THEMATIC STRATEGY

ON SOIL PROTECTION

Soil

Ground Water

Biodiversity

Open Water

AirBiomass Production(e.g. food chain)

Human Health

W.E.H. Blum, 2004

Culture

TOWARDS COMMUNICATION- April 2002

SOILS THREATS IDENTIFIEDErosion Biodiversity loss

Decline in Organic Matter CompactionSoil Contamination Soil sealingSalinisation Floods and landslides

INTEGRATION of soil protection aspects in other policies

Background

Opinions Community Institutions Council + European Parliament+ Committee of Regions + EESC

All institutions: Welcomed the Communication Agreed that scientific evidence shows that soil degradation

processes continue Recognised the need for appropriate Community action to protect soil and to promote its sustainable use

Other conclusions MS endorsed a framework approach in the Presidency Conference VITAL SOIL Nov 2004

Background

CONTENT OF THETHEMATIC STRATEGY

Communication

Proposal for a Soil Framework Directive

Impact Assessment

CONTENT OF THETHEMATIC STRATEGY

Communication

1. Assessment of the situation

2. Objectives of the strategy

3. Actions and means

I. Soil Framework Directive

II. Research (following recommendations from WG, special emphasis on biodiversity issues)

III. Integration into sectoral policies (by COM, e.g. amendments of the IPPC Directive)

IV. Awareness raising (soil atlas, summer school etc.)

4. Expected impacts and results

5. Next steps

STRUCTURE OF THE COMMUNICATION

COMMUNICATION

It lays down the objective of soil policy: The protection and sustainable use of soil:

Preserving its functions (by prevention at source or adequate soil management)

Restoring degraded soils to sustain current and intended use

Proposal for a Soil Framework Directive

ARGUMENTS FOR BINDING EU-ACTION (1)

Soil is a common resource - non renewable and vital to sustainability and competitiveness; the gap in existing environmental (water, air, climate etc.) policy has to be closed

Distortion of competition in the internal market- current wide differences in national soil protection regimes create an unbalanced situation for the fixed costs of economic operators; absence of soil policy may hinder investments

Soil degradation is borne largely by society – the majority of the costs of ongoing degradation are off-site costs

Transboundary impacts of soil degradation - costs to restore environmental quality may be borne by a Member State different from the country where the soil degraded (erosion, groundwater, EU-Kyoto targets related to SOM-decline

ARGUMENTS FOR BINDING EU-ACTION (2)

Food safety- Uptake by food of contaminants in the soil may have an impact on the quality of products which are traded freely within the internal market and pose a risk for human health; action at source will complement food quality control

Human health- can in different ways be impaired due to soil degradation, such as (in)direct exposure to pollutants or flooding causing casualties

International impact- soil is increasingly part of international agreements and charters. An appropriate common framework enables EU to play a leading role internationally while at the same time securing competitiveness of EU economies

STRUCTURE OF THE DIRECTIVE

Objectives – Protection of soil functions

• Precautionary measures

• Integration in sectoral policies

• Prevention of contamination

• Identification of risk areas for erosion, organic matter decline, compaction, salinisation, landslides within 5 years

• Identification of contaminated sites within 25 years

• Programmes of Measures < 7y

• National Remediation Strategy < 7y

• Measures to limit or mitigate sealing

SOIL THREATS ADDRESSED BY THE SOIL FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE

EROSION

ORGANIC MATTER DECLINE

SALINISATION

COMPACTION

LANDSLIDES

CONTAMINATION

SEALING

Regional/national approach

Risk area approach

SOIL THREATS ADDRESSED BY THE SOIL FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE

Approach of the Directive concerning contamination

Common DEFINITION in

Directive

Common LIST OF POTENTIALLY

POLLUTING ACTIVITIES in Directive

Member States establish an INVENTORY of contaminated sites

Soil Status Report

Member States adopt a NATIONAL REMEDIATION STRATEGY

REPORT to Commission

MECHANISM FOR « ORPHAN SITES »

CONTAMINATION

DEFINITION: contamination posing a significant risk to human health or environment, taking into account current and approved future use.

LIST OF POTENTIALLY POLLUTING ACTIVITIES: to be established on Community level (Annex to the Directive).

INVENTORY OF CONTAMINATED SITES to list all contaminated sites by MS, to be regularly updated.

NATIONAL REMEDIATION STRATEGIES to be established by MS, containing targets, means, and prioritisation, to be regularly revised.

INVENTORY and STRATEGIES will have to be consulted with the public

CONTAMINATION

SOIL STATUS REPORT will be necessary for land where a potentially soil contaminating activity takes place or has taken place.

MECHANISMS TO FUND THE REMEDIATION OF ORPHAN SITES to be established by MS, such as funds or taxes for specific sectors and activities.

HARMONISATION OF RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES to be facilitated by the Commission and to be established if necessary under commitology.

REPORTING on inventory of contaminated sites and remediation strategies.

SEALING

IN ORDER TO PRESERVE SOIL FUNCTIONS, member states shall take appropriate measures to:

LIMIT sealing, e.g. by rehabilitating brownfield sites, OR

MITIGATE its negative effects on the functioning of soil

REPORT on measures taken by MS

SOIL THREATS ADDRESSED BY THE SOIL FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE

Approach of the Directive concerning erosion, organic matter decline, compaction

and landslides

Member States establish

RISK

ACCEPTABILITY

Risk Area IDENTIFICATION

Member States adopt MEASURES to achieve target

Member States establish a TARGET for Risk Area

COMMON CRITERIA set in Directive

REPORT to Commission

Model or empirical

MONITORING

EROSION, ORGANIC MATTER, COMPACTON, SALINISATION AND LANDSLIDES

IDENTIFICATION OF RISK AREAS by MS

For the 5 threats mentioned above:

MS can use monitoring data or models

MS can define different risk categoriesRisk identification must be based on common scientific

principles contained in an Annex (e.g. minimum input parameters for models, model validation, etc.)

EROSION, ORGANIC MATTER, COMPACTON, SALINISATION AND LANDSLIDES

ADOPTION OF PROGRAMMES OF MEASURES by MS

For risk areas, indicating what targets MS want toachieve

Measures to be established by MS Programmes will have to be consulted with the public Including an Impact Assessment

MONITORING OF PROGRESS AND REPORTING on risk area identification on measures taken and their effects

Water FDProgrammes of measures

Organic Farming

Action Plans

Rural Development

Cross Compliance

Structural Funds

UNCCDImplementation

Plans

Nitrates Directive

Action Plans

Natura 2000

Management Plans

Measures for Risk Areas

Activities/programmes supporting the programme of measures

The objective is to protect soil functions and ensure sustainable use of soil.

For sealingMS shall take the appropriate measures to limit sealing, or tomitigate its effects

For all other threats

Make an inventory/identify Risk Areas within 5 years

Make Programmes within 7 years Targets Measures Monitor progress

Report on progress and efficiency

SUMMARY- General approach

Consult PUBLIC

CONCLUSIES

Op EU-niveau is bodembeleid inclusief een wettelijke basis daarvoor nodig

De voor te stellen bodemstrategie/kaderrichtlijn laat NL voldoende ruimte haar huidige beleid zonder al te ingrijpende wijzigingen voort te zetten.

NL zal vooral moeten nadenken hoe het met de bedreigingen anders dan verontreiniging omgaat.

NEXT STEPS

Adoption by the Commission: 24 May (?) 2006. As soon as the Strategy is adopted, you will find it at…….http://ec.europa.eu/comm/environment/soil.index.htm

Debate and adoption in Parliament and Council: 2006 – 2008 (?) Entry into force: 2008? Pace depending on intensity debate Parliament, Council and

Commission in reaching agreement Council: pace depending on the Presidencies: AT, FI, DE, …)

Opinions COR and EESC: 2006 – 2008 (?) Transposition into National law by Member States: 2008 –

2010 Start Implementation by Member States: >2010