THEMATIC STRATEGY ON SOIL PROTECTION

1
THEMATIC STRATEGY ON SOIL PROTECTION
2
WHY A THEMATIC STRATEGY ON SOIL?

• Soil is a practically non-renewable natural
  resource
• Soil performs crucial functions for human
  activities and ecosystems survival
• Soils are increasingly degrading or irreversibly
  lost across the EUgt the Community acquis is
  manifestly not sufficient
• Costs of soil degradation are very high and are
  mainly borne by society and not by the land users
• There is no specific EU legislation on soil
  protection, hence a need for a comprehensive
  protective approach
• Commitment in the 6th EAP to adopt a Thematic
  Strategy on soil protection

3
A LONG PREPARATION HISTORY

• 1st meeting in Bonn in 1998 - creation of
  European Soil Forum
• 2nd meeting in Berlin in 1999
• 3rd meeting in Naples in 2001
• Communication of the Commission  Towards a Soil
  Thematic Strategy  in 2002 ? Positive Council
  Conclusions
• Very comprehensive stakeholder consultation more
  than 400 organisations and experts involved
  during 2003/2004
• Six volumes of recommendations from stakeholders
  (2004)
• Internet Consultation in 2005 with 2,000 replies
• Commission adoption of the proposal for a Soil TS
  in 2006

4
SOIL DEGRADATIONTYPES OF COSTS
5
CONTENT OF THE THEMATIC STRATEGY

6

• Communication COM(2006)231

7
COMMUNICATION

• It lays down the objective of soil policy the
  protection of soil functions across the EU
• Sets out the four pillars
• It indicates the next steps at EU level

8
FOUR PILLARS OFEU SOIL POLICY
AWARENESS RAISING
RESEARCH
INTEGRATION OF SOIL PROTECTION ASPECTS
LEGISLATION Proposal for a Soil Framework
Directive COM(2006)232
9
WHY A FLEXIBLE BUT LEGALLY BINDING APPROACH AT EU
LEVEL?

• To protect a practically non renewable resource
  of common interest across the EU
• To protect other media covered by the EU acquis
• To address the transboundary impacts of soil
  degradation
• To minimise the distortion of competition in the
  internal market
• To enhance food safety of products freely traded
  in the EU
• To diminish human health impacts
• To play a leading role in the international arena

10
FILLING THE GAP
AIR legislation
NATURE legislation

• WATER
• legislation

SOIL legislation
11

• Proposal for a Soil Framework DirectiveCOM(2006)
  232

12
THREATS ADDRESSED IN THESOIL FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE
CONTAMINATION
SEALING
EROSION
ORGANIC MATTER DECLINE
SALINISATION
COMPACTION
LANDSLIDES
13
STRUCTURE OF THE DIRECTIVE
OBJECTIVE Protection soil functions-Art. 1

• Integration in sectoral policies-Art. 3
• Precautionary measures-Art. 4
• Prevention of contamination-Art. 9
• Measures to limit or mitigate sealing-Art. 5

• Prevention

• Identification of risk areas for erosion, organic
  matter decline, compaction, salinisation,
  landslides-5 years-Articles 6, 7
• Identification of contaminated sites - 25 years-
  Artt. 10, 11, 12

• Identification

• Programmes of Measures-Art. 8
• National Remediation Strategy-Artt. 13, 14

• Action

14
OBJECTIVES Art. 1

• Protection of soil - the preservation of SOIL
  FUNCTIONS
• biomass production, incl. agriculture forestry
• storing, filtering, transforming nutrients,
  substances, water
• (c) biodiversity pool, habitats, species and
  genes
• (d) physical and cultural environment for
  humansand human activities
• (e) source of raw materials
• (f) acting as carbon pool
• archive of geological and archaeological heritage
• Measures for the prevention and restoration of
  degraded soils

15
PREVENTIVE OBLIGATIONS

• Integration Art. 3
• Identify and assess the impacts of sectoral
  policies likely to exacerbate or reduce soil
  degradation processes.
• Precautionary measures Art. 4
• Obligation for land user to take precautions to
  prevent or minimise significant negative effects
  on soil functions.
• Sealing Art. 5
• Member States shall take appropriate measures to
  limit sealing or, where sealing is to be carried
  out, to mitigate its effects.

16
AGRICULTURAL THREATS
Erosion
17
AGRICULTURAL THREATS
18
AGRICULTURAL THREATS Articles 6 and 7

• Identification of risk areas at the appropriate
  level within five years from transposition
• Using the common criteria (e.g. soil type,
  texture, density, hydraulic properties,
  topography, land cover, land use, climate, etc.)
  listed in Annex I
• Taking into account the effects on climate
  change and desertification
• To be made public and reviewedevery ten years

19
AGRICULTURAL THREATS Article 8

• Application of programmes of measures within
  eight years from transposition and containing
• risk reduction targets
• appropriate measures for reaching those targets
• a timetable for implementation
• estimate of allocation of private or public
  funds
• To be made public and reviewedevery five years

20
Activities/programmes that could support the
programme of measures
21
CONTAMINATION Article 10
Definition of contaminated site a site where
there is a confirmed presence, caused by man, of
dangerous substances of such a level that Member
States consider they pose a significant risk to
human health or the environment. That risk shall
be evaluated taking into account current and
approved future use of the land
22
PREVENTIVE OBLIGATION CONCERNING DIFFUSE AND
LOCAL CONTAMINATION Art. 9
To limit the (un)intentional introduction of
dangerous substances to avoid accumulation
that would hamper soil functions or cause
significant risks to human health or environment
Provision to be read in conjunction with other
EU legislation
23
(No Transcript)
24
INVENTORY AND IDENTIFICATION Articles 10 and 11
Obligation for Member States to establish an
inventory of contaminated sites in 25 years and
made it public, based at least on the following
list of potentially soil-polluting activities
contained in Annex II

• Seveso installations
• Airports
• Former military sites
• Dry cleaners
• Landfills of waste
• Pipelines for dangerous substances

• IPPC installations
• Ports
• Petrol and filling stations
• Mining installations
• Waste water treatment plants

25
INVENTORY AND IDENTIFICATION
1st step (within five years)
2nd step
Active site
3rd step
Non-active site
Chemical analysis
Risk assessment
Contaminated site
National Inventory
26
INTERMEDIATE OBJECTIVES OF THE IDENTIFICATION
PROCEDURE Art. 11(3)
Within 5 years 10
?
?
?
?
?
Within 15 years 60
Within 25 years 100
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Investigation concluded to determine if
contaminated site
27
NATIONAL REMEDIATION STRATEGY Articles 13 and
14

• Obligation to remediate contaminated sites no
  deadline fixed
• Definition of remediation

actions on the soil aimed at the removal,
control, containment or reduction of
contaminants, taking account of its current use
and approved future use, so that the contaminated
site no longer poses any significant risk to
human health or the environment

• Within seven years, draw up a National
  Remediation Strategy, including
• remediation targets
• a prioritisation, starting with those sites
  which pose asignificant risk to human health
• a timetable for implementation
• funds allocated

28
SOIL STATUS REPORT Article 12

• When selling a site where there is or there has
  been a SOIL POLLUTING ACTIVITY
• Buyer or seller provides it to the COMPETENT
  AUTHORITY and the other party in the transaction
  a report on the state of the soil
• the background history of the site
• a chemical analysis
• concentration levels posing a risk
• OBJECTIVES
• Inform the possible buyer very similar
  provision in Energy Efficiency Directive
• Inform the competent authorities and facilitate
  and speed up the set up of the inventory of
  contaminated sites

29
MECHANISM FOR ORPHAN SITES Article 13(3)

• Set up appropriate mechanisms to fund the
  remediation of the contaminated sites for which
  the polluter
• cannot be identified
• cannot be held liable under Community or
  national legislation
• may not be made to bear the costs of remediation

30
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION,AWARENESS RAISING-Art. 15

• Measures to raise awareness about the importance
  of soil and promote the transfer of knowledge
• The development of Programmes of measures and
  National Remediation Strategies have to undergo
  public participation procedures

31
OTHER PROVISIONS

• Reporting Article 16
• Platform for exchange of information
  (harmonisation) Art. 17
• Comitology Articles 18 and 19
• Report from the Commission Article 20
• Review clause of the Directive (after 15 years)
  Article 21
• Penalties Article 22
• Amendment to Environmental Liability Directive
  Art. 23
• Transposition (within 24 months) Article 24

32
TENTATIVE TIMETABLE
33

• Impact Assessment
• Summary SEC(2006)1165
• Full report SEC(2006)620

34
IMPACT ASSESSMENT

• Costs of soil degradation in the EU25 that could
  be estimated reach up to 38 billion per year

• Costs and benefits of the Directive derive from
• the identification of the problem
• the measures that will be taken by MS to redress
  the situation

35
COSTS OF SOIL DEGRADATION
These costs do not include the damage to the
ecological functions of soil.
36
COSTS DERIVED DIRECTLY FROM THE DIRECTIVE

• Costs of knowing where the problem is
• establishment of risk areas
• 2 million/year
• inventory of contaminated sites
• 50 million/year for first 5 years to locate the
  soil polluting activities for EU25
• up to 240 million/year for the investigations
  for 25 years EU25
• Benefits of identification of problem - only
  qualitatively assessed
• For illustrative purposes only
• Costs of possible measures scenarios developed
  in Annex I
• Benefits of possible measures scenarios
  developed in Annex I
• ?Directive does not establish who bears the costs
  of its implementation

37

• Conclusions

38
CONCLUSIONS

• Commission has followed the procedures of Better
  Law Making and of the Protocol on subsidiarity,
  as it has
• consulted extensively all stakeholders and taken
  on board and make use of expertise
• assessed the economic social and environmental
  impacts
• built its proposal on existing legislation so
  avoiding duplication
• considered several possible instruments
• included statements to check compliance with the
  principles of subsidiarity and proportionality
• respected fully subsidiarity - measures to act
  upon the degradation are left to MS and the local
  and regional particularities can then be fully
  taken into account

39
CONCLUSIONS (cont.)

• The Directive is very flexible as MS
• set their own levels of ambition,
• chose their own environmental targets,
• chose their own measures and time-tables
• It sets the deadlines and common criteria for the
  identification of the location and the extent of
  soil degradation
• Commission will prepare a Common Implementation
  Strategy for the Directive and the other pillars
  of the strategy to
• continue the partnership with MS and stakeholders
  
• initiate activities to support MS in identifying
  and developing the most cost-effective measures
• allow better cooperation between MS in reaching
  comparable approaches to soil protection

40
http//ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/index.htm htt
p//www.mmediu.ro/integrare/integrare.htm