Dear Agriculture and Rural Development,

Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting:

Any documents related to the following meetings, including (but not limited to) email correspondence, attachments shared before or after the meeting, presentations, minutes, agendas, briefings and lists of attendees.

- Yara and Janusz Wojciechowski (23/05/2024)
- Fertilizers Europe and Janusz Wojciechowski (23/05/2024);
- Fertilizers Europe and Janusz Wojciechowski and Andreas Schneider, Cabinet member of Janusz Wojciechowski (27/04/2023);
- Fertilizers Europe and Andreas Schneider and Janusz Wojciechowsk (19/10/2022);

I would like to receive this information electronically.

Should my request be denied wholly or partially, please explain the denial or all deletions referring to specific exemptions in the regulation.

I would prefer you to produce the documents on a rolling basis, rather than waiting until the full response is ready, and I would be pleased to receive an initial list of all documents as soon as possible.

I kindly ask you to not redact any name of professional lobbyists and the organisations and companies they work, as such data cannot be considered personal data under Regulations 1049/2001 on access to documents and 45/2001 on data protection.

My address is: 5 Brayford Square, London, E1 0SG

If anything is unclear or would benefit from further discussion please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours faithfully,
Clare Carlile

Dear Agriculture and Rural Development,

Please pass this on to the person who reviews confirmatory applications.

I am filing the following confirmatory application with regards to my access to documents request 'Meetings with fertiliser industry - Agriculture'.

By law, under all circumstances, you should have by more responded to my request.

Yours faithfully,

Clare Carlile

Dear Agriculture and Rural Development,

Please pass this on to the person who reviews confirmatory applications.

I am filing the following confirmatory application with regards to my access to documents request 'Meetings with fertiliser industry - Agriculture'.

I am filing a request for Confirmatory Review of the decision II ‘Refusal of access – Third party documents - No 1.3 (Ares(2024)2045410 - Letters Sanctions), No 3 (Ares(2024)3857880 - Note on behalf of Fertilizers Europe for the meeting that took place on 23 05 2024) and No. 5.3 (Ares(2023)2204027 - Current situation of the Fertilizer industry)’.

I believe that Exemption 4(1)(a) first indent (protection of the public interest as regards public security) has been applied overbroadly and without meaningful justification, resulting in undue restrictions of the right of access to documents.

The refusal states, “The third party author of the documents has objected to their disclosure and has motivated its position in essence by highlighting the sensitivity of this topic, given the importance of fertilizers for food security. In their view, this warrants protecting these documents from disclosure under the exception to the right of access concerning public security. Consequently, the exception laid down in Article 4(1)(a), first indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 applies to these documents.”

However, Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 states that “the institution shall consult the third party with a view to assessing whether an exception in paragraph 1 or 2 is applicable”. The institution is therefore intended to reach an independent assessment of whether exemption 4(1)(a) applies, following consultation with but not solely based on the views of the third party. In this instance, an independent assessment has clearly not been made.

Indeed, the third party judgement itself appears to be overly broad and without proper justification in its application of Exemption 4(1)(a). The Commission’s decision is based on the trade group’s statements about the “sensitivity of this topic” with no reference to the actual contents of the documents and why they could pose a security risk. The refusal also states that the document includes only “the third party’s position and views”, rather than any strategic information.

I would also challenge the decision to refuse disclosure of the entire documents, based on so superficial an assessment. If necessary, I ask the Commission to reassess whether the documents can be disclosed with any particularly sensitive information redacted.

I am also filing a request for Confirmatory Review of the decision III, “Partial access – Commission documents – No 4 (Ares (2024)8494217 - Briefing No 1483), No 7 (Ares (2024)8494572 - Briefing No. 1188) and No 8 (Ares (2024)3885576 - Minutes of a Meeting)”.

The partial access decision states, “These parts contain a description the position and views of Fertilizers Europe on the availability and affordability of fertilizers following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. As they have specifically objected to the disclosure of their own documents containing their position or views on such matters, disclosing these parts would render the third-party’s objection to disclosure inoperative in this regard. Therefore, the exception laid down in Article 4(1)(a), third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 applies to these documents.”

This explanation further shows that the decision of DG Agri has been entirely based on “the third-party’s objection to disclosure”, with no independent assessment made, for either the refusal or partial access.

As above, I request that the Commission makes an independent assessment of whether fuller disclosure would in their own view pose a risk to public security.

In both cases, should the Commission have its own public security concerns, the public interest case for disclosure should also be weighed, given that the request relates to environmental information. The Ombudsman's FOI guide states, "Normally, it is not possible to argue that there may be an overriding public interest in disclosure. However, Article 6(1) of the Aarhus Regulation (Regulation 1367/2006) implies that the public interest served by disclosure may be taken into account when the information in the document also relates to emissions into the environment (more information in question 9.1)."

Fertilisers currently contribute around 5 percent of all global emissions, more than aviation and shipping combined. While exact figures for Europe are not known, between 3-5 percent of natural gas used globally is for fertiliser production. Fertilisers are also a leading cause of nitrogen pollution in the EU, as well as air pollution such as NOx (which has major health implications).

Failure to disclose would clearly harm public interests. The European Union committed to reducing fertiliser use by 20 percent by 2030 in its Farm to Fork Strategy – clearly recognising the public interest case for addressing environmental harms from fertiliser use. The Farm to Fork strategy is also crucial to meeting the EU Green Deal.

Correspondence and discussions between policymakers and the fertiliser industry’s leading lobby group are therefore of major import to the public, which is widely affected by climate breakdown as well as local and national pollution. News outlets including Politico, Deutsche Welle and DeSmog and civil society organisations like Corporate Europe Observatory and Greenpeace’s Unearthed have already reported on lobbying by agricultural and agrochemical companies surrounding environmental laws for this reason.

Indeed, the topic of the documents itself also points to a public interest case. Decisions regarding access to fertilisers and key fertiliser components in light of the war in Ukraine have major environmental implications. Fertilisers are almost always produced from natural gas. The Commission itself recognises “Fertiliser production is an energy intensive industrial process”. The emissions footprint will therefore depend on gas sources used and country of export.

Concern about the footprint of fertilisers has been shown by recent studies from civil society groups such as CIEL and academics published in Nature. Major outlets have also repeatedly reported on the environmental impact of European industrial and energy strategies in light of the war in Ukraine, showing significant interest in the topic.

Alongside imports of fertilisers, European institutions including the Commission must make difficult decisions on diversifying gas sources for domestic production in light of Russia’s invasion – choices that too have major environmental implications. It is therefore very much in the public interest to understand any role of industry organisations in such decision making.

In light of the above, I suggest that 1) no assessment of public security risks has been made by the Commission; 2) the decision of the third-party is overly broad and without justification; 3) there is an overriding public interest case for disclosure.

(I am sending this via the public platform AsktheEU, but please do let me know if a fully referenced version is needed to argue our case.)

Yours faithfully,

Clare Carlile

Dear Agriculture and Rural Development,

The internal review on this request is long overdue. Could you please provide an update on when I can expect a decision?

Yours faithfully,

Clare Carlile

Dear [email address],

Many thanks for the update. However, I would like to point out that I submitted the request for an internal review almost 2 months ago, and it has already very considerably exceeded the 15 working day deadline.

When can I expect a response?

Yours sincerely,

Clare Carlile

Dear Agriculture and Rural Development,

Many thanks for your update. However, I would like to highlight that it is overdue under all circumstances. I therefore hope to receive a response shortly.

Yours faithfully,

Clare Carlile

Dear Agriculture and Rural Development,

It has been over 3 months since I filed my request for a confirmatory application. Under all circumstances, AGRI should have responded within 15 working days. When will a response be sent?

Yours faithfully,

Clare Carlile

Dear Agriculture and Rural Development,

I was already sent a confirmation on 2 December 2024, with an original expiry date of 03/01/2025. I have since sent a confirmatory request/ request for internal review as no documents have been received. Please can you provide an update on when the response to this will be received as it's more than 3 months overdue.

Yours faithfully,

Clare Carlile

Dear Agriculture and Rural Development,

Please pass this on to the person who reviews confirmatory applications.

I sent a request for a confirmatory application on February 13, 2025 and am still yet to receive a response. AGRI has since identified a previously undisclosed document, and provided this to me. However, this has not addressed my challenge to the redactions in initial documents provided, for which I requested the review.

On this basis, could you please confirm that my confirmatory application remains open and is being reviewed? I would also request an update on when response to this can be expected as it is long overdue.

Yours faithfully,

Clare Carlile