Biodiversity in the Current Legislative Period

Biodiversity Is Infrastructure

On March 17, 2026, 40 invited guests from politics, government, and research gathered in the Dinosaur Hall of the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin to discuss, over a shared dinner, the implementation of the EU Nature Restoration Regulation and the National Biodiversity Strategy 2030 in Germany. The aim of the event was to bring together scientific perspectives and policy options and to discuss key challenges in the protection and restoration of biological diversity. The discussion was based on the increasing threat to global ecosystems and its consequences: well over half of the world’s ecosystems are degraded and species extinction is being significantly accelerated by human activities. The protection of biodiversity is the foundation for the preservation of natural ecosystems and their functionality and is essential for economic productivity, human health, and safety.

The event was held under the patronage of Klaus Mack, MdB, and Dr. Jan-Niclas Gesenhues, MdB, both members of the Committee on the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety, and Consumer Protection. After the guests arrived, Prof. Dr. Johannes Vogel, Director of the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin, highlighted the importance of continuous dialogue between science and politics for the protection and restoration of ecosystems. In their welcoming remarks, both patrons emphasized the relevance of species conservation, particularly as other issues currently dominate the political agenda. Further, the importance of close collaboration between science and politics to effectively advance the implementation of European and national biodiversity goals was highlighted. In addition to the undisputed role that biodiversity plays in human activities, it is also the “intrinsic value of nature” that must be preserved and protected. Furthermore, the successful synergy between climate protection and species conservation, as already implemented in the Action Plan for Natural Climate Protection, for example, is groundbreaking.

At five thematic roundtables, participants discussed key aspects of biodiversity together with experts:

Roundtable 1: Nature conservation strategies and financing instruments

 Prof. Dr. Katrin Böhning-Gaese and Prof. Dr. Bernhard Misof: 

The discussion made it clear that protected areas and restoration measures are only effective if they are strategically planned, systematically managed, and financed over the long term. Given ambitious national and European targets, there was agreement that public funds alone are unlikely to suffice and that financing instruments must be more strongly focused on the conservation and restoration of biodiversity in the future. Among the panelists was Sabine Riewenherm, President of the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), who referred in this context to key findings from the BfN’s 2023 Nature Awareness Study. In particular, it was highlighted that 85 percent of adults and 80 percent of young people view the conservation and restoration of ecosystems as a priority societal task. At the same time, 88 percent of adults support government funding measures for natural climate protection, and 83 percent advocate that nature conservation should be adequately funded by the state even in times of crisis. These results were interpreted as a strong signal that ambitious nature conservation strategies and reliable financing instruments meet with broad societal acceptance when their benefits for the climate, quality of life, economic resilience, and societal security are clearly communicated.

Roundtable 2: Biodiversity and Inland Waters

Prof. Dr. Sonja Jähnig and Prof. Dr. Klement Tockner: 

During the roundtable discussion, the conversation focused closely on three key topics. First, there was consensus on the great importance of biodiversity in inland waters. Rivers, lakes, and floodplains in Germany were highlighted as key areas for species conservation, whose potential has not yet been fully realized. At the same time, it was emphasized that these ecosystems are under significant pressure—both from climate change and from intensive use. The ecological condition of many water bodies is critical: a large proportion do not meet the objectives of the Water Framework Directive, and only a small portion of floodplains are still functional.
Second, the relevance of existing regulatory frameworks, particularly the European Water Framework Directive and the National Water Strategy, was discussed at length. While their objectives met with broad approval, the focus was on shortcomings in implementation. The problem lies less in the lack of legal frameworks than in their consistent implementation. Conflicts of interest with other land uses, as well as limited financial, human, and land-related resources, were cited as key obstacles. The importance of stakeholder interaction was emphasized for both the planning and implementation of measures.
Third, the discussion addressed concrete measures, particularly peatland conservation. Building on findings from the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, the revitalization of peatlands and floodplains was highlighted as particularly effective for biodiversity and climate protection. In addition to their function as habitats, they contribute significantly to carbon sequestration, improved water quality, and flood protection.

Roundtable 3: Biodiversity and Marine Waters 

Dr. Dorothee Hodapp and Prof. Dr. Katrin Rehdanz:

The discussion made clear that a comprehensive international, European, and national legal and strategic framework for the protection of the oceans already exists, ranging from global agreements such as OSPAR, HELCOM, and the trilateral Wadden Sea cooperation to the MSFD, the Habitats Directive, Natura 2000, the EU Biodiversity Strategy, and the National Biodiversity Strategy. However, the state of the oceans shows that implementation is the main shortcoming. The good environmental status required by the MSFD is not being achieved; nearly all relevant marine habitat types are in an unfavorable to poor condition according to the Habitats Directive; and although approximately 45 percent of Germany’s marine area is designated as protected areas, less than 1 percent is actually under strict protection. To achieve the agreed-upon goals for the sustainable use and long-term safeguarding of marine resources and ecosystem services, measures must be implemented more consistently, monitored, and evaluated for their effectiveness.
Furthermore, it was emphasized that externalized costs, as well as the social and economic consequences of action and inaction, must be made more visible. The burdens on society, such as those resulting from the loss of ecosystem services, increasing restoration needs, or growing climate impacts, have so far been given too little consideration and should be communicated more effectively. Existing solutions must also be made more visible and designed in such a way that they are approvable and implementable. At the same time, marine ecosystems differ significantly from terrestrial habitats. They cannot be cultivated in the same way, are not privately owned, and often have no directly adjacent landowners or residents. This results in greater political leeway and a special responsibility to consistently use this leeway for protection, restoration, and sustainable use. Overall, it was made clear that the protection of the oceans is not only ecologically necessary but also of great importance for recreation and tourism, food systems, bird migration, material cycles, and climate regulation.

Roundtable 4: Biodiversity, Agriculture, and Land Use 

Prof. Dr. Harald Grethe and Prof. Dr. Jan Vanderborght:

There was consensus in the discussion regarding the great importance and significant potential of agricultural landscapes in Germany for species conservation. Nevertheless, the numerous regulatory and support mechanisms for agriculture at both European and national levels create conflicting incentives. As a result, ecosystem services provided by sustainable agricultural landscapes receive only limited support, particularly because these conflicting objectives remain unresolved. This applies in particular to the flat-rate area payments under the “First Pillar” of the current funding period of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Nevertheless, the greatest potential for effectively promoting species conservation in agriculture lies in the CAP’s support instruments, provided they are appropriately adapted in the next funding period starting in 2028. From the perspective of land users and owners, the reliability and long-term nature of funding are crucial for implementing biodiversity-promoting measures; however, this is often not the case at present, as many initiatives are designed as pilot projects with limited durations. Furthermore, the multitude of different funding premiums entails an enormous amount of effort in terms of application and reporting requirements. The implementation of European regulations, such as the current EU Restoration Regulation, requires extensive national adaptations, although it is doubtful whether more detailed guidelines would be helpful. It was also discussed that business models for sustainable management, such as paludiculture on rewetted areas, are currently not scalable because demand has not yet been established, meaning that converting a farm to paludiculture is not currently economically viable (“chicken-and-egg problem”).

Roundtable 5: Links between Biodiversity and Climate Change 

Prof. Dr. Almut Arneth and Dr. Johannes Förster:

Our discussion made it clear that the preservation of biodiversity is a central foundation for climate protection and adaptation. Social well-being and economic resilience depend on intact ecosystems. We discussed recent studies that classify biodiversity loss as a national security risk and a systemic risk to the financial system, including those by the UK Government (2026) and the NGFS (2022). The UNEP State of Finance for Nature Report 2026 also shows that existing financial flows continue to drive biodiversity loss to a significant extent and that incentive structures must be changed accordingly. Building on this, the discussion focused on what this means for municipalities and local actors and which approaches should be scaled up. The positive momentum of the Natural Climate Protection Action Program was highlighted: With its financing mechanisms, it supports cross-sectoral networking and the scale-up of local solutions. Further, more mechanisms are needed to build bridges between the private sector and civil society and to advance sustainable solutions. For example, the expansion of renewable energy can be more successful if municipalities are involved in planning and profit-sharing at an early stage. This also allows conflicts over land use to be negotiated more constructively. Nature Credits and the EU Nature Credit Roadmap were discussed as additional tools for mobilizing private capital for the protection and restoration of ecosystems.

The overarching core message is: “Biodiversity is an essential infrastructure that must be developed and managed. It is crucial that commitments and strategies not only exist, but are also consistently implemented in practice and achieve their intended impact. This requires comprehensive, cross-sectoral approaches that involve society. Key challenges include conflicting land-use objectives and the need for a self-sustaining financing concept to implement biodiversity conservation measures over the long term. Additionally, legally defined roles and responsibilities are required.”

Further key messages on the individual topics, as well as contact information for the experts, are summarized in a Factsheet (German).

In her closing statement, Prof. Dr. Katrin Böhning-Gaese, Director of the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), emphasized: “Biodiversity is the foundation of our existence.” She emphatically pointed out that biodiversity also plays a central role in the areas of the economy and security. To protect biodiversity on a larger scale, effective policy packages are necessary, but above all, positive narratives. To underscore this, she again referred to the 2023 Nature Awareness Study by the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN): For 98% of adults, nature is part of a good life, which means that people are aware of nature’s important role. We can build on this, especially if issues of justice are taken into account and concerns are addressed, because: “Nature conservation measures are successful.”

The subsequent get-together in the museum’s Saurier Hall offered participants the opportunity to continue exchanging ideas, discuss current challenges and approaches to biodiversity conservation in greater depth, and explore different perspectives. The participants noted that the newly established connections between science and politics would be of great benefit for upcoming legislative initiatives, particularly regarding the restoration of nature, the strengthening of natural infrastructure, the further development of nature conservation regulations governing interventions, and the Future Infrastructure Act. The guests appreciated the in-depth discussions in this innovative exchange format and expressly praised the opportunity for cross-party discussion and networking. The high level of technical expertise was found to be very helpful, and many participants expressed a desire for further events on the topic of biodiversity.