

  4.1 

General objectives 

The  general  objective  of  Directive  is  to  contribute  to  the  protection  of  the  environment 
through criminal law by way of effective detection, investigation, prosecution and sanctioning 
of  environmental  crime.  By  this,  it  should  ultimately  contribute  to  the  reduction  of 
environmental  crime,  as  effective  law  enforcement  increases  the  risks  of  detection  and 
punishment  for  criminals  and  reduces  the  chance  to  get  away  with  the  profits.  Less 
environmental  crime  will  help  to  preserve  or  restore  a  healthy  and  intact  environment  (see 
chapter 7 - impacts). Thus, the Directive will ultimately contribute to the overall goals set out 

35 

 
 
 
in Article 191 TFEU and the Green Deal and the Biodiversity Strategy to improve the state of 
nature and the environment and to protect human health. 

The  general  objective  is  supported  by  a  number  of  specific  objectives  that  aim  at  more 
effective investigation, prosecution and sanctioning at different levels:  

  4.2 

Specific objectives 

The following specific objectives have been identified:  

1.  Improve the effectiveness of investigations and prosecutions by updating the scope of 
the Directive and by inserting a feasible mechanism to keep the Directive up-to-date in 
the light of the European Green Deal.  

2.  Improve the effectiveness of investigations and prosecutions by clarifying or 
eliminating vague terms used in the definitions of environmental crime  
3.  Ensure effective, dissuasive and proportionate sanction types and -levels for 

environmental crime  

4.  Foster cross-border investigation and prosecution  
5.  Improve informed decision-making on environmental crime through improved 

collection and dissemination of statistical data 

6.  Improve the operational effectiveness of national enforcement chains to foster 

investigations, prosecutions, sanctioning 

5  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? 

In  addition  to  the  baseline  of  taking  no  further  EU  action  on  environmental  crime  (section 
2.2), three possible main options have been considered. Two of them have been discarded (see 
below).  

  5.1 

Options discarded at an early stage  

  5.1.1  Repeal the Directive 

This option is a "roll-back" option repealing the criminal law measures of the Environmental 
Crime  Directive.  The  sanctioning  of  breaches  of  legislation  designed  to  protect  the 
environment would be left to EU sectoral legislation and to national law. Sectoral legislation 
contains  mostly  only  generic  provisions  on  penalties,  only  requiring  that  sanctions  be 
effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive  (standard  penalty  clause).120  Moreover,  sectoral  law 
leaves it to the Member States whether these penalties are criminal or administrative. 

Compared  to  only  administrative  sanctioning  systems,  complementary  criminal  law 
enforcement  systems  would  provide  for  more  effective  tools.  Firstly,  criminal  sanctions  are 
more  dissuasive  as  they  include  imprisonment  penalties,  which  are  not  available  under 

120 Examples include the penalty clause in article 19 of the timber regulation, the penalty clause in article 50 of the waste 
shipment regulation, or article 79 of the directive on industrial emissions.  

36 

 
 
                                                 
administrative law. With regard to legal persons, as they can better neutralise potential fines 
by  passing  on  these  costs  to  their  customers  and  the  costs  of  fines  are  often  offset  by  the 
potential  profits  accrued  through  the  violation,121  the  social  stigma  of  criminalisation  is 
important  to  enhance  the  deterrent  effect  as  it  brings  about  reputational  damage  that 
companies  want  to  avoid.  Secondly,  criminal  law  also  provides  for  more  effective 
investigative 
the 
confiscation of proceeds of crime, all this under judicial control. As environmental offences 
are  often  committed  in  the  context  of  organised  crime,  corruption,  fraud  or  money 
laundering122  these  tools  must  also  be  available  for  environmental  crime  as  well  to  ensure 
effective investigations covering all aspects. 

tools  such  as  controlled  deliveries,  wiretapping,  surveillance  and 

It  is  the  unanimous  position  of  all  Member  States  and  stakeholders  that  criminal  law  is 
indispensable  to  protect  the  environment.  Repealing  the  Directive  would  send  the  wrong 
signal.  It  would  deny  the  seriousness  of  this  crime  form,  which  causes  enormous  harm  and 
globally  generates  illegal  profits  of  an  amount  that  equals  organised  crime.  It  would  also 
counteract  the  growing  awareness  and  prioritisation  of  the  need  to  protect  the  environment 
and undermine the effectiveness of environmental protection which that can be strengthened 
only through concerted action and a holistic approach that includes criminal law.  

Similarly, maintaining the Directive as such, i.e. without any change, would not address the 
shortcomings identified nor achieve any improvements at Union level, although guidance may 
help  with  its  interpretation  from  the  Union’s  perspective.  Neither  can  one  put  into  sectoral 
environmental legislation the substance of the Directive as the sectoral legislation is not based 
on Article 83(2) TFEU and hence would not be appropriate for criminal law measures, e.g. to 
define the level and type of criminal sanctions. 

  5.1.2  Address the identified problems only through non-binding measures 

The  second  option  would  be  to  maintain  the  status  quo  or  introduce  only  non-legislative 
measures  such  as  EU  guidance  on  interpreting  definitions  and  sanction  levels.  This  option 
corresponds  largely  to  the  baseline  as  detailed  above  under  section  2.2.  A  number  of  non-
binding  measures  have  already  been  taken  as  detailed  above  under  section  2.2.  -  ‘baseline’. 
Additional  guidance  on interpreting  vague terms  in  crime definitions and  on data  collection 
could further complement such measures. 

However,  the  effectiveness  of  soft-law  alone  is  uncertain  and  gaps  in  Member  States’ 
implementation  are  likely  to  remain.  Moreover,  legal  clarity  in  the  field  of  criminal  law  is 
fundamental  and  especially  the  definitions  of  environmental  crime  cannot  be  left  to  non-
binding  instruments.  But  also  in  the  other  problem  areas,  the  effectiveness  of  non-binding 
measures  is  limited, precisely because they are non-binding. For example, on the individual 

121 Michael G. Faure (2020), Environmental liability of companies, p. 88 (external study requested by the JURI Committee), 
targeted business stakeholder consultation. 
122  FATF  Report  Money  Laundering  from  Environmental  Crimes,  July  2021,  p.  11;  UNODC  Global  Programme  for 
Combating Wildlife and Forest Crime | Annual Report 2020, p. 10.  

37 

 
 
                                                 
recommendation  to  Member  States  during  the  Council’s  8th  Mutual  Evaluations  (see  above 
under  section  2.2.)  so  far  only  13  Member  States  have  reacted  with  different  levels  of 
ambition. Therefore, given the serious problems in the area, which have lasted for years, non-
binding measures cannot be the appropriate response to the shortcomings of a Directive that 
includes mostly very generic provisions.  

This  is  also  the  stance  of  the  large  majority  of  stakeholder,  which  consider  non-binding 
measure useful or very useful but only in combination with anchoring binding provisions in 
the Directive. All groups and especially practitioners and NGOs have urged the Commission 
to be ambitious and improve the Directive revising the annexes.  

Non-binding  measures  and  guidance  are,  however,  an  important  element  for  effective  law 
enforcement.  In  the  following,  they  are  considered  as  an  intrinsic  part  of  any  legislative 
option.  

  5.2 

Relevant policy option: replacing the Directive 

The  only  realistic  option  is  to  adopt  a  new  Directive.  An  overview  of  the  sub-options  and 
cumulative  measures  under  each  specific  objective  can  be  found  in  the  annex  10  (option 
table). The intervention logic is attached as annex 9. 

6  DESCRIPTION,  ASSESSMENT  AND  COMPARISON  OF  THE  SUB-OPTIONS  UNDER  THE 

OPTION TO AMEND THE DIRECTIVE 

Hereunder, the sub-options will be referred to as’ options’. 

Approach to the structure of section 6: 

Under  each  objective,  several  options  to  achieve  them  have  been  identified.  Their  detailed 
description  is  provided  under  section  6  along  with  the  assessment  of  the  options.  This 
approach  provides  the  reader  with  a  description  of  the  option  in  close  connection  with  the 
respective assessment. The options are assessed against the following criteria: 

  Effectiveness: To what extent is the option likely to contribute to the objective? Are 
the options sufficiently clear to lead to harmonised transposition and  implementation 
in the Member States and to comply with the principle of legal clarity?   

  Coherence: To what extend the different options interact with other relevant areas and 

instruments of EU and international policy?  

  Efficiency: What are the costs of each option and are they justified by the benefits? 

It should be noted, that these criteria are not equally relevant for each of the options, so that 
not all of them will be assessed to the same extent under each option. 

Approach to efficiency 

To assess efficiency, cost are expected in relation to: 

1.  Measures  proposed  for  each  objective  to  lead  to  higher  effectiveness  and  thus  more 
environmental crime investigations, requiring additional staff in the Member States; 

38 

 
 
2.  Broadening the scope of the Directive to include new environmental crime areas under 
the  Directive  which  may  lead  to  an  increase  in  the  number  of  environmental  crime 
cases, also requiring additional staff; 

3.  The  implementation  of  options  such  as  enhanced  training,  improved  cross-border 
cooperation,  statistical  data  collection,  strategy  development  and  awareness  raising 
measures  which  may  cause  some  implementation  costs  but  the  expected  mid-  and 
long-term benefits would clearly prevail.  

The presentation of the efficiency assessment is organised as follows: 

  Transposition costs will not be presented for the individual options per objective. They 
are similar for all options and will therefore not play a role for the comparison of the 
options. Under section 6 for objectives 1, 2 and 3 efficiency is not assessed, as these 
objectives are considered not  to  incur  costs further than  for  transposition costs. (see, 
however, costs  of additional staff, bullet point below).  

  For  objectives  4,  5  and  6,  direct  costs  related  to  implementation  of  the  proposed 

measures are presented (i.e. those linked to cost category 3 above).  

  The costs of additional staff (category 1 and 2 above) are presented under objective 
6.  However,  these  costs  are  to  be  understood  as  stemming  from  a  more  effective 
Directive  based  on  the  concerted  effects  of  all  measures  taken  under  all  objectives. 
Also  the cost  of additional staff required to  handle the additional workload from  the 
broadening  of  the  scope  of  the  Directive  (objective  1)  will  be  calculated  under 
objective  6,  as  these  costs  cannot  realistically  be  separated  from  costs  for  the 
additional  staff  needed  for  more  cases  due  to  improved  effectiveness  of  the 
Directive.123 As it is not possible to attribute shared costs of additional staff needed to 
individual  options  or  objectives  or  to  specific  new  legislation  that  will  be  included 
under the Directive these costs will not play a role for the comparison of the options. 
  Benefits under efficiency are understood in terms of positive environmental, social and 
economic  impacts  and  are  discussed  in  section  7,  as  there  will  be  no  measureable 
differences between the options that could influence their comparison.  

  The economic impact on businesses and SME is generally addressed in section 7, and 

more specifically under those options that have a specific impact on businesses.  

A more detailed analysis of the methodology and results of the costs calculation can be found 
in Annex 2B for each of the options considered in the following part.   

123 The calculation of labour costs is based on the following assumptions: 

 

EU official daily labour cost of EUR 534 for 2020123), based on average monthly salary for grade 
AD8 with 25% overhead cost; 

  Member State daily rate of EUR 294 for 2020, based on 2016 Eurostat Labour Cost Survey ‘public 

administration and defense’, adjusted for inflation and including 25% overhead. 

39 

 
 
                                                 
  6.1 

Objective  1:  Updating  the  scope  of  the  Directive;  introduce  a  simple 

mechanism to keep the Directive up-to-date also in the future 

The  options  under  the  first  objective  seek  to  ensure  that  the  Directive  covers  all  relevant 
sectors  of  EU-legislation  and  to  provide  for  a  simple  and  flexible  mechanism  to  update  the 
Directive in the light of the European Green Deal.  

  6.1.1  Option  1  a):  Update the existing list  of legislation in the annexes, add  new 

relevant crime categories to Article 3 

Description  

This  option  would  maintain  the  current  approach  of  Directive  to  define  the  scope  of  the 
Directive through sectoral legislation listed in annexes. Accordingly, the annexes would need 
to be updated by considering changes in legislation already included therein and new sectoral 
legislation that came into force after the adoption of the Directive.  

In addition, corresponding new crime categories would have to be added to Article 3 where 
serious  breaches  of  obligations  deriving  from  new  sectoral  legislation  do  not  fall  under  the 
crime  categories  in  the  current  Directive.  To  illustrate,  the  EU  Timber  Regulation124 
prohibiting  illegal  timber  trade  is  currently  not  listed  in  the  annexes.  Article  3  does  not 
contain  a  crime  category  addressing  this  type  of  crime,  either.  It  would  therefore  not  be 
sufficient to add the Timber Regulation to the annexes. A corresponding new crime definition 
would have to be added in Article 3.  

In  the  future,  if  new  relevant  EU  sectoral  legislation  is  adopted,  it  must  be  added  to  the 
Directive’s  annexes  through  legislative  procedure.  In  the  same  legislative  procedure,  a 
corresponding new crime category may have to be added under Article 3, if the sectoral act is 
not covered by one of the existing crime categories under Article 3.125  

Introducing  comitology  procedure  would  be  possible  only  for  non-essential  elements  in  the 
Directive.  However,  it  would  be  essential  to  enlarge  the  scope  of  a  criminal  law  legislative 
instrument and add new environmental offences. According to Articles 290 and 83(2) TFEU, 
it is for the Union legislator to take such a decision 

Similarly, where an amendment (or replacement) of legislation already listed in the annexes 
would amounts to a substantial change of obligations and related infringements126, the Union 

124  Regulation  (EU)  No  995/2010  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  October  2010  laying  down  the 
obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market, OJ L 295, 12.11.2010, pp. 23–34. 
125 The current approach in recital 15 of the Directive, whereby the Union legislator could “specify” in an act of sectoral EU 
law (e.g. legislation based on Article 192 TFEU) that Directive 2008/99 will apply, is now legally excluded. Only before the 
Treaty  of  Lisbon  came  into  force,  the  Union  legislator  could  take  such  a decision  in  the  same  act  by  which  it  sets out  the 
relevant  administrative  rules.  Since  the  Treaties  now  provide  a  separate  legal  basis  for  the  approximation  of  criminal  law, 
Article 83(2) TFEU must be considered a lex specialis to the relevant “sectoral” legal basis.  
126  For  instance,  if  the  approach  taken  by  Union  law  on  certain polluting  activities  moves  from  a  “permission  subject to  a 
prohibiting  decision”  (i.e.  a  certain  degree  of  pollution  is  permitted  unless  certain  thresholds  are  exceeded  or  there  is  an 

40 

 
 
                                                 
 
legislator will have to re-assess whether an effective implementation of the “new” obligation 
requires that infringements are to be considered a criminal offence, i.e. it will have to adapt 
and/or amend the relevant references in the Annexes ( or possibly adopt a new act based on 
Article 83(2) TFEU.  

Effectiveness 

This  option  would  therefore  not  be  more  effective  than  the  current  Directive  with  regard  to 
future updates of the annexes and Article 3 definitions.  

The  Commission  will  have  to  become  more  pro-active  in  proposing  to  co-legislators 
amendments  to  keep  the  Directive  up-to-date  through  legislative  procedure  (the  status  quo) 
and to ensure coherence with fast evolving sectoral legislation. The Commission would need 
to propose with sectoral legislative proposals also changes to the Directive, which would be 
based on a different legal base.  

  6.1.2  Option 1 b) Change the approach to define ‘unlawfulness’ and define more 

precisely which breaches of sectoral legislation are criminally relevant. 

Description 

Under this option, a generic reference to the relevant EU and national transposing legislation 
would  be  combined  with  a  more  precise  offence  definition  without  using  annexes.  The 
conducts  that  constitute  the  criminal  offences  would  be  described  in  specific  provisions 
which, to ensure legal clarity, would entail both refinement of existing offence definitions and 
introduction  of  new  offences  (e.g.  illegal  timber  trade)  mirroring  trends  in  environmental 
crime and legislative developments  The annexes would be replaced by a ‘general reference’ 
to relevant sectoral legislation.127).  

Effectiveness – Legal clarity 

This  approach  would  avoid  the  shortcomings  of  using  a  legal  technique  with  annexes  that 
become more and more outdated over time and not suitable to ensure legal certainty.128  

Experience  showed  that  references  to  legislation  listed  in  an  extensive  annex  (even  without 
specifying the relevant deriving obligations) cannot guarantee the legal clarity principle. It is 
unclear which of the obligations and prohibitions have to be enforced by criminal sanctions 

administrative  decision  prohibiting  the  relevant  activity)  to  an  overall  “ban  with  permit  reservation”  (i.e.  the  activity  is 
prohibited unless there is a permit), the nature and extent of the unlawfulness in the sense of criminal law would change.  

127  Regulation  1367/2006  (Aarhus  Regulation)  provides  an  example  how  ‘environmental  legislation’  could  be  defined. 
According  to  its  Article  2  (1)  f  ‘environmental  law’  means  Community  legislation  which,  irrespective  of  its  legal  basis, 
contributes  to  the  pursuit  of  the  objectives  of  Community  policy  on  the  environment  as  set  out  in  the  Treaty:  preserving, 
protecting  and  improving  the  quality  of  the  environment,  protecting  human  health,  the  prudent  and  rational  utilisation  of 
natural resources, and promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems; 
128However, some stakeholders and Member States consider that such an approach would undermine the principle of legality 
(Article 49 of the Charter), as in criminal matters clarity and foreseeability were of fundamental importance. Although it is in 
the first place the definition of the criminal offences and penalties set out in national legislation that has to comply with the 
principle of legality, this principle is also relevant for Union legislation approximating criminal law.  

41 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
and which ones are sufficiently protected through administrative sanctioning systems. In line 
with the principles of the proportionality of sanctions and the use of criminal law as ‘ultima 
ratio’  not  every  infringement  of  an  administrative  rule  can  and  should  be  considered  a 
criminal offence. Therefore, the unspecified reference to a list of EU-sectoral legislation does 
not add to legal clarity.  

Instead,  it  should  be  defined  more  precisely  under  Article  3  which  of  the  breaches  of 
obligations  deriving  from  relevant  sectoral  EU  legislation  could  constitute  environmental 
crime. 

An approach for defining the scope of the Directive by a refined definition of “unlawfulness” 
and more precise description of the offences would ensure the necessary clarity, including for 
the Member States when transposing the Directive and for practitioners.  

  6.1.3  Option  1  c):  Define  environmental  crime  in  the  Directive  without  the 

requirement of a breach of relevant EU sectoral legislation 

Description 

This  option  would  define  environmental  crime  without  the  element  ‘unlawful’  or  ‘illegal’, 
thus without a reference to sectoral legislation. Instead, the damage caused to the environment 
or human health would be constituent for a criminal offence. Precedents at supranational level 
are the (repealed) 2003 Council Framework Decision that did not require unlawful behaviour 
in  its  Article  2  (a)129  in  case  of  serious  harm  for  a  person  or  death.  The  Council  of  Europe 
Convention  on  the  Protection  of  the  Environment  through  Criminal  Law  (1998)  defines 
environmental crime as  a stand-alone offence independent of a breach of sectoral law130 for 
the most serious forms of crime.131 The concept of ‘ecocide’ that is currently debated can also 
be  understood  as  an  approach  to  define  serious  environmental  crime  independently  from 
breaches of sectoral legislation.   

Effectiveness 

This option would be effective in preventing the Directive from becoming  outdated, as non-
compliance with sectoral legislation would not be a crime-constituting element.  

Proportionality 

129 Text: Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law:(a) the 
discharge, emission or introduction of a quantity of substances or ionising radiation into air, soil or water which causes death 
or serious injury to any person. 
130  The  Convention  was  not  ratified  by  a  sufficient  number  of  states  and  therefore  did  not  enter  into  force.  Recently,  a 
Working  Group (CDPC-EC) was set up to assess  possible ways  for the Council of Europe to move forward in the area of 
environmental protection through criminal law. The Working Group is currently exploring whether a new Convention should 
be drafted or if the original Convention should be amended. A first meeting was held on 20 and 21 April 2021, where it was 
agreed that the reasons for the failure of the existing Convention should be analysed in each Member State.  
131  Namely;  the  discharge,  emission  or  introduction  of  a  quantity  of  substances  or  ionising  radiation  into  air,  soil  or  water 
which  causes  death  or  significant  injury  or  creates  a  significant  risk  of  causing  death  or  serious  injury  to  any  person.  See 
article 2 (a) of the Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law. 

42 

 
 
                                                 
However, option 1 c) would have impacts that go further than ensuring that the Directive does 
not become outdated in the future. It could increase the level of environmental protection, but 
would  mean  a  paradigm  shift  in  loosening  the  administrative  dependence  of  environmental 
crime, which has been the predominant approach in the EU. Thus, additional cases would be 
criminalised  that  are  currently  not  covered  by  the  Directive.  However,  some  businesses,  in 
particular SMEs, would not have the capacity to carry out extensive risk assessments or take 
other mitigation measures.  

Economic impacts on businesses 

Criminalising  environmental  impacts  independently  from  sectoral  law  could  increase  the 
business risks for enterprises and result in higher costs for due diligence and legal capacity, 
issues  currently  driven  only  by  administrative  legislation.  This  risk  could  be  elevated  for 
SMEs as described above. Businesses also claim that issues with administrative permissions 
being issued too easily and administrative law favouring the interest of an industry over the 
health  of  the  citizens  must  be  solved  by  stricter  rules  at  the  administrative  level  and  not 
compensated for by criminal law at the expense of the businesses. 

  6.1.4  Comparison of the options/preferred option 

Option 1 a) is effective only in updating the Directive in the course of this review. It does not 
spare  the  EU  legislator  future  updates  of  the  annexes  and  Article  3  to  include  new  crime 
legislation and corresponding crime categories. 

Option 1 c) would change the approach to define environmental crime by eliminating the link 
to  sectoral  legislation  and  thus  remove  the  cause  for  the  Directive  becoming  outdated. 
However,  it  would  come  at  higher  costs  for  legal  businesses,  although  this  option  could 
probably  help  reduce  negative social  and environmental  impacts  (see also section 7 below). 
However, this option could only be justifiable and proportionate; in cases where very serious 
harm  was  caused  that  goes  beyond  what  could  be  justifiable  by  permits  or  other 
administrative  authorisations.  It  could  therefore  not  replace,  but  only  complement  offences 
linked to breaches of sectoral legislation. Thus, it cannot be generally effective in preventing 
the Directive from becoming outdated.  

Option 1 b) would remove the annexes and thus the need to update them. Legal clarity would 
be ensured by adding more precision to the crime definitions under the Directive, in particular 
with  regard  to  the  element  ‘unlawful’  that  must  describe  in  more  detail  which  types  of 
obligations in sectoral are essential to be enforced by criminal law (see below under objective 
2).   

Also Option 1 b) does not provide for a simple mechanism to apply if new crime categories 
under Article 3 should be added, e.g. following the adoption of new sectoral legislation The 
definition  of  new  environmental  crime  categories  must  be  done,  as  under  the  current 
Directive, by the European legislator.  

Conclusion 

43 

 
 
Option 1 b) is the preferred option. 

  6.2 

Objective 2: Clearer definitions of environmental crime 

The  definitions  of  environmental  crime  categories  under  Article  3  use  terms  such  as 
‘substantial  damage’,  or  ‘negligible  or  non-negligible  quantity’  that  make  the  existence  of 
environmental crime dependent of the severity of the damage caused. As there is no common 
understanding  how  to  delineate  e.g.  substantial  damage  from  non-substantial  damage,  these 
terms leave much room for different interpretations (see above section 2.1.2) 

Less  ambiguous  crime  definitions  would  also  have  positive  impact  on  other  specific 
objectives. They would facilitate cross-border cooperation (objective 4), but also cooperation 
between  different  authorities  along  the  law  enforcement  chain  within  a  Member  State 
(objective  6).  A  similar  understanding  of  the  scope  of  an  environmental  crime  definition 
would also foster the collection of comparable statistical data in the Member States and thus 
contribute to objective 5.  

The options assessed below are mutually exclusive, insofar as only one option can apply per 
crime category under Article 3. However, as Article 3 comprises several crime categories, the 
options can exist in parallel  as different approaches to define environmental crime might be 
chosen for different crime categories. 

  6.2.1  Option 2 a): Define unclear terms more precisely in the Directive  

Description  

The  option  to  define  environmental  crime  more  clearly  in  the  Directive  would  foster  a 
common  understanding  of  how  to  determine  the  amount  of  damage  that  constitutes 
environmental crime.  It  would be necessary to  explain  in more detail  the meaning of vague 
terms such as ‘substantial damage’, and ‘non-negligible quantities’.  

Under  this  option,  the  Directive  could  include  general  criteria  to  better  determine  notions, 
such  as    ‘substantial  damage’,  ‘negligible  quantity’  or  ‘non-negligible  quantity’.  The 
following criteria are an indication of what would be relevant:  

  baseline condition of the affected environment; 
  severity and spread of the damage; 
  amount of material losses (in terms of tax losses, or legal profits, or restoration costs) 
  non-material  value  of  natural  objects,  rareness  of  the  natural  objects  impacted  or 

destroyed, 

reversibility of the damage and costs of restoration; 

  degree and duration of the negative impact on the environment, 
 
  extent to which relevant regulatory thresholds are exceeded; 
  conservation status of species concerned. 

In addition, under this option, it should be carefully considered whether all terms used in the 
crime definitions of Article 3 must be defined or whether some of them could be eliminated.   

44 

 
 
 
Effectiveness 

This  option  would  improve  the  clarity  of  the  Directive.  However,  it  is  not  possible  –  nor 
would  it  be  desirable  –  to  come  up  with  too  detailed  definitions  that  would  produce 
unambiguous results in any given set of circumstances. Such definitions would lack flexibility 
and  thus  be  prone  to  creating  loopholes.  For  example:  defining  a  precise  threshold  for 
financial losses (in terms of lost taxes, legal profits, or costs to restore the financial damage) 
that would constitute ‘substantial damage’ would not take into account the economic situation 
in the Member States and would not adapt to fluctuations of currencies over time. Eventually, 
in practice it is not always possible to attribute a value to the environmental harm or loss.  

  6.2.2  Option  2  b):  Eliminate  undefined  terms,  including  by  criminalising  risky 

behaviour (endangerment crime) 

Description  

Environmental  criminal  offences  could  be  defined  without  the  constituent  element  of  a 
damage  or  the  risk  of  such  damage.  This  approach  would  be  relevant  in  cases  where  an 
activity  is  considered  per  se  as  dangerous  and  harmful  so  that  it  would  be  justified  to 
criminalised it as a risky behaviour. The offence description would then be based on relevant 
prohibitions, binding requirements and other obligations defined in sectoral law. For example, 
sending  big  ships  for  recycling  in  unauthorized  facilities  (or  the  illegal  recycling  activity) 
could  be  seen  as  such  a  generally  prohibited  dangerous  and  risky  activity  which  could  be 
criminalized without a requirement of causing damage or likelihood of causing damage.  

Effectiveness 

Article 3 c), f), g) and i) of the current Directive already include variations of endangerment 
crimes that address certain actions considered per se risky for the environment. It could not be 
observed  that  these  crime  forms  are  successfully  investigated  more  often  than  other  crime 
forms. It must, however, be noted that changes of just one element - such as the definition of 
environmental  crime  –  are  not  expected  to  measurably  translate  into  higher  numbers  of 
prosecutions and convictions. As could be demonstrated in the evaluation, the effectiveness of 
environmental crime investigations depends on many factors (reflected by the six objectives 
in this review) and a multipolar approach is needed to improve the situation.  

This option would also alleviate the burden of proof. In practice, it has always been difficult 
to establish whether a substantial damage has occurred and whether the offender acted with 
the intention to cause serious damage. Moreover, proving the causal link between action and 
damage  is  often  problematic  in  practice,  for  example  if  a  company  releases  dangerous 
substances into a nearby river already polluted or where the damage becomes manifest only 
over time. In practice, these obstacles have led to environmental crime not being investigated. 
Under this option is would also be possible to prosecute cases of pollution that do not have an 
immediate effect but which might lead to damage in the long term. Endangerment crimes are 
therefore the preferred option of practitioners. Especially, Europol advocates for this option.  

45 

 
 
However,  this  approach  has  its  limits,  because  defining  all  environmental  crime  as 
endangerment crime would not fit all situations and objectives, this approach would therefore 
not be suitable for all possible scenarios and crime categories under Article 3 of the Directive. 

Economic impacts on businesses 

Businesses  have  reservations  on  the  definition  of  endangerment  crimes  that  criminalize 
violations of administrative provisions or the  breach of conditions of an  authorization. They 
claim  that  overstepping  rules  can  happen  accidentally  and  without  the  purpose  of  gaining 
illegal profits at the expense of the environment. It would mean a disproportionate burden for 
otherwise  legally  operating  businesses  –  especially  for  SMEs  –  as  being  the  subject  of 
criminal  proceedings.  This  would  be  the  case  already  today,  as  e.g.  in  the  field  of  illegal 
shipment  of  waste  mistakes  in  accompanying  documents  and  certificates  are  criminalized. 
Businesses  suggest 
rules 
systematically,  repeatedly  and  with  the  intention  to  gain  illegal  profits,  should  be  held 
criminally liable. For other companies, administrative sanctions would be sufficient. 

those  companies  disrespecting  administrative 

that  only 

  6.2.3  Option 2 c): a combination of option 2a) and 2b) 

This  option  is  a  combination  of  option  2  a)  (clarification  of  undefined  notions  in  the 
Directive) and 2 b) (eliminating or reducing the use of undefined terms) for the various crime 
categories under Article 3. 

Option 2a) appears to be indispensable for cases in which great harm is produced that can be 
proven in  environmental crime proceedings. Endangerment  crimes would catch cases where 
the legislator has decided that the infringement of sectoral rules would put the environmental 
at  an  intolerable  risk  even  without  damage  or  likelihood  of  damage  occurring  from  each 
individual infringement.  

Both  types  of  description  of  criminal  offences  are  used  in  the  current  Directive,  and  thus 
option  2c  would  maintain  the  current  architecture.  It  would  have  to  be  carefully  analysed 
which approach should be used for any new criminal offences to be possibly introduced in a 
revised Directive.   

  6.2.4 

 Stakeholder opinions 

Overall,  the  vast  majority  of  stakeholders  supported  clarifying  undefined  terms  in  the 
Directive itself. At the same time, a large majority also favoured providing (complementary) 
non-binding  guidance.  A  significant  number  of  the  industry  stakeholders  (about  one-third) 
considered the option of providing non-binding guidance not useful.  

Most  Member  States  endorsed  legally  binding  definitions  in  the  Directive  itself  but  also 
acknowledged  that  it  might  be  difficult  to  strike  a  balance  between  sufficiently  clear 
definitions  and  the  need  to  maintain  a  necessary  degree  of  flexibility  to  cover  all  possible 
scenarios. A large majority of the Member States welcomed (additional) soft law measures.  

Europol advised to clarify or even remove undetermined concepts and stressed that it may  not 
be realistic to require that the Directive contains all possible definitions. NGOs agreed that the 

46 

 
 
revised Directive should provide clear definitions on key terms and opted for additional non-
binding  guidance  documents.  According  to  many  academic  stakeholders,  it  would  need 
detailed and clear definitions to enable national legislators to formulate clear offences.  

  6.2.5  Comparison of the options/Preferred option 

The  preferred  option  is  option  2c),  as  the  combination  of  different  techniques  for  the 
definition of criminal offences allows a tailored approach to different type of environmentally 
harmful activities and risky behaviour.   

As indicated above, a refined definition of “unlawfulness” would continue to represent part of 
the legal technique used for the definition of criminal offence and the scope of the Directive. 
It  would  clarify  that  criminal  offences  under  the  Directive  are  serious  breaches  of  EU 
legislation  related  to  the  protection  of  the  environment  as  well  as  relevant  national  law  or 
administrative  regulation  or  decision  giving  effect  to  this  legislation.  The  combination  of  a 
refined  definition  of  “unlawfulness”  and  the  more  precise  definition  of  criminal  offences 
would ensure fulfilment the requirements of the principle of legal certainty.  

  6.3 

Objective 3: Improving the proportionality and dissuasiveness of sanction 

types and levels 

The  current  Directive  requires  ’effective,  dissuasive  and  proportionate  sanctions’  without 
further specification. This generic approach has not led to sufficient harmonisation of sanction 
levels  in  the  Member  States.  Sanction  levels  available  at  national  level  are  not  in  all  cases 
effective and dissuasive. Therefore, maintaining the Directive as such, i.e. without any change 
in the area of approximation of sanctions, would not address the shortcomings identified nor 
achieve any improvements at EI level.  

The following options are not mutually exclusive but could reinforce each other:  

  6.3.1  Option 3 a): Introduce minimum maximum sanctions levels 

Description 

Minimum  maximum  sanctions  define  maximum  sanctions  that  Member  States  must  at  least 
provide for in their national law concerning a specified offence. They must be distinguished 
from minimum sanction levels that oblige criminal judges to not hand down sanctions below 
that  threshold.  The  latter  are  more  effective  in  ensuring  an  appropriate  level  of  sanctions 
imposed in practice and are part of a number of Member States legislations. However, in other 
Member States such minimum threshold would meet constitutional problems as they do not 
allow  the  judge  to  remain  below  that  level  even  if  that  would  be  justified  a  given  case. 
Member States have therefore strongly resisted attempts to introduce such minimum sanction 
levels  into  their  national  law.  As  Article  82  para.  2  TFEU  requires  respect  for  the  Member 
States legal traditions and systems in the field of criminal law, a possible option to propose 
minimum sanction levels was dismissed from the start.  

47 

 
 
By  contrast,  minimum  maximum  sanctions  in  criminal  law  instruments  are  an  established 
practice  for  harmonising  sanctions  in  EU  criminal  law  (see  PIF  Directive,  Market  Abuse 
Directive, Euro counterfeiting Directive). 

More  specifically,  the  proposed  minimum-maximum  level  of  sanctions  will  be  graduated 
according to the severity of the criminal offences referred to in Article 3, so that the Directive 
will provide for more severe penalties where the conduct has caused or is likely to cause death 
or serious injury to persons. Furthermore, the Commission will take into account the sanction 
thresholds  in  other  criminal  law  Directives  adopted  on  the  basis  of  Article  83(1)  and  (2) 
TFEU and the significance of the legal interests protected to ensure coherence.  

Coherence 

Minimum maximum sanction thresholds would ensure coherence of the Directive with other 
instruments in the criminal area. These instruments often apply only to serious crime defined 
by the level of maximum sanctions available according to national law.132  

  The  European  Arrest  Warrant  does  not  currently  apply  to  environmental  crimes  if 
national  law  does  not  provide  for  a  maximum  level  of  at  least  1  year  imprisonment 
sanction  (or  if  a  sentence  has  been  handed  down  of  less  than  4  months).  Maximum 
penalties in BE, IT, LU, and SE are lower than 1 year for some Article 3 offences.133   
  The  Directive  on  the  European  Investigation  Order  (EIO)  does  not  set  any  penalty 
level  for  the  issuing  of  an  order.  Nevertheless,  Article  6(2)  provides  that  “the 
investigative measure(s) indicated in the EIO could have been ordered under the same 
conditions in a similar domestic case”; therefore if the issuing Member State provides 
in its national law for a maximum penalty level to be met in order for an investigative 
measure to be carried out, this applies also in the case of the EIO.  

  The  2000  UN  Convention  against  Transnational  Organised  Crime  (UNTOC)  that 
promotes  effective  investigations  including  confiscation  and  seizure  as  well  as 
international  cooperation  to  combat  serious  crime  that  is  transnational  in  nature  and 
involves  an  organised  criminal  group.  The  UNTOC  would  only  apply 
to 
environmental  crime  where  it  is  punishable  by  a  maximum  of  at  least  4  years  of 
imprisonment. This threshold is not reached in a number of Member States and for a 
number of environmental crime areas under Article 3 (see annex 4 - baseline). 

Effectiveness 

Experience  with  other  EU  criminal  law  instruments  is  that  minimum  maximum  –  although 
sending  a  strong  signal  that  the  respective  crime  category  is  considered  as  serious  -  have 
limited  effect  on  sanction  levels  imposed  in  practice.  Also  with  regard  to  environmental 

132 The 6th Anti Money Laundering Directive (AML Directive) came into effect in December 2020. It now explicitly applies 
to environmental crime irrespective of minimum or maximum thresholds of penalties in the Member States. 
133 Evaluation Report, p. 31. 

48 

 
 
                                                 
crime,  even  in  Member  States,  which  provide  for  high  maximum  sanction  levels,  sanction 
levels imposed remain too often in the lowest segment of the available scale.134  

Therefore, this option would not be effective, if not supported by other measures.  

  6.3.2  Option  3  b):  Option  3a)  plus  aggravating  circumstances  and  accessory 

sanctions 

Description 

Therefore,  in  addition  to  option  3a),  defining  aggravating  circumstances  and  accessory 
sanctions could contribute to harmonising sanction levels also in practice and thus ensure their 
effectiveness.  

Examples  of  aggravating  circumstances  in  other  criminal  and  non-criminal  instruments 
include  the  severity  of  the  damage  done,135  the  amount  of  illegal  profits  generated  or 
expected,  the  involvement  of  organised  crime  groups136  or  corruption,  action  taken  by  the 
offender to obstruct administrative controls, the use of false or forged documents, intentional 
or  reckless  action,  committing  the  crime  with  the  intention  to  generate  illegal  profit,  or 
repeated illegal action of the same nature.137   

Article 19(2)(a) of the Timber Regulation (EUTR) gives some indication of the criteria that 
Member States can take into account in determining the type and level of financial penalties 
to  apply  to  EUTR  breaches.  The  list  includes  environmental  damage,  value  of  the  timber 
products  placed  on  the  market,  tax  losses,  economic  detriment  and  economic  benefits 
resulting from the infringement.  

Examples  of  accessory  sanctions  are  also  found  in  other  EU  criminal  law  instruments  that 
entered  into  force  post-Lisbon.  Accessory  sanctions  can  include  temporary  or  permanent 
closure of sites used to commit a crime, the winding up of a legal entity involved in the crime. 
confiscation of proceeds and seizure of instruments used to commit the crime, exclusion from 
public procurement procedures and grants, publication of a criminal conviction, withdrawal of 

134 See also evaluation report, page 46: “Stakeholders from the police and judiciary in particular said that sanction levels in 
theory were sufficient, but the problem was practical application by the judicial authorities, due to a lack of knowledge of the 
harmfulness of environmental crime and to specialisation. The deterrent effect is undermined if many cases are dismissed or 
only very lenient sanctions are imposed even if more severe sanctions are available under national law or where sentences 
handed down are suspended. In an interview, Europol highlighted the importance of ensuring that offenders  actually serve 
their sentence”. 
135 Chapter 29 section 1 paragraph 2 of the Swedish Environmental Code regulates “severe environmental crime” (as opposed 
to  “environmental  crime”  in  paragraph  1)  and  reads  as  follows:  “If  the  offence  is  severe,  the  sentence  shall  be  ‘severe 
environmental crime’ and the penalty shall be a term of imprisonment for at least six months and at most six years. When 
considering whether the offence is severe, special attention shall be paid to the fact if it has caused, or might have caused, 
lasting damages on a large scale, if the act otherwise was of a particularly dangerous nature or if it included a deliberate risk-
taking of a serious kind or if the offender, when particular attention or ability was needed, committed a neglect of a serious 
kind.”. 
136 To make the Directive coherent with The Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the fact that 
offences  referred  to  in  Article  2,  as  determined  by  this  Member  State,  have  been  committed  within  the  framework  of  a 
criminal organisation, may be regarded as an aggravating circumstance. 
137  The  Netherlands  Court  of  Auditors  remarks  in  its  report  ‘Handhaven  in  het  Duister’,  p.  34,  that  a  small  number  of 
companies (6%) is responsible for most environmental crimes (56%). 

49 

 
 
                                                 
permits  and  authorisations,  the  disqualification  of  directors,  compensation  of  victims,  the 
obligation of companies to install due diligence schemes, placing under surveillance of legal 
entities involved in the crime. Especially with regard to environmental crime, the obligation to 
restore damaged nature could play a decisive role. In the following, two accessory sanctions 
are presented in more detail:  

The restoration of nature as accessory sanction – coherence with the ELD  

The obligation to restore nature has no precedence in other EU criminal legislation and would 
be  a  sanction  typically  connected  to  environmental  crime.  The  4  Networks  (IMPEL, 
EnviCrimeNet,  ENPE,  and  EUFJE)  in  a  common  statement  on  21  May  2021  have  strongly 
recommended that in all Members States, criminal judges should be entitled to impose, apart 
from  financial  penalties  and  imprisonment  sanctions,  also  remedial  sanctions  such  as  the 
restoration of nature138. This would imply an integrated approach of both administrative and 
criminal  sanction  types  creating  systemic  coherence.  Such  an  integrated  approach  including 
especially  the  restoration  of  nature  has  also  been  called  for  in  a  2021  resolution  of  the 
European Parliament139, as well as by NGOs.140 

Such an approach exists in some jurisdictions: 

Australia has adopted a model of ‘reparative justice’ through the New South Wales Land and 
Environment Court Act,  which provides a combination of punitive and reparative sanctions, 
the latter including the obligation for the offending company to publicise the offence and its 
consequences,  to  carry  out  specified  projects  for  restoration  or  the  enhancement  of  the 
environment, to pay a specified amount to the Environmental Trust, or to organise a training 
course for its employees. Source: UNEP141 

Under current EU legislation, the restoration of environmental damage is provided for in the 
Environmental  Liability  Directive  (ELD).142  The  ELD  establishes  a  framework  of 
environmental  liability,  based  on  the  "polluter-pays"  principle,  to  prevent  and  remedy 
environmental damage by obliging the operator to restore nature to its previous condition.  

An obligation to restore damage under the Environmental Crime Directive could overlap with 
the  ELD.  It  is  therefore  important  to  ensure  coherence  between  the  two  instruments.  The 
conditions  under  which  the  obligation  to  restore  nature  are  different  under  the  two 
instruments, the latter requiring a criminal conviction. In addition, the environmental scope of 
application  of  the  two  instruments  overlap  but  are  not  identical.  However,  there  is  a  high 
potential  for  synergies:  the  ELD  includes  procedural  rules  and  the  obligation  for  Member 

138  Also  EU  environmental  law  has  regulated  on  restoration  of  environmental  damage  in  the  Environmental  Liability 
Directive that is not a criminal law instrument.  
139  https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2021-0112_EN.html;  Report  on  the  Environmental  Liability  of 
Companies.  
140 In particular the NGO European Forum for Restorative Justice, in response to our targeted stakeholder consultation.  
141  United  Nations  Environment  Programme  (2018),The  State  of  Knowledge  of  Crimes  that  have  Serious  Impacts  on  the 
Environment, p. 58. 
142 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/liability/ for more information on the ELD. 

50 

 
 
                                                 
States to appoint a competent authority to enforce the ELD. It also contains a definition of the 
concept  ‘restoration  of  the  environment’  and  how  to  achieve  it.143  These  definitions  and 
structures could also be used, if the obligation to restore damage were to be imposed during 
criminal  proceedings/by  a  criminal  judge.  The  Environmental  Crime  Directive  could  make 
reference to the ELD in this regard. 

The confiscation of proceeds coherence with the Freezing and Confiscation Directive 

Practitioners  but  also  other  stakeholders  have  particularly  emphasised  that  effective  and 
dissuasive sanctioning  would require that the enormous illegal profits and other benefits are 
removed  in  full.  This  can  be  achieved  by  ensuring  that  the  Directive  is  coherent  with 
Directive 2014/42 EU (the Freezing and Confiscation Directive). Currently, the scope of the 
Freezing  and  Confiscation  Directive’s  scope  does  not  include  environmental  crimes. 
However,  it  does  apply  to  legal  instruments  that  reference  the  Freezing  and  Confiscation 
Directive. It would therefore be sufficient to include a simple reference in the Environmental 
Crime  Directive  to  make  it  coherent  with  the  Freezing  and  Confiscation  Directive  and 
improve its effectiveness with regard to sanctioning.  

Effectiveness 

Accessory  sanction  and  aggravating  circumstances  will  directly  impact  the  sanctioning  in 
practice. The existence of aggravating circumstances can contribute to judges imposing higher 
and  more  dissuasive  sanction,  using  the  full  range  up  to  the  maximum  sanction  threshold, 
where  appropriate.  In  the  same  way,  aggravating  circumstances  could  also  lead  to  a  more 
harmonised sanction practice across the EU.  

Accessory  sanction  will  also  contribute  to  more  effective  and  dissuasive  and  proportionate 
sanctions, as they provide the criminal judge with a toolbox from which he could choose the 
most  appropriate  and  dissuasive  ones  adapted  to  the  individual  case.  Accessory  sanctions 
could  be  even  more  dissuasive  than  financial  penalties,  in  particular  with  regard  to  legal 
persons. For example: confiscation or forfeiture can serve as a very dissuasive tool, as the value 
of property and assets confiscated can reach amounts surpassing the benefits of a crime.  

Case study – glass eels 

The  Regional  High  Court  of  Nantes,  in  a  decision  of  7  February  2019,  sentenced  the 
traffickers to 2 years imprisonment and to fines. The Court also sentenced certain offenders 
to a 5-year ban on carrying out a professional activity related to fishing glass eels. Property, 
assets and bank accounts of an amount of EUR 700 000 were confiscated, including a boat, 
a motorbike, a car, a luxury watch and more than EUR 300 000119. The imposed financial 

143 Remedying of environmental damage, in relation to water or protected species or natural habitats, is achieved through the 
restoration  of  the  environment  to  its  baseline  condition.  The  ELD  aims  at  ensuring  that  the  environment  be  physically 
reinstated.  This  is  achieved  through  the  replacement  of  the  damaged  natural  resources  by  identical  or,  where  appropriate, 
equivalent  or  similar  natural  components,  or,  as  appropriate,  by  the  acquisition/creation  of  new  natural  components.  If 
measures taken on the affected site do not allow achieving the return to the baseline condition, complementary measures may 
be taken elsewhere (for instance, an adjacent site). 

51 

 
 
                                                 
penalty only amounted to EUR 30 000.  

  6.3.3  Option  3  c):  Option  3  b)  plus  an  obligation  to  link  the  level  of  fines  to  the 

financial situation of legal person and/or illegal profits 

Description 

A provision could be included into the Directive obliging Member States to take into account 
the annual turnover of a company and illegal profits generated or expected when determining 
the appropriate level of a financial penalty.144  

Effectiveness 

financial 

fines,  e.g.  by  off-setting 

The  financial  situation  of  legal  persons  generally  differs  considerably  from  that  of  natural 
persons.  Legal  persons/companies  to  a  higher  degree  than  natural  persons  are  able  to 
illegal  profits 
outbalance 
generated/expected or as counting them as part of operating expenses.145 The ECJ has held on 
several  occasions  that  a  dissuasive  sanctioning  system  must  take  account  of  the  financial 
situation  of  the  offender146.  Similar  arrangements  exist  for  example  in  EU  (non-criminal) 
competition  law147  or  in  sectoral  legislation,  but  also  in  national  environmental  criminal 
law.148  

them  against 

the 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No.  1005/2008  of  29  September  2008  establishing  a  Community 
system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing lists certain 
behaviours as serious infringements. For this category of infringements, Article 44(2) of the 
Regulation  provides  for  an  approximation  of  the  maximum  levels  of  administrative  fines 
foreseen in relation to serious infringements, requiring Member States to impose a maximum 
sanction  of  at  least  five  times  the  value  of  the  fishery  products  obtained  by  committing  the 
serious infringement.   

For  environmental  offenses  covered  by  the  Directive  committed  by  legal  persons,  some 
Member States already link criminal fines to the financial situation of the offender. In HU, the 
maximum level of fine for all Article 3 offenses is three times the financial benefit gained or 
expected.    If  the  benefit  gained  or  expected  through  the  criminal  act  is  not  a  financial 
advantage, the court imposes the fine considering the financial situation of the legal entity. In 

144 Cefic cautioned that there must not be a duplication of the competition law situation, which also connects fine levels to 
annual turnovers. Here is the purpose of the fines also to prompt cartel members to leave the cartel. 
145 M. Faure, Environmental Liability of Companies, 2020, p. 88 
146 See for example Judgment of 27 March 2014, LCL Le Crédit Lyonnais, C-565/12, EU:C:2014:190, para 50 and 51In this 
case the ECJ stated that to assess if a penalty is dissuasive it is necessary to compare: (a) the situation of a person behaving in 
compliance  with the law,  with (b) the same person's situation after acting against the law and then receiving a penalty. If, 
under  this  comparison,  the  offender  is  at  an  advantage  when  not  complying  with  legal  obligations  and  when  penalties  are 
applied, the penalty system is not dissuasive enough. 
147 Cartel law. 
148 Namely in HU, NL, PL, AT, Evaluation report p. 38-39. 

52 

 
 
                                                 
NL  a  fine  may  be  imposed  up  to  a  maximum  of  10  %  of  the  annual  turnover  of  the  legal 
person in the business year preceding the judgment or decision [3]. 

In PL and AT, maximum fines are limited by the income or profit of the legal entity. PL sets a 
maximum fine of 1,250,000, but this fine should not exceed 3% of the yearly income of the 
entity for all Article 3 offenses. AT makes a distinction between fines for for-profit (between 
EUR 50 and 10,000 per day) and non-profit (between EUR 2 and 500 per day) legal persons 
for all Article 3 offenses, with maximum fines of 7,200,000 (or 720 daily units) for all Article 
3 offenses except for 3(g) offenses (which have a maximum fine of 3,600,000).149  

Impact on businesses 

Sanction  systems  linked  to  economic  parameters  (such  as  the  financial  situation  of  a 
company) can result in higher fines for large companies. This represents a risk for legitimate 
businesses that accidentally  cause damage through their operations. However, such sanction 
systems  are  already  in  place  in  several  Member  States  for  environmental  criminal  or 
administrative law.150 Additionally, more harmonisation between administrative and criminal 
sanction systems  contributes to  creating  a more  even playing field  for legitimate businesses 
across Europe. In the public consultation, businesses said that a blanket approach based on the 
financial  situation  of  companies,  independent  of  the  type  of  conduct  involved would not be 
appropriate. Instead, the nature, degree of culpability, frequency, harm caused, any previous 
warnings  from  a  regulator  and  seriousness  of  non-compliance  should  all  be  considered  to 
define the appropriate sanction. 

  6.3.4  All  options:  non-binding  guidance  e.g.  on  determining  of  illegal  benefits, 

calculation of illegal profits, financial situation of legal persons etc. 

The  option  to  harmonise  sanction  levels  only  through  non-binding  measures  was  discarded 
above  under  section  5.1.2.  Guidelines  and  benchmarking  could,  however,  complement 
binding anchor provisions in the Directive and contribute to further harmonising sanctioning 
of environmental crime and its effectiveness in practice.  

Sanctioning principles have been formulated in the context of the Commission’s Action Plan 
to  foster  environmental  compliance  and  governance.151  These  could  be  further  developed. 
Special guidance could also be necessary to harmonise sanction levels  of financial penalties 
through e.g. adopting a methodology how to take into account illegal profits and the financial 
situation  of  a  legal  person.  For  example,  if  not  already  regulated  in  the  legislative  text  (see 
example above), such guidelines could determine the minimum- or average percentage of the 
product value or of the economic benefit resulting from the infringement and/or of the annual 
turnover  of  a  company.  Guidance  could  also  be  necessary  to  help  determine  the  value  of  a 

149 Evaluation report, p. 38-39. 
150 As illustrated in section 2.1.3.  
151  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions:  EU  actions  to  improve  environmental  compliance  and  governance  {SWD 
(2018) 10 final.  

53 

 
 
                                                 
benefit  or profit obtained from  the criminal  activity.  As such guidelines already  exist or  are 
planned  for,  e.g.  in  the  context  of  the  Environmental  Liability  Directive,  this  could  lead  to 
synergies. Stakeholders in general have expressed great support for a combination of binding 
and non-binding measures to improve and harmonise sanctions.  

  6.3.5  Coherence with EU sectoral legislation - relationship between criminal and 

administrative sanctioning systems 

As  illustrated  above,  the  provisions  on  sanctions  in  the  Directive  can  overlap  with  penalty 
clauses used in  sectoral  legislations  listed in  the  Directive’s  annexes or other administrative 
national  or  EU-legislation.  These  instruments  do  not  contain  any  provisions  on  the 
relationship of parallel administrative and criminal sanctioning tracks that would ensure their 
coherence and the ne-bis-in-idem principle152: 

The Commission is currently reviewing a number of these sectoral instruments.153 This gives 
the  opportunity  to  ensure  their  mutual  coherence  and  coherence  with  the  Environmental 
Crime  Directive.  To  prevent  overlaps  and  diverging  rules  with  regard  to  sanctioning,  EU 
sectoral legislation should only regulate administrative sanctioning systems.154 Administrative 
sanctioning systems would continue to apply according to the sectoral legislation or according 
to  the  national  law  of  the  Member  States.  The  combination  of  administrative  and  criminal 
sanctions should not breach the ne-bis-in idem principle (see for this issue also under section 6 
– heading overarching national strategies).  

The  Environmental  Crime  Directive  and  EU  sectoral  legislation  should  provide  for 
corresponding  accessory  sanctions  types.  This  would  ensure  that  under  both  sanctioning 
tracks there is sufficient flexibility to react appropriately to the individual case.  

  6.3.6  Stakeholder opinions 

All  measures  are supported by  a large majority  of the stakeholders.  A large majority  sees a 
need  for  provisions  on  minimum  maximum  sanction  level,  aggravating  circumstances  and 
accessory  sanctions.  The  usefulness    guidance  material,  compilation  of  best  practices  and 
enhanced and better tailored training was also largely confirmed. 

Almost all Member States could endorse the introduction in the Directive of minimum levels 
for  maximum  sanctions  for  environmental  crimes.  Some  Member  States  have  reservations 
against  the  definitions  of  aggravating  circumstances  and  accessory  sanctions  as  well  as 
linking the level of imposed penalties to the profits or turnover of a company. 

152 The application of the ne bis in idem principle laid down in Article 50 of the Charter presupposes that the measures which 
have already been adopted against the accused by  means of a decision that has become final are  of a criminal nature. The 
CJEU has held that Article 50 of the Charter covers also cases where the double punishment stems from a combination of 
criminal and administrative penalties provided that the administrative penalty is  criminal in nature (CJEU, judgment of 26 
February  2013,  Åkerberg  Fransson,  C‑617/10,  EU:C:2013:105).  In  this  respect,  the  CJEU  –  aligned  itself  with  the  ‘Engel 
criteria’  developed  by  the  ECtHR  –  has  identified  criteria,  which  alternatively  and  not  cumulatively,  are  relevant  for 
determining whether an administrative sanction is criminal in nature. 
153 See annex 10. 
154 Notwithstanding the right of Member States to criminalise breaches of sectoral legislation in their national law. 

54 

 
 
                                                 
For  one  third  of  the  practitioners  responding  to  the  public  consultation  the  minimum 
maximum sanction levels are not useful. One third of the industry stakeholder considers the 
minimum maximum sanction levels to be not useful. The four networks in a joint statement 
highlight  the  need  of  minimum  maximum  sanction  levels.  In  Eurojust’s  view,  cross-border 
investigations  and  prosecutions  of  environmental  crime  in  the  EU  would  benefit  from  the 
application  of  more  uniform  and  dissuasive  penalties  for  such  crimes  across  the  EU. 
According  to  Eurojust,  it  is  essential  to  remove/confiscate  the  proceeds  of  environmental 
crime more systematically. 

A large majority of the Member States, the practitioners and of NGOs advocate for linking the 
level of imposed penalties to the profits or turnover expected or the profits generated and  to 
the  financial  situation  of  business  involved  in  committing  the  crime.  A  minority  of  the 
industry  stakeholders  favours  this  option.  One  third  of  the  industry  stakeholders  does  not 
consider this option or the definition of aggravating circumstances and accessory sanctions, to 
be helpful. 

The  academic  stakeholders  strongly  support  new  forms  of  sanctions  for  companies,  such  as 
the obligation to repair the damage to the environment. Academia have long advocated that a 
toolkit  of  administrative  and  traditionally  criminal  sanctions  be  made  available  to  criminal 
judges. The Fundamental Rights Agency emphasises that sanctions against legal entities must 
be sufficiently dissuasive, stipulated in national law and effectively implemented. 

  6.3.7  Comparison of the options/preferred option 

The  preferred  option  is  option  3  c),  which  includes  the  other  two  options.  Each  individual 
option  can  only  develop  its  full  potential  with  regard  to  effectiveness,  if  flanked  and 
complemented by the other options. While minimum maximum sanction levels ensure that a 
common  sanction  level  is  available  in  the  Member  States  that  appropriately  reflects  the 
harmfulness of environmental crime, aggravating circumstances aim at imposing appropriate 
sanction levels  also  in  practice. Accessory sanctions introduce sanction types other than the 
fines  and  imprisonment  and  target  in  particular  legal  persons,  which  often  find  accessory 
sanctions  more  dissuasive  than  criminal  or  administrative  fines.  They  can  be  of  different 
nature and designed to remove the illegal profits from the offender, or to stop future activities 
e.g.  by  seizing  the  means,  which  were  used  to  commit  the  crime.  To  increase  also  the 
dissuasiveness of fines, the level of fines imposed will have to take account of the financial 
situation of legal person, at least where this appears appropriate. Finally, as it is particularly 
important to remove illegal profits, which can be enormous and are a key incentive to commit 
environmental crime, fines must at least reach the level of the profits generated. In this way, a 
full EU criminal sanction system can be created that has all tools at its disposal to come to the 
most effective and suitable sanction or mix of sanction in the individual case.  

55 

 
 
  6.4 

Objective  4:  Improving  the  effective  cooperation  and  coordination 

between Member States 

Practitioners highlighted that effective cross-border cooperation is essential for investigations 
of  environmental  crime155  to  succeed.  The  current  Directive  does  not  contain  provisions 
targeting cross-border cooperation.  

In  the  following,  a  package  of  measures  that  support  each  other  will  be  assessed.  We  have 
chosen not to discuss each of these measures as an individual option as each measure tackles 
different aspects of the problem area and therefore cannot be regarded as alternative options. 
They  are  different  elements  of  the  same  bundle,  parts  of  a  package,  to  address  properly  all 
facets of the objective.  

We could not identify additional options or alternative packages of options. All conceivable 
measures as suggested by stakeholders and have been included in the package below. Also in 
other  criminal  law  instruments  there  were  no  other  solutions  with  regard  to  the  problem  at 
hand.  

  6.4.1  Option – introducing a package of provisions directly fostering cross-border 

cooperation 

The Directive could contain additional provisions directly fostering cross-border cooperation. 
Examples  of  such  measures  exist  in  other  criminal  law  instruments156  and  oblige  Member 
States to   

a.  provide for investigative tools for organised crime and other serious crime forms (such as 
telephone  interceptions,  video  surveillance,  tracking,  undercover  agents  and  controlled 
deliveries); Member States which currently do not allow to use these investigative tools 
for environmental crime investigations would be obliged to do so. 

b.  cooperate  through  EU-agencies  and  other  bodies  mandated  to  facilitate  cross-border 
cooperation such as Europol, OLAF, Eurojust and professional networks such as ENPE, 
IMPEL and EnviCrimeNet. 

c.  install national contact points for cross-border cooperation. National contacts points could 
facilitate coordination, information sharing and joint planning at national level as well as 
contact and cooperation through Europol and Eurojust. 

  6.4.2  Effectiveness, legal feasibility and coherence  

Investigative tools 

Access to the most effective investigative tools in all Member States would facilitate effective 
cross-border cooperation, such investigative tools are normally conditional on the seriousness 
of the crime and in some Member States conditional on whether the environmental crime is 
linked  to  organised  crime.  Under  this  option,  there  would  be  no  further  conditions  to  apply 

155 See Annex 8. 
156 See Annex 6. 

56 

 
 
                                                 
investigative  tools  also  to  environmental  crime.  Effectiveness  is  limited  insofar,  as  this 
provision  does  not  harmonise  the  investigative  tools  available  for  environmental  crime 
overall. Member States would therefore only obliged to make available tools that exist already 
in  their national law.  This  is  justified for proportionality considerations  and the  principle to 
respect  Member  States  legal  traditions  and  systems  when  harmonising  rules  to  facilitate 
judicial cross-border cooperation (Art. 82 (2) TFEU).  

Cooperation through EU-agencies like Eurojust, Europol and OLAF 

An  obligation  to  involve  EU-agencies  that  are  mandated  with  facilitating  cross-border 
cooperation  could  help  increasing  the  frequency  of  cross-border  cooperation  and  thus 
contribute  to  investigations  that  are  more  effective.  These  agencies  may  only  act  when 
requested by the Member States.  

National contact points 

The creation of national contact points could help further foster intense and regular EU-wide 
contacts on the operational level and tear down barriers that existed to so far in tackling cross-
border  environmental  crime  cases.  This  measure  could  build  on  the  existing  professional 
networks  of  environmental  law  enforcement  practitioners  and  prosecutors  whose  work  has 
already paved the way for better cross-border contacts at national level.157   

Stakeholder opinions 

All  measures  are  supported  by  a  large  majority  of  most  stakeholder  groups.  However,  the 
large  majority  of  businesses  that  replied  to  the  public  consultation  do  not  consider 
harmonisation  measures  are necessary.  The joint  statement of the four networks emphasises 
the  need  for  cross-border  cooperation  within  the  EU.  NGOs  support  the  use  of  existing 
mechanisms of cooperation with European Agencies (Eurojust, Europol).  

  6.4.3  Efficiency 

Investigative tools 

Should the specialised investigative tools be used more widely also due to the broader scope 
of environmental crime, or due to an overall increase in awareness about environmental crime 
and prioritisation of such investigations, additional costs for the use of these tools are likely. 
There is no quantitative data available on the costs of using investigative tools available in the 
Member States. However, prosecution officers from two Member States noted in interviews 
that  these  techniques  can  be  costly,  particularly  for  translation  and  telecommunication 
services. Media reports have also noted the relatively high cost of wiretapping efforts, mostly 
linked to telecommunication services. The benefits in terms of improvements in the efficiency 
of  investigations  and  prosecution  and  the  further  social  and  environmental  impacts  (see 
section 7) would nevertheless be very high, hence this measure is deemed efficient. 

157 See for more details: Smith, L.  and K. Klaas. (2015). Networks and NGOs Relevant to Fighting Environmental Crime. 
Study in the framework of the Efface research project, Berlin: Ecologic Institute. Available at: www.efface.eu.  

57 

 
 
                                                 
Cooperation  through  EU-agencies  and  bodies  mandated  to  facilitating  cross-border 
cooperation such as Europol, OLAF and Eurojust; install national contact points for 
cross-border cooperation; 

Using reference data from previous impact assessments, a range of 12 – 20 days per contact 
point annually was estimated. Contact points are assumed to be required in five different areas 
(administrative authorities, police, customs, prosecution and courts) per Member State. Costs 
are presented in the table below.  

Table 3, estimated annual costs of establishing and maintaining focal points in the Member States  

Annual costs 

Low 

High 

Per focal point 

12 days 

€ 3 523 

20 days 

€ 5 872 

Per  Member  State  (5 
focal points) 

All  Member  States 
(EU27) 

60 days 

€ 17 615 

100 days 

€ 29 358 

620 days 

€ 475 594 

700 days 

€ 792 656 

Many  Member  States  have  representatives  in  professional  networks  of  law  enforcement 
practitioners  specialised 
in  environmental  crime  (i.e.  IMPEL,  ENPE,  EUFJE  and 
EnviCrimeNet).  These  representatives  could  formally  take  on  the  role  of  national  contact 
points, so that synergies could be used and cost reduced.  

  6.4.4  Conclusion 

The measures proposed under this option are each effective on their own merits, but combined 
they  support  and  reinforce  each  other.  As  shown  above  under  section  2.2  -  baseline, 
mandatory  provisions  in  the  Directive  are  necessary  to  support  the  effectiveness  of  already 
that  support  cross-border 
numerous  existing  non-binding  measures  and 
cooperation.158  

trainings 

  6.5 

Objective  5:  Improving    data  collection,  statistics  and  reporting  on 

environmental crime 

The options to improve data collection and dissemination and statistics in the Member States 
are:  

Legislative options: 

Option 5 a): Oblige Member States to collect data, prepare statistics and actively disseminate 
them, and regularly report to the Commission statistical data related to environmental crime.  

158  Support  offered  by  existing  agencies  such  as  Europol  and  Eurojust,  but  also  from  EU-wide  operation  professional 
networks  in  the  field  of  environmental  crime,  EU-  action  plans  to  foster  practical  implementation  of  environmental  law 
including cross-border cooperation and measures taken under the EMPACT policy cycle have not been sufficient to make a 
real difference. 

58 

 
 
 
                                                 
Option 5 b): Oblige Member States to collect and report statistical data according to 
harmonised common standards 

Further measures to support both options: 

  Provide for EU-guidelines on the collection, sharing and reporting of statistical data on 

environmental crime. 

  Provide  for  non-binding  EU  guidelines  on  developing  common  standards  for 

collecting, sharing and reporting of statistical data.  

  Professional  training  for  national  law  enforcement  authorities  on  the  collection, 

sharing and reporting of statistical data. based on EU-training modules 

  Provide  for  a  common  EU  platform  to  be  used  by  Member  States  for  sharing  and 

reporting of statistical data/use of the existing e-justice portal. 

  6.5.1  Option  5  a):  Oblige  Member  States  to  collect  and  regularly  report  to  the 
Commission  statistical  data  on  environmental  crime  proceedings  combined  with 
further supporting measures 

Description  

Under  this  option,  Member  States  would  be  obliged  to  collect  and  process  relevant  data, 
compile  statistics,  and  report  such  statistical  data  themselves  to  the  European  Commission, 
but they can choose how they will do it.  

Efficiency 

Provisions obliging Member States to collect data on scale of environmental crime and efforts 
to  combat  it,  prepare  statistics  and  report  to  the  Commission  specific  statistical  data  on 
criminal proceedings exist in other Directives.159 The legal concepts, criminal justice systems, 
data and methods of crime statistics vary greatly between European countries, as well as the 
efforts  to  collect  accurate  and  complete  statistical  data  at  all.  The  lack  of  standardised 
instruments and methodology limit the comparability of crime statistics. 

Supporting measures 

The  option  could  therefore  be  supported  by  non-binding  measures  such  as  guidelines  and 
training. Such measures  already exist today and could be stepped up.  E.g. the ‘Guidance on 
combating  environmental  crime  and  related  infringements’160  provides  guidance  on  data 
collection  and  information  sharing.  Although  this  helps  Member  States  to  get  understand 
techniques and best practices, it is does not ensure that all Member States comply.  

159 Specifically: Directive 2019/713/EU Article 18 on counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment; Directive 2013/40/EU 
Article 14 on attacks against information systems; and Directive 2014/42/EU Article 11 on the confiscation and freezing of 
assets. 
160https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/cafdbfbb-a3b9-42d8-b3c9-05e8f2c6a6fe/library/4936f98d-ace0-438b-8bd7-
0afc9946dbfa/details. 

59 

 
 
 
                                                 
An EU-format  or  platform at  EU level to  share  and report to  the EU the  statistical  material 
collected could make it easier for Member States to share and report their statistical data.  A 
platform would use standard IT tools and a common reporting format. Especially, combined 
with  an  obligation  of  the  EU  to  publish  annual  reports  on  the  developments  of  law 
enforcement  proceedings  in  the  Member  States  based  on  the  statistical  data  reported  could 
lead Member States to see the benefits of reliable, accurate and comparable data in the field of 
environmental crime. Synergies with existing EU-portals disseminating crime statistics could 
be used. Such portals exist for example at: Eurojust, Europol, Eurostat (section on Crime and 
Criminal  Justice  statistics),  EMCDDA  (European  Monitoring  Centre  for  Drugs  and  Drug 
Addiction).  

However, without a standardised format, it will be difficult to compile comparable statistical 
data on a European level given the language differences, the different procedural rules at each 
stages of criminal proceedings and the variations e.g. on the conditions for dismissing a case 
across  Member  States.  Although  19  Member  States  already  publish  data  on  environmental 
crime  in  various  national  publications161,  this  data  collection  is  fragmented  across  different 
authorities in each country, without much central national coordination The Directive would 
therefore have to go further and be more specific in its demands, to be really effective.162  

  6.5.2  Option 5 b): Option 5 a) plus an obligation of the Member States to collect 

and report statistical data according to harmonised common standards  

Under  this  option,  Member  States  would  be  obliged  to  collect  and  process  relevant 
information  and  data,  compile  statistics  and  transmit  statistical  data  according  to  minimum 
common  standards163  for  the  annual  collection,  compilation  and  transmission  to  a  national 
coordinating  office.  The  exact  definition  of  minimum  standards  as  opposed  to  fully 
harmonised standards  could  be determined  at  EU level  with participation  of Member States 
using comitology procedure.  

Feasibility and effectiveness 

This option would be feasible, given that current crime and criminal justice statistics systems 
in most Member States already have experience in reporting crime and criminal justice data to 
Eurostat.  Thus,  the  majority  of  Member  States  have  achieved  already  some  level  of  data 
standardisation.  Data  following  minimum  common  standards  would  still  provide  limited 

161  According  to  baseline  research:  Final  Report  on  the  Evaluation  of  Directive  2008/99/EC  –  study  by  Milieu  2020;  DG 
HOME: Overview of the availability, comparability and consistency of administrative statistical data on recorded  crime and 
on the stages of the criminal justice process in the EU; and stakeholder consultation by DG Justice. 

163  Issues  requiring  a  common  understanding  would  be  e.g.  common  counting  units  and  rules  (e.g.  offences  rather  than 
investigations or cases; persons suspected for several offences be counted for each type separately or not), use of a common 
classification  of  environmental  crime  (or  sub-categories)  for  statistical  and  reporting  purposes  to  be  prepared  by  the  EU 
working  group,  common  indicators  according  to  common  reporting  standards  (e.g.  persons  convicted  for  waste  crime; 
number of custodial sentences for pollution offences; number of fines for pollution offences exceeding threshold of X Euro, 
etc.).  

60 

 
 
                                                 
 
comparability  among  countries.164  However,  if  data  on  persons  suspected  and  convicted  for 
trafficking in species referred to the same counting units, the same category of crime and the 
same reporting standards across countries, trends in conviction rates for trafficking in species 
would be reliable and comparable.165  

Effectiveness could be fostered further through transparency resulting from the dissemination 
of  statistical  data.  Thus,  it  would  be  public  which  Member  States  are  not  providing 
comparable  statistical  data.  Moreover,  regular  Commission  reports  on  the  results  and 
interpretation of the statistical data on environmental crime proceedings in the Member States 
provide  valuable  information  and  could  be  an  incentive  for  Member  States  to  step  up  their 
efforts in collecting comparable statistical data.  

Political support 

As  Member  States  will  have  to  invest  in  adjusting  their  data  collection  systems  and 
workflows, and will have to participate actively in setting up and defining common standards, 
this option is, however, dependent on the political will in the Member States to do so. As the 
lack of statistical data in the area of environmental crime has been a well-known challenge in 
the past decade and addressing these shortcomings was also recommended by the 8th Mutual 
Evaluation,  there  is  a  momentum  to  take  steps  towards  more  effective  data  collection.  But 
Member  States  were  in  the  past  very  reluctant  to  accept  obligations  to  harmonise  criminal 
statistics. 

Stakeholder opinions 

All improvement options are supported by a large majority of stakeholders; almost all of the 
respondents to the public consultation are in favour of obliging Member States to collect and 
regularly report statistical data, of developing common standards at EU-level, establishing a 
common platform to collect and exchange statistical data and of boosting professional training 
and  awareness  raising.  A  large  majority  is  also  in  favour  of  non-binding  guidelines  on  data 
collection as well as of developing common EU standards on the collection of statistical data. 
But  the  majority  of  the  Member  States  is  not  in  favour  of  any  legal  obligation  for  Member 
States,  although  one  third  of  the  Member  States  supports  the  establishment  of  a  common 
platform to collect statistical data.  

For half of the practitioners non-binding guidelines as well as the combination of binding and 
non-binding  measures  are  not  useful.  The  majority  of  the  practitioners  thinks  a  legal 
obligation  is  necessary.  The  four  networks  stressed  the  need  for  consistent  reliable  data. 
Europol  agrees  with  obliging  Member  States  to  collect  and  share  data  and  to  establish  a 

164 Full effectiveness would require a fully harmonised environmental criminal law and -procedural law and fully harmonised 
statistical and reporting standards, which is unrealistic. 
165 Absolute numbers should not be compared between Member States  when reporting, recording and substantive criminal 
law  are  not  fully  harmonized  –  for  example,  a  lower  number  of  convictions  for  trafficking  in  species  in  one  country  may 
simply  be  the  result  of  most  perpetrators  of  this  crime  being  fined  under  civil  law  judgements,  or  under  criminal  law 
sanctions under a different crime category (such as smuggling in goods). 

61 

 
 
                                                 
common platform, for instance that it would host. The NGOs favour setting up a centralised 
system for data sharing purposes.  

  6.5.3  Efficiency 

Option 5 a): Oblige Member States to collect and regularly report to the Commission 
statistical data related to environmental crime. 

To establish a baseline for effort required from Member States to centralise the collection of 
their existing statistical data on environmental crime, Member States have been grouped into 
six  categories  based  on  the  number  of  agencies  currently  involved  with  statistical  data  on 
environmental  crime.  To  account  for  differences  among  the  Member  States,  the  number  of 
days  estimated  to  implement  this  option  is  based  on  the  number  of  agencies  within  the 
Member  State  that  would  need  to  provide  data.  The  definition  of  implementation  activities 
and  approximate  effort  in  person  days  has  been  developed  based  on  expert  judgement  by 
practitioners with experience in crime statistics and are detailed in the supporting study. 

The overall costs would be approximately 909 person days or EUR 312 338 of one-off costs 
for the set-up and annual costs of 588 person days and EUR 198 610, as broken down in the 
following tables by Member State and at EU-level. 

Table 4, Member State cost for Option 5a)  

* 2 persons for 2 round tables (1 day each) per agency 
** 1 day per agency 
*** 3 days per agency 

62 

 
 
 
Option 5 b): Oblige Member States to collect and report statistical data according to 
harmonised common standards to be defined by the Commission. 

This  option  differs  from  the  previous  by  emphasising  the  application  of  minimum  common 
standards for the collection, compilation and reporting of statistics on environmental crime. It 
assumes  the  setting  up  of  an  EU  Task  Force  of  independent  and  EU  experts  to  define  and 
maintain  the  common  standards,  and  work  directly  with  Member  States  to  ensure 
implementation,  as  well  as  a  Member  State  working  group  to  handle  national  specificities. 
The same baseline used in Option 5 a) is also used to distinguish between efforts required in 
different  Member  States.  The  overall  costs  would  be  approximately  1  948  person  days  or 
EUR  689  789  of  one-off  costs  for  the  set-up  and  continuous  costs  of  1  165  person  days  or 
EUR 412 999 per year, as broken down in the following table. 

Table 5, Member State costs for Option 5 b) 

* Round tables: 1 person for 2 round tables (1 day each) per MS + Reviewing results by task force: 4 days per MS + Translating/ transposing 
standards: 3 days per MS + Round table for feedback: 1 day per agency 
** Preparation: 3 days per agency + Minor changes in current statistics: 3 days per agency + Round table before start of reporting: 2 persons 
for 1 day each per agency 
*** Reporting: 1 day per agency + collection: 1 day per agency + validation: 2 days per agency 

Costs are estimated for the Commission to determine minimum standards for data collection 
via  preparation  of  an  implementing  act  and  assisted  by  a  Commission  consisting  of 
representatives  of  the  Member  States.  The  following  activities  would  be  required  over  a  9-
month period: 

1.  Preparation  of  a  draft  design  or  proposal  for  statistical  standards,  building  on  the 

existing study prepared by the contractor for the impact assessment  

63 

 
 
 
 
2.  Three meetings of the MS working group to review drafts 
3.  Bi-lateral meetings with those Member States (approximately 10) who would require 
additional  input  /  negotiation  to  harmonise  their  current  statistical  data  collection 
activity 

4.  Review and revision of the draft and preparation of an interim (draft final) version of 

the standards 

5.  EU level inter-service review of the standards and expected results 
6.  Finalising the document 

There are two possibilities for the Commission to carry out these activities. The Commission 
could  choose  to  have  the  work  carried  out  by  an  external  Intra-muros,  Full-time  costs  are 
estimated  using  the  average  monthly  salary  for  AD8  plus  an  overhead  cost.  The  total 
estimated cost is EUR 86 508.  

The Commission could also engage a contractor via an ongoing framework contract. Costs are 
estimated using the average typical framework contract rates proposed by contractors for the 
current  DG  JUST  Lot  1  contract  and  include  all  overheads  and  associated  costs.  The  total 
estimated set-up cost are EUR 138 771. 

Recurrent  costs  would  stem  from  maintaining  the  standards  and  the  production  of  regular 
reports based on the statistical data transmitted by Member States, estimated at EUR 12 861 
(24 days) and EUR 21 238 (40 days)  = EUR 34 188. (64 days).  

  6.5.4  Comparison of the options/preferred option 

The preferred option is option 5 b). This option is more costly and demands more engagement 
of  the  Member  States  and  the  Commission,  but  it  is  more  effective  than  option  5  a).  The 
problem  of  incomplete,  inaccurate  and  incomparable  data  has  persisted  for  a  long  time  and 
hindered 
to 
environmental crime. The simple obligation to collect and report statistical data on crime as 
present in other EU-legislation has not lead to a sufficient improvement of the situation, even 
if  combined  with  some guidelines  and  training.  Therefore,  more  efforts  are  required  at  EU-
level to binding common standards for the data collection in Member States.  

informed  decision-making  with  regard 

the  evaluation,  monitoring  and 

  6.6 

Objective 6: Improving the effective operation of the enforcement chain 

As outlined in the 2020 evaluation report, there are large deficits in detection, investigation, 
prosecution and adjudication of environmental crimes covered by the Directive in all Member 
States. Generally, it is primarily a Member States responsibility to take the necessary action to 
implement EU law effectively.166 However, the problem has long been persisting and existing 
non-binding  guidance  and  other  supportive  measures  have  so  far  not  led  to  tangible  results 
(see above section 2.2. - baseline). 

166 Article 4(3) TEU, Articles 288(3) and 291(1) TFEU. 

64 

 
 
                                                 
The  effective  enforcement  at  national 
is  crucial  for  successfully  combating 
level 
environmental  crime  whereas  the  evaluation  of  the  Directive  has  identified  the  lack  of 
effective  enforcement  at  national  level  as  a  serious  obstacle  to  combating  environmental 
crime and a reason for the Directive to be not  effective on the ground. The 8th round of the 
Council Mutual Evaluations also came to this result, as well as numerous studies and reports 
in the field over the past years. Recently, the EP has called for better practical implementation 
in the field of environmental crime.  

  6.6.1  Insert in the Directive obligations that directly strengthen the effectiveness of 

the law enforcement chain 

Description 

As under objective 4 (see above 6.4.), a set of provisions aimed at ensuring effectiveness of 
the  enforcement  chain  is  assessed.  As  under  objective  4,  the  individual  measures  are  not 
treated as separate options because they address different aspects of the objective and  are to 
be  seen  as  mutually  supportive.  The  measures  are  inspired  by  input  from  enforcement 
practitioners and similar provisions in other EU-criminal law instruments (see annex 6). The 
Directive would include provisions to oblige Member States to  

a.  support specialisation among the enforcement chain, including the setting up of 
specialised units in police and prosecution services; establish specialised court 
chambers  

b.  provide regular and appropriate training along the enforcement chain, 
c.  ensure effective cooperation and coordination between relevant authorities within and 

between MS, including exchange of information 

d.  take measures to raise public awareness of the harmfulness of environmental crime,  
e.  set-up a national strategy167 to combat environmental crime which help, inter alia, to 
ensure coherence between administrative and criminal enforcement and sanctioning. 

This  does  not  exclude  developing  guidance  material  on  issues  related  to  detection, 
investigation,  prosecution  and  sanctioning  of  environmental  crime  and  develop  training 
materials for specialised training and specialisation of law enforcement officials, judges and 
prosecutors. In this regard, the existing European environmental enforcement networks, such 
as  IMPEL,  EnviCrimeNet,  ENPE  and  EUFJE,  can  play  an  important  role.  Already  existing 
guidelines could be further developed (see above section 2.2. - baseline).  

Specialisation 

In particular, the creation of specialised units in police and prosecution as well as specialised 
chambers at criminal courts would be most effective for improving environmental crime law 
enforcement.  This  has  unanimously  been  emphasised  by  practitioners,  their  networks  and  –
EU-agencies  in  stakeholder  consultations.  In  ES,  the  specialisation  of  the  police  and 
prosecution  is  considered  as  one  of  the  determining  factors  in  achieving  successful 

167  Guidance  already  exists  on  strategic  approaches;  see  Guidance  on  Combating  Environmental  Crimes  and  Related 
Infringements, Chapter 14 under the Action Plan on Compliance and Governance. 

65 

 
 
                                                 
convictions  of  environmental  crime168  (see  table  under  section  1.1)  However,  it  is  a  core 
Member  States  competence  to  decide  how  to  structure  their  respective  law  enforcement 
systems. Therefore, only recommendations to the Member States would be possible.  

Training 

The widespread lack of appropriate regular training and specialisation along the enforcement 
chin  calls  for  strengthening  training  activities.  Although  some  Member  States  currently 
provide  some  form  of  training  in  relation  to  combating  environmental  crime,  (see  more 
information  in  annex  4),  practitioners  in  consultations  had  emphasised  the  strong  need  for 
more and better targeted training for all practitioners along the enforcement chain as well as 
the need to ensure that this is priority. They stressed that the current level of training does not 
ensure sufficient expertise in the highly technical and complex field of environmental crime. 
It  is  therefore  assumed  that  all  Member  States,  will  need  to  provide  additional  training  on 
environmental crime for all practitioner groups. 

Effective  training  must  be  targeted,  regular,  practice  oriented  and  follow  high  quality 
standards  across  professions  and  Member  States.  Ideally,  national  training  for  law 
enforcement  and  the  judiciary  would  be  complemented  by  sessions  bringing  together  cross-
professional  audience  from  different  Member  States.  Training  would  have  to  cover  all  the 
above  mentioned  objectives  of  the  Directive.  Training  in  the  Member  States  could  be 
supported  by  the  EU  through  further  development  of  existing  and  creation  of  new  training 
the  European 
modules  on  combating  environmental  crime,  with 
environmental enforcement networks. Examples of existing obligations to provide training in 
EU-criminal  law  instruments  can  be  found  in  annex  6.  An  overview  of  the  baseline  on 
training provided by each Member State is given in annex 4.  

involvement  of 

Awareness raising 

The range of awareness raising activities is wide. It includes public information campaigns in 
media, schools and businesses, creating channels for citizens to report environmental crime to 
the  public  authorities  the  organisation  of  events,  seminars  and  the  fostering  of  research 
projects.  
Today, according to the country reports of the 8th mutual evaluations, AT, CZ, IE, IT, NL and 
SE provide information to both the general public and private businesses. DE, FI, LV, PT and 
SK take  actions  targeting  private  enterprises  or  public,  including  the  installation  of 
communication channels to report environmental crime. BE, BG, DK, FR, LT, LU, PL take 
some action to educate children. CY, EE, EL, ES, HR, HU, MT, RO, SI_carry out little or no 
awareness raising activities.  

Overarching  crime  strategies  –  coherence  between  administrative  and  criminal 
sanctioning systems  

168  Fajardo,  T.,  Fuentes,  J.,  Ramos,  I.,  and  Verdu,  J.  (2015).  Fighting  Environmental  Crime  in  Spain:  A  Country  Report. 
Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Granada: University of Granada, p. 10. 

66 

 
 
                                                 
A  national  strategy  on  combating  environmental  crime  would  set  out  clear  priorities  and  a 
framework for cooperation between different actors involved in fighting environmental crime. 
It  would  also  assign  responsibilities  and  structured  mechanisms  for  cooperation  and 
coordination.  It  would  also  define  targets  for  furthering  expertise  through  training  and 
establishment  of  specialised  units  and  running  of  awareness  raising  activities,  ensuring 
sufficient resources and developments of supporting tools for practitioners.  

Such a strategy would also have to ensure  administrative and criminal sanctioning tracks as 
part of an overall approach to combat environmental offences.169 Member States must provide 
for  clear  rules  on  communication,  information  sharing  and  delineation  of  tasks  between 
administrative and judicial authorities.  

Effectiveness of the measures 

Each  of  the  individual  measures  is  effective  towards  reaching  objective  6.  They  are  closely 
interconnected  and  the  implementation  of  one  measure  may  significantly  facilitate  and 
reinforce  the  effect  of  other  measures.  E.g.,  awareness  raising  of  the  harmfulness  of 
environmental crime can foster the developing national strategies on environmental crime and 
vice versa. Creating specialised units can be spurred by an obligation to develop overarching 
crime strategies. As a package, these measures support each other and amplify mutually their 
impacts.  

Binding provisions on better implementation are most likely be accepted by Member States, 
as there are precedents in other recent EU criminal law- and other legislative instruments.170 
Additional EU guidance could provide Member States with best practices and thus step up the 
effectiveness  of  this  option.  Existing  guidelines  such  as  the  ones  developed  under  the 
Environmental  Compliance  and  Governance  Forum,  and  practical  tools,  such  as  the  ones 
developed by the European professional networks (see above under baseline), could be further 
developed.  

  6.6.2  Stakeholder opinions 

All  proposed  measures  are  supported  by  a  large  majority  of  the  stakeholders,  which  in  the 
pubic consultation requested and welcomed legal obligations in the Directive to take specific 
enforcement related measures strengthening the role of the enforcement chain.171 In addition, 
a large majority supports also non-binding EU guidance, e.g. training and specialisation along 

169  The  offences  created  by  the  Directive  and  the  sanction  provisions  deriving  from  it  coexist  with  sanction  provisions  in 
national law that are legally required by standard penalty clauses listed in the annexes to the ECD. It should be ensured that 
these are coherent with the criminal sanctions introduced at national level as transposition of the Directive as  well as with 
administrative  sanctions  for  legal  persons  introduced  as  transposition  of  the  Directive.  Moreover,  it  is  possible  that  an 
infringement  of  a  piece  of  sectorial  EU  legislation  (and  relevant  transposing  legislation)  could  be  addressed  by  both 
administrative sanctions (pursuant to a standard penalty clause) and criminal sanctions (pursuant to the Directive). The choice 
of which sanction to use may be a matter of the severity of the harm but also of the different burden of proof between use of 
administrative law and use of criminal law.  
170 See Annex 6. 
171  Member  States  have  not  been  particularly  consulted  on  this  issue.  They  are  in  any  event  obliged  to  implement  the 
Directive in an effective way, even if not explicitly mentioned in the Directive.  

67 

 
 
                                                 
the enforcement chain. Almost all practitioners (Europol, Eurojust, joint statement of the four 
networks)  recommended  the  specialisation  at  every  stage  of  the  enforcement  chain  and 
enhanced regular training as the most important measure. As environmental crimes are often 
not  in  the  focus  and  hidden  as  part  of  other  crime  categories  such  as  organised  crime  there 
would be a need for establishing dedicated teams to detect and investigate them. The NGOs 
and academic stakeholder almost anonymously agree to further specialisation in the field and 
exchange of best practice.   

  6.6.3  Efficiency 

In the following the costs for Member States and where relevant for the EU are assessed for 
measures  that  could  be  envisaged  under  option  6  b).  For  details,  see  the  annex  2B  and  the 
supporting study. 

Training 

Most  Member  States  already  provide  training  on  environmental  crime  to  some  or  all  of  the 
targeted  practitioners,  as  detailed  in  the  annex  4.  This  existing  training  would  need  to  be 
stepped  up  and  offered  to  a  larger  group  of  practitioners.  Based  on  the  level  of  training 
already  provided  in  the  Member  States,  additional  training  between  1  to  3  days  per  year  is 
assumed to be necessary The cost estimates provided here represent an ambitious form of in-
person  training,  with  full  annual  updates  of  the  content.  Costs  are  expected  to  decrease 
through the provision of online training courses/e-learning modules and over time as less new 
content  needs  to  be  developed.  It  is  expected  that  initial  investments  will  lead  to  greater 
benefits over time.  

Table 6, Member States cost estimates for additional training along the enforcement chain172 

Police and 
prosecutors 

Criminal 
judges 

Custom 
officers 

Inspectors  

Total 

All MS/EUR 

2,861,964 

64,668 

2,271,670 

2,780,145 

7 979 446 

A reduction of these costs for the Member States can be expected, as training is organised by 
organisations e.g. CEPOL or professional national networks such as ENPE and EJTN as well 
as  Eurojust  which  cover  the  bulk  of  their  costs  from  supranational  funds  such  as  the  LIFE 
Programme,  the  Internal  Security  Fund  (ISF)  Police  and  the  Justice  Programme.  Some 
Member States currently directly use EU funds, including technical assistance funds from the 
European  Structural  and  Investing  Funds  (ESIF)  and  grants  from  the  LIFE  programme 
Training  material  developed  at  EU  level  could  be  adapted  and  used  at  national  level  which 
would also save costs.  
Further reduction of the costs for Member States can be achieved by greater focus on virtual 
training and the development of online training modules173. Moreover, synergies could further 

172 Details per Member State could be found in the study in annex. 
173 It is estimated that setting up and developing one e-learning module, which can be used multiple times by multiple users, 
costs between EUR 5 000 and EUR 60 000. 

68 

 
 
 
                                                 
reduce  costs,  if  the  numerous,  but  isolated  and  fragmented  training  activities  along  the  law 
enforcement chain would be better coordinated at national level.  

Specialisation/  improving  cooperation  and  information  exchange  within  Member 
States 

Several  Member  States  already  have  specialised  units  dealing  with  environmental  crimes  in 
police and prosecution.174  The  cost of setting up specialised units  would stem  from staffing 
them with either existing personal or with newly recruited ones, who would have to be trained 
regularly.  Specialiation  would  already  per  se  foster  better  cooperation  and  information 
exchange between the different levels of the enforcement chain in Member States. The costs 
of additional staff and training have been taken into accout  below (additional staff) and above 
(training).  

Awareness raising measures 

For  targeted  awareness  raising  measures,  it  is  assumed  that  Member  States  will  carry  out 
information campaigns addressing businesses whose activity may have a strong impact on the 
environment  and the  public. 11  Member States  report that they  already  carry  out  awareness 
raising  activities  on  environmental  crime,  including  educational  activities;  cooperation  and 
collaboration with external bodies or organisations; creating channels for the public to report 
environmental crime; information aimed at the public and businesses; organisation of events – 
more  details  are  provided  in  the  annex  4.  It  can  be  assumed  that  all  Member  States  would 
make additional effort. Indicative costs for individual activities based on the experience of the 
ENPE  and  reference  data  from  other  impact  assessments  in  the  area  of  criminal  law  are 
provided in the table below. 

Table 7, Reference data about the costs of awareness raising activities 

Activity 
Animation  (3-minute  video  including  voice 
over and subtitles for one language)  
Video  (2-minute  video,  single  language,  no 
animation)  
Electronic  magazine  (‘E-zine’  comprising 
videos, 
from 
generalist 
Awareness 
conference) 
professionals  of  criminal  law  for  relevant 
provisions  +  preparation  of  practitioners' 
guidelines  compiling  the  best  practices  (EU 
level  cost  including  meeting  organisation, 
travel expenses, working time of officials) 

interviews,  key 
raising 

figures 

among 

Cost 
€9 000 

€1 000 

Source 
ENPE 

ENPE 

€5 000 per publication 

ENPE 

€3 080 000 

Impact  Assessment  of  the  Directive  on  the 
protection  of  the  financial  interests  of  the 
EU175 

174  This  is  based  on  information  available  in  the  8th  Round  of  Mutual  Evaluation  country  reports  as  well  as  information 
obtained through additional consultations with stakeholders. 
175 IMPACT ASSESSMENT (Part I) Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European 
Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the financial interests of the European Union by criminal 
law, SWD(2012) 195 final, p.31-40. 

69 

 
 
                                                 
Activity 

Cost 

Source 

Education  measures,  awareness 
campaigns at the Member State level 

raising 

100  person  days  per 
MS 

Impact  Assessment  of  the  Directive  on 
combating  fraud  and  counterfeiting  of  non-
cash means of payment176 

National strategies on combating environmental crime 

According  to  the  8th  Round  of  Mutual  Evaluations  country  reports,  a  national  strategy  on 
combating  environmental  crime  is  a  very  useful  tool  but  well  developed  strategies  exist 
currently only in a few Member States, such as Finland, the Netherlands, CZ and SK. . Costs 
for  developing  an  environmental  crime  strategy  would  be  limited  because  the  relevant 
activities, such as consultations, preparation of documents, organisation of workshops to get 
input from experts, are not costly.  

Table 8, estimated cost of developing national strategies in the Member States 

An example is provided below 
for Finland but the costs but 
could be significantly lower 
for several Member States177.  

€864 289 

€324 108 

Costs of an increase in staff in Member State police and prosecution offices 

As explained at the beginning of section 6, costs stemming from more effective investigations 
and  from  a  broader  scope  of  the  ECD  would  mainly  be  the  need  for  additional  staff  in  the 
Member  States  to  carry  out  the  investigation  and  prosecution  of  additional  environmental 
crime cases. To calculate costs, it is assumed that a higher volume of cases would primarily 
impact  the practitioners along the enforcement chain  dealing with  investigation, prosecution 
and  conviction.  Using  the  lowest  percentages  of  the  total  police  and  prosecutors  in  the 
Member States (0,02% respectively 0,17%) as a proxy for the amount of additional capacity 
that each Member State would be likely to add, based on the current numbers of police and 
prosecutors in each country, annual costs have been estimated at EUR 4,069, 175 in total for 
all Member States.178  

  6.6.4  Conclusion  

All  measures  assessed  are  effective  and  in  a  package  of  measures  support  each  other  to 
achieve the objective. We have chosen not to discuss each of these measures as an individual 
option.  The  reason  is  that  each  measure  tackles  different  aspects  of  the  problem  area  and 
therefore  cannot  be  seen  as  alternative  options.  They  are  different  elements  of  the  same 
bundle to address properly all facets of the objective. 

176 Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and 
the  Council  on  combating  fraud  and  counterfeiting  of  non-cash  means  of  payment  and  replacing  Council 
Framework Decision 2001/413/JHA, SWD(2017) 298 final, Annex 4.2, p.185-191. 
177  Based  on  interviews  with  representatives  of  the  Finnish  government  regarding  the  elaboration  of  Finland’s  national 
strategy and action plan on environmental crime, costs are estimated to 3 months of full time equivalent for 2 staff plus two 
one-day meetings of a 10-person working group. Costs for updating are estimated as one month of  work for 2 staff plus a 
one-day annual meeting of the working group. 
178 More information can be found in the supporting study. 

70 

 
 
                                                 
7 

INDIRECT IMPACTS OF A MORE EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME DIRECTIVE 

As outlined above, the options above are effective and efficient with regard to improving the 
Directive’s overall effectiveness on environmental protection through criminal law. More and 
more  effective  investigations,  prosecutions  and  convictions  are  supposed  to  contribute  to 
reducing environmental crime. The impact of a more effective Directive on the environment, 
economy and social life will be overall positive. The impacts as described in this chapter were 
taken into account for the efficiency assessment (cost/benefit analyses) in section 6.6.5, as the 
positive impacts of reduced environmental crime can be regarded as benefits.  

Criminal law is only a part in a comprehensive EU strategy to protect and improve the status 
of  the  environment,  which  is  a  priority  for  the  current  Commission.  The  Green  Deal 
Communication  and  the  Biodiversity  Strategy  set  out  a  whole  range  of  measures  of 
environmental protection that will pull together in a holistic approach, reinforce and influence 
each other. Criminal law measures will come in as a last resort when other measures have not 
been sufficient to ensure compliance. Therefore, environmental indicators on e.g. the degree 
of air pollution or biodiversity would rather measure the effectiveness of the overall strategy 
to improve the environmental status, not just of the approach on environmental crime.  

Therefore,  in  this  impact  assessment  there  will  be  no  quantification  of  the  impacts  of  an 
isolated  instrument  such  as  this  Directive.  Instead,  hereunder  there  will  be  a  qualitative 
description of the impacts and benefits of an improved environmental protection to which the 
reviewed  Directive  will  contribute.  Positive  impacts  and  benefits  on  life  on  earth  are 
immeasurable and beyond quantification. A more detailed outlook is presented in annex 5. 

Environmental impacts  

A  more  effective  Directive  that  leads  to  better  law  enforcement  by  criminal  law  will 
contribute  to  an  improved  environment  through  its  preventive  effects  of  high  rates  of 
detection  and  effective  sanctioning  of  environmental  crime.  Where  there  is  an  effective 
criminal law system in place, environmental crime does not pay out.  

Social Impacts 

The  positive  environmental  impacts  of  better  environmental  crime  law  enforcement  would 
have  immediate  positive  social  impacts  on  human  life,  health  and  well-being.179  Moreover, 
e.g.  the  reduction  of  wildlife  crimes  can  have  positive  consequences  for  specific  countries, 
where  organised  crime  and  terrorist  groups  use  illegal  wildlife  trafficking  to  finance  illegal 
arm  trade  and  terrorism.  Their  activities  destabilise  whole  societies.  Moreover,  in  source 

2014. 

7  million 

179  WHO, 
at: 
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en/;  the  latest  available  figures  (updated  2018)  from  the 
WHO  website  indicate  4.3  million  annual deaths  due  to  ambient  air  pollution  and 3.8  million deaths  due  to household  air 
pollution; https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_3.  

pollution.  Available 

premature 

annually 

deaths 

linked 

air 

to 

71 

 
 
                                                 
countries, residents and rangers protecting biodiversity often suffer threats of violence.180 

Economic impacts on society and businesses 

Overall,  the  estimated  profits  of  between  USD  91  and  259  billion  globally  from 
environmental  crimes  are  losses  to  societies  through  losses  of  tax  revenue,  revenue  loss  for 
fair playing businesses and undermining of governance.181  

Businesses  confirmed  that  stepping  up  criminal  liability  for  companies  would  not  produce 
additional  compliance  costs  further  to  the  costs  necessary  for  investments  to  receive 
certifications  or  authorisations  according  to  sectoral  legislation  and  requirements  from  the 
strict  liability  regime  set  out  in  the  Environmental  Liability  Directive.  Businesses  have 
confirmed  that  effective  criminal  law  enforcement  would  protect  them  against  unfair 
competition  from  illegal  business  whose  activities affect  negatively prices  and profits in the 
whole sector.  

Fundamental Rights impacts 

The  Directive  is  likely  to  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  level  of  environmental  protection, 
which  is  the  subject  of  Article  37  of  the  Charter of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European 
Union. Improving the environment will contribute to the improvement of physical well-being 
(health)  of  citizens,  that  is  comprised  by  Article  1  of  the  Charter182  on  human  dignity. 
Therefore, it will also positively influence the right to life (Article 2 of the Charter), the right 
to  physical  integrity  (Article  3),  the  children  care  and  well-being  (Article  24),  the  right  to 
healthy  working  conditions  (Article  31)  and  the  right  to  preventive  and  other  health  care 
(Article 35).183  

This  Directive  –  being  a  criminal  law  instrument  –  will  have  to  be  transposed  into  national 
law  respecting  the  fundamental  rights  and  observing  the  principles  in  the  Charter  of 
Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union  (the  Charter)  as  recognised  in  the  TEU. 
Specifically, it should be transposed and applied with due respect for the right to protection of 
personal data (Article 8), the freedom to conduct a business (Article 16), the presumption of 
innocence and right  of defence (Article 48), the  principles of legality and proportionality of 
criminal offences and penalties (Article 49), and the right not to be tried or punished twice in 
criminal  proceedings  for  the  same  offence  (Article  50).  In  implementing  this  Directive, 
Member  States  should  ensure  procedural  rights  of  suspected  or  accused  persons  in  criminal 

180 Maher J., Sollund R, 2016. Wildlife Trafficking: Harms and Victimization. In: Sollund R., Stefes C., Germani A. (eds) 
Fighting Environmental Crime in Europe and Beyond. Palgrave Studies in Green Criminology. Palgrave Macmillan, London. 
https://doi-org.ezproxy.its.uu.se/10.1057/978-1-349-95085-0_5  
181 UNEP and Interpol Rapid Response Assessment, ‘The rise of environmental crime. A growing threat to natural resources, 
peace, development and security’, 2016, p. 17. 
182 This impact of environmental protection on human dignity has been highlighted by the 1972 Stockholm Declaration and 
Conference;  ‘The  Environment  and  Human  Rights’;  Introductory  Report  to  the  High-Level  Conference:  Environmental 
Protection and Human Rights, Strasbourg, 27 February 2020. 
183 Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) input into the review of the Environmental Crime Directive (Directive 2008/99/EC on 
the protection of the environmental through criminal law, Vienna 27 April 2021. 

72 

 
 
                                                 
proceedings. Their obligations under this Directive are without prejudice to their obligations 
under Union law on procedural rights in criminal proceedings 

8  PREFERRED PACKAGE  

Which options can best achieve the specific and general objectives?  

Under Objective 1, option 1 a) is the preferred option. It proposes to amend the Directive by 
updating its annexes and adding new relevant legislation. New crime categories under Article 
3  of  the  Directive  will  have  to  be  created  under  Article  3  that  correspond  to  the  new 
legislation in the annexes. However, it is not possible to ensure further updates in the future 
through  comitology.  The  Commission  will  have  to  optimise  its  internal  process  to  ensure 
parallel updates of the Directive following relevant developments of sectoral legislation.  

Under  Objective  2,  both  assessed  options  will  be  combined.  Thus,  there  are  no  changes  to 
current architecture of Article 3. However, more precision on the definitions of environmental 
crime (option 2 a)), such as ‘substantial damage’ and ‘negligible or non-negligible quantity’, 
will  improve  the  clarity  of  the  Directive.  The  criminalization  of  risky  behaviours 
(endangerment  crimes  –  option  2  b))  will  have  the  further  beneficial  effect  to  alleviate  the 
burden of proof in cases whether it is difficult to establish the actual damage. It will have to 
be  considered  with  the  relevant  sectoral  units  of  the  Commission  which  new  endangerment 
crime categories could be added that would correspond to new legislation to be added under 
the  annexes.  Hence,  both  options  combined  will  increase  the  effectiveness  of  investigations 
and prosecutions of environmental crime.  

Under Objective 3, the package of measures on sanctions (option 3 c)) – minimum maximum 
sanctions, aggravating circumstances, accessory sanctions, dependency of the level of fines of 
illegal  profits  and  financial  situation  of  the  offender)  will  lead  to  more  effective  and  more 
uniform  sanction  levels  in  national  penal  codes  and  in  practice.  In  addition,  the  minimum 
maximum levels of imprisonment sanctions will allow for access to investigative tools, which 
only  are  available  for  crime  that  is  punishable  by  a  certain  minimum  maximum  level  of 
penalties. This leads to more effective investigations and facilitates cross-border cooperation.   

Under  Objective  4,  the  package  of  measures  under  option  4  b)  (approximation  of 
investigative  tools,  obligation  to  cooperate  through  EU-agencies,  installation  of  national 
contact  points)  will  complement  and  reinforce  each  other  and  lead  to  more  effective 
investigations as many environmental crime cases have transnational aspects and can only be 
successfully conducted cross-border.  

Under Objective 5, option 5 b) will lead to a commonly defined minimum standard for the 
collection  of  data  on  environmental  crime  procedures  and  thus  facilitate  the  collection  of 
accurate, complete and data that is comparable across the EU.  

Under  Objective  6,  the  package  of  implementing  measures  proposed  (option  6  b)  – 
training/specialization,  awareness  raising,  overarching  national  strategies)  are  likely  to  have 
positive  effects  on  the  effectiveness  at  all  levels  (inspectors,  police,  prosecution,  criminal 
judges) of the enforcement chain. 

73 

 
 
As  the  Directive  needs  improvement  in  all  six  problem  areas,  it  is  considered  that  the 
combined  preferred  options  under  each  objective  results  in  the  best  overall  package.  We 
therefore decided to assess the options for each problem area individually and did not assess 
different combinations of packages.  

In  combination,  the  preferred  options  can  reach  cumulative  impacts  that  go  beyond  what 
could be achieved by the individual preferred options  

Cross-border cooperation will be fostered not only by the measures under objective 4 but also 
through  the  broader  scope  of  the  Directive  that  allows  such  cooperation  in  more 
environmental areas. More precise definitions of what constitutes environmental crime  under 
objective  2  will  reduce  different  perceptions  in  the  Member  States  that  so  far  hampered  or 
even  ended  cooperation.  The  definition  of  maximum  sanction  levels  does  not  only  ensure 
more  dissuasive  sanctioning  but  also  opens  the  door  for  effective  cross-border  investigative 
tools provided for in  legislative instruments  that require  a  certain  sanction level  for  a crime 
category  to  be  applicable.  Under  objective  6,  better  training  and  specialisation  according  to 
the same standards in the Member States also directly facilitate cross-border cooperation. 

The ability of law enforcement practitioners to better anticipate a case’s chances for success, 
leading  to  more  cases  being  picked  up,  is  strengthened  by  more  precise  definitions  of 
environmental  crime  (objective  2)  and  better  training  and  specialisation  under  objective  6. 
Improved  cross-border  cooperation  (objective  4)  and  the  availability  of  more  dissuasive 
sanction types and –levels (objective 3) are further factors that could facilitate the decision to 
invest the considerable resources needed to tackle environmental crime cases. 

The  effectiveness  and  dissuasiveness  of  environmental  criminal  investigations  will  not  only 
be  achieved  through  more  appropriate  sanctioning  through  the  preferred  option  under 
objective 3. Also, more and more effectiveness investigations through the combined effects of 
the  preferred  options  under  objectives  1,  2,  4  and  6  as  described  above  will  contribute  to  a 
deterrent criminal system with regard to environmental crime. 

In  this  way  the  preferred  options  do  not  only  serve  best  the  respective  objectives  but 
cumulated  strengthen  also  the  other  specific  objectives  thus  strengthening  the  overall 
effectiveness of the Directive beyond each individual specific objective. 

Cost Impact of the preferred package 

Table 9, Cost for the Commission implied by the Directive 

74 

 
 
Table 10, Costs for Member States implied by the Directive  

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
REFIT potential  

This  impact  assessment  did  not  identify any  potential to  simplify the Directive or to  reduce 
unnecessary costs.  

The Directive – being a criminal law instrument – does not produce any additional costs for 
citizens, business and SME. That has been confirmed during the stakeholder consultations. 

The  proposal  will  contain  a  number  of  additional  provisions  aimed  to  add  precision  to  the 
currently  only  very  generic  Directive,  clarify  its  scope,  crime  definitions  and  ensure  the 
effectiveness, proportionality and dissuasiveness of penalties. This will simplify and facilitate 
practical implementation by Member State authorities and thus ensure the Directive will reach 
its objectives. 

The proposal also contains new provisions obliging Member States to take specific measures 
to ensure the Directive’s effective implementation in practice (especially to provide training, 
awareness  raising  measures  and  strengthen  cross-border  cooperation,  provide  the  necessary 
resources  etc.).  Although  this  appears  to  be  new  obligations  that  produce  costs  for  the 
Member  States,  these  provisions  actually  only  explicitly  requires  what  is    in  any  event  a 
Member State obligation: Member States are not only obliged to transpose the Directive into 
national  law.  They  also  have  to  take  the  necessary  practical  implementation  measures.  The 
evaluation  has  shown  that  practical  implementation  is  deficient  in  all  Member  States  and 
along the whole enforcement chain. The obligations in the Directive are therefore necessary to 
ensure Member States compliance. The implementation measures required in the proposal are 
measures, which practitioners have identified as most pertinent to enable them to enforce the 

76 

 
 
 
Directive.  Especially  training  has  been  mentioned  as  essential  need  to  improve  law 
enforcement with regard to environmental crime 

9  MONITORING MEASURES 

The  general  objective  of  the  Directive  –  to  which  all  specific  objectives  contribute  -  is  to 
protect  the  environment  through  criminal  law  by  effective  investigations,  prosecutions  and 
convictions. The effectiveness of the Directive must thus be measured against the number of 
investigations, prosecutions, convictions and sanction levels in each Member State. Objective 
5  –  ‘collection  of  complete,  accurate  and  EU-wide  comparable  data’  aims  at  fostering 
effectiveness of law enforcement through the transparency resulting from the dissemination of 
statistical data which at the same time serve to measure the success of the Directive. The table 
below provides suggestions of monitoring indicators:  

The  Directive  should  contain  a  provision  obliging  Member  States  to  regularly  report  to  the 
Commission the statistics they will be obliged to collect under objective 5. The Commission 
would  then  be  able  to  provide  regular  reports  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council 
highlighting  trends.  After  a  sufficient  period  of  time,  an  evaluation  support  study  could  be 
commissioned to evaluate success based on the indicators above. The professional networks 

77 

 
 
 
could assist in monitoring the application and the success of the Directive and be encouraged 
to produce regular reports.  

Given  that  the  process  of  producing  comparable  statistical  data  in  the  Member  States  could 
take some time, Member States should be encouraged to introduce internal processes to gather 
information  to  monitor  and  evaluate  progress.  This  could  be  done  in  the  framework  of  the 
obligation  under  objective  6  to  produce  national  overarching  strategies  to  combat 
environmental crime.  

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
79 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, XXX  […](2021) XXX draft  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Annexes for the   Impact Assessment revision of the Environmental Crime Directive (Directive 99/2008/EC)      
 
 
Table of contents 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION .................................................................................................... 80 

ANNEX 2A: METHODS ..................................................................................................................................... 83 

ANNEX 2B: ANALYTICAL MODELS - COSTS .............................................................................................. 85 

ANNEX 3: WHO IS CONCERNED AND HOW? ............................................................................................ 123 

ANNEX 4: BASELINES .................................................................................................................................... 127 

ANNEX 5: ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS ..................................................... 167 

ANNEX 6: COMPARATIVE TABLE PROVISIONS ON PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION .................... 207 

ANNEX 7: PUBLIC CONSULTATION REPORT............................................................................................ 234 

ANNEX 8: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION –SYNOPSIS REPORT ....................................................... 268 

ANNEX 9: INTERVENTION LOGIC ............................................................................................................... 293 

ANNEX 10: OPTIONS TABLE ......................................................................................................................... 293 

80 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1. Lead DG, Decide Planning  

Lead DG: DG JUSTICE AND CONSUMERS (“DG JUST”) 

Associated DG: DG ENVIRONMENT (“DG ENV”) 

Decide Planning: PLAN/2020/8802 

2. Organisation and timing  

Procedural Steps:  

  The Inception Impact Assessment was published on 1 December 2020. 
  An  upstream  meeting  with  the  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  was  held  on  15  February 

2021. 

  A  public  consultation  was  launched  on  8  February  2021  and  concluded  on  3  May 
2021. Targeted Stakeholder Consultation were conducted from February 2021 to July 
2021.  

ISSG Meetings: 

An Inter-Service Steering Group (ISSG) was set up to support this initiative. The ISSG was 
chaired  by  the  Directorate-General  Justice  and  Consumers  (JUST).  The  following  DGs  and 
services participated in the Inter-Service Steering Group: Environment (ENV), Migration and 
Home  Affairs  (HOME),  European  anti-fraud  office (OLAF),  Mobility  and  Transport 
(MOVE),  Maritime  Affairs  and  Fisheries  (MARE),  Climate  Action  (CLIMA),  Energy 
(ENER), Health and Food Safety (SANTE), Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and 
SMEs  (GROW)  International  Cooperation  and  Development  (DEVCO),  the  Legal  Service 
(SJ) and the Secretariat-General (SG). 

The  ISSG  met  virtually  three  times  in  the  period  from  December  2020  to  July  2021,  while 
further  ISSG  were  held  by  written  procedure,  where  the  ISSG  members  were  invented  to 
submit their comments: 

  19 November 2020 (written procedure) 
  18 December 2020 (virtual meeting) 
  25 January 2021 (written procedure) 
  12 April 2021 (virtual meeting) 
  17 May 2021 (written procedure) 
  25 June (written procedure) 
  14 July 2021 (virtual meeting) 

81 

 
 
 
 
The  last  ISSG  meeting  before  the  submission  of  the  Impact  Assessment  to  the  Regulatory 
Scrutiny Board on 1 September 2021 was held virtually on 14 July 2021, as indicated above 
with a possibility to submit further comments on the draft IA in writing by 26 July 2021.  

3. Evidence, sources and quality  

For  the  purposes  of  this  impact  assessment,  the  Commission  collected  data  through  various 
sources and consultation stands. 

The impact assessment relies and builds on the Evaluation of the Directive, which took place 
in 2019/2020. To this end, the Commission published an Evaluation Staff Working Document 
({SEC(2020)  373  final}  -  {SWD(2020)  259  final}),  and  an  Executive  Summary  of  the 
Evaluation in October 2020. The Evaluation of the Directive received a positive opinion from 
the RSB184.  

The Commission gathered also evidence following a consultation strategy, which included an 
open public consultation185 and a stakeholder consultation186.  

More details can be found in annexes 2A and 2B on the methodology.  

4. External Study  

The  Impact  Assessment  has  been  supported  by  a  study  commissioned  under  framework 
contract  No  JUST/2020/PR/03/0001-04  –  Lot  1,  which  was  conducted  between  April  2021 
and October 2021. The study done by a consortium led by Milieu Consulting SRL aimed at 
assessing the impacts of different options, mainly with regard to their financial and economic 
impacts.  

5. Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

A  draft  Impact  Assessment  has  been  sent  to  the  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  (RSB)  and  a 
hearing  took  place  on  29  September  2021.  The  RSB  issued  a  positive  opinion,  subject  to 
reservations on 1 October 2021. The Impact Assessment was improved taking account of the 
recommendations of the RSB.  

RSB comments  

How RSB comments have been addressed in 
the IA 

1)  The  report  should  provide  greater  clarity  and 
additional  information  on  the  choices  to  be  made  for 
the  essential  elements,  such  as  the  coverage  of  the 

a)  More precision on new environmental crime 
areas to be included under the Directive have 
been added in chapter2.1.1.  

b)  Better explanations on the method to update 

184 https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/evaluation-environmental-crime-directive-2020-nov-05_en. 
185 In more detail, see Annex 7 
186 In more detail, see Annex 8.  

82 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Directive,  the  mechanism  for  updating  the  Directive, 
criminal sanctions to be proposed, and clarification of 
definitions.  It  should  clearly  indicate  if  these  choices 
are  merely  legal  or  technical  specifications  leaving 
little  discretion  or 
require  a  genuine  political 
judgement  based  on  real  alternatives.  It  should 
substantiate the  impacts of these choices on the basis 
of  the  available  evidence.  On  this  basis,  it  should 
better  explain  how  coherence  between  EU  sectoral 
legislation and criminal law will be ensure 

2)  The  report  should  better  justify  the  selection  of 
measures  under  the  preferred  option,  in  particular 
regarding the mechanism to keep the Directive and its 
coverage up-to-date. In the case of mandatory training 
and specialisation, it should be clear from the problem 
definition  that  this  is  expected  to  play  an  important 
role and that the available evidence supports the need 
for binding measures. 

3) The  report  should  assess  the  cumulative  impact  of 
the best performing package and not only analyse the 
impact  of  the  individual  options.  It  should  clarify 
whether alternative packages have been assessed. 

4) The Board notes the estimated costs and benefits of 
the preferred option in this initiative, as summarised in 
the attached quantification tables. However, the report 
should  provide  a  more  precise  cost  estimation.  The 
report should also elaborate  on the simplification and 
burden reduction in view of the REFIT potential of the 
preferred option.  

the Directive have been added under chapter 
6.1. 

c)  The element of defining ‘substantial damage’ 
at a later stage of the proceeding has been 
deleted from chapter 6.2.1. Instead, the 
criteria to define relevant damage are 
discussed.  

d)  Better explanations on the definition of 

minimum maximum sanctions have been 
added under chapter 6.3.1  

The selection of the preferred option has been changed 
and better explained under chapter 6.1 

Under 6.2., an option has been added and the section 
of the bet option has been better explained.  

More explanations on the  necessity of a provision on 
mandatory training has been added under the problem-
definition under chapter 2.1.6. and 6.6.  

The explanations of the cumulative impact of the best 
package  and  alterntives  have  been  added  under 
chapter 8.  

More precision and a cost table has been added under 
chapter 8.  

A paragraph on Refit has been added under Chapter 8.  

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2A: METHODS 

The  present  Impact  Assessment  has  not  used  any  forecasting  model  technique,  developed 
either in-house or by an external developer, as this was not deemed the most suitable tool to 
analyse the issues at hand. 

The  methodology  used  to  perform  this  Impact  Assessment  has  been  the  standard  Impact 
Assessment methodology used by the Commission.  

The  different  steps  of  the  Impact  Assessment,  from  the  definition  of  problems  and  their 
drivers, to the definition of possible policy options and the analysis of their impact and their 
importance was based on the evaluation report (published October 2019), a range of extensive 
desk  research  and  stakeholder  consultations  ()..  Stakeholder  consultations  comprised  a 
targeted  consultations  and  workshops  with  businesses,  Member  States, 
number  of 
practicioners,  NGOs,  practicioner’s  networks  and  academia  at  national  and  EU  level  and  a 
public  consultation  (see  Annex  6:  -  results  of  the  public  consultations  and  Annex  7  – 
stakeholder consultations synopsis report). 

In addition to the review of the literature, numerous written statements from stakeholders, e.g. 
from  Eurojust,  Europol,  professional  networks,  practitioners,  Member  States,  NGOs  and 
businesses  were  analysed.  Desk  research  also  covered  the  review  of  European  Parliament 
positions,  such  as  the  report  on  the  liability  of  companies  for  environmental  damage 
(2020/2027(INI)) of Committee on Legal Affairs. Results from working groups, such as the 
country  survey  for  the  2nd  meeting  of  the  Council  of  Europe’s  Working  Group  on  the 
Environment and Criminal Law on 15 June 2021, have also been taken into account. 

In  addition  to  a  series  of  targeted  workshops  and  interviews  with  stakeholder  groups,  the 
Commission  has  also  taken  the  opportunity  to  present  the  considered  options  and  seek 
stakeholder  input  at  externally  organised  expert  events,  such  as  conferences  of  professional 
networks, roundtables and seminars. Due to the Covid 19-crisis this was done remotely. The 
online-conferences did not hamper the livelyness of discussions and the value of the input and 
feedback received.  

Three main assessment criteria that guided the ex-ante evaluation of the envisaged measures 
have  been:  a)  effectiveness  (degree  to  which  the  options  are  likely  to  meet  the  initiative’s 
objectives),  b)  efficiency  (costs  benefits  and  their  distribution  across  stakeholders)  and  c) 
coherence (with other main EU policies/legislation). The assessment took into account social 
and economic impacts for different stakeholder groups.  

Legal analysis of measures focussed on coherence with EU law and selected instruments of 
international  law.  It  also  inventorised  obstacles  as  well  as  existing  practices  at  the  national 
level. Legal coherence was assessed through a literature review and review of legal cases in 
particular in order to inventorise obstacles as well as existing practices at the national level, 
such as the “Black Mass” Judgment, Court of appeal, Gota Hovratt 09.09.2021.  

Costs and benefits analyses included costs for companies, the EU and Member States as well 
as generally environmental, economic and social impacts for all relevant stakeholder groups. 
The  Commission  took  particular  account  of  the  findings  of  the  "Study  to  supply  the  Impact 
Assessment  of  the  Directive  2008/99/EC  on  the  protection  of  the  environment  through 
criminal  law",  which  was  commissioned  by  DG  JUST  and  developed  by  a  contractor.  The 
identification of the problems and of the proposed solutions also used extensively the findings 

84 

 
 
of  the  evaluation  of  the  Directive  2008/99/EC.  The  results  of  the  multiple  perspectives  – 
environmental, social and economic – are integrated to provide a final overall assessment for 
each  option.  (More  information  on  the  appraoch  used  for  the  cost/benefit  analyses  can  be 
found in Annex 2).  

It is therefore worth highlighting that the sources of information used to identify and analyses 
the problems, as well as assess the impact of proposed policy options have been particularly 
broad.   

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2B: ANALYTICAL MODELS - COSTS 

INTRODUCTION AND OVERALL METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH 

This annex provides the methodological approach, assumptions and analytical models used to 
estimate  the  costs  of  the  proposed  measures  and  sub-options  for  which  an  efficiency 
assessment  is  made  in  the  impact  assessment  report.  For  the  assessment  of  efficiency, 
implementation costs have been quantified wherever possible.  

As explained in the impact assessment report, three main categories of cost are expected: 

1.  All  of  the  proposed  measures  would  lead  to  more  effective  investigations  of 

environmental crime, requiring additional staff in the Member States; 

2.  Broadening the scope of the Directive and clarifying terms would lead to an increase 
in the number of environmental crime cases taken up, also requiring additional staff; 

3.  Certain measures, such as training, improved cross-border cooperation, statistical data 
collection,  strategy  development  and  awareness  raising  measures  would  have  direct 
implementation costs over and above the need for additional staff. 

For cost categories 1 and 2, it is not possible to attribute a specific share or percentage of the 
need  for  additional  staff  to  individual  proposed  policy  objectives  or  measures,  as  it  is 
impossible  to  reliably  quantify  the  degree  to  which  the  different  improvements  to  the 
Directive would deliver in terms of the effectiveness of investigations or the volume of new 
cases.  It  is  also  not  possible  to  draw  realistic  assumptions  about  the  number  of  new 
environmental crime cases that would arise as a result of the extended scope of the Directive, 
as  there  is  no  clear  understanding  of  the  baseline  or  the  current  number  of  cases  in  the 
Member  States,  nor  is  it  possible  to  accurately  predict  the  type  and  location  of  future 
environmental  crime  cases.  Therefore,  to  assess  this  cost  an  estimate  of  the  number  of 
additional  police  and  prosecutors  that  Member  States  are  likely  to  need  add  to  their  current 
workforce  work  on  environmental  crime  cases  has  been  prepared.  The  assumptions  and 
analytical models used to develop these estimates are presented in Section 6 of this annex. 

Sources of information 

A very targeted literature review was carried out building on the desk research carried out for 
the Evaluation  study of Directive 2008/99/EU, looking in  particular at  relevant  literature on 
the magnitude and impacts of environmental crime; and the 8th Round of Mutual Evaluation 
country reports and summary reports to understand where individual Member States are with 
regard to the implementation of the activities likely to be required under the revised Directive. 
Baselines across the Member States for different elements of ECD implementation were then 
developed; details are in the annex on baselines. Statistical data are mainly from Eurostat and 
other official sources; these are documented in footnotes. 

86 

 
 
In  addition,  the  research  covered  other  EU  criminal  legislation  and  associated  impact 
assessments, to understand the types of legislative provisions that could be envisaged as the 
result  of  legislative  policy  options,  and  associated  impacts  to  check  for  reference 
methodologies and data.  

Finally, additional information was collected through consultation activities both to shed light 
on the actual baseline and to verify the assumptions made for cost estimates. These activities 
are detailed in the table below. 

Table 1: Consultation activities carried out to support the development of cost estimates 

Stakeholders 

Consultation / verification 

Finland 
interview 23.06 

authorities 

– 

Verification of baseline and assumptions about the costs in terms 
of workdays for national strategies and  

 the training of relevant practitioners at national level 

Sweden 
interview 05.07 

authorities 

– 

Verification of baseline concerning the number of police officers 
and  prosecutors  that  handle  environmental  crimes  as  part  of 
teams  dealing  with  environmental,  hunting  and  occupational 
safety and health crimes 

ENPE - interview 05.07 

ENPE  national  contact 
points – email exchange 

Verification  of  baseline  and  assumptions  about  the  number  of 
practitioners  handling  such  cases  and  their  training  needs. 
Information  was  collected  about  the  number  of  police  officers 
and  prosecutors  handling  environmental,  agricultural  and  food 
safety crimes in the Netherlands. 

Circulation  of  a  short  ‘questionnaire’  to  validate  baseline 
information  and  assumptions  concerning  the  number  of  police 
officers and prosecutors handling environmental crime cases and 
the need for additional personnel. Information was received from 
the contact points in Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Portugal 

NGO  Birdlife  –  email 
exchange 

Awareness raising costs 

Training costs 

Standard Cost Model and estimation of labour costs 

Many  of  the  implementation  costs  entail  human  resource  costs  at  the  EU  level  (European 
Commission, EU agencies) and the Member State level (competent authorities, practitioners). 
Costs  associated  with  administrative  burden have  been  estimated  using  the Commission’s 
Standard Cost Model (SCM), outlined in the Better Regulation toolbox3. The SCM expresses 
costs as the ‘price per action’ (usually expressed as labour costs) multiplied by the ‘quantity’ 
of  actions  carried  out  (in  this  case  implementation  activities  and  the  person  days  for 
implementation).  

87 

 
 
 
 
 
To calculate these costs, a standard estimate of the daily labour cost has been applied for all 
activities. This approach mirrors the approach taken in recent impact assessments for criminal 
law  initiatives187,  using  the  latest  available  data  and  methods  detailed  in  the  EU  Better 
Regulation  Guidelines  (in  particular  Tool  #60  The  standard  cost  model  for  estimating 
administrative costs). The approach is detailed in the box below. 

Box 1: Approach to calculating labour costs for EU and Member State administration 

 Approach to calculating labour costs for EU and Member State administration 

In order to obtain daily wages from monthly salary data or hourly wage data, the wages are 
converted  based  on  the  assumption  of  215  person  days  of  fulltime  equivalent  (FTE)  in  a 
year188  or  alternatively  1  720  person  hours  of  FTE  in  a  year189,  these  assumptions  imply  a 
person day of FTE has 8 hours and a person month of FTE has 18 days. 

EU labour cost 

The daily rate for EU officials is based on the assumption of 18 working days in a month and 
the average monthly salary for grade AD8 (as a medium grade for officials) as referred to in 
the  Staff  Regulations,  applicable  from  1  July  2020  (specifically  Table  1.1  in  Annex  1  to 
COM(2020) 773 final190). After adding a 25% overhead cost, this results in an EU daily labour 
cost of EUR 534 for 2020. Using the above assumptions this can be converted to a monthly 
(EUR 9 571) or annual (EUR 114 852) cost. 

Member State labour cost 

Data  about  labour  costs  in  the  Member  States  is  obtained  from  Eurostat’s  Labour  Cost 
Survey, the latest available being 2016191. Therefore, the EU27 ‘total labour cost’ reported for 
public  administration  (i.e.  category  ‘public  administration  and  defense,  compulsory  social 
security’ per employee FTE) is adjusted for inflation to obtain a daily labour cost for 2020192, 
which can be comparable to the EU labour cost. A 25% overhead cost is then added to obtain 
an average Member State daily labour cost of EUR 294 for 2020. This is alternatively EUR 5 
260 per month or EUR 63 119 per year. 

Limitations 

The  accuracy  of  cost  estimates  is  very  much  dependent  upon  the  baseline  situation  in  the 
Member States – e.g. how much training they already do for different practitioner groups, or 
how many personnel they already have devoted to environmental crime. No specific surveys 

187 See, for example, the SWD (2017) 298 final on combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment.  
188  Eurostat,  2017,  Guidelines  Unit  Costs  for  Direct  Personnel  Costs  applicable  to  all  grants  awarded  by  Eurostat: 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/10186/7970019/Guideline-unit-costs.pdf. 
for 

189  European  Commission,  2019,  H2020  Programme  User's  Guide 

the  Personnel  Costs  Wizard: 

https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/gm/reporting/guide-personnel-costs_en.pdf. 

190  COM(2020)  773 

final,  Annexes:  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:9e757c7c-3328-11eb-b27b-

01aa75ed71a1.0005.02/DOC_2&format=PDF. 

191  Dataset 

‘LCS  surveys  2008,  2012  and  2016 

[lc_ncost_r2]’  downloaded  on  04.06.21 

from  Eurostat: 

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do. 

192 Based on the annual inflation rates reported for 2017-2020 by Eurostat: 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017. 

88 

 
 
                                                 
were  carried  out  to  ascertain  these  details  for  all  Member  States,  information  was  mainly 
collected from  the 8th Mutual Evaluation  Member State reports and, where available, letters 
they  submitted  as  a  follow-up  to  the  evaluation  process.  Some  additional  information  was 
collected via consultation, but as the consultation was not extensive across all Member States, 
the consultation activities were mainly used to validate EU-wide assumptions. While the 8th 
Mutual Evaluation reports were consistent in the type of information requested from Member 
States, not all Member States provided the same level of detail in the reports, meaning that in 
some cases an omission in a country report could be misinterpreted as the lack of action in a 
certain  area. The cost calculations are therefore estimates and in some cases Member States 
may in reality incur less cost than projected as they already have taken steps to implement the 
proposed measures. 

TRANSPOSITION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF EU-LEVEL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS 

As  explained  in  section  6.1  of  the  impact  assessment  report,  costs  for  the  transposition  of 
legislation by Member States and for the preparation of EU-level  guidance documents were 
not  presented  for  the  individual  options  per  objective  nor  taken  directly  into  account  in  the 
assessment of efficiency. While the costs are relatively minor compared to other elements of 
the proposed modifications, indicative cost assessments are presented here. 

Transposition of legislation 

Any legislative option that involves amendments to the ECD would entail some costs for the 
Member  States  to  transpose  the  new  legislation  into  their  national  settings.  The  cost  of  the 
transposition  is  human  resource  costs  and  is  likely  to  be  the  same  or  comparable  for 
transposing  a  legislative  option  for  one  of  the  policy  objectives,  several  or  all  of  them. 
Furthermore, these costs are one-off costs as the transposition is a single activity that does not 
entail continuous or recurring expenses. 

In  order  to  estimate  the  cost  of  the  human  resources,  reference  data  about  the  amount  of 
person days needed for transposition is taken from the Impact Assessment of the Directive on 
combating  fraud  and  counterfeiting  of  non-cash  means  of  payment193.  This  average  amount 
per Member State is assumed to be between 20 and 60 person days. Using the Member State 
daily  labour  cost  defined  in  section  6.1  (i.e.  EUR  294),  the  overall  cost  of  transposition  is 
estimated to be in the range of EUR 5 872 – 17 615 per Member State as summarised in the 
table below. 

193 Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on 
combating  fraud  and  counterfeiting  of  non-cash  means  of  payment  and  replacing  Council  Framework  Decision 
2001/413/JHA, SWD(2017) 298 final, Annex 4.2, p.185-191. 

89 

 
 
 
                                                 
Table 2: Estimated costs of transposition of new legislation in the Member States 

One-off costs 

Low 

High 

Per Member State 

20 days 

€ 5 872

60 days 

€ 17 615 

All Member States (EU27) 

540 days 

€ 158 531 

1 620 days 

€ 475 594 

Preparation of EU-level guidance  

Some  EU-level  guidance  already  exists  with  regard  to  environmental  crime194.  It  is  possible 
that  the  European  Commission  would  prepare  and  adopt  additional  guidance  documents 
specifically linked to the ECD modifications, for example to further support the clarification 
of terms195. The main cost would be the human resource costs that the European Commission 
services  need  to  invest  to  prepare,  adopt  and  disseminate  the  material  (any  implementation 
costs for Member States or other stakeholders are considered separately). These costs would 
be  one-off  as  no  recurring  costs  are  likely  once  the  document  is  adopted.  The  costs  are 
estimated as a unit cost per document and can be considered under different policy objectives 
or sub-options, as shown in Table 2 (Section 3.1).  

In order to estimate the cost of a non-legislative guiding document, reference data about the 
amount  of  person  days  needed  for  development  and  publication  of,  for  instance,  an 
implementation report, guidebook on national legislation or a communication, is taken from 
the  Impact  Assessment  of  the  Directive  on  combating  fraud  and  counterfeiting  of  non-cash 
means of payment196. The necessary effort is assumed to be between 30 and 60 person days. 
Using  the  EU  daily  labour  cost  defined  in  section  6.1  (i.e.  EUR  534),  the  overall  cost  of 
developing one non-legislative guiding document is estimated to be in the range of EUR 16 
026 – 32 052 at the EU level as summarised in the table below. 

Table 3: Estimated costs of developing and publishing a non-legislative guiding document at the EU level 

One-off costs 

EU 
Commission) 

level 

Low 

High 

(European 

30 days  € 16 026 

60 days 

€ 32 052 

194  For  example,  the  recently  published  European  Commission,  2021,  Guidance  Document  on  combating  environmental 
crimes and related infringements. 
195  Guidance  on  harmonised  standards  for  statistics  (Objective  5)  is  included  in  the  cost  estimate  for  this  option  as  it  is 
considered integral to the implementation of the option. 
196 Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on 
combating  fraud  and  counterfeiting  of  non-cash  means  of  payment  and  replacing  Council  Framework  Decision 
2001/413/JHA, SWD(2017) 298 final, Annex 4.2, p.185-191. 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
COSTS  RELATED  TO  OPTIONS  UNDER  OBJECTIVE  4  OF  IMPROVING  THE  EFFECTIVE 

COOPERATION AND COORDINATION BETWEEN RELEVANT AUTHORITIES 

Option 1, which would require no further action beyond those under objectives 1 to 3, would 
not  entail  any  direct  additional  costs.  Option  2  would  introduce  a  package  of  provisions 
requiring Member States to take actions directly fostering cross-border cooperation. There are 
three proposed measures; details on the cost estimates for each are considered in the following 
sections. 

Investigative tools 

Under this measure, Member States would be required to allow the use of investigative tools 
for  environmental  crime  cases  in  the  same  way  that  they  are  allowed  for  use  in  organised 
crime or other serious crime cases, according to the provisions in national law. Investigative 
tools  and  techniques  used  in  criminal  investigations  are  likely  to  include  wiretapping; 
controlled  deliveries;  telephone  interceptions;  video  surveillance;  tracking  or  undercover 
agents; as well as laboratories and equipment, and online and geospatial tools for intelligence 
gathering. While some Member States already do this, many do not and would need to change 
their practice for environmental crime cases. 

According to the 8th Round of Mutual Evaluation country reports and as shown in the baseline 
annex, 5 Member States specified that they require authorisation from a magistrate or judge to 
use special environmental techniques for environmental crime, and 14 Member States noted 
that the use of such techniques requires a link to a severe crime, such as organised crime. A 
few others noted that such operations are rare or are not used due to a lack of environmental 
cases. The proposed provision would not harmonise the tools available but would ensure that 
they are made available more easily. Given this, and the expectation that additional and more 
serious environmental crime cases would be detected in the Member States as a result of the 
revised  ECD  overall,  it  can  be  expected  that  specialised  investigative  techniques  would  be 
used more widely. 

Comprehensive quantitative data on the costs of the use of investigative tools in the Member 
States  is  not  available.  However,  representatives  of  prosecution  offices  from  two  Member 
States noted in interviews that these techniques can be costly, particularly for translation and 
telecommunication  services.  Media  reports  have  also  noted  the  relatively  high  cost  of 
wiretapping efforts, mostly linked to telecommunication services. Indicatively, Belgium spent 
EUR 6 million on 7 475 wiretaps in 2017, giving an average cost of approximately EUR 800 
per wiretap197.  The number of wiretaps used has consistently increased in the preceding years, 
partially  due  to  terrorism  investigations.  In  the  UK,  at  least  GBP  6.7  million  (EUR  7.9 
million)  was  paid  in  2014  by  British  police  forces  and  government  authorities  to 

197  Le  Soir, 
https://www.lesoir.be/173917/article/2018-08-20/belgique-le-nombre-decoutes-telephoniques-en-hausse. 

téléphoniques 

‘Belgique: 

d’écoutes 

hausse’, 

nombre 

2018, 

en 

le 

20  August 

2018, 

91 

 
 
                                                 
telecommunications companies for data on customers (data not including the call or message 
content)198.  This  amount  increased  each  year  between  2008  and  2014,  probably  due  to 
increasing reliance on this data. It was calculated that in 2014 each request cost approximately 
GBP 50 (EUR 58).  

Focal points, cooperation with EU agencies  

Member States would be required to install national focal points for cross border cooperation 
and  to  ensure  cooperation  through  relevant  EU  agencies.  The  main  cost  of  these  provisions 
would be labour costs associated with the human resources needed.  

This is subject to several assumptions: 

  All  Member  States  would  need  to  establish  such  focal  points.  Even  though  some 
countries  may  already  have  a  workforce  that  is  to  a  certain  extent  dedicated  to 
environmental  crime,  the  inclusion  of  such  requirements  in  the  ECD  would  require 
that  such  structures  are  formalised  resulting  in  additional  human  resource  time  and 
costs compared to the baseline. 

  The  focal  or  contact  points  would  be  needed  for  cooperation  and  coordination 
activities both  within the Member States  and cross-border  and it is  assumed that the 
‘focal  point’  elements  of  their  cost  would  only  be  part  time;  the  rest  of  their  time 
would be dedicated to other activities. 

  One  focal  point  would  be  established  per  institution  along  the  enforcement  chain 
implying  the  creation  of  focal  points  within  the  administrative  authorities,  police, 
customs,  prosecution  and  courts  (according  to  the  European  Commission’s  guidance 
on combating environmental crime and related infringements199). For simplicity, it is 
assumed that each focal point would be represented by one staff member working part 
-time on environmental crime. 

The cost assessment for implementing new provisions in the ECD requiring the establishment 
of  focal  points,  specialised  units  or  other  entities  that  would  be  necessary  for  facilitating 
cross-border and intra-EU cooperation on environmental crime in the Member States is based 
on reference data about the establishment of contact points in similar EU criminal law and the 
labour costs defined in Section 1.2. 

Reference data about the amount of person days needed for focal points in the five relevant 
institutions  along  the  law  enforcement  chain  is  taken  from  the  Impact  Assessment  of  the 
Directive  on  combating  fraud  and  counterfeiting  of  non-cash  means  of  payment200.  The 

198 Financial Times, 2016, ‘UK police pay  millions of pounds for telecoms  surveillance’, Daniel Thomas, 8 January 2016, 
https://www.ft.com/content/1728997e-b3b3-11e5-8358-9a82b43f6b2f. 
199 European Commission, 2021, Guidance Document on combating environmental crimes and related infringements.  
200 Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on 
combating  fraud  and  counterfeiting  of  non-cash  means  of  payment  and  replacing  Council  Framework  Decision 
2001/413/JHA, SWD(2017) 298 final, Annex 4.2, p.185-191. 

92 

 
 
                                                 
Directive  on  combating  fraud  and  counterfeiting  of  non-cash  means  of  payment  contains  a 
similar provision  about  contact  points and can thus  be used as  a reference point. Therefore, 
the  average  amount  of  time  needed  for  a  focal  point  is  assumed  to  be  between  12  and  20 
person days in a year per institution per Member State. Using the Member State daily labour 
cost  defined  in  section  6.1  (i.e.  EUR  294),  the  overall  cost  of  establishing  and  maintaining 
contact or focal points, including those needed for cross-border coordination, is estimated to 
be in the range of EUR 17 615 – 29 358 per year per Member State as summarised in the table 
below. 

Table 4: Estimated annual costs of establishing and maintaining focal points in the Member States 

Annual costs 

Per focal point 

Low 

High 

12 days 

€ 3 523

20 days 

€ 5 872 

Per  Member  State  (5  focal 
points) 

60 days 

€ 17 615 

100 days 

€ 29 358 

All Member States (EU27) 

1 620 days 

€ 475 594 

2 700 

€ 792 656 

COSTS  RELATED  TO  OPTIONS  UNDER  OBJECTIVE  5:  IMPROVING  STATISTICAL  DATA 

COLLECTION AND REPORTING WITH REGARD TO ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME 

Baseline and assumptions for costs of options 1 and 2 

Member  State  statistics  on  environmental  crime  are  fragmented.  They  are  often  kept  by 
different  types  of  stakeholders  along  the  enforcement  chain  or  by  environmental  authorities 
and centralised collection of statistics does not take place. None of the EU Member States has 
a single body with a central coordinating function for all data on environmental crime.  

To  establish  a  working  baseline  for  the  purposes  of  understanding  the  efforts  different 
Member States would need to undertake if they were required to collect and report statistics 
on environmental crime, information was collected from available desk sources, including the 
8th Round of Mutual Evaluation country reports and others201. 

The systematic collection and reporting of statistical data, including a certain degree of output 
harmonisation,  would  primarily  require  coordination  across  the  various  agencies  that 
currently collect data; the desk research suggests all Member States have some environmental 
crime data available within different institutions. The number of agencies that would need to 

201 Final Report on the Evaluation of the Environmental Crime Directive (Directive 2008/99/EC) – study by Milieu 2020; DG 
HOME: Overview of the availability, comparability and consistency of administrative statistical data on recorded crime and 
on the stages of the criminal justice process in the EU; and stakeholder consultation by DG Justice. 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
be  coordinated  differs  across  Member  States.  In  some  Member  States,  data  are  widely 
dispersed among various institutions or agencies, are not available in a centralised data base, 
and/or are dispersed in various federal or autonomous entities of the country. In others, there 
is already a good level of central reporting from only a few responsible agencies and/or a few 
central agencies that already compile some statistics in one or a few common database(s). As 
those Member States with many different agencies are assumed to require greater effort than 
those  with  fewer  agencies,  this  can  be  considered  a  reasonable  proxy  for  the  differences 
across Member States  

Although the effort needed across Member States to report statistical data on environmental 
crime  may  also  be  impacted  by  the  quality  or  standards  of  the  data  currently  available,  the 
information  obtained  through  desk  research  is  not  sufficient  to  make  reasoned  assumptions 
about which Member States would require more or less time to revise their existing standards 
for data collection on environmental crime.  

For  instance,  some  of  the  data  available  in  the  reviewed  sources  is  already  presented  in  a 
format  that  looks  harmonised  (e.g.  ‘investigations/prosecutions/convictions  for  waste 
trafficking’), but it remains unclear what data is behind these common headlines. It is possible 
that  Member  States  produced  these  data  in  a  different  format  and  then  reported  them  under 
these headings or that the data were compiled at the EU level.  

In any case, the assumption is that coordination and collection activities would constitute the 
bulk  of  the  additional  administrative  burden  resulting  from  requirements  on  statistical  data 
collection.  

Based on these considerations, for the baseline assessment the Member States can be divided 
into  six  groups  based  on  the  number  of  agencies  currently  involved  with  statistical  data  on 
environmental crime as summarised below. 

Table 5: Baseline for statistical data collection – number of agencies providing data in each Member State 

Group 

7 
agencies 

6 
agencies 

5 
agencies 

4 
agencies 

3 
agencies 

2 
agencies 

Member States 

BE,  EL, 
ES, 
IT, 
NL 

FR,  PL, 
RO 

IE, SE, SI  AT,  BG, 
DK,  EE, 
FI, 
LT, 
PT 

CY,  CZ, 
DE,  HR, 
MT, SK 

HU,  LU, 
LV 

Following the SCM approach, in order to estimate the administrative burden associated with 
each  sub-option,  a  set  of  implementation  activities  for  each  sub-option  has  been  defined 
together  with  an  estimation  of  the  person  days  in  fulltime  equivalent  (FTE)  necessary  to 
implement them. The definition of implementation activities and approximate effort in person 

94 

 
 
days  has  been  developed  based  on  expert  judgement  by  practitioners  with  first-hand 
experience with the practical activities and tasks associated with data collection and reporting 
for crime statistics202. The estimates defined in the following analysis are approximations for 
standard  activities  based  on  rough  evaluation  of  past  data  collections.  The  estimates  are 
assumed  to  provide  a  good  representation  of  the  minimum  amount  of  effort  necessary,  but 
they  do  not  take  into  account  possible  variations  that  may  occur  between  Member  States 
beyond  those  represented  by  differences  in  coordination  costs  which  are  accounted  for 
through the number of relevant institutions. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that any possible 
variations are unlikely to significantly impact the overall implementation costs.  

Option  1:  Oblige  Member  States  to  collect  and  regularly  report  to  the  Commission 
statistical data related  to  environmental crime in combination with further supporting 
measures 

The assumption behind this option is that Member States are required to collect and report the 
existing  statistical  data  they  currently  collect  on  environmental  crime  to  the  EU  without 
further  efforts  at  harmonisation.  The  estimate  of  resource  requirements  for  this  option 
assumes that no additional time for the collection of the data within the agencies will be spent 
and all additional efforts are related to coordination and data compilation activities at a central 
(national) level and at EU level. It is further assumed that only basic data validation is carried 
out  at  the  national  and EU  levels  (e.g.  checking  data  for  completeness  and  consistency,  but 
not for accuracy or relevance). No data analysis or report writing efforts are included. 

The activities required to implement this option at the national and EU levels entail some one-
off efforts for set-up and then continuous activities such as annual collection and transmission 
of the data. The main implementation activities include: 

National level:  

  Setting up a central reporting system or procedure in order to put in place the common 
reporting platform, communicate with agencies, provide guidelines for national level 
reporting, develop templates etc.  

  Round tables to discuss and confirm approach across the agencies before the start of 

the reporting.  

202 Cost estimates were prepared by a team of statistical experts from Gopa Luxembourg, co-authors of the impact assessment 
support study. The experts Michael Jandl and Paul Smit have a long track record in statistical data collection and analysis. In 
particular,  Mr  Jandl  has  worked  for  the  United  Nations  Office  on  Drugs  and  Crime  (UNODC)  as  a  Research  Officer, 
responsible for data collection, research and analysis on crime and criminal  justice, and the development and promotion of 
international standards on crime and justice statistics and surveys. He was Senior Research Officer at the International Centre 
for Migration Policy Development and carried out research on migration and asylum. Mr Smit has a degree in Mathematics, 
Statistics and Computer Science and worked with Statistics Netherlands on the migration from manually collected statistics 
towards  digitalized  data  collection.  He  later  worked  for  the  research  department  of  the  Dutch  Ministry  of  Justice  on 
international crime statistics and their comparability. As a consultant, he was part of various UN and EU projects improving 
crime statistics in the MS. 

95 

 
 
                                                 
  Annual  collection,  compilation  and  transmission  of  data  from  the  agencies  to  the 
national coordinating office, including reporting from each relevant agency, collection 
at the central level as well as basic data validation, checking, feedback and revisions at 
the central level. 

EU level:  

  Setting up an EU level  reporting procedure in  order to  set  up the  common reporting 
platform, communicate with national competent authorities, provide guidelines for EU 
level reporting, develop templates etc.  

  Round  tables  to  discuss  and  confirm  the  approach  across  Member  States  before  the 

start of the reporting. 

  Annual  collection,  validation  and  revision  of  data  received  from  the  Member  States, 
including  collection  of  the  data  from  each  Member  State  as  well  as  data  validation, 
checking, feedback and revision. 

Total  cost  estimates as provided in  the main impact  assessment  report  are shown below  for 
reference. 

Table 6: Member State costs for Option 1 

* 2 persons for 2 round tables (1 day each) per agency 
** 1 day per agency 

*** 3 days per agency 

96 

 
 
 
Table 7: EU-level costs for Option 1 

* 1 person for 2 round tables (2 day each) per MS 
** 1 day per MS for collecting data + 3 days per MS for data validation/ checking/ feedback/ revision 

Option  2:  Oblige  Member  States  to  collect  and  report  statistical  data  according  to 
harmonised common standards  

This  sub-option  differs  from  the  previous  in  that  it  emphasizes  the  application  of  minimum 
common standards for the collection, compilation and reporting of statistics on environmental 
crime. These are broadly defined as standards that do not entail deep and costly changes in the 
data collection systems of the Member State – for example, by necessitating a major redesign 
of  data  entry  and  recording  systems  at  the  level  of  law  enforcement  authorities/police  or 
requiring a complete overhaul of the judicial recording systems. Such minimum standards set 
at EU level, as practiced in other areas of EU data collection, would allow for some, limited 
comparability  of  the  data,  while  not  (yet)  aiming  at  full  data  harmonisation  across  Member 
States. 

Estimating  the  resource  requirements  and  cost  of  applying  common  standards  is  highly 
dependent  on  the  scope  and  the  contents  of  these  standards.  The  exact  distinction  between 
minimum and full data harmonisation could be determined at EU level with participation of 
Member  States  in  a  working  group  and  a  task  force  on  the  methodology  of  data  collection. 
For  the  purposes  of  this  work,  minimum  harmonisation  should  reflect  the  key  dimensions 
necessary for limited data comparability, including: 

  Application  of  common  counting  units  (e.g.  offences  rather  than  investigations  or 

cases). 

  Use  of  a  common  classification  of  environmental  crime  to  be  prepared  by  the  EU 
working  group  (ECECS  –  European  Classification  of  Environmental  Crime  for 
Statistical  Purposes  which  should  be  a  satellite  classification  of  the  ICCS203)  for 
reporting  purposes  –  this  requires  Member  States  that  do  not  already  collect  data 
according to a common crime classification to carry out a detailed mapping of existing 
crime categories to the ECECS and report data according to these common categories. 

203  Concretely,  the  definitions  and categories  of  the  classification  should be  in  line  with  the  ICCS  (chapter  10).  While  the 
ICCS is probably not detailed enough, it seems sensible to start from this international standard which is adopted by Eurostat 
for the reporting of crime data by MS. 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  Reporting  of  common  indicators  according  to  common  reporting  standards  (e.g. 
persons  convicted  for  waste  crime;  number  of  custodial  sentences  for  pollution 
offences; number of fines for pollution offences exceeding threshold of X Euro, etc.). 

  Counting rules will only be harmonised if this can be done on the basis of data already 
collected  within  electronic  databases  and/or  if  the  application  of  common  counting 
rules  does  not  require  major  changes  to  data  collection  systems.  Some  tentative 
examples could be:  

o  persons  suspected  for  several  offences  (of  different  crime  types)  should  be 

counted for each type separately;  

o  persons convicted for serial offences should be counted only once; 

o  persons  prosecuted  for  several  crimes  should  be  counted  for  each  crime 

separately. 

Data  that  do  not  fulfil  these  minimum  standards  should  be  reported  to  the  EU  level  with  a 
clear indication where these standards have not been met, but may not be included in EU level 
comparative analysis (e.g. overall trends in recorded waste crimes). 

The  different  considerations,  alternatives  and  consequences  of  the  application  or  non-
applications  of  these  standards  will  be  analysed  further  in  the  separate  activity  (ToR  point 
3.3), however, for the purposes of conducting a  high-level  cost  estimate, we have made the 
following assumptions regarding these common standards:  

  No  statistics  are  foreseen  for  the  total  number  of  offences  committed. 
This  means  that  only  offences  that  came  to  the  attention  of  law  enforcement 
authorities are considered. For this cost estimate no victim surveys or other methods to 
estimate  the  so-called  ‘dark  number’  of  environmental  crime  will  be  part  of  the 
requirement. 

  Infractions/misdemeanors/administrative  offences  are  not  part  of  the  required 

standards. 
This  means  that  it  is  up  to  Member  States  whether  to  include  these  or  not.  Each 
Member  State  will  probably  take  this  decision  on  practical  grounds  (what  is  easily 
available). 

  If  and  in  what  way  prosecution  statistics  are  included  are  not  part  of  the 

standards. 
Many  Member  States  do  not  have  any  prosecution  statistics.  Those  that  do  exist  are 
often  collected  on  a  very  aggregate  level  and  apply  completely  different  counting 
principles.  The assumption is  that at  this point, available data per  crime type (which 
are often not collected) are used without modifications. 

98 

 
 
  Only  offences  that  are  explicitly  registered  as  an  environmental  crime  are 
included in the statistics. Offences that are basically environmental but are registered 
as another crime (e.g. falsification of documents) are not part of the statistics 

  Metadata are explicitly part of the statistics. Since the common standards may not 
be binding or fully implemented by Member States, all reporting entities and Member 
States have to provide metadata in order to show where deviations from the standards 
occur. 

In  order  to  estimate  the  effort  needed  (both  at  EU  level  and  national  level)  to  implement 
minimum common standards and reporting, the following set-up and continuous activities are 
assumed: 

EU level: 

  Definition of common standards: the definition of common standards (i.e. indicators, 
classification,  counting  units,  counting  rules  and  reporting  templates)  would  mainly 
consist  of  independent  and/or  EU  experts  (both  on  statistics  and  on  environmental 
crime)  and  would  be  responsible  for  meetings,  drafting  of  technical  documents, 
guidelines, standards setting, bilateral discussions/missions to Member States to assess 
capacities and capabilities, coordination with other EU environmental crime statistics 
users, support/ ad-hoc advice on standards implementation.   

  Annual maintenance of common standards: this would be ensured by regular (e.g. 
annual) meetings of the Task Force to discuss issues, feedback or necessary updates to 
the standards. 

  Annual  collection  and  review  of  the  data:  this  activity  includes  the  collection, 
review, analysis and interpretation of the data delivered by Member States. Basically 
this includes data checking and feedback to the Member States.  

  Annual  reporting  and  dissemination:  this  activity  refers  to  the  preparation  of  a 

dedicated publication at the EU level and associated maintenance costs. 

National level: 

  Setting up a national coordination procedure, including: designation of a national 
coordinating  office  that  leads  the  process  of  standardization,  data  collection  and 
reporting  facilities  in  the  Member  States  and  coordinates  contacts  with  the  different 
agencies  within  the  Member  States  and  the  EU.  A  representative  from  this  office 
should be part of the Working Group with other Member States (see below). 

  Member  States  Working  Group:  it  would  support  the  definition  of  common 
standards at the Member State level. The work of the Working Group would include 
meetings  and  discussions,  reviewing  technical  documents,  translation.  An  important 
and  often  neglected  issue  of  standardization  across  European  countries  and 
jurisdictions is the language issue. While the EU Task Force defining standards would 

99 

 
 
likely use one language  (probably English), the results have to  be translated into the 
language  of  the  Member  State.  And  because  the  terms  to  be  translated  are  judicial 
terms  defined  within  a  specific  jurisdiction  this  cannot  be  a  purely  linguistic 
translation. Therefore, translating (‘transposing’) common standards will be a specific 
task for the Working Group where each Member State would be represented. 

  Setting  up  the  common  standards:  this  would  require  minor  changes  in  current 
statistics  and  coordination  across  the  agencies  involved  in  environmental  crime 
statistics in each Member State. In practices, the activities might include round tables 
between  all agencies  in  the Member States, development of templates, revisions and 
feedback before the reporting starts. 

  Annual coordination: similarly to the EU level, in each Member State efforts will be 
required  to  maintain  the  coordination  system  (e.g.  coordinating  office)  and  contacts 
with national agencies, other Member States and the EU. 

  Annual  maintenance  of  common  standards:  this  would  require  some  regular 
coordination  across  the  agencies  and  implementation  of  feedback  if  necessary  (e.g. 
updates received from the EU Task Force). 

  Annual  collection  and  reporting:  this  would  entail  the  coordinated  collection  and 
compilation of data from the different agencies in the Member States, validation and 
other necessary quality checks and transmission/reporting of the data to the EU. 

Total cost estimates as provided in the main report are shown below for reference. 

Table 8: Member State costs for Option 2 

100 

 
 
 
* Round tables: 1 person for 2 round tables (1 day each) per MS + Reviewing results by task force: 4 days per MS + Translating/ transposing 
standards: 3 days per MS + Round table for feedback: 1 day per agency 
** Preparation: 3 days per agency + Minor changes in current statistics: 3 days per agency + Round table before start of reporting: 2 persons 
for 1 day each per agency 
*** Reporting: 1 day per agency + collection: 1 day per agency + validation: 2 days per agency 

Table 9: EU-level costs for Option 2 

COSTS  RELATED  TO  OBJECTIVE  6:  IMPROVING  THE  EFFECTIVE  OPERATION  OF  THE 

ENFORCEMENT CHAIN 

Option 1, which would require no further action beyond those under objectives 1 to 5, would 
not entail any direct additional costs. Option 2 would insert into the Directive obligations that 
directly  strengthen  practical  implementation;  details  on  the  cost  estimates  for  each  are 
considered in the following sections. 

Set-up  specialised  units  in  police  and  prosecution  services;  establish  specialised  court 
chambers and improving cooperation and information exchange within Member States 

This  measure  would  consist  of  recommendations  to  Member  States,  e.g.  in  the  non-binding 
recitals to the Directive. As detailed in the baseline annex, many Member States already do 
have units specialised in environmental crime within the policy, public prosecution office; a 
few  also  have  dedicated  courts  and  administrative  authority  divisions.  For  those  Member 
States who do not, and would wish to set up such structures, the main additional cost would 
be  related  to  new  staff  working  on  environmental  crime.  The  approach  to  estimating  these 
costs is provided in Section 6 of this Annex. 

Provide training along the enforcement chain 

The cost assessments for training assume a combination of training provided at EU level by 
organisations such as CEPOL or the European Judicial Training Network (EJTN) as well as 
training  provided  directly  by  Member  State  authorities  for  its  own  practitioners.  Cost 
estimates are calculated separately for training at national level (Section 5.2.1) and training at 
EU  level  (Section  5.2.2),  based  on  different  assumptions  and  reference  data.  A  thorough 
investigation of desk research sources was conducted to establish a baseline of what training 

101 

 
 
 
already exists, and cost assumptions were validated with stakeholders. Section 5.3.3 looks at 
who is likely to bear the costs of different types of training. 

Training provided by Member State authorities 

The amount of additional training each Member State would need to carry out in response to a 
training  requirement  in  the ECD would depend  upon the amount of training already  carried 
out.  To establish a working baseline to  define these assumptions, Member States have been 
grouped according to the relative amount of training they already carry out. This is done first 
for each practitioner group based on the available information and then collectively across all 
groups  as  information  was  not  always  completely  available  for  some  groups.  Detailed 
research findings are provided in the annex on baselines. 

Four  groups  of  practitioners  have  been  identified  as  the  primary  recipients  of  training  on 
environmental crime:  judges, police and prosecutors, customs agents and administrative 
authorities  responsible  for  environmental  inspection.  Member  States  currently  provide 
varying  degrees  of  training  for  each  group.  It  is  assumed  that  training  for  all  practitioners 
would be necessary, as the lack of necessary expertise in one or more parts of the enforcement 
chain may produce a vicious circle and undermine efforts in other parts of the chain204. It may 
also be desirable to provide common training to different types of practitioners in one group, 
to foster better cooperation across institutions within a Member State. 

For  the  judicial  branch,  all  Member  States  have  a  specialised  body,  such  as  a  national 
institute  or  academy,  which  organises  training  for  judges  and/or  prosecutors.  Continuous 
professional training of judges is optional in the majority of Member States.  

Based on the country reports of the 8th Round of Mutual Evaluation and follow-up comments, 
three groups of Member States could be identified in terms of the extent of training already 
provided for the judicial branch at national level.  

  Group A: Member States in this group offer training opportunities for practitioners in 
the judicial branch in relation to environmental crime on a regular basis – i.e., at least 
one  course  per  year.  For  example,  in  Germany,  the  German  Judicial  Academy 
regularly  offers  a  four-day  conference  on  current  issues  in  relation  to  environmental 
criminal  law  and  regular  training  activities  are  also  held  at  regional  (Länder)  level. 
(AT; BE; BG; CZ; DE; ES; FI; FR; IT; PT; SE). 

  Group B: Member States in the group offer limited/ad hoc training for practitioners in 
the judicial branch, which based on the available information does not seem to occur 
on a regular basis (EE; EL; HU; NL; PL; RO).  

  Group  C:  Member  States  in  this  group  do  not  organise  any  training  activities  on 
environmental  crime  at  national  level  for  the  judicial  branch.  The  only  training 

204 European Commission, 2021, Guidance Document on combating environmental crimes and related infringements.  

102 

 
 
                                                 
available to practitioners in these Member States is at EU level (CY; DK; HR; IE; LT; 
LV; LU; MT; SI; SK).  

For  the  police  and  public  prosecutors,  the  bodies  responsible  for  providing  training  are 
usually spread out across the different institutions/units - with each institution/unit responsible 
for  the  training  of  its  respective  staff.  In  France,  Poland  and  Spain  the  training  on 
environmental crime is  provided by a body specialised in environmental issues, namely, the 
Institute  for  Environmental  Training  (IFORE)  in  France,  the  Chief  Inspectorate  of 
Environmental  Protection  in  Poland,  and  the  Nature  Protection  Service  (SEPRONA)  of  the 
Spanish  Civil  Guard.  The  majority  of  Member  States  provide  some  form  of  training  on 
environmental crime for the law enforcement branch, although the extent of the training and 
the  bodies  covered  vary  greatly  from  one  Member  State  to  another.  Three  categories  of 
Member  States  could  be  identified  in  terms  of  the  level  of  training  provided  for  the  law 
enforcement branch at national level.  

  Group A: Member States in this group provide a degree of both initial and continuous 
training on environmental  crime to  law enforcement practitioners (AT; CZ;  DE;  EE; 
ES; FI; FR;  IT; PL). Finland can be taken as an example of best practice; the Police 
University  College  coordinates  a  national  training  programme  on  environmental 
criminal  law,  which  covers  police,  customs  and  border  guard,  environmental 
authorities (both state and municipal) as well as prosecutors. The training consists of 
six thematic modules in the form of lectures that are live-streamed across the country 
and  last  around  two  days  each  over  a  period  of  18  months.  The  Police  University 
College also organises annually a one-week course on environmental crime covering a 
wide range of subjects, including one afternoon on forensic sampling. 

  Group  B:  Member  States  in  this  group  provide  some  degree  of  training  on 
environmental crime  as  part of the initial  training of officers/new  recruits.  However, 
no opportunities for continuous training could be identified in the country reports (BE; 
BG; IE; LV; MT; NL; PT; RO; SE).  

  Group C: Member States in this group either provide training on environmental crime 
on an ad hoc basis with no clear training programme, or do not provide any training on 
environmental crime at  national  level  (the only training available is  provided by EU 
level organisations) (CY; DK; EL; HR; HU; LT; LU; SI; SK). 

For  customs  and  administrative  authorities,  very  limited  information  is  available  on  the 
current  level  of  training  on  environmental  crime  provided  at  national  level.  The  following 
groups of Member States could be identified, based on the information available in the some 
of the country reports of the 8th Round of Mutual Evaluation:  

For customs: 

  Group A: Member States in this group provide a degree of both initial and continuous 

training on environmental crime to customs (CZ; DE; FI; FR) 

103 

 
 
 
  Group B: Member States in this group provide a degree of training on environmental 
crime as part of the initial training of customs officers/new recruits or ad hoc training 
only (BG; EE; IE)  

  Group C: Member States in this group provide no training to customs (CY; DK; HR; 

HU; LT; LU; SI; SK) 

  No information is  available  for the following Member Sates (AT; BE; EL;  ES;  IT; 

LV; MT; NL; PL; PT; RO; SE) 

For administrative authorities: 

  Group A: Member States in this group provide a degree of both initial and continuous 
training on environmental crime to administrative authorities (AT; CZ; DE; EE; FI) 

  Group B: Member States in this group provide a degree of training on environmental 
crime as part of the initial training of customs officers/new recruits or ad hoc training 
only (EL; IE; SE)  

  Group  C:  Member  States  in  this  group  provide  no  training  to  administrative 

authorities (CY; HR; HU; LT; LU; SI; SK) 

  No information is available for the following Member States (BE; BG; DK; ES; FR; 

IT; LV; MT; NL; PL; PT; RO) 

Given  that  comprehensive  baseline  information  was  not  available  for  all  four  practitioner 
groups in each Member State, and that the bulk of the training to be carried out focuses on the 
police and prosecution practitioners, a simplified categorisation was made, taking the average 
level of training provided at national level for both the judicial and law enforcement branch. 
The  overall  national  baseline  consists  of  three  groups,  with  Group  A  providing  regular 
training, Group B providing ad hoc training or only initial training and Group C provided very 
limited/no training. 

Table 10: National baseline groups 

Groups 

Group A 

Group B 

Group C 

Member States  AT;  BE;  CZ;  DE;  EE; 
ES; FI; FR; IT; PL; PT; 
SE 

BG;  EL;  HU;  NL; 
RO 

CY;  DK;  HR;  IE;  LT; 
LV; LU; MT; SI; SK 

Although  many  Member  States  (17  in  total)  currently  provide  some  form  of  training  in 
relation  to  combating  environmental  crime,  previous  studies205  and  stakeholder  consultation 

205  European  Commission,  2021,  Guidance  Document  on  Combating  environmental  crimes  and  related  infringements; 
European  Commission,  2020,  Good  practice  document  on  Combating  environmental  crime:  Waste  and  wildlife;  European 

104 

 
 
                                                 
 
have emphasised the need for more and better targeted training for all practitioners along the 
enforcement chain. Stakeholders in the field stressed that the current level of training does not 
ensure sufficient expertise in the highly technical and complex field of environmental crime. 
Furthermore, modifications to the ECD will change how environmental crime is defined and 
broaden the types of activities that can be considered environmental crime, as well as mandate 
additional enforcement activities within and between Member States. It is therefore assumed 
that  all  Member  States,  will  need  to  provide  some  degree  of  additional  training  on 
environmental crime for all practitioner groups. The amount of additional training estimated 
takes into account the level of national training currently provided: it is assumed that Member 
States in Group A will need to provide less additional training compared to Member States in 
other  groups,  particularly  Group  C,  for  all  personnel  expected  to  work  on  environmental 
crime along the enforcement chain. 

To develop the cost estimates, three key variables were used. These key variables are:  

1.  The estimated average cost of one day of training per participant 

2.  The  number  of  annual  training  days  to  be  offered  per  practitioner  group  and 

Member State group 

3.  The number of participants estimated to receive training per Member State 

  Variable 1: Average cost of one day of training per participant 

An  estimate  of  the  average  cost  of  one  day  of  training  per  participant  has  been  developed 
using different reference data sources. This unit of analysis (i.e. cost per day of training) was 
chosen  as  it  accounts  for  different  types  of  costs  associated  with  the  provision  of  training, 
such  as  the  development  of  the  content  of  the  training,  costs  of  trainers,  venue,  training 
materials etc.  

Initial desk review found the following sources of reference data:  

  The  French  Higher  Institute  of  the  Environment  (ISE)  provides  training  on 
environmental  issues  (also  to  French  law  enforcement  officers).  According  to 
the online training  catalogue for 2018, the lowest  cost  for one day of training 
was  EUR  900  for  12  participants  and  the  highest  cost  for  one  day  of  training 
was  EUR 1 200.  This  means  the  cost  per  participant  ranged  from  EUR 75  to 
EUR 100206.  

Commission, 2020, Evaluation of the Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 
2008 on the protection of the environment through criminal law (Environmental Crime Directive), SWD(2020) 260 final. 
206 https://institut-superieur-environnement.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Catalogues-formation-Pro-ISE.pdf. 

105 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
  Based on the call for proposals for Grant Agreements for the implementation of 
CEPOL Residential Training Activities in 2021, the cost per participant per day 
of training is on average EUR 239207.  

  The  Police  Service  of  Northern  Ireland  indicated  that  it  costs  on  average 
GBP 58 (EUR 68) per officer per training day in the initial firearm course208.  

  An  NGO  providing  training  in  the  field  of  environmental  crime  to  law 
enforcement provided the research team with data on the costs of their training. 
This NGO provides a two-day, in-person training course for around 40 officers 
in  the  framework  of  the  fight  against  the  illegal  use  of  poison  in  the  natural 
environment. This course costs a total of EUR 3 120, which amounts to EUR 39 
per  day  per  participant.  The  NGO  also  provides  a  more  expensive  type  of 
training  on  investigation  of  environmental  crimes  which  includes  both 
theoretical and practical courses over a period of three days for approximately 
40 officers. This training costs around EUR 196 per day per participant. 

  The  Annex  of  the  Evaluation  of  the  Directive  2008/99/EC  states  that  the 
stakeholder consultation indicated that training costs per individual involved in 
environmental crime enforcement ranges from EUR 50 to EUR 428 per year209.  

Taking  the  average  of  the  different  reference  data  sources,  the  average  cost  of  one  day  of 
training per participant can be estimated at EUR 119.5. During targeted interviews, the ENPE 
and authorities in Sweden confirmed that this average daily rate of training per participant is 
consistent with their experience and the costs of the training they conduct. 

  Variable 2: Number of training days 

To  better  understand  the  requirements  for  the  number  of  training  days  needed  on 
environmental crime, available data from several Group A Member States (i.e. those currently 
providing  the  best  level  of  training)  have  been  reviewed;  these  are  compiled  in  the  table 
below.  This  allows  for  assumptions  on  the  number  of  continuous  annual  training  days  on 
environmental crime that are likely to be provided by the Member States for police officers, 
public prosecutors, and judges in response to a training requirement in the ECD.  

Table 11: Overview of training days currently provided in Group A Member States 

 MS  Continuous  training  for  police  and 

prosecutors 

Continuous 
branch 

training 

for 

judicial 

207 https://www.cepol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/Annex_3_CEPOL_Training_Catalogue_2021.pdf. 
208https://www.psni.police.uk/globalassets/advice--information/our-publications/disclosure-logs/2011/human-
resources/training_costs_police_officers.pdf. 
209 SWD(2020) 259 final part 2. 

106 

 
 
                                                 
AT
210 

CZ
211 

DE
212 

EE
213 

One week every two years 

No  detailed  information  in  the  country 
report 

3 days annually 

1 day annually for the judicial branch 

Example at Länder level: 

4-day conferences for judicial branch 

2 days annually (Rhineland/Palatinate) 

4  days  annually  for  EI  investigators  and 
public prosecutors 

No  detailed  information  in  the  country 
report 

FI214  5 days annually  

3 days annually for inspectors 

No  detailed  information  in  the  country 
report 

No  detailed  information  in  the  country 
report 

4 days annually 

3 days annually for the judicial branch 

FR
215 

PL
216 

Note:  the  table  only  contains  information  on the  training  activities  for  which  the  length  of the  training  was indicated  in  the 8th  Round  of 
Mutual Evaluation country report, some reports mention other training activities but no detailed information on the length of the training was 
available. 

On average Group A Member States (for which information was available) provide 3 days of 
annual continuous training for both judges and the police and prosecutor groups. To account 
for  differences  in  the  level  of  training  already  provided  by  Member  States,  the  estimated 
additional training days required due to the new ECD is adjusted for each baseline group as 
follows: 

  Group A – 1 additional training day for judges and police / prosecutors 

  Group B – 2 additional training days for judges and police / prosecutors 

  Group C – 3 additional training days for judges and police / prosecutors 

The  revision  of  the  ECD  is  expected  to  primarily  impact  the  practitioners  along  the 
enforcement  chain  that  deal  with  investigation,  prosecution,  and  conviction  (e.g.,  police 

210 Council of the European Union, 2019, 8th Round of Mutual Evaluations -'The practical implementation and operation of 
European policies on preventing and combating Environmental Crime': Report on Austria, 10079/1/19 REV 1. 
211 Ibid - Report on the Czech Republic, 14129/1/18 REV 1. 
212 Ibid - Report on Germany, 11430/1/18 REV 1. 
213 Ibid - Report on Finland, 8430/1/18 REV 1. 
214 Ibid - Report on Finland, 8430/1/18 REV 1. 
215 Ibid - Report on France, 6734/18 DCL 1. 
216 Ibid - Report on Poland, 15079/1/18 REV 1. 

107 

 
 
                                                 
officers,  prosecutors,  and  judges).  It  is  therefore  assumed  that  less  training  for  customs  and 
administrative  authorities  would  be  necessary  compared  to  other  types  of  practitioners  as 
these  actors  are  mainly  involved  in  the  monitoring  and  detection  of  environmental  crime 
(administrative  authorities  being  responsible  for  the  investigation  and  enforcement  of 
administrative  offences).  It  is  therefore  assumed  that  customs  and  administrative  authorities 
would receive one additional day of continuous annual training in all Member States.  

  Variable 3: Number of persons targeted by the training  

The expected number of practitioners to be trained within each Member State was calculated 
based on different assumptions for each practitioner group. 

Judges 

Given the lack of data available on  the specialisation of judges in Member States, estimates 
for the number of judges that would be targeted by training were based on the current practice 
in Poland, whereby on average 50 judges receive training annually on environmental crime217. 
Based on Eurostat data (CRIM_JUST_JOB218) on the total number of professional judges in 
Member States, this represents 0.5% of judges in Poland.  

Police and public prosecutors 

It  is  assumed  that  the  revision  of  the  ECD  will  result  in  the  need  for  additional  personnel 
within the police and public prosecution offices in all Member States, and an estimate number 
of  additional  staff  required  in  each  Member  State  is  presented  in  Section  6  of  this  annex. 
Training should be provided to existing staff working on environmental crime as well as new 
staff  added  in  response  to  the  revised  Directive.  An  estimate  for  the  number  of  police  and 
prosecutors  who  will  require  training  has  been  calculated  using  a  proxy  for  the  baseline 
number of personnel currently working on environmental crime in each Member State (1.0% 
of all police and 3.5% of all prosecutors) plus the number of new staff to be hired (0.20% of 
all  police  and  0.17%  of  all  prosecutors).  Details  regarding  these  figures  can  be  found  in 
Section 6. These figures for each Member State are shown in Table 20; the total to be trained 
is 18 743. 

Customs 

There is also a lack of data available on the current level the number of customs agents who 
actively  work  on  or  specialise  in  environmental  crime  in  the  Member  States.  Given  that 
customs officers are often on the front line of detecting cross-border environmental crime, it 
is  important  that  a  high  proportion  of  officers  receive  elementary  training  in  relation  to 
combating environmental crime. Estimates for the number of targeted customs officers were 

217 Council of the European Union, 2019, 8th Round of Mutual Evaluations - ’The practical implementation and operation of 
European policies on preventing and combating Environmental Crime’: Report on Poland, 15079/1/18 REV 1.  
218 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/crim_just_job/default/table?lang=en%20b. 

108 

 
 
                                                 
therefore calculated based on the assumption that 10% of all customs officers in the Member 
States would receive basic training on environmental crime. 

As no data on the total number of customs officers in each Member State is available, figures 
were  extrapolated  based  on  statistics  from  four  Member  States  (BE;  DE;  FR;  LU)  using  3 
steps:  (1)  The  number  of  customs  officers  per  inhabitant  was  calculated  for  these  four 
Member States using official national statistics on customs and Eurostat population data; (2) 
the average number of customs officers per inhabitant was calculated across the four Member 
States (see Table 10); (3) the number of total customs officers in all other Member States was 
estimated using the average calculated in step 2 and Eurostat population data.  

Table 12: Calculations for number of customs targeted by training 

MS  Customs workforce 

National population219  Customs per inhabitant 

BE 

3 199220 

DE 

44 000221 

FR 

16 897222 

LU 

443223 

11 566 041 

83 166 711 

67 320 216 

626 108 

0.00028 

0.00053 

0.00025 

0.00071 

Average number of customs per inhabitant applied 
to all other MS 

0.00044 

The calculation for the costs of providing training to customs, takes 10% of the estimated total 
customs officers in each Member State. 

Administrative authorities  

The  type  of  administrative  authorities  involved  in  the  detection  and  investigation  of 
environmental  crimes  vary  across  Member  States  (e.g.,  environmental  inspectorates,  local 
authorities) depending on each country’s legal framework. While acknowledging that not all 
Member  States  have  environmental  inspectors,  for  simplicity,  estimates  for  the  number  of 

219  Eurostat, 

2021, 

Population 

on 

1 

January 

by 

age 

and 

sex,  DEMO_PJAN,  Available 

at: 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/demo_pjan/default/table?lang=en. 

220 Cour des comptes, 2017, Organisation d’un service continu au sein de  l’Administration générale des douanes et accises. 

Available at: https://www.ccrek.be/Docs/2019_02_AGDA.pdf. 
-  Daten 

221  Generalzolldirektion, 

2021,  Der 

Zoll 

und 

Fakten 

im  Überblick.  Available 

at: 

https://www.zoll.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Links-fuer-Inhaltseiten/Der-
Zoll/zdf_zoll_daten_fakten_ueberblick_2020.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2. 

222  Direction  générale  des  douanes  et  droits  indirects,  2020,  Bilan  Annuel  de  la  Douane  2020,  République  Française. 

Available at: https://www.douane.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2021-04/02/Bilan-annuel-de-la-douane-2020.pdf. 

223  Administration  des  douanes  et  accises,  2020,  Rapport  d’activité  du  Ministère  des  Finances  2020,  Gouvernement  du 
Grand-Duché de Luxembourg. Available at: https://douanes.public.lu/content/dam/douanes/fr/actualites/rapport-annuel-
ADA.pdf. 

109 

 
 
                                                 
persons within administrative authorities that would be targeted by training were extrapolated 
based on the number of environmental inspectors in four Member States (those for which data 
was available) using the same approach as for customs. For Member States that do not have 
environmental 
target  numbers  account  for  personnel  within  other 
administrative bodies that may be in need of training.  

inspectors, 

the 

Table 13: Calculations for number of inspectors targeted by training 

MS  Number  of 

inspectors 
based  on  8th  Round  of 
Mutual 
Evaluation 
reports 

National population224 

Inspectors per inhabitant 

EE  6225 

HR  77226 

LT  433227 

RO  621228 

1 330 068 

4 036 355 

2 795 680 

19 186 201 

0.0000045 

0.000019 

0.00015 

0.000032 

Average  number  of  inspectors  per  inhabitant 
applied to all other MS 

0.000053 

Using the assumptions above, cost  estimates for  training  activities provided within Member 
States  to  comply  with  a  legal  requirement  that  actors  along  the  environmental  crime 
enforcement chain be provided with appropriate training in environmental crime are shown in 
the table below. The three key variables  – number of days, average cost  per day of training 
per participant, number of practitioners targeted are linked to actual Member State practice. In 
this  scenario,  the  costs  would  range  from  EUR 14  034    to  EUR  €  1  429  746  annually  at 
national level, with a total annual cost of EUR € 7 978 446 across all Member States.  

224  Eurostat, 

2021, 

Population 

on 

1 

January 

by 

age 

and 

sex,  DEMO_PJAN,  Available 

at: 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/demo_pjan/default/table?lang=en. 

225 Council of the European Union, 2019, 8th Round of Mutual Evaluations -'The practical implementation and operation of 

European policies on preventing and combating Environmental Crime': Report on Estonia, 6767/1/19. 

226 Ibid – Report on Croatia, 9178/1/19. 
227 Ibid – Report on Lithuania, 10080/1/19. 
228 Ibid – Report on Romania, 8783/1/19. 

110 

 
 
 
                                                 
Table 14: Total costs for providing training at Member State level 

EU funding for training on environmental crime 

Most  of  the  training  provided  at  EU-level  on  environmental  crime  is  funding  by  EU 
programmes.  In  the  majority  of  cases  shown  in  the  baseline  annex  on  EU-level  training  for 
environmental  crime,  the  training  providers  receive  funding  through  EU  programmes  – 
typically the Justice Programme or the LIFE programme, so the costs are borne by the EU and 
the  networks  themselves229.  There  appear  to  be  very  limited  costs  for  the  Member  States  in 
relation to EU level training. 

Second, there are many  options for Member States to  fund training on environmental crime 
through  EU  programmes.  One  way  is  for  Member  States  to  access  funding  directly  for 

229 Examples of EU level training co-financed by the EU include:  
-  CEPOL 

activities,  which 

residential 

co-financed  up 
https://www.cepol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/Annex%201%20Call%20for%20Proposals%20for%20Grant%20Agreem
ents%202022.pdf.  

through  grant 

agreements, 

to  95% 

are 

see:  

-  The  IMPEL  Capacity  Building  and  Training  programme,  which  is  funded  by  the  European  Commission,  see: 

https://www.impel.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ToR-2019_23-Capacity-Building-and-Training.pdf.  

- 

The 

LIFE 

programme 

co-financed 

60% 

of 

the 

ENPE-LIFE 

project, 

see: 

https://www.environmentalprosecutors.eu/sites/default/files/document/LIFE-
ENPE%20Final_report__web%20version.pdf.   

-  The  EJTN  and  ERA  both  receive  funding  from  the  EU’s  Justice  Programme  to  carry  out  their  training  activities.  E.g., 
according to Regulation (EU) 1382/2013 on establishing a Justice Programme for the period 2014 to 2020, the European 
Judicial Training Network shall receive an operating grant to co-finance expenditure associated with its permanent work 
programme, see: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013R1382. 

111 

 
 
 
                                                 
training provided by their own authorities to national practitioners (with or without EU input 
on the content). National authorities can benefit from these funds either directly by applying 
for  grants  through  call  for  proposals  under  these  programmes,  or,  indirectly  through  third 
parties  (such  as  NGOs  or  European  networks)  that  obtain  EU  grants  for  projects  which 
include training of national practitioners. Three key EU funding programmes support national 
and EU level training of practitioners in relation to environment crime:  

  The LIFE Programme  

The  LIFE  Programme  co-finances  projects  in  the  field  of  environmental  protection,  such 
projects have included initiatives to reinforce training of national practitioners. For example, 
between 2016-2021, the LIFE programme financed 60% (grant of EUR 538 945) of a project 
implemented  by  the  Polish  General  Directorate  for  Environmental  Protection,  whose  main 
aim was to improve training on environmental crime for practitioners along the enforcement 
chain230.  National  level  NGOs  have  also  received  funding  from  the  LIFE  programme  for 
projects that included the provision of training for national practitioners.  Between 2018-2022, 
the  Spanish  SEO/Bird  Life  NGO  received  a  grant  of  EUR  1  158  538  (co-financing  rate  of 
60%)  for  a  project  which  includes  as  an  objective  the  training  of  100  Spanish  SEPRONA 
officers,  eight  officers  of  Portugal’s  Guarda  Nacional  Republicana  and  over  130 
environmental  officers  to  improve  environmental  crime  investigation  and  prosecution231. 
Similarly,  the  Bulgarian  WWF  received  a  EUR 1 740 018  (co-financing  rate  of  55%)  for  a 
project  that  will  run  between  2020-2023,  which  includes  provision  of  training  for  national 
practitioners232.  

  The Internal Security Fund (ISF) – Police 

For the period 2014-2020, the ISF Police has included yearly calls for proposals in relation to 
the  fight  against  environmental  crime  under  which  projects  that  aim  to  improve  training  of 
practitioners  and  capacity  building  were  eligible233.  Beneficiaries  of  ISF  grants  can  be  state 
and  federal  authorities,  local  public  bodies,  NGOs,  and  private  companies.  As  an  example, 
between  2015  and  2017,  the  ISF  Police  funded  a  project  entitled  Tackling  Environmental 
Crime  through  Standardised  Methodologies  (TECUM)  with  a  grant  of  EUR  780  489.  This 
project was implemented by BS Europe, the Italian Carabinieri, the Spanish SEPRONA, the 

230 

231 

232 

233 

See 

the 

‘You 

have 

right 

to 

effective 

protection 

of 

nature’ 

project 

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/life/publicWebsite/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=5828. 
incidence 

environmental 

‘Minimize 

crimes’ 

See 

the 

the 

of 

project 

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/life/publicWebsite/project/details/4848. 

See 

the 

‘Successful 

Wildlife 

Crime 

Prosecution 

in 

Europe’ 

project 

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/life/publicWebsite/project/details/5269. 

at: 

at: 

at: 

See: 

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/financing/fundings/security-and-safeguarding-liberties/internal-security-fund-

police/union-actions_en. 

112 

 
 
                                                 
National Environmental Guard of Romania, and CEPOL, with the aim of filling operational 
gaps in the cross-border fight against environmental crime234.  

  The Justice Programme  

The  Justice  Programme  is  the  key  EU  programme  that  provides  funding  opportunities  for 
judicial training and notably provides financial support for the training activities of the EJTN 
and ERA. The funding areas of the Justice Programme 2021-2027 include criminal justice and 
specifically environmental crime.  

Finally, the baseline research indicates that most of the internal training that Member States 
provided  to  the  own  practitioners  is  funded  by  the  Member  States  themselves.  There  are, 
however,  opportunities  for  Member  States  to  further  access  EU  funds  to  support  their  own 
training. For instance, the European Structural and Investment Funds (especially the European 
Regional and Development  Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion  Fund (CF) in certain  countries) 
can  provide  funding  for  technical  assistance  linked  to  implementation  of  the  funds  or  EU 
legislation  and  meeting  national  obligations  under  such  legislation,  as  well  as  resources  for 
networking  or  capacity  building.  While  each  Member  State  manages  and  administers  this 
funding  differently  based  on  their  needs  and  priorities  (e.g.  in  some  there  are  dedicated 
technical  assistance programmes while in  others this objective is  funded as part of thematic 
programmes),  it  is  possible  that  EU  funds  can  be  used  to  support  training  and  capacity 
building  activities  of  the  public  administration  and  relevant  practitioners  in  many  Member 
States. While the technical assistance funding from the ERDF or the CF is usually directed at 
national authorities, financing from other EU funds (e.g. LIFE) can be accessed also by other 
types  of  beneficiaries,  which  can  then  provide  training  to  practitioners  at  the  national  level. 
This  includes  NGOs  and  national  professional  networks  that  operate.  Financing  training  of 
practitioners  along  the  enforcement  chain  with  EU  funds  means  that  part  of  the  costs 
associated with the training will be borne by the EU rather than at the national level reducing 
the direct costs for Member States. 

Take measures to raise public awareness of the harmfulness of environmental crime 

The  range  of  activities  considered  under  the  umbrella  of  awareness-raising  is  wide.  It 
includes:  public  information  campaigns,  both  at  national  and  local  level;  educational 
activities;  cooperation  and  collaboration  with  external  bodies  or  organisations;  creating 
channels  for  the  public  to  report  environmental  crime;  information  aimed  at  the  public  and 
businesses; organisation of events.  

Member  States  have  been  divided  into  several  groups  according  to  the  activities  that  they 
currently undertake to raise awareness around environmental crime. For the purposes of this 

234  See:  https://www.bseurope.com/project/tackling-environmental-crimes-through-standardised-methodologies-tecum  and 
https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/default/files/financing/fundings/security-and-safeguarding-liberties/internal-
security-fund-police/union-actions/docs/efce_list_of_awarded_projects_2014_en.pdf. 

113 

 
 
                                                 
baseline,  awareness  raising  has  been  considered  to  relate  to  raising  awareness  amongst  the 
public  and  amongst  private  enterprises.  The  baseline  does  not  include  awareness  raising 
amongst employees of law enforcement bodies such as the police or public prosecution office; 
this  is  considered  to  be  covered  under  the  activities  of  training  and  establishment  of 
specialised units. The baseline has been constructed from information given in the 8th Round 
of Mutual Evaluation country reports.  

  Group  A:  AT,  CZ,  IE,  IT,  NL,  SE:  These  Member  States  provide  clear  information  to 
raise awareness about environmental crime amongst both the general public and private 
businesses.  

  Group  B:  DE,  FI,  LV,  PT,  SK:  These  Member  States  take  actions  targeting  private 
enterprise OR comprehensive action informing the general public, including a reporting 
point for environmental crime.  

  Group  C:  BE,  BG,  DK,  FR,  LT,  LU,  PL:  These  Member  States  take  some  action  to 

educate the general public, particularly children. 

  Group D: CY, EE, EL, ES, HR, HU, MT, RO, SI : These Member States carry out little 
or  no  awareness  raising  activities  according  to  the  source  documents  of  the  Country 
Reports 

In  practice,  awareness  raising  can  take  many  forms  according  to  the  target.  The  principal 
targets in this case are assumed to be businesses whose activity may have a strong impact on 
the environment and the general public.  

For both of these groups, targeted information regarding environmental crime would be made 
available  online.  This  would  necessitate  the  production  of  accessible  content  adapted  to  the 
target  group.  In  the  case  of  businesses  content  would  detail  companies’  environmental 
obligations.  This  would  require  human  resources  for  the  writing  and  design  of  content  and 
creation of the website pages.  

Awareness raising with businesses is likely to involve the establishment of a list of businesses 
to  target.  This  may  be  composed  of  pre-existing  lists  of  businesses  with  particular 
environmental  permits,  for  example,  and  is  therefore  likely  to  require  little  in  human 
resources.  Targeted  information  campaigns  could  include  sending  of  guidelines  (paper  or 
email) to businesses. The campaigns would likely involve the organisation of conferences or 
workshops  to  provide  information  about  environmental  obligations.  This  may  be  done  in 
partnership with other organisations, such as relevant NGOs235.  During inspection, inspectors 
can  provide  information,  including  printed  guidelines,  to  businesses.  Investment  of  human 
resources would be required to write guidelines, if they do not already exist, and send them; 
also  to  organise conferences or workshops.  If organised in  person, conferences would incur 
costs  from  renting  of  venue,  provision  of  food  etc.;  these  would  be  mostly  not  incurred  if 

235 See Italy country report, p. 15.  

114 

 
 
                                                 
organised  online.  Costs  may  be  reduced  if  organising  in  collaboration  with  other 
organisations. Printing of awareness material would have costs associated.  

Awareness  raising  amongst  the  general  public  would  be  based  primarily  on  information 
campaigns.  These  may  be  online  or  advertising  in  public  spaces.  Costs  involved  include 
human  resources  for  the  production  of  material  for  advertising  and  buying  of  advertising 
space in public spaces or online. Creation of a dedicated reporting space would require human 
resources to set it up and to monitor it, although some filtering could be automated. Cost may 
also increase in the short-to-medium term due to increased information about environmental 
crime to investigate.  

The  costs  would  largely  depend  on  the  format  of  the  awareness-raising  activities,  some 
reference data on particular examples is summarised in the table below. 

Table 15: Reference data about the costs of awareness raising activities 

Activity 

Animation  (3-minute  video  including 
voice  over  and  subtitles 
for  one 
language)  

Cost 

€9 000 

Video (2-minute video, single language, 
no animation)  

€1 000 

Source 

ENPE 

ENPE 

magazine 

Electronic 
comprising  videos, 
figures from conference) 

(‘E-zine’ 
interviews,  key 

law 

Awareness  raising  among  generalist 
professionals  of  criminal 
for 
relevant  provisions  +  preparation  of 
practitioners'  guidelines  compiling  the 
best  practices  (EU  level  cost  including 
meeting  organisation,  travel  expenses, 
working time of officials) 

€5 
000 
publication 

per 

ENPE 

€3 080 000 

Impact  Assessment  of 
the 
Directive on the protection of 
the  financial  interests  of  the 
EU236 

Education  measures,  awareness  raising 
campaigns at the Member State level 

100  person  days 
per MS 

Impact  Assessment  of 
the 
Directive  on  combating  fraud 

236 IMPACT ASSESSMENT (Part I) Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and 
of the Council on the protection of the financial interests of the European Union by criminal law, SWD(2012) 195 final, 
pp. 31-40. 

115 

 
 
                                                 
Activity 

Cost 

Source 

and  counterfeiting  of  non-
cash means of payment237 

Given  the  strong  baseline  of  activity  already  undertaken  by  Member  States  with  regard  to 
awareness-raising  activities,  the  very  important  synergies  that  this  work  would  have  with 
efforts  to  collect  and  report  additional  statistical  data,  and  the  fact  that  such  work  is  often 
carried  out  by  NGOs  or  other  environmental  organisations,  it  seems  that  adoption  of  a 
provision  in  the  ECD  with  regard  to  awareness-raising  would  not  generate  significant 
additional costs for Member State authorities. 

Set-up an overarching national enforcement strategy to combat environmental crime 

The  baseline  for  the  development  of  national  strategies  on  environmental  crime  has  been 
developed  based  on  the  8th  Round  of  Mutual  Evaluation  country  reports.  The  information 
from  these  reports  indicates  that  in  the  majority  of  Member  States  there  is  currently  no 
dedicated national strategy on environmental crime. A national strategy does exist in Finland 
and the Netherlands and has been recently produced in  Czechia and Slovakia. Austria has 
indicated that it has  plans to  produce one.  For example, in  the Netherlands the strategy and 
action plan are determined by a coordination group of actors representing different levels of 
enforcement  (public  procurement,  law  enforcement,  administrative  authorities)  and  relevant 
ministries.  Priorities  for  action  are  based  on  a  prior  assessment  that  identifies  current 
environmental  crime  threats.  In  addition,  an  enforcement  strategy  sets  out  guidelines  for 
appropriate  responses  to  different  environmental  infractions  that  can  be  referred  to  by 
different levels of enforcement.  

Some  Member  States  (BE,  ES,  MT,  SI)  have  general  frameworks  that,  among  other  things, 
address environmental crime. In these cases, other national or regional documents may give 
further  information  regarding  specific  targets  or  actions  to  be  carried  out.  In  some  other 
Member  States  (DE,  IT,  LV,  PT,  SE),  the  various  institutions  involved  in  combatting 
environmental  crime  are  left  to  develop  their  own  strategies.  In  certain  countries,  a  joint 
approach  between  different  national  ministries  or  authorities  has  been  taken.  Finally,  some 
Member States (EE, IE) have included measures related to combatting waste crime as part of 
their National Waste Management Plan, produced as part of a legal obligation under Directive 
2008/98/EC on waste.  

Consequently,  countries  have  been  grouped  according  to  how  close  they  currently  are  to 
having  a  dedicated  national  strategy  or  action  plan  on  environmental  crime  coordinated 
centrally between different relevant institutions. Three groups have been established:  

237 Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on 
combating  fraud  and  counterfeiting  of  non-cash  means  of  payment  and  replacing  Council  Framework  Decision 
2001/413/JHA, SWD(2017) 298 final, Annex 4.2, pp. 185-191. 

116 

 
 
                                                 
  Group A: CZ, FI, NL, SK These Member States have a dedicated national environmental 

crime strategy and/or action plan, coordinated at central level. 

  Group B: BE, DE, EL, ES, IE, IT, PL, PT, SE, SI These Member States have some form 
of environmental crime strategy.  It  may be a strategy for one or several  institutions but 
not  coordinated  centrally;  or  a  section  on  environmental  crime  within  a  general  crime 
strategy or wider environmental framework.  

  Group  C:  AT,  BG,  CY,  DK,  EE,  FR,  HR,  HU,  LT,  LV,  LU,  MT,  RO  These  Member 
States currently have not indicated that they have any environmental crime strategy. 

The  main  assumption  is  that  a  national  strategy  document  should  set  out  the  priorities  for 
combatting  environmental  crime  and  be  accompanied  by  an  action  plan  that  assigns 
responsibilities  and  actions  to  be  taken.  The  documents  should  build  upon  an  up-to-date 
assessment  of  current  threats  of  environmental  crime  that  would  be  carried  out  prior  to  the 
writing  of  the  strategy,  enabling  the  writers  to  define  priorities.  This  threat  assessment  is 
likely  to  be  linked  to  development  of  systems  for  collection  and  processing  of  data.  The 
national  strategy  and  action  plan  would  set  out  targets  for  furthering  expertise  through 
training,  hiring  new  staff  and  establishment  of  specialised  units  and  running  of  awareness 
raising  activities.  It  would  also  set  out  the  framework  for  inter-institutional  cooperation 
between different actors involved in fighting environmental crime. 

The  writing  of  the  national  strategy  would  require  input  from  different  actors  in  the 
law 
environmental  crime  enforcement  chain, 
enforcement and administrative authorities. It would likely be linked to the development of a 
coordinating  group  comprising  the  different  actors,  which  would  be  responsible  for  leading 
the development and implementation of the national strategy and action plan. Therefore, from 
a  cost  perspective,  the  production  of  the  national  strategy  and  action  plan  would  require 
primarily human resources.  

judges,  public  prosecution, 

including 

Based on interviews with representatives of the Finnish government regarding the elaboration 
of Finland’s national strategy and action plan on environmental crime, a model for estimating 
the costs of developing a national strategy has been created.  

This model is based on the assumption that there would be one-off cost for the creation of the 
first  national  strategy  and  action  plan  followed  by  regular  costs  for  the  updating  of  the 
strategy  and  action  plan  at  pre-determined  intervals.  The  writing  of  the  national  strategy  is 
assumed to be completed by staff in the relevant ministry based on discussions in a working 
group comprising relevant actors from the public administration such as representatives from 
ministries  of  justice  and  environment;  representatives  from  the  police,  public  prosecution, 
border guard and customs; environmental agencies or authorities responsible for inspections. 
Other stakeholders such as representatives of local and regional authorities, of industry and of 
NGOs  might  also  be  consulted  depending  on  the  procedures  and  means  typically  used  for 
stakeholder consultations in each Member State. Updating of the action plan and strategy is 

117 

 
 
assumed to happen on a two-yearly basis and involve a smaller amount of work from staff in 
the ministries as well as further meetings of the working group.  

The  model  estimates  human  resources  for  the  one-off  starting  cost  to  be  three  months  of 
work for two full-time  equivalent  staff in  the relevant  ministry, in  addition  to  two one-day-
meetings  of  a  ten-person  working  group.  This  comes  to  six  months  of  full-time  equivalent 
labour cost and 20 days of daily labour cost (EUR 37 578 in total).  

Costs for the updating of the strategy and action plan are calculated as one month of work for 
two  full-time  equivalents  every  two  years,  in  addition  to  the  ten-person  working  group 
meeting for a full day three times per year to review the strategy and action plan. This gives 
an annual cost of one month of full-time equivalent labour cost and 30 days of daily labour 
cost (EUR 14 092).  

The  cost  is  applied  to  all  Member  States  except  CZ,  FI,  NL  and  SK,  which  all  have  an 
existing national strategy and action plan and are not expected to have new costs compared to 
the baseline. No annual costs are assigned to these Member States because it is assumed that 
these costs are already incurred as part of the baseline and a revision of the ECD would not 
change  that.  Furthermore,  the  costs  for  countries  in  groups  B  and  C  are  assumed  to  be  the 
same  and  to  be  the  full  costs  estimated  above.  This  is  because  having  a  ‘partial’  strategy 
might not be enough and therefore both categories B and C are likely to require all the efforts 
described above.   

Table 16: Estimated cost of developing national strategies in the Member States 

MS 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

Baseline 

C 

B 

C 

C 

A 

B 

C 

C 

B 

B 

One-off cost 

 €        37 578  

 €        37 578  

 €        37 578  

 €        37 578  

-  

 €        37 578  

 €        37 578  

 €        37 578  

 €        37 578  

 €        37 578  

Annual costs 

 €         14 092  

 €         14 092  

 €         14 092  

 €         14 092  

-  

 €         14 092  

 €         14 092  

 €         14 092  

 €         14 092  

 €         14 092  

118 

 
 
MS 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LV 

LU 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

Baseline 

One-off cost 

Annual costs 

A 

C 

C 

C 

B 

B 

C 

C 

C 

C 

A 

B 

B 

C 

B 

B 

A 

-  

 €        37 578  

 €        37 578  

 €        37 578  

 €        37 578  

 €        37 578  

 €        37 578  

 €        37 578  

 €        37 578  

 €        37 578  

-  

 €        37 578  

 €        37 578  

 €        37 578  

 €        37 578  

 €        37 578  

-  

-  

 €         14 092  

 €         14 092  

 €         14 092  

 €         14 092  

 €         14 092  

 €         14 092  

 €         14 092  

 €         14 092  

 €         14 092  

-  

 €         14 092  

 €         14 092  

 €         14 092  

 €         14 092  

 €         14 092  

-  

Total 

 €      864 289  

 €       324 108  

COSTS OF AN INCREASE IN STAFF IN MEMBER STATE POLICE AND PROSECUTION OFFICES 

The  organisation  of  detection,  investigation  and  prosecution  of  environmental  crime  varies 
significantly  between  Member  States.  Competence  is  divided  between  the  judiciary,  public 
prosecution  office,  police  and  administrative  environmental  authorities  depending  on  each 
country’s  legal  and  policing  traditions.  Variation  is  also  seen  in  the  division  of  competence 
between  local,  regional  and  national  authorities.  As  the  revision  of  the  ECD  is  expected  to 
result in more environmental crime cases, it can be expected that this higher volume of cases 
would  primarily  impact  the  practitioners  along  the  enforcement  chain  that  deal  with 
investigation,  prosecution  and  conviction.  This  usually  covers  the  police  force,  prosecutors 

119 

 
 
 
and judges (as shown in the following figure). While this approach does not rule out impacts 
on  the  human  resource  capacity  required  from  other  actors,  such  as  administrative 
environmental  authorities  (inspectorates)  in  particular,  for  reasons  of  simplicity  and  data 
availability, the cost estimates have not taken them into account.  

Figure 1: Actors in the compliance assurance chain and those most likely to be impacted by an increase in the number 
of criminal cases 

Source:  European  Commission,  2021,  Environnemental  Compliance  Assurance  Guidance  Document,  Combatting  environnemental  crimes 
and related infringements 

Consequently, the labour costs of additional police officers, prosecutors or judges needed to 
handle the environmental  crime cases can be a useful approximation  of the costs associated 
with an increase of the number of such cases resulting from the revision of the ECD. In order 
to  estimate  what  number  of  additional  personnel  might  be  needed,  it  is  important  to 
understand the baseline or the current situation across the Member States.  

Currently,  around  half  of  the  Member  States  already  have  personnel  that  have  some 
responsibility  for  environmental  crime.  They  do  not  usually  work  exclusively  on 
environmental  crime,  but  their  remit  includes  other  specific  types  of  crimes  related  to,  for 
example, occupational health and safety, food safety, natural heritage or fraud.   

The  baseline  research  does  not  indicate  that  having  specialised  judges  or  courts  for 
environmental crime is a common practice. The possibility for judges to work exclusively on 
one type of crime depends on the specificities of each national judicial system and might be 
unlikely238. Moreover, one of the interviewed stakeholders signalled that there is no need for 
judges  to  be  specialised  in  a  particular  domain  to  effectively  handle  environmental  crime 
cases239. (This does not, however, exclude the possibility for additional training of judges to 
improve  their  knowledge  on  environmental  crime  generally  and  the  impacts  of  the  revised 
ECD.) It was, therefore, more suitable to base calculations of the expected cost of an increase 

238 In addition, some Member States have also highlighted the lack of sufficient number of cases to warrant having a judge 

dedicated to environmental crime. 

239 Interview with representatives of the Swedish authorities and practitioners. 

120 

  
 
 
                                                 
in the number of environmental crime cases on the human resource needs for police officers 
and prosecutors in the Member States. 

The  starting  point  to  generate  a  realistic  prediction  of  the  number  of  additional  staff  that 
Member States would be likely to add in reaction to the revised ECD is the current number of 
staff working on environmental crime in the police and prosecution offices in each Member 
State.  However,  quantitative  data  for  these  were  only  available  for  a  fraction  of  Member 
States and were not entirely comparable. Using statistical data on the total numbers of police 
and  prosecutors  in  each  Member  State,  the  percentage  of  those  working  on  environmental 
crime was calculated for those Member States who reported data. This is shown in the table 
below. 

Table 17: Quantitative baseline data and calculation of % of police and prosecutors working on environmental crime 
in Member States for which data available 

*Data for total police officers in MS from Eurostat; data for total prosecutors in MS from Council of Europe; more details in Table 20. 
**Numbers  of  police  and  prosecutors  working  on  environmental  crime  is  based  on  information  available  in  the  8th  Round  of  Mutual 
Evaluation country reports as well as information obtained through consultations with some authorities; more details in Baseline Annex. 

It  was  then  assumed  that  the  lowest  observed  percentage  of  police  and  prosecutorial  staff 
working on environmental crime (0.20% and 0.17% respectively, cells shaded grey240) from 
across  the  Member  States  could  be  considered  a  reasonable  proxy  for  the  amount  of 
additional  staff  that  each  Member  State  would  be  likely  to  take  on  to  carry  out  a  larger 
volume of work on environmental crime. The average of the available baseline data has also 
been  calculated  (1.0%  for  police  and  3.5%  for  prosecutors),  and  these  data  are  used  to 

240  These  proportions  are  based  on  the  proportion  of  total  police  working  on  environmental  crime  in  France  and  the 
proportion of the prosecution in Greece, as these were the lowest figures from those Member States for which data were 
available. 

121 

 
 
 
                                                 
generate an estimate for the number of police and prosecutors that would require training in 
Section 5.2.1 above (Variable 3).  

The  total  estimated  costs  for  additional  staff  linked  to  the  revised  ECD  presented  in  the 
impact assessment are shown in the table below for reference. 

Table 18: Costs for additional staff in police and prosecution offices in response to revised Directive 

*The sources for the data on numbers of police officers and prosecutors in the Member States are as follows: 
Police:  data  from  Eurostat,  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/crim_just_job/default/table?lang=en%20b,  except  Ireland,  found 
at: https://www.garda.ie/en/faqs/. All police data are 2018 except Italy latest figure available 2016. 
Prosecutors:  data  are 
taken 
Explorerv2020_1_0EN/Tables. 

from  Council  of  Europe,  https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/cepej/viz/CEPEJ-

for  2018  and 

These estimates are highly dependent the following uncertainties: 

  The  baseline  existing  capacity  within  Member  States:  there  is  only  qualitative 
information about this for the majority of Member States, as detailed in the Baseline 
annex.  In  reality,  some  Member  States  may  already  have  sufficient  or  close-to 
sufficient  capacity to handle environmental crime and would not  need to engage the 
additional staff shown in the estimate. Alternatively, some Member States may need 
more  capacity.  As  discussed  in  Section  1.3  on  limitations,  the  baseline  information 

122 

 
 
 
relies to a large extent on Member State reporting linked to the 8th Round of Mutual 
Evaluations, and some information may have been omitted by Member States in their 
reporting.  

  The  precise  increase  in  environmental  crime  cases  and  their  distribution  across 
the  Member  States:  it  was  not  possible  to  predict  this  with  any  accuracy,  as  many 
factors will influence this. Some information on where environmental crime exists in 
the  Member  States  is  available  in  the  impacts  annex,  but  it  was  not  enough  to 
confidently make quantitative estimates in this regard. 

  For reasons of simplicity and data availability, and an assumption that it is primarily 
those responsible for criminal investigations who will be most impacted by the revised 
ECD, the estimates for additional staff concern only the police and prosecution. In 
those  Member  States  where 
the  administrative  authority  (i.e.  environmental 
inspectorates)  has  a  strong  role  in  enforcement  and  can  be  expected  to  support  the 
police and prosecution241, the increase in staff might be required in those institutions. 
Nevertheless, the numbers and costs might be equivalent in such cases. 

  It 

is  assumed  that  the  additional  personnel  would  work  full-time  on 
environmental  crime  to  capture  a  potential  increase  in  the  number  of  criminal 
cases.  In  practice,  this  may  not  be  realistic  and  in  some  Member  States,  the  police 
officers  or  prosecutors  might  dedicate  only  a  proportion  of  their  time  exclusively  to 
environmental crime cases, resulting in lower annual costs. 

  It is assumed that all Member States would choose to recruit additional personnel 
to  handle the  increase in  environmental crime cases.  In practice, the decision  to  hire 
any additional personnel would depend on the decision-making in each Member State. 
In  some  cases,  synergies  with  training  or  existing  structures/personnel  working  with 
such cases may be possible, reducing the annual costs.  

241 According to the baseline research, these Member States are: CY, CZ, EE, FR, IE, LT, PL, PT, SE. 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 3: WHO IS CONCERNED AND HOW? 

1.  PRATICAL IMPLACATIONS OF INITIATIVE  

1.1. Member State public authorities 

The  adoption  of  additional  provisions  on  the  implementation  of  the  ECD  are  expected  to 
create some costs for judicial and environmental authorities and law enforcement and judicial 
practitioners in the Member States, both one-off and ongoing. The greatest burden is the need 
for  additional  resources  in  terms  of  staff  will  be  required  in  all  Member  States  along  the 
enforcement chain (mainly in the police and prosecution offices as the institutions most often 
responsible  for  investigation  and  prosecution  of  environmental  crime),  due  to  the  combined 
impacts  of  all  policy  measures  aimed  at  increasing  the  number  environmental  crime  cases 
detected, prosecuted and convicted. Equally, an obligation for Member States to collect  and 
report  statistical  data  according  to  new  and  more  harmonised  standards  would  create 
administrative burden in terms of possibly  adapting  systems  in place for law enforcement to 
record cases and in terms of elaborating those statistics at national level, before transmitting 
them to the EU. All Member States would need to provide some degree of additional training 
to relevant professionals along the enforcement chain, taking into account the revised terms of 
the  Directive  and  the  additional  personnel;  the  resources  required  depend  on  the  extent  to 
which Member States already provide regular training on environmental crime. Finally, there 
are  some  additional  costs  associated  with  provision  of  national  focal  points  in  different 
institutions and the development of national strategies on combating environmental crime.  

1.2. The European Commission  

The implications of the proposal on the European Commission are considered marginal and 
limited in times. For instance, most of the obligations, which rely upon the Commission, only 
occur  once  and  are  linked  to  the  follow-up  of  the  transposition  of  the  Directive.  Recurring 
costs are set to be highly limited.  

1.3. EU businesses 

There  are  no  direct  costs  foreseen  for  EU  businesses  associated  with  the  Directive; 
compliance  costs  stem  from  administrative  environmental  law.  More  effective  law 
enforcement  in  the  area  of  environmental  crime  would  protect  legally  operating  businesses 
from unfair competition from illegal business activity. Furthermore, reputational damage for 
an industry (e.g. waste management, chemical production) that is impacted by illegal activity 
would be reduced, providing additional benefits for compliant businesses.  As environmental 
crime will continue to be linked to a breach of administrative laws listed in an Annex to the 
Directive, there is limited risk that businesses could be sanctioned for environmental activity 
that is permitted under administrative law. 

124 

 
 
 
1.3.1. SMEs 

SMEs  face  somewhat  higher  risks  due  to  less  capacity  to  pay  fines  and/or  engage  legal 
expertise  and  carry  out  due  diligence  activities.  The  option  of  linking  fines  to  the  financial 
situation of a company, in addition to other circumstantial aspects of the crime, could reduce 
the vulnerability of SMEs to such fines.  

1.4. EU citizens 

Increased  enforcement  of  environmental  criminal  legislation  is  expected  to  have  positive 
impacts  on  society  at  large.  In  addition  to  the  quality  of  life  benefits  associated  with  a 
environmental  protection,  the  reduction  in  criminal  activity  supports  better  governance, 
reduced corruption and reduction of the risks posed by large organised criminal groups. 

2.  SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS  

Overview of benefits – preferred option 

I. 

Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option 

Description 

Amount 

Comments 

in 

all 

Reduction 
types  of 
environmental  crime  in  the  EU 
due 
increased  enforcement 
to 
activity 

types 

of 
in 
Reduction 
environmental  not  previously 
included in the Directive, such as 
illegal  logging  and  timber  trade 
and fishery crimes 

Not possible to quantify the exact 
amount  of  environmental  crime 
cases  that  would  be  tried  and 
their  distribution 
convicted  or 
across the Member States.  

As  above, 
quantifiable. 

it 

is  not  directly 

Direct benefits 

Indicatively,  combined  value  of 
illegal 
from 
revenue  derived 
environmental  crime  and  losses 
tax 
legal  commerce  and 
for 
revenue  at  between  USD  91-259 
billion annually 

the  worldwide 
Indicatively, 
revenue  from  fishery  crimes  has 
been  estimated  at  between  USD 
11 – 30 billion annually. 

The EU is responsible for almost 
EUR  3  billion  of  losses  due  to 
illegal logging, with an import of 
around 20 million cubic meters of 
illegal timber every year 

Indirect benefits 

of 

the 
state 
Improved 
environment due to reductions in 
activity 
that  pollutes,  harms 
species 

Citizens and society benefit from 
a  cleaner  environment  and  a 
reduction 
in  negative  health 
impacts. 

Criminal law is only one of many 
at 
legislative 
aimed 
tools 
environmental  protection 
and 
enhancement  and  criminal  law 
measures  are  a  last  resort  when 
other measures are not sufficient. 

125 

 
 
 
 
Reputational  and  competition 
benefits  for 
legally  compliant 
businesses 

Businesses 
that  comply  with 
environmental  law  will  not  face 
unfair  competition  from  those 
that  do  not.  The  reputation  of 
certain  industries  will  recover  if 
there is less criminal activity. 

Not  quantifiable,  but  point  was 
raised by a majority of businesses 
consulted. 

Overview of costs – preferred option 

The  tables  below  summarise  those  costs  that  could  be  directly  quantified  for  each  policy 
objective. For objectives 1, 2 and 3, only transposition costs are foreseen; these are shown in a 
range  depending  upon  the  complexity  of  national  laws  and  required  efforts.  For  Member 
States, the main costs are continuous costs for training and additional staff to implement the 
Directive.  A  few  costs  have  not  been  directly  quantified  due  either  to  lack  of  data  (i.e. 
investigative tools). 

To  the  extent  possible  potential  differences  between  Member  States,  which  may  impact  the 
costs they incur, have been considered and reflected in the cost estimations. Factors that may 
result  in  different  costs  across  the  Member  States  include  differences  in  the  baseline  or  the 
size of the workforce along the enforcement chain (for details see Annex 4 [on baseline] and 
Annex 2 B [on analytical models]).  

Under  some  of  the  objectives,  certain  costs  may  also  be  incurred  by  the  European 
Commission. However, these costs are considered marginal and only occurring once for most 
of them. 

Table of the Costs for the Commission  

126 

 
 
 
 
Table of the costs for Member States  

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4: BASELINES 

1.  Objective 1: Updating the scope of the Directive; introduce a simple mechanism to keep the Directive up-to-date also in the future 

1.1 Baseline information on existing criminal sanctions in three key areas likely to become criminalised under the revised ECD 

Information has been collected from the following sources: 

 

IIU Fishing: 

  Milieu Consulting, 2021. Study on the sanctioning systems of Member States for infringements to the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy. 

  EMPACT, 2020. Compilation of national criminal law provisions on illegal fishing in the Member States participating in the OA 2.1 and Overview of 

EU law on fisheries control, inspection and enforcement.  

 

Illegal logging and timber trade:  

 

 European Commission, 2019. Key obligations and practical aspects of the application of the EUTR – 2019.  

 

Poaching / wildlife crimes:  

  LIFE-ENPE, 2017. Environmental prosecution report: tackling environmental crime in Europe, LIFE14 GIE/UK/000043.  

  European  Network  against  Environmental  Crime  (ENEC),  Study  on  the  implementation  of  Directive  2008/99/EC  on  the  Protection  of  the 

Environment Through Criminal Law. 

Member State 

IIU Fishing  

Illegal logging and timber trade  

Poaching / wildlife crimes  

AT 

Partly  covered  by  criminal  law,  if 
rights  of  other  people  are  violated. 
StGB paragraphs 137, 138 

The  Market  Organisation  Act  2007 

Included  in  Forestry  Act  with  penalties. 
Forestry Act para 174; Bundesgesetz über 
die  Überwachung  des  Handels  mit  Holz 
- 
(Holzhandelsüberwachungsgesetz 

ECD  3f  and  3h  covered.  3g  transposition  ambiguous  and  missing 
derivatives in national legislation.  

Austrian  law  (ArtHG)  provides  for  control,  enforcement,  and 
sanction mechanisms relating to the violations described in CITES 

128 

 
 
 
 
Member State 

IIU Fishing  

Illegal logging and timber trade  

Poaching / wildlife crimes  

BE 

BG 

forms  the  national  legal  basis  of  the 
IUU Fisheries Ordinance. 

HolzHÜG), Article 14, 15 

and  Regulation  338/97.  Penalties  for  violation  of  ArtHG  and  the 
EC Regulation 338/97 range EUR 1,453.50 to a maximum penalty 
of  EUR  36,340.00  depending  upon  the  offence  and  within  which 
Annex the species is listed. Imprisonment for two years, seizure of 
all  specimens,  including  containers,  also  is  applicable  under 
Austrian  law  and  EC  Regulation  338/97  depending  upon  the 
offence. 

Administrative 
criminal 
sanctions  in  law,  criminal  sanctions 
mostly used in practice 

and 

fines,  criminal 

Covered  by  general  administrative  law. 
Administrative 
fines, 
imprisonment, seizures and suspension of 
authority  to  trade.  Law  of  21.12.1998  on 
sustainable  ways  of  consumption  and 
production, Article 17 &18 

No  inclusion  of  possession  of  wildlife  at  Federal  Level;  No 
criminal  provisions  at  Federal  Level.  Sanctions  differ  at  regional 
level but can include imprisonment and/or fines. 

Article  127  of  the  Programme  Law  of  27  December  2004  (which 
came  into  force  on  January  10,  2005)  sets  a  fine  of  EUR1000-50 
000 and/or a prison sentence of 6 months to 5 years for violations 
of EC Reg. No. 338/97. 

Administrative 
sanctions 
in 
sanctions mostly used in practice.  

criminal 
law,  administrative 

and 

Illegal  fishing  is  considered  a  crime, 
according  to  Bulgarian  Penal  Code, 
e.g.  when 
explosives, 
using 
poisonous  or  stunning  substances  or 
in  quantities  considerably  exceeding 
the  norms  of  amateur  fishing;  in 
reserved  places  or  in  law  waters;  in 
non-industrial  waters  during 
the 
reproductive period of the fish or; of 
the  kinds  threatened  by  extinction. 
Penalties  include  imprisonment  and 
fines, and revocation of rights. 

Covered  by  EUTR  specific  legislation 
law. 
(management) 
and 
Forest 
Administrative 
of 
fines, 
timber/timber  products,  suspension  of 
authority to trade. Unspecified legal basis 
for infringements.  

seizure 

ECD 3f, 3g and 3 h covered.  

129 

 
 
Member State 

IIU Fishing  

Illegal logging and timber trade  

Poaching / wildlife crimes  

Covered  by  Forest  (management)  law.  
imprisonment, 
Administrative 
fines, 
products, 
seizure 
suspension 
trade. 
Unspecified legal basis for infringements.  

timber/timber 
authority 

of 

of 

to 

CY 

Administrative 
sanctions 
in 
sanctions mostly used in practice 

criminal 
law,  administrative 

and 

the 

Law, 

fishing  actions 

Illegal 
that  are 
criminal offences are specified in the 
Fisheries 
relevant 
Regulations,  and  the  Sponge  Fishing 
Law  (Chapter  146)  and  e.g.  includes 
fishing without a vaild lisence and to 
fish  for  sponges  or  use  a  trawler. 
Penalties include imprisonment up to 
three years and fines up to CYP 500. 

CZ 

Unknown 

seizure 

Covered  by  EUTR  specific  legislation 
and general administrative sanctions law. 
of 
fines, 
Administrative 
timber/timber  products,  suspension  of 
authority  to  trade.  1)  Act  No.  226/2013 
Coll  on  placing 
  timber  and  timber 
products on the market Article 12; 2) Act 
No. 
255/2012  Coll  on  the  Control  Article  
15;  3)  Act  No.  500/2004  Coll  Code  of  
Administrative  Procedure  Article;  4)  
Act  No.  250/2016  Coll.,  on  Liability  for  
Administrative 
and  
Proceedings 

Offences 

ECD 3f, 3g and 3 h covered.  

According  to  the  Law  on  the  Protection  and  Management  of 
sanctions 
(No. 
Nature 
(fine/imprisonment)  can  be  as  high  as  CYP  10,000  (approx. 
EUR 17,500) and/or not more than 3 years imprisonment. 

and  Wildlife 

153(I)/2003) 

ECD 3f, 3g and 3h covered.  

Penalties for violation of the Act on Trade in Endangered Species 
stipulates 
for  private 
persons to EUR 46,875 for offences committed by businesses.  

from  EUR  6,250 

ranging 

fines 

An  amendment  was  made  to  the  Criminal  Code  (No.  134/2002 
Coll)  allowed  for  infringements  against  protected  species  to  be 
treated as criminal offences with penalties including imprisonment. 
The maximum penalty under the Criminal code (max. 8 years). 

DE 

law  are 
Sanctions  provided  by 
mainly 
administrative 
sanctions are mostly used in practice  

criminal, 

Covered  by  EUTR  specific  legislation 
law. 
and 
Forest 
Administrative 
fines, 
imprisonment,  seizure  of  timber/timber 

(management) 
fines,  criminal 

Administrative  offences  for  infringement  of  Regulation  (EC)  No. 
338/97  can  be  punished  under  the  Federal  Nature  Conservation 
Act (65 para.3) by a fine of up to EUR50,000 while criminal acts 
related  to  Regulation  (EC)  No.  338/97  can  be  sanctioned  by 

130 

 
 
Member State 

IIU Fishing  

Illegal logging and timber trade  

Poaching / wildlife crimes  

products.  Holzhandelssicherungsgesetz 
HolzSiG,  
Article 2, 7, 8 

Criminal 

Covered  by  Timber  Act  No.  1225, 
18/12/2012. 
fines, 
imprisonment,  seizure  of  timber/timber 
1225; 
products.  Timber  Act 
18/12/2012,  
Article 7 

no. 

Covered by Forest (management) law and 
by Penal (procedural) law. Administrative 
fines, criminal fines, imprisonment. Penal 
Code 
Forest  Act  
chapter 6 

Charter 

20; 

DK 

EE 

Administrative 
sanctions 
in 
sanctions mostly used in practice 

criminal 
law,  administrative 

and 

Administrative 
sanctions 
in 
sanctions mostly used in practice. 

criminal 
law,  administrative 

and 

All  criminal  offences  against  the 
environment  are  consolidated  in  the 
Estonian  Penal  Code.  Illegal  fishing 
is criminalised by the Penal  Code, if 
the damage is  more than 4000 EUR. 
Penalties 
the 
depends 
circumstances  of  the  crime  and  can 

on 

imprisonment  (max.  5  years)  or  a  fine.  The  Federal  Agency  for 
Nature 
initiates 
administrative offence procedures. 

Conservation 

(BfN) 

also 

Covers ECD 3h and 3f and 3g broader. 

No  set  minimum  or  maximum  amount.  However,  violations  that 
are intentional, for commercial purposes, or committed with gross 
negligence may carry a fine of imprisonment up to one year.  

The  most  frequently  used  sanctions  are  fines  and/or  confiscation. 
Specimens in Annex B imported in good faith for non-commercial 
use (e.g. tourist souvenirs), usually result in confiscation. Cases of 
this nature involving Annex A specimens usually result in fines.  

Violations that are intentional or committed with gross negligence 
and/or  for  commercial  use  will  normally  be  punished  by  a  fine 
together with confiscation. The proposed fine will be equivalent to 
the market value for Annex B specimens and two to three times the 
market value for specimens of Annex A. 

According  to  the  Danish  Criminal  Code  any  economic  gain  of  a 
perpetrator may also be (partly) confiscated. 

ECD 3f and 3g endangerment missing. 3h covered.  

Regulation No. 69 provides the legal framework for sanctioning 
environmental infractions caused by destroying or damaging of 
protected natural objects or protected species. In the case of 
infringement with specimens of species listed in Annexes A–D of 
this regulation, compensation for environmental damages will be 
between EEK 200–1 000 000 (EUR 12–65 000), depending on the 
conservation status and the market value of the specimen.  

Highest fine for violation of the Nature Conservation Law (2004) 
is EEK 18 000 

131 

 
 
Member State 

IIU Fishing  

Illegal logging and timber trade  

Poaching / wildlife crimes  

(EUR 1 150) or arrest, or up to EEK 50,000 (EUR 3 200) for a 
corporation.  

The Penal Code also allows for 
pecuniary sanctions and for imprisonment of up to five years 
for false declaration, forged documents, and other attempted means 
of evading detection. 

Covered  by  EUTR  specific  legislation 
and  oint  Ministerial  Decision  No. 
134627/5835/23-12- 
10. 
(GG2872/2015),  Article 
2015) 
imprisonment, 
fines, 
Administrative 
seizure  of  timber/timber  products.  Join 
Decision  
Ministerial 
(GG  
No.134627/5835/23-12-2015 
9; 
Article 
2872/2015), 
National Legislation (Law 86/1969) 

ECD 3f, 3g an 3 h covered.  

Penalties  for  violation  of  CITES  under  Greek  Law  range  from 
imprisonment (1 month to two years) and a fine of 200,000 Greek 
Drachmas  (around  EUR  587)  and  GRD  5  000  000  (around  EUR 
14,674), depending on the nature of the offence.  

According  to  the  Greek  Customs  Code,  the  penalty  for  illegal 
import or transportation is EUR 3000 for wild animal specimens; 3 
times the amount of evaded duties and taxes (at least EUR 1 500) 
for specimens or samples of wild fauna and flora 

be  punishable  by  a  pecuniary 
punishment  or  up  to  three  years’ 
imprisonment. 

EL 

Administrative 
sanctions 
in 
sanctions mostly used in practice. 

criminal 
law,  administrative 

and 

for 
legislation  on  penalties 
The 
fishing  infringements  consists  of  the  
“Fishing  Code”, 
“Supplementary 
measures  for  the  implementation  of 
EU  provisions  for  point  system  in 
regard to serious infringements in the 
fisheries sector” and “Supplementary 
measures  for  the  implementation  of 
the  Common 
EU  provisions  on 
in 
Organisation  of 
fishery and aquaculture products and 
the  establishment  of  a  Community 
Control  System  in  regard  to  the 
distribution  and  commerce  of  such 
products”.  Penalties 
for 
example  varies  according  to  crime 
and for example includes removal of 
fishing 
and 
imprisonment for up to three years. 

the  Markets 

licences, 

include 

fines 

ES 

Administrative 
in 
sanctions 

and 

criminal 
law,  administrative 

Covered by Forest (management) law and 
law; 
General  administrative  sanctions 

ECD  3f  incomplete  due  to  missing  possession  of  wildlife  and 
around 
ambiguous 

132 

 
 
Member State 

IIU Fishing  

Illegal logging and timber trade  

Poaching / wildlife crimes  

sanctions mostly used in practice. 

Fishing  actions  which  can  be 
offences 
criminal 
considered 
(Spanish  Criminal  Code,  Articles 
334, 335, 336, 338, 339) for example 
include  fishing  of  protected  species 
of  wild  fauna  or  fishing  in  areas 
subject  to  authorisation  without  the 
necessary  lisence.  Penalties  include 
for e.g. fines and imprisonment of up 
to two years. 

Administrative 
sanctions 
in 
sanctions mostly used in practice 

criminal 
law,  administrative 

and 

Administrative 
sanctions 
in 
sanctions mostly used in practice. 

criminal 
law,  administrative 

and 

Illegal  fishing crimes are covered by 
the  Rural  and  Maritime  Fisheries 
Code  -  Book  IX:  Marine  Fisheries 
and  Marine  Aquaculture.  Penalties 

FI 

FR 

seizure 

Administrative 
of 
fines, 
timber/timber  products,  suspension  of 
trade.  Ley  21/2015  de 
authority 
67,  
Montes, 
68, 69 and 74 

Article 

to 

fines,  criminal 

Covered  by  EUTR-specific  legislation; 
Administrative 
fines, 
imprisonment,  seizure  of  timber/timber 
products, suspension of authority to trade. 
Chapter  7  of  the  Coercive  Measures  
Act 
(806/2011); 
Chapter  4,  section  38  of  the  Act  on  
the  Execution  of  a  Fine  (672/2002);  
Chapter  2,  section  8  of  the  Act  on  
Conditional Fines (1113/1990) 

fines,  criminal 

Covered  by  forest  (management)  law.  
Administrative 
fines, 
imprisonment,  suspension  of  authority  to 
trade.  Loi  d'Avenir  pour  l'Agriculture,  
(LAAF),  
l'Alimentation  et 
Article 76 

la  Forét 

offences  covered.  3g  incomplete  due  to  missing  possession  of 
wildlife 
are 
around 
covered. 3h incomplete due to no gross negligence.  

if  wildlife  parts 

ambiguous 

and 

There are two possibilities for considering an offence an act against 
CITES:  one  is  included  in  Articles  332  and  334  if  the  Criminal 
Code which provide for offences against protected flora and fauna 
and  the  other  is  included  in  the  “Organic  Law  12/1995  to  Deter 
Smuggling”.  

According to Articles 332 and 334 of the Criminal Code, sentences 
vary  from six  months to two  years imprisonment or a (daily)  fine 
from  eight  to  twenty-four  months  (as  a  day  fine  can  reach  up  to 
EUR 300, the maximum fine would be EUR 41 265). 

ECD 3f, 3g an 3 h covered.  

Section 58 of the Nature Conservation Act details the sanctions for 
violation of Art. 12.1 and 2 of EU Council Regulation 338/97 and 
refers  to  the  environmental  crime  sections  of  the  Penal  Code. 
Chapter  48,  section  5  of  the  Penal  Code  prescribes  penalties  of 
nature  conservation  offences  with  a  maximum  penalty  of  2  years 
imprisonment. Any financial gain/corresponding monetary value of 
the specimen also is forfeited to the State. 

Penalties for violation of EC Reg. No. 338/97 are punishable 
through Article L.415-3 of the Environment Code with a 
maximum fine of EUR 9 000 and/or six months imprisonment; or 
Article 414 of the Code of Customs by a maximum prison sentence 
of three years, and a fine ranging from one to two times the 
object’s value. The sanction may be increased to a maximum of 10 
years and the fine increased to a maximum of five times the value 
of the specimen if the act of smuggling endangers human health, 

133 

 
 
Member State 

IIU Fishing  

Illegal logging and timber trade  

Poaching / wildlife crimes  

are  found  in  Article  L954-4  of  the 
Rural  and  Maritime  Fisheries  Code 
and provides for a fine EUR 22 500. 

moral or public security, or when the illegal activities are part of 
organised crime. 

HR 

Administrative 
sanctions 
in 
sanctions mostly used in practice. 

criminal 
law,  administrative 

and 

According to the Croatian legislation, 
the  national  penal  provisions  on 
illegal  fishing  are  defined  by  the 
Criminal  Law  of  the  Republic  of 
Croatia  (OG  RH  125/11,  144/12, 
56/15,  61/15,  101/17,  118/18)  as 
environmental  offences  set  out  in 
Article  204,  and  e.g.  includes  the 
destruction  of  protected  habitats  and 
the use of electric shock generators in 
fishing. 

Covered  by  EUTR-specific  legislation. 
Administrative  fines.  Zakon  o  provedbi 
uredbi  Europske  unije  o  prometu  drva  i 
proizvoda  od  drva  ("Narodne  novine", 
broj 25/2018), Article 8 

3f, 3g and 3h covered.  

134 

 
 
2.  OBJECTIVE 3 OF IMPROVING THE PROPORTIONALITY AND DISSUASIVENESS OF SANCTION TYPES AND LEVELS 

2.1 Existing sanction systems in Member States based on profit obtained from a criminal act or based on the financial situation 

Information has been collected from the following sources: 

  European Commission (2020). EVALUATION of the DIRECTIVE 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the 

protection of the environment through criminal law. SWD(2020) 259 final.  

  Hall, M.; Wyatt, T. (2017). LIFE-ENPE. Environmental prosecution report – tackling environmental crime in Europe.  

  Milieu Consulting (2021), Study on the sanctioning systems of Member States for infringements to the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy.  

Sanctions 
criminal law and administrative fines in MS 

national 

under 

environmental 

Member 
State 

DK 

Sanctions  under  national  administrative  law  in 
scope of Article 3  

Fisheries legislation in MS 

Fixed  penalty  notice:  fine  for  the  master  of  the 
equivalent of 1/4 the value of the catch concerning 
the  infringement.  If  the  licence  holder  is  also  the 
master,  he/she  should  be  fined  1/3  of  the  value. 
These rates are binding on the administration. 

135 

 
 
 
  
  
Member 
State 

EL 

ES 

FI 

Sanctions 
criminal law and administrative fines in MS 

national 

under 

environmental 

Sanctions  under  national  administrative  law  in 
scope of Article 3  

Fisheries legislation in MS 

are  punished 

Natural  persons  acting  for  the  benefit  of  legal 
as  natural  persons. 
persons 
Additionally,  legal  persons  can  be  punished  as 
follows: 
An  administrative  fine  up  to  three  times  the 
amount  of  the  value  of  the  benefit  attained  or 
pursued 

Administrative  sanctions  include  fines  within  a 
range set for each area of crime. The amount of the 
into  account 
fine  will  be  determined 
elements  such  as  the  extent  of  the  damage,  the 
degree of involvement and the benefit obtained, the 
economic capacity of the actor, the intent, and the 
repetition of the offense. 

taking 

(EUR 

50,000 

For  legal  persons  from  EUR  2,000  up  to  EUR 
100,000 
serious 
infringements). 
The  maximum  level  of  the  sanctions  shall  be  five 
times  the  value  of  such  products,  if  it  is  greater 
than the set EUR 100,000 or EUR 50,000 . 

non- 

for 

136 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
Sanctions 
criminal law and administrative fines in MS 

national 

under 

environmental 

The maximum level of fines for crimes specified in 
the ECD is three times the financial benefit gained 
or  aimed  to  be  gained,  but  at  least  500,000  HUF 
(EUR  1,500).  If  the  benefit  gained  or  intended  to 
be gained through the criminal act is not financial 
advantage,  the  court  imposes  the  fine  considering 
the  financial  situation  of  the  legal  entity,  but  at 
least HUF 500,000 (EUR 1,500). 

Member 
State 

HU 

LT 

LV 

MT 

Sanctions  under  national  administrative  law  in 
scope of Article 3  

Fisheries legislation in MS 

Under  the  Law  on  Fisheries,  a  fine  may  be 
imposed for economic operators in the range of 2-8 
times the value of the fishing products obtained by 
committing the serious infringement 

In  practice,  the  inspectors  apply  Art.  44(2)  IUU 
directly, and tie the amount of the penalty with the 
value of the fishery products 

The  Fishing  Order  sets 
the  following  fines: 
-  Fine  of  five  times  the  value  of  the  fishery 
products  obtained 
infringement 
-  Fine  of  EUR  1,000  to  EUR  10,000  for  serious 
infringement if no fishery products obtained.  

serious 

for 

137 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Sanctions 
criminal law and administrative fines in MS 

national 

under 

environmental 

If an offence against one of the ECD's provision is 
punishable by a fine in the sixth  category and that 
category does not permit an appropriate penalty, a 
fine may be imposed up to a maximum of 10 % of 
the  annual  turnover  of  the  legal  person  in  the 
business year preceding the judgment or decision. 

Environmental crimes are fined between EUR 250 
and  1,250,000,  but  not  higher  than  3%  of  the 
yearly income of the entity 

Member 
State 

NL 

PL 

SE 

SK 

Sanctions  under  national  administrative  law  in 
scope of Article 3  

Fisheries legislation in MS 

In  case  of  serious  infringements:  a  fine  of  five 
times the value of fishery products 

-  Fine  of  up  to  SEK  500,000  (EUR  48,600) 
-  Special  fee  based  on  the  market  value  or  the 
selling  price  of  the  catch,  depending  on  which  is 
higher 

Confiscation of a sum of money in amount of €800 
- 1 660 000 Euro. When determining the amount of 
money  to  be  confiscated  the  court  shall  consider 
seriousness  of  the  committed  criminal  offence, 
scope  of  the  offence,  gained  benefit,  damage 
arisen,  circumstances  of  the  commission  of  the 
criminal  offence  and  consequences  for  the  legal 
person 

138 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
3.  OBJECTIVE 4 OF IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVE COOPERATION AND COORDINATION BETWEEN RELEVANT AUTHORITIES 

3.1 Use of investigative tools in the Member States for environmental crime 

Information has been collected from the following sources: 

  8th round of mutual evaluation country reports 

Member 
State 

All conventional / legal 
techniques 

Special investigative 
techniques need 
authorisation from 
magistrate or judge  

Special investigative 
techniques require link 
to severity or type of 
crime, such as organised 
crime 

Difficulties in getting 
evidence / full range of 
available techniques not 
used 

Lacks power to use full 
range of measures for 
environmental crime 

Covert operations rare 

No special investigative 
techniques used, 
potentially related to 
lack of environmental 
cases 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

139 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

All conventional / legal 
techniques 

Special investigative 
techniques need 
authorisation from 
magistrate or judge  

Special investigative 
techniques require link 
to severity or type of 
crime, such as organised 
crime 

Difficulties in getting 
evidence / full range of 
available techniques not 
used 

Lacks power to use full 
range of measures for 
environmental crime 

Covert operations rare 

No special investigative 
techniques used, 
potentially related to 
lack of environmental 
cases 

FR 

GR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

140 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

All conventional / legal 
techniques 

Special investigative 
techniques need 
authorisation from 
magistrate or judge  

Special investigative 
techniques require link 
to severity or type of 
crime, such as organised 
crime 

Difficulties in getting 
evidence / full range of 
available techniques not 
used 

Lacks power to use full 
range of measures for 
environmental crime 

Covert operations rare 

No special investigative 
techniques used, 
potentially related to 
lack of environmental 
cases 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

x 

x 

x 

x 

4.  OBJECTIVE 5: IMPROVING STATISTICAL DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING WITH REGARD TO ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME 

Based on the available information on the responsibilities for investigating and prosecuting environmental crime in the Member States as well as the current availability 
of relevant statistical data, three groups can be identified with regard to the efforts that Member States would need to take to centralise their existing statistical data: 

  Member States that require more efforts to centralise and publish their (existing) statistics: These include Member States whose data are often widely 
dispersed among various institutions or agencies, are not available in a centralised data base, and/or are dispersed in various federal or autonomous entities of 
the country. For the purposes of the baseline assessment, these Member States are considered to have seven agencies. 

  Member  States  that  require  medium  efforts  to  centralise  and  publish  their  (existing)  statistics:  These  include  Member  States  whose  data  are  partly 
available in a central data base, or where significant efforts have already led to a compilation of statistics of various agencies in a few centralized data bases. 
For the purposes of the baseline assessment, these Member States are considered to have six agencies. 

  Member States that require less efforts to centralise and publish their (existing) statistics: These include Member States that generally have a good level 
of central reporting from only a few responsible agencies and/or a few central agencies that already compile some (yet not all) statistics in a common data base 
from various entities. For the purposes of the baseline assessment, these Member States are considered to have two to five agencies. 

Based on these considerations, for the baseline assessment the Member States can be divided into six groups based on the number of agencies currently involved with 

141 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
statistical data on environmental crime as summarised below. 

Group 

7 agencies 

6 agencies 

5 agencies 

4 agencies 

3 agencies 

2 agencies 

Member States 

BE, EL, ES, IT, NL 

FR, PL, RO 

IE, SE, SI 

AT, BG, DK, EE, FI, 
LT, PT 

CY,  CZ,  DE,  HR, 
MT, SK 

HU, LU, LV 

5.  OBJECTIVE 6: IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVE OPERATION OF THE ENFORCEMENT CHAIN 

5.1  Baseline information on training 

5.1.1 

Training provided at national level along the enforcement chain 

 

Information has been collected from the country reports of 8th Round of Mutual Evaluation 

Level of training provided 

Topics covered by the training 

MS 

Police 

Public 
prosecutors 

Judges 

Customs 

Administrative 
authorities 

Police 

Public prosecutors 

Judges 

Customs 

Administrative 
authorities 

AT 

Initial and 
continuous 
training 

Initial and 
regular training 

Initial and 
regular 
training 

No 
information 

Initial and 
continuous 
training 

General courses 
/investigative tools, 
internal cooperation 

General courses 
/investigative tools, 
internal cooperation, 
cross-border 
cooperation 

General 
courses, 
internal 
cooperation, 
cross-border 
cooperation 

No 
information 

General/investigative 
tools, internal 
cooperation 

BE 

Initial training 
only 

Regular training 

Regular 
training 

No 
information 

No information 

General courses/investigative tools 

No information 

142 

 
 
 
BG 

Initial training 
only 

Initial training 
only 

Regular 
training 

Initial 
training 
only 

No information 

General courses 
/investigative tools, 
cross-border 
cooperation 

No training at national level 

General courses 

General 
courses 

No information 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

Initial and 
continuous 
training 

Initial and 
continuous 
training 

Regular training 

Regular training 

DK 

Limited 
training 

Regular training 

Regular 
training 

Regular 
training 

Initial and 
continuous 
training 

Initial and 
continuous 
training 

No 
training at 
national 
level 

No training 
at national 
level 

Initial and 
continuous 
training 

Initial and 
continuous 
training 

No information 

General courses/investigative tools, internal cooperation, cross-border cooperation 

No information 

Mainly waste related 

General 
courses/investigative 
tools, internal 
cooperation 

No training 

No information 

Env. 
Inspectorate - 
initial and 
continuous 
training 

Continuous 
training 

Ad hoc 
training 

Ad hoc 
training 

Initial and 
continuous 
training 

General courses 
/investigative tools 

General courses 
/investigative tools 

General 
courses 

General 
courses 
/investigative 
tools 

No information 

Ad hoc training 

No 
information 

Ad hoc training 

General courses 
/investigative tools 

General courses 
/investigative tools 

General 
courses 

No information 

Initial and 
continuous 
training 

Regular training 

No 
information 

No information 

General courses 
/investigative tools, 
internal cooperation 

General courses 
/investigative tools, 
internal cooperation 

No information 

EE 

EL 

ES 

143 

 
 
Initial and 
continuous 
training 

Initial and 
continuous 
training 

Regular training 

Initial and 
continuous 
training 

Initial and 
continuous 
training 

General courses 
/investigative tools 

General courses 
/investigative tools, 
internal cooperation 

Initial training 

Regular 
training 

Initial and 
continuous 
training 

No information 

General courses 
/investigative tools, 
internal cooperation 

No information 

No 
information 

No information 

General 
courses 
/investigative 
tools, internal 
cooperation 

No information 

No training at 
national level 

Regular 

Ad hoc 
training 

No training 
at national 
level 

No information 

IE 

Initial training 
only 

No training at national level 

Initial 
training 
only 

Initial training 
only 

Initial and 
continuous 
training 

Regular training 

No 
information 

No information 

Initial training 
only 

No training at national level 

No 
information 

No information 

No training at national level 

General 
courses/investigative 
tools, cross-border 
cooperation 

No training at national level 

General 
courses/investigative 
tools 

No training at national level 

No information 

No information 

No information 

No training 

No information 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IT 

LT 

LV 

LU 

MT 

Initial training 

No training at national level 

No 

No information 

No information 

No training 

No information 

144 

 
 
only 

information 

NL 

Initial training 
only 

Ad hoc training 

Ad hoc 
training 

No 
information 

No information 

PL 

Initial and 
continuous 
training 

Regular training 

Ad hoc 
training 

No 
information 

No information 

PT 

Initial training 
only 

Initial and 
regular training 

Regular 

No 
information 

No information 

RO 

Initial training 
only 

Ad hoc training 

Ad hoc 
training 

No 
information 

No information 

General 
courses/investigative 
tools 

General 
courses/investigative 
tools, internal 
cooperation, cross-
border cooperation, 
multi-disciplinary 
training 

General 
courses/investigative 
tools, internal 
cooperation, cross-
border cooperation, 
multi-disciplinary 
training 

No information 

No information 

General 
courses/investigative 
tools, internal 
cooperation, cross-
border cooperation 

General 
courses/investigative 
tools, internal 
cooperation, cross-
border cooperation 

General 
courses, 
internal 
cooperation, 
cross-border 
cooperation 

No information 

SE 

SI 

SK 

Initial training 
only 

Regular training 

No 
information 

Initial training 
only 

No training at national level 

Currently no training at national level, however it is being developed 

No information 

No information 

145 

 
 
 
5.1.2  Training provided at EU level  

Organisation 

Practitioners targeted 

Example of courses  

CEPOL 

LEAs and public 
prosecutors 

•May  and  November  2021:  Two  online  webinars  to  enhance  the  effectiveness  of  investigations  and  reinforce  international 
cooperation against cross-border environmental crime. 

• Q3/Q4 2021: Face to face course on fighting environmental crime and reinforcing cross-border cooperation. 

• 19/11-22/11/2019: Three-day face to face course  

•  March  and  May  2019:  Two  one  day  online  webinars,  one  to  exchange  best  practice  regarding  arson  cases,  one  on  the 
application of financial investigative techniques in environmental crime cases 

• 09/10–30/10/2019: One-month online course on environmental crime 

• 23-27/04/2018: 4-day face to face course on improving investigation techniques for tackling environmental crime. To make 
the law enforcement aware of the phenomenon and of the available tools they can use, especially in cross-border dimension.  

• 05/06/2018: Webinar on illicit waste trafficking  

• 07-10/02/17: Face to face course on wildlife trafficking242 

FRONTEX 

LEAs 

• FRONTEX offers course on cross-border crime detection which includes environmental crime (dumps and waste trafficking 
and also wildlife/CITES trafficking)243  

EJTN 

Judges and prosecutors 

•  20-21/05/2021:  Two-day  online  course  on  Judicial  Cooperation  in  Criminal  Matters:  Cross-border  Environmental  crimes  - 
CR/2021/06 36 places 

• 15-18/06/2021: Three-day online seminar on cooperation in protected species trafficking cases (30 participants) 

242 See https://www.cepol.europa.eu/publications-training-catalogue. 
243 See https://frontex.europa.eu/assets/Publications/Training/TRU_Course_Catalogue_2018.pdf. 

146 

 
 
                                                 
Organisation 

Practitioners targeted 

Example of courses  

• 28-29/09/2021: Two day in person workshop on EU Environmental Law. 39 places 

• 13-15/10/2021: Two day in person seminar on Environmental crimes 

• 03-05/11/2021: Three day in person course on legal language training in cooperation in environmental law244 

ERA 

Judges and prosecutors 

• Online training materials and e-learning modules on continuous offer on environmental law, combatting waste crime, EU law 
on industrial emissions, the EU Aarhus Acquis, EU Nature protection legislation, EU water law, wildlife trafficking etc. 245  

• 09-11/03/2020: Two-day in person workshop on EU Waste Legislation and Protection of the Environment through Criminal 
Law 

ENPE 

Prosecutors 

• The LIFE-ENPE project which took place between 2015-2020 resulted, inter alia, in the development of training packages and 
events  in  the  fields  of  wildlife,  waste,  and  air  pollution  crimes,  as  well  as,  in  relation  to  sanctioning  and  prosecution  of 
environmental crimes246.   

IMPEL 

• Over 1 000 delegates have been trained by the ENPE over the 5-year period.  

• Continuous offer of online toolkits for members of relevant Competent Authorities on shipment of waste, wildlife and waste 
crime, available via the IMPEL-PREVENT website247 

•  The  IMPEL  programme  Capacity  Building  and  Training  established  as  part  of  the  implementation  of  the  Action  Plan  to 
improve  environmental  compliance  assurance  in  partnership  with  the  European  Commission  aims  to  improve  cooperation 
between practitioner and other bodies, providing training for environmental compliance assurance professionals at national and 
European level248 

244 See https://frontex.europa.eu/we-build/building-capabilities/courses/ and https://www.ejtn.eu/Catalogue/EJTNs-searchable-database/. 
245https://www.era.int/cgi-bin/cms?_SID=a1a4bb07794b7a2f9728f38b75d630cd13430f9500784449058078&_sprache=en&_bereich=artikel&_aktion=detail&idartikel=124138. 
246 See: https://www.environmentalprosecutors.eu/eu-life-project. 
247 https://www.impel-prevent.eu/. 
248 https://www.impel.eu/impel-programme-capacity-building-and-training-is-catching-up-speed/. 

147 

 
 
 
                                                 
Organisation 

Practitioners targeted 

Example of courses  

DG ENV Action Plan 

In  2018,  the  European  Commission  adopted  an  Action  Plan  to  increase  compliance  with  and  improve  governance  on  EU 
environmental  rules.  One  of  the  nine  actions  was  to  identify  necessary  professional  skill-sets  and  training  needs  for 
environmental inspectors and improve cooperation with practitioners and other bodies that provide training at national and EU 
level249. This resulted in the publication of a report from IMPEL on the training needs of practitioners250. The Commission (DG 
ENV)  also  continues  its  Programme  for  cooperation  with  national  judges  and  prosecutors  which  includes  the  preparation  of 
training  materials,  organisation  of  a  limited  number  of  training  events  and  the  publication  of  a  training  package  on  EU 
Environmental Law accessible via the Commission’s website251. 

5.2 Baseline information on awareness-raising measures 

 

Information has been collected from the 8th round of mutual evaluation country reports  

MS  Campaigns 

Education in 
schools 

Information 
aimed at 
private sector 

Online info for 
the public 

Manuals, 
guidelines, 
fact sheets 

Reporting 
point for 
public 

Collaboration 
with NGOs or 
other 
organisations 

Events 

Waste register  Little or 
nothing 

249 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/pdf/COM_2018_10_F1_COMMUNICATION_FROM_COMMISSION_TO_INST_EN_V8_P1_959219.pdf. 
250 https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/cafdbfbb-a3b9-42d8-b3c9-05e8f2c6a6fe/library/fafe3895-04ae-4c42-b8b1-a233a5a780f3/details. 
251 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/training_package.htm. 

148 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
MS  Campaigns 

Education in 
schools 

Information 
aimed at 
private sector 

Online info for 
the public 

Manuals, 
guidelines, 
fact sheets 

Reporting 
point for 
public 

Collaboration 
with NGOs or 
other 
organisations 

Events 

Waste register  Little or 
nothing 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Information  in 
several 
languages 

Practical 
information,  
explanatory 
notes 
standard 
documents 

and 

For  events  and 
campaigns 

x 

x 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

x 

x 

x 

Local 
information 
campaign 
leaflets 

– 

x 

National 
information 
campaign  and 
local 
information 
campaign 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

National 
information 
campaign 

CZ 

x 

x 

For 
sector 

private 

149 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS  Campaigns 

Education in 
schools 

Information 
aimed at 
private sector 

Online info for 
the public 

Manuals, 
guidelines, 
fact sheets 

Reporting 
point for 
public 

x 

x 

x 

x 

National 
information 
campaign 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

x 

x 

x 

National 
information 
campaign 

FI 

FR 

x 

x 

GR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

x 

x 

x 

x 

National 
information 
campaign  -  1.6 

Events 

Waste register  Little or 
nothing 

Collaboration 
with NGOs or 
other 
organisations 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

150 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS  Campaigns 

Education in 
schools 

Information 
aimed at 
private sector 

Online info for 
the public 

Manuals, 
guidelines, 
fact sheets 

Reporting 
point for 
public 

Collaboration 
with NGOs or 
other 
organisations 

Events 

Waste register  Little or 
nothing 

million  EUR 
waste 
awareness  

campaign 
2018 

in 

Local 
information 
campaign 

IT 

LT 

x 

x 

x 

National 
information 
campaign 

LU 

x 

x 

x 

x 

National 
information 
campaign 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

151 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS  Campaigns 

Education in 
schools 

Information 
aimed at 
private sector 

Online info for 
the public 

Manuals, 
guidelines, 
fact sheets 

Reporting 
point for 
public 

Collaboration 
with NGOs or 
other 
organisations 

Events 

Waste register  Little or 
nothing 

National 
information 
campaign  and 
local 
information 
campaign 

x 

x 

Local 
information 
campaign 

x 

National 
information 
campaign 

x 

x 

National 
information 
campaign 

x 

National 
information 
campaign 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

152 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.3 

Baseline information on national enforcement strategies to combat environmental crime 

Information has been collected from the following sources: 

  8th round of mutual evaluation country reports 

 

Interview with Finnish environmental ministry 

MS 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

National 
environmental 
crime strategy 

National 
environmental 
crime action plan 

Inspection plans 
(sector specific) 

Environmental 
strategy for 
individual 
institution(s) 

Environmental 
strategy within a 
wider crime 
strategy 

Relevant waste 
management 
plans 

Guidelines for 
combatting 
environmental 
crime 

Within 
environmental 
framework 

Planned 
implementation 

Planned 
implementation 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

153 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

FI 

FR 

GR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

National 
environmental 
crime strategy 

National 
environmental 
crime action plan 

Inspection plans 
(sector specific) 

Environmental 
strategy for 
individual 
institution(s) 

Environmental 
strategy within a 
wider crime 
strategy 

Relevant waste 
management 
plans 

Guidelines for 
combatting 
environmental 
crime 

Within 
environmental 
framework 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

154 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

National 
environmental 
crime strategy 

National 
environmental 
crime action plan 

Inspection plans 
(sector specific) 

Environmental 
strategy for 
individual 
institution(s) 

Environmental 
strategy within a 
wider crime 
strategy 

Relevant waste 
management 
plans 

Guidelines for 
combatting 
environmental 
crime 

Within 
environmental 
framework 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

155 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.4 

Baseline information on specialised units and personnel working on environmental crime 

Information has been collected from the following sources: 

  8th round of Mutual Evaluation country reports 

  Letters from Member States responding to these reports 

 

Interviews and correspondence with following stakeholders:  

o  National authorities and practitioners from Sweden (interview) 

o  ENPE – interview with practitioners from the Netherlands and the UK 

o  ENPE national contact points in Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Portugal (responses to short questionnaire) 

Note: Blank cells indicate that it was not possible to find data either in the country reports or through the targeted consultation activities.  

Member 
State 

Structure of units specialised in environmental crime 
Police 

Judges 

Numbers of personnel working on environmental crime 
Police 

Judges 

Administrative 
authorities 

Public 
prosecutors 

Administrative 
authorities 

Public 
prosecutors 

AT 

Specialised 
personnel 

facto 

some 

de 
specialists  
in 
regional 
prosecution 
offices  

No  specialised 
judges 

Administrative 
courts  call  on 
from 
experts 
the  competent 
authorities 
when necessary 

548 (total) 
503  at  National 
in 
level: 
3 
federal 
crime 
unit;  500  low-
level  specially 
trained officers 
45  at  regional 
level: 
Provincial 
teams 
with 
average  of  5 

156 

 
 
  
  
 
Member 
State 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

Structure of units specialised in environmental crime 
Police 

Judges 

Numbers of personnel working on environmental crime 
Police 

Judges 

Administrative 
authorities 

Public 
prosecutors 

Public 
prosecutors 

Administrative 
authorities 

legislation 
for 

No 
providing 
specialised 
judges 

 No  specialised 
judges 
No  specialised 
court 

Specialised 
personnel 
at 
federal 
level;  also  in 
some 
regions 
and some local 
police areas 

facto 

de 
specialists  
Magistrates  in 
almost 
all 
districts  with 
specific 
expertise 
in 
environmental 
offences 

No  specialised 
body 
Specialised 
units  but  also 
on 
working 
economic 
crime 

facto 

de 
specialists 
In prosecutor’s 
office informal 
groups analyse 
environmental 
and 
issues 
cooperate. 

personnel 
province 
provinces) 

per 
(9 

Magistrate 
each district 

in 

number 

Total 
unknown.  
2  officers  at 
national 
level 
with  expertise; 
1  officer 
in 
region 
each 
with  expertise 

157 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
Member 
State 

DE 

DK 

EE 

Structure of units specialised in environmental crime 
Police 

Judges 

Numbers of personnel working on environmental crime 
Police 

Judges 

Administrative 
authorities 

Public 
prosecutors 

Public 
prosecutors 

Administrative 
authorities 

Specialised 
units at federal 
regional 
and 
level 

Planned 
further 
specialisation 
and 
development 
of 
network 
(see  upcoming 
strategy)  

Specialised 
units 
PPO of Länder 
usually 
have 
environmental 
department 
and 
specialised 
units 
de 
specialists  

facto 

Specialised 
court  in  almost 
Länder; 
all 
sometimes 
environmental 
cases 
are 
by 
handled 
economic  crime 
divisions 
No  specialised 
judges 
except 
through 
experience  
No  specialised 
court 

in  waste  crime 
(14 regions) 
Unspecified 
number 
CPIS 
specialised 
environmental 
crime 
(non-
exclusive) 

of 
officers 
in 

The 
environmental 

6 
Investigation 

158 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Member 
State 

EL 

ES 

Structure of units specialised in environmental crime 
Police 

Judges 

Numbers of personnel working on environmental crime 
Police 

Judges 

Administrative 
authorities 

Public 
prosecutors 

Public 
prosecutors 

Administrative 
authorities 

is 
inspectorate 
responsible  for 
investigation  of 
all 
environmental 
offences  
Environmental 
inspectors work 
with police 

 No  specialised 
court 

specialist 

 No 
judicial bodies 

Specialised 
prosecutor  
in  the  PPO  of 
Athens 

Specialised 
units 
in 
provincial 
PPOs 

all 

Environmental 
protection 
department but 
no  specialised 
police officers 
Specialised 
units  in  civil 
at 
guard 
and 
regional 
level; 
local 
environment 
group  within 
national 
organised 
crime unit 

in 

unit 
Environmental 
Inspectorate – 1 
head  of  unit 
5 
and 
investigators 

1 
1 
specialised 
prosecutor  for 
Athens PPO 

174 

159 

Guardia 
1884 

1889 
In 
Civil 
specialist 
investigation 
officers; 
Environmental 
Group 
national 
organised crime 
unit 
5 
experts 

has 

in 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
Member 
State 

FI 

FR 

Structure of units specialised in environmental crime 
Police 

Judges 

Numbers of personnel working on environmental crime 
Police 

Judges 

Administrative 
authorities 

Public 
prosecutors 

Public 
prosecutors 

Administrative 
authorities 

special 

 No 
unit; 
environmental 
crime 
unit 
pilot project in 
one region  

facto 

de 
specialisation 
acquired 
through 
experience  

No  specialised 
court 

in 

Specialised 
units 
national 
environmental 
office; 
network 
specialised 
investigators; 
additional 
units  within 
gendarmerie 

of 

Designated 
courts  

(since 

Designated 
courts 
2020) 
Specialised 
tribunal  in  each 
court  of  appeal 
for 
environmental 
matters 
Each 
prosecutor's 
office of a court 
can  appoint  a 
specialist  judge 
for 
environmental 
matters. 

public 

435 
70  officers  for 
national 
environmental 
crime office;  
365 
investigators 
specially 
trained 
environmental 
issues; 
unknown 
number 
additional 
territorial  units 
within 
gendarmerie 

of 

in 

persons 
5 
working  in  the 
team  on  waste 
shipment  -  this 
would appear to 
be 
policy 
people 

New law 2020 

160 

 
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
Member 
State 

Structure of units specialised in environmental crime 
Police 

Judges 

Numbers of personnel working on environmental crime 
Police 

Judges 

Administrative 
authorities 

Public 
prosecutors 

Administrative 
authorities 

Public 
prosecutors 

Specialised 
public 
health 
courts  exist  in 
Paris 
and 
Marseille,  with 
competence 
in 
environmental 
cases  affecting 
public health. 
No  specialised 
court 

No  specialised 
court or judges 

Environmental 
protection 
inspectorate 
responsible  for 
inspections  and 
action on illegal 
waste 
shipments 

77 inspectors 

161 

HR 

No  specialised 
authority 

HU 

of 

Grouping 
specialised 
police  but  not 
from 
formal 
training 

of 

facto 

de 
specialists  
3% 
prosecutors 
have  specialist 
in 
degrees 
environmental 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Member 
State 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LV 

Structure of units specialised in environmental crime 
Police 

Judges 

Numbers of personnel working on environmental crime 
Police 

Judges 

Administrative 
authorities 

Public 
prosecutors 

Public 
prosecutors 

Administrative 
authorities 

Strong 
collaboration 
with  police  to 
provide 
expertise 

criminal law 

Specialised 
unit 
for 
environmental 
linked 
crimes 
organised 
to 
crime; 
specialised 
teams 
almost 
PPOs  
No  specialised 
PPO 

in 
all 

No  specialised 
court or judges 

No  specialised 
judges  but  one 
specialised 
court 
attached 
to  the  court  of 
cassation 

No  specialised 
judges 

433 
(inspectors) 

162 

for 

Specialised 
unit 
Forestry, 
Environmental 
and  Agri-Food 
Protection 
with 
across 
country 

offices 
the 

No  specialised 
unit 
Specialist 
within 
economic 
crime 
department 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Member 
State 

LU 

MT 

NL 

PL 

Structure of units specialised in environmental crime 
Police 

Judges 

Numbers of personnel working on environmental crime 
Police 

Judges 

Administrative 
authorities 

Public 
prosecutors 

Public 
prosecutors 

Administrative 
authorities 

No  specialised 
PPO 
No  specialised 
PPO 

No  specialised 
court or judges 
No  specialised 
judges 

Specialised 
unit 

Specialised 
units 

Specialised 
teams 
national 
and 
region 

at 
level 
in  each 

Specialised 
courts 
4 
courts 

specialised 

 No 
specialised 
structures 
for 
environmental 
crime 

Specialised 
units: 
Coordinators 
in regional and 
circuit 
prosecutor 

No  specialised 
court or judges 

33 
field 
17 
4 
officers, 
office  clerks,  1 
sergeant  and  1 
inspector 
260 
400  specialised 
officers 
deal 
with 
environment 
and  food  safety 
crimes, 
of 
which  140  deal 
with agriculture 
and food crimes 

20 
Specialised 
prosecutors 
estimated at 2-
3%  [2.5%  of 
800 
prosecutors] 

59 
3  at  national 
level; 
11  at  regional 
level; 
45  at  district 

163 

 
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
Member 
State 

Structure of units specialised in environmental crime 
Police 

Judges 

Numbers of personnel working on environmental crime 
Police 

Judges 

Administrative 
authorities 

Public 
prosecutors 

Administrative 
authorities 

Public 
prosecutors 

for 
officers 
environmental 
crime 
Investigations 
can  be  carried 
out  directly  by 
prosecutors 
de 
specialisation 

facto  

No  specialised 
court – 
prohibited 
constitution 

by 

level 

977 
893  officers  in 
environmental 
enforcement  in 
for 
Service 
of 
protection 
nature 
and 
environment; 
84 
officers 
environmental 
protection 
teams 

police 
in 

facto 

de 
specialised 
personnel 

No  specialised 
court or judges 

322 
142  posts  for 
fighting  illegal 

Network 
involves 
approximately 

621 

164 

PT 

RO 

Specialised 
within 
unit 
national guard, 
service 
for 
protection  of 
nature  and  the 
environment; 
specialised 
police  officers 
in 
environmental 
protection 
teams 
regional level 
Specialised 
units  for  areas 
covering 

at 

 
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
Member 
State 

Structure of units specialised in environmental crime 
Police 

Judges 

Numbers of personnel working on environmental crime 
Police 

Judges 

Administrative 
authorities 

Public 
prosecutors 

Administrative 
authorities 

Public 
prosecutors 

of 
elements 
environmental 
crime 
at 
national level 

1 
in 
local 
1-2 

linked  through 
a 
network 
bringing 
together 
prosecutor 
each 
PPO, 
prosecutors 
PPOs 
from 
attached 
to 
tribunals  and 
of 
courts 
appeal, 
and 
prosecutors 
from 
high 
court,  dealing 
with 
environmental 
with 
cases 
priority 

and 

forestry, 
poaching 
fishing; 
45 
officers 
working  for  the 
Directorate  of 
Arms, 
Explosives  and 
Dangerous 
Substances, 
responsible  for 
environmental 
crime 
85  officers 
in 
economic crime 
on 
unit 
‘environmental 
protection, 
recyclable 
materials 
forestry'; 
50  officers 
in 
transport  police 
on 

and 

200 
prosecutors 
but  these  are 
not  working 
exclusively  on 
environmental 
crime 

165 

 
 
Member 
State 

Structure of units specialised in environmental crime 
Police 

Judges 

Numbers of personnel working on environmental crime 
Police 

Judges 

Administrative 
authorities 

Public 
prosecutors 

Administrative 
authorities 

Public 
prosecutors 

environmental 
crime 
84 (approx.) 
National 
team 
and  9  regional 
teams  of  7-9 
investigators;  4 
at 
analysts 
level 
national 
dealing 
with 
environmental 
crimes,  hunting 
crimes 
and 
OSH crimes. 

21 
21  prosecutors 
working  with 
national 
the 
unit 
for 
environment 
and  working 
environment 

SE 

Specialised 
units 

Specialised 
unit 
National  unit 
for 
environment 
and  working 
environment 
located  in  five 
cities 

on 

Specialised 
court 
environmental 
and 
water 
issues.  Special 
give 
courts 
for 
permits 
waterworks 
operations  and 
environmentally 
harmful 
operations  and 
determine 
environmental 
administrative 
fines.  It  is  the 
courts 
general 
that 
handle 
criminal  cases, 
not 
the 
specialised 
courts. 

166 

 
 
 
 
  
Member 
State 

SI 

SK 

Structure of units specialised in environmental crime 
Police 

Judges 

Numbers of personnel working on environmental crime 
Police 

Judges 

Administrative 
authorities 

Public 
prosecutors 

Public 
prosecutors 

Administrative 
authorities 

Specialised 
units  but  also 
working 
on 
other  types  of 
crime 
Specialised 
units 
national 
and 
level 

at 
level 
regional 

 No 
specialised 
prosecutor 
team 

Specialised 
prosecutors  at 
district, 
regional 
national level 

and 

No  specialised 
court  

No  specialised 
court or judges 

105 
13  at  national 
level;  
Regional  teams 
of 
approximately 
11  officers  (8 
regions) 

167 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
ANNEX 5: ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS 

1.  INTRODUCTION 

The degree to which a more effective approach to combating environmental crime through the 
ECD is likely to impact each category of environmental crime specifically will depend on a 
range of factors internal and external to the Directive. First of all, it depends on the degree to 
which  each  type  of  environmental  crime  takes  place  and  the  effects  it  has  on  the 

environment, the economy, and society as a whole – crimes occurring in areas that produce 

a higher negative impact will have the highest potential to be reduced, thus having the highest 
potential for a positive impact to occur in the long run.  

Unfortunately, there is a lack of reliable and comparable statistics pertaining to the degree to 
which  specific  types  of  environmental  crime  take  place.  However,  their  occurrence  is 

significant  –  the  evaluation  of  the  ECD  found  that  in  2017,  there  were  5  644  recorded 

instances of illegal wildlife trade (seizures of CITES rules) and 5 306 recorded instances of 
illegal waste shipment in the EU. In both cases, an upward trend was observed over time. The 
overall  impact  of  environmental  crime  has  never  been  quantified,  but  some  studies  have 
attempted  to  assess  the  magnitude  of  environmental  crime  -  a  UN  study  put  the  combined 
value of illegal revenue derived from environmental crime and losses for legal commerce and 
tax revenue at between USD 91-259 billion annually252. 

This  annex  provides  an  overview  of  the  different  types  of  environmental  crime,  the  current 
status  in  terms  of  relevant  environmental  legislation  and  its  implementation  in  the  Member 
States and available estimates of the total magnitude of environmental crime, in monetary and 
other  terms.  It  also  identifies  the  main  environmental,  social  and  economic  impacts  of 
environmental crime across the EU, based on a wide range of recent studies and reports. Each 
type of environmental crime is accompanied by an example of such a crime occurring in an 
EU  Member  State,  so  as  to  illustrate  the  potentially  devastating  impact  of  these  crimes,  as 
well as give an indication as to the possible positive impact (or benefits) of reducing them by 
strengthening  the  (implementation  of)  the  ECD.  All  of  these  findings  are  summarised  in 
Section 4 at the conclusion of this Annex. 

Most  of  the  policy  options  proposed  as  part  of  the  review  of  the  ECD  aim  to  improve  the 
overall  effectiveness  of  the  ECD.  Through  increased  legal  clarity,  more  effective  sanctions, 
better cooperation across all actors, better enforcement, and a higher degree of awareness and 
precision  about  the  nature  of  environmental  crime,  it  is  expected  that  environmental  crime 
rates overall will gradually reduce. One of the policy objectives, which concerns the scope of 
the  ECD  (Policy  objective  1)  is  likely  to  have  greater  impacts  on  specific  types  of 

252 UNEP (2018), The State of Knowledge of Crimes That Have Serious Impacts on the Environment.  

168 

 
 
                                                 
environmental crime, as  the options to address it would target  areas of environmental crime 
not previously covered by the Directive. These are: illegal logging and timber trade;  illegal, 
unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, and poaching of wildlife. The focus of the analysis 
has been placed on the ‘new’ crimes, as these would have the largest possible impacts in light 
of a revised ECD. 

Some  possible  impacts  of  the  proposed  policy  options  could  have  unintended  negative 
economic  impacts,  particularly  for  certain  business  sectors.  These  impacts  have  been 
identified  primarily  through  consultation,  where  stakeholders  from  the  business  sector  have 
expressed concerns about ensuring that sanctions actually deter those who wilfully circumvent 
existing rules and are appropriately strict in this regard.  

2.  ECONOMIC IMPACTS ON BUSINESSES 

Before  analysing  all  types  of  impacts  for  different  types  of  environmental  crimes,  both 
currently covered in the scope and ones considered to be included in the scope in the future, 
this section provides an assessment of economic impacts on businesses of the different policy 
objectives and the options to reach these.  

The assessment of impacts on businesses is based on a review of existing reports on elements 
impacting businesses (e.g. sanction levels), along with the 28 responses from businesses to the 
online  public  consultation,  and  qualitative  data  collected  through  interviews  with  business 
stakeholders  (see  Table  19)  and  discussions  during  a  workshop  on  the  issue  hosted  by  the 
European Commission.  

Table 19 Business stakeholder interviews 

Industry 
Chemicals 

Recycling 
Hazardous 
Waste 
Ships 

Various 

Organisation 
The  European  Chemical  Industry  Council 
(CEFIC) 
Plastic Recyclers Europe (PRE) 
Hazardous Waste Europe (HWE) 

Community 

European 
Associations (ECSA) 
Chamber of Commerce Austria (WKÖ) 

Shipowners' 

Overall,  the  notion  of  legal  certainty  is  expressed  by  businesses  in  respect  to  all  policy 
objectives and options and in all stakeholder consultation activities. All consulted businesses 
express  in  some  respect  that  a  revised  ECD  needs  to  improve  legal  certainty  and  avoid 
changes  that  might  reduce  it.  According  to  two  stakeholders’  explanations  in  interviews, 
higher  uncertainty  about  criminal  offences  –  and  prosecution  –  would  impact  the 
attractiveness  of  industries  to  skilled  leadership  personnel  and  limit  the  investment  in  new 
operation sites.  

169 

 
 
A  second  general  aspect  raised  by  two  different  stakeholders  concerns  the  reputation  of 
legitimate businesses. The public image of the concerned sectors would benefit from stricter 
criminal  standards  and  their  enforcement,  because  scandals  tend  to  dominate  the  public 
perception.  A  more  positive  reputation  would  enable  easier  permit  granting  processes  and 
recruitment for such sectors.  

2.1. EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF THE DIRECTIVE 

In general, findings indicate that illegal economic activities result in lost revenue and markets 
for legitimate business activities. An expanded and up-to-date scope is instrumental in order 
to  ensure  that  as  many  activities  as  possible  are  of  legitimate  nature.  The  case  of  illegal, 
unreported and unregulated fishing illustrates that expanding the scope to new environmental 
crimes would have strong benefits for legitimate business activities as well.  

In response to the online public consultation, the responding businesses see benefit in the two 
options  of  updating  the  list  of  legislation  mentioned  in  the  Annex  of  the  Directive253  and 
defining  environmental  crime  independently  of  administrative  law254.  No  action  –  an 
unchanged scope of the Directive – is considered not useful by half of the respondents, with 
five further respondents  giving no answer. This  underlines the benefits  for businesses of  an 
updated and expanded scope.  

However,  legal  certainty  is  the  key  parameter  for  the  business  sector.  As  such,  a  clear 
definition of the scope is necessary. Accordingly, the current system of having an exhaustive 
list  is  supported  by  businesses,  while  a  revision  of  the  approach  to  defining  the  scope  is 
considered not necessary.  

The  contributions  of  stakeholders  mostly  concerned  the  option  of  defining  environmental 
crime decoupled from a breach of administrative law. Two opposing arguments were made by 
the  business  sector  representatives  consulted.  On  the  one  hand,  substantial  environmental 
damage with impact on the reputation of a whole sector would be criminalised in all cases. It 
is  also  expressed  that  actors  currently  not  specified  as  part  of  the  scope255  would  then  be 
subject  to  the  Directive’s  scope  as  well.  On  the  other  hand,  one  stakeholder  sees  a  risk  of 
penalising  good-willed  companies  who  by  mistake  create  damage  through  an  operation  for 
which  they  have  a  permit.  This  is  described  as  a  higher  risk  for  legitimate  businesses 
compared to businesses purposefully violating permits and environmental law and could thus 
even lead to an increase in activities with low or no environmental compliance.  

In  summary,  an  expanded  scope  is  expected  to  have  beneficial  impacts  on  businesses. 
However,  any  changes  to  the  approach  of  defining  the  scope  would  need  to  be  carefully 
defined in order to ensure certainty for economic actors.  

253 17 respondents consider this option useful or very useful. 
254 15 respondents consider this option useful or very useful. 
255 As an example, waste brokers are mentioned by the stakeholder. 

170 

 
 
                                                 
2.2. CLARIFYING DEFINITIONS OF VAGUE TERMS USED IN THE DIRECTIVE 

Clarifying the vague terms used in the Directive has strong benefits for businesses, as it would 
improve  legal  clarity  and  support  the  harmonisation  of  implementation  of  environmental 
crime  legislation  across  the  EU.  In  all  consultation  activities,  business  stakeholders  express 
support  for  clarified  terms.  The  responses  to  the  online  public  consultation  show  a  clear 
preference for definitions, or guidance for definitions, to be coming from the EU level rather 
than  the  national  level.  Figure  2  presents  the  responses  from  business  stakeholders  to  this 
question.  

In  interviews,  stakeholders  explain  the  importance  of  a  level  playing  field  for  legitimate 
businesses,  which  would  be  improved  by  clearer  definitions  of  damage  and  quantity 
thresholds.  One  stakeholder  comments  that  such  definitions  should,  wherever  possible,  be 
coherent  with  existing  definitions  in  sectoral  EU  legislation  in  order  to  ensure  the  highest 
legal certainty possible.  

Figure 2 Business stakeholder responses to the OPC on options to improve the clarity of definitions and vague terms 

171 

 
 
 
2.3. CREATING AN EFFECTIVELY DETERRENT SANCTIONING SYSTEM 

The  evaluation  of  the  Directive256  as  well  as  several  interviewees  commented  on  the  high 
variations  between  sanctions  (e.g.  fines)  across  different  EU  Member  States.  The  low 
sanctions  in  some  Member  States  incentivise  criminal  activities  by  making  them  profitable 
even in  case of prosecution.  An effectively deterring sanctioning  system  throughout  the EU 
helps  solve  this  issue  and  contributes  to  an  even  playing  field  for  legitimate  businesses. 
However, it also needs to be coupled with enforcement (see next section) in order to provide 
sufficient risk of criminal actions being discovered. Stakeholders report that these objectives 
would be beneficial particularly in the fight  against organised crime. As an example, illegal 
trade and disposal of waste is particularly attractive to organised crime groups as the financial 
volume is estimated to be similar to drug trafficking but with substantially lower sanctions257.  

Appropriate sanctions based on the financial situation of an organisation or the benefit gained 
from  the  environmental  crime  are  one  option  in  this  respect.  Some  business  stakeholders 
express  concerns  about  such  an  approach  and  see  a  risk  in  penalising  legitimate  businesses 
that accidentally  cause  environmental damages that  are  considered criminal,  while the main 
problem  that  needs  to  be  tackled  are  the  wilfully  non-complying  actors258.  Large  companies 
risk being fined high amounts for accidental damages or ones occurring for the first time. The 
responses  to  the  online  public  consultation,  however,  indicate  a  diverse  view  among 
businesses.  The  same  number  of  respondents  consider  sanctions  linked  to  the  generated 
profits and the financial situation very useful as the number that consider them not useful (7 
respondents  each).  As  an  adaptive  sanctioning  system  based  on  profits  and  the  financial 
situation would apply to criminal offences only, a key determinant will also be the scope and 
threshold defined under the options for the other objectives.  

Linking  sanctions  to  the  benefits  gained  from  a  criminal  or  non-compliant  act  and  to  the 
financial  situation  of  a  business  are  in  place  in  several  Member  States  already  for  either 
environmental criminal law or administrative law. Table 20 summarises the sanction systems 
in  Member  States  where  such  adaptive  sanctions  exist.  This  shows  that  such  an  approach 
would  not  be  new  in  many  national  contexts.  However,  the  calculations  and  levels  of  fines 
differ substantially, further highlighting the need for a harmonised sanction level.  

256 European Commission (2020). EVALUATION of the DIRECTIVE 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council  of  19  November  2008  on  the  protection  of  the  environment  through  criminal  law.  SWD(2020)  259  final. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/evaluation_-_swd2020259_-_part_1_0.pdf. 
on 

Environmental 

EnviCrimeNet 

Intelligence 

(2015). 

Project 

Crime. 

IPEC 

257 

http://www.envicrimenet.eu/images/docs/ipec_report_on_environmental_crime_in_europe.pdf. 
Environmental 

(2021). 

CEFIC 

review 

views 

Cefic 

the 

the 

on 

of 

258 

Crime  Directive. 

https://cefic.org/app/uploads/2021/05/Cefic-views-on-the-review-of-the-Environmental-Crime-Directive.pdf. 

172 

 
 
 
                                                 
Table 20 Existing sanction systems in Member States based on profit obtained from a criminal act or based on the 
financial situation 

under 

Sanctions 
national 
environmental 
and 
criminal 
administrative  fines  in 
MS259 

law 

Member 
State 

DK 

EL 

under 

Sanctions 
national 
administrative  law  in 
scope of Article 3260  

Fisheries 
MS261 

legislation 

in 

Fixed  penalty  notice:  fine 
for 
the 
the  master  of 
equivalent  of  1/4  the  value 
of the catch concerning the 
infringement. If the licence 
holder  is  also  the  master, 
he/she  should  be  fined  1/3 
of  the  value.  These  rates 
the 
binding 
are 
administration. 

on 

Natural  persons  acting 
for  the  benefit  of  legal 
persons  are  punished 
persons. 
as 
natural 
Additionally, 
legal 
be 
persons 
punished  as  follows: 
An  administrative  fine 
up  to  three  times  the 
amount of the value of 
the  benefit  attained  or 
pursued 

can 

259 European Commission (2020). EVALUATION of the DIRECTIVE 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council  of  19  November  2008  on  the  protection  of  the  environment  through  criminal  law.  SWD(2020)  259  final. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/evaluation_-_swd2020259_-_part_1_0.pdf. 

260  Hall,  M.;  Wyatt,  T.  (2017).  LIFE-ENPE.  Environmental  prosecution  report  –  tackling  environmental  crime  in  Europe. 

https://www.environmentalprosecutors.eu/sites/default/files/document/Cap%20and%20Gap%20report_FINAL_Print.pd
f. 

261  Milieu  Consulting  (2021),  Study  on  the  sanctioning  systems  of  Member  States  for  infringements  to  the  rules  of  the 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/dfb452c8-c4df-11eb-a925-

Fisheries 

Policy. 

Common 
01aa75ed71a1. 

173 

 
 
  
  
  
  
                                                 
Member 
State 

ES 

FI 

HU 

under 

Sanctions 
national 
environmental 
criminal 
and 
administrative  fines  in 
MS259 

law 

under 

Sanctions 
national 
administrative  law  in 
scope of Article 3260  

Administrative 
sanctions  include  fines 
within  a  range  set  for 
each area of crime. The 
amount of the fine will 
be  determined  taking 
into  account  elements 
such  as  the  extent  of 
the damage, the degree 
of involvement and the 
the 
benefit  obtained, 
economic  capacity  of 
the  actor,  the  intent, 
and  the  repetition  of 
the offense. 

Fisheries 
MS261 

legislation 

in 

For 
from 
legal  persons 
EUR  2,000  up  to  EUR 
100,000  (EUR  50,000  for 
non- 
serious 
infringements). 
The  maximum  level  of  the 
five 
sanctions  shall  be 
times  the  value  of  such 
products,  if  it  is  greater 
than  the  set  EUR  100,000 
or EUR 50,000 . 

The  maximum  level  of 
fines 
crimes 
for 
specified  in  the  ECD  is 
three  times  the  financial 
benefit  gained  or  aimed 
to be gained, but at least 
(EUR 
500,000  HUF 
1,500).  If 
the  benefit 
gained or intended to be 
through 
the 
gained 
criminal 
is  not 
act 
financial  advantage,  the 
court  imposes  the  fine 
considering the financial 
legal 
situation  of 

the 

174 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
Member 
State 

LT 

LV 

MT 

under 

Sanctions 
national 
administrative  law  in 
scope of Article 3260  

Fisheries 
MS261 

legislation 

in 

under 

Sanctions 
national 
environmental 
criminal 
and 
administrative  fines  in 
MS259 
entity,  but  at  least  HUF 
500,000 (EUR 1,500). 

law 

the 

Law 

Under 
on 
Fisheries,  a  fine  may  be 
economic 
for 
imposed 
operators in the range of 2-
8  times  the  value  of  the 
fishing  products  obtained 
by  committing  the  serious 
infringement 
In  practice,  the  inspectors 
IUU 
apply  Art.  44(2) 
directly, and tie the amount 
of  the  penalty  with  the 
value 
fishery 
products 
The  Fishing  Order  sets  the 
following 
fines: 
-  Fine  of  five  times  the 
fishery 
value 
for 
products 
serious 
infringement 
-  Fine  of  EUR  1,000  to 
EUR  10,000  for  serious 
infringement  if  no  fishery 
products obtained.  

the 
obtained 

the 

of 

of 

175 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
Member 
State 

NL 

PL 

SE 

SK 

law 

under 

Sanctions 
national 
environmental 
criminal 
and 
administrative  fines  in 
MS259 
If an offence against one 
of  the  ECD's  provision 
is  punishable  by  a  fine 
in the sixth category and 
that  category  does  not 
permit  an  appropriate 
penalty,  a  fine  may  be 
imposed 
a 
up 
maximum  of  10  %  of 
the  annual  turnover  of 
the  legal  person  in  the 
business  year  preceding 
the 
or 
judgment 
decision. 
Environmental 
crimes 
are  fined  between  EUR 
250  and  1,250,000,  but 
not  higher  than  3%  of 
the yearly income of the 
entity 

to 

under 

Sanctions 
national 
administrative  law  in 
scope of Article 3260  

Fisheries 
MS261 

legislation 

in 

of 

case 

In 
serious 
infringements:  a  fine  of 
five  times  the  value  of 
fishery products 

-  Fine  of  up 
to  SEK 
(EUR  48,600) 
500,000 
-  Special  fee  based  on  the 
market  value  or  the  selling 
catch, 
price 
depending  on  which 
is 
higher 

the 

of 

Confiscation  of  a  sum 
of money in amount of 
€800 - 1 660 000 Euro. 
When  determining  the 
amount of money to be 
the  court 
confiscated 
consider 
shall 
of 
seriousness 
the 
criminal 
committed 
offence,  scope  of  the 
offence, gained benefit, 
arisen, 
damage 
the 
circumstances  of 
the 
of 
commission 

176 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
Member 
State 

under 

Sanctions 
national 
environmental 
criminal 
and 
administrative  fines  in 
MS259 

law 

Fisheries 
MS261 

legislation 

in 

under 

Sanctions 
national 
administrative  law  in 
scope of Article 3260  

criminal  offence  and 
consequences  for  the 
legal person 

2.4. IMPROVING THE IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE DIRECTIVE 

The lack of implementation and enforcement of environmental crime legislation is mentioned 
as  a  key  limitation  and  threat  to  businesses  in  the  stakeholder  consultation.  Therefore, 
improvements are expected to have positive impacts on legitimate businesses.  

Better  enforcement  of  environmental  crimes  across  the  EU  is  considered  essential  for  legal 
certainty by stakeholders in interviews. The varying level of implementation and enforcement 
is  described  to  create  an  uneven  playing  field.  Non-compliant  and  high-risk  or  damaging 
operations  can  be  set  up  in  countries  with  low  enforcement  of  environmental  criminal  law, 
which  creates  cheap,  even  though  illegal,  competition  to  legitimate  businesses.  The  main 
benefit for legitimate businesses would thus be that illegal activities face higher risks, become 
less profitable and, consequently, decrease in occurrence. Legitimate activities would then see 
larger markets for their operations.  

Higher  costs  for  compliance  activities  do  not  arise  for  businesses,  as  was  indicated  by  the 
stakeholders  participating  in  the  workshop  organised  by  the  Commission.  Costs  for 
compliance  monitoring  and  due  diligence  are  driven  by  sectoral,  administrative  legislation 
and not by environmental criminal law.  

2.5. IMPACTS ON SMES  

Environmental  criminal  law  also  applies  to  small  and  medium  sized  enterprises  (SMEs).  In 
studies and reports, specific impacts on SMEs are not quantified or described. It is generally 
found  that  administrative  requirements  and  the  processes  they  require  are  relatively  more 
burdensome for SMEs than they are for larger businesses. However, as mentioned above, the 

177 

 
 
 
driving factors for due diligence investments and processes to limit environmental impacts lie 
in administrative sectoral law, rather than criminal law. Therefore, only in cases where SMEs 
would be subject to lower emissions or safety requirements under administrative law, would 
expanded criminal law result in higher costs. Such different levels of standards could not be 
found in key legislation included in the current Annex or in areas considered to be included in 
the revised scope of the Directive.  

In interviews262, stakeholders express two main considerations for impacts on SMEs. On the 
one hand, two interviewees express  concerns about  the higher risks that  SMEs face  in  their 
overall  economic  existence.  Legal  capacity  is  described  as  generally  lower,  and  fines  may 
threaten a business completely. This is in particular mentioned in relation to the approach in 
which criminal environmental law is decoupled from administrative law. Here, fines could be 
imposed  without  wrongdoing  under  sectoral  law  according  to  the  interviewees,  with  higher 
impacts  for  SMEs  with  their  limited  legal  and  due  diligence  capacity.  However,  sanctions 
such as fines linked to the profit of a crime or the economic situation of a business would take 
into account the smaller size of SMEs and ensure that fines reflect this parameter.  

On the other hand, one interviewee mentions that SMEs, as part of the entirety of legitimate 
businesses, would benefit from the reduced illegal market.  

In  conclusion,  a  strengthened  Directive  would  likely  have  positive  impacts  on  SMEs.  This 
however depends on the exact design of the revisions as risks for SMEs may increase from a 
decoupling, but also the benefits increase from sanctions linked to the economic situation.  

3.  TYPES OF ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME AND THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND 

ECONOMIC IMPACTS 

3.1. ILLEGAL LOGGING AND TIMBER TRADE  

Forestry  crimes  refer to  the process  consisting of illegal  activities from  pre-logging (getting 
permits),  illegal  logging,  illegal  transportation  and  illegal  processing.  According  to 
INTERPOL’s  2018  World  Atlas  of  Illicit  Financial  Flows263,  forestry  crimes  have  been 
reported as the most significant environmental crime with respect to volume of criminal gains. 
In 2018 alone, the total cost of forestry crime and illegal logging was estimated at  USD 51-
152 billion264. The issue seems to have worsened over time, as UNEPT estimated the cost of 
this crime at USD 30-100 billion per year before 2014265. Illegal logging accounts for as much 

262  It  should  be  noted  that  all  stakeholder  consultation  activities  received  little  attention  from  organisations  representing 
specifically SMEs. With three EU-level SME organisations contacted for an interview, no interview could be scheduled 
in time for this report due to lacking responses. 

263 UNEP (2018), The State of Knowledge of Crimes That Have Serious Impacts on the Environment. 
264 Nellemann, C.; Henriksen, R., Pravettoni, R., Stewart, D., Kotsovou, M., Schlingemann, Shaw, M. and Reitano, T. (Eds). 
2018.  World  atlas  of  illicit  flows.  A  RHIPTO-INTERPOL-GI  Assessment.  RHIPTO  -Norwegian  Center  for  Global 
Analyses, INTERPOL and the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized crime. 

265 UNEP and Interpol, 2016.  

178 

 
 
                                                 
as 10-30% of the total logging worldwide, with some estimates as high as 20-50%266 when 
laundering of illegal wood is included. According to a WWF report267, the EU is responsible 
for almost EUR 3 billion of losses due to illegal logging, with an import of around 20 million 
cubic meters of illegal timber every year. 

In 2013, the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR)268 entered into force, having the aim of ensuring 
that  timber  and  timber-related  products  on  the  European  market  are  legal,  by  prohibiting 
imports of illegally harvested timber and products. A study by the WWF published in 2019269 
found that there were significant enforcement gaps in this area. Maximum fines vary greatly 
among Member States,  ranging from  EUR 2 500 to  EUR 24 000 000, often remaining well 
below  the  maximum  limits.  Sanctions  were  also  often  only  applied  in  cases  of  repeated 
shortcomings and warnings270.  

3.1.1.  CURRENT STATUS IN THE EU 

Although illegal logging and timber trade primarily impact regions most at risk of large-scale 
deforestation (e.g. the Amazon, Borneo, the Congo Basin, the Greater Mekong, New Guinea 
and  Sumatra),  it  is  also  a  threat  within  the  EU  itself,  including  some  of  Europe’s  last 
remaining  old-growth  forests271.  Specifically,  illegal  logging  affects  the  ancient  forests  of 
Central and South East Europe. In Bulgaria, illegal operations made up around a quarter of 
all  logging  in  2006-2013,  generating  hidden  revenue  of  over  EUR  50  million  per  year.  In 
Romania,  significant  progress  has  been  made  in  recent  years  to  address  illegal  logging 
practices,  but  the  issue  remains  a  challenge  because  the  country  holds  around  60%  of 
Europe’s  remaining  old-growth  forests,  which  are  home  to  more  large  mammals,  including 
brown bear, wolves and lynx, than are found in the rest of the EU combined272. In 2020, the 
Commission  started  an  infringement  procedure  against  Romania,  arguing  that  national 
authorities  have  been  unable  to  effectively  check  the  operators  and  apply  appropriate 
sanctions and that inconsistences in the national legislation do not allow them to check large 

266  Nellemann,  C.  (Editor  in  Chief);  Henriksen,  R.,  Kreilhuber,  A., Stewart,  D.,  Kotsovou,  M.,  Raxter, P.,  Mrema,  E.,  and 
Barrat,  S.  (Eds).  2016.  The  Rise  of  Environmental  Crime  –  A  Growing  Threat  To  Natural  Resources  Peace, 
Development  And  Security.  A  UNEP  INTERPOL  Rapid  Response  Assessment.  United  Nations  Environment 
Programme and RHIPTO Rapid Response–Norwegian Center for Global Analyses.  

267  WWF, 

Europe’s 
https://wwfeu.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/failingforests.pdf. 

Forests 

Failing 

2016. 

the 

illegal 

timber 

trade. 

Available 

at: 

268  Regulation  (EU)  No  995/2010  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  October  2010  laying  down  the 

obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market (Text with EEA relevance). 

269  WWF  (2019),  WWF  Enforcement  Review  of  the  EU  Timber  Regulation  (EUTR),  EU  Synthesis  Report.  The  Member 
States  studied  are:  Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Denmark,  France,  Germany,  Hungary,  Italy,  the  Netherlands, 
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and the UK.  

270 WWF, 2019. WWF Enforcement Review of the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR), EU Synthesis Report, page 3.  
271 WWF, 2015. Illegal timber in the EU: Why the EU Timber Regulation should be improved.  
272 Ibid.  

179 

 
 
                                                 
amounts of illegally harvested timber273. The evaluation of the ECD also found that this type 
of crime is particularly common in Hungary, Latvia and Lithuania274.  

All  of  these  countries  have  gaps  in  terms  of  the  degree  to  which  their  national  legislation 
provides for penalties in response to breaches of the regulation275.  

As  reported  by  the  Commission276,  throughout  the  EU,  there  are  9  countries  where 
infringements  can  be  both  administrative  and  criminal,  11  where  they  can  be  only 
administrative, and 7 where they can be only criminal. In all Member States except for Italy, 
notices of remedial action or similar (all reporting countries except Italy) can be issued where 
shortcomings are detected. These allow operators to adjust their due diligence system prior to 
being re-checked. They can be combined with interim measures such as seizure of timber or 
prohibition to place it on the internal market. As for fines applicable to infringements of the 
EUTR, there was a large range from as little as EUR 50 to unlimited fines. 

  Up  to  EUR  100  000:  Austria,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Greece,  Hungary,  Italy,  Lithuania, 

Malta, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia;  

  Up  to  EUR  1  000  000:  Czech  Republic,  France,  Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Luxembourg, 

Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia and Spain; 

  Above EUR 1 000 000: Belgium, Estonia. 

  No  limit:  Denmark,  Finland,  Sweden,  Germany  (criminal  fines  for  breaches  of 

prohibition).  

Breaches of the EUTR are punishable by imprisonment in 17 countries, with 10 years being 
the longest potential maximum sentence (Greece). 

3.1.2.  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Illegal logging and illegal trade in timber contribute to deforestation, habitat destruction and 
biodiversity decline277. This in turn leads to the loss of important environmental services such 
as soil quality, water retention and the stability of local climate systems. The increase in flood 
risk, landslides, as well as the erosion of coastal zones has also been related to these types of 
crimes278.  

273  Infringement  decisions,  February  2020.  Available  at:  https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/inf_20_202 

(last accessed 14 June 2021).  

274  European  Commission,  2020.  Commission  staff  working  document  –  Evaluation  of  the  Directive  2008/99/EC  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the protection of the environment through. Available 
at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/evaluation_-_swd2020259_-_part_1_0.pdf. 

275  UN  WCMC,  2020.  Key  obligations  and  practical  aspects  of  the  application  of  the  EUTR  –  2019.  Available  at: 

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/30092020_EUTR%20MS%20Key%20obligations%20and%20practical%2
0aspects%20of%20implementation%20and%20enforcement%202019.pdf. 

276 European Commission, 2020. EUTR Biennial report for the period March 2017 - February 2019, COM/2020/629 final.  
277 World Bank Group, 2019.  
278 UNEP, 2018.  

180 

 
 
                                                 
Moreover,  forests  are  carbon  sinks,  and  therefore  their  depletion  can  impact  climate 
change279. Climate change is also affected by the greenhouse gases created by the clearing and 
burning  of  trees,  which  has  recently  been  seen  in  a  number  of  tropical  forest  basins280.  EU 
forests  absorb  the  equivalence  of  8.9%  of  total  EU  greenhouse  gas  emissions  yearly, 
consequently playing an important role in achieving Carbon neutrality281. 

3.1.3.  SOCIAL IMPACTS 

Illegal  logging  and trade in  timber can have impacts  on human health, such as the  cause of 
spread  of  diseases  from  animals  to  humans282.  According  to  UNEP283,  examples  of  this 
include  the  transmission  of  Ebola  and  Lyme  disease  which  can  be  attributed  to  land  use 
change and deforestation.  

In addition, according to the World Bank Group284, the failure to protect a community’s rights 
to  forests  threatens  the  rights  and  livelihoods  of  residents,  which  can  result  in  conflict. 
Deforestation  also  damages  the  aesthetic  and  cultural  value  of  forests.  Corruption,  which  is 
often closely associated with illegal forestry, also leads to weakened  governance and rule of 
law, as well as resulting in regional instability and migration.  

These  social  impacts  are  less  directly  associated  with  illegal  logging  in  the  EU,  but  by 
importing  illegal  timber  from  (developing)  countries,  the  EU’s  Member  States  might 
contribute to these problems elsewhere.  

3.1.4.  ECONOMIC IMPACTS 

Illegal  forestry  depletes  natural  resources  and  deprives  nations  of  revenues.  In  2017  it  was 
reported that between USD 6 121 million and USD 8 987 million across 56 countries was lost 
in tax revenue due to illegal logging.285 The loss in tax revenue stifles economic growth in the 
source country and increases development risks and vulnerabilities in other regions.  

279 European Commission, 2016. What are the environmental, economic, social and criminal impacts of wildlife trafficking 
at: 

and 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/4/pdf/environmental_economic_social_criminal_impacts.pdf. 

Available 

logging? 

illegal 

280 World Bank Group, 2019.  
281 European Parliament, 2020.  
Sustainable 

forestry: 

Parliament’s 

work 

to 

fight 

deforestation. 

Available 

at: 

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/eu-affairs/20201015STO89416/sustainable-forestry-parliament-s-
work-to-fight-deforestation. 

282 UNEP, 2018.  
283  UNEP,  2014.  UNEP  YEAR  BOOK  2014:  EMERGING  ISSUES  IN  OUR  GLOBAL  ENVIRONMENT  Available  at: 

https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/9240. 

284 World Bank Group, 2019.  
285 Blundell, A.G., E.W. Harwell, E.T. Niesten, and M. Wolosin. 2018.  The Economic Impact at the National Level of the 
Illegal  Conversion  of  Forests  for  Export-Driven  Industrial  Agriculture.  Washington,  DC:  Climate  Advisers,  Natural 
Capital Advisors, and Forest Climate Analytics. 

181 

 
 
                                                 
A substantial part of the economic losses associated with illegal logging relate to the loss of 
ecosystem services, which are not currently priced by the market286. 

Box 2. Example – Illegal logging in Romania  

Example – Illegal logging in Romania  

Illegal logging in Romania is widespread. Although some debates exist regarding the actual extent 
of  it,  claims  have  been  made  that  as  much  as  20  million  m3 of  wood  is  illegally  harvested  every 
year287. 

Romania is home to two-thirds of Europe’s last remaining virgin forests and large populations of 
bears, wolves and lynx. Based on an analysis of data by Greenpeace together with the university of 
Maryland, it was concluded that in the period 2000 – 2014, Romania had lost as much as 280 000 
hectares of forest with almost half of this area represented by protected areas and national parks.288 
The Romanian national forest inventory reported that 49% of the timber cut down during the period 
2008-2014 was done illegally289. 

In 2020, the European Commission announced that it would pursue legal action against Romanian 
Authorities  for  their  failure  to  address the issue.  Among  other things  the  Commission  found  that 
protected  forest  habitats  within  the  Natura  2000  sites  in  breach  of  the  Habitats  and  Birds 
Directive290. 

In addition, illegal logging in Romania has strong links to organised crime and corruption. Workers 
attempting to protect the trees have been killed, causing protestors in the capital to call for action 
from the government291,292. 

3.2. CRIMES OCCURRING IN THE FISHERIES SECTOR, INCLUDING IN ASSOCIATION WITH 

IUU FISHING 

Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing is a broad term that captures a wide variety 
of  fishing  and  fishing  related  activities,  such  as  fishing  without  a  valid  license,  fishing  in  a 
restricted  area,  or  fishing  in  a  way  non-consistent  with  national  laws  or  international 
obligations293.  It  concerns  all  aspects  and  stages  of  the  capture  and  utilisation  of  fish.  IUU 
fishing  shall  be  distinguished  from  fishery  crimes  or  offences,  including  those  having  a 
transnational nature, which are connected with fishing operations, such as the trade of catches 
fished illegally, or human rights violations on board fishing vessels, which may however also 

ILLEGAL  LOGGING 

IN  ROMANIA’S  FORESTS  2018  REPORT  Available  at: 

286 World Bank Group, 2019.  
287  GreenPeace,  2018. 
https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-romania-stateless/2019/11/5cbe6848-greenpeace-illegal-logging-report-2018.pdf. 
288 GreenPeace, 2018.  
289 EIA, 2016. Saving Europe’s last virgin forests. Available at: https://eia-global.org/subinitiatives/romania. 
290 
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/inf_20_202. 
291 BBC, 2019. Romanians protest over illegal logging and murders. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-
50287999 
292 

virgin 
https://www.euronews.com/2020/03/13/romania-s-virgin-forests-ravaged-by-wood-mafia. 

European  Commission, 

decisions.  Available 

'wood  mafia'. 

infringements 

Euronews, 

Romania's 

Available 

February 

package: 

ravaged 

forests 

2020. 

2020. 

key 

at: 

by 

at: 

293  A  comprehensive  definition  of  IUU  fishing  is  provided  in  the  FAO  International  Plan  of  Action.  Available  at: 

http://www.fao.org/3/Y3536E/y3536e04.htm. 

182 

 
 
                                                 
constitute a criminal offence. Only offences related to environmental damage would fall in the 
scope of being criminalised under this Directive. 

It  should  be  noted  that  data  on  IUU  fishing  and  related  activities  is  very  sparse  and  often 
several years old. Therefore, existing estimations have to be treated with care, keeping these 
limitations  in  mind.  However,  these  data  and  estimations  are  presented  below  in  order  to 
indicate the magnitude.  

According  to  information  material  of  the  European  Commission294,  based  on  2009 
estimations, IUU fishing practices represent approximatively 11-19% of the reported value 
of catches worldwide. There are a number of estimates of the annual loss of resources from 
such  IUU  fishing  practices.  UNEP  and  Interpol295  reported  in  2016  an  economic  loss  of 
around USD 11- 30 billion a year worldwide based on data from 2003-2009. Other estimates 
of IUU fishing includes an annual 10–26 million metric tonnes of fish, with a value of up to 
USD 10 billion to USD 23 billion, and 12–28 million metric tonnes of fish at a value of USD 
16–37  billion.296.  While  the  mentioned  limitations  apply,  this  shows  that  environmental 
damage related to IUU fishing is an issue of global scale.  

The  EU  has  taken  action  to  limit  and  counteract  illicit  fishing  with  strong  regulations.  The 
Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) has been in place for several decades and it has undergone a 
series of amendments in recent years. In particular, a Regulation on IUU fishing entered into 
force  in  January  2010,  based  on  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1005/2008  of  29  September 
2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and 
unregulated fishing, implemented by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1010/2009. The IUU 
Regulation  includes  a  harmonised  system  of  proportionate  and  dissuasive  sanctions  for 
serious infringements, which is complemented by the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) 
1224/2009  of  20  November  2009  establishing  a  Union  control  system  for  ensuring 
compliance  with  the  rules  of  the  CFP  (Controls  Regulation).  The  relevant  EU  legislation 
entered into force after the ECD adoption in 2008. None of the CFP legislative acts is listed in 
the current Annex of the Environmental Crime Directive.  

3.2.1.  CURRENT STATUS IN THE EU  

Unfortunately,  there  are  no  robust  estimates  of  the  degree  of  involvement  of  EU  vessels  in 
IUU fishing, primarily because of the secretive nature of IUU activities297. There is however 
evidence  to  suggest  that  this  does  take  place298.  In  the  past,  the  OECD299  has  reported  on 

294  European  Commission,  2021.  Tackling  illegal,  unreported  and  unregulated  (IUU)  fishing.  Available  at:  Illegal  fishing 

(europa.eu). 

295  UNEP  and  Interpol,  2016.  The  Rise  of  Environmental  Crime  –  A  Growing  Threat  To  Natural  Resources  Peace, 

Development And Security. Available at: https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/7662. 

296 World Bank Group, 2019. Illegal logging, fishing, and wildlife trade: the costs and how to combat it. Available at: Illegal-

Logging-Fishing-and-Wildlife-Trade-The-Costs-and-How-to-Combat-it (1).pdf. 

297 European Parliament, 2014. Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing: Sanctions in the EU. 
298 Member States keep registries of CFP violations and report these to the Commission on a 5-year basis. However, this data 

is not publicly available. 

183 

 
 
                                                 
examples  of  ships  flying  multiple  flags  with  the motivation  of  avoiding  rules  and  operating 
freely  in  different  areas.  The  Regulation  on  the  sustainable  management  of  external  fishing 
fleets300 (SMEFF Regulation), as part of the CFP legislation, provides a legal framework for 
flagging and fishing authorisations.  

That being said, the EU has taken steps with the objective to reduce the occurrence of crimes 
related to the fisheries sector within and beyond its borders through the three pillars of CFP 
legislation  (IUU  regulation,  Controls  Regulation  and  SMEFF  Regulation).  Looking  at  the 
trade of non-certified catches, for instance, in October 2018, a police operation coordinated by 
Europol led to the arrest of 79 people involved in the traffic of illegally caught Bluefin tuna. 
The fish were caught illegally in Italian and Maltese waters and exported to Spain through 
French  ports.  It  is  believed  that  the  value  of  this  traffic  represented  more  than  EUR  12 
million a year301.  

The IUU Regulation sets sanctions for serious infringements of its provisions that can amount 
to five or eight (in case of repeated action) time the value of fishery products obtained through 
the infringement302. A recent review of sanctions under the EU Common Fisheries Policy by 
Milieu  identified  that  almost  all  Member  States  (all  except  Ireland,  Lithuania  and  Poland) 
provide for both administrative and criminal sanctions in their national laws. The others have 
only  criminal  sanctions  (Ireland)  or  administrative  sanctions  (Lithuania,  Poland,  Slovenia). 
However, in  practice, administrative sanctions are much more commonly used in  almost  all 
Member  States  (all  except  Belgium,  Ireland,  Malta  and  the  Netherlands  where  criminal 
sanctions are more common)303.  

The  study  conducted  by  Milieu  also  underlined  the  advantages  of  relying  on  administrative 
sanctions for CFP violations. In fact, unlike criminal sanctions, administrative sanctions can 
be imposed and enforced more rapidly (without any risk of prescription due to the length of 
proceedings),  and  require  a  lower  standard  of  proof  for  sanctioning  fisheries  offences.  The 
same study also noted how “an administrative sanctioning system does not necessarily imply 
[…]  the  application  of  lighter  sanctions”,304  providing  examples  (Spain,  and  Cyprus)  where 
the levels of administrative sanctions overtake those set out under criminal law. This goes in 

299  OECD,  2006.  Closing  the  net:  Stopping  illegal  fishing  in  the  high  seas.  Available  at:  http://www.oecd.org/sd-

roundtable/papersandpublications/39375276.pdf. 

300  Regulation  (EU)  2017/2403  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  12  December  2017  on  the  sustainable 

management of external fishing fleets, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008. 

301  https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/how-illegal-bluefin-tuna-market-made-over-eur-12-million-year-selling-

fish-in-spain. 

302 Article 44 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate 
illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, amending Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1936/2001 and (EC) No 
601/2004 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 1093/94 and (EC) No 1447/1999. 

303  Milieu  Consulting,  2021.  Study  on  the  sanctioning  systems  of  Member  States  for  infringements  to  the  rules  of  the 

Common Fisheries Policy.  

304 Ibid., p. 208.  

184 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
the same direction of the 2018 Commission proposal for a revised fisheries control system,305 
which  at  Articles  89  and  89a  would  require  Member  States  to  lay  down  administrative 
measures and sanctions to punish the breaching of CFP rules. 

A  report  from  the  European  Commission  describes  the  progress  made  in  combatting  IUU 
fishing  as  a  result  of  the  IUU  Regulation.  However,  the  report  concludes  that  the  control 
system  could  be  improved.  A  2018  report306  identified  declines  in  imports  across  the  EU, 
except  for  a  few  variations307.  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  only  an  identification  of  a 
country as non-cooperating (“red card”) followed by a listing results in a ban of imports from 
that  country.  “Yellow  cards”  (pre-identification  of  a  country  as  non-cooperating)  does  not 
have this same consequence.   

3.2.2.  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Reducing  or  stopping  illicit  fishing  activities  in  the  EU,  would  contribute  to  fighting  over-
harvesting  and  pressuring  fish  stocks,  which  may  already  be  under  pressure  from 
unsustainable  rates  of  legal  fishing  activities.  It  can  thereby  contribute  to  preventing  the 
depletion  of  fish  stocks.  Illegal  fishing  activities  directly  affect  their  target  fish  species. 
Moreover,  reducing  illegal  fishing  activities  also  benefit  directly  and  indirectly  non-target 
commercial species and nonmarketable fish, as well as protected and vulnerable species and 
their  habitats.  In  general,  IUU  fishing  threatens  marine  biodiversity  and  can  have  serious 
detrimental impacts on marine ecosystems and the services that these provide308, which can be 
alleviated from further action to reduce crimes related to illicit fishing.   

IUU fishing can also cause additional indirect environmental impacts, as it can be the source 
of  pollution  from  the  discharge  of  organic  waste  from  the  processing  of  catches,  non-
biodegradable litter such as lost nets, emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, 
and the alteration of tropic structure and function through targeting low tropic level fish and 

305  European  Commission,  2018.  Proposal  for  a  REGULATION  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  OF  THE 
COUNCIL amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, and amending Council Regulations (EC) No 768/2005, 
(EC)  No  1967/2006,  (EC)  No 1005/2008,  and  Regulation  (EU)  No 2016/1139  of  the  European Parliament  and of  the 
Council  as 
final.  Available  at:  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1529594401208&uri=CELEX:52018PC0368. 

fisheries  control.  COM/2018/368 

regards 

306 Mundy, V. 2018. The impact of the EU IUU Regulation on seafood trade flows: Identification of intra-EU shifts in import 
trends  related  to  the  catch  certification  scheme  and  third  country  carding  process.  Environmental  Justice  Foundation, 
Oceana, The Pew Charitable Trusts, WWF. Brussels, Belgium. 

307 For instance, Italy reported sudden increases or random peaks in trade that coincided with the yellow carding decisions for 
eight  out  of  the  13  carded  countries  authorised  to  export  seafood  to  the  EU  during  the  period  2005-2016.  Trade 
anomalies  primarily  concerned  tuna  (frozen,  whole;  fillets/meat;  prepared  and  preserved)  and  swordfish  (fresh/chilled 
and frozen, whole; fillets/meat). The Netherlands and France also reported increased imports or peaks in trade following 
the  Regulation’s  entry  into  force  or  around  certain  carding decisions,  e.g.  the  Netherlands  for prepared  and preserved 
tuna  from  Ghana  and  Thailand,  and  France  for  frozen  swordfish/shark  from  Belize,  frozen  yellowfin  tuna  from  the 
Philippines  and  fresh/  chilled  yellowfin  tuna  from  Sri  Lanka.  Random  peaks  in  trade  and  other  trade  anomalies  were 
reported  by  Member  States  that  were  not  considered  major  importers  of  seafood  in  the  EU,  e.g.  Austria,  Belgium, 
Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. 

308 EFFACE, 2015. Report on Illegal Fishing. 

185 

 
 
                                                 
discarding309.  Furthermore,  IUU  fishing  obstructs  fisheries  managers  from  effectively 
managing  fish  stocks  in  a  sustainable  manner;  because  of  the  uncertainty  associated  with 
estimates of IUU catches will impede stock assessments310. These impacts could be reduced, 
with stronger prevention of crimes related to IUU fishing.  

In  the  EU,  this  affects  mostly  coastal  Member  States,  notably  those  bordering  the  Atlantic 
Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. 

3.2.3.  SOCIAL IMPACTS 

Actions  to  further  reduce  environmental  offences  related  to  IUU  fishing  also  have  social 
benefits.  Through  the  additional  pressure  it  exerts  on  depleting  fish  stocks,  IUU  fishing 
reduces  the  resources  available  for  legitimate  fishing  activities,  thereby  negatively  effecting 
legal  employment  opportunities  in  the  sector311.  According  to  Eurostat312,  the  primary 
fisheries  industry  in  the  EU-27  employed  approximately  163  000  workers  in  2018,  where 
three  quarters  was  centred  in  Spain,  Italy,  Greece,  France  and  Portugal.  The  reduction  of 
fishing  resources  due  to  IUU  fishing  can  lead  to  reduced  profits  and  potentially 
unemployment.    

The EU is a net importer of fish and seafood products313. A significant proportion of imports 
to  the  EU  originates  from  developing  countries314,  making  the  effects  of  IUU  fishing  on 
poorer populations and developing countries relevant also in an EU context. A publication by 
the  World  Bank  Group315  reports  that  the  depletion  of  fish  stocks  and  loss  of  ecosystem 
function and services  associated with  illegal  fishing negatively  affects  poor populations  and 
their future development opportunities. The reduction in fish stocks brought by illegal fishing 
can  also  threaten  food  security  for  certain  communities316.  This  practice  particularly  affects 
small-scale  fishing  communities 
in  developing  countries,  with  significant  negative 
implications for their development and livelihoods317. Although not directly applicable to the 
EU context, it is an important impact nonetheless.  

In  addition  to  this,  some  international  organised  crime  groups  have  been  identified  as  also 
involved in IUU fishing, leading these practices to be associated with serious crimes such as 

309 EFFACE, 2015. Report on Illegal Fishing. 
310 Watson, R. and Pauly, D., 2001. Systematic distortions in world fisheries catch trends. Nature, 414(6863), pp.534-536. 
311 EFFACE, 2015. Report on Illegal Fishing. 
312 

Agriculture, 

statistics, 

Eurostat, 

forestry 

fishery 

2020. 

2020 

and 

Edition. 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/12069644/KS-FK-20-001-EN-N.pdf/a7439b01-671b-80ce-85e4-
4d803c44340a?t=1608139005821. 
Commission, 

European 

market, 

2015. 

2015 

The 

fish 

EU 

edition. 

https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/february/tradoc_154321.pdf. 

European 

2018. 
https://www.eumofa.eu/documents/20178/132648/EN_The+EU+fish+market+2018.pdf. 

Commission, 

The 

fish 

EU 

Market, 

2018 

Edition. 

313 

314 

315 World Bank Group, 2019. Illegal logging, fishing, and wildlife trade: the costs and how to combat it.  
316  UNEP,  2018.  The  State  of  Knowledge  of  Crimes  that  have  Serious  Impacts  on  the  Environment.  Available  at: 

https://www.unep.org/resources/publication/state-knowledge-crimes-have-serious-impacts-environment. 

317 EFFACE, 2015. Report on Illegal Fishing.  

186 

 
 
                                                 
the trafficking in persons, drugs and arms, smuggling of migrants and terrorism. For instance, 
forced labour can take place on IUU fishing vessels318.  

3.2.4.  ECONOMIC IMPACTS 

Similarly  to  environmental  and  social  ones,  economic  impacts  from  environmental  offences 
related  to  IUU  fishing  can  also  be  mitigated.  As  it  is  not  compliant  with  regulations,  IUU 
fishing  reduces  profits  for  the  legal  fishing  sector  and  its  ancillary  industries  and  produces 
losses of fishing licence fees, taxes and levies for nation states. In addition, IUU fishing can 
disrupt the market by creating higher supplies, which may lower the price of legally captured, 
harvested or farmed fish, thus further affecting the incomes of legitimate fishers319.  

Considering  all  effects,  including  non-environmental  ones,  the  economic  loss  caused  by 
illegal  fishing  is  estimated  at  USD  9  to  USD  15  billion  annually  for  developing  countries, 
USD 1 billion of which is from African countries alone320. As mentioned above, illegal  and 
unreported  caught  fish  has  been  reported  to  account  for  as  much  as  19  percent  of  reported 
catches worldwide, generating an annual amount of 12–28 million metric tonnes of fish at a 
value of USD 16–37 billion321. No estimates are available for the economic loss suffered  in 
the EU alone.  

Focusing  specifically  on  the  costs  of  the  destruction  of  ecosystems  and  the  services  they 
provide (e.g. carbon sinks, generation of food stocks, etc.), environmental damages linked to 
the  fisheries  sector  have  been  estimated  to  cause  an  annual  natural  capital  loss  of  USD  17 
million (calculated as Net Present Value with 30 years and three percent discount rate)322. A 
significant  part  of  this  loss  can  be  attributed  to  the  destruction  of  coral  reefs  and  the 
ecosystems  services  they  provide  in  the  form  of  coastal  protection,  tourism  and  recreation, 
biodiversity and fisheries323. 

Box 3. Example – Illegal fishing and trade of Bluefin tuna  

Example – Illegal fishing and trade of Bluefin tuna 

In  2018,  Spanish  authorities  arrested  80  persons  for  their  involvement  in  the  illegal  fishing  and  trade  of 
bluefin tuna in Italian and Maltese waters. Their illegal catches of bluefin tuna entering the EU market were 
reported to generate an annual profit of EUR 12.5 million324. 

Bluefin Tuna was in the beginning of the 1990s at risk of extinction after significant overfishing in the 1980s. 

318 EFFACE, 2015. Report on Illegal Fishing. 
319  EFFACE,  2014.  Understanding  the  damages  of  environmental  crime  -  Review  of  the  availability  of  data:  Annexes. 

Available at: https://www.ecologic.eu/sites/default/files/news/2015/efface_3.1_annexes_final.pdf. 

320  Stimson,  2015.  Environmental  Crime.  Defining  the  Challenge  as  a  Global  Security  Issue  and  Setting  the  Stage  for 

Integrated Collaborative Solutions. Available at: http://www.stimson.org/enviro-crime/. 

321World Bank Group, 2019. Illegal logging, fishing, and wildlife trade: the costs and how to combat it. Available at: Illegal-

Logging-Fishing-and-Wildlife-Trade-The-Costs-and-How-to-Combat-it (1).pdf. 

322 World Bank Group, 2019. 
323 World Bank Group, 2019. 
324 WWF, 2018. EUR 12.5 million illegal bluefin tuna trade exposes threat to sustainable fisheries in Europe. Available at: 
https://wwf.panda.org/?336830/125-million-illegal-bluefin-tuna-trade-exposes-threat-to-sustainable-fisheries-in-Europe. 

187 

 
 
                                                 
Since then, recovery plans and other measures have been put in place to ensure the recovery and survival of 
the species. Illegal trade and fishing threaten the recovery of the stocks, in addition to creating competition for 
the legal market and financing further illegal activity325. 

3.3. POACHING / WILDLIFE CRIMES 

As  presented  in  a  key  guidance  from  the  EU  Commission,  wildlife  crimes  concern  a  wide 
range  of  offences  defined  by  EU  legislation326.  The  current  Directive  criminalises  trading 
(supplying, selling or trafficking), importing, exporting, processing, possessing, obtaining and 
consumption of protected wild fauna and flora as well as deteriorations of protected habitats. 
Protected species and habitats relate to ones with protection status within the EU (e.g. Birds 
and  Habitats  directives)  or  outside  of  it  (e.g.  CITES  Regulation  implementing  the 
international convention). As a potential revision, its scope could include the use in any kind 
of  habitats  of  poison,  poisoned  baits,  explosives  or  any  other  instrument  with  similar 
destructive capacity or non-selective effectiveness for wildlife.  

A study from UNEP estimates that the annual loss resources from the illegal trade in wildlife 
and  plants  revolves  around  USD  7-23  billion  a  year  worldwide327.  UNODC  reported  that 
around  20  762  seizures  of  wildlife  occurred  in  2018  alone,  and  that  nearly  6  000  species 
have been seized between 1999-2018 worldwide328. The EU is a signatory to the Convention 
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which aims 
to  ensure  that  international  trade  in  specimens  of  wild  animals  and  plants  does  not  threaten 
their  survival.  It    accords  varying  degrees  of  protection  to  more  than  30  000  species  of 
animals and plants. CITES is implemented in the EU through a set of Regulations known as 
the  EU  Wildlife  Trade  Regulations329.  Additionally,  the  EU  legislation  on  nature  protection 
and conservation provides protection status of different level to species as well. Although the 
EU Wildlife Trade Regulations are directly applicable in all EU Member States, the necessary 
enforcement  provisions  must  be  transferred  into  national  legislation  and  supplemented  with 
national laws, and Member States must ensure that infractions are punished in an appropriate 

325  MSC,  2020.  Recent  history  of  Atlantic  bluefin  tuna.  Available  at:  https://www.msc.org/species/tuna/recent-history-of-
bluefin-tuna. 
326 European Commission, 2021. Combating environmental crimes and related infringements.  
327  UNEP  and  Interpol,  2016.  The  Rise  of  Environmental  Crime  –  A  Growing  Threat  to  Natural  Resources  Peace, 

Development And Security. Available at: https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/7662. 

328  UNOCD,  2020.  World  Wildlife  Crime  Report:  Trafficking 

in  protected 

species.  Available 

at: 

https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/wildlife/2020/World_Wildlife_Report_2020_9July.pdf . 

329 Currently these are Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating 
trade  therein  (the  Basic  Regulation),  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  865/2006  (as  amended  by  Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 100/2008, Commission Regulation (EU) No 791/2012 and Commission Implementing Regulation 
(EU) No 792/2012) laying down detailed rules concerning the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 
(the Implementing Regulation), and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 792/2012 of 23 August 2012 laying 
down  rules  for  the  design  of  permits,  certificates  and  other  documents  provided  for  in  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
338/97  on  the  protection  of  species  of  wild  fauna  and  flora  by  regulating  the  trade  therein  and  amending  Regulation 
(EC) No 865/2006 (the Permit Regulation).  

188 

 
 
 
                                                 
manner. Wildlife trafficking was recognised in 2017 as a priority under the EU fight against 
transnational  organised  crime,  which  led  to  more  resources  devoted  to  it  at  the  EU  and 
Member  State  levels  for  the  period  2018-2021330.  Major  cross-border  investigations  and 
seizures  of  illegally  traded  wildlife  products  have  been  carried  out  throughout  the  EU,  with 
the  active  involvement  of  Europol,  Eurojust  and  many  law  enforcement  agencies  from 
different Member States and other countries.  

In  addition  to  the  aspect  of  trafficking,  the  EU  Habitats  Directive331  and  Birds  Directive332 
(also  known  as  the  ‘Nature  Directives’)  ensure  the  conservation  of  a  wide  range  of  rare, 
threatened  or  endemic  animal  and  plant  species.  Some  200  rare  and  characteristic  habitat 
types  are  also  targeted  for  conservation  in  their  own  right,  along  with  the  500  wild  bird 
species naturally occurring in the EU.  

A  decoupling  of 
the  criminal  provisions  from  breach  of  existing  administrative 
(environmental)  law  in  the  framework  of  an  updated  ECD  could  potentially  extend  the 
wildlife currently covered beyond those species that are protected under the abovementioned 
pieces of legislation.  

3.3.1.  CURRENT STATUS IN THE EU  

In the EU, CITES-related seizures show an upward trend since 2011. In 2016, the competent 
authorities  of  EU  Member  States  reported  to  the  European  Commission  a  total  of  2  268 
significant seizures of wildlife commodities, 63% of them at external EU borders. More than 
two  tonnes  of  ivory  were  seized  in  2016,  destined  for  the  Asian  market.  In  2016-17,  48 
persons were arrested, and 4 000 kg of live juvenile eels seized; the eels were intercepted as 
they were being exported to Asia and their total value was approximately EUR 4 million333. 5 
644  seizure  records  were  reported  by  Member  States  in  2017;  6  012  in  2018;  and  6  441  in 
2019.334  Most  of  these  seizures  occurred  in  France,  Germany,  the  United  Kingdom,  Spain 
and  the  Netherlands.  The  reported  trade  value  of  illegal  wildlife  trade  was  a  minimum  of 
EUR 2.3 million in 2018 in the EU, representing an increase from 2017 when this value was 
at EUR 1.8 million. 60% of the seizure records for which a destination was reported were en 
route  to  EU  Member  States.  The  main  types  of  traded  commodities  were  medicinals  (both 
plant- and animal-derived), corals and reptile bodies, parts and derivatives335.  

330 European Commission, 2018. Progress report on the implementation of the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking, 

COM(2018) 711 final.  

331 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.  
332 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild 

birds.  

333 European Commission, 2018. Progress report on the implementation of the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking, 

COM(2018) 711 final.  

334  Annual  overviews  of  seizures  of  CITES-listed  wildlife  in  the  European  Union,  2017-2019.  Available  at: 

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/reports_en.htm#seizures_annual_illegal. 

335  European  Commission,  2018.  An  overview  of  seizures:  CITES-LISTED  WILDLIFE  IN  THE  EUROPEAN  UNION 

Available at: https://www.impel.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/eu-seizures-report-2020-final-web.pdf. 

189 

 
 
                                                 
A 2018 study by a group of NGOs found that 67% of the EU Member States had satisfactorily 
transposed the Nature Directives into national  law but  failed to  implement  them properly336. 
There are clear differences in the laws applied in each country. Some examples, taken from a 
2016 ENEC study covering 18 Member States337, include:  

  All  Member  States  analysed  have  included  negligence  in  the  definition  of  criminal 
offences. In some of them, negligence needs to be considered serious for the offence 
to be sanctioned as a criminal offence (Czechia, Germany, Spain, Netherlands). Others 
do  not  distinguish  between  serious  or  not  serious  negligence  or  do  not  explicitly 
require serious negligence (Greece, Italy, Portugal, Sweden).  

  All Member States have a list of protected species in their national legislation, except 
for  the  Netherlands  where  the  killing  or  taking  of  all  birds  is  prohibited  unless 
specifically excepted; Sweden where all birds are protected in the Game Law (though 
hunting seasons  for birds are constructed  as derogations  from  this  general  rule); and 
Malta  where  the  law  protects  all  species  of  avifauna  naturally  occurring  in  the  wild 
state  in  the  European  territory  of  EU  Member  States,  as  well  as  all  species  of  wild 
birds naturally occurring outside of such territory.  

  At  least  10  countries  (Bulgaria,  Greece,  Hungary,  Italy,  Lithuania,  Malta,  Portugal, 
Spain,  Sweden)  consider  the  illegal  use  of  poisoned  baits  as  a  criminal  offense  and 
punish with criminal penalties, with notable differences in type and severity.  

  Liability  is  established  for  legal  entities  in  Bulgaria,  Czechia,  Greece,  Lithuania, 
Luxembourg,  Portugal,  Spain,  and  Sweden.  Spain  has  implemented  administrative 
sanction procedures.  

  Regarding the use of rodenticides, 9 Member States include legal limitations for their 
use or marketing (Czechia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, 
Spain, and Sweden)  

  The  negligent  destruction  of  habitats  is  criminalized  in  Bulgaria,  Greece,  Hungary, 
Lithuania,  Malta,  Portugal,  the  Netherlands,  Spain  and  Sweden.  No  information  is 
available for other Member States. 

336 BirdLife, WWF, EEB and FoEE, 2018. The State of Implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives in the EU: An 

analysis by national environmental NGOs in 18 Member States.  

337  Study  on  the  implementation  of  Directive  2008/99/econ  the  Protection  of  the  Environment  Through  Criminal  Law. 
Available 
https://www.eufje.org/images/docPDF/Study-on-the-implementation-of-Directive-
2008_99_ENEC_SEO_BirdLife_May2016.pdf. The countries covered are: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, 
Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK. 

at: 

190 

 
 
                                                 
3.3.2.  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS  

Illegal  trade  in  wildlife  is  a  threat  to  biodiversity  and  contributes  to  the  endangerment  and 
extinction  of  species  in  source  countries.  This  practice  can  also  lead  to  the  introduction  of 
invasive species and pathogen pollution in import countries338.  

3.3.3.  SOCIAL IMPACTS 

Wildlife crimes can increase poverty and negatively impact food security and public health339.  

In addition to this, illegal wildlife trade can have broader consequences for specific countries, 
as  it  can  erode  state  authority,  fuel  civil  conflict  and  threaten  national  stability  and 
international security340. This is because organized crime and terrorist  groups can use illegal 
wildlife trafficking to destabilize countries and und arm deals. In source countries, indigenous 
people and rangers protecting biodiversity might also suffer threats of violence341. 

3.3.4.  ECONOMIC IMPACTS 

Wildlife crimes undermine legal global wildlife trade, and employment opportunities thereof, 
as well as they deprive governments of revenues and taxes from legal activities342. In addition 
to  this,  wildlife  crimes  particularly  impact  communities  living  near  endangered  species  as 
they are robbed of potential sources of income through wildlife tourism343.  

3.4. FOREST FIRE CRIMES (MAN-MADE FOREST FIRES) 

Forest  fire  crime  refers  to  the  wilful  and  malicious  burning  of  forests,  and  is  distinguished 
from fires which are spontaneously or naturally caused. According to the WWF344, as little as 
4%  of  forest  fires  worldwide  are  naturally  caused  (for  example  by  lightning  strikes, 
volcanic  eruptions  and  weather  events  such  as  drought  or  high  temperatures),  whereas  the 
remainder are caused by humans either intentionally by fire clearing or arson, or by careless 
behaviour. 

338 https://www.unep.org/resources/publication/state-knowledge-crimes-have-serious-impacts-environment. 
339 EFFACE, 2015. Report on Illegal Wildlife Trafficking. 
340 EFFACE, 2015. Report on Illegal Wildlife Trafficking. 
341 Maher J., Sollund R, 2016. Wildlife Trafficking: Harms and Victimization. In: Sollund R., Stefes C., Germani A. (eds) 
Fighting  Environmental  Crime  in  Europe  and  Beyond.  Palgrave  Studies  in  Green  Criminology.  Palgrave  Macmillan, 
London. https://doi-org.ezproxy.its.uu.se/10.1057/978-1-349-95085-0_5. 

342 European commission, 2016. What are the environmental, economic, social and criminal impacts of wildlife trafficking 
Available 

and 
at:https://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/4/pdf/environmental_economic_social_criminal_impacts.pdf. 

logging? 

illegal 

343  UNEP,  2018.  The  State  of  Knowledge  of  Crimes  that  have  Serious  Impacts  on  the  Environment.  Available  at: 

https://www.unep.org/resources/publication/state-knowledge-crimes-have-serious-impacts-environment. 

344 WWF, 2017. 

191 

 
 
                                                 
3.4.1.  CURRENT STATUS IN THE EU  

According  to  a  report  by  EFFACE,  in  the  period  2003-2012,  human-induced  forest  fires 
burned  a  total  area  of  1  535  572.41  hectares  in  the  EU  Member  State  countries345.  Spain, 
Italy and Portugal, Greece and France were the European countries most affected by forest 
fire crimes during the same period346. 

Social, environmental and economic damages caused by man-made forest fires are dependent 
on a multitude of factors including the geographical location, fire size and fire intensity. Some 
European  Member  States  are  worse  affected  than  others.  Southern  European  states  such  as 
Spain  and  Italy  are  particularly  hard  hit,  both  because  of  metrological  conditions  and  the 
frequency of fire crimes being committed347. 

3.4.2.  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

According to a report by EFFACE348, environmental impacts of man-made forest fires include 
effects  on  climate  change  due  to  GHG  emissions.    In  addition  to  their  release  of  carbon 
dioxide, forest fires account for 32% of global carbon monoxide, 10% of methane emissions 
and 86% of soot emissions.349  

Impacts  moreover  include  damages  to  vegetation,  peat  and  soils,  and  the  destruction  of 
habitats  for  wildlife350.  Depending  on  the  scale  and  location  of  the  fire,  effects  also  include 
damage  to  endangered  animal  and  plant  species351.  Moreover,  fires  directly  impact  benefits 
and resources derived from forests, including flood and drought regulation, nutrient recycling, 
and water and food provision.  

3.4.3.  SOCIAL IMPACTS 

Social impacts include negative health impacts caused by the smoke released from the fires. 
According  to  the  European  Commission352,  611  people  in  the  EU  died  as  a  direct  result  of 
forest fires in the period 2000-2017 (including both firefighters and civilians). Given that 96% 
of forest fires worldwide are human induced, a meaningful proportion of these deaths can be 
attributed to forest fire crimes353.  

In addition to fatalities, the indirect impacts are significant. According to the WHO354, forest 
fires cause health impacts related to the resulting smoke, ashes, and mercury released during 

345EFFACE, 2015. The Quantitative and Monetary Impacts of Forest Fire Crimes.  
346Ibid. 
347Ibid. 
348Ibid. 
349  WWF, 

effects 

forest 
https://www.wwf.de/fileadmin/fm-wwf/Publikationen-PDF/WWF-Study-Forests-Ablaze.pdf. 

2017.  FORESTS  ABLAZE:  Causes 

global 

and 

of 

350 EFFACE, 2015. The Quantitative and Monetary Impacts of Forest Fire Crimes.  
351 WWF, 2017.  
352 European Forest Fire Information System (EFFIS), EC PESETA II project report. 
353 WWF, 2017.  
354 WHO, 2021. Wildfires. Available at: https://www.who.int/health-topics/wildfires/#tab=tab_2. 

fires.  Available 

at: 

192 

 
 
                                                 
the fire. This includes for example lung related diseases such as bronchitis, and cardiovascular 
diseases  such  as  heart  failure.  The  effects  of  smoke  have  been  shown  to  be  particularly 
damaging to elderly and small children, as well as people with respiratory and cardiovascular 
diseases,  due  to  their  containing  of  toxic  substances  like  carbon  monoxide,  fine  dust, 
formaldehyde and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons355. The health effects of mercury include 
impairment of speech, hearing and walking356. A quantification of these effects in terms of the 
number  of  people  effected  does  not  exist  at  EU  level,  however  they  are  likely  to  be 
significant.  

Additional  effects  include costs which are difficult to  quantify, such  as the emotional stress 
and  damage  caused  by  the  destruction  of  homes  and  property,  loss  of  livelihoods,  and 
damages to cultural and historical sites357.  

3.4.4.  ECONOMIC IMPACTS 

Economic  impacts  include  costs  for  fire  suppression,  damages  to  infrastructure  and  private 
properties, loss of income from land, loss of jobs, and damages to industries such as tourism. 
No  Europe-wide  estimate  exits  of  the  costs  associated  with  forest  fire  crimes,  however, 
estimates  of  monetary  costs  from  specific  forest  fire  crimes  can  give  an  indication  of  the 
significance  of  the  monetary  impact.  EFFACE358  estimated  the  costs  of  three  forest  fire 
crimes in Italy as one of the European countries most effected by forest fire crimes (see Box 
4).  

To note here is that despite only a small proportion of the damages caused by man-made fires 
are  reflected  in  market  prices,  as  the  most  substantial  effects  are  on  ecosystems  and  the 
services they provide359.  

Box 4. Example – Forest fires in Italy  

Example – Forest fires in Italy 

A forest fire in Morfasso in the province of Piacenza, Italy in 2010 destroyed an area of 8.5 ha of 
woodland. The cause of the fire was determined to be negligence on the part of workers performing 
forest-cleaning operations in the area. Costs of fire extinction alone were estimated at EUR 100 
504.54. With additional estimates of the environmental damages, the total monetary impact of the 
fire was determined at EUR 117 089.  

Additional  examples  include  the  forest  fire  in  Monte  della  Croce  in  2011,  where  1.49  ha  of 
woodland  was  burnt,  costing  an  estimated  EUR    48  452;  or  the  fire  in  Rocca  Romana  in  2003, 
affecting an area of 22 ha and costing an estimated EUR  202 353. 

355 WWF, 2017. 
356 WHO, 2021. 
357 EFFACE, 2015. The Quantitative and Monetary Impacts of Forest Fire Crimes. 
358EFFACE, 2015. The Quantitative and Monetary Impacts of Forest Fire Crimes. 
359 WWF, 2017. 

193 

 
 
                                                 
10   

3.5. WASTE-RELATED CRIMES 

Waste  related  crimes  include  the  improper  collection,  transport,  recovery  and  disposal  of 
waste. The criminal actions can be of very differing nature and impact depending on the waste 
stream. For example, criminal non-compliance around hazardous waste can cause severe and 
long-lasting  damages,  while  illegal  shipments  may  cause  important  impacts  in  other  places, 
including outside of the EU360. Getting a clear and up-to-date view of the magnitude of waste 
related crimes is a challenging task, as only limited information is available.  

3.5.1.  CURRENT STATUS IN THE EU  

According  to  IMPEL361,  illegal  trafficking  in  waste  accounts  for  20%  of  all  the  waste 
shipments in the EU. The evaluation of the ECD362 estimated that in the EU, annual revenues 
from illicit trafficking of non-hazardous waste range between EUR 1.3 billion and EUR 10.3 
billion a year, and that for hazardous waste between EUR 1.5 billion and EUR 1.8 billion. 
Between 2010 and 2015, around 700-1000 illegal waste shipments were detected by Member 
States authorities, the majority of which was intra-EU (77% in the years 2014-2015). Notably, 
it is unlikely that these numbers reflect adequately the current situation, as many cases still go 
undetected363. 

Regarding  e-waste  in  particular,  a  study  on  illegal  e-waste  trade364  found  that  EU  Member 
States exported 1.3 million tonnes of e-waste and these transits were undocumented. In 2012, 
4.65 million tonnes of electronic waste alone were not properly managed or illegally traded 
within the EU.  

3.5.2.  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Waste  related  crimes  result  in  the  contamination  of  air,  land,  water  systems  and  can  pose  a 
threat  to  local  ecosystems,  affecting  animals  and  plants.  The  inappropriate  disposal  and 
processing of e-waste in particular leads to the release of large amounts of contaminants into 
the local environment, including heavy metals365.  

360 European Commission, 2021. Combating environmental crimes and related infringements. 
361 

EnviCrimeNet, 

Environmental 

Report 

2016. 

on 

Crime. 

Available 

at: 

http://www.envicrimenet.eu/images/docs/envicrimenet%20report%20on%20environmental%20crime.pdf. 

362  European  Commission,  2020.  COMMISSION  STAFF  WORKING  DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  of  the  DIRECTIVE 
2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the protection of the environment 
through 
at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/evaluation_-_swd2020259_-_part_1_0.pdf. 

(ENVIRONMENTAL 

DIRECTIVE) 

Available 

criminal 

CRIME 

law 

363 European Commission, 2020. 
364  Huisman  et  al,  2015.  Countering  WEEE  Illegal  Trade  (CWIT)  Summary  Report,  Market  Assessment,  Legal  Analysis, 
Crime  Analysis  and  Recommendations  Roadmap.  Lyon,  France  Available  at:  https://www.cwitproject.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2015/09/CWIT-Final-Report.pdf. 

365 Illés and Geeraerts, 2016. Illegal Shipments of E–waste from the EU to China. In: Sollund R., Stefes C., Germani A. (eds) 
Fighting  Environmental  Crime  in  Europe  and  Beyond.  Palgrave  Studies  in  Green  Criminology.  Palgrave  Macmillan, 
London. https://doi-org.ezproxy.its.uu.se/10.1057/978-1-349-95085-0_6. 

194 

 
 
                                                 
In addition to this, the illegal and inappropriate disposal of waste also brings a loss of valuable 
materials  that  could  have  instead  been  recycled  or  recovered366.  As  pointed  out  by  an 
interviewed  stakeholder,  this  can  take  place  both  as  dispersed  small-scale  contaminations 
originating  from  improper  household  waste  management  and  from  large-scale  organised 
violations of waste management legislation. 

3.5.3.  SOCIAL IMPACTS 

Waste related crimes, where associated with the release of contaminants into the environment 
(e.g.  including  affecting  drinking  water  and  food  chains),  can  threaten  human  health.  In 
particular,  the  illegal  disposal  of  e-waste  can  lead  to  the  emergence  of  physical  injuries  or 
chronic diseases for people involved in the inappropriate disposal (e.g. breathing difficulties, 
respiratory  irritation,  coughing,  chocking,  pneumonia,  tremors,  neuropsychiatric  problems, 
convulsions,  coma  or  even  death,  asthma,  skin  diseases,  eye  irritations,  stomach  disease, 
inflammatory response, oxidative stress, DNA damage)367.  

3.5.4.  ECONOMIC IMPACTS 

Illegal  disposal  of  (e-)waste  can  generate  revenue  for  operators  that  process  this  waste,  but 
also constitutes an economic loss for countries that generate the (e-)waste, as they miss out on 
the  gains  related  to  recycling  it368.  In  an  interview,  a  stakeholder  of  hazardous  waste 
management pointed out that organised crime plays an important role in the sector because of 
little  enforcement  and  low  penalties.  According  to  the  same  stakeholder,  waste  crimes  are 
often  deprioritised  by  prosecutors,  who  may  also  have  low  awareness  of  the  environmental 
legislation  and  criminal  status.  This  is  described  as  creating  a  compelling  business  case  for 
organised crime groups.  

In  addition,  legitimate  businesses  experience  negative  effects  from  the  bad  image  of  the 
(hazardous)  waste  management  sector  that  is  created  by  violations  of  legislation  and  the 
resulting  scandals  (Box  5  below  gives  an  example).  This  bad  reputation  is  mentioned  as  an 
important negative economic impact by the stakeholders due to lacking credibility in societal 
and political discussions as well as the attractiveness of the industry to skilled workers.  

Box 5. Example – Dumping of hazardous waste in Italy  

Example – Dumping of hazardous waste in Italy  

An  area  north  of  Naples,  Italy  has  been  subject  to  illegal  dumping  for  years,  and  as  much  as  11.6  million 

366UNEP,  2018.  The  State  of  Knowledge  of  Crimes  that  have  Serious  Impacts  on  the  Environment.  Available  at: 

https://www.unep.org/resources/publication/state-knowledge-crimes-have-serious-impacts-environment. 

367 UNEP, 2018.  
368 
EFFACE, 

2015. 

Illegal 

shipment 

of 

e-waste 

from 

the 

EU. 

Available 

at: 

https://efface.eu/sites/default/files/EFFACE_Illegal%20shipment%20of%20e%20waste%20from%20the%20EU.pdf. 

195 

 
 
                                                 
tonnes of toxic waste has been reported to be buried in the area.  The waste contains highly toxic substances 
such as arsenic, and dioxin, subjecting communities in the area to serious health risks369. One study indicated 
substantially  increased  levels  of  cancer  in  the  area  surrounding  the  waste  dump370.  Reports  have  also  been 
made that toxins from the waste dump effects the fruits and vegetables grown in the area, thus also affecting 
other nations within the EU who import these goods 371. 

As  reported  in  many  similar  cases,  the  waste  dump  can  be  linked  to  the  Italian  Mafia,  who  offer  industrial 
companies cheap and easy ways to dispose of their hazardous waste.   

3.6. CRIMES RELATED TO CHEMICALS  

The  main  environmental  crimes  related  to  chemicals  includes  the  production,  importation, 
exportation,  marketing  or  use  of  ozone-depleting  substances  and  other  chemicals  not 
authorised  in  the  EU  (e.g.  in  the  areas  of  pharmaceuticals,  cosmetics,  endocrine  disruptors, 
fluorinated greenhouse gases, or pesticides).  

One  key  area  of  environmental  crime  related  to  chemicals  is  the  trade  in  unauthorised  and 
counterfeit pesticides. Counterfeit pesticides are fake products often produced and packaged 
to look like the genuine article. The widespread availability of technology needed to produce 
counterfeit and unauthorised pesticides, coupled with the lack of enforcement of existing laws 
and legislative loopholes all contribute to facilitate the trade of counterfeit products. As found 
by a Europol study in 2011, the trade in illegal and counterfeit pesticides is worth EUR 4.4 
billion  per  year  globally372.  The  illegal  trade  in  unauthorised  or  counterfeit  pesticides 
represents over 10% of the worldwide market, with an end-to-end value of EUR 44 billion. 

Another  highly  relevant  area  of  illegal  trade  in  chemicals  is  linked  to  the  trade  in  ozone-
depleting substances (ODS). Almost ten years ago, the illegal trade in ODS had already been 
estimated as representing between 10 and 20% of legitimate trade, which is between 7 000 
and 14 000 tonnes per year, for an approximate annual value between USD 25 million and 
USD 60 million373. More recent studies have shown that this trend is increasing at the global 
level.  For  example,  the  illegal  trade  in  ODS  from  East  Asia  and  Pacific  countries  now 
amounts  to  USD  67.7  million  per  year374.  However,  in  the  EU,  the  impact  of  illegal  trade 

369 

Aljazeera, 

2016. 

The 

toxic 

wasteland 

of 

Italy’s 

‘Campania 

Felix. 

Available 

at: 

https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2016/1/28/the-toxic-wasteland-of-italys-campania-felix. 

370  Senior 

linked 
Italian 
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanonc/PIIS147020450401561X.pdf. 

and  Mazza, 

“Triangle 

death” 

2004. 

of 

to  waste 

crisis.  Available 

at: 

371 Aljazeera, 2016.  
372 Europol, 2011. OC-SCAN Policy Brief 011-2011.  
373 Chatham House, EIA (2006) ODS Tracking. Feasibility study on developing a system for monitoring the transboundary 
movement  of  controlled  ozone-depleting  substances  between  the  Parties.  Report  produced  according  to  the  terms  of 
reference of Decision XVII/16, p. 5. 

374 UNODC (2013) Transnational Organized Crime in East Asia and the Pacific, cit., p. 119. 

196 

 
 
 
                                                 
activities related to ODS is found to be of lower concern, as the ODS Regulation375 proves to 
be effective376. Quantitative estimations of the impacts in Europe are not available, though.  

3.6.1.  CURRENT STATUS IN THE EU  

The 2011 Europol study estimates that more than 25% of the pesticides in circulation in some 
EU  Member  States,  notably  those  in  North  East  Europe,  originate  from  illegal  pesticides 
trade377.  The  large  north-western  European  seaports  of  Antwerp  (Belgium),  Hamburg 
(Germany) and Rotterdam (the Netherlands) are the main points of identified entry of illegal 
pesticides, though not the only ones.378 

Several  studies  have  found  that  especially  in  the  area  of  chemical  pollution,  national 
authorities struggle with criminal investigations. There is a need for a particularly high level 
of  specialist  knowledge  to  successfully  detect,  investigate  and  prosecute  crime  involving 
chemical  pollution,  creating  an  obvious  challenge  for  law  enforcement  and  judicial 
authorities379.  According  to  an  EnviCrimeNet  study,  officials  from  a  Central  European 
Member State reported that chemical analysis of suspicious substances is very expensive and 
that, depending on the type of analysis needed, one case can easily exceed their annual budget 
for examinations380.  

3.6.2.  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

The trade in ODS leads to a progressive depletion of the earth’s ozone layer. This can have 
negative  impacts  on  ecosystems.  UV-B  can  significantly  impair  reproductive  capacity  and 
early  developmental  stages  of  aquatic  organisms,  and  increased  exposure  to  UV  light  in 
terrestrial  plants  results  in  reductions  in  height,  decreased  shoot  mass  and  reductions  in 
foliage  area381.  It  also  contributes  to  global  warming  as  ozone  depleting  substances  such  as 
chlorofluorocarbons  (CFCs)  and  hydrochlorofluorocarbons  (HCFCs)  are  generally  potent 
greenhouse gases382. 

3.6.3.  SOCIAL IMPACTS 

A study by EUIPO in 2017 estimated that as a result of lost sales from legitimate pesticides, 
the  trade  in  counterfeit  pesticides  led  to  employment  losses  in  the  legitimate  pesticides 

375 Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on substances that 

deplete the ozone layer. 

376  European  Commission,  2020.  SWD(2019)  406  final/2.  Evaluation  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1005/2009  of  the  European 

Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on substances that deplete the ozone layer. 

377 Europol, 2011. OC-SCAN Policy Brief 011-2011.  
378 European Commission, DG SANTE, 2015. Ad-hoc study on the trade of illegal and counterfeit pesticides in the EU, p. iii.  
379  EUROJUST, 
at: 

on  Environmental  Crime  Report, 

2014.  Strategic  Project 

21.  Available 

page 

https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/strategic-project-environment-crime. 

380  EnviCrimeNet,  2014.  Intelligence  Project  on  Environmental  Crime:  Preliminary  Report  on  Environmental  Crime  in 
at: 
21. 

Europe, 
http://www.envicrimenet.eu/images/docs/ipec_report_on_environmental_crime_in_europe.pdf.  

Available 

p. 

381 EIA (2014) New Trends in ODS Smuggling. EIA Briefing to the 26th Meeting of the Montreal Protocol, p. 1. 
382 EFFACE (2014), Understanding the damages of environmental crime: Review of the availability of data. 

197 

 
 
                                                 
industry,  resulting  in  a  total  of  2  600  lost  jobs  across  the  EU383.  Indirectly,  if  losses  in  the 
supplier sectors are added to  the direct  employment  loss in  the pesticides industry, the total 
employment  loss  resulting  from  counterfeiting  is  estimated  at  11  700  jobs384.  In  addition, 
because  these  types  of  products  are  usually  neither  tested  nor  authorised,  they  can  contain 
toxic substances which are harmful for farmers’ health and for that of the end-users of treated 
agricultural products385. Farmers face potentially irreversible damage to their crops, fields and 
livelihoods, with large scale losses increasing poverty. 

The  trade  in  ODS  can  significantly  impact  human  health.  The  progressive  depletion  of  the 
ozone layer allows increasing amounts of UV radiation to reach our planet’s surface, which 
dramatically increases the risks of certain human health conditions, such as suppression of the 
immunity system, photo-aging of the skin, cataracts and skin cancer386.  

In  more  general  terms,  illegal  trade  in  chemicals  are  also  linked  to  dangerous  work 
environments where employment and safety laws tend to be ignored. For example, employees 
may be working  with  hazardous chemicals  without  adequate protection or without adequate 
training or equipment in logging operations387.  

3.6.4.  ECONOMIC IMPACTS 

The  2017  EUIPO  study  found  that  for  the  EU  as  a  whole,  the  estimated  total  sales  lost  by 
legitimate manufacturers of pesticides in the EU due to counterfeiting amounted to 13.8% of 
sales or EUR 1.3 billion each  year388. The loss was particularly high in Germany (EUR 299 
million per year), France (EUR 240 million per year) and Italy (EUR 185 million per year). 
As  an  indirect  economic  impact,  i.e.  resulting  from  lost  sales  in  other  sectors  as  well,  the 
study estimated an additional annual loss of EUR 1.5 billion389. In addition, the trade in illicit 
pesticides  impacts  government  revenue  as  well  (household  income  taxes,  social  security 
contributions  and  corporate  income  taxes),  which  were  roughly  estimated  at  EUR  238 
million390. 

Box 6. Example – Illegal trade in Ozone-depleting substances in Spain  

Example – Illegal trade in Ozone-depleting substances in Spain 

In  2019,  an  organised  crime  group  and  a  company  were  caught  illegally  exporting  ozone-depleting 
substances. The crime involved the repackaging and illegal trade of the refrigerant gas R-22. The smuggled 

383 European Union Intellectual Property Office (2017). The Economic Cost of IPR Infringement in the Pesticides Sector, p. 

15.  
384 Ibid., p. 16.  
385 Europol (2011), OC-SCAN Policy Brief 011-2011. 
386 EIA (2014) New Trends in ODS Smuggling. EIA Briefing to the 26th Meeting of the Montreal Protocol, p. 1.  
387 EFFACE, 2014. Understanding the damages of environmental crime: Review of the availability of data. 
388 European Union Intellectual Property Office (2017). The Economic Cost of IPR Infringement in the Pesticides Sector, p. 
https://euipo.europa.eu/tunnel-web/secure/webdav/guest/document_library/observatory/resources/research-and-

13: 
studies/ip_infringement/study10/pesticides_sector_en.pdf. 

389 Ibid., p. 16. 
390 Ibid., p. 17. 

198 

 
 
                                                 
gas generated a profit of between EUR 500 000 and EUR 1 million. The investigation by the Spanish Civil 
Guard  revealed  that,  if  not  caught,  the  gas  would  have  released  as  much  as  17 000  tonnes  of  CO2  into  the 
atmosphere391. 

3.7. POLLUTION CRIMES AFFECTING SOIL, WATER AND AIR   

Pollution crimes refer to the illegal disposal of contaminants, endangering the air we breathe, 
our water and soil. 

3.7.1.  CURRENT STATUS IN THE EU  

Pollution  is  a  common  threat  for  the  environment  affecting  soil,  water  and  air.  In  the  EU, 
noise pollution is also included in this context392. There is a large degree of overlap between 
pollution  crimes  and  all  of  those  discussed  in  the  previous  sections.  For  instance,  illegal 
trafficking  in  waste  or  illegal  smuggling  of  ODS,  among  other  adverse  effects,  obviously 
contributes to the pollution of the environment. The volume of pollution in the EU is difficult 
to estimate for this reason.  

The  EU  has  taken  action  to  criminalize  some  polluting  activities  such  as  the  discharge  of 
polluting  substances  from  ships  into  maritime  waters.  The  Directive  on  ship  source 
pollution393  obliges  Member  States  to  introduce  criminal  sanction  for  such  activities.  The 
impacts of this criminalization, which was introduced in 2009, have not been systematically 
assessed to this point. 

3.7.2.  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Soil degradation  can contribute to  the process  of irreversible climate change.  In the EU the 
soil carbon stocks are around 75 billion tonnes of carbon and it has been stated that “the most 
effective  option  to  manage  soil  carbon  in  order  to  mitigate  climate  change  is  to  preserve 
existing  stocks  in  soils,  and  especially  the  large  stocks  in  peat  and  other  soils  with  a  high 
content of organic matter”394.  

Soil degradation also contributes to air pollution, which most of the time occurs through the 
effects  of  CO2  and  similar  emissions  into  the  atmosphere.  These  substances  are  known  to 
speed up the process of global warming. Toxic pollutants in the air, or deposited on soils or 

391  Europol,  2019.  How  a  company  earned  up  to  EUR  1  million  illegally  trading  ten  tons  of  ozone-depleting  substances. 
https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/how-company-earned-to-%E2%82%AC1-million-

at: 

Available 
illegally-trading-ten-tons-of-ozone-depleting-substances. 

392 As evidenced by the Environmental Noise Directive (2002/49/EC). 
393  DIRECTIVE  2005/35/EC  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  OF  THE  COUNCIL  of  7  September  2005  on 
ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties, including criminal penalties, for pollution offences, amended 
by Directive 2009/123/EC.  

394 Climate Change. Soil Carbon (CLIMSOIL), 2008. Review of existing information on the interrelations between soil and 

climate change, p. 13. 

199 

 
 
 
                                                 
surface  waters,  can  impact  wildlife  in  a  number  of  ways.  For  instance,  air  toxics  are 
contributing to birth defects, reproductive failure, and disease in animals395. 

Water  pollution,  e.g.  caused  by  dumping  waste  or  other  materials  in  the  sea,  poses  serious 
threats  for  marine  ecosystems.  Human  activities,  especially  agriculture,  have  led  to  large 
increases in the levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in the environment. In water, this can fuel 
the excessive growth of phytoplankton  and algae, which can kill fish, marine mammals and 
seabirds as well as harm humans. Additionally, plastics and other marine debris can persist in 
the  oceans  for  years,  traveling  the  currents.  This  litter  can  distribute  toxic  chemicals 
throughout the oceans, snag and tear corals, and harm animals if they ingest pieces of plastic 
or become entangled in the debris396. 

3.7.3.  SOCIAL IMPACTS 

Pollution  is  a  serious  threat  for  human  health.  For  instance,  water  and  soil  pollution  can 
contaminate drinking water and food supplies, which can lead to  a range of illnesses. Clean 
drinking water is an essential ingredient for a healthy human life, but 1.1 billion people lack 
access  to  water  and  2.4  billion  do  not  have  adequate  sanitation  due  to  pollution  from  toxic 
substances dumped or washed into streams and waterways and the discharge of sewage and 
industrial waste397.  

Noise pollution has been found to cause sleep disturbance, cardiovascular diseases, annoyance 
(a feeling of discomfort affecting general well-being), cognitive impairment and mental health 
problems. It can also cause direct effects such as tinnitus398. 

The social consequences of air pollution are quite dramatic as well – the WHO estimated that, 
across the world, around 7 million  people have died as  a result of air pollution  exposure in 
2012399. 

3.7.4.  ECONOMIC IMPACTS 

Pollution  has  obvious  consequences  for  social  and  economic  systems  through  its  impact  on 
human  health,  but  also  causes  unfair  competition,  declines  in  property  prices  and  local 
businesses in areas massively polluted400. 

Box 7. Example – Burning of waste in Romania  

395  MassDEP,  Health  &  Environmental  Effects  of  Air  Pollution.  Available  at:  https://www.mass.gov/doc/health-

environmental-effects-of-air-pollution/download. 

396 WWF, Pollution. https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/pollution (last accessed 25/05/2021).  
397 WWF, Pollution. https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/pollution (last accessed 25/05/2021).  
398 European commission. Noise. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/index_en.htm. 
399  WHO, 
to 

7  million 

premature 

annually 

deaths 

linked 

2014. 

air 

pollution.  Available 

at: 

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en/. 

400 Watkins, E, 2015.A case study on illegal localised pollution incidents in the EU. A study compiled as part of the EFFACE 

project. London: IEEP. 

200 

 
 
                                                 
Example – Burning of waste in Romania  

Less than 16 km outside of Bucharest, waste is being illegally burnt for the extraction of metals to 
be  sold.  The  burning  of  the  waste  causes  significant  air  pollution  due  to  the  toxic  chemical 
components released, effecting not only the communities in close proximity to the burning but also 
the air quality of the Romanian capital. The burning is largely carried out by the poverty-stricken 
Roma community who are reportedly caught in mafia structures in situations which can be likened 
to modern slavery401. 

401  ABC  news,  2021. 

In  Romania, 

'modern 

slaves'  burn  noxious 

trash 

for  a 

living.  Available  at: 

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/romania-modern-slaves-burn-noxious-trash-living-77236071. 

201 

 
 
                                                 
4.  OVERVIEW OF MAGNITUDE AND IMPACT PER CRIME TYPE 

Environmental 
crime 

Total magnitude of the 
environmental crime 

Key environmental impacts 

Key social impacts 

Key economic impacts 

Forestry crimes 

USD  51-152  billion  per 
year (worldwide) 

Illegal  logging  accounts 
for  10-30%  of 
total 
logging  worldwide  (or 
when 
20-50% 
laundering  of 
illegal 
wood is included) 

to 

EU 
for 
responsible 
almost EUR 3 billion of 
losses  due 
illegal 
logging,  with  an  import 
of  around  20  million 
cubic  meters  of  illegal 
timber every year 

Deforestation, 
destruction 
decline 

and 

habitat 
biodiversity 

Impact  on  human  health 
spread  of  Lyme 
(e.g. 
disease) 

Loss of tax revenue (USD 6-
year 
million 
9 
worldwide)  

per 

Loss of important environmental 
services  such  as  soil  quality, 
water  retention  and  the  stability 
of local climate systems 

Increased  flood  risk,  landslides, 
erosion of coastal zones   

on 

climate 

Impact 
change 
through  depletion  of  carbon 
sinks 
emissions 
resulting 
deforestation 
activities 

and  GHG 
from 

Threatened  livelihoods  of 
local communities 

Damage  to  aesthetic  and 
cultural value of forests  

Link to corruption which in 
turn  can  lead  to  weakened 
governance and rule of law 

Loss  in  tax  revenue  stifles 
economic  growth 
the 
source  country  and  increases 
development 
and 
vulnerabilities  

risks 

in 

Economic  losses  from  the 
loss of ecosystem services 

Fishery crimes402  USD  11-30  billion  per 

year (worldwide) 

IUU  fishing  practices 
represent  approx.  19% 
of  the  reported  value  of 

Over-harvesting  and  potential 
depletion  of  fish  stocks  that  are 
already  under  pressure  (directly 
and indirectly) 

Threat  to  marine  biodiversity, 

resources 

for 
Reduced 
fishing 
legitimate 
activities, 
thereby 
negatively  effecting  legal 
employment  opportunities  

402 It should be noted that most available data is from 2003-2009. 

Reduced profits for the legal 
its 
fishing 
ancillary industries 

sector 

and 

Losses of landing fees, taxes 
and  levies  for  EU  Member 

Most  affected  Member 
States 

Central  and  South  East 
ancient 
Europe  where 
forests 
(Bulgaria, 
Romania, Hungary, Latvia, 
Lithuania) 

exist 

Coastal  countries,  notably 
the  Atlantic 
bordering 
Ocean  and  Mediterranean 
Spain, 
Sea(Netherlands, 
Ireland,  Malta, 
France, 

202 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Environmental 
crime 

Total magnitude of the 
environmental crime 

Key environmental impacts 

Key social impacts 

Key economic impacts 

catches worldwide  

EU  is  responsible  for 
1.1 
importing  EUR 
billion 
illegally 
of 
fished  products  every 
year 

Wildlife crimes 

USD  7-23  billion  per 
year (worldwide) 

6 441 seizures in the EU 
in 2019 

EUR  2.3  million  illegal 
wildlife  trade  value  in 
the EU in 2018  

serious  detrimental  impacts  on 
marine  ecosystems  and 
the 
services they provide   

from 

Pollution  from  the  discharge  of 
organic  waste 
the 
processing  of  catches,  non-
biodegradable  litter,  emissions 
of  carbon  dioxide  and  other 
GHG 

Annual  natural  capital  loss  of 
USD 17 million from destruction 
of coral reefs and the ecosystems 
services they provide in the form 
of  coastal  protection,  tourism 
and  recreation,  biodiversity  and 
fisheries 

to 

Threat 
biodiversity 
Endangerment  and  extinction  of 
species 

introduction 

Potential 
of 
invasive  species  and  pathogen 
pollution  

effects 

Negative 
on 
developing  countries  from 
importing 
is 
which  EU 
illegally caught fish  

Threat  to  food  security  for 
certain  communities  (e.g. 
fishing 
small-scale 
communities  in  developing 
countries) 

organised 
International 
crime  and  associated  other 
activities 
illegal 
(e.g. 
trafficking 
persons, 
in 
drugs and arms,  smuggling 
of migrants and terrorism) 

Potential 
poverty  

increase 

in 

Negative  impact  on  food 
security and public health  

impacts  on 
Detrimental 
governance and corruption, 
threats  of  violence 
in 
developing countries 

States 

to  disrupt 

the 
Potential 
market and lower the price of 
legally captured, harvested or 
thus 
farmed 
further 
affecting 
incomes  of 
legitimate fishers  

fish, 
the 

Undermined 
wildlife 
employment 
thereof 

trade, 

legal  global 
and 
opportunities 

Loss of government revenues 
legal 
and 
activities  

taxes 

from 

Potential 
income, 
loss  of 
particularly  on  communities 
endangered 
living 
species as they are robbed of 
potential  sources  of  income 

near 

Most  affected  Member 
States 

Italy,  Spain,  Portugal, 
Greece) 

Member States with varied 
wildlife  (Northern  Europe, 
Eastern 
and 
Central 
Europe), 
as 
as  well 
Member  States 
that  are 
key  points  of  entry  for 
illegal  trade  (Netherlands, 
Germany, 
Belgium, 
France) 

203 

 
 
Environmental 
crime 

Total magnitude of the 
environmental crime 

Key environmental impacts 

Key social impacts 

Key economic impacts 

Forest fire crimes  Up  to  96%  of  all  forest 

fires are man-made 

1 535 572.41 hectares of 
forest  burned  in  the  EU 
between 200-2012 

No estimate available of 
total 
but 
costs, 
individual  events  in  the 
EU  cost  between  EUR 
50  000  and  EUR  200 
000 (sample of 3 fires in 
Italy) 

(forest 

Effects on climate change due to 
GHG  emissions 
fires 
account 
for  32%  of  global 
carbon  monoxide,  10%  of 
methane  emissions  and  86%  of 
soot emissions)  

Damage  to  vegetation,  peat  and 
soils  

Destruction  of  habitats 
wildlife 

for 

Damage  to  endangered  animal 
and plant species  

Waste crimes 

trafficking 

Illegal 
in 
waste  accounts  for  20% 
of 
the  waste 
shipments in the EU 

all 

of 

benefits 

Depletion 
and 
resources  derived  from  forests, 
drought 
e.g. 
and 
flood 
recycling, 
regulation,  nutrient 
and water and food provision 

Contamination of air, land, water 
systems 

to 

Treat 
affecting animals and plants 

local 

ecosystems, 

Annual  revenues  from 
illicit trafficking of non-
waste 
hazardous 
between 
1.3 
billion  and  EUR  10.3 

EUR 

Release  of  heavy  metals  (e-
waste in particular) 

Loss  of  valuable  materials  that 
could have instead been recycled 

Most  affected  Member 
States 

Depends  on  land  use  and 
meteorological  conditions. 
Spain,  Italy  and  Portugal, 
Greece, France 

Death  (during  200-2017, 
611 people died in the EU 

Negative  health 
impacts 
from 
released 
smoke, 
mercury 
and 
ashes, 
released  during  the  fire, 
e.g.  lung  related  diseases 
such  as  bronchitis,  and 
diseases 
cardiovascular 
such as heart failure 

through wildlife tourism   

Costs for fire suppression 

Costs 
damages 
and private properties 

resulting 
to 

from 
infrastructure 

Loss  of  income  from  land 
and loss of jobs 

Damages  to  industries  such 
as tourism 

stress 

and 
Emotional 
damage  caused  by 
the 
destruction  of  homes  and 
property, 
of 
livelihoods,  and  damages 
to  cultural  and  historical 
sites  

loss 

All EU Member States 

Threat 
to  human  health 
through  contamination  of 
drinking  water  and  food 
chains 

Economic  loss  for  countries 
that  generate  the  waste,  as 
they  miss  out  on  the  gains 
related to recycling it  

Physical injuries or chronic 
people 
for 
diseases 
involved 
the 
inappropriate  disposal  (e.g. 
difficulties, 
breathing 

in 

Link 
to  organised  crime 
because of little enforcement 
and low penalties 

Legitimate 
businesses 
experience  negative  effects 

204 

 
 
Environmental 
crime 

Total magnitude of the 
environmental crime 

Key environmental impacts 

Key social impacts 

Key economic impacts 

Most  affected  Member 
States 

billion  per  year  in  the 
EU  

or recovered  

trafficking 

Annual  revenues  from 
of 
illicit 
waste 
hazardous 
between 
1.5 
billion  and  EUR  1.8 
billion 

EUR 

impaired 

the 
Progressive  depletion  of 
earth’s  ozone 
layer,  which 
negatively  impacts  ecosystems 
reproductive 
(e.g. 
capacity 
early 
developmental  stages  of  aquatic 
organisms,  reductions  in  height, 
and 
decreased 
reductions  in  foliage  area  of 
terrestrial plants) 

shoot  mass 

and 

Contributes  to  global  warming 
through GHG emissions  

Crimes  related  to 
chemicals 

in 

Trade 
illegal  and 
counterfeit  pesticides  is 
worth  EUR  4.4  billion 
per year (worldwide)  

of 

10% 

trade 

Illegal 
in 
pesticides 
represents 
over 
the 
market 
worldwide 
Trade in ODS represents 
between  10  and  20%  of 
legitimate  trade,  which 
is between 7 000 and 14 
000 
tonnes  per  year 
(worldwide) 

Trade in ODS represents 
an  approximate  annual 
value  between  USD  25 
million  and  USD  60 

from  the  bad  image  of  the 
(hazardous) 
waste 
management sector, affecting 
in  societal  and 
credibility 
political 
and 
discussions 
attractiveness  of  the  industry 
to skilled workers  

Lost  sales  from  legitimate 
channels  (13.8%  of  sales  or 
EUR 1.3 billion each year for 
pesticides in the EU)  

Indirect  economic 
impact 
resulting  from  lost  sales  in 
ancillary  sectors  (EUR  1.5 
billion per year in the EU) 

Loss  of  government  revenue 
income 
household 
from 
security 
social 
taxes, 
contributions  and  corporate 
income 
(EUR  238 
taxes 
million per year in the EU) 

respiratory 
irritation, 
coughing, 
chocking, 
tremors, 
pneumonia, 
neuropsychiatric  problems, 
convulsions,  coma  or  even 
death, 
skin 
asthma, 
irritations, 
diseases,  eye 
disease, 
stomach 
response, 
inflammatory 
oxidative 
stress,  DNA 
damage)  

Employment  losses  in  the 
legitimate 
pesticides 
industry  (2  600  direct  lost 
jobs in the EU in 2017, 11 
lost  when 
700 
jobs 
considering 
supplier 
sectors) 

are 
tested 

usually 
Products 
neither 
nor 
authorised  and  can  contain 
toxic  substances  which  are 
harmful for human health  

Risks  of  certain  human 
health  conditions  resulting 
from depletion of the ozone 
layer,  e.g.  suppression  of 
the 
system, 
photo-aging  of  the  skin, 

immunity 

All  Member 
States 
(notably  those  with  more 
farmland  (pesticides),  and 
large  points  of  entry  for 
illegal trade 

205 

 
 
Environmental 
crime 

Total magnitude of the 
environmental crime 

Key environmental impacts 

Key social impacts 

Key economic impacts 

Most  affected  Member 
States 

million (worldwide) 

cataracts and skin cancer  

Dangerous 
environments 
employment 
laws tend to be ignored 

and 

work 
where 
safety 

Pollution crimes 

No  estimate  available, 
as  highly  influenced  by 
all 
of 
types 
environmental crime 

other 

Soil  degradation,  which  can 
contribute to climate change and 
air pollution 

Toxic  pollutants  in  the  air,  or 
deposited  on  soils  or  surface 
waters,  can  impact  wildlife,  e.g. 
air  toxics  contributing  to  birth 
defects, reproductive failure, and 
disease in animals 

Water  pollution  poses  serious 
threats  for  marine  ecosystems, 
e.g. by fuelling excessive growth 
of  phytoplankton  and  algae, 
which  can  kill  fish,  marine 
mammals and seabirds as well as 
harm humans 

Plastics  and  other  marine  debris 
can  persist  in  the  oceans  for 
years,  and  can  distribute  toxic 
chemicals 
the 
oceans, snag and tear corals, and 
harm animals  

throughout 

All Member States  

through 
impact 
Economic 
human  health  impact  (e.g. 
medical costs) 

Unfair competition 

Declines  in  property  prices 
and local businesses 

Threat  for  human  health, 
e.g.  through  contamination 
of drinking  water and  food 
supplies, which can lead to 
a range of illnesses 

to 

cause 

Noise  pollution  has  been 
found 
sleep 
disturbance,  cardiovascular 
annoyance, 
diseases, 
cognitive  impairment  and 
mental health problems 

Air  pollution  exposure  can 
(7  million 
cause  death 
deaths 
year, 
worldwide)  

per 

206 

 
 
 
207 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 6: COMPARATIVE TABLE PROVISIONS ON PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION 

Directive 
on 
combating  the 
abuse 
sexual 
and 
sexual 
exploitation  of 
children 
and 
child 
pornography
405 
N/A 

Money 
Laundering 
Directive406 

Directive  on 
combatting 
terrorism407 

N/A 

N/A 

PIF Directive403 

Market Abuse 
Directive404 

Reporting/ 
statistics 

N/A 

to 

Art. 18(2) 
“Without 
prejudice 
reporting 
laid 
obligations 
down 
in  other 
Union legal acts, 

and 

Directive  on 
combating 
fraud 
counterfeitin
g  of  non-cash 
of 
means 
payment408 

– 

18 

Art. 
Monitoring 
and  statistics: 
1.  By 
31 
August  2019, 
the 
Commission 

the 

Directive 
on 
the  protection 
euro 
of 
and 
other 
currencies 
against 
counterfeiting 
by 
criminal 
law409 
Art. 
11 
Statistics:  
Member  States 
least 
shall,  at 
every 
two 
transmit 
years, 
the 
to 
data 

– 

Directive  on 
preventing 
and 
combating 
trafficking  in 
human beings 
and 
protecting  its 
victims410 
Art. 19 -  
National 
rapporteurs  or 
equivalent 
mechanisms: 
Member 
States 

shall 

Directive 
on 
attacks against 
information 
systems411 

13 
of 

the 
of 

Art. 
Exchange 
information 
1. For 
purpose 
exchanging 
information 

403 Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law. 
404 Directive 2014/57/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on criminal sanctions for market abuse (market abuse directive). 
405 Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. 
406 Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist 

financing. 

407 Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on combating terrorism and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA and amending 

Council Decision 2005/671/JHA. 

408  Directive  (EU)  2019/713  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  April  2019  on  combating  fraud  and  counterfeiting  of  non-cash  means  of  payment  and  replacing  Council 

Framework Decision 2001/413/JHA. 

409 Directive 2014/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the protection of the euro and other currencies against counterfeiting by criminal law, and replacing 

Council Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA. 

410 Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing 

Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA. 

411 Directive 2013/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 August 2013 on attacks against information systems and replacing Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA. 

208 

 
 
 
                                                 
on 

Member  States 
an 
shall, 
basis, 
annual 
submit 
the 
following 
statistics  on  the 
criminal 
offences  referred 
to  in  Articles  3, 
4  and  5  to  the 
if 
Commission, 
they 
are 
available  at  a 
central  level  in 
Member 
the 
State  concerned: 
(a)  the  number 
of 
criminal 
proceedings 
initiated, 
dismissed, 
resulting 
acquittal, 
in  a 
resulting 
conviction 
and 
ongoing;  (b)  the 
amounts 
recovered 
following 
criminal 
proceedings  and 
estimated 
the 
damage.” 

in  an 

Commission  on 
the  number  of 
laid 
offences 
down 
in 
Articles 3 and 4 
and  the  number 
persons 
of 
prosecuted 
for 
and 
convicted 
of  the  offences 
laid  down 
in 
Articles  3  and 
4. 

shall  establish 
detailed 
a 
programme 
for monitoring 
the 
outputs, 
and 
results 
impacts of this 
Directive.  The 
monitoring 
programme 
shall  set  out 
the  means  by 
which  and  the 
intervals 
at 
the 
which 
necessary  data 
and 
other 
evidence  will 
be collected. It 
shall 
specify 
the  action  to 
be 
taken  by 
the 
Commission 
and  by 
Member 
States 
collecting, 
and 
sharing 
analysing 
the 
data  and  other 
evidence.  
2.  Member 
States 
shall 
ensure  that  a 

the 

in 

to 

the 

tasks  of 

take 
necessary 
measures 
establish 
national 
rapporteurs  or 
equivalent 
mechanisms. 
The 
such 
mechanisms 
include 
shall 
carrying 
the 
out 
of 
assessments of 
in 
trends 
trafficking 
in 
human  beings, 
the  measuring 
of  results  of 
anti-
trafficking 
actions, 
including 
gathering 
statistics 
close 
cooperation 
with 
civil 
organisations 
active  in  this 
field, 
and 
reporting. 

relevant 
society 

the 
of 
in 

to 

of 

of 

relating  to  the 
offences 
referred 
in 
Articles  3  to  8, 
Member  States 
ensure 
shall 
that  they  have 
an  operational 
national  point 
of  contact  and 
that  they  make 
use 
the 
of 
existing 
network 
operational 
points 
contact 
available 
24 
hours a day and 
seven  days  a 
week.  Member 
States shall also 
ensure that they 
have 
procedures 
in 
place so that for 
urgent  requests 
for  assistance, 
the  competent 
authority 
can 
indicate,  within 
eight  hours  of 
receipt,  at  least 
whether 
the 
request  will  be 

209 

 
 
is 

the 

judicial 

system 
in 
place  for  the 
recording, 
production 
and  provision 
of anonymised 
statistical  data 
measuring  the 
reporting, 
investigative 
and 
phases 
involving 
offences 
referred  to  in 
Articles 3 to 8.  
3. 
The 
statistical  data 
referred  to  in 
2 
paragraph 
shall, 
a 
as 
minimum, 
cover  existing 
the 
data  on 
number 
of 
offences 
referred  to  in 
Articles 3 to 8 
registered  by 
the  Member 
States  and  on 
the  number  of 
persons 
prosecuted  for 
and  convicted 

to 

forward 

answered,  and 
form  and 
the 
time 
estimated 
of 
an 
such 
answer. 
2.   Member 
shall 
States 
inform 
the 
Commission  of 
their  appointed 
point of contact 
in 
referred 
paragraph 
1. 
The 
Commission 
shall 
that 
information 
to 
other 
the 
Member  States 
and  competent 
specialised 
Union  agencies 
and bodies. 
3.   Member 
States shall take 
necessary 
the 
to 
measures 
ensure 
that 
appropriate 
reporting 
are 
channels 
made  available 
to 
in 
order 
the 
facilitate 

210 

 
 
of the offences 
referred  to  in 
Articles 3 to 7.  
4.  Member 
States 
shall 
the 
transmit 
data  collected 
pursuant 
to 
paragraphs  1, 
2  and  3  to  the 
Commission 
on  an  annual 
basis. 
The 
Commission 
shall 
that 
consolidated 
review  of  the 
statistical 
reports 
published 
each  year  and 
to 
submitted 
the  competent 
specialised 
Union 
agencies  and 
bodies. 

ensure 
a 

is 

to 

reporting  of  the 
offences 
referred 
in 
Article 3 to 6 to 
the  competent 
national 
authorities 
without  undue 
delay. 

- 

14 

Art. 
Monitoring 
and statistics 
1.   Member 
shall 
States 
that  a 
ensure 
in 
is 
system 
place 
the 
for 
recording, 
production  and 
provision 
of 
statistical  data 
on  the  offences 
referred 
in 
Articles 3 to 7. 
2.   The 
statistical  data 
in 
referred 
1 
paragraph 
shall, 
a 
as 
minimum, 
cover  existing 
the 
data 
on 
number 
of 
offences 

to 

to 

211 

 
 
 
 
to 

to 

referred 
in 
Articles  3  to  7 
registered 
by 
the  Member 
States,  and  the 
of 
number 
persons 
prosecuted 
for 
and  convicted 
of  the  offences 
referred 
in 
Articles 3 to 7. 
3.   Member 
shall 
States 
the 
transmit 
data 
collected 
pursuant  to  this 
Article 
the 
Commission. 
The 
Commission 
shall 
that 
consolidated 
review  of 
statistical 
reports 
is 
published  and 
submitted to the 
competent 
specialised 
Union  agencies 
and bodies. 

ensure 
a 

the 

to 

212 

 
 
 
 
N/A 

Training 

– 

to 

11 
Art. 
Training:  
Without 
prejudice 
judicial 
independence 
and differences 
in 
the 
organisation  of 
judiciary 
the 
across 
the 
Union, 
Member  States 
request 
shall 
those 
responsible  for 
the  training  of 
judges, 
prosecutors, 
police,  judicial 
and 
those 
competent 
authorities’ 
staff 
in 
proceedings 
and 
investigations 
to 
appropriate 
training  with 
respect  to  the 
objectives 
of 
this Directive. 

involved 
criminal 

provide 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Art. 
23(3): 
Member  States 
shall  promote 
regular 
for 
training 
likely 
officials 
into 
to  come 
contact 
with 
child  victims  of 
sexual  abuse  or 
exploitation, 
including  front-
line 
police 
officers,  aimed 
enabling 
at 
them to identify 
and  deal  with 
child 
victims 
potential 
and 
child  victims  of 
sexual  abuse  or 
exploitation. 

9(3): 

shall 
the 

Art. 
Member 
States 
take 
necessary 
to 
measures 
ensure 
that 
persons,  units 
or 
services 
responsible for 
investigating 
or  prosecuting 
the 
offences 
referred  to  in 
Articles  2  and 
3  are  trained 
accordingly. 

shall 

18(3): 

Art. 
Member 
States 
promote 
regular 
training 
for 
officials  likely 
to  come  into 
contact  with 
or 
victims 
potential 
of 
victims 
trafficking 
in 
human  beings, 
including 
front-line 
police officers, 

N/A 

213 

 
 
 
Administrativ
e sanctions 

to 

7(4) 

Art. 
– 
Sanctions  with 
regard  to  natural 
persons:  
“Where 
a 
criminal  offence 
referred 
in 
point  (a),  (b)  or 
(c)  of  Article 
3(2) or in Article 
4 
involves 
damage  of  less 
than  EUR  10 
000 
an 
or 
advantage of less 
than  EUR  10 
000,  Member 
may 
States 
provide 
for 
sanctions  other 
than 
criminal 
sanctions” 
Art. 
- 
9 
Sanctions  with 
legal 
to 
regard 

– 
for 

to 
that  a 
person 
liable 
to 
is 
to 

Art. 
9 
Sanctions 
legal persons 
Member  States 
shall  take  the 
necessary 
measures 
ensure 
legal 
held 
pursuant 
Article  8 
subject 
effective, 
proportionate 
and  dissuasive 
sanctions, 
which 
include 
criminal 
non-criminal 
fines  and  may 
include  other 
sanctions, 
such as:  

shall 

or 

13 

– 
on 

Art. 
sanctions 
legal persons  
Member  States 
shall 
the 
take 
necessary 
to 
measures 
that  a 
ensure 
person 
legal 
liable 
held 
pursuant 
to 
Article  12(1)  is 
punishable  by 
effective, 
proportionate 
and  dissuasive 
sanctions, 
which 
include 
criminal 
non-criminal 
fines  and  may 
include  other 
sanctions,  such 
as:  

shall 

or 

that 

– 
Art. 
8 
for 
Sanctions 
legal 
persons: 
Member  States 
shall 
the 
take 
necessary 
to 
measures 
ensure 
a 
legal person held 
liable 
pursuant 
to  Article  7  is 
punishable 
by 
effective, 
proportionate 
and 
dissuasive 
sanctions,  which 
shall 
include 
criminal  or  non-
criminal 
fines 
and  may  include 
other  sanctions, 
such as:  
(a) 
exclusion 
from  entitlement 
public 
to 

– 
for 

Art. 
18 
Sanctions 
legal persons: 
Member  States 
shall  take  the 
necessary 
measures 
to 
ensure  that  a 
person 
legal 
liable 
held 
to 
pursuant 
Article  17 
is 
punishable  by 
effective, 
proportionate 
and  dissuasive 
sanctions, 
which 
include 
criminal 
non-criminal 
fines  and  may 
include  other 
sanctions, such 
as:  

shall 

or 

11: 

shall 
the 

Art. 
Member 
States 
take 
necessary 
measures 
to 
ensure  that  a 
person 
legal 
liable 
held 
pursuant 
to 
Article  10(1) 
is 
or 
(2) 
to 
subject 
effective, 
proportionate 
and  dissuasive 
sanctions, 
which 
include 
criminal 
non-criminal 
and 
fines 
which  may 
include  other 
sanctions, 

shall 

or 

6 

to 
that  a 
person 
liable 
to 
is 
to 

- 
Art. 
7 
Sanctions 
for 
legal  persons: 
Member  States 
shall 
the 
take 
necessary 
measures 
ensure 
legal 
held 
pursuant 
Article 
subject 
effective, 
proportionate 
and  dissuasive 
sanctions, 
which 
include 
criminal 
non-criminal 
fines  and  may 
include 
other 
sanctions  such 
as 

shall 

or 

aimed 
at 
enabling  them 
to identify and 
with 
deal 
victims 
and 
potential 
of 
victims 
trafficking 
in 
human beings. 

6 

shall 
the 

Art. 
– 
Sanctions  on 
legal persons: 
Member 
States 
take 
necessary 
measures 
to 
ensure  that  a 
person 
legal 
liable 
held 
pursuant 
to 
Article  5(1)  or 
(2)  is  subject 
to 
effective, 
proportionate 
and  dissuasive 
sanctions, 
which 
include 
criminal 
non-criminal 
fines  and  may 
include  other 
sanctions, 

shall 

or 

– 

legal 

Art. 
11 
Sanctions 
against 
persons: 
1. 
Member 
States shall take 
necessary 
the 
measures 
to 
that  a 
ensure 
person 
legal 
liable 
held 
pursuant 
to 
Article  10(1)  is 
punishable  by 
effective, 
proportionate 
and  dissuasive 
sanctions, 
which 
include 
criminal 
non-criminal 
fines and which 
may 
include 
other  sanctions, 

shall 

or 

214 

 
 
 
that 

persons:  
Member  States 
shall 
the 
take 
necessary 
measures 
to 
a 
ensure 
legal person held 
liable 
pursuant 
to  Article  6  is 
to 
subject 
effective, 
proportionate 
and 
dissuasive 
sanctions,  which 
include 
shall 
criminal 
or 
non-criminal 
fines  and  may 
other 
include 
sanctions, 
such 
as:  (a)  exclusion 
from  entitlement 
public 
to 
benefits  or  aid; 
(b)  temporary  or 
permanent 
exclusion 
public 
procedures; 
temporary 
permanent 
disqualification 
from the practice 
commercial 
of 
(d) 
activities; 

from 
tender 
(c) 
or 

the 
of 

exclusion 

(a) 
from 
entitlement 
to 
public  benefits 
or aid;  
temporary 
(b) 
or  permanent 
disqualificatio
n 
from 
practice 
commercial 
activities;  
(c) 
under 
supervision;  
(d) 
winding-up;  
(e) 
temporary 
or  permanent 
closure 
of 
establishments 
which 
have 
been  used  for 
committing  the 
offence. 

placing 
judicial 

judicial 

exclusion 

placing 
judicial 

(a) 
from 
entitlement 
to 
public  benefits 
or aid;  
temporary 
(b) 
or 
permanent 
disqualification 
the 
from 
of 
practice 
commercial 
activities;  
(c) 
under 
supervision;  
(d) 
judicial 
winding-up; or  
temporary 
(e) 
permanent 
or 
closure 
of 
establishments 
which 
have 
been  used  for 
committing  the 
offence. 
2. 
Member 
States shall take 
necessary 
the 
to 
measures 
that  a 
ensure 
person 
legal 
liable 
held 
pursuant 
to 
Article  12(2)  is 
punishable  by 

benefits  or  aid; 
(b)  temporary  or 
permanent 
exclusion 
from 
access  to  public 
funding, 
including  tender 
procedures, 
grants 
and 
concessions;  (c) 
temporary 
or 
permanent 
disqualification 
from the practice 
commercial 
of 
(d) 
activities; 
placing 
under 
judicial 
supervision;  (e) 
a 
judicial 
winding-up 
order; 
temporary 
permanent 
closure 
establishments 
which have been 
for 
used 
committing 
the 
offence. 

(f) 
or 

of 

the 
of 

exclusion 

(a) 
from 
entitlement 
to 
public  benefits 
or aid;  
temporary 
(b) 
or  permanent 
disqualificatio
n 
from 
practice 
commercial 
activities;  
(c) 
under 
supervision;  
(d)  a  judicial 
winding-up 
order;  
temporary 
(e) 
or  permanent 
closure 
of 
establishments 
have 
which 
been  used  for 
committing the 
offence. 

placing 
judicial 

such as (…). 

such as (…) 

such  as  (…)  2. 
Member  States 
shall 
the 
take 
necessary 
to 
measures 
that  a 
ensure 
person 
legal 
liable 
held 
pursuant 
to 
Article  10(2)  is 
punishable  by 
effective, 
proportionate 
and  dissuasive 
or 
sanctions 
other measures. 

215 

 
 
under 

placing 
judicial 
supervision;  (e) 
judicial winding-
up; (f) temporary 
permanent 
or 
closure 
of 
establishments 
which have been 
for 
used 
committing 
the 
criminal offence. 
N/A 

N/A 

Prevention 

sanctions 
or 
measures  which 
are 
effective, 
proportionate 
and dissuasive. 

21 

Article 
Measures 
against 
advertising 
abuse 
opportunities 
and  child  sex 
tourism: 
Member  States 
shall 
take 
appropriate 
measures 
prevent 
prohibit:  
(a) 
dissemination 
material 
of 
the 
advertising 
opportunity 
to 
commit  any  of 
offences 
the 
referred 
in 
to 
Articles  3  to  6; 

to 
or 

the 

N/A 

- 

to 
the 

Art. 
21 
Measures 
against  public 
provocation 
content online:  
1.  Member 
shall 
States 
take 
the 
necessary 
measures 
ensure 
prompt 
removal 
of 
online  content 
constituting  a 
public 
provocation  to 
commit 
a 
terrorist 
as 
offence, 
referred  to  in 
Article  5,  that 
in 
is  hosted 

N/A 

– 

17 

shall 

Art. 
prevention:  
Member 
States 
take 
appropriate 
action, 
including 
through 
the 
internet,  such 
as  information 
and 
awareness-
raising 
campaigns 
research 
and 
and  education 
programmes, 
aimed 
to 
reduce  overall 
fraud, 
raise 
awareness  and 
reduce the risk 

– 

18 

shall 

Art. 
Prevention:  
1.   Member 
States 
take 
appropriate 
measures, 
such 
as 
education  and 
training, 
to 
discourage 
and reduce the 
that 
demand 
all 
fosters 
forms 
of 
exploitation 
to 
related 
trafficking 
in 
human beings. 
2.   Member 
States 
take 
appropriate 

shall 

N/A 

216 

 
 
 
of 

and  
the 
(b) 
organisation  for 
others,  whether 
or 
for 
not 
commercial 
purposes, 
travel 
arrangements 
the 
with 
purpose 
of 
committing  any 
of  the  offences 
referred 
in 
Articles 3 to 5.  

to 

22 

Art. 
Preventive 
intervention 
programmes  or 
measures: 
Member  States 
the 
take 
shall 
necessary 
measures 
to 
ensure 
that 
persons 
who 
they 
that 
fear 
might  commit 
any 
the 
of 
offences 
in 
referred 
Articles  3  to  7 
may 
have 
access,  where 

to 

of  becoming  a 
of 
victim 
fraud.  Where 
appropriate, 
Member 
States shall act 
in  cooperation 
with 
stakeholders. 

their  territory. 
They shall also 
to 
endeavour 
the 
obtain 
removal 
of 
content 
such 
hosted  outside 
their territory.  
2.  Member 
States  may, 
when  removal 
of  the  content 
referred  to  in 
paragraph  1  at 
is 
its  source 
not 
feasible, 
take  measures 
to block access 
to such content 
towards 
the 
internet  users 
within 
their 
territory.  
3.  Measures  of 
removal 
and 
blocking  must 
be 
set 
following 
transparent 
procedures and 
provide 
adequate 
safeguards, 
particular 
ensure 

in 
to 
that 

and 

relevant 
society 

action, 
including 
through 
the 
Internet,  such 
as  information 
and 
awareness-
raising 
campaigns, 
research 
education 
programmes, 
where 
appropriate  in 
cooperation 
with 
civil 
organisations 
and 
stakeholders, 
aimed 
raising 
awareness  and 
reducing 
the 
risk  of  people, 
especially 
children, 
becoming 
of 
victims 
trafficking 
in 
human beings. 
3.   Member 
States 
promote 
regular 

other 

shall 

at 

217 

 
 
 
to 

appropriate, 
effective 
intervention 
programmes  or 
measures 
to 
designed 
evaluate 
and 
prevent  the  risk 
of 
such 
offences  being 
committed. 

23 

Art. 
Prevention: 
Member 
1. 
States shall take 
appropriate 
measures,  such 
education 
as 
and  training,  to 
discourage  and 
the 
reduce 
that 
demand 
fosters all forms 
of 
sexual 
exploitation  of 
children.  
Member 
2. 
States shall take 
appropriate 
action, 
including 
through 
Internet, 
as 

the 
such 
information 

those measures 
are  limited  to 
what 
is 
necessary  and 
proportionate 
and  that  users 
are 
informed 
of  the  reason 
for 
those 
measures. 
Safeguards 
to 
relating 
removal 
or 
blocking  shall 
include 
also 
the  possibility 
of 
judicial 
redress. 

training 
for 
officials  likely 
to  come  into 
contact  with 
victims 
or 
potential 
of 
victims 
trafficking 
in 
human  beings, 
including 
front-line 
police officers, 
aimed 
at 
enabling  them 
to identify and 
with 
deal 
victims 
and 
potential 
of 
victims 
trafficking 
in 
human beings. 
4.   In  order  to 
the 
make 
preventing and 
combating  of 
trafficking 
in 
human  beings 
more  effective 
by 
discouraging 
demand, 
Member 
States 
consider 
taking 

shall 

218 

 
 
 
in 

and 

relevant 
society 

and  awareness- 
raising 
campaigns, 
research 
education 
programmes, 
where 
appropriate 
cooperation 
with 
civil 
organisations 
and 
stakeholders, 
aimed at raising 
awareness  and 
reducing 
the 
risk of children, 
becoming 
victims 
of 
sexual  abuse  or 
exploitation. 

other 

or 

25 

Article 
Measures 
against 
websites 
containing 
disseminating 
child 
pornography:  1. 
Member  States 
shall 
the 
take 
necessary 

measures 
to 
establish  as  a 
criminal 
offence 
the 
use of services 
which  are  the 
objects 
of 
exploitation  as 
referred  to  in 
Article 2,  with 
the  knowledge 
that the person 
is  a  victim  of 
an 
offence 
referred  to  in 
Article 2. 

219 

 
 
 
 
 
measures 
to 
the 
ensure 
prompt removal 
of  web  pages 
containing 
or 
disseminating 
child 
pornography 
hosted  in  their 
territory  and  to 
to 
endeavour 
obtain 
the 
removal of such 
pages 
hosted 
outside  of  their 
territory.  
2. 
Member 
States  may  take 
to 
measures 
block  access  to 
pages 
web 
containing 
or 
disseminating 
child 
pornography 
towards 
the 
Internet 
users 
their 
within 
territory.  These 
measures  must 
be 
by 
set 
transparent 
procedures  and 
provide 
adequate 

220 

 
 
safeguards, 
in 
to 
particular 
ensure  that  the 
restriction 
is 
limited  to  what 
is necessary and 
proportionate, 
and  that  users 
are  informed  of 
the  reason  for 
the 
restriction. 
Those 
safeguards shall 
also  include  the 
of 
possibility 
judicial redress. 
Art.  14:  Non-
prosecution  or 
non-application 
of  penalties  to 
the victim 

N/A 

Art. 
General 
provisions 
assistance, 
support 
protection 
measures 
child victims 

18: 

on 

and 

for 

19: 
Art. 
Assistance  and 
support 
to 
victims 

N/A 

N/A 

Victims 

N/A 

Art. 
24: 
Assistance  and 
to 
support 
victims 
of 
terrorism 

25: 
Art. 
Protection  of 
victims 
of 
terrorism 

Art. 26: Rights 
of  victims  of 
terrorism 
resident 
another 
Member State 

in 

Article 16 - 
Assistance 
and  support  to 
victims:   
1.  Member 
shall 
States 
that 
ensure 
natural 
and 
legal  persons 
who 
have 
suffered  harm 
as  a  result  of 
any  of 
the 
offences 
referred  to  in 
Articles 3 to 8 
being 
committed  by 
misusing 

N/A 

Art. 11: 
Assistance and 
for 
support 
of 
victims 
trafficking 
in 
human beings 

Art. 
12: 
Protection  of 
of 
victims 
trafficking 
in 
human  beings 
in 
criminal 
investigation 
and 
proceedings 
Art. 
General 
provisions  on 

13: 

221 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
20: 
Art. 
Protection 
of 
child  victims  in 
criminal 
investigations 
and 
proceedings 

the 

  offered 

personal  data, 
are:  
(a) 
specific 
information 
and  advice  on 
how to protect 
themselves 
against 
negative 
consequences 
of 
the 
offences,  such 
as reputational 
damage; and  
(b)    provided 
with  a  list  of 
dedicated 
institutions 
that  deal  with 
different 
aspects 
identity-
related  crime 
and 
victim 
support.  
2.  Member 
are 
States 
encouraged  to 
set  up  single 
national 
online 
information 
tools 
facilitate 

of 

to 

and 

assistance, 
support 
protection 
measures 
for 
child  victims 
trafficking 
of 
in 
human 
beings 

14: 
Art. 
Assistance and 
support 
to 
child victims 

15: 
Art. 
Protection  of 
child  victims 
trafficking 
of 
human 
in 
beings 
in 
criminal 
investigations 
and 
proceedings 

16: 

Art. 
Assistance, 
and 
support 
protection  for 
unaccompanie
d child victims 
trafficking 
of 
in 
human 
beings 

222 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Art. 17: 
Compensation 
to victims 

access 
to 
assistance  and 
for 
support 
natural 
or 
legal  persons 
have 
who 
suffered  harm 
as  a  result  of 
the 
offences 
referred  to  in 
Articles 3 to 8 
being 
committed  by 
misusing 
personal data. 

3.  Member 
States 
shall 
that 
ensure 
legal  persons 
that 
are 
victims  of  the 
offences 
referred  to  in 
Articles 3 to 8 
of 
this 
Directive  are 
the 
offered 
following 
information 
without  undue 
after 
delay 
their 
first 
contact  with  a 
competent 

223 

 
 
 
 
authority: 
(a)  
the procedures 
for  making 
complaints 
with  regard  to 
offence 
the 
the 
and 
role 
victim's 
in 
such 
procedures; 
(b)    the  right 
to 
receive 
information 
about  the  case 
in  accordance 
with  national 
law;  (c)    the 
available 
procedures  for 
making 
complaints 
if 
the  competent 
authority  does 
not respect the 
victim's  rights 
in  the  course 
of 
criminal 
proceedings; 
(d) 
the 
contact  details 
for 
communicatio
ns  about  their 
case. 

224 

 
 
 
N/A 

N/A 

Investigative 
tools 

11 

- 
and 

Art. 
Seizure 
confiscation: 
Member  States 
shall 
the 
take 
necessary 
measures 
to 
ensure that their 
competent 
authorities  are 
entitled  to  seize 
and  confiscate 
instrumentalitie
s  and  proceeds 
the 
from 
offences 
referred 
in 
Articles  3,  4 
and 5. 

to 

to 
that 

Art. 15(3): 
“Member States 
the 
take 
shall 
necessary 
measures 
ensure 
effective 
investigative 
tools,  such  as 
those  which  are 
used 
in 
organised crime 
or  other  serious 
crime  cases  are 
to 
available 

Art. 11: Member 
States  shall  take 
necessary 
the 
measures 
to 
ensure 
that 
effective 
investigative 
tools,  such  as 
those  used 
in 
combating 
organised  crime 
or  other  serious 
crimes 
are 
available  to  the 
persons,  units  or 
services 
responsible 
for 
investigating  or 
the 
prosecuting 
offences  referred 
to in Article 3(1) 
and 
and 
(5) 
Article 4. 

- 

20 

and 

to 
that 

Art. 
Investigative 
tools 
confiscation:  
1.  Member 
shall 
States 
take 
the 
necessary 
measures 
ensure 
effective 
investigative 
tools,  such  as 
those  which 
in 
are  used 
organised 
crime  or  other 
serious  crime 
are 
cases, 
available 
to 
persons,  units 
or 
services 
responsible  for 
investigating 
or  prosecuting 
the 
offences 
referred  to  in 
to 
Articles  3 
12.  
2.  Member 
shall 
States 
the 
take 
necessary 
measures 
ensure 

to 
that 

9(4): 

to 
that 

shall 
the 

Art. 
Member 
States 
take 
necessary 
measures 
ensure 
effective 
investigative 
tools,  such  as 
those  which 
are  used 
in 
organised 
crime  or  other 
serious  crime 
are 
cases 
available 
to 
persons,  units 
services 
or 
responsible for 
investigating 
or  prosecuting 
offences 
the 
referred  to  in 
Articles  2  and 
3. 

Art.  9:  Member 
States shall take 
necessary 
the 
to 
measures 
ensure 
that 
effective 
investigative 
tools,  such  as 
those  which are 
in 
used 
organised crime 
or  other  serious 
crime cases, are 
available 
to 
persons,  units 
or 
services 
responsible  for 
investigating  or 
prosecuting  the 
offences 
referred 
in 
Articles  3  and 
4. 

to 

- 

to 
that 

Art.  13(1) 
Effective 
investigations 
and 
cooperation:  
1.  Member 
shall 
States 
take 
the 
necessary 
measures 
ensure 
investigative 
tools,  such  as 
those  which 
in 
are  used 
countering 
organised 
in 
crime  or 
serious 
other 
crime 
cases, 
are  effective, 
proportionate 
to 
committed 
and  available 
to the persons, 
units 
or 
services 
responsible 
for 
investigating 
or  prosecuting 
the 
offences 
referred  to  in 
Articles 3 to 8.  

the  crime 

N/A 

225 

 
 
 
 
to 

persons, 
units 
services 
or 
responsible  for 
investigating  or 
prosecuting 
offences 
referred 
in 
Articles 3 to 7” 
(4)  Member 
States shall take 
necessary 
the 
measures 
to 
enable 
investigative 
units or services 
to  attempt  to 
identify 
the 
victims  of  the 
offences 
referred 
Articles 3 to 7 

to 

in 

Investigation, 
prosecution 
and courts 

N/A 

10: 
and 

Art. 
Freezing 
confiscation 
Member  States 
shall 
the 
take 
necessary 
measures 

to 

– 

15 

Art. 
Investigation 
and 
prosecution: 
 (1)  Member 
States shall take 
necessary 
the 

their 
competent 
authorities 
freeze 
or 
confiscate,  as 
appropriate,  in 
accordance 
with  Directive 
2014/42/EU  of 
the  European 
Parliament  and 
of  the  Council 
(  1 
the 
), 
proceeds 
derived 
and 
instrumentaliti
es 
or 
used 
intended  to  be 
used 
the 
in 
commission  or 
contribution  to 
the 
commission  of 
any 
the 
of 
offences 
referred  to  in 
this Directive 
N/A 

from 

9 

Art. 
Confiscation: 
Member  States 
the 
take 
shall 
necessary 
measures 
ensure, 

to 
as 

13(2): 

Art. 
Member 
States 
take 
necessary 
measures 
ensure 

shall 
the 

to 
that, 

N/A 

- 
to 

Art. 
10 
Obligation 
transmit 
counterfeit  euro 
notes  and  coins 
for analysis and 
of 
detection 

Art.  8  –  Non-
prosecution  or 
non-
application  of 
penalties 
to 
the victim 
Member 

226 

 
 
 
 
enable 
the 
and 
freezing 
confiscation  of 
instrumentalities 
proceeds 
and 
the 
from 
criminal 
offences  referred 
to  in  Articles  3, 
4 and 5. Member 
States  bound  by 
Directive 
2014/42/EU  of 
the 
European 
Parliament  and 
of 
the  Council 
(1) shall do so in 
accordance  with 
that Directive. 

- 

for 

Art. 
12 
Limitation 
periods 
criminal 
offences 
affecting 
the 
Union's financial 
interests 

Art. 
Recovery 

13: 

that 

to 
that 

measures 
ensure 
investigations 
into 
the 
or 
prosecution  of 
offences 
the 
referred 
in 
to 
Articles  3  to  7 
are 
not 
dependent  on  a 
report 
or 
accusation 
being  made  by 
the victim or by 
her 
or 
his 
representative, 
and 
criminal 
proceedings 
continue 
may 
that 
if 
even 
person 
has 
withdrawn  his 
or 
her 
statements. 
2. 
Member 
States shall take 
necessary 
the 
to 
measures 
enable 
the 
prosecution  of 
the 
of 
any 
offences 
referred 
Article 

in 
3, 

to 

appropriate,  that 
their  competent 
authorities 
or 
freeze 
confiscate, 
in 
accordance  with 
Directive 
2014/42/EU,  the 
proceeds derived 
and 
from 
instrumentalities 
used  or  intended 
to be used in the 
commission  or 
to 
contribution 
the  commission 
of  the  offences 
as  referred  to  in 
this Directive. 

where national 
obliges 
law 
natural 
and 
legal  persons 
to 
submit 
information 
regarding 
offences 
referred  to  in 
Articles 3 to 8, 
such 
information 
reaches 
authorities 
investigating 
or  prosecuting 
those  offences 
without  undue 
delay. 

the 

– 
of 

Art. 
15 
reporting 
crime:   
1.  Member 
shall 
States 
take 
the 
necessary 
measures 
ensure 
appropriate 
reporting 
channels 
made 
available 
order 

to 
that 

in 
to 

are 

counterfeits: 
Member  States 
ensure 
shall 
that 
during 
criminal 
proceedings  the 
examination  by 
the 
National 
Analysis Centre 
Coin 
and 
National 
Analysis Centre 
of 
suspected 
counterfeit  euro 
notes  and  coins 
for 
analysis, 
identification 
and detection of 
further 
counterfeits 
permitted 
without  delay. 
The  competent 
authorities  shall 
transmit 
the 
necessary 
samples 
any 
without 
delay,  and  at 
the latest once a 
decision 
final 
the 
concerning 
criminal 
proceedings has 
been reached. 

is 

States  shall,  in 
accordance 
with  the  basic 
principles  of 
their 
legal 
take 
systems, 
the  necessary 
to 
measures 
ensure 
that 
competent 
national 
authorities  are 
entitled  not  to 
prosecute 
or 
impose 
on 
penalties 
of 
victims 
trafficking 
in 
human  beings 
for 
their 
involvement 
in 
activities 
they 
which 
been 
have 
compelled 
to 
commit  as  a 
direct 
consequence 
being 
of 
subjected 
to 
any of the acts 
referred  to  in 
Article 2. 

criminal 

227 

 
 
 
 
 
 
to 

to 

Article 
4(2), 
(3), (5),  (6)  and 
(7)  and  of  any 
serious offences 
in 
referred 
5(6) 
Article 
when 
child 
pornography  as 
referred 
in 
Article  2(c)(i) 
and 
has 
(ii) 
been used, for a 
sufficient 
period  of  time 
after  the  victim 
has  reached  the 
age  of  majority 
and  which 
is 
commensurate 
with the gravity 
of  the  offence 
concerned. 

16 

Art. 
Reporting 
suspicion 
of 
sexual  abuse  or 
sexual 
exploitation:  
1. 
Member 
States shall take 
necessary 
the 
measures 
to 
ensure  that  the 
confidentiality 

facilitate 
of 
reporting 
the 
offences 
referred  to  in 
Articles 3 to 8 
law 
to 
enforcement 
authorities and 
other 
competent 
national 
authorities 
without  undue 
delay.  
2.  Member 
shall 
States 
take 
the 
necessary 
measures 
encourage 
financial 
institutions 
and other legal 
persons 
operating 
their 
to 
suspected 
fraud 
to 
enforcement 
authorities and 
other 
competent 
authorities 
without  undue 

in 
territory 
report 

law 

to 

– 

9 

shall 
that 

Art. 
Investigation 
and 
prosecution:  
1.   Member 
States 
ensure 
investigation 
into 
or 
prosecution  of 
offences 
referred  to  in 
Articles  2  and 
3 
not 
is 
dependent  on 
reporting 
or 
accusation  by 
a  victim  and 
criminal 
that 
proceedings 
may  continue 
the 
even 
if 
has 
victim 
withdrawn  his 
or 
her 
statement. 
2.   Member 
States 
take 
necessary 
measures 
to 
enable,  where 
the  nature  of 
the  act  calls 
the 
it, 
for 

shall 
the 

228 

 
 
 
delay,  for  the 
of 
purpose 
detecting, 
preventing, 
investigating 
or  prosecuting 
offences 
referred  to  in 
Articles 3 to 8 

prosecution  of 
offence 
an 
referred  to  in 
Articles  2  and 
3 
a 
for 
sufficient 
period  of  time 
the 
after 
has 
victim 
the 
reached 
age 
of 
majority. 

10 

Art. 
Jurisdiction 

- 

rules 
imposed 
by  national  law 
on 
certain 
professionals 
whose 
main 
duty  is  to  work 
children 
with 
not 
do 
constitute 
an 
obstacle  to  the 
possibility, 
for 
those 
professionals, 
of 
their 
reporting  to  the 
services 
responsible  for 
child  protection 
situation 
any 
where 
they 
have reasonable 
grounds 
for 
believing  that  a 
the 
child 
is 
victim 
of 
offences 
referred 
Articles 3 to 7. 

to 

in 

2. 
Member 
States shall take 
necessary 
the 
measures 
to 
encourage  any 
who 
person 

229 

 
 
 
 
knows  about  or 
in 
suspects, 
good  faith  that 
any 
the 
of 
offences 
in 
referred 
Articles  3  to  7 
been 
have 
to 
committed, 
to 
this 
report 
the  competent 
services. 

to 

Article 17 
Jurisdiction  and 
coordination  of 
prosecution 

24: 

Article 
Intervention 
programmes  or 
measures  on  a 
voluntary  basis 
in  the  course  of 
or after criminal 
proceedings 

N/A 

N/A 

Cooperation 
with 
coordination 
bodies 

Art. 15 - 
Cooperation 
between 
the 
Member  States 
the 
and 
Commission 
(OLAF) 
other 

and 
Union 

N/A 

10(3)- 

Art. 
Jursidiction: 
Where 
an 
offence  referred 
to  in  Articles  3 
falls 
and 
4 
the 
within 
of 
jurisdiction 

Art.  19(3)  – 
Jurisdiction 
and 
prosecution: 
an 
When 
falls 
offence 
within 
the 
jurisdiction  of 

14 
Art. 
Exchange  of 
information  
1.  For 
purpose 
exchanging 
information 
relating  to  the 

the 
of 

- 

20 

Art. 
Coordination 
of  the  Union 
strategy 
against 
trafficking 
in 
human beings: 
to 
In  order 

N/A 

230 

 
 
 
 
 
the 

offices 

institutions, 
bodies, 
or agencies: 
1.Without 
prejudice  to  the 
rules  on  cross-
border 
cooperation  and 
legal 
mutual 
in 
assistance 
criminal  matters, 
the 
Member 
States,  Eurojust, 
the 
European 
Public 
Prosecutor's 
Office  and 
Commission 
shall, 
their 
competences, 
cooperate  with 
each other in the 
fight  against  the 
criminal 
offences  referred 
to  in  Articles  3, 
4  and  5.  To  that 
end 
the 
Commission, 
and 
appropriate, 
Eurojust, 
provide 
technical 

within 
respective 

shall 
such 
and 

where 

more 
than  one 
State 
Member 
and  where  any 
of  the  Member 
States  concerned 
validly 
can 
prosecute  on  the 
basis of the same 
facts, 
the 
Member  States 
concerned  shall 
cooperate 
in 
order  to  decide 
them 
which  of 
prosecute 
will 
the 
offender, 
with  the  aim  of 
centralising 
proceedings  in  a 
single  Member 
State.  Account 
shall  be  taken  of 
following 
the 
factors:  (a)  the 
territory  of  the 
Member State on 
the 
which 
was 
offence 
committed; 
(b) 
the nationality or 
residency  of  the 
offender;  (c)  the 
country of origin 
of  the  victim  or 
victims;  and  (d) 

more  than  one 
Member  State 
and  when  any 
of the  Member 
States 
concerned  can 
validly 
prosecute 
on 
the basis of the 
same  facts,  the 
Member  States 
concerned 
shall  cooperate 
in  order 
to 
decide  which 
them  will 
of 
prosecute 
the 
offenders  with 
if 
aim, 
the 
possible, 
of 
centralising 
proceedings  in 
single 
a 
Member  State. 
To 
this  end, 
the  Member 
States 
may 
have  recourse 
to Eurojust in 
order 
to 
facilitate 
cooperation 
between 
judicial 
authorities  and 

their 

offences 
referred  to  in 
Articles 3 to 8, 
Member 
States 
shall 
that 
ensure 
they  have  an 
operational 
national  point 
contact 
of 
available 
24 
hours  a  day, 
seven  days  a 
week. 
Member 
shall 
States 
also 
ensure 
that  they  have 
procedures  in 
place  so  that 
urgent 
requests 
for 
assistance  are 
promptly dealt 
with  and  the 
competent 
authority 
replies  within 
eight  hours  of 
receipt,  by  at 
least 
indicating 
whether 
the 
request will be 
answered  and 

In 

contribute  to  a 
coordinated 
and 
consolidated 
Union strategy 
against 
trafficking 
in 
human  beings, 
Member 
shall 
States 
facilitate 
the 
tasks  of  an 
anti-
trafficking 
coordinator 
(ATC). 
particular, 
Member 
shall 
States 
transmit  to  the 
ATC 
the 
information 
referred  to  in 
Article  19,  on 
the  basis  of 
the 
which 
shall 
ATC 
to 
contribute 
reporting 
carried  out  by 
the 
Commission 
two 
every 
years  on 
the 
progress  made 

231 

 
 
operational 
assistance  as  the 
competent 
national 
authorities  need 
facilitate 
to 
coordination  of 
their 
investigations. 
2.The  competent 
authorities in the 
Member  States 
may, within their 
competences, 
exchange 
information  with 
the  Commission 
so  as  to  make  it 
to 
easier 
the 
establish 
facts 
to 
ensure  effective 
against 
action 
the 
criminal 
offences  referred 
to  in  Articles  3, 
4  and  5.  The 
Commission  and 
the 
competent 
national 
authorities  shall 
take into account 
in  each  specific 
case 
the 
requirements  of 

and 

the  territory  on 
the 
which 
was 
offender 
The 
found. 
matter 
shall, 
where 
appropriate  and 
in 
accordance 
with  Article  12 
Framework 
of 
Decision 
2009/948/JHA, 
be  referred  to 
Eurojust. 

the 
coordination 
of their action.  
Account  shall 
be taken of the 
following 
factors:  
(a) 
the 
Member  State 
shall be that in 
the  territory  of 
which 
the 
offence  was 
committed;  
the 
(b) 
Member  State 
shall be that of 
the 
which 
is  a 
offender 
national 
or 
resident;  
(c) 
the 
Member  State 
the 
shall  be 
of 
country 
origin  of 
the 
victims;  
the 
(d) 
Member  State 
shall be that in 
the  territory  of 
the 
which 
offender  was 
found 

of 

form  of 
the 
an 
such 
answer 
and 
the  estimated 
time  within 
which  it  will 
be 
sent. 
Member 
may 
States 
to 
decide 
make  use  of 
existing 
the 
networks 
of 
operational 
points 
contact.  
2.  Member 
States 
shall 
the 
inform 
Commission, 
Europol  and 
Eurojust 
of 
their 
appointed 
point 
contact 
referred  to  in 
paragraph  1. 
shall 
They 
update 
that 
information  as 
necessary. The 
Commission 
shall  forward 
that 

of 

fight 

in 
the 
against 
trafficking 
in 
human beings. 

232 

 
 
 
confidentiality 
and  the  rules  on 
data  protection. 
Without 
prejudice 
to 
national  law  on 
to 
access 
a 
information, 
Member 
State 
may, to that end, 
when  supplying 
information 
to 
the  Commission, 
set 
specific 
conditions 
covering  the  use 
of 
information, 
whether  by  the 
Commission  or 
by 
another 
Member  State  to 
the 
which 
is 
information 
3.The 
passed. 
of 
Court 
Auditors 
and 
auditors 
responsible 
auditing 
budgets  of 
Union 
institutions, 
bodies, 
and 
established 

offices 
agencies 

for 
the 
the 

information  to 
other 
the 
Member 
States 

18(4): 

ensure 
a 

Art. 
Member 
shall 
States 
the 
transmit 
data  collected 
pursuant 
to 
paragraphs  1, 
2  and  3  to  the 
Commission 
on  an  annual 
basis. 
The 
Commission 
shall 
that 
consolidated 
review  of  the 
statistical 
reports 
published 
each  year  and 
submitted  to 
the 
competent 
specialised 
Union 
agencies  and 
bodies. 

is 

233 

 
 
 
 
 
pursuant  to  the 
Treaties,  and  the 
budgets 
and 
managed 
audited  by 
the 
institutions, shall 
to 
disclose 
OLAF  and 
to 
other  competent 
any 
authorities 
fact  of  which 
become 
they 
when 
aware 
carrying 
out 
duties, 
their 
which  could  be 
qualified  as  a 
criminal  offence 
in 
referred 
Article 3, 4 or 5. 
Member  States 
shall  ensure  that 
audit 
national 
bodies  do 
the 
same. 

to 

234 

 
 
 
ANNEX 7: PUBLIC CONSULTATION REPORT 

Improving environmental protection 
through criminal law 

Online public consultation – Summary 
report 

1.  INTRODUCTION 

The  public  consultation  on  the  revision  of  Directive  2008/99/EC  on  the  protection  of  the 
environment through criminal law (Environmental Crime Directive, ECD) was launched on 8 
February and ran through 3 May 2021. The objective of this consultation is to contribute to 
an impact assessment of possible options to address the challenges identified during the 2020 
evaluation  of  the  ECD.  It  feeds  into  the  design  of  potential  regulatory  and  non-regulatory 
measures  to  help  improve  the  effectiveness  of  the  ECD.  The  consultation  was  open  to  all 
interested stakeholders, including the general public. The questionnaire was available on the 
European Commission’s ‘Have your say’ website and respondents could reply in any of the 
24 official EU languages.  

This  document  provides  a  question-by-question  analysis  of  the  responses  received  to  the 
public  consultation.  In  the  case  of  open-ended  questions  or  questions  where  respondents 
could  add  written  comments,  the  responses  were  reviewed  and  coded  into  common 
categories.  The  purpose  of  the  coding  is  to  capture  the  common  themes  that  emerge  from 
these responses and provide an overview. 

2.  OVERVIEW OF RESPONDENTS 

In total, 492 responses were received to the online public consultation. Two responses – one 
duplicate and one blank – were removed, so the total sample is 490 responses. Just over two-
thirds of respondents listed France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands or Spain as their country 
of origin. Figure 1 provides a breakdown of all respondents by listed country of origin. 

235 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
120

100

80

60

40

20

0

a
n
i
t
n
e
g
r
A

a

i
l

a
r
t
s
u
A

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

a
d
a
n
a
C

a
b
u
C

s
u
r
p
y
C

i

a
h
c
e
z
C

d
n
a
n
i
F

l

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

e
c
e
e
r
G

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

y
l
a
t
I

n
a
p
a
J

y
a
w
r
o
N

d
n
a
o
P

l

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

a
i
s
s
u
R

i

n
a
p
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

a
t
l
a
M

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

s
e
t
a
t
S
d
e
t
i
n
U

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

Figure 3: Country of origin of respondents 

Respondents were asked two questions were asked regarding their identity.  The first follows 
the  public  consultation  template  in  EU  survey  and  asks  respondents  in  what  capacity  they 
give  their  contribution.  The  majority  of  these  (75.3%)  identify  as  ‘EU  citizen’  (68.7%)  or 
non-EU citizen (6.5%). The breakdown of all respondents is provided in Figure 2.  

Figure 4: Stakeholder type per EU Survey template  - ‘I am giving my contribution as…’ 

236 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In a follow-up question asking respondents to be more precise about their role, the majority 
(60.8%)  identified  themselves  as  ‘private  individuals’  (60.8%).  Other  notable  groups  were 
NGOs (9.2%) and business/industry (4.9%). The full breakdown is provided in Figure 3 and 
Table 1 and this more detailed breakdown has been used for further analysis of responses, as 
discussed in the following section. 

Figure 5: Follow-up question on stakeholder role 

Table 21: Number and percentage of respondents according to their more precise role 

More precise role 
Academic/research institution 
Business/industry  or  business/industry  association  (please  specify 
sector) 
Consumer organisation 
Defense lawyer 
European or international organisation 
Government authority in charge of environmental policy 
Local/regional authority (please specify) 
National judge or professional network for judges 
National law enforcement or professional network of law enforcement, 
police 
National prosecution or professional network for prosecutors 
Non-governmental organisation (NGO) 
Not mentioned  
Other 

Count  % 
19 
24 

3.9% 
4.9% 

7 
6 
5 
5 
7 
3 
6 

6 
45 
18 
36 

1.4% 
1.2% 
1.0% 
1.0% 
1.4% 
0.6% 
1.2% 

1.2% 
9.2% 
3.7% 
7.3% 

237 

 
 
 
Other interest organisations (hunters/farmers) 
Other Public authority 
Private individual 
Grand Total 

2 
3 
298 
490 

0.4% 
0.6% 
60.8% 
100% 

3.  GENERAL TRENDS AND APPROACH TO THE ANALYSIS 

The questionnaire first asked respondents to consider broadly whether the EU should act on 
environmental crime and if so, how. It then asked respondents to evaluate several options that 
could  address  key  issues  identified  with  the  performance  of  the  Directive.  Overall,  the 
respondents  to  this  questionnaire  were  in  favour  of  EU  action  on  environmental  crime.  In 
most cases, the majority of respondents  – roughly 70 – 90% - favoured the more ambitious 
options that seemed likely to deliver better outcomes in terms of prevention and deterrence of 
environmental crime in the EU. The options proposed in the questionnaire were not mutually 
exclusive or outright alternatives. Respondents evaluated each proposed option independently 
- they were not asked to rank options or to select a preferred option. Nevertheless, the level of 
support  for  different  approaches  could  in  some  cases  be  distinguished  by  the  relative 
percentage of respondents selecting the response ‘very useful’ versus the response ‘useful’.  

An  important  element  of  public  consultation  is  understanding  the  relative  positions  of 
different  stakeholders.  For  this  reason,  three  key  stakeholder  groups  were  analysed  more 
closely: 

  Business:  24  respondents  identifying  as  ‘business/industry’  or  ‘business/industry 

association’ 

  Practitioners:  15  total  respondents  identifying  as  ‘National  judge  or  professional 
network  for  judges’,  ‘National  law  enforcement  or  professional  network  of  law 
enforcement,  police’,  or  ‘National  prosecution  or  professional  network  for 
prosecutors’ 

  NGOs: 45 respondents identifying as ‘Non-governmental organisation (NGO)’ 

These three groups were the most well-represented in the overall breakdown of respondents 
who did not identify as private citizens (see Table 1). 

Because  stakeholders  overall  largely  agreed  in  their  responses  to  this  questionnaire,  efforts 
were made to understand the identity of those who disagreed with the majority  – i.e., those 
who felt that EU action in  this area should be more limited and were less likely to  support 
further legislative obligations on Member States, stricter sanctions, or other requirements that 
would potentially increase enforcement and criminalisation of acts harming the environment. 

In most cases, the proportion of business respondents amongst those reacting more negatively 
to increased EU action was much higher than share of such respondents in the sample overall, 

238 

 
 
 
 
indicating  a  trend  of  business  to  reply  in  this  manner.  Far  fewer  discernible  trends  were 
discovered for the Practitioner and NGO groups. 

 10.1 

Evidence of coordinated responses 

Responses  provided  to  some  of  the  open-ended  questions  suggest  that  a  coordination 
campaign has taken place with regard to the issue of ecocide. This can be identified through 
the open answers to question 3 on options to improve the scope of the Directive – a total of 
168  contain  identical  wording  (in  part  or  in  full)  of  a  statement  urging  the  recognition  of 
ecocide  as  a  crime  either  within  the  scope  of  the  Directive  or  through  separate  legislation. 
The  language  also  refers  to  work  being  done  by  the  Stop  Ecocide  Foundation.  The 
breakdown of respondents by stakeholder group using all or part of this specific text in their 
responses largely mirrors that of the overall sample, indicating that no particular group was 
targeted  by  the  campaign.  The  answers  to  the  closed  questions  from  amongst  this  group 
differ,  suggesting  that  the  campaign  primarily  aimed  at  getting  this  language  into  the  open 
text replies. 

4.  ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES TO GENERAL QUESTIONS 

Two  general  questions  addressed  the  overall  need  to  act  in  the  area  of  environmental 
protection and if so, which areas should be addressed by a revised ECD.   

 10.2 
protection through criminal law in the Member States? 

Question  1:    Do  you  think  the  EU  should  act  to  improve  environmental 

The vast majority (97%) of respondents generally believe that EU action is necessary in this 
area. It is worth noting that eight of the 12 (or just over 66%) respondents who are opposed to 
action or felt no further improvement is necessary identify as business/industry association.  

Table 22: Number and percentage of replies to question 1 

Option 
No EU-action. Improvement should be left to the Member States. 
No  improvement  necessary.  The  level  of  protection  under  the  current 
Directive is fine. 
Not mentioned 
Yes, EU action is necessary. 
Grand Total 

Count  % 
2% 
9 
1% 
3 

1 
477 
490 

0% 
97% 
100% 

239 

 
 
 
Figure 6: Do you think the EU should act to improve environmental protection through criminal law in the Member 

2%

1%

0%

97%

No EU-action. Improvement
should be left to the Member
States.

No improvement necessary.
The level of protection under
the current Directive is fine.

Not mentioned

Yes, EU action is necessary.

States? 

  10.3 

Question  2:  If  you  consider  that  EU  action  is  necessary,  what  should  be 
addressed  by  a  revised  Environmental  Crime  Directive?  (Several  answers  are 
possible) 

For this question respondents could select multiple answers and the majority of respondents 
indicated their support for all of the possible ways that the ECD could be revised. The option 
most  often  selected  (90%)  is  to  ‘improve  the  effectiveness  of  law  enforcement  within  the 
Member  States  including  training  and  specialisation’;  however,  all  other  options  were  also 
selected by over 80% of respondents.  

Table 23: Number and percentage of replies to question 2 

Option  

Total selections  % 

of 

of 

the 

to  be 

deterrence 

sanctioning 

the  description  of  offences 

Clarify and expand the scope of the Directive 
Improve 
criminalised and clarify terms used 
Improve 
environmental crime 
Improve  cross-border  cooperation  between  Member 
States 
Improve  the  collection,  sharing  and  reporting  of 
statistical data on 
environmental crime 
Improve the effectiveness of law enforcement within 
Member States including training and specialisation 
Other 

401 
419 

418 

409 

397 

442 

81 

[n=490] 
82% 
86% 

85% 

83% 

81% 

90% 

17% 

240 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 7: What should be addressed by a revised Environmental Crime Directive? 

Respondents  were  asked  to  specify  their  answer  if  they  selected  ‘other’.  However,  as  more 
respondents  answered  the  question  than  chose  ‘other’,  and  some  repeated  issues  already 
provided in the multiple-choice responses, it can be inferred that some chose to elaborate on 
their selection regardless. The most cited area was ecocide, a point made in roughly one-third 
of  the  answers.  Other  themes  that  a  revised  ECD  should  address  include  compliance  and 
enforcement, new environmental areas (e.g. wildlife trade and animal welfare) as well as the 
knowledge and qualification of authorities and practitioners or training.  

Table 24: Main themes addressed in open replies to question 2 

Main themes identified  

Ecocide 
Compliance and enforcement 
New environmental areas 
Knowledge  and  qualification  of  relevant  authorities  and  practitioners/ 
training 
Awareness raising 
Clarification of some terms or requirements 
Harmonisation  of  the  application  across  MS/jurisdictions  and  MS 
cooperation 
Environmental crimes outside the EU 
Involvement of civil society 
Specialised units 
Access to justice/Aarhus Convention 
Any environmental degradation/harm 
Conflicts of interest 
Repair of environmental damages 

Total 
references 
(n=86) 
34 
9 
9 
6 

37% 
10% 
10% 
7% 

4 
4 
4 

3 
3 
3 
2 
2 
2 
2 

4% 
4% 
4% 

3% 
3% 
3% 
2% 
2% 
2% 
2% 

241 

 
 
 
Main themes identified  

Data collection 
Other  

Total 
references 
(n=86) 
2 
3 

2% 
3% 

242 

 
 
 
 
 
5.  ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ON OPTIONS TO IMPROVE THE DIRECTIVE 

A  series  of  questions  was  posed  concerning  ways  in  which  the  ECD  could  be  modified  to 
improve  its  performance.  Respondents  were  asked  to  indicate  the  relative  usefulness  of 
several  proposed  options  and  were  given  the  opportunity  to  expand  upon  their  choices  in 
open-text boxes. The length of the text boxes was unlimited.  

 10.4 
Directive 

Question  3:  Options  to  improve  the  approach  to  define  the  scope  of  the 

The majority of the respondents (80%) find the option of no action as ‘not useful’. Eight out 
of the 41 who would support no action identify as business/industry and nine out of the 24 
who  would  not  change  the  current  approach  are  also  business.  NGOs  and  practitioners 
represent only a small percentage of those who would support no action, with 5% and 10% 
respectively.  

With regard to the active options, there appears to be a preference for changing the current 
approach and defining environmental crime independently from administrative law: a total of 
380 or 78% of respondents would consider this approach ‘very useful’. Of those who claim 
the approach would not  be useful  (24 respondents or 5%), just over one-third or 9 of them 
identify  as  business.  The  remainder  are  a  mix  of  other  stakeholders.  Further  to  this,  a 
relatively  large  number  of  respondents  (138  or  28%)  stated  that  the  option  to  remove  the 
annexes and refer to breach of administrative obligations only generally would not be useful, 
implying their preference for a more targeted approach. 

 Table 25: Number and percentage of replies to question 3 

Option 

Not useful 

Useful 

Very 
useful 

No 
answer 

No  action.  The  current  approach 
(description  of  offences 
to  be 
criminalised in Article 3, definition of 
unlawfulness  in  Article  2  and  the  list 
of  relevant  legislation  in  annexes) 
works fine. 
Update  the  Directive  and  its  annexes 
and  include  new  environmental  areas 
or  legislation  that  is  currently  not 
covered but should be covered. 
Refer 
administrative  obligations  only 
terms  without 
general 
listing 
explicitly 
legislation 
relevant 
annexes (i.e. remove the annexes). 

related 
in 
the 
in 

the  breach  of 

to 

390 
80% 

20 
4% 

21 
38% 

59 
12% 

19 
4% 

138 
28% 

273 
56% 

90 
18% 

184 
38% 

197 
40% 

14 
3% 

65 
13% 

243 

 
 
 
Option 

Not useful 

Useful 

Change  the  current  approach:  define 
environmental crime independently of 
environmental 
of 
breach 
a 
administrative law. 
Other 

24 
5% 

7 
1% 

46 
9% 

8 
2% 

Very 
useful 

No 
answer 

380 
78% 

197 
40% 

40 
8% 

278 
57% 

Figure 8: Options to improve the approach to define the scope of the Directive  

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

No action. The current approach works fine

80%

4%

4%

12%

Update the Directive and its annexes

4%

56%

38%

3%

Refer to the breach only in general terms

28%

18%

40%

Change the current approach

5%

9%

78%

13%

8%

Other

2%
1%

40%

57%

Not useful

Useful

Very useful

No answer

The  open-ended  follow  up  question  was  the  one  for  which  the  coordinated  answers  on 
Ecocide provided pre-written text as discussed in Section 3 above – the majority of responses 
here pointed to the recognition of ecocide as an environmental crime within the scope of the 
Directive.  Otherwise,  the  most  frequent  responses  reinforce  the  preference  towards  the 
definition  of  environmental  crimes  independently  from  administrative  breach  and/or  for 
updating the annexes  to the Directive. Several  respondents  also  highlight  the importance of 
improving compliance and enforcement here. 

One national  practitioner network in  its document submitted with  the consultation response 
emphasised the need to broaden the understanding of serious crime by establishing links with 
other crimes such as organised crime, corruption and document fraud. A document submitted 
by a governmental authority in charge of environmental policy supported the establishing an 
independent  definition  of  environmental  crime,  but  stressed  that  such  a  provision  much 
exclude acts that have been permitted by the competent authorities.  

Table 26: Main themes addressed in open replies to question 3 

Main themes identified 

Recognition of ecocide as a crime 

Total 
(n=229) 
192 

references 

81% 

244 

 
 
 
 
Independent definition of 'environmental crime' 
Update and inclusion of new environmental areas in Annexes 
Improving compliance and enforcement 
Clarification on the breach of administrative law 
System for monitoring and reporting 
General reference to environmental law 
Inclusion of climate change 
Other 

13 
9 
4 
3 
3 
2 
2 
9 

5% 
4% 
2% 
1% 
1% 
1% 
1% 
4% 

  10.5 

Question  4:  Legislation  not  covered  by  the  Environmental  Crime 

Directive 

Under  this  open-ended  question  respondents  could  suggest  which  environmental  area  or 
specific  legislation  currently  not  covered  by  the  ECD  should  be  covered.  In  total,  339 
respondents (or 69% of the whole sample) completed this question, some of whom mentioned 
multiple  environmental  areas  or  legislation  as  relevant.  The  answers  were  grouped  by 
emerging themes as summarised in the following table. Here again ecocide is mentioned in 
the majority of the answers (around half of the answers) as an area that should be covered by 
the  ECD.  Other  areas  or  legislation,  which  respondents  consider  should  be  covered  by  the 
ECD, include: biodiversity/habitats conservation even outside protected areas; wildlife trade 
and  more  broadly  animal  welfare;  illegal  logging,  illegal  timber  trade  and  deforestation; 
chemicals and especially pesticides and plastics; and climate change. Eleven respondents also 
noted here that the coverage of the ECD is sufficient and no additions are needed -  seven of 
these respondents indicate business/industry as their role and one identifies as a practitioner. 

One  NGO,  in  its  submitted  document,  argues  that  the  geographical  scope  of  the  Directive 
should be addressed with further clarity, in particularly to address companies from outside the 
EU  that  operate  within  the  EU  territory  and  EU  companies  that  cause  environmental  harm 
abroad.  

Table 27: Main themes addressed in open replies to question 4 

Main themes identified 

Ecocide 
Biodiversity/ habitats (incl. outside protected areas) 
Wildlife trade & animal welfare 
Illegal logging & timber trade/ deforestation 
Chemicals (esp. pesticides, plastics) 
Climate change 
Land use change/ construction & energy production 
Pollution (e.g. air, noise, electromagnetic) 
Coverage is sufficient 

Total 
references 
(n=339) 
173 
21 
17 
16 
15 
15 
12 
12 
11 

49% 
6% 
5% 
5% 
4% 
4% 
3% 
3% 
3% 

245 

 
 
 
Illegal extraction in general (e.g. logging, fishing, hunting) 
Renewable energy (esp. biomass, geothermal) 
Intensive farming practices 
Water and marine management 
All environmental areas 
Environmental crimes outside the EU/ along supply chain 
Waste management or shipment 
Any environmental damage 
Compliance/ enforcement 
Conflicts of interest/ corruption 
Illegal trade of HFCs 
Invasive species   
Other 

9 
8 
7 
7 
5 
5 
4 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
6 

3% 
2% 
2% 
2% 
1% 
1% 
1% 
1% 
1% 
1% 
1% 
1% 
2% 

  10.6 

Question  5:  Options  regarding  vague  terms  in  the  definitions  of 

environmental crime 

The  majority  of  respondents  believe  that  action  on  defining  vague  terms  is  necessary  and 
consider options such as no action or no action at the EU level as ‘not useful’. Of the eight 
respondents that did state that no action to revise terms in the Directive is necessary, two are 
businesses and the rest a mix of private individuals and others. Likewise, no significant trends 
could be found across the 69 who did not answer the no action option. The case was similar 
for those who did  not  rule out  the option of ‘no EU action but  leaving the interpretation  to 
Member States and courts’. 

The option to retain terms in the Directive but define them more precisely is viewed as ‘very 
useful’ by most respondents (84%). Likewise, 82% of respondents stated that it would not be 
useful  to  delete  such  elements  from  the  Directive;  however  a  quarter  (6  of  24)  businesses 
agreed with the option to delete the terms. The option of non-binding EU guidance was met 
with  mixed  results;    it  might  be  assumed  that  respondents  chose  ‘very  useful’  for  their 
preferred options and ‘useful’ for a less preferred but still acceptable option.  

Table 28: Number and percentage of replies to question 5 

Option 

Not useful  Useful 

Define  more  precisely  vague  terms 
(e.g.  'substantial  damage',  'negligible' 
or  'non-negligible'  quantities)  in  the 
Directive. 
Delete  such  vague  elements  from  the 
definitions  and  leave  it  to  the  national 
authorities 
to  decide  whether  a 
particular  incident  is  severe  enough  to 
be prosecuted. 

10 
2% 

403 
82% 

57 
12% 

27 
6% 

Very 
useful 

No 
answer 

414 
84% 

27 
6% 

9 
2% 

33 
7% 

246 

 
 
 
 
Option 

Not useful  Useful 

Very 
useful 

No 
answer 

Provide  non-binding  EU-guidance  on 
the interpretation of vague elements in 
the definitions. 
Do  not  act  at  EU  level  but  leave  the 
interpretation  of  vague  terms  in  the 
to  Member  States  and 
Directive 
national courts. 
No  action  necessary.  The  elements  in 
Article  3  of  the  Directive  are  clear 
enough. 
Other 

100 
20% 

427 
87% 

413 
84% 

10 
2% 

303 
63% 

23 
5% 

6 
1% 

6 
1% 

56 
11% 

4 
1% 

2 
1% 

18 
4% 

31 
6% 

36 
7% 

69 
14% 

456 
93% 

Figure 9: Options regarding vague terms in the definitions of environmental crime  

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Define more precisely vague terms

2%

2%

12%

Delete such vague elements from the definitions

7%

82%

Provide non-binding EU-guidance

6%

20%

84%

62%

Do not act at EU level

7%

No action necessary

14%

87%

84%

Other

93%

No answer

Not useful

Useful

Very useful

6%

6%

11%

5%

1%

0%
1%

1%
2%

4%

In  terms  of  improving  definitions  linked  to  environmental  crime,  the  standout  suggestion 
made was a general one: to define terms more precisely in order to minimise the misuse of 
ambiguity  when  defining  environmental  crime.  Similarly,  nine  respondents  find  that  EU 
legislation  should  be  more  harmonised,  and  binding  guidance  was  recommended  by  12 
respondents.  In  addition,  the  need  for  further  enforcement  of  laws  and  punishments,  along 
with the recognition of ecocide as a crime are also amongst the proposed measures.    

Table 29: Main themes addressed in open replies to question 5 

Main themes identified 
Clearer definition of terms  
Binding guidance 
Harmonised EU legislation  
Stronger enforcement of laws and punishment 

Total references (n=86) 
32 
12 
9 
9 

36% 
14% 
10% 
10% 

247 

 
 
 
 
Recognition of ecocide as a crime 
Clearer definition of laws  
Non-binding guidance 
Introduce new regulation and/or legislation 
Quantify damage 
Updating outdated regulation 

6 
6 
4 
4 
4 
2 

7% 
7% 
5% 
5% 
5% 
2% 

  10.7 

Question  6:  Measures  to  foster  a  more  deterrent  criminal  sanctioning 

system with regard to environmental crime 

Most  respondents  (86%)  support  EU  action;  only  three  in  total  reacted  positively  to  the 
concept  of no EU action (however 68 or 14% did  not  answer the question). With regard to 
legislative  approaches,  most  of  those  proposed  were  considered  as  ‘very  useful’  by  the 
majority of respondents.  Support  was  slightly lower for maximum  sanctions, as opposed to 
defining aggravating circumstances and the provision of accessory sanctions (66%, 84% and 
88% respectively). The option of linking penalty levels to crime profits and/or the financial 
situation of businesses was perceived somewhat less positively than the others. In this case a 
larger  number  of  respondents  selected  ‘useful’  as  opposed  to  ‘very  useful’  (47%  and  40% 
respectively). However, only 35 respondents (7%) rejected the option outright as not useful, 
including  7  of  the  total  24  business  respondents.  The  same  can  be  said  for  the  two  options 
relating  to  non-binding  guidance  and  dissemination  of  information  about  sanctioning 
practices across the Member States – they received less ‘very useful’ than ‘useful’ responses, 
in contrast to the result for the more binding options. Finally, EU guidance on coordinating 
administrative  and  criminal  sanctioning  systems  received  a  higher  amount  (303  or  62%)  of 
‘very useful’ answers.  

Table 30: Number and percentage of replies to question 6 

Option 

levels 

that  must  be 
Maximum  sanction 
available  to  judges  (for  example  at  least  4 
years of imprisonment). 
Definitions of aggravating circumstances (for 
example for environmental crimes committed 
in the context of organised crime, the severity 
of the damage caused, actions of the offender 
to  obstruct  administrative  controls  and 
inspection) that should lead to higher sanction 
levels to be imposed in practice. 
The  provision  of  a  broad  range  of  accessory 
sanctions  such  as  restoration  of  damage, 
exclusion 
procurement 
procedures,  unwinding  of  a  company, 
shutting down production- or other sites used 

public 

from 

Not useful  Useful  Very 
useful 

34 
7% 

77 
16% 

323 
66% 

No 
answer 

56 
11% 

9 
2% 

53 
11% 

410 
84% 

18 
4% 

12 
2% 

38 
8% 

431 
88% 

9 
2% 

248 

 
 
 
Option 

Not useful  Useful  Very 
useful 

No 
answer 

guidance/best 

for  the  crime  committed,  seizure  of  profits 
and material used to commit the crime. 
Linking the level of imposed penalties to the 
profits  expected  or  generated  and  to  the 
financial  situation  of  businesses  involved  in 
committing the crime. 
EU-non-binding 
practices 
regarding  sanction  practices  in  the  Member 
States. 
Dissemination  of  information  on  sanction 
practices  and  imposed  sanctions  with  regard 
to  environmental  crime  among  Member 
States. 
EU-guidance  to  Member  States  to  better 
coordinate  their  administrative  and  criminal 
sanctioning systems. 
No action at EU level is necessary. 

Other 

35 
7% 

72 
15% 

9 
2% 

21 
4% 

419 
86% 
8 
2% 

228 
47% 

326 
67% 

312 
64% 

144 
29% 

2 
<1% 
6 
1% 

197 
40% 

49 
10% 

145 
30% 

303 
62% 

1 
<1% 
23 
5% 

30 
6% 

43 
9% 

24 
5% 

22 
4% 

68 
14% 
453 
92% 

Figure 10: measures to foster a more deterrent sanctioning system  

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Maximum sanction levels

7%

16%

 Definitions of aggravating circumstances

2%

11%

The provision of a broad range of accessory sanctions

2%

8%

66%

84%

88%

Linking the level of imposed penalties

7%

47%

40%

11%

4%

2%

6%

EU-non-binding guidance/best practices

15%

67%

10%

9%

Dissemination of information

2%

64%

30%

EU-guidance to Member States

4%

29%

62%

5%

4%

No action at EU level is necessary

86%

0%
0%

14%

Other

1%
2%

5%

92%

Not useful

Useful

Very useful

No answer

The 86 written responses provided to this question were diverse. Fourteen respondents argued 
broadly  that  the  penalties  of  environmental  crime  should  be  increased.  In  addition,  the 
harmonisation  of  sanctions,  increased  transparency  as  well  as  cooperation  between  EU 
Member  States  are  prominent  topics,  hinting  at  the  importance  of  mutual  effort  across  the 
EU. 

249 

 
 
 
 
In  a  submitted  document,  one  business/industry  respondent  stressed  the  importance  of 
effective enforcement and compliance with EU (administrative) environmental legislation as 
a  critical  condition  for  a  level-playing  field  across  the  EU,  and  that  appropriate  sanctions 
should  be  determined  on  a  case-by-case  basis  taking  into  account  a  range  of  criteria.  The 
document also highlighted that any double sanctions arising from the Directive and existing 
administrative  law  should  be  avoided.  In  another  document,  an  NGO  stressed  the  need  for 
strong  penalties,  especially  for  high-level  traffickers  that  play  pivotal  roles  in  criminal 
networks. 

Table 31: Main themes addressed in open replies to question 6 

Main themes identified 

Increase penalties for committing environmental crime 
Harmonisation of sanctions  
Recognition of ecocide as a crime 
Increased law implementation 
Binding guidance  
Focusing on repairing damage caused 
Increasing cooperation between EU member states 
Increasing control on local and national level 
Increasing public awareness 
Minimum sanction level 
Increasing transparency  
Linking penalties to financial situation of perpetrator 
Redefining infringements 
Shifting  policies  to  cover  all  actors  involved  in  environmental 
crime 
Clarifying guidelines 

Total 
(n=86) 
14 
13 
8 
8 
6 
6 
4 
4 
4 
4 
3 
3 
3 
3 

3 

references 

16% 
15% 
9% 
9% 
7% 
7% 
5% 
5% 
5% 
5% 
3% 
3% 
3% 
3% 

3% 

  10.8 

Question 7: Measures to improve cross-border cooperation 

With  regard  to  cooperation,  most  respondents  were  positive  regarding  possible  legal 
provisions  that  would  require  cooperation  via  common  investigative  tools  in  all  Member 
States  (78%  ‘very  useful’)  and  via  the  relevant  EU  agencies  (82%  ‘very  useful’).  A  good 
amount of those against the proposed legislative provisions on cooperation were business (8 
out  of  19  on  investigative  tools  and  6  out  of  10  on  EU  agencies).  A  proposal  to  require 
Member States to provide training also received positive results, albeit slightly less so (73% 
‘very useful’).  

As  with  the  previous  questions,  options  for  providing  guidance  on  cooperation  received  a 
lower proportion of ‘very useful’ responses (23%), but were still generally considered useful 
(67%),  indicating  that  this  could  be  perceive  as  a  less-preferred  option  if  compared  to  a 
legislative  approach.  With  regard  to  rules  on  jurisdiction  and  cross-border  environmental 

250 

 
 
 
crimes,  most  responses  were  positive,    although  only  28%  chose  ‘very  useful’  while  61% 
replied ‘useful’. Six of the ten ‘not useful’ replies here were from business. 

Table 32:  Number and percentage of replies to question 7 

Option 

Include  a  provision  in  the  Directive  to  require  Member  States  to 
provide for common investigative tools that should  be available in  all 
Member States to investigate environmental crimes (e.g. wire tapping, 
surveillance, etc.). 

Include a provision in the Directive to require Member State authorities 
to  cooperate  with  each  other  and  with  EU-agencies  mandated  with 
facilitating  cross-border  cooperation  such  as  Europol,  OLAF  and 
Eurojust. 

Include a provision in the Directive to oblige Member States to provide 
professional training on cross-border cooperation. 

Provide  EU-guidelines  on  cooperation  between  Member  States  and 
how to make use of EU agencies such as Eurojust, Europol and OLAF. 

Include a provision in the Directive on rules on jurisdiction with regard 
to cross-border environmental crimes in the Directive. 

No further action necessary at EU level. 

Other 

No
t 
use
ful 

19 
4% 

10 
2% 

17 
3% 

7 
1% 

13 
3% 

37
6 
77
% 

12 
2% 

U
se
f
ul 
6
5 
1
3
% 
6
4 
1
3
% 
8
8 
1
8
% 
3
2
7 
6
7
% 
2
9
7 
6
1
% 
1 
<
1
% 

7 
1
% 

Ve
ry 
use
ful 

384 
78
% 

No 
ans
we
r 

22 
4% 

400 
82
% 

16 
3% 

358 
73
% 

27 
6% 

129 
26
% 

27 
6% 

136 
28
% 

44 
9% 

3 
1% 

19 
4% 

11
0 
22
% 
45
2 
92
% 

251 

 
 
 
 
Figure 11: measures to improve cross-border cooperation 

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Provide for common investigative tools

4%

13%

Cooperate with each other

2%

13%

Provide professional training

3%

18%

Provide EU-guidelines on cooperation

1%

Rules on jurisdiction

3%

No further action necessary at EU level

Other

2%

1%

4%

78%

82%

73%

92%

67%

61%

77%

4%

3%

6%

6%

26%

28%

9%

1%
0%

22%

Not useful

Useful

Very useful

No answer

The  open  answers  touched  a  wide  range  of  different  areas  for  improving  cross-border 
cooperation. The areas most commonly mentioned concern improving the use of EU agencies 
such as  Eurojust and Europol by Member States and increasing funding  for these agencies, 
and  the  importance  of  making  it  obligatory  for  Member  States  to  set  up  specialised  units 
harmonised  across  the  EU.  Other  subjects  mentioned  by  at  least  four  respondents  include 
wildlife cybercrime, greater EU guidance on cross-border cooperation and ecocide.  

In  a  submitted  document,  one  governmental  authority  in  charge  of  environmental  policy 
pointed  out  that  an  overall  coherent  understanding  of  the  Directive  could  improve  cross-
border cooperation.  

Table 33: Main themes addressed in open replies to question 7 

Main themes identified 

Total 
(n=49) 

references 

More  funding  for  and  greater  MS  use  of  EU  agencies  (Eurojust, 
Europol etc.) 
Obligation to set up specialised units that are harmonised across the 
EU  
Provision to cover wildlife cybercrime 
EU guidelines on cross-border cooperation 
Ecocide 
Improved information exchange through a digital platform 
Establishment of a focal point in every MS 
Establishment of an EU investigative authority 
Relations with non-EU countries 
Cross-border prosecution 
Increase budget for fighting environmental crime 
Simplify procedures to improve efficiency 
Clearer definitions in the Directive  

9 

8 
4 
4 
4 
3 
3 
3 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 

18% 

16% 
8% 
8% 
8% 
6% 
6% 
6% 
4% 
4% 
4% 
4% 
4% 

252 

 
 
 
Stricter oversight of use of EU funds 
More awareness raising 
Other 

2 
2 
10 

4% 
4% 
20% 

  10.9 

Question  8:  Options  to  foster  the  practical  implementation  of  the 

Directive 

Most of the respondents consider EU action necessary to foster the practical implementation 
of the Directive  – only  one  respondent  opposed  this  – however 115 or 23% of respondents 
chose not to answer this question.  Most respondents support legislative provisions on better 
implementation  and  a  proportionately  higher  amount  of  the  business  respondents  have 
marked these options as ‘not useful’ (8 out of 22 on the general provision and 7 out of 11 on 
the practical implementation). With regard to the guidance options, there is again a tendency 
to consider these more ‘useful’ than ‘very useful’ indicating that these are less-preferred than 
the more binding approaches. 

Table 34: Number and percentage of replies to question 8 

Option 

to 

implement 

to  exchange 

Include  in  the  Directive  a  general  provision  to 
oblige  Member  States 
the 
Directive. 
Include  in  the  Directive  provisions  to  oblige 
Member  States  to  take  specific  measures  to 
foster  practical  implementation  such  as  the 
provision  of  training  or  the  set  up  specialised 
units, to oblige relevant national law-enforcing 
information  and 
authorities 
cooperate  with  each  other,  to  oblige  national 
authorities  to  cooperate  with  other  national 
authorities,  to  take  measures  to  raise  public 
awareness of the harmfulness of environmental 
crime. 
Provide  non-binding  guidance 
to  Member 
States  on  the  establishment  of  overarching 
national  enforcement  strategies  involving  all 
levels of the enforcement chain (administrative 
controls and monitoring, tax authorities, police, 
prosecution, judiciary). 

Not 
useful 

Useful  Very 
useful 

No 
answer 

22 
4% 

45 
9% 

396 
81% 

27 
6% 

11 
2% 

48 
10% 

416 
85% 

15 
3% 

95 
19% 

290 
59% 

72 
15% 

33 
7% 

training/specialisation  of 

to  Member  States  on 
Provide  guidance 
law 
specialised 
enforcement  officials,  criminal 
judges  and 
prosecutors with regard to environmental crime 
issues. 

13 
3% 

304 
62% 

150 
31% 

23 
5% 

253 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Option 

A  combination  of  binding  measures  and  non-
binding guidance (as outlined above) 
No additional measures necessary at EU level. 

Other 

Not 
useful 
39 
8% 
374 
76% 
11 
2% 

Useful  Very 
useful 
275 
56% 
0 
0% 
15 
3% 

116 
24% 
1 
<1% 
6 
1% 

No 
answer 
60 
12% 
115 
23% 
458 
93% 

Figure 12: options to foster the implementation of the Directive  

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Oblige Member States to implement the Directive

4%

9%

Oblige Member States to take specific measures

2%

10%

81%

85%

6%

3%

Provide non-binding guidance to Member States

19%

59%

15%

7%

Provide guidance on specialised training/specialisation

3%

62%

31%

5%

Binding measures and non-binding guidance

8%

24%

56%

12%

No additional measures necessary at EU level

76%

0%
0%

23%

Other

1%
2%

3%

93%

Not useful

Useful

Very useful

No answer

Concerning open responses, the most referenced subject is the need for training and capacity 
building.  Another  is  the  importance  of  increasing  the  number  of  specialised  units.  Five 
respondents  call  for  greater  cooperation  with  civil  society,  in  particular  cooperating  with 
NGOs  and  recognising  their  contribution  and  expertise,  including  through  the  Aarhus 
Convention.   

One NGO in its submitted document proposed the use of anti-money laundering mechanisms 
to tackle environmental crime.  

Table 35: Main themes addressed in open replies to question 8 

Main themes identified  

Improve funding for training, capacity building and specialisation 
Greater specialisation of units 
Greater cooperation with civil society including through Aarhus 
Binding measures are needed 

Total 
references 
[n=39] 
10 
8 
5 
4 

26% 
21% 
13% 
10% 

254 

 
 
 
 
Main themes identified  

Total 
references 
[n=39] 

Promotion of cooperation on enforcement, inspection and implementation  4 
A regulation should be used rather than a directive 
3 
A  provision  obliging  Member  States  to  implement  the  Directive  is 
redundant  
The Directive must combine binding and non-binding measures 
Availability of an online platform for sharing information 
Establishment of focal points in each MS 
Implementation should be reviewed regularly 
Non-binding measures should be preferred 
Ecocide 
Other 

3 
2 
2 
2 
2 
1 
1 
9 

10% 
8% 

8% 
5% 
5% 
5% 
5% 
3% 
3% 
23% 

 10.10  Question  9:  Measures  to  foster  and  improve  the  collection  of  statistical 
data on environmental crime. 

Most respondents  would support a legal  obligation to  require Member States to  collect  and 
report  statistical  data  on  environmental  crime  –  82%  regarded  this  option  as  very  useful. 
Many  also  agree  that  this  could  be  supported  via  the  development  of  EU-level  common 
standards for data collection (80% ‘very useful’) and the provision of a common platform for 
reporting (81% ‘very useful’). The option of non-binding guidelines in this regard received a 
less-favourable  response  –  92  or  19%  of  respondents  consider  this  not-useful  –  these  are  a 
mix  of  different  types  of  stakeholders,  with  only  three  representing  business.  Interestingly, 
only 51% considered the combination of a legal obligation with non-binding guidelines to be 
‘very useful’, with 23% considering it ‘useful’ and 12% considering it ‘not useful’. It is not 
clear  why  respondents  would  be  in  favour  of  an  obligation  but  then  against  guidelines 
supporting  that  obligation,  indicating  a  possible  misunderstanding  of  the  question.  The 
concept of professional-training and awareness raising was also mostly considered positively 
(26% ‘useful’ and 66% ‘very useful’).  

Table 36: Number and percentage of replies to question 9 

Option 

report 

to  collect  and 
Oblige  Member  States 
the  Commission 
to 
regularly 
statistical  data  related  to  environmental 
crime. 
Non-binding guidelines of the Commission 
on  the  collection  of  statistical  data  related 
to environmental crime. 
A combination of the two previous options 

Not useful  Useful  Very 
useful 

No 
answer 

11 
2% 

92 
19% 

59 
12% 

55 
11% 

323 
66% 

115 
23% 

402 
82% 

35 
7% 

252 
51% 

22 
4% 

40 
8% 

64 
13% 

255 

 
 
 
Option 

Not useful  Useful  Very 
useful 

No 
answer 

Professional training and awareness-raising 
for  national  law  enforcement  authorities 
regarding  the  importance  of  collecting, 
processing  and  sharing  of  statistical  data, 
fostered by the Commission. 
The  development  at  EU-level  of  common 
standards  on  the  collection  of  statistical 
data on environmental crime proceedings. 
The  provision  of  a  common  platform  to 
collect and exchange statistical data at EU-
level. 
No action at EU-level. 

Other 

13 
3% 

6 
1% 

4 
1% 

394 
80% 
11 
2% 

128 
26% 

70 
14% 

67 
14% 

2 
<1% 
3 
1% 

323 
66% 

390 
80% 

396 
81% 

1 
<1% 
10 
2% 

26 
5% 

24 
5% 

23 
5% 

93 
19% 
466 
95% 

Figure 13: measures to foster and improve the collection of data 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Collect and regularly report statistical data

2%

11%

Non-binding guidelines on the collection of data

19%

A combination of columns above

12%

23%

Professional training and awareness-raising

3%

26%

The development of common standards

1%

14%

Common platform to collect and exchange data

1%

14%

82%

66%

51%

66%

80%

81%

4%

7%

8%

13%

5%

5%

5%

No action at EU-level

80%

0%
0%

19%

Other

2%
1%
2%

95%

Not useful

Useful

Very useful

No answer

Only  43  respondents  provided  a  written  follow-up  response  to  this  question.  The  most 
common  open  response  is  that  measures  on  collection  of  statistical  data  should  be  binding, 
which  is  in  line  with  the  findings  from  the  closed  questions.  The  second  most  common 
comment  is  that  guidance  and  training  should  be  provided  to  ensure  that  data  collected  is 
comparable  between  Member  States  and  training  given  on  how  to  use  the  data  effectively. 
Also  mentioned  by  several  respondents  is  the  importance  of  building  on  existing  statistical 
infrastructure to avoid duplication of work for Member States and the value of ensuring that 
data is available to the public.   

256 

 
 
 
 
Table 37: Main themes addressed in open replies to question 9 

Main themes identified  

Make measures binding 
Give guidance and training on using data  
Build on existing platforms  and databases to avoid duplication of 
MS work 
Make data available to the public 
Greater  collection  of  statistics  is  needed  to  fight  environmental 
crime 
Ecocide 
Conduct wide academic research on environmental crime 
Ensure  that  the  reporting  system  is  not  too  much  of  an 
administrative burden 
Use  data  to  increase  public  communication  about  environmental 
crime 
Prefer non-binding guidelines to binding measures 
Other 

Total 
[n=43] 
13 
7 

5 
4 

3 
3 
2 

2 

2 
1 
10 

references 

30% 
16% 

12% 
9% 

7% 
7% 
5% 

5% 

5% 
2% 
23% 

 10.11  Question  10:  Do  you  have  any  other  comment  or  suggestion?  You  have 
the  possibility  to  upload  documents  with  information  you  want  to  draw  our 
attention to. 

The  final  question  gave  respondents  the  opportunity  to  submit  any  additional  written 
comments,  as  well  as  to  upload  documents  relevant  for  the  review  of  the  ECD,  including 
targeted  position  papers.  There  were  85  written  responses  providing  additional  comments. 
Thirteen  additional  replies  did  not  contain  additional  information  but  referred  to  the 
documents  they  had  submitted.  The  profile  of  those  who  took  the  time  to  submit  final 
comments  was  similar  to  the  overall  breakdown  of  profiles  across  the  sample  –  with  a 
somewhat higher proportion of business and NGOs.  

An  overview  of  the  main  points  of  these  responses  is  provided  in  the  table  below  –  many 
underlined  their  support  for  options  proposed  in  the  questionnaire,  such  as  to  improve 
compliance issues (11%), to publish data on environmental crime (5%) or to provide further 
clarifications and definitions related to environmental crime (4%).   

Other  responses  re-emphasised  other  concepts,  such  as  the  need  to  cover  environmental 
crimes  outside  the  EU  (9%);  to  extend  coverage  to  climate  change  amongst  other 
environmental areas; and to promote participation of civil society (4%).   

Four responses stressed that the current provisions are sufficient – all of these responses came 
from business. Responses from NGOs were mainly focused on ecocide (5 out of 10), with the 
remainder spread across different issues. 

257 

 
 
 
Table 38: Main themes addressed in open replies to question 10 

Main themes identified  

Criminalise ecocide 
Urgent action is needed to protect the environment 
Improve compliance, enforcement and accountability 
Cover environmental crimes outside the EU 
Extend coverage to climate change and other environmental areas 
The current provisions are sufficient 
Make data and results public 
Promote participation of civil society 
Provide clarifications and definitions 
Raise awareness and educate 
Ensure  EU  funding  does  not  support  environmentally  harmful 
projects 
Other 

Total 
[n=85] 
27 
10 
9 
8 
8 
4 
4 
3 
3 
3 
2 

4 

references 

32% 
12% 
11% 
9% 
9% 
5% 
5% 
4% 
4% 
4% 
2% 

5% 

6.  OVERVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED 

As  part  of  the  final  question  respondents  could  also  submit  documents  and  in  total  28 
respondents  submitted  documents  or  referred  to  a  link  for  their  document;  one  respondent 
submitted  an  empty  document.  Nearly  half  of  the  submissions  (13)  contain  very  specific 
examples or points of interest to the respondents that do not directly respond to the questions 
of  the  consultation.  Four  respondents  submitted  position  papers  or  background  information 
specifically  on  the  topic  of  ecocide.    Eleven  of  the  submissions  are  directly  related  to  the 
topic  of  the  public  consultation  and  contain  recommendations  or  propositions  on  pertinent 
issues.  These  eleven  submissions  come  from  two  academic  institutions,  two  business/ 
industry organisations, three government or practitioner organisations, and four NGOs.  

Common  themes  emerging  from  the  NGOs’  papers  are  the  need  for  clarifications  of  the 
vague  terms  or  definition  of  environmental  crime;  harmonisation  of  sanctions  and 
implementation; and cross-border cooperation.  One of the NGOs advocates for extension of 
the Directive’s scope to capture environmental crimes committed along the supply chain and 
outside the EU. The main position of the business organisations is that harmonisation is vital 
for  ensuring  a  level-playing  field.    The  respondents  representing  practitioners  or  academia 
provide more concrete recommendations and propositions for amendments as summarised in 
the following table. 

258 

 
 
 
 
Role 
Not mentioned 

Overview and comments 
Paper  about  restorative  justice  and  the  potential  to  apply  this  concept/process  in 
environmental crimes 

Table 39: Overview of all documents submitted 

ID  Reference 
1 

ERFJ  -  European 
for 
Forum 
Restorative 
Justice 
EU survey  
LETTERA 
Four Paws 

Private individual  Copy of the survey response but not readable 
Other 
NGO 

2 
3 
4 

5 

- 

ENPE 
European 
of 
Network 
Prosecutors 
for 
the Environment 

National 
prosecution 
professional 
network 
prosecutors 

or 

for 

and 

data 

Examples of Italian legal cases and issues on asbestos 
Propositions  by  an  NGO  focused  on  covering  wildlife  trafficking,  cooperation, 
enforcement 
collection. 
The  position  highlights  the  international  aspect  of  wildlife  crime.  It  asks  for  making 
wildlife crime a serious crime and applying maximum penalties with a deterrent effect. 
It  also  asks  for  the  establishment  of  national  task  forces  and  cooperation  across  MS, 
between  MS  and  EU  agencies  and  NGOs.  It  is  proposed  that  wildlife  special 
prosecutors  and  police  units  are  established  in  MS.  It  is  encouraged  that  common  EU 
standards on data collection are established to collect data on court cases, proceedings 
and  sanctions,  supported  by  training  to  national  authorities.  The  NGO  also  calls  for  a 
registration system for legal wildlife trade and national action plans for the management 
of confiscated wild animals. 
the  questionnaire  with  comments  and  recommendations; 
A  detailed  copy  of 
The 
are: 
1: The EU should revise the Environmental Crime Directive (2008/99) to foster greater 
protection  of  the  environment  in  Member  States  (inclusion  of  climate  change  is 
mentioned). 
2a ENPE recommends that The Commission should remove reference to vague notions 
within  the  Directive  to  the  extent  possible  and  where  this  cannot  be  achieved  should 
provide greater clarity and definition of terms. Where possible these should be aligned 
with  terms  and  definitions  used  in  other  international  instruments  and  EU  Directives. 

recommendations 

ENPE 

by 

259 

 
 
 
ID  Reference 

Role 

a 

is 

in 

of 

or 

of 

act 

the 

the 

third 

courts 

through 

omission 

governance 

Overview and comments 
2b  ENPE  recommends  that  thresholds  for  criminalisation  of  environmental  permit 
breaches  and  offences  should  be  lowered  or  removed  to  ensure  that  wider  and  easier 
enforcement 
possible. 
criminal 
2c ENPE recommends that the opportunity should be taken to include a clear, decisive 
and  purposive  requirement  in  the  Directive  that  Member  States  should  ensure  both 
natural and legal persons can be prosecuted for environmental offences directly, rather 
than 
party. 
2d  ENPE  recommends  that  the  opportunity  should  also  be  taken  to  clarify  the 
relationship between criminal and administrative sanctions. Systems for administrative 
sanctions  relating  to  criminal  offending  should  be  subject  to  legislative  provision  or 
judicial  oversight  which  ensures  that  administrative  sanctions  are  applied  with  high 
transparency. 
levels 
2e  ENPE  recommends  that  to  improve  the  sanctioning  of  environmental  crime, 
sentencing  guidelines  or  gravity  factors  should  be  adopted  in  line  with  the 
recommendations  of  ENPE  report  -  Sanctioning  Environmental  Crime  (WG4)  –  Final 
V. 
report, 
2f ENPE recommends that Member States should be obliged to participate in a common 
data  collecting  regime  or  system  with  clear  parameters  and  requirements,  for  law 
enforcement agencies involved in environmental crime, which is accessible to them and 
others  for  analytical  purposes.  The  Commission  should  establish  a  mechanism  for 
external 
scrutiny. 
2g  ENPE  recommends  that  Member  States  should  be  strongly  encouraged  to  promote 
and adopt measures to ensure specialisation of all participants within the environmental 
law 
chain. 
enforcement 
2h  ENPE  recommends  that  forestry  offences  should  clearly  be  included  within  the 
ambit 
directive. 
3a  ENPE  recommends  favouring  retention  of  annexes  to  identify  some  of  the  most 
common types of environmental crime which must be capable of being dealt with under 
criminal law. There should be an additional catch-all definition of environmental crime 

environmental 

Section 

crime 

audit 

and 

the 

or 

of 

260 

 
 
ID  Reference 

Role 

is 

to 

it, 

be 

by 

the 

and 

legal 

from 

upon 

protect 

regimes 

removed 

designed 

committed 

sufficiently 

Overview and comments 
to ensure that the requirement to criminalise certain behaviours which have an adverse 
impact 
broad. 
3b  ENPE  recommends  that  the  Directive  should  provide  that  additional  requirements 
may  be  promptly  and  easily  added  by  guidance/amendment  or  similar  mechanism  by 
to  reflect  new  and  developing  areas  of  criminal  activity 
the  Commission 
5:  Certainty in  the law is essential. Therefore vague notions and imprecise definitions 
should 
Directive. 
6a ENPE recommends that the Commission widen the scope of the Directive to include 
persons. 
offences 
6b ENPE recommends that  Member States insert  the formula ‘effective,  proportionate 
and  dissuasive’  as  the  standard  for  (criminal)  sanctioning  in  their  national  legislation. 
6c ENPE  recommends that  the Commission  provide  guidance on the terms  ‘effective, 
proportionate 
document. 
in 
6d  ENPE  recommends  that  Courts  should  have  sentencing  options  available  to  them 
which  deal  with 
/  or  repair  of  environmental  crime. 
6e  ENPE  recommends  that  consideration  be  given  to  setting  out  minimum  penalty 
thresholds  for  all  Member  States  in  the  prosecution  of  environmental  crime. 
7a ENPE recommends that the new version of the ECN imposes an obligation on each 
Member State to nominate a specialist or specialist at each stage of the environmental 
enforcement chain  and to  publish the contact  details of those personnel  clearly on the 
website  of  the  national  government  department  responsible  for  the  implementation  of 
the 
Directive. 
7b ENPE recommends that the Commission consider allocating additional ‘ring fenced’ 
funding  to  EUROJUST  so  as  to  allow  for  the  recruitment  or  secondment  of  assistant 
national  members  to  specialise  in  the  cross  border  enforcement  of  EU  environmental 
criminal 
ENPE. 
8a ENPE recommends that specialist training is appropriately funded and provided for 
all  levels  in  the  enforcement  chain  from  Inspectors,  police,  prosecutors,  judges  and 
lawyers. 
defence 

the  remediation  and 

comprehensive 

conjunction 

dissuasive’ 

with 

law 

in 

a 

261 

 
 
ID  Reference 

Role 

Overview and comments 
8b ENPE recommends that the EU Commission should take all possible steps to  urge 
Member  States  to  participate  in  the  specialist  environmental  enforcement  networks. 
8c  ENPE  urges  the  EU  Commission  to  consider  funding  ENPE  as  a  valuable 
enforcement  network  to  be  co-located  with  other  enforcement  practitioners  and 
prosecutors  at  EUROJUST.  This  would  significantly  assist  and  facilitate  specialist 
environmental  prosecutors  to  deliver  their  mandates  appropriately.  For  example,  EJN 
and OLAF are facilitated in a similar manner and we believe ENPE could substantially 
assist  in  the  pan-European  enforcement  of  environmental  crime  if  given  appropriate 
support. 
financial 
9: ENPE recommends that the new Directive should include a mandatory provision to 
improve the collection, sharing and reporting of statistical data on environmental crime 
States. 
by 
Further explanations and examples are also provided. 
Petition on geothermal energy 

organisational 

Member 

and 

Other 

6 

Petition 
geotherme 
7  Moreno  Soldado 

Salvador 

Defense lawyer 

Examples of Spanish legal cases and issues on power lines and electrecution of birds 

8  Une  pleinte  de 

Defense lawyer 

News article about a French case on pesticide pollution 

interest 

Other 
organisations 
(hunters/farmers) 
Academic/research 
institution 

emposennement 

9  German 

organisations 

10  Cycle  DRE 

- 
enseignants 
et 
auditeurs 
du 
Cycle 
«Droit 
de 
répressif 
l’environnement» 

Examples of German legislation and issues on hydropower plants 

to 

for 

propositions 

amendments 

recommendations 

academics. 
20 
The 
include: 
1.The existence of criminal sanctions, which reflect a qualitatively different disapproval 
of society than that manifested through administrative sanctions or civil compensation, 
reinforced.  
should 
2.The provisions of the legislation listed in Annexes A and B must be complemented by 
criminal  law  measures  that  match  environmental  damage  with  appropriate  criminal 

ECD 

the 

by 

be 

262 

 
 
ID  Reference 

Role 

be 

are 

and 

that 

this  Directive  applies.   

should 

(suggestions 

and 
cooperation 

they  should  specify,  where  appropriate, 

Overview and comments 
sanctions. 
3.Whenever  legislation  or  other  general  or  individual  environmental  standards  are 
adopted, 
4.The Union is committed to strengthening the role of the European Court of Auditors, 
in  particular  through  audits  relating  to  climate  change,  the  environment,  natural 
biodiversity. 
resources 
5.Exchanges 
promoted. 
6.  In  Article  1  "Subject",  create  a  paragraph  2:  Scope  (suggestions  are  provided). 
is  created  RELATING  TO  INQUIRIES  AND 
7.  An  ADDITIONAL  article 
PROSECUTIONS 
provided). 
8. ARTICLE 2, DEFINITIONS, is thus completed, a renumbering of the items appears 
necessary,  and  current  recitals  5,  6,  7  and  10  should  be  revised  (suggestions  are 
provided). 
9.  ARTICLE  3:  INFRINGEMENTS  (prefer:  "QUALIFICATIONS")  (suggestions  are 
provided). 
10. ADDITIONAL ARTICLE: RISK, PREVENTION AND PRECAUTION is created 
(suggestions 
provided).  
are 
11.  ARTICLE  4,  INCENTIVES  AND  COMPLICITY  is  revised  (suggestions  are 
provided). 
12.  ARTICLE  5,  SANCTIONS  (prefer  "PENALTIES")    is  revised  (suggestions  are 
provided). 
13.  ARTICLE  6:  RESPONSIBILITY  OF  LEGAL  PERSONS  and  ARTICLE  7: 
SANCTIONS AGAINST LEGAL PERSONS (prefer "PENALTIES") are to be merged 
into 
provided).  
14.  ADDITIONAL  ARTICLE:  REPAIR  OF  DAMAGE  is  created  (suggestions  are 
provided). 
15.  ADDITIONAL  ARTICLE:  ALTERNATIVES  TO  CRIMINAL  SANCTIONS    is 
provided). 
created 
is  created 
16.  ADDITIONAL  ARTICLE  -  ADMINISTRATIVE  SANCTIONS 

(suggestions 

(suggestions 

article 

one 

are 

are 

263 

 
 
 
ID  Reference 

Role 

11  María 

Jesús 

Sanchis Carles 

12  CEFIC 

Local/regional 
authority 
Business/industry 
or 
business/industry 
association 

13  RJT article 

14  PRE 

-  Plastics 
Recyclers Europe 

or 

for 

National 
prosecution 
professional 
network 
prosecutors 
Business/industry 
or 
business/industry 

is 

is 

are 

are 

are 

the 

Union 

created 

created 

PUBLIC 

IN  THE 

(suggestions 

(suggestions 

PROCEDURES 

PARTICIPATION 

Overview and comments 
provided). 
(suggestions 
17. 
defined. 
18. ADDITIONAL ARTICLE: COOPERATION of Member States with Union bodies 
is 
provided). 
19. ADDITIONAL ARTICLE: Cooperation at the expense of the organs and agencies 
of 
provided). 
20.  ADDITIONAL  ARTICLE:  CROSS-BORDER  COOPERATION  BETWEEN 
MEMBER STATES is created (suggestions are provided). 
as 
Same 
Examples of Spanish legal cases and issues on power lines and electrecution of birds 
submitted; 
One 
responses, 
of 
sanctions. 
Propositions 
The  position  stresses  the  importance  of  effective  enforcement  and  compliance  as  a 
condition  for  a  level-playing  field  across  the  EU.  It  is  understood  tha  effective 
enforcement  depends  upon  the  definition  of  sanctions  and  is  proposed  that  MS 
enforcement  strategies  should  be  designed  to  respond  to  different  types  of  behaviour 
with different enforcement tools. It is recommended that appropriate sanctions are based 
on a case-by-case basis considering: the nature, degree of culpability, frequency, harm 
caused,  previous  warnings  and  seriousness  of  non-compliance.  It  highlighted  that  any 
double  sanctions  arising  from  the  ECD  and  existing  administrative  law  should  be 
avoided. 
Academic article about ecocide  

document 
on 

only 
focused 

document 

merged 

Cefic 

N7; 

the 

by 

Propositions  by  PRE  focused  on  definitions,  sanctions  and  data  collection. 
The 
for: 
the  MS; 
-clarification  of  vague 

calls 
through  a  guidance 

position 
legal 

terms,  e.g. 

to 

264 

 
 
ID  Reference 

Role 
association 

15  SERPONA 

law 
or 

law 

National 
enforcement 
professional 
network  of 
enforcement, 
police 

16  Pays  de 
ADET 

l'ours 

NGO 

17  GGA 

Other 

- 

as 

of 

and 

best 

Civil 

crime, 

examples 

document 

Guard 
position 

organised 
consider 

corruption, 
aggravated 

Overview and comments 
the  sanctions  and  penalties  applied  and  elaboration  of 
-harmonisation  of 
sanctions/penalties  associated  with  each  type  of  environmental  offences,  e.g.  through 
guidelines 
practices; 
-measures to compel MS to report data to Eurostat together with EU standards for the 
collection and reporting of reliable data. 
Propositions for amendments to the ECD by the Spanish  Nature Protection Service of 
SERPONA. 
the 
The 
proposes: 
-to broaden the understanding of serious crime by establishing links with other crimes 
fraud; 
such 
-to 
offences; 
-to  include  in  the  ECD  a  binding  provision  for  the  MS  to  adopt  minimum  penal 
sanctions  for  environmental  crimes  that  allow,  according  to  the  national  penal 
procedure,  the  use  of  a  wide  range  of  investigative  techniques  and  harmonise  the 
investigative 
MS; 
-to clarify vague terms (examples are provided) 
Propositions  by  an  NGO  focused  on  definitions,  clarifications,  sanctions  and 
cooperation. 
The  position  supports  the  points  proposed  by  the  Commission  and  specifically: 
-  The  definition  of  environmental  criminal 
law  as  an  autonomous  concept. 
- The clarification of certain legal terms used in Article 3 of the Directive as necessary 
to 
States.  
criminal 
-  The  establishment  of  minimum  quanta  for  custodial  sentences,  fines  or  financial 
penalties,  the  establishment  of  aggravating  circumstances,  particularly  in  matters  of 
organized  crime,  and  the  introduction  of  penalties  diversified  per  complementary 
activities. 
-Strengthening the cross-border cooperation between Member States.  
Example of a Dutch case on monitoring of a Nature Network Netherlands region  in  a 
part of North Holland. 

law  within  Member 

environmental 

harmonize 

among 

tools 

265 

 
 
ID  Reference 
18  Wildlife 

Justice 

Role 
NGO 

Commission 

It 

of 

the 

only 

deleted 

document 

responses, 

Overview and comments 
submitted; 
One 
Propositions  by  an  NGO  focused  on  covering  wildlife  trafficking,  links  with  criminal 
networks  and  money  laundering,  cooperation  and  use  of  special  investigative 
techniques. 
The  position  highlights  the  role  played  by  criminal  networks  behind  the  wildlife 
trafficking. 
for: 
•  Adoption  of  strong  penalties  including  fines  and  forfeitures  especially  for  the  high-
level 
networks.  
EU. 
• 
• Use of intelligence and of special investigative techniques that facilitate both a global 
understanding 
operations.  
•  Common  definitions  and  clarifications  in  the  wording  of  paragraph  3  in  the  current 
Directive e.g. both regarding the scope of the activities pertaining to trafficking in line 
with  updated  definitions  used  by  the  ICCWC  and  the  types  of  species  protected.  
• The reference to legal persons is useful especially in view of the existence of a legal 
wildlife market and the possible involvement of these industries in wildlife trafficking. 
• Use of anti-money laundering mechanisms  to tackle wildlife crime. 

traffickers 
Harmonisation 

roles 
sanctions 

criminal 
the 

the 
across 

cross-border 

play 
of 

problem 

pivotal 

calls 

that 

and 

the 

of 

in 

19  Consultation 
Stop Ecocide 
20  Spanish NGOs & 
Against 

LIFE 
bird crime 
21  Ecocide Q&A 
22  Swedish 

Government 

Private individual  Copy 

of 

the 
Position to criminalise ecocide 
Two reports with examples of illegal killing of wildlife 

complete 

survey 

used 

to 

NGO 

the 

blank 

response 

ID72; 

NGO 
Government 
authority in charge 
of  environmental 
policy 

Academic article about ecocide 
Propositions by Swedish authorities focused on the scope and independent definition of 
environmental 
crime. 
The  position  supports  the  clarification  of  some  of  the  terms  used  in  the Directive  and 
shares  the  view  that  a  coherent  interpretation  of  the  Directive  could  facilitate 
cross-border cooperation. Sweden welcomes measures that will increase the minimum 
requirements  of  the  Directive  and  supports:  criminalising  risky  behaviour,  making 

266 

 
 
ID  Reference 

Role 

Overview and comments 
revisions to include also offences committed through negligence that is not considered 
serious,  establishing  an  autonomous  environmental  criminal  provision  for  some 
criminal acts but that such provision must exclude acts that have been permitted by the 
competent authorities (an example is provided). 

on 

the 

and 

focused 

concept  of 

enforcement.  Recommendations 

Other (academic)  An academic paper summarising  case studies  from  England, Wales,  Germany  and the 
Netherlands 
include: 
•It  is  recommended  that  the  EU  does  not  aim  to  prescribe  a  specific  system  of 
enforcement,  such  as  criminal  enforcement,  where  it  further  develops  the  concept  of 
effective  enforcement.  It  is  recommended  that  development  at  EU  level  rather 
approaches 
system-independent. 
•  Where  the  EU  further  develops  the  concept  of  effective  enforcement,  it  can  be 
the  concept  of  effective 
recommended 
enforcement  by  directing  its  focus  also  to  the  possibilities  of  reparatory  sanctions 
to 
enforcement. 
•  It  is  recommended  that  the  concept  of  effective  enforcement  can  be  further 
operationalised  by  the  EU  in  the  shape  of  quality  standards/requirements  for 
the  enforcement  organisation  that  promote  its  ability  to  choose  the  appropriate 
sanctions 
enforcement. 
the 
Examples are also provided. 
Copy of the survey response   

legislator  operationalises 

enforcement 

effective 

effective 

effective 

the  EU 

achieve 

benefit 

Other 

that 

for 

of 

as 

survey 

23  Essens 

24  EU 

citizen 
25  Parents 

for 

Not mentioned 

Future Italia 

26  Befragung 

Other 

environmental 
crime 
27  NPWJ 

-  No 
Peace  Without 
Justice 

NGO 

NGO's position on the Renewable Energy Directive - guide to sustainability criteria for 
forest biomass used in energy production 
Position to criminalise ecocide 

Propositions by an NGO focused on geographical scope and coverage of  supply chain 
offenses. 
The 

position 

calls 

for: 

267 

 
 
ID  Reference 

Role 

28  ENPE report 

Academic/research 
institution 

29  Empty file 

/ 

Overview and comments 
-A revision of the Directive should address its geographical scope with further clarity, 
explicitly  expanding  it.  For  instance,  to  address  companies  from  outside  the  EU  that 
operate within the EU territory and European companies that cause environmental harm 
abroad.  It  is  considered  essential  that  the  revised  Directive  includes  responsibility  for 
environmental  crimes  that  are  committed  outside  the  EU  by  European  companies  or 
legal 
entities. 
-The  connection  between  European  companies/businesses  and  governments  with  the 
destruction  of  the  environment  through  supply  chains  (especially  in  the  case  of 
deforestation)  should  be  addressed  by  a  revised  Directive.  In  this  regard,  it  should  be 
clarified what  is  understood  by  'substantial  damages'.  Impacts  on human rights  should 
also 
considered. 
-It  is  proposed  that  the  penalties  of  the  Directive  should  consider  the  different 
dimensions of the impact of environmental crimes, including ways of addressing them 
that go beyond criminal liability, such as reparations. It would be particularly useful if a 
revision of the Directive encouraged Member States to address reparations for criminal 
offences related to the environment. 
Document 
Q10 
in 
2017  report  by  ENPE  on  'Environmental  prosecution  report  tackling  environmental 
crime in Europe'  
/ 

provided 

response 

link 

text 

be 

of 

as 

to 

268 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 8: Stakeholder consultation –synopsis report 

This annex provides a synopsis report of all stakeholder consultation activities undertaken in the 
context of this impact assessment. 

1.  Consultation strategy  

In  order  to  ensure  that  the  general  public  interest  of  the  EU  is  properly  considered  in  the 
Commission's  approach  to  the  review  of  the  environmental  crime  Directive,  the  Commission 
regards  it  as  a  duty  to  conduct  stakeholder  consultations,  and  wishes  to  consult  as  widely  as 
possible.  

The  consultation  aimed  to  enable  an  evidence-based  preparation  of  the  future  Commission 
initiatives to improve the effectiveness of the Environmental Crime Directive and to strengthen 
the  fight  against  environmental  crime  with  the  help  of  the  stakeholders.  The  aim  of  the 
consultation  was  for  the  Commission  to  receive  relevant  input  and  the  relevant  needs  of  all 
stakeholders about the six main objectives:   

  Clarify and update scope of the environmental crime Directive;  

  Clarify legal terms used to determine what is an environmental crime;  

 

 

 

 

Improve availability of dissuasive and comparable sanction types and levels;  

Improve cross-border cooperation; 

Improve the collection and dissemination of statistical data and 

Improve functioning of the enforcement chain (training, coordination, resources).  

To do this, the Commission identified relevant stakeholders and consulted them on an early stage 
of  the  development  of  its  draft  proposal.  The  Commission  sought  views  from  a  wide  range  of 
citizens,  subject  matter  experts,  practitioners  (police  services,  inspectors,  prosecutors  and 
judges), professional networks (IMPEL, ENPE, EUFJE, EnvirCrimeNet), public authorities from 
Member  States  (Ministries  of  Justice  and  Ministries  of  Environment),  European  Agencies 
(Europol  and  Eurojust),  environmental  non-governmental  organisations  (NGOs),  business 
organisations and individual companies and academics on their expectations and concerns about 
the review of the Environmental Crime Directive.  

During  the  consultation  process,  the  Commission  applied  a  variety  of  methods  and  forms  of 
consultation. They included: 

269 

 
 
 

the  consultation  on  the  Inception  Impact  Assessment  and  a  12-week  Open  Public 
Consultation, which sought views from all interested parties; 

  a  series  of  online  targeted  thematic  workshops  or  expert  groups  meetings.  Dedicated 
questionnaires or discussion papers were sent out in advance to prepare for the meetings 
hosted by the Commission; 

  a number of online conferences at which the Commission participated and presented its 
work  in  this  area,  gathered  feedback  on  the  six  main  options  from  other  conference 
participants  and  invited  additional  participants  in  the  expert  process  and  the  public 
consultation; 

  bilateral online meetings with a wide range of stakeholders organised at the initiative of 

the Commission or the stakeholders; 

  Position papers and analytical papers from European agencies, practitioners, professional 
networks,  industry  representatives,  public  authorities  from  Member  States,  non-
governmental organisations, civil society and academia.   

In total,  the dedicated consultation  activities lasted more than 6 month, from February 2021 to 
July 2021.  

The  consultation  was  designed  to  follow  the  same  logical  sequence  of  the  impact  assessment, 
starting  with  the  problem  definition  and  allowing  for  a  gradual  development  of  the  possible 
options and their impacts.  

The  consultation  gathered  feedback  on  the  problem  definition,  options  and  impacts  of  these 
options,  focused  on  the  legislation  to  fight  against  environmental  crimes  effectively.  The 
aforementioned  diversity  of  perspectives  proved  valuable  in  supporting  the  Commission  to 
ensure that its political options address the needs, and took account of the concerns, of a broad 
range of stakeholders at national and EU level. Moreover, it allowed the Commission to gather 
necessary  study  cases,  data,  facts  and  views  on  the  relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
coherence and EU added value of the review of the Directive.  

The table below summarises the structure of the consultation strategy for a more effective fight 
against environmental crime: 

270 

 
 
HOW 

Surveys 

Targeted stakeholder consultation with questionnaires or discussion papers 

Conferen-
ces 

Inception 
Impact 
Assessment 

Open 
public 
consul
-tation 

Criminal 
law expert  

Forum 
meeting/ 
Working group 
of the Forum 

Targeted 
work-
shop  

Consultation  Targeted 
work-shop 

Written 
opinions 

Semi-
structured 
Interviews 
(bilaterial) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Citizens 

Member States 

Practitioner, 
professional 
networks,  Eurojust, 
Europol 

O
H
W

NGOs 

Business 

Academia 

Union 
European 
Agency 
for 
Fundamental Rights 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Problem definition, 
options and impacts 

Scope, 
defini-tions, 
sanctions 
and impacts 

Problem 
definition, 
options and 
impacts 

Problem 
definition, 
options and 
impacts 

Scope, 
definitions, 
sanctions and 
impacts 

Scope, 
definitions, 
sanctions 
and impacts 

Problem 
definition, 
options and 
impacts 

Problem 
definition, 
options and 
impacts 

Problem 
definition, 
options and 
impacts 

271 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WHAT 

272 

 
 
 
2.  Consultation activities  

The consultation was structured as follows: 

2.1. 

Inception Impact Assessment412  

There was a call for feedback, seeking views from any interested stakeholders, on the basis of the 
Inception  Impact  Assessment.  The  Roadmap  has  been  published  with  the  possibility  for 
comments. The consultation, sought feedback from all interested parties, was open for response 
from  4  December  2020  to  30  December  2020.  Participants  of  the  consultation  were  able  to 
provide  online  comments  and  submit  short  position  papers,  if  they  wished,  to  provide  more 
background on their views. 17 feedbacks have been received. 

2.2. 

Public Consultation413 

An Open Public Consultation as part of the consultation strategy for the new legislative proposal 
was carried from 5  February until  3 May 2021 to achieve transparency  and accountability  and 
give  any  stakeholder  the  possibility  to  contribute  to  the  review  of  the  Environmental  Crime 
Directive. 490 responses were collected. 

2.3. 

Stakeholder events  

To  gather  feedback,  data  and  cases  studies  to  support  the  evidence-based  preparation  of  the 
reviewed  legislation  to  fight  against  environmental  crime,  the  Commission  organised  and 
participated  in  various  group  or  bilateral  meetings  as  well  as  analysed  written  statements  from 
the stakeholders.  

2.3.1.  Targeted stakeholder consultation 

The  targeted  stakeholder  consultation  and  in  particular  the  expert  process  organised  by  the 
Commission were an integral part of the consultation activities and were developing the problem 
definition and the options described in the impact assessment.    

In  the  course  of  the  consultation,  the  Commission  organised  targeted  stakeholder  events  that 
were  held  on  19  February,  25  March,  27  April,  29  April,  2  June  and  24  June  2021. 
Representatives  from  the  Member  States  were  invited  on  25  March  and  29  April  2021 
respectively. 

19 February 2021: Criminal Law Experts Meeting  

412The Inception Impact Assessment Consultation is available here. All contributions received are publically available.  
413 The Open Public Consultation is available here. All contributions received are publically available. 

273 

 
 
                                                 
On  19  February  2021,  the  Commission  organised  a  meeting  with  the  Expert  Group  on  EU 
Criminal  Policy.  Members  of  this  Expert  Group  are  academics  stakeholders  and  practitioners. 
The  objective  of  the  discussion  was  to  have  an  exchange  of  views  on  key  elements  of  the 
planned revision, as part of a wider stakeholders’ consultation.  

25  March  2021  and  2  June  2021:  Workshop  with  the  Working  Group  on  environmental 
sanctioning of the Environmental Compliance and Governance Forum and 6thmeeting of the 
Environmental Compliance and Governance Forum  

In  2018,  as  a  group  of  experts,  the  Environmental  Compliance  and  Governance  Forum  was 
founded.  Members  of  the  Forum  are  Member  States,  European  environmental  compliance 
assurance networks (ENPE, EnviCrimeNet, IMPEL and EUFJE), EU bodies (e.g. Europol) and 
EFTA  countries.  One  task  of  the  Forum  is  to  assist  the  Commission  in  the  preparation  of 
legislative proposals and policy initiatives.  

In 2020, a Working Group was established to support during 2021 and early 2022 the review of 
the Environmental Crime Directive. On 25 March 2021, the first meeting of the Working Group 
on  environmental  sanctioning  of  the  Environmental  Compliance  and  Governance  Forum 
organised by the Commission has taken place. Members of the Working Group are inspectorates, 
police  officers,  prosecutors  and  judges  and  certain  Member  States  (ministries  of  the 
Environment).  Europol  and  networks,  such  as  EnviCrimeNet,  are  also  part  of  the  Working 
Group.  The  Working  Group  was  provided  with  a  questionnaire  about  the  six  main  options  to 
improve  the  effectiveness  of  the  Environmental  Crime  Directive  in  advance.  Twelve  Member 
States,  three  law  enforcement  practitioners  or  experts,  Europol  and  EnvirCrimeNet  provided 
written feedback on this. The objective of this workshop was to bring together experts from the 
ground  to  have  an  exchange  of  views  on  the  needs  for  the  review  of  the  environmental  crime 
Directive.  

The Commission invited to the 6th meeting of the Environmental Compliance and Governance 
Forum  on  June  2.  The  four  networks  presented  the  outcomes  of  their  recent  joint  conference 
which  took  place  on  21  May  2021  and  focussed  on  the  revision  of  the  Environmental  Crime 
Directive.  The  Commission  explained  the  state-of-play  of  the  environmental  Crime  Directive 
revision  work  and  the  preliminary  outcomes  and  trends  based  on  the  approximately  500 
responses to the public consultation. 

27 April 2021: Workshop with environmental NGOs 

On  27  April  2021,  an  online  workshop  with  participants  of  40  representatives  of  national  and 
European NGOs in the environmental field was organised by the Commission. Around 30 NGOs 
were invited to the workshop and received a dedicated questionnaire about the six main options 

274 

 
 
to  improve  the  effectiveness  of  the  Environmental  Crime  Directive  in  advance.  Six  NGOs 
responded to the questionnaire. The aim of the workshop was to have an exchange of views to 
provide a complete picture of the relevant actors at national and EU level.  

29 April 2021: Consultation of Member States 

The  exchange  with  the  Member  States  on  29  April  organised  by  the  Commission  serves  to 
complement  the  information  Member  States  had  already  provided  in  the  context  of  the  public 
consultation and the Environmental Compliance and Governance Forum on 25 Marche 2021. To 
prepare this meeting, Member States have received a discussion paper on three key issues of the 
review process (scope of the Directive, definition of environmental crime categories, sanctions). 
Member  States  were  requested  to  identify  options  they  could  endorse  as  well  as  constitutional 
obstacles  they  might  have  with  individual  options.  As  part  of  this  early  involvement,  Member 
States have provided a preliminary opinion. The meeting regrouped over 60 participants. 

24 June 2021: Workshop with business/industry 

On June 24, the Commission conducted a workshop with representatives of the Industry. Out of 
the  25  industry  stakeholders  who  participated  in  the  public  consultation,  eleven  of  them  who 
contributed  with  detailed  comments,  representing  various  industry  sectors  (waste,  chemicals, 
plastics,  etc.)  and  hundreds  of  individual  companies  in  these  sectors,  were  invited  to  the 
workshop.  Five  of  them  participated  in  the  workshop.  Participants  had  received  a  detailed 
discussion  paper  regarding  the  scope  of  the  Directive,  the  definition  of  environmental  crime, 
sanctions up-front the meeting. The aim of the workshop was to deepen the discussions and have 
businesses views on issues, which might be of particular relevance for businesses especially on 
SMEs.  

2.3.2.  Conferences 

The Commission has used a series of external events to present the current state of play on the 
revision of the Environmental Crime Directive and the possible options. The conferences were 
an  opportunity  to  gather  the  views  of  the  audience  and  to  get  feedback  from  stakeholders  in  a 
setting that allows a wide reach. 

MEP Maria Toussaint: 

  Conference on fighting environmental crimes in Europe  

The Commission made use of the online Conference on fighting environmental crimes in Europe 
organised  by  the  Member  of  the  European  Parliament  Maria  Toussaint  on  23  March  2021  to 
brief  the  public  on  its  preparatory  work  and  explain  the  problems,  background  and  potential 
solutions  to  the  review  of  the  environmental  crime  Directive.  Participants  at  the  conference 

275 

 
 
included  the  European  Network  of  Environmental  Police  (EnviCrimeNet),  the  European  NGO 
“TRAFFIC” and the Italian NGO “Legambiante”.  

  Conference on the rights of nature in Europe  

During  the  Conference  on  the  rights  of  nature  in  Europe  organised  by  the  Member  of  the 
European  Parliament  Maria  Toussaint  on  22  April  2021,  the  Commission  has  spoken  at  the 
conference  on  the  proposed  legislation  and  encouraged  participation  in  the  ongoing  public 
consultation. 

  Roundtable "Legal paradigm shifts for a new environmental law" 

The  occasion  of  the  roundtable  organised  by  the  Member  of  the  European  Parliament  Maria 
Toussaint on 2 June 2021 was the launch of the publication of the study "Legal paradigm shifts 
for a new environmental law" by Véronique Jaworski and Marie-Pierre Camproux (University of 
Strasbourg) and to debate together with members of the Civil Society, lawyers and other experts 
the proposals made by the two researchers. The Commission continued the public dialogue about 
the review of the environmental crime Directive.  

Council of Europe: Working Group on the Environment and Criminal Law  

The  Commission  made  also  use  of  the  first  and  second  meeting  of  the  Working  Group  of  the 
Council of Europe on the Environment and Criminal Law on 20/21 April and 15 June 2021 to 
follow the discussion about the reasons of non-ratification of the 1998 Convention. Although this 
event  was  not  dedicated  to  the  consultation  in  the  context  of  the  review  of  the  Directive,  this 
meeting  included  the  topic  in  their  agenda  to  discuss  the  reasons  for  the  failure  of  the  1998 
Convention and the possible way  forward, by assessing whether creating  a new Convention or 
modernizing  the  existing  Convention  is  feasible  and  appropriate.  That  corresponded  to  the 
considered autonomous approach addressed by the legislative proposal.   

IMPEL: Conference WasteForce 

The Commission also made use of the online Conference WasteForce on 7 May 2021 with the 
European  Union  Network  for  the  Implementation  and  Enforcement  of  Environmental  Law 
(IMPEL) to present the experts its preparatory work.  

European Chemical Industry Council’s Legal Forum 

The Commission participated in the European Chemical Industry Council’s Legal Forum on May 
12 2021 and presented the current work on the review of the Directive and possible options. 

4 Networks Day (IMPEL, EnviCrimeNet, ENPE and EUFJE) 

276 

 
 
The  4  Networks  Day  was  held  on  21  May  2021.  This  virtual  conference  was  organized  by 
IMPEL,  EnviCrimeNet,  ENPE  and  EUFJE  and  hosted  by  LIFE=SATEC  project.  The  overall 
goal  of  the  event  was  to  bring  relevant  parties  –  regulators,  inspectors,  police  officers, 
prosecutors  and  judges  –  together  to  debate  joint  efforts  to  fight  environmental  crime.  The 
Commission  presented  the  state  of  play  on  the  review  of  the  Directive  and  the  considered 
approaches.  

Frontex Seminar on environmental Crime  

On  June  1,  the  Commission  presented  its  reflections  on  the  revision  of  the  Directive  and  the 
different  ways  to  address  the  problems  at  the  Frontex  Seminar  on  Environmental  Crime. 
Participants of the Frontex Seminar were European Agencies, like FRA, Eurojust, Europol, eu-
LISA, Frontex, as well as professional networks (EnviCrimeNet, ENPE), Interpol and UNODC.  

2.3.3.  Semi-structured interviews and/or written opinions 

The  consultation  included  targeted  –  mainly  follow-up  –  bilateral  and  multilateral  semi-
structured interviews with stakeholders for open and in depth discussions. These interviews were 
conducted  from  February  to  July  2021.  They  included  in  particular  Member  states,  European 
Agencies  (Europol  and  Eurojust)  and  (academic  or  professional)  experts.  Following  the 
interviews, but also independently of previous interviews, targeted stakeholders provided written 
comments on the options. The objective of the oral or written consultation was to:  

  gathering  information  about  the  possibility  to  loosen  or  cancel  the  link  between 
administrative  law  and  criminal  law;  exchange  with  national  authorities  about  existing 
stand-alone offenses in national law and exploring the practical feasibility;  

  deepening  the  understanding  of  the  current  practice  with  description  of  practical 
experience  and  explanations  and  with  the  illustration  of  cases,  concrete  examples  and 
facts;  

 

receiving statistical data; 

  gathering recommendations and suggestions in order to improve the effectiveness of the 

Directive and the fight against environmental crime.  

In terms of research and innovation, the structured interviews included: 

  French (6 April 2021), German (23 April 2021) and Swedish (20 May 2021) authorities; 

 

 

the Judicial Cooperation Advisor of Eurojust on 15 February 2021; 

the lead of ECSA – European Community Shipowners’ Associations on 30 March 2021; 

277 

 
 
  MEP  Antonius  Manders,  rapporteur  for  the  report  on  the  liability  of  companies  for 

environmental damage, on 27 May 2021; 

 

the  chairman  of  the  French  society  of  judges  and  prosecutors  for  the  environment  on 
3 June 2021; 

 

the European law Institute on 15 June 2021; 

  Véronique Jaworski  (University of Strasbourg) on 22 June 2021 on the occasion  of her 
preparation  of  a  discussion  paper  for  the  meeting  of  Working  Group  of  the  Council  of 
Europe on the Environment and Criminal Law on 20 April and of her drafting of the joint 
study from may 2021 “Legal paradigm shifts for a new environmental law” with Marie-
Pierre Camproux Duffrène; 

 

the chair of the Council  of Europe’s Working Group on the Environment and Criminal 
law on 1 July 2021. 

3.  Results  

The following sections presents a summary of the main results of the consultation activities. 

3.1.  Reactions on the Inception Impact Assessment  

This public consultation received 17 replies from a variety of stakeholders, ranging from public 
authorities of the Member States, to business associations and non-governmental organisations. 
All  the  responses  have  been  published  in  full  online414.  Of  these  responses,  14  came  from  EU 
states and 3 from non-EU states.  

By category of respondent: 
Non-governmental organisation (NGO): 4 (23.53%) 
Public authority: 4 (23.53%) 
Business association: 2 (11.76%) 
Other: 2 (11.76%) 
EU citizen: 2 (11.76%) 
Environmental organisation: 1 (5.88%) 
Non-EU citizen: 1 (5.88%) 
Company/business organisation: 1 (5.88%) 

414  The 

responses 

are 

available 

at: 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12779-

Environmental-crime-improving-EU-rules-on-environmental-protection-through-criminal-law_en. 

278 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
The  Inception  Impact  Assessment  aimed  to  inform  citizens  and  stakeholders  about  the 
Commission’s plans in order to allow them to provide feedback on the intended initiative and to 
participate effectively in future consultation activities.  

The feedback gathered in reaction to the Inception Impact Assessment showed, that in summary, 
the  initiative  enjoys  support  as  the  majority  of  the  respondents  welcomed  the  Commission’s 
effort to tackle the environmental crimes. Providing legal clarity and certainty, the need of new 
specific  legislation  under  the  scope  of  the  Directive  as  well  as  the  inclusion  of  minimum 
maximum  sanctions  are  seen  as  the  main  positives  attributes  of  the  proposal.  Some  concerns 
regarding standing-alone offences and bureaucratic burdens arise amongst Member States.  

The majority of the respondents favoured the update of the Environmental Crime Directive and 
its annexes as well the clarification of legal terms. An NGO welcomes the criminalization of 
risky behaviour. This wording would ensure that those who negligently or intentionally engage 
in  acts  of  environmental  harm  are  not  able  to  rely  on  the  difficulty  of  proving  beyond  a 
reasonable  doubt  the  likelihood  that  their  actions  will  cause  harm  in  order  to  escape  criminal 
sanctions. This  is  particular important  in  an increasingly  complex context in  relation  to  certain 
activities, such as the production or use of harmful chemicals. 

One  Member  State  stressed  that  the  environmental  crime  autonomous  of  administrative  law 
should be imperatively excluded because such incriminations impose excessive criminal liability 
on private actors, including those who comply with existing regulations. On the other hand, this 
Member States believes that the technical feasibility of such an approach is limited. In contrast, 
an NGO preferred an environmental crime is a self-standing concept, to avoid a situation where 
the Directive becomes obsolete as legislation evolves.  

Most of the contributions from the non-governmental organisations and the business associations 
identified  environmental  areas  or  specific  legislation  that  the  current  Environmental  Crime 
Directive  is  not  covered  by  the  current  Directive,  but  should  be  covered.  To  ensure  serious 
fisheries  and  seafood  market  infringements  it  is  important  for  one  NGO  to  include  illegal, 
unregulated,  and  unreported  (IUU)  fishing  in  the  Directive.  One  organisation  recommended  to 
include timber and timber products illegally sourced from a third country as a criminal offence 
under the Environmental Crime Directive, complementary to EUTR. One NGO demanded that it 
should be take into consideration the ongoing review of both the FLEGT Regulation and the EU 
Timber  Regulation,  combined  with  the  upcoming  Commission  legislative  proposal  to  address 
deforestation and forest degradation. One NGO called on the EU to adopt and implement a new 
legislation  that  prohibits  trade  in  wildlife,  fish  and  plants  that  have  been  illegally  taken, 
possessed,  transported  or  sold  in  violation  of  any  foreign  law.  In  the  view  of  one  business 
association,  the  EU  Ship  Recycling  Regulation  in  the  annexes  to  the  Directive  should  not  be 

279 

 
 
included in the scope of the Environmental Crime Directive because the Member States should 
remain competent to determine whether administrative or criminal sanctions are the best means 
to  tackle  infringements.  Another  business  association  considered  the  Environmental  Crime 
Directive could further enhance the efforts through its horizontal approach across EU measures, 
including the F-Gas  Regulation,  to  help develop a more coherent  and effective framework that 
better  achieves  the  EU’s  climate  action  objectives.  Finally,  the  inclusion  of  obligations  for 
specialist platforms that sell wildlife on their online platforms was requested.  

The  majority  of  the  respondents  supported  the  suggestions  for  minimal  levels  for  maximum 
sanctions and for aggravating circumstances. The inclusion of a provision on confiscation and 
legislation against legal persons are considered useful in some cases. 

Better  collection  and  transmission  of  information  by  Member  states  advocated  by  several 
parties. Concerns were raised that this implies complex IT adjustments, which is a difficult and 
lengthy  process  and  puts  a  heavy  administrative  burden  on  law  enforcement  authorities,  the 
Public Prosecution Office and the judiciary.  

3.2. 

Public Consultation  

See Annex 7. 

3.3.  Targeted stakeholder consultation 

3.3.1.  Criminal Law Experts Meeting 

Regarding the link between environmental crime and administrative law, the majority of the 
Experts  group  considers  this  link  to  be  necessary  and  impossible  to  do  away  with.  A  few 
however  supported  decoupling  and  suggested  interesting  lines  of  reflection.  The  need 
to decriminalise some offences that are not serious enough was also mentioned.  

Regarding  the  sanctions,  most  expert  agreed  that  more  should  be  done,  especially  concerning 
corporations  (such  as  reparations,  asset  recovery,  removing  the  added  value  for  not  complying 
with  obligations).  Some  believe  that  the general  system  of  criminal  sanctions  in  EU 
legislation should be rethought to introduce new categories of sanctions. 

Reflection on how to ensure the enforcement chain is effective in practice is needed. A choice 
needs to be made between regulating this in the directive itself or in a soft law instrument.  

3.3.2.  Workshop with the Working Group on environmental sanctioning of the 
Environmental Compliance and Governance  Forum and  6th  meeting of 
the Environmental Compliance and Governance Forum  

280 

 
 
 
  Workshop  with  the  Working  Group  on  environmental  sanctioning  of  the 

Environmental Compliance and Governance Forum 

Regarding  the  initial  question  of  whether  EU  action  is  necessary  participants  deemed 
harmonization  necessary  for  an  effective  fight  against  environmental  crime.  Some  participants 
illustrate this by pointing to the difficulties prosecution faces when an act is treated as a criminal 
offense in one Member State only as an administrative relevance in another Member State. Some 
participants  indicated  that  harmonization  should  be  limited  to  certain  areas  where  a  criminal 
enforcement  is  more  suitable  than  administrative  enforcement.  A  high  number  of  the  Member 
States  that  responded  the  questionnaire  agreed  to  the  requirement  of  approximation. 
Approximation and homogeneity were necessary and useful, but should balance with flexibility 
for the Member States. Some Member States supported approximation only to certain extent. All 
law enforcement practitioners or experts participating in the survey agreed that approximation is 
needed.  The  consensus  view  was  that  rules  are  needed  to  effectively  implement  EU  policies. 
Member States should align their national laws. 

With regard to measures for update the Annexes and clarification of offences, the participants 
believed that it would be difficult to find a clear and correct definition of certain legal terms like 
substantial  damage  at  the  level  of  the  Directive  that  covers  all  conceivable  cases  in  practice. 
Nevertheless,  there  is  a  need  for  concrete  definitions  as  a  prerequisite  for  an  effective 
enforcement  chain.  A  balance  of  regulatory  density  must  be  found,  also  in  the  sense  of  legal 
certainty.  

A high number of Member States that responded to the questionnaire was in favour of a mix of 
the introduction of a mechanism for regular updates of the Environmental Crime Directive, the 
expansion  of  the  scope  and  defining  environmental  crimes  in  the  Directive  independently  of  a 
breach  of  specified  EU  legislation.  The  Directive  may  evolve  and  adapt  promptly  to  any  new 
requirements.  The  majority  of  networks  that  responded  in  writing  agreed  with  continuously 
updating regulations. 

A  significant  number  of  Member  States  was  in  favour  of  clarifying  the  vague  legal  terms  by 
means  of  guidance. Non-binding regulations  were sufficient.  Specific definitions of these legal 
terms  in  the  Environmental  Crime  Directive  may  impose  undue  problems  on  national  criminal 
systems and laws. Fixed terms were not useful considering the large number of topics covered. 
Some  Member  States  supported  a  legal  regulation  in  Environmental  Crime  Directive  for 
clarification  purposes  to  avoid  ambiguity  and  to  achieve  legal  certainty  and  coherence  in  the 
detection, prosecution and conviction.  

According  to  the  written  comments  of  the  practitioners  or  experts,  they  fully  agreed  that  is  a 
requirement for clarify legal terms and a common base of definitions, but it may be difficult to 

281 

 
 
find  a  clear  and  correct  definition.  The  practitioners  or  experts  preferred  the  clarification  legal 
terms and approximation of crimes law, thereby overcoming the lack of definitions or the vague 
or interpretable definition of technical terms. 

Regarding  the  possible  options  to  sanctions,  some  participants  raised  questions  in  regards  the 
competence  of  the  EU  to  adopt  minimum-maximum  sanctions  and  the  degree  to  which  this  is 
appropriate  in  the  area  of  environmental  crime.  The  EU  competence  and  that  minimum-
maximum  sanctions  provisions  have  now  been  included  in  many  criminal  law  instruments. 
Participants support the proposition that profits should be taken into account in determining the 
sanction level. This is to be distinguished from confiscation of the proceeds of crime in addition 
to the imposition of penalties.  

A  significant  number  of  Member  States  that  responded  to  the  survey  saw  the  need  for 
improvements in the area of sanctions through a combination of measures. Partly the status quo 
was favoured. The networks was unanimously in favour of a combination of EU guidance and 
binding provision, including minimum levels for maximum sanctions. 

In  the  workshop  was  a  consensus  among  interveners  on  the  need  for  more  specialisation 
through  training  and  the  establishment  of  specialized  units.  A  majority  of  Member  States 
participating in the survey agreed an approximation and harmonization through the inclusion of 
provision  about  cooperation  within  and  between  Member  States  in  the  Directive.  At  the  same 
time,  a  majority  of  Member  States  saw  the  need  for  training  on  use  of  tools  for  structured 
cooperation,  investigative  tools  and  cross-border  cooperation  with  the  involvement  of  EU 
agencies. The networks was in favour of providing training courses and of the strengthening of 
the cross-border cooperation with the involvement of EU agencies. They supported the inclusion 
of an obligation for Member States to do so on the basis of a legal provision in the Directive. 

To  effective  operation  of  the  enforcement  chain,  a  high  number  of  Member  States  agreed 
according  to  their  written  comments  to  a  combination  of  providing  EU  guidance  and  the 
inclusion of obligations to Member States in the directive. The practitioners or experts preferred 
a  corresponding  legal  obligation  of  Member  States.  At  the  same  time,  they  supported  a 
combination of EU guidance and the inclusion of a provision requires the Member States.  

Statistical data should only be collected for strategic analysis and only a few easy to collect data 
sets should be included, like prosecutions. A  common EU platform is  the preferred method. A 
clear approach among Member States towards collecting and disseminating statistics should be 
found.  

The majority of Member States welcomed the option to provide training and awareness raising, 
develop  common  EU  standards  on  the  collection  of  statistical  data  on  environmental  crime. 

282 

 
 
Partly  were  favour  of  a  legal  obligation  for  Member  States.  Partly  strongly  supported  the 
establishment  of  a  common  platform  to  collect  statistical  data.  All  practitioners  or  experts 
demanded  to  provide  training,  raise  awareness  and  develop  common  EU  standards  on  the 
collection  of  statistical  data  on  environmental  crime.  There  was  a  unanimous  call  for  Member 
States obligation to collect process and share data. This may allow synergies to be exploited. 

  6th meeting of the Environmental Compliance and Governance Forum  

The  four  professional  networks  of  inspectors,  prosecutors,  police  officers  and  judges  in  the 
environmental area (IMPEL, ENPE, EnviCrimeNet and EUFJE) presented to the Forum the joint 
statement summarising the main conference conclusions at the 4 networks day an 21 May.  

Relating  to  measures  to  strengthen  cooperation  it  is  confirmed  that  environmental  crime  is 
serious,  transboundary  and  often  organised.  To  fight  it  better,  efficient  national,  regional  and 
international cooperation is necessary. 

Regarding fostering effective operation of the enforcement chain the four networks stressed that 
environmental cases should be handled by specialised police officers, inspectors, prosecutors and 
judges.  The  specialisation  of  the  actors  of  the  enforcement  chain  should  be  anchored  into  the 
law.  Training  of  police,  inspectors  and  prosecutors  and  judges  is  crucial.  Training  is  only 
effective when it comes with structural specialisation. 

Effective implementation of the Environmental Crime Directive  requires more coherence and 
more  coordination  between  administrative  and  criminal  sanctioning  tracks,  including  punitive 
and remedial sanctioning possibilities, communication and information transmission rules. 

Environmental  crime  is  neither  “victimless”  nor  of  minor  significance.  Environmental  crime 
constitutes  a  threat  for  human  health  and  the  prospects  of  future  generations,  as  well  as  for 
international and EU internal security. 

With regard to the need to improve the exchange of information and data, the networks note 
that  there is still a lack of prioritisation for fighting environmental crime, a lack of reliable data 
and a lack of adequate human resources and equipment across the entire enforcement chain. Data 
exchange on cases and sanctions both at national and European level should be improved. 

Finally, the joint statement of the four networks affirmed the usefulness of using the revision of 
the  Environmental  Crime  Directive  for  strengthening  specialisation,  coherence  between  the 
administrative and criminal enforcement and international cooperation. 

283 

 
 
 
 
3.3.3.  Workshop with environmental NGOs 

Regarding  the  scope  of  the  Environmental  Crime  Directive  the  NGOs  confirmed  in  the 
workshop  and  in  the  written  comments  that  the  Annex  mechanism  in  place  is  at  the  moment 
outdated. It should be organized in such a way to allow other crimes to be added to it more easily 
and on a more regular basis. One approach could be to define environmental crime independent 
of sectoral legislation.  

In parallel, authorities should have sufficient legal certainty – which goes beyond the annex – to 
allow  them  to  act  effectively  and  promptly.  There  is  a  need  to  better  link  the  revised 
Environmental Crime Directive to sectoral legislation and to administrative law. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  NGOs,  there  is  a  need  for  regulation  of  online  crimes  in  the 
Environmental  Crime  Directive.  In  addition,  a  link  to  trade  agreements  and  regulations  (e.g. 
trade  in  rare  species)  and  to  CITES  should  be  established.  The  revised  Environmental  Crime 
Directive should e.g. better define issues of sale, import, purchase of wildlife and refer to clear 
lists of species concerned. 

Regarding the definitions of the offences is unanimously demanded clear definitions for the key 
terms such as what constitutes substantial damage. Guidance would be useful too, however, they 
are not binding, so clear definitions of terms in the Directive itself is important. Without these, 
the Member States (practitioners in general) find it hard to prosecute effectively environmental 
crimes. Legal clarity is of the utmost importance.  

There  is  a  need  to  define  “rules  of  the  game”  for  EU-based  companies  operating  in  non-
European territory as there are different legal standards outside of the EU. 

One participant suggested the inclusion of Ecocide. 

Many  NGOs  were  in  favour  of  introducing  minimum  maximum  sanction  levels  and  types. 
Some were in favour of putting in place a more binding system, avoiding the option of having 
ranges  in  the  Member  States.  Sanctions  should  be  proportionate  to  the  environmental  harm 
caused  and  profit  generated  by  the  criminal  networks.  Often,  Member  States  that  have  high 
sanction  levels  in  their  national  law  fail  to  impose  high  sanctions  in  case  of  environmental 
damage.  This  should  be  considered  in  the  revised  Environmental  Crime  Directive.  Better 
investigations of money laundering is necessary and looking into the profit side. 

Better linkage of the revised Directive with civil liability issues, such as with the Environmental 
Liability  Directive,  and  with  civil  and  administrative  law  in  general  is  called  for.  NGOs  argue 
that  legislators  should  also  address  environmental  crimes  outside  the  EU  and  sanction  them 
appropriately. There is agreement that the establishment of a minimum level of sanctions should 

284 

 
 
be  supported  by  training  and  awareness-raising  activities  (for  practitioners  and  judges  across 
Europe) in order to be effective. 

Regarding improving the  cross-border cooperation the large majority of NGOs supported the 
suggestion to set up a specific unit to deal with environmental crime at EU level to be supported 
by a network of focal points at MS level. 

EU-based training is urgently needed on various themes, e.g. how to deal with online crime or 
illegal  trade  and  how  to  conduct  investigations  into  environmental  crimes.  Training  will  also 
encourage cooperation between agencies within Member States, across Member States and with 
non-European  countries,  which  is  however  more  tricky.  One  NGO  mentioned  an  example  of 
working  with  Thai  and  US  authorities  where  Interpol  played  a  crucial  role  in  facilitation 
cooperation and sharing information.  

The  EU  should  support  the  proposed  protocol  of  the  CITES  convention  which  should  equate 
trade  in  wildlife  to  trade  in  drugs  or  arms.  This  will  promote  cooperation  also  beyond  the  EU 
borders.  

Finally, the use of already existing mechanisms of cooperation, e.g. with Eurojust and Interpol, 
should  be  encouraged.  Some  participants  reported  good  experiences  in  working  with  these 
European  agencies  and  that  the  good  cooperation  has  led  to  more  effective  law  enforcement. 
Collaboration should clearly include sharing of intelligence and information, as this means lower 
costs for agencies. Participants identified some best  practices of interagency cooperation at  the 
Member State level for different objectives, such as priority setting, monitoring, and definition of 
strategies or action plans. 

Regard fostering practical implementation the enforcement should be improved by the setting 
up  of  a  centralised  environmental  crime  unit.  At  the  level  of  Member  States,  the  differences 
between  countries  should  be  taken  into  account:  there  are  different  ministries  or  agencies  that 
deal with the subject. Some participants emphasized that enforcement should be at the national, 
rather than local, level; local authorities often lack the capacity to enforce the directive. 

The role of civil society and NGOs should be clearly formalized in the enforcement process, as 
this  has  proven  to  be  very  effective  in  various  cases  also  in  connection  with  access  to  justice 
issues  and  the  Aarhus  Convention.  Enforcement  should  be  improved  through  specialization 
courses  for  practitioners,  to  be  supported  by  Member  States.  These  trainings  should  cover  all 
parts of the enforcement chain and could also involve civil society. 

Regarding the considered option to  improve the  information sharing, the NGOs reported that 
the problem of lack of data is not unique to Environmental Crime Directive. Data sharing, when 

285 

 
 
available, should be done in such a way that the sharing authority gets something back in return. 
This “reward” mechanism, could be also  a simple data analysis report. Information flow is not 
always  sufficient,  sometimes  environmental  authorities  are  not  informed  about  environmental 
crime  cases  that  reach  the  court.  The  NGOs  suggested  to  set  up  a  centralised  system  for  data 
sharing purposes, to be used by practitioners and judges.   

3.3.4.  Consultation of Member States 

In an online meeting, three key issues were discussed on the basis of a discussion paper sent out 
beforehand:  scope  of  the  Directive,  definitions  of  environmental  crime  and  sanctions.  The 
Member  States  expressed  their  preliminary  opinion  on  these  and  gave  their  first  assessment  in 
the workshop. 

Regarding  the  scope  of  the  Environmental  Crime  Directive  a  majority  of  the  Member  States 
supported the update the Annexes as it would best ensure legal clarity. However, some Member 
States also did not regard the comitology procedure as the right tool include new environmental 
crime areas. To define new environmental crime categories should be for the EU legislator. Two 
Member States expressed preference for an infringement of sectorial legislation in general terms 
without Annexes. 

The majority of the Member States considered the breach of an administrative environmental 
law is necessary to criminalise on behaviour in the Environmental Crime Directive. There is no 
widespread  acceptance  of  loosen  or  cut  the  link  between  administrative  law  and  criminal  law. 
Some Member States also expressed doubts whether the limits of the legal basis of Art. 83 (2) 
would not be overstepped if crime would be defined without linking it to EU sectoral legislation. 
One Member States said that the decoupling of the administrative law from criminal law could 
be contradiction to the permits and authorisations issued and thus undermine legal certainty that 
was  crucial  for  investments.  The EU  should  not  propose  legislation  that  could  hinder 
investments. 

A  number  of  Member  States  were  open  for  the  autonomous  approach  for  the  most  serious 
offences. However, they state that more information on details and on the role of administrative 
permits and authorisation would be needed. Legal certainty must be ensured. One Member State 
has this approach already today in their national law and say it works find in practice.   

There  are  no  clear  majorities  regarding  the  review  of  the  definitions.  The  range  of  opinions  is 
rather broad here (in some cases with multiple preferences). 

While  a  majority  of  the  Member  States  seemed  to  endorse  legal  binding  definition  in  the 
Directive  itself,  a  number  of  Member  States  also  drew  attention  to  the  difficulty  in  striking  a 
balance  between  sufficiently  clear  definitions  of  environmental  crime  categories  and  the 
necessary  flexibility  that  must  be  maintained  to  not  create  loopholes  in  criminalisation  and  to 
allow for the inclusion of new developments in the future. One Member State said it may make 

286 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
sense  to  continue  working  with  the  existing  open  terms  but  guidelines  and  exchange  of  best 
practices  should  foster  a  common  understanding  among  the  Member  States.  A  majority 
welcomed soft law as non-binding guidelines to complement existing or reviewed definitions in 
the Directive.   

Some  Member  States  supported  or  were  open  for  relying  more  on  the  definition  of 
endangerment  crime  that  do  not  require  actual  damage.  Other  Member  States  are  sceptical: 
Endangerment  could  not  spare  the  legislator  the  effort  to  define  the  damage  as  a  constituting 
element, otherwise endangerment crime might end up in penalising basically the infringement of 
sectoral  legislation.  Some  Member  States  also  cautioned  that  endangerment  crimes  should  not 
serve  to  alleviate  the  burden  of  proof,  while  other  Member  States  welcomed  this  as  the  chief 
benefit of the concept of endangerment crimes. 

Almost all Member States could endorse the introduction in the Directive  minimum levels for 
maximum sanctions for environmental crimes.  

Regarding the consideration to provide for the same sanction levels as for organised crime or 
other serious crime in Member States penal law systems only two Member States could endorse 
this  approach,  as  it would  respect  national  traditions  and  systems.  In  contrast,  most  Member 
States  claimed  that  environmental  crime  comes  in  many  different  shapes  and  gravity  forms.  It 
cannot  always  be  considered  as  serious  crime  or  crime  at  the  same  gravity  level  as  organised 
crime.  Although  one  Member  State  would  favour  relying  more  on  the  existing  systems  and 
tradition  in  each  Member  State,  rather  than  fixed  numbers  for  sentencing  levels,  this  Member 
State does not think that this option is feasible. 

3.3.5.  Workshop with business/industry 

The  Commission  wanted  to  know  whether  it  makes  a  difference  for  companies  whether  the 
Directive  contains  Annexes  or  a  general reference  that  would  have  the  advantage  not  to  be 
exhaustive.  Partly,  maintaining  and  updating  the  Annexes  was  supported  as  they  provide  legal 
clarity. One industry stakeholder detailed that the Annexes would not play a role, as they are not 
necessarily transposed into national law. Industry and practitioners would look into the national 
law.  Apart  from  F-gases  also  the  Reach  legislation  and  the  Plant  Protection  Regulation  are 
missing  from  the  annexes.  Generally,  there  is  a  risk  that  an  exhaustive  list  creates  loopholes. 
Theoretically,  there  should  be  an  obligation  to  regularly  update  the  Annexes,  but  it is  not  sure 
whether any mechanism could be found that works in practice.  

Regarding the autonomous approach (less strict link between environmental crime and a breach 
of sectoral legislation) it would not be the right approach to try to foster due diligence measures 
through criminal law rather than through administrative law directly. The participants described 
that in Spain and Germany, permits are very precise and the businesses have to apply strict due 
diligence  obligations  to  receive  a  permit.  In  Spain,  all  violations  of  environmental  sectoral 

287 

 
 
 
 
 
 
legislation or conditions in a permit constitutes environmental crime. In addition, permit holders 
must  pay  guarantees  to  the  national  authorities  that  serve  to  ensure  that  financial  sanctions  or 
restoration  of  nature  is  covered.  Compliance  costs  in  Spain  are  thus  high  for  businesses, 
independent of criminal liability. Companies from Member States which have less rules are thus 
in  a  competitive  more  advantageous  situation.  It  should  be  a  priority  to  harmonise  Member 
States’  administrative  law  and  ensure  that  existing  rules  are  applied  in  all  Member  States  to 
ensure the same level of playfield and equal trading conditions. Currently, there are high gaps in 
the  different  Member  States  regarding  the  required  standards  for  a  permit. It  would  not  be  the 
right approach trying to harmonise due diligence requirements through criminal law rather than 
directly in administrative law. Moreover, this approach would shift the responsibilities to ensure 
effective due diligence systems that protect the environment from the state to companies.   

In Germany, the autonomous approach would exist to the extent that environmental crime does 
not require the breach of sectoral law but only an environmental damage caused. The offender 
can justify himself if his action is covered by a permit. One stakeholder had concerns regarding 
legal certainty if the autonomous approach would mean that less detailed permits could not any 
longer exculpate an offender. It is not the responsibility of the offender how detailed a permit is 
in a given Member State. This legal uncertainty would add to the uncertainties created by vague 
terms in the definitions of environmental crime (substantial damage).   

Regarding the definition of crime, it would not be possible to define vague terms more precisely 
in the Directive or in soft-law. There would always be room for different interpretations. There 
are examples of negative consequences of different interpretations for cross-border cooperation. 
For example in the area of second-hand market (cars or electronics) shipped mainly to Africa it is 
unclear whether this is waste with the waste shipment regulation to apply or just used goods that 
can  be  shipped  without  restrictions.  German  companies  could  have  a  financial  interest  to  keep 
such  ‘waste’  cars  in  the  country  and  recycle  them  according  to  high  standards.  Also  other 
elements of the waste shipment regulation do lead to different interpretations whether a shipment 
is illegal or not. This very often prevents effective cross-border cooperation and an investigation 
comes to a halt. There are also positive examples of successful cross-border cooperation in the 
waste  sector,  for  example  a  few  years  ago  between  the  German  county  Brandenburg  and  the 
neighbouring Poland. After all, cross-border cooperation does not depend so much on the text of 
legislation but on proper law-enforcement and people. 

One  participant  draw  the  attention  to poor  implementation  of  sectoral  rules  in  some  Member 
States.  Poor  environmental  implementation  also  hinder  investments  in  these  countries,  because 
of  the  legal  uncertainties.  The  Commission  should  assume  more  responsibilities  to  use  its 
possibilities  to  make  Member  States  not  only  to  transpose  EU  sectoral  legislation  but  also  to 
implement  it  in  practice.  There  are  numerous  experience  where  investigations  against  illegal 

288 

 
 
practices were not initiated at national level. In the few cases that made it to the courts, sanctions 
imposed where inadequate and too low to be effective. The reason for these failures are due to a 
large extent to a lack of specialised knowledge, especially with the judges.  

Illegal  services  with  dumping  prices,  e.g.  non  EU  compliant  waste  management  service,  are 
offered  on  internet  platforms.  The  platform  cannot  be  held  liable  because  they  claim  they  are 
only is only the host where such services are promoted and do not offer the service themselves. 
NGOs which have been addressed by the industry to help with this problem did not go further. 
For unknown reasons the police (in France) had not been contacted by the fair playing industry. 
In addition, industry did not try to have the illegal businesses held criminal liable. This might be 
due to  a lack of trust  in  the capacity of the police although   units  specialised in  environmental 
crime do exist. The industry appeals for clear legislation so that platforms can be prosecuted.   

Businesses would appreciate stronger enforcement of existing environmental rules. This would 
impact  positively  the  bad  reputation  of  e.g.  the  chemical  and  waste  industry.  Mafia  like 
organisations  that  make  a  business  of  systematically  breaking  the  rules  are  a  big  problem  on 
which criminal legislation or law enforcement should focus, as they cause the greatest harm. One 
participant detailed  that criminal legislation would not have any impact on costs of businesses. 
Compliance costs are triggered by sectoral legislation and the requirements that must be fulfilled 
to  receive  a  permit.  Effective  criminal  law  enforcement has  rather  an  impact  to  improve  the 
reputation  of  the  industries  and  to  prevent  unfair  competition.  For  a  participant,  linking  the 
amount of the fines to the annual turnover is not feasible in practice. The annual turnover does 
not reflect the financial situation of a company correctly. 

Overall,  there  was  broad  agreement  that  the  industry  is  driven  by  administrative  law,  not  by 
criminal  law.  This  goes  for costs  as well as  for  change of behaviour. Practical  implementation 
also  of sectoral  law is  deficient in  many Member States. There are big problems  with  illegally 
playing businesses in many sectors which go in most cases unpunished.   

3.3.6.  Semi-structured interviews and/or written opinions 

Eurojust 

Eurojust  filled  in  a  targeted  questionnaire  with  extensive  comments.  The  report  on  Eurojust’s 
Casework  on  Environmental  Crime  from  January  2021  provides  experiences,  challenges, 
identified best practices and statistical analysis. A series of targeted interviews has taken place. 

Eurojust’s experience indicates the existence in  different jurisdictions of different legislative 
approaches  to  environmental  crime  (even  though  the  current  EU  legal  framework  requires  a 
harmonised approach), which results in different perceptions about some key legal qualifications 
and can trigger dual criminality issues during cross-border cooperation. 

289 

 
 
Based on the Eurojust’s experience, two areas can be identified as the areas not mentioned by 
the Directive that have been dealt with in the cross-border environmental crime cases referred to 
Eurojust in 2014–2018:  illegal trade in hazardous substances and (hazardous) contamination in 
food.  Bringing  illegal  fishing  under  the  remit  of  the  Environmental  Crime  Directive  can 
contribute to a harmonisation of key legal concepts of environmental crime. 

Eurojust suggests that cross-border investigations and prosecutions of environmental crime in 
the EU, including judicial cooperation on such cases, would benefit from the application of more 
uniform and dissuasive penalties for such crimes across the EU. This is because the possibility to 
use certain  investigative  tools and techniques, as  well as the possibility to use instruments  and 
tools for cross-border cooperation at the EU level depend on the seriousness of the investigated 
crime and the severity of the envisaged penalty. 

The  main  factors  that  hinder  cross-border  cooperation  on  environmental  crime  cases  can  be 
attributed  to  such  specifics  of  environmental  crime  investigations  and  prosecutions  as  their 
complexity and their multidisciplinary and resource-intensive nature. Environmental crime cases 
may  require  highly  specialised  legal,  scientific  or  technical  expertise,  and  thus  the  need  to 
cooperate with relevant national or international authorities and organisations. 

From  the  perspective  of  Eurojust,  international  coordination  and  cooperation  are  the  key 
in  fighting  organised  cross-border  environmental  crime  effectively.  The 
requirements 
involvement  of  Eurojust  and  the  use  of  joint  investigation  teams  can  be  recommended  as 
effective  tools  to  address  involvement  of  organised  crime  in  environmental  crime  cases.  In 
addition, financial investigations and recovery of criminal proceeds can also be considered as an 
efficient way to address the involvement of organised crime. 

Europol 

The Europol filled in the questionnaire for the Working Group on environmental sanctioning of 
the  Environmental  Compliance  and  Governance  Forum  and  participated  in  the  targeted 
consultation with Euopol’s vision from March 2021 on the revision of the Directive 2008/99/EC. 
In  addition,  Europol  has  provided  further  input  with  practical  cases  in  the  context  of  targeted 
interviews as well as in writing. 

The  current  Environmental  Crime  Directive  contains  expressions  and  legally  ambiguous 
concepts which in practical terms adds difficulties to initiate the criminal investigation and later 
on  during  the  penal  procedure.  The  language  should  be  more  precise  in  order  to  help  creating 
more unified approach towards environmental crime across the Member States. 

290 

 
 
The concept of environmental crime is broad and therefore the Environmental Crime Directive 
should  involve  areas  such  as  wildlife  –  trafficking  of  specimens,  products  or  parts,  including 
timber,  poaching,  illegal  poisoning,  IUU  fisherie  –,  waste  and  pollution  –  trafficking,  illegal 
management, disposal and dumping of waste, pollution of soil, air and water, illegal trafficking 
of Ozone Depleting Substances and F-gases – and habitats (deforestation, illegal mining, illegal 
watering, urban planning and construction crime, acoustic crimes).  

In addition, document fraud is used to cover the criminal activity. This should be included in the 
revised Environmental Crime Directive. 

Only few crimes are currently described as “risk crimes”. This means a serious legal loophole. It 
would be desirable to review in which cases an action or inactivity is worth to be considered as a 
crime “per se” regardless the eventual result. The new offences should be considered as a crime 
itself due to the conduct itself, independently of the eventual result. 

The broad scope involves a strong need of specialization and dedication of the units involved. 
In  addition,  these  units  must  be  equipped  with  technical  resources  in  order  to  carry  out  their 
duties.  Environmental  crime  is  often  hidden,  which  means  that  the  investigators  need  to  work 
proactively to  uncover it. The need of specialized units in  Law  Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) 
related to combating environmental crimes should be pointed out in the reviewed Environmental 
Crime  Directive.  Law  enforcement  authorities  in  all  member  states  should  have  the  same 
investigative powers. For instance, the possibility of carrying out telephone, environmental and 
telematics wiretapping for environmental crimes would guarantee a capacity to be more effective 
in investigations. 

Europol  should  be  mentioned  in  the  Environmental  Crime  Directive  concerning  the 
transmission and exchange or information and intelligence concerning concrete investigations in 
which international cooperation would be a need.  

The European Network of Prosecutors of Environment (ENPE) 

The European network of prosecutors of environment (ENPE) recommends that the opportunity 
should  be  taken  to  include  a  clear,  decisive  and  purposive  requirement  in  the  Directive  that 
Member  States  should  ensure  both  natural  and  legal  persons  can  be  prosecuted  for 
environmental offences directly, rather than through the act or omission of a third party. There 
should be an additional catch-all definition of environmental crime to ensure that the requirement 
to criminalise certain behaviours which have an adverse impact upon regimes designed to protect 
it, is sufficiently broad. 

291 

 
 
Systems  for  administrative  sanctions  relating  to  criminal  offending  should  be  subject  to 
legislative provision or judicial oversight which ensures that administrative sanctions are applied 
with high levels of governance and transparency.  

ENPE  fully  agrees  that  Member  States  should  be  strongly  encouraged  to  promote  and  adopt 
measures to ensure specialisation of all participants within the environmental law enforcement 
chain.  ENPE  suggests  that  the  new  version  of  the  Environmental  Crime  Directive  imposes  an 
obligation  on  each  Member  State  to  nominate  a  specialist  or  specialist  at  each  stage  of  the 
environmental enforcement chain and to publish the contact details of those personnel clearly. 

According to ENPE's assessment Member States should be obliged to participate in a common 
data collecting regime or system with clear parameters and requirements, for law enforcement 
agencies involved in environmental crime, which is accessible to them and others for analytical 
purposes. The Commission should establish a mechanism for external audit or scrutiny.  

The European Union Forum of Judges for the Environment (EUFJE) 

For the European Union forum of judges for the environment (EUFJE) the update the Directive 
and its annexes and include new environmental areas – timber trade – is very useful. General 
terms without the annexes is very useful in EUFJE’s view. EUFJE prefers the provision of non-
binding EU-guidance on the interpretation of vague elements in the definitions and supports the 
autonomous approach.  

EUFJE supports the bundle of measures for stronger alignment of sanctions, effective operation 
of the enforcement chain and information sharing. EUFJE welcomes a combination between 
legal  requirement  and  the  provision  of  non-binding  guidance  to  Member  States  on  the 
establishment of overarching national enforcement strategies and favors both a legal obligation 
and the provision of EU-guidelines on cooperation between Member States and how to make use 
of EU agencies. 

The European Network for Environmental Crime (EnviCrimeNet) 

The  European  network  for  environmental  crime  (EnviCrimeNet)  filled  in  the  questionnaire  for 
the  Working  Group  on  environmental  sanctioning  of  the  Environmental  Compliance  and 
Governance  Forum and  participated in  the targeted consultation  with  a report from  April 2021 
about the evaluation of the Directive 2008/99/EC. 

The casuistry is innumerable, so periodic updates would greatly help a better implementation in 
all Member States according to EnviCrimeNet. EnviCrimeNet welcomes the clarification in the 
Directive because the whole chain must make this specification. It is necessary to keep the link 
with  other  EU  legislation  on  environment.  Corruption  is  an  essential  component  in  the 

292 

 
 
facilitation  and  perpetration  of  all  environmental  crimes.  It  can  be  considered  a  catalyst  for 
environmental crime.  In  particular, corruption plays  an important role in  facilitating  fraudulent 
trade,  forging  import/export  certificates,  clearing  customs  wrongly,  ignoring  illegal  waste 
disposal, issuing licenses, etc. EnviCrimeNet suggests to include this typology as a new offence.  

For  a  coordinated  application  of  the  sanction,  EnviCrimeNet  understand  that  a  generic  and 
binding guide is necessary that sets out the guiding principles for action throughout the EU. The 
fact  that  a  certain  illegal  activity  is  a  crime  in  one  Member  State,  but  it  is  an  administrative 
offence in other Member States, causes problems in the international cooperation at EU level. As 
a  possible  solution  could  be  recommend  establishing  certain  criteria,  for  example  height  of  an 
illegal profit and the height of environmental damage (cost of restoration of condition before the 
crime was committed) which should be common in all Member States. 

The  creation  and  strengthening  of  specialized  units  in  all  MS  is  essential  according 
EnviCrimeNet, it constitutes the key to success to tackle efficiently with this (sometimes silent) 
threat. In this sense, reinforcing training plays a very relevant role. Raising awareness about the 
need to align strategies throughout the compliance chain at national level is essential. According 
to  the  experience  achieved,  the  environmental  criminality  cannot  be  tackled  without  common 
strategies and common procedures that involve the whole enforcement chain (inspectors, police, 
prosecutors, judges), especially in case of transnational investigations. 

Having a reliable statistic is essential for EnviCrimeNet, too. 

European Union agency for fundamental rights (FRA)  

The  European  Union  agency  for  fundamental  rights  (FRA)  has  submitted  an  extensive  written 
contribution. FRA suggests that sanctions could include obligatory awareness raising courses or 
training  for  environmental  crime  offenders  and  emphasises  that  sanctions  against  legal  entities 
must be sufficiently dissuasive, stipulated in national law and effectively implemented.  

4.  How the results have been taken into account  

The  results  of  the  consultation  activities  have  been  incorporated  throughout  the  impact 
assessment  in  each  of  the  option  in  which  feedback  was  received.  The  consultation  activities 
were  designed  to  follow  the  same  logical  sequence  as  the  impact  assessment,  starting  with  the 
problem  definition  and  then  moving  on  to  possible  options  and  their  impacts.  Using  the  same 
logical  sequence  in  the  consultation  activities  as  in  the  impact  assessment  itself,  facilitated  the 
incorporation of the stakeholders’ feedback – where relevant – into the different sections of the 
impact assessment. 

293 

 
 
 
ANNEX 9: INTERVENTION LOGIC 

294 

 
 
ANNEX 10: OPTIONS TABLE 

ECD Review – Options 

Relevant policy option: Amending the Directive where needed in combination with non-legislative measures  

Discarded options:  a. repeal the Directive, b. address the identified problems only through non-binding measures 

General Objective 

Specific objectives 

Options  

1. 

Improve  the effectiveness of  investigations 
and prosecutions by updating the scope of 
the Directive and by inserting a feasible 
mechanism to keep the Directive up-to-date 
in the light of the European Green Deal 

2. 

Improve the effectiveness of investigations 
and prosecutions by clarifying the 
definitions of environmental crime  

1a. Update the existing list of legislation in the annexes, add new relevant crime categories to 
Article 3. 

1b. Refer to relevant sectoral legislation in general terms and remove the annexes, be more 
precise on crime constituting elements in the Article 3. 

1c. Define environmental crime in the Directive without the requirement of a breach of 
relevant EU sectoral legislation. 

2a. Define unclear terms in the Directive more precisely 

2b. Eliminate vague terms by criminalising risky behaviour (endangerment crime) 

2c. A combination of 2a and 2b 

protect 

the 
Better 
environment 
through 
more  effective  detection, 
investigation,  prosecution, 
and 
of 
sanctioning 
environmental crime 

3.  Ensure effective, dissuasive and 

proportionate sanctions types –levels for 
environmental crime  

3a. Introduce minimum-maximum sanctions levels 

3b. Option 3a plus aggravating circumstances and accessory sanctions 

3c. Option 3b plus an obligation to link the level of fines to the financial situation of legal 
person and/or illegal profits 

295 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
4. 

Improve the effectiveness of cross-border 
cooperation on environmental crime 

4.Introducing a package of provisions directly fostering cross-border cooperation  
- harmonised effective investigative tools 
- obligation to cooperate through Eurojust, Europol and OLAF 
- harmonised rules on jurisdiction 

5. 

6. 

Improve informed decision-making on 
environmental crime through improving 
statistical data collection and reporting   

5a. Oblige MS to collect and regularly report to the Commission statistical data related to 
environmental crime 

5b. Option 5a plus an obligation of the MS to collect and report statistical data according to 
harmonised common standards 

Improve the operational effectiveness of 
national enforcement chains (investigations, 
prosecutions, sanctioning) 

6. Insert in the Directive a package of obligations that directly strengthen practical 
implementation, e.g.  specialisation/training, awareness-raising measures, national 
environmental crime strategies 

296