Eradicating Ecocide (GBR)

Care and Love for People and the Earth

We ask Polly why she wants to change the legal system to protect the Earth. “What motivates me is a deep care and love for people and the earth,” Polly explains. “We live in a time in which the destruction of ecosystems has such widespread, severe and long-term consequences, that there is a name for it: ecocide. The harm can be caused through dangerous industrial or climate activity. Consider, for example, the exploitation of tar sands, fracking, overfishing and deforestation. But also land-grabbing, which makes indigenous peoples no longer able to exercise their culture.”

According to Polly, this injustice is possible because of a lack of responsibility towards the earth. “We are extensively destroying ecosystems, causing harm to the earth, humanity and to ourselves. I want to do something about it.” Polly believes that criminalizing ecocide is the solution.

Aren’t there enough environmental laws and litigation? “If so, how is it possible that the earth is being damaged so much?” Polly replies. “Clearly, the legal system is failing to effectively prevent large-scale damage to ecosystems. Because there are no or only economic sanctions for the destruction of ecosystems, a potential fine can simply be regarded as a financial risk. Litigation, such as climate change cases, can take very long and are often difficult and expensive. In the meantime, ecosystems are not protected and the outcome is often too little, too late.”

Polly also considers the Paris climate treaty to be inadequate. “It is a step in the right direction, but limited to policy making. It does not lead to the protection of ecosystems, let alone criminal prosecution”, she explains.

Ecocide as an International Criminal Offense

“The solution is obvious: criminalize acts that have widespread, long-lasting or severe effects on ecosystems. The extraction of oil from tar sands and deforestation are obvious examples. When a senior official of a company is prosecuted for a crime that has occurred, research shows that investors, banks and the general public do not accept criminal behaviour. Companies can lose their license to operate – their business model is no longer supported. Such is the seriousness of the crime of ecocide that Polly considers it to stand alongside genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression as the missing 5^th crime.

That sounds quite radical. Polly goes on to assert her argument. “It may seem radical to grant rights to the earth, but the legal system is a powerful means of bringing about behavioural change. Think of the new laws in the 19th century that abolished slavery. Many thought this solution went too far at the time. It was a direct confrontation with the prevailing, powerful economic interests. Nevertheless, it was possible to abolish slavery on moral grounds. What may have seemed radical then, has become common sense today.”

Towards an International Treaty

When is ecocide expected to be a criminal offense? An existing international treaty, the Rome Statute, has to be amended to add ecocide as a criminal offense. At least 83 of the 123 countries that have signed the treaty must agree. On the one hand, this is a very difficult task. On the other hand, every country has an equal vote. The vote of an island state threatened by sea-level rise counts as heavily as Canada’s vote, for example. Because the effects of climate change threaten many of the smaller states, Polly’s plan is already widely supported.

Nevertheless, it remains a challenge to convince so many countries of the criminal nature of ecocide at an international level. Polly: “It’s politically sensitive, which explains why I’ve been working on this for 11 years.” It is important that there is a lot of popular support for the introduction of ecocide law. When governments have a democratic mandate, it makes it a lot easier for them to commit themselves to the criminalization of ecocide.