Priority should be given to ensuring appropriate investment into environmental enforcement agencies (SEPA) and existing methods of environmental protection. While an increasing number of states are introducing crimes of ecocide or other
serious crimes, there is no evidence in our report that introducing a new serious environmental crime makes a substantial difference to environmental
protection on its own.

• Adopting language like the definition offered by the Expert Panel may play an important role in increasing international support for a new international crime of ecocide. If this is the primary goal in pursuing criminalisation, then this is an important consideration.
• However, if seeking to adopt a workable domestic crime, Scotland should
  consider whether the Expert Panel’s definition can be strengthened to reflect
  the domestic context. Amendments might include an indicative list of harmful
  acts, a less onerous gravity threshold, and forms of liability that encompasses
  legal persons and avoid the inappropriate criminalisation of workers.

A new crime of ecocide might usefully be accompanied by enhanced protections for whistle-blowers or those protesting ecocidal practices. Such measures could encourage public engagement with the crime’s enforcement. However, protecting whistle-blowers and protesters are important aspects of environmental protection in their own right, and are not dependent on a new crime being introduced.

When designing appropriate penalties, it is worth considering i) how to ensure that corporations are unable to externalise the cost of fines e.g. through equity fines; and ii) the possibility of more environmental restorative methods.