Abstract
To ensure an adequate level of protection in the European Union (EU), the European Commission (EC) adopted the Soil Thematic Strategy in 2006, including a proposal for a Soil Framework Directive (the Directive). However, a minority of Member States (United Kingdom, Germany, France, Austria, and The Netherlands) could not agree on the text of the proposed Directive. Consequently, the EC decided to withdraw the proposal in 2014. In the more than 10 years that have passed since the initial proposal, a great number of new evidences on soil degradation and its negative consequences, have proved the necessity of a common European soil protection Directive. This study is aimed at specifying the possible obstacles, differences, and gaps in legislature and administration in the countries that formed the blocking minority, which resulted in the refusal of the Directive. The individual legislations of the opposing countries on the matter, were summarized and compared with the goals set by the Directive, in three highlighted aspects: (1) soil-dependent threats, (2) contamination, and (3) sealing. We designed a simple schematic evaluation system to show the basic levels of differences and similarities. We found that the legislative regulations concerning soil-dependent degradation and contamination issues in the above countries were generally well defined, complementary, and thorough. A common European legislation can be based on harmonised approaches between them, focusing on technical implementations. In the aspect of sealing we found recommendations, principles, and good practices rather than binding regulations in the scrutinised countries. Soil sealing is an issue where the proposed Directive’s measures, could have exceeded those of the Member States.
Highlights
Soils are under ever-increasing pressure, since global population growth brings an increasing demand for food [1]
To place our research findings in the context of the current scientific discussion involving the necessity of common European Union (EU) soil protection regulation, we briefly reviewed the main focuses of the ongoing dispute in the Discussion section
Programmes could have built on measures already implemented at national and EU level, such as cross-compliance and rural development under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), codes of good agricultural practice and action programmes under the Nitrates Directive, future measures under the river basin management plans of the Water Framework Directive, national forest programmes and sustainable forestry practices, and forest fire prevention activities
Summary
Soils are under ever-increasing pressure, since global population growth brings an increasing demand for food [1]. Soils are one of the most important natural resources on the planet, their ecological importance is often greatly underestimated. Road construction, and pollution, three square kilometres of soil are destroyed every day in the European Union (EU) [2]. 2020, recognizes that soil protection is a serious challenge. The EAP wants the EU to be a place where natural resources are managed sustainably, and biodiversity is protected and valued [4]. It requires the EU and its Member States to increase efforts to reduce soil threats and to remediate contaminated sites. It states that soil quality issues could be addressed using a targeted and proportionate risk-based approach, within a binding legal framework [5]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
