The Landscape
of Criminalization
1
GLOBAL ANALYSIS ON
CRIMES THAT
AFFECT THE
ENVIRONMENT
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
2
© United Nations, May 2024
This publication may be reproduced in whole or in
part and in any form for educational or non-prot
purposes without the special permission from the
copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the
source is made. The United Nations Ofce on Drugs
and Crime (UNODC) would appreciate receiving a
copy of any publication that uses this publication as
a source.
Suggested citation:
UNODC, Global Analysis on Crimes that Affect
the Environment – Part 1: the Landscape of
Criminalization (United Nations publication, 2024).
No use of this publication may be made for resale or
any other commercial purpose whatsoever without
prior permission in writing from UNODC. Applications
for such permission, with a statement of purpose and
intent of the reproduction, should be addressed to
the Research and Trend Analysis Branch of UNODC.
Comments on the report are welcome and can be
sentto:
Research and Trend Analysis Branch
United Nations Ofce on Drugs and Crime
PO Box 500
1400 Vienna
Austria
E-mail: unodcr[email protected]
Website: www.unodc.org/unodc/en/
DISCLAIMER
The designations employed and the presentation
of material in this publication do not imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of
the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the
legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or
of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its
frontiers or boundaries.
This publication has not been formally edited.
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
3
The Global Analysis on Crimes that Affect the Environment:
Part 1
The Landscape of
Criminalization
May 2024
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
4
Acknowledgements
The Global Analysis on Crimes that Affect the Envi-
ronment – Part 1: the Landscape of Criminalization was
prepared by Research and Trend Analysis Branch, Di-
vision for Policy Analysis and Public Affairs, United
Nations Ofce on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), under
the supervision of Jean-Luc Lemahieu, Director of the
Division, and Angela Me, Chief of the Research and
Trend Analysis Branch
Content overview
Anja Korenblik
Angela Me
Tanya Wyatt
Research, analysis and drafting
Erica Lyman
Tanya Wyatt
Research support
Ramy Abdelhady
Melissa Arango
Anneli Cers
Nick Fromherz
Marco Garcia
Ayman Irfan
Miranda Herried
Alison Hutchinson
Fabian Keske
Felix Knoebel
Antonia Langowski
Ted Leggett
Tanyaradzwa Muzenda
Angela Pascal
Giulia Serio
Mackenzie Springer
Louisa Zinke
Graphic design and production
Kristina Kuttnig
David Gerstl
Katja Zöhrer
Editing
Sarah Crozier
Programme, budget management
and support team
Andrada-Maria Filip
Harvir Kalirai
Iulia Lazar
Luka Zagar
Review and comments
Part 1: the Landscape of Criminalization beneted
from the expertise of and invaluable contributions
from within RAB and from UNODC colleagues in all
divisions.
The Research and Trend Analysis Branch acknowl-
edges the invaluable contributions and advice provid-
ed by members of the Global Analysis on Crimes that
Affect the Environment Technical Working Group:
Buba Bojang
Blaise Kuemlangan
Julia Nakamura
Nigel South
Daan van Uhm
Sallie Yang
The publication was made possible by the generous
nancial contributions of France and Germany.
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
5
Content
Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Conclusions and Policy Implications . . . . . . . . 10
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Regional agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
International conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
The Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
The state of criminalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Legal vs natural persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Other sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Deforestation and logging . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Air pollution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
Noise pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Soil pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Water pollution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Fishing-related offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Waste-related offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Wildlife-related offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Geographic Variations in Criminalization of Crimes
that Affect the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
Americas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Oceania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Conclusions and Policy Implications . . . . . . . 36
Regional Groupings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Endnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
6
Findings
Overall criminalization of activities that harm the
environment
•
No single international legal instrument compre-
hensively protects the environment, criminaliz-
es all behaviours that harm the environment, nor
denes crimes that affect the environment. The
legal protection of the environment is a complicat-
ed patchwork of international and regional agree-
ments ratied and transposed to varying degrees
into national legislative frameworks. Such complex
and unharmonized regulations create a landscape
where criminal and/or economic interests can take
advantage of loopholes and gaps in legislation and
its enforcement as well as a landscape conducive to
criminal inltration of legitimate sectors.
•
Today, many countries make use of the law and
criminal penalties to protect the environment,
although with some differences across environ-
mental areas. In most countries in the world, prison
sentences can be imposed for violating laws regu-
lating deforestation and logging, mining, air pollu-
tion, noise pollution, soil pollution, water pollution,
shing, waste, and wildlife. A high rate of criminal-
ization of harmful behaviours exists across these
nine environmental areas. Wildlife and waste are
the areas where most countries have at least one
related criminal offence in their national legisla-
tion. Soil and noise pollution are the areas where
the fewest countries have criminal provisions.
•
The level of protection afforded to the environment
is related to the conditions of each country. For ex-
ample, all the countries of Southern Africa regard of-
fences related to air pollution, deforestation and log-
ging, mining, waste and wildlife as criminal acts. In
contrast, no countries among the small island states
of Micronesia regard violations of deforestation and
logging legislation as a crime, perhaps because
commercial forestry is not an issue in the region.
Activities that harm the environment considered as
serious crime
•
At least 85% of United Nations Member States
criminalize offences against wildlife and at least
45% punish some of these offences with four
years or more in prison, which constitutes a serious
crime under the UN Convention Against Transna-
tional Organized Crime (UNTOC). For example, in
Eastern Africa, 12 out of 18 countries regard wild-
life offences as serious crimes, with the potential
for long prison sentences, while illegal shing is
considered most grave in Oceania, where 43% of
the countries regard it as a serious crime.
•
Waste offences are taken even more seriously,
with almost half of the countries regarding these
offences as serious crimes, including half the
African countries (perhaps due to the Bamako
Convention) and 62% of countries in Western
Europe. Waste offences is also an area where the
liability of legal persons (such as corporations) is
recognized in over three-quarters of countries.
• Africa and the Americas have the highest propor-
tions of countries with criminal offences related
to all nine environmental areas analysed, while
Africa and Asia have the highest average percent-
age of Member States with penalties meeting the
serious crime denition across the nine crimes (30
per cent respectively). Where there are no criminal
offences, countries typically use administrative of-
fences (see Figure 1).
•
The highest average percentage of Member
States with penalties meeting the serious crime
denition are in Africa and Asia, indicating not that
legislation there may be ‘weak’, as is commonly
stated, but that there is a lack of enforcement of
the legislation.
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
7
The role of international conventions
The two environmental areas with the highest levels
of criminalization – waste and wildlife – are, at least
in part, governed by international conventions – the
Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary
Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal
and the Convention on International Trade in Endan-
gered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) re-
spectively. Both conventions have been widely ratied
by UN Member States (188 and 183 respectively – see
Figure2). The requirement of the Basel Convention
to criminalize violations of its provisions explains the
high level of the criminalization of waste violations (of
160 Member States that criminalize, 157 are parties
to the Basel Convention). In terms of wildlife, CITES
does not specically require criminalization. The high
level of criminalization of wildlife violations is likely
a combination of decades of campaigning related to
wildlife protection, CITES having existed for 50 years
(nearly twice as long as the Basel Convention), and
CITES’ National Legislation Project that evaluates im-
plementation of the convention.
Figure 1 – State of criminalization (Number of UN Member States)
Air pollution
Noise pollution
Soil pollution
Water pollution
Deforestation
and logging
Fishing
Mining
Waste
Wildlife
Environmental area
Number of Member States
135
97
99
135
139
118
116
160
164
42
67
60
50
47
74
54
22
28
16
29
34
8
7
1
23
11
1
Criminal penalties No criminal penalties No data
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
8
Ecocide
•
Some countries dene ecocide as a crime (see
Rights of Nature and Ecocide). The crime of eco-
cide cannot replace the consideration for crim-
inalization of harms that affect the environment,
but instead it may be a helpful complement in the
most egregious or systemic cases.
Known Liability of Legal Persons
• Liability of legal persons is an important aspect to
crimes that affect the environment as often legal
persons such as corporations are the offenders.
Violations of air pollution (120 Member States) and
waste regulations (146 Member States) are the
most likely types of offences for which liability of
legal persons is expressly established in the envi-
ronmental legislation.
54
22
41
55
49
45
95
86
11
9
7
7
9
4
10
70
66
51
73
81
67
55
78
42
67
60
50
47
54
22
28
16
29
34
8
7
34 10 74 74
1
23
11
1
Criminal penalty is a serious crime
Criminal penalty is unknown
Criminal penalty is not a serious crime
No criminal penalty
No data
Number of Member States
Air pollution
Noise pollution
Soil pollution
Water pollution
Deforestation
and logging
Fishing
Mining
Waste
Wildlife
Environmental area
155
28
157
21
10
Basel
Convention
CITES
Criminalized Not criminalized Unknown
The State of criminalzation of violations of the Basel
Convention and CITES for United Nations Member
States which are parties to these conventions
Figure 3 – Member States with legislation meeting the UNTOC denition of serious crime of
at least four years in prison
Figure 2 – State of criminalization of the parties to
the Basel Convention and CITES by UN Member
States
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
9
Repeat Offences
•
Relatively few Member States appear to address
either recidivism or ongoing violations directly in
their environmental legislation.
Conscationof instrumentalities and proceeds of
crimes
•
Overall, conscation provisions for activities that
harm the environment do not appear common in
environmental legislation; for example, of the leg-
islation reviewed for this analysis only 37 coun-
tries provide for conscation regarding water-
related offences, despite 135 criminalizing water
pollution. Other legislation, including criminal leg-
islation, may cover such situations.
•
Further, conscation provisions more common-
ly appear to apply to equipment or objects (e.g.,
vehicles or wildlife products) related to the crime
rather than prots or proceeds, particularly but
not exclusively with respect to pollution crimes.
Compensation, restoration, and restitution
•
While provisions exist providing for restorative
injunctive relief (compensation for environmen-
tal damage or funds to restore the environment),
these provisions are less common than the crimi-
nalization of offences.
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
10
Conclusions and Policy
Implications
This review of environmental legislation shows that
countries have in place, to varying degrees, legal
frameworks that criminalize activities that harm the
environment. However, some environmental areas
and geographical areas are less covered than others
by criminal provisions, suggesting that some coun-
tries may perceive certain environmental areas less
in need of protection, less exposed to harmful prac-
tices or more difcult for protections to be enforced.
Establishing criminal or administrative offences is the
rst step to enforcing environmental protection, but
their effectiveness depends on a number of factors,
including the capacity of the criminal justice system
to implement them. So, despite the progress made in
environmental protection laws, there are a number of
priorities to consider to strengthen national legislative
frameworks to protect the environment:
•
Criminal penalties for crimes that affect the en-
vironment, regardless of their nature and harm,
remain low in many countries, below the thresh-
old of serious crime. Not all crimes that affect the
environment are of a serious nature and low-lev-
el offences require proportional criminal justice
responses. But for the most harmful offences,
penalties could be increased to meet the UNTOC
denition of serious crime across all nine environ-
mental areas analysed to enable Member States
to utilize the UNTOC provisions for international
cooperation (e.g., extradition, mutual legal assis-
tance). Further examination of criminalization and
penalties within (sub)regions is warranted to iden-
tify harmonization as well as potential loopholes
where countries with the least stringent legisla-
tion and penalties may be targeted by offenders.
1
2
3
•
While international conventions seem to have an
impact on the level of criminalization of wildlife
and waste offences, even more improvements
could be made in the context of the Basel Conven-
tion and CITES. For the Basel Convention, this is
particularly the case in Latin America where 10 UN
Member States do not criminalize waste offences
and for CITES this is the case for Southern Europe
and Western Asia where six and four UN Member
States respectively do not criminalize wildlife of-
fences.
• Very few countries have laws allowing for cons-
cation of the instrumentalities or the proceeds of
environmental offences. These deciencies may
lead to the prosecution of minor offenders, rather
than the large economic interests that often drive
crimes that affect the environment. So, strength-
ening environmental legislation to cover seizure
and conscation of assets related to crimes that
affect the environment is another area that needs
urgent attention.
•
Liability for legal persons is another area for im-
provement. Only 19 countries have known liability
for legal persons regarding shing-related offenc-
es and 20 for deforestation and logging-related
offences, two environmental areas in which cor-
porate malfeasance is common. This may indicate
that economic interests may be blocking efforts to
better protect the environment.
•
Certain geographical areas could be prioritized for
improving legal frameworks to protect the envi-
ronment. For example, Central Asia for pollution
and mining-related offences and Europe for sh-
ing-related offences. Only 20 per cent of Central
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
11
Asian countries have provisions that criminalize
pollution (noise, soil, water) and mining offences,
despite being a region strongly affected by these
crimes. And only 2 per cent of European countries
regard shing-related offences as a serious crime.
•
While the analysis has revealed progress and chal-
lenges on how environmental law deals with the
criminalization of activities that harm the environ-
ment, knowledge gaps remain. Additional analy-
sis is needed on how corruption in these environ-
mental areas is treated and penalized. Despite
the level of criminalization, there is a lack of data
on arrests, prosecution convictions, and custodi-
al sentencing,
4
which calls for capacity-building
in terms of data collection on crimes that affect
the environment as well as on implementation and
enforcement of existing legislation. Also, further
research is needed into the enforcement of these
legislation and the range of criminal penalties
administered, and importantly, what the effects
are of these sanctions. It is critical to understand
which combinations of criminalization and restor-
ative approaches are most effective at preventing
crimes that affect the environment.
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
12
Introduction
The Earth is facing a triple planetary crisis – climate
change, biodiversity loss, and pollution. One aspect of
combating this crisis is protecting the planet through
the criminalization of acts that harm the environment.
Some international organizations and studies have
called for legislative frameworks to be improved and
for crimes that affect the environment to be dened
as serious and/or organized crimes.
5
6
United Nations
General Assembly Resolution A/RES/76/185 also
“calls upon Member States to make crimes that affect
the environment, where appropriate, serious crimes”.
7
Criminalization can be an important symbol that cer-
tain actions are prohibited. Having higher penalties
for crimes can not only dissuade potential and repeat
offenders,
8
9
it can also broaden the range of investi-
gative tools and resources for law enforcement.
10
In
particular, if the offence is punishable by a maximum
deprivation of liberty of at least four years or a more
serious penalty, this enables parties to the UN Conven-
tion against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC)
to apply extradition and mutual legal assistance.
11
The extent of criminalization of harmful acts to the
environment is unknown. This rst publication of the
Global Analysis on Crimes that Affect the Environment
helps to ll these gaps in knowledge by answering the
following research questions: To what extent does the
environmental legislation of the 193 Member States
of the United Nations criminalize actions that harm
the environment? How are any such criminal offences
penalized, and does this conform to the denition of
serious crime set out in the UNTOC?
According to a 2022 background note from the Com-
mission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice
(CCPCJ), “Data on environmental crimes are collect-
ed only when a clear and separate denition of the
legal offence exists in national criminal law. In many
countries, for instance, actions that have a signicant
negative impact on the environment fall primarily un-
der administrative offences or environmental or health
regulations and are therefore not reected in crime
statistics”.
12
As noted in the above statement, harm to the envi-
ronment is not always considered a criminal offence.
An important, substantive distinction exists between
criminal legislation generally and environmental leg-
islation. Namely, environmental legislation is viewed
as establishing the standards of behaviour and proce-
dure for regulatory agencies and for legal and natural
persons engaging in activities that in some way affect
the environment. Typically, this includes provisions on
how to obtain permits, reporting obligations, prohibi-
tions and restrictions, and other regulatory provisions.
Often, but not always, such legislation will make vio-
lations of the standards an offence. Sometimes these
offences are treated as criminal offences and han-
dled, when they occur, through the criminal justice
system by state or local prosecutors; other times,
the offences may be civil offences, creating causes
of action that may be brought by the government or
by citizens in the public interest. And sometimes of-
fences may be treated administratively – typically, this
means that the regulatory agency imposes a ne or
some other type of penalty that does not involve the
criminal justice system.
In contrast, a penal code or other criminal legislation
or common law establishes those actions that are
treated as criminal offences and that are prosecutable
through the criminal justice system. Criminal legisla-
tion that could be relevant to the environment includes
money laundering legislation, legislation that crimi-
nalizes corruption, and general criminal codes, for ex-
ample. This legislation is not “environmental”, just like
environmental legislation is not “criminal” even though
they intersect. This analysis looks at “environmental”
legislation and asks whether such legislation includes
criminal offences. It is not a comprehensive analysis of
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
13
criminal laws that might include environment-related
offences.
In relation to environmental legislation, a complex
interplay exists between international agreements,
regional environmental agreements, national leg-
islation, and even sub-national legislation (state- or
provincial level legislation in Member States that are
federated). Thus, to understand when an act is a crime
that affects the environment, it is essential to exam-
ine this interplay. Regional and international treaties
are voluntary instruments, but when a party raties
an international agreement, the party is obliged to
implement and enforce the terms of the agreement,
which means, in many cases, ensuring that national
legislation complies with obligations under the agree-
ment.
13
Several regional and numerous international
conventions have provisions relevant to crimes that af-
fect the environment, and some may ask parties to the
agreements to establish as criminal offences certain
acts that harm the environment.
14
Figure 4 illustrates
the legal instruments at the different levels of gov-
ernance – there are fewer regional agreements, more
international conventions, and thousands of national
laws. Figure 4 also illustrates how national laws can
be linked to the provisions of regional agreements
and international conventions. These are color coded
to show which regional agreements and international
conventions are specic to climate change, biodiver-
sity loss, pollution and waste, and the environment in
general. These codes are somewhat oversimplied as
there is not a clear distinction between these differ-
ent areas and for example many forms of biodiversi-
ty loss and pollution and waste impact upon climate
change and vice versa. Some of the most important
of the regional agreements and international conven-
tions are discussed below before an analysis of the
state of criminalization for offences related to each of
the nine environmental areas analysed (deforestation
and logging, mining, air, noise, soil and water pollution,
shing, waste, and wildlife). An analysis of the geo-
graphic variations of criminalization follows.
Box 1 – RIGHTS OF NATURE AND ECOCIDE
Criminalizing certain acts that harm the environment
is only one approach to protect the environment. Na-
tional legislation may embed other ways to protect
the environment. Just two examples (which may or
may not incorporate some criminal law elements) are
Rights of Nature and ecocide.
Rights of Nature
Rights of Nature is an approach that recognizes that
nature, in whole or in part, has inherent rights to exist,
thrive, and regenerate. Using this approach, some le-
gal systems have enforcement provisions that protect
those rights, such as by allowing cases to be brought
on behalf of an ecosystem, an element of a particu-
lar landscape, a species, or even an individual animal
when there is or is likely to be harm. Under the Rights
of Nature approach, human behaviour may be subject
to regulation to avoid harm to the environment or pro-
vide redress to compensate for such harm. Courts are
typically the arbiters of claims that are put forward on
behalf of nature, and injunctive relief may come in the
form of remanding government decision-making, halt-
ing development projects, pollution control measures,
or other protective or procedural orders.
15
Among the several examples of Rights of Nature court
cases, the Atrato River Decision in Colombia is instruc-
tive as an example of how such cases have the po-
tential to engage Indigenous Peoples and Local Com-
munities (IPLCs), protect the environment through law
and policy, and restore damaged ecosystems. In this
case, an organization brought a case to Colombia’s
Constitutional Court, and the court subsequently held
that the Atrato River had legal personhood deserving
of protection under the law as recognized by the Co-
lombian Constitution. In its ruling, the Court, among
other steps, ordered the development of a joint plan to
halt illegal gold mining, including the seizure of any in-
strumentalities of such mining, the prosecution of any
organizations or persons participating in illegal min-
ing, and a plan to decontaminate the river and restore
the ecosystem.
16
17
The rationale behind the ruling was
“La tierra no le pertenece al hombre sino, por el con-
trario, es el hombre quien pertenece a la tierra” – “The
earth does not belong to man [any person], but rather,
it is man [any person] who belongs to the earth.”
18
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
14
Ecocide
According to an independent, expert panel, ”ecocide”
is the “unlawful or wanton acts committed with know-
ledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe
and either widespread or long-term damage to the en-
vironment being caused by those acts.”
19
The devel-
opment of this denition exists as part of an ongoing
campaign to have ecocide adopted as an international
crime via the Rome Statute of the International Crim-
inal Court. As it currently stands, “long-term and se-
vere damage to the environment” constitutes a crime
prosecutable at the International Criminal Court via
the Rome Statute only when it occurs during war-
time.
20
According to one source, some nations have
begun to adopt legislative provisions that criminalize
acts that may be categorized as ecocide.
21
While adopting ecocide laws may help to reduce en-
vironmental harm, the denitional thresholds may be
a barrier to prosecution when the crime of ecocide
requires proving wanton or knowing mental states or
the known likelihood of signicant harm to the envi-
ronment.
Regional agreements
Regional agreements, also referred to as treaties, are
relevant to an analysis of criminalization of environ-
mental degradation as they may ask Member States
to have legislation that criminalizes the violations of
certain treaty provisions. Two examples of this are the
Bamako and Waigani Conventions, though there are
many other relevant regional agreements. The Bama-
ko Convention, ofcially known as the Convention on
the Ban of the Import into Africa and the Control of
Transboundary Movement and Management of Haz-
ardous Wastes within Africa, was established in 1991
under the African Union.
The aim of the Convention is
to prohibit the import of all hazardous and radioactive
waste into Africa,
22
and the dumping or incineration
of hazardous waste in oceans and inland waters, while
promoting environmentally sound disposal.
23
Among
other obligations, parties to the convention are asked
to make unauthorized imports illegal and “to introduce
appropriate national legislation for imposing criminal
penalties on all persons who have planned, carried
out, or assisted in such illegal imports”.
24
The Waigani Convention, ofcially known as the Con-
vention to Ban the Importation into Forum Island
Countries of Hazardous and Radioactive Wastes and
to Control the Transboundary Movement and Man-
agement of Hazardous Wastes within the South Pa-
cic Region, was adopted in 1995. Like the Bamako
Convention, it states that prohibited imports shall be
deemed an illegal and criminal act in domestic leg-
islation.
25
This convention entered into force in 2001
and is structured after the Basel Convention, serving
as the South Pacic regional implementation of the
international hazardous waste control system.
26
International conventions
In relation to criminalization, of the numerous interna-
tional conventions that aim at protecting the environ-
ment, only the Basel Convention includes a specic
requirement to criminalize prohibited conduct under
parties’ domestic legislation.
27
28
In all the other con-
ventions, parties may choose to criminalize prohibit-
ed conduct, but no such explicit requirements exist.
For example, the Convention on International Trade of
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
Article VIII explicitly requires parties to prohibit and
penalize violations of trade in specimens in violation
of the Convention, but it does not specically ask Par-
ties to criminalize these violations.
29
This means that
parties can be compliant in implementing the provi-
sions of the convention by employing administrative
penalties to address wildlife offences. Other multilat-
eral environmental agreements contain text to take
‘necessary measures,’ as opposed to requiring crim-
inalization. For instance, Article 15 of the Rotterdam
Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure
for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in In-
ternational Trade provides the following:
“Each Party shall take such measures as may be
necessary to establish and strengthen its national
infrastructures and institutions for the effective
implementation of this Convention. These mea-
sures may include, as required, the adoption or
amendment of national legislative or administra-
tive measures…”.
30
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
15
In addition to the national legislation that countries
have introduced in compliance with international con-
ventions, there are a series of other national laws that
have been introduced. Thus, to understand the state
of criminalization of acts that harm the environment, it
is necessary to look beyond regional agreements and
international conventions and analyse each Member
States’ legislation.
Box 2 – WORKING DEFINITIONS USED FOR THIS
ANALYSIS
To undertake the analysis of all 193 Member States’
legislation for the nine environmental areas, an
agreed-upon set of working denitions was adopted.
These working denitions were taken from United
Nations’ entities with a mandate in the environmen-
tal areas – the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)
for pollution and the Food and Agricultural Organiza-
tion (FAO) for illegal shing. The series of legislative
guides produced by UNODC were also a source for
these working denitions as the legislative guides
are grounded in the relevant international conven-
tions. For cross-cutting analysis of conscation, lia-
bility of legal persons, and serious crime, the UNTOC
supplied the working denitions. For environmental
areas where there was no UNODC legislative guide or
convention that covers all the relevant offences (ille-
gal deforestation and logging, and wildlife crime), the
working denitions were adapted from other similar
crime types where a denition already existed.
Conscation here refers to both the seizure and for-
feiture of the proceeds of crime (though these are
distinct concepts under UNTOC Article 2(f) and (g)).
31
The proceeds of crime are “any property derived from
or obtained, directly or indirectly, through the com-
mission of an offence”.
32
In most cases, conscation
requires a proven connection between the crime and
the property, which can be instrumentalities such as
vehicles, real property (factories and warehouses, for
example), contraband, offending substances like haz-
ardous chemicals or waste, or the proceeds or prots
related to a Crime that Affects the Environment. These
divestitures serve several goals. They may punish
an offender, act as a deterrent, disincentivize recid-
ivism, compensate victims, or support future enforce-
ment-related activities.
Deforestation and logging-related offences or illegal
deforestation and logging – Any person who engages
in forest clearing in violation of a Member State’s
legislative framework. It includes the illegal cutting,
burning, or destroying of forest trees and the illegal
digging or blasting of forests. Illegal logging is the
process of harvesting, processing, or transporting of
wood and derived products in violation of a Member
State’s legislative framework.
Fishing-related offences or illegal shing – This refers
to shing “conducted by national or foreign vessels
in waters under the jurisdiction of a State, without
the permission of that State, or in contravention of
its laws and regulations”, to shing “conducted by
vessels ying the ag of States that are parties to a
relevant regional sheries management organization
but operate in contravention of the conservation and
management measures adopted by that organization
and by which the States are bound, or relevant
provisions of the applicable international law”, as
well as to shing “in violation of national laws or
international obligations, including those undertaken
by cooperating States to a relevant regional sheries
management organization”.
33
Mining-related offences or illegal mining – Any person
who engages in any mining activity of a mineral re-
source (a) without lawful authority where such author-
ity is required by law; (b) without a relevant licence,
permit, certicate, or other legal permission granted
by the competent authorities; (c) by contravening the
conditions of said licence, permit, certicate, etc.; or
(d) in a manner that otherwise contravenes the rele-
vant legislation.
34
Legal person – Includes, but is not limited to, corporate
bodies, companies, rms, associations, societies, part-
nerships, local governments, trade unions, municipali-
ties, and public bodies.
35
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
16
Liability of legal persons – The UNTOC requires States
parties to establish a legal framework addressing the
liability of legal persons for participation in serious
crimes involving an organized criminal group.
36
Part
2 of Article 10 species that liability for legal persons
may be criminal, civil or administrative and that two
or all of these approaches to liability may exist at the
same time. However, Article 10 (3) notes that such
liability must be without prejudice to the criminal
liability of natural persons involved in the offences.
“Civil liability refers to civil penalties imposed by
courts or similar bodies. Administrative liability is
generally associated with liability imposed by a
regulator, but in some legal systems judicial bodies
may also impose administrative penalties. Like civil
liability, administrative liability does not result in a
criminal conviction”.
37
Pollution-related offences – is the “indirect or direct
alteration of the biological, thermal, physical, or
radioactive properties of any medium in such a way
as to create a hazard or potential hazard to human
health or to the health, safety or welfare of any living
species”.
38
Restorative justice – “refers to a process for resolving
crime by focusing on redressing the harm done to
victims, holding offenders accountable for their
actions and, often also, engaging the community in
the resolution of the conict”.
39
Waste-related offences become waste crime when
any person engages in the trade, treatment, or dis-
posal of waste in ways that breach international or
domestic environmental legislation.
40
41
The working
denition here is broader than waste trafcking.
Wildlife-related offences become wildlife crime
when any person engages in exploitation of wildlife
in contravention of a Member State’s legislation. This
includes illegal wildlife trade
42
(“Any person who [in-
tentionally/with the requisite mental state] trafcs in
any specimen: (a) of a species listed in [national lists
and/or CITES]; (b) knowing that the specimen was tak-
en, possessed, distributed, transported, purchased or
sold in contravention of any national laws concerning
the protection or management of wild fauna or ora;
commits an offence”),
43
but also includes licence vio-
lations for hunting or harvesting as well as injurious
behaviours not linked to illegal trade (i.e., badger and
bear baiting).
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
17
Each level of the pyramid provides some examples
of environmental legislation. The majority of environ-
mental legislation is at the national and sub-national
level. There are fewer international treaties and even
fewer regional treaties. The list of treaties is not ex-
haustive. The arrows indicate that some national leg-
islation exists to comply with membership in regional
and international agreements.
Figure 4 – Visual representation of the environmental legislation at different levels
REGIONAL
ENVIRON MENTAL
AGREEMENTS
Bamako Convention
(Africa);
Bern Convention (Europe);
Escazu Agreement
(LatinAmerica);
EU Waste Shipment Regulation (EU);
Waigani Convention (South Pacic)
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC); United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD), Convention on the International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), Convention on Migratory
Species (CMS); Convention on Long Range Air Pollution (CLRTAP),
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution of Dumping Wastes
and Other Matter (London Convention), International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), Minamata Convention on Mercury,
Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain
Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, Stockholm Convention on
Persistent Organic Pollutants, Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer
(Montreal Protocol)
NATIONAL AND SUB-NATIONAL LEGISLATION
CLIMATE CHANGE POLLUTION AND WASTE
GENERAL ENVIRONMENT
BIODIVERSITY LOSS
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
18
Methodology
This review presents the analysis of national environ-
mental legislation from all 193 UN Member States.
The review sought to answer: To what extent does the
environmental legislation of the 193 Member States
of the United Nations criminalize actions that harm
the environment? How are any such criminal offences
penalized, and does this conform to the denition of
serious crime set out in the UNTOC? The review ana-
lysed 2,502 pieces of environmental legislation in 193
countries, looking for provisions pertaining to criminal
offences related to deforestation and logging, mining,
air pollution, noise pollution, soil pollution, water pol-
lution, shing, waste, and wildlife, as dened in Box 2.
The breakdown of environmental legislation by crime
type is presented in Table 1, including the number of
countries where no legislation was identied. The legis-
lative review comprised desk-based research, content
analysis of the identied legislation, and inclusion of
Member State responses to a request for them to share
their legislation and related penalties (detailed below).
All relevant legislation that could be identied through
the ECOLEX and FAOLEX legislative databases, and
UNODC’s Sharing Electronic Resources and Laws on
Crime (SHERLOC) knowledge management portal for
each of the Member States was collated into a single
database.
44
Then, a request for information regarding
the accuracy of the legislation, the state of criminal-
ization and whether offences met the UNTOC deni-
tion of “serious crime” was sent to all Member States.
Thirty-two Member States responded to this request
with information, conrming or correcting the legisla-
tion and specifying whether violations of the legisla-
tion were administrative, civil, and or/criminal and what
the exact penalties were. Several Member States also
shared relevant completed court cases. Each piece of
all identied legislation was analysed. Unless submit-
ted by a Member State or referenced in the legislation,
the criminal legislation and penal codes were not re-
viewed; the focus was on the environmental legislation.
Twenty-three Member States responded with criminal
or penal codes to the request for information and thus
these were reviewed as part of the analysis. Open
source (automated) translation tools were used for
translation, when necessary, although not all legisla-
tion gathered could be translated. In these cases, or in
cases where the relevant legislation was not identied,
the data for that Member State in a particular category
was coded as “unknown” and is illustrated as “no data”
(see Figures 6 through 14). If at least one violation of
any of the legislation analysed for a Member State had
a criminal penalty, this was recorded in a master Excel
Spreadsheet as criminalization for that particular en-
vironmental area. Criminalization for each Crime that
Affects the Environment was broken down by “Crim-
inalized, not a serious crime”, “Criminalized, unknown
if a serious crime”, or “Criminalized, a serious crime”
referring to whether or not the penalty meets UNTOC’s
threshold of serious crime (see Figures 6 through 14).
In assessing whether a particular offence was crim-
inalized (the rst research question), a two-pronged
analysis was employed. First, an offence was coded
as criminalized if the Member State identied it as
criminalized or the legislation identied the offence
as one of a criminal nature. Second, if the criminal-
ization status was not explicit, offences were coded
as criminalized when accompanied by the possibility
of a custodial sentence. To answer the second re-
search question, crimes accompanied by a custodial
sentence meet the UNTOC serious crime denitional
threshold if the offence is punishable by a maximum
deprivation of liberty of at least four years or a more
serious penalty. As such, the legislation was analysed
to assess whether a possible custodial sentence for
any aspect of the offence could lead to at least four
years of imprisonment or other deprivation of liberty,
such as hard or forced labour. Typically, the severity
of the penalty depends upon the circumstances of the
offence, and legislation may not dene a particular,
singular penalty but rather a range that may ratchet
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
19
up or down depending on aggravating or mitigating
circumstances. In general, across all Crimes that Af-
fect the Environment, offences causing greater injury
(e.g., large quantities of waste or pollution, trafcking
of endangered species (CITES-listed)), those that are
repeat offences, or offences committed by organized
crime groups are those that meet UNTOC’s denition
of serious crime. Examples of how national statutes
were considered in the classication of serious crime
include the following:
•
The statute states that the offence is subject to
a penalty of “1 to 5 years’ imprisonment.” Four
years is possible, so that was considered a “seri-
ous crime.”
• The statute states that the offence is subject to a
penalty of “1 to 5 years’ imprisonment and/or a ne
up to $50,000 USD.” This also was classied as
a “serious crime”; even though many people con-
victed under this provision may only receive a ne
(or a custodial sentence much shorter than four
years), four years’ imprisonment or more is possi-
ble/legally authorized.
• The statute says the offence is punishable by “up
to four years’ imprisonment.” This was also a “se-
rious crime.” The convention says, “at least four
years,” not “more than four years.”
• The statute says the offence is punishable by “1 to
3 years’ imprisonment.” That was not considered a
“serious crime.”
To identify whether legal persons may be held liable
under a particular law, the law was reviewed for an
explicit provision or the denition of “person” or any
other subject identied in the law. For the other data
categories, such as whether injunctive relief, cons-
cation, nes, or other alternative sanctions might be
available, the environmental legislation was reviewed,
and relevant provisions were identied and the form
of injunctive relief, the parameters of the conscation,
the amount of the nes, and the form of alternative
sanctions were recorded, with the data disaggregat-
ed into each of these categories. Other elements of
the analysis included whether within the environmen-
tal legislation there is the possibility of alternative or
restorative forms of punishments. The forms of alter-
native punishments, such as restoration of the envi-
ronment or compensation for environmental damage
among other possibilities were identied and again
recorded in their own separate column in the master
Excel Spreadsheet. It is important to note that for all
Member States additional legislation that was not
analysed here may contain relevant information. The
breakdown for each of the crimes along the criteria
outlined is provided below.
Table 1 – Breakdown of number of pieces of legislation that were analysed by environmental area across all
193 Member States
Environmental Area Number of Pieces of
Legislation
Number of Member States
where No Legislation was
Identied
Air pollution 258 14
Noise pollution 194 25
Soil pollution 241 29
Water pollution 296 0
Illegal deforestation and logging 294 6
Illegal mining 226 20
Illegal shing 304 1
Waste violations 267 8
Wildlife violations 472 0
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
20
The Analysis
The state of criminalization
Most Member States across the nine environmental
areas considered in this analysis criminalize violations
of their legislation, though there is variation across the
nine environmental areas. Among these, violations of
legislation related to wildlife, waste, deforestation and
logging, along with air and water pollution offences
were most likely to include criminal offences (see Fig-
ure 1 in the Findings). The crimes for which the pen-
alties meet the UNTOC serious crime threshold in the
highest number of Member States are wildlife crime
and waste crime. These were followed closely by air
and water pollution (see Figure 3 in the Findings).
Legal vs natural persons
The environmental legislation was analysed for ex-
plicit reference to liability of legal persons. Violations
of waste legislation and air pollution most frequent-
ly provided the potential to hold legal persons liable
for offences. Noise and water pollution legislation
appears to lag in holding legal persons liable and
generally only appears to hold natural persons liable.
As noted, it is possible that liability of legal persons
is codied in other legislation not analysed here. In-
terestingly, while shing and forestry are very often
an industrial activity undertaken by corporate actors,
the relevant environmental legislation frequently pun-
ishes violations by legal persons less severely than
natural persons, which means the most common and
serious offenders are likely subjected to some of the
lowest levels of punishment.For example, out of the
118 countries with environmental legislation criminal-
izing illegal shing only 19 of these explicitly mention
the liability of legal persons.Figure 5 indicates the
number of Member States which have explicit penal-
ties for legal persons; the remaining Member States
may have provisions for legal persons in other legis-
lation, but for this analysis are considered unknown.
Other sanctions
Legislation that includes conscation provisions var-
ies across countries and environmental areas. Over-
all, conscation provisions do not appear common in
legislation pertaining to the environment; for exam-
ple, of the 193 Member States whose legislation was
reviewed for this analysis only 37 appear to provide
for conscation regarding water-related offences,
despite 135 criminalizing water pollution. Further,
it appears from the legislative review that it is more
common that conscation provisions apply to equip-
ment or objects (e.g., vehicles and wildlife products)
related to the crime rather than prots or proceeds,
particularly but not exclusively with respect to pol-
lution crimes. For environmental areas such as noise
pollution, equipment such as speakers and sirens may
be subject to conscation when the crime is not prot
motivated. In some cases, what may be “specialized”
conscation provisions exist to address the involve-
ment of high-risk substances, such as when ofcers
may seize and take into possession hazardous chem-
icals.
45
While provisions for conscation may not be
widely included in environmental legislation they may
still be included in general criminal or other legisla-
tion, thereby still providing conscation options for
law enforcement and the judiciary.
Whether offences are criminalized or not, civil reme-
dies that require compensation, restoration, or resti-
tution are a means of achieving justice in cases where
the commission of an offence harms people, wildlife,
or the environment. Although not common, examples
do exist where legislation gives the justice system
exibility to implement solutions to recover the costs
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
21
of and restore the damage from environmental harms.
For example, legislation in one Member State provides
that an offender may be required to remove pollution,
install pollution-control equipment, cease release of
any harmful substance, and restore the environment
to its previous condition. Overall, only 35 Member
States require restoration for water pollution; a low-
er rate of restorative remedies than criminalization is
common across all categories under analysis, though
these provisions may exist in other legislative instru-
ments. Compensation may be required to pay back
costs for clean-up and/or to pay any victims suffer-
ing harm from damage to the environment. Such an
approach appears relatively common in the context
of soil pollution, where 24 Member States require
offenders to compensate injured parties. While noise
violations may cause harm that cannot necessarily be
remedied, law enforcement may pursue other types of
remedies, such as closure of facilities or installations,
contract bans or restrictions, or the requirement to
fund environmentally benecial projects.
Alternatives to nes and imprisonment are not as com-
mon as nancial and custodial sentences. As evident
below, the range and diversity of these most common
sanctions are extensive for each of the environmental
areas that were reviewed for this analysis.
Figure 5 – Known Liability of Legal Persons*
* The liability of legal persons for wildlife crime was taken from the Member State responses to the Information Gathering Tool from CCPCJ
Resolution 31/1 as well as content analysis of Member States’ legislation.
Air pollution
Noise pollution
Soil pollution
Water pollution
Deforestation
and logging
Fishing
Mining
Waste
Wildlife
Environmental area
Number of Member States
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
146
104
20
19
121
76
89
120
69
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
22
Deforestation and logging
The content analysis of deforestation and logging
legislation focused on the working denition in Box1
(illegal forest clearing through illegal cutting, burning,
and destruction etc.) and not on the illegal trade of
timber. The legislation of 139 Member States was
identied as criminalizing these activities, with 49 of
those having penalties that met the UNTOC denition
of a serious crime. The custodial penalties have a great
deal of variability with some prescribing incarceration
from 15 to 30 days while others prescribe up to 14
years depending on the type and severity of the
offence. Likewise, criminal nes ranged signicantly.
At the low end, nes are less than USD 500; at the
high end, nes could be tens of thousands of USD.
Often nes are calculated by penalty units determined
by the national minimum wage and, for this crime,
occasionally per tree.
Conscation of equipment, forest products, money
and other items was included in environmental legis-
lation and was only evident in 19 Member States. Res-
toration or restitution was more prevalent here per-
haps than in other environmental areas (24 Member
States). Sanctions also included loss of licence and
prohibition from logging for set periods of time. The
lack of criminalization of legal persons (in 20 Member
States) warrants further scrutiny since forestry is a
highly industrialized sector where corporations may
be the main perpetrators.
1826
1521
3112
11111
1
35
41
227
1
1
2
261
5214
51
24
4
1
3
1
4
23
8
211
121
2
22
1
6
1
3
2115
1
Caribbean
Central America
Central Asia
Eastern Africa
Eastern Asia
Eastern Europe
Melanesia
Micronesia
Middle Africa
Northern Africa
Northern Europe
Polynesia
South America
South-Eastern Asia
Southern Africa
Southern Asia
Southern Europe
Western Africa
Western Asia
Western Europe
Number of Member States
Sub- or intermediate region
No data
Not criminalized
Criminalized, not a serious crime
Criminalized, unknown if a serious crime
Criminalized, a serious crime
1
Figure 6 – State of criminalization of deforestation and logging-related offences
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
23
Mining
Violations of mining-related legislation constitute a
criminal offence in the environmental legislation of
116 Member States reviewed for this analysis, with
custodial sentences ranging in length from 15 days
to 20 years. A relatively high proportion of the custo-
dial penalties meet the UNTOC threshold of a serious
crime (45 Member States).
In addition to custodial sentences, Member States
have established a wide range of monetary nes in
relation to illegal mining. A few Member States differ-
entiate between natural and legal persons in the pro-
vision of monetary nes, like in other environmental
areas. More prominently than in the context of other
environmental areas, monetary nes for illegal mining
can double, triple, or even quintuple with repeated of-
fences. One Member State calculates the amount of
ne based upon the assets of the offender.
Caribbean
Number of Member States
Central America
Central Asia
Eastern Africa
Eastern Asia
Eastern Europe
Melanesia
Micronesia
Middle Africa
Northern Africa
Northern Europe
Polynesia
South America
South-Eastern Asia
Southern Africa
Southern Asia
Southern Europe
Western Africa
Western Asia
Western Europe
6
2
1
1
3
1
4
1
2
1
2
4
4
2
1
3
1
2
1
4
4
3
5
6
2
5
4
4
4
1
7
2
2
1
1
3
3
5
1
5
3
2
1
4
7
7
1
2
1
1
1
7
1
3
3
4
1
1
1
3
5
3
1
5
3
2
Sub- or intermediate region
No data
Not criminalized
Criminalized, not a serious crime
Criminalized, unknown if a serious crime
Criminalized, a serious crime
2
Figure 7 – State of criminalization of mining-related offences
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
24
Pollution
Air pollution
The review of air pollution legislation for this analysis
reveals a trend toward criminalization of air pollution
offences but a lag in relevant criminal sanctions con-
stituting “serious crimes” as dened by UNTOC. Of the
193 Member States reviewed for this report, 135 crimi-
nalize air pollution offences. Forty per cent of these do
so in a way that meets the “serious crime” threshold.
The range of penalties among the nearly 70 per cent
of Member States that criminalize air pollution is vast,
from monetary nes to extensive custodial sentences,
including labour or correctional work as a type of cus-
todial penalty. The custodial sentences vary greatly,
from a day’s imprisonment at the very low end, to life
imprisonment at the other extreme. Member States
vary signicantly with respect to the degree of ex-
ibility concerning custodial sentences that can be
given for mitigating and aggravating circumstances
during sentencing.
Just over two-thirds (127 Member States) of the air
pollution legislation provides monetary nes for vio-
lations (some in addition to custodial sentences), but
both the means of calculating monetary sanctions and
the amount of the nes differ dramatically by country.
For example, some Member States penalize ongoing
violations with nes that are incurred at daily rates.
One Memtion to a base ne of up to USD 2,365. An-
other Member State levies up to about USD 729,735
per day for ongoing violations.
Number of Member States
3
3
1
3
2
1
2
1
3
3
3
3
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
6
5
3
3
5
2
1
4
3
2
2
4
3
4
1
5
3
2
4
3
7
9
3
2
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
8
3
1
2
1
5
2
5
6
3
3
1
3
3
3
Caribbean
Central America
Central Asia
Eastern Africa
Eastern Asia
Eastern Europe
Melanesia
Micronesia
Middle Africa
Northern Africa
Northern Europe
Polynesia
South America
South-Eastern Asia
Southern Africa
Southern Asia
Southern Europe
Western Africa
Western Asia
Western Europe
Sub- or intermediate region
No data
Not criminalized
Criminalized, not a serious crime
Criminalized, unknown if a serious crime
Criminalized, a serious crime
Figure 8 – State of criminalization of air pollution-related offences
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
25
Legislation may also distinguish between natural and
legal persons to identify appropriate nes. For exam-
ple,legislation may assign lower nes for individual
violators as opposed to violations involving corpora-
tions. For example, one Member State imposes a pen-
alty ve times greater in cases involving legal persons
than in cases involving natural persons. Several na-
tions target legal entities by imposing monetary nes
on corporations while either leaving the individual un-
punished or imposing custodial and/or administrative
penalties on individuals involved in the violation.
Noise pollution
Of the 193 Member States reviewed for this analysis,
97 Member States criminalize noise pollution viola-
tions. Of those, just 22 have penalties that meet the
UNTOC serious crime threshold, the lowest number
of the analysis. Generally, prison sentences for noise
pollution offences are less common than in other
environmental areas. Sixty-eight Member States in-
corporate custodial penalties into their legal frame
-
works. The highest custodial penalties range from
6 to 15 years. The highest penalties appear to arise
when noise or vibration is considered a nuisance or
pollutant, as opposed to situations in which regula-
tion and violations derive from noise-specic legis-
lation. For example, one Member State’s legislation
provides that noise pollution may be a serious crime
that affects the environment when committed either
intentionally or negligently. The lower-end of custodi-
al sentences is two to ten days, across all legislation,
and these provisions tend to be found in noise-spe-
cic legislation.
As with regulating other forms of acts that harm the
environment, daily nes are a relatively prominent
Number of Member States
Caribbean
Central America
Central Asia
Eastern Africa
Eastern Asia
Eastern Europe
Melanesia
Micronesia
Middle Africa
Northern Africa
Northern Europe
Polynesia
South America
South-Eastern Asia
Southern Africa
Southern Asia
Southern Europe
Western Africa
Western Asia
Western Europe
3
1
6
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
4
3
5
2
5
2
1
3
2
4
1
6
3
2
4
7
6
7
2
1
4
2
2
1
6
3
2
1
3
3
2
2
9
6
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
3
2
4
2
2
356
1
1
Sub- or intermediate region
No data
Not criminalized
Criminalized, not a serious crime
Criminalized, unknown if a serious crime
Criminalized, a serious crime
Figure 9 – State of criminalization for noise pollution
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
26
form of penalizing noise violations, and these range
greatly. As far as the difference between natural and
legal persons, several Member States impose higher
nes on corporations than individuals, with at least
a few Member States imposing penalties up to ten
times higher on legal persons. A few countries also
impose graduated penalties, levying nes proportion-
ate to the severity of the violation.
Soil pollution
Of the 193 Member States’ legislation reviewed, 99
criminalize soil pollution offences, with 41 of those
having penalties that meet UNTOC’s serious crime
threshold. Custodial sentences for soil pollution vio-
lations range from 6 days to up to 15 years across all
legislation. In 48 Member States, legal persons are
held liable within the environmental legislation ana-
lysed. Accountability measures for natural persons
include an array of custodial sentences, monetary
nes, as well as compensation, rehabilitation, and
restoration. Like in other contexts, some legislation
scales the length and severity of custodial sentences
differently for natural and legal persons, for example
with a 1-10-year penalty range for natural persons and
a 5-10-year penalty range for legal persons. In this re-
view, 76 Member States were identied as imposing
a monetary ne on soil-related offences, six of which
provided for greater nes for legal persons.
Number of Member States
Caribbean
Central America
Central Asia
Eastern Africa
Eastern Asia
Eastern Europe
Melanesia
Micronesia
Middle Africa
Northern Africa
Northern Europe
Polynesia
South America
South-Eastern Asia
Southern Africa
Southern Asia
Southern Europe
Western Africa
Western Asia
Western Europe
3
5
2
2
1
1
3
1
1
6
3
3
2
4
4
4
4
2
2
1
4
3
4
6
2
2
2
5
4
5
5
1
3
2
2
3
3
3
4
1
1
1
2
1
3
4
5
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
6
5
1
1
4
1
3
3
1
3
1
3
3
2
Sub- or intermediate region
No data
Not criminalized
Criminalized, not a serious crime
Criminalized, unknown if a serious crime
Criminalized, a serious crime
Figure 10 – State of criminalization for soil pollution
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
27
Water pollution
At least 135 of 193 Member States criminalize water
pollution,with 117 providing for a custodial sentencing
option. Of those that provide for custodial sentences,
55 meet UNTOC’s serious crime threshold. Custodi-
al penalties range from three days to up to 20 years.
Across all of the types of legislation reviewed, a signif-
icant range exists as to how Member States structure
penalties. In some cases, only a single custodial sen-
tence option exists, such as 5-years’ imprisonment,
rather than a range. At least one Member State im-
poses a higher custodial sentence range specically
for corporate entity leaders.
Monetary penalties are common for water pollution of-
fences; at least 128 of the 135 Member States provide
for the imposition of nes, which can include speci-
cations as to how the nes might be used, such as
for compensation or rehabilitation. In other cases, pay-
ment for compensation or rehabilitation may be a sep-
arate enforcement option. For example, 56 Member
States require water polluters to compensate injured
parties and/or restore the environment, including re-
imbursing the State, for damage caused and the costs
of rehabilitation. The severity of monetary nes rang-
es greatly, and like in other contexts, some countries
increase nes for ongoing or longstanding violations.
Other ranges may be based on the environmental
risk: one Member State’s monetary nes differentiate
between water pollution that poses a specic threat
to human health and that which poses a threat to an
ecosystem.
Caribbean
Central America
Central Asia
Eastern Africa
Eastern Asia
Eastern Europe
Melanesia
Micronesia
Middle Africa
Northern Africa
Northern Europe
Polynesia
South America
South-Eastern Asia
Southern Africa
Southern Asia
Southern Europe
Western Africa
Western Asia
Western Europe
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
4
5
2
2
1
3
1
2
1
4
2
1
2
7
3
1
3
7
2
5
2
2
1
3
5
5
1
1
2
8
2
5
6
9
4
1
1
3
1
1
2
2
1
7
3
3
1
6
1
5
1
4
3
1
6
6
2
Number of Member States
Sub- or intermediate region
No data
Not criminalized
Criminalized, not a serious crime
Criminalized, unknown if a serious crime
Criminalized, a serious crime
Figure 11 – State of criminalization for water pollution
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
28
Fishing-related offences
Violations of sheries laws are criminalized in 118
of 193 Member States. Fines for illegal shing vary
widely. Such nes are often calculated based on the
national minimum wage or daily units (a set daily rate)
and these vary from two minimum wages to 1,000
daily units. In 108 Member States, there are custodial
sentences ranging from one to seven days all the way
up to 12 to 20 years. Criminalization in most Member
States, however, tends not to meet the UNTOC thresh-
old for serious crime, with only 34 Member States ap-
pearing to have set custodial penalties for four years
or above.
Very little data are available regarding legal persons
in relation to illegal shing. Only 19 Member States in
this analysis clearly delineated criminal penalties for
legal persons; for the remaining 174 countries, this is
unknown. Some Member States clearly included pro-
visions for forfeiture or conscation of equipment and
vessels in their penalties (32 Member States). Very
few Member States included restorative or reparative
penalties among their possible sanctions (7 Member
States) as well as revocation of permits or licence to
sh (4 Member States).
Caribbean
Central America
Central Asia
Eastern Africa
Eastern Asia
Eastern Europe
Melanesia
Micronesia
Middle Africa
Northern Africa
Northern Europe
Polynesia
South America
South-Eastern Asia
Southern Africa
Southern Asia
Southern Europe
Western Africa
Western Asia
Western Europe
4
4 5
3
7
1
1
5
1
7
1
5
1
2
2
11
5
3
6
1
9
2
2
9
2
1
2
1
2
3
2
1
3
3
3
6
2
6
9
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
4
1
1
3
1
2
1
3
6
5
3
Number of Member States
Sub- or intermediate region
No data
Not criminalized
Criminalized, not a serious crime
Criminalized, unknown if a serious crime
Criminalized, a serious crime
Figure 12 – State of criminalization for shing-related offences
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
29
Waste-related offences
Of the 193 Member States’ legislation reviewed for this
analysis, 160 criminalize waste-related offences, and
95 of those have penalties that meet the UNTOC seri-
ous crime threshold. In some cases, the “seriousness”
of the crime is directly related to the nature of the
offence and the risk of greater environmental harm.
For example, at least one Member State provides for
two days imprisonment for treating and incinerating
solid waste at unauthorized sites but up to life impris-
onment for the importation of hazardous waste. In at
least one country, as another example, transporting,
importing, storing, or dumping toxic waste is punish-
able with a life sentence.
In some cases, the legislation allows for nes that vary
depending on the potential for harm or risk. For in-
stance, several Member States ne hazardous waste
violations more stringently than violations involving
“general” waste. Other legislation links the quantity of
waste generated to the amount of the ne where of-
fences involving higher quantities of hazardous waste
equate to higher nes. Some Member States double
the nes for recidivism.
Caribbean
Central America
Central Asia
Eastern Africa
Eastern Asia
Eastern Europe
Melanesia
Micronesia
Middle Africa
Northern Africa
Northern Europe
Polynesia
South America
South-Eastern Asia
Southern Africa
Southern Asia
Southern Europe
Western Africa
Western Asia
Western Europe
1
4
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
1
2
6
2
6
2
2
3
4
1
1
2
2
1
1
4
8
3
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
4
3
1
7
2
6
2
3
4
9
1
5
9
4
4
5
9
10
6
Number of Member States
Sub- or intermediate region
No data
Not criminalized
Criminalized, not a serious crime
Criminalized, unknown if a serious crime
Criminalized, a serious crime
Figure 13 – State of criminalization of waste-related offences
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
30
Wildlife-related offences
Violations of wildlife legislation have the highest
rate of criminalization, with 164 Member States hav-
ing such provisions, across all environmental areas.
CITES is the international convention that regulates
transboundary trade in endangered species listed in
the convention. But many countries have laws that go
beyond the internationally regulated species and pro-
tect nationally controlled species. There may be some
overlap in legislation for wildlife violations and illegal
deforestation and logging as some timber species are
protected species. However, commercial forestry is
often regulated by a specic set of laws separate from
hunting and shing regulations. This analysis goes be-
yond looking at violations of CITES and includes these
domestic crimes against wildlife. The reason for the
high level of criminalization in this area is not clear,
since CITES does not require criminalization, but per-
haps may be linked to more focused campaigns in
the last ten or more years to protect wildlife from il-
legal harvesting or taking and trafcking. In addition,
CITES (1975) and the Convention on Migratory Spe-
cies (CMS) (1983) could be considered among the rst
major multilateral environmental agreements and, as
such, have had more time to impact legislation includ-
ing criminalization. Furthermore, CITES has a National
Legislation Project dedicated to monitoring the imple-
mentation of the convention; if parties fail to meet the
minimum requirements for implementation of CITES,
they can be penalized via trade suspensions. CMS has
had dedicated campaigns to highlight wildlife crime
Caribbean
Central America
Central Asia
Eastern Africa
Eastern Asia
Eastern Europe
Melanesia
Micronesia
Middle Africa
Northern Africa
Northern Europe
Polynesia
South America
South-Eastern Asia
Southern Africa
Southern Asia
Southern Europe
Western Africa
Western Asia
Western Europe
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
6
2
4
10
2
1
5
3
1
5
4
4
1
5
2
2
5
6
7
10
4
2
5
2
12
4
6
3
3
1
8
1
4
8
3
4
2
7
3
5
Number of Member States
Sub- or intermediate region
No data
Not criminalized
Criminalized, not a serious crime
Criminalized, unknown if a serious crime
Criminalized, a serious crime
Figure 14 – State of criminalization of wildlife-related offences
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
31
more broadly.
46
However, as mentioned, these do
not require criminalization, so this may or may not be
relevant. It is also worth noting that wildlife is a less
industrialized sector, so perhaps there has been less
lobbying to counter any national policy changes.
Wildlife crime also has a wide range of criminal pen-
alties. These range from a few days to life in pris-
on. Fewer than half of Member States have criminal
sanctions that meet the UNTOC threshold of a serious
crime (86 Member States), but this is second highest
level of the nine environmental areas. Criminal nes
also vary widely from a few USD to three million USD.
Many Member States calculate nes in daily units (a
daily set fee) or national minimum daily wages as well
as calculating the ne based upon the value of the
species. Seventy-three Member States have provi-
sions to conscate the wildlife, equipment, and/or ve-
hicles. In terms of alternative penalties, restoration of
the environment is apparent in 31 pieces of legislation.
For wildlife crimes, prohibition of keeping wildlife for
a number of years after a conviction is also a possible
punishment in many Member States. Sixty-nine Mem-
ber States also have legislation that holds legal per-
sons liable either administratively, civilly, or criminally
or some combination of these.
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
32
Geographic Variations in
Criminalization of Crimes
that Affect the Environment
Overall, it appears that there is a geographic diversi-
ty in the propensity of Member States to criminalize
acts that harm the environment. Figure 15 indicates
the percentage of Member States in the different re-
gions that have known penalties that meet the UNTOC
threshold of serious crime for the nine environmental
areas. Asia has the highest percentage of Member
States that have serious crime penalties for illegal
deforestation (42%) and noise pollution (15%) as well
as a high percentage for waste crime (54%). Africa has
the highest percentage of Member States for illegal
mining (37%) and air pollution (31%). It also has a high
percentage for waste crime (50%), which is perhaps
explained by the widespread ratication of the Bama-
ko Convention in the region. Oceania has the highest
percentage of Member States which have UNTOC-lev-
el penalties for water pollution (36%); this might also
make sense given the natural signicance of water
resources in the region. Oceania also has the high-
est level of serious crime penalties for illegal shing
(43%). Europe has the highest percentage of Member
States with serious crime penalties for waste crime
(62%) and soil pollution (29%); these offences can
overlap and be related. For wildlife crime, over one-
third of all Member States when analysed regionally
have criminal penalties that meet the UNTOC serious
crime threshold, including 48% of Member States in
both Africa and Europe.
Air pollution Noise pollution Soil pollution
Water pollution Deforestation and logging Fishing
Wildlife
Mining Waste
31%
26%
27%
21%
11%
14%
15%
7%
7%
19%
17%
21%
29%
21%
20%
23%
42%
19%
14%
31%
29%
36%
22%
14%
29%
2%
43%
37%
14%
21%
29%
50%
37%
54%
21%
48%
37%
44%
43%
Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania
Percentage
23%
29%
29%
14%
62%
48%
Figure 15 – Percentage of Member States Meeting the UNTOC Threshold of a Serious Crime for CAE
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
33
Africa
In the ve subregions in Africa, a majority of the Mem-
ber States criminalize activities in relation to nearly all
nine categories explored in this analysis. Criminaliza-
tion for Figures 16 through 20 covers criminalization
that meets the UNTOC serious crime denition as well
as criminalization that does not meet the UNTOC seri-
ous crime denition or where the penalty is unknown.
Southern Africa has the highest levels of criminaliza-
tion apart from soil pollution, although that may be
covered by criminalization of waste offences.
Americas
The Americas are combined into three subregions and
also have high levels of criminalization. In this region,
soil pollution is the only offence not criminalized by a
majority of Member States, which again may instead
be covered by criminalization of waste offences.
Asia
Central Asia has some of the lowest levels of criminal-
ization apart from illegal deforestation, illegal shing,
and wildlife violations. Illegal shing in Eastern Asia,
soil pollution in South-eastern Asia, and illegal mining
in Southern Asia are the only other instances where
a majority of Member States do not criminalize viola-
tions.
Europe
Levels of criminalization in the subregions of Europe
are low for noise pollution and illegal mining. In addi-
tion, illegal shing is not criminalized in a majority of
European Member States. Southern Europe has some
of the lowest levels of criminalization globally.
Oceania
The subregions of Oceania (here combined into three
subregions) also have a high percentage of Member
States which have criminalized violations of environ-
mental legislation. The exceptions are noise pollution
in Melanesia, Micronesia, and Australia and New Zea-
land and Polynesia, as well as illegal deforestation
and illegal mining in Micronesia. It is worth noting that
the forestry and mining industries might be limited in
Micronesia so may not need to be the target of crim-
inalization.
67%
56%
83%
100%
63%
39%
67%
50%
80%
63%
50%
33%
67%
40%
50%
67%
56%
83%
80%
75%
89%
78%
100%
100%
81%
72%
33%
83%
60%
69%
78%
78%
67%
100%
81%
72%
89%
83%
100%
75%
94%
78%
83%
100%
88%
Eastern Middle Northern Southern Western
Percentage of Member States
Sub- or intermediate regions in Africa
Air pollution Noise pollution Soil pollution
Water pollution Deforestation and logging
Fishing
Wildlife
Mining Waste
Percentage of criminalization of related offences in the
sub- or intermediate regions in Africa
Figure 16 – State of criminalization in sub- or intermediate regions of Africa
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
34
Percentage of Member States
82%
89%
82%
40%
60%
80%
80%
60%
60%
73%
56%
47%
20%
45%
67%
59%
20%
20%
20%
40%
82%
82%
67%
94%
80%
80%
89%
94%
100%
40%
91%
78%
82%
60%
73%
33%
59%
80%
91%
89%
88%
60%
91%
100%
76%
Percentage of criminalization of related offences in the
sub- or intermediate regions in Asia
Eastern Middle Northern Southern Western
Sub- or intermediate regions in Asia
Air pollution Noise pollution Soil pollution
Water pollution Deforestation and logging Fishing
Wildlife
Mining Waste
Figure 18 – State of criminalization in subregions of Asia
Percentage of Member States
54%
70%
83%
69%
50%
50%
46%
40%
42%
77%
60%
58%
69%
70%
58%
69%
60%
58%
38%
60%
67%
85%
70%
67%
92%
90%
75%
Caribbean
Percentage of criminalization of related offences in the
sub- or intermediate regions of the Americas
Central and Northern America South Western
Sub- or intermediate regions in the Americas
Air pollution Noise pollution Soil pollution
Water pollution Deforestation and logging
Fishing
Wildlife
Mining Waste
Figure 17 – State of criminalization in sub- or intermediate regions of the Americas
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
35
Percentage of Member States
Eastern Norhtern Southern Western
80%
60%
43%
67%
50%
50%
43%
22%
80%
60%
43%
22%
80%
70%
43%
67%
80%
70%
21%
33%
30%
30%
21%
33%
70%
60%
29%
44%
90%
100%
100%
78%
90%
80%
57%
100%
Percentage of criminalization of related offences in the
sub- or intermediate regions in Europe
Sub- or intermediate regions in Europe
Air pollution Noise pollution Soil pollution
Water pollution Deforestation and logging
Fishing
Wildlife
Mining Waste
Percentage of Member States
60%
75%
80%
40%
25%
20%
60%
100%
80%
80%
100%
80%
80%
75%
0%
80%
75%
80%
60%
100%
20%
100%
100%
60%
80%
100%
100%
Australia and New Zealand
and Polynesia
Melanesia Micronesia
Percentage of criminalization of related offences in the
sub- or intermediate regions in Oceania
Sub- or intermediate regions in Oceania
Air pollution Noise pollution Soil pollution
Water pollution Deforestation and logging Fishing
Wildlife
Mining Waste
Figure 19 – State of criminalization in the subregions of Europe
Figure 20 – State of criminalization in the subregions of Oceania
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
36
Conclusions and Policy
Implications
As this review of legislation has shown, there is a
certain level of criminalization to protect the envi-
ronment, with more than half of all Member States
analysed criminalizing criminalizing violations of all
nine environmental areas. Yet, there is still scope for
environmental legislation to continue to be improved
in terms of more Member States drafting and imple-
menting legislation to protect the environment and
more Member States considering having penalties
that meet the threshold of a serious crime for the pur-
poses of UNTOC. Nevertheless, today, in most coun-
tries in the world, violations of environmental legis-
lation can result in a prison sentence. Violations of
waste offences and wildlife offences have the highest
levels of criminalization, perhaps due to the existence
of international conventions relevant to these areas.
Waste crime is also an area where the liability of legal
persons (such as corporations) is recognized in over
three-quarters of countries. In contrast, only 19 coun-
tries have known liability for legal persons regarding
illegal shing and 20 for illegal logging, two crimes in
which corporate malfeasance is common, indicating
economic interests may be blocking efforts to better
protect the environment.
There are differences in the level of criminalization and
the possible penalties across the nine environmental
areas and across regions. Illegal shing is considered
most grave in Oceania whereas only 2% of countries
in Europe treat it as a serious crime. All the countries
of Southern Africa regard air pollution, illegal logging,
illegal mining, waste offences and wildlife offences as
criminal acts. In contrast, no country among the small
island states of Micronesia regard illegal logging as
a crime, likely since there is not an extensive forestry
industry. The highest average percentage of Mem-
ber States with penalties meeting the serious crime
denition are in Africa and Asia, indicating not that
the legislation there may be ‘weak’, as is commonly
stated, but that there is a lack of enforcement of the
legislation. Central Asia may be an exception, where
pollution offences (noise, soil, water) and illegal min-
ing are not criminalized by 80% of the Member States,
despite the fact that these crimes impact those coun-
tries. Further examination of penalties within (sub)
regions is warranted to identify potential loopholes
where countries with the least stringent penalties may
be targeted.
Despite the level of criminalization, there is a lack of
data on arrests, convictions, sanctions etc.
47
This in-
dicates there is a need for capacity-building within
Member States both on data collection for Crimes that
Affect the Environment as well as on implementation
and enforcement of existing legislation. In terms of
improving legislation, very few countries have envi-
ronmental laws allowing for conscation of the instru-
mentalities or the proceeds of environmental offenc-
es. These deciencies may lead to the prosecution of
minor offenders, rather than the large economic in-
terests that often drive crimes that affect the environ-
ment. Furthermore, even more improvements could be
made in the implementation of the Basel Convention
and CITES with regards to criminalization as conven-
tions seem connected to the levels of criminalization.
For the Basel Convention, this is particularly the case
in Latin America and for CITES this is the case for
Southern Europe and Western Asia.
This analysis provides a foundation for further re-
search to continue to improve the legislative protec-
tion of the environment. Further studies as to the full
scope of criminalization of specic Crimes that Affect
the Environment are needed. For instance, it would be
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
37
worth exploring the extent to which air pollution leg-
islation currently criminalizes all or only some harmful
types and levels of air pollution. Further research is
also needed into the enforcement of this legislation
and whether the range of criminal penalties are ad-
ministered for both natural and legal persons, and im-
portantly, what the effects are of these sanctions. It is
critical to understand which combination of penalties,
including restorative penalties, are the most effective
at preventing and deterring these crimes. Specically,
this further research should unpack the aspects of the
offences to which the UNTOC serious crime denition
applies, whether penalties meeting this denition are
imposed by criminal justice systems, and whether UN-
TOC provisions such as mutual legal assistance are uti-
lized. Furthermore, additional legislation should con-
tinue to be added to this review (such as more criminal
and penal codes and legislation related to corruption,
conscations and sentencing) to ensure a comprehen-
sive understanding of the state of criminalization.
Protecting the environment through criminal law and/
or criminal sanctions is just one part of the response
to the triple planetary crisis. A better understanding of
the state of criminalization can be combined with the
other ongoing efforts to combat Crimes that Affect
the Environment.
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
38
Regional Groupings
Africa
Eastern Africa – Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea,
Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mo-
zambique, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, South Su-
dan, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia,
Zimbabwe
Middle Africa – Angola, Cameroon, Central African
Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Republic of the Congo, Sao
Tome and Principe
Northern Africa – Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Su-
dan, Tunisia
Southern Africa – Botswana, Eswatini, Lesotho, Namib-
ia, South Africa
Western Africa – Benin, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde,
Cote d’Ivoire, Gambia (Republic of The), Ghana, Guin-
ea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Ni-
geria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo
Americas
Caribbean – Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barba-
dos, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada,
Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint
Vincent the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago
Central America – Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Gua-
temala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama
Northern America – Canada, United States of America
South America – Argentina, Bolivia (Plurinational State
of), Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Para-
guay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian
Republic of)
Asia
Central Asia – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan
Eastern Asia – China, Democratic People’s Republic of
Korea, Japan, Mongolia, Republic of Korea
South-eastern Asia – Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia,
Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Ma-
laysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand,
Timor-Leste, Viet Nam
Southern Asia – Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, In-
dia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Maldives, Nepal, Paki-
stan, Sri Lanka
Western Asia – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Cyprus,
Georgia, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman,
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, Türkiye,
United Arab Emirates, Yemen
Europe
Eastern Europe – Belarus, Bulgaria, Czechia, Hungary,
Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Fed-
eration, Slovakia, Ukraine
Northern Europe – Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland,
Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden, the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Southern Europe – Albania, Andorra, Bosnia and Her-
zegovina, Croatia, Greece, Italy, Malta, Montenegro,
North Macedonia, Portugal, San Marino, Serbia, Slo-
venia, Spain
Western Europe – Austria, Belgium, France, Germa-
ny, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands
(Kingdom of the), Switzerland
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
39
Oceania
Australia and New Zealand – Australia, New Zealand
Melanesia – Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands,
Vanuatu
Micronesia – Kirbati, Micronesia (Federated States of),
Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau
Polynesia – Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
40
Endnotes
1 UNODC’s Legislative Guides on the various crimes that affect the
environment can assist States in protecting wildlife and the environ-
ment by criminalizing serious offences.
2 EUROJUST, “Report on Eurojust’s Casework on Environmental
Crime | Eurojust | European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Co-
operation.”
3 Lorenzo Colantoni, Giulia Soa Sarno, and Margherita Bianchi,
“Fighting Environmental Crime in Europe. An Assessment of Trends,
Players and Action” (Rome: Ambitus And Istituto Affari Internazion-
ali, 2022).
4 ECOSOC, “World Crime Trends and Emerging Issues and Re-
sponses in the Field of Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.”
5 EUROJUST, “Report on Eurojust’s Casework on Environmen-
tal Crime” (2021), https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/publication/re-
port-eurojusts-casework-environmental-crime.
6 INTERPOL and UNEP, “Strategic Report: Environment, Peace
and Security: A Convergence of Threats” 2016, https://wedocs.unep.
org/xmlui/handle/20.500.11822/17008.
7 United Nations General Assembly, “A/RES/76/185 Prevent-
ing and Combating Crimes That Affect the Environment” (UN,
2021), https://undocs.org/Home/Mobile?FinalSymbol=A%-
2FRES%2F76%2F185&Language=E&DeviceType=Desktop&Lan-
gRequested=False.
8 EUROJUST, “Report on Eurojust’s Casework on Environmental
Crime” (2021).
9 INTERPOL and UNEP, “Strategic Report” (2016).
10 EUROJUST, “Report on Eurojust’s Casework on Environmental
Crime” (2021).
11 UNODC, “United Nations Convention against Transnational Or-
ganized Crime (UNTOC) and the Protocols Thereto,” (2003), https://
www.unodc.org/unodc/en/organized-crime/intro/UNTOC.html.
12 CCPCJ, “Background Note Expert Discussions Crimes That Af-
fect the Environment,” (2022), 62, https://documentcloud.adobe.
com/spodintegration/index.html?locale=en-us.
13 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, signed 23 May 1969,
entered into force on 27 January 1980, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, Art. 26
(providing that “[e]very treaty in force is binding upon the parties
to it and must be performed by them in good faith. A party may not
invoke the provisions of its internal law as justication for its failure
to perform a treaty”).
14 For more detail about the regional agreements and international
conventions, please see the series of Model Legislative Guides by
UNODC’s Global Programme on Implementing the Organized Crime
Convention – UNODC Guide on Drafting Legislation to Combat Wildlife
Crime, UNODC Guide on Good Legislative Practices on Combatting
Waste Crime, UNODC Guide on Good Legislative Practices Responding
to Illegal Mining and Trafcking in Metals and Minerals, Combating
Crimes in the Fisheries Sector: a guide to good legislative practices,
and forthcoming guides on pollution, including an annex on marine
pollution, and crimes in the forestry sector.
15 David R. Boyd, “Recognizing the Rights of Nature: Lofty Rhetoric
or Legal Revolution?,” Natural Resources & Environment 32, no. 4
(2018): 13–17.
16 Bogotá, DC, “De La Organización Popular Campesina Del Alto
Atrato (Cocomopoca), El Consejo Comunitario Mayor de La Asocia-
ción Campesina Integral Del Atrato (Cocomacia), La Asociación de
Consejos Comunitarios Del Bajo Atrato (Asocoba), El Foro Inter-Ét-
nico Solidaridad Chocó (FISCH) y Otros” (2016).
17 Philipp Wesche, “Rights of Nature in Practice: A Case Study on
the Impacts of the Colombian Atrato River Decision,” Journal of En-
vironmental Law 33, no. 3 (2021): 531–55, https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/
eqab021.\\uc0\\u8221{} {\\i{}Journal of Environmental Law} 33, no. 3
(2021
18 Corte Constitucional de Colombia, “Sentencia T-622/16,” 2016,
https://atrato.minambiente.gov.co/index.php/la-sentencia/.
19 Stop Ecocide International, “Legal Denition of Ecocide Drafted
by Independent Expert Panel,” Stop Ecocide International, accessed
4 January 2024, https://www.stopecocide.earth/legal-denition.
20 International Criminal Court, “Rome Statute,” 37 I.L.M. 999 §
(1998).
21 Ecocide Law, “Existing Ecocide Laws,” Ecocide Law, accessed 4
January 2024, https://ecocidelaw.com/existing-ecocide-laws/.
22 Bamako Convention, “Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Im-
port into Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movement and
Management of Hazardous Wastes within Africa” (1991).
23 Bamako Convention.
24 Bamako Convention, art. 9.
25 Waigani Convention, “Convention to Ban the Importation into
Forum Island Countries of Hazardous and Radioactive Wastes and
to Control the Transboundary Movement and Management of Haz-
ardous Wastes within the South Pacic Region,” (2001), https://www.
sprep.org/convention-secretariat/waigani-convention. Article 9.
26 Waigani Convention.
27 Basel Convention (2019), http://www.basel.int/TheConvention/
Overview/TextoftheConvention/tabid/1275/Default.aspx.
Crimes that Affect
the Environment
2 3 4 51 The Landscape of
Criminalization
41
28 Valsamis Mitsilegas et al., The Legal Regulation of Environmental
Crime : The International and European Dimension (Leiden, the Neth-
erlands: Brill, 2023).
29 CITES, “Convention on International Trade in Endangered Spe-
cies of Wild Fauna and Flora | CITES,” (1975), https://cites.org/eng/
disc/text.php.
30 Rotterdam Convention, “Rotterdam Convention on the Prior In-
formed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and
Pesticides in International Trade,” (1998), art. 15, https://www.pic.int/
TheConvention/Overview/TextoftheConvention/tabid/1048/.
31 UNODC, United Nations Convention against Transnational Orga-
nized Crime (UNTOC) and the Protocols Thereto.
32 UNODC, “Combating Crimes in the Fisheries Sector. A Guide
to Good Legislative Practices,” (2024), iv, https://sherloc.unodc.org/
cld/uploads/pdf/Combating_Crimes_in_the_Fisheries_Sector_En-
glish.pdf.
33 FAO, “International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter, and Elimi-
nate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing,” (2001), 2, https://
www.fao.org/3/y1224e/y1224e.pdf.
34 Adapted from UNODC, “Responding to Illegal Mining and Traf-
cking in Metals and Minerals: A Guide to Good Legislative Practic-
es” (2022), 51.
35 UNODC, “Responding to Illegal Mining and Trafcking in Metals
and Minerals: A Guide to Good Legislative Practices” (2022).
36 UNODC, “United Nations Convention against Transnational
Organized Crime” (2004), https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/orga-
nized-crime/intro/UNTOC.html.
37 UNODC, “Responding to Illegal Mining and Trafcking in Metals
and Minerals: A Guide to Good Legislative Practices,” 80.
38 UNEP, “Pollution | UNEP Law and Environment Assistance Plat-
form,” accessed 16 February 2024, https://leap.unep.org/en/knowl-
edge/glossary/pollution.
39 UNODC, “Restorative Justice,” United Nations Ofce on Drugs
and Crime – Restorative Justice, accessed February 16, 2024,
https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/justice-and-prison-reform/restor-
ative-justice.html.
40 Lieselot Bisschop and Wim Huisman, “Waste Crime from Three
Criminological Perspectives: Implications for Crime Control and
Harm Prevention,” in In Spapens, T., White, R., van Uhm, D. and Hu-
isman, W. (Eds). Green Crimes and Dirty Money (London: Routledge,
2018), 148–76.
41 UNODC, “Combating Waste Trafcking: A Guide to Good Leg-
islative Practice” (Vienna, 2022), https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/
environment-climate/webstories/legislative-guide-waste.html.
42 UNODC, “World Wildlife Crime Report: Trafcking in Protected
Species” (Vienna: UNODC, 2020).
43 UNODC, “Guide on Drafting Legislation to Combat Wildlife
Crime,” 27.
44 The sources may be found at: https://www.ecolex.org/, https://
www.fao.org/faolex/en/, and https://sherloc.unodc.org/cld/en/st/
home.html.
45 Ozone Layer Protection Act, “Ozone Layer Protection Act, 2010
(Act No.23 of 2010)” (2010).
46 UNEP and CMS, “Fact Sheet – Wildlife Crime,” no date.
47 ECOSOC, “World Crime Trends and Emerging Issues and Re-
sponses in the Field of Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.”
