Guilty or not guilty?  The audience judges on ecocide in fictional trial 

On the 18^th and 19^th of June, the theatre performance ‘THIS IS NOT A TRIAL’ took place at the ZIMIHC theatre in Utrecht. In this theatre performance, students took on the lead roles of prosecutors, lawyers and judges. The performance was developed by researchers and the aforementioned students from Utrecht University, as part of the interdisciplinary project Conceptualising Ecocide in collaboration with IUCN NL, EcoJustice (formerly known as Stop Ecocide NL), the Indonesian organisation ALTo, artists and actors.  

Header photo: The trial of possible ecocide in Sulawesi is being heard in performance © Bart Weerdenburg 

A complex transition 

In a sold-out show, the students presented a powerful and well-received performance that focused on the bill on ecocide (tabled by the Party for the Animals in 2023) and the complexity of the energy transition. While the energy transition is necessary to reduce CO2 emissions, the mining required for raw materials such as nickel – essential for that same transition – leads to large-scale deforestation, destruction of biodiversity and degradation of a healthy environment. 

On trial was the Dutch multinational Smith Refineries N.V. and its CEO. They are being sued for the large-scale destruction of an Indonesian ecosystem where nickel and other earth metals are mined by their subsidiary, an Indonesian mining company. 

Dedicated portrayal of an urgent story 

With short artistic contributions, actors, artists and a poet gave depth to the diverse themes within the energy transition. One of the scenes gave voice to the consumer: someone who believes they are acting sustainably by buying an electric car, but is largely unaware of the ecological damage that this can cause. 

At the same time, the performers drew a sharp parallel between colonialism at the time of the Dutch East India Company (VOC) and the way multinationals today exploit natural resources for their own gain. The dilemmas faced by the Indonesian people – potential employment versus serious pollution of their environment – were addressed through interviews with members of communities near the nickel mines on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi. The Alliance for Tompotika Conservation (ALTo) played a key role in this, thanks to the trust it has earned within the community. This trust enabled residents to speak openly about their dilemmas and their deep, spiritual connection to nature.  

Guilty or not guilty? 

The audience was ultimately allowed to judge for themselves whether the CEO and/or the mining company were guilty of ecocide. A short survey allowed visitors to give their opinion or indicate their doubts. The results were shared at a panel discussion on the 26^th of June in the presence of audience members who had previously attended the theatre performance. The survey is part of a study by Tina Venema (assistant professor at the Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development) that will be published in due course.  

The complexity of the subject matter was reflected in the survey results. More than half of the respondents expressed doubts as to whether the CEO was guilty of ecocide, and did not express a definitive opinion. Of those who did have an opinion, a large majority were in favour of conviction. The public was slightly more outspoken about Smith Refineries: almost half expressed doubt, but among those respondents who did express an opinion, a clear majority found the company guilty of ecocide. 

From awareness to change 

The performance proved to be a powerful tool to start the conversation about the impact of the energy transition on nature and local communities. It also addressed the question of what role ecocide legislation can play in addressing these impacts. Moreover, the audience was confronted with their own position as consumers. The survey showed that this awareness was indeed present: one-third of participants said they saw themselves as indirectly responsible for the destruction of nature.   

‘It is important that this conversation takes place, and that the public both sees and experiences its own role in it. Legislation alone is not enough to prevent ecocide. Ultimately, society must take a stand and affirm that ecocide is not acceptable – only then will companies adjust their practices,’ Sprenger believes.  

• Read more about the performance and the ruling 

Bottom Line!