Joint Letter: Carbon farming
Dear M. Holzleitner, dear Ms. Forlin,
The application of organic fertilisers and soil improvers, such as compost and digestate, is a cornerstone of carbon farming. When regularly applied to agricultural soils, these products improve soil health, enhance soil organic carbon, and contribute to long-term carbon sequestration, while also supporting nutrient recycling, thereby delivering significant climate, circular economy and environmental benefits. It is therefore essential that their use can be effectively recognised and rewarded under the Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming Regulation (CRCF).
We are therefore concerned by the references to the EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR) introduced in the delegated act on the carbon farming methodology published on 9 July. The provision requiring conformity to the Product Function Categories[1], which was not included in the draft version released for public consultation, appears to imply that only CE-marked organic fertilisers and soil improvers placed on the market under the FPR would be eligible for certification under the CRCF. In addition, requiring the same product to comply with both the FPR and national rules on fertilisers[2] seems inappropriate as the requirements applicable under each framework may differ substantially.
Limiting CRCF certification to CE-marked organic fertilisers and soil improvers placed on the market under the FPR would significantly undermine the objectives of the Regulation, as we emphasised in our contributions to the public consultation[3]. The FPR has not yet delivered a functioning single market for organic fertilisers and soil improvers. According to the preliminary findings of the ongoing FPR evaluation, only around 1% of organic fertilisers and soil improvers are CE-marked. In the case of compost and digestate, only a handful of products have obtained CE marking since the Regulation became applicable in 2022. This is largely due to restrictive technical requirements, the costs associated with certification, and market conditions that are strictly local in nature. Moreover, the FPR is based on the principle of optional harmonisation: while manufacturers may choose to CE-mark products to benefit from free circulation across the EU, they may equally decide to place fertilising products on the market under national fertiliser regimes. As a result, producers continue to rely on national regulatory frameworks. Restricting CRCF certification to CE-marked products would therefore exclude the vast majority of compost and digestate currently used by European farmers, despite these products delivering the very soil health and carbon sequestration benefits that the CRCF seeks to promote.
Restricting CRCF eligibility to CE-marked products would also effectively result in the disregard of national End-of-Waste frameworks and fertiliser schemes already recognised by Member States. Materials that are legally placed on the market and safely used in agriculture under national legislation would be excluded from carbon farming certification despite delivering the same environmental and climate benefits. Such an outcome would create an unjustified disparity based solely on the regulatory route chosen for market access. The FPR governs the placing of fertilising products on the European market, it was never intended to determine whether a product can generate environmental benefits when applied to agricultural soils. Eligibility under a carbon farming methodology should therefore be based on the environmental performance of the practice and the achievement of measurable climate outcomes, rather than on the regulatory pathway chosen by the manufacturer to market the product.
Finally, this approach appears inconsistent with the European Commission’s broader policy objectives. Both the Fertiliser Action Plan and the Livestock Strategy recognise the need to increase the use of recycled and bio-based fertilisers. In particular, the Fertiliser Action Plan explicitly states that the CRCF should “effectively allow the carbon credit market to favour better nutrient management and the upscaled use of bio-based (organic) and low-carbon fertilisers”. As currently drafted, however, the delegated act risks achieving the opposite outcome. We therefore invite the Commission to amend or clarify the methodology.
[1] See section 1.1.1.1.(a)(v).
[2] See section 5.1.(e).
[3] Find the respective links to the feedback provided by EBA, ECN and FEAD.
About the European Biogas Association (EBA):
EBA fully believes in the future potential of renewable gas in Europe. Founded in 2009, the association is committed to the deployment of sustainable biogas and biomethane production and use throughout the continent. EBA counts today on a well-established network of over 300 national associations and other organisations covering the whole biogas and biomethane value chain across Europe and beyond.
About the European Compost Network (ECN):
The ECN is the leading European membership organisation promoting sustainable recycling practices by composting and anaerobic digestion of organic resources and guarding over the quality and safe use of the recovered organic fertilisers and soil improvers. With 67 members from 27 European countries, ECN represents more than 4,500 experts and plant operators with more than 45 million tonnes of biological waste treatment capacity.
About the European Waste Management Association (FEAD):
FEAD, the European Waste Management Association, represents the entire waste management value chain, from collection and sorting to recycling, energy recovery, and final disposal. It brings together the private waste and resource management industry across Europe through its 21 national member associations and associate members, which collectively represent over 3,000 companies. Together, the sector provides more than 500,000 local jobs and fuels €5 billion in investments into the economy every year. For more information, please contact: info@fead.be