Baltic Sea: This is the status of the controversial action plan in Schleswig-Holstein
Fabian Boerger
· 17.10.2024
The Baltic Sea is in a bad way. Pollutants, a lack of oxygen and the loss of biodiversity are massively affecting the inland sea that is so popular with German sailors. The state of the ecosystem is increasingly critical and the sea urgently needs help. Politicians, scientists and water sports organisations agree on this. But opinions differ as to how.
If it were up to the Green Environment Minister from Schleswig-Holstein, Tobias Goldschmidt, a national park would be the solution for the ailing sea - modelled on the Wadden Sea on the North Sea coast. The idea was to be discussed in intensive talks with local residents and stakeholders and then implemented. At least that was the plan, according to the coalition agreement of the black-green state government.
The aim of the project is both ambitious and comprehensive: to improve biodiversity, strengthen habitats and stabilise fish stocks. This is to be achieved through zero utilisation zones - areas that are left entirely to nature. The legal framework would have been the Federal Nature Conservation Act and a national park law to be passed and would have affected areas from the Flensburg Fjord to Fehmarn.
Environment Minister Goldschmidt was enthusiastic about the project. He enthused about the great opportunities for tourism and the sustainable development of the regions.
Earlier plans lead to wave of protests
But the plan didn't work out. What was intended to be a showcase project led to a wave of outrage and protest. After the plans became known in the winter of 2023/24, it rolled inexorably towards the black-green state government and erupted in demonstrations along the Baltic coast. The slogan "Baltic Sea protection yes. National Park No" - on flags, banners and stickers, in the harbours, at fishermen's houses and along country roads.
The protests reached their peak in August last year. Hundreds of people demonstrated on and around the island of Fehmarn, both on land and at sea. One farmer mowed his protest onto an area measuring 60 by 300 metres: "Daniel, we don't want your national park". Hundreds of boats - from dinghies to motor yachts - gathered in front of the Fehmarnsund Bridge like a shoal of herring.
A few days later, a similar picture emerged in Geltinger Bay. Hundreds of tractors were parked on the dyke and the foghorns of numerous motor and sailing yachts sounded off the coast. According to the organisers, around a thousand participants gathered here too - including farmers, restaurateurs, sailors and surfers. They were all united in their opposition to the national park plans. Their fear: the new regulations could lead to considerable losses, threaten livelihoods and severely restrict water sports.
The Initiative Freie Ostsee Schleswig-Holstein, which was instrumental in organising the protests along the coast, wrote in a statement: "The citizens have exposed the planned national park as a poorly planned political prestige project."
According to the criticism, there was neither a convincing scientific justification nor a proper analysis of the consequences. Instead, the opponents of the national park were asked to submit alternative proposals. "This arrogant policy of reversing the burden of proof infuriates local people."
The national park is now history. The project had been tugged at and fought over for a year, trying to overcome resistance. In the end, the Greens were opposed by their own coalition partner, the CDU, and the project was scuppered.
Three new marine nature reserves planned
Schleswig-Holstein's Minister President Daniel Günther (CDU) said at the time that there were other, better measures to protect the Baltic Sea. That was the end. For the time being. Because in March of this year, the Baltic Sea protection project entered the next round. The governing coalition agreed on a compromise. That was the birth of the Baltic Sea Protection Action Plan.
The 16-point package of measures aims to continue the original idea and improve the protection of the Baltic Sea through new protected areas, i.e. to breathe new life into the old idea. To this end, 12.5 per cent of Schleswig-Holstein's Baltic Sea is to be more strictly protected and animals and plants are to be given more peace and quiet and places to retreat to.
Three new marine nature reserves are planned. According to the state government, these will cover 7.9 per cent of Schleswig-Holstein's Baltic Sea and will be located between the Schlei estuary and Gelting, in the southern Hohwachter Bucht and west of the island of Fehmarn. In addition, the protection status of three existing Natura 2000 areas is to be increased. These areas are located at Sagasbank, Stoller Grund and in Geltinger Bucht and cover 4.6 per cent.
The regulations that apply in the areas are particularly relevant for sailors. For example, water sports enthusiasts will be banned from sailing in the protected areas from November to March. However, harbour entrances located in the areas will continue to be navigable and water protection and rescue will be exempt from the regulations.
In summer, the driving ban will no longer apply; instead, there will be speed limits. In addition, anchoring in seagrass beds will then be explicitly prohibited. A solution is already being worked on behind closed doors. When asked, a spokesperson from the Ministry of the Environment confirmed to our sister magazine YACHT that they are looking into publicising seagrass beds electronically. An app is one of the options being considered, she said.
Maritime technologies are also to be further developed. The management of black and dirty water is to be improved, alternative underwater coatings are to be promoted and structural measures for marinas, sewage treatment plants and water sports hotspots are to be examined, according to the action plan.
Not yet set in stone
What currently reads like the rules of a board game is not yet set in stone. According to the Ministry of the Environment, the details are currently being discussed. "The action plan adopted by the cabinet is the basis for further steps," writes a spokeswoman. But they already provide a direction and give an idea of where the journey is heading.
However, the action plan has been quiet for the past six months. Only the occasional sailor can still be seen with banners and flags bearing the protest slogan "Baltic Sea protection yes, national park no". Some fishermen continue to protest and have attached banners to their boats. They are particularly concerned as fishing is to be completely banned in the protected areas. Otherwise it is quiet. Too quiet, in Hans Köster's opinion. He is a board member for environmental issues at the Schleswig-Holstein Sailing Association and has closely followed the consultations between the state government and interest groups. Since the plans were published, he too has heard nothing more on the subject. And that worries him: "We fear that something like the national park could still come about in this undefined legal area - only through the back door."
His problem is that the current plan is also too unclear. According to Köster, this is a shortcoming that the national park idea already had to contend with. "We always have to establish a link between what is to be protected and the measures required to achieve this." The ministry needs to communicate this clearly, says Köster. Along the lines of: this is the goal, and it affects sailors, canoeists, divers and so on. Then the sailors would also be willing to get more involved.
But that's exactly what didn't happen with the national park, says Köster. The action plan, which should have rectified the omission, also leaves questions unanswered. "There are now restrictions in the action plan. Now we have to see whether it stays that way." Although he does not consider the currently planned restrictions to be critical, Köster fears that new ones could be introduced.
Björn Brüggemann also fears this. He is the spokesperson for the Initiative Freie Ostsee Schleswig-Holstein. During the protests against the national park, he campaigned for the interests of water sports enthusiasts with particular publicity. He fears that sailing bans could be decided more easily and arbitrarily in nature conservation areas without consulting those affected.
"The content of future navigation regulations is not yet foreseeable," says Brüggemann. This is particularly evident in the example of the Wadden Sea. There, both kiting and wingfoiling were later banned without further consultation after the initial involvement of those affected.
Water sports enthusiasts the problem?
Mr Brüggemann now fears a similar approach in the Baltic Sea. The action plan already categorises water sports activities as harmful to the environment if they cause rapid changes of direction and visual disturbances. What exactly that means is at the discretion of the authorities, he says. "In theory, this can include anything, including a swimmer paddling uncoordinated on their mattress and wearing a bright swimming cap."
There is something else that annoys Hans Köster: the action plan gives the impression that water sports enthusiasts are the main cause of the poor state of the Baltic Sea. According to Köster, however, the actual cause lies on land. "The real problem is the eutrophication of the water, which is caused by over-fertilisation in agriculture." Eutrophication means that a body of water receives too many nutrients, which causes harmful plant growth. When the plants die, bacteria decompose them and consume a lot of oxygen in the process. This results in a lack of oxygen in other places. The result is hostile zones in many places in the Baltic Sea.
In order to combat this, Köster says that better sewage treatment plants, distance from bodies of water and adapted fertiliser regulations are needed. "We water sports enthusiasts are not the problem." Nevertheless, water sports are at the centre of the plans. "That's why the opposition is so strong," says Köster.
Björn Brüggemann considers it "unrealistic" to see water sports as the main pollution factor in both Baltic Sea protection projects. He emphasises that, compared to other environmental impacts such as munitions contamination or oxygen deficiency, the driving bans can only be nebulously justified with an abstract disturbance potential. Overall, he doubts whether the driving bans are proportionate.
Alternative solutions
Sven Reitmeier, who is responsible for the environment and nature conservation in sport at the Schleswig-Holstein State Sports Association, has also noticed an unusual silence on the subject of the action plan. Since the plan was announced, he says, there have been no concrete talks between the association and the state government.
This is surprising, because if you take a look at the catalogue of measures in the action plan, there are several references to "cooperative approaches" and the "involvement of stakeholders". Reitmeier: "If you read between the lines, you could take the Ministry of the Environment's reticence to mean that they are not yet ready or that they don't want to show their cards yet."
This does not change his drive to become active in the matter: "We went to the meeting last year. We said we didn't want a national park. But we also said that we wanted to do our bit for the action plan instead." According to Reitmeier, they wanted to build on the positive experiences they have had in recent years with the environmental administration and the introduction of other nature conservation areas. This is another reason why the offer was meant seriously. That's why they got together shortly after the action plan was announced and wrote a letter. In it, they formulated suggestions "where we can contribute to the still superficial paper from our side," said Reitmeier.
The letter, which is addressed directly to Environment Minister Goldschmidt, proposes "alternative solutions". These include special utilisation zones in protected areas where windsurfers and kitesurfers would be allowed on the water despite the ban on sailing. While sailing takes a break in winter and many boats are out of the water, the situation is different for board sports. Surfers need stormy and wavey conditions, which tend to occur in autumn and winter.
Implementation is being prepared by the state government
Similar exceptions should be made for anchor bans. According to the letter, exceptions to the ban on anchoring should be considered, particularly where emergency stops are useful and protection from wind and waves is possible in the event of an accident. Anchors would not even have to be dropped there. Special mooring buoys could be installed instead, according to Reitmeier.
Hans Köster from the Landesseglerverband adds that anchoring areas should be explicitly designated to protect seagrass beds - which are the subject of the anchoring ban. "In this way, we could provide guidance to protect areas worthy of protection," he says. The extent to which the proposals will be taken on board will have to be discussed, says Reitmeier.
That was in July. Apart from an initial response with no further details, nothing more has been heard so far, says Reitmeier. Since then, they have been waiting in the hope that there will be talks with the associations before the public is involved. "Our experience shows that once the administration has drawn up a draft regulation, it becomes increasingly difficult to change the content," says Reitmeier.
In response to an enquiry from the editorial team, the Schleswig-Holstein Ministry of the Environment stated: "The implementation of the 2030 Action Plan and the various content packages are currently being prepared within the state government, concrete steps are being defined and the status is being analysed."
A spokeswoman also explained that the first information events will be held at the end of 2024 to provide information on the content and planned implementation. Exactly how these will be organised remained open. She did not provide any further details. However, it is certain that the three nature conservation areas will be designated from 2025.
Navigation rules are the responsibility of the federal government
The designation then follows a formally regulated procedure. To this end, the state government submits a proposal as to what a possible protected area ordinance could look like. Those affected - such as local residents, water sports enthusiasts or other organisations - can then comment on this in a participatory process.
However, the state has no direct influence on the rules governing how the areas can be travelled in future. That is the task of the Federal Ministry of Transport. An application is only submitted once the areas have been designated. A decision is then made on how speed limits and driving bans should apply. Associations would then have another chance to get involved, according to the spokesperson for the Ministry of the Environment.
It is then to be expected that things will pick up again. Those involved are already keeping an eagle eye on the measures and regulations that may come. The Ministry of the Environment will probably consider its next steps. Until then, however, the debate is likely to remain noticeably cool. However, one thing is already certain: the issue of protecting the Baltic Sea and, above all, what this should look like, is far from off the table.
