This is Conservation and Science podcast, where we take a deep dive

into topics of ecology, conservation and human wildlife interactions.

I'm Tommy Serafinski

and I always strive to bring you diverse perspectives on topics we discuss here

and examine their ecological, social, and political dimensions.

And today is one of those episodes where we are

particularly going to focus on social and political dimensions,

because we are going to discuss European environmental policy.

And our guest is Faustine Bas-Defossez,

who is the director for nature, Health and Environment at the European

Environmental Bureau, ECB and what is European Environmental Bureau?

You will learn in the first minutes of this podcast.

We we're going to talk about the complex relation between farming

and nature and nature conservation.

We're going to talk about CAP of course.

And we also going to talk about how agricultural policies

shape the landscape and biodiversity in Europe.

Obviously, we going to talk about the controversial decision

to lower the protection status of wolves in Europe

and how this my, shape or influence is human wildlife coexistence.

And we also going to look at the newly adopted

nature restoration law and what is or is

what is going to be potential impact on, Europe's ecosystems and everything.

This is all my turn. A little bit depressing.

Then stick till the end, because Faustine shares with us a success story

about bringing diverse, interested parties.

I'm going to follow

Rob York's advice and say interested parties rather than stakeholders.

So how we managed to bring all the interested parties

and forge a meaningful consensus about the future of European agriculture.

Very positive news.

So you have a pretty good idea now what 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 conversation because we are going to talk the,

you know, subjects of Europe and European nature and nature conservation.

This is always interesting for me and my listeners,

but just to set the context for anyone who's listening to that.

You are currently the director for nature, Health

and Environment at the European Environmental Bureau

and could you give us and our listeners an abbreviated version?

What is Eeb?

What do you do and what is your background, how it came

to be that you are in the positions you are in, in that organization?

Yes. So the EEB is the largest federation of environment and NGOs in Europe.

We have

around 185 members,

organization.

So when I say members, I mean organizations,

in around 40, 41 countries.

So it's in the EU, but also in Europe in the geographical sense.

And we've been around for 15 years now.

Actually, this year we are celebrating our 50th anniversary, in December.

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

on one, you know, like peat biodiversity or climate

or circular economy or health or 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

and regional policy, circular economy, climate, energy.

So we are, covering

everything that's, you know, the so-called,

European Green Deal, which was this project you know, from the EU to,

make, the creature greener that falls under the green view.

So, we are quite broad in terms of coverage

now, we have, around

more than 80 people, working here in the secretariat in Brussels.

So we're also quite large, in terms of staff,

and capacity here in Brussels.

And what we do in our daily job is what I would call, I mean, so

we call it lobbying, but, I mean, I don't have any problem with that word.

Actually, I think that lobbying can also, be, you know, for,

general interest, for public interest, which is what we are,

you know, calling for and what we're doing.

So we're doing, lobbying or advocacy to make,

EU policies, greener.

And we do that, with meetings,

of course, but with reports that we, draft,

you know, on the basis of scientific data that, we collect,

we are science based, 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.

So it includes WWF, but also BirdLife,

can Climate Action Network and Greenpeace, for instance.

And, we coordinate, all voice

towards decision makers, together.

And we are also, members of expert groups

that the currently the European Commission, you know, organizes.

We respond to public consultation.

We also run campaigns like during the elections,

you know, this year, the European Parliament election, we try to mobilize

voters with, scientific data and, science based information,

but also factual information about the role of the EU and of

fundamental policy in their daily life.

So that's,

you know, in a nutshell, what we are doing.

And as of my role as the director for nature, Health and Environment,

I am responsible for quite a big chunk of the,

area policies that we are working on

in the organization from agriculture to, so on water,

but also pollution, chemicals, pollution as well, that we are,

working on or tackling or 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,

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,

because I quickly, understood how important,

the EU is for environmental policy

because this is where you actually get the bulk of environmental policy

that then member states have to, implement, and have to translate

into their national laws and, I quickly decided to work, in Brussels.

I started working in the European Commission,

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 topic was actually agriculture, but,

there was also reason because, agriculture indeed impacts, our environment.

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.

And maybe last, but I mean, that's also important in how,

of course, why I keep fighting and and why I despite,

the numerous challenges and and that sometimes, you know, the feeling

that, we are minds away from where we should be, if we look at science,

I'm a

mother of, two kids that are still quite young.

And, if I keep fighting, it's also for them.

Absolutely.

And thank you for for that introduction for thing.

And you know, this this is a theme

that is even in the recently published episode,

which probably not going to be recently published by the time this one airs.

I was speaking with a lady who wrote a book about climate anxiety,

and she said, like, I'm doing that for my grandchildren.

And then earlier I had the gentleman who again wrote a kids book.

So saying, like, I don't think that my great grandchildren

are getting enough of the knowledge and exposure to nature from their parents.

He's, he's, son in this case.

So this is kind of like a repeatedly repeating theme.

And thank you for for bringing that up.

Obviously agriculture, I'm sure we going to talk a lot about ugly culture.

But first you have obviously a lot of experience in EU environmental policy.

What is the biggest challenge in general in general

in in balancing human activities with wildlife conservation?

Because I think that that would be the core of the problems

with wildlife and biodiversity that we have all.

What a,

as I've said, you know, I mean, where my,

my strongest expertise is, is, is on agriculture and,

maybe I can take that as an example because,

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 development in general, in biodiversity in particular.

Why is it so difficult?

I mean, we have been, farming and, let's say consuming

or so agriculture projects in a certain way for, for decades.

And, while it is clear from science that if we continue as we do,

we won't be able to stay within planetary boundaries.

And, eventually, we will hit the goal.

I mean, to put it bluntly and simply, and it's not just, you know,

something that will have

impacts people 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 knowledge that what is happening

in front of our very eyes, things are not changing.

And and why?

Because we do have policies in place.

And I think this is also important to, 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 directive on biodiversity and Habitats Directive.

And the problem does not lie with the policies themselves.

It lies with the implementation

and the fact that Member States are not implementing them as they shoot.

So why are we there?

The problem is, is systemic.

This is why it's so difficult to tackle it.

And I take the example of agriculture because it is quite obvious

we're not going to manage to change our agricultural practices

if we are not changing the food system as a whole.

It's, it's it's in regional to think that we will

make of farming practices more sustainable without changing practices

all the way, you know, through the change and all the way to,

to our, to a plate, basically, because,

production and consumption are interestingly linked

and not just as within the EU, but at the global level, of course,

because we are also trading with partners, countries, etc..

So we need to look at it in a systemic way.

And of course it is challenging. Of course it is difficult.

And when you are faced with with such a challenge, sometimes,

you know, it seems so complicated that 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 go for what you're saying, you know,

it would work, but it doesn't.

And we've seen it like quick fixes, technological fixes.

And, but given that it's a systemic problem, we need to, to,

to tackle it system, you know, systematically like, at a broader scale.

But that doesn't mean that it's impossible.

But of course, it requires a set of different things from policy.

I mean, of course,

new policies, more coherent policies, because we have also incoherence

in, in policies, better implementation and better enforcement.

But also we need the private actors to, to be part of that change.

You know, we need to change market to we need to, consumers behavior,

but without falling in the trap of this responsibility of consumers

because whether we like it or not, consumers, actually,

you know,

not necessarily consciously making their food choices.

You know, there are a number of factors that are influencing their choices,

from the price to socio economic factors,

cultural education and and marketing, etc., etc.

and if we're not taking the law, then, you know,

we're not changing what we call the food environment

and we won't make the sustainable choice, the choice by default, which today is

the opposite of unsustainable choices or standard choice by default.

So, yeah, I mean, I think they are.

Agriculture illustrates very well you know, like the, the,

the magnitude, let's say, of the challenge that 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 difficult it becomes to actually tackle it.

And the cost of inaction is huge and for the sector itself.

But first and foremost, you're right about the systemic,

the need for the systemic change in tackle the entire system

rather than one point of a system, because that will never work over the years.

Do you see any evolution in the relation between farmers

and the farming sector and, you know, conservation, let's say,

or, you know, environmentalists, let's, let's use those umbrella terms.

Do you see any changes in that relation over the years?

I mean, we work with farmers when I say we environmentalists

in general, in my organization and our members,

at national level, at local level, we engage in, in many,

you know, partnerships and

and their EU policies, but not only so, we do work with many farmers.

You know, how important, it is to actually protect the natural resources

they rely upon for their, for their activity.

So, whether I mean, this has improved,

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.

So it's a third of the EU budget.

So it's quite a big chunk 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 discussions on the Common Agricultural Policy.

But this has changed.

Now we are among the stakeholders, discussing it.

We don't have the same, influence and influence power than some others.

But we are around the table in many fora, not in own, but in many.

So things have been and also the narrative has changed.

I think that being said, recently,

what I have noticed is, a very worrying push back and,

somehow rollback, which I think is

extremely concerning given the magnitude of the challenges that we're faced with.

And again, the fact that's the sector itself 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 seen that there was a strong polarization.

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 problems that the farmers are, faced with.

Well, actually, it's their best friend, you know,

I mean, if they were to be implemented correctly

because there is no farming without natural resources.

So and the environmental legislation is 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 things that should be done better, etc.

but per se, you know, we should not scrap environmental legislation.

I mean, it's, it's it's it's it's a suicide.

Yet in times of crisis, of course, you know,

this sort of, wrong narrative tends to work because it's,

you know, you have like, one enemy is the I mean,

the government and policy, the, bomb and tennis, etc.

and, you know, you're all, against, against those.

And as I said, it is extremely, extremely dangerous.

Yet we've seen that it has worked that, also

some politicians have used that that 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,

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 do and the fact that's,

in in the fight against climate change, nature

is essential and nature restoration is our best allies.

So, Yeah.

So, so to to.

Yeah.

Just to summarize, I mean, to answer your question, in the past decade. Yes.

I mean, we are working with farmers.

We think we we I mean, things have evolved, you know,

slowly, not fast enough for sure, in the right direction.

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, that this shouldn't be politicized

because it's not about politics, about it's about the, just evidence.

And I totally agree and understand I saw that myself.

This this thing of like, oh, this is the the common enemy.

I was like, recently I 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 politicians are using polarization for,

for their own sake, and that is extremely, extremely toxic and dangerous.

Yes. For sure.

For that you mentioned Common Agricultural Policy.

Could you give us a lay down where it is at the moment?

Because there were like a recent changes to, 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.

And they don't care about individual farmers at all.

And so I was just curious, like, from where you where you said like,

what is the current status of carp and what role it plays

or should play in supporting farmers on one side, but also supporting

wildlife conservation and supporting, you know, biodiversity and nature?

Yes. So, indeed, as you say, there was a recent

I would call it a reform because it was a reform in express

one, let's say, a very fast one that's, happened,

in spring this year, last spring.

And why that happens,

it was triggered

by the demonstrations of farmers across Europe.

And that's what I mean by, you know, when I said polarization.

And so why did we have the farmers demonstrations in the first place?

And that's where it is quite interesting.

Farmers started to, to, to demonstrate in some parts of Europe,

not because they were fed up with environmental legislation, not at all.

And that was not their main claim.

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

when it comes to climate change and drought and, and floods

that they have to I mean, they, they have not yet

followed, you know, the practices that they should have,

in order to adapt, to those so they are struggling with it.

And, and the question is

why they have not for and that's where the policy, of course,

plays an important role, but they are also struggling,

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 price that covers the production costs.

So basically they are selling some times,

at loss, you know, their projects as an economic operator.

The first thing to you learn is 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 a living of their own activity.

And they are faced with more and more,

external programs coming from climate change, biodiversity loss, etc..

So this was the first reason why 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

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 messages that are being, you know, like, spread.

So very quickly they managed to turn the whole thing

against environmental legislation and, came out

with the claim that all of their problems were emanating from,

legislation, which, again, you know, was completely wrong.

As I've said before, all of that, led to,

the European Commission making a decision to reform,

the policy that had been adopted, just, you know, and,

and started to be implemented just a year before.

So, you know, I mean, that was completely,

insane as well,

because there was no evidence that, you know, there was big problems

or not, or because, you know, it was literally 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 policy that we're reminded remaining.

And why do I say large green crumbs?

Because what was adopted was far from being enough, for,

helping the farmers with the necessary, transition

that they have to, enact, enact, basically in order to,

to church to be more resilient, to, to the challenges.

So, so, yeah, did this happen?

What was quite shocking with this reform was 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 conduct the public consultation

and they should conduct an impact assessment.

They're the only license to a few farm unions.

And, actually, you know, asked some questions to them and,

some of them sent a letter afterwards to say

we've been consulted but not heard.

And this where the Viacom business, the small farmers organization.

So basically they were the ones saying don'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 say about the Common Agricultural Policy?

To summarize, I mean, the Common Agricultural Policy

is a policy tool, right?

I mean, it's, it's a political decision.

At the end of the day, it's a 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

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 se is not necessarily the right or the wrong

one is what we do with the tool in what we do with the tool today is wrong.

Yes. Thank you for that.

I see farmers in farming potentially being the biggest ally

in restoring nature and, and, and more sustainable practices.

And like you said, this is this is my observation as well, that

there are individual farmers who are doing absolutely fantastic job

in restoring nature and, and in the way of their thinking.

But the problem is they're few far in between these small operation.

And then you have a massive industrial 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,

talk about another the recent issue,

which is lowering the protection status of wolves in Europe

and in fact, for for 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?

Because everything is seems to be revolving about human wildlife conflict.

And human wildlife

conflict is one of the big pillars that I'm covering here on the podcast.

So maybe I'm going to ask like a two part question,

and you can pick out whichever part you want to tackle first, in which order.

So the first one is lowering protection

status of wolves in Europe as 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 manage human wildlife conflict in Europe?

Yeah. Good questions.

First,

I think it's important to stress and 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

that, are available and which, by the way, and

see maybe a few words about how, how this happened and, yeah.

No, how come that we are close to,

changing the protection statutes of the of the wolves, despite that actually

on it, on the basis of the existing data, the population of force in the EU

are in unfavorable or, inadequate conservation

statutes in six out of seven biotic bio geographical regions.

So this is the data as they are today.

This is what science tells us.

So there is no science reason for changing it. Now.

The motivation that the EU used for,

changing the protection statutes first, that international level.

So that would be through the Berne Convention.

And then the next step would be at EU level,

because the Berne Conventions was what led to the birds and Habitats Directive.

In the EU.

You know, it was a way to basically comply with the international,

rules.

So of course, if should change the Bern convention, then you're likely

to have to change the EU legislation as well.

The reason why the EU

went ahead proposing to change, the protection statues of the wars

under the Berne Convention was because of predation

and the threats to livestock.

As the as the right it so that's that 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.

I mean, had her, pony court dolly.

I mean, everybody knows about her. The name of her pony.

Now, it has become a famous pony that got killed,

by a wolf in Germany.

And apparently.

And I'm saying apparently, because, of course, you know,

we are a science based organization and I don't have any proof

or data apart from the news articles and what we've heard, etcetera.

But apparently this was among the motivations

for the president of 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.

I mean, it's like a personal motivation for 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 threat to humans as well. Why?

There is no such, you know, evidence out there.

I mean, you know, it's not reported or anything like that.

So it started with the commission making that proposal on the table,

and then it was for the member states to decide whether or not

to support the proposal from the Commission and to put it,

for the Berne Convention, standing committee meeting

that will happen in December, early December.

And there is well, I must say, that's what happened was quite,

disturbing again, politically motivated, etc.

but until the very last moment, there was,

no majority in favor of the,

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 claim or anything like that.

I'm just stating the facts here.

It was actually Germany that changed its position.

And after that, because at the beginning,

Germany was not going to support the commission's proposal.

And after that, we so many other countries that, you know, were abstaining

or, you know, which decided to actually to support it, and therefore

we ended up with quite a strong majority in favor of the Commission's proposal.

So that was in September.

And now, given that the EU has, quite a strong voice

in the Berne Convention, it is likely that 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 stories about, the president's,

poniendo, and and and the wolves, per se.

You know, for me, this is a much bigger problem,

because what that could mean if we then end up reopening,

the EU legislation.

So the so-called birds and habitats Directive,

we do run a high

risk of having other species

that are going to be downgraded without 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

when the when the president came with your proposal,

she also asked for services to write a short report, you know, on the

conservation statutes of wolves.

And, and there was no recommendation in that document to actually know

where the, the conservation, statute of the protection

statutes of, of oh, so

it's a very, very bad precedent at a moment

where we need nature more than ever.

We have to emit we have to learn to coexist better with nature.

We need to I mean, we have to restore nature wherever we can.

And we are going, you know, like, backwards on, on, on on that.

I mean, this is extremely, extremely, extremely dangerous.

And it is also extremely dangerous because,

the political context is different than, in the last mandate.

I mean, I talked about the European elections,

the European Parliament elections, and what we're faced

with is a very conservative parliament with also, you know, a large

I mean, a group that, is formed from, from the

the third group is from the far right, you know, in the European Parliament.

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 Birds and Habitats Directive, again,

for political reasons, more than anything.

But this is extremely dangerous because, we cannot afford going backwards on that.

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 and and 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,

the results of the European Parliament elections

and what we see also, I mean, this deregulation threat, etc.,

is this flow of disinformation on 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 misinformation aspect of it is,

is really something I consider that 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 lower lowering wealth protection

status, it's the episode 163 where I had the five experts

on on one episode, presenting different points of view.

And Faustine, if I may, I will I will push back a little bit

or maybe challenge you 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 story in terms of conservation in Europe.

Their their numbers are much higher than 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 population rather than on those small populations.

And the argument I 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.

While at the moment it is very it's much considerably easier

to uplift the species and to down the species.

There's this this whole procedure, voting and 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 animal up and down in that list, that would take

all that mechanism away from the science, from the political fight.

That's like because right now it is being weaponized for everything that you said.

Right?

The, you know, of all the greenies want to, you know, get this out of business

and all that stuff.

So that would and similar mechanism I notice is in the North America

where again, there are some recovery criteria

where the species should be uplifted and down listed,

and those criteria are met for a number of years.

And let the species is not down listed because 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.

And the common theme is like, I had a lady from Estonia who,

as you know, Wolf, is Estonian national animal, and they have

a wolf

management program where they allowing wolf horns and so on.

And she said something like,

I am a wolf lover and I am not happy about those wolves being killed.

But if that's the price for coexistence, I'm willing to pay that.

So I'm just curious of your view on, on on this.

Like on the one hand, why not take the Habitats directive

and all that out of this political struggle and say like,

hey, here are the criteria and the animals are moving up and down as we see

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 think Switzerland is not in the EU, but that's a

but that would be the price for coexistence.

That is curious on your on your view on this

maybe on your point about, splitting the, the, the, the, science, I mean.

Yeah, trying not to politicize that too much.

I mean, I would I would agree with you.

I think it's important to be especially given the context where, you know, and,

I mean, the threat that we see with the European Parliament,

I mean,

composition today and, with this big part of it being,

you know, from populist parties and seeing that as an opportunity to polarize and,

think that this is quite toxic and very dangerous.

And as I said, it's not just about the problems here.

And, and, and this is what I try to point I tried to make is not just

wars is what that would mean in the European context

and the fact that we are going to have a political decision

on something that should be indeed scientifically, 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 context that we're in.

So, splitting that, you know, would be indeed,

at least, you know, for this Parliament for 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 protection to 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 important for people to understand.

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 way to actually,

you know, achieve, a reduction in terms of predation

and actioning what we have read

and what we have been told is that it could even be counterproductive.

So that's also what we we are saying that might not

I mean, you know, this blunt decision

to lower the protection statute might not be the way forward.

And yes, you're right in terms of the numbers overall, etc..

But again, I mean, it depends maybe like which scientist you are talking to.

I don't know about the scientific evidence as, as we see it is that,

you know, there is no strong justification and 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 predation or livestock

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 to move from strictly protected to protected.

So what will stay, you know, and we will have to coexist anyway.

So what we have to do is to double our efforts

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 use the Common Agricultural Policy for now.

You know, it's just a small part of the Common Agricultural Policy

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

of lowering the protection statutes that 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 necessarily want the money to be used for coexistence

measures, you know, and taken away from, their direct payments or, you know, so,

I think, you know, maybe some 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 this coexistence measures and this money?

I mean, are we going to keep, spending or will it still be available?

I mean, that pot of money for coexistence or not?

Because, I mean, in theory, you will have alternatives like culling.

So there will be less justification

for using public money for fences, for guardian dogs, etc..

So I think that this should also, you know, like be part of the discussion and,

and people should think, I mean, shepherds and, should think about that as well.

I'm, I'm not 100% sure about what that would mean,

but that would have consequences for sure, because there will be alternatives,

because today

you had that money, you had this program because you're not allowed.

Yeah. No, to, to kill them.

So, yeah, that's a that's an excellent point for seed. And,

you know, I know good and

well that on the wolves we could do like a three hour straight discussion.

And, and for anyone who is interested to just go to my website,

Tommy souders.com and type Wolf or Wolf's

into the search box and you'll find a lot of materials in there.

And by the way, I think the important point that you made

is that calling is not I actually I think right.

That's my opinion.

It's not meant to fix the problem with depredation.

Or, you know, coexistence in, 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 correct or not, that's a different discussion.

And and like I said, we had these discussions

on, on many times on the podcast for scene.

I just want to switch gears again to final big item,

current item, nature restoration law, where it is at the moment.

Again, that's something that we covered on the podcast a few times with farmers

and with, you know, green politicians.

Let's come up that way.

Different points of view were presented already.

I am more interested now where we're at with nature restoration law.

How much it was stripped from 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.

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.

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,

for the, for the, for the nature restoration law in the council.

And wonder what she was under pressure.

Of course.

And, and and she did it not for political reasons, but because she

does believe that, you know, that's the only way forward, for our survival.

And the one of her children.

So, Pavel, really and,

and it so it went through in the council defender until the last minute.

Really?

We thought that the council would kill it basically.

Then the we had a big battle.

And in the countries where you have the member states

and we already had a big battle in the European Parliament

where you have the members of the Parliament

who are directly elected by by citizens of the EU.

And there as well, we had to fight really, 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 what the commission, initially put on the table

that the targets are there, when it comes to,

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 implementation and it's where it's

difficult because, you know, I've said at the beginning of our chat that,

we do have, several pieces of environmental legislations out there.

Some of them have been there for decades.

The problem often lies with

implementation and the lack of implementation from member states.

There are many cases, you know, we call them infringement case

IT procedures, you know, that are ongoing,

the EU against the member states because they are not implementing the law.

Now, what the member states will have to do for the nature

restoration law is 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.

They need to involve, stakeholders, civil society, conservationists,

you know, of course, farmers, etc., etc., etc.

it has to go fast because 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 Habitats Directive potentially because, you know,

the nature restoration rule and the Birds and Habitats Directive.

I mean, there is a reference to each of them in, in, in both.

Right.

So one can then argue that,

if we do, amend the Birds and Habitats Directive 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 surprised that in a future podcast,

you know, you start talking about that because 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 heard I don't know whether that's something

you also covered in your podcast, but on the EU deforestation,

law, you

know, which was also a, a big achievement, under the,

the from the last mandate and the, the so-called Green Deal

that, the commission decided to postpone its implementation.

And, of course, when you start doing that, then you open a Pandora's

box for other pieces of laws to be postponed, in their implementation.

So I haven't seen strong pushes yet, but I would not be surprised that,

there will be pushes for delays,

in the implementation of the nature restoration.

So this is where organizations like mine,

matters a lot because our members at national level,

you know, have a strong role to play, making sure that

the member states are working on their plans,

that they are doing so in 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

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 about implementation and it's as important

as all the battles that we had for the road to actually get adopted.

Because what matters eventually is the pronunciation or how to speak

to policymakers to ensure

that the scientific evidence is properly taken to account.

You know, and that is a question that I can personalize.

For you and for the listeners.

That was on the on the 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

who was a director in some organizations that 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,

it's not like scientists doesn't know about policy writing.

Like they talk, they reporting on the facts.

And so, it was clear to me that on the one hand, the job of a policymaker

is ensure that their boss is electable in the next election cycle.

But then, on the other hand, this is what this is what it boils down

to hard decisions like we not making right decisions because they're hard.

How to I was wondering

I'm wondering to that point like how should I talk to this gentleman,

which I'm trying to make it like a more general question to you.

They know how to speak with policymakers

to, yeah, ensure that they're taking the scientific evidence

into account with more then, you know, the the pressures of their job

and to do the good job for their organization.

I think and the problem is that the political mandates are often short,

short term.

And, therefore, you know, I mean, all the scientific evidence that they get,

they don't really care because it's longer term than their political mandate.

And they know that by favoring, you know, like parts, in certain sectors,

you know, by giving them gifts or something like that,

they will actually get reelected, won

by doing something that is for the public interest.

The overall,

you know, it will take ten years for the thing to actually materialize and,

they won't get,

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 science and did it for all survivor.

But I think what's what can help is really

to frame it in terms of the cost of inaction more and more.

And I think this should be actually part of,

impact assessments, because it is not so much now.

And that's quite, shocking because what you will hear from

a specific sector that would be impacted by 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.

Right.

But if you do, then start looking at 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 on the short term of not acting and not,

making, you know, not pushing for, for, for the changes that, that are necessary.

So I think that this, this is, this is,

a useful,

narrative and, and a useful thing to, to hunger more and more.

And there are more and more figures which are quite,

shocking on the cost of, of inaction.

And, I think that really politicians, should be made much more aware of that.

And, and maybe then science will really speak to them.

Because it would be quantified

in terms of their economic terms and 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 thing and sorry, here, it's a bit of, the,

definition, which I found has worked, because something I didn't say.

And, I want you to to mention it here because I think it's a success story.

And it's also nice to to have positiveness.

Oh, excellent. Something positive. Yes, yes.

On agriculture

and, it's more process wise than anything.

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 president of the European Commission

as a response also to the demonstrations

and, polarization, etc..

So she decided to put a number of people around the table for seven months,

and we had to spend hours every months, you know, together

and in between the meetings as when in breakout groups, etc.,

and to agree on, some recommendations for the future of,

food systems in general

and around the table there was people like me,

but also from Birdseye, from Greenpeace, but also the president of Copa,

the presence of Gojek, for drawing Europe,

land owners,

small farmers, young farmers, organic farmers, but also the traders,

the retainers, etc., fertilizers Europe and so, as you can

imagine, people that I see often here, but I don't always agree with,

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,

and that was the only way to 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 successful is that this consensus is actually full

of meaningful recommendations for the future of agriculture.

Just to list a few.

And again, you have to bear in mind that 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 diverse set of, of of people.

We start by saying that statue

is no longer an option and that time for change is now.

And so we do say that we need that system change in, in the food, sector, which

for some

has never been, you know, like set in, 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

and enforce existing 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 restoration or that would be against

the spirit of that consensus that we reached all together.

But we also called for big change in the Common Agricultural policy,

like moving away from direct payments

and, saying that the Common Agricultural Policy

should target the farmers who are most in need,

because today, indeed, I mean, as you know, 80% of the money goes

to 20% of the farmers and not necessarily the ones who really need it,

and that we should also, and

improve our, the environmental schemes,

under the policy and that this should grow, you know,

like proportionally become like a larger and larger part of the policy.

And be targeted,

you know, to results more than practices.

So that's, that's another thing and another big thing,

which was not at all the topic of, today's discussion, but, Oh.

And on the there is also a line which calls for coexistence.

Excellent. Yes.

Yeah, yeah, I can send you the I do answer if 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 links in the description.

Perfect. Yep.

Yeah.

And it also calls for changing consumption.

Behaviors.

You know, as I said at the beginning,

the only way to tackle production is to tackle consumption.

And it also talk about something that, of course, is heavily, heavily polarized.

And, where you see that science, is not recognized by some

is the need to reduce our animal protein consumption.

And there is a there 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 EU should support the trend etc..

But it's there. It's there and it refers to the

to the scientific consensus that there is on that.

So it was possible.

I mean what why I refer to that is sometimes, you know,

and when people around the table are really willing to reach a consensus

when there was also a scientist around the table from England University

at the beginning, you know,

I really thought that we would never reach a consensus because people would stick

to their position, not listen to the others, not listen to science, etc.

but it was a process.

And, eventually we got, a very interesting results.

And, now it's for the decision makers to, 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 moment to finish that podcast

on the good news for Austin.

You were ahead of me because I want to ask.

I wanted to ask you about something positive to end with.

And you were already one step ahead before me.

Folks, if you enjoying this podcast, if you're interested in topics

like that, you should definitely subscribe to my newsletter newsletter

dot Tommy souders.com.

The link is in the description of the show.

As long as as well as some other links for Steen.

Thank you so much for your time.

Really appreciate it. Great conversation.

You're welcome. Thank you.