Date : 09/09/2023

Relevance – GS Paper 3 – Environment and ecology

Keywords – Maya train project, ICC, Wildlife Protection Act of 1972, Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act of 2016 (CAMPA).

Context –

The Maya train project in Mexico, which seeks to connect tourists with significant Maya historical sites, has stirred controversy due to worries about its potential negative effects on the environment and local culture.

This contentious project highlights the notion of "ecocide" and the expanding worldwide campaign to make environmental harm a criminal offense.

About Ecocide

Ecocide is a term rooted in Greek and Latin, signifying the "killing of one's home" or harming the environment. While there isn't a globally accepted legal definition of ecocide, in June 2021, a group of legal experts convened by the NGO Stop Ecocide Foundation put forth a definition aimed at categorizing severe environmental destruction as a crime comparable to crimes against humanity.

According to their proposed definition, ecocide is described as "unlawful or reckless actions carried out with the awareness that there exists a substantial probability of causing severe and either extensive or enduring harm to the environment."

Historically, the concept of ecocide began gaining traction in 1970 when biologist Arthur Galston drew a link between environmental devastation and genocide, an internationally recognized crime. He did this while addressing the U.S. military's use of Agent Orange, an herbicide, during the Vietnam War. Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme also raised this idea in a speech at the United Nations, warning of the irreversible harm that unbridled industrialization could inflict on the environment.

In 2010, a British lawyer played a pivotal role by advocating for the United Nations' International Criminal Court (ICC) to officially recognize ecocide as an international crime. Presently, the Rome Statute of the ICC addresses four major offenses: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression as international crimes. The provision related to war crimes is the only one that can hold an offender accountable for causing environmental destruction, but only if it's intentionally inflicted during armed conflicts.

The current status of ecocide acknowledgment in India is characterized by the following key points:

1. International Engagement: India has not signed or ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and it has not officially expressed a stance on the international proposal to criminalize ecocide.
2. Commitment to International Environmental Treaties: Despite not participating in the ICC's Rome Statute, India has ratified several international environmental agreements. These include the Convention on Biological Diversity, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
3. National Environmental Laws: India has enacted various national laws and policies aimed at protecting and conserving its environment. These include the Environment Protection Act of 1986, the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972, and the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act of 2016 (CAMPA).
4. Informal Use of the Term 'Ecocide': While some court judgments in India have casually mentioned the term 'ecocide,' it has not been formally integrated into Indian legal frameworks.
5. Relevant Court Cases: In the case of Chandra CFS and Terminal Operators Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs and Ors in 2015, the Madras High Court highlighted activities that could be considered ecocide, particularly in relation to the removal of valuable timber.
6. Shifting Environmental Perspective: The T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union Of India & Ors case in 1995, heard by the Supreme Court of India, emphasized the need to transition from an anthropocentric approach to an ecocentric approach to achieve environmental justice.

In summary, India has not taken a formal stance on ecocide at the international level but has actively participated in various environmental treaties and has a body of national environmental laws. While the term 'ecocide' has been mentioned in some court cases, it has not been formally defined or incorporated into Indian legislation. The country's approach to environmental protection is evolving, with an increasing emphasis on ecocentric perspectives.

Arguments supporting the criminalization of ecocide include:

1. Protection of the Environment as an Intrinsic Value: Ecosystems are complex and have evolved over millions of years. Recognizing the environment as an entity worthy of protection acknowledges the importance of preserving these ecosystems in their natural state to maintain their integrity and evolutionary potential. Ecocide laws fill a crucial gap in environmental protection by affirming the intrinsic value of the environment.
2. Intergenerational Justice: Advocates argue that ecocide can be viewed as accumulating a "biodiversity debt" that future generations will have to address. Criminalizing ecocide signifies society's responsibility to leave a sustainable and habitable planet for posterity, ensuring that future generations are not burdened with the consequences of environmental destruction.
3. Climate Change Mitigation: Addressing ecocide through criminal law complements international climate agreements by directly targeting the root causes of climate change. Activities such as large-scale deforestation and uncontrolled fossil fuel extraction, considered ecocidal, significantly contribute to climate change. Criminalizing ecocide adds a robust legal dimension to environmental protection, holding individuals and entities accountable for actions that harm the climate.
4. Global Recognition and Legal Action: Ecocide is already recognized as a crime in 11 countries, and 27 more are considering similar legislation. These laws can serve as potent instruments for justice, especially for low- and middle-income countries disproportionately affected by extreme weather events. Smaller nations like Vanuatu and Barbuda are advocating for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to classify environmental crimes as violations of international law.

Proponents of criminalizing ecocide argue that it provides a comprehensive legal framework to protect the environment, upholds intergenerational justice, complements climate change mitigation efforts, and promotes global recognition and action against environmental crimes.

There are several arguments against the criminalization of ecocide:

1. Development vs. Environmental Protection: Critics contend that defining ecocide may create a conflict between development objectives and environmental conservation. They argue that such definitions might inadvertently pit developmental goals, like infrastructure projects, against environmental preservation. For instance, projects like the Great Nicobar Project in India faced criticism for their potential harm to indigenous communities and biodiversity, while the government defended them as efforts towards "holistic development."
2. Interference with Sovereignty: Some argue that criminalizing ecocide could infringe upon a nation's sovereignty. Countries may perceive such laws as encroachments on their ability to manage their own environmental policies and resources, potentially leading to resistance or non-compliance with international standards.
3. Chilling Effect on Scientific Research: Concerns exist that the prospect of legal repercussions may deter scientists and researchers from conducting experiments or studies involving environmental manipulation. The fear of facing legal consequences might hinder scientific progress and the development of a deeper understanding of complex ecological systems.
4. Efficacy and Enforcement Challenges : Critics question the effectiveness of criminalizing ecocide in deterring environmental harm. They argue that existing environmental regulations, when rigorously enforced, can be more effective than creating a new criminal framework. The challenges of enforcing ecocide laws and determining liability may outweigh the potential benefits.

Opponents of criminalizing ecocide raise concerns about potential conflicts with development goals, threats to national sovereignty, impediments to scientific research, and the practical effectiveness of such measures when compared to existing environmental regulations.

The Way Forward

Prioritizing Environmental Protection: Regardless of whether ecocide is criminalized, safeguarding the environment should always be a primary goal. This involves recognizing the fundamental importance of environmental preservation.

Ecological Restoration Bonds: Introducing the concept of ecological restoration bonds is crucial. Companies engaged in projects with significant environmental impacts could be required to obtain these bonds as part of their licensing or permitting process. The funds generated from these bonds would be reserved specifically for ecological restoration in case environmental harm occurs. This ensures that the responsibility and costs of restoration are borne by those responsible for the damage.

Mandatory Environmental Education: Implementing mandatory environmental education in schools and universities is essential. This educational initiative aims to raise awareness about environmental rights and responsibilities among students and the broader population. By equipping individuals with knowledge about the environment, they can become advocates for environmental causes and engage in meaningful discussions about issues like ecocide.

In summary, the path forward involves a strong commitment to environmental protection, the establishment of ecological restoration bonds to hold companies accountable, and the promotion of environmental education to empower citizens to take an active role in preserving the environment.

Source – The Hindu