1,254,722 people have supported the European campaign #HandsOffNature to demand that the European Union not weaken its environmental laws, and the signatures will be delivered in Brussels to the European Commissioner for the Environment, Jessika Roswall.
ClientEarth, Ecologistas en Acción, SEO/BirdLife and WWF confirmed the count this Friday and placed their pressure on the regulatory review process which, they denounce, is advancing with the argument of administrative simplification and improved competitiveness.
The simplification that NGOs accept is not what Brussels is promoting
The organizations argue that the reduction of procedures cannot translate into less protection for nature, human health, and citizen participation. In their opinion, it is particularly worrying that the debate intensifies when science warns of the deterioration of biodiversity and the growing impact of the climate crisis.
Among the questioned changes, they cite the so-called environmental Omnibus, which includes a proposal to accelerate environmental assessments. Although it is presented as a way to streamline projects considered strategic, NGOs warn that some provisions could weaken impact analysis, reduce public participation, and broaden exceptions to species and habitat protection rules.
They also point to the Omnibus on food and feed, which proposes modifications to the regulations on plant protection products, including the extension of approval periods for certain substances. According to the organizations, spacing out mandatory re-evaluations can delay the incorporation of new scientific knowledge about their effects on health and the environment.
Organizations argue that evaluations remain the key barrier
NGOs recall that environmental assessments allow identifying risks, preventing damage, and improving projects before their authorization, and emphasize that their correct application also provides legal certainty to administrations and companies.
This argument, however, clashes with Brussels' approach, which seeks faster procedures, while environmental groups fear that speed will reduce controls.
Although they recognize the need to improve administrative efficiency and facilitate investments compatible with EU objectives, they argue that this objective must be achieved with better planning, more human and technical resources, greater institutional coordination, and clearer procedures, not with a cut in guarantees.
Soledad Gallego, director of ClientEarth Spain and Mediterranean, stated that “simplifying administrative procedures cannot mean eliminating legal guarantees” that protect nature and health. Theo Oberhuber, spokesperson for Ecologistas en Acción, described the process as an environmental deregulation of “unprecedented magnitude” in the history of the EU, in relation to the impact that, in his opinion, the changes would have on evaluation and protection.
Asunción Ruiz, executive director of SEO/BirdLife, maintained that European citizens are sending a clear message: they do not want the laws that protect their natural heritage to be dismantled. Juan Carlos del Olmo, secretary general of WWF Spain, added that a competitive economy needs healthy rivers, fertile soils, well-preserved forests, and ecosystems capable of responding to climate change.
The organizations will now deliver the signatures and messages in Brussels, while the debate remains open on how far simplification can go without affecting environmental protection, public participation, and legal certainty.