Final Report Summary - EFFACE (European Union Action to Fight Environmental Crime)
Executive Summary:
In Europol’s 2013 “Serious and Organised Crime Assessment” (SOCTA), environmental crime was identified as an “emerging threat” for the EU. According to the SOCTA, illegal wildlife trade and trafficking of illicit waste are the two most prevalent types of environmental crime that may involve organized crime within the EU.
The precise impacts of environmental crime are difficult to estimate and many observers complain about a lack of reliable data. Nonetheless, it is clear that environmental crime is a threat to environmental, social and economic sustainability and is in conflict with key commitments and strategies of the European Union. The EU has some instruments in place that aim at combating environmental crime, notably the Environmental Crime Directive; however, the implementing provisions at Member State level are not always very well enforced.
EFFACE has addressed some of the existing knowledge gaps concerning environmental crime and the EU. It has drawn on a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches and investigated different types of environmental crime from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. The following were the core elements of EFFACE:
• EFFACE conducted a comprehensive analysis of existing instruments, actors and institutions that are relevant for fighting environmental crime at the international and EU level, as well as in selected Member States (France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, Sweden, UK).
• EFFACE evaluated existing data on environmental crime, and to the extent feasible, quantified impacts and costs of environmental crime within the EU or resulting from the actions of EU actors outside of the EU.
• Through case studies looking at selected examples of environmental crime, EFFACE aimed at contributing to a better understanding of the causes of environmental crime and the cooperation of relevant actors in combating it.
• Based on an analysis of strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities associated with the EU’s current efforts to combat environmental crime, EFFACE developed recommendations for the EU and Member States on how to better combat environmental crime.
EFFACE was an interactive project, allowing for the involvement of diverse stakeholders through a series of public workshops held in various countries in Europe, supplemented by two conferences held in Brussels. EFFACE has actively disseminated its findings through a twitter account, its website (www.efface.eu) a LinkedIn Forum and several policy briefs.
The results of EFFACE have been mentioned in EU policy documents (such as e.g. the Commission Staff Document accompanying the EU’s wildlife action plan) and have informed studies produced for the European Parliament as well as by Europol.
Project Context and Objectives:
EFFACE was aimed at better understanding environmental crime as linked to the EU and its Member States and to develop policy options for the EU to better tackle environmental crime.
In 2009, numerous cases of illegal disposal of highly toxic waste in disbanded open pits were discovered in the German state of Brandenburg. In 2015, bridge workers illegally dumped hundreds of tons of concrete into a Scottish river. In Italy, organised crime groups have been involved for more than two decades in the illegal dumping and trafficking of millions of tons of hazardous waste. Thousands of birds have been killed in Spain and other EU Member States through illegal poisoning in the last decades. In 2010, a caustic waste reservoir at the Ajka aluminum plant in Hungary collapsed. More than one million cubic meters of highly alkaline red sludge flooded several nearby villages, killing several people, and eventually polluting local rivers. The illegal trade in wildlife is one of the fastest growing organised criminal activities worldwide with an estimated annual turnover of USD 18.5 billion. Europe is both a consumer of illegally traded wildlife and endangered species as well as an important point of transit. It is estimated that illegal wildlife trade threatens a third of the world’s species. Moreover, it is known to overlap with organised crime and money laundering. These are just a few examples of an uncountable number of one-time and continuous offenses against the environment committed year-to-year within the European Union (EU) and elsewhere. Many offenses are of a local nature such as the dumping of concrete in Scotland. Other offenses have a transnational component such as trafficking in wildlife, electronic waste, timber, and toxic materials, involving several EU Member States, their neighbouring states, and states in Latin America, Africa or Asia.
Hence, environmental crime poses a serious obstacle to the effective implementation of environmental measures, undermining action to address air, water and land pollution, to preserve and sustainably use natural resources, and to prevent the extinction of endangered animal and plant species. In order to more effectively combat environmental crime, the EU in 2008 passed the Environmental Crime Directive (ECD). The ECD emerged in response to the growing realization among EU policymakers that traditional forms of enforcement of environmental law through administrative sanctions were insufficient to curtail environmental crime. According to the EU Commission, only “criminal sanctions for the most serious environmental offences [seem] adequate, and dissuasive enough, to achieve proper implementation of environmental law”. Moreover, although the criminal law of some Member States included environmental offenses even before the ECD was adopted, definitions of environmental crimes and the level of sanctions differed greatly. The ECD attempts to address some of these shortcomings.
The ECD requires Member States to implement some minimum standards on environmental crime in their national legislation. It contains a list of environmental offences that must be considered criminal offences by all Member States if committed intentionally or with serious negligence. The Directive does not prescribe the specific sanctions Member States are to incorporate in their national legislation, but does require that the sanctions must be “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”. At the time the project started, the EU Commission (DG Justice) had commissioned an evaluation study on the transposition of the ECD in the various Member States, a first step towards a potential review of the ECD. Moreover, there were (and are) ongoing discussion in the EU on how to more effectively address certain types of environmental crime, with wildlife and illegal waste trafficking being two issues receiving particular attention. Therefore, EFFACE was conducted in a time period when there was a certain interest in environmental crime at the EU level and there were ongoing discussion on improving the EU’s regulatory framework and efforts on this matter.
However, many questions in relation to environmental crime in the EU and beyond remained unanswered at the start of the project. For example: What do we know about the impacts of environmental crime and its costs? To what degree has the ECD achieved its objectives? Which sanctions have shown success in curtailing environmental crime? Where is room for improvement? These were some of the questions that EFFACE has tackled. On the basis of the scientific results, policy recommendations addressed at EU and Member State policy-makers were developed, not the least to inform ongoing policy processes.
Project Results:
The results of EFFACE are documented in more than 50 substantive research reports and about a dozen reports on events as well as stakeholder involvement. These documents are organised into more than 35 deliverables, all of which have been completed and submitted. A summary is contained in the EFFACE final synthesis report. All of the deliverables that were destined for publication have been – or will be – published at www.efface.eu.
In addition, the research results of EFFACE have given rise to a number of publications in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and other types of publications. Two edited volumes are being produced. Finally, the main project results are also documented in 5 longer and 12 shorter case-study related policy briefs, which summarise key insights from the project and relate them to current EU policy debates.
The substantive research reports are the following:
WP1: Analytical Framework
• Gerstetter, Christiane, Bodle, Ralph et al. “EFFACE Analytical Framework” Berlin: Ecologic Institute, 2015
• Stefes, Christoph et al. “Addressing the Challenge of Environmental Crime through Multi- and Transdisciplinary Research – an Stefes, Christoph et al. “Addressing the Challenge of Environmental Crime through Multi- and Transdisciplinary Research – an Assessment of Multi- and Transdisciplinary Research in EFFACE”, Berlin: Ecologic Institute, 2015
WP2: Actors instruments and institutions
Synthesis report:
Faure, Michael G., Christiane Gerstetter, Stephan Sina, and Grazia Maria Vagliasindi. “Instruments, Actors and Institutions in the Fight Against Environmental Crime.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Berlin: Ecologic Institute, 2015.
Country reports
• Bianco, Floriana, Annalisa Lucifora, and Grazia Maria Vagliasindi. “Fighting Environmental Crime in France: A Country Report.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Catania: University of Catania, 2015.
• Fajardo del Castillo, Teresa, Juan Fuentes Osorio, Inmaculada Ramos Tapia, and Jesús Verdú Baeza. “Environmental Crime in Spain: A Country Report.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Granada: University of Granada, 2015.
• Mitsilegas, Valsamis, Malgosia Fitzmaurice, and Elena Fasoli. “Fighting Environmental Crime in Poland: A Country Report.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. London: Queen Mary University of London, 2015.
• Mitsilegas, Valsamis, Malgosia Fitzmaurice, and Elena Fasoli. “Fighting Environmental Crime in the UK: A Country Report.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. London: Queen Mary University of London, 2015.
• Philipsen, Niels J., and Michael G. Faure. “Fighting Environmental Crime in Sweden: A Country Report.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Maastricht: Maastricht University, METRO, 2015.
• Sina, Stephan. “Fighting Environmental Crime in Germany: A Country Report.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Berlin: Ecologic Institute, 2014.
• Vagliasindi, Grazia Maria, Annalisa Lucifora, and Floriana Bianco. “Fighting Environmental Crime in Italy: A Country Report.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Catania: University of Catania, 2015.
Reports on the EU level
• Fajardo del Castillo, Teresa. “EU Environmental Law and Environmental Crime: An Introduction.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Granada: University of Granada, 2015.
• Fajardo del Castillo, Teresa. “Organised Crime and Environmental Crime: Analysis of EU Legal Instruments.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Granada: University of Granada, 2015.
• Grasso, Giovanni, Rosalia Sicurella, and Valeria Scalia. “Articles 82-86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Environmental Crime.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Catania: University of Catania, 2015.
• Salanitro, Ugo. “Directive 2004/35/EC on Environmental Liability.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Catania: University of Catania, 2015.
• Scalia, Valeria. “The European Court of Human Rights and Environmental Crime.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Catania: University of Catania, 2015.
• Vagliasindi, Grazia Maria. “Directive 2008/99/EC on Environmental Crime and Directive 2009/123/EC on Ship-Source Pollution.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Catania: University of Catania, 2015.
Reports on the international level
• Fajardo del Castillo, Teresa. “Organised Crime and Environmental Crime: Analysis of International Legal Instruments.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Granada: University of Granada, 2015.
• Fajardo del Castillo, Teresa. “International Environmental Law and Environmental Crime: An Introduction.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Granada: University of Granada, 2015.
• Mitsilegas, Valsamis, Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Elena Fasoli, and Teresa Fajardo. “Analysis of International Legal Instruments Relevant to Fighting Environmental Crime.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. London: Queen Mary University of London, 2015.
Other
• Chin, Shirleen, and Wouter Veening. “Actors and Institutions Relevant to Fighting Environmental Crime.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. The Hague: Institute for Environmental Security, 2015.
• Smith, Lucy Olivia, and Katharina Klaas. “Networks and NGOs Relevant to Fighting Environmental Crime.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Berlin: Ecologic Institute, 2014.
WP3: Cost and impacts
Synthesis reports:
• Farmer, Andrew. “Qualitative and Monetary Analysis of the Impacts of Environmental Crime: Overview.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. London: Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2015.
• Farmer, Andrew, Lucas Porsch, Anna Rita Germani, Niels Philipsen, Stephanie Newman, Emma Watkins, Filippo Reganati, et al. “Understanding the Damages of Environmental Crime.” Report in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Berlin: Ecologic Institute, 2014
• Porsch, Lucas, and Kafeyeke, Terri. “Roadmap on the Use of Valuation Methods in Policy-Making.” Report in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Berlin: Ecologic Institute, 2015.
Other reports:
• Di Fonzo, Marco, Pasquale Marcello Falcone, Anna Rita Germani, Cesare Imbriani, Piergiuseppe Morone, and Filippo Reganati. “The Quantitative and Monetary Impacts of Forest Fire Crimes.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Rome: University of Rome “La Sapienza,” 2015.
• Geeraerts, Kristof, Konar Mutafoglu, and Andrea Illes. “Illegal E-Waste Shipments from the EU to China: Quantitative and Monetary Analysis of Illegal Shipments and Its Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. London: Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2015.
• Philipsen, Niels, and Andrea Rigamonti. “Marine Pollution.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Maastricht: METRO, 2015.
• Smith, Lucy Olivia, and Lucas Porsch. “Evaluation of the Costs and Impacts of Environmental Crime: CITES Trade of the Horsfieldii Tortoise.” Berlin: Ecologic Institute, 2015.
• Smith, Lucy Olivia, and Lucas Porsch. “The Costs of Illegal Wildlife Trade: Elephant and Rhino.” A study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Berlin: Ecologic Institute, 2015.
WP4: Case studies
The EFFACE case studies cover different types of environmental crime.
• D’Alisa, Giacomo, Pasquale Marcello Falcone, Anna Rita Germani, Cesare Imbriani, Piergiuseppe Morone, and Filippo Reganati. “Victims in the ‘Land of Fires’: A Case Study on the Consequences of Buried and Burnt Waste in Campania, Italy.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Rome: University of Rome “La Sapienza,” 2015.
• Fajardo del Castillo, Teresa. “A Case Study on the EU’s Promotion of Environmental Protection through Criminal Law in Kosovo.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Granada: University of Granada, 2015.
• Fajardo del Castillo, Teresa, and Juan Fuentes Osorio. “The Aznalcollar and the Kolontar Mining Accidents: A Case Study on Mining Accidents and the Criminal Responsibility of Operators and Administrations.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Granada: University of Granada, University of Jaen, 2014.
• Geeraerts, Kristof, Andrea Illes, and Jean-Pierre Schweitzer. “Illegal Shipment of E-Waste from the EU: A Case Study on Illegal E-Waste Export from the EU to China.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. London: Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2015.
• Lucifora, Annalisa, Floriana Bianco, and Grazia Maria Vagliasindi. “Environmental and Corporate Mis-Compliance: A Case Study on the ILVA Steel Plant in Italy.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Catania: University of Catania, 2015.
• Newman, Stephanie. “A Case Study on Illegal Fishing and the Role of Rights-Based Fisheries Management in Improving Compliance.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. London: Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2015.
• Santana Noguiera Junior, Geraldo, and Shirleen Chin. “Can Cocaine Production in Colombia Be Linked to Environmental Crime?: A Case Study on the Effect of European Union Legislation on the Trade.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. The Hague: Institute for Environmental Security, 2015.
• Saunders, Jade, and Jens Hein. “EUTR CITES and Money Laundering: A Case Study on the Challenges to Coordinated Enforcement in Tackling Illegal Logging.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. London: Chatham House, 2015.
• Sollund, Ragnhild, and Jenny Maher. “The Illegal Wildlife Trade: A Case Study Report on the Illegal Wildlife Trade in the United Kingdom, Norway, Colombia and Brazil.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Oslo and Wales: University of Oslo and University of South Wales, 2015.
• Stefes, Christoph, and Katherine Weingartner. “Environmental Crime in Armenia: A Case Study on Mining.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Berlin: Ecologic Institute, 2015.
• Veening, Wouter, Bob Bulthuis, Tamsin Burbidge, and Tim Strupat. “Mining Gold and Mercury Pollution in the Guiana Shield: A Case Study on the Role of the European Union in Fighting Environmental Crime.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. The Hague: Institute for Environmental Security, 2015.
• Watkins, Emma. “A Case Study on Illegal Localised Pollution Incidents in the EU.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. London: Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2015.
WP6: SWOT analysis
Farmer, Andrew, Valsamis Mitsilegas, Michael G. Faure, Niels Philipsen, Christiane Gerstetter, Anna Rita Germani, Christoph Stefes, Teresa Fajardo del Castillo, Grazia Maria Vagliasindi, and Nicolas Blanc. “Evaluation of the Strengths, Weaknesses, Threats and Opportunities Associated with EU Efforts to Combat Environmental Crime.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Institute for European Environmental Policy; Queen Mary University of London; METRO, Maastricht University; Ecologic Institute; University of Rome “La Sapienza”; University of Granada; University of Catania, 2015.
WP7: Conclusions and recommendations
Synthesis report:
• Faure, Michael G., Niels Philipsen, Andrew Farmer, Christiane Gerstetter, Anna Rita Germani, Alison Hoare, Valsamis Mitsilegas, et al. “Conclusions and Recommendations.” Report in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Berlin: Ecologic Institute, 2016.
Area reports:
• Blanc, Nicolas, and Christiane Gerstetter. “Contribution to Conclusions and Recommendations on Environmental Crime: Corporate Responsibility and Corporate Liability.” Report in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Berlin: Ecologic Institute, 2016.
• Fajardo del Castillo, Teresa. “Contribution to Conclusions and Recommendations on Environmental Crime: The External Dimension.” Report in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Granada: University of Granada, 2016.
• Farmer, Andrew. “Contribution to Conclusions and Recommendations on Environmental Crime: Data and Information Management.” Report in the framework of the EFFACE research project. London: Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2016.
• Faure, Michael, and Niels Philipsen. “Contribution to Conclusions and Recommendations on Environmental Crime: System of Sanctions.” Report in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Maastricht: METRO, 2016.
• Gerstetter, Christiane, and Anna Rita Germani. “Contribution to Conclusions and Recommendations on Environmental Crime: The Role of the Victims of Environmental Crime and NGOs.” Report in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Berlin: Ecologic Institute, 2016.
• Mitsilegas, Valsamis. “Contribution to Conclusions and Recommendations on Environmental Crime: Harmonisation of Substantive Environmental Criminal Law at EU Level.” Report in the framework of the EFFACE project. London: Queen Mary University of London, 2016.
• Sina, Stephan, and Katharina Klaas. “Contribution to Conclusions and Recommendations on Environmental Crime: Functioning of Enforcement Institutions and Cooperation between Them.” Report in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Berlin: Ecologic Institute, 2016.
• Vagliasindi, Grazia Maria. “Contribution to Conclusions and Recommendations on Environmental Crime: Environmental Liability.” Report in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Catania: University of Catania, 2016a.
• Vagliasindi, Grazia Maria. “Contribution to Conclusions and Recommendations on Environmental Crime: Organised Environmental Crime.” Report in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Catania: University of Catania, 2016b.
The overall results of EFFACE have been integrated into a final synthesis report, which is available at www.efface.eu but also been distributed in writing to relevant stakeholders and experts throughout the EU.
Potential Impact:
In the following, we describe the potential impact that EFFACE could have. Obviously, it is always quite difficult to show the impact of a research project in an empirically sound manner; for example, it is ultimately difficult to determine where a certain idea, policy recommendation or concept came from and why it was taken up in policy-making. Moreover, some of the impacts of EFFACE are likely to materialize only at a later stage; dissemination activities have not ceased with the end of the project and policy processes for which EFFACE insights are useful may occur at a later point in time. In the following we make a good faith effort to gauge the potential impact of EFFACE, wherever possible based on feedback received, references in document or other hard evidence; however, the following will inevitably remain speculative to a certain degree.
There were two interlinked pathways to impact in EFFACE – its approach to stakeholder involvement and its dissemination strategy. Both of them are described under 1) in the following, before 2) deals with the question of potential impact.
1. Pathways to impact – stakeholder involvement and dissemination
a) Stakeholder involvement
Involving stakeholders – here used as an umbrella term for a variety of groups including policy-makers, enforcement practitioners, academic experts and civil society groups working on environmental crime – was a central element of EFFACE. The EFFACE efforts on stakeholder involvement were set out and later evaluated in three EFFACE reports (not public).
Initially, guidelines were developed for what EFFACE called “interactive policy analysis”. This document contained a reflection on the target audiences of EFFACE and the stakeholders it wished to involve and reach. For developing these guideline, the EFFACE team drew on existing literature about stakeholder involvement. Subsequently, and early in the project, EFFACE started to develop contacts with the stakeholders identified as relevant, e.g. by approaching them via email and requesting their consent to be included in an internal contact database of EFFACE.
An important element of stakeholder involvement were nine workshops held throughout the project in different locations in the EU. While preparing each of these workshops required a substantive investment of staff (and hence budgetary) resources, they enabled EFFACE to develop personal contacts with key actors in the field.
Altogether, the stakeholder involvement in EFFACE appears to have worked relatively well. This assessment can be based on the following indicators:
• Both the mid-term and the final conference of EFFACE had a high number of attendants (e.g. more than 100 persons from 20 countries in the final conference), a significant share of which were policy-makers from the EU or Member States or enforcement practitioners. The EFFACE team received positive feedback for both events.
• While not all of the EFFACE workshops had a high number of participants, the workshops towards the end of EFFACE had a higher number of participants who were also representing many of the important institutions in dealing with environmental crime in the EU. For example, in one workshop held at Europol headquarters in The Hague, representatives of DG Justice, DG Environment, Europol, Eurojust and EnviCrimeNet and representatives of environmental NGOs participated, showing that EFFACE had gained the interest of the relevant actors dealing with environmental crime in the EU. Similarly, the final EFFACE workshop held in London, where EFFACE conclusions and recommendations were presented, had a high number of participants. In this workshop, it proved particularly helpful that the EFFACE team had circulated in advance a draft of the conclusions and recommendations document which various participants were asked to comment upon and did engage intensively with. Generally, the comments were favorable on the work developed by EFFACE.
• After the final conference, participants were asked to provide feedback on the usefulness of all the EFFACE communications and dissemination tools via a brief online survey. The results are summarised in the report on stakeholder involvement as represented in Box 1 below. They showed that those responding to the survey generally considered the EFFACE events very useful or at least helpful.
Factors that have likely contributed to EFFACE success in stakeholder interaction are the following:
• EFFACE had a strategic approach to involving stakeholders. The project discussed early in its life-cycle who the relevant persons and institutions were and made a point of approaching them and involving them in EFFACE events.
• The target audience was relatively well-defined – all in all, there is a relatively low number of institutions working on environmental crime at the EU level; equally, the scientific community of those working on environmental crime is relatively small. This made stakeholder involvement easier than it might have been, for example, in a project on climate change. Similarly, the overall number of large research projects within the EU (and the overall number of scholars working on the topic) is comparatively small.
• Sufficient budget was available to pay the travel of external participants in the workshops. This made participation easier e.g. for civil society actors or representatives of enforcement institutions, which are typically not endowed with huge resources for such purposes. Using the Chatham House Rule in the workshops may have encouraged the frank exchange of views.
• Environmental crime is an area where there are actually huge knowledge gaps, e.g. with regard to its impacts in quantitative terms and/or the sanctioning practices of Member States. There was thus significant interest in EFFACE’s results, also in the context of ongoing policy processes.
• The EFFACE consortium consisted of a mixture of academic institutions and think tanks (seven universities, four think tanks). The latter were particularly experienced in stakeholder involvement and dissemination and had the necessary institutional capacities to this end. Also, some of the academic institutions had significant experience in policy-consulting, including stakeholder involvement. Several of the institutions could also draw on established contacts/networks with the environmental policy community.
b) Dissemination
EFFACE has also undertaken considerable efforts at disseminating its findings to different target audiences, notably policy-makers, enforcement practitioners and civil society. In particular, dissemination took place through the following channels:
• As of 31 May 2016, the EFFACE Twitter account (https://twitter.com/EnvCrime) had ca. 1 640 followers which is a high number for an account run by a research project. Tweets have promoted EFFACE links to the EFFACE events, reports posted on the website and related environmental crime and initiatives. However, activities of other organizations working on environmental crime have also been featured. The EFFACE forum on LinkedIn has more than 200 Members.
• Nine (email) newsletters were sent throughout the project’s duration to more than 350 recipients having subscribed to the newsletter, highlighting EFFACE events and outputs, as well as other relevant news pertaining to environmental crime.
• A number of policy briefs were published to summarise results in a brief manner for policy-makers. Printed copies were also distributed at the final conference.
• The EFFACE website (www.efface.eu) also served as important tool for dissemination. A few figures showing the usage of websites are depicted in the following. The EFFACE website was frequented more widely than other websites for FP7 projects run by Ecologic Institute. The following figures – even though no depicting numbers exactly for technical reasons – provide some information on website usage. All of the figures below relate to the period 20 February 2013 – 1 June 2016.
Table 1: Visitors of the EFFACE website and their actions
Unique visitors Actions Total time spent by visitors Unique Downloads
15 563 6 8879 Ca. 1 020 hours 6 555
Table 2: Websites referring visitors to the EFFACE website
Website Visits
www.ecologic.eu 272
ec.europa.eu 166
www.facebook.com 161
t.co (Twitter) 140
m.facebook.com 87
www.endseurope.com 76
www.law.qmul.ac.uk 76
www.linkedin.com 75
lnkd.in 67
l.facebook.com 59
www.ieep.eu 56
www.endsreport.com 50
cordis.europa.eu 49
www.peterbeard.com 38
www.envirosecurity.org 35
www.maastrichtuniversity.nl 35
ecologic.eu 29
impel.eu 28
Table 3: Origin of the visitors of the website
Country Unique visitors
United Kingdom 1969
Italy 1517
Netherlands 1487
Belgium 1101
United States 1201
Germany 908
Spain 699
France 469
Luxembourg 360
Brazil 305
Norway 250
European Union 229
Australia 207
India 207
Canada 192
Russian Federation 159
Philippines 147
Sweden 140
Austria 139
Armenia 102
Greece 101
Malaysia 84
Portugal 98
Switzerland 98
Table 4: Overview of the 10 EFFACE texts most frequently downloaded
Rank Text Number of unique downloads
1 Policy Brief No 1 185
2 Case study on illegal waste shipment from the EU 183
3 Report on “Understanding the damages of environmental crime – review of available data” 130
4 Case study on illegal wildlife trade 124
5 Report on Art. 82 – 86 TFEU as a basis for further harmonization of EU rules on environmental crime 122
6 Save the date message for the final conference 117
7 Conclusions and recommendations 116
8 Synthesis report 107
9 Policy Brief 2 87
10 Case study on environmental crime (mining sector) in Armenia 84
Table 2 above shows that dissemination activities undertaken by individual partners via their institutional dissemination channels (e.g. institutes’ websites) were leading visitors to browse the EFFACE website, drawing additional attention to the project outputs. Notably some partners highlighted important events and outputs on their facebook pages – the project did not have a facebook page of its own.
As mentioned above, after the final conference, participants were asked to provide feedback on the usefulness of all the EFFACE communications and dissemination tools via a brief online survey. The results are summarised in the final report on stakeholder involvement, as represented partially in Box 1 below.
Box 1: Excerpt from the EFFACE report on stakeholder involvement
“We contacted about 40 % (132 persons) out of our 325 external contacts (excluding project partners) asking them to indicate the value of the various tools as either ‘very useful’, ‘helpful’, ‘not helpful’ or ‘don’t know’. .... it was the conferences and workshops which the largest number of people rated as ‘very useful’ with the website receiving the highest rating when combining ‘very useful’ and helpful’ responses. Of course the Case Studies and Policy Briefs also scored relatively well with the Newsletter and Action Guide being rated a little less. It is interesting that the LinkedIn Forum and the Twitter account with high numbers of followers were considered ‘very useful’ or ‘helpful’ by only about 50% of the respondents.
Among the general comments from survey respondents on the usefulness of the EFFACE project and research results there was the student who noted how much the project had been helpful in his PhD studies and the university professor who said the project had given him access to valuable research results and purposeful networking also allowing for the possibility of testing ideas and sharing of experience. An NGO campaigner said the EFFACE project ‘supports some of our policy objectives to more effectively tackle wildlife crime in the EU’ and that ‘the recommendations are particularly helpful for our lobbying of the EU Institutions and Member States’. Another specialist producing mapping of environmental issues said: ‘We are looking to expand and cooperate specifically on WEEE and cooperate on certain issues with legal specialists in environmental crime. The report[s] gave us a lot of insight into gaps and a network of experts to work with.’ An EU Member State official said: ‘The EFFACE project helped me in my work to understand the importance of cooperation between Member States.’ He added that project materials would be very helpful in preparing a draft report for an upcoming EU Presidency. Another governmental official said ‘I have obtained some useful contacts in specialist areas of environmental law and compliance’. Several of the mid-term and final conference participants thanked EFFACE for what one called the ‘excellent opportunity to liaise with individuals especially, those that I typically do not meet in the environmental sector (e.g. enforcement officers).’”
From “Report on stakeholder involvement”, Institute for Environmental Security, The Hague, 2016
2. Potential impacts on various actors
The above Box 1 shows some of the aspects that those stakeholders participating in EFFACE events and using EFFACE studies were appreciative of. This makes the assumption plausible that EFFACE results will be used by various groups of stakeholders.
a) Potential impact on policy-making on environmental crime
EFFACE results have been referenced in the following policy documents/documents by political institutions:
• The European Commission’s staff document accompanying the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking makes references to the EFFACE case study on wildlife trafficking as well as the EFFACE SWOT analysis.
• In the EnviCrimeNet 2015 report “Intelligence Project on Environmental Crime Report on Environmental Crime in Europe”, which is featured on Europol’s website , EFFACE events are mentioned as one source used.
Moreover, EFFACE research has informed the following two publications, written (outside of EFFACE, but by Members of the EFFACE team) for the ENVI Committee of the European Parliament:
• Vagliasindi/Gerstetter. ‘The ILVA Industrial Site in Taranto’. In-depth analysis for the ENVI Committee. Brussels: European Parliament, 2015
• Sina et al. ‘Wildlife Crime - Study for The ENVI Committee’. Brussels: European Parliament, 2016.
The above – as well as the frequent presence of policy-makers in particular from the EU – at EFFACE events demonstrates that EFFACE has contributed to policy formulation at the EU level so far, and will potentially continue to do so in the future (e.g. in the context of the review of the Environmental Crime Directive).
b) Potential impact on enforcement efforts
EFFACE has identified weaknesses in current enforcement efforts as well as in the set-up of enforcement institutions. While not having directly looked at e.g. police practice on the ground, this work could aid Member States seeking to make their enforcement actions for environmental crime more effective.
Throughout the project, enforcement practitioners (notably police officers, prosecutors and judges) working on environmental crime took part in EFFACE meetings; they were from various EU Member States notably Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, the UK, Italy, France and Spain. EFFACE events therefore were a platform for this group to network among each other and receive scientific input.
The EFFACE conclusions and recommendations document has also been featured on the website of the IMPEL network, meaning that its results appear to be considered relevant by those working on the enforcement of environmental law.
c) Potential impact on civil society
EFFACE was not addressed primarily at civil society. Yet, many of its results could be useful for civil organizations working and campaigning on the topic of environmental crime. The interest of such organizations in the results of EFFACE research are evident from the fact that NGO representatives were present at most of the EFFACE workshops. A session at the EFFACE final conference also touched upon the role of civil society in addressing environmental crime.
In particular, EFFACE has linked with a number of other EU-funded projects on environmental crime that had a stronger focus on civil society than EFFACE had. Notable examples where the EJOLT project on environmental conflicts and the ENEC project on bird-related crimes.
d) Scientific added value
EFFACE has – to our knowledge – been one of the few projects on EU-related environmental crime of this size. Moreover, it was an interdisciplinary project addressing environmental crime in the context of a multi-level governance system. Some of its work was pioneering – e.g. the overview of available data sources on environmental crime as related to the EU. Moreover, a particular feature of EFFACE was that in the end of the project all of the researchers jointly and consensually agreed on policy recommendations resulting from their research. This all makes the assumption plausible that EFFACE work will serve as a reference point for future research on the topic.
List of Websites:
www.efface.eu envcrime@ecologic.eu
In Europol’s 2013 “Serious and Organised Crime Assessment” (SOCTA), environmental crime was identified as an “emerging threat” for the EU. According to the SOCTA, illegal wildlife trade and trafficking of illicit waste are the two most prevalent types of environmental crime that may involve organized crime within the EU.
The precise impacts of environmental crime are difficult to estimate and many observers complain about a lack of reliable data. Nonetheless, it is clear that environmental crime is a threat to environmental, social and economic sustainability and is in conflict with key commitments and strategies of the European Union. The EU has some instruments in place that aim at combating environmental crime, notably the Environmental Crime Directive; however, the implementing provisions at Member State level are not always very well enforced.
EFFACE has addressed some of the existing knowledge gaps concerning environmental crime and the EU. It has drawn on a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches and investigated different types of environmental crime from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. The following were the core elements of EFFACE:
• EFFACE conducted a comprehensive analysis of existing instruments, actors and institutions that are relevant for fighting environmental crime at the international and EU level, as well as in selected Member States (France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, Sweden, UK).
• EFFACE evaluated existing data on environmental crime, and to the extent feasible, quantified impacts and costs of environmental crime within the EU or resulting from the actions of EU actors outside of the EU.
• Through case studies looking at selected examples of environmental crime, EFFACE aimed at contributing to a better understanding of the causes of environmental crime and the cooperation of relevant actors in combating it.
• Based on an analysis of strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities associated with the EU’s current efforts to combat environmental crime, EFFACE developed recommendations for the EU and Member States on how to better combat environmental crime.
EFFACE was an interactive project, allowing for the involvement of diverse stakeholders through a series of public workshops held in various countries in Europe, supplemented by two conferences held in Brussels. EFFACE has actively disseminated its findings through a twitter account, its website (www.efface.eu) a LinkedIn Forum and several policy briefs.
The results of EFFACE have been mentioned in EU policy documents (such as e.g. the Commission Staff Document accompanying the EU’s wildlife action plan) and have informed studies produced for the European Parliament as well as by Europol.
Project Context and Objectives:
EFFACE was aimed at better understanding environmental crime as linked to the EU and its Member States and to develop policy options for the EU to better tackle environmental crime.
In 2009, numerous cases of illegal disposal of highly toxic waste in disbanded open pits were discovered in the German state of Brandenburg. In 2015, bridge workers illegally dumped hundreds of tons of concrete into a Scottish river. In Italy, organised crime groups have been involved for more than two decades in the illegal dumping and trafficking of millions of tons of hazardous waste. Thousands of birds have been killed in Spain and other EU Member States through illegal poisoning in the last decades. In 2010, a caustic waste reservoir at the Ajka aluminum plant in Hungary collapsed. More than one million cubic meters of highly alkaline red sludge flooded several nearby villages, killing several people, and eventually polluting local rivers. The illegal trade in wildlife is one of the fastest growing organised criminal activities worldwide with an estimated annual turnover of USD 18.5 billion. Europe is both a consumer of illegally traded wildlife and endangered species as well as an important point of transit. It is estimated that illegal wildlife trade threatens a third of the world’s species. Moreover, it is known to overlap with organised crime and money laundering. These are just a few examples of an uncountable number of one-time and continuous offenses against the environment committed year-to-year within the European Union (EU) and elsewhere. Many offenses are of a local nature such as the dumping of concrete in Scotland. Other offenses have a transnational component such as trafficking in wildlife, electronic waste, timber, and toxic materials, involving several EU Member States, their neighbouring states, and states in Latin America, Africa or Asia.
Hence, environmental crime poses a serious obstacle to the effective implementation of environmental measures, undermining action to address air, water and land pollution, to preserve and sustainably use natural resources, and to prevent the extinction of endangered animal and plant species. In order to more effectively combat environmental crime, the EU in 2008 passed the Environmental Crime Directive (ECD). The ECD emerged in response to the growing realization among EU policymakers that traditional forms of enforcement of environmental law through administrative sanctions were insufficient to curtail environmental crime. According to the EU Commission, only “criminal sanctions for the most serious environmental offences [seem] adequate, and dissuasive enough, to achieve proper implementation of environmental law”. Moreover, although the criminal law of some Member States included environmental offenses even before the ECD was adopted, definitions of environmental crimes and the level of sanctions differed greatly. The ECD attempts to address some of these shortcomings.
The ECD requires Member States to implement some minimum standards on environmental crime in their national legislation. It contains a list of environmental offences that must be considered criminal offences by all Member States if committed intentionally or with serious negligence. The Directive does not prescribe the specific sanctions Member States are to incorporate in their national legislation, but does require that the sanctions must be “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”. At the time the project started, the EU Commission (DG Justice) had commissioned an evaluation study on the transposition of the ECD in the various Member States, a first step towards a potential review of the ECD. Moreover, there were (and are) ongoing discussion in the EU on how to more effectively address certain types of environmental crime, with wildlife and illegal waste trafficking being two issues receiving particular attention. Therefore, EFFACE was conducted in a time period when there was a certain interest in environmental crime at the EU level and there were ongoing discussion on improving the EU’s regulatory framework and efforts on this matter.
However, many questions in relation to environmental crime in the EU and beyond remained unanswered at the start of the project. For example: What do we know about the impacts of environmental crime and its costs? To what degree has the ECD achieved its objectives? Which sanctions have shown success in curtailing environmental crime? Where is room for improvement? These were some of the questions that EFFACE has tackled. On the basis of the scientific results, policy recommendations addressed at EU and Member State policy-makers were developed, not the least to inform ongoing policy processes.
Project Results:
The results of EFFACE are documented in more than 50 substantive research reports and about a dozen reports on events as well as stakeholder involvement. These documents are organised into more than 35 deliverables, all of which have been completed and submitted. A summary is contained in the EFFACE final synthesis report. All of the deliverables that were destined for publication have been – or will be – published at www.efface.eu.
In addition, the research results of EFFACE have given rise to a number of publications in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and other types of publications. Two edited volumes are being produced. Finally, the main project results are also documented in 5 longer and 12 shorter case-study related policy briefs, which summarise key insights from the project and relate them to current EU policy debates.
The substantive research reports are the following:
WP1: Analytical Framework
• Gerstetter, Christiane, Bodle, Ralph et al. “EFFACE Analytical Framework” Berlin: Ecologic Institute, 2015
• Stefes, Christoph et al. “Addressing the Challenge of Environmental Crime through Multi- and Transdisciplinary Research – an Stefes, Christoph et al. “Addressing the Challenge of Environmental Crime through Multi- and Transdisciplinary Research – an Assessment of Multi- and Transdisciplinary Research in EFFACE”, Berlin: Ecologic Institute, 2015
WP2: Actors instruments and institutions
Synthesis report:
Faure, Michael G., Christiane Gerstetter, Stephan Sina, and Grazia Maria Vagliasindi. “Instruments, Actors and Institutions in the Fight Against Environmental Crime.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Berlin: Ecologic Institute, 2015.
Country reports
• Bianco, Floriana, Annalisa Lucifora, and Grazia Maria Vagliasindi. “Fighting Environmental Crime in France: A Country Report.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Catania: University of Catania, 2015.
• Fajardo del Castillo, Teresa, Juan Fuentes Osorio, Inmaculada Ramos Tapia, and Jesús Verdú Baeza. “Environmental Crime in Spain: A Country Report.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Granada: University of Granada, 2015.
• Mitsilegas, Valsamis, Malgosia Fitzmaurice, and Elena Fasoli. “Fighting Environmental Crime in Poland: A Country Report.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. London: Queen Mary University of London, 2015.
• Mitsilegas, Valsamis, Malgosia Fitzmaurice, and Elena Fasoli. “Fighting Environmental Crime in the UK: A Country Report.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. London: Queen Mary University of London, 2015.
• Philipsen, Niels J., and Michael G. Faure. “Fighting Environmental Crime in Sweden: A Country Report.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Maastricht: Maastricht University, METRO, 2015.
• Sina, Stephan. “Fighting Environmental Crime in Germany: A Country Report.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Berlin: Ecologic Institute, 2014.
• Vagliasindi, Grazia Maria, Annalisa Lucifora, and Floriana Bianco. “Fighting Environmental Crime in Italy: A Country Report.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Catania: University of Catania, 2015.
Reports on the EU level
• Fajardo del Castillo, Teresa. “EU Environmental Law and Environmental Crime: An Introduction.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Granada: University of Granada, 2015.
• Fajardo del Castillo, Teresa. “Organised Crime and Environmental Crime: Analysis of EU Legal Instruments.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Granada: University of Granada, 2015.
• Grasso, Giovanni, Rosalia Sicurella, and Valeria Scalia. “Articles 82-86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Environmental Crime.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Catania: University of Catania, 2015.
• Salanitro, Ugo. “Directive 2004/35/EC on Environmental Liability.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Catania: University of Catania, 2015.
• Scalia, Valeria. “The European Court of Human Rights and Environmental Crime.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Catania: University of Catania, 2015.
• Vagliasindi, Grazia Maria. “Directive 2008/99/EC on Environmental Crime and Directive 2009/123/EC on Ship-Source Pollution.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Catania: University of Catania, 2015.
Reports on the international level
• Fajardo del Castillo, Teresa. “Organised Crime and Environmental Crime: Analysis of International Legal Instruments.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Granada: University of Granada, 2015.
• Fajardo del Castillo, Teresa. “International Environmental Law and Environmental Crime: An Introduction.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Granada: University of Granada, 2015.
• Mitsilegas, Valsamis, Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Elena Fasoli, and Teresa Fajardo. “Analysis of International Legal Instruments Relevant to Fighting Environmental Crime.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. London: Queen Mary University of London, 2015.
Other
• Chin, Shirleen, and Wouter Veening. “Actors and Institutions Relevant to Fighting Environmental Crime.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. The Hague: Institute for Environmental Security, 2015.
• Smith, Lucy Olivia, and Katharina Klaas. “Networks and NGOs Relevant to Fighting Environmental Crime.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Berlin: Ecologic Institute, 2014.
WP3: Cost and impacts
Synthesis reports:
• Farmer, Andrew. “Qualitative and Monetary Analysis of the Impacts of Environmental Crime: Overview.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. London: Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2015.
• Farmer, Andrew, Lucas Porsch, Anna Rita Germani, Niels Philipsen, Stephanie Newman, Emma Watkins, Filippo Reganati, et al. “Understanding the Damages of Environmental Crime.” Report in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Berlin: Ecologic Institute, 2014
• Porsch, Lucas, and Kafeyeke, Terri. “Roadmap on the Use of Valuation Methods in Policy-Making.” Report in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Berlin: Ecologic Institute, 2015.
Other reports:
• Di Fonzo, Marco, Pasquale Marcello Falcone, Anna Rita Germani, Cesare Imbriani, Piergiuseppe Morone, and Filippo Reganati. “The Quantitative and Monetary Impacts of Forest Fire Crimes.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Rome: University of Rome “La Sapienza,” 2015.
• Geeraerts, Kristof, Konar Mutafoglu, and Andrea Illes. “Illegal E-Waste Shipments from the EU to China: Quantitative and Monetary Analysis of Illegal Shipments and Its Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. London: Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2015.
• Philipsen, Niels, and Andrea Rigamonti. “Marine Pollution.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Maastricht: METRO, 2015.
• Smith, Lucy Olivia, and Lucas Porsch. “Evaluation of the Costs and Impacts of Environmental Crime: CITES Trade of the Horsfieldii Tortoise.” Berlin: Ecologic Institute, 2015.
• Smith, Lucy Olivia, and Lucas Porsch. “The Costs of Illegal Wildlife Trade: Elephant and Rhino.” A study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Berlin: Ecologic Institute, 2015.
WP4: Case studies
The EFFACE case studies cover different types of environmental crime.
• D’Alisa, Giacomo, Pasquale Marcello Falcone, Anna Rita Germani, Cesare Imbriani, Piergiuseppe Morone, and Filippo Reganati. “Victims in the ‘Land of Fires’: A Case Study on the Consequences of Buried and Burnt Waste in Campania, Italy.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Rome: University of Rome “La Sapienza,” 2015.
• Fajardo del Castillo, Teresa. “A Case Study on the EU’s Promotion of Environmental Protection through Criminal Law in Kosovo.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Granada: University of Granada, 2015.
• Fajardo del Castillo, Teresa, and Juan Fuentes Osorio. “The Aznalcollar and the Kolontar Mining Accidents: A Case Study on Mining Accidents and the Criminal Responsibility of Operators and Administrations.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Granada: University of Granada, University of Jaen, 2014.
• Geeraerts, Kristof, Andrea Illes, and Jean-Pierre Schweitzer. “Illegal Shipment of E-Waste from the EU: A Case Study on Illegal E-Waste Export from the EU to China.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. London: Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2015.
• Lucifora, Annalisa, Floriana Bianco, and Grazia Maria Vagliasindi. “Environmental and Corporate Mis-Compliance: A Case Study on the ILVA Steel Plant in Italy.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Catania: University of Catania, 2015.
• Newman, Stephanie. “A Case Study on Illegal Fishing and the Role of Rights-Based Fisheries Management in Improving Compliance.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. London: Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2015.
• Santana Noguiera Junior, Geraldo, and Shirleen Chin. “Can Cocaine Production in Colombia Be Linked to Environmental Crime?: A Case Study on the Effect of European Union Legislation on the Trade.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. The Hague: Institute for Environmental Security, 2015.
• Saunders, Jade, and Jens Hein. “EUTR CITES and Money Laundering: A Case Study on the Challenges to Coordinated Enforcement in Tackling Illegal Logging.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. London: Chatham House, 2015.
• Sollund, Ragnhild, and Jenny Maher. “The Illegal Wildlife Trade: A Case Study Report on the Illegal Wildlife Trade in the United Kingdom, Norway, Colombia and Brazil.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Oslo and Wales: University of Oslo and University of South Wales, 2015.
• Stefes, Christoph, and Katherine Weingartner. “Environmental Crime in Armenia: A Case Study on Mining.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Berlin: Ecologic Institute, 2015.
• Veening, Wouter, Bob Bulthuis, Tamsin Burbidge, and Tim Strupat. “Mining Gold and Mercury Pollution in the Guiana Shield: A Case Study on the Role of the European Union in Fighting Environmental Crime.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. The Hague: Institute for Environmental Security, 2015.
• Watkins, Emma. “A Case Study on Illegal Localised Pollution Incidents in the EU.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. London: Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2015.
WP6: SWOT analysis
Farmer, Andrew, Valsamis Mitsilegas, Michael G. Faure, Niels Philipsen, Christiane Gerstetter, Anna Rita Germani, Christoph Stefes, Teresa Fajardo del Castillo, Grazia Maria Vagliasindi, and Nicolas Blanc. “Evaluation of the Strengths, Weaknesses, Threats and Opportunities Associated with EU Efforts to Combat Environmental Crime.” Study in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Institute for European Environmental Policy; Queen Mary University of London; METRO, Maastricht University; Ecologic Institute; University of Rome “La Sapienza”; University of Granada; University of Catania, 2015.
WP7: Conclusions and recommendations
Synthesis report:
• Faure, Michael G., Niels Philipsen, Andrew Farmer, Christiane Gerstetter, Anna Rita Germani, Alison Hoare, Valsamis Mitsilegas, et al. “Conclusions and Recommendations.” Report in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Berlin: Ecologic Institute, 2016.
Area reports:
• Blanc, Nicolas, and Christiane Gerstetter. “Contribution to Conclusions and Recommendations on Environmental Crime: Corporate Responsibility and Corporate Liability.” Report in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Berlin: Ecologic Institute, 2016.
• Fajardo del Castillo, Teresa. “Contribution to Conclusions and Recommendations on Environmental Crime: The External Dimension.” Report in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Granada: University of Granada, 2016.
• Farmer, Andrew. “Contribution to Conclusions and Recommendations on Environmental Crime: Data and Information Management.” Report in the framework of the EFFACE research project. London: Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2016.
• Faure, Michael, and Niels Philipsen. “Contribution to Conclusions and Recommendations on Environmental Crime: System of Sanctions.” Report in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Maastricht: METRO, 2016.
• Gerstetter, Christiane, and Anna Rita Germani. “Contribution to Conclusions and Recommendations on Environmental Crime: The Role of the Victims of Environmental Crime and NGOs.” Report in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Berlin: Ecologic Institute, 2016.
• Mitsilegas, Valsamis. “Contribution to Conclusions and Recommendations on Environmental Crime: Harmonisation of Substantive Environmental Criminal Law at EU Level.” Report in the framework of the EFFACE project. London: Queen Mary University of London, 2016.
• Sina, Stephan, and Katharina Klaas. “Contribution to Conclusions and Recommendations on Environmental Crime: Functioning of Enforcement Institutions and Cooperation between Them.” Report in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Berlin: Ecologic Institute, 2016.
• Vagliasindi, Grazia Maria. “Contribution to Conclusions and Recommendations on Environmental Crime: Environmental Liability.” Report in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Catania: University of Catania, 2016a.
• Vagliasindi, Grazia Maria. “Contribution to Conclusions and Recommendations on Environmental Crime: Organised Environmental Crime.” Report in the framework of the EFFACE research project. Catania: University of Catania, 2016b.
The overall results of EFFACE have been integrated into a final synthesis report, which is available at www.efface.eu but also been distributed in writing to relevant stakeholders and experts throughout the EU.
Potential Impact:
In the following, we describe the potential impact that EFFACE could have. Obviously, it is always quite difficult to show the impact of a research project in an empirically sound manner; for example, it is ultimately difficult to determine where a certain idea, policy recommendation or concept came from and why it was taken up in policy-making. Moreover, some of the impacts of EFFACE are likely to materialize only at a later stage; dissemination activities have not ceased with the end of the project and policy processes for which EFFACE insights are useful may occur at a later point in time. In the following we make a good faith effort to gauge the potential impact of EFFACE, wherever possible based on feedback received, references in document or other hard evidence; however, the following will inevitably remain speculative to a certain degree.
There were two interlinked pathways to impact in EFFACE – its approach to stakeholder involvement and its dissemination strategy. Both of them are described under 1) in the following, before 2) deals with the question of potential impact.
1. Pathways to impact – stakeholder involvement and dissemination
a) Stakeholder involvement
Involving stakeholders – here used as an umbrella term for a variety of groups including policy-makers, enforcement practitioners, academic experts and civil society groups working on environmental crime – was a central element of EFFACE. The EFFACE efforts on stakeholder involvement were set out and later evaluated in three EFFACE reports (not public).
Initially, guidelines were developed for what EFFACE called “interactive policy analysis”. This document contained a reflection on the target audiences of EFFACE and the stakeholders it wished to involve and reach. For developing these guideline, the EFFACE team drew on existing literature about stakeholder involvement. Subsequently, and early in the project, EFFACE started to develop contacts with the stakeholders identified as relevant, e.g. by approaching them via email and requesting their consent to be included in an internal contact database of EFFACE.
An important element of stakeholder involvement were nine workshops held throughout the project in different locations in the EU. While preparing each of these workshops required a substantive investment of staff (and hence budgetary) resources, they enabled EFFACE to develop personal contacts with key actors in the field.
Altogether, the stakeholder involvement in EFFACE appears to have worked relatively well. This assessment can be based on the following indicators:
• Both the mid-term and the final conference of EFFACE had a high number of attendants (e.g. more than 100 persons from 20 countries in the final conference), a significant share of which were policy-makers from the EU or Member States or enforcement practitioners. The EFFACE team received positive feedback for both events.
• While not all of the EFFACE workshops had a high number of participants, the workshops towards the end of EFFACE had a higher number of participants who were also representing many of the important institutions in dealing with environmental crime in the EU. For example, in one workshop held at Europol headquarters in The Hague, representatives of DG Justice, DG Environment, Europol, Eurojust and EnviCrimeNet and representatives of environmental NGOs participated, showing that EFFACE had gained the interest of the relevant actors dealing with environmental crime in the EU. Similarly, the final EFFACE workshop held in London, where EFFACE conclusions and recommendations were presented, had a high number of participants. In this workshop, it proved particularly helpful that the EFFACE team had circulated in advance a draft of the conclusions and recommendations document which various participants were asked to comment upon and did engage intensively with. Generally, the comments were favorable on the work developed by EFFACE.
• After the final conference, participants were asked to provide feedback on the usefulness of all the EFFACE communications and dissemination tools via a brief online survey. The results are summarised in the report on stakeholder involvement as represented in Box 1 below. They showed that those responding to the survey generally considered the EFFACE events very useful or at least helpful.
Factors that have likely contributed to EFFACE success in stakeholder interaction are the following:
• EFFACE had a strategic approach to involving stakeholders. The project discussed early in its life-cycle who the relevant persons and institutions were and made a point of approaching them and involving them in EFFACE events.
• The target audience was relatively well-defined – all in all, there is a relatively low number of institutions working on environmental crime at the EU level; equally, the scientific community of those working on environmental crime is relatively small. This made stakeholder involvement easier than it might have been, for example, in a project on climate change. Similarly, the overall number of large research projects within the EU (and the overall number of scholars working on the topic) is comparatively small.
• Sufficient budget was available to pay the travel of external participants in the workshops. This made participation easier e.g. for civil society actors or representatives of enforcement institutions, which are typically not endowed with huge resources for such purposes. Using the Chatham House Rule in the workshops may have encouraged the frank exchange of views.
• Environmental crime is an area where there are actually huge knowledge gaps, e.g. with regard to its impacts in quantitative terms and/or the sanctioning practices of Member States. There was thus significant interest in EFFACE’s results, also in the context of ongoing policy processes.
• The EFFACE consortium consisted of a mixture of academic institutions and think tanks (seven universities, four think tanks). The latter were particularly experienced in stakeholder involvement and dissemination and had the necessary institutional capacities to this end. Also, some of the academic institutions had significant experience in policy-consulting, including stakeholder involvement. Several of the institutions could also draw on established contacts/networks with the environmental policy community.
b) Dissemination
EFFACE has also undertaken considerable efforts at disseminating its findings to different target audiences, notably policy-makers, enforcement practitioners and civil society. In particular, dissemination took place through the following channels:
• As of 31 May 2016, the EFFACE Twitter account (https://twitter.com/EnvCrime) had ca. 1 640 followers which is a high number for an account run by a research project. Tweets have promoted EFFACE links to the EFFACE events, reports posted on the website and related environmental crime and initiatives. However, activities of other organizations working on environmental crime have also been featured. The EFFACE forum on LinkedIn has more than 200 Members.
• Nine (email) newsletters were sent throughout the project’s duration to more than 350 recipients having subscribed to the newsletter, highlighting EFFACE events and outputs, as well as other relevant news pertaining to environmental crime.
• A number of policy briefs were published to summarise results in a brief manner for policy-makers. Printed copies were also distributed at the final conference.
• The EFFACE website (www.efface.eu) also served as important tool for dissemination. A few figures showing the usage of websites are depicted in the following. The EFFACE website was frequented more widely than other websites for FP7 projects run by Ecologic Institute. The following figures – even though no depicting numbers exactly for technical reasons – provide some information on website usage. All of the figures below relate to the period 20 February 2013 – 1 June 2016.
Table 1: Visitors of the EFFACE website and their actions
Unique visitors Actions Total time spent by visitors Unique Downloads
15 563 6 8879 Ca. 1 020 hours 6 555
Table 2: Websites referring visitors to the EFFACE website
Website Visits
www.ecologic.eu 272
ec.europa.eu 166
www.facebook.com 161
t.co (Twitter) 140
m.facebook.com 87
www.endseurope.com 76
www.law.qmul.ac.uk 76
www.linkedin.com 75
lnkd.in 67
l.facebook.com 59
www.ieep.eu 56
www.endsreport.com 50
cordis.europa.eu 49
www.peterbeard.com 38
www.envirosecurity.org 35
www.maastrichtuniversity.nl 35
ecologic.eu 29
impel.eu 28
Table 3: Origin of the visitors of the website
Country Unique visitors
United Kingdom 1969
Italy 1517
Netherlands 1487
Belgium 1101
United States 1201
Germany 908
Spain 699
France 469
Luxembourg 360
Brazil 305
Norway 250
European Union 229
Australia 207
India 207
Canada 192
Russian Federation 159
Philippines 147
Sweden 140
Austria 139
Armenia 102
Greece 101
Malaysia 84
Portugal 98
Switzerland 98
Table 4: Overview of the 10 EFFACE texts most frequently downloaded
Rank Text Number of unique downloads
1 Policy Brief No 1 185
2 Case study on illegal waste shipment from the EU 183
3 Report on “Understanding the damages of environmental crime – review of available data” 130
4 Case study on illegal wildlife trade 124
5 Report on Art. 82 – 86 TFEU as a basis for further harmonization of EU rules on environmental crime 122
6 Save the date message for the final conference 117
7 Conclusions and recommendations 116
8 Synthesis report 107
9 Policy Brief 2 87
10 Case study on environmental crime (mining sector) in Armenia 84
Table 2 above shows that dissemination activities undertaken by individual partners via their institutional dissemination channels (e.g. institutes’ websites) were leading visitors to browse the EFFACE website, drawing additional attention to the project outputs. Notably some partners highlighted important events and outputs on their facebook pages – the project did not have a facebook page of its own.
As mentioned above, after the final conference, participants were asked to provide feedback on the usefulness of all the EFFACE communications and dissemination tools via a brief online survey. The results are summarised in the final report on stakeholder involvement, as represented partially in Box 1 below.
Box 1: Excerpt from the EFFACE report on stakeholder involvement
“We contacted about 40 % (132 persons) out of our 325 external contacts (excluding project partners) asking them to indicate the value of the various tools as either ‘very useful’, ‘helpful’, ‘not helpful’ or ‘don’t know’. .... it was the conferences and workshops which the largest number of people rated as ‘very useful’ with the website receiving the highest rating when combining ‘very useful’ and helpful’ responses. Of course the Case Studies and Policy Briefs also scored relatively well with the Newsletter and Action Guide being rated a little less. It is interesting that the LinkedIn Forum and the Twitter account with high numbers of followers were considered ‘very useful’ or ‘helpful’ by only about 50% of the respondents.
Among the general comments from survey respondents on the usefulness of the EFFACE project and research results there was the student who noted how much the project had been helpful in his PhD studies and the university professor who said the project had given him access to valuable research results and purposeful networking also allowing for the possibility of testing ideas and sharing of experience. An NGO campaigner said the EFFACE project ‘supports some of our policy objectives to more effectively tackle wildlife crime in the EU’ and that ‘the recommendations are particularly helpful for our lobbying of the EU Institutions and Member States’. Another specialist producing mapping of environmental issues said: ‘We are looking to expand and cooperate specifically on WEEE and cooperate on certain issues with legal specialists in environmental crime. The report[s] gave us a lot of insight into gaps and a network of experts to work with.’ An EU Member State official said: ‘The EFFACE project helped me in my work to understand the importance of cooperation between Member States.’ He added that project materials would be very helpful in preparing a draft report for an upcoming EU Presidency. Another governmental official said ‘I have obtained some useful contacts in specialist areas of environmental law and compliance’. Several of the mid-term and final conference participants thanked EFFACE for what one called the ‘excellent opportunity to liaise with individuals especially, those that I typically do not meet in the environmental sector (e.g. enforcement officers).’”
From “Report on stakeholder involvement”, Institute for Environmental Security, The Hague, 2016
2. Potential impacts on various actors
The above Box 1 shows some of the aspects that those stakeholders participating in EFFACE events and using EFFACE studies were appreciative of. This makes the assumption plausible that EFFACE results will be used by various groups of stakeholders.
a) Potential impact on policy-making on environmental crime
EFFACE results have been referenced in the following policy documents/documents by political institutions:
• The European Commission’s staff document accompanying the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking makes references to the EFFACE case study on wildlife trafficking as well as the EFFACE SWOT analysis.
• In the EnviCrimeNet 2015 report “Intelligence Project on Environmental Crime Report on Environmental Crime in Europe”, which is featured on Europol’s website , EFFACE events are mentioned as one source used.
Moreover, EFFACE research has informed the following two publications, written (outside of EFFACE, but by Members of the EFFACE team) for the ENVI Committee of the European Parliament:
• Vagliasindi/Gerstetter. ‘The ILVA Industrial Site in Taranto’. In-depth analysis for the ENVI Committee. Brussels: European Parliament, 2015
• Sina et al. ‘Wildlife Crime - Study for The ENVI Committee’. Brussels: European Parliament, 2016.
The above – as well as the frequent presence of policy-makers in particular from the EU – at EFFACE events demonstrates that EFFACE has contributed to policy formulation at the EU level so far, and will potentially continue to do so in the future (e.g. in the context of the review of the Environmental Crime Directive).
b) Potential impact on enforcement efforts
EFFACE has identified weaknesses in current enforcement efforts as well as in the set-up of enforcement institutions. While not having directly looked at e.g. police practice on the ground, this work could aid Member States seeking to make their enforcement actions for environmental crime more effective.
Throughout the project, enforcement practitioners (notably police officers, prosecutors and judges) working on environmental crime took part in EFFACE meetings; they were from various EU Member States notably Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, the UK, Italy, France and Spain. EFFACE events therefore were a platform for this group to network among each other and receive scientific input.
The EFFACE conclusions and recommendations document has also been featured on the website of the IMPEL network, meaning that its results appear to be considered relevant by those working on the enforcement of environmental law.
c) Potential impact on civil society
EFFACE was not addressed primarily at civil society. Yet, many of its results could be useful for civil organizations working and campaigning on the topic of environmental crime. The interest of such organizations in the results of EFFACE research are evident from the fact that NGO representatives were present at most of the EFFACE workshops. A session at the EFFACE final conference also touched upon the role of civil society in addressing environmental crime.
In particular, EFFACE has linked with a number of other EU-funded projects on environmental crime that had a stronger focus on civil society than EFFACE had. Notable examples where the EJOLT project on environmental conflicts and the ENEC project on bird-related crimes.
d) Scientific added value
EFFACE has – to our knowledge – been one of the few projects on EU-related environmental crime of this size. Moreover, it was an interdisciplinary project addressing environmental crime in the context of a multi-level governance system. Some of its work was pioneering – e.g. the overview of available data sources on environmental crime as related to the EU. Moreover, a particular feature of EFFACE was that in the end of the project all of the researchers jointly and consensually agreed on policy recommendations resulting from their research. This all makes the assumption plausible that EFFACE work will serve as a reference point for future research on the topic.
List of Websites:
www.efface.eu envcrime@ecologic.eu