France seeks to exempt fertilizers from EU carbon border levy to shield farmers

France is seeking backing from other European Union governments to exempt fertilizers from the bloc’s carbon border levy, warning that the measure risks worsening financial pressures on farmers already hit by weak crop prices and higher input costs, according to a draft document circulated to member states.
The EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism, which took effect on Jan. 1, applies carbon dioxide emissions fees to imports of goods such as steel and fertilizers. The policy is designed to prevent cheaper imports from undercutting European producers who must comply with stricter climate rules and pay for their own emissions.
In a draft statement prepared by France, Paris called on the European Commission to temporarily postpone or suspend the levy on fertilizers. Such a move, France argued, would ease tensions in the crop farming sector and give suppliers time to stabilize fertilizer availability for the 2026 planting season.
France said it supports the carbon border levy in principle but cautioned that applying it to fertilizers could significantly raise costs for farmers. The draft cited mounting concerns from farmers’ organizations over fertilizer supply constraints, compounded by tariffs on Russian fertilizer imports and persistently low cereal prices.
A French agriculture ministry official said Paris was optimistic about securing support, though it was not immediately clear which other governments would back the proposal. EU agriculture ministers are expected to discuss the issue at a meeting in Brussels this week.
Any exemption for fertilizers could provide short-term relief for farmers but would likely face resistance from Europe’s fertilizer producers, who were meant to benefit from the levy by being shielded from lower-cost imports from countries with less stringent climate regulations.

Enjoyed this story?
Every Monday, our subscribers get their hands on a digest of the most trending agriculture news. You can join them too!









Discussion0 comments