December 2, 2024 • 63 mins
How much influence do personal experiences of high-ranking officials have on EU environmental policies? What happens when science-based conservation collides with political interests? Can farmers and environmentalists find common ground in nature restoration? In this episode, I talk to Faustine Bas-Defossez, Director for Nature, Health and Environment at the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), who provides insights into the complex world of EU environmental policymaking.
In our conversation, we discuss several pressing environmental issues, including the recent changes to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the controversial recommendation to lower wolves’ protection status in Europe and the implementation challenges of the Nature Restoration Law. Faustine explains how scientific evidence sometimes takes a back seat to political motivations, using the example of how a single incident involving the European Commission President's pony influenced wolf protection policy. She also discusses the challenges of balancing agricultural practices with environmental protection, highlighting the systemic changes needed in our food production and consumption patterns.
The discussion ends on an optimistic note with Faustine sharing a success story from the Strategic Dialogue on the Future of Agriculture. She describes how representatives from seemingly opposing interests - from environmental NGOs to industrial farming organisations - reached a meaningful consensus on future agricultural policies. This achievement demonstrates that despite the challenges and polarization in environmental politics, collaborative solutions are possible when stakeholders commit to constructive dialogue.
Subscribe to Tommy's Outdoors: Conservation and Science Newsletter
Support the Podcast and Buy Me a Coffee.
Recommended Books: tommysoutdoors.com/books
Merch: tommysoutdoors.com/shop
Follow Tommy's Outdoors on Bluesky, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and Facebook
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
This is Conservation and Science podcast,where we take a deep dive
(00:03):
into topics of ecology, conservationand human wildlife interactions.
I'm Tommy Serafinski
and I always strive to bring you diverseperspectives on topics we discuss here
and examine their ecological, social,and political dimensions.
And today is one of those episodeswhere we are
particularly going to focus on socialand political dimensions,
(00:24):
because we are going to discussEuropean environmental policy.
And our guest is Faustine Bas-Defossez,
who is the director for nature,Health and Environment at the European
Environmental Bureau, ECBand what is European Environmental Bureau?
You will learn in the first minutesof this podcast.
(00:46):
We we're going to talk about the complexrelation between farming
and nature and nature conservation.
We're going to talk about CAP of course.
And we also going to talk abouthow agricultural policies
shape the landscape and biodiversityin Europe.
Obviously, we going to talk aboutthe controversial decision
(01:07):
to lower the protectionstatus of wolves in Europe
and how this my, shape or influenceis human wildlife coexistence.
And we also going to look at the newlyadopted
nature restoration law and what is or is
what is going to be potential impacton, Europe's ecosystems and everything.
(01:28):
This is all my turn.A little bit depressing.
Then stick till the end, becauseFaustine shares with us a success story
about bringing diverse,interested parties.
I'm going to follow
Rob York's advice and say interested partiesrather than stakeholders.
So how we managedto bring all the interested parties
and forge a meaningful consensusabout the future of European agriculture.
(01:53):
Very positive news.
So you have a pretty good idea nowwhat this episode is going to be about.
So without any further delay,enjoy the show.
Faustine, welcome to the show.
Thank you. It's a pleasure to have you.
I look forward to our conversationbecause we are going to talk the,
(02:13):
you know, subjects of Europe and Europeannature and nature conservation.
This is always interesting for meand my listeners,
but just to set the context for anyonewho's listening to that.
You are currently the directorfor nature, Health
and Environmentat the European Environmental Bureau
and could you give us and our listenersan abbreviated version?
(02:37):
What is Eeb?
What do you doand what is your background, how it came
to be that you are in the positionsyou are in, in that organization?
Yes. So the EEB is the largest federationof environment and NGOs in Europe.
We have
around 185 members,
(02:59):
organization.
So when I say members,I mean organizations,
in around 40, 41 countries.
So it's in the EU, but also in Europein the geographical sense.
And we've been around for 15 years now.
Actually, this year we are celebratingour 50th anniversary, in December.
(03:20):
So, pretty soon,
what makes us quite unique,
is that we are the largest,first and foremost,
but also we cover a broad range of,
topics, and policies.
Often you have NGOs that, are very focused
(03:41):
on one, you know, like peat biodiversityor climate
or circular economy or healthor we cover all of that.
So we're quite systemic, if I can say so.
We work on agriculture, biodiversity,soil, water, but also pollution, air,
pollution, noise pollution,but also global
(04:04):
and regional policy, circular economy,climate, energy.
So we are, covering
everythingthat's, you know, the so-called,
European Green Deal, which was thisproject you know, from the EU to,
make, the creature greenerthat falls under the green view.
So, we are quite broadin terms of coverage
(04:27):
now, we have, around
more than 80 people, working herein the secretariat in Brussels.
So we're also quitelarge, in terms of staff,
and capacity here in Brussels.
And what we do in our daily jobis what I would call, I mean, so
we call it lobbying, but, I mean,I don't have any problem with that word.
(04:47):
Actually, I think that lobbying can also,be, you know, for,
general interest, for public interest,which is what we are,
you know, calling forand what we're doing.
So we're doing,lobbying or advocacy to make,
EU policies, greener.
And we do that, with meetings,
(05:09):
of course,but with reports that we, draft,
you know, on the basis of scientific datathat, we collect,
we are sciencebased, science based organization.
We do partnership with other, NGOs.
So, for instance,we work under what we call the green ten,
which is a platform of the ten largest,on badminton NGOs here in Brussels.
(05:31):
So it includes WWF, but also BirdLife,
can Climate Action Networkand Greenpeace, for instance.
And, we coordinate, all voice
towards decision makers, together.
And we are also, members of expert groups
that the currently the EuropeanCommission, you know, organizes.
(05:53):
We respond to public consultation.
We also run campaignslike during the elections,
you know, this year, the EuropeanParliament election, we try to mobilize
voters with, scientific dataand, science based information,
but also factual informationabout the role of the EU and of
fundamental policy in their daily life.
(06:15):
So that's,
you know, in a nutshell,what we are doing.
And as of my role as the directorfor nature, Health and Environment,
I am responsiblefor quite a big chunk of the,
area policies that we are working on
in the organization from agriculture to,so on water,
(06:36):
but also pollution, chemicals, pollutionas well, that we are,
working on or tacklingor trying to, to stop and prevent
and as of my background, how I came,
how I arrived there.
Well,as you can say from my accent in French,
(06:56):
I, actually I'm not,
I haven't studied
biology or, you know,I'm not a conservation is per se.
I'm actually a lawyer by training.
And that is how I ended up working for,
You know, within the EU, for I, let's say,
(07:18):
because I quickly,understood how important,
the EU is for environmental policy
because this is where you actually getthe bulk of environmental policy
that then member stateshave to, implement, and have to translate
into their national laws and,I quickly decided to work, in Brussels.
(07:40):
I started working in the EuropeanCommission,
for two years,focusing on agriculture, actually.
And then I joined the ECB.
So I've been around the ECB for,for quite a number of years.
And my first topicwas actually agriculture, but,
there was also reason because, agricultureindeed impacts, our environment.
(08:03):
Quite a lot.
It can be in a negative way,as we see from science.
Biodiversity, etc.
but some practices can also,be extremely important for,
some form of biodiversity conservation.
So, so, yeah, that's,
that is, about the organization,and a bit of me as well.
(08:25):
And maybe last,but I mean, that's also important in how,
of course, why I keep fighting andand why I despite,
the numerous challenges andand that sometimes, you know, the feeling
that, we are minds away from wherewe should be, if we look at science,
(08:45):
I'm a
motherof, two kids that are still quite young.
And, if I keep fighting,it's also for them.
Absolutely.
And thank you forfor that introduction for thing.
And you know, this this is a theme
that is even in the recentlypublished episode,
which probably not going to be recentlypublished by the time this one airs.
(09:07):
I was speaking with a ladywho wrote a book about climate anxiety,
and she said, like, I'mdoing that for my grandchildren.
And then earlier I had the gentlemanwho again wrote a kids book.
So saying, like,I don't think that my great grandchildren
are getting enough of the knowledgeand exposure to nature from their parents.
He's, he's, son in this case.
(09:29):
So this is kind oflike a repeatedly repeating theme.
And thank you for for bringing that up.
Obviously agriculture, I'm surewe going to talk a lot about ugly culture.
But first you have obviously a lotof experience in EU environmental policy.
What is the biggest challengein general in general
in in balancing human activitieswith wildlife conservation?
(09:52):
Because I think that that would bethe core of the problems
with wildlife and biodiversitythat we have all.
What a,
as I've said, you know, I mean, where my,
my strongest expertiseis, is, is on agriculture and,
maybe I can take that as an examplebecause,
(10:15):
I think that, you know,this is where, obviously, we do see,
I mean, it's it's it's a sector,an activity that does impact a lot.
You know, I'm
not sure our resources, our developmentin general, in biodiversity in particular.
Why is it so difficult?
I mean, we have been, farmingand, let's say consuming
(10:35):
or so agriculture projectsin a certain way for, for decades.
And, while it is clear from sciencethat if we continue as we do,
we won't be able to stay within planetaryboundaries.
And, eventually, we will hit the goal.
I mean, to put it bluntly and simply,and it's not just, you know,
(10:59):
something that will have
impactspeople outside of the, of the sector,
but the sector itself, you know,farming will be among the first victims.
I mean, we see that already
with climate change and,the loss of what nature is, etc..
So why, despite not just the knowledgethat what is happening
in front of our very eyes,things are not changing.
(11:21):
And and why?
Because we do have policies in place.
And I think this is also importantto, to stress.
You know,there are several environmental policy
that have been adopted, you know,in the past decades that are out there
on, on water, the water directiveon biodiversity and Habitats Directive.
And the problem does not liewith the policies themselves.
(11:43):
It lies with the implementation
and the fact that Member Statesare not implementing them as they shoot.
So why are we there?
The problem is, is systemic.
This is why it's so difficultto tackle it.
And I take the example of agriculturebecause it is quite obvious
we're not going to manageto change our agricultural practices
(12:06):
if we are not changing the food systemas a whole.
It's, it's it's in regionalto think that we will
make of farming practices more sustainablewithout changing practices
all the way, you know, through the changeand all the way to,
to our, to a plate, basically, because,
(12:27):
productionand consumption are interestingly linked
and not just as within the EU,but at the global level, of course,
because we are also tradingwith partners, countries, etc..
So we need to look at itin a systemic way.
And of course it is challenging.Of course it is difficult.
And when you are facedwith with such a challenge, sometimes,
(12:48):
you know, it seems so complicatedthat the easiest, reaction
is either to, to freeze and,you know, you're not doing anything.
I statue quo because it seems impossible.
Or you tend to to gofor what you're saying, you know,
it would work, but it doesn't.
And we've seen itlike quick fixes, technological fixes.
And, but given that it'sa systemic problem, we need to, to,
(13:12):
to tackle it system, you know,systematically like, at a broader scale.
But that doesn't meanthat it's impossible.
But of course, it requiresa set of different things from policy.
I mean, of course,
new policies, more coherent policies,because we have also incoherence
in, in policies, better implementationand better enforcement.
(13:33):
But also we need the private actorsto, to be part of that change.
You know, we need to change market towe need to, consumers behavior,
but without falling in the trapof this responsibility of consumers
because whether we like itor not, consumers, actually,
you know,
not necessarily consciouslymaking their food choices.
(13:56):
You know, there are a number of factorsthat are influencing their choices,
from the price to socio economic factors,
cultural educationand and marketing, etc., etc.
and if we're not taking the law, then,you know,
we're not changingwhat we call the food environment
and we won't make the sustainable choice,the choice by default, which today is
(14:16):
the opposite of unsustainable choicesor standard choice by default.
So, yeah, I mean, I think they are.
Agriculture illustratesvery well you know, like the, the,
the magnitude, let's say, of the challengethat would face risk.
But it's not because the challenges
speak that we should not,you know, tackle it because, you know,
the more we wait, the more difficultit becomes to actually tackle it.
(14:38):
And the cost of inaction is hugeand for the sector itself.
But first and foremost,you're right about the systemic,
the need for the systemic change in tacklethe entire system
rather than one point of a system, becausethat will never work over the years.
Do you see any evolution in the relationbetween farmers
and the farming sector and,you know, conservation, let's say,
(15:02):
or, you know, environmentalists,let's, let's use those umbrella terms.
Do you see any changesin that relation over the years?
I mean, we work with farmerswhen I say we environmentalists
in general, in my organizationand our members,
at national level,at local level, we engage in, in many,
(15:23):
you know, partnerships and
and their EU policies, but not only so,we do work with many farmers.
You know, how important, it isto actually protect the natural resources
they rely upon for their,for their activity.
So, whether I mean, this has improved,
(15:44):
over the years, I, I believe it has,
and also because, you know,environmentalist,
like, decades ago,they were completely absent,
on the Common Agricultural Policy,for instance, discussion.
So the Common Agricultural Policy is,
some subsidies, policy, let's say.
(16:04):
So it's a third of the EU budget.
So it's quite a bigchunk of the EU budget.
Its impacts us all.
But for a long time, you know,citizens, civil society, environmentalist
were not so much part of the discussionson the Common Agricultural Policy.
But this has changed.
Now we are among the stakeholders,discussing it.
(16:26):
We don't have the same, influenceand influence power than some others.
But we are around the table in many fora,not in own, but in many.
So things have beenand also the narrative has changed.
I think that being said, recently,
what I have noticedis, a very worrying push back and,
(16:51):
somehow rollback, which I think is
extremely concerning given the magnitudeof the challenges that we're faced with.
And again, the fact that's the sectoritself is the first victim of it.
And indeed,you know, as we were getting close to the
European Parliament elections, in July
this year, we've seenthat there was a strong polarization.
(17:14):
And, and this a very dangerous,
I find, tactic of,using the environmental legislation
as the scapegoat, basically,and saying that, it's the, the, the,
the, the source of all of, the problemsthat the farmers are, faced with.
Well, actually, it's their best friend,you know,
(17:36):
I mean,if they were to be implemented correctly
because there is no farmingwithout natural resources.
So and the environmental legislationis there to protect natural resources.
Now, of course,we can discuss about how how we should be.
I mean, you know,like about implementation,
whether there are certain thingsthat should be done better, etc.
but per se, you know, we should not scrapenvironmental legislation.
(17:57):
I mean, it's, it's it'sit's it's a suicide.
Yet in times of crisis, of course,you know,
this sort of, wrongnarrative tends to work because it's,
you know, you have like, one enemy is theI mean,
the government and policy,the, bomb and tennis, etc.
and, you know,you're all, against, against those.
(18:18):
And as I said,it is extremely, extremely dangerous.
Yet we've seen that it has workedthat, also
some politicians have used thatthat tactic also for their reelection.
And, and,and we see now after the elections that,
yes, there is, a push for,
what I would call de-regulation and,I must say that,
(18:42):
this I would be, again, I mean, I'm
using the term, suicide here,but it would be suicidal to, to do that.
I mean, that's that's certainly not true.
I mean, has never been the way to go,but especially in
how when science is clear about,
where we stand and, what we need to doand the fact that's,
(19:03):
in in the fight against climate change,nature
is essentialand nature restoration is our best allies.
So, Yeah.
So, so to to.
Yeah.
Just to summarize, I mean, to answeryour question, in the past decade. Yes.
I mean, we are working with farmers.
We think we weI mean, things have evolved, you know,
slowly, not fast enoughfor sure, in the right direction.
(19:25):
But now we're seeing these, these,you know, things going backwards.
And that is extremely,extremely concerning.
I, I agree with what you said, thatthis shouldn't be politicized
because it's not about politics,about it's about the, just evidence.
And I totally agree and understandI saw that myself.
This this thing of like,oh, this is the the common enemy.
(19:48):
I was like, recentlyI was called eco terrorist.
Yeah, yeah.
But then from the other hand, some,you know, I was talking about hunting and
I was called the, animal abuse account,so you can't.
Yeah, but this is like.
Yeah, I mean, some politiciansare using polarization for,
for their own sake, and that is extremely,extremely toxic and dangerous.
(20:10):
Yes. For sure.
For thatyou mentioned Common Agricultural Policy.
Could you give us a lay downwhere it is at the moment?
Because there were like a recent changesto, Common Agricultural Policy?
The comments I heard was like, oh,the globs of of
this is now officially to support,you know, big industrial farmers.
(20:32):
And they don't careabout individual farmers at all.
And so I was just curious, like,from where you where you said like,
what is the current status of carpand what role it plays
or should play in supporting farmerson one side, but also supporting
wildlife conservation and supporting,you know, biodiversity and nature?
(20:57):
Yes. So, indeed, as you say,there was a recent
I would call it a reformbecause it was a reform in express
one, let's say, a very fast onethat's, happened,
in spring this year, last spring.
And why that happens,
it was triggered
by the demonstrationsof farmers across Europe.
(21:20):
And that's what I mean by,you know, when I said polarization.
And so why did we have the farmersdemonstrations in the first place?
And that's where it is quite interesting.
Farmers started to, to, to demonstratein some parts of Europe,
not because they were fed up withenvironmental legislation, not at all.
And that was not their main claim.
(21:41):
And this is important to stress here.
It was because they are
the first victims of the system.
As I was saying earlier on,which is wrong and unsustainable.
And if it isn't sustainable for us,it is also unsustainable for farmers.
They are indeed, faced with,of course, more and more challenges
(22:02):
when it comes to climate changeand drought and, and floods
that they have toI mean, they, they have not yet
followed, you know, the practicesthat they should have,
in order to adapt, to thoseso they are struggling with it.
And, and the question is
why they have not forand that's where the policy, of course,
plays an important role,but they are also struggling,
(22:25):
on the market because, you know,they are quite
so somehow squeezed, you know,and they are not able to,
put a price that covers,I mean, not all of them, of course.
And I will say a few words about that.
They are not able to put a pricethat covers the production costs.
So basically they are selling some times,
at loss, you know, their projectsas an economic operator.
(22:49):
The first thing to you learnis that in theory, you know, it's the ones
you produce that set the price,not the ones who buys.
But I mean, with agriculture,it's the other way around.
They don't have room for negotiation,for maneuver.
So this I mean, you know, they struggle.
They can't make aliving of their own activity.
(23:09):
And they are faced with more and more,
external programs coming fromclimate change, biodiversity loss, etc..
So this was the first reasonwhy they were in the, in the streets.
But very quickly,
the mainstream, from
unions, the large farm unions, you know,
because of course, if you have
(23:31):
not necessarily splits,but different voices, you know,
like farming etc., for then,you know, they are losing control, over
what's being said and the messagesthat are being, you know, like, spread.
So very quicklythey managed to turn the whole thing
against environmental legislationand, came out
(23:52):
with the claim that all of their problemswere emanating from,
legislation, which, again,you know, was completely wrong.
As I've said before, all of that, led to,
the European Commissionmaking a decision to reform,
the policy that had been adopted, just,you know, and,
and started to be implementedjust a year before.
(24:13):
So, you know, I mean, that was completely,
insane as well,
because there was no evidencethat, you know, there was big problems
or not, or because, you know, it wasliterally just started to be implemented.
And what they did was to basically,I mean, in a nutshell, scrap
all the last greens crumbs from the policythat we're reminded remaining.
(24:36):
And why do I say large green crumbs?
Because what was adoptedwas far from being enough, for,
helping the farmerswith the necessary, transition
that they have to, enact, enact,basically in order to,
to church to be more resilient,to, to the challenges.
(24:57):
So, so, yeah, did this happen?
What was quite shocking with this reformwas that there was no public consultation.
There was no impact assessment.
While in theory, you know,I mean, the European Commission,
when they reformed policies,
they should conductthe public consultation
and they should conductan impact assessment.
(25:18):
They're the only license to a few farmunions.
And, actually, youknow, asked some questions to them and,
some of them sent a letter afterwardsto say
we've been consulted but not heard.
And this where the Viacom business,the small farmers organization.
(25:39):
So basically they were the ones sayingdon't cut the environmental part.
You know, that's not the problem.
The problem comes with, you know, no,like the market is more systemic.
We need to tackle the systemic etc..
But they were not they were not hurt.
So what can I sayabout the Common Agricultural Policy?
To summarize,I mean, the Common Agricultural Policy
(26:01):
is a policy tool, right?
I mean, it's, it's a political decision.
At the end of the day, it'sa pot of money, and politicians can decide
how to use it.
Unfortunately, now, the way I mean,the decisions that are made are not,
you know,for for more sustainable farming,
the way the Common Agricultural Works now
(26:23):
is that it is favoring intensification.
It is pushing for,you know, more larger, larger scale farms
with public money against,you know, natural resources protection.
So, the way the tool per seis not necessarily the right or the wrong
one is what we do with the tool inwhat we do with the tool today is wrong.
Yes. Thank you for that.
(26:46):
I see farmers in farmingpotentially being the biggest ally
in restoring nature and, and,and more sustainable practices.
And like you said, this isthis is my observation as well, that
there are individual farmerswho are doing absolutely fantastic job
in restoring nature and,and in the way of their thinking.
(27:09):
But the problem is they're few farin between these small operation.
And then you have a massiveindustrial scale operations,
which are basically corporations.
This is not like an environmental.
And they were,with the nature, with the land.
This is this is just a corporate.
Listen,I want to switch gears for a second and,
(27:31):
talk about another the recent issue,
which is lowering the protectionstatus of wolves in Europe
and in fact, forfor people like this is this is how we,
get in touch
because I attended eeb conference
or symposium on on that subject.
What is your take?
(27:51):
Because everything is seems to berevolving about human wildlife conflict.
And human wildlife
conflict is one of the big pillarsthat I'm covering here on the podcast.
So maybe I'm going to asklike a two part question,
and you can pick out whichever partyou want to tackle first, in which order.
So the first one is lowering protection
(28:13):
status of wolves in Europeas good as done.
It's just a matter of,you know, cogs turning
and we in fact,going to move them to annex five.
And secondly,what is your perspective on improving this
and better managehuman wildlife conflict in Europe?
(28:34):
Yeah. Good questions.
First,
I think it's important to stressand to highlight
that there is no scientific basis
to support the modification of,
the existing legislation and protection
protection statutes of, wolves
and, actually, based on the data
(28:57):
that, are availableand which, by the way, and
see maybe a few wordsabout how, how this happened and, yeah.
No, how come that we are close to,
changing the protection statutes of theof the wolves, despite that actually
on it, on the basis of the existing data,the population of force in the EU
(29:19):
are in unfavorable or,inadequate conservation
statutes in six out of seven biotic biogeographical regions.
So this is the data as they are today.
This is what science tells us.
So there is no science reasonfor changing it. Now.
The motivation that the EU used for,
(29:43):
changing the protection statutes first,that international level.
So that would be throughthe Berne Convention.
And then the next stepwould be at EU level,
because the Berne Conventions was what ledto the birds and Habitats Directive.
In the EU.
You know, it was a way to basically complywith the international,
rules.
(30:04):
So of course, if should changethe Bern convention, then you're likely
to have to change the EU legislationas well.
The reason why the EU
went ahead proposing to change,the protection statues of the wars
under the BerneConvention was because of predation
and the threats to livestock.
(30:26):
As the as the right it so that'sthat was the main motivation.
But there was another one,which I must say,
can sounds like a joke, but,I'm afraid it is not.
And indeed, the presidents of the European
Commission also have, the lion goddess.
(30:46):
I mean, had her, pony court dolly.
I mean, everybody knows about her.The name of her pony.
Now, it has become a famous ponythat got killed,
by a wolf in Germany.
And apparently.
And I'm saying apparently,because, of course, you know,
we are a science based organizationand I don't have any proof
(31:08):
or data apart from the news articlesand what we've heard, etcetera.
But apparently this was amongthe motivations
for the presidentof the European Commission to call for,
modification of the Berne Convention,which would be quite disturbing.
I mean, this is the purse.
I mean, this is,beyond political motivation.
(31:31):
I mean, it's like a personal motivationfor someone at such a top level.
This is quite disturbing and messy.
But the way it was framed then,
you know, when the proposal came out,was really talking about the predation.
It even said, which,again, is not scientifically based at all,
that it is becoming a threatto humans as well. Why?
(31:53):
There is no such,you know, evidence out there.
I mean, you know, it's not reportedor anything like that.
So it started with the commissionmaking that proposal on the table,
and then it was for the member statesto decide whether or not
to support the proposalfrom the Commission and to put it,
(32:14):
for the Berne Convention,standing committee meeting
that will happen in December,early December.
And there is well, I must say, that'swhat happened was quite,
disturbing again,politically motivated, etc.
but until the very last moment, there was,
no majority in favor of the,
(32:36):
the commission's proposal, but Germany.
So you wonder again,you know, where the pressure comes from.
Again,you know, I don't have any evidence,
so I don't want to make any claimor anything like that.
I'm just stating the facts here.
It was actually Germanythat changed its position.
And after that, because at the beginning,
(32:57):
Germany was not going to supportthe commission's proposal.
And after that, we so many other countriesthat, you know, were abstaining
or, you know, which decidedto actually to support it, and therefore
we ended up with quite a strong majorityin favor of the Commission's proposal.
So that was in September.
And now, given that the EU has,quite a strong voice
(33:19):
in the Berne Convention, it is likelythat it will go through in December.
And, now to your question about,you know, like a coexistence
between humans and wildlife being this,
I mean, beyond, this personal storiesabout, the president's,
poniendo, and and and the wolves, per se.
(33:42):
You know, for me,this is a much bigger problem,
because what that could meanif we then end up reopening,
the EU legislation.
So the so-called birds and habitatsDirective,
we do run a high
risk of having other species
(34:03):
that are going to be downgradedwithout any scientific motivation, given.
That's what's being done.
Now, for the wolf is not based on science.
It's purely politically motivated.
There was there was, as I said, you know,there is this data
plus not just with this data,but the commission when the
(34:23):
when the when the president camewith your proposal,
she also asked for servicesto write a short report, you know, on the
conservation statutes of wolves.
And, and there was no recommendationin that document to actually know
where the, the conservation, statuteof the protection
statutes of, of oh, so
it's a very,very bad precedent at a moment
(34:45):
where we need nature more than ever.
We have to emit we have to learnto coexist better with nature.
We need to I mean, we have to restorenature wherever we can.
And we are going, you know,like, backwards on, on, on on that.
I mean, this is extremely, extremely,extremely dangerous.
(35:05):
And it is also extremely dangerousbecause,
the political context is differentthan, in the last mandate.
I mean, I talked about the Europeanelections,
the European Parliament elections,and what we're faced
with is a very conservative parliamentwith also, you know, a large
I mean, a groupthat, is formed from, from the
the third group is from the far right,you know, in the European Parliament.
(35:30):
That's, you know,
is very using branding,polarization, populist tactics, etc.
and, there is a high likeliness
that, yes, of course,they see a great opportunity with this,
with this reopening of the Birdsand Habitats Directive, again,
for political reasons, more than anything.
But this is extremely dangerous because,we cannot afford going backwards on that.
(35:54):
We have to implement better,you know, this piece of legislation
and not to, to dismantle it.
But there is a high risk that, we will andand last point here, all of that.
I mean, because it's not scientifically,motivated.
Far from it.
What we've seen and also,this is what has led to, I think,
(36:15):
the resultsof the European Parliament elections
and what we see also,I mean, this deregulation threat, etc.,
is this flow of disinformationon social media
and of course, on topics like,you know, white lie, force, etc.
you see many of that,and that is extremely dangerous. Yes.
Especially that misinformationaspect of it is,
(36:37):
is really something I considerthat the most important to tackle.
So, folks, for you
listening to this,if you're if you're interested in
diving deeper into the issue of the lowerlowering wealth protection
status, it's the episode 163where I had the five experts
on on one episode,presenting different points of view.
(37:00):
And Faustine, if I may, I willI will push back a little bit
or maybe challengeyou a little bit on, on this statement,
because on the scientific side of the
what I heard right, I'm not a scientist,but what I heard is
that wolves are incredible
success storyin terms of conservation in Europe.
(37:22):
Their their numbers are much higherthan they used to be.
And there is opinion that at this point,
because how they're mixing,how they're traveling
between the countries,we should really look at one
European wolf populationrather than on those small populations.
(37:42):
And the argumentI heard from the scientists was,
why do we have a system of annexes
if they are hijacked into political
fight, wolves recovered.
Therefore there should be move to, annex
five to reflect their recovery,because that's what it is.
(38:04):
While at the momentit is very it's much considerably easier
to uplift the speciesand to down the species.
There's this this whole procedure, votingand everything else to down list them.
And the argument I heard was like,if we could keep that purely scientific
and make it easier to move the animalup and down in that list, that would take
(38:29):
all that mechanism away from the science,from the political fight.
That's like because right now it is beingweaponized for everything that you said.
Right?
The, you know, of all the greenies wantto, you know, get this out of business
and all that stuff.
So that would and similar mechanismI notice is in the North America
(38:50):
where again,there are some recovery criteria
where the species should be upliftedand down listed,
and those criteria are metfor a number of years.
And let the species is not down listedbecause of all of their concerns.
And I'm not dismissing the concerns here.
By the way, because obviously,
for all the reasons that you listed,those concerns are there.
(39:11):
And the common theme is like,I had a lady from Estonia who,
as you know, Wolf, is Estoniannational animal, and they have
a wolf
management program where they allowingwolf horns and so on.
And she said something like,
I am a wolf lover and I am not happyabout those wolves being killed.
(39:34):
But if that's the price for coexistence,I'm willing to pay that.
So I'm just curious of your viewon, on on this.
Like on the one hand,why not take the Habitats directive
and all that out of thispolitical struggle and say like,
hey, here are the criteria and the animalsare moving up and down as we see
(39:58):
their recovery and the wolf recovered,therefore we should list them down.
And yes, for sure,some wolves will be killed
like they are right now in Switzerland.
I think I thinkSwitzerland is not in the EU, but that's a
but that would be the pricefor coexistence.
That is curious on your onyour view on this
(40:19):
maybe on your point about, splitting the,the, the, the, science, I mean.
Yeah, trying not to politicizethat too much.
I mean, I would I would agree with you.
I think it's important to be especiallygiven the context where, you know, and,
I mean, the threat that we seewith the European Parliament,
I mean,
compositiontoday and, with this big part of it being,
(40:41):
you know, from populist parties and seeingthat as an opportunity to polarize and,
think that this is quite toxicand very dangerous.
And as I said, it'snot just about the problems here.
And, and, and this is what I try to pointI tried to make is not just
wars is what that would meanin the European context
(41:02):
and the fact that we are going to havea political decision
on something that should be indeedscientifically, motivated
about all the species, you know, in the,in the Birds and Habitats Directive.
And that's not, you know,I mean, that is extremely,
extremely dangerous in the contextthat we're in.
So, splitting that,you know, would be indeed,
(41:24):
at least, you know, for this Parliamentfor this term would be the way forward.
I fully, fully agree.
Now on, on, on, canning
and, and, you know, like, besides,
lowering it from strict protectionto protection
because, I mean, at the end of the day,the woods will remain protected, right?
I mean, it's from strictly to protect.
So that's also importantfor people to understand.
(41:47):
That's what we say.
And we haven't found the evidence.
I mean, like,maybe you've heard someone in your podcast
saying otherwise,but there is no scientific evidence that,
culling is the most efficient wayto actually,
you know, achieve, a reductionin terms of predation
(42:07):
and actioning what we have read
and what we have been told is thatit could even be counterproductive.
So that's also what wewe are saying that might not
I mean, you know, this blunt decision
to lower the protectionstatute might not be the way forward.
And yes, you're rightin terms of the numbers overall, etc..
(42:28):
But again, I mean, it depends maybelike which scientist you are talking to.
I don't know about the scientific evidenceas, as we see it is that,
you know, there is no strong justificationand even from the Commission services
to go for that option,
especially if we're trying to, to,
to tackle here is the risk of a predationor livestock
(42:51):
coexistence for us should remain,you know, I mean, the way forward.
And again, you know,
as you were saying as well,from from the person that you talk to
and as I said, you know, we're going tomove from strictly protected to protected.
So what will stay, you know,and we will have to coexist anyway.
So whatwe have to do is to double our efforts
(43:11):
in coexistence, efforts, not through
culling, but,you know, through, guardian dogs,
through fences, through,you know, we have programs out there.
You know, in the knife, program,for instance, in Europe
where you have, some money,maybe we need to put more money.
We need to better usethe Common Agricultural Policy for now.
You know, it's just a small partof the Common Agricultural Policy
(43:34):
that is useful that because, of course,the bulk of it goes to serious farmers
who do not necessarily need the money,you know, but actually
the shepherds might need the money more,you know, for coexistence.
And and, you know, I'm not sure.
Of course, again,this is maybe personal here,
but I'm not sure that an it when,when the, the the large farming unions
are actually going against,you know, the wars and, and, in favor
(43:58):
of lowering the protection statutesthat they really care
so much about it because most of it,you know, are serious farmers
and it's not really a problem for them,but it's more about the money issue.
And they don't they don't necessarilywant the money to be used for coexistence
measures, you know, and taken away from,their direct payments or, you know, so,
(44:18):
I think, you know, maybesome people should think twice about that.
And also something that,
I've been thinking about, if you do,you know where I mean to be seen.
But, the protection statutes of wars.
What does that mean for thiscoexistence measures and this money?
I mean, are we going to keep, spendingor will it still be available?
(44:39):
I mean, that pot of moneyfor coexistence or not?
Because, I mean, in theory,you will have alternatives like culling.
So there will be less justification
for using public moneyfor fences, for guardian dogs, etc..
So I think that this should also, youknow, like be part of the discussion and,
and people should think, I mean, shepherdsand, should think about that as well.
(45:01):
I'm, I'm not 100% sure about whatthat would mean,
but that would have consequences for sure,because there will be alternatives,
because today
you had that money, you had this programbecause you're not allowed.
Yeah. No, to, to kill them.
So, yeah, that's athat's an excellent point for seed. And,
you know, I know good and
well that on the wolves we could dolike a three hour straight discussion.
(45:23):
And, and for anyone who is interestedto just go to my website,
Tommy souders.com and type Wolf or Wolf's
into the search box and you'll finda lot of materials in there.
And by the way,I think the important point that you made
is that calling is notI actually I think right.
That's my opinion.
It's not meant to fix the problemwith depredation.
(45:47):
Or, you know, coexistencein, in the matter of like,
in the biological sense,it is more of a, in a social sciences
realm of,you know, people giving agency to people
to do something, whether that's corrector not, that's a different discussion.
And and like I said,we had these discussions
on, on many times on the podcastfor scene.
(46:10):
I just want to switch gears againto final big item,
current item, nature restoration law,where it is at the moment.
Again, that's something that we coveredon the podcast a few times with farmers
and with, you know, green politicians.
Let's come up that way.
(46:30):
Different points of viewwere presented already.
I am more interested now where we're atwith nature restoration law.
How much it was strippedfrom the original ambitious plans.
Is it still fit for purpose, or is it?
Yeah. Where are we?
So, good news is that,
it went for it got adopted. So.
(46:52):
And that was not a given.
Because again, you know,it was heavily politicized.
It was, happening,
before the European,Parliament election and,
it was instrumentalized quite a lot,for the sake of polarization and,
you know, old tactics, of course,but that can be extremely damaging.
(47:16):
So, and I must say there, the hero, really
a hero, is,
the Austrian, environment minister.
She's my hero.
But and also
because she put her, I mean, her own,
political career, in, in doing that,she did stand,
(47:40):
for the, for the, for the naturerestoration law in the council.
And wonder what she was under pressure.
Of course.
And, and and she did itnot for political reasons, but because she
does believe that, you know, that'sthe only way forward, for our survival.
And the one of her children.
(48:01):
So, Pavel, really and,
and it so it went through in the councildefender until the last minute.
Really?
We thought that the council would kill itbasically.
Then the we had a big battle.
And in the countrieswhere you have the member states
and we already had a big battlein the European Parliament
where you havethe members of the Parliament
who are directly electedby by citizens of the EU.
(48:23):
And there as well, we had to fightreally, really hard to, to, to,
to get it through.
But we managed, eventually.
Now about what's left from it.
Of course, it's not as ambitious as whatthe commission, initially put on the table
that the targets are there,when it comes to,
(48:46):
you know, restoration,
farmland and, it's not as,
ambitious as, it was proposed, but,it ended up being slightly better
than what the parliament, you know,tried to, to, to, to, to, to get to.
So overall, it's great.
It has been adopted.
Now it's all about implementationand it's where it's
(49:08):
difficult because, you know, I've saidat the beginning of our chat that,
we do have, several piecesof environmental legislations out there.
Some of them have been there for decades.
The problem often lies with
implementation and the lack ofimplementation from member states.
There are many cases,you know, we call them infringement case
(49:29):
IT procedures, you know, that are ongoing,
the EU against the member statesbecause they are not implementing the law.
Now, what the member stateswill have to do for the nature
restoration lawis to set their, national plans.
How, how this is going to go,of course, is, of paramount importance.
I mean, it has to be transparent.
(49:50):
They need to involve, stakeholders,civil society, conservationists,
you know, of course,farmers, etc., etc., etc.
it has to go fastbecause there is no time to,
to lose the problem I see, is that again,
the commission sets quite a bad precedent,which was happening around the walls
and the Birds and HabitatsDirective potentially because, you know,
(50:13):
the nature restoration ruleand the Birds and Habitats Directive.
I mean, there is a referenceto each of them in, in, in both.
Right.
So one can then argue that,
if we do, amend the Birds and HabitatsDirective that things should be put on
hold for the nature restoration,and also I see a political risk of that,
and I would not be surprisedthat in a future podcast,
(50:36):
you know, you start talking about thatbecause I see that some politicians
have seen,you know, the breach and, will use that.
They have a plan.
Yeah, I would,I mean, I would not be surprised.
So that's that's one.
And the other one is you might have heardI don't know whether that's something
you also covered in your podcast,but on the EU deforestation,
(50:58):
law, you
know, which was also a,a big achievement, under the,
the from the last mandateand the, the so-called Green Deal
that, the commission decided to postponeits implementation.
And, of course, when you start doing that,then you open a Pandora's
box for other pieces of lawsto be postponed, in their implementation.
(51:21):
So I haven't seen strong pushes yet,but I would not be surprised that,
there will be pushes for delays,
in the implementationof the nature restoration.
So this is where organizations like mine,
matters a lotbecause our members at national level,
you know, have a strong role to play,making sure that
(51:44):
the member statesare working on their plans,
that they are doing soin a, a transparent manner, that they are,
consulting with the relevant stakeholders,of course, using, science as the basis.
And we will put pressure,of course, here on the commission,
to push the member states and,
push back if, you know, there
(52:06):
is any, sign that,
there would be delays or things like that.
But all of that to say that,nature restoration law has that no
has gone through, but now it's all aboutimplementation and it's as important
as all the battles that we hadfor the road to actually get adopted.
Because what matters eventuallyis the pronunciation or how to speak
(52:29):
to policymakers to ensure
that the scientific evidenceis properly taken to account.
You know, and that is a questionthat I can personalize.
For you and for the listeners.
That was on the onthe one of the environmental conferences.
I'm going to tell us quite often.
And there was a dinner after that,and I happened to sit next to a gentleman
(52:52):
who was a director in some organizationsthat are he is essentially policymaker.
And after a few glasses of wine or beer,
as I oh, you know, those scientists,they have no idea about writing policy
because this and I was listening,you know, everything was like friendly
and professional.
But I was like thinking like, man,
(53:14):
it's not like scientistsdoesn't know about policy writing.
Like they talk,they reporting on the facts.
And so, it was clear to me that on the onehand, the job of a policymaker
is ensure that their boss is electablein the next election cycle.
But then, on the other hand,this is what this is what it boils down
(53:35):
to hard decisions like we not makingright decisions because they're hard.
How to I was wondering
I'm wondering to that pointlike how should I talk to this gentleman,
which I'm trying to make itlike a more general question to you.
They know how to speak with policymakers
(53:56):
to, yeah, ensure that they're takingthe scientific evidence
into account with more then,you know, the the pressures of their job
and to do the good jobfor their organization.
I think and the problem is thatthe political mandates are often short,
short term.
And, therefore, you know, I mean,all the scientific evidence that they get,
(54:18):
they don't really care because it's longerterm than their political mandate.
And they know that by favoring,you know, like parts, in certain sectors,
you know, by giving them giftsor something like that,
they will actually get reelected, won
by doing somethingthat is for the public interest.
The overall,
you know, it will take ten yearsfor the thing to actually materialize and,
they won't get,
(54:39):
ratified, you know, or, for that.
So, that's that's the prime.
So that's why you need heroes like,the vest, Larry, you know that, minister
who, listened to scienceand did it for all survivor.
But I think what's what can help is really
to frame it in termsof the cost of inaction more and more.
And I think this should be actuallypart of,
(55:00):
impact assessments,because it is not so much now.
And that's quite, shockingbecause what you will hear from
a specific sector that would be impactedby any sort of transition,
and, and,
very, you know, I mean, I understand and,yes, there are costs to the transition
and some are more affected than others,especially, you know, the ones that,
now benefit from this, that you quote.
(55:22):
Right.
But if you do, then start lookingat the cost of inaction and puts it
really, you know, like in your thinking,then you know, this
long term benefits can become more shorts,short term ones in the sense
that you see what are the cost onthe short term of not acting and not,
making, you know, not pushing for, for,for the changes that, that are necessary.
(55:47):
So I think that this, this is, this is,
a useful,
narrative and, and a useful thingto, to hunger more and more.
And there are more and more figureswhich are quite,
shocking on the cost of, of inaction.
And, I think that really politicians,should be made much more aware of that.
(56:10):
And, and maybe then sciencewill really speak to them.
Because it would be quantified
in terms of their economic termsand also look more short term,
in terms of gains, you know, benefits.
Then then it might sound, without
having this cost of inaction,you know, being factored in.
So, but maybe another thingand sorry, here, it's a bit of, the,
(56:34):
definition, which I found has worked,because something I didn't say.
And, I want you to to mention it herebecause I think it's a success story.
And it's also nice toto have positiveness.
Oh, excellent.Something positive. Yes, yes.
On agriculture
and, it's more process wise than anything.
(56:56):
As for now, but still,I was part personally,
of the so-called strategic
dialog on the future of agriculture,
which was set by the presidentof the European Commission
as a response also to the demonstrations
and, polarization, etc..
So she decided to put a number of peoplearound the table for seven months,
(57:20):
and we had to spend hoursevery months, you know, together
and in between the meetingsas when in breakout groups, etc.,
and to agree on, some recommendationsfor the future of,
food systems in general
and around the tablethere was people like me,
but also from Birdseye, from Greenpeace,but also the president of Copa,
(57:45):
the presence of Gojek, for drawing Europe,
land owners,
small farmers, young farmers,organic farmers, but also the traders,
the retainers, etc., fertilizersEurope and so, as you can
imagine, people that I see often here,but I don't always agree with,
(58:05):
you know what?
That's what a democracy,I guess, in that format.
Which was quite high level and,you know, like,
with a chair who was not at all,from the agriculture sectors.
And he was a philosopher,actually, German philosopher.
The first success is that
we did manage to reach a consensus,and it was consensus based,
(58:27):
and that was the only wayto go, actually, to do it via consensus.
Because, you know, like majority, etc..
I mean, it would not have had no weight,nothing, you know,
so we managed to reach a consensus.
That's the second thing.
And that's what's even more successfulis that this consensus is actually full
of meaningful recommendationsfor the future of agriculture.
(58:50):
Just to list a few.
And again, you have to bear in mindthat you had all of these actors
with different backgrounds,different opinions, perception.
And as we know, perception is reality.
You know, in, in, in the room.
So we had this diverseset of, of of people.
We start by saying that statue
is no longer an optionand that time for change is now.
(59:12):
And so we do say that we need that systemchange in, in the food, sector, which
for some
has never been, you know, like setin, in such a strong way.
So that's already something.
And then we go on and say things like,
I mean, right, things like,we need to implement
(59:34):
and enforceexisting a vibrant energy station.
And we do refer to the nature restoration.
So if ever, you know,like somewhere around the table,
we're now lobbying against,the nature restoration rules, or delaying,
you know, this nature restorationor that would be against
the spirit of that consensusthat we reached all together.
(59:55):
But we also called for big changein the Common Agricultural policy,
like moving away from direct payments
and, saying thatthe Common Agricultural Policy
should target the farmerswho are most in need,
because today, indeed,I mean, as you know, 80% of the money goes
to 20% of the farmers and not necessarilythe ones who really need it,
(01:00:17):
and that we should also, and
improve our, the environmental schemes,
under the policyand that this should grow, you know,
like proportionally become like a largerand larger part of the policy.
And be targeted,
you know, to results more than practices.
So that's, that's another thingand another big thing,
(01:00:38):
which was not at allthe topic of, today's discussion, but, Oh.
And on the there is also a linewhich calls for coexistence.
Excellent. Yes.
Yeah, yeah, I can send you the I do answerif you want to put it as a note here.
Oh yes. Yes, we will do it.
We'll do that.
I'll do that with linksin the description.
Perfect. Yep.
Yeah.
And it also calls for changingconsumption.
(01:01:00):
Behaviors.
You know, as I said at the beginning,
the only way to tackleproduction is to tackle consumption.
And it also talk about something that,of course, is heavily, heavily polarized.
And, where you seethat science, is not recognized by some
is the need to reduceour animal protein consumption.
(01:01:21):
And there is athere is a sentence on that, of course.
It's it's a curve.I mean, you know, it's well balanced.
It talks about the trend and that the EUshould support the trend etc..
But it's there. It's thereand it refers to the
to the scientific consensusthat there is on that.
So it was possible.
I mean what why I refer tothat is sometimes, you know,
(01:01:41):
and when people around the tableare really willing to reach a consensus
when there was also a scientistaround the table from England University
at the beginning, you know,
I really thought that we would never reacha consensus because people would stick
to their position, not listento the others, not listen to science, etc.
but it was a process.
(01:02:02):
And, eventuallywe got, a very interesting results.
And, now it's for the decision makersto, to use that, and,
to come up with the proposals, you know,based on this, historic consensus.
Well, I feel like this is a great momentto finish that podcast
on the good news for Austin.
You were ahead of mebecause I want to ask.
(01:02:23):
I wanted to ask you about somethingpositive to end with.
And you were alreadyone step ahead before me.
Folks, if you enjoying this podcast,if you're interested in topics
like that, you should definitely subscribeto my newsletter newsletter
dot Tommy souders.com.
The link is in the descriptionof the show.
As long as as wellas some other links for Steen.
(01:02:44):
Thank you so much for your time.
Really appreciate it. Great conversation.
You're welcome. Thank you.
This is Conservation and Science podcast,where we take a deep dive
(00:03):
into topics of ecology, conservationand human wildlife interactions.
I'm Tommy Serafinski
and I always strive to bring you diverseperspectives on topics we discuss here
and examine their ecological, social,and political dimensions.
And today is one of those episodeswhere we are
particularly going to focus on socialand political dimensions,
(00:24):
because we are going to discussEuropean environmental policy.
And our guest is Faustine Bas-Defossez,
who is the director for nature,Health and Environment at the European
Environmental Bureau, ECBand what is European Environmental Bureau?
You will learn in the first minutesof this podcast.
(00:46):
We we're going to talk about the complexrelation between farming
and nature and nature conservation.
We're going to talk about CAP of course.
And we also going to talk abouthow agricultural policies
shape the landscape and biodiversityin Europe.
Obviously, we going to talk aboutthe controversial decision
(01:07):
to lower the protectionstatus of wolves in Europe
and how this my, shape or influenceis human wildlife coexistence.
And we also going to look at the newlyadopted
nature restoration law and what is or is
what is going to be potential impacton, Europe's ecosystems and everything.
(01:28):
This is all my turn.A little bit depressing.
Then stick till the end, becauseFaustine shares with us a success story
about bringing diverse,interested parties.
I'm going to follow
Rob York's advice and say interested partiesrather than stakeholders.
So how we managedto bring all the interested parties
and forge a meaningful consensusabout the future of European agriculture.
(01:53):
Very positive news.
So you have a pretty good idea nowwhat this episode is going to be about.
So without any further delay,enjoy the show.
Faustine, welcome to the show.
Thank you. It's a pleasure to have you.
I look forward to our conversationbecause we are going to talk the,
(02:13):
you know, subjects of Europe and Europeannature and nature conservation.
This is always interesting for meand my listeners,
but just to set the context for anyonewho's listening to that.
You are currently the directorfor nature, Health
and Environmentat the European Environmental Bureau
and could you give us and our listenersan abbreviated version?
(02:37):
What is Eeb?
What do you doand what is your background, how it came
to be that you are in the positionsyou are in, in that organization?
Yes. So the EEB is the largest federationof environment and NGOs in Europe.
We have
around 185 members,
(02:59):
organization.
So when I say members,I mean organizations,
in around 40, 41 countries.
So it's in the EU, but also in Europein the geographical sense.
And we've been around for 15 years now.
Actually, this year we are celebratingour 50th anniversary, in December.
(03:20):
So, pretty soon,
what makes us quite unique,
is that we are the largest,first and foremost,
but also we cover a broad range of,
topics, and policies.
Often you have NGOs that, are very focused
(03:41):
on one, you know, like peat biodiversityor climate
or circular economy or healthor we cover all of that.
So we're quite systemic, if I can say so.
We work on agriculture, biodiversity,soil, water, but also pollution, air,
pollution, noise pollution,but also global
(04:04):
and regional policy, circular economy,climate, energy.
So we are, covering
everythingthat's, you know, the so-called,
European Green Deal, which was thisproject you know, from the EU to,
make, the creature greenerthat falls under the green view.
So, we are quite broadin terms of coverage
(04:27):
now, we have, around
more than 80 people, working herein the secretariat in Brussels.
So we're also quitelarge, in terms of staff,
and capacity here in Brussels.
And what we do in our daily jobis what I would call, I mean, so
we call it lobbying, but, I mean,I don't have any problem with that word.
(04:47):
Actually, I think that lobbying can also,be, you know, for,
general interest, for public interest,which is what we are,
you know, calling forand what we're doing.
So we're doing,lobbying or advocacy to make,
EU policies, greener.
And we do that, with meetings,
(05:09):
of course,but with reports that we, draft,
you know, on the basis of scientific datathat, we collect,
we are sciencebased, science based organization.
We do partnership with other, NGOs.
So, for instance,we work under what we call the green ten,
which is a platform of the ten largest,on badminton NGOs here in Brussels.
(05:31):
So it includes WWF, but also BirdLife,
can Climate Action Networkand Greenpeace, for instance.
And, we coordinate, all voice
towards decision makers, together.
And we are also, members of expert groups
that the currently the EuropeanCommission, you know, organizes.
(05:53):
We respond to public consultation.
We also run campaignslike during the elections,
you know, this year, the EuropeanParliament election, we try to mobilize
voters with, scientific dataand, science based information,
but also factual informationabout the role of the EU and of
fundamental policy in their daily life.
(06:15):
So that's,
you know, in a nutshell,what we are doing.
And as of my role as the directorfor nature, Health and Environment,
I am responsiblefor quite a big chunk of the,
area policies that we are working on
in the organization from agriculture to,so on water,
(06:36):
but also pollution, chemicals, pollutionas well, that we are,
working on or tacklingor trying to, to stop and prevent
and as of my background, how I came,
how I arrived there.
Well,as you can say from my accent in French,
(06:56):
I, actually I'm not,
I haven't studied
biology or, you know,I'm not a conservation is per se.
I'm actually a lawyer by training.
And that is how I ended up working for,
You know, within the EU, for I, let's say,
(07:18):
because I quickly,understood how important,
the EU is for environmental policy
because this is where you actually getthe bulk of environmental policy
that then member stateshave to, implement, and have to translate
into their national laws and,I quickly decided to work, in Brussels.
(07:40):
I started working in the EuropeanCommission,
for two years,focusing on agriculture, actually.
And then I joined the ECB.
So I've been around the ECB for,for quite a number of years.
And my first topicwas actually agriculture, but,
there was also reason because, agricultureindeed impacts, our environment.
(08:03):
Quite a lot.
It can be in a negative way,as we see from science.
Biodiversity, etc.
but some practices can also,be extremely important for,
some form of biodiversity conservation.
So, so, yeah, that's,
that is, about the organization,and a bit of me as well.
(08:25):
And maybe last,but I mean, that's also important in how,
of course, why I keep fighting andand why I despite,
the numerous challenges andand that sometimes, you know, the feeling
that, we are minds away from wherewe should be, if we look at science,
(08:45):
I'm a
motherof, two kids that are still quite young.
And, if I keep fighting,it's also for them.
Absolutely.
And thank you forfor that introduction for thing.
And you know, this this is a theme
that is even in the recentlypublished episode,
which probably not going to be recentlypublished by the time this one airs.
(09:07):
I was speaking with a ladywho wrote a book about climate anxiety,
and she said, like, I'mdoing that for my grandchildren.
And then earlier I had the gentlemanwho again wrote a kids book.
So saying, like,I don't think that my great grandchildren
are getting enough of the knowledgeand exposure to nature from their parents.
He's, he's, son in this case.
(09:29):
So this is kind oflike a repeatedly repeating theme.
And thank you for for bringing that up.
Obviously agriculture, I'm surewe going to talk a lot about ugly culture.
But first you have obviously a lotof experience in EU environmental policy.
What is the biggest challengein general in general
in in balancing human activitieswith wildlife conservation?
(09:52):
Because I think that that would bethe core of the problems
with wildlife and biodiversitythat we have all.
What a,
as I've said, you know, I mean, where my,
my strongest expertiseis, is, is on agriculture and,
maybe I can take that as an examplebecause,
(10:15):
I think that, you know,this is where, obviously, we do see,
I mean, it's it's it's a sector,an activity that does impact a lot.
You know, I'm
not sure our resources, our developmentin general, in biodiversity in particular.
Why is it so difficult?
I mean, we have been, farmingand, let's say consuming
(10:35):
or so agriculture projectsin a certain way for, for decades.
And, while it is clear from sciencethat if we continue as we do,
we won't be able to stay within planetaryboundaries.
And, eventually, we will hit the goal.
I mean, to put it bluntly and simply,and it's not just, you know,
(10:59):
something that will have
impactspeople outside of the, of the sector,
but the sector itself, you know,farming will be among the first victims.
I mean, we see that already
with climate change and,the loss of what nature is, etc..
So why, despite not just the knowledgethat what is happening
in front of our very eyes,things are not changing.
(11:21):
And and why?
Because we do have policies in place.
And I think this is also importantto, to stress.
You know,there are several environmental policy
that have been adopted, you know,in the past decades that are out there
on, on water, the water directiveon biodiversity and Habitats Directive.
And the problem does not liewith the policies themselves.
(11:43):
It lies with the implementation
and the fact that Member Statesare not implementing them as they shoot.
So why are we there?
The problem is, is systemic.
This is why it's so difficultto tackle it.
And I take the example of agriculturebecause it is quite obvious
we're not going to manageto change our agricultural practices
(12:06):
if we are not changing the food systemas a whole.
It's, it's it's in regionalto think that we will
make of farming practices more sustainablewithout changing practices
all the way, you know, through the changeand all the way to,
to our, to a plate, basically, because,
(12:27):
productionand consumption are interestingly linked
and not just as within the EU,but at the global level, of course,
because we are also tradingwith partners, countries, etc..
So we need to look at itin a systemic way.
And of course it is challenging.Of course it is difficult.
And when you are facedwith with such a challenge, sometimes,
(12:48):
you know, it seems so complicatedthat the easiest, reaction
is either to, to freeze and,you know, you're not doing anything.
I statue quo because it seems impossible.
Or you tend to to gofor what you're saying, you know,
it would work, but it doesn't.
And we've seen itlike quick fixes, technological fixes.
And, but given that it'sa systemic problem, we need to, to,
(13:12):
to tackle it system, you know,systematically like, at a broader scale.
But that doesn't meanthat it's impossible.
But of course, it requiresa set of different things from policy.
I mean, of course,
new policies, more coherent policies,because we have also incoherence
in, in policies, better implementationand better enforcement.
(13:33):
But also we need the private actorsto, to be part of that change.
You know, we need to change market towe need to, consumers behavior,
but without falling in the trapof this responsibility of consumers
because whether we like itor not, consumers, actually,
you know,
not necessarily consciouslymaking their food choices.
(13:56):
You know, there are a number of factorsthat are influencing their choices,
from the price to socio economic factors,
cultural educationand and marketing, etc., etc.
and if we're not taking the law, then,you know,
we're not changingwhat we call the food environment
and we won't make the sustainable choice,the choice by default, which today is
(14:16):
the opposite of unsustainable choicesor standard choice by default.
So, yeah, I mean, I think they are.
Agriculture illustratesvery well you know, like the, the,
the magnitude, let's say, of the challengethat would face risk.
But it's not because the challenges
speak that we should not,you know, tackle it because, you know,
the more we wait, the more difficultit becomes to actually tackle it.
(14:38):
And the cost of inaction is hugeand for the sector itself.
But first and foremost,you're right about the systemic,
the need for the systemic change in tacklethe entire system
rather than one point of a system, becausethat will never work over the years.
Do you see any evolution in the relationbetween farmers
and the farming sector and,you know, conservation, let's say,
(15:02):
or, you know, environmentalists,let's, let's use those umbrella terms.
Do you see any changesin that relation over the years?
I mean, we work with farmerswhen I say we environmentalists
in general, in my organizationand our members,
at national level,at local level, we engage in, in many,
(15:23):
you know, partnerships and
and their EU policies, but not only so,we do work with many farmers.
You know, how important, it isto actually protect the natural resources
they rely upon for their,for their activity.
So, whether I mean, this has improved,
(15:44):
over the years, I, I believe it has,
and also because, you know,environmentalist,
like, decades ago,they were completely absent,
on the Common Agricultural Policy,for instance, discussion.
So the Common Agricultural Policy is,
some subsidies, policy, let's say.
(16:04):
So it's a third of the EU budget.
So it's quite a bigchunk of the EU budget.
Its impacts us all.
But for a long time, you know,citizens, civil society, environmentalist
were not so much part of the discussionson the Common Agricultural Policy.
But this has changed.
Now we are among the stakeholders,discussing it.
(16:26):
We don't have the same, influenceand influence power than some others.
But we are around the table in many fora,not in own, but in many.
So things have beenand also the narrative has changed.
I think that being said, recently,
what I have noticedis, a very worrying push back and,
(16:51):
somehow rollback, which I think is
extremely concerning given the magnitudeof the challenges that we're faced with.
And again, the fact that's the sectoritself is the first victim of it.
And indeed,you know, as we were getting close to the
European Parliament elections, in July
this year, we've seenthat there was a strong polarization.
(17:14):
And, and this a very dangerous,
I find, tactic of,using the environmental legislation
as the scapegoat, basically,and saying that, it's the, the, the,
the, the source of all of, the problemsthat the farmers are, faced with.
Well, actually, it's their best friend,you know,
(17:36):
I mean,if they were to be implemented correctly
because there is no farmingwithout natural resources.
So and the environmental legislationis there to protect natural resources.
Now, of course,we can discuss about how how we should be.
I mean, you know,like about implementation,
whether there are certain thingsthat should be done better, etc.
but per se, you know, we should not scrapenvironmental legislation.
(17:57):
I mean, it's, it's it'sit's it's a suicide.
Yet in times of crisis, of course,you know,
this sort of, wrongnarrative tends to work because it's,
you know, you have like, one enemy is theI mean,
the government and policy,the, bomb and tennis, etc.
and, you know,you're all, against, against those.
(18:18):
And as I said,it is extremely, extremely dangerous.
Yet we've seen that it has workedthat, also
some politicians have used thatthat tactic also for their reelection.
And, and,and we see now after the elections that,
yes, there is, a push for,
what I would call de-regulation and,I must say that,
(18:42):
this I would be, again, I mean, I'm
using the term, suicide here,but it would be suicidal to, to do that.
I mean, that's that's certainly not true.
I mean, has never been the way to go,but especially in
how when science is clear about,
where we stand and, what we need to doand the fact that's,
(19:03):
in in the fight against climate change,nature
is essentialand nature restoration is our best allies.
So, Yeah.
So, so to to.
Yeah.
Just to summarize, I mean, to answeryour question, in the past decade. Yes.
I mean, we are working with farmers.
We think we weI mean, things have evolved, you know,
slowly, not fast enoughfor sure, in the right direction.
(19:25):
But now we're seeing these, these,you know, things going backwards.
And that is extremely,extremely concerning.
I, I agree with what you said, thatthis shouldn't be politicized
because it's not about politics,about it's about the, just evidence.
And I totally agree and understandI saw that myself.
This this thing of like,oh, this is the the common enemy.
(19:48):
I was like, recentlyI was called eco terrorist.
Yeah, yeah.
But then from the other hand, some,you know, I was talking about hunting and
I was called the, animal abuse account,so you can't.
Yeah, but this is like.
Yeah, I mean, some politiciansare using polarization for,
for their own sake, and that is extremely,extremely toxic and dangerous.
(20:10):
Yes. For sure.
For thatyou mentioned Common Agricultural Policy.
Could you give us a lay downwhere it is at the moment?
Because there were like a recent changesto, Common Agricultural Policy?
The comments I heard was like, oh,the globs of of
this is now officially to support,you know, big industrial farmers.
(20:32):
And they don't careabout individual farmers at all.
And so I was just curious, like,from where you where you said like,
what is the current status of carpand what role it plays
or should play in supporting farmerson one side, but also supporting
wildlife conservation and supporting,you know, biodiversity and nature?
(20:57):
Yes. So, indeed, as you say,there was a recent
I would call it a reformbecause it was a reform in express
one, let's say, a very fast onethat's, happened,
in spring this year, last spring.
And why that happens,
it was triggered
by the demonstrationsof farmers across Europe.
(21:20):
And that's what I mean by,you know, when I said polarization.
And so why did we have the farmersdemonstrations in the first place?
And that's where it is quite interesting.
Farmers started to, to, to demonstratein some parts of Europe,
not because they were fed up withenvironmental legislation, not at all.
And that was not their main claim.
(21:41):
And this is important to stress here.
It was because they are
the first victims of the system.
As I was saying earlier on,which is wrong and unsustainable.
And if it isn't sustainable for us,it is also unsustainable for farmers.
They are indeed, faced with,of course, more and more challenges
(22:02):
when it comes to climate changeand drought and, and floods
that they have toI mean, they, they have not yet
followed, you know, the practicesthat they should have,
in order to adapt, to thoseso they are struggling with it.
And, and the question is
why they have not forand that's where the policy, of course,
plays an important role,but they are also struggling,
(22:25):
on the market because, you know,they are quite
so somehow squeezed, you know,and they are not able to,
put a price that covers,I mean, not all of them, of course.
And I will say a few words about that.
They are not able to put a pricethat covers the production costs.
So basically they are selling some times,
at loss, you know, their projectsas an economic operator.
(22:49):
The first thing to you learnis that in theory, you know, it's the ones
you produce that set the price,not the ones who buys.
But I mean, with agriculture,it's the other way around.
They don't have room for negotiation,for maneuver.
So this I mean, you know, they struggle.
They can't make aliving of their own activity.
(23:09):
And they are faced with more and more,
external programs coming fromclimate change, biodiversity loss, etc..
So this was the first reasonwhy they were in the, in the streets.
But very quickly,
the mainstream, from
unions, the large farm unions, you know,
because of course, if you have
(23:31):
not necessarily splits,but different voices, you know,
like farming etc., for then,you know, they are losing control, over
what's being said and the messagesthat are being, you know, like, spread.
So very quicklythey managed to turn the whole thing
against environmental legislationand, came out
(23:52):
with the claim that all of their problemswere emanating from,
legislation, which, again,you know, was completely wrong.
As I've said before, all of that, led to,
the European Commissionmaking a decision to reform,
the policy that had been adopted, just,you know, and,
and started to be implementedjust a year before.
(24:13):
So, you know, I mean, that was completely,
insane as well,
because there was no evidencethat, you know, there was big problems
or not, or because, you know, it wasliterally just started to be implemented.
And what they did was to basically,I mean, in a nutshell, scrap
all the last greens crumbs from the policythat we're reminded remaining.
(24:36):
And why do I say large green crumbs?
Because what was adoptedwas far from being enough, for,
helping the farmerswith the necessary, transition
that they have to, enact, enact,basically in order to,
to church to be more resilient,to, to the challenges.
(24:57):
So, so, yeah, did this happen?
What was quite shocking with this reformwas that there was no public consultation.
There was no impact assessment.
While in theory, you know,I mean, the European Commission,
when they reformed policies,
they should conductthe public consultation
and they should conductan impact assessment.
(25:18):
They're the only license to a few farmunions.
And, actually, youknow, asked some questions to them and,
some of them sent a letter afterwardsto say
we've been consulted but not heard.
And this where the Viacom business,the small farmers organization.
(25:39):
So basically they were the ones sayingdon't cut the environmental part.
You know, that's not the problem.
The problem comes with, you know, no,like the market is more systemic.
We need to tackle the systemic etc..
But they were not they were not hurt.
So what can I sayabout the Common Agricultural Policy?
To summarize,I mean, the Common Agricultural Policy
(26:01):
is a policy tool, right?
I mean, it's, it's a political decision.
At the end of the day, it'sa pot of money, and politicians can decide
how to use it.
Unfortunately, now, the way I mean,the decisions that are made are not,
you know,for for more sustainable farming,
the way the Common Agricultural Works now
(26:23):
is that it is favoring intensification.
It is pushing for,you know, more larger, larger scale farms
with public money against,you know, natural resources protection.
So, the way the tool per seis not necessarily the right or the wrong
one is what we do with the tool inwhat we do with the tool today is wrong.
Yes. Thank you for that.
(26:46):
I see farmers in farmingpotentially being the biggest ally
in restoring nature and, and,and more sustainable practices.
And like you said, this isthis is my observation as well, that
there are individual farmerswho are doing absolutely fantastic job
in restoring nature and,and in the way of their thinking.
(27:09):
But the problem is they're few farin between these small operation.
And then you have a massiveindustrial scale operations,
which are basically corporations.
This is not like an environmental.
And they were,with the nature, with the land.
This is this is just a corporate.
Listen,I want to switch gears for a second and,
(27:31):
talk about another the recent issue,
which is lowering the protectionstatus of wolves in Europe
and in fact, forfor people like this is this is how we,
get in touch
because I attended eeb conference
or symposium on on that subject.
What is your take?
(27:51):
Because everything is seems to berevolving about human wildlife conflict.
And human wildlife
conflict is one of the big pillarsthat I'm covering here on the podcast.
So maybe I'm going to asklike a two part question,
and you can pick out whichever partyou want to tackle first, in which order.
So the first one is lowering protection
(28:13):
status of wolves in Europeas good as done.
It's just a matter of,you know, cogs turning
and we in fact,going to move them to annex five.
And secondly,what is your perspective on improving this
and better managehuman wildlife conflict in Europe?
(28:34):
Yeah. Good questions.
First,
I think it's important to stressand to highlight
that there is no scientific basis
to support the modification of,
the existing legislation and protection
protection statutes of, wolves
and, actually, based on the data
(28:57):
that, are availableand which, by the way, and
see maybe a few wordsabout how, how this happened and, yeah.
No, how come that we are close to,
changing the protection statutes of theof the wolves, despite that actually
on it, on the basis of the existing data,the population of force in the EU
(29:19):
are in unfavorable or,inadequate conservation
statutes in six out of seven biotic biogeographical regions.
So this is the data as they are today.
This is what science tells us.
So there is no science reasonfor changing it. Now.
The motivation that the EU used for,
(29:43):
changing the protection statutes first,that international level.
So that would be throughthe Berne Convention.
And then the next stepwould be at EU level,
because the Berne Conventions was what ledto the birds and Habitats Directive.
In the EU.
You know, it was a way to basically complywith the international,
rules.
(30:04):
So of course, if should changethe Bern convention, then you're likely
to have to change the EU legislationas well.
The reason why the EU
went ahead proposing to change,the protection statues of the wars
under the BerneConvention was because of predation
and the threats to livestock.
(30:26):
As the as the right it so that'sthat was the main motivation.
But there was another one,which I must say,
can sounds like a joke, but,I'm afraid it is not.
And indeed, the presidents of the European
Commission also have, the lion goddess.
(30:46):
I mean, had her, pony court dolly.
I mean, everybody knows about her.The name of her pony.
Now, it has become a famous ponythat got killed,
by a wolf in Germany.
And apparently.
And I'm saying apparently,because, of course, you know,
we are a science based organizationand I don't have any proof
(31:08):
or data apart from the news articlesand what we've heard, etcetera.
But apparently this was amongthe motivations
for the presidentof the European Commission to call for,
modification of the Berne Convention,which would be quite disturbing.
I mean, this is the purse.
I mean, this is,beyond political motivation.
(31:31):
I mean, it's like a personal motivationfor someone at such a top level.
This is quite disturbing and messy.
But the way it was framed then,
you know, when the proposal came out,was really talking about the predation.
It even said, which,again, is not scientifically based at all,
that it is becoming a threatto humans as well. Why?
(31:53):
There is no such,you know, evidence out there.
I mean, you know, it's not reportedor anything like that.
So it started with the commissionmaking that proposal on the table,
and then it was for the member statesto decide whether or not
to support the proposalfrom the Commission and to put it,
(32:14):
for the Berne Convention,standing committee meeting
that will happen in December,early December.
And there is well, I must say, that'swhat happened was quite,
disturbing again,politically motivated, etc.
but until the very last moment, there was,
no majority in favor of the,
(32:36):
the commission's proposal, but Germany.
So you wonder again,you know, where the pressure comes from.
Again,you know, I don't have any evidence,
so I don't want to make any claimor anything like that.
I'm just stating the facts here.
It was actually Germanythat changed its position.
And after that, because at the beginning,
(32:57):
Germany was not going to supportthe commission's proposal.
And after that, we so many other countriesthat, you know, were abstaining
or, you know, which decidedto actually to support it, and therefore
we ended up with quite a strong majorityin favor of the Commission's proposal.
So that was in September.
And now, given that the EU has,quite a strong voice
(33:19):
in the Berne Convention, it is likelythat it will go through in December.
And, now to your question about,you know, like a coexistence
between humans and wildlife being this,
I mean, beyond, this personal storiesabout, the president's,
poniendo, and and and the wolves, per se.
(33:42):
You know, for me,this is a much bigger problem,
because what that could meanif we then end up reopening,
the EU legislation.
So the so-called birds and habitatsDirective,
we do run a high
risk of having other species
(34:03):
that are going to be downgradedwithout any scientific motivation, given.
That's what's being done.
Now, for the wolf is not based on science.
It's purely politically motivated.
There was there was, as I said, you know,there is this data
plus not just with this data,but the commission when the
(34:23):
when the when the president camewith your proposal,
she also asked for servicesto write a short report, you know, on the
conservation statutes of wolves.
And, and there was no recommendationin that document to actually know
where the, the conservation, statuteof the protection
statutes of, of oh, so
it's a very,very bad precedent at a moment
(34:45):
where we need nature more than ever.
We have to emit we have to learnto coexist better with nature.
We need to I mean, we have to restorenature wherever we can.
And we are going, you know,like, backwards on, on, on on that.
I mean, this is extremely, extremely,extremely dangerous.
(35:05):
And it is also extremely dangerousbecause,
the political context is differentthan, in the last mandate.
I mean, I talked about the Europeanelections,
the European Parliament elections,and what we're faced
with is a very conservative parliamentwith also, you know, a large
I mean, a groupthat, is formed from, from the
the third group is from the far right,you know, in the European Parliament.
(35:30):
That's, you know,
is very using branding,polarization, populist tactics, etc.
and, there is a high likeliness
that, yes, of course,they see a great opportunity with this,
with this reopening of the Birdsand Habitats Directive, again,
for political reasons, more than anything.
But this is extremely dangerous because,we cannot afford going backwards on that.
(35:54):
We have to implement better,you know, this piece of legislation
and not to, to dismantle it.
But there is a high risk that, we will andand last point here, all of that.
I mean, because it's not scientifically,motivated.
Far from it.
What we've seen and also,this is what has led to, I think,
(36:15):
the resultsof the European Parliament elections
and what we see also,I mean, this deregulation threat, etc.,
is this flow of disinformationon social media
and of course, on topics like,you know, white lie, force, etc.
you see many of that,and that is extremely dangerous. Yes.
Especially that misinformationaspect of it is,
(36:37):
is really something I considerthat the most important to tackle.
So, folks, for you
listening to this,if you're if you're interested in
diving deeper into the issue of the lowerlowering wealth protection
status, it's the episode 163where I had the five experts
on on one episode,presenting different points of view.
(37:00):
And Faustine, if I may, I willI will push back a little bit
or maybe challengeyou a little bit on, on this statement,
because on the scientific side of the
what I heard right, I'm not a scientist,but what I heard is
that wolves are incredible
success storyin terms of conservation in Europe.
(37:22):
Their their numbers are much higherthan they used to be.
And there is opinion that at this point,
because how they're mixing,how they're traveling
between the countries,we should really look at one
European wolf populationrather than on those small populations.
(37:42):
And the argumentI heard from the scientists was,
why do we have a system of annexes
if they are hijacked into political
fight, wolves recovered.
Therefore there should be move to, annex
five to reflect their recovery,because that's what it is.
(38:04):
While at the momentit is very it's much considerably easier
to uplift the speciesand to down the species.
There's this this whole procedure, votingand everything else to down list them.
And the argument I heard was like,if we could keep that purely scientific
and make it easier to move the animalup and down in that list, that would take
(38:29):
all that mechanism away from the science,from the political fight.
That's like because right now it is beingweaponized for everything that you said.
Right?
The, you know, of all the greenies wantto, you know, get this out of business
and all that stuff.
So that would and similar mechanismI notice is in the North America
(38:50):
where again,there are some recovery criteria
where the species should be upliftedand down listed,
and those criteria are metfor a number of years.
And let the species is not down listedbecause of all of their concerns.
And I'm not dismissing the concerns here.
By the way, because obviously,
for all the reasons that you listed,those concerns are there.
(39:11):
And the common theme is like,I had a lady from Estonia who,
as you know, Wolf, is Estoniannational animal, and they have
a wolf
management program where they allowingwolf horns and so on.
And she said something like,
I am a wolf lover and I am not happyabout those wolves being killed.
(39:34):
But if that's the price for coexistence,I'm willing to pay that.
So I'm just curious of your viewon, on on this.
Like on the one hand,why not take the Habitats directive
and all that out of thispolitical struggle and say like,
hey, here are the criteria and the animalsare moving up and down as we see
(39:58):
their recovery and the wolf recovered,therefore we should list them down.
And yes, for sure,some wolves will be killed
like they are right now in Switzerland.
I think I thinkSwitzerland is not in the EU, but that's a
but that would be the pricefor coexistence.
That is curious on your onyour view on this
(40:19):
maybe on your point about, splitting the,the, the, the, science, I mean.
Yeah, trying not to politicizethat too much.
I mean, I would I would agree with you.
I think it's important to be especiallygiven the context where, you know, and,
I mean, the threat that we seewith the European Parliament,
I mean,
compositiontoday and, with this big part of it being,
(40:41):
you know, from populist parties and seeingthat as an opportunity to polarize and,
think that this is quite toxicand very dangerous.
And as I said, it'snot just about the problems here.
And, and, and this is what I try to pointI tried to make is not just
wars is what that would meanin the European context
(41:02):
and the fact that we are going to havea political decision
on something that should be indeedscientifically, motivated
about all the species, you know, in the,in the Birds and Habitats Directive.
And that's not, you know,I mean, that is extremely,
extremely dangerous in the contextthat we're in.
So, splitting that,you know, would be indeed,
(41:24):
at least, you know, for this Parliamentfor this term would be the way forward.
I fully, fully agree.
Now on, on, on, canning
and, and, you know, like, besides,
lowering it from strict protectionto protection
because, I mean, at the end of the day,the woods will remain protected, right?
I mean, it's from strictly to protect.
So that's also importantfor people to understand.
(41:47):
That's what we say.
And we haven't found the evidence.
I mean, like,maybe you've heard someone in your podcast
saying otherwise,but there is no scientific evidence that,
culling is the most efficient wayto actually,
you know, achieve, a reductionin terms of predation
(42:07):
and actioning what we have read
and what we have been told is thatit could even be counterproductive.
So that's also what wewe are saying that might not
I mean, you know, this blunt decision
to lower the protectionstatute might not be the way forward.
And yes, you're rightin terms of the numbers overall, etc..
(42:28):
But again, I mean, it depends maybelike which scientist you are talking to.
I don't know about the scientific evidenceas, as we see it is that,
you know, there is no strong justificationand even from the Commission services
to go for that option,
especially if we're trying to, to,
to tackle here is the risk of a predationor livestock
(42:51):
coexistence for us should remain,you know, I mean, the way forward.
And again, you know,
as you were saying as well,from from the person that you talk to
and as I said, you know, we're going tomove from strictly protected to protected.
So what will stay, you know,and we will have to coexist anyway.
So whatwe have to do is to double our efforts
(43:11):
in coexistence, efforts, not through
culling, but,you know, through, guardian dogs,
through fences, through,you know, we have programs out there.
You know, in the knife, program,for instance, in Europe
where you have, some money,maybe we need to put more money.
We need to better usethe Common Agricultural Policy for now.
You know, it's just a small partof the Common Agricultural Policy
(43:34):
that is useful that because, of course,the bulk of it goes to serious farmers
who do not necessarily need the money,you know, but actually
the shepherds might need the money more,you know, for coexistence.
And and, you know, I'm not sure.
Of course, again,this is maybe personal here,
but I'm not sure that an it when,when the, the the large farming unions
are actually going against,you know, the wars and, and, in favor
(43:58):
of lowering the protection statutesthat they really care
so much about it because most of it,you know, are serious farmers
and it's not really a problem for them,but it's more about the money issue.
And they don't they don't necessarilywant the money to be used for coexistence
measures, you know, and taken away from,their direct payments or, you know, so,
(44:18):
I think, you know, maybesome people should think twice about that.
And also something that,
I've been thinking about, if you do,you know where I mean to be seen.
But, the protection statutes of wars.
What does that mean for thiscoexistence measures and this money?
I mean, are we going to keep, spendingor will it still be available?
(44:39):
I mean, that pot of moneyfor coexistence or not?
Because, I mean, in theory,you will have alternatives like culling.
So there will be less justification
for using public moneyfor fences, for guardian dogs, etc..
So I think that this should also, youknow, like be part of the discussion and,
and people should think, I mean, shepherdsand, should think about that as well.
(45:01):
I'm, I'm not 100% sure about whatthat would mean,
but that would have consequences for sure,because there will be alternatives,
because today
you had that money, you had this programbecause you're not allowed.
Yeah. No, to, to kill them.
So, yeah, that's athat's an excellent point for seed. And,
you know, I know good and
well that on the wolves we could dolike a three hour straight discussion.
(45:23):
And, and for anyone who is interestedto just go to my website,
Tommy souders.com and type Wolf or Wolf's
into the search box and you'll finda lot of materials in there.
And by the way,I think the important point that you made
is that calling is notI actually I think right.
That's my opinion.
It's not meant to fix the problemwith depredation.
(45:47):
Or, you know, coexistencein, in the matter of like,
in the biological sense,it is more of a, in a social sciences
realm of,you know, people giving agency to people
to do something, whether that's corrector not, that's a different discussion.
And and like I said,we had these discussions
on, on many times on the podcastfor scene.
(46:10):
I just want to switch gears againto final big item,
current item, nature restoration law,where it is at the moment.
Again, that's something that we coveredon the podcast a few times with farmers
and with, you know, green politicians.
Let's come up that way.
(46:30):
Different points of viewwere presented already.
I am more interested now where we're atwith nature restoration law.
How much it was strippedfrom the original ambitious plans.
Is it still fit for purpose, or is it?
Yeah. Where are we?
So, good news is that,
it went for it got adopted. So.
(46:52):
And that was not a given.
Because again, you know,it was heavily politicized.
It was, happening,
before the European,Parliament election and,
it was instrumentalized quite a lot,for the sake of polarization and,
you know, old tactics, of course,but that can be extremely damaging.
(47:16):
So, and I must say there, the hero, really
a hero, is,
the Austrian, environment minister.
She's my hero.
But and also
because she put her, I mean, her own,
political career, in, in doing that,she did stand,
(47:40):
for the, for the, for the naturerestoration law in the council.
And wonder what she was under pressure.
Of course.
And, and and she did itnot for political reasons, but because she
does believe that, you know, that'sthe only way forward, for our survival.
And the one of her children.
(48:01):
So, Pavel, really and,
and it so it went through in the councildefender until the last minute.
Really?
We thought that the council would kill itbasically.
Then the we had a big battle.
And in the countrieswhere you have the member states
and we already had a big battlein the European Parliament
where you havethe members of the Parliament
who are directly electedby by citizens of the EU.
(48:23):
And there as well, we had to fightreally, really hard to, to, to,
to get it through.
But we managed, eventually.
Now about what's left from it.
Of course, it's not as ambitious as whatthe commission, initially put on the table
that the targets are there,when it comes to,
(48:46):
you know, restoration,
farmland and, it's not as,
ambitious as, it was proposed, but,it ended up being slightly better
than what the parliament, you know,tried to, to, to, to, to, to get to.
So overall, it's great.
It has been adopted.
Now it's all about implementationand it's where it's
(49:08):
difficult because, you know, I've saidat the beginning of our chat that,
we do have, several piecesof environmental legislations out there.
Some of them have been there for decades.
The problem often lies with
implementation and the lack ofimplementation from member states.
There are many cases,you know, we call them infringement case
(49:29):
IT procedures, you know, that are ongoing,
the EU against the member statesbecause they are not implementing the law.
Now, what the member stateswill have to do for the nature
restoration lawis to set their, national plans.
How, how this is going to go,of course, is, of paramount importance.
I mean, it has to be transparent.
(49:50):
They need to involve, stakeholders,civil society, conservationists,
you know, of course,farmers, etc., etc., etc.
it has to go fastbecause there is no time to,
to lose the problem I see, is that again,
the commission sets quite a bad precedent,which was happening around the walls
and the Birds and HabitatsDirective potentially because, you know,
(50:13):
the nature restoration ruleand the Birds and Habitats Directive.
I mean, there is a referenceto each of them in, in, in both.
Right.
So one can then argue that,
if we do, amend the Birds and HabitatsDirective that things should be put on
hold for the nature restoration,and also I see a political risk of that,
and I would not be surprisedthat in a future podcast,
(50:36):
you know, you start talking about thatbecause I see that some politicians
have seen,you know, the breach and, will use that.
They have a plan.
Yeah, I would,I mean, I would not be surprised.
So that's that's one.
And the other one is you might have heardI don't know whether that's something
you also covered in your podcast,but on the EU deforestation,
(50:58):
law, you
know, which was also a,a big achievement, under the,
the from the last mandateand the, the so-called Green Deal
that, the commission decided to postponeits implementation.
And, of course, when you start doing that,then you open a Pandora's
box for other pieces of lawsto be postponed, in their implementation.
(51:21):
So I haven't seen strong pushes yet,but I would not be surprised that,
there will be pushes for delays,
in the implementationof the nature restoration.
So this is where organizations like mine,
matters a lotbecause our members at national level,
you know, have a strong role to play,making sure that
(51:44):
the member statesare working on their plans,
that they are doing soin a, a transparent manner, that they are,
consulting with the relevant stakeholders,of course, using, science as the basis.
And we will put pressure,of course, here on the commission,
to push the member states and,
push back if, you know, there
(52:06):
is any, sign that,
there would be delays or things like that.
But all of that to say that,nature restoration law has that no
has gone through, but now it's all aboutimplementation and it's as important
as all the battles that we hadfor the road to actually get adopted.
Because what matters eventuallyis the pronunciation or how to speak
(52:29):
to policymakers to ensure
that the scientific evidenceis properly taken to account.
You know, and that is a questionthat I can personalize.
For you and for the listeners.
That was on the onthe one of the environmental conferences.
I'm going to tell us quite often.
And there was a dinner after that,and I happened to sit next to a gentleman
(52:52):
who was a director in some organizationsthat are he is essentially policymaker.
And after a few glasses of wine or beer,
as I oh, you know, those scientists,they have no idea about writing policy
because this and I was listening,you know, everything was like friendly
and professional.
But I was like thinking like, man,
(53:14):
it's not like scientistsdoesn't know about policy writing.
Like they talk,they reporting on the facts.
And so, it was clear to me that on the onehand, the job of a policymaker
is ensure that their boss is electablein the next election cycle.
But then, on the other hand,this is what this is what it boils down
(53:35):
to hard decisions like we not makingright decisions because they're hard.
How to I was wondering
I'm wondering to that pointlike how should I talk to this gentleman,
which I'm trying to make itlike a more general question to you.
They know how to speak with policymakers
(53:56):
to, yeah, ensure that they're takingthe scientific evidence
into account with more then,you know, the the pressures of their job
and to do the good jobfor their organization.
I think and the problem is thatthe political mandates are often short,
short term.
And, therefore, you know, I mean,all the scientific evidence that they get,
(54:18):
they don't really care because it's longerterm than their political mandate.
And they know that by favoring,you know, like parts, in certain sectors,
you know, by giving them giftsor something like that,
they will actually get reelected, won
by doing somethingthat is for the public interest.
The overall,
you know, it will take ten yearsfor the thing to actually materialize and,
they won't get,
(54:39):
ratified, you know, or, for that.
So, that's that's the prime.
So that's why you need heroes like,the vest, Larry, you know that, minister
who, listened to scienceand did it for all survivor.
But I think what's what can help is really
to frame it in termsof the cost of inaction more and more.
And I think this should be actuallypart of,
(55:00):
impact assessments,because it is not so much now.
And that's quite, shockingbecause what you will hear from
a specific sector that would be impactedby any sort of transition,
and, and,
very, you know, I mean, I understand and,yes, there are costs to the transition
and some are more affected than others,especially, you know, the ones that,
now benefit from this, that you quote.
(55:22):
Right.
But if you do, then start lookingat the cost of inaction and puts it
really, you know, like in your thinking,then you know, this
long term benefits can become more shorts,short term ones in the sense
that you see what are the cost onthe short term of not acting and not,
making, you know, not pushing for, for,for the changes that, that are necessary.
(55:47):
So I think that this, this is, this is,
a useful,
narrative and, and a useful thingto, to hunger more and more.
And there are more and more figureswhich are quite,
shocking on the cost of, of inaction.
And, I think that really politicians,should be made much more aware of that.
(56:10):
And, and maybe then sciencewill really speak to them.
Because it would be quantified
in terms of their economic termsand also look more short term,
in terms of gains, you know, benefits.
Then then it might sound, without
having this cost of inaction,you know, being factored in.
So, but maybe another thingand sorry, here, it's a bit of, the,
(56:34):
definition, which I found has worked,because something I didn't say.
And, I want you to to mention it herebecause I think it's a success story.
And it's also nice toto have positiveness.
Oh, excellent.Something positive. Yes, yes.
On agriculture
and, it's more process wise than anything.
(56:56):
As for now, but still,I was part personally,
of the so-called strategic
dialog on the future of agriculture,
which was set by the presidentof the European Commission
as a response also to the demonstrations
and, polarization, etc..
So she decided to put a number of peoplearound the table for seven months,
(57:20):
and we had to spend hoursevery months, you know, together
and in between the meetingsas when in breakout groups, etc.,
and to agree on, some recommendationsfor the future of,
food systems in general
and around the tablethere was people like me,
but also from Birdseye, from Greenpeace,but also the president of Copa,
(57:45):
the presence of Gojek, for drawing Europe,
land owners,
small farmers, young farmers,organic farmers, but also the traders,
the retainers, etc., fertilizersEurope and so, as you can
imagine, people that I see often here,but I don't always agree with,
(58:05):
you know what?
That's what a democracy,I guess, in that format.
Which was quite high level and,you know, like,
with a chair who was not at all,from the agriculture sectors.
And he was a philosopher,actually, German philosopher.
The first success is that
we did manage to reach a consensus,and it was consensus based,
(58:27):
and that was the only wayto go, actually, to do it via consensus.
Because, you know, like majority, etc..
I mean, it would not have had no weight,nothing, you know,
so we managed to reach a consensus.
That's the second thing.
And that's what's even more successfulis that this consensus is actually full
of meaningful recommendationsfor the future of agriculture.
(58:50):
Just to list a few.
And again, you have to bear in mindthat you had all of these actors
with different backgrounds,different opinions, perception.
And as we know, perception is reality.
You know, in, in, in the room.
So we had this diverseset of, of of people.
We start by saying that statue
is no longer an optionand that time for change is now.
(59:12):
And so we do say that we need that systemchange in, in the food, sector, which
for some
has never been, you know, like setin, in such a strong way.
So that's already something.
And then we go on and say things like,
I mean, right, things like,we need to implement
(59:34):
and enforceexisting a vibrant energy station.
And we do refer to the nature restoration.
So if ever, you know,like somewhere around the table,
we're now lobbying against,the nature restoration rules, or delaying,
you know, this nature restorationor that would be against
the spirit of that consensusthat we reached all together.
(59:55):
But we also called for big changein the Common Agricultural policy,
like moving away from direct payments
and, saying thatthe Common Agricultural Policy
should target the farmerswho are most in need,
because today, indeed,I mean, as you know, 80% of the money goes
to 20% of the farmers and not necessarilythe ones who really need it,
(01:00:17):
and that we should also, and
improve our, the environmental schemes,
under the policyand that this should grow, you know,
like proportionally become like a largerand larger part of the policy.
And be targeted,
you know, to results more than practices.
So that's, that's another thingand another big thing,
(01:00:38):
which was not at allthe topic of, today's discussion, but, Oh.
And on the there is also a linewhich calls for coexistence.
Excellent. Yes.
Yeah, yeah, I can send you the I do answerif you want to put it as a note here.
Oh yes. Yes, we will do it.
We'll do that.
I'll do that with linksin the description.
Perfect. Yep.
Yeah.
And it also calls for changingconsumption.
(01:01:00):
Behaviors.
You know, as I said at the beginning,
the only way to tackleproduction is to tackle consumption.
And it also talk about something that,of course, is heavily, heavily polarized.
And, where you seethat science, is not recognized by some
is the need to reduceour animal protein consumption.
(01:01:21):
And there is athere is a sentence on that, of course.
It's it's a curve.I mean, you know, it's well balanced.
It talks about the trend and that the EUshould support the trend etc..
But it's there. It's thereand it refers to the
to the scientific consensusthat there is on that.
So it was possible.
I mean what why I refer tothat is sometimes, you know,
(01:01:41):
and when people around the tableare really willing to reach a consensus
when there was also a scientistaround the table from England University
at the beginning, you know,
I really thought that we would never reacha consensus because people would stick
to their position, not listento the others, not listen to science, etc.
but it was a process.
(01:02:02):
And, eventuallywe got, a very interesting results.
And, now it's for the decision makersto, to use that, and,
to come up with the proposals, you know,based on this, historic consensus.
Well, I feel like this is a great momentto finish that podcast
on the good news for Austin.
You were ahead of mebecause I want to ask.
(01:02:23):
I wanted to ask you about somethingpositive to end with.
And you were alreadyone step ahead before me.
Folks, if you enjoying this podcast,if you're interested in topics
like that, you should definitely subscribeto my newsletter newsletter
dot Tommy souders.com.
The link is in the descriptionof the show.
As long as as wellas some other links for Steen.
(01:02:44):
Thank you so much for your time.
Really appreciate it. Great conversation.
You're welcome. Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!