· 1 Deliverable 9.1: Up-to-date review of EU policies and integrated impact assessment...

www.recare-project.eu

Up-to-date review of EU policies and integrated impact assessment methodology Authors: Frelih-Larsen, A., S. Naumann, L. Porsch, E. Dooley, S.Bell, B. Görlach

Report number: 19 Deliverable: D9.1 Report type: Scientific Report Issue date: 22/12/2016 Project partner: EI, Germany Version: V 1.0

RECARE PROJECT REPORT

ii

DOCUMENT SUMMARY

Project Information

Project Title: Preventing and remediating degradation of soils in Europe through Land Care

Project Acronym: RECARE

Call Identifier: FP7 -‐ ENV.2013.6.2-4: Sustainable land care in Europe

Grant agreement no.: 603498

Starting Date: 01.11.2013

End Date: 31.10.2018

Project duration 66 months

Web-‐Site address: www.recare-project.eu

Project coordinator: Wageningen University

EU project representative & coordinator:

Prof. Dr. C.J. Ritsema - ([email protected])- +31 317 486517

Project manager: Dr. Rudi Hessel – ([email protected]) - +31 317 486530

Report Information

Report Title: Up-to-date review of EU policies and integrated impact assessment methodology

Principle Author(s): Ana Frelih-Larsen, S. Naumann, L. Porsch, E. Dooley, S.Bell, B. Görlach

Corresponding Author e-mail:

Ana Frelih-Larsen ([email protected])

Deliverable Number: D9.1

Work Package: WP9

WP Leader: Ecologic Institute (EI)

Nature: PP

Dissemination: Document

Editor (s): Rudi Hessel

E-‐Mail(s): [email protected]

Telephone Number:

+31 317 486530

Report Due Date 01-12-2015

Report publish date: 21-12-2016

Copyright ©2016 the RECARE project and Partners Copyright notice and disclaimer: http://tinyurl.com/recare-disclaimer

mailto:[email protected])-

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://tinyurl.com/recare-disclaimer

iv

RECARE partner list

No Name Short name Country Country

1 WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY WU Netherlands NL

2 TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF CRETE TUC Greece GR

3 AARHUS UNIVERSITET AU Denmark DK

4 UNIVERSITAT DE VALENCIA UVEG Spain ES

5 THE CYPRUS INSTITUTE LIMITED CyI Cyprus CY

6 NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE OF BIOECONOMY RESEARCH NIBIO Norway NO

7 UNIVERSIDADE DE AVEIRO UA Portugal PT

8 LANDGRAEDSLA RIKISINS SCSI Iceland IS

9 EVENOR TECH SL EVENOR TECH Spain ES

10 UNIVERSITAET BERN UNIBE Switzerland CH

11 UMWELTBUNDESAMT GMBH EAA Austria AT

12 STICHTING INTERNATIONAL SOIL REFERENCE AND INFORMATION CENTRE ISRIC Netherlands NL

13 JRC -JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE- EUROPEAN COMMISSION JRC Belgium IT

14 ECOLOGIC INSTITUT gemeinnützige GmbH EI Germany DE

15 UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS UNIVLEEDS United Kingdom UK

16 STICHTING WAGENINGEN RESEARCH WEnR Netherlands NL

17 CONSULT AND RESEARCH ON PARTICIPATION AND GENDER - COREPAGE - CLARINGBOULD HELEEN ELSA

COREPAGE Netherlands NL

18 SVERIGES LANTBRUKSUNIVERSITET SLU Sweden SE

19 AGENCIA ESTATAL CONSEJO SUPERIOR DE INVESTIGACIONES CIENTIFICAS CSIC Spain ES

20 SLOVENSKA TECHNICKA UNIVERZITA V BRATISLAVE STUBA Slovakia SK

21 INSTITUTUL NATIONAL DE CERCETARE-DEZVOLTARE PENTRU PEDOLOGIE, AGROCHIMIE SI PROTECTIA MEDIULUI

ICPA Romania RO

22 INSTYTUT UPRAWY NAWOZENIA I GLEBOZNAWSTWA, PANSTWOWY INSTYTUT BADAWCZY

IUNG Poland PO

23 UNIVERSITY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE UOG United Kingdom UK

24 RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS BV RIKS Netherlands NL

25 CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY CU United Kingdom UK

26 UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI PADOVA UNIPD Italy IT

27 KONGSKILDE INDUSTRIES AS KONGSKILDE Denmark DK

28 UNIVERSITY OF READING READING United Kingdom UK

29 AGRO INTELLIGENCE APS AGRO INTELLI Denmark DK

1

Deliverable 9.1: Up-to-date review of EU policies and integrated impact assessment methodology

Due date of deliverable: 31/12/2015 Actual submission date: 22/12/2016

Revision: Final Draft

Organization name of lead contractor for this deliverable: Ecologic Institute

Authors: Frelih-Larsen, A., S. Naumann, L. Porsch, E. Dooley, B. Görlach, S.Bell

Dissemination level: PP

Starting date: 01/11/2013 Duration: 60 months Project number: 603498

The project RECARE (Grant Agreement N° 603498) is funded by the European Commission, 7th Framework Programme ENV.2013.6.2-4 “Sustainable land care in Europe” .The

views and opinions expressed in this report are purely those of the writers and may not in any circumstances be regarded as

stating an official position of the European Commission.

2

Table of Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 3

2 EU Policies for Soil Protection ........................................................................................ 4

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 4

2.2 Overview of policies ................................................................................................ 5

2.3 Relevance of EU policies to soil threats................................................................... 8

2.4 Policy instruments for the impact assessment ........................................................11

3 Integrated Impact Assessment Methodology .................................................................12

3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................12

3.2 Impact Chains as the basic building block for the Impact Assessment ...................13

3.3 Steps in the impact assessment .............................................................................14

3.4 The scope of the Impact Assessment .....................................................................21

3.5 Timeframe for the impact assessment ....................................................................23

3.6 Dealing with limited data availability .......................................................................23

Annex 1: Typology of policy instruments ..............................................................................24

Annex 2: Summary Overview of EU Policy Instruments Relevant for Soil Protection ............27

Annex 3: Overview of National Policies Relevant for Dominant and Secondary Soil Threats in the RECARE Case Studies ..................................................................................................38

Annex 4: Example of an Impact Chain ..................................................................................53

Annex 5: EU-level Policy Instruments relevant for Soil Protection ........................................61

3

1 Introduction

Soils in the European Union are an essential yet often undervalued and degraded resource. Soils deliver numerous important functions and ecosystem services, including, for example, water and nutrient cycling, biomass and food production, or habitats for species. At the same time, soils are affected by a range of degradation processes, in particular: erosion, floods and landslides, loss of soil organic matter, salinisation, contamination, compaction, sealing, and loss of soil biodiversity (COM 2006). The RECARE project aims to develop effective prevention, remediation and restoration measures using an innovative trans-disciplinary approach, actively integrating and advancing knowledge of stakeholders and scientists in 17 case studies, covering a range of soil threats in different bio-physical and socio-economic environments across Europe. In the RECARE case studies the following activities have been or are taking place:

The current state of degradation and conservation has been assessed using a new methodology, based on the WOCAT mapping procedure,

The relevant soil conservation measures and policy approaches in case studies have been identified, using WOCAT questionnaires

Impacts of degradation and conservation on soil functions and ecosystem services will be quantified in a harmonised, spatially explicit way, accounting for costs and benefits, and possible trade-offs,

Prevention, remediation and restoration measures that have been selected and are being implemented / tested will be evaluated regarding efficacy by stakeholders in a participatory process, and

The applicability and impact of these RECARE measures at the European level will be assessed using a new integrated bio-physical and socio-economic model, accounting for land use dynamics as a result of for instance economic development and policies.

Moreover, in collaboration with case studies but also moving beyond the case study level to examine national and EU level policies, RECARE aims to carry out an integrated impact assessment of existing soil protection policy instruments in the EU, and develop recommendations for future soil policy. This deliverable is the first step of this policy assessment. Specifically, this report presents an up-to-date review of the existing policy instruments at the EU level which are relevant for soil protection. In the review, 28 most relevant EU policy instruments have been examined with respect to their provisions and mechanisms, differentiating between policies and instruments which directly address soil protection (i.e. explicitly focus on one or more soil threats in their aims and objectives) and policies which indirectly address soil threats (i.e. require the implementation of soil protection meaures to achieve an objective of the policy). This analysis shows whether, and how, the selected policy instruments have the potential to enhance soil protection. Furthermore, in this report we also identify the policy instruments in RECARE case study countries which will be the focus of the impact assessment at the national level. The review thereby also provides a basis to determine the scope of the integrated policy assessment. In addition to this policy review, this document also outlines the steps of the impact assessment approach that are being further developed and will be first tested and then implemented together with RECARE case study partners. Detailed guidelines for the assessment will be finalised after the test-phase, and training will be given to all case study partners in early 2017.

4

The structure of the report is as follows. Chapter 2 provides overview of the main policy instruments at EU level, with additional information available in Annexes 1 – 3, and the detailed analyis of EU level instruments available in Annex 5. Chapter 3 outlines the steps for the integrated impact assessment. A draft of this deliverable was uploaded to SESAM in January 2016. Since then, the team preparing this report has also been involved in the project for DG Environment titled Updated Inventory and Assessment of Soil Protection Policy Instruments in EU Member States (in short, Soil Inventory project)1 running from December 2015 through December 2016 (Contract Nr. ENV. B.1/SER/2015/0022). During 2016 the work on the two projects ran in parallel. The work under the Soil Inventory project benefited and built on the EU level analysis carried out previously in the RECARE project. In turn, this RECARE deliverable benefits from the information collected under the Soil Inventory project on instruments identified at Member State level. For this reason, it was decided that the deliverable would be updated in December 2016 in order to integrate the information on Member State level instruments (i.e. Annex 2).

2 EU Policies for Soil Protection

2.1 Introduction A wide range of policy instruments at EU level exists with relevance to soil protection. These include regulatory instruments, incentives, monitoring and advice within the context of sectors such as agriculture, forestry, waste, industry, renewable energy and in relation to the protection of other natural resources including water, biodiversity, and air. Given the cross-cutting nature of soils and diverse thematic and sectoral approaches in place, the large number of relevant instruments for soil protection is not surprising. Following the withdrawal of the proposal for a Soil Framework Directive in 2014, there is, however, no mechanism available at EU level that would coordinate and integrate all the different soil relevant provisions across the policy areas and instruments. Assessing the impact of different policies on soil threats requires a good evidence base (building upon experiences and results across the EU Member States). As part of this scoping study, several EU policies as well as selected strategies and programmes have been reviewed in terms of their targets and respective policy instruments which are likely to directly and indirectly support or hamper soil protection. Short of a thorough impact assessment at regional and national level, such analysis provides a first indication of whether a policy has the potential to enhance soil protection, or could inadvertently even contribute to further soil degradation. Table 1 lists the 28 existing EU policy instruments which have been identified to have the most relevance for soil protection. These instruments can be broadly divided in three subgroups: 1) directives, regulations and decisions (regulatory binding instruments), 2) strategies, programmes and guidelines (regulatory non-binding instruments), and 3) funds (financing instruments).

1 This project was carried out by the Ecologic Institute in cooperation with IEEP, Milieu, CEET, BEF Group and KU , for more

information see http://ecologic.eu/13090.

http://ecologic.eu/13090

5

Table 2.1: Overview of the key EU policies relevant for soil protection

Directives, Regulations and Decisions

Strategies, Programmes and Guidelines

EU Funds

Water Framework Directive

Floods Directive

Nitrates Directive

Pesticides Directive

Environmental Impact Assessment Directive

Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive

Environmental Liability Directive

Habitats and Birds Directives

Industrial Emissions Directive

Sewage Sludge Directive

Landfill Directive

Renewable Energy Directive

Waste Framework Directive

Fertiliser Regulation

Soil Thematic Strategy

7th Environment Action Programme

Roadmap to Resource Efficient Europe

Soil Sealing Guidelines

Adaptation Strategy

Forest Action Plan; Forestry Strategy

Biodiversity Strategy

Emissions Trading Scheme

Effort Sharing Decision

Common Agricultural Policy

Cohesion Fund

European Social Fund

European Regional Development Fund

LIFE+ Programme

Each of these policy instruments was analysed for the following aspects:

1. Name of policy and brief summary of implementation 2. Policy field (water, agriculture, biodiversity, energy) 3. Aims of the policy 4. Relevance to soil protection 5. Soil-focused aims and objectives 6. Soil focused targets and/or expected impacts 7. Mandatory requirements and voluntary options for Member States (with a focus on

soil) 8. Assessment of environmental status 9. Reporting units 10. Examples of implementation approaches in case study area

A summary of the relevance of the policy instruments for soil protection is available in Annex 2, whereas Annex 5 contains the full analysis of the individual instruments. In the remainder of this chapter a summary commentary is offered on the types of instruments in place, their relevance to soil threats and which policy instruments will be the focus for the impact assessment to be conducted in RECARE project.

2.2 Overview of policies The policies reviewed vary in terms of how soil is addressed within the objectives or scope of the policy. Some policies deal with specific soil threats and focus either solely or in large part on soil protection. For example, the Floods Directive aims to prevent or reduce the impacts of floods/landslides and erosion from flooding in high risk areas. The Sewage Sludge Directive, Industrial Emissions Directive and Landfill Directive all share, among other objectives, the overarching objective of preventing soil contamination from activities covered under the respective policies.

6

Several (non-binding) strategies, programmes and guidelines are available at the EU level that are relevant for soil protection. The EU Soil Thematic Strategy is the most comprehensive and soil-focused document addressing all soil threats and soil functions. The Soil Thematic Strategy was accompanied by a legislative proposal for a Soil Framework Directive which was withdrawn in May 2014, thus leaving in place only the non-binding aspects of the strategy (research, awareness-raising, integration in other policy areas). While relating to broader environmental objectives, the 7th Environment Action Programme and the Roadmap for Resource Efficient Europe include soil-related targets. As an overarching programme for improving the implementation of environment policy in the EU, the 7th EAP sets a mandate for the European Commission to pursue the development of a binding legal framework for soils at EU level. The Resource Efficient Europe Roadmap includes sets medium and long-term objectives for soil protection and ways to achieve them (i.e. 1) that EU policies take into account their direct and indirect impact on land use in the EU globally, and keep on track the rate of land take with an aim to achieve no net land take by 2050; and 2) that action is continuously implemented for reducing soil erosion and increasing organic matter and set up a schedule for remedial work on contaminated sites). Moreover, the Soil Sealing Guidelines provide guidance for how to reduce or prevent the occurrence of soil sealing through land use planning and improved soil management and are inherently also voluntary. Not specific to soil but also important as an overarching policy which affects soil threats is the Adaptation Strategy, which encourages Member States to adopt comprehensive adaptation strategies to respond to the impacts of climate change, including consideration of soil issues among all aspects of the environment. Finally, more limited provisions relevant for soils are available within the biodiversity, forestry and climate change strategies. In addition to non-binding instruments, several directives pursue objectives other than soil protection but contain provisions that directly or indirectly impact the various soil threats. The Nitrates Directive and the Water Framework Directive both aim to improve the status of water bodies throughout the EU, the former by reducing the amount of nitrate concentration and the WFD focusing on more broadly on achieving good ecological status in all of Europe’s water bodies, including both water quality and water quantity issues. These policies include provisions with relevance to soil management in order to reduce the impacts on water from certain soil threats, such as soil erosion, contamination (point source and diffuse) or compaction, since the latter reduces water infiltration in soils, and instead increases the runoff of soil particles and nutrients into water bodies. The Habitats and Birds Directives focus on conserving biodiversity in special protected areas within the EU. The provisions for the management of those protected areas can also benefit soil quality, including soil biodiversity. Furthermore, a number of procedural policies are in place, which do not focus on protecting a single environmental resource, but generally aim to limit negative environmental impacts from plans or projects. Specifically, Directives on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) require identification of significant environmental damage which would occur from projects, plans or programmes, including damage to soils. Moreover, the Environmental Liability Directive covers among others soil contamination, and provides an explicit framework for remedying damages from soil contamination. A range of funding instruments are available with relevance to soil protection. First, the Structural Funds and Cohesion Policy Cohesion Fund and the ERDF contribute to regional development, promoting jobs and growth, and intending to reduce the varying levels of development between EU regions. These funds can provide funding under thematic priorities: d)“protecting and restoring biodiversity and soil and promoting ecosystem services,

7

including through Natura 2000, and green infrastructure” and f) “promoting innovative technologies to improve environmental protection and resource efficiency in the waste sector, water sector and with regard to soil, or to reduce air pollution”. This could also include support for remediation of contaminated sites. Secondly, the LIFE Programme enables funding for environmental projects which may potentially benefit all soil threats2. Thirdly, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the most important funding instrument for land management in the EU, and a key instrument relevant for soil management on agricultural and forest soils. Common Agricultural Policy The three elements of the CAP which are most relevant for soil protection are: 1) Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) standards under the cross-compliance, 2) greening payment requirements, 3) rural development programmes. The cross-compliance GAEC standards are mandatory conditions for the receipt of payments under the CAP and since they are applicable to all arable land that receives payment under the CAP, they are one of the key instruments for soil protection on agricultural land. GAECs are an important mechanism for soil protection in the EU requiring minimum soil cover (GAEC 4), minimum land management reflecting site specific conditions to limit erosion (GAEC 5) and maintenance of soil organic matter (GAEC 6). GAECs are also important to consider since they set the baseline for agri-environment-climate measures funded under the rural development programmes – i.e. agri-environment-climate measures can only pay farmers for carrying out farming practices which are more ambitious than the GAECs themselves. The GAECs represent the duty of care for farmers. Due to the principle of subsidiarity in the EU which ensures that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the local context, Member States choose the specific definitions for GAECs for their different environmental conditions3. Hence, varying definitions of GAECs have been translated into the MS’ national legislative frameworks. The EU level standards as they apply for the 2014 – 2020 periods are outlined in Table 2.2 below. Table 2.2. GAECs for the 2014 – 2020 CAP

Issue GAECs Standards

Water (1) GAEC 1 Establishment of buffer strips along water courses

(2) GAEC 2 Where use of water for irrigation is subject to authorisation, compliance with authorisation procedures

(3) GAEC 3 Protection of ground water against pollution4

Soil and carbon stock

(4) GAEC 4 Minimum soil cover

(5) GAEC 5 Minimum land management reflecting site specific conditions to limit erosion

(6) GAEC 6 Maintenance of soil organic matter level through appropriate practices including ban on burning arable stubble, except for plant health reasons

5

2 An illustrative list of projects is included in the publication “LIFE and Soil protection”

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/pdf/LIFE%20and%20Soil%20protection.pdf 3 “Member States shall define, at national or regional level, minimum standards for beneficiaries for good agricultural and

environmental condition of land on the basis of Annex II, taking into account the specific characteristics of the areas concerned, including soil and climatic condition, existing farming systems, land use, crop rotation, farming practices, and farm structures.” Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, Article 94. 4 “prohibition of direct discharge into groundwater and measures to prevent indirect pollution of groundwater through discharge

on the ground and percolation through the soil of dangerous substances, as listed in the Annex to Directive 80/68/EEC in its version in force on the last day of its validity, as far as it relates to agricultural activity” 5 The Annex II rules setting forth the GAEC requirements for cross-compliance in the 2014-2020 programming period specifies

that “The requirement can be limited to a general ban on burning arable stubble, but a Member State may decide to prescribe further requirements.”

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/pdf/LIFE%20and%20Soil%20protection.pdf

8

Issue GAECs Standards

Landscape, minimum level of maintenance

GAEC 7 Retention of landscape features, including where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated, field margins and terraces, and including a ban on cutting hedges and trees during the bird breeding and rearing season and, as an option, measures for avoiding invasive plant species

The greening payment requirements are the second important element for soil management in CAP. Direct green payments are a new element of Pillar 1 for the 2014 – 2020 programming period. Greening requirements fall into three groups: i) crop diversification, ii) Ecological Focus Areas (EFA), and iii) the protection of permanent grassland. Of these, EFAs and the protective designation of permanent grasslands have the greatest potential for soil protection, particularly in relation to erosion and soil carbon. Both management authorities and farmers have a considerable degree of choice in how they implement greening payments, particularly in choosing between measures with varying degrees of benefits for soils. The Rural Development Programmes (or Pillar 2 of the CAP) enable the funding of targeted and ambitious soil protection measures in agricultural and forest management, for example, including support to offset higher costs associated with management practices (such as cover crops, conservation tillage, residue management, or organic farming), support for investments in machinery needed for good soil management, or support for access to farm advisory services to support farmers in carrying out good soil management. Rural development programmes also allow for funding of cooperation measures among farmers. The most important funding measures are listed below:

M01 - Knowledge transfer and information actions

M02 - Advisory services, farm management and farm relief services

M04 - Investments in physical assets

M08 - Investments in forest area development and improvement of the viability of forests M10 - Agri-environment-climate

M11 - Organic farming

M16 - Co-operation

M08 - Investments in forest area development and improvement of the viability of forests

M15 - Forest environmental and climate services and forest conservation The selection and design of measures to fund and the types of practices to support are left to the Member States (with a few exceptions for measures that are compulsory, including agri-environment-climate measure and organic farming). This means that there is significant variability among Member States in terms of the soil protection practices that are supported. In conclusion, while the above overview shows that various instruments at EU level address soil protection, these instruments remain without an overarching framework that would contain binding mechanisms to coordinate and integrate all the different provisions relevant for soil protection.

2.3 Relevance of EU policies to soil threats Based on the detailed analysis presented in Annex 5, an overview of the relevance of the EU instruments for different soil threats is given in Table 2. This table differentiates between explicit and implicit coverage of soil threats in the different EU level instruments.

9

Table 2.3: Coverage of soil threats by EU policies E - Explicitly: A policy instrument states in its aims, objectives or mechanisms that it addresses a soil threat. I - Implicitly: The relevance to soil threat is inferred from the content of the instrument

EU Instruments

Co

mp

acti

on

Dif

fus

e C

on

t.

Po

int

So

urc

e

Co

nt.

Desert

i-fi

cati

on

Ero

sio

n b

y

win

d

Ero

sio

n b

y

wate

r

Flo

od

s/

lan

ds

lid

es

Lo

ss o

f

bio

div

ers

ity

Lo

ss S

OM

(m

ine

ral

an

d

org

an

ic

so

ils)

Salin

isati

on

So

il S

ealin

g

Directives / Regulations (binding)


E I

E E I I

I

Floods Directive I

I I E

I

Nitrates Directive

E I

I


I I

I


I

I


I

I

I I I I I

I

Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive I I I I I I I I I I I


I E

I

Habitats and Birds Directives I I I

I I

I I


E E

I I

I


E E

I

Landfill Directive

E E

I

I


E E

I I

Renewable Energy Directive I

I I

I I

Emission Trading System

I I I I I

10

EU Instruments

Co

mp

acti

on

Dif

fus

e C

on

t.

Po

int

So

urc

e

Co

nt.

Desert

i-fi

cati

on

Ero

sio

n b

y

win

d

Ero

sio

n b

y

wate

r

Flo

od

s/

lan

ds

lid

es

Lo

ss o

f

bio

div

ers

ity

Lo

ss S

OM

(m

ine

ral

an

d

org

an

ic

so

ils)

Salin

isati

on

So

il S

ealin

g


I I I I

Strategies / Programmes (non-binding)

Soil Thematic Strategy E E E E E E E I E E E

Biodiversity Strategy I

I

I I I I I

I

7th Environmental Action Programme

E E E E E I I E I E

Roadmap to Resource Efficient Europe

E E

E E E

E

E

Soil Sealing Guidelines I

I

I I I I I E

EU Forest Action Plan and Forest Strategy

I I I I I I

Adaptation Strategy I

E E E I I

I

Funds

Green Payment - CAP I I

I I I I I

GAEC standards - CAP I I I I E E I I E I

RDPs - CAP I I I I E E I I I I

LIFE+ Programme

I I

I I I I I E

Cohesion Fund

E

I

European Social Fund

I

European Regional Development Fund

I E

I

11

The soil threat which was found to be most directly targeted by policies is contamination, in particular industrial and point source contamination. It is covered by provisions in a number of binding regulatory instruments aiming to prevent or reduce its occurrence (e.g., Sewage Sludge Directive, Landfills Directive, Industrial Emissions Directive), remedy contamination after it has occurred (e.g., Environmental Liability Directive), and evaluate the acceptability of potential impacts through procedural requirements (e.g., Environmental Impact Assessment Directive). In addition to soil contamination, only soil erosion is explicitly addressed in directives and regulations at EU level. Other threats are addressed only implicitly by binding EU legislation. Soil threats are more consistently addressed in non-binding rules, i.e. strategies and programmes, which do not set mandatory requirements for Member States to implement soil protection measures. Among the funding instruments, the CAP explicitly targets erosion and loss of soil organic matter, and the Cohesion Fund and European Regional Development Fund explicitly address soil contamination.

2.4 Policy instruments for the impact assessment The starting point for the impact assessment are policy instruments available in RECARE case study countries, where the differentiation can be made between instruments linked directly to the EU level legislative requirements and instruments which have no link to EU legislation. Annex 3 lists the instruments that are implemented in countries with a RECARE case study and which will be the focus for the national impact assessment. The results of the assessment at RECARE country level will be upscaled to the EU level to the extent possible (in collaboration with the WP8 modelling). The primary focus for this upscaling will be to see the impact of those EU level instruments which explicit or implicitly address the different soil threats in a binding manner (i.e. the regulatory binding instruments which set requirements for concrete instruments at MS level) as well as the funding instruments. For the EU non-binding instruments, the impact on soil protection is difficult to attribute since there is no direct requirement set for Member States to implement.

12

3 Integrated Impact Assessment Methodology

3.1 Introduction The impact assessment in Work Package 9 aims to understand and, as far as possible, quantify the environmental and socio economic impacts of EU policies for soil protection. The impact assessment process has become an integral part of the policy making process in the European Union. For every major policy proposal or initiative the European commission is obligated to conduct an Impact Assessment following the guidelines of the European Commission. The impact assessment aims at providing the decision makers with the best available evidence on the impacts of different policy options, and should allow a robust and evidence-based decision. Impacts assessments are also a tool to ensure accountability, informing stakeholders on the reasoning of the policy proposal. In this way, they play an integral part in consultation processes. In WP9 an integrated and overarching impact assessment on the environmental, social and economic impacts of European soil policy is conducted to provide a better understanding of the benefits, costs and potentials of European policies for soil protection. In parallel to carrying out the impact assessment, potential overlaps and gaps in the policy framework will also be identified. This will feed into developing policy recommendations for improving policy coherence and integration, enhance the effectiveness of policies, and improve institutional coordination. The proposed IA methodology has been developed with the DPSIR framework in mind, which describes policy interventions in terms of the Driving forces – Pressures – State – Impacts – and Responses. The DPSIR framework is used to analyse the impacts of socio-

economic activities on the environment.6 It “allows analyzing the cause-effect relationship of

man-made environmental degradation processes with a view to possible policy responses”7, and is thus useful for the policy impact assessment in the RECARE project (Figure 1). It is worth noting that the DPSIR framework is used to measure environmental impacts and needs to be applied differently for economic and social impacts.

6 http://ia2dec.pbe.eea.europa.eu/knowledge_base/Frameworks/doc101182

7 http://www.ieep.eu/assets/431/land_degdesert.pdf

13

Figure 1 Conceptual RECARE framework based on the DPSIR-approach

3.2 Impact Chains as the basic building block for the Impact Assessment For the purpose of WP9 the DPSIR framework is especially useful as assessing the impacts (economic, social and environmental) of policy measures at the EU and national / case study level requires the analysis of long and often complex impact chains (e.g. responses to drivers to pressures to states to impacts). Analysing and ideally quantifying those impact chains requires a good understanding of the overall framework for soil protection. An example of an impact chain is available in Annex 4. The impact assessment will therefore describe the evidence available for each step of the impact chain, with the aim to quantify the final impacts where possible. It is worth noting that the DPISR scheme was designed for the assessment and measurement of environmental impacts. Economic and social impacts sometimes do not fit into the same structure. The impact chains caused by soil policy are diverse: while some impacts are very direct, for others complex ecological and economic processes need to be understood and modelled to describe them in detail. For example the direct costs of a policy can be described by the cost difference of soil management measures that the policy induces in comparison to the soil management measures which the policy replaces. On the other hand to describe the long term effect of soil policy on agicultural yields it is necessary to understand additionally the impact of the soil managment measures on the development of soil threats (pressures), their impact on soil quality (states) and finally the impact on soil yields (impacts). To monetise this impact, an understanding of agricultural markets is necessary. The different impact chains are organised around nine soil threats, i.e. the policy instruments most relevant for each soil threat are identified and the impacts that implement the policy

14

instruments could bring either in terms of environmental / soil quality impacts (e.g.. improvement in indicators for soil quality) or socio-economic impacts. The nine soil threats are:

Soil erosion (wind and water)

Loss of soil organic matter (mineral and organic soils)

Compaction

Desertification

Salinisation

Contamination (industrial/point source and diffuse)

Loss of biodiversity

Floods and landslides

Soil sealing (slightly modified methodology see below)

3.3 Steps in the impact assessment There are eight steps to the Impact Assessment, summarised in the Figure 2. On the following pages, the steps of the assessment are outlined.

Figure 2: Working steps in the impact assessment of policy instruments To take account of the differences between the soil threats, each step will be further refined and specified for three categories or clusters of instruments8:

1. Agricultural and forestry land

Policy instruments relevant for the management of agricultural and forest soils and potentially addressing multiples soil threats at the same time: soil erosion,

8 A similar approach is taken in Frelih-Larsen et al. 2017 (forthcoming); however, the clusters in that study are fewer and have a

slightly different focus.

15

diffuse pollution (by nutrients, pesticides, heavy metals), compaction, loss of soil organic matter, loss of soil biodiversity

2. Industrial and historic contamination

Policy instruments relevant for the control of contamination emerging from industrial / point sources, and the remediation of historic contamination

3. Soil Sealing

Examining the impact of policies (mostly available at regional and city level) that contribute to reducing soil sealing

Detailed guidelines for the assessment will be finalised after the test-phase, and training will be given to all case study partners in early 2017. STEP 1: Identify the relevant policy instruments and their respective soil management measures In this step, the current response to soil degradation in Europe was examined by identifying relevant EU policies and the concrete policy instruments and measures that they mandate or stimulate. The outputs of this review for EU level are outlined in Annex 2 and Annex 5 to the report. In addition, we have identified the key relevant policy instruments for each country included in the RECARE assessment (12 EU Member States, and Iceland, Norway and Switzerland) (see Annex 3). There are different ways to categorise policy instruments and policy measures. An example of a more abstract, conceptual typology of instruments categorises different policy instrument in terms of their function, i.e. through which intervention(s) are they expected to achieve their intended effects. In such analysis, policy instruments are typically classified as either i) regulatory instruments (establishing mandatory/obligatory requirements), ii) economic instruments (e.g. pricing tools, taxes, subsidies, including for example payments for ecosystem services), iii) soft or suasive measures – such as information, engagement, and awareness-raising. With this broad typology of instruments in mind, Table 2.3 provides a comprehensive overview of EU policies relevant for soil protection, and their link to soil threats. Annex 2 explains the relevance of these instruments (i.e. EU directives, regulations, strategies, programmes and funds most relevant for soils) and the policy instruments applied in the frame of these policies, i.e. those elements that are expected to deliver real changes). What complicates the assessment is that, as documented in Annex 2, while the various pieces of EU legislation do entail concrete requirements for Member States, these are mostly of a procedural or institutional nature (i.e. reporting requirements, adoption of action plans and the like) or voluntary requirements, whereas the choice of concrete policy instruments and measures often remains with Member States. For this reason, the type of abstract, conceptual typology of instruments does not a clearly match with the bottom-up identification of instruments at the EU level. In addition, many of the listed EU policies do not have a direct link to the soil threats, but rather contribute to addressing soil threats indirectly. For each soil threat, Table 2.2 and Annex 2 identify the most important policy instruments, thereby defining the scope of the assessment. The policy instruments affect soil quality – positively by promoting or requiring specific soil management measures, or negatively by allowing trends to persist that contribute to soil degradation. For each policy instrument, a group of soil management measures are identified, whose application is influenced (i.e. stipulated, mandated, supported or encouraged) by the identified policies. That is the first step towards developing an impact chain, as further discussed in the following step.

16

STEP 2: Identify intervention logic of policy instruments and soil management measure Through which intervention logic or causal path were the policy instruments intended to prevent or remediate the degradation of soils in Europe? For each policy instrument, the causal chain is elaborated in detail, based on the available literature and expert judgement. These causal chains are framed around the DPSIR Framework. Based on available scientific literature, the policy documents and inputs from deliverables in WP3 – 5, the Team will define the driving forces that are meant to be addressed through the policy intervention, the expected effects of the policy interventions on pressures, and the expected changes in state and impact. Data collection from these WPs for evidence is discussed in step 4. The intervention logic is identified and described for each policy instrument and summarised in a flow chart of the impact chain, its description a summary table that shows both the relevant steps of the impact chain and the measures and evidence in which they could be expressed (Step 3). An example of this has been provided in the Annex 4. Several of the policies in question have shared or similar objectives, and employ policy instruments that follow a similar intervention logic. As a result, there is overlap between the causal chains of several policy instruments. This applies in particular for policy instruments that address the same soil threat, where the latter part of the impact chain (describing impact and state) will be largely identical. STEP 3: Developing qualitative measurements and quantitative indicators for all steps of the impact chain In developing the causal chains developed in the previous step, the qualitative measurements and quantitative indicators for all steps of the impact chain are determined. For each impact chain of each soil threat, this step defines the evidence that is necessary, be it in the form of qualitative assessments, quantitative non-monetary or monetary indicators, to demonstrate the impact of the policy. Qualitative assessments should serve as a fallback in such instances where no quantified indicators are available or where data quality is deemed too poor; in this case qualitative information should ideally be based on a collective assessment of different experts, and reference the relevant literature to avoid subjective bias. Table 3.1 summarises the main indicators for measuring the impact of management measures derived from policy instruments and indicates potential data sources inside and outside the RECARE project. Table 3.1. Overview of the types of qualitative and quantitative Indicators for measuring the impact of policy instruments Impact Description Indicators Units Potential Sources

Impact of soil management measures on soil quality

Assessing direct impact of policy instrument on a soil threat over time and across different geopolitical boundaries.

List of management measures, grouped according to type of measure and likely impact

Measures RECARE WP5 – 9

Trends in the adoption of measures

Hectares of land covered by groups of measures

CAP implementation data (target and output indicators), Ex-post Assessments of RDPs, Farm Structure Data, Eurostat, data from other WPs (i.e. WP5, WP6 ), scientific literature and reports

17

Impact Description Indicators Units Potential Sources (e.g. also through Common Forum)

Trends in impact of measures on soil quality over time

Variable(s) per unit time

Case Studies and WP6

(Micro) Economic Impact

Quantifying specific micro-economic factors involved in the implementation and continued operation of measures

Costs of implementation in comparison to alternative(s)

Cost per hectare

Scientific literature, WP7

Impacts of different levels of implementation on various prices (e.g. transportation, construction, land ownership, natural resources, environmental management)

Price differences in euros

Case studies and scientific literature

Agricultural output in different scenarios

Euros per year


Wider Economic Impact

Considering national and international economic factors of policy implementation, and the impacts on associated markets.

Added demand on various sectors (e.g. construction, agriculture)

Turnover in euros, demand in euros for land management practice and alternative


Multiplier effect of added demand on various sectors (e.g. construction, agriculture)

Multiplier factors for sector income

Own tool and scientific literature

Social Impact Quantifying and qualifying impact on population groups by policy implementation, considering livelihoods and social wellbeing.

Impact of housing market changes on different income brackets

Per cent of housing costs

EU Statistics

Costs of different measures for different sizes of farms

Per cent cost difference


Proportion of different farm sizes

Number per farm size

EU statistics

Proportion of low income or impoverished households

Number of households at risk of poverty

EU statistics

Proportion of water costs borne by uses

Per cent cost EU statistics

18

Impact Description Indicators Units Potential Sources

Environmental Impact

Assessing wider environmental factors and ecosystem services impacted by policy implementation, in addition to specific soil protection features.

Biodiversity indicators for soils of different levels of quality

Soil biota density per soil threat level


Biodiversity indicators for water and soil under different land management plans

Soil and water biota density per soil threat level


Existence of added soil and water pollution from different land management plans

Per hectare (or cubic metre) of soil or water impacted by a soil threat


Rate and probability of environmental hazards

? Case studies and scientific literature

One of the key information needs relates to the current application and the potential relevance of different types of soil protection / management measures; i.e. to what proportion of European soils is the measure currently applied (with which effects), and to which proportion of European soils it would have been applied in absence of policy instruments or could potentially be applied in the future. This data, however, is only partially available, or not at all. This is due in part to the structure of the policy instruments, and in part to the nature of the reporting requirements on the application of measures. Based on the principle of subsidiarity, many EU instruments allow a large degree of flexibility for Member States that implement them. This is especially true for soil protection measures applied on agricultural and forest land. The current framework set out by the CAP, a policy area that is of key importance in this impact assessment, leads to significant variability across Member States in the implementation of the CAP elements most relevant for soil protection (i.e. the greening payment, GAEC standards and rural development programmes)9. For the greening payment requirements, information is available on the area to which the greening requirements apply per Member State.10 For GAEC standards, it is possible to derive the definitions applied by individual Member States, but not easily the area to which these would apply. For the measures implemented through Rural Development Programmes, which have the highest potential for delivering targeted soil protection measures, there is limited detail in the reporting requirements and thus data available to track the support provided for specific soil management measures. Finally, for the CAP as for other policies, there is the problem that many measures are not directly targeted at soil protection, but rather have indirect benefits for soil quality, making it more difficult to derive the impact for soil protection from the reported data. This issue of data availability is currently being proofed in detail for each assessment category (agricultural and forest land, industrial and historic contamination, and soil sealing) at EU and RECARE Member State level. It is likely that the data availability will vary

9 This is illustrated in the assessment available under the study Updated Inventory and Assessment of Soil Protection Policy

Instruments in EU Member States (Frelih-Larsen et.al, forthcoming). 10

https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/direct-support/pdf/2016-staff-working-document-greening-annex-2_en.pdf

19

significantly among the countries included in the analysis, since the reporting and environmental information structures, as well as availability of specific studies and capacity of RECARE case study partners will differ. As two RECARE case studies (Italy, Portugal) have shown, it can be very valuable to be able to access implementation data for Rural Development Programmes (via contacts to the Managing Authorities), as well as access to available modelling tools to estimate the uptake of soil-related measures and to quantify their impacts. Since data availability will be more constrained in other instances, a cascade of data intensive to less data intensive (from quantitative to qualitative) methods to assess impacts, with their respective pro’s and con’s, constraints and caveats will be helpful in determining the appropriate depth of the analysis. STEP 4 Data collection - guidelines and collection process In this step the data needed for the impact assessment will be collected by the core team and the case study partners. Data collection sheets are being prepared for each work package (especially WP4 and WP7 and in close cooperation with the data collection already happening in those WPs) and each case study in order to collect the information needed in the formats needed for the assessment. The first two data collection sheets will be tested with partners for two countries (Slovakia, Romania). STEP 5: Definition of Scenarios In an ex-post assessment, the impact of a policy measure can be understood as the difference between the current state of soil quality (i.e. with the policy measure in place), and a hypothetical scenario (counterfactual) in which the policy measure is not implemented. The purpose of this step is therefore to determine (i) what the state and trends of soil quality would be in the absence of the policy instruments in question (i.e. the counterfactual scenario); and (ii) the scale at which the policy instruments (and the soil management measures they give rise to) are currently applied across Europe. For each of the policy instruments and management measures in question, it is therefore necessary to estimate the area of soil in Europe to which it is currently applied, and the area to which it would be applied without the policy. As mentioned in the Step 3 above, the data availability for this estimate is not straightforward and all the possible data sources and their limitations are being checked by the WP9 team together with case study partners. In addition, the modelling work from WP8 will inform the uptake scenarios for the soil management measures. For the example of soil protection practices on agricultural land, this assessment could proceed in the following way: a) determine the scale of utilised agricultural land (UAA) in the EU; b) determine the proportion of the UAA on which soil protection farming practices are currently applied; c) based on assumptions found in the literature and expert judgement, arrive at an assumption about the share of farmland under cultivation on which soil protection would also be applied in the absence of dedicated policies – e.g. since it is in the commercial interest of farmers to maintain the productivity of their soils, or because of a perceived moral obligation to preserve soils and their functions for future generations. Since this measure will be difficult to determine accurately, it may be necessary to work with plausible ranges of assumptions instead, which could range from the extremes of 0% (no autonomous soil conservation in the absence of dedicated policies – i.e. all soil-conserving farming practices can be attributed to the policy intervention) to 100% (all observed soil-conserving practices would also be conducted in the absence of dedicated policies, meaning that the policy is ultimately redundant.

20

To validate the assumptions, different sources come into play: 1. First, literature values on the uptake and the effectiveness of soil management

measures. 2. Second, the impact assessments conducted by the EU for the respective pieces of

legislation offer a good entry point, including the assumptions made therein, as well as links to other relevant studies and documents.

3. Third, it is to be expected that the assessment will need to rely on expert judgement to some extent, as the first two sources are unlikely to provide exhaustive evidence on the uptake of all relevant soil protection practices in response to all the EU policy instruments in question. In order to substantiate the expert judgement and avoid subjective biases, key assumptions should be framed as plausible ranges, and validated with cross-checks among experts in relevant management authorities, ministries etc. – who will usually not know the correct answer either, but can confirm or disconfirm the plausibility of the assumptions.

Finally, if / where all of the above elements should prove to be infeasible due to data constraints, an alternative approach to gather the necessary data would be to use budget figures rather than the area in order to estimate the scale of an intervention, I.e., if case study results indicate that a certain soil management measure was implemented with public support on X ha, and led to an improvement of soil quality indicators by Y%, at a cost of Z Euro, the total budget spent on such measures in any given year could be used as one way of estimating the impacts. Obviously, this approach also rests on a number of assumptions – e.g. whether the money was spent effectively, whether the costs of the measure (or its effectiveness) at the case study site are representative for the rest of Europe, etc.. Some of these biases can be corrected, or at least contained – for instance, if the cost of a measure mostly comes in the form of capital expenditure, it can be assumed that these costs would be relatively similar across the EU. If the cost of a measure mostly stems from labour costs, these might differ considerably across different parts of the EU; in this case the cost of measures could be corrected for regional wage differences (i.e. if wages in any country are x% below the EU average in any given country, the cost of implementing a labour-intensive soil management measure in this country would be assumed to also be x% lower). STEP 6: Assessment of impacts: qualitative and quantitative analysis The team will use the qualitative and quantitative indicators selected in step 3 to quantify (to the extent possible) the impact chains defined in step 1, or otherwise to describe the importance of the causal links in qualitative terms. As discussed above, the assessment will need to combine quantitative data and qualitative information. Using the scenarios derived in step 5, step 6 serves to assess the impact of different policy measures. The starting point for the impact assessment is the national level (those Member States where RECARE case studies are located). Information from the case study level and results from the national level will be scaled up to the EU level using modelling in WP8. The impact will be described in terms of the indicators defined in step 3, using quantitative information whenever possible (e.g., additional costs of soil management measures and additional agricultural revenues). This will be illustrated in a multi-criteria matrix, which combines monetary values (on costs and benefits), non-monetary, physical indicators, and qualitative assessments. In addition, the results and key insights will be summarised in a narrative synthesis. STEP 7: Evaluate barriers and constraints This step will describe the various barriers and constraints that inhibit the (full) implementation of the policies and instruments from step 1, or which slow down the

21

implementation, or prevent policy an instruments from realising their full potential. This may include administrative costs and limited administrative capacity, incomplete transposition (e.g. due to lacking political or legal feasibility), and incomplete implementation, (e.g. cases of non-compliance, but also interference from other, non-aligned policies that (unintentionally) promote soil and land uses with a negative effect on soil quality. Where appropriate, potential for simplification of policies should be identified, as well as options for better streamlining and overcoming inconsistencies. The analysis of barriers and constraints will provide imporant input to the development of policy recommendations in WP9, enabling reflections on how European soil policy can be rendered more coherent and effective.This work will also take as a starting point the outputs of the study Updated Inventory and Assessment of Soil Protection Policy Instruments in EU Member States, where the an updated systematic review of gaps at EU level and how Member State policies are complementing these gaps is available (see Frelih-Larsen et al. forthcoming). STEP 8: Determine effectiveness of policy instruments Effectiveness of policy instruments can be defined as the extent to which a policy intervention succeeds at realising the targets it was intended to achieve – assuming that the policy has a clearly specified, ideally quantified target. This differs from the concept of efficacy, which determines whether a policy intervention is successful in solving the problem at hand – i.e. in this case whether policy interventions have been successful in stopping and reversing soil degradation trends. Inevitably, both effectiveness and efficacy analyses involve establishing cause-effect relationships about the extent to which a particular policy instruments (or a set of policy instruments) produces the desired outcome, and to which observed changes can be attributed to policy interventions. To determine the effectiveness of a policy, two requirements need to be addressed: first, the objective of a policy needs to be clearly specified, ideally in terms of a quantified target and corresponding success indicator – which is less trivial than it may seem, as policies regularly define targets in a qualitative and generic way, or pursue a number of (explicit and implicit) objectives, without necessarily specifying a hierarchy among them. In particular, this may be problematic for policies that (primarily) pursue goals other than soil protection, and where soil protection is only a minor, or even only an indirect / implicit objective of a policy. Second, the problem of attribution needs to be solved – i.e. which proportion in the change of objective variable can be attributed to the policy intervention at hand, and which is due to underlying trends that are not influenced by the policy.

3.4 The scope of the Impact Assessment The costs, the impacts and the relevance of different policy instruments and soil management measures vary profoundly across different regions in the EU since they depend on the soil characteristics, current soil management practices, the availability and quality of soil data, but and also the national policy and economic context – including socioeconomic parameters, such as the wage level, which influences the cost of labour-intensive soil management measures. Given the considerable effort in gaining data on the parameters above, rather than surveying these parameters for all 28 EU Member States, the project focuses on the most important soil threats for those Member States in which a RECARE case study is situated, and analyses the impact of policy instruments relevant for those soil threats. The impact assessment is first done at Member State level for RECARE case study countries.

22

The following table shows the case studies conducted and the dominant soil threats they are tackling, along with the secondary soil threats which will also be addressed in the impact assessment. Table 3.2. Dominant and secondary soil threats in RECARE case studies

Case study Land use Dominant soil threat Secondary soil threat

Aarslev, Denmark Agriculture: Arable, cash crop farming

compaction erosion by water

Timbaki, Crete, Greece

Agriculture:

Olive, greenhouses

salinisation erosion by water, desertification

Peristerona, Cyprus Forest/Agriculture erosion by water desertification

Veneto, Italy Agriculture loss of SOM in mineral soils

sealing, floods and landslides

Berkenwoude, the Netherlands

Agriculture: grassland loss of SOM in organic soils

loss of soil biodiversity

Olden Eibergen, the Netherlands

Mixed agriculture loss of SOM in mineral soils

contamination

Wroclaw&Warsaw, Poland

Urban: recreation, industrial, residential

sealing floods and landslides

Caramulo, Portugal Forest: eucalyptus, pine

erosion by water loss of SOM in mineral soils, loss of soil biodiversity

Copsa Mica, Romania Agriculture contamination loss of soil biodiversity, erosion by water

Myjava, Slovakia Agriculture: arable land floods and landslides erosion by water

Guadiamar, Spain Forest, semi natural area

contamination loss of organic matter, floods and landslides, erosion by water

Canyoles, Spain Agriculture: Semi natural areas

desertification/ erosion by wind

erosion by water, loss of SOM in mineral soils

Örke, Sweden Agriculture: Arable land, grassland

loss of SOM - organic soils

N/A

Isle of Purbeck, UK Agriculture and others: Grazing, arable, tourism, military

loss of soil biodiversity contamination

Frienisberg, Swizterland

Agriculture: Annual cropland with grazing

erosion by water compaction

Vansjø-Hobøl, Norway Forest/Agriculture floods and landslides erosion by water

Gunnarsholt, Iceland Agriculture: Summer grazing, now excluded

desertification/ erosion by wind

erosion by water

Annex 3 show the relevant policy instruments for each of the case studies which will provide the focus for the analysis.

23

3.5 Timeframe for the impact assessment The RECARE Description of Work foresees the development of an ex-post impact assessment. The analysis therefore focuses as a first step the influence of the EU policies on soil quality (and the impacts of those changes) that have been achieved until the present. For that purpose the step 5 establishes the implementation of policy instruments thus far (via the uptake of soil management measures) and an alternative scenario of the implementation that would have developed without the policies, Step 6 then uses these scenarios to determine the impact of policy instruments in terms of the indicators. Inherently by definition, the ex-post analysis will not take into account experimental measures that are being studied in RECARE case studies. As the different policies and soil management measures have not been applied during the same timeframe, and the collection of data on the implementation degree in every given year is too laborious for the scope of this project, the analysis will be conducted for a recent year, i.e., 2015 or 2014 depending on data availability. Costs will be expressed in annual costs, while long term impacts (on yields or other) which are only achieved by application over several years, will be expressed in a yearly tranche (e.g. if for example the application of a soil management measure for 10 years will increase yields by 10%, then the calculation will assume a 1% increase for the annual calculation). This annualisation of long term effects will help us to deal with the different time frames of the assessed policy processes. As this would leave some knowledge developed in the RECARE project not utilised in the process, we would are exploring the possibility to add some additional working steps to include limited ex ante assessments in the following ways:

Firstly, in STEP 5 we could develop also spatio-temporal scenarios of further application of soil management practices for the year 2030. That would show the opportunity space for management practices that are identified as being successfull but which have not been applied yet in the scale needed. Secondly, it would be also possible to analyse the effectiveness and impacts of experimental soil management practices tested in the case studies. For those measures the case studies would need to provide the data on effectiveness and in STEP 5 spatio-temporal scenarios for their application would need to be developed.

Since the ex-ante assessment would go beyond the scope outlined in the Description of Work, these steps are conditional upon resources that remain available after the ex-post assessment is completed.

3.6 Dealing with limited data availability As noted earlier, not all information on policy instruments (implications for soil and land management, effects on soil quality and ecosystem services) can be quantified in the process due to lack of impact data and other information. The impact chain approach chosen aims to mitigate that problem by providing both qualitative and quantitative information of the impact chain, allowing the analysis of impacts even without a full quantitative picture of impacts on soil quality and ecosystem services, costs and benefits. The final output could be in tables showing the different steps of the complete impact chain and the information available for the different steps.

24

Annex 1: Typology of policy instruments

A. Formal EU legislation:

Directives and their regulations: e.g. Water Framework Directive, Landfill Directive

Funding mechanisms: e.g. Common Agricultural Policy, LIFE, Structural and Cohesion Fund

Strategies, programmes, action plans: e.g. Soil Thematic Strategy, Adaptation Strategy B. Types of national policy instruments mandated by the formal legislation

Type of instrument Examples

Regulatory

National soil protection law or regulations

For example, laws on soil protection

National strategies and action plans for soils

National strategies for soil protection

Targets Targets focused on soil protection: e.g. targets to reduce land take. These could be part of sustainable development strategies or action plans or similar

Standards Legal or regulatory requirement for all persons or businesses to whom it applies to maintain a certain level of environmental quality (e.g., soil quality), confine actions to a certain type of practice or limit, or to rehabilitate resources.

e.g. Soil organic carbon levels must be X or erosion rates must be below X; limit on the amount of fertilizer applied per hectare; fines if resource falls below a certain level.

Bans A legal or regulatory prohibition of a certain type of activity or use of a material / product.

e.g. Ploughing on sloping lands or up to water edge; applying manure at certain times (on frozen ground), etc.

Permits / quotas A license or authorization issued by a public official or administrative agency allowing an individual or business to perform certain acts or to have a certain portion / amount of a product.

e.g. Permit to construct manure storage facility or discharge certain level of pollutants into water body; mandatory offsetting scheme for destruction of wetlands; etc.

Planning / zoning Comprehensive planning of the different uses to be conducted in areas of an urban settlement designated by certain categories (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial).

e.g. Comprehensive land use plans, zoning applications, non-conforming use applications, eminent domain

25


Environmental impact assessments

Legal or regulatory process which an individual or business must undergo before application for approval to perform a certain action.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), audits, inspections

Economic

Pricing Tariffs: A price paid by users to a service provider for a given quantity of service or a schedule of rates or charges of a business or a public utility that provides a product or service which may affect the quality of the soil (take place at the border, do not apply within the country): e.g. price to be paid for fertilisers, fuel, advisory services, water utility (irrigation), sanitation services

Taxes and charges: Compulsory payment to the fiscal authority for performing an action or using a product which leads to degradation of the soil, or a service from a regulatory authority: e.g., tax on nitrate surplus or fertiliser and pesticide taxes

Trading of permits for using a resource or trading (Building or development permits, excavation or mining rights, etc.) of permits for pollution / emission levels (Dumping permit (industrial waste discharge): e.g. landfill dumping permits

Payments Payments to landowners or private actors for practices or products

Payments of insurance premiums in order to be protected in the event of a loss.

Voluntary agreements Individual voluntary agreements: negotiated voluntary arrangement between parties to adopt agreed practices by governmental bodies to producers in order to influence the development of products or the adoption of production processes that benefit the soil / reduce degradation. These are not linked to payments. Voluntary agreements linked to payments (such as agri-environment-climate measure) are included under payments category.

Public-Private Partnerships: Contractual instruments between public and private actors that enhance the ability of the public sector to provide public services thanks to the involvement of the private sector. These are a sub-form of voluntary agreements, and can include multiple public and private actors. E.g. flood protection projects, coastal defences

These can be structured in many different ways:

private sector has control over all assets, including investment, maintenance, and operations decisions, although some specific, strategic decisions remain subject to regulatory oversight;

concessions in the form of long-term contracts…[where] the private sector has full responsibility for the operation of the asset, usually recouping investment costs with service provision revenues (i.e. tariff collections);

management and lease agreements, the private sector takes control on operations for shorter time, but also bears less financial risks, and initial capital investment is assured by the public.

26


Liability schemes Offsetting schemes where liability for environmental degradation leads to payments of compensation for environmental (soil) damage. E.g. Eco-accounts, wetland destruction, brownfields funds

Information, awareness-raising and public engagement

Trainings and qualifications Training and qualifications (obtaining certificates or proof of qualification) related to soil management

Farm advisory services, extension/outreach programmes from university centres

Public information programmes A series of activities geared toward raising the amount of information available and people’s awareness about soil issues.

e.g. Events around the International Year of Soils

Stakeholder and public participation

Decision-making processes or knowledge-building consultations by policy makers which involve stakeholders with a direct interest in or practical knowledge of the issue being discussed.

e.g. Townhall meetings, citizen councils, workshops for stakeholders, stakeholder advisory groups

Innovation groups Ongoing stakeholder interactive groups or events which aim to build capacity and knowledge of the other members of the group or the broader community (e.g., about a particular environmental, economic, or practical issue) through demonstration examples, talks between farmers, etc.

e.g. European Innovation Partnerships (EIPs) operational groups, demonstration farms, farmer-to-farmer exchanges

Farm advisory services Publicly funded advice on soil protection related to actions and measures to landowners, farmers, stakeholders

Monitoring and research

Monitoring systems for soils Manual or automatic system (technological or by hand) which collects data about activities, products used, timing, etc.

Monitoring and reporting of soil status

Monitoring of activities relevant to soils

Research projects Research related to soil, including on soil conditions, new methods for soil protection (agriculture or other)

Oral or handwritten inquiries of either a random sample or a targeted group of stakeholders about their opinions, past actions, expectations, impressions, etc. regarding soils

Assessments of soil status / ecosystem services

E.g. national overviews on the status of soil organic matter, or soil contamination, including mapping

27

Annex 2: Summary Overview of EU Policy Instruments Relevant for Soil Protection

EU Directives relevant for soil protection

Name Description Mandatory requirements (in bold) and voluntary options


The Water Framework Directive (WFD, 2000/60/EC) aims to achieve a good status for all European Union waters by 2015. To achieve this, it establishes a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater through the river basin management plans (RBMPs) and programmes of measures (PMs). The WFD does not explicitly address soil protection. However, the directive addresses agricultural activities, which are a major cause for pressures on water and at the same time are associated with soil threats. For example, nutrient and pesticide loads, abstraction of water for irrigation and hydro-morphological changes are linked to soil contamination (e.g. with pesticides) and loss of soil biodiversity, soil salinisation (e.g. through abstraction practices in coastal areas leading to potential salinisation of groundwater through seawater intrusion), and poor soil drainage. Hence, achieving the directive’s objectives requires (among other measures) the implementation of soil management measures which contribute to soil protection. Examples include abstraction controls, promotion of water-saving irrigation techniques, codes of good practices, restoration of wetlands areas.

River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) for each river basin district

Programme of measures (basic measures and voluntary supplementary measures)

Assessment of water bodies’ status and pressures and impacts on river basin districts (e.g., point and non-point sources)

Public consultation

Monitoring, reporting and evaluation

Floods Directive

The Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) aims to reduce and manage the risks that floods pose to human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. It requires Member States to identify flood risk areas, map them and establish flood risk management plans. The directive does not explicitly address soil protection. However, some of the measures that reduce the risk of flooding can contribute to soil protection, in particular measures that increase water infiltration and retention capacities of soils. For example, the Floods Directive may lead to the promotion of green infrastructure and land use planning rules to control run-off and pluvial flooding. This, in turn, can reduce soil sealing. The directive implementation can also promote protection of soils by preventing the urbanisation of floodplain and riparian land. Since the measures are not mandatory, actual beneficial impacts on soils depend on interest and the willingness of competent authorities to implement measures beneficial for soils.

Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments

Flood hazard maps and flood risk maps

Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs)

Public access to information and consultation

Reporting

Nitrates Directive

The EU Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) aims to protect surface waters and groundwater against pollution by nitrates from agricultural sources. It requires that Member States to identify Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ) and set up action plans for these zones. The Directive promotes a voluntary code of good agricultural practice. While the directive does not have explicit soil-focused objectives, it involves the use of soil management measures to reach its aim. Such measures include, among others, the use of cover crops or crop rotations. These measures increase the amount of soil organic matter and improve soil structure; thereby they reduce the potential for soil erosion and the related run-off and leaching of nitrates. Further measures include an appropriate fertilisation balanced according to timing, crop needs, climate, etc.; and restrictions on application periods or levels of fertiliser in the NVZ. This could reduce traffic as well as stocking rates and therefore decrease the risk of soil compaction. Reducing the use of fertiliser can also reduce diffuse soil contamination.

Designation of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs)

Nitrate Action Programmes (NAPs) (limits on fertiliser and manure application and certain practices, e.g., buffer zones)

Creation of a voluntary Code of good agricultural practice

Monitoring and reporting of nitrate levels and impact of NAPs on agricultural practices

28



The Pesticides Directive (2009/128/EC) aims to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides and to reduce risks and impacts of pesticide use on human health and the environment. Member states are required to establish National Action Plans which include quantitative objectives and measures to reduce the risks of pesticides. The directive promotes the use of integrated pest management and alternative approaches or techniques such as non-chemical alternatives to pesticides. Moreover, in certain sensitive areas (e.g. public parks or protected areas related to the Birds and Habitats Directive), the Pesticides Directive prohibits or strictly limits the use of pesticides.

The directive does not directly address soil protection. However, soils benefit from the reduced amount of pesticides applied on plants and consequently reaching the soil. This reduces the risk of soil contamination, as chemicals used in pesticides are persistent and may stay in the soil for decades. Furthermore, lower amounts of pesticides reduce the negative impact on microbial activity in soil, which enhances both soil biodiversity and soil organic matter content. The directive furthermore obliges Member States to protect the aquatic environment and drinking water supplies. To achieve this, among other measures it promotes the establishment of buffer and safeguard zones and the planting of hedges along surface waters to reduce exposure of water bodies to spray drift of pesticides, drain flow and run-off. This reduces the accidents of soil erosion from the banks of water bodies.

National Action Plans (incl. integrated pest management principles, objectives, targets, measures of risk-reduction and timetables for the reduction of risks and adverse impacts of the use of plant protection products on human and animal health and also on the environment)

Certification systems (training, sales and information)

Equipment inspections

Reporting by MS and Commission harmonised risk indicators


The Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (2011/92/EU) aims to assess the environmental effects of public and private projects that are likely to have significant effects on the environment. It is intended to provide a check on projects before they go forward in order to minimise their negative impact on the environment. This is relevant to soil protection since projects (e.g. infrastructure development) could have negative impacts on soil quality through various threats. Identifying these impacts and potentially less harmful alternatives could result in the developer choosing a method that does not impact the soil as much.

The directive directly addresses soil as one component of the environment. Also, it addresses biodiversity, which could include effects of projects on soil biodiversity. Soil threats that can be addressed through the directive include erosion, floods and landslides, loss of soil organic matter, contamination, sealing, compaction and loss of biodiversity.

Determination of need for EIA completion

Public consultation

EIA report covering mandatory elements

Development consent for project (undergoing EIA procedure)

Monitoring of unexpected impacts and reporting

Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive

The Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (2001/42/EC) aims to reduce environmental impacts from plans and programmes, including negative impacts on soil, by requiring an assessment of the likely significant effects prior to adoption of the plans and programmes. The directive particularly targets the following sectors: agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry, transport, waste and water management, telecommunications, tourism, town and country planning as well as land use. Member States are required to determine whether plans and programmes are likely to have significant effects on the environment. For the ones that are expected to have significant effects, an environmental report has to be prepared describing these effects and including reasonable alternatives. This report must contain information about the likely significant effects on soil, which could touch upon multiple different soil threats – such as erosion, contamination, salinisation, loss of biodiversity, loss of soil organic matter, soil sealing. All of the information contained in the report and public consultations have to be considered before adopting the respective plan or programme.

Determination of need for SEA completion

Public consultation

SEA report covering mandatory elements

Finalised plan/programme (upon completion of SEA procedure)

Monitoring of unexpected impacts and reporting

29



The Environmental Liability Directive (2004/35/EC) establishes a framework based on the polluter pays principle to prevent and remedy environmental damage. According to the directive, environmental damage includes damage to soil. The directive directly addresses contamination of soils, although only if it reaches a certain threshold (i.e. it poses a significant risk to human health). Indirectly, reduced land or site contamination contributes to improved soil health and quality, and thus might improve soil biodiversity. Furthermore, soils may indirectly benefit from the prevention and remedy of damage to protected species and natural habitats. As soil is one of the physical components that a terrestrial habitat is made of, achieving a favourable conservation status of terrestrial habitats could also contribute towards soils protection.

Risk assessment whether preventative and remedial measures are necessary

Liability schemes

Financial security instruments (e.g., in case of insolvency)

Reporting on implementation and effectiveness

Habitats and Birds Directives

Nature conservation and protection of biodiversity in the EU is regulated by two main directives – the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) and the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). The overall objective of the two directives is to ensure that the species and habitat types they protect are maintained, or restored, to a favourable conservation status throughout their natural range within the EU. The directives do not state any direct relevance to soil protection; however, the conservation measures which must be put into place for terrestrial ecosystems may involve actions which positively impact on soil. For example, soils benefit from measures that reduce the intensity of farming. In particular, reduced areas of monoculture, reduced input of chemical fertilisers and plant protection products as well as reduced habitat fragmentation contribute positively to soil biodiversity and soil organic matter, and may reduce erosion, contamination and compaction. In addition, the Birds Directive promotes the protection of wetlands, which might contribute to the increased size of areas with high soil organic matter content. Furthermore, it aims to reduce the pollution of habitats, which in turn might reduce soil contamination. More generally, the establishment of conservation areas required in both directives may reduce land degradation.

Designation of protected areas (SCIs, SPAs and SACs)

Conservation measures such as statutory requirements (e.g., restrictions on activities over urban development, industrial activity, or hunting), administrative or contractual measures (e.g., contracts with landowners or users for mowing of grasslands or with forest owners on the management of the forest)

Actions to maintain or restore a “favourable conservation status” of targeted species and habitats

Reporting on status and trends of habitats and birds

Preparation of Management Plans outlining practical conservation measures for each site

Uptake of voluntary schemes for sustainable land use under the Rural Development Programme (financing measures in Natura 2000 areas)

Prioritized Action Framework (PAFs) for funding measures


The Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU) aims to prevent pollution or at least reduce emissions to air, water, and land and to prevent the generation of waste in order to reduce the environmental impacts from industrial activities. The directive directly addresses soil protection. It requires that industrial installations operate in accordance with permits, which includes environmental protection obligations. In case an installation’s activity involves the use, production or release of a hazardous substance which may lead to contamination of soil or groundwater, a baseline report is required. The report assesses the state of soil contamination prior to operation of the installation. The re-assessment following cessation of activities is expected to identify any changes in the level of soil contamination. Where significant pollution of soil has been caused, the operation must take the necessary measures (taking into account technical feasibility) to return the site to the state it was. Contamination is also indirectly targeted by the requirements for waste incineration and co-incineration plant sites to avoid unauthorised and accidental releases to soil, and to take the necessary precautions in the delivery and reception of waste to prevent or limit the amount of pollution to soil.

Baseline analysis and report of soil and groundwater

Adoption at MS level of operation and inspection rules

Permitting scheme requiring monitoring, testing and reporting

Public participation and access to information

Forum to review and exchange information on technologies

Committee to assist with and reporting on implementation

30



The Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC) seeks to encourage the use of sewage sludge in agriculture and to regulate its use in such a way as to prevent harmful effects on soil, vegetation, animals and man. To this end, it regulates the use of sludge considering different types of agricultural land use as well as soil and sludge quality. The directive prohibits the use of untreated sludge on agricultural land unless it is injected or incorporated into the soil.

The directive directly addresses soil contamination with heavy metals and pathogenic organisms. It sets maximum values of concentrations of heavy metals and bans the spreading of sewage sludge when the concentration of certain substances in the soil exceeds these values. In addition, the directive sets time restrictions for the sludge application in order to provide protection against potential health risks from residual pathogens. Indirectly, the directive contributes to reducing soil erosion and increasing soil organic matter, as sewage sludge is rich in nutrients and contains valuable organic matter. Sewage sludge may furthermore improve the physical and chemical properties of soil, thereby potentially enhancing soil biodiversity.

Analysis of sludge and soil

Record-keeping and reporting by the MS

Committee on technical and scientific progress

Landfill Directive

The Landfill Directive (99/31/EC) aims to prevent or reduce the negative effects of landfilling of waste on the environment during the whole life-cycle of the landfill. In particular, it addresses the pollution of surface water, groundwater, soil and air, and effects on the global environment as well as risks to human health.

The directive directly addresses soil contamination. It sets operational and technical requirements to prevent leachate infiltration into the soil (e.g. regarding the location and design of the landfill, permeability and thickness requirements for the landfill’s base and sides). Furthermore, the directive considers landfilling as the least preferable option which should be limited to the minimum, and sets targets to reduce the total amount of biodegradable municipal waste. Thereby it indirectly contributes to reducing soil contamination and soil sealing (in regard to land covered by landfills). In addition, this has a general positive effect on soil health and quality and thus enhances soil biodiversity.

National strategy for waste reduction to reduce the amount of biodegradable waste going to landfills

Permitting scheme, control and monitoring programme, reporting

Criteria for closure and after-care of landfills

31


Renewable Energy Directive

The Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) establishes a common EU framework and objectives for the use of energy from renewable sources in order to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to promote renewable energy on the transport sector. The directive does not directly address soil protection. However, soils are addressed indirectly through the mandatory sustainability criteria related to the production of biofuels. These require that biofuels should not be made from raw material obtained from land with high carbon stock, hence addressing loss of soil organic matter indirectly. Also, biofuels must reduce GHG emissions; they cannot be derived from highly biodiverse grassland, nature protection areas and forests – requirements that indirectly address soil erosion, soil compaction and threats for soil biodiversity. However, the sustainability criteria do not cover indirect land use changes, which put additional pressures on soils. Moreover, increased use of agricultural or forestry residues for biofuels contains the risk to deplete the organic matter content.

MS need to implement sustainability criteria and need to ensure that only biofuels that comply with the criteria are counted towards the national renewable targets and are eligible for financial support. The action plans often include reporting requirements for sustainability of biofuels.

MS need to submit National Renewable Action Plans (NREAPs) and Progress reports about implementation and the progress toward RED target to the EU Commission. Commission has multiple obligations for reporting on sustainability criteria, implementation and EU-wide GHG emission savings based on MS reports.

Companies can use voluntary (certification) schemes to demonstrate that their biofuels com-ply with the criteria. Schemes are mostly privately run but recognised as valid by the European Commission. (This website provides a list of and the requirements for approved voluntary sustainability schemes for biofuels: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/node/74).


The Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) aims to reduce the negative impact of waste generation and management on the environment and to increase the efficiency of resource use. It directly addresses soil, as it requires Member States to ensure that waste management activities do not contaminate the environment, including soil. It sets requirements for waste treatment that contribute to reducing soil contamination. Through promoting the prevention of waste, the directive contributes to reducing soil contamination. By incentivising the recycling of waste materials, the directive could reduce the pressure on soils as a resource (e.g. from the construction sector).

Waste management plans and prevention programmes

Standards for soil protection


The Fertiliser Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003) regulates which products on the European market may bear the words ‘EC fertiliser’. The minimum requirements to bear this name include that the product does not have negative effects on the health of humans, animals, plants or the environment when applied under normal conditions. The regulation only applies for mineral fertilizers.

Soil is not directly addressed in the regulation. In fact, the regulation currently fails to address environmental concerns related to soil contamination. It does not include limits for heavy metals (e.g. cadmium, which is often found in inorganic phosphate fertilizers). Many Member States have set up national rules and standards for fertilisers which include more detailed environmental requirements than the Fertiliser Regulation– in particular in regard to heavy metal contaminants (e.g. Germany). As this hinders the free movement of EC fertilisers within the EU’s internal market, a revision of the Fertiliser Regulation is discussed. The inclusion of limits for contaminants in the regulation could reduce the risk of soil contamination and, linked to this, improve soil biodiversity.

Product standards for ‘EC fertiliser’ fertiliser’ include that the product does not have negative effects on the health of humans, animals, plants, or the environment (including soils) when applied under normal conditions

32

EU Strategies and programmes relevant for soil protection


Soil Thematic Strategy

The Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection (COM(2006) 231) seeks to establish a targeted and comprehensive soil protection policy in the European Union. Its primary objectives are to prevent soil degradation and to restore degraded soils. It identifies various soil threats, such as erosion, decline in organic matter, contamination, sealing, compaction, decline in biodiversity, salinisation and landslides. Furthermore, it addresses all soil types in the EU. The strategy is based on four pillars: (1) raising public awareness of the need to protect soils, (2) promoting soil related research, (3) integrating soil protection in policy areas such as agriculture, regional development and transport, and (4) establishing a binding legislation on soil protection. Despite several attempts, a political agreement on the proposed Framework Directive on the protection of soil (COM(2006) 232) was not reached, so that the proposal was withdrawn in 2014. The implementation of the strategy has been focused on other measures such as EU funded information and training events as well as support for research

Proposal for EU soil protection legislation (i.e., Soil Framework Directive)

Research, awareness raising, and integration of soil protection into other policies

7th Environment Action Programme

Since the mid-1970s, EU environment policy has been guided by action programmes defining priority objectives to be achieved over a period of years. The current Environment Action Programme (Decision No 1386/2013/EU) is the seventh of its kind. It sets targets for 2020 and identifies where it wants the Union to be by 2050.

One of the priority objectives includes a sustainable management of land, adequate soil protection and remediation of contaminated sites. The programme directly addresses the following soil threats: soil sealing, soil contamination, soil erosion and loss of soil organic matter content. In addition, the programme aims to improve environmental integration and policy coherence. This could encompass a better integration of soil issues, objectives and targets in the development and implementation of other policies and thus indirectly facilitate soil protection. For example, a better implementation of the Floods Directive could address the threat of floods to soils and thereby erosion as well.

The European Union and the Member States take appropriate action to achieve priority objectives, including: economic incentives and market-based instruments, legislation, monitoring process, information requirements, public-private partnerships, monitoring, evaluation (involving stakeholder consultation) and reporting

Tools and measures to complement legislative frameworks and to engage stakeholders at different levels

Soil Sealing Guidelines

The Guidelines on Best Practice to Limit, Mitigate or Compensate Soil Sealing (SWD(2012) 101 final/2) show examples of existing EU policies, legislation, funding schemes, local planning tools, information campaigns and many other best practices to limit soil sealing or mitigating its effects. It states that limiting soil sealing should be prioritized over mitigation or compensation measures, as soil sealing is almost irreversible. Best practice examples include smart spatial planning to limit urban sprawl, regeneration of abandoned industrial areas, use of permeable materials and support of ‘green infrastructure’. The examples are mainly addressed to competent authorities at national, regional and local levels of EU Member States, professionals dealing with land planning and soil management, and other stakeholders. The guidelines were published in the context of the Soil Thematic Strategy (COM(2006) 231), which identified the need for such best practices, and the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe (COM(2011) 571), which aims at achieving no net land take by 2050.

33


Forest Action Plan; Forestry Strategy

The EU Forest Action Plan (COM(2006) 302 final) is the main instrument to implement the EU Forestry Strategy (COM(2005) 84 final, new Forest Strategy COM(2013) 659 final). The overall objective of the strategy and action plan is to support and enhance sustainable forest management and the multifunctional role of forests. They are not legally binding with regards to Member States implementation; they rather propose key actions which should be included in national forest programmes.

The Forest Action Plan does not have any direct soil-relevant aims and objectives. However, a positive impact on soils can be expected through the enhanced sustainable forest management. Sustainable forests and agro-forestry systems can support healthy soils that provide important ecosystem services (such as flood prevention). They enhance soil quality through increasing soil organic matter and soil biodiversity and reduce the risk of soil erosion and landslides. In addition, reforestation can help to restore soil quality (e.g. after the occurrence of forest fires).

National forest programmes (NFPs)

Exchange of information, best practice, awareness-raising, research, and funding (e.g., technology for enhancing sector’s competitiveness)

Adaptation Strategy

The EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change (COM(2013) 216 final) aims to increase adaptation through different mechanisms which enhance the preparedness and capacity to respond at different levels to climate change effects, develop a coherent approach and improve coordination. Negative impacts are projected to occur to natural resources from climate change - including to soils, which may be affected by floods, extreme rainfall events or droughts.

The strategy does not include any direct soil-focused aims or objectives. However, it promotes ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation, which can contribute to reducing soil erosion and flood risk. Through the strategy’s focus on better planning and management of vulnerable resources (e.g. soil), it could indirectly address loss of soil organic matter, soil sealing, landslides and loss of soil biodiversity. In general, increasing adaptation strategies to help target action and investment could be relevant to soil protection as a resource which is vulnerable to climate change events. Moreover, joint approaches and coherence between adaptation strategies and national risk assessments could be positive for soils. Higher emphasis could potentially be placed on at-risk soils and their monitoring, resulting in the adoption of better management strategies in order to increase their resilience.

MS draft and implement National adaptation strategies

Commission provides guidelines, indicators for resilience, awareness-raising, financing, and promoting adaptation in industry standards and insurance/financial products

Monitoring and reporting

Biodiversity Strategy

The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (COM(2011) 244 final) aims to halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU as well as to contribute to stopping global biodiversity decline by 2020. In order to reach its objectives, it sets out 6 targets and 20 actions.

The strategy does not include any direct soil-focused aims or objectives. However, one of its targets is to better integrate biodiversity protection into the agricultural and forest policy. In particular, the strategy aims to maximise the agriculturally used areas covered by biodiversity-related measures under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). These measures may also contribute to soil protection. For example, low tillage, crop rotation, maintaining crop cover and permanent pastures contribute to biodiversity protection and at the same time enhance soil organic matter content. This, in turn, is related to improved soil biodiversity and a reduced risk of soil erosion. In addition, as extensive methods are associated with a reduced use of heavy machinery and lower stocking rates, the risk of soil compaction can be reduced.

Biodiversity and ecosystems conservation measures within nature legislation, as well as integrating these priorities into other policy areas (agriculture, forestry). Contributing to international efforts to halt biodiversity loss through the CBD.

34


Emissions Trading Scheme

Framework for a market-based mechanism to reduce the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions by establishing a cap-and-trade system for covered installations. Due to the exclusion of land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) from the EU ETS, this policy has little impact on soil as an air emissions policy.

The Commission was required in 2006 to produce a report about possible technical measures to be able to include LULUCF credits into the EU ETS. Following an international climate agreement to 2020, the Commission is again required to review potential measures for inclusion of LULUCF credits into the EU ETS.

Operators conduct monitoring, verification and reporting (MRV) annually, known as the compliance cycle. Identified and verified emissions must be matched by same amount of allowances. Installation emissions permit

MS national emission targets for non-ETS sectors

National allocation plan for the ETS

Provision encouraging investment of revenue from allowance auctions to potentially be in forestry within the EU.


The Effort Sharing Decision (Decision No 406/2009/EC) aims to reduce emissions from sectors in the EU which are not covered by the Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). This includes transport, the building sector, agriculture and waste. The decision sets a binding target of 10% emissions reductions from these sectors between 2013-2020, which has to be collectively reached by the Member States through national policies and measures.

The policy does not include any direct soil-focused aims or objectives. However, it may indirectly address certain soil threats depending on the policies adopted by the Member States. For example, policies preventing agricultural emissions could address the soil threat of compaction (e.g. by reducing the amount of passes with heavy machinery for input application and ploughing, reducing stocking rates of livestock to avoid trampling). Contamination and loss of soil biodiversity could be indirectly addressed e.g. through measures that eliminate excessive N fertiliser or pesticide application.

MS registries to record emissions but now a Community registry has been created. The Commission was required to assess how a new international agreement for climate change affected the ESD system by 2010 (after Copenhagen) with regards to LULUCF and see whether the ESD should be expanded to include those categories.

MS reporting and evaluation of progress toward the target. Commission must report on effect of ESD on sectors’ competitiveness (including agriculture and soil/land use).

Member States may use credits from CDM or JI projects on afforestation or reforestation towards their emissions reductions percentage.

EU Funds relevant for soil protection


Common Agricultural Policy

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) consists of two main pillars, namely:

Pillar 1: Key agricultural policy incentivising and restricting certain forms of land management, thereby having large direct and indirect impacts soil quality and functions. The cross-compliance standards by which farmers must abide as well as good agricultural and environmental condition (GAEC) standards have specific soil erosion, organic matter maintenance, and landscape measures that aim to promote soil protection.

Pillar 2: Rural development policy for the EU whose objectives of fostering agriculture’s competitiveness, ensuring sustainable natural resource management and climate action, and developing rural economies and communities for cohesive territorial development is relevant to soil protection due to its focus on encouraging more sustainable agricultural management. The measures to be included in the national/regional Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) are intended to contribute to the six rural development priorities in the EU, including one for restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems under agricultural and forestry management which prioritises preventing soil erosion and improving soil management.

35


Green Payments - CAP Green Payment Requirements: Ensure that those farmers to whom it applies (mostly arable farms) implement the three elements of greening (mandatory):

Choose and define EFA types from the list defined in the legislation

Crop diversification

Within Natura 2000 areas designate permanent grasslands in need of strict protection as environmentally sensitive permanent grassland (ESPG), where no ploughing or conversion is permitted.

Further voluntary actions:

Choose and define up to nine additional types of EFA, from a list of ten, and decide what production methods may be used.

If landscape features and buffer strips are on the Member State’s list as EFAs, choose whether to define ‘other’ (i.e. in addition to the requirements for cross-compliance)

Outside Natura 2000 areas designate permanent grasslands (including those on carbon-rich soils) as ESPG, where no ploughing or conversion is permitted

Cross Compliance - CAP All Member States must define at least the minimum (soil-focused) GAEC standards

GAEC4 - Minimum soil cover,

GAEC5 - Minimum land management reflecting site specific conditions to limit erosion,

GAEC6 - Maintenance of soil organic matter level through appropriate practices including ban on burning arable stubble, except for plant health reasons

and other relevant GACEs and SMRs including:

SMR1 – Nitrates Directive (protection of waters against pollution from agricultural nitrates)

GAEC1 - Establishment of buffer strips along water courses

GAEC2 - Where use of water for irrigation is subject to authorisation, compliance with authorisation procedures

GAEC3 - Protection of ground water against pollution

GAEC7 - Retention of landscape features

for agricultural land and must apply penalties to direct and other payments under the CAP if the beneficiaries fail to comply with the GAEC standards on their whole holding. While GAECs have to be defined taking into account specific local conditions, Member States have a margin of manoeuvre on how to meet this obligation.

Set up a Farm Advisory Service which covers GAEC obligations.

36


Rural development Policy - CAP Pillar 2: Rural Development Programmes (RDPs): European Innovation Partnerships (EIPs); LEAD-ER projects; Agri-environment-climate measures; investments in physical assets; investments in irrigation

Impact assessments for CAP reforms

Public consultation on RDPs

Monitoring, reporting, and ex-ante and ex-post evaluations of implementation by MS

Of the 19 measures in the EAFRD Regulation the following are judged to have the greatest potential to address soil threats (it is possible that actions under other measures could be relevant too):

M1: Knowledge transfer and information actions

M2: Advisory services, farm management and farm relief services

M4: Investments in physical assets

M6: Farm and business and development

M7: Basic services and village renewal

M8: Investment in the forest area development and improvement of the viability of forests

M10: Agri-environment-climate contracts

M11: Organic Farming

M12: Natura 2000 and Water Framework Directive

M13: Areas facing Natural Constraints (ANC)

M15: Forest-environment-climate

M16: Cooperation

Structural Funds and Cohesion Policy: European Social Fund

The ESF is the European Union's main financial instrument for supporting employment in the EU Member States. It aims at promoting economic and social cohesion. It invests around EUR 10 billion a year in improving job prospects and conditions for Europeans. The goals of creating more and better jobs and a socially inclusive society are at the core of the Europe 2020 strategy for generating smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Local, regional and national employment-related projects of different scale are financed by the EFS including vocational training and lifelong learning opportunities or helping people from disadvantaged groups to get jobs. Soil-related topics can potentially be integrated in projects funded under EFS.

Partnership Agreement outlining the “selected thematic objectives (and for each a summary of the main results expected from each of the European Structural and Investment Funds ‐ ESI), the indicative allocation of support by the EU (by thematic objective at national level for each of the ESI Funds), as well as the total indicative amount of support envisaged for climate change objectives”.

Operational and cooperation programmes

Common output indicators (e.g., on environment under Cohesion Fund)

Ex-ante conditionalities, financial instruments, and monitoring, reporting and evaluation under Common Provisions Regulation (1303/2013)

37


Structural Funds and Cohesion Policy: Cohesion Fund

The Cohesion Fund (Regulation (EU) No 1300/2013) aims to decrease the differences between the EU’s regional economic development. It is intended to contribute to environmental and transport infrastructure development between the EU regions. A number of investment priorities are supported by the Cohesion Fund. One of them explicitly mentions soil protection and restoration (e.g. through green infrastructure). Another investment priority encompasses improving the urban environment, decontaminating brownfield sites, and reducing air pollution (which is associated with atmospheric deposition of chemicals). Thereby the regulation indirectly addresses soil sealing and contamination.

However, some investments could potentially also be damaging to soil, if sustainability criteria are not considered. For example, the Cohesion Fund invests into transport infrastructure projects (e.g. developing and improving environmentally-friendly and low-carbon transport systems such as inland waterways; developing and rehabilitating comprehensive, high quality and interoperable railway systems). The investments consider environmental standards related to noise and emission reduction. Soil threats such as soil sealing, soil contamination and soil erosion – which would be directly relevant in this case – are not considered.

See above

Structural Funds and Cohesion Policy: European Regional Development Fund

The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF, Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013) manages EU funding which is dedicated to the sustainable development and structural adjustment of regional economies. The Regulation explicitly mentions soil protection, restoration and promotion of (soil) resource efficiency as investment priorities. For example, the regulation offers support for the restoration of biodiversity and soil, including through Natura 2000 and green infrastructure projects. In addition, it may indirectly support soil protection through investments in the preservation and protection of the environment. In particular, soils could indirectly benefit from the decontamination of brownfield sites, which leads to less toxic substances in the soil; from reduced air pollution which could reduce the atmospheric deposition onto soils and thus reduces soil contamination (e.g. mercury, ammonia); or from increased sustainable land management practices. Hence, soil threats addressed by the regulation include soil sealing, contamination, erosion and landslides. However, some investments could potentially also be damaging to soil: If sustainability criteria are not considered, soil resources could be threatened with sealing, contamination, and erosion from construction.

See above

LIFE Programme

The LIFE programme (Regulation (EC) No 1293/2013) is the EU’s funding instrument for environment and climate action. It aims to co-finance projects which contribute to the implementation, updating and development of EU environmental and climate policy and legislation. For the period 2014-2020, the programme in particular intends to contribute to resource efficiency, low carbon and climate resiliency in the economy of the EU, to the protection and improvement of environmental quality and to halting biodiversity loss. The LIFE programme does not explicitly mention soil-focused aims or objectives. However, it offers various opportunities for projects which contribute to soil protection. For example, projects which are low-carbon or aimed at climate resiliency or resource efficiency could include soil protection due to issues such as soil carbon sequestration, flood prevention, water retention for reduced drought impacts or soil erosion prevention. Furthermore, projects aiming to improve the overall environmental quality of habitats could indirectly result in the protection of soils as part of ecosystems and containing valuable biodiversity.

The Commission is required to establish multi-annual work programmes with thematic priorities, including soil (as per Annex III).

Thematic priorities - e.g. for Resource Efficiency, under the sub-programme for Environment, receive financial allocations and should be prioritised in the project selection.

Complementarity of LIFE projects with other policies

Funding for research and implementation-based projects

Knowledge sharing, monitoring and evaluation, and review for synergies

38

Annex 3: Overview of National Policies Relevant for Dominant and Secondary Soil Threats in the RECARE Case Studies11

Legend:

E-Explicit

Dominant threat

Dominant threat

I-Implicit

Secondary threat

Secondary threat

Case Study Policy instruments

Co

mp

acti

on

Dif

fus

e

Co

nt.

Po

int

So

urc

e C

on

t

Desert

i-

ficati

on

Ero

sio

n b

y

win

d

Ero

sio

n b

y

wate

r

Flo

od

s /

lan

d-s

lid

es

Lo

ss o

f b

iod

ivers

ity

Lo

ss S

OM

Salin

isati

on

Sealin

g

Aarslev, DK

Green Payment - CAP E I E

Cross Compliance - CAP E E I E

RDP - CAP I I I I I

Act on Agricultural Use of Fertilizers and on Plant Cover

E I I I

Act on Surveying, Preventing and Remedying Environmental Damages

I E I I I

Law on Watercourses I

Nature Protection Act I I I I I

Timbaki, Crete, EL

Green Payment - CAP I I E E


RDP - CAP E E I

Decision on the Use in Agriculture of Sludge from the Treatment of Household and Urban Wastewater

E I E

Law for the Protection of the Environment

E E E E E E

Law on Conservation of Biodiversity

I E I I

11

This is a list of national policy instruments relevant for soil threats addressed in RECARE case studies. The focus for national assessments will be on these instruments, not the whole range of Member State policies. The initial list of instruments was compiled in parallel with the project Updated Inventory and Assessment of Soil Protection Policy Instruments in EU Member States, checked and complemented by contributions from RECARE case study partners, in particular under WP3 and with additional contributions directly to WP9. The interpretations on the relevance of soil threats are made by the RECARE team.

39


Co

mp

acti

on

Dif

fus

e

Co

nt.

Po

int

So

urc

e C

on

t

Desert

i-

ficati

on

Ero

sio

n b

y

win

d

Ero

sio

n b

y

wate

r

Flo

od

s /

lan

d-s

lid

es

Lo

ss o

f b

iod

ivers

ity

Lo

ss S

OM

Salin

isati

on

Sealin

g

Law Proposal for the Protection and Sustainable Use of Soil

E E E E E E E E E

National Action Plan for Combating Desertification

E E E E E E

Joint Ministerial Decision on Criteria for Agricultural Land Quality

I I I I I I

Peristerona, CY


Cross Compliance - CAP E E E I E

RDP - CAP E E I E

Drought Management Plan I I I I I

Forest Law I I I I

National Action Plan to Combat Desertification

E E E I I E

Revised National Strategy for Sustainable Development

E E E E E E

Soil Indicators for Cypriot Soils (SIFCYS) (Draft Idea)

E I E E E

Veneto, IT



RDP - CAP I E E E E I E

Awareness Raising Activities during International Soil Year

E E E E E E E E E E

Decree on Landfills I

Decree on Regional Waste Management Plans

E E I I

Decree on Sewage Sludge I I I

Decree on Technical Rules and Criteria for Agricultural Use of Manure and Production and Agricultural Use of Digestate

I

I

Decree on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides

I I

40


Co

mp

acti

on

Dif

fus

e

Co

nt.

Po

int

So

urc

e C

on

t

Desert

i-

ficati

on

Ero

sio

n b

y

win

d

Ero

sio

n b

y

wate

r

Flo

od

s /

lan

d-s

lid

es

Lo

ss o

f b

iod

ivers

ity

Lo

ss S

OM

Salin

isati

on

Sealin

g

Decree Transposing the INSPIRE Directive

E E E E E E E E E E E

Environmental Code I E E E E E I E I I

Italian Landslides Inventory – IFFI

I I E E I I I

Land Take and Soil Sealing Regulations

I I I I I E

LIFE Programme E E E E E E E E E E

NAP – National Action Programme to Combat Drought and Desertification

I E E E E E I I I I

National Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change

E E E E E E E E

Protocol of Soil Conservation of the Alpine Convention

I E E E E E I I

Regulation Establishing Technical Rules for the Reuse of Treated Wastewater

I I

Waste Management Plan of the Veneto Region

E I

Berkenwoude, NL

Green Payment - CAP I I I E E I

Cross Compliance - CAP E E E E I E I

RDP - CAP E E I I I

Covenant Soil and Subsurface I E E I I I I I I I

Environmental and Planning Act (Draft)

I E E I I I I

Environmental Licensing Act I I

Environmental Management Act

E

Erosion Regulation E E E E E E

Fertilizer Act and Delegated Legislation

E E E E E I

41


Co

mp

acti

on

Dif

fus

e

Co

nt.

Po

int

So

urc

e C

on

t

Desert

i-

ficati

on

Ero

sio

n b

y

win

d

Ero

sio

n b

y

wate

r

Flo

od

s /

lan

d-s

lid

es

Lo

ss o

f b

iod

ivers

ity

Lo

ss S

OM

Salin

isati

on

Sealin

g

Green Deals (GD) E E E E E E E E E E E

Infiltration Decree on Soil Protection

E E E

Knowledge Infrastructure Soil and Subsurface


Monitoring E E E E E

Plant Protection Products and Biocidal Products Act

E I I

Soil Decision Tool for Competent Authorities


Soil Protection Act E E E E E I E E E

Soil Quality Decree I E E I I I I I

Subsurface Registration Act E E E I

Water Act E E E E I I E I

Olden Eibergen, NL

Green Payment - CAP I I I E E I

Cross Compliance - CAP E E E E I E I

RDP - CAP E E I I I

Covenant Soil and Subsurface I E E I I I I I I I

Environmental and Planning Act (Draft)

I E E I I I I

Environmental Licensing Act I I

Environmental Management Act

E

Erosion Regulation E E E E E E

Fertilizer Act and Delegated Legislation

E E E E E I

Green Deals (GD) E E E E E E E E E E E

Infiltration Decree on Soil Protection

E E E

42


Co

mp

acti

on

Dif

fus

e

Co

nt.

Po

int

So

urc

e C

on

t

Desert

i-

ficati

on

Ero

sio

n b

y

win

d

Ero

sio

n b

y

wate

r

Flo

od

s /

lan

d-s

lid

es

Lo

ss o

f b

iod

ivers

ity

Lo

ss S

OM

Salin

isati

on

Sealin

g

Knowledge Infrastructure Soil and Subsurface


Monitoring E E E E E

Plant Protection Products and Biocidal Products Act

E I I

Soil Decision Tool for Competent Authorities


Soil Protection Act E E E E E I E E E

Soil Quality Decree I E E I I I I I

Subsurface Registration Act E E E I

Water Act E E E E I I E I

Wroclaw & Warsaw, PL

Green Payment - CAP I E E

Cross Compliance - CAP E I E

RDP - CAP E I

Act on Protection of Agricultural and Forest Land

I E E E E E E

Act on Water Law I I I E E I I I

Code of Good Agricultural Practice

E E E E E E E E

Environmental Impact Assessment

I I I I I I I I I E

Environmental Protection Law E E E E E E E E E

Financial Support Infrastructure and Environment Operational Programme 2014-2020 (I&E OP)

E E E E E I

Law on Forests I E E E E E I

National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management

I E I E I I E

National Spatial Development Concept 2030

E E E E I I E

43


Co

mp

acti

on

Dif

fus

e

Co

nt.

Po

int

So

urc

e C

on

t

Desert

i-

ficati

on

Ero

sio

n b

y

win

d

Ero

sio

n b

y

wate

r

Flo

od

s /

lan

d-s

lid

es

Lo

ss o

f b

iod

ivers

ity

Lo

ss S

OM

Salin

isati

on

Sealin

g

Nature Conservation Act E E E E E E E E E

Regional Spatial Development Plans

I E I I I I E

Strategic Environmental Assessment

I I I I I I I I I I

Tools for Local Spatial Development Planning

I I I I I I I I I

Caramulo, PT


Cross Compliance - CAP E I E

RDP - CAP I E E I

Code of Agricultural Good Practices – Protection of Water against Pollution Caused by Nitrates of Agricultural Origin

E E E

Environmental Liability Legal Regime

E E E

Environment Policy Act E E E E E I

Framework Act of Land Use, Spatial Planning and Urbanism Public Policy

E E E I E E I I I I E

General Framework for Waste Management

I

Land Use Classification, Reclassification and Qualification Criteria

E I I I I I I I I I E

Law on the Assessment and Management of Flood Risks

I I I E I

Law on the Distribution, Sale and Application of Plant Protection Products for Professional Use

E

Law on the Protection of Water from Pollution Caused by the Use of Nitrates in Agriculture

I I I

44


Co

mp

acti

on

Dif

fus

e

Co

nt.

Po

int

So

urc

e C

on

t

Desert

i-

ficati

on

Ero

sio

n b

y

win

d

Ero

sio

n b

y

wate

r

Flo

od

s /

lan

d-s

lid

es

Lo

ss o

f b

iod

ivers

ity

Lo

ss S

OM

Salin

isati

on

Sealin

g

Law on the Use of Sewage Sludge on Agricultural Soils

E

Legal Regime for Nature Conservation and Biodiversity

I I I I I I I I

Legal Regime for Territorial Management Instruments

I I I I I I I I I I E

Legal Regime on Environmental Impact Assessment of the Significant Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects

I I I I I I I I I I I

Legal Regime on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment

I I I I I I I I I I I

Legal Regime on the Conservation of Birds and Habitats and Natura 2000 Network

I I I I

Legal Regime on the Discharge of Waste at Landfills

E E

Management of Waste from Extractive Industries Legal Regime

E

Manual of Agricultural Good Practices – Conservation of Soil and Water

E E E E I E E

National Action Program to Combat Desertification

E E E E E E E E E

National Ecological Reserve I E E I I E

National Forest Strategy E E E E E

National Strategy for Nature Conservation and Biodiversity

E E E E E E E E

Proposal on Contamination Prevention and Soil

I E

45


Co

mp

acti

on

Dif

fus

e

Co

nt.

Po

int

So

urc

e C

on

t

Desert

i-

ficati

on

Ero

sio

n b

y

win

d

Ero

sio

n b

y

wate

r

Flo

od

s /

lan

d-s

lid

es

Lo

ss o

f b

iod

ivers

ity

Lo

ss S

OM

Salin

isati

on

Sealin

g

Remediation Legal Regime

Water Law E E I E I I

Copsa Mica, RO



RDP - CAP E E I

Decision on Action Plan for the Protection of Waters Against Pollution Caused by Nitrates from Agricultural Sources

I I

Decision on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment

I I I I I I I I I I

Decision on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment

E I I E E I I E I E

Decree on Remediation E I I

Government Decision on the Methodology for Landslides and Flooding Risk Maps

E E I I

Law No 211/2011 on Waste Management

I E I I I

Law on Afforestation of Degraded Land

I E E E I E E

Law on Industrial Emissions E I

Law on Land Reclamation E E I I I E

Law on Regulating and Managing Urban Green Areas

I I E

National Plan for Groundwater Protection Against Pollution and Deterioration

E I

46


Co

mp

acti

on

Dif

fus

e

Co

nt.

Po

int

So

urc

e C

on

t

Desert

i-

ficati

on

Ero

sio

n b

y

win

d

Ero

sio

n b

y

wate

r

Flo

od

s /

lan

d-s

lid

es

Lo

ss o

f b

iod

ivers

ity

Lo

ss S

OM

Salin

isati

on

Sealin

g

National Strategy and National Plan for Management of Contaminated Sites

E I

Ordinance on Conservation, Natural Habitats, Flora and Wild Fauna Preservation

I I E I I E

Ordinance on Environmental Fund

E E E I I E I

Ordinance on Environmental Liability

I E E I I

Ordinance on Environmental Protection

I E E E E E E I I I

Procedure for Environmental Due Diligence Audit

E

Regulation on Environmental Pollution Assessment

E I I I

Soil Quality Monitoring System on an 8x8 km Grid and Related Database

E E I I E E

Technical Standards on the Protection of the Environment, and in Particular of the Soil, when Sewage Sludge is Used in Agriculture

E E I

Myjava, SK



RDP - CAP I

Act Concerning Flood Protection

I I I I

Act on Environmental Impacts Assessment

I I I I I I I I I I

Act on Fertilizers E I I

Land Consolidation Act I E E E E E I I E

Monitoring of Environment E E E I I E E I

47


Co

mp

acti

on

Dif

fus

e

Co

nt.

Po

int

So

urc

e C

on

t

Desert

i-

ficati

on

Ero

sio

n b

y

win

d

Ero

sio

n b

y

wate

r

Flo

od

s /

lan

d-s

lid

es

Lo

ss o

f b

iod

ivers

ity

Lo

ss S

OM

Salin

isati

on

Sealin

g

(Partial monitoring system – Soil)

Nature Protection Act I I I I I I I I I

Soil Protection Act E E E E I E I E

Water Act I E E I I I

Guadiamar, ES



RDP - CAP E I

Decree on a Sustainable Use of Fitosanitary Products

E I

Decree on Defining Soil Polluting Activities and Criteria

E

Decree on Protecting Waters from the Pollution by Nitrates Derived of Agricultural Sources

I I

Decree Regulating the Use of Sewage Sludge in the Agricultural Sector

E I E

Law 26/2007 of Environmental Liability

I E

Law for Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control

E E

Law on Waste and Polluted Soils

E

Royal Decree 1416/2006 to Decommission Petroleum-Product Tanks

E

State Framework Plan for Waste Management 2016 - 2022

E E E

Canyoles, ES



RDP - CAP E I

48


Co

mp

acti

on

Dif

fus

e

Co

nt.

Po

int

So

urc

e C

on

t

Desert

i-

ficati

on

Ero

sio

n b

y

win

d

Ero

sio

n b

y

wate

r

Flo

od

s /

lan

d-s

lid

es

Lo

ss o

f b

iod

ivers

ity

Lo

ss S

OM

Salin

isati

on

Sealin

g

Decree on Protecting Waters from the Pollution by Nitrates Derived of Agricultural Sources

I I

Decree on the Forestation of Agricultural Plots of Land

E E E E I I

Decree Regulating the Use of Sewage Sludge in the Agricultural Sector

E I E

Forestry Law E E E E

Law of Natural Heritage and Biodiversity

I I I I

National Action Programme to Combat Desertification

E E E

National Inventory of Soil Erosion

E E E I E

Spanish Forestry Plan E E E

Spanish Forestry Strategy E E E

State Framework Plan for Waste Management 2016 - 2022

E E E

Örke, SE



RDP - CAP E I E

Communication Focus on Ecosystem Services

I I I I I

Environmental Quality Objectives

I E E I I I I I E

Strategy for Sustainable Land Use (Draft)

E E E E E E E I E

The Swedish Environmental Code

I E E I I I I I E

Isle of Purbeck, UK



49


Co

mp

acti

on

Dif

fus

e

Co

nt.

Po

int

So

urc

e C

on

t

Desert

i-

ficati

on

Ero

sio

n b

y

win

d

Ero

sio

n b

y

wate

r

Flo

od

s /

lan

d-s

lid

es

Lo

ss o

f b

iod

ivers

ity

Lo

ss S

OM

Salin

isati

on

Sealin

g

RDP - CAP I I I

UK (England) – Catchment Sensitive Farming Programme

I I E I E I

UK (England) – National Planning Policy Framework

I I E

UK (England) – Safeguarding our Soils – A Strategy for England

E E E E E I I E E

UK (England) – The Natural Environment White Paper

E E E I I E I

UK (England) – A Housing Strategy for England

E I

UK (England and Wales) – Contaminated Land Capital Project Funds

E E I

UK (England and Wales) – Water Environment Regulations

I I I

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations

I I I I I

Countryside Survey E E E E E E E

Environmental Impact Assessment Legislation

I E E I I I I I I I

Contaminated Land Regime (Part 2A of Environmental Protection Act 1990)

E E I

Forestry Legislation I I I I I

Landfill Tax I

Legislation on Pollution, Prevention and Control

I I

Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations

E E I E I

Pesticides Control Legislation I I I

50


Co

mp

acti

on

Dif

fus

e

Co

nt.

Po

int

So

urc

e C

on

t

Desert

i-

ficati

on

Ero

sio

n b

y

win

d

Ero

sio

n b

y

wate

r

Flo

od

s /

lan

d-s

lid

es

Lo

ss o

f b

iod

ivers

ity

Lo

ss S

OM

Salin

isati

on

Sealin

g

Strategic Environmental Assessment Legislation

I I I I I I I I I I

The Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations

I I I

UK Forestry Standard (UKFS) E E E E E E

Frienisberg, CH

Federal law on agriculture:

Ordinance on Direct Payments I I

Proof of Ecological Performance' (PEP)

I

Amendments to the ordinance on direct payments

E

Resource efficient and sustainable soil management (2014-2019)

I I

Resource programme (timely limited scope)

I I

Federal law on environmental protection:

E E

Erosion risk map Switzerland (for agricultural areas)

E

Soil pollution Regulation (incl. legally defined standards on soil erosion)

E E

Guidelines for environmental protection in agriculture (incl. Soil protection)

E E

Funding programme for soil (Canton Bern 2009-2015)

E E

Agri-environmental monitoring (ie erosion risk and soil cover are indicators)

E

Terranimo E

A series of leaflets (from Agridea - The centre for

E E

51


Co

mp

acti

on

Dif

fus

e

Co

nt.

Po

int

So

urc

e C

on

t

Desert

i-

ficati

on

Ero

sio

n b

y

win

d

Ero

sio

n b

y

wate

r

Flo

od

s /

lan

d-s

lid

es

Lo

ss o

f b

iod

ivers

ity

Lo

ss S

OM

Salin

isati

on

Sealin

g

Agricultural Advisory and Extension Services) for farmers on ie soil erosion and compaction

Federal law on water protection: Ordinance on protection of water

National Reference Network for Obserervation of Soil Pollution (NABO)

Vansjø-Hobøl, NO

The Water Framework Directive

I I I

National Environmental Program for Agriculture (incl. Financial grants)

I I E I

Regional Rural Development Program, hereunder regulations from the Regional Environmental Program (RMP) (provided by the County Governor) incl. Financial grants

I I E I

Local regulations and land use plans by local municipalities

I E E I

Governmental production subsidies (given as subsidies per land area used for production)

Grants for special agricultural measures (SMIL)

E E

Guidelines for the Regional Environmental Program grant scheme (with descriptions of measures etc.)

E I

Norwegian Agricultural Extension Service

Gunnarsholt, Legislation on land reclamation NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA

52


Co

mp

acti

on

Dif

fus

e

Co

nt.

Po

int

So

urc

e C

on

t

Desert

i-

ficati

on

Ero

sio

n b

y

win

d

Ero

sio

n b

y

wate

r

Flo

od

s /

lan

d-s

lid

es

Lo

ss o

f b

iod

ivers

ity

Lo

ss S

OM

Salin

isati

on

Sealin

g

IC

(Soil Conservation Service of Iceland (SCSI))

Reforestation legislation(Icelandic Forestry Service (IFS)).

NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA

District afforestation programs at nationaland lcaal level


Agricultural Commodities Agreement


Legislation for Quality Management in Sheep Farming (QMS)


Agreement between the State and farmers, of the working condition in sheep farming


FHL cost-sharing program on ecosystem restoration


Land Improvement Fund NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA

53

Annex 4: Example of an Impact Chain

Impact Pathway: Waste Framework Directive DIRECTIVE 2008/98/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives12 The analysis of the Waste Framework Directive builds on the policy instruments already in place and its implementation at national/regional level and does not take into account recent proposals published the European Commission, except for some assumptions and findings (with regards to potential impacts) from the Impact Assessment accompanying a former proposal of revision the waste legislation.13

A Changes to the Policy Framework

General idea The Directive follows up on the first EU legislation covering the generation and treatment of waste, introduced in 1975. A major change in policy was the shift away from the widespread dumping of waste in landfills to reinforcing the relevance of waste prevention and shifting mindsets from waste to waste as a resource that can be re-used, recycled or treated to produce energy (Jackson and Watkins)14. This is reflected in the ‘waste hierarchy’ below.

The Directive came into force on 22 December 2008 and had to be transposed by the Member States within two years, by 12 December 2010. Article 11(4) of the Waste Framework Directive requires that by 31st December 2014, the Commission shall examine the measures and targets set out in Article 11(2) with a view to, if necessary, reinforcing the targets and considering the setting of targets for other waste streams.

Administrative level

EU-level

Examples N° of regional and national waste prevention plans and measures in place

Rate of recycled waste (%)

Recycling/preparation for re-use for plastic, metals, paper and glass from household waste;

Recycling/preparation for re-use of all household waste/ municipal waste

Description The Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) aims to reduce the negative impact of waste generation and management on the environment and to increase the efficiency of resource use and therewith to protect the environment and human health. It also defines a ‘waste hierarchy’:

12

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098 13

COM 2014, SWD(2014) 208 final and COM 2014, Commission Staff Working document – Executive Summary of the Impact assessment; COM 2014, SWD(2014) 207 part1-6 14

Jackson, C. and Watkins, E.. 2012. EU waste law: the challenge of better compliance. IEEP. URL: http://www.ieep.eu/assets/946/DEEP_Waste_law_and_better_compliance.pdf

54

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/

The Directive lays down some basic waste management principles: it requires that waste be managed without endangering human health and harming the environment, and in particular

without risk to water, air, soil, plants or animals,

without causing a nuisance through noise or odours, and

without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest.

Waste legislation and policy of the EU Member States shall apply the above waste management hierarchy to prioritise different waste management approaches.15 The Directive entails the following mandatory instruments:

Waste management plans

MS shall establish waste management plans (within five years of its entry into force) that set out an analysis of the current waste management situation in the geographical entity concerned, the measures to be taken to improve environmentally sound preparation for re-use, recycling, recovery, and disposal of waste, and an evaluation of how the plan will support the implementation of the objectives and provisions of this Directive (incl. including objectives with potential negative implications for soil protection).

Waste prevention programmes

MS shall establish waste prevention programmes16 incl. the existing prevention measures, specific qualitative or quantitative benchmarks for waste prevention measures adopted, and specific qualitative or quantitative targets and indicators.

Further instruments:

Standards for soil protection: MS must ensure that when disposal activities occur on sites handling and processing wastes (including hazardous wastes) these provisions are abided by

There are clear provision for waste management facilities (storage

15

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/ 16

An EU country analysis conducted by the EEA (2016) revealed that: “Countries fairly frequently presented national waste prevention plans (required by the Waste Framework Directive) and waste recycling policies as a national material resource efficiency strategy.” EEA 2016. More from less — material resource efficiency in Europe - 2015 overview of policies, instruments and targets in 32 countries. EEA report 10/2016

55

and treatment) to take account of soil protection in their permitting and operation

Provisions on the collection and processing of biowaste and the quality / environmental safety of emerging materials – providing an alternative source of organic matter for soil improvement

In 2014 a proposal to improve the waste management (including all relevant regulations) was published, accompanied by an impact assessment.17 In this context the three following options were discussed and assessed: 1) Ensuring full implementation, 2) Simplify EU waste legislation by clarifying and simplifying measurements methods, improve monitoring and ensure optimal waste management in all Member States; and 3) Establish mid-term waste targets in line with EU ambitions regarding resource efficiency and access to raw materials (upgrade EU targets).

In December 2015 the European Commission produced a circular economy package, which includes a proposal on amending the Waste Framework Directive (with new options and targets different from those formulated in the 2014 proposal)18. This proposal is currently under review by the European Parliament.19 The revised legislative proposals on waste set clear targets for reduction of waste and establish an ambitious and credible long-term path for waste management and recycling. Key elements of the revised waste proposal include e.g. a common EU target for recycling 65% of municipal waste by 2030; a common EU target for recycling 75% of packaging waste by 2030 and a binding landfill target to reduce landfill to maximum of 10% of municipal waste by 2030.

B Soil policy instruments

General idea The Waste Framework Directive defines two targets (Article 11(2)):

by 2020, the at least half of certain waste materials (by weight) shall be re-used and re-cycled. This applies to at least paper, metal, plastic and glass from households and possibly from other origins as far as these waste streams are similar to waste from households.

by 2020, re-use, recycle or otherwise recover including backfilling operations using waste to substitute other materials, at least 70% (by weight) of non-hazardous construction and demolition waste excluding naturally occurring material defined in category 17 05 04 in the list of waste.


Member State (MS) or regional level (in federal states) are responsible for transposing the Waste FD and its respective instruments at national/regional level

Examples Standards/instruments for soil protection

Description The Directive addresses soil explicitly, as it requires Member States to ensure that waste management activities do not contaminate the

17

COM 2014, SWD(2014) 208 final and COM 2014, Commission Staff Working document – Executive Summary of the Impact assessment; COM 2014, SWD(2014) 207 part1-6, see: Impact Assessment - Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2008/98/EC on waste, 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste, 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles, 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators, and 2012/19/EU on waste electrical and electronic equipment. 18

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/index_en.htm 19

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bCOMPARL%2bPE-580.497%2b01%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN)

56

environment, including soil (Art.13). It sets requirements for waste treatment that contribute to reducing soil contamination. Through promoting the prevention of waste, the directive contributes to reducing soil contamination. By incentivising the recycling of waste materials, the directive could reduce the pressure on soils as a resource (e.g. from the construction sector).

Soil relevant instruments20 include:

Recycling/reclamation of other inorganic materials (This includes soil cleaning resulting in recovery of the soil and recycling of inorganic construction materials.)

Land treatment resulting in benefits to agriculture or ecological improvement

Provisions on the collection and processing of biowaste to produce environmentally safe compost and other bio-waste based materials – offering alternative sources of organic matter for soil improvement

However the Waste FD also excludes the following issues from its scope (Art.2, 1b): “land (in situ) including unexcavated contaminated soil and buildings permanently connected with land; Art.2, 1c): uncontaminated soil and other naturally occurring material excavated in the course of construction activities where it is certain that the material will be used for the purposes of construction in its natural state on the site from which it was excavated.”

C Soil management measures

General idea There are no explicit soil management measures outlined as the primary focus is on waste prevention and reuse/recycling.


Member State or regional level are responsible for transposing the Waste FD, while the implementation takes place at local/ community level

Examples See B

Description See B

D Soil quality impact

General idea Prevention and reduction of diffuse and point source soil contamination

Soil contamination describes the occurrence of contaminants in soil above a certain level leading to the deterioration of soil quality and the partial/total loss of one or more soil functions. Soil productivity is affected as well as soil organisms. A contaminated soil has exceeded its capacity for natural attenuation for one or more substances, and consequently passes from acting as a protector to cause adverse effects to the water system, the atmosphere, and organisms. The soil’s biogeochemical equilibria are modified and abnormal amounts of certain components appear that cause significant changes in the physical, chemical and biological soil properties (Stolte et al. 2015).21

Administrative Regional or local (corresponding to the scale of the soil management

20

See eg ANNEX II Recovery Operations as part of the DIRECTIVE 2008/98/EC 21

Stolte,J., Tesfai,M. and Øygarden, L. 2015. Soil in Europe – threats, functions and ecosystem services. A review report, deliverable 2.1 of the RECARE project

57

level measures)

General statistics on the soil contamination in Europe are available.22

Examples Collection and processing of biowaste and its application to soils

Soil protection standards

Description MS have to control pollutant inputs from waste management activities and take actions to prevent their leaching into soils (including waste prevention in the first place).

(Note: There is no information on specific impacts of measures on soil quality resulting from the fact that the Waste FD addresses soil only under Art. 13, but foresees no specific soil protection management or quality measures apart from those listed in here ((D) and under B.

E Impact on other soil threats

General idea Waste management indirectly has also an impact on soil biodiversity. Provisions around biowaste have the potential to promote alternative solutions for soil fertility and therewith potentially contributing to soil organic matter. Moreover, positive impacts on soil aggregate stability and soil organic matter can diminish the risk for wind and water erosion (Stolte et al. 2015).


Regional or local

Examples Indirect impacts can be assessed e.g. via:

Increase in soil biodiversity (see F for more details)

Increase in soil organic carbon content in top soil/ subsoil (g/kg)

Reduced risk of wind/water erosion (t/ha)

Description The impacts of waste management measures (as listed under B) can impact other soil in the following way:

Soil Organic Matter: Adding recycled biowaste to the soil to increase content of soil organic carbon in the soil and therewith also water retention capacity and soil stability

Erosion: minimised risk of soil erosion die to stabilised soil

(Soil) biodiversity: see F below

Setting out provisions on the collection and processing of biowaste and to produce environmentally safe compost and other bio-waste based materials – opening up alternative sources of organic matter for soil improvement and therewith also soil health.

F Impact on biodiversity

General idea Soil contamination leads to decreased activity of soil biota and to decreased biodiversity (Geissen et al. 201023, Keesstra et al. 201224) and therefore to a decline of aggregate stability, decline in decomposition,

22

Eg In 2011-12, the European Soil Data Centre of the European Commission conducted a project to collect data on contaminated sites from national institutions in Europe using the European Environment Information and Observation Network for Soil (EIONET-SOIL). Further data is available at JRC (eg 35 agri-environmental indicators) and at national level (Stolte et al. 2015). 23

Geissen, V., Que-Ramos, F., Bastidas-Bastidas P., Díaz-González, G., Bello-Mendoza, R., Huerta-Lwanga, E., Ruiz-Suárez, L.E. 2010: Soil and water pollution in a banana production region in tropical Mexico. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 85: 407-413 24

Keesstra, S.D., Geissen, V., Mosse, K., Piiranen, S., Scudiero, E., Leistra, M., van Schaik, L.2012.Soil as a filter. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainiability 4 (5): 507-516

58

mineralization and humification.

It has been reported that plant biodiversity decreased in polluted soils with high concentration of bioavailable trace elements (Madejón et al. 201325).

Soil microorganisms and soil microbial processes can also become disrupted by elevated concentrations of trace elements in soils (Giller et al. 199826). As was indicated above, it is generally accepted that accumulated pollutants reduce the amount of soil microbial biomass (Chander et al. 199527) and various enzyme activities, leading to a decrease in the functional diversity in the soil ecosystem (Kandeler et al. 199628) and changes in the microbial community structure (Pennanen et al. 199829). However, metal exposure may also lead to the development of metal tolerant microbial populations (Ellis et al. 200330).


Regional or local

Examples Rate of recycled biowaste applied on agricultural areas (t/ha)

Assessment of soil biodiversity (e.g. Multiple enzyme fluorometric assays to profile the activity of soil enzymes, Multiple substrate induced respiration, Genetic profiles of soil microbial community structure, Lipid profiles soil microbial community structure and biomass, Assessment of soil nematode communities, Assessment of soil microarthropod communities (Stolte et al. 2015))

Description Prevention of waste, recycling of materials and appropriate treatment of waste are expected to avoid soil contamination and therewith negative impact on soil biodiversity.

Healthy soils can also benefit above ground biodiversity (in part. plants).

G Impact on greenhouse gas retention

General idea Assessments have been conducted focusing on the GHG emissions31 resulting from waste treatment and disposal technologies (COM 2014, SWD(2014) 207, part2/6)


World wide

Examples N/A

Description Reduction of GHG emissions are expected from waste prevention and increased reuse and recycling materials (which would otherwise be extracted and processed).

25

Madejón P, Ciadamidaro L, Marañón T, Murillo JM. 2013. Long-term biomonitoring of soil contaminationusing poplar trees: accumulation of trace elements in leaves and fruits. International Journal of Phytoremediation 15: 602–614. 26

Giller, K.E., Witter, E., McGrath, S.P., 1998. Toxicity of heavy metals to microorganisms and microbial processes in agricultural soils: a review. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 30: 1389-1414 27

Chander, K., Brookes, P.C., Harding, S.A., 1995. Microbial biomass dynamics following addition of metal-enriched sewage sludges to a sandy loam. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 27: 1409-1421. 28

Kandeler E, Kampichler C, Horak O. 1996. Influence of heavy metals on the functional diversity of soil microbial communities. BiolFertilSoils 23:299–306 29

Pennanen, T., Perkiömaki, J., Kiikilä, O., Vanhala, P., Neuhoven, S., Fritze, H., 1998. Prolonged, simulated acid rain and heavy metal deposition: separated and combined effects on forest soil microbial community structure. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 27: 291-300. 30

Ellis, R.J., Morgan, P., Weightman, A.J., Fry, J.C., 2003. Cultivation-dependent andindependent approaches for determining bacterial diversity in heavy-metal contaminated soil.Applied and Environmental Microbiology 69: 3223-3230. 31

Assessment focuses primarily of new future options for waste legislation (rather than the potential of the current legislation)

59

H Direct Economic impacts

General idea Waste prevention and adequate waste management can avoid/ significantly reduce costs resulting from remediating soil contamination as well as the cost of water cleaning and water use. The use of biowaste as alternative source of soil organic matter can reduce costs for soil improving strategies at farm level (see H)

(No information on the direct economic effects associated with enhanced soil quality / reduced waste and increase in recycling)

In relation to the implementation of the Directive as a whole, full implementation of existing legislation would lead to the annual net costs (higher collection/treatment costs minus environmental benefits) are estimated to amount to €1500 million by 2020 and progressively decrease to less than €600 million by 2035 across the EU28. With the intensification of separate collection and higher recycling rates, more waste will be recycled and less residual waste needs to be collected and treated. Savings will significantly increase in the long-term when logistic systems are established. (SWD(2014) 208 final: 5; COM 2014, SWD(2014) 207, part2/6: 11)


Regional or local, aggregated or extrapolated to EU level

Examples The following impacts should be evaluated:

Waste industry/municipalities: costs for waste prevention and treatment vs. costs for cleaning water and soils from contamination (caused by waste and disposals)

Water industries: Increased costs of water preparation due to higher cleaning costs.

Description

H Wider economic impact (indirect effects)

General idea If MS are to be fully compliant with the targets of the current waste legislation (full implementation vs Business as usual) significant efforts are necessary in particular in larger countries (SK, ES, RO, CZ, PL, GR) which are required to improve their collection services.

Farmers could potentially save costs and time if the price for recycled biowaste as substitute for soil organic matter is lower than the costs resulting from SOM improving strategies (e.g. crop rotation etc.). In this context low performing countries with a bring-based collection have to move towards a door-to-door approach.

However, the benefit of this for soil protection strongly depends on ensuring that the OM from waste meets the highest standards.


Regional or national, aggregated or extrapolated to EU level

Examples N/A

Description The following wider economic benefits of formerly proposed policy options (included in the proposal (2014) for revising the waste regulation and upgrading EU targets) were identified by the impact assessment (SWD(2014) 208 final):

Benefits related to the greater availability of (secondary) raw

60

materials, thus mitigating the risks of future price increases of primary materials that the EU manufacturing industry is likely to face.

Benefits flowing from enhanced waste recovery and recycling opportunities in the EU internal market (better use of existing and development of new, innovative waste treatment infrastructure, thus favouring the EU waste managing sector)

Costs and benefits related to better monitoring, reduced administrative burdens and simplification.

Creation of jobs, owing to the fact that the upper tiers of the waste hierarchy (including separate collection, reuse and recycling) are known to be much more labour intensive than waste disposal and incineration.

Positive effects on the competitiveness of the EU waste management and recycling sectors as well as on the EU the manufacturing sector

I Social Impacts

General idea Decline in waste can reduce emissions to air, land and water and therewith risk to human health. (COM 2014, SWD(2014) 207, part2/6).

The estimated increase in direct employment is 36,761 full-time equivalents (FTE’s). (SWD(2014) 208 final: 5; COM 2014, SWD(2014) 207, part2/6: 11). A significant increase is expected in countries where waste management systems have to be improved and changed.


Regional or national, aggregated or extrapolated to EU level

Examples Number of jobs

Behaviour change towards more sustainable waste management

Description N/A

61

ANNEX 5: EU Policy Instruments relevant for Soil Protection I. EU DIRECTIVES ...........................................................................................................62

1 Water Framework Directive ...........................................................................................62

2 Floods Directive.............................................................................................................69

3 Nitrates Directive ...........................................................................................................75

4 Pesticides Directive .......................................................................................................82

5 Fertiliser Regulation ......................................................................................................89

6 Environmental Impact Assessment Directive .................................................................93

7 Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive ........................................................... 100

8 Environmental Liability Directive .................................................................................. 104

9 Habitats and Birds Directives....................................................................................... 110

10 Industrial Emissions Directive .................................................................................. 117

11 Sewage Sludge Directive ......................................................................................... 121

12 Landfill Directive ...................................................................................................... 126

13 Waste Framework Directive ..................................................................................... 130

14 Renewable Energy Directive .................................................................................... 134

II. EU FUNDS .................................................................................................................. 144

15 Common Agricultural Policy – Pillar 1 ...................................................................... 144

16 Common Agricultural Policy - Pillar 2 (EAFRD) ........................................................ 152

17 Structural Funds and Cohesion Policy – the Cohesion Fund.................................... 160

18 Structural Funds and Cohesion Policy – the European Social Fund......................... 166

19 Structural Funds and Cohesion Policy – ERDF ........................................................ 171

20 LIFE Programme ..................................................................................................... 177

III. EU STRATEGIES AND PROGRAMMES ................................................................. 183

21 Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection ....................................................................... 183

22 EU Biodiversity Strategy .......................................................................................... 192

23 7th Environment Action Programme ........................................................................ 197

24 Soil Sealing Guidelines ............................................................................................ 204

25 EU Forest Action Plan and Forest Strategy .............................................................. 207

26 Adaptation Strategy ................................................................................................. 213

27 Emissions Trading System....................................................................................... 219

28 Effort Sharing Decision ............................................................................................ 225

29 Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe ................................................................ 229

62

I. EU DIRECTIVES1

1 Water Framework Directive

1. Name of Policy and brief summary of implementation With the Water Framework Directive (WFD, 2000/60/EC),2 the European Union has established a common framework for water protection and management, which aims to protect and restore aquatic ecosystems, and to guarantee long-term, sustainable water use. The WFD requires Member States to set “river basin districts” (RBD), which are the main management unit of river basins (Art. 3.1), and to identify an appropriate competent authority by the end of 2003 (Art. 24). It further requires to develop and publish a river basin management plan (RBMP) for each RBD by the end of 2009, and to review and updated it every six years afterwards (Art. 13). It requires to accompany the RBMP by programmes of measures (PMs) (Art. 11) which are envisaged as necessary to bring the water bodies progressively to the required status by the deadline. The measures foreseen in the PMs depend on the initial status of the water bodies, characteristics of the RBD and the pressures and impacts of human activities. The Directive requires Member States to establish PMs by the end of 2009 and make all the measures operational by the end of 2012 (Art. 11.7); to review and if necessary update by the end of 2015 and every six years afterwards. Furthermore, it requires to make operational any new or revised measures established under an updated programme within 3 years of their establishment (Art. 11.8). 1. Under Article 8, the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes in order to gain a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each river basin district. These programmes shall be made operational at the latest by the end of 2006 or as it is specified. Entry into force Signed on 23 October 2000, the WFD entered into force on the same day of its publication in the Official Journal (OJ L 327) of the European Union, which was 22 December 2000. 2. Policy Field (water, agriculture, biodiversity, energy) Water Integration/coordination issues with other related pieces of legislation Annex VI of the WFD provides a list of directives and requires to include measures under these directives within the WFD national programmes of measures:

Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC);

Birds Directive (79/409/EEC);

Drinking Water Directive (80/778/EEC) as amended by Directive (98/83/EC);

Major Accidents (Seveso) Directive (96/82/EC);

Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC);

Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC);

Urban Waste-water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC);

Plant Protection Products Directive (91/414/EEC);

1 Information on reporting units (specific transposition requirements) and assessment of environmental status for Water

Framework Directive, Floods Directive, Nitrates Directive, Pesticides Directive, Habitats and Birds Directives, Waste Framework Directive and Renewable Energy Directive, and Adaptation Stratey was drawn from the annexes of the report: Rouillard, J., Lago, M., Abhold, K., Roeschel, L., Kafyeke, T., Klimmek, H. and Mattheiß, V., 2016. “Synergies and Differences between Biodiversity, Nature, Water and Marine Environment EU Policies: Deliverable 2.1” Report as part of the Horizon 2020 project AQUACROSS (Knowledge, Assessment, and Management for AQUAtic Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services aCROSS EU policies). 2 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a

framework for Community action in the field of water policy.

63

Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC);

Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC);

Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Directive (96/61/EC). 3. Aims of the policy and its relevance to soil protection Objectives: The main aim of the WFD is to achieve a good status for all European Union waters by 2015 (Art. 4). The WFD establishes a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. The framework has several objectives such as protecting and improving the state of aquatic ecosystems, promoting sustainable water use and protecting available water resources, preventing and reducing pollution, and reducing the effects of floods and droughts (Art. 1) in order to achieve its ultimate aim. Principles included in the legal text:

Precautionary

Preventive action

Polluter-pays

Subsidiarity Spatial coverage and management unit: The WFD covers all surface and groundwater in the European Union. A ‘river basin district’ (RBD) is a natural geographical and hydrological unit and is the main unit for management of river basins as it is indicated in Article 3.1. Relevance to soil protection Addressing the WFD’s primary focus requires (among other measures) the implementation of soil management measures which contribute to soil protection. Thus, soil management measures are a tool to reach the objectives, but not the primary focus of the WFD. 4. Soil-focused aims and objectives

Direct: WFD does not have any direct soil-focused aims and objectives. Indirect: one of the Directive’s objectives is to “protect and enhance the status of aquatic

ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on the aquatic ecosystems” (Art. 1a). However, the WFD does not set specific objectives to protect the terrestrial ecosystems. WFD identifies the urban and industrial installations and agricultural activities as the main sources of point and diffuse pollution. Agriculture is identified as a major source of water pollution, thus the RBMP and respective PMs have to address agricultural pressures to ensure the full implementation of the WFD. The PMs refer to various directives, for example to the Nitrates Directive, and in this way contribute to the primary objective of good water status and indirectly to the soil-relevant aims and objectives.

64

Soil threats addressed by the WFD Directly: soil threats are not directly tackled by the measures in the WFD. Indirectly: soil erosion, pollution (contamination), salinisation, SOM increase as well as

improvement of the soil biodiversity (as directly linked to the increase of SOM) are indirectly addressed by the WFD provisions, as the WFD refers to other Directives that enhance or hinder soil protection. The main pressures caused on water by agriculture are nutrient and pesticide loads, abstraction of water for irrigation (particularly in Southern Europe) and the hydro-morphological changes, which are associated with the soil threats such as soil pollution/contamination (with pesticides), soil salinisation (from waters with high salt levels, poor application techniques or drainage, and abstraction practices in coastal areas leading to potential salinisation of groundwater through seawater intrusion), and poor soil drainage due to the hydro-morphological changes.3

5. Soil-focused targets and/or expected impacts

Direct soil-focused targets

Indirect soil-focused targets Soil-focused expected impacts

There are no direct or specific soil targets in the WFD.

The aim of the WFD to reduce water pollution and use relates indirectly to the treatment of the soil through the various measures required by the WFD PMs. The activities set in the RBMPs and the respective PMs in all the RBDs differ depending on the characteristics of the RBD and pressures and impacts of human activities. Thus each PM sets different measures in achieving good status of water bodies and might contribute to different soil threats.

The RBD could have agriculture as the major activity impacting surface waters and/or ground waters and need to incorporate measures into the RBMP that address the soil management measures, etc. to reduce these impacts. Impacts on soil depend on the selected soil management measures and the extent of their application.

6. Mandatory requirements and voluntary options for Member States There are no explicit soil-focused obligatory requirements in WFD. Indirectly, though there is a possibility to address soil through the following elements of the WFD: Assigning RBDs and the responsible authorities (Art. 3 and Annexes II and III) could potentially be well used for soil management and protection, as the RBMP includes the assessment of the characteristics of the RBD as well as the pressures and impacts of human activity on water status (Art. 5 and Annexes II and III). The designation of the responsible authority for each of the RBD is of high relevance as it among others contributes to the coordination of all PMs for the whole of the RBD. In order to achieve the established environmental objectives (Art. 4), a PM for each RBD shall be established in each MS (Art. 11). The PMs may make reference to measures following from legislation adopted at the national level. This includes ‘basic measures’ as a minimum requirement to be complied with and which consist of those particular measures required under different Community legislation. With regard to soil management and protection, the WFD ‘basic measures’ refer to: the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC), the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC), the Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC), the Plant Protection Products Directive (91/414/EEC) and the Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Directive (96/61/EC) (now the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU).4

3 Strosser, P., Pau Vall, M., Plötscher, E., Water and agriculture: contribution to an analysis of a critical but difficult

relationship, European Commission, available at http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/report/en/eau_en/report.htm. See also European Commission (2009) Salinisation and sodification. Sustainable agriculture and soil conservation (SoCo) Fact sheet no. 4, available at http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/SOCO/FactSheets/ENFactSheet-04.pdf. 4 The complete list of Annex VI Part A: (i) The Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC); (ii) The Birds Directive

(79/409/EEC); (iii) The Drinking Water Directive (80/778/EEC) as amended by Directive (98/83/EC); (iv) The

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/report/en/eau_en/report.htm

65

Key soil-relevant instruments Mandatory Produce (a) river basin management plan(s) (Art. 13) Establish (a) programme of measure(s) and implement ‘basic’ measures (Art. 11) Establish monitoring programmes for surface and groundwater status and protected areas within RBDs (Art. 8) and report on the progress in achieving “good” status (Art. 15) Voluntary Implement, where necessary, ‘supplementary’ measures (Art. 11)

With regard to soil management and protection, the WFD ‘supplementary measures’ may include measures such as legislative instruments, economic and fiscal instruments and educational projects) which are not soil-specific. Nevertheless, some of them are directly linked to soil management and protection, e.g. codes of good practices, recreation and restoration of wetlands areas, abstraction controls, promotion of adapted agricultural production such as low water requiring crops in areas affected by drought, promotion of water-saving irrigation techniques.5 “Member States may also adopt further supplementary measures in order to

provide for additional protection or improvement of the waters” (Art. 11.4), this Member States are free to choose the relevant measures. The monitoring of surface water status, groundwater status and protected areas within each RBD (Art. 8) allows to track the changes of the pressures and impacts of human activity on water bodies. Producing a RBMP (Art. 13 and Annex VII) includes consultation of the public (Art 14) and is valuable for soil protection as it includes the assessment of the characteristics of the entire RBD eco-region, the identification of pressures and impacts of human activity on water status and applies a combined approach for point and diffuse sources (Art. 5 and Annexes II and III):

Characterisation of surface waters, among other requires presentation of eco-regions, including: altitude and size typology, geology and ‘mean substratum composition’ (the latter only as optional factor) of the catchment area. ‘Mean substratum composition’ is directly associated to soil quality, though on the river or lake bed only (soil analysis is not required under this characterisation).

Characterization of groundwater may employ existing hydrological, geological, pedological, land use, discharge, abstraction and other data; for the groundwater bodies which have been identified as being at risk, Member States shall carry out further characterisation, including characteristics of the superficial deposits and soils in the catchment from which the groundwater body receives its recharge, including the thickness, porosity, hydraulic conductivity, and absorptive properties of the deposits and soils.

Identification of pressures and impact of human activity on the status of surface water and groundwater, includes estimation of point and diffuse source pollution, and estimation of land use patterns, including identification of the main urban, industrial and agricultural areas and, where relevant, fisheries and forests is prescribed. In this way, the tailored PMs can be designed for the RBD.

Funding Article 9(3) does not prevent funding of preventive and remedial measures to achieve the WFD’s objectives in light of the cost-recovery principle.

Major Accidents (Seveso) Directive (96/82/EC); (v) The Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC); (vi) The Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC); (vii) The Urban Waste-water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC); (viii) The Plant Protection Products Directive (91/414/EEC); (ix) The Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC); (x) The Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC); (xi) The Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Directive (96/61/EC). 5 (vi) codes of good practice; (vii) recreation and restoration of wetlands areas; (viii) abstraction controls; (ix)

demand management measures, inter alia, promotion of adapted agricultural production such as low water requiring crops in areas affected by drought; (x) efficiency and reuse measures, inter alia, promotion of water-efficient technologies in industry and water-saving irrigation techniques.

66

7. Assessment of environmental status Under Article 5, the WFD requires Member States to carry out analysis of the RBD characteristics, a review of the environmental impact of human activity on water status and economic analysis of water use (Art.5.1). This was supposed to be completed by the end of 2004; reviewed and updated by the end of 2013 and every six years afterwards (Art.5.2). The achievement of “good status” of the EU’s water bodies relies on relevant quality elements for each type of water and assessment parameters contained in Annex V. The European Commission provides on its website the Guidance Documents and technical reports that have been produced to assist stakeholders to implement the WFD. These Guidance Documents are intended to provide an overall methodological approach, but the Member States have to tailor them according to their specific circumstances.6 8. Reporting units - what are the specific transposition requirements The WFD specifies its’ reporting requirements in Articles 3, 15 and 18:

Article 3 requires Member States to provide information to the European Commission on the identification of RBDs and Competent Authorities.

Article 15 requires Member States to provide information to the Commission within 3 months of their publication on: (i) copies of RBMPs developed under Article 13; (ii) summary reports of the analysis carried out according to Article 5; and (iii) summary reports of the monitoring programmes designed under Article 8. Furthermore, Member States are required to submit Interim reports within 3 years of the RBMPs publication and of each update, including implementation progress of the planned PMs. (See also implementation requirements described above).

Article 18 requires the Commission to submit a report on the implementation of the WFD to the European Parliament and to the Council within 12 years of the entry into force of the policy (2012) and every 6 years afterwards. Within three years of the publication of each of these reports, the Commission is required to submit to the European Parliament and to the Council an interim report that describes progress in implementation of the WFD on the basis of the interim reports of the Member States. Furthermore, the Commission is required to publish a progress report and submit it to the European Parliament and the Member States on progress in implementation of Article 5 analysis and monitoring programmes, based on the summary reports that Member States submit, at the latest by the end of 2006 for Article 5 analysis and by the end of 2008 for monitoring programmes.

9. Examples of implementation approaches in case study areas The National Implementing Measures (NIM) communicated by the Member States concerning the WFD can be found under: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/NIM/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060. There is a list of assessments of WFD implementation here: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/impl_reports.htm The following list provides an overview of the most soil focused measures which were identified on the basis of the measure overview provided in the assessment of the RBMPs implementation (Dworak et al. 20107, Ch. 5). No differentiation was made between basic and supplementary measures as this does not matter as long as both support the overall aim of achieving the good status of waters and focus on soil. Most soil focused measures (with a direct link to soil) were found under the group of technical measures, while the non-technical measures and economic instruments also have an indirect linkage. Technical measures refer to measures which are related to farming practice, e.g. change in practices, technical

6 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/guidance_docs_en.htm

7 Dworak, T.; Berglund, M.; Thaler, T.; Fabik, E.; L.; Amand, B.; Grandmougin, B.; Ribeiro, M. M.; Laaser, C.;

Matauschek, M. (2010): Assessment of agriculture measures included in the draft River Basin Management Plans - Summary Report.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/guidance_docs_en.htm

67

improvements of machinery or end of pipe technology; they are either mandatory or voluntary depending on the implementing Member State.

Input reduction measures, including: o ‘general diffuse pollution measures’ that address both fertiliser and pesticide

use, e.g. analysing soils to plan the use of fertilisers, proper spreading of all fertiliser types (contributing the reduction of soil pollution), proper storage and use of manure during certain weather and soil conditions (contributing to the reduction of soil compaction).

o ‘livestock farming oriented measures’ (all contributing to the reduction of soil compaction), e.g. reduction in manure use, either through quantitative or time limits, land area restrictions, improved spraying technologies, a temporary ban or complete elimination of use; to set specific drinking water sites; reduction in livestock per hectare.

o ‘measures targeting chemical fertilisers’ that main focus on chemical fertilisers, e.g. quantitative restriction of chemical fertiliser application, improved nutrient spraying technologies, precision agriculture (all contributing to the reduction of soil pollution), catch crops (contributing to the reduction of soil erosion and increased soil organic matter), crop rotation (contributing to the increased soil organic matter and soil biodiversity), using ‘green manure’ e.g. special crops instead of organic or chemical fertiliser (contributing to the increased soil organic matter and reduced soil erosion).

o ‘improving drainage system’ measure is about adapting agriculture drainage techniques to remove excess water from the soil in order to enhance crop production. However, too much land drainage can lead to the loss of ecologically important wetlands (having also a negative impact on soil organic matter in soil) and contribute to making floods worse.

o ‘measures to tackle pesticides’ aim to reduce impacts from pesticide use and range from quantitative and location restrictions, restriction of use of certain chemicals to use of alternatives to pesticides such as integrated pest management, planting crops that require fewer pesticides, and to complete elimination of use (all contributing to the reduction of oil pollution).

o ‘low-input farming’ including organic farming and integrated farming measures (contributing to the increased soil organic matter and soil biodiversity).

o ‘land use interventions’ that refer to the land use changes in order to control agriculture input, e.g. land conversion from arable land to grassland and meadows, and afforestation of arable land (contributing to the reduction of soil pollution and erosion, to the increased soil organic matter and soil biodiversity); land use restrictions such as changing land use in nitrate and erosion sensitive areas or restricting existing land use (contributing to the reduction of soil erosion mainly, also reduction of soil pollution and increased soil organic matter).

Measures to decrease the risk of soil erosion, including: o ’General, basic erosion measures’, e.g. encouraging the maintenance of the

level of organic matter in agricultural soils to prevent erosion and soil compaction; or changes in land management practices that focuses on decreasing the nutrient and sediment input into the surface water stemming from erosion. No specific practices were identified.

o ‘Land cultivation methods’, e.g. soil cultivation measures to protect erosion across the slopes and lowlands (No specific practices were identified); no tillage in combination with mulch sowing that can contribute to reducing soil erosion and increasing soil organic matter in soil; time and location restrictions in soil cultivation such as in the winter period and on ploughing grassland or on hillsides with an average slope angle over 15 degrees that contribute to reducing the risk or erosions and soil compaction; crop rotation management

68

to contribute to better soil fertility would also contribute to increasing soil organic matter and soil biodiversity.

o ‘Land cover requirements’, e.g. focus on grass and soil cover practices, including intermediate crops, greening of vineyards, winter crops etc; mulch seeding and afforestation. All the listed practices contribute to reducing soil erosion risk and increasing soil organic matter content.

o ‘Grazing measures to reduce overgrazing problems’ that contribute to reduced soil erosion risk and soil compaction.

o ‘Hedges to better stabilize river banks’ that contribute to reducing soil erosion risk, though applicable only on the limited space, i.e. river banks.

Multi-objective measures, including: o ‘Creation of buffer zones’, e.g. green strips and other soil covering measures

including all types of buffer vegetation and mulching; other types of buffer protection such as strips of land (not necessarily linked to planting of vegetation cover) where synthetic chemical and organic (also manure) fertilisation is forbidden. All the listed practices contribute to reducing soil erosion risk, increasing capacity to cope with floods, reducing soil pollution and increasing soil organic matter content and soil biodiversity. Though the measure is limited in the space of application.

o ‘Change of land use and cover’, e.g. conversion of agricultural areas into areas that are free of synthetic chemical substances, change land cover from bare soil to wetland, setting aside agricultural lands, reducing agricultural intensity through conversion to zero pesticides areas, conversion from arable land to grassland, lower stocking density. The listed practices contribute to reducing soil pollution and soil compaction, increasing soil organic matter content and soil biodiversity.

o ‘Floodplain management’, e.g. corrective and preventative measures to reduce the risk of flooding and erosion damage through the encouragement and use of non-structural alternatives and practices such as adopting and administering floodplain regulations, resolving drainage complains and assuring effective maintenance and operation of flood control works. Other measures such as wetland creation and maintenance, buffer zones, change land cover and use are synergistic with floodplain management practices.

Water saving measures, including: o ‘Improve the drainage system measures’ increase water availability in the top

soil layers, e.g. restrictions on the sealing; improved farming practices that increase organic matter in the soil such as mulching, purposeful choice of crops, reduction of artificial fertilizers, crop rotations.

o ‘Optimize water supply system measures’ includes implementation of the best available technologies for water use such as infiltration/retention of water for agricultural land and the efficient and effective management of water supply, such as managing timing of abstractions and reduction of leakages in the water distribution system. These practices through reduced groundwater use also contribute to reducing soil salinisation risk.

o ‘Increase and diversity water supply’ actions for irrigation include reusing waste water, harvesting rainwater, desalinization and through recharging groundwater. These practices through reduced groundwater use also contribute to reducing soil salinisation risk and contribute to drought management.

o ‘Specific drought measures’, e.g. the diversification of water supply (see the text above) and control of saline water intrusion, through the sealing of wells, defining protection areas of groundwater, creating artificial barriers against saline intrusion.

69

2 Floods Directive

1. Name of Policy and brief summary of implementation Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks entered into force on 26 November 2007. The Directive requires Member States to approach flood risk management in a three stage process. First, preliminary flood risk assessment of river basins and associated coastal zones were to be done by 2011 in order to identify areas where potential significant flood risk exists. This assessment led to the identification of Units of Management (UoM) where risk of flood damage exists. Second, flood hazard maps and flood risk maps were to be prepared by 2013. Flood hazard maps show the flood extent, water depths and flow directions/velocities for high, medium, and extreme events. Flood risk maps should contain information about the number of inhabitants, economic activity, industries, source of pollution, cultural heritage and nature protection areas potentially affected. Third, flood risk management plans (including measures to reduce the probability of flooding and its potential consequences) must be drawn up for these areas by December 2015. Due to the nature of flooding, much flexibility on objectives and measures are left to the Member States. These steps need to be reviewed every 6 years in a cycle. They are synchronised with the Water Framework Directive (WFD) implementation. Entry into force 26 November 2007. 2. Policy Field Water, flood risk, land use planning, agriculture Integration/coordination issues with other related pieces of legislation The Floods Directive coordinates with the RBMPs under the WFD as seen under Article 3:

“1. For the purposes of this Directive Member States shall make use of the arrangements made under Article 3(1), (2), (3), (5) and (6) of Directive 2000/60/EC.

2. However, for the implementation of this Directive, Member States may: a) appoint competent authorities different from those identified pursuant to Article

3(2) of Directive 2000/60/EC; b) identify certain coastal areas or individual river basins and assign them to a

unit of management different from those assigned pursuant to Article 3(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC.”

Thus, there is overlap but specifically for the implementation of flood prevention measures, subsection 2 of Article 3 allows for different authorities to be designated and areas to be targeted. 3. Aims of the policy and its relevance to soil protection Objectives: “The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the assessment and management of flood risks, aiming at the reduction of the adverse consequences for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity associated with floods in the Community.” (Article 1) Principles included in the legal text:

The Floods Directive Recital 6 references the “international principles of flood risk management as developed notably under the United Nations Convention on the protection and use of transboundary water courses and international lakes, approved by Council Decision 95/308/EC”.

Solidarity principle is referenced in Recital 15 as being important to flood risk management with MS needing to be “encouraged to seek a fair sharing of

70

responsibilities, when measures are jointly decided for the common benefit, as regards flood risk management along water courses.”

The principles contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU are included in Recital 22 as well as the principle of sustainable development.

The subsidiarity and proportionality principles are included in Recital 23 and again in Recital 24 (the latter referencing that “flexibility should be left to the local and regional levels, in particular as regards organization and responsibility of authorities”.

Spatial coverage and management unit: The Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments cover the river basin districts or management units in Article 3(2)(b), or international river basin districts within the MS‘ territory. The management units match the above description of spatial coverage, but the management units in Article 3(2)(b) referred to are basically floodplains where there has been past flooding: “floods which have occurred in the past and which had significant adverse impacts on human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity and for which the likelihood of similar future events is still relevant, including their flood extent and conveyance routes and an assessment of the adverse impacts they have entailed”. 4. Relevance to soil protection The Directive primarily aims to set in place common procedures for the management of all types of floods (river, lakes, flash floods, urban floods, coastal floods, including storm surges and tsunamis), on all of the EU territory. The Directive says little on the level of protection expected or the means through which flood risk reduction should be achieved. One of the main objectives of the Directive nevertheless is to promote a more integrated and sustainable approach to flood risk management, which is based on the use of both structural and non-structural measures. Structural measures include traditionally used grey measures (e.g. dykes, walls, dredging) and green infrastructures (e.g. natural water retention measures, natural flood management). Non-structural measures include e.g. flood warning, awareness-raising, land use planning, building regulations, and emergency services. The Directive strongly recognise the role of human activities in increasing flood risk (e.g. land sealing, loss of natural water retention capacities), the potential to reverse these impacts, and finding synergies with the implementation of the WFD and biodiversity legislation. 5. Soil-focused aims and objectives

Direct: The Floods Directive does not have any direct soil-focused aims and objectives. Indirect: The promotion of sustainable and integrated flood management in the Floods

Directive results in an indirect contribution to the protection of soils mainly by aiming to maximising natural infiltration and retention capacities of soils. Rainfall and snowmelt are retained on vegetation, surface depressions and soil columns in natural and semi-natural areas, slowly released through subsurface flows. Runoff occurs when the absorption or storage capacity is reached. Human activities (e.g. farming practices, forestry, urbanisation) can increase imperviousness, reducing infiltration and increasing surface runs off. The role of appropriate urban land use planning in reducing flood risk by limiting soil sealing and using green infrastructures (on the basis that they reproduce natural hydrological flows on artificial land) has long been recognised. In recent notes and guidance documents89, the European Commission has emphasised the importance of better understanding and assessing the role of rural land use (e.g. agricultural areas, forests, natural habitats) on downstream flood risk, and to maximise opportunities in implementing appropriate rural land use change.

8 EC (2011). Note by DG Environment: Towards better environmental options for flood risk management. DG ENV

D.1 (2011) 236452. 9 CIS Technical Report on Natural Water Retention Measures. Drafting team for the Common Implementation

Strategy of the Water Framework Directive. Brussels.

71

Soil threats addressed by the Floods Directive Directly: Soil threats are not directly addressed by the measures in the Floods Directive. Indirectly: Soil threats are only indirectly addressed by the Floods Directive, and only if

competent authorities are willing to take forward green infrastructure and land use planning measures. No regulatory requirements exist at Community level. Additional instruments and regulations may exist at Member States or local authorities though. In terms of soil erosion and compaction threats, the implementation of the Floods Directive may lead to the promotion of natural water retention measures (NWRM) to increase retention capacity of rural landscape and reduce flood risk downstream. Table below presents some of the NWRM –many of which may have beneficial impact on soil erosion. For example most of agricultural and forest NWRM are similar to codes of good agricultural practices (under the Nitrates Directive / cross compliance of the Common Agricultural Policy) and agri-environment measures (under Rural Development Plans). In terms of preventing soil sealing, the implementation of the Floods Directive may lead to the promotion of land use planning rules and promotion of green infrastructure (NWRM) to control run-off, pluvial flooding, and over-topping of urban drainage network. In addition it can promote protection of soils by preventing the urbanisation of floodplain and riparian land exposed to flooding.

Agriculture Forest Hydro Morphology Urban

Meadows and pastures

Forest riparian buffers

Basins and ponds Green Roofs

Buffer strips and hedges

Maintenance of forest cover in headwater areas

Wetland restoration and management

Rainwater Harvesting

Crop rotation Afforestation of reservoir catchments

Floodplain restoration and management

Permeable surfaces

Strip cropping along contours

Targeted planting for 'catching' precipitation

Re-meandering Swales

Intercropping Land use conversion Stream bed re-naturalization

Channels and rills

No till agriculture Continuous cover forestry

Restoration and reconnection of seasonal streams

Filter Strips

Low till agriculture 'Water sensitive' driving

Reconnection of oxbow lakes and similar features

Soakaways

Green cover Appropriate design of roads and stream crossings

Riverbed material renaturalization

Infiltration Trenches

Early sowing Sediment capture ponds

Removal of dams and other longitudinal barriers

Rain Gardens

Traditional terracing Coarse woody debris

Natural bank stabilisation

Detention Basins

Controlled traffic farming

Urban forest parks Elimination of riverbank protection

Retention Ponds

Reduced stocking density

Trees in Urban areas

Lake restoration Infiltration basins

Mulching Peak flow control structures

Restoration of natural infiltration to groundwater

-

- Overland flow areas in peatland forests

Re-naturalisation of polder areas

-

72




None Through land use planning and the use of soil sealing control targets, protection of land exposed to the risk of flooding, and intra-urban areas for green infrastructures/NWRM (including areas reserved for storing temporary floods). Through mapping and identifying areas where green infrastructure/NWRM can be effective in reducing downstream flood risk. However this is not a requirement by the Floods Directive (although it can be at Member State level, e.g. Scotland).

A key expected impact from the implementation of the Floods Directive is reduced risk from flooding, which would involve less soil erosion and loss of SOM, potentially sealing and loss of biodiversity.

7. Mandatory requirements and voluntary options for Member States (types of management measures) There are no explicit soil-focused requirements. Indirectly the Floods Directive has three requirements that may be relevant:

The identification of floodplains as natural retention areas in Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments (Article 4, 2. (d))

The compulsory consideration of “costs and benefits, flood extent and flood conveyance routes and areas which have the potential to retain flood water, such as natural floodplains, the environmental objectives of Article 4 of Directive 2000/60/EC, soil and water management, spatial planning, land use, nature conservation, navigation and port infrastructure.” in flood risk management plans (Article 7, 3.)

The comprehensive use of all types of measures in flood risk management plans, including: “prevention, protection, preparedness, including flood forecasts and early warning systems and taking into account the characteristics of the particular river basin or sub-basin. Flood risk management plans may also include the promotion of sustainable land use practices, improvement of water retention as well as the controlled flooding of certain areas in the case of a flood event.” (Article 7, 3.)

Overall, the Floods Directive puts little requirements on Member States regarding the implementation of specific measures. Thus, there are not mandatory requirements to use land use planning regulations, identify the potential for green infrastructure, or implement good practices on agricultural or forestry land with the view to reduce flood risk. However, other policy areas (urban planning, biodiversity/green infrastructure, rural development/agriculture) may have mandatory requirements with co-benefits in reducing flood risk while protecting soils. Reporting requirements are outlined in detail below, but the MS are required to review and report to the Commission on their preliminary risk assessments, flood hazard and risk maps, and management plans for the covered areas. They must also bring into force laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement the Directive before 26 November 2009, then notify the Commission upon completion of this requirement. The Commission also has reporting duties to the EP and Council on a 6-year basis. Funding The European Union Solidarity Fund is associated with the Directive for emergency operations to respond to major disasters, but they may not be administered for phases preceding the emergency (e.g., building resilience).

73

8. Assessment of environmental status Along with the preliminary flood risk assessments under Article 4 and then the assessment of which of those units of management have “potential significant flood risks exist or might be considered likely to occur” under Article 5, then Article 6 requires the development of flood hazard maps and flood risk maps for river basin districts or the floodplains under Article 3(2)(b). The geographical areas which could be flooded under low, medium and high probability flooding scenarios must be covered in the maps, and the scenarios include the following parameters:

“(a) the flood extent; (b) water depths or water level, as appropriate; (c) where appropriate, the flow velocity or the relevant water flow.”

The potential adverse consequences that could result from the scenarios which must be presented, which include:

“(a) the indicative number of inhabitants potentially affected; (b) type of economic activity of the area potentially affected; (c) installations as referred to in Annex I to Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (9) which might cause accidental pollution in case of flooding and potentially affected protected areas identified in Annex IV(1)(i), (iii) and (v) to Directive 2000/60/EC; (d) other information which the Member State considers useful such as the indication of areas where floods with a high content of transported sediments and debris floods can occur and information on other significant sources of pollution.”

9. Reporting units - what are the specific transposition requirements The Water Information System for Europe (WISE) is the authority through which reporting under the Floods Directive is carried out.10 Under Article 14, the MS authority established for the Floods Directive must review the preliminary flood risk assessments carried out (and updated if necessary) by 22 December 2018 and then on a 6-year cycle. The same applies for flood hazard maps and flood risk maps, except the date for review is 22 December 2019 and then the 6-year cycle follows that date. The Flood Risk Management Plans are then reviewed and updated if necessary by 22 December 2021 and then every 6 years afterward. These reviews shall be made available to the Commission under Article 15, as well as their decisions to skip the preliminary assessments for covered areas where implementation of the flood hazard and risk mapping and management plans have been developed already and/or the MS wants to implement early (before 22 December 2010). The Commission is then required to report on implementation of the Directive to the EP and Council by 22 December 2018 and then every 6 years thereafter. “A Concept paper on "Reporting and compliance checking of the Floods Directive" was approved by the Water Directors of the EU Member States in 2009. On this basis, the Water Directors approved a number of reporting sheets that have been compiled into a "Guidance for Reporting under the Floods Directive". These documents are available in the Floods section of CIRCABC.”11 10. Examples of implementation approaches in case study areas The National Implementing Measures (NIM) communicated by the Member States concerning the Floods Directive 2007/60/EC can be found under: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/NIM/?uri=CELEX:32007L0060. This website provides an assessment of compliance with the reporting obligations of the Member States: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/timetable.htm

10

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/timetable.htm 11

Ibid.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/NIM/?uri=CELEX:32007L0060


74

From Rouillard (2012)12, Rouillard et al. (2013)13 The Scottish transposition of the Floods Directive epitomises a major change in Scottish flood policy. The formulation of a “sustainable” approach to flood management was an important dimension of the reform agenda, in response to the combined impacts of widespread flood events in the mid-1990s and early 2000s, reduction of public spending, the threat of climate change, and the search for more environmentally-friendly management. In addition to raising the profile of non-structural flood management measures (e.g. flood warning, awareness-raising, spatial planning control, insurance cover), reforms took account ideas of integrated, ecosystem-based management, partly supported by the EU WFD and EU Floods Directive, and by some in academic and policy circles in Scotland. Overall, the Scottish Government is now pursuing five objectives to achieve “flood risk management”: 1) a reduction in the number of people, homes and properties at risk of flooding, 2) rural and urban landscapes to store and slow water, 3) integrated drainage decreasing the burden on sewers while reducing flood risk and improving the water environment, 4) improved public awareness of flood risk, and self-protection, and 5) long-term and adaptable flood management actions. Within this dynamic, great attention was given in Scotland to the restoration of ecological systems at the catchment scale, with the aim of alleviating flooding by slowing or storing water, increasing soil infiltration, and reducing water flow connectivity across the landscape. Similar approaches had been taken since the late 1990s in urban areas through policy change in favour of alternative storm water drainage techniques (e.g. ponds, wetlands, permeable paving, filter strips, etc), known as Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems in Scotland. The concept of Natural Flood Management as a sub-set of Sustainable Flood Management (SFM) was developed across the 2000s to cover the range of measures applicable in the rural landscape that aim to restore hydrological and morphological processes across a catchment, for example removing flood embankments or creating wetlands. It is now institutionalised in the 2009 Act as “the alteration or restoration of natural features and characteristics14”. Scottish Government guidance on SFM requires responsible authorities to select the combination of measures securing the greatest long-term economic, social and environmental benefits. In particular, it requires the consideration of non-monetary costs and benefits in addition to economic ones. In parallel, as part of management planning at the district level, the 2009 Act requires SEPA to prepare maps of natural features the removal of which would significantly increase the risk of flooding15, and to assess whether the alteration or restoration of natural features would contribute to the management of flood risk16. The 2009 Act allows local authorities to set up agreements with any other person or organisation such as land managers, and contribute to expenditures and income lost arising from natural flood management17. This should ensure that land managers are financially compensated. Alternatively, synergies may be found with other funding streams, such as agri-environment schemes of the Scottish Rural Development Programme.

12

Rouillard, J.J. (2012). Adaptive water governance: flood management and the policy process in Scotland. PhD thesis. University of Dundee & University of Edinburgh. 13

Rouillard, J. J., Heal, K.V., Ball,

T., & Reeves,

A.D. (2013). Policy integration for adaptive water governance:

Learning from Scotland’s experience. Environmental Science and Policy, 33, 378-387. 14

Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act (2009 Act), Part 3, Section 16 (1). 15

2009 Act, Part 3, Section 19. 16

2009 Act, Part 3, Section 20. 17

2009 Act, Part 4, Section 56 (2)(d).

75

3 Nitrates Directive

1. Name of Policy and brief summary of implementation Council Directive of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (91/676/EEC) (the Nitrates Directive) was adopted by the European Council, and as mandated in Article 3(2), the Member States had two years following the Directive’s notification to the Member States to designate Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ - “all known areas of land in their territories which drain into” “waters affected by pollution and waters which could be affected by pollution if action pursuant Article 5 (creating action programmes for NVZs) is not taken” “and which contribute to pollution”). The Member States also had a two-year period to create their code(s) of good agricultural practice and action programme(s) following the designation of the NVZs and one-year after each additional NVZ is designated. Every four years the Member States are required to report to the European Commission the results of their monitoring of nitrate concentrations in surface and ground waters, surface water eutrophication levels, impacts of the action programme(s) on water quality and agricultural practices and revisions made to the action programme(s), and estimations of future water quality trends. Entry into force In December 1991. The Nitrates Directive was notified to the Member States on 19 November 1991. The Member States had two years following this notification to bring into force all laws, regulations, and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Nitrates Directive and inform the Commission (Article 12.1). 2. Policy Field (water, agriculture, biodiversity, energy) Agriculture, water Integration/coordination issues with other related pieces of legislation The Nitrates Directive has close links with other EU policies concerning water, air, climate change, maritime policies and agriculture, and its implementation yields benefits in all these areas and is related to the following EU legal acts18:

The Water Framework Directive (WFD, 2000/60/EC)19

The Groundwater Directive (2006/118/EC)20

The National Emission Ceilings Directive (2001/81/EC)21

Climate change policy (including Effort Sharing Decision)

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)

The Urban Wastewater Directive (1991/271/EEC)22 The Nitrates Directive is dedicates to tackle nitrogen use in agriculture, thus it is mostly linked with the CAP. Excessive use from organic manures and synthetic fertilizers poses a key environmental risk for EU waters. NVZ definitions are also used in defining what types of measures can be funded as voluntary measures under Rural Development Programmes (since the Nitrates Directive is part of the statutory management requirements under the

18

The EU Nitrates Directive, Environment fact sheets, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/factsheets.htm (accessed on 25 September 2015) 19

Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060 20

Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32006L0118 21

Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants 22

Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31991L0271

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/factsheets.htm

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060






76

cross-compliance, it is also part of the environmental baseline which is used to define the requirements for agri-environment-climate measures (AECM), i.e. AECMs must go beyond the baseline). As regards the water policy, coordination with the WFD is central for the implementation of the Nitrates Directive, since nitrate concentrations in groundwater and surface waters are a key pressure affecting the chemical status. The Nitrates directive is also linked with the marine protection policy (North Sea and other waters), through the eutrophication process resulting from excessive nitrates concentrations. Moreover, nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions are a potent greenhouse gas, so improved nitrogen efficiency is key for achieving climate objectives for agriculture.23 3. Aims of the policy and its relevance to soil protection Objectives: To “reduc[e] water pollution caused or induced by nitrates from agricultural sources” and to “prevent[] further such pollution” of both ground and surface waters. (Article 1) Principles included in the legal text

Proportionality

Polluter-pays The Nitrates Directive does not mention the above mentioned principles in its text, though the Directive abides by the principles of proportionality and polluter-pays as described in the court judgment from 29 April 1999.24 Spatial coverage and management unit: Member States must designate territories (land) draining into water bodies which are vulnerable to high nitrate levels or eutrophication as Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs) (Article 3.2). NVZ are designated based on whether surface waters (particularly those used for drinking water) and groundwaters contain or could contain more than 50 mg/l nitrates and whether freshwater bodies, estuaries, coastal waters, and marine waters are or could become eutrophic in the near future if an action programme is not applied to the contributing lands. Either the entire territory of the land or only certain areas can be designated as NVZs, depending on differing intensity of agricultural production, climatic variables, soil type and topography. Revision of the NVZ designations is required at least every four years to take into account changes and factors unforeseen at the time of the previous designation (according to Article 3.4). 4. Relevance to soil protection Addressing the Nitrates Directive’s primary focus requires the implementation of soil management measures which contribute to soil protection. Thus, soil management measures are a tool to reach the objective, but not its primary focus. Soil risk assessment is not part of the process required under the Directive (though soil testing for remaining nutrient levels is recommended to develop tailored fertilisation management plans), but rather monitoring and reporting of water nitrate levels is required. Such reports indicate whether there are losses occurring from land surrounding a polluted water body so that land management measures can be changed or improved to lessen the amount of run-off or leaching. The focus is not on identifying which soils are at risk and changing the soil management practices to benefit soil protection. 5. Soil-focused aims and objectives25

Direct: The Nitrates Directive does not have any direct soil-focused aims and objectives.

23

See, for example, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-nitrates/pdf/Final__report_impact_Nitrates_Directive_def.pdf 24

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:61997CJ0293&from=EN, paragraphs 41-58. 25

Including objectives with potential negative implications for soil protection.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-nitrates/pdf/Final__report_impact_Nitrates_Directive_def.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-nitrates/pdf/Final__report_impact_Nitrates_Directive_def.pdf

77

Indirect: One of the Directive’s objectives is to promote good farming practices, e.g., improved fertilizer application and catch crops, in order to control pollution and contribute to the aim of improving water quality. The Directive applies different levels of recommendations and restrictions for lands in certain zones (NVZs) which drain into waters that are vulnerable to pollution from nitrogen compounds, requiring measures to be adopted to prevent run-off and leaching into groundwater or surface water. These measures can include: appropriate fertilisation balanced according to timing, crop needs, climate, etc.; bans/restrictions on application periods or levels of fertiliser; irrigation measures; drainage; cover/catch crops; terracing; dredging; and land-use conversion to grasslands or wetlands.26

Soil threats addressed by the Nitrates Directive Directly: Soil threats are not directly addressed by the measures in the Nitrates

Directive. Indirectly: Soil erosion is indirectly addressed by the Nitrates Directive provisions

because it includes maintaining minimum levels of vegetative cover during (rainy) periods as one of the measures which may be adopted by Member States in their codes of good agricultural practice and thereby made applicable to the NVZs as well. Reducing bare fallow land would reduce soil erosion levels and help to reduce phosphorus run-off (in addition to nitrogen losses) due to P becoming bound to soil particles, which would lower the risk of eutrophication in water bodies (Environment Agency 2006). Fewer nutrients need to be added to supplement the nutrients captured and made available by the catch/cover crops that provide the vegetative cover. Moreover, growing catch/cover crops, crop rotations and increasing the amount of land under permanent crops also increases the amount of soil organic matter and improves soil structure, which reduces the potential for soil erosion/run-off and leaching of nitrates that would lead to non-compliance with the maximum target levels of water pollution (Mudgal et al. 2010). Fertiliser plans and record-keeping of fertiliser use may have the potential to reduce soil contamination as well.

The Directive also sets restrictions on when the manure can be applied, thereby reducing traffic on soils during rainy season and lowering the risk of compaction. Maintaining soil structure and avoiding compaction also helps reduce the amount of N and P run-off from rainfall (Ulén et al. 2010). The limitation on animal manure application to land in NVZs, including by animals themselves, helps control stocking rates, which can also potentially reduce the risk of soil compaction due to livestock trampling and run-off to water bodies (DLO-Alterra Wageningen UR 2011).




None Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (land areas which drain into waters vulnerable to high nitrate levels or eutrophication) are designated based on whether surface waters (particularly those used for drinking water) and groundwater contain or could contain more than 50 mg/l nitrates if an action programme is not applied to the contributing lands, and whether freshwater bodies, estuaries, coastal waters, and marine waters are or could become eutrophic in the near future if an action programme is not applied to the contributing lands.

The required measures, while their economic consequences to the farmer’s operation would likely serve as a barrier to uptake, would actually enhance soil protection due to lower stocking rates on land leading to

26

DLO-Alterra Wageningen UR (2011) Recommendations for establishing Action Programmes under Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. Part D: Recommendations for Measures, Final Report, Contract number No. 070307/2010/580551/ETU/B1.

78



In targeting this maximum level of allowable nitrates in the water bodies, a limitation was thereby set for the amount of livestock manure applied to land to 170 kg/ha. Additionally, measures were required in Annex III of the Nitrates Directive for implementation in the NVZ action programmes and some to be included for voluntary adoption under the code of good agricultural practice as specified in Annex I in order to contribute to meeting the nitrate limits. However, even with implementation of these measures, the 50 mg/l target may be exceeded, which could necessitate drastic changes such as reducing stocking rates to reduce the overall amount of manure needing to be applied to land and conversion of arable land to permanent grassland.27

less trampling so lower potential for compaction and less de-vegetation reducing soil erosion, as well as conversion from arable leading to less soil erosion due to permanent cover and potentially more soil organic matter and improved soil structure from less tillage.

7. Mandatory requirements and voluntary options for Member States (types of management measures) There are no explicit soil-focused requirements. However, the Nitrates Directive sets a number of mandatory and voluntary requirements that indirectly relate to soil. These include:

Member States have to analyse the nitrate levels in their waters as well as the trophic state since this indicates whether there are losses occurring from agricultural practices on lands surrounding the water bodies and allows to identify surface water and groundwater affected by pollution or at risk of being so (the concentration of nitrates in groundwater or surface water reaches 50 mg/l or the surface water is eutrophic or is at risk of being so).

Member States must designate Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ), which are the areas of land in their territories draining into water bodies which are or are at risk of being affected by high nitrate levels or eutrophication. Revision of the NVZ designations is required at least every four years. The Nitrates Directive provides a possibility for Member States to be exempted from the requirement to designate NVZ, if the action programmes are applied to the entire national territory.

Member States must set up action programmes for all areas designated as NVZs, either a single programme applicable to multiple NVZs or a separate one for different NVZs or parts of the zones. These action programmes, in addition to the measures listed in the codes of good agricultural practice, must include additional measures, which aim to limit the land application of mineral and organic fertilisers containing nitrogen, as well as land application of livestock manure, and are as follows:28

o bans on certain periods for spreading fertilisers; capacity requirements for manure storage; limitations on fertiliser application, considering the specific soil conditions, soil type, slope, climatic conditions, rainfall and irrigation, land use and agricultural practices (e.g., crop rotations) and basing the limit on a balance between the crops’ nitrogen requirements and the nitrogen available /

27

Lord, E., Shepherd, M., Silgram, M., Goodlass, G., Gooday, R., Anthony, S.G., Davison, P., Hodgkinson, R. (2007) Investigating the effectiveness of NVZ Action Programme measures: Development of a strategy for England. ADAS, Report for Defra Project No. NIT18. 28

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/nitrates/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/nitrates/index_en.htm

79

Key soil-relevant instruments Mandatory Designation of NVZs based on assessment of agricultural land management’s contribution to nitrate concentration in water bodies Action programmes for compulsory implementation within the NVZs. Code of good agricultural practice must be created by Member States Limitations on fertiliser and manure application Monitoring and reporting of nitrate levels and impact of NAPs (as well as on agricultural practices) Voluntary Codes of good agricultural practice are voluntarily implemented, including training and information programmes for farmers to promote application of measures included within the codes.

mineralisation of the organic nitrogen reserves in the soil and the amount of nitrogen added from livestock manure / chemical and other fertilisers.

Member States must carry out monitoring of the action programmes’ effectiveness and the findings must be submitted to the European Commission. If ineffective, the action programmes must be amended to more effectively accomplish the Directive’s objectives.29

The Nitrates Directive requires Member States establish a code of good agricultural practice which farmers can implement on a voluntary basis.

The limit on animal manure application set by the Directive is 170 kg N per hectare, but derogations may be obtained. “The Nitrates Directive provides the possibility for an exemption from the rule on the maximum quantity of 170 kg of nitrates per hectare and per year allowed for land application of livestock manure, on the condition that it can be established that the objectives of the Directive are still met and that the exemption is based on objectives criteria such as long growing seasons, crops with high nitrogen uptake, high net precipitation or soils with high denitrification capacity. The Commission shall decide whether to grant an exemption or not, based on advice provided by the Nitrates Committee who assists the Commission in the implementation of the Directive. The prerequisites for any exemption are the appropriate designation of nitrate vulnerable zones and action programmes which fully comply with the Directive. Furthermore, the exemption is only valid for the duration of the action programme.”30

Member States must monitor water quality, applying standardised reference methods to measure the nitrogen-compound content,31 and assess the concentrations in surface and groundwaters, as well as long-term trends. The monitoring of trends is closely linked to WFD implementation, since nutrient loading is a key pressure under WFD.

Funding The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) is the main funding mechanism implementing the Nitrates Directive, though it is not available for all measures in the Member States). The CAP backs up the Nitrates Directive through direct support for

29

Additionally, the European Commission draft guidance for the implementation of the Nitrates Directive recommends that the NVZs undergo field-specific measurements to support scientific data and modelling in order to test nitrate losses to surface and ground waters (Fraters et al. 2005). Thereby, the action programmes’ effectiveness and/or additional measures that need to be implemented in the area can be identified. Analyses from NVZs in England have found that action programme measures focused on manure and fertiliser management are the most effective, e.g., minimising post-harvest soil nitrate by using a fertiliser recommendation system (which reduces over-fertilisation of crops and leaching of nitrate during winter) and restrictions on N fertilisation during certain periods and depending on soil type (Johnson et al. 2011). 30

EUR-Lex, Summaries of EU legislation, Agricultural nitrates, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:l28013 (accessed on 25 September 2015) 31

EUR-Lex, Summaries of EU legislation, Agricultural nitrates, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:l28013 (accessed on 25 September 2015)

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:l28013

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:l28013

80

farmers (Regulation 1307/201332) and rural development measures (Regulation 1305/201333). For example, several Member States have included nutrient management measures, such as wider buffer strips around water courses, among the agri-environmental initiatives for which farmers can receive payments. Direct support is subject to cross-compliance with EU environmental legislation, including the Nitrates Directive. For example in Poland, the Rural Development Program 2009-2013 offers subsidies for the investments in the modernisation of animal production farms, contributing up to 75 % of the costs of investments undertaken for the implementation of the Nitrates Directive (Korczyńska, et al., 2013)34. The new Rural Development Programme 2014-2020 is much weaker in terms of water protection measures. This is caused by the transfer of 25 % of funds from pillar II of the Common Agricultural Policy into Pillar I (Kalinowska, 2014)35. To implement the Nitrates Directive, Member States use different public funds, though such funds are not available for all measures in the Member States, for example:36 in Germany, the Lower Saxony, for the implementation of measures, farmers receive a subsidy which is covered by the Lower Saxon water and nature conservation board (NLWKN). In Ireland, the Rural Development Program (2014-2020) totals € 4.1 billion out of which € 1.9 billion is national and the remaining is from the EU. Under this program, funding will be available under the GLAS (Green Low-Carbon Agri-Environment Scheme) to fund initiatives such as riparian margins, fencing of watercourses, low emission slurry spreading and green cover. The adoption of this scheme entails compulsory soil sampling and compulsory involvement of an advisor from FAS. 8. Assessment of environmental status The Member States assess nitrate concentration and trophic status of water bodies to identify surface water and groundwater affected by pollution or at risk of being so. The assessments of the trophic status varies widely among Member States, regarding the parameters used and the methodologies for the definition of trophic status classes.37 Various studies have been commissioned by the European Commission to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the Nitrates Directive, and are available on its website.38 Phytobenthos and phytoplankton are biological quality parameters which have been developed in accordance with the Water Framework Directive, as indicators for eutrophication. Specifically, the indicators for eutrophication assessment for rivers includes: nitrates concentrations, the trophic state, phytobenthos, total phosphorus, orthophosphate, and chlorophyll-a. And the indicators for lakes includes: nitrates concentrations, the trophic state, phytoplankton, total phosphorus and Secchi depth.

32

Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013R1307 33

Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R1305 34

Korczyńska, A. et al., 2013. Baltic Manure WP7 Business Innovation. Guidelines on: Incentives and support mechanisms stimulating innovation within manure management in Poland, s.l.: s.n. 35

Kalinowska, M., 2014. Personnal communication [Interview] 2014. 36

European Commission, Directorate-General for the Environment (not published, expected in 2015). Resource Efficiency in Practice – Closing Mineral Cycles 37

Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation of Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources based on Member State reports for the period 2008-2011 /* SWD/2013/0405 final */, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013SC0405 38

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-nitrates/studies.html

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013R1307

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R1305

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013SC0405


http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-nitrates/studies.html

81

9. Reporting units - what are the specific transposition requirements The main reporting unit is the designated NVZs; NVZs can cover either particular areas or the entire territory of the country. Some Member States have designated the whole territory (e.g. Slovenia), while others not (e.g. UK). The current status of NVZ and whole territory designations can be viewed using the map viewer on the website of the Joint Research Centre.39 The Nitrates Directive follows a four-year cycle. Every four years the Member States are required to report to the European Commission:40

the results of the monitoring of nitrates concentrations in surface and ground waters, the surface water eutrophication levels, and estimations of future trends in water quality;

assessment of the impacts of the action programme(s) on water quality and agricultural practices;

revision of NVZs and action programme(s); and

on the implementation of this Directive. Information on the current implementation of the Nitrates Directive in different EU Member States can be found on websites of competent authorities;41 and the Reports from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on implementation of the Nitrates Directive (Article 11 reports) can be found under the website of the European Commission.42 11. Examples of implementation approaches in case study areas The National Implementing Measures (NIM) communicated by the Member States concerning the Nitrates Directive can be found under: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/NIM/?uri=CELEX:31991L0676.

39

http://fate-gis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/geohub/MapViewer.aspx?id=2 40

European Commission, Environment, Water, Water pollutionhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-nitrates/index_en.html 41

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-nitrates/ms.html 42

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-nitrates/reports.html



http://fate-gis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/geohub/MapViewer.aspx?id=2

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-nitrates/index_en.html

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-nitrates/index_en.html

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-nitrates/ms.html

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-nitrates/reports.html

82

4 Pesticides Directive

1. Name of Policy and brief summary of implementation With the Directive 2009/128/EC43, the European Union established a Community’s framework for the sustainable use of pesticides. The Framework Directive on Sustainable Use of Pesticides (FDSUP) was originally one of two legislative proposals accompanying a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides (COM(2006) 372). The other legislative proposal led to the adoption of the Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market. The FDSUP applies on the national level for ‘professional users’, ‘distributors’ and ‘advisors’ (as defined in the Directive) of pesticides that are plant protection products. As mandated in Art. 4, Member States have to adopt in three years (by December 2012) their National Action Plans (NAPs) to reduce risks and impacts of pesticide use on human health and the environment. The NAPs is the key instrument of the Directive, consisting of all measures prescribed in the Directive (Art. 5-15), and describing how these measure will be implemented to achieve the quantitative objectives and targets following the timetables set in the NAPs. Entry into force The FDSUP came into force on 25 November 200944 and had to be transposed by the Member States in two years, i.e. by 26 November 2011.45 2. Policy Field (water, agriculture, biodiversity, energy) Agriculture, water, biodiversity, soil Integration/coordination issues with other related pieces of legislation Implementation of the FDSUP is of particular importance for the aquatic environment, protected areas and areas with organic farming as it yields benefits in all these areas. The FDSUP refers explicitly in its text to the WFD, the Birds and Habitats Directives and the Council Regulation on organic production and labelling of organic products; and requires accordingly:

Water Policy: o The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)46 and the Groundwater

Directive (2006/118/EC)47 - the aquatic environment is especially sensitive to pesticides. It is therefore necessary to avoid pollution of surface water and groundwater by taking appropriate measures. The NAPs of the FDSUP requires to take into account plans under other Community legislation on the use of pesticides, and refers in this regard to the planned measures under the WFD (Art. 4). Member States are required to ensure appropriate measures to protect the aquatic environment and drinking water supplies from the impact of pesticides which support and are compatible with the WFD (Art. 11). For example: giving preference to pesticides that are not classified as dangerous for aquatic environment; giving preference to most efficient application techniques such as the use of low-drift pesticide application equipment; or

43

Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides (Text with EEA relevance), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32009L0128 (accessed on 6 October 2015) 44

As mandated in Art. 24, following its publication in the Official Journal of the EU (L 309) on 24 November 2009. 45

As mandated in Art. 23.1. Source: European Commission, Food Safety, Plants, Pesticides, Sustainable use pesticides (Implementing phase 46


Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32006L0118





83

using buffer zones which minimise the risk of off-site pollution caused by pesticides spraying (drift, drain-flow or run-off). Furthermore, the directive requires Member States to minimise or prohibit the use of pesticides in certain specific areas, including protected areas as defined in the WFD (Art. 12).

Nature Conservation Policy: o The Wild Birds Directive (2009/147/EC48) and the Habitats Directive

(92/43/EEC)49 - use of pesticides can be particularly dangerous in very sensitive areas, such as Natura 2000 sites. The FDSUP requires Member States to minimise or prohibit the use of pesticides in certain specific areas, including areas identified for the purposes of establishing the necessary conservation measures in accordance with the provisions of the Birds and Habitats Directives (Art. 12).

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP): o The Organic Production and Labelling of Organic Products Regulation (EC,

No 834/2007)50 - organic farming applies low pesticide-input pest management, which gives wherever possible priority to non-chemical methods, so that professional users of pesticides switch to practices and products with the lowest risk to human health and the environment. The FDSUP requires Member States to take all necessary measures to promote low pesticide-input pest management. Low pesticide-input pest management includes IPM and organic farming according to the Regulation on organic production and labelling of organic products (Art. 14).

o EAFRD Regulation (EU, No 1305/2013)51.

The Food Safety Policy: o Regulation on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of

plant and animal origin (EC, No 396/2005).52 o Regulation on the placing of plant protection products on the market ((EC, No

1107/2009).53 3. Aims of the policy and its relevance to soil protection Objectives: According to Article 1, the overall objective of the FDSUP is to establish “… a framework to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides by reducing the risks and impacts of pesticide use on human health and the environment and promoting the use of integrated pest management and of alternative approaches or techniques such as non-chemical alternatives to pesticides”. Principles included in the legal text

Integrated pest management

48

Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds. It replaces the old Birds Directive 79/409/EEC (Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31979L0409) 49

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:01992L0043-20070101 50

Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91, http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/eu-policy/eu-legislation/brief-overview/index_en.htm 51


Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (Text with EEA relevance), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2005.070.01.0001.01.ENG 53

Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2009.309.01.0001.01.ENG

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31979L0409

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:01992L0043-20070101

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/eu-policy/eu-legislation/brief-overview/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/eu-policy/eu-legislation/brief-overview/index_en.htm


http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2005.070.01.0001.01.ENG



84

Subsidiarity

Proportionality

Sustainable development

Precautionary

Organic farming Spatial coverage and management unit: The FDSUP does not refer to any ‘operational management unit’ as such. The Directive applies to ‘professional users’, ‘distributors’ and ‘advisors’ (as defined in the Directive) of pesticides that are plant protection products at the national level. The NAPs must contain quantitative objectives, targets, measures of risk-reduction and timetables for the reduction of risks and adverse impacts of the use of plant protection products on human and animal health and also on the environment. The target requirements relate to the area of plant protection, operator protection, consumer protection and protection of the environment. In Germany, for example, the plant protection products may be used if they are approved and in the respective valid areas of application stated in the approval.54 Pesticide application areas can be agricultural and non-agricultural, i.e. public use areas, for example, parks. See examples of the targets set in the German NAP below under the section on ‘Examples of implementation approaches’. 4. Relevance to soil protection Addressing the Directive’s primary focus to protect human health and the environment from possible risks associated with the use of pesticides, requires limitation or prohibition of pesticides use or use of non-chemical alternatives to pesticides. Implementing these obligations results in reduced amount of pesticides applied on plans and consequently pesticides reaching the soil. Thus, soil is affected, but is not a primary focus of these obligations. Soil risk assessment is not part of the process required under the Directive, but the risk assessment of pesticide use for human health and the environment. For this purpose, Member States can use harmonised risk indicators established at the Community level and national indicators.

Soil-focused aims and objectives Direct: The FDSUP does not have any direct soil-focused aims and objectives. Indirect: The overall objective of the FDSUP seeks to achieve a sustainable use of

pesticides and to reduce their impacts on human health and the environment. The FDSUP promotes the use of IPM and alternative approaches or techniques such as non-chemical alternatives to pesticides. Such reduced pesticide-inputs or non-chemical alternatives reduce the risk of soil contamination, as chemicals used in pesticides are persistent and may stay in the soil for decades affecting adversely soil conservation. Furthermore, use of pesticides reduces activity of soil microorganisms, which results in reduced soil biodiversity and thus soil organic matter content, and lower soil quality in general. This may result in lower water retention and reduced yields especially for farms in drought years.

Soil threats addressed by the FDSUP

Directly: Soil threats are not directly addressed by measures in the FDSUP.

Indirectly: soil contamination and soil biodiversity are indirectly addressed by the FDSUP, in particular by the measures focusing on the protection of the aquatic environment and drinking water (Art. 11), protection of sensitive areas (Art. 12) and the IPM (Art. 14).

Appropriate measures taken to avoid pollution of surface water and groundwater include, for example, the establishment of buffer and safeguard zones or planting hedges along surface waters to reduce exposure of water bodies to spray drift of pesticides, drain flow and run-off. This, in addition, reduces the accidents of soil erosion from the banks of water bodies. Other

54

The Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV, 2012). National Action Plan on Sustainable Use of Plant Protection Products, http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/sustainable_use_pesticides/national_action_plans_en.htm

85

measures give priority to the use of the least toxic products and in this way reduce the contamination of soil and a negative impact on soil biodiversity (i.e. microbial activity in soil).

Furthermore, to protect certain sensitive areas (as defined in the WFD, or in the areas requiring conservation measure in line with the Birds and Habitats Directives), the FDSUP prohibits or strictly limits the use of pesticides. This reduces the contamination of soil and a negative impact on soil biodiversity (i.e. microbial activity in soil).

The FDSUP promotes low pesticide-input pest management, giving priority to non-chemical methods. This includes the IPM as well as organic farming. The IPM prioritises the least dangerous solutions for health and the environment, in particular, to agricultural ecosystems and encourages natural pest control mechanisms.

A negative impact of pesticides on the microorganisms in soil consequently affects the content of soil organic matter, reducing it. Soil organic matter binds to and helps to break down pesticides, therefore a smaller content of organic matter in soil increases the amount of pesticide that leave the area of application.

5. Soil-focused targets



None The NAPs of the Member States shall define quantitative objectives, targets, measures and timetables to reduce risks of pesticide use on human health and the environment and include indicators to monitor the use of plant protection products containing active substances of particular concern. The target requirements relate to the area of plant protection, operator protection, consumer protection and protection of the environment. (See, for example, the targets set in the German NAP, as described above).

None

6. Mandatory requirements and voluntary options for Member States (types of management measures) The FDSUP introduces a number of requirements to regulate sustainable use of pesticides:55

National Action Plans: Member States are obliged to adapt NAPs that define objectives, targets, measures and timetables to reduce risks of pesticide use on human health and the environment and include indicators to monitor the use of plant protection products containing active substances of particular concern. The NAPs should also foster the use of alternative ecological approaches or techniques. Review of the NAPs - every five years. The following measures aims for environmental objectives:

o Protection of the aquatic environment and drinking water: Member States are obliged to adopt specific measures to protect the aquatic environment and drinking water supplies. These measures require using the least toxic products, the most effective techniques, equipment limiting drift of products, and the establishment of buffer zones along surface waters.

o Protection of sensitive areas: Member States are obliged to prohibit or strictly limit the use of pesticides in certain sensitive areas. This measure aims at protecting areas covered by the WFD, Birds and Habitats Directives, and

55

Source: Eur-Lex, Pesticides, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1444230296142&uri=URISERV:ev0023

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1444230296142&uri=URISERV:ev0023

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1444230296142&uri=URISERV:ev0023

86

Key soil-relevant instruments Mandatory National Action Plans Certification system National IPM principles Establishment of harmonised risk indicators Voluntary Establishment of national risk indicators Aerial spraying is prohibited. MS may allow it under strict conditions and after warning people

areas used by the general public or by sensitive groups of the population (parks, public gardens, sports grounds, recreation grounds, etc.).

o Integrated pest management: IPM prioritises the least dangerous solutions for health and the environment. Professionals must therefore take into consideration all plant protection methods in order to eradicate pests. They must in particular give priority to those that cause the least disruption to agricultural ecosystems and encourage natural pest control mechanisms.

Training, sales of pesticides, and information: Member States are obliged to set up systems of training for professional users, distributors and advisors (proven by certificate). Sellers of pesticides for professional use must hold such certificate too.

Member States are obliged to inform the public and promote information and awareness-raising programmes regarding the risks for human health, non-target organisms and the environment arising from pesticide use.56

Inspection of pesticide application equipment: pesticide application equipment used by professionals must be inspected every five years by bodies designated by Member States. From 2020, the frequency of inspections will increase to once every three years.57 The purpose of these inspections is to check that equipment functions reliably and is used properly for its intended purpose, ensuring that pesticides can be accurately dosed and distributed.

Risk indicators: the Commission should establish harmonised risk indicators according to statistics collected by the Member States. These indicators allow estimating the trends in risks from pesticide use. Member States may use their own national indicators in addition to these at Community level.

Aerial spraying of pesticides: the activity is prohibited, though derogations are nevertheless possible where there is no viable alternative, or clear advantages exist in terms of reduced impacts on human health and the environment as compared with land-based application. In case a derogation is granted, information and protection measures must be taken.

Funding The Directive does not have a fund attached to it. Instead, the CAP (the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development) and national funds are used to support its implementation indirectly. The EAFRD supports relevant rural development measures:

through the agro-environmental and organic farming measures: o organic and integrated plant protection measures (IPM); o non-chemical plant protection measures in organic farming; and o creation of buffer zones for protection of water bodies that are permanently

covered with vegetation or in agricultural use without the application of plant protection products.

Through other rural development measures aid, for example, to buy new pesticide application equipment.

56

http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/sustainable_use_pesticides/information_and_awareness_raising_en.htm 57

By way of derogation, Member States may apply different timetables and inspection intervals. Article provides a list of equipment for which this derogation does not apply.

87

National funding:

for innovative integrated plant protection and organic farming measures; and

research. Effective integrated plant protection measures are often not used in practise because the costs exceed the economic benefit of the measures. Within the framework of funding programmes (e.g. agri-environmental measures) the possibility exists to create a certain financial indemnification, thereby providing support to the introduction of guidelines for integrated plant protection or of individual measures, or the introduction of plant protection measures in organic farming. 7. Assessment of environmental status The Directive requires to measure risk indicators used to evaluate risk of pesticides on human health and the environment. Harmonised risk indicators should be developed on the EU level (in accordance to Art. 15 and Annex IV). As for today, a set of harmonised risk indicators have not yet been agreed on the EU level.58 The European Commission (EU), Eurostat, collects the data, i.e. agri-environmental indicators, on:

water quality: risk indicators - pesticide pollution of water - that are indicated by current values, excedance and trends in the concentrations (µg/l) of selected pesticides in groundwater and rivers:5960

o Groundwater with pesticide concentrations above Environmental Quality Standards (EQS).

o Rivers with annual average pesticide concentrations above Environmental Quality Standards (EQS).

consumption of pesticides in agriculture61: (here plant protection products, excluding biocides and disinfectant products) is indicated by both, the applied rates by the farmers and the amounts sold:

o Application rates of different pesticide categories; o Used quantities of different pesticide categories; and o Sold quantities of different pesticide categories.

In 2007, the Eurostat published a second update of the report on 'The use of plant protection products in the European Union (Data 1992-2003)'.62 It provides statistical information on the estimated consumption of plant protection products in Member States, categorised according to treated crops, chemical classes and active substances. Such data on the use of plant protection products are necessary to monitor the risks related to their use, in particular the risks for the environment. 8. Reporting units - what are the specific transposition requirements The FDSUP follows a five-year cycle:

As mandated in Art. 4.2, Member States are required to communicate their NAPs to the Commission and to other Member States in three years (by December 2012), and

58

European Commission, Eurostat, Agri-environmental indicator - pesticide risk, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-_pesticide_risk 59

Though this indicator is still in the process of development. 60

European Commission, Eurostat, Agri-environmental indicator - pesticide pollution of water, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-_pesticide_pollution_of_water 61

European Commission, Eurostat, Agri-environmental indicator - consumption of pesticides, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-_consumption_of_pesticides 62

European Commission, Eurostat, the use of plant protection products in the European Union, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-statistical-books/-/KS-76-06-669

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-_pesticide_risk

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-_pesticide_pollution_of_water

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-_pesticide_pollution_of_water

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-_consumption_of_pesticides

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-_consumption_of_pesticides

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-statistical-books/-/KS-76-06-669

88

afterward (at least) every five years, after obligatory review of the NAPs or earlier in case of any substantial changes to the NAPs.6364 A reporting unit of the NAP is a national level.

According to Article 8.2, starting on 14 December 2016, only pesticide application equipment having successfully passed inspection is allowed to be used professionally. New equipment shall be inspected at least once within a period of five years after purchase.

According to Article 14.4, professional users are required to apply general principles IPM in five years after its entry into force - from 1 January 2014.65

12. Examples of implementation approaches in case study areas The National Implementing Measures (NIM) communicated by the Member States concerning the Pesticides Directive can be found under: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/NIM/?uri=CELEX:32009L0128. In Germany, for example, the plant protection products may be used if they are approved and in the respective valid areas of application stated in the approval. Pesticide application areas can be agricultural and non-agricultural, i.e. public use areas, for example, parks. For example, the targets set in the German NAP include:66

Increase in the proportion of agricultural area on which work is performed according to the directive on organic farming (National Sustainability Strategy);

Increasing the proportion of agricultural and horticultural farms working according to guidelines of integrated plant protection that are specific to crops or to sectors;

Reduction of use of chemical plant protection products that significantly deviate from the necessary minimum value (data set: network of reference farms);

No exceedings of the limit of 0.1 μg/l (single active substance; asset to be protected: drinking water) or respectively 0.5 μg/l (total of all individual active substances; asset to be protected: drinking water) for all active substances in plant protection products and relevant metabolites in the groundwater;

Creation of buffer zones, permanently covered with vegetation and at least 5 m in width, at all surface waters, particularly in protected areas for drinking water, nature reserves and in sensitive areas identified by hot-spot analyses;

Increasing the utilized agricultural area on which, within the framework of various support programs (agri-environmental programs, contract-based nature protection services, production-integrated compensation measures, fields designated for special protection, etc.), adapted farming measures are carried out (including activities to protect the diversity of wildflowers in the peripheral field area);

Creation of ecological focus areas not using plant protection products (coordinated with the resolutions related to the CAP reform).

63

The first NAPs of the MSs are available on the EU Website. Source: European Commission, Food Safety, Plants, Pesticides, Sustainable use pesticides (National Action Plans), http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/sustainable_use_pesticides/national_action_plans_en.htm 64

In 2011, the European Commission issued a report on “Sustainable Use Directive: Survey on State of the art, 1st semester 2011 (SANCO/11772/2011)”, Bruxelles, 20 October 2011. http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/sustainable_use_pesticides/implementing_phase_en.htm. It collated information on the state of the art with respect to the implementation of the main measures foreseen by the Directive at Member State level. This report deemed also to facilitate the exchange of information among Member States. 65

Country reports on IPM are available on EU website. Source: European Commission, Food Safety, Plants, Pesticides, Sustainable use pesticides, Integrated pest management (Integrated pest management - Reports), http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/sustainable_use_pesticides/ipm/index_en.htm 66

The Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV, 2012). National Action Plan on Sustainable Use of Plant Protection Products, http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/sustainable_use_pesticides/national_action_plans_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/sustainable_use_pesticides/national_action_plans_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/sustainable_use_pesticides/implementing_phase_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/sustainable_use_pesticides/ipm/index_en.htm

89

5 Fertiliser Regulation

1. Name of Policy and brief summary of implementation The Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 relating to fertilisers67 was adopted in order to gather all rules applying to fertilisers into a single piece of legislation and to ensure the uniform application of a package of very technical provisions. It only applies to mineral fertilisers made up of one or more plant nutrients (or fertilising elements) and which are placed on the market as fertilisers designated ‘EC fertiliser’.68 The Regulation sets out product standards that must be met for a fertiliser to receive a CE mark. This includes setting the minimum level of key nutrients to be contained in different fertiliser types and the nutrient content to be declared. It also sets out labelling and traceability requirements. The Regulation is essentially a tool facilitating the better use of fertilisers by increasing information available to the user and securing a minimum baseline level in terms of nutrient content. The Directive was amended twice (in 2009, 2013):

Regulation (EC) No 219/2009

(EU) Regulation No 463/2013 A proposal for a new Regulation on making CE marked fertilising products available on the market (COM(2016)157) has been put forward by the Commission. This would update and address key weaknesses within the current Regulation. The revised proposal applies to the entire catalogue of fertilising products: importantly including organic fertilisers to complement existing coverage of inorganic fertilisers and enhancing the freedom of movement of these products – which also offers potential additional benefits for soil quality and the wider environment. The current Fertilisers Regulation does not address possible contamination of soil, inland waters, sea waters, and ultimately food, by EC marked fertilisers. Entry into force The Fertiliser Regulation came into force on 11 November 200369 and had to be transposed by the Member States in 1,5 years, i.e., 11 June 2005. 2. Policy Field (water, agriculture, biodiversity, energy) Agriculture, water, biodiversity, soil, use of biowaste resources Integration/coordination issues with other related pieces of legislation

The Fertilisers Regulation is part of the Circular Economy Package

The Water Framework Directive (WFD, 2000/60/EC)

The Groundwater Directive (2006/118/EC)

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)

The Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) 3. Aims of the policy and its relevance to soil protection Objectives: The regulation aims to set a product standard for the use of inorganic fertilisers. It sets out the minimum nutrient content of all inorganic fertilisers traded on the internal market. Principles included in the legal text

Subsidiarity

67

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:304:0001:0194:EN:PDF 68

A type of fertiliser shall only bear the words EC Fertiliser if: it has no adverse effect on the health of humans, animals, plants or the environment under normal conditions of use; it is effective; and relevant sampling and analysis methods are being provided. 69

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV:l21278

90

Proportionality Spatial coverage and management unit: The regulation imposes directly on manufacturers precise requirements to be applied at the same time and in the same manner throughout the EU. In case fertilisers are traded nationally only, the rules do not apply and national standards would be required.

For the current Fertiliser Directive that deals with inorganic fertilisers that would generally be commercially produced it is likely that the majority will be traded across boundaries, moreover the consequences of non-compliance relate more to the information received by the land user. If the proposed amendments to the Directive occur then non compliance with the CE rules would potentially mean that fertilisers were not in compliance with the safety standards set in relation to contamination with heavy metals, etc. Moreover, organic material is likely to have shorter trading distances; there is therefore a potential risk associated with nationally regulated material, unless national laws exist. Having said this, the proposed amendments are an important step forward in promoting organic fertilisers and also securing requirements to protect soils from contaminants. 4. Relevance to soil protection Soil is not directly addressed in the regulation. In fact, the regulation currently fails to address environmental concerns related to soil contamination. It does not include limits for heavy metals (e.g. cadmium, which is often found in inorganic phosphate fertilizers). Many Member States have set up national rules and standards for fertilisers which include more detailed environmental requirements than the Fertiliser Regulation – in particular in regard to heavy metal contaminants (e.g. Germany). As this hinders the free movement of EC fertilisers within the EU’s internal market, a revision of the Fertiliser Regulation is discussed. In this regard the Commission proposes harmonised limits for heavy metals (cadmium, chromium, mercury, nickel, lead, arsenic) in CE marked fertilisers. The limits for cadmium in phosphate fertilisers would be tightened from 60 mg/kg to 40 mg/kg after 3 years, and to 20 mg/kg after 12 years, reducing the risks for health and environment and offering the potential to reduce the risk of soil contamination and, linked to this, improve soil biodiversity. However, the issue of setting thresholds for specific contaminants (in particular Cd in P fertilisers) is discussed very controversially by policy, industry, and research. 5. Soil-focused aims and objectives

Direct: The Fertiliser Regulation does not have any direct soil-focused aims and objectives.

Indirect: At present the measure is more a facilitating tool, i.e., it provides the information to fertiliser users regarding the content of the material to inform their decision making around use. If this feedback chain is effective it should result in fertiliser use being more accurately controlled to focus on meeting the growth needs of the crop and reducing issues linked to over-fertilization including acidification and diffuse pollution by nutrients.

The proposed amendment to the Regulation under the circular economy package would, were it adopted by the European institutions, significantly increase the relevance of the measure to soil protection. This is due to two key aspects:

The inclusion of organic fertilisers and the facilitation of their trading across the internal market including the clarification of rules around the use of biowaste materials – organic fertilisers are known to be effective in boosting SOM content as well as providing nutrients to the soil.

The inclusion of rules on the contaminants, i.e., heavy metals and VOC components. This will limit the inputs of contaminants to soils at a diffuse level by fertilisers.

91

Key soil-relevant instruments Mandatory: Product standards for ‘EC fertiliser’ Voluntary: None

Soil threats addressed by the Fertiliser Regulation Directly: Soil threats are not directly addressed by measures in the Fertiliser Regulation Indirectly: Acidification, diffuse contamination, and loss of soil organic matter Acidification: Understanding levels of nutrients and components linked to Ammonia and N

compounds is important to reduce acidification associated with fertiliser application and nutrient leaching.

Diffuse contamination: In theory, if labelling systems are used correctly to understand the content of nutrients in a fertiliser better, it makes it more possible for land users to regulate fertiliser applications to what is needed and taken up by the plants, reducing leaching of nutrients and diffuse pollution of water courses and enrichment of other soils. Assuming the proposed revisions to the Directive are adopted, there will be an important impact on diffuse contamination of soils with heavy metals associated with fertiliser application

Loss of soil organic matter (SOM): The current fertiliser regulation sets out the rules and quality in terms of nutrients providing a potentially better basis for improving soils. If the proposed amendment to the regulation is approved, it will contribute more to this category given the emphasis on organic fertilisers which contribute better to SOM accumulation.




None There are no soil specific targets explicitly set out. This is about the trading of a commodity that can be added to a soil and controlling its nutrient content rather than controlling its application – which would be regulated under elements of the CAP, Nitrates Directive

None

7. Mandatory requirements and voluntary options for Member States (types of management measures) Soil-focused mandatory requirements:

The minimum requirements to qualify as ‘EC fertiliser’ include that the product does not have negative effects on the health of humans, animals, plants, or the environment (including soils) when applied under normal conditions.

Not soil-focused mandatory requirements:

Compulsory statements which must appear on the packaging and labels of fertilisers including the marking EC Fertiliser, details relating to the description of nutrients or micro-nutrients, information about the manufacturer, and, if applicable, details of blends. Some optional information is also recommended, such as specific directions for the use, storage, and handling of the fertiliser.

The Regulation harmonises the rules on labelling and packaging in the EU. These rules concern, inter alia, the marking of nutrient content. Quantities of substances may be indicated in several ways. For example, phosphate content may be indicated in elemental form or in oxide form.

8. Assessment of environmental status There is no specific assessment addressing the environmental status. Member States may carry out official controls to verify compliance of fertilisers bearing the words EC fertiliser with the provisions of the Regulation. These control measures are to be carried out by designated

92

laboratories in each Member State in accordance with a uniform procedure set out in the Annexes to the Regulation. For inspection purposes, manufacturers must keep records of the origin of EC fertilisers for as long as they are being supplied to the market. Member States determine the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of the Regulation. The Commission shall be assisted in implementing the Regulation and making adaptations to the Annexes by a committee composed of representatives of the Member States. 9. Reporting units - what are the specific transposition requirements The Regulation requires the manufacturers in the Member States to set out detailed technical provisions regarding the scope, declaration, identification, and packaging of four types of fertiliser70:

main inorganic nutrient fertilisers: these are the main fertilising elements supplied in substantial quantities for plant growth, i.e., nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium;

secondary inorganic nutrient fertilisers: these are calcium, magnesium, sodium, and sulphur;

inorganic micro-nutrient fertilisers: these contain elements required in small quantities such as boron, cobalt, copper, iron, manganese, etc.;

ammonium nitrate fertilisers of high nitrogen content: given the dangerous nature of this type of fertiliser, the Regulation lays down additional measures such as a detonability test described in Annex III to the Regulation.

There are no specific reporting requirements on the implementation of the Regulation. 13. Examples of implementation approaches in case study areas Many Member States have set up national rules and standards for fertilisers which include more detailed environmental requirements than the Fertiliser Regulation – in particular in regard to heavy metal contaminants, e.g., Germany. The German Fertiliser Act seeks to ensure the nutrition of agricultural crops, to preserve or improve soil fertility, especially the humus content that is typical of the location and use, to prevent risks to the health of humans and animals and also to the ecosystem, which may arise through the manufacture, placing on the market, or application of fertilisers, soil improvers, and plant aids and also growing media or through other fertilisation measures. This act is accompanied by the Fertiliser Ordinance (DüV) which rules the correct use of fertilisers in accordance with good agricultural practice and prevents soils from oversupply and therefore rules documentation requirements. The Ordinance sets also thresholds for heavy metals, organic substances, and hygienic substances to prevent soil contamination In 1986, the Netherlands established a corresponding regulation, namely the Fertilizer Act (FA) that aims to protect the soil against overuse of fertilizers by restricting the production, use, and transport of fertilizers. The FA defines under what conditions it is allowed to produce, use, transport, and trade fertilizers. The FA distinguishes several types of fertilizers: manure, sewage sludge, compost, other organic fertilizers and inorganic fertilizers. Different rules, conditions and spreading periods are applicable to the different fertilizer types. By means of predefined application standards, the allowed amount of manure applied to the soil is balanced with the crop uptake. The allowed amount of manure is determined by the nitrogen content, the phosphate content, and the type of manure. The use of animal manure is restricted. Excess manure must be disposed of adequately in compliance with the rules of the FA. The FA is an important component in the Dutch manure policy.

70

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV:l21278

93

6 Environmental Impact Assessment Directive

1. Name of Policy and brief summary of implementation The Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment was originally passed in 1985 (85/337/EEC). It is known as the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive. The Directive was amended three times (in 1997, 2003 and 2009):

“Directive 97/11/EC brought the Directive in line with the UN ECE Espoo Convention on EIA in a Transboundary Context. The Directive of 1997 widened the scope of the EIA Directive by increasing the types of projects covered, and the number of projects requiring mandatory environmental impact assessment (Annex I). It also provided for new screening arrangements, including new screening criteria (at Annex III) for Annex II projects, and established minimum information requirements.

Directive 2003/35/EC was seeking to align the provisions on public participation with the Aarhus Convention on public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters.

Directive 2009/31/EC amended the Annexes I and II of the EIA Directive, by adding projects related to the transport, capture and storage of carbon dioxide (CO2).”71

The 2011 Directive codifies all of the amendments and the original into a single document. Then, in 2014 the Directive was amended again (Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment), so the two versions must be read together as the 2014 version only amends certain articles and paragraphs.72 The Directive sets the standards which Member States must adhere to in their implementing legislation at the national level. The Member States then implement and administer this Directive for projects in their jurisdiction. Entry into force Signed on 13 December 2011; entered into force on the 20th day following publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (28 January 2012), so on 17 February 2012. The new 2014 amendments entered into force on 15 May 2014. 2. Policy Field (water, agriculture, biodiversity, energy) Likely significant environmental impacts from public and private projects, which touch on transportation, infrastructure development, waste disposal, water treatment, and flood prevention. Integration/coordination issues with other related pieces of legislation The 2011 version of the EIA Directive cites the IPPC (now the Industrial Emissions Directive) and the public access to environmental information Directive 2003/4/EC. The 2014 version cites the Habitats Directive, Convention on Biological Diversity, WFD, Waste Framework Directive, Nuclear Installations Directive, Birds Directive, Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directive 96/82/EC, Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on Union guidelines for the development

71

DG Environment, Environmental Impact Assessment – EIA, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-legalcontext.htm. 72

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/review.htm

http://www.unece.org/env/eia/eia.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/review.htm

94

of the trans-European transport network and repealing Decision No 661/2010/EU, Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2013 on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure and repealing Decision No 1364/2006/EC and amending Regulations (EC) No 713/2009, (EC) No 714/2009 and (EC) No 715/2009. 3. Aims of the policy and its relevance to soil protection Objectives: The overall aim of the policy is “assessment of the environmental effects of those public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment”.73 Thus, it is a procedural policy which is intended to provide a check on projects before they go forward in order to (theoretically) minimise their adverse effects on the environment. Principles included in the legal text

Precautionary (referenced in light of the TFEU74 requiring all environmental policy to be pursuant to it)

Preventive action (rectifying environmental damage at its source)

Polluter-pays

Assessment of environmental effects

Subsidiarity

Proportionality

Smart regulation (the 2014 amendment)

Legal certainty (the 2014 amendment) Spatial coverage and management unit: The EIA Directive applies to a wide range of public and private projects, which are either mandatorily subject to an EIA or upon the voluntary discretion of the Member States as distinguished by Annex I and Annex II, respectively:

“Mandatory EIA: all projects listed in Annex I are considered as having significant effects on the environment and require an EIA (e.g. long-distance railway lines, motorways and express roads, airports with a basic runway length ≥ 2100 m, installations for the disposal of hazardous waste, installations for the disposal of non-hazardous waste > 100 tonnes/day, waste water treatment plants > 150.000 p.e.).

Discretion of Member States (screening): for projects listed in Annex II, the national authorities have to decide whether an EIA is needed. This is done by the "screening procedure", which determines the effects of projects on the basis of thresholds/criteria or a case by case examination. However, the national authorities must take into account the criteria laid down in Annex III. The projects listed in Annex II are in general those not included in Annex I (railways, roads waste disposal installations, waste water treatment plants), but also other types such as urban development projects, flood-relief works, changes of Annex I and II existing projects…).“75

4. Relevance to soil protection This is relevant to soil protection since projects (e.g., infrastructure development) could have negative impacts on soil quality through various threats, so identifying these impacts and potentially less harmful alternatives could result in the developer choosing a method that does not impact the soil as much.

73

Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, Article 1. 74

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 75

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-legalcontext.htm

95

5. Soil-focused aims and objectives Direct: The EIA Directive aims to “identify, describe and assess in an appropriate

manner, in the light of each individual case, the direct and indirect significant effects of a project” through an environmental impact assessment, and one of the categories for which it aims to identify the effects of a project is “land, soil, water, air and climate”.76 Recital 9 of the EIA Directive also directly speaks to the aim of the policy to reduce projects’ impacts on soils/land.77

Indirect: Other categories for which the environmental impact assessment aims to identify the effects of projects are “biodiversity, with particular attention to species and habitats protected under Directive 92/43/EEC and Directive 2009/147/EC (the Birds and Habitats Directives)” and “material assets, cultural heritage and the landscape”.78 These may include soil as a medium which may have its biodiversity affected by projects, and soil is a component of landscapes, a material asset, and may play a role within the cultural heritage.

Soil threats addressed by the EIA Directive Directly: Soil threats are not directly addressed in the EIA Directive. Indirectly: The soil threats erosion, floods/landslides, loss of SOM, contamination,

sealing, and loss of biodiversity are indirectly addressed by the requirement to identify the environmental effects which a project will cause to soil and land. Particularly, under Annex IV “A description of the factors specified in Article 3(1) likely to be significantly affected by the project: population, human health, biodiversity (for example fauna and flora), land (for example land take), soil (for example organic matter, erosion, compaction, sealing), water (for example hydromorphological changes, quantity and quality), air, climate (for example greenhouse gas emissions, impacts relevant to adaptation), material assets, cultural heritage, including architectural and archaeological aspects, and landscape” must be included in the information submitted by the project developer.



Indirect soil-focused targets

Soil-focused expected impacts

None Generally, the target to reduce environmental impacts from projects would include soil as a natural resource which the project uses in its development.

There are no direct soil-focused expected outputs from the EIA Directive. The expected outcome of the EIA Directive is that there are fewer impacts on the environment, of which soil is a component, from projects for which EIAs are required (Annex I) as well as those which Member States decide that a determination needs to be made whether it can go forward based on an EIA (Annex II).

76

Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, Article 1 (referencing Article 3). 77

“The Commission Communication of 22 September 2006 entitled ‘Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection’ and the Roadmap to a Resource-Efficient Europe underline the importance of the sustainable use of soil and the need to address the unsustainable increase of settlement areas over time (‘land take’). Furthermore, the final document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development held in Rio de Janeiro on 20-22 June 2012 recognises the economic and social significance of good land management, including soil, and the need for urgent action to reverse land degradation. Public and private projects should therefore consider and limit their impact on land, particularly as regards land take, and on soil, including as regards organic matter, erosion, compaction and sealing; appropriate land use plans and policies at national, regional and local level are also relevant in this regard.” Recital 9 of the 2014 Directive amending the 2011 EIA Directive. 78

2014 Directive amending the 2011 EIA Directive, Article 1 (referencing Article 3).

96

7. Mandatory requirements and voluntary options for Member States (types of management measures) Information about a project’s likely significant effects When a Member State requires certain projects to complete an EIA based on a case-by-case assessment or if it meets certain thresholds or criteria, the developer must submit information about the project (listed in Annex II.A). One of the requirements is “a description of any likely significant effects, to the extent of the information available on such effects, of the project on the environment resulting from: (a) the expected residues and emissions and the production of waste, where relevant; (b) the use of natural resources, in particular soil, land, water and biodiversity”. Information to determine whether a project must undergo an EIA Additionally, in determining whether a project should have to undergo an EIA, use of natural resources including soil needs to be indicated by the developer in the information submitted about the project (Annex III) as well as “The environmental sensitivity of geographical areas likely to be affected by projects must be considered, with particular regard to: (a) the existing and approved land use; (b) the relative abundance, availability, quality and regenerative capacity of natural resources (including soil, land, water and biodiversity) in the area and its underground”. This latter consideration of the sensitivity of the geographical area focusing on the land use and quality/regenerative capacity of soil and land at a minimum requires the recognition of the potential soil threats from the project. However, the option may still be chosen following an EIA rather than less harmful alternatives if the developer provides reasons why the more harmful activity was chosen. This is relevant to soil protection because in the end, the option which harms soil more may be chosen due to overriding interests – it is not mandated that the least harmful option be chosen. Information about project measures to avoid, prevent or reduce impacts and reasonable alternatives In the EIAs conducted under the Directive, “a description of the features of the project and/or measures envisaged in order to avoid, prevent or reduce and, if possible, offset likely significant adverse effects on the environment” must be provided as well as “a description of the reasonable alternatives studied by the developer, which are relevant to the project and its specific characteristics, and an indication of the main reasons for the option chosen, taking into account the effects of the project on the environment”.79 Specifically, the EIA must be prepared by competent experts, and transparency and participatory requirements are included in the process by allowing Member States to require “that the authorities likely to be concerned by the project by reason of their specific environmental responsibilities or local and regional competences are given an opportunity to express their opinion on the information supplied by the developer and on the request for development consent”.80 Additionally, the EIA participatory process requires that the “public shall be informed electronically and by public notices or by other appropriate means, of the following matters early in the environmental decision-making procedures”.81

79 2014 Directive amending the 2011 EIA Directive, Article 1 (referencing Article 5).

80 Ibid. Article 1 (referencing Article 6(1)).

81 Ibid. Article 1 (referencing Article 6(2)).

97

Key soil-relevant instruments Mandatory Determination whether a project is required to complete an EIA; public participation in the decision-making process; and an EIA submitted to the competent authority for development consent. Decisions which are issued based on the EIA regarding whether “to grant development consent shall incorporate at least the following information: (a) the reasoned conclusion referred to in Article 1(2)(g)(iv); (b) any environmental conditions attached to the decision, a description of any features of the project and/or measures envisaged to avoid, prevent or reduce and, if possible, offset significant adverse effects on the environment as well as, where appropriate, monitoring measures.”1 This instrument (the development consent with environmental conditions) may be soil-relevant because if soil was one of the highlighted resources within the EIA to be affected by the project, then the conditions could propose development of the project in a less harmful way for the soil. Voluntary There are no voluntary soil-relevant provisions.

Information included in the EIA project description Information which must be included in the EIA by the developer (under Annex IV) includes “a description of the main characteristics of the operational phase of the project (in particular any production process), for instance, energy demand and energy used, nature and quantity of the materials and natural resources (including water, land, soil and biodiversity) used” and “an estimate, by type and quantity, of expected residues and emissions (such as water, air, soil and subsoil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation) and quantities and types of waste produced during the construction and operation phases”. Both highlight soil and land, but the second requirement specifically identifies projected soil pollution quantities, which may influence the way the project is carried out if the potential impacts are high and there is a less harmful alternative which can be implemented without significantly different costs or complications. As pointed out above in the Soil threats section, a description of the factors including soil must be indicated if they are likely to be significantly affected by the project – specifying certain soil threats (“organic matter, erosion, compaction, sealing”) as well as the likely significant effects on soil (considering as far as possible the sustainable availability of this resource). The wording of this mandatory requirement allows for some flexibility in the extent to which information is provided on the significant effects which may occur. Timelines

Member states must bring into force laws, regulations and administrative provisions to implement the EIA by 16 May 2017.

At the initial stages of the project development, a public consultation of not less than 30 days according to an amendment in the 2014 version of the EIA directive (amending Art. 6 to add para. 7) must be held. If projects are likely have significant transboundary environmental effects, a public consultation must be held as well providing a reasonable timeframe to allow for consultation.

On an ongoing basis, the Member States are allowed to exempt projects which are adopted through a specific act of national legislation from the public consultation process (“provided the objectives of this Directive are met”), but then the Member States must notify the Commission of exemptions every two years starting 16 May 2017.

Decisions whether to grant development consent under Article 8a shall be taken “within a reasonable period of time” to be defined by the Member States.

The Member States are responsible to report to the Commission every 6 years following 16 May 2017 regarding the EIAs conducted, duration of assessments, costs, etc. (Art. 10a amending Art. 12).

98

8. Assessment of environmental status As a procedural Directive, the EIA requires identification and a report of potential significant impacts that are likely from a project, including the different elements outlined in Annex IV. So apart from a baseline environmental status and natural resources to be utilized in the project (e.g., energy consumption), the EIA is mostly forward looking in presenting the likely significant environmental impacts (e.g., “an estimate, by type and quantity, of expected residues and emissions (such as water, air, soil and subsoil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation) and quantities and types of waste produced during the construction and operation phases”82). In addition, the EIA is required to present the environmental impacts which would result from an alternative scenario, allowing for comparison between the “business as usual” and alternative scenarios. There are various guidance documents offered from the Commission83:

Streamlining environmental assessment procedures for energy infrastructure Projects of Common Interest (PCIs) (24/07/2013)

Guidance on the Application of the Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure for Large-scale Transboundary Projects (16/05/2013)

Guidance on Integrating Climate Change and Biodiversity into Environmental Impact Assessment (03/2013)

Interpretation of definitions of project categories of annex I and II of the EIA Directive (05/2015)

Interpretation of definitions of certain project categories of annex I and II of the EIA Directive (2008)

Interpretation suggested by the Commission as regards the application of the EIA Directive to ancillary/associated works (05/03/2012)

Application of the EIA Directive to projects related to the exploration and exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbon (05/03/2012)

Application of EIA Directive to the rehabilitation of landfills (21/01/2010)

Clarification of the application of Article 2(3) of the EIA Directive

EIA - Guidance on Screening – 2001, Screening checklist

EIA - Guidance on Scoping – 2001, Scoping checklist

EIA Review Check List - 2001

Guidelines on the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact interactions

Communication from the Commission - Trans-European networks: Towards an integrated approach

Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to the Communication from the Commission Trans-European Networks : Toward and integrated approach

The guidance for integrating climate change and biodiversity into the EIA recommends that trends in key indicators be looked at over time in order to identify the evolving baseline of the location for the project in relation to the environmental effects that will likely result from the project’s implementation. For example, it provides “GHG emissions, indices of vulnerability, frequency of extreme weather events, disaster risk, key species such as farmland birds and the status of habitats or protected areas. Are these trends continuing, changing, or levelling out?” as indicators and questions that could be posed for the EIA, as well as suggesting that proxy indicators if data is unavailable for one of the indicators.84 This guidance document also specifically references soil from a carbon sequestration perspective as well as supporting biodiversity as part of a healthy ecosystem. Importantly, it references soil

82

Annex IV, para. 1(d) of 2014 version. 83

Available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-support.htm 84

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/EIA%20Guidance.pdf

99

protection in terms of soil threats: “Plants stabilise soil, reducing the risk of landslides and erosion (in fact, it is deforestation that can contribute to mudslides).”85 9. Reporting units - what are the specific transposition requirements According to Article 12 para. “2. In particular, every six years from 16 May 2017 Member States shall inform the Commission, where such data are available, of:

(a) the number of projects referred to in Annexes I and II made subject to an environmental impact assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10;

(b) the breakdown of environmental impact assessments according to the project categories set out in Annexes I and II;

(c) the number of projects referred to in Annex II made subject to a determination in accordance with Article 4(2);

(d) the average duration of the environmental impact assessment process; and (e) general estimates on the average direct costs of environmental impact assessments,

including the impact from the application of this Directive to SMEs.” (as amended by Art. 10a of the 2014 version).

14. Examples of implementation approaches in case study areas The National Implementing Measures (NIM) communicated by the Member States concerning the EIA Directive can be found under: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/NIM/?uri=CELEX:32011L0092. The Commission has issued the following reports about the implementation and effectiveness of the EIA Directive86:

Commission Report - 2009 (COM/2009/378)

Commission Report - 2003 (COM/2003/334)

Commission Report – 1997 Additional assessments of the EIA Directive are available as well:

Implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment on the basis of precise examples – IMPEL report (2012)

Collection of information and data to support the Impact Assessment study of the review of the EIA Directive

OPINION of the Committee of the Regions on IMPROVING THE EIA AND SEA DIRECTIVES (15 April 2010)

Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive - Final report

Study Improving the Impact of Environmental Impact Assessment

Final report on "The Relationship between the EIA and SEA Directives project"

Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive

Evaluation of the EIA Directive

85

Ibid. at p. 24. 86

Available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-support.htm

100

7 Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive

1. Name of Policy and brief summary of implementation The Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (commonly referred to as the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive) was passed in 2001 and needed to be transposed into Member States’ legislative structures by July 2004. The Member States must implement the SEA and assess environmental effects of plans and programmes within their jurisdictions. Entry into force Signed on 27 June 2001; entered into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities, which was 21 July 2001. 2. Policy Field (water, agriculture, biodiversity, energy) Likely significant environmental impacts from public plans and programmes prepared for “agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry, transport, waste/ water management, telecommunications, tourism, town & country planning or land use and which set the framework for future development consent of projects listed in the EIA Directive; or have been determined to require an assessment under the Habitats Directive”.87 Integration/coordination issues with other related pieces of legislation Birds Directive, EIA Directive, Habitats Directive, Decision No 2179/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 1998 on the review of the European Community programme of policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development 'Towards sustainability", Pillar 2 of the CAP, Structural Funds, WFD. 3. Aims of the policy and its relevance to soil protection Objectives: The aim of the SEA Directive is: “to provide for a high level of protection of the environment and to contribute to the integration of environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans and programmes with a view to promoting sustainable development, by ensuring that, in accordance with this Directive, an environmental assessment is carried out of certain plans and programmes which are likely to have significant effects on the environment”. (Article 1). Principles included in the legal text

Precautionary (as the basis for European environmental policy)

Subsidiarity (the Commission sets down a minimum environmental assessment framework and the Member States are required to set the details for their individual legislation).

Spatial coverage and management unit: The spatial coverage includes all Member States’ environment which is likely to incur significant environmental effects from plans and programmes proposed in those Member States. Not every plan or programme is covered or must have a SEA conducted for it, but those which do are covered under Article 3(2-4). Authorities responsible for plans or programmes in the “agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry, transport, waste management, water management, telecommunications, tourism, town and country planning or land use [sectors] and which set the framework for future development consent of projects listed in Annexes I and II to Directive 85/337/EEC” need to carry out SEAs.

87

DG Environment, Strategic Environmental Assessment – SEA, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/sea-legalcontext.htm.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/sea-legalcontext.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/sea-legalcontext.htm

101

4. Relevance to soil protection These plans and programmes prepared and adopted “by an authority at national, regional or local level or which are prepared by an authority for adoption, through a legislative procedure by Parliament or Government, and which are required by legislative, regulatory or administrative” could have an effect on or be implemented using soil as a natural resource, e.g., agricultural (CAP), industry, transport, waste, etc. plans and programmes which could present soil threats (e.g., contamination, sealing).88 5. Soil-focused aims and objectives

Direct: The SEA Directive does not have any direct soil-focused aims or objectives. Indirect: Indirectly the SEA Directive aims to reduce environmental impacts from plans

and programmes, including negative impacts on soil, by requiring an assessment of the likely significant effects prior to adoption of the plans and programmes.

Soil threats addressed by the SEA Directive Directly: The SEA Directive does not directly address soil threats. Indirectly: In the preparation of an environmental (SEA) report, it must contain

information about the likely significant effects to soil, which could touch upon multiple different soil threats (e.g., erosion, contamination, salinisation, loss of biodiversity and/or SOM, etc.).





None Generally, the target to reduce environmental impacts from plans and programmes includes soil as a natural resource potentially affected by them.

There are no direct soil-focused expected outputs from the SEA Directive. The expected outcome that there are fewer impacts on the environment, of which soil is a component, from plans and programmes is an indirect soil-relevant output.

7. Mandatory requirements and voluntary options for Member States (types of management measures) The SEA Directive requires plans and programmes which the Member States determine are likely to have significant effects on the environment based on criteria in Annex II to complete a SEA. This determination of likelihood of significant effects either requires or does not require a SEA. If it does not require one, reasons must be provided publicly as to why it was not.89 Once the determination has been made that a SEA is required, “an environmental report shall be prepared in which the likely significant effects on the environment of implementing the plan or programme, and reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives and the geographical scope of the plan or programme, are identified, described and evaluated”.90

88

SEA Directive, Articles 2 and 3. 89

SEA Directive, Article 3. 90

SEA Directive, Article 5(1).

102

Key soil-relevant instruments Mandatory Determine whether a SEA is required (Annex II criteria), consult the public and authorities, a SEA report prepared outlining the mandatory elements (Annex I), and a final plan/programme with an accompanying explanation as to how the information revealed during the SEA was taken into consideration / environmental aspects were integrated into the final adopted output. This process is relevant to soil protection since that is one of the natural resources on which the SEA is focused in identifying likely significant effects (Annex I). Monitoring is also required to gauge unintended impacts as well as reporting on implementation to the Commission. The Commission must also report on the Directive to the Parliament and Council every 7 years. Voluntary There are no voluntary soil-relevant provisions.

The information which must be provided in the SEA in Annex I includes the likely significant effects on soil, which should outline “secondary, cumulative, synergistic, short, medium and long-term permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects”.91 Public consultations are required within the plan and programme development process, with the additional requirement for transboundary consultations if the likely significant effects are potentially transboundary.92 Finally, all of the information in the SEA and the consultations prior to adoption must be taken into consideration during the decision-making process and accompanying information about the decision must inform the public and authorities consulted about the adoption of the plan/programme and a public record of the various environmental considerations integrated into the final version along with the comments from the consultations and why the final version was chosen as it was.93 Monitoring is required during the early stages of the plan/programme implementation are in place as well to discover adverse unforeseen impacts.94 Reporting requirements are described below. The Member States were required to bring laws, regulations and administrative provisions into force to implement the Directive before 21 July 2004 and inform the Commission (Art 13(1).95 By that date the Member States also had to communicate to the Commission the types of plans and programmes which would be subject to SEAs according to Art. 3 (Art 13(4)). The Commission issued Guidance on the implementation of Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment96, as well as Guidance on Integrating Climate Change and Biodiversity into Strategic Environmental Assessment (03/2013)97. 8. Assessment of environmental status As a procedural Directive, the SEA require reporting and identification of potential significant impacts that are likely from a plan or programme, including current status of the environment and likely significant impacts to “biodiversity, population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage including architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors” (Annex I(f)). In the Guidance on Integrating Climate Change and Biodiversity into Strategic Environmental Assessment (03/2013)98, there is a table dedicated to sources of information on biodiversity

91

SEA Directive, Annex I. 92



SEA Directive, Article 10. 95

As of that date, only 9 MS had transposed the Directive, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52009DC0469. Conformity checking was completed in October 2008 for 14 MS. As of 14 October 2008, 23 open cases with the ECJ related to the SEA Directive, such as for non-conformity or non-communication, existed, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/study0309.pdf. 96

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/eia/pdf/030923_sea_guidance.pdf 97

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/SEA%20Guidance.pdf 98

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/SEA%20Guidance.pdf

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52009DC0469


http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/study0309.pdf

103

and climate change which includes many sources of indicators (e.g., EEA indicators, EUROSTAT sustainable development indicators, etc.). 9. Reporting units - what are the specific transposition requirements Member States report to the Commission on implementation at the national level and the reports they submit must be of “sufficient quality to meet the requirements of [the Directive]”. Measures taken regarding quality of the report must be communicated to the Commission as well (Art 12(1)-(2)). The Commission must then report to the EP and the Council regarding the application and effectiveness of the Directive (Art 12(3)). The Commission was required to send a first report on the application and effectiveness of the Directive to the EP and the Council before 21 July 2006 and suggestions for amendment based on the analysis (Art 12(3). The report available is from 14 September 2009: Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the application and effectiveness of the Directive on Strategic Environmental Assessment (Directive 2001/42/EC).99 The evaluation reports are required every seven years (Art 12(3)). 15. Examples of implementation approaches in case study areas The National Implementing Measures (NIM) communicated by the Member States concerning the SEA Directive can be found under: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/NIM/?uri=CELEX:32001L0042. Findings from the Report of the Commission to the EP and Council on the effectiveness of the SEA Directive100: “3.4. Environmental report (Article 5 and Annex I) … All national transposing legislation lays down a formal requirement to provide a description of the baseline situation. Identification of the correct scale of data and the level of detail of the assessment are the predominant difficulties reported by the Member States. Other difficulties reported by the Member States are the lack of good quality information, the time-consuming nature of data collection, the lack of homogenous criteria for the scope and content of the baseline analysis, and the absence of a standard set of environment and sustainability criteria against which to assess P&P. 3.5. Definition of reasonable alternatives (Article 5(1)) Consideration and identification of alternatives in the environmental report is one of the few issues that have given rise to problems in Member States.” The process worked well overall in terms of cross-border consultations regarding likely significant environmental effects, but NGOs reported that the consultations took place too late in the process when the plan or programme was already well advanced. Very few Member States were found to have established monitoring methods or created national guidance on how plans and programmes establish monitoring indicators. Thus, monitoring has not been effectively implemented within the early stages of the plan or programme to identify unforeseen impacts provided for in Article 10.The SEA was said by the Member States to have improved the planning process with organization and structure, as well as made the process more transparent through the consultation process. Additionally, the SEA process was reported by the Member States to have an influence on the plans and programmes’ content with regards to reasonable alternatives. In general, the major objectives or financial allocations did not change much, but the funding objectives did change as well as schemes and criteria. National level plans were substantially influenced by a “significant number of the SEA findings”. The Commission website provides the contact information for member States ministries that are responsible for EIA/SEA legislation – constituting the Commission EIA/SEA National Experts Group.101

99

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52009DC0469 100





104

8 Environmental Liability Directive

1. Name of Policy and brief summary of implementation Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage – the Environmental Liability Directive (ELD) - establishes a framework based on the polluter pays principle to prevent and remedy environmental damage. The Directive deals with the "pure ecological damage", thus it is based on the powers and duties of public authorities ("administrative approach") and is distinct from a civil liability system for "traditional damage" (damage to property, economic loss, personal injury). Furthermore, the Directive defines "environmental damage" as damage to protected species and natural habitats, damage to water and damage to soil. Operators carrying out dangerous activities listed in Annex III of the Directive fall under strict liability (without need to proof fault). Operators carrying out other occupational activities than those listed in Annex III are liable for fault-based damage to protected species or natural habitats. The establishment of a causal link between the activity and the damage is always required. Affected natural or legal persons and environmental NGOs have the right to request the competent authority to take remedial action if they deem it necessary.”102 This Directive applies only to damage caused after 2007 (30 April 2007) (Art. 17). Member States are required to transpose the Directive into the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with it within three years after entering into force of this Directive, i.e. by 30 April 2007 (Art. 19.1). There were many proceedings against MS for failure to implement the Directive103, and finally the transposition was completed in July 2010.104 The ELD was amended three times, through:

Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from extractive industries;

Directive 2009/31/EC on the geological storage of carbon dioxide and amending several directives; and

Directive 2013/30/EU on safety of offshore oil and gas operations and amending Directive 2004/35/EC.

Entry into force Entered into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, which was 30 April 2004. 2. Policy Field (water, agriculture, biodiversity, energy) Environment105 Integration/coordination issues with other related pieces of legislation “The Birds and Habitats Directives are major reference points for the prevention and remediation of damage to protected species and natural habitats, one of the three categories of environmental damage under the ELD. The Water Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive are major reference points for damage to water, another of the three categories of environmental damage under the ELD.”106

101

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/All%20Experts%20list.pdf 102

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/liability/ 103

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LKD/?uri=CELEX:32004L0035 104

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/liability/ 105

European Commission web-site, Environment, Law, Liability, Environmental Liability, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/liability/ 106

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/liability/

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/All%20Experts%20list.pdf



105

3. Aim of the policy and its relevance to soil protection Objectives: “The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework of environmental liability based on the ‘polluter-pays' principle, to prevent and remedy environmental damage.” (Art. 1) Principles included in the legal text

The referenced principles are generally the environmental principles in the TFEU (e.g., precautionary, polluter-pays, preventive, etc.)

Polluter-pays principle is included with regards to prevention and remedying of environmental damage, in conjunction with the principle of sustainable development, and as the fundamental basis of the Directive.

Subsidiarity principle is cited in terms of the EU being authorized to adopt measures since accomplishing the objective of the Directive at a reasonable cost cannot be sufficient achieved by the Member States. In doing so, the proportionality principle is referenced as needing to be respected.

Spatial coverage and management unit: The entire European Union’s environment. The Member States are required to designate a “competent authority” which “will ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of the ELD; safeguard the legitimate interests of the relevant operators and other interested parties; or is in charge of specific tasks such as assessing the significance of the damage and determining which remedial measures should be taken (in co-operation with the liable operator).”107 4. Relevance to soil protection ‘Land damage’ is one of the three ‘environmental damage' types defined in Art. 2(c) (in addition to ‘damage to protected species and natural habitats’ and ‘damage to water’). The Directive applies the following definition: “’environmental damage’ means land damage, which is any land contamination that creates a significant risk of human health being adversely affected as a result of the direct or indirect introduction, in, on or under land, of substances, preparations, organisms or micro-organisms” (Art. 2.1(c)). In this way, the Directive addresses explicitly soil contamination threat. 5. Soil-focused aims and objectives

Direct: See above the text on ‘land damage’ under the section ‘Relevance to soil protection’.

Indirect: Indirectly, soil protection might be expected under prevention and remedy of ‘damage to protected species and natural habitats’ which is defined as “any damage that has significant adverse effects on reaching or maintaining the favourable conservation status of such habitats or species.” (Art. 2.1(a)) since soil is an important component of natural (terrestrial) habitats and contributes to conservation of habitats and species. The Art. 2.1(a) further states that “The significance of such effects is to be assessed with reference to the baseline condition, taking account of the criteria set out in Annex I”. An example of such criteria: “the number of individuals, their density or the area covered, and the role of the particular individuals or of the damaged area in relation to the species or to the habitat conservation” (Annex I). The Directive defines that “The conservation status of a natural habitat will be taken as ‘favourable' when: its natural range and areas it covers within that range are stable or increasing” (Art. 2.4). As soil is one of the physical components that a terrestrial habitat is made of, achieving a favourable conservation status of terrestrial habitats could also contribute towards soils protection.

107

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/liability/pdf/Summary%20ELD.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/liability/pdf/Summary%20ELD.pdf

106

Soil threats addressed by the ELD Directly: only land/site (soil) contamination. The Directive addresses only land

contamination as damaging to land and thereby potentially covered by the ELD if it reaches a certain threshold. “Furthermore, to be considered damage, land contamination needs to pose a significant risk to human health.”108

Indirect: reduced land/site contamination contributes generally to improved soil health and quality, and thus might contribute to improved soil biodiversity.




There are no direct or specific soil-focused targets in the ELD.

As mentioned under soil threats section, “to be considered damage, land contamination needs to pose a significant risk to human health.”109 A mandatory risk-assessment procedure takes into account “the characteristic and function of the soil, the type and concentration of the harmful substances, preparations, organisms or micro-organisms, their risk and the possibility of their dispersion” (Annex II).

Reduced land/soil contamination and improved soil biodiversity could be expected – though not mentioned explicitly in the directive.

7. Mandatory requirements and voluntary options for Member States (types of management measures) Competent authority: Member States shall designate the competent authority(ies) responsible for fulfilling the duties provided for in this Directive. (Art. 11.1) Preventative and remedial actions and measures to deal with environmental damage: Member States have to take preventative and remedial actions and measures to deal with environmental damage. The requirements differ depending on the status of environmental damage, for example, where there is an imminent threat of environmental damage but it has not occurred yet and where environmental damage has occurred:

In case of an imminent threat of environmental damage but which has not occurred yet, the competent authority may require the operator (i.e. the potential polluter) to take the necessary preventive measures or to take the necessary preventive measures (Art. 5) and then recover the costs incurred (Art. 8).

In case of the environmental damage has occurred, the competent authority may require the operator to take the necessary remedial measures or to take the necessary remedial measures (Art. 6) and then recover the costs incurred (Art. 8). The operator must identify potential remedial measures on the basis of the rules and principles set out in Annex II (Art. 7).

“The operator shall bear the costs for the preventive and remedial actions taken pursuant to this Directive” (Art. 8.1). Though there are exceptions where the operator is not required to bear the costs (Art. 8.3-4) or the competent authority recover the costs (Art. 8.2);

108

Cp. Winter, Gerd, Jan H. Jans, Richard Macrory and Ludwig Kramer (2008): Weighing up the EC Environmental Liability Directive. Journal of Environmental Law 20:2. In: Susanne Altvater, Elizabeth Dooley, and Ennid Roberts (2014). Legal Instruments to implement the objective “Land Degradation Neutral World” in International Law. Final Report, 1 December 2014. 109

Cp. Winter, Gerd, Jan H. Jans, Richard Macrory and Ludwig Kramer (2008): Weighing up the EC Environmental Liability Directive. Journal of Environmental Law 20:2. In: Susanne Altvater, Elizabeth Dooley, and Ennid Roberts (2014). Legal Instruments to implement the objective “Land Degradation Neutral World” in International Law. Final Report, 1 December 2014.

107

Key soil-relevant instruments Mandatory Risk assessment procedure that assesses the presence of risk adversely affecting human health to decide on necessary (Preventative and remedial) measures. Liability schemes Financial security instruments, e.g. in case of insolvency. Reporting by the MS to the Commission on implementation of the ELD, and the Commission must report on the effectiveness of and propose amendments to the ELD. Voluntary None

Liability schemes: the Directive applies two liability schemes, where the first ‘strict’ liability scheme applies to the dangerous or potentially dangerous occupational activities listed in Annex III and the second to “any occupational activities other than those listed in Annex III” that cause damage to protected species and natural habitats protected by Community legislation. Under the first scheme, the operator may be held responsible even if he/she is not at fault (no need to prove fault) and under the second scheme, the operator will be held liable only if he is at fault or negligent (fault based damage). Annex III includes a list of activities considered under a number of Directives, including mainly agricultural and industrial activities requiring a licence under the Directive on the integrated pollution prevention and control; activities that discharge heavy metals into water or air; installations producing dangerous chemical substances; waste management activities and activities concerning genetically modifies organisms. Financial security instruments: Member States must “take measures to encourage the development of financial security instruments and markets by the appropriate economic and financial operators”. It might include, for example “financial mechanisms in case of insolvency, with the aim of enabling operators to use financial guarantees to cover their responsibilities under this Directive” (Art. 14.1). Land use must be “ascertained on the basis of the land use regulations, or other relevant regulations, in force, if any, when the damage occurred. If the use of the land is changed, all necessary measures shall be taken to prevent any adverse effects on human health. If land use regulations, or other relevant regulations, are lacking, the nature of the relevant area where the damage occurred, taking into account its expected development, shall determine the use of the specific area. A natural recovery option, that is to say an option in which no direct human intervention in the recovery process would be taken, shall be considered.” There are training materials provided on ELD here: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/liability/eld_training.htm; and national guidance documents on ELD implementation provided here: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/liability/eld_guidance.htm. Funding Recital 27 states: “Member States should take measures to encourage the use by operators of any appropriate insurance or other forms of financial security and the development of financial security instruments and markets in order to provide effective cover for financial obligations under this Directive.” Article 14 directly covers financial security, which directs Member States to take measures to develop financial security instruments and markets (using financial mechanisms in case of insolvency) to enable operators to use financial guarantees to cover their responsibilities under the ELD. 8. Assessment of environmental status The ELD applies to “environmental damage” caused by occupational activities outlined in Annex III, and in determining whether qualifying environmental damage has occurred under the Directive, Annex I states “The significance of any damage that has adverse effects on reaching or maintaining the favourable conservation status of habitats or species has to be assessed by reference to the conservation status at the time of the damage, the services

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/liability/eld_training.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/liability/eld_guidance.htm

108

provided by the amenities they produce and their capacity for natural regeneration. Significant adverse changes to the baseline condition should be determined by means of measurable data such as:

the number of individuals, their density or the area covered,

the role of the particular individuals or of the damaged area in relation to the species or to the habitat conservation, the rarity of the species or habitat (assessed at local, regional and higher level including at Community level),

the species' capacity for propagation (according to the dynamics specific to that species or to that population), its viability or the habitat's capacity for natural regeneration (according to the dynamics specific to its characteristic species or to their populations),

the species' or habitat's capacity, after damage has occurred, to recover within a short time, without any intervention other than increased protection measures, to a condition which leads, solely by virtue of the dynamics of the species or habitat, to a condition deemed equivalent or superior to the baseline condition.”

9. Reporting units - what are the specific transposition requirements Reporting requirements include national reports prepared by the Member States on the implementation of the ELD to be reported to the Commission and the Commission’s report based on these national reports to be reported to the European Parliament and the Council with proposed amendments for the Directive (Article 18), as well as Commissions Report to the European Parliament and the Council on the effectiveness of the Directive in terms of actual remediation of environmental damages:

Member States must report on the experience gained in the application of the Directive nine years after entering into force of this Directive (by 30 April 2013). Annex VI provides information and data that should be included in this report. It considers mainly procedural information with regard to environmental damage and instance for liability and associated costs. There is no specific information with regard to soil protection.

On the basis of this information, the Commission is obliged to submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council in one year (i.e. before 30 April 2014) with appropriate proposals for amendment (Art. 18).

The Commission must also within six years after entering into force of this Directive (before 30 April 2010) report on the effectiveness of the Directive in remedying environmental damage and whether activities under Annex III are available at reasonable costs and what insurance and other types of financial security conditions exist (Article 14.2). An extended impact assessment with a cost-benefit analysis in combination with the report must be considered by the Commission as to whether a system of harmonized mandatory financial security is appropriate to propose.110

The Member States are responsible to report to the Commission on the experience gained implementing the ELD, including “a list of instances of environmental damage and instances of liability under this Directive, with the following information and data for each instance:

(1) Type of environmental damage, date of occurrence and/or discovery of the damage and date on which proceedings were initiated under this Directive.

(2) Activity classification code of the liable legal person(s)(1). (3) Whether there has been resort to judicial review proceedings either by liable parties

or qualified entities. (The type of claimants and the outcome of proceedings shall be specified.)

110

European Commission web-site, Environmental liability, http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/enterprise/interaction_with_other_policies/l28120_en.htm

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/enterprise/interaction_with_other_policies/l28120_en.htm

109

(4) Outcome of the remediation process. (5) Date of closure of proceedings.”111

The Commission’s report to the European Parliament and the Council based on Member States’ reports on ELD implementation shall include a review of:

a) “the application of: o Article 4(2) and (4) in relation to the exclusion of pollution covered by the

international instruments listed in Annexes IV and V from the scope of this Directive, and

o Αrticle 4(3) in relation to the right of an operator to limit his liability in accordance with the international conventions referred to in Article 4(3).

The Commission shall take into account experience gained within the relevant international fora, such as the IMO and Euratom and the relevant international agreements, as well as the extent to which these instruments have entered into force and/or have been implemented by Member States and/or have been modified, taking account of all relevant instances of environmental damage resulting from such activities and the remedial action taken and the differences between the liability levels in Member States, and considering the relationship between ship owners' liability and oil receivers' contributions, having due regard to any relevant study undertaken by the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds.

b) the application of this Directive to environmental damage caused by genetically modified organisms (GMOs), particularly in the light of experience gained within relevant international fora and Conventions, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, as well as the results of any incidents of environmental damage caused by GMOs;

c) the application of this Directive in relation to protected species and natural habitats; d) the instruments that may be eligible for incorporation into Annexes III, IV and V.”112

10. Examples of implementation approaches in case study areas The National Implementing Measures (NIM) communicated by the Member States concerning the ELD can be found under: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/NIM/?uri=CELEX:32004L0035. Furthermore, a number of reports on different ELD’s implementation issues are available at the European Commission’s website http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/liability/, e.g.:

Member States’ reports on their implementation experience with the ELD.

The Commission’s report (2010) on the effectiveness of the Directive in terms of actual remediation of environmental damages and on the availability at reasonable costs and on conditions of insurance and other types of financial security.

The exploratory studies of 2008 and 2009 and the workshop proceedings of 10 July 2009.

111

Annex IV. 112

Article 18(3).




110

9 Habitats and Birds Directives

1. Name of Policy and brief summary of implementation Nature conservation and protection of biodiversity in the EU is regulated by two main directives – the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC)113 and the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)114. Directive 2009/147/EC115 replaces the old Birds Directive 79/409/EEC. Member States are required by the Birds Directive to designate Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for nearly 200 threatened bird species listed in the Directive and all migratory bird species. SPAs protect areas that are important for the survival of the targeted species, such as nesting grounds. the Birds Directive does not set any specific timelines for the implementation. The Habitats Directive was adopted 13 years later, introducing very similar measures and extending its coverage to around 1000 other rare, threatened or endemic species of wild animals and plants that are referred to as ‘species of European importance’. Furthermore, for the first time, it protects some 230 rare habitat types in their own right. Member States are required by the Habitats Directive to designate Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) (Art 4) and establish necessary conservation measures (Art. 6.1); SACs and initially known as 'Sites of Community Importance' (SCIs). Many sites are both SPAs and SACs. The SCIs, SACs and SPAs make up the Natura 2000 network, the cornerstone of the EU’s action on nature conservation. Natura 2000 covers 18% of the EU's land surface and about 4% of its seas. Entry into force The Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) of 30 November 2009 shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 20, 26.1.2010), which is 15 February 2010. The Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) of 21 May 1992 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 206) on 22.7.1992. The Directive does not indicate the date of its entry into force. 2. Policy Field (water, agriculture, biodiversity, energy) Nature conservation, biodiversity protection. Integration/coordination issues with other related pieces of legislation Achieving the objectives of the Birds and Habitats Directives is of particular importance for agriculture and forestry sectors, the aquatic environment and climate change mitigation as it yields benefits in all these areas and vice versa. Furthermore, within the current LIFE programme (2014-2020), the evaluation process requires to determine what benefit to the conservation status of habitats and species under the Habitats and Birds Directives resulted from LIFE projects. 3. Aims of the policy and its relevance to soil protection Objectives: The overall objective of the two Directives is to ensure that the species and habitat types they protect are maintained, or restored, to a favourable conservation status (FSC) throughout their natural range within the EU. The overall aim of the Birds Directive is to protect all Europe's wild birds. It identifies 194 particularly threatened wild bird species and all migratory bird species in Europe, as well as their most important habitats across the EU which should be protected with special conservation measures.

113

Council Directive of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (79/409/EEC) 114

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora 115

Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds is the codified version of the first Birds Directive 79/409/EEC

111

The overall aim of the Habitats Directive is to promote the maintenance of biodiversity, by conserving natural habitats and wild fauna and flora in the territory of the Member States (Art. 2). An ecological network of special protected areas, known as Natura 2000, is being set up for this purpose. Member States are asked by the Habitats Directive (Art. 8) to prepare Prioritised Action Frameworks (PAFs) to set out the official nature conservation priorities for a country or region. The PAFs seek to act as strategic planning tools encouraging access to as many EU financial instruments as possible in the financing of the Natura 2000 network.116 Almost all Member States have submitted their PAFs to the Commission. Principles included in the legal text

The Birds Directive refers to the principles of wise use and ecologically balanced control of the species of birds concerned within the national scheme for hunting (Article 7(4)).

The Habitats Directive references the polluter-pays principle in terms of the limited role this principle can play in terms of conservation.

Subsidiarity principle – choosing the conservation measures in the Natura 2000 sites. Spatial coverage and management unit: Priority habitats and species protected sites throughout the EU (Natura 2000 network). The management units under both the Birds and Habitats Directives are the protected areas, under the Birds Directive they are labelled as Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and the Habitats Directive areas are called Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). The designated sites of Community importance (SCIs) are included in the Natura 2000 network and must be managed by the Member States according to the ecological needs of the species.117 4. Relevance to soil protection The two directives do not state any direct relevance to soil protection; however, the conservation measures which must be put into place for terrestrial ecosystems may involve actions which positively impact soil protection.

5. Soil-focused aims and objectives Direct: neither the Birds nor the Habitats Directive has any direct soil-relevant objective. Indirect: One of the Birds Directives objectives is “the protection, management and

control of [naturally occurring birds in the wild state in the European territory] species [...]. It applies to [...] habitats” (Art. 1.1-1.2). The associated conservation measures might have a positive impact on the state of soil. In the same manner contributes the Habitats Directive to soil protection, i.e. through ‘the conservation of natural habitats’ setting necessary conservation measures and avoiding “the deterioration of natural habitats” (Art. 6.2). The conservation measures that have to be implemented should depend on the conservation objectives specific for each site (or group of sites) and also should be framed in the context of the overall attainment of the FCS. The majority of these measures are ‘positive’ that aim to maintain and restore habitats and species, and which have potential to enhance soil quality and contribute to its protection. The most relevant sustainable land-use measures that can have a positive impact on soil could be, for example118:

Maintaining grasslands and other open habitats (e.g. grazing and removal/control of shrubs and other woody plants – might support SOM content in the grasslands, though, burning (if applied not correctly) – might increase the risk of soil erosion),

116

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/PAF.pdf 117

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm 118

European Environment Agency (2015). State of nature in the EU: Results from reporting under the nature directives 2007–2012. EEA Technical report No 2/2015. ISSN 1725-2237, http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-nature-in-the-eu

112

Adapting crop production (e.g. adapting input of pesticides/herbicides – reducing soil contamination),

Restoring/improving forest habitats (e.g. replanting with autochthonous species, enable/promote natural re‐growth – might contribute to reducing the risk of erosion, or

burning/maintaining a fire regime - might increase the risk of soil erosion (if applied not correctly)),

Adaptation/ abolition of military land use (e.g. nature management on military training grounds, abolition of military use – might contribute to reduced soil contamination).

Soil threats addressed by the Birds and Habitats Directives Directly: Soil threats are not directly addressed/affected by either the measures in the

Birds Directive or in the Habitats Directive. Indirectly: As soil is one of the physical factors/component that a habitat/a site is made

up of – a positive impact of the conservation measures on soil might be expected. Both directives could therefore contribute indirectly to increased soil organic matter (SOM) content, reduced soil contamination, erosion risk, compaction and soil biodiversity loss, as well as land degradation in general. Member States are requires by the Birds Directive:

“[to] pay particular attention to the protection of wetlands [...]” (Art. 4.2) - which might contribute to the increased size of areas with high SOM content.

“[to] take appropriate steps to avoid pollution [...] of habitats [...]” inside and outside protection areas (Art. 4.4) - which might contribute to the reduced soil pollution (contamination).

to achieve favourable status of habitats and species (Art. 1) by carrying out necessary conservation measures (Art. 6). This might contribute to combating different threat to soil (see the list conservation measures and their impacts above).

Member States are requires by the Habitats Directive:

to establish priorities in the SACs “in the light of the importance of the sites for the maintenance or restoration, at a FCS, of a natural habitat type [...] or a species [...] and for the coherence of Natura 2000, and in the light of the threats of degradation or destruction to which those sites are exposed” (Art. 4.4). This might contribute to general protection of soil from degradation.

to carry out conservation measures (such as extensive farming) or achieving the coherence of the Natura 2000 network. Reduced intensity of agriculture (in particular, reduced areas of monoculture, reduced input of chemical fertilisers and plant protection products (PPP) and reduced habitat fragmentation contribute positively to soil biodiversity119, combat the threat of loss of SOM, erosion, contamination and compaction.



Indirect soil focused targets Soil-focused expected impacts

There are no direct or specific soil targets either in the Birds Directive or in the Habits Directive.

The Habitats Directive does not set a target of a FCS for all habitats types and species, as it is site specific. It should be defined at national, regional or bio-geographical level within the Member States. Depending on the ecological requirements of the habitats types and species and status of the site, each conservation site has its own conservation objectives that contribute to the attainment of

Art. 17.2 of the Habitat Directive underlines the need for “an appropriate evaluation of the progress achieved and, in particular, of the contribution of Natura 2000 to the achievement of the objectives set out in Art. 3 (i.e. attainment of FCS).”

119

Breure A.M. 2004. Soil biodiversity: measurements, indicators, threats and soil functions. Presented in: I International Conference „Soil and compost eco-biology“ on September 15th – 17th 2004, in León – Spain, http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/soilbiodiversity/Downloadable_files/8.Breure.pdf

113



the FCS. Though conservation objectives must be understood at site level, Member States may decide to develop generic conservation objectives and for the species and habitat types at broader geographical scales (e.g. national, regional or bio-geographical level) which then can be cross-referenced to the site level. The site-specific and regionally mandated conservation objectives often include land as an important component of the habitat. In practice, the conservation measures (for Birds Directive and Habitats Directive) on a given site should have a clear reference to the site’s conservation objectives.

Only indirectly does this outcome of a FCS relate to the treatment of the soil through the various conservation measures, but reaching a FCS would likely not be possible if the soil and land were of a degraded status. The Habitats Directive does not set a date for the attainment of a FCS. Neither is there a similar specification in relation to the overall objective of the Birds Directive.

7. Mandatory requirements and voluntary options for Member States (types of management measures) Both directives, the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive, do not set explicitly soil-relevant obligatory requirements. However, the designation of SACs and SPAs contributes indirectly to soil protection through the application of necessary conservation measures (in particular Art. 4.1 and 4.2 in the Birds Directive and Art. 6.1 in the Habitats Directive). The Birds Directive identified the threatened wild bird species in need of special conservation measures which must be established by the Member States including the following three components (only the first one might have an impact on soil)120:

to designate SPAs for these 194 particularly threatened wild bird species and all migratory bird species. SPAs are scientifically identified areas critical for the survival of the targeted species, such as wetlands. They are part of the Natura 2000 ecological network set up under the Habitats Directive.

to ban activities that directly threaten birds, such as the deliberate killing or capture of birds, the destruction of their nests and taking of their eggs, and associated activities such as trading in live or dead birds.

to establish rules that limit the number of bird species that can be hunted (82 species and sub-species) and the periods during which they can be hunted. It also defines hunting methods which are permitted (e.g. non-selective hunting is banned).”

In order to achieve the aim of the Habitats Directive to promote the maintenance of biodiversity and ensure the conservation of a wide range of rare, threatened or endemic species (including around 450 animals, 500 plants and 200 rare and characteristic habitat types in their own right), the Habitats Directive requires the Member States:

to establish the EU wide Natura 2000 ecological network of protected areas (Art. 3), that comprises designated SACs under the Habitats Directive and includes SPAs under the Birds Directive. For these areas, the network provides a high level of safeguards against potentially damaging developments,

to designate the SACs (Art. 4) and establish the appropriate conservation measures to maintain and restore the habitats and species for which the site has been designated to a favourable conservation status (Art. 6.1),

120

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/index_en.htm

114

Key soil-relevant instruments Mandatory Designation of the SPAs under the Birds Directive and the SCIs and SACs under the Habitats Directive Conservation measures such as statutory (e.g., restrictions on activities over urban development, industrial activity, or hunting), administrative or contractual measures (e.g., contracts with landowners or users for mowing of grasslands or with forest owners on the management of the forest) Voluntary Conservation measures such as Management Plans Voluntary schemes under the Rural Development Programme

to avoid damaging activities in the SACs that could significantly disturb these species or deteriorate the habitats of the protected species or habitat types for which the areas have been designated (Art. 6.2), and

to carry out an assessment of implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives of “any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects” (Art. 6.3). In case the plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons, the Member States shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected (Art. 6.4).

Article 6.1 of the Habitats Directive concerns the SACs specifically. Articles 4.1 and 4.2 of the Birds Directive introduce a similar approach for the management of SPAs requiring that Member States ensure the species mentioned in Annex I and regularly occurring migratory bird species are subject to special conservation measures concerning their habitat in order to ensure their survival and reproduction in their area of distribution. This means that SPAs are subject to a similar protection regime as SACs.121 Conservation measures are the actual mechanisms and actions to be put in place for a Natura 2000 site with the aim of achieving the site's conservation objectives. Conservation measures can include management plans, which are voluntary, either particularly designed for the site or integrated into other development plans. Alternative conservation measures include statutory, administrative or contractual measures.122 Member States must choose at least one of the three categories; the choice between these three options, or of management plans, is left to the Member States following the principle of subsidiarity. Furthermore, as mentioned above, according to Art. 6.3 and 6.4, plans or projects likely to have a significant effect on the management of a SAC must be made the subject of an appropriate assessment, and when proceeding, all compensatory measures necessary to ensure the coherence of the Natura 2000 network must be taken. Although management plans for SPAs and SACs are not obligatory, their use is strongly recommended by the European Commission and is a requirement under national legislation in some countries (e.g. Denmark, France, Netherlands and some German Länder). Management plans are considered as operational instruments that outline practical measures to achieve the conservation objectives for the sites in the network.123 Funding Co-financing by the EU is authorized under the Habitats Directive recitals. Article 8 of the Habitats Directive provides that the Commission shall adopt “a prioritized action framework of

121

Commission note on establishing conservation measures for Natura 2000 sites, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/comNote%20conservation%20measures.pdf 122

See 'Commission note on establishing conservation measures for Natura 2000 sites', September 2013, at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/comNote%20conservation%20measures.pdf. 123

European Environment Agency (2015). State of nature in the EU: Results from reporting under the nature directives 2007–2012. EEA Technical report No 2/2015. ISSN 1725-2237, http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-nature-in-the-eu

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/comNote%20conservation%20measures.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/comNote%20conservation%20measures.pdf

115

measures involving co-financing to be taken when the site has been designated under Article 4(4)”, but this is with “regard to the available sources of funding under the relevant Community instruments and according to the procedure set out in Article 21” in assessing the sites of Community importance seeking co-financing. The measures essential for the maintenance or re-establishment at a favourable conservation status of the priority natural habitat types and priority species and total costs are to be considered, while also the concentration on the Member States’ territory of such habitats and species and the burdens the measure entail must be taken into consideration. The recitals also recommend that a regulatory committee should be set up to assist the Commission in the decisions on co-financing. There is a big choice of Natura 2000 funding opportunities under the relevant key EU funds. “Agriculture funding under the second pillar of the CAP is the most important source of support for Natura 2000 in the majority of countries. Axis 2 of rural development policy is the most relevant provision, especially agri-environment and forest-environment measures, but some Member States also avail of the specific Natura 2000 payment measures”124. In addition to the mentioned European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), there are also other Natura 2000 funding sources, e.g. the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund, the European Fisheries Fund (EFF), LIFE+ fund, the 7th Framework programme for research (FP7), public/private partnership financing schemes, or innovative financing. 8. Assessment of environmental status The Birds Directive requires reporting of the status and trends of bird populations according to Article 12 and derogations according to Article 9; and the Habitats Directive requires reporting of conservation status of habitats and species according to Article 17, and of derogations according to Articles 16. Annex III of the Habitats Directive contains the “criteria for selecting sites eligible for identification as sites of community importance and designation as special areas of conservation” which takes into consideration factors such as the size and density of the species population in relation to national population, degree of isolation of the site population in relation to the species’ natural range, etc. Annex IV then lists the “Animal and plant species of Community interest in need of strict protection”, indicating that the environmental status of those species are very poor. 9. Reporting units - what are the specific transposition requirements Every six years Member States have to send the implementation report to the Commission, including the implementation of the measures (in particular conservation measures) as well as evaluation of the impact of those measures on the conservation status of the relevant habitats and species (Art. 17) and for birds (Art. 12). On this basis, the Commission must draw up a summary report. Member States’ reports under the Birds Directive are available here: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/rep_birds/index_en.htm; and under the Habitats Directive - are available here: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/rep_habitats/index_en.htm. 11. Examples of implementation approaches in case study areas The National Implementing Measures (NIM) communicated by the Member States concerning the Birds Directive can be found under: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/NIM/?uri=CELEX:32009L0147; and concerning the Habitats Directive – under: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/NIM/?uri=CELEX:31992L0043. There is a Habitats Committee which assists the Commission with the Habitats Directive implementation and issues an opinion on the draft list of LIFE-Nature projects to be financed

124

SEC(2011) 1573 final. Commission Staff Working Paper Financing Natura 2000 Investing in Natura 2000: Delivering benefits for nature and people, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/financing_natura2000.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/rep_habitats/index_en.htm




http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/financing_natura2000.pdf

116

annually.125 There is similarly the ORNIS Committee that helps with implementation of the Birds Directive126. The following are few examples of the farming practices favourable to prevent any further deterioration of its remaining habitats and to maintain these in a favourable condition127 which also contribute positively to soil protection:

Preserve non-intensive mixed farming systems. This should include preserving extensively grazed rotational fallows (1-5 years) and maintaining non-intensive grasslands and non-irrigated cereal cultivation (cereals and legumes). These farming practices contribute to reduce soil compaction and soil erosion through extensively grazed rotational fallows, to increased soil organic matter content through maintaining non-intensive grasslands.

Planting of winter cereals and leguminous crops, such as winter wheat, alfalfa, clover or other types of crucifers. These farming practices contribute to reduce soil erosion through winter crops as well as to improve soil structure and quality which contribute positively to increased soil organic matter content and soil biodiversity.128

Ensuring appropriate grazing by maintaining low livestock densities (e.g. < 2 sheep/ha). This farming practice contributes to reduce soil compaction and soil erosion through extensive grazing practices.

Contractual measures can also include the voluntary schemes that are financed under RDPs providing farmers with annual compensation payments for the loss of yield and other income due to the restrictions laid down in the contract. The scheme pays farmers to maintain, for example, traditional crop rotations (contributing to increased soil organic matter content) and low grazing intensities (contributing to reduced soil compaction), reduce pesticide and chemical fertiliser inputs (contributing to reduced soil pollution, increased soil biodiversity) and keep stubble or crop coverage over the winter (contributing to reduced soil erosion, increased soil organic matter). Crop rotations, inter-cropping, symbiotic associations, cover crops, organic fertilizers and minimum tillage are central soil building practices. They improve soil fauna and flora and thus soil formation and structure and create more stable systems. This consequently increases nutrient and energy cycling and enhances the soil retention abilities for nutrients and water, reducing the need of mineral fertilizers. These soil management practices also play an important role in soil erosion control, as soil is less exposed to erosive forces, which also lead to the increase of soil biodiversity and the reduction of nutrient losses that helps to maintain and enhance soil productivity.129

125

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm 126

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/birdsdirective/index_en.htm 127

European Commission (2009). How Species conservation can be supported through Rural Development Programmes. Good Practice Examples, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/species_report.pdf, also see the individual species fact sheets, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/best_practice_en.htm 128

http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=4b50acd7-fb26-49a9-a31c-829f38598d7e 129

http://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq6/en/

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/species_report.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/best_practice_en.htm

http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=4b50acd7-fb26-49a9-a31c-829f38598d7e

http://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq6/en/

117

10 Industrial Emissions Directive

1. Name of Policy and brief summary of implementation Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) was proposed to combine seven different pieces of legislation and adopted in 2007.130 Commonly known as the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED), it was adopted in its current form in 2010 and entered into force on 6 January 2011. It had to be transposed into MS legislation by 7 January 2013. The Directive aims to achieve a high level of protection of human health and the environment by reducing harmful industrial emissions across the EU, through the application of the Best Available Techniques (BAT). Annex I includes a list of around 50,000 installations in the EU undertaking the industrial activities which are required to operate in accordance with a permit that are granted by the authorities in the Member States. A permit should contain conditions set in accordance with the principles and provisions of the IED. In particular, the IED is based on: (1) an integrated approach, (2) use of best available techniques, (3) flexibility, (4) inspections and (5) public participation.131 Entry into force 6 January 2011 2. Policy Field (water, agriculture, biodiversity, energy) Pollution, waste, air, water, land. Integration/coordination issues with other related pieces of legislation The Commission Staff Working Document (SWD/2012/0355)132 identifies the potential overlaps which may exist for projects subject to both the requirements of the EIA Directive and the IED, but identifying the share of such projects is not possible.133 3. Aims of the policy and its relevance to soil protection Objectives: The IED aims to prevent pollution or at least reduce emissions to air, water, and land and to prevent the generation of waste in order to reduce the environmental impacts from industrial activities. Specifically, it lays out a framework for industrial installation oversight (the covered industries are found in Annex I). Principles included in the legal text

General principles governing the basic obligations of the operator

Polluter-pays (in terms of the assessment of the level of the pollution’s significance in soil and groundwater caused by the operator triggering the obligation to return the site to its baseline state)

Pollution prevention

130

Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (Recast), Recital 23. DG Environment, The Industrial Emissions Directive, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/industry/stationary/ied/legislation.htm. The legislation it “recasts” are the directives on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, Waste Incineration, limiting emissions of volatile organic compounds, titanium dioxide, and pollutants from large combustion plants (the latter repealed in 2016, all others repealed from 7 January 2014). 131

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/industry/stationary/ied/legislation.htm 132

‘Commission Staff Working Paper Impact Assessment’ accompanying the document ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council’ amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. This report commits only the Commission's services involved in its preparation and does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission. /* SWD/2012/0355 final */, 133


http://ec.europa.eu/environment/industry/stationary/ied/legislation.htm

118

Solidarity

Proportionality

Principles in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU Spatial coverage and management unit: Covers the EU industrial installations under Annex I with a permitting scheme setting operating conditions. Installation level – “‘installation’ means a stationary technical unit within which one or more activities listed in Annex I or in Part 1 of Annex VII are carried out, and any other directly associated activities on the same site which have a technical connection with the activities listed in those Annexes and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution” (Article 3). 4. Relevance to soil protection Within the Directive, however, there are individual chapters for major types of industrial installations. This is relevant to soil protection because by regulating industrial activities and requiring them to abide by environmental protection components contained in permits, it could potentially significantly reduce the risk of the soil threat of contamination. 5. Soil-focused aims and objectives

Direct: The IED directly aims to prevent industrial pollution on land, which would include soil, but this specific component is not highlighted or given priority.

Indirect: The IED indirectly aims to prevent industrial pollution to water and air, which could be directly discharged into a water body or into the air. However, the pollution could also be discharged on land and then rainfall or wind could carry the pollution (through soil particles or via leaching to groundwater) to water bodies or air emissions may result in atmospheric deposition onto land.

Soil threats addressed by the Industrial Emissions Directive Directly: Recital 23 points to the direct objective of the IED to prevent deterioration of soil

quality from operation of an installation and the intention of the permitting system to prevent against soil contamination by setting conditions which “include appropriate measures to prevent emissions to soil and groundwater and regular surveillance of those measures to avoid leaks, spills, incidents or accidents occurring during the use of equipment and during storage”.

Indirectly: Contamination is also indirectly targeted by the requirement for waste incineration plants and waste co-incineration plant sites to be designed and operated so as to avoid unauthorised and accidental releases to soil (Article 46), and to take the necessary precautions in the delivery and reception of waste to prevent or limit the amount of pollution to soil (Article 52).





None None The baseline report which requires assessment of the state of soil and groundwater contamination prior to operation of the installation and the re-assessment following cessation of activities is expected to identify any changes in the level of soil and groundwater contamination. Where significant pollution of soil or groundwater has been caused, the operation must take the necessary measures (taking into account technical feasibility) to return the site to the state it was in at the time the baseline report was conducted.134

134

IED, Article 22.

119

Key soil-relevant instruments Mandatory Permit for operation of an installation; baseline report on soil and groundwater status prior to operation of the installation; rules for operation of installations adopted by the Member States; and environmental inspections of the installations. Public participation is also included within the permitting process (notification of an application for permit, opportunity to comment, and notification of approval/denial), monitoring information and a public database of emitters. Exchange of information and a forum on BAT reference documents, and a committee to help with implementation must be established, as well as reporting by the MS and review by the Commission. Voluntary The Commission organises an exchange of information between Member States, industry and NGOs on organic solvents and their substitutes/techniques which have the least potential impact on soil (as well as air, water, ecosystems and human health) (Article 64).

7. Mandatory requirements and voluntary options for Member States (types of management measures) There are no explicit soil-focused requirements. Operators must be issued permits135 allowing for certain pollution emission levels, which must be appropriate limits or have equivalent measures or technical measures to protect soil and groundwater and monitoring requirements.136 Monitoring for hazardous substances is also required under the permit (Article 14), with some specifications provided in Article 16 (e.g., soil is required to be monitored every 10 years). A baseline report is required if the installation’s activity involves use, production or release of a hazardous substance which may lead to contamination of soil and groundwater as well to establish whether deterioration occurs due to an installation’s operation.137 Operators must immediately take measures to limit environmental consequences (which could include soil contamination) and prevent further incidents/accidents after an incident or accident by the installation significantly affecting the environment, which would contribute to remediation of any effect on the soil. Member States must adopt binding rules for operation of the installations covered by the IED according to the Best Available Technology (BAT) standard whilst ensuring environmental protection138, and the permit must including higher environmental conditions if the BAT is not sufficient to ensure compliance with environmental quality standards.139 Installations must have environmental inspections as well, which would identify their soil impacts, and be covered by an inspection plan at the national, regional and local level.140 Article 13 requires the Commission to organise an exchange of information between MS, industries, and NGOs in order to draft, review and update BAT reference documents. The Commission is also to establish a forum and make the forum’s opinion on the proposed BAT reference documents publicly available (created as a formal expert group – Commission Decision 2001/C 146/03).141 Also, under Article 75 a Committee is to be established to help with implementation of the IED, e.g., guidance under Article 13(3)(c)-(d), BAT conclusions (Article 13(5)), etc.142 Reporting is required as described below by the MS and by the Commission (Article 72 and 73).

135

IED, Article 4. 136

IED, Article 14. 137





http://ec.europa.eu/environment/industry/stationary/ied/implementation.htm 142

Ibid.

120

8. Assessment of environmental status The Directive sets up a framework and procedure for industrial installations to operate according to permit limits of emissions so that the environmental status is not negatively affected beyond what has been determined an appropriate limit on emissions, e.g., for hazardous waste, waste incineration, combustion plants, etc. Specifically under the Article 22(2) requirement for a baseline report, the environmental status of soil and groundwater contamination is required prior to permitting in order to compare with the status at the cessation of activities. The Commission has adopted a Communication on the elaboration of baseline reports under Article 22(2) of the IED.143144 9. Reporting units - what are the specific transposition requirements Definition 19 under Article 3 for “baseline report” is “information on the state of soil and groundwater contamination by relevant hazardous substances”. The baseline report requirements are provided under Article 22(2) and may be required to obtain a permit (Article 12). Article 32 Transitional National Plans for combustion plants that were granted permits before 27 November 2002 must contain monitoring and reporting provisions to comply with Article 41(b). Article 34 also requires the Member States to report the combustion plants, total annual energy consumption and energy obtained through interconnection with other systems for small isolated systems. Article 55 requires information on the functioning and monitoring of the waste incineration or co-incineration plants to be included in the report under Article 72. Reporting under Article 72(2) by Member States on the implementation of the IED is required and was published on 19 December 2012145 and guidance is provided for baseline reports required under Article 22(2).146 Based on the reports provided by the Member States, the Commission is required to review and publish a report under Article 73. 12. Examples of implementation approaches in case study areas The National Implementing Measures (NIM) communicated by the Member States concerning the IED can be found under: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/NIM/?uri=CELEX:32010L0075.

143

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/industry/stationary/ied/implementation.htm 144

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2014.136.01.0003.01.ENG 145

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32012D0795 146

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2014.136.01.0003.01.ENG

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/industry/stationary/ied/implementation.htm

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2014.136.01.0003.01.ENG

121

11 Sewage Sludge Directive

1. Name of Policy and brief summary of implementation Council Directive on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture (86/278/EEC) - the Sewage Sludge Directive – has entered into force on 12 June 1986. It requires the Member States to “bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive” within three years after entering into force of this Directive (Art. 16.1). The Sewage Sludge Directive seeks to encourage the use of sewage sludge in agriculture and to regulate its use in such a way as to prevent harmful effects on soil, vegetation, animals and man. To this end, it regulates the use of sludge considering different types of agricultural land use as well as soil and sludge quality.147 Entry into force Signed on 12 June 1986 and published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 4 July 1986. No specific provision in the Directive regarding Entry into Force. 2. Policy Field (water, agriculture, biodiversity, energy) Environment, Waste148 Integration/coordination issues with other related pieces of legislation Achieving the objectives of the Sewage Sludge Directive is of particular importance for agriculture sector, soil quality and the aquatic environment (surface and ground water)149 as it yields benefits in all these areas and vice versa. However, the progressive implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) contributes to the increasing quantities of sewage sludge requiring disposal.150 3. Aims of the policy and its relevance to soil protection Objectives: Sewage sludge may be used in agriculture provided that the Member States concerned regulates its use: “The purpose of this Directive is to regulate the use of sewage sludge in agriculture in such a way as to prevent harmful effects on soil, vegetation, animals and man thereby encouraging the correct use of such sewage sludge.” (Art. 1). Principles included in the legal text None identified. Spatial coverage and management unit: Agricultural land across the EU. The Member States are the management units which must prohibit the use of sludge when the soil has a concentration of heavy metals over the limit in Annex I A and regulate sludge use so that heavy metal accumulation does not lead to limits being exceeded (Article 5). 4. Relevance to soil protection Soil and its protection against harmful effects that are caused by using sewage sludge in agriculture are directly addresses in the purpose of the Directive.

147

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/sludge/ 148

European Commission web-site, Environment, Waste, Sewage Sludge, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/sludge/ 149

Sewage Sludge Directive Linked Documents tab: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LKD/?uri=CELEX:31986L0278&qid=1450261216267, heading “Instruments cited”. 150

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/sludge/


http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LKD/?uri=CELEX:31986L0278&qid=1450261216267

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LKD/?uri=CELEX:31986L0278&qid=1450261216267

122

5. Soil-focused aims and objectives Direct: The Directive “aims at establishing certain initial Community measures in

connection with soil protection” and emphasises that “the use of sewage sludge must not impair the quality of the soil and of agricultural products” (Preamble).

Indirect: The Directive seeks to encourage the use of sewage sludge in agriculture due to its agronomic properties (Preamble) as “Sludge is [...] rich in nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous and contains valuable organic matter that is useful when soils are depleted or subject to erosion. The organic matter and nutrients are the two main elements that make the spreading of this kind of waste on land as a fertiliser or an organic soil improver suitable.”151

Soil threats addressed by the Sewage Sludge Directive Directly: prevents against soil contamination (Art. 5 and 8 are of particular importance in

this context – see soil focused targets below): (1) Soil contamination with heavy metals (HMs) and pathogenic organisms is directly addressed by the Sewage Sludge Directive as it sets maximum values of concentrations of HMs and bans the spreading of sewage sludge when the concentration of certain substances in the soil exceeds these values, as well as sets time restrictions for the sludge application (with regard to the pathogenic organisms). (2) The Directive is complemented by the Pesticide and Biocidal Product Regulation.152

Indirectly: contributes to reducing soil erosion and increasing soil organic matter (see above the text on indirect soil-focused aims and objectives) and to agronomic properties. The literature also shows that application of sewage sludge could support soil organic matter content and reduction of soil erosion (see implementation examples under Point 10). The literature review also shows that application of sewage sludge to agricultural land contributes to improved soil physical and chemical properties. This leads normally to general improvement of soil health and thus to improvement of soil biodiversity.


Direct soil-focused targets Indirect soil-focused targets


The Directive foresees different types of emission limit values (LVs) to provide guidance to the Member States against soil contamination – regulated by Art. 5; as well as determines the rules applicable to the use of sludge in Art. 8:

(1) The Directive (Art. 4) sets LVs for concentrations of seven HMs in sewage sludge intended for agricultural use and in soil to which sludge is applied as listed in Annexes I A, I B and I C of the Directive.

(2) The Directive requires the Member States to prohibit the use of sludge when the concentration of one or more HMs in the soil exceeds these LVs set in Annex I A” (Art. 5.1 and Preamble). Member States must take the necessary steps to ensure that those LVs are not exceeded as a result of using sludge.

(3) “Member States shall lay down the maximum quantities of sludge expressed in tonnes of dry

The expected outcome of setting the above soil-focused limits in terms of sewage sludge use for agricultural purposes is avoided contamination of the soil, and indirect reduction of soil erosion, benefits to SOM and soil biodiversity as well.

151

European Commission web-site, Sewage Sludge http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/sludge/ 152

Susanne Altvater, Elizabeth Dooley, and Ennid Roberts (2014). Legal Instruments to implement the objective “Land Degradation Neutral World” in International Law. Final Report, 1 December 2014.


123



matter which may be applied to the soil per unit [ha] of area per year while observing the LVs for HM concentration in sludge which they lay down in accordance with Annex IB” (Art. 5.2(a)).

(4) “Member States shall ensure observance of the LVs for the quantities of metals introduced into the soil per unit of area and unit of time as set out in Annex I C.” (Art. 5.2(b)).

(5) The Directive also requires that sludge should be used in such a way that account is taken of the nutrient requirements of plants and that the quality of the soil and of the surface and groundwater is not impaired (Art. 8).

(6) Member States must, if necessary, reduce the LVs they have laid down in accordance with Annex I A, where sludge is used on soils of which the pH is below 6 (to consider the increased mobility and availability of HMs to the crop) (Art.8).

(7) “Where conditions so demand, Member States may take more stringent measures than those provided for in this Directive.” (Art. 12). Several Member States followed this provision and set stricter LVs for HMs as well as requirements for other contaminants.

7. Mandatory requirements and voluntary options for Member States (types of management measures) The Directive (not soil-focused mandatory requirements):

prohibits the use of untreated sludge on agricultural land unless it is injected or incorporated into the soil (Art. 6).

(to provide protection against potential health risks from residual pathogens), prohibits application of sludge to soil in which fruit and vegetable crops are growing or grown (Art. 7(b)), or less than ten months before fruit and vegetable crops are to be harvested (Art. 7(c)).

prohibits access of grazing animals to grassland or forage land less than three weeks after the application of sludge (Art. 7(a)).

Soil-focused mandatory requirements:

requires sampling and analysis of sludge following the parameters outlined in Annexes II A. The reference methods for sampling and analysis are indicated in Annex II C (Art. 9). The analysis covers the following parameters: dry matter, organic matter, pH, nitrogen and phosphorus and heavy metals (cadmium, copper, nickel, lead, zinc, mercury, chromium).

requires sampling and analysis of soil on which the sludge is used, following the parameters outlined in II B. The reference methods for sampling and analysis are indicated in Annex II C (Art. 9). The analysis covers the following parameters: pH and heavy metals (cadmium, copper, nickel, lead, zinc, mercury and chromium).

124

Key soil-relevant instruments Mandatory Analysis of sludge Analysis of soil Record keeping on sludge and reporting by the MS to the Commission. Consolidated reports due every four years, which the Commission publishes and analyses whether additional protections are needed for soils and the environment. Committee on technical and scientific progress Voluntary none

requires keeping of detailed records of the quantities of sludge produced, the quantities used in agriculture, the composition and properties of the sludge (in relation to the parameters referred to in Annex II A), the type of treatment and the sites where the sludge is used (Art. 10.1.(a),(b),(c),(d)).

(indirectly) The Directive also requires that a Committee be established to adapt the Directive to technical and scientific progress (Art. 14.1).

8. Assessment of environmental status The concentrations of heavy metals in soil provides information for the assessment of environmental status under the Directive (Article 5). The annexes have provisions for the soil sampling and analysis methods. 9. Reporting units - what are the specific transposition requirements The Directive (Article 17) requires Member States to prepare implementation reports five years after entering into force of this Directive, and every four years afterwards. Such reports should include information and relevant data on the use of sludge in agriculture - “setting out the quantities of sewage sludge used, the criteria followed and any difficulties encountered”. For this reason, Member States must keep up-to-date records on sludge quantities produced and supplied for use in agriculture, the composition of the sludge according to the Annex II A parameters, treatment under Article 2(b), and the names of sludge recipients to allow for traceability (Article 10). These consolidated implementation reports then provide the basis for the Commission to evaluates whether any amendment hast to be done to increase the protection of soil and environment. 13. Examples of implementation approaches in case study areas The National Implementing Measures (NIM) communicated by the Member States concerning the Sewage Sludge Directive can be found under: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/NIM/?uri=CELEX:31986L0278. Furthermore, reports are available on the Sewage Sludge Directive’s implementation: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/reporting/index.htm. There are also many studies and publications available, but they generally appear to be quite outdated.153 Sewage sludge application to agricultural land contributes also to the improvement of soil physical and chemical properties. Sewage sludge “reduces bulk density and increases porosity, improves structural stability, and enriches soil with organic carbon” (Pagliai et al., 1981; Metzger and Yaron, 1987; Tester, 1990; Sort and Alcaniz, 1999; Marinari et al., 2000). It results “generally in increased water retention capacity in coarse-textured soils and, in the long-term, in enhanced water transmission properties and resistance to soil erosion” (Khalee et al., 1981; Metzger and Yaron, 1987). Sewage sludge contains high organic matter content and considerable amounts of N and P, thus has a significant fertilizer replacement value, “although its K content is low for meeting crop requirements” (Smith, 1996; Warman and Termeer, 2005). However, “the pools of soluble nutrients in sludge are initially small, and

153




http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/reporting/index.htm

125

plant uptake must await mineralization of organic constituents” (Petersen et al., 2003). (In: Samaras et al (2008)154; Similar findings in Ros et al (2003)155).

154

Vasilios Samaras,* Christos D. Tsadilas, and Stamatis Stamatiadis (2008). Effects of Repeated Application of Municipal Sewage Sludge on Soil Fertility, Cotton Yield, and Nitrate Leaching. In Agronomy Journal, Volume 100, Issue 3, 2008. 155

Ros M., Hernandez M.T., and García C. (2003). Bioremediation of soil degraded by sewage sludge: effects on soil properties and erosion losses. In Environmental Management June 2003, Volume 31, Issue 6, pp 741-747, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14565694, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00267-002-2839-8).

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00267-002-2839-8

126

12 Landfill Directive

1. Name of Policy and brief summary of implementation Council Directive 99/31/EC on the landfill of waste – the Landfill Directive - entered into force on 16 July 1999. The deadline for implementation of the relevant legislation to comply with this Directive in the Member States was 16 July 2001. The Landfill Directive was included in the proposal from 2014 amending it and other waste legislation: Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2008/98/EC on waste, 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste, 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles, 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators, and 2012/19/EU on waste electrical and electronic equipment.156 In Article 7, it references the potential overlap with the EIA Directive and the need for an impact assessment prior to approval and permitting. The Directive defines the different categories of waste (municipal waste, hazardous waste, non-hazardous waste and inert waste) and applies to all landfills, defined as waste disposal sites for the deposit of waste onto or into land. Entry into force The Directive was signed on 26 April 1999; and entered into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union - 16 July 1999 (OJ L 182). 2. Policy Field (water, agriculture, biodiversity, energy) Environment, Waste157 Integration/coordination issues with other related pieces of legislation Achieving the objectives of the Landfill Directive is of particular importance for soil quality, the aquatic environment (surface and ground waters), air quality and climate change mitigation as it yields benefits in all these areas and vice versa. 3. Aims of the policy and its relevance to soil protection Objectives: Soil is directly addresses in the aim of the Landfill Directive: “The aim of this Directive is, by way of stringent operational and technical requirements on the waste and landfills, to provide for measures, procedures and guidance to prevent or reduce as far as possible negative effects on the environment, in particular the pollution of surface water, groundwater, soil and air, and on the global environment, including the greenhouse effect, as well as any resulting risk to human health, from landfilling of waste, during the whole life-cycle of the landfill.” (Article 1). Principles included in the legal text

Polluter-pays

Proximity

Self-sufficiency

Principles of waste disposal and landfills Spatial coverage and management unit: Landfills throughout the EU. It includes landfills for hazardous, non-hazardous and inert waste.

156

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52014PC0397 157

European Commission web-site, Environment, Waste, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/landfill_index.htm

127

4. Relevance to soil protection This Directive is very relevant to soil protection in the various provisions that focus on reducing or preventing damage to soil as well as groundwater pollution (see Article 1). 5. Soil-focused aims and objectives

Direct: Annex I on ‘General requirements for all classes of landfills’ sets specific requirements for protection of soil and water with which landfill sites must comply (Part 3 ‘Protection of soil and water’). In particular, and for preventing soil pollution, it considers the location and design of the landfill, including geological barriers, bottom liner, where geological barrier is determined by geological and hydrological conditions. Furthermore, the landfills base and sides shall consist of a mineral, drainage or artificial layer which satisfies permeability and thickness requirements set in the Annex I ‘General requirements for all classes of landfills’.

Indirect: As according to the definition (Art. 2(g)), ‘landfill’ is a disposal site for the deposit of waste onto or into land”. Therefore, all the requirements with which landfill sites must comply - as regards location, conditioning, management, control, closure and preventive and protective measures to be taken against any threat to the environment, and more especially against the pollution of groundwater by leachate infiltration into the soil – contributes to the protection of soil.

Soil threats addressed by the Landfill Directive Directly: prevents against soil contamination, when fulfilling the requirements with which

landfill sites must comply. Indirectly: to soil biodiversity, as any improvement of soil health and quality leads to the

improvement of soil biodiversity. Furthermore, the waste policy in general contributes to the reduction of soil sealing, as it considers landfilling as the least preferable option, which should be limited to the minimum.




None The Landfill Directive (Art. 5) requires Member States to set up a national strategy to reduce the amount of biodegradable waste going to landfills. Art. 5.2 sets three targets to reduce the total amount (by weight) of biodegradable municipal waste produced in 1995, by 75%, 50% and 35% in accordingly five, eight and fifteen years after national legislation is issued to implement the Landfill Directive.

The measures aimed to reduce the amount of waste, at the same time also reduce the risk of soil contamination, and reduce soil sealing (land covered by landfills). Reduced soil contamination and sealing contributes to reduced soil biodiversity loss.


An application for a landfill permit must contain (among other requirements) the description of the site, including its hydrological and geological characteristics (Art. 7(d)), the proposed methods for pollution prevention and abatement (Art. 7(e)), the proposed monitoring plan (Art. 7(f).

Annex I ‘General requirements for all classes of landfills’, Part 3 ‘Protection of soil and water’ set technical requirements for landfill base and sides to satisfy permeability and thickness requirements for different classes of landfills (hazardous, non-hazardous and inert waste). It also set the technical requirements for leachate

128

Key soil-relevant instruments Mandatory Permitting procedure, control and monitoring programme, acceptance and registration of waste, reporting, special criteria for closure and after-care of landfills Voluntary None

collection against the pollution of ground water by leachate infiltration into the soil include, e.g. artificial sealing liner, drainage layer.


To classify landfills in three classes (Art. 4): for hazardous waste, for non-hazardous waste and for inert waste.

To set up a National strategy to reduce biodegradable waste (with defined targets) (Art. 5.1-5.2).

To take measures that particular kind of waste is not accepted in a landfill, including liquid, explosive, corrosive etc waste, hospital and other clinical waste, whole used tyres, etc (Art 5.3).

To take measures that waste of a specific category (municipal, hazardous, non-hazardous and inert waste) is lanfilled in a particular class of a landfill (incl. hazardous, non-hazardous and inert waste) (Art. 6).

To issue a landfill permit only when all the requirements of this Landfill Directive including the Annexes, are satisfied (Art. 8). Technical requirements set for landfills in this directive comply with those in Directive 96/61/EC on permitting procedures. Thus, implementing the Landfill Directive, Member States fulfil parallel the requirements of Directive 96/61/EC.

To carry out (by the operator) reception procedures prior to accepting the waste at the landfill site, incl. checking waste documentation, visual inspection of the waste at the entrance and at the point of the of deposit, keep the register of the quantities and characteristics of the waste (Art. 11 and Annex II ‘Waste acceptance criteria and procedures’).

To carry out a control and monitoring programme during the operational phase (Art. 12, as specified in Annex III ‘General requirements for all classes of landfills’). Though there are no any specific requirements to monitor the quality of soil. Most relevant for soil protection is ground water monitoring (Annex III ‘General requirements for all classes of landfills’, Part 4 ‘Protection of groundwater’).

To carry out (by operator) maintenance, monitoring and control in the after-care phase (Art. 13).

8. Assessment of environmental status The main articles of the Directive are more procedurally focused in terms of which wastes are acceptable and the permitting of landfills, etc. The annexes though focus on the geographical location of landfills, the management procedures for controlling water and leachate, soil and water protection, etc. by creating geological barriers to prevent risks to soil and groundwater. The statistics concerning waste generation and treatment (including landfilling) are collected, processed and published by the Environmental Data Centre on Waste at Eurostat.158159 9. Reporting units - what are the specific transposition requirements The Directive requires the Member States to:

prepare and sent to the Commission every three years a report on the implementation of this Directive (Article 15). It should necessarily report on the national strategies set up by Member States. The Commission is responsible for drafting the questionnaire or outline on which the report by the Member State is

158

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/environment/waste 159

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/landfill_index.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/environment/waste


129

based upon. These implementation reports form the basis for the Commission’s report to the European Parliament and Council.

report at least annually to the competent authority on the results of the monitoring programme and the types and quantities of waste disposed of (Article 9 ). This obligation is imposed by the landfill permits on the applicant.

Reporting on implementation of the Landfill Directive is part of the general reporting on implementation of waste legislation. For more details, please consult the implementation reporting website.160 14. Examples of implementation approaches in case study areas The National Implementing Measures (NIM) communicated by the Member States concerning the Landfill Directive can be found under: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/NIM/?uri=CELEX:31999L0031. The implementation reports produced by the Commission can be found under: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/reporting/index.htm. Numerous studies regarding implementation, awareness-raising, legal compliance with waste acceptance criteria and procedures, etc. can be found under: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/landfill_index.htm.

160







130

13 Waste Framework Directive

1. Name of Policy and brief summary of implementation The Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC)161 aims to reduce the negative impact of waste generation and management on the environment and to increase the efficiency of resource use. Entry into force The Waster Framework Directive came into force on 22 December 2008 and had to be transposed by the Member States within two years, by 12 December 2010. 2. Policy Field (water, agriculture, biodiversity, energy) Environment, Waste162 Integration/coordination issues with other related pieces of legislation

Landfill Directive (99/31/EC)

Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC)

Environmental Liability Directive (2004/35/CE) 3. Aims of the policy and its relevance to soil protection Objectives: The aim of the policy is to control potential environmental and health impacts associated with the management of waste. In so doing the Directive addresses this in a number of ways:

Promoting the waste hierarchy and the reuse and recovery of materials before disposal through specific targets for paper, metal, plastics, and glass;

Requiring that waste treatment and storage facilities for waste and hazardous waste are permitted and operated in a way that protects the environment and explicitly soils;

Setting out provisions on the collection and processing of biowaste and that material emerging is environmentally safe – leading to potential opportunities for alternative sources of organic matter for soil improvement

Principles included in the legal text

polluter pays principle

"extended producer responsibility"

precautionary principle

principle of preventive action

principle of subsidiarity

principle of proportionality Spatial coverage and management unit: The Directive applies to the entire geographical territory of the EU Member States 4. Relevance to soil protection Uncontrolled waste management facilities have been a historic, significant source of local soil contamination – both sites for disposal and sites involved in treating the waste or extracting components. The Environmentally Liability Directive identified waste sites as remaining a key source of cases where preventative measures had to be taken to protect land from damage. Therefore, the control of waste facilities is important for both local contamination and diffuse contamination through deposition from water courses, etc.

161

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098 162

European Commission web-site, Environment, Waste, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/landfill_index.htm

131

Key soil-relevant instruments Mandatory Waste management plans, Waste prevention programmes, standards for soil protection Voluntary N/A

The provisions of the Waste Framework Directive are also relevant to other aspects of soil protection including the potential use of biowaste on land and the quality and quantity of material available. More generally, the emphasis on the prevention of waste generation would also potentially impact on the likelihood of damage to soils reducing demands for waste management and disposal. 5. Soil-focused aims and objectives

Direct: The Member States are required to take the necessary measures to ensure that waste management is carried out without endangering human health, without harming the environment and, in particular without risk to water, air, soil, plants, or animals.

Indirect: There is also a potential additional link in that the Directive also promotes the separate collection of biowastes for the purpose composting or anaerobic digestion. Both processes potentially result in material that can be used to improve the organic matter of soils, and promoting collection should make these materials more easily available.

Soil threats addressed by the Waste Framework Directive Directly: It explicitly addresses soil, as it requires Member States to ensure that waste

management activities do not contaminate the environment, including soil. It sets requirements for waste treatment that contribute to reducing soil contamination. Through promoting the prevention of waste, the directive contributes to reducing (diffuse and point source) soil contamination. By incentivising the recycling of waste materials, the directive could reduce the pressure on soils as a resource (e.g. from the construction sector).

Indirectly: It addresses indirectly the loss of soil biodiversity as waste management measures should take account of soil protection and so may contribute to soil biodiversity protection. Provisions around biowaste have the potential to promote alternative solutions for soil fertility that offer greater potential to address issues of soil organic matter.




None There are no specific soil targets set out; however, control of waste is specifically designed to protect soils under the Directive.

None


‘Member States (MS) shall take the necessary measures to ensure that waste management is carried out without endangering human health, without harming the environment and, in particular……..without risk to water, air, soil, plants or animals.’

MS shall establish waste management plans that set out an analysis of the current waste management situation in the geographical entity concerned, the measures to be taken to improve environmentally sound preparation for re-use, recycling, recovery, and disposal of waste, and an evaluation of how the plan will support the implementation of the objectives and provisions of this Directive.163

163

The plans need to be in line with the provisions of Article 1 WFD (protection of environment and human health by preventing or reducing the adverse impacts of the generation and management of waste and by reducing overall impacts of resource use and improving the efficiency of such use), Article 4 WFD (the waste management hierarchy), Article 13 WFD (protection of

132

MS shall establish waste prevention programmes incl. the existing prevention measures, specific qualitative or quantitative benchmarks for waste prevention measures adopted, and specific qualitative or quantitative targets and indicators

MS must ensure that when disposal activities occur on sites handling and processing wastes (including hazardous wastes) these provisions are abided by

There are clear provision for waste management facilities to operate taking account of soil protection

Standards may be set to ensure soil protection


Any facilities undertaking waste treatment are required under the Directive to obtain a permit from the relevant competent authority. This includes setting provisions around the types of activities permitted on a site and also the safety and precautionary measures applied. The stringency of protection of the soil, etc., from emissions is therefore bound up with the permitting process, which is controlled by the relevant competent authorities.

This Directive lays down measures to protect the environment and human health by preventing or reducing the adverse impacts of the generation and management of waste and by reducing overall impacts of resource use and improving the efficiency of such use. It is complemented by other key pieces of waste legislation that more directly limit emissions from key waste management activities to land and soil, i.e., the Landfill Directive and the Mining Waste Directive. 8. Assessment of environmental status The main articles of the Directive are more procedurally focused in terms of extending the producer responsibility, implementing measures to prevent, re-use, and recycle waste, ensure safe disposals, and taking recovery actions where necessary. There is no particular focus on assessing the imapcts of the Directive on the environmental status of water, air, soil, plants, or animals. 9. Reporting units - what are the specific transposition requirements The Strategy requires the Member States to report every three years to the Commission on the implementation of this Directive (by preparing a sectoral report) including information on the management of waste oil and on the progress achieved in the implementation of the waste prevention programmes and, as appropriate, information on measures as foreseen by Article 8 on extended producer responsibility In the first report that intervened by 12 December 2014, the Commission reviewed the implementation of this Directive, including the energy efficiency provisions, and will present a proposal for revision if appropriate. The report assessed the existing Member State waste prevention programmes, objectives, and indicators and shall review the opportunity of Community level programmes, including producer responsibility schemes for specific waste streams, targets, indicators, and measures related to recycling, as well as material and energy recovery operations that may contribute to fulfilling the objectives set out in Articles 1 and 4 more effectively. (see Art. 37 of the Directive) Moreover, Member States are required to evaluate the waste management plans and waste prevention programmes at least every sixth year and revise as appropriate and where relevant. (see Art. 30 of the Directive)

human health and environment), and Article 16 WFD (principles of self-sufficiency and proximity). Source: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/plans/index.htm

133

10. Examples of implementation approaches in case study area (based on Approaches Questionnaire, or other good practice examples) As outlined in section 7, Member States are required to establish Waste management plans and Waste prevention programmes. As part of an ex-post evaluation of the five Waste Stream Directives164, some good practice examples were revealed such as the Waste Prevention & Management Plan (Flanders, Belgium). Since 1995 the quantity of total residual waste (not concerning only packaging) has been reduced by 50%. The general waste is stable since 2000. Spain, for example, established a State Framework Plan for Waste Management (Plan Estatal Marco de Gestión de Residuos - PEMAR) 2016-2022, which is addressing waste treatment at a wider scale. PEMAR presents an evaluation of the status quo and provides objectives and strategic actions for the management of different types of waste: the most relevant ones for soil pollution purposes are sewage sludge and agricultural waste (incl. plastics, vegetable waste, unused plant protection products, and empty plant protection product packing). PEMAR establishes targets for sewage sludge use in agriculture (increase share to 85% of total sludge produced by 2020), objectives for improving the national reporting system (e.g. increasing traceability and control), the use of data to ensure correct quality of sludge for agricultural use, and the aim to enhance storage capacity of sludge for use in peak demand times (growing season). Regarding agricultural waste, the plan proposes to establish different take-back schemes for the very different material streams accruing in agricultural production. In addition to logistical planning for waste stream transport, and improving coordination and harmonizing of criteria between the different Spanish Autonomous Communities, actions include the development of good practice guidance for managing agricultural waste, awareness-raising campaigns for practitioners, and increasing the number of inspections.

164

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014SC0209&from=EN

134

14 Renewable Energy Directive

1. Name of Policy and brief summary of implementation The Directive on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (2009/28/EC, RES Directive) sets the objective of reaching 20% of the EU’s energy consumption through renewable energy sources by 2020. It sets mandatory and legally binding national targets for the overall share of renewable energy in gross final consumption of energy (ranging from 10% in Malta to 49% in Sweden including “indicative trajectory targets” for progress until 2020), as well as a mandatory share of 10% RES in transport for each Member State. In order to ensure the sustainability of biofuels, the Directive also establishes a set of biofuel sustainability criteria. Article 4 of the Directive requires Member States to submit National Renewable Energy Action Plans, NREAP)165 by 2010, explaining their implementation of the Directive and their progress towards its targets. The NREAPs submitted by Member States are based on a compulsory EU Commission template. The action plans include e.g. individual renewable energy targets for all energy sectors, the planned mix of different renewables technologies, national policies to develop biomass resources and measures to ensure that biofuels used to meet renewable energy targets are in compliance with the EU's sustainability criteria. With regard to the latter, Member States often describe the institutions responsible for the monitoring and reporting of sustainability information, for example:

The UK NREAP states that in the UK the Renewable Fuels Agency reports on biofuels supplied for road transport under the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO)

in Germany there are two ordinances that implement the EU sustainability criteria – the Biomass Sustainability Ordinance (Biomassestrom-Nachhaltigkeitsverordnung – Bioster-NachV) and the Biofuels Sustainability Ordinance (Biokraft- NachV). The Federal Agency for Agriculture and Food (Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung – BLE) is responsible for the authorisation and monitoring of certification schemes and certification bodies. The NREAP underlines that from 1 January 2011, meeting sustainability requirements is a prerequisite, for the compensation of renewable electricity under the German Renewable Energy Act (EEG).

Other NREAP, however, are lacking more detailed information, particularly since biofuel production only plays a minor role in many Member States (the bulk of EU biofuels production and consumption is dominated by France, Germany, Italy, Spain and UK)166. For example, the NREAP of Malta (with almost no biofuel production due to a lack of arable land) states within only one sentence that the sustainability of biofuels will be ensured “through verification of important documents of locally cultivated crops”.

The submission of NREAPS was followed by a EU Commission evaluation, reviewing the adequacy of the measures envisaged by the Member State. Every two years, EU countries must also publish national renewable energy progress reports. The Commission must in turn report to the European Parliament and to the Council. Biofuel policies Biofuel policies under the Renewable Energy Directive have caused large debates and doubts about their ability to avoid negative sustainability impacts (see Sections 5 and 6 below with regard to soil threats and expected impacts) and changes have been negotiated

165

All national plans can be downloaded at the EU Commissions website: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-energy/national-action-plans 166

According to the EU Commission’s 2013 Renewable Energy Progress report, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0175&from=EN

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/node/70

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/node/70

135

for the last five years between Commission, Parliament and Council. In April 2015, a new EU bioenergy sustainability policy was finally agreed: While current legislation requires EU member states to ensure that renewable energy accounts for at least 10% of energy consumption in transport by 2020, the new law says that:

first-generation biofuels (from crops grown on agricultural land) should account for no more than 7% of energy consumption in transport by 2020;

fuel suppliers must report to EU countries and the EU Commission the estimated level of GHG emissions caused by “indirect land-use change” (ILUC), i.e. freeing up more to grow food crops, in order to offset the land switched to biofuel production;

The Commission must report and publish data on ILUC-related emissions;

The Commission must report back to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers on the scope for including ILUC emission figures in the existing sustainability criteria; and

In order to boost advanced/second generation biofuels, EU member states “will have to set a national target, no later than 18 months after the EU directive enters into force, for the share of advanced biofuels, e.g. those sourced from certain types of waste and residues and new sources such as seaweed, in total transport consumption.” 167

Member states must enact the new legislation by 2017. Likely changes in EU biofuel policy after 2020 The EU has also announced significant changes in its biofuel policy after 2020. In its 2014 policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030168, it states that it does not think, it is appropriate to establish new targets for renewable energy or the greenhouse gas intensity of fuels used in the transport sector. The Commission acknowledges that first generation biofuels have a limited role in decarbonising the transport sector and it already indicates, that food-based biofuels should not receive public support after 2020. It states that the focus of policy development should be on improving the efficiency of the transport system, further development and deployment of electric vehicles, second and third generation biofuels and other alternative, sustainable fuels as part of a more holistic and integrated approach. Improved biomass policy will also be necessary to maximise the resource efficient use of biomass in order to deliver robust and verifiable greenhouse gas savings and to allow for fair competition between the various uses of biomass resources. This should also encompass the sustainable use of land and address indirect land use effects as with biofuels. Entry into force RES Directive 2009/28/EC was signed on 23 April 2009. It was to enter into force on the 20th day following publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, which was on 5 June 2009. So the Directive entered into force on 25 June 2009.

167 See Press Release April 28 2015 of the European Parliament: Parliament supports shift towards advanced biofuels, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20150424IPR45730/html/Parliament-supports-shift-towards-advanced-biofuels and full text of the P8_TC2-COD(2012)0288 document http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2015-0100+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN#title2) 168

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030 /* COM/2014/015 final */, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52014DC0015&from=EN

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20150424IPR45730/html/Parliament-supports-shift-towards-advanced-biofuels

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20150424IPR45730/html/Parliament-supports-shift-towards-advanced-biofuels

136

2. Policy Field (water, agriculture, biodiversity, energy) Energy and Climate Integration/coordination issues with other related pieces of legislation Achieving the objectives of the Renewable Energy Directive is of particular importance for agriculture169 and forestry sectors as well as climate change mitigation as it yields benefits in all these areas and vice versa. With regards to biofuels, the RED jointly covers them with the Fuel Quality Directive and Biofuels Directive 2003.170 3. Aims of the policy and its relevance to soil protection Objectives: The EU Renewable Energy Directive establishes a common EU framework and objectives for the use of energy from renewable sources in order to limit greenhouse gas emissions and to promote renewable energy on the transport sector. It also aims for security and diversification of energy supply, environmental protection, regional development and social and economic cohesion. Principles included in the legal text

Subsidiarity

Proportionality Spatial coverage and management unit: The EU in general is required to meet 20% energy supply from renewables by 2020, but it varies from Member State to Member State with regards to the individual national targets.171 The management units are the Member States and the various renewable energy sources within their territory contributing to their national target or joint projects agreed between Member States. 4. Relevance to soil protection The particular relevance of the RED for soil protection stems from the objectives it established around bioenergy, as biomass production for energy generation has impacts on land and soil. Bioenergy plays a particular role within the Renewable Energy Directive because beside the role that bioenergy plays in meeting the overall 20% RE target, each Member State must also ensure that 10% of total road transport fuel comes from renewable energy by 2020. Transport fuels from renewable energy are defined to include biofuels and biogas, as well as hydrogen and electricity from renewable energy. Hence, whilst the RE transport target does not necessarily need to be met with biofuels, they still play the major role in meeting this target, also given their compatibility with current vehicle technology and energy infrastructure. The majority of biofuels counting towards this target in the EU are still so called “first generation biofuels”, i.e. fuels that are produced from food crops. A study by the IEEP (2010) based on the analysis of the NREAPS submitted by Member States finds that by 2020, biofuels will most likely provide 9.5% of total energy in transport. 92% of these fuels will come from food crops (such as oil seeds, palm oil, sugar cane, sugar beet, wheat). This will require an expansion of cultivated agricultural land globally, converting forests, grasslands and peat lands into crop fields. Up to 69,000 km2 will be affected – an area over twice the size of Belgium172.

169

Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 ‘establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers’ is mentioned under the heading “Instruments cited”, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LKD/?uri=CELEX:32009L0028&qid=1450260296405. 170

http://biofuelstp.eu/biofuels-legislation.html 171

Ibid. 172

IEEP (2010): Anticipated Indirect Land Use Change Associated with Expanded Use of Biofuels and Bioliquids in the EU – An Analysis of the National Renewable Energy Action Plans; Catherine Bowyer; http://www.ieep.eu/assets/731/Anticipated_Indirect_Land_Uce_Change_Associated_with_Expanded_Use_of_Biofuels_and_Bioliquids_in_the_EU_-_An_Analysis_of_the_National_Renewable_Energy_Action_Plans.pdf

137

“Second generation biofuels” also known as “advanced biofuels”, are fuels that can be manufactured from various types of biomass, including lignocellulosic feedstocks (i.e. agricultural and forestry residues, wood based biomass etc.). There are many controversies around the sustainability and environmental impacts of biofuels that relate to their impacts on GHG emissions, on biodiversity, water and soil. With regard to land and soil the most important links are:

Direct Land use change: If biofuel crops are grown on land that has not previously been arable land, such as pasture or forest, this “direct land use change” usually results in an immediate loss of carbon store in above- and below-ground biomass (vegetation), and a more gradual decline of carbon in the soil organic matter (JRC 2015).173.

Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC): Frequently, crops for biofuels are diverted from existing food production. This adds to pressure to free up more land, often at the expense of forests, grasslands, peatlands, wetlands, and other carbon rich ecosystems - a process known as indirect land use change (ILUC). This results in substantial increases in GHG emissions from the soil and removed vegetation, and often leads to soil erosion.

Intensification/ Foregone soil improvement: Producing energy crops can also lead to intensification: As the JRC (2015) notes: “In the decision not to crop a field in a particular year, the farmer took into account the soil improvement that would boost the yield of a future crop, for example, by ploughing in a legume cover-crop at the end of the season. This yield improvement is foregone if the land is instead cropped every year.”

Use of residues: Using agricultural or forestry residues (straw, branches/ firewood) as biomass feedstocks for biofuels contains the risk to interfere with nutrient cycles as it removes potential nutrient inputs and thereby depletes the organic matter content174 that the soil otherwise would have.

In order to address these potential negative impacts, the RED includes limited ‘sustainability criteria’, intending to protect the environment in the implementation of biofuel support policies, including the requirement that biofuels supported by the RED should not be made from raw material obtained from land with high carbon stocks, highly biodiverse grassland, nature protection areas and forest/ woodlands. However, sustainability requirements in the Renewable Energy Directive have often been criticised as too weak, particularly as they do not include indirect effects175 and social impacts176 . It also needs to be noted that solar power installations, wind power plants and the use of geothermal energy as promoted by the RED can have a direct impact on land and soil through facilities and the necessary power distribution infrastructure, even if this effect is less relevant for land/ soil compared to biofuels. However, these impacts and how they can be avoided are not in the scope of the RED, but are rather tackled within other Directives, such

173

JRC (2015) Estimates of indirect land use change from biofuels based on historical data, Authors: Overmars, Koen, Edwards, Robert; Padella, Monica; Prins Anne Gerdien; Marelli, Luisa; Report EUR 26819; http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC91339/eur26819_online.pdf 174

Gobin, A., Campling, P., Janssen, L., Desmet, N., van Delden, H., Hurkens, J., Lavelle, P., Berman, S. (2011). Soil organic matter management across the EU – best practices, constraints and trade-offs, Final Report for the European Commission’s DG Environment, September 2011 175

See e.g. a letter signed by over 200 scientists to the European Commissionin December 2011: International Scientists and Economists Statement on Biofuels and Land Use; http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/International-Scientists-and-Economists-Statement-on- Biofuels-and-Land-Use.pdf. Moreover, A 2010 IFPRI Study which includes global direct and indirect land use change, concludes that going beyond a 5.6% share of biofuels in transport fuel in the EU could cause significant environmental harm globally. 176

See e.g. Wunder, Stephanie et al (2012): Impact of EU Bioenergy policy on developing countries" (EXPO/B/DEVE/FWC/2009 Lot 5 21), Briefing for the European Parliament; Kaphengst, Timo; Stephanie Wunder and Krista Timeus 2012: The Social Dimension of EU Biofuel Policy. [Ecologic Briefs on International Relations and Sustainable Development]. Berlin: Ecologic Institute

138

as the EIA Directive (Environmental Impact Assessment) and SEA Directive (Strategic Environmental Assessment). 5. Soil-focused aims and objectives Article 17 (4) of the Renewable Energy Directive requires that “Biofuels and bioliquids (…) shall not be made from raw material obtained from land with high carbon stock”. It further specifies land with high carbon stocks, as “land that had one of the following statuses in January 2008 and no longer has that status:

a) wetlands, namely land that is covered with or saturated by water permanently or for a significant part of the year;

b) continuously forested areas, namely land spanning more than one hectare with trees higher than five metres and a canopy cover of more than 30 %, or trees able to reach those thresholds in situ;

c) land spanning more than one hectare with trees higher than five metres and a canopy cover of between 10 % and 30 %, or trees able to reach those thresholds in situ, unless evidence is provided that the carbon stock of the area before and after conversion is such that, when the methodology laid down in part C of Annex V is applied, the conditions laid down in paragraph 2 of this Article would be fulfilled.

The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply if, at the time the raw material was obtained, the land had the same status as it had in January 2008”.

Soil threats addressed by the Renewable Energy Directive Directly: Soil threats are not directly addressed by the measures in the Renewable

Energy Directive. Indirectly: As first generation biofuels are produced from food and feed commodities and

with similar production methods (e.g. monocultures of maize, rapeseed, row crops, etc.), impacts are comparable to other agricultural activities in the food and feed system (i.e. possible soil erosion, soil compaction, decline of organic matter, threats to soil biodiversity, etc.). Mandatory sustainability criteria require that biofuels should not be made from raw material obtained from land with high carbon stock, hence addressing loss of soil organic matter indirectly. Biofuels also must reduce GHG emissions, cannot be derived from highly biodiverse grassland, nature protection areas and forest/ woodlands – requirements that indirectly address also the following soil threats: soil erosion, soil compaction, threats for soil biodiversity. The RED’s biofuel support policies can also result in the intensification of production, potentially focusing less on crop diversification/cover crops and threatening soil erosion, organic matter loss, compaction from heavy machinery use, salinisation from intensive irrigation, etc. Increased use of agricultural or forestry residues for biofuels contains the risk to deplete the organic matter content.





There are no direct quantitative targets within the RED.

The 10% target renewable energy in transport until 2020 puts pressure on soil and land to produce biofuel feedstocks.

The 10% target renewable in transport until 2020 puts pressure on land and soil and leads to direct and indirect land use change, increased use of agricultural and forestry residues, potentially negatively impacting soil organic matter, soil biodiversity and – depending on feedstock and management practice – potentially leading to soil erosion and compaction.

Section 4 of this paper describes the relevance to soil protection of the RED, particularly with regard to potential negative impacts related to direct land use change, indirect land use

139

change, use of residues and intensification. However, in some cases improvements of soil quality can be achieved, particularly if annual crops are replaced by perennial (biofuel) crops. JRC (2015), with reference to Don et al. 2012, notes an “increase in soil organic carbon (SOC) when annual crops are replaced by miscanthus (Don et al., 2012)177”. 7. Mandatory requirements and voluntary options for Member States (types of management measures) In order to limit the negative impacts of biofuel production, the RED (articles 17-21) sets out a number of sustainability criteria. They require that all biofuel products counting towards the target must reduce GHG emissions. Moreover, the biomass cannot be derived from land with high carbon stocks. The requirement to protect high carbon stocks follows a GHG mitigation logic178 but is among the most important requirements with regard to soil in the RED. In order to be counted towards the Directive’s RE targets, biofuels should also not be made from raw material obtained from highly biodiverse grassland, nature protection areas and forest/ woodlands, providing another indirect link for soil protection in the RED. However, biofuels and bioliquids produced from waste and residues, other than agricultural, aquaculture, fisheries and forestry residues, need only fulfil the sustainability criteria that relate to GHG emissions. Additional to the requirements set out in the RED, several schemes also take into account additional sustainability aspects such as soil, water, air protection and social criteria (e.g. The Roundtable for Sustainable Biomaterial). Member States have to implement these criteria and compliance with these criteria is a precondition to receive public support or count towards mandatory national renewable energy targets. One way for companies to demonstrate that their biofuels comply with the criteria is to participate in voluntary schemes that have been recognised by the European Commission. Schemes are mostly privately run but recognised as valid by the European Commission. Recognitions can last for a period of five years. Meanwhile (as of 2015), the European Commission has approved 19 voluntary schemes.179 For a scheme to be recognised by the European Commission, it must fulfil criteria such as:

feedstock producers comply with the sustainability criteria;

information on the sustainability characteristics can be traced to the origin of the feedstock;

all information is well documented;

companies are audited before they start to participate in the scheme and retroactive audits take place regularly;

the auditors are external and independent; and

the auditors have both the generic and specific auditing skills needed with regards to the scheme's criteria.180

The Commission must monitor and report every two years to the EP and Council on the promotion and use of renewable energy in the EU as well as the origin of biofuels and bioliquids consumed in the EU and their production impact (including displacement, e.g., land use in the EU and third country suppliers). This report is based on submissions from MS and

177

Don, A., Osborne, B., Hastings, A. et al. (2012), ‘Land use change to bioenergy production in Europe: implications for the greenhouse gas balance and soil carbon’. GCB Bioenergy, 4, 372–391 178

RED para (70): “If land with high stocks of carbon in its soil or vegetation is converted for the cultivation of raw materials for biofuels or bioliquids, some of the stored carbon will generally be released into the atmosphere, leading to the formation of carbon dioxide.” 179

See EU Commission website on voluntary schemes: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-energy/biofuels/voluntary-schemes 180

See EU Commission website on voluntary schemes: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-energy/biofuels/voluntary-schemes

140

Key soil-relevant instruments Mandatory The directive includes sustainability criteria. Member States need to implement them and need to ensure that only biofuels that comply with the criteria are counted towards the national renewable targets and are eligible for financial support. The action plans often include reporting requirements for sustainability of biofuels. MS need to submit National Renewable Action Plans (NREAPs) and Progress reports about implementation and the progress toward RED target to the EU Commission. Commission has multiple obligations for reporting on sustainability criteria, implementation and EU-wide GHG emission savings based on MS reports. Voluntary Companies can use voluntary (certification) schemes to demonstrate that their biofuels comply with the criteria. Schemes are mostly privately run but recognised as valid by the European Commission. (This website provides a list of and the requirements for approved voluntary sustainability schemes for biofuels: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/node/74).

other sources in Articles 22 and 23, and includes the emission reduction values provided by the MS. According to Article 23(8), a particular report was to be submitted by the Commission by 31 December 2014 on:

a) “a review of the minimum greenhouse gas emission saving thresholds to apply from the dates referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 17(2), on the basis of an impact assessment taking into account, in particular, technological developments, available technologies and the availability of first and second-generation bio-fuels with a high level of greenhouse gas emission saving;

b) with respect to the target referred to in Article 3(4), a review of: (i) the cost-efficiency of the measures to be implemented to achieve the target; (ii) an assessment of the feasibility of reaching the target whilst ensuring the

sustainability of biofuels production in the Community and in third countries, and considering economic, environmental and social impacts, including indirect effects and impacts on biodiversity, as well as the commercial availability of second-generation biofuels;

(iii) the impact of the implementation of the target on the availability of foodstuffs at affordable prices;

(iv) the commercial availability of electric, hybrid and hydrogen powered vehicles, as well as the methodology chosen to calculate the share of energy from renewable sources consumed in the transport sector; and

(v) the evaluation of specific market conditions, considering, in particular, markets on which transport fuels represent more than half of the final energy consumption, and markets which are fully dependent on imported biofuels;

c) an evaluation of the implementation of this Directive, in particular with regard to cooperation mechanisms, in order to ensure that, together with the possibility for the Members States to continue to use national support schemes referred to in Article 3(3), those mechanisms enable Member States to achieve the national targets defined in Annex I on the best cost-benefit basis, of technological developments, and the conclusions to be drawn to achieve the target of 20 % of energy from renewable sources at Community level.”

For the MS reporting, the Commission is required to establish a Transparency platform under Article 24. Funding Article 23(7) addresses the need for improving financing and coordination to achieve the 20% target by 2020, so the Commission was required by 31 December 2010 to present an analysis and action plan on renewable energy regarding structural funds and framework programmes, the European Investment Bank funds and public finance institutions, better coordination of EU and national funding, and better access to risk capital, and coordination to support initiatives for renewable energy.

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/node/74

141

8. Assessment of environmental status Based on the national reports, the “Renewable Energy Progress Report” of the European Commission gives an overview of renewable energy policy developments in EU countries. Findings from the last progress report in March 2013 (COM(2013) 175 final)181 include:

20 EU countries had met their 2010 interim target and a majority had also reached their 2011/12 target.

Further measures would still be needed if the EU as a whole was to meet its 2020 renewables target. If the 2009/10 yearly growth rate in renewables were maintained up to 2020, then 11 countries would fail to reach their national targets.

In 2010, the total share of renewables in the EU was 12.5%. In the EU's transport sector, it was 4.7%.182

The progress report also states that “Member States' transposition of the biofuel sustainability criteria shows that there are some gaps, and legal proceedings have begun to ensure that effective sustainability regimes are in place in all Member States.”

Effectiveness of policy instruments to address soil threats Impacts on soil due to sustainability criteria for high carbon soils, wetlands, highly biodiverse grassland and woodland are difficult to assess, particularly due to indirect impacts. The 2013 European Commission “Renewable Energy Progress Report“ concluded that beyond the EU Common Agriculture Policy, biofuel-specific sustainability requirements are hardly needed. Nonetheless, acknowledging the need to address indirect effects and competition for biomass use pathways:

“The Commission and Member States' monitoring of the need for specific measures for air, soil and water protection generally find that all current EU agricultural practices obligatory under EU Common Agricultural Policy and environmental legislation apply to biofuel feedstock production (since the bulk of biofuels are produced from agricultural crops) and as such, separate biofuels-specific measures are not necessary. In fact, the current sustainability regimes and voluntary schemes often include requirements of good agricultural practice and so best agricultural practice for air, soil and water protection is encouraged by the schemes. However, as pressure on agricultural resources increases, it will be important to ensure protection measures in place continue to be adequate”.

However, several studies in the past years have shown the negative global impacts of biofuel support policies, including the RED. There is broad criticism on the shortcomings of sustainability criteria as well as for biofuels voluntary (certification) schemes, particularly as they do not take indirect impacts into consideration. Assessments by the WWF (2013)183 and IUCN (2013)184 have found that voluntary (certification) schemes that are set up in order to demonstrate compliance with sustainability criteria (see section on mandatory requirements below) have major shortcomings, particularly as the schemes have very different requirements and there seems to be a race to the bottom (i.e. the less demanding schemes by far have the biggest market share). It is therefore questionable to which extent the sustainability criteria and requirements in voluntary schemes have helped to decrease pressures on land and soil.

181

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0175&from=EN 182

See key findings from the 2103 Progress Report on the EU Commission Website: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/node/70 183

WWF (2013): "Searching for sustainability: a comparative analysis of certification schemes", http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_searching_for_sustainability_2013.pdf 184

IUCN (2013): "Betting on best quality: a comparison of quality and level of assurance of sustainability standards" http://www.iucn.nl/en/news/publications/?14101/Betting-on-best-quality

http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_searching_for_sustainability_2013.pdf

http://www.iucn.nl/en/news/publications/?14101/Betting-on-best-quality

142

Meanwhile, it needs to be acknowledged that significant changes have been made to EU biofuel policies in order to address sustainability concerns, including impacts on soil (see chapter 1.) 9. Reporting units - what are the specific transposition requirements Article 17, regarding sustainability criteria for biofuels, requires the Commission to report every two years on MS measures taken to respect sustainability criteria for soil, water and air protection. Additionally, the Commission must report on requirements for a biomass (other than biofuels and bioliquids) sustainability scheme. Article 18(9) requires the Commission to report to the EP and Council by 31 December 2012 on the sustainability criteria in place and their effectiveness; additionally, whether mandatory requirements for air, soil or water protection are feasible and appropriate. Article 19 presents the calculations for GHG emission savings from biofuels, which also requires the MS to report to the Commission by 31 March 2010 the NUTS2 areas where typical GHG emissions from cultivating agricultural raw materials will likely be lower or equal to emission under part D of Annex V according to a different method. The method and data used to determine the list of areas must be provided and the method must take soil characteristics, climate and raw material yields into account. Article 22 specifically covers the Reporting by MS with regards to their “progress in the promotion and use of energy from renewable sources by 31 December 2011, and every two years thereafter.” Many elements are required within the report, such as the share of renewable energy sources overall and by sector (electricity, heating and cooling, and transport), measures taken and planned to promote renewable energy growth, support schemes, etc. Annex V provides the typical values the MS can use in estimating the net GHG emission savings from the use of biofuels in their reporting. The Commission is required to submit a report on the application of the RED by 2021, addressing the following elements’ role in helping MS achieve their national targets under Annex I on the best cost-benefit basis:

a) “the process of preparing forecasts and national renewable energy action plans; b) the effectiveness of the cooperation mechanisms; c) technological developments in energy from renewable sources, including the

development of the use of biofuels in commercial aviation; d) the effectiveness of the national support schemes; and e) the conclusions of the Commission reports referred to in paragraphs 8 and 9.”185

15. Examples of implementation approaches in case study areas The National Implementing Measures (NIM) communicated by the Member States concerning the RES Directive can be found under: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/NIM/?uri=CELEX:32009L0028. The implementation of RED sustainability criteria, including those relevant for soil, differs between Member States. Germany has been among the countries most progressive in setting up slightly stricter sustainability criteria than required by the RED. For example, the Biofuels Sustainability Ordinance (Biokraft-NachV) of 2009 indirectly supports the cultivation of biofuels on contaminated soils that are not suitable for food and feed production with a bonus towards GHG calculations (i.e. biofuels from these soils can achieve the GHG reductions required in the RED easier than other fuels). As mentioned above, there are also relevant differences between sustainability requirements in voluntary schemes. Voluntary schemes are used by companies to demonstrate compliance with sustainability criteria. In many assessments (see e.g. WWF 2013, IUCN 2013), the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB) receives the best sustainability ratings. The RSB also strongly cooperates with NGOs and scientific institutions and may provide a good practice example.

185

Article 23(10).



143

The current (2011) RSB standard186 includes soil requirements with more progressive requirements to protect soils compared to the RED:

According to criterion 8, Operators must comply to minimum requirements: They shall implement practices to maintain or enhance soil physical, chemical, and biological conditions. Feedstock producers must comply with minimum requirements, including minimizing soil erosion and use of sustainable practices to “enhance soil physical health on a watershed scale.

Participating Operators shall implement practices to maintain or enhance soil organic matter on the feedstock production site.

The use of agrarian and forestry residual products for feedstock production, including lignocellulosic material, shall not be at the expense of long-term soil stability and organic matter content.

Where the screening exercise has triggered the need for a Soil Impact Assessment (RSB--‐GUI--‐01--‐008--‐ 01), Participating Operators shall:

o Develop a soil management plan as part of the Environmental and Social

Management Plan (ESMP). o Perform periodic sampling of soil on the feedstock production site to evaluate

the effect of the soil management plan on the organic matter content. Where the practices included in the soil management plan are not seen during monitoring to maintain soil organic matter at the optimal level, alternative practices shall be investigated.”

The RSB standard also includes ”progress requirements” that further detail the criteria. Progress requirements are:

“Participating Operators shall implement measures to improve soil health, such as Conservation Agriculture practices as defined by the FAO including:

a) Organic direct planting; b) Permanent soil cover; c) Crop rotation; or d) Fallow areas with natural or planted vegetation in order to recover natural

fertility and interrupt pest life cycles.”

186

Consolidated RSB EU RED Principles & Criteria for Sustainable Biofuel Production RSB reference code: [RSB – STD – 11 – 001 – 01 – 001 (Version 2. 1 )], http://rsb.org/pdfs/standards/RSB-EU-RED-Standards/13-03-01-RSB-STD-11-001-01-001%20vers%202.1%20Consolidated%20RSB%20EU%20RED%20PCs.pdf.

http://rsb.org/pdfs/standards/RSB-EU-RED-Standards/13-03-01-RSB-STD-11-001-01-001%20vers%202.1%20Consolidated%20RSB%20EU%20RED%20PCs.pdf

http://rsb.org/pdfs/standards/RSB-EU-RED-Standards/13-03-01-RSB-STD-11-001-01-001%20vers%202.1%20Consolidated%20RSB%20EU%20RED%20PCs.pdf

144

II. EU FUNDS

15 Common Agricultural Policy – Pillar 1

1. Name of Policy and brief summary of implementation The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the EU’s main funding instrument for agriculture and land management. By providing incentives or restrictions for land management, CAP comprises one of key drivers impacting land use and land degradation in addition to market influences, climate change, technological progress, or land and labour availability. CAP is one of the oldest EU policies, with its beginnings dating back more than 50 years. The historical overview of CAP development is illustrated in the Figure below (source: EC, DG Agriculture and Rural Development; http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-history/cap-history-large_en.png)

Successive reforms of CAP have gradually moved the policy from one focused on production payments and market stabilisation to a policy that is more market-oriented and delivers its support primarily through decoupled area payments and rural development payments. Pillar 1 of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) includes both Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 and Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, the former of which includes the rules for cross-compliance with the Annex II table laying out the Statutory Management Requirements (SMRs) and the Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAECs). Regulation 1307/2013 (the basic 'horizontal' regulation)187 specifies the direct payments for farmers (dependent upon their compliance with the cross-compliance scheme) and Article 43 includes the new greening requirements (green direct payments) under the 2014-2020 programming period.

187

in conjunction with Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 on direct payments under the CAP Implementing Regulation (EU) No 641/2014 on direct payments under the CAP

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-history/cap-history-large_en.png

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-history/cap-history-large_en.png

145

Entry into force Signed on 17 December 2013, but entered into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union – 20 December 2013. Only applied from 1 January 2015 overall. The CAP is governed in 7-year programming cycles. The overall structure can, however, be adjusted also through mid-term reviews within these cycles as, for example, was the case with the Health Check in 2008. The CAP has gone through major reforms over the years. The last programming cycle was delayed due to the co-decision process, i.e. the inter-institutional negotiations between the Council and European Parliament on various aspects of the CAP reform proposal submitted by the European Commission. 2. Policy Field (water, agriculture, biodiversity, energy) Agriculture, water, biodiversity, soil Integration/coordination issues with other related pieces of legislation The cross-compliance mechanism is the main way in which compliance with other legislative acts is ensured. The Statutory Management Requirements list all legislative acts & their provisions which need to be respected in order to receive CAP payments. The Directives cited in the Pillar 1 1307/2013 Regulation: Habitats Directive, WFD, organic regulation (EC) No 834/2007, Birds Directive, former versions of the CAP regarding direct support payments as well as the other regulations making up the CAP – 1305 (RDP), 1306 (cross-compliance) and 1308 (CMO). Regulation 1306/2013 also cites the following Directives and regulations which relate to soil protection: Groundwater Directive, WFD, Sustainable Use of the Pesticides Directive, former versions of the CAP regarding direct support payments as well as the other regulations making up the CAP – 1305 (RDP), 1307 (direct payments) and 1308 (CMO). 3. Aims of the policy and its relevance to soil protection Objectives: The main aims of CAP are:

To improve agricultural productivity and ensure a stable supply of affordable food

Enable farmers to make a “reasonable living”

Address climate change and sustainable management of natural resources Principles included in the legal text

Regulation 1306/2013: principles of sound financial management, transparency and non- discrimination, budgetary, the audit, proportionality, and subsidiarity

Regulation 1307/2013: subsidiarity and proportionality Spatial coverage and management unit: Includes all Member States and is applied at the level of the farm holding for those farms with eligible land. Most of CAP is focused on agricultural land (main land use types here being: grasslands, arable land, permanent crops) – i.e. Pillar 1 provides payments only for agricultural land, forestry payments are not available. With regards to the direct green payments, Member States must use 30 % of their national allocations of EAGF funding for direct payments under Pillar 1 to make an annual ‘greening’ payment to farmers for specific, compulsory, non-contractual farming practices that go beyond cross compliance and address climate and environment policy goals. Direct payments188 are administered to individual farm holdings, which are defined as “all the units used for agricultural activities and managed by a farmer situated within the territory of

188

Difference in designation between Member States schemes exist, such as the Basic Payment Scheme and the Single Area Payment Scheme (for the newer transitioning Member States), http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_5.2.5.html

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_5.2.5.html

146

the same Member State”. (Art 4 Regulation 1307/2013). Farm holdings are the basic management unit. 4. Relevance to soil protection Pillar 1 of the CAP aims to provide support to farmers that is no longer coupled with their production levels. Instead it provides decoupled support in an effort to aid the competitiveness of EU agriculture and require a minimum level of environmental maintenance from the farmers’ in exchange for those payments. The policy is relevant to soil protection because the cross-compliance standards include soil provisions which the Member States’ adopt as GAECs according to their specific context (the areas concerned, including soil and climatic condition, existing farming systems, land use, crop rotation, farming practices and farm structures).189 Four standards (GAEC 4, 5, 6, and 7) are relevant for soils: Soil and carbon stock:

GAEC 4 Minimum soil cover

GAEC 5 Minimum land management reflecting site specific conditions to limit erosion

GAEC 6 Maintenance of soil organic matter level through appropriate practices including ban on burning arable stubble, except for plant health reasons

Landscape, minimum level of maintenance GAEC 7 Retention of landscape features, including where appropriate, hedges, ponds,

ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated, field margins and terraces, and including a ban on cutting hedges and trees during the bird breeding and rearing season and, as an option, measures for avoiding invasive plant species

Moreover, Member States are required to implement the three greening elements. Direct green payments are a new element of Pillar 1 direct payments, compulsory for both managing authorities and farmers, although a significant numbers of farmers are exempt from some of the greening requirements, particularly if they already have large areas of grassland. Greening requirements fall into three groups: i) crop diversification, ii) Ecological Focus Areas (EFA)190, and iii) the protection of permanent grassland. Of these, EFAs and the protective designation of permanent grasslands on carbon rich soils have the greatest potential for soil protection, particularly in relation to erosion and soil carbon. Both management authorities and farmers have a considerable degree of choice in how they implement greening payments, particularly in choosing between measures with differing degrees of benefits for soils (e.g. for EFAs, green cover, or nitrogen fixing crops). The additionality of some EFA options is also limited if managing authorities choose to allow farmers to count landscape features on buffer strips already protected under cross compliance as part of their EFA requirement. Crop diversification is considered not sufficiently relevant for soil protection as defined in the Regulation, and it is unclear what, if any, soil benefits will result from its implementation. If it were to increase the area of land under leguminous crops (which fix nitrogen in the soil) this may reduce the levels of mineral nitrogen fertiliser required, and have an indirect benefit on diffuse pollution.

5. Soil-focused aims and objectives Direct: GAECs: There are specific GAEC issues dedicated to soil in Annex II of the

Regulation 1306/2013 for the cross-compliance system. GAEC 4: Minimum soil cover; GAEC 5: Minimum land management reflecting site specific conditions to limit erosion; and GAEC 6:

189

Defined in Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 Articles 93-94 and Annex II 190

Farms with more than 15 hectares of arable land must ensure that an area equivalent to 5% of their arable land is an Ecological Focus Area (EFA). The Regulation defines 10 types of EFA, and Member States had to select one or more to compile their own national list, from which farmers can choose how to meet their individual EFA requirement. The soil-relevant types are: fallow land, terraces, buffer strips, catch crops/green cover, agroforestry, afforested areas, short rotation coppice

147

Maintenance of soil organic matter level through appropriate practices including ban on burning arable stubble, except for plant health reasons.191 Green direct payments, although there is no specific reference to soil, the intervention logic clearly refers to the sustainable management of natural resources (which includes soil) and all three greening requirements refer to the management of agricultural land and/or landscape features and trees planted on agricultural land.

Indirect: The GAEC 7 is indirectly focused on soil – Retention of landscape features, including where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated, field margins and terraces, and including a ban on cutting hedges and trees during the bird breeding and rearing season and, as an option, measures for avoiding invasive plant species. It contains the sub-measures minimum livestock stocking rates, maintenance of permanent pasture, and retention of landscape features (e.g., hedges, bushes, tree lines, etc.).

Soil threats addressed by the CAP Pillar 1 Directly: GAECs: GAEC 4 is very relevant to soil protection due to the fact that

maintaining a certain minimum level of soil cover can prevent the soil threat of erosion, contribute to SOM and biodiversity, help prevent floods by increasing water infiltration, and provide rooting systems to avoid landslides. GAEC 5 is very relevant to the soil threat of landslides and erosion, which through this measure the site-specific issues with sloping land and the need for terracing, certain ploughing limitations, etc. Also, a focus on soil structure through standards for appropriate machinery use relates to the prevention of compaction leading to a potential loss of soil organic matter as well as reduced permeability and water infiltration. This could negatively impact flood prevention and contribute to soil erosion. GAEC 6 is extremely relevant for preventing the soil threats of loss of soil organic matter and erosion through residue management and crop rotations. Green direct payments: Subject to the choice made by Member States in implementing greening, and the choices made by farmers, it is considered that the EFA requirements and the designation of ESPG areas where ploughing and conversion is prohibited could address directly the threats of soil erosion and loss of soil organic matter

Indirectly: GAECs: GAEC 7 could have an impact on soil protection, including compaction issues from livestock trampling, avoiding loss of SOM and biodiversity through maintenance of permanent pasture, and avoiding loss of biodiversity and potentially landslides / floods through retaining landscape features. GAEC 1 is not particularly relevant to soil protection as much as for preventing eroded soil particles and chemical / manure inputs from reaching water bodies. GAEC 2 is also not necessarily relevant to soil protection, but it could indirectly have an impact on soil resources if illegally extracted water is used excessively without permission and potentially results in salinisation of the soil. GAEC 3 is relevant to soil protection from the perspective of the materials listed in the annex to the Groundwater Directive and the requirement to avoid use of those so that leaching into groundwater may occur. Thus, this would be relevant to the soil threat of contamination and potentially loss of soil organic matter and loss of soil biodiversity. Green direct payments: Some of the EFA requirements and the designation of ESPG areas where ploughing and conversion is prohibited could address directly the threats of: compaction, contamination – diffuse, desertification, erosion by water, erosion by wind, flooding/landslides, and loss of soil biodiversity

191

The requirement can be limited to a general ban on burning arable stubble, but a Member State may decide to prescribe further requirements.

148

Key soil-relevant instruments Mandatory GAECs: MS must set their GAECs for cross-compliance purposes, establish farm advisory service. Commission must conduct impact assessments of CAP proposals and monitoring and evaluation with data reported from Member States according to common impact indicators. Direct green payments: implementation of all three greening elements (crop diversification, EFA, and protecting permanent grassland) using 30% of the national allocations of EAGF funding for direct payments under Pillar 1 Voluntary GAECs: Extent to which MS choose to define their GAEC standards beyond the minimum required by the framework in Regulation 1306/2013 Direct green payments: Select additional types of EFA to implement





None None None

None None Green direct payments: Not possible to estimate because impacts depend on the way in which Member State define the requirements, the extent of additionality of some greening requirements and the choices made by the individual farmers who have to make changes to their farm management to meet the requirements (significant numbers of farmers will not have change their current management).

7. Mandatory requirements and voluntary options for Member States (types of management measures) The management measures include: direct payments192, cross-compliance, greening measures193, GAECs, CMOs, various intervention measures for the CMOs. The mandatory requirements for Member States under Pillar 1 of the CAP are focused on setting the cross-compliance standards for farmers to abide by in order to receive their direct payments. This includes selecting GAECs appropriate for the country context and adopting and implementing the EU regulations included as SMRs.194 The payment systems set up to distribute the direct payments have special requirements for Member States, including to distinguish an accredited agency to handle the financing in cooperation with the Commission.195 The Member States must establish a farm advisory system, addressing the SMRs and GAECs under cross-compliance, environmental and climate beneficial agricultural practices, and increasing on-farm competitiveness, among others.196 GAECs GACEs (Mandatory): Extent to which MS choose to define their GAEC standards beyond the minimum required by the framework in Regulation 1306/2013: Green direct payments (Mandatory):

Ensure that those farmers to whom it applies (mostly arable farms) implement the three elements of greening.

192

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/direct-support/direct-payments/docs/direct-payments-schemes_en.pdf 193

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/direct-support/greening/index_en.htm 194

Regulation 1306/2013, Title VI, Articles 91-101. 195

Regulation 1306/2013, Article 7. 196

Regulation 1306/2013, Article 12.

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/direct-support/direct-payments/docs/direct-payments-schemes_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/direct-support/greening/index_en.htm

149

Choose and define at least one type of EFA, from a list of ten.

Within Natura 2000 areas designate permanent grasslands in need of strict protection as environmentally sensitive permanent grassland (ESPG), where no ploughing or conversion is permitted.

Green direct payments (Voluntary):

Choose and define up to nine additional types of EFA, from a list of ten, and decide what production methods may be used.

If landscape features and buffer strips are on the Member State’s list as EFAs, choose whether to define ‘other’ (i.e., in addition to the requirements for cross-compliance).

Outside Natura 2000 areas, designate permanent grasslands (including those on carbon-rich soils) as ESPG, where no ploughing or conversion is permitted.

Impact assessments CAP is a very complex policy field, in large part because of the scope of the topics, regulations and instruments that it includes. Each new proposal is accompanied by impact assessments. For the current 2014-2020 period, the Commission has also commissioned various so-called ‘mapping studies’ to identify the structure of CAP in each MS – i.e. how the Member States are using the flexibilities allowed under the EU rules. Moreover, specific topical studies are also planned to the three general objectives197:

viable food production

balanced territorial development

sustainable management of natural resources and climate action The Commission must also establish a common monitoring and evaluation framework (Art 110, Regulation 1306/2013) based on the reporting by the Member States of implementation of the CAP. In 2016 the Commission published the report “Review of greening after one year” (SWD(2016) 218 final) stating that through the implementation of the green direct payments a significant reinforcement in the environmental ambition of the CAP is shown as there is a wide area coverage of this new instrument. However to what extent an actual positive environmental impact can be achieved depends on the choices made by Member States and farmers. So far - as revealed by the sudy – only few Member States made use of the possibilities to limit the use of pesticides and fertilisers in ecological focus areas (EFA), and landscape features which are of high importance for the protection of biodiversity were not among the most declared EFA types. The assessment also shows that the practice of crop diversification was already applied on most arable land and therewith contributing to at least preventing the degradation of soil quality. Positive impacts on soil carbon sequestration is expected according to the evolution of the ratio of permanent grassland compared to total agricultural areas, but still needs to be monitored. Funding The CAP is a funding mechanism in itself. Pillar 1 is fully financed by the EU whereas Pillar 2 is a co-financing policy with the Member States. The European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), originally adopted in 1964, was replaced by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) in 2007 as the funding mechanisms of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

197

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/calls-for-tender/index_en.htm


150

8. Assessment of environmental status The common monitoring and evaluation framework of the CAP (CMEF) impact indicators for environment, as listed in the Implementing Regulation for CMEF, include198199200:

Emissions from agriculture

Farmland bird index

High nature value (HNV) farming

Water abstraction in agriculture

Water quality

Soil organic matter in arable land

Soil erosion by water 9. Reporting units - what are the specific transposition requirements There is no single collection point for data at EU level; DG Agriculture receives all the information about Pillar 1 implementation. For Pillar 1, the reporting is done at Member State level. However, the reporting is usually not public reporting – i.e. the reports and figures are not necessarily published by DG Agriculture. CAP governance has not been a focus of any recent Commission-funded studies, including not governance setting for reporting. Timelines In the second half of the previous programming period, a reform / structure proposal is published together with an impact assessment, which then goes through political negotiations before legislative acts are adopted201. For the 2014 – 2020 period, the Commission published the Communication "The CAP towards 2020: Meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges of the future" in 2010202 which outlines policy options for the 2014 – 2020 period, and providing the basis for a public consultation process. The stakeholder inputs from this consultation were integrated in the impact assessment which accompanied the legislative proposals published in October 2011203. Following these proposals, the Parliament and Council were both involved in the negotiations process to agree on the final set of legislative documents, the so called co-decision process, which extended over nearly two years. The political agreement was reached in June 2013, and the formal legislative documents, four basic Regulations, were formally adopted by the Commission in December 2013. Following this, the Commission prepares implementing rules, or delegated acts, for several aspects of the policy, or also working documents to guide the implementation of instruments. Evaluation at the Commission: No evaluation reports are available at the time of writing, but DG Agriculture plans to evaluate greening in 2016 (the Direct Payments Regulation requires the Commission to present an evaluation report on the implementation of the EFA element greening by 31 March 2017, to enable the Council to decide whether or not increase the 5% requirement for EFAs to 7%).

198

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0834&from=en 199

https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwio2LiE6tvJAhVK3SwKHajZBmIQFgggMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fesrr.uniag.sk%2Ftl_files%2Ffesrr%2Fdocuments%2FIMRD%2FIMRD%2520CS%25202015%2F2_IMRD15_M%26E%2520of%2520CAP%252014-20.pptx&usg=AFQjCNHc6jjyg2V9ok1kPMB_uRkfeqyVWQ&sig2=uL6fsahehvKH5EzirajPfw&cad=rja 200

Source about the change with the 2014-2020 programming period under the Horizontal Regulation 1306/2013: http://capreform.eu/the-intervention-logic-of-the-cap/ 201

See http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/policy-perspectives/impact-assessment/index_en.htm 202

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/communication/index_en.htm 203

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/legal-proposals/index_en.htm

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0834&from=en

http://capreform.eu/the-intervention-logic-of-the-cap/

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/policy-perspectives/impact-assessment/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/communication/index_en.htm

151

The planned studies and evaluation reports for 2016-20 by DG Agriculture that may be relevant to some aspects of greening implementation include the following (for more information see http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/evaluation/plan_en.pdf) 2015: A study (not an evaluation) ‘mapping and analysis of the implementation of the CAP’ 2016: Framework contract for the evaluation studies of CAP measures contributing to the general objective "sustainable management of natural resources and climate action"; Evaluation of the forestry measures under the rural development policy 2017: Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions 2018: Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on habitats, landscapes and biodiversity; Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on water; A study (not an evaluation) ‘mid-term review of the EU Forest Strategy’ 2019-2020: Evaluation of the impact of the CAP towards the general objective "sustainable management of natural resources and climate action"; Mapping and analysis of the implementation of the CAP

152

16 Common Agricultural Policy - Pillar 2 (EAFRD)

1. Name of Policy and brief summary of implementation The European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), originally adopted in 1964, was replaced by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) in 2007 as the funding mechanisms of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 is Pillar 2 of the CAP under the EAFRD, and every seven years a new CAP is adopted outlining the various measures from which the MS build their Rural Development Programmes (RDPs). The new CAP programming period is from 2014-2020 and the Commission is in the process of reviewing and approving the MS’ RDPs. Out of the 118 RDPs to be adopted within the MS, 116 have been approved as of November 2015. Additionally, the Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 contains provisions regulating the RDPs in addition to the provisions governing the direct payments under 1307/2013. Entry into force Signed on 17 December 2013, but entered into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union – 20 December 2013. Applicable from 1 January 2014. 2. Policy Field (water, agriculture, biodiversity, energy) EAFRD – agriculture, rural development, nature protection, biodiversity Integration/coordination issues with other related pieces of legislation CAP remains the main funding mechanism for WFD, in particular through the RDPs. However, RDPs have in the past also been used to support investments, in particular for irrigation, that may not automatically have positive effects on achieving WFD objectives. Other legislation that is related to the CAP Pillar 2 referenced in the text of the Regulation: Habitats Directive, Invasive Species Directive (2000/29/EC), Organic regulation (Regulation (EC) No 834/2007), Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive, Birds Directive, Direct Support Scheme (Regulation (EC) No 73/2009), Quality schemes for foodstuffs (Regulation (EC) No 1151/2012), Common Provisions for the Structural and Investment Funds (Regulation (EC) No 1303/2013), 1306/2013 on financing, management and monitoring of the CAP, 1307/2013 on direct payments (Pillar 1), common markets regulation 1308/2013. The Nitrates Directive is not mentioned in the text of the Regulation, but practices promoted through the Agri-environment-climate measure, for instance, may influence the losses of nutrients to water bodies and resulting nitrate levels. 3. Aims of the policy and its relevance to soil protection Objectives: The EAFRD aims to “Within the overall framework of the CAP, support for rural development, including for activities in the food and non-food sector and in forestry, shall contribute to achieving the following objectives: (a) fostering the competitiveness of agriculture; (b) ensuring the sustainable management of natural resources, and climate action; (c) achieving

153

a balanced territorial development of rural economies and communities including the creation and maintenance of employment”.204 Principles included in the legal text

Regulation 1305/2013: subsidiarity, proportionality, polluter-pays Spatial coverage and management unit: Under Pillar 2, RDP measures are available for agricultural and forest management but also for rural areas more broadly. The overall implementation of RDPs is set either at national level, or NUTS2 level (regions). In federal states, such as Germany, this means federal states, in the UK, for example, England, Scotland, Wales and N Ireland, and in some smaller states NUT2 this is the national level (e.g. in Slovenia). Each NUTS2 region therefore has a Managing Authority and a Payment Agency that administer the payments. 4. Relevance to soil protection These rural development objectives are relevant to soil protection because the measures which incentivise “sustainable management of natural resources, and climate action” (e.g., agri-environment-climate) may contribute to more farmers practicing soil-friendly methods of land management and agricultural production. 5. Soil-focused Aims and Objectives There are six priorities which have been determined for rural development in the EU, and the Member States must include at least 4 of the 6 in their RDPs. They are:

1) fostering knowledge transfer and innovation in agriculture, forestry, and rural areas; 2) enhancing farm viability and competitiveness of all types of agriculture in all regions

and promoting innovative farm technologies and the sustainable management of forests;

3) promoting food chain organisation, including processing and marketing of agricultural products, animal welfare and risk management in agriculture;

4) restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry; 5) promoting resource efficiency and supporting the shift towards a low carbon and

climate resilient economy in agriculture, food and forestry sectors; and 6) promoting social inclusion, poverty reduction and economic development in rural

areas.

Direct: Priority 4 “restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry” focuses in part on “preventing soil erosion and improving soil management”.205

Indirect: Another part of Priority 4 “restoring, preserving, and enhancing biodiversity, including in Natura 2000 areas, and in areas facing natural or other specific constraints, and high nature value farming, as well as the state of European landscapes” would indirectly include enhancement of soil protection within these landscapes, as well as the third Priority 4 part “improving water management, including fertiliser and pesticide management.”206 Priority 5 may result indirectly in soil protection as one of the focuses is on “fostering carbon conservation and sequestration in agriculture and forestry”. This would be relevant to soil as it would promote use of methods which increase soil carbon sequestration and building climate resilient agriculture would encourage adaptation methods, such as using cover crops to potentially increase water infiltration for flood prevention and reduced erosion as well as retain soil moisture for drought resistance.207

204

Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, Article 4 (hereinafter EAFRD Regulation). 205

EAFRD Regulation, Article 5(4)(c). 206

EAFRD Regulation, Article 5(4)(a)-(b). 207

Victoria, R., Banwart, S., Black, H., Ingram, J., Joosten, H., Milne, E., Noellemeyer, E., Baskin, Y. (2012) The Benefits of Soil Carbon. UNEP Year Book 2012. European Environment Agency (2013) Adaptation in Europe:

154

Soil threats addressed by the EAFRD Directive Directly: Preventing soil erosion is mentioned in the objective above. Indirectly: Loss of soil biodiversity, floods and landslides, erosion, desertification,

compaction and loss of SOM are all soil threats potentially indirectly addressed by the thematic objective “Restoring, preserving, and enhancing biodiversity, including in Natura 2000 areas, and in areas facing natural or other specific constraints, and high nature value farming, as well as the state of European landscapes”. Also, “improving water management, including fertiliser and pesticide management” would address the soil threat of soil salinisation, contamination, desertification and floods and landslides. Increasing carbon sequestration in the soil would indirectly address the soil threat of loss of SOM and potentially erosion through different soil management (e.g., tillage) techniques.

Addressing risks and opportunities from climate change in the context of socio-economic developments. EEA Report No. 3/2013.

155




The soil-focused objectives or “focus areas” under the different rural development priorities of the EAFRD must have “appropriate targets” set for them in the RDPs based on the common indicators in Article 69.

Annex V of the EAFRD lists the Ex-Ante Conditionalities for Rural Development, and in order to achieve the Priority 4 “restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry” (which contains a directly soil-focused objective), the “standards for good agricultural and environmental condition (GAEC) of land…[need to be] established at national level”, which could include soil protection standards as part of the GAECs for land (e.g., sloping land which would reduce the risk of floods/landslides).

Also within the ex-ante conditionalities, “promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management” would include setting “minimum requirements for fertilisers and plant protection products” at national level, which would potentially

Article 17 “Investments in physical assets” includes support for “non -productive investments linked to the achievement of agri- environment -climate objectives as pursued under this regulation, including biodiversity conservation status of species and habitat as well as enhancing the public amenity value of a Natura 2000 area or other high nature value systems to be defined in the programme.” This is not directly soil-focused, but one of the outcomes could be increased soil protection/less soil erosion, floods and landslides, and less loss of biodiversity through “non-productive” investments in soils within these areas.

Support under Article 18 either for building resilience or restoring agricultural land and its production potential following damage by natural disasters, climate events, and catastrophes. Soil would be a part of the restored land which may have undergone water/wind erosion, floods/landslides, etc. from such events.

Article 20 support for basic services and village renewal in rural areas includes plans for such communities for the protection and management of Natura 2000 sites and other areas of high nature value, which would include soil protection from various threats.

Various provisions in the EAFRD support forestry, which could benefit soils of forestlands, but the relevant provision for agricultural land is Article 23 for the establishment of agroforestry systems, which would contribute to less erosion, increase soil biodiversity and less loss of SOM, less floods/landslides, and depending on the local context – potentially reduce desertification processes.

Article 28 is the Agri-Environment-Climate, which is a measure for the RDPs and may support soil-focused outputs (in terms of sustainable management).

Articles 30 and 31 are available for support to areas in Natura 2000 and WFD river basin management plans which have disadvantages that go beyond the GAECs and WFD requirements as well as areas facing natural or other specific constraints.

According to Article 32 and Annex III, mountain areas and areas with excessive soil moisture, limited soil drainage, unfavourable soil texture and stoniness, shallow rooting depth, poor chemical properties, and steeply sloping land fit under the latter heading, so investments to support better management of these soils would improve protection / avoidance of soil threats on those areas.

Support is available under Article 26 (Investments in forestry technologies and in

156



indirectly target reduced soil application and less risk of contamination and compaction through restrictions on the timing of application (e.g., waterlogged soils).

processing, in mobilising and in the marketing of forest products) for soil-friendly harvesting machinery and practices, which would result in less impacts on forest soils and likely erosion / compaction.

Article 46 on investments in irrigation will potentially have an indirect impact on irrigated soils to reduce the potential for salinisation (e.g., drip irrigation).

157

Key soil-relevant instruments Mandatory EIP network must be created as well as LEADER projects supported under the RDPs (written instrument laying out the structure and specific funded measures of the regional/national measures for support of rural development. Impact assessments accompany each CAP programming period proposal as well as ex-ante and ex-post evaluations of the CAP based on the monitoring and reporting by Member States to the Commission. These mandatory requirements can be soil-focused but may also encompass other areas. Voluntary One of the tasks of the EIP network groups is facilitating clusters, pilots, demonstration projects, which may be focused on “biodiversity, ecosystem services, soil functionality and sustainable water management” as one of the topics.1 Farmers choose whether they would like to participate in the incentive scheme.

7. Mandatory requirements and voluntary options for Member States (types of management measures) The management measures include: rural development programmes. RDP measures of particular relevance to the priority 4 (“restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry”) and priority 5 (‘Promoting resource efficiency and supporting the shift towards a low carbon and climate resilient economy in agriculture, food and forestry sectors’) include:

Afforestation and creation of woodland, Establishment of agroforestry systems, Investments improving the resilience and environmental value as well as the mitigation of potential forest ecosystems (Art 21)

Agri-environment-climate (Art 28)

Organic farming (Art 29)

Natura 2000 and Water framework directive payments (Art 30)

Payments to areas facing natural or other specific constraints (Art 31)

Forest-environmental and climate services and forest conservation (Art 34)

Basic services and village renewal in rural areas (Art 20)

LEADER (Art 42 – 44) RDPs to provide measure-specific funding to eligible rural producers must be developed, and they must include certain components, such as the Agri-environment-climate measure Article 28. The Member States must establish Managing Authorities, Paying agencies, certification bodies (Art. 65) and farm advisory systems to assist with implementation of the RDP. European Innovation Partnerships (EIPs) must be developed under the EAFRD Article 53, and specific to soil is the task of the EIP network to “facilitate the setting up of cluster initiatives and pilot or demonstration projects” which may relate to “biodiversity, ecosystem services, soil functionality and sustainable water management”. Particularly, Article 55 for the EIP for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability highlights that the EIP shall “promote a resource efficient, economically viable, productive, competitive, low emission, climate friendly and resilient agricultural and forestry sector, working towards agro-ecological production systems and working in harmony with the essential natural resources on which farming and forestry depend”, which includes soil as a natural resource on which farming depends. Impact assessments CAP is a very complex policy field, in large part because of the scope of the topics, regulations and instruments that it includes. Each new proposal is accompanied by impact assessments, and for the rural development programmes Ex-post and Ex-ante evaluations are regularly scheduled. For the current 2014-2020 period, the Commission has also commissioned various so-called ‘mapping studies’ to identify the structure of CAP in each

158

Member State – i.e. how the Member States are using the flexibilities allowed under the EU rules. Moreover, specific topical studies are also planned to the three general objectives208:

viable food production

balanced territorial development

sustainable management of natural resources and climate action Monitoring and evaluation Chapter II of the 1305/2013 Regulation requires monitoring of RDP implementation at the Member States level according to target indicators (Art 72). An annual implementation report must then be submitted by the MS to the Commission (Art 75). Chapter III then requires evaluation of the RDP implementation, both ex-ante and ex-post (Art 76-78). Funding The CAP is a funding mechanism in itself. The Pillar 1 is fully financed by the EU whereas Pillar 2 is a co-financing policy with the Member States. (See the text on funds in Section 1). 8. Assessment of environmental status The common monitoring and evaluation framework of the CAP (CMEF) impact indicators for environment, as listed in the Implementing Regulation for CMEF, include209210211:

Emissions from agriculture

Farmland bird index

High nature value (HNV) farming

Water abstraction in agriculture

Water quality

Soil organic matter in arable land

Soil erosion by water 9. Reporting units - what are the specific transposition requirements For Pillar 2, the reporting for RDPs is done at Programme level (so usually the NUTS2 level) and at Member States level. The ex-post evaluations are done for each RDP. Syntheses reports for ex-post evaluations are also available. CAP governance has not been a focus of any recent Commission-funded studies, including not governance setting for reporting. There is no single collection point for data at EU level; DG Agriculture receives all the information about RDPs. The RDPs are available through their website: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rural-development-2014-2020/country-files/index_en.htm. Timelines In the second half of the previous programming period, a reform / structure proposal is published together with an impact assessment, which then goes through political negotiations before legislative acts are adopted212. For the 2014 – 2020 period, the Commission published the Communication "The CAP towards 2020: Meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges of the future" in 2010213 which outlines policy options for the 2014 – 2020 period, and providing the basis for a public consultation process.

208

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/calls-for-tender/index_en.htm 209

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0834&from=en 210

https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwio2LiE6tvJAhVK3SwKHajZBmIQFgggMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fesrr.uniag.sk%2Ftl_files%2Ffesrr%2Fdocuments%2FIMRD%2FIMRD%2520CS%25202015%2F2_IMRD15_M%26E%2520of%2520CAP%252014-20.pptx&usg=AFQjCNHc6jjyg2V9ok1kPMB_uRkfeqyVWQ&sig2=uL6fsahehvKH5EzirajPfw&cad=rja 211

Source about the change with the 2014-2020 programming period under the Horizontal Regulation 1306/2013: http://capreform.eu/the-intervention-logic-of-the-cap/ 212

See http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/policy-perspectives/impact-assessment/index_en.htm 213


http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rural-development-2014-2020/country-files/index_en.htm


http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0834&from=en

http://capreform.eu/the-intervention-logic-of-the-cap/

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/policy-perspectives/impact-assessment/index_en.htm


159

The stakeholder inputs from this consultation were integrated in the impact assessment which accompanied the legislative proposals published in October 2011214. Following these proposals, the Parliament and Council were both involved in the negotiations process to agree on the final set of legislative documents, the so called co-decision process, which extended over nearly two years. The political agreement was reached in June 2013, and the formal legislative documents, four basic Regulations, were formally adopted by the Commission in December 2013. Following this, the Commission prepares implementing rules, or delegated acts, for several aspects of the policy, or also working documents to guide the implementation of instruments (for example, see http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/enrd-static/policy-in-action/cap-towards-2020/rdp-programming-2014-2020/legislation-and-guideline/en/legislation-and-guideline_en.html). MS began submitting their RDPs to the COM mostly in 2014; after which the RDPs go through inter-institutional consultation and possibly several rounds of revisions and resubmission. Useful website for RDPs: http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/en/policy-in-action/cap-towards-2020/rdp-programming-2014-2020.

214


http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/en/policy-in-action/cap-towards-2020/rdp-programming-2014-2020

http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/en/policy-in-action/cap-towards-2020/rdp-programming-2014-2020


160

17 Structural Funds and Cohesion Policy – the Cohesion Fund

1. Name of Policy and brief summary of implementation The Structural and Cohesion policy of the EU is based on integration and harmonious development of the Member States through economic and social cohesion215, to which various funds contribute, including the European Social Fund (ESF), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD – formerly the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)), the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF – formerly the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance).216

ESF – Beginning with the treaty establishing the European Economic Community in 1957, the ESF has been amended over the years to its current state as of 2013 (Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013). It contributes to cohesion policy within the EU by building employment and education opportunities across the MS, with a minimum share of 23.1% of the cohesion policy budget dedicated to the ESF.217

EAFRD – The EAGGF, originally adopted in 1964, was replaced by the EAFRD and the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) in 2007 as the funding mechanisms of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

ERDF – The ERDF was established in 1975 as the “central instrument for the common regional policy” and the new 2014-2020 regulation was passed in 2013 (Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013) to promote jobs and growth and territorial cooperation to strive toward decreasing varying levels of development between EU regions.218

EMFF – The EMFF took effect in January 2014 as the fisheries fund 2014-2020, replacing the European Fisheries Fund of 2006 (for the period 2007-2013). Before that the governing regulation was the FIFG of 1999, which developed out of the 1976 regulation that created a common structural policy for the fishing industry, 1983 (establishing a Community system for the conservation and management of fishery resources) and 1992 (establishing a Community system of fisheries and aquaculture) regulations.219

Cohesion Fund – The Cohesion policy’s aim of decreasing differences between the EU’s regional economic development was included in the Single European Act of 1987. The Cohesion Fund (current version Regulation (EU) No 1300/2013)220 was developed in 1994 and is intended to contribute to environmental and transport infrastructure development between the EU regions by promoting economic and

215

Stemming from the Treaty of Rome. See Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), stating “In order to promote its overall harmonious development, the Union shall develop and pursue its actions leading to the strengthening of its economic, social and territorial cohesion. In particular, the Union shall aim at reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions. Among the regions concerned, particular attention shall be paid to rural areas, areas affected by industrial transition, and regions which suffer from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps such as the northernmost regions with very low population density and island, cross-border and mountain regions.” 216

European Commission, Regional Policy, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index.cfm/en/information/legislation/regulations/; Europa (2005) Structural policy reform, http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/regional_policy/provisions_and_instruments/l60013_en.htm#. 217

Eur-Lex, European Social Fund 2014-2020, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LSU/?uri=CELEX:32013R1304. 218

Agra CEAS Consulting (2005) Synthesis of Rural Development Mid-Term Evaluation Lot 11 EAGGF-Guidance. Final Report to the European Commission. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/rdmidterm/lot2/fulltext.pdf. 219

Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture. 220


http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index.cfm/en/information/legislation/regulations/


161

social cohesion and sustainable development.221 It “is aimed at Member States whose Gross National Income (GNI) per inhabitant is less than 90 % of the EU average”.222

The ‘Structural Funds’ also underwent a reform in 1988, which led to integration of the different structural policy instruments into “regionally targeted and co-ordinated programmes with the overall aim of enhancing economic and social cohesion”223 and then another reform in 1999 which aimed to increase “the concentration of assistance, but…move[] towards the simplification and decentralisation of [the funds’] management”.224 The EAFRD information will be included under the CAP policy inventory as it constitutes Pillar 2 of the CAP. As one of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), it must abide by an EU regulation laying down common provisions for the structural and cohesion funds’ implementation and a joint Commission implementing regulation as well for model operational and cooperation programmes.225 Additionally, the EMFF will not be assessed below due to its primary focus on marine areas and fisheries resources with only very limited relevance to soil, namely integrated coastal zone management for reduced impacts on marine waters (building the ‘land-sea’ connection) and landscape management for environmental services around aquaculture sites which may be supported. There are no direct aims, targets, impacts, or mandatory/voluntary mechanisms which relate to soil as well as very few indirect, so this assessment will only include the more relevant policies of ESF, ERDF, and Cohesion. Entry into force Cohesion Fund: Signed on 17 December 2013, entered into force one day following publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, which was on 20 December 2013. Thus, entry into force was on 21 December 2013. 2. Policy Field (water, agriculture, biodiversity, energy) Cohesion Fund – environment, transport infrastructure, energy, “energy efficiency, use of renewable energy, developing rail transport, supporting intermodality, strengthening public transport, etc.”226 Integration/coordination issues with other related pieces of legislation The Cohesion Fund Regulation (EU) No 1300/2013 cites the following legal instruments related to environmental issues and funds: Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 laying down common and general provisions on different Communities funds such as ERDF, ESF, CF, EAFRD etc. (Common Provisions Regulation), Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme

221

European Commission, Regional Policy: Cohesion Fund, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index.cfm/en/funding/cohesion-fund/. 222

Ibid. 223

Agra CEAS Consulting, supra note 4. 224

Europa, General provisions on the Structural Funds, http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/regional_policy/provisions_and_instruments/l60014_en.htm. 225

Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 288/2014 of 25 February 2014 laying down rules pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund with regard to the model for operational programmes under the Investment for growth and jobs goal and pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1299/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on specific provisions for the support from the European Regional Development Fund to the European territorial cooperation goal with regard to the model for cooperation programmes under the European territorial cooperation goal. 226

European Commission, Regional Policy: Cohesion Fund, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index.cfm/en/funding/cohesion-fund/.

162

for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network.227 3. Aims of the policy and its relevance to soil protection Cohesion Fund Objectives: Aimed at “strengthening the economic, social and territorial cohesion of the Union in the interests of promoting sustainable development”.228 It specifically targets the following Member States for environmental and transportation infrastructure development: BG, CZ, EL, ES, HR, CY, LV, LT, HU, MT, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK. The Cohesion Fund supports some of the same investment priorities within the thematic objectives outlined above for the ERDF:

supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors;

promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management;

preserving and protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency; and

promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures.

Principles included in the legal text Cohesion Fund

Polluter pays (applying even if measures based on Article 192(1) TFEU involve costs disproportionate for the MS public authorities and Cohesion Fund support is provided according to TFEU Article 192(5))

Subsidiarity

Proportionality Spatial coverage and management unit: For the 2014-2020 programming period, the Cohesion Fund focuses on Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. The Cohesion Fund “is now subject to the same rules of programming, management and monitoring as the ERDF and ESF through the Common Provisions Regulation.”229 The managing or certifying authority established with the Member States should be responsible in conjunction with intermediate bodies, as outlined in Art. 2(18) of Regulation 1303/2013 (Common Provisions Regulation), which is a “public or private body which acts under the responsibility of a managing or certifying authority, or which carries out duties on behalf of such an authority, in relation to beneficiaries implementing operations”. 4. Relevance to soil protection Cohesion Fund Regulation explicitly mentions soil protection and restoration in the investment priorities (Art.4(c)iii). Moreover, Art.4(c)iv is indirectly relevant to soil protection. However, some investments could potentially also be damaging to soil, if sustainability criteria are not considered (see a detailed explanation below in Section 7). 5. Soil-focused aims and objectives

Direct: The Cohesion Fund Regulation sets out investment priorities which link to the CPR thematic objectives. One investment priority is: “protecting and restoring biodiversity and soil and promoting ecosystem services, including through Natura 2000, and green infrastructure” (Art. 4(c)iii).

Indirect: Same as the ERDF, soil protection could indirectly result from the provision “taking action to improve the urban environment, to revitalise cities, regenerate and

227

“Instruments cited” under the Cohesion Fund Regulation, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LKD/?uri=CELEX:32013R1300&qid=1450266148029 228

Regulation (EU) No 1300/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the Cohesion Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006, Article 1. 229

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/cohesion-fund/

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LKD/?uri=CELEX:32013R1300&qid=1450266148029

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LKD/?uri=CELEX:32013R1300&qid=1450266148029

163

decontaminate brownfield sites (including conversion areas), reduce air pollution and promote noise-reduction measures” (Art. 4(c)iv).

Soil threats addressed by the Cohesion Fund Directly: Soil threats are not directly mentioned through Cohesion Fund investments, but

protecting and restoring soil is mentioned. Indirectly: The soil threats of sealing and contamination are indirectly addressed by the

investment priorities indicated above (improving the urban environment, decontaminating brownfield sites, and reducing air pollution). As a brief explanation, air pollution can lead to atmospheric deposition of chemicals onto land and result in contamination.

6. Soil-focused targets and/or expected impacts addressed by the Cohesion Fund



None None Same indicators as the ERDF above – rehabilitated land in hectares and habitat areas for conservation, which indirectly aim at improving or protecting the state of soil as a component of land and terrestrial environmental habitats.

7. Mandatory requirements and voluntary options for Member States (types of management measures) For the various Structural and Cohesion funds, the Member States had to submit a Partnership Agreement (PA) outlining the “selected thematic objectives (and for each a summary of the main results expected from each of the European Structural and Investment Funds ‐ ESI), the indicative allocation of support by the EU (by thematic objective at national

level for each of the ESI Funds), as well as the total indicative amount of support envisaged for climate change objectives”.230 Following acceptance of the PAs, operational programmes had to be submitted within three months and they could be across multiple funds or by region, etc. Cohesion Fund The Cohesion Fund Regulation requires to support a number of investment priorities, one of which explicitly mentions soil protection and restoration - (Art.4(c)iii). Another priority - Art.4(c)iv – can have an indirect impact on soil. (See a detailed explanation above in Section 5). Furthermore, one of the output indicators in the Cohesion Fund Regulation Annex I environment section is for land rehabilitation though, as well as another for the number of people benefiting from flood protection measures. However, some investments could potentially also be damaging to soil. As for example, the Cohesion Fund invests into environment and transport infrastructure projects. If environmental and transportation development is conducted sustainably, soil resources could be less at-risk of sealing, contamination, erosion, loss of SOM, los of biodiversity, etc. For example, the investment priority of the Cohesion Fund Regulation (Art. 4(d)i,ii,iii) is to “promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures by:

i. supporting a multimodal Single European Transport Area by investing in the TEN-T; ii. developing and improving environmentally-friendly (including low-noise) and low-

carbon transport systems, including inland waterways and maritime transport, ports,

230

Ionescu, S.S. (2015) Partnership Agreements within Cohesion Policy 2014-2020. European Parliamentary Research Service, http://epthinktank.eu/2015/02/11/partnership-agreements-within-cohesion-policy-2014-2020/.

http://epthinktank.eu/2015/02/11/partnership-agreements-within-cohesion-policy-2014-2020/

164

multimodal links and airport infrastructure, in order to promote sustainable regional and local mobility;

iii. developing and rehabilitating comprehensive, high quality and interoperable railway systems, and promoting noise-reduction measures;”231

The investments should consider environmental standards for transport systems, though these focus only noise and carbon reduction measures; soil protection issues or soil threats (such as soil sealing, soil contamination and soil erosion would be directly relevant in this case) are not considered. Funding The Cohesion Fund is a fund itself, but there are provisions in the Common Provisions Regulation (1303/2013) that allow for the use of financial instruments to implement the various ESI Funds (see Title IV). “The Cohesion Fund allocates a total of € 63.4 billion to activities under the following categories:

trans-European transport networks, notably priority projects of European interest as identified by the EU. The Cohesion Fund will support infrastructure projects under the Connecting Europe Facility;

environment: here, the Cohesion Fund can also support projects related to energy or transport, as long as they clearly benefit the environment in terms of energy efficiency, use of renewable energy, developing rail transport, supporting intermodality, strengthening public transport, etc.

The financial assistance of the Cohesion Fund can be suspended by a Council decision (taken by qualified majority) if a Member State shows excessive public deficit and if it has not resolved the situation or has not taken the appropriate action to do so.”232 8. Assessment of environmental status The Cohesion Fund Regulation establishes common output indicators in Article 5 and Annex I, for which Environment has its own category with indicators for solid waste, water supply, wastewater treatment, risk prevention and management, land rehabilitation, and nature and biodiversity. For example, with land rehabilitation, the output indicator unit is hectares of total surface area of land rehabilitated. There are ex-ante conditionalities within the Fund regulations and Part II of Annex XI of the 1303/2013 Common Provisions Regulation that the programmes designed to implement the Structural and Investment Funds and the Partnership Agreement established by the MS must meet.233 The Commission “Guidance Document for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Cohesion Fund and the ERDF” provides in the Annex a list of common indicators, one of which is directly related to ‘land’. It is Land Rehabilitation indicator (expressed as a total surface area of rehabilitated land) that is defined as a “Surface of remediated or regenerated contaminated or derelict land made available for economic (except non-eligible, e.g. agriculture or forestry) or community activities”.234 “Common indicators are designed to aggregate information in a Member State and across Member States. They reflect frequently used investments of the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund. Common indicators reflect the actions, not the objectives of a programme or of regional policy. ... Member States shall use indicators from the list of common indicators whenever appropriate ... and ... supported ... by ... a programme.” 9. Reporting units - what are the specific transposition requirements There are no specific provisions within the Cohesion Fund Regulation that require separate reporting. However, the general principles of the Common Provisions Regulation provide for

231

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R1300 232

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/cohesion-fund/ 233

Regulation 1303/2013, Article 19. 234

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/2014/working/wd_2014_en.pdf


http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/2014/working/wd_2014_en.pdf

165

monitoring, reporting and evaluation of the ESI funds, which includes the Cohesion Fund (Article 4 of 1303/2013). Progress reports throughout preparation and implementation of the various programmes created for the ESI Funds are required to the Commission under Articles 5 and 52 of the Common Provisions Regulation as well. Based on these reports, the Commission must then annually report to the EP and the Council about implementation of the ESI Funds according to Article 5. The Member States are also required to fulfil the ex-ante conditionalities required for the programmes implementing the ESI Funds before 31 December 2016 and must report on their fulfilment in the annual implementation report for 2017 (Article 50(4)) or the progress report required under Article 52(2). Title V of the Common Provisions Regulation contains the full set of rules for Monitoring and Evaluation of the ESI Funds. 16. Examples of implementation approaches in case study areas The European Parliament issued the following document as an assessment of the added value and effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy 2014-2020: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/documents/regi/dv/implementationeffectivenescp_/implementationeffectivenescp_en.pdf. Additionally, the Commission has provided a page with multiple analyses of the ERDF and Cohesion policies from the 2007-2013 period: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/evaluations/ec/2007-2013/#1.

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/evaluations/ec/2007-2013/#1

166

18 Structural Funds and Cohesion Policy – the European Social Fund


ESF – Beginning with the treaty establishing the European Economic Community in 1957, the ESF has been amended over the years to its current state as of 2013 (Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013)237. It contributes to cohesion policy within the EU by building employment and education opportunities across the MS, with a minimum share of 23.1% of the cohesion policy budget dedicated to the ESF.238


ERDF – The ERDF was established in 1975 as the “central instrument for the common regional policy” and the new 2014-2020 regulation was passed in 2013 (Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013) to promote jobs and growth and territorial cooperation to strive toward decreasing varying levels of development between EU regions.239


Cohesion Fund – The Cohesion policy’s aim of decreasing differences between the EU’s regional economic development was included in the Single European Act of 1987. The Cohesion Fund (current version Regulation (EU) No 1300/2013) was developed in 1994 and is intended to contribute to environmental and transport infrastructure development between the EU regions by promoting economic and

235






Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture.



167


The ‘Structural Funds’ also underwent a reform in 1988, which led to integration of the different structural policy instruments into “regionally targeted and co-ordinated programmes with the overall aim of enhancing economic and social cohesion”243 and then another reform in 1999 which aimed to increase “the concentration of assistance, but…move[] towards the simplification and decentralisation of [the funds’] management”.244 The EAFRD information will be included under the CAP policy inventory as it constitutes Pillar 2 of the CAP. As one of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), it must abide by an EU regulation laying down common provisions for the structural and cohesion funds’ implementation and a joint Commission implementing regulation as well for model operational and cooperation programmes.245 Additionally, the EMFF will not be assessed below due to its primary focus on marine areas and fisheries resources with only very limited relevance to soil, namely integrated coastal zone management for reduced impacts on marine waters (building the ‘land-sea’ connection) and landscape management for environmental services around aquaculture sites which may be supported. There are no direct aims, targets, impacts, or mandatory/voluntary mechanisms which relate to soil as well as very few indirect, so this assessment will only include the more relevant policies of ESF, ERDF, and Cohesion. Entry into force ESF Regulation: Signed on 17 December 2013, entered into force one day following publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, which was on 20 December 2013. Thus, entry into force was on 21 December 2013. 2. Policy Field (water, agriculture, biodiversity, energy) ESF – employment and educational development Integration/coordination issues with other related pieces of legislation ESF Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 cites the following legal instruments: Council Recommendation of 22 April 2013 on establishing a Youth Guarantee on Youth Guarantee Schemes and Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013 on the ERDF.246 No any of them is related to environmental issues.

241


Ibid. 243




“Instruments cited” under the European Social Fund Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LKD/?uri=CELEX:32013R1304

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LKD/?uri=CELEX:32013R1304


168

3. Aims of the policy and its relevance to soil protection ESF Objectives: Aimed to “promote high levels of employment and job quality, improve access to the labour market, support the geographical and occupational mobility of workers and facilitate their adaptation to industrial change and to changes in production systems needed for sustainable developments, encourage a high level of education and training for all and support the transition between education and employment for young people, combat poverty, enhance social inclusion, and promote gender equality, non-discrimination and equal opportunities, thereby contributing to the priorities of the Union as regards strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion”.247 ”For the 2014-2020 period, the ESF will focus on four of the cohesion policy's thematic objectives:

promoting employment and supporting labour mobility;

promoting social inclusion and combating poverty;

investing in education, skills and lifelong learning; and

enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration. In addition, 20 % of ESF investments will be committed to activities improving social inclusion and combating poverty. This is known as thematic concentration.”248 Principles included in the legal text ESF

Proportionality (with regards to transnational cooperation)

Equal opportunities for all

Non-discrimination Spatial coverage and management unit: Covers all EU regions.249 The management unit is the MS managing authority (Articles 5, 14, 19). 4. Relevance to soil protection The ESF is indirectly relevant to soil protection through the focus on education and employment under the objective below (supporting low-carbon, climate-resilient and a environmentally sustainable economy). 5. Soil-focused aims and objectives

Direct: No direct soil-focused aims and objectives. Indirect: Investment under the ESF is intended to contribute to the thematic objectives

under the 1303/2013 Common Provision Regulation, which have been integrated into the ESF objectives. One of the objectives is: “Supporting the shift towards a low-carbon, climate-resilient, resource-efficient and environmentally sustainable economy, through the improvement of education and training systems necessary for the adaptation of skills and qualifications, the up-skilling of the labour force, and the creation of new jobs in sectors related to the environment and energy”.250 This could indirectly have a soil focus through improved education and training for climate-resilient and resource-efficient soil management. However, there is the potential that negative soil effects could result from increased jobs in and potential expansion of the energy sector, e.g., soil sealing.

247

Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Social Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006. 248

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/social-fund/ 249

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/social-fund/ 250

ESF Regulation, Article 3(2)(a).

169

Soil threats addressed by the ESF Directly: Soil threats are not directly addressed by the measures in the ESF. Indirectly: Soil treats could be indirectly addresses by the measures in the ESF - through

the focus on education and employment under the objective above (supporting low-carbon, climate-resilient and a environmentally sustainable economy).

6. Soil-focused targets and/or expected impacts ESF



None None None

7. Mandatory requirements and voluntary options for Member States (types of management measures) For the various Structural and Cohesion funds, the Member States had to submit a Partnership Agreement (PA) outlining the “selected thematic objectives (and for each a summary of the main results expected from each of the European Structural and Investment Funds ‐ ESI), the indicative allocation of support by the EU (by thematic objective at national

level for each of the ESI Funds), as well as the total indicative amount of support envisaged for climate change objectives”.251 Following acceptance of the PAs, operational programmes had to be submitted within three months and they could be across multiple funds or by region, etc. ESF There are no explicit soil-relevant requirements. Member States must create operational programmes which correspond with the minimum requirements for funding under Article 4 for consistency and thematic concentrations. They may also include strategies with integrated actions to address environmental issues affecting urban areas and support sustainable urban development, which may reduce the amount of urban sprawl and soil sealing that occurs. Funding The ESF is a fund. 8. Assessment of environmental status The policy is not specific to the environment, so there is no assessment of environmental status. Rather, the indicators highlighted in Article 5 and provided in Annex I are specific to education and employment. 9. Reporting units - what are the specific transposition requirements Article 5 requires that all common output and result indicators in Annex I be reported for all investment priorities. The result indicators in Annex II are to be reported as well for operations supported under the investment priority in Article 3(1)(a)(ii) on Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) implementation. Article 19 is focused on monitoring and evaluation, requiring annual implementation reports. Annex I presents the Common output and result indicators for ESF investments, which should be provided in the annual implementation reports required under Article 50(1) and (2) and Article 111(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013. Other data on indicators for participants is provided in annual implementation reports under Article 50(4) of Regulation 1303/2013. Annex II provides for Result indicators for the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) that are also to be reported annually under Article 50(1) and (2) of Regulation 1303/2013 as well as the report for April 2015 under Article 19 of the ESF. “All data shall be broken down by gender”.

251

Ionescu, S.S. (2015) Partnership Agreements within Cohesion Policy 2014-2020. European Parliamentary Research Service, http://epthinktank.eu/2015/02/11/partnership-agreements-within-cohesion-policy-2014-2020/.

170

10. Examples of implementation approaches case study areas The Final Synthesis Report on the main ESF achievements during 2007-2013 was prepared by the ESF Expert Evaluation Network (26/03/2014).252 “This overall synthesis report of the main ESF achievements over the 2007-2013 programming period is based on a review of Annual Implementation Reports delivered by Member States (to extract statistical and other key data and information) and on evidence from evaluations carried out in the respective countries to create a country report organised around 6 policy fields - increasing adaptability, enhancing access to employment, reinforcing social inclusion, enhancing investment in human capital, promoting partnerships and strengthening institutional capacity. Drawing on the evidence presented in these country reports, the overall synthesis report provides a picture of what has been achieved by the ESF. The results reported are generally based on data and evaluations covering the period 2007 to end 2012.”253

252

http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=3&langId=en 253

http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=3&langId=en



171

19 Structural Funds and Cohesion Policy – ERDF


ESF – Beginning with the treaty establishing the European Economic Community in 1957, the ESF has been amended over the years to its current state as of 2013 (Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013). It contributes to cohesion policy within the EU by building employment and education opportunities across the MS, with a minimum share of 23.1% of the cohesion policy budget dedicated to the ESF.256


ERDF – The ERDF was established in 1975 as the “central instrument for the common regional policy” and the new 2014-2020 regulation was passed in 2013 (Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013)257 to promote jobs and growth and territorial cooperation to strive toward decreasing varying levels of development between EU regions.258


Cohesion Fund – The Cohesion policy’s aim of decreasing differences between the EU’s regional economic development was included in the Single European Act of 1987. The Cohesion Fund (current version Regulation (EU) No 1300/2013) was developed in 1994 and is intended to contribute to environmental and transport infrastructure development between the EU regions by promoting economic and

254






Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture.



172


The ‘Structural Funds’ also underwent a reform in 1988, which led to integration of the different structural policy instruments into “regionally targeted and co-ordinated programmes with the overall aim of enhancing economic and social cohesion”262 and then another reform in 1999 which aimed to increase “the concentration of assistance, but…move [] towards the simplification and decentralisation of [the funds’] management”.263 The EAFRD information will be included under the CAP policy inventory as it constitutes Pillar 2 of the CAP. As one of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), it must abide by an EU regulation laying down common provisions for the structural and cohesion funds’ implementation and a joint Commission implementing regulation as well for model operational and cooperation programmes.264 Additionally, the EMFF will not be assessed below due to its primary focus on marine areas and fisheries resources with only very limited relevance to soil, namely integrated coastal zone management for reduced impacts on marine waters (building the ‘land-sea’ connection) and landscape management for environmental services around aquaculture sites which may be supported. There are no direct aims, targets, impacts, or mandatory/voluntary mechanisms which relate to soil as well as very few indirect, so this assessment will only include the more relevant policies of ESF, ERDF, and Cohesion. Entry into force ERDF Regulation: Signed on 17 December 2013, entered into force one day following publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, which was on 20 December 2013. Thus, entry into force 21 was on December 2013. An exception: “Article 12(6) shall apply with effect from 1 January 2014.” 2. Policy Field (water, agriculture, biodiversity, energy) ERDF – innovation, research, technology (information and communications technology (ICT)), SMEs, infrastructure investments (“energy, environment, transport, and ICT, but also in social, health and educational infrastructure”265), and low-carbon development. Integration/coordination issues with other related pieces of legislation The ERDF Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013 cites the following legal instruments related to environmental issues and funds: Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 laying down common and

260


Ibid. 262




Eur-Lex, European Regional Development Fund (2014-2020), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1425051353082&uri=URISERV:2602_3.

173

general provisions on different Communities funds such as ERDF, ESF, CF, EAFRD etc. (Common Provisions Regulation), the ESF Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013, Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, the Cohesion Fund Regulation (EU) No 1300/2013.266 3. Aims of the policy and its relevance to soil protection ERDF Objectives: Aims to “contribute to the financing of support which aims to reinforce economic, social and territorial cohesion by redressing the main regional imbalances in the Union through the sustainable development and structural adjustment of regional economies, including the conversion of declining industrial regions and regions whose development is lagging behind”.267 There are Thematic Objectives set out in the Common Provisions Regulation (EU, 1303/2013) applicable to the Structural Funds which support the investment priorities. They include:

strengthening research, technological development and innovation;

enhancing access to, and use and quality of, ICT;

enhancing the competitiveness of SMEs;

supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors;

promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management;

preserving and protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency;

promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures;

promoting sustainable and quality employment and supporting labour mobility;

promoting social inclusion, combating poverty and any discrimination;

investing in education, training and vocational training for skills and lifelong learning by developing education and training infrastructure; and

enhancing institutional capacity of public authorities and stakeholders and efficient public administration.

“The ERDF focuses its investments on several key priority areas. This is known as 'thematic concentration':

innovation and research;

digital agenda;

support for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); and

low-carbon economy. The ERDF resources allocated to these priorities will depend on the category of region:

in more developed regions, at least 80 % of funds must focus on at least two of these priorities;

in transition regions, this focus is for 60 % of the funds;

this is 50 % in less developed regions. Furthermore, some ERDF resources must be channelled specifically towards low-carbon economy projects:

More developed regions: 20%;

Transition regions: 15%; and

Less developed regions: 12%.”268

266

“Instruments cited” under the ERDF Regulation, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LKD/?uri=CELEX:32013R1301 267

Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Regional Development Fund and on specific provisions concerning the Investment for growth and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006. 268

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/erdf/



http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/erdf/

174

Principles included in the legal text ERDF

Subsidiarity

Proportionality Spatial coverage and management unit: Covers the whole EU territory, but the allocations differ based on the development level of the region (more developed, transition, and less developed). The Member State managing authorities as well as urban authorities (e.g., with whom consultation must take place under Article 7(5)) represent the management units. 4. Relevance to soil protection The ERDF Regulation explicitly mentions soil protection, restoration and promotion of (soil) resource efficiency in the investment priorities (Art. 5(6)d and f). Moreover, (Art. 5(6)e) and (Art. 5(5)a) may indirectly promote soil protection through preserving and protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency. However, some investments could potentially also be damaging to soil, if sustainability criteria are not considered (see a detailed explanation below in Section 7). 5. Soil-focused aims and objectives

Direct: Two provisions of the ERDF Regulations are directly relevant to soil protection under the thematic objective of preserving and protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency and can be supported through the ERDF investments: d) “protecting and restoring biodiversity and soil and promoting ecosystem services, including through Natura 2000, and green infrastructure” and f) “promoting innovative technologies to improve environmental protection and resource efficiency in the waste sector, water sector and with regard to soil, or to reduce air pollution” (Art. 5(6)).

Another provision which could result in soil protection under the thematic objective of preserving and protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency is “taking action to improve the urban environment, to revitalise cities, regenerate and decontaminate brownfield sites (including conversion areas), reduce air pollution and promote noise-reduction measures” (Art. 5(6)e). Decontaminating brownfield sites could lead to less toxic substances in the soil (after it has formerly been contaminated), and reduced air pollution (e.g., mercury, ammonia) could potentially less atmospheric deposition onto soils (resulting in contamination).

Indirect: The objective of “climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management” may be accomplished by “supporting investment for adaptation to climate change, including ecosystem-based approaches” (Art. 5(5)a), which may indirectly benefit soil protection through increased sustainable land management practices that support adaptation (e.g., cover crops).

Soil threats addressed by the ERDF Directly: The soil threats of contamination and sealing are addressed by the investment

priority objectives outlined above in the ERDF. Indirectly: The threat of soil sealing is indirectly addressed through the provisions for

sustainable urban development (Articles 7-9), thereby potentially leading to less urban sprawl (paving over soils to convert to residential, infrastructure, commercial, etc). Article 10 may also indirectly address soil erosion and landslides in areas with natural handicaps, like mountainous areas, since agricultural production on steeply sloping land could be identified as a specific difficulty there and terracing installation and maintenance could be financed. Land abandonment leading to severe erosion can potentially be attributed to low employment/business opportunities in remote areas, so innovative financing could support new opportunities to maintain rural populations. Potentially some investments into regional areas could contribute to soil sealing, if they do not consider sustainability criteria.

175

6. Soil-focused targets and/or expected impacts ERDF




None None In Annex I, “Total surface area of rehabilitated land” in hectares is one of the “Common Output Indicators for ERDF Support under the Investment for Growth and Jobs Goal (Article 6)” as well as “Surface area of habitats supported in order to attain a better conservation status”.269 Both indicators are indirectly aimed at or measuring the extent to which soil (as a component of land and habitats) is either rehabilitated (so reducing degradation from one or multiple soil threats, e.g., loss of SOM and/or biodiversity) or conserved as habitats (e.g., preventing soil contamination, sealing, erosion from poor agricultural land management).

7. Mandatory requirements and voluntary options for Member States (types of management measures) For the various structural and cohesion funds, the Member States had to submit a Partnership Agreement (PA) outlining the “selected thematic objectives (and for each a summary of the main results expected from each of the European Structural and Investment Funds ‐ ESI), the indicative allocation of support by the EU (by thematic objective at national

level for each of the ESI Funds), as well as the total indicative amount of support envisaged for climate change objectives”.270 Following acceptance of the PAs, operational programmes had to be submitted within three months and they could be across multiple funds or by region, etc. ERDF The ERDF Regulation requires to support a number of investment priorities, the two of which explicitly mentions soil protection, restoration and promotion of (soil) resource efficiency - (Art. 5(6)d and f). Another two priorities - (Art. 5(6)e) and (Art. 5(5)a) – can have an indirect impact on soil. (See a detailed explanation above in Section 5). Some investments however could potentially also be damaging to soil. Member States must utilise the funds received from the ERDF according to percentage allocations to different thematic objectives based on the development status of the region (more developed, in transition, and less developed regions).271 The rules state that the fund shall support infrastructure development, which if conducted without appropriate planning and unsustainably, soil resources could actually be threatened with sealing, contamination, and erosion from construction. Member States must dedicate a certain amount of funds allocated at the national level to sustainable urban development and include principles in their Partnership Agreements for selection of urban areas where integrated actions for sustainable urban development should be implemented272, which may help decrease the risk from the above soil threats.

269

ERDF Regulation, Annex I. 270

Ionescu, S.S. (2015) Partnership Agreements within Cohesion Policy 2014-2020. European Parliamentary Research Service, http://epthinktank.eu/2015/02/11/partnership-agreements-within-cohesion-policy-2014-2020/. 271

ERDF Regulation, Article 4. 272

ERDF Regulation, Article 7.

http://epthinktank.eu/2015/02/11/partnership-agreements-within-cohesion-policy-2014-2020/

176

Funding The ERDF is a fund itself. 8. Assessment of environmental status Infrastructure investment to provide basic services to people for environment among other areas is within the scope of the ERDF support (Article 3). “Preserving and protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency is one of ERDF’s investment priorities in terms of investing in the waste sector, water sector, urban environment improvement, regenerating brownfield sites, innovative technology promotion to improve environmental protection (specifically with regards to soil) (Article 5(6)). Article 7 also requires the ERDF to support sustainable urban development through strategies setting out integrated actions to tackle environmental problems in urban areas (among other things) within its operational programmes. Annex I has the common output indicators that include a section on Environment, regarding solid waste, water supply, wastewater treatment, risk prevention and management, land rehabilitation, nature and biodiversity. 9. Reporting units - what are the specific transposition requirements There is no reporting requirement under the ERDF. 11. Examples of implementation approaches case study areas There is no information on examples of implementation approaches under the ERDF on http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/erdf/.

177

20 LIFE Programme

1. Name of Policy and brief summary of implementation The LIFE programme is the EU’s funding instrument for the environment and climate action. “The general objective of LIFE is to contribute to the implementation, updating and development of EU environmental and climate policy and legislation by co-financing projects with European added value.”273 LIFE I ran from 1992-1995 and furthered many different objectives: 1) promotion of sustainable development and environmental quality (40% of the budget), 2) promotion of habitats and nature (45% of the budget), 3) administrative structures and environmental services (5% of the budget), education, training and information (5% of the budget), and third-country assistance (5% of the budget).274 Projects were selected to receive partial (for income-generating investments) or full (technical assistance measures) funding and focused on different priorities each year (e.g., projects related to industries like tanneries, textiles, etc.). In 1996, LIFE II started with the amending Regulation (EC) No 1404/96 and ran until 1999, and it included three categories – “LIFE-Nature, LIFE-Environment and LIFE-Third Countries”.275 Nature conservation and implementation of EU environmental policy and legislation each received 46% of the budget and third country assistance received 5% of the budget. Three percent was used for technical assistance measures. LIFE-Environment aimed to increase innovation and policy implementation in a broad array of environmental areas, and this category had formal guidelines according to the regulation. This was a change from the LIFE I programming period.276 LIFE-Nature, which aimed to implement the Birds and Habitats Directive (Natura 2000 network), involved selection of projects targeting maintenance and/or restoration of habitats and species in special protection areas or sites of EU importance. LIFE III ran from 2000-2006 under Regulation (EC) 1655/2000 (extended from 2004 with Regulation (EC) No 1682/2004) and moved toward encouraging more cooperative projects between Member States and sharing of experiences. LIFE+ then entered into force for the period 2007-2013 through Regulation (EC) No 614/2007. LIFE+ Nature & Biodiversity continued with the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives as well as “co-financed innovative or demonstration projects contributing to the implementation of the objectives of Commission Communication (COM (2006) 216 final) on ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 – and beyond’”.277 LIFE+ Environment Policy & Governance extended the former programme to include monitoring of pressures, and LIFE+ Information & Communication co-financed projects on awareness raising about conservation issues and forest fire prevention training. Now, the LIFE 2014-2020 programme was adopted under Regulation (EC) No 1293/2013278, which created the Environment and Climate Action sub-programmes. The Environment sub-programme covers “environment and resource efficiency; nature and biodiversity; and environmental governance and information”, and the Climate Action sub-programmes covers “climate change mitigation; climate change adaptation; and climate governance and information”. New types of projects are eligible for funding under this programming period as well (jointly funded integrated projects that cover a large territorial area) and innovative financial instruments for projects.279

273

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/about/ 274

See DG Environment, LIFE Programme, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/about/index.htm#life2014. 275

Ibid. 276

Ibid. 277

Ibid. 278

Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the establishment of a Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 614/2007. (Further: ‘Life Regulation No 1293/2013’). 279

Information on the history of the LIFE programme is available here: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/about/#history.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/about/#history

178

Entry into force Signed on 11 December 2013. Entered into force three days after it was published in the Official Journal of the European Union, which was 20 December 2013, thus on 23 December 2013. Applicable from 1 January 2014. 2. Policy Field (water, agriculture, biodiversity, energy) Biodiversity, environment, climate Integration/coordination issues with other related pieces of legislation The LIFE 2014-2020 regulation provides for “a new category of projects, jointly funded integrated projects, which will operate on a large territorial scale. These projects will aim to implement environmental and climate policy and to better integrate such policy aims into other policy areas.”280 In the evaluation process (described below in the reporting section), there is a requirement to determine what benefit to the conservation status of habitats and species under the Habitats and Birds Directives resulted from LIFE projects. The Life Regulation No 1293/2013 cites the following Directives related to environmental issues and funds: Habitats Directive, WFD, Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the CAP, Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Birds Directive, Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 establishing Horizon 2020 - the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020), Cohesion Fund Regulation, Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 laying down common and general provisions on different Communities funds such as ERDF, ESF, CF, EAFRD etc. (Common Provisions Regulation), Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 on the ESF.281 3. Aims of the policy and its relevance to soil protection Objectives: The LIFE programme is aimed at contributing to sustainable development and implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy, the 7th Union Environmental Action Programme, and other environmental programmes. It aims to contribute to resource efficiency, low carbon and climate resiliency in the economy of the EU, protect and improve environmental quality and halt biodiversity loss.282 Principles included in the legal text

Solidarity and Responsibility (with regard to the provisions for the Commission to allocate funds amongst Member States in accordance with the criteria set out in Annex I; and the responsibility of the EU to preserve the environmental assets (even though) unevenly distributed across the EU)

Transparency and Disclosure of Decisions (applies with regard to development, implementation, assessment, and monitoring of projects)

Subsidiarity and Proportionality (due to the scale and effects of the regulation and objectives that cannot be sufficiently achieved at Member States level)

Spatial coverage and management unit: The LIFE programme covers the entire EU environment, with national allocations of LIFE funding for the different types of project in accordance with the criteria set out in Annex I (for example, population and population density, the total area of the Member States covered in Natura 2000 sites and the proportion of the Member States covered by Natura 2000 sites). The projects selected (in accordance to Article 18) must meet eligibility and award criteria (in accordance to Article 19).

280

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/about/ 281

“Instruments cited” under the Life Regulation, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LKD/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2013.347.01.0185.01.ENG 282

Life Regulation No 1293/2013, Article 3.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LKD/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2013.347.01.0185.01.ENG

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LKD/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2013.347.01.0185.01.ENG

179

4. Relevance to soil protection This is relevant to soil protection because actions which degrade soil biodiversity or soil quality as a component of ecosystems (overall environmental quality) are targeted for prevention and remediation, as well as projects which are low-carbon or aimed at climate resiliency or resource efficiency could include soil protection due to issues such as soil carbon sequestration, flood prevention, water retention for reduced drought impacts, soil erosion prevention, etc. Improvement of EU environmental and climate policy development, implementation and enforcement is also an objective, while also promoting integration of environment and climate into other policies and public and private sector practice. Integrating environmental and climate considerations into policies which are not directly environmental policies helps increase the scope of protection and reduces the amount of regulatory conflicts which might arise between environmental legislative goals and “other” legislation, but this objective could vary in terms of soil relevance due to the more general principles of environment and climate that may or may not focus on soil protection aspects when being integrated into other policies (e.g., better regulation of soil management under building codes to avoid erosion, land use planning that specifically considers soil sealing when developing city zoning and infrastructure, etc.). Environmental and climate governance support is another objective, which includes improving involvement of civil society, NGOs and local actors. This objective could have soil relevance if these actors include soils as a specific aspect of their environmental and climate advocacy. 5. Soil-focused aims and objectives

Direct: the LIFE programme does not mention explicitly soil-focused aims or objectives. Indirect: The objectives under the Environment sub-programme may indirectly result in

soil protection, including the objective “to develop, test and demonstrate policy or management approaches, best practices and solutions … to environmental challenges” which may involve innovative technologies for widespread application and/or those supportive of resource efficiency.283 An environmental challenge which may be addressed under the Environment and Resource Efficiency priority area is soil degradation and innovative technologies can reduce soil impacts (i.e., direct injection equipment for manure). Also, contributing to environmental policy and law development and implementation in the EU under the Nature & Biodiversity priority area as well as furthering implementation of the Natura 2000 network may also indirectly result in the protection of soils as part of ecosystems and containing valuable biodiversity.284 Finally, the Environmental Governance and Information priority area may also indirectly contribute to better soil protection through awareness raising about sustainable consumption and knowledge sharing on successful solutions and best practices.285 The Climate Action sub-programme may also contribute to soil protection indirectly through its priority areas of climate change mitigation, adaptation, and governance and information.286 Mitigation plans may include actions which reduce soil impacts in order to preserve soil carbon sequestration, for example, such as using cover crops / legumes.287 Particularly, the integrated approach highlighted under the adaptation priority area by using ecosystem-based approaches may indirectly result in soil protection due to the natural adaptation functions of soil management practices which increase water infiltration (flood prevention), soil moisture retention (reduced drought impacts), soil structure and cover (reduced erosion), etc.288

283

Life Regulation No 1293/2013, Article 10. 284

Ibid. Article 11. 285




Ibid. Article 15.

180

Soil threats addressed by the LIFE Programme Directly: The LIFE sub-programme on Environment (Article 9) has a priority area for

Environment and Resource Efficiency. The thematic priorities for resource efficiency include soil, particularly activities which contribute to mitigation and compensation of soil sealing and better land use under the Soil Thematic Strategy (Annex III).

Indirectly: The LIFE regulation recital 16 connects the significant role that forests play for environment and climate, specifically mentioning soil as one of the items affected as well as biodiversity, water and climate change mitigation and adaptation. It encourages synergies to be emphasised between forests and soils as well as monitoring. Forests are also covered under the Environment sub-programme (Article 9) priority area for Environment and Resource Efficiency (Annex III). Through monitoring and information systems for forests and prevention of forest fires, this thematic priority would indirectly protect soils from loss of soil organic matter, erosion, loss of biodiversity, floods and landslides. Circular and green economy priority areas could also indirectly aim to reduce the unsustainable use of soil (e.g., causing sealing, contamination, erosion, loss of SOM and biodiversity) as well as reducing waste streams (e.g., food waste reductions potentially leading to less demand for intensified food production). Reduction of intensified food production could potentially reduce soil threats of salinisation from irrigation, compaction, SOM loss, erosion, loss of soil biodiversity, and floods (e.g., reduced vegetative cover potentially hindering good soil porosity and water infiltration). Better waste management planning as a priority area under the Environment sub-programme may also indirectly increase soil protection from contamination (Annex III).




None The LIFE programme has a number of indicators which are used to assess its performance. Halting and reversing biodiversity loss is measured through the percentage of Natura 2000 network restored or managed, the amount and type of ecosystems restored and habitats/species conserved.289 This target may indirectly benefit soils as they are part of Natura 2000 sites and ecosystems which may be maintained and restored as well as contain large amounts of biodiversity to avoid losing/degrading. An indicator for better environmental and climate policy and law is the number of interventions implementing the environmental and climate plans and policies, which may include soil projects/interventions. Also, the amount of information dissemination and awareness raising about environment and climate as an indicator for supporting environmental and climate governance may include soil aspects.

None

7. Mandatory requirements and voluntary options for Member States (types of management measures) There are no explicit soil-focused requirements. In financing LIFE projects, the Member States must ensure complementarity with other policies and priorities of the EU, especially important is the requirement for coordination with the European Structural and Investment Funds to create synergies (particularly with integrated projects).290 This may benefit soil protection through integrated projects with the

289


Ibid. Article 8.

181

Key soil-relevant instruments Mandatory In the design of the implementing programmes, Annex III thematic priorities (including soil) for resource efficiency under the Environment sub-programme receive financial allocations and should be prioritized through the projects selected. Complementarity of LIFE projects with other policies. The Commission must establish multi-annual work programmes with thematic priorities (soil included in Annex III). Knowledge sharing of best practices (e.g., for MS), monitoring and evaluation of implementation and review for synergies. Voluntary None

ERDF on infrastructure development, for instance, while protecting habitats and perhaps soils within those ecosystems in particular. The types of funding which may be administered are grants, public procurement, and contributions to financial instruments291, and projects which may be funded are confined to pilot, demonstration, best practice, integrated, technical assistance, capacity-building, preparatory, and information, awareness and dissemination projects.292 The Commission establishes multiannual work programmes which must allocate funds between the different priority areas and project topics to implement the thematic priorities, which soil is one of them included in Annex III. The LIFE multiannual work programme for 2014-2017, which has been adopted by a Commission Decision on 19 March 2014, sets the framework for the next four years for the management of the new LIFE Programme 2014-2020. It contains an indicative budget, explains the selection methodology for projects and for operating grants and establishes outcome indicators for both LIFE sub-programmes, the Environment sub-programme and the Climate Action sub-programme. Knowledge sharing on experiences and best practices and dissemination is required by the Commission toward beneficiaries, particularly in Member States where there is low uptake of LIFE funds.293 Monitoring and evaluation of the LIFE programme implementation and synergies with other programmes.294 A mid-term evaluation report must be submitted by the Commission by 30 June 2017. Funding The LIFE Programme is a funding instrument and may fund public and private bodies. The national allocations of LIFE funding for the different types of project is done in accordance with the criteria set out in Annex I. 8. Assessment of environmental status Article 3 presents the general objectives and performance indicators for the outcomes of the LIFE programme (here the list of performance indicators, Article 3.3):

a) “as regards the general objective referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1, attributable environmental and climate improvements. In relation to the objective of contributing to halting and reversing biodiversity loss, attributable environmental improvements shall be measured through the percentage of the Natura 2000 network restored or brought to adequate management, surface and type of ecosystems restored, and number and type of habitats and species targeted with improving conservation status;

b) as regards the general objectives linked to development and implementation referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1, the number of interventions developed or undertaken that implement plans, programmes or strategies pursuant to Union environmental or climate policy and legislation, and the number of interventions suitable for replication or transfer;

c) as regards the general objectives linked to integration and mainstreaming referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1, the number of interventions achieving synergies with or

291




Ibid. Article 27.

182

mainstreamed into other Union funding programmes, or integrated into public or private sector practice;

d) as regards the general objective referred to in point (c) of paragraph 1, the number of interventions to ensure better governance, dissemination of information and awareness of environmental and climate aspects.”

The final paragraph of Article 3 states “The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 29 to further define the performance indicators in view of their application to the priority areas and thematic priorities referred to in Article 9 and Annex III respectively as regards the sub-programme for Environment, and in Article 13 as regards the sub-programme for Climate Action.” 9. Reporting units - what are the specific transposition requirements Recital 11 points to the potential for overlap with reporting obligations for other financial instruments when integrated projects have funding from multiple sources. Cooperation between the sources is encouraged. Article 19 on selection of projects requires that the Commission report to the Committee for the LIFE Programme for the Environment and Climate Action how the allocation criteria were taken into account for projects to be co-financed. Article 27 is the primary provision on reporting upon monitoring and evaluation, including expenditure on climate-related and biodiversity-related projects. A mid-term evaluation on qualitative and quantitative aspects of the LIFE programme’s implementation, synergies between the objectives and progress toward meeting them, etc. It should provide an assessment of the contribute of LIFE to the habitats and species’ conservation under the Habitats and Birds Directive. An external and independent ex-post evaluation report on the LIFE programme’s implementation and results is required by 31 December 2023. It has to “also examine the extent to which integration of environment and climate objectives into other Union policies has been achieved and, to the extent possible, the economic benefit achieved through the LIFE Programme as well as the impact and added value for the communities involved” (Article 27(2)(b)). 10. Examples of implementation approaches in case study area (based on Approaches Questionnaire, or other good practice examples) Prior LIFE programme periods have been evaluated and are available295:

Final Evaluation of LIFE+ Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations (December 2012);

Executive summary of the study "Identification and analysis of the main obstacles for applicants in EU-12 countries for submitting proposals for a LIFE+ funding" (February 2010);

Communication to the Council and the Parliament – Mid-term review of the LIFE+ Regulation; and

Communication on Mid-term review of LIFE+ (Working Document) Mid-term review of the LIFE+ Regulation COM(2010) 516 final.

295

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/about/

183

III. EU STRATEGIES AND PROGRAMMES

21 Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection

1. Name of Policy and brief summary of implementation The Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection consists of a Communication from the Commission to the other European Institutions (COM(2006) 231)296, a proposal for a framework Directive (COM(2006) 232), and an Impact Assessment (SEC (2006) 1165 and SEC(2006) 620). The Communication on Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection (COM(2006) 231) sets the frame for soil protection in the EU on a basis of four pillars, namely awareness raising, research, integration, and legislation. “It explains why further action is needed to ensure a high level of soil protection, sets the overall objective of the Strategy and explains what kind of measures must be taken. It establishes a ten-year work program for the European Commission”.297 The proposal for a framework Directive (COM(2006) 232) has been updated two times (Spanish version of 2010 and the Common Forum version of 2011), however a blocking minority of countries (Austria, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK) have opposed the Commission's proposal. After almost eight years of not reaching qualified majority in the Council, the Commission withdrew the proposal for a Soil Framework Directive on 30 April 2014. However, the Commission indicated that it will remain committed to the objective of the protection of soil and will examine options on how to best achieve this. The Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection foresees that the progress towards meeting its objectives will be evaluated as part of the review of the Sixth EAP. Approximately five years after the adoption of the Soil Thematic Strategy, on 13 February 2012, the European Commission published a policy report on the implementation of the Soil Thematic Strategy and ongoing activities (COM(2012) 46).298 The report provides an overview of the actions undertaken by the European Commission to implement the four pillars of the Strategy. It also presents the ongoing soil deterioration trend both in Europe and globally, as well as future challenges to ensure its protection. Entry into force Communication on the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection (COM/2006/0231 final) was issued on 22.9.2006. 2. Policy Field (water, agriculture, biodiversity, energy) Environment, Soil299 Integration/coordination issues with other related pieces of legislation Achieving the objectives of the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection is of particular importance for agriculture sector, the aquatic environment, protected areas, air quality and climate change mitigation as it yields benefits in all these areas and vice versa. The following EU legal acts are therefore related to the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection:

The seventh Environment Action Programme (EAP):300 entered into force in January 2014 and will be guiding European environment policy until 2020 (2014-2020). As regards soil protection, the 7th EAP recognises soil degradation as a serious challenge and aims that land is managed sustainably, soil is adequately protected and the remediation of contaminated sites is well in progress in the European Union by 2020. It commits the EU and its Member States to strengthen efforts to reduce soil

296

COM(2006)231 final. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52006DC0231&from=EN 297

EU Commission Website on Soil, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/three_en.htm 298


EU Commission Website on Soil, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/index_en.htm 300

Issued with the Decision No 1386/2013/EU

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52006DC0231&from=EN

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/three_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/index_en.htm

184

erosion, increase soil organic matter and to remediate contaminated sites, as well as to enhance the integration of land use aspects into coordinated decision-making involving all relevant government levels, supported by the adoption of targets on soil and on land as a resource, and land planning objectives.301

The Resource Efficiency Roadmap: the Communication on Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe (COM/2011/0571 final)302 sets soil and land related milestones to be reached by 2020, and a vision for the structural and technological change needed up to 2050:

o EU policies take into account their direct and indirect impact on land use in the EU and globally, and keeping on track the rate of land take with an aim to achieve no net land take by 2050;

o continuously implement the actions needed for reducing soil erosion and increasing soil organic matter, as well as for remedial work on contaminated sites in progress.

Water Policy: o The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)303, the Groundwater Directive

(2006/118/EC)304, the Nitrates Directive305 - the aquatic environment is especially sensitive to pollution coming from/through soil. It is therefore necessary to pay particular attention to avoid pollution of surface water and groundwater by taking appropriate soil management measures. The EU Floods Directive306 - the promotion of sustainable and integrated flood management in the Floods Directive results in an indirect contribution to the protection of soils mainly by aiming to maximising natural infiltration and retention capacities of soils.

Nature Conservation Policy: o The Wild Birds Directive (2009/147/EC307) and the Habitats Directive

(92/43/EEC)308 – soil is a major element of the terrestrial ecosystems, therefore a good quality of soil contributes significantly to the favourable conservation status of the Natura 2000 sites protected in accordance with the Wild Birds and Habitats Directives.

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP): o Pillar 1 of the CAP - direct payments (cross-compliance and greening

requirements): two Regulations 1306/2013 and 1307/2013 are of relevance to soil protection, the former of which includes the rules for cross-compliance with the Annex II table laying out the Statutory Management Requirements

301

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/index_en.htm 302

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe (COM/2011/0571 final). 303


Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32006L0118 305

Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31991L0676 306

Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks (Text with EEA relevance), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32007L0060 307

Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds. It replaces the old Birds Directive 79/409/EEC (Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31979L0409) 308

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:01992L0043-20070101










http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31979L0409

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:01992L0043-20070101

185

(SMRs) and the Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAECs).309 Regulation 1307/2013 specifies the direct payments for farmers (dependent upon their compliance with the cross-compliance scheme) and includes the new greening requirements under the 2014-2020 programming period.310

The Pillar 1 of the CAP is relevant to soil protection because the cross-compliance standards include soil provisions which the MS’ adopt as GAECs according to their specific context. There are three specific GAEC issues dedicated to soil in Annex II of the Regulation 1306/2013 for the cross-compliance system (GAEC 4 - minimum soil cover, GAEC 5 - minimum land management reflecting site specific conditions to limit erosion, and GAEC 6 - maintenance of soil organic matter level through appropriate practices including ban on burning arable stubble, except for plant health reasons)311; GAEC 7 - retention of landscape features - is indirectly focused on soil.

All three greening requirements are indirectly relevant to soil protection, because the environmentally-friendly farming practices such as crop diversification and maintenance of permanent grassland contribute positively to soil functionality and health; and the conservation of the areas of ecological interest – contributes to extensive agriculture and in this way contributes to soil quality.

o Pillar 2 – the Rural Development Policy (EAFRD Regulation, EU, No. 1305/2013)312: One of the EAFRD objectives – “ensuring the sustainable management of natural resources, and climate action”313 – is relevant to soil protection because the measures which incentivise “sustainable management of natural resources, and climate action” (e.g., agri-environment-climate, organic farming) may contribute to more farmers practicing soil-friendly methods of land management and agricultural production.

o There are six priorities which have been determined for rural development in the EU, and the MS must include at least 4 of the 6 in their rural development programmes (RDPs). One of these priorities – Priority 4 “on restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry” - focuses in part on “preventing soil erosion and improving soil management”.314 Another Priority 5 may result indirectly in soil protection as one of the focuses is on “fostering carbon conservation and sequestration in agriculture and forestry”. This would be relevant to soil as it would promote use of methods which increase soil carbon sequestration and building climate resilient agriculture would encourage adaptation methods, such as using cover crops to potentially increase water infiltration for flood prevention and reduced erosion as well as retain soil moisture for drought resistance.315

309

Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008. 310

Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, Article 43. 311

The requirement can be limited to a general ban on burning arable stubble, but a Member State may decide to prescribe further requirements. 312


EAFRD Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013, Article 4. 314

EAFRD Regulation, Article 5(4)(c). 315

Victoria, R., Banwart, S., Black, H., Ingram, J., Joosten, H., Milne, E., Noellemeyer, E., Baskin, Y. (2012) The Benefits of Soil Carbon. UNEP Year Book 2012. European Environment Agency (2013) Adaptation in Europe:


186

Air Policy: the National Emission Ceilings Directive (2001/81/EC)316 sets upper air emissions limits for each Member State for the four pollutants responsible for acidification, eutrophication and ground-level ozone pollution (sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds and ammonia). In addition to Community activities, Member States are largely responsible for taking relevant measures in order to comply. The NEC Directive does not consider the protection of soil directly but the measures taken to reduce acidification also contributes to soil health and quality.

Climate change (LULUCF): the Decision No 529/2013/EU317 on accounting rules on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and removals resulting from activities relating to land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) is of relevance to soil protection. It is because forests and agricultural lands, that currently cover more than three-quarters of the EU territory, naturally hold large stocks of carbon, preventing its escape into the atmosphere. Good practices of farmers and forest owners contribute for securing carbon stored in soils and forests. This contribute at the same time to reduced GHG emissions and to increased soil organic matted and quality of soil in general.

The work programme of the current EU Research and Innovation programme - Horizon 2020 (2014 to 2020) consider issues on sustainable use of soil to be more important and foresees a funding for soil-related research projects. This should thus ensure a progress in research and increased knowledge on different aspects of soil protection. 3. Aims of the policy and its relevance to soil protection Objectives: The overall objective of the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection is to ensure the protection and sustainable use of soil. It is highlighted that the Strategy must “take into account all the different functions that soils can perform, their variability and complexity and the range of different degradation processes to which they can be subject, while also considering socio-economic aspects.” This objective is based on a number of guiding principles:

1. Preventing further soil degradation and preserving its functions: (a) when soil is used and its functions are exploited, action has to be taken on soil use and management patterns, and (b) when soil acts as a sink/receptor of the effects of human activities or environmental phenomena, action has to be taken at source.

2. Restoring degraded soils to a level of functionality consistent at least with current and intended use, thus also considering the cost implications of the restoration of soil” (cp. Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection para. 3.1).

Principles included in the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection:

Subsidiarity Principles included in the proposal for the Soil Framework Directive:

Precautionary

Polluter pays

Subsidiarity

Proportionality

Prevention

Sustainable development

Addressing risks and opportunities from climate change in the context of socio-economic developments. EEA Report No. 3/2013. 316

Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on National Emission Ceilings for Certain Atmospheric Pollutants 317

Decision No 529/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on accounting rules on greenhouse gas emissions and removals resulting from activities relating to land use, land-use change and forestry and on information concerning actions relating to those activities. Issued on 21/5/2013.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2001:309:0022:0030:EN:PDF

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013D0529



187

Spatial coverage and management unit: The Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection addresses all soil types in the European Union. The proposal for a framework Directive introduced ‘areas at risk’ to be delineated by Member States to five major soil threats (i.e. erosion, organic matter decline, compaction, salinisation and landslides). The ‘risk areas’ are the areas in the national territory of the Member States, defined at the appropriate level, ‘where there is decisive evidence, or legitimate grounds for suspicion, that one or more of […] soil degradation processes has occurred or is likely to occur in the near future’. To ensure a coherent and comparable approach in different Member States, the identification of risk areas should be based on a common methodology, which includes elements known to be driving forces for the various degradation processes (common elements for the five soil threats are provided in Annexes I-V). In the identified ‘risk areas’, Member States should take measures to prevent further soil degradation. Such ‘risk areas’ shall be made public and reviewed at least every ten years. The proposal further required the Member States to identify contaminates sites. 4. Relevance to soil protection The Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection is dedicated to ensure the protection and sustainable use of soil in the European Union. It provides a definition of soil; addresses various aspects of soil protection and highlights the importance of soil as a natural resource. It seeks to establish a targeted and comprehensive soil protection policy. 5. Soil-focused aims and objectives

Direct (only): implementation of the Thematic Strategy for Soil is built around four key pillars that are all soil-focused:

1. Legislation: binding framework legislation on protection and sustainable use of soil is a principal aim of the Strategy. The Commission aims with it to establish a targeted policy to close the gap of missing binding legislation on soil protection and ensure comprehensive soil protection.

2. Integration: integration of soil protection in the formulation and implementation of national and Community policies such as agriculture, regional development, transport and research have a significant impact on soil. Therefore, soil protection needs to be further integrated in other policy areas.

3. Research: closing the current recognised knowledge gap in certain areas of soil protection through research supported by Community and national research programmes is important for further effective soil protection policy development. The previous Seventh Framework Programme (2007-2013) and the current Horizon 2020 (2014-2020) work programme covers research on soil functions as part of priority areas (Horizon 2020 – priority area on ‘Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime and inland water research and the bio-economy’).

4. Awareness-raising: increasing public awareness of the need to protect soil is important to change the perception, and consequently the behaviour of the public with regard to soil and its protection.

188

Key soil-relevant instruments Mandatory Legislative proposal, if adopted Voluntary Research Integration Awareness-raising

Soil threats addressed by the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection Directly: the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection addresses directly various aspects of

soil protection; in its introduction, it states that soil is subject to a series of degradation processes or threats, including: erosion, decline in organic matter, local and diffuse contamination, sealing, compaction, decline in biodiversity, salinisation, floods and landslides. “A combination of some of these threats can ultimately lead arid or sub-arid climatic conditions to desertification.” The legislative proposal included in the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection identifies and addresses certain threats such as erosion, organic matter decline, compaction, salinisation, landslides, contamination and sealing. It is considered (by the Commission) “as the best means of ensuring a comprehensive approach to soil protection whilst fully respecting subsidiarity.”

Indirectly: The legislative proposal included in the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection, however, does not cover soil biodiversity directly: It states that “Biodiversity will generally benefit from the action proposed on other threats. This will contribute to achieving the objective of halting the decline of biodiversity by 2010”.





The legislative proposal of a Soil Framework Directive requires that Member States “take specific measures to address soil threats”, but the Directive leaves to them full freedom “on how to implement this requirement”, i.e. “risk acceptability, the level of ambition regarding the targets to be achieved and the choice of measures to reach those targets are left to Member States”.

If adopted, the legislative proposal would have contributed to “a better knowledge of the extent and location of the soil threats which will allow adopting more targeted and efficient measures”. As “Soil degradation has a direct impact on water and air quality, biodiversity and climate change, as well as it can also impair the health of European citizens and threaten food and feed safety”, an European soil policy would contribute to reducing this negative impact. The outcomes (i.e. soil status improvement) would vary according to the extent to which Member States make use of the possibilities offered by the existing legislation, such as for example cross-compliance within the CAP, to contribute to soil protection.

7. Mandatory requirements and voluntary options for Member States (types of management measures) Voluntary: research, integration, awareness-raising. The proposal for adoption of a Soil Framework Directive was the only binding legislative element of the Soil Thematic Strategy. The Soil Thematic Strategy is a Communication from the Commission to the other European Institutions and thus not legally binding (“A Communication is a policy document with no mandatory authority. The Commission takes the initiative of publishing a Communication when it wishes to set out its own thinking on a topical issue. A Communication has no legal effect”318).

318

European Commission, European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters, Glossary, http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/glossary/glossary_en.htm#Communication

http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/glossary/glossary_en.htm#Communication

189

The proposal for a framework Directive required EU Member States to delineate areas at risk to five major soil threats (i.e. erosion, organic matter decline, compaction, salinisation and landslides) and to take adequate measures to reverse the on-going soil degradation processes. The proposal further required the Member States to identify contaminated sites and establish a national inventory as well as carry out remediation actions and draw up a National Remediation Strategy. For sites to be sold on which a potentially polluting activity is taking or has taken place, the owner of that site or the prospective buyer should make a soil status report available. Implementation and funding The report presenting the implementation of the Soil Thematic Strategy and ongoing activities (COM(2012) 46)319 lists the following activities carried out to implement the Strategy:

EU funded information and training events and specific soil deliverables for the rotating Presidencies of the Council (e.g. information material on national soil types).

Supporting research projects, particularly in the areas of landslides, soil sealing, soil functions and their link to biodiversity, the soil carbon and nitrogen cycles (with a focus on peatland restoration), soil fertility, and nutrients recycling in agriculture. (Since the adoption of the Strategy, around 25 research projects have been funded under the Seventh Framework Programme for Research – i.e. funded by DG Research).320

The Commission has proposed that the Cohesion Funds and the European Regional Development Fund should continue to support the regeneration of brownfield sites in the next programming period 2014-2020.321 In addition, the EU macro-regional strategies include some specific actions on soil protection (particularly on solid waste).

Member States may grant State aid for carrying out soil remediation under the Environmental aid guidelines.322 However, such aid can be granted only if the ‘polluter pays’ principle is fully respected.

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) integrates various aspects of soil protection. Its implementation is supported by two funding mechanisms – the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)323 and the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF)324:

Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) since the introduction of cross compliance in 2003.

Rural development measures, in particular, for example agri-environment-climate schemes which may specifically support soil-protective operations.

The "greening payment" of the first pillar of the CAP would improve the situation further, particularly in relation to erosion and soil organic matter.

319

COM(2012) 46 final. The implementation of the Soil Thematic Strategy and ongoing activities. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels, 13.2.2012. 320

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/projects_en.html 321

COM(2011) 612 and COM(2011) 614 (in COM(2012) 46 final). 322

OJ C 82, 1.4.2008, p. 1–33 (in COM(2012) 46 final). 323

Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. 324

Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008.

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/projects_en.html

190

8. Assessment of environmental status The Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection describes the ‘state’ of Europe’s soils, identifying soil degradation as a serious problem in Europe. It states that anthropogenic pressures drive the degradation of soil and have a negative impact, preventing the soil from performing its broad range of functions and services to humans and ecosystems. The results include the loss of soil fertility, carbon and biodiversity, lower water-retention capacity, disruption of gas and nutrient cycles and reduced degradation of contaminants. The Thematic Strategy indicates that soil degradation processes vary considerably among Member States, including different threats to soil, which have different degrees of severity. Even though, soil degradation is an issue all over the EU. The 2010 Status of the Environment Report of the European Environment Agency (EEA) demonstrates that soil degradation is still increasing.325 The further reports describing the state of Europe’s soils include, for example:

Guidelines on best practice to limit, mitigate or compensate soil sealing (European Union, 2012);326 and

Risk Assessment Methodologies of Soil Threats in Europe. Status and options for harmonization for risks by erosion, compaction, salinisation, organic matter decline and landslides.327

However, the overall objective of the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection is qualitative: ‘protection and sustainable use of soil, by preventing further soil degradation and preserving its functions, and restoring degraded soils to a level of functionality consistent at least with current and intended use’. Concrete environmental objectives would have been the responsibility of the Member States, if the binding legislation (the Soil Framework Directive), proposed together with the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection would have come into force. The European Soil Data Centre (ESDAC) under the Joint Research Centre has exploited in detail eight threats to soil as they have been identified in the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection, including: soil erosion, organic carbon content decline, soil compaction, soil salinisation, soil sealing, soil contamination, soil biodiversity and landslides.328 For all these soil threats, it presents data, studies, maps, documentation and services. Additional information is also presented for pH, soil hydraulic properties, and soil sampling. For example, some indicators related to soil threats:

For salinisation: salinisation is the process that leads to an excessive increase of water-soluble salts in the soil. The accumulated salts include sodium (Na+), potassium (K+), magnesium (Mg2+) and calcium (Ca2+), and chloride, (Cl−);329

For soil erosion by water: soil loss rate (t ha-1 yr1-);330

For topsoil soil organic carbon (LUCAS): topsoil organic carbon content (g C kg-1).331 Other indicators related to soil threats are included in the EUROSTAT - agri-environmental indicators (AEIs).332

325

http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer 326

European Union, 2012. Guidelines on best practice to limit, mitigate or compensate soil sealing. ISBN 978-92-79-26210-4. This document is a European Commission Staff Working Document for information purposes [SWD(2012) 101, available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/sealing_guidelines.htm]. 327

Christy van Beek and Gergely Tóth, 2012. Risk Assessment Methodologies of Soil Threats in Europe. Status and options for harmonization for risks by erosion, compaction, salinization, organic matter decline and landslides. European Commission, JRC scientific and policy reports, http://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/content/risk-assessment-methodologies-soil-threats-europe 328

http://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/content/esdac-themes 329

Joint Research Centre, European Soil Data Centre (ESDAC), soil salinisation, http://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/themes/soil-salinization 330

Joint Research Centre, European Soil Data Centre (ESDAC), soil erosion by water, http://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/content/soil-erosion-water-rusle2015 331

Joint Research Centre, European Soil Data Centre (ESDAC), topsoil soil organic carbon (LUCAS), http://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/content/topsoil-soil-organic-carbon-lucas 332

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:Agri-environmental_indicator_%28AEI%29

http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer

http://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/content/risk-assessment-methodologies-soil-threats-europe

http://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/content/risk-assessment-methodologies-soil-threats-europe

http://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/content/esdac-themes

http://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/themes/soil-salinization

http://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/content/soil-erosion-water-rusle2015

http://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/content/topsoil-soil-organic-carbon-lucas

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:Agri-environmental_indicator_%28AEI%29

191

9. Reporting units - what are the specific transposition requirements The Soil Thematic Strategy is a Communication from the Commission to the other European Institutions and thus not legally binding. Thus it does not include the transposition requirements to the Member States.

192

22 EU Biodiversity Strategy

1. Name of Policy and brief summary of implementation The EU Biodiversity Strategy (COM (2011) 0244 final)333 sets the EU’s 2050 long-term vision and a 2020 heading target for maintaining and protecting biodiversity within the EU. The Strategy aims to recognise the EU’s shortcoming in meeting the 2010 biodiversity target and endorses strategic action proposed by the Commission in its Communication “Options for an EU vision and target for biodiversity beyond 2010”. It also responds to the global mandate set out by the 10th COP of the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2010. The Strategy sets out a framework for action beyond 2010, building upon six targets and associated actions. In 2015 a mid-term review334 took place assessing the progress of implementing the Strategy in the EU. The results showed progress in many areas, but also highlighted the need for much greater effort to deliver commitments on implementation by Member States, e.g., with regards to reverse the declining trend in the status of species and habitats of EU interest associated with agricultural areas. Entry into force The Biodiversity Strategy was adopted in May 2011. 2. Policy Field (water, agriculture, biodiversity, energy) Environment, biodiversity Integration/coordination issues with other related pieces of legislation

Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)

Groundwater Directive (2006/118/EC) Wild Birds Directive (2009/147/EC)

Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)

Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)

Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (2011/92/EU)

Strategic Environmental Assessment Directives (2001/42/EC)

Cohesion Policy and Fund 3. Aims of the policy and its relevance to soil protection Objectives: The Biodiversity Strategy aims at “preserving biodiversity and speeding up the EU’s transition towards a resource efficient and green economy.” It is part of the Europe 2020 Strategy and also especially part of the Resource Efficiency Europe flagship initiative. The Strategy sets a long-term vision by 2050 and a 2020 heading target for maintaining biodiversity within the EU beyond 2010 – including positive implication for a wide number of soil threats and functions. The Strategy specifically sets out six targets (which are broken down in further actions, enclosed in the Strategy’s Annex) with the aim to help halting biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystem services:

Conserving and restoring nature o Target 1: “To halt the deterioration in the status of all species and habitats covered by

EU nature legislation and achieve a significant and measurable improvement in their status so that, by 2020, compared to current assessments: (i) 100% more habitat assessments and 50% more species assessments under the Habitats Directive show an improved conservation status; and (ii) 50% more species assessments under the Birds Directive show a secure or improved status.”

333


http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/mid_term_review_summary.pdf

193

Maintaining and enhancing ecosystem and their services o Target 2: “By 2020, ecosystems and their services are maintained and enhanced by

establishing green infrastructure and restoring at least 15 % of degraded ecosystems.”

Ensuring the sustainability of agriculture, forestry and fisheries o Target 3A: Agriculture: “By 2020, maximise areas under agriculture across

grasslands, arable land and permanent crops that are covered by biodiversity-related measures under the CAP so as to ensure the conservation of biodiversity and to bring about a measurable improvement(*) in the conservation status of species and habitats that depend on or are affected by agriculture and in the provision of ecosystem services as compared to the EU2010 Baseline, thus contributing to enhance sustainable management.”

o Target 3B: Forests: “By 2020, Forest Management Plans or equivalent instruments, in line with Sustainable Forest Management (SFM), are in place for all forests that are publicly owned and for forests holdings above a certain size that receive funding under the EU Rural Development Policy so as to bring about a measurable improvement in the conservation status of species and habitats that depend on or are affected by forestry and in the provision of related ecosystem services as compared to the EU 2010 Baseline.”;

o Target 4: Fisheries: “Achieve Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSF) by 2015. Achieve a population age and size distribution indicative of a healthy stock, through fisheries management with no significant adverse impacts on other stocks, species and ecosystems, in support of achieving Good Environmental Status by 2020, as required under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.”

Combating invasive alien species o Target 5: “By 2020, Invasive Alien Species and their pathways are identified and

prioritised, priority species are controlled or eradicated, and pathways are managed to prevent the introduction and establishment of new IAS.”

Addressing the global biodiversity crisis o Target 6: “By 2020, the EU has stepped up its contribution to averting global

biodiversity loss.” Principles included in the legal text

N/A Spatial coverage and management unit: The whole territory of the EU The implementation of most conservation actions is site and locally dependent across Member States, as well as the extent to which they may be relevant to soil protection. It is therefore likely that Member States’ approaches vary widely. 4. Relevance to soil protection The Biodiversity Strategy does not explicitly aim to protect soil. However, it recognizes the role of soil biodiversity in delivering key ecosystem services (i.e. carbon sequestration and food supply), and sets out targets and underpinning actions (especially Targets 1, 2, 3 and 6) that may contribute to soil protection. 5. Soil-focused aims and objectives

Direct: No direct soil-focused aims and objectives Indirect: One of the Strategy’s objectives is “to help halting biodiversity loss and the

degradation of ecosystem services.” The associated targets and underpinning actions might have a positive impact on the state of soil. Targets 1, 2, 3 and 6 and their associated actions are especially ‘positive’ in that they aim to maintain and restore habitats, species, and ecosystem services, limit overall biodiversity loss, and have the potential to enhance soil quality and contribute to its protection.

194

Soil threats addressed by the Biodiversity Strategy Directly: No soil threats are directly addressed by the Biodiversity Strategy. This is partly

because the Strategy refers to the proposal for a framework directive to protect soil (withdrawn), which was intended to address a whole suite of soil threats.

Indirectly: As soil is one of the physical factors/component that a site is made up of – a positive impact of the conservation measures on soil might be expected. The Biodiversity Strategy could therefore contribute indirectly to increased soil organic matter (SOM) content, reduced soil contamination (point sources), erosion risk, compaction, soil biodiversity loss, acidification, flooding and sealing.

Member States and the Commission are encouraged to:

- “Complete the establishment of the Natura 2000 network and ensure good management” by establishing the Natura 2000 network by 2012, integrate requirements into land and water use policies, set out conservation measures, and sharing experience and good practices. (Action 1) This might contribute to addressing different threats to soil (see list above) - “Ensure adequate financing of Natura 2000 sites” by providing necessary funds and incentives for Natura 2000 via EU funding instruments. (Action 2) This might contribute to addressing different threats to soil (see list above)

- “Increase stakeholder awareness and involvement and improve enforcement” by launching a communications campaign on Natura 2000 and specific training programmes. (Action 3) This might contribute to addressing different threats to soil (see list above)

- “Improve and streamline monitoring and reporting” under the Birds and Habitats Directives. (Action 4) This might contribute to addressing different threats to soil (see list above)

- “Set priorities to restore and promote the use of green infrastructures” by developing a strategic framework and a Green Infrastructure Strategy by 2012. (Action 6) This might contribute to addressing different threats to soil (see list above) - Integrating biodiversity priorities and aims into the CAP (Direct payment, GAECs, and Rural Development measures), forest management, and associated funding programmes (LIFE+) (Actions 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12) This might contribute to addressing different threats to soil (see list above)

- “Reduce indirect drivers of biodiversity loss” by taking appropriate measures to reduce biodiversity impacts of EU consumption patterns and enhancing the contribution of trade policy to conserving biodiversity. (Action 17) This might contribute to addressing different threats to soil (see list above)

- “Mobilise additional resources for global biodiversity conservation” within the CBD and improving effectiveness of international funding. (Action 18) This might contribute to addressing different threats to soil (see list above)

- “Biodiversity proof EU development cooperation” by screening development cooperation and minimising any negative impacts through undertaking EIAs and SEAs. (Action 19) This might contribute to addressing different threats to soil (see list above)

195

Key soil-relevant instruments Mandatory None Voluntary Biodiversity and ecosystems conservation measures within nature legislation, as well as integrating these priorities into other policy areas (agriculture, forestry). Contributing to international efforts to halt biodiversity loss through the CBD.




None Target 1: “Halt the deterioration in the status of all species and habitats covered by EU nature legislation and achieve a significant measureable improvement in their status by 2020” Target 2: “By 2020, ecosystems and their services and maintained and enhanced by establishing green infrastructure and restoring at least 15% of degraded ecosystems” Target 3A: “By 2020, maximize areas under agriculture across grasslands, arable land and permanent crops that are covered by biodiversity-related measures under the CAP” Target 3B: “By 2020, Forest Management Plans or equivalent instruments are in place for all forests that are publicly owned and for forest holdings above a certain size that receive funding under the EU Rural Development Policy” Target 6: “By 2020, the EU had stepped up its contribution to averting global biodiversity loss”. By acting towards achieving the above mentioned targets, Member States may indirectly contribute to enhancing soil organic matter (SOM) content and reducing soil contamination (point sources), erosion risk, compaction, soil biodiversity loss, acidification, flooding, and sealing.

None

7. Mandatory requirements and voluntary options for Member States (types of management measures) Soil-focused mandatory requirements: The Biodiversity Strategy has no soil-focused mandatory requirements. However, halting biodiversity loss and contributing to ecosystems conservation contributes indirectly to soil protection through meeting the targets set and the application of necessary conservation measures (Targets 1, 2, 3 and 6 and associated actions). Not soil-focused mandatory requirements:

Under Target 1, the Biodiversity Strategy sets out actions to complete the establishment of the Natura 2000 network and ensure good management, ensure adequate financing, increase stakeholder awareness and involvement and improve monitoring and reporting.” As soil is one of the physical factors/component that a Natura 2000 site is made up of – a positive impact of the conservation measures on soil might be expected.

Under Target 2, the Strategy establishes actions to improve knowledge of ecosystems and their services in the EU, set priorities to restore and promote the use of green infrastructure, and ensure no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Through appropriate conservation of ecosystems and the integration of green infrastructures in land planning, a positive impact of soil may be expected.

196

Under Target 3, the Strategy establishes actions to further integrate biodiversity and ecosystem conservation into agriculture and forestry policies. A positive impact on soil may be expected.

Under Target 6, the Strategy commits to take measures to reduce indirect drivers of biodiversity loss, mobilise additional resources for global biodiversity conservation and ‘biodiversity proof’ EU development cooperation. A positive impact on soil may be expected.

8. Assessment of environmental status As already mentioned, a “Mid-term review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020” (COM (2015) 478 final)335 was undertaken in 2015 and adopted by the Council in December 2015 and by the European Parliament in February 2016. While the direct reference to soil is minimal, the overall outcome of the mid-term review is relevant to soil in that it provides an indication as to the progress made by the EU in enhancing biodiversity protection and ecosystem services conservation, including those related to soil. According to the review and compared to the 2010 biodiversity baseline, biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU have continued, with serious implications for the capacity of biodiversity (including soil) to meet human needs in the future, despite local successes demonstrating that actions on the ground delivers positive outcomes. These examples need therefore to be scaled up to have a measurable impact on the overall negative trends. 9. Reporting units - what are the specific transposition requirements The EU Biodiversity Strategy is a Communication from the Commission to the other European Institutions and thus not legally binding. Thus it does not include the transposition requirements to the Member States and also has no specific reporting requirements. The Commission developed with Member States and the European Environment Agency an integrated framework for monitoring, assessing, and reporting on progress in implementing the strategy. Moreover, the strategy includes specific action to improve monitoring and reporting and promotes the integration of biodiversity monitoring and reporting into EU legislation on nature, including the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and, to the extent feasible, the Cohesion Policy. 12. Examples of implementation approaches case study areas There are no specific approaches in the Member States to implement the EU Biodiversity Strategies. However, most EU Member States have developed a National Biodiversity Strategy or Action Plan as part of their commitment under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Moreover, some countries have started to draft and launch regional as well as national strategies to support the planning and implementation of green infrastructure (target 2 of the Biodiversity strategy). Also, measures financed under the agri-environmental-climate programme of the Rural Development Programmes (2nd pillar of the CAP) as well as measures promoted by the green direct payment can contribute to protect biodiversity.

335


197

23 7th Environment Action Programme

1. Name of Policy and brief summary of implementation Since the mid-1970s, EU environment policy has been guided by action programmes defining priority objectives to be achieved over a period of years. The current Environment Action Programme (EAP) is the seventh of its kind and was issued with the Decision No 1386/2013/EU336. In order to give more long-term direction it sets out a vision beyond 2020, and identifies where it wants the Union to be by 2050 (see below under the ‘Aims of the policy’). Entry into force 7EAP signed on 20 November 2013 and entered into force 17 January 2014 (which was 20 days after publication in the Official Journal of the European Union) and will be guiding European environment policy until 2020 (2014-2020). The 7EAP is to be implemented by 2020 and the reporting based on the programme’s evaluation must be “in due course before the end of the 7th EAP” (Art. 4(2)). As an integrated environmental policy, the funds available for all environmental programmes would contribute towards achieving the priority objectives of the 7EAP. 2. Policy Field (water, agriculture, biodiversity, energy) Environment337 Integration/coordination issues with other related pieces of legislation The 7EAP is an overarching programme to direct environmental action within the EU and improve the legislation, integration and implementation of environmental policy. The 7EAP specifically references the WFD, Ambient Air Quality Directive, Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Waste Framework Directive, the Effort Sharing Decision, Renewable Energy Directive, ETS Directive, Fuel Quality Directive, CCS Directive, Vehicle emission standards regulation. Additionally, COM communications were referenced on Smart regulation, innovation in the EU, Europe 2020, Low-carbon economy, EU biodiversity strategy to 2020, resource efficiency roadmap. 3. Aims of the policy and its relevance to soil protection Objectives: The 7th EAP has three key objectives (Art. 2 of the Decision No 1386/2013/EU):

1. to protect, conserve and enhance the Union’s natural capital; 2. to turn the Union into a resource-efficient, green and competitive low-carbon

economy; 3. to safeguard the Union’s citizens from environment-related pressures and risks to

health and well-being. Four more objectives (termed “enablers”) are aimed at helping deliver the above objectives:

1. to maximise the benefits of Union environment legislation by improving implementation;

2. to improve the knowledge and evidence base for Union environment policy; 3. to secure investment for environment and climate policy and address environmental

externalities; 4. to improve environmental integration and policy coherence;

Two additional horizontal priorities are added to the 7EAP:

336

Decision No 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’ (Text with EEA relevance), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013D1386&from=EN 337

EU website, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/newprg/index.htm

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013D1386&from=EN

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/newprg/index.htm

198

1. to enhance the sustainability of the Union’s cities; 2. to increase the Union’s effectiveness in addressing international environmental and

climate-related challenges. “The integrated and coherent development of environment and climate policy can help to ensure that the Union’s economy and society are well-prepared to face …[its] challenges”, which will require action centred around the above objectives. Under priority objective 1, the EAP states that by 2020 ‘land is managed sustainably in the Union, soil is adequately protected and the remediation of contaminated sites is well underway’ (paragraph 28(e)) and that to do so, this requires ‘increasing efforts to reduce soil erosion and increase soil organic matter, to remediate contaminated sites and to enhance the integration of land use aspects into coordinated decision-making involving all relevant levels of government, supported by the adoption of targets on soil and on land as a resource, and land planning objectives’ (paragraph 28 (vi)). It also proposes that the option of ‘a binding legal framework’ to address issues facing EU soil resources should be examined as soon as possible. Principles included in the legal text

Precautionary

Preventative

Environmental damage rectified at-source

Polluter-pays

Conferral

Subsidiarity

Proportionality

Smart regulation

Effective legal protection for citizens and their organizations

Produce once, use often Generally, the polluter-pays principle as well as the precautionary and preventative and environmental damage rectified at-source principles are referenced in Recitals 20 and 27 as forming a basis for EU environmental policy and the 7EAP is based on these principles under Article 2. The 7EAP requires that “action shall be taken with due account of [the principles of] conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality” within Article 5 of the TFEU (Article 3). Recital 21 makes clear that action to deliver the priority objectives of the 7EAP should abide by the principle of subsidiarity and occur at different appropriate levels of government (see also para 15 of the 7EAP), as well as take forward the principles of smart regulation (COM(2010) 543) as required under Article 2. Additionally, the Annex where the 7EAP programme is laid forth mentions that the principle of effective legal protection for citizens and their organisations must be ensured by 2020 through the 7EAP (para 65(e)), and the precautionary principle is mentioned in regards to improvement of environmental policy in the EU (para 66). The Shared Environmental Information System (COM(2008) 046) principle of ‘produce once, use often’ is referenced as needing to be implemented further (para 70). In reducing environmental externalities, the polluter-pays principle is highlighted as needing to be applied more systematically (para 76). Spatial coverage and management unit: The entire European Union territory / environment. Environment of each MS - national, regional, and local level according to the subsidiarity principle (Annex, para. 15). 4. Relevance to soil protection These priorities identify goals and issues to be addressed in order to improve the state of the EU’s environment. The first three priorities (from one to three) identify the thematic priorities of the EU. The first out of them has a strong relevance to soil protection in general. The third also has a strong relevance to soil in particular in terms of the soil threat of contamination.

199

The priorities from four to seven set an enabling framework to implement effectively the thematic priorities. They identify the key policy components of an enabling framework to effectively implement environmental protection in the EU which must be strengthened. The last two priorities eight to nine provides a framework for the thematic priorities to meet local, regional and global challenges. In order to give more long-term direction, the 7th EAP also sets out a vision beyond 2020, to help guide actions up to and beyond 2020 and of where it wants the Union to be by 2050: “In 2050, we live well, within the planet’s ecological limits. Our prosperity and healthy environment stem from an innovative, circular economy where nothing is wasted and where natural resources are managed sustainably, and biodiversity is protected, valued and restored in ways that enhance our society’s resilience. Our low-carbon growth has long been decoupled from resource use, setting the pace for a safe and sustainable global society.” (Decision No 1386/2013/EU, Annex)338 “The vision of ‘sustainable management of natural resources’ is of relevance to soil protection as non renewable natural resource, in particularly requiring cautious management and use that will preserve the good quality and functioning of the resource and will allow that resource to be used by and provide essential ecosystem services to future generations. With relevance to soil protection, “the 7th EAP recognises that soil degradation is a serious challenge. It provides that by 2020 land is managed sustainably in the Union, soil is adequately protected and the remediation of contaminated sites is well underway and commits the EU and its Member States to increasing efforts to reduce soil erosion and increase soil organic matter and to remediate contaminated sites.”339 5. Soil-focused aims and objectives

Direct: the 7th EAP has direct soil-relevant aims and objectives: Under the Priority objective 1 “To protect, conserve and enhance the Union’s natural capital”, the 7th EAP defines the natural capital as “biodiversity, including ecosystems that provide essential goods and services, from fertile soil and multi-functional forests to productive land and seas, from good quality fresh water and clean air to pollination and climate regulation and protection against natural disasters” (Thematic priority 1.17).

Indirect: The 7th EAP seeks to protect, conserve and enhance natural capital through the existing legislation, incl., the Water Framework Directive, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the Urban Wastewater Directive, the Nitrates Directive, the Floods Directive, the Priority Substances Directive, the Air Quality Directive and the Habitats and Birds Directives (Thematic priority 1.17). It also states that “legislation to tackle climate change, chemicals, industrial emissions and waste also contributes to easing the pressures on soil” among others (Thematic priority 1.17). Furthermore, the 7th EAP seeks a better integration of natural capital objectives in the development and implementation of other policies, and “ensuring that policies are coherent and deliver mutual benefits” (Thematic priority 1.20).

Soil threats addressed Directly: The following soil threats are directly addressed by the 7th EAP: soil sealing

(Thematic priority 1.24) and soil contamination, soil erosion, soil organic matter content (Thematic priority 1.28(vi)). These soil threats are listed as being targeted to improve the protection, conservation and enhancement of soil as a part of the EU’s natural capital:

Thematic priority 1.24: “Varying levels of progress have been made at Member State level to ensure soil protection, including with regard to contaminated site identification, awareness-raising, research and the development of monitoring systems. However, progress with risk-based and other remediation efforts is uneven, and results and Union level reporting are limited. In response to concerns such as adverse impacts on the natural water cycle, the

338

Decision No 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’ (Text with EEA relevance), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013D1386&from=EN 339


http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013D1386&from=EN

200

Commission has developed guidelines on soil sealing340. Further efforts to strengthen the regulatory context, develop networks, share knowledge, produce guidelines and identify examples of best practice can also contribute to better soil protection. The Commission has submitted a proposal for a Directive establishing a framework for the protection of soil and amending Directive 2004/35/EC341”

Thematic priority 1.28: “In order to protect, conserve and enhance the Union’s natural capital, the 7th EAP shall ensure that by 2020” “(vi) increasing efforts to reduce soil erosion and increase soil organic matter, to remediate contaminated sites and to enhance the integration of land use aspects into coordinated decision-making involving all relevant levels of government, supported by the adoption of targets on soil and on land as a resource, and land planning objectives”;

Indirectly: The activities under other policy areas can indirectly contribute to addressing certain (but not all) threats to soil. A better integration of soil issues, objectives and targets is necessary in the development and implementation of other policies (following the priority objective 7 “to improve environmental integration and policy coherence”. For example, a better implementation of the Floods Directive could address the threat of floods to soils and thereby erosion as well, or through the promotion of natural water retention measures or of land use planning rules to reduce floods risk, could at the same time contribute preventing soil erosion, compaction and sealing.


Direct soil-focused targets Indirect soil-focused targets Soil-focused expected impacts

The 7th EAP does not set direct or specific soil targets, however it refers to the objective of ‘no net land take’ by 2050 (Thematic priority 1.23). The 7th EAP refers to the Rio + 20 outcome which, recognising the economic and social significance of good land management, called for a ‘land degradation neutral world’. Respectively, the 7th EAP requires the Union and the MSs to “reflect on how best to make such a commitment operational within the respective competencies”. It also requires the Union and the MSs to reflect (as soon as possible) on how soil quality issues could be addressed and calls for setting targets for sustainable land use and soil (Thematic priority 1.25).

It could be assumed that soil protection would be potentially improved through the monitoring process of the European Environment Agency’s indicators on the state of the environment, when the soil indicators would help monitor progress of soil status: “The Commission shall ensure that the implementation of the relevant elements of the 7th EAP is monitored in the context of the regular monitoring process of the Europe 2020 Strategy. This process shall be informed by the European Environment Agency’s indicators on the state of the environment as well as indicators used to monitor progress in achieving existing environment and climate-related legislation and targets such as the climate and energy targets, biodiversity targets and resource efficiency milestones.” (Art. 4.1).

There is no explicit soil-focused outcome expected by the 7th EAP. Though indirectly, the outcome of enhanced sustainable natural resource management relate to the treatment of the soil through the various measures expected to be implemented as required under the 7th EAP.

7. Mandatory requirements and voluntary options for Member States (types of

management measures) There are no explicit soil-focused obligatory requirements in the 7th EAP.

340

SWD(2012) 101 341

COM(2006) 232

201

Key soil-relevant instruments Mandatory Union institutions and MS take appropriate action to achieve priority objectives, including: Economic incentives and market-based instruments, Legislation, Monitoring process, Information requirements Public-private partnershipsMonitoring, evaluation (involving stakeholder consultation) and reporting Voluntary Tools and measures to complement legislative frameworks and to engage stakeholders at different levels

The relevant EU institutions and the Member States have to ensure that the 7th EAP is implemented taking appropriate actions, and that priority objectives set out are met by 2020. (Art. 3).342 In order to implement the priority objectives, the 7th EAP commits the EU and the MSs to speed up the implementation of existing strategies, fill gaps where legislation doesn't yet exist, and improve existing legislation.343 It states that “All measures, actions and targets set out in the 7th EAP shall be proposed and implemented [...], where appropriate, subject to a comprehensive impact assessment.” (Art. 2.4); Furthermore “The Commission shall ensure that the implementation of the relevant elements of the 7th EAP is monitored in the context of the regular monitoring process of the Europe 2020 Strategy.” (Art. 4.1). The 7th EAP points the way towards making the most of these opportunities; however competent authorities are to take forward in order to implement them. The 7th EAP states that “An appropriate mix of policy instruments would enable businesses and consumers to improve their understanding of the impact of their activities on the environment and to manage that impact. Such policy instruments include economic incentives, market-based instruments, information requirements as well as voluntary tools and measures to complement legislative frameworks and to engage stakeholders at different levels.”(Preamble (34)) “Public authorities at all levels shall work with businesses and social partners, civil society and individual citizens in implementing the 7th EAP.” (Art. 3(2)) The EU institutions are responsible for specific areas and MS are responsible for implementing actions that accomplish the objectives of the 7EAP (Art. 3). The COM is responsible for monitoring implementation through the Europe 2020 monitoring process (Art. 4(1)). EEA indicators on the state of the environment shall inform the monitoring process, as well as stakeholder consultation and indicators monitoring progress toward “environment and climate-related legislation and targets such as the climate and energy targets, biodiversity targets and resource efficiency milestones” (Art. 4(1)). COM must conduct evaluation of the 7EAP as well based on the state of the environment report by the EEA and submit an evaluation report to the Parliament and Council. This and further policy developments will then inform the development and proposal of an 8th EAP (Art. 4(2)). 8. Assessment of environmental status The Annex contains the primary text outlining the Programme for Action to 2020 with the priority objectives set forth in detail. Priority Objective 1 is “To protect, conserve and enhance the Union’s natural capital”, and it outlines many issues with the EU environmental status to be addressed. Paragraph 18 states that “recent assessments how that biodiversity in the Union is still being lost and that most ecosystems are seriously degraded as a result of various pressures” (citing the European Environment Agency Technical Report 12/2010) and Para. 19 states that the “objective of ‘good ecological status’ by 2015 is likely to be met only for 53 % of surface water bodies in the Union” (citing COM(2012) 673). Paragraph 23: “The degradation, fragmentation and unsustainable use of land in the Union is jeopardising the provision of several key ecosystem services, threatening biodiversity and

342

EU website, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/newprg/index.htm 343

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/newprg/objectives.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/newprg/index.htm

202

increasing Europe’s vulnerability to climate change and natural disasters. It is also exacerbating soil degradation and desertification. More than 25 % of the Union’s territory is affected by soil erosion by water, which compromises soil functions and affects the quality of freshwater. Soil contamination and sealing are also persistent problems. More than half a million sites throughout the Union are thought to be contaminated and until they are identified and assessed, they will continue to pose potentially serious environmental, economic, social and health risks. Every year more than 1 000 km2 of land are taken for housing, industry, transport or recreational purposes.” Article 4(1) requires use of the EEA’s assessment of the state of the EU environment as well as “monitor[ing] progress in achieving existing environment and climate-related legislation and targets such as the climate and energy targets, biodiversity targets and resource efficiency milestones” with indicators and showing environmental trends over a period of time. The EEA indicators are available here: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators#c5=&c0=10&b_start=0. Within the Annex outlining the 7EAP, the Priority objectives contain statements of what should be achieved by 2020, e.g., Paragraph 28 of Priority Objective 1, which states that to “protect, conserve and enhance the Union’s natural capital, the 7th EAP shall ensure that by 2020: (a) the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services, including pollination, are halted, ecosystems and their services are maintained and at least 15 % of degraded ecosystems have been restored; (b) the impact of pressures on transitional, coastal and fresh waters (including surface and ground waters) is significantly reduced to achieve, maintain or enhance good status, as defined by the Water Framework Directive; (c) the impact of pressures on marine waters is reduced to achieve or maintain good environmental status, as required by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, and coastal zones are managed sustainably; (d) air pollution and its impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity are further reduced with the long-term aim of not exceeding critical loads and levels; (e) land is managed sustainably in the Union, soil is adequately protected and the remediation of contaminated sites is well underway; (f) the nutrient cycle (nitrogen and phosphorus) is managed in a more sustainable and resource-efficient way; (g) forest management is sustainable, and forests, their biodiversity and the services they provide are protected and, as far as feasible, enhanced and the resilience of forests to climate change, fires, storms, pests and diseases is improved.” It then lists requirements for implementation in order to achieve those 2020 indicators. The need for more indicators is mentioned in the Annex, e.g., “Developing indicators and realistic and achievable targets for the reduction of the overall impact of consumption” as part of the required action to achieve Priority objective 2. 9. Reporting units - what are the specific transposition requirements Concurrent with the mid-term evaluation of the 6EAP344, the evaluation report which will be issued for the 7EAP (Art. 4(2)) will look at the progress in adopting policies, measures and targets which contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the 7EAP. Thus, it looks at MS policies as well as the state of the EU environment and changes / trends. Information reported through the regular monitoring process of the Europe 2020 strategy. Country information is available here: http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm. It provides the National Reform Programme and the Progress towards 2020 targets for each MS by clicking on the individual countries on the map. 13. Examples of implementation approaches case study areas

344

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-07-603_en.htm.

203

Various measures under the relevant policies would contribute to soil protection. Most relevant are the measures under the agricultural policy, nature protection and water protection policies.

204

24 Soil Sealing Guidelines

1. Name of Policy and brief summary of implementation The Guidelines on best practice to limit, mitigate or compensate soil sealing (SWD(2012) 101 final/2) were developed based on the 2011 report “Overview of best practices for limiting soil sealing or mitigating its effects in EU-27”, which presents the land take and soil sealing trends in the EU.345 That report stemmed from the Soil Thematic Strategy (COM(2006) 231) and the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe (COM(2011) 571), the latter of which proposed “that by 2020, EU policies take into account their impacts on land use with the aim to achieve no net land take by 2050”.346 The guidelines include “examples of policies, legislation, funding schemes, local planning tools, information campaigns and many other best practices implemented throughout the EU” targeted at competent Member State authorities (at national, regional and local levels), land planning and soil management professionals, and general stakeholders.347 They were officially presented to the Member States by the Commission during a high-level conference on “Soil remediation and soil sealing” in Brussels, 10-11 May 2012. Entry into force The Commission’s Staff Working Document was adopted on 12 April 2012, but no entry into force as not a legal act. 2. Policy Field (water, agriculture, biodiversity, energy) Soil. Integration/coordination issues with other related pieces of legislation Above paragraph mentions the Soil Thematic Strategy and the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe as two related policies. Page 7 of the Guidelines mentions the possibility that an EIA would be required for a project that could pose soil sealing, and thus consideration of sealing could be included in the EIA checklist according to the Guidelines. SEAs are mentioned on page 8, along with the Cohesion Policy, CAP, transport, industry and energy policies. SEAs and EIAs are again mentioned on pages 19 and 23 with regards to local participatory input into land use planning, mitigation measures, and compensation measures. The Guidelines will likely have some coordination or overlap with land use planning policies at the national, regional and local levels. Furthermore, Annex 3 of the Guidelines provides an overview of the existing EU policies and legislative instruments that have a bearing on land take and thus soil sealing. 3. Aims of the policy and its relevance to soil protection Objectives: “The objective of this Commission Staff Working Document containing guidelines on best practice to limit, mitigate or compensate for soil sealing is to provide information on the magnitude of soil sealing in the European Union (EU), its impacts and examples of best practice for its limitation, mitigation or compensation with a view to ensuring better land management. This document is a European Commission Staff Working Document for information purposes. It does not represent an official position of the Commission on this issue, nor does it anticipate such a position.” 348 Principles included in the legal text

345

European Commission DG Environment, Soil sealing, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/sealing_guidelines.htm. 346

Ibid. 347

Ibid. 348

Guidelines on best practice to limit, mitigate or compensate soil sealing (SWD(2012) 101 final/2).

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/sealing_guidelines.htm

205

Polluter-pays (with regards to internalizing the external costs of environmental damage and thereby incentivizing people to change behaviours (e.g., transport users to switch to cleaner vehicles or different modes).

Spatial coverage and management unit: Soil throughout the EU which is susceptible to sealing through urban sprawl. The Guidelines are targeted toward the Member States competent authorities (local, regional and national level), land use planners and soil manager, and stakeholders in general. 4. Relevance to soil protection Directly relevant to soil sealing, as the information included in the Guidelines is intended to be multi-functional, allowing for awareness raising, planning, identifying and implementing mitigation measures to protect soils against sealing, providing a checklist for development projects, etc. 5. Soil-focused aims and objectives

Direct: Soil, in particular reducing soil sealing and land take, is the major focus of the Guidelines, so the soil-focused aims include defining the concept of soil sealing and land take (Section 2.1 and Annex I), outlining the situation and trends of EU soil sealing and land take (Section 2.2 and Annex II), and identifying major drivers (Section 2.3 and Annex III) as well as impacts of soil sealing and land take (Annex IV).

Indirect: The policy is aimed at soil sealing as a threat to soil protection, so the aims and objectives are directly soil-focused.

Soil threats addressed by the Soil Sealing Guidelines Directly: Soil sealing and land take. Indirectly: The focus on impacts of soil sealing and land take highlights that water

infiltration capacity is lost thereby increasing the risk of floods and the need for irrigation due to less retained soil moisture, which could pose salinisation problems. Also, loss of soil biodiversity is identified as a key threat resulting from soil sealing. Loss of SOM is indirectly addressed through the concern that soil sealing reduces soil organic carbon, which is a key component of SOM.




Examples of best practice from Member States were highlighted as targets which could be taken up to reduce effects from soil sealing. E.g., quantitative land take limits per annum – indicative and used as monitoring tools, but insufficient without binding measures and programmes; protection of agricultural soils and valuable landscapes through a fee for conversion or restrictions or removal of topsoil upon conversion to replace elsewhere; soil quality in city planning; eco-accounts and compensation systems for development.

Planning restrictions (i.e., building controls around cities); land planning guidance taking soil quality into account and steering new developments away from valuable soils to preserve existing functions; designation of peri-urban areas; and brownfields regeneration and use for infrastructure development.

“The most advanced situations present a structure that applies all three actions (limiting – mitigating –compensating) at the same time, in a hierarchy that goes from a higher to a lower level of ambition.”349 By addressing soil sealing that also means land take will be dealt with, with the overall outcome of more efficient and sustainable use of natural resources (of which soil is a primary component) rather than stopping economic development or freezing current land uses forever.

349

Guidelines on best practice to limit, mitigate or compensate soil sealing (SWD(2012) 101 final/2), Section 5.

206

Key soil-relevant instruments Mandatory None Voluntary Member States may utilise the best practices highlighted in the Soil Sealing Guidelines and adapt them to their national context to prevent soil sealing and land take.

7. Mandatory requirements and voluntary options for Member States (types of management measures) There are no mandatory requirements included in the Soil Sealing Guidelines. The document presents a comprehensive outline of the best practices collected from Member States for others to use as examples in limiting soil sealing, mitigating the effects of soil sealing, and compensating soil sealing. Awareness raising is also offered as an example of initiatives and activities which may reduce soil sealing and land take by eliminating barriers to more sustainable land planning policies and land use.350 Funding The Guidelines point out on page 6 that funding policies for infrastructure development can act as subsidies that drive unsustainable land take and soil sealing (e.g., urbanisation fees in municipal budgets). Brownfield sites receive initial or supportive funding in several MS and at EU level (Cohesion Policy). Policies which target urban renewal can help avoid urban sprawl, which are supported through the ERDF (page 16 and the Fund is mentioned again on page 29 and Annex 3). 8. Assessment of environmental status Annex 2 addresses land take and soil sealing in the EU; thus presenting the case for the creation of Guidelines due to problems with urban sprawl and soil sealing. Annex 4 is dedicated to a Technical background on the impacts of soil sealing. Annex 5 presents permeable materials that prevent sealing. 9. Reporting units - what are the specific transposition requirements These Guidelines may be transposed by Member States but there are no reporting requirements due to the non-legally binding nature of the policy. 14. Examples of implementation approaches case study areas “The best practice examples collected in the guidelines show that smarter spatial planning can limit urban sprawl. In fact, limiting soil sealing should have a priority over mitigation or compensation measures, since soil sealing is an almost irreversible process. Development potential inside urban areas can be used instead, through the regeneration of abandoned industrial areas (brownfields), for example. Mitigating measures include using permeable materials , supporting ‘green infrastructure’, and making wider use of natural water harvesting systems. Only where on-site mitigation measures are insufficient, compensation measures that enhance soil functions elsewhere should be considered.”351 The 2011 report “Overview of best practices for limiting soil sealing or mitigating its effects in EU-27” presents examples of technical measures to mitigate soil sealing in different member states.352 The “In-depth report on Soil Sealing” (European Commission, 2012) provides implementation examples in different Member States.353

350

There are any additional management measures, such as impact assessments, reporting or monitoring required. 351

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/sealing_guidelines.htm 352

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/sealing.htm 353

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/soil/pdf/sealing/Soil%20Sealing%20In-depth%20Report%20March%20version_final.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/sealing.htm



207

25 EU Forest Action Plan and Forest Strategy

1. Name of Policy and brief summary of implementation To date, EU Member States are mainly responsible for forest protection policy. The European Commission`s role is restricted to coordinating activities among MSs and to promoting concerted action through new and coherent approaches. Specific measures on forest protection can be found in different EU policies such as the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and policies on nature conservation like Natura 2000 (Winkel et al. 2009354; The EU Forestry Strategy355). The EU Forest Action Plan (FAP) was adopted on 15 June 2006 (COM(2006) 302 final)356. It builds on the report on implementation of the EU Forestry Strategy (FS) (COM(2005) 84 final)357 and consequent conclusions by the Council358.The EU FAP is the main instrument to implement the EU FS. The FAP provides a coherent framework for forest-related actions at Community and MS level. It also serves as an instrument of coordination between different Community actions, as well as between European Community actions and the Member States’ national forest policies. The plan proposes 18 key actions which were supposed to be implemented over five years (2007-2011). The FAP plans a mid-term evaluation for 2009359 and a final evaluation for 2012 on implementation of the FAP. In 2013, the Commission has adopted a Communication on a new EU Forest Strategy360 and a Commission Staff Working Document accompanying it.361 Entry into force The Communication on an EU Forest Action Plan (COM(2006) 302 final) was adopted on 15 June 2006. 2. Policy Field (water, agriculture, biodiversity, energy) Forestry, Nature & Biodiversity, Agriculture and Rural Development. Integration/coordination issues with other related pieces of legislation There are some overlaps with the RDPs under the Pillar 2 of the CAP.

354

Georg Winkel, Timo Kaphengst, Sophie Herbert, Zoe Robaey, Lydia Rosenkranz, Metodi Sotirov (2009). EU policy options for the protection of European forests against harmful impacts. As part of the tender: Implementation of the EU Forestry Strategy: "How to protect EU Forests against harmful impacts?" ENV.B.1/ETU/2008/0049: OJ 2008/S 112 – 149606, http://www.ecologic.eu/sites/files/project/2013/2300-ifp_ecologic_final-report.pdf 355

Council Resolution (1999/C 56/01) of 15 December 1998 on a Forestry Strategy for the European Union, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:1999:056:0001:0004:EN:PDF, 356

COM(2006) 302 final. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on an EU Forest Action Plan, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52006DC0302; see also: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/action_plan/index_en.htm. 357

COM(2005) 84 final. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament reporting on the implementation of the EU Forestry Strategy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52005DC0084&from=EN, see also http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/home_en.htm 358

Council Conclusions on an EU Forest Action Plan, 2662nd meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council, 30–31 May 2005, http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/publi/2005_council_conclusions.pdf 359

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/euforest/ 360

COM(2013) 659 final. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A new EU Forest Strategy: for forests and the forest-based sector, http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/forest/strategy/communication_en.pdf, see also: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/home_en.htm. The following website provides the planning and findings for a new EU Forest Strategy: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A8-2015-0126+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN. 361

SWD(2013) 342 final. Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - A new EU Forest Strategy: for forests and the forest-based sector, http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/forest/strategy/staff-working-doc_en.pdf, see also http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/home_en.htm

http://www.ecologic.eu/sites/files/project/2013/2300-ifp_ecologic_final-report.pdf



http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/action_plan/index_en.htm



http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/home_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/publi/2005_council_conclusions.pdf


http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A8-2015-0126+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A8-2015-0126+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/forest/strategy/staff-working-doc_en.pdf


208

There are no linked documents within the text of the Forest Action Plan (see http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LKD/?uri=CELEX:52006DC0302&qid=1450195034581). Additionally, no linked documents are specifically referenced in the Commission Communication on the implementation of the EU Forestry Strategy (see http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LKD/?uri=CELEX:52005DC0084). 3. Aims of the policy and its relevance to soil protection Objectives: The overall objective of the EU FAP is to support and enhance sustainable forest management and the multifunctional role of forests. It aims to contribute to achieving the objectives of the renewed Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs and of the Gothenburg Agenda for sustainable development.362 The EU FAP focuses on four main objectives:

1. to improve long-term competitiveness; 2. to improve and protect the environment; 3. to contribute to the quality of life; and 4. to foster coordination and communication.

Eighteen key actions are proposed by the Commission to be implemented jointly with the Member States during the period of five years (2007–2011).363 Principles included in the EU FAP The following principles form the basis to achieve the overall objective of the EU FAP (see above):

“national forest programmes as a suitable framework for implementing international forest-related commitments;

the increasing importance of global and cross-sectoral issues in forest policy, calling for improved coherence and coordination;

the need to enhance the competitiveness of the EU forest sector and good governance of EU forests.

respect for the principle of subsidiarity”.364 Spatial coverage and management unit: Forests throughout the EU, providing a framework for Community and Member States level action on forests (e.g., coordinating policies between the different levels) in recognition of the various contexts and ownership of forests. The Commission proposes the EU level set of key actions, which it implements jointly with the Member States. There are also additional actions that the Commission proposes to the Member States to implement according to their specific conditions and priorities for forests. 4. Relevance to soil protection Though not directly, a positive impact on the soils could be expected through the enhanced sustainable forest management. Sustainable forests and agro-forestry systems can support healthy soils that provide important ecosystem services (flood prevention) and enhance soil quality (increased SOM and soil biodiversity, reduced risk of soil erosion and landslides) and reforestation can help to restore soil quality to levels before the forest fire. 5. Soil-focused aims and objectives

Direct: the FAP does not have any direct soil-relevant aims and objectives. Indirect: With relevance to soil protection, the FAP recognises that forests make a

positive contribution to “maintaining and enhancing environmental amenities and ecological

362

COM(2006) 302 final. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on an EU Forest Action Plan, see also: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/action_plan/index_en.htm 363

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/action_plan/index_en.htm 364


http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LKD/?uri=CELEX:52006DC0302&qid=1450195034581

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LKD/?uri=CELEX:52006DC0302&qid=1450195034581

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LKD/?uri=CELEX:52005DC0084

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LKD/?uri=CELEX:52005DC0084


209

values”. Accordingly, two out of four objectives set by the FAP can be considered as soil protection relevant: (2) “improving and protecting the environment” and (3) “contributing to the quality of life”. The four objectives are accompanied by 18 key actions concretising how the objectives should be achieved, which should be implemented jointly by the European Commission and the Member States. The main objective (2) seeks “to maintain and appropriately enhance biodiversity, carbon sequestration, integrity, health and resilience of forest ecosystems at various geographical scales”. All four key actions under this objective have a potential to contribute to soil protection, i.e. the key action 6: Facilitate EU compliance with the obligations on climate change mitigation of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol and encourage adaptation to the effects of climate change; the key action 7: Contribute towards achieving the revised Community biodiversity objectives for 2010 and beyond; the key action 8: Work towards a European Forest Monitoring System; and the key action 9: Enhance the protection of EU forests. Particularly, unsustainable management of forests or deforestation reduces both above-ground and below-ground biodiversity, reduces carbon sequestration and thereby SOC / SOM due to reduced vegetative cover which can affect soil quality and health, and compromises the integrity, health and resilience of the soils which are a component of forest ecosystems. Furthermore, the main objective (3) seeks “to contribute to the quality of life by preserving and improving the social and cultural dimensions of forests”. It recognises that “forests provide goods and services that benefit citizens, their health and their quality of life, including [...] protection of soil and water and protection against erosion, desertification and natural hazards”. To achieve this, the FAP has identified the following key actions: Key action 10: Encourage environmental education and information; Key action 11: Maintain and enhance the protective functions of forests; and Key action 12: Explore the potential of urban and peri-urban forests. Member States have the possibility, within the framework of their priorities and with support from the EAFRD, to enhance investment and sustainable management of forests for better prevention against natural disasters.

Soil threats addressed by the FAP Directly: The Communication states that “forests provide goods and services, [...]

including protection of soil and water and protection against erosion, desertification and natural hazards”.365 Natural hazards could cover floods and landslides, as sustainable soil management can improve water retention capacity of soil and prevent from floods.

Indirectly: The activities under the key actions that enhance a sustainable forest management have a potential to contribute to increasing organic matter in soils, reducing the risk of soil erosion, landslides and floods and promoting soil biodiversity. For example, “carbon stock in forests and other wooded land in the EU in 2005 has reached 15 240 million tons, of which 6 861 million tons are stored in the above ground biomass and 5 444 million tons are soil carbon”366. In opposite, land use change, e.g. deforestation, contributes to reduced soil organic matter and biodiversity in soil and to increased GHG emissions. Furthermore, “about 0.5 million ha of forests and other wooded land are burned every year, predominantly in the Mediterranean countries”367; this results into increases soil erosion risk. And “[...] forestry can also serve [...] protecting soil and water, protection against natural disasters and hazards (landslides, avalanches, flooding) [...]” (SEC(2006) 748)368.

365

COM(2006) 302 final. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on an EU Forest Action Plan, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52006DC0302; see also: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/action_plan/index_en.htm. 366

Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005, FAO 2006 in SEC(2006) 748. 367

Forest Fires in Europe 2004. S.P.I.05.147 EN, European Communities 2005 in SEC(2006) 748. 368

Commission Staff Working Document (SEC(2006) 748). Annex to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on an EU Forest Action Plan {COM(2006) 302 final}. Brussels, 15.6.2006.



210




There are no direct or specific soil targets in the FAP

Natura 2000, measures under the Rural Development Programmes (RDP), in particular, the programmes of measures established by the Water Framework Directive (WFD), and the Biomass Action Plan (BAP) are main EU policies that are related to forest issues (Winkel et al. 2009, COM(2006) 302). The call for implementation of all of these policies, with their respective targets and forestry provisions, by the Forestry Strategy and FAP (including the 2013 Communication regarding a new EU Forestry Strategy)369 would indirectly contribute to soil protection.

There is no explicit soil-focused outcome expected by the FAP. Though indirectly, the outcome of enhanced sustainable soil management relates to the treatment of the soil through the various measures expected under the implementation of actions foreseen by the FAP. The impact of these measures might be significant, as presently forest covers ca. 38% of the EU’s land area.370

7. Mandatory requirements and voluntary options for Member States (types of management measures) There are no explicit soil-focused obligatory requirements in the FAP. The EU FAP works as a framework which uses existing elements in forestry policy and builds on other EU policies that are related to forest issues such as Natura 2000, the Rural Development Schemes of the CAP, the programmes of measures established by the WFD and the Biomass Action Plan (Winkel et al. 2009371, COM(2006) 302). Specifically, since it is a strategy and action plan, it is non-legally binding with regards to Member States implementation, rather proposing 18 key actions which should be implemented over the course of 5 years. However, there is not compliance mechanism to enforce that the Member States fully implement all of the actions, etc. The formulation and implementation of forest policy is first and foremost subject to competences of the Member States. The national forest programmes (NFP) are explicitly recognised by the EU as important planning tools for national policy making and are voluntary (Winkel et al. 2009).372 They are also an important tool to linking international and national forest policy and implementing forest-related commitments. The actions outlined in the FAP refer predominantly to activities in the areas of coordination (including the exchange of information and experience), communication and research (Winkel et al. 2009)373. Rural Development Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 refers to the forest management plans as an instrument of implementation in line with the sustainable forest management.374

369

COM(2013) 659 final. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A new EU Forest Strategy: for forests and the forest-based sector, http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/forest/strategy/communication_en.pdf, see also: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/home_en.htm, 370

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/divers/join/2013/495862/IPOL-AGRI_DV%282013%29495862_EN.pdf 371

Georg Winkel, Timo Kaphengst, Sophie Herbert, Zoe Robaey, Lydia Rosenkranz, Metodi Sotirov (2009). EU policy options for the protection of European forests against harmful impacts. As part of the tender: Implementation of the EU Forestry Strategy: "How to protect EU Forests against harmful impacts?" ENV.B.1/ETU/2008/0049: OJ 2008/S 112 – 149606, http://www.ecologic.eu/sites/files/project/2013/2300-ifp_ecologic_final-report.pdf 372

Ibid. 373

Ibid. 374

Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005




211

Key soil-relevant instruments (Only) Voluntary In general, the EU policy documents to protect forests are non-legally binding (thus not mandatory), such as Forestry Strategy is based on a non-legally binding Council Resolution, and the FAP – on non-legally binding Communication. The national forest programmes (NFP)

The Member States may, in addition to the support from the EAFRD and the instrument LIFE+, promote measures (by the NFP’s), e.g. in favour of forests (Natura 2000), agri-forestry systems, support restoration of forests damaged by natural disasters and fire, support studies on the causes of forest fires, awareness-raising campaigns.375 Funding The Key Action 2 under the EU FAP references different research and technological development funding opportunities, though focused on enhancing the competitiveness of the forest sector. For instance, the 7th Research Framework Programme, the Forest-based Sector Technology Platform, and the European Regional Development Fund. Though not referenced in the EU FAP itself, the EAFRD is identified as the main financial instrument supporting implementation of the FAP.376 The current LIFE 2014-2020 programme (as adopted under Regulation (EC) No 1293/2013377) explicitly recognizes the significant role that forests play for environment and climate, specifically mentioning soil as one of the items affected as well as biodiversity, water and climate change mitigation and adaptation.378 It encourages synergies to be emphasised between forests and soils as well as monitoring. Forests are also covered under the Environment sub-programme priority area for Environment and Resource Efficiency.379 Same as the ERDF380, the cohesion fund381 focus on forest fire protection measures. Both funds indicate “Population benefiting from forest fire protection measures” as common output indicators for ERDF support under the investment for growth and jobs goal or common output indicators for the cohesion fund. 8. Assessment of environmental status The Commission issued a review of the implementation of the EU Forestry Strategy (2005)382 which examines the policies in place having an effect on sustainable forest management in the EU. It was based on Commission action as well as consultations of Member States and stakeholders through the Standing Forestry Committee, Advisory Group on Forestry and Cork, and the internet. Section 2 of the report discusses the forestry situation within the EU, briefly referencing the need for forest protection as there are risks and damage occurring to EU forests, but the report is more heavily focused on the various uses of forests and the coordination between different levels (e.g., private forest owners, local level, regional, national and EU). In 2012, “Ex-post evaluation of the forest action plan” has been conducted, which among other issues has analysed ‘To what extent have the activities in the framework of the EU

375

SEC(2006) 748. Commission Staff Working Document. Annex to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on an EU Forest Action Plan (COM(2006) 302 final), http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/action_plan/workdoc_en.pdf, see also http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/action_plan/index_en.htm 376

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/action_plan/progress_en.htm. In addition, see the Commission’s (2009) “Report on implementation of Forestry Measures under the Rural Development Regulation 1698/2005 for the period 2007-2013”. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/publi/index_en.htm 377

Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the establishment of a Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 614/2007. (Further: ‘Life Regulation No 1293/2013’). 378

Regulation (EC) No 1293/2013, Recital 16. 379

Regulation (EC) No 1293/2013, Article 9 and Annex III. 380

Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013, ANNEX I, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R1301. 381

Regulation (EU) No 1300/2013, ANNEX I, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R1300. 382

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52005DC0084.

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/action_plan/workdoc_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/action_plan/progress_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/publi/index_en.htm




212

Forest Action Plan contributed to balancing economic, environmental and socio-cultural objectives related to forestry?’383. With regard to environmental objectives, the report states that “The impact of the EU FAP on its general objectives is indirect, through information sharing, influencing policy processes and Rural Development Programmes for forestry measures as well as other instruments at EU and national levels.” There was a need expressed by stakeholders “to show an impact on the ground, such as improved profitability of forestry, measurable indication of steps towards the biodiversity targets, or better disaster preparedness”. Furthermore, the “Report of the Standing Forestry Committee ad hoc Working Group VI on forest information and monitoring”384 reviewed the state of forest information systems in the EU and compiled a list of relevant forest information parameters that are linked to EU policies affecting the forest sector. Recognising that better information and monitoring of the EU forest’s condition are essential for the awareness of the state of forest ecosystems, a European Forest Data Centre (EFDAC) has been established.” 385386 9. Reporting units - what are the specific transposition requirements The EU FAP describes the need for and coordinated efforts by the Commission, Member States and international organizations to establish a European Forest Monitoring System under Key Action 8. The FUTMON project under the LIFE programme was created to create such a system and provide the policy relevant information on forests that is necessary for satisfaction of international reporting obligations and the Action Plan.387 Other documents and publications on forestry measures can be found under: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/publi/index_en.htm. 15. Examples of implementation approaches case study areas The Commission has produced a report on the implementation of the EU FAP in 2008.388 The assessment looks at the four main objectives (broken down in to 18 key actions) and work programme to achieve the objectives. The latter was developed through consultation with the main stakeholders and is reviewed every year with the Member States. In 2009, another report was produced by the Commission on “Report on implementation of Forestry Measures under the Rural Development Regulation 1698/2005 for the period 2007-2013”.389 It provides an overview of forestry measures included in the Rural Development Programmes for the period 2007–2013. This report served as background information for the preparation of an opinion of the Standing Forestry Committee (SFC) on forestry activities within Rural Development Programmes.

383

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/evaluation/market-and-income-reports/forest-action-plan-2012_en.htm. 384

European Commission (2012). Standing Forestry Committee. Ad hoc working group on forest information and monitoring. Final report. March 2012. "Forest information needs, required resources, ways and means", http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/publi/index_en.htm. 385

European Commission, Joint Research Centre, the European Forest Data Centre (EFDAC), http://forest.jrc.ec.europa.eu/efdac/. 386

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/action_plan/progress_en.htm#book3 387

http://www.futmon.org/ 388

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/action_plan/progrep07_2008_en.pdf 389



http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/evaluation/market-and-income-reports/forest-action-plan-2012_en.htm

http://forest.jrc.ec.europa.eu/efdac/

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/action_plan/progress_en.htm#book3

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/action_plan/progrep07_2008_en.pdf


213

26 Adaptation Strategy

1. Name of Policy and brief summary of implementation The Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: An EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change, COM(2013) 216 final was put forth by the Commission on 16 April 2013 and the Council adopted conclusions regarding the Strategy on 18 June 2013.390 There was a White Paper issued in 2009 titled “Adapting to climate change: Towards a European framework for action” which set out adaptation actions, and by the Strategy’s communication, 15 Member States had adopted an adaptation strategy.391 This policy is non-binding as a strategy rather than being a regulation or directive. Implementation of the Strategy is based on eight different actions:392

1) Encourage all Member States to adopt comprehensive adaptation strategies The Commission developed guidelines to assist Member States in creating adaptation

strategies, it is developing a ‘scoreboard’ to measure Member States’ resilience, and in 2017 there will be an assessment of Member States progress.

2) Provide LIFE funding to support capacity building and step up adaptation action in Europe (2014-2020)

The LIFE programme created a climate action sub-programme and areas vulnerable to climate change have been prioritised for the 2014-2020 LIFE work programmes.

3) Introduce adaptation in the Covenant of Mayors framework (2013/2014) The Commission will launch an initiative where local authorities can commit to adopting

local strategies and awareness-raising activities for adaptation. 4) Bridge the knowledge gap Knowledge gaps and appropriate tools to address them will be identified and fed into the

Horizon 2020 research programme, and a cross-sectoral review of EU risks has been completed which is to inform the EU-wide vulnerability assessments.

5) Further develop Climate-ADAPT as the ‘one-stop shop’ for adaptation information in Europe

During 2013-2014, the access to information on and interaction between the Climate-ADAPT and other platforms was to be improved. Regional and local authorities are to more closely interact with financial institutions for better cost-benefit assessments of different policies and innovative funding, and starting in 2014 work on the Copernicus climate services was to begin.

6) Facilitate the climate-proofing of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the Cohesion Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)

The CAP reform was completed and there were greening measures included, and the COM provided guidance on how to integrate climate adaptation into the programme design, development and implementation during 2014-2020. Cohesion and CAP funds can also be used “to address knowledge gaps, to invest in the necessary analyses, risk assessments and tools, and to build up capacities for adaptation.”393

7) Ensuring more resilient infrastructure In 2013 the mapping of industry-related standards by European standardisation

organisations was to launch and work to encourage green infrastructure development, including guidelines.

390

See European Commission DG Climate Action, EU Adaptation Strategy Package, http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/adaptation/what/documentation_en.htm. 391

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: An EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change, COM(2013) 216 final. 392

European Commission, The EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change, http://ec.europa.eu/clima/publications/docs/eu_strategy_en.pdf. 393

Ibid.

214

8) Promote insurance and other financial products for resilient investment and business decisions

Report on the results of the public consultation about insurance Green Paper and between 2014-2015 to increase insurance incorporating climate mitigation and adaptation principles. Trying to increase insurance and financial sector involvement and dissemination will occur through the Climate-ADAPT website.

Entry into force 18 June 2013. 2. Policy Field (water, agriculture, biodiversity, energy) Climate change. Integration/coordination issues with other related pieces of legislation LIFE programme co-financing for joint adaptation projects by EU countries and cities, in which the EU provides funding under the climate action sub-programme (paras. 3 and 4). Cohesion policy funds also are mentioned under paragraph 3. Floods Directive under para. 4.1 for cross-border management of floods. As climate change has wide-ranging effects on multiple different areas, one of the targets of the Adaptation Strategy is “Climate-proofing EU action: promoting adaptation in key vulnerable sectors”. Paragraph 4.3: “Adaptation has already been mainstreamed in legislation in such sectors as marine waters (Council Directive 2008/56/EC and EU Regulation No 1255/2011), forestry (Regulation (EC) 2152/2003), and transport (Decision 661/2010/EC); and in important policy instruments such as inland water (COM(2012)673 final), biodiversity (COM(2011)244 final) and migration and mobility (COM(2011) 743 final). The Commission staff working document on climate change, environmental degradation and migration accompanying this Communication provides further insight on the latter. In addition, the Commission has tabled legislative proposals on integrating adaptation in agriculture and forestry (now 1305/2013), maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management (COM(2013) 133 final), energy (COM(2011) 665/3), disaster risk prevention and management (COM(2011)934 final), transport (COM(2011) 650/2 final), research, plant health (COM(2013) 267 final)394, and the environment (COM(2012) 628 final).” The Action 6 to carry forward this climate-proofing refers to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the Cohesion Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) in particular as needing to be climate-proofed. 3. Aims of the policy and its relevance to soil protection Objectives: The Adaptation Strategy is the EU’s overarching strategy to increase adaptation through different mechanisms which enhance the preparedness and capacity to respond at different levels to climate change effects, develop a coherent approach and improve coordination.395396 The three broad objectives are to 1) promote action by Member States, 2) result in better-informed decision making, and 3) climate-proofing key vulnerable sectors in the EU. Principles included in the Adaptation Strategy text

Subsidiarity

Proportionality

394

The Commission has proposed a new EU plant health regulation in May 2013. See: http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_health_biosecurity/legislation/new_eu_rules/index_en.htm. 395


http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/adaptation/index_en.htm.

215

“the rights enshrined by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union” in ‘launching’ the Adaptation Strategy for the EU

Spatial coverage and management unit: The entire European Union. Generally refers to the EU – economic and policy sectors (paragraph 6) – but also the local, regional, national, and EU levels in terms of enhancing preparedness and capacity to respond to climate change. 4. Relevance to soil protection Negative impacts are projected to occur to natural resources from climate change, including soils. This will impact the conditions of agricultural and industrial practice, so the Strategy aims to assist with adaptation capacity throughout the EU. 5. Soil-focused aims and objectives

Direct: There are no direct soil-focused aims or objectives in the Adaptation Strategy. Indirect: The first objective focuses on stimulating action by the Member States in terms

of planning and management, so increasing adaptation strategies to help target action and investment could be relevant to soil protection as a resource which is vulnerable to climate change events (i.e., floods, extreme rainfall events, droughts). Joint approaches and coherence between adaptation strategies and national risk assessments is positive under this objective as well for soils due to potentially higher emphasis being placed on at-risk soils if that is actually measured and can then be targeted to increase resilience through better management strategies. The climate-action sub-programme under the LIFE programme also increases adaptation by prioritising adaptation projects which address “key cross-sectoral, trans-regional and/or cross-border issues” and those which use green infrastructure and ecosystem-based approaches.397 This could include soil protection through projects targeting improved management (e.g., agricultural and building sector measures to reduce soil erosion and habitat/ecosystem protection), although soil was mentioned as a thematic priority under the environment sub-programme rather than the climate action sub-programme. The third objective regarding climate-proofing may indirectly aim toward adaptive soil management through the mainstreaming of adaptation into forestry and biodiversity legislation. Adaptation in the forestry sector may result in less deforestation, for example, and thereby maintain soil cover and prevent erosion of forest soils, and management to enhance biodiversity’s role in contributing to adaptation would potentially include a focus on soil biodiversity.398 Agriculture is also identified as a key sector which at the time of the adopted Communication was debating the terms of the CAP reform, which incorporated climate into two of the six thematic priorities for the Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) under Pillar 2 of the CAP.

Soil threats addressed by the Adaptation Strategy Directly: Soil erosion and flood risk are threats directly addressed through support for

ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation, which help reduce these threats. Indirectly: SOM loss, landslides, and loss of biodiversity could be indirectly addressed

through the Adaptation Strategy’s focus on better planning and management by identifying resources (e.g., soil) which are vulnerable to climate change (also potentially addressing sealing).

397


Brussaard, L., de Ruiter, P.C., Brown, G.G. (2007) Soil biodiversity for agricultural sustainability. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 121: 233-244.

216

Key soil-relevant instruments Mandatory Commission provide guidelines, reports, monitor, financing, develop indicators for measuring resilience preparedness, promote awareness-raising. Voluntary Member State national adaptation strategies.




None The Monitoring of adaptation efforts and development of Evaluation indicators could include soil to determine whether adaptation efforts are effective.

There are no direct soil-focused expected impacts, but indirectly the expectation is that resources within the EU become more resilient to climate change. Thus, soil would be one of those resources for which targeted action would hopefully increase the resilience and sustainable use.

7. Mandatory requirements and voluntary options for Member States (types of management measures) There are no explicit soil-focused requirements. Due to the fact that this is a strategy, the actions are not mandatory. The Commission obliged itself to produce certain reports and guidelines and to begin work on different areas of integration as seen above in the implementation steps, but there are no requirements imposed on Member States. The key voluntary instrument emphasised within the policy is increasing the amount of Member States who have adaptation strategies. The Commission will provide guidelines for developing adaptation strategies and “By 2014 the Commission will develop an adaptation preparedness scoreboard, identifying key indicators for measuring Member States' level of readiness. In 2017, basing itself on the reports it receives as set out in the Monitoring Mechanism Regulation and on the adaptation preparedness scoreboard, the Commission will assess whether action being taken in the Member States is sufficient. If it deems progress to be insufficient, by reference to the coverage and quality of the national strategies, the Commission will consider without delay proposing a legally binding instrument.” Paragraph 4.1, Action 1. The Commission will provide financing through LIFE and vulnerability assessments and adaptation strategies are also to be supported by the Commission, as well as promote awareness-raising (including indicators, risk communication and management). (Action 2) “The Commission, on the basis of the model of the Covenant of Mayors initiative, will support adaptation in cities, notably by launching a voluntary commitment to adopt local adaptation strategies and awareness-raising activities.” (Action 3). The Commission will work with MS and stakeholders to reduce knowledge gaps and identify tools and methodologies to address, as well as vulnerability assessment, comprehensive review of global climate impacts on the EU, and support the work of the JRC on climate change (Action 4). The Commission will further develop Climate-ADAPT to provide a comprehensive information source on adaptation in the EU, which with the EEA will also interact with other relevant platforms (Action 5). The Commission was to provide guidance on how to integrate adaptation under the CAP and Cohesion Policy and CFP (Action 6). The Commission must mandate European standardization organizations map industry-relevant standards for energy, transport and buildings to better integrate adaptation. Provide guidelines for project developers working on infrastructure and physical assets. Explore the need for more guidance on ecosystem-based adaptation (Action 7).

217

Action 8 requires the Commission “promote insurance and other financial products for resilient investment and business decisions.” 8. Assessment of environmental status The introduction states that “The average global temperature, currently around 0.8°C above pre-industrial levels, continues to rise.399 Some natural processes are being altered, precipitation patterns are changing, glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising.” (paragraph 1). “The temperature of the European land area over the last decade (2002-2011) has been on average 1.3°C above preindustrial level[2], meaning that the increase in Europe has been faster than the global average. Some extreme weather events have increased, with more frequent heat waves, forest fires and droughts in southern and central Europe. Heavier precipitation and flooding is projected in northern and north-eastern Europe, with an increased risk of coastal flooding and erosion. A rise in such events is likely to increase the magnitude of disasters, leading to significant economic losses, public health problems and deaths. Impacts vary across the EU depending on climate, geographic and socioeconomic conditions. All the countries in the EU are exposed to climate change (see Figure 1 below). However, some regions are more at risk than others. The Mediterranean basin, mountain areas, densely populated floodplains, coastal zones, outermost regions and the Arctic are particularly vulnerable. Additionally, three quarters of the population of Europe live in urban areas, which are often ill-equipped for adaptation and are exposed to heatwaves, flooding or rising sea levels.” (paragraph 2). The Strategy provides: “To date, 15 EU Member States have adopted an adaptation strategy.400 Others are under preparation. Some of the adopted strategies have been followed up by action plans, and there has been some progress in integrating adaptation measures into sectoral policies. However, adaptation is in most cases still at an early stage, with relatively few concrete measures on the ground. Some Member States have developed sector-specific plans, such as plans to cope with heat waves and droughts, but only a third carried out a comprehensive vulnerability assessment to underpin policy. Monitoring and evaluation is proving to be particularly difficult, as indicators and monitoring methodologies have hardly been developed.” (paragraph 3). Funding Paragraph 5.2 addresses financing adaptation, including through dedicating a percentage of the Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF) 2014-2020 to climate. The Horizon 2020 and LIFE programmes are to provide funding for adaptation programmes and projects by Member States, regions and cities, as well as integrating climate and adaptation into the European Structural and Investment funds (particularly the framework of dedicated Investment Priorities on adaptation in ERDF and Cohesion Fund). Other funding mechanisms that could be used in the implementation of the Adaptation Strategy include the European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development that support adaptation measures. (para 5.2) Funds (also at Member State level) and public financial institutions support adaptation, as can EU ETS auction revenues if Member States choose to direct the funds towards adaptation. (para 5.2) 9. Reporting units - what are the specific transposition requirements Member State to the Commission and then Commission to the Parliament. Paragraph 4.1: Member States were encouraged to adopt comprehensive national adaptation strategies. The Commission must monitor progress through the reports to be submitted according to the Monitoring Mechanism Regulation, which must be assessed according to indicators created for actions taken. Additionally, the “annual implementation

399

EEA report N°12/2012. Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe 2012. 400

http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/web/guest/adaptation-strategies.

218

reports for programmes funded by the European Structural and Investment funds in the period 2014-2020” are to be considered (paragraph 5.3). The data which the Adaptation Strategy aims to collect is more the adaptation action and its effectiveness rather than the impacts of climate change as the former is lacking. The indicators to be developed under paragraph 5.3 are aimed at evaluating the adaptation efforts of the MS as well as the vulnerabilities around the EU. As stated above, the information MS provide is under the Monitoring Mechanism Regulation401 regarding their national adaptation planning and strategies, as well as the annual implementation reports for programmes that the Structural and Investment funds finance during 2014-2020. (paragraph 5.3). The Commission must then report on the implementation of the Strategy to the European Parliament and propose review if needed (paragraph 5.3). Under paragraph 5 regarding “Governance, financing and review”, national contact points in the all the MS are to be appointed so that the Commission can coordinate communication, awareness-raising and reporting. Timelines “By 2014 the Commission will develop an adaptation preparedness scoreboard, identifying key indicators for measuring Member States' level of readiness. In 2017, basing itself on the reports it receives as set out in the Monitoring Mechanism Regulation and on the adaptation preparedness scoreboard, the Commission will assess whether action being taken in the Member States is sufficient. If it deems progress to be insufficient, by reference to the coverage and quality of the national strategies, the Commission will consider without delay proposing a legally binding instrument.” Paragraph 4.1, Action 1 and paragraph 5.3.

401

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/g-gas/monitoring/

219

27 Emissions Trading System

1. Name of Policy and brief summary of implementation The EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) was established by Directive 2003/87/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC. The EU ETS Directive sets a cap on the amount of emission allowances which are allocated to power plants, factories and other fixed installations covered by the scheme. Based on the companies’ individual situations (i.e. how expensive improvements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be, the lifetime use remaining for factory components, etc.), they may either invest in the installation to reduce their emissions to comply with the cap. Or if it is quite easy and economically rational for an installation to reduce their emissions below their assigned cap, they may sell their extra allowances to installations that are unable to or for which it is more costly to meet their allowance cap rather than buy additional allowances. The Member States were required to bring legislation into force to implement the EU ETS by 31 December 2003.402 The EU ETS was amended by Directive 2004/101/EC to include the project mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol: the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the Joint Implementation (JI) mechanism, so installations could also buy limited amounts of credits from sustainable development projects under these mechanisms with restrictions on the allowable types. In 2008, aviation was included through Directive 2008/101/EC, but the implementation of this part of the scheme has been largely contested and is currently undergoing legal and political challenges regarding its application (e.g., foreign nations have challenged that scheme includes all emissions from flights even beyond the airspace above the territory of the EU, intra-EU airlines have challenged the economic disadvantage at which the scheme places them compared to other airlines, etc.). Now in its third phase of implementation (2013-2020), the EU ETS has been revised in an attempt to strengthen the framework and increase its effectiveness. The major changes which have been put in place are:

"A single, EU-wide cap on emissions applies in place of the previous system of national caps;

Auctioning, not free allocation, is now the default method for allocating allowances. In 2013 more than 40% of allowances will be auctioned, and this share will rise progressively each year;

For those allowances still given away for free, harmonised allocation rules apply which are based on ambitious EU-wide benchmarks of emissions performance;

Some more sectors and gases are included; 300 million allowances set aside in the New Entrants Reserve to fund the deployment

of innovative renewable energy technologies as well as carbon capture and storage through the NER 300 programme.”403

There are also ongoing debates about how to reform the EU ETS due to the increasingly large amount of surplus allowances that exist within the system due to over-allocation as well as reductions in emissions from the economic crisis of 2008. These allowance surpluses have affected the price of carbon so that the EU ETS is not functioning nearly as effectively as it could in driving reductions by installations and low-carbon technological development.

402

Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, amended by Directive 2004/101/EC, Directive 2008/101/EC, Regulation (EC) No 219/2009, Directive 2009/29/EC, Decision No 1359/2013/EU, Regulation (EU) No 421/2014 [hereinafter EU ETS Directive – Consolidated 2014]. 403

European Commission (2015) The EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm.

220

Timelines The first phase of the ETS launched in 2005 under the 2003 Directive and the 2004 Linking Directive so that a limited amount of CDM and JI credits could be used to satisfy the cap. The first phase ended in 2007. Phase 2 ran from 2008-2012, still with the National Allocation Plans (NAPs) setting the national level caps on emissions. Annual emissions must be verified by 31 March of the year following their release and then by 30 April the installation must surrender that verified amount of allowance.404 In 2012, the registries at the national level were replaced by a single Community registry moving forward with the ETS allocations and submissions of allowances. Entry into force Entered into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, which was 25 October 2003. 2. Policy Field (water, agriculture, biodiversity, energy) Energy, climate change, industrial. Integration/coordination issues with other related pieces of legislation Adaptation Strategy – under para. 5.2, “Member States can also use EU ETS auction revenues as a source of financial support for adaptation” (citing Article 10(3)(a) of the ETS Directive 2003/87/EC as amended by Directive 2009/29/EC). It links to the UNFCCC and Kyoto in the text of the Directive. Also, it references the Council Directive 91/692/EEC of 23 December 1991 standardizing and rationalizing reports on the implementation of certain Directives relating to the environment, 1993 GHG monitoring legislation, the 6EAP, and public access to environmental information. 3. Aims of the policy and its relevance to soil protection Objectives: The aim of the policy is to provide a framework for a market-based mechanism to reduce the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions. By setting a cap, it intends to force installations to comply and reduce their emissions (e.g., by installing emissions-reducing technology that they may not have done otherwise), and by reducing the cap every year by a certain percentage, the policy also encourages or speeds up the development of low-carbon technologies to keep pace with the need for reductions by providing regulatory certainty. Principles included in the legal text

Fundamental rights (recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)405

Subsidiarity (as the objective of the Directive cannot be achieved by the Member States acting individually)

Proportionality Spatial coverage and management unit: Covers installations throughout the entire European Union territory. The EU sets the emissions cap now (EU-wide) and allowances will be distributed to installations based on harmonized rules rather than before when the Member States decided where to set the cap and then how to distribute the allowances so that it could favor its unique industries.406 Thus, National Allocation Plans are not part of the ETS implementation anymore. Member States are allocated a set amount of allowances and they are in charge of the auctioning to installations – this can either be conducted individually by each Member State or they can join together and create a regional or EU-wide option.407

404

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/monitoring/index_en.htm 405

Recital 27. 406

Question 8 of the FAQs page: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/faq_en.htm 407

Question 16 of the FAQs page: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/faq_en.htm

221

The EU has the Community registry which is a standardized electronic database to account for issuance, holding, transfer, and cancellation of emission allowances. This is distinct from the Member States’ registries. All allowances allocated after 1 January 2013 are only recorded in the Community registry.408 4. Relevance to soil protection As a policy focused on air emissions, it is not particularly relevant to soil protection. 5. Soil-focused aims and objectives

Direct: There are no direct soil-focused aims or objectives in the EU ETS. Indirect: There are no indirect soil-focused aims or objectives in the EU ETS. The EU

ETS has placed a restriction on credits originating from projects under the CDM or JI which involve land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF).409 The reasoning behind this restriction is that the emissions reductions offered by such projects are not permanent (as opposed to changing a part in an installation to make the emissions lower, forests left standing or replanted could be cut down at some point in the future). Additionally, they may cause leakage, whereby actions are displaced (e.g., forests or wetlands in other areas may be destroyed) due to restrictions being placed on those included under a CDM or JI project. Monitoring, reporting and verification would be necessary to ensure the quality of such reductions, which is expensive and complicated. Also, including credits from these projects may reduce the simplicity, transparency and predictability of the scheme. This failure to include LULUCF projects within the available credits reduces the incentives to invest in such projects and thereby potentially reduces soil protection through such land-based projects.

Soil threats addressed by the EU ETS Directly: None. Indirectly: None, but if LULUCF projects were included from the CDM and JI, these

could potentially address erosion, SOM loss, landslides, floods, and soil biodiversity from increased or maintained soil cover in the form of forests or wetlands.





None. None. The revenues from the auctioning of the allowances under Article 10 are decided by the Member States, but 50% of the proceeds should be spent on one or more of different criteria listed under subsection 3. The category for potential investment relevant to soil protection is “forestry sequestration in the Community”, which if funds are invested in this may help to retain, increase, or replace forest cover and thereby prevent the soil threats listed above.

408

Question 25 of the FAQs page: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/faq_en.htm 409

Directive 2004/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 amending Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowances trading within the Community, in respect of the Kyoto Protocol’s project mechanisms. Article 1(2) inserted Article 11a into the Directive 2003/87/EC which specifically excluded CERs and ERUs from CDM and JI projects that involved “land use, land use change and forestry activities”. Of note, the 2014 consolidated version of the EU ETS Directive does not contain the article 11a with the LULUCF restriction, though it is still in force.

222

Key soil-relevant instruments Mandatory The Commission was required in 2006 to produce a report about possible technical measures to be able to include LULUCF credits into the EU ETS. Following an international climate agreement to 2020, the Commission is again required to review potential measures for inclusion of LULUCF credits into the EU ETS. Operators conduct MRV annually, known as the compliance cycle. Identified and verified emissions must be matched by same amount of allowances. Voluntary Provision encouraging investment of revenue from allowance auctions to potentially be in forestry within the EU.

7. Mandatory requirements and voluntary options for Member States (types of management measures) The Member States must issue operating permits with emissions limits to the installations covered by the EU ETS.410 An EU Community-wide allocation or cap of overall emissions is to be set each year and decrease by a certain percentage on an annual basis.411 Member States will receive a national allocation amount of allowances based on their National Allocation Plans. Certain allowances are to be auctioned and the remaining are to be given free of charge to installations.412 The Member States are then allowed to decide how they will use the proceeds from the auctioning of the allowances, but at least 50% of the funds should be put towards the criteria listed Article 10(3). The Commission is required to set rules for the free allocation of allowances as well.413 Member States must submit their national implementation plans with the installations covered by the scheme to the Commission for approval.414 Provisions for exchange and continued use of CERs and ERUs from the CDM and JI emission removals within the Member States are included (only for those CERs and ERUs that were allowed during the 2008-2012 operating period)415, as well as requiring that the Member States maintain a properly functioning register for transfer, surrender and cancellation of allowances in order to maintain the integrity of the scheme.416 The Commission is required to set rules for the monitoring and reporting of emissions by the installation operators by which their compliance with the cap on their allowances will be verified.417 Member States are required to specify penalties which will result from non-compliance by operators.418 The Commission shall ensure a functioning registry is in place in order to publicly make available the operators and allocations to operators which are in provided.419 Members States are required to report on an annual basis regarding their allocation system to the Commission and provide support for capacity building to developing countries about the UNFCCC and any subsequent items within the climate change negotiations which are adopted.420 The Commission is required to submit a report and proposals on how to fix the carbon market if it receives indications from the Member States’ reports that it is not functioning well, including price fluctuations.421 The EU ETS Directive finally states that the EU emissions trading system should agree to link with emissions trading systems from third countries422, which has been an ongoing process within the EU for many years. There is a soil relevant mandatory requirement under Article 28 that requires the Commission to analyse “the appropriate modalities for including emissions and removals related to land use, land use change and forestry in the Community” upon an agreement until 2020 at the international climate negotiations level. Under the review and development of the EU ETS, the Commission had to produce an evaluation of possible technical measures that would allow for inclusion of LULUCF CERs and ERUs by operators by June 2006 for the European Parliament and Council.423

410

EU ETS Directive – Consolidated 2014, Articles 4-6. 411



Ibid. Article 10a. 414


Ibid. Article 11a. 416


Ibid. Article 14-15. 418



Ibid. Article 21-21a. 421

Ibid. Article 29-29a. 422


Ibid. Article 30.

223

Covered industrial installations and aircraft operators must have an approved monitoring plan for their annual emissions. These must be reported every year, which is required as part of the permit needed by industrial installations as well. This monitoring, verification and reporting (MRV) is known as the compliance cycle, which involves an independent verifier verifying the annual emissions for an installation and then the same installation surrendering that same number of allowances to cover the emissions. MRV must be done according to these regulations: “the Monitoring and Reporting Regulation (MRR) and the Accreditation and Verification Regulation (AVR).”424 8. Assessment of environmental status The assessment of environmental status is not addressed in this Directive. Nevertheless, the European Commission provides guidance documents here: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/monitoring/documentation_en.htm. The document Guidance document No. 1 - The Monitoring and Reporting Regulation – General guidance for installations does not provide relevant indicators to environmental impact from ETS Directive but rather indicators as to when a simplified management plan is not allowed for installations that are too complex / with potentially high risks:

“Installations applying measurement based approaches (CEMS);

Installations carrying out activities where PFC or N2O are included in Annex I of the EU ETS Directive;

Installations for capture, transport and geological storage of CO2, as included in Annex I of the EU ETS Directive;

Installations applying a fall-back methodology in accordance with Article 22 of the MRR;

Category C installations which apply other source streams than commercial standard fuels;

Category B or C installations which have at least one major source stream for which instruments are used which are not subject to national legal metrological control;

Installations which have to use laboratory analyses in accordance with Articles 33 to 35; and

Installations which have more than three major source streams to monitor, or which apply several different monitoring methodologies (e.g. batch metering as well as some continual measurements for activity data, several different sampling plans,...)”425

9. Reporting units - what are the specific transposition requirements The national registries recorded the following information from 2005-2012:

“Accounts of companies or physical persons holding those allowances;

Transfers of allowances ("transactions") performed by account holders;

Annual verified CO2 emissions from installations; and

Annual reconciliation of allowances and verified emissions, where each company must have surrendered enough allowances to cover all its verified emissions.”426

For MRV, the Commission’s website states: “To promote administrative efficiency and a harmonised approach in the Member States, the Commission has published electronic templates for monitoring plans, annual emission reports (including tonne-kilometer reporting by aviation operators), verification reports and improvement reports. The Commission has also developed and published guidance and templates in support of the MRR and AVR. The guidance aims to promote more harmonised and cost-effective

424

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/monitoring/index_en.htm 425

Page 74-75 http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/monitoring/docs/gd1_guidance_installations_en.pdf 426

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/pre2013/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/monitoring/documentation_en.htm

224

application of the regulations in all Member States, and support to the required mutual recognition of accredited verifiers.”427 16. Examples of implementation approaches case study areas The National Implementing Measures (NIM) communicated by the Member States concerning the ETS Directive can be found under: eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/NIM/?uri=CELEX:32003L0087.

427

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/monitoring/index_en.htm

225

28 Effort Sharing Decision

1. Name of Policy and brief summary of implementation Decision No 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the effort of Member States to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Community’s greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments up to 2020, also known as the Effort Sharing Decision (ESD), was adopted to address emissions from sectors not included under the Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). This includes transport, building sector, agriculture and waste. Part of the 2009 EU Climate and Energy Package428, the ESD sets a binding target of 10% emissions reductions from these sectors between 2013-2020. This is to be collectively achieved through national emission targets (a certain percentage below 2005 levels rather than the 1990 levels like the sectors covered in the ETS for the Kyoto Protocol implementation), which the Member States implement through national policies and measures unlike the ETS, where the sectors are regulated at the EU level.429430 So agricultural reductions in emissions are collectively part of the goal to reduce EU emissions. However, land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) emissions are not covered under the ESD. Nevertheless, Decision 529/2013/EU recently built off the Kyoto Protocol accounting rules to require that the Member States begin mandatorily monitoring, reporting and accounting for their cropland and grazing land emissions and removals in addition to afforestation, reforestation, deforestation and sustainable forest management. “Examples of potential policies and measures include reducing transport needs, promotion of public transport, a shift away from transport based on fossil fuels, support schemes for retrofitting of the building stock, more efficient heating and cooling systems, renewable energy for heating and cooling, more climate-friendly farming practices, and conversion of livestock manure to biogas.”431 A report was prepared in 2012 titled “Next phase of the European Climate Change Programme: Analysis of Member States actions to implement the Effort Sharing Decision and options for further community-wide measures”. The aim of the assessment was to determine whether the national actions in place will achieve the intended emissions reductions under the ESD by 2020. The results show that according to the measures in place as of 2009, there will be a policy gap of about 10% in 2020 compared to 2005 levels.432 Entry into force Entered into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, which was 25 June 2009. 2. Policy Field (water, agriculture, biodiversity, energy) Climate, agriculture, transport, waste, building. Integration/coordination issues with other related pieces of legislation 2012 Energy Efficiency Directive, Energy Labelling Directive, Ecodesign Directive, Soil Thematic Strategy, 7EAP, Landfill Directive.

428

http://www.clientearth.org/reports/effort-sharing-decision-back2basics-intro.pdf 429

European Commission, DG Climate Action, Effort Sharing Decision, http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/effort/index_en.htm. 430

“By 2020, the national targets will collectively deliver a reduction of around 10% in total EU emissions from the sectors covered compared with 2005 levels. Together with a 21% cut in emissions covered by the EU ETS, this will accomplish the overall emission reduction goal of the climate and energy package, namely a 20% cut below 1990 levels by 2020.” (http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/effort/index_en.htm) 431

Ibid. 432

Forster, D. (2012) Next phase of the European Climate Change Programme: Analysis of Member States actions to implement the Effort Sharing Decision and options for further community-wide measures. Final report by AEA to DG Climate Action under contract DG ENV C.5/SER/2009/0037.

http://www.clientearth.org/reports/effort-sharing-decision-back2basics-intro.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/effort/index_en.htm

226

3. Aims of the policy and its relevance to soil protection Objectives: The policy aims to reduce emissions from sectors in the EU which are not covered by the EU ETS. This includes transport, building sector, agriculture and waste. Principles included in the legal text

The proposal of the Commission following the adoption of an international agreement on adjustments to be made the ESD must abide by “the principles of transparency, economic efficiency and cost-effectiveness, as well as fairness and solidarity in distribution of efforts between Member States”433

Solidarity (in terms of economic growth across the EU)

Proportionality Spatial coverage and management unit: “All Member States have taken on national emission targets for 2020 which are expressed as a percentage change from 2005 levels. Collectively, these national targets give an overall reduction of 10%.”434 So the ESD is EU-wide but the varying levels of reductions stem from an assessment of MS’ GDP. The Member States set policies for the ESD sectors (transport (except aviation and international maritime shipping), buildings, agriculture and waste) in order to achieve the national reduction target.435 4. Relevance to soil protection As agriculture is a major emitter of emissions as well as land and soil providing a huge sink for carbon, covering this sector in the drive to reduce emissions aims to encourage policies for alternate forms of agricultural production that release fewer emissions. However, as LULUCF is not included436, the agricultural emissions as seen under the UNFCCC accounting methodology for methane and nitrous oxide are included but not CO2. This limits the scope of emissions reductions that could be achieved from alternate methods of agricultural production and soil management, but it could still be indirectly relevant to soil protection through the agricultural policies the Member States adopt. 5. Soil-focused aims and objectives

Direct: There are no aims and objectives under the ESD which are directly soil-focused. Indirect: The ESD’s aim to reduce emissions indirectly relates to soil protection in three

ways. 1) Agricultural emissions reductions may aim to eliminate emissions embedded in the management practices, e.g., applying less N fertiliser to arable soils or grasslands for less potential losses of N2O upon field application. As LULUCF and thereby cropland and grazing land management are not included in the ESD, reducing agricultural emissions does not stem from the perspective of reducing emissions from the soil itself, e.g., conservation tillage to maintain carbon stocks. 2) Transport policies to reduce emissions may involve the objective of increasing alternatives to fossil fuels, or namely biofuels promotion. This may negatively impact soil protection through the increased production of biofuel crops, which may result in intensification of soil management with more ploughing, less soil cover, more inputs, less agrobiodiversity or crop rotation, etc. 3) Waste policies to reduce emissions may have an indirect impact on soils through different landfill management techniques. This could

433

Article 8(2). 434

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/effort/faq_en.htm 435

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/effort/index_en.htm 436 W

hile including LULUCF emissions reductions within the ESD would expand the amount of GHGs covered and the types of agricultural practices which could contribute to the emissions reductions target, studies have found that including LULUCF would undermine the environmental integrity of the 2030 goal to cut non-EU ETS sector emissions by 40% to only 33-37%. See Öko-Institut e.V. (2015) Impacts on the EU 2030 climate target of including LULUCF in the climate and energy policy framework. Report prepared for Fern and IFOAM, available at http://www.fern.org/sites/fern.org/files/Impact%20of%20including%20LULUCF%20in%202030_Final.pdf. However, LULUCF was agreed in 2014 to be included somehow in the 2030 emissions reduction target, but the question of whether to integrate it into existing mechanisms or create its own separate pillar is under debate.

http://www.fern.org/sites/fern.org/files/Impact%20of%20including%20LULUCF%20in%202030_Final.pdf

227

vary and be either good or bad for soil based on the type of waste management strategy chosen.

Soil threats addressed by the ESD Directly: None Indirectly: The ESD may indirectly address certain soil threats depending on the policies

adopted by the Member States. Policies preventing agricultural emissions could address the soil threat of compaction (e.g., reducing the amount of passes with heavy machinery for input application and ploughing, reducing stocking rates of livestock to avoid trampling) or contamination and loss of soil biodiversity (e.g., eliminating excessive N fertiliser or pesticide application – although these are not usually included within the typical concept of contaminated soils). LULUCF is not included under the ESD, so the soil threats addressed by policies aimed at preventing loss of or enhancing carbon sequestration potential would not be included. Those could potentially aim to prevent soil erosion (e.g., cover crops, conservation tillage), SOM loss (e.g., residue management), landslides (e.g., terracing), flooding (e.g., agroforestry).

Waste management policies to reduce emissions could also address the soil threats of contamination and loss of soil biodiversity by reducing leaching of potentially hazardous materials into the soil. However, waste management strategies which involve alternative processing methods could negatively contribute to the soil threat of sealing if more concrete facilities are constructed, for instance.




None. Each Member State would have national emission reduction targets from the covered sectors, so agricultural emissions reduction targets would indirectly relate to reduced losses of N2O from fertiliser application on soil.

None. If LULUCF was included, this could be better soil quality and productivity from management practices aimed at reducing emissions but also benefiting the soil.


management measures) The ESD mandates that Member States shall limit their GHGs by the percentage set in Annex II in relation to its 2005 levels by 2020 (Article 3). The Commission is required to assess the progress of the EU and Member States in achieving the 20% reduction in energy consumption and report on the likelihood that the existing policies will be able to meet the target by 2020 (Article 4). Article 5 specifies the types of credits the Member States may use to satisfy their reductions commitment. Interestingly, this includes CERs and ERUs from the CDM and JI afforestation and reforestation projects, which are the only LULUCF type of projects credits issued under those mechanisms and are not accepted under the EU ETS. Article 6 requires Member States to report on their emission levels, progress toward meeting the target and policies and measures both in place and planned to limit emissions even beyond the ESD. There are provisions built into the ESD to address how a new international agreement would be handled in relation to the EU system and particularly relevant for soil, the assessment the Commission would need to conduct following such a new agreement would include any internationally established structure or policy framework that changes the afforestation, reforestation, avoided deforestation and forest degradation context. Additionally, if the new agreement includes provisions on LULUCF, the EU system is to be analysed in relation to those. Finally, if a new agreement comes about internationally, the Commission’s assessment needs to consider the impact on the agricultural sector (including carbon leakage risks). The Member State has to also consider LULUCF’s inclusion in their emissions reduction

228

Key soil-relevant instruments Mandatory MS registries to record emissions but now a Community registry has been created. The Commission was required to assess how a new international agreement for climate change affected the ESD system by 2010 (after Copenhagen) with regards to LULUCF and see whether the ESD should be expanded to include those categories. MS reporting and evaluation of progress toward the target. Commission must report on effect of ESD on sectors’ competitiveness (including agriculture and soil/land use). Voluntary Member States may use credits from CDM or JI projects on afforestation or reforestation towards their emissions reductions percentage.

commitments by 2010 if there was no new international agreement (which would have been the Copenhagen COP for the UNFCCC), which would be based on the UNFCCC accounting methodology whether to include sustainable forest management, cropland and grazing land management, wetland drainage and rewetting, etc. beyond afforestation, reforestation, and deforestation emissions and removals.

Article 6 outlines the reporting requirement for the Member States and evaluation of the progress towards the targets. The registries established under the ETS Directive were also responsible for recording emissions for the sectors covered by the ESD.437 The Commission evaluates progress toward the ESD obligations and if additional policies / measures are required. Bi-annually, the Commission is required to assess the projected emissions submitted by the Member States.438 The Commission is also responsible to create a report regarding implementation of the Directive as well as how it has affected competition nationally, EU and internationally.439 Funding No funds directly linked with the ESD within the text of the Decision itself. 8. Assessment of environmental status The text of the Decision defines target emission reduction levels (see Annex II) but does not describe environmental state attempting to remedy with the policy within the Directive. 9. Reporting units - what are the specific transposition requirements The reporting is done on a Member State level, in which they report their annual emissions for the ESD sectors. Submitted to the Commission, the EEA issues a report of the inventories. The Member State must also report on their existing and planned national policies and measures as well as emission projections.440 17. Examples of implementation approaches case study areas The Commission website has conducted studies regarding implementation of the ESD and the effectiveness of the policy in reducing emissions from the covered sectors.

Next phase of the European Climate Change Programme: Analysis of Member States actions to implement the Effort Sharing Decision and options for further community-wide measures (June 2012)

Appendix 3 of the above report - Case study reports analysing best practices which may serve as examples of policies that could be implemented at a national level to meet the ESD targets Agriculture, building sector, industry, transport, and waste sectors all have individual reports and may all have a potential impact on soil protection / pose soil threats (e.g., industry = contamination, transport = sealing, building = erosion, etc.).

437

Article 11 438

http://www.clientearth.org/reports/effort-sharing-decision-back2basics-intro.pdf 439

Article 14. 440



229

29 Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe

1. Name of Policy and brief summary of implementation The Resource Efficiency Roadmap (COM/2011/0571 final)441 is part of the Resource Efficiency Flagship of the Europe 2020 Strategy, which aims to establish “a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy” in Europe. As part of it, the Roadmap sets soil and land related milestones to be reached by 2020, and a vision for the structural and technological change needed up to 2050, with milestones to be reached by 2020. The Roadmap to a Resource Efficiency Europe provides an overarching framework for policy transformation towards a European Union where resources, including soil, are sustainability managed. It defines medium and long-term milestones for soil protection and means to achieve them. The high-level nature of the Roadmap limits its strength, as it is ultimately dependent upon action by Member States and the European institutions (in case of new legislation/policy on soil). Member States could decide to go beyond the requirements of the European Commission’s guidelines on soil sealing, with the aim of approving ambitious legislation. However, the approaches to implementation and willingness to go beyond current EU legislation with a view to protect soil may vary significantly. Entry into Force The Roadmap for Resource Efficient Europe was published in September 2011. 2. Policy Field (water, agriculture, biodiversity, energy) Energy, water, soil, land, waste Integration/coordination issues with other related pieces of legislation 2012 Energy Efficiency Directive, Water Framework Directive, Energy Labelling Directive, Ecodesign Directive, 7EAP, Strategy for the sustainable competitiveness of the EU construction sector, Circular Economy Package, Common Agricultural Policy, Cohesion Policy, White Paper on the future of transport, -Communication on sustainable food and further (see eg table in Annex of the Roadmap442) The Roadmap provides a strategic framework of action to 2050, including illustrating how relevant policies interrelate and build on each other in relation to soil. The Roadmap does not reference specific policies, though it acknowledge that “[t]he EU agricultural, energy, transport and cohesion policy reforms will provide the opportunity to set the framework and the right incentives and land owners to achieve the relevant soil-related objectives”, set out in the section below. 3. Aims of the policy and its relevance to soil protection Objectives: In the relation to soil protection, the Roadmap has the aim to achieve that “[b]y 2020, EU policies take into account their direct and indirect impact on land use in the EU and globally, and the rate of land take is on track with an aim to achieve no net land take by 2050; soil erosion is reduced and the soil organic matter increased, with remedial work on contaminated sites well underway.” The above mentioned milestone is achieved through two main objectives:

441

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0571:FIN:EN:PDF 442

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0571:FIN:EN:PDF

230

EU policies take into account their direct and indirect impact on land use in the EU globally, and keep on track the rate of land take with an aim to achieve no net land take by 2050;

Continuously implement the action needed for reducing soil erosion and increasing organic matter and set up a schedule for remedial work on contaminated sites.

Spatial coverage and management unit: The Roadmap to Resource Efficient Europe applies to the whole territory of the European Union and relies on implementation of EU legislation relevant to soil protection by Member States. 4. Relevance to soil protection The Roadmap for Resource Efficient Europe is relevant to soil as it provides an overarching framework for policy transformation towards the achievement of sustainable soil management in 2050. By 2020, the Roadmap demands that soil erosion is reduced and soil organic matter increased, with remedial work on contaminated sites well underway. EU policies should also take into account their direct and indirect impact on land use in the EU and globally, with the aim to achieve no net land take by 2050. The Roadmap considers soil as an integral part of Europe’s ecosystems and a service provided. It also sets that “[b]y 2020 the loss of biodiversity in the EU and the degradation of ecosystem services will be halted and, as far as feasible, biodiversity will be restored.” This involves integration of biodiversity protection and ecosystem actions in other policies, with particular focus on agriculture and fisheries, and progress towards the objectives of the Biodiversity Strategy by integrating ecosystem services into policy-making. This could contribute to soil protection; however, soil relevance may vary, depending on the extent to which the integration focuses soil protection aspects. The Roadmap also promotes further research in order to identify improvements to fertilisers, food production and bio-waste issues could reduce dependence on mined phosphate. This will benefit soil protection, especially soil fertilization. Finally, the Roadmap promotes further integration of resource-efficiency considerations into water policy, e.g. the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and for Member States to set water efficiency targets for 2020 at River Basic level. This has the aim to minimize the impacts of droughts and floods by increasing water retention in soils and efficient irrigation, which would therefore lead to better soil protection. 5. Soil-focused aims and objectives

Direct: The Roadmap sets the following milestones that may directly contribute to address soil sealing, erosion, contamination, loss of soil organic carbon, and flooding/landslides:

Milestone on soils: By 2020, soil erosion is reduced and soil organic matter increased, with remedial work on contaminated sites well underway (Section 4.6 on Lands and Soils);

Milestone on Water: By 2020, all WFD River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) have long been implemented. Good status – quality, quantity and use – of waters was attained in all EU river basins in 2015. The impacts of droughts and floods are minimized, with adapted crops, increased water retention in soils and efficient irrigation. […] (Section 4.4 on Water).

Indirect: The Roadmap sets the following milestones that may indirectly contribute to soil

biodiversity:

Milestone on Biodiversity: By 2020 the loss of biodiversity in the EU and the degradation of ecosystem services will be halted and, as far as possible, biodiversity will be restored. (Section 4.2 on Biodiversity).

231

Soil threats addressed by the Roadmap Directly: Diffuse and point-source contamination: The Roadmap urges Member States to set up an

inventory of contaminated sites, and a schedule for remedial work by 2015, but does not distinguishes between diffuse or point source contamination. (Section 4.6 on Land and Soils)

Erosion by water and wind: The Roadmap urges Member States to implement the action needed for reducing erosion, but does not distinguishes between water and wind erosion. (Section 4.6 on Land and Soils)

Flooding/ landslides: The Roadmap requires the European Commission to further integration of resource-efficiency considerations into water policy, e.g. the Water Framework Directive and to Member States to set water efficiency targets for 2020 at River Basic level. These actions aim to minimize the impacts of droughts and floods by increasing water retention in soils and irrigation efficiency. landslides (Section 4.4 on Water)

Loss of SOM: The Roadmap urges Member States to implement the action needed for increasing soil organic matter content. (Section 4.6 on Land and Soils)

Soil sealing: The Roadmap anticipates that in 2012 the European Commission will publish guidelines on best practice to limit, mitigate or compensate soil sealing. The Roadmap also states that “If we are to reach the state of no net land take by 2050, following a linear path, we would need to reduce land take to an average of 800 km² per year in the period 2000-2020. In many regions soil is irreversibly eroded, or has a low content of organic matter. Soil contamination is also a serious problem.” (Section 4.6 on Land and Soils)

Indirectly: Desertification: The Roadmap promotes further research in order to improve the use of

fertilisers and reduce dependence on mined phosphate. This could indirectly contribute to reduce desertification. (Section 4.6 on Land and Soils)

Loss of soil biodiversity: The Roadmap states that “[b]y 2020 the loss of biodiversity in the EU and the degradation of ecosystem services will be halted and, as far as feasible, biodiversity will be restored” which may indirectly address soil biodiversity. (Section 4.2. on Biodiversity)





None. None Milestone for Land and Soil: The Roadmap establishes that by 2020, EU policies take into account their direct and indirect impact on land use in the EU and globally, and the rate of land take is on track with an aim to achieve no net land take by 2050; soil erosion is reduced and the soil organic matter increased, with remedial work on contaminated site well underway.


management measures) The Roadmap requires Member States to continuously implement the actions needed for reducing erosion and increasing soil organic matter, as well as set up an inventory of contaminated sites, and a schedule for remedial work by 2015. They are also required to improve the integration of direct and indirect land use and its environmental impacts in their decision-making and therewith limit land take and soil sealing to the extent possible.

232

Key soil-relevant instruments Mandatory Actions needed to reduce erosion and increase soil organic matter, An inventory of contaminated sites, Schedule for remedial work, Publication of guidelines on best practice on soil sealing Voluntary None

The Commission was required to publish in 2012 guidelines on best practice on soil sealing443, as well as to propose a candidate European Innovation Partnership aiming, inter alia, to secure soil functionality at a satisfactory level. Further integration of policy objectives, as relevant to soil, at EU level is also sought. In addition, Member States are required to set water efficiency targets for 2020 at river basin level and work towards the objectives of soil-relevant legislation, such as in the area of Biodiversity. Funding No funds directly linked with the Roadmap. 8. Assessment of environmental status The Roadmap summarises the current status/ challenges and costs linked with several resources including inter alia water, air, minerals and metals, marine resources, biodiversity land and soils and ecosystem services. 9. Reporting units - what are the specific transposition requirements Member States are asked to report their progress on resource efficiency as part of their national reform programmes.444 Moreover Member States should Prepare plans and timetables to phase out Environmental Harmful Subsidies and report on these as part of their National Reform Programmes (by 2012/2013).445 10. Examples of implementation approaches in case study areas While the Roadmap to a Resource Efficiency Europe provides rather an overarching framework for policy transformation towards a sustainable use of resources in the European Union, Circular Economy Package446 is one of the concrete outcomes. It consists of an EU Action Plan447 (establishing a concrete and ambitious programme of action, with measures covering the whole cycle: from production and consumption to waste management and the market for secondary raw materials) and an annex (setting out the timeline when the actions will be completed.) One particular outcome of the Circular Economy Package was revised legislative proposals on waste setting clear targets for reduction of waste and establishing an ambitious and credible long-term path for waste management and recycling (also including e.g. a ban on landfilling of separately collected waste and promotion of economic instruments to discourage landfilling).

443

Guidelines on soil sealing were published in April 2012: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/pdf/soil_sealing_guidelines_en.pdf 444

Addressing the milestone: “By 2020 stakeholders at all levels will be mobilised to ensure that policy, financing, investment, research and innovation are coherent and mutually reinforcing. Ambitious resource efficiency targets and robust, timely indicators will guide public and private decision-makers in the transformation of the economy towards greater resource efficiency.” 445

Addressing milestone: “By 2020 a major shift from taxation of labour towards environmental taxation, including through regular adjustments in real rates, will lead to a substantial increase in the share of environmental taxes in public revenues, in line with the best practice of Member States.” 446

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/index_en.htm 447


· 1 Deliverable 9.1: Up-to-date review of EU policies and integrated impact assessment...

Documents

Transcript of · 1 Deliverable 9.1: Up-to-date review of EU policies and integrated impact assessment...