Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Towards a Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection" (COM(2002) 179 final)
Date: 2002-09-18
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: action programme, environmental protection, erosion, soil pollution, soil protection, sustainable development

14.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/49

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission
to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee
of the Regions: Towards a Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection’

(COM(2002) 179 final)

(2003/C 61/09)

On 12 April 2002 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 175 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned communication.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 29 August 2002. The rapporteur
was Mr Nilsson.

At its 393rd Plenary Session on 18-19 September 2002 (meeting of 18 September), the Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 139 votes in favour, with no dissenting votes and
one abstention.

1. Gist of the Commission’s communication

1.1.
The 6th Environmental Action Programme and the
Strategy for Sustainable Development presented by the Com-
mission in 2001 stated that soil must be protected against
erosion and pollution and pointed out that soil
loss and
declining fertility are eroding the viability of agricultural land.
This Commission communication (1) is a first step towards the
framing of a Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection.

1.2.
The components of this communication are both
descriptive and action-oriented. It details the impact on soil of
both external and manmade factors, such as erosion, decline
in organic material, local and diffuse soil contamination, soil
compaction, decline in soil biodiversity, salination, floods and
landslides, etc.

1.3.
Soil is defined in this connection as the upper layer of
the earth’s crust, and as being of key importance for all human
activities and for society as a whole. Soil also plays a major
role in water protection and exchange of gases with the
atmosphere.

human activities. All countries are affected, albeit to different
degrees and for different reasons; this trend is worsening and
climate changes are tending to exacerbate the effects.

1.7.
In the communication the Commission deals solely
with soil as defined for the purpose of the communication and
does not cover land use, which will be studied in another
communication on the geographical dimension, in 2003.

The communication also states that the development
1.8.
of an EU soil protection strategy will take time. Soil protection
objectives must be integrated into several areas of EU policy
but they will have both a local and a regional dimension. From
the current year (2002) onwards, the Commission intends to
propose a series of environmental measures designed to
prevent soil contamination related to mining waste, sewage
sludge and compost. By June 2004 at the latest the Com-
mission intends to present a progress report on the technical
measures taken and legislative proposals and initiatives for soil
protection.

1.4.
In addition, the Commission comments on the inter-
relationship of soil protection with other spheres of Com-
munity policy (the Nitrates Directive and Water Framework
Directive, the Air Quality Directive, the Common Agricultural
Policy, Transport Policy and Research Policy).

One major component of the Commission’s communi-
1.9.
cation is the proposal to establish a future monitoring system
with a view to collecting data and knowhow with a view to
future action and proposals. The Commission announces a
concrete proposal on this matter, again by June 2004.

The Commission gives a thematic overview of the

1.5.
situation in the applicant countries.

1.6.
In its conclusions on threats to soil, the communication
observes that soil deterioration is caused, or aggravated, by

2. General comments

( 1) COM(2002)179 final.

A natural resource which has been built up over many
2.1.
years, soil provides the basis for food production, has been
taken over by cities and densely populated areas and serves

C 61/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.3.2003

for the construction of modern infrastructure, distribution
networks, roads, etc. We occupy and use soil
for many
different purposes. Frequently there is a clash of objectives
when a change occurs in soil use. The laws of many Member
States recognize that society can invoke rules to expropriate
land when it is in the general interest. Soil protection therefore
concerns both soil and soil properties and the use to which it
is put.

2.2.
Though the European Union has framed common
strategies for water and air preservation and protection, there
are no common long-term strategies for soil protection. In its
own-initiative opinion on the use of sewage sludge in agri-
culture, the EESC called for a proposal on an EU soil protection
strategy (1).

2.3.
In the light of the above, the EESC welcomes the
Commission’s communication on a thematic strategy and is
keen to support this work in the shape of the following
comments.

The recent very heavy rains and floods in many
2.4.
European countries show the need for a carefully prepared soil
protection strategy. Flooding is often made worse because the
water absorption capacity of the soil has deteriorated in areas
that formerly were flooded naturally or land use has been
changed. This must be taken into serious consideration when
the EU is working out strategies for soil protection and land
use.

3. The EESC’s views on the communication

3.1.
The EESC regards the Commission’s description of the
various threats that could degrade soil quality as an acceptable
basis for the future, more action-oriented, proposals referred
to in the communication.

3.2.
It is not clear which of the various threats described in
the communication the Commission feels should be tackled at
EU level or the reasons why a common initiative would be
more successful than national action. A strategy for future
soil protection can reasonably be expected to provide such

( 1) CES 1199/2000, OJ C 14, 16.1.2001, pp. 141-150.

justification, even if only to promote understanding among
persons currently working on soil protection at national level.

3.3.
It is difficult, and even perhaps of little interest, to go
into scientific definitions of exactly which soil quality type is
desirable. On the other hand, the EESC regrets the absence of
any discussion of possible thematic objectives for soil protec-
tion or reasonable aspirations for such work. The communi-
cation states that soil must be protected from different types
of threat — but does that include improving degraded or
naturally poor land? In the EESC’s view, the Commission
should detail the priorities to be pursued rather than specifying
how many hectares must meet a particular standard. One key
priority could be to protect the most vulnerable soil from
further degradation. A European strategy should spell out
common aspirations for European soil.

The Commission regards erosion, decline in organic
3.4.
matter and soil contamination as the three main threats. As
the communication contains no assessment of the various
threats which could help us to establish priorities, it is difficult
to confirm or deny this premise. In any future work the
Commission should preferably assess the environmental and
social impact of the various threats. One way of doing this is
to specify the socio-economic value of the soil functions likely
to deteriorate.

3.5.
In order to be able to assess different types of threat it
is also interesting to include a timeframe in the appraisal —
which the report fails to do. In this connection, ‘timeframe’
does not mean merely taking account of the status quo but
also the speed at which soil is improving or deteriorating,
along with the long-term consequences. It is possible that our
current knowledge of impact on soil is too inadequate for a
full analysis but it would be helpful in those areas where it is
possible. The key threats identified by the Commission as most
dangerous may very well be the most important but in certain
regions totally different threats can be of greatest danger. For
instance, acidification of forest land can create problems for
soil fertility in northern Europe whereas forest fires can result
in erosion in southern Europe.

3.6.
The Commission is proposing a monitoring system,
combined with standardisation of existing national systems,
as pillars of
the soil strategy. As mentioned above, the
communication does not specify which threats to soil should
preferably be tackled at EU level and what the common
measures should consist of in such cases. If we do not know

14.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/51

what soil is to be monitored, and why, there is a greater risk
of the system proving ineffective. We can expect the need for
soil protection in the applicant countries to be at least as great
— perhaps even greater — as in the Fifteen. Hence it is
important
for the monitoring systems and proposals for
practical measures that the Commission intends to present
also to encompass the applicant countries.

3.9.2.
The other type of situation is where an owner
degrades (or improves) his own soil. The soil can then be
intended for biological production, such as arable farming and
forestry. The soil can also be used for industrial purposes,
roadworks, etc. and the damage done does not affect the user’s
production.

The EESC notes that several different European projects
3.7.
relating to soil protection already exist (e.g. the Water Directive
and the forthcoming legislation on sewage sludge and com-
post). Here too a common monitoring system and standardised
methods of data collection may be necessary. The EESC
therefore supports the introduction of proposals to this effect.
The EESC presupposes that any future proposal for a common
monitoring system give due heed to how best to take advantage
of existing national systems.

types of

For purposes of improving soil protection, education
3.8.
and information need to be integrated into a soil strategy in
order to boost understanding and awareness of the impact
on soil of different
treatment. As regards soil
contamination, the EESC has issued an opinion (1) on the
Commission’s proposal on ‘environmental liability with regard
to the protection and remedying of environmental damage’ (2),
in which the Commission proposes, among other things, a
Community scheme when land damage through contami-
nation involves liability.

Thought must also be given to whether infringements of the
existing legislation on matters relating to soil should lead to
penalties.

3.9.3. When soil strategy is gradually translated into action,
it is important to take account of these fundamental differences
between different types of soil variety and ownership relations.

The Commission states that soil

is under steadily
3.10.
increasing pressure from human activities and that its quality
is deteriorating. It would also seem important to mention such
improvements as sharply reduced input of metals and less acid
rain; in many areas the quality of arable land is high; it is
scarcely true that all arable land is steadily deteriorating.

The first paragraph of chapter 8.1.2 describes the
3.11.
impact of agriculture well; here the Commission notes that
some farming practices can result in soil degradation, while
others can be beneficial to soil protection. From the viewpoint
of agriculture, soil protection is a natural component of use to
be seen more as an opportunity than a threat.

The Commission claims that spreading of sewage
3.12.
sludge should not raise any problems provided that pollution
is prevented and that one possible use would be to spread it
on arable land. The EESC strongly questions this claim. The
essential problem of sewage sludge today is that it is heavily
polluted. The EESC has called on earlier occasions for a revised
directive with more stringent ceilings and the Commission has
announced such a proposal for 2003. The EESC regards this
delay as unfortunate.

3.9.
As the Commission points out, soil is different from
the air or water in that there is more obviously a natural or
legal person as owner. Soil degradation is therefore of two
fundamentally different types.

4. Conclusions

3.9.1.
Firstly, there is the traditional environmental impact
where actors (through discharge, etc.) cause damage which
does not directly affect them but affects landowners.

4.1.
The EESC welcomes this Commission communication
as a first step towards a European strategy for soil protection.
For the purpose of future work it would draw attention to the
following points:

( 1) OJ C 241, 7.10.2002.
( 2) COM(2002) 17 final.

— the EESC regrets that no description is given of the types
of measures that should preferably be implemented at EU
level, or the justification for such common action;

C 61/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.3.2003

— the EESC would also point to the lack of a strategic
discussion of the aspirations to be pursued, and hence
the objectives to be set for European soil;

— future proposals for practical measures to improve soil
protection should incorporate action covering education,
information and suitable penalty arrangements;

— future proposals for measures should be based on an
assessment of the threats applicable to different EU
regions, including the applicant countries;

— future proposals for monitoring systems should be linked
up with ongoing measures so as to provide better
justification and give a detailed account of national
monitoring systems;

— soil differs from the air or water, which are mobile
elements. Soil has an owner, and the strategy must take
account of the right of ownership;

— a balanced description of the threats involved is important
in all circumstances so as to enlist the support of all
players for the initiative.

Brussels, 18 September 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation
correcting Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 relative to the starting date of the transitional period for
the recognition of producer organisations’

(COM(2002) 252 final — 2002/0111 (CNS))

(2003/C 61/10)

On 15 July 2002 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 37
of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 29 August 2002. The rapporteur
was Mr de las Heras Cabañas.

At its 393rd Plenary Session (meeting of 18 September 2002), the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion with 129 votes in favour and three abstentions.

1.

Introduction

The proposal

for a Council Regulation modifies
1.1.
Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 (1) concerning
producer organisations (POs) recognised under Regulation
(EEC) No 1035/72 (2) but which, on the date of entry into
force of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, were unable to qualify
for immediate recognition under the latter. Article 13 of
Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 therefore allows these POs to

( 1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.
( 2) OJ L 118, 20.5.1972.

continue operating for a transitional period of two years,
extendable to five if the PO submits an action plan. These
transitional periods are calculated from the date of entry into
force of this regulation, i.e. 21 November 1996.

1.2.
The modification proposed by the Commission is
intended to correct an error in the starting dates of these
transitional periods, postponing them until 1 January 1997 —
the date of application of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 — in
order to avoid any negative repercussions on the rights of the
POs concerned and safeguard the legal security of their actions.