Representatives of the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament failed to reach agreement on the legislative text governing ‘soil monitoring’ at their second trilogue negotiating session on Thursday 12 December.
“Obtaining healthy soil was clearly not a priority this evening”, regretted the Hungarian Presidency of the Council of the EU, on the social network X, after the negotiations.
Differences of opinion within the European Parliament hemicycle got the better of the text, with European Parliament rapporteur Martin Hojsík (Renew Europe, Czech) concerned that he would not get a majority in the plenary vote if Article 10 of the Regulation and its Annex III were not deleted. The examples of sustainable management practices found in the report were used as a red line, as the European Parliament did not want to put more pressure on farmers if they were not offered compensation measures in return, which the Council of the EU refused.
Furthermore, it was crucial for the Member States that the future directive should provide a guiding framework for sustainable management, helping them to develop policies to improve soil health, according to several European sources.
With its hands tied by a shared competence with the European Parliament Committee on Agriculture on Article 10, the Committee on Environment could “not move outside its mandate” , said a source close to the dossier on Friday 13 December. If even the previous, “greener” Parliament had not incorporated this article into its position in April 2024, it would have been even more difficult for it to adopt it, another source suggested.
Annalisa Corrado (S&D, Spanish) complained to Agence Europe that “sirens are trying to sink any law that has environmental sustainability at its heart” adding that certain “political groups in the parliamentary majority that support the ‘von der Leyen’ Commission have paradoxically shown themselves to be reticent on certain specific points”.
As shadow rapporteur for the S&D, the MEP nevertheless stated that the European institutions were “closer than ever to an agreement”.
Between flexibility and interoperability. Martin Hojsík nevertheless noted “considerable progress” in understanding the respective positions of the Council of the EU and the Parliament.
The Member States, who want greater flexibility, want to control their own soil. For the Parliament, the use of the European Commission’s LUCAS (Land Use/Land Cover Area Frame Survey) monitoring system should be compulsory to ensure data harmonisation. Parliament is concerned that the use of different monitoring methodologies will make comparison difficult.
While the use of LUCAS is voluntary, Parliament has called for a minimum guarantee of data interoperability. The only way to compare them, according to MEPs, is to take a sample in one Member State and, “at least initially”, send it to a national laboratory and a joint laboratory to ensure that the results are interoperable, said a source close to the dossier.
The interinstitutional negotiations will continue in 2025, under the Polish Presidency of the Council, with a Parliament that is increasingly wary of environmental issues. (Original version in French by Florent Servia)