Eur J Crim Policy Res (2011) 17:87–100

DOI 10.1007/s10610-011-9138-y

Environmental Horizon Scanning and Criminological

Theory And Practice

Rob White & Diane Heckenberg

Published online: 12 February 2011

# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract The world is rapidly changing due to climate change and the systematic
depletion of natural resources. This paper provides a glimpse over the horizon of issues
likely to be of interest to European criminology in the not so distant future. Our concern is
to identify a set of issues and trends that have significant theoretical, methodological and
policy implications for those with an interest in transnational environmental crime. The
concerns range from the social consequences of climate change through to the use of the
subterranean spaces of the planet as a toxic repository. This paper presents a brief summary
of several horizon issues and explores the implications of these for criminological research
and intervention. The paper provides an introduction and overview of environmental
horizon scanning as informed by eco-global criminological considerations.

Keywords Eco-global criminology . Environmental horizon scanning . Transnational

environmental crime . Futures orientation

Introduction

The recent toxic sludge incident in Hungary provides a tragic illustration of what
transnational environmental harm really means. A thick red torrent of sludge burst from a
reservoir at a metals plant 100 kilometres south of Budapest in early October 2010. At least
nine people died as a result of the sludge surge, some went missing and over one hundred
persons were physically injured as the toxic substance flowed into nearby villages and
towns. The toxic sludge reached the Danube River several days later, from where it could
flow into six other European countries before reaching the Black Sea: Croatia, Serbia,
Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine and Moldova. An ecological and social disaster for Hungary
thus simultaneously poses an environmental threat to surrounding countries, and the human
inhabitants, ecosystems and animal life of these. What happens in one country will, in many

R. White (*) : D. Heckenberg

School of Sociology and Social Work, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 17 Hobart, Tasmania 7001,
Australia
e-mail: r.d.white@utas.edu.au
88 R. White, D. Heckenberg

cases, inevitably affect people, ecosystems and animals well beyond that country’s borders.
In this region, everyone is interconnected and, regardless of specific political, social and
cultural differences, all have obligations to be good neighbours.
How to interpret, respond to and prevent such events is part of the mandate of those
criminologists with an interest in analysing existing and future threats to environmental
wellbeing. One such approach is to couple horizon scanning with the analytical framework of
eco-global criminology. From the perspective of eco-global criminology (White, in press), the
core concern is with the ecological, the transnational and the environmentally harmful. It is
transgressions against humans, ecosystems and nonhuman animals that provide the main
focus for such work.
From the perspective of horizon scanning, the focus of analysis is on current
developments pertaining to the environment, and extrapolating from these any potential
harms and transgressions that may be problematic in the future.
This paper begins by outlining a series of emergent trends and events that have profound
implications for social and environmental wellbeing at both the local and global level. This
includes issues relating to climate change, as well as those pertaining to biodiversity and
waste disposal. Our intention here is to provoke and stimulate discussion around specific
ecological issues, as well as to demonstrate the relevance and value of horizon scanning
generally for eco-global criminology (in fact for criminology in general). The paper maps
out the general methodological principles and practical measures that can be harnessed to
carry out this type of research, including a conceptual framework for assessing and
analysing environmental risks and harms.

Environmental Horizon Scanning

Looking over the horizon to identify potential developments is not a new activity. Standard
evaluation methods, for example, generally incorporate varying forms of SWOT analysis –
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats – that speak to analysis of risks and potential
harms now and into the future. Within a criminological context such methods are
increasingly evident. For instance, they are intrinsic to the UK Government’s Foresight
Programme that is aimed at investigating future crime risks (see for example, United
Kingdom Government Office for Science, 2009), and are central to the Australian Crime
Commission’s Horizon Series that particularly targets organised criminal exploitation
(see for example, Australian Crime Commission, 2009). Similarly, a form of horizon
scanning is regularly used by corporations and governments as part of general strategic
planning. Such planning is based not only on what is ‘known’, but also on consideration of
uncertainties (of present knowledge), trends (in existing patterns) and unknown
contingencies (setting aside monies for ‘just in case’ circumstances).
What distinguishes horizon scanning, as we use it here, from both evaluation and
strategic planning is that the process, while at times speculative, is informed by eco-global
criminology and therefore more targeted and detailed than just a general sweep of possible
issues and trends. We know, for example, that when it comes to environmental issues
‘climate change’ is bound to be high on any list of futures planning. A process of horizon
scanning in relation to climate change involves drilling down from the generic problem, to
identify and extrapolate from specific issues associated with climate change. For example,
this paper describes several different facets of the challenges linked to climate change, each
of which deserves concerted attention in its own right – namely, questions of national
security, and questions relating to the use of land in a social, political and economic
environment dominated by climate change concerns.
Environmental Horizon Scanning 89

The use and need for horizon scanning as an intellectual exercise and planning tool is related to
the idea that many threats and opportunities are presently poorly recognised. Accordingly, a more
systematic approach to identification and solution of issues is required rather than reliance upon ad
hoc or reactive approaches. For example, Sutherland et al. (2009: 1) point out that “the need for
horizon scanning of environmental issues is illustrated by the recent failure to foresee both the
widespread adoption of the range of biofuels currently in use, and the environmental
consequences of biofuels production”. Horizon scanning can provide insight into risks (potential
problems) and harms (actual problems). Coupled with concepts such as paradoxical harm (that
refers to apparently contradictory yet consciously chosen forms of harm), and the mobility of
harm (transference), horizon scanning provides a mechanism to discern where emerging threats
(and positive opportunities) may arise and potential strategies for mitigating or adapting to these.
In analysis of horizon issues a variety of concepts might be deployed to investigate substantive
issues. Certainly matters of time, space and scale are relevant. For example, risks and harms may
be direct or indirect, and their consequences may be felt in the immediate or in the long-term.
Harm may be specific to local areas (such as threats to certain species, like coral in the Great
Barrier Reef) yet manifest as part of a general global pattern (such as being an effect of wide scale
temperature changes affecting coral everywhere). Harm is central, but this may be non-intentional
(in the sense of being a byproduct of some other agenda) or premeditated (insofar as the negative
outcome, for some, is foreseen). The demise of the polar bear due to the impact of global warming
in the Arctic is an example of the former. The displacement of local inhabitants from their land
due to carbon sequestration schemes is an example of the latter.
Several other concepts are particularly relevant to environmental horizon scanning.
Three of these address matters of justice, past, present and future: environmental justice,
ecological justice and species justice. Three of these look to the future: intergenerational
equity, the precautionary principle, and transference over time. Collectively there are nine
analytical signposts (See the next section, “The Conceptual Framework for Environmental
Horizon Scanning”) that provide a useful conceptual framework for assessing and analysing
risks and harms as part of the exercise of looking over the horizon (see also Leiss and
Hrudey, 2005; White, 2008). The framework simultaneously incorporates the key values of
eco-global criminology. The section “The Conceptual Framework for Environmental
Horizon Scanning” provides a summary of these key ideas.

The Conceptual Framework for Environmental Horizon Scanning

Substantive Orientation

Risk – a prediction or expectation that includes the perspectives of those affected about what is
important to them, concerning a hazard or danger in which there is uncertainty over occurrence
but which may involve adverse consequences as the possible outcome within a certain time period
Harm – an actual danger or adverse effect, stemming from direct and indirect social
processes, that negatively impinges upon the health and wellbeing and ecological integrity
of humans, specific biospheres and nonhuman animals
Cause – analysis of causal chains that may involve many interrelated variables but which
ultimately are linked to specific practices and human responsibility for environmental harm

Justice Orientation

Environment justice – in which environmental rights are seen as an extension of human or

social rights so as to enhance the quality of human life, now and into the future
90 R. White, D. Heckenberg

Ecological justice – in which it is acknowledged that human beings are merely one
component of complex ecosystems that should be preserved for their own sake via the
notion of the rights of the environment
Species justice – in which harm is constructed in relation to the place of nonhuman
animals within environments and their intrinsic right to not suffer abuse, whether this be
one-on-one harm, institutionalised harm or harm arising from human actions that affect
climates and environments on a global scale

Futures Orientation

Intergenerational equity – refers to the principle of ensuring that the generations to follow
have at least the same or preferably better environments in which to live than those of the
present generation
Precautionary principle – when an activity raises threats of harm to human health,
nonhuman animals or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if
some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically
Transference over time – in this context refers to the transfer of harm involving both
cumulative impacts and compounding effects
Source: White, in press.
This analytical approach provides a broad methodological framework that can inform the
study of specific environmental issues. The various orientations in the model – substantive,
justice, futures – are intended to provide direction and the conceptual building blocks for
more detailed analysis of specific issues and trends. As a whole, they constitute the basis for
the particular questions that are relevant to an environmental horizon scanning exercise.

Examples of Horizon Issues

In this section we briefly outline several horizon issues to illustrate matters of current and
ongoing interest. These issues have significant implications for public order, environmental
harm and social conflicts.

Insecurity, Social Class And Climate Change

Climate change continues to generate ecological conditions that will engender

considerable anxiety and conflict. Higher temperatures and drought will impact food
production, wellbeing and safety, and water-reliant economic sectors, such as power-
generation. For example, in a single year in 2003, melting reduced the mass of Alpine
glaciers in Europe by one-tenth, and tens of thousands of people died due to the severe
heat wave (European Environment Agency, 2010). Collective security will increasingly
be tied up with notions of ecological sustainability within a particular social context.
Pressures relating to food and water supply, and loss of habitat, will manifest in various
class-related processes including certain types of criminality (see also Smith and
Vivekananda, 2007). For instance, class-related ‘future’ crime will include: crimes of
the less powerful (e.g., theft and violence as responses to survival needs, such as loss of
land, food shortages, loss of livelihoods and escalating poverty) and crimes of the
powerful (e.g., profit motive related to climate change, such as take-over of land in
relation to carbon emission trading schemes and transformation of food crops into
biofuel crops regardless of local subsistence needs). Scarcity and conflict over natural
resources will be linked to corruption, illicit markets, riots and profiteering. The forced
Environmental Horizon Scanning 91

movement of people will be tied up with exploitation such as trafficking, child soldiers
and sexual slavery.

Land use And Environmental Injustice

Contemporary food and financial crises have worked in tandem to trigger substantive
changes in global land ownership (Share the Worlds Resources STWR, 2009; Grain
Briefing, 2008). Much of this is being driven by both the direct impacts of climate
change (i.e., the search for new sources of food production) and policy responses to
climate change (e.g., carbon emission trading schemes). There are different cultural
understandings and meanings attached to ‘land’ and ‘country’, but be this as it may, the
dominant social construction of ‘property’ is one that sees it as a relationship of
exclusive use based upon documented ownership. Land grabbing by different agencies
and for different purposes is occurring worldwide. For example, ‘food insecure’
governments such as China are buying up vast areas of farmland abroad for their own
offshore food production. This, in turn, is generating interest among private investors
who see such developments as an opportunity for profit-making. Simultaneously,
communal lands are under threat due to private and government pressures to introduce
income-generating crops such as biofuels in places like Brazil and Argentina (Robin, 2010;
Engdahl, 2007; Shiva, 2008). Governments in less developed countries are also acquiring
land, keen as they are to secure money as part of carbon sequestration schemes, usually
involving companies based in the ‘North’ offsetting their pollution by buying carbon credits
(in the form of forests in other parts of the world). The forced or co-opted loss of Indigenous
control of their land is not only related to carbon emission trading schemes and the push to
plant biofuels. It is also associated with the establishment of nuclear waste dumps and
disposal of hazardous wastes more generally (Boylan, 2010). In other words, it is the most
vulnerable who are likely to suffer from both take-over of land and radical alterations to
existing land use.

Disasters and Reconstruction Crimes

Climate change will accelerate the extent and intensity of so called ‘natural’ disasters such
as cyclones, tsunami, and mudslides. In most cases those who are least responsible for or
capable of responding to such disasters will be among the worst affected. Issues pertaining
to disaster studies include investigation of crime related to the disaster, such as looting,
rape, and the general breakdown of law and order. Other crimes relate to pre-conditions,
such as the contribution of poor building codes to fatalities, as in the case of earthquakes in
Turkey (see Green, 2005), and to criminality such as fraud and contractor misdealing
when it comes to re-building after a disaster has occurred. Questions can be asked about
social responsibility and causal chains in relation to certain trends and events – for
example, climate extremes due to production based upon carbon emission technologies,
or mudslides that ultimately stem from de-forestation on the top of mountains and hills.
There is evidence that women and children are especially prone to victimisation in
disaster settings, and that they suffer disproportionately (relative to men, but also in
relation to ordinary crime occurrences) when it comes to sexual assault and family
violence (Thornton and Voigt, 2007). Mistreatment of disaster victims is also manifest in
the phenomenon of ‘transactional sex’ for food aid (Madre, 2010). Frustration at lack of
sufficient aid can also lead to post-disaster riots, anger at authority figures such as the
police and the formation of gangs
92 R. White, D. Heckenberg

Polluting the Global Commons

The Arctic region is inhabited by some 4 million people including more than 30 Indigenous
peoples. Eight states – Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian
Federation, Sweden and the United States – have territories in the Arctic region. While
ostensibly a pristine environment, and while local peoples rely upon traditional food
sources, numerous pollutants have been impacting upon the Arctic and the people and
animals that live there for decades (United Nations Environment Programme, 2007;
European Environment Agency, 2010). This pollution originated elsewhere, especially in
industrial heartlands such as the US, but the effect has been devastating. In some parts of
the Arctic, for example, breastfeeding mothers have been advised to supplement breast milk
with powdered milk in order to reduce exposure to noxious chemicals. How and where
toxic materials end up across the global commons and the economic, political and social
implications of such transactions is an issue warranting much greater attention. For
instance, illegal dumping of hazardous waste from Europe has been associated with ‘failed
states’ such as Somalia. Free Trade Zones have been known to facilitate the transfer of toxic
substances around the globe. The international spaces of the oceans, in particular the five
great ocean gyres, are filling up with huge swathes of plastic. Our skies are also filled with
space junk that, in turn, threatens to destroy or disable satellites. Such pollution has
implications for how we deal with climate change as well: “The sea surface topography
missions that are run, the polar icecap measurements that are done; all of these are done
from space. All the precision measurements that provide the key metrics for global warming
and monitoring of global warming to determine to what extent it's real, how fast it's
moving, all these come from space assets. So, you can't separate one from the other.”
(Dr Ben Greene, Chief Executive Officer, Electro Optic Systems Australia, quoted in Ryan 2010).
And there is talk about filling the planet’s subterranean spaces with radioactive waste and
carbon emissions. Pollution and waste issues are inevitably linked to illegal and inappropriate
forms of disposal, which have great potential to destroy ecosystems, animal habitats and human
health and wellbeing.

Putting a Value on Environmental Harm

A vital issue of growing importance is how to put a value on environmental harm within the
criminal justice system. To date, environmental crime has not attracted particularly
significant penalties or interventions on the part of the criminal justice system. This is
especially evident in regards to the prosecution and sentencing of environmental crime
(White, 2010). Questions here relate to how the pyramid of harm is constructed (e.g, light
penalties at the bottom and heavy penalties at the top), how ways of ascertaining harm
ought to be undertaken (e.g., measuring the degree and extent of harmfulness), and how the
mechanisms for doing this may have to rapidly adapt in a fast changing ecological context.
There are important issues pertaining to how specific events, or specific species, are treated
within law. For example, there is a normative hierarchy of victims built into existing laws
that reflect anthropocentric conceptions of ‘worth’, but this by and large ignores animals, as
well as important ecological criteria such as biodiversity and the place of different species
in the chain of being. On the one hand, animal companions such as cats and dogs are highly
valued in legal proceedings and in public discourse. Yet, from an ecological point of view,
species such as bees and bats are less valued for the crucial role they play in the wider
ecosystems of the planet. On the other hand, the decline and potential extinction of species
is put into the ‘too hard’ basket if the cause is not direct as in the case of poaching of fish or
Environmental Horizon Scanning 93

rhino or elephants. The polar bear, for example, is quickly disappearing. Climate change is
the key culprit in that it is indirectly causing weight loss among polar bears due to the loss
of its sea ice habitat because the ice starts to thaw earlier and earlier each spring, cutting off
access to traditional feeding grounds (it doesn’t eat, so it gets thin!). In certain parts of the
Arctic, the average female now weighs only 225 kg, which is 25% less than two decades ago. If
this trend continues, the species will be lost, forever (European Environment Agency, 2010). In
the face of these types of tragedies, putting a value on environmental harm is not only
important, it is urgent.

Doing Horizon Scanning

The kind of horizon scanning mapped out in this paper is informed by the theoretical and
methodological concerns of eco-global criminology (see White, in press). Eco-global
criminology focuses on the ecological, the transnational and questions of justice. It
approaches the study of such issues from a global and ‘Southern’ perspective that takes into
account the needs, interests and voices of the marginalised and dispossessed as well as
addressing the strategic place of the powerful in the creation and perpetuation of
transnational environmental harm.
In practice, the doing of environmental horizon scanning is premised upon three
interrelated tasks. These include attempts to theorise causal forces in regards to any specific
issue; to employ multidisciplinary methods; and to deliberate on potential policy responses.

& Theory, in this instance, is based upon the notion of anthropogenic causes – that is, an
interest in human responsibility for harm and thus issues pertaining to identification of
specific perpetrators and degrees of culpability.
& Methodologically, the concern is to use a wide variety of methods and insights in an
eclectic fashion in order to expose broad patterns of action (and omission) and causal
chains of harm.
& Policy basically refers to matters relating to regulation and enforcement strategies, as
well as issues of remediation and compensation.
One starting point for horizon scanning is to simply brainstorm and come up with a list
of issues and trends that are less frequently discussed in public debate and government
circles. In the case of environmental matters the following issues might be considered:

& Leaking radioactive sites

& Use of Indigenous lands for disposal of radioactive wastes
& Burying waste in subterranean spaces
& Conversion of old mines to storage sites for hazardous waste
& Role of economic free trade zones in facilitating illegal transfers of waste
& Carbon emission trading and fraud
& Agriculture and terrorism
& Large-scale oil spills
& Illegal trade in fauna and flora due to pressures of climate change
& Relationship between piracy and impact of illegal fishing
& Forced migration across borders due to climate change
& Using oceans as globally common waste sinks
& Climate change and natural disasters
& War zones and environmental crimes
& Food shortages and criminal trafficking
94 R. White, D. Heckenberg

& Industrial depletion of water tables and stealing of water

& Environmental contamination and pharmaceuticals
& Increased incidence of shanty towns
This list is not exhaustive and the issues could be further elaborated. The point is to
demonstrate that horizon scanning begins with the canvassing of a wide range of issues,
drawing from many different sources. Out of this process it is then possible to refine
the analysis, to delve more deeply into the dynamics and specifics of any particular
issue or trend.
From the point of view of eco-global criminology it is essential to start with an
ecological issue rather than a legal issue. This is because the notion of harm is central rather
than crime as such. We usually begin by asking the question ‘what harm is there in this?’
rather than ‘is this legal or not?’. Once it is established that some type of harm is occurring
then the next step is to drill down into issues such as the criminal behaviour associated with
that harm, power relationships, and sources of social conflict.
For eco-global criminology, the analysis of transnational environmental crime needs to
incorporate different, albeit inter-related notions of harm. These include

& Legal conceptions of harm that are informed by laws, rules and international
conventions, and that pertain to things such as illegal fishing or the transportation of
banned substances
& Ecological wellbeing and holistic understandings of harm that are informed by the
interrelationship between species and environments, and that see the key issue of
ecological sustainability in the light of global warming and species extinction
& Justice conceptions of harm that are informed by notions of human, ecological and
animal rights and egalitarian concerns, and that are concerned with preserving complex
ecosystems for their own sake and preventing animal abuse.
The complexity of issues relating to these kinds of harms demands an investigatory
approach that explores a wide number of sources, and that collects both quantitative
and qualitative data. That is, the intention is to gather data that consists of counting
things (i.e., numbers) as well as how people interpret the world around them (i.e., meanings).
Rather than being restricted by the limitations of the legal/illegal divide, as indicated
earlier, eco-global criminology asserts the prior importance of and urgency associated
with ecological sustainability – the idea that ecological systems should be diverse and
productive over time, and that there ought to be an equitable and just future for all.
This means assessing ‘harm’ in many different contexts and guises, regardless of legal
status and existing institutional legitimations.
The analysis of harm from an eco-global criminological perspective also incorporates
spatial and temporal dimensions. This means making the spatial connections between
specific local, regional and national contexts, and locating the occurrence and transference
of environmental harm across the globe. At the same time there is a need to take into
consideration the temporal nature of harm, as this can change over time (e.g., the
cumulative dynamics of toxicity), and to trace the origins and causes of harm across time
and space (e.g., origins of and increases in carbon emissions due to consumption pressures
in developed countries). Moreover, there is frequently a combination of spatial and
temporal dimensions to the activities of the perpetrators of specific environmental crimes
(e.g., the operations of a company as it seeks to dispose of toxic waste in Europe and then
Africa over a period of weeks). Part of this endeavour involves studying and analysing the
webs of connection and chains of harm as these relate to particular harmful activities.
Environmental Horizon Scanning 95

The challenge for an eco-global criminology, informed by horizon scanning is to

marshal ideas and evidence from many different sources and disciplines, to identify
where harms and risks are emerging as matters of possible social and political
importance, and to develop preemptive strategies. This approach is in keeping with the
futures orientation of the conceptual framework and the principles of precaution and
intergenerational equity. The benefit lies in addressing potential problems as early as
possible, before they create further harms and risks for humans, environments and
animals.
Sutherland and Woodroof (2009: 524) in their taxonomy of horizon-scanning suggest the
following kinds of methods to identify and prioritise future possible issues:

& Scoping (interviews, developing an issues tree)

& Gathering information (literature searches, science reviews, expert workshops, open forums)
& Spotting signals (Delphi questionnaire - consultation of experts through questionnaire,
usually two-stage)
& Watching Trends (trend analysis)
& Making sense (scenarios, systems maps)
& Agreeing a response (backcasting)
The use of ‘backcasting’ is consistent with a futures orientation in that it endeavours to
visualise a preferred future, then identify the key steps needed to reach it
(Sutherland and Woodroof, 2009: 524).Horizon scanning takes significant time to
carry out, and the outcomes of the exercise are not always usefully applied. However
the process does need to move beyond policy to that of practice. Consider, for
example, the following observation:“Early identification of issue and research
priorities is essential, but just one part of the solution. For example, scientists have
long stated that continuing existing fisheries policies would lead to the collapse of
global fish stocks, yet the policies persisted and the fisheries collapsed. For horizon
scanning to be useful requires that it is followed by appropriate action.” Sutherland and
Woodroof, 2009: 527).
In part this illustrates the implicit power relationships and social interests that are
intertwined with the horizon scanning process, which leads to considerations about whose
knowledge matters and the contested discourses surrounding particular environmental
issues and the crimes and harms associated with them.
The sources and nature of different types of knowledge and information vary greatly.
These discourses compete with one another, not only shaping our understanding of a
particular issue, but also shaping the policy that determines how we respond to such issues
now and in the future. Each has implications for how particular events or issues are
understood and conceptualised, who is victimised and what ‘value’ is placed on one
particular victim over another. For example, the section “Matrix of Discourse Diversity”
sketches out the diverse discourses that collectively contribute to both an understanding of
and differences in opinion over, particular issues.

Matrix of Discourse Diversity

Legal Discourses
& How the law defines the issues (e.g., crime, liability, responsibility)
& Different pieces of legislation covering different aspects of the environment (e.g., health,
environment, water, occupational health and safety)
96 R. White, D. Heckenberg

Policing and Regulatory Discourses

& Including Environmental Protection Agencies (e.g., proof of wrongdoing)
& Assigning institutional responsibility for doing something
& Non-government organisations watchdogs and advocates
Scientific Discourses
& Including competing expertise (e.g., toxicology versus medical practitioners)
& In-house science and independent scientific review
& Industry experts and scientists
Community/Lay Discourses
& Competing claims regarding the ‘best interests of the community’
& Including local ‘experts’ (e.g., General Practitioners, local residents, Indigenous people)
& Social network sites (e.g., Facebook)
Occupation Discourses
& Related to specific types of activities (e.g., farmers, fishers, loggers, oyster farmers)
Litigation Discourses
& Claims over damages from environmental victims (e.g., repairing the harm)
& Claims over damages to reputation and production by industry (e.g., Strategic Lawsuits
Against Public Participation)
Media Discourses
& Investigative journalism
& Current affairs shows and sensationalistic accounts
& Internet sites, including blogs
Victim Discourses
& Nnarratives of the victimised (men, women and children)
& Narratives of indirect victims (families, friends, overseas relatives)
& Human accounts on behalf of affected nonhumans such as animals
Rescuer Discourses
& Narratives of rescuers (police, fire fighters, emergency services)
& International NGOs (medicine sans frontier, Amnesty International)

Source: drawing from and adding to White, in press.

For the green criminologist, the greatest threats to environmental rights, ecological
justice and nonhuman animal wellbeing are system-level structures and pressures that
commodify all aspects of social existence, based upon the exploitation of humans,
nonhuman animals and natural resources, and that privilege the powerful minority over the
interests of the vast majority (White, 2008). Those who determine and shape the law are
very often those whose activities need to be criminalised for the sake of planetary
wellbeing. Environmental harm is thus intrinsically contestable, at the level of definition
and discourse, and in terms of visions of what is required for desired social and ecological
change. Who says what, and whose voices are heard, becomes a crucial part of determining
what is deemed to be harmful, and which issues are most likely to garner attention. Any analysis
Environmental Horizon Scanning 97

based on horizon scanning is likely to involve creative lateral thinking and plans of intervention
that may occasionally sit uncomfortably with the existing institutional status quo.

The Practice of Horizon Scanning

Sutherland and Woodroof (2009: 526) ask how the academic community can use horizon
scanning, suggesting that as a community we need to invest more effort in identifying and
considering future issues. Their recommendations include:
& Regular horizon scanning slots in conferences outlining future possible issues
& Opinion pieces in journals outlining potential developments
& Routine collation and dissemination of the results of horizon scanning in a means
accessible to researchers, policymakers and practitioners, and
& Increased encouragement, through funding and reward systems, of research into issues
on the horizon.
As criminologists with a passion for the study of environmental crimes and harms, we
certainly concur with this view and see ready application for knowledge, theory and
practice from domains such as crime prevention that would aptly feed into assessment,
analysis and response to horizon issues. In other words, if we take the precautionary
principle seriously, then criminology has much to offer in terms of preventing harm.
As mentioned earlier, the process of horizon scanning is by no means new to
criminology and law enforcement agencies as such. For example, the horizon scan
commissioned by the Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation and carried
out by the OECD International Futures Programme has included topics such as underage
crime, internet fraud and domestic violence (OECD-DASTI, 2007). In the specific area of
international environmental crime, Interpol has identified the following as horizon issues:
crimes that speed up climate change, crimes that exhaust natural resources, bio-security and
misuse of protected areas, and theft of natural resources.
A stepped approach to environmental horizon scanning as informed by eco-global
criminology might involve the following elements (see Table 1).

Steps to Doing Environmental Horizon Scanning

Importantly, we are very conscious of the need to view issues and trends on a global scale
and, as part of this, to balance the unique experiences and knowledge of those from the
‘South’ who more often than not are excluded or silenced from such dialogue with the
overwhelming experiences and knowledge of the ‘North’ (see Connell, 2007). The study of
environmental horizon issues demands appreciation of specific methodological and
conceptual concerns that impinge upon the data collection process. Some of these issues
include the ethics and politics of ‘outsiders’ researching other people’s territory, the
differential availability and types of data in different jurisdictions, the ways in which state
denial and corporate resistance impede the research process, and the importance of utilising
a wide range of data sources as a means to substantiate claims about harms and the causes
of harms. Technologies such as satellites and DNA testing are relevant to the discussion, as
are consideration of the differing expertise provided by scientists, Indigenous peoples and
local producers such as fishers and farmers (White, 2009).
Environmental horizon scanning is not a socially neutral exercise but is inherently
values-based and involves a series of vital ethical questions, especially as these pertain to
matters of social power, political decision-making and ecological wellbeing. Taking action
98 R. White, D. Heckenberg

Table 1 Steps to Doing Environmental Horizon Scanning

Process Example 1 Example 2

Step Identify broad ecological issue Land use Climate change

1
Step Ask what harm is related to this Types of land use that threaten Differential effects of climate
2 now and in the future? ecological wellbeing and social change on specific population
justice groups, particular ecosytems
and particular species
Step Draw upon a wide variety of Different types of land use, Conflict over resources, climate-
3 sources (e.g., cross- including for example, induced migration, radical shifts
disciplinary, multi- replacement of forests by biofuel in weather patterns
jurisdictional, cross crops, use of subterranean spaces
cultural) to investigate a for radioactive waste
broad ecological issue
Step Refine analysis by drilling Analysis of specific forms of land Analysis of natural disasters
4 down to a specific topic use, such as those that diminish associated with changing weather
biodiversity patterns
Step Read widely on specific topic Literature on genetically modified Disaster studies literature that links
5 organisms and the role of climate change to specific types
transnational corporations, of disaster (e.g., floods, cyclones)
including for example United and that expounds issues
Nations reports on global surrounding cause and effect
biodiversity, and literature
on de-forestation
Step Collect information and data Information about GMO crop Information about specific natural
6 relevant to specific topic substitution in countries such as disasters such as floods in
Brazil, Argentina and Indonesia Pakistan, or hurricane Katrina and
associated storms in the
United States
Step Systematically investigate the Identify which species are Identify which places and
7 phenomenon in question threatened, the reasons why this populations are most at risk, the
using the conceptual is so, and the key variables that reasons why this is the case, the
framework of environmental together have generated the harm key variables that together have
horizon scanning (e.g., in question generated the harm in question
substantive, justice and (e.g., global agriculture markets) (e.g., lack of infrastructure)
futures orientations)
Step Analyse and interpret the Displacement of endemic species Analysis of environmental
8 information and data in from habitat (including humans), victimisation involving
the light of eco-global and replacement of multiple particularly vulnerable groups
criminological considerations species (plant and animal) with (e.g., women, children, poor,
(e.g., transgressions against monoculture ethnic minorities), and effects
humans, ecosystems of disasters on local ecosystems
and animals) and species wellbeing
Step Extrapolate the key emerging Forced removal of people from Breakdown in law and order,
9 patterns associated with the traditional lands, substitution of prevalence of chaotic living
information and data on this existing species with single conditions and massive changes
particular topic species and further diminishment to local ecosystems and species
of biodiversity composition
Step Analyse the information in the Examine statements by Examine statements by media
10 light of the varied discourses governments, corporations, outlets, governments, non-
surrounding cause, harm and communities, experts and others government organizations and
victimisation from the point about land use issues global agencies about a particular
of view of relationships of disaster
power
Step Theorise the findings in relation Transnational corporations and Government officials and local
11 to anthropogenic causes governments that privilege building contractors who have a
(e.g., human responsibility sectional interests over those of duty of care vis-à-vis requisite con-
for harm, specific perpetrators local communities and struction standards and provision of
and degrees of culpability) particular species adequate preventive measures
Environmental Horizon Scanning 99

Table 1 (continued)

Process Example 1 Example 2

Step Reflect on possible avenues for Community engagement in local
12 action or strategic
intervention that will best
forestall or mitigate the
impact and consequences
of the future trend
(e.g., application of the
precautionary principle)
Step Communicate the findings,
13 bearing in mind the varied
audiences for the particular
research topic
and regional planning processes,
including environmental impact
assessments, United Nations
involvement in protecting
traditional ownership
and land uses
Local communities, local councils,
regional governments
Regulation of building codes and
instigation of community policing
models based around local
participation and
neighbourhood security
Planning and municipal decision-
makers, construction companies,
law enforcement officials, non-
government aid organisations

on horizon issues, therefore, is always going to have significant implications for both criminal
justice institutions (e.g., bio-security and conflict resolution, international policing practices)
and social justice (e.g., exclusionary policies versus egalitarian and human rights based
policies). The conceptual framework presented in the paper is one way in which to navigate
these difficult questions, via use of the nine analytical signposts associated with the substantive,
justice and futures orientations.

Conclusion

This paper has provided an introduction to environmental horizon scanning from the point
of view of eco-global criminology. Our intention has been to outline how horizon scanning
can be used within a specifically criminological context to value-add to exploring,
analysing and understanding environmental harms and crimes. In our view this kind of
research is essential, given the rapidly changing nature of the ecological conditions of the
planet.
However, having said this, it is also important to acknowledge that environmental crime
frequently embodies a certain ambiguity. This is because it is not only located in frameworks of
risk (e.g., precautionary principle) or evaluated in terms of actual harms (e.g., polluter pays). It
is also judged in the context of cost-benefit analysis (e.g., license to trade or to pollute or to kill
or to capture) and according to the perceived valuing of harm in relation to specific communities
(e.g., developing countries, indigenous, people of colour). For this reason, environmental
horizon scanning necessarily embodies certain values and value-judgements about harm (how it
is defined), about particular locations (whose environment is subject to harm) and about
victimisation (who or what suffers harm) – namely, considerations of eco-justice, equity and
precaution.
The linking of eco-global criminology with horizon scanning provides a new way of
thinking about and analysing environmental harms and crimes. Our intention here is to
contribute to a criminology that is open to different approaches to exploring
environmental harms and crimes, while at the same time drawing on traditional and
critical criminological theories to help us understand and explain the complexities and
transboundary nature of many twenty first century harms and crimes. As criminologists
and global citizens, it is our responsibility to look to the future, now, to ensure we have
a hand in shaping that future.
100 R. White, D. Heckenberg

References

Australian Crime Commission. (2009). Horizons: Scanning Categories and Indicators 2009. Canberra:
ACC.
Boylan, J. (2010). Australia’s aboriginal communities clamour against uranium mining. The Guardian.
United Kingdom. 9 August, 2010. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/09/austrailia-
aboriginal-uranium-mining> (accessed October 2010)
Connell, R. (2007). Southern Theory: The global dynamics of knowledge in social science. Sydney: Allen &
Unwin.
Engdahl, F. (2007). Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation. Montreal: Global
Research.
European Environment Agency (EAA 2010). EEA Signals: Biodiversity, Climate Change and You.
Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.
Grain Briefing (2008). Seized! The 2008 land grab for food and financial security October 2008. <http://
www.grain.org/briefings_files/landgrab-2008-en.pdf> (accessed September 2010)
Green, P. (2005). Disaster by Design: Corruption, Construction and Catastrophe. BJC, 45(4), 528–546.
Leiss, W., & Hrudey, S. (2005). On Proof and Probability: Introduction to ‘Law and Risk’. In L. Commission
(Ed.), of Canada (eds) Law and Risk (pp. 1–19). Vancouver: UBC Press.
Madre, Kofaviv (2010). Statement to the Human Rights Council for 14th General Session May 18, 2010.
Bureau des Avocats Internationaux (BAI), Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti (IJDH), University
of Virginia School of Law Human Rights Program, University of Minnesota Human Rights Litigation
and Advocacy Clinic.
Robin, M.-M. (2010). The World According to Monsanto: Pollution, Corruption and the Control of Our
Food Supply. New York: The New Press.
Ryan, P. (2010). Space junk : Earth’s forgotten environmental disaster. ABC News, Australia, 14 September,
2010. <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/14/3011706.htm > (accessed September 2010).
Share the Worlds Resources (STWR 2009). Land Grabbing the end of sustainable Agriculture?. < http://www.stwr.
org/food-security-agriculture/land-grabbing-the-end-of-sustainable-agriculture.html> (accessed October 2010).
Shiva, V. (2008). Soil Not Oil: Environmental Justice in an Age of Climate Crisis. Brooklyn: South End
Press.
Smith, D., & Vivekananda, J. (2007). A Climate of Conflict: The Links Between Climate Change, Peace and
War. London: International Alert.
Sutherland, W. J., & Woodroof, H. J. (2009). The need for environmental horizon scanning. Trends Ecol
Evol, 24(10), 523–527.
Sutherland, W. J., Clout, M., Cote, I., Daszak, P., Depledges, M. H., Fellman, L., et al. (2009). A horizon
scan of global conservation issues for 2010. Trends Ecol Evol, 25(1), 1–7.
Thornton, W. E., & Voigt, L. (2007). Disaster Rape: Vulnerability of Women to Sexual Assaults During
Hurricane Katrina. Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, 13(2), 23–49.
United Kingdom Government Office for Science (2009). To arms: The growing use of lethal force in violent crime
across Europe, The Sigma Scan. London: Government Office for Science. <http://www.sigmascan.org/Live/
Issue/ViewIssue.aspx?IssueId=142&SearchMode=1> (accessed December 2010).
United Nations Environment Programme (2007). Global Environment Outlook. New York: UNEP.
White, R. (2008). Crimes Against Nature: Environmental Criminology and Ecological Justice. Devon:
Willan Publishing.
White, R. (2009). Researching Transnational Environmental Harm: Toward an Eco-Global Criminology.
International journal of comparative and applied criminal justice, 33(2), 229–248.
White, R. (2010). Prosecution and Sentencing in Relation to Environmental Crime: Recent Socio-Legal
Developments, Crime, Law and Social Change, 53(4), 365–381.
White, R. (in press). Transnational Environmental Crime: Toward an Eco-Global Criminology. London:
Willan/Routledge.