SCHOOL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY

General Luna Road, Baguio City Philippines 2600

Telefax No.: (074) 442-3071 Website: www.ubaguio.edu E-mail Address: ub@ubaguio.edu

REPORT FOR PHDCCG1 - CONTEMPORARY THEORIES IN CRIMINOLOGY

TOPIC NUMBER: Topic 7
TOPIC TITLE:GREEN AND SPECIES CRIMINOLOGY
I. Executive Summary
Environmental crime is now becoming a serious problem in many ways around the world, some of
which are one of the most profitable criminal activities in the world. The most common crimes
against the environment are related to the illegal exploitation, pollution, waste disposal and trade of
wildlife. INTERPOL considers it to be the third largest illegal business in the world after drugs and
guns. Wildlife trade poses a serious threat to the survival of biodiversity. There are several people
involved in this crime, but consumers are the most important. Because in the black market there is
no longer any supply and high prices that people have to pay for it, this crime will disappear. This
article reviews the history of green criminology, including its rationale and definition. It then
analyzes the variety of green victims, including direct ecological harms and indirect harms to
human and non-human species. It also discusses the primary kinds of direct environmental harms
such as air, land, water, mining and timber crimes, as well as the issue of green policies with
respect to efforts to reduce environmental pollution and toxins. Also This paper will discuss the
different theories that will relate to the green and species criminology.

Green criminology addresses forms of crime that harm the environment but are often ignored in
criminological research. Green crimes cause both direct and indirect forms of harm, the former of
which affect the ecosystem and the latter a consequence of direct harms. Compared to criminal
harms, green crimes and harms are much more widespread. Policies intended to control crime and
address biases in law and law enforcement must incorporate green criminology in order to reduce
environmental pollution. There are 2 schools of thought regarding green crime: traditional and
contemporary. Traditional green criminology focuses on green crime which has by definition
broken environmental law. They are interested with regulations concerning the environment. Situ
and Emmons (2000) define environmental crime as “an unauthorized act or omission that violates
the law”. It investigates the patterns and causes of law breaking. These sociologists are
structuralist sociologists and positivists in methodology. For these theorists, because criminal law
is relative to each country, the same harmful environmental action may not be a crime in one
country to the next. Legal definitions cannot provide a consistent standardization of the harm.
Definitions of green crime are tangled in political processes. Cultural sociologists have developed a
global perspective on environmental harm.

Green criminology was originally proposed as a political economic approach for the study of
environmental harm, crime, law and justice, there are now several varieties of green criminology
such as Political economy, environmental justice, and the treadmill of production approach; Non-
species and nonhuman animal studies; Bio-piracy and eco-crimes; Ecocide; Eco-global
criminology; Green-cultural criminology and Conservation criminology. Green criminology is
interdisciplinary and therefore has no unique theory or preferred theoretical approach. Moreover, a
significant portion of the Green Criminology literature is qualitative and descriptive, and these
studies generally do not propose their own or unified theory. Despite this general lack of
singularity theory, some of the above approaches show a particular theoretical preference. There
are many sources of theoretical influence that might be drawn upon in the shaping of a green
perspective in criminology. This is legitimate and inevitable and perhaps the ‘recycling’ of ideas
and insights seems particularly appropriate for a ‘green’ criminology.

Note: Citation is required in all parts of the paper.

II. Introduction

There are many areas where criminology can provide knowledge and expertise of relevance to socio-legal responses
to
environmental harm. Environmental victimology provides insights into the nature and extent of suffering experienced
by individuals and groups, not just from instances of environmental harm but also from engaging (or failing to engage)
with legal and political systems when seeking redress. Crime prevention theory can be taken from its original context of
'street' crime and applied to environmental crimes. Policing and punishment studies have much to tell us about how
best to enforce environmental laws deal with those found guilty of environmental crimes.

Since the early 1990s, when first proposed by Lynch (1990), ‘green criminology’ has been concerned with
 SCHOOL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY
General Luna Road, Baguio City Philippines 2600
Telefax No.: (074) 442-3071 Website: www.ubaguio.edu E-mail Address: ub@ubaguio.edu

environmental crimes and harms affecting human and non‐human life, ecosystems, and the planet as a whole. Since
then, green criminologists have devoted most of their attention to illuminating and describing different types of
environmental harm. Most writers within the green criminology perspective concentrate on exposing specific types of
criminal or harmful environmental actions or omissions. In doing so they provide detailed descriptions and analyses of
phenomena such as the illegal trade of animals, illegal logging, dumping of toxic waste, air pollution, and threats to
biodiversity.

Green criminology addresses forms of crime that harm the environment but are often ignored in criminological
research. Green crimes cause both direct and indirect forms of harm, the former of which affect the ecosystem and the
latter a consequence of direct harms. Compared to criminal harms, green crimes and harms are much more
widespread. Policies intended to control crime and address biases in law and law enforcement must incorporate green
criminology in order to reduce environmental pollution.

Green crime is defined as crime against the environment. Green crime is linked to globalization and the idea of
transnational boundaries. Regardless of the division of nation states, the planet is one unified eco-system which is
global rather than local. Therefore, green crime goes beyond political borders. Green crimes include air pollution, water
pollution, deforestation, species decline and the dumping of hazardous waste.

Beck (1992) argues that society today is a global risk society. This means that risks in the modern era are ‘man-made’
or ‘manufactured risks’, and so we cannot predict the consequences of these, e.g. global warming. This links in with
the idea that individuals have adopted ‘risk consciousness’. Green crime is therefore on the socio-political agenda.
Green Criminology can be defined as a framework of intellectual, empirical and political orientations toward primary
and secondary harms, offences and crimes that impact in a damaging way on the natural environment, diverse species
(human and non-human) and the planet. Introducing such a green or environmentally sensitive framework into
criminology does not set out any one particular theory but rather introduces a perspective (South1998a) which can
inform theoretical and empirical work.

The term has acquired a function as an umbrella category but it is not subscribed to by all engaged in similar work nor
is it necessarily the best title or label for this field of study. For example, as White (2008) has argued, the term
‘environmental criminology’ could be reclaimed from what might more properly be considered ‘place-based
criminology’, to cover the study of environmental harms and threats, environmental legislation and related research
activity. White (2010: 6) has also offered the term, ‘eco-global criminology’, to ‘refer to a criminological approach that is
informed by ecological considerations and by acritical analysis that is worldwide in its scale and perspective ...’. In a
related vein, Walters has suggested that the term ‘eco-crime’ is helpful and capable of encapsulating ‘existing legal
definitions of environmental crime, as well as sociological analyses of those environmental harms not necessarily
specified by law’ (Walters 2010: 180).

He continues: When eco-crime is contextualized within notions of harm we can observe a broadening of the gaze
beyond legal terrains to include discourses on risk, rights and regulation. As a result, eco-crime extends existing
definitions of environmental crime to include licensed or lawful acts of ecological degradation committed by states and
corporations. Other formulations include ‘conservation criminology’, concerned with developing inter-disciplinary,
evidence-based practice to address environmental crimes and risks, and seeking to integrate criminology, criminal
justice, conservation, natural resource management and risk and decision science (Gibbs et al. 2010). This may be
positioned close to aspatial or situational crime prevention approach to law enforcement and conservation challenges
such as wildlife trafficking and poaching of endangered species (Wellsmith2010; Lemieux and Clarke 2009).A working
definition of green criminology, embracing the spirit and focus of all of the above, might be to view it as a perspective
which, while transcending the conventional ambit of criminology, addresses the large array of legitimate or illegitimate
conducts harming the environment and the species inhabiting it.

Environmental crime is now becoming a serious problem worldwide in different forms, with some of them being among
the most profitable criminal activities in the world. The most common crimes against the environment are connected
with the unlawful exploitation of wild fauna and flora, pollution, waste disposal and its trade. Regarded by the Interpol
as the third largest illegal business in the world –after drug and arms trafficking –wild animal traffic raises a serious
threat for the world´s biodiversity survival. We can find several actors involved in this crime, but consumers are among
the most important ones as this crime would disappear if supply and the high prices that people get to pay for them on
the black market ceased to exist. As a creepy side-note, the more endangered the species is, the higher the price is for
it. The most requested species are tropical birds (parrots, macaws, etc.), reptiles (serpents, crocodiles, etc.), arachnids
(some types of tarantulas), monkeys (capuchins, chimpanzees, lemurs), and so forth. But animal trafficking does not
only intend to sell them as company animals; we also find such serious cases like the sale of elephants´ or
rhinoceroses´ ivory on the black market, used to make decoration items and/or in traditional Chinese medicine.

Main cause of deforestation. The Amazon destruction –the largest rainforest in the world –speeded up in 2013 at a
29% rise in deforestation, according to the Brazilian government. The uncontrolled logging to get wood for furniture or
other goods –or even for farm lands –is the most serious cause of this environmental crime. Other lands –like the
Indonesian forests –disappear because of excessive palm oil cultivations.

When it comes to technology, Electronic waste mismanagement is the most alarming. In the so-called developed
countries there are up to 50 million tons of electronic waste every year (computers, TV sets, mobile phones,
appliances, etc.). And up to 75% of all these is estimated to leave the official circuit and a good deal of them to be
 SCHOOL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY
General Luna Road, Baguio City Philippines 2600
Telefax No.: (074) 442-3071 Website: www.ubaguio.edu E-mail Address: ub@ubaguio.edu

illegally exported to Africa, China or India. It is the case of Ghana´s rubbish dump, a large electronic waste dump
coming from the West. Even though the export of this dangerous waste, including the electronic one, is banned in
some places, like for example in the EU since 1992, a very good deal of this rubbish, which should be treated, ends up
in these remote places polluting it all. We can thus work by demanding governments that they should take recycling
measures adjusted to our production and consumption rate, so that they will not end up as polluting rubbish dumps
anywhere in the world.
Dumping in rivers and aquifers also problem around the world. This kind of environmental crime is most often caused
by companies, factories and Public Administrations. Faecal and toxic waste coming from factories is usually dumped in
a controlled way, but this is not always the case. In these cases waste is uncontrollably released into the environment,
while at the same time polluting rivers, lakes aquifers, etc. This is a very serious crime because not only does it cause
the local wildlife to die or get ill but also, as a result of the water leaking into the soil, it finds its way to pollute the
surrounding flora as well, affecting the food chain. There are many ways to avoid this waste-dumping problem, such as
using sewage collectors or sewage plants, among others.

This article reviews the history of green criminology, including its rationale and definition. It then analyzes the variety of
green victims, including direct ecological harms and indirect harms to human and non-human species. It also
discusses the primary kinds of direct environmental harms such as air, land, water, mining and timber crimes, as well
as the issue of green policies with respect to efforts to reduce environmental pollution and toxins. Also This paper will
discuss the different theories that will relate to the green and species criminology.

This report will discuss the different approach that concerns the green and species criminology as well as theory that
will make the readers understand how environment crimes affect the people and how it may victimize the people. This
paper focus on green criminology’s relationship with theory with the aim of describing some of its animating features
and offering some suggestions for green criminology’s further emergence. In so doing, it also examine green
criminology’s intra‐disciplinary theoretical engagement and the notion of applying different meanings and
interpretations to established theory. Following this paper, it will explore green criminology’s interface with theories and
ideas outside criminology what refer to as green criminology’s extra‐disciplinary theoretical engagement.
III. Discussion

Between around 1990 and the end of that decade a number of scholars around the world began to write and
communicate about a range of issues and concerns that reflected engagement with the environment, broadly defined,
and what could be identified as an emerging ‘green’ criminology (Lynch 1990; Beirne 1995; Halsey and White 1998;
South1998a; South et al. 2013). A green perspective can be appropriately and accurately described as ‘emergent’ in
criminology at this time in several ways suggested by any dictionary definition of the term. Although it has been
acknowledged from its earliest statements that a green criminology does not represent ‘an entirely new perspective or
orientation within criminology’, for ‘a number of criminologists have examined various environmental hazards and
crimes’ (Lynch 1990: 3), its impact lies in building upon such past work on criminal and neglectful actions affecting the
environment (South and Beirne2006; White 2009) while, at the same time, achieving a new and original profile as it
has‘ come into view, existence, or notice’.

Green criminological research, as it has developed, covers environmental harms (noting‘ harm’ is used as a broader
descriptor than ‘crime’, as defined in strictly legal definitions),environmental laws (criminal and civil, applied via the
criminal justice system, enforcement measures and court proceedings, prosecution and sentencing) and environmental
regulation (systems and processes in place to protect and preserve specified environments and species, and to
monitor and control sources of pollution and other damaging environmental impacts) (White 2008, 2011). In the
following sections we outline various developments and dimensions in ‘green criminology’, consider some relevant
debates and controversies, outline connections with other areas of analysis within critical criminology and provide an
illustrative case study focused on crimes and harms to the environment associated with the oil industry. We conclude
with some critical observations on where directions in theory, policy and practice may need to turn.

There are 2 schools of thought regarding green crime: traditional and contemporary.

Traditional green criminology focuses on green crime which has by definition broken environmental law. They are
interested with regulations concerning the environment. Situ and Emmons (2000) define environmental crime as “an
unauthorized act or omission that violates the law”. It investigates the patterns and causes of law breaking. These
sociologists are structuralist sociologists and positivists in methodology. For these theorists, because criminal law is
relative to each country, the same harmful environmental action may not be a crime in one country to the next. Legal
definitions cannot provide a consistent standardization of the harm. Definitions of green crime are tangled in political
processes. Cultural sociologists have developed a global perspective on environmental harm.

Concept of Green Criminology

One common principle is that a green criminology should be an inter- and multi-disciplinary rendezvous point
(involving, for example, political science, economics, psychology, organization theory as well as conservation and
environmental sciences): a coming together of related work—the expression of the zeitgeist anxious about global
warming and environmental degradation. Importantly, this is an ‘open’ framework. For many it originates from within
the tradition(s) of critical criminology but it is also fitting that it is pragmatic and politically realistic, embracing any or all
 SCHOOL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY
General Luna Road, Baguio City Philippines 2600
Telefax No.: (074) 442-3071 Website: www.ubaguio.edu E-mail Address: ub@ubaguio.edu

‘criminologist’ sharing similar aims and values.

Despite (or more likely strengthened) by openness to other disciplines, a ‘green’ criminology shares the classic
characteristics by which Sutherland (1924: 3) defined the criminological task, addressing several simple but clear
questions—why and how are laws made? why and how are they broken? what should be done in response? A related
issue highlighted by Sutherland is that, if we are to understand harmful behavior, we have to be prepared to transcend
statutory designations of crime. These questions can be framed in the following way in order to set out some
‘foundations’ for a green criminology (see also South 1998b).

Foundation (1): legal frameworks and criminalization Concerned with the legal issues raised by environmentally
damaging acts and how these should be classified (violations? crimes?) and responded to (by regulation?
criminalization? Inspectorates? police?). Such cases may be difficult to prosecute because of: lack of evidence and
proof; blurring of the lines between the ‘willful criminal violator’ and the ‘legal risk-taking entrepreneur’; and/or
corruption in the system. With emerging evidence of the value of specialist environmental courts(Walters and
Solomon-Westerhuis 2013; White 2013a) some of these difficulties may be addressed.

Foundation (2): breaches of law and regulations, and corporate and state violations. Concerned with (a) positive and
negative features (including consequences) of different regulatory models; (b) pollution, disasters and liabilities as
case-studies; and(c) corporate and state misconduct/crimes with environmental consequences, focussing on
perpetrators, culpability and serial offending (Kramer et al. 2002; Katz2010).

Foundation (3) what should be done in response? Concerned with the question of how to respond to offences in an
effective legal manner; arguments for and against criminalization. If a prosecution is brought and is successful,
penalties may be only modest relative to damage done; if corporations are fined how will they absorb this — by cutting
costs elsewhere and/or by passing costs on to consumers? Attempts to identify and sanction key, responsible
individuals have only rare success. Alternatives such as Braithwaite’s (1989) notion of ‘shaming’ and Restorative
Justice approaches seem promising based on the vulnerability to public criticism of heavily promoted corporate images
and the principle that ‘making good’ may be more beneficial than imposing immaterial fines or trying to identify a
‘culprit’ to receive a prison sentence. As Higgins (2010: 143) puts it, ‘Restorative justice is built on an understanding of
our relationship with nature and the duty to remedy the harm caused’, addressing ‘the needs of the beleaguered party
to restore that which has been harmed rather than simply fixating on the punishment of the perpetrator.’ However the
approach is based on an assumption that offenders care about public opinion or the harms caused.

Types of Green Crime

Nigel South (2008) classifies green crimes into two distinct types, primary and secondary.

Primary green crimes are those crimes which constitute harm inflicted on the environment (and, by extension, those
that inflict harm on people because of damage to the environment – our classic ‘environmental victims’ who suffer
health or other problems when the land, water or air they interact with is polluted, damaged or destroyed).
There are four main categories of primary green crimes –
• Crimes of air pollution
• Crimes of deforestation
• Crimes of species decline and animal rights
• Crimes of water pollution.

Secondary, or “symbiotic green crime is crime that grows out of the flouting of rules that seek to regulate environmental
disasters” (Carrabine et al. 2004: 318). South provides two examples of secondary crime: State violence against
oppositional groups’, ‘hazardous waste and organised crime’

Criminology – Disagreements over the concept of Green Crime

Criminologists disagree over the appropriate subject matter of ‘green criminology’.

Traditional criminology argues that ‘green crime’ should be defined in a narrow sense – thus ‘green crime’ is defined as
any activity which breaches a law which protects the environment.
Green criminology, on the other hand, argues that criminologists should study environmental harms whether or not
there is legislation in place and whether or not criminal or other laws are actually broken. Green Criminology takes an
ecocentric (environment centred) approach to crime, and criticises traditional criminology for being too anthropocentric
(human- centred).

White’s (2008) three important principles of green criminology

 based on environmental rights and environmental justice.

 it’s ecocentric – rather than based on human domination over nature.
 It should include Animal rights and species justice

Green Criminology is thus a type of ‘transgressive criminology’ it breaks the boundaries of traditional criminology and
 SCHOOL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY
General Luna Road, Baguio City Philippines 2600
Telefax No.: (074) 442-3071 Website: www.ubaguio.edu E-mail Address: ub@ubaguio.edu

focuses on the concept of ‘harm’ rather than the concept of ‘crime’.

Advantages of a green criminological perspective

Green Criminology thus follows in the footsteps of radical or critical criminology – Marxism and Interactionism. It is
more interested in the question of why some harmful acts (pollution) are not labelled as criminal, while other less-
harmful acts are.

Problems with Green Criminology is that its subject matter is not clearly defined – where do we draw the line about
what constitutes harming the environment? Where does it all end, and who decides?

Though green criminology was originally proposed as a political economic approach for the study of
environmental harm, crime, law and justice, there are now several varieties of green criminology

Political economy, environmental justice, and the treadmill of production approach

The initial grounding of green criminology was in political economic theory and analysis. In his original 1990 article,
Lynch proposed green criminology as an extension of radical criminology and its focus on political economic theory
and analysis. In that view, it was essential to examine the political economic dimensions of green crime and justice in
order to understand the major environmental issues of our times and how they connect with the political economy of
capitalism. The political economic approach was expanded upon by Lynch and Paul B. Stretesky in two additional
articles in The Critical Criminologist. In those articles, Lynch and Stretesky extended the scope of green criminology to
apply to the study of environmental justice, and followed that work with a series of studies addressing environmental
justice concerns, the distribution of environmental crimes and hazards, and empirical studies of environmental justice
movements and enforcement. Later, working with Michael A. Long and then Kimberly L. Barrett, the political economic
explanation and empirical studies of green crimes were adapted to include a perspective on the structural influence of
the treadmill of production on the creation of green crimes drawn from the work of Allan Schnaiberg, environmental
sociology, eco-socialism and ecological Marxism. Throughout the development of the political economic approach to
green criminology, scholars have made significant use of scientific and ecological literatures, as well as empirical
analysis, which have become characteristics of this approach and distinguish it from other varieties of green
criminology.

Non-species and nonhuman animal studies

The second major variation of green criminology is the non- species argument proposed by Piers Beirne. In Beirne's
view, the study of harms against nonhuman animals is an important criminological topic which requires attention and at
the same time illustrates the limits of current criminological theorizing about, crime/harm, law and justice with its focus
almost exclusively on humans. This approach also includes discussions of animal rights. Beirne's approach to green
criminology has been extremely influential, and there are now a significant number of studies within the green
criminological literature focusing on nonhuman animal crimes and animal abuse. In addition to studies of animal abuse,
included within the scope of nonhuman animal studies are those focused on illegal wildlife trade, poaching, wildlife
smuggling, animal trafficking and the international trade in endangered species. Many of the studies green
criminologists undertake in this area of research are theoretical or qualitative. Ron Clarke and several colleagues,
however, have explored empirical examinations of illegal animal trade and trafficking, and this has become a useful
approach for examining green crimes. Clarke's approach draws on more traditional criminological theory such as
rational choice theory and crime opportunity theory, and hence is not within the mainstream of green criminological
approaches. Nevertheless, Clarke's approach has drawn attention to important empirical explanations of green crimes.

Bio-piracy and eco-crimes

Similar to the political economic approach but without grounding in political economic theory, some green
criminologists have explored the issue of green crime by examining how corporate behavior impacts green crimes.
Among other issues, this approach has included discussions of eco-crimes and activities such as bio-piracy as
discussed by Nigel South. Bio-piracy is largely an effort by corporations to commodify native knowledge and to turn
native knowledge and practices into for-profit products while depriving native peoples of their rights to that knowledge
and those products, and in most cases, avoiding payments to natives for their knowledge or products. Bio-piracy
includes issues of social and economic justice for native peoples. These kinds of crimes fall into the category of eco-
crimes, a term associated with the work of Reece Walters. Also included within the examination of eco-crimes is the
analysis of other ecologically harmful corporate behaviors such as the production of genetically modified foods and
various forms of toxic pollution.

Ecocide

Ecocide describes attempts to criminalize human activities that cause extensive damage to, destruction of or loss of
ecosystems of a given territory; and which diminish the health and well-being of species within these ecosystems
including humans. It involves transgressions that violate the principles of environmental justice, ecological justice and
species justice. When this occurs as a result of human behaviour, advocates argue that a crime has occurred.
However, this has not yet been accepted as an international crime by the United Nations.

Several nations, multinational corporations and large-scale companies are guilty of relentless widespread
 SCHOOL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY
General Luna Road, Baguio City Philippines 2600
Telefax No.: (074) 442-3071 Website: www.ubaguio.edu E-mail Address: ub@ubaguio.edu

environmental destruction in the name of development. This assault on nature is the root cause of the current
existential crisis; the climate emergency that we now find ourselves in. Calamities caused by climate change have
already affected multiple countries making environmental destruction evidently a global issue.

Furthermore, the grim picture painted by the recently released IPCC report is a cause of grave concern. Keeping
climate change under the target limit of 1.5° C set out in the Paris Agreement seems like a mammoth challenge at the
current rate of emissions. The IPCC report has named this decade as the “make or break” decade. According to UN
Secretary-General António Guterres, the current scenario we find ourselves in is a code red for humanity. The actions
we take in this decade will decide whether we leave behind a liveable planet for the future generations to come. There
has never been a more befitting time to push forward the criminalization of the atrocities committed against nature by
big corporations and multinationals on an international level.

Ecocide to be recognized as the fifth crime under ICC could take years or even decades. But just the fact that this
concept has been thrust into the limelight is a positive stride towards preventing subsequent environmental
degradation. This is a much-needed solution to the dreaded problem that humanity is facing at present, namely,
climate crisis. Though armed conflicts during warfare result in environmental destruction, scientists and diplomats have
recognized that the major culprits to blame for ecocide are the fossil fuel heavyweights - the corporates. These big
polluters violate the integrity of nature by their climate harming practices like mining, fracking etc. More and more
instances of pipeline and mine explosions are being reported which cause a great deal of damage to the environment.
This is more the reason to make ecocide law mandatory so that the major perpetrators responsible for climate change
will be legally bound to correct their actions, or else will be held criminally responsible. This will see a decline in
environmentally destructive business models and facilitate other ecosystem-friendly businesses to prosper, thereby
enabling the much-needed just-transition to clean energy and a sustainable future globally.

Eco-global criminology

Some of those who study environmental crime and justice prefer the use of Rob White's term, eco-global criminology.
In proposing this term, White suggested that it is necessary to employ a critical analysis of environmental crime as it
occurs in its global context and connections. Similar to Lynch's political economic approach to green criminology,
White has also noted that it is desirable to refer to the political economy of environmental crime, and to social and
environmental justice issues.
The substantive focus of eco-global criminology is transgressions against. ecosystems, humans and animals'. Eco-
global crimes are often transnationally. organized, with damage being caused by legal transnational corporations, such
as. British Petroleum in the Gulf of Mexico, and the destruction of the soil and forest. The persistence of animal abuse
and speciesism are also examined together with policies aimed at controlling the natural world and plant species.
Pollution by large corporations, rights of indigenous peoples and the damage caused by the mineral extraction are also
considered.

Green-cultural criminology
As proposed by Avi Brisman and Nigel South green-cultural criminology attempts to integrate green and cultural
criminology to explore the cultural meaning and significance of terms such as "environment" and "environmental
crime". Green-cultural criminology goes against traditional approaches in regards to criminology, bringing attention to
social harms and social consequences.
Southern green cultural criminology" approach to the prevention of environmental harms and crimes. The main aim is
to understand differing cultural representations of nature, including wildlife, present within four Colombian Indigenous
communities to evaluate whether they encourage environmentally friendly human interactions with the natural world,
and if so, how.

Conservation criminology

Conservation criminology is complementary to green criminology. Originally proposed by an interdisciplinary group of

scholars from the Department of Fisheries & Wildlife, School of Criminal Justice, and Environmental Science & Policy
Program at Michigan State University, conservation criminology seeks to overcome limitations inherent to single-
discipline science and provide practical guidance about on-the-ground reforms. Conservation criminology is an
interdisciplinary and applied paradigm for understanding programs and policies associated with global conservation
risks. By integrating natural resources management, risk and decision science, and criminology, conservation
criminology-based approaches ideally result in improved environmental resilience, biodiversity conservation, and
secure human livelihoods. As an interdisciplinary science, conservation criminology requires the constant and creative
combination of theories, methods, and techniques from diverse disciplines throughout the entire processes of
research, practice, education, and policy. Thinking about the interdisciplinary nature of conservation criminology can
be quite exciting but does require patience and understanding of the different languages, epistemologies and
ontologies of the core disciplines. Conservation criminology has been extensively applied to extralegal exploitation of
natural resources such as wildlife poaching in Namibia and Madagascar corruption in conservation, e-waste, and
general noncompliance with conservation rules. By relying on multiple disciplines, conservation criminology leapfrogs
this ideal; it promotes thinking about second- and third-order consequences of risks, not just isolated trends.

Green criminological theory

It is often noted that green criminology is interdisciplinary and as a result, lacks its own unique theory or any preferred
 SCHOOL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY
General Luna Road, Baguio City Philippines 2600
Telefax No.: (074) 442-3071 Website: www.ubaguio.edu E-mail Address: ub@ubaguio.edu

theoretical approach. Moreover, significant portions of the green criminological literature are qualitative and descriptive,
and those studies have generally not proposed a unique or unifying theory. Despite this general lack of a singular
theory, some of the approaches noted above indicate certain theoretical preferences. For example, as noted, the
political economic approach to green criminology develops explanations of green crime, victimization and
environmental justice consistent with several existing strains of political economic analysis. Beirne's approach takes an
interdisciplinary view of theory with respect to various animal rights models and arguments. Clarke's rational choice
models of animal poaching and trafficking build on the rational choice tradition found within the criminological literature.
To date, these different theoretical approaches have not been examined as competing explanations for green crime
and justice, a situation that is found with respect to orthodox or traditional criminological theories of street crime.

What theoretical issues are opened up?

The idea of a green perspective instead of "theory" should be equated with the theory or proposition in practice, as
Plummer (1979: 90) responded to the criticism of the term "theory". Rather, it can be seen as a perspective with
several different theoretical positions. This should be applied to the idea of terms in the "green" category for use in
criminology. As a "prospect", it may be associated with many theoretical statuses and schools, exploring some of these
possible sources of theoretical impact on green criminology

Whether green criminology is a theory or contains theory depends on how one understands the term ‘theory.’
That is the subject of this article

Brisman (2014) likened green criminology to a four‐leaf clover, an uncommon variation of the more prevalent three‐leaf
clover. While green criminology may, at an earlier time, have been a novelty, the recent proliferation of sessions at
conferences on green criminology – and, indeed, the very existence of the ESRC Green Criminology Research
Seminar Series – is a testament to its growth and vitality. Thus, the analogy of green criminology to a four‐leaf clover
had nothing to do with the former’s rarity. Rather, I called attention to four distinct but connected areas (or leaves) of
green criminology: (1) green criminology’s substantive engagement with various environmental crimes, harms and
issues (which I presented in various typologies); (2) green criminology’s engagement with different criminological
theories usually employed to explain street‐level crime; (3) green criminology’s interaction with theories and
orientations originating and residing outside criminology; and (4) relationships between (the) environment and other
phenomena that could either contribute to its demise (for example, in the case of conflict) or its protection (for example,
in the case of rights). While the paper was not intended as an exhaustive account of everything ‘green criminological’
or as a ‘state of the field’ – if green criminology can even be referred to as such – its goal was to help kick off the
ESRC Green Criminology Research Seminar Series by highlighting its analytical strands and demonstrating its
conceptual breadth. I concluded that green criminology had much to contribute to our understanding of environmental
crime and harm and that, as an overall project, it had much to offer in furtherance of environmental protection.

According to Brisman (2014) ‘There is no green criminology theory as such [emphasis in original]’, White explains
(2008: 14). Rather: as observed by South (1998), there is what can loosely be described as a green ‘perspective’.
Elements of this perspective generally include things such as a concern with specifically environmental issues, social
justice, ecological consciousness, the destructive nature of global capitalism, the role of the nation state (and regional
and global regulatory bodies), and inequality and discrimination as these relate to class, gender, race and nonhuman
animals’ (White 2013: 22; see also South 2014, this issue).

Connecting green criminology and traditional criminological theory

There are many sources of theoretical influence that might be drawn upon in the shaping of a green perspective in
criminology. This is legitimate and inevitable and perhaps the ‘recycling’ of ideas and insights seems particularly
appropriate for a ‘green’ criminology. However a good joke is not a sufficient intellectual rationale for the application of
existing theory to new criminological concerns. What is important is that the world has changed - probably considerably
- since many of these theories were first developed and employed. The contours of social, economic and cultural life,
locally and globally, have been reshaped and new questions and arenas of investigation have opened up.

Examples of such application of ‘old’ theory to ‘new’ circumstances are as follows. Agnew (2011, 2013) has drawn
upon classic criminological theories to provide the framework for his analysis of climate change and the environmental
harms caused by the everyday behaviours in which we all engage. Lynch (2013) has described the possibility of the
‘eco-city’, informed by insights from classic Chicago School social disorganisation theory and its development. The
eco-city concept is essentially an approach to small-scale community living based upon green principles and energy,
transport and economic systems. Lynch suggests that such an approach to social organisation could also offer benefits
to the improvement of human life by reducing crime. Thus:

With respect to crime, an eco-city approach can be easily integrated with the premises of social disorganization
theory ... [which] suggests that crime is more likely to occur in disorganized communities because those communities
lack a sense of community, effective informal social control, access to resources, and effective mechanisms for
mobilizing human capital. (Lynch 2013: 53-54)
This green approach to urban - or any local - environmental design can also be a way of rethinking and re-orientating
‘crime prevention through environmental design’ methods. Early versions of crime prevention though design often did
include planting of greenery but usually to mark out spaces and for the prickly deterrent qualities of certain bushes
 SCHOOL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY
General Luna Road, Baguio City Philippines 2600
Telefax No.: (074) 442-3071 Website: www.ubaguio.edu E-mail Address: ub@ubaguio.edu

rather than for their aesthetic, civilising and calming effect, now emphasised by some researchers (Pretty et al. 2013).

There are other less traditional and more recent but nonetheless influential theoretical directions that might also be
considered. One twist of the ‘postmodern turn’ may fit here. This is the proposition that, if modernity celebrates
economic growth, it will calculate cost-benefits regarding the environment solely on whether environmental resources
can reproduce themselves or more such resources can be found. It is only when this modus operandi is endangered
that conservation becomes an issue for the corporate and political agendas. This is beginning to happen. Alternatively,
a post-modern view of the world has, at its heart, a celebration of diversity, plurality and availability of the experiential.
So a postmodern view of global resources should value the amazing variety and fecundity of the natural world and the
opportunities for pleasure that are offered, whether rarefied and aesthetic, immersive or superficial. Hence, although
conservation per se might not be a postmodern virtue, the need to ensure the continuation of diversity could be seen
as a postmodern necessity (unless simulacra are felt to be sufficient).

The protection of diversity and resolution of conflicts based on valuing of plurality and diversity also have a clear
resonance with the 'Peacemaking' perspective in US criminology (Pepinsky and Quinney 1991; Wozniak 2011) as well
as Braithwaite’s (1989) writing on shaming and reintegration, both being areas of work that encourage dialogue and
mediation. The nature of the environment as ‘property’ and cause of conflict, or as a site of offences from corporate
crime to juvenile vandalism, suggests that peacemaking and reintegrative shaming are definitely worth further
exploration and development in green criminology. Giving voice to victims is also central here (Hall 2013). Such
approaches may also resonate in an interesting way with the idea of promoting exposure to nature as therapeutic,
healing and a resource for reintegration (Pretty et al. 2013).

There is, however, a relative lack of theoretical and research momentum concerning green criminology issues in one
area that is surprising and this is in feminism. Given the connections and comparisons that can be made between male
violence against nature and against women (for example, see Collard with Contrucci 1988; Epstein 1993; Merchant
1980, 1996; Wachholz 2007) and the role that women have played in resistance and advocacy concerning
intergenerational and environmental justice (Gaarder 2013; Lane 1998), it is surprising that feminist criminology and
related disciplinary areas have not played a more powerful role in the development of green criminology - though the
works of Sollund (2013) and Gaarder (2011) make serious and significant contributions to this gap.

Green criminology’s intra and extra‐disciplinary theoretical engagement

Intra‐disciplinary theoretical engagement

Certain criminological theories are concerned with micro‐ or individual‐level causes of crime: they attempt to explain
how and why individuals engage in crime. Other theories focus on macro‐ or group‐level explanations of crime: they
attempt to explicate why certain groups commit certain crimes (Cullen and Agnew 2011). Because both individuals and
corporations (or state‐corporate entities) can perpetrate environmental harm and deliberately flout environmental laws
and regulations (see, for example, Bisschop 2012; Brack 2002), efforts have been undertaken to apply both micro‐ or
individual‐level criminological theories and macro‐ or group‐level criminological theories to explain environmental crime
and harm.

For example, Agnew (2012a, 2012b) has drawn on criminological theories that are usually used to explain ‘street
crimes’ such as assault, larceny and robbery to discuss the potential impact of climate change on crime. He has
argued that climate change will increase strain, reduce social control and increase social disorganization, weaken
levels of conventional social support, foster beliefs and values favorable to crime, increase the prevalence and severity
of traits conducive to crime, affect certain opportunities for crime, and contribute to or create social conflict, as well as
reduce the ability and willingness of individuals and groups to take meaningful action. Elsewhere, Agnew (2013: 58)
endeavors to explain ‘ordinary acts’ or ‘ordinary harms’ that ‘contribute to ecocide – or the contamination and
destruction of the natural environment in ways that reduce its ability to support life (South 2009: 41)’ with strain, social
control, self‐ control, social learning/rational choice, and opportunity theories. Agnew creatively demonstrates how
these social‐psychological theories of crime that dominate criminology can explain such ‘ordinary acts’ or ‘ordinary
harms’ as using automobiles with poor gas mileage for most transportation, living in relatively large homes that are
excessively heated or cooled with fossil fuels, and consuming large amounts of meat.

As White (2011: 3, 6) reminds us, much environmental crime and harm is perpetrated by states, as well as by powerful
groups and organizations such as transnational corporations. Accordingly, green criminologists have endeavored to
understand how and why such entities have engaged in environmentally harmful practices. For example, Stretesky
(2006) has drawn on rational choice and deterrence theories of crime to determine the likelihood that regulated entities
will discover, disclose and correct environmental violations under the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA) Self‐Policing Policy (formally titled ‘Incentives for Self‐Policing: Discovery, Disclosure, Correction and Prevention
of Violations’ and commonly referred to as the EPA’s ‘Audit Policy’). In an effort to understand how environmental‐
related harms are facilitated by states, Du Rées (2001) has employed Sykes and Matza’s (1957) ‘techniques of
neutralization’ – a type of control theory – to analyze Swedish supervisory agencies’ practice of not always reporting
suspicions of environmental offenses.

The examples of Agnew, Stretesky and Du Rées represent attempts to explain environmental crime and harm at the
 SCHOOL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY
General Luna Road, Baguio City Philippines 2600
Telefax No.: (074) 442-3071 Website: www.ubaguio.edu E-mail Address: ub@ubaguio.edu

micro‐ or individual‐level and macro‐ or group‐level using dominant criminological theories. Other examples abound.
Indeed, Stretesky and colleagues (2014: 5‐11) provide an overview of five major criminological theories that have been
applied to environmental crime and harm: (1) deterrence theory (Stretesky 2006), as discussed above; (2) situational
crime prevention and routine activities theory (Lemieux 2014; Lemieux and Clarke 2009; Pires and Clarke 2011, 2012);
(3) self‐control theory (Ray and Jones 2011); (4) social learning theory (Sollund 2011); and (5) strain theory (Agnew
2012a, 2012b), as illustrated above. But it is important to add that the relationship between green criminology and such
mainstream criminological theory has not been unidirectional. For example, Simon (2000) has suggested that
environmental crime can serve as a laboratory for testing and refining two theories of organizational criminal behavior
– differential association and Messner and Rosenfeld’s (1994) neo‐Mertonian anomie theory – while Lynch (2013) has
reviewed the ‘eco‐ city perspective’ that emerged in the 1970s and has examined how that view creates a green
criminological extension of social disorganization theory.

Efforts to forge linkages with other branches or subfields of criminology have not been limited to issues or questions of
etiology. The previous examples reflect attempts either to apply mainstream criminological theories (that usually try to
explain street crime and/or violent crime) to understand the causes of environmental crime and harm (in the case of
Agnew, Stretesky and Du Rées) or to strengthen or extend mainstream criminological theories through a consideration
of environmental crime (in the case of Simon) and environmental quality (in the case of Lynch). Scholars, however,
have also endeavored to draw on criminology’s insights into the representation and meaning of street crime and/or
violent crime to understand the representation and meaning of environmental crime and harm.

As White (2009: 483) explains, ‘Environmental crime is studied for a reason; namely, we need to understand the
genesis and dynamics of such crime so that we can adequately respond to it’. ‘More work needs to be done to
understand the nature and scope of environmental harm’, White (2009: 483) continues, and to this I add that more
research needs to be undertaken to understand the ways in which environmental crime and harm are constructed by
and represented in the media and the ways those constructions and representations affect how we ascribe meaning to
the environment, to nature, and to harms and crimes thereto.

For example, Brisman and South (2013, 2014) have argued that green criminology must attend to the mediated and
political dynamics surrounding the presentation of various environmental phenomena, especially news about real
environmental crimes, harms, and disaster, and fictional/science‐fictional depictions of human‐nature/human‐
environment relationships and environmental disaster narratives. In order to advance green criminological concern with
the mediated representation and/or construction of ‘environment’, ‘environmental crime’, and ‘environmental harm’,
Brisman and South have suggested a ‘green cultural criminology’, a perspective drawing on cultural criminology’s
concern with the interrelationship of culture and crime in late modernity

In a related vein, Kohm and Greenhill (2013) have extended Rafter’s (2006, 2007) concept of ‘popular criminology’ to
green criminology, in order to better appreciate the emotional, moral and philosophical dimensions of the relationship
between crime and the social and physical environments, an undertaking they label ‘popular green criminology’. As
Kohm and Greenhill explain, if ‘popular criminology’ is a discourse found in accessible mass‐mediated texts exploring
issues pertaining to crime and justice, ‘popular green criminology’, then, is a branch of ‘popular criminology’ dealing
with environmental harms, issues of space and place, and the oppression of human and non‐human animals by people
and institutions. For Kohm and Greenhill, British television’s Red Riding Trilogy (RRT) presents a popular green
criminology of child sexual abuse, police and government corruption, class warfare, and environmental destruction by
powerful corporate interests and private individuals. The trilogy interrogates the causes and consequences of harms to
human and non‐human animals and communities by linking individuals’ actions to broader social‐structural and
institutional processes in the imagined world of Yorkshire, England in the 1970s and 1980s

Extra‐disciplinary theoretical engagement

According to White (2011: 17; 2012b: 26), ‘environmental harm crosses borders to incorporate all nation‐states on
planet Earth (as evident in ozone depletion and global warming and the illegal trade in animals)’.3 Similarly, Dybing
(2012: 279) states that ‘[pollution and environmental harm have no national borders’, while Hall (2013: 143) observes
that ‘environmental harm often knows no borders’. Just as these geopolitical borders ‘do not have much material
relevance when it comes to environmental harm’ (White 2012a: 3; 2013: 68), disciplinary borders should have little
bearing on our attempts to identify, analyze, understand and confront environmental harms. In other words, green
criminologists studying environmental crime, harm and victimization must look beyond criminological theory to ensure
that we do not exceed our ‘planetary boundaries’ – those boundaries that ‘define the safe operating space for humanity
with respect to the Earth and [that] are associated with the planet’s biophysical subsystems or process’ (Rockström et
al. 2009: 472). Many green criminologists already do so, extending their gaze beyond that which is demarcated
‘criminology’. Two examples illustrate this kind of work.

Motivated more by the question of ‘How does the organization of society promote an increasing level of environmental
harm?’ rather than ‘What causes an individual (or set of individuals) to engage in acts that harm the environment?’
(Stretesky et al. 2014: 9), some scholars have attempted to explore the political economy of environmental crime – or
what some of them refer to as ‘green crime’ (Stretesky et al. 2014: 4) 4 – using ‘treadmill of production’ (ToP) theory,
as developed in environmental sociology by Schnaiberg (1980; see also Gould et al. 2008). York (2006: online)
provides a nice summary of the ToP theoretical model:
 SCHOOL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY
General Luna Road, Baguio City Philippines 2600
Telefax No.: (074) 442-3071 Website: www.ubaguio.edu E-mail Address: ub@ubaguio.edu

According to the ToP model, advances in technology, primarily induced by owners of the means of production seeking
to increase profits, drive the expansion of production and consumption synergistically. This process leads to a cycle of
production necessitating more production, because all sectors of society (the state, organized labor, and private
capital) depend on continued economic growth to solve problems, such as unemployment generated by
mechanization, which are created by growth itself. ToP theorists argue that environmental problems cannot be solved
in such a system, since growth puts ever‐increasing demands on the environment by extracting natural resources and
generating pollution. Thus, achieving environmental sustainability requires radical restructuring of the political economy
and a move away from growth dependence.

Put another way, ToP theory illustrates how political economic forces and relations of production create ‘ecological
disorganization’ where humans extract natural resources from an ecosystem and convert them into products through
manufacturing and, in the process, generate pollution and release toxic wastes, which disrupts ecosystems by
reducing biodiversity and ‘destroys the integrity of nature and its reproductive network (i.e., its ability to produce the
conditions for life)’ (Stretesky et al. 2014: 4; see also Stretesky et al. 2013: 234). Seeking to integrate the political
economic approach of environmental sociology’s ToP theory with green criminology in order to address green crimes
and their control, Long and colleagues (2012) have examined environmental enforcement in the coal industry:
specifically, the association between coal company political campaign contributions, corporate lobbying and relative
contribution to coal production, and environmental enforcement within companies.5 Stretesky and colleagues (2013)
have examined the role of environmental enforcement within ToP theory and have analyzed whether monetary
penalties administered by the United States EPA have the potential to reduce ecological disorganization.6 Greife and
Stretesky (2013) examine the variation in civil and criminal liability for oil discharges across selected coastal and great
lake states within the United States. Relying on ToP theory, Greife and Stretesky derive and examine three
hypotheses concerning the relationship between oil production, value added, political resistance and variations in state
legislation. They surmise that state laws that specifically regulate oil discharges will make it harder to punish those
firms that violate oil discharge laws if those firms operate in states (1) where more oil production takes place; (2) where
the oil industry contributes significant value added to the state economy; and (3) where there are lower levels of
political resistance to ecological disorganization. Greife and Stretesky find general support for their hypotheses –
especially with respect to strict unlimited liability, minimum civil penalties, and prison sentences – and demonstrate
how the treadmill of production may shape civil and criminal laws.

Whereas the previous paragraph illustrates the extension of ToP theory into green criminology – or green
criminologists’ reaching outside criminology (and into environmental sociology) to offer a political‐economic explanation
of ecological disorganization – the works of Kane (2012, 2013) exemplify an anthropologically‐inspired/oriented and
ethnographically‐based account of water contamination and other forms of watershed destruction. For example,
Kane’s (2012) book Where Rivers Meet the Sea: The Political Ecology of Water describes in lurid detail human‐ water
relationships in Salvador da Bahia, Brazil, and Buenos Aires, Argentina. While the water bodies in the two cities are
different (one a lake, the other a river), as are the historical and cultural contexts in which residents interact with, affect,
and imagine themselves as part of their aquatic habitats, Kane (2012: 2) teases out similarities in ‘aquatic treachery’.
While each locale faces a particular set of ‘aquatic conundrums’ (Kane 2012: 2) – and while each relies on cultural and
political forms of (dis)engagement that are shaped by its port city history – Kane demonstrates commonalities in the
ways in which people in both places poison their water sources and waterscapes even as they take sustenance and
pleasure from them. Kane is especially vigilant with respect to how the streams of culture, art and race in each city flow
into and through those (effluvia) of politics, crime and governance. Though attentive to the peculiarities of her two
ethnographic sites, Kane does not shy away from making broader observations, indictments and/or recommendations.
She begins her book by stating:

Destruction is as diverse as culture and as ubiquitous as biology. From micro to macro, from inconsequential
convenience to horrendous warring disregard, we assassinate the living waters on which all depend. The human‐water
relationship reciprocates such that even as we poison the water, the water poisons us’ (Kane 2012: 2).

While the preponderance of theoretical engagement is intra‐disciplinary and focused on issues or questions of etiology,
this is unsurprising given criminology’s (and most disciplines’) endogamous practices and interest in or preference for
theories of the origin of crime and delinquency. Efforts of green criminologists to conceptualize theory broadly and to
look beyond/outside criminology’s borders suggest a burgeoning of green criminological theory – or green
criminology’s relationship with theory – however narrowly or widely ‘theory’ is understood.

The socio-economics of everyday ecocide

It is particular actions and behaviours that are of concern here, such as over-consumption and the production and
disposal of waste, forming a pattern that might be called ‘everyday ecocide’ (Agnew 2013). Much activity that is
harmful to the planet is a product of the economic forces that require and enable these behaviours. Agnew (2013)
writes of everyday acts that ‘contribute to ecocide – or the contamination and destruction of the natural environment in
ways that reduce its ability to support life (South 2009: 41)’ as being ‘widely and regularly performed by individuals’;
‘viewed as acceptable, even desirable’; and having a ‘substantial impact on environmental problems’. So, we over-
consume and then discard the waste arising. We spoil the ground we live on, which filters our water and from which
our food sprouts, by burying an incalculable amount of waste on a daily basis. And we litter everywhere, from the
heavens of space and the depths of the oceans to our local parks and streets (Groombridge 2013). Some of this waste
and litter is biodegradable, a great deal not; some is relatively harmless other than simply being static (fixed and
unchanging), while some is dangerous in its current and / or future deteriorated form.
 SCHOOL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY
General Luna Road, Baguio City Philippines 2600
Telefax No.: (074) 442-3071 Website: www.ubaguio.edu E-mail Address: ub@ubaguio.edu

Global connections
The frequency and scope of ‘natural’ disasters may increasingly be shaped by the actions of humanity: climate change
is a result of human impacts on eco-systems, oceans and the atmosphere. Both will affect agricultural productivity and
hence food availability and security across borders. As Potter (2013: 136) remarks, ‘[e]cological science demonstrates
that human and natural systems are neither separate nor separable, particularly in our globalised late-modern world’.
But while humans are certainly dependent upon our wider environment, it also seems that we are entering an
Anthropocene era in which our over-dependence results in over-exploitation and excessive impacts.

In a period when societies are globally inter-connected as never before, questions follow about whether international
and/or national laws can provide protection of the environment from humanity’s excesses. Can ‘the environment’ be
afforded ‘rights’ that might underpin such protection? Cullinan (2010:144) and others have noted that, over the past
few decades, some calls have been made for ‘legal systems to take an evolutionary leap forward by recognizing legally
enforceable rights for nature and other-than-human-beings’. Cullinan refers to this body of work as ‘the evolution of
earth jurisprudence’ and cites, among others, Berry (1999: 161) who argued that: ‘we need a jurisprudence that would
provide for the legal rights of geological and biological as well as human components of the Earth community. A legal
system exclusively for humans is not realistic’. However, what is ‘realistic’ is debated and the idea of attributing rights
to animals and other forms of non-human life is contested. The interdependence of humanity and nature is denied
when inconvenient.

Intergenerational and future challenges

Outlining the foundations of a theory of intergenerational ecological justice, Weston (2012: 261) argues that the
community of humankind is collectively made up of generations of the present, the past and the future, with the related
implication that rights and obligations also hold across this long intergenerational chain: ‘In this manner, the “common
heritage” of Earth’s natural resources, fresh water systems, oceans, atmosphere, and outer space belongs to all
generations in an inter-temporal partnership’. According to this view, both pragmatic reforms of law and governance,
as well as more radical revisions, should build on recognition of, and respect for, the interdependence of eco-systems
and the principle of intergenerational equity.

Perhaps in some respects simultaneously pragmatic and radical, Higgins (2010; Higgins et al. 2013: 256-263)
proposes a law of ecocide as a ‘crime against peace’, defined as ‘extensive damage to, destruction of or loss of
ecosystem(s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful
enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been severely diminished’. This is a law aimed at the protection of the
planet now in order that it is in a sustainable and healthy condition for those who inherit it. The challenge is to find
ways to implement such visions of justice and law.

IV. Conclusion and Recommendations

Conclusion

1. Green Criminology covers environmental harms, environmental laws and environmental regulation systems
and processes in place to protect and preserve specified environments and species, and to monitor and
control sources of pollution and other damaging environmental impacts.
2. The thoughts of inexperienced criminology consciousness absolutely at the manner that humanity makes use
of and abuses the environment for his or her very own gain, with a focal point on how precisely those acts
need to be criminalized and why they occur withinside the first place.
3. The study of green criminology has been shown to draw on themes from economics, law and sociology to
complete a contemporary, self-reflective and critical field of study that illustrates every act of crime.
Environmental damage is, in a way, a crime against humanity.
4. Green criminology lacks its own unique theory or any preferred theoretical approach. Moreover, significant
portions of the green criminological literature are qualitative and descriptive, and those studies have generally
not proposed a unique or unifying theory.

Recommendation

1. Different researchers can go across different places and know the people who are living in places where
environmental harms are rampant and know their situation and identify the effects to the human beings
because it is important to consider the people who are directly involve and who really know the natural
resources.
2. Criminologist may consider collaborating with different environment protectors or environmentalist to
understand more about nature and different species to create a strong approach in dealing with green
criminology.
3. Criminology professional may consider studying more about green criminology since there are very few
 SCHOOL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY
General Luna Road, Baguio City Philippines 2600
Telefax No.: (074) 442-3071 Website: www.ubaguio.edu E-mail Address: ub@ubaguio.edu

studies or journals about green criminology and it is about time to get people involve not only in human crime
but also crimes involving the natural resources.
4. There is a need to study if green criminology is a theory or just a perspective since there are a lot of theory that
can explain criminal acts involving environmental crimes.

V. REFERENCES
o Use APA format.
o Anonymous (xxxx) Green Criminology and Crimes of the Economy: Theory, Research and Praxis.
Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257552882_Green_Criminology_and_Crimes_of_the_Ec
onomy_Theory_Research_and_Praxis [accessed Feb 01 2022].
o Anonymous (xxxx) TOP 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES. Retrieved from
https://www.activesustainability.com/environment/crimes-against-the-environment/?
_adin=02021864894 Retrieved on February 1, 2022
o Balaji, M. (2021) A brief insight into why ecocide should be prosecuted as an international crime.
Retrieved from https://www.cag.org.in/blogs/brief-insight-why-ecocide-should-be-prosecuted-
international-crime retrived on February 1, 2022.
o Beirne, Piers. 1999. For a nonspeciesist criminology: Animal abuse as an object of study.
Criminology 37, 1: 117-148.
o Beirne, Piers. 2009. Confronting animal abuse: Law, criminology, and human-animal relationships.
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
o Brisman, Avi, and Nigel South. 2013. A green-cultural criminology: An exploratory outline. Crime,
Media, Culture 9, 2: 115-135.
o Cazaux, Geertrui. 1999. Beauty and the beast: Animal abuse from a non-speciesist criminological
perspective. Crime, Law and Social Change 31, 2 : 105-125.
o Cazaux, Geertrui. 1999. Beauty and the beast: Animal abuse from a non-speciesist criminological
perspective. Crime, Law and Social Change 31, 2 : 105-125.
o Ellefsen, R., Sollund R., Larsen G. (2012) Eco-global Crimes: Contemporary Problems and Future
Challenges. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293299045_Eco-
global_Crimes_Contemporary_Problems_and_Future_Challenges
o Gibbs, Carole, Meredith L. Gore, Edmund F. McGarrell, and Louie Rivers. 2010. Introducing
conservation criminology towards interdisciplinary scholarship on environmental crimes and risks.
British Journal of Criminology 50, 1: 124-144.
o Gibbs, Carole; McGarrell, Edmund F.; Axelrod, Mark (2010-08-01). "Transnational white-collar
crime and risk". Criminology & Public Policy. 9 (3): 543–560. doi:10.1111/j.1745-
9133.2010.00649.x. ISSN 1745-9133.
o Gore, Meredith L; Ratsimbazafy, Jonah; Rajaonson, Andry; Lewis, Amanda; Kahler, Jessica S
(2016-07-12). "Public perceptions of poaching risks in a biodiversity hotspot: Implications for
wildlife trafficking interventions". ResearchGate. 2016 (21).
o Gore, Meredith L. (2011-08-01). "The Science of Conservation Crime". Conservation Biology. 25
(4): 659–661. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01701.x. ISSN 1523-1739. PMID 21771074.
o Gore, Meredith L.; Lute, Michelle L.; Ratsimbazafy, Jonah H.; Rajaonson, Andry (2016-04-15).
"Local Perspectives on Environmental Insecurity and Its Influence on Illegal Biodiversity
Exploitation". PLOS ONE. 11 (4): e0150337. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1150337G.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150337. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 4833313. PMID 27082106.
o Gore, Meredith L.; Ratsimbazafy, Jonah; Lute, Michelle L. (2013-11-01). "Rethinking Corruption in
Conservation Crime: Insights from Madagascar". Conservation Letters. 6 (6): 430–438.
doi:10.1111/conl.12032. ISSN 1755-263X.
o Goyes, D., Ñeñetofe D.T., Pablo, R., South, N. Yulieth, C.Q.A., Wyatt, T. Sollund R. (2021)
Southern Green Cultural Criminology and Environmental Crime Prevention: Representations of
Nature Within Four Colombian Indigenous Communities
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353331108_Southern_Green_Cultural_Criminology_and_
Environmental_Crime_Prevention_Representations_of_Nature_Within_Four_Colombian_Indigeno
us_Communities
o Lynch, Michael J. 1990. The Greening of Criminology: A Perspective for the 1990s. The Critical
Criminologist 2,3:3-4,11-12.
o Lynch, Michael J. and Paul B. Stretesky. 1999. Clarifying the Analysis of Environmental Justice:
Further Thoughts on the Critical Analysis of Environmental Justice Issues. The Critical
Criminologist. 9,3: 5-8; Lynch, Michael J. and Paul B. Stretesky. 1998. Uniting Class and Race with
Criticism Through the Study of Environmental Justice. The Critical Criminologist. Fall: 1, 4-7.
 SCHOOL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY
General Luna Road, Baguio City Philippines 2600
Telefax No.: (074) 442-3071 Website: www.ubaguio.edu E-mail Address: ub@ubaguio.edu

o Lynch, Michael J., Paul B. Stretesky and Ronald G. Burns. (2004). Determinants of Environmental
Law Violation Fines Against Oil Refineries: Race, Ethnicity, Income and Aggregation Effects.
Society and Natural Resources. 17, 4:333-347;
o Lynch, Michael J., Paul B. Stretesky, and Ronald G. Burns. 2004. Slippery Business: Race, Class
and Legal Determinants of Penalties Against Petroleum Refineries. Journal of Black Studies. 34,3:
421-440.
o Lynch. M., Stretesky P. (2012) The Oxford Handbook of Criminological Theory. Retrieved from
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199747238.001.0001/oxfordhb-
9780199747238-e-32 retrieved on February 1, 2022
o Nigel, South (2013). Routledge International Handbook of Green Criminology. Routledge. p. 349.
o Ruggiero, Vincenzo, and Nigel South. 2013. Green criminology and crimes of the economy: theory,
research and praxis. Critical Criminology 21, 3: 359-373.
o South, Nigel. 2007. The ‘corporate colonisation of nature’: Bio-prospecting, bio-piracy and the
development of green criminology. Pp. 230-247 in P. Beirne and N. South’s (ed), Issues in green
criminology. Devon, UK: Willan.
o Stretesky, Paul B., and Michael J . Lynch. 1999. Environmental Justice and the Prediction of
Distance to Accidental Chemical Releases in Hillsborough County, Florida. Social Science
Quarterly. 80,4:830-846;
o Stretesky, Paul B., and Michael J. Lynch. 1998. Corporate Environmental Violence and Racism.
Crime, Law and Social Change 30, 2: 163-184;
o Stretesky, Paul B., and Michael J. Lynch. 2002. Environmental Hazards and School Segregation in
Hillsborough, 1987-1999. The Sociological Quarterly. 43,4: 553-573;
o Thompson, K. (2019) Green Criminology and Green Crime – Revision Notes.
https://revisesociology.com/2019/04/26/green-criminology-and-green-crime-revision-notes/
Retrrieved on February 8, 2022
o Trueman C.N (2022) historylearningsite.co.uk. The History Learning Site, 25 May 2015. 8 Feb
2022.
o van Uhm, D.P. (2016). The Illegal Wildlife Trade: Inside the World of Poachers, Smugglers and
Traders (Studies of Organized Crime). Studies of Organized Crime. Vol. 15. New York: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-42129-2. ISBN 978-3-319-42128-5.
o Walters, Reece. 2006. Crime, bio-agriculture and the exploitation of hunger. British Journal of
Criminology 46, 1: 26-45.
o Walters, Reece. 2007. Food crime, regulation and the biotech harvest. European Journal of
Criminology 4, 2: 217-235.
o White & Heckenberg. Green Criminology: An Introduction to the Study of Environmental Harm,
Routledge, 2014, pp 45-59.
o White, Rob. 2009. Researching Transnational Environmental Harm: Toward an Eco‐Global
Criminology. International journal of comparative and applied criminal justice 33, 2: 229-248.
o White, Rob. 2011. Transnational environmental crime: Toward an eco-global criminology. UK:
Routledge; Ellefsen, Rune, Guri Larsen, and Ragnhild Sollund (eds). 2012. Eco-global Crimes:
Contemporary Problems and Future Challenges. UK: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
o Wyatt, Tanya. Green criminology & wildlife trafficking: The illegal fur and falcon trades in Russia
Far East. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, 2012; Wyatt, Tanya. 2009. Exploring the organization
of Russia Far East's illegal wildlife trade: two case studies of the illegal fur and illegal falcon trades.
Global Crime 10, 1-2: 144-154.

Note: CITATION BASICS

• When using APA format, follow the author-date method of in-text citation. This means that
the author’s last name (without suffixes) and the year or publication for the source should
appear in the text and a complete reference list at the end of the paper.

Name Signature Date

February 10,
Prepared by Jan Michael A. Fernandez
2022