EU Greenlights Glyphosate for 10 Years
But Also — Karlsruhe Strikes Again, DMA Appeals, Green Deal, Russia Sanctions
Hi! This is Thursday, 21 November 2023, and here’s the EU news you need this week. Feel free to share this newsletter with friends and colleagues, and follow us on Twitter and Linkedin.
The Briefing
On November 16, the European Commission announced the reauthorization of glyphosate for ten years. This decision marks the latest chapter in a scientific and regulatory saga surrounding the harmful effects and virtues of the world's most widely used herbicide.
CONTEXT • Since 1993, plant protection products used in the EU undergo a two-step authorization process:
The active substance of the product in question must be authorized at the EU level.
Then, it's up to each Member State to authorize (or not) products containing this substance within their territory.
As an active substance, glyphosate was first authorized within the EU in 2002 for a period of ten years. It was renewed for the last time in 2017. The current authorization for glyphosate expires on December 15, 2023.
In 2019, the Glyphosate Renewal Group requested renewal due to the upcoming expiration. Following this request, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) conducted a comprehensive study on the risks associated with glyphosate.
The results were published last July. EFSA concluded that "the assessment of the impact of glyphosate on the health of humans, animals and the environment did not identify critical areas of concern."
Based on this study, the Commission presented a draft implementing regulation to the Member States, extending the authorization of glyphosate for an additional ten years. Implementing regulations are adopted by the European Commission to ensure uniform conditions for executing legal acts across the EU. These implementation powers are conferred by the Council and the Parliament.
During the review process of an implementing regulation, Member States vote by qualified majority — that is, 15 out of 27 states representing at least 65% of the European population — for or against the regulation. If they fail to reach an agreement, it falls to the Commission to decide on the adoption of the implementing regulation, as happened in the case of glyphosate.
UNDECIDED EUROPE • On October 13, the first vote by Member States took place within the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (PAFF Committee), which votes on implementing acts related to plant protection products. The committee didn't reach a qualified majority for or against.
On November 16, the draft implementing regulation was then submitted to an appeals committee including representatives of the Member States. This committee also failed to reach a clear position.
The Commission had to make a decision by December 15. It decided to renew glyphosate authorization for 10 years.
Seven Member States abstained: France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Bulgaria, Malta, and the Netherlands. Three voted against: Austria, Croatia, and Luxembourg. The rest voted in favor, including Spain and Portugal. A qualified majority against the implementing regulation was far from being reached. "The scenario of a qualified majority 'against' was never credible," explains Pascal Canfin MEP.
"The European Commission had to make its final decision no later than December 15, 2023. It decided to do so today based on a text that was not supported by the three largest European agricultural powers (Germany, France, Italy). I regret this because it had one month left to make a more balanced proposal," he adds.
France, which abstained due to dissatisfaction with the proposal details, couldn't have changed the outcome if it had voted against. However, it would have sent a strong political signal. This is what Emmanuel Macron is reproached for, despite announcing in 2017 that glyphosate would be banned "in three years."
CONTROVERSY • The harmful effects of glyphosate are the subject of intense scientific controversy. The EFSA report, upon which the European Commission relies, established that there were no "critical areas of concern" regarding the herbicide's use.
However, some criticize EFSA's work as it partly relies on scientific studies conducted by the glyphosate industry. On the other hand, EFSA acknowledges it doesn’t have enough staff to carry out its work optimally. Guilhem de Seze, head of the "Production and Risk Assessment" department at EFSA, said that the agency would need fifty additional employees and an extra 15 million euros per year.
Another study, conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the WHO, adds doubt. In 2015, IARC deemed glyphosate "probably carcinogenic to humans."
Other agencies like the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) contradict these conclusions. ECHA considers the classification of glyphosate as a carcinogen is not justified.
IN BRIEF • Despite these debates, glyphosate remains the most widely used herbicide in Europe. Spain is its largest consumer, with 11,400 tons sold within the member state in 2021. Following are France, Poland, and Germany.
Luxembourg was the first country in 2020 to prohibit its commercialization, later entirely banning its use in 2021. However, it had to backtrack in 2023 following a decision by the Luxembourg Administrative Court.
The court highlighted the "absence of any legal reasoning" behind the ban decision. For a member state to ban the use of a pesticide within its territory, it must prove that the pesticide's use poses significant risks to the environment and health, considering its specific agricultural conditions — which Luxembourg failed to do.
In Case You Missed It
KARLSRUHE • On November 15, the German Federal Constitutional Court a launched (legal) missile. The Court sided with 197 CDU/CSU members of parliament who argued that Olaf Scholz's government had unlawfully reallocated €60 billion of unspent Covid-19 funds to the Climate and Transformation Fund (KTF).
In February 2022, the ruling coalition decided to redirect these €60 billion, unutilized funds to a special fund (the KFT) benefiting from budgetary immunity reserved for emergency Covid-19 expenses. A significant portion of this €60 billion was meant to finance key measures for Germany's energy and industrial transition: semiconductors, replacing gas boilers with heat pumps, modernizing rail systems, or funding hydrogen initiatives.
The ‘debt brake’ rule enshrined in the German constitution — which prohibits the public deficit from exceeding 0.35% of GDP — was suspended due to Covid-19. The Court found that the government can only reallocate emergency funds to address actual emergencies. As a result of this ruling, the Climate and Transformation Fund — initially allocated a total of €212 billion — is now reduced by €60 billion. The government will need to compensate for this budget hole through other means.
For the ruling coalition, this marks a major political shock, leading to significant budgetary choices concerning various climate policies Germany committed to. The decision by the Karlsruhe judges could also sow discord among the coalition partners.
Following the ruling, Germany announced its opposition to a €100 billion top-up of the EU budget for 2021-2027 requested by the European Commission to fund aid to Ukraine and address the ongoing migration crisis.
At the European level, Germany has positioned itself as a proponent of a return to strict budgetary rules within the framework of the ongoing discussions on reforming the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP).
For Finance Minister Christian Lindner, it won't be easy to explain to European counterparts the necessity of returning to fiscal orthodoxy in Europe when his government is being reprimanded for not adhering to its own budgetary rules.
Beyond the budgetary debate, the Karlsruhe court's decision sends an alarming signal to the rest of the EU. Chronic underinvestment in Germany is a concern for the European economy as a whole. Numerous "special" funds were established in Germany to spend unutilized emergency funds. This decision is a bad signal, as Germany's recession is already dragging down the rest of Europe.
DMA • Apple, ByteDance (TikTok), and Meta have challenged their designation as "gatekeepers" under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) before the General Court of the EU. These companies are considered access controllers (or gatekeepers) for 22 essential online services, such as app stores, social networks, messaging services, or marketplaces.
Meta was the first to file a lawsuit, contesting the inclusion of its Marketplace and Messenger services in the DMA. ByteDance, TikTok's owner, did the same, arguing that its video-sharing platform had been wrongly categorized as a social network.
Companies designated as gatekeepers can appeal to the General Court to annul the nomination decisions. They can argue that they don't understand why certain services fall under the DMA and that the Commission's decision lacked sufficient justification.
Some have already begun restructuring their operations in Europe. Facebook and Instagram (Meta) offer ad-free paid subscriptions in the EU, while Google is expanding data sharing practices. Microsoft, Amazon, and Google, also designated as "gatekeepers," have accepted their designations and committed to collaborating with the European Commission.
ENVI • Several key regulations of the Green Deal were adopted last week:
The Parliament and the Council finalized negotiations on the Critical Raw Materials Act regulating critical raw materials. One notable change from the Commission's initial proposal is the increase in the recycling target from 15% to 25% of the EU's annual raw material consumption.
The Parliament and the Council also reached a final agreement in their negotiations concerning the EU's first legislation to reduce methane emissions within the EU and globally. The regulation mandates the gas, oil, and coal sectors to measure, monitor, report, and act on their methane emissions. The regulation also applies to imports, which account for 80% of the EU's oil and gas consumption.
Finally, an agreement was reached between the Council and the Parliament on a directive providing for imprisonment penalties of up to ten years and fines of up to 5% of global turnover for companies committing ecocide.
RUSSIA • On November 15, 2023, the European Commission proposed a twelfth package of sanctions against Russia in the context of the war in Ukraine. Since the onset of the war in February 2022, the EU has adopted no less than eleven packages covering various fields: energy, banking, trade, etc.
This twelfth package aims to ban the import of Russian diamonds into the EU from January 2024, as the United States already does. The package also intends to strengthen reporting requirements to counteract sanctions evasion, particularly the cap on purchasing Russian oil barrels at $60.
The package is expected to be adopted by the year's end.
What We’re Reading
Martin Sandbu offers an excellent analysis of the repercussions of the Karlsruhe court's judgment at the European level in the Financial Times.
In a report for the Vienna Institute, Richard Grieveson and others conclude that, in economic matters, Ukraine aligns closely with the Copenhagen criteria, which delineate the conditions for EU membership.
The IESUE, the EU's internal think tank on foreign policy issues, released a note by Jan Joel Andersson on the European defense industry.
This edition was prepared by uillaume Renée, Marwen Ben Moussa, Maxence de La Rochère and Augustin Bourleaud. See you next week!