Ecocide: from individual to institutional accountability

By Marin Pitavy

The term ecocide first appeared during the Vietnam War to describe the American operation using “Agent Orange”. The U.S. military made extensive use of this herbicide and defoliant chemical to reduce the forest cover of its communist enemies and alter their agricultural production. The 80 million liters[i] dumped on the country had devastating effects on 3 million Vietnamese who are still suffering decades later.

In the case of Agent Orange, the responsibility of the United States is beyond doubt: President Kennedy gave his formal approval to this operation[ii], whose harmful consequences on the environment and the Vietnamese people are widely acknowledged. Eminent politicians condemned this action, such as Olof Palme, Prime Minister of Sweden, who denounced this ecocide in the opening of the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972[iii].

However, responsibility for ecocide is generally trickier to establish, as it involves multiple actors, interests, and causal links that may not be obvious. In this context, is it fair to hold states accountable for ecocide?

From an individual responsibility…

Before addressing this question, another must be answered: what does it mean to hold states accountable for ecocide?

In moral terms, it means that citizens bear a shared responsibility that is equally distributed among them. They have participated in, or at least approved of, a democratic system that has led to abuses and are therefore condemned for this. It is an acknowledgment of their collective failure. In practical terms, it implies that they must equally endure its negative effects and contribute to its repair.

But since we live in an unequal world, it seems legitimate to question whether it makes sense to share the burden equally among citizens. Among many different areas, the growing inequalities worldwide[iv] affect the conception of shared responsibility in two ways.

First, unequal benefits are taken from ecocides. While they are perpetrated primarily because of the economic interests they provide, these benefits are not shared with the entire society. This might fuel resentment and a sense of impunity towards large corporations that share the losses but not the gains.

Second, there is an unequal distribution of political power among the society, as well as an unequal knowledge about the environmental challenges. As a result, decision-makers make informed decisions knowing the associated risks, while the individuals under their command are not always fully aware of the consequences of the measures imposed on them. In a context of unequal moral responsibility, the blame should not be equally shared.

…to a systemic responsibility…

But while it seemed first that ecocides only benefit a few, the evolution of welfare over the last few centuries tells a different story. The intensive use of agricultural inputs and high-carbon fossil fuels, as well as the overexploitation of natural resources, have led to increasingly affordable goods and services. In the U.S., for instance, food prices dropped from 35% of the total household budget in 1870 to 10% in 1990[v], allowing for a reallocation of the expenditures to leisure. Even in an unequal world, everyone benefits – at least partially.

Responsibility may also be blurrier than it initially appeared. Indeed, reports of recent ecocides tend to argue for a more systemic responsibility. The fires that ravaged Indonesia in 2018 are a striking example of this entanglement. They were a disaster for wildlife and a catastrophe for human populations who suffered respiratory ailments, leading to the closure of schools and airports[vi]. This situation is recurrent: farmers take advantage of Indonesia’s dry season to use the “slash-and-burn” method, which consists of clearing vegetation with fires that regularly get out of control. But farmers may not be the only ones to blame. First, large oil palm companies pressure them to do so, while investors in these companies expect a high financial return and disregard the risks to biodiversity. On the other hand, consumers are calling for increasing demand – which has been multiplied by 35 between 1970 and 2018[vii] – and are constantly looking for cheaper production. Finally, insufficient legal measures have failed to curb this problem in a country plagued by corruption and weak governance.

…and an institutional accountability

Climate change and its devastating effects on biodiversity bring another example of complex responsibility. A recent study by the French think-tank Carbone 4[viii] has revealed that the leverage of decarbonization of personal footprint was held at 25% by individuals, while the other 75% depended on societal and institutional transformations. Once again, the individual alone has only a low ability to act and reduce its carbon emissions.

In this plural responsibility, the criminal negligence of the state should be specially pointed out. In such cases, the state doesn’t fulfill its part of the social contract, through which humans have ceded part of their freedom in exchange for laws guaranteeing perpetuation of the social body. This institutional failure makes a case for holding states accountable for ecocides.

A final argument for stronger state control will take us back to the beginning of our story. In fact, Agent Orange was first developed to boost agricultural yields and ensure food security for a fast-growing population. Arthur Galston, the botanist who discovered it, later lobbied the U.S. government to stop using it[ix]: an insufficient legislative framework had allowed abuses and misappropriation of the commons. In its mission to protect citizens and their environment, the state must face its responsibilities: in the case of ecocide, it is liable for its failures.

Sources

---

[i] BBC News. (2021, 01 25). Vietnam War: French court to hear landmark Agent Orange case. Retrieved from BBC News: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55795651

[ii] Lewy, G. (1978). America in Vietnam. New York: Oxford University Press, 263.

[iii] Björk, T. (1996). The emergence of popular participation in world politics: United Nations Conference on Human Environment 1972. Department of Political Science, University of Stockholm. Retrieved from: http://www.folkrorelser.org/johannesburg/stockholm72.pdf

[iv] United Nations. (2020, 01 21). Rising inequality affecting more than two-thirds of the globe, but it’s not inevitable: new UN report. Retrieved from UN News: https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/01/1055681

[v] Grigg, D. (1994). Food Expenditure and Economic Development. GeoJournal, 33(4), 377–382.

Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41146236

[vi] BBC News. (2019, 09 16). Indonesia haze: Why do forests keep burning? Retrieved from BBC News: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34265922

[vii] Ritchie, H., & Roser, M. (2020, 12). Palm Oil. Retrieved from Our World In Data: https://ourworldindata.org/palm-oil

[viii] Dugast, C., & Soyeux, A. (2019, 06). Faire sa part. Retrieved from Carbone 4: https://www.carbone4.com/publication-faire-sa-part

[ix] The Economist. (2008, 06 26). Arthur Galston, botanist, died on June 15th, aged 88. Retrieved from The Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/11613789

About the Author

Marin Pitavy is currently enrolled in the Master of Environmental Policy at PSIA. He previously graduated from a Master in Engineering at Centrale Supélec, with a specialization in Artificial Intelligence. While participating in a student ecological association, he took part in the creation of the “Manifeste Etudiant pour un Réveil Écologique”. At PSIA, he is specializing in studies of the European Union, as he deeply believes the EU has a major role to play in leading the ecological transition worldwide.

*This Blog Entry was selected for publication under the call with the subject: In an unequal world, is it fair to hold states accountable to ecocide?