The European Parliament’s political groups reacted in contrasting ways to the Fertiliser Action Plan presented by the European Commission on Tuesday 19 May (see EUROPE 13870/2). While some welcomed the progress made on security of supply and flexible environmental rules, others said that the text was still insufficient in the face of the cost crisis and the EU’s structural dependence. The Greens/EFA and The Left groups criticised the response for focusing too much on chemical fertilisers and not enough on the agricultural transition (see EUROPE 13862/7).
Carmen Crespo Díaz (EPP, Spanish) supported the development of fertilisers from processed manure (RENURE) and the promotion of alternatives such as biostimulants, but called for a review of the Nitrates Directive to take better account of the realities of Mediterranean regions. She also advocated the opening of new trade corridors for green ammonia with Africa and the Middle East, and for a reduction in the impact of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) on fertilisers, or even the suspension of certain customs duties.
For Dario Nardella (S&D, Italian), the plan must represent a “paradigm shift”. He called for fertilisers to be recognised as strategic inputs, for European production and storage to be strengthened, for supplies to be diversified and for fertiliser policy to be better linked to the energy transition. He also emphasised the role of digestate in the circular economy.
Carlo Fidanza (ECR, Italian) considered the plan to be positive overall, in particular the flexibility granted with regard to the Nitrates Directive and the opening up to digestates. However, he called for adjustments to be made to CBAM and ETS, claiming that the costs remain too high for farms.
Céline Imart (EPP, French) said that the plan did not respond sufficiently to the urgency of the situation. In particular, she deplored the fact that CBAM had not been suspended.
Thierry Mariani (PfE, French) condemned the EU’s strategic errors in the area of fertilisers, particularly with the “sanctions against Russia and Belarus, which account for around 20% of the world’s nitrogen supply and 40% of potash. These absurd sanctions must be lifted if the aim is really to bring prices down”.
“The circular use of unprocessed animal manure as a substitute for chemical fertilisers should become possible, under certain conditions and for certain crops, such as grassland”, said Benoit Cassart (Renew Europe, Belgian).
Thomas Waitz (Greens/EFA, Austrian) argued that organic and agro-ecological farming had already shown that it was possible to greatly reduce or even eliminate the use of chemical fertilisers. In his view, the plan treats the symptoms rather than the causes.
Per Clausen (The Left, Danish) considered that the plan did not address the EU’s structural dependence on imports or the environmental impact of fertiliser production.
The President of the Renew Europe group, Valérie Hayer, told the press that the plan was “a step in the right direction”, but that it needed to be supplemented by support for a European fertiliser production industry in order to reduce external dependency and strengthen strategic autonomy.
Bas Eickhout (Greens/EFA, Dutch) emphasised the heavy dependence of fertilisers on fossil fuels and called for the transition to sustainable alternatives to be accelerated.
Finally, the Co-Chair of The Left group, Manon Aubry, said that the plan was not a sufficient response and called for price control measures and a tax on the profits of major energy companies.
Following the debate in the European Parliament, the European Commissioner for Agriculture, Christophe Hansen, pointed out that the EU’s agricultural reserve currently has just over €200 million (out of a total of €450 million) and that it should be “possible, at the very least, to double this amount, subject to the agreement of the budgetary authority”.
He reiterated that suspending CBAM “would be tantamount to prolonging unfair competition with third countries”, which could lead to further closures of European fertiliser plants, as has already been seen in Romania in particular. In the long term, such a decision would further weaken European sovereignty.
On the other hand, he acknowledged that the additional costs incurred by CBAM must be offset in one way or another, and assured that the Commission was working on this.
As for the ETS, the forthcoming review should make it possible to “support industrial decarbonisation, including in the fertiliser sector, while preserving European production capacity and taking account of farmers’ needs”, concluded Mr Hansen.
Link to the Fertiliser Action Plan: https://aeur.eu/f/lyr (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur, with the editorial staff)