OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Naturschutzbund Deutschland e.V.

NABU

NABU is Germany's oldest and largest nature conservation NGO, founded in 1899, with over 940,000 members and the German partner of BirdLife International.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Martin Günther (Member of the European Parliament) and WWF European Policy Programme and

18 Nov 2025 · Exchange

German Conservation NGO NABU Calls for Stronger Circular Economy Rules

31 Oct 2025
Topic — EU proposal to enhance circular economy, competitiveness, and sustainable production models.
Message — NABU requests dual legal basis beyond internal market rules, mandatory green procurement criteria, and restrictions on disposable electronics like e-vapes. They want expanded biowaste collection and reformed producer responsibility systems.123
Why — This would strengthen environmental protection rules and expand their influence over EU production systems.45
Impact — Manufacturers of disposable electronics and businesses avoiding green procurement face stricter requirements and costs.67
Read full response

Meeting with Terry Reintke (Member of the European Parliament) and Amnesty International Limited and

17 Oct 2025 · EU Initiatives for Civil Society and Democracy

Meeting with Jutta Paulus (Member of the European Parliament) and Amnesty International Limited and

17 Oct 2025 · Europagruppe Grüne: Austausch mit NGOs

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

17 Oct 2025 · NGO-Workshop

Meeting with Rasmus Andresen (Member of the European Parliament) and Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V. and

17 Oct 2025 · Europaworkshop

Meeting with Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (Member of the European Parliament)

16 Oct 2025 · Nature credits

German conservation group NABU urges maintaining EU car emissions targets

10 Oct 2025
Topic — EU regulation setting CO2 emission standards for new cars and vans.
Message — The organization urges keeping the 2030 and 2035 zero-emission targets as agreed in 2023. They oppose including biofuels or life-cycle analysis in the regulation. They call for annual targets with a banking and borrowing system instead of five-year cycles.1234
Why — This would preserve biodiversity by blocking biofuels expansion in transport.5
Impact — Carmakers lose flexibility to delay electrification and continue combustion technology investments.67
Read full response

German conservation group backs EU nature credits with strict safeguards

26 Sept 2025
Topic — EU roadmap for voluntary biodiversity credit schemes to finance nature restoration.
Message — NABU supports EU nature credits as one financing tool among many, not a replacement for public investment. They urge strong regulation, mandatory standards, independent monitoring, and tight alignment with the Nature Restoration Law. Credits must deliver additional biodiversity benefits beyond legal requirements and never serve as offsets for ecological damage.1234
Why — This positions them as constructive partners in EU policy development while ensuring environmental integrity.56
Impact — Polluting industries lose flexibility to buy credits instead of reducing environmental harm directly.7
Read full response

Meeting with Jutta Paulus (Member of the European Parliament)

19 Sept 2025 · Nature Credits

Meeting with Jutta Paulus (Member of the European Parliament) and Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e. V.

16 Sept 2025 · Umweltpolitik

NABU urges EU to mandate electric fleets for large firms

5 Sept 2025
Topic — Legislation to increase zero-emission vehicle uptake within European corporate fleets.
Message — Large companies should reach a 90 percent share of electric car registrations by 2030. Mandatory targets must also ensure that transports contracted by large firms are emission-free. This places responsibility on powerful clients rather than small transport companies.123
Why — Clear rules would ensure investment certainty and create a larger used-car market.45
Impact — Large corporations would face higher costs and strict mandatory requirements for their fleets.67
Read full response

German NGO NABU demands higher EU green shipping quotas

4 Sept 2025
Topic — A strategic framework designed to increase investment in renewable and low-carbon fuels.
Message — NABU demands higher minimum quotas for green fuels in maritime regulations to create market certainty. They also call for public subsidies and auction models to close the price gap.12
Why — This ensures nature protection by excluding harmful biofuels and gas alternatives from transport.3
Impact — Biofuel producers and shipping firms lose access to lower-cost but environmentally damaging fuels.4
Read full response

NABU calls for stronger EU civil society protections and funding

4 Sept 2025
Topic — The consultation concerns establishing a comprehensive framework to support and protect European civil society.
Message — NABU calls for measures to strengthen public participation and legal rights to challenge decisions. They request broad funding in the next EU budget to support advocacy and operations. Additionally, they seek joint charity rules and protection from lawsuits used to silence critics.123
Why — This would provide financial security and help balance the influence of corporate lobbyists.45
Impact — Industrial interest groups would see their lobbying dominance challenged by better-funded environmental advocates.6
Read full response

Meeting with Jens Geier (Member of the European Parliament) and Germanwatch and

2 Sept 2025 · Exchange on Clean Industrial Deal and Decarbonisation Accelerator Act

German conservation group warns plastic recycling rules favor polluting pyrolysis

14 Aug 2025
Topic — EU rules for calculating recycled content in single-use plastic beverage bottles.
Message — NABU requests that the EU require proportional allocation for pyrolysis-based recycling and remove the dual-use approach. They argue the current mass balance method lacks transparency and gives unfair advantages to environmentally harmful processes over mechanical recycling.12
Why — This would ensure mechanical recycling gets fair treatment and prevent greenwashing of inferior technologies.34
Impact — Pyrolysis plant operators lose favorable allocation rules that let them claim recycled content artificially.5
Read full response

NABU demands minimal exceptions for destroying unsold consumer goods

6 Aug 2025
Topic — EU rules specifying when companies can still destroy unsold apparel and footwear.
Message — NABU welcomes the ban on destruction but insists it must be far-reaching with few well-founded exceptions. They believe the rules should incentivize companies to reassess and reduce the quantities of products placed on the market.12
Why — Stricter rules would help NABU achieve its mission by forcing companies to reduce overproduction.3
Impact — Fast-fashion firms lose the ability to justify destruction based on short-term cost-efficiency criteria.4
Read full response

Meeting with Martin Häusling (Member of the European Parliament)

5 Jun 2025 · Austausch zum Nature Restoration Law & Co.

Meeting with Jutta Paulus (Member of the European Parliament)

4 Jun 2025 · Klima- und Umweltpolitik

Response to European Democracy Shield

26 May 2025

Dear Commission, Thanks for opening this consultation. When coming forward with a European Democracy shield, we call on you to deliver on the following principles: Please ensure that participatory and deliberative democratic formats are promoted as a central element of the defence of democracy; Please ensure that a European Democracy Shield does not inadvertently weaken the protection of civil society and innovative democratic structures, but strengthen them. This must also happen in favour of NGOs; Please remain vigilant to the risks which ill-formulated foreign agents' laws can pose to democracy and civic space, and act against all efforts to shrink civic space or freedom of speech, association and assembly in the Union including any attempt to limit funding for CSOs/NGOs or any other additional measures seeking to limiting the operating space of CSOs; Please aim for a EU Strategy to support, protect, and empower civil society, which ensures holistic protection against direct attacks (such as SLAPPs), reduces administrative burdens, and provides structural support to address power imbalances (encouraging Member States to provide structural support), including: o Structured civil dialogue, in line with the recommendations in EU Civil Dialogue: The Foundations of an Institutional Framework; o Protection mechanism for human and environmental rights defenders as well as CSOs, according to the mapping and pathways papers of Civil Society Europe; o Operational support to enable CSOs to be structured and effectively engaged in EU policy development and implementation. The preservation of LIFE operating grants and the CERV fund, for example, is paramount to enable civil society participation and guarantee their transparency and accountability. Please focus much more on enforcement of existing legislation in the EU Member States by infringement procedures and more transparency in the Commission e.g. with publication of all infringement communication to the public, to ensure citizens trust in the EU democracy and deliver on the objectives agreed in the legislation, to overall not erode EU democracy. EU Law is only as strong as it is implementd. Please engage in any revision or adoption of EU legislation to ensure full respect for the legal requirements set out under the Aarhus Convention and best practices in the field, and in line with fundamental rights. For this, also a new legislative act to fully implement the Aarhus Convention at EU level is needed!
Read full response

Meeting with Maxi Espeter (Cabinet of Commissioner Christophe Hansen)

23 May 2025 · Exchange of views on the Vision for Agriculture and Food and the upcoming Multiannual Financial Framework and reform of the CAP

Meeting with Jessika Roswall (Commissioner) and

23 May 2025 · Exchange of views on nature financing in the post-2027 multifinancial framework and through nature credits

Meeting with Peter Van Kemseke (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen) and Germanwatch and

8 May 2025 · to follow

Meeting with Peter Van Kemseke (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen) and Germanwatch and

8 May 2025 · Exchange of views on the 2040 climate target, the EU Green Deal and the Clean Industrial Deal, and the Multiannual Financial Framework

NABU Urges Binding Measures for EU Water Strategy

4 Mar 2025
Topic — The Commission is developing a plan to manage water sources and scarcity.
Message — NABU advocates for binding follow-up measures and a comprehensive management approach. They emphasize including agriculture and industry while prioritizing nature-based solutions.12
Why — This approach would protect natural habitats and ensure the enforcement of environmental laws.3
Impact — Industrial and agricultural sectors would face new limits and higher costs for water usage.4
Read full response

Meeting with Vita Jukne (Cabinet of Commissioner Jessika Roswall) and European Environmental Bureau and Stichting BirdLife Europe

27 Feb 2025 · Implementation and enforcement of EU environmental legislation

NABU Demands Scientific Rigor and Transparency in Restoration Plans

7 Feb 2025
Topic — A consultation regarding the mandatory uniform format for EU national restoration plans.
Message — The organization requests involving stakeholders at initial stages and making optional data fields mandatory. They emphasize that restoration plans must be based on scientific evidence and long-term targets.123
Why — Consistent data formats allow the organization to hold governments accountable through easier comparison.4
Impact — Recipients of environmentally harmful subsidies risk losing funding to nature restoration projects.56
Read full response

Meeting with Martin Häusling (Member of the European Parliament) and EuroNatur - Stiftung Europäisches Naturerbe

3 Feb 2025 · Abendessen mit Vertretern von Verbänden

Meeting with João Oliveira (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and WWF European Policy Programme

17 Jan 2025 · Quadro Financeiro Plurianual pós-2027 e a sustentabilidade ambiental

Meeting with Christian Ehler (Member of the European Parliament) and Greenpeace European Unit and

11 Dec 2024 · Climate, Energy and Industrial Policy

Meeting with Stefan Köhler (Member of the European Parliament) and Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e. V.

18 Nov 2024 · Politischer Austausch

Meeting with Carola Rackete (Member of the European Parliament)

13 Nov 2024 · CAP

Meeting with Martin Häusling (Member of the European Parliament)

13 Nov 2024 · Gespräch mit Vertreter*innen des NABUs

Meeting with Jens Geier (Member of the European Parliament) and EuroNatur - Stiftung Europäisches Naturerbe

11 Sept 2024 · MFF Post-2027

Response to Ecodesign requirements for air heating and cooling products (review)

30 Aug 2024

We welcome the long-awaited review of the Ecodesign regulation of air heating and cooling products covered by EU 2016/2281 and similar products that could also be in the scope of Ecodesign rules. We support the position paper of ECOS/EEB/Coolproducts. We ask for the application of the limits on greenhouse warming potentials of refrigerants included in the F-gas regulation for air-to-air heat pumps to the products covered in this review. In addition, we believe that the phase-out of PFAS should also apply to refrigerants that degrade into PFAS when released into the atmosphere.
Read full response

Meeting with Delara Burkhardt (Member of the European Parliament)

23 Jul 2024 · Biodiversity protection

NABU Urges EU to End Subsidies for Wood Burning

11 Jul 2024
Topic — Evaluation of EU rules regarding land use, forestry, and carbon storage.
Message — NABU calls for ending subsidies and incentives for burning primary woody biomass. They demand stricter enforcement of land use targets and sustainable forest management.12
Why — These changes would restore natural carbon storage and protect European biodiversity levels.34
Impact — The bioenergy industry loses financial support and access to cheap forest biomass.5
Read full response

Response to Application of the ‘do no significant harm’ principle to the Social Climate Fund and its possible future extension

28 May 2024

The Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union (NABU) is Germanys oldest and largest environmental association with more than 940,000 members and 70,000 active volunteers., welcomes the opportunity to give feedback on the DNSH principle. NABU very much welcomes the implementation of the DNSH principle and call for a broader application across all funds. We see it as a crucial tool to steer EU-spending. The current application showed however, that there is still a lot of room for improvement and that certain loopholes exist that must be closed. We therefore have the following recommendations: 1. Align all eligible investments with the substantial contribution criteria of the EU-Taxonomy and use existing DNSH criteria to screen these sectors. Instead of covering taxonomy investments that have been considered as not science-based by environmental NGOs, the Independent Science-Based Taxonomy should be used. o This also means that: Investments in nuclear energy and gas must be considered harmful and must not be supported by EU-Funds Investment linked to fossil fuels must be fully excluded and existing loopholes that allowed the latter must be closed. 2. Enhance the transparency of the DNSH assessment, make them publicly available to allow independent actors to provide feedback and suggestions in case of gaps. 3. Increase capacity building and consultation on a national level to enhance understanding of the added value of DNSH and with it enhancing its implementation. 4. Establish clear mechanisms for non-compliance. 5. Implement mandatory live cycle assessments to thoroughly assess impacts of certain investments. This will enhance circularity and prevent issues in supply chains or at a later stage.
Read full response

NABU strongly opposes plan to increase nitrogen fertilizer limits

16 May 2024
Topic — The consultation addresses amending nitrogen limits for recovered manure fertilizers within the Nitrates Directive.
Message — NABU strongly rejects raising the nitrogen limit to 270 kg per hectare. They argue the proposal contradicts environmental goals and lacks requirements for the mandatory substitution of other fertilizers.12
Why — Blocking this change helps NABU protect biodiversity and prevents shifting pollution costs to society.3
Impact — Society and ecosystems lose as higher nitrate levels increase water pollution and treatment costs.45
Read full response

Meeting with Michael Bloss (Member of the European Parliament)

15 May 2024 · Biodiversität und Klimaanpassung

Meeting with Michael Bloss (Member of the European Parliament)

4 May 2024 · Biodiversität und Vogelschutz

Meeting with Martin Häusling (Member of the European Parliament)

29 Apr 2024 · Austausch zur Europawahl

Meeting with Tiemo Wölken (Member of the European Parliament)

21 Mar 2024 · Mobilitätsthemen

Meeting with Rasmus Andresen (Member of the European Parliament)

19 Mar 2024 · European environment related legislation

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

18 Mar 2024 · 2040-Klimaziel, EP-Wahlen

Response to Guidance to facilitate the designation of renewables acceleration areas

22 Feb 2024

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, der NABU Bundesverband begrüßt ausdrücklich die Initiative der europäischen Kommission zeitnah ein Guidance-Dokument für die Ausweisung der Beschleunigungsgebiete zu entwickeln und dort Input und Erfahrungswerte aus den Mitgliedstaaten einfließen zu lassen. Durch den zukünftigen Entfall der Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung in Beschleunigungsgebieten kommt ihrer Auswahl eine noch höhere Bedeutung für die Berücksichtigung des Naturschutzes beim Ausbau der erneuerbaren Energien zu. Nur bei Festlegung klarer und strenger Kriterien für die Ausweisung kann gewährleistet werden, dass in den Gebieten tatsächlich keine erheblichen Umweltauswirkungen hervorgerufen werden, wie von der Richtlinie vorgegeben. Da Deutschland als einige der wenigen Mitgliedstaaten bereits von der Möglichkeit des Wegfalls der Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung in bestimmten Gebieten gemäß der EU-Notfallverordnung (Verordnung 2024/223) Gebrauch gemacht hat, haben wir als mitgliederstärkster Naturschutzverband in Deutschland erste Einblicke bekommen, was ein Wegfall der UVP bedeuten kann und worauf geachtet werden muss. Auf Folgendes möchten wir ganz besonders hinweisen: Die Mitgliedstaaten haben nicht nur eine Verpflichtung zur Ausweisung der Beschleunigungsgebiete, auch die Vollendung des durchgängigen Natura 2000-Netzwerks und die Erfüllung des Abkommens von Montreal müssen vorangebracht werden. Es ist daher von essenzieller Bedeutung, dass Beschleunigungsgebiete nicht nur Schutzgebiete konsequent ausschließen hier bedarf es in der Guidance eine Konkretisierung, welche Schutzgebietskategorien von der Richtlinie umfasst sind , sondern auch keine Flächen mit einbeziehen, die potenziell zur Erfüllung der Ziele zur Bekämpfung der Biodiversitätskrise beitragen können. Dies gilt auch für momentan gestörte bzw. vorbelastete Flächen, welche ein Renaturierungspotenzial aufweisen. Es gibt bereits einige Schutzmaßnahmen, um negative Auswirkungen auf Lebensräume und Arten wirksam zu vermeiden, z. B. die standardmäßige Abschaltung von Windenergieanlagen in Zeiten hoher Aktivität von Vögeln und Fledermäusen oder Mindestreihenabstände und Mindestabstände zur Modulunterkante bei Freiflächen-Photovoltaikanlagen. Es wäre wünschenswert, dass die Kommission den Mitgliedstaaten empfiehlt solche wirksamen Maßnahmen standardmäßig für alle Beschleunigungsgebiete zu beauflagen. Zusätzlich sollen die jeweils zuständigen Behörden nach eigenem Ermessen weitere Maßnahmen beauflagen. Die deutsche Bundesregierung hat einen ersten Gesetzesentwurf für die Überführung der Bestimmungen zu Beschleunigungsgebieten für Windenergieanlagen auf See veröffentlicht. In diesem wird in einigen Bereichen deutlich über die Regelungen der RED hinausgegangen, obwohl über den Flächenentwicklungsplan bereits ein langfristiger Windenergie-Ausbauplan vorgegeben ist, in dessen Ablauf sich Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfungen gut integrieren lassen. Auch wird beispielweise die Abschaffung der artenschutzrechtlichen Prüfung in Beschleunigungsgebieten eingeführt. Hier wäre eine Klarstellung dringend notwendig, dass die Abschwächungen im Umweltrecht auf ganz bestimmte Bereiche und Prüfungen beschränkt sind und die RED-Regelungen kein Freifahrtschein für ein völliges Ignorieren etablierter und jahrzehntelanger Regelungen des Umweltrechts sind. Anhängend finden Sie eine ausführliche Erläuterung zu den oben genannten und weiteren Punkten, die die von Ihnen angeführten Fragen zur Ausweisung von Beschleunigungsgebieten adressieren.
Read full response

Meeting with Martin Häusling (Member of the European Parliament)

21 Feb 2024 · Austausch mit NABU-Trainees

NABU urges ambitious EU-wide forest health monitoring

30 Jan 2024
Topic — Creating an integrated EU system for monitoring forest conditions and management data.
Message — NABU supports the ambitious implementation of an EU-wide forest observation framework with open access to detailed data. They demand harmonized monitoring systems that include specific requirements for evaluating biodiversity across all member states.12
Why — Harmonized data helps the organization monitor forest biodiversity and advocate for conservation goals.3
Impact — Businesses involved in illegal logging or eco-dumping will face stronger enforcement and competition.45
Read full response

Response to Managing EU climate risks

13 Jan 2024

NABU Feedback: Societal resilience- managing EU climate risks We fully endorse the European Commission's initiative to draft a Communication aimed at identifying key areas for addressing climate risks within the European Union. We would like to emphasize two crucial aspects that should be integrated into the Communication: Climate Crisis Impact on Food Security The importance of nature-based solutions, for example nature restoration, for climate mitigation and adaptation Too often when communicating on climate risks the focus lies on the cost of taking action to adapt to and mitigate climate change, especially when it comes to food security. However, The Communication should stress the benefits of climate action. For the EU as a whole, implementing a 1.5-aligned pathway (cf upcoming CAN Europe publication) significantly outweigh the costs, by a factor of 2 to 1 - an unequivocal rationale for taking action. It is well established that climate change reduces the productivity of crops, livestock, fisheries and aquaculture by influencing water availability and quality, causing heat stress, and altering the pest and disease environment, including the faster spread of pathogens. Increased intensity of floods droughts storm surges and extreme events can lead to considerable disruptions in food supply chains through harvest failures and infrastructure damage and create competition across food production systems. For example, a recent study has identified that, climate extremes are becoming more frequent co- occurring and persistent in Europe, which is a net food exporter. At the same time the way food is produced today is a big part of the problem and a driver of the biodiversity and climate crises. The global food system is, also because of the livestock sector, responsible for about a third of greenhouse gas emissions, second to only the energy sector, and it is the number one source of methane emissions. In addressing food insecurity, it is crucial to recognize the role of the global food system as a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Shifting towards healthy and sustainable diets (acknowledging the role of plant-based alternatives), combined with agroecological farming practices, is key to combating the adverse effects of climate crises while ensuring long-term food security. Increasing attention need to be paid to ecosystem-based adaptation strategies, including crop diversification, application of agro- ecological practices and agroforestry, which reduce climate risk, support biodiversity and ecosystem services such as pollination and soil health. Nature-based solutions, like restoration of ecosystems such as peatland, forests, and seagrass, are an essential part of decreasing climate risks. The communication should highlight that there is ample scope for mitigating climate risks through nature restoration in Europe. For example, peatlands cover only 3% of the world's land area but store twice as much carbon as all trees on Earth combined! By storing carbon, forest act as important buffers against climate change. Forests play a crucial role in erosion protection and healthy forests can withstand extreme weather events such as forest fires. Restoring rivers can help combat coastal erosion, favour nutrient cycling while reducing pollution, generate microclimates that help deal with heat waves, and create a healthier, and more resilient landscape. By integrating these considerations into the Communication, the European Union has the opportunity to not only manage climate risks effectively but also to promote a sustainable and resilient future for both its ecosystems and societies. Emphasizing the positive outcomes of climate action, particularly through nature-based solutions, will not only mitigate risks but also contribute to the overall well-being of the EU and its citizens.
Read full response

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

15 Dec 2023 · socio economic situation

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

15 Dec 2023 · Austausch zu Umweltpolitik

Meeting with Maria Noichl (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur for opinion)

24 Nov 2023 · Soil health

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

22 Nov 2023

The Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union (NABU) welcomes the Commission's proposal for a revision of the Waste Framework Directive. However, we regret the lack of ambition regarding the volume reduction of the targeted waste streams and would like to point out that the proposed targets for food waste reduction are too low. The EU must meet its international commitment: by signing up to Sustainable Development Goal 12.3 in 2015, it has already pledged to halve food waste by 2030. The European Parliament has also repeatedly called on Member States to halve food waste. The Commission should therefore act in the interests of citizens and meet international commitments. In addition, the EPR for textiles should be implemented more quickly, within 18 months of adoption, otherwise the collection of textiles will be financed not by businesses but by taxpayers, with the start of mandatory separate collection in 2025, which cannot be the goal. It is regrettable that the Commission has not chosen to go further with binding waste management performance targets (Option 3). NABU calls for the revision of the WFD to include separate waste management performance targets for collection, reuse, recycling and fibre-to-fibre recycling. While we welcome eco-modulated fees, the NABU does not agree with the Commissions proposal to base EPR contributions solely on weight. The weight of products does not have a direct correlation with how long consumers will keep them in continuous active use. Furthermore, weight-based calculations could favor lighter synthetic fibers and incentivize the use of problematic materials. The NABU recommends amending the Commissions proposal to include a volume criterion in the calculation of the eco-contribution fee, based on how many items per product category are placed on the market by a company each year (i.e. unit volumes) with the fee increasing as certain thresholds are met meaning there is an incentive for producers to reduce the number of products placed on the market over time. The overall aim must be to reduce the total volume of products produced and to trigger changes in product design and business practices. To achieve this, EPR fees must be high enough to encourage companies to produce less. It is regrettable that while footwear and leather products are within the scope of EPR, the proposal restricts the scope of fee modulation to products in Part 1 of Annex IVc (Article 22c. 3a). The Commission should also reconsider including importers of used clothing in EPR schemes, so that they take financial responsibility for the products they place on the markets of Member States. NABU calls for EPR schemes for textiles not to have a de minimis threshold for EPR. The Commission should consider extending the scope of products covered by EPR schemes to include carpets and mattresses. Mattresses are a waste stream that is still mainly landfilled or incinerated in Europe. An EPR system is needed to establish a circular economy for mattresses. Finally, NABU calls for more items to be included in the cost coverage of the EPR, namely the management of textile waste in countries outside the EU that receive textile imports from the EU. Article 22a should be amended so that at least 10% of EPR fees are allocated to a Reuse Solidarity Fund to support reuse, repair and up-cycling. For more details, please see the attached position paper of The European Environmental Bureau (EEB), which we fully support.
Read full response

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

17 Nov 2023 · Waldpolitik

Meeting with Florika Fink-Hooijer (Director-General Environment)

7 Nov 2023 · Environmental policies

Meeting with Maria Noichl (Member of the European Parliament)

7 Nov 2023 · Agrarpolitik

NABU demands binding targets in ambitious EU Soil Law

30 Oct 2023
Topic — EU proposal to define healthy soil conditions and mandate monitoring and restoration.
Message — The group calls for legally binding 2050 targets, mandatory soil health plans, and robust biodiversity descriptors. They also advocate for an effective polluter-pays principle to hold degrading industries accountable.123
Why — Strengthening soil protections aligns with the organization's mission to halt biodiversity loss and ensure resilience.4
Impact — Industrial polluters would face higher costs through mandatory remediation and potential extended producer responsibility schemes.5
Read full response

Meeting with Maria Noichl (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur for opinion)

23 Oct 2023 · Soil health

Meeting with Delara Burkhardt (Member of the European Parliament)

13 Oct 2023 · Eu Green Deal

NABU urges stricter methane reporting for EU shipping

30 Aug 2023
Topic — Establishing rules for monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions from maritime transport.
Message — NABU demands revised default values for methane emissions and stricter conditions for companies wishing to deviate from these standards. Reporting must include all fugitive emissions from pipes and tanks. Calculations should use a 20-year global warming potential.123
Why — Stricter reporting would prevent shipping companies from underreporting their actual environmental impact.4
Impact — Shipping companies would face higher reported emissions and more burdensome monitoring requirements.5
Read full response

NABU urges mandatory reporting for climate and biodiversity metrics

6 Jul 2023
Topic — New EU rules specifying sustainability disclosure standards for large companies' annual reports.
Message — NABU urges the Commission to restore mandatory reporting for climate indicators. They argue that companies must justify why sustainability topics are deemed immaterial. The group opposes phase-ins that delay reporting on biodiversity and supply chains.12
Why — Robust standards help the organization monitor corporate impacts on ecosystems more effectively.3
Impact — Flexible rules allow companies to hide environmental damage through selective reporting.4
Read full response

German NGO NABU demands 100% emission reduction by 2035

17 May 2023
Topic — The European Commission is revising CO2 emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles.
Message — NABU requests a 100% emission reduction target for heavy-duty vehicle fleets by 2035. They advocate for bringing the zero-emission urban bus deadline forward to 2027. The group also supports introducing more ambitious interim targets starting in 2027.123
Why — Stronger standards would secure Europe's technological leadership and provide the industry investment certainty.4
Impact — Biofuel suppliers lose potential market share as the proposal excludes alternative fuels.5
Read full response

Meeting with Jens Geier (Member of the European Parliament)

16 May 2023 · Exchange on the EPBD (staff level)

Meeting with Jens Geier (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and E.ON SE and Deutscher Naturschutzring, Dachverband der deutschen Natur-, Tier- und Umweltschutzverbände (DNR) e.V.

27 Apr 2023 · Exchange on the gas market directive (staff level)

NABU Demands Stricter EU Rules to Curb Packaging Waste

19 Apr 2023
Topic — The European Commission is reviewing requirements to reduce packaging waste and improve recyclability.
Message — NABU calls for more ambitious recyclability criteria and mandatory reuse targets that include cardboard transport packaging. They demand that all recycling targets be met through mechanical processes alone. The organization also proposes a ban on packaging used solely for marketing purposes.123
Why — Stricter standards would help NABU achieve its environmental goals of resource efficiency and climate protection.45
Impact — Chemical recycling firms and the paper industry would lose their current regulatory advantages and exemptions.67
Read full response

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

23 Mar 2023 · NRL

Meeting with Rasmus Andresen (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

30 Nov 2022 · Biodiversity in the context of the MFF

Meeting with Tilly Metz (Member of the European Parliament)

24 Nov 2022 · Polar Bears

Response to The Aarhus Convention and State Aid measures: analysis and assessment of options

5 Oct 2022

Dear Madame/Sir, thanks for opening -besides the questionnaire- this opportunity for giving feedback on the above mentioned question relating to the ACCC case on State Aid. To NABU, as a eNGO active on the ground with protecting the environment, it is very clear that State Aid decisions are in general decisions just as others that can be in contravention of EU environmental law, and as such are covered by the Aarhus Convention. Besides the well known Hinkley Point case, in Germany we had the negative example of the "Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz" (EEG), where the funding scheme was treated as state aid, and where it is obvious that this decision re the policy design of the EEG has implications for the environment. Same holds for lots of State infrastruture funding. A prominent example is the case of the fixed Fehmarnbelt link, where NABU is engaging to avoid deterioration of marine environment. To ensure compliance with the Convention, the only way forward we see is to amend the Aarhus Regulation to include state aid in the scope of its internal review process. This is important, as we need to ensure policy coherence to achive environmental standards already set by the EU's legislation, also when funding infrastructure etc. with public money. So, you will have full support of civil society for the upcoming legislative procedure when amending the Aarhus Regulation to include State Aid.
Read full response

Response to Sustainable use of pesticides – revision of the EU rules

19 Sept 2022

Founded in 1899, NABU (Nature And Biodiversity Conservation Union) is the oldest and largest environment association in Germany with more than 875,000 members and supporters, who commit themselves to the conservation of threatened habitats, flora, and fauna, to climate protection and energy policy. We welcome the Commission’s proposal and fully support the aim to reduce the use and risk of pesticides in the EU by 50% by 2030. However, there are some aspects that need to be improved in order to reach that goal. 1. Harmonised Risk Indicator, HRI The currently proposed continued use of the HRI cannot reliably measure the efforts to reduce the use and risk pesticides. The differences in toxicity between substances are not adequately represented by the weighting factors and no consideration is given to where and in what quantities the substances are used per area. It is based on sales data, not the actual use and can lead to counterproductive results where relatively harmless substances are considered more harmful than highly toxic ones. The use of other indicators like the Toxic Load Indicator (TLI) are therefore preferable. 2. Integrated Pest Management, IPM In NABU’s view, IPM should be the cornerstone of the new regulation. Pesticide use can be significantly reduced if IPM rules are applied properly, meaning the application of chemical-synthetic pesticides is only considered as a measure of last resort when preventive measures and non-chemical control measures are not effective and certain damage thresholds are exceeded. IPM is already mandatory since 2014 and guidelines are set out in Annex III of the SUD. However, the implementation of IPM is insufficient because these guidelines leave considerable scope and are not specified further. The IPM rules are therefore ineffective in practice. The new SUR must learn from this negative experience and be more detailed on IPM. For example, article 3(15) should be amended to include the notion of a hierarchy of IPM measures and should also mention that agroecological practices constitute IPM. The individual steps to be taken under IPM should be further spelled out under Article 13, in the order in which they should be applied. The new regulation should also clarify that IPM rules aim to limit only the use of chemical synthetic pesticides. The preventative use of pesticides, including treating seeds with chemical pesticides and the use of soil fumigant and other soil treatments, should be banned as they run counter to IPM principles. 3. Weak position of the European Commission The current proposal should strengthen the position of the Commission in setting the reduction targets of the Member States. According to article 6, the Commission can only adopt non-binding recommendations when a Member State fails to set sufficiently ambitious reduction targets pursuant to article 5 and Annex I. A Member State that is unwilling to comply with this recommendation shall merely give reasons for this. The proposal does not foresee the option to legally coerce the concerned Member State to set a more ambitious reduction target, even when the Member State had set its reduction target incorrectly. Article 11 presents a similar picture. The proposal should therefore be changed to give the Commission the means to set binding reduction targets for each Member States. 4. Sensitive areas, article 18 The size of the buffer zones is currently set at 3 meters which is not sufficient to prevent negative effects of pesticide use. A study commissioned by NABU (attached) recommends a minimum of 10 meters. In addition, the proportion of pesticide-free arable land must be increased to at least ten percent of arable land in order to create refuges for endangered plant and animal species that are predominantly found on and near agricultural land.
Read full response

Meeting with Sarah Wiener (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and Stichting BirdLife Europe and

12 Jul 2022 · staff only: Sustainable Use Regulation, exchange of views on the Commission proposal

Meeting with Carmen Preising (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius) and European Environmental Bureau

7 Jul 2022 · Enforcement of existing EU (environmental) law

Meeting with Michael Bloss (Member of the European Parliament)

10 Jun 2022 · Zweiter delegierter Rechtsakt EU Taxonomie

German nature NGO NABU demands binding circular economy targets

1 Jun 2022
Topic — EU consultation on revising the circular economy monitoring framework to include production stages.
Message — NABU wants monitoring indicators linked to binding targets and clear responsibilities for member states. They propose new metrics for material footprint reduction and indicators measuring prosperity beyond GDP.123
Why — This would transform circular economy monitoring from a passive exercise into an effective political steering tool.4
Impact — Member states would lose the ability to miss environmental targets without facing concrete legal consequences.5
Read full response

Meeting with Riccardo Maggi (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and Climate Action Network Europe and

10 May 2022 · To discuss the RePower EU

Meeting with Elena Montani (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius) and Climate Action Network Europe and

10 May 2022 · To discuss the RePower EU

Meeting with Markus Pieper (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V. and

27 Apr 2022 · RED III

Response to Evaluation of the LIFE Programme 2014-2020

13 Apr 2022

We welcome the opportunity to provide our view on the LIFE programme 2014-2020. Funding through LIFE is highly efficient in reaching the goals of the programme. The input in the form of co-financing projects pays off many times over for example in the form of enabling ecosystem services, job creation and improving environmental democracy. In some cases, LIFE made a significant contribution to saving species from extinction, for example the Spanish Imperial Eagle. In our experience the following aspects have proven to work well: - Funding projects in overseas territories and third countries should be maintained. As environmental problems respect no borders, funding should not be restricted to the EU but continue to be open to applications for projects in third countries. - The built-in flexibilities are very useful as they help to adopt the project plans to occurring changes. - In general, the external monitoring process works well. However, the key performance indicator tool is too complicated, see below. - We are aware of complaints about LIFE being too bureaucratic. We cannot confirm this and given the need to avoid misuse of funds, the application process seems manageable. The two-step application process also helps develop the project proposal. - Organisation of info days and other information sessions. The LIFE team provides good support and is usually available for further clarifications as needed. The following aspects require improvement: - The co-financing requirement is the biggest challenge, especially for NGOs. Therefore, we suggest the co-financing rate to be increased to at least 75% for all projects. Depending on the GDP per capita of the region or regions where the activities take place, in well-argued cases the co-financing should be further increased to up to 95%. - The budget should be increased. For the period 2014-2020, LIFE constituted only 0.3% of the EU’s budget. For the current period of 2021-2027 this number increased only slightly: LIFE’s €5.43 billion budget constitute just over 0.44% of the EU’s long-term budget (and only 0.27% if the NextGenerationEU recovery instrument is also taken into consideration). The funding requirements for proposed projects are significantly higher than the available budget. Therefore, we think this number should be increased to 1% of the MFFF. - We have found the key performance indicator tool to be overcomplicated and exceedingly difficult to interpret. Measuring performance is of course essential to any funding activity. But in our experience using the indicator tool has proved to be very burdensome and failed to provide legal certainty. Simplification or more straight forward guidance is needed here. - We think that the protection of biodiversity should remain the main goal of the LIFE programme. Of course, other fund¬s ¬ most notably the CAP need to improve their effectiveness in terms of biodiversity protection as well; a task which, according to our assessment of the National Strategic Plans for the CAP, will probably be failed by most MS (https://www.birdlife.org/news/2022/03/17/cap-national-strategic-plans-intensive-agriculture/). But LIFE remains the most important source of funding for biodiversity at the EU level. Thus, instead of shifting the focus away from nature protection, increased synergies with the other sub-programmes should be sought by funding projects that create results in multiple policy areas. - The new EC portal through which all applications and communications with the LIFE Team have to go is a bit difficult to operate. For example, the messaging system doesn’t always work, guidelines don’t match the templates, templates contain sections that don’t seem relevant but just a copy-paste from the Horizon Programme. This year we also needed to basically prepare contracts ourselves, which was an additional complication and admin burden (especially as guidelines were pretty confusing).
Read full response

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

10 Mar 2022

Dear honorable Commission, NABU welcomes the renewed efforts to protect and restore our European soils. We thank the Commission for the opportunity to take part in this consultation. Restoring healthy soils is a multi-benefit strategy of largely unparalleled potential. Restoring the health of our soils can synergistically contribute to all of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations (Lal 2020). We stress that the Soil Health Law is urgently needed - for climate change mitigation and adaptation of European agriculture; - to preserve below- and aboveground biodiversity; - to restore ecosystem services; - to catalyze the agroecological transformation of the European food system; - to make European food security resilient and; - to decrease indirect land use and land use change impacts of the European food system. Please find attached a more detailed paper which explains why actions should be taken and how they should best be operationalized. Thank you most kindly. (Lal, R. (2020). Soil science beyond COVID-19. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation April 2020, jswc.2020.0408A; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.2020.0408A)
Read full response

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

22 Feb 2022

Der NABU begrüßt die Überarbeitung der EU-Abfallrahmenrichtlinie und spricht sich für eine ambitionierte Novellierung aus. Die bisherige Richtlinie schreibt zwar die Abfallhierarchie als Leitprinzip für einen ressourcenschonenden Umgang mit Abfällen vor, verzichtet jedoch auf konkrete Vorgaben, damit Abfälle vermieden oder zur Wiederverwendung aufbereitet werden. Die Entwicklung der Abfallmengen in der EU zeigt jedoch, dass die von den EU-Mitgliedstaaten bislang umgesetzten Maßnahmen nicht ausreichen, um Abfälle spürbar zu vermeiden und Ressourcen zu schonen. Die EU-Kommission (EC) ist daher angehalten, die Abfallrahmenrichtlinie verbindlicher auszugestalten. In einer Studie im Auftrag des NABU hat das ifeu-Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung berechnet, dass selbst wenn alle Abfälle, die jährlich in Deutschland anfallen, vollständig recycelt werden würden, sich die Circular Material Use Rate (CMU) von gegenwärtig etwa 12 auf gerade einmal 22 Prozent erhöhen würde. Dies macht deutlich, dass allein mit dem Recycling die von der EC im Rahmen des Circular Economy Action Plan angestrebte Verdopplung der CMU bis 2030 nicht möglich sein wird. Vielmehr muss gleichzeitig der Rohstoffbedarf insgesamt reduziert werden. Dies gelingt zum einen durch den Ausbau erneuerbarer Energien, die den Bedarf an fossilen Rohstoffen signifikant reduzieren sowie zum anderen durch eine umfassende Transformation der Produktions- und Konsummuster hin zu einem ressourcenschonenden Wirtschaften. Hierzu zählen eine nachhaltige Produktpolitik (z. B. Langlebigkeit, Reparaturen), rohstoffsparender Konsum (z. B. weniger Lebensmittelabfälle, weniger tierische Produkte) und rohstoffsparende Technologien (z. B. Leichtbau, Effizienzsteigerungen in der Produktion). Erst diese Summe an Suffizienz-, Effizienz- und Recyclingmaßnahmen trägt zu einer signifikanten Steigerung der CMU bei und macht das Erreichen der Zielsetzungen der EC überhaupt möglich. In Deutschland ist es laut der oben genannten Studie im ambitionierten Szenario möglich, die CMU bis 2050 auf 38 Prozent zu steigern. Gleichzeitig würde sich die insgesamt verbrauchte Rohstoffmenge halbieren. Übertragen auf den Abfallbereich ergibt sich daraus die Notwendigkeit von abfallvermeidenden Maßnahmen, um den Rohstoffverbrauch der EU zu reduzieren. Hierfür sind verbindliche Abfallvermeidungsziele notwendig, auf denen dann konkrete Maßnahmen wie ein Recht auf Reparatur, Ökodesign-Vorgaben und Mehrweg-Systeme aufbauen. Zusätzlich bedarf es Wiederverwendungsziele für ausgewählte Abfallfraktionen, um die zweite Stufe der Abfallhierarchie zu stärken. Diese verbindlichen Zielvorgaben, die vorschreiben, wie viel Prozent der Abfallmenge zur Wiederverwendung vorbereitet werden muss, sollten differenziert nach Abfallfraktion formuliert werden. Insbesondere für Textilien, Elektrogeräte und Sperrmüll erscheinen Zielvorgaben ratsam. Auch für den Anteil von Mehrweg-Verpackungen an den insgesamt in Verkehr gebrachten Verpackungen sollten verbindliche Mindestquoten festgelegt werden. Für einen ressourcenschonenden Umgang mit den nicht-vermeidbaren Abfällen sind Maßnahmen der verbesserten Abfallgetrennterfassung notwendig, die eine wesentliche Grundvoraussetzung für das Schließen von Materialkreisläufen darstellt. Hierzu zählen etwa Standards der Getrenntsammlung, inklusive Vorgaben zur Prüfung auf Möglichkeiten der Wiederverwendung bei der Sammelstelle (z. B. für Elektroaltgeräte). Diese Maßnahmen sollten mit Vorgaben zur Reduktion des Restmüllaufkommens untermauert werden. Das im Circular Economy Action Plan formulierte Ziel der Halbierung des Restmülls bis 2030 sollte verbindlich festgeschrieben werden. Besonderer Handlungsdruck besteht bei Textilien, für die ein funktionierendes System der erweiterten Herstellerverantwortung ebenso notwendig ist wie Ökodesign-Vorgaben. ifeu-Studie (2021): „Sekundärrohstoffe in Deutschland“ im Auftrag des NABU, im Anhang und verfügbar unter www.NABU.de/kreislaufwirtschaft.
Read full response

Response to Measures to reduce microplastic pollution

20 Dec 2021

Der NABU begrüßt die Initiative der EU-Kommission zur Reduzierung von nicht-intendierten Mikroplastik-Emissionen. Im Sinne des Vorsorgeprinzips sind jegliche Emissionen von Kunststoffen, die nicht nachweislich in der entsprechenden Umgebung leicht abbaubar sind, in die Umwelt zu unterbinden. Eine Studie im Auftrag des NABU von Fraunhofer UMSICHT und Ökopol zu Kunststoff-Emissionen durch die Landwirtschaft zeigt den Handlungsbedarf bei nicht-intendierten Einträgen von Kunststoffen in die Umwelt. Demnach werden in Deutschland jährlich 13.256 Tonnen Kunststoffe, insbesondere Mikroplastik, durch landwirtschaftliche und gartenbauliche Aktivitäten emittiert. Neben bewusst eingetragenen Polymeren durch z.B. Düngemittel und Saatgut kann der Großteil dieser Emissionen als nicht-intendiert („unintentionally released“) kategorisiert werden: 1) Klärschlamm: 8.835 Tonnen/Jahr 2) Komposte/Gärreste: 1.235 Tonnen/Jahr 3) Folien/Netze/Beschichtungen: 556 Tonnen/Jahr 4) Weitere Betriebsmittel (z. B. Bewässerungssysteme, Pflanztöpfe, Pflanzhilfen): 273 Tonnen/Jahr Die in der Konsultation der Kommission vorrangig adressierten Emissionen durch Reifen und Textilien sind im Zuge der Berechnungen zur Emissionsquelle Klärschlamm relevant. Demnach werden jährlich in Deutschland 147.235 Tonnen Mikroplastik durch Reifenabrieb emittiert. Hiervon gehen 48 % in die Siedlungswasserwirtschaft über. 38,5% dieser 48 % gelangen in die Kläranlagen und hiervon 75 % in den Klärschlamm, was 20.406 Tonnen Kunststoff entspricht. Durch die Textilwäsche werden jährlich in Deutschland 2.253 Tonnen Mikrofasern freigesetzt. 99 % hiervon gelangen in die Kläranlagen und 95 % wiederum in den Klärschlamm, was 2.119 Tonnen entspricht. Etwa 16 % des Klärschlamms wird landwirtschaftlich verwertet. Abriebe von Reifen und Textilien werden somit in relevanten Mengen in Oberflächengewässer (z. B. über Trennsysteme oder die Kläranlage) und in Böden (über den Klärschlamm) eingetragen. Der Handlungsbedarf ist eindeutig. Die Kommission sollte sich in ihrer Initiative jedoch nicht nur auf diese Quellen beschränken, sondern auch auf Mikroplastik-Emissionen durch Abriebe von Straßen, Straßenbahnmarkierungen, Farben, Schuhsohlen und Abwasserrohre. Diese Quellen umfassen laut der genannten Studie in Deutschland jährliche Emissionen in Höhe von knapp 27.000 Tonnen, wovon knapp 4.700 Tonnen in den Klärschlamm übergehen. Auch sollten Kunststoff-Emissionen, die zunächst häufig als Makroplastik emittiert werden und dann zu Mikroplastik verspröden, unterbunden werden. Hierzu zählen u.a. die oben genannten Emissionsquellen Komposte, Folien und weitere landwirtschaftliche Betriebsmittel. Folgende Maßnahmen zur Reduzierung der nicht-intendierten Mikroplastik-Emissionen sind im Sinne des Vorsorgeprinzips notwendig: 1) Strategieentwicklung zur Reduktion der Emissionen durch Reifenabriebe, Textilfasern und aus weiteren nicht-intendierten Quellen. Vorgelagerte Maßnahmen (upstream) zur Minimierung der Mikroplastik-Emissionen sind hierbei nachgelagerten Maßnahmen (downstream) in der Regel vorzuziehen. Gleiches gilt für gesetzlich verbindliche Maßnahmen gegenüber freiwilligen Branchenvereinbarungen. 2) Der Fremdstoffgehalt in stofflich verwerteten Bioabfällen muss weitgehend minimiert werden. Dies ist vor dem Hintergrund der zukünftig geltenden europaweiten Pflicht zur Getrenntsammlung kommunaler Bioabfälle von besonderer Relevanz. Geeignete Maßnahmen sind hierfür u.a. Aufklärungsarbeit und stichprobenartige Kontrollen der Biotonnen. Der NABU möchte an dieser Stelle erneut die Notwendigkeit eines Verbots von nicht leicht abbaubarem Mikroplastik bei intendiert hinzugefügtem Mikroplastik („intentionally added“) betonen. Polymere müssen hier leicht abbaubar sein, die Abbaubarkeit muss an die realen Umweltbedingungen und den Anwendungszweck angepasst und nachgewiesen sein. Die genannte NABU-Studie ist hier abrufbar: www.nabu.de/studie-plastik-landwirtschaft [Executive summary attached]
Read full response

Meeting with Barbara Glowacka (Cabinet of Commissioner Kadri Simson) and EuroNatur - Stiftung Europäisches Naturerbe and Riverwatch

30 Nov 2021 · To discuss the revision of the Renewable Energy Directive.

Response to Revision of Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Directive

18 Nov 2021

NABU recognizes the European Commission’s initiative for further action on the decarbonisation of transport through the proposal of the Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Regulation (AFIR) ‘Low-emission vehicles – improving the EU’s refueling/ recharging infrastructure’. The AFIR proposal as part of the Fit for 55-package gives an important outlook on the necessary path to low-emission transport both in the road transport and the shipping sector. NABU supports the general approach of the initiative to bolster low-emission fuels for ships. However, the proposal shows serious shortcomings especially in the shipping sector which would lead to long-lasting lock-in effects for LNG with disastrous climate outcomes. With regards to the Commission’s proposal NABU would like to make the attached comments.
Read full response

Meeting with Markus Pieper (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V.

18 Nov 2021 · RED III

Response to Updating the EU Emissions Trading System

8 Nov 2021

NABU welcomes the opportunity to comment on the European Commission’s (EC) proposal for an updated EU emissions trading system (EU ETS). Please find our feedback attached.
Read full response

Response to FuelEU Maritime

8 Nov 2021

NABU recognizes the European Commission’s initiative for further action on the decarbonisation of shipping in the FuelEU Maritime proposal ‘CO2 emissions from shipping – encouraging the use of low-carbon fuels’. Being responsible for over 2 percent of the global greenhouse gas emissions each year, the international shipping sector offers immense potential for emissions reductions. In order to achieve the goals of the Paris agreement its complete decarbonisation until 2050 is highly nec-essary. A clear path on possible means to achieve this goal is therefore unavoidable. The FuelEU Maritime initiative as part of the Fit for 55-package gives an important outlook on the necessary path to decarbonised shipping. NABU supports the general approach of the initiative to bolster low-emission fuels. Also the inclusion of the full scope of greenhouse gases (CO2, methane and nitrous oxide) as well as the goal for zero-emissions at berth through the mandatory use of onshore-power supply shows promise. Although new fuels are highly necessary for the implementation of emission reduc-tions, the concrete design of the approach on future fuels nevertheless is highly flawed. Complete technological neutrality will lead to long-lasting lock-in effects for highly problematic LNG and biofuels, with disastrous results for the climate protection goals. With regards to the Commission’s proposal NABU would like to make the attached comments.
Read full response

Response to Revision of the CO2 emission standards for cars and vans

8 Nov 2021

NABU (Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union) is the biggest environmental NGO in Germany with more than 800.000 members and supporters. NABU welcomes the European Commission’s (EC) proposal for a revision of the EU CO2 standards for cars and vans. The transport sector is the only sector in which emission were not reduced since 1990. Therefore the car CO2 standards play a crucial role in achieving the EU’s 55% reduction target in 2030. They are a key element in helping member states to decarbonize their transport systems and to meet their respective climate targets. The current car standards resulted in an unprecedented uptake of EV-car sales, reaching 40% market share in Germany for this year. Zero emission ambition 2030 We highly welcome the EC’s proposal to set a date (2035) after which all new cars must be zero emission vehicles. But as the coming 20 years are crucial for meeting the goals of the Paris-Agreement, we think this phase-out date must be set to 2030. The global CO2 emissions budget, which limits global warming to the critical level of 1.5 degrees Celsius, will already be exceeded in 2030. Therefore, we are concerned that the EC’s proposal included many changes for the years after 2030. Up-dating trajectory Modelling for the newly proposed targets shows that EU road transport CO2 emissions in 2030 will still be 4% higher than 1990 levels (s. attached file) Therefore, other sectors would have to deliver an unforeseen and unlikely overachievement of their respective 2030 targets to reach the overall 55% target. The targets for 2025 were introduced in an era of very little sales of electric vehicles. Due to growing EV sales these targets are out-of-date. Manufacturers can easily achieve the unchanged target for 2025 and there will be a lack in ambition until 2029. NABU has estimated a reduction factor to reach a 2030 phase-out of internal combustion engine vehicles. On that basis we propose a 2025 target of 44% CO2 reduction. As 5-Year targets have resulted in a lack of ambition in between target-deadlines in the past, it is necessary to introduce interim targets in 2023 (15% CO2 reduction for new cars) and 2027 (80% reduction). No e-Fuels, removal of flexibilities, future of regulation NABU highly welcomes the EC’s decision to not include credits for the use of e-fuels in the regulation. E-fuels are costly, they are not efficient and not even environmentally effective as they require much more scarce renewable power than battery drives while the needed carbon molecules are not taken from the air (DAC). Moreover they have the same negative effects on air pollution and EU-citizen’s health as the use of fossil fuels. Since the entry into force of the 2020 car CO2-targets PHEV sales have risen dramatically. In the current year they make up about one third of new cars sales in Germany. It has been shown multiple times that PHEV real world CO2 emissions are 2-4 times higher than type approved emissions (s. attached file). Therefore NABU recommends strongly to remove the ZLEV benchmark from 2025 as it incentives the sales of PHEV. Sales of highly ineffective SUVs rose to more than one third of cars sales in Germany. NABU therefore sees it an urgent task to remove the mass adjustment as ineffective heavy cars benefit from this instrument. To make the fleet-based CO2 regulation fit for the age of electric mobility the EC should consider the introduction of a cap for the ICE share of an OEM’s fleet as individual CO2 emissions of internal combustion engine cars can be much higher with a larger share of BEV. From the same perspective it is necessary to consider introducing energy efficiency standards for cars.
Read full response

Response to Environmental Implementation Review 2022

15 Oct 2021

Dear EU-Commission, We would like to comment on the roadmap for the 3rd cycle of the Environmental Implementation Review (EIR) 2022 as follows: - Implementation of respectively compliance with EU’s environmental acquis is crucial. We thus very much value the Commission’s efforts to work on this topic through different means. - The situation of non-compliance with EU law by Member States though is alarming. Main legislative objectives of EU legislation like the favorable conservation status for species/habitats (Birds and Habitats Directives), the good status of water bodies (Water Framework Directive), but also concrete obligations like the strict protection of species (Birds and Habitats Directives) or a certain nitrate level (Nitrates Directive) are not achieved respectively implemented. Questions now – that should also be looked at when deciding on the new EIR package – are: - What difference did the first two EIR cycles with the correnponding country reports make: Do you have numbers were they did improve the compliance situation on the ground? - Are stakeholders like NGOs in the Member States taken on board when drafting the country reports, and then also when communicating about it? Are there means to better communicate about non-compliance of MS once the reports are out, to at least deliver on the EIR purpose of awareness raising? - What’s the staff capacity needed to work on EIR, and their relation to DG ENV colleagues working on other means of compliance assurance such as infringement procedures? Are there overall more effective ways for achieving compliance with Member States? - Shouldn’t the Commission more generally improve their compliance instruments, by introducing a proper “Better Implementation and Compliance Agenda”, with i.a. dedicated enforcement capacity per legislative act and more staffing, more transparent infringement handling (through publication of the corresponding infringement communication with Member States), better sticking to deadlines and overall timely approach to work on citizens complaints, and finally a dedicated EU inspections legislation, etc.? Kind regards, and keep on. You are the Guardian of the Treaties, you are the last line of defence!
Read full response

Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and

8 Oct 2021 · CAP programming and biodiversity protection in DE

Meeting with Diederik Samsom (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans), Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and Fern

20 Jul 2021 · Bioenergy

Meeting with Frans Timmermans (Executive Vice-President) and Transport and Environment (European Federation for Transport and Environment) and

19 Apr 2021 · Foreseen review of the renewable energy directive and use of forest biomass for energy production

Meeting with Andrea Beltramello (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis) and Transport and Environment (European Federation for Transport and Environment) and

26 Mar 2021 · Taxonomy

Response to Revision of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 2010/31/EU

19 Mar 2021

Doubling the renovation rate of buildings is key for Europe to reach its higher climate targets, to kickstart a green recovery from the current economic crisis and to provide modern, healthy and comfortable places to live and work for all Europeans. We therefore strongly endorse the Renovation Wave agenda and welcome the EPBD revision. The EPBD must be the core contributor to achieving the Renovation Wave’s aims, complemented by a strengthened EED and RED. We particularly suggest focusing on the following elements of the EPBD which promise to have the highest impact on renovation activity and climate protection: 1. Minimum energy performance standards: We unequivocally support the plan to introduce binding minimum energy performance standards (MEPS) for the worst-performing existing buildings with the highest running costs and energy savings potential. A European MEPS framework should give enough flexibility to Member States to adapt to local conditions but must be robust enough to ensure a significant increase in renovation activity even if a Member State decides to implement only what is strictly required by the Directive. It must be ensured that Member States can embed their MEPS in financial and technical support programmes to enable compliance and safeguard social fairness, augmented by favourable State Aid rules and European assistance. 2. Energy Performance Certificates and Data Availability: A revision of the energy performance certificates (EPCs) should upgrade their quality across Europe, allowing them to be widely used as tools to determine building performance for MEPS classification. National EPC databases must be required to be far more accessible to enable transparent monitoring, benchmarking, and analysis. Beyond the EPCs, up-to-date energy and carbon performance data of all publicly owned buildings should be transparently published on a central web portal in each member state for the same purposes. 3. Prioritising Renovation: The embodied energy, carbon and other resources contained in already existing buildings should not needlessly be discarded. That is why the EPBD should establish a binding requirement for public authorities to conduct building lifecycle assessments when considering whether to renovate the buildings they own or to demolish them in favour of new construction. This revision of the EPBD has the potential to give building renovation in Europe the boost it needs to turn into an engine of climate protection and green, long-term jobs. We urge the European Commission to propose changes that are truly “fit for 55” and to guard against weakening any of the existing provisions in the EPBD.
Read full response

Response to Revision of the guidelines for trans-European Energy infrastructure

4 Mar 2021

NABU welcomes the proposal for the revised TEN-E Regulation. The European Commissions` decision to take out the energy infrastructure categories for gas projects and oil transport projects is a necessary step forward. A study by Artelys (2020) found that existing gas infrastructure is able to meet future gas demand scenarios. The proposal needs to pave the way towards fulfilling the EU`s commitment to its climate and biodiversity long term targets. Europe remains insufficiently connected and deploys too little renewable energy, which is caused by delays in nature-sensitive building of electricity infrastructure. The revised TEN-E Regulation needs to strengthen the role of nature protection in order to speed up the development of electricity infrastructure. There is a high risk that fast track permit granting procedures undermine EU-Nature Directives, SEA and IEA Directives. The inclusion of sustainability as priority criteria across most infrastructure categories is not sufficient. Sustainability needs to include nature conservation, climate protection and social criteria. A clear definition in Article 2 should widen the scope of the sustainability criteria. The decision on how to operationalize the criteria would otherwise lack transparency and a clear commitment for a nature-sensitive energy transition. Explicit sustainability criteria for electricity infrastructure projects should be added, including biodiversity protection and excluding fossil-fuel based electricity generation. Hydrogen networks and smart gas grids must also be sustainable, fully based on renewable energy and should contribute to a reduction in greenhouse gases. Projects supporting the transportation of unsustainable biogases should not be included as they lead to indirect land-use change and increased GHG-emissions. In the electricity section, offshore hybrid projects were explicitly added as a further subcategory and a top-down approach is introduced with integrated offshore development plans. The development of offshore hybrid projects, offshore grids and offshore wind parks needs to account for the ecological carrying capacity and for pressures from competing uses of the sea. NABU proposes to use a bottom-up approach, using environmental data and sensitivity analysis to focus on low impact areas based on the sensitivity of protected species and habitats. The planning of offshore grids and hybrid projects should exclude marine protected areas together with a buffer zone from offshore infrastructure development. NABU is furthermore concerned about a missing coherence within the submission of marine spatial plans (due end of March 2021) and the submission of integrated offshore development plans (July 2023), as these need to be developed hand in hand to be able to achieve the targets of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. NABU welcomes Article 5 of the proposed TEN-E Regulation and the reference to the do-no significant harm principle, if this is in line with the TEG-Report and science-based. Within the implicit reference to Article 17 of the taxonomy, overhead and underground power lines must avoid routings with heavy impact on marine and terrestrial ecosystems, UNESCO World Heritage Sites and Key Biodiversity Areas, recommended by the TEG. Infrastructure projects that do not exclude protected areas for its nature value in Europe should consequently not be eligible for receiving PCI-status. Finally, the proposed governance still insufficiently takes into account the commitments to the Paris Agreement and biodiversity goals. NABU recommends science-based assumptions for the TYNDP scenario building process. Cost-benefit methodologies for all PCIs and for the energy system wide cost-benefit analysis should include information on potential environmental impacts, including whether all or part of a project is likely to fall within a site protected for its nature value in Europe.
Read full response

Response to Revision of EU rules on food contact materials

28 Jan 2021

Der NABU bestärkt die Kommission, ihre im Inception Impact Assessment dargelegten Pläne verbindlich, ambitioniert und zeitnah umzusetzen. Diese enthalten wichtige Schritte hin zu gesundheitlich unbedenklichen Lebensmittelverpackungen sowie einer giftfreien Kreislaufwirtschaft und Umwelt. Aus Sicht des NABU ist es notwendig, einen neuen regulatorischen Rahmen („Option 2“) für Lebensmittelkontaktmaterialien zu schaffen. Nur so können die substanziellen Änderungen, welche die Voraussetzung für sichere Lebensmittelkontaktmaterialien sind, effektiv umgesetzt werden. Der Versuch, auf dem bestehenden Rahmen aufzubauen, würde hingegen die regulatorischen Möglichkeiten stark limitieren und in der Folge ein kompliziertes und ineffektives System schaffen. Das Vorsorgeprinzip muss als Leitprinzip für alle neue Regelungen für Lebensmittelkontaktmaterialien gelten. Durch solch einen generischen Ansatz des Risikomanagements können endlich die gefährlichsten Stoffe („Tier 1 substances“), z.B. Endokrine Disruptoren (ED), karzinogene sowie reproduktionstoxische Substanzen, für Lebensmittelkontaktmaterialien verboten werden. Der NABU befürwortet die Pläne der Kommission, den Fokus auf die finale Lebensmittelverpackung bzw. den Lebensmittelkontaktartikel zu legen und somit NIAS (Non-Intentionally Added Substances) und Kombinationseffekte zu berücksichtigen. Eines der größten Probleme hinsichtlich der Migration chemischer und möglicherweise gefährlicher Stoffe in unsere Lebensmittel stellen die sogenannten NIAS dar, welche häufig erst durch Kombinationseffekte verschiedener Chemikalien entstehen. In dieser Hinsicht muss über die initial verwendeten Lebensmittelkontaktchemikalien hinaus gewährleistet sein, dass Lebensmittelkontaktmaterialien und -artikel keine gefährlichen Substanzen enthalten, welche auf das Produkt übergehen oder während ihres Lebenszyklus in die Umwelt gelangen können. Zur Entwicklung einer Kreislaufwirtschaft auch für Lebensmittelverpackungen muss sichergestellt werden, dass keine gefährlichen Chemikalien in den Materialien vorhanden sind. Hierfür muss zum einen am Beginn der Wertschöpfungskette Schadstofffreiheit in der Produktionsphase gewährleistet werden sowie zum anderen am Ende des Lebenszyklus eine Getrennterfassung der Abfälle etabliert werden, die eine hochwertige stoffliche Verwertung erlaubt. Der NABU begrüßt das Vorhaben der Kommission, verschiedene Formen sicherer Wiederverwendung und Verwertung zu fördern und Kontaminationsquellen auszuschließen, um zu gewährleisten, dass Materialien im Lebensmittelkontakt genauso sicher sind wie Neuware. Der NABU sieht jedoch auch Schwachstellen in den Plänen der Kommission: Die Bereitstellung von Informationen entlang der Lieferkette sowie das Monitoring und der Vollzug stellen essentielle Elemente zur Gewährleistung sicherer Lebensmittelkontaktmaterialien dar. Der NABU kritisiert daher den Vorschlag der Kommission, sich bei der Erreichung und Einhaltung allgemeiner Sicherheitsniveaus für Kontaktmaterialien auf die Selbstregulierung der Industrie zu verlassen und Compliance-Prüfungen an privatwirtschaftliche Akteure statt an staatliche Behörden zu delegieren. Freiwillige Selbstverpflichtungen der Industrie haben sich in der Vergangenheit als wenig wirksam erwiesen (Beispiel: Selbstverpflichtung Kunststoffrezyklate). Gleiches gilt für außerbehördliche Compliance-Prüfungen, die mitunter ineffektiv und manipulierbar sind. Ferner ist zu kritisieren, dass die Kommission in ihren Plänen die Notwendigkeit von Transparenz gegenüber den Verbraucher*innen („right to know“) bislang nicht ausreichend berücksichtigt. Grundsätzlich empfiehlt der NABU die Orientierung an den von CHEM Trust et al. entwickelten fünf Grundprinzipien für die künftige EU-Regulierung von Chemikalien in LKM (https://chemtrust.org/5-key-principles-fcm/).
Read full response

Meeting with Kitti Nyitrai (Cabinet of Commissioner Kadri Simson) and Climate Action Network Europe and

14 Jan 2021 · TEN-E

Response to Climate change mitigation and adaptation taxonomy

16 Dec 2020

Der NABU begrüßt den Entwurf des delegierten Rechtsaktes als einen wichtigen Baustein für eine zukünftige klimaneutrale EU. Richtigerweise hat die EU-Kommission fossile Energieträger für die Stromerzeugung größtenteils als nicht-nachhaltig eingestuft. Der als Kriterium angesetzte Schwellenwert von 100g C02 pro Kilowattstunde sollte beibehalten werden. Es wird zudem empfohlen, den Schwellenwert sukzessive alle fünf Jahre anzupassen, wie von der Technischen Expertengruppe (TEG) empfohlen, und nicht-erneuerbaren Wasserstoff auszuschließen. Der Schwellenwert sollte außerdem vollumfänglich für die Übertragung und Verteilung von Strom gelten und mindestens den TEG-Empfehlungen folgen. Der NABU begrüßt außerdem, dass das Thema Abfallverbrennung im aktuellen Entwurf nicht zu finden ist. Diese trägt nicht zu den Umwelt- und Klimazielen der EU bei und erschwert die Umsetzung einer umwelt- und klimafreundlichen Kreislaufwirtschaft. Ferner befördert sie die Emission von Treibhausgasen. Dies gilt auch für die Mitverbrennung von aufbereiteten Abfällen in Zementwerken, die deshalb klar als nicht nachhaltig klassifiziert werden muss. Der NABU gibt zu bedenken, dass vielen Empfehlungen der TEG seitens der Kommission nicht gefolgt wurde. Mit dem Verweis auf die Erneuerbare-Energien Richtlinie (RED II)wird die verstärkte Nutzung von forstwirtschaftlicher Biomasse für die Energieerzeugung sowie umweltschädliche Biokraftstoffe gefördert. Das Verbrennen von Holz-Biomasse zur Energiegewinnung emittiert mehr Treibhausgase als Kohle und kann zum Verlust von Lebensräumen führen. Der NABU empfiehlt aus diesem Grund die forstwirtschaftliche Biomasse als nicht-nachhaltig zu klassifizieren und jegliche Bioenergie, welche Treibhausgase im Vergleich zu fossilen Brennstoffen erhöht sowie irreversible Schäden an Ökosystemen anrichtet, auszuschließen. Die Verwendung von Lebensmittel- und Futterpflanzen sollte für die Biogas Produktion ebenso ausgeschlossen werden, wie der Entwurf sie schon für die Biokraftstoff-Produktion ausschließt. Die EU-Kommission sollte den Empfehlungen der TEG nachkommen. Wasserkraft, die aufgrund der fehlenden Naturverträglichkeit nicht-nachhaltig ist, wird von der EU-Kommission dann als nachhaltige Wirtschaftstätigkeit vorgeschlagen. Zwar werden Schutzmaßnahmen für natürliche Lebensräume und Arten vorgeschrieben, neue Wasserkraftwerke müssen aber aufgrund von Zielkonflikten mit dem Umweltziel „Schutz und Wiederherstellung der Biodiversität und Ökosysteme“ ausgeschlossen werden. Mindestens sollte der TEG-Empfehlung, die Herstellung von kleinen Wasserkraftwerken unter 10 MW zu vermeiden, nachgekommen werden, da sie keinen nennenswerten Mehrwert für die Energieerzeugung bereithalten. Die Kommission folgt den Empfehlungen der TEG bezüglich elektrischer Wärmepumpen, jedoch sind jene nicht ausreichend. Elektrische Wärmepumpen haben bei Verwendung von Ökostrom ein Treibhauspotenzial (GWP) von Null. Wird der herkömmliche Strom-Mix verwendet, liegt das GWP bei einem Drittel des jeweiligen Strom-Mixes des jeweiligen Mitgliedsstaates. Somit ist unklar, wie ein GWP von 675 angenommen werden kann. Das GWP sollte bei 10 oder weniger liegen. Der NABU begrüßt die Kriterien in Bezug auf die EU-Biodiversitätsstrategie und dem darin enthaltenen Ziel, 10 Prozent der Agrarlandschaft für naturnahe Elemente zu reservieren. Diese binden Kohlenstoff und schützen die Biodiversität in der Landwirtschaft. Bei den Kriterien zum Schutz kohlenstoffreicher Böden muss eine Nachschärfung erfolgen, um z.B. den Kohlenstoffvorrat in Moorböden besser zu schützen. Die Kriterien zur Viehhaltung entfalten keine Steuerungswirkung, um die Herdengrößen und die Viehbesatzdichte in Deutschland und der EU zu reduzieren. Aktivitäten rund um Viehbestand sollten ausgeschlossen werden, da GHG-Emissionen nicht zuverlässig erhoben werden können. Ausnahme könnte der ökologische Landbau mit einem begrenzten, streng an die Fläche gebundenen, Viehbesatz sein.
Read full response

Response to EU Forest Strategy

4 Dec 2020

We welcome the opportunity to input into the EU Forest Strategy. Natural and near-natural forests are vital for biodiversity, society and in our strategy to combat climate change. Experts agree that large-scale conservation of natural ecosystems, such as forests, is an essential mitigation strategy in our effort to combat the twin threats of climate change and ecosystem collapse. Countries can both immediately reduce CO2 emissions by conserving carbon stores in terrestrial systems otherwise slated for destruction and protect ecosystems critical for safeguarding biodiversity. But our forests are under threat. National Energy and Climate plans reveal that around a third of the 2005 EU carbon sink could be lost by 2030 - lost primarily from forests. Only between 2 and 4% of our primary and old-growth forests remain. An analysis by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) recently found that the total area of forests 'clear-cut' harvested in the EU in 2016-2018 was 49% higher than in 2011-2015, an increase that is partly blamed on the increase in demand for bioenergy.[1] An overwhelming majority of Europeans are concerned about the loss of biodiversity and support stronger EU action to protect nature.[2] The EU Forest Strategy must therefore avoid or correct unsustainable practices that have led to these trends by: • endorsing climate and biodiversity objectives and guarantee stronger coordination between climate and biodiversity legislation with clear reflection on international commitments such as the CBD and Paris Agreement. The strategy must endorse the central objectives of binding restoration targets, increasing carbon sequestration in forests, strict protection of old-growth forests, and guidelines for biodiversity-friendly management. • promoting a shift in commercial forestry from plantations and clear cuts to close to nature forestry. • prioritizing protecting and restoring forests over planting trees: Afforestation and reforestation may well have negative impacts on biodiversity if their planning does not include ecological expertise. This is a real threat in open areas where forest is not the naturally occurring succession stage. In assessing the need for afforestation, reforestation or re-vegetation, the potential for natural regeneration needs to be considered first. • prioritizing natural forest retention and restoration of fragmented forests and following the principles of "right trees in right places with right purposes and right approaches" in forest restoration efforts. • End EU support for burning of forest biomass for energy where it results in no significant savings in net CO2 emissions compared to fossil fuels over climate relevant time scales. • recognising conservation/strict protection of forests as a legitimate management choice. Promote the setting aside of significant areas of forests to be strictly protected from logging so that they can mature and recover an old growth status that is crucial for many types of biodiversity and optimises the carbon and water retention potential. These forests need to be valued, conserved, buffered and connected by ecological corridors provided through restoration and sustainable land management, as appropriate. • cracking down on illegal, unlawful and unsustainable logging, also inside the EU, as well as tightening action against imports of illegal timber. • ensuring deforestation-free sustainable supply chains - both inside and outside of the EU - through mechanisms such as corporate governance laws, due diligence actions and do-no-harm principles. • fully including wood saving in circular economy policies realising that it is a scarce resource and that simply encouraging material substitution with wood means further increasing the pressure on both biodiversity and carbon stocks. [1] https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/recent-surge-eu-forest-harvesting-according-jrc-study [2] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_19_2360
Read full response

Response to Protecting biodiversity: nature restoration targets

1 Dec 2020

Dear EC! NABU welcomes the initiative for binding restoration targets and recommends the following: A. Aspects guiding the next steps 1. With this restoration initiative, the Commission should focus on binding nature restoration targets. 2. The also mentioned possibility of an EU wide methodology to map and assess ecosystems and their delivery on soil, pollination etc. should be addressed with specific initiatives such as the soil strategy or the follow-up to the Biodiversity Strategy (10% biodiverse landscape features, 50% pesticides reduction). 3. Given the time needed for the legislative process with the Co-legislators and implementation in the Member States, the Commission should speed-up the process, to not only propose the law in Q4 2021 but earlier. 4. The Commission should assess putting forward the new legislation as Regulation, given that this saves transposition time. A Regulation often also leads to short, clear and thus enforceable legislation. B. Suggestions for the future restoration legislation I. Objectives 1. As the main objective, the law must contribute to halting and reversing biodiversity loss, resulting in the large-scale (nature) restoration of habitats, species and ecosystem functioning, connectivity and resilience at landscape level across the EU. 2. In order to be of added value, the new legislation must explicitly go beyond what is already required by the Habitats Directive and other EU legislation. Therefore, the new legislation cannot merely add a deadline to already existing requirements in protected areas. 3. The new legislation should put a specific focus on biodiverse ecosystems with significant carbon storage and sequestration potential. Contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation should hence be the supportive (but not primary) objective. II. Restoration targets The binding EU targets for nature restoration on land and sea should be expressed in quantitative and similar terms for each Member State (i.e. without effort sharing). EU-wide, the targets should be to restore by 2030: 1. at least 650.000 km2 of land and at least 1.000.000 km2 of sea (15% of the EU land and sea area, sea area to be adapted to EU27 EEZ). 2. at least 25.000 km of free flowing rivers, and to scale-up this ambition to achieve 15% of rivers restored to a free-flowing state in 2030 through inter alia barrier removal and floodplain restoration; 3. and should include a target for CO2 removal by sinks, in addition to the 2030 emissions reduction target. III. Restoration criteria 1. Restoration measures should result in permanent change aiming to restore high quality and resilient nature, with a very significant improvement from the starting condition. 2. Restoration measures must result in significant management change that puts nature on a path towards sustaining ‘high quality’. 3. Action on restoration should not discriminate between restoration activities inside or outside already protected areas. 4. Restoration measures should also increase connectivity between habitats. IV. Governance aspects 1. The new legislation should require Member States to draft national restoration plans. The plans should include clear quantitative targets in terms of locations, areas, types of ecosystems to be restored, financial tools to be used, requirements for active public participation, deadlines etc. 2. Restoration plans should be assessed by the Commission to ensure that the proposed measures contribute to the objectives of the restoration law. 3. The restoration law should explicitly include obligations for Member States to actively engage the public at the start of and throughout the restoration plan process. 4. To be effective, the restoration law must contain clear deadlines regarding the establishment of the restoration plans and the implementation of all restoration measures. 5. The restoration law further needs to include safeguards to ensure the restoration and protection of the restored habitats is permanent.
Read full response

Response to Land use, land use change and forestry – review of EU rules

26 Nov 2020

We welcome the strengthening of the LULUCF regulation with the aim to protect and restore the forests needed to sequester carbon dioxide in the effort to keep climate change below 1.5 degrees. However, this must not lead to a decrease of efforts to reduce emissions in other sectors with the hope of off-setting them through LULUCF removals. The review of the LULUCF regulation must not increase the flexibility between the land sector and other sectors including those under the Emissions Trading System (ETS), the Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) and non-CO2 emission from the agricultural sector. Increasing this flexibility would lead to lower ambitions to reduce emission in other sectors. It would also go against discussions to reduce offsets allowed under the ETS. Removals in the land sector are not as measurable, stable or permanent as emissions reductions and cannot be considered equivalent. The EU should instead set a separate and demanding target for removals in the land use sector, consistent with the ecosystem restoration approach set out in the Biodiversity Strategy, and keep non-CO2 emissions from agriculture within the scope of the ESR. In addition the EU urgently needs to close the loopholes in LULUCF accounting system as highlighted by NGOs [1]. In particular the EU needs to close the accounting loophole for bioenergy, which is counted as zero-carbon in the energy sector, with the idea to account for the emission in the land sector. However, these emissions often go unaccounted (see attached briefing paper), in particular where bioenergy is imported from outside the EU. In this context it is particularly concerning that the LULUCF Inception Impact Assessment emphasises the role of bioenergy in Europe’s Climate ambition, when it’s net-impact could be an increase - not a reduction - of CO2 in the atmosphere over climate relevant timescales. There is an urgent need for the revision of the LULUCF regulation to ensure that EU policy makes better links between what is needed to safeguard, manage, increase and account for natural carbon stocks and what is needed to account for and influence the flows to and from those stocks – within and outside the EU. In addition, LULUCF regulations need to ensure coherence with the EU’s biodiversity goals. There are inadequate safeguards within forestry procedures. Afforestation and reforestation may well have negative impacts on biodiversity if their planning does not include ecological expertise. This is a real threat in open areas where forest is not the naturally occurring succession stage. Examples include planted forests in the Scottish highlands or in the Dutch coastal sand dunes, which are a threat to the biodiversity of such, naturally open, habitats. In Ireland, planting on peat soils continues to impact on biodiversity and climate. In addition, forest ageing is mentioned as a problem, leading to less carbon storage in the future. However, this is only true for plantations where most trees have similar ages. Natural forests, with a mixed composition of species and ages of trees, continue to sequester carbon even when very old. Also, biodiversity of such forests increases with age. The amendment must therefore not be (mis)used to replace aged natural forests with young plantations. When biodiversity takes a more central position in the planning – rather than just seen as a co-benefit - such adverse effects will be prevented. [1] Joint NGO submission on Greenhouse gas emissions from land use/forestry – CO2 offsets, https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12247-Commission-Delegated-Regulation-amending-Annex-IV-to-the-LULUCF-Regulation/F552669
Read full response

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

24 Nov 2020 · Discussion on CAP

Meeting with Frauke Hoss (Cabinet of Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič) and EUROPEAN TRADE UNION CONFEDERATION and WWF European Policy Programme

14 Oct 2020 · Better Regulation Agenda

Meeting with Kyriacos Charalambous (Cabinet of Commissioner Johannes Hahn) and Stichting BirdLife Europe

9 Oct 2020 · Green deal, new MFF and Biodiversity

Response to Offshore renewable energy strategy

12 Aug 2020

NABU welcomes the chance to give feedback to the process of the European Commission’s Initiative for an Offshore Renewable Energy Strategy. With the European Strategy for Offshore Renewable Energy, the European Commission gets the opportunity to pave the ground for a climate neutral Europe before 2050 and to reach its biodiversity goals as set out in the EU Biodiversity-Strategy for 2030. NABU sees an urgency for a clear political framework in the European Union for offshore renewable energy. Marine conservation targets such as in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) have been missed in the past. Europe’s coastal areas and seas have been significantly altered through severe cumulative anthropogenic pressures that result in a poor environmental and ecological status. To this end, NABU asks to consider the following requirements for a sustainable development of offshore renewable energy: 1) A new objective already described in the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 as „net-gain” is to be achieved through the Offshore Renewable Strategy. 2) The carrying capacities and ecological limits of the oceans and the reduction of negative cumulative effects on the marine environment are the guiding principle for legislative measures, strategies and the planning processes for the development of nature-compatible offshore renewable energies. 3) The strategy should be compatible with the goals of the Paris Agreement and climate neutrality before 2050. By 2030, renewable offshore energy should help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 60, better 65 percent by 2030 compared to 1990 (without offsets), while ensuring these targets do not come at the expense of biodiversity in the marine environment and respect ecosystem limits. 4) Assumptions, scenarios and modelling should provide the basis for nature-compatible offshore renewable development that is realistic, feasible, and fully considers naturesensitive indications on how much offshore capacity can be installed and transmitted in European seas while accounting for the carrying capacity and competing uses of the sea. 5) Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are generally highly sensitive biodiversity hotspots and are not suitable for offshore wind developments and related grid and/or hydrogen infrastructure. 6) Spatial planning on Member States and EU-level, should identify areas to be preserved and suitable and nature-compatible areas for the use of offshore renewable energy, focusing on low impact areas based on the sensitivity of protected species and habitats 7) Prioritise energy efficiency as set out in the EU Governance of the Energy Union Regulation and ensure cost-efficient energy savings. This also applies for the production of hydrogen – instead of investing in costly and inefficient hydrogen generation and hydrogen infrastructure, direct electrification must be prioritized. 8) Renewable energy installations and electricity grid network infrastructure should contribute to achieving the objectives of environmental legislation, in particular the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. 9) Ban further development of fossil fuel energy infrastructure and harmful subsidies and reorient investment to nature-sensitive renewable energy. 10) To better understand detrimental effects of offshore energy generation on marine biodiversity and ecosystems, a suitable joint EU-wide monitoring scheme is set up. Please, see the attached paper for reading the recommendations by NABU in full lengths.
Read full response

Response to Update of concentration limit values of persistent organic pollutants in waste

6 Aug 2020

The EU POPs Regulation should respect the objectives and requirements of the Stockholm Convention. We think that some of the limits for POPs in waste, as set today, are too weak and do not hinder the circulation of POPs in reused materials and recycled products. This is shown, for example, by studies showing the presence of high concentrations of PBDEs in toys or kitchen utensils made from recycled plastics (Kuang, Abdallah et al. 2018, Straková, DiGangi et al. 2018). The same phenomenon occurs by recycling ash from incinerators containing high concentrations of dioxins (Katima, Bell et al. 2018). The current weak limits for some POPs in waste lead to contamination of the recycling chain. This applies to PBDEs, HBCD, SCCPs, PCDD/Fs and dl-PCBs in particular. Occurrence of these hazardous substances in recycled materials and products undermines public support for recycling and the circular economy. POPs poison the circular economy. The EU does not decide only about its own environment when establishing low POPs content at „weaker“ or „stronger“ levels but also about environments in countries far away from Europe which often don’t have capacities to deal with POPs contaminated waste at all. This leads to the situation where, for example, e-waste plastic containing POPs can be exported to low income countries and is then openly burned to recover metals, creating dioxins which contribute to global contamination affecting food chains globally, including in the European Arctic region. Therefore, we suggest to establish strict low POPs content levels that will stop trade in POPs contaminated wastes in accordance with Article 6 of the Stockholm Convention. Toys made from black recycled plastics have been found to contain concentrations of dioxins comparable to ash from waste incinerators in recent studies (Petrlík, Behnisch et al. 2018, Budin, Petrlik et al. 2020). One such study determined that toys made of black plastic, which is often derived from recycled e-waste plastics with flame retardant chemicals, are toxic to human cells. The study reveals that children mouthing toys made from this plastic are at risk of dangerous health effects from the toxic material. This study established the toxic effects of plastic toys made of recycled plastics on human cells (Budin, Petrlik et al. 2020). Also these toys might be prevented from entering the market when more strict values for PBDEs in recycled plastics are applied, e.g. 50 ppm for waste, and 10 ppm as trace contamination level for sum of PBDEs. We call on the European Commission to exert leadership in the Basel and Stockholm Convention processes by setting low POPs content limits which will protect human health and environment and which will take into account ALL economic implications including costs due to health damage consequences. This means support for more protective low POPs content limits for the following substances: • 1 ppb (= 1 ng/g WHO-TEQ) for PCDD/Fs + dl-PCBs with additional limit of 50 pg WHO-TEQ/g (0.05 ppb) of these substances for untreated waste used on land surface • 100 ppm (= 100 mg/kg) for HBCD • 50 ppm (= 50 mg/kg) for sum of PBDEs (including Deca-BDE) • 100 ppm (= 100 mg/kg) for SCCPs • 10 ppm (= 10 mg/kg) for sum of PFOA/PFHxS and related substances It also means to change the legislative conditions to be more open to other technologies for destruction of POPs waste, which do not create new POPs as waste incineration or co-incineration does, in order to meet obligations set in Article 5 of the Stockholm Convention. We found these conditions as crucial for meeting Stockholm Convention objectives “to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants“ (Stockholm Convention 2010).
Read full response

Response to Review of the requirements for packaging and feasibility of measures to prevent packaging waste

6 Aug 2020

Der NABU erachtet die von der Europäischen Kommission geplanten Maßnahmen als sinnvoll und dringend notwendig, um die negativen ökologischen Folgen von Verpackungen und Verpackungsabfällen zu minimieren (z.B. CO2-Emissionen durch Abfallverbrennung, aquatische und terrestrische Umweltverschmutzung durch Littering, Biodiversitätsverlust durch Rohstoffabbau). Der NABU bestärkt die Kommission, ihre Pläne verbindlich und mit einem ambitionierten Zeitplan umzusetzen. Der Fokus darf hierbei jedoch nicht nur auf dem Recycling von Verpackungsabfällen liegen, sondern muss sich der Abfallhierarchie entsprechend besonders auf die Verpackungsvermeidung und -wiederverwendung richten. Statt auf freiwillige und wenig verbindliche Initiativen der Industrie und des Handels zu vertrauen, muss die Kommission verpflichtende Vermeidungsziele für das Verpackungsabfallaufkommen festsetzen. Dieses sollte über einen Zeitraum von zehn Jahren jährlich um fünf Prozent reduziert werden. Ein zentraler Baustein zur Abfallvermeidung sind Mehrwegsysteme. Die Vorgabe, dass bis zum Jahr 2030 Verpackungen wiederverwendbar oder recyclingfähig sein müssen, sollte daher zusätzlich durch Mehrwegquoten ergänzt werden, die einen Mindestanteil an wiederverwendbaren Verpackungen in spezifischen Sektoren festlegen. Ohne diese Maßnahme würden sich Industrie und Handel nur auf die dritte Stufe der Abfallhierarchie beschränken und keine Ambitionen für innovative wiederverwendbare Verpackungen entwickeln. Hierfür muss die Richtlinie Vorgaben enthalten, um das Verpackungsdesign zu standardisieren und dadurch den Aufbau von (EU-weiten) Mehrweg-Poolsystemen zu ermöglichen. Ferner ist der Aufbau eines Monitoringsystems für wiederverwendbare Verpackungen notwendig. Auch bessere Vergabekriterien für eine nachhaltige Beschaffung könnten helfen, den Markt für Mehrwegverpackungen zu stärken. Der NABU begrüßt, dass die Kommission ein Verbot bestimmter Einwegverpackungen, für die Mehrwegalternativen zur Verfügung stehen, in Erwägung zieht. Diese Verbote sollten über das Getränkesegment, in dem bereits zahlreiche Mehrwegalternativen etabliert sind, hinausgehen und z.B. auch bei Transport- und Versandverpackungen geprüft werden. Um einen ungewollte Verlagerungseffekte bei den Einwegverpackungen zu verhindern, sollten diese Verbote für alle Materialien (Plastik, Glas, Papier, etc.) gelten. Zur Förderung eines hochwertigen Recyclings der Verpackungsabfälle sind Rezyklateinsatzquoten notwendig. Der derzeit zu beobachtende Zusammenbruch des Marktes für Kunststoffrezyklat aufgrund des Verfalls der Erdölpreise verdeutlicht, dass sich ohne einen regulativen Eingriff eine Kreislaufwirtschaft für Kunststoffe mittelfristig nicht entwickeln kann. Eine Rezyklateinsatzquote würde Investitionssicherheit in Sortier- und Recyclinganlagen garantieren, das Marktvolumen von Sekundärrohstoffen erhöhen und hätte positive Auswirkungen auf Klima- und Umweltschutz. Gesamtwirtschaftliche materialspezifische Quoten sind jedoch ungenügend, da dadurch das Recyclingmaterial vorrangig in minderwertigen Anwendungen eingesetzt und kein Anreiz für qualitativ hochwertige Rezyklate geschaffen würde. Durch differenzierte Quoten, z.B. für Food-, Near-Food- und Non-Food-Anwendungen würde der Markt für hochwertiges Recycling ausgebaut werden und die Sekundärrohstoffe über mehrere Kaskaden hinweg besonders lange genutzt werden. Für den Einsatz von Rezyklaten in Verpackungen mit Lebensmittelkontakt müssen sowohl die EFSA-Regularien unter Wahrung maximaler Lebensmittelsicherheit als auch die Getrennterfassung und Sortierung von Verpackungsabfällen weiterentwickelt werden. Das chemische Recycling von Verpackungen sollte nicht als werkstoffliches Recycling zur Erfüllung von Recyclingquoten anerkannt werden. Es bestehen Zweifel an der Umweltfreundlichkeit und der Effektivität solcher Verfahren. Vielmehr sollte die Getrenntsammlung und der Aufbau von Sammel- und Recyclinginfrastrukturen angereizt und finanziell gefördert werden.
Read full response

Meeting with Frans Timmermans (Executive Vice-President)

7 Jul 2020 · European Green Deal, recovery and action on nature

Response to Commission Communication – "Renovation wave" initiative for the building sector

8 Jun 2020

Der NABU unterstützt die Entwicklung einer langfristigen Renovierungsstrategie (LTRS) vollumfänglich. Die Renovierungsstrategie sollte klar regeln, was und wie renoviert werden soll, um die klima- und energiepolitischen EU-Ziele zu erreichen. Es muss darum gehen, das Ziel eines klimaneutralen Gebäudebestands 2050 zu erreichen und über den Status Quo hinauszugehen. Der NABU empfiehlt: • die konsequente Berücksichtigung der Grauen Energie / Lebenszyklusbetrachtungen • die Potenziale der CO2-Senkenfunktion durch die Nutzung von Baustoffen auf Basis nachwachsender Rohstoffe zu prüfen und zu heben • Dächflächenpotenziale vollständig für PV, Solarthermie und/oder als Gründach zu nutzen • den Artenschutz am Gebäude konsequent zu berücksichtigen und zu fördern Die Klima- und Biodiversitätskrise entschlossen anzugehen muss auch in der langfristigen Renovierungsstrategie Priorität haben.. Dies beinhaltet, dass die Modernisierung des Gebäudebestandes auch dazu beitragen kann und soll, der Biodiversitätskrise zu begegnen – durch eine konsequente Nutzung von Dachflächen nicht nur für PV- und Solarthermie – sondern auch, überall wo möglich, als Gründach. Darüber hinaus sollten die vielfältigen Baumaßnahmen, vor allem an der Geäudehülle, nicht die Wohn- und Nistplätze von Vögeln und Fledermäusen dezimieren, sondern optimaler Weise mehr „Wohnraum“ für Tiere im und am Gebäude schaffen.
Read full response

Response to Strategy for smart sector integration

8 Jun 2020

Der NABU begrüßt die Entwicklung einer Strategy for smart sector integration. Um die Ziele des Pariser Abkommens zu erreichen, braucht es einen ganzheitlichen, sektorenübergreifenden Ansatz. Mit dem naturverträglichen Ausbau der kosteneffizienten erneuerbaren Energien erhöht sich der Bedarf an Flexibilität im System und Erzeugung und Verbrauch müssen stärker miteinander verschränkt werden. Verbraucher, die über dezentrale Erzeugungs- und Speicheranlagen (PV, Elektromobilität, Wärmespeicher, Wärmepumpen, etc.) Energie in das System einspeisen und flexibel auf Schwankungen in der Erzeugung reagieren, können so zur Systemsicherheit beitragen und ineffiziente, teure, auf fossilen Brennstoffen basierende Technologien und Reservekapazitäten können schneller auslaufen. Die Laststeuerung kann die Stromnachfrage flexibilisieren und Kosten senken. Zu den Hauptmerkmalen eines solchen Systems gehören: • Vereinbarkeit mit den Zielen des Pariser Abkommens und der Klimaneutrali-tät vor 2050. Bis 2030 muss das System dazu beitragen, eine Minderung der Treibhausgasemissionen um mindestens 60 Prozent, besser 65 Prozent bis 2030 im Vergleich zu 1990 (ohne Klimakompensationen) zu erreichen. Bis 2050 muss eine Minderung der Treibhausgasemissionen um 95 Prozent erreicht werden. • Die Senkung des Endenergieverbrauchs durch umfassende Energieeffizienzanstrengungen in allen Sektoren, einschließlich der Reduktion der Energienachfrage aufgrund gesteigerter Ambitionen und Umsetzung von stärkeren Strategien und Maßnahmen zur Energieeffizienz und -suffizienz. • Ausbau und Integration naturverträglicher erneuerbarer Energien sowie der Anpassung des bestehenden Stromnetzes an die Entwicklung (Dezentralität, Flexibilisierung). Naturverträglicher Um- und Ausbau der Stromnetze und Interkonnektoren. Grundsatzentscheidungen zur Vermeidung von „verlorenen Investitionen“ in Bezug auf die Weiterentwicklung von überflüssigen und kostenintensiven, auf fossilen Energien basierenden Infrastrukturen, müssen zudem getroffen werden. • Elektrifizierung des Wärme-, Verkehrs- und Industriesektors auf der Grundlage von Strom aus naturverträglichen erneuerbaren Energien. Die am schwersten zu dekarbonisierenden Sektoren wie bestimmte Industriesektoren (Stahl, Chemie) oder die Luftfahrt, der Langstreckenseeverkehr und der Schwerlastverkehr auf der Straße könnten auf gasförmige (auf Basis von grünem Wasserstoff) oder flüssige (synthetische) Kraftstoffe auf Basis erneuerbaren Stroms zurückgreifen. • Die Einführung von Lastmanagement in Kombination mit anderen Flexibilitätsoptionen wie Strom- und Wärmespeicherung. Regulatorische und wirtschaftliche Entscheidungen müssen im Lichte der wirtschaftlichen Rezession bedingt durch COVID-19, Investitionsprogramme für ein vollständig auf erneuerbaren Energien fußenden System ermöglichen. Die benötigte Energie-Infrastruktur und ein kluges Marktdesigns für ein gut vernetztes System erneuerbarer Energien können höheren Kosten durch wirtschaftliche, gesundheitliche und ökologische Schäden im Falle des Nichthandeln im Angesicht der Klima- und Biodiversitätskrise entgegenwirken. Bitte entnehmen Sie weitere Details der beigefügten Stellungnahme.
Read full response

Response to A EU hydrogen strategy

8 Jun 2020

Der NABU begrüßt eine auf ihre Zwecke abgestimmte EU-weite Wasserstoffstrategie. Diese macht Sinn, wenn sie berücksichtigt, dass es klare Kapazitätsgrenzen für die Produktion von Wasserstoff und Wasserstoffprodukten gibt und ökonomische, ökologische sowie soziale Kriterien im Vordergrund stehen. Dies gilt auch für Importe aus Nicht- EU-Ländern. Wasserstoff aus 100 Prozent naturverträglichen erneuerbaren Quellen kann eine wichtige Rolle für eine Nische spielen, die technologischen Potenziale liegen jedoch bei Berücksichtigung klarer Kriterien weit unter jenem, was weithin angenommen wird. Aus diesem Grund muss die Strategie prioritär eine Folgenabschätzung anstoßen, die sowohl das jeweilige inländische Potenzial, den realistischen Bedarf und die zukünftigen Verbrauch an den EU-Klimazielen misst. Für mehr Kosten-, Energie-, Material- und Ressourceneffizienz sollte vor allem die direkte Nutzung von erneuerbarem Strom und die Hebung von Effizienzpotenzialen statt Wasserstoff prioritär im Fokus stehen. Bei der Elektrolyse und bei der anschließenden Methanisierung gehen große Mengen an Energie als Umwandlungsverluste verloren, was die Kosten deutlich in die Höhe treibt. Das sorgt dafür, dass der Energieaufwand pro Serviceleistung bis zu sieben Mal so hoch ausfallen kann. Dementsprechend werden deutlich mehr Kapazitäten zur naturverträglichen Erzeugung von erneuerbarem Strom benötigt. Erneuerbare Energien sind ein knappes Gut, mit dem sorgsam und effizient umgegangen werden muss. Nur wenn technisch unverzichtbar, sollten nicht-fossile Brennstoffe zum Einsatz kommen. Erneuerbarer Wasserstoff muss so definiert werden, dass die sozialen und ökologischen Wirkungen sowie der Ursprung des Wasserstoffs deutlich werden. Unter bestimmten Bedingungen, wie der Berücksichtigung der Vorketten (Bau & Installation der Wind/PV-Anlagen) sowie Abfallvermeidung und der konsequenten Anwendung von Kreislaufkonzepten für die Materialien, sowie einem qualitativ hochwertigem Recycling hat auf erneuerbaren Energien basierender Wasserstoff das Potenzial CO2-neutral zu werden. Die Bezeichnung grüner Wasserstoff muss klar definiert werden, da das Konzept sonst von Interessensgruppen unterschiedlich verwendet wird. Das als „schwarzer“, „blauer“ oder „grauer Wasserstoff“ bezeichnete fossile Gas ist nicht kompatibel mit den Pariser Klimazielen. Für schwer zu elektrifizierende Industrien sollte die Nutzung von nicht-fossilen Gasen, wie Wasserstoff, der auf erneuerbaren Energien basiert, geprüft werden. Mögliche Anwendungsgebiete für diesen Wasserstoff stellen Hochtemperatur-Industrieprozesse und der Schwerlastverkehr (LKWs), Luftverkehr, Hochseeschifffahrt und die Stahlindustrie dar. Verzichtet werden sollte auf den Einsatz für PKWs, für den Wärmesektor und für die Rückverstromung. Im Falle einer positiven Prüfung anhand der Klimaziele, muss die Entwicklung von erneuerbarem Wasserstoff von der EU durch die Wasserstoffstrategie unterstützt werden. Diese europäische Wasserstoffstrategie muss in Verschränkung mit der Smart Sector Integration Strategy sicherstellen, dass neue PtX-Träger nur naturverträglich und erneuerbar erzeugt werden. Eine entsprechende Nachweisführung ist angeraten und sollte sichergestellt werden. Um die Implementierung einer nachhaltigen Wasserstoffstrategie zu erleichtern, sollte die europäische Wasserstoffstrategie eine unabhängige Experten-Plattform ins Leben rufen. Diese muss die volle Partizipation der Zivilgesellschaft sowie unabhängiger Experten aus der Wissenschaft sicherstellen und soziale, ökologische Kriterien gegenüber ökonomischen Kriterien abwägen. Bitte entnehmen Sie weitere Informationen der Stellungnahme zur Smart Sector Integration Strategy.
Read full response

Response to Climate Law

30 Apr 2020

Der NABU begrüßt den Kommissionsvorschlag des EU-Klimagesetzes, das Treibhausgasneutralität rechtlich verbindlich macht. Es ist wichtig und richtig, dass die EU während und nach der Pandemie, starke Signale für eine klimaneutrale Wirtschaft innerhalb Europas setzt, aber auch in Richtung anderer Vertragsstaaten des Pariser Klimaabkommens. Gleichzeitig sieht der NABU in vielerlei Hinsicht Verbesserungsbedarf, um einen klimawissenschaftlich angemessenen Beitrag zur Begrenzung der globalen Erderhitzung auf max. 1,5 Grad zu leisten. Hier muss deutlich nachgesteuert werden. Unsere Forderungen finden Sie im angehängten Dokument auch auf Englisch. NABU-Forderungen an das europäische Klimagesetz 1. Minderung der Treibhausgasemissionen bis 2030 um mindestens 60 Prozent, besser 65 Prozent im Vergleich zu 1990 (ohne Klimakompensationen). Eine Reduktion von 50 bis 55 Prozent, wie in der Kommunikation des European Green Deal angedacht, reicht nicht aus um die Erderhitzung auf unter zwei Grad Celsius zu begrenzen. Die im Gesetz angekündigte Vorlage des neuen 2030-Ziels im September darf sich zudem nicht verzögern. Spätestens im Herbst muss ein neues EU-Klimaziel entschieden sein, damit die EU frühzeitig vor der nächsten Klimakonferenz mit anderen großen Emittenten in Verhandlung treten kann. 2. Restaurierung und Schutz natürlicher Treibhausgassenken, um 15 Prozent der Territorien von Mitgliedsstaaten auf Land und See bis 2030 wiederherzustellen. Um die Senkenleistung von Flächen zu stärken und einen umwelt- und sozialverträglichen Ausbau von Senken zu ermöglichen, ist dieses separates Ziel für die Renaturierung von Mooren und Wäldern im EU-Klimagesetz notwendig. Naturbasierte Lösungen müssen zudem prioritär vor marktbasierten und technologiezentrierten Lösungen zum Einsatz kommen, um Emissionen zu senken. 3. Umschwung auf 100 Prozent naturverträgliche erneuerbare Energien. In einer Welt, die mit Natur und Umwelt vereinbar ist und unsere natürlichen Lebensgrundlagen schützt, gibt es keinen Platz mehr für die Verbrennung fossiler Brennstoffe. Es müssen Termine für den Ausstieg aus fossilen Brennstoffen gesetzt und Subventionen fossiler Brennstoffe beendet werden. Erneuerbare Energien müssen geringe Auswirkungen auf die Natur gewährleisten. 4. Mainstreaming der Klimapolitik auf einer Linie mit Biodiversitätsschutz. Alle neuen und bestehenden europäischen Gesetzgebungen müssen an die europäischen Klima- und Biodiversitätsziele angepasst werden. Dies betrifft jegliche sektoralen Gesetzgebungen bezüglich Landnutzung, Handelspolitik, Energieeffizienz, erneuerbare Energien, Landwirtschaft, Emissionshandel, Transport und Finanzen. 5. Es ist sinnvoll, dass die Kommission einen fünfjährlichen Überprüfungsmechanismus vorschlägt, der an die jeweiligen UNFCCC-Prozesse gekoppelt ist. Dieser muss aber mit der Etablierung eines unabhängigen wissenschaftlichen EU-Expert*innenrats und eines mit den UNFCCC-Prozessen und der EU-Langzeitstrategie abgestimmten fünfjährlichen Ambitionssteigerungsmechanismus einhergehen. Dies kann die Konsistenz mit den Zielen der EU, Strategien und Regulierungen sicherstellen.
Read full response

Response to Climate change mitigation and adaptation taxonomy

27 Apr 2020

NABU believes that preserving the integrity of the green taxonomy is crucial for its credibility and solidity. A precautionary approach should thus guide the EU. Investment should be excluded - at least provisionally - until more work can be done and tighter criteria be developed when there is uncertainty or a contentious debate. Any high impact activities that are included will inevitably be exposed by scandals when things go wrong on the ground will seriously hurt the standing of the EU taxonomy before it can properly establish itself. All in all, NABU considers the work of the TEG as well balanced and of high quality. A few problematic sectors still need to be removed and the ‘do no significant harm’ criteria for infrastructure need to be tightened in order to exclude harm to biodiversity, especially in protected areas. The livestock sector and transport biofuels (including biogas) should really be removed: a) The livestock sector is a main driver for climate change, biodiversity loss, deforestation and air and water pollution. Further there are major concerns regarding animal welfare and human health. At the current stage of development there are no criteria allowing safe separation from investment in certain sustainable forms of grazing and the vast majority of ongoing investments in livestock which are environmentally harmful. At the very least, inclusion of the sector should wait for a full set of biodiversity criteria to be developed. b) Bioenergy is scientifically demonstrated not to be “low carbon” and is indeed often worse than the fossil fuels it replaces. There is also massive biodiversity loss associated with increased logging and land clearing for plantations. So bioenergy should not be supported, neither by supporting vehicles and infrastructures for biofuels use, because that would be a hidden subsidy to fossil fuels blended or co-used with them. The only bioenergy that should be allowed under “green investment” should be from genuine waste and residues that are not already otherwise used, and for (to??) increase efficiency in ongoing traditional use for heating . These exceptions require much tighter criteria than actually proposed. Forestry rules also need to be significantly tightened up. In no circumstances should green investment lead to an increase in logging pressure, because logging is a main cause of loss of carbon stocks and biodiversity. To the contrary, investments in forest conservation and restoration are needed as well as in reconversion of intensive logging operations to close to nature forestry. Hydropower is another problematic sector due to its devastating ecological impacts. Therefore green investments in Europe should be limited to the retrofitting of existing installations. Globally there should be an exclusion of large scale dams. NABU supports the complete exclusion of fossil fuels and waste incineration because they counteract climate action and circular economy. Similarly, nuclear power has to stay excluded as the production of very long-lasting toxic waste cannot be compatible with the “do no significant harm principle”. These sectors should not be reintroduced through loopholes such as allowing for subsectors, “midstream” operations and the like. Also, the 100 gCO2/KWh threshold should be lowered. Last but not least, until 2025 the TEG would allow vehicles with tailpipe emissions intensity of 50g CO2/km. In order to be in line the EU’s 2050 targetsonly 0g of CO2/km should be allowed.
Read full response

Response to FuelEU Maritime

24 Apr 2020

NABU supports the EC’s initiative to develop a regulation to foster the uptake of sustainable alternative fuels (SAF) for ships. The fast uptake is necessary to achieve the Paris Agreement Climate Goals. The sustainability of e-fuels needs to be safeguarded by criteria. SAF must be entirely based on renewable electricity. We expect the SAF production costs to remain higher than the fossils even in the long term. Additionally, its production inherently comes with efficiency losses. Moreover, efficiency improvements in both production and use of SAF on board ships should gain higher attention. Efficiency of ship operation is key to deploy more costly fuels that deliver the remaining amount of energy needed. NABU welcomes that the EC is also looking on air pollution from ships. Options to reduce emissions at berth, in particular through the use of shore-side electricity arecrucial. But we see the problem that not all SAF especially in the transition phase (with drop-ins of e-fuels) will address the immense air quality problems (NOx, Particulates/BC). Air pollution reduction should be core criteria to sort out the right SAF. In relation to alternative marine fuels, we would like to make the following comments: 1. Crop based biofuels are more damaging to the climate and their uptake should be discouraged. 2. Sustainable advanced biofuels have very limited scalability. 3. Hydrocarbons (e-methane, e-methanol, e-gasoil) that could be synthetically produced from renewable electricity could be carbon neutral. But they are considerably more energy intensive and expensive compared to zero-carbon e-fuels, such as green hydrogen (e-H2) and ammonia (e-NH3). 4. e-H2/e-NH3, despite their relatively inferior volumetric density, present a much more cost-effective decarbonisation pathway. Evidence shows that forgone revenues of ships using H2/NH3 could be outweighed by lower annual fuel costs. Therefore, total cost of operation with e-H2/e-NH3 ships would still be lower than if ships used denser but more expensive hydrocarbons (e.g. e-methane, e-methanol). 5. Absence of exhaust gas flow and exhaust aftertreatment in upper decks of ships that are of considerably higher value for many purposes can outweigh the lower density fuels space demand. This is especially given when fuel cells are deployed instead of ICE. 6. All greenhouse gases must be taken into account. 7. LNG contributes to pollution reduction but any contribution towards GHG reduction is limited. LNG should not be seen as a bridge technology. 8. The EU must mandate the use of shore power across the EU to reduce air pollution and climate impacts. Moreover it delivers the highest efficiency in use of electrical power. In relation to the 3 policy mechanisms proposed, we would like to make the following comments: Option 2: Port discounts will have low impact on green fuels uptake. No amount of discount would offset the extra costs of using green fuels, especially for deep sea shipping. In ports the direct use of electricity by OPS is the most crucial lever. We do not recommend Option 2. Option 3:Fuel blending mandates present high environmental and technology lock-in risks. Such mandates would allow unsustainable biofuels. Furthermore, given that sustainable and unsustainable biofuels would have similar physical properties, it would be impossible to enforce. It also disadvantages sustainable alternatives such as e-H2 and e-NH3 as they cannot be physically blended into current marine fuels. We don’t recommend Option 3. Option 4: is a more flexible option, and allows shipowners/operators to choose the on-board fuel mix, including transitional co-combustion of zero-carbon fuels (e-H2/e-NH3) with diesel before the full fuel switch. Option 4 does not incentivise to improve ships energy efficiency, which will be important to absorb the extra costs of using sustainable e-fuels. Therefore, we strongly recommend expanding this policy option to turn it into operational ship CO2 standards.
Read full response

Response to ReFuelEU Aviation - Sustainable Aviation Fuels

21 Apr 2020

NABU supports the introduction of a mandate for specific sustainable advanced fuels in the aviation sector, but only if certain conditions are met for such a mandate to provide both a clear environmental benefit and investor certainty. They include, but are not limited to, the exclusion of food & feed crops and waste-based fossil fuels, safeguards to ensure emission reductions promised are delivered and that the level of the mandate is set following a credible assessment of the limits of available feedstocks, taking into account existing competing uses. A mandate should be structured as a GHG reduction target to incentivise fuels which deliver the greatest emission reductions. Any support for sustainable advanced fuels,in whatever form, must support those fuels which can deliver the greatest emission reductions and which are furthest from market deployment, and therefore most in need of regulatory support. A mandate should target only sustainable amounts of waste and residues (w&r) based advanced biofuels and efuels. Strict criteria are needed for the fuels considered, with support given to those fuels which both deliver the greater emission reductions and which are furthest from market deployment (e.g. cellulosic and efuels). Any measures should neither result in demand for additional w&r based alternative fuels beyond the existing targets that were deemed sustainable in the RED recast because of the limited feedstock availability, nor in the widening of the RED definition of ‘advanced biofuels’, already quite problematic. NABU does not support the continued use of a multiplier, which is unnecessary if a mandate is introduced, and which risks transferring the cost of decarbonising aviation onto other fuel users. NABU supports a central auctioning system provided that the revenues for the system are derived from the aviation sector, for example through the abolition of free allowances under EU ETS. Prioritisation is important, for example prioritising efuels for the aviation sector. However, support for fuels developed from w&r feedstocks should not create disincentives to reduce waste or reuse certain feedstocks, which would go against the waste hierarchy. For municipal waste, only the biowaste separately collected should be considered. We regret that carbon pricing is not included in the list of measures. Carbon pricing is a core element of European climate policy, is included in the European Green Deal and can help close the price gap between currently untaxed fossil jet fuel and sustainable advanced fuels. The ability of different sustainable advanced fuels to reduce aviation’s non-CO2 effects should be carefully considered, and a clear distinction made between which fuels are able to bring about the greater reduction in these effects. Sustainability criteria While there may not be the need to develop “specific sustainability criteria for aviation”, as the IIA suggests, it should be recognised that the existing sustainability criteria in the RED are insufficient due for instance to the inclusion of unsustainable feedstocks in Annex IX and the absence of accounting displacement effects. This initiative should therefore review and strengthen these general criteria, and should ensure effective sustainability criteria for efuels. If fuels are imported from outside the EU, it will be challenging to ensure that sustainability criteria is adhered to, for example that the renewable electricity used to produce efuels is truly additional or that imported UCO does not cause indirect displacement effects. NGOs and experts outside of Europe should be included in future consultations. This initiative needs an evaluation of which fuels can be scaled up to bring about a decarbonisation of aviation, and focus resources on supporting those fuels, such as efuels, rather than focusing on fuels which lack the ability to be scaled up in a meaningful manner (such as HEFA from waste oils).
Read full response

Response to 2030 Climate Target Plan

15 Apr 2020

NABU welcomes the initaitive’s objective to propose an increased climate target for 2030. According to IPCC the next 5 to 10 years are crucial in emission reduction and climate action. 2020 needs to be the turning point to deliver on emission reductions and to keep global warming limited to 1,5°C. A 50 - 55 per cent reduction, as proposed in the Communication of the European Green Deal, will not be enough to fill the large emission gap of 15 TgCO2 in order to meet the Paris Agreement target and keep global warming at 1,5°C (UNEP, 2019). Furthermore, modelling by the European Climate Foundation (2019) has shown that addressing demand-side drivers of climate change will allow a 65% reduction to be achieved whilst reducing pressure on biodiversity. NABU advocates for extending the assessment of increasing the 2030 EU GHG reductions target to 60 – 65 % below 1990 levels without offsetting. Europe is one of the top greenhouse gas emitters worldwide, and with historical responsibility needs to act faster than other countries in the world. However, Europe cannot save the world alone. It needs to ensure increasing its efforts well before the postponed COP26, to encourage third countries to step up efforts, too. NABU asks for the assessment to include: - Impacts of energy sufficiency and energy efficiency and nature compatible infrastructure needs from RES, considering the role of a healthy, resilient ecosystems against fighting climate change and considering cumulative impacts of human activities on nature - how the 2030 climate target can keep global warming limited to 1,5 °C, through a pathway for 2040 and climate-neutrality well before 2050 - the impact consumption and land uses have on climate, energy, transportation and industry - how the EU can increase CO2-absorptions in a short period of time, including investing in natural sinks, nature based solutions and the restoration, protection and maintenance of ecosystems and how to limit the role of biomass-based products. - the scale of investment required, looking at how to avoid lock-in and stranded assets, such as fossil gas infrastructure - macro-economic implications of the costs of inaction The environmental impacts of this initiative should address the issue of the twin biodiversity and climate crisis and the fight against it. Therefore it needs to measure only joint solutions. Furthermore it should also address destructive practices that damage ecosystem functioning. The initiative should ultimately not only access to which extent revenue recycling, but also waste prevention and the circular economy as a whole could be revised to achieve higher ambitions responsibly.
Read full response

Response to Revision of the Energy Tax Directive

1 Apr 2020

The planned revision of the Energy Taxation Directive is an excellent carbon pricing tool, which could help putting the transport sector back on track to achieving climate neutrality by 2050. If deployed in the right way, ETD can help influencing sustainable investment choices by sending right pricing signals. ETD should thereby reflect external costs related to C02 impact by applying the Polluter Pays Principle. Against this background, NABU advocates for the following sector-specific changes to be made to ETD: Aviation: According to the Commissions’ report from 2019 a kerosene tax would cut aviation emissions by 11% while having no major repercussions on the EU’s economy. A kerosene tax set at EU minimum levels of taxation of 33 cents/liter for intra-EU flights would generate an additional 9.2 billion Euros a year to the EU countries budgets. These revenues could be reinvested for the purposes of a just transition and to encourage growth in sustainable transport modes and green energy. NABU therefore favors the following policy instruments to be included in the ETD revision: • Ending tax exemption for kerosene for all intra-EU routes and flights departing from Europe • Ensuring that ETS and EU Emission Trading System are fully extended to the aviation sector • Promoting bilateral or multilateral kerosene taxation agreements between Member States Shipping: The shipping industry is still benefitting from tax exemptions worth 24 billion Euros a year, with marine fuel being currently exempt from taxation according to Art 14 of the EU Energy Tax Directive. Nevertheless, EU ETS for this sector – and in contrast to other modes of transport in particular road transport - is a very effective carbon pricing tool, which could be supplemented by an EU-wide fuel tax, in our view. The practice of bunkering at cheaper fueling ports however would make a fuel tax alone (if it was to replace ETS) an ineffective way of carbon pricing and lead to tax avoidance. All EU-related shipping should therefore be included in the EU ETS. Road transport We advocate for the following policy changes: • C02 impact must be reflected in taxation rates for diesel, petrol and natural by harmonizing diesel and petrol taxes: Current legislation differentiates minimum tax rates between diesel and petrol, with diesel taxes being 10-40% lower than petrol taxes. These gaps in tax levels can no longer be justified today and should therefore be eliminated. Tax rates must be relative to C02 emissions per liter or energy content. • Establishing minimum natural gas tax rates for CNG &LNG use • End fuel tourism for trucks by tracking fuel consumption within one state and distance travelled through the tachograph, so that hauliers pay the adequate taxes due in each respective jurisdiction • Tax biofuels based on their C02 impact • Keep fuel taxes linked to inflation Legislative instruments The unanimity rule has proven ineffective in dealing with disagreements between Member States in the past, which is why we are strongly advocating for it to be replaced by the ordinary legislative procedure.
Read full response

Response to Access to Justice in Environmental matters

30 Mar 2020

Dear Madame/Sir, As an organisation working on protecting the environment we know about the importance of access to justice for ensuring compliance with EU law and to address the ecological crisis, both at Member State and EU level. We therefore very much welcome the European Commission consultation on the Roadmap. We would like to stress the following points: A. Revision of the Aarhus Regulation Amending the Aarhus Regulation to broaden its scope and effective review mechanisms is the only way of ensuring compliance with the Aarhus Convention. The Commission should cover the following when amending the Aarhus Regulation: • Include acts and omissions of general scope, to not only being limited to legislative acts. The category of administrative acts thereby needs to be extended to all non-legislative regulatory acts. Limiting the scope to administrative acts that do not entail implementing measures does not provide effective access to justice. • Ensure that the scope is amended to include all acts that contradict the EU’s environmental law. The amendment would fall short when only referring to acts that positively contribute to EU’s environmental law. • Clarify that any act that is “legally binding” is included in the scope of the future Aarhus Regulation, instead of sticking to the recent and unclear criteria foreseeing that an act needs to be “external and legally binding”. • Narrow the derogations for administrative review bodies to ensure that also state aid decisions are included in the scope, and only procedures by the European Ombudsman, infringement procedures and OLAF proceedings to be excluded. • Ensure that costs are not prohibitive for applicants, to comply with Art. 9(4) Aarhus Convention. You could therefore clarify that EU bodies might not apply for costs exceeding a reasonable amount, and that the applicant doesn’t have to pay for the intervener. • Ensure an effective review of the challenged administrative act, by also enabling the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) to amend the challenged decision to bring immediate relief, wherever possible. B. Directive on Access to Justice in the Member States In 2003, the Commission was working on a proposal for a Directive on Access to Justice, but the proposal got abandoned. The jurisprudence of the CJEU unequivocally shows that there is a legal vacuum with respect to access to justice. In the absence of legislation at EU level, there is not only a persisting lack of legal certainty and, thus, predictability for investors, but the CJEU will also need to repeatedly interpret the Aarhus Convention in lengthy rulings. In general there is widespread failure of the Member States to provide adequate remedies and large disparities in the extent to which civil society can challenge decisions of public authorities. We therefore call on the Commission to re-start working on an ambitious Access to Justice Directive, focusing inter alia on the following: • Ensure a legal framework to bring all Member States in line with the provisions of the Art. 9(3) and 9(4) Aarhus Convention. • Thereby foresee standards ensuring effectiveness, a broad scope, timeliness and non-prohibitive costs of any remedy taken. • Work on an Access to Justice Directive should be opened to further consultation of the public. A final call: Access to justice activities from organisations like ours (unfortunately) more and more seem to replace missing implementation and enforcement work done by authorities automatically. We therefore want to stress that public authorities at Member State and EU level need to remain the last line of defence. We also call on the Commission to address the serious issue of under-staffing of the compliance bodies within the Commission. This is necessary to deliver effective access to justice at EU level and to avoid that the “zero tolerance” approach in the field of environmental compliance promised by Ursula von der Leyen remains an empty promise. Yours sincerely, R. Weyland
Read full response

Response to Farm to Fork Strategy

13 Mar 2020

Der NABU begrüßt die Pläne der Kommission für eine Farm-to-Fork Strategie und die Intention diese in Kohärenz mit dem Green Deal (v.a. der Biodiversitätsstrategie) zu entwickeln. Damit diese den Übergang zu nachhaltigen Lebensmittelsystemen beschleunigen kann, u.a. mittels der in der Roadmap genannten GAP und GFP, muss die ökologische Nachhaltigkeit die Basis für das weitere Handeln sein. Gesunde Ökosysteme sind die Grundlage der Nahrungsproduktion. Die jetzige Wirtschaftsweise bedroht diese Grundlagen. Von nun an müssen die planetaren Grenzen der Ausgangspunkt aller wirtschaftlicher Aktivitäten sein. Wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse zeigen, dass die GAP und die GFP bislang nicht ökologisch nachhaltig sind, v.a., weil sie noch immer umweltschädliche Aktivitäten subventionieren. Wir begrüßen, dass die Kommission anerkennt, dass die gegenwärtige Landwirtschaft einen Haupttreiber für den Verlust biologischer Vielfalt, eine wichtige Quelle für THG-Emissionen und Wasserverschmutzung darstellt. Das Ziel, ein Nahrungsmittelsystem ohne oder mit positiven Umweltauswirkungen zu erreichen, ist folgerichtig. Wir befürworten, dass die Strategie den Einsatz von Düngemitteln und Pestiziden reduzieren soll. Ein spezifisches Reduktionsziel für den Pestizideinsatz pro ha bis 2030 um min. 30% ausgerichtet an der Toxizität und eine Reduktion der Düngung kann helfen das Artensterben zu stoppen und eine ausgeglichene Nährstoffbilanz zu erreichen. Leider adressiert die Roadmap Fischerei und Aquakultur als Haupttreiber für den Verlust der biologischen Vielfalt auf See zu wenig. Die Strategie muss die GFP und Aquakultur nachhaltig ausrichten. Fischbestände müssen sich erholen und wiederhergestellt werden, zerstörerische, nicht-selektive Fanggeräte müssen ersetzt und Beifang von Delfinen, Seevögeln oder Meeresschildkröten drastisch reduziert werden. Dazu gehört eine 100%ige Überwachung/Kontrolle der Fangflotten und die Umsetzung von Meeresschutzgebieten mit fischereifreien Zonen. Europas Aquakultur darf kein Treiber der Überfischung sein, ihre Zukunft liegt in geschlossenen, multitrophischen Systemen. Die Folgenden wichtigen Punkte fehlen in der Roadmap: • Die Durchsetzung von Umweltvorschriften in den Bereichen Landwirtschaft, Fischerei und Aquakultur muss sich in der Strategie wiederfinden – insbesondere die Umsetzung der Vogel- und FFH-Richtlinien, der Nitratrichtlinie, der Richtlinie zur nachhaltigen Verwendung von Pestiziden, der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie, der Luftqualitätsrichtlinie und der Meeresstrategie-Rahmenrichtlinie. • Um den Verlust der biologischen Vielfalt zu stoppen und degradierte Ökosysteme im Rahmen der Biodiversitätsstrategie wiederherzustellen, sollte die Strategie eine gesetzliche Verpflichtung für landwirtschaftliche Betriebe anstreben, 10% deren Fläche für grüne Infrastruktur bereitzustellen. Mindestens 15% des Seegebietes sollten frei von Fischerei- und Aquakulturaktivitäten sein. • Die Strategie muss den übermäßige Wasserverbrauch angehen, der hauptsächlich durch die Bewässerung in der Landwirtschaft verursacht wird. • Die Strategie muss sich mit dem Lebensmittelkonsum befassen. Nicht nur aufgrund von Fragen der Gesundheit, sondern weil wir Ressourcen verbrauchen, die über die Tragfähigkeit der Erde hinausgehen. Die Strategie muss eine Reduzierung der Produktion und des Verbrauchs von Fleisch, Milchprodukten und Fisch beinhalten, da deren Konsum in der EU weit über dem nachhaltigen Niveau und über den gesundheitlich empfohlenen Richtwerten liegt. Die Strategie sollte konkrete Zielmarken setzen, um den Verbrauch von Fleisch und Milchprodukten bis 2030 um 50% und von Fisch und Meeresfrüchten um 40% zu senken. Außerdem sollte der Anteil der Produktion und des Verbrauchs ökologisch produzierter Lebensmittel in 2030 bei 30% liegen. • Die Strategie sollte bestimmte Technologien wie „Precision Farming“ nicht automatisch als nachhaltig klassifizieren, da deren Auswirkungen je nach Anwendung positiv oder negativ sein können.
Read full response

Meeting with Karolina Herbout-Borczak (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides), Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and

19 Feb 2020 · Sustainable food systems

Meeting with Frauke Hoss (Cabinet of Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič) and European Environmental Bureau and Umweltorganisation WWF Central and Eastern Erurope

14 Feb 2020 · One-in One-out; Better regulation; REFIT

Response to Climate Law

6 Feb 2020

NABU welcomes the European Commission’s initiative for a Climate Law that makes the EU climate targets legally binding and underlines the commitment of the EU and its member states to the Paris climate targets. The success of the law will depend on the ability to deliver cuts of greenhouse gas emission in the short term, and on the effort to address the climate and biodiversity crises jointly. Therefore the Climate Law needs to embrace the following five asks: 1. Increase the EU’s emission reduction target to at least 60 %, better 65 % reduction below 1990 levels by 2030 (without offsetting). 2. Restoration and the protection of natural greenhouse gas sinks to restore 15 % of Member States territories and sea areas until 2030 through legislation and appropriate funding, in line with biodiversity. 3. Set dates for fossil fuel phase-out and ensure removal of legal barriers in EU law to do so and end fossil fuel subsidies. 4. Mainstream climate policy. 5. Commit to periodic review to check the EU’s targets, it’s strategies and policies to tackle the climate emergency. Set up an independent scientific body and a review mechanichm in line with the Paris Agreement and up to date with the EU long term strategy.
Read full response

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

23 Jan 2020 · biodiversity

Response to A new Circular Economy Action Plan

20 Jan 2020

Der Circular Economy Action Plan erkennt das Klima- und Ressourcenschutzpotenzial der Kreislaufwirtschaft. Dies ist wichtig und richtig. Eine Entkopplung von Ressourcenverbrauch und Wirtschaftswachstum ist jedoch nicht das geeignete Erfolgskriterium, denn bislang fehlt der empirische Beweis, dass eine Entkopplung angesichts von Rebound- und Verlagerungseffekten tatsächlich möglich ist. Um das volle Potential für den Ressourcenschutz auszuschöpfen, bedarf es stattdessen verbindlicher absoluter Reduktionsziele für den Ressourcenverbrauch. Als Ziel sollte die EU festlegen, ihren Ressourcenverbrauch und den damit verknüpften ökologischen Fußabdruck bis 2030 zu halbieren. Dies muss mit verbindlichen Vorgaben zur Verringerung des Abfallaufkommens einhergehen, denn eine umfassende Kreislaufwirtschaft ist nur mit Abfallvermeidung und Wiederverwendung, gekoppelt mit Recycling, möglich. Hierzu sollten auch fiskalische Instrumente wie Ressourcensteuern eingesetzt werden. Ressourcenschonung und Abfallvermeidung müssen die Leitprinzipien der EU-Produktpolitik sein. Hierfür sollte zum einen die erweiterte Produzentenverantwortung ausgebaut werden. Zum anderen muss gesetzlich erreicht werden, dass ausschließlich Produkte auf den europäischen Markt kommen, die langlebig, reparierbar, wiederverwendbar, vollständig recyclingfähig und schadstofffrei sind. Eine unmittelbare Maßnahme sollte sein, Smartphones in den Ökodesign-Prozess aufzunehmen. Maßnahmen zur hochwertigen Abfallverwertung müssen über eine umfassende Getrenntsammlung von Abfällen hinausgehen. Das Beispiel des Kunststoffrecyclings zeigt, dass es klare Vorgaben für ein Design for Recycling braucht und die Nachfrage nach dem gewonnenen Recyclingmaterial aktiv gefördert werden muss. Hierfür muss zum einen die Qualität der Sortierung und des Recyclings weiter erhöht werden. Zum anderen ist eine Vorgabe für den verpflichtenden Einsatz von Rezyklaten notwendig. Solange im Preis für Primärrohstoffe nicht alle externen Kosten internalisiert sind, muss eine „minimal content“-Regel die Nachfrage nach Rezyklaten sicherstellen. Diese Erkenntnisse kann man auf andere Recyclingbestrebungen, z.B. von Textilien, übertragen. Die EU sollte das Engagement einzelner Vorreiterstaaten fördern und rechtlich ermöglichen. Ein Beispiel hierfür ist das französische Kreislaufwirtschaftsgesetz, das unter anderem quantitative Ziele für den Mehrweganteil bei Verpackungen und Verbote von in Plastik vorverpacktem Gemüse und Obst in Supermärkten und Einweggeschirr in der Gastronomie bei Verzehr vor Ort sowie mittelfristig ein Ende jeglicher Einweg-Plastikverpackungen vorsieht. Die EU sollte diese Maßnahmen als Benchmark für eigene Maßnahmen heranziehen. Der skandalöse Export von Abfällen in Staaten mit niedrigen oder nicht existenten Entsorgungs- und Verwertungsinfrastrukturen muss gestoppt werden. Abfälle müssen innerhalb der EU einer hochwertigen Verwertung zugeführt werden, statt in südostasiatische Ländern auf ungesicherten Deponien zu landen. Allerdings braucht es auch für den grenzüberschreitenden Verkehr von Abfällen innerhalb der EU ausreichend Kontrollmechanismen, um sicherzugehen, dass Abfälle hochwertig verwertet werden. Das Ziel müssen möglichst regionale Entsorgungsstrukturen sein. Hierfür braucht es einen koordinierten Plan für eine hochwertige regionale Abfallverwertung. Statt neue Müllverbrennungsanlagen zu bauen, müssen umfassende und funktionierende Getrenntsammelsysteme sowie Sortier- und Recyclinginfrastrukturen implementiert werden.
Read full response

Response to EU 2030 Biodiversity Strategy

20 Jan 2020

Thanks for opening this consultation on the Roadmap of the EU post-2020 Biodiversity Strategy. We are concerned that this consultation is only on the Roadmap, whereas the Strategy itself already now is being drafted. We hence give comments both on the Roadmap and the future Strategy itself. When looking at the Roadmap we clearly miss the chapter of ENFORCEMENT + implementation of existing EU Nature law (former target 1). When looking what lessons we can learn from the failure of the (still ongoing) 2020 EU Biodiversity Strategy (and the ongoing loss of biodiversity), we stress that the new EU Biodiversity strategy post-2020 should focus on the following: - make targets binding, i.a. have a follow-up legislation (regulation/directive) at EU level - have clear trajectories with interims steps (not only Midterm-Review, every 1-2 years) - start directly 2021, so that you have all the decade for halting biodiversity loss (with short deadlines for MS) - adress the drivers of biodiversity with binding targets (10% space for nature as unproductive area per farm) - have binding legislation for large-scale nature restoration at EU level focusing on climate-relevant peatlands, grasslands, forests, etc. See our indepth assessment on why the EU has failed in delivering on the current EU Biodiversity Strategy objectives: https://bit.ly/35O48ZU. In detail, for the EU Biodiversity Strategy post-2020 we ask for (and think that only by having proposed those concrete actions before Kunming the EU can be credibly "leading by example"): VISION • By 2030, 30% of EU land + EU sea areas is primarily managed for nature / biodiversity; • By 2030, the EU will have reversed the negative trends for common species, as measured by appropriate indicators such as those for common birds and butterflies. Across Europe, robust monitoring will have been put in place and indicators are developed for additional key taxonomic groups. TARGETS 1. ENFORCEMENT • Make the targets legally binding • Provide adequate capacity at the EC/MS level to enforce nature laws through an adequate increase in staff and financial capacities • Zero tolerance to illegal wildlife persecution, within + outside EU • Put in place a Natura 2000 surveillance system by 2025 2. MAKE EU AGRICULTURE COMPATIBLE WITH BIODIVERSITY • Give at least 10% of space for nature, and make it a condition at EU level for receiving EU agriculture subsidies • Reach 30% organic agricultural production • Introduce obligations for MS to protect their soils 3. MAKE EXTRACTION OF FISH+SEAFOOD COMPATIBLE WITH OCEANIC LIFE • Eliminate destructive fishing practices (bycatch of endangered species, non-selective fishing gear, etc.) • Ensure that fisheries are fully disclosed and surveilled • Limit forage fish catch to 2/3 of fishing mortality • Recover the historical range of top predators, including seabirds, as indicators for recovery of marine food chains • Forbid aquaculture fed with wild caught fish instead of vegetarian and insect-based feeds The strategy must also cross link with actions under the Farm to Fork Strategy and ensure that consumption patterns support policies to protect biodiversity. This includes the EU enabling a crucial reduction of fish consumption as well as reduction of meat and dairy consumption given the immense environmental impact of intensive livestock production on biodiversity 4. RESTORATION OF NATURE • Legally binding target for MS to restore 67 million hectares of natural habitats on land in the EU for biodiversity • Binding legislation with target to restore 15% of MS sea areas, by designating them as permanent no take zones or with regulated access • Plan afforestation in the context of the restoration agenda 5. BIODIVERSITY FUNDING • Deploy €21 billion/a for management of existing Natura 2000 network, and at least €1bn EUR/year for marine-based N2000 network • Mobilise €150 billion for restoration, as a minimum, to 2030
Read full response

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

8 Jan 2020 · European Green Deal and the planed implementation of circular economy and biodiversity initiatives of the European Commission

Response to Update of the list of Invasive Alien Species of Union concern

4 Apr 2019

NABU supports the IAS Regulation and urges the Commission to continue the chosen approach by updating the corresponding list of invasive non-native species. IAS pose massive threat to biodiversity so urgent and common action is required. NABU is disappointed that by now the American mink has not been put to the list for commercial reasons, as the scientific risk assessment was very clear about the American mink being a threat for biodiversity.
Read full response

Response to High and low Indirect Land-Use Change (ILUC) - risks biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels

26 Feb 2019

NABU expresses its serious concern about the Delegated Act regarding high and low-ILUC risk biofuels. NABU reads the specific articles in the Renewable Energy Directive of 2018 as a clear mandate to limit the support to food-based biofuels after 2020 and end the support to biofuels which cause a significant expansion of the production into land with high-carbon stock (the so called high-ILUC risk biofuels) by 2030 the latest. The draft delegated act is not strong enough to fulfil this mandate and needs to be strengthened. If it is not strengthened, we see a clear risk that this act could lead to an increase in exactly those biofuels, that we are trying to phase out in the first place. The European Commission commissioned a study (Globiom) that showed that biodiesel from palm oil is 3 times worse for the climate than regular diesel while soy oil diesel is 2 times worse, these findings need to be reflected to be able to fulfil the emisssion saving goals of the Renewable Energy Directive (especially recital 2: referring to the Paris Climate Change Agreement and the Union's binding target to reduce Emissions by 40% by 2030). Palm oil consumption keeps increasing because of biodiesel. In Germany in 2017, the majority of imported palm oil (46,5%) is turned into biofuels (which meant an increase between 2016 and 2017 of almost 18%). In Europe, around 4 million tonnes of crude palm oil is used to produce diesel, making drivers the top (albeit unaware) consumers of palm oil in Europe. Based on the most recent data, a briefing by our umbrella organisation (NGO Transport & Environment) concluded that soy and palm as well as their co-products should be included in the category of high ILUC risk biofuels associated with significant expansion on high carbon stock land and to be phased out of the renewable targets. Regarding the low ILUC risk category, T&E concluded that the available evidence at that stage did not provide for a workable and sufficiently robust system for certification and recommended to close the door to this option for high ILUC risk biofuels. Based on the above arguments, NABU recommends the following elements to strengthen the Commission's proposed delegated act: -On the high ILUC Risk Biofuels: The Commission should strengthen its interpretation of the word "signficant" coming from the RED mandate (determining the high indirect land-use change-feedstock for which "significant" expansion of the production into land with high-carbon stock is observed). We therefore prefer to see a lower threshold than the proposed 10% increase into high carbon stock land so as to include other major problematic biofuels such as the one being made from soy (especially knowing that 8% of its expansion took place on land with high carbon stocks since 2008). Palm and soy have been identified as forest risk commodities in various initiatives (e.g. Amsterdam Declaration) and classifying soy as ‘high ILUC risk’ would be in line with these initiatives. -On the low ILUC risk criteria, we find the derogations to be too vague and we therefore fear an almost business as usual scenario. Especially the provisions regarding ‘unused’ land and smallholders are extremely worrysome. We would therefore prefer that the Commission excludes from the low-ILUC Risk Biofuels, all the feedstocks categorised as high-ILUC risk.
Read full response

Response to Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on habitats, landscapes and biodiversity

6 Dec 2018

Der Naturschutzbund Deutschland e.V. (NABU) begrüßt ausdrücklich, dass die Europäische Kommission diese längst überfällige Untersuchung angestoßen hat, ein Schritt, welchen die europäischen Umwelt-NGOs und andere Akteure (u.a. die REFIT-Plattform) bereits seit längerem anmahnen. Aus diesem Grund sind wir gerne bereit diesen Prozess konstruktiv zu begleiten. Um sicherzustellen, dass diese Evaluation möglichst umfassend und vor allem vollständig ist und die Auswirkungen der GAP auf natürliche Lebensräume, Landschaft und Biodiversität realistisch abbilden kann, sollten aus Sicht des NABU folgende Elemente und Bedingungen enthalten bzw. erfüllt werden: 1. Die Auswirkungen der GAP auf die Treiber des Verlusts der biologischen Vielfalt, insbesondere auf folgende Bereiche: a) Direkte Landnutzungsänderung u.a. von natürlichen Lebensräumen und die Zerstörung / Pflege / Wiederherstellung von Landschaftselementen b) Intensivierung der Bewirtschaftung (einschließlich über die Viehdichte, vermehrtes Mähen von Wiesen und vermehrte Bodenbearbeitung) c) Wasserverbrauch d) Pestizideinsatz e) Verwendung von Düngemitteln f) Nährstoff- und Pestizideintrag in Ökosysteme, einschließlich Gewässer und angrenzende natürliche Lebensräume g) Bejagung von Wildtieren 2. Beurteilung der Auswirkungen der innerhalb der GAP erfolgten Subventionsprogramme u.a. a. Auf aquatische Lebensräume durch stoffliche Einträge aus der Landwirtschaft b. Berücksichtigung von Effekten außerhalb der EU allen voran durch die Nachfrage nach Futtermitteln für die Viehzucht 3. Auswirkungen einzelner Instrumente der GAP auf die Untersuchungsgegenstände: a. Direktzahlungen b. Zahlungen im Zusammenhang mit dem „Greening“ der 1.Säule c. Gekoppelte Zahlungen (separat nach Sektor) d. Ausgleichzahlungen für benachteiligte Gebiete e. Investitionshilfen aus dem ELER f. Agrar-Umweltmaßnahmen g. Zahlungen im Zusammenhang mit Natura 2000 4. Untersuchung des Einflusses sonstiger Regelungen innerhalb der GAP, die mindestens die folgenden Punkte mit einschließt a. Förderungsbedingungen - die Auswirkungen von Definitionen wie etwa für die von Dauergrünland, sowie mögliche Effekte durch die Pflicht, Flächen in einem betriebsbereiten Zustand zu erhalten b. Auswirkungen der EU-Erweiterungen und der damit einhergehenden Einführung der GAP auf die biologische Vielfalt in den neuen Mitgliedstaaten 5. GAP und Datenerhebung: Wir erwarten eine Untersuchung, ob und inwieweit die GAP zu einer angemessenen Erhebung, Sammlung und Nutzung von Daten und Nachweisen zum Zustand der Biodiversität beiträgt (z.B. zu Schutzgebieten, Überwachung von Landnutzungsänderungen), einschließlich durch LPIS, IACS und die Überwachung und Bewertung von Agrarumweltprogrammen. 6. Bewertungsverfahren, Methoden und Transparenz: a) Stellen Sie sicher, dass Wissenschaftler und Experten ordnungsgemäß und separat im Rahmen des Fitness-Checks konsultiert werden. Mehrere Wissenschaftler waren bereits an einer separaten Untersuchung beteiligt, in der über 800 Publikationen aufgelistet und als potenziell relevant für die Evaluation der GAP eingestuft wurden (siehe Link zur vollständigen Datenbank: https://idata.idiv.de/DDM/Data/ShowData) / 248). Weitere Informationen finden Sie hier: https://www.idiv.de/web/cap_fitness_check.html b) So weit wie möglich sollten wissenschaftlichen Untersuchungen, die einem peer-review Verfahren unterlaufen sind, herangezogen werden. c) Verwendung zusätzlicher Interviews mit Experten zur Ermittlung einschlägiger grauer Literatur und zur Entwicklung eines Verständnisses für Fehlentwicklungen, die möglicherweise nicht in amtlichen Daten erfasst werden d) Angemessene Berücksichtigung der Ergebnisse dieses Fitness Checks in der neuen Förderperiode insbesondere während der Absprache mit den Mitgliedstaaten im Rahmen der Erstellung der Strategiepläne und im Genehmigungsverfahren für dieselben.
Read full response

Response to Multiannual Financial Framework - CAP Strategic Plans

2 Aug 2018

Der NABU möchte diese Gelegenheit nutzen, um seine Unzufriedenheit mit der Art und Weise zum Ausdruck zu bringen, wie bereits erfolgte öffentliche Konsultationen und andere Beiträge, insbesondere wissenschaftliche Beweise, im Hinblick auf den GAP-Reformprozess ignoriert wurden. Während der öffentlichen Konsultation 2017 forderten über 258.000 Bürger, die rund 80% der Antworten vertraten, einen radikalen Umbau der GAP hin zu mehr Nachhaltigkeit. Diese Antworten wurden jedoch im Wesentlichen missachtet oder zumindest nicht in die offizielle Analyse (durchgeführt von Ecorys) aufgenommen. Dies verstößt eindeutig gegen die EU-Leitlinien für bessere Rechtsetzung. Diesen zu Folge müssen Antworten aus Kampagnen analysiert und zusammengefasst werden(Better Regulation Toolbox # 54, S. 419). Es gibt keinen Grund, eine persönlich eingereichte Antwort eines EU-Bürgers zu ignorieren, nur weil sie durch eine öffentliche Kampagne angeregt wurde. In dem Sie das zu tun, lehnen Sie die Antworten einzelner EU-Bürger schlicht ab. Wie sich herausstellte, zeigten die offiziell analysierten Antworten der Befragten, einschließlich die der Landwirten, eine starke Präferenz dafür, dass die GAP mehr für den Umwelt- und Klimaschutz tun muss. Die Art und Weise, in der die Ergebnisse, auch von Kommissar Hogan, dagegen als Bestätigung der Direktzahlungen präsentiert wurden, ist grob irreführend. All das trägt zum allgemeinen Bild bei, dass es bei der GAP eher um politische Interessen statt um Bürgerwünsche und wissenschaftliche Fakten geht. Dies zeigt sich auch durch die politische Entscheidung der Kommission, keinen REFIT-konformen Fitnesscheck der GAP durchzuführen, obwohl dies von der Plattform des REFIT-Interessenträgers und vielen NGOs gefordert wurde. Gleichzeitig hat die Kommission einen Großteil des EU-Umweltrechts dem REFIT-Prozess unterworfen. Unzählige Studien, darunter jüngst ein unabhängiger „Schatten“-Fitness Check haben gezeigt, dass die GAP bei den meisten Kriterien der besseren Rechtssetzung-Richtlinien geradeaus versagt. Dass die GAP von der offiziellen Prüfung ausgeschlossen wurde, zeigt dies eine Voreingenommenheit bei der Entscheidungsfindung, die letztendlich die Legitimität der ganzen EU beschädigt. Trotz allem verkaufen Kommission und Mitgliedstaaten die GAP als eine umweltverträgliche Politik. Die überwältigende wissenschaftliche Beweislage und sogar die eigenen Untersuchungen der Europäischen Umweltagentur über den Zustand der Umwelt weisen auf das Gegenteil hin: Die intensive Landwirtschaft, befördert durch die GAP, ist die treibende Kraft für den Verlust der Artenvielfalt und an natürlichen Lebensräumen in der EU. Ganz zu schweigen von den anderen Umweltbelastungen, die durch die intensive Landwirtschaft verursacht werden: von der Wasserentnahme zur Bewässerung; die Verschmutzung des Wassers durch Düngemittel und andere Agrochemikalien; über die Degradierung und Verschmutzung von Böden; die Luftverschmutzung durch Ammoniak und Methan; hin zum Beitrag zu den THG-Emissionen. Der NABU hat aktiv an den Konsultationen der EU zur GAP teilgenommen. Wir hätten erwartet, dass unsere Ansichten und Argumentation ernst genommen und zusammen mit den besten verfügbaren wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen in den Vorschlägen der Kommission berücksichtigt worden wären. Es scheint jedoch, dass der GAP-Reformprozess überwiegend von anderen Interessen, insbesondere von der Lobby der intensiven Landwirtschaft, beeinflusst wird. Da die Ergebnisse der öffentlichen Konsultation diesen Interessen nicht entsprachen, wurden sie entweder ignoriert oder falsch dargestellt. Die aktuelle Konsultation erscheint uns daher als blanker Hohn. Warum sollte dieser Beitrag diesmal ernst genommen werden? Um die Legitimität des Konsultationsprozesses wiederherzustellen und somit die Beteiligung von Vertretern des öffentlichen Interesses zu fördern wäre es erforderlich, die EU-Leitlinien für eine bessere Rechtsetzung transparent und einheitlich zu befolgen.
Read full response

Response to Reducing marine litter: action on single use plastics and fishing gear

24 Jul 2018

NABU welcomes the EU Commission’s initiative to tackle the problems caused by single-use plastic products with a separate directive, and the bans it proposes in this context. According to a study commissioned by NABU and carried out by the GVM, a market research institute specialising in packaging, disposable tableware and single-use food and beverage containers intended either for on-the-spot or takeaway consumption accounted for 105,524 tonnes of plastic waste in Germany in 2017 (www.NABU.de/einweg). NABU endorses the introduction of regulations to address the issue. In Germany, as in other countries, too much plastic waste ends up in nature; collected waste is only rarely recycled and, given the availability of more environmentally friendly reusable alternatives, it is obvious that vast amounts of natural resources are being wasted. For NABU, however, the directive should not only aim to replace plastics; it ought to promote waste prevention in general. The Commission otherwise risks causing even more environmental damage by triggering a steep increase in the consumption of bio-based materials including paper. NABU therefore calls on the EU Commission to ensure the new directive combines bans on single-use plastic itmes with other measures to reduce single-use options in general: • The directive has to underline the priority of waste prevention (EU waste hierarchy) instead of promoting other single-use materials. • The directive ought to define EU-wide binding targets to cut the use of disposable tableware and single-use containers intended for on-the-spot or takeaway consumption, irrespective of the materials they are made from. Otherwise, there will only be substitution effects, and member States will hardly implement measures of extended producer responsibility for items that are not covered by the ban. • The term “sustainable alternatives” needs to be more specific and should be restricted to reusable alternatives. Bio-based and so called bio-degradable plastics have to be included in bans and targets because they (currently) aren’t more eco-friendly regarding the problem of marine litter. Paper-based packages for food and beverages are made of fresh fibre and are used to be plastic-laminated. From a holistic environmental perspective, paper items aren’t more eco-friendly than plastics or even worse (see LCA of paper bags). • The EU Commission has to prevent companies simply switching between materials on the one hand and products on the other hands: the current proposal would ban plastic “plates”, but not “food containers”. This loophole allows distributors of plastic plates to legally switch to more resource-intensive single-use takeaway containers. There is already too much paper, paperboard and cardboard being used for the production of disposable tableware and single-use food and beverage containers for takeaway. They contribute a significant 220,000 tonnes to the total volume of waste generated in Germany (NABU/GVM 2018). NABU therefore uges the EU Commission to promote reusable alternatives including deposit and return systems: • Customers must be given the option to use their own reusable cups and containers for beverages and takeaway meals everywhere. • There should be a levy on single-use options to offer financial incentives for takeaways and other distributors to set up their own deposit and return systems for reusable alternatives. • Reduced VAT rates on takeaway offers (in Germany on meals and milk beverages) have to be abolished. • The use of reusable tableware, cutlery, cups, etc. has to be mandatory when serving guests on the premises (fast-food restaurants, office buildings, trade fairs and sports events, etc.). • Local authorities should be obliged to make the provision of reusables mandatory at public events and to include it as a stipulation in their public procurement contracts. They should have the right to ban locally specific items, or put a local levy.
Read full response

Response to EU implementation of the Aarhus Convention in the area of access to justice in environmental matters

4 Jun 2018

NABU believes that the amendment of the Aarhus Regulation is the only way for the EU to bring compliance with international law obligations.
Read full response

Response to Post 2020 light vehicle CO2 Regulation(s)

12 Mar 2018

The current proposal is by far too weak and will not be suitable to meet both EU and national climate targets. The level of ambition lacks behind CO2 reduction goals as agreed under the Paris agreement and will definitely not help to ensure that the transport sector is adequately adressed when it comes to overarching mitigation startegies. At the same time there is no way other sectors such as energy, buildings or agriculture will overcompensate the greenhouse gas emissions from transport. Also the proposal leaves the member states with the obligation to fulfil their respective national climate targets with various additional measures that will create a patchwork situation instead of a more coherent EU transport policy. Germany e.g. has implemented a goal of 40-42% GHG savings from the transport sector by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. Our analysis shows that the current limit values for cars and vans likewise are far from meeting this trajectory. Therefore a strong CO2 limit value as well as a binding ZEV mandate (including malus) is urgently needed to fulfill this objective. According to our data limit values of 70 g/km WLTP by 2025 and a range of 35-45 g/km under real world conditions by 2030 are needed to meet Germany's national climate targets. These absolute numbers transfer to -30% by 2025 already and -70% by 2030. The German EPA calculated very similar requirements. Due to the transition from the current test procedure to WLTP (that comes at some improvements) it is feared that percentage based reduction targets could lead to reduced improvements regarding real world CO2 emissions and bring additional complexity and uncertainties - not only for us environmentalists but also the industry. We therefore suggest to introduce a not to exceed threshold to make sure that real world fuel consumption figures do not deviate too much from actual legal requirements as it is currently the case with round about 40% difference between paper and reality. Also the regulation should encompass the development of a real world test procedure for CO2 emissions in the lead-up time to 2030 which will then become mandatory and replace the WLTP where still loopholes are expectied to be massively exploited over time. One particular point that differentiates this update of the EU's CO2 regulation from previous amendments is the fact that we are at a tipping point technology-wise. Emobility is just around the corner and the regulation for new passenger cars and vans should not only reflect that but also be regarded as an enabler to this technology transition. While the reduction targets of the past had to be linear over time now the legislator should opt for a much more steep pathway. This will be a significant boost for new technologies and the uptake of zero emission vehicles with respective implications for infrastructure, production, jobs and values creation. In short: Environmental policy can be a kick-starter for progressive industry policy here as well. On vans: It is not evident why the Commission's own assessment does show that a -40% goal would be the best case scenario while the proposal then goes back to -30%. The former target as well as a mandatory ZEV mandate should be the minimum requirement for vans. In the long run fuel or energy consumption thresholds for cars and vans should be swapped to LCA-based energy efficiency standards as to ensure that electric cars will also have to become as much energy efficient as they can. The future regulation should therefore take this aspect into account already today.
Read full response

Meeting with Daniel Calleja Crespo (Director-General Environment)

31 Jan 2018 · LIFE, CAP

Meeting with Baudouin Baudru (Cabinet of Commissioner Marianne Thyssen) and Confederation of Family Organisations in the European Union

28 Jan 2018 · Multiannual Financial Framework

Meeting with Christiane Canenbley (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan)

3 May 2017 · Future of the CAP

Meeting with Günther Oettinger (Commissioner)

3 May 2017 · MFF

Meeting with Juergen Mueller (Cabinet of Vice-President Karmenu Vella)

3 May 2017 · Follow-up Nature Action Plan and greening of the Common Agricultural Policy

Response to Changes to greening rules and clarifications of certain other direct payments' rules

11 Jan 2017

Die gegenwärtige Regelung, Pestizide auf Ökologischen Vorrangflächen (ÖVF) zuzulassen, ist paradox und widerspricht dem Ziel der ÖVF, denn dort soll explizit die Biodiversität erhalten und gefördert werden. Ein generelles Pestizid-Verbot auf Greening-Flächen muss daher selbstverständlich sein! Die Art und Weise, wie die ÖVF letztendlich nach den Verhandlungen in Brüssel, der Programmierung in den Mitgliedsstaaten und der Anwendung durch die Landwirte auf den Flächen umgesetzt werden, liefert keine langfristigen positiven Effekte für die Biodiversität, insbesondere nicht in der EU-weiten Dimension, die man sich ursprünglich vom Greening versprochen hat. Damit widerspricht die Pestizidanwendung auf ÖVF klar dem Prinzip "öffentliche Gelder für öffentliche Leistungen". Über die Anerkennung des Leguminosenanbaus als ÖVF lässt sich trefflich streiten, er sollte im Rahmen einer nachhaltigen Landwirtschaft eigentlich eine Selbstverständlichkeit sein. Wenn überhaupt, dann macht eine Anerkennung aber ohnehin nur dann Sinn, wenn der Anbau ohne Pestizidanwendung stattfindet.
Read full response

Meeting with Christiane Canenbley (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan)

16 Nov 2016 · Preparation of panel discussion on the Future of the Cap

Meeting with Juergen Mueller (Cabinet of Vice-President Karmenu Vella)

17 Mar 2016 · Nature REFIT, Marine Protected Areas, Agriculture and Environment