 with Cooper, your host. We're looking at what's happening with human rights around our world on ThinkTech Live, broadcasting from our downtown studio in Honolulu, Hawaii, in Moana, New York. Today's episode focuses on COP 27 process, continuing to converse in the people's movement to protect our planet. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Conference of Parties 27, continues in a charmed shape with thousands of tenacious advocates and activists sharing their solutions to the climate crisis and standing up for climate justice. Second week of COP offers opportunities for ensuring our island Earth remains for future generations with a healthy planet. Today I'm joined by Jojo Mehta, the co-founder and executive director of Stop Ecocide International, who does a lot of amazing advocacy to make sure that we have a planet to live on. Jojo, thank you for joining us today. Oh, it's great to be here. Why do you think it's so important to attend the UNFCCC COP? It's really important to be at this forum because this is where the high-level decisions around how the whole world is supposed to be dealing with climate change and the decisions at the top level. And of course, that means that that attracts everyone who has an interest in the issues around that, whether it's climate justice, environmental justice, whether it's moving into sustainable ways of doing things, all of those kinds of voices want to be heard here. So that's of course also why we're here. I mean, our particular focus is about criminalizing mass harm to nature, but we're one among many, many voices in this context. And could you share a little bit more about how Stop Ecocide International was created and how far you've come in such a short time to be able to make sure you can have an impact in international human rights law and humanitarian law? Absolutely, and when the governing document of the International Criminal Court was being drafted back in the 90s, there was originally planned to be a clause in that that would deal with severe harms to nature, but it never made it to the final treaty. So the international crimes that we're all familiar with, war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity were the only ones that made it into that treaty. So when the court opened its doors 20 years ago, ecocide was not among those crimes. And actually it's probably worth just taking a moment to think about what world we might be in right now, had there been an international crime against massive harm to nature at the time. But that was a sort of task or a mission, if you like, that was taken up by a Scottish barrister called Polly Higgins, who I worked with for the last few years of her life. She's no longer with us, but that campaign has now become the Stop Ecocide International, which is a global NGO. And where this conversation was completely new on the international diplomatic stage about three years ago, we now have a situation where there are at least 25 governments and parliaments talking about this and also the EU, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and many leaders around the world, including faith leaders like Pope Francis and even the UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, there's so many voices in favor of doing this. And I think that the key thing, the key aspect for us being at COP this year is having a presence there to bring a particular kind of narrative, I guess, because I think the whole world is feeling frustrated with how slow the action has been on climate and ecological breakdown. I mean, it's like, you know, we know that time is running out. We know that we have almost the kind of, you know, it's as if we're kind of, you know, at a grand prix and we're kind of riding snails. You know, it's like that's the kind of feeling that we've got. And from our perspective, this is all about the fact that we don't have the right legal frameworks in place. So, you know, the action at the level of industrial decision-making, policy-making decisions is just doesn't have the right framing. You know, when we put the right boundaries in place and with Ecoside, that means saying this much damage to the planet is simply not acceptable, but really severe and either widespread or long-term damage is just not acceptable. Then what we do is we create a framework in which those decision-makers can be thinking in a new direction. Because, you know, ultimately this comes down, a lot of this comes down to finance, a lot of this comes down to money and the flow of money. And money is like water. It would just flow where it's allowed to. So, you know, when we put the right boundaries in place, we can start creating that flow going in new directions. And, you know, there are so many amazing solutions out there, but right now they all feel like uphill struggles. And, you know, having the right legal framework in place, having that foundational piece in place could just make it all so much easier. And so that's what we're really here to talk about. And it's, I have to say, it's just been incredible so far in the sense that, you know, we have, for the first time, we have a, what they call a pavilion. It's basically like an exhibition stand, right? So we have a stand at the, in the halls of COP 27. And what that means is people can actually come to us and learn and, you know, we're talking to ministers, we're talking to your government representatives, we're talking to NGOs, we're talking to faith leaders, you know, because there are so many people here. So it's an amazing forum from that perspective. And when you, what's it like to be at COP for many people, they're not sure what happens. Can you share what is a day in the life of a COP delegate and observer and how are some of the steps for success that you've taken to have an impact here at this important COP 27? I think a day at COP probably depends very much, you know, who you are and what your particular role is here. So if you're an actual negotiator for a country, you're probably spending most of your time in meeting rooms or in the plenary sessions with, you know, other government reps. But for most people here, like ourselves, you know, NGO observers, for example, you know, people either, you know, they might have a pavilion or a stand like we do, or they might not, but you know, people tend to go in at the beginning of the day. And it's basically, it's an awful lot of conversations. And, you know, for us, we might be on our stand talking, but then we might also be doing events. I mean, I've been speaking at panel events in different people's pavilions, but also we have an official side event coming up with a couple of state representatives present, Vanuatu and Belgium. But, you know, so it's a kind of mixture of kind of panel events, conversations in, you know, in the corridors, conversations at stands, you know, conversations at the food courts, you know, a lot of it is about conversing. And then in the evenings, there are often events that you can go to outside of the, you know, the whole negotiating area that, you know, basically it's lots of different organizations putting forward what they're doing, conversing, making connections. And because of course, all of the, you know, the delegates, they're sometimes heads of state, the sort of state representatives and so on. And these kind of influencers are here. It means that there's this opportunity to make connections that you wouldn't be able to usually make in other contexts. And of course, you know, there's often quite justified criticism of what is actually happening at the high level in terms of, you know, how much progress is actually being made. And certainly from, you know, from our perspective, a lot of the advantage of being here is the making of the connections and the actual sort of pushing forward of that narrative almost kind of alongside what is happening at the highest level. And I think that's probably true for an awful lot of people here. A really good point, because when you look at what a typical day is like, you usually begin very early at one of the major groups, working groups, either indigenous peoples or women, farmers, research institutions, local and city authorities. And then from there, it's a non-stop jaunt or jog, however you see it, through different meetings throughout the day. And as you said, if you're fortunate to have a booth such as you, people at least come up and find you. And another aspect though is just the serendipity of meeting people on the lines for either no food or whatever is available. And being able to then get to know new people that are doing important initiatives as well, that overlap and really are able to relentlessly commit to human rights for everyone and make the connection about rights that most people don't see all those connections. But that I think is one of the strengths of Stop Ecoside is it really is a cost cutting, important campaign that has been able to capture the imagination of humanity for what is possible and to be able to provide a space to strategize to change the current conditions and provide a better future for all. I think that was a really good summary. I mean, I think what we're looking at of course is that often, law is not the first thing to come into the climate discussions necessarily and particularly not criminal law. I think that there's a sort of misconception in a sense that people don't understand the power of criminal law because it's a way that we use to draw moral lines if you like in our kind of dominant way of thinking. Now, I mean, there are plenty of environmental laws around the world but they're often very poorly enforced and they're often badly followed. And actually, even though we now know that even existing environmental crimes are up there with drug trafficking in terms of their criminal profitability and how much they're engaged in, the way that they're enforced is negligible in comparison. And so looking to take a concept like Ecoside, in other words, the worst harms to nature and actually designate them as really serious crimes, just has such a profound impact on the way we think about how we interact with the natural world. I mean, we've spent centuries developing this in the West, this incredibly alienated stance that we have in relation to the natural world. We think of ourselves as separate, we think of the Earth as a kind of bank of resources and we don't make the connection between, we don't kind of have that kind of balance in our minds about how important it is that we look after the Earth and we have healthy ecosystems because we can't breathe, we can't eat, we can't drink, we can't do anything without healthy ecosystems and our entire global economy depends upon them. So there's this weird disconnect that's going on and there's something about making really clear that when you damage the Earth, there are consequences. That is something that indigenous cultures just deeply understand in their DNA. I mean, so much so that one of the panels I was at a couple of days ago, the moderator was asking this wonderful indigenous spokeswoman, how does this tally with your view of the world, this law of ecocide, does it relate to how you think about the world? And it was almost so obvious that she almost didn't understand the question. And it had to be reiterated. And she said, oh, of course, the last thing you must do is damage Mother Earth because that's like rule number one. And it's just so obvious to them, but to us in the West, it has become a kind of strange thing. And it becomes kind of obvious when you think about, for example, you're not gonna go to a government and say, can I have a license to kill 500 people? Because you have that deep taboo around damaging people. But what we need is a similar taboo around serious harm to nature because that is what is ultimately gonna preserve life on this planet. That is what is gonna give humanity a future. No, it's a great point as we're here just hours away from Mount Sinai that you think about commandments being handed down who is important, right? Ecocide should definitely be an international crime and the aspect of creating individual criminal responsibility for those acts that threaten severe and widespread and long-term environmental harm to all of us should definitely be etched in stone, but also known in our hearts and minds that this is absolutely forbidden and that we can coordinate together to make sure it doesn't happen anymore as we see this process that's unfolding and we see how people are harmed because that's one of the aspects of pop is you really get to hear from people on the front lines sharing that climate change is an existential threat, not one day in decades, but already on a daily basis for people around the planet. Absolutely and this is why it is actually the most climate-vulnerable countries that are the leaders in this space. So I mean, we've been working for some years now with the Pacific Island nation of Vanuatu who are really positioning themselves as leaders on the global stage in terms of legal initiatives and Ecocide Law is one of those initiatives. I mean, they're also promoting an advisory opinion at the ICJ, a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty international law of the sea, advisories and so on. So they're really kind of looking at these legal angles because for them it really is an existential issue and that is true of many of the Pacific Islands and it's also, we've also, for example, got the voice of Bangladesh has come behind this as well and there are others, but there are also starting to be voices also from the more wealthy West. I mean, in this conversation too. And so it's really heartening to see that there is a kind of, there is beginning to be a kind of cross-regional interest in looking at these legal frameworks and even, and this may seem quite surprising to begin with, but even from the area of, for example, corporate investors and there's a big network called the International Corporate Governance Network, which is an investor-led network of all the big financial firms, the banks and the accountancies and all of them. And between them, they manage 70 trillion and world assets and they submitted a statement this year to COP just as they did last year. There's now two years in a row. They've submitted a statement recommending governments to collaborate on criminalizing ecocide. And the first time that we heard this, we were like, well, this is amazing. Why has your committee put forward this statement that includes this? And it was really interesting what they said because I mean, the first reason maybe might be quite intuitive in the business context in the sense that it was about stabilizing risk. It was about knowing what are the rules that are coming into place? How is that going to help? And therefore, do we know where to put our money and so forth? And that's understandable. But what was really quite encouraging was to hear that the other reason that that ended up in there was that these guys were just looking out at the world saying, hey, this is really serious. What's going on out there? We're gonna need something serious to address it. And that's really, really encouraging actually because criminal law is so often thought of as a stick to beat people with. And yes, of course, the whole point in a sense is that you can take a prosecution if there's a crime in place. But of course, the real reason that those crimes are in place is to prevent them from happening. I mean, the reason murder is a crime is to stop people being killed. And so the same principle is true of ecocide is you put this law in place. The whole idea is it's supposed to deter and prevent. And that's the difference with say, I mean, there are many climate litigation cases going on around the world, which are also very important. It's about holding people to account. It's about funding compensation. It's about justice for victims. But if you want to actually change behavior, then criminal law is really important because then when somebody feels they can be held individually responsible and that their personal freedom could be at stake. And of course, in the corporate world, that also means their personal and corporate reputations as well. Then that is a very powerful deterrent. And we're already starting to see the recognition coming, for example, from the UN high level climate champions, the race to zero, they've brought out a recent report where they've realized that voluntary action on climate just isn't enough. There needs to be policy and regulation. And in that report that they brought out in New Yorker a few weeks ago called The Pivot Point, they actually dedicated a whole page to ecocide law as a driver and influencer of change. And that is really powerful. This is a law that's not even yet in place and people can see how important it is for starting to steer the conversation in the right direction. It's so true really with our side-spec changes are actually crucial as we go forward in these UNFCCC cop negotiations. And what's absolutely essential is that we look at these kind of changes and how the ecocide law can support changes to level the playing field, regenerative farming, renewable energy, circular economy. It really does see that we can have guidance in the system for global governance that embraces some of the coalition that you're describing that want to make sure that there's consequences for people who are harming our planet where you see indigenous peoples. We see Pacific Island nations. We see in this case, as you're pointing out even insurance companies and other actors recognizing that it's plunging our world into chaos and we have to come up with a structure that's rooted in social and climate justice to make sure that we have an island earth for future generations. Yeah, and I think the future generations aspect is a really important one and it's really important at this particular COP for the first time there is a youth pavilion, a children and youth pavilion as part of the structure of the conference and there's very strong voices from the youth movement from around the world. And it's also, I mean, it's interesting that it's also the place that everybody wants to be seen at. I mean, we've seen a number of heads of state have come to talk at the youth pavilion. They realize that the voice of the future generations is really important. Of course it is. This is all about the world that they are growing up into. And actually that youth voice collectively is becoming incredibly powerful. And there are still steps to go from the perspective of those decision makers. I think they've all kind of realized now that they need to have youth at the table. They need to listen to the voices of youth. I mean, I think there's still a way to go before they're actually responding to the demands that youth are presenting. And one of those demands is indeed to have a law against ecocide. They're asking for ecocide law and have been for the last few international meetings. And the conference of youth that preceded the COP produced a statement that also again included the demand for ecocide laws. So this whole kind of element of future generations is super important. And this particular COP has been really quite difficult in a lot of ways for people to attend including the youth activists. This has not been the easiest COP logistically or in terms of support from the host country. It's not been an easy ride at all. And as you alluded to a little bit earlier there've been problems with food, problems with various kinds of practical issues. And it's kind of an interesting and perhaps rather strange choice of location for a conference that essentially focuses on ultimately reducing fossil fuels and yet to hold it here in Egypt and then to hold the next one also in the Middle East is kind of an interesting choice of location. Let's put it that way. It's true and the children and youth are really participating in new mechanisms that have been created where four youth came together and created a new process for 55 youth to participate in 27 nations on their delegations training them to be young negotiators and engaging. So it is true. We have more children and youth involved in a more direct way. We have the pavilion. Another aspect of course that's also important is we have food being on the agenda. And I think another big topic is really loss and damages and trying to figure out how we can hold people count but more importantly the people are directly impacted would have access to funding to be able to rebuild their lives because the people that have contributed at least to the carbon crisis. I mean, they are most impacted and have already been facing these horrible situations where we know before almost every pop Philippines is hit by a typhoon. And if we look at Pakistan, a third is underwater. So when you're looking at this global conversation around ecocide, it's a powerful concept but it encapsulates what we're really looking at how it's morally wrong and dangerous for the future of humanity. Absolutely. And I think the loss and damage issue is a really important one. This cop is also a contentious one. And there have been some countries that have kind of stepped up to the plate a little bit. And I mean, I think it's interesting for example that Scotland has actually put some money on the table and said, we're gonna support this. And in a way kind of showing up the UK as being a little bit not taking the action that it should do. But I think that it's not been the most fruitful conversation and it should be because as you say, the people who are suffering the most and who need the most in terms of actual adaptation and compensation have not so far been receiving that from the wealthy Northern. I think there's this reluctance of the wealthy countries to, they feel like they're kind of admitting liability in some way if they offer loss and damage and compensation. And this is kind of outrageous actually. I mean, we think about how the wealthy North of the sort of Western culture, if you like and our sort of ways of doing things are kind of over consumption, our economic attitudes and have colonialized and plundered really a lot of the most effective people in areas. And it's long overdue that something that more effective mechanisms that are more just can be put in place. And how well this cop is managing that I'm really not convinced but the issues are nonetheless being brought front and center at least into the public domain by those who are suffering. And yeah, I mean, I have to say I hope that they can come away from this with something but I fear it won't be nearly as much or as just as they would like. And that's a travesty really. It's true, it has to be the decade of action and they said this cop which is gonna be an action cop but also they called it the implementation cop that they would actually implement the Paris rulebook begin to make sure that it makes a difference and when you're here in Egypt seeing everything I'll never forget at the climate action hub we had a activist from Uganda and she said, now you see what we face you have no food, you have to try to find water this is what we live, this is the Africa cop welcome to the world of what we face with the climate crisis where we don't have access due to droughts or floods you're getting a taste of what it is to live but of course we know it's nothing like what people have to face as the negotiations are still ongoing what do you hope we can accomplish before the gavel comes down in Sharma shape? Well, I mean, I obviously would love to see the loss and damage conversation bearing some kind of fruit and in terms of implementation of course, that's where we feel that this whole discussion around law needs to come in as I say, I think there's the beginnings of recognition that policy and regulation need to play a bigger part I mean, again, exactly how much that's going to be reflected in the whatever emerges in terms of a statement or a declaration from Sharma shape, I'm not sure but that's certainly what we will be encouraging and doing our hardest to make sure is seen and even better potentially included in some way. That's perfect and what would be your message to world leaders in these closing moments to share? I would say that if you really want implementation to work you need to look at the legal frameworks you need to put in place something that prevents the worst harms to nature because that is at the root cause of the climate and ecological crisis and if that is ignored, we are going to continue to deepen that crisis. Rojo, thank you so much for joining here in Sharma shape. We know it has been quite charming but we know we've done everything we can to have a yarn and make sure that the world knows what's going on. Thank you so much for all your work at Stop EcoSide International and we hope that the leaders listens to your message and we can make sure to bring up consequences as you talked about as we shape a new world rooted in human rights law and a better perspective for what our planet can be together. Mahalo. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.