Your contact for new licenses
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen wants a paradigm shift in agricultural policy: in the last mandate, the Commission led by her presented proposals that focused on climate and species protection. For the next five years, the focus will be on adapting to climate change.
In an interview with Table.Briefings, agricultural politician Norbert Lins (CDU) explains what the Commission could propose: for example, paying farmers financial aid for crop failure insurance, as is already practiced in Italy and Baden-Württemberg. Lins, who has chaired the Agriculture Committee for the last five years, also calls for faster approval procedures for plant protection products.
And: for the first time, a Christian Democrat explains which previously “strictly protected species are about to become a plague.” He wants to lower the high standard of protection not only for wolves, but also for bears, rooks, cormorants, beavers and geese. The Commission is to propose amending the relevant EU legislation to this end: the BirdDirective and the FFH Directive. It is uncertain whether the Commission will comply with the request. Certain is that the proposal will be criticized by conservationists. Have a good day!
Mr. Lins, Ursula von der Leyen has clarified that in the next agricultural policy mandate, adaptation to climate change should take priority over measures to protect the climate and species …
With this focus, the Commission President has made an important contribution to depolarizing the debate on agriculture. There is a broad consensus in the new European Parliament that climate change is happening and that agriculture must respond to it. I would also like to emphasize that von der Leyen is focusing on greater resilience in agriculture. That is to be understood comprehensively.
And what does this mean for the expected proposals?
I expect proposals that strengthen risk management and tackle the problem of water scarcity. The element of risk insurance will certainly also be strengthened in the next CAP. None of this is entirely new. There are already insurance subsidies today if a farmer takes out a policy against the consequences of frost and hail. In Italy, for example, this is already used very extensively, in Germany it is more regional.
What else?
I see a need for new breeding techniques. They can still make a contribution to climate adaptation in agriculture. The question will be: how to better protect cereals and special crops. Strawberries can be wrapped more in the field, for example in foil, to better protect the fruit from heavy rain. Agriphotovoltaics (agri-PV) should also be expanded, i.e. a process for the simultaneous use of land for photovoltaic electricity production and agricultural production. One example here would be photovoltaic areas above fruit trees, for which there are already promising model projects, including at Lake Constance.
What’s next for plant protection?
I expect the toolbox for plant protection to be put in order. Drought or heavy rainfall increase pest pressure. Organic pesticides should be used as much as possible. However, chemical-synthetic plant protection also plays an indispensable role. I expect the Commission to take this into account.
What exactly do you expect?
I am not interested in approving more substances across the board. For example, not a single new pesticide has been approved in the last four years. Some substances have been approved again. The authorization system is very lengthy and should be revised. There should also be harmonization between the regulatory zones. It would therefore make sense to revise the legal text in order to eliminate or abolish the problems of zonal classification. However, there are also serious shortcomings within the zones.
What are they?
The system of mutual recognition does not work. This means that if a member state allows something, this does not mean that it is also available in other member states in the same zone.
What does von der Leyen mean when she calls for more resilience in the agricultural sector?
She also refers resilience to the competitive situation in which our farmers find themselves on the global market. We need to take a closer look at the impact of EU agricultural policy on international competition: How do our farmers compare with farmers from Ukraine, the USA, Brazil and Canada? There is an obvious need for countermeasures here. EU regulation imposes many measures on EU agriculture that competitors elsewhere do not have to comply with.
Agriculture in southern Europe is increasingly lacking water. Is it conceivable that arable farming will no longer be possible there in future due to climate change?
Agriculture is certainly facing a major challenge in the affected regions. In Israel, however, we can see that water scarcity does not mean the end for agriculture: water from seawater desalination plants is used on a large scale in agriculture there. It is first used as fresh water in households and then partly recycled for use in agriculture. So there are countries in our neighborhood that have already adapted to the problems that our southern member states are increasingly struggling with. Here, the EU can also certainly make a contribution to making agriculture more resilient to water shortages.
Is the FFH Directive also considered when it comes to adapting to climate change?
The reform of species protection law is overdue and is of course part of adapting to changing conditions. We have to accept that the world has changed since we created the Birds Directive in 1979 and the FFH Directive in 1992. Reality has changed and this must be taken into account: Many populations have recovered. The extremely strict protection of species, which has recently been fatally cemented once again by ECJ rulings, needs to be questioned for some species. We need a modern reform of species protection law in the EU.
Will you have support for this demand in the Commission and Council?
We will only be able to assess this in the Commission once its composition has been determined in the fall. In the Council, we would certainly have an easier time with the agriculture ministers than with the environment ministers. It is important to me that in the last two years, the wolf has always been at the center of all debates on species protection. It is certainly the most problematic species. In second place comes the bear, which repeatedly comes to close to humans, for example in Italy, Slovakia and Romania. The protection status of the beaver is no longer in line with its conservation status. As far as birds are concerned, there is a need for change in the case of the cormorant, which plunders fish stocks, geese and rooks, which peck the maize fields of organic farmers empty because the untreated maize is a treat for them. It is not only floods or droughts that occur more frequently due to climate change and endanger harvests, but also certain animal species.
You want to roll back species protection …
I am happy about every species that was endangered and then recovered. However, we must not close our eyes to the fact that the recovery of some species has gotten out of hand and they are about to become a plague.
Fifty years after the birth of the internet, Europe is on the brink of the next revolutionary technological transformation. On the cusp of a new, digitally-enabled social era, the prevailing discourse often focuses on fears of digital overreach, reactionary regulatory muscle-flexing and the continent’s limited capacity for innovation. Yet this moment also holds unprecedented potential for transformative change if we design Europe’s digital frameworks thoughtfully.
Europe faces a crucial choice: passively adapting to external models of digital coordination or proactively shaping a digital future through a shared vision that draws its strength from its inherent diversity. We propose a bold vision for a “digital re-enlightenment” leading to digital civic architectures that prioritize the common good and foster innovation.
Contrary to the popular narrative that portrays the United States as the cradle of innovation and Europe as the sole regulator, Europe has a long history of technological advances through innovative strategic regulatory frameworks:
Telecommunications and pharmaceutical regulation: European regulations for telecommunications and pharmaceuticals were developed to create a competitive but collaborative environment for innovation. This put European companies in both sectors in a good position to compete globally. Founded in 1995, the EMA helped streamline the process of bringing new and safe medicines to market and encouraged innovation in drug development – which was crucial during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Renewable Energy Directive: The Renewable Energy Directive, introduced in 2009, set binding targets for all member states to cover at least 20 percent of their energy needs from renewable sources by 2020. This directive led to a surge in innovation in solar, wind and other renewable technologies and promoted the green energy sector.
Although none of the standards, regulations or guidelines were a panacea for the challenges described, they illustrate Europe’s ability to use technological governance for innovation and the common good.
This boldness is also reflected in recent regulatory initiatives such as the DMA, DSA, AI Act, GDPR and so on, which have changed the way Europe – and other countries – deal with digital monopolies. One could say that these initiatives have been driven by the EU’s perceived helplessness in the face of big tech companies. However, we believe this is too simplistic an argument.
One problem where regulation actually creates barriers in Europe’s digital sector is the creation of false restrictions. Europe’s economy is mainly made up of SMEs, largely due to rules that prevent companies from achieving scale. Many SMEs struggle to adopt, let alone develop and drive technological innovation. Cybersecurity, information warfare, disinformation and AI innovation require pan-European companies and structures.
Echoing the transformative spirit of the original Enlightenment, which challenged entrenched doctrines and ideologies, we call for a modern digital Enlightenment to question and rework the economic and technological ideologies that dominate today’s digital landscape.
At the heart of Europe’s digital strategy should be the creation of a robust, resilient civic digital architecture that is responsive to the needs of its citizens. This involves designing a decentralized system in which data control and management are distributed among different actors, increasing system security and integrity. These multi-stakeholder efforts should be supported by innovative governance models that promote transparency and involve a broad range of actors.
Europe’s path to a resilient and democratic digital future is a profound opportunity. By leveraging its historical strengths and redefining its approach to digital technology and data, Europe can lead a global movement towards a more secure, inclusive and innovative digital era.
This aligns with Europe’s founding values and positions it at the forefront of global technology leadership. It requires a transition from conservative policy making to a dynamic, experimental approach legitimized by a true coalition of stakeholders. Let’s demonstrate the much needed courage!
Martin Hullin is Director of the Digitalization and Public Good Program at the Bertelsmann Stiftung. Previously, he was Deputy Executive Director of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network and co-founder and Deputy Executive Director of the Datasphere Initiative.
Catherine Mulligan is Honorary Senior Research Associate in Computer Science at University College London and Co-Director of the Cryptocurrency Research Center at Imperial College London. She was a member of the High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation convened by UN Secretary-General António Guterres.
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen wants a paradigm shift in agricultural policy: in the last mandate, the Commission led by her presented proposals that focused on climate and species protection. For the next five years, the focus will be on adapting to climate change.
In an interview with Table.Briefings, agricultural politician Norbert Lins (CDU) explains what the Commission could propose: for example, paying farmers financial aid for crop failure insurance, as is already practiced in Italy and Baden-Württemberg. Lins, who has chaired the Agriculture Committee for the last five years, also calls for faster approval procedures for plant protection products.
And: for the first time, a Christian Democrat explains which previously “strictly protected species are about to become a plague.” He wants to lower the high standard of protection not only for wolves, but also for bears, rooks, cormorants, beavers and geese. The Commission is to propose amending the relevant EU legislation to this end: the BirdDirective and the FFH Directive. It is uncertain whether the Commission will comply with the request. Certain is that the proposal will be criticized by conservationists. Have a good day!
Mr. Lins, Ursula von der Leyen has clarified that in the next agricultural policy mandate, adaptation to climate change should take priority over measures to protect the climate and species …
With this focus, the Commission President has made an important contribution to depolarizing the debate on agriculture. There is a broad consensus in the new European Parliament that climate change is happening and that agriculture must respond to it. I would also like to emphasize that von der Leyen is focusing on greater resilience in agriculture. That is to be understood comprehensively.
And what does this mean for the expected proposals?
I expect proposals that strengthen risk management and tackle the problem of water scarcity. The element of risk insurance will certainly also be strengthened in the next CAP. None of this is entirely new. There are already insurance subsidies today if a farmer takes out a policy against the consequences of frost and hail. In Italy, for example, this is already used very extensively, in Germany it is more regional.
What else?
I see a need for new breeding techniques. They can still make a contribution to climate adaptation in agriculture. The question will be: how to better protect cereals and special crops. Strawberries can be wrapped more in the field, for example in foil, to better protect the fruit from heavy rain. Agriphotovoltaics (agri-PV) should also be expanded, i.e. a process for the simultaneous use of land for photovoltaic electricity production and agricultural production. One example here would be photovoltaic areas above fruit trees, for which there are already promising model projects, including at Lake Constance.
What’s next for plant protection?
I expect the toolbox for plant protection to be put in order. Drought or heavy rainfall increase pest pressure. Organic pesticides should be used as much as possible. However, chemical-synthetic plant protection also plays an indispensable role. I expect the Commission to take this into account.
What exactly do you expect?
I am not interested in approving more substances across the board. For example, not a single new pesticide has been approved in the last four years. Some substances have been approved again. The authorization system is very lengthy and should be revised. There should also be harmonization between the regulatory zones. It would therefore make sense to revise the legal text in order to eliminate or abolish the problems of zonal classification. However, there are also serious shortcomings within the zones.
What are they?
The system of mutual recognition does not work. This means that if a member state allows something, this does not mean that it is also available in other member states in the same zone.
What does von der Leyen mean when she calls for more resilience in the agricultural sector?
She also refers resilience to the competitive situation in which our farmers find themselves on the global market. We need to take a closer look at the impact of EU agricultural policy on international competition: How do our farmers compare with farmers from Ukraine, the USA, Brazil and Canada? There is an obvious need for countermeasures here. EU regulation imposes many measures on EU agriculture that competitors elsewhere do not have to comply with.
Agriculture in southern Europe is increasingly lacking water. Is it conceivable that arable farming will no longer be possible there in future due to climate change?
Agriculture is certainly facing a major challenge in the affected regions. In Israel, however, we can see that water scarcity does not mean the end for agriculture: water from seawater desalination plants is used on a large scale in agriculture there. It is first used as fresh water in households and then partly recycled for use in agriculture. So there are countries in our neighborhood that have already adapted to the problems that our southern member states are increasingly struggling with. Here, the EU can also certainly make a contribution to making agriculture more resilient to water shortages.
Is the FFH Directive also considered when it comes to adapting to climate change?
The reform of species protection law is overdue and is of course part of adapting to changing conditions. We have to accept that the world has changed since we created the Birds Directive in 1979 and the FFH Directive in 1992. Reality has changed and this must be taken into account: Many populations have recovered. The extremely strict protection of species, which has recently been fatally cemented once again by ECJ rulings, needs to be questioned for some species. We need a modern reform of species protection law in the EU.
Will you have support for this demand in the Commission and Council?
We will only be able to assess this in the Commission once its composition has been determined in the fall. In the Council, we would certainly have an easier time with the agriculture ministers than with the environment ministers. It is important to me that in the last two years, the wolf has always been at the center of all debates on species protection. It is certainly the most problematic species. In second place comes the bear, which repeatedly comes to close to humans, for example in Italy, Slovakia and Romania. The protection status of the beaver is no longer in line with its conservation status. As far as birds are concerned, there is a need for change in the case of the cormorant, which plunders fish stocks, geese and rooks, which peck the maize fields of organic farmers empty because the untreated maize is a treat for them. It is not only floods or droughts that occur more frequently due to climate change and endanger harvests, but also certain animal species.
You want to roll back species protection …
I am happy about every species that was endangered and then recovered. However, we must not close our eyes to the fact that the recovery of some species has gotten out of hand and they are about to become a plague.
Fifty years after the birth of the internet, Europe is on the brink of the next revolutionary technological transformation. On the cusp of a new, digitally-enabled social era, the prevailing discourse often focuses on fears of digital overreach, reactionary regulatory muscle-flexing and the continent’s limited capacity for innovation. Yet this moment also holds unprecedented potential for transformative change if we design Europe’s digital frameworks thoughtfully.
Europe faces a crucial choice: passively adapting to external models of digital coordination or proactively shaping a digital future through a shared vision that draws its strength from its inherent diversity. We propose a bold vision for a “digital re-enlightenment” leading to digital civic architectures that prioritize the common good and foster innovation.
Contrary to the popular narrative that portrays the United States as the cradle of innovation and Europe as the sole regulator, Europe has a long history of technological advances through innovative strategic regulatory frameworks:
Telecommunications and pharmaceutical regulation: European regulations for telecommunications and pharmaceuticals were developed to create a competitive but collaborative environment for innovation. This put European companies in both sectors in a good position to compete globally. Founded in 1995, the EMA helped streamline the process of bringing new and safe medicines to market and encouraged innovation in drug development – which was crucial during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Renewable Energy Directive: The Renewable Energy Directive, introduced in 2009, set binding targets for all member states to cover at least 20 percent of their energy needs from renewable sources by 2020. This directive led to a surge in innovation in solar, wind and other renewable technologies and promoted the green energy sector.
Although none of the standards, regulations or guidelines were a panacea for the challenges described, they illustrate Europe’s ability to use technological governance for innovation and the common good.
This boldness is also reflected in recent regulatory initiatives such as the DMA, DSA, AI Act, GDPR and so on, which have changed the way Europe – and other countries – deal with digital monopolies. One could say that these initiatives have been driven by the EU’s perceived helplessness in the face of big tech companies. However, we believe this is too simplistic an argument.
One problem where regulation actually creates barriers in Europe’s digital sector is the creation of false restrictions. Europe’s economy is mainly made up of SMEs, largely due to rules that prevent companies from achieving scale. Many SMEs struggle to adopt, let alone develop and drive technological innovation. Cybersecurity, information warfare, disinformation and AI innovation require pan-European companies and structures.
Echoing the transformative spirit of the original Enlightenment, which challenged entrenched doctrines and ideologies, we call for a modern digital Enlightenment to question and rework the economic and technological ideologies that dominate today’s digital landscape.
At the heart of Europe’s digital strategy should be the creation of a robust, resilient civic digital architecture that is responsive to the needs of its citizens. This involves designing a decentralized system in which data control and management are distributed among different actors, increasing system security and integrity. These multi-stakeholder efforts should be supported by innovative governance models that promote transparency and involve a broad range of actors.
Europe’s path to a resilient and democratic digital future is a profound opportunity. By leveraging its historical strengths and redefining its approach to digital technology and data, Europe can lead a global movement towards a more secure, inclusive and innovative digital era.
This aligns with Europe’s founding values and positions it at the forefront of global technology leadership. It requires a transition from conservative policy making to a dynamic, experimental approach legitimized by a true coalition of stakeholders. Let’s demonstrate the much needed courage!
Martin Hullin is Director of the Digitalization and Public Good Program at the Bertelsmann Stiftung. Previously, he was Deputy Executive Director of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network and co-founder and Deputy Executive Director of the Datasphere Initiative.
Catherine Mulligan is Honorary Senior Research Associate in Computer Science at University College London and Co-Director of the Cryptocurrency Research Center at Imperial College London. She was a member of the High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation convened by UN Secretary-General António Guterres.