On the 17 January 2025, IEEP UK hosted a webinar on the implications of the new EU Environmental Crime Directive for UK and EU policy divergence. This webinar is linked to a report that the IEEP UK recently published on this subject.

The webinar began with a keynote speech from Professor Richard Macrory, Emeritus Professor of Environmental Law at University College London. He illuminated the many features of the UK’s approach to environmental crime which distinguish it from the EU, as well as highlighting the divergence between the four nations in the UK. He also explored areas in which the UK could learn from the EU Directive, for example regarding more imaginative forms of sentencing and the requirement for member states to ensure sufficient financial resources for bodies involved in investigating and prosecuting environmental crime.

This was followed by a panel discussion chaired by Chiara Antonelli, IEEP AISBL’s Head of Programme for Climate and Circular Economy. Anne Brosnan, Chief Prosecutor at the Environment Agency of England, explained the current UK approach and the high numbers of fines and custodial sentences that the Environment Agency has recently given out, while cautioning that the penalties were currently working as punishment but not yet as a deterrent. Phoebe Clay, Director of Unchecked UK, highlighted the importance of funding to address environmental crime, and echoed the issue of fines not acting as a sufficient deterrent, as exemplified by repeated offences from water companies. Richard Macrory also raised the point that likelihood of detection was arguably a more significant deterrent than the level of punishment, and that the use of AI and satellites to enhance detection would be an effective measure. Michael Nicholson, Head of Policy at IEEP UK, emphasised the effectiveness of England’s Environment Agency in providing data about environmental crime, pointing out that the EU should do more to ensure sufficient provision of information. Rob de Rijk, Chair of the European Network of Prosecutors of the Environment, spoke on the qualified offences provision of the Directive and its value for member states, and highlighted that privacy regulations in member states would be a barrier to increased public information. The event concluded with a Q&A from the audience.

Overall, this was a highly insightful and productive session, and we are extremely grateful for the valuable contributions from all of the speakers. The recording of the event can be found below: