An Imbalance Risks Emerging Between Nature Conservation and Other Public Interests

At the heart of the criticism is the planned designation of overriding public interest status for large parts of nature and landscapes. This approach fundamentally changes the established balancing practice. Instead of weighing different public interests on a case-by-case basis, certain conservation concerns would in future be given systematic priority. This marks a significant shift in the legal framework. Economic projects, transport infrastructure, public infrastructure measures, and industrial investments would be placed at a structural disadvantage. There is no obligation under European law to take this step.

Raw Material Extraction and Industrial Projects Particularly Affected

Projects that depend on specific locations would be especially affected. These include domestic raw material extraction, potash and salt mining, chemical production sites along rivers, water pipelines, municipal roads, as well as industrial and commercial zones.Many of these projects are necessarily located near rivers, floodplains, or other areas that would in future be classified as part of the “Natural Infrastructure”. The result would be longer permitting procedures, higher investment costs, and in some cases even the refusal of permits.

The consequences for the extractive industries are particularly critical. Mineral deposits cannot simply be relocated. If certain areas effectively become exclusion zones, risks will arise for the domestic supply of mineral raw materials. Anyone seeking economic growth, resilience, the energy transition, and faster permitting procedures must not simultaneously subject the industrial foundations required to achieve these goals to structural permitting constraints.

The BDI Calls For:

• Refraining from the blanket designation of extensive conservation areas as being of overriding public interest.
• Deleting the new and legally vague land-use category of “Natural Infrastructure” together with its additional legal
  consequences.
• Eliminating across-the-board compensation surcharges. Compensation measures should be based on the specific
  impact and the actual ecological need.
• Presenting a robust impact assessment before the draft is adopted by the Federal Cabinet. In particular, overlaps in
  land use, impacts on permitability, security of supply, construction costs, and domestic raw material extraction
  must be thoroughly examined.

Higher Costs Do Not Automatically Mean Better Nature Conservation

The draft legislation also contains ecological contradictions. If pipelines or roads are rerouted around protected areas, this often results in longer routes, greater material consumption, and additional land take. As a consequence, the environmental footprint of individual projects may actually increase.

In addition, the proposal introduces higher compensation requirements. It provides for a 20 percent increase in compensation obligations for impacts affecting components of the Natural Infrastructure. These blanket surcharges bear no apparent relationship to the actual conservation benefits achieved.

There is a risk that the promised acceleration of planning and permitting procedures will ultimately be undermined by the introduction of new legal obstacles. What is needed instead is a balanced framework that strengthens nature and biodiversity protection without jeopardizing the competitiveness of Germany as an industrial location.
Further details can be found in the BDI statement, including the accompanying practical annex.