OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e. V.

BUND e.V.

BUND is one of Germany's largest environmental organizations focused on nature conservation and sustainable development.

Lobbying Activity

German NGO BUND Opposes EU Small Modular Reactor Initiative

1 Dec 2025
Topic — The European Commission's plan to develop and deploy small modular nuclear reactors.
Message — BUND rejects the use of high-risk nuclear technology and demands the termination of the EU initiative. They argue that Small Modular Reactors hinder energy security and divert resources from the expansion of renewable energy.12
Why — Ending the project would free up financial resources for the expansion of renewable energy.3
Impact — The public loses due to increased radioactive waste and heightened risks of nuclear accidents.4
Read full response

Meeting with Jutta Paulus (Member of the European Parliament)

11 Nov 2025 · Webinar zu PFAS im Trinkwasser/Lebensmitteln

Meeting with Rasmus Andresen (Member of the European Parliament)

4 Nov 2025 · MFF, LFE

Meeting with Sebastian Everding (Member of the European Parliament)

15 Oct 2025 · Doggerbank-Meeresschutz

German environmental group warns EU food safety simplification threatens protections

14 Oct 2025
Topic — EU proposal to simplify food safety regulations and accelerate market access for products.
Message — The organization opposes weakening environmental and consumer protections through bureaucracy reduction. They demand that pesticide residue limits in food be lowered rather than raised, and that combination effects of multiple chemicals be considered. They also oppose loosening regulations for products made using genetically modified microorganisms.1234
Why — This preserves strict chemical safety standards that align with their environmental protection mission.5
Impact — Farmers and food industry lose faster approval processes and market access opportunities.6
Read full response

Meeting with Hildegard Bentele (Member of the European Parliament) and European Environmental Bureau and

25 Sept 2025 · Climate target /ETS2

Meeting with Jutta Paulus (Member of the European Parliament)

19 Sept 2025 · Chemikalienpolitik

Meeting with Jutta Paulus (Member of the European Parliament) and Naturschutzbund Deutschland e.V.

16 Sept 2025 · Umweltpolitik

German environmental group calls for ocean-focused climate adaptation framework

2 Sept 2025
Topic — EU regulation on climate preparedness, resilience and harmonized climate risk management.
Message — The organization requests mandatory ecosystem-based adaptation using coastal and marine habitats like salt marshes and seagrass meadows for flood and erosion protection. They call for ending overfishing, expanding marine protected areas with no-take zones, and integrating ocean resilience into offshore renewable energy planning.123
Why — This would advance their conservation mission by requiring nature-based coastal protection solutions.45
Impact — Industrial fishing operations lose access to bottom trawling and must accept stricter catch limits.67
Read full response

German environmental group BUND urges stricter plastic recycling standards

19 Aug 2025
Topic — Common rules for calculating and reporting recycled content in single-use plastic bottles.
Message — BUND rejects the proposed mass balance model and demands that only post-consumer waste be labeled as recycled content. They call for strict, verifiable standards for imported materials to prevent market distortion and greenwashing.123
Why — Stricter rules would prioritize mechanical recycling and support the economic viability of European recyclers.45
Impact — Consumers face increased risks of greenwashing due to unreliable environmental labels and low-quality imports.67
Read full response

German environmentalists demand EU protection against shrinking civic space

18 Aug 2025
Topic — The EU is establishing a framework to support and protect civil society organisations.
Message — BUND requests systematic impact assessments of EU laws and increased funding. They demand a protection system for defenders and strict environmental law enforcement.12
Why — This would secure the organization's legal standing and vital funding sources.3
Impact — Member States and political groups restricting NGO activities would face legal challenges.4
Read full response

German environmental group demands EU ban exports of hazardous pesticides

11 Aug 2025
Topic — EU regulation on export and import of hazardous chemicals and pesticides.
Message — The organization demands that all pesticides banned in the EU for health or environmental reasons be automatically prohibited from export to third countries. They argue that notifying importing countries is insufficient protection and that the current proposal fails to address the double standard of allowing exports of substances too dangerous for EU use.123
Why — This would prevent global environmental injustice and uphold their stated mission of protecting health and environment worldwide.456
Impact — Chemical manufacturers lose the ability to profit from exporting banned pesticides to countries with weaker regulations.78
Read full response

BUND demands environmental safeguards in EU Ports Strategy

28 Jul 2025
Topic — A new EU initiative framing future challenges for European port infrastructure.
Message — The organization requests early integration of EU nature and water protection laws. Inland port developments often cause significant negative impacts on river ecosystems. Strategic planning must address these environmental conflicts to ensure legal compliance.123
Why — Stricter environmental oversight would protect river ecosystems from industrial and climate pressures.4
Read full response

Response to EU Fusion Strategy

30 Jun 2025

Energie aus Kernfusion ist mit Blick auf Ressourcenverbrauch, Energiebedarf, Investitionsbindung und Umweltauswirkungen weder sauber noch kurzfristig oder mittelfristig verfügbar. Dementsprechend ist Kernfusion kein Mittel gegen die Erderhitzung. Seit sechs Jahrzehnten ist die Wissenschaft nicht in der Lage, die mit der Kernfusion verbundenen technischen Schwierigkeiten zu lösen und offenbar wird die Liste der Probleme eher länger als kürzer. Die Fusionstechnologie steckt in der Entwicklungsphase fest und es ist unklar, ob sie jemals aus dieser Phase herauskommt. Dennoch werden weiterhin Geld, Zeit, Energie und Talente investiert. Das sind Ressourcen, die an anderer Stelle benötigt werden, um die Energie- und Klimaziele der EU umzusetzen. Für die Sicherstellung einer sicheren und zukunftsfähigen Energieversorgung Europas ist die Kernfusionstechnologie nutzlos. Der Weg in die Energiesicherheit und Klimaneutralität kann nur auf Basis erneuerbarer Energiequellen erfolgen, wenn wir die Klimakrise eindämmen und unsere Versorgungssicherheit gewährleisten wollen. Diese Technologien sind erprobt, bewährt, verfügbar und kostengünstig. Der Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V. mahnt daher dringend, alle Ressourcen in die tatsächlich verfügbaren erneuerbaren Energien zu investieren und die Kernfusion als Luftschloss abzuschreiben (ausführliche Stellungnahme anbei).
Read full response

Meeting with Erik Marquardt (Member of the European Parliament) and Germanwatch and

6 Jun 2025 · Austausch im Rahmen eines Events der Europagruppe Grüne

Meeting with Daniel Freund (Member of the European Parliament) and Amnesty International Limited and

6 Jun 2025 · Delegationsklausur

Meeting with Anna Cavazzini (Member of the European Parliament) and OXFAM INTERNATIONAL EU ADVOCACY OFFICE and Germanwatch

5 Jun 2025 · Supply chain law

Response to European Democracy Shield

26 May 2025

Der BUND begrüßt im Grundsatz dieses Vorhaben. Nur durch die Stärkung demokratischer Institutionen, Rechtsstaatlichkeit, Geschlechtergerechtigkeit und eines offenen zivilgesellschaftlichen Raums können wir der Klima-, Verschmutzungs- und Biodiversitätskrise sowie wachsender sozialer Ungleichheit wirksam begegnen. Die Anerkennung der Rolle von NGOs durch die EU-Kommission ist wichtig, diese Unterstützung muss u.a. umfassend und langfristig sein. Der Europäische Demokratie-Schild sollte sich nicht allein auf die Verteidigung des Status quo konzentrieren, sondern auch darauf, die Demokratie zukunftsfähig zu machen und demokratische Institutionen und Organisationen langfristig zu stärken. Wichtig ist zum Beispiel: der Schutz vor Desinformation und äußerer Einflussnahme darf nicht von Regierungen missbraucht werden, um legitime zivilgesellschaftliche Aktivitäten wie Proteste, politische Teilhabe oder NGO-Finanzierung einzuschränken. Für uns zentrale Forderungen: Schutz und Förderung innovativer, inklusiver Demokratieformen Keine Einschränkung zivilgesellschaftlichen Handelns durch missbrauchsanfällige Gesetze (z.B. Auslandsagentengesetze) Entwicklung einer EU-Strategie zur strukturellen Stärkung von NGOs, inklusive Schutz vor Einschüchterung (z.B. SLAPPs), finanzieller Unterstützung und institutionalisierter Beteiligung Volle Einhaltung der Aarhus-Konvention und der Grundrechte bei jeder Überarbeitung oder Einführung von EU-Gesetzen Eine starke, geschützte Zivilgesellschaft ist das Rückgrat einer lebendigen Demokratie. Sie fördert bürgerliche Beteiligung, soziale Gerechtigkeit und ökologische Nachhaltigkeit und ist damit entscheidend für eine zukunftsfähige EU.
Read full response

Meeting with Martin Häusling (Member of the European Parliament)

9 Apr 2025 · Webinar zum Thema Gentechnik

Meeting with Nicolas Gibert-Morin (Head of Unit Regional and Urban Policy)

28 Mar 2025 · Exchange between BUND and DG REGIO on Future of Cohesion Policy

BUND Urges Mandatory Green Rules for EU Public Procurement

6 Mar 2025
Topic — The European Commission is evaluating its directives governing public procurement and concessions.
Message — Make environmental and social criteria mandatory in all contracts to stop lowest-price selection. Member states should create roadmaps for sustainable procurement and high standards for resource reuse. Improve monitoring by lowering reporting thresholds and granting civil society a voice.123
Why — This move helps create lead markets for fossil-free products and resource conservation.4
Impact — Suppliers of cheap, unsustainable goods lose their competitive edge based on price alone.5
Read full response

BUND demands strict enforcement of existing EU water laws

4 Mar 2025
Topic — The European Commission is consulting on a multi-annual plan for European water resilience.
Message — The strategy must enforce existing directives rather than delaying environmental goals. It should implement the polluter-pays principle and establish EU-wide water extraction pricing.12
Why — Prioritizing ecosystem protection would secure essential water resources for future generations.34
Impact — Industrial polluters and intensive agriculture would face increased costs for water usage.56
Read full response

Meeting with Jens Geier (Member of the European Parliament)

20 Feb 2025 · Exchange on Expectations on the Clean industrial Deal

German environmentalists urge binding targets for EU ocean protection

17 Feb 2025
Topic — The consultation seeks to create a coherent framework for future European marine policy.
Message — They demand legally binding targets and timelines for restoring habitats and managing fish stocks sustainably. The group calls for banning destructive practices like bottom trawling in all marine protected areas. They advocate for a transition from economic growth to a regenerative blue economy.123
Why — This would safeguard natural carbon storage and ensure the long-term health of marine ecosystems.4
Impact — Industrial fishing fleets would lose access to protected waters due to stricter activity bans.5
Read full response

BUND urges transparent and fully funded national restoration plans

7 Feb 2025
Topic — This consultation defines the standardized format for national nature restoration plans.
Message — The organization demands that all legal requirements be mandatory. They request concrete maps and clear rules for public participation. They also call for a full assessment of harmful subsidies.123
Why — Access to maps and data would empower the NGO to monitor implementation.4
Impact — Recipients of harmful subsidies would face the withdrawal of financial support.5
Read full response

Meeting with Jutta Paulus (Member of the European Parliament)

31 Jan 2025 · Waste Policy

Meeting with Christophe Hansen (Commissioner)

17 Jan 2025 · Mutual introduction and general views on area-based payments for CAP post 2027

Meeting with Martin Häusling (Member of the European Parliament) and Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V. and

11 Dec 2024 · Treffen mit DNR Mitgliedern

Meeting with Jutta Paulus (Member of the European Parliament)

10 Dec 2024 · Meeresschutz

Meeting with Andrea Wechsler (Member of the European Parliament)

28 Nov 2024 · EU Environmental Policy

Meeting with Hildegard Bentele (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Pesticide Action Network Europe

26 Nov 2024 · Surface water and groundwater pollutants

Meeting with Stefan Köhler (Member of the European Parliament) and Naturschutzbund Deutschland e.V.

18 Nov 2024 · Politischer Austausch

Meeting with Sebastian Everding (Member of the European Parliament)

5 Nov 2024 · Meeting on animal welfare and sustainable foodsystem

Meeting with Delara Burkhardt (Member of the European Parliament)

7 Oct 2024 · nature protection

Meeting with Sebastian Everding (Member of the European Parliament)

1 Oct 2024 · Introductory meeting

Meeting with Hildegard Bentele (Member of the European Parliament) and Women Engage for a Common Future and Health and Environment Justice Support

25 Sept 2024 · Plastic Policy

Meeting with Martin Häusling (Member of the European Parliament) and Testbiotech and Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen

24 Sept 2024 · BUND- Onlineveranstaltung: "Weniger Regeln für Neue Gentechnik in Europa? Kritik aus der Wissenschaft“

Meeting with Andrea Wechsler (Member of the European Parliament)

17 Sept 2024 · EU Environmental Policy

Response to Interim evaluation of the Fusion for Energy Joint Undertaking

5 Sept 2024

Bitte lesen Sie die Stellungnahme des Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V. (BUND) im angehängten Dokument.
Read full response

Response to Evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy

15 Aug 2024

BUND welcomes the Commissions initiative of evaluating the functioning of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). We are, however, convinced that the CFP basic regulation is functional and fit for purpose. The reason why we are not achieving the goals set by the CFP, is that the CFP rules and targets are intentionally misinterpreted and/or not implemented by management and organisational structures. There are multiple examples, that certain articles of the CFP are misinterpreted, misused or simply remain unused. One example for misinterpretation and misuse are the biological reference points: The CFPs fundamental MSY Objective explicitly applies to both fishing pressure and biomass, requiring that all stocks are maintained or restored above levels capable of producing MSY (=BMSY). The same objective is underpinned in the EU Multiannual Plans, where recovery actions for stocks under both Blim and Btrigger are required. Yet, the current fisheries management approach in the EU is not geared towards delivering such stock recovery above BMSY, but rather keeps stocks around the lowest available biological reference points Btrigger and Blim. The ongoing misinterpretation and misuse of these targets and safeguards by the EU Council have led to a number of ongoing court proceedings questioning the legality of the Councils TAC decisions. Another example of misused or misinterpreted articles is the Article 17 of the CFP Basic Regulation: The allocation of fishing opportunities is a key tool for moving away from environmentally damaging fishing practices towards low impact fishing supporting coastal communities. Article 17 specifically accounts for that by encouraging Member States to use transparent and objective criteria including those of a social, economic and environmental nature. However, the current allocation is almost solely based on historic criteria, which exacerbates the impact of large-scale and industrial fisheries often using harmful fishing practices, at the expense of small-scale low-impact fishers and fragile marine ecosystems. The implementation of Article 17 is an essential but unused tool to offer small-scale fisheries better opportunities and long-term stability despite the poor state of many fish populations. Until the CFP has been implemented completely and comprehensively, it is not possible to evaluate how and if the content of the regulation is bringing us closer to our goal of healthy and thriving fish populations and fisheries in the EU. Therefore, it is in fact not relevant to overhaul the CFP in any way but rather to continue investigating and identifying the core reasons for the failures and missed targets. In 2023, the Commission adopted the marine action plan to protect and restore marine ecosystems for sustainable and resilient fisheries. This action plan and the accompanying Joint Special Group have highlighted key deficiencies of the CFP implementation and the need for much better coordination of fisheries institutions and regulations with environmental institutions and regulations, such as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the Habitats Directive and the Nature Restoration Law. It also pointed to the great differences in national implementation efforts and efficiency by the EU Member States. With this, the Commission has not only started to evaluate and underline the reasons of failure, but has already started to build the new structure for the coordinated efforts we need to protect, rebuild and maintain healthy fish populations. Thus, we feel that the Action Plan is key to this evaluation and essential to fully implement, instead of losing 5 years of discussions on detailed texts in articles that will have no impact since the existing ones are not being implemented.
Read full response

Meeting with Sabrina Repp (Member of the European Parliament)

29 Jul 2024 · EU environment and climate policy

Meeting with Anna Cavazzini (Member of the European Parliament) and Germanwatch and Bischöfliches Hilfswerk Misereor e.V.

1 Jul 2024 · CSDDD

German Environmental Group Opposes Weakening EU Nitrate Limits

17 May 2024
Topic — Proposed changes to EU Nitrate Directive allowing higher livestock manure fertilizer use.
Message — BUND opposes raising the nitrogen limit from 170 to 270 kg per hectare per year. They argue the proposal contradicts water protection goals and lacks sufficient scientific evidence. They request the Commission withdraw or substantially revise the draft.123
Why — This would maintain stricter limits protecting water quality and biodiversity goals.45
Impact — Farmers seeking flexibility to use more livestock manure lose cost savings from reduced mineral fertilizer.6
Read full response

Meeting with René Repasi (Member of the European Parliament)

10 May 2024 · Austausch; Thema: Naturschutzprojekte & EU-Politik im Bereich Natur und Umwelt

Meeting with Anna Cavazzini (Member of the European Parliament)

8 May 2024 · Europawahl und Naturschutz

Meeting with Norbert Lins (Member of the European Parliament, Committee chair)

18 Apr 2024 · Naturschutzpolitik, Amphibiengewässer

Meeting with Jens Geier (Member of the European Parliament)

18 Apr 2024 · Expectations on the new European Parliament and EU Commission (EU Industry Policy, Global Trade, Green Deal, Energy Policy)

Meeting with Michael Bloss (Member of the European Parliament) and Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V. and

9 Apr 2024 · NGO Exchange

Meeting with Tiemo Wölken (Member of the European Parliament) and Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V. and

18 Mar 2024 · 2040-Klimaziel, EP-Wahlen

Meeting with Delara Burkhardt (Member of the European Parliament)

16 Mar 2024 · Nature Protection

German NGO BUND Demands Quicker EU Ban on Bisphenols

8 Mar 2024
Topic — This consultation addresses the restriction of Bisphenol A and related substances in food packaging.
Message — BUND supports a comprehensive ban on bisphenols but demands shorter transition periods for phasing out these chemicals. They call for a precautionary approach to prevent industry from using similar, potentially harmful substitutes.123
Why — Strengthening these rules would help the organization stop industry from using similar harmful chemical substitutes.4
Impact — Producers of single-use packaging would be forced to adopt alternatives much sooner than proposed.5
Read full response

Meeting with Anna Cavazzini (Member of the European Parliament)

15 Feb 2024 · European Green Deal

Meeting with Jutta Paulus (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

31 Jan 2024 · Nature Restoration Law

Meeting with Jutta Paulus (Member of the European Parliament) and European Environmental Bureau and

23 Jan 2024 · REACH

Meeting with Delara Burkhardt (Member of the European Parliament)

19 Dec 2023 · chemical policy

Meeting with Alexandra Geese (Member of the European Parliament) and Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund and

15 Dec 2023 · Sozial-ökologische Transformation

Meeting with Anna Deparnay-Grunenberg (Member of the European Parliament) and Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund and

15 Dec 2023 · Sozial-ökologische Transformation

Meeting with Jutta Paulus (Member of the European Parliament) and Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund and

15 Dec 2023 · Austausch zu Umweltpolitik

Meeting with Daniel Freund (Member of the European Parliament) and OXFAM INTERNATIONAL EU ADVOCACY OFFICE and

15 Dec 2023 · Treffen mit Verbänden zur Europawahl aus dem sozial-ökologischen Bereich

Meeting with Michael Bloss (Member of the European Parliament) and Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund and

15 Dec 2023 · sozial-ökologische Transformation in Europa

Meeting with Rasmus Andresen (Member of the European Parliament) and Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund and

15 Dec 2023 · socio economic situation

Meeting with Maria Noichl (Member of the European Parliament)

28 Nov 2023 · Green Deal initiatives (Staff level)

German Environmental Group BUND Warns of Risks in EU Seed Law

4 Nov 2023
Topic — Proposed EU legislation on plants produced using new genomic techniques and food safety.
Message — The organization argues that the Commission's proposal contradicts the precautionary principle by removing established safety measures for the majority of new genetic techniques. They request the retention of individual case risk assessments, labeling requirements, and monitoring for all genetically modified organisms.12
Why — The group aims to preserve environmental protections and the legal right for members to identify and avoid GMOs.3
Impact — Organic farmers and consumers lose the ability to ensure products are free from genetic modification.4
Read full response

BUND Demands Binding EU Targets for Healthy Soils

2 Nov 2023
Topic — EU consultation on a law to monitor and restore soil health across Europe.
Message — BUND demands a legally binding directive with uniform standards and mandatory targets for soil health. They insist on regulating agricultural pollution and achieving net-zero land take by 2030. The organization advocates for robust, modern monitoring of soil biodiversity and ecosystem services.123
Why — These measures would protect vital biodiversity and ensure the long-term resilience of food production.4
Impact — Industrial polluters and land developers would face higher liability costs and restricted expansion opportunities.56
Read full response

Meeting with Jutta Paulus (Member of the European Parliament)

9 Oct 2023 · SUR

Meeting with Maria Noichl (Member of the European Parliament)

20 Sept 2023 · Verpackungsverordnung

Meeting with Anna Deparnay-Grunenberg (Member of the European Parliament)

9 Sept 2023 · SUR, NRL

BUND Warns EU Against Carbon Capture 'Fossil Dead End'

30 Aug 2023
Topic — EU consultation on the deployment of carbon capture, utilisation, and storage infrastructure.
Message — BUND demands an immediate end to all subsidies for carbon capture infrastructure. The group insists this technology cannot replace genuine emission reduction efforts.12
Why — This strategy ensures a real shift toward renewables and prevents industrial stagnation.3
Impact — The fossil industry loses its lucrative path to maintain profitable gas exploitation.4
Read full response

BUND rejects mass balance for recycled plastic bottle content

30 May 2023
Topic — Common rules for the calculation and reporting of recycled content in plastic bottles.
Message — The organization criticizes mass balance accounting, arguing it threatens resource protection and consumer transparency. They demand legally binding norms based on actual physical material shares rather than mathematically assigned percentages. Furthermore, they insist that actual material losses during chemical recycling must be clearly disclosed.123
Why — This would prevent greenwashing and ensure industry claims match real-world environmental impacts.4
Impact — The chemical industry loses the ability to easily assign recycled status to their products.56
Read full response

German group BUND rejects green labels for fossil-fuel aircraft

3 May 2023
Topic — The initiative establishes environmental standards for sustainable investment purposes in aviation manufacturing.
Message — The organization demands that only zero-emission aircraft receive the sustainability label. They argue current efficiency criteria for fossil-fuel planes are too weak to achieve climate goals.12
Why — This would prevent the dilution of green standards the organization supports.3
Impact — Aviation manufacturers lose access to green financing for their fossil-fuel aircraft.4
Read full response

Meeting with Tiemo Wölken (Member of the European Parliament) and Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V. and

25 Apr 2023 · Aktuelle Themen der Klimapolitik

Meeting with Tiemo Wölken (Member of the European Parliament) and European Environmental Bureau

29 Mar 2023 · Integriertes Wassermanagement

Meeting with Tiemo Wölken (Member of the European Parliament)

28 Mar 2023 · REACH

German NGO BUND slams EU carbon removal plan as distraction

23 Mar 2023
Topic — The Commission is proposing a regulatory framework for certifying sustainable carbon removals.
Message — The organization opposes the proposal, arguing it delays climate action and protects fossil fuels. They demand excluding industrial carbon removal and carbon farming from certification.123
Why — A rejection of the proposal would protect the group's priority investments in renewable energy.4
Impact — The fossil fuel industry loses its primary mechanism for maintaining business as usual.5
Read full response

Meeting with Christine Schneider (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

22 Mar 2023 · nature restoration

German environment group BUND backs stricter wastewater treatment rules

14 Mar 2023
Topic — The EU is updating rules for urban wastewater treatment and pollutant discharge.
Message — BUND supports new standards for micropollutants and a fourth cleaning stage. They want pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies to pay for pollutant removal. Treatment priorities should be based on water health instead of plant size.123
Why — Stricter regulations advance the group's goal of a toxin-free environment by 2050.4
Impact — Pharmaceutical and cosmetic manufacturers would face new fees for wastewater treatment.5
Read full response

BUND Urges Stricter EU Rules to Protect Groundwater Ecosystems

14 Mar 2023
Topic — Revision of EU lists governing chemical pollutants in surface and groundwaters.
Message — BUND demands stronger protection for groundwater biodiversity and strict temperature criteria for thermal use. They also oppose deleting reporting requirements and call for more substances on observation lists.1234
Why — These measures would ensure long-term drinking water quality and functional groundwater ecosystems.5
Impact — Pesticide and chemical producers would face tougher limits and stricter emission monitoring requirements.6
Read full response

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and European Environmental Bureau and

14 Mar 2023 · Implementation of the EU Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability and PFAS related measures

Meeting with Michael Bloss (Member of the European Parliament)

21 Feb 2023 · Energie

Meeting with Tiemo Wölken (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur for opinion) and Germanwatch

9 Jan 2023 · Lieferkettengesetz

Meeting with Jutta Paulus (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

30 Nov 2022 · Nature Restoration Law

Meeting with Ska Keller (Member of the European Parliament)

29 Nov 2022 · Nature restoration (staff-level meeting)

Meeting with Anna Cavazzini (Member of the European Parliament) and Germanwatch and Brot für die Welt

22 Sept 2022 · Corporate Sustainable Due Diligence Directive

German environmental group BUND demands stronger EU pesticide reduction rules

14 Sept 2022
Topic — EU regulation on sustainable use of pesticides and integrated pest management.
Message — BUND demands legally binding 50% pesticide reduction by 2030 with intermediate targets, a complete phase-out of highly hazardous pesticides, and stronger enforcement of integrated pest management. They call for ten-meter buffer zones around water bodies and nature reserves, mandatory independent agricultural advice, and alignment of the Common Agricultural Policy with reduction goals.1234
Why — This would achieve BUND's core environmental mission of protecting biodiversity and ecosystems from pesticide harm.56
Impact — Agricultural producers lose flexibility and face higher compliance costs from stricter pesticide restrictions and buffer zones.7
Read full response

Meeting with Peter Liese (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

2 Sept 2022 · Environmental, food and agriculture policies in the EU

German environmental group BUND opposes extending regional airport subsidies

20 Jul 2022
Topic — The Commission proposes extending the transition period for operating aid to regional airports.
Message — BUND rejects extending the transition period for airport operating subsidies until 2027. They argue that air traffic is recovering quickly and regional airports are inefficient. The group maintains these subsidies are incompatible with EU climate goals.123
Why — Ending airport subsidies would directly reduce avoidable greenhouse gas emissions.4
Impact — Regional airports would lose three years of state aid for their operating costs.5
Read full response

Meeting with Sarah Wiener (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and European Environmental Bureau and

13 Jul 2022 · staff only: Discussion on the Harmonised Risk Indicator 1 (SUR proposal)

Response to Sustainable Products Initiative

22 Jun 2022

Please see attached/ Bitte Anhang beachten
Read full response

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans), Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

14 Jun 2022 · Farm-to-Fork and SUD revision

Meeting with Peter Liese (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and Verein Deutscher Zementwerke e.V.

24 May 2022 · ETS

Meeting with Bernd Lange (Member of the European Parliament, Committee chair) and Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V. and

26 Apr 2022 · General exchange of view

Response to Streamlining EU scientific and technical work on chemicals through the EU agencies

31 Mar 2022

BUND (FoE Germany) welcomes the Commission's initiative to implement the principle of 'one substance - one assessment' that was declared in the ‘Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability’ within the framework of an omnibus regulation. Currently, the different legal provisions often lead to duplication of work and to different results and risk management measures. The planned regulation should therefore lead to regulated, improved cooperation and clear allocation of tasks between the agencies ECHA, EFSA, EEA and EMA. The proposal should include as many substance regulations as possible within the EU legislative framework, e.g. Toys directive, food and feed additives, environmental quality standards (EQS). We expressly welcome the fact that the assessment of medicinal products is also to be included - in particular its environmental risk assessment. Existing gaps, e.g. the lack of environmental classification and risk assessment of cosmetics, should also be closed in this context. Despite all harmonization, however, it is important that the specific strengths of individual regulations resulting from the respective protection objective are retained and that there is no harmonization based on the lowest common denominator. Within the framework of this initiative, an increased exchange of information is foreseen between the agencies and scientific committees. This should also lead to increased transparency also towards the public and to an enhanced participation of civil society. We are looking forward to the Commission's proposals with great interest.
Read full response

Response to Soil Health Law – protecting, sustainably managing and restoring EU soils

16 Mar 2022

Thank you very much for the opportunity to submit an opinion as part of the impact assessment on the initiative "Soil health - protecting, sustainably managing and restoring EU soils". Please find attached the opinion we have already submitted in the context of the "Roadmap New Soil Strategy - healthy soil for a healthy life". It is still up to date. In addition, there is an urgent need for action in - the establishment of effective measures against sealing, - updating and concretising "good agricultural practice" in soil management, which is the basis for receiving direct payments under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), - in advising and implementing known sustainable soil protection measures on farms and in training farmers, - in the monetary recognition by society of sustainable agriculture that provides ecosystem services, - in the consideration of measures to improve soil structure in flood protection. Carbon farming is good for organic soils and peat soils to save carbon in these soils. But we have concerns on carbon farming on mineral soils because Soil C-sequestration: - Achieves significantly lower magnitudes of GHG avoidance than not using mineral fertilizers and reducing livestock numbers, - Is long-lasting and decreasing over time, - Is reversible.
Read full response

Response to Waste Framework review to reduce waste and the environmental impact of waste management

22 Feb 2022

Der BUND vertritt über eine halbe Million Mitglieder und begrüßt diese Initiative sehr. Grundsätzlich muss der Ressourcenverbrauch deutlich reduziert werden. In der bisherigen Abfallrahmenrichtlinie sind Gesamtverbräuche oder Ressourcenschonungsaspekte nicht ausreichend berücksichtigt. Das Ziel der Ressourcenschonung ist im EU-Recht nicht verankert, es fehlt ein übergreifendes Ressourcenschutzrecht mit verbindlichen Reduktions-Zielen und Indikatoren. Das Abfallrecht sollte um dieses erweitert werden. Der Grundpfeiler des Abfallrechts muss die Abfallhierarchie sein. Zudem sollte die erweiterte Herstellerverantwortung für Verpackungen umgesetzt und auf weitere Sektoren (Online-Handel, Textilien, Möbel, Baustoffe) ausgeweitet werden. Bioabfälle müssen konsequent separat gesammelt und Lebensmittelabfälle vermieden werden, dafür sollen Quoten festgelegt werden. Für alle o.g. Maßnahmen müssen Ziele gesetzt und Indikatoren entwickelt werden. Entsorgung auf niederen Ebenen darf nur noch zulässig sein, wenn der Nachweis geführt wird, dass eine Behandlung auf der höheren Hierarchieebene unmöglich ist. Abfallverbrennung vernichtet wertvolle Ressourcen und sollte verbindlich reduziert werden. Die Produktgestaltung hin zu einer besseren Reparierbarkeit, Langlebigkeit, Nachrüstbarkeit und Recyclingfähigkeit muss gestärkt werden. Zudem sollte die erweiterte Herstellerverantwortung für eine bessere Produktgestaltung gestärkt und ausgeweitet werden. Vermeidung, Wiederverwendung und Reparatur sind durch Produktdesign zu vereinfachen sowie durch steuerliche und regulative Vorteile zu begünstigen. Die Verwendung von Sekundärrohstoffen ist in einzelnen Sektoren verbindlich vorzuschreiben und sukzessive zu erhöhen. Eine bessere getrennte Sammlung und Erfassung einzelner Abfallströme (Bioabfälle, Textilien, Möbel, Baustoffe) ist verbindlich festzulegen. Zudem muss eine einheitliche Anwendung der o.g. Maßnahmen in allen Mitgliedstaaten sichergestellt werden. Verbindliche Mehrweg-Quoten im Verpackungsbereich tragen zur Abfallvermeidung bei; diese sind notwendig für Getränke und andere Verkaufsverpackungen im End-Consumer-Bereich, zwischen Unternehmen (Transport, Logistik) sowie im Online-Handel. Einheitliche Pool-Systeme in der EU sind dafür notwendig – die Nutzung dieser sollte sukzessive mit steigenden Quoten in allen genannten Sektoren verbindlich eingeführt werden. Die komplette Recyclingfähigkeit der restlichen Verpackungen ist bis 2030 festzusetzen. Abfälle, die in extrem energieintensiven Verfahren wie Pyrolyse oder Vergasung verwertet werden, dürfen nicht als Anteile in die Recycling-Quoten eingehen. Die Recycling-Quoten sollen sich auf die Verfahren des mechanischen Recyclings beziehen, das sogenannte „chemische Recycling“ ist auf die Stufe der thermischen Verwertung zu stellen. Es sollte, wie die Müllverbrennung, nur für solche Stoffströme genutzt werden dürfen, die schadstoffbelastet sind und somit nicht recycelt werden können. Im Anhang zeigen wir im ersten Teil, dass zwei Drittel des Restmülls vermeid- und recycelbar sind, Verbrennungsanlagen für hohe Siedlungsabfallmengen sorgen und Müllverbrennungsanlagen fälschlicherweise als klimaneutral eingestuft werden. Ihr Bau muss also wirkungsvoll begrenzt werden. Wir zeigen, dass Restmüllmengen begrenzt werden können und sollen durch a) Festlegung verbindlicher Abfallvermeidungsziele (90 kg pP bis 2030) b) Förderung einer besseren Getrenntsammlung von Kunststoffen, Textilien, Sperrmüll sowie eine flächendeckende Bioabfallsammlung c) Investitionen in Wertstoffhöfe, Sortier- und Recyclinganlagen sowie Förderung der Nachfrage nach Sekundärrohstoffen sowie d) Verbindliche Reduktion von Gewerbeabfällen e) Verursacherorientierte Gebührensysteme im Sinne von “Pay As You Throw”. Im 2. Teil des Anhangs zeigen wir Optionen für nationale Ressourcenschutzziele auf, ehrgeizige quantitative und qualitative Ziele sollen analog auch auf EU-Ebene ausgearbeitet und festgelegt werden.
Read full response

Meeting with Rasmus Andresen (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur for opinion)

7 Feb 2022 · Decarbonising the Shipping Sector

Response to Measures to reduce microplastic pollution

17 Jan 2022

Wir, Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz, eine deutsche NGO mit mehr als einer halben Million Mitgliedern, begrüßen die Initiative sehr. Es ist sehr dringend die Millionen Tonnen Mikroplastik, die jedes Jahr in der EU in die Umwelt gelangen, zu regulieren. Mikroplastik gelangt nachweislich auch ins Blut von Menschen, an die entlegensten Orte der Welt und ist bereits überall nachweisbar. Es ist persistent und wirkt z.B. wie ein Magnet für Umweltgifte. Es stellt auch durch enthaltende Additive eine Bedrohung für die Gesundheit der Menschen, Flora und Fauna dar. Zentral sind dabei Maßnahmen, die bereits an den Quellen ansetzen, also verhindern, dass große Mengen in die verschiedenen Umweltkompartimente gelangen, aus denen es nicht rückholbar ist, es ist daher das Vorsorgeprinzip anzuwenden. Bezüglich der Definition fordern wir, dass Mikroplastik keine „untere Grenze“ hat, sondern jeglicher Kunststoff, der kleiner als 5mm ist, als Mikroplastik gilt und Nanoplastik sowie bioabbaubares Plastik mitreguliert werden. Die Toxizität von Mikroplastik (durch die Additive bzw. deren Abbauprodukte) soll mitbewertet und reguliert werden. Mikroplastik enthält wie andere Kunststoffe viele Additive, z.B. Weichmacher, Oxidationsinhibitoren, BPA, 6ppd. Es muss zudem bei allen Sektoren darum gehen, nicht nur gute Methoden zur Messung festzulegen, sondern die Emissionen verbindlich pro Sektor mengenmäßig stark zu verringern. Zum ECHA-Vorschlag zur Regulierung von Mikroplastik in Kosmetik, Waschmitteln, Sportplatz-Granulat sowie Farben und Lacken aus dem Jahr 2021 ergänzen wir, dass alle Lacke, auch jene für Schiffsanstriche und jegliche Anstriche im marinen Bereich mitreguliert werden. Zudem dürfen für Sportplatz-Granulat keine unangemessen langen Übergangsfristen eingeräumt werden. Die Stakeholder-Workshops Ende 2021 fokussierten auf folgende Quellen: Reifen, Textilien und Pellets. Das ist ein richtiger Schritt, wir fordern jedoch die Betrachtung weiterer Quellen sowie ein sektorübergreifendes Rahmenwerk. Das Umweltbundesamt hat 2021 den Kunststoffeintrag in Deutschland quantifiziert und schätzt, dass 133.000 bis 165.000 t pro Jahr in der Umwelt landen, vor allem verursacht durch Reifenabrieb. Weitere relevante Bereiche sind: der Baubereich (9.000 – 60.000 t), Landwirtschaft und Gartenbau 6.000 – 22.000 t), Verbraucherprodukte (Textilien, Farben uvm.: 900 – 2.500 t) sowie der Spiel- und Sportbereich (z.B. Granulate für Kunstrasenplätze, Spielgeräte mit 1.800 - 3.100 t). Der Großteil stammt dabei aus umweltoffenen Anwendungen wie landwirtschaftliche Folien, Baufolien, Palisaden, Spiel- und Sportgeräte, Rankhilfen, Verbissschutz, Farben, Textilien, wir fordern geeigente Maßnahmen zur substanziellen Reduktion dieser Emissionen. Weiter fordern wir: 1. Zu Kunstrasenplätzen: Verbot von Kunststoffgranulat, illegale Entsorgungspraxis unterbinden sowie zu Recycling verpflichten (1 Anlage in Dänemark recycelt bereits 99% des Materials), Sofortmaßnahmen zu bestehenden Kunstrasenplätzen sowie Maßnahmen zur Bewusstseinsbildung 2. Bezüglich Reifen: Optimierung der Zusammensetzung und Struktur der Reifen, Verbesserung der Zusammensetzung, Infrastruktur und Instandhaltung von Straßen-oberflächen sowie Mikroplastik nicht in den Wasserkreislauf gelangen lassen (durch geeignete Maßnahmen in Kanalisation sowie Straßenrand) 3. Um Mikroplastik-Austrag aus Textilien zu verringern, sollten industrielle Vorwäschen synthetischer Materialien und Filter in allen neuen Waschmaschine Pflicht sein 4. Landwirtschaft und Gartenbau: gewerbliche Lebensmittelabfälle müssen entpackt werden bevor sie kompostiert/vergärt werden, Kunststoffe, die in Kompostwerken, Gäranlagen oder im Freien nicht zerfallen, dürfen nicht mehr als „biologisch abbaubar“ zertifiziert werden, Verbot von Polymeren und »Superabsorbern« als sog. »Bodenverbesserer sowie Dünger mit Kunststoffummantelungen 5. Im Bereich der Fischerei: den Eintrag von Fischernetzen und Netzteilen mit geeigneten Maßnahmen stoppen
Read full response

Response to Policy framework on biobased, biodegradable and compostable plastics

27 Oct 2021

We as BUND (German NGO with more than half a million members) welcome this initiative and are planning to participate as a stakeholder in future consultations on this issue. So-called bioplastics can only fulfil hopes of a more sustainable use of plastics in future to a very limited extent. A neutral discussion on bioplastics is also difficult due to the fact that the label "organic" / “bio” is often misused as a marketing strategy leading to false expectations among consumers. We call for the development of a definition of "bioplastics" and a clear demarcation from the terms "bio" and "organic". The market share of bioplastics is steadily increasing and most are used for packaging. Therefore the plastic crisis is not only a waste management problem, but primarily a crisis of overproduction of single use packaging. Every production step leads to environmental and social problems and especially regarding packaging there is enormous avoidance potential and reuse systems should be standard. According to the European waste hierarchy, prevention and recycling are the first and third priorities for the realisation of a functioning circular economy. We urge the European Commission therefore to include firstly the development of targets for waste prevention and reuse for bioplastics. Those (binding) targets must be underpinned by target figures, measures and sanctions if they are not met in time otherwise they will remain symbolic targets. In the second step, widespread Europe-wide reuse-systems must be prioritized, the produced "bio"-plastic must not leave the circular system, neither because it is incinerated nor as micro plastics. For the most part, biobased "bio" plastics are not products that originate from organic agriculture. In addition, they often contain fossil components. This should be clearly transparent on each product. BUND rejects the production of raw materials for bio-based plastics on land made available specifically for this purpose. Plants required for human nutrition must under no circumstances be displaced from the land by plants required for bioplastic production. BUND calls for a new global benchmarking for agricultural land use in terms of nutrition, energy and material production. Bio-based plastics need a certification like the organic agriculture label. Some of the "bio" plastics are biodegradable and also certified accordingly. However, since the decomposition times according to the current standard are significantly longer than the composting time in industrial plants, standard-compliant decomposition is not guaranteed. In addition, the residual particles tolerated by the standard must be critically evaluated. In most cases, BUND rejects the use of plastics with decomposing as end-of-life target. A few exceptions such as mulch films are in discussion, and results concerning the independent environmental assessment should be awaited. We also want to highlight that the term “compostable” gives the consumers the wrong impression of the plastic being home compostable, which is absolutely not the case. This certification is therefore highly problematic and should be critically evaluated and possibly forbidden. In addition, all plastic products produced must be recyclable not only in theory but also in practice. To this end, it is extremely important that we must regulate a recycling-friendly product design by law. Mono-material, suitable colours, dismantleability and toxic free additives are the key. Full transparency about all the components (polymers and additives) used in every product is the basis for a clean recycling. For the "new" biopolymers, which are not chemically identical to established (PE, PET, etc.), there are currently no recycling options due to the small quantities involved. Therefore, the number of different "new" biopolymers used in products should be limited in order to achieve material flow quantities for these new biopolymers that allow recycling to be economically viable.
Read full response

Response to Calculation, verification and reporting of data on the separate collection of SUP beverage bottles

17 Jun 2021

The objective of Article 9 SUPD is the seperate collection of plastic bottles in order to ensure that they don’t end up littered in the environment. Putting an end to littering of SUP products is one of the main parts of the Plastic Strategy’s vision. Furthermore, a high-quality bottle-to-bottle recycling is necessary in order to reach the recycled content target of 30 percent, the successful implementation of which will also be a decisive first step towards the recycled content targets announced in the CEAP. Therefore, although the SUPD not only allows for separate collection through DRS, but also other collection modes together with other recyclables, the term “separate collection” should be defined as strictly and precisely as possible. Any weakening of the definition can drastically undermine the core objectives Article 9 had in the first place. Thus, the draft Implementing Act should be adapted so that: • It clearly defines strict requirements for the quality of the material, even if it is collected together with other recyclables, so that closed-loop bottle-to-bottle recycling is still possible: SUP bottles should be collected in a way that allows for recycling into foodgrade material. In a previous draft version of the Implementing Act, this requirement for foodgrade quality was mentioned explicitly. We think that it would be important to make this quality aspect very clear again. At the moment, the requirements are not explicit enough and allow for loopholes. It should be stated very strictly that bottles should not be collected with hazardous waste/contaminated materials, and such a requirement should also not be controlled by industry itself, but by an independent body. • A collection with the residual waste, mixed waste, black bin, etc. should be explicitly ruled out from being counted as separate collection of SUP bottles for recycling. This point should be made absolutely clear by naming all those terms explicitly in the Implementing Act, and not leaving this point ambiguous in any way. Bottles recovered from waste-splitting of residual waste could otherwise be counted as separately collected. Their quality will however be low, and the Implementing Act should not support modes of collection that do not reach 90 % collection rate with the specific system set up for separate collection, but where bottles from waste-splitting would have to be calculated in. • The definition of separate collection should be aligned with what the Waste Framework Directive defines as separate collection, otherwise this could set a precedent for future deviation, to the detriment of the environment. Article 3(11) of the Waste Framework Directive defines separate collection as a procedure “where a waste stream is kept separately by type and nature so as to facilitate a specific treatment”. Despite this very clear definition, there have been ongoing discussions among certain stakeholder groups on whether SUP bottles that have been pulled out of the residual/mixed waste can be added to the number of separately collected SUP bottles, in order to reach the separate collection targets set in Article 9 SUPD. Especially in the light of the comprehensive measures to prevent waste and promote recycling that are envisioned within the Green Deal and the Circular Economy Action Plan, the SUPD should be leading the way to strict and consequent legislation, the purpose of which cannot be undermined by ambiguous definitions. We as Friend of the Earth Germany are very concerned about this article, as it is very important to protect our environment from plastic littering: plastics that contains hundreds of unknown substances with absolutely unknown effects on human health and remains in the environment for hundered of years. We support strongly the NGO Position Paper coordinated by Reloop.
Read full response

Response to Guidance on REDII forest biomass sustainability criteria

28 Apr 2021

Der BUND (FoE Germany) nimmt wie folgt Stellung: • Es ist grundlegend falsch, dass der Fehler bei REDII nicht behoben wird und nicht zwischen Rohstoffen der sekundäre Biomasse und primäre Biomasse unterschieden wird. • Die vorgelegten “Nachhaltigkeitskriterien” verweisen auf Kriterien und Elemente aus nationalen und subnationalen Vorschriften, die belegen sollen, dass das das verbrannte Holz sei gesetzeskonform und nachhaltig sei. Auch wenn das in den Ländern geerntete Holz gesetzeskonform sein kann, sagt das nichts darüber aus, ob die Holznutzung nachhaltig im umfassenden Sinne ist, weil die Gesetze oft sehr schwach sind. Für den Wald, die Biodiversität, den Klimaschutz sind schädliche Eingriffe, wie z.B. Kahlschläge teilweise nicht gesetzlich verboten, ja oft nicht mal hinreichend definiert. • Der Nachweis einer geltenden Rechtsvorschrift zur Waldverjüngung (ii) ist nicht geeignet zu garantieren, dass eine naturnahe Waldverjüngung erreicht wird. Die in einigen deutschen Bundesländern vorhandenen Vegetationsgutachten belegen für weite Landesteile, dass die Waldverjüngung wegen Verbiss der überhöhten Reh- und Rotwildbestände scheitert. • Viele Länder in der EU schützen ihre Schutzgebiete nicht hinreichend, wie die Vertragsverletzungsverfahren und Klagen der EU gegen etliche Länder zu Natura 2000 belegen. Dies widerspricht dem Art. 3 (1) (b) (iii) der Leitlinien. • Der schädliche Einfluss der Holzernte auf Bodenqualität durch einen Nährstoffentzug ist schon lange belegt. Auch hier ist der Verweis in den Leitlinien (Art. 3 (1) (b) (iv)) auf den Nachweis, dass geltende Gesetze eingehalten werden, völlig verfehlt, weil dort keine bzw. keine hinreichend genauen Regelungen enthalten sind. So ist z.B. der Bodenschutz oder der Schutz der Brut- und Aufzuchtzeit vor der Holzernte in deutschen Forstgesetzen nicht hinreichend geregelt. Es fehlt generell eine Definition der guten fachlichen Praxis. • Das Minimierungsgebot in den Leitlinien (Art. 3 (1) (b) (iv)) zu den Auswirkungen der Holzernte auf die Arten ist nicht umsetzbar, weil in vielen Fällen weder den Staaten, noch den Forstbetrieben oder Wirtschaftsteilnehmern das Spektrum relevanter Arten und Schutzgüter bekannt ist. Vielfach liegen für Wälder, in denen Biomasse genutzt wird, keine Daten dazu vor. • Aussagen über die langfristigen Produktionskapazitäten, wie es in den Leitlinien Art. 3 (1) (b) (v) gefordert wird, sind für viele Wälder nicht möglich, weil für viele Wälder weder der Zuwachs noch die genutzte Holzmenge bekannt ist. • Die in Artikel 4 aufgeführten Erntekriterien sind ebenfalls nicht geeignet, negative Einflüsse auf Biodiversität, Bodenqualität, die langfristige Produktionskapazität des Waldes und Waldverjüngung auszuschließen, weil die Wirtschaftsteilnehmer derartige Kriterien für die Ebene des forstlichen Herkunftsgebiets nicht vorlegen können, weil es sie schlicht nicht gibt. • Bei den vorgelegten Leitlinien fehlt als zentrale Größe der Kohlenstoff im Waldboden, der dringend mit erfasst werden muss. FAZIT: die vorgelegten Kriterien, Nachweise und Prozesse sind nicht geeignet, die Nachhaltigkeit der energetischen Nutzung der forstlichen Biomasse zu belegen. Die aktuellen Holznutzungen haben in vielen Ländern und Waldgebieten bereits die Nachhaltigkeitsgrenze überschritten. Es ist völlig unverständlich, dass die EU gerade die für den Klimaschutz schlechteste Form der Holzverwertung, die energetische Holzverwertung, forcieren will. Holzverbrennung, gerade als primäre Biomasse, ist nicht CO2-neutral und schützt nicht das Klima. Vor allem die Großanlagen über 20 MW, für die diese Leitlinien gelten sollen, führen zu Konkurrenz zur stofflichen Holzverwendung. Damit wird die aus Klimaschutz erforderliche Kaskadennutzung verhindert. Oder sie führen zu Mehreinschlägen, die die durch die Klimakrise geschädigten Wälder noch mehr destabilisieren. Unter der Prämisse einer umfassenden Nachhaltigkeit müsste die Holznutzung deutlich unter dem Holzzuwächsen liegen.
Read full response