COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Soil Monitoring and Resilience (Soil Monitoring Law)

EN EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 5.7.2023
SWD(2023) 417 final
PART 1/5
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
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) 416 final} -
{SWD(2023) 418 final} - {SWD(2023) 423 final}
Offentligt
KOM (2023) 0416 - SWD-dokument
Europaudvalget 2023
EN EN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................1
1.1 Political context.................................................................................................1
1.2 Legal context .....................................................................................................2
1.3 Coherence with other related initiatives............................................................2
2 Problem definition.......................................................................................................3
2.1 What are the problems?.....................................................................................3
2.1.1 Root causes..........................................................................................5
2.1.2 Scale of the problem at EU and Member States level.........................6
2.1.3 Impacts of the problem......................................................................11
2.1.4 Costs of soil degradation ...................................................................12
2.1.5 Sub-problems.....................................................................................15
2.2 What are the problem drivers? ........................................................................15
2.2.1 Market failures...................................................................................16
2.2.2 Regulatory failures ............................................................................16
2.2.3 Behavioural biases.............................................................................18
2.3 How will the problem evolve? ........................................................................18
3 Why should the EU act?............................................................................................19
3.1 Legal basis.......................................................................................................19
3.2 Subsidiarity: necessity of EU action ...............................................................19
3.3 Subsidiarity: added value of EU action...........................................................22
4 Objectives: What is to be achieved?..........................................................................25
4.1 The intervention logic .....................................................................................25
4.2 General objectives ...........................................................................................26
4.3 Specific objectives...........................................................................................26
4.4 Synergies and trade-offs with other objectives ...............................................26
5 Policy options............................................................................................................27
5.1 What is the baseline from which options are assessed? ..................................27
5.1.1 The contributions of recent initiatives...............................................27
5.1.2 Contribution of existing EU legislation (see Annex 6 for more details)
...........................................................................................................32
5.1.3 EU Soil Strategy for 2030 .................................................................35
5.1.4 Existing Member States legislation...................................................35
5.2 Description of the policy options ....................................................................35
5.3 Options discarded at an early stage .................................................................43
5.4 Summary of policy options .............................................................................46
6 Impacts and comparison of the policy options..........................................................47
6.1 Analysis of building block 1: soil health definition and soil districts.............48
6.1.1 Environmental impacts......................................................................48
6.1.2 Economic impacts .............................................................................48
6.1.3 Administrative costs..........................................................................48
6.1.4 Social impacts....................................................................................48
6.1.5 Implementation risks .........................................................................49
6.1.6 Stakeholder views..............................................................................49
6.1.7 Comparison of options ......................................................................50
6.2 Analysis of building block 2: soil health monitoring......................................51
6.2.1 Environmental impacts......................................................................51
6.2.2 Economic impacts .............................................................................51
6.2.3 Administrative costs..........................................................................52
6.2.4 Social impacts....................................................................................53
6.2.5 Implementation risks .........................................................................53
6.2.6 Stakeholder views..............................................................................53
6.2.7 Comparison of options ......................................................................54
6.3 Analysis of building block 3: sustainable soil management ...........................55
6.3.1 Environmental impacts......................................................................55
6.3.2 Economic impacts .............................................................................55
6.3.3 Administrative costs..........................................................................57
6.3.4 Social impacts....................................................................................57
6.3.5 Implementation risks .........................................................................57
6.3.6 Stakeholder views..............................................................................58
6.3.7 Comparison of options ......................................................................58
6.4 Analysis of building block 4: identification, registration, investigation and assessment
of (potentially) contaminated sites ..................................................................60
6.4.1 Environmental impacts......................................................................60
6.4.2 Economic impacts .............................................................................60
6.4.3 Administrative costs..........................................................................61
6.4.4 Social impacts....................................................................................61
6.4.5 Implementation risks .........................................................................62
6.4.6 Stakeholder views..............................................................................62
6.4.7 Comparison of options ......................................................................63
6.5 Analysis of building block 5: soil restoration and remediation.......................64
6.5.1 Environmental impacts......................................................................64
6.5.2 Economic impacts .............................................................................64
6.5.3 Administrative costs..........................................................................65
6.5.4 Social impacts....................................................................................65
6.5.5 Implementation risks .........................................................................65
6.5.6 Stakeholder views..............................................................................66
6.5.7 Comparison of options ......................................................................66
6.6 Difficulty of quantifying costs and benefits....................................................68
7 Preferred option.........................................................................................................69
7.1 What is the preferred option? ..........................................................................69
7.1.1 Timeline for implementation.............................................................83
7.1.2 Expected effects of the preferred option on stakeholders .................83
7.1.3 Overview of impacts on competitiveness..........................................97
7.2 Legal form .......................................................................................................99
7.3 Overview of costs and benefits......................................................................100
7.3.1 Impacts on urban and rural areas.....................................................104
7.3.2 Available funding and expertise......................................................104
7.4 Coherence with other policies .......................................................................105
7.5 Simplification and improved efficiency........................................................106
7.6 Application of the ‘one in, one out’ approach...............................................106
8 How will actual impacts be monitored and evaluated?...........................................107
Glossary
Term Meaning or definition
Agroecology The concept of a holistic approach to sustainable agriculture by considering the
entire agro-ecosystem on both local and global level, choosing farming practices
that seek to boost the resilience and the ecological, socio-economic, and cultural
sustainability of farming systems and to provide multiple ecosystem services.
Agro-forestry Concept of agricultural land use through a combination of trees with crops
and/or livestock to best utilise spatial and temporal complementarities in
resource use. The aim is to provide multiple benefits besides food, fodder and
biomass production, including biodiversity, water flow regulation and water use
efficiency, soil conservation and soil fertility improvement, as well as
diversification of (marketable) products.
Biodiversity The variability among living organisms from all sources including terrestrial,
marine, and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which
they are part and includes diversity within species, between species and of
ecosystems.
Carbon farming Business model that rewards land managers for improving management
practices, that result in the increase of carbon sequestration in living biomass,
decaying organic matter and soils.
Contaminated
site
A delineated area with confirmed presence of high levels of contaminants in the
soil caused by point-source anthropogenic activities .
Ecosystem A dynamic complex of plant, animal, and microorganism communities and their
non-living environment, interacting as a functional unit, and includes habitat
types, habitats of species and species populations.
Eutrophication A process that is usually caused by anthropogenic activities whereby water
bodies accumulate nutrients, mostly nitrogen and phosphorus, resulting in high
concentrations of algae, water blooms or microorganisms that prevent light
penetration and oxygen absorption for underwater life.
Groundwater Water as defined in article 2(2) of Directive 2000/60/EC, i.e. all water which is
below the surface of the ground in the saturation zone and in direct contact with
the ground or subsoil.
Land The surface of the Earth that is not covered by water.
Land take The conversion of natural and semi-natural land into artificial land development,
using soil as a platform for settlements and infrastructure, as a source of raw
material or as archive for historic and geological patrimony, at the expense of
the capacity of soils to provide ecosystem services (provision of biomass, water
and nutrients cycling, basis for biodiversity and carbon storage).
Land Use/Cover
Area frame
Survey
(LUCAS)
Periodical survey funded by the Commission that provides harmonised and
comparable statistics on land use and land cover based on in-situ observations
across the EU. It contains a soil module where 41 000 topsoil samples are
collected by surveyors in all Member States and analysed for several parameters
in a harmonised way, which is unique.
Minimal tillage Soil conservation practice where soil cultivation is kept to a minimum necessary
for crop establishment and growth.
Organic farming An agricultural production system aimed at maintaining the health of soils,
ecosystems and people, and based on ecological processes, biodiversity and
cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse
effects. In the EU, organic farming is governed by a legal framework that
provides a clear structure for the production and marketing of organic products
throughout the EU.
Passport for
excavated soil
A document issued by the competent authority or certified body describing the
quantity and/or quality of the excavated soil.
Programme of
measures
A programme elaborated by a Member State containing the elements required
by the Soil Health Law.
Risk Chance of harmful effects to human health or the environment resulting from
exposure to soil contamination.
Risk reduction
measure
Risk-based action that ensures that contaminated sites no longer pose an
unacceptable risk. Risk reduction measures include remediation or any other
action for risk reduction that break the source-pathway-receptor chain, e.g. land
use restrictions or safety measures.
Soil The top layer of the Earth’s crust situated between the bedrock and the surface.
Soil is composed of mineral particles, organic matter, water, air and living
organisms.
Soil district Part of the territory of a Member State, as delimited by that Member State for
the purposes of soil health assessment and management.
Soil health Physical, chemical and biological condition of the soil measured in terms of its
characteristics describing soil’s capacity to provide ecosystem services.
Soil health
assessment
Evaluation of the health of the soil based on the measurement or estimation of
soil health descriptors.
Soil health
certificate
A document issued by the competent authority designated by the Member State
containing information on the key characteristics and health of the soil.
Soil remediation Regeneration action that reduces contaminant concentrations in the soil with the
aim to re-establish its good chemical condition.
Soil restoration
or soil
regeneration1
Intentional activity aimed at reversing or re-establishing soil from a degraded
state to a healthy condition. Remediation is considered as a restoration activity.
Sustainable soil
management
Management practices that maintain or enhance the ecosystem services provided
by the soil without impairing the functions enabling those services, or being
detrimental to other properties of the environment . Sustainable soil
management is an act of good stewardship or a duty of care to prevent that a
healthy soil degrades.
1
The terms ‘soil restoration’ and ‘soil regeneration’ have the same meaning for the purpose of this Impact Assessment
Abbreviations
CAP Common Agricultural Policy
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
COM European Commission
COR European Committee of the Regions
CS Contaminated site
EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development
EEA European Environment Agency
EAGF European Agricultural Guarantee Fund
ECA European Court of Auditors
EESC European Economic and Social Committee
EJP European Joint Research Programme
ENVI Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee
EP European Parliament
GAEC Good agricultural and environmental conditions
IED Industrial Emissions Directive
INSPIRE Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe
IPBES Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services
IPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
LUCAS Land Use/Cover Area frame Survey
LULUCF Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry
NNLT No Net Land Take
NRL Nature Restoration Law
OPC Open Public Consultation
PCS Potentially contaminated site
REFIT Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme
RSB Regulatory Scrutiny Board
SAC Special Areas of Conservation
SCIP Database Database for Information on Substances of Concern
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SHL Soil Health Law
SME Small and Medium Enterprises
SOC soil organic carbon
SSM sustainable soil management
STS Soil Thematic Strategy
SWD Staff Working Document
TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UWWTD Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive
WFD Water Framework Directive
1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Political context
Soil and the organisms that live in it provide us with food, biomass and fibres, raw materials, and regulate
the water, carbon and nutrient cycles. Soils make life on Earth possible but human pressures are
exceeding planetary boundaries.2
Ensuring soil health is key to address some of our most important
societal challenges, such as climate change, biodiversity loss, zero pollution and desertification. The
Russian war in Ukraine has destabilised global food systems, intensified food insecurity risks and
vulnerabilities across the world, and amplified the EU’s need to be able to feed itself in a sustainable
manner for centuries to come. Healthy soils are key to secure our access to sufficient, nutritious and
affordable food in the long-term. Without sustainable management and restoration, our soils will lie at
the heart of future food security crises.
The soil file has a long history at EU level (see annex 5), but regained momentum with the European
Green Deal that underlined the importance to protect, conserve and enhance the EU’s natural capital. As
part of the Green Deal, the Biodiversity Strategy for 20303
announced the update of the 2006 Soil
Thematic Strategy (STS)4
to address soil degradation and fulfil EU and international commitments on
land-degradation neutrality. The EU Soil Strategy for 20305
set the vision to have all soils in healthy
condition by 2050, to make protection, sustainable use and restoration of soils the norm and proposes a
combination of voluntary and legislative actions. Addressing soil degradation and ensuring the protection
and sustainable use of soil, including by a Soil Health Law (SHL), is also included in the 8th
Environment Action Programme.6
Regarding the position of the EU institutions, the European Parliament (EP) called on the
Commission to develop an EU legal framework for soil including definitions and criteria for good soil
status and sustainable use, objectives, harmonised indicators, a methodology for monitoring and
reporting, targets, measures, and financial resources.7,8
The Council of the EU supported the Commission
in stepping up efforts to better protect soils and reaffirmed its commitment to land degradation neutrality.
The Council wants to address desertification, land degradation and make progress towards no net land
take by 2050.9
Furthermore, the European Committee of the Regions (CoR), the European and
Economic Social Committee (EESC) and the European Court of Auditors (ECA) have all called on
the Commission to develop a legal framework for the sustainable use of soil.10,11,12,13
The importance of soil health has been recognised globally and the EU has made commitments in the
international context of the three Rio Conventions since soils are affected by desertification (UN
Convention to Combat Desertification), contribute to climate change mitigation (UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change) and constitute an important habitat for biodiversity (Convention on
Biological Diversity). Restoring, maintaining and enhancing soil health is included as a target in the new
2
EEA (2020), Is Europe living within the limits of our planet?
3
COM/2020/380 final
4
COM/2006/231 final
5
COM/2021/699 final
6
Decision (EU) 2022/591 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 April 2022 on a General Union Environment Action
Programme to 2030
7
European Parliament resolution of 28 April 2021 on soil protection (2021/2548(RSP))
8
European Parliament resolution of 9 June 2021 on the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives
(2020/2273(INI))
9
Council Conclusions of 16 October 2020 on Biodiversity – the need for urgent action
10
Opinion NAT-VII/010 of the CoR in the plenary session of 3, 4 and 5 February 2021 on Agro-ecology
11
Opinion ENVE-VII/019 of the CoR in the plenary session of 26-27 January 2022 on the EU Action Plan: 'Towards zero pollution for air,
water and soil'
12
Opinion NAT/838 of the EESC on the new EU Soil Strategy of 23 March 2022
13
European Court of Auditors (2018), Combating desertification in the EU: a growing threat in need of more action
2
Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which was accompanied by a 2020-2030 action
plan for the International Initiative for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Soil Biodiversity. Soil
health also directly contributes to the achievement of several of the Sustainable Development Goals and
is high on the global policy agenda thanks to international initiatives like the Global Soil Partnership, 4
per 1000, the International Resource Panel, the UN Environment Assembly or the UN Decade on
Ecosystem Restoration. Annex 5 sets out more details on the political context.
1.2 Legal context
The EU has comprehensive environmental measures covering sectors such as air, water, nature, circular
economy, industrial emissions and chemicals. There is no dedicated EU soil legislation, but instead a
patchwork of provisions impinging on soil health across existing EU legislation. For example, the
Landfill Directive14
sets operational and technical requirements to prevent leachate infiltration into the
soil. Amongst horizontal EU environmental legislation, the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive15
and the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive16
require the assessment of the likely
effects on soil of certain projects, plans and programmes. Provisions in other policy fields such as the
Common Agriculture Policy or Climate Policy are also of relevance for soils.
Annex 6 sets out the details on the legal context by describing the existing EU environmental legislation
and its relevance for soils. Annex 6 also lists existing EU instruments in other policy fields than
environment that are of relevance for soils, such as the new CAP which has enhanced its contribution to
environmental and climate objectives.
Overall, soil health profits from the existing sectorial and horizontal environmental EU legislation in a
tangential manner, supporting the specific objectives pursued by these acts, such as improving water or
air quality, protecting habitats and biodiversity, managing waste properly, etc.
However, and as it appears notably from the table in annex 6 (and further explained in chapters 2 and 5
and detailed in annex 6), there is also a clear legislative gap regarding soil protection.
1.3 Coherence with other related initiatives
The objectives of this initiative will contribute to the EU climate change adaptation objectives by
making the EU more resilient at reducing its vulnerability to climate change. Regarding climate change
mitigation, the EU aims to achieve a climate-neutral and climate-resilient Europe by 2050. Achieving
these objectives relies inter alia on carbon removals through the restoration and better management of
soils to absorb the emissions that will remain at the end of an ambitious decarbonisation pathway, and on
enhancing the capacity of soils to retain water.
The Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) Regulation was recently revised to make it
fit for the 55% net emission reduction target for 2030. It includes a target that the LULUCF sector should
remove 310M tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere to be stored in soils, biomass or harvested wood
products. The LULUCF Regulation does not lay down rules on the definition of the sustainable
management or restoration of soils and their health. The Soil Health Law and LULUCF Regulation will
be mutually reinforcing, because healthy soils sequester more carbon and because the LULUCF targets
incentivise sustainable management and restoration of soils. Enhanced and more representative soil
monitoring can also contribute to the improvement of LULUCF accounting. In addition, the Soil Health
14
Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste
15
Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain
public and private projects on the environment
16
Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the
environment, OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30–37.
3
Law would direct sustainable soil management to SOC-depleted soils where carbon management will be
most effective, benefiting the terrestrial greenhouse gas balance as well es ecosystem health.
The Nature Restoration Law (NRL)17
aims at restoring ecosystems (including significant areas of
degraded and carbon-rich ecosystems, including forest ecosystems and cropland mineral soils18
) to good
condition by 2050. The SHL will provide a more tailored approach to restoring degraded soils that
complements the targets and actions of the NRL proposal. This will include provisions on the definition
of the health, monitoring, sustainable management and restoration for soils in all terrestrial ecosystem
types, as anticipated in the NRL proposal.19
The future new legislative initiative on forest monitoring and long-term planning will propose a
framework to monitor the state and functions of the forests across the EU. The forest proposal will not
include requirements relating to forest or soil management, or restoration. Duplications will be avoided
e.g. by harmonizing data collection and shared indicators.
The EU Mission ‘A Soil Deal for Europe’,20
and other Horizon Europe instruments,21
together with the
European Soil Observatory (EUSO)22 will support the monitoring and soil assessment capacities. While
they cannot replace the rolling out of an EU-wide soil monitoring network and do not deal with soil
management as such, they can spearhead research and development in this area providing for example
substantial insight on soil degradation and how to effectively deal with this. across the EU via various
case studies. Together, these initiatives will work in synergy with all building blocks of the SHL and form
a robust framework to address soil and land stewardship at the necessary scale for all types of land use
and sectors.
2 PROBLEM DEFINITION
2.1 What are the problems?
The main problem that this initiative addresses is that soils in the EU are unhealthy and continue to
degrade. Scientific evidence indicates that soil degradation in the EU is continuing and worsening (see
Annex 7 for details and sources). Based on the data available, it has been estimated that about 60 to 70%
of soils in the EU are currently not in a healthy state23
i.e. showing one or more forms of soil degradation.
The overall outlook indicates that degradation will accelerate without specific measures.
The main types of soil degradation include:
 Loss of soil organic carbon: soil organic carbon (SOC) is a fundamental element of the soil and an
indicator for soil health. It results from the decomposition of plant material and the remains of soil
organisms. The loss of SOC in mineral24
soils leads to reduced fertility, reduced capacity to cycle
17
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on nature restoration COM/2022/304 final
18
The NRL requires action to improve the level of organic carbon in cropland mineral soils and rewet organic soils in agricultural use
constituting drained peatlands.
19
The NRL proposal indicates that it “has clear links with the EU soil strategy because many terrestrial ecosystems depend on and interact
with the underlying soils. Any other soil-related targets will be integrated into future legislation governing soils”.
20
https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe/eu-
missions-horizon-europe/soil-health-and-food_en
21
The Horizon Europe framework programme for research and innovation facilitates knowledge creation and collaboration and will thereby
accelerate the transition to healthy soils. In this context, in addition to the Soil Mission, there are relevant instruments available also through
Cluster 6, Food2030 priorities and the (forthcoming) Horizon Europe Partnerships (Food System, Biodiversity, Agroecology, Agriculture of
Data, etc.).
22
https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/eu-soil-observatory-euso_en
23
European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Veerman, C., Pinto Correia, T., Bastioli, C., et al., Caring for
soil is caring for life : ensure 75% of soils are healthy by 2030 for food, people, nature and climate : report of the Mission board for Soil
health and food, Publications Office, 2020, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/821504
24
Mineral soils have a carbon content below 20%.
4
water and nutrients and reduced soil biodiversity. Drained peatlands25
are losing depth by 0.5 to 1 cm
per year, leading to subsidence of the soil surface. Carbon losses from such soils dominate the
negative carbon balance of non-forest terrestrial ecosystems in the EU.
 Nitrogen and phosphorus are essential elements for plants and organisms, but nutrient excesses are
hazardous. An accumulation leads to the saturation of the soil and leaching or run-off to ground- and
surface-waters causing eutrophication and acidification. Excessive application of nutrients can
contaminate the air and contribute to climate change. The planetary boundaries for N and P flows
have been exceeded strongly, which is causing changes to ecosystems and biodiversity.
 Soil acidification is caused by the accumulation of soluble inorganic and organic acids, at a faster rate
than they can be neutralized. It decreases soil pH over time and may result in reduced soil fertility and
loss of soil biodiversity.
 Soil erosion is the removal of soil by wind, water and other processes. Erosion is unsustainable when
the soil loss rate is higher than the rate at which soil regenerates (approximately 1.4 tonne per hectare
per year or 1.4 t/ha/y).
 Soil compaction is the reduction of the micro-cavities or pores in the soil. Soil compaction is
generally irreversible or requires long time to reverse,26
in particular for the deeper part of the soil that
cannot be reached by machinery (subsoil compaction). Compaction is particularly severe when the
pressure is applied under wet conditions, when the soil is softer (e.g. sandy soils) and thus loses more
volume for a given pressure.
 Soil contamination is the occurrence of contaminants in soil above a certain level causing
deterioration or loss of one or more soil functions. Point-source or local soil contamination is
caused by specific events or contaminating activities (e.g. industrial production) within a specific area
or site, where the source of the contamination is usually clear. Diffuse soil contamination is a more
widespread form of contamination caused by diffuse sources and multiple activities that sometimes
interact and have no specific point of discharge (e.g. atmospheric deposition). It is therefore more
difficult to assess and control than point-source contamination. Contaminated soils can also leach to
surface, ground, coastal and marine waters.
 Salinization is the accumulation of water-soluble salts in the soil that affects hotspots in the EU, often
along the coastlines. High concentrations of salt adversely affect plant growth and degrade soil
structure, resulting in less fertile soils, less yields, less soil organic carbon, and soil erosion.
 Desertification is defined by the UNCCD as land degradation in arid, semi-arid, and dry sub-humid
areas.
 Water provision: the capacity of soils to retain water is steadily diminishing. The sponge function
of the soil is key to mitigate the effects of climate change, drought and floods.
 Loss of soil biodiversity: Soil biodiversity is the variability of living organisms in soil (e.g.
earthworms, springtails, mites and wild pollinators that nest in soil) and includes diversity within
species, between species and of ecosystems. Soil biodiversity determines the multi-functionality of
soils, including soil fertility, underpins the delivery of ecosystem services, and is closely linked to
above ground biodiversity.
 Land take is the increase in artificial or settlement areas over time.27
Soil sealing is the extreme form
of land take through the covering of soils by buildings, construction and layers of completely or partly
impermeable material. Sealing causes the complete and irreversible loss of all soil functions and
ecosystem services.
25
Organic soils have a carbon content above 20%.
26
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037811271500540X
27
Land take is defined as the conversion of natural and semi-natural land into artificial land development, using soil as a platform for urban
settlements and infrastructure, as a source of raw materials or as archive for historic and geological patrimony, at the expense of the capacity
of soils to provide ecosystem services (provision of biomass, water and nutrients cycling, basis for biodiversity and carbon storage).
5
2.1.1 Root causes
The main root causes for soil degradation are:
 Loss of soil organic carbon in mineral soils: overgrazing, loss of vegetation and vegetative soil
cover, physical soil disturbance, poor crop rotation and crop management, intensive input farming,
deforestation, biomass burning, land use change, contamination, climate change;
 Loss of soil organic carbon in organic soils: drainage, unsustainable water management, land use
change and conversion to more intensive uses (e.g. for agriculture and forestry), physical soil
disturbance, overgrazing, climate change, peat extraction;
 Excess nutrient content: excessive / unbalanced application of fertilisers, high livestock density,
atmospheric deposition, poor crop rotation, land use change, compaction, loss of soil organic matter
and soil biodiversity;
 Acidification: excessive application of (acidifying) fertilisers, poor crop rotation and diversification,
insufficient vegetative soil cover, run off, loss of soil organic matter, atmospheric deposition;
 Erosion: insufficient vegetative soil cover and landscape features, large homogeneity in field size and
structure, physical soil disturbance (tillage and ploughing), soil loss through harvesting of root crops,
compaction, poor crop management, overgrazing, deforestation, combined with topography, rainfall
intensity, wind, climate change, loss of soil organic matter;
 Compaction: increased mechanisation, traffic of heavy machinery, high wheel pressure, high
livestock density, poor crop rotation, physical pressure on the soil especially in wet conditions, large
and dense crowds.
 Contamination: industrial activities, mining, services (petrol stations, dry cleaners, car repair, etc.),
improper waste management (landfills, littering, illegal dumping, etc.), storage of substances (e.g.
heating oil tanks, etc.), transport and combustion, military activities, spills, fires, accidents,
atmospheric deposition, geology (e.g. volcanos), fertilizers, pesticides, contaminated sewage sludge,
agricultural plastics, irrigation, floods, improper water management, backfilling with contaminated
excavated soil;
 Salinization: poor or unsuitable irrigation (e.g. use of brackish or saline water), improper drainage,
overexploitation and extraction of groundwater, de-icing of road infrastructure, climate change, saline
water injection by industry, waste disposal, salt-rich wastewater;
 Desertification: climate change, poor irrigation and water management, monocropping,
overapplication of fertilizers and pesticides, deforestation, insufficient vegetative soil cover and
vegetation, wildfires, land abandonment, overgrazing, erosion;
 Reduced water retention: combination of loss of soil organic carbon, soil compaction, soil sealing
and its root causes;
 Loss of soil biodiversity: physical soil disturbance, monoculture and poor crop rotation, insufficient
soil cover, over fertilisation, use of pesticides, climate change, land use change, invasive alien species,
ecosystem decline and habitat disruption, soil contamination, loss of soil organic carbon, erosion,
sealing, compaction;
 Sealing and land take: development of infrastructure, roads, housing, commercial and industrial
property, land use change, urban sprawl, spatial planning, demographic and economic growth.
Climate change is an important root cause of soil degradation. Factors such as temperature, precipitation,
wind patterns or sea levels influence to a high degree soil degradation processes like erosion, decline in
soil organic matter, desertification, salinization and loss of soil biodiversity. For compaction,
contamination, sealing and land take, the influence of climate is less dominant. Climate change and
drought influences soil health and vice versa: both processes intensify each other which can lead to a
mutually reinforcing downward spiral. Anthropogenic activities and soil management also have a
detrimental impact on soil health and alter soil properties, that can further amplify the effects of climate
change.
6
2.1.2 Scale of the problem at EU and Member States level
The EEA concluded in its SOER 202028
that “soil degradation is not well monitored, and often hidden, but it is widespread and diverse”. The following
table presents the distribution of the aspects of soil degradation in the EU detailing the 60-70% estimation, the existing trends and the outlook.
Table 2-1: Scale of the problem, trends and outlook by aspect of soil degradation
Aspect of soil
degradation
Share of EU land surface with “unhealthy soils”29
Trends30
Outlook
Loss of soil
organic carbon in
mineral soils
23% of agricultural mineral soils have low (<1%) and
declining soil carbon stocks.
Decreasing soil organic carbon in EU agricultural
mineral soils, at low rates.
The NRL proposal aims at halting loss in SOC
stocks in croplands (about 23% of EU) and
forests (about 40% of EU). However, it does
not target a minimum SOC level for soil
health.
Climate change is expected to increase soil
organic carbon losses, especially in colder and
more humid climates.
Loss of soil
organic carbon in
organic soils
4.8% of peatlands (organic soils) are degraded, the
majority of which (4.3%) is found in agricultural
areas.
Northern European peatlands have undergone the earliest
and highest losses globally since 1700. Drained
peatlands will continue to lose soil organic carbon.
The NRL proposal is expected to restore as
much as possible of drained peatlands.
Excess nutrients
content in soils
27% – 31.5% of the EU (corresponding to 65%-75%
of agricultural soils) displays excess nutrient levels
due to unbalanced fertilizer or manure application
and air pollution.
62% of semi-natural ecosystems are subject to
nitrogen deposition leading to eutrophication.
Between 2000 and 2010, nitrogen surplus decreased in
the EU, followed by stagnation (2010-2014).
Use of mineral phosphorus increased by around 6%
between period 2008-2011 and 2012-2015 in the
EU27+UK.
Use of manure phosphate decreased by around 3%
between both periods.
Gross phosphate balance decreased in the EU27+UK
The Farm to Fork and Biodiversity Strategies
and the Zero Pollution Action Plan have
defined an EU objective to reduce nutrient
losses by 50% by 2030 while ensuring no
deterioration in soil fertility. The outlook will
depend to a large extent on the degree to
which this political objective will be achieved.
28
EEA, 2019, The European environment — state and outlook 2020, European Environment Agency (https://www.eea.europa.eu/ publications/soer-2020)
29
Based on the assessment done in the report of the Soil Mission: “Caring for soil is caring for life - Publications Office of the EU (europa.eu)”
30
An overview of the assessments on soil degradation by the European Environment Agency in the State and Outlook of the Environment Reports since 1995 can be found in Annex 7.
7
from 1.7 kg/ha of utilised agricultural area in the period
2008-2011 to 1.6 kg/ha in the period 2012-2015.
Soil acidification
- From air deposition: 4% of EU soils is expected to
exceed acidification critical loads.
- From excess nutrient inputs: unknown.
- Air deposition: critical loads for acidification have
reduced from 43% in 1980 to 7 % in 2010, 4% in 2020.
- Excess nutrient inputs: unknown trend.
Further reduction of air-borne deposition and
subsequent acidification.
Unsustainable soil
erosion
24% of the EU suffers from
unsustainable water erosion (>2 t/ha/y) mainly in
cropland (54 % of cropland is affected by
unsustainable soil erosion or 14 % of all EU area).
9.7% of arable land has problems with wind erosion.
Soil erosion by water decreased by 9% in the period
2000-2010, and by 0.4 % in 2010-2016.
No data on trends for wind erosion
Soil erosion (by water) is projected to increase
by 13–22.5 % in EU (and UK) by 2050 due to
climate change.
Soil compaction
23-33% of the EU is susceptible to compaction, of
which 7% lie outside agricultural area (e.g. in
organic-rich forest soils).
Problem has likely increased due to increased machine
use and weight. Between 1960 and 2010, the average
wheel load of field machinery increased by
approximately 600%.
No outlook available.
Soil contamination
1-2.5% of non-agricultural is contaminated. Surface
area with contaminated sites not accurately
quantified. It was estimated in 2016 that 14% of an
estimated total of 2.8 million potentially
contaminated sites in the EU would require
remediation or 390 000 sites;
21% of agricultural soils have cadmium
concentrations in the topsoil which exceed
groundwater limits used for drinking waters;
10 million tons of sewage sludge production for EU-
27, 37% of which is applied on agricultural land and
increasingly seen as a pathway for terrestrial micro-
plastic pollution;
21% of land with use of pesticides (conventional
arable);
Agriculture produced 5% of plastic
waste of EU, including plastic mulches and
greenhouses;
Diffuse Pollution
Data on trends are lacking.
Contaminated sites
Progress in the management of contaminated sites varies
considerably, from 20 sites/year to 3 000 sites/year per
Member State.
Diffuse Pollution
Reduction in releases of contaminants to soil
is expected if EU legislation is effectively
implemented.
Contaminated sites
At the current rate of remediation, it would
take some 47 years to remediate all estimated
existing contaminated sites.
8
Secondary
salinisation
1.5% of EU territory at risk of salinisation, largely
driven by irrigation.
The area at risk of saline intrusions in coastal areas
due to sea-level rise is unknown.
No data on past trends. Salt intrusion is expected to increase due to
climate change and increasing irrigation.
Desertification
25% of Southern, Central and Eastern Europe (part of
this value corresponds to areas already flagged by
other degradational aspects). The risk of
desertification is significant in particular in Spain,
southern Italy, Portugal, and areas of south-eastern
Europe including Bulgaria, Greece, Cyprus and the
Danube Delta in Romania.
Trend data are largely lacking although indications that
problem is increasing in Southern, Central and Eastern
Europe.
Expected to increase due to climate change,
combined with poor irrigation and water
management practices. Hot semi-deserts
already exist in southern Europe, where the
climate is transforming from temperate to arid.
This phenomenon is extending northwards.
Reduced water
retention
Not assessed in Soil Mission report. Likely decreasing capacity, because of decreasing soil
organic carbon content, increasing compaction and
increasing soil sealing.
Between 2012-2018, sealing caused a potential loss of
water retention capacity of 668 million m³. Since
beginning of measurements in 1979, Europe has
generally experienced a downward trend in soil moisture.
Climate change may reduce soil water
retention due to higher evaporation and
decreased carbon content.
Flood risk likely to increase for the Alps,
northern, central and eastern regions;
Projections for southern Europe are mixed.
Loss of soil
biodiversity
37% of EU territory is at high risk for soil
biodiversity loss. The state of soil biodiversity in the
EU is still largely unknown. Only 1% of soil micro-
organisms has been identified yet.
No direct data available to assess past trends in soil
biodiversity. Based on land use and land use change the
trend is deteriorating.
Most threats for soil biodiversity are expected
to increase in the future (i.e. climate change,
soil erosion).
Soil sealing and
land take
Land take affects 4.2% of EU territory;
1.0 – 2.5% of land taken is sealed but with high local
concentrations; consequently, 1.7-3.2% of EU soils
(mostly in urban setting) are exposed to pressures
(e.g. compaction, pollution).
Land take (2000-2018) and soil sealing (2006-2015)
rates have decreased and vary by MS. Land take and soil
sealing continue predominantly at the expense of
agricultural and natural land at an estimated annual net
rate of 440 km²/year in the period 2012-2018.
Despite slowing trends in the expansion of
urban and transport infrastructure, land take
and soil sealing is expected to continue in
coming decades. The political objective of no
net land take by 2050 will not be met unless
annual rates of land take are reduced and land
recycling increased.
Total soil
degradation
60-70% of EU soils is unhealthy. Deteriorating trends dominate for the past 10-15
years.
Most of the underlying drivers of soil
degradation are not projected to change
favourably, so deteriorating developments
dominate for the outlook. The EU is not on
track to meet policy objectives and targets.
9
The estimated range of 60-70% of soil degradation expresses the uncertainty of the problem at EU level:
this is due to a partial lack of representative data, for example on soil compaction and on soil
contamination, lack of thorough monitoring and harmonized definitions, as well as the different situation
of soil conditions across the EU. On the other hand, the uncertainty level is mitigated by modelling and
case studies, decades of soil science and confirmation from different sources. In this context, the situation
of soil degradation at EU level can be seen in graphic detail in the EU Soil Health Dashboard published
by the JRC under the EU Soil Observatory. The map shows where scientific evidence converges to
indicate areas that are likely to be affected by soil degradation processes and is updated as scientific
evidence becomes available. The sources of the data as well as the limitations are described therein.31
The following table provides the best available information on soil health issues at Member States level.
The data available, however, identify only the aspects that could be quantified per Member State based on
the information available.32
Quantification is available only for some land uses (namely cropland or
agricultural land) or for limited elements of soil degradation (e.g. only copper and mercury concentration
for soil contamination; concerning salinization, only areas equipped for irrigation). The table provides
therefore only an order of magnitude of the distribution of soil health issues in Member States. It is
therefore possible to anticipate a provisional distributional impact among Member State, showing which
Member States would be likely to have to make more of an effort than others to achieve objectives of
healthy soils for each type of soil degradation for which quantification at Member State level are
available. The summary values of the table are represented in maps for each country in the country fiches
in Annex 12.
31
https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/esdacviewer/euso-dashboard/
32
Details and sources of these data can be found in Annex 7
10
High or Very High
susceptibility for
topsoil compaction
High Copper
concentrati
ons
High
Mercury
concentrati
ons
Sealing
Member State
% of cropland
area
% of MS
area
% of Cropland and
Grassland area
(except for land
above 1000 m a.s.l.)
% of MS
area
% of MS area
% of MS
area
% of MS
area
% of
Agricultural
land (CORINE)
% of MS
area
% of
Agricultural
land (CORINE)
% of MS
area
Peatland
% of MS
area
Mediterranean
biogeographical
region
% of MS
area
% of MS
area
AT 68% 10% 47% 9% 4% 0% 8% 4% 1% 2% 1% 5% 0% 0% 0% 1%
BE 63% 17% 46% 15% 11% 0% 2% 69% 35% 58% 36% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6%
BG 71% 26% 84% 31% 7% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%
DK 65% 45% 16% 10% 6% 0% 0% 73% 50% 31% 25% 84% 4% 0% 0% 2%
ES 72% 18% 86% 20% 7% 0% 1% 11% 3% 1% 0% 0% 0% 8% 7% 1%
EE 22% 3% 2% 0% 45% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 72% 18% 0% 0% 0%
EL 60% 10% 83% 13% 11% 1% 0% 5% 1% 0% 0% 28% 0% 11% 10% 1%
CY 46% 14% 21% 6% 9% 0% 0% 6% 2% - - 0% 0% 2% 3% 2%
CZ 64% 26% 52% 22% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%
DE 47% 19% 43% 20% 11% 0% 1% 50% 28% 33% 20% 91% 6% 0% 0% 4%
FR 53% 16% 41% 18% 8% 3% 0% 28% 16% 16% 10% 0% 0% 5% 1% 2%
FI 17% 1% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 19% 7% 0% 0% 0%
HR 31% 2% 76% 7% 1% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%
HU 41% 24% 70% 41% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 80% 2% 0% 0% 1%
IE 42% 3% 0% 0% 8% 0% 1% 79% 46% 11% 8% 62% 12% 0% 0% 0%
IT 80% 23% 68% 19% 8% 14% 1% 23% 8% 3% 2% 1% 0% 7% 4% 3%
LT 26% 9% 29% 11% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 98% 9% 0% 0% 0%
LU 87% 12% 2% 0% 7% 0% 0% 86% 31% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4%
LV 25% 4% 10% 2% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 62% 6% 0% 0% 0%
MT 97% 0% - - 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 18%
NL 63% 16% 19% 10% 7% 0% 0% 87% 63% 90% 69% 97% 8% 0% 0% 7%
RO 59% 22% 71% 31% 8% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 2% 0% 0% 0%
PL 36% 17% 58% 29% 8% 0% 0% 15% 8% 6% 3% 87% 4% 0% 0% 1%
PT 60% 9% 29% 3% 4% 0% 0% 9% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 3% 2%
SE 37% 3% 7% 0% 0% 0% 1% 6% 0% 5% 0% 6% 1% 0% 0% 0%
SI 64% 4% 41% 3% 8% 0% 19% 18% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%
SK 62% 22% 68% 23% 5% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%
Areas at risk of secondary
salinization
Unsustainable soil erosion
(water, wind, tillage,
harvest)
Low SOC compared to
permanent grasslands
(mineral soils only)
N excess P excess
Peatland under hotspot
of agriculture
Share of quantified soil health issues by MS for each indicator
Table 2-2: share of quantified soil health issues by Member State33
for each available indicator (see annex 7 section 1.3 for details)
33
The uncertainty for Malta and Cyprus is higher due to the small surface of these countries and the data availability.
5
2.1.3 Impacts of the problem
Healthy soils have the capacity to provide ecosystem services that are vital to humans and the
environment. In particular, they:
1. provide safe and nutritious food, and biomass, including in agriculture and forestry;
2. absorb, store and filter water;
3. transform nutrients and substances, including dead biomass and excreta;
4. provide the basis for life and biodiversity, including habitats, species and genes;
5. act as a carbon reservoir;
6. provide cultural, recreational and health services for people.
Soil degradation has therefore significant negative impacts, affecting the provision of ecosystem
services and leading to risks for human health, the environment, economy and society, including:
 Reduced soil fertility. Soil degradation impacts fertility, yields and nutritional food quality. Studies
show that over the last 70 years, the level of many minerals and nutritious elements in almost every
kind of food has fallen between 10 and 100 percent,34
which may have serious effects on our health
and well-being. Soil degradation undermines the resilience and profitability of agriculture in the EU,
the production of biomass for the bioeconomy as well as the growth and resilience of forests. It is
estimated that between 61% and 73% of agricultural soils are affected by erosion, the loss of organic
carbon, nutrient (nitrogen) exceedances, compaction or secondary salinisation (or a combination of
these threats).35
Soil compaction for instance may lower crop yields by 2.5-15 %.36
These
degradations and their impacts on crop yields are discussed in Annex 7 – 4.1.2.
 Climate change. Soil degradation amplifies the effects of climate change on the land surface, while
sustainable soil management and restoration helps to mitigate climate change. Europe’s resilience to
climate change depends on the level of soil organic matter and fertility, water retention and filtering
capacity, and resistance to erosion. Carbon farming practices could help to store up to 260 MtCO2 in
soils per year and contribute to mitigate climate change.
 Risks to human health. Several soil degradations harm human health:
o Erosion by wind can lead to greater amounts of airborne particulate matter, causing
respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and indirectly harm human health through the
deterioration of water quality.
o Sealing prolongs the duration of high temperatures during heat waves and reduces the capacity
of soils to act as a sink for pollutants.
o Contamination of soils can affect food safety. Ingestion of chemicals can occur via ingestion
of contaminated soil or plant uptake. Approximately 21% of agricultural soils in the EU37
contain cadmium concentrations in the topsoil that exceed the limit for groundwater. While
some metals are essential for plant growth (e.g., copper, iron, zinc and other macro- and
micro-nutrients), high metal concentrations can induce toxicity for plants and expose the
human population to diseases. Children are at greatest risk because they play close to the
ground.
 Loss of above-ground biodiversity. Soil degradation causes not only the loss of below ground
biodiversity, but also a reduction of above ground plant, animal, fungal and microbial diversity. Most
biodiversity is bound to the soil ensuring the decomposition and mineralisation of organic material
34
Thomas D. A Study on the Mineral Depletion of the Foods Available to us as a Nation over the Period 1940 to 1991. Nutrition and Health.
2003;17(2):85-115. doi:10.1177/026010600301700201, updated in 2007. One sobering conclusion is that today one would need to consume
2-5 times as much food to obtain the same amount of minerals and trace elements available in those same foods in 1940.
35
Milder (2022) Environmental degradation: impacts on agricultural production.
36
Brus and van den Akker, 2018, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/How-serious-a-problem-is-subsoil-compaction-in-the-Brus-
Akker/9d20c231fc64b465db8e480e854a52f5dffc04fa
37
EEA SOER 2020
5
(e.g. plant residues, manure, carcasses), influencing the carbon, nutrient and water cycles, providing
natural pest regulation, and building the foundation of the food web.
2.1.4 Costs of soil degradation
The table below presents the summary of the best quantifications available for the cost of soil degradation
by aspect of degradation. This represents the cost of taking no action to address soil degradation. At the
same time this would represent the benefit of addressing soil degradation and achieving soil health.
The range of costs of soil degradation is inherently uncertain, so lower and upper figures are presented for
quantified costs only. Estimates are provided on an impact-by-impact basis using figures taken from a
literature review, and where these are not available updating on the basis of the quantification of costs of
soil degradations in the Impact Assessment for the Soil Framework Directive from 2006.38
As shown in the summary Table 2-4, the sum of quantifiable costs of no-action gives the broad range of
EUR 16.5 to 68.8 billion per annum, excluding the costs of soil contamination. Soil contamination is
more uncertain and increases the range by EUR 3.4 to 292.4 billion per annum (see Annex 9, section
4.2.2 for details). However, it is important to note that these values represent only the quantifiable costs:
the table also lists the costs that could not be quantified for each of the soil degradations.39
These costs of
38
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52006SC0620&from=EN
39
Furthermore the 2006 quantification was done for EU25. The updated figures from 2006 do not extrapolate to EU-27.
Table 2-3: Soil health and its impact on services and societal needs (source: EEA (2023), Soil monitoring in
Europe)
5
no action are split between on-site components (typically those experienced by soil managers) and off-site
components (typically those experienced by other actors and society at large). Off-site costs of no action
represent the cross-boundary nature of soil degradation and are often not possible to quantify.
Table 2-4: cost of soil degradation (cost of no action); as well potential benefits of addressing soil degradation
Soil
degradation
Quantified costs
(billion EUR per year, 2023
prices)
Quantified costs – details Other costs not quantified/not included
(min) (max)
Loss of soil
organic
carbon
9.8 25
Long-term prices for carbon also used
(additional 2.5-10.2b€)
On-site:
 Yield losses due to reduced soil fertility
Off-site:
 Costs related to an increased release of
greenhouse gases from soil
Off-site:
 Costs due to loss of biodiversity and
biological activity in soil (affecting fertility,
nutrient cycles and genetic resources)
Erosion 2.4 23.1
Long term effects of erosion included
(additional 3.8b€ to the max)
On-site:
 Yield losses due to eroded fertile land
 Replacement application to compensate
for P-loss
Off-site:
 Costs of sediment removal, treatment
and disposal
 Costs due to infrastructure (roads, dams
and water supply) and property damage
caused by sediments run off and
flooding
 Costs due to necessary treatment of
water (surface, groundwater)
 Costs due to damage to recreational
functions
On-site:
 Costs due to impact on tourism
Off-site:
 Economic effects due to erosion-induced
income losses
 Costs due to increased sediment load for
surface waters (e.g. negative effects on aquatic
species, difficulties for navigation)
 Costs of healthcare caused by higher exposure
to dust and soil particles in the air
Compaction 1.5 9.2
On-site:
 Yield losses due to compacted soils
Off-site
 Costs due to reduced water infiltration into the
soil
 Costs due to increased leaching of soil
nitrogen
 Costs linked to increased emissions of
greenhouse gases due to poor aeration of soil
Salinisation 0.92 0.983
On-site:
 Yield losses due to reduced soil fertility
Off-site:
 Costs due to damage to transport
infrastructure (roads and bridges) from
shallow saline groundwater
 Costs due to damage to water supply
infrastructure
 Environmental costs, including impacts
on native vegetation, riparian
ecosystems and wetlands
On-site: costs due to negative effects on tourism
Contamination 3.4
292.4
On-site:
 Costs of monitoring measures and
impact assessment studies that must be
carried out in order to assess the extent
of contamination and the risk of further
contamination of other environmental
media (water, air)
Off-site:
 Costs of increased health care needs for
people affected by contamination,
which include the treatment of patients
and the monitoring of their health
during long periods to detect the effects
of exposure to soil contamination
On-site
 Costs of exposure protection measures for
workers operating on a contaminated
industrial site
 Costs due to land property depreciation if land
use restrictions are applied thus representing a
loss of economic value of the industrial asset
Off-site
 Costs for insurance companies
 Costs of dredging and disposing of
contaminated sediments downstream borne by
water supply companies or public
administrations
 Costs for increased food safety controls borne
5
Given the wide range of estimation, the study which assessed the contamination related costs40
has used
also a more prudent intermediate value that was updated at EUR 24.4 billion.41
This is the one used in the
overview of costs and benefits in chapter 7.3 to avoid overestimation.
2.1.5 Sub-problems
The reason for the persistence and the negative outlook of the main problem are described by the two key
sub-problems:
A. Data, information, knowledge and common governance on soil health and management are
insufficient.
- The minimum number of soil samples in the EU needed to have a statistically reliable measurement of
soil health, taking into account the variability of soil condition (soil type, land use and climatic
conditions), has been estimated by geostatistical methods at 210 000 points. Currently there are 34
000 points from Member States and 41 000 from LUCAS Soil campaign of 2022, while they were
about 20 000 in previous LUCAS Soil campaigns. This shows the large gap to sufficient data on soil
health. Furthermore, soil data from Member States are in general not public and not shared at EU
level, so they cannot be used as data for assessing soil health at EU level.
40
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-72438-4_5
41
Updating to 2023 prices the estimate for intermediate cost of contamination done in 2006 for the impact assessment of the Soil Framework
Directive proposal.
 Costs of treatment of surface water,
groundwater or drinking water
contaminated through the soil
by public administrations to detect
contaminated food
Sealing and
land take
1.9 6.6
On-site:
 Loss of ecosystem services (only sealed
area is used in the minimum, while land
take area is used in the maximum)
Future costs of new sealed soils;
On-site
 Opportunity costs due to restrictions on land
use
Off-site
 Cost linked to runoff water from housing and
traffic areas, which is normally unfiltered and
potentially contaminated with harmful
chemicals
 Costs due to fragmentation of habitats and
disruption of migration corridors for wildlife
 Costs due to impacts on landscape and
amenity values
 Costs on biodiversity
Biodiversity
No available
quantification
No available
quantification
N/A
On-site
 Yield losses due to reduce soil fertility
Off-site
 Costs linked to the loss of ecosystem
functions and reduced capacity to sequester
carbon
 Costs related to impacts on landscape and
amenity values
 Costs related to changes in genetic resources
Loss of soil
capacity of
water
retention
0 3.9
On-site:
 economic losses in agricultural sector
due to drought not alleviated by the
capacity of water retention by soil
Off-site
 Costs of flooding related to reduced capacity
of soil for water retention
Total
quantified
costs
19.8
361.3
(of which 292.4
from
contamination
and 68.88 from
the rest)
Sum of all above quantified costs Costs do not include non-linear effects.
5
- Some Member States have soil monitoring schemes in place, but they are fragmented, not
representative and not harmonised. Member States apply different sampling methods, frequencies and
densities, and use different metrics and analytical methods, resulting in a lack of consistency and
comparability across the EU. Furthermore, soil data are not consistently stored in one accessible
database. Monitoring soil health also requires access to land.
- Current density of on-field measurements is not sufficient to adequately assess soil in a representative
way at more local level, given the large variability of soil types, climatic conditions and land uses, and
thus to inform adequate soil restoration actions.
- Quality data on soil health is lacking, especially on soil organic carbon,42
water retention capacity,
contamination with organic compounds and biological parameters.
- The LUCAS soil survey is a very useful tool for a harmonised and comparable assessment of soil
health at EU level, but it currently lacks a clear legal mandate, depends on temporary administrative
arrangements and its continuation is not secured.
- The current low density of soil sampling locations is not sufficient to representatively assess soil
health at local level.
B. Transition to sustainable soil management and restoration, as well as remediation is needed
but not yet systematically happening, e.g. for the unsolved legacy of contaminated sites.
- Current data and research show a continuation of unsustainable soil management practices even if
they are detrimental to soil health (e.g. utilisation of heavy machinery, broad pesticide application,
poor crop rotation, lack of soil cover) due to the below described drivers.
- Concerning the contaminated sites, the current rate of identification, registration, investigation,
assessment and remediation will prove insufficient by 2050 to avoid risks for human health and the
environment, and to achieve the zero pollution ambition.
2.2 What are the problem drivers?
The problem drivers can be grouped into market failures, regulatory failures and behavioural biases.
Together these drivers contribute to the two sub-problems, and through them to the overall problem.
Throughout these categories, recurrent themes are lack of relevant and verifiable information and a failure
to fully implement sustainable soil management practices.
2.2.1 Market failures
Insufficient internalisation of environmental costs. The costs caused by practices harmful to soils are
often not borne by those who benefit from them, in a phenomenon known as ‘externalities’. Whereas the
short-term benefits of harmful practices are generally concentrated with the current landowner or land
manager, its costs are borne by people that can be distant in time (in the future, over several generations),
social or economic condition, or in space, including in other Member States of the EU. The fear of being
undercut on costs by competitors leads land managers to adopt or retain harmful practices. This occurs
also when the landowner and the soil manager are aware that soil health is part of their asset. Insufficient
internalisation also means that the financial gains from land take can be considerably larger than the
financial value of ecosystem services for the landowner, even if the opposite can be true from the point of
view of society. This is a typical case of market failure to preserve ecosystem services and nature, where
the financial computation performed using the marginal cost and benefit, as evaluated at the small scale of
each individual actor, leads to decisions that, when aggregated, are collectively unsustainable. Concerning
42
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01321-9
5
soil pollution, this market failure is closely linked with the non-application of the polluter-pays
principle.43
Short time decisions. Soil is formed at very low rates, meaning that it should be considered as a non-
renewable resource. Therefore, the time horizon of public policy, taking into account the public interest of
all involved parties, does not normally include the needs of the future generations. The long-lead times of
soil restoration mean that to achieve the EU’s long-term goals, such as climate neutrality in 2050, action
should start immediately. Economic operators, however, have to pay interests on their loans and are not
incentivised to consider long time horizons when it comes to soil. Short- and time-limited land tenure
contracts tend to discount (i.e. largely ignore) non-sustainable practices (short termism) albeit landowners
or land users are becoming more aware, due to climate change (frequency and intensity of weather events
that greatly affect a particular area).
Asymmetry of information on soil health. Connected to the lack of parameters to define the health of
soils and with the lack of obligations in this respect, in transactions bearing on the sale of a piece of land,
there is often an asymmetry between the knowledge held by the seller on the condition of the soil on that
piece of land (which is relatively higher, based on past empirical experience) and the knowledge of the
buyer (which is lower, in the absence of data and of a scientifically stable assessment method). This lack
and asymmetry of information reduces the incentives for landowners to have good soil management
practices, as the detrimental consequences of these will be difficult to detect by a buyer, and hence will
have minimal consequences on the selling price.
2.2.2 Regulatory failures
There is no dedicated EU legislation which protects soils like the ones existing for other media such as air
and water. The EEA pointed out in the SOER 2020 that “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 future objectives related to
development of green infrastructure and the bioeconomy”.
There is a clear gap within the existing current EU legal framework (see Annex 6 for a detailed gap
analysis for each of the soil degradations):
 There is a lack of definitions, indicators and criteria to define the notion of “healthy soils” and there is
currently no obligation to monitor all aspects of the health of soils. The assessment of the quality
and health of soils is a subject of active research and of long-lasting controversy among scientists,
practitioners and Member State authorities. It is therefore difficult, without a commonly agreed soil
health definition and of indicators to measure it, to conclude on the condition of a soil. In addition,
there is a lack of binding policy objectives relating to soil as such, and this is not covered by the
objectives put in place for other areas such as air and water.
 There is a gap regarding the need to manage soil sustainably, avoiding their deterioration, as well as to
restore those that have lost capacity to deliver ecosystem services.
Overall, soil health profits from the existing sectorial and horizontal environmental EU legislation only in
a tangential manner (e.g. as regards excess of nutrients and some pollution aspects), supporting the
specific objectives pursued by these acts, such as improving water or air quality, protecting habitats and
biodiversity, managing waste properly. However, the existing EU legislation does not address soil
properly for the reasons explained in chapter 1 and Annex 6. Due to their different objectives and scopes,
43
The European Court of Auditors has noted that this principle is not currently applied to emissions from the agricultural sector, including
emissions related to unsustainable soil management.
https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR21_12/SR_polluter_pays_principle_EN.pdf
5
and to the fact that they often aim to safeguard other environmental media, existing provisions, even if
fully implemented, yield a fragmented and incomplete protection to soil, as they do not cover all soils and
all soil threats identified. An analysis of existing environmental legislation for each of the soil
degradations is presented visually in table 2.1 of Annex 6.
There is also a gap regarding national legislation. While some Member States have put in place soil
protection legislation, others lack nationally coordinated actions on soil protection and soil threats. Soil
benefits often indirectly from other pieces of national legislation such as legislation on water, urban
planning or industrial or agricultural activities.
It appears from the analysis (see Annex 6), that on the one hand the approaches vary from one Member
State to another and on the other hand that some degradation aspects are better covered than others:
 Differences amongst Member States: a few Member States have dedicated legislative acts on soils
while in the other Member States soil may benefit indirectly from other legislation. As an example,
the Soil Act in Bulgaria focuses on the prevention of soil degradation and damages, the lasting
protection of soil functions and the restoration of damaged soil functions. In France on the contrary,
provisions on soils are dispersed in various legislative acts such as laws concerning urban planning,
biodiversity, or climate.
 Differences concerning the aspects of soil degradation: In many Member States, the national
legislation contributes directly or indirectly to address loss of soil organic carbon, soil erosion, loss of
soil biodiversity and sealing of soil. On the contrary, in a large majority of Member States there is no
or little contribution from national legislation (beyond national legislation transposing EU legislation)
to address soil salinization, excess of nutrients in soils, soil acidification and water retention capacity.
This gap is reflected by the deterioration of soils across the EU as explained in section 2.1.2 above.
One notable example of insufficient legislation on soil at national level are rules on contaminated soil.
Although there are provisions in many Member States on soil contamination, it appears that only a very
small fraction of all chemicals that can contaminate soils are regulated under national legislation via
contaminant thresholds, and other important policies and instruments that could remedy to the issue, such
as maintaining a register of contaminated sites or assessing risks and remediating sites in case of
inacceptable risks are also lacking. National legislation has not been successful in tackling historical soil
contamination since it is estimated that there are still around 2,8 million of potentially contaminated sites
in Europe. A big challenge results from the extremely different implementation of national approaches to
tackle contaminated sites, indicating high potential health risks for many citizens
This uneven and fragmented response by Member States to tackle soil degradation has led to an uneven
playing field for economic operators who have to abide to different rules, while competing on the same
market. It has also prevented the take up of (financial) incentives, training and advice to stimulate
sustainable soil management.
2.2.3 Behavioural biases
Lack of awareness of the importance of soil health, its complexity and its multiple benefits. Soil
health is often taken for granted because it is still capable of producing (albeit less intensively) even if
degraded. The lack of knowledge by stakeholders of the functioning of soils, the provision of ecosystem
services and its link with human health is significant and has been pointed out by all stakeholders as a
major barrier to achieve healthy soils. Moreover, the variability of soil conditions and uses generates a
complexity that represents a significant barrier to the adoption of sustainable practices. Insufficient
awareness of the consequences of soil degradation aggravates the other drivers when food and biomass
producers feel bound by market and industry dynamics, which often drive them to seek short-term
solutions to arising problems, including financial difficulties.
5
Delayed detection of soil degradation. Unlike for other environmental media, soil degradation often is
invisible to the naked eye. Land users are often unaware of the poor state of their soils. By the time the
impacts of such degradation start being noticeable (in the crops, in the water, etc), it often means that the
damage is already very severe and sometimes the remedy comes too late. It is this complex delayed
detection of symptoms that often prevents land users from taking the necessary management measures in
time.
Furthermore, specifically concerning farmers, a number of barriers have been identified that are hindering
the implementation of sustainable soil management practices:44
 Perceived economic barriers such as operating costs and capital investment costs as well as the risks
and uncertainties associated with the implementation of new practices;
 Technical barriers: many of the SSM practices needs to be adapted to local conditions in order to
maximise their benefits;
 Lack of information: the knowledge produced does not always reach nor is it always useful for the
farmer to apply on the field;
 Lack of advisers able to deliver credible and balanced advice at the farm level, with a good level of
specialist soil knowledge, able to take into account of trade-offs and synergies between soil functions
and the ability to accommodate different styles of farmer learning.
Structural barriers (such as technological lock-ins, data ownership and use, structure of the food chain)
that lock farmers into a certain system of agriculture; these impact farmers’ ability to change representing
inertial factors that are beyond the capacity of the individual farmer to overcome.
2.3 How will the problem evolve?
As found by the European Environment Agency, without additional action, the problem will persist.45
Trends and outlook for
the different degradation processes are presented in section 2.1. The assessment of past trends in the last 10-15 years, the
outlook for 2030, and prospects of meeting policy objectives and targets for soil health and land take are very worrying, since
deteriorating trends dominate (see also
44
Sustainable Agricultural Soil Management in the EU: What’s stopping it? How can it be enabled? – Rise Foundation
45
European Environment Agency (2019), The European Environment: State and Outlook 2020 (cfr. pages 12, 124, 130)
9
2.3.1 Scale of the problem at EU and Member States level
The EEA concluded in its SOER 2020 that “soil degradation is not well monitored, and often
hidden, but it is widespread and diverse”. The following table presents the distribution of the
aspects of soil degradation in the EU detailing the 60-70% estimation, the existing trends and the
outlook.
Table 2-1Table 2-1 on detailed trends and outlook by soil degradations as well as Annex 7 section
1.3.2). The underlying drivers of soil degradation are not projected to change favourably in the
future, so the functionality of the remaining healthy soils will come even more under pressure. The
EU is certainly not on track to achieve healthy soil resources based on the existing strategies and
policies. More harmonised, representative soil monitoring is needed to develop early warnings of
exceedances of critical thresholds and to guide sustainable soil management. There is a high risk
that the EU will fail some of its own Green Deal and international commitments such as land
degradation neutrality, despite the existing patchwork of legislation and the legislation being
developed. Additional measures could contribute but only partially, see Section 5.1 on the baseline,
with the NRL, LULUCF, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) National Strategic Plans and
other ongoing initiatives leading potentially to some improvements on the aspects of soil health.
Some regions will be more affected by soil degradation also due to the impacts of climate change.
Nevertheless, across the entire EU in the coming decades, the pressure on soil will increase with
demands from food, water and energy likely to grow. Food security is particularly sensitive to soil
health. Left to itself, in the light of the trends in the last decades, there is a risk that soil degradation
may lead to additional societal and environmental problems that combine features such as low
productivity soils that are vulnerable to degradation, climate change that amplifies extreme
conditions, low availability of productive soils, or high population density or population growth.
The increased demands for food, fibre, biofuels, water, infrastructure and settlements result in
growing competing claims for land and soil, and as a consequence, more and more difficult trade-
offs between ecosystem services.46
3 WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT?
3.1 Legal basis
The legal basis for the EU to act on soil health lies in Articles 191 and 192 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). These articles empower the EU legislator to take
measures aimed at:
 preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment,
 protecting human health,
 prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources,
 promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental
problems, and in particular combating climate change.
Given that this is an area of shared competence between the EU and the Member States, EU action
must respect the subsidiarity principle.
46
IPBES (2018), Assessment report on land degradation and restoration
10
3.2 Subsidiarity: necessity of EU action
Intervention at EU level is justified in view of the scale and cross-border aspects of the problem
(cfr. more details below), the impact of soil degradation across the Union as well as the risks for
the environment, economy and society. Coordinated measures by all Member States are
necessary to achieve the vision to have all soils healthy by 2050 as set out in the Soil Strategy for
2030, and to secure the provision of ecosystem services across the EU by the soil in the long-term.
Unless the current degradation of our soils is rapidly reversed, our food system will become less
productive and increasingly vulnerable to the changing climate and reliant on resource intensive
external inputs.47
Actions of Member States by themselves have proven to be insufficient to
reverse the situation, since the degradation trend is continuing and even deteriorating (cfr. trends
and outlook in section 2.1.2). 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 limits Europe’s
ability to achieve its objectives. Europe is not well on track to protect its soils. Given that some
aspects of soil health are only fractionally covered by EU legislation, additional EU action is
needed to complement existing requirements and to fill policy gaps in a holistic and integrated
manner. Indeed, the EU has taken in the past already legislative action with a fragmented impact on
soil health (e.g. through policies on agriculture, water, climate, industry, etc.). The policy options
will be developed in chapter 5 in full respect of the subsidiarity principle with different degrees of
flexibility for Member States and different intensities of EU intervention. The subsidiarity principle
is analysed below and more extensively in the subsidiarity grid in the separate Staff Working
Document accompanying the proposal and this impact assessment. Whilst the scale of the problem
is established in Section 2, the cross-border aspects of the problem are particularly relevant for
subsidiarity and therefore further explained here.
Cross-border aspects and impacts of soil degradation
The drivers and impacts of the problem exceed country borders and reduce the provision of
ecosystem services throughout the EU and its neighbours. Soil degradation is often wrongly
considered as a purely local issue while transboundary impacts are underestimated.48
Healthy soils
are essential to tackle global societal challenges. Soils play a key role in the nutrient, carbon and
water cycles, and these processes are clearly not constrained by physical and political borders.
Soil health influences whether a soil emits or sequesters carbon, and therefore, the absence of
effective measures to adequately tackle degradation in one country, undermines climate change
mitigation and adaptation actions in other Member States and EU efforts to achieve climate
neutrality by 2050. Every year mineral soils under cropland are losing around 7.4 million tonnes of
carbon. Peatland drainage in Europe alone emits around 5% of total EU greenhouse gas emissions.
Soil degradation due to unsustainable management practises (e.g. sealing, intensive agricultural and
forest management practices that cause loss of soil organic matter, compaction and erosion) in one
country can significantly increase the flooding risks across borders and the vulnerability of a whole
region to extreme weather events.
Off-site costs of erosion are estimated to be much higher than on-site effects. Soil particles eroded
by water are transported downstream and across borders through the soil-sediment-water system
and increase turbidity. This reduces water quality and increases sedimentation and costs for water
treatment. For nautical reasons, the Port of Rotterdam dredges every year millions m³ of excessive
47
RISE Foundation (2022), Sustainable agricultural soil management
48
IPBES (2018). Thematic assessment of land degradation and restoration
11
sediments, half of which are brought down by the Rhine as an effect of unsustainable soil erosion
upstream. Soil loss to riverine systems is about 15% of the on-site erosion in the EU. The average
cost of sediments removal is 15-20 euro per m3
. Removing sediments due to erosion costs about 1.5
– 2.3 billion euro per year. Of the approximately 100 transboundary river basins in the EU, 25%
have identified soil erosion as an important issue (due to agricultural practices). Sediments washed
away by soil erosion in one country can block dams or damage infrastructure such as harbours in
other countries. Other off-site and thus potential cross-border effects of soil erosion by water
include increased risk of landslides, loss of biodiversity, adverse effects on the generation of
electricity, decreased food supply and increased prices. Tackling the problem in the country of
origin by erosion prevention and sustainable soil management is always the most cost-efficient
solution.
Excessive use and run-off of nutrients from soils can lead to cross-border eutrophication of
water bodies and seas. Oversupply of nutrients in agricultural land around the Baltic Sea is a major
environmental pressure on groundwater aquifers and the marine ecosystem. Harmful chemicals and
heavy metals enter the Baltic Sea via multiple sources and pathways, including from wastewater
treatment plants, leaching from landfills and filling material, inappropriate spreading of sewage
sludge, atmospheric deposition of industrial emissions, and agricultural use of fertilisers and
pesticides. More than 97% of the Baltic Sea suffers from eutrophication caused by multiple
countries. Europe is a global nitrogen hotspot with high nitrogen export through rivers to coastal
waters, and 10 % of the global nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions.49
Erosion by wind transports soil particles and the harmful chemical substances attached to them
across long distances and borders, e.g. the wind-driven transport of glyphosate and
aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA, the metabolite of glyphosate). Similarly, anthropogenic
emissions of air pollutants and subsequent deposition of heavy metals are known to cause negative
effects on chemical and biological processes in soils. Wind erosion affects the transboundary semi-
arid areas of the Mediterranean region as well as the temperate climate areas of the northern and
central European countries. Transport of contaminated sediments in transboundary river basins
and coastal waters can have adverse effects on the environment, human health and the economy
across borders. Action is needed not only on source control, but also to deal with ‘legacy’
contamination where contaminated sediment is likely to be remobilized during extreme events (e.g.
floods) and because such events are likely to become more frequent.
Contaminants introduced to soil leach into ground, surface, marine and coastal waters, leading to
contaminated drinking and bathing water, and finally ending in the sea. Transboundary aquifers can
become polluted by soil contamination. It is therefore important to prevent and remediate at the
source, otherwise costs to restore environmental quality have to be borne by another Member State.
A known example of transboundary contamination is the Campine area in Flanders and the
Netherlands, where heavy metals were emitted by the Belgian non-ferro industry and zinc ashes
were used as filling material. Atmospheric deposition of heavy metals also causes negative cross-
border effects on chemical and biological processes in soils. Even though emissions were
drastically reduced thanks to strong EU air policy, the impact of historical deposition can last very
long. Lead and cadmium concentrations from deposition decreased in soil upper layers but were
transferred in deeper soil layers. Heavy metals continue to leach from soil to water long time after
the depositions are reduced. Another example of cross-border effects is the large-scale PFAS
contamination caused by a chemical producer in Antwerp, that is mobile and crossing the border
with the Netherlands.
49
Van Grinsven et al., 2013.
12
Soil contamination can immediately become a cross-border threat to food safety in Europe and
globally. Contamination of agricultural soils can lead to transboundary risks when resulting in food
contamination that subsequently circulates freely in the EU internal market. E.g. dietary exposure
to cadmium exceeds the tolerable level more than twice for a significant number of Europeans,
including children. Food from agricultural products is the main source of cadmium exposure for the
general, non-smoking population in the EU, and fertilisation with phosphate fertilisers is by far the
main cause of cadmium contamination of European agricultural soils.
As stated in the recent Staff Working Document on the drivers of food security, the food supply
chain is internationally highly interconnected and disruptions have increasingly been of
transboundary nature.50
This is reinforced by the fact that the EU is an important global player on
international food markets. Since 95% of our food is produced on soils,51
soil degradation and
health is a driver that has a direct impact on food security and the cross-border food markets. No
country in the EU is fully self-sufficient in terms of food security. The Global Food Security
index52
shows that the situation varies between Member States, but even the best performing EU
countries still depend on soils beyond their borders and import for the provision of food. Food
production, in combination with trade determines the food supply.53
The loss of capacity for food production due to unhealthy soils has an obvious effect on the overall
food security of the EU and globally, with a view to the growing global population and EU’s strong
agri-food export orientation. As the balance between food supply and food demand determines the
price, soil health is also directly linked to food prices. In 2021, 66% of the cereals produced in the
EU came from only five countries. Decreasing soil health in these countries affects the availability
of these products within the entire internal market and beyond. Agriculture in the EU is losing
around 0.43% of crop productivity annually (with an annual cost of 1.25 billion euro) from water
erosion alone. Soil degradation causes losses of almost 3 million tonnes of wheat and 0.6 million
tonnes of maize per year in the EU. Heavy agricultural equipment deployed in wet conditions can
reduce, through soil compaction, long-term crop yields by 2.5-15%. Soil sealing caused a loss of
0.81% of agricultural production in 19 EU countries between 1990 and 2006, the equivalent of 6
million tons of wheat. Salinisation leads to decreased biomass production of a further 10 million
hectares per year.
The cross-border aspects of soil degradation call for close cooperation with EU neighbours, but this
cannot be done properly unless the matter is first addressed within the EU. European policy should
protect citizens of a given country from the harmful consequences of natural resources management
practices in another country for which they are not responsible.54
3.3 Subsidiarity: added value of EU action
Coordinated action is needed to deliver on EU and global commitments that rely on soil health,
and this initiative would allow for increased certainty for meeting these objectives and for reduced
costs of doing so. The European and international commitments (e.g. under UNCCD, UNFCCC,
CBD, SDGs, UNEA, etc.), adopted by the EU and its Member States are currently not matched by a
corresponding level of action.
50
Commission Staff Working Document on drivers of food security SWD(2023) 4 final
51
FAO (2022): Soils for nutrition: state of the art. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0900en
52
Global Food Security Index (GFSI) (economist.com)
53
Commission Staff Working Document on drivers of food security SWD(2023) 4 final
54
Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Implementation of the Soil Thematic Strategy’ (2013/C 17/08)
13
Working at European scale is essential, as currently soil protection policies vary markedly from
one Member State to another. Lower environmental requirements in some Member States may
lead to distortions in the internal market and unfair competition among businesses. Some
Member States have sophisticated soil protection policies and rules, others do not have provisions
beyond those derived from EU non-soil specific policies. Some Member States have put more
general soil protection legislation in place (e.g. AT, BE, DE, NL, SK), more specific agricultural or
cultivation acts (e.g. BG, HR, SI, CZ, PL, DK), specific legislation for contamination and
remediation (e.g. AT, FI, BE) or the sub-soil (e.g. LV, NL). Member States having less soil-
protecting policy instruments in place are often those suffering from high pressures on soil, in
particular in southern countries where depletion of soil organic carbon, soil erosion and the risk of
desertification are the highest. Differences between national rules can lead to very different
obligations for economic operators, different cost bases from one Member State to another and an
uneven playing field (e.g. due to higher investigation or remediation costs).
There are considerable differences between the efforts that Member States deploy to identify and
remediate (potentially) contaminated sites, e.g. Bulgaria has only registered 26 potentially
contaminated sites, compared to more than 350.000 in Germany. Some Member States have fairly
effective soil investigation schemes and remediation rates, others only remediate few sites per year,
resulting in little progress in the management of contaminated sites. Remediation costs are normally
borne by the polluting company, so this means that businesses in certain Member States are
disadvantaged compared to companies in countries with looser regulation.
Externalities from soil degradation are unequally internalized by landowners, managers, operators
and users and this would be reflected in the prices of the products they source on these soils.
However, soil degradation results in lower crop yields, higher food prices and decreases the
availability of agricultural land. Reduced soil fertility increases the cost of inputs for farmers and
reduces their competitiveness in the longer run. These can distort the competition in the internal
market. The proper functioning of the single market requires addressing the cause of these
imbalances, i.e. ensuring soil health.
The Soil Strategy aims to have all EU soil ecosystems in healthy condition by 2050 and already
noted that this will require decisive changes in this decade. By 2050 protection, sustainable use, and
restoration of soil should become the norm. This requires immediate legislative action to fill the gap
on soil at EU level. A Soil Health Law would increase legal certainty for European companies and
provide clarity on the joint principles and long-term targets for soil health across Member States.
Soil health improvement requires continued action which means constant investment and policy
stability. Less subject to short-term political perturbation, the EU can provide the long-term
dimension in a different way to national governments. Unified environmental norms at EU level
bring clarity and certainty for the single market. Such a common vision and legal framework would
also stimulate the development of innovative solutions that could strengthen the export of
European expertise and technologies to non-EU countries.
Furthermore, the cross-border impacts of the problem, including the pressures on soil, mean that
addressing the issue at European scale will also allow for synergies and more efficient action than
if at Member State level alone. 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 legislative EU action 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. Some Members States have not yet taken
advanced action on soil health, because soil degradation is often perceived as a hidden threat and
complex problem with many links to other policy domains. EU-level action is needed to ensure a
14
consistent approach across the EU and beyond and would allow for significant sharing of best
practice and also to support soil monitoring by developing advanced remote sensing services and
providing assistance to the Member States in need.
Further analysis of subsidiarity is provided for the policy options in subsequent Chapters and in the
separate Staff Working Document with the subsidiarity grid.
Views of stakeholders on the need for EU action
The feedback received in response to the call for evidence ‘soil health – protecting, sustainably
managing and restoring soil’55
(see Annex 2 for more analytical detail) revealed support for an EU
initiative across responding stakeholders. 149 of the 189 (79%) replies support or strongly support
an EU Soil Health Law. All responding research organizations (n=11), NGOs (n=39) and public
authorities (n=9) supported it, while 47 of the 71 responding business associations and
organisations, did so. Qualitative analysis showed that some businesses emphasized the importance
of soil monitoring and the linkages with EU water policy and favoured the application of a risk-
based approach to address issues with soil contamination in the EU. Some businesses voiced
concerns about the risk of double regulation and additional administrative burdens. Others would
prefer a non-binding approach at EU level and demand that the Soil Health Law leaves enough
flexibility to take in to account the diversity and local condition of the soil (no one size fits all).
88% of the 5 782 respondents to the online public consultation56
replied that the causes of soil
degradation are currently not sufficiently or not at all addressed at EU level. Regarding the content
of the Soil Health Law, respondents found it most important to regulate requirements for the
sustainable management of soil (r=4 961) and to impose an obligation of result for Member States
to achieve healthy soils (r=4 954).
In general, Member States express their support to 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 Strategy and are prepared to make progress towards the objective of
‘zero net land take’ by 2050. The Council confirmed it 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. 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. 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.
55
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13350-Soil-health-protecting-sustainably-managing-and-
restoring-EU-soils/feedback_en?p_id=28624022
56
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13350-Soil-health-protecting-sustainably-managing-and-
restoring-EU-soils/public-consultation_en
15
4 OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED?
4.1 The intervention logic
Figure 4-1: intervention logic
Drivers Problem Impact Objectives Policy options
Market failures
• Costs of harmful practices not borne by those who benefit (cost
externalization) leading to a comparative advantage.
• Financial gains of land take are considerably larger than the
value of ecosystem services provided.
• Land tenure and speculative contracts ignore future impact of
soil degradation and do not incentivise to improve soil health.
• Buyers of land are not aware of soil health and cannot integrate
restoration costs into price.
Regulatory failures
• Insufficient national and EU legal framework to monitor, assess,
sustainably manage and restore soils;
• National spatial planning rules do not prevent the negative
impact on soil health of urban sprawl, spatial development and
construction;
• Cost of soil degradation and the losses of ecosystem services
are insufficiently integrated into economic decisions.
Behavioural biases
• Bias in management choices due to the difficulty to timely
identify soil degradation and tipping points for loss of ecosystem
services.
• Lack of awareness of the importance of soil health.
Main problem
Soils in the EU are unhealthy and
continue to degrade.
Sub-problem A
Data, information, knowledge and
common governance on soil
health and management are
insufficient.
Sub-problem B
Transition to sustainable soil
management and restoration is
needed but not yet systematically
happening, e.g. for the unsolved
legacy of contaminated sites.
Critical loss of key ecosystem
services:
• food and biomass provision
• carbon sequestration
• water filtering and cycling
• nutrient cycling
• habitat for biodiversity
This leads to risks for human
health, the environment, economy
and society.
Including:
• Flooding risks, water scarcity
and heat islands;
• Reduced soil fertility, risk for
food security and safety;
• Affected terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems;
• Climate change deterioration
and desertification;
• Increased competition for land.
General objective
To achieve healthy soils across
the EU by 2050, ensuring that
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.
Specific objective A
To ensure that sufficient data,
information and knowledge on soil
health and management is
available to stakeholders and an
adequate governance on soil
health is in place.
Specific objective B
To restore unhealthy soils
(including contaminated sites) and
ensure sustainable management
of all soils, whenever possible.
5 building blocks
(A) Soil health and soil districts
(A) Monitoring
(A) Definition and identification of
contaminated sites
(B) Sustainable soil management
(B) Restoration and remediation
2-staged approach
1) monitoring (Option 1) + SSM
2) Restoration based on
monitoring
3 sets of other options
Modulation within building blocks:
O2: High flexibility
O3: Targeted flexibility and
harmonization
O4: High EU harmonization
4 'add-ons' considered for
integration
(A) Net land take definition and
reporting
(A) Soil health certificate
(A) Passport for excavated soil
(B) Mandatory 50% reduction
nutrient losses
16
4.2 General objectives
The general objective is to achieve healthy soils across the EU by 2050, ensuring 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. This objective stems from the vision of the EU Soil Strategy for 2030 that by
2050, all EU soil ecosystems are in healthy condition and are thus more resilient, which will require
very decisive changes in this decade. This is also in line with the long-term objective of the 7th
and
8th
Environmental Action Programmes to live well, within the planetary boundaries by 2050.
4.3 Specific objectives
The specific objectives to respond to the two sub-problems are:
a. To ensure that sufficient data, information and knowledge on soil health and management is
available to stakeholders and an adequate governance on soil health is in place.
b. To restore unhealthy soils (including contaminated sites) and ensure sustainable
management of EU soils, whenever possible.
There is a close relationship between these two specific objectives. Putting in place a reliable
monitoring and assessment system, producing a solid knowledge base is essential in managing
soils. Indeed, taking adequate and effective action to achieve healthy soils requires data,
information and knowledge, in particular to account for the high variability of soil types, climatic
conditions and land uses. In turn, the information coming from sustainable soil management on the
ground informs and helps calibrating the monitoring and governance mechanisms. Furthermore, as
the scale of the problem is significant, it is essential to start taking measures ensuring soil health
(specific objective b) as soon as possible, so that the general objective is attainable.
4.4 Synergies and trade-offs with other objectives
Restoring unhealthy soils and avoiding their degradation through sustainable soil management
would contribute to the achievement of other EU Green Deal objectives:
- healthy content in soil organic carbon would contribute significantly to climate neutrality;
- healthy, and therefore fertile and resilient soils would contribute significantly to the food
security and in addressing the request for biomass production, in particular in the long term due
to the expected higher resilience to climate change;
- healthy soils, not exposing humans and the environment to unacceptable risks due to soil
contamination, would contribute to the zero pollution ambition;
- healthy soils would contribute to achieving good ecosystem condition, addressing the loss of
biodiversity.
Furthermore, ensuring sufficient data on soil health will provide a needed basis to monitor forest
soils and to monitor the progress in achieving the targets related to soil set in the NRL proposal and
in LULUCF.
Potential short-term trade-offs depend on specific options and practices applied – see analysis in
6.3.7.
17
5 POLICY OPTIONS
5.1 What is the baseline from which options are assessed?
The baseline scenario is detailed in Annex 8 and describes how the current situation is expected to
evolve over time without additional policy action.
The baseline assumes the implementation of European Green Deal policies and of the other actions
announced in the Soil Strategy for 2030 (with the exception of the Soil Health Law). Beyond
that, the baseline also assumes that other existing and planned EU, global and Member State
policies relevant to soil health are implemented and remain in force.
The baseline therefore includes:
 The implementation of recent policy reforms (e.g. revised LULUCF Regulation, new CAP) and
proposals under discussion (e.g. NRL, Certification of Carbon Removal Regulation).
 The implementation of other relevant existing and planned EU and global policies and
legislation.
 The non-binding actions for the Commission and Member States set in the EU Soil Strategy for
2030.
 The implementation of national policies relevant for soil health.
5.1.1 The contributions of recent initiatives
Over the last years and months, the Commission has proposed a number of initiatives in the frame
of the Union’s policy on climate and biodiversity that are very relevant for soils. The new CAP is
also expected to contribute to enhance soil health. The potential contributions of the NRL,
LULUCF Regulation, CAP and the carbon removal are summarised in Table 5-1 and Table
5-2.Error! Reference source not found.
Over the last years and months, the Commission has proposed a number of initiatives in the frame
of the Union’s policy on climate and biodiversity that are very relevant for soils. The new CAP is
also expected to contribute to enhance soil health. The potential contributions of the NRL,
LULUCF Regulation, CAP and the carbon removal are summarised in Table 5-1 and Table 5-2.
Firstly, the proposal for the NRL sets EU nature restoration targets to restore degraded ecosystems
(i.e. with high importance for biodiversity), and especially those with the most potential to remove
and store carbon and to prevent and reduce the impact of natural disasters. The NRL proposal
contains a number of provisions directly relevant to soils: obligation for Member States to put in
place restoration measures for organic soils in agricultural use constituting drained peatlands,
obligations for MS to set two targets, to achieve a satisfactory level of stock of organic carbon in
cropland mineral soils and in forest ecosystems. Indirect contributions on soil health are also
expected from the restoration measures of terrestrial ecosystems (24% of EU land concerned).
Secondly, under the proposal for amending the LULUCF Regulation, the European Commission
proposed a separate land-based net removals target of -310 million tonnes of CO2 -equivalent by
2030. The EU-wide target is to be implemented through binding national targets for the LULUCF
sector, requiring Member States to step up ambition for their land use policies.
Thirdly, the proposed Carbon Removal Regulation aims to facilitate the deployment of high-quality
carbon removals through a voluntary Union certification framework with high climate and
environmental integrity. Storing carbon in soil is an essential component of reaching climate
neutrality. At the same time, carbon removals constitute a new business model in the voluntary
market with carbon credits. This initiative is instrumental in ensuring soil’s capacity to absorb and
store carbon.
18
Fourthly, the new CAP includes several mandatory requirements for environmental and climate
conditions (called Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions, GAECs) to be respected by
the farmers that receive CAP income support. Some of these GAECs are linked to soil management
practices and are expected to contribute to enhance soil health. In addition, the CAP provides
support to farmers who commit to voluntary measures. Some of those are also of relevance for
soils, such as certain eco-schemes or targeted agri-environmental and climate measures (AECM) or
investment measures under the second pillar of the CAP (rural development policy).
The contribution of these initiatives to address the different soils threats has been assessed for the
different soils (agriculture, forest and other). The major expected contribution (i.e. NRL, revision of
LULUCF, Carbon Removal and new CAP) concerns the loss of soil organic carbon. For SOC in
organic soils, the attainment of the targets set in the proposed NRL is sufficient to reach the
corresponding criteria for healthy soils. The revised LULUCF and the carbon removal Regulation
will incentivize soil management measures that strengthen the capacity of soils to preserve and
capture CO2. Regarding mineral soils, these initiatives if fully implemented partially addresses the
problem.
As regards soil erosion on agricultural soils, the new CAP includes some safeguards, especially by
two GAECs on soil erosion risk management and soil cover, and certain targeted voluntary
measures. This may for example decrease the extent of arable land in the EU left as bare soil
without any vegetation cover during winter, which were estimated to be 23 % in 2016. However,
due to different priorities and implementing requirements across the Member States it is estimated
these instruments would not be suitable to cover the problem to full extent.
Soil compaction is not expected to be specifically addressed by the above-mentioned initiatives.
Positive impacts on the excess of nutrients on agriculture soils are expected from the GAEC on
soil cover and crop rotation, as well as some voluntary measures where available. However, not all
agriculture soils are concerned and there is no binding target to be achieved. Furthermore, the target
on water ecosystems as well as the restoration measures on terrestrial habitats under the proposed
NRL is also expected to contribute to the reduction of the excess of nutrients in soils. However, this
would concern a maximum of 24% of all soils. Hence it is estimated that a large gap would remain.
On soil acidification, the target on restoration of terrestrial habitats under the proposed NRL may
contribute to reduce soil acidification. However, this would concern a maximum of 24% of all
soils. Hence it is estimated that a large gap would remain.
On soil salinization, the rewetting target under the proposed NRL may probably contribute locally
to reduce soil salinization in some agricultural soils. However, only an indirect contribution is
expected. Therefore, a large gap would remain.
On the loss of soil biodiversity, some eco-schemes and AECM under the CAP are expected to have
some positive impacts on agriculture soils. However, due to the voluntary nature of these measures
and the great variation in availability across Member States, the potential of the CAP to fully
address this problem is limited and it is estimated that only a share of agricultural soil would be
impacted. The restoration measures under the proposed NRL would also contribute to address this
problem.
On water retention capacity, the measures under the proposed NRL and LULUCF revision
aiming to increase the soil organic carbon would improve the soil’s capacity to retain water.
However, there are no specific targets on the soil’s capacity to retain water.
19
On soil sealing and artificialization, prevention and remediation of soil contamination, the non-
deterioration of habitats under the proposed NRL may prevent from soil sealing and
artificialization. Besides this, no further major contribution is expected from the four initiatives.
In conclusion, these recent initiatives will require Member States to take actions that benefit, inter
alia, soil health. However, they only partially address the objectives of this soil health
initiative, because they approach soils from another angle (such as biodiversity and climate
neutrality angles as far as NRL, revised LULUCF and carbon removal regulation are concerned).
The (soil) targets in the NRL proposal focus on the carbon sequestering potential, which is only one
of the many ecosystem services provided by the soil, and only have limited coverage on mineral
cropland soils and organic soils, specifically in agricultural and forest ecosystems. As it was
already foreseen in the NRL proposal,57
additional targets for soil health in all terrestrial ecosystem
types would be introduced in a more complete and holistic manner at a later stage through this soil
health initiative. Similarly, the target for the removal of carbon from the atmosphere by the
LULUCF sector, includes mineral and organic soils, but uniquely focusses on the carbon cycle. The
LULUCF Regulation creates incentives for improving land management in the EU, but only in
view of achieving land-based climate neutrality, since the Regulation does not address other
physical, chemical or biological aspects of soil health, than soil organic carbon stocks. The new
CAP is also expected to contribute to soil health for the agricultural soils concerned. A specific
objective (SO) has been introduced with the aim to preserve natural resources including soil (SO 5).
Three GAECs with relevance to soil contribute to this objective and Member States were asked to
design further interventions to address soil degradation causes. It is important to note, however, that
a) the CAP is a funding mechanism for those farmers seeking support and does not regulate or
incentivises farmers who do not participate under its framework; b) the final design of CAP
interventions depends on Member States situation and priorities, leading to a wide range of the
extent to which the CAP contributes to soil health aspects (cfr. Annex 8 section 1.4 on result
indicators); c) the financial budget dedicated to environmental issues must also sufficiently support
many other environmental aspects, such as biodiversity loss or reduced use of pesticides, therefore
causing a competition for resources between the targeted aspects; and d) since the CAP addresses a
large number of potential beneficiaries and a large physical area, there is a possible danger that
support is spread too thinly to have a significant effect.58
In some cases, specific needs could be
better addressed when more accurate data and subsequent indicators would be available, to which
the Soil Health Law could contribute significantly.
For the sake of completeness, the following initiatives were also added in Table 5-1Error!
Reference source not found.:
- The proposal for a regulation on the sustainable use of plant protection products and amending
Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 (COM(2022)0196 final)
- The proposal for a revision of the Industrial Emissions Directive (COM(2022)156)
- The future Communication on managing the nutrient cycle for a resilient future - reaping the
benefits of an integrated approach (INMAP)
57
See Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on nature restoration, explanatory memorandum
58
Impact assessment accompanying the proposal for a new CAP:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=SWD%3A2018%3A301%3AFIN
20
Table 5-1: estimated effect of new EU initiatives on soil health and remaining gap
21
agriculture
(~40%)
forest
(~40%)
urban &
other
~20% remaining gap
remaining gap
adressed by SHL
cost of no action
(b€) - upper
quantified value min max
Loss of SOC - organic soils no major gap (no additional requirement under SHL) NA - -
- mineral soils
Missing target at EU to reach adequate level for delivering
ecosystems services (beyond storage) Y 9,1 12,5
Unsustainable erosion
soils outside of CAP not covered, soils on certain slopes only
partially addressed under CAP Y 23,1 17,9 22,1
compaction large gap; topsoil and subsoil compaction Y 9,2 9,0 9,2
excess nutrients
gap on soils remains; currently no legally binding target on
reduction of excess nutients in soil
partially
(phosphorus only) N/A - -
acidification
gap partially adressed; no target in SHL no applicable protection
principle or measurement;
(for the part in
nutrients) N/A - -
salinization large gap on soils remains; other areas not covered by NRL Y 1,0 1,0 1,0
loss of soil biodiversity
no target under SHL; no applicable protection principle or
measurement Y N/A - -
sealing and artificialization not addressed beyond non deterioration obligation under NRL Partially 6,6 0,7 3,3
Loss of water retention capacity
increase of SOC will have direct impat but there is no overall
measurement and target to prevent disasters. Y 3,9 3,5 3,9
TOTAL excluding
contamination 68,8 41,1 52,0
Contamination - prevention
good coverage by existing legislation but not all activities
concerned;missing overall prevention principle (SSM); no overall
measurement of effectiveness in soils
Partially (through
SSM) N/A
Contamination - historical not adressed under existing and ongoing initiatives; legislative gap Y 292,4 292,4 292,4
legenda TOTAL 361,2 333,5 344,4
Soil degradations addressed by new EU initiatives
addressed to a large extent (roughly 50-100%)
somewhat to partially addressed (roughly 10-50%)
minor positive impacts can be expected (roughly from >0 to 10%)
Gap
very low or no relevance
25,0
estimated effect of new
initiatives on soil health SHL
potential remaining
benefits of SHL
Table 5-2: quantification of the benefit from SHL reduction of the cost of soil degradation after the positive effects of other EU initiatives (in the baseline). The costs used are
the upper values of the quantified costs (see 2.1.4 Costs of soil degradation).
22
5.1.2 Contribution of existing EU legislation (see Annex 6 for more details)
Existing EU policies make positive contributions to the improvement of soil health but will not be
sufficient to achieve the vision of the Soil Strategy to have all soils healthy by 2050 because they
do not comprehensively address all the drivers of soil degradation and therefore significant gaps
remain as explained in detail in chapter 2 and Annex 6. Existing policies have not been able to
prevent that 60-70% of soils in the EU are not healthy and that soil health is still deteriorating
in the EU.
Annex 6 includes a gap analysis to show how existing initiatives do not fully enable the
achievement of the objectives identified in this impact assessment. At the same time, the link with
other initiatives creates an opportunity for synergies: the Soil Health Law can build on efforts
already established in other soil-related areas and can support other initiatives through a stronger
governance framework and the provision of more harmonised data.
The gap is represented visually in the following tableTable 5-3. Further explanations on the
legislative gap are provided in section 2 of Annex 6.
23
Table 5-3: legislative gap
EU Waste
legislation
EU Water
legislation
(including
nitrates dir)
EU Nature
legislation
(other than
NRL)
EU Air
legislation
EU Industrial
emissions
legislation
EU legislation
on specific
substances
SEA/EIA
(limited to
evaluation
of
impacts)
Environmental
liability
directive
Environmental
crime directive
Nutrient loss/
excess of
nutrients in
soil
Agricultural (nitrates)
Forestry
Urban
Industrial
Loss of/ low
soil organic
Carbone (SOC)
Agricultural
Forestry
Urban
Industrial
Soil Erosion
(by water or
air)
Agricultural
Forestry
Urban
Industrial
Soil
compaction
Agricultural
Forestry
Urban
Industrial
Soil
acidification
Agricultural By nutrients
and pollutants
By air pollution
Forestry By air pollution
Urban By air pollution
Industrial
salinisation Agricultural by water
abstraction
Forestry by water
abstraction
Urban by water
abstraction
Industrial
Water
retention
capacity
Agricultural
Forestry
Urban
24
Industrial
Loss of soil
biodiversity
Agricultural By reducing
fertilisers
By reducing
pesticides
Forestry
Urban
Industrial
Soil
sealing/land
take
Agricultural
Forestry
Urban
Industrial
Prevention of
soil
contamination
Agricultural sewage
sludge
and illegal
dumping
Diffuse
contamination
Diffuse
contamination
Diffuse
contamination
Diffuse
contamination
Forestry illegal
dumping
Diffuse
contamination
Diffuse
contamination
Diffuse
contamination
Diffuse
contamination
Urban illegal
dumping
Diffuse
contamination
Diffuse
contamination
Diffuse
contamination
Diffuse
contamination
Industrial illegal
dumping
and
landfills
Diffuse
contamination
Remediation
of soil
contamination
Agricultural
Forestry
Urban
Industrial By
landfills
Historical
contamination
not addressed
Anthropogenic
contamination
(with strong
limitation
regarding type
of damage)
Direct contribution to soil protection
Indirect contribution to soil protection
No or very minor contribution to soil protection
25
5.1.3 EU Soil Strategy for 2030
Section 3 of Annex 8 lists the non-binding policy initiatives under the EU Soils Strategy that
have been considered and assessed their expected impacts on the baseline scenario.
5.1.4 Existing Member States legislation
Section 5 of Annex 8 describes and assesses the contribution of existing Member States
legislation
5.2 Description of the policy options
The description of the policy options is done through five key building blocks (see the columns
in Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found.), responding to the
two specific objectives and representing the key areas of intervention. The building blocks on
soil health and soil districts, monitoring and identification of contaminated soils respond to
specific objective A. The building blocks on sustainable soil management and restoration
respond to specific objective B.
There are two factors that need to be taken into account for detailing how the obligations would
be defined: the level of harmonization at EU level of the monitoring and action framework, and
the level of flexibility provided to Member States to adapt to specific local conditions.
Option 1 has binding requirements only for monitoring, therefore it is relevant under building
blocks 1, 2 and 4 only. Options 2, 3 and 4 have been developed for each building block, from a
more flexible to a more harmonized approach, specifying how the obligations would be
implemented.
The coherence in the combination of the options from the building blocks has been assessed as
well.
Block 1: soil health definition and soil governance
Definition of soil health addressing the key aspects of soil degradation
Soil health can be described with a degree of accuracy by a set of relevant parameters. To
establish such parameters, it is necessary to consider all the key types of soil degradations, and
ensure that, for each of them, at least one indicator or “descriptor” is identified. A list of soil
descriptors corresponding to the identified aspects of soil degradations is included in Table 7-1.
The list includes descriptors for the excess of nutrients in soil and indicators for the extent of
land take and soil sealing. This preferred option and in particular the descriptor for soil organic
carbon is aligned with and refers to the target in the NRL proposal for organic soils in
agricultural use constituting drained peatlands. No additional organic carbon target is set for
organic soils. As regards agricultural (only cropland mineral soils) and forest ecosystems, the
Member States are required in the NRL to set a satisfactory level for the stock of organic carbon.
The soil health definition provides a solution to the Member States for setting ranges for SOC to
ensure minimal soil functionality, supported by recent scientific conclusions; furthermore, the
definition extends the applicability of the range beyond cropland mineral soils in agricultural
ecosystems and forest ecosystems to all managed mineral soils.
26
Table 7-1The definition of soil health has important implications for the sustainable soil
management and restoration measures as it determines the parameters to be followed to maintain
soil in healthy status or to be met when restoring soils to healthy condition. The more precise
these values, or narrower the ranges are set at EU level, the less flexibility for the Member State.
Conversely, less specific values or broader ranges allows more flexibility to the national level to
accommodate specific local conditions etc., but also make the objectives less ambitious. This is
an important factor that distinguishes between the options analysed.
In order to assess the level of soil health in a given area, the resulting set of descriptors are to be
measured on a soil sample taken in the field (except soil erosion which is estimated for the whole
area); the values of the descriptors will describe the soil condition for the specific point where
the soil sample has been taken. To do so, it is necessary to evaluate the variability of soil
characteristics in that area, which implies taking a sufficient number of geographically explicit
samples to be able to extrapolate from point assessment to area assessment with a sufficient level
of statistical assurance. This is a typical problem solved by the scientific discipline of
geostatistics, which is able to identify, for a given area, the best sampling density for providing a
desired level of assurance that soils in a certain area are healthy (or estimate the percentage of
the area where soils are not healthy). The denser the grid, the more representative the
information received, but the higher the cost of the assessment. Consequently, it is important to
strike the right balance between limiting costs and obtaining accurate information about soil
health.
As land take is one of the main impacts on soil condition, as explained in chapter 2.1, a common
EU definition would provide a degree of harmonisation to the monitoring of land take towards
the common objectives.
Soil governance
The assessment of soil health in an area is best done (lower costs and higher statistical assurance)
if this area has characteristics of homogeneity in terms of soil type and composition, climatic
conditions and land use. This and the need to manage the related tasks require the establishment
of sufficiently homogeneous zones (districts) within a Member State where to assess soil health,
and which management would be assigned to an authority. Given the great variability of soils in
the EU, a reasonable compromise between homogeneity of soil condition in such a district and a
manageable number of soil districts is needed. It is at soil district level that soils are best assessed
and monitored, and local actions taken to achieve healthy soils.
Options
In Option 2, Member States are given the flexibility to decide the values for a selected set of
descriptors for defining the target soil. However, this will result in very different level of
ambition in the Member States which would undermine the objectives pursued, considering that
the soil assessment and management is based on these parameters. Second, a minimal
governance structure has to be put in place as explained above to make sure that soils are
assessed and managed. Option 2 includes an obligation to set up soil districts and appoint
authorities to manage these but sets no requirement on the form or level. In Option 4, at the other
side of the spectrum, soil health values for all descriptors and soil districts are determined at EU
level as precisely as possible taking into account parameters like the soil types and land use, for
maximum harmonisation. This would pose challenges in reaching an agreement as indicated also
27
in the consultation of the Member States, for example finding a common denominator for soil
pollutants or biodiversity parameters. In between option 2 and 4, option 3 defines general criteria
for determining soil districts (such as having to cover the whole territory) but the determination
is left to Member States and defines soil health values for a selected set of descriptors, based on
available scientific knowledge that already takes into account the variability of soil condition.
The values selected are those for which an out-of-range value would mean a critical loss of
ecosystem services. For the remaining descriptors setting the values would be left to the Member
States if this can be done and depends on the local specific conditions (for example water
retention) or will set no value if this is difficult at this stage (acidification) – see Table 7-1.
Option 1 focuses on monitoring only and can rely on any of the choices above, taking into
account the implications.
Block 2: soil health monitoring
Soil health monitoring builds on the existing national soil monitoring systems, on the work done
for the EU Soil Observatory and on the knowledge available from science, as assessed in the
recent EEA report on soil monitoring in Europe.59
In the future, soil health monitoring will be
able to profit from new knowledge from relevant projects financed under the Soil Mission of the
Horizon Europe Programme.60
A monitoring system for soil health would profit to the
requirement of monitoring and reporting of soil organic carbon under the revised LULUCF
Regulation and the proposal for the certification of carbon removal, to the requirement of
monitoring soil organic carbon stocks in cropland stemming from the Nature Restoration Law
proposal and to the Forest Monitoring Law.
Monitoring and assessment of soil health
While soil monitoring has been carried out at both national and EU level, a comparable, coherent
and sufficient gathering of soil data needs to be put in place to have a meaningful situation of the
soils conditions everywhere in the EU, able to inform and support soil management. LUCAS
Soil (part of the periodical LUCAS survey funded by the Commission) could serve as basis for
this, as it is the only in-situ soil survey that provides harmonised soil measurements across the
EU and can be the reference for comparability of national measurements. LUCAS sampling
points are selected from a 2km×2km grid that covers the European territory through a stratified
random procedure, which should ensure that the results are representative for all land cover types
at NUTS2 (basic regions or province level). However, the current design of LUCAS Soil is not
sufficient to adequately assess soil in a representative way at more local level, given the large
variability of soil types, climatic conditions and land uses, and thus to inform adequate soil
restoration actions. Therefore, a common feature of all options of this building block is to
strengthen LUCAS Soil and to create a clear legal basis for it, in synergy with national
monitoring systems. LUCAS soil is already collaborating with interested Member States to
ensure access to sites (e.g. contact landowners, collection of land management details, etc.), to
59
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/soil-monitoring-in-europe
60
Two major projects funded under the EU Mission “A Soil Deal for Europe” (Benchmark and AI4SoilHealth – 2022-2026) aim
at significantly contribute to the evidence needed to further pursue the harmonisation of soil monitoring in the EU. This will
include the delivery of further knowledge on harmonised and cost-effective indicator- and proxy measurements for the
assessment of soil health, and on sampling framework, methodology and protocols to support regulation and monitoring needs.
Furthermore, work will apply cutting edge Artificial Intelligence methods to soil datasets and measurements.
28
supplement LUCAS Soil with national monitoring data, to cross-validate results and to improve
the harmonisation and comparability between national and EU-wide aggregated indicators.
A key aspect of harmonisation of soil data, and consequent comparability of data at EU level and
the possibility for integrating national and LUCAS data, is the “transfer function” between the
two different methods of measurement. The Horizon 2020 Joint Research Programme EJP SOIL,
involving 24 Member States, is proceeding to validate some transfer functions for the
measurements of soil parameters by taking double samples and measuring each with national and
LUCAS soil methods. Remote sensing technologies such as Copernicus and related digital
solutions have a limited application for soil currently, but already provide key data and
information (such as land use and land cover, soil moisture) to complement ground
measurements. They provide as well key data for estimating the extent of land take and soil
sealing. Recent progress in proximal soil sensing and remote sensing technologies, supported by
the development of sensors and computing capacity, facilitate predictive mapping of different
soil physicochemical properties (carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, salinity) with higher accuracy
and resolution. Support will be needed from EEA (in cooperation with other institutions as
relevant) to provide indicators on soil health based on remote sensing data such as from
Copernicus services, for the relevant parameters. A harmonized approach would allow the
Commission to provide such services to Member States.
Options
As knowing the condition of soils is essential for soil management and the knowledge gap is
significant, all the options rely on an obligation to monitor and assess the conditions of soils and
the net land take based on the definitions under block 1. LUCAS Soil uses a list of international
standard methods to measure soil parameters. However, Member States could use their own
methods (option 2), which would then require converting national measurements into LUCAS-
compatible values to ensure comparability at EU level. In this case harmonisation may be limited
by the compatibility of these methods for some of the descriptors. Alternatively, the EU
methods, based on LUCAS, could be made mandatory for all Member States (option 4). This
would provide a high level of harmonisation but requires a major change of methods by the
Member States. In-between these two options, option 3 would recommend the use of the
methods in the EU list but would allow Member States to use their methods provided that
scientifically validated transfer functions would be available for each descriptor. Option 1
focuses on monitoring only and can rely on any of the choices above.
Block 3: sustainable soil management
Using soil sustainably
To achieve healthy soils, it is necessary to ensure that soils are managed in accordance with
sustainable soil management principles targeting the types of degradation, by using practices that
maintain or increase the soil’s capacity to provide ecosystem services on a long-term basis. This
requires that the land users gradually and systematically adopt, if not already the case, practices
that do not degrade the soil, i.e., that do not cause loss of soil organic carbon, erosion,
compaction, salinization, contamination, etc. as described in chapter 2.1. While some initiatives
already support the transition to sustainable soil management (see chapter 5.1.2 and Annex 8,
29
section 5), significant efforts are still needed by all Member States to support and ensure this
transition on a broad scale.
While a sustainable management principle provides a baseline understanding of the requirements
necessary to address one or more causes of soil degradation, a sustainable management practice
describes a specific activity that should be applied to comply with that principle. For example, a
sustainable management principle could be to avoid bare soils by establishing vegetative soil
cover, which would prevent loss of soil organic carbon, excess nutrient content, soil erosion,
desertification and loss of soil biodiversity. Appropriate practices could include cultivation of
cover crops on arable land between growing seasons, mulching after forest fires, or encouraging
groundcover vegetation on all soils of public parks and gardens. Which practices are most
appropriate will depend on soil use and local conditions. Principles to be established for
sustainable soil management would closely follow existing guidelines and scientific
recommendations to best promote sustainable soil management.61
These principles would target
the relevant causes of soil degradations for agricultural, forestry and urban soils described in
chapter 2.1 and would guide Member States in developing sustainable management practices,
leaving them the choice of the latter.
In the specific case of land use change, there would be one principle whereby a land take
hierarchy62
will be considered in the decision-making process, which is to first avoid soil
deterioration and, if this is not possible, to minimise and compensate for it as much as possible.
This would leave the choice on land use change in the hands of the Member States, but it would
ensure that the impacts of land take and the options available will be considered along other
relevant public interests.
Based on the principles of sustainable soil management, sustainable soil management practices
would have to be defined according to the specific conditions, so that land managers can apply
them to their soils. Table 7.3, chapter 7.1.2 provides examples of practices that are considered
sustainable practices and avoid or minimise the risk of various soil degradation. It is important to
note that depending on the condition of soil and their impact, not all of these practices would
have to be applied at the same time. In addition to the practices listed in that table, an increased
application of holistic land management systems, such as agroecological farming, agroforestry,
organic farming, close to nature forestry etc., in particular is considered to contribute
significantly to achieve healthy soils and prevent the deterioration of the soil health.
Options
In Option 2, an example of principles and practices would be provided in form of an indicative
annex to the SHL. In Option 3, common management principles, as explained above, would be
set at EU level, while the choice and implementation of specific practices would be left to
Member States. Option 4, would, in addition to the common principles, include an obligation to
implement certain specific management practices (e.g. integration of nitrogen fixing crops and
cover crops in agricultural crop rotation, provision of undisturbed habitats for soil organisms,
application of mulching after forest fires) applicable for specific types of soils and soil uses in
the EU as well as a ban on certain harmful practices (such as the use of heavy machinery on
61
Other principles would cover e.g. balanced fertilization and nutrients management, avoiding unnecessary physical soil
disturbance, enriching soil structure etc.
62
Based on the Land take hierarchy set in the EU Soil Strategy
30
water saturated soils). A staged approach and a flexible application of the non-deterioration
principle would be necessary in any case to ensure that sustainable management is phased in in a
measured way, to ensure on the one hand that measures that can be put in place are not
unnecessarily delayed and on the other, that land managers are not subject to disproportionate
costs and the necessary preparations and support are put in place.
Option 1 would not require obligations under this building block.
Block 4: identification, registration, investigation and assessment of (potentially)
contaminated sites
Assessing contaminated sites
Tackling the legacy of more than 200 years of industrialisation requires a systematic approach
that starts with the identification of sites that are potentially or suspected to be contaminated
because of historical or current activities with a high risk but also because of accidents or spills.
The contaminated sites are treated distinctly since the concerned localised areas affected by high
levels of pollution that require special methods of investigation and management, different from
handling the rest of the soils. Out of the estimated 2,8 million potentially contaminated sites in
the EU, only 1,38 million sites were registered and known in 2016, 98% of these in only 11
countries. The majority of the locations of potentially contaminated sites and the extent of the
contamination are still largely unknown in the EU. Identifying, registering, investigating and
assessing the risks of these sites is a prerequisite for soil remediation in block 5.
Figure 5-1: registration of (potentially) contaminated sites
Potentially contaminated sites have to be identified and investigated to be able to confirm the
presence or absence of contamination. The approach needs to define the conditions that trigger
registration, investigation and sampling of potentially contaminated sites (e.g. based on
environmental or building permits, systematic historical research, land use changes, transactions
with (potentially) contaminated sites, or notifications by citizens). It is important to strike the
right balance between maximizing the number of positive soil investigations that detect
contamination and minimizing the number of superfluous or negative soil investigations.
Member States also need to have a methodology in place to assess whether further action (risk
reduction measures) is required on contaminated sites. The information needs to be registered,
allowing to track progress over time and to prioritise further action.
Options
Option 2 applies a risk-based approach to estimate the magnitude and probability of the adverse
effects of contaminated sites for human health and the environment, including the risk not to
achieve good chemical and ecological status of water bodies required by EU water legislation.
Entire Member State
territory
Potentially
contaminated sites
Contaminated sites
Contaminated sites
requiring further action
Public register
31
Under this option, Member States would be obliged to establish national procedures and
methodologies for the assessment of the risks of contaminated sites and risk levels that they find
un/acceptable, and they would have full flexibility in the way they would do so. On this basis,
Member States would decide for contaminated sites whether further environmental measures are
required, and if so, which type of action is needed.
Option 3 also introduces a risk-based approach and obliges Member States to define risk
assessment procedures and methodologies, but there will be common EU guiding principles for
the risk assessment procedure. These principles could be defined either immediately in the legal
proposal or later through a comitology procedure in cooperation with Member States’ experts.
Under option 3, aspects such as the impact on health and environment could feature among the
common criteria, but the risk levels triggering action would be defined at national level.
Option 4 does not apply a risk-based approach for the management of contaminated sites. The
need for further action would be systematically triggered if the presence of contaminants exceeds
certain limit values established at EU level.
Option 1 could rely on options 2, 3 or 4. The requirements at EU level in building block 4 would
only cover identification, investigation, assessment and registration of contaminated sites. Any
measure to remediate contaminated sites would be taken based on the relevant national
requirements, since option 1 does not include EU requirements on remediation and restoration.
Block 5: soil restoration and remediation63
In building block 5, the policy options for the application of restoration measures for unhealthy
soils are evaluated. Building on the conclusions of the gap analysis, dedicated soil restoration
measures and specific targets additional to the measures already in place serving other
objectives, but benefitting soil as well, are crucial to return the 60-70% unhealthy soils in the EU
in good condition by 2050. Building block 5 is linked and works in close synergy with all the
other blocks: the definition of soil health and the soil districts (BB1), monitoring and assessment
of soil health (BB2), sustainable soil management (BB3) and the identification, investigation and
assessment of contaminated sites (BB4).
Restoring unhealthy soils
To achieve the ‘vision’ of the Soil Strategy, that by 2050 all EU soil ecosystems should be in
healthy condition64
restoration measures need to be put in place in a coherent manner on the
basis of the assessment of soils. Restoration measures have been shown to be very effective in
addressing the soil degradation. An example of successful policy is the US Soil Conservation
Act of 1935, which supported farmers to plant vegetation other than commercial crops in order to
address the depletion of nutrients in soils linked to over-farming. After four years, wind-inflicted
63
Soil restoration is an intentional activity with the aim to reverse or rehabilitate soil from a degraded state towards a healthy
condition. Remediation is a specific restoration activity to reduce the contaminant concentrations in a site with the aim to re-
establish good chemical condition.
64
For soil contamination, the Zero Pollution Action Plan includes the target that by 2050 soil contamination should be reduced to
levels no longer expected to pose risks for human health and the environment.
32
soil erosion was reduced by 65%.65
Overall, wind erosion is estimated to impact up to 42 million
hectares of European agricultural land.66
This process would require reflection and consultations with the concerned stakeholders, which
could rely on supporting documents (programmes of measures). Soil districts could be covered
by individual programmes or by a single national programme. Alternatively, to these
programmes, some intermediary objectives or targets could be envisaged, such as the
identification of the soils in need of restoration and of the measures thereof for each district by
certain intermediary dates. Nevertheless, as in the case of sustainable soil management (block 3),
it is important to note that the restoration measures could be phased in gradually depending on
their impact.
Sustainable soil management is closely linked to restoration. Sustainable soil management
prevents that a healthy soil degrades by maintaining or enhancing the provision of ecosystem
services, and therefore the need to restore in future. Restoration is an intentional activity aimed at
reversing or re-establishing soil from a degraded state to a healthy condition. Therefore,
restoration measures need to a large extent the results of the monitoring and assessment of the
condition of the respective soils. The Member States could also report periodically or be
transparent on the progress made in achieving soil health and towards the goal of no net land
take by 2050.
Building on the identification of contaminated sites that require further action from building
block 4, Member States would need to have in place a systematic approach to reduce and keep
the risk of contaminated sites to acceptable levels, e.g. through risk reduction or soil remediation
activities.
Options
In option 2, Member States would be entirely flexible to decide on the restoration measures that
they put in place, since there would be no specific obligation to develop programmes of
measures or to take measures as such – they would only be bound by the obligation to achieve
healthy status for soils by 2050. The choice of the risk reduction and remediation measures for
contaminated sites would also be left entirely to the Member States. Contaminated sites with
unacceptable risks should undergo risk reduction measures, but not necessarily remediation, i.e.
they can choose not to remove the contaminants but contain their impacts so that they do not
represent an unacceptable risk. Member States would have the possibility to derogate (no opinion
from the Commission would be required before granting derogations) from the obligation to
have all soils healthy by 2050, when it is not technically feasible or the costs would be
disproportionate to restore them. Some categories of unhealthy soils, that could fall under such
derogations are:
 soils that are sealed or heavily modified;
 soils that have in natural condition characteristics that could be considered as unhealthy,
but that represent specific habitats for biodiversity or landscape features.
In option 3, Member States would be obliged to take restoration measures, subject to
derogations, but would be left the choice and form of the programme of measures and the
65
https://reference.jrank.org/environmental-health/Soil_Conservation_Act_1935.html
66
JRC (2022) Wind Erosion. Available at: https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/themes/wind-erosion
33
measures themselves. The measures would be revised if the monitoring and assessment of soil
health comes to this conclusion. The EU could establish some general minimum criteria for the
programme of measures that Member States should put in place, e.g.:
 Outcome of the monitoring and assessment of soil health, based on:
o soil health definition and ranges of the descriptors;
o soil health parameters to monitor (including net land take);
o progress in the management of contaminated sites from the national registers;
 Analysis of the pressures on soil health, including from climate change;
 Measures to apply sustainable soil management practices and restoration measures;
 Legislative, policy and budgetary actions taken or to be taken at national level to improve
soil health, including also the systematic approach that will be put in place to identify and
manage contaminated sites.
It could be required to inform or consult the public on the content of the programme of measures.
Contaminated sites with unacceptable risks would need to be remediated as a preference by
reducing or removing the contaminant load and source, and not by risk reduction measures that
do not address the root of the environmental problem (such as containment, physical barriers,
land use restriction or fencing). Prioritisation and planning of the remediation measures for
contaminated sites would be left entirely to the Member States in this scenario. Derogations from
the obligation remain possible when it is not technically feasible or the costs would be
disproportionate to restore them. No opinion from the Commission would be required before
granting derogations.
In Option 4, the content of the programmes of measures would be harmonised with an extensive
template that needs to be filled in. Measures would need to be selected from a mandatory list in
an annex of the Soil Health Law or in delegated acts. Such a list of measures could differentiate
between e.g. climatic conditions, land use or soil type, to adapt the restoration practice to local
conditions. Member States could derogate from the obligation to have all soils healthy by 2050
based on an opinion from the Commission, as required under other environmental legislation67
to
ensure a harmonised approach. Member States would also have an obligation to have a scheme
in place for the liability or responsibility for the remediation of historical and orphan soil
contamination. Remediation measures that reduce the contaminant concentrations would be
mandatory. Member States should prioritise and plan the management and remediation of
contaminated sites based on common EU criteria and intermediary targets for progress. Option 1
would not require obligations under this building block.
5.3 Options discarded at an early stage
Policy option 1 addresses sub-problem A (“Data, information, knowledge and common
governance on soil health and management are insufficient”) by envisaging a “monitoring only”
option to first focus on improving the knowledge base, collecting additional data and
information, and strengthen the governance on soil health. Option 1 could represent part of the
first phase of a staged approach, where legislative measures on the sustainable use and
restoration of soil health would be proposed in a second phase, after the first phase is
implemented and resulted in a more developed assessment of soil health in the EU. The basic
67
Exceptions to the impact assessment requirements under the EIA Directive or approving projects with significant effects on
protected sites under the Habitats Directive.
34
obligations for Member States in option 1 would be to set a definition of soil health through a
minimum set of indicators and thresholds, establish soil districts, set up and implement adequate
monitoring systems. Member States would also have the obligation to identify, register and
assess (potentially) contaminated sites. The advantage of this option would be that it is less
demanding for Member States and stakeholders, since it does not require sustainable soil
management measures, neither restoration nor remediation. It would also allow setting in place
the monitoring framework to generate a more accurate picture of the situation of soils that would
inform targeted intervention later on.
The main shortcoming of option 1 is that it only partially addresses the problem, since it provides
a solution for sub-problem A, but lacks any measure addressing sub-problem B (“Transition to
sustainable soil management and restoration, as well as remediation is needed but not yet
systematically happening”). It would not set measures to kickstart the urgently needed transition
towards sustainable use and restoration of soils, whereas the condition of soils has been very
poor for a very long time, as explained in chapter 2. While it is true that the knowledge on soil
lacks the accuracy needed to inform immediate action at local level, especially as regards
restoration, there is enough data to justify and to set in motion a gradual system to ensure a
transition to sustainable soil management towards the goal of preventing further deterioration
and ensuring healthy soils. Option 1 would be a missed opportunity that underexploits the
current momentum and postpones most of the needed action to an uncertain future. It also does
not distinguish between action or requirements that could be put in place at an earlier stage and
action that require longer timeframes to prepare. Furthermore, on the basis of the baseline
scenario, given the current trends and the outlook for soil degradation, the policy objectives set
in 4.2 would not be reached through monitoring obligations alone.
Option 1 would also not meet expectations from the European Parliament who has asked for
criteria for the sustainable use of soil and measures to tackle all soil threats. Many of the Member
States, stakeholders and the general public agree to a large extent on the importance of taking
measures going beyond monitoring. Most stakeholders support an obligation to sustainably use
soil, but some farmers, industry and academia ask for sufficient flexibility to adapt sustainable
soil management to local conditions. Stakeholders generally support an EU obligation to restore
unhealthy soils by 2050 through programmes of measures, but landowners expressed that
derogations should be possible for degraded soils. Member States and industry emphasized the
need for a flexible approach and to avoid unnecessary administrative burden.
Therefore, this policy option has to be discarded at an early stage. Nevertheless, its main
advantage, i.e. less burden and allowing time to gather detailed soil data as a basis for action,
will be taken into account when analysing impacts of the various options and in particular the
preferred option, notably by considering a staged approached to make sure that the requirements
reflect the uncertainties and the time needed to prepare their application.
The Soil Strategy for 2030 undertook to assess the feasibility of the introduction of a soil health
certificate for land transactions to provide land buyers with information on the key
characteristics and health of the soils in the site they intend to purchase (see details of the
assessment in Annex 9 chapter 8). A certificate could increase awareness on soil health but there
are risks which could impact on its effectiveness, including that significant additional testing
could be required. The costs of setting up and maintaining an EU-wide certification scheme
linked with land transactions are large, and to have added value, sufficient information on soil
35
health needs to be available. For these reasons this option is discarded as a legally binding
provision; however, a voluntary approach by Member States can be envisaged.
The Soil Strategy also undertook to assess provisions for a passport for excavated soil, that
would reflect the quantity and quality of the excavated soil to ensure that it is transported, treated
or reused safely elsewhere (see details of the assessment in Annex 9 chapter 9). The soil passport
does not directly address soil health but may have a positive impact by reducing landfilling.
Furthermore, a passport could improve the information and data on soil health. However, the
passport is expected to have a significant administrative burden for setting up the IT, potential
transition costs and maintenance costs, and will bring additional costs for economic operators
and construction companies. There is also a high risk of incoherence with the Waste Framework
Directive, so this option is discarded.
36
5.4 Summary of policy options
The following scheme summarizes visually the options previously described:
Figure 5-2: summary of policy options
Soil health and soil districts Monitoring Sustainable soil management
Definition and identification
of contaminated sites
Restoration and remediation
Obligation to restore unhealthy soils by 2050
(derogations possible), but no specific obligation at
EU level on taking measures (no programs of
measures)
Obligation to take risk reduction measures where the
risk is identified by the MS as unacceptable, choice of
risk reduction measures and planning left to MS
Obligation to restore unhealthy soils by 2050 (subject
to derogations) accompanied by obligation to take
restoration measures, with choice and form of the
programs of measures left to MS - allows for revision
if needed based on monitoring
Remediation measures with reduction of contaminant load
(no containment in situ) where the risk is unacceptable +
prioritization
and planning left to MS
Obligation to restore unhealthy soils by 2050 and
adopt programme of restoration measures with a
harmonised content and form
Only remediation measures (no containment in situ) +
common EU criteria for prioritization and planning
Not included in the monitoring only option
Option 4
• Soil district establishment defined
at EU level
• Stricter definition of soil health with
ranges for soil health descriptors
defined at EU level
Mandatory EU list of
methodologies based on
LUCAS, and use of transfer
functions for MS historical data
Obligation to use soil sustainably
with legislative annex that
renders some sustainable
practices obligatory and bans
other unsustainable practices
Non-risk based approach
(acceptability defined at EU
level) with common EU limit
values for contaminants
Discarded
option 1 -
monitoring
only option
Considered as part of the monitoring
only option
Considered as part of the
monitoring only option
Not included in the monitoring
only option
Considered as part of the
monitoring only option
Option 2
• MS have to establish soil districts,
with choice and form left to them
• Values for soil descriptors left to
MS, based on an EU definition of
healthy soil
Obligation to monitor/assess
soil health and net land take,
with all the sampling and data
collection left to MS
Obligation to use soil
sustainably, with principles and
practices left to MS, supported
by an indicative annex
Obligation to identify
contaminated sites and include
them in a public inventory, with
assessment methodologies and
risk acceptability left to MS
Option 3
• Soil district establishment left to MS
with common criteria
• Common EU values for selected
descriptors where approriate, based
on an EU definition of healthy soil
Harmonized monitoring based
on indicative EU list of
methodologies and transfer
functions (LUCAS) for national
methodologies
Obligation to use soil sustainably
supported by some common
general principles for
sustainable soil management,
with practices left to MS
Contaminated sites have to be
identified and included in a
public inventory based on
common principles for
assessment defined at EU level
but risk acceptability is left to
MS
Increasing
flexibility
Increasing
harmonization
37
6 IMPACTS AND COMPARISON OF THE POLICY OPTIONS
The methodology for this impact assessment is detailed in Annex 4. The analysis reflects
unavoidable uncertainties (see Annex 9 for more details):
- Because of the greater flexibility allowed to the Member States especially under option 2,
the details of the options which will be implemented in practice will not be fully clear
until the Member States have determined these elements at national level.
- Quantitative data around the impacts of SSM practices, restoration and remediation
measures is limited and dispersed, in particular for environmental impacts.
- It is not possible to quantify at the EU level to what extent local implementation of SSM
practices, restoration and remediation measures, changes the value of a soil descriptor.
- Unknown extent of synergy effect of measures: some SSM practices may also lead to
improvement of soil health, and consequently have the effect as well of restoration
measures, but this effect is not known.
To mitigate these limitations, the following approaches were taken:
- Where possible, working assumptions have been made to facilitate the analysis;
- Based on the data available, an order-of-magnitude estimate of the potential costs has
been provided using a selected sample of practices;
- Throughout the analysis, care has been taken to highlight where possible synergies are,
focussing in the aggregate analysis on the likely combined, overall benefits.
For each building block, Annex 9 explains how it addresses the sub-problems A and B, details
the economic, environmental and social impacts of the option 2, 3, 4, looking as well at the
distribution of the effects and link and synergies with the other building blocks. The economic,
environmental and social impacts are evaluated based on a comprehensive list of specific impact
categories for which the priority level (high, medium, low) for soil has been chosen based on a
given rationale.
All options have been assessed with a qualitative score ranging from “---” to “+++” against nine
categories grouped into effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and risks of implementation (see
Annex 9 section 1.4.2 for details and Annex 4 for further methodological details).
The scoring reflects the direction (positive or negative compared to the general objective) and
magnitude (weakly to strongly, limited or unclear). The scale is presented in the table below.
+++ Very significant direct positive impact
++ Significant direct positive impact
+ Small direct positive impact
(+) Indirect positive impact
+/-
Both direct positive and negative impacts, and balance depends on how
implemented
0 No impact or only very indirect impacts
(-) Indirect negative impact
- Small direct negative impact
- - Significant direct negative impact
- - - Very significant direct negative impact
38
The options have been assessed on this basis against nine categories representing effective,
efficiency and coherence (and risks of implementation):
 Effectiveness: (a) Impact on soil health, (b) Information, data and common governance
on soil health and management, and (c) Transition to sustainable soil management and
restoration
 Efficiency: (a) Benefits, (b) Adjustment costs, (c) Administrative burden and
(d) Distribution of costs and benefits (when relevant) - this considers how evenly the
costs or benefits are distributed.
 Coherence – highlighting the synergies or not with options under other building blocks,
and/or with the broader policy environment
 Risks for implementation.
Risk for implementation is presented separately because it concerns both effectiveness and
efficiency. In the case of adjustment and administrative costs, “-“ corresponds to less than EUR 1
million, “--“ to between EUR 1 and 5 million and “---“ to more than EUR 5 million.
For each building block, the scoring of the three options is compared for all nine categories,
identifying whether there is an option that results equal or better in all categories.
Quality assurance measures were implemented to ensure a coherent assessment between all
policy options.
The main policy choices for the decision makers are over the trade-off between flexibility and
harmonisation, in terms of ensuring delivery of the objectives whilst respecting subsidiarity. In
terms of the building blocks, the most significant impacts are linked to building blocks 3, and 5
but the other building blocks are essential to enable delivery.
6.1 Analysis of building block 1: soil health definition and soil districts
6.1.1 Environmental impacts
The process of defining soil health indicators and soil districts, will not have a direct impact on
the environment. However, these are critical steps necessary to determine the action and
measures needed to achieve soils in good health, and hence improve soils and surrounding
environment.
6.1.2 Economic impacts
There will be no economic impacts, beyond those discussed under administrative impacts below.
6.1.3 Administrative costs
Administrative costs will be minimal for this block compared to other blocks.
6.1.4 Social impacts
The process of defining soil health indicators will not have direct negative social impacts.
However, as mentioned for the environmental impacts, defining soil health descriptors,
thresholds and districts is a critical step necessary to determine the action and measures needed
to achieve soils in good health, and ensuring an adequate provision of the ecosystem services,
tightly linked with food and water security, climate mitigation and adaptation, and preservation
39
of biodiversity. This plays a key role in delivering inter-generational equity, avoiding a greater
burden on future generations through the further deterioration of soil health.
Also, defining soil health descriptors can have a positive and direct impact on the provision and
use of information for further research and development, such as fertility and erosion studies,
remote sensing analysis and ecosystem service assessments. Defining soil health descriptors has
as well the ability to contribute to future policy needs, by facilitating the design and delivery of
linked regulatory areas (such as climate law).
Soil heath districts can facilitate the engagement of local stakeholders and create a significant
incentive towards local participatory approaches for soil management, in particular if the soil
health districts are set of a smaller, local size. Participatory processes also enhance knowledge
and skills transfer especially in regard to local and traditional ecological knowledge on
sustainable management practices, allowing as well intergenerational exchange. Soil health
districts are therefore expected to trigger a large social and citizen engagement towards
sustainable soil management and soil restoration, fostering ownership of the objectives of the
SHL among local communities.
6.1.5 Implementation risks
One implementation risk depends on the partial knowledge on which soil descriptors and related
ranges are defined, which may lead to take sub-optimal decisions and actions. Another risk is the
potentially great variability of soil districts and the uncertainty on how adequately the different
pedoclimatic conditions and land use would be taken into account. Risks to implementation of
each option under this building block due to lack of human or financial resources is low, as
existing structures can be used to define soil health descriptors and establish soil districts.
6.1.6 Stakeholder views
The majority of stakeholders recognise the value in defining soil health descriptors and
thresholds: several highlighted the benefit that these would play in triggering action as soon as a
threshold or range is crossed. In response to the OPC, stakeholders overall agreed that a number
of different chemical, physical, water-related and biological indicators would be either
reasonable or very effective to assess soil health, agreeing that a combination of indicators is
required to do so effectively. In particular, several stakeholders highlighted the importance of
reflecting ecosystem services and biodiversity, given their importance in addressing the
functioning of soils and its services and the minimum levels required to maintain these services.
Stakeholders also noted that there has been significant research and consideration of what
constitutes soil health over the years, and as such there is a body of evidence already available
which can be drawn on. The Soil Expert Group noted that thresholds should be set that motivate
actors to take action i.e. they need to be achievable, but also understandable and easy to measure.
Concerning the soil district, stakeholders broadly agree that districts should be set on the basis of
location specific factors, in particular climate, soil type and land-use, and hence allowing
districts to vary in terms of size would be beneficial. The Member States that provided feedback
in general called for applying subsidiarity and providing sufficient flexibility to adapt the
governance elements and the definition of soil health to the country specificities (see Annex 9
section 2.2.6 for details).
40
6.1.7 Comparison of options
All options score positively in terms of effectiveness. The establishment of soil health
descriptors and districts across the EU is a necessary facilitating step to the subsequent
implementation of effective soil health management and restoration actions to achieve the
general objective set. A set of chemical, physical and biological soil health descriptors must be
established with threshold and/or range values to be able to classify which soils are ‘healthy’ and
which soils are ‘at risk’.
Options 2, 3, 4 would achieve significant improvements in the availability of information and
data on soil health compared to the baseline.
The key difference is the level of flexibility, and how much is harmonised at EU level. Defining
thresholds and districts at EU level minimises the risk of a lack of comparability and consistency
across Member States. Based on the experience of legislation such as the Ambient Air Quality
Directive (AAQD) and Water Framework Directive (WFD), leaving definitions of soil health
(i.e. the values for the descriptors) and soil districts to Member States (option 2) could result in a
variability in the approach to and the thresholds and ranges defined for different descriptors, and
also in the approach to defining districts; there is the risk that the different levels of stringency
and ambition will undermine the achievement of objectives. Under Option 2, and somewhat also
Option 3, across Member States there may be a variance in the approach to defining thresholds
for different descriptors and the number of descriptors for which thresholds are set, whereas
Option 4 would not entail this risk, but would be difficult and time-consuming to define and
agree on such specific values at EU level.
In terms of coherence with the other building blocks, Options 3 and 4 are considered marginally
more consistent with all options under the other building blocks – for example, it would be more
difficult to fit Option 2 in this block–- where Member States define thresholds and districts, with
Option 4 under the sustainable management or restoration block- where a set of measures to
maintain or restore soil health is defined at EU-level.
Greater harmonisation also somewhat mitigates the implementation risks of this building
block–- defining soil health descriptors is a technically complex area and not all the Member
States may have ready access to the necessary expertise needed to effectively define descriptors
and thresholds. Stakeholders highlighted that expert knowledge surrounding the physical and
biological aspects of soil health is not widespread, and that constant research, development and
communication with experts is required to harmonise the understanding and reporting of the soil
health indicators.
Option 3 opts rather for defining common EU values for a selected set of descriptors, based on
available scientific knowledge that already takes into account the variability of soil condition.
The ranges selected are those for which an out-of-range value would mean a critical loss of
ecosystem services. This reduces the risk of variability relative to Option 2, and also the
difficulty of the technical implementation under Option 4.
Where setting districts is left solely to the Member States there is a risk that these could be set on
an inconsistent basis across Member States and/or on a basis which is not optimal for defining
soil health. The provision of EU-wide mandatory criteria but maintaining flexibility for Member
States under Option 3 increases the likelihood of addressing the challenges of varying pedo-
climatic conditions when setting the districts. The eventual number of districts defined is
unknown at this stage. Given the great variability of soils in the EU, a compromise would need
41
to be found between homogeneity of soil condition in a district and a manageable number of soil
districts. A working illustration is that the number of districts could be in the range between the
number of EU regions and provinces (i.e. between 242 to 1,166).
Together, these challenges are anticipated to have a subsequent effect on the efficiency of
improving information, data and governance around soil health. Hence, Options 2 and 4 are
anticipated to be less beneficial in this respect than Option 3.
All options present low administrative burden when comparing across the building blocks and
no adjustment costs.
Table 6-1: summary scores for building block 1
Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Effectiveness Impact on soil health (+) (+) (+)
Information, data and common governance
on soil health and management
++ +++ ++
Transition to sustainable soil management
and restoration
(+) (+) (+)
Efficiency Benefits ++ +++ ++
Adjustment cost 0 0 0
Administrative burden - - -
Coherence +/- + +
Risks for
implementation
-- - ---
6.2 Analysis of building block 2: soil health monitoring
6.2.1 Environmental impacts
Monitoring soil alone will not have a direct impact on the environment but will inform
management and restoration activities actioned under other building blocks. As such, soil
monitoring profits indirectly a wide range of ecosystems and the services they provide, such as
carbon sequestration, water quality and availability and resilience to natural hazards such as
flooding, and basis for biodiversity. This assessment does not substantially change between the
options 2, 3, 4 of building block 2.
Implementing a definition and monitoring of net land take could deliver tangible improvements
in the information, data and common governance of soil health. This would significantly work
towards the standardisation and alignment of the definition of net land take itself and the
processes it involves, in addition to assessment methodologies, between Member States, and
better facilitate the development of comparable data and enable an accurate oversight of land
take trends at the EU-level.
6.2.2 Economic impacts
Recording and assessing the soil status will generate additional costs for Member States. This is
detailed in the following section on administrative costs. However, monitoring the health
condition of soils across the EU is expected as well to lead to technological development and
innovation (productivity and resource efficiency) and stimulate academic and industrial research,
for example the use of artificial intelligence solutions from sensing systems and field-based
42
measuring systems (e.g., hand-held spectrometers, portable DNA extraction, on-site chemical
analysis) as well as remote sensing. This development would have a direct and positive
economic impact. Furthermore, there could also be a direct positive impact on the conduct of
business and position of SMEs such as laboratories within each Member State due to the increase
in their services to carry out the analysis of the soil samples.
Option 2 would allow Member States higher flexibility to determine the soil testing regime and
methodologies with minimised changes compared to their current system.
6.2.3 Administrative costs
The minimum number of soil samples in the EU needed to have a statistically reliable
measurement of soil health, taking into account the variability of soil condition, has been
estimated at 210 000 points (see section 2.1.5). This is a significant increase (about two times
more) compared to the current 34 000 points from Member States added to 41 000 from LUCAS
Soil (campaign of 2022). Therefore, there will be additional costs due to the increase of the
number of samples to be taken by Member States, transported and analysed as well as an
increase in the parameters to be measured for assessing soil health. However, synergies between
LULUCF reporting and soil health monitoring can decrease total costs for Member States. There
would be similar synergies with the descriptors relating to biodiversity under the NRL proposal
and in respect of the forests soils under the upcoming forest monitoring proposal.
Option 4 is anticipated to lead to marginally higher one-off cost relative to Option 3 as there is
greater harmonisation in sampling and analysis methods EU-wide that would require a greater
change in processes and training to align with these requirements.
The integration of different monitoring systems requires one-off costs linked with determining
and validating “transfer functions” between the two systems. However, if a Member State has
validated transfer functions towards LUCAS Soil for all parameters, it can integrate LUCAS Soil
data to complete the minimum set of sample points needed. This may not be possible in option 2
which has consequently higher recurrent monitoring costs. Other recurrent costs are linked with
the functioning of the competent authorities and the resources needed to analyse the sample
measurements, to determine the area subject to degradation and the intervention required to
restore soil health. Monitoring the net land take would pose an additional, medium
administrative burden (3.6 million per annum), but it is anticipated that the benefits of this
measure would outweigh the costs (see Annex 9 chapter 7 for details).
The administrative burden for building block 2 will be for the Member States. No administrative
burden for any other actors – e.g. businesses nor citizens – has been identified. The following
table presents the summary of the different administrative burden for options 2, 3 and 4 of
building block 2.
Table 6-2: administrative costs for building block 2
Member States–- One-off costs (EUR, 2020
prices)
Member States–- Recurrent costs (EUR pa 2020
prices)
Option 2 180 000 49 000 000
Option 3 480 000 42 000 000
Option 4 640 000 42 000 000
43
The ongoing administrative burdens captures the monitoring activities including the processing
and assessment of the data, determining trends, assessing the effectiveness of actions taken and
identify where additional action is required.
For Member States who already have soil monitoring frameworks in place the administrative
burden can be expected to be lower than Member States who will be implementing a monitoring
framework for the first time.
6.2.4 Social impacts
Increasing the amount of publicly available soil monitoring data will help to increase the public
awareness and societal engagement on soils and the challenges they face. Sharing data and
information on soil health can be used to make more informed decisions about sustainable soil
management practices. Data and information on soil health can also be used to better inform
citizens on the importance of soil, in synergy with the EU Mission ‘A Soil Deal for Europe’ who
aims to increase soil literacy through wide engagement with citizens and concerned actors.
Moreover, soil monitoring and the data collected can have a positive and direct impact on the
provision and use of information for further research and development into actions/measures
which can improve/maintain the status of soils across the EU.
This assessment does not substantially change between the options 2, 3, 4 of the building block
2.
6.2.5 Implementation risks
If option 2 is selected, there is a risk that the Member States who already have a monitoring
framework in place simply continue with (or do not sufficiently expand) these systems. Indeed,
stakeholders noted that there is a preference amongst Member States to retain their national
systems to maintain continuity in their data sets, hence comprehensiveness and comparability of
the data across the Member States may not be substantially improved even if this is needed.
A recognised risk of Option 4 relates to the difficulty to determine a common monitoring
framework (including sampling strategies) across the EU; should option 4 be attempted, it may
significantly delay the implementation timetable due to the complexity of the task.
Option 3 has a lower risk of inconsistency in monitoring standardisation in comparison to Option
2 whilst also reducing the risk for some Member States not having the necessary expertise to
develop a monitoring framework. In addition, Option 3 addresses the risk of delay of Option 4,
by determining only the methodologies for measuring soil health descriptors and leaving the
possibility to Member States to use instead validated transfer functions.
Even though additional human or financial resources may be needed, especially in those Member
States that have not yet established a monitoring framework, the risk that the options identified
under this building block cannot be implemented at all due to lack of these resources is rather
low, as existing governance structures in all Member States can be used and built upon.
6.2.6 Stakeholder views
Stakeholders emphasised that the key issue presently is the lack of harmonisation of approaches
to collect and compare data. The discrepancies between Member States, and the fact that some
Member States have set monitoring processes in place whilst others do not, was clear in the
evidence provide by stakeholders.
44
In response to the OPC, there was a strong agreement across all stakeholder types that there
should be legal obligations for the Member States to monitor soil health in their national territory
and report on it, including on land-take. 89% of all respondents ‘totally agreed’ this obligation
should be put in place, with a further 8% ‘somewhat agreeing’. ‘Totally agree’ was also the most
common response across all stakeholder types, with Business Associations being the only
exception, where ‘somewhat agree’ was the most frequent response. The Member States that
provided their views overall acknowledged the importance to have long-term soil monitoring
(see details in Annex 9 section 3.2.6); among the countries having a national legislation on soil
monitoring already in place, the comment was raised to avoid in the SHL incompatibilities with
existing obligations.
6.2.7 Comparison of options
All options would deliver significant improvements in the data, information, knowledge and
governance of soil health and management. Furthermore, monitoring of soil health descriptors is
a critical and necessary facilitating step to the subsequent implementation of effective soil health
management and restoration actions. However, there will be some variance between the options
concerning effectiveness and efficiency.
Effectiveness
Where full flexibility in these matters is left to Member States (Option 2), there is a greater risk
of inconsistency and a lack of harmonisation across Member States. Although some
improvements relative to the baseline may be achieved through the application of transfer
functions, the variability in the collection, analysis and reporting of soil samples (in particular
due to differences in laboratory techniques) is anticipated to be greatest under Option 2 relative
to Options 3 and 4. This greater variability in monitoring will lead to lower comparability
between Member States in terms of reporting and interpretation of data.
Efficiency
A greater variability in monitoring carries a number of disadvantages, in particular for Member
States, which subsequently will need to invest greater financial and human resources and face
longer delays in developing knowledge and resolving issues that stem from a lack of
harmonisation. Under Option 2, due to the partial integration of national and LUCAS data, the
Member States will not be able to fully exploit LUCAS data to achieve the minimum number of
points to reliably conclude on soil health at national level and so would need additional costs to
reach the minimum number. Under Option 4, due to the need for Member States to modify and
adapt all the established soil monitoring practices, it could take a substantial amount of time and
costs (e.g. training) for all Member States to implement the full methodological change.
The key impact of this option will be the cost for Member States of undertaking additional
sampling, analysis and reporting/data collation, either at existing sampling sites (e.g. where the
range of descriptors needs to be expanded), or for new sampling sites (these costs are additional
to the costs of existing monitoring network of around 41 000 LUCAS and 34 000 Member State
monitoring sites which are captured in the baseline).
Table 6-3: summary scores for the options 2, 3, 4 of building block 2
Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
45
Effectiveness Impact on soil health (+) (+) (+)
Information, data and common governance on
soil health and management
++ +++ ++
Transition to sustainable soil management
and restoration
(+) (+) (+)
Efficiency Benefits ++ +++ ++
Adjustment costs 0 0 0
Administrative burden --- --- ---
Coherence +/- + +
Risks for
implementation
-- - --
In summary, options 2, 3 and 4 would deliver a significant improvement to the data and
information on soil health and form a critical basis for other building blocks under the SHL.
Option 3 appears to be the option that best balances the opposing risks of lack of consistency and
comparability across Member States (option 2), and the complexity of one entity defining a set of
monitoring processes that are applicable EU-wide (option 4).
6.3 Analysis of building block 3: sustainable soil management
6.3.1 Environmental impacts
Several policies at EU level influence the way soils are managed but there is no dedicated soil
policy to ensure the sustainable use of all managed soils, even though this would substantially
improve the environment, and the quality of natural resources. Sustainably managed soils that
are rich in soil biodiversity positively affect aboveground biodiversity, ensure good water
infiltration and retention. They have high fertility. They also reduce risks of nutrient and
pesticide leaching into watercourses, resulting in improved groundwater and surface water
quality, and flood mitigation, and can improve biotic resistance to pests. They provide a wide
range of stable ecosystem services both in natural landscapes and urban areas, highly dependent
on the type and extent to which sustainable soil management practices are applied. Air quality
would be improved as would climate change mitigation through increased carbon sequestration
and reduced GHG emissions (e.g. N20 and CH4) from soil linked to fuel use or synthetic fertilizer
production.
6.3.2 Economic impacts
The magnitude of the costs and benefits depends largely on the required change in current
management practices but also on the ambition of the SSM practices in question, including
banning harmful practices as envisaged under option 4. More ambitious practices are associated
with higher investment costs for individual soil managers, such as for machinery renewal or
agro-forestry investments. Higher ongoing costs may arise for practices of all ambition levels
that require e.g. higher or more expensive inputs (e.g. for establishing cover crops on agricultural
soils that are usually left bare between harvest and re-seeding of the main crop) compared to
current practices. However, many of these costs can be offset or even turned into profits in the
long run (see e.g. Table 7-5in chapter 7.1 and Annex 9 (section 4) for details).
Estimating the adjustment costs to achieve sustainable management of all soils is extremely
challenging due to several currently unknown factors including incomplete knowledge of soil
health parameters, data limitations and complexity (see Annex 9 (section 1.1.4.)) as well as the
various measures and practices that could be implemented at Member State level.
46
Reduced costs for individual soil managers can be expected if newly adopted practices require
fewer inputs for production (e.g. synthetic fertilizers or irrigation). If soil fertility is maintained
or increased over the long-term, yields from food, feed, and biomass production are likely to
stabilise or increase. In agriculture and forestry, the implementation of SSM has the potential to
lead to more diverse production systems that may prove more resilient to external fluctuations in
climate, market prices, and supply-demand by having a wider range of marketable products
(including tourism) and can accelerate the growth of business and livelihoods. Trade-off of
economic costs and benefits will vary significantly by practice-type and may vary for each
individual practice depending on the conditions and location in which it is implemented. Current
studies do not provide exhaustive data for all possible SSM practices on all soil types in the EU,
but those that focused on specific practices at farm/land unit level, agree that the costs of
implementing SSM are in many cases outweighed by the economic and in all cases by the
environmental benefits. Short-term individual costs are likely to be offset over the long-term, but
soil managers who are not the landowners may be at a disadvantage as some SSM practices may
take up to 10-20 years to deliver benefits.
The costs of sustainable soil management have, on a selection of five illustrative measures,68
been estimated at between 28 and 38 billion Euro per year at EU level, while the on-site benefits
could amount to 20 to 30 billion euro.69
However, this estimation focuses purely on economic
costs and immediate benefits such as impacts on yields or fertiliser use.70
Off-site (environmental
and social) benefits associated with these practices could not be quantified. For forest managers,
costs are more difficult to quantify but estimated to be more limited (around 0,7 billion euro per
year), while significant proportions of SSM private benefits fall on forest land managers
assuming that the forests have been used less intensively and that soil degradation has not yet
progressed as far (Annex 11 section 2). 60% of the forests in the EU is commercially owned. On-
site costs and benefits would fall on landowners and/or soil managers, while off-site costs and
benefits would fall on other parties or society, for example for industrial purification of drinking
water. Since SSM practices will maintain and even improve soil heath, it is assumed that
landowners may profit from the long-term benefits of sustainable actions taken by land
managers, or at least from ensuring that the value of land does not decrease over time because of
soil degradation. Costs and benefits falling on urban land managers would be more limited.
The estimation of the overall benefit to cost ratio for addressing soil degradation shows a
positive value of 1.7 (see 7.3). This estimation was performed using as many quantifications as
possible for off-site benefits; still, a large number of off-site benefits remained unquantified (see
Table 2-4). This means that it is overall advantageous for society to implement sustainable soil
management (and soil restoration) practices. However, it may be not always advantageous for
soil managers to implement them since on-site costs may be higher. Furthermore, the full
benefits may come in the medium to long term. To overcome this situation, soil managers are
expected to need incentives and financial support to transition to SSM (as well as to implement
restoration practices) so that the negative outlooks described in Table 2-1 can be transformed
into positive ones. Section 7.3.2 provides elements of reflection on the available funding for this
transition.
68
Cover crops, reduced tillage, crop rotation (barley only), use of organic manures, reduced stocking density.
69
See Annex 11 section 2.2.2.
70
see also section 6.6 on the limitation in quantifying the costs and benefits.
47
Furthermore, the potentially high costs and the related uncertainties can be mitigated by a staged
approach, allowing Member States flexibility in the application of sustainable soil management
requirements.
6.3.3 Administrative costs
Administrative burden for the implementation of each option, including determining appropriate
management practices for different soils and uses, and monitoring their respective application or
avoidance in case of banned practices, is estimated to be moderate for Member States, except for
option 4 which requires significantly higher costs for the design and establishment of dedicated
planning activities for soil management to ensure proper implementation of the management
practices. Administrative burden for individual soil managers could increase depending on how
Member States ensure and control the correct implementation of SSM practices and the extent of
harmonisation with already existing legislation.
6.3.4 Social impacts
Several of the environmental benefits can be associated with positive social impacts in the short
to long-term. Increased carbon sequestration potential, for example, helps reduce climate change-
related risks, and improved flood mitigation substantially improves the safety and quality of life
of people living in flood risk areas. Stable or potentially increased yields due to sustainable soil
management support food security. Diversification of agricultural and forestry production
systems, accompanied by a greater variety of marketable products, provide opportunities for new
jobs and an increased landscape and recreation value. Recreational value, along with physical
and mental health, is positively influenced by healthy and sustainably managed soils both in the
countryside, but especially also in urban areas where the implementation of SSM practices can
contribute to the creation of healthy green spaces and reduce heat islands, contribute to better air
quality and housing conditions. Jobs can be created or reduced depending on whether conversion
to SSM requires a higher or lower work force but must be paired with necessary reskilling and
upskilling measures and preparation.
6.3.5 Implementation risks
Defining sustainable soil management could be either too restrictive or too broad, both of which
could reduce the impact on soil itself. Too much flexibility on SSM principles and practices may
result in very different levels of ambition in their implementation across the EU, while a more
prescriptive approach risks not taking sufficient account of the various climatic, socio-economic,
and environmental conditions in each Member State, or being too complex.
A possible risk in implementing the options could be a lack of financial resources for Member
States, but also a lack of human and financial resources for soil managers. Differentiating the
extent of this risks based on the three different options is, however, not possible as this depends
to a large extent on a) which specific soil management practices are to be implemented, b) the
extent to which Member States already support and encourage SSM practices, and c) the extent
to which soil managers already apply SSM practices and therefore the necessary shift in their soil
management. In some cases, additional labour force and budget, e.g. for investment in machinery
or salaries for harvest hands, may be needed, while in other cases the application of SSM can
lead to reduced costs, e.g. for inputs such as fertilisers and pesticides. In any case, financial
support both for Member States and soil managers already is available for a number of practices,
48
e.g. under the CAP or can be further supported in the future, e.g. under the Carbon Removal
Regulation.
6.3.6 Stakeholder views
The majority of respondents to the open public consultation strongly agreed on the need for a
legal obligation for Member States to set requirements for the sustainable use of soils.
Stakeholders indicated the need to consider different soil responses when defining sustainable
management and supported the provision of a code of practices for sustainable use of soils for
different land uses. In addition, the need to anchor exchange and sharing of experience of
farmers and land managers was emphasized to create a toolbox and provide education so that the
necessary measures are implemented. With regards to financial aspects of implementing SSM,
particular attention should be paid to short-time costs and investments compared to longer term
benefits. They also pointed out differences between the various SSM practices and their impacts,
the difficulty of producing detailed instructions at EU level, and the possibility that too much
flexibility may be ineffective. It was also noted that it should be possible to ban some of the
practices that are harmful for soils. While a level playing field with mandatory minimum
requirements for all Member States (especially for the farming sector) was requested, a very
stringent approach as the one under option 4 was identified to likely generate a pushback from
Member States and stakeholders. The Member States that provided their views overall supported
sustainable soil management principles to avoid soil deterioration, while allowing flexibility to
adapt practices to local conditions (see details in Annex 9, section 4.2.6). Farmers emphasized
the need to define SSM practices per region with the involvement of local consultants and
professionals while landowners and managers called for voluntary measures but with sufficient
safeguards to prevent further damage of soils.
6.3.7 Comparison of options
The limited existing evidence for the precise costs of the implementation of SSM practices
throughout all soil types and Member States and the great range of flexibility (e.g. voluntary or
mandatory implementation of certain practices) across options under this building block limit the
precision of comparison. The transition to sustainable practices may lead to local and temporary
decrease in the quantity of food or biomass production (depending on the changed practices and
local conditions). However, these effects are usually counteracted in the medium- to long-term,
also by reducing the risks and effects of crop loss linked with increasingly extreme climatic
events. So, while there are no imminent consequences negatively impacting food security, the
envisaged options implemented will contribute to the wider objective of strengthening
agricultural resilience and the strategic autonomy of the European Union..
Effectiveness
Full flexibility for Member States to define sustainable management principles and practices
based on an indicative annex, as would be the case under option 2, could result in the ambition
being reduced to a minimum (a so-called "race to the bottom") as Member States need to
consider the demands of a wide range of stakeholders. The implementation of option 4 requires a
broad list of sustainable soil management practices at EU level and would prove difficult to
adequately address the diverse environmental, climatic and socio-economic conditions and soil
types in all Member States. While option 4 would ensure that certain sustainable practices would
be applied across the EU, formulating these practices considering the diversity of local
conditions and agreeing on them at EU level would be a tremendous challenge and would likely
49
result in an approach of rather broad and simple practices that could be applied in many places,
but at the expense of their actual effectiveness and the transition to truly sustainable soil
management. The flexibility given to Member States under option 3 could lead to higher
ambition than under option 2 because Member States will at least have to reflect the mandatory
SSM principles but is less restrictive than option 4. Therefore, option 3 is estimated to have a
better impact both on soil health and the transition to sustainable soil management (Option 3
‘+++’).
All options are considered to contribute equally to improved information, data and governance
(option 2, 3, 4 ‘++’) as compared to the baseline as Member States will need to monitor and
control the implementation and uptake SSM practices to ensure that soils are sustainably
managed.
The mandatory nature of respecting specific SSM principles under option 3 will guarantee
effective minimum standards and is therefore expected to have greater environmental benefits
than option 2. This could be further accelerated by banning certain practices on which there is
broad scientific consent about their harmfulness for soil (option 4). Social benefits will be similar
under each option but can be linked to environmental benefits and may therefore also be higher
under option 3. Economic benefits to landowners and wider society are expected if soil
degradation and associated costs are reduced. While the implementation of option 3 or 4 may
target soil threats more effectively than the more flexible approach under option 2, a more
precise indication of SSM practices (option 4) may lead to higher economic costs for soil
managers in the short-term (depending on the change required). Economic benefits from
improved (or maintained) soil health may, however, only occur in the longer term. Consequently,
all the options will stimulate significant benefits, with option 3 expected to have the strongest
positive impacts (option 3 ‘+++’).
Efficiency
All options will generate significant costs for implementation (option 2, 3, 4 ‘---'). Adjustment
costs under option 2 may be lower given the greater flexibility, while the mandatory
implementation of principles (options 3) and certain practices (option 4) may require more
stringent enforcement and monitoring, depending on the specific practices and the current state
of play in each Member State. Similarly, the administrative costs are likely to be the highest
under option 4 (‘--‘).
The distribution of costs and benefits between the various stakeholders involved (Member States,
society, landowners and land managers) is highly dependent on the type of implementation
(indicative or mandatory provisions), and the extent and area of required principles and practices
and is considered unequal under all three options (Option 2, 3, 4 ‘--‘). While some SSM practices
may deliver a positive economic return in the short term, others may take years to emerge or to
pay back earlier investments, giving a disadvantage to e.g. tenant land managers as compared to
landowners. Greater flexibility (option 2) will result in fewer costs for both Member States and
individual soil managers but is likely to generate fewer of the above mentioned economic,
environmental and social benefits as compared to option 3 or 4. Option 4 is expected to have the
highest adjustment costs while benefits are presumably higher primarily for society and only
delayed for land users.
Coherence with other building blocks may be positively or negatively affected (option 3, 4 ‘+/-‘),
depending on the respective principles (options 3) and practices (option 4). Option 2 is
50
considered slightly more coherent with the other building blocks due to the increased flexibility
for Member States which could in turn create higher harmonisation between all building blocks
(Option 2 ‘+’), even though this flexibility provides the risk of a weaker implementation of
sustainable management measures and leaves room for harmful practices to continue. This risk is
reduced under option 3 and especially option 4 (banned practices). There could be overlap
between legislation especially in the sectors of agriculture, resulting in additional costs and/or
administrative burden (greater under options 3 and 4). A key risk is to establish suitable SSM
principles (option 3 ‘--‘) and even higher for practices (option 2 and 4 (‘---‘)) considering every
soil type, region and other local parameters.
Table 6-4: summary scores for the options 2, 3, 4 of building block 3
(*) While the score level is the same according to the scoring methodology used, option 4 is expected to have the highest
adjustment costs while benefits are presumably higher primarily for society and only delayed for land users.
6.4 Analysis of building block 4: identification, registration, investigation and assessment
of (potentially) contaminated sites
6.4.1 Environmental impacts
Only accurate identification allows Member States to prioritise remedial actions, to collect
funding and to make a planning. Enhanced knowledge of the risks to the environment of soil
contamination contributes to the achievement of the water and nature objectives. Ultimately, the
indirect impacts are decreased presence of toxic chemicals in the environment and consequential
positive impacts on species, populations, biodiversity, water, as well as on the provision of
ecosystem services. Enhanced identification and registration of (potentially) contaminated sites
in combination with full transparency, would increase the pressure and incentives to tackle the
problem. Better knowledge of these sites, their risks and liabilities will deter future polluters and
encourage prevention. Risk assessment (in options 2 and 3) allows to take account of local and
site-specific conditions which would be of benefit from an environmental point of view.. With
the application of common EU limit values (option 4), on the other hand, there is only a need for
action when these limit values have already been reached or exceeded, which may mean a higher
level of contamination.
6.4.2 Economic impacts
The main economic impact of this building block is the cost related to soil investigations. The
cost of investigation varies substantially from €500 to €50 000 per site, and exceptionally €5
million. There are generally two main types of soil investigation: a preliminary and a more
detailed investigation. Preliminary site investigations are less costly than main site
Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Effectiveness Impact on soil health ++ +++ ++
Information, data and common
governance on soil health and
management
++ ++ ++
Transition to sustainable soil management
and restoration
++ +++ ++
Efficiency Benefits ++ +++ ++
Adjustment costs --- --- ---(*)
Administrative burden - - --
Distribution of costs and benefits -- -- --
Coherence + +/- +/-
Risks for
implementation
--- -- ---
51
investigations. If a preliminary investigation does not render an indication of contamination,
there is no need to proceed with the more expensive in-depth investigation.
It is difficult to separate the additional impact of an EU obligation to systematically register and
investigate potentially contaminated sites from the baseline and to project how the situation will
evolve without dedicated EU soil legislation. Some Member States have already invested heavily
in the identification, registration, investigation and assessment of contaminated sites at their own
initiative. It is therefore expected that the economic impact will vary and that Member States that
are lagging behind will face higher costs in the following magnitude:
 No significant cost: AT, DK, SE, NL, BE (FL, BXL)
 Lower cost: IT, FI, BE (WAL), DE, LU, FR
 Medium cost: ES, LT
 Higher costs: HR, BG, HU, CY, IE, EL, LV, MT, PL, PT, RO, SI, CZ, EE, SK
The polluter pays principle should be applied whenever possible, also for the cost of
investigation. Currently, on average, public authorities bear 43% of the management costs and
the private sector 57%, but this number does not differentiate between the investigation and
remediation phase. There is uncertainty about where the cost of investigation will eventually fall
as this depends on the implementation in different Member States.
6.4.3 Administrative costs
Member States that need to establish or improve registers additionally to the baseline scenario
will incur an administrative burden, e.g. staff costs, development of IT infrastructure or a
website. As an indication, in 2018, Sweden had a budget of €230 000 for maintaining the
national inventory of contaminated sites.71
Member States who need to establish inventories (e.g.
HR, RO, SI) would incur such administrative costs. The administrative cost for the
administration, communication, registration and recording is estimated roughly at 1% of the
investigation cost.
Specific to option 2, there may be limited costs for Member States that have not yet established a
methodology or procedure for risk assessment of contaminated sites or defined the
(un)acceptable risk levels for human health and the environment. Common principles (option 3)
could provide additional guidance. On the other hand, if Member States had to revise their
current methods to assess contaminated sites, additional costs could be incurred.
Given that Member States currently use different approaches and values, devising EU limit
values (one size fits all approach) under option 4 would be challenging. The advantages of EU
limit values are the ease of application, the clarity for polluters and regulators, comparability,
transparency and easiness of understanding by non-specialists.
6.4.4 Social impacts
This building block could have positive social impacts for EU citizens through a better
application of the polluter pays principle, leading to more societal fairness and good
administration. It helps to decrease exposure to contamination. Socio-economically
disadvantaged households are living closer to contaminated sites due to lower costs of living. On
71
JRC (2018), Status of local soil contamination in Europe, p. 69
52
the other hand, this building block could also lead to distress among communities and
landowners when their properties or neighbouring sites are registered as a (potentially)
contaminated site. Requirements to identify contaminated sites will generate jobs and long-term
employment (e.g. environmental consultants, geologists, remediation engineers, etc.). Adequate
training and education is needed to develop the skill set of these workers and their health on-the-
job should be sufficiently protected.
6.4.5 Implementation risks
Option 2 applies a risk-based approach but does not guide Member States to assess contaminated
sites and leaves full flexibility. The common risk assessment principles (option 3) should be well
designed to bring added value, if not, these might interfere with existing national risk assessment
methodologies. This risk can be avoided by the development of further guidance documents
through comitology procedure to support less advanced Member States with risk assessment. If
Member States decide on the level of (un)acceptable risk, certain differences may apply,
reflecting:72
 Geographical, biological, environmental variability;
 Socio-cultural, behavioural and land use variability affecting the exposure of receptors;
 Regulatory variability, e.g. constitutional aspects or complementarities with other existing
laws;
 Political variability due to the prioritisation of environmental and economic values;
 Variability in scientific views.
Common and ambitious limit values across the EU (option 4) may be difficult to implement and
require more time due to the above differences across Member States. Due to the wide variety of
soil types, land uses, depths of groundwater tables and building characteristics, EU common
limit values might not be appropriate to assess the problem in an efficient and economically
viable manner.
Risks to implementation of each option under this building block due to lack of human or
financial resources is low, as existing structures can be used for the identification, assessment
and registration of contaminated sites.
6.4.6 Stakeholder views
There was strong agreement across all stakeholder types that there should be legal obligations for
Member States to identify contaminated sites that pose a significant risk. 89% of all respondents
‘totally agreed’ with such obligation, and a further 8% ‘somewhat agreeing’. There is a strong
preference amongst stakeholders for a risk-based approach. Stakeholders also suggested that
assessments should take into account the current or future land use. There was also strong
agreement that the information and environmental data from a registry of contaminated sites
should be publicly available: 85% ‘totally agreed’ with 10% ‘somewhat agree’. The Member
States which expressed their view, overall supported a risk-based approach on contaminated sites
and called for flexibility for national approaches. The assessment of the acceptability of the risk
should remain under national competence, but some Member States would prefer guidance from
the EU on the methodology and approach for the risk assessment. Most Member States agree that
72
Provoost, J., Reijnders, L., Swartjes, F., Bronders, J., Carlon, C., D’Alessandro, M., & Cornelis, C. (2008). Parameters causing
variation between soil screening values and the effect of harmonization. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 8(5), p. 24.
53
risk should be assessed in relation to the current and future land use. No significantly different
views were expressed by those Member States already more advanced in the remediation of
contaminated sites (for details see Annex 9, section 5.2.6).
6.4.7 Comparison of options
An obligation to identify and register systematically (potentially) contaminated sites, and
subsequently, to confirm the presence or absence of contamination, would improve information,
data and governance of soil health (‘+++’). How the need for further action is decided, will
determine the ambition, benefits and costs of building block 5. All options under block 4 deliver
only indirect benefits for soil health, because these are attributed directly to building block 5 to
avoid double counting (Options 2/3/4 ‘(+)’).
The difference between the options is the degree of flexibility around risk assessment and
acceptability. The impact will depend on the risk appetite and environmental ambition: how
much risk would Member States be willing to accept or how ambitious would common EU limit
values be. Option 2 (relative to options 3 and 4) offers most flexibility, hence also a risk that
some Member States would be more permissive towards contamination resulting in a lower than
effective level of remediation or risk management and an uneven playing field (‘risks for
implementation’: Option 2 ‘---‘). EU common principles for risk assessment (option 3) as a
minimum standard could slightly reduce this risk (‘--‘). On the other hand, Option 4 provides a
non-risk-based approach with common EU limit values for contaminants, which presents a
challenge since it does not allow flexibility to reflect the particularities of each Member State
and of specific sites, and could result in inefficient and disproportionate remediation. Moreover,
it would be difficult to reach an agreement among Member States on the harmonisation of values
(Option 4 ‘---‘).
Measures under this building block would lead to new obligations on Member States. The cost
for investigation is estimated at 1,9 billion euro per year (Options 2/3/4 ‘---’), while the cost of
remediation is captured under building block 5. It is difficult to assess how much would be spent
additional to the baseline. The administrative burden under all options is related to the
administration, registration and recording of the identification and investigation of (potentially)
contaminated sites and is estimated roughly at 1% of the investigation cost depending on the
Member State (Options 2/3/4 ‘---‘). Different Member States will face different additional
burdens for the identification and testing required. The distributional effect is uncertain, but
given the obligation to identify contaminated sites is common across all options, so too will any
distributional effect (Options 2/3/4 ‘-‘).
Option 4 may be more internally aligned with other building blocks in comparison to Options 2
and 3. For example, EU limit values still align with Option 2 and 3 of building block 5 where
priorities (e.g. timing, budget allocation, etc.) for remediation are left to the Member States.
Allowing Member States to identify risk acceptability criteria for the assessment of sites (Option
2 and 3) would not be as synergistic with a subsequent remediation programme where the
prioritisation for remediation is set at EU-level (Option 4 in building block 5).
Option 3 is the preferred option as it mitigates the opposing risks of a continuing variance in
ambition across Member States (Option 2), and challenges that a non-risk based approach under
Option 4 could lead to inefficient levels of remediation and risk reduction. The risk of
54
inconsistency in Option 2, could be reduced with the common principles for risk assessment and
ensure that Member States reach minimum requirements for good practice in risk assessment.
Table 6-5: summary scores for the options 2, 3, 4 of building block 4
Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Effectiveness Impact on soil health (+) (+) (+)
Information, data and common
governance on soil health and
management
+++ +++ +++
Transition to sustainable soil
management and restoration
(+) (+) (+)
Efficiency Benefits +++ +++ +++
Adjustment costs --- --- ---
Administrative burden --- --- ---
Distribution of costs and benefits - - -
Coherence + + +/-
Risks for
implementation
--- -- ---
6.5 Analysis of building block 5: soil restoration and remediation
The impacts are linked to the ranges of the soil health descriptors under block 1 and the
outcomes of the monitoring and assessment in block 2. Sustainable soil management in block 3
reduces the need for restoration. The more sites are identified as contaminated and requiring
further action under block 4, the higher the costs of restoration. The costs and benefits of
restoration and remediation scale with the area of land to which they are applied and will depend
on how unhealthy the soil is initially, and the measures that are required.
6.5.1 Environmental impacts
All options will deliver significant environmental benefits and improve soil health with knock-on
effects on the quality of both water and air (e.g. storage and infiltration of water, risks of
flooding, drought, and soil erosion), biodiversity (e.g. providing food sources and habitats), and
climate benefits (e.g. carbon removals, climate adaptation by mitigating climate hazard risks).
6.5.2 Economic impacts
Soil restoration results in economic costs and benefits. 60-70% of land is currently unhealthy and
underproviding ecosystem services, with a loss that could be quantified at EUR 3.4 - 292.4
billion for soil contamination and at 16.5 – 68.8 for the other soil degradation (see 2.1.4). Soil
restoration, that is addressing soil degradation, delivers clear economic benefits for society (see
the conservative estimation of the benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.7 in 7.3) while for the landowner
and/or soil manager the on-site benefits may not always compensate the costs, or do it rather in
the medium to long term. However, the potential benefit under Option 2 is likely less than under
Options 3 and 4 because there is a greater risk of variance in the ambition of the measures.
The adjustment costs will be relatively high as restoration and remediation activities carry
upfront and ongoing costs. The costs will depend on the practices that are implemented in each
Member State. The distinction between sustainable soil management and restoration is not
always obvious. It depends on the status of the soil (healthy vs. unhealthy). Sustainable soil
management is an act of good stewardship or a duty of care to prevent that a healthy soil
55
degrades by maintaining or enhancing the provision of ecosystem services. Restoration is an
intentional activity aimed at reversing or re-establishing soil from a degraded state to a healthy
condition. This is why examples of sustainable soil management and restoration practices have
been presented together in Table 7-3. Therefore, restoration costs other than for contamination
are considered substantially overlapping with the costs and benefits of the SSM building block.
The precise costs of remediation are uncertain. The median cost of site remediation is estimated
at €124 000 per site with the majority between €50 000 to €500 000 per site. Costs of € 1 billion
per annum over a 25-year period could be expected. It is however difficult to assess how much
would be spent anyhow in the baseline, and what percentage would be additional due to new EU
obligations. It is also uncertain where these adjustment costs would fall. The obligation will be
placed on Member States but costs could be passed on to businesses and landowners. Costs
would also be distributed unevenly between Member States. For example, Germany, Finland,
and Belgium reported the highest number of remediated sites and are therefore closer to
completion. Others like, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia reported very low levels, which indicates
that they may incur significant costs.
6.5.3 Administrative costs
An obligation for Member States to adopt measures (options 3 and 4) would increase the
administrative burden. Prescribing restoration measures, enforcement and follow-up also require
administrative efforts at national level. For soil remediation, the upfront burden is marginally
higher for Options 2 and 3 as all 27 Member States must define prioritisation criteria, and for
Option 2 associated with the ongoing management of the derogation process.
6.5.4 Social impacts
A transition towards healthy soils could improve social perception and the image of the farming
and industrial sector.73
Soil restoration improves the safety, health, and infrastructure of
communities and sustains the livelihood in the surrounding areas, e.g. (agro-)tourism, markets,
infrastructure74
. Soil restoration is important to protect the cultural heritage.75
Various studies
have explored the health risks of living close to contaminated sites. Communities with large
numbers of brownfields have poorer health.76
Closer residential proximity to contaminated sites
is linked with higher rates of low-birth-weight infants.77
Remediating contaminated soils will
undoubtedly have a positive impact on public health and associated social security costs,
benefitting especially to the socio-economically disadvantaged groups that often live in these
areas. Job creation would be expected from increased investigation and remediation, and brings
positive social and health impacts.
6.5.5 Implementation risks
Not all restoration activities lead to positive economic or environmental outcomes in the short
term, e.g. lower agricultural yields in the short-term may be a barrier for farmers. Knowledge
73
The Business Case for Investing in Soil Health
74
Gómez, J.A. et al. (2021), Best Management Practices for optimized use of soil and water in agriculture
75
Expert Stakeholders (FR response to Sustainable Use)
76
https://www.dur.ac.uk/news/newsitem/?itemno=20467
77
Baibergenova, A., Kudyakov, R., Zdeb, M., & Carpenter, D. O. (2003). Low birth weight and residential proximity to PCB-
contaminated waste sites. Environmental health perspectives, 111(10), 1352-1357.
56
sharing is essential for organising restoration at the right place within a reasonable timeframe.
More flexibility for the Member States could result in more inconsistency, both in terms of the
programmes of measures, their content and coverage, but also their ambition. On the other hand,
certain flexibility for Member States is necessary to ensure tailored restoration and remediation.
EU prioritisation criteria may lead to inconsistencies with national and regional regulations and
budgets. Member States have a better understanding of the local economic and environmental
pressures, which could allow for a more efficient and tailored approach. For these reasons,
Member States would also be best placed to apply derogations. Implementation risks arise also in
relation to the links with other building blocks. A fully harmonised restoration and remediation
approach is likely incompatible with the options that offer most flexibility in other blocks.
The risks to the implementation of each option in this building block due to lack of human or
financial resources in the Member States are low, as existing structures can be used to identify
and allocate remediation and restoration measures. Similar to Building Block 3, the actual
amount of additional labour and funding required is highly dependent on the condition of the
soils and thus the need for their restoration, as well as the restoration measures ultimately
selected. This affects both Member States and soil managers. However, the fact that restoration
measures will be gradually phased in provides sufficient time to prepare for these potential
additional needs in a targeted manner. It should also be noted that restoration measures are not
required if the costs of restoration measures are disproportionately high. Restoration measures
are rather viewed as an investment with an expected economic return over the years through the
restoration of soil health and associated increased ecosystem services, offsetting increased
financial needs.
6.5.6 Stakeholder views
86% of the respondents to the public consultation on soil health ‘totally agreed’ that the Soil
Health Law should set obligations for Member States to achieve healthy soils by 2050. This was
the most common response across all respondents (with the exception of business associations,
which were split fairly equally across all possible responses). There was also strong agreement
that there should be legal obligations for Member States to remediate contaminated sites that
pose a significant risk to human health and the environment. 81% of all respondents ‘totally
agreed’ this obligation should be put in place, with a further 14% ‘somewhat agreeing’.
Furthermore, ‘totally agree’ was the most frequent response across all stakeholder types. In
addition, the majority of respondents also ‘totally agreed’ that Member States should be required,
within a legally binding time frame, to establish and implement a national plan to remediate
sites. 72% ‘totally agreed’ with this obligation, with a further 18% ‘somewhat agreeing’. The
few Member States replying on restoration of soil health and the programme of measures,
expressed support for minimum requirements at EU level together with flexibility (see details in
Annex 9, section 6.1.2). Member States stressed the need to minimize the additional
administrative burden, to avoid overlap with other legislation and to exploit synergies with other
plans and programmes required by EU law. The timeline and periodicity for the programme of
measures and the reporting should be realistic and feasible.
6.5.7 Comparison of options
It is anticipated that the benefits under option 2 are less than under options 3 and 4 because under
option 2 there is no obligation to take measures. Common criteria and harmonisation under
57
Option 4 mitigate this risk, which is also reflected in a higher implementation risk (Option 2 ‘---
‘) because it would be challenging to prescribe a programme of measures for the whole EU and
requires time to develop. Strict common criteria can result in implementation risks for inefficient
restoration or remediation activities (Option 4 ‘---‘). Option 3 partly mitigates this risk through a
minimum set of common criteria for the programmes that Member States should put in place
(Option 3 ‘--‘).
The adjustment costs under the building block will be relatively high as restoration and
remediation activities carry upfront and ongoing costs. This will likely be one of the most
significant impacts associated with the SHL. The costs will depend on the practices that are
implemented in each Member State. Crucially though, Member States will not be required to
undertake restoration measures where they are technically not possible or where the costs are
disproportionate, ensuring that the costs are proportionate overall. Where such measures are
implemented EU-wide the adjustment costs could be significant (in the billions). The adjustment
costs under Option 2 are anticipated to be slightly lower than under Options 3 and 4, because
there may be greater variance in effort between Member States, resulting in some implementing
perhaps fewer measures (Options 2/3/4 ‘---‘). Administrative burdens are anticipated to be
moderate in particular compared to options under the other building blocks (‘Administrative
burden’: ‘--‘).
It is uncertain on whom the costs of restoration will fall as this will depend on the
implementation in each Member State. Landowners and managers will have an important role.
Some measures may not deliver an economic return, and the environmental and social benefits
they deliver are societal in nature (Options 2/3/4 ‘+/--‘). There will also be a variance in costs
and impacts across the EU, e.g. Member States that have a wider area of unhealthy soils and/or
soils will require more extensive restoration and remediation, and hence also costs. However, the
cost of inaction remains higher than the overall investments costs for restoration, because of the
burden of soil degradation on many socio-economic sectors, such as public health.
All options are broadly coherent with options under other building blocks. Option 4 is slightly
less coherent with the more flexible options under other building blocks (Options 2 and 3 ‘+’,
Option 4 ‘+/-‘). Option 4 has a greater risk of overlap with other legislation. All options under
this building block would improve governance of soil health, as they directly place an obligation
on the Member States to restore and remediate contaminated sites (Options 2/3/4 ‘+++’).
The management of contaminated sites incurs adjustment costs that are a key impact associated
with all options and are likely to be significant (Options 2/3/4 ‘---'). It is uncertain where these
adjustment costs would fall. The obligation will be placed on Member States to ensure all sites
are remediated, but Member States could pass on these costs to businesses and landowners.
Under Options 2 and 3, Member States can prioritise the remediation of sites. Member State’s
CS and PCS has its own particular characteristics based on geographical, economic and historical
reasons, which can be difficult to harmonise. On the other hand, flexibility also brings a risk of
inconsistency between Member States, e.g. some Member States may choose to prioritise
uniquely based on cost, rather than a combination of cost, technical feasibility and environmental
or human health risk, and leave the most challenging sites until later. Option 4 would establish
EU level prioritisation criteria, but this would be challenging given the variability across
Member States. It would provide a level playing field for Member States but potentially also a
less efficient solution.
58
Option 2 allows derogations for specific sites where particular criteria are met. Some categories
of unhealthy soils can be derogated by Member States from the obligation to have all soils
healthy by 2050, because it is technically not feasible or economically disproportionate to restore
them. Derogations reduce implementation risks under Option 2, but also the environmental and
human health benefits that could be achieved.
Remediation costs would likely be distributed among the public and private sector. Countries
with more significant costs and benefits will likely have more contaminated sites. Finally, across
stakeholder groups, there would be significant benefits for all the citizens, which would achieve
health, food and water security for the present and subsequent generations. (‘Distribution of costs
and benefits’: Options 2/3/4 ‘+/--‘). Option 4 is marginally less coherent with the options under
other building blocks that offer more flexibility to Member States (Indicator ‘coherence’:
Options 2 and 3 ‘+’. Option 4 ‘+/-‘).
The options under this building block will be the most impactful of the SHL package and deliver
the improvements in soil health which is the core objective. As for the sustainable soil
management practices (see 6.3.7), the restoration of soil health may also lead to local and
temporary decrease in the quantity of food or biomass production (depending on the changed
practices and local conditions). However, these effects are usually counteracted in the medium-
to long-term, also by reducing the risks and effects of crop loss linked with increasingly extreme
climatic events. So, while there are no imminent issues on food security, the transition can be
implemented to contribute to the wider objective of strengthening the strategic autonomy of the
European Union.
The options also have the potential to deliver economic benefits, but will also incur significant
adjustment costs (and moderate administrative burden to do so). Option 3 appears to present the
best option for soil restoration and option 2 specifically for the remediation of contaminated
sites.
Table 6-6: summary scores for the options 2, 3, 4 of building block 5
Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Effectiveness Impact on soil health ++ +++ +++
Information, data and common governance
on soil health and management
+++ +++ +++
Transition to sustainable soil management
and restoration
++ +++ +++
Efficiency Benefits ++ +++ +++
Adjustment costs --- --- ---
Administrative burden -- -- --
Distribution of costs and benefits +/-- +/-- +/--
Coherence + + +/-
Risks for
implementation
--- -- ---
6.6 Difficulty of quantifying costs and benefits
The knowledge available in the literature on the quantification of socio-economic aspects of soil
degradation is often incomplete or ambiguous. Especially for Europe, economic data are
relatively scarce. Improvement of soil health through sustainable soil management and
restoration is often considered to be cost-effective. However, costs and benefits – also of well-
known technologies – can vary significantly depending on the economic, social and biophysical
context, and also over time as practices and knowledge on how to best implement them improve.
59
Cost and benefits of SSM and restoration practices are also often analysed from the perspective
of an individual land manager and not from the viewpoint of the society as a whole. Off-site
effects of soil degradation (e.g. health costs) are often difficult to quantify and so not accounted
for.78
Society usually bears higher public costs than individual land managers or private owners
as a result of soil degradation. However, the benefits of soil health for society will not be realised
unless land managers implement SSM and restoration practices in their day-to-day activities,
which requires a positive financial investment case from the private perspective.
Whilst the transition to SSM usually involves immediate costs, benefits are often enjoyed over
the medium to long term.79
Methods that value natural resources usually struggle to account for
the full range of damage caused by degradation. The difficulty of taking into account benefits
and ecosystem services of SSM and restoration is a common feature of economic assessments
and is a limitation recognized in the literature. Some researchers plead to move beyond a pure
cost-benefit logic, and to err on the side of taking actions given the uncertainties.
7 PREFERRED OPTION
7.1 What is the preferred option?
The preferred option is based on option 3 for all building blocks, except option 2 for the
remediation of contaminated sites, balancing between the need to reach the objective of
healthy soil by 2050 in an effective manner and avoiding unnecessary regulation at EU level as
well as administrative burden. It includes setting a measured definition of healthy soils taking
into account the current scientific limitations and limited knowledge regarding each soil in the
EU, as explained below. Second, as illustrated below, the preferred option proposes a staged
approach. In a first stage, Member States would set up their governance system, monitor and
assess soil health, and implement easily and immediately applicable sustainable soil management
measures. The second stage would rely on the assessment of soils of the first stage and gradually
phase in the restoration and remediation measures as well as the other sustainable soil
management measures. . Third, the preferred option would leave to the Member States the choice
of the measures to manage soils sustainably, supported by guidance at EU level, and to restore
with the possibility to be exempted to do so, where technically possible and economically
proportionate and subject to further procedural conditions.
In the preferred option, Member States would have flexibility to prioritise and to define their
budget interventions, also using available EU funds80
for achieving healthy soils.
Block 1: Soil health definition and soil districts – option 3
In the preferred option, soil health is first described by a minimum set of soil descriptors, at least
one for each of the listed 11 aspects of soil degradation (see Table 7-1 below), based on the
78
Tepes et al. (2021) Costs and benefits of soil protection and sustainable land management practices in selected European
countries: Towards multidisciplinary insights
79
Reynolds et al. (2022), Methodology and analysis of the costs and benefits in comparing sustainable land management
practices in the WOCAT database
80
A staff working document providing guidance to EU funds for healthy soils will accompany the legislative proposal.
60
scientific evidence available.81
Monitoring of this minimum set is mandatory for Member States,
but they may complement it with additional descriptors in their monitoring scheme.
In addition, criteria are set for several of these descriptors concerning the following aspects of
soil degradation: loss of soil capacity for water retention, loss of carbon, soil erosion and eroded
soils, salinization, excess nutrients (phosphorus),82
subsoil compaction and soil contamination.
Soil is in healthy status when the criteria for these descriptors are met, as each of these
descriptors is critical for soil functioning. Outside these criteria, soils suffer a significant loss in
the provision of vital ecosystem services (e.g. reaching an excessive salt concentration prevents
most of the plants from growing). These criteria as well as the feasibility of meeting them are
based on existing scientific knowledge and reflect the diversity of soils in the EU (see details in
Annex 11 Table 2-4: rationale for SHL objectives being realistic and proportionate). It for this
reason that for two of these descriptors (water content and contamination), flexibility is left to the
Member States to set out more precise values for these criteria depending on the local conditions
of soils. For the other descriptors, criteria have not been set at this stage because they vary
widely depending on local conditions. Nevertheless, these descriptors correspond to essential
functions of the soil and it is important that all Member States monitor them and identify
variations and trends. This should also facilitate the emergence of sufficiently homogenous data
so that in future soil health ranges can also be identified for those descriptors.
The preferred option provides for further flexibility to adapt, following new relevant knowledge
developed by research, the soil descriptors and criteria which could be amended at a subsequent
revision of the legal instrument.
Exclusion of specific areas from assessment are considered justified and are therefore
accepted under the preferred option. Member States will have to map out the situations where
such exclusions are applicable.
The preferred option also incorporates substantial flexibility for Member States in setting out
some of the criteria, to take into account specific situations that cannot be dealt with in a fully
standardised manner at EU level. The determination of a threshold for water holding capacity in
soil is left for the Member States to define for each soil district, to take account the specificity of
each river basin management, and specific climatic conditions (risk of floods or draught). The
criteria set for soil organic carbon (SOC) in mineral soil can be approximated at this stage based
on some studies mainly in Central Europe pedoclimatic conditions. Therefore, Member States
are allowed, where specific climatic conditions would justify it, to apply a corrective factor
reflecting the actual SOC content in permanent grasslands for a given soil type and climatic
condition. For subsoil compaction, Member States are allowed to opt for an equivalent parameter
and range than the one set. This is because of the lack of a strong scientific consensus on the best
parameter. For phosphorus content, Member States should set the maximum threshold within the
two values set, allowing each country to adapt to the different environmental pressure of the
country. For soil contamination, a number of heavy metals are listed to be monitored, whereas
81
In particular EEA (2022). Soil monitoring in Europe – Indicators and thresholds for soil quality assessments.
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/soil-monitoring-in-europe-indicators-and-thresholds
82
Including a specific target of reducing nutrient losses will be beneficial to reduce nutrient losses in soils and thus preserve soil
fertility. However, this has broader implications and is analysed under the integrated nutrient management approach.
61
the selection of the organic contaminants is left to the Member States to allow flexibility on the
choice of the priority substances, while taking into account the limits set from other EU
legislation e.g. on contaminants in water. There are no ranges set as such, given the extreme
variability of the national screening values, when they exist. Instead, Member States should
provide reasonable assurance that no unacceptable risk for human health and the environment
exists from soil contamination.
Coherence of this preferred option with other EU initiatives
This preferred option and in particular the descriptor for soil organic carbon is aligned with and
refers to the target in the NRL proposal for organic soils in agricultural use constituting drained
peatlands. No additional organic carbon target is set for organic soils. As regards agricultural
(only cropland mineral soils) and forest ecosystems, the Member States are required in the NRL
to set a satisfactory level for the stock of organic carbon. The soil health definition provides a
solution to the Member States for setting ranges for SOC to ensure minimal soil functionality,
supported by recent scientific conclusions; furthermore, the definition extends the applicability
of the range beyond cropland mineral soils in agricultural ecosystems and forest ecosystems to
all managed mineral soils.
62
Table 7-1: set of soil descriptors and criteria for soil health assessment
Aspect of soil degradation Selected soil descriptors Criteria for healthy soil Exclusions *
Loss of soil capacity for water
retention (affects water absorption,
storage and filtering function)
Soil water holding capacity (all uses)
Thresholds to be set by the Member States for each soil district, at a
satisfactory level to mitigate the impact of extreme rain or drought,
accounting as well for artificial areas (EU guidance to be developed).
Loss of carbon (affects several
functions: carbon reservoir, soil
fertility, water storage, etc.)
SOC (all uses)
- For organic soils in agricultural use: respect EU targets set at
national level under the NRL (drained peatlands);
- For managed mineral soils: SOC/Clay ratio > 1/13; Member States
can apply a corrective factor where specific climatic conditions
would justify it, taking into account the actual SOC content in
permanent grasslands.
Soil erosion and eroded soils
(affects biodiversity and crop support
function, increases pollution)
Soil erosion rate/risk
At soil district level: no eroded soils or unaddressed unsustainable
erosion rate or risk (>2 tonnes/hectare/year), considering relevant
climate change projections for that area.
Badlands and other natural
areas.
Excess nutrients: phosphorus
(water pollution, eutrophication)
Extractable phosphorus in mg/kg (all
uses)
<[30-50] mg/kg; Member States to select the maximum threshold
between the two values.
Salinization (affects soil fertility and
biodiversity)
Electrical Conductivity dS/m
(measurement only in dry and coastal
areas)
<4 dS m−1;
Soils expected to be directly
affected by sea level rise;
naturally saline soils.
Subsoil compaction (affects water
absorption, storage and filtering
function, increases flood risks)
Bulk density in "subsoil" (B horizon)
(all uses); Member States can replace
it with equivalent parameter and
range
Sandy <1.8; Silty <1.65; Clayey <1.47; Member States can replace
this with equivalent parameter and range.
Soil contamination (risks on human
health and environment, biodiversity)
- concentration of heavy metals: As,
Sb, Cd, Co, Cr (total), Cr (VI), Cu,
Hg, Pb, Ni, Tl, V, Zn (all uses);
- concentration of a selection of
organic contaminants defined by
Member States and taking into
account existing EU legislation (e.g.
on water quality).
Reasonable assurance that no unacceptable risk for human health and
the environment exist.
Soils naturally high in heavy
metals.
Excess nutrients: nitrogen (water
pollution, eutrophication)
Nitrogen in soil (all uses) No criteria;
Acidification (affects soil fertility
and biodiversity)
pH
No criteria;
63
Soil biodiversity loss (affects
delivery of multiple eco-system
services)
Potential soil basal respiration
Additionally, Member States may
select other soil biodiversity
indicators such as:
- Metabarcoding of bacteria, fungi
and animals;
- Abundance and diversity of
nematodes;
- Microbial biomass (all uses);
- Abundance and diversity of
earthworms (cropland).
No criteria;
Topsoil compaction (affects water
absorption, storage and filtering
function, increases flood risks)
Bulk density in "topsoil" (A horizon)
(all uses)
No criteria;
Separate assessment and monitoring
Land take and soil sealing (loss of
soil functions)
Net land taken and imperviousness
area
(objectives set voluntarily by Member States)
* Exclusions require separate mapping and monitoring of derogated areas
64
Another part of the building block refers to the soil districts. Under the preferred option, Member
States would have the obligation to establish soil districts and appoint a competent authority.
This should take place in stage 1 (some additional time after the deadline of transposition of the
directive into national law would nevertheless be granted to Member States).
A soil district would be defined as a geographical area (established at national level) for the
purposes of applying the obligations to monitor and assess soil health and achieve good soil health.
The preferred option sets common general criteria for the establishment of soil districts, but the
choice is left to the Member States:
- the whole national land territory must be covered by soil districts;
- in defining soil districts, Member States should take into account administrative units and seek
as much as possible a certain homogeneity in terms of the following parameters:
- soil type as defined by the World Reference Base for Soil Resources;
- climatic conditions or environmental zone;
- land use/land cover class.
A minimum number of soil districts should be established.
In order to have an adequate assessment of soil health at national level, under the preferred option
each Member State shall set up a grid of points for taking soil samples, on the basis of
geostatistical methods. The density of the grid should be such as to provide a level of uncertainty
of soil health measurement of maximum 5% at national level, which statistically represents a
reasonable assurance level. This corresponds, according to a first estimation, to approximately 210
000 points for the whole EU (about 5 times the current density of LUCAS soil measurements) -
see Annex 9 showing what this would mean in terms of costs. Member States will be able to count
also LUCAS soil points in their national territory to achieve the resulting minimum level of soil
sampling required, provided that validated transfer functions between LUCAS Soil measurements
and national measurements are available. In order to support the implementation of this provision,
Member States will be able to refer to the JRC methodology for the geostatistical determination of
the soil sample grid, consistent with LUCAS soil approach. The Commission would also develop
remote sensing services to support the Member States in monitoring the relevant descriptors.
The preferred option for BB1 partially corresponds to the views of those Member States and other
stakeholders who submitted feedback (Annex 9 2.2.6). However, there was no clear consensus
among Member States on this issue, as some Member States and other stakeholders requested a
definition of soil health at EU level, while others (e.g., representatives of industry) requested it at
Member States level. Specifying some mandatory ranges for soil health parameters while allowing
additional flexibility for Member States reflects these views to a large extent. The designation of
soil district is delegated to the Member States, which was fully supported by all types of
stakeholders who commented on this issue.
Block 2: monitoring – option 3
In the preferred option, the Member States have the obligation to monitor and assess soil health
and net land take.
The soil health descriptors will be measured in soil samples taken in the field using a set of
measurements based on LUCAS Soil. This would integrate the national and LUCAS Soil systems,
allowing to reduce the overall number of soil sampling needed. LUCAS Soil, operated by the
Commission, would remain part of the soil monitoring system for the Member States willing to use
these services, together with remote sensing monitoring and modelling.
The use of transfer functions to LUCAS Soil is part of the flexibility included in the preferred
option; it will allow the Member States to integrate their measurement with LUCAS Soil when they
decide to maintain their own methodologies. Furthermore, the frequency of measurement is set at
65
minimum 5 years, and the Member States can decide whether data will be collected in one
measurement campaign or on a rolling sampling plan. They can also decide whether the location of
the grid points are fixed or not and the grid can be adapted when a sampling point is not accessible
or no longer relevant objectively, so that the identified degradation continues to be monitored.
Net land take and soil sealing indicators will be measured by Member States based on data and
information available EU and national level.
This option integrates a clear obligation to make the monitoring data publicly available, in line
with the data protection rules. Soil assessment data is environmental information and should be
publicly available to all citizens under the Aarhus Regulation and the INSPIRE Directive, but this
is not always the case. This will also address the asymmetry of information between the landowners
and buyers, which has been identified as one of the drivers of the problem of soil degradation.
The obligation to monitor and assess soil health and net land take would start during stage 1.
Coherence of this preferred option with other EU initiatives
The soil health measurements will be spatially explicit, which will allow them to be used in forest
monitoring, for water and air monitoring. SOC measurements performed following option 3 will
represent a common solution for the monitoring of the achievement of relevant NRL and LULUCF
targets, translating into synergies and consistency.
Member States will be able to analyse and use soil spatially explicit data to define the appropriate
restoration actions needed (complementary to those already planned in other initiatives); in this
process they will take advantage to include in the analysis as well any spatially explicit data coming
for example from forest, water and air monitoring.
The preferred option for BB2 largely corresponds to the views of those Member States and other
stakeholders who submitted feedback (Annex 9 3.2.6). Member States generally support an
obligation for regular long-term monitoring and most of them prefer harmonised minimum
requirements at EU level. It also reflects stakeholder’s requests that a harmonised approach should
sufficiently consider both Member States individual monitoring systems, the integration of LUCAS
soil, and avoid duplication with other monitoring requirements.
Block 3: sustainable soil management – option 3
Member States will be subject to an obligation to take appropriate action to use soil sustainably
while respecting some common general principles for sustainable soil management.
Some existing initiatives, such as the LULUCF Regulation, or the Soil, Biodiversity, Farm to Fork
and EU Forest Strategies, indicate or promote sustainable soil practices. Additionally, some
policies, such as the Common Agricultural Policy, the Nitrates Directive, the Sustainable Use of
Pesticides Directive (currently under revision),83
are more prescriptive for some elements and
incentivise some relevant practices. However, they cover only a limited range of soil threats, target
a subset of soils, and are not sufficient to achieve overall soil health. The preferred option on the
other hand will take these aspects into consideration, to ensure coherence and synergies, and to
minimise additional costs and burden.
In this context, the preferred option will set out a list of common general principles of
sustainable soil management that will guide soil management practices at national level. They
83
Commission proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the sustainable use of plant protection
products and amending Regulation (EU) 2021/2115, COM/2022/305 final
66
will be science-based principles and will target all types of soil degradation, such as reducing soil
compaction and increasing soil biodiversity and will allow Member States to take into account
their specific local, climatic and socio-economic conditions.
These common principles must be translated into specific practices by the Member States.
The Commission would assist the process with advice and guidelines.84
Member States will choose
the form in which they will implement these principles and practices in their soil districts, and they
may rely for their implementation on other instruments, such as financial support for voluntary
measures under the CAP and national funding schemes for agriculture, forestry and urban areas.
Sustainable soil management practices should start to be put in place in stage 1, after sufficient time
is given to prepare them (four years after the adoption of this initiative), in parallel with the setting
up of the monitoring network to the extent that they do not depend on the results of this assessment
of soils. The measures that require substantial adjustment or depend on the assessment of soils can
be left to stage 2. This approach will provide Member States and subsequently individual soil
managers with sufficient flexibility in selecting further sustainable soil management practices to
suit local conditions. In stage 2 it will also be possible for Member States to assess whether the
soils are further deteriorating and, where necessary, to take further adequate measures to ensure, as
far as possible, that the principle of non-deterioration of the soils is respected.
This option therefore ensures a fair balance between ensuring healthy soils by 2050 and allowing
sufficient flexibility at national level.
The preferred option for BB3 is fully consistent with the views of Member States and other
stakeholders who submitted feedback (Annex 9 4.2.6). All types of stakeholders support an
obligation to sustainable soil use. Many Member States, but also farmers, representatives of
industry, and research and academia were calling for flexibility to adapt sustainable soil
management practices to local conditions. The preferred option provides sufficient flexibility for
Member States to decide on mandatory and voluntary practices according to their needs, while
providing guidance to Member States, as requested by some stakeholders, by specifying general
principles of sustainable soil management in the law.
Block 4: identification, registration, investigation and assessment of (potentially)
contaminated sites – option 3
In the preferred option, Member States must put in place a systematic approach using the
available information to identify, register, investigate and assess the risk of contaminated sites
on their territory. This process starts with the registration of potentially contaminated sites that
have an increased risk or suspicion of soil contamination. The identification of the potentially
contaminated sites should start in stage 1 and all potentially contaminated sites should be identified
and registered at the end of stage 1. Subsequently, the presence of soil contamination on these
sites needs to be confirmed through soil investigation and sampling. The conditions that trigger
registration as a potentially contaminated site and that require a soil investigation, must be defined
by Member States. This preferred option does not prescribe these conditions because several
countries already have different trigger points in place, making it difficult to harmonise at EU
level.85
84
Findings from the EU “A Soil Deal for Europe” Mission’s living labs will be relevant in this respect.
85
Triggers that are applied in some Member States and that require confirmation of the absence or presence of contamination are:
operation in the past or present of potentially contaminating risk activities beyond the IED scope, land use changes, building permits,
excavation activities, one-off obligation for historical risk activities that are no longer active (e.g. after systematic historical
research), transfer or selling of land with risk activities, suspicion or notification of contamination (e.g. in case of accidents,
flooding, odours, spills, etc.), contractual civil agreements between buyer and seller, mortgage by a bank.
67
In the past, the Commission has already confirmed it is in favour of a risk-based approach for
contaminated sites,86
which means that an assessment of the risks for human health and the
environment of the present concentrations should decide on the need for further action. This allows
to apply a site-specific approach that takes into account local conditions and the specificities of the
contamination source, the pathways and receptors. All Member States need to have in place
national risk assessment procedures and methodologies, knowing that most of them already
apply such an approach. Member States can decide on the level of risk they find acceptable that
humans and the environment can be exposed to from the current and planned use of the location
taking into account the precautionary principle. Unacceptable risks could result from contaminated
sites that cause:
 chronic or acute adverse impacts for human health or demonstrated nuisance (e.g. smells, skin
irritation, etc.);
 harm for biodiversity (e.g., protected species), disturbance of ecological functions,
bioaccumulation or biomagnification;
 spreading of contamination through groundwater.
Sites with unacceptable risks require further action and risk management under building
block 5. This is the most appropriate way to fill the gaps that exist at EU and Member State level
and at the same time to avoid too much conflict or interference with existing policies that some
Member States have already put in place. However, to ensure some basic consistency and
transparency across the EU, building on option 3, the preferred opinion will set out some
common general principles for risk assessment: e.g., a site-specific risk assessment always starts
with the identification and characterisation of the scope, then an analysis of the hazard level and
toxicity, of exposure, and then to conclude with an evaluation of the risks. If needed, these
principles could be further refined through a delegated act and a guidance document on risk
assessment could be established by the Commission if needed. This would allow to involve
scientists and experts and to build further on work done in several EU projects. The EU could also
take up a coordinating role in the facilitation or exchange of knowledge between Member States,
e.g. information on the fate and behaviour of certain contaminants, a repository or toolbox for risk
assessment tools or models.
The potentially contaminated sites, contaminated sites, and contaminated sites requiring
further action should be kept in a register that should be publicly available, which allows to
track progress over time and to prioritise further action. The register should be regularly updated
and reflect as much as possible also historical information, e.g. sites that have been remediated.
Maximum transparency should be ensured: this information should be easily available online in a
spatially explicit format, as this is already the case in some Member States. Information on the
health and contamination of the soil can be considered as “environmental information” and falls
under the scope of Aarhus Convention and the Environmental Information Directive.
Environmental information should be made publicly available with the necessary exceptions to
comply with General Data Protection Regulation and the relevant Union law.
The preferred option for BB4 is fully consistent with the views of Member States and other
stakeholders who submitted feedback (Annex 9 5.2.7). Member States generally agreed on being
responsible for identifying and registering contaminated sites, and all stakeholder types agreed this
should be done based on a risk-based approach. Member States also support the public availability
of the generated data if privacy rights will be assured, as it is foreseen under so preferred option.
Block 5: soil restoration (option 3) and remediation (option 2)
86
E.g. in the EU Soil Strategy, the 7th
Environment Action Programme or the Zero Pollution Action Plan (the zero pollution
ambition refers to risks for human health and the environment)
68
In the preferred option, the Member States would be bound to achieve the objective that by
2050 soil ecosystems should be in healthy condition, where technically possible and
economically proportionate to do so.
This obligation translates, for each soil degradation, in complying with the criteria presented in
Table 7-1Table 7-1 together with the rationale for the target’s realistic achievement and
proportionality (see table 2.9 in Annex 11). As explained under block 1, the way the criteria are set
for each of the descriptors amount to a realistic objective for 2050, with gradual milestones as
possible and needed, reflecting the level of the knowledge of soils in the EU and the capacity to
take measures to meet this objective.
Achieving the objective gradually and with a final target by 2050 requires the application of
sustainable soil management and restoration practices to actively or passively assist the recovery of
the soil ecosystem towards a healthy state, according to the soil health definition set in the building
block 1. However, the measures under this building block, in particular the restoration and
remediation measures require first the results of the assessment of soils (block 2) and good
preparation since unhealthy and contaminated soils need to be brought in line with the criteria of
the descriptors. Therefore, they should be implemented in stage 2, Member States being allowed
flexibility in further staggering these measures for the transition to healthy soils.
Prioritisation of restoration, remediation and risk management actions to achieve the 2050 targets
would be left to the Member States, to allow for sufficient flexibility and subsidiarity and to take
the different local and budgetary conditions into account (no option 4). Option 2 does not include
an obligation to take measures under this block, however it is considered ineffective as attaining the
objective requires good preparation and measures. Such an approach also limits the capacity of
stakeholders and authorities, including of the Commission, to measure the distance to target and
adapt accordingly. That is why, similar to other EU legislation,87
Member States would have to
adopt measures to achieve the objectives of the Directive, which for coherence and transparency
will need to be grouped within some programs of measures. The alternative would be to set some
intermediate targets, however this would require prioritizing certain measures or objectives, which
would be difficult at this stage given the limited knowledge on the condition of soils. Nevertheless,
the choice and form of the programme of measures is left to the Member States, but they should
include some minimal elements: the outcome of the monitoring and assessment of soil health, an
analysis of the pressures on soil health, including from climate change, and the actual measures.
Member States can also choose the administrative level for the programmes provided that all the
soil districts of the country are covered. Although some minimum general content would apply for
the programmes of measures (option 3), full harmonisation is not deemed appropriate because it
would leave no flexibility to adapt to the local situation (no option 4). The programs can rely on
measures included in other instruments, without repeating them. In fact such synergies are
encouraged.
Exemptions from the restoration obligations would apply to unhealthy soils where restoration is
technically not feasible, disproportionately expensive, or not desirable. Such cases could be, but are
not limited to:
 soils that are heavily modified (e.g. sealed soils, mines);
 soils in natural condition that do not meet the values for soil health, but that represent
specific habitats for biodiversity or landscape features (e.g. naturally saline soils, badlands).
Flexibility would be left to Member States to decide what is technically infeasible or
disproportionately expensive. The decision on the derogation would be left to the Member States
87
River Basin Management Plans, Nature Restoration Plans, Air Quality Plans, Marine Strategies, CAP Strategic Plans, etc.
69
and their competent authorities and would not require the endorsement of the Commission.
However, the exemption from the restoration obligations would need to respect certain conditions
such as the need to establish a less stringent objective, to set out the reasons for the derogations and
the justification of the less stringent objective in the programme of measures (which will be subject
to consultation of the public before its adoption and access to justice). In addition, in case of soil
contamination, Member States would still be obliged to take the necessary measures to ensure that
the contamination does not pose unacceptable risks for human health and the environment. The
examination of the implementation of the derogations by the Member States should be part of the
evaluation of the SHL to be carried out by the Commission.
As regards diffuse contamination and contaminated sites the zero pollution ambition88
applies,
namely that by 2050 soil contamination should be reduced to acceptable risk levels for human
health and the environment. This concept brings in the risk dimension for soil contamination, as
defined, identified and assessed under building blocks 1 and 4. Risk-based actions that ensure
contaminated sites no longer pose an unacceptable risk, are called risk reduction or risk
management measures which may include remediation (= reducing or removing soil contamination)
but also isolation or containment of the contamination, use restrictions or safety measures, that
break the source-pathway-receptor chain, but do not necessarily remove or reduce the contaminant
load. Remediation is considered as a form of soil restoration.
The approach to manage unacceptable risks from contaminated sites based on the
identification, registration, investigation and assessment in building block 4, is part of this
building block 5, and should be addressed in the programme of measures. All available risk
management or risk reduction measures are allowed to keep the risks below acceptable levels
(option 2). In case of unacceptable risks, Member States are obliged to manage and reduce the
risks, but not necessarily through remediation of the contamination (no option 3). In line with a
risk-based approach, reducing the risk from the current or planned land use for human health and
the environment is not only possible by addressing the contamination source but also by breaking
the source-pathway-receptor chain.
The programmes of measures should be adopted by a certain date (at the beginning of stage two,
after the assessment of soils) and revised periodically at least after each monitoring cycle (every
five 5-6 years) depending on the conclusions of the assessment. In their programmes, Member
States need to define their pathway towards the achievement of the 2050 targets. The programmes
will need to be subject to adequate public consultation before adoption and be made public. The
Commission will check progress on a periodic basis, including by using data and monitoring
gathered and analysed by the Joint Research Centre and the European Environment Agency.
Guidelines or support would be developed by the Commission as needed. The development of the
programme of measures, stakeholder feedback and review of implementation are instrumental in
ensuring ownership, engagement, and implementation by the Member States.
The programme of measures should be synergetic to relevant plans required by other EU
legislation, e.g. the Common Agricultural Policy, the Nitrates Directive, the NEC Directive, the
LULUCF decision, the Regulation on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action,
and the proposed Nature Restoration Regulation. The following table gives a brief overview of
these plans and the synergies with the programmes of measures under the SHL initiative.
The preferred option for BB5 is largely consistent with the views of Member States and other
stakeholders who submitted feedback. Member States and other types of stakeholders generally
support an EU obligation to restore unhealthy soils by 2050, even though landowners expressed
that derogations should be possible for degraded soils. The adoption of a program of measures is
88
Cfr. EU Action Plan: ‘Towards Zero Pollution for Air, Water and Soil, COM/2021/400 final
70
generally supported, but especially some Member States and representatives of industry
emphasized the need for flexible approach on this, which is foreseen under the preferred option
(cfr. Annex 9 section 5.2.7).
71
Table 7-2: brief overview of plans required under other EU legislation and synergies with the programmes of measures under the SHL initiative.
(Future) nature restoration
plans
CAP Strategic
plans
River Basin management
plans (RBMP)/
Programme of measures
(PoM)
Nitrates action
programmes
National air pollution
control programmes
(NACP)
Integrated national
energy and climate
plan
Information on LULUCF actions
Legal basis
Proposal Nature Restoration
Regulation
Regulation (EU)
2021/2115
establishing rules on
support for strategic
plans to be drawn up
by MS under the
CAP
Articles 13 and 11 of
Directive 2000/60/EC
Water Framework
Directive
Article 4 of Directive
91/676/EEC
Art 6 of Directive (EU)
2016/2284
Articles 3 to 9 of
Regulation (EU)
2018/1999
Art 10 of Decision No 529/2013/EU of
the European Parliament and of the
Council of 21 May 2013 on accounting
rules on greenhouse gas emissions and
removals resulting from activities
relating to land use, land-use change and
forestry and on information concerning
actions relating to those activities
Coverage
(national/loc
al)
National plan National plan
One PoM and one RBMP
per river basin districts
(whole territory to be
covered)
1 or several action
programmes covering
all vulnerable zones
National plan National plan National plan
Objective
and Content
(relevance
for soi)
Restoration plans
quantification of the areas to
be restored to reach the
restoration targets
description of the restoration
measures planned, put in
place and timing
indication of the measures to
ensure no deterioration
the monitoring; process for
assessing the effectiveness of
the measures
estimated co-benefits
the estimated financing needs
Strategic plans set
targets, specify
conditions for
interventions and
allocate financial
resources under the
CAP, according to
the specific
objectives and
identified needs.
CAP Strategic plans
set
national standard for
each of the GAEC,
taking into account
the specific
characteristics of the
area concerned,
including soil and
climatic conditions,
existing farming
conditions, farming
practices, farm size
and farm structures,
land use, and the
specificities of
outermost regions.
RBMP:
Description of the basin,
identification of pressures,
summary of measures,
objectives per water body
(and derogations)
PoM:
Aims to achieve the
objectives of the WFD i.e
no deterioration and good
status of water bodies.
PoM includes:
-basic" measures
(including measures under
other EU environmental
legislation and measures to
control/prevent pollution)
- "supplementary"
measures to achieve the
objectives such as :
 codes of good
practice
 recreation and
restoration of
wetlands areas
Mandatory measures
for the purpose of
realizing the
directive’s objectives
i.e. reducing water
pollution caused or
induced by nitrates
from agricultural
sources and
preventing further
such pollution
Some measures relate
to: periods when the
land application of
fertilizer is
inappropriate;
the land application of
fertilizer to steeply
sloping ground and to
water-saturated,
flooded, frozen or
snow-covered ground;
the conditions for land
application of fertilizer
near water courses;
land use management,
including the use of
Programme to limit annual
anthropogenic emissions
and to contribute to the
directive’s objective i.e. to
achieve levels of air
quality that do not give
rise to significant negative
impacts on and
risks to human health and
the environment
Policy context, policy
options, measures
considered to meet
emissions reduction
+ specific measures for
agriculture sector to
control ammonia emission
and emissions of fine
particulate matter and
black carbon such as
national advisory code of
good agricultural practice;
ban open field burning of
agricultural harvest residue
and waste and forest
Part of the overall
governance of the
Energy Union and
Climate Action
Plan sets objectives,
targets and contributions
to the objectives of the 5
dimensions (one being
decarbonisation) of the
Energy union);
description of measures;
description of the
situation.
Plan contains
information on GHG
emissions and removals
related indicators
GHG emissions by
policy sector (EU ETS,
effort sharing and
LULUCF)
Non-CO2 emission
related parameters
Nitrogen in crop residues
Information on actions to limit or reduce
emissions and maintain or increase
removals of greenhouse gases
including:
- trends, projections and
analysis
- list of measures intended or
implemented, expected
results and timetable for
implementation
The LULUCF decision gives a list of
indicative measures which are relevant
for SHL, i.e measures related to
 cropland management,
 grazing land management and
pasture improvement,
management of agricultural
organic soils,
 prevent drainage and to
incentivise rewetting of
wetlands; restoration of
degraded lands,
 forestry activities,
 preventing deforestation
72
 promotion of
adapted
agricultural
production such
as low water
requiring crops
in areas affected
by drought
 water-saving
irrigation
techniques
crop rotation systems
and the proportion of
the land area devoted
to permanent crops
relative to
annual tillage crops;
the maintenance of a
minimum quantity of
vegetation cover
residue. returned to soils;
Area of cultivated
organic soils
Frequency
of
submission
Every 6 years
Covers the MFF ;
amendments
possible; review if
regulation is
modified
Every 6 years Every 4 years Every 4 years
10 years with update
every 5 years (or
justification not to
update)
18 months after beginning of each
accounting period (2013-2020; 2021-
2025; 2026-2030)
Involvement
of EC in
approval/rev
iew process
Draft plan to be sent to EC
for assessment
EC may sent observations to
MS within 6 months
MS to take into account the
observations
MS to adopt and publish
within 6 months after receipt
of the observations
Draft plan sent to
EC
EC to assess the
plan and approve it
(if need be after
modification by MS
to take into account
COM’s assessment)
Adopted plans to be sent to
EC
Interim report to be sent 3
years after publication of
RBMP on implementation
of PoM
(Revised) action
programmes to be sent
to EC
Adopted plans to be sent to
EC
Draft plan to be sent to
EC
EC to assess draft plan
and may issue country-
specific
recommendations to MS.
MS shall take due
account of any
recommendations.
Information to be sent to EC
EC may, in consultation with the MS,
synthesise its findings from all MS’
information on LULUCF actions with a
view to facilitating the exchange of
knowledge and best practices among
MS.
Synergies
with Soil
Health
programmes
of measures
Carbon in organic soils:
healthy soil criteria on SOC
in SHL will be considered
achieved if NRL targets are
met. No overlap, just
reference.
Carbon in mineral soils:
measures in restoration plans
on SOC in cropland mineral
soils and in forest ecosystems
to be assessed if adequate
and sufficient) when
preparing SHL plans to reach
SOC criteria under SHL.
Salinisation/ excess of
nutrients: Impacts of NRL
measures to attain targets on
water ecosystems to be
assessed against
salinisation/excess of
nutrients.
For agricultural
soils: Measures
implementing
GAEC 2,5,6,7 &8 in
CAP strategic plans
may correspond to
SSM and restoration
practices under SH
plans. SH plans
would need to assess
to which extent
these measures are
sufficient to address
the relevant
degradations, for the
lands/farmers where
these GAEC
measures are
applied.
For erosion, compaction,
water retention:
Information on
groundwater status in
RBMP/ pressures relevant
for defining measures in
SHL.
Measures contained in
PoM may also contribute
to prevent soil degradation
(e.g. erosion, compaction,
water retention as well as
diffuse contamination).
Conversely reduced
pressures on soils targeted
by SHL may improve
water status.
For (mainly) erosion
and excess of
nutrients): SH plans
covering unhealthy
soils located in
vulnerable zones
would take into
account the impact of
measures of the nitrate
action programmes
(e.g crop rotation).
Excess of nutrients and
acidification: . NACP
measures aim to limit
ammonia emissions and
eutrophication is to be
monitored (hence acting on
excess of nutrients). SHL
plans will identify areas
where soils are facing
acidification and excess of
nutrients. SH plans would
need to assess to the
possible contributions of
the measures taken under
NACP to meet the target
on nutrients.
,
Measures identified in
climate and NRG and
climate plans may
concern soil and soil,
soil use and soil
management (e.g. on
carbon storage in soils).
SHL and SH plans will
help to quantify impacts
of measures, identify
areas where there is a
need for action. In
addition, some measures
in SH plans addressing
some other degradation
(e.g erosion) may also be
beneficial for increase of
SOC and hence
contribute to NRG and
climate targets.
Synergies possible regarding content of
soil organic carbon (SOC).
SH plans covering would take into
account measures reported under
LULUCF actions and specify where they
need to apply (‘unhealthy soils’).
Measures included in SHL plans may
contribute to reach the LULUCF
objectives
Information on assessment of SOC level
in SHL plans may further help to
describe potential of further removals of
greenhouses gases.
73
7.1.1 Timeline for implementation
The implementation of the obligations of the preferred options from the five building blocks
would follow a 2-staged approach. The indicative timeline (assuming an adoption by the co-
legislators of the proposed initiative in 2025) is summarized in the following scheme:
Figure 7-1: Timeline for implementation
In stage 1, a period of two years would be given after the expiration of the transposition deadline
to Member States to put in place soil districts and to establish the competent authorities (BB1)
who will carry out the obligations laid down in the initiative. The monitoring and assessment of
soil health (BB2) and the implementation of sustainable soil management (BB3) would also start
during stage 1. The identification of potentially contaminated sites (BB4) would take place
during stage 1 with the obligation to have all potentially contaminated sites registered at the end
of stage 1.
In stage 2, the obligation to restore unhealthy soils (BB5) would start and Member States would
have the obligation to establish and implement restoration measures based on the results of the
soil health monitoring and assessment.
7.1.2 Expected effects of the preferred option on stakeholders
The following set of actions serve as a basis of measures that may be needed, targeted and
feasible to address the different causes of soil degradation, based on scientific evidence. In
general, these measures can serve either as sustainable soil management practices or even for
Stage I
Stage II
2025
adoption
2027
transposition
2029
governance in place
SSM starts
monitoring starts
2031
results monitoring +
measures for
unhealthy soils
2032
restoration
measures to
start
2037 - results of
the 2nd
monitoring
2038
assessment +
reports MS
2040
COM report -
evaluation of the
SHL
2041/2042
adjustments/revi
sion if necessary
2050
healthy soil
ecosystems
74
restoration purposes, depending on how they are used and always depending on the initial
condition of the soil in question. This set of measures will be further developed for use in the
context of the Soil Health Law through discussions and exchanges with relevant experts. It
serves as a starting point to better estimate and indicate the expected effects of the preferred
options on different stakeholders. This list of measures can be extended, as the scientific
literature and a multitude of research projects already point to a large number of practices that
can be designated as sustainable management and/or restoration practices (estimated at about at
least 200 different practices), but whose applicability and suitability for different types of soils
and land uses need to be confirmed. This already shows that both Member States and individual
soil managers can potentially benefit from a wide range of measures, with sufficient flexibility to
adapt practices to local, climatic and economic circumstances and needs, while ensuring
sustainable soil management. Due to the voluntary nature of the respective practices and the
great flexibility in their application and implementation, conflicts with existing policies and
initiatives, such as the Common Agricultural Policy for agricultural soils, are not expected. Many
are in use or have been tested in practice. Instead, synergies can be harnessed and help to make
the best use of available incentives and funding to enable the necessary transformation to
sustainable management.
75
Table 7-3: Potential actions to sustainably manage and / or restore soils, per type of degradation
Aspects of soil
degradation
Actions to sustainably manage and restore
Agriculture Forest Urban
Loss of soil organic
carbon in mineral
soils
 Crop rotation
 Intercropping
 Incorporation of plant residues into the soil
 Balanced use of organic fertilisers (ensuring that
total fertiliser inputs follow the concept of
balanced fertilisation) esp. on arable soils
 Ban on burning plant residues
 No / reduced physical soil disturbance (no-till,
minimum-tillage, strip-tillage, conservation
tillage)
 Livestock grazing in low to moderate intensity
 Vegetative soil cover to avoid bare soils or
mulching
 Conversion of arable land to grassland in areas of
high risk for erosion
 Agroforestry and establishment of hedges or
landscape features
 No / reduced physical soil disturbance
 Avoid burning tree / plant residues
 Site-specific harvesting methods and
harvesting frequency
 Soil cover with vegetation
 Forest residue management
considering the site-specific
conditions
 Avoid clear cutting
 Mulching after forest fires or clear
cutting, or similar site-preparations
ensuring soil cover
 No / reduced physical soil disturbance
 Ban on burning plant residues
 Storing and preserving litterfall, plant
residues and lawn cuttings in parks
and gardens
 Application of compost
 Establishment and maintenance of
permanent vegetation cover in public
parks and gardens
 Planting of trees and hedges
Loss of soil organic
carbon in organic
soils
 Protection of wetlands from draining and
conversion to other uses [under NRL]
 Rewetting of peatlands [under NRL]
 Raising water levels
 No / reduced physical soil disturbance (no-till,
minimum-tillage, strip-tillage, conservation
tillage)
 No extraction of peat on agricultural soils
 Paludiculture [under NRL]
 No / reduced physical soil disturbance
 Protection of wetlands from draining
and conversion to other uses [under
NRL]
 No further drainage of wetland and
peatlands / maintenance of high /
optimal water levels
 No extraction of peat on forest soils
 Rewetting
 No / reduced physical soil disturbance
 Protection of wetlands / Rewetting if
applicable in urban areas
 No further drainage of wetland and
peatlands / maintenance of high water
levels
 No extraction of peat on urban soils
Excess nutrient
content
 Application of fertilizer following an area based
nutrient management plan
 Application of soil nutrient testing for optimised
 Avoid clear cutting
 Mulching after forest fires or clear
cutting and similar site-preparation
 Vegetative soil cover to avoid bare
soils (excl. mulching or stubble
retention, alive vegetation only)
76
fertilizer management
 Crop rotation
 Cultivation of catch or n-fixing crops
 Cultivation of leguminous crops
 Undersowing and intercropping
 Vegetative soil cover to avoid bare soils (excl.
mulching or stubble retention, alive vegetation
only)
 Growing deep-rooting perennial species to take up
nitrogen from greater depths
techniques that ensure soil cover
Acidification
 No application of acidifying fertilisers
 Vegetative soil cover and leaving plant residues
on the soil
 Application of soil amendments (e.g. lime,
dolomite)
 Application of alkaline stabilized biosolids, e.g.
rice husks, animal manure, wood ashes, etc.
 Avoid clear cutting
 Mulching after forest fires
 No application of acidifying
fertilisers
 Application of soil amendments (e.g.
lime, dolomite)
 Application of alkaline stabilized
biosolids, e.g. rice husks, animal
manure, wood ashes, etc.
 Liming based on the scale of
acidification
 No application of acidifying
fertilisers
 Application of soil amendments (e.g.
lime, dolomite)
 Application of alkaline stabilized
biosolids, e.g. rice husks, animal
manure, wood ashes, etc.
Erosion
 Vegetative soil cover and residue management to
avoid bare soils throughout the year
 No tillage on frozen, water-saturated, flooded or
snow-covered soils
 Ban on burning plant residues
 Application of undersowing in crops with higher
risk of erosion (e.g. maize, sugar beet)
 No / reduced physical soil disturbance (no-till /
direct seeding, minimum-tillage, strip-tillage,
conservation tillage, no tillage or ploughing in
sensitive period over winter months)
 Establishment and maintenance of (permanent)
grassland in risk areas for erosion
 Cross slope barriers, such as grass or vegetative
strips or contour bands
 Reduced and site-specific harvesting
and logging
 Mulching after forest fires
 Avoid clear cutting
 Avoid burning tree / plant residues
 Avoid building terraces and creation
of other edge-effects
 Small water retention infrastructure
(ponds, leaky dams)
 Quick reforestation after harvesting
or calamities, quick restore the soil
cover with suitable tree or shrub
species, which could play also
nursing role for the new forest
 Vegetative soil cover and residue
management to avoid bare soils
 No /reduced physical soil disturbance
 No physical soil disturbance on
frozen, water-saturated, flooded or
snow-covered soils
 Ban on burning plant residues
 Establishment and maintenance of
permanent grass cover in public parks
and gardens
77
 Low intensity grazing management
 Transformation of arable land into permanent
grassland
 Reducing the size of individual fields
Compaction
 Compulsory training to understand the risk for soil
compaction and prevention measures
 Avoid use of heavy machinery in wet periods /
under wet conditions (especially flooded or
waterlogged soil)
 Reduce tyre pressure
 Application of bio-subsoiling, such as cultivation
of deep rooting crops
 Use of tracked vehicles on sensitive soils
 Controlled traffic farming
 Increased training to understand the
risk for soil compaction and
prevention measures
 Avoid use of heavy machinery in wet
periods / under wet conditions
(especially flooded or waterlogged
soil)
 Reduce tyre pressure
 Use of slash and brush mats
 Use of skidding trails
 Application of bio-subsoiling, such as
cultivation of deep rooting trees
 Use only tracked vehicles on sensitive
soils
 Limited traffic and harvest paths for
machinery (ensure the optimal level
of access network, including harvest
paths, skidding trails and forest roads,
so machinery only uses the dedicated
paths or roads)
 Avoid use of heavy machinery in wet
periods
 Reduce tyre pressure
 Limited paths and access to certain
areas in parks and public gardens
 Application of bio-subsoiling, such as
cultivation of deep rooting plants
 Use only tracked vehicles on sensitive
soils
Contamination
 Integrated pest management (combining crop
rotation, resistant varieties, landscape features,
monitoring and risk assessment, mechanical and
biocontrol measures)
 Reduce the use of chemical pesticides, e.g. by
using precision farming techniques, eliminate the
use of most hazardous pesticides
 Use of mechanical weeding techniques
 Avoid the use of sludge and mineral fertilizers
 Replace plastic mulching with biodegradable
mulches
 Prohibit the use of slow-release fertilizers coated
 Integrated pest management
 Reduce the use of chemical
pesticides, eliminate the use of most
hazardous chemical pesticides
 If irrigation is used, avoid use of low
quality / non-purified wastewater for
irrigation / regularly test water quality
 Testing and monitoring water quality
for irrigation
 Plant selection for contaminant
uptake (e.g. phytoremediation)
 Eliminate the use of chemical
pesticides
 Application of best available
techniques to prevent releases of
contaminants to soil
 Identification, investigation,
registration, and risk assessment of
contaminated sites
 In-situ and ex-situ physical, chemical
or biological remediation
 Land use restrictions for activities
which are potential sources of
contamination
78
with microplastic
 If irrigation is used, avoid the use of recycled
wastewater for irrigation / regularly test water
quality
 Testing and monitoring water quality for irrigation
 Remediation of contaminated soil (e.g.
phytoremediation)
 If irrigation is used, avoid use of
recycled water for irrigation
 Testing and monitoring water quality
for irrigation
 Circular use of excavated soil with
clear minimum standards regarding
contamination levels
Secondary
salinization
 Avoiding irrigation and if irrigation is used, no
use of recycled wastewater for irrigation, or saline
or brackish water; at the same time, continually
test and monitor water quality for irrigation
 Mechanical removal of salt crusts
 Drainage or leaching of salts
 Soil amendments
 No extraction from aquifers at risk of salination
from sea water
 Permanent vegetative soil cover
 Sustainable crop selection and rotation
(cultivation of salt-tolerant species, or crops with
the ability to eliminate salt from soils, thus
supporting soil recovery, such as halophytic plants
(e. g. Salicornia))
 Top soil replacement for restoration
 Cultivation of deep rooting crops for biological
restoration
 Replanting and afforestation with
multipurpose and salt tolerant tree
species
 Testing and monitoring water quality
for irrigation
 If irrigation is used, avoid use of
recycled water for irrigation
 No extraction from aquifers at risk of
salination from sea water
 Testing and monitoring water quality
for irrigation
 If irrigation is used, avoid use of
recycled water for irrigation
 Planting of adapted and salt tolerant
tree and plant species
 No extraction from aquifers at risk of
salination from sea water
Desertification
 Vegetative soil cover to avoid bare soils
 Increase of soil organic matter (see above)
 Mulching after forest fires
 Sustainable water management
 afforestation or reforestation with
appropriate technique if there is
available deep layer water (e.g. deep
drilling planting for poplar)
 Reforestation with adapted tree
species
 Vegetative soil cover to avoid bare
soils
 Increase of soil organic matter (see
above)
Water retention
 All measures that contribute to maintaining and
increasing soil organic carbon (see above)
 Afforestation with increased and
appropriate tree species diversity
 Vegetative soil cover to avoid bare
soils
79
 Conversion to agroforestry systems to increase
water retention and reduce maximum
temperatures in the microclimate
 Site specific forest cover to reduce
surface run-off
 Areas dedicated to water infiltration
 Appropriate scale of water
engineering interventions,
infrastructure, slowing down or
mitigate the run-off
 Mulching
 Incorporation of compost and plant
residues
 Replace impervious surfaces with
semi-impervious surfaces
 Solutions to allow water retention and
infiltration in sealed areas (green
roofs, underground water storage
basins, etc.)
 Planting of trees to cool temperature
and reduce evapotranspiration
Loss of soil
biodiversity
 Crop rotation
 Vegetative soil cover to avoid bare soils
 Land lying fallow, non-productive strips
 No / reduced physical soil disturbance
 No / reduced application of mineral fertilizers
 Reduce or eliminate the use of pesticides,
especially the most hazardous chemical pesticides
 Avoid large areas of monoculture on landscape
level
 Avoid conversion or ploughing of grassland
 Establishment of field margin strips and landscape
features
 Planting of multipurpose tree species
 Enhanced use of natural regeneration
of forests
 No / reduced physical soil disturbance
 No / reduced application of mineral
fertilizers
 Reduce or eliminate use of pesticides,
especially the most hazardous
chemical pesticides
 Avoid clear cutting
 Minimize monoculture
 No or limited removal of deadwood
 Limited traffic and harvest paths for
machinery
 Vegetative soil cover to avoid bare
soils
 No / reduced physical soil disturbance
 No / reduced application of mineral
fertilizers
 Reduce or eliminate use of pesticides
 Land lying fallow / establishment of
undisturbed areas
 Animal grazing with low stocking
density instead of machine mowing of
grass
 Establishment of wild / native
vegetation and landscape features
Sealing and land
take
 Ensure permeability and water
infiltration of urban grounds
 Urban green infrastructure and green
roofs
 De-sealing and renaturation
 Brownfield and land redevelopment
 Sustainable land use planning and
densification
80
Together with the other elements described under the different building blocks, the above list of actions for a sustainable use and
restoration / remediation of soils leads to the following assumptions of what can be the expected impacts on stakeholders, which is
displayed in the Table 7-4 below. When looking at this table it is important to note the following:
- This list aims to give an overview of all potential impacts, for all stakeholder types, during the application timeline of this
initiative, i.e. the next 25 years.
- The obligations for end users, notably soil managers, will phase in gradually, based on the staged approach presented above,
but also depending on the condition of the soil, what is feasible, and the practices already applied. As explained, the national
authorities will be those deciding what practice applies to the various soils. Obviously, the benefits will depend on the
implementation of these measures.
- The administrative obligations for the authorities are more certain, nevertheless in case of well-established systems for soil
monitoring or surveying contaminated land, fewer adaptations are needed.
Table 7-4: Impacts on stakeholders
Stakeholder type Expected impacts of SHL
Costs/obligations related impacts Benefits related impacts
Soil managers
(farmer, forester,
urban green area
manager, etc.)
The actual Impacts for the soil manager will depend on the current
status of knowledge and already implemented soil management
practices. Help, advice and financial support (e.g. loans) to overcome
the short-term costs before the benefits materialise can be expected to be
provided to ensure a just transition.
Impacts depends on the current status of knowledge and already
implemented soil management practices
 Need to evaluate their current soil management practices in the light
of the guidance or requirements established by the authorities once
these are issued - stage 1. Help and advice can be expected to be
provided as needed.
 In case the practices are evaluated as not sustainable there is the need
to adjust as soon as it is feasible the management practices that they
are applying, or transition to new sustainable management practices
(e.g. to enhance the share of soils with vegetative soil cover, reduce
physical soil disturbances, apply more organic fertilizer while
following a balanced fertilisation approach, provide and enhance
higher share of landscape features, ensure proper crop rotation and
avoid large areas of monocultures on landscape level and other
sustainable soil management practices (see indicative list of actions -
 Long-term soil fertility and productivity
 Maintaining or increasing yields on productive soils over the
long-term but also in short term (depending on the measures)
 Access to decontaminated sites, or soils that may otherwise
remain or become degraded by desertification, compaction,
salinisation etc
 Transparency and better decision making on taking agricultural
lands to other uses
 Enhanced availability of possibilities for training and advice due
to obligations on MS to achieve healthy soils (dedicated
authorities and knowledge)
 Knowledge about the health of own soils by regular monitoring
81
(see examples in Table 7-3Error! Not a valid result for table.Error!
Not a valid result for table.)- stage 1. The transition should be realised
in such a way not to compromise the continuity of the soil use
 Need to take training and advice to access to relevant funding and
ensure application of sustainable soil management practices – stage 1
and 2
 Need to take measures to restore unhealthy soils depending on the
situation of soils following the monitoring and assessment, in line with
the guidance or requirements established by the authorities – stage 2.
The restoration should be realised in such a way not to compromise
the continuity of the soil use
 Up-front investment costs (new / different machinery, seed), potential
decrease of quantity of production in the short term (depending on the
measures)
 Potentially increased administrative burden (depending on the manner
of implementation of the SHL by individual Member States);
 Financial support for sustainable soil management practices at
national and EU level
 Discover and access more cost-effective production (e.g.
decreasing use of inputs)
 Access to funding for precision farming techniques if provided
by MS to achieve reduction of fertilizer and pesticide use, e.g.
under Rural Development measures of the CAP
 Increased social and recognition for sustainable management as a
result of increased consumer awareness
 Some of the agricultural products (grapes) depend highly on the
quality of the soil, hence sustainable practices will result in
market recognition as well.
 Cleaner water and air (due to less erosion, contaminants or run-
off nutrients) in the immediate neighbourhood
 More resilience to flooding or drought
 Reduced need for local handling and transfer of sediments
resulting from water erosion
 Increased knowledge and skills transfer and/or exchange across
soil managers on sustainable soil management practices
For the potential of such sustainable soil management measures to offset costs by benefits on short or longer term please see
Landowners Only additional impacts listed here if the landowner is not the land
manager
Only additional impacts listed here if the landowner is not the land
manager
 Allow access to authorities carrying out soil sampling
 Inform land managers of own land about status of soil health
 Ensuring long-term soil fertility and productivity and thus a
stable or increased value of their land
 Solid legal baseline and better data to ensure value of land is not
decreased while land is let out on lease / returned to the
landowner
 Appropriate knowledge-base to inform on land use and possible
change (e.g. from arable land to permanent grassland)
 Increased awareness and recognition for keeping land in a
healthy state and contributing to healthy and functioning
ecosystems
National  Need to ensure compliance with the provisions of the SHL first by  Ensuring long-term soil fertility and productivity and thus
82
authorities transposing it (directive)
 Put the governance system in place: designate soil districts and
authorities
 Set up the monitoring system and assess the situation of soils
 Coming up with guidance or/and rules on sustainable management
practices and in stage 2 restoration measures
 Check compliance and ensure compliance
 Facilitate advice and training on SSM and access to funding
 Inform the main categories of stakeholders on their role and
obligations
 Need to identify and fill in the public registers on contaminated sites
 Need to take measures to reduce what they identify as unacceptable
risks in case of contaminated sites
 Need to provide for training and education of workers working on
sites registered as contaminated
 Increased administrative burden in relation to monitoring activities
(e.g. assessment of the data, determining trends, assessing the
effectiveness of actions taken and identifying needs for additional
action) or to national inventories for contaminated sites (e.g. IT
infrastructure/website);
improve their contribution to economy and food security
 Ensure good knowledge on soils in the country as an informed
basis for high-level decision-making
 Set up favourable premises for SMEs and experts, research,
development and training, in the field of sustainable soil
management
 Ensure contribution of soil to attaining the countries carbon
storage objectives (limiting loss of soil organic carbon,
increasing storage of organic carbon in soils)
 Increased resilience to climate change by better water retention
and erosion management
 Soil data and governance (soil districts) facilitate the
implementation of other initiatives such as the carbon removal
certification
 Remote data sensing developed at EU level would support MSs
in need
Land use planners  Need to consider soil health status and land take hierarchy when
planning new infrastructure, urban and industrial settlements etc.
 Need to seek information about soil functions and how to make best
use of soil functions for society in general
 Better knowledge and awareness about soil health and soil
functions
 Availability of financial support based on incentives to ensure the
general objective of the SHL is achieved
Businesses –
agro-food-
forestry sector
 Need to increase understanding of environmental processes and how
to ensure soil health
 Need to cover (e.g. with pooling over several farms) the short-term
fluctuations in the quantity and quality of supplies related to the
transition of each individual farm to sustainable soil management
practices
 Due to increased consumer awareness of soil health, this may need to
be given greater consideration in the manufacturing and processing of
products and adjusted as necessary
 Ensuring long-term security of supplies (quantity and quality) for
raw products due to soil fertility and quality
 Increased product attractiveness and sales when environmentally
friendly production and marketing strategies convince consumers
 Better understanding and awareness of environmental processes
and importance of soil health
 Increased social and market recognition for sustainable
production as a result of increased consumer awareness,
83
 Possibly adaptation of production and marketing strategies
 Need to support the farmers with training and financing to take up
sustainable soil management practices (this will not be an obligation,
but has already proven to be a win-win)
including better income opportunities for all involved actors
Businesses –
other (depending
on the type and
relationship with
soil management)
 Need to consider soil health status and land take hierarchy when
planning new infrastructure, urban and industrial settlements etc.
 Need to seek information about soil functions and how to make best
use of soil functions for society at large
 Need to follow the principles for land use change and ensure
sustainable soil management, such as ensure permeability and water
infiltration of urban grounds, include sufficient green infrastructure in
urban and industrial areas
 Exploit options of de-sealing and recycling of sealed grounds
 Apply brownfield and land redevelopment
 Need to shift and adjust to products less damaging for soils
 Better understanding and awareness of environmental processes
and importance of soil health
 Increased social recognition for sustainable management as a
result of increased consumer awareness
 Access to restored/remediated land, and hence of higher market
value, in urban areas already equipped with utilities networks
(especially for project developers)
 Business and funding opportunities especially for SMEs on
sustainable soil management, remote sensing etc.
 Increase in business opportunities for businesses / SMEs within
individual Member States carrying out analysis of soil samples as
a result of increased monitoring of soil (e.g. laboratories)
Citizens  No direct obligation or cost  Improved public health, including increased air and water quality
and higher recreational value (especially for those living close to
polluted areas)
 Long-term food security
 Access to information on contaminated sites
 Access to healthier products (less contaminants)
 Higher awareness about importance of soil health, which will
empower them to contribute to a healthier environment by
purchasing sustainable produced food and biomass
 Improved protection can lead to an improved protection of
cultural/natural heritage, human capacity and public health
 Improved landscape and recreational value of soils in the
countryside and in urban areas, leading to improved living
condition (creation of green spaces or recreational areas) and
potential job creation connected to those.
 Job creation related to identification and restoration of
contaminated sites (e.g. environmental consultants, geologists,
84
remediation engineers, lower-skilled workers, trainers, etc.).
While it is currently not possible to give a full indication of quantified costs and benefits for all actions listed under Table 7-4 above,
the table below gives an overview of the quantified costs and benefits for a selection of sustainable management practices for which
data and estimations are available (see Annex 9 for details). It is important to note that: 1) whereas the long-term benefits (appearing
under ‘additional benefits’ in the table) were not quantified for these practices in this study, they are reflected under the costs of
degradation described in chapter 2.1.4 above; 2) the costs/benefits are aggregated at EU level, however in practice they may be used at
a smaller scale (this is left as explained to be decided at national level).
Table 7-5: Impacts of certain sustainable soil management practices
Practice Costs Quantified benefits Additional benefits Potential challenges
Cover crops
 Average total costs of
cover crop
implementation:
262 EUR/ha
 Total costs for
application of cover
crops to all arable
bare soils in Europe:
5.8 billion EUR
 Yield increase in main cereal: 16 %,
equating to an additional value of 8.8
billion EUR at EU level
 Yield increase in potato by 3
tonnes/ha, equating to an additional
value of 767 EUR/ha and an
additional total of 264.5 million EUR
at EU level
 Saving in nitrate fertiliser costs:
52 – 73 EUR/ha, equating to 1.2 – 1.6
billion EUR pa for all bare arable
soils in Europe
 Increased soil nutrient and water
retention
 Improved soil structure and soil
quality
 Reduced risk of erosion, surface run-
off, and diffuse pollution
 Reduced soil compaction
 Reduced biodiversity loss
 Improved soil health, supporting
higher yields
 Rotational conflicts
 Partially increased weed
pressure
Reduced
tillage
 Reduced value from
grain crops due to
reduced yields on EU
level:
12.9 billion EUR pa
 Costs for weed
control: 35-100
EUR/ha
 Reduction of overall operation costs
compared to conventional tillage:
194.40 EUR/ha, equating to savings of
11.9 billion EUR at EU level
 Approximate average saving in
reduced tillage: 116 EUR/ha
 Estimated profit increase: 108 – 123
EUR/ha
 Increase in soil organic carbon
 Improved GHG emission mitigation
 Reduced soil erosion
 Improved soil biodiversity
(earthworms)
 Improved soil health, supporting
higher yields in the medium- to long-
term
 Reduced need for artificial inputs in
 Often initial short-term
decreases in crop yields
(average reduction of 8.6 %)
 Risk of higher need for weed
control
85
the medium- to long-term
Crop
rotation
 Costs for
implementation of
one additional crop
over a five-year
period:
61 EUR/ha, and
0.6 billion EUR in
total for all land used
for barley in the EU
 Increased market revenues from
introducing one additional crop over a
five-year period: 289.2 EUR/ha, and a
total additional benefit of 3 billion
EUR for barley growing in the EU
 Lower incidence of weeds, insects,
and plant diseases
 Improved water holding capacity and
aggregate stability
 Increase in soil organic carbon
 Increased soil nutrient retention
 Improved GHG emission mitigation
 Improved soil health, supporting
higher yields
 Selection of crop composition
to maximise benefits
 Harmonisation of rotation
cycles
 Integration of extra crops in
standard rotations
 Potential need for investment
Use of
organic
manures
 Estimated costs of
investment for
storage and ongoing
application on farm
level:
1,543 – 9,646 EUR
pa
 Estimated costs of
the implementation of
the use of organic
manure at EU level:
between 8 – 8.9
billion EUR pa
 Manure can save costs on chemical
fertilisers in the range of 82-140
EUR/ha
 The estimated benefit per farm is
approximately in the range of 1,427-
2,436 EUR pa
 Estimated benefits of the
implementation of the use organic
manure at EU level:
approximately 1 billion EUR pa
 Reduced nutrient leaching
 Enhanced microbiological activity
 Increase in soil organic carbon
 Reduced biodiversity loss
 Reduced soil compaction
 Improved soil health
 Potentially increased logistic
effort for farms without
livestock
 Relatively high one-off costs
for installation of storage
facility
 Limits on use in nitrates-
polluted areas
Reduced
stocking
density
 Costs for temporary
relocation of
livestock from certain
grassland areas: < 8.1
billion EUR pa
 Savings through reduction of soil
compaction: 0.6 billion EUR – 2.7
billion EUR pa
 Reduced soil compaction
 Reduced soil erosion
 Increased biodiversity
 Improved soil health, leading to
increased yields in the medium- and
long-term
 Temporary relocation of
livestock from certain grassland
areas may not be feasible for
some farms
Notes: Selected SSM practices are widely accepted and applicable SSM practices across the EU; the analysis is based on an extensive literature review, however
this is limited to these practices; while there is good evidence of the benefits of SSM practice at farm level, there are a number of limitations and gaps in the
evidence base (quantitative data not always available, strong differences in impacts due to different local conditions, limited availability of studies, often not
86
available for MS level, etc), leading to the need to simplify some assumptions; the quantified benefits are those accrued immediately (yields from additional
crops, savings) and that could thus be measured over a short period of time, not those resulting from the improvement of soil health and quality.89 However, the
latter are the real added-value of improving soil health – for example, earthworm presence in agricultural soil (positively influenced by reduced tillage) leads to a
25% increase in crop yield and a 23% increase in aboveground biodiversity.90 The costs are also higher at the beginning as they include up-front investments
costs; detailed information in Annex 9, 11.3 – 11.7.
89
For example, there is no quantification of the effect on health of the huge loss of nutrients that have fallen between 10 and 100 percent in foods (Cu -76% in vegetables and -24%
in meat, Ca – 40% in each, K -16% etc) and are ascribed mainly to loss of soil quality and of the benefits of reverting this.
90
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep06365
87
7.1.3 Overview of impacts on competitiveness
Table 7-6: Overview
Dimensions of competitiveness Impact of the preferred option References to sub-sections of the
main report or annexes
Cost and price competitiveness + Part 1/3 of the SWD, Chapter 3
Part 1/3 of the SWD, Chapter 6
Part 3/3 of the SWD, Annex 11
Capacity to innovate ++ Part 1/3 of the SWD, Chapter 3
Part 1/3 of the SWD, Chapter 7
International competitiveness 0* Part 1/3 of the SWD, Chapter 3
Part 3/3 of the SWD, Annex 10
SME competitiveness + Part 1/3 of the SWD, Chapter 7
Part 3/3 of the SWD, Annex 11
Part 3/3 of the SWD, Annex 11
*= note: on a longer time horizon, this is likely to be a positive (+) impact
Cost and price competitiveness
The preferred option is likely to impact cost and prize competitiveness of economic actors based
in the EU, both directly and indirectly. Costs can be expected from the implementation of
measures, particularly those in relation to sustainable soil management (block 3), identification
and investigation of contaminated sites (block 4), restoration (block 5) and to a lesser extent
monitoring (block 2). The nature of these costs will vary significantly depending upon the exact
measures which Members States select due to the flexibility offered allowing for local conditions
to be reflected, and disproportionately costly measures to be avoided. However, the costs
associated with the preferred option are lower than the positive economic impacts, particularly
when analysing over medium/long-term time horizons. In the short term, the competitiveness
may be nevertheless temporarily affected negatively in case a Member State would not
adequately support the costs of the transition to sustainable soil management practices or the
restoration measures, before the benefits are reaped. However, the longer-term benefits, such as
maintaining or increasing soil fertility or reducing input use, can ensure long-term productivity
and reduce costs, thus increasing competitiveness in the long term.
The key economic actors impacted by the preferred option are likely to be the landowners and
managers who rely upon soils as a key input for their production processes, e.g. foresters,
agricultural operators and industry. For these actors, the preferred option has the potential to
diversify production systems, resulting in greater resilience to climate fluctuations of their
businesses, with subsequent cascading impacts on the value chains that they supply.
Furthermore, diversified and more sustainable production systems which maintain or increase
soil health will generate stabilised or increased yields from food, feed and biomass production in
the long-term. The analysis offered in Annex 11 outlines such economic benefits.
However, not all activities prescribed under the preferred option will lead to immediate positive
impacts on competitiveness for those incurring the costs. For example, lower agricultural yields
can be expected from some restoration activities (such as the introduction of seasonal non-
productive zones), yet these can be partially overcome through knowledge sharing, support from
national and EU funds, increased soil fertility and resilience in the longer run. Furthermore, some
88
of the economic benefits will occur for different stakeholders and society as a whole (e.g. climate
benefits, protection of shared water resources, public health, job creation). However, common
criteria, principles and management practices established by the EU and MS will help to
stimulate standardised yet flexible approaches to soil management which will ultimately lead to
efficiency gains in the long term for soil managers. This will also reduce internal market
distortions and unfair competition. Currently, national legislation targeting soil health is
divergent, resulting in contrasting obligations for economic actors. Ensuring a level-playing field
across all Member States in relation to soil policies will ensure a better and fairer functioning of
the internal market.
Capacity to innovate
The preferred option will lead to more innovation in tools, instruments, practices and methods to
monitor, assess and improve soil health in the EU. It is foreseen that technological development
in, for example, the use of monitoring approaches (eDNA, remote sensing, use of space data and
services, in-field monitoring systems) will further enhance and stimulate soil-related research in
the EU, further motivated through EU funding mechanisms. The intensified use of technologies
such as precision farming and remote sensing are likely to lead to efficiency gains in the long-
term, which could imply cost savings for Member State monitoring authorities/agencies. In
addition, such uptake in innovative solutions is likely to increase the competitive edge of the EU
companies in relation to expertise and technologies exportable to non-EU countries.
International competitiveness
The implementation of the preferred option is likely to generate impacts on international
competitiveness. The most obvious is that non-EU producers would not be subject to the costs to
comply with obligations stemming from EU legislation. These costs incurred on EU SMEs and
sectors (through trade and finance flows) can negatively impact the EU’s international
competitiveness footing in the short term, yet it is likely that international competitiveness in the
medium/long-term will benefit from the implementation of the preferred option (e.g. improved
productivity, trade, jobs public health) as measures taken will be proportionate and net
beneficial. Through its implementation, the long-term sustainability of EU soils will be secured,
whereas geographic locations with less stringent legislation will likely continue to be exposed to
continued soil degradation amplified by climate change events. Ultimately, it is expected that
this would place the EU in a better competitive position in the long-term, e.g. as regards to the
export of expertise and technologies to solve soil-related issues.
SME competitiveness
The results of the SME test (see Annex 11.3) show that this initiative is considered relevant for
SMEs, since the business sectors that are expected to be indirectly concerned by at least some
aspects include:
 Agriculture and forestry and related extension services (where micro SMEs such as farmers
operate)
 Business activities that have polluted soil (SMEs could be part of them)
 Remediation of contaminated sites (it is often SMEs operating in this sector)
 Research and laboratories (it is often SMEs operating in this sector)
89
Following the obligations for Member States to assess and monitor soil health, use soil
sustainably and restore unhealthy soils, there is expected to be a direct and positive impact on the
conduct of business and position of SMEs in the sector of research and laboratories, remediation
of contaminated sites as well as in advisory services linked with soil health within each Member
State due to the increase in their services and from innovation. In these sectors, it is estimated
that the SHL package could have an associated employment effect of 35,900 FTEs on an
ongoing basis over the first ~20 years, of which SMEs are expected to profit.
In case the cost of remediation of contaminated sites falls on private companies, given the
significance of costs, there may be important impacts for SMEs and on the sectoral
competitiveness, trade, and investment flows of affected sectors as producers in non-EU
countries would not be subject to the same costs. SMEs could be more vulnerable to additional
costs. The preferred option leaves a significant degree of flexibility and discretion to Member
States to design the measures in such a way that they minimize potential negative impacts on
businesses and in particular SMEs. While the problem of soil degradation needs to be addressed
urgently, the target date of 2050 for achieving healthy soils provides a proportionate timescale to
realize the transition while phasing it so that adverse impacts for SMEs can be minimized.
Since the Soil Health Law provisions require a transition from unsustainable to sustainable
management practices, and the implementation of restoration measures where soils are assessed
as unhealthy, whenever restoration is possible, small and medium enterprises acting in particular
in the agricultural and forestry sectors are expected to face the need for additional resources,
human capital and face transition risks (e.g. in terms of skills and training). At the same time,
additional implementation costs are expected to lead to significant employment effects
associated. The estimation of these effects presents high uncertainty; however, using illustrative
costs and simplified extrapolation to EU level, it is estimated that 300,000 to 420,000 annual
working units (AWUs) could be created associated with implementation of three SSM practices
EU-wide on an ongoing basis.
7.2 Legal form
The Soil Health Law will provide a coherent framework for soil assessment, monitoring,
sustainable management and restoration, and will indicate the goals and targets to be achieved by
Member States in 2050. The variability of soil condition and uses across the EU, as well as the
flexibility left to the Member States in the preferred option, would fit a directive as a legal
instrument. A directive would provide the necessary flexibility to Member States to reach the
2050 objective and implement the necessary measures in a manner adapted to the specific
national context, so respecting the subsidiarity principle. It would indeed be difficult to design a
‘one size fits all’ regulation (along the lines of option 4) that would regulate all the necessary
detail at EU level and directly apply at Member States’ level, especially considering the diversity
of soils and conditions affecting them at local level.
The transposition step is absolutely needed to determine the correct adaptation of the frame to
the national specificities, despite the urgency necessary for action. To address the urgency, the
preferred option provides, where the choice is left to the Member States, indicative solutions and
assistance to facilitate a swift national transposition.
90
7.3 Overview of costs and benefits
The overall preferred option is designed to take action and tackle the costs of no action, due in
particular to ecosystem services loss from soil degradation. The detailed costs and benefits are
summarized here below in Table 7-7 and used for the estimation of the benefit to cost ratio. Not
all the impacts (in particular benefits) of the SHL could been quantified and monetised, in
particular the off-site benefits (see Table 2-4). There is considerable uncertainty around many of
the quantitative estimates. Nevertheless, the temporal profile of the impacts was assessed to
present an overall net-present value or benefit-cost ratio for the SHL after discounting (cfr. annex
11).
While noting the uncertainty on the estimated benefits, the calculation assumes an estimate of
annual benefits of the order of EUR 50 billion (excluding contamination) – based on the results
from theTable 5-2 (benefits from SHL as reduction of the costs of soil degradation after
deducting contributions from other initiatives in the baseline – upper end of quantified costs) -
plus a prudent amount of EUR 24.4 billion for contamination – taken as the intermediate
estimation between the lower and upper quantified value for soil contamination (which differ by
a factor of about one hundred) – see costs of soil degradation from section 2.1.4. The benefit/cost
ratio obtained with these values (see below) results to be sensibly lower that other comparable
estimations available in literature: this indicates that the values chosen are conservative and
prudent.
Table 7-7: The benefit/cost ratio
Quantified
effect
Effect estimate (2023
prices)
Explanation of point estimate
Assumptions around temporal nature
of effect
Benefit –
avoided costs of
soil degradation
(excl.
contamination)
EUR 50 bn pa
- Estimate of the annual costs
caused by soil degradation.
- Represents the benefits that can
be captured should all soils
achieve good health.
- Hence this represents the value
that can be captured as from
2050.
- SHL achieves EUR 50 bn pa benefits by
2050, and each year after.
- Benefits will start to accrue when
Member States begin to implement SSM
and restoration measures.
- For simplicity, assume linear increasing
trend from start date to 2050
Benefit –
avoided costs of
soil degradation
(contamination)
EUR 24.4 bn pa
- Estimate of the annual costs
caused by soil degradation.
- Represents the benefits that can
be captured should all CS be
remediated.
- Hence this represents the value
that can be captured as from
2050.
- SHL achieves EUR 24.4 bn pa benefits
by 2050, and each year after.
- Benefits will start to accrue when
Member States begin to remediate CS.
- For simplicity, assume linear increasing
trend from start date to 2050
Costs of
enlarged
monitoring
network
EUR 46 m pa
- Estimate of annual cost of
enlarged network
- Annual cost spreads total monitoring
cost over each 5-year campaign. Hence
assume flat cost pa.
Costs to
identify and
investigate
contaminated
sites
Total EUR 29 bn (1.9
spread over 15 years)
- This represents the total,
cumulative cost of identifying
and investigating all CS.
- Member States have to set up the register
of CS.
- Costs assume flat, constant trend over
investigation period. Assume full
investigation period lasts 15 years.
- Once all sites have been identified and
91
Quantified
effect
Effect estimate (2023
prices)
Explanation of point estimate
Assumptions around temporal nature
of effect
investigated, assume no ongoing cost.
Cost of
remediating
contaminated
sites
Total EUR 24.9 bn (1 bn
spread over 25 years)
- This represents the total, cost
of remediating all CS.
- Costs will accrue when Member States
remediate CS.
- For simplicity, assume flat, constant
trend in cost increase from start date to
2050
Cost of
implementing
SSM
EUR 28 bn to 38 bn pa
based on illustrative sample
of 5 measures.
(2006 IA estimate based on
4 agriculture threats +
forestry and construction
measures totalled EUR
20.3 bn)
- Illustrative estimates of total,
annual costs of SSM to improve
soils to good health
- Costs are ongoing once
deployed, not one-off.
- Represents the costs that can be
captured should all soils achieve
good health. Hence maximum
benefits are achieved as from
2050.
- Costs will start to accrue when Member
States begin to implement SSM and
restoration measures.
- For simplicity, linear increasing trend
from start date to 2050, and constant
thereafter.
Additional
administrative
burden -
upfront
EUR 48 m
- Total upfront costs to Member
States to implement different
elements of the SHL package.
- Costs will likely begin to impact at
transposition.
- Costs will then be spread over an
implementation period of a number of
years as Member States set up functions
and systems to implement different
elements of the SHL. This period is
somewhat uncertain, but assume this lasts
5 years. Costs in practice may vary over
this period, but assume flat, constant
profile for simplicity with equal costs in
each of the 5 years.
Additional
administrative
burden -
ongoing
EUR 8.0 m pa
- Total ongoing costs to Member
States and businesses to
implement different elements of
the SHL package.
- Costs will begin to impact after
transposition.
- Costs will then occur each year on an
ongoing basis. Costs assume flat, constant
profile for simplicity.
92
Many of the impacts have a different time profile but continue on an ongoing basis until and
after 2050. An appraisal period to 2060 has been selected to capture the ongoing benefits (and
costs) of soils in good soil health after 2050. All impacts are discounted to 2020, using a discount
rate of 3% (as recommended in the Better Regulation Toolbox). Based on the assumptions in the
table above, the figure below depicts the temporal trend of impacts over the appraisal period in
5-year steps. The cumulative, discounted present value of each effect and net-present value and
benefit-cost ratio of the SHL package is then presented in the table below.
Figure 7-2: Temporal profile of impacts
The cumulative, discounted present value of each effect and net-present value and benefit-cost
ratio of the SHL package is then presented below.
Table 7.8: Present value of impacts, and summary economic metrics
Quantified effect
Discounted present value (EUR m, 2023
prices, discounted to 2023, cumulative over
appraisal period to 2060)
Benefit – avoided costs of soil degradation (excl.
contamination)
550,000
Benefit – avoided costs of soil degradation
(contamination)
230,000
Costs of enlarged monitoring network -940
Costs to identify CS -22,000
Cost of remediating CS -16,000
Cost of implementing SSM* -420,000
Additional administrative burden - upfront -41
Additional administrative burden - ongoing -160
93
Quantified effect
Discounted present value (EUR m, 2023
prices, discounted to 2023, cumulative over
appraisal period to 2060)
NET PRESENT VALUE 320,000
BENEFIT-COST RATIO 1.70
Notes: *Adopts high end of the range of EUR 35bn pa
Under the given assumptions, the quantified impacts suggest that the preferred option will likely
deliver a significant net benefit estimated to be around EUR 320bn (2023 prices, discounted to
2020) over the appraisal period to 2060. This net benefit would become greater when the
appraisal period would be extended beyond 2060 to further capture the ongoing benefits. The
benefit-cost ratio of the preferred option over the appraisal period is around 1.7. This is lower
than other benefit-cost ratios taken from the literature, in particular:
 The cost of inaction on soil degradation, which outweighs the cost of action by a factor of 6
in Europe;91
and
 Every €1 investment in land restoration brings an economic return of €8 to €38.92
 A report by the ELD initiative93
concluded that investing in sustainable land management is
consistently shown to be economically rewarding with benefits outweighing costs severalfold
in most cases.
Different studies have adopted different approaches to estimating both benefits and costs. The
BCR of 1.7 in this impact assessment is tailored for the preferred option and is a lower bound
estimate which would be higher if a lower bound cost of SSM measures is applied, or when the
appraisal period is extended. The calculated BCR is consistent with scientific findings that
actions to sustainably manage, restore and remediate soils delivers a net benefit in the long-run.
While this calculation estimates the overall ratio of sustainable soil management and soil
restoration, there may be specific restoration cases where costs are excessive and
disproportionate to the benefits and would not be justified. The staged approach and the
flexibility provided to Member States in the preferred options provide a safety mechanism to
avoid unjustified obligations for those extreme cases.
Given the uncertainties in the estimation of costs and benefits and the impact of such
uncertainties on the estimation of the BCR, a sensitivity analysis has been performed on those
variables.
The results are the following (see Annex 11 section 2.2.1 for details):
- For the BCR a variation of +/- 30% in the benefits translates into a maximum value of
2.05 and a minimum of 1.33, while a variation of +/- 30% in the costs makes it variate to
a minimum of 1.33 to a maximum of 2.34.
91
Nkonya et al. (2016), Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement - A Global Assessment for Sustainable
Development."
92
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_3746
93
https://www.eld-initiative.org/fileadmin/ELD_Filter_Tool/Publication_The_Value_of_Land__Reviewed_/ELD-main-
report_en_10_web_72dpi.pdf
94
- These figures show that the conclusions based on the calculated central value of costs and
benefits maintain their validity within a significant range of uncertainty of costs and
inputs.
7.3.1 Impacts on urban and rural areas
The preferred option is likely to have a different impact on rural and urban areas. Sustainable soil
management and restoration measures (except remediation) are more likely to impact rural areas.
Although some measures will be delivered in urban areas, the measures will predominantly
impact agricultural and forest land, covering around 80% of the EU. As a consequence, the costs
and benefits of implementing these measures will also fall more so on rural areas.
Table 7.9: Costs and benefits for certain stakeholders (2023 prices)
Stakeholder
type
Costs Benefits
Rural
- Private costs of
implementing
SSM and
restoration in
agricultural and
forest soils –
illustrative range
of 28 bn to 38 bn
EUR pa.
- Private SSM benefits (increased yield, lower input costs) for agricultural and forest
land managers – illustrative range of 20 bn to 30 bn EUR pa.
- ‘Off-site’ benefits of SSM to other businesses (e.g. reduction in sediment removal, or
infrastructure repair). Partial estimate ranges from 1.0 bn to 18.5 bn EUR pa
- Off-site’ benefits to local communities (e.g. reduction in flooding risk) – benefit per
landslide event avoided is estimated to be 1.7 bn EUR.
- Employment benefits for local communities - SSM practices could deliver a further
300,000 to 420,000 extra annual working units (AWUs) pa.
Urban / semi-
urban
- Cost to private
sector of 1,110m
EUR pa for
identification and
569 m EUR pa
for remediation of
CS (although may
be spread across
wider portfolios
of sites)
- Private costs of
implementing
SSM and
restoration
measures on
urban soils.
- Increase in value of remediated land – estimated ongoing benefit of €12 - €59 m pa if
used for agricultural purposes, higher for other uses. Remediation unlocks brownfield
redevelopment potential and reduces need for additional sealing and land take.
- ‘Off-site’ benefits of remediation of CS to businesses (e.g. reduction in costs of water
treatment)
- ‘Off-site’ benefits of remediation of CS for local citizens (e.g. reduction in health
impacts linked to exposure to hazardous substances)
- Total ‘off-site’ benefits of CS remediation estimated to range from EUR 3.2 bn – 24.1
bn (2023 prices)
- Investigation and remediation of CS could deliver a jobs benefit of 34,000 FTEs over
the deployment period (proportion of which could fall to local community)
- Benefits of restoration of urban soils - encourage more sustainable development of
industry, residence, and tourism in urban areas94,95
7.3.2 Available funding and expertise
The transition to sustainable soil management requires investments and availability of
information, knowledge and advice, particularly for land managers to reap the long-term benefits
of healthy soils. Successful implementation of the preferred option will require tapping into
various sources of funding at European, national, regional and local level. Therefore, this impact
94
https://sustainablesoils.org/images/pdf/SUSHI.pdf
95
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/life/publicWebsite/project/details/1817
95
assessment is accompanied by a Staff Working Document (SWD) with an overview of the 2021-
2027 EU Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) funding opportunities available for the
protection, sustainable management, and restoration of soils. The SWD targets different
stakeholder groups (business, practitioners, public sector, research, civil society) and provides
guidance on how to successfully make use of available EU funding to finance the transition. It
explains the eligibility criteria, application process, thematic priorities and conditions of EU
funds such as e.g. Horizon Europe and its Mission ‘A Soil Deal for Europe’, the CAP, Cohesion
Funds, the LIFE programme, the Recovery and Resilience Facility or InvestEU, and their
relevance in relation to soil health. As announced in the Soil Strategy, the Commission will also
set up a dialogue with the public, private and financial sector to see how financing can support
sustainable management and restoration of soils.
The Mission ‘A Soil Deal for Europe’, with a total budget of +/- 1 billion euro, will play a
crucial role in developing and sharing the knowledge on soil health. The Mission will establish
100 living labs and lighthouses by 2030 to lead the transition towards healthy soils and to co-
create knowledge, test sustainable soil management solutions and demonstrate their value in real-
life conditions. The Mission will also fund an ambitious soil research and innovation
programme, contribute to the development of a harmonised EU soil monitoring framework and
help to raise awareness on the importance of soil health.
Member States will be able to exchange knowledge, experience and expertise in several
interconnected EU platforms on soil health:
 For the implementation of the Soil Health Law, the Commission would be assisted by a soil
health committee where Member States can exchange and coordinate best practices;
 The Enlarged Soil Expert Group with Member States’ experts and stakeholder
representatives will continue to support the Commission in the implementation of the Soil
Strategy for 2030;
 The European Environment Agency provides support through the Thematic Group on Soil
and the Working Group on Soil Contamination under the EIONET Group on Land Systems;
 The EU Soil Observatory, led by JRC, has set up a stakeholder forum, including Member
States, to exchange on the state of knowledge on soil health;
 The European Soil Partnership of Member States and non-governmental stakeholders
facilitates the exchange of knowledge and technologies for sustainable soil management. The
network is linked to the Global Soil Partnership and implements region-specific aspects of
the global soil protection agenda.
7.4 Coherence with other policies
The Soil Health Law will work in synergy with and add value to the existing acquis: especially
the Common Agricultural Policy, the Water Framework and daughter Directives, the Birds and
Habitat Directives, the upcoming Nature Restoration Regulation, the revised LULUCF
Regulation, and EU policies on air, climate, chemicals, waste, industrial emissions, and
environmental liability. It will complement the acquis with a clear time bound target, a definition
of what soil health entails, and a common understanding of sustainable soil management,
restoration and remediation principles. In that way, the Soil Health Law will work in synergy and
become the reference to guide other policies towards enhanced soil health. The scope will cover
the entire terrestrial territory of the EU and all land uses. Significant contributions to climate
96
policies will be established following from carbon removal, storage and disaster risk reduction
services of healthy soil ecosystems. Synergies with several related initiatives such as the
strategies on soils, forest, climate adaptation, biodiversity, bioeconomy, farm to fork, and the
plans on zero pollution and circular economy and others will be ensured.
The implementation of the Soil Health Law will represent a major contribution to food security
and very likely to quality of food. Indeed, according to a recent analysis done by the Commission
services96
the current high input intensive agricultural model, based on chemical pesticides, is
likely to pose a food security threat in the medium term due to a loss of biodiversity, the likely
increase in pests, decline in soil health and loss of pollinators which are essential to agricultural
production. In the EU, 95% of food is produced on soil97
and depends on soil health. Intensive
agriculture with high chemical inputs together with unsustainable drainage increased potential
for soil erosion. Once the soil is degraded, food production is at risk and requiring time and
effort to revert to healthy condition and full production capacity. Certain forms of soil
degradation can take decades or even hundreds of years to restore. Degraded soils also lose the
capacity to filter contaminants, thereby releasing pollutants which may end up in the
groundwater or enter the food chain, where they can pose a threat to food safety.
Monitoring, sustainable soil management and restoration are key measures to maintain and
enhance soil fertility on arable land. The new CAP Strategic Plans for 2023-2027 already address
part of these problems by ensuring minimum soil management standards e.g. for crop rotation,
soil cover, erosion risk management as well as a number of voluntary measures. The Soil Health
Law which will address all aspects of soil degradation will further improve the provision of
sufficient, safe and nutritious food. The Soil Health Law will help to secure our access to food in
the long-term. A range of factors across the food system, including the whole value chain from
production practices, technology, processing methods, supply chains and logistics, consumption
patterns, will have to make a transition to make all soils healthy by 2050.
7.5 Simplification and improved efficiency
As a new piece of legislation, the Soil Health Directive is not a simplification of existing
legislation. However, the coherence with other legislation has been considered to ensure that
there is no duplication or unnecessary burden in reaching the agreed objectives, and indeed the
different pieces of legislation should complement and work in synergy.
7.6 Application of the ‘one in, one out’ approach
This impact assessment has assessed the administrative costs for public authorities and
businesses for all policy measures. No costs have been identified for citizens (Annex 3).
Administrative costs for businesses have been identified only for one policy measure i.e the
identification of contaminated sites, for the part concerning the registration of investigation and
risk assessment results. As a consequence, the administrative cost relevant for the ‘one in, one
out’ approach is EUR 9.1 million per annum. However, the actual administrative burden (as
96
SWD(2023) 4 final, Commission Staff Working Document “Drivers of food security”
97
FAO (2022): Soils for nutrition: state of the art. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0900en.
97
opposed to costs) element for offsetting will be smaller as not all of the costs are additional to the
baseline.
8 HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED?
Given the importance of monitoring to the delivery of the objectives, the governance and
monitoring process has already been considered as part of the options. The preferred option
reflects the need for the Member States to regularly and adequately assess the soil health and
monitor its evolution over time, together with the monitoring of the effectiveness of the measures
taken, together with reporting obligations. This will allow an evaluation of the impact of the SHL
based on core indicators in the form of factual data along with information on different measures
undertaken, and also allow for best practice to be shared between soil districts.
It will be up to the Member States to set up a monitoring system, usually through adapting their
existing ones. The determination by the Member States of soil districts and their authorities will
allow a governance process that ensures coherence and adaptation of the actions to the local
context, following the principle of subsidiarity.
The programmes of measures will indicate and describe Member States’ actions to ensure and
monitor the required implementation of sustainable soil management and restoration practices.
All efforts will be made to keep the burden of reporting low. Coherence with other monitoring
and reporting requirements relevant to soil will be ensured, such as those under the Birds and
Habitats Directives, and the Natura 2000 network of protected areas established thereunder,
Water Framework Directive, the River Basin Management Plans, and the Common Agricultural
Policy as well as under the Nature Restoration Law proposal and the upcoming Forest
Observation Law proposal. This will allow for administrative and cost synergies at Member
States level. Another example is the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF)
Regulation, which was recently revised and where the target is distributed among Member States
along yearly trajectories, and its achievement is underpinned by spatially explicit monitoring and
robust governance. Actions taken by Member States to monitor and achieve their LULUCF
target will be in synergy with the objectives of the Soil Health Law.
Furthermore, the oversight system at EU level based on LUCAS can provide consistency and a
needed independent evaluation of the progress. The intensified use of new technologies in areas
like remote sensing and earth observation (Copernicus and LUCAS) supported by EU funding
and research and innovation policy shall accompany and support the efforts made.