Ecocide – An Evolution of Law

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Editor’s note: On the Post Growth blog we regularly feature local, often small-scale ways of making change. Change on the larger scale – to our political, economic, and legal structures, is of course important too. In this article the author shares with us a European initiative that aims to do just that. If you happen to be near Stockholm, Sweden this weekend, check out the Ending Ecocide conference on 26 April, 2014, and learn about other related talks and events here.

half the world brown, smoking, destroyed; half green, healthy, abundant

Image credit

How do we stop the destruction of the Earths’ living systems, the glaring result of the industrial growth society? From rainforests turned to palm oil plantations, to seas deprived of many fish species, to mines opened in ancient lands of indigenous peoples – like the Sami in Sweden: the story repeats itself all over the world.

I recently met lawyer Pablo Fajardo, a former oil field worker who completed his law degree by correspondence course and is now the lead attorney for 30 000 inhabitants of Amazonian Ecuador in a lawsuit against the oil giant Chevron, who have refused to take responsibility for their oil operations over the course of three decades. While drilling in the Ecuadorian Amazon from 1964 to 1990, Texaco (now Chevron) deliberately dumped more than 18 billion gallons of toxic wastewater, spilled roughly 17 million gallons of crude oil, and left hazardous waste in hundreds of open pits dug out of the forest floor.

By comparison, 10.8 million gallons were spilled in the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska 1989. However, the Texaco oil spills were not an accident but a conscious operation during many years. The contamination of petroleum hydrocarbons in these areas are on average 20 times higher than the Ecuadorean norms for the time of operation, and the oil has contaminated water, rendered agricultural land unusable and lead to severe health problems among the inhabitants, including more than a thousand deaths from cancer. The Ecuadorean citizens’ struggle for justice began in 1993.  In November 2013, The Supreme Court of Ecuador condemned Chevron to pay compensatory damages for over USD 9 billion.

In this, one of the worst cases of oil-related contamination on Earth, often referred to as the Amazon Chernobyl, liability is in other words determined. But that doesn´t help, as Chevron, one of the largest companies on the planet, doesn´t accept it. They refuse to pay. Total revenues for Chevron in 2012 amounted to $230 billion dollars. Ecuador, with 13 million inhabitants, has a total annual fiscal budget of barely $26 billion.

Who will hold Chevron accountable?

The world has become increasingly global and consequences of ever increasing consumption are invisible from where that consumption is taking place. Power relations are shifting so that the greatest economies now are large corporations, with one underlying motive: profit. In this situation we find ourselves in, there is great need for new practices and institutions to preserve values we hold dear, like the health of people and ecosystems.

One such new institution might be the law of ecocide, proposed by among others Earth lawyer Polly Higgins. The law of ecocide recognizes other living beings as subjects with rights, not mere resources:

Ecocide is the 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 or will be severely diminished.

Ecocide is not a new invention – the history of the idea can be traced back to the 1950s. Polly believes that the Rome Statute, the treaty that regulates the International Criminal Court in The Hague, should include ecocide as the fifth crime against peace alongside genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression.

Many cases of potential ecocides are committed in countries that don´t have the political or economical strength to protect the interests of their citizens, but that is not always the case. The tar sands of Athabasca, Canada, the destruction of the Amazonian rainforest by logging, mining and beef production, and the oil extraction in the Niger Delta have been suggested as potential ecocides.

While we worry about levels of emissions from greenhouse gases, we still invest heavily in a fossil economy. The largest companies in the world are dealing with fossil energy. The large pension funds in Sweden, for example, have approximately 5 billion dollars invested in these companies. These investments not only lead to climate change, they are also extremely damaging at the sites of extraction.

The Chevron case described above is an attempt to hold a corporation accountable to the polluter pays principle. Even that seems impossible within current legislation. A law of ecocide would be much more bold – it would be an attempt to make polluters stop polluting. Decision-makers in business and politics who have had a possibility to foresee risks of ecocide would be personally accountable and would run the risk of prosecution.

However, the aim of a law of ecocide is not to put CEOs behind bars, but to shift to a society that puts people and planet before profit. Large corporations are very bad at that at the moment. Their foremost goal is to produce revenue for shareholders. According to that logic, a CEO who abstains from projects that are profitable but destructive could rightly be sacked. A law of ecocide would be a factor beyond profit present in boardrooms. It would support decision-makers to be conscious about the impact of their decisions on living systems. It could shift flows of investments from damaging ecosystems to sustainable innovation. A law of ecocide would support a shift to a circular economy.

The concept of ecocide reflects a worldview where humans are part of living systems, instead of dominating them, where nature is valuable in itself, not just as a resource for humans. The need for such a cultural shift is growing, and support for a law of ecocide is actually not very far away. When the Rome Statute was negotiated, ecocide was considered for inclusion, but was left out for unclear reasons. Today the cases of ecocide are painfully obvious. It is time for a law for life.

Show your support for a ending ecocide by adding your name to this petition! The petition will be handed over to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and chairman of EU Commission José Barroso in September.

Published by Pella Thiel

Swedish change-maker and social entrepreneur Pella Thiel has a background in ecology. After working in the environmental movement she grew increasingly frustrated over the solutions proposed, which seemed more like a treatment of symptoms than real change. She found the Transition Movement and developed an interest for inner transition. On that path she’s connected with the Common Cause International Network and is exploring the role that values play in making deep change. What engages her most is reconnecting with nature and creating space to increase trust in the more beautiful world our hearts know is possible.