Understanding the concept of environmental crime is a complex endeavor that requires consideration of the broader socio-cultural and political structures of a particular society. Traditional criminology and criminal justice theories are gradually evolving, adapting to the pressing realities of modern environmental degradation. The concept of environmental justice began gaining traction within criminological literature in the late 1980s and early 1990s. From this discourse, green criminology has emerged as a significant branch of critical criminology, challenging and expanding the scope of traditional criminological approaches.
Traditional criminology tends to adopt an individualistic and positivist approach, focusing on specific violations of environmental laws and identifying offenders-often referred to as polluters. In contrast, critical criminology embraces a broader, more holistic analysis, addressing underlying social inequalities, power imbalances, and economic disparities that contribute to environmental harm. This perspective integrates concepts such as environmental justice, eco-justice, climate criminology, and global inequality, highlighting the deep interconnection between environmental degradation and social injustice.
Green criminology, developed from these critical approaches, incorporates environmental concerns into criminological inquiry. It seeks to expand the notion of harm beyond petty or street crimes to include actions against ecosystems and the environment. Green criminology recognizes the rights of both human and non-human life forms, advocating for the inclusion of all forms of environmental harm-whether or not they are codified in law. Unlike traditional criminology, which often requires direct harm from one person to another for legal action to be taken, green criminology argues that causation need not be direct. It recognizes environmental injustice caused by industries, corporations, or even governments that negatively impact humans, animals, and other living organisms.
While the above discusses the theoretical foundations of green criminology, the practical consequences of environmental crime are tangible and pressing-especially in Bangladesh. For many people in this country, living with environmental harm has become an accepted reality: breathing air heavy with dust, consuming contaminated water, and suffering from diseases linked to pollution. Widespread environmental crimes, such as the dumping of industrial waste into the Buriganga and Turag rivers, unregulated air pollution from brick kilns and vehicular emissions in Dhaka, plastic pollution clogging waterways, and deforestation in the Sundarbans, continue to severely impact both public health and biodiversity.
Despite the gravity of these issues, state institutions have largely failed to address them effectively. In situations where a conflict arises between economic or infrastructural development and environmental preservation, it is almost always the environment that is sacrificed. This trend is not unique to Bangladesh but reflects a global reality in which nature is often compromised in the name of progress.
The need for industrialization and economic development is undeniable. Every government strives to provide a better standard of living for its citizens. The expansion of the private sector has opened up job opportunities and helped reduce unemployment. However, this progress comes with significant environmental costs. Industrial growth frequently takes precedence over environmental concerns, resulting in ecological degradation and public health crises. This creates a troubling paradox: the pursuit of development and improved lifestyles is simultaneously causing irreversible damage to the environment. It is, therefore, essential to strike a balance between development and environmental protection-failing to do so could lead to catastrophic consequences.
A notable example of environmental advocacy in action is the relocation of British American Tobacco's (BAT) factory and head office from the residential area of Mohakhali to Ashulia, Savar, effective July 1, 2025. This move followed sustained pressure from environmental activists and a landmark Supreme Court decision rejecting the renewal of BAT's lease. This case marks a significant victory in the fight against industrial pollution and an improvement in local living conditions. Organizations such as the Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) and various civil society groups have played a crucial role in pushing for sustainable environmental policies.
The judiciary, as the guardian of justice and rule of law, is a foundational pillar in addressing environmental harm. Bangladesh has enacted several legal measures, including the Bangladesh Environment Conservation Act (BECA) of 1995 and the Environment Court Act (ECA) of 2010. However, the effectiveness of these laws remains in question. Despite their presence in the legal system, enforcement is weak, and their application often symbolic rather than substantive.
One key issue lies within the ECA, which requires prior approval from the Department of Environment (DoE) before a case can be filed in an environmental court. This executive intervention in judicial matters significantly restricts access to justice, especially when the DoE may be subject to political influence. Moreover, environmental crime is inherently multidisciplinary, requiring expert knowledge to resolve effectively. Yet, there is no structured procedural framework or requirement for environmental specialists to assist the judiciary. The limited number of environmental courts and the dual responsibilities of judges-handling both environmental and general cases-further dilute the attention given to environmental disputes.
Therefore, meaningful legal reforms are essential. These should include streamlining procedures, removing executive barriers to justice, appointing experts in environmental law, and increasing the number of specialized courts and trained judges. Such measures would not only improve access to justice for victims of environmental harm but also align the legal system with current environmental realities. This would play a vital role in curbing ongoing environmental crimes and ensuring intergenerational justice in Bangladesh.
Lastly, environmental justice in Bangladesh cannot be achieved without integrating the theoretical insights of green criminology into practical legal and institutional reforms. While development is necessary, it must not come at the cost of environmental destruction. Upholding environmental justice is not only a legal and ecological imperative but a moral one-for the well-being of current and future generations.
The writer is an Undergraduate Law Student, Bangladesh University of Professionals
