Glyphosate renewal: A ’round-up’ of how EU countries plan to vote

The European Commission has proposed to renew the approval of the contentious herbicide glyphosate for the next decade, but only if member states give their green light. So where do they sit on the issue?

***Euractiv will update this tracker as new information comes to light***

The EU executive submitted a draft regulation in September to member states foreseeing the renewed approval of glyphosate for the EU market beyond 15 December this year, when the current approval expires.

If passed, the regulation will mean that the contentious herbicide – the most widely used in the EU – can continue to be used in plant protection across the EU for the next decade, despite divergent views over glyphosate’s impact on health and the environment. 

The Commission proposal comes on the back of a lengthy evaluation process on the safety and risks of glyphosate carried out by the EU’s Food Safety Authority (EFSA) which concluded that no “critical concerns” are linked to the use of glyphosate.

However, it found that data gaps do not allow conclusions on a number of aspects, including the ecotoxicology of the substance and specifically the risk it poses to mammals. 

Now, the ball is in member states’ court, as EU countries still have the chance to approve or block the draft regulation during a vote set to be held Friday (13 October).

But which way is the vote likely to swing? Euractiv's agrifood team has mapped you the vote intentions of each member state contacting diplomatic and high-level sources ahead of the crucial vote.

First things first – how does the voting work? 

The playing field for glyphosate approval is the notorious 'comitology', a word that indicates the maze of internal committees tasked with assisting the Commission in drafting the implementing measures on technical aspects of EU legislation, such as delegated acts and secondary legislation.

Member states participate in these special committees to oversee the work of the Commission, having a big say on final decisions, which are always reached behind closed doors.

The Commission will, of course, be hoping for a qualified majority of countries voting in favour of its proposal in the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (PAFF Committee) - which would automatically greenlight the proposal.

The EU executive will start the examination procedure with a first vote on Friday to check whether there is a qualified majority in favour or against the proposed act.

A qualified majority is reached if two conditions are simultaneously met: 55% of member states vote in favour (or against) – in practice, this means 15 out of 27 – and the approval (or rejection) of the proposal is supported by member states representing at least 65% of the total EU population.

The appeal body

In the event that there is no qualified majority either for or against, an appeal body will be convened between two and six weeks after the vote in the committee, which lands us at around mid-November – an option that seems fairly likely at this point, according to diplomatic sources.

Just as with the standing committee, this appeal body works with qualified majorities. However, crucially, if there is still no qualified majority either in favour or against at this further stage, the Commission is tasked with deciding on its own.

“Only a qualified majority against is enough to block it,” a senior EU official explained. 

In a nutshell, the only way that glyphosate will not be approved is with a qualified majority of member states actively voting against the proposal.

Countries might opt to abstain, meaning that their vote is counted as a vote against when checking if there are enough 'yes' required for the adoption but does not contribute to forming the qualified majority against the proposal either.

What if there is no majority?

While the intention of the Commission is to conclude this process before 15 December – which is the expiry of the current approval – the EU official explained that if it is not wrapped up before then, the Commission would automatically temporarily extend the current agreement, as it has done once before. 

Meanwhile, sources have suggested that the Commission is trying to update the proposal with feedback now to make it more likely to pass, with suggestions the EU executive may even present a new proposal - with relatively minor changes, though. If this is the case, this may then change the way some countries decide to vote. 

Which way will they vote?

The ‘yay, let’s spray!’ camp

First up in the ‘yay, let’s spray’ camp, we have Portugal. Sources say that the country is firmly in favour of extending the use of glyphosate, taking into account scientific advice, and will therefore back the Commission’s proposal.

Contacted by Euractiv, diplomatic sources said that Spain would not commit to a position as it is the current holder of the EU rotating Presidency - however, the Commission chairs 'comitology' meetings and the EU presidency does not have any role. Recent remarks of the country's agriculture minister Luis Planas before MEPs suggest that Spain is leaning towards supporting the Commission proposal.

Replying to a parliamentary question filed by Green MP (and former MEP) Eleonora Evi, Italy's government said that its representative is supposed to vote in favour of the renewal of glyphosate as long as the herbicide's use as a desiccant in pre-harvest will not be allowed and the substance can only be used "in the pre-emergence phase of the crop".

A source close to the matter in Athens told Euractiv that Greece's experts in the agriculture ministry see the renewal of glyphosate in a positive light. The source explained that the ministry has put in place an effective electronic system monitoring the quantities in circulation, which has also been praised by the EU executive. The same source noted that this does not rule out a political intervention on the matter but insisted that, at least at the expert level, the renewal of glyphosate is supported.

Meanwhile, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, Denmark, and the Czech Republic have all indicated their support for the proposal, according to other sources close to the matter.

There are also some tentative ‘yes’ votes, such as Slovenia who, according to sources, is generally supportive of the proposal but has raised some concerns on biodiversity.

Meanwhile, Bulgaria has said it is waiting to see what the Commission’s updated draft brings. “The Commission will do a new proposal and we are waiting to see it,” a diplomatic source said. However, the source added that the country has so far been leaning in favour of the re-approval and is likely to stick with this view.

Likewise, Poland has not yet committed to a position, although sources have suggested the country is leaning in favour of the report. 

The ‘for gly-f*cks-sake’ camp

We already know that Austria will vote against the European Commission’s proposal to renew the approval of glyphosate, the country’s agriculture ministry confirmed on Monday (25 September). As a ministry spokesperson confirmed to Euractiv, the Austrian government is legally obliged to vote against any renewed approval of glyphosate at the European level following a 2017 decision in the national parliament’s EU affairs committee.

According to diplomatic sources, Luxembourg’s agriculture minister said it is the government's intention to oppose. However, the source added that, as national elections took place on 8 October, the situation “might not necessarily be the same”.

There are also a few tentative no-voters, including Croatia. According to a diplomatic source, the country's position is “not clear yet” as talks are ongoing, but it is “likely” they will vote against it.

Those sitting on the farm fence 

A ruling coalition split will likely force Germany to abstain. While Germany’s Green Agriculture Minister Cem Özdemir made it clear that he is staunchly against a re-approval of glyphosate, the Liberals in the coalition take the opposite view. And even though agriculture is the ministry in charge of the PAFF committee vote, any other ministry can veto Özdemir’s position on the matter - which is exactly what the liberal-led transport ministry did, according to a source. In effect, this means that Berlin has to abstain from the vote.

Of those still to play for, by far and above the most interesting is France. While the EU juggernaut has not gone as far as to oppose the glyphosate approval, it has expressed some reluctance. “The French authorities are not currently satisfied with this proposal,” the French agricultural ministry told Euractiv. Instead, the French are advocating their own approach, which essentially is a ban on the use of glyphosate in situations where it can be substituted by a viable alternative – something the country has already found success with. “France believes that this approach makes it possible to reduce the use of glyphosate without leaving farmers without a solution,” a representative for the ministry said, adding that France is calling for this approach to be “harmonised at the European level”.

While there have been suggestions that Belgium plans to abstain as opinions reportedly diverged between the Flemish government and the agricultural ministry, diplomatic sources told Euractiv that this is just a “rumour”, and that a governmental meeting is being held “before the end of the week” in efforts to find a position. However, the source said abstention could be an option in the event that a compromise is not found. It is also worth noting that Belgium took umbrage with the EFSA’s classification of glyphosate as non-carcinogenic, commentating on the risk assessment that it should be at least moved up a classification category.

As confirmed by the Dutch agriculture minister Piet Adema on Tuesday (10 October), the Netherlands will also abstain. A diplomatic source confirmed to Euractiv that the decision was a consequence of having a caretaker government currently ruling the country.

According to a diplomatic source, Ireland is “considering the proposal carefully” but has not taken a stance on the issue. The source added the country will finalise its position “paying close attention to the views expressed by member states and taking account of the comprehensive scientific opinions and conclusions provided by the EFSA and the European Chemicals Agency”. 

The ‘data gaps’ camp

With discussions just days away, there are still plenty of countries that haven’t yet shown their cards, such as Sweden. As the rapporteur of the proposal, it is likely to vote in favour. However, the country was against the renewal last time for the maximum 15-year period but may be more in favour of 10 years. 

Likewise, the positions of Cyprus, Estonia, Malta, Latvia, and Lithuania are also as yet unknown. 

Euractiv will update this tracker as new information comes to light.

All the infographics were made by Esther Snippe.