Iina Sahramäki: Environmental crime prevention needs to be agile

INTERPOL and UNEP have estimated that environmental crime is one of the world's most widespread crime phenomena. Environmental crime includes cross-border crime, organized crime, corruption and shadow economy. Nordic and Baltic countries are not protected from this global phenomenon. However, our societies’ view on environmental crime prevention is relatively narrow, which weakens the effectiveness prevention of environmental harm.

Usually, when we talk about environmental crime, we refer to crimes committed during business activities. In this sense, environmental crime is one form of economic crime and also public discussion and official documents often refer to this aspect of environmental crime. Private individuals may also perpetrate an environmental crime for example by releasing motor oil into the soil, dumping waste or releasing refrigerants from household appliances into the atmosphere. Further, environmental crime is transnational phenomenon. Multinational organizations move their business to less regulated regions and for example illicit transportation waste to third world countries is profitable.

Typically, the discussion of environmental crime also involves the view of victimless crime or illegal activity, which ultimately involves breaking an administrative rule, such as exceeding pollution limits defined in environmental permits — environmental crime becomes somewhat of an administrative problem and a faceless crime. However, international studies show that the number of cancer patients has increased in areas with illegal dumping sites; illegal processing of textile waste releases toxins from dyes into waterways; illegal logging contributes to climate change and causes floods; and hunting and trade of protected animal species threatens to drive rare animal species to extinction.

No matter whether one discusses environmental crime in Finland or in Sweden, society and business produce significant amounts of environmental pollution and other environmental harm. Policies affect the conditions under which an environmental harm becomes an environmental crime. Economic aspects influence environmental crime prevention — we direct official resources to the prevention of environmental crimes that cause the most damage to the economy. There are also limitations and deficiencies in the public administration that have consequences on the fight against environmental crime. Professional cultures influence how authorities interpret environmental harm. For example, preliminary investigation authority lean on to the reason-to-suspect threshold, while the environmental administrative authorities emphasize the restoration of the environment.

The profile of authority response to environmental crime is not unified between Finland and Sweden. Significantly more environmental crime is reported to the police in Sweden than in Finland. This largely due to the Swedish administrative authorities’ obligation to report all the suspected environmental crime to the police. As a comparison, in Finland, administrative authorities respond to illicit activities often through administrative sanctions and only the most suspicious or severe cases are reported to the police.

In order to for the authorities to handle large amount of reported crime in Sweden, environmental crime has become so called fine crime. For instance, prosecutors issue corporate fines to corporations violating environmental regulation. In Finland, corporate fine can only be issued by the courts as a part of conviction and it is fairly rarely demanded by the prosecutor as a part of environmental crime cases.

At the moment, environmental crime prevention is hardly proactive. Prevention is currently relying on environmental crime prevention though criminal enforcement. Sanctions are seen as a warning example to others possible perpetrators. However, as the sentences are small, they do not act as the desired deterrent. As comparison between Finland and Sweden has shown, relying of sticks is relatively weak enforcement strategy. It is evident that carrot and sermons are also needed.

Environmental crime requires joint investigation teams, cooperation between administrative authorities and information sharing among Nordic and Baltic countries. Furthermore, environmental crime prevention must include the private and third sector. Internationally, environmental crime research produces information on the new ways to prevent environmental harm and crime. For example, in Australia, a court focused on environmental regulation applies innovative sanctions to environmental criminal sentences. Besides, restorative justice practices are applied in the prevention of environmental crimes.

In order for the environmental crime prevention to be effective, Nordic and Baltic countries, such as Finland and Sweden, need to embrace agile and innovative enforcement and open-minded approach to crime prevention.