Crimes Against Nature

Environmental Criminology and Ecological Justice

Rob White

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9781134733484
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

Crimes Against Nature provides a systematic account and analysis of the key concerns of green criminology, written by one of the leading authorities in the field. The book draws upon the disciplines of environmental studies, environmental sociology and environmental management as well as criminology and socio-legal studies, and draws upon a wide range of examples of crimes against the environment – ranging from toxic waste, logging, wildlife smuggling, bio-piracy, the use and transport of ozone depleting substances through to illegal logging and fishing, water pollution and animal abuse.

The book is divided into three parts: Part 1 sets out theoretical approaches and perspectives on the subject; Part 2 explores the (national and international) dimensions of environmental crime and the explanations for it; Part 3 deals with the range of responses to environmental crime - environmental law enforcement, regulation, environmental crime prevention and the role of global institutions and movements.

Part I
Green Theoretical Perspectives

Chapter 1

Criminology and environmental harm

The link between environmental issues and criminology finds its expression in environmental or green criminology, itself a development that has arisen from advances and concerns from outside the field as such. In this relatively new area of research and scholarship the concern is to stretch the boundaries of mainstream criminology to accommodate issues of global significance, while also utilising the insights of conventional criminology to illuminate ways in which to understand and to respond to environmental harm.

Introduction

Environmental issues dominate media headlines today and are forcing many people to re-evaluate their day-to-day practices as citizens, as workers, as parents and as members of communities. So, too, concern about the environment is now starting to have greater resonance within the criminal justice field, albeit in a still fairly modest fashion. Within this context of social and professional concern about environmental matters we have also seen in recent years the emergence of a distinctly ‘green’ criminology.

The aim of this book is to consider the key concerns, concepts and conundrums of environmental or green criminology. The intention is to explore and to question, to initiate and to summarise, to provoke and to stimulate. The book as a whole is meant to develop further this particular approach to criminological study.

The book is based on work undertaken specifically on environmental crime over the last fifteen years or so. It incorporates current research and scholarship that spans diverse disciplines and fields. It is also based on an appreciation that there are pressing issues that ought to be of more central concern to criminologists. Hence the book offers something ‘old’, something ‘new’, and a guide to that which still requires critical scrutiny and practical action.

The book deals with specific issues that pertain to the nature of and responses to environmental harm. These particular crimes against nature include a wide variety of transgressions against humans, against environments, and against nonhuman animals. The book also deals with broad agendas, in the sense of trying to apply and generate conceptual understandings of harm, victimisation, law enforcement and social regulation that are relevant for a criminological approach to environmental issues. The combination of, and dialectic between, practical example and theoretical conceptualisation is essential to mapping out the terrain occupied by green criminology.

This chapter describes three frameworks that inform how green criminologists conceptualise the nature of the problem – what they see as most important for analysis and action, and which thus shape their conceptions of harm and criminality. It begins by discussing the broad approach taken in green or environmental criminology, followed by a discussion of how, in abstract terms, ecophilosophy shapes and informs how ‘harm’ itself is conceptualised. The main part of the chapter elaborates on three distinct approaches to the study of environmental harm, one based on notions of environmental justice, one on ecological justice, and one on species justice or animal rights. The chapter then briefly outlines some of the key tasks of a green or environmental criminology. It concludes with a discussion of ‘where to from here’ for environmental criminology, as a lead in to the rest of the book.

For some readers this chapter may seem a bit ‘hard going’. This is because it deals with issues of a more abstract theoretical nature than other chapters in the book. However, as demonstrated in this chapter, philosophy is always the driver of action: it is intertwined with how we perceive the world around us, our location in this world, and what we feel ought to be done to preserve or make the world a better place. The environmental issues that we think matter most, and the issues which become transformed into environmental problems, are shaped by different understandings of the nature–human nexus. To investigate environmental harm, therefore, we need to first explore core concepts and overarching perspectives relating to the relationship between humans and ‘nature’. This provides a foundation for the discussions to follow in later chapters that deal with specific environmental crimes and harms, and societal responses to these.

While philosophy is the driver of action, it is the material reality of environmental harm that is the impetus to action. That is, the scale and scope of many of our environmental problems is now so huge, and the evidence so incontrovertible, that we cannot ignore them. The reality of environmental degradation confronts us daily, in the form of oil spills, air pollution, energy crisis and inadequate drinking water. Furthermore, scientists have provided substantial objective confirmation of our personal anxieties and subjective concerns. Global and local analysis, selective and systematic sampling, and snap-shot and longitudinal studies drawing from many different scientific disciplines have collectively, and conclusively, demonstrated that the well-being of planet Earth is indeed imperilled (United Nations Environment Programme 2007). It is the science of climate change that likewise has formed the basis for extrapolating the economic and social consequences of environmental problems (Stern 2007). What is happening to the biosphere, to species generally, and to humans specifically, is measurable, scientifically. Debate may occur over particular methodologies and over specific claims, but the sheer weight of evidence pertaining to issues such as global warming means that no one can now seriously dispute its existence and pressing nature.

What to do about environmental trends, issues and problems is, however, the source of considerable debate. In political terms, this is apparent in the reluctance of the United States and Australia to ratify the Kyoto Protocol relating to the reduction of greenhouse gases. Everyone agrees that a problem exists; differences arise, however, over how best to tackle it and whose interests are to be preserved or privileged in the process. This is not about science, it is about philosophy and values, power and interests. For example, it was a change in government that led Australia to finally ratify Kyoto, not new scientific evidence. Yet, the impetus to sign was provided by objective evidence of climate change.

More generally, the level of harm that is deemed to be acceptable or unacceptable always involves some combination of scientific knowledge and values-based judgement. Environmental issues are interpreted through the lens of philosophy, even though the material basis for understanding lies in direct experience and scientific experiment. Responding to environmental harm likewise incorporates different perspectives on the nature–human relationship, conflicts over values and interests, and contested notions as to what is considered the ‘best of all worlds’. For a criminology that deals with environmental issues this makes the task all that much more complicated and challenging.

Environmental / green criminology

Before beginning our exploration, it is necessary to say a word or two about terminology. While the descriptions ‘green criminology’ and ‘environmental criminology’ can be used interchangeably, in other contexts they can also refer to distinct areas of criminological inquiry that are quite separate from each other (see Box 1.1). For the reasons outlined, this book will use them as synonymous or equivalent terms.

Box 1.1 What’s in a name?

The term ‘green criminology’ was first coined by Lynch in 1990 (Lynch 1990) and has now been widely accepted as describing criminological work that focuses specifically on issues pertaining to environmental harm (see Beirne and South 2007; South and Beirne 2006). Another related formulation has been ‘conservation criminology’ (see Herbig and Joubert 2006). In each instance, the main concern has been to focus criminological attention on issues of environmental importance. To some extent, the choice of words has also been used to distinguish this focus from another strand of criminology that (likewise) is referred to as ‘environmental criminology’.

The latter refers to a particular kind of urban study and crime mapping, in essence the linking of urban environments to specific types of crimes (see Brantingham and Brantingham 1981). This type of environmental criminology has been interested in the spatial and temporal dimensions of crime, usually within an urban setting, and frequently related to particular types of crime prevention measures and agendas. The emphasis has been on modifying urban environments, through better lighting for instance or better sightlines on public walkways, in order to decrease fear of crime and improve public safety. This type of criminology likewise has a range of related titles: situational crime prevention, planning for defensible space, crime prevention through environmental design, pattern theory and so on (see Schneider and Kitchen 2002). Moreover, there is some suggestion within these circles that the term ‘environmental’ should perhaps be deleted in favour of less encompassing yet more precise terminology – such as ‘place-based crime prevention’.

There are also several reasons why ‘green criminology’, likewise, needs to rethink its particular label. For instance, in many jurisdictions there are now green parties. These are formal political entities that contest democratic elections and that in many places have elected representatives to local, State and national governing bodies. A dilemma with using the word ‘green’, as in green criminology, is that such work may inadvertently be considered politically partisan – that is, aligned with a particular political group or party.

Exponents of green criminology make it clear that, while philosophically aligned to social and ecological justice, this does not reduce down to any particular social and political organisation. Environmental social movements and distinct green political parties may be fellow travellers politically, but the brief of green criminology goes well beyond these particular projects and includes agendas and issues that may not be pursued by any one particular group. To put it differently, environmental or green criminology may have a specific political flavour, but it is nonpartisan and ‘independent’ of direct organisational links to green parties and social movement groups such as Greenpeace. Green criminology, in other words, does not present as the intellectual wing of the green parties, although it may well inform the policies and practices of the Greens, amongst other political formations. It is not tied to any one political organisation.

For these and other reasons, it has been suggested that perhaps the term ‘conservation criminology’ be adopted (Herbig and Joubert 2006). This refers to study of ‘natural resource crime’, with a major theme being ‘conservation’. However, the classification of crime using this framework is ambiguous and implicitly assumes a particularly narrow understanding of ‘resources’ as well seeming to ignore the dynamic and changing character of ‘nature’. The natural world is somehow seen to stand outside the human world, and the interplay between the two remains largely unexplained. Yet the attempt to produce a new classification pertaining to natural resource crime mirrors the work of other criminologists who share concern about environmental-related harms.

Given that a broad generic use of the word ‘environment’ can also encapsulate urban environmental analysis as well as wider issues pertaining to environmental harm, the position adopted herein is that it is time to reclaim ‘environmental criminology’ as a descriptor for the work described in this book. This also reflects a concern to utilise a more politically neutral term than otherwise may be the case. Accordingly, the terms ‘green criminology’ and ‘environmental criminology’ will be used interchangeably in the context of the work described in this book, reflecting both the state of existing work in this area and its elaboration into the future.

Green or environmental criminology basically refers to the study of environmental harm, environmental laws and environmental regulation by criminologists. There is a growing network of criminologists across the English-speaking world working in this area, as evidenced in recent book collections (Beirne and South 2007; South and Beirne 2006) and special editions of journals such as Social Justice, Theoretical Criminology and Current Issues in Criminal Justice (Williams 1996; South 1998; White 2005a). Even those who purport to be ‘against green criminology’ (Halsey 2004) can be considered part of the deliberations surrounding how criminologists approach the study of environmental issues.

The interests of green criminology incorporate specific incidents and events, often within defined geo-political areas, through to issues of global magnitude. Whatever the scale or the type of environmental harm, these are matters of great public importance and criminological concern. A keen motivator for this interest is to try to predict and to prevent disaster and degradation from happening, since these are capable of destroying specific life forms and, indeed, life on the planet generally. The concept of ‘ecology’ refers to the complex interactions of nonhuman nature, including its abiotic components (air, water, soils) and its biotic components (plants, animals, fungi, bacteria). Humans are implicated in these interactions as the relationship between humans and the environment is crucial to understanding how environments change over time, for better or for worse (Merchant 2005). For criminologists, ecological considerations go to the heart of many conceptualisations of environmental harm.

Case study 1.1 Specific ecological catastrophe

In mid-November 2007 a major storm in the Strait of Kerch, south of Ukraine near the Black Sea, led to the sinking or running aground of some ten ships. At least three sailors died, and a number of others went missing, presumed dead. A tanker broke apart in the heavy seas. More than 30,000 birds were killed by the thousands of tons of oil that leaked from the tanker. No one knows how many fish and other marine creatures died. Concerns were expressed about the environmental impact of oil globs that in winter could drop to the seabed below (The Australian 2007).

As illustrated in Case study 1.1, environmental harm can be specific and localised. Given the particular circumstances surrounding their advent, such events can also be prevented or minimised through the taking of suitable precautions. Environmental harm can also be universal and globalised in nature, as shown in the next case study. The solutions here are less apparent and certain to be far reaching.

Case study 1.2 Global ecological catastrophe

The fourth Global Environment Outlook, a report compiled by the United Nations Environment Programme, was released in November 2007. A central finding of the report is that each human being now requires one-third more land to supply their needs than the planet can provide. That is, humanity’s ecological footprint is 29.1 hectares per person, while the world’s biological capacity is on average only 15.7 hectares per person. The result is net environmental degradation and loss, and things are getting worse rather than better. In essence, environmental problems, across all areas, are now at the stage where they are a threat to humanity’s survival (United Nations Environment Programme 2007; see also Powell 2007: 28).

The development of environmental criminology over the last twenty years or so has led to new interests, new conceptualisations and new techniques of analysis. This is because there is increasing acknowledgement of the problem of environmental degradation and destruction, and the relevance of this to traditional criminological concerns with social injury and social regulation. There is also greater awareness of the interconnectedness of social and environmental issues, such that matters relating to poverty, health, indigenous people’s rights, exploitation of nonhuman nature, corporate business misdealings, state corruption and so on are seen in many instances to be inseparable. As well, there is recognition of the need for multidisciplinary approaches to the study of environmental harm, involving cooperation between different ‘experts’, and different areas of academic expertise.

These kinds of observations and interrelationships are forcing many of us to rethink the social and natural universe, to reconceptualise the relationship between humans and nature in ways that accord greater weight to the nonhuman when it comes to assessing issues such as environmental harm. In practical terms, this translates into new and overlapping domains ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of boxes, case studies and figures
• Preface
• Part I Green Theoretical Perspectives
• Part II Environmental Crime
• Part III Responding to Environmental Harm
• References
• Index