In June 2022, Michel Forst became the UN's first Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders. In that role he has spent the past year speaking out about the increasingly onerous laws and aggressive tactics being used against climate protestors. Today he released a statement on the UK, saying he is "extremely worried" about "the increasingly severe crackdowns on environmental defenders in the United Kingdom, including in relation to the exercise of the right to peaceful protest." (Make sure to catch our story and podcast episode on what’s happening with climate protest!)

The position of Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders was created under something called the Arhus Convention. It's called that because it was adopted in the Danish city of Arhus. Its official title is the UN Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making, and Access to Justice and Environmental Matters (you can see why Arhus Convention is handy shorthand).

The Arhus Convention falls under the United Nations Economic Convention for Europe, and it's been ratified by 48 states, including the European Union. Forst points out that because it's a convention, there are actual teeth to it, too, 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 impact their environment, they need to be informed about it. And they need to be able to express their opinions on it. The convention also states 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.

I sat down with Forst in 2023, as yet another COP was preparing to muzzle protestors, to ask about his position, what it means, what he’s seeing in Europe and what he can do to protect environmental protestors.

Michel Forst at the UN headquarters in 2016, when he was the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights. Photo Credit: Frantz Vaillant

You can also listen to this conversation in our podcast! Looked for Drilled wherever you get your podcasts, or click the link below to listen right here:

Anna Pujol-Mazzini: Hello, Michel Forst. 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 rapporteur?

Michel Forst: Yes. So thank you for the invitation. As you know, I've been recently appointed to a due mandate. which has been created by states that are party to the Arhus convention, which is a very interesting convention, ratified by 48 states, including the EU, based on three pillars.

The first is access 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 properly informed by the state in any language that is accessible to the public. The second pillar, which is complementary to the first, is the obligation for states to also consult communities, families, people who are affected by this project.

And they would have a right to say anything on the project, including the right to say no. Doesn't mean that they could block the project, but at least they could express themselves and say that they don't agree with the project. And the last pillar, which is very relevant for the time being, is access to justice, access to environmental justice, meaning that people have a right to go to court and then to challenge any decision made by the state or the company when it affects their environment. So the mandate is mostly directed to countries that are party to the Earth Convention. But the beauty of the mandate, if I may say so, is that when it comes to companies, that operate abroad, like companies doing extractive industries or anything in that vein, if they have their headquarters in one of the countries, which is part of the convention and operate abroad and then do harm to defenders abroad, like a company based in Madrid, working on Payamol and working in Peru or Colombia, and then deforesting affecting communities, then those defenders could have an access to my mandate.

And then it would speak not to the state, but to the company itself. So we have plenty of cases currently coming to the mandate from Africa, from Latin America, and also from Asia involving companies that are based in France, in UK, in Switzerland, Norway, other countries. So there's a very new mandate, very interesting.

And we need to promote the mandate 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 mandate is precisely because they see that in many parts of the world, those who are the most targeted, the most under pressure are 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.

APM: So you're the first rapporteur 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?

MF: As I said, precisely because the states party to the convention have been made aware of the need to do more. So there is a strong component on prevention in my mandate, and I'm trying to develop with my team. Also with the support of lawyers and NGOs, new measures to prevent those attacks to occur. The difference between this mandate and other UN mandates is that while other mandates have been created by a resolution adopted by the Council in Geneva, by the UN Rights Council, this mandate has been created within a legally binding instrument—the convention—which has huge implications in the, the months yet to come. The fact that there is a mandate created an illegal bind instrument has huge implications for states, but also for the companies because companies that are currently in one of the countries that are party to the convention are also legally bound by this new mandate.

APM: And so the fact that the mandate is legally binding, what does that give you? What tools does that give you to protect environmental defenders?

MF: It gives more, more pressure to, to the mandate. When I'm speaking with ministers, traveling to two countries, when I'm sending allegation letters to countries, drawing the attention on 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 has, it may have implications. Like for instance, uh, if one state would not fulfill, the recommendations expressed by the mandate. Then there would be also possibilities for the other parties to the convention to request a withdrawal from the states from the convention, which in terms of international diplomacy have quite a number of implications.

Could you imagine UK or France being expelled from one of the most relevant convention on environment? That will be complicated for them to face. And similarly, the fact that we are currently in Europe adopting new measures, new legally binding instruments, like the new due diligence directive, would also have implications for companies that are based in Europe and states would have the obligations to oversee the behavior of companies supporting like TotalEnergies in France, uh, or like companies from UK or from, from other countries operating abroad.

So it's too early now to say, but I am confident that the more we developed together with lawyers, the methods of work, and we will see the results in a number of states.

APM: 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?

MF: Yes, you know that in the past I also had another mandate. I used to be the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders. And when I started with this mandate, it was in 2014. 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 that were the most at risk were precisely environmental defenders.

And that's why I decided to develop and to present a report in 2016 to the UN Human Rights Council on environmental defenders, just 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 mechanisms, tools to protect them.

But nonetheless, you 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 environmental defenders. which I adopted a couple of years later, and it was a way to pave the way for other states and for the EU and for the Lifeline project to create new tools and modalities to protect environmental defenders.

But nonetheless, we see that the situation is quite, quite complicated now. And that's why having this new mandate, I'm trying to do the same, that is to organize consultations. But, uh, 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 the situation is becoming because states are developing, and companies are developing also new forms of insidious attacks against environment defenders and climate activists.

APM: 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?

MF: Yes, I mean, if you read the reports by Global Witness, they would tell you, well, the data of killings or attacks against defenders is increasing now.

It's not diminishing, despite the fact that we have developed new measures, new forms of attacks—insidious attacks—have been developed by state using different forms of criminalization, campaigns of vilification 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 climate.

And that's something which, which, unfortunately, it works, in fact, and you see that the reaction of the public to those new forms of mobilizations is not a big support.

APM: Absolutely. 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, 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?

MF: You know, when I was appointed in the two, in fact, I started in October 22, I decided to travel to EU countries just to present the mandate because it's not well known and we need to promote the mandate.

And I've been invited to quite a number of EU capitals to meet with governments and meeting with ministers, trying to seek support, but also political backing and sometimes funding for the mandate. And at each and 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 disobedience and climate activism. In fact, a meeting with Greenpeace, a meeting with other organizations, Dernières Réservations in France or other countries that have 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 heavy fines or penalties or prison 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 are 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 demonstrate that. And they only say that we are blocking access to roads, putting in danger other people, blocking the access to hospitals, which is not true, blocking access to airports.

But they don't report properly on why we as climate activists go to the street to claim for a better response from the state on 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 27 climate activists from, from, from 17 countries to meet with me one day, and the idea was to share information and to read different experiences coming from, from different countries. I also invited lawyers, their lawyers to come to the meeting and to explain why they have been not able to provide a very effective support to these climate activists.

And the idea of this first workshop was to prepare sort of a guidance tool for states to see whether or not we could find a sort of harmonization inside EU countries on how states are responding to the new 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 had someone also from Switzerland. And even in countries, we see that the response coming from the judicial system is not the same. If you demonstrate in Paris or in Toulouse, or in Bordeaux, then if you are brought to justice, you go to court, and you receive different sentences from the court.

The same judicial system doesn't have enough sort of harmonization of the response to climate activism. I've 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, I'm really struck by the fact that the judges don't really respond to the needs. In some countries, like in France 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 decided to break the law consensually, 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 the judicial system is different, which is not acceptable. In fact, currently UK and Germany are the two countries that are the most difficult for climate activists and those who are using civil disobedience.

And it has in those countries, but also in other countries, a deterrent effect, meaning that people are sentenced to heavy fines. And so they would decide not to continue with their action. They would decide to withdraw from the organizations. So it works from the side of the government. The more important the fines are, penalties, then the more people would decide to withdraw from organizations and would not decide to continue the fight.

APM: 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've heard of particular political groups or interest groups or sort of companies pushing for repression in order to protect their interests?

MF: Well, in fact, the, the reason why we see such an increasing number of forms of mobilization in Europe is that young people, to note, are currently the most active and see that their future is endangered in fact. And that's why they are going to street to demonstrate and using civil disobedience as a way of action.

But on the other side, the reaction from the states is quite, is quite different. I don't know, but probably, companies would talk to each other. In fact, that's clear. And I know that governments are currently also discussing what's happening in their countries, comparing situation, comparing the response from the justice system to those new forms of mobilization.

But, we don't have concrete elements to elaborate on this. We know that some companies are putting pressure in UK, on the government. We know that companies are putting pressure in France, like TotalEnergie and others on the government to respond to the attacks coming from those activists against those companies, but we, I cannot confirm that. There are currently a sort of European mobilization from companies or a network of companies that would decide to lobby in Europe, at the EU or at national level, at domestic level, against this new activism.

What I see is that on the media you see more countries, people using those new forms of mobilization, blocking the streets, throwing paints in museums, or blocking access to 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 properly, adequately, they don't 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 role that the mandate has: to monitor the situation, and then to report back to states, and to provide guidance to states to better respond. In my workshop in Paris in July, I also invited a few, activists coming from outside the EU to see whether or not it's limited in EU.

And in fact, we have people coming from Georgia, for instance, or 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 their countries, in fact. So currently that's very limited to EU countries, in fact. So we need to understand why.

APM: So when you say this seems to be limited to EU countries, is that the civil disobedience techniques, or is that the sort of repressive strategies used by states?

MF: Both. I mean using civil disobedience is a form of action that is used mostly in EU countries. While in Denmark, for instance, I was struck by the fact that climate activists in Denmark, the first thing that they asked me, was to leave my, my computer and my telephone outside of the room, because they say we are under surveillance, and we are taped. And that’s the first time for many years that I have seen that in Europe, people asking me to put my telephone outside of the room. And when they came to Paris to my meeting, they say the same. So we decided to leave all telephones outside the room.

APM: Wow. And so I find it so interesting Norway being a country which is also seeing a lot of climate activism and a lot of civil disobedience, but not as heavy handed a response to it. Would you say that's currently the country that's best respecting the rights of environmental defenders within your mandate?

MF: 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 the EU, but that needs to be to be confirmed by a more comprehensive analysis.

And that's why I also have to request the Fundamental Rights Agency, the FRA, based in Vienna, they are doing studies to study the legal systems in many countries, and then they are also doing interviews with beneficiaries to see whether or not the law is respected in countries. So the FRA would also be looking at the current state of legislations in new countries on civil disobedience to see whether there was a need to harmonize legislations.

This is interesting because it's one of the agencies that reports to the EU, to the Council, to the Commission, and to the Parliament, in fact. And the role is to guide also the EU institutions on how to put pressure on states to better respect the Charter, in fact. So a study coming from the FRA would also be a way to complement my own empiric analysis of the situation, a more scientific observation of what's happening in EU countries.

APM: So since your office was created almost a year ago now, what are some of the complaints that you've received? Do you have figures or examples of the complaints people come to you with?

MF: The, the practice is that with UN special rapporteurs, the communications are kept confidential until they become public, in fact.

So when I receive a complaint or a communication coming from, from a defender, then I'm discussing with the staff, we're looking to receiving additional information, we double check information to make sure that we are not manipulated and that the mandate is relevant. And then when we are sure that the complaint is relevant for the mandate, then we send a communication, an official communication to the state and state that they have 60 days to reply to my communication in writing. And then my communication and the response of the state becomes public on the website. So if you go to the website of my mandate, you will see a few public communications. The idea of those communications is to prevent other attacks from occurring.

That is, if we deal with an attack, then the state has a duty not to duplicate or to repeat the attacks to the communities. So the idea is to make sure that those communications will be able to prevent attacks. So currently we're receiving communication coming from climate activists complaining that they have been arrested, brought to justice, that the justice system doesn't fulfill the international obligation of the states and that states have ratified conventions that they don't respect. We are also receiving a communication coming from defenders in Latin America, having been attacked by companies based in one of the countries that is party to the Arhus convention.

So we’re currently, yes, discussing with states, discussing with companies on how we should follow up on those communications to make sure that things will not happen and not be worse for, for defenders. We also have cases like in the Balkans or Central Asia of broad communiques claiming that their rights to be properly consulted or to be heard, have not been respected by the state. And when it's come to big projects like megadams, we have a case of a megadam in one country in Central Asia, where communities have been affected. So it's more sort of a more broad communication coming from a group of defenders rather than a communication coming from one single individual.

APM: What are some of the cases that you're now allowed to talk about?

MF: I would have a few cases of climate activism. Like what's in France, there was a case of a journalist who had been accused of taking part in an action. And then being assimilated into a group of people who are using civil disobedience, when he was there as a journalist, and then he was arrested by the police.

And, and then after my letter was sent to the government, then the government decided to lift the charges against him. So that's one of the cases.

APM: 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 brunt of the violence occurs in countries outside of Europe, and especially against Indigenous communities, and since the U. S. 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?

MF: That's precisely what is the limitation of the mandate in FIFA. When companies based in Canada or in China or in Russia or in the U.S. and are doing harm to defenders, to communities, to indigenous people, I can do nothing. When I receive a complaint coming from them because they think that my mandate would be relevant, then I'm simply forwarding the communication to other mandate holders. And we have a good level of communication with other rapporteurs.

I would also report and will forward the information to the Secretary of the Excelsior Agreement, which is similar to the Paris Convention, but relevant for the Americas. I would also decide to forward the information received to the African Rapporteur on Defenders. So we have a network of Defenders.

And if I'm not able to take a case, then I would refer the case to other rapporteurs. And similarly, some of them, we decided to put pressure on states to do joint communication with me, and I could also decide to do a joint communication to a state with the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe.

And she also, at many occasions, refers cases to me because she's traveling a lot to countries inside the Council of Europe. And when she sees that she's approached by communities or defenders, then she says, there is a mandate. Which is relevant to you, and I will refer the case to you. And then the staff are communicating on the case.

APM: Could you talk very quickly about the difference between the Arhus Convention and the Escazu Agreement?

MF: Both are international agreements. They are based on the same pillars, the three pillars, access to information, public participation, access to environmental justice. So we have the same grounds, in fact, on many bases.

But the main difference is that the Arhus 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 Arhus Convention. We are currently also discussing with other countries in Africa to join the convention, while the Escazú agreement is a regional agreement only for, for Latin America, for the Americas as a whole, in fact.

And the other difference is that although Escazú agreement and Arhus convention have also a strong component on the protection of defenders, the Arhus Convention has decided to establish a mandate, while it's not the case for the Escazú Agreement. And currently, yeah, we are discussing with the Escazú Agreement Secretariat, which is based in Chile.

They monitor the way this mandate is effective or not. And then they may also decide to establish a regional mandate under the Escazú Agreement to also promote and protect the defenders in the region. So that's more or less the main difference, but we are working in fact very closely together.

APM: 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 nonviolence, right? So according to the convention, environmental defenders are only protected if they are nonviolent, but given the climate emergency and the lack of impact 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 were also so increasingly seeing states and the media portray these activists as violent and dangerous, even in cases where that's not true. So, how, 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?

MF: Yes, you're right. And the question of violence is at the heart of the mandate to the view of the UN. In fact, that's a question which has been debated since decades by the UN and by member states. And you know that in 1998, states at the U. N. have decided to adopt a U. N. declaration on human defenders.

And precisely the clause of 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 mandate, I've been continuously confronted by the question of is that violence or not? And It's each time a difficult decision, a case by case decision.

And for me, since I've been working on Defenders for so many years, together with the staff, we have adopted a clear definition of violence. Violence cannot be against persons or against individuals. Like for instance, if you go to a rally or demonstration in the streets, you are throwing stones at police officers? That's for me violence. Those people are excluded from Arhus protection. They are throwing molotov cocktail at a building? That's for me violence. I could not recognize. I mean, I don't challenge the legitimacy of their cause, but they are not recognized by me as being human rights defenders. Someone who is responding to the violence by police? That's something which is 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 or, um, yeah, defending yourself, that for me is not violence, in fact. That's self defense, and those people could be recognized as being defenders.

So that's the limitation in terms of physical violence, in fact. When it comes to violence to property, I also have a very different approach. I would not, I would not take as defender someone who is deliberately using sabotage as a form of action. For me, that's clearly a limitation. But, one which is something really complicated to describe.

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 to, in a symbolic place, doing an action which is very, which will respond, will respond. to the definition of civil disobedience.

So, trespassing or breaking down a door to get to private property, to protest against a project in a symbolic way, is not considered violence, because you are not destroying, in fact you are not destroying the property, 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 basin like in France that's that for me is not …I mean I would not say it's not acceptable, but those people could not be recognized as being defenders in fact.

APM: Okay, so in, in this particular case, if you're mentioning the mega basins and the water defenders in France. Those activists who purposely decide to sabotage the installation of a basin — they don't come under your mandate?

MF: Clearly no.

APM: 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?

MF: As I said, we are monitoring, on a case by case, and through discussion with the staff. But for the time being, what we call sabotage is something which is not permitted under the mandate index.

I would not, I would not admit. But of course, we could, we could further discuss with the staff, 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 in a discussion with, with those groups to discuss the validity or legitimacy of sabotage.

That would be too complicated for me. I need to be careful because that's a new mandate, in fact, so I don't want to hamper the development of the mandate by taking too prematurely 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 pandering, in fact.

The boundaries are created by the resolution that creates my mandate. My role is to explore, if I may say so, the boundaries of non violence, but not to overlap the boundaries, in fact. So exploring may also be able to expand progressively the boundaries. But if I'm going too, too fast and I see the danger that state will decide, Oh, it's too dangerous.

Then we abolish the non-violence, which would be, yeah, a disaster for climate activists, in fact.

APM: It's probably a question that you're dealing with on a near daily basis, which would be like, how can I protect as many environmental defenders as I can without antagonizing states and multinational companies who might be putting pressure on states and make my mandate irrelevant. Right?

MF: Yeah. So if you take the case in France that I described— the case of the journalist, you know? In fact that day there was a group of, of activities that enter, I don't know the English term, whether, whether they store grains

APM: Grain silo.

MF: 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, nothing, I mean, they did not destroy.

It wasn't a sabotage. In fact, they simply wanted to show that those grains are genetic grains, dangerous for the future, and that's what they did, in fact. Simply that. They didn't decide to burn the grains, but simply to open the sack to show what was, in fact, the purpose of the action, and from a really Breaking the door, opening the sack, was not for me violence, in fact.

It's a way for them to, uh, to express their form of action, in fact. Okay. Even though that could technically be considered, you know, material destruction. Yeah. And the company decided to sue the activists precisely because they say that it was destruction of private property. But if I'd been invited to the court, I would have explained what is civil disobedience? And my concern is that in fact, the court do not really understand what is civil disobedience.

APM: What are the tactics being used against environmental defenders? I heard you mentioned in an interview with French media that police forces seem to be copying one another's methods in dealing with climate protest. Could you expand on that?

MF: Yes, I mean, that's, again, that's something which is emphatic. In fact, 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 pasted in other countries, I see that, in fact, there is a discussion with the police.

France is the country which had the most violent response by the police compared to other countries in Europe. But if you see, remember what they call in Germany, these penguin hand grips? That's when police officers twist the wrist of activists. Like, like the penguins in fact. Okay.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So they twist the arm. It's very painful in fact. For me, it amounts to torture in fact. That's very dangerous and very effective because people, the young people who are joining, if it's outside the demonstration, say it's too dangerous, it's too painful to me, I would not do that again, in fact.

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. They use the same technique. So I would say that there is a form of duplication, 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, because that would be too dangerous for other EU countries. In fact, using tear gas, beating, beating violently, innocent people who are simply not even taking part to demonstration, but simply being in the street and like tourists or simply observing a demonstration. That's something which is for me horrendous.

APM: 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 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 clampdowns on climate activism in Western countries gives license to people seeking to restrict environmental activism in places with histories of human rights abuse and poorer systems of accountability?

MF: Yeah, that's for me one of the biggest problems 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 the domestic level. In fact, we see that France and the development community are putting a huge money to support activists and defenders and civic space in many countries, asking the embassies in countries also to invite defenders and activists to meet with them. They provide funding also to activist 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 our TVs 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 an international level. And that also explains why in some countries we see a stronger resistance, a strong reaction against, against France. And I'm also looking at how Putin or 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 France.

So you see that there is also an impact. Of course they are not killing defenders in France, but at the same time they are using also very severe forms of violence.

APM: Yeah, I mean, that's fascinating and terrifying at the same time.

MF: I remember I had in the past a discussion with the French ambassador to Honduras. I don't want to to give the name or the period, in fact, but it was when I was in my mandate between 2014 and 2020, traveling to Honduras and discussing with the ambassador. And that is exactly what he said. At the time there was a very violent demonstration in Honduras and when he tried to explain to the minister of interior or home affairs that sometimes the police should behave differently, then immediately there was a response from the minister to the ambassador guy, look out for something in France.

APM Wow.

MF: Yeah.

APM: That had to hurt. So on the repression and again, I'm thinking particularly about what happened in France after Sainte-Soline, your statements on the use of force by police have been very strong worded. I was in fact surprised by how strong worded they were for an office linked to the UN. How effective do you think the condemnation of UN bodies and special rapporteurs can really be in thwarting injustice? How much of a deterrent can it really be if, if there's no sort of enforcement mechanisms or actual punishment to go with it?

MF: First of all, I would say that my reaction was very strong, but I was not the only one. having this reaction coming from international organizations.

We had a similar reaction coming from the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, also condemning Paris violence, the response of the police. You also had a statement by the new UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on France at the opening of one of the sessions of the Council, using the same strong words against, not against, but to, to point out the fact that France was one of the countries which is currently the most violent against people who are trying to demonstrate.

So we are, I mean, I was not alone. It was like we had discussions with the UN on how to react and other rapporteurs also sent a formal communication to France, a group of rapporteurs, which is public also, condemning the violent response by the police of demonstrations in Sainte-Soline. So, It was like a sort of a joint action by different organizations to put pressure on France.

So you could say that it doesn't work. In fact, if you read the response by the French Minister of the Interior, Darmanin, saying that this guy commenting on police violence from his office in New York, while I'm based in Paris, in fact, and it's a sort of show off position saying, we don't care what the UN is saying, in fact.

But when you speak with the internal system with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with the Ministry of Justice, you see that there is an impact in fact, because they know that at the end of the day, France will be called before the UN at different occasions. For instance, you know this, what we call the Universal Periodic Review, it’s a new mechanism at the UN by which all states have to come to the UN and to explain the situation of human rights in the country.

And then they receive communication recommendations coming from other states. And France, every four years, also has to respond to questions coming from other countries on what's happening in France. So it has an impact becaus they don't want to, to hear strong condemnation coming from other states because it has an impact also on the reputation of France.

So I'm sure that publicly, again, that's the response of the minister, but at the same time Instructions have been given to ambassadors to monitor what's happening at the UN. So I'm sure it has an impact. I'm not able to measure the level of the impact, but I'm sure that it has a positive impact.

Some public statements from the UN and from the Council of Europe. on France have an impact because France is one of the five countries members of the secretary general of the UN. So they have also a duty and obligation to be coherent, which is not the case so far, but they have an obligation to do that.

APM: 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?

MF: I would say two, two different situations. At the level of the orders convention, in addition to the mandate of special rapporteur, you have also what we call the compliance committee.

The compliance committee is there to look at how France would comply with the all the provisions of the convention. And anyone has the possibility to put a complaint before the Compliance 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 Compliance Committee, you will see that there are currently complaints being put forward by groups like France Nature Environnement or by Greenpeace or by others. Again, the fact that France would not comply with all provisions of the Arhus Convention. So that's for the broader approach on how France is approaching environmental defenders in France. It's not individual cases, but it gives you a good, a good idea on what's happening at the level of the compliance with the main provisions of the convention.

Now to come to activists and defenders themselves, that is, individuals or groups of individuals, I mean, since I've been appointed, I've been approached by many groups, in fact, in different places in France, from Brittany to Toulouse in the south of France, from the north of France to Strasbourg on different topics related to environmental situations or climate activism, in fact, people who are demonstrating against a new installation or a new project, up to people who are simply trying to block an access to airports or to to roads because they want to, to publicly express their opinion on the inaction of the government on climate.

So different types of situations. And what they have been seeing and sometimes I am also monitoring myself because I've been also traveling to meet with them and to see situations, monitoring demonstrations, monitoring trials in court also, that the situation is not improving currently. And as we said from the beginning, the sometimes concerted campaigns of vilification by public officials have also a great impact, which is very unfortunate on the public opinion.

When you have a minister, and then the prime minister, and then public officials, and members of parliament calling those people eco terrorists, or simply terrorists, or comparing them to talibans, or to violent actions, then it's not only people who are under pressure, but the cause for which they are fighting, which, I mean, we will have a poll on this in the coming months, is to see the impact of public vilification by public officials on the way the French opinion might be manipulated on climate. But it has clearly an impact on the way the population is perceiving those forms of activism. So the situation is not for me a model in France, from the response of the police, which is one of the most violent in Europe, and the response of the judicial system, which is not coherent at all. We have an issue in France with climate activism.

APM: And 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 force on protesters. Is there a French exception in that way when it comes to the repression of climate activism? How does it compare to other countries in Europe?

MF: I mean, when it comes to campaigns of vilification 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 and I heard one of the minister in Austria, he also used the word eco terrorist to qualify people who are simply going to the street, people who were at the time throwing paints on a monument, in fact, in Austria.

But you see that In UK that's the same. In Spain you have the same. In Italy you have the same. In all EU countries, those campaigns of stigmatization and vilification are also, yeah, at the same, same level in fact. The main difference in France is the response of the police. But in terms of the way, uh, politicians are perceiving climate activism, we have the same, the same problem in all countries, with the exception of Norway, again.

APM: What, what's different about how the police responds to climate activism in France? What sets them apart?

MF: I mean, simply the level of violence, the level of violence which is not the case in the UK, where they have a strong tradition of, of not being so violent, 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.

They are in fact using, as we say, these new forms of violence against the demonstration using this handgrip, as I said. But you don't have strong tear gas or beatings by the police, using also rubber bullets against, against people who are demonstrating, which is unique in France and not a model for other countries.

APM: What do you think explains that? Why is that?

MF: It was interesting to hear a specialist 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 demonstration.

And France decided not to participate, uh, to this group of discussion, simply because they say that we have our own procedural way of doing it, and we don't want to learn from others. So they simply refused to discuss with others, um, 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 take part into those discussions. And if you listen to a specialist of the police in France, they will also explain that we're in a situation where France has decided to go alone, saying we have our own efficient tradition.

APM: 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 bullets, like grenade de désencerclement.

MF: Yes. Tools that they're using. Uh, which are not used at all by, by other governments.

And those methods are used in countries in Africa, sometimes in Latin America, using sometimes little weapons to target demonstrate. But yeah, that's, that's unique in Europe. Which is for, not only for me, but for the UN, a great matter of concern.

APM: I'd like to go back to October 2022. So you've just sort of started as UN Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders.There's a first major protest against water basins in Sainte-Soline and our Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin labels climate activists eco terrorists. How do you feel?

MF: I mean, I feel, I feel not well at all because I, I still have with me the image of what is terrorist in fact, uh, the image of, of, of 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 terrorists, that for me, is 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 2015 and actual terrorism.

APM: Exactly. Yeah.

MF: Same when I hear other ministers in other countries are comparing them to, to Taliban. And if you look at the situation of Talibans in Afghanistan and how they treat women and other people, I mean, I mean, what does it mean to compare climate activists to Talibans? Or even, because I'm not young, I'm not young, but I also heard the ministers in other countries compare them to, to Green Khmers. Like in Cambodia. And Cambodia, that's a genocide. Two million people being killed by the government. And comparing innocent people simply going to the streets non violently to green Khmers? That's difficult to, I mean, 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.

APM: And so sticking to that topic of defamation campaigns, you mentioned in another interview that as a UN Special Rapporteur, you were particularly targeted by French politicians for, I think it was probably denouncing what had happened in Sainte-Soline, but that people were sort of calling into question your office?

MF: Yeah, I was, I was not targeted. I was simply mocked by a minister and by others, saying why is it that this guy based in New York would comment simply on the basis of videos what's happening in Sainte-Soline.. Again, I am based in Paris. But it was not really a campaign of defamation or campaign against me, in fact, simply a minister mocking me.

While at the same time he was not there either, he was in his office, this minister, also looking at videos of what's happening in Sainte-Soline.. So he also commented from his office, while I was commenting from my office, in fact.

APM: So, just to compare, is that a first for you as a UN special rapporteur being mocked by a government minister?

MF: No.

APM: Okay, because that seems like quite a great length to go to to discredit the UN!

MF: No, that's, I would not say a common practice, but I've been in the past, in other countries, like for instance, the case of Azerbaijan during an official visit to Azerbaijan, but it's easy to compare Azerbaijan to France. In fact, the vice president of Azerbaijan saying that Mr. Forst should be of Armenian origin because he was so violent against our country. And, uh, of course, I'm not at all Armenian, but hearing a vice president trying to defame me by, by, I mean, that's, yeah. But interesting to compare a reaction by Azerbaijan and a reaction by a French minister, in fact.

We had the same in Colombia, Honduras, Peru…

APM: 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, to receive that sort of response?

MF: Yeah.

APM: After the water protests at Sainte-Soline, you and other officials came together to say that the response of the state and the police had been largely disproportionate. How did you come to that conclusion? And can you tell me a bit more about what happened at Sainte-Soline from your perspective?

MF: 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 that were in Sainte-Soline., also to discuss with them what's happening.

I also looked at many videos from the media on the response of the police on the violence. And when I decided to comment and say that it was disproportionate, it was based on my interviews and my monitoring of videos. And I remember very well one of the videos showing a high ranked official, a gendarme français, looking from the hill, saying they have thrown tear gas to the wrong part of the demonstration, while people who were targeted were not the ones, not the people who were violent.

But I mean, it was, it was, yeah, not well prepared.

APM: I've heard you speak about the FNSUR before. And sort of also their actions to impede the freedom of speech of climate activists. Can you talk a bit about the political and corporate interest that you're seeing behind the violence against climate activists?

MF: Yes, what I meant raising the situation of the FNSUR in France is that it's difficult to understand when you compare two types of action using the same methods to see that climate activists would be immediately put in question by the police or by the justice system, being brought to justice. While, when it comes to big interests like the FNSUR, close to the big farmers in France, everything they do, I mean, there's no consequences at all.

When the FNSUR, so which is the, the largest sort of, one of the largest unions of farmers in France and is also protecting the interests of commercial and huge agriculture, agribusiness, and they've conducted quite a lot of, I mean, they've been linked to a lot of actions in France; to the attack against climate activists and journalists, but also attacks against against public buildings, launching piles of compost before public officials or before buildings and no consequences at all. The municipality that would clean the building would clean the streets, and no consequences for the FNSUR at all for these demonstrations, while other activists using less severe forms of action would be immediately arrested by the police and brought to justice. So the different type of cooperation, I mean, that's, that's something which is striking here in a country like France. I could not say that from other countries because I'll be able to monitor that in other countries, but in France, that's the case.

Strong commercial interests also have an impact on the way the French officials are reacting to the mobilization of climate activism. I mean, because they see that in the case of the mega basins. If the system would not allow any more mega basins to be constructed or built, then it has an impact on the agribusiness.

APM: Just one last question. We expect the persecution of climate protesters to come up at COP, do you plan to push for that to happen?

MF: I mean, we, I mean, we don't expect during the COP climate activists to be punished or 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 Sharm el Sheikh in Egypt the last time. So that's why one of the first, but the main concern that I have together with the group of NGOs, is that climate action is not only a matter for governments, and it should be also a matter of discussion with the population and especially those who are affected by climate change.

And although we see that in many countries in Europe, organizations are invited to discuss with the government, on the negotiation coming during the COP, it's not the case for, for many countries in fact. What we want to achieve is a better understanding on why is it important for all governments to be invited to the table: those who are affected by climate change and not only to invite them to be part of formally the delegation and to have one or two of them as a sort of alibi in the delegation, but to discuss more in detail the outcome document prior to the conference. And then after the conference, when it comes to the implication and the inaction in, in the countries.

APM: To come back to the protection of environmental defenders, in what ways could these international climate negotiations be leveraged for the protection of protest? I mean, we know that this is always mentioned at COP, but will you push for some sort of like official inclusion and commitments, for example, particularly in the context of the UAE hosting the COP?

MF: Yes, since, since the Paris Agreement, we see that climate defenders, environmental defenders are mentioned in the outcome documents.

They are simply mentioned in the first part of the document. But in the operative part, which contains decisions by the COP, they are never in fact mentioned. So what we need to achieve is more concrete commitments by states. I'm not going to include strong wording on defenders in the outcome documents, but concrete commitments by states to do more on defenders, because we see, and that's how we started the interview, that in so many countries, they are the most at risk.

And in the context of the COP meetings, that's the place where those things have to be discussed. but not only discussed, but also concretely discussions should lead to concrete decisions by states to better protect defenders, but also to, to prevent the attacks in fact to occur in countries. So we are working together with a group of NGOs on different options, possibilities to achieve that goal.

APM: Thank you so much for taking all of that time to speak to me. I know that was a long interview, but there are so many things to talk about. Is there anything that I didn't ask you about that you'd like to say?

MF: 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 monitoring a trial in France or I'm monitoring a trial in Germany, in fact, so that judges will understand that civil disobedience, in fact, is covered by international human rights law.

And they sometimes ignore that this is the case. You have clearly a definition, but clearly a statement by the Human Rights Committee, the UN Human Rights Committee, commenting on public demonstration, and saying that civil disobedience is covered by Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

And for me, civil disobedience responds to four criteria: it should be, first, public. It should not be in one’s apartment or a flat, it should be public just to show that there's a cause behind it. The second element is that the people who are participating in civil disobedience activities should understand that they're breaking the law, and be prepared to face a trial before the justice system. The third element, it should be nonviolent. And we have largely discussed my approach to violence. And the last element, it should be to fight for a cause that is to abolish a law, to abolish a practice, to abolish some type of public policy, which might be dangerous or contrary to human rights standards. And when those four elements are contained in an action of civil disobedience, for me, they should not be punished by the law, but the justice system should understand that it's covered by international human rights law. And that's not the case currently. And that's a pity.