The article examines "ecoterrorism" conceptually and empirically.
It explores political and academic debates on the term's meaning and use.
It assesses the validity of "ecoterrorism" as a concept and the alleged threat of the Radical Environmentalist and Animal Rights (REAR) movement.
The analysis indicates that the term should be reserved for a small fraction of REAR actions, targeting only terrorist minorities, not the broader movement.
FBI's Dale Watson testified to the Senate in 2002, highlighting the rise of special interest extremism, specifically the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), as a serious terrorist threat.
An FBI Terrorism Report indicated that the majority of domestic terrorism incidents between 1993 and 2001 were attributed to the left-wing special interest movements ALF and ELF.
In 2004, FBI's John Lewis called ALF and ELF the most active criminal extremist elements in the U.S.
The FBI considered animal rights extremists and ecoterrorism matters their highest domestic terrorism investigative priority.
This raised surprise as public attention was focused on "Jihadist terrorism" post-9/11.
Even a 1999 U.S. government report on profiling terrorists did not mention ALF or ELF.
No "ecoterrorist" group is included in the terrorist organization lists of the European Union (EU) or the United Kingdom.
The Political Debate
The term's origins are unclear, but Ron Arnold of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise (CDFE) claims to have coined it in 1983, defining it as "a crime committed to save nature."
Arnold is a critic of environmentalism, promoting private property expansion and deregulation.
Within a few years, "ecoterrorism" was widely used in conservative and libertarian circles and in Washington.
The first congressional hearing using the term was in June 1998, titled "Acts of Eco-Terrorism by Radical Environmental Organizations."
Conservative politicians held hearings on REAR activism using the term ecoterrorism.
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) coordinated efforts to introduce legislation targeting "ecoterrorism" at state and federal levels.
The Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA) was signed into law in 1992, creating the federal crime of "animal enterprise terrorism."
The USA PATRIOT Act redefined terrorism to include property destruction, potentially increasing sentences for activists involved in arson and vandalism.
FBI officials began to describe groups involved in these actions as “ecoterrorists."
In 2002, FBI's James Jarboe defined ecoterrorism as "the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons."
The AEPA was revised and renamed the Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act (AETA) in 2006.
This reflected a trend toward aggressively prosecuting animal activists.
Today, the term ecoterrorism is mainstream within the U.S. intelligence and legislative communities.
The term is widely used in the mainstream U.S. media, despite opposition from environmentalist and animal rights communities.
Due to a broad coalition, "ecoterrorism" has become synonymous with the REAR movement, including non-criminal organizations like PETA.
The term has not caught on outside the U.S.
European countries with active REAR movements seldom use linguistic equivalents of ecoterrorism in public debates.
For example, the Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) shifted from "animal rights activism" to "animal rights extremism," rejecting the U.S. terminology of "terrorism."
The German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) does not specifically focus on "ecoextremism."
The Academic Debate
The REAR movement is seldom mentioned in studies on terrorism, political violence, counterterrorism, and state repression.
If referenced, it's often in the ambiguous category of "single-issue terrorism," negating the ideological basis of the REAR movement.
Only a few general studies include a section on "ecoterrorism," while most specific studies focus on the animal rights movement.
The term ecoterrorism has slowly entered the academic debate.
In the 1980s and 1990s, it was mainly referenced in legal studies published in law reviews.
The first social science study was published in Studies in Conflict & Terrorism in 1996, entitled “From Spikes to Bombs: The Rise of Eco-Terrorism.”
Since then, ecoterrorism has remained a fringe topic in terrorism studies.
There is more interest in ecoterrorism among U.S. legal scholars, especially in legal measures targeting the REAR movement.
The term ecoterrorism is strongly contested within academia.
A majority argues that the term does not accurately capture the movement, as REAR activists have not risen to the level of terrorism.
A minority believes ecoterrorism accurately denotes the REAR movement, including scholars who have focused on identifying the risks of ecoterrorism.
Most scholars agree that the REAR movement has been responsible for many illegal actions, especially in the UK and the US.
Bones of Contention
The core of the academic debate comes down to three main points of contention: the definition of violence, the issue of intent, and the role of fear.
The most debated issue is the definition of violence and whether destructive acts against property are violent acts.
Many authors consider illegal acts like "ecotage" and "monkeywrenching" as part of "nonviolent resistance."
They argue that acts are only violent when they target human beings or "sentient beings."
Lowering the threshold for terrorism to include acts against property contradicts understandings of those who engage in a debate over property destruction as a form of non-violent protest.
Most scholars who approve of the term ecoterrorism follow the official FBI definition.
Rik Scarce states that for authorities and practitioners of civil disobedience, property destruction is “violence, plain and simple.”
Luther Tweeten believes that animal rights advocates stop at almost nothing to further their cause, arguing that property is an extension of people.
Donald Liddick argues that property destruction creates substantial risks to human welfare.
Some authors point to an escalation in illegal actions, with groups targeting people for harassment and physical attacks, warranting the use of the term ecoterrorism.
Related to the definition of violence is the debate about intent.
Following the motto of groups like the ALF and ELF, scholars state that the REAR movement has not intentionally harmed anyone.
Some argue there is little evidence that the movement intends to kill or foster "terror" among the general populace.
Even in this group, scholars point to signs that elements within the RAER movement are drifting toward greater levels of violence.
Gary Ackerman sees indications of an erosion of the ALF’s restraints on causing harm to human beings.
The third point of contention is the role of fear (and terror), a vital feature of most definitions of terrorism.
Opponents of the term ecoterrorism contend that since property cannot feel fear, damage to property is more accurately described as sabotage (or “ecotage”).
They also hold that a larger population is not suitably terrorized by the prospect of becoming the next victim.
Specific persons are not targeted, and ordinary people need not even fear for their property.
Consequently, the term ecoterrorism should not apply to “a whole lot of people doing nothing to terrify anyone.”
The Movement
The REAR movement is a broad and loosely organized group of individuals, groups, and organizations that condone radical actions to realize a world in which animals and the environment are fully respected.
Most radical actions are aimed at exposing or stopping environmental destruction and animal abuse.
While all members of the REAR movement differ from the moderate environmental and animal rights movement in their acceptance of non-legal activities, some also have more radical political goals.
For example, many radical animal rights activists believe that animals should have the same rights as humans, while many radical environmentalists believe that environmental concerns are more important than economic concerns.
Although the various REAR groups do not constitute a single entity, “they are at the very least close cousins.”
The origins of the REAR movement can be traced back to the United Kingdom in the mid-1970s.
Dissatisfaction with the mainstream animal welfare movement led many activists to search for more aggressive methods.
In 1976, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) splintered from the less radical Hunt Saboteurs Association (HSA).
Founder Ronnie Lee called for a more radical approach in which the ALF would carry out “direct action against animal abuse in the form of rescuing animals and causing financial loss to animal exploiters, usually through the damage and destruction of property.”
The ALF does not have formal members or an organizational structure; anyone can be an ALF activist.
Anyone who wants to claim an action in the name of the ALF will have “to take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human.”
By the mid-1980s, the initial 30 ALF activists had grown to more than 1,500 and expanded beyond the United Kingdom.
In 1979, the ALF appeared in North America.
Today, ALF actions are claimed throughout Europe and the Americas.
While the ALF is still by far the most active group within the REAR movement, it is no longer the most radical.
In 1982, the Animal Rights Militia (ARM) splintered from the ALF, rejecting the nonviolence principle.
Since then some other groups have become involved in the targeting and threatening of humans suspected of involvement in animal abuse, such as the Justice Department and the Revolutionary Cells-Animal Liberation Brigade.
Like the ALF, these groups hold that animals should have rights equal to those of human beings.
The radical environmentalist movement developed largely in tandem with the closely linked radical animal rights movement.
It includes groups like Earth First! and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), but also green anarchists, ecofeminists, Pagans and Wiccans, and anti-globalization and anti-capitalist protestors.
These groups differ widely over whether, how, and when there might be a reharmonization of life on Earth.
One of the first and most prominent radical environmental groups, Earth First!, was founded in the United States in 1979.
The founding members were all former mainstream environmentalists, who were fed up with the political system and believed that radical action was necessary to stop the environmental crisis.
Its main slogan is “no compromise in defense of mother earth,” and Earth First! neither condemns nor condones illegal acts of property destruction.
However, in the 1990s some members became frustrated with the group’s unwillingness to actually engage in illegal actions to achieve its goals.
As a result, in 1992 British members formed the ELF, based on the ALF, which became active in North America four years later.
The ELF describes itself as “an international underground organization that uses direct action in the form of economic sabotage to stop the exploitation and destruction of the natural environment.”
Its activists call themselves “elves” to playfully evoke the sense that they are spirits of nature.
On 19 June 1995, the first “Earth Liberation” action happened in Canada, by a group calling itself the Earth Liberation Army (ELA).
Since then the ELF has spread across the globe, most notable in the Americas and Europe, although, like the ALF, it does not officially exist as an organization and anyone, respecting their rules, can claim an action in its name.
Today the REAR movement is a highly diverse, international movement with an unknown number of activists and supporters worldwide.
Cells can be found in at least 25 countries.
While radical environmentalists are more broadly focused on the entire ecosystem, radical animal rightists are concerned more narrowly with sentient beings.
Still, they regularly collaborate and claim joint responsibility for actions.
Both ALF and ELF claimed responsibility for setting fire to a building of the U.S. Department of Animal Damage Control in Olympia, Washington in 1998, while various animal rights groups have been collaborating in the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) campaign since 1989.
Ideology
The ideology of the REAR movement argues that the prevailing power structures are victimizing minorities, women, and other marginalized groups.
Many adhere to the ideas of “deep ecology,” which stresses biocentrism and equality of all species.
Among the most important publications within the REAR movement are Edward Abbey’s The Monkey Wrench Gang (1975), Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation (1975), Tom Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights (1983), and the collective Ecodefense: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching (1985).
While most activists believe that their goals can be achieved by a radical reform of the political system, the most extreme activists embrace anti-capitalist and anarchist ideas, and believe that only a true revolution can save the planet.
Characteristics
Despite the diversity of ideas and ideologies, there are three main characteristics that all activists and groups share: an uncompromising position, status as a grassroots organization, and direct action.
In many ways, the REAR movement would be best described as an idea; it is a collectivity in the most limited and virtual sense.
It acts as an inspiration to groups and activists, from the Americas to Europe and beyond, that work anonymously, either in small groups or individually, and do not have a centralized organization or coordination.
The activity of the network is decentralized and, on occasion, spontaneous.
The glue that binds these local and international “franchises” together is their common goal of promoting the destruction of the assets of those who threaten the environment and all its sentient inhabitants.
The REAR movement lacks a hierarchical structure.
Its organizational strategy is “leaderless resistance”; its activists remain largely faceless, nameless, and unconnected.
Spokespersons, rather than the activists themselves, publicize the various direct actions committed by the group.
This leaderless resistance, which has reverted increasingly toward a “lone wolf” strategy since 9/11, allows activists to maintain a certain amount of anonymity, enhancing their chances of avoiding detection.
This structure is less constrained by geographic boundaries, which allows activists to become activists of the movement simply by carrying out uncoordinated illegal actions on its behalf.
Because, rather despite, of its decentralized “franchise” structure the REAR movement is able to mobilize a large network of activists and supporters and inflict immense financial damage on its enemies.
Allowing the activists to control their own destiny, it maintains a high degree of connectivity to other environmental and animal rights organizations.
There are several indicators of relational bridges and significant overlap in personnel and support networks among REAR and related groups.
This includes also “aboveground” organizations that are more broadly accepted within the public, such as PETA.
According to Scarce PETA is “a mouthpiece for ALF” and their relationship “exemplifies the mutually-supportive mix of organization/bureaucracy and decentralization/anarchy within the Animal Liberation movement.”
Actions
In February 2002, the FBI estimated that the ALF/ELF had committed approximately 600 criminal acts in the United States since 1996, resulting in damages in excess of 42 million dollars.
Jennifer Carson and her colleagues, drawing on twelve different datasets, counted a total of 1,069 criminal acts in the United States between 1970 and 2007.
The high level of activity of the movement is partly a consequence of the broad arsenal of actions it employs.
Types of Attacks
In their study of the criminal acts in the United States, Jennifer Carson et al. distinguish five different types of “attacks”: assassinations, armed assaults, bombings/explosions, facility attacks, and unarmed assaults.
Jean-Marc Fluckiger distinguishes between arson attacks, animal liberation, sabotage and vandalism, and home visits.
Building on both, the study develops a seven-type categorization scheme: arsons, assassinations, vandalism, house visits, animal liberations, bombings, and cybercrimes.
Arson Attacks
Arson attacks generally involve the torching of specific machinery or sites of alleged animal rights abuse or environmental destruction.
Probably the most notorious, and costly, was the ELF’s arson of a 206-unit condominium complex in San Diego, California in 2003, with estimated damages of 20 million dollars.
The ALF has mostly used arson to destroy laboratories involved in animal testing, though sometimes their activists have also targeted private property of companies and people linked to animal rights abuse.
The most militant section of the REAR movement has even attacked individuals; for instance, in April 2013 ARM activists threw several firebombs into the house of a Swedish accountant linked to a mink farm.
Assassinations
Assassinations involve the (attempted) killing of human beings.
The vast majority of individuals and groups within the REAR movement reject the harming of all sentient beings, including humans.
Both ALF and ELF explicitly state that such actions cannot be claimed in name of their organization.
In fact, most proponents emphasize that the movement has never killed anyone—one of their major arguments against the use of the term ecoterrorism.
The few assassinations mentioned by scholars were the work of “lone wolves” with highly problematic links to the movement.
For example, Ted Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber, denies being part of the REAR movement and criticizes ALF and ELF activists for being primarily concerned with satisfying “their own psychological needs.”
And while Volkert van der Graaf was indeed an activist within the Dutch REAR movement, he claims to have killed Dutch right-wing populist politician Pim Fortuyn “to defend Dutch Muslims from persecution,” and has never mentioned environmentalist or animal rights concerns.
Vandalism
Vandalism is a very broad category, by and large referring to property destruction that does not involve arson.
This ranges from relatively harmless acts that cause minor damage, like the destruction of circus posters or the spraying of slogans and “ALF” on butcher and fur shops, to more costly acts, such as the destruction of data and equipment during animal liberations in animal research labs.
For instance, in July 1989 the ALF raided a facility at Texas Tech University and smashed equipment, computers and records with an estimated 700,000 in damages.
Such acts are often referred to as “ecotage,” particularly within the movement.
House Visits
House visits target individuals linked to environmental destruction or animal rights abuse in the privacy of their own home.
They are quite controversial within the REAR movement itself.
House visits range from loud demonstrations outside of a private residence to (often implicitly threatening) phone calls.
House visits are often accompanied by vandalism and (threatening) graffiti.
Activists often target not just the individuals themselves, but also their family and friends, as well as other sites, such as the school of the children.
Animal Liberations
Animal liberations are the trademark activity of the ALF and the main act that the radical animal rights movement advertises in its propaganda.
Richard “Ric” O’Barry, the trainer of the original dolphins of the TV series Flipper, is often credited with the first act of animal liberation in North America, setting free two dolphins.
The first highly publicized action in North America was the liberation of 469 animals, including the five-week-old macaque (monkey), Britches, from an animal testing facility of the University of California, Riverside in April 1985.
To counter the negative media associations of the masked activists of the ALF a so-called “open rescues” movement has emerged, which involves animal liberations by non-masked people.
Bombings
Bombings involve the threat or actual use of explosives; excluding the use of firebombs, which are included in arsons.
Actual bombings are rare.
More often, REAR activists will use bomb threats.
Mexican activists of the ALF/ELF threatened to explode a car bomb at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP-16) in Cancun in December 2010.
However, a few weeks earlier the same group had actually put a homemade bomb inside the ATM area of a bank in Mexico State.
So far, Mexican ALF/ELF activists have been the only ones to include the use of real bombs into their action repertoire, perhaps a consequence of the violence so prevalent in contemporary Mexico.
Their brothers and sisters in North America and Western Europe have only occasionally resorted to hoax bombings, mostly as part of the SHAC campaign.
Cybercrimes
Cybercrimes are the most recent addition to the arsenal of criminal acts of the REAR movement.
They mostly involve mass mailings, cyberattacks, and credit card fraud.
Mass mailings and credit card fraud are often combined.
Cyberattacks are directed at websites of firms linked to environmental destruction and animal rights abuse or e-mail accounts of their employees.
Statistics
Between 1970 and 2007 there were 1,069 criminal acts:
3 assassinations (0.3%)
44 armed assaults (4.1%)
55 bombings/explosions (5.1%)
933 facility attacks (87.3%)
30 unarmed assaults (2.8%)
4 unknown (0.4%)
Between 2003 and 2010 there were 5,578 criminal acts:
247 acts of arsons (4.4%)
0 assassinations (0%)
3,695 of vandalism (66.2%)
808 house visits (14.5%)
690 animal liberations (12.4%)
80 bombs (1.4%)
58 cybercrimes (1%)
Assessment
Many different definitions of terrorism have been offered.
A consensus definition defines terrorism as: “A politically motivated tactic involving the threat or use of force or violence in which the pursuit of publicity plays a significant role.”
Terrorism goes beyond mere political violence; terrorists terrorize.
Essential to terrorism is a psychological process based on the power of fear.
Terrorism is defined as a strategy that employs the threat or use of force or violence to instill fear in a subset of the population with the ultimate aim of achieving political goals.
In the case of ecoterrorism, these political goals are the ending of environmental destruction and animal rights abuse.
The most straightforward positive case of terrorism is assassinations.
The most straightforward negative case is animal liberations, which clearly do not constitute acts of terrorism.
Similarly, vandalism and cyber-attacks, of and by themselves, do not meet the definition of terrorism.
This leaves three types of acts that are less clear-cut: arsons, bombings, and house visits.
In both arson and bombings the question is whether the particular act can be considered threatening to the physical integrity of humans.
More problematic are the various cases of arson that target properties close to private residences and include thinly veiled threatening messages.
The last type of action, house visits, is even more complex, as it is often not only aimed at the actual target, but also at her friends and family.
Relatively harmless acts can become terrorist acts if they are accompanied with threatening messages.
So, there is no doubt that certain acts of the REAR movement are terrorist.
Second, there are some groups within the movement that do not exclude terrorist acts.
However, despite ongoing radicalization within the movement, the vast majority of REAR activists and “groups” are not involved in terrorist acts.
While it is difficult to exactly establish the proportion of terrorist acts within the total action repertoire of the REAR movement, based on the data presented above, less than 10 percent of all criminal actions of the movement can be categorized as ecoter- rorist.
Moreover, the terrorist acts are not central to the political campaign of most individuals and groups of the REAR movement.
Conclusion
The term ecoterrorism does not apply to the vast majority of actions, individuals, and groups of the REAR movement.
Every major social movement includes moderate and radical individuals and groups, including often a small violent (terrorist) minority.
An excellent analogy is the U.S. anti-abortion movement, which includes a significant and very active radical wing that is involved in criminal acts and even political violence.
Academics, government agencies, or politicians, hardly ever refer to the radical anti-abortion movement as terrorist.
While Hamas features on the official terrorist lists of all major Western countries and organizations, Hezbollah does not, The EU does not include Hezbollah as such on its list of terrorist organizations, but only the military wing.
The main difference between Hamas and Hezbollah, on the one hand, and the radical anti-abortion and REAR movements, on the other hand, is of course the organizational structure.
While the former are centrally structured organizations with official members, in which one overarching leadership is ultimately responsible for all of the organization’s actions, the latter are not.
Consequently, the label ecoterrorism should not be used for the whole REAR movement, but only for some of its actions, individuals and groups.
Counterterrorist measures should only target these terrorist minorities, rather than the broader movement.
Just as every radical anti-abortion activist is not a (potential) terrorist, neither is every radical environmentalist or animal rights activist.