Speaker 1: Last year's Conference of the Parties, the UN's annual Climate Summit,
Speaker 1: where global leaders come together to commit to certain actions
Speaker 1: required to tackle the climate crisis, was held in the
Speaker 1: United Arab Emirates, one of the world's major oil producers.
Speaker 1: It was presided over by the president of the country's
Speaker 1: national oil company. There were many many stories about the
Speaker 1: obvious conflicts of interest there, including stories that rent on
Speaker 1: our website at drilled Dot Media. But another issue that
Speaker 1: came up, which had come up the year before in
Speaker 1: Egypt as well, was the limited role that climate activists
Speaker 1: were allowed to play at this COP As they were
Speaker 1: in Egypt, protesters at last year's COP were cordoned off
Speaker 1: to a special designated area, far away from anyone who
Speaker 1: might be bothered by them. One young protester managed to
Speaker 1: bust into the main proceedings and make a bit of
Speaker 1: a fuss, but otherwise protesters were largely unseen. This year's
Speaker 1: COP will be in another oil state, Azerbaijan. Again, the
Speaker 1: country's national oil company will be deeply involved, and again
Speaker 1: protesters are likely not to be tolerated, which begs the
Speaker 1: question should protection of protest itself be a topic at COP?
Speaker 1: Can we get real climate action absent real democracy. With
Speaker 1: all of that going on, it seemed like a good
Speaker 1: time to bring you this interview that our reporter in France,
Speaker 1: Anna Pugel Mazzini did with Michel Forced, the world's first
Speaker 1: UN special rapperture on environmental defenders. It's good timing because
Speaker 1: Forced released today a scathing report on what he's seeing
Speaker 1: happen in the UK. If you missed our episode on that,
Speaker 1: it came out last week, go and listen to it.
Speaker 1: The UK has moved really quickly to suppress protest and
Speaker 1: even to suppress what protesters are allowed to say in
Speaker 1: their own defense in court. Forced is not having it.
Speaker 1: We'll link to that report in the show notes. The
Speaker 1: position was created under something called the Our host Convention.
Speaker 1: It's called that because it was adopted in the Danish
Speaker 1: city of Our Hosts. Its official title is the UN
Speaker 1: Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making
Speaker 1: and Access to Justice and Environmental Matters. It falls under
Speaker 1: the United Nations Economic Convention for Europe and it's been
Speaker 1: ratified by forty eight states, including the European Union. As
Speaker 1: you'll hear in this interview, Force points out that because
Speaker 1: it's a convention. There are actual teeth to it, which
Speaker 1: makes things kind of interesting. Specifically, this new position of
Speaker 1: his and the convention that supports it creates a pathway
Speaker 1: for citizens to voice issues that they have with a
Speaker 1: development that will affect them. It also requires that they
Speaker 1: be informed about those developments. So whether it's a building project,
Speaker 1: a mine, oil drilling, really anything that will materially impact
Speaker 1: their environment, they need to be informed about it and
Speaker 1: they need to be able to express their opinions on it.
Speaker 1: It also says that it's not enough for people to
Speaker 1: be able to voice their displeasure with a particular project,
Speaker 1: they also need to have a legal pathway to do
Speaker 1: something about it. In this interview, Anna asked Force how
Speaker 1: that commitment jives with the increased repression of climate protests
Speaker 1: that we've been seeing around Europe, what he and his
Speaker 1: office might be able to do about that repression, and
Speaker 1: how he thinks cop should address the rights of environmental activists.
Speaker 1: They got into all that and a lot more. I
Speaker 1: think you're going to enjoy this conversation. I'm Ami Westerville
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Drilled. After the break, Reporter Anna
Speaker 1: Poujol Mazzini in conversation with Michelle Forced stay with us.
Speaker 2: Hello, Michelle, First, thank you so much for taking the
Speaker 2: time for this interview. So could you start by introducing
Speaker 2: yourself and telling me a bit more about your role
Speaker 2: as special Rapture.
Speaker 3: Yes, so thank you for the invitation. As you know,
Speaker 3: I've been recently appointed to a due more data which
Speaker 3: has been created by steps that are party to the
Speaker 3: Orus Convention, which is a very interesting convention ratified by
Speaker 3: forty eight states including THEU, based on three pillars. The
Speaker 3: first success to information, meaning that in any country which
Speaker 3: is part of the convention, when there is a project
Speaker 3: that would affect the environment, then those who might be
Speaker 3: affected should be a informed by the state in any
Speaker 3: language that is accessible to the public. The second pillar,
Speaker 3: which is complimentary to the first, is the obligation for
Speaker 3: states but to also consulted Communities. Families are people who
Speaker 3: are affected by this projector and they would have a
Speaker 3: right to say anything on the project, including the right
Speaker 3: to say no. It doesn't mean that they could block
Speaker 3: the project. At least the would express themselves and say
Speaker 3: that they don't agree with the projector. And the last pillar,
Speaker 3: which is very irrelevant for the time being is access
Speaker 3: to justice, access to environmental justice, meaning that people have
Speaker 3: a writer to go to quote and then to challenge
Speaker 3: any decison made by the state or the company when
Speaker 3: it affects their environment. So the Moundate is mostly directed
Speaker 3: to countries that are multitude the Aras convention. But the
Speaker 3: beauty of the Moundate, if I may say so, is
Speaker 3: that when it's come to companies that operate a broader
Speaker 3: like companies doing extractive industries or anything that ven and
Speaker 3: they have their headquarters in one of the countries which
Speaker 3: is part of to our convention, and operated a broader
Speaker 3: and then do harm to defend us are broader like
Speaker 3: a company based in Madrid working on time oil and
Speaker 3: work in Peru or Columbia and then deforesting, affecting communities
Speaker 3: in these people. Then those defenders could have access to
Speaker 3: my mound data and that they would speak not to
Speaker 3: the data but to the company itself. So we have
Speaker 3: plenty of cases currently coming to the MOUND data from Africa,
Speaker 3: from Alta in America and also from Asia involving companies
Speaker 3: are based in France, in UK, in Switzerland, Norway, other countries.
Speaker 3: So that's very new mandata very interesting and we need
Speaker 3: to promote the mon date because most of the defenders,
Speaker 3: most of the climate activists or environmental defenders don't even
Speaker 3: know that they are defenders and that there are currently
Speaker 3: mechanisms that could support them or defend them when they
Speaker 3: are currently facing threats. And the reason why states have
Speaker 3: decided to create this new mound data is presidesly because
Speaker 3: they see that in many parts of the world, those
Speaker 3: who are the most targeted, the most pressure climate activists.
Speaker 3: And of course you know the data provided by global
Speaker 3: witness and frontline defenders and others, and you see that
Speaker 3: currently it's only the tip of the iceberg.
Speaker 2: So you're the first raperture for the protection of environmental
Speaker 2: defenders and the position was only created last year. But
Speaker 2: as you say, we know that climate and land defenders
Speaker 2: have been criminalized and even killed for decades. So could
Speaker 2: you talk a bit more about what prompted the creation
Speaker 2: of this role at this particular time.
Speaker 3: As I said, precisely because the state's part to the
Speaker 3: convention have been made away on the need to do more.
Speaker 3: So there is a strong component on prevention in my
Speaker 3: mound data and I'm trying to develop with my team
Speaker 3: also with the support of followers and angiosa and you
Speaker 3: measure to prevent those attacks to occur. The difference between
Speaker 3: this mandata and other UN mandata is that while other
Speaker 3: mandates have been created by a resolution adopted by the
Speaker 3: Council in Geneva by the UN Rights Council, this man
Speaker 3: data has been created within the legally binding instrumental the Convention,
Speaker 3: which has huge implications in the mances to come or
Speaker 3: you have to come. The fact that there is a
Speaker 3: mandate created and illegally buying instrumanda as huge implications for stats,
Speaker 3: but so for companies because companies that are currently in
Speaker 3: one of the countries that are partic to the Convention
Speaker 3: also legally binding binded by this by this new human data.
Speaker 2: And so the fact that the mandate is legally binding,
Speaker 2: what does that give you the tools to do to
Speaker 2: protect environmental defenders?
Speaker 3: It gets more more pressure to the man data where
Speaker 3: I'm speaking with ministers traveling two countries, where I'm sending
Speaker 3: allegation letters to countries doing that. Then the fact that
Speaker 3: defenders are being threatened or under attack. Then the fact
Speaker 3: that the mandate is granted legally reinforces the dialogue with
Speaker 3: the state because they know that it does. It may
Speaker 3: have implications like, for instance, if one state would not
Speaker 3: fulfill the recommendations expressed by the mound data, then there
Speaker 3: would be also possibilities for the other parties to the
Speaker 3: convention to request withdrawal from the states from the convention,
Speaker 3: which in terms of international diplomacy have quite a number
Speaker 3: of implications. Could imagine uk on France being expelled from
Speaker 3: one of the most relevant convention on environment that would
Speaker 3: be complicated for them to face things. And similarly, the
Speaker 3: fact that we are currently in Europe adopting new measures
Speaker 3: new legally binding instrument like the Due Diligence arective would
Speaker 3: also have implications for companies that are based in Europe
Speaker 3: instead would have the obligations to oversee the behavior of
Speaker 3: companies proud like lact Totally Nagen France, or companies from
Speaker 3: UK or from other countries Operator and Brew. So it's
Speaker 3: too early now to say, but I'm confident that the
Speaker 3: more we developed together with lawyers the methods of worker
Speaker 3: and we will see the results in aram of states.
Speaker 2: Could you maybe give us an overview on what the
Speaker 2: situation looks like today in the world for environmental defenders
Speaker 2: and how it's evolved in the past years.
Speaker 3: Yes, you know that in the past, I also had
Speaker 3: another more data. I used to be the UN Special
Speaker 3: appoct on defenders, and when I started with this mondate,
Speaker 3: it was in twenty fourteen. I invited hundreds of defenders
Speaker 3: to meet with me in broad consultations in all five continents,
Speaker 3: and I was struck by the fact that the people
Speaker 3: that came to me where the most at weaks were
Speaker 3: precisely environmental defenders. And that's why I decided to develop
Speaker 3: and to present a report in twenty sixteen to the
Speaker 3: UN Rance Council on Environmental Defenders to set to state,
Speaker 3: that's the situation that you are facing, and why is
Speaker 3: it that you don't respond properly to the needs expressed
Speaker 3: by those defenders. You have created mechanism tools to protect them,
Speaker 3: but nonetheless we see that there is an increasing number
Speaker 3: of killings of those defenders. And then states under the
Speaker 3: leadership of Norway decided to adopt a new resolution on
Speaker 3: advantage defenders, which rather a couple of years later, and
Speaker 3: there was a way to pave the way for other
Speaker 3: states and for the you and for the Lifeline project
Speaker 3: to create new tools and modalities to protect advantage unders.
Speaker 3: But nonetheless we see that the situation is quite quite
Speaker 3: complicated so now and that's why having this new MAOUN data,
Speaker 3: I'm trying to do the same, that is to organize constultations.
Speaker 3: But broadly, I would say that the situation has not improved.
Speaker 3: And it's sort of like a battle in which you
Speaker 3: see that the more effective the tools are to protect
Speaker 3: defenders and the more difficult that the situation is becoming
Speaker 3: because states are developed and compared are developing new so
Speaker 3: new new forms of in citius attacks against against enrountered
Speaker 3: defenders and climate activists.
Speaker 2: So when you're talking about the situation getting worse for
Speaker 2: environmental activists and states and other actors developing new tools,
Speaker 2: could you talk a bit more about what that looks like.
Speaker 3: Yes, I mean, if you if you read the reports
Speaker 3: by Global Witness, they would tell you the data of
Speaker 3: killings or attacks against defenders is increasing now, it's not diminishing,
Speaker 3: despite the fact that we have developed new new measures
Speaker 3: and the new forms of attacks in citius attacks have
Speaker 3: been developed by by state using different form of criminalization,
Speaker 3: campaigns of feilification against climate activists and environmental defenders, new
Speaker 3: forms of attacks, using like anti terrorist laws to target
Speaker 3: those who are simply going to the street to protest
Speaker 3: against the inaction of states on climata And that's something
Speaker 3: which unfolt need for works in fact, and you see
Speaker 3: that the reaction of the public to those new forms
Speaker 3: of moradiation is not a big support absolutely.
Speaker 2: I mean, I've heard you talk in other interviews about
Speaker 2: also this sort of battle of narratives and the violence,
Speaker 2: particularly in France that's used by the government and the
Speaker 2: media against environmental activists. So I'm really interested to get
Speaker 2: into that a bit more. What would you say is
Speaker 2: driving this increase in the criminalization of environmental defenders, particularly
Speaker 2: in Europe, which your mandate mostly covers. Are there special
Speaker 2: interest or interest groups lobbying for these changes?
Speaker 3: You know, when I was appointed D two, in fact
Speaker 3: I started October twenty two, I decided to travel to
Speaker 3: EU countriesa just to present them on data, because it's
Speaker 3: not well known and we need to promote the MOUND data.
Speaker 3: And I've been invited to quite a number of EU
Speaker 3: capitals to meet with governments, meeting with ministers, trying to
Speaker 3: seek supports of political packing and sometimes funding for the
Speaker 3: mound data and at each every occasion traveling to those countries,
Speaker 3: I've been also inviting climate activists and defenders to come
Speaker 3: to me to meet with me. I've been asking organizations
Speaker 3: to set up meetings to discuss the situation in countries,
Speaker 3: to see what is the level of attacks in countries.
Speaker 3: And I've been impressed by the fact that what came
Speaker 3: first was civil disobedienza and climate activism. In fact that
Speaker 3: meeting with Greenpeace, meeting with other organizations, then the reservation
Speaker 3: in France or other countries who they had similar organizations.
Speaker 3: They all came to me saying that we see that
Speaker 3: currently there is a huge pressure on us. The judicial
Speaker 3: system does not respond adequately properly to our needs. We
Speaker 3: are sentenced to more and more he finds or penalties
Speaker 3: or prisons, fines, We are targeted by the police and
Speaker 3: sometimes very violently, like in France but also in Germany,
Speaker 3: and we don't see a big support from the media.
Speaker 3: The media only reporting on actions taken, but they never
Speaker 3: speak on the causes of the action. That is why
Speaker 3: we are going to the street to demonstrata and they
Speaker 3: only say that we are blocking access to road, putting
Speaker 3: in danger other peoples. Blocking the access to hospitals is
Speaker 3: not true blocking access to airports, but they don't report
Speaker 3: properly on why we ask climate activists go to the
Speaker 3: street to claim for a better response from the state
Speaker 3: and what we see currently and daily the increasing climate
Speaker 3: crisis and biodiversity crisis, and that's why I've decided to
Speaker 3: organize that was in July a first meeting inviting twenty
Speaker 3: seven climate activists from seventeen countries to meet with me
Speaker 3: one day, and the idea was to share information and
Speaker 3: to read different experiencies coming from from different countries. I
Speaker 3: also invited lawyers and their lawyers to come to the
Speaker 3: meeting and to explain why they have been not able
Speaker 3: to provide a very effective support to this climate activista.
Speaker 3: And the idea of this first workshop was to prepare
Speaker 3: a sort of a guidance tool for states to see
Speaker 3: whether or not we could find a sort of harmonization
Speaker 3: inside eucontrisa on how states are responding to the new
Speaker 3: news form of mobilization, because what we currently see is
Speaker 3: that what happens in France is different from what happens
Speaker 3: in Germany or UK or in Norway or Switzerland, which
Speaker 3: is not part of the EU, but we're somewhere also
Speaker 3: from from Switzerland and even in countries, and we see
Speaker 3: that the response coming from the judgical system is not
Speaker 3: the same. If you demonstrate in parent or in to
Speaker 3: Los or in Bordeaux, then if you are brought to justice,
Speaker 3: you go to quota and you receive different sentences from
Speaker 3: the same The system doesn't have that sort of harmonization
Speaker 3: of the response to climate activism. Having also been monitoring
Speaker 3: trials in courts in different countries to see how the
Speaker 3: judges would respond to the needs expressed by the people
Speaker 3: to explain the causes of the action and to use
Speaker 3: also the criminal code in different ways, and to be honest,
Speaker 3: are really struck by the fact that the judges don't
Speaker 3: really respond to the needs in some countriesm like in
Speaker 3: Franza or Switzerland, or Germany or Norway. Then you see
Speaker 3: that judges would decide to sentence, but nonetheless to lift
Speaker 3: the sentence, expressing that they have understood the cause and
Speaker 3: why people have decide to break the law continually for
Speaker 3: the cause. But nonetheless what is not relevant is that
Speaker 3: in a continent or in a group of countries like
Speaker 3: the EU, the response coming from from the juditual system
Speaker 3: is different, which is not acceptable. In fact that currently
Speaker 3: UK and Germany are the two countries that are the
Speaker 3: most difficult for climatativist and those who are using civil disobedience,
Speaker 3: and it has in those countries, but also in other
Speaker 3: countries the terrent effect I meaning that people are sentenced
Speaker 3: to heavy fines and so they would decide not to
Speaker 3: continue the action, They would decide to withdraw from the organizations.
Speaker 3: So it works from the side of the government. The
Speaker 3: more important defines are penalties, then the more people who
Speaker 3: decide to withdraw from organizations and would not decide to
Speaker 3: continue the fight.
Speaker 2: That's so interesting. I mean, I wonder what has changed,
Speaker 2: at least in Europe in the past few years to
Speaker 2: pave the way for that increased criminalization and repression of
Speaker 2: environmental activists. And I wonder if you're if you've heard
Speaker 2: of particular political groups or interest groups or sort of
Speaker 2: companies pushing for that repression in order to protect their interest. Well.
Speaker 3: In fact, the reason why we see such an increasing
Speaker 3: number of forms of orbilization in Europe is that young
Speaker 3: people are currently the most active and see that the
Speaker 3: future is endangered in fact, and that's why they're going
Speaker 3: to Sweet to demonstrate and using civil disobedience as a
Speaker 3: re action. But on the other side, the reaction from
Speaker 3: the States is quite is quite different. I don't I
Speaker 3: don't know, but probably companies would talk for each other
Speaker 3: in fact, that's that's clear. And I know that governments
Speaker 3: are currently also discussing what's happening in that country. Is
Speaker 3: a comparing situation, comparing the response from the dulcy system
Speaker 3: to those new forms of mobilization. But we don't have
Speaker 3: concrete elements to elaborate on LISA. We know that some
Speaker 3: companies are putting pressure in UK on the government. We
Speaker 3: know that companies are putting pressure in France, like Total
Speaker 3: Energy and others on the governments to respond to the
Speaker 3: attacks coming from those activists against all those companies. But
Speaker 3: we cannot confirm that there are currently sort of European
Speaker 3: mobilization from companies or a network companies that would decide
Speaker 3: to lobby in Europe, in the u R, at that
Speaker 3: national level, at domestic level against those new activism. What
Speaker 3: I see is that on the media you see more
Speaker 3: CONTRIISA people using those new forms of orviization in blocking
Speaker 3: the streets, throwing paints in museums or blocking access to
Speaker 3: two roads, and they see that it draws the attention
Speaker 3: of the public and the media. But at the same
Speaker 3: time they complain that the media do not report pop adequately.
Speaker 3: They will explain the causes. So it's sort of a
Speaker 3: battle which is ongoing in countries in Europe and we
Speaker 3: need to monitor. And that's the road that the model has,
Speaker 3: to monitor the situation and then to report back to
Speaker 3: states and to provide guidance to states to better respond them.
Speaker 3: In my workshop in Paris in July, I also invited
Speaker 3: that a few activists coming from outside the EU to
Speaker 3: see whether or not it's limited in the EU. And
Speaker 3: in fact, we have people coming from Georgia, for instance,
Speaker 3: from Serbia, which are not party to the EU but
Speaker 3: close to the EU, and those countries will tell us
Speaker 3: that it's not the case in the countries in fact.
Speaker 3: So currently that's very limited to EU countries in fact,
Speaker 3: so we need to understand why.
Speaker 2: So when you say this, this seems to be limited
Speaker 2: in new countries, is that the civil disobedience techniques or
Speaker 2: is that the sort of repressive strategy is used by
Speaker 2: states or both.
Speaker 3: Both, Because yeah. Of course, the using civil disobedience is
Speaker 3: a form of action that is used mostly in new countries.
Speaker 3: While in Denmark, for instance, I was struck by the
Speaker 3: fact of traveling to Denmark, I think organized a meeting
Speaker 3: with climate activists in Denmark. The first thing that they
Speaker 3: asked me that was to leave my computer and my
Speaker 3: telephone outside of the room because they say we are
Speaker 3: under surveillance and were taped in fact, and that's the
Speaker 3: first time for many years that have seen that in Europe.
Speaker 3: In fat people asking me to put my telephone outside
Speaker 3: of the room, and when they came to parties to
Speaker 3: my meeting they say the same who decide to leave
Speaker 3: all telephone outside of the room?
Speaker 2: Wow? And so I find it so interesting. Norway a
Speaker 2: country which is also seeing a lot of time activism
Speaker 2: and a lot of civil basibiliens, but not as heavy
Speaker 2: handed a response to it. Would you say that's currently
Speaker 2: the country that's best respecting the right of environmental defenders
Speaker 2: within your amende.
Speaker 3: I would say yes, but it needs to be confirmed
Speaker 3: it was only a workshop. I've also been traveling to
Speaker 3: Norway to also meet with them, and I was struck
Speaker 3: by the fact that the situation is quite different from
Speaker 3: other countries in near you, but does to be to
Speaker 3: be confirmed by a more comprehensive analysis. And that's why
Speaker 3: I also have requested the full Amzal Rights Agency. The
Speaker 3: fraud based in Vienna are doing studies to study the
Speaker 3: legal systems in medic countries and then there are also
Speaker 3: doing interviews with beneficial EASA to say where not the
Speaker 3: law is respected in the countries. So from I would
Speaker 3: also be looking at our current state of legislations in
Speaker 3: new countrisa on civil disobedience to see that we need
Speaker 3: to harmonize legislations. This is interesting. Is one of the
Speaker 3: agencies that reports to the EU, to the Council, to
Speaker 3: the Commission and to the Tallement in fact, and that
Speaker 3: the role is to guide also the EU institutions on
Speaker 3: how to put pressure on states to better respect than
Speaker 3: the Charter in fact. So a study coming from the
Speaker 3: front will also be a way to complement my own
Speaker 3: empedic analysis of the situation, a more scientific observation of
Speaker 3: what's happening in EU countries.
Speaker 2: So, since your office was created almost a year ago, now,
Speaker 2: what are some of the complaints that you've received? Do
Speaker 2: you have sort of figures do you have examples of
Speaker 2: the complaints people come to you with.
Speaker 3: The practices that with you and special apports. The communications
Speaker 3: are kept confidential until they get the become public in fact,
Speaker 3: so when I receive a complaint or communication coming from
Speaker 3: from a defender, then I'm discussing the side with the
Speaker 3: staff while looking to receiving additional information with double shape
Speaker 3: information to make sure that we are not malipedated and
Speaker 3: the demand that is relevant. And then when we're sure
Speaker 3: that the complaint is relevant for the more data, then
Speaker 3: we send a communication official communication to the data and
Speaker 3: state have sixty days to reply to my communication in writing,
Speaker 3: and then my communication and the response of the data
Speaker 3: becomes public on the website. So if you go to
Speaker 3: the website of my man Data, you will see a
Speaker 3: few public communications. The idea of those communications is to
Speaker 3: prevent other attacks to occur. That if we deal with
Speaker 3: an attack, then stay have a duty not to applicate
Speaker 3: or to repeat the attacks the communities. So the idea
Speaker 3: is to make sure that those communications will be a
Speaker 3: way to prevent attacks. So just have a look. I
Speaker 3: will send you the link to those communications. So currently
Speaker 3: we civilian communication coming from Climate Activista complaining that they
Speaker 3: are been arrested but to justice that the justicism doesn't
Speaker 3: fulfill the Internet subligation of the states and that state
Speaker 3: have identified convention that they don't respect. We see also
Speaker 3: receiving a communication coming from defenders in Latin America having
Speaker 3: been attacked by companies based in one of the countries
Speaker 3: that is particude the Health Convention. So we are currently yes,
Speaker 3: discussing with states, discussing with companies on how we should
Speaker 3: follow up on those communications to make sure that things
Speaker 3: would not offer and not be worse for defenders. So
Speaker 3: different types of communications were also cases like in the
Speaker 3: Balkans or Sutral Regia of broad communicy multil blood community
Speaker 3: GISA claiming that their rights to be properly consulted or
Speaker 3: to be heard has not been respected by the STATA.
Speaker 3: And when it's come to big project like MEGADAMSA, we
Speaker 3: have a case of megadam in what countries in Sutra
Speaker 3: Relagia and then communities have been affected. So it's more
Speaker 3: a sort of a more broad communication coming from a
Speaker 3: group of defenders rather than communication coming from one single individual.
Speaker 2: For the people who will be listening to the podcast,
Speaker 2: what are some of the cases that you're now allowed
Speaker 2: to talk about.
Speaker 3: I would have a few cases of climate activist like words.
Speaker 3: In France, there was a case of a journalist have
Speaker 3: been accused of taking part to an action and then
Speaker 3: being assimilated to people who are using sipit disabedions was
Speaker 3: it was a journalist and then it was arrested by
Speaker 3: the police, and then after my letter was sent to
Speaker 3: the government, then the government decided to leave the charges
Speaker 3: against him. So that's one of the cases.
Speaker 2: Are there's a big question I think surrounding the impact
Speaker 2: that your office can have, and as you say, you
Speaker 2: can work with countries that have signed the convention, or
Speaker 2: when companies that are headquarters in countries that have signed
Speaker 2: the convention work in other countries. So, since the brand
Speaker 2: of the violence occurs in countries outside of Europe, and
Speaker 2: especially against indigenous communities, and since the US and Canada,
Speaker 2: which are home to a lot of ecocidal multinationals, are
Speaker 2: not part of the convention, how can your office ensure
Speaker 2: the protection of these environmental defenders? And so what can
Speaker 2: you do, if anything, with regards to nations that are
Speaker 2: not part of the convention, or with regards to multinational companies.
Speaker 3: That's precisely if the limitation of the munday in Faifa.
Speaker 3: When companies based in Canada, or in China, or in
Speaker 3: Russia or in the US and are doing harm to
Speaker 3: defend us to communities to induce people, I can do
Speaker 3: nothing when I receive a complaint coming content because the
Speaker 3: thing that my mondate would be relevanda. Then simply forwarding
Speaker 3: to my communication to other modate holders and we have
Speaker 3: a good level of communication with other reporters. I would
Speaker 3: also report and forward information to the circuit rate of
Speaker 3: the Scusial Agreement, which is similar to as Convention but
Speaker 3: relevant for the AMERICASA. I would also decide to forward
Speaker 3: the information received to the African raporter on defenders, so
Speaker 3: we have a network of defenders. And if I'm not
Speaker 3: able to take a case, then would refer to the
Speaker 3: case to other reporters and similarly some of them would
Speaker 3: decide to would pressure on states to do joint communication
Speaker 3: with me. That I could also decide to do a
Speaker 3: joint communication to a states with the Commission for Emerals
Speaker 3: of the Counciler and she also admnuications refers cases to
Speaker 3: me because he's traveling a lot countries inside the Council
Speaker 3: of Europe. And when she sees that she is approached
Speaker 3: by communities or defenders, then she said there is a
Speaker 3: man data which returned to you, and that briefly the
Speaker 3: case to you, and then the staff aren't communicating on
Speaker 3: the case.
Speaker 2: Do you talk very quickly about the difference between the
Speaker 2: Aras Convention and the Escazio Agreements.
Speaker 3: Both our international agreement. They are based on the same pilaza,
Speaker 3: the three pilars access to information, public participation, access to
Speaker 3: and other justice. So we have the same grounds in fact,
Speaker 3: and they pay SISA. But the main difference is that
Speaker 3: the Old Convention is a universal convention, meaning that all
Speaker 3: states outside of Europe could also ratify the convention, which
Speaker 3: is the case for one country in Africa, Guinea Bissau
Speaker 3: has decided to join the Old Convention. We are currently
Speaker 3: also discussing with other countries in Africa to join the convention,
Speaker 3: while the Escausal Agreement is a regional agreement only for
Speaker 3: Latin America or for the Americas as a whole in fact.
Speaker 3: Now and the other difference is that although the two
Speaker 3: agreements and convention have also a strong component on the
Speaker 3: protection of defenders. The Arts convernment has decided to establish
Speaker 3: a man data of a social partur while it's not
Speaker 3: the case for the eskazoog Rementa. And currently yeah, we
Speaker 3: are discussing with the Eskazoo Agreement secret area, which is
Speaker 3: based in Chile. They monitor the way this mondat is
Speaker 3: effective or not, and then they may also decide to
Speaker 3: establish original mand data under the Eskazugrimna to also promote
Speaker 3: and protect the defenders in the region. So that's more
Speaker 3: or less the main difference where we are working in
Speaker 3: fact very closely together.
Speaker 2: You've talked a bit about the climate activist tactics of
Speaker 2: civil disobedience in the Europe region, and so I think
Speaker 2: a big, big question is the question of non violence. Right, So,
Speaker 2: according to the convention, environmental defenders are only protected if
Speaker 2: they are non violent. But given the climate emergency and
Speaker 2: the lack of back that peaceful protests have had in
Speaker 2: the past decades, we can see that the methods of
Speaker 2: environmental activists are evolving to sometimes include sabotage and material destruction.
Speaker 2: We're also increasingly seeing states and the media portray these
Speaker 2: activists as violent and dangerous, even in cases where that's
Speaker 2: not true. So how do you ensure those activists are
Speaker 2: protected and what level of material violence is considered legitimate?
Speaker 2: How do you handle the increasing use of sabotage as
Speaker 2: a necessary strategy to stop ecocidal projects.
Speaker 3: Yes, you're right, and the question of violence is at
Speaker 3: the heart of the more data to the v with
Speaker 3: the UA. In fact, that's a question which has been
Speaker 3: debated since decades by the UN and by number of states.
Speaker 3: And you know that in nineteen ninety eight states that
Speaker 3: the UN have decided to adopt a UN Declaration on
Speaker 3: Humans Defenders and precisely the close off violence was very
Speaker 3: largely discussed by states when adopting this declaration and can
Speaker 3: only be recognized as a defender someone who is not
Speaker 3: using violence. And in my past Monday, that'd been that
Speaker 3: admeduication is confronted by the decision is that violence or not?
Speaker 3: And it's each time an adopt decision, a case by
Speaker 3: case decision. And for me, since I've been working on
Speaker 3: defenders for so many years together with the stuff with
Speaker 3: the stuff who, I've adopted a clear definition of the violence.
Speaker 3: Violence cannot be against persons or against individuals life unescence.
Speaker 3: If you go to a rally or demonstration in sueism,
Speaker 3: you are throwing stones to police officers. That for me
Speaker 3: violence those people I excluded from from protection. They are
Speaker 3: throwing both of cocktails to buildings or that's for me
Speaker 3: violence I could not recognize. I mean, I don't challenge
Speaker 3: the legislimacy of the cause, but they are not recognized
Speaker 3: by me as being humanity defenders. Someone who is responding
Speaker 3: to the to the violence by the police. That's something
Speaker 3: we see different. If you are in a demonstration and
Speaker 3: you are all of a sudden surrounded by police officers
Speaker 3: that would decide to beat you violently, and you would
Speaker 3: defend yourself in fact, kick the knee of the police
Speaker 3: on Yeah, defending yourself, that for me is not violence.
Speaker 3: In fact, then that's self defenser and those people could
Speaker 3: be recognized as being defenders. And so that's the limitation
Speaker 3: in terms of physical violence. In fact, now when it's
Speaker 3: come to violence to property, also a very different approach,
Speaker 3: and I would not take as defender someone who is
Speaker 3: deliberately using sabotage as a form of action. For me,
Speaker 3: that's that's clearly a limitation, But which is something really
Speaker 3: completely to describe. That's that's private property. If you would
Speaker 3: break the door of a private property to to do
Speaker 3: a civil disobedience activity, then for me, that would not
Speaker 3: be violence. In fact, that would be a way to
Speaker 3: simply open the door too, in a symbolic place, doing
Speaker 3: an action which is which will respond to the definition
Speaker 3: of civil disobedient.
Speaker 2: Some so tresspassing or breaking down a door to get
Speaker 2: to private property to protest against a project in a
Speaker 2: symbolic way is not considered the violence. But because you are.
Speaker 3: Not destroying, in fact, you are not destroying, you are trespassing.
Speaker 3: In fact, you are in fact destroying the door maybe
Speaker 3: or the barrier. But then you enter a field or
Speaker 3: a place in which you decide to publicly use using
Speaker 3: a civil disobedience. But it's not it's not it's not
Speaker 3: violence for me. While destroying a property, like destroying a
Speaker 3: basine like in also that's for me, it's not. I mean,
Speaker 3: I would not say it's not acceptable. But those people
Speaker 3: could not be recognized as being a defense in factor.
Speaker 2: Okay, So in this particular case, so if you're mentioning
Speaker 2: the megabasins and the water defenders in France, so.
Speaker 4: Those activists who purposely decide to sabotage the installation of
Speaker 4: a basin.
Speaker 2: That's they don't come under your mandate. No, clearly no, no,
Speaker 2: How do you come to that conclusion? Is that something
Speaker 2: that you're sort of still thinking about and that could
Speaker 2: be evolving at some point given the lack of climate
Speaker 2: action through peaceful means like is sabotage always out of question?
Speaker 3: As as I said, we are monitoring on a case
Speaker 3: by case discussion with the staff, but for the time being,
Speaker 3: what we call sabotage is something which is not permitted
Speaker 3: under the mondate indact I would I would not admit,
Speaker 3: but of course we could. We could further discuss with
Speaker 3: the stuff. We will see the forms of action, the
Speaker 3: new forms of action taken by activists. But for me,
Speaker 3: that's clearly currently a strong barrier and I don't want
Speaker 3: to currently enter either discussion with the groups to discuss
Speaker 3: the validity or legitimacy or sabotage. That would be too
Speaker 3: complicate for me. I need to be careful because that's
Speaker 3: a new mond aid in fact, so I don't want
Speaker 3: to humper the development of the mound data by taking
Speaker 3: too premature lead decisions that would then have an impact
Speaker 3: and the state would decide to abolish the mandate because
Speaker 3: they would see that I'm going too far and then
Speaker 3: I'm also boundaries. In fact, the bad reason created by
Speaker 3: the resolution that creates my MOND data in twenty twenty
Speaker 3: one when the master.
Speaker 2: Was created there.
Speaker 3: So my role is to explore, if I may say so,
Speaker 3: the boundary results on the data, but not to overlap
Speaker 3: the boundaries. In fact, so exploring may also being able
Speaker 3: to expand progressively the boundar is. But if I'm going
Speaker 3: too fast and I see the danger that state we decide,
Speaker 3: oh it's too dangerous, then we albuish the MOND data
Speaker 3: would be a disaster for cliinet activities.
Speaker 2: In fact, it's probably a question that you're dealing with
Speaker 2: on a near daily basis, which would be like, how
Speaker 2: can I include as many environmental actually this as I
Speaker 2: can to protect as many of them without antagonizing states
Speaker 2: and multinational companies who might be putting pressure on states
Speaker 2: and make my mandate irrelevant.
Speaker 3: Right, So if you take the case in France, we
Speaker 3: describe the case of the journalist, you know, the case
Speaker 3: in fact, there was a group of of activits that
Speaker 3: enter I don't know, eh term, whether whether they store
Speaker 3: grains yeah, they broke the door. They entered the building
Speaker 3: and they opened the sack of grain, and the grain
Speaker 3: I mean came to the floor, but nothing the thing
Speaker 3: I mean, they did not destroy. It was a sabotage.
Speaker 3: In fact, they simply wanted to show that both grains
Speaker 3: are genetic, grains are dangerous for the future. And that's
Speaker 3: what they did, in fact, simply that they decide to
Speaker 3: burn their grains, but simply to open the sack to
Speaker 3: show what was in fact the purpose of the action.
Speaker 3: And from me, the breaking the door, opening the sack
Speaker 3: was not for me violence. In fact, it's way way
Speaker 3: for them to express the form of action.
Speaker 2: In fact, okay, even though that could technically be considered
Speaker 2: you know, material destruction.
Speaker 3: And the company was decided to to shoe the activisty
Speaker 3: society because they say that it was a destruction of
Speaker 3: private property. But if it would go, if I'd been
Speaker 3: invited to the court, I would have to explain what
Speaker 3: is really diserblit. And so my concern is that in
Speaker 3: fact that the courts do not really understand what is
Speaker 3: civilis obin.
Speaker 2: Some what are the what are the tactics being used
Speaker 2: against environmental defenders? I heard you mentioned in an interview
Speaker 2: with French media blasts that police forces seem to be
Speaker 2: copying one another's methods in dealing with climate protests. Could
Speaker 2: you expand on.
Speaker 3: That, Yes, I mean that's against that's something which is empetic.
Speaker 3: In fact that I don't have evidences on this, but
Speaker 3: when I see simply the images on TV of police
Speaker 3: forces using the same techniques that are working in one
Speaker 3: country and then copy pasting countries, I see that in fact,
Speaker 3: that there is a discussion with the police. France is
Speaker 3: the countries we had the most violence response by the
Speaker 3: police compared to other countries in Europe. But if you
Speaker 3: see remember what they call in Germany this penguin hunt.
Speaker 2: In fact there, okay, that's that's when police officers twist
Speaker 2: the risk of activists.
Speaker 3: Like the penguins in fact.
Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, okay, yeah, so.
Speaker 3: They twist the armor. It's very painful. In fact, then
Speaker 3: for me it amounts to torture. In fact, now that's
Speaker 3: very dangerous and very effective because people, the young people
Speaker 3: who are joined, but it puts outside the demonstration say
Speaker 3: it's too dangerous, it's too too painful. To me, I
Speaker 3: would not do that again in fact now, so the
Speaker 3: punishment is effective in fact, and it has been developed
Speaker 3: in Germany. And then you see that in other countries
Speaker 3: they are using the same technique to simply take people
Speaker 3: out of the street where they block access to airports,
Speaker 3: use them same technics. So I would say that there
Speaker 3: is a form of application. But police officers know pretty
Speaker 3: well what is working in other countries. Fortunately they don't
Speaker 3: copy paste what's happening in France in fact there because
Speaker 3: that would be too dangerous for other EU countries. In fact,
Speaker 3: down using tigers beating violently in a people who are
Speaker 3: simply not even taking part to demonstration, but simply being
Speaker 3: industry and like tourists, or simply observing a demonstration. That's
Speaker 3: something which is for me horrendous.
Speaker 2: What we're seeing now in our reporting is that climate
Speaker 2: activists have always been targeted for you know, decades. They've
Speaker 2: been targeted by states and interest groups and companies every
Speaker 2: time they've tried to every time they've tried to stop
Speaker 2: or prevent more climate damage. But what we seem to
Speaker 2: be seeing now is that a lot of Western countries
Speaker 2: that are considered democracies are also clamping down on climate activism.
Speaker 2: And I'm wondering to what extent do you think that
Speaker 2: clam downs on climate activism in Western countries give license
Speaker 2: to people seeking to restrict environmental activism in places with
Speaker 2: histories of human rights abuse and horror systems of accountability.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's for me about the biggest problem that we
Speaker 3: have to face with the French government. In fact, the
Speaker 3: problem is the coherence between international action of the French
Speaker 3: government and what's happening at domestic level. In fact, we
Speaker 3: see that France and the develop more everyday are putting
Speaker 3: huge money to support to activists and defenders and civic
Speaker 3: space in many countries and asking the embassies in countries
Speaker 3: also to invite defenders and activists to meet with them.
Speaker 3: They provide funding also to activity to groups in those countries,
Speaker 3: but at the same time, at domestic level they are
Speaker 3: treating people who are going to the street in a
Speaker 3: very violent way. So it's not in fact coherent, and
Speaker 3: I see that speaking to other governments in Africa or
Speaker 3: Latin America. Then when they discuss with the embassies, they
Speaker 3: sometimes refer to the fact that look at the picture
Speaker 3: that we are seeing in achieves on how you respond
Speaker 3: to demonstration in your country. Why are you criticizing us
Speaker 3: in fact? And that's something which has also an impact
Speaker 3: on the image of a country like France at international level.
Speaker 3: And that's also explain why in some countries we see
Speaker 3: a strong resistance, a strong reaction against against France. And
Speaker 3: I'm also looking at how put in other dictators also
Speaker 3: referring to a situation in France to simply say what's
Speaker 3: happening in our country is not different from what's happening
Speaker 3: in Franza. So you see that it's also impact. And
Speaker 3: I remember Putting also with a smile, discussing with Macrome
Speaker 3: on the fact that when the Yellow Vestas were demonstrating
Speaker 3: influence and I was saying, look at us, how you
Speaker 3: respond and are you criticizing us in fact? Then of
Speaker 3: course they are not killing a defense in Fluenza. But
Speaker 3: at the same time they are using also very severe
Speaker 3: forms of violence.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, that's that's fascinating and terrifying at the
Speaker 2: same time.
Speaker 3: I remember I had in the past a discussion with
Speaker 3: the French ambassador to Honduras. I don't want to give
Speaker 3: the name or the period, in fact that it was
Speaker 3: when I was seen by Monday between twenty fourteen and
Speaker 3: twenty twenty traveling to Hondurasa and discussing with the ambassador.
Speaker 3: That is likely what he said. In fact, at that
Speaker 3: time there was a very violent demonstration in Honduras and
Speaker 3: when he tried to explain to the Minister of Tailor
Speaker 3: Home Affairs that sometimes the police should behave differently. Then
Speaker 3: immediately there was a response from the Minister to the
Speaker 3: ambassador saying, guy, look at what's happening in France.
Speaker 2: Wow, yeah, I had to heard so on the repression.
Speaker 2: And again I'm thinking, I'm thinking, particularly about what happened
Speaker 2: in France after Sainsolin. Your statements on the use of
Speaker 2: force by police had been very strong worded. I was
Speaker 2: surprised by how strong word did they work for an
Speaker 2: office link to the UN And how effective do you
Speaker 2: think the condemnation of human bodies and special rapertures can
Speaker 2: really be importing injustice? How much of the determine can it?
Speaker 2: Can it really be if there's no sort of enforcement
Speaker 2: mechanisms or actual punishment to go with it.
Speaker 3: First of and I would say that my reaction was
Speaker 3: very strong, but I was not the only one having
Speaker 3: this reaction coming from internationalization. So we had a similar
Speaker 3: reaction coming from the Commission for Emails of the Council
Speaker 3: of Europe, so contending Police Valencia the response of the police.
Speaker 3: You also had a statement by the new UN a
Speaker 3: High Commissioner for Human Rights on France at the opening
Speaker 3: of one other session of the Council, using the same
Speaker 3: strong words against, not not against, but to point out
Speaker 3: the fire that France was one of the countries which
Speaker 3: is currently the most violence against people who are trying
Speaker 3: to demonstrate it. So we mean I was not alone.
Speaker 3: It was like we had discussions with the UN on
Speaker 3: how to react, and other reporters also sent a formal
Speaker 3: communication to France, a group of reporters which is public,
Speaker 3: also containing the violence response by the police or the
Speaker 3: demonstrations in Saint Zolina. So it was like a sort
Speaker 3: of a joint action by different organizations, good pressure in France.
Speaker 3: So you could say that it doesn't work. In fact,
Speaker 3: that you mean if you read the response by the
Speaker 3: French Minister of Interior or Damana saying that this guy
Speaker 3: commenting police violence from his office in New York while
Speaker 3: I'm based in palist in fact, and it's a sort
Speaker 3: of show off position saying we don't care when he's
Speaker 3: saying in fact, but when you speak with the internal system,
Speaker 3: with the Ministry of an Affairs, with the Ministry of Justice,
Speaker 3: you see that is an impact in fact, because they
Speaker 3: know that at the end of the day, France will
Speaker 3: be called before the u NA at different educations. For instance.
Speaker 3: You know, this is what we call the Universal Peridical Review.
Speaker 3: It's a new a new mechanism at the UNA by
Speaker 3: which all states have to come to the UNA and
Speaker 3: to explain the situation of human rights in the country.
Speaker 3: And then they received communication recommendations coming from other states
Speaker 3: and France every four years, and also to respond to
Speaker 3: questions coming from from from from other countries on what's
Speaker 3: happening in France. So it has an impact because they
Speaker 3: don't want to hear strong coloration coming from other states,
Speaker 3: because it's an impact also on the reputation of France.
Speaker 3: So I'm sure that the publicly again that's a response
Speaker 3: of the minister, But at the same time instructions have
Speaker 3: been given to ambassadors to monitor what's happening at the
Speaker 3: u N to prepare the next time the next phase
Speaker 3: of France examination before the UN mass concerned. So I'm
Speaker 3: sure it has an impact. I'm not able to measure
Speaker 3: the level end of the impact, but I'm sure that
Speaker 3: it has a positive impact. Some public statements from the
Speaker 3: UN and from the consider of Europe on France have
Speaker 3: an impact because France is one of the five countries
Speaker 3: members of the Security consider of the UN. So they
Speaker 3: have also a duty and obligations to be coherent, which
Speaker 3: is not the case so far, but they have an
Speaker 3: abligation to do that.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's talk about the situation in France in more detail.
Speaker 2: So can you tell me from your perspective what the
Speaker 2: situation has looked like in France recently when it comes
Speaker 2: to the rights and the protection of environmental defenders.
Speaker 3: I would say two different situations. Some then at the
Speaker 3: level of the Orders Convention. In addition to the mandate
Speaker 3: of special portter, you also what we call the complaints Committee.
Speaker 3: The complaints committee is there to look at how France
Speaker 3: would comply with all the profession of the Convention, and
Speaker 3: anyone has the possibility to put a complaint before the
Speaker 3: complaints Committee. It's more broadly on lack of access to
Speaker 3: information or lack of public participation. And currently, if you
Speaker 3: look at the website of the Complaints Committee. You would
Speaker 3: see that there are currently complaints being put forward by
Speaker 3: groups like France or by green Peace or by others
Speaker 3: Lay and others. Again the fact that France would not
Speaker 3: comply with all provisions of the older convention. So that's
Speaker 3: for the broad approach on what's how France is approaching
Speaker 3: environmental just the defenders in France. It's not individual cases,
Speaker 3: but it could. It gives you a good a good
Speaker 3: idea on what's happening at the level of the complaints
Speaker 3: with the main provisional convention now to come to to
Speaker 3: to activists and to defend themselves, that is individuals orders.
Speaker 3: I mean since I've been appointed, I've been approached by
Speaker 3: men groups in fact in different places in France, from
Speaker 3: the Brittany to to Lose in the south of France,
Speaker 3: from the north of France to Strasbourg on different topics
Speaker 3: related to unbandle situations or climate division. In fact, people
Speaker 3: who are demonstrating against a new issallation or a new project,
Speaker 3: up to people who are simply trying to block and
Speaker 3: access to airports or to roads because they want to
Speaker 3: publicly explore them their opinion on the inaction of the
Speaker 3: government on climate, so different types of situations and what
Speaker 3: I've been seeing and sometimes monitoring myself because I've been
Speaker 3: also traveling to meet with them and to see situations,
Speaker 3: monaturing demonstrations, monitoring trials in court or so that's the
Speaker 3: situation is not improving currently. And as we say it
Speaker 3: from the biginning, the sometimes concerted campaigns of vilgifigation by
Speaker 3: public officials are also a great impact that is very
Speaker 3: unfortunate on the public opinion. And you're a minister and
Speaker 3: then a prime minister and then public officials and members
Speaker 3: of parliament calling those people eco terrorist or simply terrorists
Speaker 3: or compared them to talibans or to volent actions. Then
Speaker 3: it's not only people who are under pressure by the
Speaker 3: cause for with their fighting, which I mean will have
Speaker 3: a poll on this in the coming months. Is to
Speaker 3: see the imparct of public vealifation by public officials on
Speaker 3: the way the French opinion might be manipulated on climata.
Speaker 3: But it has clearly an impact on the way that
Speaker 3: the population is perceiving those for the activism. So the
Speaker 3: situation is not for me a model influenza from the
Speaker 3: response of the police, which is one of the most
Speaker 3: violence in Europe and the response of the judgical system
Speaker 3: which is not corregent at all. We have an issue
Speaker 3: influencer with climate activism and civil disobedience, and.
Speaker 5: In that in that way, I mean you talk you
Speaker 5: talked about climate activists being stigmatized by the media and
Speaker 5: also by by ministers and our police force using.
Speaker 2: A disproportionate amount of course on protesters. Is there a
Speaker 2: French exception in that way when it comes to the
Speaker 2: oppression of climate activism, How does it compare to other
Speaker 2: countries in Europe?
Speaker 3: I mean, when it's come to campaigns or fulification or criminalization.
Speaker 3: That's not only in France. In fact, you have the
Speaker 3: same level of if you if you look at Germany.
Speaker 3: I was also in Austria in a sort of official visit.
Speaker 3: Then I heard one of the ministry in Austria you
Speaker 3: also the world eco terrorista to qualify people who are
Speaker 3: simply going to the street, people who were other times
Speaker 3: throwing pains or the monument. In fact, in Austria, but
Speaker 3: you see that in UK that are the same. In
Speaker 3: Spain you have the same. In Italy you're the same.
Speaker 3: In all ucuntrivisa. Those campaigns of stigmatics and verification also, yeah,
Speaker 3: at the same same level. In fact, now the main
Speaker 3: difference is from us in the response of the police,
Speaker 3: but in terms of the way politicians are perceiving climacti vista,
Speaker 3: we have the same the same problem in a country
Speaker 3: with the exception of Norway, again which not EU, but
Speaker 3: the country in Europe.
Speaker 2: What what's difference about how the police responds to kind
Speaker 2: of activism in France? What sets them apart?
Speaker 3: I mean simply the level of violence, the level of violence,
Speaker 3: which is not the case in the UK, Whether they
Speaker 3: have a strong tradition of not being so violencer, not
Speaker 3: using the same the same methods in Germany, that's the case,
Speaker 3: despite the fact that in the past the German police
Speaker 3: has been very violent, but nowadays it's different now in fact,
Speaker 3: using as we said, these new forms of violence against
Speaker 3: the demonstration, using this hundriff. They said that, but you
Speaker 3: don't have strong cheer guards or bettings by the police
Speaker 3: using also bullets against against people who are the most racing,
Speaker 3: which is unique influence and not a model for other countries.
Speaker 2: What do you think explains that? What? Why is the
Speaker 2: French police more violent than its neighbors.
Speaker 3: It was interesting to hear, especially is discussing the difference
Speaker 3: between the French police and other police. In fact, and
Speaker 3: in the past, there has been a group established by
Speaker 3: the EU inviting police officers to come together to discuss
Speaker 3: methods of work reaction to different forms of the motuation.
Speaker 3: And France decided not to participate to this group of
Speaker 3: discussions simply because they said that we have our own
Speaker 3: preciliar way of doing it and we don't want to
Speaker 3: learn from others, so they simply refuse to discuss with others,
Speaker 3: while others coming together decided to adopt new modalities of
Speaker 3: action and to take the best from the best of
Speaker 3: the police officers in other countries, and France was different
Speaker 3: decided not to put to take part into those discussions.
Speaker 3: So I don't have the name of the group of discussions,
Speaker 3: but if you look into Google you would sign this.
Speaker 3: And if you listen to specialists of the police in France,
Speaker 3: I will also explain that ware situation by which France
Speaker 3: woul decided to go alone, saying we have own efficient tradition.
Speaker 2: Okay wow. And in terms of so you're saying, they're
Speaker 2: also quite unique in the amount and the strength of
Speaker 2: the weapons they're using against protesters, right, like rubber belts,
Speaker 2: like grenard.
Speaker 3: Yes, yeah, tools that they're using which are not used
Speaker 3: at all by other governments, and those methods are used
Speaker 3: in countries in Africa, sometimes in Latin America using sometimes
Speaker 3: little weapons to target demonstration. But yeah, that's that's unique
Speaker 3: in Europe and which is not only for me but
Speaker 3: for the UNA a great matter of concern.
Speaker 2: I like to go back to October twenty twenty two,
Speaker 2: so you've just sort of started, as you and special
Speaker 2: rapperature on environmental defenders, there's the first major protest against
Speaker 2: water basins in some sort and our Interior Minister Gerald
Speaker 2: d'ermenon labels climate activists, eco terrorists. How do you feel?
Speaker 3: I mean, I feel not well at all because I
Speaker 3: still had with me the image of what is terrorists
Speaker 3: In fact, now people who have been brutally killed in
Speaker 3: France by by terrorists, and comparing people who are simply
Speaker 3: and non violently going to the street to demonstrate for
Speaker 3: a better future for our planet to terrorist but for
Speaker 3: me difficult to understand. And yeah, that's that's a pity
Speaker 3: that I mean, as we say in France, a minister
Speaker 3: should not say.
Speaker 2: That, right, I mean, especially you're as a French person
Speaker 2: as well, sort of having you know that that memory
Speaker 2: of twenty fifteen and actual terrorism being.
Speaker 3: Exactly ye same same. When I hear what I hear
Speaker 3: other ministers other countries compare them to to Talibans, and
Speaker 3: you look at the situation of Talibans in Afghanistan and
Speaker 3: how they treat women and other people, I mean, I mean, well,
Speaker 3: what does it mean to compare climate activists to talibans
Speaker 3: or even because I'm not youre not young, but I've
Speaker 3: also heard the ministers in other countries compare them to
Speaker 3: to green crags like in Camboja and Camboja that's a
Speaker 3: general cider two million people being being killed by the
Speaker 3: government and comparing and comparing innocent people simply going to
Speaker 3: the streets non violently to green prayers. That's difficult to
Speaker 3: rationally to understand why someone educated at the level of
Speaker 3: a minister could go public with those statements. I mean,
Speaker 3: that's simply not easy to understand for me and for
Speaker 3: others in fact.
Speaker 2: And so sticking to that topic of defamation campaigns you
Speaker 2: mentioned you mentioned in another interview that as you and
Speaker 2: special aperture. You were particularly targeted by French politicians for
Speaker 2: I think it was probably denouncing what had happened in Sainzolin,
Speaker 2: but that people were sort of calling in to question
Speaker 2: your office.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I was. I was not targeted. I was simply
Speaker 3: mocked by a minister and by others saying saying by that,
Speaker 3: what is it that this guy based in New York
Speaker 3: would comment simply on the basis of videos what was
Speaker 3: happening in Sanzolin. But it was not really a campaign
Speaker 3: of deformation or campaign against me. In fact, that simply
Speaker 3: a minister mocking me. At the same time, he was
Speaker 3: not there as well, he was not was in his
Speaker 3: office as his minister also looking at videos of what's
Speaker 3: happening in Santolin. So he was so commented from from
Speaker 3: his office while he was commenting from my office. In fact, now,
Speaker 3: so's to compare.
Speaker 2: Is that a first for you as a UN special
Speaker 2: rapperture being mocked by a government minister. I mean that's okay,
Speaker 2: because that seems like quite a great length to go
Speaker 2: to to discredit the U.
Speaker 3: N No, that's that's a that's a I would not
Speaker 3: say a common practice. But I've been also in the past,
Speaker 3: but in other countries in fact, like for instance the
Speaker 3: case of Azerbaijan doing an official visit to as a Baijan.
Speaker 3: But it's need to compare as a Bijan in France.
Speaker 3: In fact, that the vice president of Azerbaijan saying that
Speaker 3: mister Frank should be of Armenian origin because he was
Speaker 3: so violent against our country. And of course I'm not
Speaker 3: at all Armenian. But hearing a vice president trying to
Speaker 3: defame me by by, I mean, that's interesting to compare
Speaker 3: reaction by Azabeijian and reaction by by a French ministry.
Speaker 3: In fact, we're the same, the same in Columbia, Honduras, Peru.
Speaker 3: And that's when you are going public on what's happening
Speaker 3: in the country as a un official and then you
Speaker 3: are used to receive that sort of response.
Speaker 2: Yeah, after the water protests at Samsonin you and other
Speaker 2: officials came together to say that the the response of
Speaker 2: the state and the police had been largely disproportionate. How
Speaker 2: how did you come to that conclusion. Can you tell
Speaker 2: me a bit more about what happened at Sainsulin from
Speaker 2: your perspective.
Speaker 3: Yes, simply, I mean I decided to interview witnesses, eyewitnesses
Speaker 3: and journalists. Also people who were there had a meeting
Speaker 3: with members of the EU Parliament when Sancholin or so
Speaker 3: to discuss with and what's happening. Also looked at that
Speaker 3: many videos from from the media on the on the
Speaker 3: response of the police, on the violence, and when I
Speaker 3: decided to comment and say that it was disproposality, it
Speaker 3: was based on my interviews and my monitoring of videos,
Speaker 3: and I remember very well one of the videos showing
Speaker 3: a high rank official Geordan Francis uh looking from the
Speaker 3: form the from the hill saying their from gas to
Speaker 3: the wrong part of the demonstration, while people who are
Speaker 3: targeted were not the people who were violent, but I
Speaker 3: mean it was it was, yeah, not well prepared.
Speaker 2: I've heard you speak about the FNSUL before and sort
Speaker 2: of also their actions to impede freedom of speech of
Speaker 2: climate activists. Can you talk a bit about the political
Speaker 2: and corporate interests that you're seeing behind the violence against
Speaker 2: climate activists in France.
Speaker 3: Yes. What I meant praising the situation of the FNESR
Speaker 3: and France is that it's difficult to understand that when
Speaker 3: you compare to two types of action using the same
Speaker 3: methods to see that climate activists would be immediate putting
Speaker 3: in question by the police or by the DIDY system
Speaker 3: being brought to justice. While when it comes to big
Speaker 3: interest like the FESUL close to the big farmers in France,
Speaker 3: everything they do, they I mean, there's no consequences at all.
Speaker 2: When when the finest so which is the largest sort
Speaker 2: of one of the largest unions of farmers in France
Speaker 2: and sort of which is also protecting the interest of
Speaker 2: commercial and huge agriculture agro business, and they've conducted quite
Speaker 2: a lot of I mean, they've been linked to a
Speaker 2: lot of actions in France of attack against climate activists
Speaker 2: and journalists, but also.
Speaker 3: Attacks against against public buildings. In fact, I would not
Speaker 3: say that in It, I could say that English.
Speaker 2: But the yeah, like launching like sort of sending like
Speaker 2: houses compounds.
Speaker 3: Yeah, allowed launching passive compounds before public officials or before
Speaker 3: big buildings and no consequences at all. The municipality that
Speaker 3: would clean the building, would clean the streets, and no
Speaker 3: consequences at all for these demonstrations, while other activists using
Speaker 3: less severe forms of faction would be immediately arrested by
Speaker 3: the police and bulk to justice. So the different type
Speaker 3: of corporation, and that's that's something which is striking in
Speaker 3: the country like France. I could not say that from
Speaker 3: other countries because I'd be able to monitor that in
Speaker 3: other countries. But in France that the case, some commercial
Speaker 3: interest or some have an impact on the way the
Speaker 3: French officials are reacting to the mobilization of climate with vism,
Speaker 3: and that because because they see that in the case
Speaker 3: of the megabazines, if the system would not allow anymore
Speaker 3: thegabacines to be to be constructed or built, then it
Speaker 3: was an impact on the agriculture in France.
Speaker 2: Just the last question, you mentioned COP at the beginning
Speaker 2: of this interview. Do you expect the persecution of climate
Speaker 2: protesters to come up at COP or do you plan
Speaker 2: to push for that to happen.
Speaker 3: I mean, I mean, we don't expect during the COP
Speaker 3: climative is to be to be punished or to be persecuted.
Speaker 3: What we expect is that many of them would not
Speaker 3: be allowed to travel to Dubai for obvious reasons. It
Speaker 3: was also the case in Shaman shake in Egypt the
Speaker 3: last time, so that's one of the first but the
Speaker 3: main concern that I have together with the Group of
Speaker 3: Engios is that climate action is not only a matter
Speaker 3: for golf Mansa, and it should be also a matter
Speaker 3: of discussion with the population and especially those who are
Speaker 3: affected by climate pack climate change. And although we see
Speaker 3: that in May countries in Europe, organizations are invited to
Speaker 3: discuss with the government on the negotiation coming to during
Speaker 3: the COPPA, it's not the case for many countries in
Speaker 3: fact now and what we want to achieve is the
Speaker 3: better understanding on why is it important for all governments
Speaker 3: to invite to the table those who are affected by
Speaker 3: a climate change and not only to invite them to
Speaker 3: be part of formal leader delegation and to have one
Speaker 3: or two of them alibi in the delegation, but to
Speaker 3: discuss more in detail the outcome document proud to the
Speaker 3: conference and then after the conference when it comes to
Speaker 3: the implication and the inaction in the countries.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I guess to come back to the
Speaker 2: protection of environmental defenders. In what ways could these international
Speaker 2: climate negotiations be leveraged for the protection of protests. I mean,
Speaker 2: we know that this is always mentioned at coups, but
Speaker 2: will you push for some sort of like official inclusion
Speaker 2: and commitments, for example, particularly in the context of the
Speaker 2: UAE hosting the Cup.
Speaker 3: Yes, since the Paris Agreement, we see that climate defenders
Speaker 3: romant devers are mentioned in the outcome documents were simply
Speaker 3: mentioned in the first part of the DOCUMENTA, but in
Speaker 3: the operative part, which contains decisions by the KOPPA, they
Speaker 3: are never in fact mentioned. So what we need to
Speaker 3: achieve is more concrete commitments by STATSA, not going to
Speaker 3: include strong wording on defenders in the outcome documents, but
Speaker 3: concrete commitments by STATSA to do more on defenders. Because
Speaker 3: we see and that's how we started the interview that
Speaker 3: in so many contweisas they are the most TWISKA and
Speaker 3: in the context of the meetings, that's a place where
Speaker 3: those things are to be discussed, but not only discuster
Speaker 3: or concretely, discussions should lead to concrete decisions by states
Speaker 3: to better protect defenders but also to prevent the attacks
Speaker 3: in fact worker in countries. So we are working together
Speaker 3: with a group of endios on different options possibilities to
Speaker 3: achieve that goal.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so that's something that you're going to push at
Speaker 2: the next negotiations. Yes, brilliant. Thank you so much for
Speaker 2: taking all that time to speak to me. I know
Speaker 2: that was a long interview, that there are so many
Speaker 2: things to talk about. Is there anything that I didn't
Speaker 2: ask you about that you'd like to say?
Speaker 3: Maybe? I just would like to maybe to briefly comment
Speaker 3: on my definition of civil disobedience, which is something that
Speaker 3: I'm trying to promote when I'm managing a TRY in
Speaker 3: France or I TRY in Germany in fact, so that
Speaker 3: judges will understand that cevie disobedience in fact is coord
Speaker 3: by international emails law, and they sometimes ignore that is
Speaker 3: the case. You have clearly definition, but curlier statement by
Speaker 3: the Emails Committee you and Humans Committee commenting on public
Speaker 3: demonstration and saying that civil the business is covered by
Speaker 3: Article twenty one of the Internal Covenant on Civilian Particular Rights,
Speaker 3: and for me, civil obidiness respond to four criterion. Fact time,
Speaker 3: it should be first public, It's not be in one
Speaker 3: apartment or a flat. It should be public just to
Speaker 3: show that there's the cause behind it. The second element
Speaker 3: is that the people who are participating to civil disobilience
Speaker 3: activities should understand that they're breaking the law, prepared to
Speaker 3: face a trial before the just system. The third demand
Speaker 3: it should be non violent and we have largely discussed
Speaker 3: my approach to violencer. And the last elementa it should
Speaker 3: be to fight for a causa, that is to abolish law,
Speaker 3: to abolish of practicer, to abolish a civil sot of
Speaker 3: a public policy which might be dangerous or contrary to
Speaker 3: huven resstandarza. And when those four elements are contained in
Speaker 3: an action of civil evins for meda and they should
Speaker 3: not be punished by the law, but justice system should
Speaker 3: understand that it's covered by internally very slow and that's
Speaker 3: the case the correction and that's a pity.
Speaker 1: That's it for this time. Big thanks to Anna for
Speaker 1: bringing us this interview. She'll be back soon with an
Speaker 1: episode on how climate protest is being repressed in France,
Speaker 1: so stay tuned for that. Drilled is an original Critical
Speaker 1: Frequency production. This episode was written and reported by Anna
Speaker 1: Poujol Mazzini. Our senior editor for this season is Aline Brown.
Speaker 1: Our senior producer is Martin saltz Ostwick, who also does
Speaker 1: our sound design. Mixing and mastering by Peter Duff. Mood
Speaker 1: an Yan is our fact checker. Our artwork is by
Speaker 1: Matt Fleming. Our first Amendment attorney is James Wheaton. The
Speaker 1: show was created by me Amy Westervelt. You can find
Speaker 1: related videos, photos, and print stories for this series, along
Speaker 1: with all of the documentation we have to go along
Speaker 1: with it, at Drilled dot Media. You can also sign
Speaker 1: up there for our weekly newsletter. We round up the
Speaker 1: top five stories on climate that you should be reading
Speaker 1: each week and include some analysis of various trends. It
Speaker 1: never takes more than ten minutes to read, and people
Speaker 1: tell us it helps them stay on top of climate
Speaker 1: info without getting overwhelmed by the fire hose of stories.
Speaker 1: You can also find us on Twitter at we Are
Speaker 1: Drilled and on LinkedIn under drilled Media. If you'd like
Speaker 1: to support the podcast, leaving us a rating or a
Speaker 1: review actually really helps us find new listeners. You can
Speaker 1: also support us financially by becoming a subscriber, either to
Speaker 1: the newsletter or to the podcast on Apple, Spotify, or Patreon.
Speaker 1: Paid subscribers get access to add free episodes, early release episodes,
Speaker 1: and bonus content. Thanks for listening, and we'll see you
Speaker 1: next time.