Controversial amendment

ÖVP and FPÖ push through new nature conservation law

The construction of the power plant in Stegenwald has currently been partially halted. In future, however, the construction of power plants is to take precedence over nature conservation interests.

(Bild: Gerhard Schiel)

Against the votes of the SPÖ, KPÖ and the Greens, the black-blue state government in Salzburg today pushed through the amendment to the Nature Conservation Act. Experts and nature conservation organizations criticize the changes. The law will then be finally passed by the state parliament. 

From now on, projects for wind and hydropower or photovoltaics are to take precedence over nature conservation interests. This is the key point that was decided today in the committee of the Salzburg state parliament after a three-hour meeting. However, this not only applies to the construction and operation of power plants, but also to access routes, grid connections and storage facilities. 

Faster procedures sought.
The state government argues that the changes are due to the particular importance of generating electricity and gas from renewable energy sources as a result of climate change. In the so-called "acceleration areas", the obligation to approve and notify projects is to be abolished altogether. Outside of the "acceleration areas", nothing will change compared to the existing legal situation for new power plants, but for ancillary facilities above a certain size, the approval requirement will no longer apply in favor of a notification requirement.

Private experts possible
Another new feature is that the involvement of non-official experts in proceedings is permitted or facilitated, which has already caused criticism from nature conservation organizations in the past. "Experts will be paid by the objector. This will promote a two-tier society. With a maximum rate of 250 euros per hour, not all interested parties will be able to afford an expert," the nature conservation association criticizes the change.

Disempowerment of the LUA complete
At the same time, the State Environmental Ombudsman's Office (LUA) loses its right of appeal to the Supreme Court. Two further changes have also been made: One concerns a less stringent definition of dry and nutrient-poor sites, i.e. habitats exceptionally rich in species and flowers, and the other the removal of habitat protection in dedicated building land.

Greens: "Species extinction is being fueled."
Criticism of the amendments came mainly from the Greens in today's parliamentary committee. Club leader Martina Berthold spoke of an "attack on our livelihoods, our security and our future." Many critical voices had been ignored in the review process: "Nature conservation is being massively weakened under the guise of speeding up the process." There would be more effective solutions. Species extinction would be massively accelerated.

Berthold also said: "Instead of giving our nature more space again, this amendment will start the concrete mixers. Our soil will be sealed even more and valuable meadows will be sacrificed for profit. We are sawing at the branch on which we ourselves are sitting. And that will further exacerbate flooding in the coming years."

SPÖ: "There is no technical basis. " 
SPÖ MP Karin Dollinger echoes this sentiment: "The highlight of today's technically adventurous ÖVP-FPÖ debate in the provincial parliament was the issue of dry and lean sites, which have since been included in this amendment. There is no actual technical basis for this point of the amendment. On the contrary, the expert invited to the committee today, Christian Eichberger, stated that nobody could recognize this except professionals and that an extreme loss of valuable areas was associated with this arbitrarily chosen percentage change." 

And regarding the LUA, the SPÖ states: "According to the LUA, around 700-800 procedures are dealt with each year with at least a rough examination. In 400-450 proceedings, party status is exercised and more detailed submissions are made, in only 11 proceedings on average does the LUA lodge an appeal and only occasionally has the LUA used its previous right of appeal to the Supreme Court."

Government argues in favor of amendment
Representatives of the governing parties, however, dismissed the warnings as "exaggerations" and "insinuations". People should not be forgotten in the ecosystem, said Josef Schwaiger (ÖVP), Provincial Councillor for Energy. Deputy Governor Marlene Svazek (FPÖ) pointed out that the original draft bill had been improved. Svazek also wanted to further expand contractual nature conservation, she emphasized.

Expert warns of insect mortality
Biologist Helmut Wittmann issued an urgent warning in the state parliament. With his Institute for Ecology, he has already supported dozens of power plant constructions as an ecological planner. "We are heading in a dangerous direction," he said. He sees an automatism in the approval of power plant projects.

The key to rapid approval procedures has always been good and legally compliant submission documents from power plant planners. "If I can manage that, then it will be quick." At the same time, the amendment would deliberately counteract insect protection. "The death of insects is being promoted by their decision."