Great progress for the protection of nature

However, the regulation omits some aspects that were requested by the main environmental NGOs in the EU, including BirdLife International, which has participated in the negotiations with the advice of SEO/BirdLife. Although the final approval is a considerable achievement, there have been difficulties in reaching consensus on some matters during the process, particularly in relation to restrictions, which reflects differences between states regarding the effective application of environmental law in the EU. .

According to David de la Bodega, head of the SEO/BirdLife Legal Program, “Among the proposed crimes, IUU fishing (illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing) is excluded from the list contained in the standard.” “Its inclusion in future reviews is necessary to address this.”

On the other hand, SEO/BirdLife believes that although regulation has made progress in terms of sanctions, for some cases, such as those affecting legal entities, they still need to be implemented to effectively prevent the commission of environmental crimes. may be considered inadequate. At the same time, NGOs believe that it will be necessary to strengthen the right to public participation in criminal proceedings. This norm recognizes the right to information and opens up the possibility of participating in criminal proceedings, but does not involve a popular action at the EU level. For NGOs, the lack of clear definition of “stakeholders” in this process is an issue that should be addressed in future reviews.

significant progress

The Directive defines crimes against the environment more precisely and adds new criminal types, including underwater noise pollution, illegal timber trafficking or serious violations of chemical products law. It harmonises the levels of restrictions for natural persons and, for the first time, legal entities in all EU Member States. For the latter, the text establishes a prison sentence of up to 10 years and envisages a fine that will be imposed taking into account the volume of their business (up to 5% of their annual worldwide turnover), for the most serious crimes. It can reach up to 40 million. , Additional measures may also be taken, such as forcing the offender to restore the environment or compensate for the damage, excluding him from access to public financing or withdrawing his permits or authorizations.

Environmental crime represents a major challenge in the EU, and the review of the so-called Environmental Crime Directive seeks to address this problem through a number of key measures. In addition to the new list of attacks considered environmental crimes, the Criteria introduce more stringent criteria for determining the notion of a “qualifying crime” and its seriousness and, as a result, impose more severe sanctions on its basis. Violations contemplated by the Directive, and which are committed intentionally, are considered qualifying violations if they cause destruction; Irreversible, widespread and substantial damage; or long-lasting, widespread and substantial damage to an ecosystem of significant size or environmental value, or to natural habitats within a protected site, or to air, soil or water quality.

On the other hand, the Directive contains provisions that provide greater specialization to authorities in charge of prosecuting environmental crimes, recognizing the complexity of their investigation and prosecution.

The Directive will be evaluated every seven years with the aim of updating the list of offenses incorporating possible legislative proposals.