Baltic Sea National Park: Interview with Hans Köster from the Schleswig-Holstein Sailing Association
Lasse Johannsen
· 01.11.2023
Despite the cancellation of the Baltic Sea National Park, the consultation process in which Schleswig-Holstein's Environment Minister Tobias Goldschmidt wanted to discuss the project in turn with stakeholders from the affected groups is continuing. The next and final meeting, a final plenary session of all participants in the consultation process, will take place today in Neumünster with the so-called interlocking workshop. Hans Köster, a lawyer from Flensburg, will be attending on behalf of the Schleswig-Holstein Sailing Association. He spoke to YACHT in advance about what he expects.
More about the Baltic Sea National Park:
YACHT: Mr Köster, who will all be attending the meeting?
Köster: Representatives of all seven interest groups are invited, i.e. tourism, fishing, nature conservation, regional development, districts and municipalities, agriculture/water management/land use and us, the water sports sector.
And what is the mood like?
All of the workshops just mentioned, with the exception of the workshop organised by the nature conservation associations, have clearly spoken out against the national park.
And the project will not get a political majority, so what else is there to discuss?
The invitation to the so-called interlocking workshop on 1 November states: "We will ask you to assess the prepared results of the workshops." But there is nothing to assess, as these are statements that have already been prepared in the workshops. But there's more ...
With what?
In the invitation, we are asked to make concrete proposals for improved area protection in the area of the potential landscape without a national park. In plain language, this means proposals for the expansion of existing protected areas.
So it's not a question of how we sailors can contribute to water protection even without a Baltic Sea National Park?
No, the only question - at least according to the invitation - is how zero-utilisation zones can now be created in the area of potential. The questions to us are aimed at saying when we are prepared not to sail in places to be agreed.
Is there another way of understanding this, or is it perhaps just unfortunate wording?
There is explicit mention of territorial protection. The term is clearly defined.
There are already agreements on voluntary protected areas ...
Yes, but there is always a specific reason for such area protection. For example, because certain seabirds breed in an area at certain times, it makes sense not to practise water sports there at that time. However, we are now being asked to make proposals on this. But we don't have the expertise to do that, we don't even know who needs to be protected where and when. The ministry should know that. It would therefore be nice if the ministry not only shared these findings, but also made very specific proposals itself as to which measures are expected from which user group. The sailing community can then discuss such proposals and form an opinion and provide concrete answers. The statement that sailing will continue to be possible in the national park is not enough and makes us rather annoyed.
Isn't that also a completely new topic?
It is completely abstracted from the previous topics of the consultation process. And we criticise that. So far, the workshop has focussed on assessing the opportunities and risks of a national park. And in our opinion, the upcoming dovetailing workshop should first be about establishing the results of the individual specialist workshops in order to formulate a vote that will guide further political work. The fact that it is now supposed to be about naming and discussing specific measures again is very surprising after the clear announcements made to the Ministry. All the ideas we have for better protection of the Baltic Sea without a national park play no role at all in the answer to this new question.
What do you think will happen in the further course of this political process?
We are quite at a loss as to how to proceed. Our great concern is that in future it will be a one-sided issue of navigation regulations and even navigation bans on the Schleswig-Holstein Baltic Sea coast. After all, the area of potential only relates to the water areas; it ends at the so-called "Spülsaum". And now, within this area, it is explicitly about "area protection". Not water protection. This can only be interpreted as meaning that we should say which areas we water sports enthusiasts are prepared to give up for zero utilisation.
What could be the reason for this new requirement?
A few weeks ago, the EU pointed out to Germany that too little land has been designated as protected areas, for example within the framework of FFH and Natura 2000. And it is possible that the entire project was not least about figures that would have mitigated this circumstance.
What do these events mean for you personally?
Quite simply, we must and will continue to be more active as a regional organisation in the area of environmental protection, but obviously cannot do so within the framework of this predominantly political process.
