SUMMARY. The quality of fertiliser products may be diminished because of: The lack of a positive definition of mineral fertilisers.

Transcription

1 > POSITION PAPER Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules on the making available on the market of CE marked fertilising products and amending Regulations (EC) No 1069/2009 and (EC) No 1107/2009 (COM(2016)157 final)

2 > Position paper Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules on the making available on the market of CE marked fertilising products and amending Regulations (EC) No 1069/2009 and (EC) No 1107/2009 (COM(2016)157 final)

3 SUMMARY The proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules on the making available on the market of CE marked fertilising products is part of the Action Plan for the Circular Economy (COM (2015)0614 final). It aims to develop the internal market for organic and organomineral fertiliser products, liming materials, growing substrates, agronomic fertiliser additives, plant biostimulants and fertiliser blends. At the present time, only mineral fertilisers fall under the scope of EU legislation on placing on the market and CE marking. The proposed regulation defines 7 product function categories (PFCs) with minimum requirements that must be met for the product to be allowed to display the CE marking and to be placed on the market of all EU Member States without any national restrictions. It establishes an exhaustive positive list of 11 Component Material Categories (CMC) which the Commission should be able to add to in the future to include struvite, ash and biochar. Untreated sludge from treatment plants and livestock manure are not included in the Component Material Categories that the Commission proposes. The proposal for a regulation establishes the tests and declaration of conformity as well as labelling rules. This regulation is expected to come into force in The proposal for a regulation aims to contribute to the development of the circular economy by creating new value streams for waste, animal by-products and the recycling of nutrients. It also aims to make a greater range of CE-marked fertilisers available at the expense of fertilisers that are authorised under national legislation in the 28 Member States. However, Copa and Cogeca are concerned by a number of the detailed proposals in the regulation, which could lead to a hike in production costs and reduce the quality of the fertiliser products sold to farmers. Indeed, Production costs could rise because (of): The removal of the European list of types of mineral fertilisers and the product specifications which are linked to them could lead to further segmentation of the mineral fertiliser market. The harmonisation of the maximum EU cadmium level without a scientific justification, which would restrict the sourcing of phosphate rock and phosphate fertilisers to sources with a low cadmium concentration, as well as the development of industrial processes to eliminate cadmium, the costs of which would be passed down to the price of fertilisers sold to farmers. The increased competition between farm manure and organic CE marked fertilisers, which could exacerbate the difficulties farmers face in some EU regions complying with the requirements of the Nitrates Directives No 91/976 and thus the costs. The withdrawal of slow and controlled release fertilisers from the market due to the criteria concerning the biodegradability of polymers, which are not workable in practice. There are no alternatives to these kinds of fertilisers at the present time. The quality of fertiliser products may be diminished because of: The lack of a positive definition of mineral fertilisers. The fact that there would no longer be a declaration of the different forms of nitrogen or different tests relating to the solubility of phosphates. Insufficient requirements in terms of quality and safety for organic and organo-mineral fertilisers. Excessively large tolerance ranges for the labelling of nutrients and the declared physico-chemical characteristics of the product. A standard concerning the maximum level of perchlorate in inorganic fertilisers which is too high. European safety and quality standards that are lower than existing standards some Member States have for composts and digestates. Where stricter standards are already applied, the Member State could not ban CE marked digestates or composts. In addition, the proposed regulation is devoid of measures which will incentivise the processing of livestock manure, which is available in over-abundant supply in some EU regions. The agricultural sector consequently finds itself excluded from the Action Plan on the Circular Economy, which is unacceptable. European farmers want to have access to safe, high-quality fertiliser products at a competitive price. That is why Copa and Cogeca are sharing their comments on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules on the making available on the market of CE marked fertilising products and amending Regulations (EC) No 1069/2009 and (EC) No 1107/2009 (COM (2016)157 final).

4 Copa and Cogeca propose the following: A positive definition of inorganic fertilisers: CE marked inorganic fertilisers must have an organic carbon (C) content of less than 1% by mass (by convention, this does not include carbon of biological origin produced from urea and polymer coatings). The establishment of a restricted European list of types of inorganic fertilisers with their products specifications in secondary legislation. Harmonising the maximum EU cadmium level of 60 mg/kg P2O5 or higher, after a transitional period of at least 15 years. Harmonising the maximum EU perchlorate level in inorganic macronutrient fertilisers at a level lower than 50mg/kg of dry matter. Declaring the different forms of nitrogen or different phosphates solubility tests. An appropriate European standard for polymers used in the coating of slow and controlled and release fertilisers. A standard for processed livestock manure (CMC 11). More stringent standards for organic and organo-mineral fertilisers. Harmonisation at European level to classify peat and biodegradable plastic films for mulch. Stronger labelling rules for organic fertilisers and a reduction in the range of tolerance limits for declared nutrients and physiochemical characteristics.

5 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Mineral fertilisers are key inputs for farmers and account for 30% of variable costs across all sectors, with this level increasing to 40% for cereals and 45% for oilseeds. Applying fertilisers is a prerequisite to producing high-quality raw materials, such as bread-making wheat, malting barley, fruits and vegetables, and horticultural produce. At farm level, fertilisers are the only input that can increase yields. The COP 21 agreement in Paris will change the rules underpinning the EU s climate policy. The European agricultural sector has already reduced its greenhouse gas emissions and it will be extremely difficult to continue at the same pace in the future. To do so, it is essential that European farmers are in a political and economic environment that allows them to invest in technology, such as precision farming, to meet GHG reduction targets. Several EU policies provide impetus to further improve nutrient management, such as better resource efficiency; the circular economy; climate adaptation and mitigation; reducing air, water and soil pollution; and research and innovation. Farmers not only use mineral and organic fertilisers, but they also produce organic fertilisers, such as straw, manure and digestate from biogas plants. European farmers believe that priority must be given to organic fertilisers produced from inputs of agricultural origin. The requirements laid down by the Nitrates Directive, 91/676/EEC lead to an unjustified distinction being drawn between organic matter from livestock manure and other sources of organic matter. Certain regions have a surplus of organic matter and others a deficit. Farmers rely predominantly on farm manure rather than non-agricultural organic matter. It is essential to provide further incentives and to support investments to encourage the recycling of nutrients in organic matter and manure in order to facilitate the export of organic matter from regions with a surplus to those with a deficit while also complying with the Nitrates Directive. Copa and Cogeca are concerned about the impact that this proposed regulation could have on the mineral fertiliser market in terms of production costs and quality, as fertilisers are essential inputs and help farms adopt sound nutrient management strategies. The creation of product function categories will effectively increase the administrative burden and the costs for manufacturers, without providing anything positive in return. Greater market segmentation could result in higher costs for farmers. The labelling of the solubility of phosphates and different kinds of nitrogen must be conserved because solubility labelling provides information on the nutrient s capacity to dissolve in soil water and to be absorbed by plants. In addition, Copa and Cogeca find it regrettable that there is a lack of incentives to support the circular economy through livestock manure. Organic CE marked fertilisers of non-agricultural origin could compete against organic farm manure, and there is a risk that this would further complicate the transfer of livestock manure from farms which have an excess to those which are lacking in organic matter. This new regulation should not further impede the exchange of livestock manure between farms.

6 SPECIFIC COMMENTS Inorganic fertilisers The European Commission suggests establishing a negative definition of inorganic fertilisers, contrary to the definitions for organic and organo-mineral fertilisers. Indeed, the European Commission suggests defining inorganic fertilisers as those that do not fall under the definition of organic or organo-mineral fertilisers. The proposed definition of inorganic fertilisers in PFC1(C) could relegate certain types of organic or organo-mineral fertilisers to the inorganic fertiliser product function category, which is not the case today. This could mislead farmers. A negative definition also gives cause for concern that any substance which cannot be placed in one of the categories will only be placed on the market as inorganic fertilisers, without any clear benefit for agriculture and, in some cases, leading to risks for the environment. Inorganic fertilisers are essential inputs that are needed to produce agricultural commodities sustainably and which should not be relegated to a subclass of organic and organo-mineral fertilisers. Copa and Cogeca therefore call for the establishment of a positive list of inorganic fertilisers and would suggest the following definition: CE marked inorganic fertilisers must have an organic carbon (C) content of less than 1% by mass (by convention, this does not include carbon of biological origin produced from urea and polymer coatings). The European Commission suggests removing the list of types of CE marked inorganic fertilisers and replacing this with product function categories (PFC) for CE marked fertilisers that are exclusively made using products from an exhaustive list of categories of input materials. By removing the list of types of CE marked fertilisers, the European Commission simultaneously removes the related European regulatory specifications. With this proposal, every fertiliser manufacturer or retailer will be able to place their own CE marked specialities on the market. This could consequently further increase the fragmentation of the inorganic fertiliser market, thus contradicting the European Commission s simultaneous aim to reduce fragmentation on the inorganic phosphate fertiliser market (see point 3). This proposal could also reduce transparency on the inorganic fertiliser market, making it more difficult for farmers to compare prices. Moreover, fertiliser manufacturers will have to develop private standards via CEN and inform farmers thereof through marketing campaigns, which could lead to an increase in the price of inorganic and organo-mineral fertilisers. There is a danger that the creation of PFC will preclude the use of mineral fertilisers by virtue of labelling rather than their suitability based on chemical / nutrient composition. This will also increase the risk of noncompliance by farmers further jeopardising family farm incomes.

7 Copa and Cogeca thus propose re-establishing a limited list of types of CE marked inorganic fertilisers in addition to product function categories (PFC (C)) (for instance, NPK fertilisers with natural phosphorus) and to list their specifications and components in secondary legislation to the new EC regulation. Transparency and comparability of the different kinds of fertiliser will therefore be ensured for the user and a fragmentation of the market will be avoided. The European Commission suggests reducing and harmonising the cadmium limits for phosphate mineral fertilisers in order to reduce cadmium accumulation in soil and water, and to reverse the fragmentation of the phosphate mineral fertiliser market, which has been caused by national cadmium limits being set in some Member States. The aim of this proposal is to provide incentives to invest in the recycling of phosphate of organic origin. Certainly, this is an aim which is worth supporting, yet more time is still needed to establish a large-scale industry in the EU. It is in the interest of agriculture to use fertilisers which are as low as possible in foreign or polluting substances. Nevertheless, the Commission s proposal to reduce the cadmium threshold to less than 60 mg is not justified by a scientific evaluation. What s more, this proposal could endanger the EU s supply of phosphate rock, as there are only limited global resources of phosphate rock with a low cadmium content. This could therefore push up the price of inorganic phosphate fertilisers such as MAP and DAP. As it stands, there are no profitable technologies on a commercial scale that could process phosphate rock to reduce its cadmium content. Even more importantly, fertiliser manufacturers have said that in order to extract the cadmium to reach the limit, they will face a 5-10% increase in production costs. This does not take the additional costs of processing or eliminating the additional cadmium obtained through extraction into account (for which there is no European market). Besides this, given that there is a lack of competition on the European fertiliser market, there are not enough incentives for producers to absorb the costs - and there is a risk that they will pass the extra cost on to farmers. In the context of the world market where competitors are able to access cheaper fertilisers, the price increases in the EU are increasingly detrimental to farmers. On the internal market too, where farmers do not receive sufficient return for their products, the increase in input costs is detrimental to their economic viability. Copa and Cogeca are therefore opposed to reducing cadmium limits to below 60 mg/kg P2O5 for mineral fertilisers when there is no scientific evidence. There ought to be a transitional period of at least 15 years to enable the development of profitable cadmium removal processes on an industrial scale, as well as processes to recycle phosphorus from organic matter. What s more, if limits were to be set, Copa and Cogeca suggest that the Commission follow up on their requests to reduce tariff duties on fertiliser imported from outside the European Union. Opening the market up to competition between producers who are able to comply with the cadmium limits and to be competitive on price will make it possible to offset the price increases imposed on farmers due to the limits set. The Commission proposes establishing a maximum perchlorate level in inorganic macroelement fertiliser of 50 mg/kg of dried matter, a level which Copa and Cogeca consider unacceptable. Perchlorate is present in nitrate from Chile and the Chilean authorities are taking measures to lower the perchlorate level in fertilisers. Copa and Cogeca propose that the maximum perchlorate level be set at the lowest level possible, because when fruit and vegetables do not comply with Member State food safety legislation trade is hindered and the economic fallout for the sectors affected is huge. The European Commission suggests removing information on the forms of nitrogen and the solubility tests for phosphates and trace elements expressed as a percentage by mass of fertiliser for inorganic and organo-mineral fertilisers. According to the European Commission s proposal, the total declarable nutrient content would, by default, also include the forms of nutrient that are not available to plants. In addition, the proposal does not include a minimum solubility limit for phosphate fertilisers (PFC1 (C)). Copa and Cogeca disapprove of this proposal, as farmers need to know the amount of elements that can be directly assimilated by the plant. Thus, Copa and Cogeca call on the Council of the EU and the European Parliament to re-establish the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 on identifying the amounts of fertilising components, including the form for nitrogen varieties and the solubility for phosphate fertilisers and trace elements. The European Commission s proposal could lead to forms of N and P that are not available to the plant being declared as part of the total N and P content. This would mislead farmers, who will therefore not provide their crops with the amount of nutrients they were expecting to. It would also add additional forms of nitrogen and phosphate to agricultural soils, which could harm the environment and have further environmental repercussions further down the line.

8 The European Commission suggests establishing new criteria for polymers other than nutrient polymers, i.e. slow or controlled release fertilisers (CMC 10). Slow and controlled release fertilisers have become essential in ornamental and vegetable horticulture and are gradually replacing fertigation, where nutrients are injected into the irrigation water. Slow and controlled release fertilisers have many environmental benefits. Indeed, they gradually release nutrients depending on the water and temperature levels. The nutrients are therefore made available to the plants when the soil and weather conditions are perfect for growth. fertilisers. Alternative fertiliser products that are available on the markets, such as hydro-soluble fertilisers and liquid plant feed, are much more likely to cause nutrient leaching (in some cases the risk is up to 80% higher). As a result, controlled release fertiliser can boast obvious environmental benefits. Slow and controlled release fertilisers could be used on field crops in the future in order to ensure more efficient use of resources. For these reasons, Cope and Cogeca call on the Commission to completely revise the criteria proposed for coated fertilisers, taking sound and scientific evidence for these polymers, the risk for the environment and the economic impact duly into account. Hypothesising that the conclusion reached is that such criteria are necessary, a transitional period should be adopted which is sufficiently long to allow for the development of alternative fertiliser products to the controlled release fertilisers currently available. Copa and Cogeca would also like to recommend that the CEN be granted a mandate to develop an appropriate standard on the biodegradability of polymers used to coat slow or controlled release fertilisers. This guarantees optimum nutrient uptake and makes it possible to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus leaching into the water. It also makes it possible to reduce ammonia emissions in the air when fertilisers are applied. Slow and controlled release fertilisers can be effective for a similar amount of time to the growing period, which also reduces labour costs. What s more, they can be blended into potting compost to improve the condition of plants in garden centres and/or to guarantee optimal recovery after purchase. Slow and controlled release fertilisers meet producers needs and allow them to reply to market demands. Besides that, the ornamental sector is extremely dependent on this class of fertilisers (up to 90% of the producers from the main producing countries just use these fertilisers). Although this fertiliser is a niche product, we must not overlook the fact that it is vital for a European sector which, while it might be small, packs a powerful economic punch. The European Commission suggests setting criteria on the physical and chemical decomposition of other polymers than nutrient polymers (CMC 10). These criteria are based on those that apply to plastic mulch film and must be adhered to within three years of the publication of the regulation. Consequently, the principle of establishing criteria for polymers used in slow release fertilisers is not appropriate. This proposal has not been subject to a scientific evaluation and no trial would have approved these criteria for polymers used in coating slow or controlled release fertilisers. It could oust available slow and controlled release fertilisers that are currently available on the market. At the moment, there are no alternative fertilising products on the market to replace the currently available slow and controlled release

9 Organic fertilisers The European Commission acknowledges that that are differences between the regions in terms of the use of livestock manure. However, it has not drawn up an appropriate position to recognise organic fertiliser products that result from processing manure as part of the circular economy (CMC 11). Fertilisers that are the product of processing livestock manure could help holdings with a surplus of manure to dispose of their excess supply at a lower cost. The European Commission has not tabled any requirements on establishing a specific product function category (PFC) for fertilisers that are the product of processing livestock manure, yet has suggested establishing a component material category for certain animal by-products without any minimum requirements (CMC 11). Copa and Cogeca therefore request that a product function category be set up for fertilisers that are made by processing livestock manure. It is important to draw a distinction between the different parts of livestock manure which result from the treatment process (liquid digestate from manure, mineral concentrate, dried manure pellets, etc.). Copa and Cogeca ask that an end-of-waste status be established for livestock manure and that a CMC11 standard for the category of CE marked constituent material derived from animal by-products also be established. They propose that the minimum content of organic carbon (C) in treated manure should be greater than 5% of the dried matter. The minimum content should be 1% by mass of total nitrogen (N) and 1% by mass of potassium oxide for mineral concentrate from livestock manure. The standards proposed by the European Commission in relation to organic fertilisers are insufficient Organic fertilisers produced from the recycling of organic municipal waste are more likely to contain contaminants and substances which are dangerous to soil and may contaminate raw materials. In addition to heavy metals and bacteria, they may also contain xenobiotic compounds. Organic fertilisers are rich in phosphates; however, these phosphates cannot always be absorbed directly by plants. That is why Copa and Cogeca propose that requirements related to both xenobiotic components and to the solubility of phosphates be added. In addition, the minimum quantity of total nitrogen (N) expressed as a percentage in mass of total nitrogen should not be below 3% for solid and liquid organic fertilisers. In addition, it seems that the wording used for the component material categories (CMC1 and CMC2) will lead in practice to the exclusion of certain wood, bark and coconut materials. Copa and Cogeca request that these materials, commonly used as growing media and soil improvers, not be excluded from the Regulation as these are key for the horticultural industry. Furthermore, there are uncertainties as to the correct placement of peat in CMC1 and CMC2. These categories should be clearly defined to ensure that peat is placed in the same CMC across Europe.

10 Only digestate produced on the farm itself that is made from agricultural input materials and by-products should be excluded from the REACH registration process. This would reduce bureaucracy for farms. Organo-mineral fertilisers The European Commission s suggested minimum values for the main fertilising components are too low. Seeing as organo-mineral fertilisers are a mixture of organic and mineral fertilisers, the minimum requirements that apply to the fertilising components should be higher than those for organic fertilisers. (Please also refer to point B.2). Soil improvers The European Commission suggests including compost and digestate in the exhaustive list of component material categories (CMC 3, CMC 4 and CMC 5) with minimum requirements to respect so that they can be accepted for use in CE marked fertilisers. Copa and Cogeca are concerned by the minimum requirements proposed by the European Commission for composts and digestates. They fear that these requirements are less stringent than those already in force in some Member States. CE marked fertilisers that contain compost and digestate and that meet the minimum requirements of the regulation will be able to circulate freely throughout the EU, which is a problem for farming organisations in Member States where more stringent standards apply. Copa and Cogeca refuse to compromise soil quality and consumer confidence due to insufficient European requirements on compost and digestate that allow local authorities to dispose of municipal waste in an easier way by recycling it on agricultural land, especially seeing as compost and digestate may contain traces of plastic or glass and could therefore pollute agricultural land. In some countries, assurance schemes preclude the use of organic matter derived from some non-agricultural waste streams. The current proposals may undermine the credibility of these schemes for processors and consumers. On top of that, CE marked fertilisers of non-agricultural origin could compete against organic farm manure, and there is a risk that this would further complicate farmers compliance with the requirements of the Nitrates Directive, resulting in an increase in production costs. Copa and Cogeca hereby express their interest in the establishment of clear and stringent, yet also balanced rules based on scientific criteria for digestate and composts. Effective legislation concerning compost and digestate use, which already exists in quite a few Member States, must be taken into account. European legislation should take specific national conditions into account since the aim is to improve the quality of these products by taking a local approach. An alternative avenue is to define long transitional periods for Member States which already have national legislation in order to cover the period which precedes the entry into force of European legislation. The European Commission omits biodegradable plastic films from the product function categories. Biodegradable plastic films are mostly used to maintain the moisture of the soil, to improve the soil s properties, and to limit possible germination from weeds. That is why Copa and Cogeca ask that biodegradable plastic films for mulch be placed in an additional product functional category.

11 Labelling requirements The European Commission suggests labelling all components that represent more than 5 % of the product weight, listed in descending order of magnitude by dry weight, including an indication of the relevant component material categories (CMC) of CE marked fertilisers. Copa and Cogeca support the Commission s proposal to label all components that represent more than 5 % of the product weight, listed in descending order of magnitude by dry weight. However, a sufficient transitional period will be needed to change the labelling system. However, product labels must display appropriate and useful information for farmers so that they can make an informed choice and select the appropriate fertiliser. Farmers need specific information to practice precision farming and to ascertain whether specific facilities are needed to store fertilisers, so that they can comply with EU legislation. The labels should also provide information on the type of product (granules, liquid, etc.), its homogeneity (multinutrient, complex fertilisers or blends) and the levels of potential contaminants (heavy metals, pathogens and organic pollutants). It must be guaranteed that the labels can be checked through officially approved testing methods. Under Annex III, Part 1, Point 2.c) the European Commission proposed to indicate the recommended dosage and the target plant, which would be similar to the instructions which accompany phytopharmaceutical products. Copa and Cogeca do not wish to see such indications because fertilisers and conditioners provide nutrients and organic carbon regardless of the plant or soil type. These indications fall within the remit of agricultural advisors and the farmer s agronomic expertise. In addition, the dosage varies depending on the farmer s fertilisation plan. However, if these indications are maintained in the final version of the legislation, the ranges must be wide enough and the label should state all crops. The European Commission, under Annex III part 3, proposes maximum and minimum tolerance limits for product function categories whose declared levels of nutrients and physiochemical characteristics cannot differ from CE marked fertilisers. Copa and Cogeca would like to see lower tolerance ranges for the declared contents on the label. They also they insist that fertiliser manufacturers must not systematically take advantage of the minimum tolerance values concerning declared nutrient content and physiochemical characteristics, as mentioned under point 3, part 3 of Annex III. Labelling organic fertilisers Copa and Cogeca believe that the European Commission s proposal on labelling organic fertilisers is inadequate. Furthermore, similarly to information requirements regarding inorganic fertilisers, farmers also need more information on organic fertilisers. The origin of the components in these specific products and information on processes (e.g. gasification) are crucial and should be labelled.

12 61, Rue de Trèves B Bruxelles Telephone : (0) Telefax : (0) FER(16)3924