In the era of Ecocide
Ecocide is the extensive damage to, destruction of, or loss of ecosystems. It is happening on a mass scale, every day and it is getting worse.
From floating plastic islands and orbiting space junk to mountaintop removal and deep-sea mining, the worldwide destruction of ecosystems is worse now than at any other time.
From floating plastic islands and orbiting space junk to mountaintop removal and deep-sea mining, the worldwide destruction of ecosystems is worse now than at any other time.
We can change this. We must stop the destruction of the Earth by making ecocide the 5th Crime Against Peace. Ecocide is a crime against nature, humanity and future generations.
An international law of Ecocide would make CEOs and our Heads of State legally responsible for protecting the Earth. People and planet will become the number one priority.
Some examples
The Amazon: The razing of the Amazonian rainforest, a key stabiliser of the global climate system, by logging, mining, crop planting and beef production. Almost 60% of the region's forests could be wiped out or severely damaged by 2030. Photograph: Daniel Beltra/Greenpeace
Queensland, Australia: A huge oil slick on Warana beach on Queensland's Sunshine Coast. Photograph: Dave Hunt/EPA
The Niger delta: Fifty years of oil extraction in the Niger delta has scarred the Niger delta. Oil companies operated here for decades with very little environmental supervision and the delta, notoriously beset by conflict and poverty, has been steadily pushed towards ecological disaster. Villagers struggle to live off land and water poisoned by years of oil spills, and crops fail under the acid rain caused by gas flares.
Photograph: Ed Kashi/Corbis
Toxic dumping by Chevron Texaco in Ecuador: Chevron, formerly Texaco, is alleged to have dumped billions of gallons of crude oil and toxic waste waters into the Amazonian jungle over two decades. This oily pond is at the oil production site of Guanta, near the city of Lago Agrio. Ecuador's recent bill of rights for nature has changed the legal status of nature from being simply property to being a right-bearing entity. Campaigners hope this will stop similar ecological disasters from happening again. Photograph: Remi Benali/Corbis
|
Alberta tar sands: Referred to as the most damaging project on the planet. According to Greenpeace, emissions from tar sands extraction could grow to between 127 and 140m tonnes by 2020, exceeding the current emissions of Austria, Portugal, Ireland and Denmark. If proposed expansion proceeds,it will result in the loss of vast tracts of boreal forest and peat bogs of a territory the size of England.
Photograph: Orjan F. Ellingvag/Corbis
Linfen, China: The most polluted city on earth. Located at the heart of a 12-mile industrial belt of iron foundries, smelting plants and cement factories, fed by the 50m tonnes of coal mined every year, unregulated because of rapid development.
Photograph: Richard Jones/ Rex Features
Mountaintop removal: Aerial of mountaintop removal coal mining site in West Virginia. Mountaintop mining involves a highly destructive practice of blasting through hundreds of feet of mountaintop to get at thin but valuable seams of coal. Photograph: Melissa Farlow/NGC/Getty Images
The North Pacific gyre: A swirling island of 100m tonnes of plastic bits and bottle tops, spins clockwise from Hawaii to Japan. Also known as the Pacific trash vortex, it is estimated to be the size of Texas. This picture shows a laysan albatross (Diomedea immutabilis) giving a bottle cap to its chick. Photograph: Frans Lanting/Corbis
Deep-sea mining: The emerging underwater mineral extraction industry is sounding alarm bells among marine biologists, environmental scientists and campaigners such as Polly Higgins, who predict that mining for gold, silver and copper on the seabed will be the next great ecological disaster. The fragile marine ecosystem of the sea floor is a frontier that we know very little about. Photograph: M. Tivey /WHOI Deep Submergence Lab
|
The problem
Each day 100 living species become extinct, 1,000 acres of peat bogs are excavated and 150,000 acres of tropical rainforest are destroyed. Each day, 2 million tons of toxic waste is dumped in to our rivers and seas, 22 million tons of oil are extracted and 100 million tons of greenhouse gases are released.
Today large scale habitat destruction, massive soil depletion, extensive deforestation lead to worldwide disruption of natural cycles and the irreversibility of extinction. Today instances of mass extinction occur with greater frequency, greater rapidity and greater impact than at any other time.
This destruction, damage and loss comes at an enormous cost.
A recent report for the United Nations has found that 3,000 of the world’s biggest corporations caused $2.2 trillion of ecocide in 2008.
Today large scale habitat destruction, massive soil depletion, extensive deforestation lead to worldwide disruption of natural cycles and the irreversibility of extinction. Today instances of mass extinction occur with greater frequency, greater rapidity and greater impact than at any other time.
This destruction, damage and loss comes at an enormous cost.
A recent report for the United Nations has found that 3,000 of the world’s biggest corporations caused $2.2 trillion of ecocide in 2008.
Barrister, Author and Campaigner, Polly Higgns explains the concept of Ecocide. Ecocide is a legal concept of Laws and Governance to Prevent
the Destruction of our Planet.
the Destruction of our Planet.
A new Ecocide law
A campaign to declare the mass destruction of ecosystems an international crime against peace - alongside genocide and crimes against humanity - is being launched in the UK.
The proposal for the United Nations to accept "ecocide" as a fifth "crime against peace", which could be tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC), is the brainchild of British lawyer-turned-campaigner Polly Higgins.
The radical idea would have a profound effect on industries blamed for widespread damage to the environment like fossil fuels, mining, agriculture, chemicals and forestry.
Supporters of a new ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute "climate deniers" who distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming and climate change.
"Ecocide is in essence the very antithesis of life," says Higgins. "It leads to resource depletion, and where there is escalation of resource depletion, war comes chasing behind. Where such destruction arises out of the actions of mankind, ecocide can be regarded as a crime against peace."
Higgins, formerly a barrister in London specialising in employment, has already had success at the UN with a Universal Declaration for Planetary Rights, modelled on the human rights declaration. "My starting point was 'how do we create a duty of care to the planet, a pre-emptive obligation to not harm the planet?'"
After a successful launch at the UN in 2008, the idea has been adopted by the Bolivian government, who will propose a full members' vote, and Higgins has taken up her campaign for ecocide.
Ecocide is already recognised by dictionaries, but Higgins' more legal definition would be: "The extensive destruction, damage to 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."
The ICC was set up in 2002 to hear cases for four crimes against peace: genocide, war crimes, crimes of aggression (such as unprovoked war), and crimes against humanity.
Higgins makes her case for ecocide to join that list with a simple equation: extraction leads to ecocide, which leads to resource depletion, and resource depletion leads to conflict. "The link is if you keep over-extracting from your capital asset we'll have very little left and we will go to war over our capital asset, the last of it," adds Higgins, who has support in the UN and European commission, and among climate scientists, environmental lawyers and international campaign groups.
Although there is debate over how frequently people go to war over resources such as water, a growing number of important voices are arguing this case. Most recently Sir David King, the UK's former chief scientist, predicted a century of "resource wars", and in response to a report on resource conflicts by campaign group Global Witness, Lessons Unlearned, the UN appeared to accept many of the arguments.
Controversially, Higgins is suggesting ecocide would include damage done to any species - not just humans. This, she says, would stop prosecutions being tied up in legal wrangling over whether humans were harmed, as many environmental cases currently are.: "If you put in a crime that's absolute you can't spend years arguing: you take a soil sample and if it tests as positive it's bang to rights."
Under an ecocide law, which would be more potent because prosecutions would be against individuals such as directors rather than the companies, traditional energy companies could have to become largely clean energy companies, much extractive mining would have to be scaled back or stopped, chemicals which contaminate soil and water and kill wildlife would have to be abandoned and large-scale deforestation would not be possible. "I'm only just beginning to get to terms with how enormous that change will be," admits Higgins.
Higgins will launch her campaign through a website – thisisecocide.com – asking for global support to pressure national governments to vote for the proposed law if it is accepted by the UN Law commission. The deadline for the text is January, and a vote has been scheduled on other amendments in 2012. It would need a two-thirds majority of the 197 member countries to pass.
Higgins hopes the UN's "one member, one vote" system will help over-ride likely opposition of some nations and vested business interests. She also believes many businesses favour clear regulation because they fear a future public backlash. And she cites how, when the US entered world war two, its car manufacturers - despite initial opposition - made 10 times the number of aircraft originally asked for. "It shows you how industry can turn around very fast."
Source: The Guardian
The proposal for the United Nations to accept "ecocide" as a fifth "crime against peace", which could be tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC), is the brainchild of British lawyer-turned-campaigner Polly Higgins.
The radical idea would have a profound effect on industries blamed for widespread damage to the environment like fossil fuels, mining, agriculture, chemicals and forestry.
Supporters of a new ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute "climate deniers" who distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming and climate change.
"Ecocide is in essence the very antithesis of life," says Higgins. "It leads to resource depletion, and where there is escalation of resource depletion, war comes chasing behind. Where such destruction arises out of the actions of mankind, ecocide can be regarded as a crime against peace."
Higgins, formerly a barrister in London specialising in employment, has already had success at the UN with a Universal Declaration for Planetary Rights, modelled on the human rights declaration. "My starting point was 'how do we create a duty of care to the planet, a pre-emptive obligation to not harm the planet?'"
After a successful launch at the UN in 2008, the idea has been adopted by the Bolivian government, who will propose a full members' vote, and Higgins has taken up her campaign for ecocide.
Ecocide is already recognised by dictionaries, but Higgins' more legal definition would be: "The extensive destruction, damage to 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."
The ICC was set up in 2002 to hear cases for four crimes against peace: genocide, war crimes, crimes of aggression (such as unprovoked war), and crimes against humanity.
Higgins makes her case for ecocide to join that list with a simple equation: extraction leads to ecocide, which leads to resource depletion, and resource depletion leads to conflict. "The link is if you keep over-extracting from your capital asset we'll have very little left and we will go to war over our capital asset, the last of it," adds Higgins, who has support in the UN and European commission, and among climate scientists, environmental lawyers and international campaign groups.
Although there is debate over how frequently people go to war over resources such as water, a growing number of important voices are arguing this case. Most recently Sir David King, the UK's former chief scientist, predicted a century of "resource wars", and in response to a report on resource conflicts by campaign group Global Witness, Lessons Unlearned, the UN appeared to accept many of the arguments.
Controversially, Higgins is suggesting ecocide would include damage done to any species - not just humans. This, she says, would stop prosecutions being tied up in legal wrangling over whether humans were harmed, as many environmental cases currently are.: "If you put in a crime that's absolute you can't spend years arguing: you take a soil sample and if it tests as positive it's bang to rights."
Under an ecocide law, which would be more potent because prosecutions would be against individuals such as directors rather than the companies, traditional energy companies could have to become largely clean energy companies, much extractive mining would have to be scaled back or stopped, chemicals which contaminate soil and water and kill wildlife would have to be abandoned and large-scale deforestation would not be possible. "I'm only just beginning to get to terms with how enormous that change will be," admits Higgins.
Higgins will launch her campaign through a website – thisisecocide.com – asking for global support to pressure national governments to vote for the proposed law if it is accepted by the UN Law commission. The deadline for the text is January, and a vote has been scheduled on other amendments in 2012. It would need a two-thirds majority of the 197 member countries to pass.
Higgins hopes the UN's "one member, one vote" system will help over-ride likely opposition of some nations and vested business interests. She also believes many businesses favour clear regulation because they fear a future public backlash. And she cites how, when the US entered world war two, its car manufacturers - despite initial opposition - made 10 times the number of aircraft originally asked for. "It shows you how industry can turn around very fast."
Source: The Guardian
Space junk: From spent rockets to defunct satellites, the millions of pieces of orbital debris have reached a critical level. A computer-generated image released by the European Space Agency shows an approximation of 12,000 fragments in orbit around the Earth. Photograph: ESA/AFP/Getty Images
Eradicating Ecocide ~ the book
“Eradicating Ecocide highlights the need for enforceable, legally binding mechanisms in national and international law to hold to account perpetrators of long term severe damage to the environment. At this critical juncture in history it is vital that we set global standards of accountability for corporations, in order to put an end to the culture of impunity and double standards that pervade the international legal system. Polly Higgins illustrates how this can be achieved in her invaluable new book.”
BIANCA JAGGER, Founder and Chair of Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation, advocate for Crimes Against Present and Future Generations
Excerpt
Chapter 5
ECOCIDE: THE 5TH CRIME AGAINST PEACE
There are certain principles of universal validity and application that apply to civilization as a whole. They are the principles that underpin the prohibition of certain behaviour, for example apartheid and genocide. Such abuses arose out of value systems based on a lack of regard for fellow humanity and are now universally outlawed. The rendering of such action as illegal is premised on the advancement of a higher morality that operates without caveat of qualification, a morality based on the sacredness of human life. In a world aspiring to sacredness of life, it is still necessary to identify the crimes to prevent those who fail to live by similar values. But what of the well-being of all life – not just that of humanity – but of all who inhabit a territory over which one has certain responsibilities?
It was the humanitarian crisis of World War II which prompted the creation of the United Nations Organisation whose stated aims are to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and the achieving of world peace. The Charter of the United Nations (UN Charter) declared in 1945:
“We the peoples of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to promote social progress and better standards of life in greater freedom.”
In advancement of peace, the term genocide was soon given international legal recognition to describe the enormous deliberate destruction of human life, such as the holocaust of World War II. Trials were held in Nuremberg to prosecute perpetrators. However, it took over 50 years for the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to provide a permanent international enforcement tribunal, as set down by the provisions in the Rome Statute and ratified in 2002. Jurisdiction is limited to prosecution of individuals of the four ‘most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole’, more commonly known as the four Crimes Against Peace. They are: Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes, and Crimes of Aggression. 4 Now another type of international crime against peace has arisen: that crime is Ecocide.
The Crime of Ecocide
The neologism ecocide is already in use to a limited extent, denoting large-scale destruction, in whole or in part, of ecosystems within a given territory. Ecocide is in essence the very antithesis of life. It can be the outcome of external factors, of a force majeure or an ‘act of God’ such as flooding or an earthquake. It can also be the result of human intervention. Economic activity, particularly when connected to natural resources, can be a driver of conflict. By its very nature, ecocide leads to resource depletion, and where there is escalation of resource depletion, war comes chasing close behind. The capacity of ecocide to be trans-boundary and multi- jurisdictional necessitates legislation of international scope. Where such destruction arises out of the actions of mankind, ecocide can be regarded as a crime against peace, against the peace of all those who reside therein. In the event that ecocide is left to flourish, the 21st century will become a century of ‘resource’ wars.
For the purpose of international law, I propose the following definition for ecocide:
the extensive destruction, damage to 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.
There are two categories of ecocide: non-ascertainable and ascertainable ecocide. Non-ascertainable ecocide applies where the consequence, or potential consequence, is destruction, damage or loss to the territory per se, but without specific identification of cause as being that which has been created by specific human activity.
Ascertainable ecocide describes the consequence, or potential consequence, where there is destruction, damage or loss to the territory, and liability of the legal person(s) can be determined. The destruction of large areas of the environment and ecosystems can be caused directly or indirectly by various activities, such as nuclear testing, exploitation of resources, extractive practices, dumping of harmful chemicals, use of defoliants, emission of pollutants or war.
Examples of ascertainable ecocide affecting sizeable territories include the deforestation of the Amazonian rainforest, the proposed expansion of the Athabasca Oil Sands in northeastern Alberta, Canada and polluted waters in many parts of the world, which account for the death of more people than all forms of violence including war.
In any given example of ecocide, the extent of ‘destruction’, ‘damage’ or ‘loss’ suffered requires analysis. Whereas ‘destruction’ and ‘loss’ are easy to ascertain by way of data, what constitutes ‘damage’ for the purpose of establishing the crime of ecocide is more complex. Size, duration and significance of impact of damage to a territory in most instances shall be of relevance to determine whether the crime is made out. The Rome Statute sets out an extended definition of damage to the environment, specifically as a consequence of War Crimes, which provides useful assistance. Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalises:
widespread long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.
Change one word here: ‘widespread long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall community advantage anticipated’, and incidents of ecocide such as the BP Gulf oil spill can begin to be properly assessed.
The wording used in this section was adopted from the 1977 United Nations Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (the Environmental Modification Convention or ENMOD). ENMOD specifies the terms “widespread”, “long-lasting” and “severe” as
“widespread”: encompassing an area on the scale of several hundred square kilometers; “long-lasting”: lasting for a period of months, or approximately a season; “severe”: involving serious or significant disruption or harm to human life, natural and economic resources or other assets.
These expanded definitions, which are already embedded in international laws of war, offer an existing basis upon which the international crime of ecocide can be seated at the table of the ICC. The word ‘ecocide’ bestows the missing name and fuller comprehension of the crime of unlawful damage to a given environment. As a crime that is not restricted to the confines of war alone, the categorisation of ecocide as a crime against peace is appropriate. Thus, for the purpose of defining ecocide ‘damage’, determination as to whether the extent of damage to the environment is‘widespread, long-term and severe’ can be applied to ecocide in times of peace as well as in times of war….
Eradicating Ecocide: Laws and Governance to Prevent the Destruction of our Planet
Shepheard-Walwyn, September 2010, £17.95 - to buy online HERE!
Chapter 5
ECOCIDE: THE 5TH CRIME AGAINST PEACE
There are certain principles of universal validity and application that apply to civilization as a whole. They are the principles that underpin the prohibition of certain behaviour, for example apartheid and genocide. Such abuses arose out of value systems based on a lack of regard for fellow humanity and are now universally outlawed. The rendering of such action as illegal is premised on the advancement of a higher morality that operates without caveat of qualification, a morality based on the sacredness of human life. In a world aspiring to sacredness of life, it is still necessary to identify the crimes to prevent those who fail to live by similar values. But what of the well-being of all life – not just that of humanity – but of all who inhabit a territory over which one has certain responsibilities?
It was the humanitarian crisis of World War II which prompted the creation of the United Nations Organisation whose stated aims are to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and the achieving of world peace. The Charter of the United Nations (UN Charter) declared in 1945:
“We the peoples of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to promote social progress and better standards of life in greater freedom.”
In advancement of peace, the term genocide was soon given international legal recognition to describe the enormous deliberate destruction of human life, such as the holocaust of World War II. Trials were held in Nuremberg to prosecute perpetrators. However, it took over 50 years for the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to provide a permanent international enforcement tribunal, as set down by the provisions in the Rome Statute and ratified in 2002. Jurisdiction is limited to prosecution of individuals of the four ‘most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole’, more commonly known as the four Crimes Against Peace. They are: Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes, and Crimes of Aggression. 4 Now another type of international crime against peace has arisen: that crime is Ecocide.
The Crime of Ecocide
The neologism ecocide is already in use to a limited extent, denoting large-scale destruction, in whole or in part, of ecosystems within a given territory. Ecocide is in essence the very antithesis of life. It can be the outcome of external factors, of a force majeure or an ‘act of God’ such as flooding or an earthquake. It can also be the result of human intervention. Economic activity, particularly when connected to natural resources, can be a driver of conflict. By its very nature, ecocide leads to resource depletion, and where there is escalation of resource depletion, war comes chasing close behind. The capacity of ecocide to be trans-boundary and multi- jurisdictional necessitates legislation of international scope. Where such destruction arises out of the actions of mankind, ecocide can be regarded as a crime against peace, against the peace of all those who reside therein. In the event that ecocide is left to flourish, the 21st century will become a century of ‘resource’ wars.
For the purpose of international law, I propose the following definition for ecocide:
the extensive destruction, damage to 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.
There are two categories of ecocide: non-ascertainable and ascertainable ecocide. Non-ascertainable ecocide applies where the consequence, or potential consequence, is destruction, damage or loss to the territory per se, but without specific identification of cause as being that which has been created by specific human activity.
Ascertainable ecocide describes the consequence, or potential consequence, where there is destruction, damage or loss to the territory, and liability of the legal person(s) can be determined. The destruction of large areas of the environment and ecosystems can be caused directly or indirectly by various activities, such as nuclear testing, exploitation of resources, extractive practices, dumping of harmful chemicals, use of defoliants, emission of pollutants or war.
Examples of ascertainable ecocide affecting sizeable territories include the deforestation of the Amazonian rainforest, the proposed expansion of the Athabasca Oil Sands in northeastern Alberta, Canada and polluted waters in many parts of the world, which account for the death of more people than all forms of violence including war.
In any given example of ecocide, the extent of ‘destruction’, ‘damage’ or ‘loss’ suffered requires analysis. Whereas ‘destruction’ and ‘loss’ are easy to ascertain by way of data, what constitutes ‘damage’ for the purpose of establishing the crime of ecocide is more complex. Size, duration and significance of impact of damage to a territory in most instances shall be of relevance to determine whether the crime is made out. The Rome Statute sets out an extended definition of damage to the environment, specifically as a consequence of War Crimes, which provides useful assistance. Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalises:
widespread long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.
Change one word here: ‘widespread long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall community advantage anticipated’, and incidents of ecocide such as the BP Gulf oil spill can begin to be properly assessed.
The wording used in this section was adopted from the 1977 United Nations Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (the Environmental Modification Convention or ENMOD). ENMOD specifies the terms “widespread”, “long-lasting” and “severe” as
“widespread”: encompassing an area on the scale of several hundred square kilometers; “long-lasting”: lasting for a period of months, or approximately a season; “severe”: involving serious or significant disruption or harm to human life, natural and economic resources or other assets.
These expanded definitions, which are already embedded in international laws of war, offer an existing basis upon which the international crime of ecocide can be seated at the table of the ICC. The word ‘ecocide’ bestows the missing name and fuller comprehension of the crime of unlawful damage to a given environment. As a crime that is not restricted to the confines of war alone, the categorisation of ecocide as a crime against peace is appropriate. Thus, for the purpose of defining ecocide ‘damage’, determination as to whether the extent of damage to the environment is‘widespread, long-term and severe’ can be applied to ecocide in times of peace as well as in times of war….
Eradicating Ecocide: Laws and Governance to Prevent the Destruction of our Planet
Shepheard-Walwyn, September 2010, £17.95 - to buy online HERE!
End Ecocide ~ the petition
End ecocide at the Earth Summit in just a few weeks!
Why this is important
Ecocide is the extensive destruction of ecosystems and environments which has severe consequences for people as well as the environment.
To world leaders:
“As concerned citizens of a fragile planet, we call on you to back an international law of Ecocide at the Rio+20 Earth Summit in June this year. We call on you to make ecocide the 5th International Crime Against Peace. Life on Earth as it is now cannot survive if we continue to treat our environment as we are currently doing. Take this opportunity to back strong measures to make ecocide a crime, to protect humanity and the Earth.”
Life on Earth is under threat. Damage to the Earth is being caused at an alarming rate and there is no legal framework to prevent this. But next month in June, leaders from around the globe will be at the RIO+20 Earth Summit discussing the Earth’s future - we can make them put people and planet above profit.
As it currently stands there is no international law against ecocide. Making ecocide the 5th International Crime Against Peace will protect our environment and make those who destroy it criminally liable. Our leaders have the chance to fundamentally change the way our Earth is protected.
This crucial summit provides us with a once-in-a-generation opportunity. We can make our leaders listen to our demands for change. Let’s show them that ecocide is a grave crime and that this must be put into international law.
Sign this important AVAAZ-petition and share it with all your friends! To sign, please click here!
Louise Kulbicki reports back from Rio+20 Earth Summit
In need of new leadership
Many have said that if Jesus Christ were alive today, he would recognise the moral imperative of stopping our killing of the Earth. Indeed, the whole of humanity is in jeopardy if we don’t step up to the challenge and really change the trajectory of where we are headed. Here in Rio, a green-lit “Christo Redentor” – Christ the Redeemer – watches over the city, serving as an important reminder that we are in desperate need of new leadership…..and if it’s not going to be Jesus, then who?
The Lawyers leading the way?
In the past many visionaries and leaders have been lawyers – think of Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. So when I arrived at the World Congress on Justice, Law and Governance for Environmental Sustainability (a pre-Rio conference) I was full of hope that just maybe we might be able to come up with some concrete legal solutions (i.e making Ecocide a crime), to halt humanity in its current trajectory of destroying the environment.
The World Congress is a closed-door invitation-only event. It brought together some of the top legal minds in the world; Attorney-Generals, Chief Prosecutors, Auditors-General, Chief Justices, Senior Judges and other legal practitioners to discuss the role of the law in achieving sustainable development and to create a document to be taken to world leaders at the Earth Summit.
The event opened on the 17th at the impressive Tribunal de Justica, Rio De Janeiro. Achim Steiner, the UN’s Environment Programme (UNEP) Executive Director, gave an inspiring speech whilst Ricardo Lorenzetti, the Supreme Court Chief Justice of Argentina, made clear the importance of the judiciary in ensuring governments do not renege on their promises. We then took a shuttle bus 100 km out of Rio to the Portabello Resort in Mangaratiba; where surrounded by luscious green mountains and a palm tree-lined private beach, it was quite easy to forget the urgency of addressing the critical issues humanity and the Earth are facing.
In Mangaratiba the first day opened with Bakary Kante, UNEP’s Director of the Division of Environmental Conventions. He is a clear leader with a strong moral radar. Kante emphasised that the outcome of the World Congress “must mark environmental law history” and that “we cannot have an elephant give birth to a mouse”. The following days were long, and heated discussions took place relating to the nexus between human rights and environmental rights, and the need to identify transnational environmental crimes. In these sessions I emphasised the need to create a crime of Ecocide which led to fruitful discussions; it was evident that there was much support for the idea. I also took up Bakary Kante’s call for participants to put in writing any substantial proposals to be included in the final outcome document. It was then up to fate. Whilst a select few disappeared behind closed doors to determine the content of the final document, we were left with Bobby McFerrin’s classic tune being strummed on a guitar with the hopeful words ringing in our ears, “Don’t worry, be happy.”
The plenary reconvened 2 hours behind schedule, and the draft final Outcome document was read out. One of the positive outcomes of the document was that it stressed the need for UNEP to be transformed to allow it to advance the global law making agenda – but where were the laws suggested? It failed to take into account a number of proposals – including any reference to the law of Ecocide, or even the need to develop international environmental crimes. I later found out that the proposal to include making Ecocide a crime had been opposed strongly by one country, which one was not disclosed. The Latin American countries had reached a separate agreement which seemed stronger referencing environmental rights and an international court for the environment.
People wanted to speak. The steering committee rejected the call for comments until one participant stood up and spoke out about the importance for us to be able to comment. At which point things heated up. Others started to speak out too; a number of lawyers raised a number of issues highlighting their discontent with the Outcome document. I stood up and pointed to the footnote in the text which read: “ this declaration attempts to capture the wide range of views of participants….it does not represent a formally negotiated outcome nor does it necessarily represent…consensus on all issues.” My proposal to call on our world leaders to make Ecocide a crime should have been included, or at the very least the emphasis on developing environmental crimes – which had been discussed extensively and was supported by a number of lawyers present.
When the plenary finally came to a close, it was unclear whether these comments would be taken into consideration. The final session was held in the Supreme Court. We all wanted to hear the outcome of the final document and the translation of the Portuguese Latin American agreement. But it never came. The Outcome document was not presented, nor was any part of it read out; instead one of the steering committee announced that it had been adopted by consensus. What happened next left me questioning the whole system: for the next ten minutes a Brazilian soprano singer sang. Her voice soared, but what of the outcome? The situation was quite bizarre.
A green future?
Bakary Kante spoke in the closing session that the World Congress marked a point in history where we were all starting on a journey to achieving something beautiful. Given the urgency of the problems we are facing, I just hope the journey is a short one. Perhaps the next World Congress should be held at a Tar Sands resort.
With hope,
Louise Kulbicki
The European Citizens' Initiative
to end Ecocide in Europe!
What is a European-Citizens-Initiative?
The European citizens' initiative is not just a petition, it's something more powerful that allows one million EU citizens to participate directly in the development of EU policies, by calling on the European Commission to make a legislative proposal.
A European citizens' initiative to end ecocide in Europe was launched in Brussels on 22 January, 2013 by Polly Higgins, Keith Taylor et al.
With a big early push - through everyone sharing it with all friends who are EU citizens - it could become the first European Citizens Initiative to get 1,000,000 legitimate signatories and then it will have to be considered by the EU Parliament. It also gets Ecocide out further into common parlance.
"We invite the European Commission to adopt legislation to prohibit, prevent and pre-empt Ecocide, the extensive damage to, destruction of or loss of ecosystems."
Main objectives:
1. Criminalise Ecocide and ensure that natural and legal persons can be held responsible for committing Ecocide according to the principle of superior responsibility.
2. Prohibit and prevent any Ecocide on European territories or maritime territories falling under EU legislation, as well as acts outside the EU committed by EU registered legal persons or EU nationals.
3. Provide for a period of transition to facilitate a sustainable economy.
EU-citizens, please sign at: www.endecocide.eu NOW!
On behalf of Europe's children, grand children and all future generations: THANK YOU!
