Even a good 35 years after the introduction of the European transport policy, Europe’s transport routes are nowhere near as interoperable as needed. There have been initiatives, conferences and promises of solutions for years. But only very gradually is anything happening. Transport routes and modalities have been planned for decades – usually with a focus on national requirements.
Russia’s war against Ukraine clearly demonstrates: transport options from Ukraine to the EU, and therefore literally to safe havens, are limited. One reason: different rail networks. The majority of the Ukrainian network is still at 1520 millimeters due to the tsarist era – so that no possible aggressor could ever travel on it. In most of Western Europe, except for Finland and the Baltic states on the one hand, and Ireland, Portugal and Spain on the other, the “standard gauge” is 1435 millimeters.
The track gauge is not the only obstacle when a train needs to travel from one country to another: Different contact wire voltages, signaling standards and, of course, safety requirements complicate cross-border traffic. This is a particular nuisance in times when rapid troop deployments across Europe may be necessary.
There is no shortage of projects intended to change this at some point – from ERTMS to Baltic-Rail and yet many projects are characterized by the same thing that many rail companies are known for: massive delays. And so it is only with muted expectations that we can look forward to the “Connecting Europe Days,” which will be taking place in Brussels from today onwards and focusing on the snailish pace of progress. The German Minister of Transport, Volker Wissing, wants to talk about the construction sites that need to be addressed in intra-European freight transport.
Get the new week off to a good start.
Less than a year before the current decision on the temporary protection of refugees from Ukraine expires, the situation remains complicated. At present, everything points to a further extension in the fall. The Commission would submit the extension together with a revised implementing regulation in accordance with the TPD and the member states would adopt it. However, this will not be the case until late summer at the earliest when the new Commission is in office. This means uncertainty – for the Member States, the competent authorities and Ukrainians.
A spokesperson for the Austrian Ministry of the Interior said in response to an inquiry that there is a need to discuss how to proceed beyond March 2025. National preparations need time. “It is important that there is legal certainty for member states and persons entitled to temporary protection. It is also important to prevent the asylum and residence authorities from being overburdened.” Since Russia’s great attack, Austria has registered 110,000 displaced persons from Ukraine out of a population of almost 9 million. In mid-March, there were 958,640 people with temporary protection status among Germany’s almost 84 million inhabitants, 286,965 of whom were minors.
If the regulation under the Mass Influx Directive were to expire without replacement, Ukrainians would fall under the regulations of the Geneva Convention as war refugees in many EU member states, i.e. they would receive subsidiary protection. This would mean millions of individual procedures under asylum law. The directive was actually supposed to be completely replaced with the new crisis mechanism of the asylum package. However, this plan was canceled in light of reality. The new mechanism, which is to be adopted by the European Parliament at the beginning of April, could only apply to future cases.
“We are campaigning for a timely solution, if possible at the European level, but if that doesn’t work, then at the national level,” says Irene Vorholz from the German Association of Counties. The aim must be to “keep the effort for both the authorities – immigration authorities, job centers, social welfare offices – and the people as low as possible.” However, it is unlikely that many Ukrainians will be able to migrate from temporary protection to other protection statuses in time. This means that the scenario of an overload of authorities is getting closer with every day that the protection status is not extended.
Transferring all Ukrainians to temporary protection to the asylum system in 2025 would be almost impossible to manage: “That would be chaos,” says Green MEP Erik Marquardt. He calls on the EU Commission and member states: “This must be decided now.” The municipalities must be able to build up capacities and plan. “It is important for the Ukrainians to know they will not have to return next March.” They need a signal that it makes sense to learn the language and integrate – regardless of whether they return later. And that could be the extension.
However, there are currently three reasons why the EU Commission is struggling to initiate this process. The first is homemade and has to do with the wording of the TPD Directive. At the end of 2023, the EU Commission thought that the application of the directive could be extended again. It actually provides for a maximum of two extensions – and the second was decided last fall until March 2025.
Martin Wagner from the International Center for Migration Policy and Development (ICMPD) sees the plan as a “legal balancing act”:” In Article 6, the directive speaks of a maximum duration; if it were to continue to apply, this maximum duration would not be necessary, which is a clear indication.” But: there is no other available option.
“There is almost no alternative to an extension: the time window is narrow and it affects four million people in the EU,” says Wagner. “All alternatives should have already been put in place.” However, a single member state taking legal action against the currently planned interpretation of the law could be enough to bring down the extension.
The second reason: the current Commission no longer wants to be active here. And it remains to be seen when the new one will be in office. It is unlikely that it will be appointed by the Member States before late summer or early fall and that the parliamentary hearings will be over.
The third reason: an early extension of protection status would signal to Ukraine that the EU expects the war to last longer. One possible consequence is that the refugees would feel at home here and perhaps not want to return. This actually contradicts the idea of the Temporary Protection Directive. And this contradicts the reality after more than two years of war.
“The TPD Directive has many advantages, but also disadvantages: This relates in particular to permanentization, as few want to give temporary workers accommodation and work,” explains ICMPD Senior Policy Advisor Martin Wagner. However, there are major differences between the member states, both in terms of work permits and housing options. It is a conflict of objectives: on the one hand, the permanent state of limbo is fraught with problems for the people and the recipient states. For Ukraine, however, it would be important for its own citizens to return if possible.
For Green MEP Erik Marquardt, a quick extension is unavoidable in any case. Instead of returning home, it is more realistic to expect more refugees at the moment. “There could well be a million people fleeing from Ukraine to Germany this year,” he says. That simply depends on the course of the fighting. The Directorate-General for Home Affairs, DG Home, also says that massive refugee movements are to be expected if the situation in Ukraine deteriorates, both inside and outside the country.
The CDU/CSU parliamentary group’s domestic policy spokesperson Alexander Throm is thus calling for a change: “The extension of EU protection for Ukrainians is the right thing to do, but the German government must finally commit to EU-wide distribution.” Austria is also calling for changes: “In any case, coordinated access is considered sensible to prevent secondary migration,” a ministry spokesperson said in response to a Table.Briefings inquiry.
However, it is questionable whether all countries would support an extension. So far, it is mainly the countries of Northern, Central and Eastern Europe that have taken in the majority of refugees from Ukraine. Just 65,000 refugees have been registered in France. This is about the same number as in Finland, which has less than a tenth of the population. “So far, there has been absolutely no effort by the traffic light coalition to establish a mandatory European distribution mechanism – even though Germany is one of the main destination countries for Ukrainian refugees fleeing the war,” criticizes Throm.
But that is precisely what is unlikely – which is why there is now a risk of fragmentation. “It makes me nervous that the countries are starting to think nationally,” says ICMPD expert Martin Wagner.
Germany, for example, has been trying for several months to bring as many of the Ukrainian refugees as possible into other “legal circles” of residence law. “However, there will probably be no quick successes,” says Irene Vorholz from the Association of German Counties, pointing out a basic prerequisite: “Integration also depends on language skills.”
The goal would be a residence status linked to regular employment, study or training. However, for those affected, this means exchanging a secure residence status under Section 24 of the Residence Act for an insecure one: After completing an apprenticeship, for example, they would have no direct entitlements as if under temporary protection. And would theoretically have to return.
A German problem that also exists in some other European countries. The TPD Directive, labor migration law and asylum law are often parallel systems that do not interlock. This lack of flexibility, says Martin Wagner, is part of the problem from the refugees’ perspective. “Why should they switch from a legal status that allows them to do anything to a status where they are only allowed to study, for example? That’s the crux of the matter with our migration laws.”
Germany continues to hope for a joint solution, according to the responsible press spokesperson of the Federal Ministry of the Interior: “An amendment to Section 24 of the Residence Act is not being sought.”
In fact, a completely different law in Germany could lead to some of the refugees who arrived from Ukraine in 2022 falling out of TPD protection. On March 26, the amendment to the citizenship law was announced in the Federal Law Gazette. This means that from the end of June, it may be possible to become a German citizen after just three years of legal residence. This is not possible under the temporary protection status of Section 24 of the Residence Act. However, these periods could be taken into account when changing to a regular residence status.
That would be a problem for Ukraine. For some refugees, however, it would finally be a predictable perspective. Migration expert Martin Wagner calls for pragmatism: “Of course, a large number will return – we don’t have to pretend that everyone will stay.” However, Ukraine would urgently need some of the citizens after the war. But there are also questions for those who stay: “Refugees are mainly women and children. In the long term, we will also have to think about family reunification.”
At first glance, sustainable, climate-friendly defense sounds like a contradiction. However, even NATO and the EU have recently committed to the goal of a “green army” or rather the development of armaments that are as climate-neutral as possible.
For too long, industry and governments as customers have remained silent about the socio-political importance of the sector, says Debbie Allen, Director of Sustainability at British defense contractor BAE Systems. This has only changed for the general public since the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The industry has been trying to improve its image for some time. For a long time, the perception was largely negative, says Allen, who heads a task force on climate and defense at the Brussels-based Aerospace, Security and Defence Industry Association (ASD): “We are now trying to change that without greenwashing.”
Although this is a difficult balancing act, it will be important to remain attractive to investors and potential employees – or to become so again. Climate change has an impact on defense, and defense also has an impact on the climate. The defense industry wants to contribute to the fight against climate change, also in its own interest.
Governments have committed to climate neutrality by 2050, which is also mandatory for defense ministries and industry, Allen said. The Western world is saying goodbye to fossil fuels, and the defense industry must adapt. If energy costs rise as a result of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), this is another reason for the industry to rethink. Whereby military equipment designed today may still be in use in 2050 or 2060 when diesel or kerosene will likely be scarce or expensive. This also needs to be taken into account.
In the case of defense equipment, carbon emissions are divided into three categories. Firstly, the industry can influence its own production-related carbon emissions, for example, in manufacturing defense platforms. Another area comprises supply chains and suppliers, including the extraction of raw materials. However, two-thirds of carbon emissions are generated in the third category, namely during the use of military equipment. According to Allen, trials with climate-neutral fuels are underway for fighter aircraft, for example, although commercial aviation naturally has priority when it comes to the supply of these fuels.
A lot of savings could also be achieved if pilots could train even more in simulators instead of fighter planes. BAE Systems and other manufacturers are also in the process of testing prototypes of military vehicles with hybrid or electrified drives. This could have several advantages. The risk associated with the energy supply could be reduced. The vulnerability of fossil fuel supplies and fuel depots is particularly evident in Ukraine.
Electrified vehicles, which can be operated at least temporarily in electric mode, emit less heat and are therefore less visible and practically noiseless. Small solar-powered micro-energy grids have also proven their worth in Ukraine.
According to the industry association ASD, which cites international studies, the global defense sector contributes around one percent to global greenhouse gas emissions of anthropogenic origin. The defense industry does not claim to be saving the climate; operational capability remains a priority, says Allen. But without security, there is no sustainability.
The EU co-finances research and development of climate-neutral military equipment through its European Defense Fund, among other things. NATO already adopted a Climate Change and Security Action Plan at its 2021 summit in Brussels, intending to reduce climate pollutants by 45 percent by 2030. However, the transition away from fossil fuels should not jeopardize the interoperability and operational capability of the allies. The armed forces of the NATO states must be “strong and green at the same time,” said Stoltenberg in 2023.
Barbara Gessler knows Berlin well. She worked at the European Commission Representation in Berlin from 1998 to 2003. Back then, today’s European House at the Brandenburg Gate did not exist. “I knew this building before it even existed,” says the 59-year-old. “And I also know Potsdamer Platz as a tabula rasa.” Even in all the years in between, Berlin is always worth a trip for her. She regularly visits family and friends here and loves the theaters and the Berlinale.
Since March 18, Barbara Gessler has headed the European Commission Representation in Germany. “I always had several dreams. One of them was to go to Berlin as Head of Representation, as the best I could achieve. And I am very happy that it has now worked out.”
Her talent for languages meant that she was predicted a career in the EU early on: “When I was still a child, my extended family was already saying: Barbara is going to Europe one day,” recalls Barbara , who was born in Ghent in 1964. Her mother is Flemish, her father German. “Different cultural areas came together in my family: the Flemish, somewhat baroque way of life and my father’s somewhat Prussian habitus from Potsdam.” The two went together surprisingly well. “Together we have lived something new, something European. That shaped us as a family – to this day.”
After leaving school, Barbara Gessler first goes to Paris, where she works as a secretary and earns her first money at the age of 18. Above all, however, she discovered culture, going to the cinema and theater and visiting Ernest Hemingway’s favorite cafés. Today, she regards her year in Paris as a kind of awakening.
She actually wants to study languages. “But my father said: better study something decent and add languages on top.” The “decent” thing was administrative science in Konstanz, where Ralf Dahrendorf was once a founding professor. “It was an interdisciplinary course for people who wanted to work in associations, institutions or governments, who didn’t just want to study law, economics, politics or sociology, but a broad spectrum,” explains Barbara Gessler. “I found that appealing.”
During her studies, she spent eight months in Buenos Aires as an intern at the Goethe-Institut and as a secretary at the embassy. Even then, she was always trying to “find a perspective away from the purely institutional and towards the cultural, lively and beautiful.”
When she was a student, “Europe wasn’t really on the university agenda,” she recalls. But she and her friends at university saw things differently. So she went to the College of Europe in Bruges for her Master’s degree in European Studies. She then began her professional career as an assistant to Klaus Wettich, Member of the European Parliament for Lower Saxony. In 1994, she moved to the European Commission as an official in the audiovisual, environment and communication sectors.
Since 2011, she has worked as Head of the Culture Unit at the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA), most recently as Head of the International Capacity Building Unit in Higher Education. “I have been fortunate to have been able to turn my passion into a career – especially over the past eleven years of managing Creative Europe in one capacity or another. That has been very fortunate.”
She also feels very lucky to be able to work in Berlin now. “I see my role here as having three facets,” says Barbara Gessler. “The most important thing is certainly to be the face of Europe.” Of course, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is the face of Europe. “But when the President is not here, we as a house are the Commission in Germany.”
She wants to be accessible to the people here in the country. “My role is to be a point of contact, to listen, to take on board suggestions, to see what is on people’s minds or in their hearts? And then bring that back to Brussels.” She is convinced that it is becoming increasingly important for Brussels to see what makes people tick on the ground and what this means for European politics.
The other facet is that she also wants to be the one explaining what is happening in Brussels. “I have to make sure that people here understand what we are doing in Europe, how and why. In my opinion, this is a two-way road. It can only work if we listen and feed back.”
Finally, she has another internal task: managing team Germany with the new regional managers in Bonn and Munich. “I want to strengthen this team.” Although Barbara Gessler does not have the status of an ambassador, as she works within the EU, her role is very similar to that of an ambassador.
She is convinced that the war in Ukraine has made people once again recognize the value of European unity and the need to stand united. “I believe that these crises have once again clearly demonstrated the value of Europe.” She thus hopes for a lively turnout from German citizens in the European elections.
And what will the new mandate bring with it? “We are now entering a new phase,” says the EU representative. “We have initiated a lot under Ursula von der Leyen and are now entering a phase of consolidation and implementation.” And to all those who complain about too much bureaucracy from Brussels, she replies: “Of course, we also know that we must not put obstacles in the way of the German economy and the European economy in general, but on the contrary, we must offer concrete support by reducing bureaucracy and speeding up procedures.” She adds: “Reducing bureaucracy is also what we want.”
However, from her long time in Brussels, she also knows that it is easier to promise the reduction of bureaucracy than to implement it. “I worked for cultural funding for eleven years and we always said we would make it easier. But it’s a thick plank to drill.”
The redesign of her bright corner office on the upper floor of the European House, from where she has a view of the Brandenburg Gate, is somewhat easier. The first thing she wants to do is re-hanging a portrait of Ursula Hirschmann. The painting of the activist and advocate of European federalism will no longer hang in the hallway, but in a place of honor on the wall behind her desk.
Barbara Gessler speaks with admiration about Ursula Hirschmann, who founded the association “Femmes pour l’Europe” in Brussels in 1975. And she says of herself: “I am of course very proud to be the first woman here in this position.”
Even a good 35 years after the introduction of the European transport policy, Europe’s transport routes are nowhere near as interoperable as needed. There have been initiatives, conferences and promises of solutions for years. But only very gradually is anything happening. Transport routes and modalities have been planned for decades – usually with a focus on national requirements.
Russia’s war against Ukraine clearly demonstrates: transport options from Ukraine to the EU, and therefore literally to safe havens, are limited. One reason: different rail networks. The majority of the Ukrainian network is still at 1520 millimeters due to the tsarist era – so that no possible aggressor could ever travel on it. In most of Western Europe, except for Finland and the Baltic states on the one hand, and Ireland, Portugal and Spain on the other, the “standard gauge” is 1435 millimeters.
The track gauge is not the only obstacle when a train needs to travel from one country to another: Different contact wire voltages, signaling standards and, of course, safety requirements complicate cross-border traffic. This is a particular nuisance in times when rapid troop deployments across Europe may be necessary.
There is no shortage of projects intended to change this at some point – from ERTMS to Baltic-Rail and yet many projects are characterized by the same thing that many rail companies are known for: massive delays. And so it is only with muted expectations that we can look forward to the “Connecting Europe Days,” which will be taking place in Brussels from today onwards and focusing on the snailish pace of progress. The German Minister of Transport, Volker Wissing, wants to talk about the construction sites that need to be addressed in intra-European freight transport.
Get the new week off to a good start.
Less than a year before the current decision on the temporary protection of refugees from Ukraine expires, the situation remains complicated. At present, everything points to a further extension in the fall. The Commission would submit the extension together with a revised implementing regulation in accordance with the TPD and the member states would adopt it. However, this will not be the case until late summer at the earliest when the new Commission is in office. This means uncertainty – for the Member States, the competent authorities and Ukrainians.
A spokesperson for the Austrian Ministry of the Interior said in response to an inquiry that there is a need to discuss how to proceed beyond March 2025. National preparations need time. “It is important that there is legal certainty for member states and persons entitled to temporary protection. It is also important to prevent the asylum and residence authorities from being overburdened.” Since Russia’s great attack, Austria has registered 110,000 displaced persons from Ukraine out of a population of almost 9 million. In mid-March, there were 958,640 people with temporary protection status among Germany’s almost 84 million inhabitants, 286,965 of whom were minors.
If the regulation under the Mass Influx Directive were to expire without replacement, Ukrainians would fall under the regulations of the Geneva Convention as war refugees in many EU member states, i.e. they would receive subsidiary protection. This would mean millions of individual procedures under asylum law. The directive was actually supposed to be completely replaced with the new crisis mechanism of the asylum package. However, this plan was canceled in light of reality. The new mechanism, which is to be adopted by the European Parliament at the beginning of April, could only apply to future cases.
“We are campaigning for a timely solution, if possible at the European level, but if that doesn’t work, then at the national level,” says Irene Vorholz from the German Association of Counties. The aim must be to “keep the effort for both the authorities – immigration authorities, job centers, social welfare offices – and the people as low as possible.” However, it is unlikely that many Ukrainians will be able to migrate from temporary protection to other protection statuses in time. This means that the scenario of an overload of authorities is getting closer with every day that the protection status is not extended.
Transferring all Ukrainians to temporary protection to the asylum system in 2025 would be almost impossible to manage: “That would be chaos,” says Green MEP Erik Marquardt. He calls on the EU Commission and member states: “This must be decided now.” The municipalities must be able to build up capacities and plan. “It is important for the Ukrainians to know they will not have to return next March.” They need a signal that it makes sense to learn the language and integrate – regardless of whether they return later. And that could be the extension.
However, there are currently three reasons why the EU Commission is struggling to initiate this process. The first is homemade and has to do with the wording of the TPD Directive. At the end of 2023, the EU Commission thought that the application of the directive could be extended again. It actually provides for a maximum of two extensions – and the second was decided last fall until March 2025.
Martin Wagner from the International Center for Migration Policy and Development (ICMPD) sees the plan as a “legal balancing act”:” In Article 6, the directive speaks of a maximum duration; if it were to continue to apply, this maximum duration would not be necessary, which is a clear indication.” But: there is no other available option.
“There is almost no alternative to an extension: the time window is narrow and it affects four million people in the EU,” says Wagner. “All alternatives should have already been put in place.” However, a single member state taking legal action against the currently planned interpretation of the law could be enough to bring down the extension.
The second reason: the current Commission no longer wants to be active here. And it remains to be seen when the new one will be in office. It is unlikely that it will be appointed by the Member States before late summer or early fall and that the parliamentary hearings will be over.
The third reason: an early extension of protection status would signal to Ukraine that the EU expects the war to last longer. One possible consequence is that the refugees would feel at home here and perhaps not want to return. This actually contradicts the idea of the Temporary Protection Directive. And this contradicts the reality after more than two years of war.
“The TPD Directive has many advantages, but also disadvantages: This relates in particular to permanentization, as few want to give temporary workers accommodation and work,” explains ICMPD Senior Policy Advisor Martin Wagner. However, there are major differences between the member states, both in terms of work permits and housing options. It is a conflict of objectives: on the one hand, the permanent state of limbo is fraught with problems for the people and the recipient states. For Ukraine, however, it would be important for its own citizens to return if possible.
For Green MEP Erik Marquardt, a quick extension is unavoidable in any case. Instead of returning home, it is more realistic to expect more refugees at the moment. “There could well be a million people fleeing from Ukraine to Germany this year,” he says. That simply depends on the course of the fighting. The Directorate-General for Home Affairs, DG Home, also says that massive refugee movements are to be expected if the situation in Ukraine deteriorates, both inside and outside the country.
The CDU/CSU parliamentary group’s domestic policy spokesperson Alexander Throm is thus calling for a change: “The extension of EU protection for Ukrainians is the right thing to do, but the German government must finally commit to EU-wide distribution.” Austria is also calling for changes: “In any case, coordinated access is considered sensible to prevent secondary migration,” a ministry spokesperson said in response to a Table.Briefings inquiry.
However, it is questionable whether all countries would support an extension. So far, it is mainly the countries of Northern, Central and Eastern Europe that have taken in the majority of refugees from Ukraine. Just 65,000 refugees have been registered in France. This is about the same number as in Finland, which has less than a tenth of the population. “So far, there has been absolutely no effort by the traffic light coalition to establish a mandatory European distribution mechanism – even though Germany is one of the main destination countries for Ukrainian refugees fleeing the war,” criticizes Throm.
But that is precisely what is unlikely – which is why there is now a risk of fragmentation. “It makes me nervous that the countries are starting to think nationally,” says ICMPD expert Martin Wagner.
Germany, for example, has been trying for several months to bring as many of the Ukrainian refugees as possible into other “legal circles” of residence law. “However, there will probably be no quick successes,” says Irene Vorholz from the Association of German Counties, pointing out a basic prerequisite: “Integration also depends on language skills.”
The goal would be a residence status linked to regular employment, study or training. However, for those affected, this means exchanging a secure residence status under Section 24 of the Residence Act for an insecure one: After completing an apprenticeship, for example, they would have no direct entitlements as if under temporary protection. And would theoretically have to return.
A German problem that also exists in some other European countries. The TPD Directive, labor migration law and asylum law are often parallel systems that do not interlock. This lack of flexibility, says Martin Wagner, is part of the problem from the refugees’ perspective. “Why should they switch from a legal status that allows them to do anything to a status where they are only allowed to study, for example? That’s the crux of the matter with our migration laws.”
Germany continues to hope for a joint solution, according to the responsible press spokesperson of the Federal Ministry of the Interior: “An amendment to Section 24 of the Residence Act is not being sought.”
In fact, a completely different law in Germany could lead to some of the refugees who arrived from Ukraine in 2022 falling out of TPD protection. On March 26, the amendment to the citizenship law was announced in the Federal Law Gazette. This means that from the end of June, it may be possible to become a German citizen after just three years of legal residence. This is not possible under the temporary protection status of Section 24 of the Residence Act. However, these periods could be taken into account when changing to a regular residence status.
That would be a problem for Ukraine. For some refugees, however, it would finally be a predictable perspective. Migration expert Martin Wagner calls for pragmatism: “Of course, a large number will return – we don’t have to pretend that everyone will stay.” However, Ukraine would urgently need some of the citizens after the war. But there are also questions for those who stay: “Refugees are mainly women and children. In the long term, we will also have to think about family reunification.”
At first glance, sustainable, climate-friendly defense sounds like a contradiction. However, even NATO and the EU have recently committed to the goal of a “green army” or rather the development of armaments that are as climate-neutral as possible.
For too long, industry and governments as customers have remained silent about the socio-political importance of the sector, says Debbie Allen, Director of Sustainability at British defense contractor BAE Systems. This has only changed for the general public since the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The industry has been trying to improve its image for some time. For a long time, the perception was largely negative, says Allen, who heads a task force on climate and defense at the Brussels-based Aerospace, Security and Defence Industry Association (ASD): “We are now trying to change that without greenwashing.”
Although this is a difficult balancing act, it will be important to remain attractive to investors and potential employees – or to become so again. Climate change has an impact on defense, and defense also has an impact on the climate. The defense industry wants to contribute to the fight against climate change, also in its own interest.
Governments have committed to climate neutrality by 2050, which is also mandatory for defense ministries and industry, Allen said. The Western world is saying goodbye to fossil fuels, and the defense industry must adapt. If energy costs rise as a result of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), this is another reason for the industry to rethink. Whereby military equipment designed today may still be in use in 2050 or 2060 when diesel or kerosene will likely be scarce or expensive. This also needs to be taken into account.
In the case of defense equipment, carbon emissions are divided into three categories. Firstly, the industry can influence its own production-related carbon emissions, for example, in manufacturing defense platforms. Another area comprises supply chains and suppliers, including the extraction of raw materials. However, two-thirds of carbon emissions are generated in the third category, namely during the use of military equipment. According to Allen, trials with climate-neutral fuels are underway for fighter aircraft, for example, although commercial aviation naturally has priority when it comes to the supply of these fuels.
A lot of savings could also be achieved if pilots could train even more in simulators instead of fighter planes. BAE Systems and other manufacturers are also in the process of testing prototypes of military vehicles with hybrid or electrified drives. This could have several advantages. The risk associated with the energy supply could be reduced. The vulnerability of fossil fuel supplies and fuel depots is particularly evident in Ukraine.
Electrified vehicles, which can be operated at least temporarily in electric mode, emit less heat and are therefore less visible and practically noiseless. Small solar-powered micro-energy grids have also proven their worth in Ukraine.
According to the industry association ASD, which cites international studies, the global defense sector contributes around one percent to global greenhouse gas emissions of anthropogenic origin. The defense industry does not claim to be saving the climate; operational capability remains a priority, says Allen. But without security, there is no sustainability.
The EU co-finances research and development of climate-neutral military equipment through its European Defense Fund, among other things. NATO already adopted a Climate Change and Security Action Plan at its 2021 summit in Brussels, intending to reduce climate pollutants by 45 percent by 2030. However, the transition away from fossil fuels should not jeopardize the interoperability and operational capability of the allies. The armed forces of the NATO states must be “strong and green at the same time,” said Stoltenberg in 2023.
Barbara Gessler knows Berlin well. She worked at the European Commission Representation in Berlin from 1998 to 2003. Back then, today’s European House at the Brandenburg Gate did not exist. “I knew this building before it even existed,” says the 59-year-old. “And I also know Potsdamer Platz as a tabula rasa.” Even in all the years in between, Berlin is always worth a trip for her. She regularly visits family and friends here and loves the theaters and the Berlinale.
Since March 18, Barbara Gessler has headed the European Commission Representation in Germany. “I always had several dreams. One of them was to go to Berlin as Head of Representation, as the best I could achieve. And I am very happy that it has now worked out.”
Her talent for languages meant that she was predicted a career in the EU early on: “When I was still a child, my extended family was already saying: Barbara is going to Europe one day,” recalls Barbara , who was born in Ghent in 1964. Her mother is Flemish, her father German. “Different cultural areas came together in my family: the Flemish, somewhat baroque way of life and my father’s somewhat Prussian habitus from Potsdam.” The two went together surprisingly well. “Together we have lived something new, something European. That shaped us as a family – to this day.”
After leaving school, Barbara Gessler first goes to Paris, where she works as a secretary and earns her first money at the age of 18. Above all, however, she discovered culture, going to the cinema and theater and visiting Ernest Hemingway’s favorite cafés. Today, she regards her year in Paris as a kind of awakening.
She actually wants to study languages. “But my father said: better study something decent and add languages on top.” The “decent” thing was administrative science in Konstanz, where Ralf Dahrendorf was once a founding professor. “It was an interdisciplinary course for people who wanted to work in associations, institutions or governments, who didn’t just want to study law, economics, politics or sociology, but a broad spectrum,” explains Barbara Gessler. “I found that appealing.”
During her studies, she spent eight months in Buenos Aires as an intern at the Goethe-Institut and as a secretary at the embassy. Even then, she was always trying to “find a perspective away from the purely institutional and towards the cultural, lively and beautiful.”
When she was a student, “Europe wasn’t really on the university agenda,” she recalls. But she and her friends at university saw things differently. So she went to the College of Europe in Bruges for her Master’s degree in European Studies. She then began her professional career as an assistant to Klaus Wettich, Member of the European Parliament for Lower Saxony. In 1994, she moved to the European Commission as an official in the audiovisual, environment and communication sectors.
Since 2011, she has worked as Head of the Culture Unit at the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA), most recently as Head of the International Capacity Building Unit in Higher Education. “I have been fortunate to have been able to turn my passion into a career – especially over the past eleven years of managing Creative Europe in one capacity or another. That has been very fortunate.”
She also feels very lucky to be able to work in Berlin now. “I see my role here as having three facets,” says Barbara Gessler. “The most important thing is certainly to be the face of Europe.” Of course, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is the face of Europe. “But when the President is not here, we as a house are the Commission in Germany.”
She wants to be accessible to the people here in the country. “My role is to be a point of contact, to listen, to take on board suggestions, to see what is on people’s minds or in their hearts? And then bring that back to Brussels.” She is convinced that it is becoming increasingly important for Brussels to see what makes people tick on the ground and what this means for European politics.
The other facet is that she also wants to be the one explaining what is happening in Brussels. “I have to make sure that people here understand what we are doing in Europe, how and why. In my opinion, this is a two-way road. It can only work if we listen and feed back.”
Finally, she has another internal task: managing team Germany with the new regional managers in Bonn and Munich. “I want to strengthen this team.” Although Barbara Gessler does not have the status of an ambassador, as she works within the EU, her role is very similar to that of an ambassador.
She is convinced that the war in Ukraine has made people once again recognize the value of European unity and the need to stand united. “I believe that these crises have once again clearly demonstrated the value of Europe.” She thus hopes for a lively turnout from German citizens in the European elections.
And what will the new mandate bring with it? “We are now entering a new phase,” says the EU representative. “We have initiated a lot under Ursula von der Leyen and are now entering a phase of consolidation and implementation.” And to all those who complain about too much bureaucracy from Brussels, she replies: “Of course, we also know that we must not put obstacles in the way of the German economy and the European economy in general, but on the contrary, we must offer concrete support by reducing bureaucracy and speeding up procedures.” She adds: “Reducing bureaucracy is also what we want.”
However, from her long time in Brussels, she also knows that it is easier to promise the reduction of bureaucracy than to implement it. “I worked for cultural funding for eleven years and we always said we would make it easier. But it’s a thick plank to drill.”
The redesign of her bright corner office on the upper floor of the European House, from where she has a view of the Brandenburg Gate, is somewhat easier. The first thing she wants to do is re-hanging a portrait of Ursula Hirschmann. The painting of the activist and advocate of European federalism will no longer hang in the hallway, but in a place of honor on the wall behind her desk.
Barbara Gessler speaks with admiration about Ursula Hirschmann, who founded the association “Femmes pour l’Europe” in Brussels in 1975. And she says of herself: “I am of course very proud to be the first woman here in this position.”
