Protection of the Baltic Sea: Those who plant seagrass should pay – federal authority halts volunteers’ efforts

​This summer, volunteer divers had planned to create up to four hectares of new seagrass beds in the Baltic Sea. Then the Federal Waterways and Shipping Administration stepped in – and issued invoices that no nature conservation organisation could ever afford to pay. Behind this lies a A problem of jurisdiction with which water sports enthusiasts are already familiar from the North Sea Navigation Regulations.

Around 130 volunteer divers had signed up, applied for holiday leave and made arrangements with their employers. They wanted to create two to four hectares of new seagrass beds in the Baltic Sea off the coast of Schleswig-Holstein this summer – as a follow-up to a successful campaign the previous year, during which 100,000 seagrass seedlings had already been planted. However, the Federal Waterways and Shipping Administration (WSV) has put the project on hold for the time being: it insists that planting on the seabed constitutes a use of the seabed subject to a fee – and, according to an NDR report, cites figures in the five- to six-figure range. Money that marine conservation organisations and diving clubs do not have. Whilst the Federal Ministry for the Environment promises a swift solution, talks with the Federal Ministry of Transport – which also has responsibility in this area – are dragging on. The planting season ends in August. This means that 2026 could be a lost year for seagrass restoration in the Baltic Sea.

How to plant seagrass – and why it is so important

Seagrass beds are among the most valuable ecosystems in the Baltic Sea. They store CO₂, protect coastlines, help to counteract eutrophication and serve as nurseries for numerous fish species. In the Baltic Sea off the coast of Schleswig-Holstein, they have declined sharply in recent decades due to nutrient inputs from agriculture, ship’s anchors and other human activities.

The marine conservation organisation Sea Shepherd Germany and the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre in Kiel Ocean research organisations have therefore been actively attempting to restore lost areas for several years. The process is labour-intensive: volunteer divers use a shovel to extract individual tufts from a healthy donor meadow – last year from Geltinger Bay. Back on land, the plants are stored in cool boxes, counted, sorted and packed into bundles of 50 before being replanted elsewhere. Sea Shepherd staff member Christine Otto described the process to NDR as “underwater gardening”. Last year, around 100,000 seagrass seedlings were planted in this way across an area of one hectare. An expansion to between two and four hectares was planned for this year.

Authority regards usage fee as legally binding

At a stakeholder meeting, the WSV then explained that the planting could not continue as it was. Marine biologist Thorsten Reusch from GEOMAR, who is providing scientific support for the project, told NDR: “They then casually mentioned that, in their view, things couldn’t really carry on as they were, but that we should make use of the seabed and that, as a result, all users would face a substantial usage fee.” Suddenly, according to the NDR report, five- to six-figure sums were being bandied about – amounts that no environmental organisation or diving club could ever have afforded.

The WSV refers to the Federal Budgetary Regulations (BHO) and the Civil Code (BGB). The BHO requires federal authorities to charge fees for the use of federal property by third parties – regardless of whether such use is on a voluntary or commercial basis. Furthermore, a contract under private law must be concluded to regulate liability issues, the scope and duration of use, and the terms of termination.

Is restoration even a form of ‘use’?

It is precisely this point that lies at the heart of the legal dispute. The term ‘use’ as defined in the German Civil Code (BGB) and the Federal Budget Code (BHO) traditionally refers to economic exploitation for one’s own benefit – such as the construction of a jetty, an aquaculture facility or a commercial fish farm. Whether the planting of seagrass for renaturation actually fulfils this definition of ‘use’ remains legally unclear. No definitive assessment has been made, and the matter requires examination by specialist lawyers.

In any case, GEOMAR researcher Reusch disagrees with the authorities’ reasoning on the substance of the matter: “We have argued vehemently against this. ‘That simply cannot be right, because we are restoring a desired, healthy natural environmental state through renaturation,’ the NDR quotes him as saying. Reusch also points out that the EU Renaturation Act expressly obliges the federal and state governments to restore degraded ecosystems. If a federal authority were now to impose charges on those who voluntarily take on this legally mandated task, this would create a direct contradiction between national administrative law and European environmental law – so his argument goes.

Why does a transport authority make decisions on marine conservation?

It is no coincidence that the Federal Ministry of Transport, of all bodies, and its subordinate agency, the WSV, have the final say on this nature conservation issue – rather, it is the result of a division of responsibilities that dates back to the Weimar Republic. Under Article 89 of the Basic Law, the Federal Republic is the owner of federal waterways and administers them through its own authorities. The maritime waterways – that is, those waters between the coastline and the seaward boundary of the territorial sea, within which the new marine protected areas are also located – therefore belong to the federal government. Primarily as transport routes. Nature conservation, on the other hand, is a matter for the federal states.

The result is a structural imbalance: an authority whose core remit is the smooth flow of shipping traffic decides on nature conservation measures in the very same waters – within a legal framework that is primarily geared towards transport and property management, not ecology. For such an authority, planting vegetation on the seabed almost inevitably leads to the concept of ‘use’, because its legal framework simply does not recognise any other perspective.

Water sports enthusiasts are already all too familiar with this structural problem. At the end of April 2023, the new North Sea Navigation Regulations came into force unexpectedlyt – the result of a process that had been ongoing for many years, which was also handled by the Federal Ministry of Transport. In the end, many sailors and recreational boaters felt that their views had not been adequately taken into account. At the time, the German Sailing Association was assessing whether a legal challenge against the regulation might stand a chance of success.

A similar procedure now appears to be emerging for the Baltic Sea marine protected areas: the planned navigation regulations for these areas must also be submitted to the Federal Ministry of Transport. In an interview, Hans Köster, who is responsible for environmental issues at the Schleswig-Holstein State Sailing Association, summarises the current situation.

130 volunteers are waiting – and are growing increasingly impatient

There is a great deal of frustration amongst those involved. According to NDR, Noelle Lampe from the “Just One Ocean Diver” association says: “What’s particularly disappointing is that nearly 130 volunteer divers had signed up to help with the seagrass planting – that’s all been cancelled now.” Christine Otto from Sea Shepherd added to NDR that many of the volunteer divers had taken time off work specifically for this and made arrangements with their employers. The frustration is palpable on all sides.

Schleswig-Holstein is pushing for a solution – the federal government is hesitating

The Schleswig-Holstein Ministry for Energy Transition, Climate Protection, the Environment and Nature (MEKUN) has, according to its own statements, worked hard to find a solution. A spokeswoman explains: “The associations are raising an important issue. We, as the state government, have been very committed to resolving this problem – first and foremost with the relevant federal authorities and the Waterways and Shipping Administration, which levies these charges. Solutions are emerging, but unfortunately they are not yet in place. We are, however, confident that the relevant federal authorities will resolve this issue.”

The Federal Ministry for the Environment has stated in writing that it intends to resolve the issue swiftly and without red tape, in the interests of nature conservation. However, discussions with the Federal Ministry of Transport are dragging on.

Objection to the Baltic Sea Protection Action Plan

The conflict strikes at the heart of Schleswig-Holstein’s marine conservation policy. It was only at the end of March 2026 that Environment Minister Tobias Goldschmidt (Greens) brought the three new marine protected areas in the Baltic Sea into force, explicitly citing the restoration of seagrass beds as a key objective of the Baltic Sea Protection Action Plan 2030. During discussions, Goldschmidt had even explicitly urged sailors to stop anchoring in seagrass beds – and announced that it would make their situation clearer in future.

The fact that the active restoration of these meadows, of all things, is now being held up by a question of fees is clearly at odds with the state’s nature conservation policy objectives. However, the state cannot force a solution: responsibility lies with the federal government.

Time is running out: planting can only be done until the end of August. After that, the season is over.

You might also find this interesting:

Action Plan for the Protection of the Baltic Sea: “The tone has changed”

​Stricter restrictions now in place in three new areas

​Baltic Sea Protection Action Plan: Interview on planned navigation rules