Baltic Rescue Plan

Russia is recommended to abandon household chemicals containing phosphorus

The strict requirements of the European Union for its members in terms of compliance with environmental legislation have already had a positive impact on the ecology of the Baltic Sea off the coast of Poland. However, since Russia is not a member of the community of states of the Old World, it must propose its own action plan aimed at preserving the Baltic. Domestic officials were warned about this during a seminar of the Helsinki Commission for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea (HELCOM) held yesterday in St. Petersburg.

One of the main objectives of the seminar is to involve the regional authorities of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad region in the preparation of this plan, as a region that is one of the main sources of pollution in the Baltic. The Helsinki Commission (which unites all European states with access to the Baltic Sea) expects that by 2010 Russia will present its specific plan for reducing emissions of phosphorus, nitrogen and other toxic substances into the sea.

Today, Russia and Poland share the lead in pollution of the Baltic. For example, Russia’s “phosphorus share” is 2.5 thousand tons annually, Poland’s is almost 9 thousand tons, but Poland discharges an order of magnitude more nitrogen into the Baltic than Russia: 62 thousand tons versus 6.9 thousand tons. It is the increased content of nitrogen and phosphorus in seawater that causes the effect of eutrophication (a state of the aquatic system when a high concentration of nutrients stimulates the growth of seaweed, which intensively consumes oxygen, which leads to the death of many marine organisms, including fish).

“Many countries in the Baltic region hide real data on emissions of untreated wastewater into the sea, which greatly hinders the development of effective control measures,” says Leonid Korovin, chairman of the HELCOM group on land-based sources of pollution. -- Although modern technologies and engineering developments help to significantly reduce emissions of phosphorus and nitrogen from wastewater. But we still don’t have real numbers.”

By and large, experts can only guess what damage the treatment facilities of the St. Petersburg water utility and agricultural enterprises of the Leningrad region are causing to the Baltic. In addition, in Russia there are different assessments of toxicity: in our country they are judged by the immediate reaction of the chemical on the body, in Europe they take into account both the effect of the accumulation of various chemicals in the body and the rate of their natural decay in nature. HELCOM specialists note changes after Poland joined the EU with its strict environmental requirements: in the country, untreated discharges have decreased by almost 30%, despite the fact that almost half of the country’s population is engaged in agriculture.

Russia, although it is not subject to EU laws, should take a closer look at the actions of its neighbors, including because our country has long recognized the priority of international legislation, says HELCOM Secretary Mikhail Durkin. In his opinion, the state should, for example, abandon the use of household chemicals containing phosphorus. More environmentally friendly products now cost 20% more, Mr. Durkin admits, but municipalities could save up to half the current wastewater treatment costs. “From our point of view, there is already a need to calculate how much it will cost Europe to lose the Baltic Sea as an environmentally safe one,” says the HELCOM secretary. “And we are confident that these figures will bring our officials to their senses - it is cheaper to clean up waste now than to deprive our descendants of hope for a safe future.”

Natalya SHKURENOK, St. Petersburg