Ecocide—or environmental destruction severe enough to invite that description—is neither trivial nor a “storm in a teacup.” The term has become central to an international movement seeking to criminalise the widespread or long-term destruction of ecosystems. Ecocide is not yet a separate crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, although a formal proposal to add it remains under discussion. The European Union’s revised Environmental Crime Directive already requires that severe environmental offences attract heavier penalties and states that such offences may encompass conduct comparable to ecocide. International Criminal Court Assembly report EU Environmental Crime Directive

A harrowing political and environmental storm is now gathering in Croatia. President Zoran Milanović has called the illegal dumping of waste around Gospić “ecocide.” Prime Minister Andrej Plenković’s government acknowledges the seriousness of the environmental damage and insists that remediation must be accelerated, while accusing opposition parties of spreading panic and exploiting the crisis for political advantage.

In early August 2026, Croatia’s Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime—USKOK—made available an environmental expert report and its supplement concerning the industrial complex at Bilajska 50 in Gospić. The assessment was prepared by the Faculty of Geotechnical Engineering at the University of Zagreb.

The findings are deeply disturbing.

Experts estimated that approximately 37,000 tonnes of mixed industrial or “technogenic” waste had been buried or scattered across the site. The Government has stated that about 32,000 tonnes lie underground at the former Velebit industrial complex. The material includes remnants from the processing of electrical and electronic equipment, plastics, construction and mineral materials, and some medical waste.

Not all 37,000 tonnes can be automatically classified as hazardous, as the material varies considerably in composition. Nevertheless, representative samples of buried waste displayed the hazardous property HP14—ecotoxicity—while some exposed black waste piles were classified as hazardous. The assessment also identified severe chemical contamination of the soil and degradation or loss of habitat across almost 17,800 square metres. USKOK-commissioned expert assessment

Elevated concentrations of copper, lead and antimony were detected in the soil. Even more alarming was the discovery of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances—PFAS—in groundwater downstream from the site. One downstream sample contained a combined PFAS concentration of 200.5 nanograms per litre. By comparison, the Croatian and European parametric value for the sum of twenty specified PFAS compounds in water intended for human consumption is 100 nanograms per litre.

That comparison demands an important qualification: the contaminated groundwater sample was not taken from the public drinking-water supply. The Croatian Institute of Public Health reported on 13 August that six samples taken from raw-water sources and points of public consumption in Lika-Senj County complied with the applicable standards. All PFAS compounds tested, individually and collectively, were below the laboratory’s quantification limit. Continued transparent monitoring nevertheless remains essential.

PFAS are often called “forever chemicals” because many degrade extremely slowly and can persist in water, soil and living organisms. Prolonged exposure to certain PFAS compounds has been associated with elevated cholesterol, reduced immune response, changes in liver and hormonal function, high blood pressure during pregnancy and an increased risk of some cancers. However, the mere detection of PFAS does not prove that people have been poisoned or face an immediate health emergency. Risk depends upon the particular compound, its concentration, the pathway and duration of exposure, and whether it is present in water or food actually consumed by the population. Croatian Institute of Public Health PFAS guidance

An Alleged Criminal Enterprise

The scandal became public in February 2025, when Croatian police, supported by Europol, arrested thirteen people in an international operation concerning the illegal disposal of approximately 35,000 tonnes of hazardous and medical waste. Europol estimated that the activities had generated at least €4 million.

USKOK subsequently opened an investigation into ten Croatian citizens and four companies on suspicion of involvement in a criminal association, serious environmental offences, falsification of documents, tax or customs evasion and money laundering. These remain allegations to be tested in court, and all accused persons are entitled to the presumption of innocence.

According to USKOK’s stated suspicions, an organised group imported shredded plastic and other mixed waste from Slovenia and Italy and obtained medical and other waste from Croatian suppliers. Investigators allege that the material was then buried, covered with soil and gravel, or left exposed at unauthorised sites in Varaždin, Gospić and Benkovac. False documentation was allegedly created to conceal the true movement and treatment of the waste.

Croatian media have identified Varaždin businessman Josip Šincek and his wife, Monika, associated with the company Tipos Resurs, as central suspects in the investigation. The company had obtained a county permit to manage non-hazardous waste, but investigators suspect that hazardous and mixed materials were imported or collected under the pretence that they would be recycled and were instead dumped or buried.

The investigation later widened to include questions about the issue of waste-management permits and the conduct of public officials. After former Chief State Inspector Andrija Mikulić was arrested in November 2025 in a corruption investigation, Josip Šincek reportedly alleged that Mikulić had demanded approximately €500,000 to ensure that inspectors would overlook the illegal operations. That remains an allegation, not a judicial finding, and Mikulić has denied wrongdoing.

This distinction matters. A grave environmental scandal must not become an excuse to pronounce guilt before trial. Yet allegations of administrative complicity must be investigated rigorously, particularly when such vast quantities of material could not have been transported and buried without leaving visible traces.

Citizens Say They Warned the Authorities

Residents of Gospić say those traces were impossible to miss.

Representatives of the civic initiative Gospić je naš dom—Gospić Is Our Home—maintain that citizens began reporting suspicious waste deliveries and disposal activities in 2022. They say they photographed trucks, recorded their movements and sent reports to the police, the State Inspectorate, the City of Gospić and Lika-Senj County throughout 2022, 2023 and 2024.

Those claims raise unavoidable questions. If citizens repeatedly sounded the alarm, how did thousands of tonnes of waste continue to arrive? Were warnings properly investigated? Did regulatory fragmentation, incompetence, corruption or some combination of the three allow the dumping to continue?

Corruption is a powerful enabler of environmental crime. Legal treatment of hazardous waste requires expensive specialised facilities, careful documentation and close regulatory oversight. Criminal operators can make enormous profits by disguising hazardous material as recyclable or non-hazardous waste and dumping it cheaply. When officials are bribed, negligent or administratively paralysed, environmental protection can become a high-profit, low-risk criminal enterprise.

Croatia is hardly alone in confronting that danger. Nevertheless, its history of high-level corruption cases makes the allegations surrounding Gospić especially damaging to public trust.

Remediation and Political Responsibility

The Government says it began preparing for state-funded remediation after USKOK publicly announced the case in February 2025. The Gospić site was added to Croatia’s Waste Management Plan in May 2025, providing the legal basis for the Environmental Protection and Energy Efficiency Fund to undertake the clean-up. According to the Fund, access was initially restricted due to the criminal investigation, and formal approval for remediation-related access was granted in October 2025.

A public procurement procedure for the first phase—the removal of exposed waste—was launched in February 2026 but attracted no acceptable bids. A new call is now proceeding, with a deadline of 25 August. Because Croatia has no suitable facility for disposing of the buried hazardous material, the Fund has contacted dozens of operators across Europe. The Government says it will seek to recover the remediation costs from those ultimately found responsible.

Plenković has also announced a new Waste Management Act and amendments to Croatia’s Criminal Code that would introduce an especially serious environmental offence described as ecocide.

Meanwhile, opposition parties, led principally by the SDP and Možemo, are demanding political accountability and, in some instances, the Government’s resignation or recall. The Homeland Movement, a member of the governing coalition, has proposed declaring an ecological disaster in Lika. Plenković has responded by accusing his opponents of spreading disinformation and manufacturing panic for political gain.

The opposition has every right—and a democratic duty—to scrutinise the Government, particularly when residents say they warned institutions for years. Remediation measures should not shield public authorities from legitimate questions about delayed action, regulatory failures or possible corruption.

At the same time, demands for the Government’s fall should be based upon evidence of governmental culpability, not merely upon the existence of a criminal environmental enterprise. Politicians should be judged by what they knew, when they knew it, what authority they possessed and whether they acted properly. Responsibility cannot be established through slogans.

The ecological damage in Gospić is not a storm in a teacup. It is real, extensive and potentially enduring. The partisan contest to exploit that damage without offering a better remediation plan may, however, prove to be precisely that.

Croatia now needs urgent but technically sound remediation, continuous monitoring of soil and groundwater, transparent publication of evidence, criminal accountability for those proved responsible and a full examination of how the regulatory system failed. Panic will not remove 37,000 tonnes of waste. Neither will complacency.

The public interest demands action, evidence and accountability—not political theatre.

Ina Vukic