Natural disasters and violence against mothers in the Philippines. Can a conditional cash transfer program be protective?

A/Prof. Ben Edwards1
1Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

The Philippines has the 4th most number of natural disasters of all countries in the last twenty years (274 natural disasters, Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters and the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2016).  Violence against women often increases following natural disasters particularly given the financial strain that accompanies significant disasters.  The Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (commonly referred to as the 4Ps) has been a key component of the Philippines’ government focus on addressing poverty of families with children and is the third largest conditional cash transfer program in the world, covering 4.4 million households or 21 percent of the population (Acosta & Velarde, 2015).

As one of the most natural disaster prone countries in the world, understanding if the 4Ps does promote resilience in the most vulnerable families in the face of a natural disaster is a critical question.   Using new data from a United Nations funded nationally representative longitudinal cohort study of children and their families, we test whether the 4Ps program mitigates against natural disasters in the Philippines.  We capitalize on geographical variation in the expansion of the 4Ps and the location of natural disasters, and sophisticated econometric techniques to provide causal estimates of the extent to which the 4Ps mitigates against the worst effects of natural disasters on the most vulnerable families with respect to mother’s reports of family violence.  We discuss the implications for Australia and New Zealand.


Biography:

Associate Professor Ben Edwards is a Senior Fellow at the ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods where he is focused on policy relevant research on child and youth development and advising and supporting longitudinal studies.  Internationally, he advised the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on the measurement of non-cognitive skills in longitudinal studies.  Ben is Co-Editor of the Australian Journal of Social Issues.

He is an expert in longitudinal studies of child and youth development, linkage of administrative data to surveys and longitudinal studies of disadvantaged groups such as refugees.

Natural disasters and violence against mothers in the Philippines. Can a conditional cash transfer program be protective?

Taking water from the Basin: when does ‘theft’ constitute a ‘crime’?

Dr Katrina Clifford1, Professor Rob White2
1Deakin University, Burwood Melbourne, Australia, 2University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia

An ABC Four Corners investigation broadcast in July 2017 revealed a series of improper conducts pertaining to the Murray-Darling Basin, including allegations of water theft, questionable compliance decisions, and collusion between the water regulator and irrigation lobbyists. At the time, then-Federal Water Minister Barnaby Joyce refused calls for the Commonwealth to step in and investigate – placing the responsibility back on state governments – and accused Four Corners of taking part in a campaign to take more water from irrigators. This interdisciplinary study explores these issues through the news and institutional discourses evident within state and national media reports of the controversy and its fallout, as well as the various roles of social actors in problem-definition. It does so through the lens of critical green criminology and a framing analysis of a sample of news texts from ABC News, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Advertiser, spanning the catalyst of the controversy – the broadcast of the Four Corners episode – through to the announcement of prosecutions in March 2018. The study identifies the dominant media frames adopted in the news coverage of these issues. It compares these with the frames adopted by critical green criminology, which views the allegations at the heart of the Murray-Darling Basin controversy in terms of state-corporate interests, industry capture of regulators and the notion that water ‘theft’ constitutes a ‘crime’ and environmental harm generates ‘victims’. This paper presents the findings of the study, which serve to elaborate on the silences and opportunities for shaping public understandings and the role of media reporting of crimes of the powerful (involving stakeholders such as large agricultural companies and state government agencies) as they pertain to environmental matters.


Biography:

Katrina Clifford is a Senior Lecturer in Communication and Course Director for the Master of Communication at Deakin University. She has published in the areas of media criminology and journalism studies. Among her recent publications are ‘Media and Crime’ (Oxford University Press, 2017, with Rob White) and Policing, Mental Illness and Media (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018).

 

Carbon Fraud & Criminal Networks in REDD+ projects in Papua New Guinea

Mr Babida David Sepmat Gavara-Nanu1
1Flinders University, Sturt,, Australia

The United Nations backed scheme, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation & forest Degradation (“REDD+”) is at risk of being infiltrated by organised criminal syndicates (Global Witness, 2011).  As with all carbon trading platforms, lack of regulation and complex implementing mechanisms means that illicit networks and corrupt individuals, can breach loopholes in the schemes and misappropriate the enormous funds funnelled into those schemes.  Financing for carbon markets in developing countries is complex and therefore, open to abuse.  It has been suggested that to address this potential abuse, governments must have the will to seriously address climate change and be transparent in all aspects of utilising project funds (Michaelowa 2012).  However, most REDD+ implementing countries have governments with poor governance records, plagued with rampant corruption.  These factors make these countries conducive for organised crime groups to flourish and possibly venture into REDD+ schemes.  Determining the possibility of REDD+ schemes being abused by organised criminal groups, formed the basis for a doctoral research project which commenced in 2015 and focuses on Papua New Guinea (“PNG”).  The data collected so far, through interviews with police, local landowners and regulatory officers, indicates that the risk is unlikely to come from organised criminal networks from within or outside PNG.  Rather, the biggest risk of carbon fraud is likely to come from those bodies entrusted with administering REDD+ financing and from government interference.   The presentation will canvas results of semi-structured interviews with key informants and explore methods that might assist in preventing carbon fraud in REDD+ in PNG.


Biography:

The Presenter is a doctoral student at the Law School of Flinders University, South Australia.  His supervisors are Professor Willem de Lint and Dr. Russell Brewer.  He is on an Australia Awards scholarship that commenced in 2015 and will be completing his thesis by mid-2019.  He is from Papua New Guinea, admitted to the Bar in that jurisdiction with over 18 years’ practice.  His research interests concern transnational crime, organised criminal networks and regional security.  His other interests revolve around the Sydney Swans and the Parramatta Eels.

 

Illegal fishing as a maritime security threat for Australia: implications, overlaps and responses

Jade Lindley1,
1The University Of Western Australia Law School and Oceans Institute, Crawley, Australia,

This paper argues that the security impact of illegal fishing is not well enough understood. Where it is recognized as a security problem, it is usually because fish are recognized to be a vital natural resource on which states, societies, and individuals rely; it thus has implications for economic, environmental, and human security. However, this understanding of the security implications of illegal fishing does not grasp the full severity of the problem. We argue that not only does illegal fishing cause security problems because of the importance of fish as a resource, but also because illegal fishing itself is extensively implicated in other types of maritime crime. Illegal fishing overlaps with smuggling of all types, including human trafficking and irregular maritime arrivals, weapons, narcotics, and other banned substances and with piracy. Because fish are a low volume, high value commodity, their illegal extraction can be used to fund insurgency and other types of political violence. Understanding how the crime of illegal fishing is also a security challenge will improve Australia’s national security policy. First, it unites the disparate regions of illegal fishing in Australia, all of which appear different; second, it creates the possibility of more effective enforcement; and third, it presents an opportunity for effective regional cooperation.


Biography:
Dr Jade Lindley is a criminologist within the UWA Law School. Her research extends to the international law, regulation and governance of organised crimes, such as illegal fishing, maritime piracy and illicit trafficking. She is particularly interested in the Indian Ocean. She is also part of the UWA Oceans Institute leadership team, relating to the Maritime Security, Safety and Defence theme. Jade has previously worked in research within state and federal Australian government and for international organisations.

Taming business? A critical analysis of AGL’s decision to divest from coal seam gas

Haines F1, Bice S1, Einfeld C1

1University Of Melbourne

Criminological analyses of necessary responses to white collar crime are often framed in terms of the need for tougher legal controls and law enforcement. Yet, we know that business harms are often sanctioned by law and, even where they fall foul of the law, businesses can draw on significant resources to ensure a legal outcome that has the least impact on their profit making operations – even if significant harm continues. White collar crimes historically have been understood either as discrete events or pertaining to discrete domains (of worker safety, finance or pollution) but now, with the threat of climate change, the central inter-related problems associated with ‘business as usual’ come into play. Taming business, better aligning business practice with not only legal requirements but changing social expectations and looming environmental limits becomes the central criminological conundrum in the study of white collar crime. To answer this question requires us looking at how a combination of pressures on business conduct may be more effective than reliance on the law alone. This paper looks at one aspect of this challenge through empirical work on the coal seam gas industry. Coal seam gas exploration has developed rapidly and has been associated with endangering ground water and release of methane adding to the problem of climate change problems that have led to significant social protest. This paper analyses three separate sources of social control of business – legal controls, the market and social protest—in order to understand how this combination of pressures led to the decision by AGL in February 2016 to divest from coal seam gas. We draw on twitter data around social protests of AGL’s operations, alongside legal decisions and critical financial information to analyse the pressures that led to AGL’s decision to ’quit coal seam gas’. We then draw lessons from this case study concerning the broader challenges of ‘taming business’ in light of the significant environmental and social challenges we now face.

Biography

Fiona Haines is Professor of Criminology in the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Melbourne and adjunct professor at the Regulatory Institutions Network at ANU. Her research, which encompasses work on industrial disasters, grievances and multinational enterprises centres on white collar and corporate crime, globalisation and regulation. Her recent books include The Paradox of Regulation: what regulation can achieve and what it cannot (Edward Elgar, 2011) and Regulatory Transformations: Rethinking Economy Society Interactions, Hart Publishing, 2015, co-edited with Bettina Lange and Dania Thomas.

State-corporate mining: The Carmichael case

O.Salama

University of Tasmania, olivia.salama@utas.edu.au

The proposed Carmichael Mine will release 79 million tons of carbon dioxide per year and will require the construction of a railway line to ship the coal to the eastern coast, where it would then be transported through (and thus have detrimental effects on) the Great Barrier Reef. The destructive effects on ecosystems caused by intentional human activities such as mining can be studied criminologically. This paper presents initial findings from a project examining the Carmichael case as a state-corporate crime; one in which big business engages in the exploitation of natural resources for private profit, working in collusion with governments (at varied levels) in ways that perpetuate environmental harm. Focusing on one application in the Federal Court of Australia for judicial review of the Commonwealth Environment Minister’s decision to approve the mine under the EPBC Act, it outlines the externalisation of both direct harm and the responsibility for harm. It is proposed that these externalisations of harm, a common feature of state-corporate crimes, can be studied as a contributor to ecocide of the Great Barrier Reef.

Biography

Olivia Salama received her BA in political science and philosophy from the University of Scranton, USA in 2014. She was then awarded a Fulbright Fellowship to study the policing of white collar crime in Finland. Olivia is now a PhD candidate at the University of Tasmania, studying state-corporate crime and ecocide as it relates to the Carmichael Coal Mine Project in Queensland.

The carbon footprint of crime and crime prevention – a green opportunity?

Skudder H*1, Brunton-Smith I1, Druckman A1, McInnes A2, Cole J3

1University Of Surrey
2Secured by Design, Police Crime Prevention Initiatives
3Home Office, HM Government

*Corresponding author: h.skudder@surrey.ac.uk

Carbon emissions arise as a result of police investigations, criminal justice proceedings, imprisoning and rehabilitating offenders, replacing items that get stolen and supporting or caring for victims and their families. While these emissions represent significant environmental impact, they are not generally considered by policy-makers. Crime prevention delivers social and economic benefits, but if emission reductions can also be achieved from preventing crimes there are potential added benefits for the natural environment – a green opportunity.

Using a carbon footprinting technique known as Environmentally-Extended Input-Output Analysis, this paper quantifies the carbon footprint of crime within England and Wales. Drawing on recorded crime data from the last 20 years we demonstrate that the fall in crime has been associated with a drop of over 38 million tonnes of carbon. Our results show that a decline in the number of burglaries and vehicle thefts is responsible for a large proportion of these savings, and in particular a fall in emissions from replacing damaged or stolen property (i.e. vehicles).

We also show that crime prevention measures, specifically related to burglary, can be both effective and low carbon, presenting a win-win situation for security and sustainability. Looking at crime through this environmental lens provides new information about the impacts of crime and may provide an opportunity to help inform more sustainable approaches to crime prevention in the future.

Biography

Helen Skudder is in her final year studying for an Engineering Doctorate (EngD) at the University of Surrey, United Kingdom. Her project, researching the carbon costs of crime, is sponsored by the Home Office (HM Government department), Secured by Design (Police Crime Prevention Initiative) and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC).

Restorative justice conferencing: Furthering the democratisation of environmental and planning dispute resolution in New South Wales, Australia

Mark Hamilton

mark.hamilton@unsw.edu.au

The views expressed in this presentation are those of the author as are any errors.

Environmental and planning law crime and conflict causes harm to both humans and non-humans. Human victims include those presently living and future generations. Non-human victims include flora (plants), fauna (animals), ecosystems and the environment generally. The Land and Environment Court of New South Wales (NSWLEC), the court in which environmental and planning law offending is prosecuted in New South Wales, has the power to implement a plethora of orders following prosecution of such offending or following civil enforcement proceedings which may be undertaken as an alternative to prosecution. Despite the wide breadth of such orders it must be questioned how effective those orders are at restoring the environment and repairing fractured relationships, occasioned by environmental and planning law offending, in situations where offender and victim dialogue regarding the offence is minimal or non-existent or where offender and victim input into the formulation of orders following offending is minimal or non-existent.

This presentation proposes that restorative justice conferencing furthers the democratisation of environmental and planning dispute resolution in New South Wales, Australia. It does so by facilitating stakeholder participation and input into order formulation following environmental and planning law crime and conflict. The benefit of such democratisation is that it results in better outcomes, both procedurally and substantively. Such conferencing furthers the democratisation of environmental and planning dispute resolution afforded by objector appeals pertaining to designated development and public interest litigation.

Biography

BSC LLB (UoW), MEL LLM (USyd), MPP (Macq). The author is currently undertaking his PhD in Law at UNSW under the joint supervision of Associate Professor Cameron Holley (Faculty of Law) and Dr Jane Bolitho (Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences), exploring the applicability of restorative justice intervention to environmental and planning law from multiple perspectives. The author currently teaches in the Bachelor of Criminology program at the UNSW. The author was formerly a solicitor in an environmental and planning law practice in Sydney, and a former tipstaff to a Land and Environment Court of New South Wales judge.

Restorative justice conferencing: Furthering the democratisation of environmental and planning dispute resolution in New South Wales, Australia

Mark Hamilton

mark.hamilton@unsw.edu.au

The views expressed in this presentation are those of the author as are any errors.

Environmental and planning law crime and conflict causes harm to both humans and non-humans. Human victims include those presently living and future generations. Non-human victims include flora (plants), fauna (animals), ecosystems and the environment generally. The Land and Environment Court of New South Wales (NSWLEC), the court in which environmental and planning law offending is prosecuted in New South Wales, has the power to implement a plethora of orders following prosecution of such offending or following civil enforcement proceedings which may be undertaken as an alternative to prosecution. Despite the wide breadth of such orders it must be questioned how effective those orders are at restoring the environment and repairing fractured relationships, occasioned by environmental and planning law offending, in situations where offender and victim dialogue regarding the offence is minimal or non-existent or where offender and victim input into the formulation of orders following offending is minimal or non-existent.

This presentation proposes that restorative justice conferencing furthers the democratisation of environmental and planning dispute resolution in New South Wales, Australia. It does so by facilitating stakeholder participation and input into order formulation following environmental and planning law crime and conflict. The benefit of such democratisation is that it results in better outcomes, both procedurally and substantively. Such conferencing furthers the democratisation of environmental and planning dispute resolution afforded by objector appeals pertaining to designated development and public interest litigation.

Biography

BSC LLB (UoW), MEL LLM (USyd), MPP (Macq). The author is currently undertaking his PhD in Law at UNSW under the joint supervision of Associate Professor Cameron Holley (Faculty of Law) and Dr Jane Bolitho (Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences), exploring the applicability of restorative justice intervention to environmental and planning law from multiple perspectives. The author currently teaches in the Bachelor of Criminology program at the UNSW. The author was formerly a solicitor in an environmental and planning law practice in Sydney, and a former tipstaff to a Land and Environment Court of New South Wales judge.

Dolphin ‘troubles’ in New Zealand

S. Wright Monod

Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand, *corresponding author: sarah.wright@vuw.ac.nz

Green cultural criminologists have called for increased attention to the sophisticated strategies by which harms to the environment are denied, downplayed and dismissed by elite groups invested in maintaining the neo-liberal social and economic status quo. Attention to these strategies can help account for the cultures of silence and complicity which support political inaction around issues of environmental harm. This paper reports on initial findings from a project examining ‘talk’ about environmental issues in the New Zealand context across a range of discursive sites. Focusing on one issue in particular, the plight of New Zealand’s rare and endangered Maui’s dolphin, it outlines the interplay between efforts to ‘define up’ the threat posed to the dolphin by environmental issue entrepreneurs with efforts to ‘define down’ that threat by those opposed to any action being initiated by official bodies. It proposes that the shapes of the interplay afford insight to a set of processes akin to what Brisman and South (2016) see as a ‘reverse moral panic’ at work.

Biography

Sarah Wright Monod is a Lecturer at the Institute of Criminology at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. She conducts research on crime and the media, moral panics, narratives of crime, youth offending practices and harms against the environment. She teaches in the areas of youth crime, crime and criminal justice practices in New Zealand and in the emerging area of green criminology.

12

ABOUT ANZSOC

The society is devoted to promoting criminological study, research and practice in the region and bringing together persons engaged in all aspects of the field. The membership of the society reflects the diversity of persons involved in the field, including practitioners, academics, policy makers and students.

Conference Managers

Please contact the team at Conference Design with any questions regarding the conference.
© 2018 Conference Design Pty Ltd