Toward eco-justice for all - Environmental Harm: An Eco-justice Perspective - page 158

there are 'surrogate victims' who are recognised as representing the
community affected (including harms to particular biotic groups and
abiotic environs) for the purpose of the restorative process.
Who speaks for whom is nevertheless still controversial; especially
when it comes to natural objects such as trees, rivers and specific
bio-spheres. Critics, for example, argue that there is a danger that
if agencies such as courts adopt environmental restoration within a
particular framework of understanding - both in regards to sanctioning
processes, and constructions of 'nature' - then more harm could result.
Katz (quoted in Besthorn, 2004: 41) is particularly scathing, writing
that restoration policy presents:
the message that humanity should repair the damage that
human intervention has caused the natural environment.
The message is an optimistic one, for it implies that
we recognize the harm we have caused in the natural
environment and that we possess the means and will to
correct these harms. These policies also make us feel good;
the prospect of restoration relieves the guilt we feel about
the destruction of nature. The wounds we have inflicted on
the natural world are not permanent; nature can be made
'whole' again. Our natural resource base and foundation
for survival can be saved by the appropriate policies of
restoration, regeneration and redesign.
Part of what is being expressed here is the idea that the 'voice' that
gets heard, when it comes to restoration policy (including one might
presume, restorative justice proceedings) is too often that of the human,
not that of the nonhuman (Besthorn, 2013). This raises important
and fascinating issues regarding the criteria by which judgements
around restoration are to be made, and the kind of ecological and
zoological expertise required to adequately be a surrogate victim for
the nonhuman.
Assessment of environmental harm necessarily involves discussion of,
and disputes over, the evidence to be drawn upon, the interpretations of
impact, and the courses of action advocated. This is an ongoing process.
A flexible approach to environmental harm would include elements
such as documenting the uncertainties (for example, being aware of
chaotic unpredictability), examining a wide range of alternative courses
of action (that is, going beyond an either/or approach to consider a
wider range of options), engaging in broad public deliberation (that
is, allow a plurality of voices and expertise), considering risks in the