Transnational Environmental Crime

Rob White, Rob White

• Editorial: Routledge
• Año: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351538534
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: History
• Categoría: World History

The essays selected for this volume illustrate the growing interest in and importance of crime that is both environmental and transnational in nature. The topics covered range from pollution and waste to biodiversity and wildlife crimes, and from the violation of human rights associated with the exploitation of natural resources through to the criminogenic implications of climate change. The collection provides insight into the nature and dynamics of this type of crime and examines in detail who is harmed and what can be done about it. Differential victimisation and contemporary developments in environmental law enforcement are also considered. Collectively, these essays lay the foundations for a criminology that is forward looking, global in its purview, and that deals with the key environmental issues of the present age.

Part I
Thinking about Transnational Environmental Crime

[1]

Transnational environmental crime: exploring (un)charted territory

Lieselot Bisschop

ABSTRACT

This article focuses on transnational environmental crime. We illustrate that both an environmental and a transnational perspective are still for the most part uncharted territory in criminological theory and research, but also acknowledge that scholars have started filling the green criminological chart in recent years. Environmental crime has in fact been studied, but often in a less theoretically and methodologically profound way compared to for example street crimes. This risks painting a limited picture of contemporary crime and we therefore argue that there is a need to develop better and broader understandings of the topic. This requires research that grasps the complexity and transnational nature inherent to the phenomenon by focusing on multiple contexts, levels of analysis and actors. In this article, we try to partly fill this gap by contextualizing transnational environmental crime along three dimensions, that is to say its conceptualization, etiology and governance. We clarify what lines of thought are present for each of those dimensions and outline the (un)charted theoretical and empirical field. We illustrate this by means of two cases: waste and natural resources.

1 Introduction

Tidal wave of e-waste to developing countries¹; Not a single fish left alive in Zenne²; Gulf of Mexico oil leak worst US eco-disaster³; European Parliament bans illegal timber⁴. These are just a few of the headlines that illustrate the global significance of the environment in contemporary society. The imperiled state of the environment is repeatedly stressed in the United Nations Environment Programme, Global Environmental Outlook, International Panel on Climate Change and other reports, which point to biodiversity loss and air, water and soil pollution. The actual harm as well as the potential endangerment of environmental crime and negligence is hard to grasp, but the current ecological circumstances present immediate and future threats to both humans’ and the natural world’s health. The total value of major forms of transnational environmental crime, which refers to illegal logging and fishing, illegal trade in wildlife and ozone-depleting substances and illegal dumping of hazardous waste is estimated to be in the order of 20 to 40 billion US dollar a year (Beirne & South, 2007, p. xxi). Compared to other international crimes (e.g. drugs), the invested law enforcement resources are limited, but the environment is nevertheless increasingly a topic of concern on the agenda of international organizations, national governments, (multinational) corporations and non-governmental organizations alike, although their interpretations of and responses to the state of the ecology might differ.

Contextualized within this environmental state of affairs, this article focuses on transnational environmental crime and argues that it is still for the most part ‘uncharted territory’ in criminological theory and research. Scholars have recognized the need to fill the green criminological chart (Edwards, Edwards, & Fields, 1996; Gunningham, Norberry, & McKillop, 1995), but a need remains to develop better and broader understandings of transnational environmental crime in order for criminology to paint a more complete picture of contemporary crime (Gibbs, Gore, McGarrell, & Rivers, 2010; Halsey, 2004; South, 1998; White, 2003). This requires theoretical and empirical research that grasps the complexity and transnational nature inherent to the phenomenon (Franko Aas, 2007a; Sheptycki & Wardak, 2005). We hope to contribute to this in this article by contextualizing transnational environmental crime. We review the lines of thought reflected in the (un)charted theoretical and empirical domain.

This article consists of a literature review within green/environmental criminology, corporate/organizational criminology, conflict criminology and transnational criminology. This was supplemented by insights from public administration, environmental sociology, environmental politics, environmental law and organizational studies. By shedding light on three dimensions of transnational environmental crime, more in particular its conceptualization, etiology and governance, we make suggestions about how the remaining gaps could be remedied and point toward implications for future research. A first part of this article conceptualizes transnational environmental crime and green/environmental criminology and clarifies the sensitizing – and sometimes rather heavily debated – concepts inherent to this research field. A second part gives an overview of the etiology of transnational environmental crime, in which the ‘classical’ elements of motivation, opportunity and neutralization serve as a guideline. In a third part, we focus on the characteristics of the governance of transnational environmental crime. We illustrate each of these dimensions by means of two cases: waste and natural resources. These case outlines are not exhaustive but serve as an illustration⁵. A final part of this article provides a concluding analysis on the uncharted territory of transnational environmental crime and points towards avenues for further research.

2 Conceptualizing environmental criminology and transnational environmental crime

Criminology has documented environmental crimes and negligence, but this green perspective still lacks theoretical and methodological depth and breadth compared to other fields of criminology and the environment is also too often left for other disciplines to study (Gibbs, Gore, et al., 2010; Halsey, 2004). Since the emergence of environmental or green criminology in the last decade, there is a shift in this trend. Unfortunately, this development seems characterized by unclear conceptualizations, resulting in others questioning whether criminology is adequately equipped to deal with the topic. Both green or environmental criminology as a field of study and green or environmental crime as a phenomenon have in fact been subject to conceptual debate. We think that a focus on (transnational) environmental crime is very relevant for criminology, but confusion about the sensitizing concepts should be avoided. We therefore conceptualize both concepts with reference to insightful authors in the field and hope to overcome some of the confusion arising from the lack of common understanding of concepts.

2.1 Green/Environmental criminology

Environmental or green criminology as a field of study raises conceptual and definitional discussions. On the one hand, ‘environmental’ criminology is used in the context of ‘place-based’ criminology in the Chicago School tradition, referring to a focus on the spatial dimensions of crime. ‘Green’, on the other hand, is linked to partisan politics, but although green/environmental criminology as a field of study might have political preferences, it is independent of green parties and social movements (White, 2008, p. 7). Neither of those interpretations of ‘green’ or ‘environmental’ is therefore our focus of attention. This article is embedded in a green (Lynch, 1990, p. 3) or environmental criminological perspective which refers to the study of how, why, when and by whom environmental harm is inflicted upon humans, ecosystems and animals and to the study of issues that can be of both local and global ecological significance (Carrabine, Cox, Lee, Plummer, & South, 2009, chapter 19). It documents environmental crime in all forms (e.g. illegal logging, transportation of toxic waste, illegal dumping, poaching, etc.), looks at how environmental law is developed or enforced and also focuses on topics that are more conceptual in nature. Green or environmental criminology does not equal one particular theory, but is a perspective that harbors different ones and aims to sensitize the criminological field for environmental harm against ourselves and future generations (Halsey, 2004).

Sometimes also ‘conservation criminology’ and ‘ecoglobal criminology’ are used in order to avoid the above- mentioned conceptual confusion. Gibbs et al. (2010) argue that the conceptual framework of the former – conservation criminology – can advance current discussions about green crimes by incorporating insights from both natural resource disciplines and risk and decision sciences. White (2010c) uses the latter concept – ecoglobal criminology – to refer to the critical and multidisciplinary analysis of ecological considerations on a global scale.

These ‘green criminologies’ are all concerned about actions that harm or endanger the state of the ecology. Their detailed focus however differs, which contributes to the first conceptual debate. The second conceptual debate is about the definition of green/environmental crime, which is explained in the following paragraphs.

2.2 (Transnational) environmental crime

Although most ‘green’ scholars agree that it is necessary and legitimate for criminology to study environmental matters, a conceptual debate about what (transnational) environmental crime entails, seems intrinsic to the green criminological perspective (Halsey, 2004; Herbig & Joubert, 2006). Simply put, green⁶ or environmental crimes are crimes against the environment (Carrabine, Iganski, Lee, Plummer, & South, 2004; McLaughlin & Muncie, 2006, pp. 146-147), but what those crimes against the environment entail and what they do not, constitutes the second conceptual debate inherent to our transnational environmental crime focus.

In order to cover the entire definition of transnational environmental crime, we first mention that ‘transnational’ refers to transgressions of regional and national boundaries. These transferences involve processes and trends that constitute a movement of perpetrators, victims or the crime itself between levels or geographies, and are therefore inherently linked to globalization, making it difficult to track the movement of crime and to understand its occurrence, causes, let alone responses to it (Franko Aas, 2007a).

It is difficult to determine whether behavior gets a criminal label and defining ‘crime’ is therefore a process of constant debate. Moreover, ‘environment’ is not easily defined either, because it involves an inherent value judgement. In the following, we review the definitions of environmental crime found in literature, illustrating the slippery slope the environmental crime concept is on.

Similar to broader discussions about crime definitions, the conceptual debate inherent to environmental crime is about whether the gaze should move beyond mere criminal notions of crime (White, 2009). When the gaze is broadened beyond criminal notions of crimes, it thus accounts for environmentally harmful actions that might not be subject to criminal law and might thus not be seen as a burden like conventional crimes (Sutherland, 1961; Tombs, 2008). There are actual criminal law references for environmental issues, but mostly it involves administrative or civil law. This refers to offences such as licensing breaches that are not subject to criminal law, but are subject to administrative or civil proceedings. According to many green criminologists, these regulatory offences should be called crimes even when they are not criminal in conventional terms. Moreover, these scholars use the concept of harm for a wider variety of injuries and degradations with regard to the misuse, use and poor management of the environment and natural resources (Heckenberg, 2008, p. 12). According to them, a distinction between criminal and illegal is not a useful indicator of harmfulness, but a mere social construction (Lynch & Stretesky, 2003). Some ecologically detrimental acts may in fact be endemic to our 21st century society and therefore not perceived as such (White, 2003). Trade laws sometimes allow the exploitation of nature for consumption and production purposes. Forest industry, agro-industry and bio-technology in fact provide examples of how industrial processes (unintendedly) contribute to the depletion of natural resources. Within a green criminological perspective, it is therefore argued that it is important to make transparent...