EUROPEAN COMMISSIONDIRECTORATE-GENERALENVIRONMENTDirectorate B - Natural CapitalENV.B.1 - Agriculture, Forests and Soil

Document 2

1ST MEETING OF THE EU EXPERT GROUP ON SOIL PROTECTION19/10/2015

BACKGROUND DOCUMENT

1. WHY IS THE COMMISSION CONVENING THIS NEW EU EXPERT GROUP ON SOIL PROTECTION

1.1. The policy context

After the 2002 Communication "Towards a Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection" COM(2002)0179, the Commission engaged in a huge stakeholder consultation (with more than 200 members of all sectors concerned) with a very large number of working groups, advisory fora and internet consultation. This broad consultation, which lasted between 2002 and 2004, was meant to provide the Commission with positions, recommendations and views on what should be included in an EU soil protection policy and more concretely on a legislative instrument meant to protect soil across the EU.

Between 2004-2006 there was an internal drafting phase during which the Commission finalised its Communication on a "Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection" COM(2006)0231 ('STS') and the draft "Proposal for a Directive establishing a framework for the protection of soil" COM(2006)0232 ('SFD').

Following the adoption by the Commission in September 2006, started a very intensive phase of inter-institutional activity and negotiation mostly concentrated on the discussion on the draft legislative proposal. In 2007, the European Parliament adopted its first reading and the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee adopted their opinions1.

For a number of years a very difficult and sensitive political discussion took place in the Council, led by a number of successive EU Presidencies which, despite the efforts of many involved, never achieved a political agreement with a qualified majority to reach a Common Position. As the different political position of Member States hardened on the draft proposal, it became increasingly difficult to discuss at technical level and the exchange of views among the Member States and between the Member States and the

1 All documents are available here: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil

Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111

Commission was strongly coloured and influenced by political positions defended in the Council. In 2014, after 8 years of political stalemate, the Commission decided to withdraw its draft legislative proposal to pave the way for an alternative initiative2. In the meantime, as shown by the 2012 report from the Joint Research Centre 'The State of Soil in Europe'3 and – most recently - the EEA's State of the Environment Report 20154, soil degradation continues in the EU, not everywhere at the same pace and not everywhere in the same manner, but it is a common phenomenon not only at EU level but also at global level where around 10 – 20% of drylands and 24% of productive lands are degraded5. According to the SOER 2015 'deteriorating trends dominate' both the 10 year trend and the 20+ year outlook. The current land take trends are unsustainable and this is an important source of degradation in the EU, soil sealing affecting fertile agricultural soils, threatening biodiversity and increasing the risk of floods and water scarcity.

This situation suggests that all efforts made to integrate soils in various EU policies and through national legislations are still insufficient to reduce soil degradation. It calls for a common reflection which we would like to engage with MS.

As recalled above, the Commission has formally expressed that it remains committed to soil protection. The Council and the European Parliament hold the same position, as shown in the Decision by the European Parliament and the Council on the Seventh EU Environment Action Programme6 (7th EAP) which provides that "The Union and its Member States should also reflect as soon as possible on how soil quality issues could be addressed using a targeted and proportionate risk-based approach within a binding legal framework". Against that background, a first discussion took place in an ad-hoc meeting of the Environment Policy Review Group at Director General’s level on 17/09/2014 (see annex 1).

In the 7th EAP the EU also committed to the objective that by 2020 "land is managed sustainably in the Union, soil is adequately protected and the remediation of contaminated sites is well underway"; and that this requires, in particular, "increasing efforts to reduce soil erosion and increase soil organic matter, to remediate contaminated sites and to enhance the integration of land use aspects into coordinated decision-making involving all relevant levels of government, supported by the adoption of targets on soil and on land as a resource, and land planning objectives".

In parallel, at international level, soils recently gained momentum with the establishment of the Global Soil Partnership in 2012 by the FAO (UN Food and Agriculture Organization), the UN declaration of 2015 as International Year of Soils, and in the context of the "post 2015 agenda" negotiations, the COP-21 of the UN Climate Convention and the "Land Degradation Neutrality" initiative of the UNCCD. In the outcome document of the "post 2015 agenda" adopted by consensus in August "Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development"7 which will be formally endorsed by Heads of State at the United Nations Summit on 25-27 September

2 OJ C 163, 21.5.2014, p. 4, and corrigendum OJ C 163, 28.5.2014, p.15: "The Commission remains committed to the objective of the protection of soil and will examine options on how to best achieve this. Any further initiative in this respect will however have to be considered by the next college."

3 https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/default/files/lbna25186enn_0.pdf4 http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/synthesis/report/3-naturalcapital 5 www.eld-initiative.org

6 Decision No 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’ (OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 171–200).

2

2015, soils are explicitly mentioned in four Sustainable Development Goals and targets8, which will need to be implemented also by EU Member States. The challenge will be to translate them into practical measures, with well-established and coherent deadlines. Particularly one target and its call for achieving a 'land degradation neutral world'9 will have clear implications in terms of fighting soil degradation at European level.

1.2. Lessons learned from the negotiations on the former legislative proposal

While the former proposal was the result of an intensive stakeholder and expert consultation, it became clear that what really shaped the positions in Council were to a large extent political and subsidiarity considerations. Technical elements, though also the topic of many discussions, were however less decisive in the negotiations.

The Commission initially underestimated, to some extent, the impact of the private ownership of soil in the political debate and in particular how this would shape the position of the farming community in the discussions. Air and water legislation is largely based on the concept of 'common good' which has never been prominent for land and soil. In particular, the farmer community should be made an ally of a possible future regulatory intervention at EU level, not least because the protection of soil will ensure the availability of the core resource of the agricultural sector.

Given the huge variability of soils in the EU, the approach adopted was based on establishing common obligations, harmonising methodologies and diagnosis mechanisms and leaving the environmental objectives to the discretion of Member States. This led to the perception by some that this approach was too prescriptive. This approach would perhaps need to be reviewed too.

1.3. Proposed objectives and modus operandi for the Expert Group

Notwithstanding that a broader stakeholder consultation will be performed later in the process, as the Commission advances in its thinking on a way forward for soil protection at EU level, the Commission considers that it is desirable to start with a privileged and structured dialogue with Member State represented by delegates mandated to convey at an early stage the political sensitive issues and wishes from their governments on the common goal of fulfilling the requirements of the 7th EAP mentioned above.

7 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/7891TRANSFORMING%20OUR%20WORLD.pdf 8 "2.4 By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural

practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and that progressively improve land and soil quality.3.9 By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.

12.4 By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle, in accordance with agreed international frameworks, and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.

15.3 By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world."

9 E.g. the 14th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, meeting in Ankara in the second part of October 2015, will deliberate on a definition of 'land degradation neutrality' and propose practical ways of fulfilling Target 15.3.

3

The Commission trusts that, as the draft proposal which was the subject of difficult negotiations is not anymore at stake, Member States and the Commission will be able to start "afresh" and engage in the discussion in an open and constructive manner.

It is envisaged that the discussions in the Expert Group cover all main areas of soil protection as identified in EU Soil Thematic Strategy. It is important that the expert(s) nominated by Member States has/have the required connection with national authorities and the mandate to discuss soil issues at political level, taking into account that competence on soil may be scattered between different administrations.

We foresee two annual meetings for this expert group (in 2016 the meetings would take place in spring and autumn), complemented with a continuous stream of communication through the collaborative (wiki) web-based platform to be established in the context of the support service contract for the inventory of soil protection policy instruments (see annex 2).

In short, it is foreseen that the Expert Group discusses and agrees on the policy baseline, the gap analysis and the need to further act at EU level, paving the way for a further wider consultation process with stakeholders.

2. KEY POLICY ISSUES TO BE DISCUSSED

Before going further on the new initiative on soil there is a need to reflect with Member States on the state of play and to assess existing instruments at EU and national level. Any possible approach has to take fully into account and contribute to the priorities defined by the new Commission, which will shape every single initiative for the current mandate, in particular those related to Growth & Jobs, Energy Union, Global Actor and Better Regulation.

Experts are welcome to send initial contribution in writing by 15 October 2015 if they so wish to: ENV-SOIL@ec.europa.eu

1. Soil as an ecosystem

Thirteen years ago, when the extensive stakeholder consultation took place, there was a common view among experts that there was not enough knowledge about soil biodiversity to tackle its loss at EU level. However, over the last years, the agenda of protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystem services has made enormous progress and the knowledge on biodiversity, including soil biodiversity has increased exponentially. Equally, the political attention on ecosystem services has experienced an incredible push, in particular with the adoption by the EU Heads of State of the EU Biodiversity 2020 headline target10. This increased focus on biodiversity and the services it provides will need to be properly reflected in any new initiative. Indeed, the STS was already based on the ecosystem services approach as the whole aim of the policy was to preserve as many of “soil functions” as possible. This will, of course, continue to be the objective but new approaches and methodologies that have been developed in the context of the protection of above-ground biodiversity are now available to be applied to the soil, such as the economic and valuation approaches developed in the context of the

10 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/2020.htm 4

Economics of Ecosystem services and Biodiversity (TEEB11) or the Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their services (MAES)12. For the latter, a pilot on soil is under development, with the participation of several EU Member States, in co-ordination with existing networks and research projects such as LANDMARK funded by Horizon 2020. The MAES pilot shall provide guidance to the EU institutions and Member States on policy-oriented and realistic methods and tools, on how to map and assess soil ecosystem services. It should enable an improvement of the knowledge base, through the building of a shared assessment framework connecting EU, national, regional and local interests and decisions.

1) Hence, the Commission would welcome a discussion on how to strengthen the ecosystem dimension of soils in any new initiative.

2. Avoiding 'red tape' and duplication of existing legislation

Currently soil protection policy in the vast majority of MSs is done in the context of the development of policies and regulations in fields that do not have soil protection and a sustainable use of soil as their primary concern.

This is true also at EU level. For example, definitions of 'severely degraded land' and of 'seriously contaminated land' were agreed by the Commission and Member State’s experts in the context of the implementation of the Renewable Energy Directive13. While this implies coordination both within the Commission and within MS administrations among energy and soil experts, such decision-making process without a broader policy and legislative context inevitably makes for lopsided policymaking. Thus, the existing acquis is not fit for purpose.

Notwithstanding the lack of efficient soil protections schemes, there has been however the feeling by some stakeholders and politicians that a new layer of EU legislation addressing soil would duplicate existing policies, mainly in the field of agriculture. For this reason and in order to get an updated overview, a call for tender was launched in June 2015 for a service contract to deliver an updated and detailed picture of policies and measures at EU, Member State and - where applicable - regional level, contributing (directly or indirectly) to soil protection. The contract will be signed in autumn 2015 and will involve an extended effort of consultation of national authorities, and in particular of the members of this Expert Group. (An extract of the terms of reference is provided in annex 2)

2) Hence the Commission would welcome a discussion on how a new EU initiative on soil could ensure that the current policy vacuum on soil is overcome and thus better coordination of national and regional efforts in other policy fields is achieved.

11 http://www.teebweb.org/ 12 http://biodiversity.europa.eu/maes 13 Annex V point C.9 of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23

April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32009L0028

5

3. Prioritisation of soil pressures

The Soil Thematic Strategy has an all-encompassing nature and covers all the soil threats which are present in the EU, namely: erosion, soil organic matter loss, contamination, landslides, sealing, salinization, compaction and biodiversity loss. While all these problems are undoubtedly very important, there could be a merit in concentrating our discussions for a new initiative on those which are most widely spread and more pressing, taking into account also the legislative gaps. From the Commission's perspective that could be: erosion, soil organic matter decline, soil sealing, soil biodiversity loss and soil contamination. In addition the inter-linkages should be considered rather than tackling each soil threat separately.

3) Hence the Commission would welcome a discussion on the prioritisation of action in a limited number of soil threats for the time being. If there is consensus on the benefits or limiting the scope of action of the initiative, we would welcome a discussion on which priority soil threats should that be.

4. The Duty of Care

Soil is unique in the fact that, although it is an ecosystem that provides crucial services for the whole society, it is mostly privately owned in the EU.

The major challenge of developing a soil protection regime is to be able to couple in a legally binding instrument this dual nature, and ensure that, while this is a private asset which is linked to private property rights, also continues to deliver the services for the benefit of the wider society.

The difficulty is to establish at whatever level this is done (EU, national or regional level) the degree of responsibility of the owner in securing the conditions so that the soil provides those services. In other words, on one side: what is the level of 'duty of care' and on the other side the role of the society to reward the owner for the services provided by his/her asset.

Striking the right balance between the duty of care of the owner, and the public/social responsibility is at the heart of any soil policy development.

Indeed, the more emphasis is put on the responsibility of the owner the lesser the need for public intervention and vice versa, the more emphasis is put on the responsibility of society to secure those key soil services, the more the owner is rewarded through public subsidies or public interventions.

This is a very complex discussion which will need to be resolved, and while the balance could be left to discretion of Member States, differences in the stringency of the duty of care imposed to the soil owner could bring distortion of competition between different economic operators who compete in the internal market, namely farmers and foresters.

4) Hence the Commission would welcome a discussion on the duty of care of the soil owners versus the public responsibility to secure the provision of key soil ecosystem services.

6

5. The level of public intervention for the restoration of historically degraded soil

This issue was at heart of many discussions in the Council. Indeed, some Member States favoured a strong public intervention (coupled with public funding) for restoring degraded soils caused by past activities (heavily contaminated sites, strongly eroded areas, etc.), other advocated for a mixture of market based and publicly-driven restoration of soils and finally some pushed for a purely privately driven restoration of soil.

Many approaches are being applied in the EU at the moment. There are advantages and disadvantages to any of these three approaches and these would need to be discussed thoroughly. Here again, any decision taken could have repercussions on the EU internal market.

5) Hence the Commission would welcome a discussion on what the minimum level of public intervention necessary to secure a high level of environmental (and health) protection would be.

6. The links with water and climate change policies

While the links with water resources and flood protection and climate change mitigation and adaptation were very present in previous discussions with the Member States, it is fair to say that these policies have evolved quite substantially over the last years. Indeed the implementation of the Water Framework Directive and of the Floods Directive has gained more maturity although many gaps in implementation still exist. Equally the climate mitigation and adaptation policies have experienced a very big transformation and now in particular, in the context of a new COP in Paris and changes in the UNFCCC and its protocol, could make stronger links with soils and its enormous carbon and water storage capacity. Despite these developments, the crucial role of soil for the water and carbon cycle is still not acknowledged to the extent necessary. Without sound soil management any water and climate related policies will be limited and as such less efficient.

6) Hence the Commission would welcome a discussion on how could a new initiative on soil make stronger links and better reflect the evolution of water and climate policies.

----- o ----

7

ANNEX 1Summary of the ad-hoc meeting of Environment Director Generals on 17/09/2014

The Commission representative briefly introduced the topic of soil legislation at EU level following the withdrawal of the proposal for a Soil Framework Directive by the Commission last May and the entry into force of the General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 (7th EAP).

He invited participants to have a frank and open debate (Chatham House rules) on the way forward, reminding everyone that the meeting was not meant to come to any specific decision and that in any case there was no concrete alternative proposal by the Commission as of yet. Participants were asked to present their views on the basis of a discussion paper sent in advance, containing some framing questions for the debate.

The responsible Commission Director then presented the status of EU soils on the basis of maps produced by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission and data collected from Member States through the European Environment Agency. She underlined that – while situations could differ locally – soil degradation problems caused by erosion by water and wind, soil organic matter, landslides, soil sealing, and soil contamination are of a common nature.

The Commission representative invited the participants to express their views on the basis of the questions contained in a discussion paper.

There was a consensus that soil is a fundamental environmental medium and that degradation is an ongoing issue across the EU.

It was underlined that the importance of soil for the economy, green growth and the provision of job opportunities should be stressed in any future initiative by the Commission, to gain the political interest from decision makers at the national and European levels.

Many participants thought that it was necessary to develop a dedicated legislative instrument to tackle soil degradation while some underlined the need to avoid overlaps with existing EU legislation and ensure a high degree of flexibility for Member States; others thought that a strategic approach, based on knowledge-sharing, research, data gathering and exchange of best practice among Member States would be sufficient.

Some underlined the importance of carrying out a kind of "gap analysis" to identify gaps in existing EU legislation, insofar as soil protection was concerned, before engaging in any further steps. Such analysis should be used to determine whether a stand-alone legislative instrument would be more appropriate than a sectoral approach leading to the integration of soil aspects in existing legislation (e.g. the Common Agricultural Policy and the Water Framework Directive).

There was large consensus on the fact that – if a legislative route is chosen by the Commission – it would be necessary to discuss in detail the approach proposed, notably in terms of risk reduction targets (in particular methods used to determine them and how to determine a baseline), and that Member States should have the utmost flexibility in implementing them. A number of participants suggested caution on soil sealing and land take aspects, given their strong link with spatial planning. It was underlined by some that subsidiarity should not be used as an argument against legislation, provided that Member States had a very large amount of flexibility in implementing it.

8

Some felt that the Commission should initiate a discussion process at technical level to better understand the availability of data, knowledge gaps, economic issues and similar background aspects to help building a consensus on the way forward. A revision of the Soil Thematic Strategy was also suggested by one participant.

In summary, the need of evaluating the existing acquis concerning soil protection measures to find out existing gaps and the importance of the economic growth dimension as well as of the flexibility aspects of any possible future legislative proposal were underlined.

9

ANNEX 2

Published technical specifications - Call for tenders n°ENV.B.1/SER/2015/0022 - Service contract for updated inventory and assessment of soil protection policy instruments in EU Member States

3. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

3.1. Background

3.1.1. EU Soil Policy State of Play

In September 2006 the Commission adopted a Soil Thematic Strategy14 including a proposal for a Soil Framework Directive15. This originated from the need to ensure a sustainable use of soils and protect their function in a comprehensive manner in a context of increasing pressure and degradation of soils across the EU. Taking note that the proposal has been pending for almost eight years without a qualified majority in the Council in its favour, the Commission decided to withdraw the proposal16, opening the way for an alternative initiative in the next mandate. In withdrawing the proposal for a Soil Framework Directive, the Commission indicated that "The Commission remains committed to the objective of the protection of soil and will examine options on how to best achieve this. Any further initiative in this respect will however have to be considered by the next college"17.

The commitment to sustainable soil use is in line with the Seventh Environment Action Programme (7th EAP) 18 which provides that by 2020 "land is managed sustainably in the Union, soil is adequately protected and the remediation of contaminated sites is well underway" and commits the EU and its Member States to "increasing efforts to reduce soil erosion and increase organic matter, to remediate contaminated sites and to enhance the integration of land use aspects into coordinated decision-making involving all relevant levels of government, supported by the adoption of targets on soil and on land as a resource, and land planning objectives". It also states that "The Union and its Member States should also reflect as soon as possible on how soil quality issues could be addressed using a targeted and proportionate risk-based approach within a binding legal framework".

3.1.2. Existing provision on soils in EU and national policy instruments

The 2012 Commission reports on the implementation of the Soil Thematic Strategy and ongoing activities19 and on the State of Soil in Europe20 and the 2015 Status of the

14 COM(2006) 231

15 COM(2006) 232

16 OJ C 163, 21.5.2014, p. 4

17 OJ C 163, 28.5.2014, p. 15

18 Decision N° 1386/3013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 "Living well, within the limit of our planet" (OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 171-200)

10

Environment Report (SOER) of the European Environment Agency21 highlight the continuous degradation of soils in Europe.

However, soil is not subject to a comprehensive and coherent set of rules in the Union. The protection and sustainable use of soil22 is scattered in different Community policies contributing in various degrees to mainly indirect protection of soil, for example through environmental policies on waste, water, chemicals, industrial pollution prevention, nature protection and biodiversity, nitrates and pesticides, sewage sludge, forestry strategy, climate change adaptation and mitigation, or biofuels.

Against the background of the absence of any specific European soil policy, the protection and sustainable use of agricultural soils is part of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) with Cross Compliance rules addressing soil erosion, organic matter decline and compaction. However, Member States have a broad margin of freedom in determining obligations for farmers to reach national standards of Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAECs) of agricultural land23. Cross Compliance provides minimum soil protection conditions, and by its nature, cannot address all protection measures.

The protection and sustainable use of agricultural soils is also addressed by greening practices in the CAP and by supporting measures under the Rural Development Programme (RDP). Rural Development provides for agri-environment schemes which may specifically support soil-protective operations but have to go beyond the basic standards defined under Cross Compliance. The new RDP includes objectives of sustainable management of natural resources and climate mitigation and adaptation, including by means of improved soil management and enhanced carbon sequestration in agriculture and forestry (Priority 4.C on "Preventing soil erosion and improving soil management" and possibilities offered to national and regional authorities for preventing erosion and improving soil management measures under RDPs).

The European Innovation Partnership (EIP) on Agriculture also plays a role in this context, in particular the focus groups on "Soil Organic Matter content in Mediterranean regions"24 and "IPM practices for soil-borne diseases"25.

For soil contamination 26different pieces of EU legislation apply, for example:

19 COM(2012) 46

20 EUR 25186 EN

21 http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/europe/soil; http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer#tab-synthesis-report

22 As mentioned in the Soil Thematic Strategy as overall objective.

23 See Annex II of Regulation No 1306/2013 on rules on Cross Compliance, in particular GAEC 4, 5 and 6.

24 https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/content/soil-organic-matter-content-mediterranean-regions

25 https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/content/ipm-practices-soil-borne-diseases-suppression-vegetables-and-arable-crops

26 A discussion is on-going i.e. in the context of EIONET NRC Soil on the terminology of pollution and contamination. Against that background, the present service contract will have to make clear the notions and indicators used in EU, national and regional policy instruments to ensure comparability.

11

Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste27 addresses the presence of toxic substances resulting from a land-filling operation, on the condition that it had not been closed and covered before 16 July 1999.

Directive 2004/35/EC on environmental liability28 requests liable operators to undertake the necessary preventive and remedial action for a range of polluting activities, provided serious pollution has been caused after April 2007.

Directive 2010/75/EU on Industrial Emissions29 aims to ensure that the operation of an industrial installation does not lead to the deterioration in the quality of soil (and groundwater), and requires establishing, through baseline reports, the state of soil and groundwater contamination. However, a large number of installations do not fall under the scope of the directive.

Cohesion Policy plays a role for the rehabilitation of certain industrial sites and contaminated land: in the period 2007-2013 €3.1 billion have been allocated to eligible regions (mostly in Hungary, Czech Republic and Germany). The Cohesion Funds and the European Development Fund continue to support the regeneration of brownfield sites under the current programming period 2014-2020. Also, state aids for the remediation of soil contamination can be granted under the Environmental aid guidelines provided that the ‘polluter pay principle’ is respected.

The EU Research and innovation programmes, such as Horizon 202030 and LIFE+ projects31, are contributing to improving the knowledge base on soils and soil protection measures, along with the JRC which hosts the European Soil Data Centre.

Due to their different scope, existing provisions - even if fully implemented - yield a fragmented and incomplete protection of soils as they do not specifically target the problem, are not demanding enough or do not cover all soil threats. Hence, soil degradation continues.

At national level the situation varies a lot from one Member State to the other. Only a limited number of Member States have specific and comprehensive legislation on soil protection; very often it is limited to soil contamination and soil sealing. The others rely on provisions on soil protection in the environmental legal acquis. Overall, and as reflected in the 2015 SOER national legislation has not succeeded in preventing soil degradation sufficiently across the EU28. Moreover, regional or national soil policies do not cover cross-border soil degradation.

3.2. Objectives

The general objective of the contract is to deliver an updated32 and detailed picture of policies and measures at EU, Member State and - where applicable - regional level,

27 OJ L 182, 16.07.1999, p. 1

28 OJ L 143, 30.4.2004, p. 56

29 OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17

30 See e.g. call SC5-8-2014: Preparing and promoting innovation procurement for soil decontamination in Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2014-2015 (http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2014_2015/main/h2020-wp1415-climate_en.pdf)

31 See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/pdf/LIFE%20and%20Soil%20protection.pdf 12

contributing (directly or indirectly) to soil protection. This is to be supported by relevant evidence and quantified to the extent possible. The outcome shall support the baseline for any further proposal for action at EU level, taking fully into account the proportionality and subsidiarity principles.

This assessment will build on a substantial background of information collected in the context of the drafting and further implementation of the Soil Thematic Strategy, as well as further studies and assessments carried out in the context of EU policy (CAP, Water Framework Directive etc.).

The contract will focus on measures and legal instruments addressing the main soil threats (erosion, organic matter decline, contamination, sealing, soil biodiversity loss, salinization, compaction and landslides) and soil functions identified in the Soil Thematic Strategy.

The specific objectives are:

– To perform an inventory of soil-relevant policies and soil protection legislation at EU level and in the 28 Member States and its Regions where applicable. This inventory should also identify relevant non-binding instruments, measures, and targets (e.g. national soil strategy). It should cover policies in place but also policies in the pipeline.

– To collect information assessing the effectiveness of soil legislation and soil protection measures at Member State (including its Regions) and EU level on the state of soil.

– On this basis, to perform a cross-policy analysis identifying the effectiveness and gaps in EU policies and national legislation in addressing the soil threats and soil functions, and to stimulate a discussion with experts from Member States and stakeholders on the findings of the stock taking exercise.

3.3. Tasks

(1) The contractor should perform the following 3 tasks:

(1) Inventory of policy instruments at EU and national/regional level and compilation in a web collaborative platform

(2) Gap analysis of policy instruments

(3) Consultation of Member States and Stakeholders and update of the inventory of policy instruments and of the gap analysis

3.3.1. Task 1: Inventory and compilation of policy instruments

In this first task, the contractor will take stock of the information available in the sources identified in section 3.4 below, complementing with other publicly available information, and compile it into a collaborative web application (Wiki).

(1) The contractor will compile and review the standards and requirements relating to soil protection that have been adopted by Member States under their Rural

32 compared to what was included in the Impact assessment of the former proposal for a Soil Framework Directive SEC(2006)620

13

Development Programmes. The inventory should cover the standards and measures adopted for the period 2014-2020, as well as available evaluations of the standards and measures adopted in former periods. From the SWOT analysis performed in the RDPs it should also compile the countries or regions that have identified soil degradation as a major pressure in their territory33.

(2) The contractor should identify soil protection policies, targets addressing soil protection and other instruments addressing soil protection, deriving from other EU policies and funding instruments mentioned in section 3.1.2. above, in particular the Water Framework Directive, Groundwater Directive, Nitrates Directive, Drinking Water Directive, Flood Directive, Habitats and Birds Directives, Landfill / Sewage Sludge Directives, Environmental Liability Directive and Industrial Emissions Directive.

(3) The contractor will perform an inventory of soil contamination legislations and measures (remediation in particular) at national/regional level as well as the main actors involved. The contractor will identify the various sources of information (in particular soil contamination databases or web platforms), their availability and access conditions. The most relevant part will be to assess the effectiveness of the measures.

(4) The contractor will identify legislation and other instruments at national/regional level addressing soil sealing.

(5) The contractor will also identify other instruments (legislation, measures and information sources) at national/regional level to protect soils not included in the above sub-tasks. This includes monitoring tools at MS level (soil surveys and inventories), soil national databases, web platforms, any national measures adopted pursuant to the Soil Thematic Strategy at national/regional level and any relevant policies – including non-binding instruments and initiatives at national/regional level.

(6) The inventory will be compiled in a collaborative web application (Wiki), enabling access, edit and comments from the Steering Committee and from Member States and Stakeholders). The contractor should use one of the two wiki solutions available at the Commission and offered exclusively in the context of its Flexible Platform34 (no other hosting solution is allowed), either Confluence35 or MediaWiki36. The tenderer should elaborate on the pros and cons of both solutions for the requirements of the contract. The successful tenderer will contact Commission experts in the first two weeks of the contract in order to understand and comply with all technical, editorial and security constraints required by the use of the Flexible Platform, before the kick-off meeting.

33 The analysis of GAEC and greening notifications will be done under an evaluation contract “Mapping and analysis of the implementation of the CAP, call for tenders n°AGRI-2015-EVAL-01, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/calls-for-tender/2015-154255_en.htm

34 http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/plan/site/organisational/collaborative/index_en.htm

35 https://confluence.atlassian.com/display/DOC/Confluence+Documentation+Home

36 https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki, see examples at https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/

14

(7) For each policy instrument at national level identified in the previous sub-tasks, the contractor should properly report in the web collaborative platform at least the following information:

– Type of policy instrument

– Soil threats and soil functions covered

– Territorial and sectoral coverage

– When relevant, budget dedicated to soil protection.

– Available ex-ante assessments / ex-post evaluation of the policy instrument

– Associated indicators and monitoring mechanisms

– Soil protection measures promoted through these policy instruments

– Institution(s) responsible for the implementation or evaluation of the policy instrument

– Link to reference documents

– Other available information e.g. good practices

The contractor should present the outcomes of task 1 in a first interim report

3.3.2. Task 2: Gap analysis of policy instruments

Based on the inventory and compilation of policy instruments performed in task 1, the contractor should perform a preliminary gap analysis, contrasting the soil threats covered by the policy instruments and the available information at all levels on the state and trends of soil degradation. The analysis shall include an assessment of the relevance of measures as to their geographical coverage, especially as to measures with relevance to agriculture. On that basis, the contractor should draft preliminary conclusions on the extent to which existing policy instruments can contribute to preventing soil threats and/or recover soil functions. This gap analysis should be produced in the form of summaries at Member State, soil threat and soil function levels.

The analysis should also illustrate the links between existing policies (Drivers of change) of sectors and activities affecting the soil (Pressures) in terms of soil threats (States) and soil functions as well as grand societal challenges (Impacts), so that needs for new policy targets (Responses) can be addressed37. However the tender could propose any alternative approach aiming at evaluating the effectiveness, relevance, coherence of national policies and cross-comparison between MS.

The contractor should present the outcomes of task 2 in a second interim report

3.3.3. Task 3: Consultation of Member States and Stakeholders and update of the inventory of policy instruments and of the gap analysis

This task encompasses the review and update (in particular with regards to on-going policy developments) of the information collected and presented in the web collaborative 37 An example of the application of DPSIR approach to soil policy is given by the recent paper Glaesner

N.; Helming K.; and de Vries W. (2014) “Do current European conservation policies support soil functionality?” Sustainability 2014, 6, 9538-9563; doi:10.3390/su6129538

15

platform under task 1 as well as of the gap analysis performed under task 2. It implies interaction with experts from Member States and stakeholders, through written correspondence, tele- or video conference, as well as meetings.

The contractor will identify and establish contacts and interact with MS competent authorities and stakeholders at national level, exploiting contacts with already existing networks such as EIONET38. The Commission will provide a list of contact points, the contractor will complete the list to ensure a full coverage of Member States and relevant sectors.

The contractor will be required to attend up to 4 meetings (each one of one day duration) that the Commission would organise, either using existing networks such as EIONET or MAES39, or an ad-hoc group of experts, to discuss the findings of tasks 1 and 2 in a specific area. The calendar of meetings will be defined at the kick-off meeting and could be subject to modifications.

Further to these meetings, the contractor should propose an innovative approach to engage the stakeholders in the information and knowledge gathering process.

On the basis of this consultation, the contractor should perform an update of the inventory of policy instruments and of the gap analysis. The lack of information or difficulties to access should also be reported as part of this exercise.

The contractor should present and discuss the outcome of this update during a final 2-days workshop organised by the Commission in Brussels with MS experts and stakeholders, approximately 9 months after the signature of the contract. The Commission will facilitate the meeting room and logistics. The contractor will be responsible for the invitations to the meeting, the provision of background documentation and will draft detailed minutes of the discussion, to be sent to the Commission for comments at the latest two weeks after the meeting. The workshop will consist of plenary sessions (opening session presenting the policy context and the outcomes and final session with conclusions and way forward concerning a possible new EU initiative on soils) and parallel sessions (along specific themes such as CAP, soil contamination or soil sealing).

The contractor will deliver a final report, taking into account the outcome of the final workshop, and including the updated content of the collaborative web platform, which will continue to be used and regularly updated by the Commission, in co-operation with Member States and Stakeholders, after the termination of the contract.

3.4. Preliminary identification of available sources

As a starting point, the first version of the inventory should integrate available information from the following reports and databases (non-exhaustive list):

– Regarding CAP implementation of soil-related measures, the Commission will provide the necessary information to the contractor, namely the relevant parts of the rural development programmes (RDP) and the available indicators used for CAP monitoring.

38 https://www.eionet.europa.eu/

39 http://biodiversity.europa.eu/maes 16

– The study Bio IS et al (2015) “Study supporting potential land targets under the 2014 land communication” provide in its annexes an overview of national policies and targets addressing soil sealing, brownfield recycling, soil organic matter and soil erosion (http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/study-supporting-potential-land-targets-under-the-2014-land-communication-pbKH041497”9/)

– FP7 CATCH-C Deliverable D5.524 (2015) “Policy context implementing soil management practices in EU and selected member states” (available at http://www.catch-c.eu/deliverables/D5.524-Inventory%20of%20policies%20affecting%20agricultural%20soil%20management.pdf)

– The study Ernst&Young (2013) Evaluation of expenditure and jobs for addressing soil contamination in Member States” includes an annex with a detailed overview for each EU Member State of the regulation in force on contaminated sides and/or brownfield remediation, involved public and/or private organisations, allocated financial tools, methodological and technical tools and inventories. The study and annexes are available at. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/pdf/Soil_contamination_expenditure_jobs.pdf

– The study Austrian UBA (2011) “Overview of best practices for limiting soil sealing or mitigating its effects in EU-27”, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/sealing.htm

– The study Bio IS (2010) “Soil biodiversity: functions, threats and tools for policy makers”, available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/biodiversity.htm

– Arrouays et al. (2008) Environmental Assessment of Soil for Monitoring - Volume IIb: Survey of National Networks. http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/envasso/documents/ENV_Vol-IIb_Final2_web.pdf

– Final report of the CLIMSOIL project (2008) “Review of existing information on the interrelations between soil and climate change” available at: http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/esdb_archive/eusoils_docs/other/climsoil_report_dec_2008.pdf

– Ecologic & ahu AG (2007) Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/study1_en.htm

– European Parliament (2006) - Policy Department Economic and Scientific Policy, Overview of National Legislation related to Soil Protection in the EU Member States - Briefing Note IPOL-A-ENVI/2006-42 PE 382.169 (available on request)

3.5. Deliverables

A first interim report (the approval of which by the Commisson will be the condition for an interim payment,) should be delivered at the latest 3 months after the signature of the contract. It will present the outcome of task 1.

A second interim report should be delivered at the latest 6 months after the signature of the contract. It will present the outcome of task 2.

17

A final report covering the whole scope of the contract should be delivered at the latest 10 months after the signature of the contract.

Both interim and final reports will be delivered in MS-Word (version 2010) and pdf versions.

The fully fledged web collaborative platform will be handed over to the Commission, together with the final report, enabling its further update and maintenance.

3.6. Meetings

A steering committee will be established by the Commission, involving the relevant services of the European Commission and the European Environment Agency, ensuring also the co-ordination with parallel studies, service contracts or research projects.

The contractor should attend a full-day kick-off meeting with the steering committee in Brussels, to be held at the latest 2 weeks after the signature of the contract.

The contractor should attend a minimum of four two full-day expert meetings and the two-day final workshop foreseen under task 3) as well as two co-ordination meetings (1/2 day) with the steering committee, back-to-back with one expert meeting and with the final workshop.

Additional meetings with the steering committee through tele- or video-conference or web-meetings should be foreseen regularly, at least on a monthly basis.

3.7. Duration of the tasks

The tasks should be completed within 10 months of the signature of the contract. The execution of the tasks may not start before the contract has been signed.

3.8. Place of performance

The place of performance of the tasks shall be the contractor’s premises or any other place indicated in the tender, with the exception of the Commission’s premises.

18