Frequently asked questions about
the Clean Baltic Sea project

WHY SHOULD FINNS PAY FOR THE TREATMENT OF RUSSIAN WASTEWATER? RUSSIA IS A RICH COUNTRY. WHY AREN'T THE RUSSIANS FINANCING THE TREATMENT OF THEIR WATER THEMSELVES?

• Although Russia has become richer in recent years, the country's infrastructure, including its wastewater treatment plants, are still at a developmental stage. Without the Clean Baltic Sea project, phosphorus removal might not be put into use in St. Petersburg until years from now. The Baltic Sea and the inhabitants around it cannot wait that long because the ecological state of the sea is deteriorating at a fast pace.
• The project will not pay for wastewater treatment; instead, it will use "start-up money" to speed up the commencement of phosphorus removal. Once phosphorus removal has begun, the Russians will be responsible for the expenses themselves.
• Cooperation is necessary also for the reason that the Russians have no technical expertise required for phosphorus removal because the method has never been used in Russia.

WHY HAVEN'T RUSSIANS IMPLEMENTED PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL EARLIER?

• In the Soviet Union, the construction of wastewater treatment plants was started later than in other countries. The break-up of the Soviet Union again caused economic chaos, which made it difficult to promote environmental protection.
• For a long time, clean potable water has been a priority in Russia and their resources have been allocated to it. Now environmental consciousness has increased, and the Russians want to achieve European standards in the treatment of wastewater.
• With water rates based on new legislation, Vodokanal now has the money to implement nutrient removal.

WHY HASN'T THE FINNISH MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT INTERVENED IN THE MATTER EARLIER?

• Groundwork for the commencement of phosphorus removal has been going on since 1989, and the Environmental Administration has also participated in it. Chemical phosphorus removal is not used anywhere in Russia, and the preliminary run has taken time. With the lengthy groundwork and the opening of the borders, the time is now ripe for phosphorus removal. The Ministry of the Environment supports the Clean Baltic Sea project of the John Nurminen Foundation.

SHOULDN'T SOCIETY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MATTERS LIKE THIS?

• Today, initiatives originating in active citizenship can play a significant role in areas that have traditionally been the responsibility of the public sector. Private sector actors may have expertise, knowledge and approaches that complement public sector activities. The Foundation is a good actor for the implementation of a project of this kind because it is a flexible non-profit organisation with little bureaucracy.

WHAT IF PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL IS NOT CARRIED OUT IN ST. PETERSBURG?

• If phosphorus removal is not carried out, blue-green algal blooms may increase in the short term. This is due to the fact that, at the same time, water protection measures aimed at the reduction of nitrogen in particular (e.g., nitrogen removal at coastal wastewater treatment plants) are being carried out in Finland, and therefore the nitrogen-phosphorus balance will become more and more favourable to blue-green algae.

WHY HAS THE FOUNDATION STARTED THE PROJECT IN POLAND, EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE EMISSION SOURCES CLOSER AS WELL?

• Poland is responsible for a large share of the pollution of the Baltic Sea. Approximately half of the entire population in the Baltic Sea's catchment live in Poland.
• National borders are irrelevant for the contamination of the Baltic Sea, and the sea currents carry emissions to our coasts from farther away as well.
• Reducing emissions in Polish targets is also more cost-effective than it is in Finland. The Foundation allocates its environmental operations there where the highest emission reduction and the most positive environmental effect can be achieved with the lowest cost.

WHAT DRAWBACKS OR ADVERSE EFFECTS DOES PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL HAVE?

• The project will not have any negative environmental effects. Precisely the same substance and method has been used in Finland for wastewater treatment for 20 to 30 years.
• Slightly more iron than before will enter the water system with wastewater, but the amount will continue to be negligible. The amount of sewage sludge will increase somewhat and its composition will change; however, the incineration process is modern and controlled so that discharges should not increase in quantity.
• All environmental effects will be determined precisely in an environmental impact assessment still to be undertaken.

WHAT IS THE PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL PROCESS LIKE?

• Biological and chemical phosphorus removal processes have been combined in St. Petersburg. In the biological process, a significant part of the wastewater phosphorus is consumed by bacteria as nutrition. The amount varies from plant to plant, and the biological method alone is an insecure and ineffective solution. Chemical precipitation is used to remove that part which the bacteria in the biological method cannot or do not have the time to utilise. The chemical method is in use in almost all Baltic Sea countries, since it is the most secure and efficient method.

WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PHOSPHORUS AFTER IT HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE WASTEWATER?

• The soluble phosphorus reacts with iron sulphate and sinks to the bottom of the basins. All sludge is collected, dried and burned. The remaining ash is stabilised and used as construction material or taken to the dump.

DOES THE PHOSPHORUS FINALLY END UP IN THE SEA?

IS IT CERTAIN THAT THE RUSSIANS WILL DO THEIR PART AND KEEP THEIR PROMISES?

• The Russians have participated in the project with enthusiasm and resolve right from the beginning. A cooperation agreement on the implementation of the project has been signed with them.
• The Russians will pay one half of the project expenses, which will guarantee their commitment to the implementation of the project.
• The Russians have also announced the project on their own initiative in the country's various media, which will commit them to the implementation of the project. They have also given presentations on the project at domestic and international events.

HOW CAN YOU BE SURE THAT THE DONATED FUNDS WILL BE USED IN RUSSIA FOR PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL INSTEAD OF THE MONEY DISAPPEARING INTO WRONG HANDS?

• We can be sure about this because we do not send the collected assets to Russia. We cover our part of the project funding by paying checked invoices, caused by the phosphorus removal design work, investments and chemical acquisitions, to the suppliers of the goods and services. The cooperation with Vodokanal, the waterworks of St. Petersburg, has been fruitful and confidential.

WHY DID THE FOUNDATION LAUNCH THE PROJECT?

• The Board of the John Nurminen Foundation has been concerned about the present condition of the Baltic Sea for a long time. On the initiative of Juha Nurminen, the Chairman of the Foundation's Board, it was decided to establish a fund and a project to provide concrete, cost-effective and quick help for the Baltic Sea.

ARE THE MODELLING AND RESEARCH RESULTS FOR THE PROJECT RELIABLE?

• In its modelling, the foundation has used the only Baltic Sea model used in Finland. The Finnish Environmental Administration has also used it in its algae prognoses. The model is owned by the Environmental Impact Assessment Centre of Finland Ltd (EIA Ltd) and the Finnish Environment Institute, and has been used for many scientific publications. The rest of the material presented is based on studies made by the Finnish Environment Institute.
• Modelling always involves uncertainties, which derive from things such as simplifications used in models.
• In addition, loading is greatly influenced by factors such as varying precipitation in the Baltic Sea region in different years.
• However, modelling is the only method that can be used to provide even indicative predictions related to the environmental impact of a certain measure.

WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT TO REDUCE, PHOSPHORUS OR NITROGEN? WHICH SHOULD BE REDUCED FIRST?

• Phosphorus and nitrogen each contribute to eutrophication in their own way. Phosphorus is a key factor in blue-green algal blooms in the open sea, whereas nitrogen has the principal part in blooms occurring in the inner archipelago and coastal areas.
• Nitrogen also causes the spring bloom of diatoms and dinoflagellates, which is extensive in quantitative terms and therefore accelerates anoxia at the bottom of the Baltic Sea. Anoxia again releases phosphorus, which increases blue-green algal growth. Thus nitrogen and phosphorus contents are interdependent, and it is unthinkable that only one of them should be reduced.
• It makes more sense to implement phosphorus removal immediately in the remaining large point sources because it is inexpensive and will not have any secondary ecological effects. At the same time, nitrogen emissions should continue to be reduced. The reduction of nitrogen only will increase the amount of blue-green algae in the open sea.

ISN'T FINNISH AGRICULTURE THE BIGGEST SOURCE OF LOADING IN THE BALTIC SEA?

• The loading caused by Finnish agriculture affects the condition of closed water exchange areas, that is the inner archipelago and the coast, in particular, but its contribution to the total loading in the Gulf of Finland and the Archipelago Sea is fairly small. Instead of an "either-or" principle, a "both-and" principle should be used when considering the reduction of diffuse pollution from Finnish sources and the Clean Baltic Sea project of the John Nurminen Foundation - all measures are necessary. In the open sea, loads originating in St. Petersburg are in a dominant position, whereas in inner bays and the coast it is the Finnish-based loading that is decisive for the way the situation develops.

ARE THERE TOO MANY ANOXIC BOTTOMS, AND IS THE BALTIC SEA ALREADY AT AN IMPASSE ECOLOGICALLY?

• Nobody knows for sure, but most scientists hope that it is not the case yet. In fact, there is reason to act quickly, as the faster the number of anoxic bottoms increase, the more bottom processes begin to dominate the eutrophication process in the Baltic Sea when they release the loads accumulated on the bottom in the course of decades.
• In any case, it is better to act than to do nothing at all. Especially when there still are measures that can be implemented with relative ease.