OPTICS SHORTAGE OF SAND: EUROPE’S IMPACT ON CAPE VERDE’S TURTLE CRISIS Plastic pollution, mass tourism, climate change and poaching all put pressure on a fragile ecosystem, revealing how local challenges often stem from global problems. Text and photos by LUIGI AVANTAGGIATO in Boa Vista, Cape Verde Above, Emilio Garcia Landim, a 29-year-old ranger of Fundação Tartaruga, spots a sea turtle on the beach of Lacacão on Cape Verde’s Boa Vista island. Next, tracks left by a turtle looking for a nesting site along the plastic-infested beach of Porto Ferreira. Plastic reaches the island carried by ocean currents, disturbing the nesting of reptiles that die of dehydration and disorientation looking for a clean place to lay their eggs. Bottom, the carcass of a turtle that died of dehydration, along Varandinha beach. Every summer, thousands of sea turtles climb the beaches of Boa Vista, Cape Verde, for a millennia-old ritual: nesting. Today, however, this process is threatened by several factors, putting one of the world’s largest Caretta caretta turtle colonies at risk. Poaching, pollution, mass tourism and climate change are all putting pressure on this fragile ecosystem, revealing how local challenges often stem from global problems — with a heavy shadow cast by Europe. The most significant threat to these turtles is plastic pollution. And here, the fisheries agreements Cape Verde has with the EU — allowing European industrial fleets, especially Spanish and Portuguese, to operate in its waters — have a significant impact on marine life. Nesting beaches are suffocated by tons of waste carried by currents, mostly originating from fishing activities and dumping along the European and African coasts. The accumulation not only chemically contaminates nests but also creates physical barriers that prevent female turtles from finding safe spots to lay their eggs. A numbered stick marks a turtle nest mapped by volunteers from the NGO Cabo Verde Natura 2000 along the plastic-infested beach of Porto Ferreira. The Cape Verde archipelago is the third-largest turtle reserve in the world, after Oman and Florida. The island of Boa Vista hosts two-thirds of Cape Verde’s turtles. “It’s like looking for a home in a minefield,” explained Franziska Haas, a German biologist and volunteer with Fundação Tartaruga, one of the most active local NGOs. “Often, we have to help them find a safe spot. Some get lost, wander for hours until morning and risk dying of dehydration.” Fundação Tartaruga currently monitors over 30 kilometers of coastline with teams of rangers and international volunteers, many with scientific training. Their work is crucial for identifying nests, protecting eggs, combating poaching and documenting the growing damage caused by pollution. There’s plenty more coastline to cover, of course, but their resources are limited. First, seven-year-old conservation dog Karetta and her handler João José Mendes de Oliveira, a 21 year-old ranger, patrol Santa Monica beach. Next, the remains of a turtle killed for its meat along Varandinha beach. Above, view of the Morro de Areia nature reserve. It covers an area of 25.85 square kilometers, with a 300-meter-wide marine protection zone. Below, ranger coordinator Adilson Monteiro, 28, shows a photograph of a turtle killed by a poacher on Varandinha beach. “Fishermen kill turtles while they are sleeping, during egg-laying. They pierce their necks with a fishing hook called incroque and cut off the rest of their bodies with a knife,” Monteiro said.  Next, a temporary tent used by volunteers of the NGO Bios Cape Verde for turtle monitoring along the beach of Varandinha. Then, there’s overtourism. In the last two decades, Cape Verde has become an increasingly popular tourist destination for Europeans. The islands of Sal and Boa Vista, in particular, have seen massive investment from European real estate groups, resulting in the construction of hotels, resorts and residential complexes along turtle-nesting beaches. But it’s not just the land that’s dangerous, threats to these turtles loom in the water as well. Industrial trawl nets accidentally catch tens of thousands of turtles every year, both in the archipelago and during their migration in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean to feed. And while European regulations mandate the use of exclusion devices, which allow turtles to escape nets, they’re only mandatory for certain fleets and areas, and enforcement is often inconsistent. Top, Cleidir Lopes, a 22-year-old tour guide, washes his horse Morena at Chaves beach. Cleidir is a member of Guardiões do Mar (guardians of the sea), a community of people from Boa Vista who report the presence of animals in difficulty in the water, such as turtles and cetaceans. Next, artificial nests of the association Cabo Verde Natura 2000 Cape Verde along the beach of Porto Ferreira. Below, Helmer Davy, a 22-year-old ranger, sleeps in his tent at the Fundação Tartaruga Lacacão camp in Curral Velho after covering his night shift.  There’s also he impact of climate change to contend with. In many cases, excessive heat causes embryo mortality. Meanwhile, the sex of turtle embryos depends on the temperature of the sand where they lay their eggs, with higher temperatures favoring females. And this growing imbalance could jeopardize long-term reproduction. In the face of all these threats, the volunteers’ night work has become essential; their observations are silent, meticulous, and almost ritualistic. Their teams consist of three or four volunteers and an environmental ranger, and their patrols are organized to the rhythm of a metronome, keeping the time dedicated to each female turtle to a minimum. Some of the volunteers help dig deeper holes, some inject microchips for the census, some note the nest’s GPS coordinates, and some come back to evaluate the turtles’ age, size, health and the presence of wounds. Volunteers Franziska Haas, a 22-year-old German biologist; Simone Ambrosini, a 21-year-old Swiss biologist; Nele Ruhnau, a 23-year-old German medical engineer; and ranger Emilio Garcia Landim inject a so-called Passive Integrated Transponder into the front fin of a turtle on Lacacão beach. They are also seen measuring the length of a shell to assess the age and health of a turtle, help dig holes and move eggs laid in a shallow hole to a hatchery. During breeding season, which lasts from June to October, each female can nest up to three times, digging a flask-shaped hole on the beach, each containing about 100 eggs. The laying lasts on average two hours. The eggs are incubated by the high temperatures of the sand for about 50 days. Still, despite all this work, poaching persists on the island too. Despite commitment from Cape Verde’s government, which criminalized the consumption of turtle meat and eggs in 2018, females are caught at night, killed while laying eggs and sold on the black market where meat can fetch up to €20 per kilo. “Turtles are hunted illegally for their meat and eggs, which are sold by word of mouth,” confirmed Fundação Tartaruga’s Executive Director Euclides Resende. But “in 2024, we documented just six killings on the beaches we monitor, compared to thousands just a few years ago.” The group’s surveillance work is effective, having adopted an innovative approach that uses conservation dogs and thermal technology in 2019. “This allows us to expand the surveillance range and collect evidence for potential legal action,” explained project coordinator Adilson Monteiro. Top, moonlight illuminates an hatchery along the beach of Lacacão. Many of the nesting beaches do not have the most favorable conditions for nest incubation such as the low slope of the beach profile, plastic and the presence of tourists. As a compensatory measure many of the nests are relocated to a controlled incubation area, which ensures the hatching of the young turtles and increases their chances of reaching the sea successfully. Next, a team of rangers and a conservation dog from the same NGO patrol an area at Santa Monica beach. The targeted selection of nesting beaches by a trained team of rangers equipped with night vision devices and conservation dogs has led to a massive reduction in poaching on the coasts of Boa Vista since its introduction in 2018. Below, Denis Quintino, a 31-year-old fisherman, returns to the port of Sal Rei after a night of fishing. But it’s exceedingly difficult to eradicate an activity so deeply rooted in the culture of a place: The meat and eggs of Caretta caretta have always been consumed on the islands. And in inland villages like João Galego, Cabedo do Tarafes and Fundo das Figueira, “Ba pa bela” (catching a turtle) is a true rite of passage. “For my family, hunting turtles was normal. My grandfather did it, my father did it, and I learned from my older brother. Every family in João Galego has always eaten turtles; it’s part of our tradition,” said tour guide Zenildo F. It is this difficult coexistence of tradition and environmental conservation, along with the need for further pollution and fisheries regulations, that makes the survival of Cape Verde’s sea turtles a truly global test case.

NICE, France — An international agreement on protecting the world’s oceans could soon enter into force as French President Emmanuel Macron announced Monday that enough countries have “formally committed” to ratifying the so-called High Seas Treaty. “While the Earth is warming, the ocean is boiling,” Macron said. “Our scientists are telling us things we could never have imagined: heat waves in the very heart of our oceans. And as the sea rises, in addition to fire, submersion is on the horizon.” The ocean generates more than half of the planet’s oxygen and absorbs 30 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions. But with marine and coastal ecosystems facing multiple threats — including the impact of climate change as well as pressures from fishing and pollution — that could all change. Ocean oxygen content is decreasing globally, according to a 2024 UNESCO report, and ocean warming is happening at an unprecedented and accelerating rate. “The ocean is our greatest ally, whether you live here in Europe, or anywhere in the world,” said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. “But if we neglect the ocean, if we treat it without respect, it will turn against us,” she added, pointing to the “ever more violent storms [that] ravage our coasts.” Macron and von der Leyen spoke at the third United Nations Conference on the Oceans (UNOC) in Nice, France, where delegations from more than 120 countries, including more than 50 heads of state and government, are gathered in an attempt to resuscitate the world’s long-suffering oceans. The High Seas Treaty — or the the Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ), as it’s officially known — sets standards for the creation of marine protected areas in international waters, among other measures. It can only be implemented once at least 60 countries have officially ratified it. The agreement will, supporters hope, go a long way toward protecting 30 percent of the planet’s lands and seas by 2030 as foreseen in the COP15 biodiversity agreement reached in December. Thanks to 15 countries which have newly “formally committed to joining” — on top of the 50 or so ratifications already submitted — the High Seas Treaty will soon be implemented, Macron said Monday morning. “So that’s a win,” he said. OUR GREATEST ALLY The French president was flanked by von der Leyen, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Secretary-General of the United Nations António Guterres and Costa Rica President Rodrigo Chaves, who is cohosting the conference. “The sea is our first ally against global warming ,” Macron said in his opening speech. “Today, we are inches away from the 60 signatures for ratification,” said von der Leyen. “So to bring the High Seas Treaty to life, Europe will contribute €40 million to the Global Ocean Programme. So I ask you all today: Please speed up ratification, because our ocean needs us to play [our] part.” The EU ratified the treaty last month. Lula, in his own opening speech Monday, announced that Brazil would also soon be ratifying the treaty. Environmental groups are encouraged by Macron’s announcement, which follows weeks of speculation over whether the 60-country threshold for ratification would be reached in Nice. “Countries have finally stopped dragging their feet and it is hoped we can now move forward with protection of one of the most important areas for biodiversity on Earth — the high seas,” said Catherine Weller, global policy director for Fauna & Flora. “We now need those countries that have committed to ratification to get the final technicalities over the line — and then the real work needs to begin,” she added. Weller urged leaders to follow “best practices” in designing connected networks of “high-quality, well-managed” marine protected areas. They should safeguard the migratory routes of critically endangered species like whales and sharks, for example. ELEPHANT (NOT) IN THE ROOM The United States is conspicuous in its absence from Nice, having decided to skip the conference, as reported by POLITICO last week. A State Department spokesperson said the conference is “at odds” with positions held by the current U.S. administration. The conference, which ends Friday, is an opportunity for countries to discuss and present new agreements on topics from environmental financing and deep-sea mining to illegal fishing and bottom-trawling. The summit aims to promote enduring uses of ocean resources — one of 17 sustainable development goals held by the United Nations. But the Trump administration has rejected those goals, calling them “inconsistent with U.S. sovereignty.” Macron took a dig at the absent delegation, flaunting a new scientific program aimed at exploring the world’s oceans — the “Neptune Mission” — while the U.S. schemes to send astronauts to plant its flag on Mars. “Rather than rushing off to Mars, let’s already get to know our final frontier and our best friend, the ocean,” said Macron.

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.

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.

Saudi Arabia: 1. The European Union and its allies: 0. As the dust settles on last month’s failed United Nations negotiations to end plastic pollution, high-ambition countries in Europe and elsewhere are racking their brains for ways to stop Saudi Arabia from derailing the next round of talks, due later this year. But as global consensus on environmental protection fractures — a trend likely to worsen under a Donald Trump United States presidency — it won’t be an easy task. Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest crude oil exporter, was the ringleader of a group of oil-rich nations including Russia and Iran that successfully blocked efforts to limit plastic production during last month’s talks in Busan, South Korea. And there’s no reason to think they won’t try to pull the same thing this year. “Saudi Arabia is now investing heavily in its environmental diplomacy,” said one negotiator from within the self-named high-ambition coalition, who was granted anonymity to discuss the closed-door talks. “I think there aren’t many delegations that can boast such a talented team of negotiators. [It] has the firing power.” For nations like Saudi Arabia, whose wealth depends on oil, it’s existential. The $700-billion-per-year-and-growing  plastics industry is set to become a key driver of oil demand as the world slowly switches from gas to electric modes of transport.  But a broader coalition of countries, including the EU, sees plastic pollution — which is choking the world’s oceans and waterways and finding its way as microplastics into our soil, food and bodies — as the bigger threat. They have thrown themselves into the talks in a bid to protect the environment, livelihoods and human health. THE PRO-PLASTIC ARMY Negotiators who have dealt with the Saudi negotiating team say it’s clear no expense was spared in putting together the experienced crew of pro-plastic avengers, which has allowed poorer oil-producing countries nervous about the plastic treaty outcomes to lean on Riyadh for direction. Saudi Arabia has the role of “corralling the Arab group,” said the second negotiator, and “every possible technique to delay has been used.” Whenever Saudi Arabia made a point, they said, all the Gulf Cooperation Council countries would take the floor again and repeat verbatim what Saudi Arabia said. “So, you already waste one hour saying the same thing.” Saudi Arabia had powerful allies in Iran and Russia, who also played a major role in pushing back on a more comprehensive plastic treaty. “Russia clearly has taken on the role of making interminable interventions and submitting non-papers that are nonsensical and things like that,” added the second negotiator. A third described Russia “rambling” for approximately 30 minutes nonstop in closed-door talks. Russia is the second-biggest exporter of crude oil, after Saudi Arabia. But a broader coalition of countries, including the EU, sees plastic pollution as the bigger threat. | Thibaud Moritz/Getty Images The Saudi and Russian negotiators declined multiple requests for comment when approached by POLITICO in Busan. DIVIDE AND CONQUER Three of the negotiators POLITICO spoke to accused Saudi Arabia of trying to split the high-ambition countries by stirring up the already sensitive topic of how to finance the treaty. “They are using that discussion to actually frame the debate — not around ambitious obligations to end plastic pollution — but around finance and some means of implementation, hoping that this would distract the whole discussion,” said the first negotiator. Despite its wealth, Saudi Arabia took up the cause of developing countries who have been looking to developed countries specifically to pull their fingers out and “take the lead” on providing them with the financial resources needed to implement the treaty. Financing did indeed become a major point of contention in Busan — although reducing plastic production ultimately proved more of a unifying force among high-ambition countries than the financing question divided them. Those countries also “heard loud and clear the fact that [Saudi Arabia et al] were not willing to entertain any financial responsibility of their own” despite their role in plastic production, said the second negotiator quoted above. Financing will remain a key sticking point this year, however, with developed and developing countries still split. THE REAL WORK STARTS NOW If the Busan talks proved anything, it’s that strong coalitions must be built in between negotiations rather than during the five-day crunch itself. Negotiators go to U.N. talks with a mandate to defend, issued by their capitals. Changes to that mandate — even if coalitions are successfully forged during the talks — must be signed off at a high level, resulting in hurried calls back home. “Now we are at a place where these issues of production, chemicals and financing are so clear and crisp that they can be taken to a political level,” the third negotiator said hopefully. The talks also raise questions about the effectiveness of consensus-based environmental multilateralism — which essentially grants countries veto power. If countries remain skittish about moving to voting by majority instead, there’s little to stop Saudi Arabia from successfully employing the very same tactics it used in December at the next, as-yet-unscheduled round, some argue. “I think countries need to get more empowered on the idea of voting, because the like-minded countries are … somehow weaponizing even the idea of consensus,” said Helionor de Anzizu of the Center for International Environmental Law. Some high-ambition delegations are indeed preparing for a treaty without the cooperation of the most reluctant nations — should the Saudi-led faction continue to put up a fight. That would require bringing major players like Brazil, Indonesia, India and China on board, who have yet to add their names to a missive targeting plastic production signed by over 85 countries, but at the same time have been less vehemently against the idea than the likes of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest crude oil exporter, was the ringleader of a group of oil-rich nations including Russia and Iran that successfully blocked efforts to limit plastic production. | Giuseppe Cacace/Getty Images Like-minded countries and the high-ambition nations will all likely spend the coming months conducting outreach and bringing potential allies onside. But as Trump gears up to take office, it’s a “definite possibility” that the oil-rich and plastic-producing countries will soon have a new, similarly disruptive playmate, said the second negotiator. “At least a lot of us fear that.”

BUSAN, South Korea — The chair presiding over global plastic treaty negotiations proposed suspending the talks until a later date Sunday, as negotiators ran out of time to clinch a deal this year. It was a disappointing end to the United Nations-convened summit that many hoped would result in a landmark treaty to tackle the worsening global plastic pollution crisis. “While it is encouraging that portions of the text have been agreed upon, we must also recognize that a few critical issues still prevent us from reaching a comprehensive agreement,” said the chair presiding over the talks, Luis Vayas. “These unresolved issues remain challenging and additional time will be needed to address them effectively.” This week’s meeting in Busan, South Korea, was meant to be the culmination of two years of talks, with U.N. member states having previously agreed to “forge an internationally binding agreement by 2024.” But hopes of an agreement were scuppered when countries failed to resolve their differences over whether to reduce plastic production, whether and how to phase out problematic plastic products and chemicals of concern in plastic products, and how to finance the legal instrument. Saudi Arabia and Russia led a group of oil-rich and plastic-producing countries — self-named the “like-minded group” — blocking any proposals for the treaty that threatened to reduce plastic production. The vast majority of plastic is made from oil or natural gas.