Your contact for new licenses
Universal cooperation among nations seems impossible in today’s divided geopolitical landscape – but 75 years ago today, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 were adopted, and eventually ratified by every United Nations member state. The conventions form the basis of international humanitarian law and led to the globally accepted rules of armed conflict.
The main goal of the rules is to protect civilians during wartime, outlawing the direct targeting of civilians and humanitarian aid groups. They’ve come into greater focus in recent years as wars broke out in Europe and the Middle East, and have had to adapt to the changing realities of conflict, including drone warfare.
Civilian death tolls in Ukraine, Gaza, and Sudan can give the impression that the law “is no longer relevant and never respected,” the Red Cross acknowledges. But advocates argue the rules have prevented even worse atrocities.
In the latest example of how difficult widespread international consensus can now be, read on for insight into the ongoing challenges in finding an agreement for deep sea mining. Enjoy this latest edition of Europe.Table, and have a great week.
The number of lobbyists represented in the Bundestag’s lobbying register has fallen significantly with the new Lobbying Register Act. At the end of June – shortly before the new lobbying register came into force – 6224 lobbyists were listed. Last Friday, just over a month later, there are 5734 registered lobbyists from companies, organizations and NGOs. 490 fewer entries.
According to the website of the lobbying register at the German Bundestag, there are also 1137 lobbyists who were previously registered but have since been deregistered. Almost a thousand of these have ceased representing their interests since the Bundestag passed the new law on the lobbying register in the fall. The majority of the organizations that have deregistered are small, often one-man interest groups. Only one organization had a Berlin representative office: the Bavarian regional association of the Federation of Expellees. According to the entry in the lobbying register, the association had 6.5 full-time equivalent employees last year.
The new Lobbying Register Act came into force at the beginning of March. With the deadline of June 30, lobbyists had to update their entry in the lobbying register in accordance with the new legal requirements.
The trend of interest representatives deregistering is not evident at the EU level. On the contrary: the number of entries in the EU Transparency Register has risen by twelve percent since the beginning of the year. There is only speculation as to why the number of lobbyists registered with the Bundestag is declining. The Alliance for Lobby Transparency, whose members include Transparency International Germany and the German Chemical Industry Association (VCI), had warned of a massive increase in bureaucracy when the lobbying register was amended.
Michael Henning (VCI) says: “The reform of the Lobbying Register Act was unnecessarily accompanied by a high level of bureaucracy – at the expense of acceptance and transparency.” It is now noticeable that small interest groups in particular have turned their backs on the register: “Apparently they have either stopped lobbying. That would be a shame and a loss for democracy because these interests would no longer be represented.” Or, Henning continues: “They are no longer registered in the lobbying register, but continue to represent their interests – just in a non-transparent way.”
In the lobbying register, the decline in registered lobbyists is not problematized. Christian Heyer, sub-department head in the Bundestag administration, wrote on Linked in in July: “It is all the more pleasing that almost everyone is complying with the new set of rules after all and has adapted their entries to the new legislation in good time.”
There are “only around 10 percent of old entries where this has not yet been implemented.” Heyer cites three possible reasons:
Heyer warns those who were previously registered and are no longer: “Anyone who continues to represent interests despite the obligation to register is acting in breach of the regulations and must expect a fine.”
The question arises as to how the new Lobbying Register Act will be enforced. So far, we are not aware of any fines being imposed on lobbyists for updating their registration too late. The lobbyists who are no longer on the register include 289 lobbyists who refused to disclose their financial backers. It is not yet clear whether they are still lobbying.
The General Assembly of the International Seabed Authority (ISA) concluded its 29th session last Friday. The most important news: From January 2025, Brazilian Leticia Carvalho will become the new ISA Secretary General, fueling hopes among environmentalists that deep sea mining will be further delayed. Negotiations on a set of rules for the extraction of raw materials from the seabed have made progress, but so far without any results.
The ISA Council, which is negotiating a draft set of rules, met for two weeks in July. It is the executive body of the ISA and is elected by the General Assembly. It comprises 36 states, including Germany. The challenge is to find a balance between the use of resources and the protection of ecosystems on the seabed.
The meeting of the General Assembly took place afterwards. In addition to the election of the new Secretary-General, the development of a “General Policy” was put on the agenda for the first time in order to agree on basic protection regulations for the marine environment. However, this was blocked by several states, including China and Saudi Arabia.
The Environmental Justice Foundation criticized that the ISA had once again failed to submit its mandatory 5-year review. It has already been due for two years and has now been postponed again until the next round of negotiations. The NGO has long criticized the lack of transparency in the authority’s processes.
The ISA is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year: it was founded in 1994 by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The authority is tasked with managing mineral resources in the deep sea as the “common heritage of mankind.” To date, the member states have adopted a set of rules for the exploration of raw materials on the seabed. This mainly concerns manganese nodules, which contain valuable raw materials for the energy transition and lie at the bottom of the Clarion-Clipperton Zone in the Pacific. Mining is not yet regulated. However, this is due to happen by summer 2025 – a deadline that experts consider to be unrealistic.
Time is of the essence: The Canadian company The Metals Company (TMC) wants to apply for the first license to mine manganese nodules on the seabed together with the Pacific island state of Nauru. In 2021, they had already triggered the so-called two-year rule of the International Law of the Sea. This means that the ISA would have had to submit a set of regulations within two years. The deadline for this expired in summer 2023.
Since then, there has been a legal loophole: States, together with companies, can apply to the ISA for a mining license at any time – how the authority then deals with this is unclear. Last year, the states only agreed that there should be no provisional licenses without the Council having the opportunity to negotiate them.
TMC has effective leverage here: by announcing that it will submit an application for a mining license this year, the company is building pressure on the negotiations. Managing Director Gerard Barron told the news agency Reuters: “There has been tremendous progress in the time since we lodged that two-year notice, and it does provide us with legal cover that we can lodge that application at any time.” The company had previously announced its intention to apply for the license in summer 2024. In this case, the ISA had held out the prospect of another Council meeting in the fall, which is, however, not planned.
Deep-sea mining is highly controversial, particularly due to the potential impact on the complex ecosystems in the deep sea. “We don’t need deep sea mining, we need to use resources more responsibly and promote a circular economy,” says Kristín von Kistowski, Head of Marine Conservation at WWF Germany. “We must not allow the seabed to be destroyed by individual companies. The marine environment and humanity will pay the high price for this, while a few make off with the profits.”
The German government has been trying to achieve a “precautionary pause” since last year. “Deep sea mining would further pollute the oceans and irretrievably destroy ecosystems,” explained Federal Environment Minister Steffi Lemke. Franziska Brantner, Parliamentary State Secretary at the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, said that Germany was in favor of further exploration of the deep sea, but would not support any applications for commercial mining of raw materials until further notice.
Around 30 states and the EU have endorsed this position. During the most recent General Assembly, five other member states joined the call for a precautionary pause, including Austria and Malta. Others, however, are in favour of commercializing deep sea mining, including China and Russia. Norway decided at the beginning of the year that it wanted to mine raw materials at least in its own waters.
German industry is divided: Companies such as Bosch and Continental are campaigning for commercial deep sea mining in the Deep Sea Mining Alliance, and the Federation of German Industries (BDI) also wants to “see deep sea mining as an opportunity.” On the other hand, a group including Volkswagen, BMW, Google, Philips and Samsung has joined the call for a moratorium.
The election of the new Secretary-General fuels hopes of a further delay in commercial deep sea mining: Leticia Carvalho is an oceanographer and currently still works at the UN Environment Program (UNEP). She sharply criticized the incumbent Michael Lodge for his closeness to industry, especially TMC. She told the Guardian that it was time for “significant change“ at the Seabed Authority; there was a lack of trust and leadership. The ISA needs to find ways to reach consensus, she said. “Scientific evidence, broader participation and comprehensive knowledge are the most important basis for consensual decision-making.”
Always in the center, that’s how Jeromin Zettelmeyer describes his career. In the center between research and politics. The top economist worked for a long time at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), several years at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and was Chief Economist at the German Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy for two years. He has now headed the Brussels think tank Bruegel since 2022.
For the economist Zettelmeyer, the discipline was initially primarily an interest. “Today I love economics, but when I started studying, I was mainly interested in why some countries are poor and others are not,” he says. For him, it was always about the interface between theory and practice.
While his master’s degree in Bonn was characterized by a strong theoretical focus, his dissertation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) brought him back to the practical side of things. “The idea that economics had anything to do with the real world, which was the reason why I wanted to study it, had become a distant memory,” explains Zettelmeyer.
This was also evident throughout his career. Be it in his 13 years at the International Monetary Fund, where he was Deputy Director of the Strategy, Policy and Review Department, or in his “clear policy job” at the German Ministry of Economics. This always required him to get used to new circumstances. “You look forward to making a difference, but it’s not that easy,” he says. “It takes about a year and a half to settle in.”
Zettelmeyer has now been at Bruegel for a year and a half. “When you run a think tank, you also measure your well-being by whether the institution is where you want it to be, and that is not yet the case at Bruegel.” His contract is initially for three years. Zettelmeyer would like to extend it at the end. “Any change you make takes time.”
In terms of content, Bruegel has a “focus on the EU in the international environment,” as Zettelmeyer says. And this involves major issues: starting with the reform of budgetary rules to the fundamental paradigm of the European economic model. Parliament and the Council already agreed on the new reform of the budget rules in February. “We had hoped for a more radical approach, but it is better than before and better than nothing at all,” summarizes Zettelmeyer. Bruegel has shared its views on this in recent months, particularly with nation states. The members of the think tank include 17 EU member states, including Germany and France. “That opens up communication channels for us.”
However, Zettelmeyer believes that one question in particular will take center stage in the coming years: “How should the EU react to economic threats not only from China, but also from the USA?” And this also affects the fundamental European economic model. “It is a fascinating question because it is intrinsically political, but delves deep into the theory of economic success.” Katharina Kausche
Universal cooperation among nations seems impossible in today’s divided geopolitical landscape – but 75 years ago today, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 were adopted, and eventually ratified by every United Nations member state. The conventions form the basis of international humanitarian law and led to the globally accepted rules of armed conflict.
The main goal of the rules is to protect civilians during wartime, outlawing the direct targeting of civilians and humanitarian aid groups. They’ve come into greater focus in recent years as wars broke out in Europe and the Middle East, and have had to adapt to the changing realities of conflict, including drone warfare.
Civilian death tolls in Ukraine, Gaza, and Sudan can give the impression that the law “is no longer relevant and never respected,” the Red Cross acknowledges. But advocates argue the rules have prevented even worse atrocities.
In the latest example of how difficult widespread international consensus can now be, read on for insight into the ongoing challenges in finding an agreement for deep sea mining. Enjoy this latest edition of Europe.Table, and have a great week.
The number of lobbyists represented in the Bundestag’s lobbying register has fallen significantly with the new Lobbying Register Act. At the end of June – shortly before the new lobbying register came into force – 6224 lobbyists were listed. Last Friday, just over a month later, there are 5734 registered lobbyists from companies, organizations and NGOs. 490 fewer entries.
According to the website of the lobbying register at the German Bundestag, there are also 1137 lobbyists who were previously registered but have since been deregistered. Almost a thousand of these have ceased representing their interests since the Bundestag passed the new law on the lobbying register in the fall. The majority of the organizations that have deregistered are small, often one-man interest groups. Only one organization had a Berlin representative office: the Bavarian regional association of the Federation of Expellees. According to the entry in the lobbying register, the association had 6.5 full-time equivalent employees last year.
The new Lobbying Register Act came into force at the beginning of March. With the deadline of June 30, lobbyists had to update their entry in the lobbying register in accordance with the new legal requirements.
The trend of interest representatives deregistering is not evident at the EU level. On the contrary: the number of entries in the EU Transparency Register has risen by twelve percent since the beginning of the year. There is only speculation as to why the number of lobbyists registered with the Bundestag is declining. The Alliance for Lobby Transparency, whose members include Transparency International Germany and the German Chemical Industry Association (VCI), had warned of a massive increase in bureaucracy when the lobbying register was amended.
Michael Henning (VCI) says: “The reform of the Lobbying Register Act was unnecessarily accompanied by a high level of bureaucracy – at the expense of acceptance and transparency.” It is now noticeable that small interest groups in particular have turned their backs on the register: “Apparently they have either stopped lobbying. That would be a shame and a loss for democracy because these interests would no longer be represented.” Or, Henning continues: “They are no longer registered in the lobbying register, but continue to represent their interests – just in a non-transparent way.”
In the lobbying register, the decline in registered lobbyists is not problematized. Christian Heyer, sub-department head in the Bundestag administration, wrote on Linked in in July: “It is all the more pleasing that almost everyone is complying with the new set of rules after all and has adapted their entries to the new legislation in good time.”
There are “only around 10 percent of old entries where this has not yet been implemented.” Heyer cites three possible reasons:
Heyer warns those who were previously registered and are no longer: “Anyone who continues to represent interests despite the obligation to register is acting in breach of the regulations and must expect a fine.”
The question arises as to how the new Lobbying Register Act will be enforced. So far, we are not aware of any fines being imposed on lobbyists for updating their registration too late. The lobbyists who are no longer on the register include 289 lobbyists who refused to disclose their financial backers. It is not yet clear whether they are still lobbying.
The General Assembly of the International Seabed Authority (ISA) concluded its 29th session last Friday. The most important news: From January 2025, Brazilian Leticia Carvalho will become the new ISA Secretary General, fueling hopes among environmentalists that deep sea mining will be further delayed. Negotiations on a set of rules for the extraction of raw materials from the seabed have made progress, but so far without any results.
The ISA Council, which is negotiating a draft set of rules, met for two weeks in July. It is the executive body of the ISA and is elected by the General Assembly. It comprises 36 states, including Germany. The challenge is to find a balance between the use of resources and the protection of ecosystems on the seabed.
The meeting of the General Assembly took place afterwards. In addition to the election of the new Secretary-General, the development of a “General Policy” was put on the agenda for the first time in order to agree on basic protection regulations for the marine environment. However, this was blocked by several states, including China and Saudi Arabia.
The Environmental Justice Foundation criticized that the ISA had once again failed to submit its mandatory 5-year review. It has already been due for two years and has now been postponed again until the next round of negotiations. The NGO has long criticized the lack of transparency in the authority’s processes.
The ISA is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year: it was founded in 1994 by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The authority is tasked with managing mineral resources in the deep sea as the “common heritage of mankind.” To date, the member states have adopted a set of rules for the exploration of raw materials on the seabed. This mainly concerns manganese nodules, which contain valuable raw materials for the energy transition and lie at the bottom of the Clarion-Clipperton Zone in the Pacific. Mining is not yet regulated. However, this is due to happen by summer 2025 – a deadline that experts consider to be unrealistic.
Time is of the essence: The Canadian company The Metals Company (TMC) wants to apply for the first license to mine manganese nodules on the seabed together with the Pacific island state of Nauru. In 2021, they had already triggered the so-called two-year rule of the International Law of the Sea. This means that the ISA would have had to submit a set of regulations within two years. The deadline for this expired in summer 2023.
Since then, there has been a legal loophole: States, together with companies, can apply to the ISA for a mining license at any time – how the authority then deals with this is unclear. Last year, the states only agreed that there should be no provisional licenses without the Council having the opportunity to negotiate them.
TMC has effective leverage here: by announcing that it will submit an application for a mining license this year, the company is building pressure on the negotiations. Managing Director Gerard Barron told the news agency Reuters: “There has been tremendous progress in the time since we lodged that two-year notice, and it does provide us with legal cover that we can lodge that application at any time.” The company had previously announced its intention to apply for the license in summer 2024. In this case, the ISA had held out the prospect of another Council meeting in the fall, which is, however, not planned.
Deep-sea mining is highly controversial, particularly due to the potential impact on the complex ecosystems in the deep sea. “We don’t need deep sea mining, we need to use resources more responsibly and promote a circular economy,” says Kristín von Kistowski, Head of Marine Conservation at WWF Germany. “We must not allow the seabed to be destroyed by individual companies. The marine environment and humanity will pay the high price for this, while a few make off with the profits.”
The German government has been trying to achieve a “precautionary pause” since last year. “Deep sea mining would further pollute the oceans and irretrievably destroy ecosystems,” explained Federal Environment Minister Steffi Lemke. Franziska Brantner, Parliamentary State Secretary at the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, said that Germany was in favor of further exploration of the deep sea, but would not support any applications for commercial mining of raw materials until further notice.
Around 30 states and the EU have endorsed this position. During the most recent General Assembly, five other member states joined the call for a precautionary pause, including Austria and Malta. Others, however, are in favour of commercializing deep sea mining, including China and Russia. Norway decided at the beginning of the year that it wanted to mine raw materials at least in its own waters.
German industry is divided: Companies such as Bosch and Continental are campaigning for commercial deep sea mining in the Deep Sea Mining Alliance, and the Federation of German Industries (BDI) also wants to “see deep sea mining as an opportunity.” On the other hand, a group including Volkswagen, BMW, Google, Philips and Samsung has joined the call for a moratorium.
The election of the new Secretary-General fuels hopes of a further delay in commercial deep sea mining: Leticia Carvalho is an oceanographer and currently still works at the UN Environment Program (UNEP). She sharply criticized the incumbent Michael Lodge for his closeness to industry, especially TMC. She told the Guardian that it was time for “significant change“ at the Seabed Authority; there was a lack of trust and leadership. The ISA needs to find ways to reach consensus, she said. “Scientific evidence, broader participation and comprehensive knowledge are the most important basis for consensual decision-making.”
Always in the center, that’s how Jeromin Zettelmeyer describes his career. In the center between research and politics. The top economist worked for a long time at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), several years at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and was Chief Economist at the German Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy for two years. He has now headed the Brussels think tank Bruegel since 2022.
For the economist Zettelmeyer, the discipline was initially primarily an interest. “Today I love economics, but when I started studying, I was mainly interested in why some countries are poor and others are not,” he says. For him, it was always about the interface between theory and practice.
While his master’s degree in Bonn was characterized by a strong theoretical focus, his dissertation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) brought him back to the practical side of things. “The idea that economics had anything to do with the real world, which was the reason why I wanted to study it, had become a distant memory,” explains Zettelmeyer.
This was also evident throughout his career. Be it in his 13 years at the International Monetary Fund, where he was Deputy Director of the Strategy, Policy and Review Department, or in his “clear policy job” at the German Ministry of Economics. This always required him to get used to new circumstances. “You look forward to making a difference, but it’s not that easy,” he says. “It takes about a year and a half to settle in.”
Zettelmeyer has now been at Bruegel for a year and a half. “When you run a think tank, you also measure your well-being by whether the institution is where you want it to be, and that is not yet the case at Bruegel.” His contract is initially for three years. Zettelmeyer would like to extend it at the end. “Any change you make takes time.”
In terms of content, Bruegel has a “focus on the EU in the international environment,” as Zettelmeyer says. And this involves major issues: starting with the reform of budgetary rules to the fundamental paradigm of the European economic model. Parliament and the Council already agreed on the new reform of the budget rules in February. “We had hoped for a more radical approach, but it is better than before and better than nothing at all,” summarizes Zettelmeyer. Bruegel has shared its views on this in recent months, particularly with nation states. The members of the think tank include 17 EU member states, including Germany and France. “That opens up communication channels for us.”
However, Zettelmeyer believes that one question in particular will take center stage in the coming years: “How should the EU react to economic threats not only from China, but also from the USA?” And this also affects the fundamental European economic model. “It is a fascinating question because it is intrinsically political, but delves deep into the theory of economic success.” Katharina Kausche