CBAM “Emergency Brake” Debate: What Proposed Article 27a Changes, and Why Fertilisers Are the Flashpoint
On 8 January 2026, the European Commission published a short Q&A on proposed Article 27a, a potential “emergency brake” that could temporarily remove certain goods from CBAM scope if CBAM’s price impact causes severe harm to the EU internal market under serious and unforeseen circumstances.
What the Commission’s Q&A says (in brief)
-
No suspension tool exists today. The current framework does not allow suspending or removing goods from scope; changing the product list (Annex I) normally requires legislation.
-
If adopted, Article 27a could enable temporary removal via a delegated act where the “severe harm” test is met.
-
Retroactive effect is explicitly possible. The Commission states removal can be retroactive to when the conditions started to be met.
On certificates, the Commission notes certificates can only be purchased from 1 February 2027, meaning a 2026 retroactive measure would not trigger certificate reimbursement in 2026; reimbursement would require separate rules if scope changes become relevant after certificates can be purchased.
Why fertilisers? Is this really about farmers and food costs?
This is the key question shaping the debate. The EU agriculture ministers’ outcome document highlights that fertiliser prices have stabilised but remain around 60% higher than in 2020, and frames availability and affordability as critical for food security.
The same document indicates two parallel tracks:
-
A safeguard route (Article 27a) that could allow a temporary suspension for specific goods, alongside monitoring internal-market effects.
-
A short-term cost relief lever: temporary suspension of remaining import duties on ammonia and urea, described as broadly comparable in magnitude to CBAM-related costs.
Member-state pressure is also visible: Reuters reported France’s call for temporary relief for fertilisers, linked to farmer cost concerns.
The takeaway for the market
The immediate risk is not only CBAM cost, but uncertainty. Article 27a is not yet adopted, but the debate itself already affects pricing and contracting. In this period, companies should keep compliance preparations moving while tightening contract clauses on CBAM cost allocation and regulatory-change adjustments.
Contact [email protected] for more or book a call to discuss your specific needs.
