Opinion: Together we can achieve more for the protection of the Baltic Sea!
Lasse Johannsen
· 05.05.2025
Last week began with the kick-off event for a series of information evenings on the Baltic Sea Protection Action Plan, or "APOS" for short. This is intended to help realise the goals that the Schleswig-Holstein Greens had negotiated into the coalition agreement with the CDU in the form of a "Baltic Sea National Park".
Does the project really prioritise the protection of the Baltic Sea?
However, the national park failed after intense protests at the vote of the Union party base. In order to fulfil the agreement, a compromise was agreed, the APOS. Similar to the national park project, the APOS has also been criticised - not least by water sports enthusiasts. This is because the question is being raised as to whether the project really serves primarily to protect the Baltic Sea, as its name promises.
Essentially, the aim is to place 12.5 per cent of Schleswig-Holstein's Baltic Sea (39,000 hectares) under strict protection, thereby fulfilling an obligation agreed at EU level to designate protected areas in the amount of a certain quota - which would be much more difficult to enforce and establish on land.
This is now to be achieved through 7.94 per cent of new marine nature conservation areas and improved protection status for 4.57 per cent of existing Natura 2000 areas. In addition, "active measures to improve the biodiversity of the Baltic Sea", "reduction of nutrient inputs", "clean-up of contaminated sites and waste" are to be added.
Consultation and involvement of local stakeholders
In addition to the new protected areas, an onshore organisation is now also being set up, similar to a national park administration. In the presentation, this is simply called "Effective conservation management and education".
This "Baltic Sea Marine Protection Centre" - staff have already been recruited and a building is currently being sought - will not only be responsible for looking after the protected areas, but will also become a central contact point for Baltic Sea protection, which will develop educational and information services and advise and involve "local stakeholders" (such as local authorities, tourism, business and water sports).
A Scientific Advisory Board is also to be set up by appointing 16 scientists from the fields of "Marine Ecology", "Marine Munitions", "Geology", "Climate", "Tourism", "Economics", "Agricultural Sciences", "Agricultural Economics" and "Social Sciences". Its constituent meeting will take place on 12 June under the chairmanship of Prime Minister Daniel Günter.
All in all, an impressive Shore crew and a strong voice for the replacement of a politically failed project.
More articles matching the topic:
Water sports enthusiasts can now have their say
Water sports enthusiasts now officially have the opportunity to comment. It is to be hoped that this will be utilised. However, insiders doubt whether this will have any influence on the upcoming processes.
Hans Köster, who has been responsible for environmental issues on the board of the Schleswig-Holstein Sailing Association for several years and is therefore well versed in the subject, has accompanied the entire consultation process on the national park and was also at the launch event for the APOS in Eckernförde.
According to Köster, who generally welcomes measures to protect the Baltic Sea, the lack of opportunity to have a say has so far been deplorable. "When politicians argue that because the Baltic Sea is in a bad state, those who sail on it should do something for it - then we should also be allowed to have a say in what needs to be done and ask whether the planned measures will actually be of any use," says Köster.
As it stands, navigation bans and no-anchoring zones are already in place, although, according to the presentation of the action plan, a working group on navigation regulations is still to discuss this, and the offer by water sports enthusiasts to agree on voluntary agreements has not even been taken up by the decision-makers.
Köster, who works professionally as a lawyer in Flensburg, asks about the proportionality of planned traffic regulations. This is a prerequisite for their legality, but can only be assumed if an evaluation of what the measures achieve takes place in future. "Whether the restrictions actually serve the intended purpose must therefore be monitored on a case-by-case basis," says Köster.
In a Interview given by Schleswig-Holstein's Environment Minister Tobias Goldschmidt at the start of the APOS presentation eventshe evaded the question of evaluating individual measures. The general development of the protected areas should be analysed.
According to Köster, what is particularly noteworthy - at least in the presentation - is the project's focus in terms of content. The Salvage of old munitions Only one paragraph is devoted to the issue of water pollution, although this is the greatest threat alongside agricultural nutrient inputs.
On the subject of black water disposal in marinas, the plan only provides for awareness-raising and a deficit analysis, but not the promotion of a disposal infrastructure.
Hans Köster is right. The architects of the APOS were clearly not impressed by the criticism of the national park, which ultimately led to its failure. The NDR headlined "Baltic Sea National Park to become Baltic Sea Protection Action Plan". And that's exactly how you can see it on closer inspection.
Further tasks are added
While effective measures for the urgently needed protection of the Baltic Sea, such as the reduction of nutrient discharges and the clearance of old munitions, are being tackled rather half-heartedly, the APOS is an expensive apparatus that is apparently to be given completely different tasks in addition to the management of the protected areas.
Restrictions on utilisation and navigation regulations for skippers, whose positive effects on the overall condition of the Baltic Sea (the actual purpose of the project) are at least questionable, have already been prepared without the involvement of those affected. There has been no lack of offers to participate constructively in the political project, for example through voluntary agreements on no-anchoring zones. In my view, a great opportunity has been squandered here.
The Baltic Sea is in a bad way. What will help it is obvious. Instead of tackling it, a lot of money is being spent on measures whose proportionality is questionable. And if you take a closer look at what the APOS is creating, you cannot shake off the suspicion that an instrument is being created that will not only benefit the planned protected areas.
After the kick-off event, the Environment Minister spoke of a good compromise that had been found with the APOS. The question arises as to whether the benefits for the protection of the Baltic Sea were actually at the forefront of the process. In any case, this would benefit from the involvement of those affected. Because more could be achieved together.
