Convergence of injustice

Anyone in the (so-called) “first world” who is not either examining their identity, privilege and prejudices right now or protesting those of others is simply not paying attention.  Which is a pretty extraordinary situation, and many would argue decades - if not centuries - overdue. 

While the precise form of this moment of (yes) horror and (yes) crisis and (yes) awakening could not have been predicted, should any of us be surprised that ecological, health, social and racial injustice which have been turned away from and violently silenced have all converged to become visible at once? 

It is all connected.  We are all connected - to each other and to the living world.  We are interdependent participants in an inescapable, ongoing mutual exchange of energy.  It ought to be beautiful.  Indigenous voices have been telling the rest of us this for a very long time. 

But over 2 millennia of dualistic thinking (ideal vs real, spiritual vs earthly, reason vs nature) have led to a mindset of separation so profound that a small number feel able to treat both nature and other people as an infinite resource… and the majority have been either subjugated or brainwashed into considering that state of affairs either inevitable or desirable.

We know that the roots of ECOCIDE – mass damage and destruction of nature – are inextricably intertwined with this brutal exploitation, colonialism and profound misunderstanding of how the living world really works. 

We know that as a result, ECOCIDE has become the material basis of the entire global economic system. 

We also know that this can be changed.

At Stop Ecocide we focus on one thing - making ECOCIDE an international crime.  Our supporters fund the diplomatic, legal and awareness-raising work to make this possible.  We believe it is a foundational piece of protective law, one which can be simply implemented within existing systems and which will signal a profound shift in humanity’s operating framework. 

We know that criminalising ecocide will not fix everything.  But we do know it is a bridge to a liveable world.  Without doing this, there is little hope that the toxic practices of the fossil fuel, mineral extraction, agricultural and manufacturing industries – practices perpetuating the worst human rights and ecological atrocities and the biggest threats to climate stability - will be stopped in time, if at all.  

We stand in solidarity with Black Lives Matter and with all courageous protectors of justice for people and the planet.

THE SWEDISH LABOR MOVEMENT CALLS FOR ECOCIDE AS A CRIME

Guest blog: from associate group End Ecocide Sweden

Karl-Petter Thorwaldsson, chairman of The Swedish Trade Union Confederation, and Anna Sundström, secretary general of Olof Palme International Center are writing in Svenska Dagbladet (one of the largest newspapers in Sweden) on ecocide. “We stand behind the growing global opinion demanding that large-scale destruction of ecosystems should be a crime. Sweden ought to lead the way to amend the Rome Statute with ecocide as a fifth crime against peace” they write. 

– It is very welcome that The Swedish Trade Union Confederation and Olof Palme International Center take a stand for ecocide as an international crime, says Peder Karlsson, End Ecocide Sweden. It is not just ecosystems who are victims of the ruthless exploitation which is legally permitted today. The workers of the world are paying a high price in the form of environmental destruction and climate change, especially in the global South. 

“In two years time Sweden will again invite the world to an international conference on the environment; Sweden then has the opportunity to show that it is possible to combine welfare, equality and a radical transition to sustainability”, Thorwaldsson and Sundström write. They are referring to that it is almost 50 years ago that the administration of Olof Palme arranged the first ever conference on international environmental issues, the so called Stockholm Conference of 1972, where Palme was one of the first to use the term ecocide (see this clip).

Now, half a century later, it is high time to seriously take care of the nature which we are part of. The Stockholm +50 conference is a great opportunity to unite the world around a Duty of Care for the Planet, making ecocide a fifth crime against peace. The swedish workers movement shows the way toward a solidarity with all of life with this clear article.

Clips from a meeting between Polly Higgins, the lawyer who proposed ecocide as a crime under the Rome Statute, and Jan O Karlsson, Minister of Government of Olof Palme who was a contributor to the speech Palme holds above.

---

NOTABLE MEDIA ARTICLE: published in Svenska Dagbla 20/03/20

CRIMINALISING LARGE-SCALE ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION

Sweden should take the lead in reducing impunity and making it costly to destroy human life conditions, say Karl-Petter Thorwaldsson, chairman of The Swedish Trade Union Confederation, and Anna Sundström, secretary general of Olof Palme International Center.

Together, we face humanity's greatest challenge. The climate and the ecosystems are under immense pressure with human suffering and incalculable economic damage as a result. Ravaging violent fires, the widespread and long-lasting drought, the massive devastation of the recurring hurricanes and the catastrophic consequences of the floods. This is the acute crisis of our society, our democracy and our economic system. At the same time, we see how a number of states and groups of large companies are actively counteracting necessary change. Therefore, The Swedish Trade Union Confederation and the Olof Palme International Center require that large-scale environmental degradation is criminalized.

We see more and more how some states and large corporations invest huge sums of money in disinformation campaigns, pushing for increased overexploitation of man and nature. Fossil fuel emissions, environmental degradation, inequality and suffering also continue to increase. The cost of such behavior today is minimal, both financially and legally. On the contrary, they are directly profitable and encouraged by a system designed to safeguard these interests.

A thorough restructuring of the economic system is necessary and needs to be done very quickly. The public systems and their financial instruments must be fundamentally changed to make it easy to do the right thing - for consumers, workers, municipalities as well as for companies. All the companies and individuals who want to make the transition possible should have the best conditions to do so. Public investment, procurement rules, taxes and subsidies must be clearly directed at the branches of human activity that contribute positively to the transition with care for workers and the environment. The international trade union movement wholeheartedly supports such a development, where the decent jobs, the opportunities for increased equality and a good life is to be found.

We are also convinced of the need to increase the legal capacity to claim responsibility. Today, impunity is extensive for environmental crimes and destruction of habitats. There are no global tools with sufficient jurisdiction to deal with these issues and with the ability to claim the responsibility of individuals in relation to the consequences of their actions and decisions. It is almost forty years since Olof Palme hosted the world's first international conference on the environment. In his introductory speech, he pointed out that: 

"in the field of the human environment there is no individual future, neither for human beings nor for nations. Our future is common. We must share it together. We must shape it together." 

Therefore, we support the growing world opinion that requires that large-scale environmental degradation should be criminalized. Sweden should take the lead for Ecocide Law to be added to the Rome Statute as a fifth crime against peace. And thus, in a decisive way, contribute to a new approach to investment, exploitation and growth.

During the post-war period, the labour movement showed that a rapid and profound social change is possible. With our faces turned towards the future, we did not shy away from the necessary change. In two years, Sweden will once again invite the world to an environmental conference. We then have the opportunity to show the world that it is possible to combine a welfare society with increased equality and a radical transition. Together with the states who are threatened with eradication due to rising sea levels, Sweden should take the lead in reducing impunity and making it costly to destroy human life conditions. We assume this necessary challenge and urge the government and parliament to do the same. Sweden has every opportunity to once again show the world that we are a pioneering country.

Karl-Petter Thorwaldsson

The Swedish Trade Union Confederation, chairman

Anna Sundström

Olof Palme International Center, Secretary General 

---

Kriminalisera stor­skalig miljöförstörelse

Sverige bör gå i täten för att minska straffriheten och göra det kostsamt att förstöra människans livsbetingelser. Det skriver Karl-Petter Thorwaldsson, LO, och Anna Sundström, Olof Palmes internationella center.

Gemensamt står vi inför mänsklighetens största utmaning. Klimatet och ekosystemen befinner sig under en oerhörd press med mänskligt lidande och oöverskådliga ekonomiska konsekvenser som följd. De våldsamma brändernas framfart, den utbredda och mångåriga torkan, de återkommande orkanernas massiva förödelse och översvämningarnas katastrofala följder. Det är vårt samhälles, vår demokratis och vårt ekonomiska systems akuta kris. Samtidigt ser vi hur ett antal stater och en samling storföretag aktivt motarbetar den omställning som är nödvändig. Därför kräver LO och Palmecentret att storskalig miljöförstörelse bör kriminaliseras.

Vi ser allt mer hur vissa stater och storföretag investerar ofantliga summor i desinformationskampanjer, driver på för ökad rovdrift och ytterligare exploatering av människa och natur. Utsläppen, miljöförstörelsen, ojämlikheten och lidandet fortsätter också att öka. Kostnaderna för sådant beteende är i dag minimala, både ekonomiskt och juridiskt. De är tvärtom direkt lönsamma och uppmuntras av ett system som designats för att tillvarata dessa intressen.

En genomgripande omställning av det ekonomiska systemet är nödvändig och behöver ske mycket snabbt. De offentliga systemen och de ekonomiska styrmedlen måste förändras i grunden så att det blir lätt att göra rätt för både konsument, arbetare, kommuner och företag. Alla de företag och individer som vill göra omställningen möjlig ska ha de bästa förutsättningarna att göra det. Offentliga investeringar, upphandlingsregler, skatter och subventioner måste tydligt riktas mot de branscher och verksamheter som bidrar positivt till omställningen med omsorg om arbetare och miljö. Den internationella fackliga rörelsen ställer sig helhjärtat bakom en sådan utveckling. Där finns de anständiga jobben, möjligheterna till ökad jämlikhet och ett gott liv.

Vi är också övertygade om nödvändigheten att öka de juridiska möjligheterna att utkräva ansvar. Straffriheten är i dag omfattande för miljöbrott och förstörelse av livsmiljöer. Det saknas globala verktyg med tillräcklig jurisdiktion för att hantera dessa frågor och med möjlighet att utkräva ansvar av individer i relation till konsekvenserna av deras handlingar och beslut. Det är snart fyrtio år sedan Olof Palme stod värd för världens första internationella miljökonferens. I sitt inledningsanförande poängterade han att "i relation till mänsklig livsmiljö finns det ingen individuell framtid, inte för människor och inte heller för nationer. Vår framtid är gemensam. Vi måste dela den tillsammans. Vi bör forma den tillsammans." Vi ställer oss därför bakom den växande världsopinion som kräver att storskalig miljöförstörelse bör kriminaliseras. Sverige bör gå i täten för att ekocid (från engelskans ecocide), ska läggas till Romstadgan som ett femte brott i fredstid. Och därmed på ett avgörande sätt bidra till ett nytt förhållningssätt till investeringar, exploatering och tillväxt.

Arbetarrörelsen visade under efterkrigstiden att en snabb och genomgripande samhällsomställning är möjlig. Med ansiktet vänt mot framtiden skyggade vi inte den nödvändiga förändringen. Om två år bjuder Sverige återigen in världen till en miljökonferens. Vi har då möjlighet att visa världen att det är möjligt att kombinera ett välfärdssamhälle, ökad jämlikhet och en radikal omställning. Tillsammans med de stater som hotas av utplåning med stigande havsnivåer bör Sverige gå i täten för att minska straffriheten och göra det kostsamt att förstöra människans livsbetingelser. Vi antar denna nödvändiga utmaning och uppmanar regering och riksdag att göra detsamma. Sverige har alla förutsättningar att återigen visa världen att vi är ett föregångsland.

Karl-Petter Thorwaldsson

ordförande för LO

Anna Sundström

generalsekreterare Olof Palmes internationella center

Can You Imagine?

As we are building an emerging picture of the pathway that it’s best to take to create the world we want to bring into being. We wish to bring one crucial, very practical piece to that emergent picture.

This key piece is an amendment to international law.  It is quite simply to make ecocide – mass damage & destruction of ecosystems - a crime.  The video below shows how such a law will support every environmental campaign on the planet.  Of course, this alone would be reason enough to take it forward, but I would like to share with you how beautifully simple, hugely powerful, and surprisingly possible it is.

How is it simple?  

In our so-called “first world” culture we use criminal law to draw the moral red line – to define what is, and what is not, acceptable.  Murder is a crime – it is not acceptable.  It is universally condemned and no corporation can legitimately build a business on it. 

Now at present, destroying nature does not attract that level condemnation.  For example, polluting corporations see it at best as a regrettable side-effect of making money.  So even though everyone knows we’re in a global ecological crisis, and even though there are hundreds of environmental treaties already in existence, dangerous industrial activity has continued to increase. 

Polly Higgins, who co-founded the Stop Ecocide campaign, once asked the head of a UK bank “Why do you continue to finance these destructive practices?”  The answer was simply “It’s not a crime.” 

Investment will flow where it is permitted to flow.  So until we make it a crime to inflict serious harm on the living world, the destruction will continue – and all those who care will continue mopping up the mess… when we could be simply turning off the tap.  When destroying the rainforest or spraying pesticides across huge areas becomes a crime, investors can no longer back projects which involve such activities, and businesses must therefore develop different modes of operation.

And it is important to make ecocide an international crime, because that is the simplest and most effective way to enforce it – within existing systems.  There is no need to appeal to a special court or tribunal – we can simply report the criminals to the police in any country that has ratified the crime.  This has the effect of allocating criminality to where it is actually happening – with those creating harm, not with those standing up to protect communities and ecosystems against that harm.  At a stroke it puts the police and the courts on the right side of the moral fence.  It’s a simple and effective safeguard.

And how it is powerful?

Firstly because ecocide crime makes individuals criminally responsible, specifically those in superior positions – the ones who make the decisions. Breaches of civil regulation usually only lead to fines – and corporations simply budget for those fines. 

But CEOs and government ministers will feel very differently about issuing a mining permit or signing off a drilling project could lead to a jail sentence.  Ecocide crime is different to genocide or war crimes in this respect: corporations depend upon reputation and public confidence, and no CEO wants to be seen as the equivalent of a war criminal.

Secondly, making ecocide a crime is powerful because it puts the whole world on legal notice.
Criminal laws don’t work retrospectively but from the date they’re put in place. 
Putting in place a new international crime takes time.  We estimate around 3-5 years. And it is already on the horizon.  Once a state actually proposes it at the International Criminal Court, which could be as early as this year or next year, the writing is on the wall.  It is like giving the entire world a deadline – creating an automatic transition period.  When the data protection laws came in in Europe – every single business knew that it would have to comply by a certain date, and every single business had to adjust its practices in advance of that date.

 And with covid-19 we have seen that when the world needs to, it can absolutely act that quickly.  What’s a few years to turn the entire planetary ship around?  In many arenas we’ve done it in a few short weeks.

We are often asked – which CEOs or political figures would you want to see in the dock under ecocide law?  We can think of several, but it is not actually our aim to “put the bad guys in the dock”... ideally, we don’t want to see anyone in the dock.  Our aim is to change practices so that the Earth is genuinely protected, so that the harm is stopped.  It will start with those at the very beginning of the production chain – the banks, financiers, the insurers, the re-insurers – who are always the first to see legislative changes coming.  And they are the ones with their hands on that faucet.  They are the ones who enable polluting corporations to continue with business as usual.  When the flow of funds is diverted, things will change pretty fast.

For us though, the truly inspiring power of this law is the way it will – subtly but surely – begin to change that mindset of separation – the mindset that has dominated Western culture not just for decades but for centuries, allowing a relatively tiny number of individuals and state actors to subjugate both nature and much of the rest of humanity. 

So how does it change that mindset?  When we place “ecocide” alongside “genocide” in our legal frameworks, when we make mass destruction of nature equivalent to mass destruction of human beings, we change the ground rules in a way that helps us to see a reality which has always been there… a reality which indigenous cultures have never forgotten… we are ALL PART of the wider web of life on this planet and we cannot survive, let alone thrive, unless we acknowledge this. 

Finally, how is it possible?

This is the exciting part.  Making ecocide an international crime sounds like a massive task, but in fact it is surprisingly achievable.  The procedure is simple and has four stages.  To start the process it only takes one state member of the International Criminal Court.  They must officially propose an amendment to the Rome Statute – the Court’s governing document and arguably the most powerful legal document in the world. 

With a simple majority at the Court’s annual Assembly that amendment can be discussed.  Then, with a two thirds majority, the amendment can be adopted into the Statute.  Finally after that, states can begin to ratify it. 

At present there are 123 member states so that would mean 82 states would need to support it.  It sounds like a lot, but it’s a one-state, one-vote system, so small island states at the sharp end of climate change, or indeed Amazon and African states suffering toxic extractive practices, have as much power to take this forward as any of the G20 countries.  Just adding those groups together (even without Brazil) could already reach the required number.

And even countries which don’t ratify this crime will still be restricted by it.  They will no longer be able to operate ecocidal businesses in countries which have ratified, and their nationals can be arrested and prosecuted in those countries.  This is how the Chilean dictator Pinochet was arrested in the UK for Crimes against Humanity back home in Chile.  Just having the crime on the Statute makes this possible.

And the best thing about doing this at the international level is that it is much lower political risk than trying to pass ecocide laws country by country.  We’ve already seen in France that individual states are reluctant to be the first to adopt, it feels too economically risky, but at the international level, by definition a large number are required to take it forward.  This creates political safety in numbers.  It also creates the opportunity to be seen to lead on something everyone already knows, in their hearts, is needed.  Those states who take this forward are going to be the heroes of tomorrow’s history classes.

We are already working with researchers, international criminal lawyers and small nation states, but governments across the world also need to understand ecocide law as a public demand, and an essential practical step to a liveable world.  This comes from expanding the global conversation and mobilising civil support.  This is why we advocate at both the international diplomatic level and in our public-facing campaign, which anybody can join at StopEcocide.earth. 

And now, in the space created by the covid-19 pandemic, there is a real opportunity for putting this law on the global roadmap.

So – it’s simple. It’s powerful.  It’s possible.  And it’s inevitable if we are to transition to a sustainable world.

If we can change the ground rules to prevent serious harm to the Earth, we have a genuine chance for that world to emerge.

A mother's thoughts

In the UK this Sunday, it’s Mother’s Day.  And I’m a mother. 

At some point I guess we all ask ourselves why we’re here, and we probably all find different answers.  But I’m going to hazard a guess that in the moment we become mothers, as our mothers did, there’s one answer to that question that kind of appears by itself and instantly takes precedence: we’re here to nourish and protect our children. 

It’s the strongest biological urge and the deepest, most visceral emotional drive, and we share it with most living creatures.  It’s what we’ll run into a burning house for. 

Which is pretty much what we’re all having to do right now, because, as young climate activist Greta Thunberg keeps pointing out, our collective house IS on fire.  Things feel pretty apocalyptic.  In the last 12 months we’ve had devastating fires in Australia, in the Amazon, in Africa.  Floods in Indonesia.  Plagues of billions of locusts in East Africa – it’s kind of biblical in scale.  And now coronavirus, overwhelming the healthcare services in multiple countries and turning us inward on ourselves in an attempt to slow down the need for emergency care. 

Being on lockdown means we’re conscious of being mothers all the time – with kids at home all day every day… and conscious of our own mothers too, with many of them being among the most vulnerable to this illness.  We may be having to support them more and yet keep away from them at the same time, a new and strange kind of caring to be engaging in.

I work from home, so at present my inconvenience is limited to my kids refusing to go to bed and behaving like we’re on holiday (except with added handwashing).  But if you have a workplace to go to, and especially if you’re a single mum, it’s very different.  School may well provide you with the ability to work in the first place.  And that doesn’t begin to approach the crisis this sickness may be producing in less wealthy countries.

But even here in the affluent UK, it begs a really big question for me, about what we’re here for, about what, as mothers, we want for our children.  About what makes life worth living, and about the difference between surviving and thriving.  Are my children in school to train to get a job, as our society seems to dictate?  A job that in many cases perpetuates the culture that keeps us consuming and poisoning the seas and the skies? 

Research shows that people on their deathbeds regret two things the most: not enough time with loved ones, and not enough time spent in nature.  Research also shows that communities that live the longest and stay the healthiest do lots of both. 

I find it hard to believe that with humanity’s level of sophistication, knowledge and ingenuity we can’t enable everyone to do this.  Just in my own country – the UK, one of the world’s wealthiest economies – there are completely unacceptable levels of poverty and loneliness.  We have a lower proportion of old-growth forest left than most if not all countries in Europe, our wildlife is dwindling at a startling rate and our government fails miserably to keep air pollution below basic safety levels.  It’s bewildering.  I keep coming back to the sense that there are dots that just aren’t getting joined.  I think it’s that same sense of disconnect that brought so many people onto the streets over the last year, with the climate strikes and Extinction Rebellion.  There’s a feeling that the whole crazy show doesn’t make sense.

Sometimes it takes a child’s understanding to highlight this.  Seven years ago my daughter overheard me talking about fracking, a way of extracting oil and gas using highly toxic fluids injected into the ground.  She burst into floods of tears.  “But mummy, if they are poisoning the Earth don’t they realise they are going to be poisoning themselves too?  You have to call them and tell them to stop!”  I remember thinking “my five-year-old can understand that this is insane.  How can this be happening?” 

A friend once asked me “if you were Prime Minister, what single policy would you bring in tomorrow?”  And I have to say I was torn between two things.

One I saw as a supportive policy: universal basic income.  I personally believe that one of the key reasons so many feel disempowered is that they are so darn busy working to put bread on the table (so that their kids can grow up to do the same, trapped by debt and running to stand still) that they’ve no energy left to pursue what they really care about or challenge the ‘norms’ that are already producing record levels of anxiety.  A basic or citizen’s income could meaningfully address that, and now could be the perfect time to try out such a policy.  It could provide a much needed safety net for working mums and others in similar situations, and could also free up time and energy for community interaction, resilience and catalysing change… and that is going to be so important in the unstable world our children are facing.

The other policy I thought about was the one I now work full-time on, which is this: making it a crime to destroy nature.  Because right now it isn’t.  So that’s what our campaign, Stop Ecocide, focuses on. 

Making ecocide – or serious harm to nature – a crime is like a kind of safeguarding policy for life on Earth.  We believe it should be a baseline rule, like the crime of murder.  It’s simple: when destroying ecosystems is prohibited, the Earth’s ability to sustain and generate life is protected.  It feels like stating the obvious, but we seem to have forgotten that nature is generative – that “she” is, in the most literal sense, the mother of all life, as so many indigenous cultures understand so well.

As one mother to another, but even more as one child to another (after all we may not all have children but we all have mothers), I’m inviting you to support this law to protect the Earth.  When we protect her, we are doing the best mothering of all, because we’re protecting all of life – and the future of all our children. 

Stop Ecocide web site: www.stopecocide.earth

Guest blog post by Shirleen Chin

Original version of the article published in CAMBIO 16 Magazine, dated March 2020.

"Protect what you love. I love humanity and the earth on which I live... I wish more could see how these two are inextricably intertwined." 

THE MISSING CRIME  

All Fired Up
Picture this: you’re standing in an open field watching helplessly as a massive inferno engulfs hectares of hard-toiled farmland, generationally used to grow lemons and avocados. Ever- increasing global temperatures, lack of rainfall and parched vegetation over the years have concocted the perfect recipe for a tragic Southern Californian roast. This was the reality experienced by several families in December 2017, when the wildfire named Thomas Fire blazed, through the region that winter. To put it in perspective, the fire brought destruction to a land area equal to the size of 213,000 football fields, the entirety of Hong Kong.

That Woman
As the West Coast went up in flames, across the United States on the East Coast, 4,500km away, on the Eastern Coast of the United States, a distinguished silver-haired lady, unpacked four curved tubes from her luggage and clicked them into place. She then reached into her hand-carry for something else: a fine bottle of Scotch whisky. After pouring herself and her host a glass, she took a sip and twirled the hula hoop, that she had just assembled, and began chatting like nothing she had just done was out of the ordinary. Her name was Polly Higgins. She had just arrived in wintery New York City for the 16th Session of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) of the International Criminal Court scheduled for the following week at the United Nations’ headquarters. It was not Polly’s first time attending the ASP or any other major conference where the rule of law and environmental justice were topics to be discussed. Unbeknown at the time, her two weeks in New York City would yield another let-down. The political red tape and appetite she encountered to further her campaign would prove to be a sticky barrier. Ten years ago, Polly abandoned her lucrative career in London as a rising barrister to start a campaign on ecocide crime. While many would see such a switch as a big leap of faith into the risky unknown, she saw it as a necessary response, no different from wanting to rescue a drowning victim or a person trapped in a burning home. Polly’s first-hand knowledge of the basic, legal protections provided even to the worst of criminals, led her to wonder how the Earth, as a victim of unsustainable human activity, could similarly be protected. To her, the answer was simple: introduce the missing crime of Ecocide; to do no harm. Polly sold her house and used the proceeds to initiate the campaign our world continues to need.

Ecocide on Our Doorsteps
The definition submitted by Polly Higgins to the UN Law Commission in 2010 describes ecocide as the serious loss, damage to, or destruction of, the environment to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants in that territory is severely diminished. One year after the 2017’s Thomas Fire described above, wildfires erupted again in South California, called the Woolsey Fire. This time the fires primarily affected luxury houses of residents living in Malibu and to the north, including the homes of Hollywood celebrities like the Kardashians, Lady Gaga and Orlando Bloom. Fast forward to late 2019, the continent of Australia is similarly hit by wildfires described by many as apocalyptic. To date, over 1 billion animals in Australia have perished, even more injured, nearly 30 people have been killed and a land area the size of 18,200,000 football fields or the entire country of Portugal – and the fire is still not over.

Falling Off the Tipping Point
The planet is facing extreme, often violent weather events, extinction of numerous species at an alarming rate, increasing rates of acidification in our oceans and rising sea-level, to name a few. Extreme hot and cold temperatures have been observed globally. The city of Paris sweltered in 45 degrees heat last year causing a need to create “cool rooms” to avoid repeating traumas like that of the 2003 heatwave that killed 15,000 people in the country. More and more places are exposed to either too much rain or too little water. In the South of Spain, as temperatures soar and rainfalls diminish, winemakers will find it difficult to grow grapes. In the future, atypical places like Scandinavia and Siberia may just replace traditional wine regions like Spain. In Kerala, India, erratic weather patterns brought disastrous floods killing more than four hundred people in 2018. Every year for the past seven years has been the hottest on record. In Iraq, as 50 degrees is now becoming the new norm during the summer, the wealthy few turn to air-conditioning to cool down while the poor struggle to afford generators for air-conditioning. A United Nations report released by UN Special Rapporteur Professor Philip Alston describes this scenario as “climate apartheid”.

A Drowning Reality
According to the World Meteorology Organisation, global average temperatures are on track to increase between 3 to 5 degrees by the end of the century. The last time there was this much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans did not walk the planet. In the Pacific region, sea level is projected to go as high as 0.8 metres by year 2100. Solomon Islands, a sovereign state with six major islands and hundreds of smaller islands have lost five islands over the years and is at risk of losing six more, with one of the six home to 25 family units. Oceans are warming 40% faster than the United Nation’s prediction of just six years ago. Those whose livelihoods depend on fishing are affected by the migration of fish to cooler areas. Tuvalu, the fourth smallest country in the world, is not only threatened by sea level rise but also by diminishing fish resources.

All Talk and No Show
For almost three decades, the United Nations has served as a platform for climate talks. The United Nations Climate Change Conference or the Conference of the Parties (COP) are held every year, since 1992, with a view to encourage countries to commit to ever-ambitious emissions reduction. Many critics have said that this is only a ‘dog and pony show’ because the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has only gone one way and that is up.

A Little State in the South Pacific
It came as no surprise that Polly was approached by Vanuatu, who was reaching out based on their established policy on climate change. Vanuatu is a small island developing state in the South Pacific. With one of the smallest GDP in the world, its annual share of the world’s CO2 emissions is negligible and by that, I mean, 0.00%. Vanuatu, like its neighbouring countries in the Pacific, has been on the frontlines of climate change. When category 5 Cyclone Pam tore through the region in 2015, it wiped out more than 60% of its GDP, a GDP that is heavily reliant on agriculture and tourism.

The Duty of Care
With a focus on international criminal justice, Polly’s campaign aimed at the use of international criminal law as a strong deterrent against ecocidal practices. This is because there is currently neither legally binding international response nor any duty of care for the planet. In other words, where there is no crime, no punishment can be imposed. Introducing the crime of ecocide obliges governments, companies and individuals to think twice about continuing business as usual – dirty business that has brought about more frequent, intense and erratic climate events. Compared to “soft law” instruments, like the Paris Agreement, the crime of ecocide will actually signal a zero-tolerance policy towards harmful behaviour. The seat of the International Criminal Court is located in The Hague, the Netherlands. Its governing document is called the Rome Statute. The four widely recognised serious international crimes contained within the Rome Statute are genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression. Blatantly missing from this list, is ecocide, a crime that determines the survival of our planet and its inhabitants.

Spin Doctors
There are volumes of scientific climate data to demonstrate that climate change is real. Yet, carbon major countries and companies choose to undermine its alarming calls. In fact, carbon major companies have known about the severe and negative impacts of extracting what they call “black gold” since the 1970s. They have chosen to go the path taken by the tobacco industry by spinning tales to mislead, confuse and manipulate public opinion. Equally perpetuating ecocidal practices are the other extractive and polluting industries such as mining, logging and waste management companies. Where regulation or the rule of law is weak, as often is the case in the countries where these companies operate, years of unsustainable and unaccounted practices have brought irreversible damage to the environment and the helpless communities. Often, government officials are complicit in the damaging acts.

Power to the Little Ones
The International Criminal Court offers a lifeline, unlike no other, to those who have suffered in the hands of unscrupulous practices that harm the environment. At present, there are 123 countries who are members (called states parties) of the court. It only takes one state to table a proposal to include ecocide crime into the Rome Statute. Unlike other international voting procedures, such as the UN where the Security Council has veto power, or the European Council where voting is based on population size, each ICC state party has one vote irrespective of political power or size. Once a simple majority (sixty-three countries) agrees to consider the proposal, all it takes is a two-thirds majority or eighty-two states parties to make ecocide law. It is important to note that there are fifty-seven small island developing states worldwide. There are certainly other states who would consider such a proposal. Given the urgency of the climate crisis, the motivation to explore this legal avenue should be of utmost priority to all island nations and countries whose (capital) cities are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The inclusion of ecocide crime in the Rome Statute will signal the much-needed zero-tolerance towards harmful behaviour and galvanise genuine action towards net zero carbon emissions.

No More Dilly-Dally!
The planet has become warmer since industrialisation began in 1750 and human activity is threatening to push mankind into a point of no return. The earth has warmed by 1 degree, with two-thirds of this happening at breakneck speed since 1975. The acceptable limit for a climate- safe future for human and nature is 1.5 degrees. In order to achieve this, emissions must be cut by half by 2030 and be reduced to net zero by 2050. Carbon capture or carbon drawdown technology is available and has become cheaper over the years. Planting trees or rehabilitating wetlands can be easily done to sequester the carbon dioxide in the air. Consumption patterns are slowly changing in some parts of the world as sustainable awareness grows each day. There is hardly any excuse to avoid carbon reversal actions at the individual or governmental level. The UN Secretary General is appealing for countries worldwide to stop the building of new coal plants, transition to 100% renewables and end all subsidies for fossil fuels. After all, a greener economy is not just good for all, it holds immense economic opportunities for businesses. It is time to leave the old world behind. Investors are now seeing the risks and faults in the extractive industries and are divesting. Consumers are also demanding better.

“If this is what it takes...”
Sadly, Polly passed away last April, five weeks after unexpectedly being diagnosed with terminal cancer. It was a sudden and tragic loss to her family, friends, the communities she inspired and of course, Mother Earth. She still had so many plans for her campaign. In her words, almost like a premonition, “if this is what it takes” to draw attention to the need for ecocide law, Polly passing away may just be the trigger the world needs. With bad comes the good and vice versa. The rise of grassroots movements like Extinction Rebellion and the introduction to Greta Thunberg happened simultaneously with some of the most tweeted environmental tragedies on social media and poor political leadership – just see what Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro had to say about the Amazon fires.

In December 2019, at the 18th Session of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Vanuatu and Maldives both called the International Criminal Court to consider introducing the crime of ecocide.

Indigenous communities in Brazil are rallying to call for the protection of the Amazon from President Bolsonaro. France’s President, Emmanuel Macron, has openly declared that the crime of ecocide will work more effectively if adopted at international level. His government is already considering inclusion of ecocide into national law.
The world is finally becoming more aware of the importance of having ecocide law in place.

Polly’s non-profit organisation, Ecological Defence Integrity, continues her work at the diplomatic and legal as well at grassroot levels to bring about the acknowledgement, advancement and inclusion of ecocide crime at the international level. ‘Polly left behind a spark and her team is already busy fanning the fire– as a figure of speech of course.’

In loving memory of Earth’s lawyer/guardian angel, co-Founder of Ecological Defence Integrity (EDI), Polly Higgins, 1968 – 2019

Original version of the article published in CAMBIO 16 Magazine, dated March 2020.

The magazine can be purchased via this link HERE

EDI's public-facing campaign Stop Ecocide has already got a branch in Spain: go to www.ProtectoresdelaTierra.org. Supporters declare themselves Earth Protectors and contribute to a globally validated Trust Fund which is ring-fenced to support the diplomatic/legal work.

COP25

Guest Blog by Maité Mompó our Spanish Campaign Manager

COP25, the last Summit on Climate organized by United Nations and which finally took place in December 2019, in Madrid (after being previously rejected from both Brazilian and Chilean presidents). The official result is more than disappointing.
The whole city and the COP buildings were full of posters with “Time to act” messages welcoming the so-called “The Ambitious Summit”- as it was supposed that finally ambitious commitments on reduction of CO2 emissions were going to be reached by the countries to settle the insufficient Paris Agreement.

However, the only real winners there were, once more, the corporations (mainly the ones from fossil industry) that imposed their economic benefits over Life. Even if there was a growing group of countries asking for Climate Justice and effective action inside the COP, even if outside the social society mobilized everyday in the same way – topping the rising massive protests along this year, the defenders of the planet were not listened to.
While country representatives spent hours and hours debating around the article 6 of Paris Agreement which establish a “carbon trade scheme” which threatens Indigenous Peoples rights and puts a price on nature, the demands of civil society and scientists on real action to cope with the global climate emergency were held on last place.

The most interesting part of the COP was taking place in the Complutense University where the Social Summit for Climate had been organized by volunteers who did an amazing job and where over 200 organizations held meetings and came together creating bonds between the indigenous peoples and the social movements to work on cooperation strategies to build a new society.

Above RIGHT: Berta Caceres daughter of Laura Zúñiga Cáceres)

The Earth Protectors movement attended the Social Summit and Spanish and Portuguese protectors worked together to get our campaign Stop Ecocide heard everywhere. We started with a presentation-debate on Ecocide on Saturday 7th, twice delivered the message of the vital importance of getting the Ecocide Law UK LINK / ES LINK at international level and shared information about Conscientious Protectors UK LINK / ES LINK to help the ones who take peaceful action for climate, in the daily Social Summit General Assembly at the end of the day.

We also made contacts with other movements different movements of indigenous peoples, environmental activists and NGOs – both local and international – and the young people from Fridays For Future. Earth Protectors attended a protest in front of the Canadian Embassy to support Native American tribes who are opposing tar sands and the huge pipes to take that dirty oil to the United States as the whole thing is one of the largest ecocides of our time – it was impossible to stop tears running down listening to how these projects are affecting their communities.
We also spent some time at the Green Zone of COP25 (the area allowed to social society) delivering information about our campaign and took part in some of the protests there joining Extinction Rebellion people.

What these representatives of governments are doing with their empty words and total lack of action at this crucial moment of dealing with climate is to move forward the biggest of the crimes: the Climate Ecocide which would affect not only to all humanity but also to all the living beings in our planet.

The last COP has been a failure – as the previous 24 were – but there has been something positive: the verification of the fact that a constantly growing part of global society is joining together to stand up and denounce those who are constantly failing the demands of scientist community on the urgency to act.

Pause Frack: cautious celebration and Conscientious Protectors

Authors: Jojo Mehta & Louise Somerville

There is no doubt that the recently announced official fracking moratorium “until the science changes” (Andrea Leadsom, business minister) is a serious blow to commercial gas and oil fracking in the UK.

It will make it very hard for potential fracking companies to attract and sustain financial investment. 

From the first earth tremors in Blackpool in 2011 to the 2.9 quake this summer which halted fracking in Lancashire, there has been strong and effective local and national campaigning and there is absolutely cause to celebrate this as a victory for the grassroots anti-fracking movement.

However, anti-fracking campaigners are not complacent. Campaigns will continue, nationwide – it has been made clear that the moratorium is temporary, and the timing – to coincide with the launch of the Conservative election campaign – is likely to be cynically chosen.

The movement has particular significance for the Stop Ecocide campaign because the first flurry of people signing up as Earth Protectors were anti-fracking campaigners. Stop Ecocide compiled a fracking “harms dossier” which was, and still is, available for use as part of their legal defence in court, and it was the cases brought by these activists that demonstrated the power of the Conscientious Protector approach (relying on the human right to Freedom of Conscience, ECHR art. 9, UDHR art. 18).

Helen Chuntso from Frack Free Greater Manchester was the among the first Conscientious Protectors to use the Freedom of Conscience line of argument in court. She did so in the context of fracking - to striking effect – indeed she was told by the judge that in a parallel life she could have been the brightest barrister of her generation!  Other defendants were likewise given unusual leeway to express their convictions and bring their evidence in situations where a criminal court would often restrict evidence to whether or not the precise offence (eg obstruction of the highway) took place.

This approach is not about “winning” or “getting off” – and for that reason is often dismissed by lawyers trained to use established defences to achieve exactly that.  Rather it’s about inserting a wedge into the court procedure to enable the activist’s voice to be heard, and we have found it to be effective (when used along with for example a defence of necessity) in doing this. 

Legal rights and legal defences do not spring into being of their own accord – and they do not spring into being at all if they are not attempted or discussed. Conscientious Objectors of the 20th century won the human right to Freedom of Conscience over decades.  Now arguments of conscience are beginning to surface more and more frequently, and we trust it will not be long before Conscientious Protectors also gain recognition in law.  Just this week Angela Ditchfield, an XR activist was acquitted on the basis of necessity, which she argued alongside the Christian convictions that spurred her conscience.

Signing up as an Earth Protector can similarly evidence a deeply held belief justifying an act of conscience – a belief that all of nature has the right to peaceful enjoyment and that severe disruption of that natural unfolding of life should be a crime.

Ecocide law is not about diet but about mass destruction of ecosystems

Jojo Mehta, co-founder of Stop Ecocide, addresses the confusion around ecocide and veganism.

Some recent media coverage has implied that making ecocide a crime would automatically criminalize eating meat. This is not the case.

Ecocide law is about protecting natural living systems, which is to say the natural playing out of the interaction of ecosystems and their inhabitants, of all species. This includes the predator-prey relationship throughout the natural world. Nobody would try and stop the lion hunting the antelope, for example, or the bird catching the worm, and there are many indigenous cultures where living in harmony with the natural world includes the deeply respectful hunting or raising of animals for food. Many small mixed farms in the developed world also retain this deep respect and care for the animals they raise and the land they farm.

Ecocide crime is rather aimed at any industrial practice, from fossil fuel extraction to deep sea overfishing, which causes mass damage or destruction to these natural living systems, and there is no doubt that industrial farming will be affected by this law, as indeed it should be.  Ecocide could undoubtedly refer to damage caused by large-scale meat farming (deforestation, pollution, animal cruelty) - but equally to that caused by large-scale mono-crop farming (deforestation again, depletion of topsoils, collapse of insect populations). Of course, meat farming often involves both kinds of destruction (due to growing of feed crops), but going vegan is not a solution to ecocide in and of itself.  When farming neither respects the land nor the animals, nor the natural balance of living systems, that is when ecocide arises - it is ultimately about the "how" not the "what"...

We would of course strongly urge all of us to investigate the provenance and production methods of what we eat, so as to understand whether it encourages ecocidal practices, and to make choices accordingly. For many, that may well mean eating considerably less meat. We also respect that vegans may have beliefs leading to a plant-based diet irrespective of farming methods.

However we believe that legislating to protect nature - and our place in it - is ultimately far more practical than legislating for specific isolated issues. Indeed our failure to effectively do this has brought us to the current crisis point. Quite apart from the range of current destructive practices the law will address, we do not know what ecocidal practices may be in development now or be dreamed up in the future, whether in plant crop cultivation or indeed any other arena. Outlawing mass damage and destruction by criminalizing ecocide therefore acts as a legal life insurance policy for humanity and the wider Earth community… not as a way of punishing individual consumers or small mixed farmers.  

Bolsonaro and ecocide in the Amazon
- some questions answered

We've received a lot of panicked emails over the last few days from many people asking similar questions... so here are a few answers.

Can the adoption of ecocide law be speeded up?

An amendment to the Rome Statute of the International Court must be proposed by a Head of State more than 3 months prior to the Assembly of States Parties in December making next year (2020) the earliest possible opportunity to do this. We are well aware that the time is ripe.

Can you prosecute Bolsonaro at the International Criminal Court (ICC)?

We can't, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, (unlike in civil litigation) individuals and organisations don't prosecute crimes, states do - or in this case the international community via the ICC, which must have a detailed communication submitted for preliminary examination in order to commence the process. This is not something that can be put together overnight.

Secondly, although we absolutely support the broadening of existing law to include ecological and climate concerns, we are not a practising law firm but a legally focussed non-profit campaign, working to practically progress the adoption of future law. Our mission is ultimately a diplomatic one and we do not take on specific cases or represent clients in court.

The Amazon situation highlights that ecocide is MISSING from the list of prosecutable offences at the ICC. It's why our organisation exists, and why the ICC is at present powerless (with some wartime exceptions) to directly prosecute ecological destruction, however massive.

But what about Crimes Against Humanity?

We are aware that there are possibilities for including environmental crimes under some existing provisions of Crimes Against Humanity and we are conducting studies to examine this, but we are not in an evidential position to apply it to Bolsonaro ourselves (see also previous answer). Others may be.

Why are your social media feeds sharing news about Brazil but not about other fires/ecocides happening all over the world?

We are acutely aware that the Amazon is not the only place in the world suffering ecocide or indeed forest fires. We could spend all day every day sharing terrible ecocidal stories, but others can (and do) cover this. We are sharing pieces about the Amazon because of what is new, which is that headlines are specifically using the word "ecocide" to describe what is happening in conjunction with the need to legally address it... even used with that implication by the French president last week.

This is highly significant for our campaign because we are interested in having that particular conversation amplified, for obvious reasons. Our campaign is all about helping people understand that ecocide must be made a crime, and so discourse where this conjunction of concepts is emerging at head-of-state level is particularly relevant and useful.

Media article: France's Macron says real 'ecocide' going on in Amazon

Stop Ecocide & Extinction Rebellion - what's the connection?

The campaign supporting #EcocideLaw originates in pioneering lawyer #PollyHiggins' work in 2010-11.

The present crowdfunding campaign - now known as Stop Ecocide - was co-founded in 2017 by lawyer Polly Higgins and activist Jojo Mehta, both good friends of Gail Bradbrook, Simon Bramwell and other Stroud-based co-founders of Extinction Rebellion (XR).

Jojo and Gail were arrested together in 2017 at a local incinerator blockade; Gail was one of Stop Ecocide's first signed-up Earth Protectors; Polly directly assisted XR with legal advice at its inception.

So there are intertwined lives, principles and friendships going back a long time, as Gail outlines here:

We are two separate organisations, but highly complementary.
XR has done and is doing an incredible job of raising the alarm on climate and ecological emergency. Now (at last!) people seem ready to hear the solution - the simple solution which Polly championed for a decade until her death and which Jojo and the expanding team at Stop Ecocide continue to take forward: the CRIMINALISATION of ECOCIDE.

Only when destroying the natural world is understood to be a CRIME as morally abhorrent as killing a person, can we really hope to protect the Earth for future generations of ALL species - including our own. The Earth's body IS our body. With her we thrive, without her we perish.
Indigenous wisdom the world over knows this, but the "first world" has forgotten.

Climate negotiation, ambition, mitigation, litigation cannot hope to stop the harm any more than beating or suffocating an abused woman a little less - or paying her for her bruises - can make her well.
Only by STOPPING THE ABUSE can she begin to recover...

In the past, major freedoms (abolition of slavery, women's votes, civil rights, the list goes on) have always been won with a combination of strong GRASSROOTS MOVEMENTS and specific LEGAL CHANGES.

We see our work as the legal counterpart to the mobilisation of XR and the global Youth Strikes inspired by Greta Thunberg... and while Earth Protectors (contributors to our campaign) may not all wish to blockade the streets, we believe that every XR activist and every Youth Striker - and all those who sympathise with them - WILL want to support a law of #ECOCIDE.

It's a simple re-alignment of human law with a higher moral code:
FIRST DO NO HARM.

All it takes is 2 minutes and a fiver... to support a law that is actually CAPABLE OF ADDRESSING the crisis we're in. Join us.

PS - if you are signing up as an activist you also gain primary evidence that you’re taking peaceful action to prevent harm not cause it - proof that you’re a Conscientious Protector. See video below.

And if £5 is difficult for you, don't worry!
You can still support by signing and sharing the petitions.

Stop Ecocide co-founder Jojo Mehta comments on the UK government’s problem of perception

The UK government just responded to our petition calling for ecocide to be recognised as a criminal offence in the UK - and the response was sadly inadequate to the ecological crisis we face: “The Government neither recognises the term ‘ecocide’ nor does it intend the suggested concept a criminal offence. There are already strong regulations in place...”

Such regulations are inadequately enforced and the enforcement agencies woefully underfunded, but the problem actually runs far deeper than lack of enforcement of existing environmental regulations. It's about the inability to understand how intimately not only our health but our survival is linked with a thriving natural world. If environmental regulation was enough we wouldn't be in the mess we're in.

Stopping the harm is not about enforcing the rules, it's about changing the rules, at such a fundamental level that it is about morals and survival. This is the arena of CRIMINAL law. Murder is a crime because we recognise that killing another human being is unacceptable on a moral level and because it protects human life. Ecocide should likewise be a crime because large-scale destruction of nature is not only morally unacceptable but unless we protect ALL life, we cannot protect human life for very much longer, as climate and ecological science are telling us very clearly.

As a very simple example, you wouldn't sit down with a business idea and try to work out how not to kill or seriously harm anybody doing it. There is already an underlying assumption that those are things that have to be avoided and so you don't even contemplate a business based on them. With environmental harm, we go to the government and get permits for it. Can you imagine saying to a government minister "may I have a permit for my new business? it may well involve beating people up on a regular basis and we may kill a number of people in the course of business but it will be great for job creation..."

And yet you can get a permit for fracking. You can get a permit to rig up a 5G communications system which includes chopping down trees wherever you like. You can get a permit to burn any old waste in one big incinerator and create load of brand new dangerous toxins in the process. I'm not even sure you need a permit to put pesticides on your land that destroy whole complex soil ecosystems.

This is how deeply the disconnect is embedded. That is why people are talking climate negotiations and green new deals and ambition and mitigation and litigation. It's all mopping the floor with the tap still running - but perhaps more graphically, it's like arguing over where and how often you can hit a woman without the damage actually preventing her from feeding her children... and how much you have to pay her children if you do. It's BONKERS. "Let's try a bit harder not to suffocate this woman…" Really?!?!? How are we even having this discussion?

That's the level at which we need to be talking. If we get 100,000 signatures on our petition, perhaps we can begin that conversation in parliament.