Crime against nature? Marian Liebmann and Mike Nellis on ecocide

‘Is it time to be more committed?’

Friends have rightly been wary of criminalisation as a means of addressing socially harmful behaviour when other forms of resolution can be used instead. We oppose criminalisation which uses state power to erode democracy and suppress dissent. But we are not against criminalisation when it is based on the gravity of a particular harm, and a desire to prevent it happening. For instance, we have welcomed recent laws against drink-driving, smoking in public buildings, stalking, and rape within marriage.

ternational campaign is underway to this effect. The campaign arose from a concern that certain nation states and corporations, in pursuit of economic growth and commercial profit, were inflicting environmental damage on such a scale that they were doing lasting harm to vital ecosystems and habitats, and doing so with impunity.  Environmental resources are valuable, and integral to our collective human wellbeing and future, so their protection and restoration is warranted. 

An independent panel of experts was commissioned to formulate a legal definition of ecocide. It called it ‘unlawful or wanton acts committed with the knowledge that there is substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts’. Paradoxically, there is already a crime of severe damage to the environment during armed conflict, but not in peacetime.

Any new law brings in its wake penalties for breaching it. A law against ecocide could result in the imprisonment of organisations’ CEOs, or heavy fines (as already happens in some cases of pollution). But it could also include compensation and other restorative measures to put things right, including the voices of victims and commitments on future behaviour.

The panel’s persuasive work has led to widespread endorsements. The Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches have done this. The EU is criminalising ‘cases comparable to ecocide’, and the Netherlands, Belgium, Brazil, Spain (Catalunya), Italy and Mexico are developing ecocide bills; Scotland is consulting on the subject. Quakers in England and Wales have been supportive but have not formally endorsed the campaign. Is it time to be more committed?

In Australasia, John Braithwaite has developed ways of combining restorative justice with ‘responsive regulation’, with a pyramid of escalating options. Deterrence and incapacitation are necessary options, but they do not usually deliver the best results – these are usually reached by restorative means, involving reparations and measures to prevent future harms.

So a law on ecocide could help establish the norms and values of the environment, with a framework of options to include restorative justice. We hope Quakers will take a positive role in supporting this.

---

Comments

Please login to add a comment