Soil sealing due to transport infrastructure is a serious problem in Germany. In addition to the constant expansion of roads, the construction of new airports also leads to the loss of important soil functions. In addition, the climate impact of air traffic is enormous; no other form of transportation burns as much energy as flying. Studies estimate that the total climate impact of air traffic is 4.9 percent. And this is despite the fact that air travel is only available to a small proportion of the world's population. 90 percent of the world's population has never seen the inside of an airplane. The industrialized countries are the main polluters, but it is mainly people in the Global South and poorer people who suffer from the effects of climate change. To limit air traffic, a first step would be a moratorium on airport construction and expansion, including economic and industrial development projects in favor of air traffic growth, such as "aerotropolis" projects (airport cities) and special economic zones. The needs of people who would be isolated without access to air transportation must be considered separately, and environmentally sound transportation routes must be provided to connect them.

For further reading and discussion:

https://stay-grounded.org/position-paper/position-paper-de/

Section 15 of the German Federal Nature Conservation Act (BNatSchG) stipulates that interventions by infrastructure projects on land and in the sea must be compensated. In practice, however, often only compensation money is paid. The cause of this undesirable development seems to lie more in consistent implementation and less in the BNatSchG, which clearly gives preference to genuine compensation and replacement measures. It should be examined whether this preference can be formulated even more sharply or more exclusively or whether compensation payments are only permissible for narrowly defined exceptions (e.g. effects on the landscape). The Federal Compensation Ordinance (BKompV), which regulates compensation measures under federal jurisdiction, is also relevant here. The BKompV strongly restricts the compensation requirement in § 4 para.3. According to this, only project effects that result in "a significant impairment of particular severity" are to be taken into account. This high hurdle is not plausible and does not appear to be in line with the requirements of § 15 BNatSchG. Paragraph 3 should be deleted without replacement. §Paragraph 9 of the BKompV further restricts the need for compensation, according to which, according to Paragraph 2, No. 2, no compensation is required if "higher-quality biotopes are created or developed within 5 years" as a result of the intervention. This point 2 should be deleted without replacement, as there is a risk that, for example, artificial reef structures (on foundations, pipelines, etc.) will be considered of higher value. Furthermore, § 15 of the BKompV privileges offshore wind farms (OWP) to the extent that their impacts are already considered compensated by the fact that fishing is excluded in the OWP and within a safety zone. Compensatory and replacement measures are regularly not provided for, certainly also because of the high hurdle mentioned above. Especially in view of the massive expansion of offshore wind power by a factor of five compared to today, which is foreseen in the Wind Energy at Sea Act (WindSeeG), impacts below the materiality threshold "with particular severity" also add up, especially for resting and migratory birds as well as for marine mammals, which increasingly lose habitats undisturbed by underwater noise as well as migration routes. § Section 15 BKompV para. 1 no. 1 and no. 2 should be deleted. In view of the missed targets under the Habitats Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, a paradigm shift should be introduced in the long term, whereby interventions are not only compensated, but overcompensated by a factor to be determined. There must be a division of responsibility in this regard: The project developer would be responsible for full real compensation, and the federal or state government would be responsible for the amount of overcompensation, depending on the jurisdiction. In order to legally establish overcompensation, § 15 BNatschG as well as the BKompV would have to be amended accordingly.

For further reading and discussion:

https://www.nabu.de/imperia/md/content/nabude/naturschutz/161219-nabu-stellungnahme-novellierung-bundesnaturschutzgesetz.pdf

Germany funds research and development to the tune of around 3.2 percent of its gross domestic product each year. In 2019, this amounted to an estimated 109.54 billion euros. Of this, 34 billion euros went to universities and non-university research institutions. Research results from publicly funded research, however, have not yet had to be made public. Products such as drugs, technologies or methods developed with public funding therefore remain in the respective institutions or corporations. Profits generated from this research are privatized. However, publicly funded research and its results should be used in such a way that they bring the greatest possible benefit to society. Results and publications that have been substantially financed with public money must therefore also be accessible to the public. This would also encourage research into promising but less profitable products. The disclosure of research results in the case of research that has been substantially publicly funded must be laid down by law.

For further reading and discussion:

https://netzpolitik.org/2012/freier-zugang-zu-staatlich-finanzierter-wissenschaft-das-ungewohnliche-geschaftsmodell-des-wissenschaftlichen-publizierens/

https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2021/02/PD21_079_217.html