【Abstract】This essay aims to explore the concept of environmental crime by examining a case study of illegal trafficking and the recovery of e-waste from the EU to Accra which is a city in Africa and discuss how environmental crime differs from other crimes from the perspectives of criminal motivation and the victim.

【Key words】environmental crime； electronic waste， environment； human health； Africa

【作者簡(jiǎn)介】董昊赟，中國(guó)刑事警察學(xué)院。

There are over 40 million tons of electronic waste （also known as e-waste） which is produced all over the world every year （EUROSTAT， 2014）. This is similar to discarding 800 laptops every second （EUROSTAT， 2014）. In the 21st century， waste electrical and electronic equipment （WEEE） have become a global environmental and human health problem and pose new challenges to explore the concept of environmental crime. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency （USEPA）， environmental crime is defined as an act which breaches environmental legislation and causes significant harm or risk to the environment and human health （Hall， 2015）. Since the 1989 Basel Convention， the illegal act of moving e-waste from the EU to third world countries has been defined as an example of green crime owing to the fact that e-waste contains harmful chemicals including brominated flame retardants （BFRs） and classical toxic trace elements （TEs）. Not only do these chemicals damage our health but they also harm the environment if recycling and disposal is unregulated. As reported by UNEP （2005）， e-waste is transported from industrialized countries to less affluent regions of the world such as China， India， and the Philippines because of a higher awareness about hazardous e-waste in EU countries and because of the more stringent regulations regarding the disposal of e-waste.

Currently， Accra is the largest city in Ghana in terms of developed industrial establishment and it has become one staple destination for e-waste worldwide as a result of a lack in recycling infrastructure， inadequate funding， poor legislation， a lack of public awareness and market based instruments. In 2004， a new policy implemented by the Government of Ghana （GOG） called “bridge the digital divide” which reduced the import duty to zero on used computers. Whats more， government-approved programs like “One Laptop per Child” was initiated for primary school children， has encouraged importation of second-hand electronics in 2009. These practices have most certainly lead the country to become a magnet recipient of e-waste shipments. Although Ghana has ratified the Basel Convention in 2011， the stipulations of the Convention have not examined informal workers and informal-formal linkages for sustainable recycling. As claimed by Hall （2015）， there are no distinct policies in Ghana for the regulation and management of e-waste. A general environment of disarray throughout the official economy was created because of their liberalization policies， which in turn contributed greatly to the growth of trans-boundary trading opportunities. Official statistics demonstrate that the second hand electrical and electronic equipment （EEE） imports into Ghana added up to 215，000 tons and a per capita import of 9 kg. However， the majority of e-waste was tackled in the wrong way. As reported by EUROSTAT （2014）， only approximately 15.5% of e-waste was recycled with methods that are efficient and environmentally safe in 2014. It has been argued by Hall （2015） that such kinds of illegal trade， shipment and consequential dumping of e-waste， has been regarded as an example of transnational environmental crime. Trafficking EEE to a third world country also has been criminalized by the European and global legislative frameworks such as the Basel Convention. Nevertheless， environmental crimes are defined broadly as illicit acts which harm the environment directly and have a negative effect on our surroundings.

Regardless of incalculable damages to environment and human health， EU countries have and still do transport lots of e-waste to Accra. On the one hand， rational choice theory could be used to explain why individuals and corporations in the EU countries choose to export e-waste instead of disposing of it or recycling it domestically. Rational choice theory is an economic principle which provides people with the highest benefit and it can be applied to both the individual and corporation. Trans-boundary transferring not only can make EU countries reduce cost but also can make them earn a high profit because there are high standards for the treatment of WEEE under EU waste legislation and WEEE legislation. In addition， destination countries have various discarded facilities which are available for recovery. It was revealed in a community study， the total market value of the e-waste recycling and reuse （R&R;） services increased from $6.2 billion to $6.8 billion between 2009 and 2010. It can also be predicted by Hall （2015） that Industry growth is expected to continue on its uphill path at least through the next decade. Economically， this approach worked perfectly if one does not consider the devastation it caused. However， as environmental awareness increased in both public society and the environmental legislation agency， which caused e-waste operation costs to increase and created a market for unlawful shipment.

There are other reasons which could be illustrated for the motivation and intention of EU countries. Firstly， because of the rise in appliance manufacturing sectors in Ghana， large amounts of components were required. So e-waste became more valuable than before. Also， e-waste is a product with an inelastic price， and thus an attractive target for organised crime. Secondly， shortage of financial fund and poor legislation of recycling e-waste are the main factors. Although， Ghana has ratified the Basel Convention in 2011 which prohibited the recovery of e-waste， inadequate publicity and enforcement have caused these bans to be mostly ineffective. Last but not least， the majority of people were not aware what was caused by the shipping and recycling of e-waste. What they focused on was profit without regarding the environmental impact.

This illegal transportation of e-waste does not only harm the environment and human health of receiving countries but it also breaks international environmental policy through unfair price settings and lower material recovery rates. As stated by Hall （2015）， hundreds of kilos of electric cables were burned to extract their copper and in order to resell it which lead the toxic fumes to rise into the sky， which poisoned the air and then settled on the soil and on the vegetables sold at the market. Greenhouse gas emissions during the dismantling of e-waste can affect climate changes directly and also aggravate natural changes in marine environment. What is more， e-waste is detrimental to local workers and residents on the grounds that it contains different hazardous materials such as heavy metals， polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons （PAHs） and inorganic acids which are harmful to human health. As illustrated by Hall （201）， workers and residents had high incidences of blood diseases， tuberculosis and birth defects because of toxic substances. From the opinion of Krstic （2014）， individuals have a higher possibility of becoming the victims of environmental crime rather than criminal violence.

It is estimated by Hall （2015） that some environmental crimes were perceived as “victimless” because specific individual victims are usually not distinguishable for each specific offence. Since environmental crimes are often discovered by accident or not discovered until long after the incident， the affected persons may not even know of the influences that they are experiencing. Actually， environmental crime has an adverse impact on society as a whole. For example， damages caused by green crimes can be revealed on the food we eat， the water we drink， the climate we feel and the air we breathe. From victimological perspective， the scale of those who can be victims of environmental crime can be incredibly huge. In terms of the victims of e-waste not only can it be local workers and residents but it also can be political and economic order. Comparing with other types of crime， environmental crimes do not have a distinct victim and the dimensions of harm is different from others. These are apparent differences between environmental crime and other traditional crime.

In conclusion， the illicit trafficking of e-waste from EU countries to third world countries is still a controversial issue and environmental crime which poses a growing threat to public health around the world. In terms of criminal motivation， the reason why some of the developed nations choose to export e-waste to Ghana instead of disposing it domestically can be illustrated by the rational choice theory. In addition， needs of appliance components， poor legislation and shortage of financial fund play an important role. From the perspective of the victim， widespread devastation can be reflected on local employees， inhabitants as well as the society on the whole which represent a two levelled anxiety about complexity and serious consequences of environmental crime. With regard to current trend of quantities of WEEE， it can be predicted that the main challenge is the continuous global growth of e-waste. What trafficking and recovery of e-waste caused， should be considered by human beings and its impacts on the environment most seriously， should force action towards the improvement of regulatory strategies.