LONDON — Westminster discourse was blessed with a host of new words and phrases during a tumultuous 2025 — and some of them even made sense. Keir Starmer got to fight with tech bro Elon Musk, schmooze Donald Trump, endure frustration from his MPs over Labour’s dreadful polling, reshuffle his government, and preside over a stagnant economy — all while working out a “vision” some 18 months into office. As 2026 screams into view, POLITICO has looked back over the year and picked out all the weird phrases we’d rather forget. 1. Coalition of the willing: The body of nations that sprang up to support Ukraine as U.S. backing looked dicey. Defined by their “vital,” “urgent” and “pivotal” meetings, but often challenged by an unwilling dude across the pond. 2. Smorgasbord: Sweden’s given us IKEA, ABBA — and now the best way to explain an unsatisfying mix of tax rises. Thanks, chancellor! 3. AI Opportunities Action Plan: Never has a government announcement contained so many nouns. 4. AI MP: Why bother with constituency casework when ChatGPT’s around? Labour MP Mark Sewards bagged some help from LLMs … with mixed results. 5. “Beautiful accent”: Trump’s verdict on Starmer’s voice as the unlikely bromance blossomed. 6. Rent license: Everyone pretended to know about housing law as Chancellor Rachel Reeves faced scrutiny for not having one of these when renting out the family home. 7. Rod fishing license: One for the real hardcore license fans. Then-Foreign Secretary David Lammy faced questions for fishing with U.S. Vice President JD Vance without the right paperwork. In a totally unconnected event, he was reshuffled to the justice department shortly after. 8. Board of Peace: Tony Blair was on the list of people to preside over a post-war Gaza … until he very much wasn’t. 9. Golden economic rule: The Conservatives’ shiny and instantly forgettable plan to restore credibility in managing the public finances. Perhaps the No. 1 rule should have been keeping Liz Truss out of No. 10?   10. Lawyer brain: Starmer was frequently accused of acting like a lawyer, not a leader. At least he had a fixed term back when he was chief prosecutor. 11. Liberation Day: Trump’s big old chart slapped global tariffs on allies and sent Whitehall into a tailspin … before a TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) retreat on some of them. 12. The Andrew formerly known as Prince: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had to settle for a hyphenated surname after outrage about his friendship with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. 13. Raise the colors: Politicians spent the summer showing how much they loved flags as Brits — including organized far-right groups — plastered the Union Jack on every lamppost and roundabout in sight. 14. Lucy Listens: Lucy Powell decided the best way to recover from getting sacked from government was to run for Labour deputy leader, win, and hear endlessly from irate Labour members. 15. Joe Marler: Health Secretary Wes Streeting compared himself to a rugby player from the Celebrity Traitors after he was accused of plotting to oust Starmer. Hanging out in a Scottish castle could be quite cushy if the running-for-PM thing doesn’t work out. 16. Driving the DLR: Starmer’s premiership was compared to steering the, er, driverless part of Transport for London. 17. Double Contributions Convention: National insurance became exciting for a brief second amid a row about the India trade deal. Let’s never make that mistake again. 18. Disruptors: What Starmer wants from his ministers. Alas, they slightly misinterpreted the memo and enjoyed disrupting his leadership instead of the Whitehall status quo. 19. Build Baby Build: Housing Secretary Steve Reed not only mimicked Trump’s words but also donned a red baseball cap. The merch was a treat at Labour conference, but it was all a bit cringe.  20. Trigger Me Timbers: Leaks from this imaginatively-named Labour WhatsApp group saw two MPs suspended for vile language. Remember, assume everything in a group is public.  21. Humphrey: Obviously the best-named AI tool ever, the government’s own tech overlord paid tribute to that most conniving of civil servants in the classic BBC sitcom “Yes, Minister.”  21. Humphrey: Obviously, the best-named AI tool ever, the government’s own tech overlord paid tribute to that most conniving of civil servants in classic BBC sitcom “Yes, Minister.”  | David Zorrakino/Europa Press via Getty Images 22. Right to Try: A phrase describing a new guarantee for people entering work — and which might double up as a stirring campaign slogan for the PM. 23. Patriotic renewal: Get those flags out again as No. 10 presses the jargon button to describe what this whole government thing is about. 24. Thatcher Fest: The celebrations marking the centenary of the Iron Lady’s birth knew no bounds. 25. One in, one out: Britain and France struck a treaty for small boat crossings — until one returned migrant recrossed the English Channel to Blighty.   26. Zacktavist: A new generation of Greens got behind “eco-populist” leader Zack Polanksi — and could treat themselves to a mug with his face on for £7 a pop. 27. Yantar: Russia made its meddling against Britain known by deploying a spy ship into territorial waters … although it failed to remain incognito.   28. Two up, two down: Chancellor Rachel Reeves mooted increasing income tax by 2p and cutting national insurance by 2p … before (probably) realizing it would mark the end of her time in the Treasury. 29. Island of strangers: The PM channeled Reform with a speech on migration featuring this phrase. It was compared to former Tory MP Enoch Powell’s infamous “Rivers of Blood” speech … and Starmer later retracted the whole thing. 30. Bob Vylan: A previously obscure rap duo was thrust into the spotlight after calling for “death, death to the IDF” [Israel Defence Forces] at Glastonbury. The BBC came under fire, because of course it did. 31. Persistent knobheadery: That’s one way for a Labour source to justify suspending the whip from four MPs. 32. Sexist boys’ club: Setting up a political party is harder than it looks. Who’d have thought it? Ex-Labour MP Zarah Sultana’s tough words for her fellow independent MPs as the flailing Your Party launched meant some of them left anyway. All’s fair in love and war.   33. F**king suck it up: Running a council is pretty tricky. Reform’s Kent County Council Leader Linden Kemkaran told her fellow councilors they’d have to cope with tough decisions in these colorful terms. Running a council is pretty tricky. Reform’s Kent County Council Leader Linden Kemkaran told her fellow councilors they’d have to cope with tricky decisions in these colorful terms. | Gareth Fuller/PA Images via Getty Images 34. Three Pads Rayner: Angela Rayner’s tenure as deputy PM and, erm, housing secretary came to an abrupt end after she failed to pay the correct amount of property tax — but not before earning this moniker. 35. Further and faster: How did the government react to its local elections shellacking? By vowing to carry on in exactly the same way, albeit more intensely. 36. Phase Two: Starmer’s much-hyped fall reset of his government was followed by one calamity after another. Not too late for Phase Three! 37. Danish model: Ministers decided migration could be solved by copying Copenhagen. Anything for a trip to the continent.   38. The Liz Truss Show: Britain’s shortest-serving former prime minister used extra time on her hands to woo MAGAland with yet another political podcast. Cannot be unseen.   39. I rise to speak: MPs deploying this phrase gave an instant red flag that they may, just may, have used AI to help write their speeches.  40. Judge Plus: Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s assurance that her assisted dying bill still had plenty of legal safeguards, despite a High Court judge getting dropped from the process.   41. Pride in Place: After Boris Johnson’s “leveling up” (RIP), Labour tries a similar approach in all but name. 42. Waste Files: Elon Musk inspired a host of U.K. DOGE copycats keen to slash complex government budgets from their armchairs. 43. Project Chainsaw: No, Starmer isn’t suddenly a Javier Milei fan, but his government wanted to reshape the state — with some bandying about this subtle, civil service-spooking nickname. 44. Global headwinds: The ultimate euphemism for how the orange-colored elephant in the room changed everything.   45. Pan-Euro-Mediterranean Convention: Want Britain closer to the EU? Choose a trade agreement guaranteed to send even the most ardent Europhile to sleep. President Trump’s trade wars caused global headwinds throughout the year. | Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images 46. Headphone dodgers: A nuisance to everyone, the Lib Dems went full throttle by pledging to fine the public transport irritants £1,000. It’s a wonder the party isn’t leading the polls. 47. StormShroud drones: All wars create an opportunity for futuristic tech that hopefully does what it says on the tin. 48. Return hubs: Ministers insist migration definitely isn’t getting outsourced to other countries by mooting third-party “processing” … something Albania won’t even take part in. See also: Deport Now, Appeal Later.  49. Far-right bandwagon: Starmer’s row with Musk reached a crescendo with the PM’s phrase lobbed at some proponents of an inquiry into grooming gangs operating in the U.K. 50. Impossible trilemma: Ahead of the budget, a top think tank warned that Reeves faced the unenviable task of meeting fiscal targets while sticking to spending promises and not raising taxes. No pressure. 51. Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister: Darren Jones’ prefect vibes were rewarded with a brand spanking new gig in the pre-shuffle right at the start of Phase Two. 52. Growth people feel in their pockets: One No. 10 press officer may have collected their P45 after publishing *that* press release. 53. Mainstream: This totally normal, nothing-to-see-here, soft-left Labour group definitely isn’t a vehicle for Andy Burnham’s return to Westminster.   54. Plastic patriots/plastic progressives: The synthetic material really got a kicking from Labour, who deployed the terms to slam Reform and the Greens respectively. Let’s hope voters have reusable bags. 55. Quint: Five lucky people (Starmer, Reeves, Lammy, Jones and Pat McFadden) who apparently decide how government operates. Great job, guys! 56. Hard bastard: The PM’s best effort to show he was “tough enough,” Ed Miliband-style. We all know how that ended.    57. Global Progress Action Summit: Progressives met in a desperate attempt to figure out how to avoid a trouncing from populists. More updates as we get them. 58. Contribution: Reeves’ framing of higher taxes, carefully sidestepping the fact that taxes aren’t optional. 59. Maintenance department: Deffo-not-future Labour leadership contender Wes Streeting’s description of how the party presents itself publicly. Stirring stuff. 60. Terminator: Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood earned an Arnie-inspired new nickname as she tried to show Labour is really, really tough on migration, honest. 61. Reverse Midas Touch: Anything the PM touches, including ID cards, is hit by this tragic affliction, according to his critics. 62. V levels: The natural successor to A and T level educational qualifications. Just a matter of time before there’s one for each letter of the alphabet. 63. Culturally coherent: Tory rising star Katie Lam’s justification for deporting legal migrants got her into some hot water. 64. 24/7 circus of sh*t: One former Tory aide’s pithy description of the Home Office. Who are the clowns? 65. Six seven: Nobody over the age of 11 understands this meme — yet the PM unleashed havoc in a classroom by joining in. 66. Civilizational erasure: America’s dystopian portrayal of what Europe is facing probably won’t feature in many tourist brochures. 67. Turning renewal into reality: Starmer’s ambition for next year in his final Cabinet meeting of 2025. Bookmark that one.

BRUSSELS — If you ordered Christmas presents from a Chinese web shop, they are likely to be toxic, unsafe or undervalued. Or all of the above. The EU is trying to do something about the flood but is tripping over itself 27 times to get there. “It’s absolutely crazy…” sighs one EU official. The official, granted anonymity to discuss preparations to tackle the problem, said that at some airport freight hubs, an estimated 80 percent of such inbound packages don’t comply with EU safety rules. The numbers are dizzying. In 2024, 4.6 billion small packages with contents worth less than €150 entered the EU. That all-time record was broken in September of this year. Because these individual air-mail packages replace whole containers shipping the same product, the workload for customs officials has increased exponentially over recent years. Non-compliant, cheaply-made products — such as dangerous toys or kitchen items — bring health risks. And a growing pile of garbage. It’s a problem for everyone along the chain. Customs officers can’t keep up; buyers end up with useless products; children are put at risk; and EU makers of similar items are undercut by unfair and untaxed competition. With the situation on the ground becoming unmanageable, the EU agreed this month to charge a €3 fixed fee on all such packages. This will effectively remove a tax-free exemption on packages worth €150 — but only from July of next year. It’s a crude, and temporary, fix because existing customs IT systems can’t yet tax items according to their actual value. ALL I WANT … Which is why all European lawmaker Anna Cavazzini wants for next year’s holiday season is “better rules.” Cavazzini is a key player in a push to harmonize the EU’s 27 national customs regimes. A proposed reform, now being discussed by the EU institutions, would create a central data hub and an EU Customs Agency, or EUCA, with oversight powers. As is so often the case in the EU, though, the customs reform is only progressing slowly. The EUCA will be operational only from late 2026. And the data hub probably won’t be up and running until the next decade. “We need a fundamental discussion on the Europeanization of customs,” Cavazzini told POLITICO. As chair of the European Parliament’s Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO), the lawmaker from the German Greens has been pushing the Council, the EU’s intergovernmental branch, to allow the customs reform to make the bloc’s single market more of a unified reality. European lawmaker Anna Cavazzini. | Martin Bertrand and Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images EU capitals worry — as always — about handing over too much power to the eurocrats in Brussels. But the main outstanding issue where negotiators disagree is more prosaic: it’s about whether the law should include an explicit list of offences, such making false declarations to customs officers. While the last round of negotiations in early December brought some progress on other areas, the unsolved penalties question has kicked the reform into 2026. With the millions of boxes, packages and parcels inbound, regardless, individual countries are also considering handling fees, beside the €3 tax that all have agreed on. France has already proposed a solo fee with revenues flowing into its national budget, and Belgium and the Netherlands will probably follow suit. RACE TO THE BOTTOM Customs reform is what’s needed, not another round of fragmented fees and a race to the bottom, said Dirk Gotink, the European Parliament’s lead negotiator on the customs reform. “Right now, the ideas launched by France and others are not meant to stem the flow of packages. They are just meant to earn money,” the Dutch center-right lawmaker told a recent briefing. To inspect the myriad ways in which they are a risk, Gotink’s team bought a few items from dubious-looking web shops. “With this one, the eyes are coming off right away,” he warned before handing a plush toy to a reporter. The reporter almost succeeded in separating the head from the creature’s body without too much effort. And thin, plastic eyes trailed the toy as it was passed around the room. “On the box it says it’s meant for people over 15 years old…” one reporter commented. But the cute creature is clearly targeted at far younger audiences. Adding to the craze, K-pop stars excitedly unbox new characters in online promotional videos. The troubles aren’t limited to toys. A jar of cosmetics showed by Gotink had inscriptions on its label that didn’t resemble any known alphabet. Individual products aside, the deluge of cheap merchandise also creates unfair competition, said Cavazzini: “A lot of European companies of course also fulfill the environmental obligations and the imports don’t,” she said. “This is also creating a huge unlevel playing field.” After the holidays, Gotink and Cavazzini will pick up negotiations on the customs reform with Cyprus, which from Jan. 1 takes over the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU from Denmark. “This file will be a priority during our presidency,” a Cypriot official told POLITICO, adding that Denmark had completed most of the technical work. “We aim to conclude this important file, hoping to reach a deal with the Parliament during the first months of the Cyprus Presidency.” Despite the delays, an EU diplomat working on customs policy told POLITICO that the current speed of the policy process is unprecedented: “This huge ecommerce pressure has really made all the difference. A year ago, this would have been unimaginable.”

BRUSSELS — The European Commission has unveiled a new plan to end the dominance of planet-heating fossil fuels in Europe’s economy — and replace them with trees. The so-called Bioeconomy Strategy, released Thursday, aims to replace fossil fuels in products like plastics, building materials, chemicals and fibers with organic materials that regrow, such as trees and crops. “The bioeconomy holds enormous opportunities for our society, economy and industry, for our farmers and foresters and small businesses and for our ecosystem,” EU environment chief Jessika Roswall said on Thursday, in front of a staged backdrop of bio-based products, including a bathtub made of wood composite and clothing from the H&M “Conscious” range. At the center of the strategy is carbon, the fundamental building block of a wide range of manufactured products, not just energy. Almost all plastic, for example, is made from carbon, and currently most of that carbon comes from oil and natural gas. But fossil fuels have two major drawbacks: they pollute the atmosphere with planet-warming CO2, and they are mostly imported from outside the EU, compromising the bloc’s strategic autonomy. The bioeconomy strategy aims to address both drawbacks by using locally produced or recycled carbon-rich biomass rather than imported fossil fuels. It proposes doing this by setting targets in relevant legislation, such as the EU’s packaging waste laws, helping bioeconomy startups access finance, harmonizing the regulatory regime and encouraging new biomass supply. The 23-page strategy is light on legislative or funding promises, mostly piggybacking on existing laws and funds. Still, it was hailed by industries that stand to gain from a bigger market for biological materials. “The forest industry welcomes the Commission’s growth-oriented approach for bioeconomy,” said Viveka Beckeman, director general of the Swedish Forest Industries Federation, stressing the need to “boost the use of biomass as a strategic resource that benefits not only green transition and our joint climate goals but the overall economic security.” HOW RENEWABLE IS IT? But environmentalists worry Brussels may be getting too chainsaw-happy. Trees don’t grow back at the drop of a hat and pressure on natural ecosystems is already unsustainably high. Scientific reports show that the amount of carbon stored in the EU’s forests and soils is decreasing, the bloc’s natural habitats are in poor condition and biodiversity is being lost at unprecedented rates. Protecting the bloc’s forests has also fallen out of fashion among EU lawmakers. The EU’s landmark anti-deforestation law is currently facing a second, year-long delay after a vote in the European Parliament this week. In October, the Parliament also voted to scrap a law to monitor the health of Europe’s forests to reduce paperwork. Environmentalists warn the bloc may simply not have enough biomass to meet the increasing demand. “Instead of setting a strategy that confronts Europe’s excessive demand for resources, the Commission clings to the illusion that we can simply replace our current consumption with bio-based inputs, overlooking the serious and immediate harm this will inflict on people and nature,” said Eva Bille, the European Environmental Bureau’s (EEB) circular economy head, in a statement. TOO WOOD TO BE TRUE Environmental groups want the Commission to prioritize the use of its biological resources in long-lasting products — like construction — rather than lower-value or short-lived uses, like single-use packaging or fuel. A first leak of the proposal, obtained by POLITICO, gave environmental groups hope. It celebrated new opportunities for sustainable bio-based materials while also warning that the “sources of primary biomass must be sustainable and the pressure on ecosystems must be considerably reduced” — to ensure those opportunities are taken up in the longer term. It also said the Commission would work on “disincentivising inefficient biomass combustion” and substituting it with other types of renewable energy. That rankled industry lobbies. Craig Winneker, communications director of ethanol lobby ePURE, complained that the document’s language “continues an unfortunate tradition in some quarters of the Commission of completely ignoring how sustainable biofuels are produced in Europe,” arguing that the energy is “actually a co-product along with food, feed, and biogenic CO2.” Now, those lines pledging to reduce environmental pressures and to disincentivize inefficient biomass combustion are gone. “Bioenergy continues to play a role in energy security, particularly where it uses residues, does not increase water and air pollution, and complements other renewables,” the final text reads. “This is a crucial omission, given that the EU’s unsustainable production and consumption are already massively overshooting ecological boundaries and putting people, nature and businesses at risk,” said the EEB. Delara Burkhardt, a member of the European Parliament with the center-left Socialists and Democrats, said it was “good that the strategy recognizes the need to source biomass sustainably,” but added the proposal did not address sufficiency. “Simply replacing fossil materials with bio-based ones at today’s levels of consumption risks increasing pressure on ecosystems. That shifts problems rather than solving them. We need to reduce overall resource use, not just switch inputs,” she said. Roswall declined to comment on the previous draft at Thursday’s press conference. “I think that we need to increase the resources that we have, and that is what this strategy is trying to do,” she said.

LONDON — Keir Starmer’s gone all-in on digital identification for Brits. But while many MPs in the prime minister’s governing Labour Party back the idea in theory, there are plenty despairing at a botched communications strategy which they believe has set the wide-ranging policy up for a fall. Under Starmer’s plans, digital ID will be required for right-to-work checks by 2029. Ministers insist the ID — a second attempt to land ID cards for Brits after a botched first go under Tony Blair — won’t track people’s location, spending habits or online activity.  Yet Labour MPs feel a more sellable emphasis on improving people’s experience of public services has gotten lost. Instead, Starmer’s government — with populist right-winger Nigel Farage breathing down its neck — has attempted to link the plan to a migration crackdown. “It’s a no-brainer,” said Labour MP Allison Gardner, chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for digital identity. “It absolutely will make people’s lives easier, more secure [and] give them more control over their data. We need to explain it better to people, so that they understand that this is for them, and it’s not being done to them.” HARD SELL  A consultation on the plans will be launched by the end of 2025, before legislation next year. The government’s huge majority means it’s highly likely to become law — but there’s a potentially bumpy road ahead. Two decades after Blair’s New Labour first proposed plastic identity cards, Starmer wants to finish the job, pitching a plan to make digital ID mandatory for right-to-work checks as a way to deter irregular migration. Yet the sweeping change, announced on the eve of Labour conference, didn’t get a mention in Starmer’s setpiece speech — and notably didn’t appear in the party’s election manifesto. “The announcement hasn’t been handled well,” admitted a pro-digital ID Labour MP granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Our argument for it keeps changing but none of it is full-throated enough.” The messaging has shifted since the initial push, too. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall later stressed giving “people power and control over their lives,” saying the public is too often “at the mercy of a system that does not work for us as well as it should.” That was only after a drop in poll ratings for the idea. A petition against it has meanwhile racked up close to three million signatures. The shapeshifting rhetoric — painting digital ID first as a necessary inconvenience before calling it vital for state efficiency — caused some heads to spin. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall later stressed giving “people power and control over their lives,” saying the public is too often “at the mercy of a system that does not work for us as well as it should.” | Andy Rain/EPA “The government communication … has not learned from the mistakes made when digital ID was proposed 20 years ago,” said a second Labour MP, who thought the focus on immigration meant ministers weren’t “talking about the benefits it brings ordinary British citizens.”  Red flags have also been also waved over compulsory right-to-work checks, given only the very wealthiest Brits never need to work — making it de facto mandatory. “There’s been a kneejerk reaction, particularly to the word mandatory, which I think British people have naturally reacted against,” admitted Gardner, who argues voters should have a choice about using the scheme. “It’s a little bit of a bandwagon people have latched on to, to actually derail the entire concept.”  Farage, eager to paint himself as a champion of civil liberties, has warned digital ID won’t stop “illegal immigration”  but will “be used to control and penalise the rest of us.” Analysis by the New Britain Project think tank, shared with POLITICO, shows that Google searches for digital ID were elevated for around three weeks after the announcement compared to the typical one day spike for most policies. Interest dwarfed other decisions too, with peak search traffic for digital ID 20 to 50 times higher than any other flagship policy terms in the last year. Nigel Farage, eager to paint himself as a champion of civil liberties, has warned digital ID won’t stop “illegal immigration” but will “be used to control and penalise the rest of us.” | Neil Hall/EPA Longstanding Labour MP Fabian Hamilton highlights the dilemma of digital ID: “Nobody likes compulsion, and it will only work if everybody has to have it.” Despite Kendall expressing optimism about a digital key unlocking “better, more joined-up and effective public services,” Hamilton argues that prioritizing migration in the messaging is too simplistic. “I’m sorry to say that the legal migration is tilting the head at a certain part of the electorate that are very concerned about illegal migration and the tabloids,” he argues. NO SILVER BULLET  Whether digital ID works on its own terms — reducing irregular migration — is also hotly contested. Right-to-work checks already exist in the U.K., with employees required to show documentation like a letter with their national insurance number. “It may be helpful, but obviously it won’t affect fundamental factors [driving people to the U.K.] of family links or English language,” warns former Home Office Permanent Secretary Philip Rutnam. He believes the most challenging part of the scheme will be “establishing the status of many people beyond doubt” given some residents may not have formal ID. “There are millions of people whose status it may bring into question,” Rutnam says. “Their status may not be what they have understood it to be.” Whether digital ID works on its own terms — reducing irregular migration — is also hotly contested. | Tolga Akmen/EPA That’s sparked fears among some in Westminster of another Windrush scandal. That debacle saw some people who emigrated to Britain as part of a post-Second World War rebuilding effort later denied rights and, in the most extreme cases, deported under a scattershot Home Office clampdown.  “We need to be very, very careful,” warns former U.K. Border Force Director-General Tony Smith. Smith says digital ID is “not a panacea,” and warns illegal working is likely to remain because unscrupulous employers won’t suddenly become law-abiding. TECH TROUBLES The British government’s ability to handle such a vast amount of sensitive data securely is also far from certain. Kendall has stressed that the data behind digital ID won’t be centralized and says individuals will be able to see who has accessed their information. That’s not enough for skeptics.  A catastrophic Ministry of Defence breach, which leaked details of Afghans applying to resettle in Britain after the Taliban’s return to power, shows the danger of sensitive details reaching the wrong hands. “The track record’s not been great,” Smith warns. “You are trying to turn round a huge tanker in the ocean here, and I do worry that we haven’t perhaps got the necessary gear.”  Rutnam agrees digital ID will be a “very demanding administrative exercise” that politicians need to understand is “complex and inherently risky.”  A catastrophic Ministry of Defence breach, which leaked details of Afghans applying to resettle in Britain after the Taliban’s return to power, shows the danger of sensitive details reaching the wrong hands. | Andy Rain/EPA Perhaps more damning for digital ID’s support among the Labour faithful is anxiety about future governments using the information malevolently. “Faith in our institutions of government and of the state is at an all-time low,” says Hamilton, citing a “bizarre situation” where some Brits lump digital ID in with Covid-19 vaccines as a government conspiracy. One Labour MP vehemently opposed to digital ID says ministers are so far failing to consider “what happens when we’re gone” and warns any safeguards “can be unpicked” by subsequent administrations. Starmer has spoken about digital ID as a positive alternative to rifling through drawers looking for “three bills when you want to get your kids into school or apply for this or apply for that.” “F*ck you,” the anonymous Labour MP above said in response. “I can’t believe that. Is that the best you’ve got for giving away fundamental rights?” Still, Gardner is pleading for colleagues not to block this modern innovation: “We are at risk of throwing a very, very good baby out with the bathwater if we resist this and just keep ourselves in the dark ages.” Emilio Casalicchio and Dan Bloom contributed to this report.

Policymakers are overlooking a $370 billion market that will determine whether climate goals succeed or fail.  In the grand narrative of the clean energy transition, materials like lithium, rare earths and silicon dominate headlines. Yet the most strategically important materials for this transition may be hiding in plain sight, dismissed by policymakers as environmental villains rather than recognized as the enablers of human progress they truly are. The $370 billion blind spot Polyolefins — the family of materials that includes polyethylene and polypropylene — represent perhaps the greatest strategic oversight in contemporary clean industry policy Here is a reality check. Polyolefins represent a global market approaching $370 billion, growing at over 5 percent annually.1,2 They make up nearly half of all plastics consumed in Europe.3 By 2034, global production is expected to hit 371 million tons.4  Yet in the European Union’s Clean Industrial Deal — a €100 billion strategy for industrial competitiveness — polyolefins receive barely a mention.4 This represents a profound strategic miscalculation. While policymakers focus on securing access to exotic critical materials like lithium and cobalt, they overlook the fact that polyolefins are already critical materials— they simply happen to be abundant rather than scarce. In the infrastructure-intensive clean energy transition ahead, abundance is not a weakness; it is the ultimate strategic advantage. > While policymakers focus on securing access to exotic critical materials like > lithium and cobalt, they overlook the fact that polyolefins are already > critical materials. The EU’s REPowerEU plan calls for 1,236 GW of renewable capacity by 2030 — more than double today’s levels.4 Every offshore wind farm, solar array and electric grid connection depends on polyolefins. They insulate cables, protect components and form structural parts of turbines and solar panels. Every solar panel relies on polyolefin elastomers to protect its inner workings for up to 30 years, even in harsh weather.8 And every grid connection depends on polyethylene-insulated cables to carry electricity efficiently across long distances. 7 Multiply these requirements across thousands of installations, and the strategic importance of polyolefins becomes undeniable. Yet, currently, the policy framework treats these materials as afterthoughts, focusing instead on the relatively small quantities of rare elements in generators and inverters while ignoring the massive volumes of polyolefins that make the entire system possible. Beyond energy: the hidden dependencies The strategic importance of polyolefins extends far beyond energy infrastructure. As one example, modern medical systems depend fundamentally on polyolefin materials for syringes, IV bags, tubing and protective equipment. Global food security increasingly depends on polyolefin-based packaging systems that extend shelf life, reduce waste and enable distribution networks — feeding billions of people. Meanwhile, water infrastructure relies on polyethylene pipes engineered for 100-year lifespans. These applications are rarely considered alongside energy priorities — a dangerous fragmentation of strategic thinking. The waste challenge and a circular solution Let’s be clear, plastic waste is a real environmental challenge demanding urgent action. However, the solution is not abandoning these essential materials, it is building the infrastructure to capture their full value in circular systems. The fundamental error in current approaches is treating waste as a material problem rather than a systems problem. Europe currently captures only 23 percent of polyolefin waste for recycling, despite these materials representing nearly two-thirds of all post-consumer plastic waste.3 That’s not because the material can’t be recycled. The infrastructure to do so isn’t at the scale needed to collect, sort and recycle waste to meet future circular feedstock needs. Polyolefins are among the most recyclable materials we have. They can be mechanically recycled multiple times. And with chemical recycling, they can even be broken down to their molecular building blocks and rebuilt into virgin-quality material. That’s not just circularity, it’s circularity at scale. This matters because the EU’s target of 24 percent material circularity by 20305 is unlikely to be met without polyolefins. However, current frameworks treat them as obstacles rather than enablers of circularity. The economic transformation The transition represents an economic transformation, creating competitive advantages for regions implementing it effectively. A region processing 100,000 tons of polyolefin waste annually could capture €100-130 million in additional economic value while creating up to 1,000 jobs.6 > A region processing 100,000 tons of polyolefin waste annually could capture > €100-130 million in additional economic value while creating up to 1,000 jobs. At the end of the day, the clean energy transition must be affordable. Polyolefins help make that possible. They’re cheaper, lighter and longer lasting than many alternatives. Manufacturers with access to cost-effective recycled feedstocks can reduce input costs by 20-40 percent compared with virgin materials. Polyethylene pipes cost 60-70 percent less than steel alternatives while lasting twice as long.9 These aren’t marginal gains. They’re system-level efficiencies that make the difference between success and failure at scale. The strategic choice The real challenge isn’t technical, it’s institutional. Polyolefins sit at the crossroads of materials, environmental and industrial policy, yet these areas are treated as separate domains. There’s also a geopolitical angle. Unlike lithium or rare earths, polyolefins can be produced from diverse feedstocks — natural gas, biomass and even captured CO2 — enabling domestic production and supply chain resilience. This flexibility is a major asset, but current policies largely overlook it. > The path forward requires recognizing polyolefins as strategic assets rather > than environmental problems. The path forward requires recognizing polyolefins as strategic assets rather than environmental problems. This means including them in critical materials assessments — not because they are scarce, but because they are essential. It means coordinating research and development efforts rather than leaving them to fragmented market forces. Most importantly, it means recognizing that the clean energy transition will succeed or fail based on our ability to build infrastructure at unprecedented scale and speed. And that infrastructure will be built primarily from materials that combine performance, abundance, sustainability and cost-effectiveness in ways only polyolefins can provide. The choice facing policymakers is clear: continue treating polyolefins as problems to be managed or recognize them as strategic assets enabling the clean energy future. The regions that understand this integration first will shape the global economy for decades to come. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Grand View Research. (2024). Polyolefin Market Size, Share, Growth | Industry Report, 2030. Retrieved from https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/polyolefin-market 2. Fortune Business Insights. (2024). Polyolefin Market Size, Share & Growth | Global Report [2032]. Retrieved from https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/polyolefin-market-102373 3. Plastics Europe. (2025). Polyolefins. Retrieved from https://plasticseurope.org/plastics-explained/a-large-family/polyolefins-2/ 4. European Commission. (2025). Clean Industrial Deal. Retrieved from https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-competitiveness/clean-industrial-deal_en 5. European Commission. (2022). Circular economy action plan. Retrieved from https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/circular-economy-action-plan_en 6. Watkins, E., & Schweitzer, J.P. (2018). Moving towards a circular economy for plastics in the EU by 2030. Institute for European Environmental Policy. Retrieved from https://ieep.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Think-2030-A-circular-economy-for-plastics-by-2030-1. 7. Institute of Sustainable Studies (2025). EU Circular Economy Act aims to double circularity rate by 2030 EU Circular Economy Act – Institute of Sustainability Studies 8. López-Escalante, M.C., et al. (2016). Polyolefin as PID-resistant encapsulant material in PV modules. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 144, 691-699. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927024815005206 9. PE100+ Association. (2014). Polyolefin Sewer Pipes – 100 Year Lifetime Expectancy. Retrieved from https://www.pe100plus.com/PPCA/Polyolefin-Sewer-Pipes-100-Year-Lifetime-Expectancy-p1430.html --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATHENS — The European Union is investigating potential misuse of at least €11.9 million of EU funds in a recycling project in Greece, as the country’s notorious struggle to meet Brussels’ waste management standards shows no sign of ending. The probe follows EU-commissioned reports by Greek auditors that found irregularities with how much the project cost and how it’s run.   One of the reports, seen by POLITICO, found several problems with the way the recycling centers operate, including a total lack of controls over what happens to the waste that is collected. The EU investigation, led by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, comes on the back of Greece’s long-standing issues with implementing EU laws on waste management, which have resulted in massive fines imposed on the Mediterranean country. The project in question is a set of “recycling units” or kiosks built by Greek recycling company TEXAN and spread out across the Attica, Peloponnese and Crete regions. Locals can get money back for recycling plastic, metal and glass items in these kiosks that aren’t packaging. “There is no information from [Attica waste management body] EDSNA on what happens to the waste after their collection, except for a report on its placement in a TEXAN storage facility for the year 2023,” the report seen by POLITICO reads, adding that not all storage units have been installed. EPPO’s investigation is based on the findings of the audit committee’s reports, among other documents, according to an official familiar with the case. The €220 million project was co-financed by the EU via a European Operational Program.   In 2023, the financial audit committee had slapped a €2.9 million refund penalty on EDSNA after finding “serious irregularities” with the purchasing contract awarded to TEXAN. The company had won the tender for the project despite suggesting that the kiosks would be around five times more expensive than what it could cost based on market prices.  Greece is also on track to fail on its obligation to recycle 55 percent of municipal waste and 65 percent of packaging waste this year. | Orestis Panagiotou/EPA “It cannot be confirmed whether EDSNA investigated what a reasonable budget for the recycling centers would be, given that the market research it conducted and referred to, did not concern at least two independent [companies], but two [companies] with a common interest and an exclusive relationship, which then, of course, submitted the only bid in the tender in question and won the contract,” a separate report said, according to local media reports at the time.  Following the second audit, completed in July and first revealed by Greece’s newspaper Kathimerini, a second €3 million fine was imposed, half the amount of EU funds used for the recycling centers in the three regions, as the report notes.  BAD STUDENTS  Greece’s poor track record with recycling and respecting EU laws on waste is notorious.   According to 2022 data from the European statistical office Eurostat, the municipal waste recycling rate in Greece hovered around 17 percent, compared to the EU average of 49 percent.  Greece is also on track to fail on its obligation to recycle 55 percent of municipal waste and 65 percent of packaging waste this year, the European Commission found in its 2025 environmental implementation review. The country had already “missed the 2020 target to recycle 50 percent of its municipal waste by a great margin” the review says.   In the EU, Greece is one of five members paying fines for not complying with environmental policies. To date, the country has sent about €230 million to Brussels to make up for these violations, according to the review.   Out of the 19 open infringement cases against Greece on environmental matters, six are related to waste management, from illegal landfilling to not properly applying laws on packaging waste. Local NGOs, meanwhile, have repeatedly warned of systemic disorders in the sector.  

Arms aloft, the president of the United Nations Environment Assembly triumphantly told delegates in Kenya: “Plastic pollution has grown into an epidemic. With today’s resolution, we are officially on track for a cure” in November 2023. Three years on, governments have not yet agreed on a global instrument to combat plastic waste, but the ambition and willingness remain. Success, however, is closely linked to systems change, which is urgently needed if we are to change the current trajectory.  Plastic remains closely intertwined with modern life. It keeps medicines and food safe and affordable, and it makes a vital contribution to the way we live, consume, work and travel. With it comes the issue of plastic waste. Yet, plastic waste is a solvable problem despite the scale and diversity of the challenge.   A future international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution could provide a coherent policy framework for industry, governments, civil society and financial institutions to carry out coordinated action. But that’s just the start. The key to success will be implementation of the instrument — deploying the solutions and funding the systems change needed to vastly improve waste management and increase recycling rates to drive a circular economy for plastics.  Prioritizing collaboration over compulsion  To achieve lasting change, the instrument must provide mechanisms to unlock financial support for waste management infrastructure and innovation. With an estimated $2.1 trillion needed by 2040 to eliminate plastic leakage into the environment, it is imperative that we look for innovative ways to mobilize capital from a diverse range of sources. Every dollar of capital committed to the right project can potentially catalyze ten times that amount from larger institutions.   > Every dollar of capital committed to the right project can potentially > catalyze ten times that amount from larger institutions. The Alliance to End Plastic Waste has direct experience of this. To provide just one example, we made a critical loan to a women-led social enterprise in Indonesia that allowed it to navigate equity requirements and to secure a $44.9 million Asian Development Bank loan to develop a bottle-to-bottle recycling plant in Java.  Our work on the ground has demonstrated the significant potential of coordinated action and a systems-based approach. For example, by providing our technical expertise and financial support to the ASASE Foundation — a Ghana-based social enterprise that supports women entrepreneurs in managing plastic waste collection and recycling businesses — the foundation successfully developed a functional system and became a recipient of the World Bank’s Plastic Waste Reduction-Linked Bond. The bond provides investors with a financial return linked to plastic and carbon credits expected to be generated, allowing the ASASE Foundation to benefit from financing that significantly exceeds our initial investment.  In developed countries, where we are more focused on addressing plastic waste through technology, a coordinated approach has also been pivotal to progress. HolyGrail 2.0, a digital watermarking technology that we support, is a good example of this. The imperceptible codes contained in the watermarks and printed on plastic packaging carry information about the material and can be detected by high resolution cameras in sorting facilities to increase sorting accuracy and improve the quality of material bound for recycling. The project has involved significant collaboration across the plastics value chain, involving technology providers, sorting facilities, brands and governments, enabling the technology to be successfully proven in a series of industrial trials in Europe.    Reliable and consistent definitions and reporting metrics, both heavily discussed at the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee sessions, are fundamental to the future instrument’s long-term and lasting impact. These will not only establish how much plastic is used, its purpose, the levels of waste and where it ends up, but also allow businesses and governments to develop the most impactful responses and introduce accountability.    > Reliable and consistent definitions and reporting metrics […] are fundamental > to the future instrument’s long-term and lasting impact. They will also guard against a cumbersome ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach that underestimates the complexity of the plastic waste challenge and puts progress at risk. Indeed, the flexibility of countries to design action plans that acknowledge and address specific national circumstances is vital, as is the need for the treaty to encourage greater collaboration between nations and actors across the entire plastics ecosystem.  Resetting the dial  As an organization that is focused on developing and implementing solutions, we have learnt a lot over the past five years. As the world looks for how to scale practical solutions to the challenges of plastic waste, the alliance is concentrating on larger-scale efforts in the Global South where underdeveloped waste management infrastructure represents an outsized opportunity for plastic waste reduction. These programs, aligned with countries’ national priorities, will begin in India, Indonesia and South Africa — each receiving at least $100 million in collective financing. The scale of these efforts and their ability to provide a practical model that other nations can replicate will help to move countries up the recycling maturity curve.  In parallel, we will be carrying out significant efforts to tackle systemic plastic waste issues in the Global North with a focus on film and flexible plastics. Commonly used in packaging and consumer goods, flexible packaging is notoriously difficult to recycle. This is a problem for every consumer packaging goods company, retailer and municipality. The key to success will be bringing together all the different stakeholders of this complex ecosystem around a cohesive strategy.  A time for action  A fully circular economy for plastics can only be achieved through systems change. We are optimistic that the delegates at the upcoming negotiations in Geneva will create a framework to catalyze collaborative progress, but this is just one piece of the puzzle. What countries really need is the ability to implement the right solutions and infrastructure, which is only possible with cooperation across the entire plastics ecosystem.   > What countries really need is the ability to implement the right solutions and > infrastructure, which is only possible with cooperation across the entire > plastics ecosystem. More details of the Alliance’s work can be found on our website. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

European Plastics Converters (EuPC) is the EU-level trade association representing the European plastics converting industry. Plastics converters use plastics raw materials and recycled polymers to manufacture new products. EuPC totals about 45 national as well as European plastics converting industry associations and represents more than 50,000 companies, producing over 50 million tons of plastic products every year. More than 1.6 million people are working in EU converting companies (mainly SMEs) to create a turnover in excess of € 260 billion per year.  > The results are clear: imposing blanket reuse targets for pallet packaging > will do more harm than good — both environmentally and economically.   As part of the EU’s new Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), policymakers have introduced mandatory reuse targets for plastic pallet packaging — like stretch wrap and hoods — under Article 29. To understand the real-world impact of this proposal, EuPC commissioned two independent studies:  * A life cycle environmental assessment by IFEU (Germany)1  * An economic impact analysis by RDC Environment (Belgium)2  The results are clear: imposing blanket reuse targets for pallet packaging will do more harm than good — both environmentally and economically.  What the environmental study found   IFEU’s life cycle assessment shows that switching from single-use plastic wrap and hood to reusable systems could actually increase CO2 emissions from 35 percent to up to 1,700 percent, depending on the specific use case. In every application studied, single-use solutions performed better than reusable alternatives across all environmental impact categories — from emissions to resource use.  What the economic study found   RDC’s economic analysis looked at eight key industrial sectors — including retail, agriculture, cement and glass — and found that mandatory reuse systems could result in up to €4.9 billion in additional annual costs just for these eight sectors alone.  Some sectors would be hit particularly hard, seeing potential increased production costs of:  * Retail: up to €400 million   * Glass: up to €780 million  To clarify, these figures refer exclusively to the eight industrial sectors analyzed in the study, which represent only a portion of the product categories transported on pallets in the EU. Since other sectors are not included, the overall EU-wide impact would exceed the €4.9 billion estimated for this limited sample.  Enterprises are likely to face the greatest challenges under mandatory reuse systems. Many lack the reverse logistics or automation needed for reuse systems. For exporters, the burden is even greater, as they would be forced to operate two parallel packaging systems: one compliant with EU reuse requirements and another for non-EU markets. Currently, there are no large-scale reusable packaging systems in place, meaning an entirely new infrastructure would need to be developed within an extremely short timeframe. This raises serious legal, operational and economic concerns, especially for the most vulnerable segments of the market.   What it all means  Both studies agree that replacing recyclable single-use pallet wrap with reusable alternatives is neither greener nor cheaper. If enforced, the proposed reuse targets could undermine PPWR’s goals of creating a truly circular and efficient packaging economy.  That’s why EuPC is calling for the exclusion of pallet wrap and straps from Article 29, using the flexibility allowed through delegated acts under Article 29(18a) and 29(18c).  > If enforced, the proposed reuse targets could undermine PPWR’s goals of > creating a truly circular and efficient packaging economy. The smarter way forward  Single-use, recyclable plastic pallet packaging is already a reality aligned with Europe’s sustainability goals. Solutions that truly work in real-world logistics that are efficient, scalable and sustainable are already an economic reality.  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes Disclaimer: This document reflects EuPC’s independent position and communication. The data and analysis cited are based on studies commissioned by EuPC. 1 Comparative life cycle assessment of various single use and reuse transport packaging  2 Economic impact of switching to reusable options for pallet wrapping 

A clear message flowed through the halls of the third United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC3) in Nice last week: the ocean is in crisis. The ocean covers over 70 percent of our planet and is essential to all life on Earth. It is a vital source of biodiversity, and marine ecosystems that support the livelihoods and cultures of billions of people around the world. It cools and regulates our climate. And yet this vast resource, much of which is still unseen or unknown, is transforming at an alarming pace. “Ecosystems are threatened, coral reefs are bleaching faster than ever before, cyclones are more intense than ever,” said the president of France, Emmanuel Macron, in his opening remarks. “The globe is burning, our oceans are boiling.” > The ocean covers over 70 percent of our planet and is essential to all life on > Earth. It is a vital source of biodiversity, and marine ecosystems that > support the livelihoods and cultures of billions of people around the world. Ten years on from the Paris Agreement, UNOC3 — co-hosted by France and Costa Rica — sought to catalyze further action and policy commitments toward protecting our ocean. This major global event brought together ocean stakeholders from intergovernmental organizations, civil society, academic institutions, and Indigenous and local communities, among others, to share ideas, insights and ongoing projects in support of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 14: Life Below Water. In Nice’s Palexpo, rebranded for the conference as “The Whale”, the European Commission hosted the European Digital Ocean Pavilion, implemented by Mercator Ocean International. The Pavilion formed a central hub for the European ocean community, while showcasing cutting-edge EU assets and technologies for ocean observation. “Through state-of-the-art simulations, multimedia screens and interactive installations, visitors could visualize ocean processes, explore ‘what-if’ scenarios, and better understand the ocean’s vital signs,” said Elisabeth Hamdouch-Fuehrer, deputy head of earth observation at the European Commission. Mercator Ocean, Philippe Fitte The Pavilion was split into three sections, each highlighting the EU’s progress toward a sustainable blue future. INSPIRE hosted daily forums on a broad range of ocean topics, connecting scientists, policymakers and the public in discussions on major ocean challenges and the inspiring solutions working to solve them. ENGAGE took visitors on an immersive journey through the ocean that combined ocean knowledge, art pieces and ocean monitoring technology. DECIDE offered a hands-on experience of Europe’s digital ocean revolution, in a command center filled with screens visualizing the past, present and future conditions of the ocean. These simulations were powered by a revolutionary technology: the European Digital Twin of the Ocean (EU DTO). This cutting-edge digital replica provides real-time simulations of ocean dynamics and potential future changes — whether from harmful impacts like plastic pollution or the effects of mitigation policies. The EU DTO draws on the EU’s extensive ocean data resources, a comprehensive marine observation network that includes Copernicus satellite data, EMODnet data produced by underwater autonomous drones, and in-situ sensors across the world’s seas and and numerical models. Using powerful, state-of-the-art AI-driven modelling, the EU DTO takes this data and creates — in seconds— intricate ocean simulations. > This cutting-edge digital replica, , provides real-time simulations of ocean > dynamics and potential future changes — whether from harmful impacts like > plastic pollution or the effects of mitigation policies. On the opening day of the conference, Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, visited the European Digital Ocean Pavilion to experience first-hand the technology she announced three years ago in Brest. “Today we proudly present the first demonstration version,” said von der Leyen. “It’s an amazing tool that helps us better understand the ocean, from pollution to navigation but also from risk to our coasts to biodiversity — you name it.”  The EU DTO’s arrival brings significant advances to European and global ocean management. It is a fundamental pillar supporting the European Ocean Pact, the EU’s strategic framework for ocean sustainability leading up to 2029, which seeks to promote the health, productivity and resilience of the ocean and support European coastal communities into the future. The EU DTO’s real-time monitoring, predictions and scenario testing can transform insights on ocean health into concrete action, supporting evidence-based policies that lead to meaningful change. “We have in Europe a lot of data and a lot of excellent science, and the Digital Twin Ocean is going to be the machinery through which we will bring this knowledge in an actionable state here and now,” said the policy officer for the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE), Zoe Konstantinou.   Mercator Ocean, Philippe Fitte Mercator Ocean International has a scientific legacy in the field of operational oceanography, working at the forefront of digital ocean model development for over three decades. In a major announcement of the week, Mercator Ocean International was took a step closer to transitioning into an intergovernmental organization. This transition will establish Mercator International Centre for the Ocean as a global platform that provides scientific ocean intelligence and digital ocean services to its member states, and supports of international commitments. “Addressing these challenges requires international collaboration and governance to deliver, access to ocean information that is really trustworthy,” said Pierre Bahurel, director general of Mercator Ocean International. “We are ready to support you in the decisions you have to make and offer you digital knowledge and services that you can trust.” > Mercator Ocean International has a scientific legacy in the field of > operational oceanography, working at the forefront of digital ocean model > development for over three decades. During the week, the Digital Ocean Pavilion showcased several key international ocean monitoring projects hosted by Mercator Ocean International. These included the OceanPrediction Decade Collaborative Centre (DCC), a global platform aiming to advance coordinated ocean forecasting and build a “Predicted Ocean” — designed to be a transformative outcome of the UN Decade of Ocean Science. A part ofthis initiative is the OPERA project, a program dedicated to advancing ocean science and innovation in sub-Saharan Africa, while the Ocean Prediction for Costa Rica project, launched in March 2025, will boost forecasting in Costa Rica particularly around Cocos Island National Park, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Together, these events illustrated the instrumental role of coordinated ocean prediction in supporting climate resilience and sustainable development.  Though the challenges faced by the ocean are severe, the Digital Ocean Pavilion highlighted the formidable capacity of European society in tackling them together through collaboration. Charlina Vitcheva, director general of DG MARE, urged everyone in the ocean community to continue their important work to better understand the ocean. “Only then can we take the right policy actions, put the right investments in the blue economy, and unleash the potential of marine technologies.” 

BRUSSELS — The European Commission announced Tuesday its latest salvo of sanctions on Russia, taking aim at the Kremlin’s energy exports, infrastructure and financial institutions. The measures, which are intended to pile pressure on Moscow to end its war in Ukraine, include proposals to lower the oil price cap from $60 to $45 per barrel and ban the use of the Nord Stream pipelines to funnel gas between Russia and Germany. A further 22 Russian banks will also be cut off from the SWIFT international banking system, with the current, partial prohibition on Russians banks broadened to a “full transaction ban,” Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said. Calling the sanctions “robust” and “hard-biting,” von der Leyen said the Russian economy was already buckling under the pressure of the EU’s past measures and the new package would pummel it further. “Russia continues to bring death and destruction to Ukraine,” she said at a joint press conference with the EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas. “Our message is clear: This war must end.” Kallas said it was “clear that Russia does not want peace” and needed to pay the price for its “outright illegal” war. “Russia is cruel, aggressive and a danger to us all,” she added. Brussels has sought to build support in Washington for punishing new measures to empty Moscow’s war chest. The newest package of sanctions come ahead of a G7 summit in Alberta, Canada this weekend, with Ukraine invited to take part, where the new, reduced oil price cap will be discussed, as the EU executive cannot unilaterally lower it. EU member countries are expected to sign off on the Commission’s latest sanctions proposal swiftly, with a deal expected before the end of this month. “We will have a presentation and first exchange of views among EU ambassadors (Coreper) still tonight,” said Ignacy Niemczycki, Polish Secretary of State for European Affairs, one of the top officials coordinating Warsaw’s six-month rotating presidency. “I am optimistic we can succeed.” Von der Leyen also said that a ban on imports of Russian crude oil would be extended to cover oil products refined from it in third countries — preventing what she called imports “through the back door.” And the EU will now consider another 77 vessels to be part of Russia’s “shadow fleet” that is barred from entering European ports. The Commission is also proposing to sanction the Russian Direct Investment Fund, Moscow’s sovereign wealth fund, to prevent it from funding projects to “modernize the Russian economy,” von der Leyen said. A €2.5 billion export ban will apply to machinery, metals, plastics and chemicals that are used as industrial raw materials. It will also cover so-called dual-use technology need to make drones, missiles and other weapons system. This would ensure that “Russia does not find ways to modernize its weapons with European technologies,” she added. Challenged by a reporter on whether EU sanctions had been effective, von der Leyen said that Russia had earned €12 billion a month from energy exports to Europe before President Vladimir Putin ordered the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Those revenues have fallen to €1.8 billion per month. Von der Leyen said the latest, 18th package of EU sanctions against Russia would be “aligned” with further measures being discussed in the United States. U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham recently toured Europe to pitch a proposal to hit countries that buy Russian fossil fuels with a 500 percent tariff — although the White House has yet to back it. Gabriel Gavin in Gdańsk contributed reporting.