Environmental Harm

What is Environmental Harm?
 Environmental Harm and Green Criminology.
Duty to compensate for Environmental Harm.

Environmental Harm

The  primary  aim  of  the  Environment  Protection  Act  is  to  protect  the  environment  from environmental  harm.  Environmental  harm  is  defined  in  the  Dictionary  to  mean  any impact on the environment as a result of human activity that has the effect of degrading the environment, whether temporarily or permanently. 

Pollute includes ‘to cause or fail to prevent the discharge, emission, depositing, disturbance
or escape of a pollutant’ which includes the following:

• a gas, liquid or solid

• dust, fumes, odour or smoke

• an organism, whether dead or alive, including a virus or a prion

• energy, including heat, noise, radioactivity, light, or other electromagnetic radiation

• anything prescribed or any combination of the above elements.

Environmental Harm and Green Criminology 

The first question that has to be addressed in any discussion of crime prevention and environmental issues is what, precisely, are the crimes that we are talking about?  The short response is that there is no one answer. How environmental harm is conceptualised is highly contested within the green criminology literature, and there is no single definition that will satisfy all. One reason for this ambiguity over definition is that environmental harm can be conceptualized as involving acts and omissions that are both ëlegalí and ëillegalí. For instance, from an ecological perspective, some activities, such as clearfelling of old growth forests, are legal but deemed to be highly destructive. The criteria for ëharmí and ëcrimeí, therefore, depend very much upon the values, knowledge and deliberations of those investigating the nature of the human activity.  

Duty to Compensate for Environmental Harm

States are responsible to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other states or areas beyond the limits of their national jurisdiction. Injuries result from violations of this generally accepted rule.1 Any state responsible for a violation of international law has to stop the wrongful conduct and re-establish the condition that existed prior to the wrongful conduct. If it is impossible to re-establish the pre-existing condition, the state should provide compensation." An illegal or wrongful act exists where: a) conduct consists of an action or omission imputed to a state under international law; and b) such conduct constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the state." This definition poses three problemsvin relation to international environmental law. First, what is the criteria for imputing liability to a state? Second, what is the definition of environmental damage? Third, what is the appropriate form of reparation?

With regards to the first question, there are three options: fault (negligence), strict liability (there is a presumption of responsibility but defenses are available), 9 and absolute liability (no cause of justification is possible, and a state would be liable even for an act of God). While fault is based on due diligence, strict and absolute liability impose responsibility for acts not prohibited under international law. Strict liability emphasizes the harm rather than the conduct

It is a widespread opinion that international law lacks absolute or strict liability as a general rule.60 There is no single basis of international responsibility applicable in all circumstances, but rather several, the nature of which depends upon the particular obligation in question." Therefore, international law is not conclusive on the standard of care to be shown in the fulfillment of environmental obligations. For example, strict liability for ultra-hazardous activities can be considered a general principle of law since it is found in municipal legislation worldwide.' 2 Some treaties even support absolute liability for these activities.' 3 However, strict or absolute liability is more difficult to impute for activities that are not ultra- hazardous." It should also be considered that the damage can be produced directly by state organs, by private individuals within the territory, 5 or in the execution of lawful measures.