After giving you a digital policy outlook for the coming months yesterday, today it’s the turn of European climate policy. 2022 is supposed to be the year in which the EU’s ambitious goals are implemented. But there are complicated negotiations ahead in the parliamentary committees and in the trialogues. In addition, the EU Commission also wants to launch further Green Deal projects.
The proposal for a European CO2 border adjustment has already left the starting block and cleared another hurdle yesterday. Mohammed Chahim is a Dutch MEP and the Parliament’s rapporteur for the planned CBAM. On Wednesday, the social democrat presented his draft report and calls for significant changes in it. For example, the allocation of free emission allowances is to expire considerably earlier than proposed by the Commission. The scope of the CBAM would also have to be extended. Timo Landenberger has summarized the demands.
It is small, even in its own opinion. Yet it is responsible for some of the really big data processors: the Irish data protection regulator DPC. Now, EU Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders has responded to a letter from several female EU parliamentarians and provisionally ruled out infringement proceedings against Ireland. Falk Steiner reports on why this is far from the end of the dispute, however.
28 years of forging European compromises – this is the experience that Franco-German Evelyne Gebhardt will be able to look back on in just under a month’s time when she steps down from her mandate as an MEP. She told Jasmin Kohl how the 67-year-old social democrat defied political low blows, remained true to her own style, and dispelled the cliché that women don’t know how to handle technology. Her wish for the traffic light coalition: to see European policy less as a policy against each other and more as a policy with each other.
The declared goal is to adopt the bulk of the Fit for 55 package this year. As soon as the positions of the Parliament and Council are available, the trialogue negotiations are to begin seamlessly. However, delays are already to be expected – especially in parts of the package that are sure to cause a heated debate.
ETS reform and expansion
The proposals for ETS reform have been on the table since July 2021. The number of emission allowances is to be reduced, free allocations for the industry are to be gradually reduced and finally eliminated altogether. In addition, a new ETS is to be created for the buildings and transport sectors – but so far without maritime shipping. On January 14, rapporteur Peter Liese (EPP) plans to present his draft report. The report is to be agreed upon with the shadow rapporteurs by the end of April and adopted in the ENVI Committee on May 16. Finally, the plenum is to vote in June.
Recently, calls had grown louder for the ETS to be more tightly regulated in the future. In the fall last year, Liese had not yet decided whether he would include stricter supervision in his report.
Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
In parallel with the gradual reduction of free emission rights, the EU plans to introduce a border adjustment mechanism. This is intended to continue to guarantee protection against carbon leakage in compliance with WTO regulations. However, this climate tariff is controversial. The economy fears that it will not be sufficient to protect against carbon leakage, as imports from other EU countries are just as exempt as exports from European companies.
Yesterday, the draft report of Dutch social democrat Mohammed Chahim (S&D) became public (see today’s news section). Now, the negotiations with the shadow rapporteurs begin.
Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Regulation (AFIR)
Emissions are also to be reduced in the transport sector. For this to succeed, the infrastructure for lower-emission transport must first be created. To this end, the Commission proposed a new regulation in July 2021.
The expansion of the charging infrastructure for low-emission vehicles, ships, and aircraft will be dealt with as the lead item in the TRAN Committee. The German rapporteur Ismail Ertug (S&D) wants to present an initial draft report at the end of February, followed by a vote by the committee members in mid-May and a plenary vote in July. If the Council is also ready by then, the trilogue could then begin.
For passenger cars, the Commission proposes, among other things, national fleet-based expansion targets. Total power of at least 1 kW per EV is to be provided by publicly accessible charging stations, and at least 0.66 kW for each plug-in hybrid vehicle. For commercial vehicles, there are distance-based targets. Ships and aircraft are to be supplied with green electricity on land and on the ground, respectively, in the future.
Tightening of CO2 fleet limits
In the summer, the Commission proposed new CO2 limits for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles to curb the still rising greenhouse gas emissions in road traffic. From 2025, emissions from the new car fleet would have to be 15 percent lower than in the comparison year 2021. In 2030, the figure would have to be 55 percent lower for passenger cars and 50 percent lower for light commercial vehicles. From 2035, only zero-emission vehicles would be allowed to be registered. Renew rapporteur Jan Huitema proposed higher interim targets in his first draft report and immediately drew criticism from shadow rapporteurs (Europe.Table reported).
Work on a compromise is underway. On January 12, the draft report will be discussed in the ENVI Committee and the vote will follow in May. The report will then be submitted to the plenary for a vote.
Conservation Package (Scheduled for March 23)
As part of the biodiversity strategy and the farm-to-fork strategy, the EU Commission intends to present a proposal for stricter rules on the use of pesticides as early as the first quarter of the new year. By 2030, the risk and use of chemical pesticides and so-called “more hazardous pesticides” are to be reduced by 50 percent in each case.
In addition, binding targets for the restoration of damaged ecosystems in Europe are to be presented in the nature conservation package. These were originally announced for the end of 2021, but were postponed. Ecosystems with the potential to store CO2, to prevent natural disasters, and safeguard biodiversity are to be the focus of particular attention.
Circular Economy Package 1 (Scheduled for March 30)
The Commission also wants to make consumer goods more sustainable. Products and their individual parts are to be reusable or recyclable. The first part of the circular economy package will primarily present proposals for more durable and environmentally friendly products. The initiative for sustainable products is intended to revise the Ecodesign Directive, which lays down rules for the design of mainly electronic devices. This should make it easier to remove individual parts, repair them or dispose of them properly.
In addition, a newly proposed regulation will establish clearer criteria under which products or manufacturers declare their environmental footprint. A strategy for sustainable textiles is also planned for Circular Economy Package 1.
Emission and pollutant package (Scheduled for 05 April)
Industry and transport are among the sectors that are most difficult to decarbonize. With a proposal to revise the Industrial Emissions Directive, the Commission aims to encourage plant operators to use environmentally friendly technologies. This includes updating the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR). In addition, EU regulations on fluorinated greenhouse gases (industrial off-gases) are to be reviewed in order to further curb industrial emissions.
The EU Commission wants to reduce traffic emissions by introducing a new euro standard for passenger cars and commercial vehicles. Initial proposals for a new standard have already led to heated discussions between the automotive industry and environmentalists.
International Energy Engagement Strategy (Scheduled for April 27)
The EU Commission does not want to limit the energy turnaround to Europe alone and plans to work globally for more energy efficiency, for safe and sustainable technologies. The aim is to replace the generation of electricity from fossil fuels in favor of renewable energies worldwide. The blueprint for the strategy could be the energy partnership with South Africa, which the EU concluded together with the governments of France, the UK, the USA, and Germany at the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow.
Circular Economy Package 2 (Scheduled for July 20)
The second part of the package is about avoiding plastic and packaging waste. A legislative framework for bio-based, biodegradable, and compostable plastics and a revision of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive are to be presented in July 2022. In addition, the Wastewater Directive will be reviewed after the Commission publishes an impact assessment on the current regime. The review will focus in particular on identifying potential improvements to reduce water waste in cities.
SPD politician Evelyne Gebhardt is a member of the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) and Vice-Chair of the Delegation for Parliamentary Relations with the People’s Republic of China. Her Franco-German perspective helped her decisively in forging compromises. She is committed to a social single market with strong consumer protection, as well as gender equality. Most recently, the 67-year-old fought for a strong parliamentary position on the Digital Markets Act (DMA) as shadow rapporteur.
Ms. Gebhardt, you are giving up your parliamentary mandate in the middle of the legislative period to make way for younger people. How difficult was this decision for you?
It’s already hard for me to leave because my work is very exciting. I have always felt very honored and very lucky to have been able to do this work. Almost every day I had the impression that I could shape and advance something. So, on the one hand, I’m wistful, but on the other hand, I’m also glad that I’ve made this decision now because I know it has to be made at some point.
You first ran for MEP in 1994 to take action against social and societal ills. What means did you use to fight for your goals?
Even before I became a member of the European Parliament, I wanted to show that politics can also be done differently and can be successful. So not with rumbling or shouting, which was common in the 70s. That’s just not my nature. There are many other ways to assert yourself: through strategy, good thinking, and empathy. These are my means. And I have proven that, otherwise I would not have been able to exercise my mandate for so long and look back on many successes.
When you moved into the European Parliament, women were still heavily underrepresented there. How did you come to feel that?
A lot has changed for me as a woman over the years. When I was brand new in Parliament, they wanted to put me in the Women’s Committee right away because I had already worked on women’s issues before. But I always said: Us women also have to go to the “tough committees” – that’s why I went to the Legal Affairs Committee and the Environment Committee.
In what situations have you noticed that your gender matters when it really shouldn’t?
The most formative example was the time when I was a rapporteur for the Services Directive. My father died during the hot phase of negotiations (2004/2005), and of course, I went to his funeral. So I had to postpone a meeting. At the funeral, I then got a call from someone in my group who told me, “Evelyne, you have to come back to Brussels as soon as possible.”
It turned out that the Liberal shadow rapporteur wanted to deny me the ability to do my job as a rapporteur: he said that I was emotionally incapable of continuing the negotiations because of the death of my father. If I were a man, no one would have thought of such an idea. That is an example from the past, but there are still situations like that today.
Which ones, for example?
During the negotiations on the Digital Markets Act, I noticed how one or two colleagues thought they had to help me now – even from my group. That really bothered me. On the one hand, there’s the cliché that women don’t know how to use technology. But I’ve always been very tech-savvy. And on the other hand, we women are still denied the ability to assert ourselves. They don’t say that openly, but I still feel it subliminally. I’m always annoyed about that.
You were born in France and emigrated to Germany in 1975. Did that help you find compromises in parliament?
The fact that I have the experience of two states, two cultures, and two traditions has of course helped me a lot in the European context. I know that there is a different culture in each member state and that you have to take that into account if you want to be successful in the European Parliament.
Can you give a specific example?
About 15 years ago, German and French colleagues from the S&D Group set out to write a joint paper on foreign and defense policy. The paper read really well, but I wasn’t sure we could agree on it. This was because there are different philosophies behind “defense policy” in Germany and France: in Germany, it’s about defending one’s own state; in France, it’s understood to be a very extensive policy that includes war missions abroad. There was then a long discussion, which unfortunately led to the paper ending up in the wastebasket. That was hard on those who worked on it, but I couldn’t just sit still. It was an important issue where you couldn’t just pretend that we had reached an agreement.
What will you miss most about your work as an MEP?
I will miss the forging of compromises – the negotiations, the deliberations, the strategies that have to be developed. But also the direct confrontation with the ideas of the other groups. That’s very productive work: you have an idea, you know the others want something completely different, and you try to make the best of it. In the end, you always find a solution, I like that. You never get 100 percent, but if I get 80 percent, I’m also satisfied.
Your successor is 42-year-old René Repasi. He will play an important role in the trilogue as DMA shadow rapporteur. What advice do you have for him?
Everyone has their own way of working and I respect that far too much to start telling him what to do or not do now. We’ve already had many conversations and he knows he can call me if he needs advice.
As shadow rapporteur for the DMA, you fought hard for interoperability and were able to prevail against the EPP rapporteur Andreas Schwab on this point. Do you fear that these successes will be watered down in the trilogue?
I will probably be able to take part in two or three more trilogues. The French Council Presidency wants to conclude the negotiations in April. Fortunately, René Repasi is also taking over my staff, who have the necessary expertise. I am sure he will also keep an eye on the rapporteur. Because I know that Mr. Schwab had to swallow a toad or two that I put in his soup (laughs).
As an MEP, you have dealt with many digital issues, with a focus on consumer protection and the regulation of artificial intelligence. Is the EU on the right track there?
There are still a lot of unanswered questions. I am glad that the European Commission has announced the Media Freedom Act in addition to the Digital Services Act to tackle problems like hate speech across Europe. I am sure that we will work hand in hand on these issues in Europe and in the German government. I would like to see very uniform action on this. After all, it’s not just a question of how to deal with the rights of consumers, but also of the direction in which our society should develop.
The new German government is raising many hopes in terms of European policy. What specific changes do you expect to see in Germany’s position?
I was very pleased that the coalition agreement included the option of treaty changes. These are absolutely necessary in the European Union in order to pursue the integration and deepening of the European idea and also to create a more social Europe. It is about strengthening the rights of the European Parliament: Parliament should decide who becomes Commission President and not the heads of government behind closed doors. Because in case of doubt, they simply choose a person who creates the least problems for them. The right of initiative for Parliament and the abandonment of the principle of unanimity in the Council are also in the coalition agreement. These issues need to be widely discussed, and if I can make a contribution to this in the future, I will of course be happy to do so.
What else would you like to see from the traffic light coalition with regard to European policy?
European policy should be understood less as a policy against each other and more as a policy with each other. It is shared sovereignty: If we transfer decision-making levels to the European level, it does not mean that the nation-states no longer have sovereignty in this area, but that they share sovereignty. That’s how it has to be presented. I hope that people won’t say, as they did in the past, “We have achieved something in Europe, against the others,” but rather, “It was difficult, but we have agreed on something in common.” That is a different language, which then also creates a different perception of European policy among the population. One must not forget: In every decision – whether it goes down well or badly – national politics is involved. It won’t work without them.
“The interview must be held in English,” the assistant had already made clear in advance. Joanna Bryson puts it differently: “You can speak in German. But I won’t understand it.” And she laughs. She laughs more at all than one would expect from a professor at a university in Germany – and mostly at herself. She said she tried to learn German at university and is currently taking a language course at the Goethe Institute. But the 56-year-old says she has always been a failure at foreign languages.
Instead of articles and verb conjugations, the professor at the Hertie School in Berlin prefers to work on artificial intelligence and the question of how companies can be protected by technology. Incidentally, she only ended up in Europe because she didn’t know what subject to choose for her postgraduate degree after completing her bachelor’s in behavioral science. “I figured I would definitely learn something abroad,” she says.
At university in Edinburgh, Scotland, there was already an artificial intelligence department at the time that worked in a truly interdisciplinary way: “There was linguistics, neuroscience, logic, philosophy, music, everything!” In addition to a master’s degree in artificial intelligence, she also earned one in psychology. Then, after earning her Ph.D. in Massachusetts and failing to find a job back home during the dot.com crisis, she returned to Europe: “In the US, I applied to seven jobs, had one interview and no offer. In the UK, I applied for two jobs and got five offers,” the professor recalls.
It was only then that Joanna Bryson began to really take an interest in this continent and the politics here. “The British seemed oddly unaware of the fact the EU offered a lot of opportunities which I only learnt about after I arrived,” says the US native, who has had British citizenship since 2007 and now lives in Berlin. At the time, she says, many people thought investing in AI was a way to make a lot of money. What people forgot was that “you can never have cybersecurity without AI, and you can never trust AI without cybersecurity,” Bryson says.
Internationally, AI is seen far too little for what it is: a man-made product like any software. “People used to think that politicians should be interested in what the people they represent ‘really’ wanted. Social media would have been a good way to find out, after all. Instead, it now turns out that social media can get people to have new things they want. Some politicians are using that, others are surprised that it’s true.”
Joanna Bryson sees the task of political scientists to observe this development – and also to keep an eye on its ethical consequences. “I would never say that politics is co-determined by machines, I never use machines as an actor, but what we can do is altered by the digital revolution, so therefore, of course, politics & governance is,” she says.
She sees the planned AI regulation at the EU level as a way to iron out the problems that exist here. “Even if I wouldn’t sign off one hundred percent on the content so far – I think it’s great that this process exists,” she says. What’s most important to her is that governments around the world take a different approach to companies like Google, Apple and Facebook: “These companies have become so big, so comfortable, almost mythical. We need to think about governing them through innovative institutions.”
For almost two years now, Joanna Bryson has been teaching as Professor of Ethics and Technology at the private Hertie School of Governance in Berlin. In addition to research and teaching, press interviews are also part of the professor’s everyday work. She likes to conduct them on one of the five technical devices she owns: “I have a desktop in my office and at home, a laptop, an iPad, and a smartphone. Unlike a lot of people, I still make sure I have my files on one of my devices, not just on clouds, and also backed up on multiple disks I have. I do still use a lot of Google services, though, because I think they get cybersecurity correct.” She also doesn’t receive her emails on her smartphone “It’s for work/life balance. I wouldn’t deal with them really on the small screen anyway,” she says. “And I don’t like having a plug in my headphones to navigate either. Instead, I prefer to look at a map, then start walking – and then just get lost sometimes.” Janna Degener-Storr
After giving you a digital policy outlook for the coming months yesterday, today it’s the turn of European climate policy. 2022 is supposed to be the year in which the EU’s ambitious goals are implemented. But there are complicated negotiations ahead in the parliamentary committees and in the trialogues. In addition, the EU Commission also wants to launch further Green Deal projects.
The proposal for a European CO2 border adjustment has already left the starting block and cleared another hurdle yesterday. Mohammed Chahim is a Dutch MEP and the Parliament’s rapporteur for the planned CBAM. On Wednesday, the social democrat presented his draft report and calls for significant changes in it. For example, the allocation of free emission allowances is to expire considerably earlier than proposed by the Commission. The scope of the CBAM would also have to be extended. Timo Landenberger has summarized the demands.
It is small, even in its own opinion. Yet it is responsible for some of the really big data processors: the Irish data protection regulator DPC. Now, EU Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders has responded to a letter from several female EU parliamentarians and provisionally ruled out infringement proceedings against Ireland. Falk Steiner reports on why this is far from the end of the dispute, however.
28 years of forging European compromises – this is the experience that Franco-German Evelyne Gebhardt will be able to look back on in just under a month’s time when she steps down from her mandate as an MEP. She told Jasmin Kohl how the 67-year-old social democrat defied political low blows, remained true to her own style, and dispelled the cliché that women don’t know how to handle technology. Her wish for the traffic light coalition: to see European policy less as a policy against each other and more as a policy with each other.
The declared goal is to adopt the bulk of the Fit for 55 package this year. As soon as the positions of the Parliament and Council are available, the trialogue negotiations are to begin seamlessly. However, delays are already to be expected – especially in parts of the package that are sure to cause a heated debate.
ETS reform and expansion
The proposals for ETS reform have been on the table since July 2021. The number of emission allowances is to be reduced, free allocations for the industry are to be gradually reduced and finally eliminated altogether. In addition, a new ETS is to be created for the buildings and transport sectors – but so far without maritime shipping. On January 14, rapporteur Peter Liese (EPP) plans to present his draft report. The report is to be agreed upon with the shadow rapporteurs by the end of April and adopted in the ENVI Committee on May 16. Finally, the plenum is to vote in June.
Recently, calls had grown louder for the ETS to be more tightly regulated in the future. In the fall last year, Liese had not yet decided whether he would include stricter supervision in his report.
Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
In parallel with the gradual reduction of free emission rights, the EU plans to introduce a border adjustment mechanism. This is intended to continue to guarantee protection against carbon leakage in compliance with WTO regulations. However, this climate tariff is controversial. The economy fears that it will not be sufficient to protect against carbon leakage, as imports from other EU countries are just as exempt as exports from European companies.
Yesterday, the draft report of Dutch social democrat Mohammed Chahim (S&D) became public (see today’s news section). Now, the negotiations with the shadow rapporteurs begin.
Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Regulation (AFIR)
Emissions are also to be reduced in the transport sector. For this to succeed, the infrastructure for lower-emission transport must first be created. To this end, the Commission proposed a new regulation in July 2021.
The expansion of the charging infrastructure for low-emission vehicles, ships, and aircraft will be dealt with as the lead item in the TRAN Committee. The German rapporteur Ismail Ertug (S&D) wants to present an initial draft report at the end of February, followed by a vote by the committee members in mid-May and a plenary vote in July. If the Council is also ready by then, the trilogue could then begin.
For passenger cars, the Commission proposes, among other things, national fleet-based expansion targets. Total power of at least 1 kW per EV is to be provided by publicly accessible charging stations, and at least 0.66 kW for each plug-in hybrid vehicle. For commercial vehicles, there are distance-based targets. Ships and aircraft are to be supplied with green electricity on land and on the ground, respectively, in the future.
Tightening of CO2 fleet limits
In the summer, the Commission proposed new CO2 limits for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles to curb the still rising greenhouse gas emissions in road traffic. From 2025, emissions from the new car fleet would have to be 15 percent lower than in the comparison year 2021. In 2030, the figure would have to be 55 percent lower for passenger cars and 50 percent lower for light commercial vehicles. From 2035, only zero-emission vehicles would be allowed to be registered. Renew rapporteur Jan Huitema proposed higher interim targets in his first draft report and immediately drew criticism from shadow rapporteurs (Europe.Table reported).
Work on a compromise is underway. On January 12, the draft report will be discussed in the ENVI Committee and the vote will follow in May. The report will then be submitted to the plenary for a vote.
Conservation Package (Scheduled for March 23)
As part of the biodiversity strategy and the farm-to-fork strategy, the EU Commission intends to present a proposal for stricter rules on the use of pesticides as early as the first quarter of the new year. By 2030, the risk and use of chemical pesticides and so-called “more hazardous pesticides” are to be reduced by 50 percent in each case.
In addition, binding targets for the restoration of damaged ecosystems in Europe are to be presented in the nature conservation package. These were originally announced for the end of 2021, but were postponed. Ecosystems with the potential to store CO2, to prevent natural disasters, and safeguard biodiversity are to be the focus of particular attention.
Circular Economy Package 1 (Scheduled for March 30)
The Commission also wants to make consumer goods more sustainable. Products and their individual parts are to be reusable or recyclable. The first part of the circular economy package will primarily present proposals for more durable and environmentally friendly products. The initiative for sustainable products is intended to revise the Ecodesign Directive, which lays down rules for the design of mainly electronic devices. This should make it easier to remove individual parts, repair them or dispose of them properly.
In addition, a newly proposed regulation will establish clearer criteria under which products or manufacturers declare their environmental footprint. A strategy for sustainable textiles is also planned for Circular Economy Package 1.
Emission and pollutant package (Scheduled for 05 April)
Industry and transport are among the sectors that are most difficult to decarbonize. With a proposal to revise the Industrial Emissions Directive, the Commission aims to encourage plant operators to use environmentally friendly technologies. This includes updating the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR). In addition, EU regulations on fluorinated greenhouse gases (industrial off-gases) are to be reviewed in order to further curb industrial emissions.
The EU Commission wants to reduce traffic emissions by introducing a new euro standard for passenger cars and commercial vehicles. Initial proposals for a new standard have already led to heated discussions between the automotive industry and environmentalists.
International Energy Engagement Strategy (Scheduled for April 27)
The EU Commission does not want to limit the energy turnaround to Europe alone and plans to work globally for more energy efficiency, for safe and sustainable technologies. The aim is to replace the generation of electricity from fossil fuels in favor of renewable energies worldwide. The blueprint for the strategy could be the energy partnership with South Africa, which the EU concluded together with the governments of France, the UK, the USA, and Germany at the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow.
Circular Economy Package 2 (Scheduled for July 20)
The second part of the package is about avoiding plastic and packaging waste. A legislative framework for bio-based, biodegradable, and compostable plastics and a revision of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive are to be presented in July 2022. In addition, the Wastewater Directive will be reviewed after the Commission publishes an impact assessment on the current regime. The review will focus in particular on identifying potential improvements to reduce water waste in cities.
SPD politician Evelyne Gebhardt is a member of the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) and Vice-Chair of the Delegation for Parliamentary Relations with the People’s Republic of China. Her Franco-German perspective helped her decisively in forging compromises. She is committed to a social single market with strong consumer protection, as well as gender equality. Most recently, the 67-year-old fought for a strong parliamentary position on the Digital Markets Act (DMA) as shadow rapporteur.
Ms. Gebhardt, you are giving up your parliamentary mandate in the middle of the legislative period to make way for younger people. How difficult was this decision for you?
It’s already hard for me to leave because my work is very exciting. I have always felt very honored and very lucky to have been able to do this work. Almost every day I had the impression that I could shape and advance something. So, on the one hand, I’m wistful, but on the other hand, I’m also glad that I’ve made this decision now because I know it has to be made at some point.
You first ran for MEP in 1994 to take action against social and societal ills. What means did you use to fight for your goals?
Even before I became a member of the European Parliament, I wanted to show that politics can also be done differently and can be successful. So not with rumbling or shouting, which was common in the 70s. That’s just not my nature. There are many other ways to assert yourself: through strategy, good thinking, and empathy. These are my means. And I have proven that, otherwise I would not have been able to exercise my mandate for so long and look back on many successes.
When you moved into the European Parliament, women were still heavily underrepresented there. How did you come to feel that?
A lot has changed for me as a woman over the years. When I was brand new in Parliament, they wanted to put me in the Women’s Committee right away because I had already worked on women’s issues before. But I always said: Us women also have to go to the “tough committees” – that’s why I went to the Legal Affairs Committee and the Environment Committee.
In what situations have you noticed that your gender matters when it really shouldn’t?
The most formative example was the time when I was a rapporteur for the Services Directive. My father died during the hot phase of negotiations (2004/2005), and of course, I went to his funeral. So I had to postpone a meeting. At the funeral, I then got a call from someone in my group who told me, “Evelyne, you have to come back to Brussels as soon as possible.”
It turned out that the Liberal shadow rapporteur wanted to deny me the ability to do my job as a rapporteur: he said that I was emotionally incapable of continuing the negotiations because of the death of my father. If I were a man, no one would have thought of such an idea. That is an example from the past, but there are still situations like that today.
Which ones, for example?
During the negotiations on the Digital Markets Act, I noticed how one or two colleagues thought they had to help me now – even from my group. That really bothered me. On the one hand, there’s the cliché that women don’t know how to use technology. But I’ve always been very tech-savvy. And on the other hand, we women are still denied the ability to assert ourselves. They don’t say that openly, but I still feel it subliminally. I’m always annoyed about that.
You were born in France and emigrated to Germany in 1975. Did that help you find compromises in parliament?
The fact that I have the experience of two states, two cultures, and two traditions has of course helped me a lot in the European context. I know that there is a different culture in each member state and that you have to take that into account if you want to be successful in the European Parliament.
Can you give a specific example?
About 15 years ago, German and French colleagues from the S&D Group set out to write a joint paper on foreign and defense policy. The paper read really well, but I wasn’t sure we could agree on it. This was because there are different philosophies behind “defense policy” in Germany and France: in Germany, it’s about defending one’s own state; in France, it’s understood to be a very extensive policy that includes war missions abroad. There was then a long discussion, which unfortunately led to the paper ending up in the wastebasket. That was hard on those who worked on it, but I couldn’t just sit still. It was an important issue where you couldn’t just pretend that we had reached an agreement.
What will you miss most about your work as an MEP?
I will miss the forging of compromises – the negotiations, the deliberations, the strategies that have to be developed. But also the direct confrontation with the ideas of the other groups. That’s very productive work: you have an idea, you know the others want something completely different, and you try to make the best of it. In the end, you always find a solution, I like that. You never get 100 percent, but if I get 80 percent, I’m also satisfied.
Your successor is 42-year-old René Repasi. He will play an important role in the trilogue as DMA shadow rapporteur. What advice do you have for him?
Everyone has their own way of working and I respect that far too much to start telling him what to do or not do now. We’ve already had many conversations and he knows he can call me if he needs advice.
As shadow rapporteur for the DMA, you fought hard for interoperability and were able to prevail against the EPP rapporteur Andreas Schwab on this point. Do you fear that these successes will be watered down in the trilogue?
I will probably be able to take part in two or three more trilogues. The French Council Presidency wants to conclude the negotiations in April. Fortunately, René Repasi is also taking over my staff, who have the necessary expertise. I am sure he will also keep an eye on the rapporteur. Because I know that Mr. Schwab had to swallow a toad or two that I put in his soup (laughs).
As an MEP, you have dealt with many digital issues, with a focus on consumer protection and the regulation of artificial intelligence. Is the EU on the right track there?
There are still a lot of unanswered questions. I am glad that the European Commission has announced the Media Freedom Act in addition to the Digital Services Act to tackle problems like hate speech across Europe. I am sure that we will work hand in hand on these issues in Europe and in the German government. I would like to see very uniform action on this. After all, it’s not just a question of how to deal with the rights of consumers, but also of the direction in which our society should develop.
The new German government is raising many hopes in terms of European policy. What specific changes do you expect to see in Germany’s position?
I was very pleased that the coalition agreement included the option of treaty changes. These are absolutely necessary in the European Union in order to pursue the integration and deepening of the European idea and also to create a more social Europe. It is about strengthening the rights of the European Parliament: Parliament should decide who becomes Commission President and not the heads of government behind closed doors. Because in case of doubt, they simply choose a person who creates the least problems for them. The right of initiative for Parliament and the abandonment of the principle of unanimity in the Council are also in the coalition agreement. These issues need to be widely discussed, and if I can make a contribution to this in the future, I will of course be happy to do so.
What else would you like to see from the traffic light coalition with regard to European policy?
European policy should be understood less as a policy against each other and more as a policy with each other. It is shared sovereignty: If we transfer decision-making levels to the European level, it does not mean that the nation-states no longer have sovereignty in this area, but that they share sovereignty. That’s how it has to be presented. I hope that people won’t say, as they did in the past, “We have achieved something in Europe, against the others,” but rather, “It was difficult, but we have agreed on something in common.” That is a different language, which then also creates a different perception of European policy among the population. One must not forget: In every decision – whether it goes down well or badly – national politics is involved. It won’t work without them.
“The interview must be held in English,” the assistant had already made clear in advance. Joanna Bryson puts it differently: “You can speak in German. But I won’t understand it.” And she laughs. She laughs more at all than one would expect from a professor at a university in Germany – and mostly at herself. She said she tried to learn German at university and is currently taking a language course at the Goethe Institute. But the 56-year-old says she has always been a failure at foreign languages.
Instead of articles and verb conjugations, the professor at the Hertie School in Berlin prefers to work on artificial intelligence and the question of how companies can be protected by technology. Incidentally, she only ended up in Europe because she didn’t know what subject to choose for her postgraduate degree after completing her bachelor’s in behavioral science. “I figured I would definitely learn something abroad,” she says.
At university in Edinburgh, Scotland, there was already an artificial intelligence department at the time that worked in a truly interdisciplinary way: “There was linguistics, neuroscience, logic, philosophy, music, everything!” In addition to a master’s degree in artificial intelligence, she also earned one in psychology. Then, after earning her Ph.D. in Massachusetts and failing to find a job back home during the dot.com crisis, she returned to Europe: “In the US, I applied to seven jobs, had one interview and no offer. In the UK, I applied for two jobs and got five offers,” the professor recalls.
It was only then that Joanna Bryson began to really take an interest in this continent and the politics here. “The British seemed oddly unaware of the fact the EU offered a lot of opportunities which I only learnt about after I arrived,” says the US native, who has had British citizenship since 2007 and now lives in Berlin. At the time, she says, many people thought investing in AI was a way to make a lot of money. What people forgot was that “you can never have cybersecurity without AI, and you can never trust AI without cybersecurity,” Bryson says.
Internationally, AI is seen far too little for what it is: a man-made product like any software. “People used to think that politicians should be interested in what the people they represent ‘really’ wanted. Social media would have been a good way to find out, after all. Instead, it now turns out that social media can get people to have new things they want. Some politicians are using that, others are surprised that it’s true.”
Joanna Bryson sees the task of political scientists to observe this development – and also to keep an eye on its ethical consequences. “I would never say that politics is co-determined by machines, I never use machines as an actor, but what we can do is altered by the digital revolution, so therefore, of course, politics & governance is,” she says.
She sees the planned AI regulation at the EU level as a way to iron out the problems that exist here. “Even if I wouldn’t sign off one hundred percent on the content so far – I think it’s great that this process exists,” she says. What’s most important to her is that governments around the world take a different approach to companies like Google, Apple and Facebook: “These companies have become so big, so comfortable, almost mythical. We need to think about governing them through innovative institutions.”
For almost two years now, Joanna Bryson has been teaching as Professor of Ethics and Technology at the private Hertie School of Governance in Berlin. In addition to research and teaching, press interviews are also part of the professor’s everyday work. She likes to conduct them on one of the five technical devices she owns: “I have a desktop in my office and at home, a laptop, an iPad, and a smartphone. Unlike a lot of people, I still make sure I have my files on one of my devices, not just on clouds, and also backed up on multiple disks I have. I do still use a lot of Google services, though, because I think they get cybersecurity correct.” She also doesn’t receive her emails on her smartphone “It’s for work/life balance. I wouldn’t deal with them really on the small screen anyway,” she says. “And I don’t like having a plug in my headphones to navigate either. Instead, I prefer to look at a map, then start walking – and then just get lost sometimes.” Janna Degener-Storr
