Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the thematic strategy for soil protection
Date: 2007-02-13
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: decontamination, environmental cooperation, environmental monitoring, environmental policy, environmental protection, polluted area, soil pollution, soil protection, structural policy

C 146/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.6.2007

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the thematic strategy for soil protection

(2007/C 146/05)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

— does believe that, from an environmental standpoint, there are a number of reasons for developing
soil policy at EU level. Soil contamination, for example, is linked to human and animal health and soil
policy has a role to play here. In addition, climate change, the transboundary impacts of soil degrada-
tion, the pressure caused on other environmental compartments, and the Kyoto agreements require
attention at a European level;

— believes that a Directive which sets out to establish an inventory and assists the Member States to take
action, as proposed by the Commission, may help to bring about sustainable soil management in the
EU. This implies that the Directive should be of a flexible nature;

— expresses its concern over the administrative burdens which may arise, for local and regional authori-
ties, as a result of the following requirements: the identification of areas at risk; the obligation to
review, every ten years, the areas identified as being at risk (Article 6); and the obligation to review
the inventory of contaminated sites (Articles 10 and 11);

— does not wish to see any direct obligations imposed upon the relevant authorities in respect of the

actual cleaning-up and management of contaminated sites (Article 13);

— believes that there is a need for the European Commission to draw up a set of guideline measures,
comprising cost-effective measures, from which the Member States can draw inspiration to compose
their own package of measures, exercising their own judgement.

30.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/35

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled Thematic strategy for
soil protection (COM(2006) 231 final) and the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the
Council establishing a framework for
the protection of soil and amending Directive 2004/35/EC
(COM(2006) 232 final — 2006/0086 (COD));

Having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 22 September 2006 to consult it on this
subject, under Article 175 and the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European
Community;

Having regard to the decision of its Bureau of 25 April 2006 to instruct the Commission for Sustainable
Development to draw up an opinion on this subject;

Having regard to its opinion of 12 February 2003 on the Communication from the Commission entitled
Towards a thematic strategy for soil protection — CdR 190/2002 fin (1);

Having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 321/2006 rev. 1) adopted on 27 November 2006 by its Commis-
sion for Sustainable Development (Rapporteur: Mr Cor Lamers (NL/EPP, Mayor of Houten);

adopted the following opinion at its 68th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 February 2007
(meeting of 13 February):

1. Views of the Committee of the Regions

General comments

1.1
Soil is of vital importance to the sustaining of human
life. Soil provides an essential source of food and water and also
plays a vital role in regulating various cycles, whilst providing a
habitat for many organisms and serving as the basis for life
above ground. For human beings and nature, it is vital that the
soil
is able to continue to fulfil these roles in an ongoing,
optimal way.

1.2
All EU Member States have to contend, to a greater or
lesser extent, with soil-related problems. There is no doubt that,
in some parts of Europe, considerable and disturbing soil degra-
dation processes have occurred and will continue to occur.

1.3
Soil is an immobile material, but soil degradation in one
Member State can nevertheless have transboundary effects. The
CoR believes therefore that the proposal
is in line with the
subsidiarity principle. The CoR also notes that only nine
Member States have introduced a soil policy and that this policy
is generally limited to certain aspects of soil contamination. The
from an environmental
CoR does,
standpoint, there are a number of reasons for developing soil
policy at EU level. Soil contamination, for example, is linked to
human and animal health and soil policy has a role to play here.
In addition, climate change, the transboundary impacts of soil
the pressure caused on other environmental
degradation,
compartments, and the Kyoto agreements require attention at a
European level.

in addition, believe that,

Soil policy is a highly complex matter. In Europe there
1.4
are over 320 different soil types, which are used for many
different purposes. Soil does,
fulfil economic,
social, cultural and environmental
functions and is used in
connection with agriculture, nature, construction and the
building of roads and embankments. The threats confronting

for example,

(1) OJ C 128 of 29.5.2003, page 43.

soil in the various EU Member States are highly diverse. This
leads
to very considerable differences between individual
Member States and even between the various regions within
individual Member States. The various measures adopted by the
Member States also differ considerably. Besides these geogra-
phical differences,
climatic differences between
Europe's regions. These differences chime with the responsibil-
ities exercised by regional and local authorities in the Member
States in this field.

there

are

In view of

1.5
this great diversity and the difficulties in
elaborating common standards, the CoR believes that for the
time being it is not possible to adopt uniform EU quantitative
standards. It believes nevertheless that the strategy presented by
the Commission is a first step in the direction of reaching agree-
ment on common standards in the near future. Tailor-made
measures are necessary to ensure real protection for soil. Soil is
a policy area which needs to be fleshed out primarily at local
and regional level.

In the majority of EU Member States, responsibility for
1.6
soil policy rests with local and regional authorities. These autho-
rities should therefore play a major role in the development of
new methods and measures in the field of soil policy.

for

The European Union,

1.7
to play a
supporting and stimulating role in the field of soil policy. EU
legislation in this field should be rejected unless it is flexible and
provides the Member States with adequate room for manoeuvre
in framing soil policy.

its part, has

Objectives of the strategy

The CoR endorses the objectives of

the strategy and
1.8
takes the view that they make a major contribution towards the
establishment of a flexible, common European policy frame-
work for ensuring sustainable soil management.

C 146/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.6.2007

1.9
The description of the objectives of the strategy lead the
CoR to infer that the focus has been placed on expanding avail-
able knowledge in respect of soil processes and obliging the
Member States to take action in this field. They are encouraged
to take action to combat soil degradation but the actual identifi-
cation of the areas at risk, the objectives to be pursued with a
view to reducing soil degradation and the measures to be
carried out to achieve these objectives is a task entrusted to the
Member States themselves. The CoR endorses this approach as
it enables soil issues to be tackled in an integrated and well-
structured way,
thereby emphasising the local and regional
nature of this issue.

Integration of soil protection into EU and national legislation

1.10 With a view to implementing the proposed strategy, all
the existing EU laws and policies of relevance to the soil issue
should be systematically evaluated to determine the extent to
which they are conducive to promoting sustainable soil in the
EU. In cases where such laws or policies make an inadequate
they should be adjusted
contribution to pursuing this goal,
accordingly. A plan of approach should be drawn up by the
Commission in the short term with a view to achieving this
goal.

For the abovementioned reasons the CoR takes the
1.11
view that the proposed strategy should tie in more closely with
the other strategies developed in the framework of the Sixth
Environment Action Programme. In particular, there should be
closer links with the strategies in respect of pesticides, waste and
recycling, surface water and groundwater.

Best practice and knowledge in respect of soil processes

1.12
The CoR believes that information and communication
have an important role to play in helping to bring about
sustainable soil management. Threats confronting soil and how
soil can help promote a sustainable society are two issues which
need to be covered in this respect.

1.13
The measures taken by the Member States are charac-
terised by considerable diversity (see point 1.4 above). The CoR
believes that the quality of soil in Europe can be improved in an
effective and practical way if Member States which have already
introduced a soil policy transfer knowledge to the other
Member States. The CoR advocates taking steps to enable those
Member States already pursuing a fully-fledged soil policy share
their experience with Member States which lack comprehensive
legislation in this field.

1.14
The CoR attaches considerable value to the establish-
ment of an open communication platform for exchanging infor-
mation on best practice with a view to providing adequate
protection of soil. In view of the variable nature of soil in the
EU, there is a need to have a full picture of the measures which
can be employed and which have proved their worth in prac-
tice.

The new framework Directive on soil protection

1.15
The aim of this framework Directive is to establish an
inventory of soil degradation in the EU. It provides criteria for
enabling such an inventory to be compiled in a uniform and

transparent way. Whether or not an area is designated as an
area at risk, which measures, if any, are to be taken and the
timeframe for such measures are to be determined by the
Member State itself.

1.16
The CoR believes that a Directive which sets out to
establish an inventory and assists the Member States to take
action, as proposed by the Commission, may help to bring
about sustainable soil management in the EU. This implies that
the present Directive should be of a flexible nature and must
not set out any quantitative and qualitative standards. These
measures should be implemented on a voluntary basis by means
of incentive and advisory schemes. Furthermore, an increase in
documentation requirements should be prevented in order to
combat unnecessary bureaucracy. At the same time, the present
Commission proposals should not be seen as an invitation to
far-reaching EU intervention.

1.17
The Committee believes that top priority must be given
to national-level responsibility for achieving environmental stan-
dards, including liability and responsibility on the part of soil
polluters and owners. This implies that there is a need to stipu-
late that, even when the polluter-pays principle is applied, the
liability of not just the polluter but also additional obligated
parties can be invoked. The Committee would stress that it
must be prescribed at national level who, in the final analysis, is
an obligated party.

The Committee expresses its concern over the fact that,
1.18
for the purposes of formulating the specific requirements of the
proposed EU Directive and, in particular, establishing the risk-
assessment criteria in respect of soil contamination, recourse is
to be had to a committee,
in accordance with Decision
1999/468/EC (the ‘Comitology Decision’). A procedure should
be selected in this case which takes account of the interests of
all stakeholders and ensures adequate participation.

Administrative burdens

In the CoR's view,

Article 16 of the Directive defines a large number of
1.19
reporting obligations to be met mainly by local and regional
authorities.
these provisions should not
impose a disproportionate burden on local authorities and
regions.
the
amount of attention, manpower and financial resources devoted
to drawing up reports cannot, at the same time, be devoted to
measures to prevent soil degradation, even though reducing soil
degradation should be the primary objective.

It should be pointed out

in this context

that

1.20
The CoR underscores the importance of the integration
of soil policy into sectoral policies and provisions at every level
of administration (Article 3). In the context of the implementa-
tion of sectoral policies, restraint should be exercised with
regard to the introduction of compulsory checks on the basis of
existing data (soil tests). Checks are only an important require-
ment in cases where soil is at risk. In view of the fact that the
policy is already of the nature of a framework policy, the stipu-
lation of soil tests in the implementing phase is generally unne-
cessary. In the case of complex and wide-ranging situations, the
establishment of an environmental impact report is, in any case,
already obligatory.

30.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/37

1.21
The CoR expresses its concern over the administrative
burdens which may arise, for local and regional authorities, as a
result of the following requirements: the identification of areas
at risk; the obligation to review, every ten years, the areas identi-
fied as being at risk (Article 6); and the obligation to review the
inventory of contaminated sites (Articles 10 and 11).

1.22
The Committee notes that the Proposal for a Directive
sets out a series of recording and reporting obligations, together
with requirements in respect of the drawing up of plans and
programmes which may be subject to a strategic environmental
assessment (SEA); these measures would involve a considerable
additional administrative burden. The EU provisions must, as far
as possible, refrain from stipulating reporting obligations and
the drawing up of plans and programmes subject to SEAs.

1.23
The Committee takes the view that public involvement
should be limited to those cases which are covered by the envir-
onmental information Directive.

Programmes of measures to combat soil degradation processes

1.24
The CoR does not wish to see any direct obligations
imposed upon the relevant authorities in respect of the actual
cleaning-up and management of contaminated sites (Article 13).
The authorities ensure that a clean-up actually takes place. All
these matters must be considered in the context of the laws and
rules applicable in the Member State concerned and in the
context of the specific local soil situation. The authorities in
question remain, of course, responsible for ensuring that the
issue of contaminated sites is tackled.

1.25
The CoR expresses its satisfaction with the proposed
function-orientated remediation of degraded soils (Articles 1.1
and 13.2). Measures are proposed depending upon the (current)
use being made of the soil.

The impact assessment states that measures to reduce soil
1.26
degradation offer a considerable social return on investment.
The Committee endorses this conclusion, but would point out
that, in order to achieve this return, there first has to be invest-
ment in soil. Experience has shown that the implementation of
soil remediation projects, e.g. for local authorities and regions, is
often thwarted by lack of funds.

The CoR regards the introduction of

1.27
the soil status
report (Article 12) as providing support from the EU for the
drawing up of inventories of contaminated sites since, on the
one hand, the proposed report would help to keep inventories
of contaminated sites up to date and, on the other hand, the
report would provide purchasers of sites from other EU Member
States with the requisite information in a transparent way and
therefore prevent
them from incurring economic loss. The
proposed report thus gives substance, in a practical way to the
‘polluter pays’ principle referred to in Article 4.

1.28
The CoR takes the view that, when measures for preser-
ving soil functions are being identified, attention should be paid

not only to social and economic aspects but also to safety
aspects and the presence of subjects constituting archaeological,
geological and geomorphological heritage (Article 8).

The Committee feels that the Commission's call

1.29
for
national funding mechanisms for the remediation of contami-
nated sites (Article 13) fails to take adequate account of the
specific regional (funding) mechanisms already in place, which,
in practice to date, have proved effective. The fear is that, in this
area, EU rules will, if anything, be a hindrance.

Best practice

the cornerstones of

In the CoR's view, one of

1.30
the
Commission's proposal is the planned establishment of a plat-
form for the exchange of information (Article 17). In view of
their practical expertise and the experience which they have
should participate
acquired,
actively in the proposed exchange of information.

regional and local authorities

2. Recommendations of the Committee of the Regions

The CoR believes that there is a need for the European
2.1
Commission to draw up a set of guideline measures, comprising
cost-effective measures,
from which the Member States can
draw inspiration to compose their own package of measures,
exercising their own judgement. Those Member States which
have not yet formulated a soil policy or are currently in the
process of doing so will only be able to carry out effective work
in this field if they are in possession of adequate knowledge.

The CoR proposes that, rather than introducing wide-
2.2
ranging European reporting requirements, Member States
should be able to employ their own reporting system and that
the European Commission should be given access to the infor-
mation concerned (Article 16).

2.3
Risk areas can be identified very specifically and in a way
which involves placing a more limited administrative burden on
the authorities concerned if a quick scan is first carried out to
determine which risks are or are not applicable in (parts of) the
soil in the Member State concerned (Article 6). As regards the
review of the risk areas and the inventories of contaminated
sites, a complete review is unnecessary. It may be sufficient to
update the information using monitoring data.

2.4
The CoR calls for the research agenda of the European
Commission as announced in the thematic strategy to be
fleshed out and for priorities and a timetable to be defined. The
impact which climate change has on the soil needs to be clearly
identified as a matter of the utmost priority. It is well known
that climate change leads, or may lead,
to the accelerated
decomposition of soil organic matter. In view of the very impor-
tant role played by organic matter in the functioning of soil,
climate change may have a very considerable impact on sustain-
able soil management.

C 146/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.6.2007

Recommendation 1

Article 1

Commission text

CoR amendment

1. This Directive establishes a framework for the protection
of soil and the preservation of the capacity of soil to
perform any of the following environmental, economic,
social and cultural functions:
a) biomass production,

including in agriculture and

1. This Directive establishes a framework for the protection
of soil and the preservation of the capacity of soil to
perform any of the following environmental, economic,
social and cultural functions, where applicable:
a) biomass production,

including in agriculture and

forestry;

forestry;

b) storing,

filtering

and

transforming

nutrients,

b) storing,

filtering

and

transforming

nutrients,

substances and water;

substances and water;

c) biodiversity pool, such as habitats, species and genes;

c) biodiversity pool, such as habitats, species and genes;

d) physical and cultural environment for humans and

d) physical and cultural environment for humans and

human activities;

e) source of raw materials;

f) acting as carbon pool;

human activities;

e) source of raw materials;

f) acting as carbon pool;

g) archive of geological and archaeological heritage.

g) archive of geological, geomorphological and archaeo-

To that end, it lays down measures for the prevention of
soil degradation processes, both occurring naturally and
caused by a wide range of human activities, which
undermine the capacity of a soil to perform those func-
the
tions. Such measures include the mitigation of
effects of those processes, and the restoration and reme-
diation of degraded soils to a level of
functionality
consistent at least with the current and approved future
use.

logical heritage.

To that end, it lays down measures for the prevention of
soil degradation processes, both occurring naturally and
caused by a wide range of human activities, which
undermine the capacity of a soil to perform those func-
tions. Such measures include the mitigation of
the
effects of those processes, and the restoration and reme-
diation of degraded soils to a level of
functionality
consistent at least with the current and approved future
use.

Reason

It is clear from this article that the aim is to take action targeted at particular functions of soil. The Dutch
version of this article refers in the first paragraph to ‘Alle Hierna genoemde … functies’ (‘All of the following
… functions’). This could be interpreted as setting a multifunctional requirement, whereby the soil has to be
able to fulfil all the listed functions at the same time.

In addition to constituting an archive of geological and archaeological heritage, soil is also an archive of
geomorphological heritage. The term ‘geomorphological’ signifies surface features of the landscape. In cases
where such features are of special value, attention should be paid to ensuring their conservation.

Recommendation 2

Article 3

Commission text

CoR amendment

In the development of sectoral policies likely to exacerbate
or reduce soil degradation processes, Member States shall
identify, describe and assess the impacts of such policies on
these processes, in particular in the areas of regional and
urban spatial planning, transport, energy, agriculture, rural
development, forestry, raw material extraction, trade and
industry, product policy, tourism, climate change, environ-
ment, nature and landscape.

In the development of sectoral policies likely to exacerbate
or reduce soil degradation processes, Member States shall
identify, describe and assessthe impacts of such policies on
these processes, in particular in the areas of regional and
urban spatial planning, transport, energy, agriculture, rural
development, forestry, raw material extraction, trade and
industry, product policy, tourism, climate change, environ-
ment, nature and landscape.

Member States shall make public those findings.

Member States shall make public those findings. In formu-
the Commission shall
lating EU policy and provisions,
carry out external integration in respect of matters relating
to soil.

30.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/39

Reason

The CoR expresses its satisfaction with the practice of external integration, as described in Article 3. The
CoR believes that this should not only be an obligation for the Member States but for the EU as well.

Recommendation 3

Article 6

Commission text

CoR amendment

1. Within five years from [transposition date], Member
States shall identify the areas in their national territory, at
the appropriate level, where there is decisive evidence, or
legitimate grounds for suspicion, that one or more of the
following soil degradation processes has occurred or is
likely to occur in the near future, hereinafter ‘the risk
areas’:

a) erosion by water or wind;

b) organic matter decline brought about by a steady down-
ward trend in the organic fraction of the soil, excluding
their partial
undecayed plant and animal
decomposition products, and the soil biomass;

residues,

c) compaction through an increase in bulk density and a

1. Within five years from [transposition date], Member
States shall identify the areas in their national territory, at
what is, in their judgement, deemed to be the appropriate
administrative and geographical level,s where there is deci-
sive evidence, or legitimate grounds for suspicion, that one
or more of the following soil degradation processes has
occurred or is likely to occur in the near future, hereinafter
‘the risk areas’:

a) erosion by water or wind;

b) organic matter decline brought about by a steady down-
ward trend in the organic fraction of the soil, excluding
undecayed plant and animal
their partial
decomposition products, and the soil biomass;

residues,

decrease in soil porosity;

c) compaction through an increase in bulk density and a

e) salinisation through the accumulation in soil of soluble

decrease in soil porosity;

salts;

e) salinisation through the accumulation in soil of soluble

f) landslides brought about by the down-slope, moderately
rapid to rapid movement of masses of soil and rock
material.

For the purposes of that identification, Member States shall,
in respect of each of those soil degradation processes use at
least the elements listed in Annex I and shall take into
account
those processes in exacerbating
greenhouse gas emissions and desertification.

the effects of

The risk areas identified pursuant

to paragraph 1
2.
shall be made public and reviewed at least every ten years.

salts;

f) landslides brought about by the down-slope, moderately
rapid to rapid movement of masses of soil and rock
material.

For the purposes of that identification, Member States shall,
in respect of each of those soil degradation processes use at
least carry out a quick scan to determine which processes
are not relevant in the case of (part of) the soil
in the
Member State concerned. As regards the remaining soil
degradation processes, a list shall be drawn up setting out
areas which are potentially at risk. The areas ultimately clas-
sified as being at risk shall be determined by scrutinising
more closely the list of areas which are potentially at risk
and, to this end, use shall be made at least of the elements
listed in Annex I and shall take into account shall be taken
of the effects of those processes in exacerbating greenhouse
gas emissions and desertification.

2.
The risk areas identified pursuant to paragraph 1 shall
be made public and reviewed updated at least every ten
years.

Reason

Article 6(1): It shall be up to the Member States themselves to determine the administrative and geographic
levels to be applied when identifying the areas at risk. The choice of measures to be adopted in the risk
areas is a political decision to be taken by the Member State itself. Before the at risk areas are identified, a
quick scan should be carried out in order to exclude a number of issues. Further investigation needs to be
justified. On the basis of the initial process of elimination, a more detailed identification of the risk areas
can be undertaken on the basis of the elements listed in Annex I. By way of example, the case of organic
matter may be quoted. In agricultural areas, organic matter content differs from plot to plot (heterogeneous
areas). Organic content takes a long time to be restored and this process often takes place at the level of
individual plots. This issue needs to be tackled primarily by means of cross-compliance and good agri-
cultural practice.

C 146/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.6.2007

Article 6(2): The term ‘reviewed’ employed by the Commission suggests that the list of risk areas needs to be
subject to comprehensive scrutiny every ten years. What is important, however, is for Member States to
maintain a good monitoring system with the aid of which the list of risk areas can be updated every ten
years.

Recommendation 4

Article 8

Commission text

CoR amendment

For the purposes of preserving the soil

1.
functions
referred to in Article 1(1), Member States shall in respect of
the risk areas identified in accordance with Article 6, draw
up, at the appropriate level, a programme of measures
including at least risk reduction targets, the appropriate
measures for reaching those targets, a timetable for the
implementation of those measures and an estimate of the
allocation of private or public means for the funding of
those measures.

2. When drawing up and revising the programmes of
measures pursuant to paragraph 1, Member States shall
give due consideration to the social and economic impacts
of the measures envisaged.

Member States shall ensure that measures are cost-effective,
technically feasible and shall carry out impact assessments,
including cost-benefit analyses, prior to the introduction of
the programmes of measures.

shall

Member States
indicate in their programmes of
measures how the measures are to be implemented and
how they will contribute to achievement of the environ-
mental targets established.

3. Where an area is at risk from different concurrent
soil degradation processes, Member States may adopt a
single programme in which appropriate risk reduction
targets are to be set for all the risks identified together with
the appropriate measures for reaching those targets.

4.
The programme of measures shall be drawn up
within seven years from [transposition date] and shall be in
application no later than eight years after that date.

The programme of measures shall be made public and shall
be reviewed at least every five years.

For the purposes of preserving the soil

1.
functions
referred to in Article 1(1), Member States shall in respect of
the risk areas identified in accordance with Article 6, draw
up, at what is, in their judgement, deemed to be the appro-
priate and geographical levels, a programme of measures
including at least risk reduction targets, the appropriate
measures for reaching those targets, a timetable for the
implementation of those measures and an estimate of the
allocation of private or public means for the funding of
those measures.

2. When drawing up and revising the programmes of
measures pursuant to paragraph 1, Member States shall
give due consideration to the social and economic impacts
of the measures envisaged, as well as the impact on safety
and on the archaeological, geomorphological and geological
heritage.

Member States shall ensure that measures are cost-effective,
technically feasible and shall carry out impact assessments,
including cost-benefit analyses, prior to the introduction of
the programmes of measures.

shall

Member States
indicate in their programmes of
measures how the measures are to be implemented and
how they will contribute to achievement of the environ-
mental targets established.

3. Where an area is at risk from different concurrent soil
degradation processes, Member States may adopt a single
programme in which appropriate risk reduction targets are
to be set for all the risks identified together with the appro-
priate measures for reaching those targets.

4.
The programme of measures shall be drawn up
within seven five years from [transposition date]the date of
publication by the European Commission of
the set of
guideline measures referred to in Article 17(2) and shall be
in application no later than eightfour years after that date.

The programme of measures shall be made public and shall
be reviewed at least every five years.

Reason

Article 8(2): In the CoR's view, it is not enough to give consideration solely to the social and economic
impact. The impact on safety and on the geomorphological, geological and archaeological heritage is also
important.

The measures are to be financed by the Member States themselves. It is therefore unnecessary for an EU
Directive to instruct the Member States to take measures which are cost-effective.

Article 8(4): In the proposal for a Directive, the Commission takes as the starting point the date on which
the Directive comes into force. Before national, regional and local authorities can draw up and implement
measures, however, they need to be in possession of adequate information on the relevant possibilities. The
drawing-up of a set of guideline, cost-effective measures on the basis of which the authorities in question
can formulate their policy is an essential prerequisite in this context (see also Recommendations 9 and 10).
This would provide significant added value for the European Commission. The CoR therefore believes that
the date of publication of the abovementioned set of guideline measures represents a better starting point.

30.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/41

Recommendation 5

Article 10

Commission text

CoR amendment

1. Member States shall, in accordance with the proce-
dure laid down in Article 11,
identify the sites in their
national
territory where there is a confirmed presence,
caused by man, of dangerous substances of such a level
that Member States consider they pose a significant risk to
human health or the environment, hereinafter ‘contami-
nated sites’.

in accordance with the proce-
1. Member States shall,
identify the sites in their
dure laid down in Article 11,
national
territory where there is a confirmed presence,
caused by man, of dangerous substances of such a level
that Member States consider they pose a significant risk to
human health or the environment, hereinafter ‘contami-
nated sites’.

That risk shall be evaluated taking into account current and
approved future use of the land.

That risk shall be evaluated taking into account current and
approved future use of the land.

2. Member States shall establish a national inventory of
contaminated sites, hereinafter ‘the inventory’. The inven-
tory shall be made public and reviewed at least every five
years.

2. Member States shall establish a national inventory of
contaminated sites, hereinafter ‘the inventory’. The inven-
tory shall be made public and, where necessary, updated
every five yearsreviewed at least every five years.

Reason

The term ‘reviewed’ employed by the Commission suggests that the inventory of contaminated sites needs to
be subject to comprehensive scrutiny every five years. What is important, however, is for Member States to
maintain a good monitoring system with the aid of which the inventory can be updated every five years.

Recommendation 6

Article 11

Commission text

CoR amendment

Each Member State shall designate a competent
the identification of

1.
authority to be responsible for
contaminated sites.

Each Member State shall designate a competent
the identification of

1.
authority to be responsible for
contaminated sites.

from [transposition date],

the
2. Within five years
competent authorities shall have identified the location of
at least the sites where the potentially soil-polluting activ-
ities referred to in Annex II are taking place or have taken
place in the past.

For those purposes, the activities referred to in point 2 of
Annex II shall be considered independently of the thresh-
olds specified in Annex I to Council Directive 96/61/EC,
except for the activities carried out by micro-enterprises, as
defined in point 3 of Article 2 in the Annex to Commis-
sion Recommendation 2003/361/EC, and those relative to
the rearing of livestock.

The identification shall be reviewed at regular intervals.

In accordance with the following time-table,

the
3.
competent authorities
shall measure the concentration
levels of dangerous substances in the sites identified in
accordance with paragraph 2, and where the levels are such
that there may be sufficient reasons to believe that they
pose a significant risk to human health or the environment,
an on-site risk assessment shall be carried out in relation to
those sites:

a) within five years from [transposition date], for at least

10% of the sites;

b) within 15 years from [transposition date], for at least

60% of the sites;

c) within 25 years from [transposition date],

for

the

remaining sites.

from [transposition date],

2. Within five years
the
competent authorities shall have identified the location of
at least the sites where the potentially soil-polluting activ-
ities referred to in Annex II are taking place or have taken
place in the past.

For those purposes, the activities referred to in point 2 of
Annex II shall be considered independently of the thresh-
olds specified in Annex I to Council Directive 96/61/EC,
except for the activities carried out by micro-enterprises, as
defined in point 3 of Article 2 in the Annex to Commis-
sion Recommendation 2003/361/EC, and those relative to
the rearing of livestock.

The identification shall be reviewedupdated at regular inter-
vals.

In accordance with the following time-table,

the
3.
competent authorities
shall measure the concentration
levels of dangerous substances in the sites identified in
accordance with paragraph 2ensure that a clear picture of
the contamination situation in respect of the sites identified
in accordance with the method described in Article 11(2) is
established, and where the levels are such that there may be
sufficient reasons to believe that they pose a significant risk
to human health or the environment, ensure that an on-site
risk assessment on-site risk assessment shall be carried out
in relation to those sites:

C 146/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.6.2007

Commission text

CoR amendment

a) within five years from [transposition date], for at least

10% of the sites;

b) within 15 years from [transposition date], for at least

60% of the sites;

c) within 25 years
remaining sites.

from [transposition date],

for

the

Reason

The competent authorities are responsible for identifying the contaminated sites and any risk they pose for
human health and the environment. This does not imply that the competent authorities have themselves to
carry out investigations at the sites in question. In general, it is expected that, initially, the party causing the
contamination or the owner or user of the site shall establish a clear picture of the contamination. In cases
where it is no longer possible to contact any party with regard to the contamination, the competent authori-
ties may decide to carry out the investigation themselves.

Recommendation 7

Article 12

Commission text

CoR amendment

2.
The soil status report shall be issued by an authorised
body or person appointed by the Member State. It shall
include at least the following details:

2.
The soil status report shall be issued by an authorised
body or person appointed by the Member State. It shall
include at least the following details:

a) the background history of the site, as available from

a) the background history of the site, as available from offi-

official records;

cial records;

b) a chemical analysis determining the concentration levels
of the dangerous substances in the soil, limited to those
substances that are linked to the potentially polluting
activity on the site;

b) a chemical analysis determining the concentration levels
of the dangerous substances in the soil, limited to those
substances that are linked to the potentially polluting
activity on the site;

c) the concentration levels at which there are sufficient
reasons
substances
concerned pose a significant risk to human health or to
the environment.

the dangerous

to believe

that

that

to believe

the dangerous

c) the concentration levels at which there are sufficient
reasons
substances
concerned pose a significant risk to human health or to
the environment. Account shall be taken in this context
of (a) the policy pursued in the Member State concerned
with regard to addressing risks and soil remediation and
(b) specific local soil conditions.

Reason

It may be inferred from Article 12(2)(c) that there is one list of concentration levels relating to risks. In the
CoR's view, any risks to human health and the environment depend upon the use which is made of the site.
Furthermore, this use may change following the sale of the site.

If there is a desire for the soil status report to include a judgement on the possible risks of the site in ques-
tion, a risk assessment needs to be carried out and this assessment must take account of the current and
approved future use of the site.

The soil status report model needs to leave scope for interpreting the data, taking account of the policy
pursued in the Member State concerned with regard to addressing risks and soil remediation.

30.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/43

Recommendation 8

Article 13

Commission text

Article 13

Remediation

CoR amendment

Article 13

Remediation

1. Member States shall ensure that the contaminated
sites listed in their inventories are remediated.

1. Member States shall ensure that
sites listed in their inventories are remediated.

the contaminated

the removal, control, containment or

Remediation shall consist of actions on the soil aimed
2.
at
reduction of
contaminants so that the contaminated site, taking account
of its current use and approved future use, no longer poses
any significant risk to human health or the environment.

the removal, control, containment or

Remediation shall consist of actions on the soil aimed
2.
at
reduction of
contaminants so that the contaminated site, taking account
of its current use and approved future use, no longer poses
any significant risk to human health or the environment.

3. Member States shall set up appropriate mechanisms
to fund the remediation of
the contaminated sites for
which, subject to the polluter pays principle, the person
responsible for the pollution cannot be identified or cannot
be held liable under Community or national legislation or
may not be made to bear the costs of remediation.

Before the actual remediation work begins, temporary
3.
measures may be taken provided that they exclude the
possibility of contact with the polluting substances, are
duly justified and do not continue for too long.

4.3. Member States shall set up appropriate mechanisms
the contaminated sites for
to fund the remediation of
which, subject to the polluter pays principle, the person
responsible for the pollution cannot be identified or cannot
be held liable under Community or national legislation or
may not be made to bear the costs of remediation. Avail-
able EU funding may be used to fund remediation.

Reason

Actual remediation measures may be postponed, provided such an approach is environmentally sound, if
such measures can be carried out in a more cost-effective way in combination with other activities, such as
spatial development (building plans, etc.). Should the actual remediation measures be postponed, temporary
safety measures need to be taken.

Recommendation 9

Article 16

Commission text

CoR amendment

1. Member States shall make the following information
available to the Commission within eight years from [trans-
position date], and every five years thereafter:

a) summary of the initiatives taken pursuant to Article 5;

b) the risk areas established pursuant to Article 6(1);

c) the methodology used for risk identification pursuant to

Article 7;

d) the programmes of measures adopted pursuant

to
Article 8 as well as an assessment of the efficiency of
the measures to reduce the risk and occurrence of soil
degradation processes;

1. Member States shall make the following information
available to the Commission within eight years from [trans-
position date], and every five years thereafter, give the
Commission access to the data from which the following
information can be obtained:

a)

a summary of the initiatives taken pursuant to Article 5;

ab) the risk areas established pursuant to Article 6(1);

bc) the methodology used for risk identification pursuant

to Article 7;

e) the

outcome

to
Article 11(2) and (3) and the inventory of contaminated
sites established pursuant to Article 10(2);

identification pursuant

the

of

f) the National Remediation Strategy adopted pursuant to

Article 14;

g) a summary of the initiatives taken pursuant to Article 15

as regards awareness raising.

d)

ce)

to
the programmes of measures adopted pursuant
Article 8 as well as an assessment of the efficiency of
the measures to reduce the risk and occurrence of soil
degradation processes;

to
the outcome of
Article 11(2) and (3) and the inventory of contami-
nated sites established pursuant to Article 10(2);

identification pursuant

the

C 146/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.6.2007

Commission text

CoR amendment

f)

g)

the National Remediation Strategy adopted pursuant to
Article 14;

a summary of
the
Article 15 as regards awareness raising.

initiatives

taken pursuant

to

shall within five years

2. Member States
from the
drawing-up of the set of guidance measures as stated in
Article 17(2), and every five years thereafter, give the
Commission access to the data from which the following
information can be obtained:

a) a summary of the initiatives taken pursuant to Article 5;

b) the programmes of measures adopted pursuant

to
Article 8 as well as an assessment of the effectiveness of
the measures to reduce the risk and occurrence of soil
degradation processes;

c) the National Remediation Strategy adopted pursuant to

Article 14;

d) a summary of the initiatives taken pursuant to Article 15

as regards awareness-raising.

For the provision of

3.
the data referred to in sub-
paragraphs 1 and 2, Member States may make use of their
own systems.

Reason

This Article defines a large number of reporting requirements and it is mainly the local and regional authori-
ties which will have to comply with these. The Committee believes that this constitutes a disproportionate
administrative burden on municipalities and regions. The Committee therefore proposes that Member States
use their own reporting systems and that the European Commission be given access to this information. In
the Commission text the information requested under a, b, c, d, e, f and g is similarly described. The infor-
mation requested will have to be supplied within eight years of the Directive entering into force. The
Committee would prefer a sub-division of the type of information and would propose the following time
schedules:

1) Member States identify the risk areas and draw up an inventory (see subparagraphs b, c and e of the

Commission text);

2) the European Commission draws up a set of guideline measures, as referred to in Article 17 (see Recom-

mendation 10);

3) Member States draw up a package of measures (see subparagraphs a, d, f and g of the Commission text).

Member States can only draw up such a package of measures and adopt them if they possess sufficient
knowledge of and insight into soil protection. Knowledge is therefore a necessary prerequisite for the obliga-
tions under subparagraphs a, d, f and g of the Commission text. Experience with the Water Framework
Directive as well as Community legislation with regard to air quality has shown that it is important that the
European Commission should be required to draw up a set of guideline measures which reflect all knowl-
edge, possible solutions and best practices, before Member States are obliged to draw up their package of
measures. This particularly applies to subparagraph 1(a) of the Commission text on sealing. There is consid-
erable lack of clarity about the measures which could prevent or reduce sealing. Solutions could be found in
the fields of spatial development, construction technology and financial arrangements.

30.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/45

Recommendation 10

Article 17

Commission text

CoR amendment

Within one year from [entry into force], the Commission
shall set up a platform for the exchange of information
between Member States and stakeholders on the risk area
identification pursuant to Article 6 and on risk assessment
methodologies for contaminated sites currently in use or
under development.

1. Within one year from [entry into force], the Commis-
sion shall set up a platform for the exchange of information
between Member States and stakeholders on the risk area
identification pursuant to Article 6 and on risk assessment
methodologies for contaminated sites currently in use or
under development.

2. Within three years of the entry into force of this
Directive, the European Commission shall have undertaken
the activities announced in the Thematic Strategy for Soil
Protection concerning the strategy for the implementation
of the Directive. The aim of these activities is, among other
things:

a) to draw up a set of guideline measures including a
summary of cost-effective measures which Member
States will be able to implement at their own discretion;

b) to draw up a set of guideline measures on best practices

to reduce the negative effects of soil-sealing.

3. Where, on the basis of the exchange of information
referred to in subparagraph 1 of this Article, a need to
soil
harmonise the risk assessment methodologies
contamination is
in
identified,
accordance with Article 251 of
the EC Treaty, propose
common criteria for soil contamination risk assessment.

the Commission shall,

for

Reason

Paragraph 2: In the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection, the European Commission proposes to undertake
activities to identify best practices. The Commission has stated that nine of the 25 Member States have
developed a policy on soil. Action by national, regional and local authorities is essential for the success of
the European soil strategy. A set of guidelines for cost-effective measures from which these authorities can
draw up their policies is crucial for this (see also Recommendation 9).

Paragraph 3: In the Commission proposal this text is placed under Article 18(2). However, in view of the
Committee procedure (see Recommendation 11) and because it is important for the drawing-up of best
practices, this clause has been moved to Article 17.

Recommendation 11

Article 18

Commission text

CoR amendment

2. Where, on the basis of the exchange of information
referred to in Article 17, a need to harmonise the risk
assessment methodologies for soil contamination is identi-
fied, the Commission shall adopt common criteria for soil
contamination risk assessment in accordance with the regu-
latory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 19(3).

2. Where, on the basis of the exchange of information
referred to in Article 17, a need to harmonise the risk
assessment methodologies for soil contamination is identi-
fied, the Commission shall adopt common criteria for soil
contamination risk assessment in accordance with the regu-
latory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 19(3).

C 146/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.6.2007

Reason

The Committee believes that the establishment of Community risk assessment methodologies for soil
level of protection for people, plants and
contamination situations can be of importance for an equal
animals within the Community. The European Commission proposes to use the comitology procedure for
these decisions. The Committee of the Regions believes that this decision has widespread implications for
the scope of the EU soil legislation. Regional and local authorities should be involved in decision-taking on
this issue. It is therefore proposed to leave a decision on these matters to a forum, as referred to in
Article 17, and to let the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers adopt a decision at a later date.

Recommendation 12

Article 21

Commission text

CoR amendment

The Commission shall review this Directive at the latest
[15 years after the date of entry into force] and shall,
where appropriate, propose any necessary amendments.

The Commission shall review this Directive at the latest
[15 years after the date of entry into force] publication of
the set of guideline measures referred to in Article 17(2)
and shall, where appropriate, propose any necessary
amendments.

Reason

The Commission text takes as its starting point the moment at which this Directive enters into force.
However, measures by national, regional and local authorities are essential for the success of the European
soil strategy. Local and regional authorities can only decide on a policy when they have at their disposal a
set of guidelines for cost-effective measures (see also Recommendations 9 and 10). The Committee therefore
believes that the date of publication of the guideline measures, i.e. the moment that the Member States have
sufficient knowledge to adopt measures, is a better starting point.

Recommendation 13

Annex II

Commission text

ANNEX II

CoR amendment

ANNEX II

List of potentially soil polluting activities

List of potentially soil polluting activities

1. Establishments where dangerous substances are or
were present in quantities equal to or in excess of the
amounts indicated in Parts 1 and 2, column 2 of
Annex I to Council Directive 96/82/EC (Seveso).

1. Establishments where dangerous substances are or
were present in quantities equal to or in excess of the
amounts indicated in Parts 1 and 2, column 2 of
Annex I to Council Directive 96/82/EC (Seveso).

listed in Annex I

to Council Directive

2. Activities
96/61/EC.

3. Airports.

4. Ports.

2. Activities
96/61/EC.

3. Airports.

4. Ports.

listed in Annex I

to Council Directive

5. Former military sites.

6. Petrol and filling stations.

7. Dry cleaners.

5. Former military sites.

6. Petrol and filling stations.

7. Dry cleaners.

8. Mining installations not covered by Council Directive
facilities
as
including extractive waste
the European

96/82/EC,
defined in Directive 2006/21/EC of
Parliament and of the Council.

8. Mining installations not covered by Council Directive
facilities
as
including extractive waste
the European

96/82/EC,
defined in Directive 2006/21/EC of
Parliament and of the Council.

9. Landfills of waste as defined in Council Directive

9. Landfills of waste as defined in Council Directive

1999/31/EC.

1999/31/EC.

10. Waste water treatment installations.

10. Waste water treatment installations.

11. Pipelines for the transport of dangerous substances.

11. Pipelines for the transport of dangerous substances, to
the extent that they have no strategic or military func-
tion.

30.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/47

Reason

This could refer to large pipelines for gas and oil which are necessary for the adequate supply of energy
sources as well as for military purposes. The Committee thinks that because of the need for continuity of
the energy supply and the military aspects, the location of these pipelines cannot be made public. Public
and easily accessible information about the location of these pipelines could after all be used for terrorist
attacks.

Brussels, 13 February 2007.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Michel DELEBARRE