this unifying narrative introduced an Olympic and Paralympic Games that in reality are not all that inclusive. (...) To make these Games happen, Paris had to undertake a programme of intense social cleansing.

According to an investigation by a collective named Le revers de la médaille (The other side of the coin), 12,545 people (including 3,434 minors) were evicted – some of them forcibly – across the Paris region between April 2023 and May 2024, which is a 38.5% increase on the 2021-22 period (twice as many as last year, and almost three times more than in 2021-22 for the minors)
(...)
Another odious policy that has accompanied preparations for the Olympics and Paralympics is that homeless people have been hidden or driven away by such measures as the installation of anti-homeless urban furniture. Almost 1,000 students were forced to vacate their university accommodation (provided by the official student services organisation) for police officers, firefighters and healthcare workers on duty during the Games. Many of them reported their shock at being met by utterly squalid conditions, including cockroaches, mould and mice. In addition to the filth, what is shocking is that it has taken the Olympics to expose the living conditions of students, despite repeated denunciation by their unions. (...)

The surveillance extends well beyond QR codes. The legalisation of algorithmic surveillance, which allows for real-time behaviour analysis using AI to anticipate supposedly suspicious acts, is a “violation of the right to privacy”, according to Amnesty International. This system, fuelled by human biases against certain populations, will be amplified. Moreover, it will persist beyond the Olympic Game.

The influence of the Atlas Network – a web of libertarian and ultraconservative think tanks funded by billionaires such as the Kochs – has been well documented in the US, the UK, and more recently Argentina following the election of Javier Milei. Its growing presence in the EU has been less examined. But the next EU elections could deliver a political landscape even more favourable to their ideas. This article takes a look at some of the Atlas Network’s partners in Brussels and their activities.

(...) To “change the climate of ideas”, the Atlas Network and its partners use a range of influence strategies that sometimes involve manipulation, such as offering falsely neutral expertise or ‘astroturfing’. With these methods, the Atlas Network’s partners have scored important political victories all over the world: spreading climate denialism, influencing referendum outcomes (the Voice in Australia, the referendum on the Chilean constitution, Brexit, etc.) and electing Javier Milei in Argentina. British journalist Georges Monbiot recently asked in The Guardian: “What links Rishi Sunak, Javier Milei and Donald Trump?” Answer: the Atlas Network.

(...)

Just as it has in Argentina, in France, and around the world (read our recent investigation in French), the Atlas Network supports, nurtures and promotes its partners throughout Europe. Wherever its influence is felt it promotes a ranch of ultra free market policies that inevitably involve tax cuts for the rich, slashing public spending, massive deregulation, and opposition to climate justice, backed by well-resourced but mostly hidden funders. The politics it is promoting in Europe are no exception, and reflect a similar alliance between extreme neoliberal policies and radical conservative causes, as seen in the US .

(...) Free Trade Europa: labour rights as a “violation of freedoms”?

Although verbal violence is not uncommon on X (formerly Twitter), it is unusual to see a lobbyist publicly rejoicing at the failure of an EU Council Presidency initiative. And even less praising other Member States for giving the Spanish government a ’bloody nose’ when it failed to find a consensus on a law giving employment rights to platform workers [29]. Yet that is exactly what Free Trade Europa did, amply demonstrating the extent to which, at the end of December 2023, on the issue of the legal status of platform workers, two diametrically opposed visions of the world were clashing.

It was in particular Emmanuel Macron’s France that, in alliance with Estonia, Greece and Germany, defeated the platform workers directive, and Glen Hodgson – head of Free Trade Europa – seems to be congratulating them in his tweet. The initial draft directive drawn up by the European Commission offered the possibility for platform workers – so, people making deliveries for Deliveroo, driving for Uber, etc – to claim the status of employees with the corresponding social rights, which they do not enjoy under a self-employed or freelance status: accident insurance, paid holidays, a minimum wage and union representation. The law was approved after a long lobbying battle [30], but then blocked at the last minute at the Council of the EU, at the behest of France in particular. It was eventually greenlighted in an even more watered-down version in March.

(...) After the final vote on the European law on platform workers, Glen talked with Pieter Cleppe, a journalist close to Flemish far-right party the NVA, and castigated the European Union for “regulating, regulating, regulating”. Free Trade Europa is one of a growing number of members of the Atlas Network in Brussels who are determined to roll back regulation, and are counting on the forthcoming European elections and the rise of the right and far right to find more allies in the institutions. The experience of the directive on platform workers shows that on certain issues they can also find common ground with liberals and some EU governments, particularly that of France.

With far right parties on the rise all over Europe, there are reasons to fear that after the June elections, the EU will tilt further towards a conservative, anti-climate and anti-regulation political agenda. Given the Atlas Network’s decades-long mission of “changing the climate of ideas” and pushing back on social justice and progressive environmental policies it appears to be seeking new allies and more open doors in the EU. With the Europe Liberty Forum which recently took place in Madrid, where 191 organisations from 47 countries were represented, it demonstrated its increased strength in Europe, including in Brussels. After Argentina, the UK, and many other countries, it now has the EU in its sights.

Hugo Rochard, https://doi.org/10.4000/developpementdurable.23444

Micro-forest projects are multiplying throughout cities as a new emblem of ecological design of artificial environments. This emerging form of renaturation is bringing a new public narrative investing the discourse of nature based-solutions and civic participation. In Paris, the first micro-forest proposal was carried and implemented by a civic group with the technical and financial support of the municipality. This article analyzes the governance of this nature-based solution through its coproduction, identifying its achievement and challenges on several pilot sites. The analysis shows how a new public narrative is being built from a civic experimentation, while obscuring the difficulties encountered locally by an initiative that faces the territorial complexity of a highly degraded urban environment.

Outline

1. De l’engouement public pour les micro-forêts urbaines à leur gouvernance

1.1. La constitution d’un nouveau récit d’action publique

1.2. Interroger la gouvernance d’une solution fondée sur la nature

1.3. Question de recherche

2. Étude de cas d’un projet citoyen de micro-forêts à Paris : une coproduction ?

2.1. Matériel et méthodes d’analyse

2.2. Une solution fondée sur la nature et sur un collectif de citoyens

2.3. Expérimenter collectivement la méthode Miyawaki : une éthique d’action environnementale et citoyenne

2.4. Une gouvernance collaborative entre apprentissages et négociations entre acteurs techniques et citoyens

3. Discussion

3.1. Un partenariat et des non-dits : les chocs temporels d’une coproduction

3.2. Les défis de l’opérationnalisation : illustration à partir d’un site afforesté

Conclusion

‘Symbol of polarisation’: EU scraps plans to halve use of pesticides

The European Commission is shelving plans to cut pesticide use and is taking the pressure off agriculture in its latest emissions recommendations, as farmers around Europe continue protests demanding higher prices for their products and an easing of EU environment rules.

The original proposal to halve chemical pesticide use in the EU by the end of the decade – part of the EU’s green transition – “has become a symbol of polarisation”, said the commission president, Ursula von der Leyen. She added that she would ask the commission to withdraw the proposal.

Separately on Tuesday, the commission recommended that the EU slash net greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040 but without the stipulation from previous drafts that farming would need to cut non-CO2 emissions by 30% from 2015 levels in order to comply.

The moves mark the bloc’s latest environmental concessions to farmers, whose recent protests across Europe in countries including France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland and Greece spread this week to Spain and Italy.

Last week, in response to the protests, the bloc announced plans to limit market disruption from Ukrainian products entering the EU and delayed rules on setting aside more land to promote soil health and encourage biodiversity.

(...)

Protests continued to spread on Tuesday. In Spain, (...) Greek farmers also said on Tuesday they would block motorways and converge on Athens (...) In Italy, farmers from argricultural regions protesting about red tape and cheap non-EU imports have begun converging on Rome (...)

(...) Individual member states have also taken steps to appease angry farmers, with Germany watering down plans to cut diesel subsidies. Meanwhile, Paris is scrapping a planned diesel tax increase and promising more than €400m (£342m) in targeted help.

The task of drafting proposals on pesticide legislation is likely to fall to the next commission. Von der Leyen said on Tuesday they had made little progress over the past two years in the European parliament or the European Council, representing EU member states.

Far-right and anti-establishment parties, which are projected to make major gains in June’s European parliamentary elections, have picked up on farmers’ grievances as part of a wider drive against EU influence, pushing them to the top of the bloc’s agenda. A new commission will be formed after the June vote. (...)

Summary of the day [6 Febuary 2024]

The European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, said she would suggest withdrawing a plan to reduce pesticides and could propose a different one.

The move is part of Brussels’ gesturing to farmers amid protests across the continent.

The European farming lobby, Copa and Cogeca, welcomed the announcement, writing that the “European Commission is finally acknowledging that the approach was not the right one, and is thereby reinforcing the credibility and importance of the ongoing strategic dialogue.”

The Belgian prime minister, Alexander De Croo, also welcomed the move, saying that it is “crucial we keep our farmers on board to a more sustainable future of farming, as part of our determination to get the Green Deal done. The dialogue continues.”

MEP Alexander Bernhuber, the European People’s Party group’s chief negotiator on pesticides, said that “this is a first good sign that the Commission will work with farmers to tackle climate change rather than against them.”

Green MEP Sarah Wiener said that negotiations on the new pesticides regulation had been stuck for months and that “it is regrettable that it had to come to this, but at the same time this gives us a new opportunity to continue working on the SUR.”

The European Commission today also recommended a 90% net greenhouse gas emissions reduction by 2040 compared to 1990 levels, though the proposal was interpreted as a watered down version of earlier plans due to political pressure linked to farmers’ concerns.

Greenpeace criticised the Commission proposal, arguing that “the absence of a phase-out plan for fossil fuels, and even for subsidies, not only delays the climate action we urgently need, but will end up hurting people more.”

Spanish farmers used WhatsApp groups to stage a series of informal protests today, blocking off major roads around the country to demand fair prices for their produce and a reduction in bureaucracy.

Italian farmers are staging a significant demonstration in Rome this week by driving their tractors around the city, while their colleagues in the north led a cow through the streets of Milan.

Italian senators are to debate plans by the far-right government to decriminalise abuse of office, a decision that has sparked tension with the EU and raised fears over the potential for mafia infiltration in the public sector.

The protestes are not all done yet, some farmers Union are against this government's decision and are still fighting for better revenues among other things.

Excerpts from this interview :

​

The French liberal and conservative Right has increasingly adopted the xenophobic terms of language employed by the far-right, to the point where the once-distinct lines separating the two camps have become blurred, if not dissolved. The latest example is a comment by Emmanuel Macron’s former prime minister Édouard Philippe, a centre-right presidential hopeful, who placed “anti-white racism” on a par with other forms of racism. Mediapart’s  Fabien Escalona turned to political scientist Émilien Houard-Vial, a specialist of the contemporary French Right, for his analysis of why and how what was taboo has become normalized.
(...)
What does this tell us about the current state of France’s rightwing camp, and when did the linguistic crossover begin? For an insight, Mediapart turned to political scientist Émilien Houard-Vial, a teacher with the Sciences Po Centre for European Studies and Comparative Politics, and who is a widely recognised specialist of the contemporary French Right.

Mediapart: Édouard Philippe has adopted the expression “anti-white racism”. How should one interpret this new example of the legitimisation of the phrases of the far-right?

Émilien Houard-Vial: It can be seen as surprising given that Édouard Philippe, during the length of his political career, has rather highlighted liberal themes. A former juppéiste, [editor’s note, a close supporter of former conservative prime minister Alain Juppé], he is regarded as a political leader who comes from the moderate fringes of the UMP [conservative party, now renamed Les Républicains].
(...)
That is why, beginning three or four years ago, we are looking at a qualitative change, which was established with the arrival of Éric Ciotti as the head of LR. A threshold was crossed. It translates by the centrality and radicality of a rhetoric according to which a majority and native population sees itself threatened – at a cultural and symbolic level as well as in its physical integrity – by Islamism and, more generally, by minorities that are both non-assimilable and ‘decivilised’.        

The result is that today, LR officials rise up on social media against a minister who denies the “obvious” link between delinquency and immigration, and this without any form of consequent opposition within the party.

Mediapart: By force of taking up the ethno-centrist and authoritarian vocabulary of the far-right, what in substance still distinguishes the LR from the latter?

E.H-V: On those issues, it’s become increasingly difficult to discern. The differences have become ‘meta-ideological’ in the sense that there is no more fighting over the issues, but rather over the manner of defending the arguments. That’s what Éric Ciotti does when he explains that the LR is the Rassemblement National [RN] in a more competent form. The added value of the Right would be that it is better placed to enact its programme. That joins with a political culture that further distinguishes itself from the RN, and in which its cadres have been socialised: a culture of a party of government, of people who know how to ‘behave’ in order to concretely exercise power
(...)
So, one cannot say that LR and the RN propose exactly the same thing, even if factually the positions are evermore closer. To take another example, some people in LR call for the removal of birthright citizenship, or also a moratorium on immigration – a manner of drawing closer to Marine Le Pen’s “zero” immigration.

Mediapart: There have been numerous studies that show that competing with the far-right on its own territory is a mistaken strategy in the medium- and long-term. In France, is there a probability that the conservative opposition will become aware of this and attempt a different approach?

E.H-V: LR has so much criticised the “limp Right” and the “rightwing of the Left” that it seems to me difficult to implement a reversal. During the [parliamentary] debates over the motion rejecting the draft legislation on immigration, its Members of Parliament painted Darmanin as an “immigrationist”. A lot of the moderate electorate have already been dissuaded by the evolution of the language.
(...)

Figures like [LR Member of Parliament and former secretary general of the party] Aurélien Pradié try to think of a dignified way out of the dilemma between ‘Macronism’ and ‘Lepenism’ – or ‘Zemmourism’. According to that view, LR should champion new issues, in line with the major preoccupations of the population, notably of those living in urban peripheries or rural areas abandoned by the state, which are lacking public services. These issues could be the subject of a line that mobilises the traditional values of the Right, like merit.

That is what senior civil servant Emmanuelle Mignon tried to do under Nicolas Sarkozy, and it should be noted that she has just taken up service again within LR where, with the rank of vice-president, she heads the “ideas” section of the party.

But how can this work be carried out when Éric Ciotti insists that the priority lies in the battle against wokeism and civilisational decline? Or when some are waiting for the collapse of ‘Macronism’, telling themselves that Laurent Wauquiez could appear as if a Gaullist saviour? The party has still not collectively analysed why the Sarkozist strategy worked in certain conditions in 2007, and why it failed on three occasions afterwards.  

Fabien Escalona, 31 December 2023 à 21h43

Excerpts from the article :

A total of 16 women have accused the actor Gérard Depardieu of sexual assault, including rape. While Depardieu has firmly denied the allegations, a French television documentary investigating the claims this month revealed hitherto unseen footage of his lewd behaviour. Amid the outrage sparked by the documentary, 56 showbiz stars this week signed an open letter denouncing the “lynching” of Depardieu. But the most notable of those who have leapt to the actor’s defence is Emmanuel Macron, who slammed what he called a “manhunt” against the actor, even wrongly suggesting the incriminating recording in the documentary had been doctored. In this op-ed article first published in French last week, Lénaïg Bredoux and Marine Turchi analyse the French president’s ill-judged intervention.

Speaking on December 20th on public TV channel France 5, in the round-table discussion programme “C à vous”, French President Emmanuel Macron jumped to the defence of Gérard Depardieu over a string of rape and sexual violence allegations made against the actor, whose lewd behaviour towards women, and obscene comments about a young girl, were exposed in a recent documentary. (...)

Macron’s defence of the actor on C à vous on December 20th came just 24 hours after his government’s highly controversial new hardline legislation on immigration, which enshrines the practice of “national preference” was approved in Parliament, thanks to support from conservative and far-right members of the chamber. The transformation of what had been initially rejected draft legislation into a law that reflected the programme of the far-right split Macron’s ruling Renaissance party and led to the resignation of the health minister.

(...)

Conspiracy theory and attacks upon the media

In a disturbing move, Emmanuel Macron relayed the idea, already put about by Depardieu’s family and the rightwing Bolloré media group (notably CNews, the Journal du dimanche, and the “Touche pas à mon poste” TV chatshow), that the France 2 documentary had doctored the 2018 recording of the actor’s comments made during his visit to North Korea. On four occasions, Macron referred to “controversies” and created doubt as to whether the documentary footage had been manipulated by journalists in order to deliberately deceive viewers. “I am wary about the context, I’ve understood that there have been controversies about reports […], about words that were out of sync with the images,” said Macron, adding that “people will have to debate this”.
(...)
Meanwhile, France Télévisions announced that it had appointed a huissier de justice (a bailiff with legal power to serve as witness) to watch the rushes in question. In his report, the huissier attests to the fact that the images showing a girl aged about ten riding a pony and the lewd comments made by Depardieu are part of the exact same sequence, thus invalidating both the accusation by Depardieu’s family that it was the result of “fraudulent editing” and the doubts cast over the sequence by the French president.

(...)

It is not the first time that the French president has targeted journalists, and is in fact the latest in a long list of attacks since he first came to office in 2017. But this latest example is situated within the context of a rapprochement between Macron and French media and publishing tycoon Vincent Bolloré. The two men have put aside their previously frosty relationship and in September held a secret meeting at the Elysée Palace, according to French daily Le Monde, which suggested that Bolloré sought Macron’s help over a European Commission probe into one of his recent acquisitions. (...)

Separating ‘transgression’ and sexual assault

By stepping onto the moral ground, Macron – who said the Légion d’honneur “is not a moral order”, and that “there can continue to be transgressive people in it” – contributed to making the behaviour of Depardieu supposedly ordinary. This excuse of “schoolboy humour” and comments like “Oh it’s OK, it’s Gérard”, which Mediapart heard so often during its investigation into the accusations against Depardieu by 13 women who accuse him of sexual violence, is today adopted by the French president. Yet the controversy is not about an issue of “transgression”, but one of allegations of rape, sexual assault and harassment, and therefore about potential crimes.

Depardieu is currently formally placed under investigation in a judicial probe into his suspected “rape” and “sexual assault” of actress Charlotte Arnould, which was opened after she filed a formal complaint against him. Depardieu denies the accusations. A total of 15 other women have recounted in the media how they fell victim to sexual assaults by Depardieu (13 of them detailed their accounts to Mediapart in an investigation published in April, and two others similarly accused the actor on France Inter radio in July).

(...)

“When he says ‘I won’t take part in a manhunt’, he is judging the women who have filed complaints, the women who have given their accounts,” added Mailfert. “He is saying that it is them whose approach is reprehensible.”

How Macron publicly supported ministers accused of rape

It was not the first time that the French president brought up the issue of the presumption of innocence – a fundamental principle under French law of a person’s innocence unless found guilty in a court of law, and which no-one in the debate about Depardieu places in question. In the past and separate cases of three serving ministers facing rape allegations – current interior minister Gérald Darmanin, ecological transition minister from 2017-2018 Nicolas Hulot, and Damien Abad, minister in 2022 for autonomy and the handicapped – Macron chose to keep them in office in the name of the presumption of innocence (the cases against Darmanin and Hulot would finally be dropped).

(...)