HELSINKI — The U.K. is ready to work with its European allies to intercept vessels in Russia’s “shadow fleet,” Britain’s chief foreign minister said Wednesday. A week after British armed forces supported the U.S. seizure of a Russian-flagged oil tanker in the North Atlantic, Yvette Cooper said Britain is prepared to work on enforcement with “other countries and other allies” against ships suspected of carrying sanctioned oil or damaging undersea infrastructure. Promising “stronger action” to break the shadow fleet’s “chokehold,” she added: “It means a more robust response, and it means as we see operations by shadow fleet vessels, standing ready to be able to act.” While the foreign secretary would not be drawn on the specific action the U.K. might take, her charged rhetoric appears to be laying the ground for future interventions that go beyond last week’s coordination with the Trump administration. Officials believe that the U.K. government has identified a legal basis for the military to board shadow fleet vessels in international shipping lanes, in certain cases. Cooper did not rule out the prospect of British forces boarding vessels, telling POLITICO: “It means looking at whatever is appropriate, depending on the circumstances that we face.” She also did not rule out using oil from seized vessels to fund the Ukrainian war effort — but cautioned that the prospect was of a different order to using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine. That idea hit a wall in discussions between EU countries in December. The foreign secretary said: “As you know, we’ve had all sorts of discussions in the past about different Russian sovereign assets. That’s a different set of circumstances. So we take the approach that it always has to be done within an international legal framework and on a case-by-case basis.” Asked directly if she was talking about joint shadow fleet operations with European allies, Cooper said: “We stand ready to work with allies on stronger enforcement around the shadow fleet.” Cooper made her comments on Wednesday after a demonstration on board the Finnish Border Guard ship Turva. It took part in a Dec. 31 operation to seize a cargo ship sailing from Russia to Israel, which was accused of deliberately damaging a cable between Helsinki and Estonia. Finnish authorities demonstrated a mock operation similar to the one that seized the ship on New Year’s Eve. Cooper watched as five armed officers slid down a rope from a helicopter onto the deck and stormed the bridge, shouting: “Hands up.” The operation took around three minutes. Cooper said after the demonstration: “The reason for being here is to see the work that Finland has been doing around the shadow fleet, and to look at what the further potential is for us to work with allies to strengthen that enforcement work.” Mari Rantanen, Finland’s interior minister, said the age of some Russian-linked tankers using northern shipping routes risks an ecologically disastrous oil spill. | Olivier Hoslet/EPA She name-checked work by France and Finland, while one U.K. official said she also intends to work with Norway. Mari Rantanen, Finland’s interior minister, said the age of some Russian-linked tankers using northern shipping routes risks an ecologically disastrous oil spill. “These vessels, these tankers, are very old,” she told POLITICO. “They are not built [for] this kind of icy weather, and they are in very bad shape, so the environmental risk is huge.” Mikko Simola, the commander of the Gulf of Finland coastguard, said he has seen “a rapid change since early 2022” in the prevalence of malign activity, for which Moscow denies responsibility. Simola said he would let the courts decide who was culpable, but said it was “certainly very strange to believe that in a short period of time, many cable and gas pipe damages would happen by accident in the same area.”

CHIATURA, Georgia — Giorgi Neparidze, a middle-aged man from near the town of Chiatura in western Georgia, still has marks on his lips from where he sewed his mouth shut during a hunger strike last year. He says Georgian Manganese, a mining company with close links to the government, has wrought environmental devastation around his home and has ignored the rights of its workers. He is seeking compensation.  Europe, which imports Georgia’s manganese, is partly to blame for the black rivers and collapsing houses in Chiatura district, Neparidze says. The former miner-turned-environmental and civil rights activist claims that in one village, Shukruti, toxic dust from the pits is making people unwell. Filthy black water, laced with heavy metals, periodically spurts out of pumps there. Houses are collapsing as the tunnels underneath them cave in.  Manganese, a black metal traditionally used to reinforce steel, is crucial for Europe’s green energy transition as it is used in both wind turbines and electric car batteries. The metal is also vital for military gear like armor and guns. In 2022, the European Union bought 20,000 metric tons of manganese alloys from Georgia — almost 3 percent of its total supply. A year later the bloc added manganese to its list of critical minerals. But Chiaturans say their lives are being ruined so that Western Europeans can breathe cleaner air. “We are sacrificed so that others can have better lives,” Neparidze says. “There are only 40,000 people in Chiatura. They might feel ill or live in bad conditions but they are sacrificed so that millions of Europeans can have a cleaner environment.” Neparidze says cancer rates in the region are unusually high. Doctors at a hospital in Chiatura back up the observation, but no official study has linked the illnesses to the mines. An aerial view of Chiatura with the polluted Kvirila River running through the town | Olivia Acland Hope that things will improve appears dim. European companies often don’t know where their manganese is sourced from. As ANEV, Italy’s wind energy association, confirms: “There is no specific obligation to trace all metals used in steel production.”  Last year the EU enacted a law that was meant to change that. The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive obliges companies to run closer checks on their supply chains and clamp down on any human rights violations, poor working conditions and environmental damage.  But barely a year after it took effect, the European Commission proposed a major weakening of the law in a move to reduce red tape for the bloc’s sluggish industry. EU member countries, motivated by this deregulation agenda, are now pushing for even deeper cuts, while French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz want to get rid of the law altogether.  Meanwhile, Europe’s appetite for mined raw materials like manganese, lithium, rare earths, copper and nickel is expected to skyrocket to meet the needs of the clean energy transition and rearmament. Many of these resources are in poorly regulated and often politically repressive jurisdictions, from the Democratic Republic of Congo to Indonesia and Georgia. Weakening the EU supply chain law will have consequences for communities like Neparidze’s. “Only an empty shell of the directive remains,” says Anna Cavazzini, a member of the European Parliament’s Green Party, adding that the legislature caved to pressure from businesses seeking to reduce their costs. “Now is not the time to abandon the defense of human rights and give corporations a free hand,” she says.  A resident of Chiatura standing on a collapsed house following a mining-related landslide in Itkhvisi village. | Olivia Acland As Georgia’s government pivots toward Russia and stifles dissent, life is becoming increasingly dangerous for activists in Chiatura. On April 29, four activists including Neparidze were arrested for allegedly assaulting a mine executive. A statement put out by Chiatura Management Company, the firm in charge of staffing Georgian Manganese’s underground operations, says that Tengiz Koberidze, manager of the Shukruti mine, was “verbally abused and pelted with stones.” Supporters call it a staged provocation in which Koberidze tried to incite violence, and say it’s part of a broader campaign to silence resistance. If convicted they face up to six years behind bars. Koberidze did not respond to requests for comment. Chiatura residents are protesting over two overlapping issues. On one side, miners are demanding safer working conditions underground, where tunnel collapses have long been a risk, along with higher wages and paid sick leave. When the mine was temporarily shut in October 2024, they were promised 60 percent of their salaries, but many say those payments never materialized. Workers are also raising concerns about mining pollution in the region. “The company doesn’t raise wages, doesn’t improve safety, and continues to destroy the natural environment. Its profits come not just from extracting resources, but from exploiting both workers and the land,” says one miner, David Chinchaladze. Georgian Manganese did not respond to interview requests or written questions. Officials at Georgia’s Ministry of Mines and the government’s Environment Protection and Natural Resources Department did not respond to requests for comment. A collapsing building in Shukruti. | Olivia Acland.  The second group of protesters comes from the village of Shukruti, which sits directly above the mining tunnels. Their homes are cracking and sinking into the ground. In 2020, Georgian Manganese pledged to pay between 700,000 and 1 million Georgian lari ($252,000 to $360,000) annually in damages — a sum that was meant to be distributed among residents. But while the company insists the money has been paid, locals — backed by watchdog NGO Social Justice — say otherwise. According to them, fewer than 5 percent of Shukruti’s residents have received any compensation.  Their protest has intensified in the last year, with workers now blocking the roads and Shukruti residents barring entry to the mines. But the risks are intensifying too. Since suspending EU accession talks last year amid deteriorating relations with the bloc, Georgia’s ruling party has shuttered independent media, arrested protestors and amplified propaganda. The country’s democracy is “backsliding,” says Irakli Kavtaradze, head of the foreign department of the largest opposition political party, United National Movement. Their tactics “sound like they come from a playbook that is written in the Kremlin,” he adds. ‘KREMLIN PLAYBOOK’ In the capital Tbilisi, around 200 kilometers east of Chiatura, protesters have taken to the streets every night since April 2, 2024 when the government unveiled a Kremlin-style “foreign agents” law aimed at muzzling civil society.  Many demonstrators wear sunglasses, scarfs and masks to shield their identities from street cameras, wary of state retaliation.  A scene from the 336th day of protests in Tbilisi in April 2025. | Olivia Acland. Their protests swelled in October last year after the government announced it would suspend talks to join the EU. For Georgians, the stakes are high: Russia already occupies 20 percent of the country after its 2008 invasion, and people fear that a more profound drift from the EU could open the door to further aggression. When POLITICO visited in April, a crowd strode down Rustaveli Avenue, the city’s main artery. Some carried EU flags while others passed around a loudspeaker, taking it in turns to voice defiant chants. “Fire to the oligarchy!” one young woman yelled, the crowd echoing her call. “Power lies in unity with the EU!” another shouted. They also called out support for protestors in Chiatura, whose fight has become something of a cause célèbre across the country: “Solidarity to Chiatura! Natural resources belong to the people!”  The fight in Chiatura is a microcosm of the country’s broader struggle: The activists are not just taking on a mining company but a corporate giant backed by oligarchs and the ruling elites.  Georgian Manganese’s parent company, Georgian American Alloys, is registered in Luxembourg and counts Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky as a shareholder. He is in custody in Kyiv over allegations that he hired a gang to kill a lawyer who threatened his business interests in 2003. Kolomoisky has also been sanctioned by the United States for his alleged involvement in siphoning billions out of PrivatBank, Ukraine’s largest bank.  Giorgi Kapanadze — a businessman closely connected with the ruling Georgian Dream party of Bidzina Ivanishvili — is listed as general manager of Georgian American Alloys.  Until recently, Kapanadze owned Rustavi TV, a channel notorious for airing pro-government propaganda. The European Parliament has called on the EU to hit Kapanadze with sanctions, accusing him of propping up the country’s repressive regime. Kolomoisky and Kapanadze did not respond to POLITICO’s requests for comment. The government swooped in to help Georgian Manganese in 2016 when a Georgian court fined it $82 million for environmental destruction in the region. The state placed it under “special management” and wrote off the fine. A new government-appointed manager was tasked, on paper, with cleaning up the mess. He was supposed to oversee a cleanup of the rivers that flow past the mines, among other promises. Manganese mining pit in Chiatura region, Georgia. | Olivia Acland But POLITICO’s own tests based on four samples taken in April 2025 from the Kvirila River, which runs through Chiatura, as well as its tributary, the Bogiristiskali, which were examined in a U.K. licensed laboratory, show the manganese levels in both rivers are over 10 times the legal limit. Iron levels are also higher than legally permitted. Locals use the polluted water to irrigate their crops. Fishermen are also pulling in increasingly empty nets as the heavy metals kill off aquatic life, according to local testimonies. The water from the Kvirila River flows out into the Black Sea, home to endangered dolphins, sturgeons, turtles and sharks.  A 2022 analysis by the Georgian NGO Green Policy found even worse results, with manganese in the Kvirila River averaging 42 times the legal limit. The group also detected excessive levels of iron and lead. Chronic manganese exposure can lead to irreversible neurological damage — a Parkinson’s-like condition known as manganism — as well as liver, kidney and reproductive harm. Lead and iron are linked to organ failure, cancer and cardiovascular disease. On Georgian Manganese’s website, the company concedes that “pollution of the Kvirila River” is one of the region’s “ecological challenges,” attributing it to runoff from manganese processing. It claims to have installed German-standard purification filters and claims that “neither polluted nor purified water” currently enters the river. Protesters like Neparidze aren’t convinced. They claim the filtration system is turned on only when inspectors arrive and that for the rest of the time, untreated wastewater is dumped straight into the rivers. BLOCKING EXPORTS Their protests having reaped few results, Chiaturans are taking increasingly extreme measures to make their voices heard.  Gocha Kupatadze, a retired 67-year-old miner, spends his nights in a tarpaulin shelter beside an underground mine, where he complains that rats crawl over him. “This black gold became the black plague for us,” he says. “We have no choice but to protest.” Kupatadze’s job is to ensure that manganese does not leave the mine. Alongside other protesters he has padlocked the gate to the generator that powers the mine’s ventilation system, making it impossible for anyone to work there. Kupatadze says he is only resorting to such drastic measures because conditions in his village, Shukruti, have become unlivable. His family home, built in 1958, is now crumbling, with cracks in the walls as the ground beneath it collapses from years of mining. The vines that once sustained his family’s wine-making traditions have long since withered and died. Gocha Kupatadze, an activist sleeping in a tarpaulin tent outside a mine. | Olivia Acland. For over a year, protesters across the region have intermittently blocked mine entrances as well as main roads, determined to stop the valuable ore from leaving Chiatura. In some ways it has worked: Seven months ago, Chiatura Management Company, the firm in charge of staffing Georgian Manganese’s underground operations, announced it would pause production.  “Due to the financial crisis that arose from the radical protests by the people of Shukruti village, the production process in Chiatura has been completely halted,” it read. Yet to the people of Chiatura, this feels more like a punishment than a triumph.  Manganese has been extracted from the area since 1879 and many residents rely on the mines for their livelihoods. The region bears all the hallmarks of a mining town that thrived during the Soviet Union when conditions in the mines were much better, according to residents. Today, rusted cable cars sway above concrete buildings that house washing stations and aging machinery.   While locals had sought compensation for the damage to their homes, they now just find themselves out of work.  Soviet-era buildings and mining infrastructure around Chiatura. | Olivia Acland.  Making matters worse, Georgian Manganese, licensed to mine 16,430 hectares until 2046, is now sourcing much of its ore from open pits instead of underground mines. These are more dangerous to the communities around them: Machines rip open the hillsides to expose shallow craters, while families living next to the pits say toxic dust drifts off them into their gardens and houses.  MORE PITS The village of Zodi is perched on a plateau surrounded by gently undulating hills, 10 kilometers from Chiatura. Many of its residents rely on farming, and cows roam across its open fields. “It is a beautiful village with a unique microclimate which is great for wine-making,” says Kote Abdushelishvili, a 36-year-old filmmaker from Zodi.  Mining officials say the village sits on manganese reserves. In 2023, caterpillar trucks rolled into Zodi and began ripping up the earth. Villagers, including Abdushelishvili, chased them out. “We stopped them,” he says, “We said if you want to go on, you will have to kill us first.” A padlocked gate to the mine’s ventilation system. | Olivia Acland Abdushelishvili later went to Georgian Manganese’s Chiatura office to demand a meeting with the state-appointed special manager. When he was turned away, he shouted up to the window: “You can attack us, you can kill us, we will not stop.” Two days later, as Abdushelishvili strolled through a quiet neighborhood in Tbilisi, masked men jumped out of a car, slammed him to the pavement and beat him up. Despite the fierce resistance in Chiatura, Georgian Manganese continues to send its metal to European markets. In the first two months of 2025, the EU imported 6,000 metric tons of manganese from Georgia. With the bloc facing mounting pressures — from the climate crisis to new defense demands — its hunger for manganese is set to grow. As the EU weakens its corporate accountability demands and Georgia drifts further into authoritarianism, the voices of Chiatura’s people are growing even fainter.  “We are not asking for something unreasonable,” says activist Tengiz Gvelesiani, who was recently detained in Chiatura along with Neparidze, “We are asking for healthy lives, a good working environment and fresh air.” Georgian Manganese did not respond to requests for comment. This article was developed with the support of Journalismfund Europe.

The European Union and the United States have issued a statement to formalize their tariff truce. Now the hard work begins. The framework agreement builds out the handshake trade agreement struck by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and U.S. President Donald Trump in Scotland in late July. The text sets out a roadmap for implementing the trade commitments they made. “This is not the end; it’s the beginning. This framework is a first step,” EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefcovič said. But the document, which runs to only four pages, skirts several issues. For one, it doesn’t mention U.S. calls for the EU to dilute its regulation of Big Tech. Nor does it refer to a call by Brussels for European wines and spirits to be exempted from the 15 percent U.S. baseline tariff that took effect this month. That’s one that Šefcovič still hopes to get a deal on. We break down the wins, the losses, the fudges — and the omissions — from the Framework on an Agreement on Reciprocal, Fair, and Balanced Trade. CARS  Under the joint statement, the U.S. will lower its 27.5 percent tariffs on cars and automotive parts to match the baseline 15 percent.  But there’s a catch: The U.S. will only meet its lower tariff commitment after the EU eliminates “tariffs on all U.S. industrial goods,” including its own 10 percent tariff on vehicles. Šefčovič said the Commission will initiate legislation this month to ensure Washington lowers tariffs retroactively on cars and auto parts effective Aug. 1, as foreseen in the deal. A separate clause of the joint statement makes clear that the two governments will start collaborating in other areas around cars, including to “provide mutual recognition on each other’s standards.”  The joint statement doesn’t clarify which standards will be mutually recognized, but any change will have ripple effects across the sector. “By signing up to mutual recognition of vehicle standards with the United States, the European Union has waved the white flag on road safety,” said Antonio Avenoso, executive director of the European Transport Safety Council. “This is not a technical detail — it is a political choice that puts trade convenience ahead of saving lives.” — Jordyn Dahl DRUGS, SEMICONDUCTORS, STEEL These industries are at the heart of Washington’s efforts to relocate industry back to the United States and are covered by separate trade investigations, known as Section 232, which allow the U.S. president to restrict imports to protect national security.  The U.S. will cap tariffs on European pharmaceuticals, lumber and semiconductors at 15 percent regardless of the results of the ongoing investigations.  Steel and aluminum imports will continue to face a 50 percent tariff until the EU and the U.S. explore the possibility of joining forces to tackle overproduction. | Erik S. Lesser/EPA This ceiling doesn’t apply to steel and aluminum imports, however, which will continue to face a 50 percent tariff until the EU and the U.S. explore the possibility of joining forces to tackle overproduction — especially coming from China — and the possibility of setting tariff-rate quotas. The European pharmaceuticals industry warns that the outline trade deal could cost companies up to €18 billion. “We remain concerned for the future of patients and our sector in Europe,” said Nathalie Moll, director general at Europe’s EFPIA pharma lobby. Still, while branded pharmaceuticals could end up being subject to the tariffs, the EU did succeed in broadening an exemption for lower-priced generics. — Camille Gijs and Mari Eccles DIGITAL RULES  The European Union managed to keep its rules on digital competition and content moderation out of the U.S. trade deal, despite heavy pressure. For now.  The Commission has for months maintained that its ability to regulate U.S. Big Tech companies is not part of the trade negotiations.  The Trump administration has been on a campaign, attacking both rulebooks and claiming they amount to censorship of Americans (the Digital Services Act) and unfairly target U.S. companies (the Digital Markets Act). While Šefčovič confirmed to reporters on Thursday that the rules weren’t part of the talks, he didn’t rule out that the two sides would return to the issue in the future.  “We kept these issues out of the trade negotiations. We were focusing on what was very clearly the priority and therefore you won’t find it referenced in the joint statement,” he said. “Will it come later, will it be discussed? Our relationship is so vast that for sure there will be a lot of issues which will be discussed.” European Parliament lawmakers will continue to pressure the Commission not to treat the rules as a bargaining chip. “Tech legislation and tariffs are two distinct matters and should remain such,” said Bulgarian conservative lawmaker Eva Maydell. — Pieter Haeck WINES AND SPIRITS Wines and spirits won’t be exempted from tariffs, even though the European Union pushed hard to obtain relief for a sector that has been caught in the crossfire from both Washington and Beijing. This means they will be subject to a 15 percent U.S. tariff.  That’s a blow for European exporters, who long benefited from tariff-free access on most spirits until successive trade wars tore it up. Wines and spirits won’t be exempted from tariffs, even though the European Union pushed hard to obtain relief for a sector that has been caught in the crossfire from both Washington and Beijing. | Guillaume Horcajuelo/EPA Šefčovič admitted that the talks had fallen short — but insisted the fight isn’t over.  “The tariffs on wine and spirits was one of the very important offensive interests of the European Union. Unfortunately, here we didn’t succeed … but the doors are not closed forever,” he told reporters.  — Bartosz Brzeziński GREEN RULES  The EU made a vague promise to address U.S. concerns regarding EU laws on mandatory sustainability reporting (the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive), supply chain oversight (the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive) and deforestation (the EU Deforestation Regulation). Brussels mainly pitched ideas it already wants to implement, however.   The EU will ensure its rules “do not pose undue restrictions on transatlantic trade” by reducing the administrative burden on businesses in the CSDDD and by proposing changes to the EU’s civil liability regime, which holds companies legally accountable for human rights violations and environmental damage in their supply chains.   Scrapping the EU’s liability regime is already a major point in the Commission’s omnibus proposal announced last February, which rolls back many features of the CSRD and CSDDD among other files.  Crucially, those changes have not yet received the official green light from EU countries or lawmakers.   On deforestation, the EU says it recognizes that U.S. commodities production “poses negligible risk to global deforestation,” having already labeled the country as “low risk” in its classification system last May.  — Marianne Gros AVIATION Washington commits to exempting aircraft and parts from higher tariffs, applying its very low most favored nation duties to the industry. Irish lobbyists are breathing a collective sigh of relief. A trade war slapping American tariffs on Airbus and European tariffs on Boeing would have hit the industry’s key middleman, Dublin, particularly hard. The Irish capital is the world’s biggest hub for aircraft leasing with an ecosystem of lessors and financial advisers overseeing most of the world’s leased aircraft. Ireland’s Central Statistics Office values that Irish-managed fleet at €268 billion.  Small wonder, then, that Prime Minister Micheál Martin singled out aviation when welcoming the newly published details of the EU-U.S. agreement. “Given the significance of the airline sector to Ireland, a specific carve-out for aircraft and aircraft parts is welcome,” he said. — Shawn Pogatchnik DEFENSE  The EU promised to buy more American weapons under Thursday’s trade deal, although a senior official downplayed any impact on efforts to boost Europe’s military industrial complex. The EU “plans to substantially increase procurement of military and defence equipment from the United States, with the support and facilitation of the U.S. government,” the joint statement said.  That could deal a blow to the European defense industry, which Brussels has been trying to strengthen with initiatives like the €150 billion loans-for-weapons Security Action for Europe regulation to boost joint procurement, or the €1.5 billion European Defence Industry Programme still under discussion with the European Parliament. — Jacopo Barigazzi INVESTMENTS Although it’s unclear how exactly it will fulfill its promises, the EU “intends to” procure $750 billion worth of U.S. energy, including liquefied natural gas, oil and nuclear energy products, through 2028.  It will also buy “at least” $40 billion worth of U.S. artificial intelligence chips. Europe already relies heavily on U.S.-based AI chip suppliers such as Nvidia, since it has no own-production capacity in that space.  On top of that, “European companies are expected to invest an additional $600 billion across strategic sectors in the United States through 2028,” the document adds. — Camille Gijs and Pieter Haeck

BRUSSELS — The EU unveiled a new Black Sea strategy on Wednesday that will allow the region to better transport heavy military gear as the Russian threat looms over Eastern Europe.  “Security in the Black Sea is vital also to European security,” EU top diplomat Kaja Kallas said at a press conference, adding that it is currently being undermined by the Kremlin’s all-out war in Ukraine and hybrid attacks on maritime infrastructure. The strategy is also a response to “geopolitical challenges” in a world where “dependencies are being weaponized,” said Marta Kos, commissioner for EU enlargement. The Black Sea is a bridge to the South Caucasus and Central Asia, and a vital artery for energy and food trade, she said.  The Black Sea region has been destabilized by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as the large-scale use of mines and military actions hindered the flow of goods. Separately, Eastern European countries fear further aggression from Moscow beyond Ukraine, and want to ramp up their defensive capabilities.  Romania and Bulgaria are the EU countries on the Black Sea coast and the bloc will invest in upgrading regional infrastructure, such as ports, railways and airports, to handle heavy military equipment. This will help to ensure “troops can be where they are needed when they are needed,” Kallas said. Previously, European Transport Commissioner Apostolos Tzitzikostas said it would cost around €75 billion to upgrade transport infrastructure for military use across Europe.  The EU also plans to establish a Black Sea Maritime Security Hub, which will serve as Europe’s early warning system in the region. Kallas said the hub will raise situational awareness and help the EU protect its critical infrastructure. The location of the hub, its operational model and costs are still to be determined, she added.  Another security move is an increased monitoring of foreign ownership of ports and other key facilities, Kallas said. On trade, the EU will develop new energy corridors, transport links and digital infrastructure with regional partners, according to Kos. The bloc will also invest in the preparedness of coastal communities and the marine economy to deal with war-related environmental damage and respond to climate change risks.  “Around the world, countries are now looking for cooperation with the reliable and predictable partners, which the EU is,” Kos said. “Such partnerships will make us collectively more secure and create business opportunities for everyone.” The Commission underlined Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Turkey, Armenia and Azerbaijan as partners it wants to forge closer ties with through the new strategy. 

This article is part of the Europe’s looming water crisis special report. The herring-rich Baltic Sea has fed Sweden’s appetite for surströmming since the Middle Ages. The putrid-smelling fermented dish can only properly be made using herring caught in the brackish waters of the world’s youngest sea, as they are smaller than their Atlantic cousins. But now much of the Baltic Sea is quite literally dying — and herring numbers are plummeting. Cod were first to be hit. After a mysterious surge in population in the late 1970s, numbers plunged in the 1980s and are now so low Baltic cod fishing is virtually banned under EU law. Then came the herring decimation. Numbers are now 80 percent below 1970s levels — prompting panic from Sweden’s local fishers in a country where herring is an economic and culinary staple. But the fish’s importance extends beyond human use. “Herring is the engine of the whole Baltic Sea ecosystem, because it’s such an important food for birds, for seals, and it’s a predator of smaller fish,” said Johanna Fox, Stockholm-based director of the WWF Baltic Programme. “Losing cod was bad. Losing herring is catastrophic.” What’s behind this wipeout? The obvious answer — overfishing — is a key part of the story. Rising sea temperatures have also been blamed. But there’s another culprit: poo. Livestock manure from farms in countries bordering the Baltic, along with urine and chemical fertilizer, seeps through the soil and into groundwater, runs into rivers, and is eventually washed out into the sea. A portion of the Baltic Sea 1.5 times the size of Denmark is now considered the largest “dead zone” in the world — the victim of “eutrophication,” where the nitrates and phosphates in fertilizer over-nourish the water, prompting a surge in growth of some species, such as algae. These overtake and kill other species, block out the sun, and starve the water of oxygen. Eventually there’s no oxygen left and everything dies. (This effect may have contributed to the temporary surge of cod numbers in the late 1970s.) On top of the ecological destruction, the lack of oxygen means the dead organic matter turns from carbon into methane, a potent greenhouse gas that is released into the atmosphere. Recent studies suggest the Baltic Sea may become a net contributor to climate change. The overwhelming cause of this destruction is agriculture. And efforts to address the problem are failing badly.  A DIABOLICAL PROBLEM The Baltic Sea dead zone is the most dramatic example of a Europe-wide problem. Pig farms in Spain pollute groundwater. Fertilizer sprayed on crops and orchards pollutes Italian rivers. Manure from Dutch and Belgian dairy farms soaks into the soil, damaging biodiversity and creating toxic algal blooms on the coast. A third of Europe’s freshwater supply has unacceptably high levels of nitrate pollution, according to the European Environment Agency (EEA) — and the situation is not improving despite three decades of regulation. The answer, say environmental advocates, is to farm less intensively. But the politics of achieving that have proved diabolically difficult, and the will to act is fading. The EU farm lobby, always strong, has increased its influence in Brussels in the last 18 months, staging protests across the continent against EU green rules and gaining ever more support among the bloc’s most powerful political group, the conservative European People’s Party. With war on Europe’s doorstep and rising geopolitical and trade tensions, the argument that food security must come before environmental protection has steadily gained influence since the days of the Green Deal in the early 2020s. The cries of environmentalists, insisting this is a shortsighted trade-off, sound increasingly faint in Brussels. In recent discussions about the European Commission’s upcoming Water Resilience Strategy, multiple members of European Parliament told POLITICO that center- and far-right lawmakers had blocked efforts to write ambitious environmental protections into a parliamentary water proposal. That included scrubbing out all mentions of the European Green Deal and blocking a call from the Greens to strengthen enforcement of nitrate regulations. Instead, many worry nitrate regulations will be weakened through another simplification bill. The European Commission told POLITICO it is considering such a policy, though they did not say this would weaken the rules. A BRIEF HISTORY LESSON Nitrate pollution began to take off in the mid-20th century after German chemist Fritz Haber discovered a method to extract nitrogen directly from the atmosphere to manufacture chemical nitrogen fertilizer. That made production of cheap fertilizer far easier, revolutionizing food production. Today Haber’s method is key to ensuring the world has enough food to support soaring human populations. But it also released dangerous quantities of nitrates into the land and water. Just as digging up and burning fossil hydrocarbons in the form of coal, oil and gas has introduced extra carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, destabilizing the climate; so extracting inert nitrogen from the air and injecting it into the land and water has destabilized ecosystems. Add to that the nitrate-rich manure from increasingly intensive industrial livestock farming, and in many regions you have far more nutrients than nature can handle. “It is bringing whole ecosystems out of balance,” said Ingo Fetzer, a researcher on planetary boundaries at the Stockholm Resilience Center at Stockholm University. “Eutrophication creates massive oxygen depletion. All aquatic ecosystems depend on oxygen in the water. Eutrophication means you have fishes dying, small animals dying, but also land ecosystems that depend on fishes, like sea eagles. Also human communities depend on that.” THE NITRATES DIRECTIVE The causes of eutrophication have long been known. Back when understanding of climate change was in its infancy, EU policymakers designed a law to deal with nitrate pollution: the 1991 Nitrates Directive. The law aimed to restrict the amount of manure and chemical fertilizer spread on areas considered high-risk. To this day, the Nitrates Directive is the EU’s main tool to  control nitrate pollution. The trouble is, it’s not working. According to the EEA’s State of the Water report last year, nitrate levels in groundwater have remained the same since the beginning of the century. For surface water, there was a small improvement at first, but over the last 15 or so years progress has stalled. Ask experts why it’s not working, and you get a range of answers. Some blame exemptions granted to countries. Others blame rule-breaking by farmers and poor enforcement by member countries. Others say the rules simply aren’t strong enough. Caroline Whalley, manager of water industries and pollution at the EEA, says pollution from agriculture is by its nature difficult to monitor and control. “When you’ve got a pipe coming out of a factory and you’ve got a pollutant that comes from that factory, you can say, ‘Do something about it.’” she said. “But things like nitrates and pesticide are spread on the land. Some farmers may be doing a great job. Some areas may not be very susceptible to pollution … and in other areas … it’s very difficult to say, ‘It was you!’ because with nitrate everyone is using it. It’s very difficult to identify an owner.” Sara Johansson, a water expert at NGO the European Environmental Bureau, says poor implementation is a key problem, as is the EU’s willingness to grant exemptions — or “derogations” in Brussels jargon — to certain countries that request them, such as Denmark, the Netherlands and Ireland. Denmark, she says, has said it will no longer seek derogations. But Ireland and the Netherlands “are fiercely holding onto their derogations and renewing them. But they are also trying to find a way to get round the rules so they can continue keeping unsustainably high livestock numbers.” The Netherlands, a nitrate-pollution hotspot, last month announced it would push back its nitrogen targets by five years, in defiance of EU law. DON’T BLAME DEROGATIONS Still, the era of derogations may be coming to an end. Every four years, countries that want a derogation must make their case to the European Commission’s Nitrate Committee. Since the beginning of the Nitrates Directive, Ireland has has always got what it wanted — permission to spread 250 kilograms of nitrates per hectare, rather than the standard 170 kilograms. But in the last cycle the Commission put its foot down — sort of — and dropped the limit to 220 kilograms per hectare. That was during the Green Deal mandate, at the height of the Brussels’ pro-environment push. Ireland’s next derogation hearing is coming in the next few months, and Edward Burgess, an agricultural catchments specialist with the Irish government’s agriculture agency Teagasc, is not sure which way it will go. On the one hand, momentum in recent years has been to be less generous with derogations. On the other, the mood in Brussels since the swearing-in of the new Commission last December has been to put farmers’ needs ahead of the environment. But Burgess argues refusing derogations will have flow-on effects that could actually make matters worse. “The 250kg limit wasn’t plucked out of the air to allow people to farm at a level that would damage water,” he said. “It was based on research that found people farming at this level could do so without having a negative effect on water quality, as long as they did it properly.” Farmers with derogations are much more closely monitored by the authorities, and as a result their farming practices improve, he argues. Take the derogation away, and such engagement may drop. “It’s certainly not as simple as saying if we get rid of the derogation, everything will be hunky dory. My expectation is if we get rid of the derogation, there will be very little change, and if there is change, it will be worse.” The problem, he says, is that nitrate pollution is not simply a matter of quantity. It depends on the soil quality, the geography, the geology, and so on. A truly effective regulation would take all these matters into account. But the resources required to invest, train and regulate more location-specific practices would be huge. FARMERS VS ENVIRONMENT Whatever the reasons, the brute fact remains that nitrate pollution in Europe’s waters is not improving, and Brussels has displayed little willingness to address this fact. A draft of the European Commission’s upcoming Water Resilience Strategy, obtained by POLITICO, doesn’t give a single mention to nitrate pollution in the 34-page document. Nutrient pollution in general gets three mentions. Separately, the Commission’s environment department has been getting feedback from industry on the effectiveness of the Nitrates Directive, and expects to publish a report by the end of the year. But it is noncommittal on whether it will reform the rules. “Feedback from all stakeholders, including farmers, indicates that it [the Nitrates Act] remains very important and relevant for improving water quality by reducing nitrate pollution from agricultural sources,” an EU official told POLITICO in a written response, adding the review was also looking “at simplification and burden reduction potential.” The word “simplification” has become a mantra for the current Commission, part of its drive to reduce red tape for business. But it’s a word that worries Michal Wiezik, a member of European Parliament with the centrist Renew Europe group who led the agriculture committee’s work on Parliament’s recent report on water resilience. “They call it simplification, I call it deregulation,” he said. A strong water resilience strategy, Wiezik says, is much-needed. “But I don’t think at the end of the day it will be strong enough. The majorities in this house [European Parliament] are willing to downgrade it to something that does not ask too much effort from the farmers,” he said. “That’s the basic problem whenever there is legislation relating to agriculture, there is always this sentiment to defend the farmers.” Wiezik says Europe’s powerful farm lobby, represented by Copa Cogeca at the EU level, has a remarkable ability to influence policymakers, something that mystifies him. POLITICO contacted Copa Cogeca multiple times by phone and email to request an interview for this story, but received no response. As the politics in Brussels plays out, the vast dead zones in the Baltic Sea remain a striking example of the ecological destruction excessive fertilizer use can cause. Looming over all this, says WWF Baltic’s Fox, is the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) — the massive funding of food production that accounts for nearly a third of the EU budget. Currently, the CAP often works against environmental policy, Fox says — a point the European Court of Auditors agrees with. “The CAP promotes large, more intensive farming,” Fox said, “and with large more intensive farming, you get more intensive use of fertilizers.” The Nitrates Directive is an inadequate check on the colossus that is the CAP — it’s the latter where real reform is needed, Fox says. But fundamentally changing the CAP would involve a big fight with farmers — something recent events suggest the Commission has little appetite for.

BRUSSELS — Tropical forest loss rocketed to a 20-year high in 2024 as climate change-fueled wildfires tore through some of the planet’s most important natural carbon sinks. Close to 7 million hectares of primary tropical forests were destroyed last year, with nearly half of that due to fire, said a report from the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the University of Maryland published Wednesday. Wildfires also swept through boreal forests — in particular in Russia and Canada — leading to 30 million hectares of trees being lost globally in 2024, and resulting in an estimated 4.1 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions. It came as the European Union decided to delay anti-deforestation rules and wind back other environmental protections in a bid to boost economic competitiveness. “This is a dangerous feedback loop we cannot afford to trigger further,” warned Peter Potapov, research professor at the University of Maryland. “If this trend [of fire-driven forest loss] continues, it could permanently transform critical natural areas and unleash large amounts of carbon — intensifying climate change and fueling even more extreme fires.” Climate change and El Niño (a cyclical weather phenomenon that exacerbates global warming’s impact) created hotter and drier conditions last year, helping make 2024 the hottest year on record. That elevated the risks of larger and more widespread fires, the researchers noted. Latin America “was particularly hard hit, reversing the progress we saw in Brazil and Colombia in 2023.” The Congo basin saw notably high primary forest loss, while deforestation decreased in Indonesia and Malaysia last year. Even with the sharp rise in wildfire damage, agriculture was still the main driver of global deforestation over the last 24 years, according to the report. The overall picture is hurting forests’ capacity to absorb and store carbon, which helps mitigate climate change. It also means that the world is off track to reach its objective of halting and reversing global deforestation by 2030 — a goal more than 140 countries pledged at the Glasgow COP26 climate summit in 2021. “This should be a wake-up call,” said Elizabeth Goldman, co-director of the WRI’s Global Forest Watch, noting that to reach this 2030 goal, global deforestation would need to decrease by 20 percent every year until the end of the decade. EU REGULATION LOOMING The data comes as companies are getting ready to implement new EU rules requiring them to police their supply chains and ensure they’re deforestation-free. Under the EU Deforestation Regulation, companies selling coffee, cocoa, palm oil, soy, rubber, beef and timber on the EU market will have to prove they sourced the commodities from areas that haven’t been cleared to make space for agriculture. The new rules kick in on Dec. 30. But a group of centrist and right-wing European Parliament members is pushing to delay the rules further and tweak them to reduce red tape for European farmers and land managers. The legislation risks “placing disproportionate burdens” on small companies “without delivering the intended results” and “imposes technically unrealistic demands for tracing and verifying the origin of commodities,” complained Veronika Vrecionová, a Czech MEP of the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists and the chair of Parliament’s agriculture committee, in a letter obtained by POLITICO. The missive, sent May 14 to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and EU Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall, also calls for delaying the new rules once again. EU policymakers agreed late last year to postpone the legislation’s implementation by a year, from Dec. 2024 to Dec. 2025. “We fully support the aim of combating deforestation, but we believe that a framework with such systemic shortcomings may ultimately fail to identify actual illegal activity,” Vrecionová wrote, warning that “it could hinder legitimate EU-based producers and compromise the competitiveness of our agri-food and forestry sectors.” The letter also shows that right-wing forces are not giving up on their attempt to modify the regulation. Late last year, the center-right European People’s Party — the largest group in Parliament and von der Leyen’s political family — failed in its push to amend the legislation and label the EU a “no risk” area, shielding small European farmers and foresters from the rules. Vrecionová’s letter reiterated that demand.

LONDON — Opening a third runway at Heathrow Airport could result in pollution equivalent to an additional 2.4 million tons of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere each year by 2050, according to government estimates seen by POLITICO. The data, obtained through a Freedom of Information request, sets out for the first time Whitehall’s forecasts for the additional environmental damage caused if a controversial third runway is opened at Heathrow in 2039. The figure, from analysis conducted in January this year, is based on modeling applying ministers’ current “policy ambition” to cut aviation emissions. Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced in January that the government would back a third runway at Heathrow, the U.K.’s biggest airport. Her support is part of the Treasury’s bid to boost sluggish economic growth and generate jobs.  But the government has come under pressure from green groups and MPs concerned that airport expansion would make it harder for the U.K. to hit its climate goals. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, who voted against Heathrow expansion in 2018, said it would take place only if legally-binding carbon budget targets can still be met, which in practice means emissions from the third runway would need to be offset by reducing pollution elsewhere in the economy. Miliband’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero declined to answer how it would achieve these offsets, referring the query to the Department for Transport. It is now up to Heathrow bosses to submit expansion plans by the summer. The airport is aiming to get a green light before the end of this parliament. JET ZERO The data, released by the Department for Transport (DfT), is based on a scenario where a third runway at Heathrow becomes fully operational in 2039. Under that scenario, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) — a lower-carbon jet fuel still in the initial stages of development — would make up 22 percent of fuels by 2050.  New legislation requiring airlines to ensure two percent of the jet fuel they use is sustainable, known as a SAF mandate, was laid before parliament this week. Ministers hope the industry could hit 22 percent as early as 2040, where the requirement will be fixed “until there is greater certainty regarding SAF supply.” Separate government calculations released by the DfT, based on a “high ambition” scenario where SAF makes up 50 percent of jet fuel by 2050, found additional emissions from Heathrow would be equivalent to 1.4 million tons of CO2. That scenario, modeled on a “jet zero” strategy published by the previous government, would also see the roll out of zero-emissions flights and greater fuel efficiency. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, who voted against Heathrow expansion in 2018, said it would take place only if legally-binding carbon budget targets can still be met. | Pool photo by Chris J. Ratcliffe/EFE via EPA Some emissions created from a third runway could be offset by passengers opting to fly from Heathrow who could otherwise have flown from a different U.K. airport, according to an accompanying DfT document. “A third runway at Heathrow doesn’t make sense for the economy or the environment. It would undermine regional growth and the U.K.’s domestic tourism industry,” said Nick Davies, head of climate policy at the Green Alliance think tank. “We’ve got a long way to go to zero-emissions flights — so the reality is that allowing airport expansion to go ahead will fly in the face of the U.K.’s climate targets.” Experts warned that overall emissions could still be higher than the DfT estimate, since government modeling looked at expansion at other airports and excluded any additional emissions produced in the construction of new infrastructure and other airport operations.  “The environmental damage created by an expanded Heathrow is a danger to us all, especially when factors missing from this calculation are considered. Counting other greenhouse gases and inbound flights could quadruple the DfT’s estimate,” warned Alex Chapman, a senior economist at the New Economics Foundation think tank.  The government risks “tarnishing the U.K.’s climate credentials” for “minimal economic benefit,” Chapman added. “We estimate around two-thirds of new flights created are taken by a tiny minority of wealthy, U.K.-based, frequent flyers travelling for leisure.” A DfT spokesperson said: “Expanding Heathrow could drive growth, trade and tourism and unlock over 100,000 jobs, cementing our position as a world leader in aviation. We are committed to reaching net zero by 2050 and any expansion plans would be assessed against the government’s legal, carbon and environmental obligations.”

The European Union placed a strategic bet on Serbia’s lithium reserves to fuel its ambitious shift to electric vehicles. What it ended up getting in return were dirty politics and an environmental backlash so severe it is poisoning the Balkan nation’s relations with Brussels and blighting its aspirations to join the bloc. Serbia’s Jadar lithium deposit is estimated to contain enough of the soft, white metal to power 1 million EVs and cater to up to 25 percent of Europe’s demand, placing the continent’s largest lithium deposit at the heart of EU efforts to secure supplies of the critical raw materials needed to transition away from fossil fuels. No wonder, then, that a project to mine the deposit, developed by global giant Rio Tinto, stands to secure crucial backing from Brussels under the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA), which aims to reduce the bloc’s heavy reliance on China for essential resources. Yet intense resistance to the project from Serbs, who worry about environmental damage and accuse their political leaders of corruption and cronyism, threatens to undermine support for EU membership that runs at around 40 percent. If the EU decides to support Jadar, it will signal that the bloc prioritizes its economic interests over fundamental values, and will also “have dramatic consequences on Serbia and the region,” said Aleksandar Matković, a Belgrade-based researcher who has organized protests against the mining project.  The protests have become tied up in a broader wave of anti-government unrest in Serbia, with tensions escalating further after a documentary, produced by a metallurgist who supports the Rio Tinto project, controversially labeled those who oppose it as Russian agents. That claim has been repeated on the pages of the Wall Street Journal, while activists have also faced allegations of acting as agents for the EU and China. “We cannot be agents of three different superpowers,” said Matković, who works at the Institute for Economic Sciences in Belgrade. On March 25, Industry Commissioner Stéphane Séjourné unveiled 47 strategic raw materials projects under the CRMA but unexpectedly didn’t include non-EU projects — leading many to wonder if this was because of the controversy surrounding Rio Tinto’s Jadar lithium mine.  The Commission declined to comment on whether concerns around Jadar had affected the decision to delay the announcement, but emphasized the broader ambitions around the EU’s strategic raw materials partnership with Serbia. That partnership “does in no way change the EU’s approach to the fundamentals of the EU accession process,” a spokesperson said. “What [it] can do is to bring investments in raw materials, batteries, and e-mobility that will boost economic development and [the] green and digital transition and create new job opportunities.” Shortly after Séjourné announced the EU-backed projects, Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić met with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Council President António Costa for dinner in Brussels — and got an earful on Serbia’s democratic backsliding. The EU leaders expressed their displeasure at Vučić’s handling of student unrest and the wider protests against his rule that have persisted for more than four months. Vučić, for his part, has accused protesters of being funded by the West — resorting to a common trope in both Serbian politics and the controversy around the Jadar project: blaming outside interference. The EU leaders expressed their displeasure at Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić’s handling of student unrest and the wider protests against his rule that have persisted for more than four months. | Oliver Bunic/AFP via Getty Images “The country needs to deliver on EU reforms, in particular to take decisive steps towards media freedom, the fight against corruption, and … electoral reform,” von der Leyen wrote in a social media post after their meeting. All eyes are now on whether the Jadar mine will appear on the EU’s next list of CRMA projects. On March 25, Séjourné noted he “will be presenting the selected projects in the coming weeks,” adding that those outside the EU “will not disappear from the map.” If it receives EU backing, the project would gain better access to funding opportunities — though it wouldn’t enjoy the same benefits as EU-based projects, such as fast-tracked permits and direct financial support. European lawmaker Hildegaard Bentele believes that Jadar is “crucial for Serbia, it’s crucial for the EU, it’s crucial for the whole automotive sector.” Bentele, who represents Germany’s Christian Democrats, serves as the European Parliament’s representative on an advisory panel that reviews CRMA strategic projects with the European Commission. But for many in Serbia, the Jadar project now symbolizes the EU’s alignment with a mining giant at the expense of public concerns — prioritizing Germany’s industrial interests and the bloc’s race to close the EV gap with a dominant China. Meanwhile, popular mistrust has led many locals to believe that only the politicians will benefit. (Serbia’s score is the lowest within the Western Balkans in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index.) ORIGIN STORY In 2004, Rio Tinto geologists prospecting in the Jadar valley found a high-grade deposit combining boron and lithium, naming it “jadarite.” Fast forward to 2021: Rio Tinto announced it would be commencing operations on the project, committing over €2 billion. That announcement sparked massive protests, forcing the government to suspend the Jadar undertaking. Ana Brnabić, the prime minister of the day, declared it the “absolute end” of Rio Tinto’s plans. But in July 2024, Serbia’s constitutional court allowed the project to resume. A week later, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and European Commission Vice President Maroš Šefčovič flew to Belgrade for the signing of a strategic partnership between Serbia and the EU on sustainable raw materials, battery value chains and electric vehicles. Šefčovič, now the EU’s trade commissioner, called the project a “testament to our shared commitment to driving forward the green transition.” Scholz described it as a “truly European project,” stressing that “above all, we need these batteries.” MEASURING THE OPPOSITION But why, exactly, is Jadar so controversial? Despite Rio Tinto’s attempts to be transparent about the project to assuage environmental concerns, resistance to breaking ground on the underground mine persists. “There is absolutely no place for lithium mining in a fertile valley, with sources of spring water, groundwater, a valley that feeds people, where farmers have tilled land for seven or eight generations,” said Bojana Novaković, leader of environmental NGO Marš sa Drine (March on the Drina). If poorly managed, lithium extraction could contaminate groundwater reserves and farmland vital to the Jadar valley’s predominantly agricultural community, green critics contend.  Rio Tinto insists the mine won’t pose the same environmental risks as others. | Marko Djokovic/AFP via Getty Images Nebojša Petković from the Ne Damo Jadar (We Won’t Surrender Jadar) association, who describes himself as pro-European, believes the EU isn’t interested in Serbia’s becoming a member. He accused the bloc of only caring about its own profits: “They want to turn us into their resource base and [a] landfill of Europe,” he said, branding the mine a strategic project to “destroy” Serbia.  Rio Tinto insists the mine won’t pose the same environmental risks as others, because it will use dry rather than liquid waste storage methods. Mining waste, known as tailings, typically consists of fine rock particles, water, and sometimes chemicals — raising concerns about potential leaks or dam collapses. “Our tailings are solid like a brick,” says Chad Blewitt, managing director of the Jadar project. “It cannot wash away, it cannot collapse.” However, dry waste isn’t immune to water exposure, warns Diego Marin from the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) network. The Jadar valley is prone to flooding — most notably in 2014, when inundations killed 57 people in Serbia and triggered the release of heavy metals from mine sites in the area after a dam broke. While dry tailings are “definitely a better practice,” Marin notes they are “still not safe from ecological concerns,” including dust emissions and potential heavy metal contamination.  A report from the Renewables and Environmental Regulatory Institute in Belgrade (RERI) found that the current environmental impact assessment scoping request from Rio Tinto does not cover mining waste disposal — only the underground mine. “The impact of this waste has not been adequately assessed, nor were adequate measures suggested for preventing, removing, or reducing any significant adverse impact on the environment,” said Mirko Popović, program director at RERI.  One proposed safeguard is to bring in an auditor, such as the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA). Rio Tinto has expressed willingness to allow IRMA to produce an external report on Jadar, but IRMA Director Aimee Boulanger told POLITICO that issuing a verdict on a mine that doesn’t yet exist would be difficult.  What’s more, the relationship between Rio Tinto and local residents may already have reached the point of no return. “It’s really difficult to regain trust when trust is already broken,” said Boulanger, who supports the involvement of IRMA but notes there has been no formal approach from the company so far. In a statement to POLITICO after this story was first published, project chief Blewitt rejected those assertions. “Rio Tinto strongly refutes the unsubstantiated claims that the Jadar Project will have a negative impact on agriculture and water quality. Such allegations are baseless and ignore the robust draft Environmental Impact Assessments which Rio Tinto has made available to the public,” Blewitt said. “These studies prove that agriculture can continue to prosper above ground while mining operations are done safely below the surface, just as modern cities exist above underground metro systems. Similarly, the project’s plans for dry tailings for waste would guarantee local water is not impacted.” THE GERMAN INTEREST At the core of Europe’s push to compete with China in the EV sector lies the fate of Germany’s auto industry, which plays a powerful role in shaping Berlin’s stance — and by extension influencing EU policy priorities.  The challenge, however, is that China already has a stranglehold on the critical raw materials pipeline and subsequent battery production, enabling its battery-makers to produce cheaply at scale. Swedish company Northvolt was once seen as the continent’s best hope, but its demise leaves the German car industry reliant on Chinese suppliers.  It’s a familiar quandary for German automakers, which in order to enter the Chinese market in the 1980s were required to set up joint ventures with domestic companies and share their technology. For the likes of Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Volkswagen, China’s subsequent economic growth has made the country’s market their most lucrative, helping to support costly factories and labor in Europe.  Europe’s lack of raw materials mining is “making the domestic industry reliant on other countries and external factors for their sourcing … it is essential that the European Union supports the development of the European battery value chain,” EU car lobby ACEA said in a statement on the CRMA. But securing minerals is just one piece of the puzzle. German automakers are falling behind Chinese EV incumbents on technology and costs, putting their market share — and earnings — at risk in China. The pressure is being felt back home, with layoffs across the industry. In March, Audi announced it would slash 7,500 jobs by 2029, part of the Volkswagen Group’s plan to cut costs and ease the transition to EVs. While not key to the success of EU automakers, projects like Jadar are a test of the bloc’s ability to wriggle free of China’s economic dominance within its decoupling strategy.  “For Serbia, a long-standing candidate for EU membership, the agreement … represents an opportunity to move closer to Europe and to push ahead with membership negotiations,” said a spokesperson for the German Association of the Automotive Industry, which represents industry giants such as BMW and Mercedes-Benz. DOCUMENTARY DRAMA The European Parliament entered the controversy in February by hosting a screening of “Not In My Country,” a documentary alleging that local resistance and national protests against lithium mining in Serbia had arisen due to ignorance or misinformation from Russia. The event, which was protested by 100 people in Brussels, was followed by a debate featuring Bentele, Matković and Marijanti Babić, Rio Tinto’s country head for Serbia. The film, made by Peter Tom Jones, director of the KU Leuven Institute for Sustainable Metals and Minerals (SIM2), was criticized by the protesters for promoting the project and excluding its critics. But Jones defended his work and accused the project’s opponents of refusing to participate. “That’s a very deliberate strategy of the opponents not to engage, not to be part of debates,” he told POLITICO. In an open letter signed by academics, researchers and students in Belgium to stop the documentary from being screened at Docville, an international documentary film festival in Leuven, the signatories called it “a mouthpiece to state propaganda, it also echoes the corporate interests of Rio Tinto, buttressing its strategic lobbying efforts for lithium mining.” The screening at Docville was canceled amid fears it could attract protesters. For many Serbs, the EU’s pending seal of approval for Rio Tinto feels like complicity in a system where profit trumps citizen involvement. | Marko Djokovic/AFP via Getty Images Nik Völker, a researcher at MiningWatch Portugal, pointed out that the Leuven institute “holds various bilateral agreements with lithium mining and processing partners in Europe prominently featured, including mining major Rio Tinto in Serbia.” A statement released by SIM2 and Jones after the screening at the European Parliament denied allegations that he had collaborated with or received funding from Rio Tinto for the documentary. Instead, they said, it was co-developed and fully financed by the University of Leuven. “As a consequence, no outside party or company, whether Rio Tinto, ElevenEs, Stellantis or otherwise, has had any influence on the making of this documentary,” Jones said. “Any allegations suggesting that this is the case because there are company collaborations in place in terms of research projects are simply false.” POLITICO approached Rio Tinto regarding the film, but the company declined to comment.  SERBIA’S FUTURE The fight over the Jadar mine is not just about lithium — it’s also about who gets to define Serbia’s future. For many Serbs, the EU’s pending seal of approval for Rio Tinto feels like complicity in a system where profit trumps citizen involvement, and where environmental concerns are brushed aside in favor of geopolitical interests. And Serbia’s zigzag foreign policy between major powers has created tensions both domestically and externally. The EU is now increasingly pressuring Serbia to align more clearly with its interests. The bells are ringing on resource cronyism, where state and corporate interests converge while the public is shut out of the debate. “I honestly believe it’s political suicide to give this project the time of day and to keep pushing out for any, any kind of political faction within Serbia particularly, but also Europe, because I’ve never seen a project with this much dissent against it,” said Novaković of Marš sa Drine. Serbia’s aspiration to join the EU now hangs in the balance of the bloc’s push for raw materials. Mining colony or not, the Western Balkan country faces further chaos amidst its instability. Vučić announced on April 6 that a new Serbian government, led by political novice Đuro Macut, would take office by April 18. If lawmakers don’t approve Macut, Vučić looks likely to call snap elections in early June. The verdict of voters will have a crucial impact not only on the fate of the Jadar project — but also on the Balkan nation’s European course. Jordyn Dahl contributed reporting. Graphic by Giovanna Coi. This story has been updated with further comment from Rio Tinto and a response from the European Commission.

GRIMSBY, England — In the lobby bar of the St. James Hotel, glum-looking sailors huddled around cups of tea (or something stronger.) They were reliving the collision that days before had turned their two ships into floating infernos, killed one of their colleagues and led to charges of gross negligence manslaughter for one of the captains. Hovering nearby — and to be found in hotel bars throughout this small port town on England’s north-east coast — were shirt-sleeved company counsels, union lawyers, salvagers and government investigators, all preparing for battle over who should pay for one of the worst maritime accidents in recent British history.  At the heart of the matter is why, last Monday, the cargo ship Solong drove smack into the Stena Immaculate, a tanker carrying 220,000 barrels of jet fuel.  The American, Russian and Filipino crew were evacuated to Grimsby. Then, not allowed to go home to recover, they spent the rest of last week being interviewed by police and government investigators. That evidence will eventually help settle an insurance claim which could take months or even years to settle — and could stretch into the hundreds of millions of pounds.  In the meantime, the costs of the environmental damage from the collision could also be rising, after new signs of pollution emerged Monday. THE CRASH AND THE CLEAN UP The investigation embroils three governments and the United States military.  The U.K. government’s Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) is leading, assisted by agencies from the flag states of the two ships, the U.S. and Portugal. The Pentagon is involved because the Stena Immaculate was on a U.S. military mission delivering its cargo to an aviation fuel depot in Yorkshire.  The MAIB’s initial inquiries showed the Solong “regularly used the route it took on the day of the collision” between the Scottish port of Grangemouth and Rotterdam in the Netherlands. At 1:30 a.m. last Monday, the cargo ship altered course, traveling at 16.4 knots (around 30 kilometres per hour). A little over eight hours later, a camera on board a nearby vessel captured the Solong smashing into the side of the Stena Immaculate. There was a huge flash of light.  Investigators said they would look into the “navigational practices on board both vessels; the manning and fatigue management; the condition and maintenance of the vessels involved; and the environmental conditions at the time.” The outcome will be highly significant to the insurers of the vessels. Like most large ships, the Stena Immaculate and Solong are covered by protection and indemnity clubs that pool insurance risk. Neither Steamship Mutual, which insures the Stena Immaculate, nor Skuld, that covers the Solong, would comment on the potential costs of the accident. The investigation embroils three governments and the United States military. | Ian Forsyth/Getty Images Salvagers have now boarded the ships to assess the damage. Two experts told POLITICO that, based on photographs, both vessels looked as though they may be damaged beyond repair. Credit rating agency Morningstar DBS said: “Both ships may be considered a total loss.”  Including the costs for containing and cleaning up pollution, Morningstar DBS estimated last week the hit to insurers could be between $100 million and $300 million (£77 million and £231 million.) The marine insurance industry could absorb the costs, said the analysts. But they warned it “raises concerns about the profitability” of the sector, coming on top of the Baltimore Bridge disaster last year and ongoing attacks on vessels in the Red Sea and Suez Canal. One of the chambers on the Stena Immaculate, containing 17,515 barrels of jet fuel, exploded on impact, setting fire to both vessels, which then burned for several days before fire crews were able to control the blaze. The U.S. owners of the tanker, Crowley, hailed the “heroic action” of the sailors who, it said, ensured cooling systems were switched on before abandoning ship, possibly saving the rest of the cargo tanks from catching alight. On Saturday, Vladimir Motin, the 59-year-old Russian captain of the Solong, appeared in Hull magistrates court charged with gross negligence manslaughter. He did not enter a plea. The Crown Prosecution Service also released the name of Mark Angelo Pernia, the 38-year-old Filipino sailor on the Solong killed in the collision. Beyond the damage to the vessels themselves and possible compensation for Pernia’s family, it is also not known what the cost of the environmental clean up will be. Crowley said it was “fully committed” to “environmental remediation” — but who ultimately pays for the clean up will depend on who is found to be at fault for the collision. Past MAIB investigations have taken several months, and in some cases years, before findings were published. Motin, who is from St. Petersburg, is due to appear at the Old Bailey criminal court in London on April 14. POLLUTION RISK On Monday, the U.K. coastguard said “a sheen” had been sighted on the ocean surface “that we now know to be plastic nurdles.” Nurdles are pellets of plastic used in the production of plastic products. Some had begun washing up on British shorelines, the coastguard said. They can present a risk to wildlife if eaten. Other debris from the collision may also have begun washing up on local beaches. A bright blue barrel washed ashore at Cleethorpes, just east of Grimsby, on Friday. The coastguard cordoned off the area. The U.K. Maritime and Coastguard Agency said last week that there did “not appear to be any pollution” from either vessel. Analysts from the NGO Skytruth confirmed no slick was evident in satellite images of the vessels — although they also said rough weather could break up any oil spill, making it harder to see. But some on the ground told a different story. Two people with knowledge of the operations to rescue the stricken vessels told POLITICO there had been oil in the water around the vessels. One of them, a salver who would not give his name, said there was oil in the water, but that pollution levels were under control. The U.K. Maritime and Coastguard Agency said last week that there did “not appear to be any pollution” from either vessel. | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images In an interview on Friday, Chief Executive of the Port of Grimsby East Martyn Boyers said vessels working on the response to the accident had been forced to wash oil from their hulls before entering the port. “When they were putting the fire out, all of the oil around the vessels was still in the water and it hadn’t dispersed or anything. So they were sat in it whilst they were trying to put the fire out. Which is some irony because it could have caught fire,” he said. The Grimsby Telegraph first reported the ships had required cleaning. Shortly after POLITICO enquired about this on Friday, the coastguard agency shifted its language. Where earlier in the week there “did not appear to be any pollution,” the statement that afternoon instead said: “There continues to be no cause for concern from pollution.” Unlike thick, heavy crude oil — which can cause devastating pollution, coating marine life in black scum — jet fuel is volatile, meaning most of the fuel may have burned off or evaporated.  But it is highly toxic. Reports of fuel in the water were “concerning,” said Shovonlal Roy, an environmental scientist at the University of Reading. Roy said high concentrations of toxic oil could “be very detrimental to microbial organisms” and lead to “cascading effects” through the food chain. “A large amount of toxic jet fuel and chemical dispersants can severely harm the delicate balance of marine life in the region. This will directly affect seabirds, larger marine animals and the fish population, and may trigger fish kills,” he said. The causes of the collision and its impact remain unclear — and those living closest to it want answers. “There’s a lot of questions about the whole episode,” said Boyer, the Grimsby port executive. “There’s so much sophisticated equipment and gear and satellite navigational aids. How on Earth did it happen?” Jo Shaw contributed reporting from Hull.

LONDON — A 59 year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of “gross negligence manslaughter” after two ships crashed in the North Sea, 56 kilometers off the British coast, local police said. U.K. and international authorities are facing urgent questions about what went wrong and how bad the impact could be. Could there be an ecological calamity on Britain’s eastern beaches? And why did the two ships collide? Here is what we know so far:  WHAT HAPPENED?  The Stena Immaculate, a U.S.-flagged tanker carrying 220,000 barrels of jet fuel, reportedly for the American military, was struck while anchored offshore on Monday morning by the Solong, a cargo ship sailing under a Portuguese flag.  The crews abandoned their vessels and all but one of 37 were saved as nearby ships and coast guard scrambled to the scene. One crew member from the Solong is missing and is presumed dead.  HOW BAD IS THE DAMAGE?  Firefighters gained control of a fire on the Stena Immaculate on Tuesday, while the Solong remained ablaze. In a statement to parliament, Under-Secretary of State for Transport Michael Kane said it was “unlikely” the Solong will remain afloat. WHAT CAUSED THE CRASH?  Investigators are now working to discover how the collision occurred.  Kane, the junior transport minister, said there was no evidence to suggest foul play, even though enquiries into the cause of the crash have only just begun. The Stena was anchored at the time of the collision, leading to questions as to whether the tanker was incorrectly moored in a shipping lane or whether the cargo ship had been on the wrong course, said David Slater, a professor with the school of engineering at Cardiff University. But the government gave no initial assessment. “Something did go terribly wrong,” Kane said. The U.S. Coast Guard confirmed to POLITICO that investigators will be arriving in Britain “to conduct the investigation over the coming days.” The U.S. Coast Guard confirmed to POLITICO that investigators will be arriving in Britain “to conduct the investigation over the coming days.” | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images Humberside Police announced on Tuesday they had arrested a 59-year-old man “on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter in connection with the collision.” Senior investigating officer Detective Chief Superintendent Craig Nicholson said: “The man arrested remains in custody at this time whilst inquiries are under way and we continue speaking with all those involved to establish the full circumstances of the incident.” WHAT’S THE IMPACT?  The destruction of the Stena disrupts a key U.S. military refueling plan at a time of heightened global tensions. The Stena was one of 10 tankers in the Tanker Security Program, a fleet designed to provide a back-up fuel supply to U.S. defense forces in times of emergency.   WHAT’S THE POLLUTION RISK?  Authorities said it was too early to say whether the collision could cause a major environmental disaster. The northeastern coastline of England houses marine protected areas, important fisheries and seabird colonies. WHAT’S THE CURRENT SITUATION?  Kane, the U.K. minister, said the priority was to extinguish the fires on the vessels involved. On Tuesday the burning Solong had broken free of the anchored Stena and was drifting. Two tugboats were alongside the stricken ship, ensuring it moved no closer to shore. Once the situation is stabilized, Kane said, the authorities will assess the risks. “Counter-pollution measures and assets are already in place, and both vessels are being closely monitored for structural integrity,” he said. HOW DANGEROUS IS THE FUEL ON THE TANKER? Experts said the jet fuel on board the Stena was extremely toxic to marine life and highly volatile, meaning its lifespan in the environment would be shorter than heavier forms of oil such as crude. Anti-pollution crews will use foam to mop the oil from the sea. Jet fuel “has minimal environmental impacts when it leaks, because it will either ignite and burn, or evaporate,” said Andy Teasdale, a marine safety advisor to the Institute of Marine Science, Engineering and Technology.   However, jet fuel is “50 times more toxic to aquatic life than diesel oil, which in turn is more toxic than crude oil,” said Alastair Grant, emeritus professor of ecology at the University of East Anglia. This means that “it will have an acute effect on organisms in the immediate aftermath of the spill and [will] lead to various degrees of stress in exposed animals,” said Heriot-Watt University marine ecotoxicologist Mark Hartl. Moreover, Teasdale said, it was still unknown what fuel both ships were carrying to power their own engines. “If the vessel sinks or tanks are breached, then the bunkered fuel may leak out and start to produce pollution,” he said.  WHAT WAS THE CARGO SHIP CARRYING?  Kane said the government had yet to confirm reports that the Solong was carrying 15 containers of highly toxic sodium cyanide. The German owner of the Solong, Ernst Russ AG, said the containers had been emptied. If the chemical was released into the environment, experts said, it would also be relatively short-lived but could release poisonous gases into the air. Authorities said the air quality in the immediate area was normal, while the U.K. Health Security Agency said on Tuesday that the risk to public health onshore was “very low.” Noah Keate contributed reporting.