The Rise of Ecocide Law: A New Chapter in Environmental Accountability?

Sophie Dembinski, Head of Global Public Policy and of the UK and Americas at Ecosia, paints the progression of ecocide legislation internationally and highlights the potential impact of this for businesses.

Across the world, governments and lawmakers are exploring new legal tools to protect the environment. Among the most significant of these developments is the recognition of ‘ecocide’, broadly defined as severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment, committed with knowledge of its likely consequences.

What was once a campaign issue at the margins of international law is now gaining real legislative traction.

In recent years, momentum has gathered across multiple jurisdictions. The European Union has adopted a revised Environmental Crime Directive that explicitly includes “ecocide-type” offences as among the most serious crimes against the environment. Belgium has already legislated to criminalise ecocide at the national level, while France and Chile are progressing their own frameworks. Scotland has opened parliamentary discussions on potential inclusion of ecocide within Scots law, and Mexico, Brazil, and Italy have also tabled proposals. Meanwhile, a coalition of small island nations, led by Vanuatu, Fiji and Samoa, has called for the inclusion of ecocide within the remit of the International Criminal Court.

These moves suggest that ecocide is no longer a symbolic concept but an emerging legal reality. The question is no longer whether it should exist, but what purpose such a law could serve in addition to existing environmental regulations?

Why is a new international legal framework emerging?

Traditional environmental laws tend to be reactive, focusing on liability and restoration after harm has already occurred. By contrast, ecocide law is designed to be preventative, to deter large-scale environmental destruction before it happens. It reflects a growing recognition that the global scale and pace of ecological degradation now demand stronger safeguards than existing civil or administrative systems provide.

The rationale is simple but powerful. If the destruction of ecosystems threatens the stability of economies, societies and human well-being, then preventing that destruction becomes a matter of both justice and long-term resilience. The proposal for an ecocide law therefore seeks to embed environmental protection within the highest level of accountability, placing the most egregious acts of environmental harm on par with other international crimes.

The growing numbers of supporters from states, business and civil society argue that this approach fills a critical gap. Current laws often address pollution or habitat loss through fines or remediation orders, which can be absorbed as a cost of doing business. Criminalising ecocide, by contrast, targets intent and negligence at the decision-making level, whether within corporations or governments. It also has a symbolic role, reframing nature as something to which humans owe duties of care, rather than merely a set of resources to be managed.

National approaches and practical implications

Each country that has taken steps toward recognising ecocide has done so in a slightly different way.

France, for example, adopted ecocide legislation in 2021 as part of its Climate and Resilience Law. The measure criminalises acts that cause “serious and lasting damage” to ecosystems and carries potential prison sentences and substantial fines for offenders. Although the French definition is narrower than some international campaign groups had hoped, its inclusion in national law marked a major milestone, establishing a clear precedent within a G7 economy that environmental harm can constitute a criminal offence.

Belgian lawmakers have gone further. In early 2024, the Belgian Parliament voted to recognise ecocide both nationally and internationally, explicitly aligning with the proposed international definition drafted by the Stop Ecocide Foundation. Belgium’s approach allows for corporate as well as individual liability, highlighting how future legislation might extend beyond individual actors to the governance systems that enable environmental damage.

Chile offers another perspective. The country’s debate on ecocide has been closely tied to broader constitutional and rights-of-nature reforms. Although constitutional reforms failed, Chile’s criminal code was updated to include elements of ecocide law under economic crimes, including acts with serious adverse effects on the environment. The Chilean example illustrates the relevance of environmental protection to economic activity.

A global shift toward resilience and prevention

The emergence of ecocide law coincides with a wider shift in global thinking about environmental and economic resilience, key areas of focus in the run up to Belem in November 2025, as highlighted by the COP30 Presidency. As tipping points are reached, climate impacts intensify and supply chains face greater volatility from ecosystem degradation, the business case for preventative, forward-looking governance is growing stronger. As a result, a growing number of businesses and financial institutions are calling for such a law to be introduced at the international level.

For businesses, this does not signal an imminent wave of prosecutions. Rather, companies that already undertake robust environmental due diligence, adopt nature-positive strategies, and engage transparently with stakeholders may find themselves better positioned as legal and investor expectations evolve.

At a systemic level, ecocide law points to a changing landscape of accountability – one which prioritises economic and planetary stability. By discouraging high-risk activities that could undermine the natural systems underpinning economies, such as deforestation, ocean destruction, or toxic waste dumping, it aims to reinforce the conditions for long-term prosperity. In this sense, it can be seen as a measure to build resilience into both environmental and economic systems.

A global legal turning point?

While it remains to be seen how broadly ecocide law will be adopted – further consultation with business is required to ensure the definition provides legal certainty and reassures that legitimate economic activities are not unduly constrained – growing numbers of supporters counter that the scale of environmental loss requires a stronger deterrent than current legal frameworks provide.

It is clear that the conversation around ecocide has moved decisively into mainstream policy and legal debate. As countries experiment with new forms of accountability, the concept is beginning to shape expectations of environmental governance well beyond the courtroom. Whether or not it becomes a universal norm, ecocide law is already influencing how societies understand the responsibilities of governments, corporations and individuals toward the planet.

The emergence of ecocide legislation represents an important step in the evolution of environmental law, one that reflects both the urgency of the ecological crisis and the search for legal mechanisms capable of preventing harm before it becomes irreversible. As the conversation continues across Europe, Latin America and beyond, it provides an opportunity to test the ambition of global businesses and institutions in recognising that the health of the natural world is inseparable from the resilience of our economies.