Umanotera, The Slovenian Foundation for Sustainable Development
Umanotera
Umanotera, The Slovenian Foundation for Sustainable Development has been the leading NGO in the field of sustainable development in Slovenia since it’s beginning 30 years ago.
ID: 686987020139-41
Lobbying Activity
Response to Roadmap towards Nature Credits
30 Sept 2025
V mreži nevladnih organizacij za trajnostni razvoj Plan B za Slovenijo, ki jo koordinira Umanotera, Slovenska fundacija za trajnostni razvoj podpiramo prizadevanja, da se na ravni EU iščejo možnosti za financiranje obnove narave, saj to predstavlja veliko oviro pri učinkoviti implementaciji Uredbe (EU) 2024/1991 o obnovi narave. Sami koraki, ki so zastavljeni v dokumentu, se zdijo smiselni začetni koraki, vendar pa smo do koncepta, ki naj bi zagotovil manjkajoče financiranje narave, zadržani. Sam dokument je dokaj nekoherenten, mestoma pomanjkljiv in daje vtis, da naravo in trg postavlja kot enakovredni vrednoti. Čeprav je proces monetizacije narave globalno v teku že nekaj časa, pa menimo, da monetizacija ni združljiva z naravo skupnega dobra, kar narava in njeni ekosistemi za človeštvo so in obstaja bojazen, da bo s tem skupno dobro ogroženo. Strinjamo se z ugotovitvami o pomenu narave in potrebnosti njene obnove v EU. Vendar ima EU primarno na voljo druge vire financiranja preusmeritev naravi škodljivih subvencij v obnovo (države članice EU usmerjajo med 34 in 48 milijard EUR v aktivnosti, ki škodujejo naravi (poročilo WWF, Can your money do better?). Strinjamo se, da so tisti, ki s svojimi aktivnostmi pomembno prispevajo k ohranjanju in obnavljanju narave, nagrajeni tudi na trgu. Vendar pa predstavlja certificiranje posameznih aktivnosti parcialno in razdrobljeno, predvsem pa neustrezen mehanizem za subjekte, ki celovito uresničujejo cilje trajnostnega razvoja. Zaradi parcialnosti ukrepov spodbud so ti podvrženi številnim postopkom in birokraciji. Zagovarjamo celovito trajnostno delovanje in nagrajevanje tega. Za to pa bi bil bistveno boljši mehanizem krepitev nefinančnega poročanja podjetij. To omogoča, da podjetje skozi svoj celoten program delovanja uresničuje cilje trajnostnega razvoja, ne zgolj s posameznimi, projektnimi ukrepi. Revizije teh poročil pa bi morale zagotoviti kakovostno oceno napredka, tudi za področje obnove narave. Nagrajevanje parcialnih ukrepov obnove narave, ne pa celovito trajnostno delovanje, bo vodilo tudi k dodatni birokratizaciji narave. Obstaja tudi nevarnost, da se bodo podjetja posluževala ukrepov, ki so lahko dosegljivi, ne glede na to, ali jih celovitost obnove narave na določenem območju potrebuje ali ne. Dokument pa je sicer pomembno pomanjkljiv glede certificiranja, ki bo osnova za naravovarstvene dobropise, kar bi moralo biti jedro dokumenta. Dejansko samo poudari, da bo treba certificiranje izvesti skladno z vnaprej določenimi merili in načeli, postopek certificiranja pa bo moral potekati po strogih merilih, ki bodo zagotavljala neodvisnost, preglednost, preprečevanje nasprotja interesov, ločevanje vlog in zaščito pred zelenim zavajanjem. Dokument bi moral vsaj okvirno predstaviti načela za certificiranje ter preko kakšnih mehanizmov in struktur bi se lahko zagotavljali strogi pogoji postopkov na EU/nacionalni ravni. Za majhne države je je zagotavljanje integritete takih postopkov zaradi manjših kadrovskih bazenov, potencialno ogroženo, zato bi moral obstajati trden EU okvir, ki pa hkrati ne bi vnašal dodatnega birokratiziranja. Menimo, da bi moral dokument bolje zasnovati okvire za morebitno bodoče certificiranje, sicer bodo naravovarstveni dobropisi lahko le »odpustki« za izravnavo (offset) naravi škodljivih ravnanj, s katerimi se bo trgovalo na finančnih trgih. Dokument v celoti spregleda pomembnost trajnosti ukrepov, ki bodo »nagrajeni« z naravovarstvenimi dobropisi. Dosedanje prakse v okviru postopkov presoj vplivov na področju ohranjanja narave so pokazale, da je pogosto povsem opuščen nadzor nad nadaljnjim razvojem in upravljanjem izvedenih omilitvenih ali izravnalnih ukrepov.
Read full responseResponse to EU Civil Society Strategy
29 Aug 2025
Umanotera, Slovenska fundacija za trajnostni razvoj podaja komentar ko koordinator mreže 38 NVO za trajnostni razvoj Plan B za Slovenijo. Sprejem strategije zelo pozdravljamo, saj organizacije civilne družbe predstavljajo temeljne gradnike demokracije. Posebej organizacije na področju okolja so tiste, ki delujejo dolgoročno in s tem premoščajo demokratični deficit, ki ga povzročajo kratkoročno delujoči politiki na oblasti, ki se primarno ozirajo na čas njihovega mandata. Osnutek strategije govori o organizacijah civilne družbe le kot o zastopnikih različnih družbenih skupin. Vključiti pa je treba tudi pomemben del organizacij, ki se ukvarjajo z varstvom okolja, podnebnimi spremembami in varstvom biodiverzitete, ki ne zastopajo družbenih skupin, ampak si prizadevajo za ohranitev življenjskega okolja, ki bo naši družbi omogočil preživetje. To je povezano tudi z delovanjem organizacij, ki si prizadevajo za uveljavitev demokratičnih principov, pravne države, dostopa do informacij transparentnost odločanja in spoštovanje človekovih pravic na sistemski ravni. Te organizacije so najbolj na udaru kritik in diskreditiranja. Ker ne zastopajo specifičnih družbenih skupin pa tudi bistveno težje pridobivajo sredstva za svoje delo. Strinjamo se s splošnimi ugotovitvami strategije, da se je ravno na vsebinah EU vrednot sodelovanje javnosti poslabšalo. Za vsebinsko pomenljivo in ne samo formalno izvedeno, sodelovanje organizacij, je pomembna spodbuda EU, tudi v smislu postavljanja zahtev do države kot pogojev financiranja. Hkrati pa mora tudi sama EU s svojimi praksami sodelovanja po visokih standardih z organizacijami civilne družbe zgled za države. EU bi morala države spodbujati tudi k vsebinsko pomenljivemu sodelovanju z organizacijami civilne družbe v procesih sprejemanja odločitev in tudi stališč države do strategij in predpisov EU. Na področju okolja je 70 do 80 odstotkov sprejetih na ravni EU. Organizacije civilne družbe lahko sodelujejo v javnih razpravah (v odnosu do EU). Na nacionalni ravni pa država sprejema stališča do istih dokumentov, ki jih potem zastopa v organih EU torej gre za ključno (nacionalno) okoljsko odločanje, kjer pa organizacije civilne družbe sploh ne morejo sodelovati. Evropska okoljska agencija je že v poročilu o stanju okolja (State and Outlook 2020), da je nujno pri reševanju splošne okoljske, podnebne in biodiverzitetna krize za preobrazbo angažirati znanje in kapacitete celotne družbe, tudi ustvarjalnost in moč državljanov in lokalnih skupnosti. Organizacije civilne družbe so prav tiste, ki ta potencial angažirajo v dobro skupnosti. Ljudje imajo pravico soodločati o svojem življenjskem okolju, zato je pomembno, da EU zagotavlja močne mehanizme za vsebinsko smiselno vključevanje javnosti in organizacij civilne družbe v procese odločanja skladno z Aarhuško konvencijo. Pomembna je tudi enakopravna dostopnost do financiranja za vse organizacije civilne družbe v EU. Posebej majhne organizacije so glede tega pomembno prikrajšane, na lokalnem nivoju v svojih lokalnih skupnostih pa je njihovo delovanje izrednega pomena. Lokalna skupnosti praviloma financirajo lokalne pobude predvsem s področja kulture, športa in sociale, ne prepoznavajo pa pomena podpre aktivnostim na področju varstva okolja, narave in podnebnih sprememb (predvsem podnebno prilagajanje se udejanja na lokalni ravni). EU bi lahko v okviru mehanizmov, ki so namenjena razvoju države in lokalnih skupnosti del sredstev namenila in pogojevala za delovanje organizacij civilne družbe in za zagotovitev sodelovanja javnosti in organizacij civilne družbe. Strategija naj vključuje tudi zavezo EU, da še bolje komunicira spoznanja znanosti glede okolja, podnebja in biodiverzitete, glede katere so strokovnjaki v mednarodnih telesih dosegli soglasje. Ta sporočila pogosto v javnost prenašajo organizacije civilne družbe, ki pa so zato (posledično tudi informacije, ki jih prenašajo), diskreditirane, ker ne ustrezajo politični strukturi.
Read full responseResponse to 2040 Climate Target Plan
23 Jun 2023
Target levels need to be consistent with the 1.5°C Paris Agreement objective and based on IPCC reports, since the scientific evidence are the ground for EU environmental policy. Therefore, imminent and deep emission cuts before 2030 are decisive and climate neutrality should be reached by 2040. If action is insufficient now, it will likely be impossible to make up for the deficit later. The IPCC has shown that missing the 1.5°C temperature target will cause severe additional and irreversible damages to the global ecosystem and spiralling global heating out of human control. Against this backdrop and in line with the EU precautionary principle, the definition of the EU climate targets should be based on assessments aiming to meet the 1.5°C goal with the highest chance possible, certainly higher than 50%. In light of the EUs global and historic responsibility and its capacity to act, the impact assessment must also consider emission reduction pathways enabling the EU to achieve at least -65% gross emissions reductions by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2040 at the latest, based on a 100% renewable energy system. At the same time, it should integrate the adoption of a climate target for 2035, as well as establish 5 year policy cycles in line with the common time frames at UNFCCC level. Sufficiency scenarios should be included into climate planning and precautionary principle should be the leading principle in doing all possible to meet the 1.5°C goal. The first principle for energy should be less consumption, then efficient use of energy and justice for all social groups is imperative. The technological assumptions used to develop the different pathways and policy options, need to reflect the latest available data on estimated costs and efficiency, as also emphasised by the ESABCC advice from January 2023. Relying on outdated data risks creating a bias in the modelling results, and therefore in the resulting ambition levels, by overestimating the costs and underestimating the benefits of green technologies. Deployment costs for renewable energies have consistently decreased in recent years and key technologies for the transition such as heat pumps and electric boilers are becoming increasingly cost-competitive. Comparisons with more regularly updated sources underline the need to improve the cost reference for electric boilers, the efficiency assumptions for heat pumps and revise the overestimated efficiency assumptions for residential gas boilers in the Commission reference scenario. Insufficient responses to the climate crisis today will cause far reaching and irreversible damages to future generations. These damages, largely borne by the most vulnerable groups already today, range from direct impacts associated with more frequent and intensive extreme weather events to associated conflicts over water, resources and materials, strains on public health and welfare systems and increasing wealth inequality globally and regionally. Any assessment of increased climate action needs to draw the full picture of its direct benefits (e.g. employment, public health, reduced energy costs and import dependency, competitiveness) and avoided costs (e.g. environmental damage, healthcare costs, fossil fuel subsidies). Specifically, the impact assessment should take an intersectional approach (focusing on gender, race, disabilities, age) and needs to assess the impact action and inaction will have on human rights and restrictions of fundamental freedoms of current and future generations. Nowadays the assessment of impact on the whole human society and Earths ecosystems is becoming necessary. For all available technologies, the full costs have to be assessed; for example regarding land use of energy, e.g. bioenergy, opportunity costs of alternative use of the land for sinks, loss of biodiversity, and an increase of costs for competing material uses that are ranked higher in the cascading hierarchy need to be factored in.
Read full responseResponse to Sustainable use of pesticides – revision of the EU rules
16 Sept 2022
Umanotera supports the EU regulation for sustainable pesticide use. The progress of reduction of the pollution from agriculture is very slow and legally binding rules are are crucial for immediate and effective action with results. The proposal for a revision of the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive is a step in the right direction. Legally binding goals and prohibitions are necessary, since the directive didn’t ensure the necessary reduction. The proposal for a sustainable use regulation (SUR) is therefore an unique opportunity to replace the directive in effective way of setting clear rules for coherent pesticide use reduction policy in EU.
However, we are concerned that the proposed regulation is still somehow loose for Member states and leaves too much room to Member states for not complying with the rules. There is no time for such flexibility any more.
More clearness in definition is also needed – the terms like “non-chemical methods”, “preventative measures” and “interventions” need to be clarified to avoid greenwashing.
The proposal should also be upgraded with imperative low-input farming principle.
The proposal of the regulation should also promote research, education and information measures for development of alternatives to the use of pesticides. Given the lack of progress in reducing the use and dependency on synthetic pesticides by Member states, the regulation must include a set of measures to discourage their use. And since the implementation deficit is still a huge environmental problem in EU, the regulative must also include the provisions for Member states to set an effective control system for non-compliance with requirements of the regulation.
In Slovenia, the agricultural stakeholders oppose prohibition of the use of all plant protection products in sensitive areas as defined by Article 18(1), since such prohibition could result in abandoned farming in these areas, affecting more than half of the Slovenian territory and destroying food security. For reasons from the first paragraph of this feedback, sensitive areas can be protected and restored only with pesticide use prohibitions that are in line with the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and Soil strategy. However, for states with high share of Natura 2000 and other sensitive areas, a special regime in transition period, allowing specifically for sensitive areas under Article 3 (16 f) (ii)) the use of preventive measures and/or substances under the ecological farming standards, could support the intentions of the regulation and encourage ecological farming in these areas at the same time. Such transitional regime would also strongly increase acceptability and support implementation of the regulative.
Read full response