Does the European Green Deal in agriculture stop nutrient leaching and limit the eutrophication of the Baltic Sea?

CCB • November 2, 2020

by Maria Staniszewska

The European Commission, taking into account the huge negative impact of current agricultural practices on the environment, has prepared two strategies: the From Farm to Fork Strategy and the Biodiversity Strategy. The EC proposed: reducing the use of chemical pesticides on crops and antibiotics in farming by half, reducing the use of fertilizers in farming by 20%, allocating at least 25% of agricultural land to organic farming, and separating 10% of the land from the total agricultural area on each farm and leaving it uncultivated, creating areas of high biodiversity, such as mid-field trees or buffer strips. These strategies were to be implemented under the CAP over the next 10 years.

The idea was to direct a significantly larger stream of money to those farmers who would implement specific and significant measures to support and regenerate nature, and to reduce the benefits that go to those whose farming practices are harmful to the environment. This means that direct payments were to be linked to the fulfilment of environmental goals called GAEC – Good agricultural and environmental conditions. EC prepared 10 GAEC and amongst them, the three following were newly added:

  1. Protection of wetlands and peatlands (GAEC 2),
  2. Mandatory use of the nutrient sustainability tool (GAEC 5),
  3. Crop rotation instead of crop diversification (GAEC 8). 

Each of these three measures is very important for improving the ecological status of Baltic Sea and for reducing the leakage of nutrients.

Unfortunately, after a series of voting sessions two weeks ago , the European Parliament has actually dismantled this concept. The three main factions in the EP: the European People’s Party, Socialists and Democrats and Renew Europe took a much weakened form of the reform and then voted it as a single package, without the possibility of discussing and voting on individual issues.

The most important issue was “enhanced conditionality” where 60% of direct payments depended on the fulfilment of environmental conditions specified in 10 GAEC. The problem is that during the work in the EP, several of these conditions were relaxed and one was even fully removed.

First of the conditions relaxed was the principle (GAEC 9) which stated that the farmer is to dedicate 10% of his farmland for the protection of the environment by “giving it to the wilderness” and thus not utilizing it for agriculture. The EP limited this area to 5%, with the possibility of using this area for nitrogen-fixing crops or for catch crops. The last 7 years proved that this solution does not help biodiversity.

The other condition affected was GAEC 2 – The provisions reduced the protection of swamps and wetlands, i.e. ecosystems that absorb carbon dioxide as well as nutrients, and the ban on plowing permanent grasslands in Natura 2000 protected areas was lifted.

Finally, GAEC 5, which mandated the use of the practically tool limited nutrient leaching, has been completely removed from the requirements.

Unfortunately, it seems that the last 3 years that numerous institutions and organizations have devoted to preparing the reform have been largely wasted. Furthermore, it seems that under the new CAP there is no chance of stopping the eutrophication in the Baltic Sea.

Photos by IISD/ENB - Natalia Mroz

First meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) on the Global Framework on Chemicals (GFC)

By CCB • July 2, 2025
The first meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) on the Global Framework on Chemicals (GFC) was held in Punta del Este, Uruguay, from 23–27 June 2025 , bringing together government representatives, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, including the Coalition Clean Baltic representative, the private sector, youth, and academia. This marked the first global gathering since the GFC was adopted at the Fifth International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM5) in 2023. The primary focus of OEWG-1 was to take stock of progress since ICCM5 and to discuss how best to operationalize the framework’s goals. Participants exchanged views on implementation needs and priorities, as well as preparatory work for the first International conference of GFC , expected in 2026. Advancing Implementation Programmes Across Key Sectors A central discussion point was the development of terms of reference (ToR) for three Implementation Programmes under the GFC. One of these programmes will include sector-specific sub-programmes , aiming to promote safer chemicals management practices in industries such as electronics, textiles, health care, and construction . The intent is to support sector-wide engagement, innovation, and accountability in reducing chemical risks. Delegates also addressed the selection and future treatment of chemical Issues of Concern (IoCs) - substances or groups of substances that require global attention, e.g. lead in paints, highly hazardous pesticides, environmentally persistent pharmaceutical pollutants , and others) . While there was broad support for retaining all currently recognized IoCs, discussions highlighted the need for clear criteria, dedicated workplans, and adequate resourcing to ensure each IoC is actively addressed rather than left unresolved. Financing as a Cornerstone of Effective Implementation Discussions made clear that successful implementation of the GFC will require adequate, sustained, and predictable financial resources . The meeting explored the operation of the GFC Fund , with particular attention to how it might be improved to ensure equitable access to financial resources , especially for low- and middle-income countries. Ideas for a resource mobilization strategy were also shared, with many participants emphasizing the importance of sustained public and private sector contributions. There was significant support for applying the “polluter pays” principle , ensuring that industries contributing to chemical pollution take financial responsibility for managing its impacts. The intersessional work ahead of COP1 will be critical for shaping a robust financing mechanism that matches the framework’s ambition. Global Alliance on Highly Hazardous Pesticides launched A major milestone from the meeting was the launch of the Global Alliance on Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs) . This new initiative aims to promote international collaboration, knowledge exchange, and support for safer alternatives, including agroecological approaches that reduce reliance on harmful substances in agriculture. Regional Perspectives: Implications for the Baltic Sea “ For the Baltic Sea region , chemicals management remains a critical environmental and public health issue ”, commented Eugeniy Lobanov, Leader of the Hazardous Substances Working Area at Coalition Clean Baltic . “ Implementation of the GFC provides an opportunity to reinforce regional actions under the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan , especially concerning the reduction of hazardous substances entering the marine environment, e.g., pharmaceutical pollutants ”. It is important that Baltic Sea countries actively contribute to the GFC’s development and ensure regional priorities are reflected in global strategies. To read summary report of OEWG 1 . *** Article written by Eugeniy Lobanov, CCB Hazardous Substances Working Area Leader Photos by IISD/ENB - Natalia Mroz

Joint NGO recommendations on Baltic Sea fishing opportunities for 2026

By CCB • June 17, 2025
On Wednesday, 28 May, the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) published its scientific advice for fish stocks in the Baltic Sea . In response, environmental NGOs from around the Baltic Sea region urge the European Commission to propose, and fisheries ministers to adopt, fishing opportunities at levels well below the headline advice to safeguard ecosystem needs and dynamics and allow for rapid recovery of Baltic Sea fish populations.