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