Ref. Ares(2019)6338798 - 14/10/2019
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs
Consumer, Environmental and Health Technologies
Chemicals
Brussels, 9 November 2017
NOTE FOR THE FILE
Subject:
Fertilising Products Regulation
Report of a meeting of the Council Working Party
of 6 November 2017
1.
AMENDMENTS MADE AFTER THE LATEST COUNCIL WORKING PARTY MEETING
The Presidency ('Pcy') went through the amendments that it had made to its compromise
text since the latest Council Working Party meeting. Delegations made the following
comments:
1.1. Article 42 on delegated acts
SE argued in favour of a wider delegation of powers allowing the Commission to adapt
the limit values in Annex I to technical progress. SE also questioned whether the
Commission should be allowed to amend the conformity assessment modules in
Annex IV, and whether that could jeopardise consistency with the Decision of 2008 on
the New Legislative Framework for product harmonisation.
COM agreed with SE that it should be possible to adapt the limit values in Annex I to
technical progress by delegated acts. Regarding the conformity assessment modules in
Annex IV, COM stated that the Framework Decision of 2008 is as binding for the
Commission as it is for the Legislators, and that the general structure of the conformity
assessment modules would therefore in any event be respected.
1.2. CMC 2 on treatment methods for plants and plant parts
IT argued that buffering should be retained in CMC 2.
FR, by contrast, expressed support for the Pcy compromise.
1.3. CMC 3 on compost
BE argued that sewage sludge from the food industry should be included as an eligible
input material for composts.
1.4. CMC 4 on fresh crop digestate
FR, BE and PT argued that CMC 4 should be extended to include plants other than those
grown solely for the purpose of biogas production.
COM explained that such plants are included in CMCs 3 and 5.
Commission europĆ©enne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIĆ - Tel. +32 22991111
1.5. Point 2(e) of part 1 of Annex III on labelling of ingredients
BE expressed the opinion that all ingredients above 1 % should be labelled, arguing that
this would i.a. facilitate compliance with the Nitrates Directive.
COM defended its proposal to require labelling of ingredients only above 5 %, warning
that the BE proposal would increase the regulatory burden and risk revealing commercial
secrets.
1.6. Interaction with ND, WFD and APBR
BE raised a general concern over the interaction between on the one hand the Fertilising
Products Regulation and on the other hand the Nitrates Directive, the Waste Framework
Directive, and the Animal By-products Regulation, with special emphasis on the Nitrates
Directive.
COM stated that the Regulation is not intended to affect the application of the Nitrates
Directive in any way. COM furthermore repeated its explanations made in the past about
the mechanisms through which the Regulation will interact with the Waste Framework
Directive and the Animal By-products Regulation, and welcomed the clarifications in
this respect that had been achieved in the discussions of the Council Working Party.
1.7. Detonation tests for ammonium nitrate fertilisers
HU and DE welcomed the Presidency's new draft and confirmed that it corresponded to
the outcome of a recent
ad hoc meeting between technical experts from a number of
Member States.
FI declared its intention to submit some further technical suggestions in written.
1.8. Miscellaneous
CZ pointed out that labelling of nutrients as a percentage by mass on liquid fertilisers is
only meaningful if the user is also aware of the density of the product.
BE pointed out that it is difficult to take an informed decision on tolerances before the
analytical methods have been defined.
CZ pointed out that "water soluble P2O5", albeit
not prone to misunderstanding on
substance, is nevertheless semantically incorrect, since P2O5 as such is not water soluble.
2.
INDUSTRIAL BY-PRODUCTS
The Presidency presented its working paper.
DE, CZ and PL welcomed the proposal in principle, albeit with scrutiny reservations for
the details.
2
3.
CADMIUM LIMITS
3.1. Texts referred to in the cadmium limit discussion
In addition to the Commission's proposal, four texts were mentioned during the tour de
table:
1) The Pcy proposal for this meeting ('Pcy 6/11 suggestion'), consisting of a single
limit value of
60 ppm as of the date of application, and a
labelling threshold of
20 ppm.
2) A position paper of 10 MSs (CZ, DK, FI, HU, LV, LT, NL, SK, SI and SE;
'10 MSs suggestion') referring to a position paper tabled in February 2017. It
contained the following limit values:
60 ppm as of the date of application,
40 ppm after 5 years (instead of the 3 years proposed by the Commission), and
20 ppm after 16 years (instead of the 12 years proposed by the Commission). It
also contained a clause allowing MSs to
keep national limit values below 60
and 40 ppm respectively during the transitional period down to the ultimate limit
value of 20 ppm.
3) A position paper of Italy ('IT suggestion'), suggesting a single limit value of
60 ppm after 5 years and no labelling threshold.
4) A proposal tabled by Pcy for the meeting of 6 October 2017 ('the Pcy 6/10
suggestion'), allowing MSs to choose between three limit values to be applicable
in their MSs:
60 or 40 or 20 ppm.
3.2. Result of the Tour de table1 on the cadmium limits
IE, FR, HR, AT, BG, EL, CY, MT, EE (
9 MSs; 20,51 % population): Supported
the
Pcy 6/11 suggestion (albeit MT with a formal scrutiny reservation), but stated (all but
CY and EE) that the labelling requirements would be a problem and that
the IT
suggestion might be more interesting.
UK, IT, PL, ES, PT, RO (
6 MSs; 47,20 % population): Could not support the Pcy 6/11
suggestion because of the immediate application of 60 ppm and the labelling
requirement. Welcomed
the IT suggestion.
SK, NL, LV, LT, DK, HU, SE, CZ, FI, SI (
10 MSs; 13,90 % population): Could not
support the Pcy 6/11 suggestion, but supported
the 10 MSs suggestion. Made strong
statements about the importance of allowing MSs to keep more ambitious national limit
values, should the upper EU limit value remain 60 ppm (some delegations referring to
this as national derogations, and some referring to the Pcy 6/10 suggestion).
BE (2,21 % population): Preferred
the Commission's proposal. Could support the
Pcy 6/11 suggestion only if combined with a review clause for further reductions in the
future.
DE (16,06 % population): Could not support the Pcy 6/11 suggestion. Welcomed the
labelling threshold, but requested an
ultimate limit value of 40 ppm.
1 N.b.: Before its Presidency, EE supported the Commission's proposal. LU was absent from the
meeting, but has previously supported both the Commission's proposal and the Pcy 6/10 suggestion.
3
3.3. Conclusions on the cadmium limits
COM highlighted the importance of setting cadmium limit values that lead to an
industrial transformation towards cleaner phosphate fertilisers, to the benefit of health,
environment and innovation. It stated that this objective is supported by the compromise
found in the European Parliament, but unfortunately not by the Presidency's compromise
tabled for this Working Party meeting.
Pcy stated that it is time to move the file into trilogue, and noted that there appears to be
broad support in the Council for a limit value of 60 ppm. It indicated that it would further
work to address the concerns around the labelling requirement and the date of
application.
4.
NEXT STEPS
Pcy announced its intention to table the file, with a full compromise text including the
cadmium limit value, for the Coreper meeting of 16-17 November. It asked delegations
for their final written comments by Friday 10 November, and announced its intention to
circulate the compromise text for Coreper on Monday 13 November.
This triggered some reactions by delegations stating that they would not be able to get a
mandate for Coreper based on a text seen only 3 days in advance. Pcy replied that all
suggested amendments in the text have been discussed at length in the Council Working
Party, and that there would be no surprises in the text circulated for Coreper.
On direct questions from delegations about
which cadmium limit would be contained
in the text put forward for Coreper, and whether it would be along the lines of the
Italian proposal, Pcy replied that
60 ppm appeared to be a supportable limit value and
that it would work on the timelimes and the labelling requirements. DK asked whether
the text could also include a
provision allowing Member States to keep more
ambitious limit values. Pcy replied that it was willing to
discuss suggestions to that
effect if they could contribute to a broader support.
4