0:00

Last year's conference of the

0:02

parties, the UN's annual climate

0:04

summit, where global leaders come

0:06

together to commit

0:08

to certain actions required to

0:10

tackle the climate crisis, was

0:13

held in the United Arab Emirates,

0:15

one of the world's major oil

0:18

producers. It was presided over

0:21

by the president of the country's national

0:23

oil company. There were

0:25

many, many stories about the obvious

0:27

conflicts of interest there, including

0:30

stories that ran on our website

0:32

at drilled.media. But another

0:35

issue that came up, which had come up

0:37

the year before in Egypt as well, was

0:39

the limited role that climate

0:42

activists were allowed to play

0:44

at this COP. As

0:46

they were in Egypt, protesters at

0:48

last year's COP were cordoned off

0:51

to a special designated area far

0:53

away from anyone who might be

0:56

bothered by them. One

0:58

young protester managed to bust

1:01

into the main proceedings and make a bit

1:03

of a fuss, but otherwise

1:05

protesters were largely unseen. This

1:08

year's COP will be in another oil state,

1:11

Azerbaijan. Again, the

1:13

country's national oil company will be deeply

1:15

involved, and again, protesters

1:17

are likely not to be

1:20

tolerated. Which begs the question,

1:22

should protection of protest itself

1:24

be a topic at COP?

1:27

Can we get real climate action

1:30

absent real democracy? With

1:33

all of that going on, it seemed

1:35

like a good time to bring you

1:37

this interview that our reporter in France,

1:40

Ana Poujol-Mazzini, did with

1:42

Michel Forst, the world's first

1:44

UN special rapporteur on

1:46

environmental defenders. It's good

1:49

timing because Forst released

1:51

today a scathing report

1:53

on what he's seeing happen in

1:55

the UK. If you missed our

1:57

episode on that, it came out last week.

2:00

go and listen to it. The

2:02

UK has moved really quickly to

2:04

suppress protest and even to suppress

2:06

what protesters are allowed to say

2:08

in their own defense in

2:10

court. Forst is not having it. We'll

2:13

link to that report in the show

2:15

notes. The position

2:17

was created under something called the

2:19

Aarhus Convention. It's called that

2:21

because it was adopted in the Danish city of

2:23

Aarhus. Its official

2:25

title is the UN

2:28

Convention on Access to Information,

2:30

Public Participation in Decision Making,

2:32

and Access to Justice in

2:34

Environmental Matters. It falls

2:36

under the United Nations Economic Convention

2:38

for Europe and it's been ratified

2:41

by 48 states including the

2:44

European Union. As you'll hear

2:46

in this interview, Forst points out

2:48

that because it's a convention,

2:50

there are actual teeth to it

2:52

which makes things kind of interesting.

2:55

Specifically, this new position of His

2:58

and the convention that supports it

3:00

creates a pathway for citizens to voice

3:03

issues that they have with a development

3:05

that will affect them. It

3:07

also requires that they be

3:10

informed about those developments. So

3:12

whether it's a building project,

3:14

mine, oil drilling, really anything

3:16

that will materially impact

3:18

their environment, they need

3:20

to be informed about it and they need to

3:22

be able to express their opinions on it. It

3:27

also says that it's not enough for

3:29

people to be able to voice their

3:31

displeasure with a particular project. They also

3:33

need to have a legal pathway to

3:35

do something about it. In

3:38

this interview, Anna asked Forst how that

3:40

commitment drives with the increased repression

3:42

of climate protests. We've been seeing

3:44

around Europe what he and

3:46

his office might be able to do about that

3:48

repression and how he

3:50

thinks COP should address the rights of

3:53

environmental activists. They got into

3:55

all that and a lot more. I think you're going

3:57

to enjoy this conversation. I'm Amy

3:59

Westerville. and you're listening to Drilled. After

4:02

the break, reporter Anna Pujol-Mazini

4:04

in conversation with Michel

4:06

Forst. Stay with us. If

4:16

you ever got the sense that there's someone

4:18

watching you, actually, they

4:20

are. If you're

4:22

online, that's right. Every

4:24

single day, there is someone watching you

4:27

and you're actually paying them to spy

4:29

on you. That person is your internet

4:32

service provider, you know, the company you

4:34

pay for your internet. Every

4:36

website you've visited, what you've clicked on

4:39

there, how much time you've spent, what

4:41

you've read, they are collecting data on

4:43

that. That's why

4:45

I use ExpressVPN anytime I go

4:48

online. If you use the internet,

4:50

ExpressVPN is an app you need to

4:53

be using. In the US, internet service

4:55

providers are legally allowed to sell all

4:58

of their users' browsing activity to

5:00

advertisers. It's

5:03

not just them either. Your network

5:05

admin, whether it's at your school,

5:07

workplace, parents, whatever, they can

5:09

see everything you click on. But

5:11

with ExpressVPN, 100% of your traffic is

5:14

rerouted through an encrypted server so

5:16

no one can see a thing.

5:19

And it's extremely easy to use. I have

5:21

it running on absolutely everything. I install it

5:23

anytime I get a new device. It takes

5:26

two minutes, and then it's just taking care

5:28

of things in the background and giving me

5:30

peace of mind. So stop

5:32

letting people invade your privacy.

5:34

Right now, get three extra

5:36

months of ExpressVPN for free

5:39

when you

5:42

go to

5:44

expressvpn.com/drilled. That's

5:46

E-X-P-R-E-S-S vpn.com/drilled.

5:50

expressvpn.com

5:52

slash drilled to learn. Environmental

6:02

justice is a talking point in

6:04

every politician's toolkit, but do you

6:06

ever wonder where it all began?

6:09

On this week's through line, we're taking you

6:11

back to 1978, where a fight against a

6:15

toxic dump in North Carolina

6:17

started the environmental justice movement.

6:20

Join NPR's climate week and listen to

6:22

through line wherever you get your

6:24

podcasts. Hey, it's

6:28

Amy. If you're curious

6:30

to hear what businesses and

6:32

organizations are doing, and what

6:34

more they should do to

6:37

confront climate change, I recommend

6:39

the award-winning podcast, Climate Rising,

6:41

produced by Harvard Business School.

6:43

Named one of the best

6:45

environmental podcasts by earth.org, Climate

6:48

Rising gives you a behind-the-scenes

6:50

view into how some of the

6:52

world's business leaders are confronting climate

6:54

change, including go-to brands like Microsoft

6:56

and Google. If you need a

6:58

place to start, definitely check

7:01

out a recent episode featuring Ashley

7:03

Orgain, Chief Impact Officer from 7th

7:05

Generation. They're the folks

7:07

that make everything from recycled napkins and

7:10

paper towels to dish soap, all sorts

7:12

of home service products. In

7:14

that episode, Ashley discusses ambitious plans

7:17

to achieve a real zero,

7:19

not net zero, climate

7:21

goal. This episode explores the many

7:23

challenges and opportunities that climate change

7:25

presents to innovators and entrepreneurs, and

7:28

how businesses across the world are

7:30

striving to make a more positive

7:32

impact on the planet. Go

7:34

listen to Climate Rising on Apple,

7:37

Spotify, or wherever you get your

7:39

podcasts. And tell them we sent you. Hello,

7:53

Michel Sartre. Thank you so much

7:55

for taking the time for this

7:58

interview. Could you

8:00

start by introducing yourself and telling

8:02

me a bit more about your role

8:05

as Special Reperture? Yes,

8:07

so thank you for the invitation. As

8:10

you know, I've been recently appointed to

8:12

a human data, which has been created

8:14

by state party to the AURUS Convention,

8:17

which is a very interesting convention ratified

8:19

by 48 states, including the EU.

8:22

Based on three pillars, the first is

8:24

access to information, meaning that

8:27

in any country, which is part of

8:29

the convention, when there is a project that

8:31

will affect the environment, then those

8:33

who might be affected should be properly

8:35

informed by the state in any language

8:38

that is accessible to the public. The

8:40

second pillar, which is complementary to the first, is

8:44

the obligation for states to also consult communities,

8:46

families, the people who are affected by this

8:48

project, and they would have a right to

8:50

say anything on the project, including the right

8:53

to say no. It doesn't mean that they

8:55

could block the project, but at least they

8:57

would have to pass themselves and say that

8:59

it was a great reason we thought about

9:01

the project. And the last

9:03

pillar, which is very relevant for the

9:06

time being, is access to justice, access

9:08

to environmental justice, meaning

9:10

that people have the right to go

9:12

to good and then to challenge any

9:14

decision made by the state or the

9:16

company when it affects their

9:18

environment. So the mandate is mostly directed

9:21

to countries that are part of the

9:23

AURUS Convention. But the beauty of the

9:25

mandate, if I may say so, is that

9:27

it's welcome to companies that operate

9:30

abroad, like companies doing

9:32

extractive industries or anything that

9:34

they have. And

9:36

they have their headquarters in one of the countries

9:38

which is part of the AURUS Convention and operate

9:40

abroad. And then how to

9:43

defend the support, like a company based

9:45

in Madrid, working on Pimol and work

9:47

in Peru or Colombia, and then deforesting,

9:49

affecting communities in these people, then those

9:51

defenders could have access to my mandate

9:53

and then they would speak not to

9:55

the state, but to the company itself.

9:58

So we have plenty of questions. of

10:00

cases currently coming to the mandate

10:02

from Africa, from the medical and

10:05

also from Asia. Involving

10:07

companies are based in France, in

10:09

UK, in Switzerland, Norway, other countries.

10:12

So that's a very new mandate,

10:14

very interesting. And we need to

10:16

promote the mandate because most of

10:18

the defenders, most of the climate

10:20

activists or environmental defenders don't even

10:22

know that they are defenders and

10:24

that there are currently mechanisms that

10:27

could support them or defend them

10:29

when they are currently facing

10:31

threats. And

10:33

the reason why states have decided to

10:36

create this new mandate is precisely

10:38

because they see that in many parts of

10:40

the world, those who are

10:42

the most targeted, the most under

10:44

pressure are climate activists. And of

10:46

course, you know the data provided

10:49

by Global Witness and Frontline Defenders

10:51

and others. And you see that

10:53

currently it's only the tip of

10:55

the iceberg. So you're the

10:58

first repertoire for the protection

11:00

of environmental defenders and

11:02

the position was only created last

11:05

year. But as you say, we know that

11:07

climate and land defenders have been criminalized and

11:10

even killed for decades. So could

11:13

you talk a bit more about what prompted

11:15

the creation of this role at this particular

11:17

time? As

11:20

I said precisely, because the states partnered

11:22

with the Convention have been

11:24

made aware of the need to do

11:26

more. So there is a strong component

11:28

on prevention in my mandate and

11:30

I'm trying to develop with my team

11:33

and also with the support of lawyers

11:35

and NGOs new measures to prevent those

11:37

effects to occur. The

11:39

difference between this mandate and other UN

11:41

mandate is that while other mandates have

11:43

been created by a resolution adopted by

11:45

the Council in Geneva, by the UN

11:47

Rights Council, this mandate

11:50

has been created within a legally binding

11:52

instrument, the Convention, which has huge implications

11:54

in the end of the month or

11:56

year to come, the fact that terrorism

11:59

and that created a legally binding

12:01

instrument, as huge implications for states

12:03

and companies, because companies are currently

12:06

in one of the countries, party

12:08

to the Convention, also legally

12:11

binding, binded by this

12:13

new mandate. And

12:15

so the fact that the mandate is

12:18

legally binding, what does

12:20

that give you the

12:22

tools to do to

12:24

protect environmental defenders? It

12:27

gives more pressure to the

12:29

mandate. When I'm speaking with ministers,

12:31

travelling to countries, when I'm sending

12:33

allegations letters to countries, during the

12:35

attention of the fact that defenders

12:37

are being threatened or under attack,

12:40

then the fact that the mandate

12:42

is granted legally reinforces the dialogue

12:44

with the state, because they know

12:46

that it may have implications. Like

12:48

for instance, if one state would

12:50

not fulfill the recommendation expressed

12:53

by the mandate, then there would be

12:55

also possibilities for the other parties to

12:57

the Convention to request withdrawal

12:59

from the states from the Convention,

13:01

which in terms of international diplomacy,

13:04

have quite a number of implications.

13:06

Could you imagine the UK or

13:08

France being expelled from one of

13:10

the most relevant conventions on environment

13:12

that would be complicated for them

13:15

to face things? And

13:17

similarly, the fact that we are

13:19

currently in Europe adopting new measures,

13:21

new legally binding instruments, like the

13:23

new due diligence directive, would

13:26

also have implications for companies that are

13:28

based in Europe, and state would have

13:30

obligations to oversee the behaviour of companies

13:32

that are in the priority of

13:35

the world, like Total Energy in France,

13:37

or companies from UK or from other

13:39

countries operating in the world. So

13:41

it's too early now to say, but

13:44

I'm confident that the more we develop

13:46

together with lawyers, the methods of work,

13:48

and we will see the results in

13:51

Adamoff State. Could you maybe give

13:53

us an overview

13:56

on what the situation looks

13:58

like today? in the

14:00

world for environmental defenders and

14:02

how it's evolved in the past years.

14:06

Yes, you know that in the past I

14:08

also had another mandate. I used to be

14:10

the UN Special Rapporteur on Defenders. And

14:13

when I started with this mandate, it was in 2014. I

14:17

invited hundreds of defenders to meet with

14:19

me in broad consultations in all five

14:21

continents. And I was struck by

14:23

the fact that the people that came to me

14:25

that were the most at risk were precisely environmental

14:28

defenders. And that's why I decided to develop and

14:30

to present a report in 2016 to

14:32

the UN for

14:58

about years later. And it was a way

15:00

to pave the way for all the states

15:03

and for the UN, for the Lifeline Project

15:05

to create new tools and realities to

15:07

protect environmental issues. But nonetheless, we

15:09

see that the situation is quite

15:11

complicated now. And that's

15:13

why having this new mandate, I'm trying

15:16

to do the same. That is to

15:18

organize consultations. But broadly, I

15:20

would say that the situation has not

15:22

improved. And it's sort

15:25

of like a battle in which you

15:27

see that the more effective

15:29

the tools are to protect defenders

15:31

and the more difficult that the

15:33

situation is becoming because states, cities,

15:35

and companies are developing new

15:38

forms of insidious attacks against and

15:40

other defenders and climate activists. So

15:44

when you're talking about the situation

15:46

getting worse for environmental

15:48

activists and states and other actors

15:50

developing new tools, could you talk

15:52

a bit more about what that

15:55

looks like? Yes,

15:58

I mean, if you read the... The

16:00

reports by Global Witness, they would

16:02

tell you the data of killings

16:04

or attacks against defenders is increasing

16:06

now. It's not diminishing, despite

16:09

the fact that we have developed

16:11

new measures and the new forms

16:13

of attacks, insidious attacks have been

16:15

developed by state using different forms

16:17

of criminalization, campaigns of

16:19

vilification against climate activists and

16:21

environmental defenders, new forms of

16:23

attacks using anti-terrorist laws to

16:25

target those who are simply

16:28

going to the streets to

16:30

protest against the inaction of

16:32

states on climate. And

16:34

that's something which unfortunately

16:36

works, in fact, and you see that

16:38

the reaction of the public to

16:41

those new forms of mobilizations is

16:43

not a big support. Absolutely.

16:46

I mean, I've heard you

16:48

talk in other interviews about

16:50

also the sort

16:52

of battle of narratives and

16:54

the violence, particularly in France, that's

16:56

used by the government and

16:59

the media against environmental activists.

17:02

So I'm really interested to get

17:04

into that a bit more. What

17:07

would you say is driving

17:10

this increase in the

17:12

criminalization of environmental dissenters,

17:16

particularly in Europe, which your mandate

17:18

mostly covers? Are there special

17:21

interests or interest groups lobbying for

17:24

these changes? You

17:27

know, when I was appointed in D-22, in fact, I

17:29

started in October 22, I decided to travel

17:32

to EU countries just to present the

17:34

mandate because it's not well known and

17:37

we need to promote the mandate. And

17:40

I've been invited to quite a number of

17:42

EU capitals to meet with governments and meeting

17:44

with ministers, trying to seek support for also

17:46

political backing and sometimes funding for the mandate.

17:50

And I teach on every occasion, traveling to

17:52

those countries. I've been also inviting

17:54

climate activists and defenders to come to me

17:56

to meet with me. I've been asking

17:58

organizations to... that have meetings

18:01

to discuss the situation in countries, to

18:03

see what is the level of attacks

18:05

in countries. And I've been

18:07

impressed by the fact that what

18:09

came first was civil disobedience and

18:12

climate activism. In fact, meeting

18:14

with Greenpeace, meeting with other

18:16

organizations, the Andééres Observatory in

18:19

France, or other countries

18:21

who have similar organizations, they

18:23

all came to me saying that we see that

18:25

currently there is a huge pressure on us. The

18:28

judicial system does not respond adequately

18:30

properly to our needs. We

18:33

are sentenced to more and

18:35

more heavy fines or penalties

18:37

or prisons fines. We are

18:40

targeted by the police and sometimes very

18:42

violently, like in France, but also in

18:44

Germany. And we don't see

18:47

a big support from the media. The

18:49

media are only reporting on actions

18:51

taken, but they never speak on

18:53

the causes of the action. That is why we

18:55

are going to the streets to demonstrate that. And

18:58

they only say that we are blocking access

19:01

to roads, putting in

19:03

danger other people, blocking

19:05

the access to hospitals, which is not true, blocking

19:08

access to airports. But they

19:10

don't report properly on

19:13

why we ask climate activists to

19:15

go to the streets to claim

19:17

for a better response from the

19:19

state on what we see currently

19:21

and daily, the increasing climate crisis

19:23

and biodiversity crisis. And that's why

19:25

I've decided to organize

19:28

the first meeting,

19:30

inviting 27 climate activists from

19:32

17 countries to

19:35

meet with me one day. The

19:38

idea was to share information and

19:40

to read different expertise coming from

19:42

different countries. I also invited lawyers, their

19:44

lawyers, to come to the

19:46

meeting and to explain why they

19:49

have been not able to provide

19:51

very effective support to these climate

19:53

activists. And the idea

19:55

of this first workshop was

19:58

to prepare sort of guidance

20:00

tools for states to see whether

20:03

or not we could find a

20:05

sort of harmonization inside EU countries

20:07

on how states are responding to

20:09

the new new form of mobilization.

20:12

Because what we currently see is

20:14

that what happens in France is

20:16

different from what happens in Germany

20:18

or UK or in no way

20:20

of Switzerland, which is not

20:23

part of EU, but we have someone

20:25

also from Switzerland. And even

20:27

in countries, we see that the response

20:29

coming from the judicial system

20:32

is not the same. If you

20:35

demonstrate in Paris or in

20:37

Toulouse or in Bordeaux,

20:39

then if you are brought to

20:41

justice, you go to court and

20:43

you receive different sentences

20:45

from the court. The same judicial

20:47

system doesn't have enough sort of

20:50

harmonization of the response to climate

20:52

activism. I've

20:54

also been monitoring trials

20:56

in different countries to

20:59

see how the judges

21:01

would respond to the needs

21:03

expressed by the people to

21:05

explain the causes of the

21:07

action and to use

21:09

also the criminal code in different

21:11

ways. And to be

21:14

honest, I'm really struck

21:16

by the fact that the judges

21:18

don't really respond to the needs

21:20

in some countries, like in France

21:22

or Switzerland or Germany

21:24

or no way. Then you see

21:26

that judges would decide to sentence,

21:29

but nonetheless to lift the sentence

21:31

expressing that they have understood the cause

21:34

and why people have decided to break

21:36

the law consensually for

21:39

the cause. But nonetheless, what is

21:41

not relevant is that in a continent

21:43

or in a group of countries like

21:46

the EU, the response coming from the

21:48

judicial system is different, which is not

21:50

acceptable in fact. Currently,

21:52

UK and Germany are

21:54

the two countries that are the most

21:56

difficult for climate activists and those who

21:59

are using it. civil

22:01

disobedience. And it has in

22:03

those countries, but also in other countries, the

22:05

talent effect, meaning that people are

22:07

sentenced to every fines. And

22:10

so they would decide not to continue

22:12

the action. They would decide to withdraw

22:14

from the organizations. So it works from

22:16

the side of the governments. The

22:19

more important the fines are penalties,

22:21

then the more people would

22:23

decide to withdraw from organizations

22:26

and would not decide to continue the

22:28

fight. That's so interesting. I

22:31

mean, I

22:33

wonder what has

22:36

changed, at least

22:39

in Europe in the past few

22:41

years, to pave the

22:43

way for that increased

22:45

criminalization and repression of

22:47

environmental activists. And I

22:49

wonder if you've heard

22:51

of particular political groups

22:54

or interest groups or sort

22:56

of companies

22:58

pushing for that

23:02

repression in order to protect their interests.

23:05

Well, in fact, the reason why we

23:07

see such an increasing number of forms

23:10

of mobilization in Europe is that young

23:12

people now just now are currently

23:14

the most active and see that their future

23:16

is in danger, in fact. And that's why

23:18

they are going to street to demonstrate and

23:21

using civil disobedience as an interaction. But

23:23

on the other side, the reaction

23:26

from states is quite different. I

23:28

don't know, but probably companies would

23:31

talk to each other. In fact,

23:34

that's clear. And I know

23:36

that governments are currently also

23:38

discussing what's happening in the

23:40

country, is a compelling situation,

23:43

compelling the response from the dual

23:45

system to those new forms of

23:48

mobilization. But we don't

23:50

have concrete elements to elaborate

23:53

on this. We know

23:55

that some companies are putting

23:57

pressure in the UK on

23:59

the government. We know that companies

24:01

are putting pressure in France, like

24:03

Total Energy and others on the

24:05

governments, who respond to the attacks

24:07

coming from those activists

24:09

against those companies. But

24:12

we cannot confirm that there are

24:14

currently sort of European

24:17

mobilisation from companies or a network

24:19

of companies that could decide to

24:21

lobby in Europe, in the

24:24

EU or at national level, at

24:26

domestic level, against those new

24:28

activism. What

24:31

I see is that on the media you

24:33

see more countries, people using those new forms

24:35

of mobilisation, blocking the

24:37

streets, throwing paints in museums or

24:39

blocking access to roads. And

24:43

they see that it draws the attention of the public

24:45

and the media. But at the

24:47

same time they complain that the media do

24:49

not report adequately. They don't explain the causes.

24:52

So it's sort of a

24:54

battle which is ongoing in countries in Europe.

24:57

And we need to monitor, and that's the role

24:59

that the media has to monitor the situation

25:01

and then to report back to states

25:04

and to provide guidance to states to

25:06

better respond. In my

25:08

workshop in Paris in July,

25:10

I also invited a few

25:12

activists coming from outside the

25:15

EU to see whether or

25:17

not it's limited in the EU. And in

25:19

fact, we have people coming from Georgia, for

25:21

instance, or from Serbia, which are

25:23

not party to the EU but close to the EU. And

25:26

those countries will tell us that it's not the

25:28

case in the countries in fact. So currently that's

25:30

very limited to EU countries in fact. So

25:32

we need to understand why. So

25:35

when you say this seems to be

25:37

limited to EU countries, is that the

25:40

civil disobedience technique or

25:42

is that the sort of repressive strategy used

25:44

by states? Both,

25:47

because, yeah, of course, using

25:50

civil disobedience is a form of action

25:52

that is used mostly in EU countries.

25:55

While in Denmark, for instance, I was

25:57

struck by the fact that traveling to

25:59

Denmark I think organized

26:01

a meeting with climate activists in Denmark. The

26:04

first thing that they asked me was to

26:06

leave my computer and my telephone outside of

26:08

the room, because they say we

26:10

are under surveillance and we are taped in

26:13

fact. And that's the first time for

26:16

many years that I've seen

26:18

that in Europe. In fact, people asking me

26:20

to put my telephone outside of the room.

26:23

And when they came to Paris, my meeting, they said the same.

26:25

So we decided to leave all the telephone

26:27

outside of the room. Wow. And

26:31

so I find it

26:33

so interesting. Norway being

26:36

a country which is also seeing

26:38

a lot of climate activism and a lot

26:40

of civil disobedience, but not

26:43

as heavy handed a

26:45

response to it. Would you say that

26:47

currently the country

26:49

that's best respecting the rights of

26:51

environmental defenders within your mandate? I

26:54

would say yes. But it needs to

26:57

be confirmed. It was only a

26:59

workshop. I've also been traveling to

27:01

Norway to also meet with them. And

27:03

I was struck by the fact that the situation is quite

27:06

different from other countries in EU. But

27:08

that's to be confirmed by a

27:10

more comprehensive analysis. And that's why

27:12

you also have to

27:14

request the full environmental rights agency,

27:17

the FRAP, based in Vienna.

27:19

They are doing studies to study the legal systems

27:21

in many countries. And then they

27:23

are also doing interviews with beneficiaries to

27:25

see whether or not the law is

27:27

respected in countries. So kind

27:30

of FRAP will also be looking at

27:32

the current state of legislations in EU

27:34

countries on civil disobedience to see whether

27:36

there was a need to harmonize legislations.

27:39

It's interesting. This is

27:41

one of the agencies that reports to

27:43

the EU, to the Council, to the

27:45

Commission, and to the Parliament in fact.

27:48

And the role is to guide also

27:50

the EU institutions on how to put

27:52

pressure on states to better respect the charter

27:54

in fact. So a study

27:57

coming from the FRAP would also

27:59

be a way to complement my...

28:01

own empathic analysis of the situation,

28:03

a more scientific observation of what's

28:05

happening in EU countries. So,

28:07

since your office was created almost

28:10

a year ago now, what are

28:12

some of the complaints that you've

28:15

received? Do you have sort of figures?

28:17

Do you have examples of the

28:19

complaints people come to you with? The

28:21

practices that with UN Special Rapporteur,

28:24

the communications are kept confidential

28:27

until they become public

28:29

in fact. So, when I

28:31

receive a complaint or communication

28:33

coming from a defender, then

28:36

I'm discussing the side with the

28:38

staff while looking to receiving

28:40

additional information, with double-shaped information to make

28:43

sure that we are not manipulated and

28:45

that the one that is relevant. And

28:48

then when we are sure that the complaint is

28:50

relevant for the one data, then we send

28:52

a communication, official communication to the state. The

28:55

state has 60 days to reply to my

28:57

communication in writing. And then

29:00

my communication and the response of

29:02

the state becomes public on

29:04

the website. So, if you go to the

29:06

website of my mandate, you will see a

29:09

few public communications. The idea

29:11

of those communications is to prevent other attacks

29:13

to occur. That is,

29:15

if we deal with an attack, then

29:17

the state have a duty not to

29:19

duplicate or to repeat the attacks to

29:21

the community. So, the idea

29:23

is to make sure that those communications will be

29:26

a way to prevent attacks. So, just

29:28

have a look. I will send you the link to

29:30

those communications. So, currently

29:32

we see the communication coming from

29:34

climate activists, depending that they have

29:36

been arrested, brought to justice, that

29:38

the justice system doesn't fulfill

29:41

the international obligation of the state,

29:43

that the state have ratified convention

29:45

that they don't respect. We

29:48

see also receiving communications coming from defenders

29:50

in Latin America, having been attacked by

29:53

companies based in one of the countries

29:55

that is party to the House Convention.

29:58

So, but currently, yes. discussing

30:00

with states, discussing with companies on

30:02

how we should follow up on those

30:04

communications to make sure that things

30:07

will not happen and that be worse for

30:09

defense. So different

30:11

types of communications. We also

30:13

cases like in the Balkans or

30:16

South Malaysia of

30:18

broad communiques, broad communities

30:20

claiming that their rights

30:23

to be properly consulted or

30:26

to be heard as not being respected

30:28

by the state and when it's

30:30

come to big project like Megadams. In

30:33

the case of Megadams in one country in South

30:35

Asia, then communities have been

30:37

affected. So it's more a sort of

30:40

a more broad communication coming

30:42

from a group of defenders, rather than

30:44

a communication coming from one single individual.

30:47

For the people who will be listening

30:49

to the podcast, what are some of

30:52

the cases that you're now allowed to talk

30:54

about? I would have a few

30:56

cases of climate activists, like

30:59

the ones in France. There was a

31:01

case of a journalist who had been

31:04

accused of taking parts to an action

31:07

and then being assimilated to people who

31:09

were using civil disobedience was he was

31:11

a journalist and then he was arrested

31:13

by the police and then after my

31:15

letter was sent to the government and the government

31:18

decided to lift the charges against him. So

31:20

that's one of the cases. There's

31:23

a big question, I think, surrounding

31:26

the impact that your office

31:28

can have. And as

31:31

you say, you can work

31:33

with countries that have signed the

31:35

convention or when companies that

31:38

are headquarters in countries that

31:40

have signed the convention work in other

31:42

countries. So hence

31:45

the brunt of the

31:47

violence occurs in countries outside of

31:50

Europe and especially against indigenous communities.

31:53

And since the US and

31:55

Canada, which are home to a

31:57

lot of ecocidal multinationals, not

32:00

part of the Convention, how

32:03

can your office ensure the

32:05

protection of these environmental

32:07

defenders? And so what

32:11

can you do, if anything, with

32:13

regards to nations that are not

32:15

part of the Convention or with

32:17

regards to multinational companies? That's

32:20

precisely what the limitation of the mandate

32:23

in fact. When companies

32:25

based in Canada or in

32:27

China or in Russia or

32:29

in the US are

32:31

doing harm to defenders, to communities, to

32:33

indigenous people, I can do nothing. When

32:36

I receive a complaint coming from them, because they

32:38

think that my mandate would be relevant, then

32:41

I'm simply forwarding my data communication to

32:43

other mandate holders and we

32:45

have a good level of communication with

32:47

other reporters. I would also report and

32:50

forward the information to the secretary of

32:52

the Escazio Agreement, which is similar to

32:55

the ARRIS Convention, but relevant for the

32:57

Americas. I would also decide to forward

32:59

the information received to the African reporter

33:02

on defenders. So we have a network

33:04

of defenders and if I'm not able

33:06

to take a case, then I would

33:08

refer the case to other reporters. And

33:11

similarly, some of them would

33:13

decide to put pressure on states to

33:15

do joint communication with me. I could

33:18

also decide to do a joint communication

33:20

to a state with the Commissioner for

33:22

International Council of Europe. And she also,

33:25

at many occasions, refers cases to me

33:27

because she's traveling a lot to countries

33:29

inside the Council of Europe. And

33:31

when she sees that she's approached by communities

33:34

or defenders, then she says there is

33:36

a mandate which is relevant to you

33:38

and that will be a case to

33:40

you. And then the staff are communicating

33:42

the case. You talked very

33:45

quickly about the difference between the

33:47

ARRIS Convention and the Escazio Agreement. Both

33:50

are international agreements. They

33:52

are based on the same pillars, the three

33:54

pillars that has to do with information, public

33:56

participation, access to other justices. So we have

33:58

the same ground, in fact, the

34:01

main basis. But the main

34:03

difference is that the Aarhus Convention

34:05

is a universal convention, meaning that

34:07

all states outside of Europe could

34:09

also ratify the convention, which is

34:12

the case for one country in

34:14

Africa, Guinea-Bissau, and decides

34:16

to join the Aarhus Convention. We

34:18

are currently also discussing with other

34:20

countries in Africa to join the

34:23

convention, while the ESCAS agreement is

34:25

a regional agreement only for Latin

34:28

America, for the Americas as a role

34:30

in fact. And the other

34:32

difference is that although the two agreements

34:35

and conventions have also been a strong

34:37

component on the protection of defendants, the

34:40

Aarhus Convention has decided to establish a mandate

34:43

of a social rapporteur, while

34:45

it's not the case for the

34:47

ESCAS agreement. And currently, we are

34:49

discussing with the ESCAS agreement, Secretarya,

34:51

which is based in Chile, they

34:53

monitor the way this mandate is

34:55

effective or not, and then they

34:57

may also decide to establish a

34:59

regional mandate and the ESCAS

35:01

agreement to also promote

35:03

and protect the defenders in the region. So

35:06

that's more or less the main difference, but

35:08

we are working in fact very closely together.

35:12

You've talked a bit about

35:14

the climate activist

35:16

tactics of civil disobedience

35:19

in the Europe region.

35:22

And so I think a big

35:24

question is the question of nonviolence, right?

35:26

So according to the

35:28

convention, environmental defenders are only protected if

35:30

they are nonviolence. But

35:33

given the climate emergency and the

35:35

lack of impact that peaceful protests have

35:37

had in the past decades,

35:40

we can see that the message of

35:42

environmental activists are evolving to

35:45

sometimes include sabotage and material

35:47

destruction. We're also increasingly

35:50

seeing states and the media

35:52

portray these activists as violent

35:54

and dangerous, even in cases where that's

35:56

not true. So how... How

36:00

do you ensure those activists are protected

36:02

and what level of material violence is

36:05

considered legitimate? How do

36:07

you handle the increasing use of

36:09

sabotage as a necessary

36:11

strategy to stop ecocidal projects?

36:14

Yes, you're right. And the question of violence is

36:16

at the heart of the mandate to the people

36:19

of the UN. In fact, that's a question which

36:21

has been debated since the case by

36:23

the UN and by other states. And

36:25

you know that in 1998, states

36:28

at the UN have decided to adopt a

36:31

UN declaration on human defenders.

36:33

And precisely the cause of

36:35

violence was very roughly discussed

36:37

by states when adopting this

36:39

declaration and can only

36:42

be recognized as a defender, someone

36:44

who is not using violence. And

36:47

in my past mandate, I've been that

36:49

communication is confronted by the decision, is

36:52

that violence or not? And it's

36:55

each time an ad hoc decision, a

36:57

case by case decision. And

36:59

for me, since I've been working on defenders

37:01

for so many years, together with

37:03

the staff, with the staff who

37:05

have adopted a clear definition of

37:08

violence, violence

37:10

cannot be against persons

37:13

or against individuals. Life, for

37:15

instance, if you go to

37:17

a rally or demonstration in the

37:19

streets, you are throwing stones

37:22

to police officers. That's

37:25

for me, those people I

37:27

excluded from protection. They

37:29

are throwing a wealth of cocktails

37:31

to buildings or that's

37:33

for me, violence, I could not recognize.

37:35

I mean, I don't challenge the legitimacy

37:37

of the cause, but they are not

37:40

recognized by me as being a domestic

37:42

defender. Someone who is

37:44

responding to the violence by

37:46

police, that's something we see different. If

37:48

you are in a demonstration and

37:50

you are all of a sudden surrounded

37:52

by police officers that would decide to beat

37:55

you violently, and

37:57

you would defend yourself, in fact, kick the knee of the

37:59

police. So, defending yourself,

38:01

that for me is not

38:03

violence, in fact, that's defense.

38:06

And those people could be recognized as being

38:09

defenders. So that's the limitation in terms of

38:11

physical violence, in fact. When

38:13

it comes to violence, to property, I also

38:16

have a very different approach. I

38:20

would not take as defenders someone who is

38:22

deliberately using sabotage as a

38:24

form of action. It's

38:26

clearly a limitation, which

38:29

is something really complicated to describe. That's

38:33

private property. If you

38:35

would break the door of a private

38:38

body to do a

38:40

civil disobedience activity, then

38:42

for me that would not be violence, in fact. That would

38:44

be a way to simply open the

38:46

door to in a symbolic place doing

38:49

an action which is very, which responds

38:52

to the definition of civil

38:54

disobedience. So

38:58

trespassing or breaking down a

39:00

door to get to private

39:03

property to protest

39:06

against a project in a symbolic

39:08

way is not considered a violence.

39:11

But because you are not

39:13

destroying, in fact, you are not destroying the property. You

39:16

are trespassing, in fact, you are destroying

39:18

the door maybe or the barrier. But

39:20

then you enter a field or

39:23

a place in which you decide to publicly

39:26

use using a civil disobedience.

39:28

But it's not violence for

39:30

me. While destroying

39:33

your property, like destroying your

39:35

basin, like in France, that for me

39:37

is not, I mean, I would not

39:39

say it's unacceptable, but those people could

39:42

not be recognized as being defenders in

39:44

fact. OK, so in

39:46

this particular case, so if

39:48

you're mentioning the megabasins

39:51

and the water defenses in France,

39:53

so those

39:57

activists who purpose

40:00

decide to sabotage the

40:03

installation of a basin,

40:07

that they don't come under your

40:09

mandate? No, clearly

40:11

no. How

40:13

do you come

40:16

to that conclusion? Is that something that

40:18

you are sort of still

40:21

thinking about and that could be evolving

40:25

at some point given the lack

40:27

of climate action through peaceful

40:30

means? Is sabotage

40:33

always a question? As

40:38

I said, we are monitoring on a case

40:40

by case discussion

40:42

with the staff. But for

40:45

the same being, what we call sabotage is

40:47

something which is not permitted

40:49

under the mandate index. I would

40:51

not admit that. Of course, we

40:53

could further discuss with the staff.

40:55

We will see the new

40:57

forms of action taken by activists.

40:59

But for me, that's clearly a

41:02

strong worry. And I don't want

41:04

to come to enter in a

41:06

discussion with those groups to discuss the

41:09

validity or legitimacy of sabotage.

41:12

That would be too complicated for me. I

41:14

need to be careful because that's a new

41:16

mandate, in fact. So I don't want to

41:18

hamper the development of the mandate by taking

41:21

to prematurely decisions that would then have an

41:23

end pipe and instead would decide to abolish

41:25

the mandate. And I would see that I'm

41:27

going too far. And then I'm also a

41:31

pandaree, in fact, the pandarees are

41:33

created by the resolution that creates

41:35

my mandate in 2021. When

41:38

the multistimas created it. So

41:40

my role is to explore if I may

41:42

say so the boundaries of the mandate, but

41:45

not to overlap the boundaries, in

41:47

fact. So exploring, meaning also

41:49

being able to expand progressively the

41:52

boundaries. But if I'm going to

41:54

fasten, I see the danger that

41:56

state would decide if home is

41:58

too dangerous. then we elbow

42:01

the data would be a disaster

42:03

for climate activities. In fact, it's

42:05

probably a question that you're dealing

42:07

with on a near daily basis,

42:10

which would be like, how

42:12

can I include

42:14

as many environmental activists as I

42:17

can to protect as many of

42:19

them without antagonizing states and

42:22

multinational companies who might be

42:24

putting pressure on states and make my

42:26

mandate irrelevant, right? So

42:28

if you take the case in France, when you

42:30

describe the case of the journalist, you know the

42:33

case, in fact, there was a group of activists

42:35

that entered, I don't know the English term, where

42:37

they saw grains. And grain silo. Yeah,

42:40

they broke the door, they

42:42

entered the building, and they opened

42:44

a sack of grain, and the

42:46

grain came to the

42:48

floor, but nothing, nothing, I mean, they did not

42:50

destroy it. It was a sabotage. In fact, they

42:52

simply wanted to show that both grains are genetic

42:54

grains, dangerous for the future. And

42:57

therefore they did, in fact, simply that

42:59

they did decide to burn the grains,

43:01

but simply to open the sack to

43:03

show what was in fact the purpose

43:05

of the action. And from really breaking

43:07

the door, opening the sack

43:09

was not for me violence, in fact, it's

43:12

a way for them to express

43:14

the form of action. Okay.

43:16

Even though that could

43:19

technically be considered, you know, material

43:21

destruction. Yeah, and the company decided

43:24

to show the activist society because they

43:26

said that it was a destruction

43:28

of the right company. But

43:31

if I would go, if I'd been invited to the

43:33

court, I would have explained what

43:35

is civil disobedience. And my concern is that, in

43:37

fact, the courts do not

43:39

really understand what is civil disobedience.

43:42

Hmm. What

43:44

are the, what

43:47

are the tactics being used

43:49

against environmental defenders? I

43:51

heard you mentioned in

43:53

an interview with French

43:56

media blast that police forces

43:58

seem to be causing copying one

44:00

another's methods in dealing with

44:03

climate protests. Could you

44:05

expand on that? Yes,

44:08

I mean, that's again, that's something which is empathetic.

44:10

In fact, I don't have evidences on this. But

44:13

when I see simply the images

44:15

on TV of police

44:17

forces using the same techniques that are

44:19

working in one country, and

44:21

then copy-pasted in other countries, I see that

44:23

in fact, there is a discussion with the

44:25

police. France is the country's regime, we saw

44:27

the most violent response by the police, compared

44:30

to other countries in Europe. But

44:32

if you see, remember what they

44:34

call in Germany, this penguin hand

44:36

riff, in fact. Okay, that's

44:38

when police officers twist

44:41

the wrists of activists? Like the penguins,

44:43

in fact. Okay, yeah. Yeah,

44:46

so they twist the arm, it's very

44:48

painful in fact, for me, it amounts

44:51

to torture, in fact. That's very dangerous

44:53

and very effective, because people, the

44:55

young people who are drawn by

44:57

the outside demonstration, say

45:00

it's too dangerous, it's too painful to

45:02

me, I would not do that again,

45:04

in fact. So the punishment is effective,

45:06

in fact, and it has been developed

45:08

in Germany. And then you see that

45:10

in other countries, they are using the same

45:12

technique to simply take people out of the

45:14

street and where they block access to airport,

45:17

they use them septic. So I would say

45:19

that there is a form of duplication, but

45:21

police officers know pretty well what is working

45:23

in other countries. Fortunately, they don't copy paste

45:26

what's happening in France, in fact, because that

45:28

would be too dangerous for

45:30

other EU countries, in fact, using

45:33

triggers, beating, beating violently, innocent people

45:35

who are simply not even taking

45:37

part in demonstration, but simply making

45:39

a street and like tourists or

45:42

simply observing demonstration. That's something which

45:44

is for me, horrendous. What

45:47

we're seeing now in our

45:50

reporting is that climate activists have

45:52

always been targeted for, you know,

45:54

decades, they've been targeted by states

45:56

and interest groups and companies every

45:58

time. they've tried to,

46:01

every time they try to stop

46:03

or prevent more climate damage.

46:06

But what we seem to be seeing now

46:09

is that a lot of Western

46:12

countries that are considered democracies

46:15

are also clamping down

46:17

on climate activism. And I'm

46:20

wondering to what extent do you think

46:22

that clampdowns on climate activism

46:24

in Western countries give

46:28

license to people seeking to

46:30

restrict environmental activism in

46:33

places with histories of human rights

46:35

abuse and horror systems of accountability?

46:38

Yeah, that for me was the biggest

46:40

problem that we have to face with

46:42

the French government. In fact, the problem

46:44

is the coherence between international action of

46:46

the French government and what's happening at

46:48

domestic level. In fact, we

46:51

see that France and the development of the

46:54

are putting huge money to support

46:56

activists and defenders and civic space

46:58

in many countries, asking

47:01

their embassies in countries also to

47:03

invite defenders and activists to to

47:05

meet with them, and provide funding

47:07

also to activity to groups in

47:09

those countries. But at the

47:11

same time, at domestic level, they

47:14

are treating people who are going to the street

47:16

in a very violent way, so it's

47:19

not in fact, coherent. And I

47:21

see that speaking to other governments

47:23

in Africa, or

47:25

Latin America, then when they

47:28

discuss with the embassies, they sometimes refer to

47:30

the fact that look at the picture that

47:33

we are seeing in our chilies on

47:35

how you respond to the most French in

47:37

your country. Why are you

47:39

criticizing us in fact, and that's

47:41

something which has also an impact

47:43

on the image of a country

47:45

like France at international level. And

47:47

that also explain why in

47:50

some countries we see a stronger

47:53

resistance, a strong reaction against

47:55

against France. And I'm also

47:57

looking at how Putin or

48:01

other dictators also referring to a situation

48:03

in France to simply say what's happening

48:05

in our country is not different from

48:07

what's happening in France. So you see

48:10

that it's also an impact. And I

48:12

remember putting also with

48:15

a smile, discussing with Macron on the

48:17

fact that when the yellow vests were

48:19

demonstrating in France, I was saying, look

48:21

at us, how you respond. And are

48:23

you criticizing us? In fact, of course,

48:25

they are not killing a defense in

48:27

France. But at the same time,

48:30

they are using also very severe forms

48:32

of violence. Yeah,

48:34

I mean, that's fascinating and

48:37

clarifying at the same time.

48:39

I remember I had in the past a

48:42

discussion with the French ambassador to Honduras. I

48:44

don't want to give

48:46

the name or the period, in fact, when I

48:48

was in Bimont D'etre between 2014

48:50

and 2020, in fact, traveling to Honduras

48:53

and discussing with the ambassador that he

48:55

was criticizing what he said. In fact,

48:57

at that time, there was a very

48:59

violent demonstration in Honduras. And when he

49:01

tried to explain to the minister of

49:03

interior, of home affairs, that sometimes the

49:05

police should behave differently, then immediately there

49:07

was a response from the minister to

49:09

the ambassador saying, look at what's happening

49:12

in France. Wow. Yeah,

49:14

I had to heart. So

49:19

on the repression, and

49:21

again, I'm thinking particularly

49:23

about what happened

49:26

in France after Saint-Souline,

49:29

your statements on the use

49:31

of force by police have

49:33

been very strong-worded. I

49:35

was, in fact, surprised by how strong-worded they were

49:38

for an office linked to the UN. How

49:43

effective do you think the condemnation

49:45

of UN bodies and

49:47

special rapporteurs can really

49:49

be importing injustice?

49:52

How much of a deterrent can

49:55

it really be if

49:58

there's no sort of enforcement making it? or

50:01

actual punishment to go with it? First,

50:04

I would say that my reaction was

50:06

very strong, but I was

50:08

not the only one having this reaction

50:11

coming from international organizations. We

50:13

had a similar reaction coming from the

50:15

Commission for Human Rights of the Council

50:17

of Europe, also condemning by Valens the

50:20

response of the police. You

50:22

also had a statement by the new UN

50:25

High Commissioner for Human Rights on France

50:27

at the opening of one of the

50:29

sessions of the Council, using the same

50:32

strong words against – not against –

50:34

but to point out the fact

50:36

that France was one of the countries

50:38

which is currently the most violent against

50:40

people who was trying to demonstrate. So

50:42

we – I mean, I was not

50:45

alone. It was like we had discussions

50:47

with the UN on how to react,

50:49

and other rapporteurs also sent

50:51

a formal communication to France, a group

50:53

of rapporteurs, which is public also, condemning

50:56

the violent response by the police of

50:58

demonstrations in San Solina. So

51:00

it was like a sort of a

51:03

joint action by different organizations to put

51:05

pressure on France. So you

51:07

would say that it doesn't work. In

51:09

fact, if you read the response by

51:11

the French minister of interior, Darmana, saying

51:14

that his guy commenting on his

51:16

violence from his office in New York, while I'm

51:18

based in Paris, in fact, and

51:20

it's a sort of show-off position, saying we

51:22

don't care what the UN is saying, in

51:24

fact. But when you speak

51:27

with the internal system, with the Ministry

51:29

of Foreign Affairs, with the Ministry of

51:31

Justice, you see that is an impact,

51:33

in fact, because they know that at

51:35

the end of the day, some – France

51:37

will be called before the UN at different

51:39

occasions. For instance, UNOS

51:41

is what we call the Universal

51:44

Periodic Review. It's a

51:46

new – a new mechanism

51:48

at the UN by which all states have to

51:50

come to the UN and to

51:53

explain the situation of human rights in

51:55

the country. And then there is communication

51:57

recommendations coming from other states and

51:59

France. every four years,

52:01

as also to respond to questions

52:03

coming from other countries on what's

52:06

happening in France. So, it has

52:08

an impact because they don't want

52:10

to hear strong colonization coming from

52:12

other states because it has an

52:14

impact also on the reputation of

52:16

France. So, I'm sure that

52:18

publicly, again, that's

52:21

a response of the minister, but at the

52:23

same time instructions have been

52:25

given to ambassadors to monitor what's happening

52:27

at the UN, to prepare the next

52:30

time, the next phase of France examination

52:32

before the UN must cancel. So, I'm

52:34

sure it has an impact. I'm not

52:36

able to measure the level of the

52:39

impact, but I'm sure that it has

52:41

a positive impact. Some

52:43

public statements from the UN and

52:45

from the Council of Europe on

52:47

France have an impact because France

52:50

is one of the five countries members of

52:52

the Secretary-General of the UN. So, they

52:54

have also a duty and obligations to be for

52:56

him, which is not the case so far, but

52:58

they have an obligation to do that. Okay.

53:03

Let's talk about the situation in

53:05

France in more detail. So,

53:08

can you tell me from your

53:11

perspective what the situation

53:13

has looked like in France recently

53:16

when it comes to the rights and

53:18

the protection of environmental defenders? I

53:21

would say two different situations like

53:23

them. At the level of

53:25

the orders convention, in addition to

53:27

the mandate of Special Rapporteur, you

53:30

also what we call the compliance committee. The

53:32

compliance committee is there to look at how France

53:34

would comply with all the provisions of the convention

53:37

and anyone had the possibility to comply

53:39

before the compliance committee. It's

53:41

more broadly on the lack

53:44

of access to information or

53:46

lack of public participation. And

53:49

currently, if you look at the website of

53:51

the compliance committee, you

53:54

would see that there are currently

53:56

complaints being put forward

53:58

by groups like the UN. like France National

54:20

Convention. Now to come soon to activists and to

54:22

defenders themselves, that is individuals or

54:31

women in Wales, I mean,

54:33

since it's been appointed, have been approved

54:35

by many groups, in fact, in different

54:37

places in France, from Brittany

54:39

to Toulouse in the south of

54:41

France, from the north of France

54:44

to Strasbourg on different topics related

54:46

to environmental situations

54:48

or climate activities. In fact,

54:50

people who are demonstrating against

54:53

a new installation or

54:55

a new project, up to people

54:57

who are simply trying to block

54:59

an access to airports or to

55:02

roads because they want to publicly

55:04

express their opinion on the inaction

55:06

of the government on climate. So

55:08

different types of situations. And

55:11

what I've been seeing and sometimes

55:13

monitoring myself, because I've been also traveling

55:15

to meet with them and to see

55:17

situations monitoring demonstrations, monitoring trials in

55:19

court or so, that the

55:21

situation is not improving currently.

55:23

And as we said from

55:25

the beginning, the sometimes concise

55:28

campaigns of village negation by public

55:30

officials have also a great impact,

55:32

which is very unfortunate on the

55:34

public opinion. When you have

55:37

a minister and then a prime

55:39

minister and then public officials and

55:41

members of parliament calling those people

55:43

ecoterrorists or simply terrorists

55:45

or comparing them to Taliban

55:48

or to violent actions,

55:50

then it's not only people who are under

55:52

pressure by the cause for which they are

55:54

fighting, which I mean, we'll have

55:56

a poll in the coming months to see

55:59

the impact of public vocation by

56:01

public officials on the way

56:04

the French opinion might be manipulated

56:07

on climate. But it

56:09

has clearly an impact on the way

56:12

the population is perceiving those

56:14

forms of activism. So the situation is

56:16

not for me a model in France

56:18

from the response of the police, which

56:21

is one of the most violent in

56:23

Europe, and the response of

56:25

the judicial system, which is not coherent at

56:27

all. We have an issue

56:29

in France with climate activism

56:31

and civil disobedience. And

56:35

in that way,

56:37

I mean, you talk about climate

56:39

activists being stigmatized by the media

56:42

and also by

56:44

ministers and our police

56:46

force using a disproportionate amount,

56:48

of course, on protesters. Is

56:51

there a French exception

56:53

in that way when it comes

56:55

to the repression of climate activism?

56:58

How does it compare to other countries

57:00

in Europe? I mean, when

57:02

it comes to campaigns of vilification or

57:05

criminalization, that's not only in France, in fact,

57:07

you have the same level of issue. If

57:09

you look at Germany, I was also in

57:11

Austria in a sort of official visit.

57:14

And I heard one of the ministers in

57:16

Austria, he also the world eco-terrorist to qualify

57:18

people who are simply going to the streets,

57:20

people who were at the time throwing paints

57:23

on the monument in fact in Austria. But

57:26

you see that in the UK, that's

57:28

the same in Spain, you have the same in

57:30

Italy, you have the same in

57:32

all EU countries, those campaigns

57:35

of stigmatization and vilification are

57:37

also the same

57:40

level in fact. The main difference

57:42

in France is the response of the

57:44

police. But in terms of the way

57:46

politicians are perceiving a collective visa, we

57:48

have the same problem in

57:50

all countries with the exception of

57:52

Norway again, which is not EU

57:54

but a big country in Europe.

57:57

What's different about how the

57:59

police were response to climate activism in

58:01

France, what puts them apart? I mean, simply

58:03

the level of violence. The level of violence

58:05

is not the case in the UK, where

58:10

they have a strong tradition of not

58:12

being so violent, not using the same

58:14

methods. In Germany,

58:16

that's the case. Despite the fact that

58:18

in the past, the German police has

58:20

been very violent, but nowadays it's different.

58:23

They are, in fact, using, as

58:25

we said, these new forms of

58:27

violence against the demonstration, using this

58:29

hand grip. They said that they

58:32

don't have strong tear gas or

58:34

beatings by the police, using also

58:36

bullets against people who are

58:38

demonstrating, which is unique in France

58:40

and not a model for other countries.

58:44

What do you think explains that? Why

58:47

is the French police

58:49

more violent than its neighbours?

58:52

It was interesting to hear, especially discussing

58:54

the difference between the French police and

58:57

other police, in fact. In the past,

58:59

there has been a group established by

59:01

the EU, inviting police

59:03

officers to come together to discuss methods

59:06

of work, reaction to different forms of

59:08

demotuation. France decided not to participate to

59:10

this group of discussion. It's happy because

59:12

they say that we have our own

59:15

procedural way of doing it and we

59:17

don't want to learn from others. So

59:20

they simply refused to discuss

59:22

with others, while others coming

59:24

together decided to adopt new modalities

59:26

of action and to take

59:28

the best from the best of the

59:30

police officers in other countries. France was

59:33

different, decided not to take part in

59:35

those discussions. I don't have the name

59:37

of the group of discussion, but if

59:39

you look into Google, you would find

59:41

this. If you listen to a

59:43

specialist of the police in France,

59:45

I will also explain that where

59:47

the situation by which France would

59:50

decide to go alone, saying we

59:52

have our own efficient

59:54

tradition. Okay, wow.

59:58

And in terms of... So

1:00:00

you're saying they're also quite

1:00:02

unique in the

1:00:05

amount and the strength of the

1:00:07

weapons they're using against protesters, right?

1:00:09

Like Robert the Lutz, like Grenad

1:00:12

de d'Enfastre Mont? Yes. Yeah.

1:00:15

Tools that they're using, which

1:00:18

are not used at all by

1:00:20

other governments. And

1:00:23

those methods are used in countries

1:00:25

in Africa, sometimes in Latin America,

1:00:28

using or sometimes little weapons

1:00:30

to target the most weight.

1:00:33

Yeah, that's unique in Europe and which

1:00:35

is not only for me, but for

1:00:38

the UN, a great matter of concern.

1:00:42

I'd like to go back to October

1:00:45

2022. So

1:00:48

you've just sort of started

1:00:51

as UN

1:00:53

Special Rapporteur on

1:00:55

Environmental Defenders. There's

1:00:58

a first major protest

1:01:00

against water basins in

1:01:02

Amsterdam and our Interior

1:01:04

Minister Gerald D'Armanin

1:01:08

labels climate activists eco-terrorists.

1:01:13

How do you feel? I

1:01:15

mean, I feel not well at all because

1:01:18

I slide with me the image of what

1:01:20

is terrorist in fact. I

1:01:22

mean, I think it's a matter of people

1:01:24

who have been brutally killed in France by

1:01:27

terrorists and comparing people who are simply and

1:01:29

non-violently going to the street to demonstrate for

1:01:31

a better future for our planet to terrorists.

1:01:34

But for me, it's difficult to understand. And

1:01:37

yeah, that's a pity that as

1:01:39

we say in France, our minister should not say

1:01:41

that. Right. I mean,

1:01:43

especially you're as a

1:01:45

French person as well, sort of having that

1:01:47

memory of 2016 and

1:01:50

actual terrorism. Exactly. Yeah.

1:01:54

Same when I hear other ministries,

1:01:56

other countries, comparing them to the

1:01:59

Taliban. And if you look

1:02:01

at the situation of Taliban in Afghanistan and

1:02:04

how they treat women and other

1:02:06

people, I mean,

1:02:09

what does it mean to

1:02:11

compare climate activists to Taliban?

1:02:13

Or even because I'm not sure,

1:02:15

I'm not sure, but I've also

1:02:17

heard the ministers in other countries

1:02:20

compare them to green-crack mayors like

1:02:22

in Cambodia. And Cambodia,

1:02:24

that's a genocide. Two

1:02:26

million people being killed by

1:02:29

the government and comparing innocent

1:02:31

people simply going to the

1:02:33

streets, non-violently, to green-crack mayors.

1:02:35

That's difficult to, I mean,

1:02:37

rationally to understand why someone

1:02:40

educated at the level of a

1:02:43

minister could go public with those

1:02:45

statements. I mean, that's simply not

1:02:48

easy to understand for me and for others

1:02:50

in fact. And

1:02:53

so, sticking to that

1:02:55

topic of defamation

1:02:58

campaigns, you

1:03:01

mentioned in another interview that

1:03:04

as a UN Special

1:03:06

Rapporteur, you were particularly targeted

1:03:09

by French politicians for

1:03:11

I think it was probably denouncing

1:03:13

what had happened in St. Helene,

1:03:15

but that people were sort of calling

1:03:17

into question your office. Yeah,

1:03:19

I was not targeted. I was simply

1:03:22

mocked by a minister and by others

1:03:24

saying that, why is it that this

1:03:26

guy based in New York would comment

1:03:28

simply on the basis of videos what's

1:03:30

happening in St. Helene? But

1:03:33

he was not really a campaign of defamation

1:03:35

or campaign against me, in fact, simply a

1:03:38

minister mocking me. While

1:03:40

at the same time he was not there as well,

1:03:42

he was in his office, this minister,

1:03:45

also looking at videos of what's

1:03:47

happening in St. Helene. So he was

1:03:49

so commented from his office while he

1:03:51

was commenting for my office in fact.

1:03:53

So just to compare. Is

1:03:56

that a first for you as

1:03:59

a UN Special Rapporteur? aperture being

1:04:01

mocked by a government

1:04:03

minister? I mean,

1:04:06

that seems like quite a great

1:04:08

length to go to to discredit

1:04:11

the UN. No, that's, that's a,

1:04:13

I will not say a

1:04:15

common practice, but I've been also in the

1:04:17

past, but in other countries, in fact, like

1:04:19

for instance, the case of Azerbaijan, the

1:04:22

kind of official visit to Azerbaijan, but it's easy

1:04:24

to compare the Bayesian New France, in fact,

1:04:27

the vice president of Azerbaijan, saying

1:04:29

that Mr. Ford should be

1:04:31

of Armenian origin, because

1:04:34

he was so violent against our country.

1:04:37

And of course, I'm not at all Armenian, but hearing

1:04:39

a vice president trying to defend

1:04:41

me by, I mean, that's interesting

1:04:43

to compare reaction by Azerbaijan and

1:04:45

reaction by the by a French

1:04:47

minister in fact, whether same

1:04:49

the same in Colombia, Honduras, Peru, and

1:04:52

that's when you are going public on

1:04:54

what's happening in the country as a

1:04:56

UN official. And then you are

1:04:58

used to receive that sort of response. Yeah.

1:05:02

After the water protests

1:05:04

at San Solin, you

1:05:06

and other officials

1:05:09

came together to say that the

1:05:11

the response of the state and

1:05:14

the police had been largely disproportionate.

1:05:16

How how did you come to that conclusion? And

1:05:19

can you tell me a bit more

1:05:21

about what happened at San Solin from

1:05:23

your perspective? Yes, simply,

1:05:25

I mean, I decided to interview

1:05:27

witnesses, eyewitnesses and journalists, also people

1:05:29

who were there, had a

1:05:32

meeting with members of the EU parliament,

1:05:34

and San Solin also to discuss with

1:05:36

them what's happening. Also, look

1:05:38

at many videos from from the

1:05:40

media on the on the response

1:05:42

of the police on the violence.

1:05:44

And when I decided to comment

1:05:46

and say that was disproportionate, it

1:05:48

was based on my interviews and

1:05:50

my monitoring of videos. And

1:05:53

I remember very well one of the videos

1:05:55

showing a high rank

1:05:57

official, Jean-Dame Francais. looking

1:06:01

from the hill,

1:06:03

saying they are from Czecha to the

1:06:05

wrong part of the demonstration, while people

1:06:08

who are targeted were not the ones

1:06:10

who were violent. But I mean, it

1:06:12

was, yeah, not well prepared. I've

1:06:15

heard you speak about the FNSUAR

1:06:17

before, and sort of

1:06:19

also their actions to impede

1:06:22

freedom of speech of climate

1:06:24

activists. Can

1:06:27

you talk a bit about

1:06:29

the political and corporate interests

1:06:31

that you're seeing behind the

1:06:33

violence against climate activists in

1:06:36

France? Yes. What I

1:06:38

meant praising the situation of the

1:06:40

FNSUAR in France is that it's

1:06:42

difficult to understand when you compare

1:06:44

two types of action using

1:06:46

the same methods to see that climate activists

1:06:48

would be immediately put in question by the

1:06:50

police or by the justice system being brought

1:06:53

to justice, while when it comes to

1:06:56

big interests like the FNSUAR, close

1:06:58

to the big farmers in France,

1:07:00

everything they do, I mean, there's

1:07:03

no consequences at all. When

1:07:05

the FNSUAR, which is the largest,

1:07:08

sort of one of the largest union farmers

1:07:10

in France, which

1:07:13

is also protecting the interests of

1:07:15

commercial and huge agriculture, agribusiness, and

1:07:17

they've conducted quite a lot of,

1:07:19

I mean, they've been linked to

1:07:21

a lot of actions in France

1:07:23

of like attack against climate

1:07:26

activists and journalists. But also attacks

1:07:28

against public buildings. In fact, I would not say

1:07:30

that in English, but the... Yeah,

1:07:35

like launching, like sort

1:07:38

of sending like, hell with compost.

1:07:40

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the FNSUAR

1:07:42

is not a complex before public

1:07:44

officials, but the buildings and

1:07:46

no consequences at all. The

1:07:49

municipality that would clean the building,

1:07:52

would clean the streets and no

1:07:54

consequences at all for these demonstrations,

1:07:56

while other activists using less severe

1:07:58

forms of action. would be

1:08:01

immediately arrested by the police and brought to

1:08:03

justice. So the different type of cooperation, that's

1:08:05

something which is striking here in a country

1:08:07

like France. I could not

1:08:10

say that from other countries because

1:08:12

I would be able to monitor

1:08:14

that in other countries. But in

1:08:16

France, that is the case. Some

1:08:18

commercial interests also have an impact

1:08:20

on the way the French officials

1:08:22

are reacting to the mobilization of

1:08:24

climate revision. I mean,

1:08:26

because they see that in the case of

1:08:28

the megabassins, if the system would

1:08:31

not allow any more megabassins to

1:08:33

be constructed or built, then it

1:08:35

was an impact on the agricultural

1:08:38

influence. Just that last question, you

1:08:41

mentioned COP at the beginning of

1:08:43

this interview. Do

1:08:45

you expect the

1:08:48

persecution of climate protesters to

1:08:51

come up at COP or

1:08:53

do you plan to push

1:08:55

for that to happen? I

1:08:59

mean, we don't expect during the COP, climate

1:09:01

companies to be punished or be persecuted. What

1:09:04

we expect is that many of them would

1:09:07

not be allowed to travel to Dubai for

1:09:09

obvious reasons. It was also

1:09:11

the case in Sharm al-Sheikh in Egypt the last

1:09:13

time. So that's one of the first.

1:09:16

But the main concern that I have

1:09:18

together with a group of NGOs is

1:09:20

that climate action is

1:09:23

not only a matter for governments. And

1:09:25

it will be also a matter of discussion with

1:09:28

the population, and especially those who

1:09:30

are affected by climate

1:09:32

change. And

1:09:35

although we see that in many

1:09:37

countries in Europe, organizations

1:09:39

are invited to discuss with the

1:09:42

government on the negotiation

1:09:44

of coming to during the COP.

1:09:47

It's not the case for many countries in fact.

1:09:50

And what we want to achieve is

1:09:53

a better understanding on why is

1:09:55

it important for all

1:09:57

governments to invite to the

1:09:59

table. those who are affected

1:10:01

by climate change. And not only

1:10:03

to invite them to be part

1:10:06

of formerly the delegation and to

1:10:08

have one or two of them

1:10:10

as a valuable in the delegation,

1:10:12

but to discuss more in detail

1:10:14

the outcome document prior to the

1:10:16

conference and then after the conference

1:10:18

when it comes to the implication

1:10:21

and the inaction in the countries.

1:10:24

Yeah. I mean, I

1:10:26

guess to come back

1:10:28

to the protection of environmental

1:10:30

defenders, in what

1:10:33

ways could these international

1:10:36

climate negotiations be

1:10:38

leveraged for the protection of protest?

1:10:40

I mean, we know that this

1:10:42

is always mentioned at COPS, but will

1:10:46

you push for some sort of like

1:10:48

official inclusion and commitment,

1:10:50

for example, particularly in the

1:10:52

context of the UAE hosting

1:10:54

the COP? Yes.

1:10:56

Since the Paris Agreement, we see

1:10:58

that climate defenders and other defense

1:11:00

are mentioned in the outcome documents.

1:11:02

They are simply mentioned in

1:11:05

the first part of the document.

1:11:08

In the operative part, which contains decisions

1:11:10

by the COP, they are

1:11:12

never in fact mentioned in fact.

1:11:14

So what we need to achieve

1:11:17

is more concrete commitments by states,

1:11:19

not only to include strong wording

1:11:21

on defenders in the outcome documents,

1:11:24

but concrete commitments by states to

1:11:26

do more on defenders. Because we see, and

1:11:28

that's how we started the interview, that

1:11:31

in so many countries, they are the most

1:11:33

at risk. And in the

1:11:35

context of the COP meetings, that's

1:11:37

the place where those things have

1:11:40

to be discussed, but not only

1:11:42

discussed, but also concretely discussions should

1:11:44

lead to concrete decisions by states

1:11:47

to better protect defenders, also

1:11:49

to prevent the attacks, in fact, to

1:11:51

occur in countries. So we are working

1:11:53

together with a group of NGOs on

1:11:56

different options, possibilities to achieve that goal.

1:11:58

Yeah, it's about that. something that

1:12:00

you're going to push at the next

1:12:03

negotiation? Yes. Okay.

1:12:07

Brilliant. Thank you so much for taking all

1:12:09

of that time to speak to me. I

1:12:11

know that was a long interview, but there

1:12:13

are so many things to talk about. Is

1:12:15

there anything that I didn't ask you about that

1:12:17

you'd like to say? Maybe

1:12:20

I just would like to briefly

1:12:22

comment on my definition of civil

1:12:24

disobedience, which is something that I'm

1:12:26

trying to promote when I'm monitoring

1:12:28

a trial in France or a

1:12:31

monitoring a trial in Germany. In

1:12:33

fact, so that judges will understand

1:12:35

that civil disobedience in fact is

1:12:37

covered by international email. And

1:12:39

they sometimes ignore that this

1:12:41

is the case. You have

1:12:44

clearly a definition, but clearly

1:12:46

a statement by the UN

1:12:48

Women's Committee commenting on public

1:12:50

demonstration and saying that civil disobedience

1:12:52

is covered by Article 21 of the Interf

1:13:49

Standards. And when those

1:13:51

four elements are contained in an

1:13:53

action of civil disobedience, for me,

1:13:56

they should not be punished by

1:13:58

the law. That just... This

1:14:00

is the first time that we've been able to do

1:14:02

this in a very long time. And that's why

1:14:04

we're here. And that's a bit easy. And

1:14:09

for this time, make thanks to Anna for

1:14:11

bringing us this interview. She'll be back soon

1:14:14

with an episode on how climate protest is

1:14:16

being repressed in France. So stay

1:14:18

tuned for that. Drilled

1:14:20

is an original critical frequency production.

1:14:23

This episode was written and reported

1:14:26

by Anna Pujol-Mazzini. Our

1:14:28

senior editor for this season is Aline

1:14:30

Brown. Our senior producer

1:14:32

is Martin Saltz-Ostwick, who also

1:14:34

does our sound design, Mixing and

1:14:36

Mastering by Peter Duff. Wudan

1:14:39

Yan is our fact checker. Our

1:14:41

artwork is by Matt Fleming. Our

1:14:43

first amendment attorney is James Wheaton.

1:14:46

The show was created by me, Amy Westervelt.

1:14:48

You can find related videos, photos

1:14:50

and print stories for this series,

1:14:52

along with all of the documentation

1:14:54

we have to go along with

1:14:56

it at Drilled.media. You can

1:14:58

also sign up there for our weekly newsletter.

1:15:00

We round up the top five stories on

1:15:02

climate that you should be reading each week

1:15:05

and include some analysis of various

1:15:07

trends. It never takes more

1:15:10

than 10 minutes to read and people tell us

1:15:12

it helps them stay on top of climate info

1:15:14

without getting overwhelmed by the fire

1:15:17

hose of stories. You

1:15:19

can also find us on Twitter at We

1:15:22

Are Drilled and on LinkedIn under Drilled Media.

1:15:25

If you'd like to support the podcast,

1:15:27

leaving us a reading or review actually

1:15:29

really helps us find new listeners. You

1:15:32

can also support us financially by becoming

1:15:34

a subscriber, either to the

1:15:36

newsletter or to the podcast on Apple,

1:15:39

Spotify or Patreon. Paid

1:15:41

subscribers get access to ad-free

1:15:43

episodes, early release episodes and

1:15:45

bonus content. Thanks

1:15:48

for listening and we'll see you next time.