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

Excellencies, distinguished colleagues, ladies and gentlemen,

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

Environmental crime is among the most profitable forms of criminal activity in the world and yet it remains among the least effectively prosecuted.

That gap between the scale of the harm and the delivery of justice is one of the central challenges before us.

Environmental crime has victims, but those victims are not always immediately visible.

The victim may be a community whose water, land or health is degraded slowly, over many years. It may be people whose livelihoods depend on an ecosystem that has been damaged or destroyed. The harm may extend across borders and generations. And, of course, there is the damage to nature itself; to species, habitats and ecosystems that cannot speak for themselves in our courtrooms.

This particular nature of environmental harm makes access to justice, effective investigation and prosecution especially challenging.

I would highlight five challenges.

The first is fragmentation.

Until very recently, there was no binding international instrument specifically dedicated to environmental crime. Definitions, thresholds and sanctions vary significantly between jurisdictions. Conduct treated as serious crime in one State may be dealt with primarily through administrative law in another.

These differences matter. They can complicate investigations and international cooperation and create gaps that criminal networks can exploit, moving activities and profits to jurisdictions where the risks are lower.

The second challenge is capacity.

Environmental crime can be exceptionally complex to investigate and prosecute. Cases may require scientific and technical evidence, environmental expertise, sophisticated financial investigation and an understanding of complex corporate structures and supply chains.

General criminal justice systems, however well developed, are not always equipped for this.

Without appropriate expertise and specialised capacity, cases may not be investigated fully. They may be downgraded to administrative sanctions, or never reach a courtroom at all.

The third challenge is the transnational nature of environmental crime.

Waste crosses borders. Wildlife and timber cross borders. Pollutants cross borders. The financial proceeds of these crimes cross borders.

Our investigations cannot stop at those same borders.

The fourth challenge is access to justice.

Those most affected by environmental crime can face significant barriers in having their voices heard. National rules on standing and participation differ. Affected individuals and environmental organisations may have limited possibilities to participate in criminal proceedings.

There can also be cases where proceedings depend upon a private complaint and risk ending if that complaint is withdrawn including where a victim may have been placed under pressure.

And the fifth challenge is protection.

Many environmental crimes would remain hidden without the people who are prepared to report them.

Victims, witnesses, whistleblowers and environmental human rights defenders can take considerable personal risks when they expose environmental wrongdoing. They may face intimidation, retaliation, abusive litigation and, in the most serious circumstances, violence.

At the First European Forum on Environmental Human Rights Defenders, held by the Council of Europe in Strasbourg this June together with our partners, we heard directly about the pressures faced by those working to protect the environment and the importance of creating a safe and enabling environment for their work.

For the Council of Europe, these are not simply criminal justice challenges.

They are also human rights and rule of law challenges.

When serious environmental crime goes unpunished, the consequences extend beyond the immediate environmental damage. Confidence in institutions is weakened. Those who report wrongdoing can be discouraged from coming forward. And the protection of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment risks remaining an aspiration rather than a reality.

So how do we respond?

The Council of Europe starts from a simple conviction: environmental protection, human rights, democracy and the rule of law are inseparable.

Our Heads of State and Government reinforced this approach at the Reykjavík Summit in 2023, and it is now reflected throughout the Council of Europe Strategy on the Environment 2025–2030.

A major practical expression of this approach is the new Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law.

Adopted in May 2025 and opened for signature on 3 December of that year, it is the only international legally binding instrument specifically dedicated to environmental crime. Importantly, its ambition extends beyond Europe, as it provides for the participation of States that are not members of the Council of Europe.

The Convention responds directly to many of the challenges I have just described.

Against fragmentation, it establishes common minimum standards.

It covers a broad range of serious environmental offences, including unlawful pollution, offences involving waste, unlawful activities involving hazardous materials, unlawful mining, trade in unlawfully harvested timber, and offences affecting protected wild flora and fauna and protected habitats.

It also addresses environmental harm of exceptional gravity. 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.

Shared standards matter because they allow investigators, prosecutors and judicial authorities in different countries to work from a stronger common legal foundation.

On prevention, the Convention recognises that prosecution cannot be the whole answer.

It provides for coordinated policies and preventive measures, involving relevant authorities and encouraging cooperation with civil society. It also addresses public awareness.

This is important. A public that can recognise environmental crime, understands the harm it causes and knows where to report suspicious activity becomes part of our capacity to detect and prevent it.

On capacity, the Convention promotes specialisation and training.

States are called upon to ensure that those responsible for investigating, prosecuting and adjudicating environmental offences have appropriate expertise and resources. Specialised investigators, prosecutors and judges can make a decisive difference in cases involving complex scientific evidence or sophisticated criminal and financial structures.

But one of the Convention’s most important contributions concerns access to justice and the people affected by environmental crime.

The Convention addresses the conditions under which investigations and prosecutions should be able to proceed without being wholly dependent on a victim’s complaint. This is particularly important where a complaint may subsequently be withdrawn.

It also addresses the possibility for persons with a sufficient interest and relevant non-governmental organisations to participate in criminal proceedings, in accordance with domestic law.

And, significantly, the Convention devotes an entire chapter to victims, witnesses and persons reporting offences or cooperating with justice.

Victims must have access to information concerning their rights and relevant proceedings and appropriate opportunities to be heard and to participate. They should have access to support and, where applicable under national law, legal assistance.

Protection must also extend beyond the individual victim. Victims and their families need safeguards against intimidation, retaliation and repeat victimisation.

The Convention similarly recognises the essential role played by witnesses and by people who report environmental offences or otherwise cooperate with investigating and prosecuting authorities. They too need effective protection from retaliation and intimidation.

This is not an ancillary issue. Protecting those who speak up is part of effective law enforcement.

If people believe that reporting an environmental offence will expose them or their families to retaliation without protection, they may remain silent. And if they remain silent, serious crimes may never come to light.

The Convention also responds to the cross-border reality of environmental harm. In specified circumstances, victims of offences committed in another Party can make a complaint to the competent authorities of their State of residence. They should not necessarily have to return to the country where the offence occurred simply to initiate the process of seeking justice.

And because environmental crime is often driven by profit, we must also follow the money.

The new Convention forms part of a broader Council of Europe criminal-law architecture that includes instruments addressing corruption, money laundering, confiscation and asset recovery.

Investigating the environmental offence and investigating the financial benefit derived from it should therefore go hand in hand. Removing the profits of crime can be as important as prosecuting the underlying conduct.

Taken together, these provisions represent a significant change in approach.

Effective environmental criminal justice is not simply about defining an offence and imposing a sanction.

It requires prevention. It requires specialised investigators and prosecutors. It requires international cooperation. It requires access to justice. And it requires us to protect and support the people who make justice possible.

But even the strongest international convention has an impact only when States join it and put it into practice.

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

These are important steps, but they are only the beginning.

Signatures must be followed by ratifications, and ratifications by effective implementation.

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

And our appeal extends beyond Europe.

Environmental crime is inherently transnational, and the Convention provides for the participation of States beyond the Council of Europe. We invite States from all regions to engage with the Convention, to explore what it can offer and to consider joining it.

The broader the participation, the stronger our common capacity to prevent environmental crime, investigate it across borders, prosecute those responsible and protect those who come forward.

Ultimately, access to justice is about more than access to a courtroom.

It is about ensuring that environmental harm is taken seriously; that victims are heard and supported; that investigators and prosecutors have the tools they need; that those who speak up are protected; and that those responsible for serious environmental crime are held accountable.

That is how we strengthen the rule of law. That is how we give practical meaning to the protection of the environment as a human rights issue. And that is how we help secure a safer, healthier and more sustainable future for all – including the generations to come.

Thank you.