presentations by DG ENV - CIRCABC - Welcome · Web viewOn the other hand, EEA in its document...

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL

ENVIRONMENT

Directorate B - Natural Capital

ENV.B1 – Agriculture, Forests and Soil

Brussels, ENV/B1/JD

1st meeting of the EU Expert Group on soil protection (19/10/2015)Draft outcomes of the discussion

In line with the commitments agreed by the EU in the 7th Environment Action Programme (Decision No 1386/2013/EU) and in light of the worrying situation and trends portrayed by the EEA's 2015 State of the Environment Report[footnoteRef:1], the Commission had established an Expert Group with Member States[footnoteRef:2] to "reflect as soon as possible on how soil quality issues could be addressed using a targeted and proportionate risk-based approach within a binding legal framework"[footnoteRef:3]. All Member States nominated one or several experts (summing 55 experts) to support the Commission in the work of this group. [1: http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer ] [2: http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=3336 ] [3: Paragraph 25 of 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’]

The first meeting of the EU expert group on Soil protection took place in the Visitors Centre of the JRC in Ispra (Italy) on 19 October 2015 from 10:00 to 17:30. It was attended by 50 participants of which 40 Member State experts from 25 countries (see list in annex) - 3 Member States were not represented in the meeting (LT, MT, HR). Some countries sent several participants (AT, BE, DE, DK, ES, FR, PL and UK).

The objectives for this first meeting were 1) to take stock of recent developments at global, EU and national levels, and 2) to agree on the objectives and modus operandi of a new permanent channel of communication between Member States and the Commission to implement the soil protection provisions of the 7th EAP.

The meeting provided a large room for discussion, on the basis of a background paper sent one month in advance, to which 8 Member States (AT, BE, CY, ES, FI, IT, MT and NL) have replied in writing before or after the meeting (written contributions are included in annex).

The background documents and the slides presented at the meeting are publicly available on a CircABC group (available to all users with ECAS password): https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/ad242d58-566c-4842-8fc5-dffa1a8361ec

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.presentations by DG ENV3

2.Discussion of key policy issues3

2.1.How to strengthen the ecosystem dimension of soils in any new initiative?3

2.2.Should a potential initiative prioritise on a limited number of soil threats for the time being? If yes, which priority soil threats should that be?4

2.3.What is the minimum level of public intervention, necessary to secure a high level of environmental (and health) protection? How to balance the duty of care of the soil owners versus the public responsibility to secure the provision of key soil ecosystem services?5

2.4.How could a new EU initiative on soil ensure that the current policy vacuum on soil is overcome and thus achieve better coordination of national and regional efforts in other policy fields?6

2.5.How could a new initiative on soil make stronger links and better reflect the evolution of water and climate policies?6

3.conclusions and next steps:7

4.Annex: Final Agenda - 1st meeting of the EU Expert Group on soil protection - 19/10/20158

5.Annex: List of Participants - 1st Meeting of the EU Expert Group on Soil Protection - 19/10/2015 -9

6.Annex: Written contributions from Member States11

6.1.Austria11

6.2.Belgium14

6.3.Cyprus18

6.4.Spain20

6.5.Finland24

6.6.Italy26

6.7.Malta32

6.8.The Netherlands34

presentations by DG ENV

In its introduction, the European Commission presented the 7th EAP objectives and commitments related to soils, the objective of this expert group and of the 1st meeting, and the agenda of the meeting, which was adopted by participants.

The European Commission then presented the state of play on policy priorities and on-going activities at EU level. This included a presentation of the achievements under the non-legislative pillars of the Soil Thematic Strategy (awareness raising, research and monitoring, integration), as well as the lessons learned from the withdrawal of the Soil Framework Directive proposal. The last developments at international level (in particular under the Global Soil Partnership and the Sustainable Development Goals) and the recent EEA’ State of the environment report were also described.

The last part of the presentation focused on the links between soil and political priorities of the Commission, and the description of the two initiatives launched by DG Environment:

A service contract to perform an inventory of soil related policies and measures at EU or Member State level, which shall support the baseline for any further proposal for action at EU level, taking fully into account the proportionality and subsidiarity principles. In this context the Expert Group can contribute to having a precise picture of which policy instruments exist and how they are implemented at national level. It was recalled that the objective of the Expert Group is not to decide on any further policy option.

The mapping and assessment of soil-related ecosystem services (MAES-Soil pilot) in the context of the EU Biodiversity Strategy, for which a collaborative web platform[footnoteRef:4] has been set up. The participation of Expert Group members to this work is welcome. [4: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/MAESSoil/MAES+Soil+Pilot. Access requires an ECAS password and an e-mail to [email protected] for inclusion in the list of registered users.]

Discussion of key policy issues

The following part of the meeting was organised around 3 discussion slots, starting with a brief presentation by DG ENV based on the background document and the 6 questions formulated in the latter. A summary of oral contributions during the discussion in provided below, grouped by questions (although some comments may have been formulated in another discussion slot of the meeting).

How to strengthen the ecosystem dimension of soils in any new initiative?

1. The development of an ecosystem services (ESS) approach was recognized as very promising for the development of any new initiative on soil; as it brings a positive focus for a new demarche and better inclusion in existing initiatives such as Biodiversity Strategy. While soil is often privately owned, ecosystem services delivered by soil are often a common asset and connected to EU-wide societal challenges (food, drinking water etc.) for which an updated EU soil strategy would add value. It could be very important to use soil biodiversity to harmonize legislation.

1. It is important to integrate MAES-Soil and the on-going activities on natural capital, preventing duplication of efforts, as well as to better integrate with activities at global level in particular with the Global Soil Partnership (World Soil Resources report due by end-2015).

MAES-Soil is still a pilot and the state of knowledge may restrict the scope of potential policy (in particular regulatory) instruments in the short term. Strong knowledge on soil functions and maps are available in some MS/regions, there is room for reinforcing cooperation at EU level on knowledge and incentives schemes. Extending the process of soil sealing guidelines to other threats/functions could be an interesting avenue.

The first step would is to clarify the concept, define the terminology, explain the conditions for the provision of services (in particular relationship between land use, soil biodiversity and soil-related ecosystem services), and to assess the impact of soil-related ecosystem services on policies/societal challenges tipping points/resilience issues.

The ESS approach could help for better assessing the economic impact of soil/land degradation and the benefit of soil protection and sustainable management as part of any policy development.

Beyond Belgium which co-leads the MAES-Soil pilot, several Member States have expressed an interest on the approach, and would like to support more to develop this concept further.

Should a potential initiative prioritise on a limited number of soil threats for the time being? If yes, which priority soil threats should that be?

Any prioritisation of efforts on a limited number of threats, as suggested in the background document might be a risk if focused on a specific pressure and the other threats are left behind.

Prioritisation should be based on objective criteria such as: reversibility, state of knowledge / measurability, EU-wide issue, added value of action at EU level, availability policy response, link to international agreements, etc.

It might be difficult to find an agreement on the soil threats priority as they are often at a local scale and different from one Member State to the other and difficult to put on an EU agenda. The prioritisation effort could be seen as the result of a process to be handled by Member States themselves based on the definition of the objective criteria.

Some threats are missing such as acidification, soil wetness and land take (loss of land for agriculture) which is different from soil sealing (linked to imperviousness).

The list of threats provided in the background document mixes drivers, pressures and state, e.g. soil biodiversity is considered more as an indicator than a threat.

Moreover, if we engage into developing an ESS-based approach, the focus on threats (hence the prioritisation) becomes less relevant. It will therefore be useful that the consultant in charge of inventory also maps policy instruments against ESS, not only against threats, as a lot of protection/restoration of soil-related ESS can or could be done through existing policy instruments.

It is important to have also other DGs on board in this expert group and in the steering of the inventory. In any case, the establishment of priorities needs to be based on an accurate picture of the policy baseline, in order to avoid duplications, and to improve consistency of policies impacting on soil and sometimes conflicting policy

Small-scale contamination is a threat to be considered apart. A differentiated approach developing fit-for-purpose policy responses with their own momentum and phasing might be an advantage.

What is the minimum level of public intervention, necessary to secure a high level of environmental (and health) protection? How to balance the duty of care of the soil owners versus the public responsibility to secure the provision of key soil ecosystem services?

Some Member States have already instruments in place, defining the application of the duty of care principle. Some others are planning soil protection legislations.

Limits to subsidiarity, i.e. the need for action at EU level, may be triggered by competitiveness and internal market issues, and the need to establish a level playing field.

Legislation (also at EU level) should clearly establish the chain of responsibility.. It should prevent profits from not taking care of the soils (level playing field).

There is a huge diversity of national frameworks such as constitutional protection of property or socio-historic background affecting the issues of duty-of-care/liability, which need to be taken into account in the forthcoming inventory of policy instruments, to properly understand the effectiveness of the latter.

There are clear limits to the application of both polluter-pays-principle and public intervention, mostly linked to economic resources constraints and the issue of orphan sites. In most countries (in absence of specific funding mechanism) current public expenditure is high for remediating orphan sites and when private liability cannot be applied.

Private action should be prioritised for decontamination. The degree of decontamination should also be defined taking account of the future use.

The identification of the “owner” is sometimes complex, e.g. in the case of rural soils there are often multiple actors.

The «duty to inform» was highlighted as the minimum level of public intervention, a solid knowledge base is essential before any action can take place.

How could a new EU initiative on soil ensure that the current policy vacuum on soil is overcome and thus achieve better coordination of national and regional efforts in other policy fields?

There was a broad consensus on the “step-by-step” approach proposed by the Commission starting with the forthcoming inventory of policy instruments and gap analysis. The latter requires looking at all policies where soil is regulated at various levels, success and failures. If a gap is detected, we need guidance on how to integrate this in policies. In order to further proceed with a gap analysis, we need a precise picture and assessment of how existing instruments are implemented, before starting the identification of options to act and add value at EU level, under better regulation principles. Consultation on gap analysis will be important

Some Member States expressed the view that it is better to regulate soil on a national or regional level, which does not exclude to intensify the exchange of knowledge on EU level. E.g. the Soil Thematic Strategy is a very good tool which could be reactivated.

The development of awareness raising and knowledge sharing are seen as very important in the short term: This expert group could also be used to share experiences, not only through electronic platform, but also physical meetings, taking advantage of the network to exchange best practices. "We all have knowledge about these issues, let’s share it!" said one expert. Priority should be given to coordination activity, intensifying co-operation between Member States on how to deal with soil issues, sharing experiences. The experience of the Common Forum for soil contamination should be extended to other soil threats. A lot of information exists at national and EU level but they are scattered and not always comparable. The JRC soil data centre could help in improving the knowledge base (ESDAC), best practices on soil remediation contaminated sites, and other guidelines could be shared etc.

Some Member States mentioned the difficulty to regulate on soil due to stakeholder pressure, and that an EU framework, even very general, on soil would enable regulating at national level.

Soil contamination in industrial sites and in agriculture/forest land should be looked at in different way.

How could a new initiative on soil make stronger links and better reflect the evolution of water and climate policies?

The ecosystem-based approach mentioned previously is also a promising tool to improve coherence of other policies, in particular climate change (both mitigation and adaptation) and water. Soil functions to be emphasised are carbon sequestration, water storage, nutrients cycling.

More focus is needed on understanding the linkages between soil and water (and sediments), as the state of soil is important to reach water good status and contributes to climate change (CC) adaptation and flood risk prevention. This catchment analysis based on ESS approach is already done in some countries and could usefully be further exploited in the context of WFD implementation. A comprehensive soil framework may help understanding the limits of existing policies for soil protection (e.g. for erosion is it more effective to use buffer strips or to act on the fields?) as well as potential contradictions in existing policies.

A better quantification of the opportunities to reduce soil carbon losses / increase soil carbon content is needed to ensure a proper design of economic incentives and make sure that financial support is directed to appropriate recipients. It is linked to national LULUCF inventories, and a better understanding of economics of land management.

A more integrated approach on soil and water would be also useful for CC policy as soil and water are often managed by different administrations.

Not all farm soils are covered by CAP subsidies; this may trigger the need for another approach.

conclusions and next steps:

European Commission concluded by providing a preliminary wrap-up of the discussion (cf. slides).

Member States were asked to send any additional contribution on key policy issues on the basis of the background document by 23/10. These are uploaded on the CircABC group.

Member States were asked to further comments on the draft minutes of the meeting. It was indicated that it was not intended to reflect any individual statement, as the meeting was focused on a general discussion. The final minutes would then also be published on CircABC.

Next meetings are foreseen on 25/04/2016 and 17/10/2016 (date still to be confirmed), in Brussels.

A collaborative (wiki) web platform ensuring a continuous and enhanced channel of communication will be set up in the first months of 2016, as output of the support contract.

Annex: Final Agenda - 1st meeting of the EU Expert Group on soil protection - 19/10/2015

Item

9:30 - 10:00

Registration and Coffee

10:00 – 10:15

1. Introduction by DG ENV on the objectives of the meeting

2. Adoption of the agenda

10:15 – 10:45

3. “Tour de table” introducing participants

10:45 – 11:15

4. State of play on policy priorities and on-going activities at EU level; objectives of the Expert Group (DG ENV)

11:15 – 12:30

5. Discussion of key policy issue

Short presentation by DG ENV of each key policy issue identified in the background document, followed by a tour de table with contributions by Member States:

· Soil as an ecosystem

· Prioritisation of soil pressures

12:30 – 14:00

Lunch

14:00 – 15:15

5. Discussion of key policy issue (cont.)

· The Duty of Care

· The level of public intervention for the restoration of historically degraded soil

15:15 – 15:45

Coffee break

15:45 – 17:00

5. Discussion of key policy issue (cont.)

· Avoiding red tape and duplication of existing legislation

· The links with water and climate change policies

17:00 – 17:30

6. Wrap-up and next steps for the work of the Expert Group

17:30

End of the meeting

Annex: List of Participants - 1st Meeting of the EU Expert Group on Soil Protection - 19/10/2015 -

MS

Name

Surname

Function

Institution

AT

Georg

Juritsch

Head of Unit

Government of the Land Salzburg, Unit Agriculture, Soil protection and mountain pasture

AT

Andrea

Spanischberger

Civil Servant

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management

BE

Esther

GOIDTS

Senior advisor

DG Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment - Public Administration of Wallonia (BELGIUM)

BE

Martine

Swerts

Head of Service Land and Soil Protection Service

Flemish Governement

BE

Eddy

Van Dyck

afdelingshoofd Bodembeheer

OVAM

BG

Teodora

Petrova

Expert in the Waste Management and Soil Protection Directorate

Ministry of Environment and Water

CY

Mina

Patsalidou

Environmental Technician

Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment

CZ

Jiří

Klápště

Director of Department of General Nature and Landscape Protection

Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic

DE

Andreas

Bieber

Head of Division „Soil Protection and Contaminated Land“

Federal Ministry for the Environment, Germany

DE

Joachim

Bollmann

Deputy Head of Division

Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture

DK

Jens

Aabling

Danish Environment Protection Agency

DK

Helle

Okholm

Danish Environment Protection Agency

EE

Madli

Karjaste

Agri-Environmental Bureau of the Rural Development Department - Ministry of Rural Affairs

EL

Petros

Varelidis

Advisor of the Alternate Minister for the Environment

Ministry for Reconstruction of Production, Environment and Energy

ES

Antonio

Callaba-de-Roa

Geologist

Technical Counselor

Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentacion y Medio Ambiente

ES

Francisco-Javier

Cano-Monasterio

Agricultural Engineer (speciality: vegetal production)

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries

ES

Luis

Martin-Fernandez

Forestry Engineer

Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentacion y Medio Ambiente

Directorate General of Rural Development and Forest Policy

FI

Teija

Haavisto

Senior coordinator,

Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)

FI

Anna-Maija

Pajukallio

Ympäristöneuvos, ympäristöriskit /Counsellor, environmental risks

Ympäristöministeriö / Ministry of the Environment

FR

Corinne

BITAUD

chargée de mission sols

Direction générale de l'enseignement et de la recherche - MAAF

FR

Aurélien

LOUIS

Head of the contaminated land management Unit

Ministry for Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy

FR

Marie-Francoise

SLAK

Officer in charge of soil policies

Ministry of Agriculture, Bureau for water, soils and circular economy

HU

Judit

BERÉNYI-ÜVEGES

Head of the Department of Soil Conservation

National Food Chain Safety Office

IE

Brendan

O’Neill

Senior Advisor, Environment Advisory Unit

Department of Environment, Community and Local Government

IT

Claudia

Carpino

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LAND AND SEA PROTECTION

IT

Teresa

Federico

Officer

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENTAL, LAND AND SEA - DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR THE PROTECTION OF LAND AND WATER RESOURCES

LU

Sophie

Capus

Environment Ministry

LV

Dace

Ozola

Senior Desk Officer

Environmental Protection Department, Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development

NL

Co

Molenaar

Senior policy advisor Soil and Water

MINIENM - Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu

PL

Katarzyna

Nowak

Engineer

Ministry of the Environment

PL

Agnieszka

Pyl-Kutrzepa

Ministry of the Agriculture - Ministerstwo Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi, Departament Gospodarki Ziemią

PL

Sabina

Rutkowska

Chief expert

OP Infrastructure and Environment, priority axis II (environment)

PT

Regina-Maria

Madail-Vilão

Head of Unit / Division of Environmental Liability and Contaminated Soils

Environment Agency

RO

Alina-Dorina

Criclevit

Public manager

Contaminated Sites Department - General Directorate on Wastes, Contaminated Sites and Hazardous Substances - Ministry of Environment, Water and Forests

SE

Michael

Löfroth

Deputy director

Ministry of Environment and Energy

Ecosystems, biodiversity, Nature Conservation, geoscience

SI

Helena

Matoz

Secretary Environment and Climate Change Division

Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning,

SK

Jaroslava

Sobocká

Director of the Soil Science and Research Institute within The National Agricultural and Food Centre

Soil Science and Research Institute within The National Agricultural and Food Centre (NPPC-VUPOP Bratislava)

UK

Maggie

Charnley

Head of Soils

DEFRA - Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

UK

James

Skates

Senior Executive Officer

Welsh Government

DG ENV : Andrea Vettori, Jacques Delsalle and Josiane Masson

DG JRC: Alan Balward, Luca Montanarella, Arwyn Jones, Agnieszka Romanowicz, Panos Panagos, Ana Paya Perez, Marc Van Liedekerke.

Annex: Written contributions from Member StatesAustria

Preliminary comments (15/10/2015)

With reference to the European Commission's Note of 17 September 2015, in which Member States were invited to present, until 15 October 2015, first comments on the background document of the 1st EU soil meeting, we would like to make but a few basic remarks at this point in time. Due to the short time which was available for the coordination of a uniform position we cannot present a final position on the questions at the present time.

Austria is basically open to a discussion on questions of soil protection within the framework of the 7th Environmental Action Programme and is readily prepared to contribute its experience. However, we would like to mention the Protocol Declaration of Austria and other Member States which was presented in the framework of the conclusion of the 7th Environmental Action Programme and in which Austria's negative attitude towards a directive was illustrated again. This position has basically remained the same. Austria is very critical concerning an EU-wide uniform legal instrument due to, among other things, the heterogeneity of soils, the different land uses as well as the geomorphological and climatic conditions and the different risks and necessary measures associated with them. Austria thinks that soil threats should above all be observed and managed on regional and/or national level. In Austria, the maintenance of the capacity of the soil to meet its ecological, economic, social and cultural functions is regulated and effectively implemented in numerous material laws.

As has been mentioned in the European Commission's document, many politics and acts dealing with the issue of soil protection exist already also on EU level; from the Austrian point of view a separate regulation is therefore not required. Moreover, also questions of subsidiarity as well as of the costs and administrative expenditure and of the general economic situation in the EU would have to be taken into account in connection with this topic. We will express our opinion on the detailed questions at the meeting at Ispra and reserve the right to present further written comments also.

Comments on the questions posed by the European Commission (23/10/2015)

1) Hence, the Commission would welcome a discussion on how to strengthen the ecosystem dimension of soils in any new initiative.

Soil biodiversity is an important key enabling us to provide all soil functions for the purposes of ecosystem services therefore a it is important to understand soil in terms of its ecosystem functions. In Austria's opinion the maintenance and promotion of ecosystem services - also those of the soil - are already ensured by the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy. Appropriate methods could be provided through the European project LANDMARK. An additional regulation is therefore not necessary. To spread the existing know-how and to pass on the experiences to land users, we should discuss on whether the existing implementation networks¬ should be extended between all target groups. Strengthening of the knowledge base on ecosystem services and, in particular, suitable ways of knowledge-sharing should be discussed under the new initiative. In Austria, the significance of the soil functions is playing an important role; in the Federal Province of Salzburg, for example, the natural functions of the soil have already been laid down in the Soil Protection Act. With the Austrian standard ÖNORM L 1076 and the associated publication "Bodenfunktionsbewertung: Methodische Umsetzung der ÖNORM L 1076" Austria has the technical and the methodological know-how to illustrate and evaluate selected soil functions. In some Federal Provinces such soil function maps are available for the entire agricultural area and can be consulted by the public[footnoteRef:5] [5: e.g. at: http://www.salzburg.gv.at/sagisdaten_download/SAGIS_Daten/einsprung_boden.html]

2) Hence the Commission would welcome a discussion on how a new EU initiative on soil could ensure that the current policy vacuum on soil is overcome and thus better coordination of national and regional efforts in other policy fields is achieved.

From the Austrian point of view there we cannot talk about a policy vacuum in questions of soil protection. Many member states already having set numerous activities in terms of soil protection. In principle, each Member States has sufficient possibilities of regulating the issue in its own responsibility. We also refer to the Common Agricultural Policy, where the issue of soil protection plays an important roll. However, Austria is open-minded about and in favour of enhancing the coordination of activities in the field of soil protection and of intensifying the exchange of experiences and knowledge. A new EU initiative on soil should therefore not aim to impose regulations on Member States under EU legislation, but should work towards technical assistance in the form of a "best practice" collection on various soil issues (soil threats). This will enable Member States to assist each other in the establishment and development of soil protection measures. A pan-European network for soil protection would therefore be particularly useful for those countries that still have insufficient or no national activities on soil protection. Thus also the European research strategy in the field of soil and land use planning, which is under development through the project INSPIRATION (e.g. with regard to the goal of a "land degradation neutral world"), could be coherently complemented at the political level.

3) Hence the Commission would welcome a discussion on the prioritisation of action in a limited number of soil threats for the time being. If there is consensus on the benefits or limiting the scope of action of the initiative, we would welcome a discussion on which priority soil threats should that be.

Instead of emphasising threats it would anyhow be more useful to highlight benefits and opportunities of healthy soils. As explained by the European Commission soils in the EU are characterised by an enormous variability. This diversity in connection with the different land uses and land use intensities as well as geomorphological and climatic conditions also gives rise to different effects. There are also multiple ways of evaluating, mitigating and remedying occurring problems. Here individual approaches are vital therefore the best way to do this is in our point of view on regional or national level. Intensified cooperation in the form of technical assistance on individual threats and incentive schemes should therefore also in this case be given preference over EU regulations. Due to the very different soils and conditions of land use and the associated potential of soil threats a uniform ranking of priorities is difficult. The strong loss of agricultural soils resulting from soil consumption and the prevention of contaminations (precautionary soil protection) are in any case considered to be priority topics by Austria.

4) Hence the Commission would welcome a discussion on the duty of care of the soil owners versus the public responsibility to secure the provision of key soil ecosystem services.

Soil is the capital of each and every farmer and for this reason the gentle use of the soil, formation of humus and the maintenance and support of biodiversity are a vital interest for each farmer. Austria does therefore not see any need for additional legal provisions regulating the duty of care. We would like to emphasise that in this respect, too, numerous legal provisions exist already, for example in agricultural policy or in water legislation. Austria also attaches great importance to a well-developed advisory network which enhances awareness-raising with respect to the duty of care and the sustainable management of the soil by soil owners/land-users. As an example, we would like to mention the soil protection act of a Federal Province in which a duty of care is anchored for all soil users and, in particular, also for farmers through principles of agricultural management. Furthermore, the public sector can of course intervene directly by providing for soil-improving actions in the event that soils or their functions are correspondingly endangered.

5) Hence the Commission would welcome a discussion on what the minimum level of public intervention necessary to secure a high level of environmental (and health) protection would be.

Topic 5 of the EC-Background Document focuses on the level of public intervention for the restoration of historically degraded soil. “Degraded soil” refers to all soil threats; however, the need for public intervention will be explained for soil contamination in Austria: of course, highest priority on soil protection is on prevention of any degradation of soil. If soil contamination occurs despite proper protection measures (e.g. due to an accident), immediate and comprehensive emergency measures have to be taken to avoid any further spreading of contaminants and enlargement of the degraded area (no risk-based approach for recent contamination!). These measures have to be taken by the polluter or by public services at the cost of the polluter (strict polluter-pays-principle enforced). However, with regard to “historical contamination” the enforcement of the polluter-pays-principle is in many cases legally impossible. “Historic contamination” refers to contamination resulting from past practices and actions which took place decades ago (according to Austrian legislation before 1989). The legal difficulties to enforce a strict polluter-pays-principle for “historic contamination” are:

· The polluter doesn’t exist (is dead, company closed, war damages, etc.).

· The polluter is not liable if there was no environmental regulation existing at the time the contamination occurred (e.g. in Austria before Water Protection Law has been enacted in 1959)

· The polluter is not liable if an official permit has been granted by public authorities for the polluting activities

· The polluter cannot bear the costs for remediation and goes bankrupt (e.g. SMEs, dry cleaners)

The remediation of such abandoned heavily contaminated sites is in the responsibility of the public. Therefore, public intervention (e.g. funds) is needed to get into action and to secure human health and environmental protection at a high level. Public intervention due to funding should stimulate voluntary remediation activities and avoid lengthy and expensive legal procedures (available budget should be used for problem solution, not wasted for hopeless lawsuits!). Besides, the creation of funds (e.g. waste tax earmarked for the remediation of contaminated sites) can stimulate improvements in waste management practices (e.g. pay less tax for improved technical equipments).

Of course, the soil provides services for the general public, but it is above all privately owned. To minimise interventions in property rights in order to safeguard the public interest, advisory services and incentives should be the primary means of protecting the soil and the environment. In Austria, for example, we do this successfully by means of the Agri-environmental Programme ÖPUL, the soil protection acts of the Federal Provinces, the Water Rights Act, the Law on the Remediation of Contaminated Sites, or the Forest Act. In Austria there are thus sufficient national policies and instruments to meet the interest of the general public in an intact soil.

6) Hence the Commission would welcome a discussion on how could a new initiative on soil make stronger links and better reflect the evolution of water and climate policies.

As opposed to air and water, soil is not movable, nor is it a public good. Rather, soil is covered by property rights, exhibits large regional differences and is strongly influenced by local management. National, regional and local activities to maintain soil characteristics are therefore in our point of view most effective also for the role soil is playing in the fight against climate change. In Austria, the tight technical network between the agendas of soil protection and the water and climate policy is an established practice. Soils which are managed in line with the principles of good agricultural practice usually make positive contributions to climate and water protection. On the other hand, water and climate policies also need to take account of the impacts measures have on soil management and soil protection. Particularly negative impacts on climate and water protection are caused by soil sealing and soil consumption, so limiting them is more than just a priority measure to protect the soil.

Belgium


Belgium is currently participating in the MAES soil pilot and welcomes this initiative. Although the knowledge on soil biodiversity and ecosystem services has increased exponentially over the last years, there still is a lot of work to be done, even after the soil pilot. After the mapping and assessment, the ecosystem services of the soil need to be further valued, in order to demonstrate their importance and relevance. The knowledge on (soil) ecosystem services should be further implemented in local, regional, national and European policies and the impact of these policies on ESS should be taken more into account. Extensive use of ecosystem services (of the soil) in the soil strategy could end up being difficult because the concept is still difficult to monitor, assessor value in practice. The approach proposed in the former withdrawn SFD was based on protection of identified soil function and not namely on soil ecosystem services. The link between the two concepts seems obvious; however, where soil functions rather refer to natural processes commonly accepted, soil ecosystem services are more oriented to human interpretation and therefore subject to more debate given the views and interests of the persons involved in the discussion. The question that can be raised is at which scale this debate must take place? Is the European level the most appropriate level or rather the level where soil management is taking place (land planning, agricultural and forestry management of soils, project holder)? A discussion is needed especially given the potential lack of direct and practical approaches to implement ecosystem services within the decision-making processes.

On the soil biodiversity issue, given the better information available from research and development, the drafting of a future SFD can be improved, especially on type of steps to take (identifying indicators, starting monitoring schemes, establishing reference levels through Normal Operating Ranges, assessing the impact of soil management,…). However, obligations should be only targeted on well-established knowledge, and not necessarily on given quantitative targets which could be highly dependent on various parameters (soil types, local conditions). An incentive approach at the management level together with reporting obligations on the state of soil biodiversity can be favoured.

We recommend following actions:

· Keep the concept of soil function within a soil legislative framework and wait for further development on soil ecosystem services before using them at the regulatory level. If the soil ecosystem services concept is considered mature enough, then it would be useful to have practical case studies presented to the Expert Group to illustrate the potential implications if taken on board in a legislative proposal, and to clarify the Commission’s expectations from the use of that concept within a mandatory context.

· Include in the drafting a better description of what is expected from MS in the soil biodiversity management and suggest some indicative tools to achieve it.

· Stimulate fundamental and applied knowledge development and dissemination on soil ecosystem services and soil biodiversity.

· Translate this knowledge in practical tools or guidelines for policymakers, farmers, etc.

· Foster the exchange of inspiring experiences on ecosystem services e.g. in projects funded by Europe.

· Use the (soil) ESS concept for awareness raising and to demonstrate the benefits of the restoration of degraded soils. Intensive communication actions should be continued after the International Year of Soils.


The level of “vacuumness” is highly dependent on how legal soil dispositions from EU have been practically implemented, on the existence of national legislations targeted to soil issues, on the level of integration at the national/regional level between competent authorities which are diverse (environment, land planning, energy, road and water infrastructure management, R&D, economics, local authorities, etc). Such coordination is sometimes (usually) lacking and usually ends to juxtaposition of different political views. Meanwhile, discussions on the soil issue are hold by “environmental experts” committed by Environmental authority and their associated network, and do not necessarily go beyond environmental considerations. The question is how to gather all these views to achieve sustainable soil management if this issue is not considered as a real priority by the political level. The setting of common targets and commitments are essential in this sense.

Belgium still is strongly in favour of a legally binding framework for the protection of the soil in Europe. We urgently need mandatory targets to create a level playing field and to make sure that every member state takes immediate action to protect soil quality. The new legislative instrument should not be too prescriptive and give utmost freedom and flexibility to the member states on how to reach these targets, including by using existing provisions if relevant. Much will depend on the type of risk reduction targets, the way previous efforts can be taken into account, the baseline values, the monitoring requirements, the need for inventories and the definitions to be used. The targets should be set reasonably (maybe within different progressive phases) in order to avoid any loss of credibility during the process of implementation.

Belgium encourages and supports the development of an inventory and a gap analysis of the different soil policy instruments in the EU and its member states, including the identification of potential contradictions between different sectoral strategies (eg. the use of carbon for renewable energy directive while organic matter declines in soils, end of waste criteria and soil pollution, nitrate directive and carbon storage, …). We would be happy to participate to the consultation round. Belgium suggests to wait for the results of this study and to aim for maximum accordance and uniformity with existing policies. All soil-related definitions in the European environmental acquis should be in line with each other. It is indeed true that the existing soil-improving measures are scattered throughout different policy areas. Nevertheless new measures have to be taken because soil degradation throughout Europe still is continuing.


Belgium welcomes the new focus on only five soil threats: erosion, soil organic matter decline, soil sealing, soil biodiversity loss and contamination. Belium is in line with such focus even if each threat can be more or less developed within legal dispositions. The level of obligations to define in a future SFD should differ between the threats due to the different maturity on each issue (level of knowledge, uncertainties associated to quantitative targets, impact of management practices etc).

Erosion is being extensively studied and enough knowledge seems available for setting mandatory monitoring on hot spots and for adopting mandatory management practices (chosen from a given package for example) at the right scale extent. Such disposition should be either linked to the CAP or part of it. Besides, some provisions should at least tackle land planning processes (through environmental impact assessment for example) and a discussion on the opportunity to include mandatory environmental specifications in contracts between the operator/owner of an area and firms that will do similar field work at the same time on a broader area should be started. Any person working in the field should actually be committed to soil protection approaches that are suitable for local conditions.

Concerning organic matter decline, while knowledge allows for quantifying carbon content at various scales, the issue of change through time remains difficult to consider within shorter periods than 5-10 years (i.e. management timescale). Besides, the potential of increasing carbon content may be highly variable between types of soils if a similar land use is chosen. More developments are needed from the scientific side in order to use the right monitoring scheme at the field level and previous to the establishment of mandatory targets. However, general trends and sensitive area can be identified and management practices for increasing carbon content are known. Therefore, some dispositions focusing on management practices can be made mandatory in sensitive area. Such approach has to be linked to the CAP or be part of it. An attention should also be paid to the type of carbon that should be increased. Indeed, different purposes can be pursued and should not be in contradiction (stable carbon for climate issues vs labile carbon for fertility issues)

With goals like ‘no net land take by 2050’ from the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe and the Rio +20 striving for a ‘land degradation neutral world’, indicators on soil sealing and land take should absolutely be included in the legally binding instrument. Midterm targets will be required to monitor the progress. An indicator on land recycling and brownfield regeneration would need good quality inventories, based on common definitions, which might prove difficult to realise. Considering the loss of greenfields, with the possibility to include land quality aspects, seems a better option to monitor the threat of soil sealing.

Soil biodiversity is an important factor in soil formation, which supports a range of provisioning services such as food, fiber and fuel provision, and is fundamental to soil fertility. The loss of soil biodiversity is thus a very pressing threat to soil. While it is too early to impose mandatory targets, the settlement of monitoring schemes and the assessment of the impact of management practices should be started. Initiatives at different levels should be encouraged such as information exchange on best practices, on indicators and assessment tools for example, through the installation of expert groups or information exchange platforms.


Belgium supports the idea that the users or owners of land have the duty to care for the soil so that it can continue to provide its ecosystem services to the users or owners of the land as well as to the broad public. We are in favor of a far-reaching level of responsibility for the users and owners of land with as less public intervention as possible. Only when private parties fail to fulfil their obligation or when they are not to blame for the cause of the degradation, public authorities should intervene.The definition of the extent of the duty of care should not be left to the discretion of the member states, because then a level playing field would not be guaranteed throughout the whole European Union.

This approach already applies for soil contamination issues in Belgium, however it is less clear for the other soil threats (erosion, organic matter decline, soil biodiversity) and even contradictory for soil sealing threat as public authorities are often favoring urbanisation process… In fact, the approach highly depends on the value attributed to the soil service and the cost related to the loss of such service. While contamination is widely recognized as problematic, organic matter decline seems less critical (although some cost can be evaluated from the loss of carbon) and soil sealing is even seen as a gain in the monetary value of the field. The duty of care should take different form depending on the soil threat: normative levels for contamination and erosion, obligation of means for organic matter decline, soil biodiversity and soil sealing (imperviousness within urban areas), and protected areas based on soil quality criteria for soil sealing (urbanization part) for example.

Cfr. question 5.


According to the report (2014) of the Joint Research Centre on the Progress in the Management of Contaminated Sites in Europe, Belgium (Flanders) has in percentage terms the lowest annual public expenditure for the management of contaminated sites (25%). Most of the investigation and remediation costs are borne by the private sector, thanks to the enforcement of very strict remediation obligations. The decrees on soil remediation and soil protection in the 3 regions of Belgium clearly distinguish between the obligation to remediate soil pollution and the liability regarding the damage caused by the soil pollution. The obligation to remediate a contaminated site is imposed according to a fixed scheme: first, on the operator of the installations present on the land where the soil contamination originated, secondly, on the user of the contaminated land, and finally on the owner. The legislation also provides a possibility to the operator, user or owner to be exempted from the obligation to remediate, when certain conditions are met. When the last link in the chain, the owner, is exempted from his remediation obligation, or when someone fails to fulfil his obligation, public authorities take up responsibility and finance the remediation (and try to recover the costs afterwards).

Belgium supports a similar approach for contaminated land on EU level, which only results in a public intervention for the restoration of degraded soils, when private parties fail to fulfil their obligation or when they are not to blame for the cause of the degradation.

Concerning soil biodiversity, at this stage the approach should mainly be targeted on incentives for better monitoring and management.

Concerning soil sealing, the approach might better be targeted on avoiding public expenditure for urbanisation processes on soils of good quality associated to the establishment of land take targets.


Possible initiatives to make stronger links and better reflect the evolution of water and climate policies:

· Encourage synchronization/integration of water, sediments and soil monitoring (based on modeling of hydropedogeological processes);

· Take into account the role of carbon in climate issue (stable carbon) but also in fertility issue (labile carbon);

· Identify potential contradictions between sectoral obligations and propose integrated solutions to remove them;

· Stimulate extra research on the role of soil for the water and carbon cycle, e.g. through Horizon 2020;

· Integrate these links in the calls for the different European funding programs;

· Set up platforms for a multidisciplinary approach and knowledge exchange;

· Invest in awareness raising and communication;

Cyprus

General comments:

There is a need for a flexible legal framework which will deal specifically with the protection of soil. By flexible we mean that MS should develop a framework which they will apply by adapting it to their own specific requirements and according to their own specific priorities. Currently Cyprus's legal framework does not have soil specific legislation. Instead it has clauses concerning soil, or indirectly affecting soil, included in legislations regarding agricultural soils, the application of soil enhancers, wastewater, solid and mining waste, biodiversity and water related legislation. It is a step towards the right direction that the Commission is currently running a "gap-filling" survey that will give member states a further insight to the current situation.

1) Soil as an ecosystem

"Ecosystem services" is target 5 of EU Biodiversity Strategy 2020 targets that needs to be implemented by all member-states. Soil ecosystem services structure the function of the soil ecosystem and support and maintain. Decomposition and cycling of organic matter, plant growth, soil detoxification, soil formation and prevention of soil erosion, gas exchange and carbon sequestration, production of food, fuel and energy, regulation of nutrients and uptake are soil ecosystem services.

In addition, UNCCD has been dealing with the issue of land degradation, drought and water scarcity, and Cyprus under the National Strategy of Desertification has been promoting a number of actions regarding soil protection prone to desertification that relate directly or indirectly with soil as an ecosystem. It is our position that there is no single legal document that deals directly with soil as an ecosystem and there has been no direct assessment of the ecosystem services or the functions of soil. We believe that the new initiative needs to include provisions regarding soil as an ecosystem.

2) Avoiding red tape and duplication of existing legislation

Currently soil issues are highly fragmented since they are dealt under various EU as well as national legislation. For Cyprus it is very important that the European Commission is launching a tender to deliver an updated and detailed picture of the policies and measures in place at the EU and in member-states. Also in Cyprus, soil issues are fragmented and dealt under various pieces of legislation with a number of different competent authorities. The result of this study will give us a clear picture of what are the gaps, the duplications and the needs to be reflected in this new initiative. Thus, for this point of discussion, we need to see how this study will progress and what will be the main outcomes.

3) Prioritization of soil pressures

Initially we agree with the main priorities set by the European Commission, i.e. erosion, soil organic matter decline, soil sealing, soil biodiversity loss, and soil contamination, and adding also desertification land degradation, drought and water scarcity as other important pressures for Cyprus.

Degradation pressures on Cyprus soils are exerted from a combination of natural and human-induced factors. Most of these pressures are inter-entwined and therefore a legal framework needs to take this fact into account. In some instances these pressures might have already brought about changes to the soil functions with nock-on adverse effects to water quality and water availability.

The pressures exerted are mainly but not exhaustively the result of climatic conditions, water shortages, losses of vegetation cover, uncontrolled fires, land abandonment in rural areas and high urbanization rates. The main threats to soil in Cyprus include desertification, salinization, erosion, and to a lesser extend contamination.

It should be noted that for soil sealing, an extended study is conducted in cooperation with an academic institution. Also, we need to assess the baseline information available for the pressures since they are widely spread into different sectors and legislations.

4) The Duty of Care

The duty of care of the soil owners versus the public/social responsibility to secure soil ecosystem services is a very difficult issue to deal with. At this point we believe that it is quite premature to discuss it, and we think that it is important to be addressed in the revised Impact Assessment that need to be conducted for this new initiative.

5) The level of public intervention for the restoration of historically degraded soil

Although this discussion may be quite sensitive for many member-states, Cyprus is not against public intervention in order to secure a high level of environmental and health protection of soil. There is clearly a need for the introduction and use by town planning authorities of concentration limits as guidelines when it comes to selecting the right material for sensitive land use areas such as public parks, kid's playground areas and school yards. The use of such guidelines in public tenders when developing sensitive areas such as the ones mentioned above, will avoid using materials of geogenie origin with naturally high potentially harmful elements or materials that might originate from reclaimed land which has been used for industrial or other land uses incompatible to the new application.

The new initiative would address soil contamination in a manner that would allow member states to set their own priorities, without prescribing a specific identification methodology.

6) The links with water and climate change policies - (WFD και Floods Directive, climate change mitigation and adaptation).

WFD is regulating the management of water and there are strong links with the protection of soil. Pressures for water resources are usually pressures to soil as well. Measures to clean and protect the water bodies result also in protection and cleanup of soils. In order for the new soil initiative to better reflect the evolution of water policies, the existing water acquis in relation to soil protection measures should be evaluated to find out existing gaps and any approaches proposed, where appropriate. This should ensure a high degree of flexibility for Member States, so that their specificities are taken into account. Overlaps with existing EU water legislation and reporting duplication should be avoided.

Spain


The achieved progress in scientific knowledge over the past decades has led to the awareness on the need to maintain the environmental and economic soil functions recognizing its central role in the environment.

Biodiversity and their status, from this perspective, are a reflection of the amount and intensity of environmental pressures on soil. These pressures can be both, natural (temperature, water balance, latitude, altitude, etc.) or, by contrary, man induced (land use and land management for instance). So, in the absence of significant pressures or by keeping them in allowable limits, the soil medium would reach the maximum possible quality in every circumstance.

Considering the above mentioned facts, feasible actions to preserve or restore soil ecosystem functions should be oriented to establish mechanisms to ensure that human pressures and their effects remain within reasonable limits. Of course, the state of soil biodiversity should be in the core of the variables to assess soil quality status. In this sense, any initiative to monitor soil biodiversity as described in the EC document must be considered not only desirable but essential. It should be mentioned the need of realistic and coordinated methods and tools to improve the mapping and assessment of soil features and soil ecosystem services. Identification of soil biodiversity trends by means of realistic coordinated methods and tools, would allow checking the efficiency of any mitigation or restoration measures that are adopted in the framework of a common initiative on soil protection, becoming an instrumental tool to complete the policy cycle.


Obviously the need to avoid red tapes which could lead to less soil protection instead more is fully underwritten. In this sense, the announced survey on how different EU policies impact positively or negatively into soil is considered extremely useful and timely.

Due to the fact of shared competences on soil among national and regional authorities a common baseline may act harmonizing them.

It should be noted, moreover, that although the CAP is, today, among the policies which are delivering more direct and concrete measures to preserve soil functions, other EU policies are also considered important and should be carefully analyzed in the survey. Likewise, it is understood that this survey should examine very carefully and systematically the direct and indirect effects on soil of EU financial tools (cohesion funds and structural funds for instance).

Moreover, considering that both, the diagnosis of soil degradation processes and the design of measures to mitigate them require heavy doses of scientific knowledge, this survey should pay close attention to the results gained in the field of EU research projects (FP7 for instance).

In other hand, it should be stressed the convenience to adequately identify and select stakeholders to be considered in the survey keeping in mind the fact that soil protection is not only a government issue but also a medium subject to property rights.

To conclude, the survey that the Commission is proposing would help to identify and assess the magnitude of existing gaps in soil protection, if does exist, orienting the foreseen discussions and the design of measures in the next few years.


The threats identified in the EC discussion paper are in alignment with those that were previously detected in European discussions: erosion, loss of organic matter, soil sealing and soil contamination.

As mentioned in question 1, it is understood that the loss of soil biodiversity would be better understood by considering it as a consequence of the existence of one or more degradation processes acting in the soil more than a degradation process itself. In this regard, it would seem advisable to consider it as an essential indicator on soil degradation.

The consideration of soil ecosystem services is getting more and more important. In other hand the maintaining of these ecosystems rely very much on soil organic matter content. Soil organic matter loss is, therefore, correctly identified. among the priority threats

Salinization is a well-recognized soil threat in arid and semiarid regions of the EU and in other places with drainage problems. It is closely connected with irrigation practices that very often are financed by EU funds. An increase in irrigated areas and in salinization is expected in the EU in the mid-term in the context of climate change. Besides being a clear soil degradation factor, sometimes irreversible, it may also have a remarkable influence on water quality. Considering these facts an specific mention of this threat is missed. On the other hand, from a legal point of view, there is a lack of logic disregarding, since this threat is in the core of the UNCCD being EU among the parties of this convention, not to mention the different Directives concerning water quality. Taking these arguments into account it seems to be reasonable to include soil salinization in in the list of priorities of soils threats. Soil erosion acts equally to agricultural and forest soils being among the widespread soil degradation process in the EU In consequence, It seems suitable to include soil erosion among the priorities soil threats proposed by EC

There are estimations which give a huge dimension for contaminated soil, In some cases contaminated soils are threatening other environmental compartments and even human health and ecosystems. Considering these facts, soil contamination it is considered, again, well addressed. However, soil contamination is not exclusively related to industrial contaminated sites but also other circumstances. In this sense must be highlighted that in the context of a circular economy it is expected an increase of secondary raw materials as fertilizers or soil improvers being needed procedures to assess its harmless and expected benefits to soil

Finally, it would be advisable some clarifications regard soil sealing. “Soil sealing” has been defined in European institutional documents as "The covering of the soil surface with impervious materials as a result of urban development and infrastructure construction”. Also the term is used to describe a change in the nature of soil leading to impermeability (e.g. compaction by agricultural machinery). Sealed areas are lost to use: such as agriculture or forestry, while the soil ecological functions are severely impaired or even prevented us (e.g. soil working as a buffer and filter". On the other hand, EEA in its document SOER 2015 notes ”land take” take of arable land as one of the most disturbing phenomena in the last years . Both processes, if are not the same, are closely related. In this sense it would be very fruitful to consider a clarification of the EC in this regard.


We agree with the starting point indicated by the Commission in the discussion paper: to recognize the ecosystem services delivered by soil and, at the same time, the fact that it is a natural environmental resource subject to property rights.

Connected to this issue there are a couple of questions that could guide the discussion on the division of responsibilities for soil protection:

1. While generally soil and, largely its handling, falls in the private sphere, it must be recognized that the benefits of the ecosystem functions performed by soils are shared by whole society. In short, we are in a situation where the soil belongs to individuals and, instead, the functions performed by it are a common asset.

1. Almost automatically, when responsibility for care of this environmental compartment raises, there is a trend to think in responsibility in terms of liability. This common thought could be true when the discussion is focused around negative pressures on soil (e.g. contamination). However, it should also be considered that responsibility in many cases can imply actions to maintain, reinforce or restore soil ecosystem functions.


This is an issue closely related to the above commented. Certainly, there seems to be a broad spectrum of positions on the role to be played by governments, whatever the considered level –regional, national or continental- on the funding of actions to restore degraded soils. Not being an easy question to answer, there are some thoughts that should be considered in this discussion:

1. As noted above soil is, in most cases, privately owned. Not so the soil functions that should be understood as a public asset.

1. There are a number of degraded soils in which the severity of the acting pressures or their huge scale, make it difficult or impossible, in practice, the assumption of the restoration bill by its legal owners (contaminated orphans sites largely widespread in the EU or restoration of large burned areas are good example).

It is clear that a strong public intervention (as, for example, have been made in Spain for restoration of large burned area) would not be sustainable over time. In this sense private initiative has also a role to play stimulated by the governments.

In any case, which is considered a basic duty for public authorities is the maintenance of a monitoring system to evaluate the effects (positive or negative) of the soil state and implemented measures.


Although an accurate assessment of the ability of the soil to serve as a sink for greenhouse gases is yet to be agreed by the scientific community, it is clear that this is positive in any case. In other hand is also clear that this ability could increase by improving soil conservation and management practices. It is therefore evident that to raise the role of soil in the next conference of the parties of the UNFCCC is a desirable option.

From another perspective give visibility to the role of soil in the context of climate change should be considered as an opportunity to face simultaneously two large-scale environmental challenges (soil degradation and climate change).

In other hand, as mentioned above, this initiative should also connect and interact with the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) and also with water quality regulations.

Finland

We see soil as a very important part of the environment, which needs attention. We are glad that the Commission is now starting “afresh” and we hope that we can contribute in this process for our part.

How to get forward is not an easy question – on the one hand we need a sufficient European framework and on the other hand we must provide flexibility and be very careful in setting new obligations to Member States.

Here are some preliminary views and answers to the given questions. Unfortunately we did not have the chance to reflect them in detail. We are in the process of organizing a national group of policy makers and experts to assist us nominated experts.


Strengthening the ecosystem dimension instead of focusing on threats might be helpful in finding a fresh start. However we feel that the knowledge base is not to sufficient enough to develop legally binding instruments on that at this stage. Platform for exchange of knowledge and information could be a good way forward.

For instance in Finland we have just started to develop indicators for ecosystem services (link to an article on this http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.041 ).


We see that the upcoming inventory and assessment of soil protection policy instruments is essential to recognize the existing gaps and to focus this process/work better.

At this point the integration of soil policy more strongly to already existing instruments would seem a good way to proceed, especially if it is shown (during the working process) that they can tackle the major gaps. Instead of a new legally binding instrument a common action programme or updated Thematic Soil Strategy should be considered. Also the recently accepted SDGs (especially soil related) should be taken into consideration. Is the implementation of them possible with already existing instruments?


There is great variation in the vulnerability of soils in the Member States due to the differences in climate, soil types and vegetation. Land use and production structure vary between the countries.

Limiting the scope of action might be a good approach as the threats do not share the same level of knowledge and urgency. This could help to focus the policy instrument making implementation easier.

Soil Contamination (especially point sources), soil sealing and soil erosion are perhaps the threats where finding a consensus in terms of technical and political targets would be easiest. However we must bear in mind that the land use falls under the national competence


As stated in the background document the level of 'duty of care' and on the other side the role of the society to reward the owner for the services provided by his/her asset” is very complex.

The concept of ‘constitutional protection of property’ probably varies among MSs.

It might be helpful if we could discuss this using some examples – for instance what would this mean in practise in relation to farmers? What kind of measures could be used to implement this duty?


In Finland the historically degradated soils are mainly related to contamination.

The basis is the “polluter pays principle”, but public funding is also needed for orphan sites that pose significant risk to human health or the environment.

The first step is to know the risks. The minimum of public intervention would then be to have the information available to the public.

We prefer the risk based approach also in securing the “high level of environmental protection”


Soil is closely linked to water and climate. In developing soil policy we should avoid overlapping regulation and try to fill the gaps, where possible, using the already existing policy tools. For instance in Finland the restauration/remediation of the contaminated soils existing on aquifers (groundwater bodies) has been dealt as one of the groundwater protection measures in RBMPs to achieve the environmental objectives set in the WFD and GWD.

The Commission is expected to give its proposal on how to include land use, land use change and forestry into the 2030 greenhouse gas mitigation framework by next summer. This proposal should be taken into account also in our work.

Italy

1. Soil and ecosystem

Soil is a limited natural resource, non-renewable, irreplaceable, valuable and important because it performs essential ecosystem services. In recent decades, the threats to ecosystems have become increasingly serious and numerous; these threats are not fought with sufficient measures for conservation and protection.

Ecosystems provide humanity with a great variety of services and benefits, and yet their real value, in the long run, it is not "accounted for" in companies' economic forecasts. Over the past 50 years, humans have altered ecosystems with great speed and strength; the final report of the analysis on The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), presented in 10th Conference of parties to the Biodiversity Convention, pointed to increased costs imposed on citizens due to loss of biodiversity and degradation of ecosystems.

TEEB is the largest effort at the international level to systematize and present all data and knowledge gathered so far about the value of biodiversity and ecosystems for the human economy. The TEEB explains clearly that natural capital is the basis of our economies. Biodiversity in all its dimensions must be preserved not only for social or ethical reasons, but also for the economic benefits it provides for current and future generations.

In the wake of recommendations from TEEB on possible ways of integrating ecosystem services into various policies, an effort will be required to develop appropriate environmental management tools, able to integrate the concepts of ecosystem functions and services in management decisions and planning, so that local administrators can check pressures that threaten the ecosystem and their functionality, improve their effectiveness and build a model of governance that is based on tools such as payments for ecosystem services.

To respond to the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in different countries in the world—in addition to traditional markets (voluntary or statutory) that relate, for example, to greenhouse gasses (carbon), water and biodiversity—new forms of trade stand out, including in particular PES (Payment for Ecosystem Services), which is aimed at the recovery and protection of ecological systems and the services they provide. Technically the term PES refers to a voluntary transaction in which a specific ecosystem service (or a type of land use that ensures their provision) is sold by at least one seller at least one buyer, if and only if the service provider guarantees the delivery (cross-compliance).

In current use, PES is a series of incentives and market mechanisms to turn environmental non-market values into real financial incentives for local actors, so that voluntary certifications, best practices and environmental communication promote and support the maintenance of ecological functions that is offered by biodiversity and natural capital.

PES is just one example of an effective management tool for natural resources that allows the environmental costs and benefits in the decision – making process to be internalized through a voluntary contractual transaction, between the supplier and buyer of a specified ecosystem service (or a specific soil management), in order to ensure the right service at the right time, ensuring a high level of quality for the landscape.

We also remember that Italy, in 2010, adopted the "National Biodiversity Strategy" (whose preparation is provided for by the CBD), which is an instrument of great importance in ensuring real integration between the country’s objectives of development and the protection of its priceless biodiversity heritage. "National biodiversity strategy" considers soil loss and land use change—as well as alteration and fragmentation of habitats—major threats to biodiversity, and critical issues. It reads: "by the year 2020 the following objectives will be achieved:

1. examine in depth our understanding and fill in gaps on the consistency, the characteristics and the status of habitats and species and ecosystem services, as well as on things that directly and indirectly threaten them;

1. learn more about the value of ecosystems and their services, identifying potential beneficiaries and actors that play a significant role in the management of these systems;

1. promote sustainable use of natural resources and apply an ecosystem approach, as well as the precautionary principle in their management;

1. integrate regulatory issues of biodiversity within planning tools of large and local scale to ensure the maintenance of ecosystem services and the ability to mitigate and adapt to climate change. "

In light of what has been presented here, it is clear how effective the contribution of projects and pilot studies on the ground (MAES – LANDMARK) would be, and the same notice drawn up by the Commission, for the purposes of proper planning of any subsequent intervention on the ground.

2. Avoiding 'red tape' and duplication of existing legislation

The types of soil, land management and climate have significant variations between regions of Europe, and this means that there is a need for specific management strategies, guidance and protection to ensure that actions are carried out in a proportionate manner, on the basis of regional priorities and within a general European framework. It would be appropriate that any future European regulation about the soils follow a risk-based approach and be equipped with adequate flexibility to take into account differences between national and regional situations. A common framework at the EU level for soil protection will certainly contribute to ensure that similar obligations have the same weight on land managers of all Member States, thus reducing the potential distortions of competition in the internal market.

It would also be important to investigate how to create incentives to reduce carbon emissions and preserve soil organic matter, taking into account the relative sector to land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF), under the EU's commitment to counteract climate change.

Another consideration to take into account is the cross – border effects that soil degradation can have (e.g. greenhouse gas emissions, the spread of pollutants, sediment erosion, loss of soil carbon, contamination spreading across borders). While some Member States already have advanced legislation on soil protection, others do not have a legal framework or have a much less complex framework. This means that a Member State may be damaged and incurring costs to counteract pollution of soil or water, or soil erosion, landslides and floods that are caused by the inadequacy of the protective measures adopted by a adjacent Member State. European legislation must therefore be considered as a way to protect land users in a given country from the harmful consequences of practices implemented in another country, of which they are not responsible.

Due to the strong correlation between soil quality and other environmental issues (air, water quality, flood risks, biodiversity, climate change, renewable energy, etc.), the forthcoming soil policy must recognize the links with other objectives of EU environmental legislation (water framework directive). Nevertheless, in order to guarantee compliance with the principle of proportionality, the proposed EU legislation on soil protection should leave Member States the freedom to determine their own most appropriate measures at their own territorial and administrative levels. This would be crucial to ensure that they are duly considered by regional and local administrations as regards soil variability, land uses, climatic conditions and their unique local socioeconomic make - up. Local and regional authorities indeed play a major role in soil protection in Europe.

This includes the responsibility to implement the standards, where they exist, as planners and bodies to issue building and land use permits. These institutions are called upon to make decisions designed to prevent urban sprawl and soil-sealing, as well as to encourage the conversion of disused industrial sites. These activities can be supported by the Commission's guidelines on soil-sealing as well as with the ongoing implementation of the four pillars of the thematic strategy for soil protection. Local and regional authorities should also continue to proactively contribute to this strategy, for example by supporting the development of codes of good practices relating to soil protection, and provide good-quality compost to maintain levels of soil organic matter.

Gaps in soil protection measures can be better addressed, by starting from a common basis throughout the EU, and by establishing a general framework and common principles that all countries must adhere to. It is therefore appropriate to adopt a legislative framework on soil protection, although it is essential for this policy not to be unnecessarily prescriptive. The principle of subsidiarity is vital in this area because of the considerable differences that exist between the soils of different regions of Europe. The soil protection strategies should therefore be based on risks and proportionate, and take into account regional specificities. To ensure soil protection it is necessary to take specifically targeted measures. The implementation of this policy takes place mainly at the local and regional level, and therefore a better monitoring of soils is required to help develop, sustain and evaluate regional approaches on soil protection.

The soil protection policy must find the right balance between, on the one hand, action at European level and, on the other, respect for the principles of subsidiarity and better regulation, to avoid creating new administrative burdens and disproportionate costs.

3. Prioritization of soil pressures

The thematic soil strategy covers all threats: soil erosion, loss of organic matter, contamination, salinization, sealing, landslides, compaction and loss of biodiversity. A country like Italy, fragile and vulnerable, with widespread and high hydro-geological risk, should protect existing assets and above all ecosystems and soil biodiversity that can produce natural defenses for extraordinary hydrological events.

It is undeniable that currently our territory is a resource at risk: strongly compromised by the actions of man and, at the same time, rich in stored and consolidated social and economic functions. It requires prevention and remediation with usage and productivity choices, compatible with the needs of hydrogeological protection and stewardship, in order to establish security for settlements, populations, and existing infrastructure. Of course the two aspects, actions for soil and action for the territory, are closely interrelated, since only good protection of the soil promotes environmental protection, both as a habitat and as a landscape. We must always keep in mind that soil protection is an instrument of analysis and evaluation of the interaction between "natural environment" and "built environment," an instrument designed to maintain and recover resources, as well as to prevent landslides.

New activity on the territory, when permitted, will have to protect the essential resources of the territory itself with actions for essential conservation, for soil protection, and for prevention from pollution.

For the status of the Italian territory which is looking at a selection of material for a major new legislative proposal on soil protection, including erosion and excluding landslides may not be effective. We take into account the intersectorial subject matter of soil, instead of sharing the Commission's approach as regards the willingness to give prominence to the interconnections between the threats.

4. The Duty of Care

We must affirm, through legislation, the key aspect so far avoided: soil is a common good, its protection therefore transcends the ownership of a related right to private property--not to deny such a right, but to assert a greater responsibility, for each individual, company and public administration, with respect to non-reproducible assets, in which the entire community must respond jointly to undue losses and bad uses.

Among the reasons for soil dissipation is the spread of the concept of soil as something whose value lies in the production of the "real" economy, and not so much in what it represents in relation to the landscape, the environment, society, climate, well-

presentations by DG ENV - CIRCABC - Welcome · Web viewOn the other hand, EEA in its document...

Documents

Transcript of presentations by DG ENV - CIRCABC - Welcome · Web viewOn the other hand, EEA in its document...