There are still significant disagreements, but at another extraordinary meeting on Nov. 24, the EU energy ministers intend to adopt emergency measures for the energy markets. At their meeting in Luxembourg yesterday, they agreed on a general approach to the Buildings Directive (EPBD) – a Council majority ensured that the Commission’s proposal was significantly weakened. Manuel Berkel summarizes the meeting’s most important results.
Expectations are high: More than thirty different EU regulations, directives, strategies, and action plans affect the forest. Depending on orientation, they are considered a source of energy, a supplier of raw materials, a carbon reservoir, or a habitat for countless species. However, experts from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research say that forests cannot accomplish everything at once. Timo Landenberger has the details.
By the way: Tomorrow, our colleagues from Climate.Table will launch their first issue. The seven-member editorial team with an international network of correspondents is headed by Bernhard Pötter, one of Germany’s most renowned climate experts and a long-time observer of the global climate scene. He worked for “Taz,” “Spiegel,” “Zeit” and “Le Monde diplomatique,” among others.
Climate.Table analyzes the climate policies of other countries and the EU, the full breadth of the international climate debate, the importance of technological breakthroughs for decarbonization, and the UN climate negotiations. It also includes the most important scientific studies, industry events, and a carefully curated international press review. The editorial team will report daily on the COP 27 climate conference. You can test the service free of charge here.
Yesterday in Luxembourg, the energy ministers set a timetable for further measures to ensure permanently low electricity and gas prices. Luxembourg’s Head of Department Claude Turmes said, the EU, in cooperation with the International Energy Agency (IEA), is preparing a ministerial meeting on joint gas purchasing early next year. The US, Japan, South Korea, and Norway should also participate. Among friends, they want to try to prevent further rising prices for liquefied natural gas (LNG).
As early as Nov. 24, there will be another extraordinary meeting of the EU energy ministers. The emergency measures for energy markets should be adopted at this meeting, said Czech Council President Jozef Síkela yesterday. However, there are still significant disagreements between the member states and in the relationship with the Commission.
A few hours before the meeting, the authority sent an initial five-page impact assessment on the Iberian gas price cap to the member states. If they actually wanted to subsidize gas for power generation, this would boost gas consumption by five to nine billion cubic meters – mainly through exports to Switzerland and the UK, the Commission warns.
However, the Commission did not comply with a Council majority’s wish for a concrete solution. Instead, Energy Commissioner Kadri Simson threw the ball back to the member states. It is now up to them to find solutions, she said at the end of the press conference. In addition to exports of subsidized electricity to third countries, the main issue is cost sharing between the member states. According to the Commission paper, the biggest beneficiary would otherwise be the electricity importer France, while Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands would have to pay the most.
Instead, the Commission proposes a longer-term model that experts, like IHS analyst Coralie Laurencin, interpret as splitting the electricity market into two segments for renewables and flexible generators. In addition to renewables, the Commission proposal calls for other infra-marginal generation technologies, such as nuclear, to be remunerated through contracts for differences. The Commission even hints at pushing existing power plants into this mechanism. In the second segment, storage and load management should be able to compete more easily with gas-fired power plants for flexible energy supply.
In fact, however, the Commission would force flexibilities out of the market if wind and power farms no longer have to align their generation with supply and demand, warns Christoph Maurer, Managing Director of the consulting firm Consentec.
On the other hand, Síkela insisted that the Council still expects a concrete proposal on the Iberian model and a detailed impact assessment. Some member states were also pushing for further aid for the industry. The Temporary Crisis Framework should not only be extended but provide more leeway to the states. At present, for example, only aid for operating costs is possible.
The recent drastic drop in gas prices also led to discussions. There were fears that efforts to market intervention could be weakened, said Síkela. His Luxembourg colleague Turmes even said before the summit that he wondered whether a gas price minimum should be discussed in the meantime. Otherwise, the industry could systematically consume more gas.
Federal Economics Minister Robert Habeck spoke of a veritable price crash even for the month ahead, which must now be sustained. He was able to report minor progress following talks with his French counterpart Agnès Pannier-Runacher. The solidarity agreement on mutual gas supply should be concluded as quickly as possible. It was actually to be announced at the Franco-German summit, but this was postponed due to disagreements. The BarMar gas pipeline between Spain and France should also be connected to Germany. In the near future, a working group will be set up for this purpose.
The Council also discussed the December gas market package and adopted a general approach to the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD). Friday’s draft was adopted with minimal changes.
A majority in the Council has significantly weakened the Commission’s proposal. There will now be no more stringent renovation obligations for each individual existing residential building, criticized Elisabeth Staudt of Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH). Instead, the member states want to achieve higher efficiency classes only for the average of the entire stock. This would remove the focus on buildings with the highest energy consumption, which was supposed to be the great innovation of the buildings directive.
For non-residential buildings such as offices, the Council wants to postpone the targets by at least three years. The Coalition for Energy Savings criticized that the member states also rejected uniform requirements for building certificates and zero-emission buildings.
On Nov. 29, the ITRE Committee of the Parliament is to decide on its position; the plenum will probably not follow until next year. The positions in the trilogues are likely to be extremely far apart. The Irish rapporteur Ciarán Cuffe (Greens) presented an ambitious draft report. Yesterday, Germany joined France, Ireland, and the Benelux countries in calling for higher standards.
Yesterday, the very industry that is supposed to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the building directive put on the brakes. “From the point of view of the skilled trades, there are considerable disadvantages in business practice if politicians set overly ambitious efficiency standards,” said Holger Schwannecke, Secretary General of the German Confederation of Skilled Crafts (ZDH). “Municipalities and private developers could postpone investments and delay refurbishment projects if standards are too high, which would be associated with negative consequences for our skilled crafts businesses, particularly in the construction and finishing sectors.”
Looking ahead to the trilogue, Schwannecke said, “In an increasingly threatening mix of material shortages, rising interest rates, high inflation, and interrupted supply chains for our businesses, it is more important than ever to strike a balance between economic feasibility and climate policy necessity. We urge the EU Parliament to be open to these arguments in the upcoming negotiations.”
More than thirty different EU regulations, directives, strategies, and action plans affect forests. Among them are the Renewable Energy Directive (RED III), the regulation on land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), and the Biodiversity Strategy.
After all, solutions against energy shortages urgently need to be found, in the fight against climate change and species extinction – and the forest always plays a central role: as a source of energy, as a supplier of raw materials, as a carbon reservoir and as a habitat for countless species.
But how can forests fulfill all these tasks at the same time? And this is against the backdrop of increasing extreme weather events and pests that are taking an enormous toll on Europe’s forests. The answer to that question is “not at all.”
“The policy areas are not coherent. Forests can’t possibly deliver everything that one extreme and the other extreme demand,” says MEP Ulrike Müller (Renew), rapporteur for the EU Forest Strategy.
With the amendment of the LULUCF Regulation, the storage power of natural greenhouse gas sinks such as forests, soils, and peatlands should be strengthened and made binding to at least 310 million tons of carbon equivalents by 2030. This is the position of the EU Parliament, which is in line with the Commission’s proposal. Trilogue negotiations are currently underway and there is talk in Brussels of a possible increase in the ambition level. Environmentalists had already called in advance for a target of up to 600 million metric tons, combined with extensive protection and renaturation measures.
Natural carbon capture from the atmosphere is indispensable for achieving climate targets. Most experts agree on this. However, agriculture, arable farming, and peatlands emit more than they store; separate sub-targets are not provided for in the regulation. So the main burden, at least in the medium term, lies on the forest.
But forests are also coming under increasing pressure. The sink capacity of the sector as a whole has fallen significantly in recent years from over 300 to around 250 million metric tons and continues to decline. Currently, forests and wood products offset about ten percent of EU-wide emissions, according to a literature study by the European Forest Institute (EFI). The paper analyzes the potential of forests and wood use for climate and environmental protection.
“The contribution of forests is not simply given and does not correspond to the sum of all potentials of wood use, energy, and carbon storage,” according to Christopher Reyer, co-author of the study and forestry expert at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). “There are conflicting goals. We tried to present that in packages and combined them with possible measures such as reforestation or expansion of protected areas.” The result: There was no combination that would achieve the LULUCF goals, Reyer said.
Especially since the substitution effect of wood as a building material, a source of energy, and a substitute for plastic or textile fibers is disregarded in the regulation, says Nathalie Hufnagl-Jovy of the forest owners’ association AGDW. In doing so, emissions could be avoided elsewhere. “Instead, the regulation focuses only on how much carbon a forest can swallow, and active forestry is completely ignored. The target of 310 million metric tons of sink would therefore mean that we don’t touch forests from now on.”
At the same time, forests cannot absorb an infinite amount of carbon. Rather, there is a decreasing saturation curve. In other words, a young growing forest can bind a lot of greenhouse gas. This will eventually decrease and may even reverse if damaged wood remains in the forest and carbon is released again through the decomposition process.
Active forestry, therefore, makes more sense from a climatic point of view. Especially since the byproduct is energy wood because the tree tops could hardly be used in any other way, explains Hufnagl-Jovy. The European Commission is also relying on this in its RePowerEU plan, which is intended to drive forward the diversification of energy supplies and thus independence from Russian gas.
The plan envisages a further significant increase in the target for the share of renewable energies in 2030 – to 45 percent. By far the most important renewable energy source: biomass. It accounts for about two-thirds across the EU, more than wind and solar energy combined, and is mainly derived from wood, along with agricultural products
In mid-September, the European Parliament voted on its position on the revision of the Renewable Energy Directive and agreed to severely restrict the eligibility of biomass from forestry. This is paradoxical, Hufnagl-Jovy criticizes.
For environmentalists, however, the restrictions do not go far enough. They want to prevent trees from being cut down solely for energy use. After all, it’s not just about the climate, but also about preserving biodiversity, says MEP César Luena (S&D), rapporteur for the EU biodiversity strategy. “Eighty percent of species on land live in forests. But only 15 percent of forests are in good ecological condition. We demand that nature be restored to forests,” the Spaniard said.
The strategy calls for 30 percent of Europe’s land to be protected, with 10 percent under “strict” protection. “The approach is based on the assumption that there is basically more biodiversity in unmanaged areas than in managed ones. But that’s not true,” Hufnagl-Jovy counters. “In the past 50 years, no forest-relevant species has been lost in Germany.”
According to a study by the Thünen Institute, the strategy would lead to a significant decrease in timber production, but not to a decrease in high demand in the domestic market. That, in turn, would result in increased production in third countries, often under significantly lower environmental standards. “If less timber is harvested in European forests to protect biodiversity, this will lead to displacements in a global perspective, which may have negative environmental impacts,” according to the paper.
Meanwhile, the EU Commission remains convinced of a solution. Multifunctional forests that provide sufficient logging, as well as carbon sinks and habitats for biodiversity, are possible, says Stephanie Schmidt, a forestry expert at DG Environment. The Commission intends to present corresponding guidelines within the framework of the EU forest strategy by the end of the year.
“I soldered together my first modem when I was twelve years old,” says Klaus Landefeld cheerfully. “That was particularly unusual in 1980, the pre-Internet era.” At 16, the tinkerer turned his hobby into a profession and later studied electrical engineering. Landefeld is still an entrepreneur. But since 1997, he has also been involved in the big picture. Back then he became a board member at eco, the largest Internet industry association in Europe.
Around 1,100 companies from more than 70 countries are organized in the association. Landefeld and his colleagues are trying to organize their interests – from small digital companies to telecom giants. The goal is to improve the framework conditions for the industry in Europe. Is it difficult to speak with only one voice? “Always,” he admits, the members are very diverse. But the association’s positioning would be voted on quite democratically: “With us, it’s like every company has a voice.” No matter how big it is.
A certain frustration tolerance is part of the job. After all, as the Board member responsible for infrastructure and networks, Landefeld also monitors the expansion of fiber optics in Germany and long-running issues such as data retention. On the other hand, the 53-year-old enjoys being involved in all legislative processes from the very beginning.
He has five colleagues in his team at eco. His work depends on his network because the differences between the countries are huge. “But at some point, you know where to call to get an explanation for every question.”
He is critical of the many different regulations in Europe. One example is the issue of e-evidence, which concerns the information that providers must transfer to law enforcement agencies. Until now, the law of the requesting state applied, with rather strange consequences. “If a German prosecutor’s office inquires, providers have to say, ‘We’re not allowed to tell you that, it’s exuberant.’” If a Spanish authority inquires, handing over the same information is quite normal, he said.
Parliament and member states are still arguing about the details of an EU regulation that could change that. Landefeld believes that there are too many different standards, especially in the area of security. The issue also affects him practically: Landefeld sits on the supervisory board of the DE-CIX Internet exchange. Located in Frankfurt am Main, it is one of the largest in the world and is operated by a 100 percent subsidiary of eco. In 2015, Landefeld reported to the NSA investigative committee on how the BND tapped Internet traffic there. Paul Meerkamp
There are still significant disagreements, but at another extraordinary meeting on Nov. 24, the EU energy ministers intend to adopt emergency measures for the energy markets. At their meeting in Luxembourg yesterday, they agreed on a general approach to the Buildings Directive (EPBD) – a Council majority ensured that the Commission’s proposal was significantly weakened. Manuel Berkel summarizes the meeting’s most important results.
Expectations are high: More than thirty different EU regulations, directives, strategies, and action plans affect the forest. Depending on orientation, they are considered a source of energy, a supplier of raw materials, a carbon reservoir, or a habitat for countless species. However, experts from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research say that forests cannot accomplish everything at once. Timo Landenberger has the details.
By the way: Tomorrow, our colleagues from Climate.Table will launch their first issue. The seven-member editorial team with an international network of correspondents is headed by Bernhard Pötter, one of Germany’s most renowned climate experts and a long-time observer of the global climate scene. He worked for “Taz,” “Spiegel,” “Zeit” and “Le Monde diplomatique,” among others.
Climate.Table analyzes the climate policies of other countries and the EU, the full breadth of the international climate debate, the importance of technological breakthroughs for decarbonization, and the UN climate negotiations. It also includes the most important scientific studies, industry events, and a carefully curated international press review. The editorial team will report daily on the COP 27 climate conference. You can test the service free of charge here.
Yesterday in Luxembourg, the energy ministers set a timetable for further measures to ensure permanently low electricity and gas prices. Luxembourg’s Head of Department Claude Turmes said, the EU, in cooperation with the International Energy Agency (IEA), is preparing a ministerial meeting on joint gas purchasing early next year. The US, Japan, South Korea, and Norway should also participate. Among friends, they want to try to prevent further rising prices for liquefied natural gas (LNG).
As early as Nov. 24, there will be another extraordinary meeting of the EU energy ministers. The emergency measures for energy markets should be adopted at this meeting, said Czech Council President Jozef Síkela yesterday. However, there are still significant disagreements between the member states and in the relationship with the Commission.
A few hours before the meeting, the authority sent an initial five-page impact assessment on the Iberian gas price cap to the member states. If they actually wanted to subsidize gas for power generation, this would boost gas consumption by five to nine billion cubic meters – mainly through exports to Switzerland and the UK, the Commission warns.
However, the Commission did not comply with a Council majority’s wish for a concrete solution. Instead, Energy Commissioner Kadri Simson threw the ball back to the member states. It is now up to them to find solutions, she said at the end of the press conference. In addition to exports of subsidized electricity to third countries, the main issue is cost sharing between the member states. According to the Commission paper, the biggest beneficiary would otherwise be the electricity importer France, while Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands would have to pay the most.
Instead, the Commission proposes a longer-term model that experts, like IHS analyst Coralie Laurencin, interpret as splitting the electricity market into two segments for renewables and flexible generators. In addition to renewables, the Commission proposal calls for other infra-marginal generation technologies, such as nuclear, to be remunerated through contracts for differences. The Commission even hints at pushing existing power plants into this mechanism. In the second segment, storage and load management should be able to compete more easily with gas-fired power plants for flexible energy supply.
In fact, however, the Commission would force flexibilities out of the market if wind and power farms no longer have to align their generation with supply and demand, warns Christoph Maurer, Managing Director of the consulting firm Consentec.
On the other hand, Síkela insisted that the Council still expects a concrete proposal on the Iberian model and a detailed impact assessment. Some member states were also pushing for further aid for the industry. The Temporary Crisis Framework should not only be extended but provide more leeway to the states. At present, for example, only aid for operating costs is possible.
The recent drastic drop in gas prices also led to discussions. There were fears that efforts to market intervention could be weakened, said Síkela. His Luxembourg colleague Turmes even said before the summit that he wondered whether a gas price minimum should be discussed in the meantime. Otherwise, the industry could systematically consume more gas.
Federal Economics Minister Robert Habeck spoke of a veritable price crash even for the month ahead, which must now be sustained. He was able to report minor progress following talks with his French counterpart Agnès Pannier-Runacher. The solidarity agreement on mutual gas supply should be concluded as quickly as possible. It was actually to be announced at the Franco-German summit, but this was postponed due to disagreements. The BarMar gas pipeline between Spain and France should also be connected to Germany. In the near future, a working group will be set up for this purpose.
The Council also discussed the December gas market package and adopted a general approach to the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD). Friday’s draft was adopted with minimal changes.
A majority in the Council has significantly weakened the Commission’s proposal. There will now be no more stringent renovation obligations for each individual existing residential building, criticized Elisabeth Staudt of Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH). Instead, the member states want to achieve higher efficiency classes only for the average of the entire stock. This would remove the focus on buildings with the highest energy consumption, which was supposed to be the great innovation of the buildings directive.
For non-residential buildings such as offices, the Council wants to postpone the targets by at least three years. The Coalition for Energy Savings criticized that the member states also rejected uniform requirements for building certificates and zero-emission buildings.
On Nov. 29, the ITRE Committee of the Parliament is to decide on its position; the plenum will probably not follow until next year. The positions in the trilogues are likely to be extremely far apart. The Irish rapporteur Ciarán Cuffe (Greens) presented an ambitious draft report. Yesterday, Germany joined France, Ireland, and the Benelux countries in calling for higher standards.
Yesterday, the very industry that is supposed to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the building directive put on the brakes. “From the point of view of the skilled trades, there are considerable disadvantages in business practice if politicians set overly ambitious efficiency standards,” said Holger Schwannecke, Secretary General of the German Confederation of Skilled Crafts (ZDH). “Municipalities and private developers could postpone investments and delay refurbishment projects if standards are too high, which would be associated with negative consequences for our skilled crafts businesses, particularly in the construction and finishing sectors.”
Looking ahead to the trilogue, Schwannecke said, “In an increasingly threatening mix of material shortages, rising interest rates, high inflation, and interrupted supply chains for our businesses, it is more important than ever to strike a balance between economic feasibility and climate policy necessity. We urge the EU Parliament to be open to these arguments in the upcoming negotiations.”
More than thirty different EU regulations, directives, strategies, and action plans affect forests. Among them are the Renewable Energy Directive (RED III), the regulation on land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), and the Biodiversity Strategy.
After all, solutions against energy shortages urgently need to be found, in the fight against climate change and species extinction – and the forest always plays a central role: as a source of energy, as a supplier of raw materials, as a carbon reservoir and as a habitat for countless species.
But how can forests fulfill all these tasks at the same time? And this is against the backdrop of increasing extreme weather events and pests that are taking an enormous toll on Europe’s forests. The answer to that question is “not at all.”
“The policy areas are not coherent. Forests can’t possibly deliver everything that one extreme and the other extreme demand,” says MEP Ulrike Müller (Renew), rapporteur for the EU Forest Strategy.
With the amendment of the LULUCF Regulation, the storage power of natural greenhouse gas sinks such as forests, soils, and peatlands should be strengthened and made binding to at least 310 million tons of carbon equivalents by 2030. This is the position of the EU Parliament, which is in line with the Commission’s proposal. Trilogue negotiations are currently underway and there is talk in Brussels of a possible increase in the ambition level. Environmentalists had already called in advance for a target of up to 600 million metric tons, combined with extensive protection and renaturation measures.
Natural carbon capture from the atmosphere is indispensable for achieving climate targets. Most experts agree on this. However, agriculture, arable farming, and peatlands emit more than they store; separate sub-targets are not provided for in the regulation. So the main burden, at least in the medium term, lies on the forest.
But forests are also coming under increasing pressure. The sink capacity of the sector as a whole has fallen significantly in recent years from over 300 to around 250 million metric tons and continues to decline. Currently, forests and wood products offset about ten percent of EU-wide emissions, according to a literature study by the European Forest Institute (EFI). The paper analyzes the potential of forests and wood use for climate and environmental protection.
“The contribution of forests is not simply given and does not correspond to the sum of all potentials of wood use, energy, and carbon storage,” according to Christopher Reyer, co-author of the study and forestry expert at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). “There are conflicting goals. We tried to present that in packages and combined them with possible measures such as reforestation or expansion of protected areas.” The result: There was no combination that would achieve the LULUCF goals, Reyer said.
Especially since the substitution effect of wood as a building material, a source of energy, and a substitute for plastic or textile fibers is disregarded in the regulation, says Nathalie Hufnagl-Jovy of the forest owners’ association AGDW. In doing so, emissions could be avoided elsewhere. “Instead, the regulation focuses only on how much carbon a forest can swallow, and active forestry is completely ignored. The target of 310 million metric tons of sink would therefore mean that we don’t touch forests from now on.”
At the same time, forests cannot absorb an infinite amount of carbon. Rather, there is a decreasing saturation curve. In other words, a young growing forest can bind a lot of greenhouse gas. This will eventually decrease and may even reverse if damaged wood remains in the forest and carbon is released again through the decomposition process.
Active forestry, therefore, makes more sense from a climatic point of view. Especially since the byproduct is energy wood because the tree tops could hardly be used in any other way, explains Hufnagl-Jovy. The European Commission is also relying on this in its RePowerEU plan, which is intended to drive forward the diversification of energy supplies and thus independence from Russian gas.
The plan envisages a further significant increase in the target for the share of renewable energies in 2030 – to 45 percent. By far the most important renewable energy source: biomass. It accounts for about two-thirds across the EU, more than wind and solar energy combined, and is mainly derived from wood, along with agricultural products
In mid-September, the European Parliament voted on its position on the revision of the Renewable Energy Directive and agreed to severely restrict the eligibility of biomass from forestry. This is paradoxical, Hufnagl-Jovy criticizes.
For environmentalists, however, the restrictions do not go far enough. They want to prevent trees from being cut down solely for energy use. After all, it’s not just about the climate, but also about preserving biodiversity, says MEP César Luena (S&D), rapporteur for the EU biodiversity strategy. “Eighty percent of species on land live in forests. But only 15 percent of forests are in good ecological condition. We demand that nature be restored to forests,” the Spaniard said.
The strategy calls for 30 percent of Europe’s land to be protected, with 10 percent under “strict” protection. “The approach is based on the assumption that there is basically more biodiversity in unmanaged areas than in managed ones. But that’s not true,” Hufnagl-Jovy counters. “In the past 50 years, no forest-relevant species has been lost in Germany.”
According to a study by the Thünen Institute, the strategy would lead to a significant decrease in timber production, but not to a decrease in high demand in the domestic market. That, in turn, would result in increased production in third countries, often under significantly lower environmental standards. “If less timber is harvested in European forests to protect biodiversity, this will lead to displacements in a global perspective, which may have negative environmental impacts,” according to the paper.
Meanwhile, the EU Commission remains convinced of a solution. Multifunctional forests that provide sufficient logging, as well as carbon sinks and habitats for biodiversity, are possible, says Stephanie Schmidt, a forestry expert at DG Environment. The Commission intends to present corresponding guidelines within the framework of the EU forest strategy by the end of the year.
“I soldered together my first modem when I was twelve years old,” says Klaus Landefeld cheerfully. “That was particularly unusual in 1980, the pre-Internet era.” At 16, the tinkerer turned his hobby into a profession and later studied electrical engineering. Landefeld is still an entrepreneur. But since 1997, he has also been involved in the big picture. Back then he became a board member at eco, the largest Internet industry association in Europe.
Around 1,100 companies from more than 70 countries are organized in the association. Landefeld and his colleagues are trying to organize their interests – from small digital companies to telecom giants. The goal is to improve the framework conditions for the industry in Europe. Is it difficult to speak with only one voice? “Always,” he admits, the members are very diverse. But the association’s positioning would be voted on quite democratically: “With us, it’s like every company has a voice.” No matter how big it is.
A certain frustration tolerance is part of the job. After all, as the Board member responsible for infrastructure and networks, Landefeld also monitors the expansion of fiber optics in Germany and long-running issues such as data retention. On the other hand, the 53-year-old enjoys being involved in all legislative processes from the very beginning.
He has five colleagues in his team at eco. His work depends on his network because the differences between the countries are huge. “But at some point, you know where to call to get an explanation for every question.”
He is critical of the many different regulations in Europe. One example is the issue of e-evidence, which concerns the information that providers must transfer to law enforcement agencies. Until now, the law of the requesting state applied, with rather strange consequences. “If a German prosecutor’s office inquires, providers have to say, ‘We’re not allowed to tell you that, it’s exuberant.’” If a Spanish authority inquires, handing over the same information is quite normal, he said.
Parliament and member states are still arguing about the details of an EU regulation that could change that. Landefeld believes that there are too many different standards, especially in the area of security. The issue also affects him practically: Landefeld sits on the supervisory board of the DE-CIX Internet exchange. Located in Frankfurt am Main, it is one of the largest in the world and is operated by a 100 percent subsidiary of eco. In 2015, Landefeld reported to the NSA investigative committee on how the BND tapped Internet traffic there. Paul Meerkamp
