1

Land Take and Soil Sealing:An overview of the EU situationSoil remediation and soil sealing conferenceBrussels, May 10 and 11 2012, organised by DG ENV, European Commission

2

• In April 2012 the European Commission publishes “Soil Sealing Guidelines”SWD(2012)final Guidelines on best practice to limit, mitigate or compensate soil sealinghttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/pdf/soil_sealing_guidelines_en.pdf

• The document is based on the work of an EU expert working group, i.e. representatives of relevant stakeholder groups, experts from the Member States

• ..and on a survey on the State of the Art, which was published in May 2011“Overview of best practices for limiting soil sealing or mitigating its effects in EU-27”http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/sealing.htm

Background

3

Terminology & Effects

Extent of sealing in EU27

Principle of the new guidelines to reduce soil sealing

Best practice examples

4

Terminology&

Effects

5

Terminology

sealed surfaces40 – 60% of artificial surfaces are actually sealed

settlement area / artificial surfacebuildings, gardens, infrastructure (streets)industry, recreational areas etc.

land takeincrease of settlement area over time

6

Loss of fertile soils for future generationsSoil sealing is an almost irreversible process

Loss of water retention areasIncrease in surface water runoff and flood risk

Landscape fragmentation…and loss of biodiversity

Increasing land takeleads to unsustainable living patterns with increasing traffic & air emissions and higher infrastructure costs for the municipalities

Changes of microclimateSealed surfaces have higher surface temperatures than green surfaces

Major effects of soil sealing

7

The extent of soil sealing

andland takein EU27

8

Sealing at the regional level (NUTS3)

percentage of sealingEEA soil sealing layer, 2006

9

Land take 2000 – 2006 (NUTS3)

CORINE land cover 2000, 2006increase in artificial surface

10

Principle of the new guidelines to reduce soil sealing

11

Recommendations: “Limit – Mitigate - Compensate “Tier 1: Limitation of Soil Sealing.• Policy, monitoring, realistic land take targets• Streamline existing funding policies accordingly• Steer new developments to already developed land• Provide financial incentives for inner urban development• improve the quality of life in large urban centres• Make small city centres more attractive• Protect agricultural soils and valuable landscapes

Tier 2: Mitigating Soil Sealing as far as possible • Respect soil quality along planning processes• Apply technical mitigation measures to conserve at least a few soil

functions (i.e. permeable surfaces on parking areas)

Tier 3: Compensate soil losses • Establishing qualified compensation measures• Facilitate new alternative land uses

Regional flexibility is needed!! population density, demography, development forecasts etc.

12

Best practice examples

13

Best PracticePolicy targetsQuantitative limits for annual land take exist in 6 Member States

• Austria & Germany• limits are defined in hectare per day for a target year

• Belgium (Flanders), Luxembourg, the Netherlandslimits are based on inner urban development; i.e. 60% of new developments within defined inner urban boundaries

•the United Kingdom (England)limits are based on brownfield redevelopment; i.e. new housing on already developed land

Best PracticeBrownfield RedevelopmentObjective: avoid new land take by reusing already developed land for new infrastructure projectsHow: Brownfield organisations co-ordinate initial or supportive funding to encourage new infrastructure developments on brown-field sites Examples• CZ & PL: Czech Invest and Invest in Silesia are in charge of developing major

industrial brownfields for new industrial investors (focus on industrial investors). http://www.czechinvest.org/en http://www.invest-in-silesia.pl/

• FR: France disposes of a network of more than 20 public land development agencies (Etablissement Public Foncier ), which among other activities develop brownfield land for social housing. http://www.epfl.fr/sites/internet/epffrance/Pages/default.aspx

• UK: The Homes and Communities Agency (formerly English Partnerships) provides funding for social housing developments on derelict areas. http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/home

• BE/Fl: Brownfield covenants are negotiated between the government and private investors to promote brownfield redevelopment.

15

Best PracticeFinancial support for strategic land developmentObjective: realisation of sustainable land development projects; i.e. acquisition of land for strategic development projects, remediation of run down areas and the establishment of green urban areas.

• Belgium /Flanders: The local governments submit their proposals to the spatial planning department of the Flemish government, where they are ranked for approval. (2010 budget: 2.1 million euro)http://www.rsv.vlaanderen.be/nl/strategischeProjecten/

renewal of the sourroundings of a railway station (Kortrijk)

16

•Germany (Baden Württemberg): 13 model villages committed themselves to avoid new developments on green field sites. Available funding per municipality 0.6 - 1.5 mio. Euro. focus on inner urban development potentials ; empty and underused buildings and sites, innovative conversionhttp://www.melap-bw.de/

identification and visualisation of underused and derelict sites in village centres in many cases planned settlement enlargements were obsolete.

Best PracticeImprovement of quality of life in large urban centersObjective: to counteract suburbanisation and attract new residentsHow: Realisation of strategic urban renewal projectsExamples (large urban renewal projects)• Portugal / Porto & Lisbon: Several urban renewal programmes with support of the

EU structural funds (public private partnerships)http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funds/2007/jjj/doc/pdf/jessica/pt-evaluation-study.pdf

The Morro Sé renwal project in Porto

Best Practice

• Sweden / Malmö – Västra Hamnen sustainable district on derelict harbour premises , 1,000 new dwellings in the city centre,with lowest impact on natural resources

http://www.naturvardsverket.se/en/In-English/Start/Environmental-objectives/Best-practice-examples/

• The Netherlands: Randstad Programme improving the attractiveness of inner urban areas in the metropolitan agglomeration of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and Den Haag.http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/videos/2010/02/18/randstad-2040.html

• Spain / Catalunia Programme for Urban Areas with Special Needs (Programa de barris I àrees urbanes d’atenció), cofinancing by ERDF115 renewal projects at a total volume of 170 million Eurohttp://territori.scot.cat/

Best PracticePermeable surfaces (mitigation measures)Objective: Contribution to local water drainage capacity. Landscaping functions.Examples

Benefits• lower discharges to local sewage water system,• contribution to the formation of natural groundwater,• increased water evaporation improvement of the micro climate • use of regional material - in some cases also recycling material (i.e. compost,

building rubble)• vegetation layers are possible visual improvement.

Best PracticeGreen tramway tracks

Large parking areas

Tramway , Mulhouse (FR)

Football stadium – Salzburg (AT) Expo 2000, Hannover (DE)

Best PracticeDriveways

Sustainable Urban Drainage

Ealing (UK)

Various examples (UK)

Best PracticeCompensation of soil lossObjective: protection of best agricultural land, to steer new infrastructure developments to areas with less valuable soils, to establish a soil protection fundsExamples• Compensation payments for agricultural soils (Slowakia)

Conversion of protected agricultural land to building land requires a fee, depending on the quality of the affected soil, ranging from 6 – 15 Euros per m²21 % of the Slovakian are subject to a compensation fee.

• Soil Compensation Account (Dresden - Germany) Objective: Long term planning target built-up land for settlements and traffic

shall be confined to 40% of the total urban land. New developments on undeveloped land require adequate desealing measures or “greening” measures somewhere else but within the city boundaries (exemption: inner urban developments). On average 4 ha urban derelict land are desealed

ConclusionsKey observations• All Member States are at least regionally affected by increasing soil sealing and

land take• Inefficient land use (underused areas and derelict buildings) is widespread• Only very few Member States have strict (and effective) policies to limit land take

and soil sealing• Different solutions for rural areas and metropolitan areas are needed• Clear need to decouple economic growth from land take and sealing

Key barrier• Member States refrain from applying stricter regulations to protect their soils from

sealing as this could represent a market disadvantage

Expectations to EU Soil Sealing Guidelines• ……..• ……..

Contact & Information

Gundula Prokop+43 1 31304 5923gundula.prokop@umweltbundesamt.at

24

Umweltbundesamt (Environment Agency Austria)www.umweltbundesamt.at

Soil remediation and soil sealing conferenceBrussels ■ May 10 and 11 2012

organised by DG ENV, European Commission