How can an international law of ecocide contribute to strengthening and protecting the rights and lives of environmental defenders?
Written by Members of End Ecocide on Earth with special thanks to Dr Diana Warner, Retired GP, UK for her contribution.
Around the globe the rights and safety of environmental defenders is at increasing risk. Environmental defenders are, according to the UN, those individuals and groups who, in their personal or professional capacity and in a peaceful manner, strive to protect and promote human rights relating to the environment, including water, air, land, flora and fauna. The UN Human Rights Council has unanimously recognised their importance to environmental protection.
Worldwide, Indigenous Peoples and Afrodescendents continue to be disproportionately targeted, accounting for 49% of total murders of environmental defenders. Although they make up 5% of the global population. Indigenous people protect large swathes of Earth’s remaining biodiversity and their role is essential to safeguard biodiversity for future generations.
Deaths are often linked to where indigenous land is being directly exploited for economic gain. Some cases are linked to criminal gangs and organised crime. Interestingly environmental crime is now the world’s 4th largest type of crime and it is often carried out by gangs involved in other types of illegal activity such as people and drug trafficking.
According to a report by NGO Global Witness, Between 2012 and 2023, 2,106 earth defenders were killed. In 2023 Colombia had the highest number of killings worldwide – with a record 79 defenders killed, followed by Brazil (25), Mexico (18) and Honduras (18). The highest numbers of deaths of environmental defenders are concentrated in Latin and Central America. More than 2,100 land and environmental defenders killed globally between 2012 and 2023 | Global Witness
A high profile example of the death of an environmental defender in Latin America, is the death of Berta Cáceres in Honduras in 2016. Berta Cáceres led protests against the Agua Zarca hydro-electric dam project before being shot dead in her home. In a rare example of a successful case brought against the perpetrator, a court ruled that Roberto David Castillo, whose company had been awarded the contract, had planned the murder and hired the gunmen. He was sentenced to 22 years in prison.
In Latin America there is at least some hope that the Escazú agreement signed in 2018 will bring some level of increased protection. The Escazú Agreement was adopted on March 4, 2018 in Escazú, Costa Rica signed by 22 Latin American/Caribbean states. This treaty strengthens the link between human rights and environmental defence by posing obligations on the States parties, regarding the protection of environmental human rights defenders.
The Escazú Agreement | Environment Rights (environment-rights.org)
In Turkiye over the past 20 years, there have been 5 killings of earth defenders. The last one took place in September 2024, after the unprecedented flood of unlawful licensings of mining projects where locals have become defenders to protect their land and water all around Turkiye.
In the most recent occurrence there was a direct confrontation with the perpetrator while the defenders tried to protect the trees from being cut. It is feared that similar cases may occur but this does not stop the earth defenders supporting one another throughout the country and they never give up on resisting.
Media coverage and social media postings do create pressure by revealing the truth and demanding justice. In fact it is the last resort where justice fails.
https://www.maden.org.tr/icerik/karar-or-maden-yasasi-29-kez-niye-degisir-202403011304
There have been constant changes to mining law in favour of mining companies.
Union of Turkish Bar Associations claims that:
The murder of Resit Kibar, who fought to protect nature in Cankurtaran, is also an attack on the environmental struggle and the future of society. It is not only an attack against environmental resistance but also the rights of future generations.
Alongside those who are killed there are many more earth defenders who experience violence, intimidation and criminalisation threats of being arrested and/or threats of being attacked. The report further established that eviction is the second most prominent threat faced by applicants. Other common risks documented around the world include physical attacks, Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP suits), judicial harassment, emotional and sexual violence and even death.
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) are frequently deployed by companies to silence and harass critics. SLAPPs pose as legitimate legal claims, abusing laws (e.g. on libel/defamation) to target valid and protected speech or protest.
Even in those countries traditionally characterised as democratic, nations where freedom of speech and expression is enshrined within legal frameworks such as in the UK, Europe and the US, the approach to punishing those who have taken part in demonstrations and actions to raise awareness of climate change have become increasingly severe.
Five UK climate protesters jailed for conspiracy to block major road | Reuters
So much so, that after his visit to the UK in January 2024, Michel Forst, the UN representative for environmental defenders, stated that he found their treatment “extremely worrying”.
For those actively involved in defending the earth in the UK the experience leaves a profound mark.
Dr Diana Warner, UK – Retired GP and Earth Defender
“While here in the UK Environmental Defenders don’t have to worry about being killed, the increasing frequency of imprisonment for longer terms has a significant impact on our health. UK prisons are unhealthy places and conditions are worsening. Former prisoners are known to have reduced length of life compared to their peers.
However, prison is not our main concern. Environmental Defenders like myself are traumatised night and day by being present with ongoing injustices and the endless and unthinking destruction of life, of other peoples, the huge wealth inequalities everywhere which mean that the powerful can continue without sparing a thought to those who are losing everything or who will lose everything. These same concerns are held by a growing majority of folk in the world.
If an ecocide law is passed so that The International Criminal Court investigates and imprisons the individuals most responsible for perpetrating ecocide, then every individual who is responsible for committing ecocide will pause and review their destructive actions. They will know that they personally risk losing their freedom and assets. Such an ecocide law may potentially result in a safer and saner world. Environmental Defenders will be able to ease up and join the constructive work to put in place the changes we need. It will make a world of difference to us.”
Dr Diana Warner, Retired GP and Earth Defender
Other countries have found themselves subject to Forst’s disapproval too. The Netherlands, France, Sweden and other EU member states, as well as the EU itself, have all been reprimanded for their poor treatment of those trying to protect nature.That is despite all of them having signed the Aarhus Convention. The Aarhus Convention is a multilateral environmental agreement through which the opportunities for citizens to access environmental information are increased and transparent and reliable regulation procedure is secured.
A recent case in Sweden (2024) concerns a civil servant employed at the Energy Agency who was fired from her job because of her membership in Rebellmammorna (the Rebellious moms), which is part of the Extinction Rebellion group. The UN special rapporteur Michel Forst criticised the Swedish government and the Energy Agency for dismissing the woman, stating that it amounted to ”punishment, persecution and harassment.”
The world’s first Special Rapporteur on environmental defenders elected under the Aarhus Convention/ The Special Rapporteurs position paper (February 2024). Design MF position paper FEB 2024 – ENGLISH TOC.pdf (ecnl.org)
What are the penalties for infractions against the Aarhaus convention?
- A compliance committee was set up in 2002 pursuant to Article 15 of the convention https://unece.org/env/pp/cc/background
- it is a non-confrontational, non-judicial and consultative nature for reviewing compliance with the provisions of the Convention
- members of the public may make communications concerning a Party’s compliance with the convention.
- The Special Rapporteur has various tools for resolving complaints and protecting environmental defenders quickly and effectively, which may include issuing immediate and ongoing protection measures, using diplomatic channels, issuing public statements, or bringing the matter to the attention of other relevant human rights bodies, and of the concerned Governments and Heads of State. https://unece.org/environment-policy/public-participation/mandate-and-functions-special-rapporteur
A critical question is why does this treatment of those attempting to protect the earth occur? Part of this issue is deeply rooted in the concept of landownership and the foundation of law as a tool to protect private property.
Property refers to legally protected claims to resources, such as land and personal property. This is at odds with the world view of many indigenous cultures.
The intrinsic value of nature is not recognised and human lives are not protected over economic opportunities. Nature is seen simply as a resource for human exploitation.
Earth defenders are often treated as if they are the criminals; protection of private property trumps protection of nature in existing legal systems.
Often large multinational companies and governments are implicated in these crimes where the economic advantage is seen to outweigh the consequences of activities. Harm to the environment and to the health of people is an externalised cost and licences and permits enable harmful practices.
A notable example is the pollution of vast tracts of indigenous lands in Ecuador. The company involved dumped the waste products of oil extraction in local rivers and water courses causing extensive health problems including cancer and birth defects. Thirteen years ago Indigenous peoples and other Amazonian inhabitants made climate justice history in Ecuador when, after 18 years of legal battles, they won a $9.5 billion judgement against the company. However despite this successful court case unfortunately subsequently the company has not paid up for the clean up.
What needs to change?
Currently severe destruction of nature is not considered to be as serious as severe crime to humans. Environmental defenders are protecting something that is not recognised as intrinsically important within law. Therefore the lives of those who choose to protect nature are viewed similarly and particularly in countries where the rule of law is least enforced or respected. Currently the ‘worst’ crimes against humans are described and enshrined within international law.
The Rome Statute, the document of the International Criminal Court, contains the crimes that are considered to be so grave that they ‘shock the conscience of humanity’. The current crimes are Genocide, War Crimes, Crimes of Aggression and Crimes against Humanity.
Before the rights of those protecting ecosystems are given the appropriate protection, it is essential that ecocide becomes a crime recognised as on a par with the most severe crimes against humans.
The proposed amendment to include ecocide within the Rome Statute is now part of the formal processes within the International Criminal Court and it will not be considered by the Rome Statute signatory members through the Working Group on Amendments.
Having an International law of ecocide will strengthen existing environmental regulation providing more emphasis on enforcement and prosecution of atrocity scale environmental crime and a much stronger deterrent. Those in decision making positions will be at risk of criminal prosecution, this will be a huge deterrent to companies with shareholders and reputations to uphold. It will also free up CEOs and heads of state from the pressure to enable environmentally risky endeavours for the sake of economic advantage.
Having an international law of ecocide in place would increase the legitimacy of organisations taking action to protect rights and support those shining a light on these crimes. If ecocide were recognised in international law perhaps fewer people would need to put their own lives directly on the line.
What else would help to improve the rights of environmental human rights defenders?
- Strengthen the already existing protection and rights of environmental defenders in the Aarhus convention (full text of the convention cep43e.pdf (unece.org)) and properly enforce infractions.
- Enforce and uphold the Escazu agreement for Latin America and the Caribbean (link to an article about the agreement Protecting Environmental Defenders in Latin America: The Escazú Agreement | IUCN).
- Uphold existing environmental legislation – more resources are needed to ensure proper enforcement and that relevant cases are brought to court.
- Uphold the right to a clean and healthy environment – What is the Right to a Healthy Environment? | United Nations Development Programme
- Recognise that the repression of environmental defenders is a key ‘enabler’ of ecocide.
This blog explores the human, environmental and economic impacts of ecosystem destruction.
Effects of Oil Spills in the Mauritian Ocean.
By Neha Sewsingh
The captain and first mate of the MW Wakashio, a shipwreck in 2020 that caused an oil spill on the coast of Mauritius, were found guilty of the worst pollution ever known in this Indian Ocean archipelago. Efforts made to control oil leaking from the ship appeared to have been successful initially. However, the oil spill continued along the coastline. The ship was traveling from Singapore to Brazil. The Japanese bulk carrier on the 25th July 2020 hit a coral reef in the southeast of Mauritius, an environmentally sensitive area, while traveling from China to Brazil, on 25 July 2020.
On 5 August and, shortly thereafter oil began to leak releasing more than 1000 tons of oil in the crystal clear lagoon by 11 August 2020, according to International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF). Much manpower has been used to control the potential environmental disaster which added more burdens on the Mauritian economy.
The Indian captain, Sunil Kumar Nandeshwar, who admitted during the hearing that he was partying on board with his crew mate when they both were on duty and thus he was voluntarily drunk, was found guilty, along with his Sri Lankan first mate Hitihanillage Subhoda Janendra Tilakaratna, thus , »endangering the safety of navigation » by a court in Port Louis, Mauritius. Both men apologized for the accident. They were sentenced to 20 months in prison. The sentence was pronounced in December 2021.
For so many damages caused to the environment, marine life, and also to peoples livelihood in the fishing industry and the impacts on human health, only 20 months of imprisonment do not seem enough.
Does this punishment achieve justice for humans and for nature? [1]
In the aftermath of the ship breaking up, three crew members of a ship involved in the clean up were killed when their boat sank, furthermore 49 dolphins were found dead in the weeks following the sinking. These deaths followed soon after the spill, but the scale of impact on human and wildlife health and the economic impact will be many times greater and will need to be monitored going forward. A recent report in the Lancet (2) examined the initial impacts on human health from the clean up operation detailing reports from locals of respiratory and neurological conditions.
The oil spill was the worst marine pollution in the history of Mauritius. The island depends mainly on ecotourism and depends on its water for food security. The inhabitants criticized the government’s management of the oil spill.
Mauritian Government Data on the impact on fish in terms of their safety for human consumption.
According to the IPPC (2018), the coral reef, fish, and other marine life are already under threat from climate change. Now with the MV Wakashio oil spill, the threats of an ecological catastrophe around the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius are more amplified.[3]
The oil spill is disastrous to the economy, food security, health, and as has already been mentioned tourism. It has been reported that tourism alone in Mauritius contributed $1.6 billion to the Mauritian economy in the year 2019.
The location of the shipwreck was close to a marine park, two internationally protected wetland sites of international importance (under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands 1971, as amended in 1987), and a popular tourist destination. It is also a cultural location where a famous naval battle, containing historic wrecks that have laid undisturbed for two centuries. So the oil spill has not only damaged marine life but also destroyed the historic coastline.
This is one terrible incident for which the repercussions will be felt for many years. However, going forward, how do we protect people, wildlife and the economy in such an ecologically sensitive area?
In February 2022, two Taiwanese fishing boats once again ran aground on our coral reef at Bain-des- Dames. According to the Opposition Leader of Mauritius 30,000 boats pass through our maritime area each year endangering our coastline and as a result. Should the Mauritian Government have considered this? Should they have devised an action plan to manage these kinds of disasters and better still put in place measures to avoid them occurring in the first place? The Leader of Opposition further added that every 3 months, boats run aground on our reefs or break down in our lagoon and this constitutes a real danger to the citizens of Mauritius.[3]
Following these kinds of incidents in Mauritius, liability and compensation will be critical in the aftermath of the spill and in respect of the economic and human health consequences, as well as in respect of the costs of restoration of the environment. In terms of oil spills, the approach to the clean up operation can also seriously affect the marine environment, and human health as a result of the toxic effects of chemicals used to disperse the oil.
Could this be considered to be an ecocide? Whilst it will be the task of the court and the judge to conclude what will be assessed to be an ecocide. Could it be said that the approach taken to allow this type of cargo into environmentally sensitive waters is a crime of endangerment?
To conclude, it is high time to adopt the latest international legal instruments in the field in order to prevent this kind of disaster in the future. If we really want to survive as human species,the first thing that we need to do is to change our perception which in turn will change our point of view toward Mother Earth.
The future is in our hands , and we can shape it as we like .We can be a mere spectator and watch the world crumbling down in front of our eyes or we can use our rational mind to take the proper action in order to survive .
We cannot wait until tomorrow because the future is Now!
References:
1. https://www.africanews.com/
2. https://www.thelancet.com/
3. https://unctad.org/news/
4. https://mauritiushindinews.
CHANGING THE RULES – CHANGING THE SYSTEM
Hana Begovic, Earth Advocacy Youth
Why is it time to change the rules?
In many countries and human cultures around the world, non-human living systems and entities are seen as human-owned objects whose reason for existence is to be co-modified, exploited and used for human benefit and economic profit. This is today’s dominant narrative and permeates almost all spaces in which economic power is fostered and decision-making occurs. It expresses human authority over other life on Earth and does not provide the rest of the natural world with any legal standing in a human court of law.
This is concerning because by maintaining this dichotomy in governance systems built upon anthropocentric violence against other life on Earth, humanity is contributing to the irreversible collapse of countless ecosystems. Additionally, today’s dominant narrative expresses and confirms a human authority which defies the natural laws that govern the planet’s living systems. These destructive structures only benefit the few, jeopardize the rights to life, dignity and respect of the many, and unmercifully destroys the preconditions for life.
A pillar within this narrative is how “Nature” is often spoken about, through an insidious lens of a dichotomy that not only separates “human” from ”Nature” but also, arrogantly enough, fundamentally suggests that humans are somehow superior to and therefore “masters” of “Nature”. I call this a cognitive separation, which portrays “Nature” as something that exists outside of ourselves. As if it is something external from us. Disconnected from humans. This way of looking at ourselves and the world around us is contributing to the collapse of ecosystems across the planet. Ecosystems that also deserve to exist and thrive in and of themselves as well as to enable human existence, through the interconnected and crisscrossing relationships that make up the complex web of life on the planet.
The Ecocide Law movement which calls for the introduction of an international law of ecocide is a growing global movement. It aims to stop widespread, systematic, and severe mass damage and destruction of ecosystems by making the large scale destruction of ecosystems a crime.
In my 26 years of existence, I can say that I have witnessed how human activity is severely damaging the global commons such as the oceans and the Earth’s living systems. What this movement is working successfully towards is a law that, as Polly Higgins said in 2015, ”has a higher moral authority, [..], starts from first do no harm, stops this dangerous game and takes us to a place of safety”. If passed, this law would establish ecocide as an international crime, more specifically, the fifth international Crime against Peace. It would join the existing four crimes of the international criminal court: Genocide, Crimes against Humanity, War Crimes, and Crimes of Aggression.
No matter where the systemic damage of an ecosystem occurs, it would hold individuals and companies liable under international law. This jurisdiction would stand above all other jurisdictions and the individuals who are responsible for funding, permitting or causing this harm would be subject to criminal prosecution by the International Criminal Court.
Having this law in place would make a significant difference, firstly because it would be clear in no uncertain terms that the large scale destruction of non-human living systems is a moral crime. Secondly, activities that are defined as being criminal would not be able to access legitimate insurance or investment.
For me, “Nature” is a process I am intrinsically part of. It is the web of life composed of interactive and reciprocal relationships that connect every organism on Earth into one planetary and complex interdependent ecosystem. Nature is not an object nor a collection of objects, but a process of crisscrossing interconnected relationships.
I believe we as a human society must understand that we are Nature too. Nature lives within us and around us because we as humans are Nature too. In which ways am I so intrinsically interlinked? Here’s one: At this moment, I carry 1.5 kgs of air, “non-human” Nature in me. Without it, I die. Let’s throw in a second example. A 2018 study found that human cells make up only 43 percent of the body’s total cell count and what remains are microscopic creatures. If this is true, where does “microbe” within me end and “human” begin?
What is my point? I cannot separate myself from the water I drink, the food I eat, or the air I breathe.
The Earth system as a whole is facing an onslaught that is currently taking it beyond its capacity to self-heal and that affects each and every one of us, including future generations who have an intrinsic right to live in a healthy world that is richly diverse in species and life.
There is hope. Human society must change the rules to protect Nature and when I say Nature, I I mean to protect the natural world that we are essentially part of.
To support the campaign for an international law of Ecocide, to change the rules to prevent significant harm to the natural world, please sign the international petition. This petition is calling on governments around the globe to support the amendment of the Rome Statute to include the crime of ecocide at the international level.