sign in sign up
<<
Home , Ahrenshoop, Binz, Bodden, Boltenhagen, Graded shoreline, Jasmund

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 -

Compiled by BUND -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 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 , 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 , the share of its catchment area in Germany being almost negligible though compared to its Polish part. Besides, only smaller rivers like Schwentine, , Warnow or 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 ), 5.940 km² in Brandenburg, 5.250 km² in Schleswig- 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 and lies on the southern 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 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 , roughly between Lübeck and the border to , 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 (pop. 201.000), both lying (at least with their city centers) alongside somewhat secluded or bights. Along with several other coastal towns (esp. and ) 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 tourism dominating, but nature tourism and urban tourism (hanseatic heritage and conferences) also holding important shares. Darß- and Rügen and 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 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 . 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 along much of the coast (fig. 2). On the rugged Western Pomeranian coast several large have been largely cut off from the open sea by these processes. These are the Darß-Zingst chain of lagoons, 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 cliffs that cut through old ridges. The area of Rügen Island drops to the sea with a short but impressive chalk .

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 . 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 . 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, , , 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. 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 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 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 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, 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. , 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 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 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 beetle Cicindela maritima (e.g. Irmler 2012, Schierding 2011). Coastal protection measures also severely 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 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 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 peninsula at the mouth of Wismar Bight, a substantial enlargement of the 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 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 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 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, 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 . 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, http://www.forum-geobotanicum.net/articles/vol_1-2004/ddr_01/forumgeobotanicumvol1-2004.html

Henker, H. et al. (2009): Flora von Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Farn- und Blütenpflanzen (1. Nachtrag). Botanischer Rundbrief für Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 45: 71-86

Herrmann, C. et al. (1999): Marine sediment extraction in the Baltic Sea. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings 76, Helsinki, 31 pp.

Institut für angewandte Ökologie (2007): Gutachten zur Berücksichtigung der fischereiwirtschaftlichen Belange bei der Fortschreibung des Landesraumentwicklungsprogramms M-V für das Küstenmeer. Ministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Landesentwicklung M-V, Neu Broderstorf/, 133 pp.

Irmler, U. (2012): Effects of Habitat and Human Activities on Species Richness and Assemblages of Staphylinidae (Coleoptera) in the Baltic Sea Coast. Psyche 2012, http://www.hindawi.com/journals/psyche/2012/879715/

Knuuttila, S. et al. (2011): Fifth Baltic Sea pollution load compilation. Helsinki Commission, Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings 128, Helsinki, 217 pp. Körbel, O. (1994): Hindering otter Lutra lutra road kills, part 1. IUCN Otter Specialist Group Bulletin 10: 14-20

Koschinski, S. & R. Strempel (2010): Strategien zur Vermeidung von Beifang von Seevögeln und Meeressäugetieren in der Ostseefischerei. NABU Schleswig-Holstein, Gesellschaft zur Rettung der Delphine, Gesellschaft zum Schutz der Meeressäugetiere, Nehmten / Bonn, 76 pp.

LUNG (1999): Hinweise zur Eingriffsregelung. Schriftenreihe des Landesamtes für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Geologie Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 3/1999. Landesamt für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Geologie Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Güstrow, 164 pp.

LUNG (2008): Kartenportal Umwelt Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, map layer Kernbereiche landschaftl. Freiräume, last update 10 Sep 2008. Landesamt für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Geologie Mecklenburg- Vorpommern (http://www.umweltkarten.mv-regierung.de)

LUNG (2011): Kartenportal Umwelt Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, map layers FFH-Gebiete and Europ. Vogelschutzgeb., last update 2011. Landesamt für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Geologie Mecklenburg- Vorpommern (http://www.umweltkarten.mv-regierung.de)

Mendel, B. et al. (2008): Artensteckbriefe von See- und Wasservögeln der deutschen Nord- und Ostsee. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 59, Bonn, 437 pp.

Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (2009): Regelwerk Küstenschutz Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Übersichtsheft. Schwerin, 102 pp.

Niedermayer, R.O. et al. (2011): Die deutsche Ostseeküste, 2nd ed. Sammlung geologischer Führer 105, Stuttgart, 370 pp.

Planco Consulting (2004): Standortkonzept für Sportboothäfen an der Küste Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns. Ministerium für Arbeit, Bau und Landesentwicklung Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Schwerin, 130 pp.

Pusch, K. & S.A. Pedersen (2010): Environmentally Sound Fisheries Management in Marine Protected Areas (EMPAS) in Germany. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 92, Bonn, 302 pp.

Reinicke, R. (2008): Küsten der Ostsee. Bielefeld, 228 pp.

Schierding, M. et al. (2011): Impacts on biodiversity at Baltic Sea beaches. Biodiversity and Conservation 20 (9): 1973–1985

Schmiedel, J. et al. (2006): Voluntary agreements: Nature conservation, watersports and angling in the Greifswalder Bodden and . WWF, Frankfurt

Schmiedel, J. (2007): Das Grüne Band am Ostseestrand. Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland, Rostock, 52 pp.

Sutton, G. & S. Boyd, ed. (2009): Effects of extraction of marine sediments on the marine environment 1998 - 2004. ICES Cooperative Research Report 297, Copenhagen, 180 pp.

Voigtländer, U. & H. Henker (2005): Rote Liste der Farn- und Blütenpflanzen Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns, 5. Fassung. Umweltministerium Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Schwerin, 60 pp. Zettler, M.L. & F. Pollehne (2008): Benthosökologische Auswirkungen von Offshore-Windenergieparks in Nord- und Ostsee, BeoFINO 2 / Prozesse im Nahbereich der Piles - Ostsee, Endbericht. Leibniz-Institut für Ostseeforschung Warnemünde, Rostock, 57 pp.

Žydelis, R. et al. (2009): Bycatch in gillnet fisheries – An overlooked threat to waterbird populations; Biological Conservation 142 (7): 1269–1281