Europe’s goal of emitting no more CO2 than can be stored by 2050 is to be achieved, among other things, by increasing the CO2 storage capacity of agricultural soils. Hopes for carbon farming are high – probably even too high. Timo Landenberger shows why the potential of natural CO2 storage methods may be overestimated and could ultimately do a disservice to the EU’s climate neutrality target.
To become climate-neutral, CO2 emissions from the transport sector must also be reduced. While the end of the combustion engine in passenger cars is in all likelihood sealed, it could still be used in trucks in the long term. The Commission will present its proposal for CO2 fleet limits for trucks today. Read more in the News.
The coalition government wants to amend the Federal Mining Act before the end of this legislative period. A project that could also contribute to the EU Critical Raw Materials Act, which the Commission intends to present at the beginning of March. But opinions differ as to how great the need for action really is for Germany as a mining location, as Leonie Düngefeld analyzes.
In today’s Heads, we would like to introduce Tanja Baerman. She is the bridge between Brussels EU politics and Bremen state politics and a convinced European.
If you like Europe.Table, please forward us. If this mail was sent to you: Here you can test our briefing for free.
The EU wants to become climate-neutral by 2050. This means that no more greenhouse gases may be emitted than are stored. But there will still be emissions beyond 2050 – especially in agriculture, but also in some industrial sectors or in transport. Without the systematic capture and storage of CO2 from the atmosphere, therefore, the target cannot be achieved.
Currently, around 250 million metric tons of CO2 are stored in the EU – mainly in forests. The total is expected to grow to 310 million by 2030, according to the LULUCF target. “But that’s nothing compared to what we need to achieve by 2050,” says Christian Holzleiter of the EU Commission’s Directorate-General for Climate. “We expect up to 500 million tons of residual emissions. So we need to double the sink rate, and that’s a Herculean task.”
However, the natural storage capacity of forests is continuously decreasing due to droughts, extreme weather, pests and the growing demand for wood. And technical solutions (Carbon Capture and Storage, CCS) are far too expensive, far from ready for the market and thus far from actual widespread use.
The Brussels authority is therefore focusing on the potential of carbon farming. The CO2 storage capacity of agricultural soils is to be significantly increased, mainly by building up more humus. For example, through intercropping, but also the use of special machinery when sowing, which preserves the structure of the soil and increases CO2 storage by the root system over the years. Positive side effects according to the Commission: strengthening of biodiversity, improvement of soil fertility and water balance.
Carbon farming is a key to climate neutrality in food production, says Joachim Rukwied, president of the German Farmers’ Association. “We farmers are highly prepared to farm in the interests of climate protection, soil fertility and adaptation to climate change.”
The whole thing is to be financed through certificate trading. A voluntary global market for this has long existed because CO2 compensation and climate-neutral products are in vogue. The business is flourishing in the USA in particular, but there is practically no political framework. Ben Lilliston of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) speaks of a “veritable Wild West practice” in the allocation of funds.
To avoid this and to be able to quantify and monitor CO2 emissions in the EU, the Commission has launched a legal framework for certification. Norbert Lins (EPP), Chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the EU Parliament, welcomes the initiative. “This will be a good incentive for agriculture to achieve more carbon sequestration,” says the MEP, who speaks of a “good additional business model.”
According to the Commission’s proposal, certification is generally eligible if four quality guidelines are met:
“We are still at the very beginning. A lot of research is still needed to understand how exactly storage works in different soils in different regions using different methods,” Holzleiter says. “And most importantly, we need tools for monitoring.” The Commission’s proposal, he says, is just the first step on the road to a comprehensive legislative package on CO2 removal.
Further steps will follow in March with the presentation of the “Green Claims Directive” on the environmental compatibility of products, as well as in the summer with a delegated act that will define the criteria according to which a company can claim CO2 neutrality in its reporting.
“And for our 2040 targets at the latest, we need to define how much CO2 storage we want to incentivize and how exactly,” Holzleiter said. In addition, the system must be brought into line with the existing Emissions Trading System (ETS).
Axel Don of the Thünen Institute for Agricultural Climate Protection warns against overestimating the potential of carbon farming. In Germany, for example, a maximum of six million metric tons of additional CO2 storage in agricultural soils is realistic through the application of appropriate methods. This compares with more than 100 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions attributed to agriculture, the scientist said. The situation is similar in other countries, he said. “We are working with many partners across Europe, and initial results show that carbon farming cannot offset more than ten percent of the EU’s agricultural emissions,” said Don.
In addition, the danger of greenwashing is high. It is very easy, for example, to significantly increase CO2 storage in a particular field by concentrating the use of organic fertilizers, while it decreases elsewhere, Don explains. Through this, carbon is merely shifted and a reduction is accounted for, which in fact does not exist.
In addition, as a result of harmful management, arable soils in the EU are increasingly moving from greenhouse gas reservoirs to emitters. For this reason, more sustainable methods, including carbon enrichment, are indeed essential. However, even if the full potential of carbon farming were exploited, this would at best offset the negative trend.
Conversely, this means: If this CO2 storage is certified and thus accounted for, it could be incorrectly counted as negative emissions toward climate targets when in fact, it merely serves to avoid higher greenhouse gas emissions.
Added to this is sustainability, which is difficult to guarantee. After all, the certified amount of CO2 should be sequestered not just for ten or 20 years but, at best, forever. However, the stored carbon can be quickly released again by ending humus-building cultivation or by external influences such as climate change. The area-wide control required for this is considered hardly feasible.
All this could lead to considerably more certificates being sold than actual negative emissions. Climate neutrality would then only exist on paper.
The Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (BMWK) intends to amend the Federal Mining Act before the end of this legislative period in order to strengthen the domestic mining industry. This was announced by the ministry at the beginning of January in its key issues paper on raw materials strategy. The person responsible in the ministry is Parliamentary State Secretary Michael Kellner. Raw material extraction in Germany is to be ecologically oriented and facilitated.
The EU Critical Raw Materials Act announced for the beginning of March pursues the same goal: The Commission plans to simplify permits for projects in the EU and establish high environmental and social standards. This is intended to build up supply chains in Europe and reduce dependence on imports.
The coalition factions in Berlin at least agree on the need for action: “From our point of view, this is necessary because we have to use our domestic and European raw material potential,” explains Sebastian Roloff (SPD). “This is the only way we can ensure raw material extraction under the highest environmental and social standards, minimize our dependencies and strengthen the resilience of supply chains.” The rapporteur of the FDP parliamentary group, Reinhard Houben, hopes that the amendment “will finally enable us to adequately tap the domestic raw material potential and herald a departure from the not-in-my-backyard policy of past decades.” The mining law is out of date and should be “put to the climate test,” says Armin Grau (Greens).
The Federal Mining Act (Bundesberggesetz, BBergG) dates back to 1980 and at that time brought the state legislations into a uniform legal framework. It regulates the exploration, extraction and processing of mineral resources and the reclamation of land after mining operations.
According to the Umweltbundesamt (UBA), “over the decades of its existence, the BBergG has proven to be surprisingly impermeable to the integration of environmental and nature conservation requirements.” It is true that mandatory EU requirements, such as the directive on the introduction of an environmental impact assessment, have been implemented. Apart from that, “the federal legislature has so far shown little will to reform,” writes the UBA. For this reason, the law still gives “clear priority over other public interests” to securing the supply of raw materials, according to a position paper published by the UBA in December 2020.
Due to the often considerable impact on nature and the consequences for the local population, even long after the projects have been carried out, the UBA has long advocated a comprehensive reform of the BBergG. This must pursue the goal of “ensuring that the needs of both current and future generations are met and that high environmental and occupational safety standards are effectively maintained.
Nature, environmental and resource protection as well as individual basic rights are hardly taken into account in the BBergG, says Josephine Koch, speaker at the Forum Environment and Development. She sees a danger that these concerns will be watered down even further in favor of faster and simpler approval procedures. She calls for the priority given to raw material extraction to be abolished and for nature conservation authorities to be given a veto.
The industry sees things differently: “Mining law has been continuously adapted to legal developments. Mining projects already have to comply with the same ecological requirements as other projects,” says a statement from the Association of Raw Materials and Mining (VRB) and the Association of the Potash and Salt Industry. “Therefore, mining law is modern, ecological and up to date, and there is no need for fundamental change.”
From the associations’ point of view, the “real problems” lie, among other things, in the very long planning and approval procedures. Expeditious, streamlined and digitized procedures should become the standard. The rapid approval and implementation of LNG terminals has given the industry hope, says Olaf Alisch of the Mining, Geology and Environment Association (VBGU). But he says a comparable timeframe is not realistic for mining: “These projects are too complex for that.” However, proceedings lasting four to six years, for example, would be a huge success compared to today’s proceedings lasting ten to twelve years.
Stefan Rouenhoff (CDU) complains that the mining industry is not sufficiently involved in the BMWK consultation process. In the fall, he asked a written question about this. Among thirty invited guests at the expert discussion in May were “a former employee of Ruhrkohle AG and an employee of the Association of Raw Materials and Mining,” the BMWK replied. “Instead of listening to critical voices from the field, the BMWK apparently prefers to receive proposals for amendments to mining law only from lawyers, professors, ministry officials and representatives of the ‘eco institute’,” Rouenhoff criticizes.
The German states have been pushing for reform for some time: In November 2021, the Conference of Ministers for the Environment called for an amendment to the mining law with the aim of anchoring transparency, climate and environmental protection, and resource conservation in it. One year later, Rhineland-Palatinate introduced a bill for more transparency and public participation in mining in the Bundesrat. This aims to amend the Federal Mining Act and the Ordinance on the Environmental Impact Assessment of Mining Projects (UVP-V Bergbau).
Among other things, the draft stipulates that mining authorities inform the affected local public at an early stage about the objectives and scope of projects as well as “the likely effects on the climate and the environment as well as on the neighborhood“. At the end of January, the draft was discussed in the Economics Committee, with the recommendation that it be submitted to the Bundestag.
“I think this city is simply beautiful” – Tanja Baerman really goes into raptures when she thinks about what she particularly appreciates about Brussels. The “diversity of architecture” is spectacular. She is a big fan of Art Nouveau and Art Deco. Baerman is head of the Bremen State Representation in the European City of Brussels.
After studying law in Munich and Würzburg and earning a master’s degree in European studies from the College of Europe in Bruges/Natolin, she came into contact with Europe at an early age. “I still went poaching in other areas,” she says with a laugh. She also came into contact with international law and the European Council, as well as with development cooperation at the State Chancellery of North Rhine-Westphalia.
A visit with the OSCE’s first major election mission to Bosnia in 1996 left a lasting impression on her: “That was the first and last time I was in a country that had been a war zone shortly before,” says Baerman. That made her realize the value of the European Union in a completely different way.
What excites her most about Europe is the strength of the community through the sharing of sovereignty. A Dane once said that in Europe there are countries that are small and countries that don’t know they are small. “But in principle, we are all small,” she cites. Baerman calls the way the European Union works together unique.
There are a hundred different working groups, people don’t like each other or have completely different positions. “But they’re just forced by these mechanisms that exist to keep talking to each other, over and over again, until there’s a solution – even if it takes years,” she says.
As head of the Bremen State Representation, Tanja Baerman is also head of the European Department in Bremen. This sets the state representation apart from others. She says this has an advantage: “On the one hand, I have one foot in Brussels, and on the other, one foot in Bremen.” In Bremen, Baerman keeps the parliament informed about what’s happening in Europe and helps the deputies form their opinions. Her job is to “do persuasion in both directions.” In Brussels, she follows dossiers to “keep her ear to the ground” and keep a close eye on what’s happening there.
“We follow the dossier until it actually reaches its European policy conclusion in the Bundesrat,” Baerman explains. That, too, is different at many national representations, he says. The tasks of the officers are usually finished when the dossiers are handed over to their departments, she explains, but in Bremen, they are also voting on it. “That is unique for Bremen.”
Currently, Tanja Baerman is working on the rule of law and migration, the Green Deal and the energy crisis. “Rule of law is a construction site where we have to keep going back to.” Social justice should not be neglected either, she said. Bremen forms an important counterweight to other players, including on the issue of migration. What makes the city-state special is that it is much closer to the citizens and the implementation of issues. The Bremen state representation thus has a kind of “aquarium function” to look at: “If the Commission does A, B happens down in Bremen.” That is their competitive advantage, she explained.
After almost ten years in Brussels, Tanja Baerman is always surprised to still discover new corners. She also appreciates the “cosmopolitan atmosphere” and the diverse people in the city. “Not just the Eurocrats,” she points out, “but also the immigrant communities that have left their mark on the city.” Livia Hofmann
Europe’s goal of emitting no more CO2 than can be stored by 2050 is to be achieved, among other things, by increasing the CO2 storage capacity of agricultural soils. Hopes for carbon farming are high – probably even too high. Timo Landenberger shows why the potential of natural CO2 storage methods may be overestimated and could ultimately do a disservice to the EU’s climate neutrality target.
To become climate-neutral, CO2 emissions from the transport sector must also be reduced. While the end of the combustion engine in passenger cars is in all likelihood sealed, it could still be used in trucks in the long term. The Commission will present its proposal for CO2 fleet limits for trucks today. Read more in the News.
The coalition government wants to amend the Federal Mining Act before the end of this legislative period. A project that could also contribute to the EU Critical Raw Materials Act, which the Commission intends to present at the beginning of March. But opinions differ as to how great the need for action really is for Germany as a mining location, as Leonie Düngefeld analyzes.
In today’s Heads, we would like to introduce Tanja Baerman. She is the bridge between Brussels EU politics and Bremen state politics and a convinced European.
If you like Europe.Table, please forward us. If this mail was sent to you: Here you can test our briefing for free.
The EU wants to become climate-neutral by 2050. This means that no more greenhouse gases may be emitted than are stored. But there will still be emissions beyond 2050 – especially in agriculture, but also in some industrial sectors or in transport. Without the systematic capture and storage of CO2 from the atmosphere, therefore, the target cannot be achieved.
Currently, around 250 million metric tons of CO2 are stored in the EU – mainly in forests. The total is expected to grow to 310 million by 2030, according to the LULUCF target. “But that’s nothing compared to what we need to achieve by 2050,” says Christian Holzleiter of the EU Commission’s Directorate-General for Climate. “We expect up to 500 million tons of residual emissions. So we need to double the sink rate, and that’s a Herculean task.”
However, the natural storage capacity of forests is continuously decreasing due to droughts, extreme weather, pests and the growing demand for wood. And technical solutions (Carbon Capture and Storage, CCS) are far too expensive, far from ready for the market and thus far from actual widespread use.
The Brussels authority is therefore focusing on the potential of carbon farming. The CO2 storage capacity of agricultural soils is to be significantly increased, mainly by building up more humus. For example, through intercropping, but also the use of special machinery when sowing, which preserves the structure of the soil and increases CO2 storage by the root system over the years. Positive side effects according to the Commission: strengthening of biodiversity, improvement of soil fertility and water balance.
Carbon farming is a key to climate neutrality in food production, says Joachim Rukwied, president of the German Farmers’ Association. “We farmers are highly prepared to farm in the interests of climate protection, soil fertility and adaptation to climate change.”
The whole thing is to be financed through certificate trading. A voluntary global market for this has long existed because CO2 compensation and climate-neutral products are in vogue. The business is flourishing in the USA in particular, but there is practically no political framework. Ben Lilliston of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) speaks of a “veritable Wild West practice” in the allocation of funds.
To avoid this and to be able to quantify and monitor CO2 emissions in the EU, the Commission has launched a legal framework for certification. Norbert Lins (EPP), Chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the EU Parliament, welcomes the initiative. “This will be a good incentive for agriculture to achieve more carbon sequestration,” says the MEP, who speaks of a “good additional business model.”
According to the Commission’s proposal, certification is generally eligible if four quality guidelines are met:
“We are still at the very beginning. A lot of research is still needed to understand how exactly storage works in different soils in different regions using different methods,” Holzleiter says. “And most importantly, we need tools for monitoring.” The Commission’s proposal, he says, is just the first step on the road to a comprehensive legislative package on CO2 removal.
Further steps will follow in March with the presentation of the “Green Claims Directive” on the environmental compatibility of products, as well as in the summer with a delegated act that will define the criteria according to which a company can claim CO2 neutrality in its reporting.
“And for our 2040 targets at the latest, we need to define how much CO2 storage we want to incentivize and how exactly,” Holzleiter said. In addition, the system must be brought into line with the existing Emissions Trading System (ETS).
Axel Don of the Thünen Institute for Agricultural Climate Protection warns against overestimating the potential of carbon farming. In Germany, for example, a maximum of six million metric tons of additional CO2 storage in agricultural soils is realistic through the application of appropriate methods. This compares with more than 100 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions attributed to agriculture, the scientist said. The situation is similar in other countries, he said. “We are working with many partners across Europe, and initial results show that carbon farming cannot offset more than ten percent of the EU’s agricultural emissions,” said Don.
In addition, the danger of greenwashing is high. It is very easy, for example, to significantly increase CO2 storage in a particular field by concentrating the use of organic fertilizers, while it decreases elsewhere, Don explains. Through this, carbon is merely shifted and a reduction is accounted for, which in fact does not exist.
In addition, as a result of harmful management, arable soils in the EU are increasingly moving from greenhouse gas reservoirs to emitters. For this reason, more sustainable methods, including carbon enrichment, are indeed essential. However, even if the full potential of carbon farming were exploited, this would at best offset the negative trend.
Conversely, this means: If this CO2 storage is certified and thus accounted for, it could be incorrectly counted as negative emissions toward climate targets when in fact, it merely serves to avoid higher greenhouse gas emissions.
Added to this is sustainability, which is difficult to guarantee. After all, the certified amount of CO2 should be sequestered not just for ten or 20 years but, at best, forever. However, the stored carbon can be quickly released again by ending humus-building cultivation or by external influences such as climate change. The area-wide control required for this is considered hardly feasible.
All this could lead to considerably more certificates being sold than actual negative emissions. Climate neutrality would then only exist on paper.
The Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (BMWK) intends to amend the Federal Mining Act before the end of this legislative period in order to strengthen the domestic mining industry. This was announced by the ministry at the beginning of January in its key issues paper on raw materials strategy. The person responsible in the ministry is Parliamentary State Secretary Michael Kellner. Raw material extraction in Germany is to be ecologically oriented and facilitated.
The EU Critical Raw Materials Act announced for the beginning of March pursues the same goal: The Commission plans to simplify permits for projects in the EU and establish high environmental and social standards. This is intended to build up supply chains in Europe and reduce dependence on imports.
The coalition factions in Berlin at least agree on the need for action: “From our point of view, this is necessary because we have to use our domestic and European raw material potential,” explains Sebastian Roloff (SPD). “This is the only way we can ensure raw material extraction under the highest environmental and social standards, minimize our dependencies and strengthen the resilience of supply chains.” The rapporteur of the FDP parliamentary group, Reinhard Houben, hopes that the amendment “will finally enable us to adequately tap the domestic raw material potential and herald a departure from the not-in-my-backyard policy of past decades.” The mining law is out of date and should be “put to the climate test,” says Armin Grau (Greens).
The Federal Mining Act (Bundesberggesetz, BBergG) dates back to 1980 and at that time brought the state legislations into a uniform legal framework. It regulates the exploration, extraction and processing of mineral resources and the reclamation of land after mining operations.
According to the Umweltbundesamt (UBA), “over the decades of its existence, the BBergG has proven to be surprisingly impermeable to the integration of environmental and nature conservation requirements.” It is true that mandatory EU requirements, such as the directive on the introduction of an environmental impact assessment, have been implemented. Apart from that, “the federal legislature has so far shown little will to reform,” writes the UBA. For this reason, the law still gives “clear priority over other public interests” to securing the supply of raw materials, according to a position paper published by the UBA in December 2020.
Due to the often considerable impact on nature and the consequences for the local population, even long after the projects have been carried out, the UBA has long advocated a comprehensive reform of the BBergG. This must pursue the goal of “ensuring that the needs of both current and future generations are met and that high environmental and occupational safety standards are effectively maintained.
Nature, environmental and resource protection as well as individual basic rights are hardly taken into account in the BBergG, says Josephine Koch, speaker at the Forum Environment and Development. She sees a danger that these concerns will be watered down even further in favor of faster and simpler approval procedures. She calls for the priority given to raw material extraction to be abolished and for nature conservation authorities to be given a veto.
The industry sees things differently: “Mining law has been continuously adapted to legal developments. Mining projects already have to comply with the same ecological requirements as other projects,” says a statement from the Association of Raw Materials and Mining (VRB) and the Association of the Potash and Salt Industry. “Therefore, mining law is modern, ecological and up to date, and there is no need for fundamental change.”
From the associations’ point of view, the “real problems” lie, among other things, in the very long planning and approval procedures. Expeditious, streamlined and digitized procedures should become the standard. The rapid approval and implementation of LNG terminals has given the industry hope, says Olaf Alisch of the Mining, Geology and Environment Association (VBGU). But he says a comparable timeframe is not realistic for mining: “These projects are too complex for that.” However, proceedings lasting four to six years, for example, would be a huge success compared to today’s proceedings lasting ten to twelve years.
Stefan Rouenhoff (CDU) complains that the mining industry is not sufficiently involved in the BMWK consultation process. In the fall, he asked a written question about this. Among thirty invited guests at the expert discussion in May were “a former employee of Ruhrkohle AG and an employee of the Association of Raw Materials and Mining,” the BMWK replied. “Instead of listening to critical voices from the field, the BMWK apparently prefers to receive proposals for amendments to mining law only from lawyers, professors, ministry officials and representatives of the ‘eco institute’,” Rouenhoff criticizes.
The German states have been pushing for reform for some time: In November 2021, the Conference of Ministers for the Environment called for an amendment to the mining law with the aim of anchoring transparency, climate and environmental protection, and resource conservation in it. One year later, Rhineland-Palatinate introduced a bill for more transparency and public participation in mining in the Bundesrat. This aims to amend the Federal Mining Act and the Ordinance on the Environmental Impact Assessment of Mining Projects (UVP-V Bergbau).
Among other things, the draft stipulates that mining authorities inform the affected local public at an early stage about the objectives and scope of projects as well as “the likely effects on the climate and the environment as well as on the neighborhood“. At the end of January, the draft was discussed in the Economics Committee, with the recommendation that it be submitted to the Bundestag.
“I think this city is simply beautiful” – Tanja Baerman really goes into raptures when she thinks about what she particularly appreciates about Brussels. The “diversity of architecture” is spectacular. She is a big fan of Art Nouveau and Art Deco. Baerman is head of the Bremen State Representation in the European City of Brussels.
After studying law in Munich and Würzburg and earning a master’s degree in European studies from the College of Europe in Bruges/Natolin, she came into contact with Europe at an early age. “I still went poaching in other areas,” she says with a laugh. She also came into contact with international law and the European Council, as well as with development cooperation at the State Chancellery of North Rhine-Westphalia.
A visit with the OSCE’s first major election mission to Bosnia in 1996 left a lasting impression on her: “That was the first and last time I was in a country that had been a war zone shortly before,” says Baerman. That made her realize the value of the European Union in a completely different way.
What excites her most about Europe is the strength of the community through the sharing of sovereignty. A Dane once said that in Europe there are countries that are small and countries that don’t know they are small. “But in principle, we are all small,” she cites. Baerman calls the way the European Union works together unique.
There are a hundred different working groups, people don’t like each other or have completely different positions. “But they’re just forced by these mechanisms that exist to keep talking to each other, over and over again, until there’s a solution – even if it takes years,” she says.
As head of the Bremen State Representation, Tanja Baerman is also head of the European Department in Bremen. This sets the state representation apart from others. She says this has an advantage: “On the one hand, I have one foot in Brussels, and on the other, one foot in Bremen.” In Bremen, Baerman keeps the parliament informed about what’s happening in Europe and helps the deputies form their opinions. Her job is to “do persuasion in both directions.” In Brussels, she follows dossiers to “keep her ear to the ground” and keep a close eye on what’s happening there.
“We follow the dossier until it actually reaches its European policy conclusion in the Bundesrat,” Baerman explains. That, too, is different at many national representations, he says. The tasks of the officers are usually finished when the dossiers are handed over to their departments, she explains, but in Bremen, they are also voting on it. “That is unique for Bremen.”
Currently, Tanja Baerman is working on the rule of law and migration, the Green Deal and the energy crisis. “Rule of law is a construction site where we have to keep going back to.” Social justice should not be neglected either, she said. Bremen forms an important counterweight to other players, including on the issue of migration. What makes the city-state special is that it is much closer to the citizens and the implementation of issues. The Bremen state representation thus has a kind of “aquarium function” to look at: “If the Commission does A, B happens down in Bremen.” That is their competitive advantage, she explained.
After almost ten years in Brussels, Tanja Baerman is always surprised to still discover new corners. She also appreciates the “cosmopolitan atmosphere” and the diverse people in the city. “Not just the Eurocrats,” she points out, “but also the immigrant communities that have left their mark on the city.” Livia Hofmann
