• The week in pictures
• Recommended reading from the editorial team

Dear readers,

"Daniel, we don't want your national park!" A farmer on Fehmarn mowed this sentence into his field as part of the protests against the planned "Baltic Sea National Park". An aerial photograph of it immediately made the rounds in numerous media and social networks.

Daniel Günther, Minister President of Schleswig-Holstein and leader of the CDU, which received the most votes in the Land between the Seas in the last election and has formed a coalition government with the Greens, was addressed. Measures to better protect the Baltic Sea were agreed. And it was in this context that the term "Baltic Sea National Park" appeared for the first time in the coalition agreement, embedded in subjunctive clauses.

Environment Minister Tobias Goldschmidt from the Green Party took up the cause soon after the election and presented the "Baltic Sea National Park" project to the public last March. The starting point was the poor state of the inland sea and the question of how it could be helped. Goldschmidt's answer, to place the coastal waters of Schleswig-Holstein under special protection, which should have been regulated in more detail in a national park law, was met with some fierce criticism, which could not go unnoticed by the politicians involved.

• Baltic Sea National Park on the brink of collapse - CDU to vote against Goldschmidt plans

The greatest attention was paid to the reactions of agriculture and tourism as the most numerous and economically strongest group of protesters. Right from the start, Goldschmidt had promised the farmers that they would not be affected by the project, while he sold the "Baltic Sea National Park" to the tourism industry as an effective advertising asset.

But the scepticism remained. Not least in water sports, where beach sports in particular feared for their spots. "More protection for the Baltic Sea - yes, Baltic Sea National Park - no" became the slogan of an initiative to prevent the project. "We are calling for environmental protection measures that prioritise the serious problems of the Baltic Sea, retain decision-making powers in the state and allow coastal residents to participate as before," says Björn Brüggemann, the head of this protest movement, which calls itself the Interessengemeinschaft Freie Ostsee Schleswig-Holstein.

What he said sums up the concerns of all those who are unfamiliar with the project. The minister was unable to give a satisfactory answer to the question of what would be specifically permitted and what would be prohibited in the core zone of the planned protected area in future, because the authority to decide on this would ultimately have had to be granted to a national park administration that had yet to be established and to the federal government to a considerable extent.

Above all, however, the main argument that the project could significantly improve the condition of the Baltic Sea was met with incomprehension. Anyone looking into the problems of the Baltic Sea quickly comes across its main cause: the inputs from agriculture and sewage treatment plants on the edge of the entire inland sea, a coastline of which Schleswig-Holstein accounts for just 0.64 %.

Accordingly, the discussion quickly left the factual level. Goldschmidt himself liked to respond to the question of the effective benefit of the project for the desired water protection with sentences like this: "The Baltic Sea is in a bad way, and we all have to do something now to make it better." One State Secretary made a very authentic appeal to the conservationists in favour of the good cause per se: "So for me, the question is not whether a Baltic Sea National Park might do little for nature conservation or even restrict people in the region. For me, the question is whether we are at the forefront of Baltic Sea protection with a good national park law, setting the pace ..."

The Green State Secretary's question has now been answered at the state party conference of the Schleswig-Holstein CDU, of all places. And the answer was "no". Under the guise of protecting the Baltic Sea, there will be no restrictions on the population that do not serve the same purpose. Several district associations and even the state association led by Minister President Günther had requested that the measures agreed in the coalition agreement to protect the Baltic Sea be approached by means other than a national park law.

The call of the farmer from the sunny island of Fehmarn seems to have been heard. It was not directed at the Minister of the Environment, whose committed support for the "Baltic Sea National Park" project ultimately came across more as political posturing than convinced environmental protection, but at the Minister President, which was surprising at first glance. In fact, it had long looked as if the head of the Schleswig-Holstein government was in favour of the project. The ever louder calls from the party base, which were finally put to the vote as a motion, ultimately led to the end of this support.

It was a reaction to protests to which water sports enthusiasts also contributed. Several rallies with watercraft of all kinds made the negative attitude visible; there was not a single marina in which numerous pleasure craft were not decorated with flags expressing their crews' fear of disproportionate restrictions on water sports.

While those in favour of the national park project did not want to publicly discredit farmers or tourism professionals, sailors and surfers received all the more scolding from the ranks of politicians. It was said that a minority had been very loud, particularly with regard to the "Free Baltic Sea Schleswig-Holstein" initiative, and that this had distorted the democratic process.

An unfortunate statement that points to a questionable understanding of democracy. On the one hand, it is part of the essence of a free society that minorities can make their voices heard. On the other hand, it is even questionable whether the opponents of the national park were actually a minority in terms of numbers.

Admittedly, the question is pointless. The fact is that politicians were unable to provide citizens with satisfactory answers to legitimate and factual questions raised in the discourse. And that the national park project ultimately failed not least because of this.

However, it is also a fact that the protests were not directed against the protection of the Baltic Sea and that the state government is still faced with the task formulated in the coalition agreement of driving this forward. It remains to be seen whether the failure of the national park will lead to the discussion of measures that are actually suitable for solving the existing problems.

In any case, further protective measures will be discussed by the end of the legislative period. It would be desirable for the order in which these measures are listed to be prioritised according to their likely effectiveness. In any case, the question of whether water sports will be restricted in the future is far from over.

It is therefore to be hoped that all participants in the discussion will return to the factual level. And that the maxim expressed by some panellists that the end justifies the means will once again give way to the principle of the rule of law, according to which the relationship between the means and the end must be proportionate. Unsuitable methods are thus completely ruled out.

However, the prerequisite would be to play with open cards. Addressing the Minister of the Environment, Tobias Goldschmidt, Hans Köster from the Schleswig-Holstein Sailing Association demands: "Finally get specific!" This refers to transparency regarding the consequences of any measures. As part of the consultation process for the "Baltic Sea National Park", the ministry was asked several times what the project would mean for sailors in concrete terms.

"It's about navigation regulations, but also about the use of antifouling and maintenance products, the operation of combustion engines or the financing of measures that have already been discussed, such as mooring buoys to protect seagrass beds and comprehensive disposal options for faeces, bilge water and operating materials," says Köster. But there has never been an answer to this.

On the contrary. Instead of specifically naming the consequences of the planned project for sailing, the minister has played the ball back and asked the water sports stakeholders to make concrete proposals themselves as to what could be done to protect the Baltic Sea as an alternative to the completely unspecific national park project.

Köster, a lawyer by profession, criticises the procedure in two respects.

Firstly, because it is unacceptable that the questions of those affected are not answered. After all, the demand for a national park must be based on the conviction that it really serves water protection. But then there must also be concrete ideas about what is permitted and what is prohibited in the national park. He therefore wants to know from Goldschmidt: "What makes you think that a national park will benefit the Baltic Sea if you have no idea what will happen there later? And if you do have any, then make it transparent!"

As long as there are no answers to these questions, the Landesseglerverband cannot support the project despite its great interest in protecting the Baltic Sea. "We need to know what to expect - we can't agree to a black box of empty words," says Köster.

Secondly, the procedure is not fair. According to the lawyer, negotiating on an equal footing looks different. Instead of being specific himself, Goldschmidt calls on the critics to convince the minister that there is another way than with a national park law. That would be a complete reversal of the situation. "As critics, we should provide the concrete answers that the minister refuses to give us for his ideas."

The good news is that there is a consensus on the need to protect the Baltic Sea. Water sports enthusiasts have been proving for years that they will accept restrictions if they make sense. Even completely voluntarily. The examples have already been listed here several times.

Incidentally, the "Free Baltic Sea Schleswig-Holstein" initiative also wants to continue with environmental protection. The previous motto "More protection for the Baltic Sea - yes, Baltic Sea National Park - no" has already been amended to "For the protection of the Baltic Sea, with the people".

Lasse Johannsen,

Deputy Editor-in-Chief YACHT

Click to see through

The week in pictures:

Recommended reading from the editorial team:

Charter Special

Enjoy a carefree and relaxed sailing holiday

Whether you are an experienced sailor or a layman, chartering a sailing yacht offers the opportunity to explore new places, experience the beauty of the sea and create unforgettable memories. To make your charter holiday a success, we have put together the most important tips in this special.

• Click here for all previous "YACHT Week" columns