# Transcript

### Green Criminology: An interview with Reece Walters (part 2)

Dr. Deborah Drake

What theories and perspectives underpin Green Criminology?

Professor Reece Walters

I think it’s important to identify that there is no one Green Criminological theory. Indeed, Green Criminology is very much an evolving discipline; an evolving narrative if you like, and it has its … theoretical roots embedded within the traditions of critical criminological perspectives. I mean if you look at Green Criminologists around the world, if you look at who’s writing in academia in the area of Green Criminology, who is at the forefront of this movement, you know Nigel South or Diane Heckenberg, Jacqueline Schneider, Piers Beirne, Michael Lynch, Rob White, they are all individuals who have come from critical criminological traditions, whether they be feminism, Marxism, social constructionism and so on, you know. They are not mainstream positivist criminologists. And with them, they bring their own critical perspectives and theories to Green Criminology

Dr. Deborah Drake

So I understand that there are those critical traditions in Green Criminology that you’ve just mentioned but are there some key themes that bind all of that together?

Professor Reece Walters

There are. I mean, part of the excitement of this evolving area is that it’s nourished by all those diverse critical perspectives but there are some binding themes as you say, and they really do fall around the issue of justice, notably environmental justice, ecological justice and what’s been referred to as species justice. I mean, I’ll just give you a sense of what they're about. I mean environmental justice is a human centred or anthropocentric discourse with two distinct dimensions. And this is where Green Criminology is drawing on traditions in philosophy and deep ecology and environmental studies as well as those critical narratives within its own terrain. Environmental justice, for example, assesses the equity if you like of access and use of environmental resources across social and cultural divides. So, for example, who has access to the benefits and profits of natural resources and why? What factors prevent all people from equally sharing in the environment? The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that all member states and their subjects have a right to a safe environment. Well, in environmental justice, actions that prevent, jeopardise or compromise this right are actions that violate environmental justice. That’s the first part of environmental justice. The second part is that it explores how people – notably the marginalised, the poor and the powerless – are affected by natural disasters or by corporate activity and state actions that damage the environment. So, if we’re looking through the lens of environmental justice we’re looking at how things like toxic dumping, chemical spills, industrial pollution, nuclear testing, illegal fishing and wildlife poaching, contamination of drinking water and so on. They all have adverse side effects but they do not all victimise people equally. It is often indigenous people, ethnic minorities, the poor, and often women, who are the most affected by these types of corporate and state activities. So that’s environmental justice.

Dr. Deborah Drake

Okay. So how would that be different, then, from ecological justice?

Professor Reece Walters

Well ecological justice focuses on the relationship or the interaction between humans and the natural environment. It’s not so human-centred. When humans develop the environment for material needs – whether that be housing or agriculture or business or consumption – this approach, notably ecological justice, insists that such actions be assessed within the context of damage or harm to other living things. And this position is often referred to as an ecocentric understanding of human and nature interaction. Now some may criticise this position because it lacks acknowledgement that the reality of harm, development, progresses and so on will always be defined and responded to by humans. But what ecological justice argues is that environmentally centred perspectives which uphold the importance of all living creatures – as well as inanimate and non-living objects such as rocks, soils, water and air – provides us with a useful insight for guiding future economic and developmental decisions.

Dr. Deborah Drake

And finally, then, what is species justice?

Professor Reece Walters

Species justice is a non-human or biocentric discourse that emphasises the importance of non-human rights. And it asserts that human beings are not the only creatures with rights nor are human beings indeed superior. In other words, there is no hierarchy of existence under species justice with human beings being at the pinnacle. All living things share an existence, share an equal status and share a position of importance. And the like of Piers Beirne and Nigel South have argued that to prohibit or disregard non-human creatures as not of equal standing within the natural environment denies the value and the worth of those particular species. Conversely, you know it may be argued that existence or survival (and indeed evolution itself) is dependent upon one species consuming another and that’s obviously an argument. But, you know, as people like Rob White have pointed out, from this perspective, we’re aided in a critique of how rights are constructed and it allows us to question the basis from which rights are created and protected, you know. If rights are about ensuring health and wellbeing while minimising pain and suffering, then humans are not the only species to experience such emotions. So, these three perspectives combine ... assist Green Criminologists in understanding why certain things come to be called criminal and others not. And, indeed, in doing so, open up debate over whether certain harms should be criminalised and importantly Green Criminology is not only a response to official and scientific evidence about environmental damage and species decline, but also it’s an engagement with emerging social movements and public opinions of resistance.

Dr. Deborah Drake

So, how have you explored these alternative ways of thinking about justice in your research?

Professor Reece Walters

Well for me one of the liberating aspects of Green Criminology is the ability to be creative and to bring in areas not previously explored within the criminological gaze and to also be theoretically innovative. So I have, for example, explored issues to do with ecological justice, looking at deforestation as well as things like genetically modified food, drawing on actor–network theory that was developed by the likes of Bruno Latour and through the social studies of sciences and technology. Now this network approach in Green Criminology that I've used takes the criminological gaze beyond acts of just criminal inten,t to the global dimensions that contribute to environmental harm. So in this way, the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest for example is not simply the wilful action of a government to permit timber corporations to log ancient indigenous woodlands. I mean, it’s much more complex than that. The act of deforestation in the Amazon, for example, I would argue is a global phenomenon that involves the technologies of consumers and all inputs and outputs of rainforest logging. So in other words, the felling of the Amazon tree occurs because of a whole host of networks and participating factors from the lumberjack who controls the saw to the North American family that uses the chipwood to spread across their front garden, and everything in-between. All combine a web of interconnected activity that must be unpacked and understood when examining logging and environmental harm. It’s not a simple thing.

Dr. Deborah Drake

So, Green Criminology really connects with broader issues of power and harm then?

Professor Reece Walters

Oh absolutely. I mean, it’s about exploring harms of the powerful as well as engaging in local and social movements. I mean as such some suggest that Green Criminology moves away from a sole reliance on risk and statistics and measurement as presented by science and government and incorporates social and cultural meanings of harm as defined by ordinary citizens. I mean, in these ways Green Criminology itself can be considered, as I said before, very much an evolving knowledge that challenges mainstream disciplinary discourses. I mean, it questions the moral and ethical basis upon which contemporary laws permit for example the exploitation of nature. And it examines the conditions in which coexistence and interspecies cooperation can be achieved. So, it’s globalising the criminological lens and it’s viewing crime and harm beyond the local and national level to include international actions of illegality or harm. And this permits the involvement of movements and organisations, which are outside the state to contribute to emerging notions of what is justice within environmental context.

Dr. Deborah Drake

What do you think students can take away from learning about Green Criminology?

Professor Reece Walters

I think Green Criminology permits students to explore issues that are not even on the criminological radar and there's something very exciting about that. You know as an emerging discourse it’s not driven by police, politicians, courts or crime statistics but by the lived realities and experiences of peoples and communities.

Dr. Deborah Drake

So then what could be a starting point for Green Criminology, if not those other things?

Professor Reece Walters

Well, the starting point for Green Criminology is not necessarily therefore an offender who’s been prosecuted and convicted. You know, it is the identification of, for example, exploitation and injustice. I mean, an identification that often emerges from a lone voice, a voice that criticises government or a corporation. As a result, it requires turning over all stones and seeing all possibilities. You begin to ask a range of different sorts of questions. For example who and what is harmed? Who is doing the harm? Is it necessary? Is it just?

Dr. Deborah Drake

So you're saying it provides students with the freedom to examine issues of power and harm, and identifies the limitations of law as the sole index for social enquiry?

Professor Reece Walters

Absolutely. I totally agree with that. I mean, many of the issues that I examine, like air pollution, are perfectly legal. I mean, it’s legal to pollute the environment if you own and operate a factory, provided you obtain the necessary legal permits to do so. I examined the rules governing those permits, the ways permits are breached and the justice that follows. So, for me, Green Criminology allows you to seek out a topic and unravel its intricacies. A topic that may at first sight appear totally harmless but upon close inspection may involve corruption, the demise of culture, or for example the exploitation of labour.