3.6. Soil degradation - European Environment Agency · 2016. 4. 20. · importance for the...

Soil degradation 183

3.6. Soil degradation

The main problems for soils in the EU are irreversible losses due to increasing soil sealingand soil erosion, and continuing deterioration due to local contamination and diffusecontamination (acidification and heavy metals). The incremental loss and deterioration ofEurope’s soil resource will continue, and will probably increase as a result of climatechange, land-use changes and other human activities.

Soil degradation is mainly caused by urbanisation and infrastructure development (inwestern and northern Europe) and erosion (in the Mediterranean region). There is asignificant risk of water erosion mainly in southern and central Europe and the Caucasusregion; at present, this risk is high to very high in one-third of Europe.

In the EU, policies are in place to prevent an increase in local soil contamination, which ishigh in areas with heavy industries and military bases. However, the problem of existingcontamination remains and there is a danger of further contamination in the AccessionCountries.

Diffuse contamination is particularly significant in areas with intensive agriculture.Southern Europe is increasingly affected due to increased industrial activity, urbanexpansion, tourism and agricultural intensification, while soils in northern Europe areprone to the effects of acid deposition.

Strategies for soil protection, and systems for monitoring of soil, are not adequatelydeveloped at European or national level, as compared with air and water for whichmonitoring, assessment and policy frameworks are already in place. A policy framework isneeded which recognises the environmental importance of soil, takes account ofproblems arising from the competition among its concurrent uses (ecological and socio-economical), and is aimed at maintaining its multiple functions.

Main findings

1. Why are Europe’s soils degrading?

1.1. The issueSoil must be considered as a finite, non-renewable resource since its regenerationthrough chemical and biological weatheringof underlying rock requires a long time. Inhumid climates, for example, it takes 500years on average for the formation of only2.5 cm of soil (The Tutzing Project, 1998).

Notwithstanding the limitations of availableinformation (see detailed discussion inChapter 4.2), it is clear that the damage tosoils caused by human activities is increasing,and manifested for instance in rates oferosion 10-50 times higher than the rates ofnaturally induced erosion. Pressure on soilsresults from agricultural intensification(including consolidation of small fields intolarger units) (see Chapters 3.13 and 3.14),and population growth coupled with increas-ing urbanisation (see Chapters 2.3 and3.12).

Soil is affected in terms of “loss” or “deterio-ration” of its functions (Box 3.6.1). A varietyof economic sectors all play a part in contrib-uting to soil degradation. As a consequence,approaches to solving soil problems must bebased on multi-layered and integratedmeasures (Figure 3.6.1).

Some of the problems and their conse-quences are irreversible, such as soil losses,mainly due to erosion and soil sealing. Otherscan be improved with adequate measures,such as clean-up and remediation plans set upto eliminate local contamination.

1.2. Assessing the impacts of economic activities – on soilThe capability of soil to provide a support tolife and ecosystems can be expressedthrough its ecological and socio-economicfunctions (Box 3.6.1).

Competition in terms of space exists betweenthe ecological and the socio-economic

Environmental issues184

functions, as well as among concurrent usesof soil within each group of functions.

For example, the use of land for infrastruc-ture construction – irreversible in relation toseveral generations time scale – makes soilunavailable to ecological functions. Mean-while the “over-intensive use of soils bymodern farming imposes too heavy a burdenon the buffer, filter, transformation, andgene-protection functions, resulting incontamination of the food chain and/orgroundwater, as well as the destruction ofplant and animal species.” (Blum, 1990).

The concept of multiple soil function andcompetition is crucial in understandingcurrent soil-protection problems and theirmultiple impact on the environment (Figure3.6.1). Accordingly, a conceptual assessmentframework has been developed applying theDPSIR approach to soil issues (Figure 3.6.2).This of course requires development ofindicators for soil degradation and loss ofsoil functions (see also chapter 4.2).

Soil quality and functions are of greatimportance for the environment. They areinterrelated with other key environmentalissues such as (see Figure 3.6.1):

Preservation ofcultural heritage

Biomassproduction

Source ofraw material

Support to humansettlements

Species genereserve andprotection

Filtering/Buffering

Climatechange

Acidification

Change ofbiodiversity

Water stress Soil

Examples of multi-impact approach

pressure on soil / impact on soil functions

impact of loss / deterioration of soil functions

• acidification: particularly affectingsensitive, poorly buffered soils (seeChapter 3.4);

• climate change (Box 3.6.2): leading tosoil degradation, but it is also influencedby soils and vegetation (see Chapter 3.1);

• biodiversity: including gene reserve andprotection, biomass production, protec-tion of landscapes (see Chapter 3.11);

• water stress: soil has a filtering/bufferingcapacity, but there are threats fromcontamination, salinisation andeutrophication (see Chapter 3.5);

• dispersion of hazardous substances, dueto run-off or leaching (see Chapters 3.3and 3.5).

1.3. Driving forces and pressures affecting soil from main economic activities

1.3.1. Land development, transport and tourismPressures on land use are particularly associ-ated with urban sprawl (see Chapters 2.3,3.12 and 3.13), increasing mobility (seechapter 2.2) and tourism (see Chapters 3.14and 3.15).

A predicted 5% increase in the urbanpopulation between 1990 and 2010 will,according to present trends, require an

Multi-function/Multi-impact approach (examples)Figure 3.6.1

Source: EEA


SECONDARY PROTECTIONPRIMARY PROTECTION

SOIL LOSSSOIL DEGRADATION

ResponsesDrivingForces

Pressures Impact

State

CAP reformNitrate directiveSewage sludge directiveWater framework directiveAir pollution prevention measuresSpatial development/Land usemeasures (EIA;ESDP)

Desertification ConventionDevelopment of a Europeansoil protection policy

INDIRECT(effects on othermedia, ecosystems andhuman population)Changes in populationsize and distributionHuman healthChange of biodiversity (soilhabitats and species)Plant toxicityChanges in crop yieldsChanges in forest healthand productivityContamination of surfaceand groundwaterClimate changeWater stress

DIRECT(Changes in soilfunction)

Human populationLand developmentTourismAgricultureTransportIndustry/EnergyMiningNatural eventsClimate changeWater stress

Emissions to air, waterand land.Land consumptionAgricultural intensification andmanagement practicesForest fires

Local and diffuse contaminationSoil acidificationSalinisationNutrient load (soil eutrophication)Physical deterioration

Soil sealingSoil erosionLarge scale land movement

Source: EEA

Box 3.6.1. Soil and soil functions

Many different definitions of soil exist, according tothe particular context, purpose, and point of viewfrom which soil issues are approached. This report,which considers soil with its multiple functions andimpacts as having a fundamental role in Europe’sEnvironment, requires a broad definition such asthat adopted by the Council of Ministers of theCouncil of Europe in 1990:

“ Soil is an integral part of the Earth’s ecosystemsand is situated at the interface between the Earth’s

Ecologicalfunctions

Socio-economicfunctions

Production of biomass

Filtering, buffering andtransforming

Gene reserve and protectionof flora and fauna

Support to human settlements(housing and infrastructure,recreation) and waste disposal

Source of raw materials,including water

Protection and preservation ofcultural heritage

Soil produces food and fodder, providing nutrients, air,water. It provides a medium in which plants can penetratewith their roots.

This function enables soils to deal with harmful substances,mechanically filtering organic, inorganic and radioactivecompounds; adsorbing, precipitating or even decomposingand transforming these substances - thus preventing themfrom reaching the groundwater or the food-chain.

Soil protects numerous organisms and micro-organismswhich can live only in soil.

Soil provides ground for the erection of houses,industries, roads, recreational facilities and wastedisposal.

Soil provides resources of numerous raw materials,including water, clay, sand, gravel and minerals, as well asfuel (coal and oil).

Soil, as a geogenic and cultural heritage, forms anessential part of the landscape and is a source ofpaleontological and archeological evidence, relevant forthe understanding of the evolution of earth and mankind.

Source: Blum, 1990, 1998

Soil degradation means loss or deterioration of itsfunctions. For the purpose of this report, it includes bothsoil loss and soil deterioration. Soil losses due to sealingand erosion can be considered in large part as irreversible

in relation to the time needed for soil to form or regenerateitself. Soil deterioration due to local and diffusecontamination can be reversed, if adequate measures aretaken, such as clean-up and remediation plans.

surface and the bedrock. It is subdivided intosuccessive horizontal layers with specific physical,chemical and biological characteristics and hasdifferent functions. From the standpoint of historyof soil use, and from an ecological andenvironmental point of view, the concept of soilalso embraces porous sedimentary rocks and otherpermeable materials together with the water whichthese contain and the reserves of undergroundwater.” (Council of Europe, 1990).

The DPSIR Framework applied to soil Figure 3.6.2


Box 3.6.2. An emerging issue: the relationships between soil and climate change

The Kyoto Protocol recognises the need to consideradditional human-induced activities related tochanges in greenhouse gas emissions by sourcesand removals by sinks in the categories ofagricultural soils, land-use change and forestry. Sofar only activities related to forestry (afforestation,reforestation and deforestation) since 1990 havebeen regulated. Reliable and transparentmethodologies, and guidelines on how to take intoaccount additional sources/sinks still need to bedeveloped (see Chapter 3.1; UNFCCC, 1998)

Soil can act as a carbon sink. This also hasimplications for the bio-availability and mobility ofmetals in soils, and has potentially harmful effectson both human, plant and animal health.Soil can also act as a carbon source, as well as asource of other greenhouse gases. The directapplication of agro-chemicals in the industrialagricultural sector, and other related managementpractices, can promote micro-organism activity insoils, and result in increased emissions of nitrousoxide (N2O), methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide(CO2) to the atmosphere, hence contributing toclimate change (see Chapter 3.1).

In boreal soils, reduction in the extent and depth ofpermafrost due to global warming could lead to anadditional flux of CO2 into the atmosphere, andcontribute to the release of CH4 stored in the soil(IPCC, 1996).

Desertification and climate change

Desertification is “land degradation in arid, semi-arid and sub-humid areas resulting from variousfactors, including climatic variations and humanactivities” (UNCCD, 1997). Some southern parts ofthe EU, including Spain, Greece, Portugal, Italy andFrance (Corsica) are affected (EEA,1998).

The modified patterns of precipitation, consequentto climate change, will probably induce greaterrisks of soil erosion, depending on the intensity ofrain episodes (IPCC, 1998).

Desertification is likely to become irreversible if theenvironment becomes drier and the soil becomesfurther degraded through erosion and compaction(IPCC, 1996).

equal increase in the uptake of urban land(see Chapter 2.3).

Some EU, national and regional policiesseem to encourage these sprawling trends:for instance, over the next decade, it isplanned to extend the length of railways byapproximately 12 000 km, of which 10 000km is high-speed track and the road networkby over 12 000 km (implementation of theTENs; see Chapter 2.2).

The major impacts of these developments onsoil are its irreversible loss: through surfacesealing, affecting the most productiveagricultural and forest land; together withsoil erosion, due to destruction of plantcover; local contamination due to wasteaccumulation; and salinisation caused by theabstraction and use of marine water incoastal areas.

Expansion of transport infrastructure andtraffic emissions are also affecting soil interms of diffuse contamination (heavymetals, soil acidification), while road spillsand facilities connected to the transportsector (petrol stations and car-repair facili-ties) contribute to the generation of localsoil contamination.

The consequences are observable in nearlyall big cities and urban agglomerations inthe EU, such as London, Paris and the Ruhrarea (see Chapter 3.12, Box 3.12.6). Tourismaffects mainly the Alps, Mediterranean

coastal areas (which account for 30% of thetotal tourist arrivals in the EU), and sub-tropical islands (Canaries, Madeira).

1.3.2. AgricultureThere are marked regional imbalances inthe EU between agricultural intensification –changes largely driven by the implementa-tion of the CAP – and economic pressureson marginal farms. The latter causes landabandonment, which may accelerate soildegradation, and, in areas with a dry climate,may lead to desertification.

Intensive industrial agriculture gives rise tosevere (and increasing) pressures on agricul-tural soils, which represent approximately40% of the EU’s total soil resource (seeChapter 2.2).

The major impacts on soil are (GermanAdvisory Council of Global Change, 1994):

• increased susceptibility to wind andwater erosion as a consequence ofagricultural practices (long exposure ofploughed soil, loss of organic matter,cultivation on steep slopes, etc.);

• loss of grazing cover and erosion due toovergrazing;

• loss of fertility due to deep ploughing,elimination of crop residues, mono-culture and elimination of mixedcultivation/animal farming;

• soil compaction by heavy machines, withincreased run-off.


These problems, initially focused on zoneswith fertile soils in Europe, are now wide-spread at continental level, as industrialagriculture has spread to regions with lessfertile and more vulnerable soils, such as theMediterranean area.

1.3.3. Industry, energy and miningThese sectors are affecting soils both interms of local contamination, mainly due toinadequate waste management and produc-tion processes, and diffuse contamination,due to emission and transport of pollutantsvia air, water and earth often in regions farfrom the original source (Box 3.6.3).

Local soil contamination most frequentlyoccurs at waste-disposal sites, gas works, oilrefineries, metal-processing industries,chemical industries and other productionfacilities.

The extraction of minerals, metals andconstruction materials can be anothersource of pollution, leading to: local con-tamination; destruction of arable land;changes in morphology and consequentlyerosion and hydrological disruption; andcompaction, surface sealing and soil loss.

2. What is the current state of Europe’s soils?

Although soil degradation at European levelis generally recognised as a serious andwidespread problem, its quantification,geographical distribution and total areaaffected are only roughly known.

The most recent assessment of soil condi-tions in Europe is an evaluation of thecurrent state of human-induced soil degrada-tion, derived by ISRIC in 1993 from theworld map on the status of human-inducedsoil degradation (GLASOD) (Maps of soildegradation in Europe, prepared by ISRIC,are published in EEA, 1998). There is a needfor better, and more detailed information.Validation of the maps through the EIONETis ongoing.

2.1. Soil loss by urbanisation and infrastructuresThe rates of real soil loss due to surfacesealing through urbanisation and infrastruc-ture construction in the EU are consistent.Since 1970, the increase of length of motor-ways has been significant in most of thecountries. Occupation of land by infrastruc-ture is high in Belgium, Germany and theNetherlands, and is increasing in Greece,

Industry direct chemicals industry, petrochemical/oilindustry, steel industry and other

Energy direct gas works, petrochemical/oil industry

Transport direct and accidents (road spills), maintenance ofindirect transport vehicles, inadequate interim

storage of hazardous chemicals

Household/ indirect production of wasteConsumers

Tourism indirect production of waste

Military direct military bases: production of war fareagents, shooting ranges, stocks, air strips,car-repair shops

Box 3.6.3. The causes of local contamination

Contaminated sites are mostly due to industrial activities and waste disposal.

Waste disposal addresses most sectors, namely industry, households andconsumers but also tourism.

The transport sector contributes to local soil contamination due to road spillsand the huge number of repair and maintenance facilities.

Abandoned military bases pose a very serious problem in most of theAccession Countries, especially those of the former Soviet army forces. Localsoil contamination at military bases is mostly due to air strips, vehicle repairand maintenance facilities, production of warfare agents, storage of chemicalsand fuels, and shooting ranges.

The energy sector contributes to the problem with gas works and caloricpower stations.

Portugal and Spain (see Chapter 2.2, Table2.2.1).

There is a lack of consistent data on theamount of soil loss through surface sealingat the EU level. Data on the total amount ofbuilt-up areas is only available for a limitednumber of countries, and is not comparablesince countries use different methodologies.Within these limitations, existing data showsthat since 1990 the growth of built-up areashas been consistent in Belgium, France andGermany, where it reached about 50 and 70ha/day over the period 1990-1995 in Bel-gium and France respectively, and exceeded120 ha/day over the period 1993-1997 inGermany (Table 3.6.1, Figure 3.6.4).

Built-up areas have grown at the expenses ofagricultural land in France, Germany, theNetherlands, Poland and Iceland – whereforest areas have also decreased in theperiod 1990-1995 (Figure 3.6.3).

Soil loss rates through land developmentand infrastructures may exceed those due to


soil erosion in many EU countries, with thelikely exception of some countries in South-ern Europe (see Table 3.6.3).

2.2. Soil erosionSoil erosion in Europe is mainly due to waterand to a lesser extent to wind. The majorcauses are unsustainable agricultural practicesand overgrazing. Soil erosion reduces theecological functions of soil: mainly biomassproduction, crop yields due to removal ofnutrients for plant growth, and soil filteringcapacity due to disturbance of the hydrologi-cal cycle (from precipitation to runoff).

The loss of plant nutrients and organicmatter via eroded sediment reduces thefertility and productivity of the soil. Thisleads to a vicious cycle whereby farmersapply more fertilisers to compensate for theloss of fertility. Soil, once eroded, tends to bemore susceptible to further erosion, andthus the cycle intensifies. The loss of appliednutrients in this way, represents an enor-mous cost to the agricultural community.

It has been calculated that in Austria, poten-tial loss of organic matter in agricultural soildue to erosion could be more than 150 000tonnes per year, while potential loss ofnutrients, such as nitrogen and phospho-rous, could be more than 15 000 and 8 000tonnes per year respectively (Stalzer, 1995).

2.2.1 How much soil is being eroded?Soil erosion causes irreversible soil loss overtime-scales of tens or hundreds of years and

Table 3.6.1. Growth of built-up areas in selected countries in the period 1990-1995

country land area built-up built-up built-up population built-up increase(km2) area (km2) (% of land area (1000’s) area of built-up(1) (d) (2) (e) area) (e) increase (4) (f) increase area over

(ha/day) (m2/per- the periodson/year) as % of(4) land area

Belgium/Luxembourg (a) 32 820 5 960 18.2 49 10 039 18 2.7

Bulgaria 110 550 8 356 7.6 -6 8 614 -2 >-0.1

France 550 100 29 549 5.4 72 57 411 5 0.2

Germany(3) (b) 349 166 42 128 12.1 122 81 392 5 0.5

Iceland 100 250 1 353 1.3 6 262 79 0.1

Liechtenstein 160 12 7.4 <0.1 30 5 0.4

Netherlands 33 920 5 609 16.5 9 15 063 2 0.4

Poland 304 420 23 087 7.6 21 38 338 2 0.1

SlovakRepublic 48 080 1 290 2.7 2 5 297 1 >0.1

(1) All countries exceptGermany, Land area:

FAO at 16/06/98(2) All countries except

Germany, Built-up area: ForEEA18 - Agriculturalyearbook, 1995 and

ENVSTAT/LUQ1at 12/03/98. For others -

General Questionnaire (NFP)(3) For Germany:

Flachennutzung inDeutschland 1997,

Statistisches Bundesamt(4) Population: World

Population Prospects: the1996 Revision (United

Nations, New York)(a) Figure for “built-up area”

refers only to Belgium(b) Data for Germany refers

to the period 1993-1997(c) data for the Netherlands

refers to the period 1989-1993

(d) land area is referred toyear 1995

(e) built-up area is referredto most recent figure

(f) population is an averageover the selected period

Sources: EEA dataelaboration

3.00

% o

f tot

al la

nd a

rea

Belgium

/

Luxe

mbour

g

Bulgar

ia

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Icelan

d

Lithu

ania

The N

ethe

rland

s

Poland

Slova

k Republic

2.00

1.00

0

-1.00

-2.00

-3.00

Forest and woodsAgricultural areaAll other landBuilt-up area

Changes in built-up areas vs. other land uses inselected countries in the period 1990-1995 as a %of total land area

Figure 3.6.3

Source: EEA dataelaboration (see Table 3.6.1

for data sources)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

-10

m2 /

per

son/

year

Belgium

/

Luxe

mbour

g

Bulgar

ia

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Icelan

d

Lithu

ania

The N

ethe

rland

s

Poland

Slova

k Republic

Increase of built-up areas in selected countriesduring in the period 1990-1995 in m2/person/year

Figure 3.6.4

Source: EEA dataelaboration (see Table 3.6.1

for data sources)


is an increasing phenomenon in Europe(Blum, 1990). In parts of the Mediterraneanregion, erosion has reached a stage ofirreversibility and in some places soil erosionhas practically stopped through lack of soil.With a very slow rate of soil formation, anysoil loss of more than 1 t/ha/year can beconsidered irreversible within a time span of50-100 years. Losses of 30-40 t/ha in indi-vidual storms that may happen once everyone or two years are measured regularly inthe EU, with losses of more than 100 t/ha inextreme events (Van Lynden, 1995).

The amount of soil loss from erosion in theEU is not known. The area affected by watererosion and yearly amounts of soil loss forselected countries in the period 1990-1995are shown in Tables 3.6.2 and 3.6.3. Figure3.6.5 shows distribution of loss per land-useclass in the same period.

Soil losses are high in Spain, where loss ofsoil in agricultural land reached a peak of anaverage 28 t/ha/year, in the period 1990-1995, while the total area affected was 18%of the total land in 1995. Substantial losseshave been calculated for Austria, where anaverage of more than 9 t/ha/year in agricul-tural land losses affected an area of approxi-mately 8% of the total land.

2.2.2 Where in Europe?Although it has always been considered as asevere and increasing problem in southernEurope, soil erosion, especially due to water,is becoming increasingly relevant in north-ern Europe. The area with the greatestseverity of soil loss for both wind and watererosion is the Balkan Peninsula and thecountries surrounding the Black Sea. Somecentral European Countries such as theCzech Republic and the Slovak Republic,also suffer from extremely serious soilerosion problems (EEA, 1998).

The EU Mediterranean countries have severesoil erosion problems, which can reach theultimate stage and lead to desertification. Atpresent rates of erosion, considerable areas inthe Mediterranean and the Alps, currentlynot at risk, may reach a state of ultimatephysical degradation, beyond a point of noreturn within 50-75 years. Some smaller areashave already reached this stage (Van Lynden,1995).

2.2.3 Outlooks: the effects of climate change in agricultural areas - changes in water erosion riskWater erosion risk is, under current climateand land cover, high to very high in one-

Country Total area Agricultural Forest land Dry open Dry openaffected (ha) land land with land

vegetation

Germany 2 400 000 2 400 000

Spain 9 161 000 6 477 000 255 000 2 024 000 405 000

Austria 625 000 625 000

Iceland 6 800 000 1 500 000 5 300 000

Table 3.6.2.Area affected by water erosion in selectedcountries in the period 1990-1995

Source: OECD-Eurostat joint 1996 questionnaire; for Austria: Östat & UBA,1998; EEA

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

45

40

35

Germany Spain Austria

Total soil loss (t/ha/y)agricultural landforest landdry open land with vegetationdry open land

Soil

loss

in t

/ha/

y

Source: OECD-Eurostat joint1996 questionnaire; forAustria: Östat & UBA, 1998;EEA

Country Total soil Soil loss in Soil loss in Soil loss in Soil loss inloss agricultural forest land dry open dry open

(t/ha/y) land land landwith veg.

Germany 2 2 0.4 0.4

Spain 27 28 18 23 41

Austria 9 (a) 9 (a)

Iceland n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Table 3.6.3.Soil loss due to water erosion in selected countriesin the period 1990-1995

n.a.: the unit (t/ha/yr) is not applicable to Icelandic conditions

(a) The value for Austria refers to an average loss for agricultural land covered by corn,potatoes, sugar beet and spring grain

Source: OECD-Eurostat joint 1996 questionnaire; for Austria: Östat & UBA, 1998; EEA

Soil loss due to erosion in selected countries in theperiod 1990-1995

Figure 3.6.5


30˚ 20˚ 10˚ 0˚ 10˚ 20˚ 30˚ 40˚ 50˚ 60˚

60˚

50˚

40˚

30˚

30˚20˚10˚0˚30˚

40˚

50˚

60˚

N o r t hS e a

A r c t i c O c e a n

At

la

nt

ic

Oc

ea

n

B l a c k S e a

M e d i t e r r a n e a n S e a

C h a n n e l

low

Water erosion riskin agriculturalareas, 2050

0 1000 km

moderate

high

very high

not applicable

30˚ 20˚ 10˚ 0˚ 10˚ 20˚ 30˚ 40˚ 50˚ 60˚

60˚

50˚

40˚

30˚

30˚20˚10˚0˚30˚

40˚

50˚

60˚

N o r t hS e a


At

la

nt

ic

Oc

ea

n

B l a c k S e a


C h a n n e l

decrease

Change in watererosion risk in

agricultural areas,1990 – 2050

0 1000 km

no change

increase

not applicable

Map 3.6.1

Source: EuropeanCommission, 1999;

EEA

Map 3.6.2

Source: EuropeanCommission, 1999;

EEA

third of the European land area. Areas withsuch high risk are dominantly located insouthern and central Europe and the Cauca-sus area. In the remaining parts of Europethe risk is low to moderate.

Under the baseline scenario, the watererosion risk is expected to increase by 2050in about 80% of the EU agricultural areas, asan effect of climate change. It remains thesame in 10% of the areas and decreases inthe remaining 10%. The areas with highestincrease in erosion risk are mainly located inthe western part of central Europe, in theMediterranean area, and in the north andsouth of the Black Sea. Areas with 10% ormore decrease in risk can be found acrossthe EU (parts of UK and Spain), but are

mainly located in the areas south or south-east of the Gulf of Bothnia (Maps 3.6.1 and3.6.2).

2.3. Local contaminationLocal contamination is a characteristic ofregions where intensive industrial activities,inadequate waste disposal, mining, militaryactivities or accidents pose a special stress tosoil. If the natural soil functions of buffering,filtering and transforming are overexploited,a variety of negative environmental impactsarise, the most problematic of which arewater pollution, direct contact by humanswith polluted soil, uptake of contaminants byplants and explosion of landfill gases.

2.3.1. How many contaminated sites are there in Europe?There is no European-wide monitoring ofcontaminated sites. Monitoring exits only ona country-by-country basis. Countries are atdifferent levels of progress and apply differ-ent methodologies and definitions.

Several countries have initiated nationalinventories. However, data on the number ofcontaminated sites based on national inven-tories is not currently comparable, since it isbased on different national approaches.Therefore, national totals do not representthe scale of the problem, but give only anindication of the efforts made by eachcountry.

Information available for 20 Europeancountries reveals that the estimated total ofsites which are definitely or potentiallycontaminated exceeds 1.5 million and thatthese are mostly located in 13 EU MemberStates (Table 3.6.4).

2.3.2 Where in Europe?Land contamination usually affects areaswith a high density of urban agglomerationand with a long tradition of heavy industry,or in the vicinity of former military installa-tions. However, a single site may pose amajor threat to a large population group orto a vast area, as for the mine of Aznacóllar(Andalusia, Spain), where an accidentoccurred in April 1998 and provoked thecontamination of an area of about 4 500 ha,threatening the national park of Doñana(Box 3.6.4).

The largest and most affected areas arelocated in north-west Europe, from Nord-Pasde Calais in France to the Rhein-Ruhr regionin Germany, across Belgium and the Nether-lands. Other areas include the Saar region in


Germany; northern Italy, north of the riverPo, from Milan to Padua; the region locatedat the corner of Poland, the Czech Republicand the Slovak Republic, with Krakow andKatowice at its centre; and the areas aroundall major urban agglomerations in Europe.

In order to identify ‘hot-spots’ for localcontamination, an integrated inventory ofpollution sources to air, water and land isneeded.

2.3.3 What is being done? Investigation and remediation of contaminated land in Europe.Identification of sites posing a potential riskto human health and ecosystems (identifica-tion of potential contamination through thescreening process), verification that acontamination exists, and assessment of therisks involved are the first steps in themanagement of contaminated land beforeany remediation activity can take place.

Progress in the identification of contami-nated sites in some European countries issummarised in Figure 3.6.6. In Denmark, forinstance, screening has been completed for93% of suspected sites and risk assessmentfor 26% of the definitely contaminated sites;in Austria, the percentages are 9% and 35%respectively. It is not possible at present tomake a more comprehensive assessment ofprogress in the management of contami-nated land in the EU, because the availableinformation is far from complete.

Many countries have developed specialfunding tools for the clean-up of contami-nated sites, such as tax systems, new land-useincentives or the prevention of new contami-nation. Public expenditure on clean-up andremediation of contaminated sites for se-lected countries is illustrated in Table 3.6.5.

In the EU, policies now in place reflecting theprecautionary principle will help to avoidcontamination in the future. Thus expendi-ture on the clean-up of contaminated siteswill stabilise or even decline, except incountries which have only recently begun toaddress the problem. Monitoring activitieswill increase; many countries have onlyrecently started to set up a monitoring system.

At EU level the programmes of the Euro-pean Regional Development Fund providesome support for the clean-up of local soilcontamination (Table 3.6.6).

Many Accession Countries have enactedlegislation for contaminated sites, started

inventories and set up specific funding tools.Hungary and the Czech Republic can beregarded as the most advanced in thisrespect. The Slovak Republic and Sloveniaare working on a new regime includingfinancing models. Lithuania, Latvia, Hun-gary and the Czech Republic have started toset up inventories, while all AccessionCountries have made assessments of the costsof remedial measures for former militarybases. Co-operation with the EU is increas-ing.

2.4. Diffuse contaminationSoils are often used for the disposal ofindustrial and urban waste products. Con-taminants from flowing water over soil oreroded soil itself can pollute surface waterssuch as rivers, streams and reservoirs. Leach-ing of contaminants through channels in thesoil via preferential flow is a large source ofchemicals in groundwater (see Chapter 3.3).

Soil characteristics play a major role in themovement of chemicals within the soil.Movement of chemicals that adsorb tomineral or organic soil particles is governedmainly through erosion mechanisms,whereas transport of soluble chemicals tendsto be via water flow either through the soilor as surface runoff. Many chemicals exhibitboth partial adsorption and solubilisation,making predictions of their fate, behaviourand environmental impacts difficult (seeChapter 3.3).

The soil function most affected by diffusecontamination is its buffering, filtering andtransforming capacity. When the bufferingcapacity of soil with respect to a certainsubstance is exceeded, the substance isreleased to the environment. This delayedrelease of pollutants is very dangerous andrenders the soil a “chemical time-bomb”.

The most relevant problems posed by diffusecontamination and treated here are soilacidification, soil contamination by heavymetals and chemicals, and surplus nutrients.

2.4.1 Soil acidificationSoil acidification occurs as a result of emis-sions from vehicles, power stations, otherindustrial processes and natural bio-geochemical cycles, re-depositing onto thesoil surface mainly via rainfall and drydeposition (see Chapter 3.4).

Exceedances of critical loads of acidificationand eutrophication are at present mostlydominated by nitrogen deposition. The


Industrial Waste Mili- Potentially Contaminatedsites sites tary contaminated sites sites

sites

ab op ab op identified estimated identified estimated(screening total (risk totalcompleted) assessment

completed)

Albania • • • • n.i. n.i. 78 n.i.

Austria • • • • • 28 000 ~80 000 135 ~1 500

Belgium(Flemish region) • • • • • 5 528 ~9 000 7 870 n.i.

Denmark • • • • 37 000 ~40 000 3 673 ~14 000

Estonia • • • • • ~755 n.i. n.i. n.i.

Finland • • • • • 10396 25 000 1 200 n.i.

France • • • • • n.i. 700 000-800 000 896 n.i.

Germany • • • • 202 880 ~240 000 n.i. n.i.

Hungary • • • • • n.i. n.i. 600 10 000

Ireland n.i. 2 000 n.i. n.i.

Iceland • n.i. 300-400 2 n.i.

Italy • • • • 8 873 n.i. 1 251 n.i.

Lithuania • • • • • ~1 700 n.i. n.i.

Luxembourg • • 616 n.i. 175 n.i.

Netherlands • • • • • n.i. 110 000 - 120 000 n.i. n.i.

Norway • • • • • 2 121 n.i. n.i. n.i.

Spain • • • • 4 902 n.i. 370 n.i.

Sweden • • • • • 7 000 n.i. 12 000 22 000

Switzerland • • • • • 35 000 50 000 ~3 500 n.i.

United Kingdom n.i. ~100 000 n.i. ~10 000

Table 3.6.4.Available data on the number of potentially and definitely contaminated sites, for selected categories andcountries

ab = abandoned;op = operating:

n.i. = no information

screening process =identification of sites with apotential for contamination

risk assessment process =verification of the

contamination andassessment of the risks

involved

Potentially contaminatedsite: a location where as aresult of human activity an

unacceptable hazard tohuman health and

ecosystems might exist

Contaminated site: apotentially contaminated

site where an unacceptablehazard to human health and

ecosystems does exist, onthe basis of the results of

risk assessment

Source: EEA-ETC/S, 1998

In April 1998, a tailing-dam dike in an open-castpyrite mine at Aznalcóllar (Seville, Spain) breached,allowing water and solid materials from the tailingspond to be discharged into the nearby Agrio river,an affluent of Guadiamar. About 4.5 million cubicmeters of slurry composed of acidic water, finedivided metals (mainly pyrite) and other materialsinundated the riverbanks of the Agrio andGuadiamar rivers threatening Doñana, Europe’slargest national park. A strip of ca. 300 m wide and40 km long, at both sides of the rivers, was coveredby a layer of toxic black sludge. About 4 500 ha ofagricultural land became polluted.

Studies carried out immediately after the spillingshowed that the sludge were composed mainly ofpyrite (68-78%) in very fine particle size. Chemicalanalysis of the sludge showed a great content inheavy metals and other toxic elements (Cabrera etal., 1998).

Box 3.6.4. The accident of Doñana

A year later 68% of soils are still contaminated withhigh and very high concentrations of heavy metals.With reference to the arable layer up to a depth of10 cm, 68% of soils are contaminated with arsenic,47% with zinc, 25% with lead, 15% with copper,11% with tallium and 4% with cadmium. The mostcontaminated areas are located close to the mineand in the surroundings of the park.

Although remediation started soon after theaccident and current measures allow theimmobilization of a large part of the contaminants,the re-use of affected land is still a major problem.

Source: CSIC, 1999


Country Specification M euros/year

Austria 1996 public remediation fund + overheads ~ 25

Belgium 1996 public remediation budget ~ 36(Flemish region)

Denmark (1) 1997 public expenditure for investigations ~ 48and remediations

Finland 1996 public expenditures for investigations ~12and remediations

Hungary 1996 includes only remediation activities along ~ 6with the national remediation programme

Sweden 1996 first public budget along with a five-year ~ 23action plan, the plan has already been revisedand the budget been reduced

Netherlands 1996 total public expenditure ~ 280

Table 3.6.5.Public expenditure on clean-up activities and

contaminated-site management in some Europeancountries in 1996

(1) refers to the year 1997 Source: EEA-ETC/S

Source: EEA-ETC/S

Table 3.6.6.Overview of clean-up funding tools

Country

Austria, France

Belgium (Flemishregion)

Czech Republic

Netherlands,Sweden, Denmark,Finland

United Kingdom

EU

Instruments

tax

license system

privatisation /property transfer

fee on petrol price

land development

land development

Specification

Waste tax to fund remediation activities.

The end of exploitation of an industrial facility requires asimple site investigation to be conducted.

Property transfer and privatisation is only possible under theprovision that the private investor conducts an environmentalaudit at the site and the audit is approved by the authorities.

Voluntary agreements of the petrochemical/oil industry tofund the remediation of abandoned petrol stations; financedby a fee included in the petrol price.

Public funds support the recycling and reuse of derelict land,including the remediation of contaminated sites.

The European Regional Development Fund supports regions ofindustrial decline in land recycling activities. These activitiescover to some extent the clean-up of contaminated sites.

Source: EEA-ETC/S, 1998

Austri

a

Belgium

Denm

ark

Finlan

d

Germ

any

Hungary

Swed

en

Switz

erlan

d0

20

40

60

80

100

Screening process Assessment process

% o

f to

tal s

ites

Identification of siteswith a potential forcontamination

Verification of thecontamination andassessment of therisks involved

Figure 3.6.6.Progress in identification of contaminated sites inselected countries as % of estimated total

situation is not homogeneous over Europe,and some ‘hot-spots’ have been identified.

A survey to assess the effects of acid deposi-tion on European forest soils began in 1989as a joint initiative of the International Co-operative Programme on Assessment andMonitoring of Air Pollution Effects on Forestin the UNECE region (ICP Forests) and theEU Scheme on the Protection of Forestsagainst Atmospheric Pollution. Although acommon methodology for sampling andanalysis was adopted in most countries,differences in national methods used exist.Moreover, information is available only for asubset of sites. Further analysis is needed tosubstantiate large-scale impacts of aciddepositions on forest soils.

Information from 23 European countries(including the EU Member States) reportedacid topsoil conditions in 42% of the 4 532sites covered, and indicated a relationshipbetween acid deposition and soil acidity.Extremely acid conditions (defined as amineral surface layer pH below 3.0) werereported in 1.9% of sites, mainly located inregions receiving a very high atmosphericdeposition load, and often where the soilshave an extremely low buffering capacityagainst acidification (EC, UNECE and MFC,1997).

Map 3.6.3 and Figure 3.6.7 show the sensitiv-ity to acidification of the European forestsoil, measured by the soil buffering capacityagainst added acids. The highest proportionof acid-sensitive sites are found in the Neth-erlands, Finland and Belgium. In Luxem-bourg, the Slovak Republic, Hungary,Slovenia, Portugal, Switzerland and Austriathe majority of the observed forest soils areresistant to acidification.


N o r w e g i a n S e a

N o r t hS e a


At

la

nt

ic

Oc

ea

n

TyrrhenianSea

I o n i a n

S e a

Ba

l ti

cS

ea

Adr iat ic Sea

Aegean

Sea

C h a n n e l

WhiteSea

B a r e n t s

S e a

M e d i t e rr

an

e a n S e a

B l a c k

S e a

30˚ 20˚ 10˚ 0˚ 10˚ 20˚ 30˚ 40˚ 50˚

60˚

50˚

40˚

30˚

20˚10˚0˚

30˚

40˚

50˚

60˚

Sensitivityto acidification

of European forest soils

0 500 km

very highhighmediumlowvery lowno data

Map 3.6.3

Source EC-UN/ECE-MFC,1997

There have already been further substantialreductions in emissions of sulphur dioxide;nitrogen oxides and VOCs emissions will bereduced by 2010 by implementation ofpolicies in the pipeline (see Chapter 3.4).Nevertheless, there is still concern over aciddeposition in ‘hot-spots’ and areas withsensitive ecosystems, and if acid depositiondoes not decrease, the area of Europeanforest under threat may increase by 50% to110 million ha (representing 45% of thetotal forest area) (EEA, 1995).

2.4.2 Heavy metalsSoils naturally contain trace elements, whichfunction as micro-nutrients essential to plantand animal growth, while high concentra-tions can be a threat to the food chain. Theelements of most concern are mercury (Hg),lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd) and arsenic (As),which are especially toxic to humans andanimals, and copper (Cu), nickel (Ni) andcobalt (Co) which are of more concernbecause of phyto-toxicity. The toxicology ofthese contaminants depends on soil type,


Figure 3.6.7Sensitivity to acidification of forest soils in selected

countries

Source: EC-UN/ECE-MFC,1997; EEA data elaboration,ISSS

Czech

Republic

Austri

a

Belgium

Finlan

d

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Hungary

Luxe

mbour

g

The N

ethe

rland

s

Portugal

Switz

erlan

d

Slove

nia

Slova

k Republic

Very high

High

Medium

Low

Very low

No data

Num

ber

of s

ites

50

25

0

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

350

375

400

425

450

475

500

525

vegetation and climate, as well as, theirconcentration.

Concentrations of heavy metals in soil covera very wide range. In many cases, the highervalues indicate contamination from man’sactivities, although large values can occurbecause of natural geological or soil-formingconditions.

In forest soils, results from the above-men-tioned forest soil survey show that concentra-tions of heavy metals such as lead and zinc inhumus layers and topsoils follow regionalgradients, reflecting atmospheric depositionpatterns. The majority of sites with high leador zinc concentrations in the soil organiclayer are found in the region with thehighest deposition load. However, criticalconcentration of lead, zinc and cadmium areexceeded in less than 1% of sites for whichvalues have been reported. Exceedances ofcritical organic layer concentration ofchromium and copper have reported morefrequently, in 9% and 19% of the sitesrespectively.

Map 3.6.4 and Figure 3.6.8 show lead avail-ability in European forest soils. The risk oftoxic amounts of plant-available lead isassociated with highly industrialised areas inGermany, England and Wales. All sitesclassified in the highest availability class arelocated in the region of Europe receiving ahigh or moderately high deposition load(EC,UN/ECE and MFC, 1997).

Heavy-metal exposure has been reducedthroughout Europe, and a further decline isexpected in the Accession Countries, al-though increases in cadmium and mercuryin waste are projected in the EEA countries(see Chapter 3.3).

Positive effects from these reductions onEuropean soils are expected, althoughmethodological differences between coun-tries preclude accurate quantitative assess-ment. Moreover, there are still major gaps inquantifying heavy-metal emission factorsfrom industrial processes and in knowledgeabout the toxic effects of heavy metal onecosystems or the bearing capacity of differ-ent soils.

2.4.3 Nutrient loadThe over-application to soil of fertiliserswith a high phosphorus and nitrogencontent or livestock manure, together withacid depositions with a high content inthese two elements, can have important

effects on the environment. Here, capabilityof soil to provide nutrients to plant growthis affected, and its buffering and filteringcapacity plays an important role. Bothnitrogen and phosphorous are essentialelements for plant growth, but can becomedamaging when present in quantitiesexcessive to plant requirements. Theaccumulation may lead to the soil becomingsaturated and the excess may be leachedfrom the soil, eroded or simply washed offinto the groundwater, waterways and coastalsystems, causing eutrophication (see Chap-ter 3.5).


N o r w e g i a n S e a

N o r t hS e a


At

la

nt

ic

Oc

ea

n

TyrrhenianSea

I o n i a nS e a

Ba

l ti c

Se

a

Adr iat ic Sea

Aegean

Sea

C h a n n e l

WhiteSe

a

B a r e n t s

S e a

M e d i t e rr

an

e a n S e a

B l a c k

S e a

30˚ 20˚ 10˚ 0˚ 10˚ 20˚ 30˚ 40˚ 50˚

60˚

50˚

40˚

30˚

20˚10˚0˚

30˚

40˚

50˚

60˚

low

Lead availabilityin the European

forest soils

0 500 km

mediumhigh

risk for toxicity

no data

Map 3.6.4

Source: EC-UN/ECE-MFC,1997

A high nitrogen content in soil may also bean important cause for the loss of vitality ofEuropean forests. In forest soils, a highernitrogen content in the organic layer hasbeen observed in areas receiving a highatmospheric deposition load comparedwith remote areas of Europe. About 17%of the sites present high nitrogen levels inthe organic layer. A low nitrogen availabil-ity has been found in Scandinavian coun-tries and in the UK, while in the rest ofEurope very low availability is expected tooccur rarely. A concentration of sites with

high or very high nitrogen availability hasbeen observed in Germany, the SlovakRepublic and northern Spain (EC, UN/ECE and MFC, 1997).

Although fertiliser consumption wasconstant or slightly decreased during thelast decade, nutrient loads (nitrogen andphosphate) from diffuse agriculturalsources remain high, with special refer-ence to parts of north-western Europewhere there is intensive livestock produc-tion (Map 3.6.5). However, phosphorus


Figure 3.6.8Lead availability in the forest soils of selected

countries

50

25

0

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

350

375

400

425

450

475

500

Lithu

ania

United

Kingdom

Czech

Republic

Austri

a

Finlan

d

Germ

any

Portugal

Switz

erlan

d

Num

ber

of s

ites

Lead availabilityin forest soils mg/kg

Risk for toxicity(>500)High (80-500)

Medium (30-80)

Low <30

No data

Source: EC-UN/ECE-MFC,1997; EEA data elaboration,ISSS

surpluses are also relatively high in thesouthern Europe, due to low removal ratesby harvested crops. In Accession Coun-tries, fertiliser consumption has declinedmarkedly, but in future agriculture produc-tion, and hence fertiliser use, may beexpected to increase from its current lowlevel (see Chapter 3.13).

3. In search of responses

3.1. What has been done to address soil degradation and local contamination

3.1.1 At the European levelSustainable management of soil as a naturalresource, together with air and water, isamong the challenges and priorities men-tioned in the Fifth Environmental ActionProgramme (5EAP). However, unlike for thetwo other media, soil protection is notusually the subject of specific objectives andtargets; rather, it is addressed indirectlythrough measures directed at the protectionof air and water or developed within sectorpolicies (secondary protection). Moreover,measures developed for specific sectorswithout considering the possible effects onsoil may lead to its further damage. Themain objectives and targets with an effect onsoil protection, set out in the 5EAP, aresummarised in Table 3.6.7.

Below the broad framework of the 5EAP,there is also no legislation at an EU levelwhich directly addresses soil protection(primary protection). However, there is EUlegislation indirectly (but not explicitly)concerned with soil protection, includingDirectives on Nitrate (91/676/EEC) andSewage Sludge (86/278/EEC and 91/271/EEC, now under revision). Table 3.6.8 liststhe main policy measures which to someextent address soil protection. These meas-ures mostly address general soil degradationand contamination due to agriculturalactivities and local soil contamination due toindustrial activities or waste disposal.

With respect to local soil contamination dueto industrial activities or waste disposal, EUpolicy addresses the issue of pollutionprevention, of which the EnvironmentalProgramme for Europe (1995) and the EUdirective on Integrated Pollution Control(1996) are the most relevant. A EU landfilldirective is in preparation.

Present EU legislation has required thatMember States utilise pollution-abatement

technologies in industry to minimise pollu-tion and many of these technologies areinstalled in operating mines. However, amajor cause for concern are mines that havebeen abandoned, often closed for manyyears and are still leaking pollutants to soiland water courses. In the UK, for example,abandoned coal and metal mines dischargemore mining wastes to rivers than minescurrently in operation.

3.1.2. At the national levelMany Member States have produced legisla-tion, policies or guidelines to improve soilsor prevent them from further degradation(Table 3.6.9). However, the policy measures


30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50

60

50

40

302010030

40

50

60

N o r t hS e a


At

la

nt

ic

Oc

ea

n


C h a n n e l

Phosphorus balance

Phosphorus surplusby administrative region

0 1000 km

< 25

25 - 50

50 -100

>100

Map 3.6.5

Source: Eurostat

are primarily aimed at combating pollutionin other compartments and affect soilsindirectly.

With special regard to local soil contamina-tion, it can be said that most EU and Acces-sion Countries have recognised the need toset up regulatory frameworks on how tomanage existing local soil contaminationand how to prevent future contamination.National policies of most countries addressliability questions and the prevention ofnew pollution. With respect to existingcontamination, most western Europeancountries and some eastern Europeancountries also address the keeping ofregional inventories, financing aspects, andsite investigation procedures. A variety ofcountries have made an attempt to calculatetotal national clean-up costs. Though resultsof such calculations are not comparable,they are important indicators for theattention paid to this particular matter. Costestimates deriving from Accession Coun-tries usually address the environmentaldamage of former Soviet military bases. Inthe case of the Czech Republic and Hun-gary, national costs estimated go beyondthis issue.

The development of a policy frameworkwhich recognises the role of soil, takesaccount of the problems arising from thecompetition among its concurrent uses(ecological and socio-economical), and

aimed at the maintenance of its multiplefunctions, could have multiple benefits andcould achieve a consistent improvement ofEurope’s environment as a whole. Such apolicy framework is currently absent at theEU level and in most EU Member States andAccession Countries.

3.2. Monitoring and assessment frameworks for soil – what exists and what is neededThere is no European-wide monitoringnetwork for soil, although some progress hasmade in some areas, such as the monitoringof forest soils within the framework ofUNECE-ICP Forest and the EU Scheme forProtection of Forests already mentioned.

Statutory soil monitoring is carried out in anumber of Member States, but rarely for thepurposes of soil protection per se. Monitor-ing is more often performed in support of,for example, the provision of better plantnutrient advice for the agricultural sector.Further difficulties within the concept of soilmonitoring arise from the great diversitywhich exists in the design of soil monitoringschemes, the frequency of sampling, therange of parameters determined, and themethods of analysis used. There are alsoincreasing problems of data ownership andtransfer (see Chapter 4.2). As a result of thisdiversity, there is lack of harmonisation ofthe data derived from soil monitoring, andthere is no pan-European quality control ofthe existing soil-monitoring networks.

As shown by the multi-function/multi-impactapproach, soil monitoring and assessmentneed to be addressed in an integrated way.There is a need to work towards the estab-lishment of certain standards for all relevanttypes of soil degradation, based on a uniformgeneral methodology. An appropriatedegree of co-ordination at the EU levelwould be necessary to obtain some level ofuniformity between countries in the develop-ment of criteria and methodology for theproduction of relevant data on soil condi-tions.

To this end, a complete framework formonitoring, assessment and reporting onsoil issues in Europe must be developed,similar to those already in place for air andwater. This must include the harmonisation/streamlining of data collection/data flowactivities (setting up a European Soil Moni-toring Network and related databases), thedevelopment of policy-relevant indicators,and the establishment of a coherent report-ing mechanism on soil.


Table 3.6.7.Policy objectives and targets related to soil in the 5th EAP

Target sectors

Industry

Energy

Transport

Agriculture

Tourism

Environmentalissues

Climate change

Acidification

Biodiversity

Water qualityand quantity

Objectives

Maintenance of the basic naturalprocesses for a sustainableagriculture, by conservation of water,soil and genetic resources.

Decrease in the input of chemicals;

Equilibrium between input of nutrientsand the adsorption capacity of soilsand plants.

Rural environment managementpermitting the maintenance ofbiodiversity and natural habitats andminimising natural risks (e.g. erosion,avalanches) and fires.

Optimisation of forest areas to fulfil alltheir functions.

Objectives

CO2- CH4-N2O: no exceedance ofnatural absorbing capacity.

NOx, SOx, ammonia, general VOCs,dioxins, heavy metals:

No exceedance of critical loads andlevels.

Maintenance of biodiversity throughsustainable development.

Sustainable use of fresh waterresources.

Groundwater: maintain the quality ofuncontaminated water, prevent furthercontamination, and restorecontaminated groundwater to aquality required for drinking waterproduction.

Targets/Measures

Integrated pollution control.

Reduced waste/better wastemanagement.

Reduction in pollution.

Land-use planning.

Infrastructure investments.

Maintenance/reduction of nitratelevels in groundwater.

Stabilisation/increase of organicmaterial levels in the soil.

Significant reduction of pesticide useper unit of land under production.

Management plans for all rural areasin danger.

Increase of forest plantation,including on agricultural land.

Improved protection (health andforest fires).

Better management of mass tourism.

National and regional integratedmanagement plans for coastal andmountain areas.

Targets

Stabilisation or reduction ofemissions.

Various. Emission reduction orstabilisation.

Maintenance and restoration ofnatural habitats.

Integration of resource conservationand sustainable use criteria into otherpolicies, including, in particular,agriculture and land use planning.

Reduction of groundwater and freshwater pollution.

Groundwater: prevent pollution frompoint sources and reduce pollutionfrom diffuse sources.

Instruments

Emission and waste inventories.

Civil liability.

Specific targets for CO2, NOx, SO2.

Environmental impact assessment.

Structural funds.

Strict application of the nitratedirective.

Setting of regional emissionstandards for new livestock units(NH3) and silos.

Reduction for phosphate use.

Control of sales and use of pesticides.

Promotion of organic farming.

Programmes for agriculture andenvironment zones.

New afforestation and regenerationof existing forests.

Further action against forest fires.

Improved control on land use.

Strict rules for new constructions.

Structural funds.

Actions/Instruments

Habitats directive; CAP reform; forestprotection; international conventions.

Implementation of urban waste waterand nitrate directives to reduce theinput of nutrients to the soil, waterand sediments.

Proposals for progressivereplacement of harmful pesticidesand progressive use limitations.

.../...


Source: EEA-ETC/S

Table 3.6.8. European policy measures addressing soil protection

Policy document

Council of Europe EuropeanSoils’ Charter (1972)

FAO World Charter of Soils(1981)

CAP Reform (CouncilRegulation, 1992)

Fifth Environmental ActionProgramme (5EAP, 1992)

Environmental Programme forEurope (EPE, 1995)

EU directive on IntegratedPollution Prevention andControl (IPPC, 1996)

EU Landfill Directive (draft)

Protection of Ground Waterfrom Hazardous SubstanceDischarges (1980)

Directive on Hazardous Waste(91/689/EEC)

Waste Framework Directive(75/442/EEC;91/156/EEC)

Directive on disposal of wasteoils (75/439/EEC;87/101/EEC)

Packaging directive (94/62/EEC)

Nitrate Directive (91/676/EEC)

Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC; 91/271/EEC)

Directive on EnvironmentalImpact Assessment (85/337/EEC)

Sectoraddressed

General

General

Agriculture

Agriculture,Transport,Tourism,Energy

Agriculture,Industry

Industry

Industry,Households

Agriculture,Industry

Industry,Households

Industry,Households

Industry

Industry,Households

Agriculture

Agriculture

Transport,Industry, Landdevelopment

Issue addressed

soil protection anddeterioration

request to support sustainablefarming

lower environmental impactswithin agriculture

soil degradation, erosion andacidification, in relation to thecontributions from variouseconomic sectors

pollution prevention; sets outlong-term environmentalpolicies

pollution prevention;encouragement of cleanerproduction

landfill management

groundwater protection

waste management

waste management

waste management

waste management

fertiliser reduction

limitation of heavy metalconcentrations in soils andsludge

land consumption andcontamination

Source: European Commission; EEA

Environmentalissues

Coastal zones

Waste

Riskmanagement

Objectives

Sustainable development of coastalzones and their resources.

Municipal and hazardous waste:prevention and safe disposal of anywaste that cannot be recycled orreused.

Chemicals control; risk reduction andmanagement

Targets

Development of better criteria for abetter balance of land use andconservation and use of naturalresources.

Considerable reduction of dioxinsemissions.

Waste management plans in MemberStates.

Actions/Instruments

Landfill directive operational.Incineration of hazardous wasteoperational.

ReferencesBlum, W.E.H. 1990. The challenge of soil protection inEurope. Environmental Conservation 17. In: WorldResources Institute,1991. Accounts Overdue. NaturalResource Depreciation in Costa Rica. OxfordUniversity Press. Oxford, New York.

Blum, W.E.H. 1998. Soil degradation caused byindustrialization and urbanization. In: Blume H.-P., H.Eger, E. Fleischhauer, A. Hebel, C. Reij, K.G. Steiner(Eds.): Towards Sustainable Land Use, Vol. I, 755-766,Advances in Geoecology 31, Catena Verlag,Reiskirchen.

Cabrera, F. et al. 1998. Contaminación por metalespesados de suelos caraterísticos de la cuenca delGuadiamar afectados por el vertido tóxico. Jornadascientíficas para analizar los resultados obtenidosdurante el seguimiento del efecto del vertido tóxicoen el entorno de Doñana. El Rocío, Almonte, Huelva,Spain.

Council of Europe, 1990. European ConservationStrategy. Recommendation for the 6th EuropeanMinisterial Conference on the Environment. Council ofEurope, Strasbourg.

CSIC, Grupo de expertos del Consejo Superior deInvestigaciones Cientificas y organismoscolaboradores sobre la emergencia ecologica del rioGuadiamar. 10º Informe, 9 March 1999. Published onthe Internet at http://www.csic.es/hispano/coto/infor10/info10.htm

EEA, 1995. Europe’s Environment: The DobrisAssessment. European Environment Agency. Officedes Publications, Luxembourg, 676 pp.

EEA, 1998 . Europe’s Environment: The SecondAssessment. European Environment Agency. Elsevier,UK, 293 pp.

EEA-ETC/S 1998. Contaminated Sites in the EU andEFTA countries, Prokop. G., Edelgaard I., SchamannM. (forthcoming).

EPE, 1995. Environment for Europe - Some keydocuments. UNECE, Geneva

European Commission, 1992. CORINE Soil ErosionRisk and Important Land Resources in the SouthernRegions of the European Community. EUR 13233,Commission of the European Communities,Luxembourg, 97 pp.

European Commission, United Nation/EconomicCommission for Europe and the Ministry of theFlemish Community, 1997 (EC,UN/ECE and MFC,1997). Forest Soil condition in Europe. Results of aLarge-Scale Soil Survey.


(CS = contaminated sites, PCS = potentially contaminated sites)

(1) Belgium: applies only to the Flemish region; (2) Italy: a preliminary survey of potentiallycontaminated sites and their clean-up costs had been completed for most of the Italianregions by 1997; (3) Sweden: CS policy is underway; (4) Estonia, Lithuania: cost estimatesapply to the clean-up of ex-Soviet bases; (5) Latvia: a test inventory was set up in 1996.

Source: EEA-ETC/S

Country Legislation Inventory Special CS Official costfunding estimates

Indirect Direct PCS CS

Austria • • • • • •

Belgium(1) • • • • • •

Denmark • • • • •

Finland • • • • • •

France • • • • •

Germany • • • • • •

Greece •

Iceland •

Ireland •

Italy (2) • • • •

Luxembourg •

Netherlands • • • • • •

Norway • • • • • •

Portugal •

Spain • • • • •

Sweden (3) • • • • • •

Switzerland • • • • • •

UK • • • •

Bulgaria •

Czech R. • • •

Estonia (4) • •

Hungary • • • • • •

Latvia (5) • •

Lithuania(4) • • •

Poland •

Romania •

Slovenia •

Slovakia •

Table 3.6.9.Country overview indicating the existenceof policy measures for contaminated land

European Commission, 1999 (forthcoming).“Economic Assessment of Priorities for a EuropeanEnvironmental Policy Plan (working title)”. Reportprepared by RIVM, EFTEC, NTUA and IIASA forDirectorate General XI (Environrment, Nuclear Safetyand Civil Protection).

Eurostat, 1995. Europe’s Environment: StatisticalCompendium for the Dobris Assessment. Office desPublications. Luxembourg, 455 pp.

Eurostat, 1998. Towards Environmental PressureIndices for the EU. Draft of September, 07, 1998, 182pp.

IPCC, 1996. Second Assessment Climate Change1995, a Report of the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (including summary for policymakers). WMO, UNEP, 1995.

IPCC, 1998. The Regional Impacts of Climate Change,An Assessment of Vulnerability, R.T. Watson, M.C.Zinyowera, R.H. Moss. Cambridge, CambridgeUniversity Press.

German Advisory Council on Global Change. 1994.World in Transition: The Threat to Soils. 1994 AnnualReport. Economica, Bonn.

Stalzer, W. (1995): Rahmenbedingungen für einegewässerverträgliche Landbewirtschaftung.Schriftenreihe des Bundesamtes für Wasserwirtschaft,Bd. 1, S. 1-24.

The Tutzing Project “Time Ecology”, 1998. PreservingSoils for Life. Ökom - Verlag

ÖSTAT & UBA, 1998: Umweltdaten 1997, p.39ff,Österreichisches Statistisches Zentralamt, Vienna.

UNCCD Interim Secretariat, 1997. United NationConvention to Combat Desertification in thosecountries experiencing serious drought and/ ordesertification, particularly in Africa. Text withAnnexes. Geneva, Switzerland.

UNFCCC 1998. Kyoto protocol to the United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change. FCCC/CP/1997/L.7/Add.1, December 1997.

Van Lynden, G.W.J., 1994. The European SoilResource: Current Status of Soil Degradation causes,impacts and need for action. Council of Europe.Strasbourg, 71 pp.

3.6. Soil degradation - European Environment Agency · 2016. 4. 20. · importance for the...

Documents

Transcript of 3.6. Soil degradation - European Environment Agency · 2016. 4. 20. · importance for the...