Zu sehen ist ein Genehmigungsantrag auf Papier über zwei Seiten, der auf einem Schreibtisch liegt. Auf dem Antrag liegt ein hellbrauner Holzstempel.
Article

Umweltmodernisierungsgesetz — Digitization Alone Does Not Speed Up Permits

The federal government aims to make environmental procedures more digital and efficient through the Umweltmodernisierungsgesetz (UMoG) and the Umweltmodernisierungsverordnung (UMoV). BDI supports this goal. However, in key areas, the proposed drafts fall short of their own aspirations. Without more far-reaching procedural reforms, new legal uncertainties and additional requirements threaten to limit the intended relief.

Streamline the approval process

BDI views the increased use of digital tools, the reduction of certain reporting requirements, and the elimination of duplicate work in a positive light. These measures can ease the burden on companies and government agencies.
However, the drafts do not create sufficient conditions for significantly faster permitting processes. From the industry’s perspective, more binding deadlines, clear procedural workflows, and consistent end-to-end digitization are needed. Permits must be more closely aligned with investment security and security of supply. BDI sees a particular need for action in environmental impact assessment and immission control law. In practice, permitting procedures are often delayed by retroactive requirements, changing legal frameworks, and lengthy coordination processes.
BDI therefore calls for binding scoping deadlines in the Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung-Gesetz (UVPG), parallel involvement of authorities, and a cut-off date provision in the Bundesimmissionsschutz-Gesetz (BImSchG). The legal situation at the time the application documents are declared complete should be decisive for the permit decision.

Nationwide Uniform Standards and Legal Certainty in the Nature Conservation Act

BDI supports the goal of avoiding duplicate data collection and making better use of existing data.\nHowever, the planned regulations regarding the disclosure of species survey data raise questions about the protection of property rights, trade secrets, and intellectual property. Companies often fund such expert assessments themselves. BDI therefore calls for clear protective mechanisms, legal certainty, and a balanced reconciliation between the public interest and the rights of data owners.\nBDI also sees significant potential for streamlining species protection assessments. Differing requirements and evaluation criteria regularly lead to delays.\nNationwide uniform standards for species protection assessments, FFH impact assessments, and the use of existing data sets would standardize administrative practices and expedite procedures.