COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document 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) 418 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT     Accompanying the document 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) 416 final} - {SWD(2023) 417 final} - {SWD(2023) 423 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet 

Impact assessment on the Directive on soil 

A. Need for action 

What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level? 

About 60 to 70% of soils in the EU are currently in an unhealthy state.  
Soil is a vital, limited, non-renewable and irreplaceable resource. Scientific evidence indicates that 
soil degradation in the EU is continuing and worsening. Land and soil  endure severe degradation 
processes due to pressures such as unsustainable land management, climate change, extreme weather 
events, sealing, pollution and overexploitation. Soil forms very slowly, therefore it is a non-renewable 
resource. However, soil health can be maintained and regenerated.  
Healthy soils provide ecosystem services that are vital to humans and the environment, such as the 
conditions to provide safe, nutritious and sufficient food, biomass, clean water, nutrient cycling and 
carbon storage. Degrading the soil reduces its capacity to provide these ecosystem services. This leads 
to risks for the environment, economy and society, including risks for food security, resilience against 
natural disasters and droughts, human health and well=being, climate and biodiversity. 
All Member States are facing soil degradation. The drivers and impacts of the problem go beyond 
country borders and reduce the provision of ecosystem services throughout the EU and its neighbours. 
Current  EU  policies  make  positive  contributions  to  improving  soil  health  but  they  will  not  be 
sufficient  to  regenerate  all  soils  to  a  healthy  state  by  2050  because  they  do  not  comprehensively 
address all the drivers of soil degradation. Therefore, significant gaps remain. 
What should be achieved? 

The general objective is to achieve healthy soils across the EU by 2050,  as set out in the EU Soil 
Strategy for 2030, adopted in November 2021. This will ensure that EU soils can supply multiple 
ecosystem  services  at a  scale  sufficient  to  meet  environmental,  societal  and  economic  needs,  and 
reducing soil pollution to levels no longer considered harmful to human health and the environment. 

What is the value added of action at the EU level (subsidiarity)? 

The objectives of the proposed action can be better achieved at EU level because of the scale and 
effects  of  EU-wide  action.  Action  at  EU  level  is  also  justified  given  the  scale  and  transboundary 
nature of the problem, the impact of soil degradation across the EU and the risks for the environment, 
economy and society. Coordinated measures by all Member States are needed to achieve the objective 
for all soils to be healthy by 2050, and to secure the soil’s capacity to provide ecosystem services in 
the long-term. Currently, soil protection and regeneration policies vary markedly from one Member 
State to another. Lower environmental requirements in some Member States may potentially distort 
the internal market and lead to unfair competition among businesses. 

What are the options to achieve the objectives?  

B. Solutions 

The baseline scenario describes how the current situation is expected to evolve if no legislative action 
is taken at EU level. The baseline assumes that the current and planned EU, global and Member State 
policies relevant to soil health are implemented and remain in force. The baseline scenario covers 
non-legislative options, considering the measures already taken at national and EU level under the 
2006 Soil Thematic Strategy. It also assumes implementation of European Green Deal policies (such 
as the proposed Nature Restoration Law), the Common Agricultural Policy and the actions planned 
under the Soil Strategy for 2030, with the exception of the Soil Law. 
The  policy  options  are  described  by  using  five  key  building  blocks  that  set  out  definitions  and 
obligations as a basis for coherent legislation. The blocks are the definition of soil health and soil 
districts, monitoring, sustainable soil management, identification and investigation of contaminated 
sites and the restoration of soil health. Option 1 sets binding requirements only for monitoring but it 
was  discarded  at  an  early  stage.  Options  2,  3  and  4  are  provided  for  each  building  block,  by 

1 

 
 
modulating the level of flexibility and harmonisation to come up with meaningful potential solutions. 
The options with the highest degree of flexibility for Member States are labelled as ’option 2’ in each 
building block, those with the highest degree of harmonization are labelled as ’option 4’, and ’option 
3’ is an intermediate combination of harmonisation and flexibility.  
The  preferred  option  combines  the  best  options  from  each  building  block,  to  make  sure  that  the 
objectives  are  reached  with  requirements  that  are  both  realistic  and  do  not  go  beyond  what  is 
necessary. For this reason, the preferred option is based on a staged approach  that gives Member 
States time to put in place the mechanisms to first assess the condition of soils and then decide on the 
regeneration measures once the conclusions are available. The objective of healthy soils for 2050 
pursued by the preferred option is designed in a way that takes account of scientific limitations on the 
specific condition of soils and the uncertainties relating to the impacts some measures may have.   
What are different stakeholders’ views? Who supports which option? 

The feedback on the call for evidence ‘soil health – protecting, sustainably managing and restoring 
soil’  revealed  that  respondents  supported  for  a  legislative  initiative  at  EU  level.  All  responding 
research organisations, NGOs and public authorities supported it, as did the majority of responding 
business  associations  and  organisations.  Some  businesses  emphasised  the  importance  of  soil 
monitoring and the linkages with EU water policy and favoured a risk-based approach to tackle soil 
contamination. Some businesses and farmers voiced concerns about the risk of double regulation and 
additional administrative burden. Others preferred a non-binding approach at EU level. All categories 
of stakeholders demanded that the Soil Law leaves enough flexibility to take into account the diversity 
and local conditions of the soil (no one-size-fits-all solution).  
The vast majority of respondents to the online public consultation replied that at present, the causes 
of soil degradation are not sufficiently or not at all tackled at EU level. On the content of the Soil 
Health Law, respondents found it most important to include an obligation to use soil in a sustainable 
manner, for Member States to have an obligation to achieve healthy soils, and to use a risk-based 
approach when tackling contaminated soils. 

What are the benefits of the preferred option? 

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

The preferred option is designed to take action and tackle the costs, in particular the cost of ecosystem 
services loss due to soil degradation. It estimates that soil degradation costs EUR 68.8 billion per year 
(upper value of quantified costs), excluding contaminated sites, or EUR 292.4 billion per year (upper 
value of quantified costs). 
The highest benefits of the initiative come from the obligation it creates for Member States to take 
action to stop degradation and to regenerating unhealthy soils. On the cost of applying specific soil 
management measures, the quantifiable economic benefits for the cases studied were estimated at up 
to EUR 52 billion per year, which offset the economic costs, without factoring in the unquantifiable, 
but very significant, environmental and social benefits that the draft law would provide.  
In terms of the remediation of contaminated sites, the initiative is expected to yield very significant 
benefits,  in  particular  in  contributing  to  the  zero-pollution  ambition,  but  the  benefits  are  largely 
unquantifiable and outweigh the costs. A prudent estimation of those benefits is EUR 24.4 billion. It 
is important  to  note  that  the  costs  of action  would  generate  business  for the remediation  industry 
(typically EU SMEs) that would see an estimated increase in jobs of up to 35 800 units as a result.   
The preferred option therefore creates plenty of opportunities for SMEs both in terms of growth (e.g. 
to investigate and remediate contaminated sites, provide advisory services for soil health, soil testing 
labs, certification) and in terms innovation. 

What are the costs of the preferred option? 

The highest costs of the initiative are due to the obligation to take action to stop degradation, to apply 
sustainable management practices, and to regenerate healthy soils. The costs are estimated to be in 
the order of EUR 28 to 38 billion per year. The total cost of managing contaminated sites is highly 

2 

 
 
uncertain.  It  is  estimated  at  EUR  29  billion  (spread  over  15  years)  to  identify  and  investigate 
contaminated sites and 24.9 billion (spread over 25 years) to remediate contaminated sites. 

What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness? 

The business sectors expected to be affected by the initiative include agriculture, forestry and related 
extension services, business activities that have contaminated the soil, business activities related to 
the  remediation  of  contaminated  sites,  research  and  laboratories.  Soil  degradation  affects  their 
productivity and competitiveness. Action taken to tackle soil degradation is not rewarded, and this  
affects the level playing field. The preferred option is to create plenty of opportunities for EU SMEs 
(in terms both of growth and of innovation) in devising and applying sustainable soil management 
and regenerating measures, as well as to the investigate and remediate contaminated sites. Creating 
the obligations for Member States to monitor soil health would also create opportunities for research 
and development and business to develop parameters and soil observation capacity.  

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations? 

There will be costs in putting the structures in place (soil districts, monitoring mechanisms, registers, 
assessments), but these will be comparable with other frameworks (air, water). The highest costs will 
result from regeneration and remediation work. To achieve higher overall benefits than the costs, 
Member States are expected to help financing the transition to sustainable practices and regeneration 
when the on-site benefits for soil managers or landowners not expected to offset the costs. They may 
also use the EU funds available to achieve healthy soils. 

Will there be other significant impacts? 
The preferred option will deliver significant environmental benefits and improve soil health. It will 
have knock-on effects on water and air quality and will benefit biodiversity, the climate and our food 
system. The welfare and well-being of our current and future generations depends on soil health.  

When will the policy be reviewed? 

D. Follow up 

The  monitoring  process  provides  for  an  evaluation  of  the  impact  of  the  Soil  Law  based  on  core 
indicators tracking factual and spatially explicit data, information on multiple measures taken and 
their impact.  It  also  provides  for  best  practices to  be shared  between soil  management  units  (soil 
districts).  Based  on  the  monitoring  and  assessment  at  national  level,  complemented  by  the 
Commission-led  LUCAS  soil  survey  and  by  satellite  data,  the  Commission  will  assess  progress 
against the objectives set. It is important to give sufficient time to set up these monitoring frameworks, 
to produce results, put in place measures and then yield results.  

3