Why deal with the mine?

In addition to defending one of Europe’s last primary forests, we in Germany are committed to another energy model in the anti-carbon movement.

One argument in favour of the mine is that it creates jobs.

There's no job on a dead planet. The extension of jobs for another 15 years cannot be accepted in comparison with the destruction that this entails. Alternatives must be sought.

After eight years of resistance, what have been the achievements of this movement?

Through direct action by the people, without any delegation, without NGOs or political parties, we have demonstrated that it is possible to stop Europe’s largest open-air mine. In principle, they are about to stand. This doesn't mean that the forest is going to live, because of water issues, because they're still playing throughout their lives to carry out their plans. In any case, the demonstration of strength that has been carried out here must be highlighted. Furthermore, we have managed to create an autonomous area with the State.

How has this struggle influenced society?

At the time of eviction, some 50,000 people demonstrated at the entrance of the forest in a massive mobilization of people. In addition, in Aachen, the nearest town, in shops there are signs in our favour and against coal. We have had a direct influence in Germany, we have talked about it. The Committee on Coal, which has to decide how much time is going to be spent on coal, in its report talks about this forest. It has also reached the citizens of the area, who have been arrested. For many people the constant presence of the police, regular checks, periodical press, etc. They're exhausting.

What do you think are the reasons for keeping the mine? Is it possible to supply energy without coal?

It is not possible. In order to preserve nature, we must radically change the way we understand consumption. You can't keep dreaming, we're not going to keep the same life without contaminating anything. We have to make a profound change, and on that we will all see the conclusion.

Do you work with ecologists who are committed to the transition to other forms of energy production?

Yes, for example with Ende Gelände, but we are always very critical of reformist speeches and traditional organizations that are not looking for real change. These are the managing masses, they seek to bring the masses in line, while we value very much the autonomy and real involvement of each individual.

And what does that collaboration look like?

We have never done or stopped taking action to satisfy another agent. We follow our line and then others will decide whether or not they support us. On the other hand, we also show our sympathy to those of us who feel comfortable.

The forest has always used tactical diversity. This means that different levels of action are supported and accepted. The strength of all is that of welcome, without considering it a legal or illegal criterion or without thinking that others will not like it. And yet, mobilizing so many people, we've managed to get so many people to support us. This shows us that we must not diminish our way of fighting so as not to frighten others. Sometimes we are afraid to follow radicals and, in fact, we have achieved that great support by putting the cane in.

What are your ways of fighting?

At first it was a basic struggle, to live in the forest during felling, in winter, to avoid felling. It follows that the axis of the forest is direct action. Direct action and self-defence when the Police or Mine Security Forces enter the forest. That means that if we want them to be out, so as not to be arrested or beaten, we often have to respond physically. We use barricades, stones and fire.

On the other hand, we are trying to do as much damage as possible to infrastructure because it is entirely legitimate to physically attack economic interests in the defence of nature. Work has been done on machinery and infrastructure: climbing machines, chaining machines, cutting coal tracks, etc. In them people have given themselves to be detained, because that also influences.

Do these forms of struggle provide a repressive response?

Yes, and furthermore repression is very random, there is no direct link between what has been done and the repression received. Therefore, the goal of repression is not to punish some actions, but to generate psychological and physical pressure.

How do they try to avoid it?

In the forest, we have developed a culture of safety. On the one hand, we hide sensitive information such as our name, origin, age, etc. In the forest, we all use the nickname, and some of us don't know the name of others. We also avoid talking more about what is needed from actions and also take into account technological security: walking carefully with phones, encrypting email, etc. On the other hand, we give as little information as possible directly to the police, we try not to talk to the police, not identify them and never trust them. To do so, we cut the fingerprints and remove them with the tail.

In September 2018, a year and a half ago, you had the eviction of the forest. How was eviction and subsequent reoccupation?

On more than one occasion we have had a total relief and have shown great adaptability. For example, after a great eviction, a new space, the Meadow, was created in a tent on the forest border. The last eviction was very big, the police made a big bet. At that time there were 500 people in the forest, a lot of attention from the press and society, a lot of positive attention to us, and for over a month, alternating evictions and reoccupations, the police were forced to give in, after a court determined that no tree would be cut this winter. They spent a fortune. All the houses were destroyed and one of its members lost his life. It was very hard for people, but as a movement, the response was very strong.

Eviction, and also on a daily basis, how does the police act?

The police don't like it to go wrong in the photos. They don't go out in the hand like in Euskal Herria. People in this room like to twist their wrists or peck them where it hurts. It is a police force with a great deal of technical and technological resources. Here horses, dogs, drones, water tanks, helicopters, night vision, thermal vision, they've used everything. And on the other hand, if you get someone's identity, they're very good at rigorously following court proceedings, but then they do so with lots of tricks as well.

After the eviction, the police still maintained a large presence in the area to protect mine workers. At first they came every two weeks and they made evictions on the earth, they carried all the structures and material of the earth. This hardens the lifestyle and causes great precariousness. We had to have all the material always out of the ground, and putting 200 policemen in the forest every two weeks was causing us a very high psychological tension. On the first day of eviction, between 2,000 and 3,000 policemen arrived. People kept the police shields: "Look, from Berlin! Hostia from Hanover!”

In everyday life, what is your life like?

As the goal is not to cut down trees, we build houses on the trees as high as possible, so that if the police knock them down we have to bring large cranes, with the difficulty that this entails for them. So there are houses that are above 20 meters, which means that if you leave the lantern up, you have to climb 20 meters on a rope.

How does the police break down these houses?

It's about surrounding everything and trying to control the place. Afterwards, they clean the environment, cut the trees, etc. To give way to the machines and introduce heavy machines, cranes, etc., very harmful to this land that has never been cultivated, to reach those houses of 20 meters. This is done by the police, a special police officer trained for anti-terrorist accounts.

Another lifestyle, another coexistence... would you say you lived outside the system?

Anarchist movements often seek conflict and struggle to create an alternative to the system. As important in this struggle is the defense of the forest as the creation of an autonomous zone with the State and in it our forms of organization, values and way of life. Our challenge is to put anarchy into practice and to prove that it is possible.

The forest is almost entirely autonomous with government, but it has a dependence on capitalism, because we have needs that we don't cover. For these needs, we try to recycle instead of buying food, stealing material, etc. We also buy things and we have a lot of donations.

In this alternative way of life there are a number of issues that you regard as indirect.

In anarchism it has been becoming aware in recent years, seeking total freedom or fighting all oppression. So, on the one hand, here anti-speciism is one of the most important struggles in favor of the rest of the animals and, on the other hand, I don't know if we call it transfeminism, but inside we analyze very critically the roles and identities of gender.

In the forest veganism is widespread and in the case of consuming non-vegan products we try to take advantage of what the system has always thrown, never buying or never collaborating with production. We never collaborate with the suffering of non-human animals. We analyze gender roles a lot and take gender identities into account, whether it's getting out of gender binarism or respecting diverse gender identities. When we talk, we avoid gender retention for people.

In recent weeks it has been known that the forest will not be cut. How did you get the news?

The Minister of the Interior said that the forest would not be cut. We still have to go through Parliament. This is an attempt to clean up their image because they have seen how much this question of the forest has influenced public opinion. It is a risk, if public opinion sees that we have already won the battle here and that we can go home, it would be a great pain. Here, and elsewhere, they keep taking coal and destroying nature, and importing coal from the same poor quality of South America and Russia.

On the other hand, the forest will suffocate from thirst if nothing is done. The mine's answer has been not to cut the forest, but to leave it on an island, turning the whole environment into a mine. This would involve the drainage of water from the soil and the drying of the forest. Therefore, to conclude this struggle is nothing more than an illusion, and here we see how much they play by pushing public opinion to the limit. They take people for dumb. I don't know how many hectares this forest has, but not that much, it's an area that runs in 40 minutes. One of the most worthy places to be defended in Europe is that we do not have nature, that we have almost nothing to defend, that we do not have biodiversity, that we do not have large mammals, that we do not have insects, and for all the value that nature has in itself this is a drama of Christ. If we don't want to take nature into account, we sign our death penalty, we're killing ourselves.

What are the next steps?

The coal commission has recommended saving the forest, but it has also shown its intention to continue for another 20 years by exploiting the coal in the vicinity. We are committed to putting an end to the use of coal. In the short term, for such a mine in the northern area, the next could be to try to defend populations at risk of collapse. In the long term, planting coal and, beyond that, dealing with the current energy and consumption model, to plant this whole system.