Humanity has become a “weapon of mass extinction.” This was said by United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres at the major biodiversity conference in Montreal in 2022. He warned that one million plant and animal species are threatened with extinction, the largest number since the end of the dinosaur era. The World Resources Institute calculated that around 4.1 million hectares of tropical rainforest will be lost by 2022, approximately an area the size of the Netherlands. And in the meantime, the IPCC, the UN’s scientific climate panel, writes about the catastrophic consequences if global warming is not limited to about 1.5 degrees Celsius. What’s wrong with global nature management?
Nature has always been viewed as state property that people can use to promote economic growth, rather than as an essential condition for life. This anthropocentric and materialistic approach to nature is also reflected in most legislation. This is gradually changing, the dualistic thinking about nature and society is no longer self-evident. People more often go to court to enforce protection of their living environment. Environmental issues play an increasing role in social debates.
Nature always subordinate
To prevent nature from always getting the short end of the stick in these debates, large-scale destruction of nature, usually referred to as ‘ecocide’, must be made punishable. This concerns activities with a major negative environmental impact, which can directly and long-term threaten the happiness or life itself of large groups of people and other living beings. This includes massive deforestation, large-scale illegal mining, the trading of endangered flora and fauna or the deliberate discharge of pollutants with a major impact on the environment. Anyone who is guilty of this should be able to be prosecuted internationally.
In Europe, government leaders and the European Parliament have adopted a compromise text for a new directive on criminal law protection of the environment, which will impose tougher penalties for environmental violations that are ‘similar to ecocide’. Individual countries, including France, have also criminalized ecocide at national level. The Netherlands cannot lag behind. A bill to criminalize ecocide, which was sent to the House of Representatives in December 2023 at the initiative of the Party for the Animals, therefore deserves a rapid parliamentary hearing.
Human interests usually guide the development of legislation and regulations. But for this topic, what we call an ecocentric approach seems important. We must ensure that ecocide legislation only covers actions that are ‘manifestly excessive in relation to the expected social and economic benefits’, as stated in the most internationally recognized definition of ecocide. The danger of such an anthropocentric approach is that it can always be argued that the destruction of nature produces socio-economic benefits.
Persecution of individuals
A strong international ecocide treaty could oblige countries to prosecute individuals, companies and policymakers for conduct that they know – or should have known – will cause serious, widespread or long-lasting environmental damage, whatever the socio-economic benefits.
The threat of prosecution alone has a deterrent effect that should not be underestimated. The business community and government will therefore feel extra compelled to identify negative environmental impacts. Out of fear of persecution, they will try to prevent economic activities that cause major environmental damage. Criminalization can also stimulate a cultural change and send a strong signal that large-scale destruction of nature is no longer morally accepted.
To share
Email the editor
Tags: Opinion countries criminalized ecocide Netherlands lag
