Bringing Baltic Expertise to Black Sea Risks 

A new regional project is addressing underwater munitions risks in the Black Sea through Baltic cooperation. 

The war in Ukraine has intensified attention on the Black Sea’s environmental vulnerabilities, from oil spills and damaged habitats to floating mines and sunken military equipment. Yet the region also faces an older, less visible threat: legacy underwater munitions from past wars and dumping activities. As concerns grow over ecological and security risks, a new initiative is trying to transfer hard-won Baltic Sea experience to the Black Sea. 

Andriy Grafov is Project Coordinator at the HELCOM Secretariat, where he works on the SAFE BS2BKS project, Safe Actions for Environment: Baltic Solutions to the Black Sea. Led by HELCOM and developed with research partners from Denmark, Latvia, and Ukraine, the project aims to adapt Baltic expertise on underwater munitions to the Black Sea, with a particular focus on Ukraine. In this conversation, Grafov explains the environmental risks posed by sea-dumped weapons, the knowledge gaps that still shape Black Sea policy, and how cross-basin cooperation could help build a safer and more resilient marine future. 

The main difficulty is that we still know much less about the Black Sea than we do about the Baltic Sea. In the Baltic, the research structure, monitoring systems, and regulatory framework are much more advanced. In that sense, it is probably the most developed marine region in Europe when it comes to understanding environmental status. 

In the Black Sea, there is a major knowledge gap. Part of that is political and geopolitical. There are many different countries in the region, including EU and NATO members, as well as Ukraine and Russia. Access to data is uneven, and in some cases Russia simply does not provide information or blocks access. 

In the context of the war, the range of environmental threats has grown significantly. There are floating mines, sunken drones, missiles, helicopters, aircraft, and other munitions. On top of that, there are older legacy munitions already on the seabed from the World Wars and Soviet-era dumping practices. This means the war has added a new layer of risks to an already poorly mapped problem. 

The Black Sea has very specific characteristics. It is deeper than the Baltic and behaves differently. One important feature is that it is meromictic, meaning that below roughly 150 metres the waters do not mix. These deeper waters are anoxic, with no oxygen, and contain hydrogen sulfide. 

This creates a different chemical environment for submerged munitions. In the Baltic, we have a better understanding of corrosion rates and can estimate when ammunition casings begin to release their contents. In the Black Sea, the mechanisms are less well studied, especially in deeper waters. Salinity is also higher than in the Baltic, which may accelerate corrosion in shallow zones. 

So the problem is not only that there are old and new munitions in the sea. It is also that we do not yet fully understand how the Black Sea environment affects them over time. 

There are several particularly sensitive zones, especially near the Danube Delta and around the mouths of the Dnipro and Dniester. These are biologically rich areas and include marine protected areas. 

Those habitats are being affected by the war in several ways. There is direct shelling and bombing, but also oil pollution and hydrological disturbance. One example was the oil spill near the Kerch Strait, which affected both Russian and occupied Crimean coasts, and reached Ukrainian waters near Odesa as well. 

Another example was the destruction of the Kakhovka dam, which caused a large inflow of freshwater and sediments into the sea. That sharply reduced salinity in some coastal zones for several weeks, which in turn caused major habitat disruption. These kinds of changes can have very serious effects on marine ecosystems. 

There are several types of risk. In shallow areas, munitions may be caught by fishing gear or dredging operations, which creates an immediate danger for fishers and marine workers. Floating mines are also a direct threat to shipping and coastal safety. 

Then there is the environmental risk. As munitions sit on the seabed, they corrode. Once the casing degrades, the contents can leak into the surrounding environment. Conventional munitions are already a major pollution concern, and if chemical munitions are present, the risks are even more serious. 

These toxic substances can harm fish, benthic organisms, and habitats on the seafloor. Once contamination begins, the effects can persist for a long time. That is why monitoring and risk assessment are so important, even though the data is still limited. 

Possibly, yes. The first reason is depth. The deeper the sea, the more expensive it becomes to assess, recover, or neutralise submerged objects. 

Even in the Baltic, where the issue has been studied for decades, actual cleanup is only just beginning in a limited way. Germany, for example, has started addressing a relatively small area in Lübeck Bay, and even that requires very high investment. 

In the Black Sea, the challenge is greater because the affected area is larger, the sea is deeper, and the exact locations of many dumping sites are still unknown. In addition, any meaningful response would require cooperation among Black Sea countries, which is extremely difficult under current political conditions. 

The project is called Safe Actions for Environment: Baltic Solutions to the Black Sea. It is supported by the Council of the Baltic Sea States and builds on three Baltic projects related to underwater munitions: MUNI-RISK, MUNIMAP, and MMinE-SwEEPER. 

The idea is to transfer knowledge, methods, and experience from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. HELCOM is involved together with Aarhus University in Denmark, the Latvian Institute of Aquatic Ecology, and three Ukrainian institutions: the Ukrainian Scientific Centre of Ecology of the Sea, the Institute of Marine Biology, and the Institute of Climate-Smart Agriculture. 

The project focuses on training, knowledge transfer, workshops, and dialogue with authorities and stakeholders. It is not a cleanup project in itself. It is about building the scientific, technical, and policy basis for safer long-term management of underwater munitions in the Black Sea. 

Climate change adds another layer of uncertainty. Higher temperatures may accelerate corrosion, which means the window for safe intervention could become shorter. 

It may also influence bacterial processes and seabed chemistry, which in turn can affect how munitions degrade. In the Black Sea context, this is still a relatively new research area, so more data is needed. 

Climate-related disasters can also worsen contamination pathways. The Kakhovka dam destruction, for example, flushed large volumes of sediments into the sea, creating additional ecological stress. So, climate change is not separate from this issue; it interacts with it. 

Climate-related disasters can also worsen contamination pathways

The project is centred on training and stakeholder engagement. It uses Ukrainian partner institutions to reach national authorities, scientists, and local communities. Workshops are being organised to discuss risk assessment, monitoring, and practical adaptation of Baltic methodologies to the Black Sea context. 

One workshop was recently held in Stockholm, and more are planned. A stakeholder dialogue is also being prepared in Ukraine, with participation from local communities, government actors, the military, and the navy. 

One of the main planned outputs is a joint Baltic–Black Sea Action Plan. This will include recommendations, future priorities, and guidance for safe and sustainable management of submerged munitions in the Black Sea. 

Not directly. They can be transferred, but they must be adapted. 

The two seas are very different. What works in the Baltic will not necessarily work in exactly the same way in the Black Sea. But the Baltic has decades of accumulated experience in monitoring, risk assessment, and regional cooperation around underwater munitions. That experience is very valuable. 

So, the goal is not simple replication. It is informed adaptation. That is exactly why the project exists. 

The biggest gap is knowledge. The Black Sea is still under-studied compared with other European seas. 

There is also a governance challenge. Even where there is scientific capacity, regional cooperation is weakened by geopolitics. So, we need better data, stronger scientific coordination, and more structured cooperation between countries and institutions. 

At least in the area stretching from Ukraine to Türkiye, including EU member states, there is a basis for moving forward. That part of the region can do much more in terms of monitoring, dialogue, and planning.