How should countries prioritise action on submerged munitions in the Baltic Sea? A new study offers fresh insight by bringing together stakeholder perspectives on environmental risks, safety concerns, legal barriers and the practical challenges of remediation.
The study, based on World Café and Mentimeter engagements with participants at Kiel Munition Clearance Week, shows that stakeholders see environmental protection as a central reason to act. Sensitive marine ecosystems, biodiversity and the wider health of the Baltic Sea were highlighted as key concerns when discussing where remediation efforts should be prioritised.
At the same time, the findings show that decisions on submerged munitions are rarely shaped by environmental concerns alone. Stakeholders also pointed to risks to critical infrastructure, public safety, maritime activities and broader security interests. This underlines the complexity of the issue: submerged munitions are not only an environmental legacy problem, but also a challenge for marine planning, governance and sustainable development.
These findings align closely with the objectives of MUNI-RISK, which is working to support Baltic Sea countries with practical tools and guidance for managing risks from old seabed munitions. The project aims to help authorities decide whether munitions should remain in place or be removed safely, develop clear risk assessment tools, and support environmental planning through guidance for including munition risks in Environmental Impact Assessments for new marine projects such as offshore wind farms.
A key message from the study is that prioritisation requires balancing multiple concerns at once. Stakeholders emphasised that ecological sensitivity matters, but so do the condition of munition casings, possible chemical leakage, operational risks during remediation and the socio-economic implications of leaving sites unmanaged. In practice, this means that action must be guided by more than location alone. It also requires a shared understanding of which risks are most urgent and how they should be weighed.
The study also points to a broader governance challenge. Participants identified legal and institutional fragmentation as an important barrier to remediation. Unclear responsibilities, permitting complexity and the absence of a fully coherent regional framework can slow decision-making and make coordinated action more difficult. This is particularly relevant in a sea basin where environmental pressures, maritime uses and cross-border interdependencies are closely connected.
For MUNI-RISK, these findings reinforce the importance of linking science, policy and practice. The project brings together scientists and practitioners to support safe maritime activities such as fishing and responsible marine development, including offshore wind. By the end of the project, countries around the Baltic Sea are expected to have practical tools and guidelines for safer management of munition risks.
The study further highlights the importance of environmental assessment in remediation planning. Removing submerged munitions can reduce long-term risks, but remediation itself may also create environmental and operational impacts if not carefully managed. This is why MUNI-RISK includes a dedicated focus on supporting environmental planning and providing guidance on how munition risks should be addressed in EIAs for new marine developments.
Taken together, the study offers an important contribution to ongoing efforts to address submerged munitions in the Baltic Sea. It shows that stakeholders are looking for approaches that are not only scientifically sound, but also workable in regulatory and operational terms. For MUNI-RISK, this kind of knowledge is essential: it helps ensure that future tools and guidance are grounded in the real concerns, trade-offs and needs faced by authorities and practitioners across the region.
As MUNI-RISK continues its work from 2024 to 2027, studies like this help strengthen the foundation for better-informed and more coordinated decisions on how to manage one of the Baltic Sea’s most complex legacy risks.