If a tree falls in a forest with nobody to see it, was there a bribe paid? Quite possibly. Opaqueness and collusion means environmental corruption may not be seen, but a lack of awareness – and prosecution – does not mean it isn’t happening globally.

As with corruption in other areas, the extent of the problem is hard to measure. The number of high profile prosecutions, for example, certainly doesn’t reflect the widespread use of bribery, nepotism and cronyism in such a lucrative arena. The most famous case in recent years, the conviction of the American petrochemical giant Monsanto for bribing Indonesian public officials, is itself a worrying indicator. The bribe-paying, often in order to avoid environmental impact assessments (EIAs), was going on for five years before it was investigated.

Monsanto was eventually prosecuted by its ‘home’ country, the United States. As Transparency International (TI) reiterates its demands for countries to prosecute under the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Convention on the Bribery of Public Officials in Business Transactions, this is a positive sign. But that Monsanto’s bribery had continued unchecked for five years raises significant concerns. Infinite corruption in an area of finite resources puts a time limit on how the long evasion of environmental laws can realistically continue.

A subsidiary of Monsanto, PT Monagro, started testing genetically engineered (GE) cotton in Indonesia in 1996. The Indonesian government announced in 2001 that an EIA would need to take place before the cultivation of a new kind of GE cotton, Bollgard. Among other problems, GE cotton has been found in parts of America to require more chemical pest control than non-GE varieties, but with only half the yield. So despite Monsanto’s lobbying, the government stood firm. In 2002 a bribe of US $50 000 was paid to an Indonesian official to make the EIA go away. The official, incidentally, still did not waive the EIA.

Bribing to avoid an EIA is not only corrupt, but is hardly flattering to the product being tested. If a company was sure its product was no threat to the environment, then why would it pay out to avoid the test? Or, as Greenpeace stated in its official comment on the case, “If their GE crops are as environmentally safe, wholesome and well-tested as Monsanto claims, then you’d think it wouldn’t need to grease the palms of politicians to get approval for its crops.”

Coordinated thinking about the threat of corruption to the environment is needed, literally, to save the world. The Forest Integrity Network (FIN), of which TI is a stakeholder, is still in its infancy, but it was created to do just that: join up the expertise and agendas of civil society and private sector to address a potentially catastrophic problem. On a fundamental level, if public officials or prosecutors are taking bribes to overlook violations of forest laws by loggers, species that are in theory protected by law, can be freely and systematically destroyed.

In 2005, FIN looked at how far TI’s anti-corruption tools could be applied to the forestry sector, and found that they are as applicable there as they have been elsewhere. FIN advocates the adoption and adaptation of TI’s tools, and others. Possible solutions range from the creation of a knowledge centre for improving access to information, to creating Integrity Pacts signed by politicians and businesses. These agreements make sure that all companies will conduct business transparently and will stand up to scrutiny – or face prosecution.

It is unsurprising that the log trade is the most notorious arena for environmental corruption, given the sustained international attention focused on rainforest depletion. But it is still going on. If a company can grease a palm or two, the required EIA can disappear faster than the rainforests themselves. Logging firms worldwide exploit poorly enforced or non-existent anti-corruption laws, lack of access to information and badly paid public officials to literally bulldoze their way through restrictions.

In 2004, Global Witness released a report on the Cambodian forestry sector that uncovered woefully systemic corruption. Their report Taking a Cut found that in some cases, the very agencies designed to prevent corruption were themselves facilitating graft: “Cambodian functionaries and soldiers charged with suppressing forest crime use their office as a basis for extortion, rather than law enforcement.”

“In one instance we discovered an official register of illegal operators including details of their equipment and their home addresses,” said Global Witness’s forest policy co-ordinator, John Buckrell. “But rather than using this for enforcement purposes it is being used as the basis for extortion.”

The report’s conclusions, while sector-specific, could apply to fighting corruption anywhere in any society, advocating many of the same solutions as FIN. It calls for “full disclosure of documents of public interest”, a register of politicians’ business interests, the introduction and enforcement of an anti-corruption law and the establishment of an independent monitor.

Greenpeace International, meanwhile, has long been campaigning to eliminate bribery in the forestry sector. In 2004, the group obtained an internal memo from the Swiss-German logging group Danzer, in which one of its executive directors states of one of his staff: “If there is any threat of a fine, so-called conditioned cases, he is … prepared to take care of this by giving a gift.”

Greenpeace was outraged. “Illegal logging is not only destroying Africa’s rainforest and wiping out precious habitat, but companies involved in this activity also appear to be defrauding developing nations and local communities out of millions of dollars through the systematic bribery of public officials,” said Gavin Edwards, the charity’s forest campaigns co-ordinator. There have been no prosecutions so far.

As with all other forms of corruption, paying illicit greenbacks to avoid going green can happen in a variety of cunning ways. Political “donations” can help to turn a blind eye to environmental restrictions. The British anti-corruption organisation Cornerhouse sites Nicaragua’s gold mines as an example. In 2000, according to its report Exporting Corruption: Privatisation, Multinationals and Bribery released that year, seventy percent of the country’s mining was controlled by Canadian company Greenstone Resources, which began mining there in 1986. In 1999, an edition of the journal Americas Update noted, an audit by the Nicaraguan government revealed that the company had paid US $20 000 to President Arnoldo Aleman. By law, only Nicaraguan citizens can make political donations to national political parties.

The author of the Cornerhouse report, Susan Hawley, stated in it that there was a link between the political donation and the market dominance enjoyed by the company, alleging that the Greenstone had been able to "consistently" flout environmental restrictions as a result. Whether this is the case or not, the clear conflict of interest inherent in any company making such a political donation is a dangerous one. A lack of transparency in political donations and politicians' interests could indeed have the potential to let environmental restrictions mysteriously evaporate.

In cases such as this, the sanctioning of corrupt activities could extend to the highest echelons of authority. Bribing a civil servant or a politician, a customs officer or a landowner to avoid the consequences of environmentally destructive activity is dependant on the integrity of more than just the logging or mining industry. A holistic approach to the epidemic of environmental corruption is necessary before it is literally too late and many landscapes and species are gone for good.

“It’s a case of governance structures working properly, or not, and how this affects natural resources and the environment,” said Andrea Figari, TI’s FIN programme manager. “This is why it’s important to reinforce civil society action and raise public awareness.”

It is an urgent issue, which is becoming more so by the day. Once natural resources have been depleted no amount of bribery can retrieve them.

TI will be running a workshop entitled “Corruption hotspots: understanding the effects of corruption in environmentally sensitive regions” at the 12th International Anti-Corruption Conference in November. The workshop will aim to raise awareness of the impact corruption has on entire ecological systems, to discuss case studies and consider possible solutions.

For further information, please contact Aled Williams at awilliams@transparency.org