Board Member Ole Ostermann
Read the exclusive interview with the agroecology and biodiversity Working Group Leader Ole OstermanN
Read more about the agroecology and biodiversity working group
Q: Can you give us your quick background?
I was born in Hamburg, Germany, and started my studies in biology there. I later moved to Montpellier to continue studying biology and plant ecology. For my PhD, I shifted to the Western Alps, conducting research through the University of Göttingen in Germany. Although I earned a PhD in agronomy, my academic background was deeply rooted in ecology and biology, focusing on extensive grazing and its effects on vegetation.
Professionally, I’ve worked across various roles – starting in protected areas, then spending four years with the European Environmental Agency on biodiversity topics in Paris. In 2002, I joined the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre. I spent ten years in Belgium, seven in Italy, and finally retired in 2019. In 2020, I became a board member of Agroecology Europe.
After the CAP reform in 1992, the second pillar was introduced to support farmers in taking care of nature. But over the past decade, biodiversity has continued to decline – we haven’t reversed the trend. Agricultural land is losing biodiversity, and this was my motivation to become a candidate for the EU CAP Network. I applied and was elected to the Agriculture and Biodiversity Thematic Group within the network, which includes 30–40 stakeholders from academia, agricultural institutions, and civil society.
Q: What drives you to agroecology?
Respecting biodiversity feels natural to me – it’s part of who I am, and I believe it should be part of everyone. I see agroecology as a tool for personal, societal and ecological evolution.
In the beginning, I studied biology and botany, fascinated by rare species and protected areas – collecting rare things. At one point, I had a shift in thinking: I realised that agriculture, being so widespread and impactful, is both a source of harm and a potential solution. That’s when I discovered organic farming.
But to me, organic farming often still operates within the same mindset as conventional agriculture – combating pests and diseases with different tools, but with the same approach: going against nature. Agroecology offered something deeper. It views the agricultural field as an ecosystem and works with natural forces rather than against them. That approach resonated deeply with me, and that’s why I’m committed to agroecology. If we embrace it on a large scale, we can see it as a revival – of biodiversity, and of our relationship with the earth.
Q: What do you see as the role of agroecology in biodiversity and agriculture?
Biodiversity loss is only part of the bigger picture—climate change, economic pressures, and political tensions are all connected.
Agroecology isn’t just science and practice; it’s a social movement. But societal changes – like fuel restrictions or rising prices due to war – create frustration among farmers. Without the full picture, that frustration can fuel polarisation and a drift toward extreme positions. Agroecology could be part of the solution, if it’s communicated well.
People need to see that ecological awareness doesn’t restrict freedom – it expands it. A century ago, you could drink straight from a stream. Today, when the sun is shining, you may be warned not to go outside because of pollution. That’s not freedom.
Taking care of nature is about reclaiming freedom – being able to hear birds, smell flowers. That’s not a dream; it’s a better future.
Q: How has the Biodiversity Working Group been restarted?
Yes, the working group comes to life when there’s a need for collective intelligence – sharing knowledge, experiences, and building common positions.
Last year, we decided to revive the Biodiversity Working Group, which had previously been led by Paolo Barberi. Due to time constraints and shifting priorities, it had gone dormant. Then came the trigger: the EU CAP Network, which includes themes like agriculture and biodiversity, after I was elected.
We wanted Agroecology Europe’s Biodiversity Working Group to feed into this process. Unfortunately, the timelines did not align perfectly – the EU CAP group was already formed – but it still provided momentum and a renewed sense of purpose.
Q: What is the current work of the Biodiversity Working Group?
We’ve been holding regular meetings – we’re now at our fourth session – and each time, we invite new speakers, hold Q&A sessions, and discuss position papers. Right now, we’re focusing on livestock and preparing a position paper.
Livestock is a big topic because of its massive influence on agriculture and the environment. Humans and their livestock now make up the largest share of animal biomass on earth – far more than wild animals. That wasn’t always the case. It’s not about targeting livestock but about recognising the interactions between agriculture and biodiversity.
Livestock is a critical issue in sustainability: two-thirds of Europe’s cereal production goes to animal feed. If we reduce meat consumption, we could free up resources to produce food for people, not animals.
In the CAP discussions, I’ve advocated not just setting aside some land for nature, but for sharing all land between food production and biodiversity. This “land sharing” concept contrasts with the dominant “land sparing” approach promoted by industrial agriculture. I believe we need to push for coexistence.
Personally, I believe livestock should be raised on rangelands and non-arable land. This would reduce pressure on arable land and leave more room for biodiversity. But it would also mean less meat on the market – and I’m not sure society is ready to accept that.
Another topic is the impact of surplus EU meat – like chicken legs and wings sent to Africa – where it disrupts local food markets. That’s an ethical issue as much as an ecological one.
Q: What could be the future focus of Agroecology Europe when it comes to biodiversity?
Livestock is just one aspect. Next, we could focus on pollinators or even the value of so-called “advantageous” weeds. Biodiversity indicators could also be a focus.
Indicators are hard to find. In my view, the most robust EU-wide indicators are common farmland birds and butterflies. There are also inventories and counts of amphibians, reptiles, and other species – but these tend to be regional and fragmented. The EU is very diverse, so you won’t find the same species across all areas. You can compare trends, but not absolute numbers.
The farmland bird index is probably the most cited and reliable biodiversity indicator we have.
However, I won’t be frustrated if the working group becomes inactive at times. If the livestock paper is published and there’s no urgent issue, we can pause. The group isn’t meant to be permanent – it activates when needed.
Q: Do you have any final words you’d like to share?
If I do these kinds of things, it’s for my children and grandchildren. There’s a saying: We didn’t inherit the world from our ancestors – we borrowed it from our children. It might sound a bit sentimental, but it’s true.
Interviewer: Kushal Poudel
If you wish to join the AEEU Biodiversity Working Group, email us at secretariat@aeeu.org.