5 Soil protection
| (a)
(27867)
13401/06
COM(06) 231
+ ADDs 1-2
|
Commission Communication: Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection
|
| (b)
(27870)
13388/06
COM(06) 232
|
Draft Directive establishing a framework for the protection of soil and amending Directive 2004/35
|
| Legal base | (a) —
(b) Article 175(1) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Documents originated | 22 September 2006
|
| Deposited in Parliament | (a) 4 October 2006
(b) 5 October 2006
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 17 October 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | None, but see footnote 1
|
| To be discussed in Council | January 2007
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information awaited
|
Background
5.1 The importance of soil protection has long been recognised
within the Community, most recently in the Sixth Environmental
Action Programme and the Sustainable Development Strategy. This
prompted the Commission to bring forward in April 2002 a Communication[14]
which sought to pave the way towards a Thematic Strategy in this
area.
5.2 That document noted the variety of vital functions
performed by soil and its distinctive characteristics, and it
went on to identify the main threats as being erosion; a decline
in organic content; contamination; the covering ("sealing")
of soil by various developments; compaction; loss of biodiversity;
salinisation; and floods and landslides. The Communication suggested
that many of these threats are linked, and it concluded that soil
degradation is driven by human activity; that it is in fact increasing
within the Community; and that the current threats may well be
exacerbated by climate change. It also suggested that these threats
constituted a major worldwide problem, which had led to a number
of initiatives in recent years, including those at the 1992 Earth
Summit in Rio; the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity; and
the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.
5.3 The rest of the Communication was devoted mainly
to an examination of Community policies relevant to soil protection,
more particularly those on the environment, agriculture and the
regions, but also including transport and research. In general,
it saw the way forward as involving the development of existing
measures, but it proposed that more complete information should
be obtained on prevailing soil conditions and the impact of the
various policies evaluated. It said that the Commission therefore
intended to bring forward by mid-2004 a legislative proposal aimed
at ensuring that assessments are carried out in a harmonised and
coherent way, that the results are made available to policy makers,
and that they provide an early warning of potential problems.
Priority would be given to monitoring those contaminants which
can be transferred from soil to food or which have any other potential
health implications, the aim being to use as far as possible existing
information systems.
5.4 Our predecessors were told that soil strategies
adopting a similar approach to this initiative were being developed
within the various parts of the UK, and that the Government supported
the Commission Communication, which it felt recognised subsidiarity,
with Europe-wide action being limited to areas where this can
add value. They therefore decided in their Report of 12 June 2002
to draw the document to the attention of the House, but to clear
it.
The current documents
(a) Commission Communication
5.5 In the first of these two documents, the Commission
has now set out a definitive Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection.
This draws heavily on its earlier Communication, noting that,
since then, efforts have been made to ensure that environmental
policy initiatives on waste, water, air, climate change, chemicals,
flooding, biodiversity and environmental liability will contribute
to improving soil protection. In addition, it points out that
all Member States are parties to the United Nations Convention
to Combat Diversification; that the Kyoto Protocol highlights
the role of soil as a major carbon store; that soil diversity
has been identified as an area requiring particular attention
under the Convention on Biological Diversity; and that a number
of other countries (including the United States and Japan) have
established soil protection policies.
5.6 Despite this, the Commission also points out
that the threats to soil posed by such factors as growing urbanisation
and climate change are likely to increase, but that, because soil
protection is relevant to a wide range of Community policies,
there is a lack of a coherent overall approach. It therefore concludes
that a comprehensive Community strategy for soil protection is
required, taking into account all the different functions which
soils can perform and the range of different degradation processes
to which they can be subject. It suggests that the overall aim
should be to prevent further degradation and preserve soil function,
and to restore degraded soils to a level of functionality consistent
at least with current and intended use. In particular, it suggests
that action at European level is a necessary addition to that
taken locally and nationally, given that soil degradation affects
other environmental areas for which Community legislation exists;
that wide national differences can have economic effects which
distort the functioning of the internal market; that there can
be certain trans-boundary effects; and that the uptake of contaminants
from soil can affect food safety. It also suggests that such a
strategy would enable the Community to play a leading role internationally
in this area.
5.7 The Commission therefore believes that a targeted
policy is needed, consistent with respecting the principles of
subsidiarity and of action at the most appropriate level. It suggests
that this should be based on framework legislation aimed at the
sustainable use of soil; on the integration of soil protection
in the formulation and implementation of national and Community
policies; on Community and national research programmes in areas
such as agriculture, regional development and transport; and on
increasing public awareness of the need to protect soil.
(b) Draft Directive
5.8 The Communication is accompanied by this draft
Directive, which seeks to address the first of these aims by establishing
a Community framework for action against the threats to soil identified
in the 2002 Communication. It thus contains the following four
main elements:
— Soil
erosion, loss of organic matter, compaction, salinisation and
landslides
Member States would be obliged within five years
after transposition of the measure to identify those areas at
risk of degradation; to use the results of this assessment to
develop within seven years a programme of measures to minimise
the risks, subject to technical feasibility and cost effectiveness;
and to ensure that this programme is applied no later than eight
years after transposition.
— Soil
contamination
Member States would be obliged to take measures to
limit the introduction of dangerous substances into the soil and
avoid accumulations which would hamper soil functions or give
rise to significant risks to human health or the environment;
to identify (and regularly review) the location of sites where
potentially soil-polluting activities are taking place or have
taken place in the past; to ensure that "soil status reports"
are issued for all sites where such an activity is taking place
(or has done in the past); to establish and maintain an inventory
of contaminated sites and ensure that these are remediated; to
establish and review every five years a National Remediation Plan,
including remediation targets and funding allocations; and to
establish funding mechanisms to ensure the remediation of contaminated
"orphan" sites.
— Soil
sealing
Member States would be obliged to take appropriate
steps to minimise soil sealing, or to mitigate its effects, using
construction techniques and products which would allow as many
soil functions as possible to be maintained.
— Awareness
raising, reporting and exchange of information
Member States would be required to take appropriate
measures to raise awareness about the importance of soil, and
to inform the Commission of the measures taken under the Directive.
5.9 The Communication also says that the Commission
has carried out an impact assessment, which shows that soil degradation
in the Community costs up to €38
billion a year,[15] but
that the cost of the measures proposed — stemming mainly
from the obligations to identify areas at risk, and to draw up
an inventory of contaminated sites — would be up to €290
million a year for the first five years (and up to €240
a million for the next 20 years, dropping to less than €2
million a year thereafter). It adds that this would enable more
targeted and efficient counter-measures, but that these benefits
cannot be quantified as they will depend on the actual use made
of the improved knowledge, which will vary according to the ambition
with which Member States pursue the objectives laid down.
The Government's view
5.10 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 17 October
2006, the Minister for Sustainable Farming and Food at the Department
of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker) says that,
although the Commission claims in its proposal to respect subsidiairity,
this is only true (to an extent) for soil degradation processes
such as erosion and loss of organic matter, but not for soil contamination
and sealing, where a more prescriptive approach is adopted. He
also says that, although the Government's preliminary analysis
suggests that some of the measures proposed are broadly consistent
with the UK's own approach and would not therefore pose particular
problems, this does not apply to these last two areas, where the
proposals are likely to have significant implications for development
and the planning system. He adds that the proposals on soil contamination
do not reflect the UK's risk-based approach, and are extremely
prescriptive.
5.11 The Minister also considers that the Commission's
impact assessment provides a weak rationale for action specifically
related to soil contamination, and that it under-estimates the
implementation costs. He suggests that the latter could be very
significant in the UK, and says that the Government is accordingly
carrying out its own analysis of the full costs and benefits,
which will be presented shortly in a Regulatory Impact Assessment.
Conclusion
5.12 Even if the impact of soil protection on
such a wide range of Community policies makes it desirable to
have some kind of overall strategy, it seems clear that what is
now proposed goes a good deal further than the sort of approach
outlined in the Communication which our predecessors considered
in 2002, and that some of the measures suggested would be extremely
prescriptive. We are also concerned at the Commission's inability
to quantify the potential benefits of the draft Directive, and
at the imprecision of its cost estimates: for example, whilst
at the upper end the estimates shown in footnote 2 to this Report
do indeed add up to the €38 billion
quoted, those at the lower end would amount to only about €8
billion, and it is difficult to have any great confidence in an
assessment which contains such a wide margin of error.
5.13 We are therefore minded to recommend these
documents for debate, but we have noted the Government's intention
to carry out its own cost-benefit analysis, and to provide a Regulatory
Impact Assessment. In the circumstances, we propose to defer judgement,
and to hold the documents under scrutiny until that Assessment
is available. In the meantime, we are drawing them to the attention
of the House.
14 (23439) 8344/02; see HC 152-xxxii (2001-02), para
10 (12 June 2002). Back
15
In fact, the figures provided show a wide range (from €0.7-14
billion for erosion; €3.4-5.6 billion for organic matter
decline; up to €1.2 billion per event for landslides; and
€2.4-17.3 billion for contamination). Back
| 
