Opinion of the Committee of the Regions 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"
Date: 2003-02-12
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: environmental monitoring, environmental protection, quality of the environment, soil pollution, sustainable development

29.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/43

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions 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’

(2003/C 128/07)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Communication from the European Commission ‘Towards a Thematic Strategy for
Soil Protection’ (COM(2002) 179 final);

having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 12 April 2002 under Article 265(1) of the
Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult it on this matter;

having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau on 12 March 2002 to instruct the Commission for
Sustainable Development to draw up an opinion on this subject;

having regard to its Opinion on the Sixth Environment Action Programme, CdR 36/2001 fin (1);

having regard to the Draft Opinion (CdR 190/2002 rev. 2) adopted on 12 December 2002 by the
Commission for Sustainable Development (Rapporteur: Mr Corrie McChord, Leader of Stirling Council
Viewforth, UK/PES),

unanimously adopted the following opinion at its 48th plenary session of 12 and 13 February 2003
(meeting of 12 February).

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The Committee of the Regions (CoR) welcomes the
proposal for a thematic strategy for soil protection which is
required by the European 6th Environmental Action Pro-
gramme ‘Environment 2010: Our Future, Our Choice’.

1.2.
The CoR offers some specific comment on the Com-
munication and suggests a more structured approach to the
development of the strategy with a particular emphasis on:

— defining a vision for the sustainability of European soils;

— constructing a set of use-based quality indicators and
associated targets, and a pragmatic and local risk-oriented
and cost-effective programme of protection;

— coordinating action through existing regulatory tools and

incentives; and

— identifying options for additional controls in future years

to progressively remedy historical problems.

1.3.
The CoR believes that the soils of Europe are funda-
mental to our livelihoods and are also of vital importance in
ensuring the livelihoods of people in other countries outside
Europe. They provide our sustenance through agricultural
production. They provide essential raw materials for timber
growth and extraction. They are an essential component of
landscape, they support all terrestrial biodiversity, mediate our
surface and groundwaters, and have a profound influence on
the atmosphere. They also play a key role in providing deposits
of raw materials. They have enormous cultural and social
significance. Yet soils have suffered a degree of deterioration
through a combination of complacency and neglect.

1.4.
This situation has in part arisen because European soil
has not been sufficiently protected by legislation since it is not
culturally regarded as a common resource in the same way as
rivers, lakes, seas and the atmosphere. Inevitably this makes
any voluntary or regulatory action to protect soils more
contentious and the development of a workable and effective
European soil protection strategy must therefore recognise and
address two factors: proper, indispensable exploitation of the
land surface on the one hand, and the desire to protect and
sustain a common resource on the other.

( 1) OJ C 357, 14.12.2001, p. 44.

The CoR believes that the time is right to meet this
1.5.
challenge and to ensure a long-term and sustainable future for
soils.

C 128/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.5.2003

2. The Committee of the Regions’ views

2.3. Main Threats to Soil (Section 3 of Communication)

2.1. Definition (Section 2 of Communication)

2.1.1.
The CoR supports the widest possible definition of
soils. In the past difficulties have arisen, for example, in the
exclusion of peat as a soil due to its entirely organic nature. It
is important that soils are defined to ensure protection of the
entire land surface of Europe. [Definitions concerning other
environmental goods serve as examples, e.g. the distinction
between groundwater and surface water in the German Soil
Protection Law (§ 2, section 1)]

2.2. Distinctive Features of Soil (Section 2.3 of Communi-

cation)

2.2.1.
The Communication indicates that there are over
320 soil types across Europe and emphasises that a strong
local element needs to be built into protection policies. This is
certainly true but soil is also highly heterogeneous in nature
with considerable variations in composition and ecological
assemblages and functions within small horizontal and vertical
scales. One therefore needs to be aware of the interdependence
of different soil types and to bear this very much in mind
when defining the protection strategy.

Soils normally contain a vast wealth of biodiversity,
2.2.2.
particularly microbiological, comprising bacteria and fungi,
which live in close harmony with overlying vegetation and
root systems and forms a complex food web with higher order
species. These ecological assemblages provide the essential
environmental functions of energy flow, carbon and nutrient
turnover and help create soil structure. Although research is
indicating a degree of resilience in soil ecology so that natural
or anthropogenic impacts which may adversely affect some
key species can be replaced by other species and allow the
environmental function to continue, there is also emerging
evidence that some keystone species, such as the earthworm
(Lumbricus terrestris), are vital to the creation and maintenance
in semi-natural systems. Any
of
protection strategy must deliver soils which maintain sustain-
able environmental functions and in particular natural soil
functions.

the soil structure itself

2.2.3.
The resilience of ecological assemblages in soils is no
doubt an evolutionary reflection of the extreme conditions to
which they are naturally exposed including flooding, drought,
freezing and thawing. The impact of these natural processes
must be allowed for within a practical and realisable protection
strategy.

2.3.1.
The principal threats are well summarised in the
Communication although it is worth noting that decline in
organic matter and loss of soil structure are significant
contributors to enhanced erosion. In point 3.2 of the Com-
munication a limit value of 3.6 % soil organic matter content
is given as an indicator of a pre-desertification stage; this figure
requires technical revision. The loss of permafrost zones is
also increasingly seen as a threat, as is anecdotal evidence of
changing weather patterns leading to enhanced drought/flood
cycles which may promote upland erosion in particular.

2.3.2.
The extent and degree of the impact of Chernobyl
fallout appears to be underplayed. There are still significant
areas of soil and vegetation contamination from radioactive
caesium, which has leached much more slowly than was
initially predicted, particularly in peaty and sandy soils which
are low in potassium. There has been greater uptake in
vegetation and transmission through foodchains affecting
livestock and sporting interests, e.g. deer hunting in mountain-
ous areas. The impacts on biodiversity are unknown.

The wrong land and soil management practices have
2.3.3.
the potential to introduce pathogenic material which may be
passed to man through natural food chains. It is important
that bio-security and food security issues are addressed within
a soil protection strategy.

The more general issues relating to the introduction
2.3.4.
of alien species deserves further consideration. It is important
to be confident about the potential impacts of introducing
GMOs to the environment and the potential for the release of
genetic material into soils. In addition, some introduced species
such as the New Zealand flatworm appear to have the potential
to reduce the numbers of the common earthworm with severe
effects on soil structure and thereby function and form, while
Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia japonica), for example, is largely
spread through soil translocation.

2.3.5.
Diffuse contamination should perhaps be renamed
diffuse pollution of soils since there are clearly observable
effects. Extensive areas of land are suffering from acidification
and eutrophication leading to changes of natural vegetation,
associated soil biota, and deterioration of associated freshwater
ecological status. It is apparent that, although major steps have
been taken to reduce sulphur emission and deposition, there
remain difficult problems with nitrogen emissions from trans-
port and from agriculture. Atmospheric deposition of heavy
metals can account for between 38% and 97% of total metals
input to agricultural land in the UK. Further monitoring and
research on atmospheric deposition of acidifying species,
nitrogen and heavy metals to soils still needs to be undertaken.

29.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/45

2.3.6.
Europe contains many soils which are rich in carbon.
It is vital that these carbon stores are protected in order to
contribute to the control of climate change, particularly since
rising global temperatures will drive positive feedback. This
represents an important contribution to the 6th Environmental
Action Programme’s priority of tackling climate change.

previously contaminated land, appropriate incentives and
public-private cooperation measures must be established,
excluding all forms of retroactive liability. Such processes
must be designed to encourage economic and environmental
compatibility of reclamation work, to be undertaken on the
basis of risk analysis.

2.3.7.
The Commission document does not properly
address land loss resulting from urban expansion (soil sealing)
and the development of brownfield sites. The accession funds
for the candidate countries pose some problems in this respect.
Soil sealing can be and should be reversed where practical. The
European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) should be
more widely promoted as part of efforts to pursue an integrated
soil protection strategy.

2.3.8.
Concerning floods and landslides, the Commission
document does not mention the issue of decreasing human
population in mountain and rural areas, especially in the
farming and forestry sector. The effect of precipitation is
increasingly less likely to be offset by agricultural activity and
intelligent land management.

2.4. Action Taken by Member States (Section 5 of Communi-

cation)

2.4.1.
It is abundantly clear that there is considerable
divergence in approach to soil and land protection within
the existing and applicant Member States. The report ‘Soil
Protection Policies within the European Union’, December
1998, in summarising the individual systems in place, raises
the question as to whether the full added value is being
achieved of a more concerted approach across Europe leading
to more harmonised standards and concerted protection of
water systems in cross boundary catchments, harmonised
action on reduction of diffuse and trans-boundary problems
with contamination, and a coordinated approach to global
threats such as climate change.

2.4.2.
There are particularly significant differences in action
taken to ameliorate historical problems associated with con-
taminated land, and also derelict and vacant land. It is worth
noting that although the forthcoming European Environmental
Liability Directive will exert control over new contaminated
sites there will be no control of legacy problems. A proposed
soil protection strategy must identify this necessary remedial
work, to be undertaken according to common risk-based
objectives, as a significant issue for the future. To reclaim

2.5. Community Policy Relevant for Soil Protection (Section 6 of

Communication)

2.5.1.
Process regulation and waste regulation offer direct
protection to land, however limited in area extent, whereas
water pollution and habitats legislation offer only indirect
protection.

It should be noted that the Sewage Sludge Directive
2.5.2.
per se does not completely prevent harmful effects on soil since
control
is focused on preventing soil contamination and
disease transmission. The application of sludge, particularly in
combination with other agents such as inorganic and organic
fertilisers, can result in soils becoming eutrophic. Furthermore,
the application of sewage sludge under unsuitable conditions
can result in compaction and deterioration of physical struc-
ture. The Directive currently does not control other wastes
which are applied to farmland, including paper mill sludge,
food waste, lime waste, gypsum and compost, all of which
may cause contamination and disease transmission if poorly
managed.

2.5.3.
The requirements of the Bathing Water Directive
have also driven soil and land management controls in areas
where failures against the mandatory standard can be related
to diffuse agricultural run-off and sub-surface flow of faecal
indicator organisms.

2.5.4.
The CoR welcomes the opportunities for CAFÉ, CAP
reform and the Water Framework Directive to contribute to
strengthening the delivery mechanisms for soil protection. In
particular the communication on planning and the environ-
ment will be entirely consistent with the 6th Environment
Action Programme’s requirement to integrate environmental
concerns into other policies.

2.5.5.
It should be noted that transport corridors can,
if managed correctly, provide a positive contribution to
biodiversity. Extensive and ecologically protected verges can
provide long-distance migration pathways which are often
absent, particularly in intensively managed agricultural areas.

C 128/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.5.2003

2.5.6. While it is clear that various policies contribute to
soil protection, it must be recognised that their role in soil
protection is often not realised and that insufficient links are
made between the different policies. For example, the degree
of protection provided to soil by the assessment of new and
existing substances is questionable given the limited numbers
of chemicals being reviewed and the lack of robust consider-
ation of their impact on soil and its complex ecological
systems.

be attained. This should be combined with a programme for
measuring and monitoring progress and outcomes.

3.2.
The Communication provides a reasonable analysis of
the current position by summarising many of the driving
impacts and currently available remedial
forces, pressures,
measures in place.

The Commission describes good agricultural prac-
2.5.7.
tices to be encouraged, and the positive agri-environmental
measures in force regarding soil protection. However, the
document lacks clear guidelines and support to guarantee —
via the CAP — more effective overall monitoring of the soil.

The Communication does not, however, provide a
3.3.
vision for the future state of European soils. This need not be
difficult or complicated, despite the variability of soil function
and form outlined above.

2.6.

Existing Soil Data Gathering Systems (Section 7 of Com-
munication)

3.4. Vision

2.6.1.
Traditional soil sampling and analysis is sometimes
time-consuming and resource-intensive, partly due to the
heterogeneity of soils (see Section 3.2 of this communication)
and partly to the lack of understanding of the complex
physico-chemical and ecological processes which contribute
to the overall functioning of soils. This drives multi-replicate
sampling and analysis for a potentially very large range of
determinants. Such an approach demands an urgent and
fundamental review in order to arrive at simpler, more
cost-effective, and ecologically relevant reporting schemes,
satisfying clear objectives on a pan-European basis. Neverthe-
less, experiences with and knowledge from existing monitoring
systems should be integrated into a European system.

2.7.

The Way Forward (Section 8 of Communication)

2.7.1.
The CoR is supportive of the proposal to extend
the annexes of the Habitats Directive to include soil-based
protection. It is worth noting that a major research programme
on soil biodiversity has been running in the UK where the
most studied soil site in the world is being maintained for the
next five years.

2.7.2.
Action is certainly required to ensure integration
of environmental, common agricultural and other relevant
policies to provide a more coherent, comprehensive and
systematic protection scheme. An inter-service steering group
within the Commission is essential to ensure delivery.

3.4.1.
Essentially we must aim to prevent further soil
degradation and for soils throughout Europe to be ‘fit for
purpose’ within a generation, and thereafter to be managed on
a fully sustainable basis. The term ‘fit for purpose’ introduces a
pragmatism and realism to the strategy which is essential for
it to be workable.

3.4.2.

The range of purposes could include:

— support for biodiversity, within the soil and dependent

upon it;

— mediation and buffering of ground and surface waters to
maintain good ecological status and satisfactory quality
for other end uses such as recreation, bathing, potable
supply;

— agricultural and forestry production;

— maintenance of carbon storage;

— human development;

— human settlement;

— raw material deposits.

3. The Committee of the Regions’ recommendations

The CoR considers that, at heart, a strategy should
3.1.
comprise an analysis of the current position, a vision for the
future, and a series of phased actions by which the vision can

3.4.3.
Purposes should be ascribed at a broad scale to all
land surfaces across Europe, defaulting to the most demanding
ascribed purpose, or combination of purposes. The concept of
land classification and land suitability systems for different end
uses, based on soil type, location, climate, altitude, aspect and
gradient, should be integrated within the strategy.

29.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/47

3.5. Actions to Attain the Vision

3.5.4.
Standardised methodologies, with appropriate qual-
ity control, are a pre-requisite for instituting coordinated soil
quality assessments across Europe.

The title ‘soil protection strategy’ suggests that it will
3.5.1.
achieve only a holding position so that soil quality no longer
deteriorates in Europe. This is a worthy aim in itself. The
Strategy must state clearly whether it is restricted to that
particular, and somewhat limited, ambition or whether it
aspires to look further ahead and to illustrate the means by
which improvement of quality can be actively promoted, and
legacy problems, such as contaminated land, can eventually be
resolved. At the very least a worthwhile Strategy must take
is
account of those longer-term ambitions in the way it
structured and set targets and evaluate the achievement of
protection in a way which is underpinned by the accumulation
of data and information. The subsidiarity principle should be
strictly adhered to in the drawing-up of a strategy for soil
protection and in the formulation of new provisions. Many
problems connected with soil protection can also be resolved
at national level or on a bilateral basis between Member States
or regions or other local structures with direct responsibility
for soil protection.

The Strategy must be holistic and integrative.

3.5.2.
It
would be inadvisable to develop separate initiatives on erosion,
organic matter decline and contamination (particularly in
relation to sewage sludge, compost and mining waste), as
proposed.

3.5.3.
The definition of soil use must allow for the deri-
vation of appropriate local and customised soil quality stan-
dards. For some specific uses, such as human settlement or
human development, these standards may be set in terms of
significant chemical parameters related to risk exposure of the
population determined by their activities, thereby supporting
the 6th Environmental Action Programme’s initiative on
linking environment to human health. For other uses, such as
support of biodiversity, then more general quality parameters
should be developed through a European research programme.
It
is essential that simple, cost-effective and ecologically
relevant test techniques are made available. There is potential
for simple bait tests, community level physiological profiling
of microbiological communities, biosensors or biomarkers to
provide a rapid and meaningful set of standardised tests which
can be calibrated across Europe against near-natural soils to
create a system by which the ecological status of a measured
soil can be judged. This approach would mirror the exemplary
approach taken in the Water Framework Directive where
targets of excellent and good ecological status are set for
surface waters, except where heavily modified by human
development
is
expected.

in which case good ecological potential

Following assignment of uses of soils, and assessment
3.5.5.
of their quality against appropriate standards, a local risk
assessment analysis should determine which soils should be
protected as priorities and which can be protected most cost-
effectively, taking into account the scale of various pressures
on soils.

Such a European-wide framework for action will
3.5.6.
generate a level-playing field and underpin the targeting of
scarce resources through more locally based action plans in
order to limit the impact on the environment as much as
possible.

3.5.7.
The Strategy should then identify currently available
tools and suggest ways in which they can be operated to
greatest effect so that Member States begin to develop best
practice and a common awareness of practical and efficient
methodologies. For example, the Water Framework Directive
will require measures to be adopted within river basins or sub-
basins to combat diffuse pollution. Many of these measures
will inevitably interface closely with soil and land management
issues and could be used to protect or enhance soil quality (for
example — the land management contracts used by farmers
in France). These synergies must be optimised in advance of
identifying any further regulatory regimes which may be
required to address gaps.

3.5.8.
An essential component of a successful strategy must
involve active participation of various stakeholders. Since
most land is privately owned, the 6th Environmental Action
Programme’s concept of ‘working with the market’ is particu-
larly important. New ways of involving soil and land managers,
as well as other social sectors, will be essential to a successful
outcome. This should be a major strand of the strategy.

3.6. Workplan and Timetable:

It seems realistic to publish the Strategy or its
3.6.1.
proposed component parts in 2004, accepting that some
supporting research outputs may not be available by then. The
CoR again emphasises that it would like to see an integrated
strategy rather than a set of disaggregated pressure/soil/region/
response specific components. The rules existing in regions
and local authority areas and the criteria on which they are
based should be taken into consideration.

C 128/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.5.2003

3.6.2.
The period over which the Strategy will be operable
is not defined. Ideally it should extend well into the future, at
ten years, allowing for longer-term planning and a
least
commitment
to move from mere protection to eventual
remediation and to the preparation of further supporting
advisory or regulatory material
in the light of emerging
monitoring results and analysis of action effectiveness. A mid-
term review would therefore clearly be necessary for a ten-year
strategy.

3.6.3.
A strategic framework for soil protection leading to
longer term soil remediation will provide applicant countries
with the mandate to preserve what is ecologically valuable in
their soil and land management practices and, at the same
time, prevent any risk of deterioration through increased rates
of development following entry to the European Union.
Applicant countries also have significant historical soil con-
tamination and degradation problems which will need to be
confronted and addressed in a rolling risk-based programme
over many years.

Brussels, 12 February 2003.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Internal Market Strategy for the period 2003-
2006’

(2003/C 128/08)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Commission’s request that it draw up an opinion on the future multi-annual internal
market strategy to be submitted in spring 2003;

having regard to the decision of its Bureau of 9 October 2002, in accordance with the fifth paragraph of
Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to instruct the Commission for
Economic and Social Policy to draw up an opinion on the subject;

having regard to its opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,
the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the 2000 Review
of the Internal Market Strategy (CdR 311/2000 fin) (1);

having regard to its opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament
and the Council on A Strategy for the Internal Market of services (CdR 134/2001 fin) (2);

having regard to its opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European
Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Working together
to maintain momentum — 2001 Review of the Internal Market Strategy (CdR 200/2001 fin) (3);

having regard to its opinion on the Commission Communication on Productivity:
competitiveness of European Economies and Enterprises (CdR 224/2002 fin);

the key to

(1) OJ C 148, 18.5.2001, p. 16.
(2) OJ C 357, 14.12.2001, p. 65.
(3) OJ C 107, 3.5.2002, p. 68.