Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee 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) 0157 final — 2016/0084 (COD)]
Date: 2016-07-14
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EC conformity marking, EU environmental policy, fertiliser, fertiliser industry, harmonisation of standards, labelling, market approval, metal pollution, single market, waste management








C_2016389EN.01008001.xml










21.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/80





Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee 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) 0157 final — 2016/0084 (COD)]
(2016/C 389/11)







Rapporteur:




Cillian LOHAN





On 8 April 2016 the Council, and on 11 April 2016 the European Parliament, decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 114 and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 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) 0157 final — 2016/0084 (COD)].
The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 30 June 2016.
At its 518th plenary session (meeting of 14 July 2016), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion unanimously by 184 votes.
1.   Conclusions and recommendations









1.1.


The EESC welcomes the Commission proposal aiming to improve the functioning of the internal market in the sector of fertilisers in line with the Circular Economy Action Plan. The EESC believes that this approach, if widely extended to other sectors, can contribute to environmental sustainability at large, including economic development, and job creation and environmental protection.












1.2.


The Committee supports the proposal to extend the scope of the existing regulation, creating a harmonised level playing field for organic-origin and waste-based fertilisers and removing the limits to innovation. Nevertheless, the EESC recommends maintaining and applying all the key principles of environmental protection, including the precautionary principle.












1.3.


The EESC agrees with the creation of an efficient system of control, labelling and traceability to ensure the quality and safety of products that engages all the parties involved. The Committee suggests applying the labelling system already in use for plant protection products in order to provide clear information about fertiliser use and conservation. Moreover, the EESC recommends establishing an official analysis method to verify the credentials of any labelling system and to ensure that there is adequate robustness in the integrity of any labelling applied.












1.4.


The Committee observes that soil fertility and protection is a key aspect of the Commission proposal, but notes that this goal will be hard to achieve without a Soil Framework Directive. Moreover, it highlights the need to bear in mind the differences in soils among Member States, which should entail the adoption of targeted standards.












1.5.


The Committee endorses the proposal to set limits in order to reduce cadmium and other heavy metals in fertilisers. The EESC, conscious that this decision will increase production costs of fertilisers whose source of phosphate is mined bedrock, would emphasise that this is a major opportunity for organic biological based fertilisers to achieving a significant market share. This will in turn create further opportunities and help drive innovation, growth and job creation.












1.6.


The EESC recognises that producers can choose to comply with European or national laws in labelling but, due to the potential impact of diverging national rules and standards on market distortion and fragmentation, it would highlight the importance of an approach that avoids unfair competition and non-compliance with the highest traceability, quality and safety standards.












1.7.


The Committee observes that some definitions and standards concerning fertilisers originating from secondary raw materials are not clear. Specifically, a definition of ‘secondary raw materials’ will be essential as directives and regulations relating to the principles of a circular economy are proposed. In order to improve implementation of the new regulation, the EESC recommends more thorough integration and harmonisation with the existing Directive on Waste.












1.8.


The Committee considers the transition to a circular economy to be a crucial challenge for Europe and future generations. In order to follow this pathway, it recommends providing incentives to encourage enterprises that are interested in changing their production, and undertaking initiatives aiming to support the change in the field of information, raising awareness, education and vocational training.












1.9.


Member State strategies on wastewater treatment, infrastructure and management should recognise the value of waste water and sludge as sources of raw materials for the organic fertiliser industry.












1.10.


Regional scale collection and production supported by distribution networks across the Member States should form an integral part of the structure of an organic based fertiliser market.




2.   Introduction









2.1.


The Commission proposal has been developed in order to offer concrete solutions to the problems that emerged in the ex-post evaluation (1) of the existing Regulation on Fertilisers (2), in the wider framework of the Circular Economy Action Plan (3).












2.2.


In particular, the proposal aims to address two self-evident problems which affect the internal market in the fertiliser sector:






—


competition between fertilisers sourced from domestic organic or secondary raw materials in line with the circular economy model and those produced in line with a linear economy model is tilted in favour of the latter (4). This competition distortion (5) hampers investment in more sustainable products and impedes the transition to the circular economy (6);










—


the existing regulation fails to address specific concerns and limits with respect to EC-fertilisers’ impact on soil, inland and sea waters, and food. In the absence of direction at EU level, Member States have established unilateral limits, specifically for the concentration of cadmium in inorganic phosphate fertilisers, exacerbating market fragmentation.
















2.3.


The key points of the Commission proposal are:






—


making the ‘EC-fertiliser’ (7) label more accessible and creating a harmonised level playing field for the most innovative and sustainable fertilisers, including those produced from organic materials (including bio-waste and animal by-products) or secondary raw materials. Products that aim to improve the efficiency of plants’ nutrition processes, such as agronomic additives and plant bio-stimulants (8), will be also included among CE marked fertilising products;










—


ensuring that products placed on the market are safe and high-quality, by means of an adequate system of controls, labelling and traceability that will involve manufacturers, importers, distributors and economic operators (9), modernising the conformity assessment and market surveillance in line with the ‘new legislative framework’ for product legislation. The existing option for manufacturers to choose whether to comply with the new harmonised requirements or with national rules (10) will be kept;










—


setting limits for heavy metals (specifically cadmium (11)) and contaminants in fertilising products in order to boost investment in more sustainable fertilisers.
















2.4.


According to the Commission, the proposal would deliver a range of benefits, including:






—


creation of about 120 000 jobs thanks to bio-waste recycling in organic fertilisers;










—


reduced dependency on non-domestic raw materials (for instance phosphate): recycled bio-waste could replace up to 30 % of inorganic fertilisers;










—


reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption caused by inorganic fertiliser manufacturing;










—


reduction of pollution caused by excess nutrients, in particular ecosystem eutrophication;










—


increased resource efficiency;










—


overall reduction in compliance costs for economic operators;










—


65 % reduction in costs for industry to place new products on the market.








3.   General comments









3.1.


The EESC welcomes the Commission proposal, both for solving certain critical issues in the fertiliser market and for contributing to the transition to a circular economy.












3.2.


The Committee reiterates its support for any initiative that aims to close the loop in the context of the Circular Economy Action Plan (12). The EESC considers the creation of a harmonised level playing field for organic origin fertilisers to be an important environmental goal, and also an important driver for economic development and job creation.












3.3.


The EESC endorses the need to remove the barriers that limit the free movement of secondary raw materials (including organic secondary raw materials) and innovation, while maintaining and applying all the key principles of environmental protection, including the precautionary principle.












3.4.


The Committee supports the proposal to establish an effective system of controls, labelling and traceability to ensure the safety and quality of these products. In particular:






—


applying the same labelling system as is already in use for plant protection products (13) in order to provide farmers with clear information about fertiliser use and conservation;










—


setting a common standard for presentation and communication of the information requested, as per Annex III;










—


establishing official analysis methodologies, to verify the credentials of any labelling system and to ensure that there is adequate robustness in the integrity of any labelling applied.
















3.5.


The EESC recognises that producers can choose to comply with European or national laws in labelling, but would point out that diverging national rules and standards are one of the main causes of the current market distortion and fragmentation. For this reason it recommends a targeted approach in order to avoid new threats of unfair competition and non-compliance with the highest traceability, quality and safety standards.












3.6.


The Committee observes that soil fertility and protection is a key aspect in the Commission proposal, but notes that this goal will be hard to achieve without a Soil Framework Directive that can set and enforce common standards for the sustainable use and protection of soil (14). Moreover it highlights the need to bear in mind the existing differences in soils among Member States, which should entail the adoption of targeted standards.












3.7.


The Committee agrees with the setting of limits in order to progressively reduce cadmium and other heavy metals in fertilisers. In the meanwhile, it is conscious that an immediate and radical reduction of cadmium levels in fertilisers will increase production costs and therefore the costs for farmers and consumers. In line with the disruptive processes that form part of a transition to a circular economic model, this cost shift, and consequent price shift, could form an economic tool to drive change at consumer or farmer level. Farmers must be protected from drastic price increases and therefore benefit from accessibility to fertilisers to meet their needs.












3.8.


The EESC underlines that SMEs’ competitiveness could be affected by the additional compliance costs (15). Because of the strategic value of this Regulation, the Committee recommends providing incentives to encourage SMEs’ transition to more sustainable production (16). The EU DGs responsible for both research and agriculture will have key roles in this process.












3.9.


The EESC considers that the transition to more sustainable fertilisers as well as to a circular economy requires a deep commitment from all parties involved (manufacturers, farmers, workers and consumers). Technical advice and best practices continue to evolve but are not always well communicated. As in other areas, information, awareness-raising campaigns, vocational training and life-long learning are essential (17). The proposed Circular Economy Forum to be hosted at EESC as proposed in the NAT/676 opinion on the Circular Economy Package can help play a role in delivering on this.




4.   Specific comments









4.1.


The EESC agrees that plant bio-stimulants should be included in the framework of CE marked fertilising products instead of plant protection products, amending Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. Nevertheless, the Committee invites the Commission to monitor the process carefully in order to ensure that this is not used to circumvent the law on plant protection products, posing potential health and environmental threats.












4.2.


The Committee believes that fertilisers originating from secondary raw materials may in the future constitute an important part of an integrated circular economy (18). In order to improve harmonisation with the existing Waste Framework Directive (19), the EESC suggests:






—


making a clearer distinction between ‘agricultural material used in farming’ (excluded from the scope of the Waste Framework Directive) and the definitions of waste, by-product and end-of-waste status. These definitions are not always clear and may lead to missed opportunities for innovation;










—


establishing a better definition of a by-product when it is used as fertiliser;










—


introducing a further distinction between productive waste/by-products used directly in agriculture as fertiliser (i.e. faecal matter and digestate) and when such products are used as components.
















4.3.


End-of-waste status (20), as defined in the Commission proposal, applies to fertilisers and not to their components. The EESC suggests that this concept should apply to the components, because any recovery operations must be undertaken on the starting components and not on the fertilisers as final products.












4.4.


The Committee is convinced that ‘nudge thinking’ could be a useful tool in achieving the general goal of a more efficient internal market in the context of the transition towards a circular economy, involving and addressing manufacturers, farmers and consumers and encouraging more sustainable choices and behaviours.












4.5.


Municipal waste water has a potential as a secondary raw material for this emerging industry. Analysis of waste water infrastructure at Member State level should be encouraged in order to determine accurate cost-benefit analysis in investment in infrastructure development that prioritises the supply of high quality, well separated, nutrient rich waste water. Urine can provide a reliable source of phosphorus and nitrogen without the associated heavy metal concentrations found in bedrock deposits containing phosphates in particular.












4.6.


Regional scale collection and production supported by distribution networks across the Member States should form an integral part of the structure of an organic based fertiliser market. This model can be complemented by a multitude of community-scale collection and, where feasible, production units.












4.7.


The Committee notes that ambitious reductions in cadmium can more easily be achieved with a heavy focus on fertilisers with phosphate from sources other than cadmium contaminated mined rock.












4.8.


Exemptions from the REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals) legal framework need to extend beyond composts to encourage new market opportunities and innovation in areas such as struvite and related products.












4.9.


The EESC encourages the Commission to include additional component material categories in the Annexes, to keep up with technological progress allowing the production of safe and effective fertilisers from recovered, secondary raw materials, such as biochar and ashes.












4.10.


The EESC encourages the Commission to create incentives to support the recycling of livestock manure under the principles of the circular economy. At the same time, it is important that we do not create systems that support the excessive production of manure. Other opinions on CAP reform (21) and the need to reform our agricultural systems highlight the need for a reduction in the concentrated manure producing regions as part of a total reform of our agri-food systems to a sustainable model.





Brussels, 14 July 2016.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Georges DASSIS




(1)  Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services (CSES), Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 relating to Fertilisers — Final Report, 2010.

(2)  EC 2003/2003.

(3)  COM(2015) 614/2.

(4)  The Commission estimates that inorganic fertilisers account for 80 % of market value, while organic and organo-mineral fertilisers together account for 6,5 %, and growing media, soil improvers and liming materials represent about 10,5 % of market value. Plant bio-stimulants and agronomic additives, although accounting for only 3 % of market value, are seen as having a strong market development potential.

(5)  The existing Regulation ensures free movement only for the fertilisers included in Annex I. Getting the label ‘EC-fertiliser’ basically requires an amendment to Annex I, but it is so complicated that 50 % of the fertilisers currently on the market are left out of the scope of the Regulation, the great majority of which are produced from organic materials or recycled bio-waste from the food chain.

(6)  The Commission underlines a three-fold challenge connected with fertiliser use: 1) nutrients are lost in the environment, with high costs in terms of health and damage mitigation; 2) phosphorus is a critical raw material that comes from outside Europe — 90 % of phosphate fertilisers are imported from third countries; 3) cadmium is a crucial component of phosphate fertilisers whose impact on the environment is particularly dangerous.

(7)  The 2003 Fertilisers Regulation created two different categories: ‘EC-fertilisers’ and ‘non-EC fertilisers’ (also known as ‘national fertilisers’). The latter can be placed on national markets because they comply with national requirements and can also circulate on the EU market under the 2008 Mutual Recognition Regulation (EC) No 764/2008.

(8)  COM(2016) 157 final. Introduction points 14-15.

(9)  COM(2016) 157 final. Introduction points 23-27.

(10)  If manufacturers want to sell their products in other EU countries but do not want to CE mark their products, they may be able to do so, but this will depend on mutual recognition between the Member States.

(11)  The limits for cadmium in fertilisers will be tightened from 60 mg/kg to 40 mg/kg after 3 years, and to 20 mg/kg after 12 years.

(12)  EESC opinion, Circular Economy Package (OJ C 264, 20.7.2016, p. 98).

(13)  Regulation (EU) No 547/2011.

(14)  EESC opinion, Thematic Strategy for soil protection (OJ C 168, 20.7.2007, p. 29).

(15)  European Commission, ‘Competitiveness proofing — fertilising materials’, 2013. This study indicates that for some companies, for instance SMEs producing compost, new compliance costs could amount to 10 % of production costs, with a direct impact on SMEs’ competitiveness.

(16)  EESC opinion, Sustainable use of phosphorus, Point 3.4.4 (OJ C 177, 11.6.2014, p. 78).
EESC opinion, Organic production and labelling of organic products, Point1.1 (OJ C 12, 15.1.2015, p. 75).

(17)  See footnote 12.

(18)  EESC opinion, The circular economy: job creation and the Green Action Plan for SMEs, point 2.8 (OJ C 230, 14.7.2015, p. 99).

(19)  2008/98/EC. Article 2(1)(f).

(20)  COM(2016) 157 final. Article 18.

(21)  OJ C 354, 28.12.2010, p. 35.