The preparation of this paper and the underlying research have been part-financed by the European Union (European Regional Development Fund) The situation of the Baltic Green Belt, its threats and its chances - National Report Germany - Compiled by BUND Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Friends of the Earth Germany, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern state branch) for Coalition Clean Baltic A. Basic data 1. Country a. Overview Germany is one of the largest (357.000 km²) and most populous (ca. 82 mio. inhabitants) countries in Europe and in the Baltic Sea region. The country has a federal structure made up of 16 states (Länder) which have far-reaching legislative rights and a substantial amount of self-governance. The whole country has a temperate climate, distinctly atlantic in the northwest and more continental in the rest of the country. Winters are therefore milder than in the rest of the Baltic Sea region. Germany lies in the catchment area of three European seas: The North Sea, the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea. Most big German rivers drain into the first two, with the North Sea catchment area making up by far the largest part of the country. The only larger river flowing into the Baltic Sea is the Oder, the share of its catchment area in Germany being almost negligible though compared to its Polish part. Besides, only smaller rivers like Schwentine, Trave, Warnow or Peene drain into the Baltic. Consequentially, Germany's share of the catchment area of the Baltic Sea is comparatively small and amounts to only 28.790 km². This is the smallest of all Baltic coastal states, only inland nations like Ukraine or the Czech Republic have smaller areas. 16.720 km² of the German Baltic Sea catchment area lie in the federal state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania), 5.940 km² in Brandenburg, 5.250 km² in Schleswig-Holstein and 880 km² in Sachsen (Saxonia). Only Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Schleswig-Holstein have a Baltic Sea
Transcript
The preparation of this paper and the underlying research have been part-financed
by the European Union (European Regional Development Fund)
The situation of the Baltic Green Belt, its threats and its chances
- National Report Germany -
Compiled by BUND Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Friends of the Earth Germany,
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern state branch) for Coalition Clean Baltic
A. Basic data
1. Country
a. Overview
Germany is one of the largest (357.000 km²) and most populous (ca. 82 mio. inhabitants) countries in Europe
and in the Baltic Sea region. The country has a federal structure made up of 16 states (Länder) which have
far-reaching legislative rights and a substantial amount of self-governance. The whole country has a
temperate climate, distinctly atlantic in the northwest and more continental in the rest of the country. Winters
are therefore milder than in the rest of the Baltic Sea region.
Germany lies in the catchment area of three European seas: The North Sea, the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea.
Most big German rivers drain into the first two, with the North Sea catchment area making up by far the
largest part of the country. The only larger river flowing into the Baltic Sea is the Oder, the share of its
catchment area in Germany being almost negligible though compared to its Polish part. Besides, only smaller
rivers like Schwentine, Trave, Warnow or Peene drain into the Baltic. Consequentially, Germany's share of
the catchment area of the Baltic Sea is comparatively small and amounts to only 28.790 km². This is the
smallest of all Baltic coastal states, only inland nations like Ukraine or the Czech Republic have smaller
areas.
16.720 km² of the German Baltic Sea catchment area lie in the federal state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
(Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania), 5.940 km² in Brandenburg, 5.250 km² in Schleswig-Holstein and 880
km² in Sachsen (Saxonia). Only Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Schleswig-Holstein have a Baltic Sea
coastline. Schleswig-Holstein was part of former West Germany and comprises the western shoreline.
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern was formerly part of East Germany and lies on the southern shore of the Baltic.
The Baltic Green Belt almost solely covers Mecklenburg-Vorpommern state coastline. Only this area is
considered further on in this report. It makes up 75% of Germany's Baltic Sea coastline, and it is even longer
than all other coasts of Germany on North and Baltic Sea combined.
b. The Baltic Green Belt in Germany
During iron curtain times Germany was divided into two separate nations, West Germany (“Federal Republic
of Germany”) and East Germany (“German Democratic Republic”), which reunited in 1990 when the
division of Europe came to an end due to the peaceful revolutions in East Germany and other countries.
Today's Germany therefore has the Green Belt passing right through the midst of country. This 1.393 km part
of the Green Belt runs along the border between the western and eastern federal states, exactly marking the
former borderline between East and West Germany. It is often called “Grünes Band Deutschland” (Green
Belt Germany) and is definitely the part of the Green Belt that is most well known to the public in Germany
and most of Europe. Another 1.700 km of Green Belt stretch along the Baltic Sea coast, roughly between
Lübeck and the border to Poland, thereby encompassing most of the coast of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
state. This is the German part of the Baltic Green Belt.
Though Mecklenburg-Vorpommern is the least densely populated state in Germany, the coastal region (and
thus the Green Belt) shows marked concentrations of settlements, with built up areas still constantly
growing. Almost the whole state (including most of the Baltic Green Belt area) has seen a steady and
ongoing population decline since the fall of the iron curtain though. Major cities along the Baltic Green Belt
are Lübeck (pop. 209.000) and Rostock (pop. 201.000), both lying (at least with their city centers) alongside
somewhat secluded estuaries or bights. Along with several other coastal towns (esp. Wismar and Stralsund)
they were prominent players in the Hanseatic League, still boasting a wealth of cultural heritage from that
age today.
The whole coast is a major tourism area with bathing and beach tourism dominating, but nature tourism and
urban tourism (hanseatic heritage and conferences) also holding important shares. Darß-Zingst peninsula and
Rügen and Usedom Islands are major tourism centers, and many municipalities in these regions show an
almost monostructural economy largely dependent on tourism.
Much of the coast was partly or totally closed to the public up to 1989. In general, access to a 5 kilometer
strip along the coast was only possible by permission. Additionally, a high concrete wall completely blocked
access to the sea in the Lübeck Bight area. Numerous areas along the coast were closed military sites, e.g. in
the Rostocker Heide woodland complex, on Zingst peninsula or the northwestern part of Usedom Island.
These alone were of a considerable extent, but additional sites were closed for other purposes, e.g. as
“national hunting ground” (Staatsjagdgebiet) for high political officials, which was the case for much of
Darß peninsula. Overall use in these areas was low, which helped nature to survive and regenerate. The
intensive construction activity on the Baltic seashore that was typical for West Germany and spoiled much of
the coastal nature and landscape there did not take place in East Germany. The result of this historical
situation is a diverse and extensive natural heritage in the Baltic Green Belt in Germany, scattered all along
the coast (fig. 1).
Fig. 1: The Baltic Green Belt on the German coast and a selection of major natural areas (1 – 15) (Schmiedel 2007)
2. Length and type of coast line
Almost the whole Baltic Green Belt coast in Germany is made up of glacial sediments or alluvial deposits.
The coasts are therefore largely consist of soft material, which may well incorporate rocks or boulders of
various sizes though, usually well rounded by ice age long-distance transportation. Sea currents have eroded
material especially at exposed parts of the coast and re-deposited it a few kilometers away, thereby creating a
more or less linear graded shoreline along much of the coast (fig. 2). On the rugged Western Pomeranian
coast several large lagoons have been largely cut off from the open sea by these processes. These are the
Darß-Zingst chain of lagoons, Greifswald Lagoon and several waters around Rügen and Usedom islands.
Their extent and diversity is quite exceptional and of European importance. A special feature is their varying
salinity, depending on the degree of separation from the open Baltic Sea (Niedermayer et al. 2011, Reinicke
2008).
Fig. 2: The main morphological coast types in the Green Belt on the German coast: violet = Large bight coast (Großbuchtenküste); orange = Graded shoreline (Ausgleichsküste); green = Graded shoreline with lagoons (Boddenausgleichsküste) (Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 2009).
Fig. 3: Coastline typification in the Green Belt (Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 2009, modified).
Cliff coasts occur predominantly on the outer coast and exchange frequently with stretches of low coasts (fig.
3). Most of the former are made up of glacial sediments (loam or clay), but there are also some sand cliffs
that cut through old dune ridges. The Jasmund area of Rügen Island drops to the sea with a short but
impressive chalk cliff.
The low coasts are often associated with periodically flooded brackish marshes. Many of them have been
diked off and meliorated in the past decades, especially during the 1960s - 1980s, but thanks to the special
border situation a lot have also survived. While some of these marshlands are under agricultural use as
grazed meadows, others retain their natural state as brackish reed beds. In a few diked off areas revitalization
projects have been begun to reinstall flooding regimes, which means that a complete or partial removal of the
dikes is undertaken.
Table 1: Coastline statistics of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern state, all figures in km
Coast type Outer coast Inner coast Total
Complete coastline 377 1.568 1.945
Low coast 237 1.357 1.594
Cliff coast 140 211 351
Mainland coast 167 628 795
Island coasts 210 940 1.150
B. Degree of exploitation of the coastline
1. Description of exploitation of the coastal zone
According to HELCOM statistics, 72% of the German Baltic Sea catchment area is farmland (a higher value
than in any other Baltic Sea country) and only 15% is woodland (the lowest value of all Baltic Sea countries)
(Knuuttila et al. 2011). The figures underline that Germany has a highly used and modified landscape with
only few natural or semi-natural areas left. Although the situation is not quite as drastic in the Green Belt, it
is still a heavily used landscape with significant human impact.
The German Baltic Sea coast has been used and also partly modified by man for many centuries. Drastic
changes, however, have been limited to the past decades. Large scale agricultural melioration activities have
led to a widespread destruction of marsh and bog areas and induced a huge nutrient inflow into the Baltic Sea
and the coastal lagoons. Although the melioration took place for the most part between the 1960s and the
1980s, the effects are still existent today. Coastal protection for populated and agricultural areas has deprived
huge areas from regular flooding. Settlements have seen a huge spread after the fall of the iron curtain, with
attractive seaside building lots being highly sought after. Despite many natural assets being left, the Baltic
Green Belt sees a high pressure of various land uses and faces continuous exploitation of natural values. Not
all of these are detrimental to landscape values and species, but misuse and overuse occur widely and impact
both land and sea areas.
Eutrophication and pollution of the sea are major problems in the Baltic Sea, the lagoons and also several of
the tributaries. The main source of these inputs is intensive agriculture, especially the ample use of fertilizer
and land drainage – measures that also directly impair the land habitats under such use. The substances reach
the water bodies by surface runoff, via groundwater and drainage pipes or via erosive or airbourne deposition
(fig. 4). Germany's agriculture produces higher per hectare nutrient emissions than all other Baltic countries
except Denmark. The ecological effects of the pollution are diverse, in the Baltic Sea it leads to hypoxia,
which in turn leads to the death of almost all marine life. Blooms of algae and cyanobacteria induced by the
excessive availability of nutrients not only harm the ecosystem, but can also be detrimental to bathing
tourism and can cause health problems. Greifswald Lagoon has lost much of its underwater vegetation, the
main cause being eutrophication. The former dense growth of macrophytes with fennel pondweed (Stuckenia
pectinata), charophytes (Chara spp.) or bladder wrack (Fucus vesiculosus) is today confined to shallow
water areas, the maximum water depth populated by such plants being 6-7 m, instead of previously 10-11 m
(Bachor & v. Weber 2008). The total extent of the underwater vegetation has thereby shrunken to a fraction
of its former distribution. As these macrophyte stocks form the main spawning grounds for herring, their
ability to reproduce has been degraded. Comparable processes have taken place in other lagoons and bights.
Fig. 4: Nitrogen (top) and phosphorus (bottom) depositions from the German Baltic Sea catchment area and the share of different point and non-point sources. Red: atmospheric depositions; blue: erosion; green: ground water; magenta: ground runoff; orange: drainage systems; yellow: urban areas; brown: point sources (http://www.umweltbundesamt-daten-zur-umwelt.de/umweltdaten/public/document/ downloadImage.do?ident=18147, 12 Apr 2012)
Intensified agricultural use has been and still is also a major cause for loss of landscape diversity in land
areas. The number of stagnant ice holes and natural ponds that are typical elements of the glacially-formed
landscapes of the German Green Belt decline continuously due to filling, as do structuring elements like trees
or hedges in agricultural land. The volume of ecological agriculture is slowly rising, but it only holds a share
of less than 9% of the total area under cultivation in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern state.
Urban sprawl and recreational housing development on the rim of existing settlements and in the open
landscape have taken substantial space in the Baltic Green Belt during the past two decades. Attractive
seaside locations are very much sought after, which makes the Baltic Green Belt - unlike other parts of the
European Green Belt - a center for settlements and residential expansion. While by far not all of the claimed
spaces have been valuable natural areas, there are still many cases where recreation areas for the urban
population or important natural sites have been passed over and spoilt. Boltenhagen and Kühlungsborn
seaside resorts have developed extensive new areas along the seashore for tourist accomodation and marinas.
Although these projects have partly been realized on former military grounds, the impacts on nature and
valuable areas were intensive and significantly negative. While some former military sites are well suited for
housing development, it must be kept in mind that large natural and formerly closed areas are often part of
these locations and that valuable nature has developed just there.
Housing development close to abrasive coastlines is unfortunately not at all an exception. Municipalities like
Kühlungsborn, Ahrenshoop, Lohme, Sellin and others have permitted building development very close to
cliffs to a varying extent. Most of these areas lie in the protected coastal strip of 200 m (at time of
development, different width today) which should usually be kept free from constructions. Coastal erosion
will either constantly endanger buildings and man in these areas (and eventually erode the buildings), or
costly and environmentally problematic coastal protection measures will have to be undertaken indefinitely.
Dangerous situations have occurred e.g. in Lohme, where an unexpected cliff fall luckily did not lead to
fatalities and only damaged houses.
A rapid extension of the traffic network in the Green Belt began right after the fall of the iron curtain. Most
activities concern road construction, both the opening and upgrading of former military driveways to public
roads as well as the alignment of totally new road infrastructure. Today only a few unfragmented landscape
areas are left in the German part of the Baltic Green Belt (LUNG 2008). Growing car traffic can generally be
an important mortality factor for a number of animal species, such as the European otter (Lutra lutra)
(Körbel 1994).
Some former military airports are now being used for commercial aviation. Their importance for
transportation is limited though, the most frequented site being Heringsdorf on Usedom Island with a few
seasonal regular services. Peenemünde, likewise on Usedom Island, has a pretty conflicting location (resting
and feeding bird flocks in adjacent shallow water), but due to low traffic the current actual disturbance to
nature seems moderate.
Recreational ports for yachts and similar vessels have been constructed even in many smaller villages. A
further substantial development with several totally new sites and an extensive enlargement of many existing
ports is planned, despite an existing average summer utilization of only 25% (Planco 2004). Quite a few of
the envisaged locations pose high conflicts with Green Belt assets while other sites are well in line with
sustainable development policies. In most cases a final decision in favour or against construction has not
been taken.
While many sea areas were closed for water sports, yachts or even general shipping during iron curtain
times, they are now open and often under heavy use by vessels of different types and sizes. This means that
many water areas that were previously virtually unaffected by water traffic are now prone to a more or less
striking disturbance that may be problematic for resting or moulding water birds exhibiting flight distances
of often more than one kilometer (Mendel et al. 2008).
The growing ship traffic through the Baltic Sea with oil tankers and other vessels passes largely outside of
Green Belt waters. Oilspills can, however, easily reach Green Belt habitats and would be highly destructive
to areas like Vorpommersche Boddenlandschaft national park. A particularly critical location is the narrow
Kadetrinne north of Rostock where several accidents have already occurred in the past, luckily with only
minor impact to the Baltic Green Belt.
Due to overfishing fish populations of the shallow water areas have been severely changed, both in species
composition and in age structure. This is true both for the open sea and the lagoons with their respective
species of economic interest. Especially target species like cod (Gadus morhua) are drastically reduced in
biomass and average age not only by commercial fisheries, but also quite significantly by sport fishing
(Bundesforschungsanstalt für Fischerei 2007). While no target fisheries exist on rare species like twaite shad
(Alosa fallax) or Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus), their stocks can still be endangered by catches.
Also affected are other organisms of the ecosystem, both directly (e.g. through habitat damage and direct
kills produced by bottom trawling) and indirectly (e.g. changed predator-prey relationships due to the altered
structure of the fish population). Approaches to relieve conflicts between fisheries and nature conservation
have been developed (Pusch & Pedersen 2010), but are very slow in transposition.
Fig. 5: Growing fishing intensity illustrated by the density and locations of set nets in Green Belt waters SE of Rügen Island (Institut für angewandte Ökologie 2007).
Due to the lower stocks of target fish, the fishing intensity has generally increased over time (e.g. fig. 5).
This does not only mean more effort for the fishermen to achieve the same yield, but it also induces strong
problems with bycatch of birds and whales. Large losses of ducks, divers and some other birds occur at set
nets in the Oder mouth area, but probably also to a substantial extent in the coastal lagoons (Koschinski &
Strempel 2010, Žydelis 2009). Harbour porpoise bycatches are a special problem in many German open sea
waters, e.g. around the Oder Bank and along the Mecklenburg coast.
The construction of artificial reefs, as undertaken near Niehagen and Rostock, is not a solution to restore fish
stocks and the ecosystem to a natural state. While they may be concentration points for fishes, these reefs are
very different from the natural soft bottom communities and they may actually increase organic detritus
accumulation and hypoxia in surrounding sand bottom areas (Zettler & Pollehne 2008).
Marine sand and gravel extraction is a major threat to the shallow water marine habitats of the Green Belt,
since it destroys the complete sea bottom flora and fauna, leaving an either temporarily or permanently
severely damaged habitat. Large sea bottom areas in the Green Belt are affected by these activities
(Herrmann et al. 1999, Sutton & Boyd 2009). They are scattered along the whole coast. The extraction is
performed both by the state with the material mainly being used for coastal protection measures and by
private companies. The latter sell the marine sand and gravel for construction purposes. Several applications
for additional extraction areas are pending, some of them inside the Natura 2000 site network.
Possibilities of future oil extraction are currently being investigated around Usedom Island (CEP 2011).
Possible seismic investigations would have harmful effects on marine mammals in the area, especially
harbour porpoises, and possible platforms at sea would most probably affect the numerous protected areas
north of Usedom.
2. Description of coastal zone that is still unexploited
No areas in the German Baltic Green Belt are in a purely natural state, since man-made impacts like
eutrophication are effective everywhere. However, quite a few areas can be considered largely natural in
structure and species composition, with human impact and exploitation resting on a minor level.
The most prominent of these in the perception of most humans will be the extensive woodlands on the coast,
some of which show a moderate to small influence of forestry. The largest of these is the Rostocker Heide
complex, a diverse complex of woods, bogs and coastal ecosystems encompassing 120 km². The Darßwald
on Darß peninsula, Granitz forest on Rügen or the Peenemünder Haken area on Usedom also contain large
natural areas with old trees and dead wood habitats, home to a vast array of species coming close to pristine
forests.
Despite the severe changes undergone due to eutrophication and fisheries, many of the coastal waters are still
inhabited by plant and animal communities of great natural value. The Baltic Green Belt waters especially in
the Western Pomeranian Greifswald Lagoon area are the most important wintering ground of the European
and western Siberian stocks of the Greater Scaup, Aythya marila, hosting an approximate 60.000 birds each
winter (fig. 6) (Mendel et al. 2008). They are also important for Long-tailed ducks (Clangula hyemalis),
Common scoters (Melanitta nigra) and common eiders (Somateria mollissima), hosting substantial
populations of these species going into tens of thousands.
The underwater life is harmed by periodic hypoxia (largely due to eutrophication) that may eradicate much
of the life in vast areas and the effects of the almost ambivalent fisheries (very few small areas are exempt
from this use), but a diverse benthos life still prevails. Greifswald Lagoon is the most important spawning
ground of the western Baltic herring, and harbour porpoises of both the eastern and western Baltic population
still exist in Green Belt waters.
Fig. 6: Winter distribution of Greater Scaup (Aythya marila) in German coastal waters, showing the strong concentration of stocks in the Baltic Green Belt, predominantly near the mouth of Greifswald Lagoon (Mendel et al. 2008).
Typical coastal habitats take up a comparatively little area, but some of them are examples for highly natural
communities. The cliff coasts are the natural home of many plants that are today widespread on agricultural
meadows and are usually associated with these. The open cliffs show a mosaic of different succession stages
of bare ground, natural grassland, shrubland and forest, inhabited by a great biodiversity. Beaches, dunes and
seawalls in their natural state are today confined to places where the effects of trampling and coastal
protection are low. This is the case mainly at a few places in Vorpommersche Boddenlandschaft national
park. The flora of these habitats includes several species or subspecies unique to the Baltic Sea region, and
the insect fauna is very diverse. Brackish reed beds are typical for the inner waters of the Mecklenburg-
Vorpommern coast. Very valuable stocks grow between Warnow / Breitling estuary and Baltic Sea, in
Vorpommersche Boddenlandschaft national park and at the Peenemünder Haken on Usedom Island. They
have a specialized insect fauna including several ground beetle species inhabiting both the reedbeds and the
transition zones to beaches and seawalls.
For plants, the Baltic Green Belt shows a marked concentration of species that are rare or endemic and of
special conservation concern (fig. 7) (Berg 2004). For the preservation of a large number of taxa it is the
most important area in the state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern or even in Germany. Endemics of the Baltic
Green Belt are e.g. the cinquefoil Potentilla wismariensis occuring only on the coastline between Wismar
and Rostock and the hawkweed Hieracium swantevitii of the Rügen Island chalk cliffs (Drenckhahn 2004,
Gregor & Henker 2001). These occur solely in the German section of the Baltic Green Belt and nowhere else
in the world. Their survival is directly linked with successful Green Belt habitat protection and cannot be
accomplished anywhere else. Because of their small numbers and distribution they can be considered as in
immediate danger of extinction (Henker et al. 2009, Voigtländer & Henker 2005). They are very susceptible
to unfavourable habitat changes, even if these should only be of a very local nature.
Fig. 7: Distribution of vascular plant taxa with global (endemics and subendemics) or national protection responsibility in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern state in Germany. The size of dots indicates the number of species. The red lines enclose the most important areas for plant conservation. The strong concentration in the Baltic Green Belt (top of map) is apparent (Berg 2004).
C. Plans for the coastal development
1. Areas of national interest for nature conservation and recreational values
a. That already are protected
Areas in the Baltic Green Belt are covered by numerous categories of protection. Quite common are the two
European protection categories of special protected areas according to the birds directive and sites of
community importance according to the habitats directive. They cover larger areas especially in the eastern
part of the coast (see fig. 8). Transposition of protection objectives is often undertaken by overlaying
protected areas according to national law. Such national categories are – among others - the “classic” nature
reserve (Naturschutzgebiet) and landscape reserve (Landschaftsschutzgebiet), the latter offering only little
protection. These national categories also cover areas without Natura 2000 status.
Two national parks are situated in the Green Belt: Vorpommersche Boddenlandschaft (Western Pomeranian
Lagoons) along Darß-Zingst peninsula between Rostock and Stralsund and Jasmund national park on Rügen
Island. Vorpommersche Boddenlandschaft national park covers extensive sea areas both on the Baltic (ca.
half of the national park area) and in the lagoons (ca. 1/4 of the area). Jasmund at least has a narrow band of
water included, covering hard bottom grounds along the coast. Rügen also has a biosphere reserve in the
southeast of the island, including surrounding waters.
Summing up, the network of protected areas in Germany's Baltic Green Belt can be regarded as quite
extensive. There are relatively few valuable sites that still completely lack protection. Usually these are made
up of habitats not included in the habitats directive's annex I.
The main problem on the German coast is therefore not the protection status of valuable areas themselves,
but rather its transposition. With many sites it can simply be stated that the protection is not effective,
meaning that a loss of species and habitats occurs despite the protection status. This is often the result of
overuse by agriculture (eutrophication, drainage) or tourism (trampling, disturbance).
A coastal strip of 150 m has to be kept free of new constructions according to state nature conservation law.
This is a reduced width compared to the 200 m that were in effect before the last amendment of the act in
2010. The law contains a considerable catalog of exceptions from this regulation though, and even for
construction activities that clearly fall under the ban it is often no problem to obtain an exemption. There are
quite a few tourism facilities advertising their status as “newly built in the coastal protection strip” to attract
customers. Considering the current practice, the regulation is better than nothing, but it is far from being
effective.
Recreational use takes place intensively along much of the coast, both on land and in water. Usually there is
little difference in landscape use between protected and non-protected areas. Sometimes – like in the cases of
the two national parks – protected areas actually form a nucleus for recreational and tourism activities,
making them an important asset also for the regional economy. Most of these recreational activities arouse
only minor conflicts with protection needs, but there are a few exceptions. This is especially true for beaches,
where trampling is a big issue and has led to the virtual extinction of several typical species, like the tiger
impact and alter these habitats. On water bodies, especially the lagoons, conflicts occur between water sports
and resting or feeding birds. Attempts have been taken in Greifswald Lagoon and Wismar Bight to relieve
these conflicts by voluntary agreements with users of the areas, mainly with their local clubs and
organizations (Schmiedel et al. 2006). While it has definitely raised awareness of the natural riches of these
areas and the majority of people abide to these regulations, it has not been completely successful in
transposing protection needs. There regularly is a substantial number of persons that either does not care
about the voluntary regulations or is simply not informed about them. This jeopardizes the aim to keep parts
of the sites free from disturbance as important bird habitats.
b. That ought to be protected
The network of protected sites still has gaps in the coastal waters. The water body of the Baltic Sea and
marine grounds include some valuable areas heavily and destructively impacted by uses such as fishing or
aggregate extraction. This is especially true for several sand banks and reefs, some of which have a Natura
2000 protection status that lacks adequate transposition into national law. An example is the
Plantagenetgrund west of Hiddensee Island, where inappropriate uses endanger many of the natural values.
Some sites with typical coastal habitats in the intermediate region between water and land also need more
and better protection. This is true for the brackish water reedbeds and adjacent areas of e.g. the Breitling
estuary north of Rostock. As these habitats and also many of their typical species are not included in the
annexes of the habitats directive, they are not even part of the Natura 2000 site network, even though they
have an exceptional conservation value . The Breitling site is habitat e.g. to the ground beetle Agonum
monachum, which is virtually extinct in Central Europe.
2. Areas that can be used, without major conflict with environmental protection values
There are very few Baltic Green Belt areas where uses should generally be kept out. Usually landscape uses
like recreation do not or only in a minor way conflict with natural assets. As tourism is one of the major
sources of income in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern's coastal strip, the Green Belt can thus actually contribute to
the economical well-being of the region.
Uses that can irreversibly transform landscapes, like marine aggregate extraction or construction activities,
are usually not compatible with valuable areas in the Green Belt. The same is true for uses that severely alter
plant and animal life and lead to a reduction in diversity, such as intensive agriculture or fisheries. Both
could be compatible with the protection needs of most Green Belt habitats though if their intensity and their
overuse of natural resources were reduced. Ecological agriculture already contributes to landscape
preservation at quite a few places.
D1. Environmental Impact Assessment
1. Is it regularly carried out for exploitation projects?
Environmental impact assessments are required in various forms for a lot of projects that could be potentially
harmful to the environment. The actual depth and extent depends mainly on the type of the project. General
area development plans (that are a required basis for most on-land construction activities) need an
environmental report (Umweltbericht) and possibly additional research and investigation measures. The
impact on nature is usually evaluated with a standard procedure issued by the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
state authorities (LUNG 1999). Compensation has to be provided. Common practice is though that it is not
installed on or near the affected site and that compensation is provided with different values than those
destroyed. This means that the loss of many habitats - usually those that are difficult to impossible to recreate
- is not halted. This is particularly relevant for marine habitats, compensation for which is usually realized on
land, posing the risk of a continuous deterioration of the natural values of the coastal waters.
Spatial plans are likewise issued with an environmental report. Many large projects need a dedicated
environmental impact assessment according to national law (Gesetz über die Umweltverträglichkeits-
prüfung).
The usual agricultural and fisheries exploitation is exempt from any obligations concerning impact
assessment. As these are the most widespread uses of land and sea areas, it can well be assumed that large-
scale impacts on the environment are not adequately considered in land use practices.
2. Is it legally enforced?
Environmental impact assessments are usually carried out when required by law. This applies not only to
state projects, but also to private activities.
3. High quality?
The quality standards are the weak side of many environmental impact assessments. Many assessments
require scientific expertise (which does not necessarily mean that they require extensive research), but
especially many area development plans do not deliver this. For larger projects and more general
programmes like spatial plans, a precise prognosis of the environmental effects is often not possible. In these
cases a precautionary principle should be applied, basing the assessment on the worst case assumptions. This
is usually not done. Cumulative effects are also usually not adequately considered, in most cases not at all.
Taking into account the large number of projects impacting nature and environment in the coastal strip, this
means that many impacts are falsely considered as minor and not relevant. While this may indeed be true for
the individual project, the combined effects with the numerous other projects adding up to each other are
often drastic and would require both proper assessment and compensation.
D2. Are the EU recommendations for Integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) being followed?
While there is a sophisticated planning regime that could be the basis for a sustainable and integrated coastal
zone management, the practice on the German Baltic Sea coast is often not in line with the goals and
principles voiced by the EU Commission.
Germany is still missing a complete national strategy for ICZM. An inventory report has been completed in
2006 (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit 2006) but concrete planning steps
and measures as well as a consistent policy for transposition are still to be created. A first national report has
been transmitted to the EU Commission in 2011 (http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/rup/veroeffentlichungen/
ikzm/ national_report_iczm_in_germany.pdf). It is of a rather general nature and only very partially allows a
judgement about the success of ICZM implementation on the German coasts.
Considering everyday practice there are still substantial shortcomings towards the implementation of the
ICZM. Planning authorities are often still not aware of sustainability aspects, leading to a neglectance of
climate change impacts or sea eutrophication problems during the evaluation or drafting of plans and
projects. Building permits for large projects rarely consider precautionary principles, despite the inability to
forecast the exact effects. The state of many fish stocks is still poor and steps towards changed fisheries
practices and better habitat / spawning ground protection are only slowly and often reluctantly taken (in this
field national bodies have only limited possibilities to act though, as decisive fisheries competences lie with
the European Commission).
On the positive side it can be stated that many planning processes require a broad consultation of public and
private bodies and a more or less sophisticated environmental impact assessment that – if properly
undertaken – should usually be able to minimize negative ecological effects.
D3 . Are EU legislations on environment & nature conservation applied properly in coastal zones?
After years of hesitation, the site network according to the habitats directive was completed in 2004 and
2008. Especially the coastal waters saw substantial and necessary site additions in these years. The SPA
network according to the birds directive was enlarged to its current state in 2008. The lagoon coast of
Western Pomerania is now well covered by Natura 2000 sites. Another nucleus is the Wismar Bight area.
Management plans so far only exist for a few sites. It is not planned to cover the whole site network with
such plans.
Fig. 8: The Natura 2000 network in and around the Baltic Green Belt on the German coast. Green: sites of community importance according to the habitats directive; brown: special protection areas according to the birds directive; olive: overlap of both. Not shown on the map are Natura 2000 sites in the EEZ and in Schleswig-Holstein state (LUNG 2011, modified).
Activities to implement the Marine Strategy Framework Directive are currently ongoing. The public
consultation process for the MSFD started in October 2011 and ends in April 2012. The submission of the
first report is planned for summer 2012, the draft being subject of the public consultation. For real progress
in marine conservation many vague propositions (e.g. on eutrophication) will have to become much more
detailed.
Water management plans according to the Water Framework Directive have been developed for all
tributaries of the Baltic Sea in the German Baltic Green Belt area. They are currently undergoing
transposition and further development from a partly preliminary to final status. It is doubtful though that the
goals of the WFD will be met by 2015, as aspired. A main conflict where more efficient measures will be
needed is agricultural land use, leading to eutrophication and pollution of water bodies with pesticides or
their degradation products.
E. Existence of spatial planning in the coastal zone
Spatial planning in the Baltic Green Belt is performed on state level and regional level. The spatial
development programme (Landesraumentwicklungsprogramm, LEP) Mecklenburg-Vorpommern dates from
2005. It does not only include regulations for the land territory, but also for all of the state's marine areas in
the Baltic Sea both in text and map. On sea, reserve or priority areas for wind energy, extraction of raw
materials, supply lines, tourism as well as nature protection and management are designated. Besides, major
shipping routes are shown for informational purposes, as well as the Natura 2000 site network (with the
exception of the offshore Natura 2000 sites, since they were finally selected as late as 2008). The priority
areas for nature protection and management on sea are very limited. By far the largest such area are the
marine parts of Vorpommersche Boddenlandschaft national park, the rest are sites of minor extent with many
important core areas of the Baltic Green Belt completely missing.
Work has started to amend the spatial development programme; first drafts should be out within several
months. There are no indications yet that there will be a substantially changed approach to conservation
issues relevant for the Green Belt. There seems to be a clear political will to greatly enlarge areas for
renewable energy generation, namely wind energy. Substantially more land areas will be designated, but it
remains unclear so far if this will also apply for offshore wind farms.
Fig. 9: A clipping of part of the Baltic Green Belt area from the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern spatial development programme showing regulations both on land and sea. Full map: http://www.regierung-mv.de/cms2/Regierungsportal_prod/Regierungsportal/de/vm/Themen/Landes-_und_Regionalentwicklung/ Landesraumentwicklungsprogramm/index.jsp
The three regional spatial development programmes (Regionales Raumentwicklungsprogramm) relevant for
the Baltic Green Belt only address land areas. They include e.g. plans to construct two new ports on Wustrow
peninsula at the mouth of Wismar Bight, a substantial enlargement of the Lubmin industrial site (around the
former nuclear power plant) or the Rostock port area along the Breitling estuary. The regional spatial
development programmes do not always honour the importance of the Baltic Green Belt natural core areas,
such as the Peenemünder Haken on Usedom Island, and the natural values along the coastline between them
are often not represented at all.
Spatial planning by national (not state) authorities is confined to the EEZ and thus only takes place outside
the Green Belt. Attempts have been made to develop improved marine spatial planning practices, focusing
e.g. on the Pomeranian Bight (BaltSeaPlan INTERREG project).
None of the spatial plans addresses fisheries, an issue quite crucial for ecosystem health in the Baltic Green
Belt and definitely one of the most widespread uses in the sea areas. Many of the natural assets of the Green
Belt are currently not well secured in spatial plans, especially in marine areas.
F. Suggestions for improvements for coastal areas in the Baltic Green Belt of Germany
1. Best possible solution measures (within 10-15 years?)
a. Related to planning processes
A key issue is the better transposition of environmental impact assessments and the requirements for
compensation. In cases where an exact prognosis of effects is not possible a precautionary principle has to be
be applied. Compensation generally has to recreate the values and habitats that are destroyed. Only in
exceptional cases where this proves impossible should a different practice be possible. On sea activities
should therefore also be compensated by measures that benefit sea habitats.
It is essential to differentiate between projects that irreversibly destroy values or habitats and those that allow
a compensation or recreation of the devastated values. The former should be prevented whenever possible,
since they inevitably and permanently reduce the natural richness and values of the Green Belt. The state
government has to actively assist in finding suitable compensation areas and should allocate some own land
in the Baltic Green Belt for such measures that would benefit the natural attractiveness and value.
The protected coastal strip has to be respected both for the sake of nature, the taxpayer's money and also a
safe living for future residents of such places. The current practice of granting frequent exemptions generates
unnecessary risks for people in these areas prone to erosion and flooding, conveys the building up valuable
coastal habitats and makes expensive coastal protection measures necessary. It is simply crucial that state
authorities abide to their own state's laws and adjust their activities accordingly. The protected coastal strip
has to be widened to its previous extent of 200 m which was in effect up to 2010.
b. Full implementation of environmental protection needs to fulfil EU nature and environment legislation
The Natura 2000 site network needs potent management plans leading to effective development and
conservation measures. This will only be possible when all sites receive management plans and when these
are regularly updated. A major problem is that the very impacting uses of agriculture and fisheries are usually
not subject to strong and operational regulations. As both fields are strongly influenced by the EU, some
changes on EU level (e.g. concerning subsidies and financing) are needed besides state and national actions
to overcome this deficit.
Impact assessments for Natura 2000 sites have to substantially improve when it comes to considering
cumulative effects of various projects. This is a demanding task, but it is crucial simply due to the great
density of projects on spatial and temporal scale.
The water management plans according to the EU water framework directive are currently under
transposition, but it is already now clear that the targets will not be reached. More decided measures are
necessary concerning agricultural use of the land, especially alongside streams and rivers and in floodland
areas. This means to reinstall strips along water bodies where the application of fertilizer and pesticides is
illegal (this was abandoned in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern state recently). The continuity of streams and
rivers should be further improved to allow fish migrations. The focus has to lie not only on freshwater
spawners (as has been largely the case so far), but also on sea spawners like the atlantic eel (Anguilla
anguilla).
In the course of the transposition of the marine strategy framework directive much more decided measures
than are contained in the draft documents will have to be prepared and taken, especially concerning
agriculture and fisheries.
c. Management plans in coastal areas
Besides the management plans of the Natura 2000 sites it is useful to also take measures in land and sea use
management in other cases. These include plans for protected areas that are not part of Natura 2000 sites, be
it totally or partly. A comprehensive plan for the Rostocker Heide site is an example, just like concerted
planning and management measures for the Peenemünder Haken area.
Plans to enable the reinstalment of former floodland areas by dike breaching and similar measures are badly
needed to improve the ecological situation of coastal habitats and reduce the eutrophication of coastal waters.
The creation of these management plans has to include an intense communication process with local
communities, meaning they will usually need some time. It is therefore beneficial to start activities
proactively and not in a situation where time may be limited, such as in a compensation procedure.
2. Steps of possible improvement
a. Immediately
New policies for fisheries and agriculture are essential for many environmental improvements in the Baltic
Green Belt. These rely largely on the EU, but national and state authorities still have some options to act.
Providing aid for the transformation of agricultural or fisheries companies to ecologically friendly practices
is one field where actions are needed. Substantial changes will demand a long time process, but it should be
started immediately.
b. In the near future
With the new financing period for EU structural funds starting in 2014, new programmes and regulations
will have to be developed by state authorities defining the use of EAFRD and ERDF funds. These should put
a clear focus on sustainable and environmentally friendly development, putting clear emphasis on
ecologically sound use of land and sea areas. Measures to be financed include the recreation of floodlands
and other natural areas in the Green Belt, transformation of agricultural and fisheries usage towards
ecological schemes and practices and support for local marketing initiatives for such products.
G. Good examples on sustainable development / exploitation with relevance for the coastal zone
A number of excellent and best practice examples can be pointed out in the Baltic Green Belt in Germany.
These originate from very different initiatives, each of them with own unique ideas that could be replicated
elsewhere. See fig. 10 for the geographical localization.
National natural heritage / Nationales Naturerbe
Some abandoned military sites have not been sold to land users or investors by the federal government as
previously planned but rather been handed over to new owners for free, provided that the areas are managed
under nature conservation principles. In the Baltic Green Belt this is true for parts of the Rostocker Heide
site, an area near Binz on Rügen Island, much of the Peenemünder Haken on Usedom and extensive areas
near Ueckermünde on the southern shore of the Stettiner Haff. The process is currently not finished, but it is
apparent that it makes an excellent example for dealing responsibly with Green Belt assets.
Dike breaches on Darß-Zingst peninsula
The old dike on eastern Zingst peninsula is being abandoned, allowing floods in the whole polder area again.
The measure is currently being finished. Another dike breaching project is currently in the realization process
in Wieck municipality on Darß peninsula, where extensive diked grasslands are to be opened for floods again
for the benefit of tourism and nature conservation.
Coastal dune erosion at Hütelmoor
The coastal dunes at the Hütelmoor bogland in Rostock have long been subject to beach nourishment
activities, since they are situated in a part of the coast subject to erosion. It has been decided to give up these
activities and allow floods to intrude into the moorland again. This will reinstall the brackish water regime
that makes up a typical coastal habitat.
Fig. 10: Good and bad examples for developments and landscape use in the Baltic Green Belt in Germany.
H. Bad examples on sustainable development / exploitation (including Hot spots) with relevance for the coastal zone
Numerous project endanger the Baltic Green Belt and its natural assets. Here are some prominent examples
of detrimental developments that are common political policy, have either recently been realized or are being
planned.
Tourism complex on Wustrow peninsula
A large tourism development is planned on an abandoned military site on Wustrow peninsula. The project
includes two marinas, extensive sports facilities and large accomodation complexes. The local municipality
strongly opposes the project due to its excessive size. The project is currently pending and has not made any
planning progress for years.
On the opposite side of the Wismar Bight a large scale development of a tourism project has only recently
been completed. At Boltenhagen-Tarnewitz an abandoned military site has been transformed in a resort with
integrated harbour, involving large-scale tree cutting and significant damage to natural values and the
adjacent protected area.
Marine aggregate extraction
Marine sand and gravel are extracted from the sea floor e.g. west of Darß peninsula and east of Rügen. And
considerable activities are planned on the Plantagenetgrund west of Hiddensee. These practices destroy the
life on the sea bottom, with regeneration usually being slow to totally impossible. Shallow sand banks and
reefs will inevitably lie deeper after aggregates have been extracted, allowing less light to penetrate to the sea
floor and making it more difficult for diving birds to reach their feeding grounds.
Lubmin power plants
Lubmin is the location of a shut down nuclear power plant. Permits have been granted to build two gas
driven power plants on an adjacent location. Additional power plant development is still being discussed
after plans for a huge hard coal fired plant have been abandoned. The operation of the plants will create the
need for cooling water which will be released into Greifswald Lagoon. It will increase the risk of hypoxia in
this water body and stimulate the growth of e.g. cyanobacteria. Long term nuclear waste storage facilities
have been installed at the Lubmin site and may be further developed. An enlargement of industrial
development into adjacent grassland and woodland areas is planned.
Rostock harbour expansion
A huge expansion of the Rostock port area is planned into surrounding land, including very valuable brackish
reedbed and marsh areas as well as shallow water parts of the Breitling estuary. This would destroy the last
parts of natural shoreline in the Breitling area and eradicate some extremely rare biocoenoses that include
many typical brackish floodland species. Problematic is also the direct neighbourhood of the Rostocker
Heide bog- and woodland.
Possible oil extraction in sea areas
Possibilities of future oil extraction are currently being investigated around Usedom Island (CEP 2011). The
associated seismic investigations will probably have harmful effects on marine mammals in the area,
especially harbour porpoises.
Ignorance of the coastal strip
The 2010 amendment of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern's state nature protection act reduced the coastal strip to
be kept free from buildings from 200 to 150 meters. Experience during the past years has shown that
exemptions from these restrictions are easily granted by authorities, having led to widespread extensions of
villages and the installation of new constructions in previously unsettled areas.
High agricultural nutrient emissions
Germany's agriculture is producing huge nitrogen and phosphorus emissions that eventually end in the Baltic
Sea. While they do not seem so prominent in most statistics due to the small German share of the Baltic Sea
catchment area, they are exceptionally high on a per hectare basis. This bad practice is normal business on
most of the agricultural land in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern state.
I. References
Bachor, A. & M. v. Weber (2008): Bericht über die aktuelle Bewertung der Gewässergüte und
Bewirtschaftungsziele für den Greifswalder Bodden. Landesamt für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Geologie
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Güstrow, 30 pp.
Berg, C. (2004): Priority search for vascular plant conservation strategies in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
(North-east Germany). Planta Europa IV Proceedings / 4th European Conference on the Conservation of
Wild Plants (http://www.nerium.net/plantaeuropa/Download/Procedings/Berg.pdf; 2 Jan 2012)
Bundesforschungsanstalt für Fischerei (2007): Dorsch/Kabeljau-Fänge durch die deutsche Freizeitfischerei
der Nord- und Ostsee, 2004-2006. Rostock, 78 pp.
Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (2006): Integriertes
Küstenzonenmanagement in Deutschland - Nationale Strategie für ein integriertes Küstenzonenmanagement
(Bestandsaufnahme, Stand 2006) nach der EU-Empfehlung 2002/413/EG vom 30. Mai 2002, Bonn, 99 pp.
CEP (2011): Central European Petroleum überreicht Wirtschaftsminister Seidel das erste Erdöl aus
Probebohrung. Press release Central European Petroleum 18 Aug 2011
Drenckhahn, D. (2004): Neue und wieder entdeckte Hieracien auf Rügen. Forum geobotanicum 1: 1-8,
