The traffic light coalition is just about to cross the finish line. But with the coalition agreement, political declarations of intent are being formulated – which have yet to become reality. And while the traffic light is presenting itself and its plans in Berlin today, those involved in Brussels and Strasbourg are working at full steam.
The EU Commission is giving in on the state aid guidelines that are so important for the economy. Till Hoppe has researched for you how this relates to the EEG levy and why a new calculation formula accommodates German business interests. The new list of eligible sectors includes more than 100 industries – more than twice as many as in the first draft in summer. But that is still significantly fewer than before.
Actually, the Common Agricultural Policy should contribute a lot to the goals of the Green Deal. But the ambitions of the package are not as pronounced as the Greens and SPD would have liked. A difficult package for the new coalition in Berlin, which must now develop the German strategic plan for this, Lukas Scheid reports.
The new German government will also have to deal with demands from German industry: BDI President Siegfried Russwurm presented a five-point catalogue of demands on climate yesterday, that offers sufficient potential for dispute. Timo Landenberger reports on this – and on calls for a scrappage premium for combustion engines.
There are some discussions coming up for the potential Green “transformation minister” Robert Habeck, whose portfolio is now being widely discussed in Berlin – while Christian Lindner now seems to be assured of the finance ministry.
But labor requires people: Jasmin Kohl listened to the LIBE Committee in the European Parliament, which is issuing an initiative report calling on the Commission to create more legal migration routes to Europe which is threatened by aging.
Meanwhile, as announced, the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs reviewed the Digital Services Act. Compromises were found, and other ideas were discarded, including the media exemption.
Have a nice day and stay safe!
The EU Commission is responding to criticism of the planned framework for climate and energy subsidies. However, the authority does not go as far as demanded by German industry and the German government. This is shown by a new draft available to Europe.Table.
The new climate and energy aid guidelines (KUEBLL) set out the conditions under which member states may promote the objectives of the Green Deal with state subsidies. The Commission intends to present new guidelines by the end of the year, replacing the previous ones from 2014. As this is not a normal legislative procedure involving Parliament and Council, the new guidelines are expected to enter into force as early as the beginning of 2022.
An initial draft from the summer had caused an uproar, especially among energy-intensive industries in Germany. This is because the proposal by Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager envisaged considerably tightening the conditions for relief for electricity-cost-intensive companies. In its statement, the German government warned that hundreds of companies would lose their entitlement to a cap on the EEG surcharge as a result.
The Commission has now responded to this. The new list of eligible sectors includes more than 100 industries – more than twice as many as in the first draft from the summer. However, there are still significantly fewer than in the previously applicable guidelines.
The CDU MEP Markus Pieper, therefore, criticizes the new draft as insufficient: “The new proposal comes closer to the real competitive situation of the companies,” says the spokesman of the parliamentary group of medium-sized businesses in the CDU/CSU group. It is to be welcomed that more companies make it onto the carbon leakage protection list again, but that is by far not enough: “Since the Green Deal massively intensifies global competition, more industries must be relieved compared to the currently valid list – and not fewer. “
Compared to the first draft, the Commission has changed the method by which eligible sectors are determined. According to the draft from the summer, these had to demonstrate a trade intensity of at least 20 percent and an electricity cost intensity of at least 10 percent. According to the new draft, aid would be considered eligible if the multiplication of the values for trade and electricity cost intensity results in at least 2 percent.
This essentially corresponds to the previous thresholds of 20 and 10 percent but allows more flexibility in the two individual indicators. The German Chemical Industry Association (VCI), for example, had criticized the Commission for placing too much emphasis on trade intensity, i.e., the export orientation of sectors and companies that are in international competition.
Taking this factor into account is intended to prevent the migration of CO2-intensive production abroad (carbon leakage). But the indicator is controversial. After all, critics say, a company is in international competition even if it only acts as a supplier for domestic industry but has to hold its own against competition from abroad.
The Commission has also adjusted the calculation method for an alternative threshold for sectors at high risk of migration, such as aluminum or copper. The authority has added a new clause according to which the Commission can also add new sectors to the eligibility list at a later date if they meet the criteria over a period of three years.
The Commission is also taking a step towards the industry with regard to the aid intensity and burden limit. However, the guidelines may still change; the coordination process between the Commission’s Directorates-General involved is currently underway.
Experts criticize the additional workload that the new state aid rules could entail. “The Commission wants to promote the objectives of the Green Deal through the new guidelines but garnishes this with additional bureaucracy,” says Henning Wendt from the law firm Görg. For example, auctions would become even more prominent in the awarding of subsidies, which could deter companies because of the effort involved.
In addition, member states will in the future first have to consult market participants before submitting a support measure to the Commission for approval, which will mean additional work, Wendt said. “Therefore, it remains to be seen how practicable the new guidelines will be in practice.” With Timo Landenberger
The result had been expected. The preliminary deal, which representatives of the EU Parliament had already concluded with negotiators from the Council and the Commission in the trilogue at the end of June, also cleared the hurdle of the plenary yesterday. The three regulations on the reform of the EU’s common agricultural policy were adopted by around two-thirds of MEPs. If the Council now also agrees, which is expected, the new CAP will come into force starting 2023.
Farmers who want to receive payments from the CAP will then have to set aside at least three percent of their farmland for the promotion of biodiversity. At least 25 percent of direct payments to farmers are to be distributed for climate and environmentally friendly farming methods – the so-called eco-schemes. A total of 35 percent of the €387 billion CAP budget is to be earmarked for measures to promote climate and environmental protection, biodiversity, and animal welfare. The reform will be implemented by the 27 member states, each of which will have to submit a national strategy plan to the Commission for consideration, setting out how they will use the instruments to achieve the CAP objectives in line with the Green Deal targets.
Peter Jahr, rapporteur of the CAP Strategic Plan Regulation for the EPP, called it a “good day for European agricultural policy and farmers” in the parliamentary debate in Strasbourg. Because that’s what it’s all about, he stressed, as well as security of supply. It had been important to deliver a compromise on time, rather than “having an agricultural debate for life,” he said. With this, he tried to appease those members of Parliament who had tried to prevent the reform package until the very end.
Jahr thus addressed above all the European Greens and some Social Democrats, including the SPD in the EU Parliament. They voted unanimously against the reform because the new CAP was more of a “business as usual” instead of an ecological reform in the sense of the Green Deal. Subsidies would continue to go to “multinational holdings, large landowners and huge fattening farms”, tweeted Delara Burkhardt, the EU SPD’s environment and climate policy spokeswoman. Small and medium-sized farms would “continue to be forced to give up”.
Martin Häusling, the Greens’ shadow rapporteur for the CAP strategy plans, criticized the fact that farmers’ participation in the new eco-schemes was only voluntary. For him, it was a “black day for climate policy”. Without a “mandatory review of compatibility with the Green Deal”, the result will be that the future CAP will do even worse than before, Häusling said on Tuesday. He also criticized the fact that the more ambitious farm-to-fork strategy and the biodiversity strategy are only mentioned in passing in the new CAP instead of being a central component for implementation. However, the headwind from the European Greens and the German Social Democrats has fizzled out in view of the broad approval in Parliament.
However, the opponents of the CAP reform have not yet given up hope. They are now counting on the national strategy plans. Green MEP Bas Eickhout announced that he would keep a close eye on the Commission when evaluating the plans. Especially with regard to the reduction of pesticides, Eickhout said.
The German strategy plan is still being coordinated between the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and the Federal Ministry for the Environment. It is likely to remain there until the coalition negotiations are concluded. Although the deadline for submission to the Commission is January 1st, 2022, an extension of the deadline is not a significant hurdle.
Agriculture Minister Julia Klöckner made it clear once again on Tuesday that her proposal was “on the table” and called on the traffic light coalition to reach an agreement on the outstanding points. Her ministry would like to adopt its elaborated plan in the cabinet during this executive term and then submit it to the Bundesrat for approval. The aim is to bring about a decision by the Bundesrat no later than the plenary session on December 17th, a spokesman for the ministry told Europe.Table. The SPD-led BMU, however, will hardly go along with this and will instead take up the paper again with the future coalition partners, as was heard from Green party circles.
The result could be a more ambitious interpretation of the CAP in Germany. For example, the new German government could prescribe stricter measures for climate-resilient and drought-resilient agriculture, for example, by imposing far-reaching requirements for the protection of carbon-rich soils. The promotion of agroforestry – a combination of arable and livestock land that has a high CO2 storage capacity – could also be encouraged to make agriculture more climate-resilient. The current BMEL had long paid little attention to this branch of the agricultural sector, and even in the needs analysis for the German strategic plan, agroforestry systems are only mentioned in passing.
However, the member states’ room for maneuver in implementing the CAP is only conducive to climate protection if the national governments have any interest at all in making agriculture more climate-friendly. Germany’s new government wants to be a “climate government”. A corresponding design of the national CAP strategy plan can therefore be expected. However, this is not the case for other EU states. In the past, it has often been shown that in countries such as Hungary or the Czech Republic, climate protection has played a rather subordinate role in the distribution of EU agricultural subsidies.
At the Climate Congress of the Federation of German Industries, business representatives were not holding back their criticism of climate policy from Berlin and Brussels and made clear demands – especially of the Federal Government that is now being formed.
Previously, the BDI and the Boston Consulting Group had published a study entitled “Climate Paths 2.0“, in which they calculated the investment required to implement German climate protection measures at around €860 billion. According to the study, achieving the legally agreed climate protection targets for 2030 will require emissions to be almost halved compared to 2019, and current climate policy is not sufficient to achieve this in any sector. At the Climate Congress, BDI President Siegfried Russwurm, therefore, presented a five-point plan with concrete demands on the future German government.
When it comes to climate protection, there is a clear division of responsibilities between business and politics, said Hildegard Müller, President of the German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA), at the Climate Congress. “We will only be successful if we prove that climate protection and growth are not contradictory.” For this to happen, however, he said, politics must “come down to the mills of transformation.” Especially in Brussels, there is still a lack of understanding for the practical implementation of climate protection measures, Müller criticized.
For the automotive sector, in particular, it is important not to lose sight of the number of vehicles on the road. “Even if we bring 15 million EVs onto the market in Germany by 2030, there will still be twice as many combustion engines on the road,” said the VDA president. In addition to fleet limits and the expansion of the charging infrastructure, the key question is, therefore: Who can afford a new car and how often? “We will have at least 30 million cars in Germany, where we can only make a contribution by turning to synthetic fuels.” Müller is calling for a quota of 30 percent synthetic fuels by 2030.
Gunther Kegel, President of the German Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers’ Association (ZVEI), goes one step further. Selling the old stock of cars will soon no longer be worthwhile for the owners. “So they will be driven until they break apart. The only way to shorten that is to introduce a scrapping premium.”
In addition, Kegel demanded the same charging infrastructure for rural areas as in conurbations. Due to the significantly longer refueling process compared to liquid fuel, the space required will be enormous. For motorway service stations, in particular, he said, the challenge would be great if vehicles took 20 to 30 minutes to use the charging point instead of two to three minutes. “We need to get to a million charging points in Germany quickly, otherwise we’ll slow down our own path to e-mobility.”
Chris Piallat doesn’t actually have time for an interview. That’s because the coalition negotiations currently underway are taking up almost all of his energy. One committee meeting follows the next. Each of the 22 specialist negotiating groups had to finalize its proposal for the text of the coalition agreement by November 10th, in other words, in just two and a half weeks. Ambitious, but the parties were well-prepared for this moment and made the most of every minute. The Greens are particularly committed, the digitization expert says with a wink: “We’re always the nerds!”
Chris Piallat works for the “Digital Innovation and Digital Infrastructure” working group of the Green Party’s parliamentary group in the Bundestag, but he also talks to many colleagues from other specialist groups. Digitalization is a cross-cutting topic, explains the 37-year-old: “Domestic policy is concerned with IT security and data protection as a civil right. In the economic sphere, the focus is on the promotion of start-ups and the modernization of competition law. Technology policy talks revolve around research and innovation. And all parties involved see a particularly great need for action on how both state and administration can be modernized by digital means.”
Chris Piallat is not allowed to reveal more about the coalition negotiations. What is clear, however, is that he is particularly concerned about sociopolitical issues of digitalization. And these must also be answered at the European level, explains the political scientist: “On the one hand, we need a regulatory framework such as the Digital Services Act, which should apply to all platforms that exist on the European market – from Facebook to employment services. And on the other hand, we need to promote certain technologies and innovations at the European level.”
Whether in his private life or at work, Chris Piallat likes to use a wide variety of sources, from Twitter to media of major publishing houses, to keep himself well-informed. “In times of growing disinformation, I make it a point to assess information alertly and critically,” he says. It is also particularly important to the Berlin family man that everyone has constant access to as much and as diverse information as possible. That is why he already devoted himself to copyright law during his studies.
So it is no wonder that his recently published book “The Value of Digitization. Common Good in the Digital World” (Der Wert der Digitalisierung. Gemeinwohl in der digitalen Welt) was published under an open-access license. Chris Piallat explains: “This is also a way to draw attention to a publication – with the goal that many people will eventually buy the book. But more important than revenue for me personally is the idea that I want to make the knowledge gathered in the book as accessible as possible.” Janna Degener-Storr
The traffic light coalition is just about to cross the finish line. But with the coalition agreement, political declarations of intent are being formulated – which have yet to become reality. And while the traffic light is presenting itself and its plans in Berlin today, those involved in Brussels and Strasbourg are working at full steam.
The EU Commission is giving in on the state aid guidelines that are so important for the economy. Till Hoppe has researched for you how this relates to the EEG levy and why a new calculation formula accommodates German business interests. The new list of eligible sectors includes more than 100 industries – more than twice as many as in the first draft in summer. But that is still significantly fewer than before.
Actually, the Common Agricultural Policy should contribute a lot to the goals of the Green Deal. But the ambitions of the package are not as pronounced as the Greens and SPD would have liked. A difficult package for the new coalition in Berlin, which must now develop the German strategic plan for this, Lukas Scheid reports.
The new German government will also have to deal with demands from German industry: BDI President Siegfried Russwurm presented a five-point catalogue of demands on climate yesterday, that offers sufficient potential for dispute. Timo Landenberger reports on this – and on calls for a scrappage premium for combustion engines.
There are some discussions coming up for the potential Green “transformation minister” Robert Habeck, whose portfolio is now being widely discussed in Berlin – while Christian Lindner now seems to be assured of the finance ministry.
But labor requires people: Jasmin Kohl listened to the LIBE Committee in the European Parliament, which is issuing an initiative report calling on the Commission to create more legal migration routes to Europe which is threatened by aging.
Meanwhile, as announced, the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs reviewed the Digital Services Act. Compromises were found, and other ideas were discarded, including the media exemption.
Have a nice day and stay safe!
The EU Commission is responding to criticism of the planned framework for climate and energy subsidies. However, the authority does not go as far as demanded by German industry and the German government. This is shown by a new draft available to Europe.Table.
The new climate and energy aid guidelines (KUEBLL) set out the conditions under which member states may promote the objectives of the Green Deal with state subsidies. The Commission intends to present new guidelines by the end of the year, replacing the previous ones from 2014. As this is not a normal legislative procedure involving Parliament and Council, the new guidelines are expected to enter into force as early as the beginning of 2022.
An initial draft from the summer had caused an uproar, especially among energy-intensive industries in Germany. This is because the proposal by Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager envisaged considerably tightening the conditions for relief for electricity-cost-intensive companies. In its statement, the German government warned that hundreds of companies would lose their entitlement to a cap on the EEG surcharge as a result.
The Commission has now responded to this. The new list of eligible sectors includes more than 100 industries – more than twice as many as in the first draft from the summer. However, there are still significantly fewer than in the previously applicable guidelines.
The CDU MEP Markus Pieper, therefore, criticizes the new draft as insufficient: “The new proposal comes closer to the real competitive situation of the companies,” says the spokesman of the parliamentary group of medium-sized businesses in the CDU/CSU group. It is to be welcomed that more companies make it onto the carbon leakage protection list again, but that is by far not enough: “Since the Green Deal massively intensifies global competition, more industries must be relieved compared to the currently valid list – and not fewer. “
Compared to the first draft, the Commission has changed the method by which eligible sectors are determined. According to the draft from the summer, these had to demonstrate a trade intensity of at least 20 percent and an electricity cost intensity of at least 10 percent. According to the new draft, aid would be considered eligible if the multiplication of the values for trade and electricity cost intensity results in at least 2 percent.
This essentially corresponds to the previous thresholds of 20 and 10 percent but allows more flexibility in the two individual indicators. The German Chemical Industry Association (VCI), for example, had criticized the Commission for placing too much emphasis on trade intensity, i.e., the export orientation of sectors and companies that are in international competition.
Taking this factor into account is intended to prevent the migration of CO2-intensive production abroad (carbon leakage). But the indicator is controversial. After all, critics say, a company is in international competition even if it only acts as a supplier for domestic industry but has to hold its own against competition from abroad.
The Commission has also adjusted the calculation method for an alternative threshold for sectors at high risk of migration, such as aluminum or copper. The authority has added a new clause according to which the Commission can also add new sectors to the eligibility list at a later date if they meet the criteria over a period of three years.
The Commission is also taking a step towards the industry with regard to the aid intensity and burden limit. However, the guidelines may still change; the coordination process between the Commission’s Directorates-General involved is currently underway.
Experts criticize the additional workload that the new state aid rules could entail. “The Commission wants to promote the objectives of the Green Deal through the new guidelines but garnishes this with additional bureaucracy,” says Henning Wendt from the law firm Görg. For example, auctions would become even more prominent in the awarding of subsidies, which could deter companies because of the effort involved.
In addition, member states will in the future first have to consult market participants before submitting a support measure to the Commission for approval, which will mean additional work, Wendt said. “Therefore, it remains to be seen how practicable the new guidelines will be in practice.” With Timo Landenberger
The result had been expected. The preliminary deal, which representatives of the EU Parliament had already concluded with negotiators from the Council and the Commission in the trilogue at the end of June, also cleared the hurdle of the plenary yesterday. The three regulations on the reform of the EU’s common agricultural policy were adopted by around two-thirds of MEPs. If the Council now also agrees, which is expected, the new CAP will come into force starting 2023.
Farmers who want to receive payments from the CAP will then have to set aside at least three percent of their farmland for the promotion of biodiversity. At least 25 percent of direct payments to farmers are to be distributed for climate and environmentally friendly farming methods – the so-called eco-schemes. A total of 35 percent of the €387 billion CAP budget is to be earmarked for measures to promote climate and environmental protection, biodiversity, and animal welfare. The reform will be implemented by the 27 member states, each of which will have to submit a national strategy plan to the Commission for consideration, setting out how they will use the instruments to achieve the CAP objectives in line with the Green Deal targets.
Peter Jahr, rapporteur of the CAP Strategic Plan Regulation for the EPP, called it a “good day for European agricultural policy and farmers” in the parliamentary debate in Strasbourg. Because that’s what it’s all about, he stressed, as well as security of supply. It had been important to deliver a compromise on time, rather than “having an agricultural debate for life,” he said. With this, he tried to appease those members of Parliament who had tried to prevent the reform package until the very end.
Jahr thus addressed above all the European Greens and some Social Democrats, including the SPD in the EU Parliament. They voted unanimously against the reform because the new CAP was more of a “business as usual” instead of an ecological reform in the sense of the Green Deal. Subsidies would continue to go to “multinational holdings, large landowners and huge fattening farms”, tweeted Delara Burkhardt, the EU SPD’s environment and climate policy spokeswoman. Small and medium-sized farms would “continue to be forced to give up”.
Martin Häusling, the Greens’ shadow rapporteur for the CAP strategy plans, criticized the fact that farmers’ participation in the new eco-schemes was only voluntary. For him, it was a “black day for climate policy”. Without a “mandatory review of compatibility with the Green Deal”, the result will be that the future CAP will do even worse than before, Häusling said on Tuesday. He also criticized the fact that the more ambitious farm-to-fork strategy and the biodiversity strategy are only mentioned in passing in the new CAP instead of being a central component for implementation. However, the headwind from the European Greens and the German Social Democrats has fizzled out in view of the broad approval in Parliament.
However, the opponents of the CAP reform have not yet given up hope. They are now counting on the national strategy plans. Green MEP Bas Eickhout announced that he would keep a close eye on the Commission when evaluating the plans. Especially with regard to the reduction of pesticides, Eickhout said.
The German strategy plan is still being coordinated between the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and the Federal Ministry for the Environment. It is likely to remain there until the coalition negotiations are concluded. Although the deadline for submission to the Commission is January 1st, 2022, an extension of the deadline is not a significant hurdle.
Agriculture Minister Julia Klöckner made it clear once again on Tuesday that her proposal was “on the table” and called on the traffic light coalition to reach an agreement on the outstanding points. Her ministry would like to adopt its elaborated plan in the cabinet during this executive term and then submit it to the Bundesrat for approval. The aim is to bring about a decision by the Bundesrat no later than the plenary session on December 17th, a spokesman for the ministry told Europe.Table. The SPD-led BMU, however, will hardly go along with this and will instead take up the paper again with the future coalition partners, as was heard from Green party circles.
The result could be a more ambitious interpretation of the CAP in Germany. For example, the new German government could prescribe stricter measures for climate-resilient and drought-resilient agriculture, for example, by imposing far-reaching requirements for the protection of carbon-rich soils. The promotion of agroforestry – a combination of arable and livestock land that has a high CO2 storage capacity – could also be encouraged to make agriculture more climate-resilient. The current BMEL had long paid little attention to this branch of the agricultural sector, and even in the needs analysis for the German strategic plan, agroforestry systems are only mentioned in passing.
However, the member states’ room for maneuver in implementing the CAP is only conducive to climate protection if the national governments have any interest at all in making agriculture more climate-friendly. Germany’s new government wants to be a “climate government”. A corresponding design of the national CAP strategy plan can therefore be expected. However, this is not the case for other EU states. In the past, it has often been shown that in countries such as Hungary or the Czech Republic, climate protection has played a rather subordinate role in the distribution of EU agricultural subsidies.
At the Climate Congress of the Federation of German Industries, business representatives were not holding back their criticism of climate policy from Berlin and Brussels and made clear demands – especially of the Federal Government that is now being formed.
Previously, the BDI and the Boston Consulting Group had published a study entitled “Climate Paths 2.0“, in which they calculated the investment required to implement German climate protection measures at around €860 billion. According to the study, achieving the legally agreed climate protection targets for 2030 will require emissions to be almost halved compared to 2019, and current climate policy is not sufficient to achieve this in any sector. At the Climate Congress, BDI President Siegfried Russwurm, therefore, presented a five-point plan with concrete demands on the future German government.
When it comes to climate protection, there is a clear division of responsibilities between business and politics, said Hildegard Müller, President of the German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA), at the Climate Congress. “We will only be successful if we prove that climate protection and growth are not contradictory.” For this to happen, however, he said, politics must “come down to the mills of transformation.” Especially in Brussels, there is still a lack of understanding for the practical implementation of climate protection measures, Müller criticized.
For the automotive sector, in particular, it is important not to lose sight of the number of vehicles on the road. “Even if we bring 15 million EVs onto the market in Germany by 2030, there will still be twice as many combustion engines on the road,” said the VDA president. In addition to fleet limits and the expansion of the charging infrastructure, the key question is, therefore: Who can afford a new car and how often? “We will have at least 30 million cars in Germany, where we can only make a contribution by turning to synthetic fuels.” Müller is calling for a quota of 30 percent synthetic fuels by 2030.
Gunther Kegel, President of the German Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers’ Association (ZVEI), goes one step further. Selling the old stock of cars will soon no longer be worthwhile for the owners. “So they will be driven until they break apart. The only way to shorten that is to introduce a scrapping premium.”
In addition, Kegel demanded the same charging infrastructure for rural areas as in conurbations. Due to the significantly longer refueling process compared to liquid fuel, the space required will be enormous. For motorway service stations, in particular, he said, the challenge would be great if vehicles took 20 to 30 minutes to use the charging point instead of two to three minutes. “We need to get to a million charging points in Germany quickly, otherwise we’ll slow down our own path to e-mobility.”
Chris Piallat doesn’t actually have time for an interview. That’s because the coalition negotiations currently underway are taking up almost all of his energy. One committee meeting follows the next. Each of the 22 specialist negotiating groups had to finalize its proposal for the text of the coalition agreement by November 10th, in other words, in just two and a half weeks. Ambitious, but the parties were well-prepared for this moment and made the most of every minute. The Greens are particularly committed, the digitization expert says with a wink: “We’re always the nerds!”
Chris Piallat works for the “Digital Innovation and Digital Infrastructure” working group of the Green Party’s parliamentary group in the Bundestag, but he also talks to many colleagues from other specialist groups. Digitalization is a cross-cutting topic, explains the 37-year-old: “Domestic policy is concerned with IT security and data protection as a civil right. In the economic sphere, the focus is on the promotion of start-ups and the modernization of competition law. Technology policy talks revolve around research and innovation. And all parties involved see a particularly great need for action on how both state and administration can be modernized by digital means.”
Chris Piallat is not allowed to reveal more about the coalition negotiations. What is clear, however, is that he is particularly concerned about sociopolitical issues of digitalization. And these must also be answered at the European level, explains the political scientist: “On the one hand, we need a regulatory framework such as the Digital Services Act, which should apply to all platforms that exist on the European market – from Facebook to employment services. And on the other hand, we need to promote certain technologies and innovations at the European level.”
Whether in his private life or at work, Chris Piallat likes to use a wide variety of sources, from Twitter to media of major publishing houses, to keep himself well-informed. “In times of growing disinformation, I make it a point to assess information alertly and critically,” he says. It is also particularly important to the Berlin family man that everyone has constant access to as much and as diverse information as possible. That is why he already devoted himself to copyright law during his studies.
So it is no wonder that his recently published book “The Value of Digitization. Common Good in the Digital World” (Der Wert der Digitalisierung. Gemeinwohl in der digitalen Welt) was published under an open-access license. Chris Piallat explains: “This is also a way to draw attention to a publication – with the goal that many people will eventually buy the book. But more important than revenue for me personally is the idea that I want to make the knowledge gathered in the book as accessible as possible.” Janna Degener-Storr
