Scientists vs lawmakers: why the draft of a new nature law in Luxembourg is alarming

The draft law on nature protection presented in Luxembourg in November 2024 was supposed to be a compromise between ecology and building policy. However, the scientific community, represented by the Observatoire de l'Environnement Naturel (OEN), is deeply concerned. According to experts, the current version of the law not only fails to improve the biodiversity situation, but risks making it worse, while failing to deliver the promised construction boost.

OEN President Jessie Thill emphasises that the bill's leitmotif of "building bigger and faster" may be at odds with the fundamental goal of conservation. She notes that the simplification of administrative procedures is a positive step, but it is accompanied by a number of serious flaws. Among them are unclear wording, poor scientific substantiation of the norms and lack of guarantees for the workability of compensation mechanisms.

According to the draft law, municipal authorities will be able to compensate for construction damage through "compensation pools" - parcels of land where new habitats are planned to be created or existing ones relocated. However, according to Thiel, the law does not explain what exactly is considered a "proximate" area and how animals or plants can be physically relocated several kilometres away. With many species dependent on precise spatial orientation, such wording sounds like bureaucratic fantasy.

Of particular concern is the new regulation of the so-called "urban woodland cover", i.e. green spaces within cities but outside official green zones. The law introduces a criterion: if the share of such plantings exceeds 20 per cent of the total area, the municipality is obliged to avoid destroying ecosystems. But OEN believes that this threshold is scientifically unsound. Moreover, it remains unclear who is responsible for maintaining these green areas - private owners or municipalities. In the absence of a clear responsibility structure, this rule may remain a dead letter.

OEN emphasises: they do not reject the idea of reform, but demand its scientific and practical concretisation. Among the main demands:

• a clear definition of concepts like "compensation pool" and "nearest site";
• prohibition of vague criteria, especially in environmentally sensitive areas;
• development of a mechanism for the implementation of compensatory measures with the participation of independent scientific institutes;
• prohibition to weaken the protection regime of green areas under the pretext of "flexibility".

The draft law aimed at balancing construction and nature protection is still at risk of becoming an illusion of compromise. Overly general wording, lack of consideration of biological realities and poorly developed implementation mechanisms make the document more of a declaration than a tool for nature protection. In a situation where biodiversity in Europe is declining at an alarming rate, the scientific community does not demand quick solutions, but responsible and well-defined steps.