COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT […] Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS EU Soil Strategy for 2030 Reaping the benefits of healthy soils for people, food, nature and climate
Date: 2021-11-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU strategy, biodiversity, circular economy, climate change, desertification, farming sector, forestry policy, land use, soil improvement, soil pollution, soil protection

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 17.11.2021  SWD(2021) 323 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT […] Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS EU Soil Strategy for 2030      Reaping the benefits of healthy soils for people, food, nature and climate {COM(2021) 699 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 
Part I: Knowledge base in support of the new Soil Strategy ...................................................... 3 

1. 

Introduction: political and legal context ............................................................................. 3 

1.1.  Soil and the European Green Deal .............................................................................. 3 

1.2.  EU soil policy: from the 2006 Soil Thematic Strategy to the European Green Deal .. 3 

1.2.1.  The  2006  Soil  Thematic  Strategy  and  the  proposal  for  a  Soil  Framework 
Directive ............................................................................................................................. 3 

1.2.2.  Learning from the Soil Framework Directive proposal of 2006 .......................... 5 

1.2.3.  The EU Expert Group on Soil Protection ............................................................. 6 

1.2.4.  Gaps in EU soil policy ......................................................................................... 6 

2.  What are the problems? ...................................................................................................... 9 

3.  Why should the EU act? ................................................................................................... 14 

3.1.  Legal basis ................................................................................................................. 14 

3.2.  Subsidiarity: necessity and added value of EU action ............................................... 14 

3.2.1.  The costs of no action ......................................................................................... 14 

3.2.2.  Transboundary impacts of soil degradation ....................................................... 15 

3.3.  The position of other EU institutions on a renewed EU soil policy framework ....... 17 

3.3.1.  European Court of Auditors ............................................................................... 17 

3.3.2.  European Parliament .......................................................................................... 18 

3.3.3.  Council of the EU ............................................................................................... 18 

3.3.4.  Committee of the Regions .................................................................................. 19 

3.3.5.  The European Citizen Initiative ‘People4Soil’ .................................................. 19 

3.4.  Knowledge base in support of the actions envisaged in the Strategy ........................ 20 

3.4.1.  Soil organic matter and climate change ............................................................. 20 

3.4.2.  Considerations for a test-soil-for-free initiative ................................................. 23 

3.4.3.  Soil and circular economy .................................................................................. 23 

3.4.4.  Organic farming, soil health and climate change ............................................... 23 

3.4.5.  The role of soil biodiversity for above-ground biodiversity and human health . 25 

3.4.6.  Preventing soil contamination ............................................................................ 29 

3.4.7.  Remediation of soil contamination and brownfields .......................................... 30 

3.4.8.  Soil and the digital agenda ................................................................................. 31 

3.4.9.  Soil monitoring ................................................................................................... 32 

4.  How to achieve commitments .......................................................................................... 33 

4.1.  A strategic approach .................................................................................................. 33 

4.2.  Enablers ..................................................................................................................... 35 

4.2.1.  Funding ............................................................................................................... 35 

1 

 
 
 
4.2.2.  Governance ......................................................................................................... 37 

4.2.3.  Promoting and contributing to global action ...................................................... 39 

Part II: Synopsis report of the open public consultation .......................................................... 43 

1.  Consultation Strategy ....................................................................................................... 43 

2.  Roadmap ........................................................................................................................... 43 

2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 43 

2.2. Overview of the feedback received ............................................................................... 43 

3.  Open Public Consultation ................................................................................................. 45 

3.1. 

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 45 

3.2.  Summary of the replies .............................................................................................. 47 

3.3.  Analysis of the replies to the open question .............................................................. 55 

3.4.  Position Papers .......................................................................................................... 55 

3.4.1.  Public authorities ................................................................................................ 55 

3.4.2.  NGOs and environmental organizations ............................................................ 56 

3.4.3.  Companies, business organisations and associations ......................................... 57 

3.4.4.  Academic and research institutions .................................................................... 57 

3.4.5.  EU citizens ......................................................................................................... 58 

3.4.6.  Non-EU citizens ................................................................................................. 59 

4.  Other consultations of Member States and stakeholders ................................................. 59 

4.1.  Consultations of Member States through the EU Expert Group on Soil Protection . 59 

4.2.  Dedicated workshops and conferences ...................................................................... 63 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This  Staff Working Document provides the knowledge base in  support  of the approach and 
actions that constitute the new EU Soil Strategy, as well as a synopsis of the consultation that 
the  Commission  conducted  with  Member  States,  stakeholders  and  the  public  for  the 
preparation of the Strategy. 

PART I: KNOWLEDGE BASE IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW SOIL STRATEGY 

1.  INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

1.1.  Soil and the European Green Deal 

Soils  are  essential  ecosystems  that  deliver  valuable  services  such  as  the  provision  of  food, 
energy  and  raw  materials,  carbon  sequestration,  water  purification  and  infiltration,  nutrient 
regulation, pest control and recreation. Therefore, soil is crucial for fighting climate change, 
protecting  human  health,  safeguarding  biodiversity  and  ecosystems  and  ensuring  food 
security.  Healthy  soils  are  a  key  enabler  to  achieve  the  objectives  of  the  European  Green 
Deal1  such  as  climate  neutrality,  biodiversity  restoration,  zero  pollution,  sustainable  food 
systems and a resilient environment. 

1.2.  EU soil policy: from the 2006 Soil Thematic Strategy to the European Green 

Deal 

1.2.1.  The 2006 Soil Thematic Strategy and the proposal for a Soil Framework 

Directive 

The Soil Thematic Strategy COM(2006)231 (STS) adopted by the Commission in 2006 aimed 
to  protect  European  soils  through  the  prevention  of  further  degradation,  the  conservation  of 
soil functions and the restoration of degraded soils. The STS was accompanied by a proposal 
for a Soil Framework Directive2 and its impact assessment3. 

The Thematic Strategy was the result of a preparatory communication COM (2002) 179 that 
announced  the  policy  approach  for  soil  protection.  The  main  threats  to  soil  were  described, 
with  a  focus  on  erosion,  decline  in  organic  matter  and  biodiversity,  contamination,  sealing, 
compaction, salinisation, landslides and flooding. The Commission stressed the importance of 
integrating soil aspects into other policies, but also indicated the need for legislation focussing 
exclusively on soil. 

This  Communication  was  the  subject  of  favourable  conclusions  by  the  other  European 
institutions  which  recognised  that  soil  has  a  major  role  with  respect  to  long  term  European 
sustainability. The European Parliament stated “the urgent need to regulate its (soil) use and 
assess and mitigate the impact of external actions”, and generally supported the approach of 

1 A European Green Deal | European Commission (europa.eu) https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-

2024/european-green-deal_en  

2 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/2006/0232 final - COD 2006/0086  

3 SEC(2006)620, Commission Staff Working Document, Impact Assessment of the Thematic Strategy on Soil 

Protection 

3 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
the  Commission,  including  the  necessity  for  Community  action  and  legislative  proposals4. 
The Council welcomed the Communication as it “provides a comprehensive overview of the 
elements and factors related to soil threats, as well as of existing Community policies relevant 
for  soil  protection,  and  establishes  the  basis  for  the  identification  of  the  future  Community 
actions  for  its  protection”  and  underlined  that  “the  proper  functioning  of  the  single  market 
may require also a common approach to soil policy, in so far as its protection and remediation 
at all relevant levels may also affect competitiveness”5.  

The Soil Thematic Strategy defined the common approach to counter soil degradation in the 
EU and set the frame by stating the four key pillars of action around which policy measures 
had to be taken: 

 

Integration  of  soil  protection  in  the  formulation  and  implementation  of  national  and 
EU policies; 

  Closing  the  recognised  knowledge  gap  in  certain  areas  of  soil  protection  through 

research supported by EU and national research programmes; 

 

Increasing public awareness of the need to protect soil; 

  Development  of  framework legislation with  protection and sustainable use of soil as 

its principal aim. 

The Commission proposal for a Soil Framework Directive (SFD)6 aimed at implementing the 
legislative  pillar  of  the  Soil  Thematic  Strategy.  The  European  Parliament  discussed  the 
proposal  for a SFD and  adopted a positive opinion on the text in  first reading in  November 
20077.  For  several  years,  very  difficult  and  sensitive  political  discussions  took  place  in  the 
Council  of  the  EU  under  successive  EU  presidencies  which,  despite  the  efforts  of  many 
involved,  never  reached  a  common  position  due  to  a  blocking  minority  of  five  Member 
States8. Finally, after been pending for eight years, the proposal was withdrawn in May 2014 
by the Commission with the statement “The Commission remains committed to the objective 
of  the  protection  of  soil  and  will  examine  options  on  how  to  best  achieve  this.  Any  further 
initiative in this respect will however have to be considered by the next college”9.  

In 2013 the EU had agreed in legislation that “the Union and its Member States should reflect 
on  how  best  to  make  such  a  commitment  operational  within  their  respective  competencies. 
The Union and its Member States should also reflect as soon as possible on how soil quality 
issues  could  be  addressed  using  a  targeted  and  proportionate  risk-based  approach  within  a 
binding legal framework. Targets should also be set for sustainable land use and soil.”10 

4 Resolution of the European Parliament on the Commission communication “Towards a Thematic Strategy for 
Soil Protection” (COM(2002) 179 - C5-0328/2002 - 2002/2172(COS)) adopted on 19 November 2003 

5 Council conclusions on integrated soil protection adopted on 25 July 2002  
6 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/2006/0232 final - COD 2006/0086 

7 Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 14 November 2007 with a view to the adoption 
of Directive 2008/.../EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the 
protection of soil  

8 Procedure File: 2006/0086(COD) | Legislative Observatory | European Parliament (europa.eu) 
9 Withdrawal of obsolete Commission proposals (2014/C 153/03) OJ C 153, 21.5.2014, and Corrigendum OJ C 

163, 28.5.2014 

10 Decision 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on a General 

Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 “Living well, within the limits of our planet” 

4 

 
 
                                                 
The EU Green Deal Communication announced that “To ensure that the EU plays a key role, 
the  Commission  will  present  a  Biodiversity  Strategy  by  March  2020,  to  be  followed  up  by 
specific action in 2021. The strategy will outline the EU’s position for the Conference of the 
Parties,  with  global  targets  to  protect  biodiversity,  as  well  as  commitments  to  address  the 
main causes of biodiversity loss in the EU, underpinned by measurable objectives that address 
the main causes of biodiversity loss.  The biodiversity strategy will identify specific measures 
to  meet  these  objectives.  These  could  include  quantified  objectives,  such  as  increasing  the 
coverage  of  protected  biodiversity-rich  land  and  sea  areas  building  on  the  Natura  2000 
network. Member States should also reinforce cross-border cooperation to protect and restore 
more effectively the areas covered by the Natura 2000 network. The Commission will identify 
which  measures,  including  legislation,  would  help  Member  States  improve  and  restore 
damaged ecosystems to good ecological status, including carbon-rich ecosystems.” 

In  turn,  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  for  2030  followed  up  these  commitments  and 
specifically  for  soil  stated  that  “It  is  therefore  essential  to  step  up  efforts  to  protect  soil 
fertility, reduce soil erosion and increase soil organic matter. This should be done by adopting 
sustainable soil management practices, including as part of the CAP.  Significant  progress  is 
also  needed  on  identifying  contaminated  soil  sites,  restoring  degraded  soils,  defining  the 
conditions for their good ecological status, introducing restoration objectives, and improving 
the  monitoring  of  soil  quality.  To  address  these  issues  in  a  comprehensive  way  and  help  to 
fulfil EU and international commitments on land-degradation neutrality, the Commission will 
update  the  EU  Soil  Thematic  Strategy  in  2021.”  Additionally,  the  Farm  to  Fork  Strategy 
aimed to ensure that the food chain has a neutral or positive environmental impact, including 
to preserve, protect and restore land and soil.  

1.2.2.  Learning from the Soil Framework Directive proposal of 2006 

Few Member States have developed, with difficulty, national or regional legislation on soil in 
the 90s (for example it took to Germany 11 years to come to the German Soil Act in 1999). 
Those MS then raised to the EU level the issue of competitive advantage for those other MS 
which had less legal constraints in using soils. The Commission followed this call up with the 
Communication  of  2002  and  with  the  Thematic  Strategy  and  the  proposal  for  a  Soil 
Framework Directive in 2006. 

During subsequent Council discussions, a small number of MS, in particular those countries 
already  having  legislation  on  soil  modified  their  position  on  the  topic,  reflecting  several 
concerns  and  subsidiarity  issues.  This  position  did  not  reflect  the  evidence  from  the 
Commission on transboundary effects of soil degradation.  

Today  the  situation  has  changed  in  many  aspects:  the  EU  has  an  increased  knowledge  and 
increasingly  shared  awareness  of  the  transboundary  impacts  of  soil  and  land  degradation, 
concerning  the  impact  on  climate  change,  biodiversity,  food  safety  and  security,  and  of  the 
need to use soils to maximize carbon sinks in croplands, forests and wetlands. Farmers have 
an interesting business  case for  carbon farming and  the CAP  has developed conditionalities 
for protecting soil from the most degrading practices. Furthermore, there are MS which have 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
developed  and  are  implementing  ambitious  plans  to  remediate  all  polluted  sites  in  their 
territory11. 

1.2.3.  The EU Expert Group on Soil Protection 

Based on  the mandate that “the Union and its Member States should also  reflect  as  soon as 
possible on how soil quality issues could be addressed using a targeted and proportionate risk-
based  approach  within  a  binding  legal  framework"  enshrined  in  the  7th  EU  Environment 
Action Programme12 the Commission set up an expert group with soil specialists nominated 
by the Member States and with a connection with national authorities dealing with soil issues 
at a political level. The expert group met for the first time in October 2015 and since then has 
been supporting the Commission in the development of the element of the new EU soil policy 
framework.  An  overview  of  the  discussions in  the  EU  Soil  Expert  Group  is  included  in  the 
second part of this SWD. 

1.2.4.  Gaps in EU soil policy 

The European Environment Agency concluded in 2019 that the lack of a comprehensive and 
coherent policy framework to  protect  land  and soil reduces the effectiveness  of the existing 
incentives  and  measures  that  may  limit  Europe’s  ability  to  achieve  future  objectives  in 
relation to sustainability and environmental protection.  

Europe  is  not  on  track  to  protect  its  soil  resources  based  on  the  existing  strategies.  The 
underlying  drivers  of  soil  degradation  are  not  projected  to  change  favourably,  so  the 
functionality of soils is  under even more pressure. There is  a lack of binding policy targets, 
and some threats to soil are not addressed in existing European legislation. There is a high risk 
that the EU will fail some of its own and international commitments such as land degradation 
neutrality.13  Measurements  and  monitoring  of  soil  threats  are  incomplete.14    Harmonised, 
representative  soil  monitoring  across  Europe  is  needed  to  develop  early  warnings  of 
exceedances of critical thresholds and to guide sustainable soil management. This should feed 
a  consistent  set  of  indicators  and  representative  databases  for  all  soil  threats  across  Europe, 
which  to  date  has  not  yet  been  fully  established.  Efforts  shall  build  on  existing  indicator 
systems (SDGs, agro-environmental indicators, CAP indicators, EEA Land and Soil Indicator 
Set,  indicators  under  the  Zero  Pollution  Action Plan15,  8th  EAP  monitoring  framework16).17 
Experts from the Mission Board ’A Soil Deal for Europe’ have also proposed an approach for 
soil  health  monitoring  based  on  a  limited  set  of  indicators;  these  can  also  feed  into  the 

11 Contamination industrial point source - Inventory and Assessment of Soil Protection Policy Instruments in EU 

Member States - EC Extranet Wiki (europa.eu) 

12 Decision 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on a General 

Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 “Living well, within the limits of our planet” 

13 European Environment Agency (2019), The European Environment: State and Outlook 2020 

https://doi.org/10.2800/96749  

14 European Environment Agency (2019), The European Environment: State and Outlook 2020 

https://doi.org/10.2800/96749  

15 SWD(2021)141 towards a monitoring and outlook framework for the zero pollution ambition 
16  Environment action programme to 2030 (europa.eu) 
17  EEA  (2022).  Soil  monitoring  in  Europe:  Indicators  and  thresholds  for  soil  quality  assessments. 

https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/soil-monitoring-in-europe-indicators-and-thresholds/    

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
discussion.  The urgent need to reverse the deteriorating trends is undisputed, as well as the 
call for action at EU level, to complement initiatives taken at national level.  

As  part  of  the  work  to  deliver  the  commitments  of  the  7th  EAP,  the  Commission  in  2017 
established, with the support of a consultant and in cooperation with the Member States,  an 
inventory of soil protecting instruments at national and EU level in the form of a wiki.18 The 
database contains 35 EU level policies and 671 national instruments that directly or indirectly 
contribute to the protection of soils.  

An overview of EU legislation with the most relevant soil provisions: 

  The Sewage Sludge Directive regulates the use of sewage sludge on agricultural land 
and  sets  limit  values  for  heavy  metals  in  sludge  and  in  the  soil  on  which  sludge  is 
applied.  

  The Industrial Emissions Directive sets an obligation for certain operators to produce a 
baseline report and periodic monitoring of the soil and groundwater condition, and to 
return them to their initial status upon cessation of the activities.  

  The European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR) Regulation includes 

an obligation to report emissions to soil.  

  The Common Agricultural Policy includes measures for soil sustainable management, 
such  as  the  Good  Agricultural  and  Environmental  Conditions  (GAEC)19,  the 
obligation  of  crop  diversification  under  greening,  and  the  rural  development  support 
for  investments  in  forests,  agro-environment  and  climate  measures  and  organic 
farming. 

  The  Environmental  Liability  Directive  establishes  an  EU-wide  liability  regime  for 

damage to land, based on the polluter pays principle.  

  The Waste Framework Directive and the Landfill Directive lay down rules to prevent 

risks from waste management and landfilling to soil and the environment. 

  The Land Use Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) Regulation aims to ensure 
that  the  LULUCF  sector  does  not  generate  net  emissions  and  contributes  to  the 
enhancement of sinks in forests and soils (no-debit obligation). 

  EU  water  legislation  establishes  a  framework  for  the  protection  of  inland  surface 
waters,  transitional  waters,  coastal  waters,  groundwater,  drinking  water  and  the 
management  of  flood  risks.  These  provisions  have  a  beneficial  impact  on  the  soil-
sediment-water system.  

  National Emissions Directive sets emission reduction commitments for air pollutants, 

including heavy metals and persistent organic compounds in soil. 

18 Wiki: Inventory and Assessment of Soil Protection Policy Instruments in EU Member States (having or 

creating an EU login account is needed to access it)  

19 “Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions” most relevant for soil health are: 

  GAEC 1: Maintenance of permanent grassland based on a ratio of permanent grassland in relation to 

agricultural area; 

  GAEC 2: Appropriate protection of wetland and peatland; 
  GAEC 3: Ban on burning arable stubble, except for plant health reasons; 
  GAEC 6: Tillage management reducing the risk of soil degradation, including slope consideration; 
  GAEC 7: No bare soil in most sensitive period(s);  
  GAEC 8: Crop rotation; 
  GAEC 9: Ban on converting or ploughing permanent grassland in Natura 2000 sites. 

7 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
  EU legislation on specific substances such as the Fertilising Products Regulation, the 
Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive, the Plant Protection Products Regulation,, the 
Mercury Regulation or the Persistent Organic Pollutants Regulation contribute to the 
prevention of soil pollution and the improvement of soil quality. 

  The  Environmental  Impact  Assessment  and  Strategic  Environmental  Assessment 
Directives  require  that  the  significant  effects  of  certain  projects,  plans  and 
programmes on land and soil should be assessed.  

  The  Nitrates  Directive  aims  protecting  waters  against  pollution  with  nitrates  from 

agriculture and sets a maximum for manure that can be applied on land. 

Furthermore,  the  different  EU  funds,  such  as  the  LIFE  programme,  Horizon  Europe  and 
Cohesion  Policy  provide  support  for  sustainable  soil  management,  soil  restoration,  soil 
research and land rehabilitation.  

At  national  level,  the  inventory  showed  that  soil  protection  coverage  varies  a  lot  across  the 
EU. Some Member States have quite developed  soil protection policies and rules, others do 
not have provisions beyond those derived from existing EU policies. The inventory identified 
that 45% of the 671 national policy instruments are directly linked, and 21% partly linked, to 
existing  EU  policies  (mostly  on  water  and  waste),  while  only  35%  of  the  identified 
instruments are nationally initiated instruments.  

Member States  having  less  soil-protecting policy  instruments are often those suffering  from 
high  pressures  on  soil.  On  the  other  hand,  the  management  of  soil  contamination  has 
progressed faster in the  few Member States that  opted to tackle the historical contamination 
resulting  from  their  industrial  heritage  with  strong  legislation  and  targets.  This  creates  a 
distortion in the common market where companies should instead compete on a level playing 
field.  

The most important conclusion from the inventory was that very few Member States have a 
comprehensive  legal  framework  that  covers  soil  protection,  restoration,  sustainable  use  and 
monitoring,  and  that  would  set  the  necessary  conditions  to  integrate  soil  protection  in  other 
policy areas, and thus ensure soil protection and restoration in other policy areas.  

In addition to the lack of strategic coordination of soil concerns at EU level, other weaknesses 
that were identified in the coverage of EU law included:  

  That  soil  protection  is  an  outcome  mostly  derived  from  the  protecting  of  other 
environmental  resources,  addressing  other  environmental  threats  or  delivering  other 
goals or targets;  

  Key policies that offer some strategic vision are non-binding. As such they cannot be 
used  as  a  clear  basis  for  integrating  and  reinforcing  the  protection  of  soil  within 
existing EU laws in the way that, for example, water protection laws such as the Water 
Framework Directive can be cross referenced within the Industrial Emission Directive 
(IED)20  or  under  Statutory  Management  Requirements  set  out  in  CAP  cross-
compliance.  

20 Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial 

emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control)  

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  Land protection may not equate to soil protection. Thus, land is not protected against 
soil sealing at the EU level and insufficiently at Member State level. In some key EU 
policies protection from contamination is focused on land protection and not explicitly 
on  soil  protection.  These  are  not  necessarily  one  and  the  same  thing.  Land  can  be 
protected but important soil functionality can be lost.  

  Historic contamination that persisted before the introduction of key EU policies, such 
as  IED  (and  prior  to  IED,  the  IPPC  Directive21)  and  the  Environmental  Liability 
Directive22  is  not  addressed  by  EU  laws  and  there  are  no  binding  rules  in  place  for 
detecting or defining contaminated sites.  

  There is limited elaboration in EU law of soil functions, what these consist of and the 
actions that their protection implies. Moreover, a question has also emerged during the 
study regarding the elaboration of the role of ecosystem services provided by soils and 
the limited representation of these in legal texts. 

Evidence  shows  that  very  few  EU  countries  benefit  from  an  integrated,  comprehensive  and 
effective legislative framework to protect soil from all pressures and establish the boundaries 
of its sustainable use. Few Member States have a legal definition of what a healthy soil is and 
what  the  obligations  are  to  achieve  it.  If  these  gaps  are  not  addressed,  soil  will  continue  to 
lack  the  protection  it  deserves,  while  degradation  will  continue  and  accelerate.  Without 
comprehensive legal protection framework, the EU risks failing to achieve its Green Deal and 
international  commitments  on  climate  change,  biodiversity, 
land  degradation  and 
desertification, while also endangering food security and safety. Economic actors would have 
to continue to compete on an uneven and playing field. The fact that costs for soil remediation 
in one country are fully covered by the public sector while in several other countries costs are 
borne up to 70% by the private sector, is just one example of such market distortion.  

The FAO and the Global Soil Partnership recently created a similar database as the EU Soil 
Wiki  called  SoiLEX  at  global  level  with  information  on  existing  legal  instruments  for  soil 
protection and prevention of soil degradation.23  

2.  WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS?  

It has been estimated that about 60 to 70% of soils in the EU are not in a healthy state (based 
on a definition of soil health applied in the context of the Mission ’A Soil Deal for Europe’, 
under the EU Horizon Europe research programme24). Land and soil continue to be subject to 
severe  degradation  processes  in  the  EU  reflecting  diverse  pressures  such  as  unsustainable 
land-use and management,  climate change, pollution, overexploitation  and biodiversity loss. 

21 Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated 

pollution prevention and control 

22 Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental 

liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage  

23 SoiLEX | FAO Soils portal http://www.fao.org/soils-portal/soilex/ 
24 European Commission (2020), Proposed Mission “Caring for soil is caring for life - Ensure 75% of soils are 

healthy by 2030 for food, people, nature and climate”, Independent Expert Report 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/caring-soil-caring-life_en; see in particular Annex I  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
EEA has developed a technical report25  that summarizes the current state of knowledge about 
key soil indicators in the light of current and new policies in support of healthy soils.  

While  this  is  not  an  exact  exercise  and  may  evolve  with  new  knowledge  (e.g.  on  soil 
biodiversity), it indicates that the development and application of thresholds sensitive to the 
functioning  of  the  soils  is  the  prerequisite  to  understand  where  soils  are  degraded.  Once 
critical  limits  are  exceeded,  the  soil  cannot  provide  its  multiple  services,  for  example  as  a 
medium to filter contaminants or store and release nutrients.  

All the scientific evidence is indicating that in the EU land and soil degradation is continuing 
and  even  worsening,  climate  change  is  reaching  a  tipping  point,  biodiversity  is  declining 
dramatically and many other ecosystems are degrading as well.  

12.7%  of  Europe  is  affected  by  moderate  to  high  erosion,  causing  an  estimated  loss  of 
agricultural production in the EU of €1.25 billion per year.26  In the EU, we lose every year 
through water erosion alone the equivalent of a one metre-depth soil on an area corresponding 
to the size of the city of Berlin. It can take up to 1,000 years to produce 1 cm of fertile soil but 
only a couple of years to lose it.27   

Organic carbon stocks in cropland topsoils are declining: an estimated 45,000 – 55,000 km2 
of organic soil have been drained for agricultural use and are currently losing carbon28. It has 
been estimated that drained organic soils used for agriculture emit around 100.5 Mtonnes CO2 
per year in the EU-27; drained organic forest soils emit 67.6 Mt CO2 per year; peat extraction 
emits 5.6 Mtonnes CO2 a year29; mineral soils under cropland are losing every year around 7.4 
million  tonnes  of  CO2.  The  extent  of  wetland  in  the  EU  has  been  steadily  decreasing  with 
around half of wetlands  having disappeared since the beginning of the 20th century.30 Also, 
climate  change  and  unsustainable  forest  management  lead  to  carbon  losses  from  forest 
biomass and soils.  

Local  pollution is  also  present  in  all countries and 14% of an estimated total of 2.8 million 
potentially polluted sites from industrial activities are expected to require remediation, that is 
390,000  sites.  By  2018,  only  some  65,500  of  these  sites  were  remediated.31  Diffuse  soil 
contamination  by  atmospheric  deposition,  land  management  practices,  industrial  emissions, 
sewage sludge and other waste disposed on land is widespread and results in elevated levels 
of heavy metals, pesticides, antibiotics, excess nutrients, microplastics, and other substances 
of concern.  

25 EEA and ETC/ULS (2021). Soil monitoring in Europe: Indicators and thresholds for soil quality assessments. 

https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-uls/products/uls-reports  

26 Panagos, P. et al. (2018), Cost of agricultural productivity loss due to soil erosion in the European Union: 

From direct cost evaluation approaches to the use of macroeconomic models 
https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2879  

27 Soil matters for our future | European Commission (europa.eu) https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/soil-matters-our-

future-2019-dec-05_en  

28 Tanneberger, F. et al. (2017), The peatland map of Europe https://doi.org/10.19189/MaP.2016.OMB.264; 
European Commission (2008), Review of Existing Information on the Interrelations between Soil and Climate 
Change (CLIMSOIL final report) https://doi.org/10.2779/12723. 
29 European Commission (2015), Soil threats in Europe: status, methods, drivers and effects on ecosystem 

services https://doi.org/10.2788/828742  

30 LIFE Focus (2007), LIFE and Europe’s wetlands https://doi.org/10.2779/22840  
31 Joint Research Centre (2018), Status of local soil contamination in Europe 
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC107508  

10 

 
 
                                                 
Polluted  soils  not  only  cause  a  loss  of  biodiversity,  but  also  reduce  soil  productivity  and 
fertility, and can impact human health through direct exposure via inhalation, dermal contact, 
ingestion,  or  indirect  exposure  via  dietary  intake  of  contaminated  food  or  drinking  water. 
Children are at greatest risk of exposure because they play close to the ground. It is estimated 
that soil pollution with heavy metals (especially lead) and chemicals causes between 200.000 
and 800.000 deaths globally per year.32  

Land  take  and  soil  sealing  continue  predominantly  at  the  expense  of  agricultural  land  at  an 
annual net land take estimated at 440 km²/year in the  period 2012-2018.33 While the annual 
rate  of  land  take  and  consequent  habitat  loss  has  gradually  slowed,  ecosystems  are  under 
pressure from fragmentation of peri-urban and rural landscapes. Land recycling accounts for 
only  13  %  of  urban  developments  in  the  EU.  The  target  of  no  net  land  take  by  2050  is 
unlikely to be met unless annual rates of land take are reduced and land recycling increased34.  

Intensive  land  management  and  land  use  change  negatively  impacted  in  recent  decades  soil 
biodiversity such as the species richness of earthworms, springtails and mites.35 At the same 
time, the state of soil biodiversity in the EU is still largely unknown. Only 1% of soil micro-
organisms has been identified yet, compared to over 80% of plants.36   

Human induced salinization affects 3.8 million ha in the EU, with severe soil salinity along 
the  coastlines,  particularly  in  the  Mediterranean.  While  naturally  saline  soils  occur, 
inappropriate irrigation practices, poor drainage conditions or the use of salt for de‐icing roads 
induce anthropogenic or secondary salinization.37  Salinity intrusion costs range from € 577 – 
610 million per year in Europe and are projected to increase significantly over time with sea-
level rise over time.38 

In  southern,  central  and  eastern  Europe  25%  of  soils  show  high  or  very  high  sensitivity  to 
degradation39 corresponding to about 411 000 km²40. Projections on climate change in Europe 
indicate that the risk of desertification is increasing. Hot semi-deserts already exist in southern 
Europe,  where  the  climate  is  transforming  from  temperate  to  arid.  This  phenomenon  is 
already  extending  northwards.  Man-made  emissions  have  substantially  increased  the 
probability  of  drought  years  in  the  Mediterranean  region.  Climate  change  scenarios  show 
water is becoming scarcer in parts of Europe, and droughts occurring more frequently. This 

32 Landrigan, P.J.. et al. (2018), The Lancet Commission on pollution and health https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-

6736(17)32345-0  

33 Land take and net land take — European Environment Agency (europa.eu) https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-

and-maps/dashboards/land-take-statistics  

34 European Environment Agency (2019), The European Environment: State and Outlook 2020 

https://doi.org/10.2800/96749 

35 European Environment Agency (2019), The European Environment: State and Outlook 2020 

https://doi.org/10.2800/96749  

36 European Commission (2010), The factory of life: why soil biodiversity is so important 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/soil/pdf/soil_biodiversity_brochure_en.pdf  

37 FAO and ITPS (2015). Status of the World’s Soil Resources http://www.fao.org/3/i5199e/i5199e.pdf  
38 Tzemi, D. et al. (2020), Economic impacts of salinity induced soil degradation 

https://northsearegion.eu/media/14789/chap2-economic-analysis-of-salinization.pdf  

39  “Desertification  means  land  degradation  in  arid,  semi-arid,  and  dry  sub-humid  areas  resulting  from  various 
factors,  including  climatic  variations  and  human  activities”  (see  UNCCD  definition  under  article  1  of  the 
Convention;  https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1996/12/19961226%2001-46%20PM/Ch_XXVII_10p.pdf).  
It includes processes such as strong wind and water erosion, lack of water during the growing season, soil 
crusting and subsoil compaction, as well as salinization. 

40  Prăvălie  et  al.  (2017),  Quantification  of  land  degradation  sensitivity  areas  in  Southern  and  Central 

Southeastern Europe.  

11 

 
 
                                                 
increases  the  vulnerability  to  desertification.  The  risk  of  desertification  is  expected  to  be 
significant in particular in Spain, southern Italy, Portugal, and areas of south-eastern Europe 
including  Bulgaria,  Greece,  Cyprus  and  the  Danube  Delta  in  Romania.  Particularly  strong 
increases  in  dryness  and  decreases  in  water  availability  in  southern  Europe  and  the 
Mediterranean when shifting from a 1.5 °C to a 2 °C global warming.41 

Figure 1: Source: JRC PESETA III Science for Policy Summary Series 

On  the  other  side,  as  seen  in  recent  years,  the  EU  has  experienced  a  number  of  significant 
flooding  events,  with  severe  social  and  economic  impacts42.  The  EEA  estimates  that 
hydrological events in 2019 caused just over 5 billion euro worth of damage43. Most studies 
agree  that  the  risk  of  severe  winter  storms,  and  possibly  of  severe  autumn  storms,  will 
increase  for  northern,  north-western  and  central  Europe  over  the  21st  century44,  with 
increased impacts on people and property.  

The volume and velocity of surface runoff into rivers is a major factor in flooding. The way in 
which the landscape, and in particular soil, is managed can have a significant impact on this 

41 European Court of Auditors (2018), Special report n°33/2018: Combating desertification in the EU: a growing 

threat in need of more action https://doi.org/10.2865/425778  

42 https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/europe-s-deadly-floods-leave-scientists-stunned  
43 https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/direct-losses-from-weather-disasters-4/assessment  
44 https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/storms-2/assessment  

12 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
process.  Land  cover  change  is  known  to  increase  the  rate  and  volume  of  flood  peaks45. 
Increased  herd  sizes  and  the  use  of  larger,  heavier  machinery  for  arable  farming  cause  soil 
compaction, which reduces the rate of rainfall infiltration and the volume of water that can be 
stored within the subsoil46. This coupled with the development of soil caps and crusts, results 
in  more rainfall being delivered to  rivers via  faster surface  runoff47. Natural  water retention 
measures,  which  include  improved  soil  structure  to  support  higher  infiltration  and  slower 
overland  flow,  are  increasingly  recognised  as  being  complementary  to  traditional  flood 
control strategies48.   

In parallel, the loss of drainage systems due to urban and infrastructural growth increases the 
susceptibility  to  flooding.  Pluvial  flooding  can  occur  in  urban  areas  when  drainage  systems 
are unable to cope with  intense or prolonged rainfall events  given the lack of infiltration by 
sealed  soils49  50.  It  should  be  noted  that  flooding  mechanisms  are  not  independent.  For 
example,  the  rapid  arrival  of  fluvial  flood  peaks  can  be  significantly  augmented  by  pluvial 
flooding as the system fails soils to move water out of urban areas. In turn, pluvial flooding 
can then contribute to downstream fluvial flooding. Urban planners should increasingly adopt 
established  guidelines  on  best  practices  to  limit,  mitigate  or  compensate  for  soil  sealing51. 

Table 1: summary from EEA SOER 2020 showing the negative trends and outlook to 2030 for 
soil condition. 

45  Rowe,  L.  (2003):  Land  Use  and  Water  Resources:  A  Comparison  of  Streamflow  from  New  Zealand 
Catchments with Different Vegetation Covers. SMF2167: Report No. 6. Landcare Research for Ministry for 
the Environment, p.139. 

46 https://wrt.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/soils-and-nfm.pdf  
47 https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/soils-forgotten-role-natural-flood-management-soils-alliance/  
48 Collentine, D. and Futter, M. (2018), Realising the potential of natural water retention measures in catchment 
interests.  J  Flood  Risk  Management,  11:  76-84. 

trade-offs  and  matching 

flood  management: 
https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12269  

49 https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/pluvial-rain-related-flooding-urban-areas-invisible-hazard  
50 https://www.isprambiente.gov.it/it/pubblicazioni/atti/working-group-f-thematic-workshop-flash-floods-and-2 
51 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/pdf/guidelines/pub/soil_en.pdf  

13 

 
 
                                                 
Following the EEA State of environment report 2020 (SOER 2020)52, the past trends and the 
outlook  to  2030  of  soil  condition  show  the  prevalence  of  a  deteriorating  development.  The 
prospects of meeting policy objectives and targets is largely not on track. 

3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

3.1.  Legal basis  

EU  soil  policy  action  is  based  on  Article  191  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  EU 
(TFEU),  which  requires  Union  policy  to  aim  at  preserving,  protecting  and  improving  the 
quality  of  the  environment,  protecting  human  health,  a  prudent  and  rational  utilisation  of 
natural  resources,  promoting  measures  at  international  level  to  deal  with  regional  or 
worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change.  

3.2.  Subsidiarity: necessity and added value of EU action  

3.2.1.  The costs of no action 

Overall,  the  impact  of  land  and  soil  degradation  is  very  large  and  comes  with  a  huge  cost 
estimated at EUR 50 billion per year in the EU. Soil erosion costs European countries EUR 
1.25  billion  solely  in  annual  agricultural  productivity  loss  and  EUR  155  million  in  GDP 
loss.53  The  loss  of  ecosystem  services  from  land  degradation  at  world  level  is  estimated 
between USD 6.3 and 10.6 trillion per  year,  or a loss between USD 43 400 and 72 000 per 
km² per year globally, or between USD 870 and 1 450 per person per year.  54  55 The cost of 
action is much smaller than the cost of inaction. It is estimated that on average the benefits of 
soil  restoration  are  10  times  higher  than  the  costs,  underpinning  that  investing  in  land 
degradation prevention and soil restoration makes very sound economic sense.56  

52 https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/soer2020-europes-environment-state-and-outlook-report  

53 Panagos, P. et al. (2018), Cost of agricultural productivity loss due to soil erosion in the European Union: 

From direct cost evaluation approaches to the use of macroeconomic models 
https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2879  

54 The Economics of Land Degradation (2015), The value of land https://www.eld-

initiative.org/fileadmin/pdf/ELD-main-report_05_web_72dpi.pdf   

55 Nkonya, E., et al. (2016). Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement - A Global Assessment for 

Sustainable Development https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19168-3  

56 IPBES (2018), The IPBES assessment report on land degradation and restoration 

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3237392  

14 

 
 
 
                                                 
Table 2: It has been estimated that cropland and grasslands in the EU provide EUR 76 billion 
worth of ecosystem services per year: less than one third come from crop production, the rest 
from other ecosystem services.57 

Soil  degradation  affects  us  all  economically:  54%  of  the  cost  represents  a  loss  of  public 
services  such  as  carbon  sequestration,  hydrological  control,  nutrient  cycling,  hosting  soil 
biodiversity and provision of recreation. The other half of the cost rather comes at the expense 
of private parties and landowners due to a reduction in provisioning services such as biomass 
and raw materials.  

3.2.2.  Transboundary impacts of soil degradation 

It is often said that soil does not move. Actually, it does, and the impact of soil degradation 
has no borders. Soil degradation, but also its drivers and impacts, can be transboundary. Soils 
play a major role in the nutrient, carbon and water cycle, and these processes are obviously 
not constrained by physical and political borders.  While half of the 75 billion tonnes of soil 
carbon stocks rest in Sweden, Finland and the United Kingdom, fluxes have a much wider and 
transboundary  impact  on  the  climate.58  The  EU  is  globally  the  second  largest  emitter  of 
greenhouse gases from drained peatlands with 99 % of these emissions caused by 16 out of 28 
Member States, where peat is mainly present.59 Rewetting only 3% of agricultural land in the 
EU, can mitigate climate change and reduce European agricultural emissions by 25%.60 Peat 
is heavily traded within the internal market: the Netherlands, France and Germany were the 
largest importers of peat between 2013 and 2017 for a total value of almost 1,25 billion euro. 

57 European Commission (2021), Accounting for ecosystems and their services in the EU (INCA) 
58 European Environment Agency (2019), Soil, land and climate change 

https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2019-content-list/articles/soil-land-and-climate-change  

59 Greifswald Mire Centre (2019), Briefing Paper on the role of peatlands in the new European Union’s Common 

Agriculture Policy (CAP) https://greifswaldmoor.de/files/dokumente/Infopapiere_Briefings/GMC-
briefing%20paper_CAP_final.pdf  

60 Data compiled by Greifswald Mire Centre based on National Inventory Reports 2019. (Sectors Agriculture, 

LULUCF - Cropland and Grassland) 

15 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
At the same time, a footprint is left outside the EU:  largest exporters of peat to the EU in the 
same period were Belarus, Ukraine and Russia.61  

Luxembourg  is  a  large  exporter  of  contaminated  soil  since  it  lacks  its  own  treatment 
facilities.62 Eroded soil particles are transported downstream and across borders in the form of 
sediment. The total sediment fluxes in the EU due to water erosion are estimated to about 160 
million  tonnes per  year63.  The Port of Rotterdam  dredges 12-15 million  m3 of sediment  per 
year, of which a good half is delivered by the Rhine as a result of erosion in other countries.64 
Coastlines are particularly susceptible to erosion: in Europe about 20,000 km corresponding 
to 20% of coastlines are affected by erosion,65 which can lead to transboundary sedimentation 
(exacerbated  by  increasing  intensity  of  storms  driven  by  climate  change).  Erosion  by  wind 
transports  soil  particles  and  the  harmful  chemical  substances  attached  to  them  across  long 
distances and borders. The transport of Saharan sand to Europe and other parts of the world is 
a well-known phenomenon in this respect.  

Contaminants can be mobile and cross borders via the air, surface water and groundwater and 
in the end pollute the soil, which in turn can pose risks for food safety in the internal market 
when  the  contaminated  food  is  distributed.  In  2016,  72.7%  of  EU  agri-food  products  were 
traded between Member States. Globally, 3.2 billion people are directly affected by degraded 
soil. By 2050, four billion people are projected to be living in drylands. Land degradation and 
climate change are likely to force 50 to 700 million people to migrate by 2050, which can put 
pressure on European borders.66  

It  is  recognised  that  the  high-consumption  lifestyles  of  developed  economies,  together  with 
increasing  consumer  expectations in  developing  and emerging  economies, is  a key  cause of 
soil degradation as it drives unsustainable land management and loss of soil resources67. Food, 
feed, fibre and timber imports can be considered de facto soil imports since they all depend on 
biomass  production.  Increased  soil  protection  within  the  EU  and  individual  Member  States 
should not result in increased pressures on soil and moving degradation in other parts of the 
EU or exporting it  beyond its  borders.  In this respect,  increased  effort should  be focused to 
develop a robust approach to track MS and the EU’s soil footprint, also at a global level. Such 
a  tool  should  measure  the  impacts  of  demands  on  soil  and  their  capacity  to  deliver  the 
resulting  functions  (including  plant-based  food  and  fibre  products,  livestock,  timber,  absorb 
waste,  and  mitigate  carbon  emissions).  Such  a  footprint  would  ensure  that  improvements 

61 IUCN (2019), Legal provisions on soil import. Technical note prepared by IUCN for the European 

Commission. https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/96fbf64a-c3e8-49ab-bb5f-
efb6cdc16e85/Legal%20provisions%20on%20soil%20import.pdf  

62 Paleari, S. et al. (2012), Transboundary shipments of waste in the European Union. Reflections on data, 

environmental impacts and drivers. 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315390417_Transboundary_shipments_of_waste_in_the_Europea
n_Union_Reflections_on_data_environmental_impacts_and_drivers 

63 Borrelli, P. et al. (2018), A step towards a holistic assessment of soil degradation in Europe: Coupling on-site 

erosion with sediment transfer and carbon fluxes. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.11.009  

64 MUDNET (2018), Sediment management in the port of Rotterdam 

https://d2k0ddhflgrk1i.cloudfront.net/Websections/MUDNET/Kirichek%282018%29%20Sediment%20man
agement%20in%20the%20Port%20of%20Rotterdam.pdf  

65 Gallina, V. et al. (2019), Assessment of Climate Change Impacts in the North Adriatic Coastal Area. Part II: 
Consequences for Coastal Erosion Impacts at the Regional Scale https://doi.org/10.3390/w11061300  

66 IPBES (2018), The IPBES assessment report on land degradation and restoration 

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3237392  

67 IPBES (2018), Summary for policymakers of the thematic assessment of land degradation and restoration 

https://reporterre.net/IMG/pdf/sols-ipbes_re_sume_pour_les_de_cideurs-mars_2018.pdf  

16 

 
 
                                                 
brought about by the Soil Strategy and related initiatives on soil stewardship can be reported 
at a range of scales (continent, individual countries, eventually regions) and by activity. A soil 
footprint  calculator  could  become  a  vital  communication  tool  for  citizen  engagement  and 
consumer education. 

3.3. The position of other EU institutions on a renewed EU soil policy framework  

3.3.1.  European Court of Auditors 

The European Court of Auditors performed an audit in 2018 on “Combating desertification in 
the EU: a growing threat in need of more action” 68. In its final report the ECA “found that the 
risk  of  desertification  in  the  EU  was  not  being  effectively  and  efficiently  addressed.  While 
desertification  and  land  degradation  are  current  and  growing  threats  in  the  EU,  the 
Commission does not have a clear picture of these challenges, and the steps taken to combat 
desertification  lack  coherence.  We  found  that  there  is  no  agreed  methodology  for  assessing 
desertification  and  land  degradation  within  the  EU.  Although  the  Commission  and  the 
Member States collect data about various factors with an impact on desertification and land 
degradation, the Commission does not analyse it to come up with a conclusive assessment on 
desertification and land degradation in the EU.” 

The Court also recommended that: 

1.  “The  Commission,  in  cooperation  with  the  Member  States,  should:  (a)  establish  a 
methodology and relevant indicators –starting with the UNCCD’s three indicators – to 
assess the extent of desertification and land degradation in the EU; (b) based on agreed 
methodology,  collate  and  analyse  relevant  data  on  desertification  and 
land 
degradation,  much  of  which  is  already  being  collected,  and  regularly  present  it  in  a 
clear, user-friendly way for public use, preferably in the form of interactive maps for 
use in the EU. 

2.  The Commission should assess the appropriateness of the current legal framework for 
the sustainable use of soil across the EU, including addressing desertification and land 
degradation. 

3.  The  Commission  should:  (a)  further  detail  how  the  EU’s  commitment  to  land 
degradation neutrality will be achieved by 2030, and report periodically on progress; 
(b)  provide  guidance  to  Member  States  on  practical  aspects  of  preserving  soil  and 
achieving  land  degradation  neutrality  in  the  EU,  including  dissemination  of  good 
practices; (c) on their request, provide technical support to Member States to establish 
national  action  plans  to  achieve  land  degradation  neutrality  by  2030,  including 
identifying targeted measures, clear milestones, and a plan for intermediate reporting 
at Member State level.” 

In  response,  the  Commission  has  committed  to  finalize  the  EU  methodology  for  the 
assessment  and  monitoring  of  land  degradation  neutrality,  building  on  existing  methodical 
knowledge,  current  and  future  data.69  A  new  soil  condition  assessment  (2022),  currently 
conducted jointly by EEA and the Commission, is collecting the currently available evidence 

68 European Court of Auditors (2018), Special report n°33/2018: Combating desertification in the EU: a growing 

threat in need of more action 

69 EEA and ETC/ULS (2019). Land degradation knowledge base: policy, concepts and data. ETC/ULS Report 

01/2019. 

17 

 
 
 
                                                 
and  trend  about  soil  degradation  in  Europe.  The  EU  Soil  Observatory  is  evaluating  the 
effectiveness  of  the  SDG  15.3  methodology  developed  by  the  UNCCD  and  other  land 
degradation methodologies, aiming at a comprehensive soil degradation indicator which will 
accurately capture the most widespread soil threats (e.g. soil erosion and SOC decline) from a 
post-industrial time to now; among others, this will provide the base for refining the actions 
needed for the achievement of land degradation neutrality.  

3.3.2.  European Parliament  

On 28 April 2021, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on soil protection initiated 
by  the  Environment,  Public  Health  and  Food  Safety  (ENVI)  Committee  with  605  votes  in 
favour,  55  against  and  41  abstentions.70  Overall,  the  Parliament’s  resolution  recognizes  the 
importance of protecting soil and promoting healthy soils in the Union for the objectives of 
the  European  Green  Deal:  climate  neutrality,  biodiversity  restoration,  the  zero-pollution 
ambition  for  a  toxic-free  environment,  healthy  and  sustainable  food  systems  and  a  resilient 
environment. 

The resolution calls the Commission to take a series of actions, both legally-binding and not, 
to address soil pollution and other types of soil degradation, covering several related aspects, 
such  as  research,  knowledge  and  innovation,  monitoring  and  digital  aspects,  financing, 
governance,  policy  coherence,  communication,  international  aspects,  and  links  to  the  other 
environmental  policies  (water  and  air  pollution,  waste  and  circularity,  health,  biodiversity, 
climate, agriculture).  
In  its  resolution  on  the  Biodiversity  Strategy  for  2030  from  8  June  2021,71  the  European 
Parliament highlighted that soil biodiversity provides vital  ecosystem services and mitigates 
climate  change  and  noted  with  concern  the  increase  in  soil  degradation  and  the  lack  of 
specific  EU  legislation  on  this  topic.  The  Parliament  acknowledged  that  there  are  some 
provisions  in  different  laws  that  indirectly  contribute  to  soil  protection,  but  considered  that 
this  has  resulted  in  partial  protection  and  highly  fragmented  governance  in  the  EU.  The 
Parliament  repeated  its  call  on  the  Commission  to  submit  a  legislative  proposal  for  the 
establishment of a common framework, with full respect for the subsidiarity principle, for the 
protection and sustainable use of soil and for the effective integration of that protection in all 
relevant EU policies. A common framework on soil should address all the main soil threats, 
including  loss  of  soil  biodiversity,  loss  of  soil  organic  matter,  contamination,  salinisation, 
acidification, desertification, erosion and soil sealing. The Parliament emphasised the need to 
include common definitions, clear targets and a monitoring framework, while also supporting 
the  establishment  of  a  specific  decontamination  target.  It  also  welcomed  the  launch  of  a 
Horizon Europe Mission ’A Soil Deal for Europe’. 

3.3.3.  Council of the EU 

The Council in its Conclusions of October 2020 on the new Biodiversity Strategy indicated it 
“SUPPORTS  the  Commission  in  stepping  up  efforts  to  better  protect  soils  and  soil 
biodiversity,  as  a  non-renewable  resource  of  vital  importance,  as  well  as  to  reduce  soil 

70 European Parliament resolution of 28 April 2021 on soil protection (2021/2548(RSP)) 
71 European Parliament resolution of 9 June 2021 on the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature 

back into our lives (2020/2273(INI)) 

18 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
sealing,  and  REAFFIRMS  the  EU’s  commitment  to  reaching  land-degradation  neutrality; 
WELCOMES  the  planned  update  of  the  EU  Soil  Thematic  Strategy;  STRESSES  the  need  to 
promptly  address  desertification  and  land  degradation  in  the  EU;  REITERATES  the  will  to 
make progress towards the objective of ‘zero net land take’ by 2050”.72 

In  reply  to  an  oral  question  from  the  European  Parliament73,  the  Council  confirmed  that  it 
remains fully committed to the fulfilment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 
SDG  15.3,  which  aims  to  combat  desertification,  restore  degraded  land  and  soil,  including 
land affected by desertification, droughts and floods, and strives to achieve a land degradation 
neutral  world  by  2030.  The  Council  welcomed  the  planned  update  of  the  2006  EU  Soil 
Thematic  Strategy,  which  aims  to  address  soil  and  land  degradation  within  the  EU  in  a 
comprehensive way, and looked forward to the adoption of this strategy by the Commission. 
The Council Presidency remains fully committed and determined to work with the Parliament 
and the Commission on soil protection once the updated Soil Strategy has been put forward 
and on any emerging initiatives that are proposed in this regard. 

3.3.4.  Committee of the Regions 

The Committee of the Regions adopted in February 2021 an opinion on  agro-ecology which 
“calls  on  the  European  Commission  to  propose  a  new  European  directive  on  agricultural 
soils to halt the decrease in their organic matter content, stop erosion and prioritise soil life 
in agricultural practices”.74 

3.3.5.  The European Citizen Initiative ‘People4Soil’ 

On 11 July 2016, the Commission received via the ECI register a request for registration of a 
proposed  European  Citizen  Initiative  titled  "People4Soil:  sign  the  citizens'  initiative  to  save 
the  soils  of  Europe!".  The  proposed  initiative  stated  that  "soil  is  one  of  the  most  strategic 
resources of Europe, as it ensures food security, biodiversity conservation and climate change 
regulation. It's time to protect the soils of Europe". 

The main objectives of the proposed initiative  were as  follows:  "Recognize soil as a shared 
heritage that needs EU level protection, as it provides essential benefits connected to human 
well-being  and  environmental  resilience;  develop  a  dedicated  legally  binding  framework 
covering the main soil threats: erosion, sealing, organic matter decline, biodiversity loss and 
contamination;  integrate  soil  related  UN  Sustainable  Development  Goals  into  EU  policies; 
properly  account  and  reduce  greenhouse  gases  emissions  from  the  farming  and  forestry 
sectors." 

The  Commission  examined  the  proposed  citizens'  initiative  to  ascertain  whether  it  met  the 
conditions  laid  down  in  the  concerned  Regulation  and  decided  to  register  the  proposed 
initiative  on  12  September  2016.  While  this  ECI  gathered  the  support  of  more  than  500 
organization from 26 EU countries, it did not manage to reach the target set in the Regulation 
of  1  million  signatures.  However,  with  over  220.000  signatures  collected  according  to  the 

72 Council conclusions on Biodiversity - the need for urgent action, 23 October 2020.  
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-11829-2020-INIT/en/pdf  

73 Debate on Soil Protection on Monday 26 April 2021 
74 Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions – Agro-ecology; 05/02/2021; Rapporteur CDR 

3137/2020; Rapporteur: CROS Guillaume 

19 

 
 
                                                 
strict rules of the ECI, it mobilised a large number of citizens and organisations in almost all 
EU countries to get involved in EU policy-making and raised awareness on the need for soil 
protection in the EU. 

3.4. Knowledge base in support of the actions envisaged in the Strategy  

3.4.1.  Soil organic matter and climate change 

Climate  change  has  a  major  impact  on  soil,  and  changes  in  land  use  and  soil  can  either 
accelerate  or  slow  down  climate  change,  and  vice  versa.  Thus,  to  be  on  track  for  climate 
neutrality  in  2050,  the  EU  needs  to  reverse  the  current  decline  in  land-based  removals  and 
start implementing actions to increase removals already in this decade, in order to account for 
the  long  lead  times  of  land-based  climate  mitigation.  An  integrated  sustainable  approach 
linked  with  soil  health  may  contribute  to  a  significant  resilience  under  adverse  conditions. 
Increasing soil organic carbon is the best way to mitigate climate change and to ensure food 
security. 

Soil organic matter (SOM) is soil organic carbon (SOC) in a form readily available to plants 
and is directly linked to soil fertility. Increasing SOM not only binds CO2 thus contributing to 
climate  change  mitigation,  but  also  offers  many  co-benefits  for  soil  biodiversity,  soil 
structure,  water  holding  capacity,  increased  nutrient  cycling  while  preventing  nutrient  loss, 
and biological pest control75, making soil more resilient to disturbances and weather extremes. 

Organic  soils,  including  peatlands,  have  a  high  carbon  content  of  more  than  20%  in  dry 
weight76  and  cover  8%  of  the  EU  land77.  They  represent  approximately  25%  of  the  current 
organic  carbon  stock  of  all  EU  soils78.  They  are  formed  in  all  habitats  where  waterlogged 
conditions  inhibit  the  decomposition  of  plant  material.  Nowadays,  however,  a  very  large 
proportion of former wetlands have been drained79 so that organic soils at  various stages of 
degradation  are  found  on  agricultural  land,  scrublands  and  forest.  Such  degraded  peatland 
soils  currently  represent  only  about  4.5%  of  the  EU  agricultural  area80  but  generate  an 
important  part  of  the  total  greenhouse  gases  coming  from  agriculture  in  the  EU.  Peatland 
drainage  across  all  land  categories  in  Europe  alone  has  been  estimated  to  emits  around  220 
million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent (MtCO2eq) in the EU per year81, equivalent to around 5% of 
total  EU  greenhouse  gas  (GHG)  emissions  in  2017.  Restoring  drained  organic  soils  alone 

75 EASAC report on Soil Sustainability (2018) 

https://easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/Soil_Sustainability/EASAC_Policy_Report_on_Soil_S
ustainability_September_2018.pdf  

76Tanneberger, F et al. (2017), The peatland map of Europe. Mires and Peat No 19 (22), 1-17.  
 For  the  detailed  definition,  see  definition  of  histosols  within  the  FAO  (2015)  World  Reference  Base  for  soil 
resources: International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps.  

77 Calculated from data derived from the national submissions to the UNFCCC. 
78  Schils, R. et al. (2008), Review of existing information on the interrelations between soil and climate change. 

ClimSoil final report. European Communities Technical Report 

79 Based on the best available evidence, an estimated 45,000 – 55,000 km2 has been drained for agricultural use – 
see also Tanneberger, F. et al. (2021), The Power of Nature‐Based Solutions: How Peatlands Can Help Us to 
Achieve Key EU Sustainability Objectives.  

80 Pérez Domínguez I., et al. (2020), Economic assessment of GHG mitigation policy options for EU agriculture: 

A closer look at mitigation options and regional mitigation costs (EcAMPA 3),  

81 Tanneberger, F. et al. (2021), The Power of Nature‐Based Solutions: How Peatlands Can Help Us to Achieve 

Key EU Sustainability Objectives.  

20 

 
 
 
                                                 
could  significantly  reduce CO2  emissions from  land. Rewetting  and restoration of peatlands 
comes with numerous co-benefits for nature, biodiversity and water protection.82 

Mineral soils are soils with a carbon content below 20% although most mineral soils contain 
below  5%.  Around  45%  of  EU  soils  have  low  or  very  low  organic  carbon  content  (below 
2%)83.  There  is  a  biophysical  potential  to  sequester  between  11  to  38  MtCO2eq  annually  in 
Europe84  (9  to  30  MtCO2eq  annually  in  EU27))  if  a  range  of  management  practices  which 
have already been identified are applied on a larger scale in arable land.  

Figure 2: how soils can store more carbon. Source: 4 per 1000 initiative85 

Land  use  change  and  unsustainable  soil  management  have  caused,  and  are  still  causing, 
organic  and  mineral  soils  to  lose  carbon,  and  with  it  part  of  their  fertility,  their  capacity  to 
absorb and retain water and the other co-benefits. Loss of SOM is highly relevant for climate 
change.  Restoring  soils  that  have  lost  SOM  can  be  done  by  applying  sustainable  soil 
management (SSM), in particular agroecology and agroforestry principles. Several initiatives 
have been launched to promote soil as carbon sink. The Regulation on Land Use, Forestry and 
Agriculture proposes an overall EU target for carbon removals by natural sinks, equivalent to 
310 million tonnes of CO2 emissions by 203086. National targets will require Member States 

82  European  Commission  (2021),  Technical  guidance  handbook:  Setting  up  and  implementing  result-based 

carbon farming mechanisms in the EU 

83 Ronchi S.  et al.  (2019), Policy instruments for soil protection among the  EU  member states:  A comparative 

analysis  

84  Lugato  et  al.  (2014),  Potential  carbon  sequestration  of  European  arable  soils  estimated  by  modelling  a 
comprehensive set of management practices. 
85 https://www.4p1000.org/  
86  Proposal  for  a  revision  of  the  LULUCF  Regulation,  COM(2021)  554,  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0554  

21 

 
 
 
                                                 
to care for and expand their carbon sinks to meet this target. By 2035, the EU should aim to 
reach  climate  neutrality  in  the  land  use,  forestry  and  agriculture  sectors,  including  also 
agricultural non-CO2 emissions, such as those from fertiliser use and livestock. 

One of the initiatives contributing to this target is "4 per 1000", launched by France in 2015 at 
the  COP  21,  to  encourage  stakeholders  to  transition  towards  a  productive,  highly  resilient 
agriculture,  based  on  the  appropriate  management  of  lands  and  soils,  creating  jobs  and 
incomes  hence  ensuring  sustainable  development87.  This  initiative  consists  of  a  voluntary 
action  plan  under  the  Global  Climate  Action  Agenda88  accompanied  with  an  ambitious 
research  programme,  and  ultimately  aiming  at  an  annual  growth  rate  of  0.4%  in  the  soil 
carbon  stocks,  or  4‰  per  year,  in  the  first  30-40  cm  of  soil,  which  would  significantly 
reduce the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. 

The carbon farming initiative 

The European Commission has published the final report of a two-year study on how to set up 
and  implement  carbon  farming  in  the  EU89.  Building  on  this  study  and  on  the  input  from 
several  EU-funded projects  and events,  the Commission  plans to launch the carbon farming 
initiative by the end of 202190. 

The study “Technical Guidance Handbook – setting up and implementing result-based carbon 
farming  mechanisms  in  the  EU”,  carried  out  from  2018  to  2020,  explored  key  issues, 
challenges,  trade-offs  and  design  options  to  develop  carbon  farming.  It  reviewed  existing 
schemes that reward climate-related benefits in five promising areas: peatland restoration and 
rewetting,  agroforestry,  maintaining  and  enhancing  soil  organic  carbon  (SOC)  on  mineral 
soils, managing SOC on grasslands, and livestock farm carbon audit. It also explored how a 
widespread adoption of carbon farming can be triggered in the EU. 

The study concludes that result-based carbon farming can contribute significantly in the EU’s 
efforts to tackle climate change, bringing benefits in terms of carbon sequestration and storage 
and other co-benefits, such as increased biodiversity and preservation of ecosystems. 

Robust  certification  rules  for  carbon  sequestration  in  agriculture  are  the  first  step  to  enable 
farmers to  sell certificates to  private  companies. The  Commission will develop  a  regulatory 
framework  to  monitor  and  verify  the  authenticity  of  carbon  removals  in  agriculture  and 
forestry, providing an additional incentive on top of CAP payments for carbon farming. The 
new  EU  Carbon  Farming  Initiative  will  promote  this  new  business  model.  A  platform  for 
exchange of experiences and mutual learning around the development of result-based carbon 
farming schemes could be part of such initiative, and could facilitate scheme development.  

The  aim  of  the  carbon  farming  study  was  to  produce  technical  guidance  for  setting  up  and 
implementing  result-based  carbon  farming  schemes  in  EU  Member  States  with  reference  to 
opportunities  for  support  under  a  future  CAP.  This  is  intended  to  offset  emission  from  the 
land using sector and to carbon sequestration. The guidance includes information on generic 

87 See "4 per 1000" Initiative website: https://www.4p1000.org  
88 https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/initiatives_en  
89 European Commission (2021), Setting up and implementing result-based carbon farming mechanisms in the 

EU - Technical guidance handbook https://doi.org/10.2834/056153  

90 European Commission (2021), Commission sets the carbon farming initiative in motion 

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/news/commission-sets-carbon-farming-initiative-motion_en  

22 

 
 
                                                 
principles  and  worked  examples  as  to  how  Member  States  could  set  up  carbon  farming 
schemes relevant to arable and livestock management, and land use conversion. 

3.4.2. Considerations for a test-soil-for-free initiative 

Knowing the carbon content of the soil, as well as other key soil characteristics, is the starting 
point  for  each  soil  manager  to  take  decisions  on  adequate  and  sustainable  soil  management 
practices. For this reason, the Soil Strategy launches the test-soil-for-free initiative. Below is 
an estimation of the order of magnitude of the costs that this initiative would imply at EU and 
national level. 

Costs of the test-soil-for-free initiative – a scenario 

A standard soil analysis (based on wet chemistry as in the LUCAS soil survey), including soil 
organic carbon, has currently an indicative cost of around 30 euro per sample (transport costs 
excluded). 

Targeting 10 times the number of the 41,000 LUCAS soil samples (as planned for 2022), that 
is 410,000 free soil tests every year in the EU, would represent a total cost of about EUR 12 
million,  or  27.000  €  per  million  people  per  year  (excluding  transport  costs).  Privileging 
agricultural  holdings  and  limiting  to  one  free  test  each,  in  10  years  about  40%  of  the  10.5 
million agricultural holdings would have had its soil tested under this initiative. Based on the 
experience  on  LUCAS  soil  sample  testing,  the  capacity  for  laboratories  in  the  EU  is  not 
expected to be a limiting factor to deliver such a programme. 

3.4.3.  Soil and circular economy 

Soils and land play an important role in the circular economy, as they store mineral materials, 
but also provide renewable and bio-based resources. Their role in closing the biogeochemical 
cycles for water, nutrients and carbon is crucial. As the formation of topsoil and the recovery 
of  land  and  soil  quality  are  extremely  slow  processes,  soils  can  be  considered  essentially 
as non-renewable resources. Therefore, the sustainable recovery and reuse of land and soil is 
necessary to secure the future provision of natural resources and services for a growing world 
population.  The  circular  economy  provides  a  framework  for  the  management  of  natural 
capital, including land and soil, mineral resources, fossil fuels, water and provides incentives 
for their efficient use and management.91 

3.4.4.  Organic farming, soil health and climate change 

Many management practices used in organic agriculture (e.g. minimum tillage, returning crop 
residues  to  the  soil,  the  use  of  cover  crops  and  rotations,  and  the  greater  integration  of 
nitrogen-fixing  legumes),  increase  biologically  available  SOM  and  beneficial  soil  microbe 
and  invertebrate  activities,  improve  soil  physical  properties,  reduce  disease  potential,  and 
increase plant health.   

91 Breure, A.M. et al. (2018). Soil and land management in a circular economy 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.137  

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and increasing levels in the atmosphere are responsible 
for  climate  change.  Organic  agriculture  has  the  potential  to  contribute  to  mitigating  the 
adverse  impacts  of  climate  change  by  sequestering  atmospheric  carbon  in  the  soil.  Some 
evidence92 showed that organic farming systems sequestered up to 450 kg more atmospheric 
carbon  per  hectare  and  year  through  CO2  bound  into  SOM.  A  synthesis  of  15  years  of 
research93  reveals  an  increase  in  topsoil  organic  carbon  (+25%),  microbial  biomass  (+32%) 
and activity (+34%) and a shift in microbial communities with conversion from ploughing to 
reduced  tillage.  Additional  application  of  composted  manure  has  increased  SOC  by  6% 
compared to pure slurry application, with little impact on soil microbes.  

The general results of the study indicated that SOC stocks were 3.5 tonnes per hectare higher 
in  organic than in  non-organic farming systems.  However, the observed  differences  in  SOC 
stock  under  organic  and  non-organic  farming  seemed  to  be  mainly  influenced  by  practices 
typical  of  mixed  farming,  i.e.  livestock  plus  crop  production,  which  are  characterized  by 
organic matter recycling via manure and forage legumes in the crop rotation. These measures 
are  intrinsic  to  organic  agriculture  but  can,  in  principle,  be  applied  in  any  agricultural 
production system. This proves the importance of sustainable soil management in farming and 
that soil carbon levels under modern agricultural practices are likely to be improved if agro-
ecological  approaches,  such  as  organic  farming,  are  applied  to  any  agricultural  production 
system.  

The Commission has put forward this year a comprehensive Action Plan for the Development 
of Organic Production94 to help Member States stimulate both supply and demand for organic 
through  promotion  campaigns  and  green  public 
products,  ensure  consumer’s 
procurement. The action plan is broken into three interlinked axes that reflect the structure of 
the food supply chain and will be supported by 23 actions, mobilising also different sources of 
funding. 

trust 

In  the  implementation  of  its  Biodiversity  and  Farm  to  Fork  Strategies  and  to  reverse  soil, 
water and air pollution and biodiversity loss, the Commission will take additional actions to 
reduce  the  overall  use  and  risk  of  chemical  pesticides  by  50%,  the  use  of  more  hazardous 
pesticides by 50% and the sale of antimicrobials by 50% by 2030.  It will also act to reduce 
nutrient  losses by at  least  50%, while ensuring that  there is  no deterioration in  soil fertility. 
All  this  will  support  the  development  of  alternative  and  more  environmentally  friendly 
agricultural practises that would reduce soil pollution and foster soil sustainable management 
in agriculture. 

Public interest in healthy food, protection from disease and cultural interest in parks, natural 
habitats  and  wildlife,  broadens  to  the  whole  society  the  stakeholders  with  an  interest  in 
healthy soils and their sustainable management95. 

92 Gattinger, A. et al. (2012), Enhanced top soil carbon stocks under organic farming. 

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1209429109  

93 Krauss, M., et al. (2020), Enhanced soil quality with reduced tillage and solid manures in organic farming – a 

synthesis of 15 years. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61320-8  

94 Communication from the Commission on an action plan for the development of organic production 

COM(2021) 141 

95 EASAC report on Soil Sustainability (2018) 

https://easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/Soil_Sustainability/EASAC_Policy_Report_on_Soil_S
ustainability_September_2018.pdf  

24 

 
 
 
                                                 
3.4.5.  The role of soil biodiversity for above-ground biodiversity and human health 

Soils are living ecosystems, approximately half air and water, 45% minerals, and 5% organic 
matter. Of that 5%, only 10% is alive, but that 10% contains some of the greatest biodiversity 
in  the  biosphere96.  Soil  organisms  include  earthworms,  mites,  centipedes  and  millipedes, 
tardigrades,  springtails,  ants,  ground  beetles,  nematodes,  protists,  fungi  and  bacteria,  but  by 
far the most abundant are microorganisms (fungi and bacteria) and microfauna (nematodes). 

Figure  3:  approximate  number  and  diversity  of  organisms  typically  found  in  a  handful  of 
grassland soil97 

Soils are one of the main global reservoirs of biodiversity. By one set of estimates, they host 
one  fourth  of  world  biodiversity,  while  more  than  more  than  40%  of  living  organisms  in 
terrestrial ecosystems are associated during their life-cycle directly with soils98. 

Soil  organisms  form  food  webs  which  drive  soil  ecosystem  processes,  including  nutrient 
cycling,  carbon  sequestration,  nitrogen  storage  and  water  purification99.  Soil  organisms  are 
also  source  of  compounds  for  medical  purposes.  However,  due  to  an  increasing  use  of 
antibiotics  for  farming, 
in  soil 
microorganisms (i.e. bacteria) is becoming an issue of relevance for animal and human health. 
Nonetheless,  a  complete  understanding  on  large-scale  distribution  of  soil  AMR  genes  (i.e. 
genes  that  lead  to  antimicrobial  resistance)  is  missing.  Filling  such  knowledge  gap  could 

the  diffusion  of  antimicrobial  resistance  (AMR) 

96 Dasgupta, P., The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review – Full Report 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/final-report-the-economics-of-biodiversity-the-dasgupta-
review  

97 Joint Research Centre, webpage “Soil Biodiversity” https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/themes/soil-biodiversity  
98 FAO (2020), State of Knowledge of Soil Biodiversity http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb1928en/  
99 FAO (2020), State of Knowledge of Soil Biodiversity http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb1928en/  

25 

 
 
 
                                                 
assure  for  better  development  of  risk  assessments  for  AMR  within  agriculture,  and  risks 
analysis through the food chain to animals and humans.   

Advances  in  environmental  genomics  have  revealed  the  enormous  diversity  of  fungi  and 
bacteria  associated  with  plant  roots.  They  play  diverse  roles,  for  example  promoting  plant 
growth  through  enhancing  plant  nutrition  and  protecting  plants  from  herbivores  and 
pathogens100  The  total  biomass  belowground  generally  equals  or  exceeds  that  aboveground, 
whilst the biodiversity in the soil always exceeds that on the associated surface by orders of 
magnitude, particularly at the microbial scale101. 

Soil biodiversity provides essential ecosystem services102 for human wellbeing: 

100 Orgiazzi, A. et al. (2018), LUCAS Soil, the largest expandable soil dataset for Europe: a review 

https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12499  

101 FAO (2020), State of Knowledge of Soil Biodiversity http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb1928en/  
102 FAO (2020), State of Knowledge of Soil Biodiversity http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb1928en/  

26 

 
 
                                                 
Figure  4:  a  conceptual  scheme  of  the  relationship  between  soil  biodiversity,  ecosystem 
services and human wellbeing103 

Three concrete examples of provisioning services:  

  The enormous network of fungi connects tiny roots (rootlets) to a wider array of soil 
nutrients  (e.g.  phosphorus)  and  water.  This  helps  plants  growing  and  is  vital  in  the 
food chain.  

103  FAO  (2020),  State  of  Knowledge  of  Soil  Biodiversity  http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb1928en/, 

page 125 

27 

 
 
   
                                                 
  Soils  are  also  a  major  reservoir  for  medicines:  over  75%  of  antibacterial  agents  and 
60% of new cancer drugs approved between 1983 and 1994 had their origin in soils, as 
did 60% of all newly approved drugs between 1989 and 1995104. 

  Soil microorganisms, especially fungi, can be used for bioremediation purposes. Due 
to their capability to degrade toxic compounds and pollutants, they can be applied to 
(soil) restoration processes105. 

What leads to soil biodiversity loss?  

Factors that lead to biodiversity loss include habitat fragmentation, invasive species, climate 
change, urban sprawl over soils, soil erosion, and soil pollution such as mineral fertilisers and 
pesticides.  ).  These  specific  soil-related  pressures  are  affecting  organisms  to  an  extent  still 
difficult to be quantified. The rate of soil biodiversity loss and number of endangered species 
remain poorly investigated. The 2016 Global Soil Biodiversity Atlas106 was the first attempt 
to  map  life  in  soil  at  a  global  scale.  When  threats  to  soil  biodiversity  are  mapped,  areas  at 
high-risk often correspond with areas of highest soil biodiversity.  

104 P., The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review – Full Report 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/final-report-the-economics-of-biodiversity-the-dasgupta-
review  

105 Thanner, S. et al. (2016), Antimicrobial resistance in agriculture. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.02227-15  
106 Joint Research Centre (2016), Global Soil Biodiversity Atlas https://doi.org/10.2788/2613  

28 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure  5:  map  of  the  level  of  risk  for  soil  biodiversity.  The  risk  for  soil  biodiversity  was 
generated by combining the threat associated to 13 possible stressors: climate change, land - 
use change, habitat fragmentation, intensive human exploitation, soil organic matter decline, 
industrial  pollution,  nuclear  pollution,  soil  compaction,  soil  erosion,  soil  sealing,  soil 
salinization, the use of GMOs in agriculture, and invasive species107. 

What happens when the diversity of life within soil is lost?  

Reduction in soil biodiversity contributes to a loss of above-ground biodiversity, promotion of 
global  warming  and  eutrophication  of  surface  water.  Decline  in  soil  biodiversity  causes 
reduced  performance  of  essential  processes,  and  land  managers  compensate  this  often  by 
applying fertilisers at a significant economic and ecological cost. If soil biodiversity would be 
completely lost, the land-based food system would cease to function108. In order to assess the 
status  of  soil  biodiversity  and  halt  its  potential  loss,  an  EU  monitoring  scheme  on 
belowground  life  is  critical.  The  Commission  is  currently  assessing  for  the  first  time  the 
presence of soil micro-organisms, veterinary antibiotics and antimicrobial resistance genes in 
European soils through the LUCAS soil survey. The results are expected in 2022. 

Knowledge gaps on soil biodiversity 

These are the main knowledge gaps identified on soil biodiversity: 

  Assess vulnerability of soil biota under different  environmental pressures, in natural, 

urban and agricultural ecosystems; 

  Assess  the  role  of  soil  biodiversity  in  the  nutrient,  carbon  and  water  cycle  and  how 

land management affect this role; 

  Develop methods and technologies for ensuring the recovery of soil biota; 
  Support  the  creation  and  publication  of  training  and  information  material  on  soil 

biodiversity and advice farmers on such practices; 

  Assessment  of  the  risks  of  soil  contamination  from  hazardous  chemicals  on  soil 

biodiversity. 

3.4.6.  Preventing soil contamination 

The  EU  acquis  is  already  relatively  well  equipped  with  legislation  to  prevent  the  release  of 
emissions into the environment and soil. Several policies are in place for specific chemicals 
(e.g.  mercury,  persistent  organic  pollutants),  product  groups  (e.g.  pesticides,  fertilizers, 
biocides,  sludge,  feed  additives,  manure),  sectors  (e.g.  agriculture,  industrial  emissions, 
waste) or environmental media (air, water). Pharmaceutical and antimicrobial residues in the 
soil  can  have  a  negative  impact  on  biodiversity  above  and  below  ground.  Antimicrobial 
resistance  is  estimated  to  be  responsible  for  more  than  33,000  deaths  per  year109  and  costs 
about EUR 1.1 billion to the European health care system.110  

107 Potential threats to soil biodiversity | EU Science Hub (europa.eu) https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/science-

update/potential-threats-soil-biodiversity  

108 Dasgupta, P. (2021), The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review – Full Report  
109 Cassini et al. (2018), Attributable deaths and disability-adjusted life-years caused by infections with antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the EU 
and the European Economic Area in 2015 

110 OECD (2019), Antimicrobial resistance: tackling the burden in the EU 

29 

 
 
 
                                                 
The Commission will revise the Industrial Emissions Directive by end 2021 and consider the 
possible extension of the scope. The Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive will be revised 
by 2022 to significantly reduce use, risk and dependency on pesticides and enhance Integrated 
Pest Management. In the coming years, the Commission will also review the waste legislation 
and revise the Mercury Regulation, the Air Quality Directives, which will  further contribute 
to the prevention of diffuse soil pollution and atmospheric deposition.    

3.4.7.  Remediation of soil contamination and brownfields 

In accordance with the zero pollution hierarchy, soil remediation should be the solution of last 
resort,  when  prevention,  minimization  and  source  control  of  pollution  has  failed  and  when 
contaminants have been able to reach the soil and pose risks for the environment and human 
health. Local or point-source soil pollution is usually caused by industrial or commercial risk 
activities, inappropriate waste disposal, storage of hazardous substances but also by accidents, 
spills  or  military  activities.  The  Industrial  Emissions  Directive  and  the  Environmental 
Liability Directive contain important provisions to remediate new soil contamination caused 
by certain risk activities. The Commission will evaluate the Environmental Liability Directive 
and the provisions on land damage by 2023. 

A  recent  exchange  of  information  specifically  on  soil  contamination  with  mercury,  showed 
that  the  small  country  of  Belgium  was  able  to  identify  more  than  1600  sites  that  are 
contaminated  with  mercury.  On  the  other  end  of  the  spectrum,  there  are  several  Member 
States that claimed not to have any case of mercury contamination. There is no indication that 
Belgium is more “dirty” than other countries, but it has very stringent contamination laws in 
place  with  a  systematic  and  mandatory  soil  investigation  for  all  potentially  polluting  risk 
activities. Without such investigation, the land cannot be sold. Such systematic and stringent 
approach coupled to land transfer with a mandatory soil certificate to inform the buyer of land 
on the quality of the soil, is the key to success in Flanders and Brussels.  

Implementation of EU-wide soil legislation with common soil investigation and remediation 
obligations  could  bring  significant  economic  benefits  and  competitive  advantages. 
Employment in the remediation sector could increase with 25000 jobs, while the turnover of 
the remediation industry could be boosted with 1.85 billion euro per year. Current differences 
between  Member  States  in  the  level  of  ambition  and  the  efforts  to  identify  and  register 
(potentially)  contaminated  sites  result  in  legal  uncertainty  for  companies  because  their  cost 
base  to  deal  with  contamination  and  remediation  depends  on  the  Member  State  where  their 
business  is  located.  In  this  way,  a  high  level  of  environmental  protection  could  become  a 
handicap  instead  of  an  advantage  in  the  competition  between  Member  States.  At  the  same 
time, this leads also to national differences in the maturity levels of the remediation sector. In 
2013, about half of EU Member States had a low  to inexistent national remediation market. 
This is likely to have an impact for the entire European Union on the quality of the services, 
the price, the available expertise and the innovation potential of this economic sector. 111          

Here  after  are  presented  the  data  on  contaminated  and  remediated  sites  as  reported  by  the 
Member States in 2018112 

111 Ernst & Young (2013). Evaluation of expenditure and jobs for addressing soil contamination in Member 

States. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/pdf/Soil_contamination_expenditure_jobs.pdf  

112 JRC (2018). Status of local soil contamination in Europe. 

https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC107508; EEA Land and Soil Indicator Set LSI 

30 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
Table  3:  summary  of  progress  in  the  management  of  potentially  contaminated  sites,  as 
declared by EEA countries113 

3.4.8.  Soil and the digital agenda 

New techniques like artificial intelligence, machine learning, cloud computing and data cubes 
allow  to  process  and  analyse  the  exponentially  increasing  quantities  of  environmental  data. 
The ongoing digital transformation should in the end result in impactful solutions, e.g. smart 
sensors,  digital  soil  mapping,  decision  support  systems,  learning  models  and  algorithms,  or 
smartphone  applications  for  use  in  environmental  compliance,  digital  and  precision 
agriculture, (citizen) science, foresight capability and policy information.  

The Copernicus Earth Observation and Monitoring Programme is indispensable for providing 
geo-intelligence  to  the  benefit  of  all  European  citizens.  Based  on  satellite  and  in-situ 
observations, Copernicus services deliver near-real-time data on a global level, to help better 
understanding  our  soil  and  land  and  to  sustainably  manage  the  environment,  as  well  as 
support the management of emergencies, environmental compliance and civil security. 

The  European  Environment  Agency  will  further  develop  the  Land  Information  System  for 
Europe  (LISE),  comparable  to  FISE  for  forests,  WISE  for  water  and  BISE  for  biodiversity. 

003 ‘progress in the management of contaminated sites. https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-
maps/indicators/progress-in-management-of-contaminated-sites-3/  

113  JRC  Publications  Repository  -  Status  of  local  soil  contamination  in  Europe:  Revision  of  the  indicator 

“Progress in the management contaminated sites in Europe” (europa.eu)  

31 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
The  system  aims  to  be  based  mainly  on  the  products  of  the  Copernicus  Land  Monitoring 
Service and bring together all data on land use (change) and land cover. The LISE would be 
the  counterpart  for  land  of  the  EU  soil  observatory  and  build  further  inter  alia  on  the 
interactive land take, soil moisture and imperviousness viewers, that give a good overview of 
the situation in EU and EEA-38. With the support of the European Environment Agency, in 
particular  land  take,  land  recycling,  soil  sealing  and  soil  moisture  will  be  monitored  more 
frequently  and  in  a  more  harmonized  way.  The  LISE  will  indicate  land  under  stress  (or 
improvement) by providing geospatial and statistical information on the status and trends in 
the condition of our land resources. By identifying potential impacts of human activities, such 
as intensive land use or urbanisation, potential research needs can be identified and decision‐
makers may be empowered to take appropriate action. Remote sensing has demonstrated its 
capacities to map and monitor soil and soil related parameters such as soil moisture under the 
ESA  Climate  Change  Initiative114  or  soil  water  indices,  land  surface  temperature,  and  land 
cover change, e.g. under the Copernicus land monitoring service115. 

3.4.9.  Soil monitoring 

The EU Soil Observatory (EUSO)116 has been launched recently to inform policy-makers and 
stakeholders in a transparent, tailored and concise manner about the status and findings of the 
latest scientific evidence relating to soil. It is being designed to be a 'one-stop-shop' for soil 
information and includes communities of practice. The EUSO will support the Soil Strategy 
by  being  a  reservoir  of  knowledge  and  data.  The  EUSO  –  supported  and  complemented  by 
activities,  funding  and  data  generated  under  the  Mission  ’A  Soil  Deal  for  Europe’  -  will 
facilitate,  together  with  Member  States  and  the  EEA,  the  establishment  of  an  EU  soil 
monitoring system using the principles of the INSPIRE Directive117 for building a shared data 
infrastructure, and for integrating existing initiatives such as the LUCAS Soil system, national 
reporting  under  the  NEC  Directive118  and  LULUCF  Regulation119..  The  EUSO  will  also 
develop  cooperation  and  coordination  on  soil  monitoring  with  international  organizations. 
Based on monitoring and modelling activities, the EUSO will establish a dashboard of policy-
relevant  indicators  to  assess  progress  in  soil  restoration  across  the  EU.  Finally,  with  the 
Mission  ’A  Soil  Deal  for  Europe’,  the  EUSO  will  support  increased  efforts  to  raise  soil 
literacy  among  diverse  stakeholder  groups  and  act  as  a  repository  of  R&I  actions  under 
Horizon Europe. 

114 https://www.esa-soilmoisture-cci.org/  
115 https://www.copernicus.eu/en/copernicus-services/land  
116 EU Soil Observatory (EUSO) | EU Science Hub (europa.eu) https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/eu-soil-observatory  
117 Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an 

Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

118 Directive (EU) 2016/2284 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016 on the 

reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants.  

119 Proposal for a revision of the LULUCF Regulation, COM(2021) 554, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0554 

32 

 
 
 
                                                 
Knowledge 
Centre for 
Global Food 
and Nutrition 
Security

EU Drought 
Observatory

EU Soil 
Observatory

Knowledge 
Centre for 
Bioeconomy

Knowledge 
Centre on Earth 
Observation

EU Observatory 
on 
Deforestation

Knowledge 
Centre for 
Biodiversity

Figure 6: EU Soil Observatory connections 

4.  HOW TO ACHIEVE COMMITMENTS  

4.1. A strategic approach 

The Soil Strategy derives a long-term vision for soil from the ambition of the European Green 
Deal and lists the key existing objectives and targets for the medium and long term where soil 
policy  is  called  to  contribute.  Consistently  with  the  vision  and  the  targets,  the  soil  strategy 
then  designs  the  set  of  actions  to  be  implemented  in  the  short  and  medium  term  to  allow 
achieving the targets and ultimately the vision. 

The actions set in the Strategy: 

  Commit the European Commission to deliver on soil policy with both legislative and 

non-legislative instruments, and to mobilize societal efforts; 

  Call for voluntary actions  from Member States  to provide essential  contributions for 

achieving the goals. 

While the actions are initiated at EU and national level, they require coordinated contributions 
from all societal actors to achieve the needed transformation.  

The adoption of the EU Soil Strategy represents only the starting point of the transformation. 
The  implementation  will  be  the  critical  process  determining  the  success  in  achieving  the 
objectives  and  eventually  the  vision.  The  implementation  of  the  strategy  and  its  action  plan 
will build on existing good practices and successful examples in order to optimise the chances 
of success and maximise the impact.  

There exist already some collections of good practices related to soil, for example to achieve 
soil  and  land-related  SDGs120,  on  sustainable  land  management  at  global  level121,  or  in  the 
form  of guidelines (e.g.  the guidelines on best  practice to  limit, mitigate or compensate soil 

120 Keesstra, S.D. et al. (2020), Providing support in relation to the implementation of soil and land related 

Sustainable Development Goals at EU level. https://edepot.wur.nl/531395  
121 UNCCD, WOCAT SLM database. https://www.wocat.net/en/global-slm-database/  

33 

 
 
 
                                                 
sealing122 or the Voluntary Guidelines for Sustainable Soil Management123). Others will need 
to be built up, enriched or updated in support of action implementation. 

Box 1 and 2 below present a selection of good practices of sustainable soil management for 
climate adaptation and concrete measures to address desertification. 

Box 1: examples of sustainable soil management practises for climate adaptation  

  The LIFE HelpSoil project implemented and tested innovative soil conservation practises 
to make agricultural systems more resilient to climate change in the Lombardia region124. 
The practices improved soil characteristics, including SOC content and biological fertility, 
and  led  to  a  more  efficient  use  of  irrigation  water,  fertilisers  and  pesticides  in  the 
experimental plots. 

  The  pilot  initiatives  developed  by  the  SOLMACC  LIFE  project  confirmed  the  technical 
feasibility, climate mitigation and adaptation effects of climate-friendly farming practices 
implemented on 12 organic farms in Sweden, Germany and Italy125. 

  Agroforestry implementation in Montpellier resulted in a 40% productivity increase while 

improving soil, water quality and biodiversity126.  

  Using  mycorrhizal  fungi  in  degraded/damaged  soils  enables  strong  underground  plant 

networks which grant resilience and enhance carbon sequestration127. 

Box 2: examples of concrete measures to address desertification 

Internationally,  programmes  to  combat  desertification  such  as  the  Great  Green  Wall  in 
Africa128,  mobilized  attention  and  efforts  to  revert  the  negative  trend,  showing  that  positive 
results are possible and that locally adapted solutions are needed.  

In  the  EU,  there  are  local  projects  that  have  already  shown  successful  results  of  concrete 
measures. Here are some examples:   

  Planting  bushes  and  tree  in  dry  areas  using  the  innovation  proved  successful  by  LIFE 

project “Cocoon”129  

122 European Commission Staff Working Document for information purposes on Guidelines on best practice to 

limit, mitigate or compensate soil sealing SWD(2012) 101 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/pdf/guidelines/pub/soil_en.pdf  

123 http://www.fao.org/land-water/land/land-governance/land-resources-planning-

toolbox/category/details/en/c/1043063/  

124 Perego A. et al. (2018), Agro-environmental aspects of conservation agriculture compared to conventional 

systems: A 3-year experience on 20 farms in the Po valley (Northern Italy), 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.10.008  

125 SOLMACC LIFE project website. https://solmacc.eu/  
126 Climate-ADAPT Case study “Agroforestry: agriculture of the future? The case of Montpellier” 

https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/case-studies/agroforestry-agriculture-of-the-future-the-case-of-
montpellier 

127 Zhi-Gang Wang et al. (2016), Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi enhance soil carbon sequestration in the 

coalfields, northwest China. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep34336  

128 Co-funded by the EU; see http://www.grandemurailleverte.org/ http://www.grandemurailleverte.org/ 

http://www.grandemurailleverte.org/ http://www.grandemurailleverte.org/  

129 ‘Cocoon’ tree growing counters desertification in the Mediterranean 

https://web.archive.org/web/20210413080432/https://ec.europa.eu/easme/en/news/cocoon-tree-growing-
counters-desertification-mediterranean  

34 

 
 
 
                                                 
  A 20-year large-scale dryland restoration initiative to halt desertification and erosion and 
bring back prosperity in Southern Spain130, with soil regenerative techniques and organic 
products.  

  A  forest  fire  prevention  training  program  in  Hungary  (LIFE  project)  succeeded  in 

reducing 5 times the extension of fires131 

  The  LIFE  preparatory  project  NewLife4Drylands132  started  in  2021  is  developing  a 
monitoring  solution  from  satellite  to  assess  the  effectiveness  of  local  measures 
implemented to address desertification. 

4.2. Enablers  

4.2.1.  Funding 

Soil degradation does not only aggravate climate change and biodiversity loss, but also threats 
the  economy  and  the  future  of  the  current  and  next  generations.  It  represents  considerable 
risks  and  costs,  which  are  usually  not  properly  reflected  in  the  price  of  goods  and  services. 
Investing in soil health makes sound economic sense and comes with several co-benefits and 
long-term returns for the economy, the society and the environment.  

The  LIFE  programme  contributes  to  the  protection,  restoration  and  improvement  of  the 
environment  including  soils.  It  financially  supports  the  development  and  demonstration  of 
innovative  solutions  to  reach  the  objectives  of  EU  soil  policy,  and  on  the  other  hand,  the 
development,  implementation,  monitoring  and  enforcement  of  relevant  environmental 
policies.  LIFE  can  act  as  a  catalyst  for  large-scale  deployment  of  successful  technical  and 
policy-related  solutions  for  the  prevention  and  restoration  of  soil  degradation.  A  call  for 
project proposals is launched every year based on the priorities set in the Multi-Annual Work 
Programme.  

to 

the  sustainable  development  of  rural  areas 

The  Common  Agricultural  Policy  with  a  yearly  budget  of  55.7  billion  euro  in  2021 
contributes 
the 
competitiveness  of  agriculture  and  forestry,  by  ensuring  sustainable  management  of  natural 
resources  and  soils,  and  by  balanced  territorial  development  of  rural  economies.  Specific 
priorities  and  focus  areas  are  defined  by  national  and  regional  authorities  in  the  Rural 
Development Programmes.  

improving 

through 

The  European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF)  and  Cohesion  Fund  with  a  total 
budget  of  234  billion  euro  aim  to  strengthen  the  EU’s  economic,  social  and  territorial 
cohesion by supporting the transition to a greener and carbon free Europe. This includes the 
protection  of  nature,  biodiversity  and  green  infrastructure  including  in  cities,  and  the 
rehabilitation  of  contaminated  land.  Member  States  and  regional  authorities  set  out  the 
priorities  for  their  territory  in  the  programmes.  The  ERDF  also  supports  programmes  for 
cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation. 

130 COMMONLAND website. https://www.commonland.com/landscapes/the-starting-point-is-inspiration-

proving-change-is-possible/  

131 Project FIRELIFE website. 

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=50
62  

132 NewLife4Drylands project website https://www.eepf.gr/en/project/actions/works-in-

progress/newlife4drylands  

35 

 
 
                                                 
The Just Transition Fund with a total budget of 17.5 billion euro enables regions and people 
to address the social, economic and environmental impacts of the transition towards a climate-
neutral  economy.  Investments  in  regeneration and decontamination  of sites,  land restoration 
and  repurposing  projects  are  eligible  when  these  help  to  achieve  climate  neutrality,  e.g.  the 
remediation of former coal mines that are put out of commission. 

Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility  makes  672.5  billion  euro  (in  2018  prices)  in  loans  and 
grants available to support Member States with the green transition, among others. One of the 
key requirements of the RRF Regulation is that 37% of the allocated funds in each recovery 
and resilience plan have to support climate objectives. Along with delivering on the climate 
ambition,  the  measures  supported  by  the  RRF  will  also  ensure  progress  towards  other 
environmental  objectives  such  as  reducing  air  pollution,  promoting  the  circular  economy  or 
restoring and protecting biodiversity. Rehabilitation of industrial sites and contaminated land 
is  also  an  eligible  field  of  intervention.  Additionally,  every  single  reform  or  investment 
included  in  the  Recovery  and  Resilience  Plans  will  need  to  respect  the  ‘do  no  significant 
harm’  principle.  This  means  that  no  measure  will  come  at  the  detriment  of  any  of  the  six 
environmental and climate objectives defined by the EU taxonomy, including land pollution 
prevention and the protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems. The RRF will be 
supporting the soil improvement action in 6 Member States (AT, BE, DK, FI, IE and IT) and 
at  least  2  Member  States  have  come  with  reforms  in  this  area  (a  legislative  framework  on 
sustainable nutrition of soil in ES and a soil protection strategy in AT).  

The  Technical  Support  Instrument  (TSI)  provides  technical  support  to  design  and 
implement reforms in EU Member States. The support is provided upon request across a wide 
range  of  policy  areas,  such  as  the  implementation  of  the  EU  Soil  Strategy  at  Member  State 
level in the context of EU priorities such as the green and the digital transition. 

Horizon  Europe  is  the  EU’s  funding  programme  for  research  and  innovation  with  a  total 
budget  of  95.5  billion  euro.  It  provides  support  to  knowledge  development  to  tackle  global 
challenges  and  European  industrial  competitiveness.  Cluster  6  of  Horizon  Europe  (food, 
bioeconomy,  natural  resources,  agriculture  and  environment)  offers  particular  opportunities 
for soil-related  research  and innovation. Key orientations  are set  in  the strategic plan, while 
the  specific  priorities  are  defined  in  work  programmes.  Calls  for  proposal  are  launched  for 
very specific topics. The programme also allocates funding for the Mission ’A Soil Deal for 
Europe’. The mission will be implemented around four building blocks including (1) an R&I 
programme  with  a  strong  social  sciences  component,  (2)  a  network  of  living  labs  and 
lighthouses,  (3)  a  soil  monitoring  programme  and  (4)  training,  communication  and  citizen 
engagement.  While  rooted  in  research,  the  Mission  will  connect  with  other  funding 
programmes and policies. It will be implemented in collaboration across Commission services 
(the  Mission  Owners),  led  by  the  Mission  Manager  at  DG  AGRI  and  the  Deputy  Mission 
Manager at DG Research.  

Horizon Europe intends to co-fund several EU partnerships, amongst others the partnership 
for the assessment of the risks of chemicals, the partnership on agro-ecology living labs and 
research  infrastructures,  the  partnership  Agriculture  of  Data,    the  partnership  for  rescuing 
biodiversity,  the  partnership  for  safe  and  sustainable  food  systems  and  the  partnership  for  a 
circular bio-based Europe. 

36 

 
 
Common 
Agricultural
Policy

European 
Regional 
Development 
Fund

LIFE 
Programme

EU funds for 
sustainable 
management
and restoration 
of soils 

Cohesion 
Fund

Recovery 
and 
Resilience 
Facility

Horizon 
Europe & 
Mission on 
Soil

Just 
Transition 
Fund

Figure  7:  opportunities  for  funding  sustainable  management  and  restoration  of  soils  at  EU 
level 

4.2.2. Governance 

The current soil governance in the EU includes the following platforms and networks:  

  The Commission Expert Group to implement the soil protection provisions of the 7th 
EAP133  (in  short  EU  Soil  Expert  Group),  has  been  created  in  2015  to  “reflect  with 
Member  States  on  how  soil  quality  issues  could  be  addressed  using  a  targeted  and 
proportionate risk-based approach within a binding legal framework”. Since 2015 the 
group  has  allowed  to  exchange  views  between  the  Commission  and  EU  Member 
States on how soil quality issues could be addressed.  

  The  European  Environment  Information  and  Observation  Network  (EIONET)  is  a 
partnership network of the European Environment Agency (EEA) and its member and 
cooperating countries. EIONET brings together experts from national institutions and 
other bodies involved in  environmental information; it also includes seven European 
Topic  Centres  (ETCs)  dealing  with  specific  environmental  topics134.  EIONET  is  the 
key actor to  support the provision  of comprehensive and harmonized information  on 
soil  from  EU  MS,  which  will  allow  an  adequate  policy  monitoring  tool  for  the 

133 European Commission webpage: “Register of Commission Expert Groups and Other Similar Entities”. 

https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/home  

134 EIONET Portal website. https://www.eionet.europa.eu/ https://www.eionet.europa.eu/  

37 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
implementation  of  the  Soil  Strategy,  the  achievement  of  soil  objectives,  as  well 
integrating soil information into the 8th EAP overall monitoring. 

  The  European  Soil  Partnership  (ESP)  is  a  regional  structure  of  the  Global  Soil 
Partnership135 at FAO. ESP works in close collaboration with FAO Regional Offices 
and  establishing  an  interactive  consultative  process  with  national  soil  entities 
intending to actively contribute to sustainable soil management in Europe 

  The  EU  Network  for  the  Implementation  and  Enforcement  of  Environmental  Law 
(IMPEL)  consists  of  public  authorities  that  implement  and  enforce  environmental 
legislation.  IMPEL  facilitates  exchange  of  knowledge  and  good  practices,  develops 
guidance documents and coordinates action between Member States. ‘Water and land’ 
is one of the focus areas of IMPEL where the network reflects on the implementation 
of  the  Soil  Thematic  Strategy,  the  Water  Framework  Directive  and  the  Nitrates 
Directive. 

  The Mission  Board has  been instrumental in  developing the concept  for the Horizon 
Europe Mission ‘A Soil Deal for Europe’. The current board will be renewed in 2022 
and  will  support  the  Commission  in  monitoring  and  steering  the  roll-out  of  the 
mission. Close cooperation between the Board of the Soil Deal  mission and the Soil 
Expert  Group  is  essential  for  exchanging  information  and  effective  coordination  of 
planned activities under the Mission and the Soil Strategy.  

Furthermore,  other  EU  platforms,  such  as  the  EU  macro-regional  strategies136,  support 
coordinated and joint actions also in the field of soil137. 

There  are  several  examples  of  existing  networks  and  initiatives  that  promote  informed 
sustainable choices for soil health and reward sustainable soil management practices, such as 
European Soil Bureau Network, European Network on Soil Awareness (ENSA)138, European 
Land  &  Soil  Alliance  (ELSA)139,  European  Society  for  Soil  Conservation  (ESSC)140,  Soil 
Award141,  Soil  heroes  foundation142,  Soil  index143,  Soilmates144,  Slow  Food  Foundation145, 
Europe  Soil  Group146,  Solar  Impulse  Foundation147,  WWF  Living  Planet  Report148  or 
People4Soil149, SoilCare150, Friends of the Earth151. 

135 FAO, Global Soil Partnership website, http://www.fao.org/global-soil-partnership/en/  
136 https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/cooperation/macro-regional-strategies/ 
137  Example:  The  project  “Impulse4Action”,  developed  in  the  framework  of  the  EU  Strategy  for  the  Alpine 
(Alpine  Region  Preparatory  Action  Fund): 

(EUSALP)  and  co-financed  by  ARPAF 

Region 
https://www.impuls4action.eu/home 

138 JRC EUROPEAN SOIL DATA CENTRE website. https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/event/european-network-

soil-awareness-ensa  

139 ELSA website. http://www.bodenbuendnis.org/en  
140 ESSC website. http://www.soilconservation.eu  
141 ELO, Land and Soil Management Award website. https://www.europeanlandowners.org/awards/soil-land-

award  

142 Soil Heroes Foundation website. https://www.soilheroes.com/the-foundation  
143 Rabobank (2019), Soil health for stronger farms? We can measure that. 

https://www.rabobank.com/en/raboworld/articles/soil-health-for-stronger-farms-we-can-measure-that.html  

144 Soilmates website. https://soilmates.be  
145 Slow Food Foundation for Biodiversity website. https://www.fondazioneslowfood.com/en/our-

themes/biodiversity/monitoring-biodiversity/the-soil-is-life-health-and-biodiversity-so-lets-save-it  

146 Gruppo Suolo Europa website. https://angelidelsuolo.wordpress.com  
147 Solar Impulse website. https://solarimpulse.com: among the 1000+ solutions to protect the environment 

selected to be at the same time efficient and profitable, 4 concern soil health: microbial soil fertilisation, a 

38 

 
 
                                                 
 
4.2.3.  Promoting and contributing to global action 

At international level there is growing awareness on land and soil degradation and the need to 
preserve and restore these essential natural resources. This evolution is reflected in the agenda 
of several international conventions and UN agencies, and is expected to have a big impact on 
the soil policy of the European Union and its Member States.  
United Nations: the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development152. 

Although “soils are not explicitly mentioned” in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 
and the UN  agenda  2030, soil is  addressed in  and builds the basis of numerous SDGs even 
though involvement of soil scientists in articulating the SDGs has so far been limited153. 

steam technology as alternative to pesticides, a bio-solution for contaminated sites, mobile on-site soil and 
wastewater treatment machine; another one concerns reducing landfilling of excavated soils by reusing 
them. 

148 WWF, Living Planet Report website. https://livingplanet.panda.org/en-US/about-the-living-planet-report  
149 The Environmental Pillar website. https://environmentalpillar.ie/who-are-people4soil  
150 SoilCare website. https://www.soilcare-project.eu  
151 Friends of the Earth (2021), Soil Health & Pesticides Study. https://foe.org/soil-health  
152 United Nations, Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. 

https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda  

153 Lal, R. et al. (2021), Soils and sustainable development goals of the United Nations: An International Union 

of Soil Sciences perspective. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2021.e00398  

39 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
Figure 8: addressing soil and land degradation is relevant and synergistic in achieving all the 
SDGs154. 

Sustainable soil management practices are key factors in achieving SDGs 2 “Zero Hunger”, 6 
“Clean Water  and Sanitation”, 7 “Affordable and Clean Energy”, 13  “Climate Action”,  and 
15  “Life  on  Land”  are  especially  interconnected  with  soil  parameters  and  functions,  while 
soils  may  also  play  a  substantial  role  in  others  e.g.  3  “Good  Health  and  Wellbeing”,  12 
“Responsible  Consumption  and  Production”,  14  “Life  below  Water”  and  SDG  1  “End 
Poverty”. SDG 12 is mentioned less often in connection with soil, although soil is central to 
this  goal.  Importance  of  soil  is  specifically  mentioned  in  Target  12.2  (Sustainable 

154 Keesstra, S.D. et al. (2020), Implementation of soil and land related Sustainable Development Goals at EU 

level. https://edepot.wur.nl/531395  

40 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
management  and  use  of  natural  resources),  Target  12.3  (Global  Food  loss)  and  Target  12.5 
(Substantially reduce waste generation)155. 

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) 

Since its adoption in 1994 and entry into force in 1996, the UNCCD combats desertification 
and mitigates  the  effects of drought in  countries  experiencing  desertification,  particularly in 
Africa, through international cooperation and partnership arrangements. All 196 Parties have 
obligations  in  terms  of  the  collection  of  information,  research,  capacity  building  and  the 
financial  support  of  countries  affected  by  desertification.  Thirteen  EU  Member  States  have 
declared  themselves  as  affected  by  desertification,  based  on  their  own  self-assessments: 
Bulgaria, Greece, Spain, Croatia,  Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Hungary, Malta, Portugal, Romania, 
Slovenia  and  Slovakia.  These  affected  Parties  have  to  develop  and  carry  out  national,  sub-
regional  and  regional  action  programmes  in  close  cooperation  with  the  local  stakeholders. 
Several Member States are declared as affected parties. The UNCCD is active on the concrete 
development  and  the  implementation  of  the  land  degradation-neutrality  (LDN)  principle 
enshrined in the SDG target 15.3. The LDN objective is to compensate losses with gains, and 
to achieve a position of no net loss of healthy and productive land. 

Convention on Biological Diversity (Biodiversity Convention, CBD) 

The Earth's biological resources are vital to our economic and social development but human 
activities are taking a toll on many animal and plant species. After its adoption in 1992 and 
entry into force in 1996, the Convention on Biological Diversity pursued the global protection 
of  biodiversity  and  the  sustainable  use  of  biological  resources,  and  also  addressed  soil 
biodiversity. The Conference of the Parties decided "to establish an International Initiative for 
the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Soil Biodiversity as a cross-cutting initiative within 
the  programme  of  work  on  agricultural  biodiversity,  and  invited  the  Food  and  Agriculture 
Organization  of  the  United  Nations,  and  other  relevant  organizations,  to  facilitate  and 
coordinate this initiative". This cross-cutting initiative aims to increase the recognition of the 
essential services provided by soil biodiversity across all production systems and its relation 
to  land  management,  to  share  information,  and  to  increase  public  awareness,  education  and 
capacity-building.  

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 

The  UNFCCC  was  adopted  in  1992  and  aims  to  achieve  stabilization  of  greenhouse  gas 
concentrations  in  the  atmosphere  at  a  level  that  would  prevent  dangerous  anthropogenic 
interference with the climate system. Such a level should allow ecosystems to adapt naturally 
to  climate  change,  to  ensure  that  food  production  is  not  threatened  and  to  enable  economic 
development  to  proceed  in  a  sustainable  manner.  Today  there  are  197  parties  to  the 
Convention  as  it  is  probably  the  best  known  international  environmental  treaty.  The 
Convention contains the basic framework for climate agreements like the Kyoto protocol or 
the Paris Agreement. In the context of UNFCCC soil carbon sequestration is recognised as an 
important  way  to  mitigate  and  adapt  to  climate  change.  At  COP  21  in  2015  in  Paris,  an 

155 Lal, R. et al. (2021), Soils and sustainable development goals of the United Nations: An International Union 

of Soil Sciences perspective. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2021.e00398  

41 

 
 
 
                                                 
initiative  was  launched  by  the  French  government  to  increase  the  global  soil  carbon  stock 
with 4 ‰ annually, in order to stop the increasing CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.  

Global Soil Partnership (GSP) 

The Global Soil Partnership (GSP) has been established, following intensive preparatory work 
of  the  United  Nations  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  (FAO)  in  collaboration  with  the 
European  Commission,  as  a  voluntary  partnership  coordinated  by  the  FAO  in  September 
2011.  The  GSP  is  open  to  all  interested  stakeholders:  governments  (FAO  Member  States), 
universities,  research  organizations,  civil  society  organizations,  industry  and  private 
companies. It is a voluntary partnership aiming to provide a platform for active engagement in 
sustainable  soil  management  and  soil  protection  at  all  scales:  local,  national,  regional  and 
global.  For  the  implementation,  the  GSP  relies  on  the  Regional  Soil  Partnerships,  the 
European Soil Partnership being one of them. Meantime, the GSP, together with its regional 
partnerships and the Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soil (ITPS) is well recognized for 
its  actions  and  expertise  on  soil  at  global  level  with  the  adoption  of  a  revised  World  Soil 
Charter, the publication of the Status of the World's Soil Resources report and the Voluntary 
Guidelines on Sustainable Soil Management. The GSP also developed a Global Soil Organic 
Carbon  map  based  on  national  data  inputs,  in  order  to  highlight  the  importance  of  the 
sequestration of carbon for the climate system, agriculture, human health, agriculture, etc. 

UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration 2021-2030 

The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration aims to prevent, halt and reverse the degradation 
of  all  ecosystems.  Running  from  2021  until  2030,  the  UN  Decade  launches  a  global 
movement  to  restore  ecosystems  worldwide.  An  area  that  has  scope  for  restoration  can  be 
fully restored to its natural state, or be rehabilitated to serve a specific land use. Restoration 
can  provide  co-benefits  for  food  security  by  safeguarding  ecosystem  services,  such  as  soil 
protection,  pollination,  nutrient  cycling  and  soil  water-holding  capacity.  Restoration  is 
essential for keeping global temperature rise below 2°C, ensuring food security for a growing 
population  and  slowing  the  rate  of  species  extinctions.  It  helps  to  achieve  multiple  global 
goals,  including  the  Post-2020  Global  Biodiversity  Framework  under  the  CBD,  the  Paris 
Agreement  under  the  UNFCCC,  the  Sustainable  Development  Goals  (SDGs)  under  2030 
Agenda  and  the  Land  Degradation  Neutrality  targets  under  the  UNCCD.  Commitments  by 
more than 115 governments to restore a total of nearly 1 billion hectares of land, almost the 
size  of  China,  now  need  to  be  delivered.156  Almost  half  of  the  restoration  commitments  are 
found in Sub-Saharan Africa, followed by Central and South America, China and South Asia. 
Relatively few commitments have been made by countries in North America, Europe, Russia, 
Central Asia, the Middle East and North Africa.157 

156 United Nations Environment Programme (2021), Becoming #GenerationRestoration: Ecosystem restoration 

for people, nature and climate. https://www.unep.org/resources/ecosystem-restoration-people-nature-climate 
157 Sewell, A. et al. (2020), Goals and Commitments for the Restoration Decade: A global overview of countries’ 

restoration commitments under the Rio Conventions and other pledges. 
https://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/downloads/pbl-2020-goals-and-commitments-for-the-restoration-
decade-3906.pdf 

42 

 
 
 
                                                 
PART II: SYNOPSIS REPORT OF THE OPEN PUBLIC CONSULTATION 

1.  CONSULTATION STRATEGY 

The  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  for  2030158  announced  the  update  of  the  2006  EU  Soil 
Thematic Strategy to address soil and land degradation in a comprehensive way and to help 
achieve land degradation neutrality by 2030. 

The  Commission  committed  that  the  update  of  the  2006  Soil  Thematic  Strategy  will  be 
supported by a broad consultation of stakeholders, including Member States, businesses, land 
managers,  farm  advisors,  urban  planners,  rural  and  landscape  developers,  agro-,  food-  and 
beverage industry, research and academia, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other 
organisations dealing with environmental and nature protection, and general public.  

The  consultation  activities  were  conducted  through  the  Commission’s  “Have  your  say” 
website  available  in  all  24  official  EU  languages  and  included  a  public  consultation,  a 
consultation of Member States through the EU expert group on soil protection, and dedicated 
outreach activities (e.g. campaign on social media, focused stakeholder meetings, etc.). 

A series of dedicated discussions in  concerned experts groups and committees consisting of 
experts  from  EU  Member  States,  member  countries  of  the  European  Environment  Agency, 
etc. were also organised from October 2020 to early summer 2021. 

2.  ROADMAP 

2.1. Introduction 

The  Commission  uses  a  roadmap  to  define  the  scope  of  major  new  policy  initiatives. 
Roadmaps  describe  the  problem  to  be  tackled  and  objectives  to  be  met,  explain  why  EU 
action  is  needed,  outline  policy  options  and  describe  the  main  features  of  the  consultation 
strategy. The feedback period on the roadmap “New Soil Strategy - healthy soil for a healthy 
life” lasted from 05 November to 10 December 2020.  

2.2. Overview of the feedback received 

A total of 228 responses to the roadmap were received which are available online159. 

158 Communication from the Commission “EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 - Bringing nature back into our 

lives” COM(2020)380 final 

159 Healthy soils – new EU soil strategy https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-

say/initiatives/12634-Healthy-soils-new-EU-soil-strategy_en  

43 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In  their  feedback,  environmental  NGOs  and  the  ones  promoting  organic  and  sustainable 
agriculture  mostly  requested  binding  regulations  and  targets  on  soil,  in  the  form  of  a  new 
framework  directive.  They  expected  coherent  timelines  and  consistency  for  the  Green  Deal 
targets and strategies. They consider that the focus should be on enhancing soil organic matter 
and soil biodiversity, addressing erosion, acidification, compaction, land take, soil sealing and 
diffuse  pollution,  protection  of  peatlands  pastures,  organic  and  intact  soils  but  also  on 
counteracting land degradation. 

Governmental  organisations  and  agencies  considered  in  particular  ensuring  soil  ecosystem 
services to be the strongest argument in favour of an EU regulation. Promoting research and 
innovation programs on harmonized soil monitoring methods and good practices to increase 
organic matter are also vital. Protection of soil of forests, permanent grasslands and peatlands 
and  their  carbon  stock  are  also  needed.  Making  the  distinction  between  urban,  forest  and 
agricultural  soils  requirements  should  be  sought.  Soil  contamination  at  EU  scale  must  be 
reduced for providing healthy food in line with the Farm to Fork strategy and contributing to 
the European  research alliance  “Towards a chemical  pesticide-free  agriculture”. The role of 
soils in ecology of urban areas should also be highlighted. The spillover of land degradation 
due to imported goods should be addressed and an increased attention to soil compaction and 
its structural quality is required.  

Roadmap  participants  from  academia  solicited  in  particular  definitions  of  healthy  soils  and 
key indicators, which are needed for monitoring the target 2030 of 75% healthy soil in each 
Member  State  proposed  by  the  Mission  ’A  Soil  Deal  for  Europe’160.  The  need  to  fill  the 
knowledge  gaps  was  also  highlighted,  while  soil  biodiversity  should  be  integrated  into  EU 
policies  on  agriculture  (CAP),  forest,  industry  and  urban.  Academia  considers  the  priorities 
concerning  soil  to  be  the  protection  of  organic  soils  and  related  ecosystems  (peatlands, 
pastures,  prairies,  etc.)  and  the  prevention  of  desertification  and  forest  fires.  An  improved 
management  of  nutrients,  a  circular  approach  for  biowaste  and  regenerative  agriculture 
techniques, that also support carbon sequestration. The contribution to soil degradation caused 

160 Mission ’A Soil Deal for Europe’ https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/funding/funding-

opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe/missions-horizon-europe/soil-health-and-
food_en  

44 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
indirectly  by  EU  policies  and  the  functionality  of  urban  soils  should  be  addresses  while 
nature-based solutions should be promoted. 

Stakeholders  from  the  innovative  industrial  sector  active  in  the  bioeconomy,  circular 
economy,  energy,  water,  buildings  sectors  requested  regulations  on  soil  and  a  level  playing 
field  to  develop  business  on  a  EU  scale,  or  to  redevelop  their  decommissioned  production 
sites  (e.g.  old  fossil  energy  plants)  to  investments  aligned  with  the  Green  Deal.  Soil  ‘re-
techniques 
carbonization’  and  related 
(regenerative  agriculture,  use  of  cover  crops,  organic  fertilizers  and  biowastes)  should  be 
promoted while setting quality standards for soil amendments and fertilizers, and rules for re-
use of soils that have been contaminated by former industrial activities (such as the Germany 
model).    Homogenous  criteria  for  soil  decontamination  should  be  provided  at  EU  level  and 
more attention given on problems such as soil acidification. Soil friendly projects should also 
be encouraged. 

initiatives  carbon  pricing  schemes,  etc.)  and 

Stakeholders  in  the  traditional  industrial  and  primary  sectors  (agriculture,  minerals)  tend  to 
reject  EU  binding  regulations  and  deny  the  trans-boundary  effects  of  soil  degradation. 
Invoking the subsidiarity principle and the property rights on soil, they consider agricultural 
soil protection a matter of farmers and land owners, covered by the CAP ruled and national 
framework.  They  express  worries  of  new  bureaucratic  burdens  and  standard  EU  rules  not 
taking into account the diversity of regional situations and soils. However, they welcome the 
positive efforts to protect soil fertility via a good practices  exchange platform and a EU soil 
database,  useful  for  implementation  of  precision  farming.  Policies  should  focus  on  other 
sectors, in particular the building one, to reduce land take (farmers). Miners suggest to change 
the target of ‘no net land take’ to ‘sustainable soil use’. 

3.  OPEN PUBLIC CONSULTATION 

3.1. Introduction 

All  citizens  and  organizations  were  invited  to  contribute  to  this  consultation.  The 
questionnaire, available in all EU languages, included 12  questions with multiple choice, plus 
an additional question for question 7 available only to the respondents who did not select the 
option  “EU  level:  sufficiently”.  For  question  8  there  was  also  the  possibility  to  explain  the 
choice with free text. Respondents had the opportunity to provide  additional free text in the 
form of final remarks and to include position papers. The public could fill the questionnaire 
02 February and 27 April 2021, via the website of the European Commission.161 

For  the  launch  of  the  public  consultation  a  news  release  was  published  by  the  Commission 
and widely shared with the press, relevant stakeholders and expert groups162. Intensive social 
media activities related to this public consultation  were also  conducted during the period in 
which the public consultation was open (e.g. Instagram, Twitter, Facebook). 

161 Healthy soils – new EU soil strategy https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-

say/initiatives/12634-Healthy-soils-new-EU-soil-strategy/public-consultation_en  

162 Commission consults on new EU Soil Strategy https://ec.europa.eu/environment/news/commission-consults-
new-eu-soil-strategy-2021-02-02_en  

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
In total 1.673 responses to the questionnaire were received by the Commission, out of which 4 
were  submitted  by  email.  In  terms  of  categories  of  respondents,  more  than  half  of  the 
responses to the questionnaire were provided by individual EU citizens, followed members of 
academia/research institutions and by representatives from companies/business organisations. 

Categories of respondents: 

EU citizen

Academic/research institution

Company/business organisation

Other

Non-governmental organisation (NGO)

Business association

Environmental organisation

Public authority

Non-EU citizen

16

Consumer organisation

Trade union

8

3

163

157

95

85

80

53

50

963

0

200

400

600

800

1000

In  terms  of  sectors,  about  30%  of  inputs  came  from  the  agriculture  sector,  followed  by 
environment and nature protection with about 17% and education with around 7 %, while all 
other sectors represented in total 45% but each with percentages below 5%. 

Sectors the respondents belonged to: 

Agriculture

Environment & nature protection

Education

Forestry and hunting

Construction, urban planning & development

Soil remediation

Other

0,00%

10,00%

20,00%

30,00%

40,00%

Responses received came from all EU Member States, excepting Malta. In terms of origin of 
the  respondents,  over  a  third  of  the  responses  came  from  Italy  (ca.  34%)  followed  by 
Germany  (ca.  20%)  and  France  (ca.  9%).  Responses  from  Italy  and  Germany  combined 
represent more than half of the survey results (around 55%). The majority of the answers in 
Italy (ca. 70%) and Germany (ca. 60%) came from individual citizens. Additionally, mainly 
individuals,  but  also  companies  or  organisations  from  22  non-EU  countries  expressed  their 
views on the Soil Strategy public consultation (3% of the total).   

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
342

577

EU Member States the respondents belonged to: 

Italy
Germany
France
Belgium
Spain
Austria
Lithuania
Netherlands
Portugal
Sweden
Poland
Hungary
Ireland
Czechia
Greece
Finland
Denmark
Romania
Luxembourg
Estonia
Croatia
Bulgaria
Slovenia
Latvia
Slovakia
Cyprus

145

100

87

66

55

42
39

23
20
20
18
12
11
12
8
7
6
6
6
6
5
4
3
2

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

3.2. Summary of the replies 

Question  1.  How  well  do  you  consider  yourself  informed  about  the  quality  of  soils  in 
your local area, region or country, at EU or global level?  

Local

Region

Country

EU level

Global

0,00%

20,00%

40,00%

60,00%

80,00%

100,00%

well informed

somewhat informed

not well informed

not at all informed

I don’t know / no opinion

Most  of  the  respondent  seem  to  be  quite  informed  about  soil  quality,  especially  at  local, 
regional and national level, as over 60% of them consider themselves either well informed or 
somewhat informed. The knowledge on soil quality appears to decrease moving to the EU and 
global  scale.  Public  authorities  and  environmental  organisations  are  the  respondents  overall 
best informed about the quality of soils in their local area, region and country.  

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 2. Which soil ecosystem services do you consider as the most important?  

Supply of nutritious and healthy food

 Water purification and maintaining good quality of
freshwater
Hosting many organisms and preserving habitats
essential for biodiversity

Climate adaptation and building resilience to extreme
climate events
Removing and capturing greenhouse gases from the
atmosphere

Nutrients cycling

Provision of feed, fibre, timber, biomass and soil as a
material

Preserving cultural heritage

Carrying different landscapes and infrastructure

high importance moderate importance

not at all important

I don’t know / no opinion

0,00%
low importance

20,00% 40,00% 60,00% 80,00% 100,00%

The  supply  of  “nutritious  and  healthy  food”  is  considered  as  the  most  important  ecosystem 
service  provided  by  soil  according  to  over  90%  of  respondents.  “Water  purification  and 
maintaining  good  quality  of  freshwater  including  ground  and  drinking  water”  is  the  second 
most  important  service,  followed  by  the  role  of  soil  in  maintaining  habitats  essential  for 
biodiversity  and  by  its  role  in  climate  adaptation  and  resilience.  For  over  60%  of  the 
respondents  the  role  of  soil  in  the  preservation  of  cultural  heritage  and  carrying  landscapes 
and  infrastructure  are  ecosystem  services  of  moderate  or  low  importance.  There  was  no 
significant  difference  in  this  reply  on  the  basis  of  the  sector  of  the  country  of  origin  of  the 
respondents. 

Question 3. How would you rank the importance of protecting soil health/quality and its 
restoration at EU level? 

81,91%

100,00%

80,00%

60,00%

40,00%

20,00%

0,00%

11,62%

4,43%

1,68%

0,36%

very important

important

neither important 
nor unimportant

not at all important

I don’t know / no 
opinion

There seems to be a strong support for policy action at EU level among the respondents,  as 
the need to restore and protect soil health and quality at EU level is considered very important 
(82%) or important (12%) by the survey participants, while only less than 2% believe it is not 
a priority. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question  4.  For  those respondents  who  are  land  users (who  regularly  undertake 
activities  related  to  management  of  land  and  soil,  e.g.  farmers  and  foresters),  to  what 
extent  do  soil  health/quality  considerations  influence  your  activities  and  management 
choices?  

to a large extent

I don’t know / no opinion

44,94%

37,21%

partly

14,50%

to a small extent

2,82%

not at all

0,54%

0,00%

10,00%

20,00%

30,00%

40,00%

50,00%

About  45%  of  respondents  consider  soil  health/quality  to  a  large  extent  when  making 
activities  and  management  choices,  while  less  than  1%  do  not  consider  soil  health/quality 
implications. 

Question 5. Soils are fragile and take hundreds of years to form but can be degraded in 
hours. To the best of your knowledge, which of the following human-activities contribute 
most to soil and land degradation?  

Unsustainable farming and forestry practices

Soil sealing and land take for infrastructure

Diffuse contamination

 Local contamination by industrial and waste
management activities

Other land-use changes

high importance

moderate importance

low importance

not at all important

I don’t know / no opinion

0,00%

20,00%

40,00%

60,00%

80,00%

100,00%

For the majority of the respondents  (70% or more) the following 3 human activities  are the 
most  important  threats  to  soil:  unsustainable  farming  and  forestry  practices  (such  as  over-
intensive  use  of  soils  such  as  harmful  soil  practices,  mono-cropping  and  intensive  livestock 
production); soil sealing and land take for infrastructure construction (such as house building, 
industrial/commercial  buildings,  roads  and  motorways,  parking  lots,  airports);  and  diffuse 
contamination (due to overuse of pesticides, nutrient pollution from excess use of fertilizers, 
microplastics, air depositions of pollutants).  

For  business  associations’  representatives,  “soil  sealing”  ranks  first  and  only  about  half 
consider  “unsustainable  farming  practices”  to  be  of  high  importance.  For  respondents  from 
academic and research institutions,  the least  important  are  “local  contamination” and  “other 
land-use changes” although they are both of high and moderate importance for about 50% of 
contributors.  Similarly,  for  representatives  of  companies  and  business  organisations,  “local 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
contamination”  and  “other  land  use  changes”  are  the  least  important.  Individuals  consider 
other  land  use  changes  to  have  the  lowest  importance.  Local  contamination  is  the  least 
important threat for the NGOs (about 50% consider it of moderate to low importance). 

Question  6.  To  the  best  of  your  knowledge,  which  of  the  following  soil  and  land 
degradation processes are the most acute in your country?  

Land take and soil sealing

 Loss of soil biodiversity

Loss of ability to withstand floods and landslides

Soil pollution

Loss of soil organic matter

Soil erosion

Soil compaction

Desertification

Acidification

Salinization and sodification

0,00% 10,00% 20,00% 30,00% 40,00% 50,00% 60,00% 70,00% 80,00% 90,00% 100,00%

high importance

moderate importance

low importance

not at all important

I don’t know / no opinion

“Land  take  and  soil  sealing”,  and  the  “loss  of  soil  biodiversity”  are  considered  by  the 
respondents  on  average  the  most  acute  degradation  processes.  Land  take  and  soil  sealing  is 
considered of high importance by roughly 67% of respondents, while loss of soil biodiversity 
is believed to be of high importance for over 60% of respondents.  

Some  country-specific  differences  emerged  in  the  replies.  Respondents  from  Germany  and 
Austria seem to consider “land take and soil sealing” as the main degradation process in their 
country,  while  respondents  from  Ireland,  Latvia  and  Finland  consider  “loss  of  soil 
biodiversity” as the main degradation process in their country.  

Desertification, acidification and salinization are degradation processes considered less acute 
in  their  country  (less  than  20%  consider  them  of  high  importance).  Only  Polish  and 
Lithuanian respondents perceive soil acidification as an acute problem in their country. 

Desertification  is  considered  of  high  importance  by  at  least  50%  of  respondents  from  the 
following countries: Bulgaria, Greece, Portugal, Romania and Spain. 

No  respondent  from  EU  countries  identifies  salinization  and  sodification  as  an  acute 
degradation problem of high national importance.  

Business associations considered “land take and soil sealing” and the “loss of soil biodiversity 
the least acute degradation processes in their country 

Question 7. To the best of your knowledge, are the causes of soil and land degradation 
sufficiently addressed?  

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Regional

National

EU

Global

0,00%

10,00%

20,00%

30,00%

40,00%

50,00%

60,00%

70,00%

80,00%

90,00%

100,00%

sufficiently

not enough

not at all

I don’t know / no opinion

The vast majority of respondents believe that further policy action is needed as they  consider 
that the causes of soil and land degradation are not sufficiently addressed at regional, national, 
EU  and  global  level.  Only  15%  or  less  consider  them  sufficiently  addressed,  and,  in 
particular,  only  6.7%  of  respondents  consider  them  sufficiently  addressed  at  EU  level.  This 
seems  quite  a  consensual  assessment  as  no  significant  difference  was  noticed  in  terms  of 
country or sector of the respondents. 

Question 7a. If you think that the causes of soil and land degradation are not properly 
addressed,  which of the following elements do you think should be addressed  better at 
EU level? (Number of answers = 1565) 

Unsustainable farming and forestry practices

Diffuse contamination

Soil sealing and land take for infrastructure construction

Local contamination by industrial and waste management activities

Other land-use changes

high importance

moderate importance

low importance

not at all important

I don’t know / no opinion

0,00%

20,00%

40,00%

60,00%

80,00%

100,00%

This  optional  question  was  available  only  to  the  respondents  who  indicated  in  the  previous 
question that the causes of soil and land degradation are not properly addressed (i.e. available 
to 93.5% of respondents).  

According  to  more  than  two  thirds  of  respondents  the  following  causes  of  soil  and  land 
degradation  should  be  better  addressed  at  EU  level:  unsustainable  farming  and  forestry 
practices  (e.g. over-intensive use of soils such as harmful soil practices, mono-cropping and 
intensive  livestock  production),  followed  by  diffuses  contamination  (e.g.  due  to  overuse  of 
pesticides,  nutrient  pollution  from  excess  use  of  fertilizers,  microplastics,  air  depositions  of 
pollutants) and soil sealing and land take for infrastructure construction (e.g. house building, 
industrial/commercial buildings, roads and motorways, parking lots, airports). 

Question 8. Do you think that this set of criteria is appropriate to ascertain soil health? 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Yes, this is a complete set

The set is appropriate but not complete. I would add other indicators.

No, this list is not appropriate.

0,00%

20,00%

40,00%

60,00%

The question listed the following criteria to ascertain soil health proposed by the experts in the 
context of the Horizon Europe Mission ’A Soil Deal for Europe’: (1) Presence of pollutants, 
excess  nutrients  and  salts  in  the  soil,  (2)  soil  organic  carbon  content,  (3)  soil  structure 
including medium soil density and absence of soil sealing or soil erosion, (4) soil biodiversity, 
(5) soil nutrients and acidity (pH), (6) vegetation cover, (7) landscape heterogeneity, (8) forest 
cover. 

Over  60%  of  respondents  believe  the  criteria  listed  above  are  appropriate  to  ascertain  soil 
health,  while  about  35%  of  them  consider  the  list  incomplete.  65  respondents  (about  4%) 
considered that the list is not appropriate to ascertain soil health, indicating criteria 6 to 8 as 
not relevant and considering criteria mentioned in 1 to 5 should have been separated.  

Those  who  considered  the  set  appropriate  but  incomplete  (531  respondents,  ca  35%  of  the 
total), suggested  a number of additional indicators for assessing healthy soils, which can be 
grouped  into  six  main  categories:  physical  (coastal  erosion,  topography,  landslides,  water-
wind  erosion  and  sedimentation,  soil  texture  and  porosity,  soil  stability,  soil  extraction  and 
excavation,  soil  thickness,  soil  subsidence,  air  conductivity),  chemical  (nutrient  availability 
and deficiency, nutrient balance, cation exchange capacity, heavy metals such as lead, waste 
residues, radioactivity), biological quality (soil carbon stocks, humus quantity and quality, soil 
pathogens  and  pests,  nematodes,  earthworms,  microbial  respiration,  diversity  and  activity, 
bacteria  to  fungi  ratio,  beta  glucosidase  activity,  anti-microbial  resistance  and  antibiotic 
residues),  water  indicators  (groundwater  quality  and  quantity,  groundwater  extraction  and 
exploitation,  water  infiltration  and  drainage,  soil  moisture,  water  retention  capacity,  water 
conductivity,  soil-water  balance),  land  use  indicators  (vegetation  type,  landscape  features, 
land  management,  agricultural  and 
landscape  connectivity  and 
fragmentation,  population  density,  land  use  change,  re-use  and  recycling),  or  others  (soil 
diversity  (pedodiversity),  soil  functions  and  ecosystem  services,  soil  fertility,  soil 
productivity, index for land degradation neutrality, desertification, soil type such as histosols, 
soil age, soil resilience, soil health). 

farming  practices, 

Question 9. What are your views on the following possible actions to be explored under 
the new EU soil policy framework? 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Further support land users to apply sustainable soil management…

Enhance research and knowledge about soil health and protective actions

Enhance public awareness, literacy on soil health importance and…
Promote initiatives to reduce soil sealing and achieve no net land take…
Define a methodology to monitor the achievement of land degradation…

Set criteria for soil health to be qualified as ‘good’

Further financially support land users to enhance soil carbon…
 Improve soil properties monitoring at national and EU level
Introduce binding restoration targets for degraded soils
Encourage Member States to remediate contaminated sites
Develop guidelines for sustainable soil management
Encourage Member States to establish a contaminated sites inventory

Strengthen EU leadership on soil and land-related issues in…

0,00%

20,00%

40,00%

60,00%

80,00%

100,00%

 essential

important but not essential

At least 50% of survey participants consider all proposed actions to be essential aspects of the 
new EU soil policy framework. However, almost  80% of respondents  consider essential the 
continuous  support  for  farmers,  foresters  and  other  land  users  to  apply  sustainable  soil 
management  practices  (e.g.  through  the  EU’s  Common  Agricultural  Policy  and  the  farm 
advisory),  followed  by  enhanced  research  and  knowledge  about  soil  health  and  actions  to 
protect it, and enhancing public awareness (e.g. through school education, soil sustainability 
labels) and the literacy on the importance of soil health and actions to protect it. 

The  action  perceived  as  the  least  essential  compared  to  the  others  is  strengthening  EU 
leadership  on  soil  and  land-related  issues  in  international  fora,  including  through  policy 
dialogue and technical support to partner countries. 

Question 10. How can the EU better support farmers, foresters and other land users to 
apply sustainable soil management practices? 

Through better training and advice

Through exchanges of best practices among the sectors

With a clear legal framework

Through financial incentives

Through a level playing field in the EU

By developing a certification scheme

high importance

moderate importance

low importance

not at all important

I don’t know / no opinion

0,00%

20,00%

40,00%

60,00%

80,00%

100,00%

In  terms  of  supporting  farmers,  foresters  and  other  land  users  to  apply  sustainable  soil 
management practices, over two thirds of the respondents consider that this should be made 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
through better training and advice (69% indicated a high importance), followed closely by the 
exchanges of best practices ( 62%) and providing a clear legal framework (61%). Less than 
30%  believe  a  certification  scheme  for  soil  would  be  highly  important  in  supporting  land 
users to apply sustainable soil management practices.  

Question  11.  How  can  the  EU  increase  the  uptake  of  existing  funding  (from  the  EU’s 
Common  Agricultural  Policy,  regional  funds,  research  funds  e.g.  Horizon  Europe,  the 
LIFE programme) for soil protection and restoration in the EU?  

Reduce administrative burden for applications

Identify financing opportunities for soil research and innovation

Provide assistance in projects implementation

Disseminate better information on funding possibilities

Foster twinning projects or best practices exchanges between soil
protection beneficiaries and restoration initiatives

high importance

moderate importance

low importance

not at all important

I don’t know / no opinion

0,00%

20,00%

40,00%

60,00%

80,00%

100,00%

To  increase  the  uptake  of  existing  EU  funding  for  soil  protection  and  restoration,  70%  of 
respondents  consider  it  is  necessary  a  reduction  in  administrative  burden  for  the  applicants. 
While all the options described were considered as highly important by more than 50% of the 
respondents, the one scoring less among those offered is the fostering of twinning projects or 
best practices exchanges between soil protection beneficiaries and restoration initiatives.  

Question  12.  How  can  the  EU  steer  global  action  on  soil  and  land  protection  and 
restoration? 

Promote sustainable soil and land management through trade policies and
Green Deal diplomacy

Mainstream sustainable soil and land management in bilateral and multi-
lateral relations and organizations

Increase financial support and development aid for international soil and
land protection and restoration projects

Strive for new international commitments and conventions on soils and
land

Aim for better integration of soil in the Rio Conventions

Intensify cooperation and support to the Global Soil Partnership, its
European Soil Partnership or other voluntary initiatives

high importance

moderate importance

low importance

not at all important

I don’t know / no opinion

0,00%

20,00%

40,00%

60,00%

80,00%

100,00%

Here  again  at  least  half  of  the  respondents  consider  that  all  the  actions  listed  are  of  high 
importance  for  the  EU  in  steering  global  action  on  soil  and  land  protection.  However,  the 
priority  action  is  considered  to  be  the  “promotion  of  sustainable  soil  and  land  management 
through  trade  policy  and  Green  Deal  diplomacy”,  followed  by  “mainstreaming  sustainable 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
soil and land management in various relations and organisations”. The action considered to be 
of  highest 
importance  for  environmental  organisations  and  companies  or  business 
organisations was to “increase the financial support and development aid for international soil 
and land protection and  restoration projects”.  Business associations considered  “mainstream 
in  bilateral  and  multi-lateral  relations  and 
sustainable  soil  and 
organizations” to have the highest importance. 

land  management 

3.3. Analysis of the replies to the open question 

About 40% of respondents (663) provided an optional short text contribution within the scope 
of  the  questionnaire.  The  answers  can  be  grouped  into  the  following  categories:  welcoming 
the  new  Soil  Strategy,  suggestions  for  the  new  Soil  Strategy,  positive  examples  on  soil 
protection,  regulation,  arguments  in  favour  of  an  EU  Soil  regulation,  negative  examples  of 
practices leading to soil degradation, examples of best and worst farming practices, arguments 
in  favour  of  or  against  an  EU  Soil  legislation,  positive  or  constructive  remarks  on  the 
questionnaire. 

3.4. Position Papers 

The  Commission  received  183  contributions  as  position  papers  through  the  possibility  to 
upload it in the questionnaire for the public consultation. Four were submitted separately by 
email to DG ENV.  

Of  these  position  papers,  12  were  submitted  by  public  authorities,  13  by  academic/research 
institutes, 14 by environmental organisations, 23 by NGOs, 24 by business associations, 28 by 
companies  and  business  organisations.  52  by  EU-citizens  and  4  by  non-EU  citizens,  13  by 
“others”.  The  “others”  category  was  merged  with  similar  sectors.  Some  of  the  provided 
position papers were identical.  

3.4.1.  Public authorities 

The stance expressed in most position papers is the need of a legally binding instrument for 
soil protection within a coherent regulatory framework and guidelines across the EU, which 
mainly contains targets and allows for flexible implementation in every Member State, being 
inclusive of the subsidiarity principle. Consistency among EU policies is expected, with the 
CAP  playing a major role in  sustainable soil management. Some contributions from  Nordic 
public  authorities  considers  that  restoring  wetlands  and  peatlands  should  be  addressed  at  a 
national  level.  The  submissions  highlight  also  that  soil  protection  means  (ground)water 
protection,  climate  protection/mitigation/resilience,  maintaining  biodiversity  and  human 
health, provision of food. Soil organic carbon and biodiversity are interlinked. The new Soil 
Strategy should focus on better protection and restoration of soils, especially the ones high in 
solutions, 
recommendations 
carbon 
improving/restoring  soil  fertility,  enhancing/protecting  soil  biodiversity,  stopping  soil 
degradation, counteracting desertification; organic farming, mixed/poly crops, sustainable soil 
management, nutrient recycling crop rotation, reuse of water, reduced chemical applications, 
addressing  erosion,  compaction.  Case  studies  and  good  working  models  for  ensuring  or 
monitoring  healthy  soils  were  presented,  notably  from  Austria  (Styria),  Belgium(Flanders), 
Germany, Poland and UK. The Open Soil Index was proposed by one authority as a scientific 
assessment tool for soil quality and management. Involving citizens and raising awareness is 
one of the main common points throughout the position papers. A better understanding of the 
key  terms  and  definitions  is  often  mentioned,  such  as  “degradation”,  “soil  quality”,  “good 

storage  capacity.  Other 

include  nature-based 

55 

 
 
 
 
ecological  status”.  Furthermore,  improved  monitoring  across  the  EU  is  requested  to  be  in 
shared, coordinated, transparent way, with a standardized, accessible data collection. the Open 
Soil  Index  as  a  scientific  assessment  tool  for  soil  quality  and  management.  Soil  knowledge 
and  research  should  be  encouraged  but  cooperation  and  knowledge  exchange  could  be 
improved.  One  authority  suggested  the  establishment  of  a  soil  certificate  that  provides  soil 
quality information. The most acute concerns for soil health flagged in the written submission 
by the public authorities are unsustainable or intensive agricultural practices, soil sealing, soil 
pollution and contamination. They consider the EU should strive to develop adequate efforts 
to address the global challenge of halting soil and land degradation and provide a harmonized 
soil pollution risk assessment approach.  

3.4.2.  NGOs and environmental organizations 

In  their  written  inputs,  the  NGOs  and  environmental  organisations  explicitly  welcomed  the 
initiative, recognizing the urgent  need for protecting and restoring soils by  setting clear and 
concise targets and milestones. Although the subsidiarity principle should be considered, soil 
protection  has  to  be  transboundary  to  ensure  we  are  on  track  for  the  agreed  EU  and  global 
targets.  In this context, a new Soil Framework Directive should be developed, with  specific 
EU-wide  binding  targets  (quality  requirements),  regulations  on  land  use,  measures  and 
support  programs.  Even  if  soil  diversity  is  high  and  measures  cannot  be  equally  imposed 
throughout  the  EU,  common  targets  and  milestones  can  exist.  The  new  Soil  Strategy 
represents an opportunity to fill in current gaps in EU environmental policy and to strengthen 
coherence  and  deliverables  by  joint  action  between  soil  protection,  nature  conservation, 
agriculture, forestry, H2O management. The strategy must have concrete objectives, measures 
and  dedicated  funding,  cover  all  soils,  address  agricultural  practices  and  contribute  to 
protection  and  restoration  of  carbon-rich  ecosystems.  Over  30%  of  position  papers  in  this 
category emphasized that wetland/peatland are heavily endangered and should be restored and 
legally  protected  as  much  as  possible,  especially  due  to  their  sequestered  carbon.  Soil 
loss/degradation  is  considered  a  source  of  emissions  that  contributes  to  climate  change. 
Consequently,  carbon  sequestration  payments  would  be  opportunities  for  farmers  to  benefit 
from the emerging carbon market. The new Soil Strategy should highlight that the climate and 
biodiversity crisis concur and have the same solutions: good agricultural practices that focus 
on  preventive  and  restorative  measures  such  as  organic  farming,  agroforestry,  regenerative 
farming or agroecology, mixed crop-livestock farming, precision farming, reduced pollution. 
Concerning soil restoration, protection is better and more cost-effective than remediation. The 
strategy must not forgo urban areas. The desired output of the Soil Strategy should include: 
encouraging  soil  knowledge  and  research,  improving  public  awareness,  soil  education, 
cooperation  and  knowledge  exchange,  providing  common  definitions,  clear  indicators,  a 
monitoring  system  and  a  soil  data  platform.  The  relationship  between  producers  and 
consumers  should  be  strengthened.  Regarding  circularity,  reuse  of  resources  should  be 
considered. Since current farming practices prevent accumulation of organic materials in soil, 
agricultural  practices  (e.g.  CAP)  must  adopt  and  implement  sustainable  production  that 
minimizes  soil  degradation.  Other  proposals  for  soil  protection  in  the  new  Soil  Strategy 
include  nature-based  solutions,  a  better  integration  of  soils  as  part  of  geoheritage 
conservation, a "soil protection passport", rooftop compensation of open/green spaces lost to 
buildings,  creating  a  soil  and  landscape  red  list;  counteracting  desertification,  calculation  of 
“soil balance”, promoting soilless growing of food, lower land-use footprint, insisting on the 
importance  of  fungal  networks.  For  soil  monitoring,  the  following  were  proposed:  digital 
water  solutions,  permanent  observation  and  monitoring  plots  must  be  established  across  the 
EU, setting uniform standards and appropriate soil indices.  

56 

 
 
 
3.4.3.  Companies, business organisations and associations 

Several  position  papers  included  further  comments  related  to  the  questionnaire  questions. 
Over  80%  of  companies/business  organisation  and  business  associations,  which  were 
represented by farmers, agrochemical and mining companies, do not see the need for specific 
soil regulation at EU level. The main arguments emphasize the subsidiarity principle and the 
high  soil  variability  in  Europe  and  also  mention  the  numerous  soil  legislative  acts  and 
mechanisms already present in various Member States. Accordingly, the expectations for the 
new Soil Strategy are placed on encouraging research and digitalization programs, promoting 
sustainable  soil  management  practices  in  line  with  the  subsidiarity  and  proportionality 
principles,  promoting  initiatives  (such  as  carbon  farming),  ensuring  production  sites  are 
operating  at  highest  standards,  continuing  the  use  of  existing  programs  and  policies  (CAP, 
Horizon,  LIFE  etc.).  Further  key  areas  to  be  addressed  should  be  soil  pollution,  improved 
monitoring,  controlled  soil  footprint  outside  EU,    intelligent  spatial  planning,  platform  for 
quantity and quality of soil data and information, the proper documentation of soil sealing and 
land  consumption,  contamination  sites,  establishment  of  methodologies.  Although  the  Soil 
Strategy  should  consist  of  precautionary  aspects,  direction  and  support  to  Member  States, 
some clear objectives should be placed on soil/land sealing/take and contamination. Ensuring 
consistency among EU policies is mandatory, thus overlapping objectives should be avoided. 
Companies or businesses representing farmers stressed that the European farmer should play a 
key role in the Soil Strategy as it is at the centre of climate change mitigation efforts and a soil 
health  guardian.  Thus,  land  payment  schemes  in  CAP  should  be  dynamic  enough  to  allow 
farmers  to  cooperate  and  conduct  soil  health  experiments  under  supervision.  Agrochemical 
companies asked for farmers to be trained and better informed on the beneficial potential of 
bio-based fertilisers, organic amendments, biostimulants. One position paper requested for a 
holistic  view  on  agriculture  and  asked  for  breakdown  of  intensive  farming.  An  impact 
assessment of specific actions is considered necessary for any binding targets or commitment 
and possible goals or indicators must be technically comprehensible and realistic. Interlinking 
of the different EU environmental policies and their further updating with a focus on Green 
Deal  deliverables  is  considered  a  good  alternative  to  a  Soil  Directive.  Further  suggestions 
include  prioritizing  biodiversity,  focusing  on  soil  multifunctionality,  encourage  precision 
farming,  reconciling  ecological  and  socio-economical  expectations.  A  mining  company 
suggested a shift form “no net land take” to “sustainable land use”. Less than 20% of position 
paper  in  this  category,  belonging  mainly  to  the  farming,  water  and  waste,  and  agri-
environmental consultancy sectors, support or ask for a regulatory EU framework on soils in 
order  to  harmonize  national  legislations,  fill  in  existing  policy  gaps  and  prevent  further 
contamination and deterioration of soil quality, functions and biodiversity. The potential EU 
soil regulation, which must contain clear goals and guidelines (including for soil excavation), 
should be first and foremost be flexible and consistent with other policies. In this context, a 
revision  on  CAP  eco-schemes  and  measures  is  warranted,  and  organic/regenerative  farming 
practices,  which  reverse  soil  degradation  and  increase  soil  organic  carbon  sequestration, 
should be encouraged and incentivized. Last but not least, healthy soils to play a vital role for 
the circular economy. 

3.4.4.  Academic and research institutions 

About  50%  of  position  papers  included  references  and/or  case-studies  to  assist  decision 
making.  One  such  reference  showed  that  the  driving  force  in  smaller  farms  is  profitability 
rather  than  environmental  or  social  advantages.  Concerns  were  raised  about  modern 
agriculture  being  climate-smart  by  one  paper.  One  contribution  considered  a  lack  of 

57 

 
 
 
biodiversity focus in the 2006 Soil Strategy. Another position paper suggested the integration 
of soil multifunctionality notion (including for Horizon 2020) and two new pillars for the new 
strategy,  namely  international  issues  and  hotspot  issues,  which  would  require  immediate 
action. The majority of position papers requested the development of a standardized EU data 
infrastructure, which includes soil mapping and monitoring. Stressing the soil links to water 
quality, food production, biodiversity and carbon sequestration were requested in the position 
papers.  A  common  message  was  a  revision  of  CAP  to  guarantee  coherence  with  the  future 
Soil Strategy, but also establishing good agricultural practices and ensuring their consistency 
with other EU policies. One position paper suggested that 4 per 1000 initiative is not feasible, 
carbon farming is not necessarily sustainable and only humus certificates are climate relevant 
resulting in  CAP  having  to  encourage humus build-up and soil fertility.  A paper included a 
proposal for a successful implementation of a Soil Directive by identifying existing measures, 
collecting  them  and  generating  a  global  framework  on  soils  would  bring  consistency  and 
improve  the  implementation  without  increasing  the  number  of  legally  binding  obligations. 
One  paper  stated  that  current  EU  directives  have  not  been  adequately  implemented  and  the 
Soil  Strategy  must  have  more  ambitious  objectives,  including  binding  commitments  and 
guidelines of the directives with direct repercussions on Member States that do not attain the 
targets on soil quality and conservation. Setting a timeline to cut-off funding for unsustainable 
agriculture  through  the  CAP  was  also  suggested.  Overall,  more  investing  in  research  and 
innovation were recommended, especially in order to scientifically support the Soil Strategy 
and identify best practices to reconcile soil productivity and sustainability. Last but not least, 
public awareness must be increased. 

3.4.5.  EU citizens 

Over  20%  of  EU  citizens  demanded  a  transition  to  agroecology,  increased  support  for 
smallholder farmers and local communities and a dedicated legally binding framework for EU 
soils. About 30% of EU citizens, all representing Italy, stated that the EU is not doing enough 
to reach its soil commitments and keeps policies directly linked to soil degradation (such as 
CAP) and the European institutions must fully commit to the soil-related targets of the Green 
Deal strategies. About 10% of position papers considered EU is not on track with 2030 UN 
Agenda as 1/4 of European soils are exposed to  severe degradation and desertification risks 
and also identified CAP as a contributor. The main issues the Soil Strategy should address are 
soil/land consumption rates, waterproofing, (subsidizing) agricultural practices that contribute 
to soil degradation, biodiversity and soil fertility loss, including the capacity to store organic 
carbon.  Proposed  solutions  to  these  problems  are:  regenerative  farming,  agroecological 
transition,  a  legislative  framework  with  incentives  for  specific,  quantifiable  and  binding 
targets,  more  research,  dedicated  funding,  sustainable  production,  a  stronger  bond  between 
producers and consumers, a focus on soil multifunctionality (include it as a Horizon research 
topic),  access  to  soil  information,  sustainable  soil  management  methods,  soil  education  and 
awareness, a rewarding system for sustainable small scale agriculture. The new Soil Strategy 
should  establish  mandatory  objectives  on  soil  conservation  and 
improvement,  by 
implementing  common  definitions  and  improved  monitoring  via  a  soil  data  platform.  Some 
positions on restoring soils, indicate a mentality shift is needed and the Soil Strategy should 
be  ambitious  and  aim  to  revolutionize  agriculture.  The  EU  should  keep  its  engagement  in 
international  initiatives.  Expectations  of  the  new  Soil  Strategy  include  a  higher  level  of 
commitment  and  ambition,  guidance  on  soil  management  and  best  practices.  The  strategy 
should be more global, integrative and transversal, while maintaining coherency and synergy 
among policies and a focus on preventing soil degradation and soil loss (proposed sequence: 
avoid-reduce-compensate).  Challenges  of  the  Soil  Strategy  would  be  making  globally  valid 

58 

 
 
 
formulas  for  the  diverse  EU  soils  and  conditions,  limit  impacts  of  policies  with  (negative) 
trade-offs  on  soil  health.  One  paper  detailed  on  how  CAP  encourages  and  supports 
detrimental  practices,  which  lead  to  soil  degradation  and  proposed  a  different  CAP  design. 
Another  citizen  suggested  for  an  individual  ecological  footprint  (barcode),  which  follows 
every product and action and determines our taxes. 

3.4.6.  Non-EU citizens 

Four non-EU citizens added position papers to their submission, all demanding a transition to 
agroecology  and  a  dedicated  legal  framework  for  EU  soils  to  efficiently  address  soil 
degradation  and  practices  that  negatively  impact  soil  and  replace  them  with  sustainable 
alternatives. 

4.  OTHER CONSULTATIONS OF MEMBER STATES AND STAKEHOLDERS 

4.1. Consultations of Member States through the EU Expert Group on Soil 

Protection 

In line with the commitments agreed by the EU in the 7th Environment Action Programme163 
(7th  EAP)  and  in  light  of  the  worrying  situation  and  trends  portrayed  by  the  European 
Environment  Agency (EEA) 2015 State of the Environment  Report164, the  Commission  had 
established in 2015 an Expert Group with Member States on Soil Protection to "reflect as 
soon  as  possible  on  how  soil  quality  issues  could  be  addressed  using  a  targeted  and 
proportionate risk-based approach within a binding legal framework"165. All Member States 
nominated  one  or  several  experts  (summing  55  experts)  to  support  the  Commission  in  the 
work of this group. 

The Commission has discussed since 2015 on a regular basis with Member States the policy 
gaps and the policy actions needed at EU level on soil protection, to prepare the new policy 
framework, including its legally-binding elements. 

The first meeting of the EU Expert Group on Soil Protection took place on 19 October 
2015. It was attended by 50 participants of which 40 Member State experts from 25 countries. 
3  Member  States  were  not  represented  in  the  meeting  (LT,  MT,  HR).  Some  countries  sent 
several participants (AT, BE, DE, DK, ES, FR, PL and UK).  

The objectives for this first meeting were 1) to take stock of recent developments at global, 
EU  and  national  levels,  and  2)  to  agree  on  the  objectives  and  modus  operandi  of  a  new 
permanent  channel  of  communication  between  Member  States  and  the  Commission  to 
implement  the  soil  protection  provisions  of  the  7th  EAP.  Discussion  was  organized  on  the 
basis of a background paper sent one month in advance, to which 8 Member States (AT, BE, 
CY, ES, FI, IT, MT and NL) had replied in writing before or after the meeting. 

163 DECISION 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on a General 

Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 “Living well, within the limits of our planet” 

164 SOER 2015 — The European environment — state and outlook 2015 (europa.eu) 

https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/2015  

165 Register of Commission expert groups and other similar entities (europa.eu) 
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/home  

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The 2nd meeting of the EU expert group on soil protection took place on 26 April 2016. 
25  experts  from  16  Member  States,  together  with  officials  from  the  European  Commission 
(DG ENV, JRC), from the EEA and members of the consortium in charge of the contract for 
the  inventory  of  EU  and  national  soil-legislation,  attended  the  meeting.  The  main  topic 
discussed  was  the  development  of  a  comprehensive  inventory  in  wiki-format  of  soil  policy 
instruments at EU and national level, a work led by an external contractor166. 

The 3rd meeting of the EU Expert Group on soil protection took place on 18-19 October 
2016.  Its  main  objective  was  to  present  the  first  outcomes  of  the  inventory  of  soil  policy 
instrument  and  gap  analysis,  collect  feedback  from  Member  States  and  discuss  the  way 
forward to complete the gap analysis. The consolidated outcomes of the study were presented 
at the soil stakeholders’ conference organised by the Commission on 5th December 2016. The 
objective of the inventory of EU and national policies was to commonly agree on the baseline 
and gaps. It was also discussed with Member State experts how to identify the main gaps on 
soil protection in EU policies for the ‘agriculture and forest’ cluster. 

The 4th meeting of the EU expert group on soil protection took place on 25 April 2017 
and focused on the preparatory work for a possible Impact Assessment towards EU soil policy 
development. The Commission presented the impact assessment rules and procedures and the 
contribution  of  the  soil  expert  group  to  the  preparation  of  an  Impact  Assessment  was 
discussed.  The  Commission  provided  a  document  with  first  thoughts  and  an  approach  for  a 
way-forward regarding the environmental problem that was sent to the experts for feedback. 
The Commission drafted and circulated also a questionnaire related to the problem definition 
of  the  Impact  Assessment,  as  well  as  a  tentative  timeline  for  the  whole  process.  Member 
States were also able to comment on the conclusions of the inventory report via their answer 
to the questionnaire.  

The 5th meeting of the EU expert group on soil protection took place on 24 October 2017 
and  the  main  objective  was  to  discuss  the  distributed  documents  and  questionnaire  on  the 
problem definition. The Commission presented also a new report on local soil contamination 
in  the  EU,  based  on  the  replies  by  Member  States,  which  would  contribute  to  the  problem 
definition.  The  following  issues  were  discussed  in  depth  with  the  experts:  global  soil 
degradation, data and monitoring of land and soil degradation in the EU, causes and drivers of 
land and soil degradation, effects and impact of land and soil degradation, and the costs of soil 
degradation. The importance to first define the policy gaps and failures and then to assess the 
need for filling these at the EU level was also highlighted by the Commission. 

The 6th meeting of the EU expert group on soil protection took place on 17 April 2018 
and  focused  on  the  replies  provided  by  Member  States  to  the  questionnaire  on  the  problem 
definition that was distributed in autumn 2017, with an ultimate deadline to reply by February 
2018. The Commission received replies from 18 Member States (AT, BE, CZ, DE, EE, ES, 
FI, FR, HR, IT, LT, LU, NL, PL, PT, SE, SI, SK). 10 Member States did not reply (BG, CY, 
DK, EL, HU, IE, LV, MT, RO, UK). The Commission encouraged the ten Member States that 
had not replied to the questionnaire, to still do so, and especially to share their opinion on the 
policy gaps. 

166 Soil inventory report  https://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/pdf/Soil_inventory_report.pdf  

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
                                                 
The EU added value and policy objectives of a new policy framework for soil protection were 
also discussed. The Commission explained the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, 
and  the  division  of  competences  between  the  Member  States  and  the  EU.  Any  new  soil 
protection  initiative  should  comply  with  the  general  objectives  of  article  191  of  the  TFEU. 
Additional specific objectives should be SMART and broad enough in order not to pre-empt a 
specific  policy  response  or  option.  The  Commission  announced  a  new  questionnaire  to  be 
distributed among the experts to allow Member States to provide their inputs on the EU added 
value and the policy objectives.  

The 7th meeting of the EU expert group on soil protection took place on 22 October 2018 
and focused on discussing the replies of Member States’ experts to the questionnaire on EU 
added  value.  Before  the  meeting,  the  Commission  received  15  replies  to  the  second 
questionnaire (AT, BE, CZ, DE, ES, FI, HR, IE, LU, NL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK). 13 Member 
States did not reply or replied very close to the date of the meeting (BG, CY, DK, EE, EL, 
FR, HU, IT, LT, LV, MT, PL, UK). Member States that had not yet replied, were given the 
opportunity  to  send  their  contributions  by  6  November  2018.  In  their  replies,  all  Member 
States agreed to some extent or fully agreed with the described transboundary impacts. Some 
Member  States  made  a  few  additional  suggestions  to  consider:  e.g.  N2O  emissions, 
salinization,  biodiversity,  climate  adaptation  and  the  evidence  base  after  Brexit.  Some 
Member  States  raised  also  doubts  about  the  uniform  application  of  targets  across  the  EU, 
because the situation is highly dependent on soil characteristics and texture; not all land and 
soil degradation processes are equally relevant across Member States due to the heterogeneity 
of the conditions of the soil.  

The Commission presented also the summary of replies to the second part of the questionnaire 
on the risk of failing European and international commitments. Most Member States agreed in 
their replies that there is a risk of failing, but  their opinions varied on the responsibility for 
failing  and  taking  action.  One  Member  State  answered  that  Africa  and  Asia  are  confronted 
with  more  pressing  and  challenging  soil  degradation  issues  than  the  EU.  Several  Member 
States asked not only to focus on negative trends, but also to acknowledge positive evolutions 
such  as  the  progress  made  in  the  EU  with  the  management  of  contaminated  sites,  the 
increased application of organic farming practices or the protection and restoration of forests 
and landscapes.  

Finally, the Commission presented the replies on the absence of a level playing field and the 
presence  of  market  disturbing  forces.  Almost  all  Member  States  recognized  in  their  replies 
that there is a lot of variety between national legislations. One Member State pointed out that 
the  main  objective  of  environmental  policies  should  be  environmental  protection  and  not 
market  regulation.  In  their  replies  Member  States  agreed  on  the  lack  of  data  and 
quantifications and expressed the need for additional research and knowledge.  The lack of a 
common  legal  framework  and  targets  impedes  systematic  data  collection  and  knowledge 
development at EU level.  

The  discussion  continued  on  the  policy  objectives  that  linked  the  problem  analysis  to  the 
policy actions and resulted from the analysis of the soil policy inventory, the gap analysis and 
the replies to the first questionnaire. The potential overall scope and specific policy objectives 
for a possible new EU policy initiative were also presented in the questionnaire.  

The 8th meeting of the EU expert group on soil protection took place on 4 April 2019 and 
discussed various policy developments relevant for the new policy framework, including the 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Special Report of the European Court of Auditors on Desertification and Land Degradation in 
the  EU,  criticizing  the  lack  of  an  adequate  policy  framework  at  EU  level  to  tackle  the 
problem. The experts continued also the discussion on the policy objectives of the future EU 
policy framework, on the basis of the replies to the questions and information sent earlier to 
the Member States.  

The 9th  meeting of the  EU expert group on soil protection  took place on 26 November 
2019. The Commission presented the approach to meet the recommendations of the European 
Court of Auditors (ECA), notably that all ECA recommendations were accepted and would be 
addressed in the soil policy framework under development, and that the experts could help by 
sharing best practices from Member States in the context of the study on the implementation 
of soil and land-related SDGs in the EU.  

The 10th meeting of the EU expert group on soil protection took place on 23 September 
2020. The main focus of the discussion were the new policy developments linked to the EU 
Green  Deal  and  notably  the  announced  intention  to  adopt  a  new  Soil  Strategy  in  2021.  Its 
objectives  were  discussed,  notably  to  stop  soil  and  land  degradation  in  line  with  the 
international  commitments  to  reach  land  degradation  neutrality,  but  also  to  contribute  to  a 
proposal  for  legally  binding  EU  nature  restoration  targets  in  2021  to  restore  degraded 
ecosystems. 

The 11th meeting of the EU expert group on soil protection took place on 30 September 
2021. The Commission presented the main building blocks and policy context of the new Soil 
Strategy, as well as the timing and process towards adoption. In general, the presentation was 
well  received  and  several  Member  States  explicitly  congratulated  the  Commission  with  the 
presentation and approach. Member States especially appreciated the holistic, transversal and 
integrated view, the linkage with societal challenges and the positive framing of soil as part of 
the solution. 

In  terms  of  process  the  Member  States  were  informed  about  the  consultation  documents 
related  to  the  new  Soil  Strategy  which  were  released  by  the  Commission  on  5  November 
2020: the Roadmap, a general document which explains to the public the act of preparing a 
new  strategy  (what,  why  and  how  the  Commission  is  going  to  take  action),  and  the  open 
online  consultation  to  be  launched  in  all  EU  official  languages  to  give  experts,  citizens, 
stakeholders and any interested person the opportunity to comment on the initiative. The soil 
experts were regularly informed in writing of all relevant policy developments related to soil 
in  the  follow  up  of  the  EU  Green  Deal  and  about  the  publication  of  the  roadmap  and  the 
online consultation.  

The Commission asked through the CIRCABC online discussion forum to the Member States 
what  the  ten  most  urgent  actions  for  soil  policy  were.  The  Commission  presented  the 
summarized  inputs  received  from  the  Member  States  (AT,  FR,  NL,  PL,  and  PT)  and 
emphasized that further engagement, input and views of other Member States would be highly 
welcomed.  The  following  specific  points  were  discussed  with  the  soil  experts:  significant 
progress on restoring degraded soils, defining the conditions for their good ecological status, 
introducing  restoration  objectives,  development  of  a  policy  instrument  to  reach  land 
degradation neutrality (SDG 15.3), increase the safe, sustainable and circular use of excavated 
soils,  significant  progress  on  improving  the  monitoring  of  soil  quality,  horizontal  policy 
issues,    significant  progress  in  identification  and  remediation  of  contaminated  soil  sites, 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
efforts  to  reduce  soil  pollution,  zero  net  land  take  by  2050,  funding  issues,  global  action, 
communication, awareness, engagement, literacy, and knowledge and research. 

4.2.  Dedicated workshops and conferences 

The European Commission organized a high level conference on "Land as a resource" on 
19  June  2014  in  Brussels167,  bringing  together  340  participants  from  European  institutions, 
national  and  regional  authorities,  research  centres  and  stakeholders.  This  conference  was  a 
first step towards a new policy initiative on land and soil to ensure that EU land management 
is based on sustainable principles, responding to the political mandates of the 2011 Roadmap 
for Resource-Efficient Europe (COM(2011) 571) and the 7th Environment Action Programme 
(Decision No 1386/2013/EU). 

A dedicated EU Soil stakeholders' Conference was organised by the Commission on 5th 
December  2016  in  Brussels168.  The  objective  of  the  conference  was  to  present  and  discuss 
with  stakeholders  the  inventory  of  soil-related  legislation  at  EU  and  national  level  and  gap 
analysis, as well as the first outcomes of the MAES Soil pilot169, in order to prepare further 
policy  developments.  The  conference  consisted  of  two  plenary  sessions  and  four  parallel 
working  sessions.  Keynote  speakers  and  panellists  were  invited  to  share  their  views  on  the 
way  forward  for  EU  soil  policy.  The  parallel  working  sessions  were  interactive,  in  small 
groups with  a moderator and rapporteur for each group. The themes of the parallel  sessions 
were  horizontal  (session  I  identifying  challenges  and  opportunities  for  further  policy 
development,  session  II  considering  the  potential  of  ecosystem  services  approach)  and 
thematic  (session  III  on  soil  contamination,  session  IV  on  sustainable  management  of 
agriculture and forest soils).  

A  specific  conference  on  “Brownfield  redevelopment  in  the  EU”170  was organised  on 5 
April  2019  by the Commission  together with  the European Committee of the Regions,  as a 
solution to limit urban sprawl, land take and soil sealing. Inspiring policies and good practices 
were presented by European, regional and local stakeholders, and the potential offered by EU 
funds were explored. 

A conference on “Soil and the SDGs: Challenges and need for action”  171 was organised 
by the Commission on 25 November 2019 at the start of the mandate of the new Commission 
to provide policy makers, experts and stakeholders the opportunity to discuss the priorities of 
the  new  Commission  for  soil  and  land,  and  to  exchange  knowledge  and  practises  on  the 
implementation  of  soil  and  land  related  Sustainable  Development  Goals  in  the  EU.  The 
conference  was  interactive  with  the  some  200  participants  and  included  two  panel 
discussions: ‘A growing sense of urgency for healthy soils’, and ‘The way forward’. 

167 "Land as a resource" Conference, 19 June 2014 

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/land_use/pdf/final%20report%20conference.pdf 

168 Soil Stakeholders Conference, 5 December 2016 https://www.ecologic.eu/1450  
169 Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services - MAES (europa.eu) 

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/index_en.htm  

170 Brownfield redevelopment in the EU | European Commission https://ec.europa.eu/info/events/brownfield-

redevelopment-eu-2019-apr-05_en  

171 “Soil and the SDGs: challenges and need for action” Conference, 25 November 2019 

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/pdf/conference_report.pdf  

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Following the adoption of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, a dedicated  session on soil 
biodiversity  was  organised  on  22  October  2020  by  the  Commission  during  EU  Green 
Week 2020 (Session 5 .3 It’s Alive! Why Soil Is The Most Important Habitat)172, to offer a 
broad  overview  of  the  issues  at  stake,  looking  at  areas  where  greater  efforts  are  required  to 
protect and restore soils in the EU. Indeed, healthy soils are key to achieve the objectives of 
the European Green Deal such as climate neutrality, zero pollution, sustainable food systems 
and a healthy and resilient environment. 

During  the  EU  Green  Week  2021  on  2  June  2021,  the  Commission  organised  a  session 
“Dirty  footprints  on  the  magic  carpet  –  the  impacts  of  soil  pollution  on  human 
health”.173  Speakers  from  the  World  Health  Organization,  Wageningen  University  and  the 
Italian  Institute  for  Health  discussed  the  zero  pollution  ambition  for  soil  and  the  link  with 
human  health.  MEP  Martin  Hojsik  presented  the  Resolution  of  the  European  Parliament  on 
soil protection.  

172 EU Green Week 2020 - Session 5 .3 It’s Alive! Why Soil Is The Most Important Habitat - YouTube video 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_5_0Lp0qlI  

173 Dirty footprints on the magic carpet – the impacts of soil pollution on human health | EU Green Week 2021 

https://www.eugreenweek.eu/virtual-conference/dirty-footprints-magic-carpet-impacts-soil-pollution-
human-health  

64