[Mehran] Hello, hello, hello
and welcome! I'm Mehran Khalili. We are DiEM25,
a radical political movement for Europe, and this is Frontline. One-on-one discussions
with people who confront power to figure out how they do it, what they've learned, and how we can all get involved. And for today the question is: should killing nature be a crime? There are growing calls
for the crime of ecocide, meaning mass damage
and destruction of ecosystems to be recognized
in international criminal law. This would ensure that individuals,
company directors, CEOs, can be prosecuted
for the ecological damage caused by the organisations
they head up, like oil spills, deforestation,
or soil pollution, wherever these organizations may be. Could this be the missing piece in the broader battle
against climate change? Is it workable? And what are the steps to get there? My guest today is a leading campaigner
in the movement to make ecocide an international crime which includes well-known advocates
from Pope Franics to Paul McCartney. She is Jojo Mehta, the executive director and co-founder
of Stop Ecoside International and she joins me here. Jojo, welcome! Thank you very much,
it's a pleasure to be here! I like to start off with
a very general question, which is: who are you
and what do you do? [Jojo] That's so I'm Jojo Mehta, I'm co-founder and executive director
of Stop Ecocide International, which is an international
advocacy organization, born in 2017. I co-founded it with a British lawyer,
Polly Higgins - sadly, the late Polly Higgins;
she's no longer with us - with a very single and specific aim: to criminalize mass destruction of nature, particularly at the international level. [Mehran] Okay. Well, you know this is something... when I look at these things
I do my homework a bit before I speak to people for the show,
Frontline, and try to understand like what are the counter arguments, to play the The Devil's Advocate position. And I've got to be honest: I can't find find reasons for why
this isn't already on the on the books as an international crime,
ecocide. I I can't understand
the counterarguments for it, so I hope this doesn't end up being
one big advertorial, because you get interesting answers
when you have to defend your position! But maybe you can lay it out for us? Why have you chosen this route? What's the history of the labeling
of ecocide as an international crime? [Jojo] Absolutely, I'll go into that, but I just want to acknowledge
what you just said because on one level this really is the easiest
campaign in the world because it's such a kind of obvious thing,
in a sense, you know? Severe and widespread
or long-term damage should simply be criminal. I mean once one talks about it,
it's actually quite unusual to find anybody that thinks
it shouldn't happen. You do, of course, find politicians
who want to sidestep or delay, or some kind of easier route. But it's extremely rare actually
that we come across somebody who thinks it shouldn't be a crime. And in fact many people,
as you just said, sort of say: "Well, isn't it already?" There are obviously many environmental
laws in place around the world. Most of those,
not all, there are some crimes, but most of them are in the kind
of administrative regulatory sphere. And what we find often
is that they're not very well followed. They're poorly monitored
and they're badly enforced. And what this kind of shows,
if you like, is that there is a lack of seriousness
in with which we take damage to nature, in our kind of globally dominant
Western culture. I mean that's something that's evolved
over a very long time, actually. It's not something that there is
two or three super villains sitting there kind of, you know,
rubbing their hands, trying to destroy the planet. It's not actually like that in practice. What we're seeing is we've arrived
at a point of a kind of a reality check with our approach that's been developing
over the last couple hundred of years, where we treat nature
as a bank of resources, and we don't actually think about too much or respect the fact that actually
we're part of that that living world and we utterly and
totally depend upon it. And so if we don't have
healthy ecosystems, we ultimately don't have civilization. I mean obviously that might have sounded
like an extreme pronouncement a few years ago, but I think now people are really starting
to understand the level and urgency of the climate and ecological crisis that that really is potentially
what we're dealing with and that's why it sort of makes sense,
if you like, to reflect that understanding within the legal system. Because, I mean one way of showing
why there's a gap is to think about human rights. If you're campaigning for human rights, at least you know that mass murder, torture, genocide,
crimes against humanity, you know these are all
really really serious crimes, but there just isn't an equivalent
in the environmental sphere. There isn't that kind of foundational
piece of really understanding that severe damage to nature
is as problematic and as damaging and dangerous,
as severe harm to people. And, of course, ultimately,
it will end up being the same thing. So, there's a very clear gap there, and there's a sort of shoring up
and a strengthening of the laws that exist that is simply absent. [Mehran] Without getting too technical, where are we at at the moment? Because, as I understand it,
ecocide is officially a crime in 10 countries,
right? Including France,
where it has been for a couple of years and Ecuador
and Russia and Ukraine, and it's being discussed in in a range
of other countries. So you've got this sort of national laws
which are already in place somewhat, but what the ultimate goal
of your campaign is trying this as a crime
in international law. So correct me
if I've made any mistakes there, but just give me the picture
about where we're at legally. [Jojo] You're absolutely right. There are some countries that do list
ecocide or a version of ecocide in their penal codes. France actually has recently included
the word ecocide, but it hasn't actually called it a crime. So there's been a little bit
of watering down there, which obviously, from our perspective,
is not ideal, because what we're looking for here is a way of naming the worst harms
as crimes and thereby effectively creating
a sort of a deterrent, a preventive, and a seriousness with which
protecting the environment can come. Now, in terms of sort
of recent developments, I mean those those sort of 10 countries that have actually had something
on their books since the 90s have never really used it and in international criminal law there is already one clause
under war crimes which potentially would cover
environmental damage, but it's actually a very high bar to meet
and it's never been used. And it's interesting that you bring up
Russia and Ukraine because you know Russian and Ukraine do both have ecocide
in their in their penal codes in in quite a sort of simple form. And, so, when Zelensky last year
started talking about ecocide and Russia committing ecocide
in Ukraine, we kind of talked about you know: "Is this a conversation that we want
to be involved in?" And obviously, for a start,
one doesn't want to take advantage of someone else's political misfortune
to sort of further a campaign. So that's one aspect. But the other was that we sat
there like you and said: "Well, hang on. Russia's got this.
Ukraine's got this. There's something already under war crimes. is this actually where we want
to talk about having a standalone crime
of ecocide. What's interesting is that actually,
in the last few months, Ukraine has actually become quite vocal about supporting
a standalone crime of ecocide, because what's turned out
to be the case, obviously, as I said,
the existing provision is not easy to use and it turns out that similarly and perhaps working
within the national framework isn't as powerful. So there is a actually quite
a strong support from Ukraine towards legislating for ecocide,
or supporting legislation for ecocide as a standalone crime. And I think,
there's also a kind of a desire there as well not just to address
what they're dealing with. Because, obviously,
when you put a new crime in place, it only applies from the moment
you put it in place. So it's not going to go back
and punish previous damage. But what effectively Ukraine is
placing itself is saying: "Look you know we don't want anyone
to have to suffer this again." Effectively, what we want
to try and put protection in place for any potential situation
of environmental harm in armed conflict. And so that's interesting, because it actually shows that
the sort of conflict narrative and the climate and ecological
breakdown narrative are actually crossing
at the point of ecocide law. And that's really quite interesting. When you're talking about
a standalone crime of ecocide you're still talking about
at the national level, right? You're not talking about
the International Criminal Court or have I...? [Jojo] No, I am actually talking
about International Criminal Court. I mean as an advocacy organization, our sort of ultimate aim
is an international crime. So it's to add ecocide alongside
war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, at the International Criminal Court. But there's there's a couple of things
to understand here: one is that
the International Criminal Court or the ICC for short is a complementary court. So if a country ratifies a crime there, the likelihood is it will also include it
in its own domestic legislation. So that's one aspect, and that is quite important because, unlike with say, war crimes,
where somebody perpetrating that is unlikely to be prosecuted
in their own country and therefore the prosecution
may end up at the ICC, with ecocide, which is not exclusively
but largely a corporate crime, it could actually be prosecuted
in any national jurisdiction that has ratified it at the International Criminal Court or indeed if they've separately
legislated for it. So aiming for
the International Criminal Court is a way of creating a kind of coherence where you know countries
could all ratify the same crime and therefore there's an understanding
in the political world and also in the corporate world
that there's something quite clear that needs to be stayed
on the right side of if that makes sense. [Mehran] Okay, so can you explain
a little bit about the process of how to get that recognized as
a crime in the international court? Because, as I understand it,
every country has kind of equal weight with the ICC
and can propose for it to update its original statute,
to include this crime, but there's quite a lot of diplomatic
maneuvering and political sensitivities involved here. So can you outline that part for us? [Jojo} Absolutely, so in order
for the Rome statute, - which is the governing
document for the ICC - in order for that to be amended,
to add another crime, effectively a state, any state
can propose it and ideally that would be a
group of states actually, ideally and then that then goes into discussion
and negotiation in a sort of working group on amendments that the ICC has. In order for actually, adoption to
take place, you need to end up in a place where at least two-thirds
of the member states of the international criminal court
are in agreement and they like to do
things by consensus. But if need be, they will push things
to a vote and that's actually what happened with the
crime of aggression, in fact and that way you need at least
two-thirds of the member states. Now, currently, interestingly,
I mean this conversation was was pretty much non-existent
in the diplomatic world about four years ago, and it was a small Pacific ocean state of
Vanuatu, the Republic of Vanuatu, which really put this
on the map. Now we've been working closely
with Vanuatu since actually, even since before the beginning
of the organization, and they actually attended the
International Criminal Court assembly for the first time in 2016
and by 2019, they were in a position where they
felt strongly enough that this was worthwhile to actually sort of
step up in that assembly - which happens every year - and to actually call on all the
member states to seriously consider adding this crime of Ecocide. So if you like, that was the
drop in the pool and the ripples have been
spreading ever since, and one of the key things that
emerged in the following years was that we were actually
approached by politicians, parliamentarians actually from Sweden
as it turns out, in the summer of 2020, and they said to us: Could you
convene an actual panel to draft an international definition
that would be clear, concise and politically practical that we could
actually take to our government and say: This could be proposed at the
International Criminal Court and on the basis of that, we were able
to convene a panel of 12 top lawyers from around the world and that
drafting process produced after six months of deliberations,
produced a very concise definition of Ecocide
that's so concise, it fits on the back of a business card
and with your permission, I'll just read it because
it really is quite short. So, ecoside means unlawful
or wanton acts committed with knowledge that
there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread
or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts. So, as you can hear, it's very concise,
very straightforward, although in fact, the language is
all based on previous treaties, so actually, to a lawyer's ear,
it's not unfamiliar, which is very good, of course, But it is also understandable
to you and I, and that definition was a really really key milestone and
it received a huge amount of attention. I mean within a week of that definition
coming into the public space, there were over a hundred major
press pieces around the world about it and it really started the kind of snowball
if you like, started the ball rolling, and we now have a situation, where t
here are at least 27 member states of the International Criminal Court
who have not necessarily said: Yes, we definitely want this. Now what they have done is engaged
publicly in this conversation at Parliament level
or at government level, but also recently, we've seen
two other really major moments. One was in January
in the Council of Europe not to be confused with
the European Union, but the Council of Europe
which has 46 member states passed a resolution recommending
all of those states to legislate for ecoside and to support its inclusion
in the Rome statute of the ICC. So that's pretty major
and then finally the European Union itself,
The European Parliament, just a few weeks ago, approved
a text basically proposing that Ecocide level crimes should
be included in the EU directive on environmental crimes. So that just gives you an overall sense
of how far this has come in such a short time, in terms of
a discussion where most people didn't even know what the word meant to a point where the European
Parliament is actually proposing its inclusion in EU law. [Mehran] wow, okay, that
definition that you just read out, if I understand it, the there's
the idea of intent in there, right? So it's murder rather than manslaughter
that we're talking about here. In order to be able to be prosecuted
for this, the head of the corporation that's polluting X river
or destroying X forest, they must be aware of the
destruction that they are causing. Am I right about that? [Jojo] It's actually kind of in between. I mean the mens rea, which is
basically the state of mind, so the intent level, if you like,
for this definition, is actually a level of recklessness. I think this is one of the reasons
it's actually landed rather well in the political world, because
there is a kind of balance here so, either what they're doing
has to already be in breach of existing law, and actually what
we've found over the years is that many of the worst ecosides are
already in breach of existing regulation or rights frameworks,
all these things and then they obviously need to
threaten a certain level of damage. It can't just be chopping down
the trees on your Village Green. This has to be an
international level crime, so it has to be quite quite severe, but the second aspect,
which, as you say, is this wanton aspect,
is basically about effectively, even if what you're doing
is lawful and permitted, if the damage that it is
threatening, is severe enough and disproportionate enough
to what the aim of the activity is then effectively, that could also
fall under Ecocide So effectively, what you're doing,
in a sense, it's your decision to do whatever it is you do
probably, has to be deliberate, but the consequence has to be,
is in the arena of knowledge, so, you knew or you
should have known, that that level of damage was going
to happen or was being threatened. [Mehran] Okay, okay,
I get it thanks. It seems that there are sort of
two components to your campaign. You've got the PR aspect or,
let's say, changing the tide aspect of aiming for the International Criminal
Court to recognise this as a crime. So, irrespective of whether
that actually happens, it still generated a
lot of conversation. It's getting supernational bodies
like the European Union discussing it as well,
much more than discussing it. In the European Parliament,
as you say, it could turn out to be
an EU directive on this, right? So, that's that part and then,
you've got the other part, to have it recognised in the ICC. Now, just if we move
to that second part, the more substantive leg,
if you like, of your campaign, the U.S, has contributed more
to climate change than any other country, but it doesn't
recognise the jurisdiction of the ICC. Isn't that a kind of
contradiction, though? [Jojo] Isn't that a drawback? Yeah on one level, yes
and on one level, very much, no. So, there's two aspects of this,
you're quite right. Actually, some of the biggest polluters
are not members of, are not signed up to the the Rome Statute
or have not ratified it rather, including US, Russia, China, India already
you've got some of the biggest polluters. However, there's a couple of aspects
that it's important to understand. So, firstly, if they're not members
which they're not, they're not at the table,
so they don't get to veto it, they don't get to get in the way. I mean don't get me wrong,
if they decide to I'm sure they'll try or
that could happen but effectively, in terms of actual
votes, they don't have one. So, that's actually in some ways
an advantage to moving this forward. At the same time, people don't
always realise that the ICC has a bit of a broader reach than
perhaps is understood at first glance. So, let's say a US company is
committing Ecocide in a country that that is a member of the
International Criminal Court, then that is a way in
to a case being taken or if it has an office in a country
that is a member of the International Criminal Court, that also
potentially could be a way in. There are a number of ways that
a prosecution or a case could be accessed or could be triggered,
that don't necessarily in involve actual membership of the state. I mean for example, there's a case
with regard to the Rohingya coming out of Myanmar, and Myanmar is not
a member of the ICC, but the Rohingyan refugees
are in Bangladesh, and the ICC actually decided - and Bangladesh is a member of the ICC -
so the court decided that actually, it could have jurisdiction
over that case. So there are a number of,
a variety of ways of approaching this and I think there's also this point
that a case can be taken. The ICC does not have a wonderful
reputation in terms of effectiveness, as I'm sure you're aware.
It's not taken a great number of cases over the years, but I think,
with Ecocide, because of this complementary relationship,
there is the opening up of the possibility of prosecutions
being taken in ratifying states and there's more likelihood
of that happening with Ecocide than there is with
the existing crimes. [Mehran] The ICC in March
issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin in connection
with alleged war crimes and the response is just sort of
laugh it off and say: Well, we don't recognize
the jurisdiction. So, yeah, that's just what I'm thinking. [Jojo] But at the same time,
if you think about the example of General Pinochet in the late 90s,
shortly after the statute was signed, Chile was not a signatory at the time
but he was arrested in the UK on the basis that
the UK was a signatory. In fact, the UK Supreme Court said:
You may not be signed up to this, but we are and you're on our territory
and therefore we're arresting you. We can try you here. Ultimately, he ended up being
extradited on grounds of ill health, but the point is that:
what you can do is very much limit the area
of operation of such perpetrators and potentially they can be stopped. I mean France has a serious crimes
unit that actually does pretty much nothing but
pick off international criminals as they kind of go through. So, there is that possibility,
but I think there's also a way that, it's very easy to focus
on the practicalities and the legal aspects of it. In fact, lawyers particularly do this. They say: Well, what's it going
to be like when it's in place? What kind of court cases
would it take? How will a prosecution work now? All of those things
obviously are important. Criminal law is obviously,
how it works is: prosecuting and punishing the bad guys,
but that's not what it's for. What criminal law is for
is preventing harm. [Mehran] Deterrent. [Jojo] Exactly. What we're looking at here is:
how good a deterrent is this going to be and that's actually really important and that also brings in another
aspect of the discussion. Actually a really important aspect
of what we do, and I noticed you sort of divided what we're doing
into these two different aspects but, it really shows the emphasis
on the aspect that is about the spreading of the conversation,
but also, in a sense, the kind of flagging that this is approaching,
because there is quite a clear direction of travel here. I mean, we're clearly seeing that
this is something that more and more governments
are talking about. More and more people
planning on legislating. Effectively, there's a clear
direction of travel now. What's so important about that
is that when you can see this law coming, that's when you start thinking
about what you might need to do in order to be on the right side of it, so this comes back to
the business card. Now, what what that means is,
if I put this in the hands of anybody that knows their sector
in the corporate world, they're instantly using it as a lens,
they're instantly seeing through that to: what is that, what are
the implications of that, for what my company does,
but also, importantly, with investors and insurers,
who are the ones who are deciding where do we put our money? What are the projects
that are safe to invest in, what is it safe for us to underwrite? And we're already seeing, for example,
the UN climate Champions brought out a report last year called The Pivot Point
where they were very strongly acknowledging that voluntary action on
climate is just not cutting the mustard, as we say in England,
it's not doing its job and that regulation
and policy are needed and they actually put a whole section
into that report on Ecocide law, describing it as a driver
and influencer of change, and that's really interesting,
given that it's not yet in place. [Mehran] We're talking
about companies here right, although the crime of ecocide...
it's individuals who are prosecuted, CEOs, Directors, etc. Who goes to the ICC and says:
I think that this logging company is committing ecocide? [Jojo] Okay, so there are
several ways that a case can be taken or filed. if you like. You're kind of asking
how do you file a case? That can be done by a state,
it can be done by the UN Security Council, but it can also be done by private
individuals or by NGOs, for example. So, there have been a couple of cases filed in recent years against
Jair Bolsonaro, for example, for genocide, and actually the
language of Ecocide was used, even though Ecocide
isn't currently in place. Of course, one of the notable
aspects of the ICC is that even heads of state don't
have immunity at that level. So cases can be filed by
private individuals or groups of individuals or NGOs
or effectively anyone. There's a particular route
that can be done and then it's considered
by the the court and if they want to move forward with it,
if it's important to move forward with it, they'll create a preliminary examination,
which starts to then investigate, So, that's the kind of potential sequence. But I think what’s really
important here is again, I mean with the deterrent aspect,
what you're looking at particularly in the corporate world,
is a very different level of deterrence to say something like genocide. Now, thankfully I don't know
any genocidal maniacs, but, if I did, I wonder whether they
would be particularly concerned about doing or not doing
the thing they're doing, depending on whether they
might get prosecuted or indeed, what their public
relations might be as a result. Now actually, when you look
at the corporate world, those things are
incredibly important. So, if a C-suite executive,
a chief operations officer, chief executive officer,
Boards of Directors, if they are having a tap
on the shoulder about a possible personal criminal
liability for something that is firstly going to threaten their personal
freedom and their personal reputation, but it is also going to instantly affect
the stock value of their company. We've seen it happen, that's what
happened with Enron, for example, when the fraud was exposed. The stock value
of the company plummeted, So actually, what you're looking at
here is a kind of a sobering aspect where those who are making the key
decisions are actually going to have to think much more carefully
about what they're authorising, about what the projects
are that they're taking on at a much earlier stage. [Mehran] Because it's personal, it makes
such a difference doesn't it? [Jojo] Exactly! [Mehran] Because a CEO
could just say: Well all right, these fines are
just the cost of doing business when I'm violating this
environmental regulation etc. But if it's about me and about me
having the word Ecocide attached to my name
for the rest of my career, that could change
the calculus somewhat. [Jojo] Absolutely, it has a way of,
as Philip Sands puts it, concentrating the mind,
and that's super important. So so yes, the individual criminal
responsibility is very important. I mean in fact, it's interesting,
we've had conversations with agricultural companies, for example,
where we've actually sort of been told: Look, we don't tick all the regulatory
boxes because it's cheaper not to, and we know we're
not going to be controlled. We've actually had that. And of course, it's very different when
you can hide behind the corporate veil, and a fine can be issued or whatever,
and then you can just carry on. That's the power of bringing
criminal law in where you know it's individual responsibility. But the other aspect of course,
of criminal law is that moral aspect Bcause we do use
criminal law to draw moral lines. We basically use criminal law
to say what is acceptable and not acceptable in our society. I mean, just as an example: you're not
going to go to a government and say: Can I have a license to kill 500 people
for my new infrastructure project? It’s literally not even
going to cross your mind. But that isn't how it works with
destruction of the environment. So in effect, one of the things that
criminal law can do is to begin to create a new and a
healthy taboo, if you like, and that's an important
aspect as well. [Mehran] How do you avoid
this charge being lobbed around to the extent that
it becomes meaningless? Climate activists blockaded the
White House Correspondents Dinner a couple of days ago. [Jojo] Right. [Mehran] I see that one
of the things that they've accused Biden of is Ecocide
and you might find that this starts to be become common currency
against polluters from environmental activists to the point where
it just sort of loses its meaning. How can you mitigate against that? [Jojo] I think there's
always a danger of that. I mean effectively, the same thing
has happened with genocide to a certain extent but,
I think that's not reason enough to not use the word, because
I think that one of the things with the word Ecocide it has
a kind of internal power of its own, it does sound like genocide
and it's fairly easily understandable, that what you mean is
killing the planet or killing ecosystems and actually,
interestingly, it comes from the Greek and Latin together:
oikos and occidere. It literally means 'to kill one's home'
very literally, and there's something quite powerful about that,
because it does have a way of encapsulating what's actually
happening to the planet at the present time. The planet is our home
and we're busy destroying it. So, it does have a kind of
timely potency I think to it and a sort of internal momentum. It's like almost as soon as somebody
understands the word, they already know it to be wrong and therefore, effectively
to criminalise that makes a lot of sense. It also makes a lot of sense
in terms of communication, simply because I mean,
if you think about it and there are other legal initiatives that
are going on that are incredibly useful and important like,
for example, - I don't even know if
I'll remember it right - but was it: The Legally Binding Treaty
on Transnational Corporations and Violations of Human Rights
or something. I mean, you can see what I mean. I mean it's like this, and people
can't even remember it and if you stop someone on the
street and ask them about that, they're going to be asleep by the
time you get to the third word. But if you talk about Ecocide,
that encapsulates something that we're all aware is going on,
but that many of us either haven't named yet or haven't actually said:
Well, hang on a minute this really shouldn't be happening. So, while I totally take on board
that they could, we could end up with people sort of
throwing the word around, I think, having this definition,
for example, is very very helpful in terms of saying: Yes, these
all may feel like Ecocide, but legally speaking, Ecocide is
really the most serious cases. [Mehran] Well then,
let's shift gears a little bit and talk about the mechanics
of the campaign here, more the how than the what. The campaign started in 2017 and it
seems to have come a long way. I mean there are some
major celebrity endorsements. It seems like it's really got
a lot of momentum here. So can you explain roughly
how how you did that? How you achieved that in terms of
funding, organisation, numbers, irrespective of what you're
actually campaigning for. [Jojo] Yeah yeah yeah,
no, understood yeah, Because I mean in a sense,
what we're talking about is the movement building
and all of that. I mean we obviously
had a number of years of a certain level of awareness raising
behind us to begin with through Polly Higgins. Interestingly, one of the reasons that
we actually began the public campaign, - Polly and I - was that foundations,
either the sort of obvious foundations that one might go to look for
support for something like this thought of it at the time as being
sort of a bit too far out or extreme or left field, and and so on. Obviously one of the things
that has changed is the global understanding
of that landscape. We already knew how drastic
the situation was, but much of the world did not,
so that understanding has been opened up by a number of factors. It's been opened up by the the
IPCC reports, which all governments have agreed and they're actually
relatively conservative in their content, but they're still, nonetheless,
pretty damn scary, in terms of what's
going on in the world. So there's that aspect and that kind of
growing awareness and of course, what we're seeing on our screens
of actual results of what's happening as a result of climate crisis
and biodiversity loss and so on, but then there's also the
mobilization side of things and obviously, DiEM25 is very much part
of that area of operation if you like, but when you look in
the climate side of things, you're looking at Fridays for Future,
you're looking at Extinction Rebellion, you're looking at these other
and there are actually others around the world. This sort of citizen mobilization, which
has actually made a huge difference in the sense that it's created
a level of disruption and a level of opening up
of a conversation at the media and political level,
which has allowed what we have been saying for some years
to actually land and be heard, and so that's one factor, but in terms of our actual approach,
I mean to begin with, we would literally talk to anyone who'd listen,
because that's all we could do. Now weirdly, that has actually
become quite a concrete strategy, in the sense that what we have
discovered is that collaboration and networking in all of this
is absolutely key. So effectively, what we're looking at
is bringing together of networks. And I think also what has contributed
to the sort of speed of how this has moved as well is that
this is not an initiative that is in competition with any
other environmental initiative. We are not saying: don't talk about saving
the polar bears, talk about Ecocide. Effectively there is no campaign on
the planet in the environmental arena that will not be supported by this. And therefore what we ask of people
is really very simple: it's not stop talking about
what you're talking about it's just point at this and say
that would help us. And kind of make that connection. But also I would say that our activity largely falls into these
two different areas and they're, not necessarily exactly there
as you were describing earlier, but one is the kind of high level
political briefings You know convening at
a diplomatic level which we do do. and that's in a sense you could say
where the core work goes on, because obviously it's governments,
ultimately that have to they have to agree to this
and put it forward. But the other aspect of it is this
incredibly networked conversation. So we aim to kind of, if you like,
- I suppose they call it sensitizing - or bringing this conversation into
as many different forums as possible. and also creating contexts where those who represent
those sectors, if you like, can actually have kind of 'deep dive'
discussions and and learn around it, so those are the kind of combined
sort of activities I suppose, that that we engage in. [Mehran] But on that note with regard to
the climate movement, more generally, I mean there are quite, well there's
different approaches let's say towards tackling this issue:
more radical approaches, some more moderate. We saw Extinction Rebellion in January,
coming out and saying or taking a step back from some of the radicality that
they had previously. I've interviewed Last Generation, a group that lies down
in front of vehicles in blocking traffic in order
to raise awareness of climate change, we've seen people throwing various things
or cans of soup on famous artworks, exactly. So I do, I take your point that
none of these organizations who, dare I say, are probably
more radical than the Stop Ecocide - definitely - campaign,
none of them would say: Oh no, this is a bad idea, what Jojo and her team are doing is just
no no, this is a waste of time, but there are different approaches to it. So I wonder how would you
comment on on that and that sort of split that's emerged
in the climate movement, because I think one of the criticisms
that you often hear, - admittedly from establishment media
outlets - is that the radical, the very radical elements
of climate movements are working against somehow the goals
of climate movement in terms of like making people annoyed with
climate activism generally and therefore they're
going to switch off and they're not going to support
initiatives, perhaps like your own? So what do you think about that? [Jojo] No, I think that's a
misunderstanding of how change happens actually. I think the the disruptive element
is absolutely crucial. It must happen. It doesn't necessarily mean it has
to happen in a sustained way over a long period of time necessarily but it's absolutely crucial for
opening up the conversation. And I remember when Extinction in
the first big rebellion in 2019 in London and so many people were saying: 'love what you're saying,
hate how you're saying it ' And of course, that's a win. The whole point is
to create the conversation. So you know, and effectively
they did that brilliantly. And when we look at the
Civil Rights Movement, we look at the Suffragettes,
the abolitionists, I mean all of these points in history
have been triggered by massive mobilization, and that doesn't mean
that it's the mobilization that then ultimately creates the
new context at the top level and where we sit, you could say is
somewhere in between all of that and what we're effectively doing is I mean I mean all of this is ultimately
a conversation that leads somewhere. That's what it is and so
what we're doing effectively is helping to nourish that conversation and making sure that conversation
is being heard by the people that need to hear it and those
are not just people on the street and they're not just people at
the policy making level it's also, many different corporate
sectors, it's NGO's, it's academics, it's all of these people, but none of that
would even be hearable if it hadn't been for those mobilizations
in the first place. So I, and I think the other thing that
can often come from the sort of more establishment
side of things is, 'oh, you know, you're expecting this
a bit fast aren't you' and all of this sort of thing and it is
not possible to move things forward as fast as that, but we all know, that's not true
because of what happened with covid. We all know that, if you need
to make big change quickly, it is actually possible to do. At the same time, I would say that,
particularly with what we're doing with Ecoside I mean, obviously it helps
that it's very very focused almost acupuncturally specific
what we're asking for so it's not like we sort of get
bogged down in complexity here, but at the same time we actually
wouldn't advocate for this to come into place tomorrow. Because, as I mentioned earlier,
one of the key aspects of this is people seeing it coming because, when they're seeing it coming, that's when the strategic,
positive change happens. and ultimately we don't want to see
- I mean inevitably cases will be taken when this
comes into place, which it will do. It's not a question of if,
it's a question of when. And cases will be taken and probably first initial cases
will be very clear-cut ones. You know, some kind of big toxic waste
dump or something like that, something that makes it easy for lawyers
to take through some case law. But we still need that space in which
people can change, because, ultimately
we don't want prosecutions. We want changes in behavior. We are not doing this to punish people much as there will be people that
will end up in the docker for Ecocide. What we're actually trying to do
is protect the planet and I think that's actually what all of us
ultimately want. So, that's in a way what kind of makes
this kind of, us in a sense in a between position that Stop Ecocide International
is in and it's so important. [Mehran] I take your point and about
the radicality you mentioned. You mentioned the Civil Rights Movement
and Suffragettes and so on, and there was a lot of
institutional work as well that went on behind the scenes in order
to make those things a reality, and it seems that that's the component,
that you're working on in this, basically. I mean you mentioned covid,
yes, covid did show that the Establishment can find money
when it really needs to, but at the same time,
from the point of view of awareness raising, mass mobilization, it was also one of the most
polarizing events I've ever seen, yeah, And I don't know if we're able
to heal from that as a society. We've still got people that believe that
they were horribly unfairly treated and justifiably so, and other people who still think everyone should be masked outside,
etcetera, so we're still very polarized. So I don't know if we're
in a good place now for everyone to get on the same page
when we're all under attack by something, whether it's
climate change or covid. [Jojo] Yeah I can see your point and I think with covid yes,
I think you're right, it was. There was a really polarizing aspect
to what happened. I'm not saying in any way that that was
well handled by the political class, but the point I was making was less that
and more the fact that governments can and
politicians often claim that something has to be
worked through slowly, but whether we like it or not there is
the capacity in an emergency situation or a perceived emergency situation,
for policies to be made. now, obviously, what's very different
about this issue, - and I think this is interesting
in terms of climate - because I think there is still
a polarizing element in some ways with climate. There are still people who either
don't believe that it's happening or have different perspectives on it, but actually Ecoside is slightly
a step behind that. You know behind, isn't the right word. If you think about it,
the destruction of nature is absolutely visible, understandable,
terrifying on one level, but very much, something that can be
seen, felt, shown, in a way that perhaps
climate isn't always able to do with climate. But of course, at the same time, if you want to look at the the situation
with climate change, when you, when you go back to
root causes you're looking at Ecocide. You know you're looking at
mass destruction of ecosystems. And of course, so on one level
emissions is one aspect but even if we stopped
all emissions tomorrow - which sounds impossible -,
but even if we were to do that, if we continue to massively pollute soils,
massively deforest, massively pollute oceans,
massively pollute watercourses, you know, all of which is happening, we are still gonna have that problem. That is still gonna exacerbate
climate change, that is still going to create
biodiversity loss and we're going to lose the
range of biodiversity which supports life on this planet. So it doesn't really matter
where you come from. Ecoside is at a root cause of
the crisis that we're facing and you can't get away from it. And that is why, on one level, it is
such a straightforward conversation to have. [Mehran] It's dripping in human agency,
the word you know [Jojo] Exactly [Laughter] [Mehan] I mean even the word climate
change is like, Oh change, Yeah. [Jojo] It's just happening any way. [Mehran] It's happening yeah,
but Ecocide was like there's somebody holding
the knife in their hand. Let me ask you just a more
mundane question. I know that we're running
out of time here, but, like the basics: you started in 2017,
how big is your organization ? How many staff, how are you funded, I believe, Greta Thunberg ,
gave you a grant as well. I mean, how do you work it? [Jojo] How do we keep it going? To begin with on literally,
a wing and a prayer, I mean we, Polly,and I set this up. Partly in response to this lack of
sort of conventional funding if you like, but she had a personal following,
so it's like okay, how do we, effectively help that following
to support this work and there's a sort of specific restricted
trust fund that members pay into when they join the campaign. And that is restricted to specific
kind of diplomatic works. I mean for example, that can be used
to take us to a conference or to convene a meeting
with with ambassadors. All those kinds of things
very concrete, type things We can't use it for operations
and salary. So actually the reality of this is that
when Polly and I just started it was just us and some volunteers
- and we were volunteers too - I mean yeah, she worked for 10 years
without a salary. I worked for four and a half
without salary. We weren't even able to pay ourselves
until 2018, I think. But at the same time
it was a full-time job. So you know, there's - and I think
this actually, interestingly, this highlights something in
the kind of activist space that is interesting because,
it's quite hard to kind of really drive, sort of change,
sort of do change making work unless you're in one
of maybe three positions: Either you happen to be working
in the third sector, so you're actually paid by an outfit
that's doing that, which are relatively small
number of people. Or you happen to have,
you're of independent means, or in our case
we happend to have husbands that earned just about enough to
allow us to - rather skimpily - but just about do what we're doing. Or you actually are opted out of
the system completely, in which case you have a certain
amount of freedom. But of course, most people are too busy
trying to put bread on the table. And get a get a few hours off to sort of feel okay about themselves and
their lives and all the rest of it, to actually align what they might
love to see happen. In other words, their values with what
they actually have time to do in their lives. And I think that's actually
really important. But I think, in terms of the growth
of what we did and this speaks to something that
journalist, George Monbiot, - who you'll be familiar with -
has said to aspiring journalists: 'don't do what they say in terms of
be an intern in a local newspaper you know, work your way gradually up
through the system etcetera. If there's something you're passionate
about focus exclusively on that, because you'll be horribly broke
for a while, but you will be the expert on it and
people will end up coming to you'. And that is exactly what has
happened with this. So we now have a situation where
we have two different areas of I suppose you could say funding. One is, as I said, the one that
the membership contribute to and which also has some sort of
foundational support as well. Maybe that's sort of half and half or
whatever, which is the kind of diplomatic progress
if you like, and operations and salaries, which
is understandably a bigger chunk. It's actually what -every organization
obviously requires people - and that is always the biggest expense. And that is probably about 70% or so
covered by Foundation grants, but a mixture of Foundation grants
and public donations. So it's very much a mixture
of the two things. But what we have found is that,
for example, we thought we have always
fallen a little bit between conventional funding buckets. So you know, we work with law,
but we're not a law firm. We work with mobilizations,
but we're not activists. We work with the diplomatic web,
but we're not a UN agency. You know there are all these kind of
slightly unusual aspects. [Mehran] From a communications
point of view, your campaign looks really really slick. You've got this kit on your site
where you - see, if I can get it in front of me - just how to talk about Ecocides, what
not to what not to say, what to say, and it's just wonderful best practice. But it's very encouraging and and
nice to put that stuff out publicly and say that this is where
we stand on these issues. You're not keeping it to yourselves,
it's out there. [Jojo] We're pretty transparent, and
actually, I think, as a result as well we actually have a lot of volunteers and
we've got a paid team of around 20-25, but we've got hundreds of volunteers and we've got teams in 40,
over 45 countries now. And sometimes that's just a
couple of people doing social media. Sometimes it's a bigger group
and obviously, as with any voluntary situation,
it will all be all depend on what those people's
strengths and skills are. But the passion is there and the
kind of understanding of what it is that we're ultimately doing which is driving this conversation
on Ecocide law. You know we want to very much support
people to do what they feel inspired to do around this,
it seems to be working. [Mehran] So if you get what you want
- and the ICC recognizes ecocide - is that it? Will you close the doors and say
we did our job? [Jojo] That's a really good question
and actually I have to say you are the first interviewer that
actually asked me that. Wich is really interesting because I
literally love having this interview. Now, we are very much a one-trick pony, so we are very much focused on
getting Ecoside recognized, I mean obviously on national
and regional levels, but ultimately at the international level. So as and when that happens, if Stop Ecocide International is
to continue as an organization, it would morph its focus
more towards assisting the implementation and the
communication around that around the world I have no doubt. I also just from a personal perspective:
that's not going to be me. I'm going to be on to the next thing,
at that point. I'm very much, I mean just
personally speaking, absolutely I adore what I'm doing,
it's really exciting it feels like there's no possible bigger
game in town to be involved in, and that is just incredibly inspiring. But I am also a goal person, so I'm
an end goal person. So you know, there will be another
end goal for me after this and It will be after this because I do
absolutely guarantee: this is not a question of if this is a question of when. I am not going to be spending
the rest of my life doing this, because I'm not going to need to because the world is
going this way, anyway. [Mehran] I think you put your finger on
something very important for activism, more generally, which is knowing when
to put your tools down, having an ultimate goal, and that's it,
you've got that. Because otherwise, NGO's often
just become part of the fabric, they get their funding and they sort of get swallowed up
by the Establishment, and that is really sad to see. [Jojo] I completely agree, and actually,
I will emphasize that by saying that we actually
had someone say to us: 'If what you're doing works,
we're all out of a job'. And of course you know, our response
to that is well, isn't that the point? [Mehran] That's the point exactly,
cool good. [Laughter] Let me finish with just one last question:
are there any books that you could recommend for people
watching or listening? Ideally related to the issues
that we're discussing but could be, could be anything. [Jojo] Well, I mean yes,
I mean, I suppose. First of all, I would recommend,
of course, 'Eradicating Ecocide', which is the main yeah, the magnum opus
if you like, of Polly Higgins, my dear departed colleague and friend. Where she really sets out the kind of
basis of why she'd she'd really hitched her wagon to this
particular conceptual star and ultimately legal initiative. I would also recommend a rather
fabulous book by Jonathon Porritt, which is called - if I remember right -
it's called 'The World we Made'. And it's a look back from
50 years in the future to how we actually do come
through this crisis, and one key aspect of that is actually
legislation for Ecocide and it's very inspiring. And then another book which I found
incredibly inspiring recently, which is not directly related to Ecocide,
but it does tie in and oh, in fact I've actually got
a fourth as well, I mean Kate Rayworth's Doughnut Economics
is pretty damn good too. But the one I want to mention
is Jane Davidson, who was a minister
in the Welsh Parliament, obviously at the devolved Parliament,
so part of the the UK, and she's written a book
called 'Future Gen' . And it's about the legislation for
the well-being of future generations. And that's something that Wales
was the first Parliament to do - worldwide - and admittedly it's not
a national Parliament. It's a regional Parliament. But what they did was legislate
in such a way that all aspects of decision making
in Welsh government have to be filtered through How will this benefit future Generations? Will it, so it's based on the concept
of sustainable development that basically says whatever you do, should not jeopardize the needs
of future generations. And that is something that Wales
has put in place, and it is my firm belief that if all governments put
Ecocide law in place and a well-being of future generations'
act in place, like Wales has, everything would change. Because those outer boundaries
would simply steer all other decision making
in a safer direction. And I don't actually believe,
that's impossible to do and that I think, is very inspiring so I would thoroughly recommend
that too. [Mehran] Thank you,
great recommendations, we'll add those to the show notes. And if you'd like to learn more about
Stop Ecocide International, please, well, tell me JoJo
where's the best place? You've got your website:
stopecocide.earth , any other points of contact? [Jojo] Yeah, no absolutely the website,
particularly the - act now menu -. if you're interested in getting involved,
there's a huge range of different things, and allsorts of networks
to hook up with and so on. So there's really no shortage
of possibilities for anyone that's interested
in getting involved. Well there is also a sort of sister site
called: - ecocidelaw.com - for those who want to get more into
the sort of historical, the intellectual, the legal aspects, it's got a bibliography
on it and those kinds of things and goes in more of that side of things. But yeah, and we would obviously
encourage everybody to sign the petition on our website
to potentially sign up as a member. We call our members Earth Protectors, and that obviously directly supports
our diplomatic work. So yeah there's no shortage of things
to do and I think finally, and perhaps most importantly:
use the word Ecocide, talk about it. Because actually that word, as I say,
has its own internal momentum, so use it to describe the worst harms
that are happening to the planet, use it when you speak with your
elected representatives, - as many of your audience
actually may be doing -. So yeah, and and let's encourage
everybody to support Ecocide becoming an international crime, [Mehran] Wonderful, well, JoJo Mehta, thank you
very much indeed for that really enjoyed that. [Jojo] Thank you very much,
it's been great to be here.
