By moving to criminalise ecocide, Scotland is taking bold legal steps that could influence environmental policy around the world
By Doug Specht, University of Westminster & Damien Short, University of London
Scotland stands on the cusp of a legal revolution with the introduction of the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill, a landmark piece of legislation that could make it the first UK nation to criminalise ecocide – severe and reckless harm to nature. This bold move, spearheaded by Monica Lennon MSP, positions Scotland at the forefront of a growing global movement to treat large-scale environmental destruction as a crime, not merely a regulatory failure. The Bill stands as both a response to Scotland’s own environmental challenges and a potential model for other nations seeking to strengthen legal protections for the planet.
The concept of ‘ecocide’ has long been championed by environmental activists, but its arrival in the draft pages of the Scottish Parliament signals a profound shift in how environmental justice is imagined and enforced. The Bill’s definition, inspired by Stop Ecocide International, targets unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe, widespread, or long-term damage to Scotland’s environment. Its aim is simple in statement but radical in implication: to deter mass environmental damage by holding those responsible – whether corporate executives or public officials – criminally liable.
A law born of place and precedent
Scotland’s landscapes have long been celebrated in poetry and song, but beneath the romantic veneer, the country is among the most nature-depleted in the world – with habitats fragmented by development, rivers polluted by industry, and soils eroded by intensive agriculture. Existing environmental laws, while well-intentioned, have too often lacked the teeth to prevent large-scale harm. Light penalties for environmental offences do little to dissuade powerful actors, and enforcement has lagged behind the scale of the challenge.
The Ecocide Bill seeks to close this gap. By criminalising severe environmental destruction, it reframes such harm as a matter of justice, not just technical compliance. The Bill proposes penalties of up to 20 years’ imprisonment for individuals and unlimited fines for companies, with senior executives held personally liable when offences involve their consent, connivance or neglect. This is a significant escalation from the current regulatory approach, aiming to ensure that the true costs of environmental harm are borne by those responsible.
Scotland’s initiative is not occurring in isolation. International momentum is building: in September 2024, Vanuatu, Samoa and Fiji proposed amending the Rome Statute to include ecocide as an international crime, with support from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The European Union has recently revised its Environmental Crime Directive to include conduct comparable to ecocide, and the Council of Europe has adopted a treaty enabling states to prosecute environmental disasters ‘tantamount to ecocide’.
Public support for such measures is also robust. A 2024 Global Commons Survey found that 72 per cent of people across 18 G20 countries believe it should be a criminal offence for leaders to permit or cause serious environmental harm. Twelve countries – including Belgium, France and Ukraine – have already adopted ecocide or similar offences into domestic law, with others such as Brazil, Mexico and the Netherlands advancing their own legislation.
Support for Scotland’s Bill reflects this global public backing. More than 100 prominent figures – including environmental advocates, human rights barristers, parliamentarians and business leaders – signed an open letter to MSPs. Scottish organisations such as Asthma + Lung UK Scotland, RSPB Scotland, Friends of the Earth Scotland and the Royal Scottish Geographical Society have all voiced strong support.
Yet, as with all attempts to legislate for the future, the Bill is shaped by precedent as much as by place. It draws inspiration from the global movement to criminalise ecocide, with recent advances in Belgium, the European Union and beyond. The hope is that by enshrining ecocide in domestic law, Scotland can both protect its own environment and contribute to the international campaign to make ecocide the fifth crime prosecuted by the International Criminal Court.
The limits of law and the power of enforcement
But laws are only as effective as the institutions that enforce them. A recent report commissioned by the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland (ERCS) cautions that without sufficient investment in environmental enforcement agencies, the impact of such a law is likely to be limited. The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, already stretched thin, would need significant resources to investigate and prosecute complex cases of environmental harm.
The report also recommends a dedicated Scottish Environment Court to hear environmental cases and ensure that polluters are held to account. Without such reforms, there is a risk that the law becomes symbolic rather than substantive. Monica Lennon MSP, the Bill’s sponsor, acknowledges these challenges: ‘No single piece of legislation can tackle climate, nature and pollution threats alone – but ecocide law has the potential to make a huge difference.’ It is a sentiment echoed by campaigners and legal experts alike: the law is a necessary step, but not a sufficient one. It must be part of a broader transformation in how we govern and value the environment.
One of the thorniest issues in drafting the Bill is the question of definition. What acts should count as ecocide? How severe must the harm be? Who should be held responsible: the company, the executives, the workers on the ground? The ERCS report suggests that Scotland might benefit from adapting the Stop Ecocide definition to its own context – perhaps by providing a list of indicative acts and lowering the threshold for harm.
Accountability, too, is a central concern. The Bill proposes to target not just individuals but legal persons such as companies, public bodies and other organisations. Penalties could include prison sentences for the most serious offenders, as well as substantial fines and asset seizures. The goal is to ensure that the costs of environmental harm cannot simply be externalised onto communities and ecosystems, but must be borne by those who profit from destruction.
Other stories you may be interested in
A deterrent and a signal
If the law is to succeed, it must do more than punish past wrongs – it must deter future harm. By setting a high bar for accountability, the Bill aims to send a clear message: Scotland will not tolerate the mass destruction of nature. This is not just a matter of legal deterrence, but of cultural change.
The law’s potential as a blueprint extends beyond its immediate effects. By acting as a model for other jurisdictions, Scotland could help catalyse a broader movement towards recognising the rights of nature and the responsibilities of those who wield power over it. The Bill’s supporters argue that it aligns with the principles of the Scottish Government’s environment strategy – including the precautionary principle, the polluter pays principle, and the commitment to a just transition to net zero.
Scotland’s proposed ecocide law represents a significant step forward in the global effort to hold polluters accountable and prevent catastrophic environmental harm. While the law alone cannot solve all the challenges facing Scotland’s landscapes and communities, it signals a new approach – one that treats the protection of nature as a matter of justice, not just regulation. By setting a legal precedent and demonstrating political will, Scotland has the opportunity to inspire similar action elsewhere and contribute to a growing international movement for environmental accountability.
The Bill is now being considered by the Scottish Parliament, with committee scrutiny and evidence gathering expected before the summer recess. A full parliamentary vote could take place in 2025, ahead of the next Scottish election in May 2026 – the latest point by which legislation must be passed before the current parliamentary session ends.
- Dr Doug Specht is a Chartered Geographer, a Reader in Cultural Geography and Communication, and Head of the School of Media and Communication at the University of Westminster.
Professor Damien Short is Co-Director of the Human Rights Consortium (HRC) and a Professor of Human Rights and Environmental Justice at the School of Advanced Study
