Justice-based approaches to environmental harm - Environmental Harm: An Eco-justice Perspective - page 3

nonhuman nature. By doing so, it is argued that we enter a new politics
of obligation:
In ecological thought, human beings have obligations to
animals, trees, mountains, oceans and other members of
the biotic community. This means that human beings have
to exercise extreme caution before embarking upon any
project which is likely to have the possibility of adverse
effects upon the ecosystems concerned. (Smith, 1998: 99)
This particular notion of ecological citizenship centres on human
obligations to all living things, and the need to carefully assess the
impacts of human activity across the human and nonhuman domains.
It also incorporates notions of risk and taking precautions in order
to minimise potential harm. However, such considerations are not
without their challenges. The conceptualisation of 'rights', for example,
is contentious when extended to the nonhuman, whether this refers
to specific eco-systems or particular animals (see Christoff, 2000).
Similar difficulties and problems are apparent when it comes to defining
environmental harm.
Environmental harm can be distinguished on the basis of who or what
precisely is being harmed or victimised. As indicated in Box 1.1, there are
three broad theoretical approaches (within green criminology) that
frame how specific writers view the nature of environmental issues,
including harm and responses to harm. These approaches present
different dimensions of injustice which are relevant to an overarching
eco-justice perspective. Each approach is concerned with particular
conceptions of rights and different types of harmful transgression.