 Hello, hello, hello and welcome. I'm Meryn Kilili, we are DM25, 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 recognised 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 organisations 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 Francis to Paul McCartney. She is Jojo Metta, the Executive Director and Co-Founder of Stop Ecocide International, and she joins me here. Jojo, welcome. Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here. I'd like to start off with a very general question, which is, who are you and what do you do? So, I'm Jojo Metta, I'm Co-Founder and Executive Director of Stop Ecocide International, which is an international advocacy organisation 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 criminalise mass destruction of nature, particularly at the international level. 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 this show, Frontline, and try to understand, like, what are the counter-arguments to play the devil's advocate position? And I've got to be honest, I can't find reasons for why this isn't already on the books as an international crime ecocide. I can't understand the counter-arguments 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 labelling of ecocide as an international crime? 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, you know, 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 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 are two or three supervillains sitting there kind of 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 of hundred 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 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 with 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 think 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. 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, as damaging and dangerous as severe harm to people. And of course, ultimately, it will end up being the same thing. So so there's a 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. 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 a range of other countries. So so you've got this sort of national laws which are already in place somewhat, but what the ultimate goal of your campaign is to turn, you know, to enshrine this as a crime in international law, right? So correct me if I've if I've made any mistakes there, but just give me the picture about where we're at legally. You're absolutely right. There are some countries that do list ecocide or a version of ecocide in their penal codes. France actually has has recently included the word ecocide, but it hasn't actually called it a crime. So there's 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 deterrent, a preventive and a seriousness with which protecting the environment, you know, 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, Russia and Ukraine do both have ecocide in their in their penal codes in quite a sort of simple form. And so when Zelensky last year started talking about ecocide and Russia committing ecocide in in Ukraine, you know, we kind of talked about, you know, is this a conversation that we want to to be involved in? And obviously, for a start, you know, 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, you know, we sat there like you and said, well, hang on, you know, Russia's got this, Ukraine's got this. There's something already under war crimes. You know, 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 standard own crime of ecocide, because what's turned out to be the case, obviously, as I said, the the existing provision is not easy to use. And it turns out that that's similarly and perhaps, you know, having it working within the national framework isn't as powerful. So there is actually quite a strong support from Ukraine towards 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 where 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 international criminal court or have I I am actually talking about international criminal court. I mean, obviously, I mean, as an advocacy organization, we aim most, you know, 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 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 countries could all ratify the same crime. And therefore there's a there's an understanding, you know, in the 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. OK, so can you explain a little bit about the process of how how to get that recognised 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? 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 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. 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 and that way you need at least two thirds of the member states. Now, currently, I mean, this interestingly, I mean, this conversation, you know, 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 the organization. And they actually attended the International Criminal Court's 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 kind of, you know, drop in the pool and the ripples have been spreading ever since. And one of the key things that sort of emerged in the in the in the 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, you know, and say, you know, 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. In fact, 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 ecocide 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 they 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, you know, started the kind of snowball, if you like, started the ball rolling and we now have a situation where there 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 ecocide and to support its inclusion in the Rome Statute of the ICC. So that's pretty major. And then finally, the the European Union itself, the European Parliament just in just a few weeks ago approved a text basically proposing that ecocide level crimes should be included in the directive, 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. Well, OK, that definition that you just read out, if I understand it, 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. And it must be. Am I right about that? Yeah, it's kind of it's actually kind of in between. I mean, the men's rare, which is basically the state of mind, so the intent level, if you like, for this definition is actually a kind of it's a level of recklessness. So it's effectively there's I mean, 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 found over the years is that many of the worst eco sides are already in breach of existing regulation or rights frameworks or these things. But 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. You know, 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 if even even if what you're doing is lawful and permitted, if what if the damage that it is threatening is severe enough and disproportionate enough to what the, you know, the aim of the activity is, then effectively that could also fall under eco side. So effectively what you're doing, in a sense, your decision to do whatever it is you do, probably, you know, has to be deliberate. But your 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. OK, OK, I get it. Thanks. It seems that that there are sort of two components to your campaign. You've got the PR aspect or let's say changing 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's still generated a lot of conversation. It's getting super national bodies like the European Union discussing, discussing it, well, much more than discussing it. I mean, in European Parliament, as you say, could turn out to be they 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 when we move to that second part, the more substantive leg, if you like, of your campaign. The US 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 a contradiction? Isn't that a drawback? Yeah, on one level, yes, and on one level, not very much no. So there's two aspects of this. You're quite right. Actually, some of the biggest polluters are not members of, you know, I not signed up to the Rome statute or not ratified it rather, including US, Russia, China, India, you know, already, you've got there, you know, 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 they could, that could happen. But effectively in terms of actual votes, they don't have one. So that's not that's actually in some ways an advantage. To, to moving this forward. At the same time, people don't always realize that the ICC has a bit of a broader reach than perhaps is understand understood at first glance. So let's say, you know, the US, a US company is conduct is committing ecocide in, you know, a country that, you know, that is a member of the International Criminal Court. Then that is a way, 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, you know, there are ways, there are a number of ways that a prosecution or a case could be accessed or could be triggered that don't necessarily involve actual membership of the state. I mean, one example is, 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 Rohingya and refugees were in Bangladesh, and the ICC actually decided in Bangladesh is a member of the ICC. So the court decided that actually it could, it could actually have jurisdiction over that case. So, you know, there are a number of a variety of ways of approaching this. And I think there's also this point that that a case can be taken. You know, the ICC does not have a wonderful reputation in terms of effectiveness, as I'm sure you're aware. It's not taking a great number of cases over the years. But I think with, you know, with Ecoside, 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 Ecoside than there is with the existing crimes. 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 I, yeah, I mean, that's just what I'm thinking. But at the same time, but at the same time, I mean, if you think about the example of General Pinochet in the late 90s, shortly after the statue was signed, he, you know, Chile was not a signatory at the time. And, you know, but he was arrested in the UK on the basis that the UK was a signatory. In fact, the UK Supreme Court said, you know, you may not be signed up to this, but we are and you're on our territory and therefore we're arresting it. We can try you here now. I mean, ultimately he was, he was ended up being extradited on Gransville Health. But the point is that, you know, 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 this, you know, pick off international criminals as they kind of go through. So, you know, there is, there is that possibility. But I think, I think there's also a way that, you know, it's very easy to focus on the sort of practicalities and the legal aspects of it for, you know, in fact, lawyers particularly do this, you know, they say, well, what's it going to be like when it's in place? What kind of quick cases will it take? You know, how will a prosecution work? Now, all of those things obviously are important. You know, criminal law is, you know, 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. Deterrent. Exactly. So what we're looking at here is, is how good a deterrent is this going to be? And that's actually really important. And what that also brings in another aspect to the discussion is that 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, the, the aspect that is about the, the sort of spreading of the conversation, but also the kind of, in a sense, the kind of, um, flagging that this is approaching because there is quite a clear direction of travel here. I mean, we're, we're clearly seeing that this is something that more and more governments talking about, you know, more and more people planning on legislating, you know, 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, the business card. Now, you know, what, what that means is, you know, if I put this in the hands of anybody that knows their sector in the corporate world, you know, 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, you know, my company does, but also importantly with investors and insurers who are the ones who are deciding, you know, where do we put our money? What are the projects we are that are safe to invest in? What is it safe for us to underwrite? Um, and we're already seeing, for example, I mean, 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 and, and, and so on 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. If you saw it to me, we're talking about companies here, right? Although the, although the crime of ecocide is it's individuals who are prosecuted, CEOs, the directors, et cetera, who goes to the ICC and says, I think that this logging company is committing ecocide. What's that? Okay. So there, there are, 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? And they can, 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, you know, there've 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, you know, ecocide isn't, isn't currently in place. So, and, and 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, you know, by private individuals or groups of individuals or NGOs or effectively anyone. There's a particular route that that can be done. And it's, then it's considered by 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, I, you know, thankfully, I don't know any genocidal maniacs. But, you know, 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, you know, if a C-suite executive, you know, a chief operations officer, chief executive officer, you know, 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. You know, that's what happened with Enron. For example, when the fraud was exposed, you know, the stock value of the company plummeted. So, actually what you're looking at here is people, 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, you know, at a much earlier stage. And because it's personal, it makes such a difference, doesn't it? Exactly. 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. Absolutely. It has a way of, as Philippe Sands puts it, concentrating the mind. And that's super important. So yes, the individual criminal responsibility is very important. I mean, in fact, it's interesting. I mean, we've had conversations with agricultural companies, for example, where we've actually sort of been told, look, you know, 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, you know. 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 it's individual responsibility. But the other aspect, of course, of criminal law is that kind of moral aspect, if you like, because 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? I mean, it's literally not even going to cross your mind, you know, 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. How do you avoid this charge being lobbed around to the extent that it becomes meaningless? Climate activists blockaded the White House correspondent's dinner a couple of days ago. And I see that one of the things that they've accused Biden of is ecocide. And you might find that this starts to 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? I mean, I think there's always a danger of that. I mean, you know, effectively, you know, the same thing has happened with, you know, with genocide to a certain extent, you know, 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 is it has a kind of internal power of its own. It does sound like genocide and it's fairly easily understandable than what you mean as, you know, killing the planet or, you know, killing ecosystems. And actually, interestingly, it comes from, you know, the Greek and Latin together, Oikos and Caderis. It comes, 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 sort of encapsulating what's actually happening to the planet at the present time. You know, the planet is our home and we're busy destroying it. So, you know, there is, there is, it is a kind, 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, you know, effectively to criminalize 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, and there are other, you know, 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 the transnational, was it the legally binding treaty on transnational corporations and violations of human rights or something? I mean, you can, you see what I mean? I mean, it's, you know, 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, you know, 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, you know, take on board that 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, you know, yes, this, you know, these all may feel like ecocides, but legally speaking, ecocide is really the most serious cases. Well, then let's shift gears a little bit and talk about the mechanics of the campaign here. Sure. More the how than the what. The campaign started in 2017 and it seems to have come a long way. I mean, there's some major celebrity endorsements. It seems like it's really got a lot of momentum here. So can you explain roughly how you did that, how you achieved that in terms of, in terms of funding, organization, numbers, irrespective of what you're actually campaigning for, something like that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I understood, yeah. Because, I mean, in a sense, what we're talking about is movement building and all of that. I mean, you know, we obviously had a number of years of a certain level of awareness raising behind us to begin with through PolyHiggins. And interestingly, one of the reasons that we actually began the public campaign, Poly and I, was that foundations, the sort of obvious foundations one might go to 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 so on. And 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. And so that understanding has been opened up by a number of factors. It's been opened up by the IPCC reports, which all governments have kind of 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 kind of mobilization side of things. And obviously, you know, DM25 is very much, you know, part of that kind of 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 had 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, you know, 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, you know, the sort of 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, you know, this is not an initiative that is in competition with any other environmental initiative. You know, we are not saying, you know, don't talk about saving the polar bears, talk about either side. You know, 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, you know, point at this and say, that would help us. You know, and kind of make that connection. But also, I mean, I would say that our activity largely falls into these two different areas and they're not necessarily exactly the areas you were describing earlier, but one is the kind of high level, you know, 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 agree to this and put it forward. But the other aspect of it is this, you know, incredibly networked conversation. So, you know, we will, you know, we aim to kind of, if you like, I suppose they call it sensitizing or, you know, 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 learn around it. So those are the kind of combined sort of activities, I suppose, that we engage in. But on that note, with regard to the climate movement more generally, I mean, there are quite a, 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 saying they're 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 the vehicles in blocking traffic in order to raise awareness of climate change. We've seen people throwing various things on cans of soup on artworks, exactly. So I take your point that none of these organizations, who dare I say, are probably more radical than the Stop Ego side campaign. None of them would say, oh no, this is a bad idea. What JoJo and her team are doing is just, no, no, no, this is a waste of time. But there are different approaches to it. So I wonder how would you comment 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 movement are working against somehow the goals of the climate movement in terms of 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? No, I think that's, I think that's a misunderstanding of how change happens, actually. I think 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, you know, Extinction Rebellion, the first big rebellion in 2019 in London and, you know, so many people were saying, you know, 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, we look at, you know, the abolitionists, the abolitionists, I mean, you know, 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, there's somewhere in between all of that. And what we're effectively doing is, I mean, you know, all of this is ultimately a conversation that leads somewhere. That's what it, you know, 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 in the, you know, at the policymaking level. It's also, you know, many different corporate sectors. It's NGOs, it's academics, it's, you know, 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, you know, I think, and I think the other thing that, you know, could 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, you know, all of this sort of thing. And it is not possible to move things forward as fast as that. But, you know, 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, you know, 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, you know, 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. You know, 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, you know, 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 of a furry case. 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, in a sense, in between position that StoppixSide International is in. It's so important. I take your point and about the radicality. I mean, 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. Indeed. We wanted 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. And I don't know if we're able to heal from that as a society. Still got people that believe that they were horribly and unfairly treated and justifiably so. And other people who still think everyone should be masked outside, et cetera. 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. Yeah, now 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 classes. But the point I was making was less that and more the fact that governments 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, ecocide is slightly a step behind that. Behind isn't the right word. But 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 situation with climate change, when you go back to root causes, you're looking at ecocide. You're looking at mass destruction of ecosystems. And of course, on one level, emissions is one aspect. But even if we stopped all emissions tomorrow, which is obviously impossible, but even if we were to do that, if we continue to massively pollute soils, massively deforest, massively pollute oceans, massively pollute water courses, all of which is happening, we are still going to have that problem. That is still going to 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. Ecocide 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. It's dripping in human agency, the word. Yeah, exactly. I mean, even the word climate change is like, oh, change. Yes, maybe it's just happening anyway. It's happening. Yeah, but because I was like, no, 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 the basics of how 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? How do we keep it going? Yeah, how do you keep the light off? I have to say to begin with on literally a wing and a prayer, I mean, Polly and I set this up partly in response to this lack of conventional funding, if you like, but she had a personal following, so it was 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 ambassadors, all those kinds of things, very concrete type things. We can't use it for operations and salaries. So, I mean, 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 a salary, you know, and, you know, we weren't even able to pay ourselves until 2018, I think, you know, 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, you know, to kind of really drive sort of change, sort of change-making work unless you're in one of sort 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 is relatively small number of people, or you happen to have, you're of independent means, or in our case, we happen to have husbands that earned just about enough to allow us to, you know, 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, you know, get a few hours off to, you know, just sort of feel okay about themselves and their lives and all the rest of it, you know, to actually align what they might love to see happen, you know, 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 Mombio, who you'll be familiar with, has sort of said to sort of aspiring journalists, you know, don't do what they say in terms of, you know, be an intern in a local newspaper, you know, work your way gradually up through the system, etc. 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 say this, you know, what 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, you know, a bigger chunk. That's actually what every, you know, every organization obviously requires people and that is always the biggest expense. And, you know, and that is probably about sort of 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 have always fallen a little bit between conventional funding buckets. So, you know, we work with law, but we're not a law firm. You know, we work with mobilizations, but we're not activists. You know, we work with diplomatic work, but we're not a UN agency. You know, there are all these kind of slightly unusual aspects. 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 eco-side, you know, what not to, what not to say, what to say. And it's just wonderful, best practice, but it's very encouraging and nice to put that stuff out publicly and say that this is where we stand on these issues. You're not, you know, not keeping it to yourselves. It's, it's, it's out there pretty transparent. Yeah. Yeah. And actually, I think as a result as well, you know, we actually have, I mean, we have a lot of volunteers and we've got a paid team of around 2025, but we've got hundreds of volunteers and we've got teams in 40, over 45 countries now. You know, 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, it will depend on what those people's strengths and skills are. But the passion is there and the, you know, the kind of understanding of, you know, what it is that we're ultimately doing, which is driving this conversation on Ecoside Law. You know, we want to very much support people to do what they feel, you know, inspired to do around this. And it seems to be working. So if you get what you want and the ICC recognizes Ecoside, is that it? Will you, will you close the doors and say we did our job? That's a really good question. And actually, I have to say, I think you're the first interviewer that's actually asked me that, which is really interesting because I've literally lost count of the interviews. Now, we are very much a one-trick pony. So we are, you know, very much focused on, you know, getting Ecoside recognized. I mean, obviously at national and regional levels, but ultimately at the international level. So as and when that happens, you know, if Stop Ecoside International is to continue as a, as an organization, it would morph its focus more towards assisting the implementation and the communication around that, you know, 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. Well, I like that. I absolutely 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 gold person. So, you know, 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. 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 NGOs often just become part of the fabric. They get a funding and they they sort of get swallowed up by the establishment. And that is really sad to see when I completely agree. And actually, I will emphasize that by saying that we actually had we've actually had someone say to us if what you're doing works, we're all out of a job. And and of course, you know, our response to that is, well, isn't that the point? That's the point. Exactly. Good. 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. Well, I mean, yes. I mean, I suppose, first of all, I would recommend, of course, eradicating Ecoside, which is the the the sort of main 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, you know, why she'd she'd really sort of hitched her her wagon to this particular conceptual star and ultimately legal initiative. I would also recommend a rather fabulous book by Jonathan 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 Ecoside and it's very inspiring. And then another book, which I found incredibly inspiring recently, which is not directly related to Ecoside, but it does tie in. And oh, in fact, I've actually got fourth as well. I mean, Kate Rayworth's Donut Economics is pretty damn good too. But but the one I want to mention is Jane Davidson, who was the was a minister in the Welsh Parliament, obviously the devolved Parliament, so part of the UK. And she's written a book called Future Jen. 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 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. 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 is my firm belief that if all governments put Ecoside 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 to you. Thank you. Great recommendations. We'll we'll add those to the we'll add those to the show notes. And if you'd like to learn more about stop Ecoside international, please. Well, tell me, Jojo, where's the best place? Are you you've got your website? Stop Ecoside dot Earth. Any other any other points of contact? Yeah, absolutely. The website, particularly the act now menu. If you would like if you're interested in getting involved, there's a real huge range of different things and also sort of networks to sort of hook up with and so on. So there's really no shortage of possibilities for anyone that's interested in getting involved. We are there is also a sort of sister site called Ecosidelaw.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 Ecoside. 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 electorate representatives as many of your audience actually may be doing. So yeah, and let's encourage everybody to support Ecoside becoming an international crime. Wonderful. Jojo Mehta, thank you very much indeed for that. I really enjoyed that. Thank you very much. It's been great to be here.