As outlined above, analyses of power are necessarily linked to under- standings of justice. Environmental justice is a human-centred or anthropo- centric discourse with two dimensions. First, it assesses the equity of access and use of environmental resources across social and cultural divides. Who has access to the benefits and profits of natural resources and why? What factors prevent all people from equally sharing in the environment? For example, toxic dumping, chemical spills, industrial pollution, nuclear testing, illegalfishing and wildlife poaching and contamination of drinking water has adverse side-effects that do not victimise all people equally. It is indigenous people, ethnic minorities, the poor and often women who are most affected by such eco crimes. With GM food indigenous peoples have expressed con- cerns over the sovereignty of their lands and the protection of their biodi- versity. The indigenous voice is often overlooked or subdued in debates about environmental development and exploitation. Whether logging and destruction of natural habitats, the pollution of soils and waterways or the extinction of plant and animal life to occur in the name of ‘capitalist pro- gress’, indigenous lifestyles are threatened and compromised in acts that
are tantamount to culturecide or‘environmental genocide’ (see Brook, 1998; Foreman, 1998; Doornbos et al., 2000).
Ecological justice focuses on the relationship or interaction between humans and the natural environment (White, 2008). When humans develop the environment for material needs (housing, agriculture, business, con- sumption) this approach insists that such actions be assessed within the context of damage or harm to other living things. This position is often referred to as an ‘ecocentric’ understanding of human and nature interac- tion. Some may criticise this position because it lacks ‘reality’ as political action will always be a human perspective. That is, the reality of harm, exis- tence, development, progress and so on will always be defined and responded to by humans. Yet ecological justice, similar to deep ecology, argues that an environmentally centred perspective which upholds the importance of living creatures as well as inanimate and non-living objects (such as soil, rocks, water, air) provide useful insights for guiding future economic and develop- mental decisions. It asserts the intrinsic value and equal status of non-humans but explores the potential for sustainability while utilising environmental resources for fundamental human needs. As discussed in chapter four, Zambian farmers, whilst mindful of long-term food security, expressed significant concern about genetic contamination on wildlife.
Actor network theory
Green criminology may draw on and learn through actor-network theory (ANT), developed from the work of Callon (1991) and Latour (2005) through the social studies of science and technology. Callon and Latour perceive of a network in which both human and non-human actors assume identities. The often cited semiotic example of human and non-human actants is the driving of a motor vehicle which Latour argues does not occur in a technological or cultural vacuum. In other words, the mechanics of the motor car, combined with road conditions and traffic rules and prior experience combine or link to produce a social and technological network that creates the act of driving. This network approach to green criminology takes the criminological gaze beyond acts of criminal intent to the global dimensions that contribute to environmental harm. In this way, the defor- estation of the Amazon rainforest, for example, is not simply the wilful action of a government to permit timber corporations to log ancient indig- enous woodlands. It is much more complex than that (cf. Cochrane and Walters, 2008; Walters, 2009). The act of deforestation in the Amazon is a global phenomenon that involves the technologies and consumers of all inputs and outputs of rainforest logging. In other words, the felling of the Amazon tree occurs because of a network of participating factors or actants– from the lumberjack who controls the saw to the North American family that uses the chipwood to spread across their front garden – all
combine and contribute to the act of deforestation which has widespread ecological consequences. ANT facilitates understandings of species justice, which is a non-human or biocentric discourse that emphasises the impor- tance of non-human rights. It asserts that human beings are not the only creatures with rights, nor are humans superior beings.
In other words, there is no hierarchy of existence with human beings at the pinnacle of nature; all ‘living things in existence’ share an equal status of importance. Within GM food debates, farmers, corporations, consumers, politicians and scientists form a complex web of networks each producing identities within realms of ‘food security’, ‘agriculture’, ‘food aid’, ‘trade’ and ‘the environment’. It is through these complex and highly politicised networks of power and profit that definitions of harm are reconstructed, manipulated and discarded. Yet examining the processes of interplay between actor and actants are necessary for understanding the ways in which GM food production and consumption is embroiled within political, eco- nomic and cultural morays that provide different meanings and definitions to concepts of justice and harm.
Such analyses acknowledge that existence or survival and indeed evolution itself, is dependent upon one species consuming another. As White (2008: 17) identifies, an analysis from this perspective aids a critique of how rights are constructed. It allows us to question the bases from which rights are created and protected. The processes and networks that give rise to protections, freedoms and rights are often underpinned by human-centred knowledges of progress, sustainability and environmental development. This approach ensures challenging processes of criminalisation whereby green criminology is not only responding to official and scientific evidence about environmental damage and species decline but is also responding to, and engaging with, the emerging social movements and public opinions of resistance. In doing so, green criminology moves away from a sole reliance on science and govern- ment, and incorporates social and cultural meanings. That is, harm defined by ordinary citizens. It questions the moral and ethical bases upon which contemporary laws permit the exploitation of nature and examines the con- ditions in which co-existence and inter-species cooperation can be achieved. This globalising of the criminological lens permits the involvement of movements and organisations, discussed above, outside the state to contribute to emerging notions of environmental justice.