In the bdla’s view, the draft bill for the Act on Strengthening Natural Infrastructure and Further Developing the Regulations on Interference under Nature Conservation Law (NatInfG) falls short of its own ambitions. Rather than providing an effective counterbalance to the Future of Infrastructure Act, which was only passed by the Bundestag at the end of June, it raises new technical and legal questions.

The NatInfG, announced in the Modernisation Agenda at the end of 2025 as the ‘Act on the Requirement for Natural Areas’, aims to systematically strengthen natural infrastructure in relation to so-called grey infrastructure. However, the draft bill does not offset the far-reaching systemic shifts associated with the Infrastructure Future Act, nor does it strengthen the regulations governing interventions to the extent required.

The deadline of less than three working days set by the Federal Ministry for the Environment for submitting comments did not allow for adequate expert involvement. The bdla has therefore limited itself to submitting a brief comment, in which it highlights two concerns by way of example:

Overriding public interest (Section 1a(1) and (2) of the Federal Nature Conservation Act)
The planned introduction of the concept of ‘overriding public interest’ into the Federal Nature Conservation Act raises fundamental systemic questions. If, at the same time, ‘grey infrastructure’ projects are accorded the same status under the Future Infrastructure Act, the concept risks losing its regulatory effect. One overriding interest cannot be arbitrarily pitted against another without being devalued as a whole. Furthermore, the elements of nature and the landscape to be protected accordingly are not sufficiently aligned with those specified in Section 20 of the Federal Nature Conservation Act.

Bonus-malus provisions (Section 15(3a) and (3b) of the BNatSchG)
The draft provides for a 15 per cent reduction in the biotope-value-based compensation requirement if an intervention is offset by pre-arranged compensation or replacement measures, and a 20 per cent increase if the intervention itself takes place within areas of natural infrastructure. These flat-rate increases and reductions would undermine the site-specific principle underpinning the intervention regulation and introduce a compensation mechanism that is not technically justified, the consequences of which are difficult to foresee. Flat-rate concessions would favour individual companies or institutions regardless of the actual balance between impact and compensation. Furthermore, the technical basis for deriving the proposed percentages remains unclear.

The bdla recommends a fundamental revision of the draft and will continue to contribute its technical expertise to the legislative process.

• Latitude: 0
• Longitude: 0