The EU Commission will present the second part of its Green Deal nature protection package this week. Planned are a new soil health law, a regulation on plants produced with new genomic techniques, the revision of the EU Waste Framework Directive with regard to food and textile waste, and the revision of legislation on seeds.
The package comes at a delicate time and should actually have been presented at the beginning of June. However, the debate surrounding the first nature conservation package, consisting of a nature restoration law and a pesticide regulation, has caused quite a stir and may also have prompted the Commission to postpone the second part and revise it once again. This is because the EPP still wants to block all new laws affecting the agricultural sector. And the threat is apparently having an effect.
Originally, the Commission wanted to impose stricter rules and binding limits for healthy soil on the member states. Now it will be different, it is said from Commission circles. A draft of the law also reveals: Instead of an ambitious soil health law, it will essentially be about data collection and monitoring – about the degree of erosion and the content of carbon and harmful chemicals. The new regulation for genetically modified crops, on the other hand, provides for the relaxation of the rules, including the weakening of the labeling requirement – entirely in line with the EPP. Environmental and consumer advocates, as well as the German Federal Ministry of Agriculture, are critical.
Even if Green Deal Commissioner Frans Timmermanns pretends not to be influenced by the EPP, there is no question that Manfred Weber’s course will have the effect he hopes for: less protection of nature and less strict rules for European farmers. Whether that will relax the debate is unlikely. The next chapter will follow on Wednesday when the Commission officially presents the proposals.
The EMFA should actually guarantee freedom of the media throughout theEU. In particular, the violent deaths of Ján Kuciak in Slovakia and Daphne Caruana Galizia in Malta highlighted the urgency of better protection. Events in Hungary, Poland and Greece, where governments used controversial measures to harass individual journalists, such as spyware deployments, increased the pressure to act.
The project’s core concern: to guarantee the media’s independence from the political establishment. This could be necessary in France, for example, where public media are nowfinanced by taxes instead of budgetary contributions. Another goal of the Media Freedom Act: That large digital intermediaries must also guarantee the independence of the press on their DSA-regulated offerings and not treat them like any other user content.
Even the first draft was much criticized
EU Commission Vice President Věra Jourová wanted to address all of this in an EU regulation, but the Commission’s draft was met with a divided response: “Well meant is not well done,” they said. The German states criticized the plan to give the state’s guidelines for media regulation by way of regulation, saying that this was not provided for under European law and was a violation of the European Treaties. The most that could be envisaged would be a directive, the implementation and concrete form of which would be left to the member states.
The Bundesrat decided to issue a formal reprimand. This, in turn, drew sharp criticism from the EU Commission: Germany was effectively siding with Hungary and Poland. They criticize the law for completely different reasons, but the why is of secondary importance when it comes to achieving a majority.
The hopes of the German representatives were first pinned on a legal opinion from the Council’s legal service. This was supposed to confirm the German view – but in the end, saw no major problems with the chosen legal basis and the competence of the EU. This was a political embarrassment for the state representatives, who have since only used this argument subdued: One could perhaps also see it differently.
Council position on surveillance puts media freedom at risk
In fact, however, the debate in the Council and the relevant parliamentary committees quickly revealed the first major problems with the Commission’s lofty goals and moderate proposal. In the Council in particular, it became apparent that some member states are very careful to ensure that the protection of journalists does not in any way lead toparticularly high hurdles for surveillance. The Council’s position hides few improvements over the Commission’s proposal, which was formulated far toovaguely in too many places. On the other hand, the member states’ plan to weaken the Commission’s proposal on the surveillance of journalists significantly has caused an outcry.
The incident of the tapped press telephone of the Last Generation in Germany is harmless in this context, given the standards of comparison. Targeted spying with the latest surveillance technology in Poland or Hungary, for example, used to target cell phones, occupied the EP in the PEGA Special Committee intensively. But the grinding of whistleblower and source protection was not driven primarily by the Orbán government or from Warsaw. France, with its tradition of an exceedingly strong state, submitted the relevant proposal. Even Austria’s requests for changes were in the same direction.
And Germany? “We also know that further improvements are desirable, for example, in the relationship between journalistic source protection and national security,” writes Minister of State for Culture Claudia Roth in a guest article for the FAZ this week. The Green Party politician, with Rhineland-Palatinate’s media secretary Heike Raab (SPD), led the negotiations in the Council for Germany, without any notable success. Instead, as seems to be the norm now, Germany is once again hoping for the European Parliament.
European Parliament angry about Council position
There, too, the debate is intense – and with the Council. Sharp criticism of the Council’s position on the Media Freedom Act came, for example, from conservative IMCO rapporteur Didier Geoffroy on Friday. “As rapporteur of the Media Freedom Act in the European Parliament, I call on @EmmanuelMacron and his government to abandon their plan to be able to legally spy on journalists. This European regulation must protect pluralism, not authorize policing!” Geffroy tweeted, apparently angry at the French government.
The LIBE Committee is in charge of this complicated part of media protection, which clashes with the non-unified areas of internal security. And the CULT Committee is also working intensively on the EMFA. Members have already been able to make some progress on the dossier.
Many amendments to be processed
But here, too, the negotiators still have some thorny debates ahead of them until the long-awaited summer break approaches. For example, the highly controversial question of whether the German public media system fully meets the high requirements of the planned Article 5. Here, the Commission’s proposal could mean that future selection and election of members of the management of German broadcasters will have to be found using other procedures than those currently under criticism, including in Germany.
Even the issue of media concentration at the European level has gained new momentum following the death of Silvio Berlusconi. His dual role as a politician and media mogul has so far prevented, for example, the takeover of ProSiebenSat.1 by his media conglomerate. The multitude of amendments will be thinned out in the coming days and weeks. It is difficult to predict how firm Parliament really wants to be in protecting media freedom. Currently, the goal of negotiations in the European Parliament is September. More likely, however, is a vote on the report in the October plenary. After that, the trilogue could begin in November.
Will Věra Jourová withdraw her proposal in the end?
But even in the trilogue, the project could still fail. If it goes badly, the so-called Media Freedom Act could end up being the opposite of what it is intended to be: a low-threshold definition of minimum criteria that even the problem states fulfill without major changes.
There is already speculation in negotiating circles as to whether the proposal will be withdrawn by the Commission if the member states continue in this way. After all, they do not want to risk passing a media freedom law that would lower standards for many and do little to help at the end of the legislative period with a Hungarian and then a Polish Council presidency.
She is “determined to steer the Media Freedom Act through the legislative process,” Commission Vice President Věra Jourová let the European Broadcasting Union know on Friday. She said the point is that the law must create a “change for the better, a safety net for the media and necessary and missing safeguards for the media.” She will have to be judged on that.
Medienfreiheit
Climate policy: Sweden’s EU presidency more effective than expected
In the fall of 2022, EU climate policymakers had a suspicion: the Commission, in coordination with the then-acting Czech EU presidency, would push through as many of the Fit-for-55 climate package files as possible, before Sweden was to take over the Council leadership in January 2023. The worry was that the newly elected right-wing Swedish government, dependent as it is of the far-right, EU-skeptic (and partly climate-denialist) Sweden Democrats, would try to block or at least weaken legislative decisions not only on climate issues but also within the overall European Green Deal-agenda.
With the end of the presidency, those worries turned out to be somewhat justified in the sense that Sweden-the-member-state, in some cases (all related to forestry) went against compromises tabled by Sweden – the EU Council President. In general though, there seems to be agreement that the Swedish government and its civil servants played the role of the “honest broker” well and professionally, steering an impressive pile of dossiers from Commission proposals to decisions or at least agreements between the member states and the European Parliament.
Inherited: Milestones of EU climate policy
Most important long-term was probably the final adoption of new versions of the three pillars of the EU climate legislation:
the Directive on Emissions Trading
the Regulations on Effort Sharing
The land use LULUCF (natural carbon sinks) regulations.
In all three cases, the trilogue negotiations (between the Commission, the Council and the Parliament) were concluded already during the Czech presidency, so what remained for the Swedes was to administer the formal decisions, which were taken in March and April 2023. As a consequence, since May there is union legislation in place that (unless it will later be revised) guarantees that the net EU greenhouse gas emissions for 2030 will be 57 percent below the 1990 level. A milestone.
In addition, agreements have been struck on more than ten sector-oriented climate legislations during the Swedish presidency. Among them are:
the promotion of renewable energies and energy efficiency
rules for the compulsory coverage of EV charging facilities
and mandatory use of renewable fuels in shipping and aviation.
Obstacles by Germany and France
In the middle of the presidency, the German and French governments surprised and frustrated everybody, when they, as confirming decisions were to be taken, on two different issues, suddenly, no longer supported trilogue agreements that they had previously agreed to:
France wanted a larger role for nuclear power in the promotion of renewable (or “non-fossil” as the French prefer it) energy.
Those conflicts were ultimately solved, seemingly more through interventions from the Commission than as a result of efforts from the council presidency, it was said in Brussels.
Forestry: Sweden and the EU at odds
On several occasions, it also became clear that Sweden is at odds with the majority of the Union on forestry issues. Sweden abstained when the final decisions on the regulations on deforestation and carbon sinks (LULUCF) were taken, arguing that the new legislation would harm the development of sustainable forestry.
In coalition with other member states, Sweden also successfully managed to dilute the nature conservation requirements on forest biomass in the directive on renewable energy. Those requirements have to be fulfilled to allow for zero accounting of emissions of biogenic carbon dioxide within the emissions trading system. With stronger ecological requirements on the forestry, Swedish pulp and paper industries as well as the many large biomass-based Swedish district heating plants would have to spend lots of money on buying emission allowances to cover those emissions.
Angry letters and Swedish U-turn in the Council of Environment Ministers
The most notable incident was when Sweden at the last environmental council meeting under its leadership, on June 20th, voted against its own compromise for a common position from the EU governments on the proposed Nature Restoration Regulation. A week before the ministerial meeting Sweden withdrew a compromise text, already supported by a steady majority of member states, from the agenda of the preparatory meeting of the EU ambassadors.
Several member states took this as an indication that Sweden did not intend to put forward the compromise to the ministerial meeting, thereby delaying its adoption. In protest France, Germany, Spain and Luxembourg wrote a letter to Sweden for clarification. Finally, the issue showed up on the council agenda, where the Swedish compromise proposal was broadly adopted, in spite of Sweden’s vote against it.
“In general, the presidency was run in a very professional and successful way, but the handling of the nature restoration regulation might put some dirt on it”, notes Ylva Nilsson, commentator on the daily Expressen. “Sweden is famous for being pretty aggressive when it comes to environmental demands on forestry and the forest industry”.
Mats Engström, senior advisor at the Swedish Institute for European Policy (SIEPS), explains the Swedish vote against its own compromise on the Nature Restoration Law by saying that it fits the presidency’s role as an “honest broker”. He adds: “The behavior is rare, but occurs now and then. What makes it problematic and remarkable is the letter sent in protest from four member states.”
Renaturierung
News
ESRS: MEPs demand re-sharpening
Several political groups in the EU Parliament are calling on the EU Commission to tighten the draft European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). Table.Media has a letter that a group of MEPs led by Pascal Durand (France, S&D), who is rapporteur for the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), sent on Thursday to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Commission Vice President Valdis Dombrovskis and Finance Commissioner Mairead McGuinness.
They call for the retention of the originally planned obligation to make binding declarations in sustainability reports. In its draft delegated act, the Commission allows companies to use a materiality analysis to assess the need to disclose certain information. In doing so, they do not have to provide any justification; moreover, the materiality analysis is not standardized.
In November 2022, the EFRAG advisory body published a recommendation for a first set of non–sector-specific standards for sustainability reporting under the CSRD. The Commission submitted its draft based on this on June 9. The four-week consultation period ends July 7.
EPP does not support demands
Ten MEPs from the S&D, Renew, Greens and Left responsible for following up on the CSRD signed the letter, including René Repasi, Lara Wolters (both S&D), Bas Eickhout and Marie Toussaint (both Greens). They explained the letter is their official response to the consultation on the delegated act. “I regret that the EPP does not support our comments on strengthening the delegated act,” said Pascal Durand.
“The original intention of the Commission and the mandate reaffirmed by the co-legislators was to require binding statements justifying, if necessary, why a particular indicator or data point is not material,” the letter states. “The mandatory or reasoned nature of the standards is key to reliable, shared, and unbiased information.“
It said it is thus necessary to reintroduce the mandatory nature of climate data points, regardless of the outcome of the companies’ materiality analysis. As requested by EFRAG, it is also necessary to require entities to also provide a justification in case of lack of materiality, he said. leo
European Commission
Von der Leyen maintains levy on Russian assets
EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is pressing ahead with work on a special levy on profits from frozen Russian state assets, despite concerns from ECB President Christine Lagarde and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. Von der Leyen said after Friday’s EU summit that the EU and its allies had already taken the most important step more than a year ago when they first blocked more than €200 billion in Russian central bank assets after Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine. Reactions in the financial markets have been very calm, von der Leyen said. That, she said, was “an indication that it is very well understood – theprudent approach we are choosing.”
Scholz, on the other hand, described the use of proceeds from the frozen Russian assets as “terribly complicated.” He said no one knows currently “what works at all and how.” He said the leaders had asked the Commission to continue “racking its brains” and to inform him and his EU colleagues again at a later date. Von der Leyen is expected to present a proposal by the end of July.
90 percent of central bank funds are frozen in Belgium at the clearing house Euroclear. Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo said the proceeds from taxes or interest, for example, are estimated at three billion a year. The money is to be used for the reconstruction of Ukraine. The World Bank estimates it will cost more than $400 billion.
Expert report on the single market
On Friday, the heads of state and government discussed EU competitiveness and China policy without any major surprises. Among other things, they called for the establishment of a high-level group of experts to present an independent report on the future of the single market by March 2024. This is a concern of the Belgian government, which will take over the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU at the beginning of 2024.
The summit had been marked by a dispute over migration policy: Hungary and Poland prevented a joint declaration on migration policy and threatened further steps. The two states protested against the fact that the asylum plans were launched against their will by the interior ministers about three weeks ago by a majority vote. In the view of Scholz and von der Leyen, however, the blockade will not stop the legislative process. tho/dpa
Austria to join European air defense system
Neutral Austria plans to join the German project to build a better European air defense system. Chancellor Karl Nehammer announced over the weekend. “The threat situation has massively intensified as a result of the Russian war of aggression on Ukraine,” the conservative politician said, explaining the reasons for the ongoing accession negotiations. He said Austria must thus join other European countries in the protection against drone and missile attacks.
Against the backdrop of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, the “European Sky Shield Initiative” initiated by Germany is intended to help close gaps in the current NATO protective umbrella for Europe. There are deficits, for example, in the area of ballistic missiles that reach high altitudes on their trajectory, but also in the defense against drones and cruise missiles. More than a dozen European states have already joined the project.
Austria’s status as a militarily neutral state would not be jeopardized by joining, Nehammer and Defense Minister Klaudia Tanner said in a joint statement. “It is a matter of participating in a protective umbrella that serves to avert danger,” they argued.
As neutral EU members, Austria, Ireland and Malta blocked far-reaching European Union security guarantees for Ukraine this week. dpa
Electricity market: Spain must continue negotiations
The Permanent Representatives were unable to reach an agreement on the electricity market reform at their last meeting under the Swedish presidency on Friday. The reason was once again France’s resistance because of uncertain subsidy options for nuclear energy, a Council source reported. This means that the Spanish Council presidency must now try to find a common position among the member states.
The energy ministers could discuss the reform on the fringes of their informal meeting on July 11 and 12 in Valladolid in northern Spain. So far, however, other issues are on the agenda, such as preparing for the COP28 world climate conference and “communicating more effectively the opportunities of the climate and energy agenda.”
Sweden had proposed more detailed rules for promotion via CfDs in a final attempt at compromise in preparation for Friday’s meeting. According to the proposal, contracts for difference for the retrofit of existing power plants should only be available if the renewed plant subsequently runsfor at least another ten years and the investment at least doubles the value of the power plant.
Industry to receive more money
The Swedes accommodated industry even further in redistributing revenues from CfDs. They removed the crucial restriction that states may only redistribute as much to companies as corresponds to the total share of the corporate sector in national electricity consumption. The EU states are to be explicitly given the opportunity to give preferential treatment to individual groupsofcompanies, insofar as this is permitted by competition law. German Economics Minister Robert Habeck proposed a similar concept for the internationally competitive industry at the beginning of May.
Sweden also wanted to extend the skimming of excess revenues from existing renewables plants and nuclear power stations until mid-2024. Spain in particular is pushing for this option, while the German government and the Commission are skeptical. In the Parliament, the Spanish rapporteur Nicolas Casares is also in favor of a longer revenue levy. ber
AI Act: Brussels rejects criticism from the business community
MEPs and the EU Commission reacted angrily to the open letter on the regulation of artificial intelligence sent to Brussels by 150 business representatives on Friday. Handelsblatt and Financial Times had published it earlier. “I am convinced they have not carefully read the legislative text,” said Dragoș Tudorache (Renew), one of the two rapporteurs of the AI Act.
Among others, the heads of Deutsche Telekom, Siemens and Airbus signed the letter, but also that of the French AI start-up Mistral AI, which has just raised €105 million in funding. The draft law would “jeopardize Europe’s competitiveness and technological sovereignty” without effectively addressing the challenges, the letter says. This is especially true for generative AI, it adds.
AI Act in trilogue: work starts now
When the Commission presented its draft in 2021, generative AIwas neither as advanced nor as much in the public interest as it is today. “The new AI regulation will ensure that Europeans can trust the possibilities of AI,” said a Commission spokesperson. He said the planned rules are balanced, risk-based and future-proof, and “will address the specific risks of AI systems and set the highest standard worldwide.”
The trilogue working groups start their work on the AI Act today, Monday. The Table.Media working paper (4-column-document) contains the Parliament’s proposals on generative AI. The topic will thus be a subject of negotiation in the trilogue. The trilogue is expected to be completed by the end of the year.
‘Letter ultimates with misinformation‘
The only concrete proposals in the letter are in line with what the Parliamentary text already contains, Tudorache said. “An industry-led process for defining standards, governance, with industry at the table and a light regulatory regime that asks for transparency.” It is a pity, he said, “that the aggressive and misleading lobby of a few” is taking over other reputable companies. He said the Parliamenthas worked with companies throughout the legislative process.
Sergey Lagodinsky, shadow rapporteur for the Greens, expressed a similar view. He likes to listen to voices from the business community. But he prefers to listen to informed and deliberative voices rather than “lobbying in the form of open letters.” This also has little to do with the specific concerns of AI developers or the draft law. No conversation works on that basis, Lagodinsky said. “These are letter ultimatums with misinformation.”
Others find the concerns justified
Axel Voss, shadow rapporteur for the EPP, takes a different view: “The outcry from business is completely justified, even if it is very, very late.” In some places, he said, the parliamentary text contains requirements that cannot really be implemented. “Some things are excessive and many far too cumbersome,” Voss said. “We as the EPP alone identified countless points that need to be changed to make the text workable to some extent.” He said he hopes that can be achieved in the trilogue. “If it stays like this, the AI Act will be the reason for some to leave Europe and for others to better not even start with new ideas.” Both cannot be the intention of the legislator.
Antonio Krüger, computer scientist and CEO of the German Research Center for AI (DFKI), also believes the concerns of the business community are justified. That is why he also co-signed the letter on behalf of DFKI. “Regulation is important,” Krüger said. “But at the same time, just as much effort should be put into advancing AI innovation in Europe.” vis
Artificial intelligence
Artificial Intelligence Regulation
Heads
Thorsten Augustin – now Hanseatic, always European
Thorsten Augustin, Head of the Hanse-Office (Schleswig-Holstein) in Brussels.
“I live the EU,” says 58-year-old elected Hanseatic Thorsten Augustin freely. Providing information about current EU policies, legislative procedures and European policy developments at an early stage is the focus of Thorsten Augustin’s tasks. The lawyer heads the Hanse Office for Schleswig-Holstein, a joint representation of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg and the State of Schleswig-Holstein in the European Union. His team tries to present the diversity of the two domestic locations through events, meetings and cultural happenings in Brussels.
From Augustin’s perspective, the Ukraine war is currently overshadowing everything else. “Everything has been thrown into disarray. The repercussions have turned all politics upside down.” And apparently not just politics. The EU’s agreements, he says, have always been the greatest peace project for him. Global trade – so far a peace dividend for the law graduate. However, Augustin says, Russia has taught himotherwise.
‘Every particle you move in Brussels has an impact’
Augustin has been involved withthe European Union for almost 30 years. The native Mindener never let it go. And he is sure this is the case for everyone who has ever dealt with the subject. He sees the EU as an “opportunity area” with an incredible number of opportunities to work and develop. That is why Augustin is also a big supporter of the Erasmus+ funding program. That it is, nevertheless, not so easy to get young people excited about Brussels is something Augustin has to realize time and again.
In 1992, Augustin moved to the Federal Ministry of Finance in Bonn under the leadership of Theo Waigel. He was involved with the economic and monetary union and the introduction of the euro, among other things. Later, he moved to the German EU embassy in Brussels. Looking back on his career, Augustin sees decisive changes. Early reporting by the country representatives is no longer exclusive, he says. “Every decision in Brussels is transparent within a few minutes,” he says. That makes it all the more important to see the big picture and be able to classify it.
The northern German’s single-minded way of life greatly influenced the native of East Westphalia. “The north speaks plain language, and that suits me,” he says. As far as decision-making procedures at the EU level are concerned, he says, everything is connected. “Every little piece you move in Brussels has an impact.” If there was ever a missing piece of the puzzle in Augustin’s life, he has certainly found it in the Belgian capital. Julia Klann
The EU Commission will present the second part of its Green Deal nature protection package this week. Planned are a new soil health law, a regulation on plants produced with new genomic techniques, the revision of the EU Waste Framework Directive with regard to food and textile waste, and the revision of legislation on seeds.
The package comes at a delicate time and should actually have been presented at the beginning of June. However, the debate surrounding the first nature conservation package, consisting of a nature restoration law and a pesticide regulation, has caused quite a stir and may also have prompted the Commission to postpone the second part and revise it once again. This is because the EPP still wants to block all new laws affecting the agricultural sector. And the threat is apparently having an effect.
Originally, the Commission wanted to impose stricter rules and binding limits for healthy soil on the member states. Now it will be different, it is said from Commission circles. A draft of the law also reveals: Instead of an ambitious soil health law, it will essentially be about data collection and monitoring – about the degree of erosion and the content of carbon and harmful chemicals. The new regulation for genetically modified crops, on the other hand, provides for the relaxation of the rules, including the weakening of the labeling requirement – entirely in line with the EPP. Environmental and consumer advocates, as well as the German Federal Ministry of Agriculture, are critical.
Even if Green Deal Commissioner Frans Timmermanns pretends not to be influenced by the EPP, there is no question that Manfred Weber’s course will have the effect he hopes for: less protection of nature and less strict rules for European farmers. Whether that will relax the debate is unlikely. The next chapter will follow on Wednesday when the Commission officially presents the proposals.
The EMFA should actually guarantee freedom of the media throughout theEU. In particular, the violent deaths of Ján Kuciak in Slovakia and Daphne Caruana Galizia in Malta highlighted the urgency of better protection. Events in Hungary, Poland and Greece, where governments used controversial measures to harass individual journalists, such as spyware deployments, increased the pressure to act.
The project’s core concern: to guarantee the media’s independence from the political establishment. This could be necessary in France, for example, where public media are nowfinanced by taxes instead of budgetary contributions. Another goal of the Media Freedom Act: That large digital intermediaries must also guarantee the independence of the press on their DSA-regulated offerings and not treat them like any other user content.
Even the first draft was much criticized
EU Commission Vice President Věra Jourová wanted to address all of this in an EU regulation, but the Commission’s draft was met with a divided response: “Well meant is not well done,” they said. The German states criticized the plan to give the state’s guidelines for media regulation by way of regulation, saying that this was not provided for under European law and was a violation of the European Treaties. The most that could be envisaged would be a directive, the implementation and concrete form of which would be left to the member states.
The Bundesrat decided to issue a formal reprimand. This, in turn, drew sharp criticism from the EU Commission: Germany was effectively siding with Hungary and Poland. They criticize the law for completely different reasons, but the why is of secondary importance when it comes to achieving a majority.
The hopes of the German representatives were first pinned on a legal opinion from the Council’s legal service. This was supposed to confirm the German view – but in the end, saw no major problems with the chosen legal basis and the competence of the EU. This was a political embarrassment for the state representatives, who have since only used this argument subdued: One could perhaps also see it differently.
Council position on surveillance puts media freedom at risk
In fact, however, the debate in the Council and the relevant parliamentary committees quickly revealed the first major problems with the Commission’s lofty goals and moderate proposal. In the Council in particular, it became apparent that some member states are very careful to ensure that the protection of journalists does not in any way lead toparticularly high hurdles for surveillance. The Council’s position hides few improvements over the Commission’s proposal, which was formulated far toovaguely in too many places. On the other hand, the member states’ plan to weaken the Commission’s proposal on the surveillance of journalists significantly has caused an outcry.
The incident of the tapped press telephone of the Last Generation in Germany is harmless in this context, given the standards of comparison. Targeted spying with the latest surveillance technology in Poland or Hungary, for example, used to target cell phones, occupied the EP in the PEGA Special Committee intensively. But the grinding of whistleblower and source protection was not driven primarily by the Orbán government or from Warsaw. France, with its tradition of an exceedingly strong state, submitted the relevant proposal. Even Austria’s requests for changes were in the same direction.
And Germany? “We also know that further improvements are desirable, for example, in the relationship between journalistic source protection and national security,” writes Minister of State for Culture Claudia Roth in a guest article for the FAZ this week. The Green Party politician, with Rhineland-Palatinate’s media secretary Heike Raab (SPD), led the negotiations in the Council for Germany, without any notable success. Instead, as seems to be the norm now, Germany is once again hoping for the European Parliament.
European Parliament angry about Council position
There, too, the debate is intense – and with the Council. Sharp criticism of the Council’s position on the Media Freedom Act came, for example, from conservative IMCO rapporteur Didier Geoffroy on Friday. “As rapporteur of the Media Freedom Act in the European Parliament, I call on @EmmanuelMacron and his government to abandon their plan to be able to legally spy on journalists. This European regulation must protect pluralism, not authorize policing!” Geffroy tweeted, apparently angry at the French government.
The LIBE Committee is in charge of this complicated part of media protection, which clashes with the non-unified areas of internal security. And the CULT Committee is also working intensively on the EMFA. Members have already been able to make some progress on the dossier.
Many amendments to be processed
But here, too, the negotiators still have some thorny debates ahead of them until the long-awaited summer break approaches. For example, the highly controversial question of whether the German public media system fully meets the high requirements of the planned Article 5. Here, the Commission’s proposal could mean that future selection and election of members of the management of German broadcasters will have to be found using other procedures than those currently under criticism, including in Germany.
Even the issue of media concentration at the European level has gained new momentum following the death of Silvio Berlusconi. His dual role as a politician and media mogul has so far prevented, for example, the takeover of ProSiebenSat.1 by his media conglomerate. The multitude of amendments will be thinned out in the coming days and weeks. It is difficult to predict how firm Parliament really wants to be in protecting media freedom. Currently, the goal of negotiations in the European Parliament is September. More likely, however, is a vote on the report in the October plenary. After that, the trilogue could begin in November.
Will Věra Jourová withdraw her proposal in the end?
But even in the trilogue, the project could still fail. If it goes badly, the so-called Media Freedom Act could end up being the opposite of what it is intended to be: a low-threshold definition of minimum criteria that even the problem states fulfill without major changes.
There is already speculation in negotiating circles as to whether the proposal will be withdrawn by the Commission if the member states continue in this way. After all, they do not want to risk passing a media freedom law that would lower standards for many and do little to help at the end of the legislative period with a Hungarian and then a Polish Council presidency.
She is “determined to steer the Media Freedom Act through the legislative process,” Commission Vice President Věra Jourová let the European Broadcasting Union know on Friday. She said the point is that the law must create a “change for the better, a safety net for the media and necessary and missing safeguards for the media.” She will have to be judged on that.
Medienfreiheit
Climate policy: Sweden’s EU presidency more effective than expected
In the fall of 2022, EU climate policymakers had a suspicion: the Commission, in coordination with the then-acting Czech EU presidency, would push through as many of the Fit-for-55 climate package files as possible, before Sweden was to take over the Council leadership in January 2023. The worry was that the newly elected right-wing Swedish government, dependent as it is of the far-right, EU-skeptic (and partly climate-denialist) Sweden Democrats, would try to block or at least weaken legislative decisions not only on climate issues but also within the overall European Green Deal-agenda.
With the end of the presidency, those worries turned out to be somewhat justified in the sense that Sweden-the-member-state, in some cases (all related to forestry) went against compromises tabled by Sweden – the EU Council President. In general though, there seems to be agreement that the Swedish government and its civil servants played the role of the “honest broker” well and professionally, steering an impressive pile of dossiers from Commission proposals to decisions or at least agreements between the member states and the European Parliament.
Inherited: Milestones of EU climate policy
Most important long-term was probably the final adoption of new versions of the three pillars of the EU climate legislation:
the Directive on Emissions Trading
the Regulations on Effort Sharing
The land use LULUCF (natural carbon sinks) regulations.
In all three cases, the trilogue negotiations (between the Commission, the Council and the Parliament) were concluded already during the Czech presidency, so what remained for the Swedes was to administer the formal decisions, which were taken in March and April 2023. As a consequence, since May there is union legislation in place that (unless it will later be revised) guarantees that the net EU greenhouse gas emissions for 2030 will be 57 percent below the 1990 level. A milestone.
In addition, agreements have been struck on more than ten sector-oriented climate legislations during the Swedish presidency. Among them are:
the promotion of renewable energies and energy efficiency
rules for the compulsory coverage of EV charging facilities
and mandatory use of renewable fuels in shipping and aviation.
Obstacles by Germany and France
In the middle of the presidency, the German and French governments surprised and frustrated everybody, when they, as confirming decisions were to be taken, on two different issues, suddenly, no longer supported trilogue agreements that they had previously agreed to:
France wanted a larger role for nuclear power in the promotion of renewable (or “non-fossil” as the French prefer it) energy.
Those conflicts were ultimately solved, seemingly more through interventions from the Commission than as a result of efforts from the council presidency, it was said in Brussels.
Forestry: Sweden and the EU at odds
On several occasions, it also became clear that Sweden is at odds with the majority of the Union on forestry issues. Sweden abstained when the final decisions on the regulations on deforestation and carbon sinks (LULUCF) were taken, arguing that the new legislation would harm the development of sustainable forestry.
In coalition with other member states, Sweden also successfully managed to dilute the nature conservation requirements on forest biomass in the directive on renewable energy. Those requirements have to be fulfilled to allow for zero accounting of emissions of biogenic carbon dioxide within the emissions trading system. With stronger ecological requirements on the forestry, Swedish pulp and paper industries as well as the many large biomass-based Swedish district heating plants would have to spend lots of money on buying emission allowances to cover those emissions.
Angry letters and Swedish U-turn in the Council of Environment Ministers
The most notable incident was when Sweden at the last environmental council meeting under its leadership, on June 20th, voted against its own compromise for a common position from the EU governments on the proposed Nature Restoration Regulation. A week before the ministerial meeting Sweden withdrew a compromise text, already supported by a steady majority of member states, from the agenda of the preparatory meeting of the EU ambassadors.
Several member states took this as an indication that Sweden did not intend to put forward the compromise to the ministerial meeting, thereby delaying its adoption. In protest France, Germany, Spain and Luxembourg wrote a letter to Sweden for clarification. Finally, the issue showed up on the council agenda, where the Swedish compromise proposal was broadly adopted, in spite of Sweden’s vote against it.
“In general, the presidency was run in a very professional and successful way, but the handling of the nature restoration regulation might put some dirt on it”, notes Ylva Nilsson, commentator on the daily Expressen. “Sweden is famous for being pretty aggressive when it comes to environmental demands on forestry and the forest industry”.
Mats Engström, senior advisor at the Swedish Institute for European Policy (SIEPS), explains the Swedish vote against its own compromise on the Nature Restoration Law by saying that it fits the presidency’s role as an “honest broker”. He adds: “The behavior is rare, but occurs now and then. What makes it problematic and remarkable is the letter sent in protest from four member states.”
Renaturierung
News
ESRS: MEPs demand re-sharpening
Several political groups in the EU Parliament are calling on the EU Commission to tighten the draft European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). Table.Media has a letter that a group of MEPs led by Pascal Durand (France, S&D), who is rapporteur for the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), sent on Thursday to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Commission Vice President Valdis Dombrovskis and Finance Commissioner Mairead McGuinness.
They call for the retention of the originally planned obligation to make binding declarations in sustainability reports. In its draft delegated act, the Commission allows companies to use a materiality analysis to assess the need to disclose certain information. In doing so, they do not have to provide any justification; moreover, the materiality analysis is not standardized.
In November 2022, the EFRAG advisory body published a recommendation for a first set of non–sector-specific standards for sustainability reporting under the CSRD. The Commission submitted its draft based on this on June 9. The four-week consultation period ends July 7.
EPP does not support demands
Ten MEPs from the S&D, Renew, Greens and Left responsible for following up on the CSRD signed the letter, including René Repasi, Lara Wolters (both S&D), Bas Eickhout and Marie Toussaint (both Greens). They explained the letter is their official response to the consultation on the delegated act. “I regret that the EPP does not support our comments on strengthening the delegated act,” said Pascal Durand.
“The original intention of the Commission and the mandate reaffirmed by the co-legislators was to require binding statements justifying, if necessary, why a particular indicator or data point is not material,” the letter states. “The mandatory or reasoned nature of the standards is key to reliable, shared, and unbiased information.“
It said it is thus necessary to reintroduce the mandatory nature of climate data points, regardless of the outcome of the companies’ materiality analysis. As requested by EFRAG, it is also necessary to require entities to also provide a justification in case of lack of materiality, he said. leo
European Commission
Von der Leyen maintains levy on Russian assets
EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is pressing ahead with work on a special levy on profits from frozen Russian state assets, despite concerns from ECB President Christine Lagarde and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. Von der Leyen said after Friday’s EU summit that the EU and its allies had already taken the most important step more than a year ago when they first blocked more than €200 billion in Russian central bank assets after Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine. Reactions in the financial markets have been very calm, von der Leyen said. That, she said, was “an indication that it is very well understood – theprudent approach we are choosing.”
Scholz, on the other hand, described the use of proceeds from the frozen Russian assets as “terribly complicated.” He said no one knows currently “what works at all and how.” He said the leaders had asked the Commission to continue “racking its brains” and to inform him and his EU colleagues again at a later date. Von der Leyen is expected to present a proposal by the end of July.
90 percent of central bank funds are frozen in Belgium at the clearing house Euroclear. Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo said the proceeds from taxes or interest, for example, are estimated at three billion a year. The money is to be used for the reconstruction of Ukraine. The World Bank estimates it will cost more than $400 billion.
Expert report on the single market
On Friday, the heads of state and government discussed EU competitiveness and China policy without any major surprises. Among other things, they called for the establishment of a high-level group of experts to present an independent report on the future of the single market by March 2024. This is a concern of the Belgian government, which will take over the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU at the beginning of 2024.
The summit had been marked by a dispute over migration policy: Hungary and Poland prevented a joint declaration on migration policy and threatened further steps. The two states protested against the fact that the asylum plans were launched against their will by the interior ministers about three weeks ago by a majority vote. In the view of Scholz and von der Leyen, however, the blockade will not stop the legislative process. tho/dpa
Austria to join European air defense system
Neutral Austria plans to join the German project to build a better European air defense system. Chancellor Karl Nehammer announced over the weekend. “The threat situation has massively intensified as a result of the Russian war of aggression on Ukraine,” the conservative politician said, explaining the reasons for the ongoing accession negotiations. He said Austria must thus join other European countries in the protection against drone and missile attacks.
Against the backdrop of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, the “European Sky Shield Initiative” initiated by Germany is intended to help close gaps in the current NATO protective umbrella for Europe. There are deficits, for example, in the area of ballistic missiles that reach high altitudes on their trajectory, but also in the defense against drones and cruise missiles. More than a dozen European states have already joined the project.
Austria’s status as a militarily neutral state would not be jeopardized by joining, Nehammer and Defense Minister Klaudia Tanner said in a joint statement. “It is a matter of participating in a protective umbrella that serves to avert danger,” they argued.
As neutral EU members, Austria, Ireland and Malta blocked far-reaching European Union security guarantees for Ukraine this week. dpa
Electricity market: Spain must continue negotiations
The Permanent Representatives were unable to reach an agreement on the electricity market reform at their last meeting under the Swedish presidency on Friday. The reason was once again France’s resistance because of uncertain subsidy options for nuclear energy, a Council source reported. This means that the Spanish Council presidency must now try to find a common position among the member states.
The energy ministers could discuss the reform on the fringes of their informal meeting on July 11 and 12 in Valladolid in northern Spain. So far, however, other issues are on the agenda, such as preparing for the COP28 world climate conference and “communicating more effectively the opportunities of the climate and energy agenda.”
Sweden had proposed more detailed rules for promotion via CfDs in a final attempt at compromise in preparation for Friday’s meeting. According to the proposal, contracts for difference for the retrofit of existing power plants should only be available if the renewed plant subsequently runsfor at least another ten years and the investment at least doubles the value of the power plant.
Industry to receive more money
The Swedes accommodated industry even further in redistributing revenues from CfDs. They removed the crucial restriction that states may only redistribute as much to companies as corresponds to the total share of the corporate sector in national electricity consumption. The EU states are to be explicitly given the opportunity to give preferential treatment to individual groupsofcompanies, insofar as this is permitted by competition law. German Economics Minister Robert Habeck proposed a similar concept for the internationally competitive industry at the beginning of May.
Sweden also wanted to extend the skimming of excess revenues from existing renewables plants and nuclear power stations until mid-2024. Spain in particular is pushing for this option, while the German government and the Commission are skeptical. In the Parliament, the Spanish rapporteur Nicolas Casares is also in favor of a longer revenue levy. ber
AI Act: Brussels rejects criticism from the business community
MEPs and the EU Commission reacted angrily to the open letter on the regulation of artificial intelligence sent to Brussels by 150 business representatives on Friday. Handelsblatt and Financial Times had published it earlier. “I am convinced they have not carefully read the legislative text,” said Dragoș Tudorache (Renew), one of the two rapporteurs of the AI Act.
Among others, the heads of Deutsche Telekom, Siemens and Airbus signed the letter, but also that of the French AI start-up Mistral AI, which has just raised €105 million in funding. The draft law would “jeopardize Europe’s competitiveness and technological sovereignty” without effectively addressing the challenges, the letter says. This is especially true for generative AI, it adds.
AI Act in trilogue: work starts now
When the Commission presented its draft in 2021, generative AIwas neither as advanced nor as much in the public interest as it is today. “The new AI regulation will ensure that Europeans can trust the possibilities of AI,” said a Commission spokesperson. He said the planned rules are balanced, risk-based and future-proof, and “will address the specific risks of AI systems and set the highest standard worldwide.”
The trilogue working groups start their work on the AI Act today, Monday. The Table.Media working paper (4-column-document) contains the Parliament’s proposals on generative AI. The topic will thus be a subject of negotiation in the trilogue. The trilogue is expected to be completed by the end of the year.
‘Letter ultimates with misinformation‘
The only concrete proposals in the letter are in line with what the Parliamentary text already contains, Tudorache said. “An industry-led process for defining standards, governance, with industry at the table and a light regulatory regime that asks for transparency.” It is a pity, he said, “that the aggressive and misleading lobby of a few” is taking over other reputable companies. He said the Parliamenthas worked with companies throughout the legislative process.
Sergey Lagodinsky, shadow rapporteur for the Greens, expressed a similar view. He likes to listen to voices from the business community. But he prefers to listen to informed and deliberative voices rather than “lobbying in the form of open letters.” This also has little to do with the specific concerns of AI developers or the draft law. No conversation works on that basis, Lagodinsky said. “These are letter ultimatums with misinformation.”
Others find the concerns justified
Axel Voss, shadow rapporteur for the EPP, takes a different view: “The outcry from business is completely justified, even if it is very, very late.” In some places, he said, the parliamentary text contains requirements that cannot really be implemented. “Some things are excessive and many far too cumbersome,” Voss said. “We as the EPP alone identified countless points that need to be changed to make the text workable to some extent.” He said he hopes that can be achieved in the trilogue. “If it stays like this, the AI Act will be the reason for some to leave Europe and for others to better not even start with new ideas.” Both cannot be the intention of the legislator.
Antonio Krüger, computer scientist and CEO of the German Research Center for AI (DFKI), also believes the concerns of the business community are justified. That is why he also co-signed the letter on behalf of DFKI. “Regulation is important,” Krüger said. “But at the same time, just as much effort should be put into advancing AI innovation in Europe.” vis
Artificial intelligence
Artificial Intelligence Regulation
Heads
Thorsten Augustin – now Hanseatic, always European
Thorsten Augustin, Head of the Hanse-Office (Schleswig-Holstein) in Brussels.
“I live the EU,” says 58-year-old elected Hanseatic Thorsten Augustin freely. Providing information about current EU policies, legislative procedures and European policy developments at an early stage is the focus of Thorsten Augustin’s tasks. The lawyer heads the Hanse Office for Schleswig-Holstein, a joint representation of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg and the State of Schleswig-Holstein in the European Union. His team tries to present the diversity of the two domestic locations through events, meetings and cultural happenings in Brussels.
From Augustin’s perspective, the Ukraine war is currently overshadowing everything else. “Everything has been thrown into disarray. The repercussions have turned all politics upside down.” And apparently not just politics. The EU’s agreements, he says, have always been the greatest peace project for him. Global trade – so far a peace dividend for the law graduate. However, Augustin says, Russia has taught himotherwise.
‘Every particle you move in Brussels has an impact’
Augustin has been involved withthe European Union for almost 30 years. The native Mindener never let it go. And he is sure this is the case for everyone who has ever dealt with the subject. He sees the EU as an “opportunity area” with an incredible number of opportunities to work and develop. That is why Augustin is also a big supporter of the Erasmus+ funding program. That it is, nevertheless, not so easy to get young people excited about Brussels is something Augustin has to realize time and again.
In 1992, Augustin moved to the Federal Ministry of Finance in Bonn under the leadership of Theo Waigel. He was involved with the economic and monetary union and the introduction of the euro, among other things. Later, he moved to the German EU embassy in Brussels. Looking back on his career, Augustin sees decisive changes. Early reporting by the country representatives is no longer exclusive, he says. “Every decision in Brussels is transparent within a few minutes,” he says. That makes it all the more important to see the big picture and be able to classify it.
The northern German’s single-minded way of life greatly influenced the native of East Westphalia. “The north speaks plain language, and that suits me,” he says. As far as decision-making procedures at the EU level are concerned, he says, everything is connected. “Every little piece you move in Brussels has an impact.” If there was ever a missing piece of the puzzle in Augustin’s life, he has certainly found it in the Belgian capital. Julia Klann
