GERMANY: Infrastructure law reforms threaten public participation
Two environmental laws are currently being amended in Germany under the guise of speeding up bureaucratic proceedings. Civil society has warned that the legislative reforms currently before parliament would reduce opportunities for public involvement in decision-making processes and weaken safeguards that enable civil society organisations (CSOs) to influence infrastructure projects, with significant environmental and social impacts.
Under the proposed Future Infrastructure Act (Infrastrukturzukunftsgesetz), approved by the Bundestag (federal parliament) in June and awaiting a vote in the Bundesrat (representing the states of Germany), public hearings for infrastructure projects would no longer be mandatory but would be held only when authorities deem them “necessary”. This removes an important mechanism for transparency and public scrutiny, structurally weakening the environmental standards in infrastructure planning processes.
The law also classifies numerous infrastructure projects — such as the construction of new highways and highway service areas — as being in the “overriding public interest.” Such blanket preferential treatment results in environmental protection being given less weight in official decisions regarding a project. In addition, exemptions from Environmental Impact Assessment requirements for certain projects would further reduce opportunities for public oversight. Concerns about meaningful participation are compounded by the government’s consultation process itself, which granted CSOs one weekend to comment on the draft legislation.
Similarly, proposed amendments to the Building Code (Baugesetzbuch) presented in May 2026, would significantly shrink public participation rights in urban planning processes. The reforms would make early-stage public participation optional rather than mandatory, limiting civil society’s ability to influence projects before key decisions are made. Environmental assessments would be conducted only where considered “actually necessary”. The draft also introduces stricter rules on objections that are submitted late. This risks increasing procedural barriers for affected communities and environmental organisations seeking to challenge decisions.