On the proposal of Dutch MEP Jan Huitema (VVD/Renew), it is now stipulated that Brussels must first ensure sufficient nature-friendly fertilizer alternatives are available before any imposed restrictions can be considered.
There should also be a distinction between ‘truly harmful’ pesticides and ‘harmless’ types. Huitema was one of the seven drafters of the compromises on the SUR pesticides law.
Furthermore, a ‘handbrake’ is now built into the law. If by 2029 there are insufficient substitutes available, the new European Commission can still lower the reduction target.
Although left-wing groups and environmental organizations campaigned vigorously against the extended approval of glyphosate, there was no majority in the environment committee to reject the proposed ten-year renewal. While the European Parliament formally has no say over renewed approval, their rejection is still seen as a gesture towards the 27 Environment Ministers, who largely support it.
This also opens the possibility for a final compromise by the European Commission that is currently being negotiated behind the scenes. Next month, France could cast a decisive vote within the EU on the limited use of glyphosate.
These compromises from the environment committee also represent an attempt to eventually align with their colleagues from the agri-committee. By the end of November, the entire parliament must vote on the fertilizer laws. It remains unclear whether Strasbourg and Brussels will be able to reach an agreement.
About ten Eastern European countries have been trying to block the SUR proposal from the start. Eleven EU countries want the mandatory targets per country removed. The ENVI compromises also tend in that direction.
Similar situations arise regarding other remaining Green Deal proposals. Ministers and EU politicians must also agree on the (final) handling of the Nature Restoration Law, the EU Soil Directive (‘clean soil accounting’), plastic (vegetable) packaging, and the Waste Directive (less food waste, including in agriculture).