THEMATIC STRATEGY ON SOIL PROTECTION

1. Human Health Air Biomass Production (e.g. food chain) Culture Open Water Biodiversity Soil Ground Water W.E.H. Blum, 2004 THEMATIC STRATEGY ON SOIL PROTECTION

2. Background TOWARDS COMMUNICATION- April 2002 SOILS THREATS IDENTIFIED Erosion Biodiversity loss Decline in Organic Matter Compaction Soil Contamination Soil sealing Salinisation Floods and landslides INTEGRATION of soil protection aspects in other policies

3. 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

4. CONTENT OF THETHEMATIC STRATEGY • Communication • Proposal for a Soil Framework Directive • Impact Assessment

5. CONTENT OF THETHEMATIC STRATEGY • Communication

6. STRUCTURE OF THE COMMUNICATION • Assessment of the situation • Objectives of the strategy • Actions and means • Soil Framework Directive • Research (following recommendations from WG, special emphasis on biodiversity issues) • Integration into sectoral policies (by COM, e.g. amendments of the IPPC Directive) • Awareness raising (soil atlas, summer school etc.) • Expected impacts and results • Next steps

7. 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

8. Proposal for a Soil Framework Directive

9. 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

10. 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

11. STRUCTURE OF THE DIRECTIVE Objectives – Protection of soil functions • Precautionary measures • Integration in sectoral policies • Prevention of contamination Prevention • Identification of risk areas for erosion, organic matter decline, compaction, salinisation, landslides within 5 years • Identification of contaminated sites within 25 years Identification • Programmes of Measures < 7y • National Remediation Strategy < 7y • Measures to limit or mitigate sealing Action

12. EROSION ORGANIC MATTER DECLINE SALINISATION COMPACTION LANDSLIDES SOIL THREATS ADDRESSED BY THE SOIL FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE Regional/national approach CONTAMINATION SEALING Risk area approach

13. SOIL THREATS ADDRESSED BY THE SOIL FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE Approach of the Directive concerning contamination

15. 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

16. 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.

17. 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

18. SOIL THREATS ADDRESSED BY THE SOIL FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE Approach of the Directive concerning erosion, organic matter decline, compaction and landslides

20. 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 categories • Risk identification must be based on common scientific principles contained in an Annex (e.g. minimum input parameters for models, model validation, etc.)

21. EROSION, ORGANIC MATTER, COMPACTON, SALINISATION AND LANDSLIDES • ADOPTION OF PROGRAMMES OF MEASURES • by MS • For risk areas, indicating what targets MS want to achieve • 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

22. Activities/programmes supporting the programme of measures

23. SUMMARY- General approach • The objective is to protect soil functions and ensure sustainable use of soil. • For sealing • MS shall take the appropriate measures to limit sealing, or to • mitigate 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 Consult PUBLIC

24. 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.

25. 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