Statement by Rafael Benitez, Director of Social Rights, Health and Environment

Excellencies, distinguished colleagues, ladies and gentlemen,

Let me begin by thanking UNICRI, UNODC and the co-organisers for the invitation to participate in this important discussion.

The title of our meeting – All Aboard – is particularly appropriate. If we are serious about combating crimes that affect the environment, we need everyone on board: governments and international organisations, law-enforcement authorities and prosecutors, customs and port authorities, but also shipping companies, operators, crews and other private actors.

Shipping is indispensable to the global economy. But the scale and international nature of maritime transport also mean that it can be exploited by criminal networks – for illegal waste shipments, trafficking in protected species and timber, unlawful discharges and other forms of environmental crime.

At the same time, the shipping sector can be one of our most important partners in detecting, preventing and combating these offences.

I would therefore like to focus on three elements: a strong common legal framework; effective cooperation across borders and sectors; and the responsibility and contribution of the private maritime sector.

The starting point is the law.

The new Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law was adopted in May 2025, alongside the Council of Europe Strategy on the Environment 2025–2030, and opened for signature on 3 December 2025.

It is the only international legally binding instrument specifically dedicated to environmental crime.

Together with the European Union Environmental Crime Directive, it contributes to a stronger and more coherent legal framework for preventing, investigating and prosecuting serious environmental crime across Europe. But the Convention’s ambition extends beyond Europe: it provides for the participation of States that are not members of the Council of Europe.

The first contribution of the Convention is to establish common ground.

It sets minimum standards for the criminalisation of serious environmental offences and for sanctions and liability. This is particularly important when environmental crime crosses borders.

If conduct constitutes a serious criminal offence in one State but is treated only as an administrative violation in another, cooperation can become significantly more difficult. Requirements such as dual criminality may hinder extradition or mutual legal assistance. Investigative techniques and confiscation measures may not be equally available. And differences between legal systems can create gaps that criminal networks are able to exploit.

Harmonisation is therefore not an abstract legal objective. It has very practical consequences for our capacity to investigate environmental crime across borders.

The Convention provides a common criminal-law foundation while complementing existing international instruments, including the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.

It also addresses conduct of the greatest severity. Article 31 covers intentional unlawful conduct causing widespread and substantial or irreversible environmental damage. The Convention does not use the term ecocide, but it provides a criminal-law response to environmental destruction of comparable gravity.

For governments, an important first step is therefore to review national legislation against these common standards and ensure that serious environmental harm is treated as serious crime, with effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions.

But harmonised laws are only the beginning.

The value of the Convention ultimately lies in what it enables States to do together.

It provides a framework for international cooperation in investigations and proceedings, including mutual legal assistance, extradition, the freezing and confiscation of proceeds, information exchange and the enforcement of relevant decisions. In appropriate circumstances, the Convention itself can also provide a legal basis for cooperation between Parties.

This is particularly relevant at sea.

The Convention establishes jurisdiction in circumstances including offences committed on board vessels flying the flag of a Party. It also addresses offences committed by nationals, subject to the conditions set out in the Convention.

And responsibility does not necessarily stop with the individual who physically commits the offence. The Convention provides for the liability of legal persons where offences are committed for their benefit under the conditions it establishes.

For States, this international framework needs to be matched by cooperation at national level.

Environmental crime cannot be effectively addressed if police investigate in one silo, customs authorities work in another, port authorities in another, and prosecutors become involved only at the end.

The Convention therefore combines criminalisation with prevention and capacity-building. It promotes specialisation and training for investigators, prosecutors, judges and other relevant professionals, as well as coordinated approaches bringing together the authorities that have different pieces of the same picture.

In the maritime context, this means connecting police, customs, prosecutors, port and maritime authorities, environmental inspectorates and financial intelligence units.

And because environmental crime is often driven by profit, financial investigation must be part of that response from the beginning.

Following the money can reveal the networks behind an environmental offence rather than simply the individuals carrying it out. The Convention’s provisions on seizure and confiscation can therefore work alongside the Council of Europe’s broader standards on anti-money laundering, asset recovery and international cooperation.

There is another essential source of information: the people closest to the offence.

Environmental crime can be difficult to detect. Authorities may be far from where the conduct takes place, particularly at sea. Crew members, port workers, local communities and others may see things that enforcement authorities cannot.

The Convention therefore includes provisions for victims, witnesses and persons reporting offences or otherwise cooperating with justice, including protection against intimidation and retaliation.

This principle should be translated into practical reporting channels through which crew members, shipowners, operators, ports and others can communicate suspicions safely and effectively to the competent authorities.

This brings me to the role of the maritime industry itself.

The new Convention sends an important message: companies are not simply bystanders in the fight against environmental crime.

Legal persons can be held liable for offences committed for their benefit under the conditions established by the Convention. But the contribution of the private sector should not be understood only in terms of liability.

Shipping companies and ports are also uniquely positioned to prevent and detect environmental crime.

For shipping lines, responsible practice begins with knowing the cargo, the customer and the counterparties.

Waste can be falsely declared as second-hand goods. Protected wildlife can be concealed in containers. Timber can travel with falsified documentation. Legitimate global supply chains can be exploited to move illicit commodities across continents.

Due diligence, accurate documentation and effective compliance systems therefore form part of the first line of defence.

Responsibility also extends to what happens at the end of a vessel’s operational life. The Convention addresses unlawful conduct relating to ship recycling, reinforcing the importance of ensuring that end-of-life decisions and contractual arrangements comply with applicable environmental requirements.

The same applies to pollution from vessels. The Convention criminalises certain unlawful discharges of polluting substances from ships where the conditions established by the Convention are met.

Responsible operators can help prevent these offences through properly maintained equipment, accurate record-keeping, effective internal controls and crews that are trained not only to comply with environmental requirements, but also to recognise and report unlawful practices.

Ports have an equally important role.

Port inspections, vessel-tracking systems, satellite information and the identification of anomalies can all help authorities detect unlawful discharges, suspicious cargo movements and vessels operating outside environmental and safety requirements.

This is why we should not see shipping only as a potential vector for environmental crime. We should also see the maritime sector as a partner in combating it.

Public authorities have investigative powers, intelligence and access to international cooperation mechanisms. Private maritime actors have operational knowledge, data and visibility across global supply chains. Bringing these capabilities together can significantly strengthen prevention and detection.

And there is now an opportunity to reinforce the legal framework underpinning this cooperation.

The new Council of Europe Convention is already gaining support. Eight Council of Europe member States and the European Union have signed it. France joined them earlier this month, and on 17 September Latvia became the first State to deposit its instrument of ratification.

This is encouraging, but it is only the beginning.

The Convention will fulfil its purpose only if States make it a living instrument. Signatures must be followed by ratifications, and ratifications by effective implementation.

I therefore encourage Council of Europe member States that have not yet signed to do so, and those that have signed to move towards ratification as swiftly as possible.

And our ambition extends beyond Europe.

Environmental crime, perhaps nowhere more clearly than in the maritime sector, is inherently transnational. A vessel may be registered in one jurisdiction, operated from another, owned through companies in several others, carry cargo originating elsewhere and cross numerous territorial waters before reaching its destination.

No national legal system can respond effectively to that reality alone.

The Convention provides for the participation of States beyond the Council of Europe. We therefore invite States from all regions to engage with it, explore what it can offer and consider joining this emerging international framework.

The broader the participation, the stronger our common legal basis for cooperation, and the fewer gaps environmental criminals will be able to exploit.

Ultimately, combating environmental crime at sea requires us to connect the different parts of the system: strong laws, effective enforcement, international cooperation and responsible private-sector action.

Governments, law enforcement, prosecutors, customs, ports and the shipping industry each hold part of the solution.

The challenge and the opportunity is to bring those parts together.

Because ultimately, the measure of our success will not simply be the laws we adopt or the cases we prosecute. It will be whether our collective action results in cleaner seas, healthier ecosystems, stronger protection for people and nature, and a better future for generations to come.

Thank you.