The chapters in this anthology are based on the fourth work package of the European Union Action to Fight Environmental Crime (EFFACE) project, consisting of case studies covering a range of environmental crimes in different locations in the European Union (EU) and in places linked to the EU. They show that environmental crimes are indeed transnational, eco-global crimes (White 2011).
This book includes an overview of the legal framework concerning environmental crimes in the EU and the EUâs action plan to protect the environment and combat environmental crimes. The chapters also cover environmental crime in a broad range of geographical areas (the EU, Colombia, Brazil, UK, Norway, Kosovo, Armenia, Spain, Italy, and China) as well as a broad range of environmental crimes such as industrial pollution, illegal waste dumping, illegal and unregulated fishing, wildlife trafficking, illegal e-waste shipments, and pollution caused by mining). This bookâs case studies include both EU member states and non-EU states. Despite EFFACE being focused principally on environmental crime in the EU, we look at non-EU states because they have extensive political, social, and/or economic ties with the EU and, therefore, environmental crime in these countries directly and indirectly affects the EU. The chapters exemplify different kinds of environmental crimes, the difficulties new EU member states or states moving in that direction, for example, Kosovo, have in complying with EU standards for environmental protection like those set by the EU environmental crime directive, and how environmental laws and regulations have been enforced or not enforced. Further, they illustrate the transborder nature of environmental crime; environmental crimes that are initiated in one geographical location are not contained by borders, but the harms they cause migrate to other, disadvantaged parts of the world where environmental standards have been underprioritized in order to advance economic progress.
The case studies address the following research questions: what are the environmental crimes in question? Are they âcrimesâ from a legal perspective, and what does the legal EU framework look like? What causes these crimes to be committed, and do they take place across borders and in organized ways? Who are the offenders responsible for the harms/crimes in question? What motivates them and facilitates their action? Who are the victims and how are they victimized? If at all, how are these crimes controlled, enforced, and prevented?
This anthology exemplifies the value of interdisciplinary research because the different perspectives in it add different foci and nuances to the study of environmental crimes, for example, a focus on legal structures, state actors, or offenders and victims. The various chapters clearly show that the concept of environmental crime is not clear-cut because the harms done to the environment may be equally harmful whether the acts are criminalized or not. Legal scholars will usually rely on legal definitions to determine whether an act is an environmental crime. As noted in the EFFACE analytical framework, the terms âbreach,â âinfringement,â and âviolationâ generally refer to a breach of a legal rule, regardless of whether that rule is criminal law, administrative law, or civil law (EFFACE analytical framework). A further distinction could be drawn between a mere âoffenceâ that might be subject to certain sanctions such as a fine, and actions that result in sanctions imposed by criminal law. Legal scholars, therefore, often do not question the definition of an environmental crime but take the definitions, as given and defined by means of laws and regulations, as the point of departure. For criminologists, the definition of environmental crime is more open to debate. Within green criminology, a field that includes âthe study of those harms against humanity, against the environment including space, and against nonhuman animals committed both by powerful institutions (e.g., governments, transnational corporations, military apparatuses) and also by ordinary peopleâ (Beirne & South 2007 p. xiii), the concept of crime has been expanded beyond its legal definition. It encompasses even those harmful acts that are not legally defined as criminal, but yet are as harmful as any breach of a law or regulation (Beirne & South 2007; Lynch & Stretesky 2014; Sollund 2008; South 2008, 2014; Stretesky et al. 2013; Walters 2010; White 2007, 2013, p. 8).
When the concept of crime includes acts that are not criminalized, a normative message is conveyed. It can be perceived in light of the distinction Sykes and Matza (1957) make between crimes that are mal in se and those that are mal prohibita. In green criminology, it is acknowledged that acts that are criminalized in a legal sense are often, but not always, mal in se, but it is also acknowledged that harms that are not currently criminalizedâthus mal prohibitaâbut which may become criminalized in the near future because of their harmful effects are also mal in se. It is also acknowledged that actions that are mal in se can be criminalized on some occasions but not on others, for example, when economic interests or stakeholdersâ abuse of power take precedence (Lynch & Stretesky 2014; Sollund 2015b). While a legal approach has the advantage of a certain clarity and predictability about which acts are regarded as environmental crimesâalthough this will be subject to interpretation and discretion by the judicial system, not least, judgesâit does not characterize acts per se.
As will be shown in this book, harms are perpetrated by states, yet it is nation-states that define what is criminal, corrupt, or unjust (White 2013, p. 24). Therefore, and as stated by White, there is a need to develop the definition of crime and criteria to measure harms that are more universal, incorporating human rights, environmental rights, and animal rights.
For economists, the harms of environmental crimes will often be assessed in economic terms.
From a purely economic perspective, nature is not regarded as valuable per se, but by what it provides for humans. Nature is thus a means to an end:
Economic estimations can also successfully be applied to assess dispersal of victimization, that is, the number of victims involved and the ways in which they are affected.The benefits that nature provides to human society are known as ecosystem services. These include provisioning services, regulating services, supporting services, and cultural services. They contribute to our social and economic wellbeingâconsisting of security, the basic materials for a viable livelihood, freedom and choice, good health, and good social-cultural relationsâby providing us with food, natural fibers, a steady supply of clean water, regulation of pests and diseases, medicinal substances, recreation, and protection from natural hazards. (Millennium Assessment quoted in EFFACE Analytical framework, p. 24)
White (2013) argues for a broader and ecology-based analysis of wrongdoing because that will provide a different picture of harm than an economic analysis. This means that ecosystems and the natural environment cannot be perceived merely as ecoservice providersâbeing there for humansâand their value estimated in economic terms (Vetlesen 2015). There is no doubt that environmental crimes, illegal fishing and fishing by unregulated measures as an example, have both economic and an ecological impact. Trawls may severely harm not only fish stocks and ecosystems but also the economy, as people with the legal right to live by these fisheries suffer the consequences of depleted fish stocks and destroyed ecosystems, as in Nova Scotia (Frank et al. 2005).
Another approach is typological, listing different forms of environmental harms, for example, those types of environmental crimes that are also âtransnational environmental crimes (âŠ) undertaken by persons acting across national borders including illegal logging and timber smuggling, species smuggling, the black market in ozone depleting substances, the illegal movement of toxic and hazardous waste and other prohibited chemicals etc.â (UNEP 2013 quoted in EFFACE Analytical framework p. 13). Environmental crimes can also be divided into subcategories: ââBrownâ issues tend to be defined in terms of urban life and pollution (e.g., air quality), âgreenâ issues mainly relate to wilderness areas and conservation matters (e.g., logging practices), and âwhiteâ issues refer to science laboratories and the impact of new technologies (e.g., genetically modified organisms)â (White 2013, p. 38).
A legal approach within the area of environmental crime will often be anthropocentric; it is human interests that determine whether an act is criminalized or not, and most often human interests are also considered more important than the interests of other species or of the natural environment itself (Boyle 2006). What are usually taken into consideration are environmental justice and environmental rights as a continuation of human rights. Thus, the focus is on differences within human populations; social justice demands access to healthy and safe environments for all, no matter where, and for future generations. Environmental rights as a further development of human rights were established in the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and the Aarhus Convention:
In these statements, laws are seen to protect the environment because it is in humansâ interest, whereas ecological justice (where the main focus is on the environment and on conserving and protecting ecological well-being, for example, forests because it is intrinsically worthwhile) is downplayed. Exceptions to this are the constitutions of Ecuador and Bolivia where Mother EarthâPachamamaâis granted rights (Zaffaroni 2011). Species justice, where the main focus is on ensuring the well-being of species as a whole and individual animals, is usually not taken into consideration in environmental legislation. When legislation concerns wild animals, such as national legislation that supports the Convention on International Trades in Endangered Species (CITES) and the Bern Convention, they are not usually afforded intrinsic value. They are either preserved for the sake of biodiversity or to ensure humansâ interests in exploiting them, or they are granted protection only to the extent that species survival does not threaten humansâ interests (Sollund 2011, 2015a). Consequently, environmental crimes are often referred to as victimless crimes, even though innumerous nonhuman and human animals may suffer and die, whether from pollution, loss of habitat, as in the case caused by palm oil production in Indonesia and Colombia (Boekhout van Solinge 2008; Mol 2013), or other environmental devastation. In actuality, more than being a victimless crime, environmental crime affects victims who cannot articulate their cause because they do not speak human languages or they are vulnerable victims, indigenous women and children (Gaarder 2013). Very often, the interests that are protected in regard to environmental protection and criminalization (or lack thereof) are those of powerful corporations and states (Lynch & Stretesky 2014). Not only do such commercial interests perpetuate century-long colonialism through corporate interests, human colonization of nature and the environment parallels this exploitation (Mol 2013). Destroyed are the natural habitats of indigenous peoples (as in the Chevron case in Ecuador [Kimberling 2005]) and the ecosystems that animals depend on to survive. We are therefore confronted with a three-fold victimization: the absence of environmental justice, species justice, and ecojustice.adequate protection of the environment is essential to human wellbeing and the enjoyment of basic human rights, including the right to life itselfââŠ. âevery person has the right to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being, and the duty, both individually and in association with others, to protect and improve the environment for the benefit of present and future generations.â (here in Boyle 2006, p. 6)
Obviously, not all forms of environmental crimes, whether legally defined or not, can be covered in this anthology. Yet the chapters exemplify the difficulties connected to protecting the environment through environmental law and law enforcement alone and are concrete in describing the problems of environmental crimes and what should be done about them. T...