COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Subsidiarity grid Accompanying the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Soil Monitoring and Resilience (Soil Monitoring Law)
Date: 2023-07-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: conservation of resources, degradation of the environment, environmental monitoring, soil improvement, soil pollution, soil protection, soil resources

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 5.7.2023  SWD(2023) 416 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Subsidiarity grid Accompanying the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council  on Soil Monitoring and Resilience  (Soil Monitoring Law)  {COM(2023) 416 final} - {SEC(2023) 416 final} - {SWD(2023) 417 final} - {SWD(2023) 418 final} - {SWD(2023) 423 final}  
 
 
SUBSIDIARITY GRID 

1.  Can  the  Union  act?  What  is  the  legal  basis  and  competence  of  the  Unions’  intended 

action? 

1.1  Which  article(s)  of  the  Treaty  are  used  to  support  the  legislative  proposal  or  policy 
initiative? 

The legal basis for the EU to act on soil health lies in Article 191 and 192 of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). These articles empower the EU legislators to take 
measures aimed at:   

  preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment,   
  protecting human health,   
  prudent and rational utilization of natural resources,   
  promoting  measures  at  international  level  to  deal  with  regional  or  worldwide 

environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change.  

EU policy on soil health should aim at a high level of protection while taking into account the 
diversity of situations in the various regions of the EU. It should be based on the precautionary 
principle  and  on  the  principles  that  preventive  action  should  be  taken,  that  environmental 
damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay. 

To  prepare  soil  health  policies,  the  EU  should  take  account  of  the  available  scientific  and 
technical  data,  environmental  conditions  in  the  various  EU  regions,  the  potential  benefits  and 
costs  of  action  or  lack  of  action,  the  economic  and  social  development  of  the  EU  and  the 
balanced development of its regions.  

The European Parliament and the Council decide what action is to be taken by the EU on soil 
health, through the ordinary legislative procedure and after consulting the Economic and Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions.  For  measures  affecting  town  and  country 
planning,  quantitative  management  or  availability  of  water  resources,  or  land  use  with  the 
exception of waste management, the Council should decide unanimously in accordance with a 
special legislative procedure and  after  consulting the European Parliament,  the Economic and 
Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions.  Without  prejudice  to  certain  measures 
adopted by the EU, Member States should finance and implement the soil health policy.  

Without  prejudice  to  the  principle  that  the  polluter  should  pay,  if  a  measure  involves 
disproportionate  costs  for  the  public  authorities  of  a  Member  State,  such  measure  should 
foresee temporary derogations and/or financial support from the Cohesion Fund. 

1.2  Is  the  Union  competence  represented  by  this  Treaty  article  exclusive,  shared  or 
supporting in nature? 

The EU shares the competence in the area of environment and soil protection with the Member 
States.  

Subsidiarity  does  not  apply  for  policy  areas  where  the  Union  has  exclusive  competence  as 
defined in Article 3 TFEU1. It is the specific legal basis which determines whether the proposal 
falls  under  the  subsidiarity  control  mechanism.  Article  4  TFEU2  sets  out  the  areas  where 

1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12008E003&from=EN  
2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12008E004&from=EN  

1 

 
 
 
                                                           
competence is shared between the Union and the Member States. Article 6 TFEU3 sets out the 
areas for which the Unions has competence only to support the actions of the Member States. 

2.  Subsidiarity Principle: Why should the EU act? 

2.1 Does the proposal fulfil the procedural requirements of Protocol No. 24: 

-  Has there been a wide consultation before proposing the act? 
- 

Is there a detailed statement with qualitative and, where possible, quantitative indicators 
allowing an appraisal of whether the action can best be achieved at Union level? 

The Commission organised a call for evidence on soil health between 16 February 2022 and 16 
March 2022 that received 189 replies.5  

An  online  public  consultation  on  the  possible  Soil  Health  Law  for  protecting,  sustainably 
managing and restoring soils, was organized between 1 August 2022 and 24  October 2022 on 
which 5.782 responses were received.6  

The  Commission  maintained  an  open  dialogue  with  Member  States  through  the  EU  expert 
group on soil protection since 2015.7 The group normally met twice a year, but has convened 
eight  times only in  2022  to  discuss several  aspects  of the Soil Health  Law based on thematic 
working  papers  prepared  by  the  Commission.  As  from  October  2022  the  expert  group  was 
enlarged with stakeholder groups other than Member States.8  

The Commission also organised interviews and sent targeted questionnaires to gather additional 
views  of  experts  on  the  costs,  feasibility  and  impacts  of  certain  measures.  Answers  were 
collected between 14 and 28 November 2022.  

This impact assessment includes a specific chapter 3 ‘Why should the EU act’ where the legal 
basis, subsidiarity, necessity and added value of EU action are addressed. Annex 2 presents the 
synopsis of the stakeholder consultation.  

2.2 Does  the  explanatory  memorandum  (and  any  impact  assessment)  accompanying  the 
Commission’s  proposal  contain  an  adequate  justification  regarding  the  conformity 
with the principle of subsidiarity? 

Both  the  explanatory  memorandum  and  the  accompanying  impact  assessment  contain  a 
justification regarding the conformity with the principle of subsidiarity. The objectives of this 
initiative cannot be sufficiently achieved at Member State level alone. EU intervention on soil is 
justified due to:  
1) the significant cross-border effects and impacts of soil degradation and the loss or reduction 
of ecosystem services at EU level;  
2) the absence of a level playing field for economic operators, who are subject to very different 
national  soil  protection  regimes,  leading  to  a  distortion  of  the  internal  market,  unfair 
competition and lack of legal certainty; 
3) the risk that if soil is not properly protected, the EU and its Member States will fail to fulfil 

3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12008E006:EN:HTML  
4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12016E/PRO/02&from=EN  
5 Call for evidence for an impact assessment on soil health – protecting, sustainably managing and restoring EU soils 
6 Public consultation on soil health – protecting, sustainably managing and restoring EU soils 
7 Register of Commission expert groups and other similar entities: expert group on soil protection 
8 Register of Commission expert groups and other similar entities: expert group on the Soil Strategy 

2 

 
 
                                                           
 
international  and  European  Green  Deal  commitments  on  the  environment,  sustainable 
development and climate;  
4) the fact that soil degradation is persisting and even aggravating, despite that the EU and the 
Member States are sharing competence on the matter. 
Collective action is necessary and more effective. An important natural resource and key part of 
the  environment  is  left  currently  without  dedicated  legal  protection  at  EU  level  which 
constitutes  an  important  legal  gap  in  the  EU  acquis.  The  nature  and  scale  of  the  problem 
requires that soil health is addressed at EU level. 

2.3 Based on the answers to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed action 
be achieved sufficiently by the Member States acting alone (necessity for EU action)? 

The  objectives  of  the  proposed  action  cannot  be  achieved  sufficiently  by  the  Member  States 
acting  alone.  National  action  has  proven  to  be  insufficient  and  has  led  to  divergent  levels  of 
protection  of  the  environment  and  human  health.  As  stated  by  the  European  Environment 
Agency,  the  lack  of  a  comprehensive  and  coherent  policy  framework  for  protecting  Europe’s 
land and soil resources is a key gap that reduces the effectiveness of the existing incentives and 
measures  and  may  limit  Europe’s  ability  to  achieve  its  objectives.  Europe  is  not  on  track  to 
protect  its  soil  resources  based  on  the  existing  strategies.  There  is  a  lack  of  binding  policy 
targets  and  there  is  a  high  risk  that  the  EU  will  fail  some  of  its  own  and  international 
commitments such as land degradation neutrality. Therefore, coordinated measures by the EU 
and Member States are necessary to bring EU soil ecosystems back to healthy condition.  

a.  Are  there  significant/appreciable  transnational/cross-border  aspects  to  the  problems 

being tackled? Have these been quantified? 

Soil  degradation  and  its  drivers  and  impacts,  know  no  borders.  Soil  particles  are  physically 
transported inside or across borders by water, wind and human transport (e.g. excavated soils). 
Contaminants  can  become  mobile  via  the  air,  surface  water  and  groundwater  and  in  the  end 
contaminate  the  soil  in  another  country.  Soil  contamination  can  also  pose  risks  for  EU  food 
safety in the internal market. Soils play a key role in the nutrient, carbon and water cycles and 
these processes are not constrained by physical and political borders. Healthy soils are essential 
to  tackle  global  societal  challenges  such  as  climate  change  mitigation  and  adaptation,  food 
security, protection of human health, contamination, loss of nature and biodiversity.  The scale 
and  nature  of  the  problem  requires  EU-wide  action  to  ensure  that  all  Member  States  take 
measures to reduce the risks for human health and the environment in each Member State. The 
transnational  aspects  are  described  more  in  detail  with  examples  in  section  3.2  of  the  impact 
assessment.  

b.  Would  national  action  or  the  absence  of  the  EU  level  action  conflict  with  core 
objectives of the Treaty9 or significantly damage the interests of other Member States? 

According to  the Treaty, the EU should  aim for  a high level  of environmental  protection  and 
take  measures  to  preserve,  protect  and  improve  the  quality  of  the  environment.  An  important 
natural resource and key part of the environment is left currently without legal protection at EU 
level which constitutes an important legal gap. The absence of EU action to regulate soil health 
and  the  differences  between  national  soil  protection  rules  result  in  transboundary  impacts,  an 
uneven  playing  field  between  Member  States,  a  distortion  of  the  internal  market,  unfair 
competition and a lack of legal certainty. Objectives and measures for soil health established at 
EU level ensure that citizens and businesses in all Member States experience a similar level of 

9 https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-in-brief_en  

3 

 
 
                                                           
environmental protection, fairness and an effective pursuit of the objectives of the Treaty. 

c.  To what extent do Member States have the ability or possibility  to enact appropriate 

measures? 

Since soil protection is a shared competence between the EU and its Member States, national 
authorities  have  the  freedom  and  the  power  to  develop  their  own  national  soil-protecting 
policies.  In  absence  of  dedicated  EU  legislation,  soil  protection  policies  started  to  vary  more 
and more from one Member State to another. Some Member States have more sophisticated soil 
protection policies and rules compared to others. Member States with less soil-protecting policy 
instruments  in  place  are  often  those  suffering  from  high  pressures  on  soil,  e.g.  Southern 
countries where depletion of soil organic carbon, soil erosion and the risk of desertification are 
the  highest.  In  some  Member  States  soil  remediation  costs  are  almost  fully  covered  by  the 
public  sector,  while  in  others  the  costs  are  mostly  borne  by  the  private  sector.  Differences 
between  national  soil  contamination  rules  can  lead  to  very  different  obligations  for  economic 
operators, and different cost bases from one Member State to another. Despite the fragmented 
national efforts, soil health in the EU is bad and continues to deteriorate, with a negative future 
outlook  in  the  business  as  usual  scenario.  Therefore,  EU  action  is  needed  to  complement  the 
gaps  in  the  action  performed  by  Member  States.  Taking  ambitious  coordinated  action  on  soil 
health, would provide the EU the necessary credibility to ‘lead by example’ also at international 
level. A framework of general principles provides a consistent level of protection from the risks 
related  to  soil  degradation.  This  framework  enables  Member  States  to  ensure  the  consistent 
application  of  minimum  requirements.  Member  States  can  go  further  and  set  more  stringent 
objectives  or  take  more  protective  measures.  The  proposal  would  increase  legal  certainty  for 
European companies and provide clarity on the joint principles and targets for soil health across 
Member States.  

d.  How does the problem and its causes (e.g. negative externalities, spill-over effects) vary 

across the national, regional and local levels of the EU? 

With regards to the problem description (cfr. chapter 2 of the impact assessment), differences 
have been identified across Member States and regions of the EU. The problem, its causes and 
drivers  are  present  at  local,  regional,  national  and  transnational  level  throughout  the  EU,  but 
often  in  different  forms  and  variations.  Northern  European  countries  are  for  example  less 
affected by soil erosion. Water security issues linked to soil health impacts are relatively more 
prevalent in Southern and Central Europe. Issues stemming from the mineralisation of organic 
soils  are  especially  relevant  for  the  Scandinavian  and  Baltic  countries,  Ireland,  Germany  and 
Poland. Land take and sealing is strongly correlated with population density, with the highest 
values  relative  to  the  country’s  surface  observed  in  Malta  and  the  Netherlands.  Industrial 
contamination  is  a  greater  problem  in  regions  with  a  long  industrial  history  (e.g.  Belgium, 
Netherlands, Germany, France), where legacy sites of former polluting plants are concentrated. 

e.  Is the problem widespread across the EU or limited to a few Member States? 

60-70% of soils in the EU are unhealthy. The problem is widespread across the EU and present 
in every Member State, although certain soil degradation processes might be more relevant or 
occur more frequent in some Member States or regions than others (cfr. chapter 2 of the impact 
assessment).  

f.  Are Member States overstretched in achieving the objectives of the planned measure? 

As  addressed  above,  some  Member  States  have  adopted  legislation,  policies  or  guidelines  to 
improve  soil  health.  However,  these  remain  scattered  and  have  not  solved  the  problem  since 

4 

 
 
soil health continues to decline. The proposal aims to build on the experience of Member States 
and their lessons learnt. The process of regulating soil health is complex and requires scientific 
expertise.  This  could  partly  explain  why  some  Member  States  have  not  yet  taken  action.  A 
significant advantage of this proposal is that it partly eliminates the need for Member States to 
carry out their own scientific analyses, stakeholder consultations and impact assessments, with 
likely substantial savings on administrative costs.  

g.  How do the views/preferred courses of action of national, regional and local authorities 

differ across the EU? 

Member  States  support  the  Commission  in  stepping  up  efforts  to  better  protect  soils  and  stay 
committed to reaching land degradation neutrality. All Member States welcomed the new EU 
Soil  Thematic  Strategy  and  are  prepared  to  make  progress  towards  the  objective  of  ‘zero  net 
land  take’  by  2050.10 The  Council  remains  determined  to  work  with  the  Parliament  and  the 
Commission on soil protection and on any emerging initiatives that would be proposed in this 
regard.11 In general, Member States ask for sufficient flexibility to adapt the EU framework to 
the national conditions and to respect the subsidiarity and proportionality principles.  

Regional and local authorities have called the Commission through the European Committee of 
the  Regions  to  propose  a  European  Directive  specifically  for  agricultural  soils  and  have  also 
welcomed the new Soil Strategy and the announcement of the Soil Health Law.12 13 They are of 
the  view  that  supporting  soil  protection  through  a  European  framework  is  crucial  to  move 
towards  climate  neutrality,  biodiversity  restoration,  zero  pollution  and  a  sustainable  food 
system. At the same time regional and local authorities ask for flexibility in the implementation 
because of the regional differences in terms of spatial planning, landscape, soil composition and 
soil use.  

2.4 Based on the answer to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed action 
be better achieved at Union level by reason of scale or effects of that action (EU added 
value)? 

The objectives of the proposed action can be better achieved at Union level by reason of scale 
and effects of that action. 

a.  Are there clear benefits from EU level action?  

The  impact  of  declining  soil  health  is  enormous  and  comes  with  a  huge  cost.  Investing  in 
prevention  and  restoration  of  soil  degradation  makes  sound  economic  sense.  As  the  EU’s 
largest  terrestrial  ecosystem,  healthy  soils  sustain  many  sectors  of  the  economy  while  soil 
degradation is costing the EU an estimated 74 billion euro per year. The cost of inaction is two 
times higher than the cost of action through the Soil Health Law.  

The objectives of the proposed action can be better achieved at EU level because of the scale 
and effects of that action. Coordinated action is needed at sufficiently large scale to monitor and 
restore soil health and to apply sustainable soil management in order to benefit from synergies, 
effectiveness  and  efficiency  gains,  e.g.  through  increased  innovation  or  reduced  costs  of 
monitoring  or  soil  restoration  techniques.  The  European  and  international  commitments, 

10 Council Conclusions of 16 October 2020 on Biodiversity – the need for urgent action 
11 Question for oral answer O-000024/2021 from the Parliament to the Council on soil protection 
12 Opinion NAT-VII/010 of the plenary session of 3, 4 and 5 February 2021 on Agro-ecology 
13 Opinion ENVE-VII/019 of the plenary session of 26-27 January 2022 on the EU Action Plan: 'Towards zero pollution for air, 
water and soil' 

5 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
adopted by the EU and its Member States in the context of the UNCCD, UNFCCC, CBD and 
SDGs are currently not matched by a corresponding level of action. The proposal would allow 
for increased certainty for meeting objectives, to address transboundary impacts and to increase 
cost efficiency.  

b.  Are  there  economies  of  scale?  Can  the  objectives  be  met  more  efficiently  at  EU  level 
(larger  benefits  per  unit  cost)?  Will  the  functioning  of  the  internal  market  be 
improved? 

The absence of EU action to regulate soil and the differences between national soil protection 
rules currently result in an uneven playing field between Member States and a distortion of the 
internal  market,  unfair  competition  and  a  lack  of  legal  certainty.  The  substantial  cross-border 
impact  of  soil  degradation  and  differences  in  national  approaches  requires  collective  pan-
European action and improvement of soil health in the most economically efficient manner. All 
Member  States  should  make  environmental  information  on  soil  health  as  much  as  possible 
available to their citizens and the EU.  Regulating soil health is complex and requires scientific 
expertise.  A  significant  advantage  of  this  proposal  is  that  it  partly  eliminates  the  need  for 
Member  States  to  carry  out  their  own  scientific  analysis  and  impact  assessment,  with  likely 
substantial savings on administrative costs. 

c.  What  are  the  benefits  in  replacing  different  national  policies  and  rules  with  a  more 

homogenous policy approach? 

This  proposal  does  not  aim  to  replace  national  policies  and  rules.  By  defining  soil  health,  its 
descriptors,  and  the  obligation  to  have  all  soils  healthy  by  2050,  the  proposed  Directive  will 
impose  the  same  objectives  to  all  Member  States  with  the  freedom  to  go  further.  Setting 
minimum requirements will ensure a similar minimum level of protection across the EU while 
helping to level the playing field for businesses and improving the functioning of the internal 
market.  Soil  health  improvement  requires  long-term  action  which  means  constant  investment 
and  policy  stability.  Less  subject  to  short-term  political  perturbation,  the  EU  can  provide  the 
long-term objectives  and vision to  national  governments. Unified environmental  norms at  EU 
level bring clarity and certainty for the single market. 

d.  Do  the  benefits  of  EU-level  action  outweigh  the  loss  of  competence  of  the  Member 
States and the local and regional authorities (beyond the costs and benefits of acting at 
national, regional and local levels)? 

Action at EU-level is necessary to enhance soil health cost-efficiently, with a view to reducing 
negative  impacts  on  health  and  environment  across  the  Union.  The  administrative  costs  and 
benefits of the preferred option are assessed in chapter 7. 

e.  Will there be improved legal clarity for those having to implement the legislation? 

The  introduction  of  a  dedicated  proposal  on  soil  health  will  improve  legal  certainty  as  to  the 
definition of a healthy soil, the environmental objectives and the required measures. Currently, 
at  EU  level,  there  is  no  binding  overarching  framework  that  strategically  defines  policy 
priorities  or  parameters  for  soil  protection.  Soil  protection  outcomes  in  the  other  laws  are 
mostly derived as a consequence of delivering environmental objectives that are not explicitly 
soil focused. This proposal will help to steer these policies in a coherent and coordinated way 
towards enhanced soil health.  

3.  Proportionality: How the EU should act 

6 

 
 
3.1 Does  the  explanatory  memorandum  (and  any  impact  assessment)  accompanying  the 
the 
contain  an  adequate 
Commission’s  proposal 
proportionality of the proposal and a statement allowing appraisal of the compliance 
of the proposal with the principle of proportionality? 

justification 

regarding 

Since the objectives of this legal proposal cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States but 
can be better achieved at EU level, the Union can adopt measures. The proposal complies with 
the proportionality principle because it does not go beyond what is necessary for achieving the 
objective to have all soils in the EU healthy by 2050. The proposed instrument is a Directive 
that leaves much flexibility to the Member States to identify the most appropriate measures and 
to  adapt  the approach to local  conditions.  This  is  crucial to  ensure that the regional  and local 
specificities as regards soil variability, land use, climatological conditions and socio-economic 
aspects  can be properly  taken into account.  Setting legally binding targets and obligations for 
soil  health  at  EU  level  brings  consistency  to  the  action  needed  across  the  EU  to  reach  the 
overall objective. At the same time Member States can allow derogations in some cases if the 
application of the soil health objectives is not desirable or would lead to disproportionate costs 
that exceed the expected environmental benefits. To ensure the EU reaches these objectives, the 
proposal  lays  down  obligations  to  monitor  and  assess  soil  health,  and  to  sustainably  use  and 
restore soil. The impact assessment evaluated the impacts of all policy options and showed that 
the proposals are proportionate. 

3.2 Based  on  the  answers  to  the  questions  below  and  information  available  from  any 
impact  assessment,  the  explanatory  memorandum  or  other  sources,  is  the  proposed 
action an appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives? 

The proposed action constitutes an appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives. The Soil 
Strategy announced the Soil Health Law as a key tool to achieve Green Deal objectives and the 
vision to get all soils healthy by 2050.  

a.  Is  the  initiative  limited  to  those  aspects  that  Member  States  cannot  achieve 

satisfactorily on their own, and where the Union can do better? 

The  initiative  is  limited  to  those  aspects  that  Member  States  cannot  achieve  satisfactorily  on 
their  own,  and  where  the  EU  can  have  added  value.  In  order  to  ensure  an  effort-sharing 
approach in  line with  the ambition of the Soil Strategy, an EU-wide approach is  needed with 
clear result-oriented targets and definitions.  

b.  Is the form of Union action (choice of instrument) justified, as simple as possible, and 
coherent  with  the  satisfactory  achievement  of,  and  ensuring  compliance  with  the 
(framework)  directive, 
objectives  pursued 
recommendation, or alternative regulatory methods such as co-legislation, etc.)? 

(e.g.  choice  between  regulation, 

The  Soil  Health  Law  will  provide  a  coherent  framework  for  monitoring,  sustainable 
management and restoration, and will indicate the goals and targets to be achieved by Member 
States in 2050. These objectives can be best pursued in the form of a Directive, which gives the 
Member  States  more  freedom  when  implementing  an  EU  measure  than  a  Regulation.  The 
variability  of  soil  condition  and  uses  across  the  EU,  as  well  as  the  need  for  flexibility  and 
subsidiarity  better  fit  a  Directive  as  a  legal  instrument.  The  transposition  step  is  absolutely 
needed to determine the correct adaptation of the frame to the national specificities, despite the 
urgency necessary for action.  

c.  Does  the  Union  action  leave  as  much  scope  for  national  decision  as  possible  while 
achieving  satisfactorily  the  objectives  set?  (e.g.  is  it  possible  to  limit  the  European 

7 

 
 
action to minimum standards or use a less stringent policy instrument or approach?) 

In line with article 193 TFEU, the EU objectives and measures to protect soil health should not 
prevent  Member  States  from  maintaining  or  introducing  more  stringent  protective  measures. 
Such measures must be compatible with the Treaties and should be notified to the Commission. 
The  Directive  leaves  as  much  scope  for  national  decision  and  flexibility  as  possible  while 
achieving satisfactorily the objectives set. 

d.  Does  the  initiative  create  financial  or  administrative  cost  for  the  Union,  national 
governments,  regional  or  local  authorities,  economic  operators  or  citizens?  Are  these 
costs commensurate with the objective to be achieved? 

The  implementation  of  the  preferred  option  will  come  with  significant  direct  adjustment  and 
administrative  costs  for  businesses  and  authorities,  mostly  related  to  the  application  of 
sustainable soil management and restoration practices, and the investigation and remediation of 
contaminated  sites.  At  the  same  time,  these  measures  to  improve  soil  health  will  deliver 
substantial  environmental,  social  and  economic  benefits.  Monitoring,  sustainable  soil 
management and restoration will improve soil fertility, food security and safety, climate change 
mitigation and adaptation, the state of natural resources, nature and biodiversity, public health 
and  well-being.  Since  soils  in  general  respond  slowly  to  management  actions,  it  may  take  a 
while before the benefits materialize and the provision of ecosystem services starts to increase. 
The estimated costs of continued soil degradation are substantial up to EUR 74 billion annually 
for the EU.  

e.  While  respecting  the  Union  law,  have  special  circumstances  applying  in  individual 

Member States been taken into account? 

The Directive allows derogations, enabling under certain conditions taking into account special 
circumstances  applying  in  individual  Member  States,  while  respecting  the  Union  law.  The 
ranges and objectives for some descriptors of soil health, the sustainable soil management and 
restoration practices can also be set and tailored by Member States based on local conditions. In 
respect of penalties for infringements of the Directive, Member States are free in their choice of 
national  measures  as  long  as  they  are,  overall,  dissuasive,  effective  and  proportionate.  The 
different legislative regimes in Member States have been taken into account. The proposal tries 
to avoid as much as possible interference with existing legislation at national and EU level. The 
soil-related instruments at national and EU have been inventoried and assessed through a wiki14 
that contains information about 35 EU policies and 671 national policy initiatives.15  

14 https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/pages/viewpage.action?spaceKey=SOIL&title=Home 
15 Ecologic (2017), Updated inventory and assessment of soil protection policy instruments in EU Member States 

8