Groundcheck 2022: Podiumsdiskussion mit Abgeordneten des Deutschen Bundestages

What do you make of the conference? Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted that our conference will be enriched by a large-scale audience. I welcome the three members of the German Bundestag as disputers, who all show great commitment to foreign culture and education policy. In particular, they link the external and internal political perspectives on the topic of our conference on climate and crisis. Michelle Müntefering, on my right, a member of the SPD fraction of the German Bundestag, has sustainably shaped international cultural policy here in the Foreign Office and is now the chairwoman of the Bundestag's subcommittee on foreign culture and education policy. Monika Grütters, on my left, is a member of the CDU-CSU fraction of the German Bundestag and, as Prime Minister and Commissioner for Culture and Media for the Federal Government, has set central milestones in cultural policy in Germany and, among other things, has put forward the new Cultural Property Protection Act as the central basis of our action. She was also actively involved in this. Erhard Grundl is a member of the Bundestag fraction of Bündnis 90 Die Grünen and has not only initiated the Brussels Declaration for the Freedom of the Arts, but also directs his actions as an engaged politician and member of the committee precisely on the interface of foreign policy and cultural policy. Katja Piesker, who you have just heard, is the scientific director at the DRI headquarters in Berlin and has already presented herself as an architect of cultural property and a construction researcher through the keynote and opened the discussion. At the same time, she has also focused on the core question, which was already opened this morning by Manfred Laubichler's lecture, i.e. what we can actually do today. And with that, I would like to open the podium directly and ask Mrs. Müntefering a first question. Dear Mrs. Müntefering, my question is about sustainability. And it goes in the direction of the question, does foreign culture and education policy also have to react to issues such as climate and crisis and become more sustainable in doing so? And what do sustainable AKBP projects actually do? Yes, important, good question. First of all, nice to see you all, many of you to see again. And I want to go straight to the question. Sustainability, if you look at it, I'll put it simply, is that we are only allowed to eat what we replant. But that's not enough today. If we look at the state of the planet, how it is, we have to understand that we have to do more. The United Nations have called it Build Back Better. And that is urgently necessary. And AKBP and sustainability, yes. We have negotiated the chapter together for culture and for foreign culture and education policy for this legislative period. And we have also taken up exactly these issues, that we want to connect AKBP more strongly with these issues. That has already started in recent years, because of course the climate crisis is nothing new, it has been around for a long time. And foreign policy also engages in questions of multilateralism and thus also in climate foreign policy. Because it's about how we actually want to live together and how we can make sure that our planet will not soon be completely in rubble. And that's why the AKBP also needs it, because they, and you just said it, we have to make it possible and AKBP makes it possible to have civil discussions about how we achieve this goal. And there have been initiatives for this in recent years. I can say that I have contributed a little, but above all those who are sitting here have contributed. I was very happy to see the cultural asset savior out here, to see the model. I know, Ms. Fless, that you are on the road in model regions. And when it comes to AI and sustainability, then I especially notice that the German Archaeological Institute, as the oldest mediator of foreign culture and education policy, is already committed to sustainability in its work. Not only because it deals with the issues, that it passes on cultural knowledge and information that needs to be implemented and integrated into political processes, but also how they work. That they incorporate societies on site, for example. That they don't go to other countries, I say, dig a little and then leave again. But that societies are incorporated on site. This is a principle of sustainability that cannot be underestimated. And I have learned this in the last eight years. Not only here in the Foreign Office, but also before that as a member and spokeswoman of the subcommittee for AKBP. This is something that we cannot appreciate high enough. And I'll say it in advance, as the last sentence. Now we have to get on our way to save the cultural asset savior. Because it also has to be financially secured. Yes, thank you very much, Ms. Müntefering. You always look in the direction of Mr. Grundl. May I ask you a second question? Cultural policy plays an essential role also in the dissemination of scientific knowledge about climate change. But climate change doesn't really know country borders. And basically climate change research, you can see that in the audience here in the room, is not conceivable without international cooperation. How could we actually work better or particularly well together in cultural policy and foreign policy? So first of all, thank you very much for the invitation. And in fact, it is one of my heart's concerns that the fight against climate change is simply viewed very intersectionally from the outset. Because everything else would be wasted milk. You wouldn't get anywhere. This applies to internal and external cultural policy. But it also applies to many other areas that you can't see linked together. I don't want to miss out on saying that the previous government has brought a lot of very good things on the way in the person of Ms. Hütters, Ms. Müntefering. That is quite clear. I believe that the challenge now is to address the problems that are clearly there in an increasingly insecure world. What it means for the possibilities for scientists, how they can work. Because politics depends on getting this input. It cannot come out of politics. It can only arise in dialogue with the experts. I understand that cultural policy, whether internal or external, must always be made possible. The task of politics is to make it possible. And the point that Ms. Müntefering mentioned is of course the very central one. It must be financially supported. We all know that the next households will be under pressure. We have to crawl up our sleeves to achieve this as joint strikers for this concern. We have to get the relevance of this topic forward. At least as far forward as it is now. In no case will it be pushed back. And of course it will be crucial that we then think of this silo, which we have established as the Ampelkoalition, that we want to overcome this, that we get it into society broadly, that everyone recognizes the connections. And I think the German Archaeological Institute has opportunities, as it has been established in the past, to continue to have an impact here. And that's where it goes back to us. Of course, this also has to be financially supported. You have pointed out important accents of this joint work. And this is also a work that happens multilaterally, internationally. And Ms. Grütters, the UNESCO World Heritage Convention will be 50 years old in November. So actually, since then, there has been a firm international consensus that cultural heritage is worth protecting. Many world heritage sites are currently threatened by the effects of climate change. We have heard today about coasts that erode away, the permafrost floor that melts in Alaska. We have heard examples from northwestern Spain, north of Spain, Ampurias, which will also partially sink into the water. We have now come to know very different facets. And the question that arises at the beginning of the discussion today or the discussion in the keynote, how do we get to a better implementation in this area? What can we actually do? Yes, in fact, a lot of what we are discussing here today is already well known. But I don't think we need to go that far abroad. For example, I have read that Stonehenge, after 4,000 years, is threatened by other climatic conditions, by moth throws, which spread the whole ground completely differently than this ancient monument tolerates. Or that there are other wave patterns near the coast that destroy excavation sites or cultural heritage in general. Then, of course, we also have to deal with very large catastrophes at home. Not only fires like in Ana Amalia or in Notre Dame, no matter how they are triggered, partly also by climatic changes, by other temperatures and so on. Or earthquakes here, earthquakes that destroy cultural heritage. The parks, which are enormously threatened and are currently being destroyed by climatic changes. And then collapses of the Cologne city archive. We had many disasters, high-water disasters in Dresden. All of them already at our home. And then the cultural policy here in the country was of course also in demand. I think we need a very thorough, standardized process. One is, of course, the awareness of this danger and that it depends on our own behavior. Ms. Möntefering said it at the beginning. But we have set up a program in the German Federal Government such as cultural institutions, which are always role models, drivers of innovation. Communicative units are seen as they begin to change their ecological footprint on their own. Incidentally, the Corona crisis has, as far as this behavior and awareness are concerned, of course, also helped the awareness of the problem. But that's where it starts. The second was, of course, concrete steps towards digitization of endangered cultural assets. Then, of course, and in case of emergency, if something happens, to be able to restore it better. Then, of course, networking of expert knowledge among each other. Not everyone does what is important for their cultural heritage on their island. Monuments must be treated differently than paper goods, for example. Or we sent a German offer to Mrs. Schock-Werner in Notre Dame, the cathedral builder from Cologne, who is a super expert in glass restoration and protection of glass from further shakings. But it is simply very important that this knowledge is continued and better networked. Then, of course, there is also a concrete reaction to concrete procedures. Of course, plants are now being planted in a completely different way. Or we have set up this coordination site for the restoration of written cultural heritage and equipped it with several million sums so that large-scale rescue measures such as deacidification, for example, do not have to be carried out only in one place, in Amalia or in Cologne but can also be carried out preventively for future cases. I think you can do a lot of concrete things because you asked me about the implementation. But what seems very important to me is to put the awareness of this from the outset into a work description for cultural institutions and those responsible so that you can work preventively. You can also provide cultural institutions with sustainability sums so that they can arrange their current behavior in such a way that it is preventive or, of course, in the end, also protective. And because you mentioned the final cultural heritage protection law, I think it was also very important that Germany finally joined this World Heritage Convention through its own specific legislation, which you also mentioned. The ancient trade stopped quite spontaneously, which is another proof that it was not all completely astray. And I think it was right that we also held an uncomfortable debate. But in some places you can also do something by law. You have now pointed out different speeds. Disaster is such a really disruptive element where you have a fire, an earthquake, you have a flood. With climate change, however, we are talking about, so to speak, such long-term processes that also have something hidden until the tipping points come. And now we are developing the cultural heritage protectors. And therefore my question to Katja Pieska. They are actually intended in the perspective that there is a catastrophe happening abroad, to be able to intervene quickly and to be able to help. But it's also about earthquakes or something like that. Are there any perspectives for such hiding processes? In the end, do the cultural heritage protectors also bring anything for these long-term processes? Well, I think I said something lax at another point. And I think that's what we can contribute. We have heard enough that the likelihood of acute crisis is increasing. So it's basically a good idea to be prepared for it. But what we do, as an engineer, I would call it process optimization. So that we make sure that we document as quickly and as well as possible, for example, you can see outside, for example, the emergency conservation laboratory developed by the Roman-Germanic Central Museum, which also has an opportunity to be used in projects. We are considering, when it comes to documentation, it was about the motto Can you do this faster? How can you bundle forces? The question came up earlier in the discussion. How can we optimize the use of artificial intelligence? We have also heard that such times of crisis are also something that triggers innovation, which can also be an impulse to fight the crisis. Now I mean the ongoing ones at the moment. And I think these are the aspects that play a very important role in our project and that we can contribute. We also have, of course, a theme that also involves the two representatives on my right and left side as ministers responsible for foreign cultural policy and also domestic policy. Somehow we have the problem that we now, of course, because we also belong to the business sector of the Foreign Office, have this foreign policy view for the cultural assets. But the question is, of course, which also interests us here in the room, what do you expect from the outside world? Because we have the emergency associations, which are also fragilely organized and we have, which work, but are fragile. And at the same time we have the initiative of the cultural assets saviors. But the question arises, whether, for example, you have questions about us, what you want from us as data, as models or also as forms of communication or expect from science or the cultural assets saviors. Yes, where do I start? Well, I was just thinking about it all the time, who has actually played this together inside and outside in recent years. And the cultural asset savior is actually a maximally good example for this, because Ms. Grütters just told us what catastrophes we also experienced inland. And after the fire in Rio, we sat down, I remember exactly how we were sitting here in the basement in a room and then the colleagues from Cologne were there and also reported exemplarily how they actually helped when we had the disaster in Cologne. And then the idea came up very quickly, what is actually the THW? What kind of forces do they actually have? These ad hoc forces. And I think that's why it's such a good example, because we show, you said structural optimization. How do we actually work together? And we can do that and we have to improve it. And then the other question is communication, so let's say improvement is not to say that it is bad, but how do we create synergies? So democracy and climate protection need us all. This is nothing to watch, but we really have to work together. So that's one structural optimization. The other thing that drives me as an MP in my electorate, I have the mining museum, for example, and in recent years we have also worked a lot with the research museums. And the question of scientific communication is also something where I believe that the current debates that we also have worldwide, of course, also play a role in Germany. In globalization, the small becomes more important, the concrete on site and the international, the great connections. And we as MPs are asked to bring it all together. And there too, culture plays and can play a very special role. And the German Archaeological Institute has the knowledge, has the competence to accompany these current debates. And there are cooperation partners with whom you are also in exchange, I know that. But how can politics make this possible? How can we act as enablers? That is, so to speak, the discussion that I would like us to have in the next few years. Yes, we really need the exchange. Science is generally an international business. And I think especially when it comes to crises and the climate crisis is just a global crisis, and everyone knows that, we are from this tactic of domination knowledge. I have invented something here or something is going well here. I keep that exclusive for me so that we have a competitive advantage. I believe that these times are actually over, at least in crisis situations, because it is not a material competition. In this respect, I think we need honest networking and knowledge dissemination, so that what one successfully practices is available to the other. For example, at BKM, we have ensured that, for example, in provenance research, everything that has been acquired with public funds of knowledge must be put on the network and cannot be used for one's own doctoral work, for example, but the sources must actually be made available to everyone in order to serve a higher purpose. All of this is also associated with incentives, but I think it is really very, very important. There was once this initiative developed by Dario Franceschini with the cultural carabinieri around the world, who were or are actual cultural saviors after the crisis. There are still the blue helmets, and I think you should actually expand this in the literal and concrete mode of crisis. Germany has to do something about it. But it has the monuments, war experience, storage, under protection, and again new mountains. These are experiences that are made worldwide, and it is important. Of course, you are the ones who are actually the ones who could connect the networks. And I think that's important for us, who are willing to set priorities a little differently in politics than before, maybe less affirmatively, more in long-term, sustainable processes. If I may join in, the question of climate change and how it threatens us, how it threatens our cultural heritage worldwide, the crucial question is of course always what it is worth fighting against locally. And this is not only evaluated in countries, as you all know, but also within each country differently by groups. And I think that science has much more opportunities to break out of this bubble, because it has a completely different reception among the population than the political actors have. That is, I think, my observation after five years in federal politics. I think we should really put this intersectionality at the forefront. I think we should also put forward that politics listens, that politics, I say it again, enables. And so we understand, for example, our approach to green culture, where politics does not say you have to do this and that, but the know-how that is there, the commitment that is there. As Prabiska said, there is so much knowledge there, you have to connect it, you have to feed it, but I think that I see it as the most suitable possibility to get something going quickly to get the climate change somehow under control. And I have to say, a big problem is of course that you shouldn't talk about what happened, but it just took a long time for it to be accepted that climate change threatens us so much. I also find these accents, the reference to communication between political and scientific levels, pronounced, important. I think that will strengthen the discussion today. Another facet that you said at the beginning, Mr. Grundl, goes in the direction of civic engagement. And what concerns me at the moment, as Ms. Piesker and I constantly discuss, is that we have, for example, in the cultural assets, this highly interesting combination of a research institution, the technical aid work, which somewhere has a, I'll say it now, not quite correctly said, but has a state core, but has a civil component. There are all the local associations. The emergency associations, which are basically a kind of grassroots movement that emerged from the catastrophes, the experiences, for example in Halle des Hochwassers, where the affected found that they could not save because they, for example, have no rubber boots at all and no packaging material and it is not clear how to develop such a mechanism. And our discussion now goes to where between structural fortification involving civil society, as is also the case in the climate area, and, so to speak, state, i.e. structural bundling, we can do it. We are still a bit unsure how we can achieve structures there, but from our point of view, it would be an interest in a discussion on how to achieve something, so to speak, which consists of many, many components, but also involves civil society. Because the cultural assets don't work if, well, it can't be that in the end you have a lot of employees waiting for a disaster to come. But it has to be very similar to the technical aid work, there must be a civil society core that is also involved. And at the same time it has to do with all these other things. So we are still a bit clueless, maybe only as a comment, because we don't really know where to go yet. And there have been important accents. We started the Cultural Assets Rescue in 2019 with the Foreign Office. The support of security guidelines, cultural assets and also the emergency associations is then also followed by the BKM. You addressed the civil society, but how do we get it all together into something that really works sustainably? But do you work, for example, with the German Museums Association and the National Conference? Now they hold a national conference at least once a year to, for example, save cultural assets. Now the domestic perspective, but it is just as important for you and for us. They have already organized themselves and there is already the national conference and there are already tools established somewhere. Whether and in what form they can be called in a single case. As I said, when there are crises, you can see if there are effective mechanisms or do we have to buy rubber boots now? But there you could already maintain contacts on your pre-political level. I assume that they do because it is an international business anyway. But what is also interesting about the KSB, actually cultural institutions, because they have a role model character, because they also have an ambition on the corner, because they are now, of course, innovative and avant-garde thinking people who also want to fulfill their own aspirations. Is there this wide-ranging program to measure your own ecological footprint? Not everyone can do that. Especially if they are climate-neutral. So you have to reward that. And you can of course also enlarge these small mechanisms a bit. And for us in politics it is perhaps very important that you say, can you bring us together with them so that we know where it is with you? So you are now asking exactly the same question as we do. But the goodwill is there at least on all levels. Yes, the process of thinking while speaking. But that is exactly the discussion we need. And I think that is also a maximally important question. So how do we ensure that it also works sustainably on site when it comes to it? And also in between. And I was just thinking of the UNESCO schools that we have. UNESCO has a network in Germany. These are the UNESCO schools. UNESCO also has the World Heritage Sites. Even there, when it comes to world heritage awards, there is always the criterion of sustainability. And sustainability means sustainable commitment also for the preservation of the heritage sites. You all know that very well. And to include UNESCO as a partner in such considerations was of utmost importance to me. Because of course they know and have in their network in Germany, which is very important for the preservation of culture. Of course, there are many who have been committed to a specific heritage site for a long time, whether it is Naumburg, Augsburg, and so on. But of course there are many volunteers who are already actively involved and who also continue to do educational work. So they also work with the next generation. And then we are again at the interface of mediation. Are we able to interest a young generation? I think the doors are open for the young generation. I look again in your direction, Erhard. But of course it is so. In recent years, we have seen the Fridays for Future movement, and that was also the reason why we have expanded the component culturally and in terms of nature, so that you can also engage as a young person in the voluntary service of the Foreign Office in geoparks, biosphere reservoirs, and so on. But this can also develop an inland component. So we have smart people and we also have a large number of young people who want to bring them together, maybe also to a joint conference on this very question. To take the different organizations, mediums, associations out of the box and then bring them together inside and outside. That might be a first step. But as I said, this is an idea that I am not prepared for or I was not prepared for the question. But I think this is exactly the direction we have to go in. And that's why I need your great support to activate civil society in Germany and to help with this. In any case, you have always inspired me in recent years and you can do the same with others. Before Katja Piesker explains where the problems might be or with whom we have spoken, Mr. Grundl, you... I have to say, Ms. Fletz, I don't have the feeling that you, as you said, rotate or swim. I do have the impression that the DAI has a plan and is perhaps still wide open, does not already have the tunnel view. But I am actually convinced, even after what we heard in the lower committee, that you are taking realistic ideas and what it takes to be able to implement it. In other words, how much money is needed and that it will not work without this money. The aspect with THW, this interface, that excites me very much because it is not only that you easily get into the danger of exaggerating civil society because it is also not a homogeneous mass, but we also have difficult nations in the world and difficult populations. But I believe that we have to empower those who are good-willed, who stand for values such as democracy, freedom of art, freedom of science and so on. That's what I'm all about. Of course, this also has immediate effects on how we have to set up foreign cultural policy. I like to repeat myself, to overcome this intersectionality and to take a step back as a politician. I don't like political success as much as there are results. People elect me for results and then they are exposed that I think it is a good result. I think you achieve that and it is time to listen. I think it is a common German problem that we have the explanation at every talk show and maybe we should take ten minutes to listen and then sharpen our own picture of what we want to convey. I think we live in a time where urgency should be clear to everyone. It is not. I am absolutely convinced that we still have to do a lot of convincing work together. But at the same time it is a very exciting time because it is so challenging. I see this under a good star. Thank you very much. Katja, would you like to say something? I would like to. In fact, I would not call us helpless, but I would rather say that we have put a lot of effort into what already exists to make something runnable. And that is a lot of research, a lot of coordination work, a lot of networking work. We are only three institutions that work together. The Technical Assistance Agency was mentioned. The cooperation is deliberately aimed at not reinventing the wheel. And a little anecdote. The first draft of this was then thought up with the motto, it has to fit on a pallet. And then the comment came, yes, but in aluminum boxes. In normalized aluminum boxes. That means the whole thing became 2.5 cm smaller or so. And you can see that now outside. Just as there are joint attempts, how can you bring together the tables of the laboratory with the cell system of the THW. But that is what is also worth it. To bring it all together in the same way. And I say, the task of the Denksport is to tie the minimal package that is additional to what already exists. And maybe that too, what is specifically necessary for the use abroad. There is a lot of competence in Germany. One aspect that sets us apart is this air loadability. That means that human and material have to be somewhere with the plane as soon as possible. That poses us with certain challenges, certain limitations, but also creates other possibilities. That's how I understand our task. And yes, I think we are doing well. Well, I just brag about it more often. I admit it. Because it is an interesting challenge, the Denksport task, which we have now also learned in the questions that can help the Ukrainian colleagues and also contribute to cultural heritage protection and the establishment of logistics networks that are centrally decentralized. That is also for such an institution that has been around for 193 years a completely different facet. What we have also discussed intensively today is climatic change already in the past. For example, in an aridification phase 6,000 years ago, the Sahara was no longer green with lakes and so on. People had to develop oasis economy, develop techniques of well-building and artificial irrigation. But at the same time, of course, it also means that societies are changing. And a little also drives me or us in our discussions today. How do we have to, so to speak, what can foreign culture and education policy also contribute to such a social change, which has to be so that we can cope with these problems that we simply have, the crisis? So where could we start and find instruments? I heard you have to leave earlier, unfortunately, because of parliamentary questions. Do you want to go first? I just want to thank you very quickly for the discussion. I'm very sorry that I have to leave now, but I assume that we will see each other again and stick to the topic. Thinking sports tasks are good and what I will definitely remember, what goes fast also goes slowly. We don't have that much time. It's a good step and the very fast thing, as I said, is already almost at the doorstep is the next budget. Ms. Morgan is not there right now, State Secretary, but that is of course also a wish that, by the way, already in the last session, in the penultimate session of the subcommittee, you see us here in continuous discussion, has also been conveyed to the Foreign Office that we all want that, that we are cross-party. And that is also a good sign that we are really committed to this across all levels of the fraction, to develop these instruments further, also together with you. And it is indeed so, politics does not know everything for a long time, that is, we need your input. And yes, that is another good point with the thinking that we will see you again. Thank you very much, Ms. Müntefering. And, exactly, and Ms. Grütters. Yes, so I have to say, I don't know if it was the same for you. I also found it almost a bit cheeky. On Monday, in the meeting, we found that if the household remained as it was on paper, you would reduce almost 20 percent in your budget, which of course has the consequence that such projects could no longer be carried out. And two days later a big conference will take place. So maybe it was really just a misunderstanding and the money will be put back into the household. As I said, there is a cross-party consensus. But now back to your question, what can you do? I think, this may sound a bit banal now, but it really depends on the power of the images. And there you have a lot to offer. So if I consider how the whole world was shaken by the images from Palmyra or from the fire in Notre Dame, then you can see that it is not cognitive at all, but on the emotional level, and this is very important, there is really a worldwide problem if cultural assets, even those with whom you personally do not come into contact every day, but nevertheless have a very high meaning as a cultural heritage of humanity, also in the souls of people, I'll just put it that way, that if you suddenly have their danger in front of you, of course the willingness is also very great to think what can I do to prevent that. So you have to visualize and use these images, the knowledge about it. This is a question of communication, but I really believe that it works and that many also understand more than if it is an abstract discussion, what do I have to do so that Stonehenge will not be eaten by moths? But of course you can really contribute a lot and that also works here. That's why I also think it's important that you really systematically tame internal and external cultural politics. I totally agree with that. As I said before, I believe that the possibilities that scientists have in mediation are much, much more than political messages can be. At the same time, of course, it is our task for politics to defend this freedom of science. We all know that this is also under pressure worldwide. Not everyone likes what science shows. I see a great challenge already at present, but also in the next few years. It will increase because it is simply about defending principles. If the scientific findings are well understood, then you will quickly experience on all levels that you are like people who have historically researched for the purpose of the high customs. This kind of slap, this danger of simply suppressing science if it does not suit you politically, I see it and then politics has to ... Fortunately, he had no success with the slap in Germany. It was clear from the outset. For many affected, it was a very hard and existentially dangerous fight. This is just an example that I see, where politics simply has to come into action. In Great Britain, there are people who say that the Mauerwürfe built Stonehenge and now they are tearing it down again. And slaps exist in the narrow British media landscape indeed more than here, fortunately, but we have to defend it together. Do you want to give us something as a scientist, archaeologist, archaeologist on the way? Yes, try to prepare your knowledge so popularly that it fits into a communicative strategy in a single case, I did not say that without reason, but actually with very iconic images and events, of course, also a very strong impact on the consciousness of people who are not busy with it on a daily basis. I think we don't have to underestimate what kind of change and change of behavior this can have, if you also intervene at the right place but we need that and you are good for that. We will definitely take that with us. Mr. Grundl, do you want to give us something before we take you on the way to our exhibition? Unfortunately, I also have to go over to the Bundestag, we have the Ukrainians there, but I'll take a look. I don't want to reinvent the wheel here either, to intensify the dialogue on all levels, especially between politics and science. I think that's the key. I would like to add one more thing, Mr. Grundl also knows that. We also have in a powerful scene like the film, internationally, the ambition to make Green Filming a style principle. And many have approached the initiatives and are participating, because they don't want to be those big producers who stay in the way with a false consciousness. That's why there are connections and there are always visible dates and you always use big events like film festivals to talk about it. I think you have to create such small links for our topic. The right timing, the right initiatives, the participation of big, other, very popular industries, for example. And then you come out of your own bubble, which is actually so important, but of course also needs to be spread out a bit. We can make a lot of contacts for that, but they also make sense. Yes, thank you very much, especially for taking the time to spend the lunch break with us in this parliamentary meeting marathon today. And I think we all learned a lot about what we should and can change ourselves and how we can also support the whole process of climate change as scientists and as those who research climate change phenomena. Thank you very much again, Ms. Grütters.