1. Intensive exploitation of shorelines
2. Threats caused by dredging in shallow and semi – enclosed bays
3. Exploitation of coastal sea bottoms
4. Sosnovy Bor is the largest nuclear complex in the Baltic Sea Region
5. Harbour complexes in the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland
6. Lack of infrastructure in Coastal Strip settlements
7. Erosion problem on Curonian Spit and Sambian Peninsula coast
8. Military Shooting Polygones – e.g. Nõva Bay
9. Sindi Dam in Pärnu River
10. Saaremaa Bridge
11. Small ports – e.g. Võiste
12. House construction at the coast in Salacgriva
13. Installations on the dunes in Jurmala
14. Unrestricted camping site in Jurkalne
15. Illegal house constructions in Rucava (Pape Nature park)
16. Būtinge oil terminal
17. Klaipeda harbour
18. Planned deep water port
19. The channel through the Vistula’s Spit
20. Construction of artifcial Marina Island
21. Industrial animal farms
22. Fehmarn Belt bridge
23. Lubmin power plant
24. Port Olpenitz
25. Agricultural overfertilization from farming in Danish Baltic coastal areas and Natura 2000 areas
26. Coastal threats as a consequence of the proposal for new legislation
27. New Harbour at Norvik
 Finland
Finnish law has no general protection for the coastal strip. Therefore there is a risk of overexploitation of shorelines, and recreational use might be suffering. Ecologically important shallow areas are threatened by multiple pressures from increasing property development.
1. Intensive exploitation of shorelines
An average of 41 % of the Finnish coast, including the coastlines of islands, is developed. The exploitation of shorelines is too intensive, with the greatest degree of development taking place in growing urban areas such as Helsinki and Turku, with surroundings. In order to guarantee the goals of biodiversity protection or the opportunities for recreation, Finland should introduce stronger legislation for coastal strip protection in accordance with HELCOM Recommendation 15/1.
2. Threats caused by dredging in shallow and semi – enclosed bays
Shallow, semi – enclosed bays along the shores are biologically valuable, highly diverse habitats, e.g. important spawning areas for several fish species. Due to ongoing land uplift and the strong human pressure in these areas, the increase of small – scale dredging activities threatens the integrity of these ecosystems. Current legislation does not provide efficient tools to manage this escalating problem.
3. Exploitation of coastal sea bottoms
Exploitation of sea bottoms, e.g. dredging and extraction of sand, is not based on precautionary principles or principles of sustainable development. Many of the projects that exploit the sea floor provide insufficient Environmental Impacts Assessments (EIA), due to lack of information and knowledge about the underwater nature. The on – going Finnish Inventory Programme for the Underwater Marine Environment (VELMU), with the aim to provide distribution maps of all marine underwater species and habitat types in Finland, has not yet delivered the results required for complete EIAs. Proper sea – bed marine inventories should be required as background information for any permit application.
 Russia
A general plan for coastal development of the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland and Kaliningrad coastal areas does not exist. The coastal zone, with important natural, cultural and historical values, is exposed to intensive industrial pressure and becomes a site for implementation of projects with potential transboundary impact. The existence of international Ramsar sites (Kurgalsky, Lebyazhye, Berezovye Islands) with a wide biodiversity and several regional nature protected areas are not taken into account when harmful installations are planned and realized. Officially, Russian legislation, and international treaties where Russian Federation is a party, demand that all installations are subject to Public Environmental Expert Review. However, the new Russian legislation, amended in 2007, has practically abandoned the environmental examination of hazardous activities, as well as their EIA. Decisions on the implementation of projects, which have the transboundary impact on the whole Baltic region, are taken on the Federal level. Regional authorities are appointed by the President of Russia, and therefore, do not feel the responsibility towards residents of the region. Municipal authorities and local communities are simply notified about the planned projects, justified by national interests. In addition, there is no national Russian mechanism to effectively implement the international legal rules to mitigate potential transboundary impact of planned environmental harmful installations, because Russia has signed, but not yet ratified the Espoo Convention.
The Water Code of Russian Federation determines Coastal Protection Strip as 500 m from the shoreline landwards. Yet, planning, constructing, and operation of industrial and other objects are allowed within the Coastal Protection Strip.
4. Sosnovy Bor is the largest nuclear complex in the Baltic Sea Region
Construction of a new Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant (LNPP – 2) with 6 reactors started in 2007. This was initiated without taking into consideration unsolved problems, such as decommissioning of the old Leningrad NPP with 4 Chernobyl type reactors, long – term isolation and storage of spent nuclear fuel and functioning factories for reprocessing radioactive waste. Decisions about such projects are taken on the Federal level and municipal authorities and the local community cannot influence the decision making process.
5. Harbour complexes in the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland
Construction of new Russian ports (Ust – Luga, Primorsk, Vysotsk) and extension and modernization of the existing ones (St. – Petersburg seaport complex, Vyborg) contribute to an increase of transfer of oil products in the Baltic Sea, and consequently increasing the risk of oil spills. In case of a serious oil spill, neither Russia, nor any international cooperation system, is ready to give sufficient response to the situation. Effective decision – making and means to attract necessary resources for liquidating the source and consequences of the accident are missing. Comprehensive cumulative EIA of all the ports together was never considered.
6. Lack of infrastructure in Coastal Strip settlements
Permanently inhabited settlements and areas with summer houses along the Coastal Strip lack waste water treatment installations and other infrastructure. Their sewage water goes untreated directly to the Baltic Sea. Transition of summer houses (dachas) to permanently inhabited settlements adds to this problem. Intensively used for recreation, the coastal area is buried with garbage, the forest surrounding the settlements is cut and trampled down while the dunes are totally destroyed. Water treatment installations and sustainable infrastructure are needed to control the situation, and the expansion of such settlements must be restricted.
7. Erosion problem on Curonian Spit and Sambian Peninsula coast
The Curonian Spit National Park with its extremely vulnerable Coastal Strip is visited by over 200,000 people during the summer season, and most of those come for the sea beach recreation. As a consequence of unregulated tourism, erosion is a problem along the entire coastal strip of the Kaliningrad region. The whole Coastal Strip of the Kaliningrad region is also unstable due to lack of sand drifts from the sea to the sandy beaches and increasing storm activity. Over 35% of the coast is exposed to slides and screes. About 10% of the coast is exposed to the permanent erosion and about 25% of the beaches are not wide enough for the coastal stability. Restoration of the dunes and beaches is needed to control the situation and the pressure from visitors must be regulated.
 Estonia
There are several administrative shortcomings in nature protection valid also for coastal zone management, for example limited number of supervisory authorities. Decision making within other sectoral policies does not take into account nature protection values and requirements. Detailed plans are focused on the interests of the developer and not enough related to general or thematic planning and nature protection and recreational values in the coastal zones. In December 2008 the government approved the new start of redrafting the Action Plan for Nature Protection in Estonia with the aim to cover more requirements from related sector policy areas and international conventions. The protected coastal strip in Estonia is 200 m.
8. Military Shooting Polygones – e.g. Nõva Bay
There is a plan to establish about 10 military shooting polygones on the coast of the Baltic Sea, for example in Nõva Bay between Dirham and Osmussaar , which is an important corridor for bird migration and holds a sensitive plant ecosystems (grey dunes and pine tree forests in the dune zone). There is also a plan to use the Islet Uhtja, where seals use to gather, as a watching station on the efficiency of shooting. These plans for new military polygones represent a significant threat towards important Baltic nature conservation and recreational values.
9. Sindi Dam in Pärnu River
The Sindi dam in Pärnu river, close to Pärnu, is an old dam without any significant function today. The Sindi dam stops the migration of salmon and sea trout to the big catchment area upstreams. Pärnu river holds a weak and threatened wild salmon population that should be safeguarded for the future. By removing the dam or creation of an open fish passage in the dam, the wild salmon population could recover and the Pärnu river catchment upstreams the dam could become an important river for recreational salmonid fisheries.
10. Saaremaa Bridge
The Estonian government wants to replace the existing ferry connection between the mainland and Saaremaa island with a 7 km long bridge. The site of the potential bridge lies inside the large Väinameri Important Bird Area. During the migration period more than 2 million birds fly over the Suur Strait. Protected birds which feature in the EU’s Bird Directive annex I, e.g. the lesser white fronted goose (Anser erythropus), smew (Mergus albellus) and crane (Grus grus), have been found in the area. The Suur Strait is also rather shallow and the bridge could disturb the strait’s tidal flows. The construction period would also add another threat by impacting on seabed biota and habitats.
11. Small ports – e.g. Võiste
Estonian laws do not require that small ports should be registered and so they do not need to meet port environmental management standards but usually create a significant load of diffuse pollution. One example is Vöiste terminal, with a big group of owners, that does not provide external services but is used for fisheries quite intensively.
 Latvia
Protection of the coastal strip in Latvia is being ensured through the Law on Protected Strips. Any new buildings and other infrastructure developments are strictly limited within 300 m of special coastal protection strip in forest and dune areas and 150 m in villages and settlement areas. New constructions and infrastructure objects in the area of protected strips are allowed only according to the local special planning regulations which have to be approved by the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Regional Development at the final stage.
12. House construction at the coast in Salacgriva
Through illegal parcelling of land the Salacgriva municipality is violating the building regulations and also acts against regulations on coastal protection. A case when a fisheries tool shed (household building) was in legal terms transformed to a summer house, is one of the most visible examples. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Latvia, whose wife is the owner of this property, is eager to transform aforementioned building to a residential house. So far the State Environmental Service refused to approve this transformation as it was in contradiction with the requirements of Law on Protected Strips.
13. Installations on the dunes in Jūrmala
The Council of Jūrmala town plans new construction within the area of dune protection thus demonstrating complete ignorance towards the opinion of the public who is clearly opposing the plans and even organised severe protest actions. The Council amended the territorial planning of Jūrmala town and in the nature areas envisaged various commercial projects involving construction on the dunes. In several cases the Ministry of Environment of Latvia was critical and did not approve these amendments, referring to the requirements of Law on Protected Strips. Development including damage of nature seems to be integral part of Jūrmala town council policy.
14. Unrestricted camping site in Jūrkalne
The private camping ground “Sīļi”is located on the dunes in an area bordering a shoreline cliff which is unique in its beauty, and particularly vulnerable to erosion and destructive activities. The area used by the camping ground is owned by the municipality that let the area by lease. Sadly, the owner of the camping ground promotes destruction of this nature value through allowing tourist to cut trees for firewood and drive and park cars in the dune zone. Moreover, the owner allows tent pitching outside the camping area and even on the edge of the cliff. Jūrkalne municipality is not limiting these destructive activities and have even increased the territory of the dune area which is leased to the camping.
15. Illegal house constructions in Rucava (Pape Nature park)
Within the area of Pape Nature Park and in the coastal strip area several cases have been documented when construction taking place without receiving or even seeking necessary permits from the state institutions in charge for overseeing construction. Land owners in the area develop resort infrastructure in an uncontrolled way and show ignorant attitude towards requirements of coastal protection legislation.
 Lithuania
Currently Lithuanian legislation system describes coastal area as 100 m of land from the waterline and water area up to 20 m depth. All coastal area is state property, unless land was private before coastal zone law come into force. Basically no new constant construction can be created, unless granted special permission. Detailed management of coastal zone and granting of special permissions are performed by coastal cities authorities and national parks.
16. Būtingė oil terminal
Būtingė oil terminal located near Lithuanian – Latvian border, posses a threat to Baltic Sea and especially to recreational beaches of Lithuania and Latvia due to random minor oil spills. Some leakages can even be unannounced by the oil company due to low population density in the cross – border region.
17. Klaipėda harbour
Klaipėda harbour located on the strait connecting Baltic Sea and Curonian lagoon has a high concentration of stevedoring companies (some dealing with chemicals and oil products). These companies have a privileged position as dominant economical power, which means that negative impact on the environment can be overlooked by responsible authorities.
18. Planned deep water port
Elaboration of currently planned deep water port construction project in front of the most popular Klaipėda’s beach (Melnaragė) could change the sand transportation along eastern Baltic coast, which may lead to further degradation of sandy beaches in the nearby coastal areas. In addition, decline in recreational value of the aforementioned beach means increased anthropogenic pressure on remaining coastal areas, of which some are Natura 2000 areas. In spring 2009 quathoridies decided not to contract the new Klaipede port.
 Poland
The coastal strip protection for the Polish coastline reaches 100 – 200 m inland, depending of the type of coast. The protective belt in Poland reaches normally up to 2 km inland from the coastal protection boundary. In some areas it reaches up to 5 km and in urban areas it can be much narrower. However, the law is often broken due to various engineering constructions, e.g. seaside promenades along the sea shore, and protection against the danger of erosion by coastal defence constructions is missing. The total length of the Polish coastline, including the Szczecin Lagoon and the Gdansk Gulf is over 800 km. More than half of the Polish dunes and coastal zone, as well as 2/3 of the cliff shores, have been devastated, although, since the introduction of the Natura 2000 network the situation has improved a bit.
19. The channel through the Vistula’s Spit
The project of the Vistula’s Spit Channel, near Krynica Morska, is planned as an alternative water way for Elblag harbour and will be realized in 2010 – 2013, financed solely by national budget. A satisfactory EIA has not yet been completed, but it is clear that the channel will influence the water salinity and composition of fish species in the Vistula Lagoon. The ecosystem of Vistula Lagoon can undergo adverse changes, and the attraction for recreational activities in the area will be reduced because of noise and pollution from ships in the surrounding areas of the channel.
20. Construction of artificial Marina Island
The plan for creating an artificial island, full of entertainment activities with shops, cinemas etc., at the Baltic Sea near Gdansk – Sopot – Gdynia agglomeration, is supposed to be realised in 2012. The project will be financed mainly by the EU. The knowledge about its influence on the environment is insufficient. Opinions of environmental experts have not been taking into account and the project may intrude into Natura 2000 areas.
21. Industrial animal farms
There are about 117 large – scale pig and poultry (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, IPPC) farms in Poland. Some of them are located in the area between Szczecin and Koszalin city (Zachodniopomorskie region), where big state farms were operated in the Communism Period and afterwards privatized and taken over by large American and West – European corporations. Even if those farms posses integrated permits there are many cases of improper manure storage and management, with consequences such as overfertilization, enormous nitrogen and phosphorus run – off and eutrophication. Very common is also lack of transparency of the administrative procedures regarding industrial animal farms, and lack of access to public information about those installations and their negative influence on the environment
 Germany
Although the two Baltic coastal states in Germany have a protected coastal strip of 100 m (Schleswig – Holstein) or 200 m (Mecklenburg – Vorpommern) where building is severely restricted, the overall situation is not at all satisfying. Construction activities on the coast have become a lot easier during the past years due to a different attitude in planning authorities and some changes in laws and regulations. Also, activities for widespread flood protection still heavily interfere with a natural environment of the seashore.
22. Fehmarn Belt bridge
A 19 km long bridge between Fehmarn Island and Denmark for 4 – lane road traffic and a rail connection could inhibit water inflow into the Baltic, pose a risk for shipping and kill large numbers of migrating birds. The bridge is strongly pushed by Denmark and Schleswig – Holstein state, while Mecklenburg – Vorpommern – just like environmental NGOs – raises strong concerns.
23. Lubmin power plant
A huge 1,6 GW power plant is planned on the southern shore of Greifswald Lagoon. The emissions of cooling water will drastically change much of the fragile lagoon ecosystem and endanger the Natura 2000 – site’s value as an important breeding and resting area for birds.
24. Port Olpenitz
The biggest holiday resort in northern Europe is planned right next to several nature protection areas at the mouth of the narrow Schlei bight. A harbour for 2500 yachts, 1000 holiday homes, 7000 hotel beds and numerous recreation facilities will transform today’s quiet coastal strip into a huge new settlement with sprawling activities, with strong impact on existing natural values in the surrounding areas.
 Denmark
Today it is possible for the municipal authorities in Denmark to practice stricter environmental security measures when they assess the impact of big scale farming on the environment. Despite the availability of this kind of regulation the opportunity is not used.
Natura 2000 areas in Denmark are already overloaded by increased emissions of agriculture nutrients. New permissions for farm production in Natura 2000 areas and in coastal zones should in fact for several years have included reductions in permitted emissions of nutrients – but the opposite has happened. So far harmful agricultural practices have outweighed a growing public concern for the condition of the environment.
In 2008, the Danish Society for Nature Conservation, DN, has adopted a new agricultural strategy. DN will work for farming in Denmark to become 100% organic by the middle of the century. Big scale farming is no longer to be allowed in environmentally valuable areas, including coastal zones, and should meet the same regulations as other industrial businesses.
25. Agricultural overfertilization from farming in Danish Baltic coastal
areas and Natura 2000 areas
Today the hot spots on the Danish Baltic shores are as many as the official permissions to increase the emissions of nutrients in coastal areas, which are overloaded already. Problematic areas can be found along the south coast of the island of Funen and along all coastlines of the islands of Møn, Lolland, Falster and Zealand.
 Sweden
In Sweden, 100 m from the shoreline, landwards and seawards, is generally protected from construction, and in some areas extended to 300 m.
26. Coastal threats as a consequence of the proposal for new legislation
According to a new proposal to change the legislation, municipalities will become directly responsible for exemptions from the coastal strip protection. This is a change from the present procedure when municipalities may get this responsibility transferred from the County Administrative Board. In addition there would be new legal reasons for exemptions. Building houses near the shore in the north of Sweden (100 km north of Stockholm and in Gulf of Bothnia), within specific “rural development areas” could be permitted with the expectation that this would attract more people and enterprises to sparsely populated areas. Exemptions would also be given e.g. to build residential houses in connection to already existing buildings in these areas and the 300 m coastal strip protection would be removed. The law is supposed to enter into force on 1 July, 2009, but different stakeholders have protested against the proposed changes and are trying to influence national politicians.
27. New Harbour threatening important nature conservation and recreation areas
The Stockholm Port Authority is planning a new deep – water port at Norvik, about 65 km south of Stockholm. The idea is to establish a large container and ro – ro (roll on – roll off ) port in order to increase goods transport by ships. From the environmental point of view, one of the problems with such a port is that most of the ro – ro – freight will not have destinations in the Stockholm area and it would be more rational to move handling of ro – ro goods to other ports situated closer to the final destination of the freight. Otherwise the port will lead to much more freight transport on road in the Stockholm area, and the risk is that in the long run new road infrastructure will be required to serve the goods distribution from/to the Norvik port. This could lead to the destruction of an important and beautiful landscape, nature and recreational values, increase in air pollution etc. It would be much better to use the capacity of existing ports on the Swedish east coast.
The plans of the Stockholm Port Authority show that without proper planning of location of harbours, a great part of the environmental benefits connected to shipping would be eliminated by the impact of the activities on land connected to the ports. Comprehensive spatial planning is necessary to obtain optimal solutions.
|
