***REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the protection of soil and amending Directive 2004/35/EC

24.10.2007 - (COM(2006)0232 – C6-0307/2006 – 2006/0086(COD))

Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
Rapporteur: Cristina Gutiérrez-Cortines

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the protection of soil and amending Directive 2004/35/EC

(COM(2006)0232 – C6-0307/2006 – 2006/0086(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2006)0232)[1],

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 175(1) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0307/2006),

–   having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the opinions of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0410/2007),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendments by Parliament
Amendment 1 RECITAL 2
(2) Soil degradation or soil improvements have a major impact on other areas of Community interest, such as surface water and groundwater protection, human health, climate change, protection of nature and biodiversity, and food safety.	(2) Soil degradation or soil improvements have a major impact on other areas of Community interest, such as surface water and groundwater quality, human health and life, climate change, degradation or protection of nature and biodiversity, and food safety.
Justification
Human life should be included among the areas covered by Community legislation on which soil degradation has an impact.
Amendment 2 RECITAL 4
(4) The Communication of the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council “Towards a Thematic Strategy on Soil Protection” identifies the main eight soil degradation processes to which soils in the EU are confronted. These are erosion, organic matter decline, contamination, salinisation, compaction, soil biodiversity loss, sealing, landslides and flooding. The current scientific knowledge on soil biodiversity and its behaviour is too limited to allow for specific provisions in this Directive aiming at its protection. The prevention and mitigation of the effects of floods have been addressed by the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the assessment and management of floods1. ______________ 1 COM(2006)0015.	(4) The Communication of the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council “Towards a Thematic Strategy on Soil Protection” identifies the nine main soil degradation processes to which soils in the EU are exposed. These are erosion, organic matter decline, contamination, salinisation, compaction, soil biodiversity loss, sealing, desertification, landslides and flooding.
Justification
Since the amendments also contain proposals related to biodiversity and to the prevention and mitigationof effects of floods, this sentence should be deleted.
Amendment 3 RECITAL 5
(5) Soil variability is very high in the Community and enormous differences exist in its structural, physical, chemical and biological state both within individual profiles and between soils. These diverse conditions and needs in the Community should be taken into account as they require different specific solutions for the identification of areas at risk, definition of targets and execution of appropriate measures to ensure protection of soil.	(5) Soil variability is very high in the Community and enormous differences exist in its structural, physical, chemical and biological state both within individual profiles and between soils. These diverse conditions and needs in the Community should be taken into account as they require different specific solutions for addressing soil degradation.
Justification
Other amendment in Article 2replaces the "risk areas" by "priority areas". To make the recitals shorter the last part of the sentence has been shortened.
Amendment 4 RECITAL 6
(6) Community legislation, for instance in the fields of waste, chemicals, industrial pollution prevention and control, climate change, water, and agriculture and rural development, includes some provisions on soil protection, but these are neither designed nor sufficient to protect all soils against all degradation processes. Hence there is a need for a coherent and effective legislative framework, providing for common principles and objectives aiming at protection and sustainable use of soil in the Community.	(6) Community legislation, for instance in the fields of waste, chemicals, industrial pollution prevention and control, climate change, water, and agriculture and rural development, is already contributing to soil protection and can complement thisframework, providing for common principles and objectives aiming at protection and sustainable use of soil in the Community.
Justification
Soil use and its protection is already addressed within existing EU legislation. All current efforts to implement effective soil management strategy should be recognised within this framework.
Amendment 5 RECITAL 7
(7) Soil should be used in a sustainable manner which preserves its capacity to deliver ecological, economic and social services, while maintaining its functions so that future generations can meet their needs.	deleted
Justification
To shorten the recitals, the content of this recital has been merged with recital 8.
Amendment 6 RECITAL 8
(8) The aim of this Directive is to ensure the protection of soil, based on the principles of preservation of soil functions, prevention of soil degradation, mitigation of its effects, restoration of degraded soils and integration into other sectoral policies by establishing a common framework and actions.	(8) The aim of this Directive is to ensurethe protection of soil based on common objectives and respecting theexisting national and Community legislation, in order to use the soil in a sustainable manner so that both current and future generations can satisfy their ecological, economic and social needs.
Amendment 7 RECITAL 9
(9) A common framework is needed in order to articulate the efforts of Member States to improve the protection of soils and its sustainable use, to control the transboundary soil degradation effects, to protect aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and to preclude distortion of competition between economic operators.	(9) A common framework will enable Member States and the regional and local authorities toprotect their soils without distortion of competition between economic operators. At the same time, it will deliver guarantees and transparency within theinternal soil market in the Member States. Such a framework should be adopted on the basis of a comprehensive survey of soil status and of the measures already taken in Member States.
Justification
Also the regional authorities can have an important role in soil policy. A common framework would legislate and simplify the security and transparency of the European soil market.
The survey of soil status and of the measures already taken at national level should be carefully conducted before the Community framework directives comes into force.
Amendment 8 RECITAL 10
(10) Since the objectives of the action to be taken, namely to establish a common framework for the protection of soil, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore be better achieved at Community level by reason of the scale of the problem and its implications in respect of other Community legislation on nature protection, water protection, food safety, climate change, agriculture and areas of common interest, such as human health protection, the Community may therefore adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.	(10) Since soil degradation can have severe impacts on nature, water, food safety, climate change, agriculture and human health, and since, despite existing Community legislation, soil degradation is likely to increase, there is a need for a framework directive that enables the protection of soil in all Member States, albeit only in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty.In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.
Justification
The framework directive should enable the protection of soil in all Member States.
The patently obvious regional differences in soil characteristics and the extent to which soil is under pressure or under threat, and in terms of drawing up regionally adapted measures, make it imperative to apply the subsidiarity principle.
Amendment 9 RECITAL 11 A (new)
	(11a) Agriculture has always contributed positively to maintaining the structure of soil and its characteristics, and is an indispensable mechanism for conserving the organic quality of the soil and for helping to preserve the vegetal layer and avoid desertification.
Amendment 10 RECITAL 11 A (new)
	(11a) The mid-term review of the common agricultural policy should establish target measures for maintaining and improving soil fertility, organic matter content and carbon sequestration capacity.
Amendment 11 RECITAL 11 B (new)
	(11b) In order to avoid any overlap with existing agricultural and environmental legislation, and given the subsidiarity principle related to the implementation of ecoconditionality, each Member State should be able to decide to implement ecoconditionality taking into account its own climate, agriculture and soil characteristics.
Justification
The implementation of ecoconditionality should be left to the Member States, thus avoiding new burdens on agriculture and on the farmers.
Amendment 12 RECITAL 12
(12) In contrast to air and water, soil is mainly privately owned in the Community. Nevertheless it is a natural resource of common interest that has to be protected for future generations. In the public interest, therefore, land users should be required to take precautionary measures when their use of the soil can be expected to significantly hamper soil functions.	(12) In contrast to air and water, soil is mainly privately owned in the Community. Nevertheless it is a natural resource of common interest that has to be protected for future generations. In the public interest, therefore, land users should be encouraged to take precautionary measures to prevent soil degradation.
Justification
The recitals should be phrased more positive. Land users should be encouraged to take measures that prevent soil degradation.
Amendment 13 RECITAL 12 A (new)
	(12a) Fertility of the soil is the basis of life. The aim of all agricultural activity must be to maintain and improve that fertility.
Justification
Soil fertility is the first indicator of quality and its loss is one of the main problems facing Europe as a result of desertification and erosion.
Amendment 14 RECITAL 13
(13) Sealing is becoming significantly more intense in the Community as a result of urban sprawl and increasing demand for land from many sectors of the economy, and this calls for a more sustainable use of soil. Appropriate measures are needed to limit soil sealing, for instance by rehabilitating brownfield sites, thus reducing the depletion of greenfield sites. Where sealing does occur Member Statesshould provide for construction and drainage techniques that would allow as many soil functions as possible to be preserved.	(13) Sealing isincreasingly of concern because it can inhibit those soil functions that deliver services vital to human activities and to the survival of ecosystems without contributing to sustainable development in accordance with the Renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy set out in the Council conclusions of 9 June 2006 1. This calls for a more sustainable use of soil. Appropriate measures are therefore needed to limit soil sealing arising from development projects which are likely to significantly impede soil functions and which do not contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Member States should establish incentives for industrial and urban spatial development to occur on sites already used for industrial and urban purposes, and should limit the use of greenfield sites. Member States should also ensure that regulatory frameworks for land use planning are favourable to rehabilitation and should consider establishing fast-track planning authorisation procedures for remediation. Where sealing is to occur in such circumstances, Member States should ensure its effects are mitigated, for example by providing forconstruction and drainage techniques that would allow as many soil functions as possible to be preserved, and that it does not cause adverse environmental effects that would outweigh the benefits.
	______________ 1Council of the European Union 10117/06.
Justification
This amendment provides a clearer explanation why sealing is an area of concern and it makes a reference to the Sustainable Development Strategy.
Amendment 15 RECITAL 13 A (new)
	(13a) Soil acidification is an important problem in certain parts of the Community, which needs to be addressed. It is therefore necessary for Member States to take appropriate measures to ensure that inappropriate land use practices do not cause soil pH to decrease. At the same time, the characteristics of soils that are naturally acidic (e.g. peatlands) or constitute specific natural habitats should not be altered.
Justification
Since soil acidification is an important problem in certain parts of the Community, it should be addressed in this directive. Member States should take the appropriate measures to ensure that inappropriate land use practices do not cause soil pH to decrease. The characteristics of soils that are naturally acidic or constitute specific natural habitats should not be altered.
Amendment 16 RECITAL 14
(14) A targeted and efficient soil protection policy should be based on the knowledge of where degradation is occurring. It is recognised that certain degradation processes, such as erosion, organic matter decline, compaction, salinisation and landslides, occur only in specific areas which are more at risk of such processes. This requires the identification of such risk areas.	(14) A targeted and efficient soil protection policy requires common soil protection objectives. At the same time, however, Member States and regional and local authorities need to be able to take measures at the appropriate level and scale, and to identify priority areas based on scientific knowledge about the local soil characteristics, soil degradation processes and the environmental, economic and social circumstances. There is a need for an effective exchange of information on the state of the art science in the Member States, the best practices for the identification of the priority areas and the codes of good practice.
Justification
This recital clarifies that common soil protection objectives are needed, but that it should be left to the Member States and the regional and local authorities to decide on the measures. Furthermore some of the content of recital 15, 16, 17 is inserted in order to reduce the amount of recitals.
Amendment 17 RECITAL 15
(15) To ensure a coherent and comparable approach in the different Member States, identification of risk areas for erosion, organic matter decline, compaction, salinisation and landslides should be based on a common methodology which includes elements known to be driving forces for the various degradation processes.	deleted
Amendment 18 RECITAL 16
(16) In the risk areas identified, measures should be taken to prevent further soil degradation by reducing the risk of it occurring and restoring degraded soils in order to preserve soil functions.	deleted
Amendment 19 RECITAL 17
(17) Action is to be taken under the responsibility of Member States, at the most appropriate level, based on the establishment of risk reduction targets and programmes of measures to reach those targets.	deleted
Amendment 20 RECITAL 18
(18) Such programmes of measures should take into account the social and economic impact of the measures envisaged; they should be reviewed periodically and may build on obligations, plans and programmes already set up under Community legislation or international agreements.	(18) Programmes of measures and codes of good practice should take into account the social and economic impact of the measures envisaged; they should be reviewed periodically and may build on obligations, plans and programmes already set up under Community legislation and funding or international agreements.
Justification
Programmes of measures may also build on obligations, plans and programmes already set up under Community funding.
Amendment 21 RECITAL 18 A (new)
	(18a) There are a large number of European directives with an influence on soil use and spatial organisation. These include the Wild Birds and Habitats Directives, the Water Framework Directive and its daughter directives, the Nitrates Directive, and the directives on noise pollution and air quality. Local and regional authorities are increasingly required to take account of European directives. The directives are often poorly coordinated with one another, with the result that their objectives sometimes conflict and their reporting requirements always vary. The value of the European directives is beyond doubt, but they deprive local and regional authorities of the ability to set their own priorities. This downgrades to mere implementation the package of tasks that the lower levels of government are called upon to carry out. It would be good if European legislation allowed local and regional government more room for their own priorities. There is consequently a need for a comprehensive framework covering land use and spatial organisation. This framework should streamline reporting requirements and give Member States the opportunity to set their own priorities, provided other countries are not harmed and the targets are met.
Amendment 22 RECITAL 19
(19) This Directive should contribute to halting desertification, which results from concurrent degradation processes, and soil biodiversity loss, and enhance cooperation in the implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification and the Convention on Biological Diversity to which the Community is a party, and will enhance the implementation of these international environmental agreements.	(19) This Directive should contribute to halting desertification and thedecline of biodiversity, andto mitigating and adapting to climate change,which areinternational environmental problems, with severe local and regional impacts, where soil degradation plays a significant role; itshould also enhance cooperation in the implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol to which the Community is a party, and will enhance the implementation of these international environmental agreements.
Justification
There are also important links between soil protection and climate change. This recital should make a reference to the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol.
Amendment 23 RECITAL 22
(22) In order to successfully prevent and limit risk to human health and the environment stemming from soil contamination, Member States should identify the sites which according to their assessment are posing a significant risk in this regard. Given the number of sites which are likely to be contaminated, their identification requires a systematic step-by-step approach. To monitor progress on the identification of the contaminated sites a timetable is needed.	(22) In order to successfully prevent and limit risk to human health and the environment stemming from soil contamination, priority needs to be given to the identification and remediation of the sites which according to Member States' assessmentare posing a significant risk in this regard. The Member States should establish a process, including a timetable, for the assessment of the risks, the identification of the sites, the information of the public, the information of potential buyers in the case of land transactions, the order of priority and the funding of remediation. This process should prevent any overlap with existing national and Community legislation and should only add additional requirements if the current legislation is insufficient according to the assessment of the MemberState. A thorough exchange of information is needed to promote the best practices for risk assessment, identification, information of the public and remediation.
Justification
This amended recital 22 replaces recital 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, because it is sort of summarising these recitals, in order to shorten the amount of recitals.
Amendment 24 RECITAL 23
(23) To support the identification of contaminated sites and to secure a common approach, it is necessary to establish a common list of activities which can have a significant potential to cause soil contamination. This common list of potentially soil polluting activities may be complemented by other more comprehensive lists adopted at national level.	deleted
Justification
Replaced by amendment 23.
Amendment 25 RECITAL 24
(24) The identification of contaminated sites should be reflected in a national inventory of contaminated sites to be updated regularly and made available for the public to consult. Previous and current efforts by Member States to identify contaminated sites should be taken into account.	deleted
Justification
Replaced by amendment 23.
Amendment 26 RECITAL 25
(25) In order to assist in the rapid identification of contaminated sites, the owner of a site where, according to official records such as national registers or cadastres, a soil-polluting activity has taken or is taking place, or the prospective buyer should, prior to completing the land transaction, provide relevant information on the status of the soil to the competent authority and to the other party in the transaction. The provision of such information at the time when a land transaction is being planned, will help to speed up the completion of the inventory of contaminated sites. It will also make the prospective buyer aware of the state of the soil and enable him to make an informed choice.	deleted
Justification
Replaced by amendment 23.
Amendment 27 RECITAL 26
(26) Taking into account the polluter pays principle, Member States should ensure that action is taken to remediate the contaminated sites identified within their national territory.	deleted
Justification
Replaced by amendment 23.
Amendment 28 RECITAL 27
(27) A National Remediation Strategy should be established, in particular for the purposes of setting remediation targets and the order of priority in which sites should be remediated.	deleted
Justification
Replaced by amendment 23.
Amendment 29 RECITAL 28
(28) In those contaminated sites where the polluter cannot be found, cannot be held liable for the pollution under national or Community legislation or cannot be made to bear the costs of remediation, also known as orphan sites, responsibility for reducing risk to human health and the environment should fall on the Member States. For those purposes, Member States should put in place specific funding mechanisms to ensure a durable financial source for the remediation of such sites.	deleted
Justification
Replaced by amendment 23.
Amendment 30 RECITAL 29
(29) Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage1 establishes that, for orphan sites, remedial action may be taken by the competent authority as a last resort. That Directive should therefore be amended in order to align it with the remediation obligations laid down in this Directive. ____________ 1 OJ L 143, 30.4.2004, p. 56.	deleted
Justification
Replaced by amendment 23.
Amendment 31 RECITAL 30
(30) There is little public awareness of the importance of soil protection, and it is therefore necessary to introduce measures to improve knowledge, exchange of information and best practices.	deleted
Justification
Replaced by amendment 23.
Amendment 32 RECITAL 31
(31) The success of this Directive relies on close cooperation and coherent action at Community, Member State and local level as well as on information, consultation and involvement of the public, pursuant to Community obligations under the UNECE Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. Thus, for the preparation, modification and review of the programmes of measures on risk areas and the National Remediation Strategies, it is appropriate to provide for the application of Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC1. _________ 1 OJ L 156, 25.6.2003, p. 17.	deleted
Justification
Replaced by amendment 23.
Amendment 33 RECITAL 32
(32) It is recognised that different risk assessment methodologies for contaminated sites are currently being applied in Member States. In order to move towards a common approach ensuring neutral conditions of competition and a coherent soil protection regime, a thorough exchange of information is needed to establish the suitability of harmonising some of the elements of risk assessment as well as to further develop and improve the methodologies on eco-toxicological risk assessment.	deleted
Justification
Replaced by amendment 23.
Amendment 34 RECITAL 33
(33) Provision should be made to allow the rapid adaptation of methods of identification of risk areas in Member States including regularly reviewing the common elements therein.	deleted
Justification
Replaced by amendment 23.
Amendment 35 RECITAL 34
(34) Provisions should be adopted as regards the data exchange formats and data quality criteria and these would need to be consistent with the establishment of any infrastructure for spatial information in the Community.	deleted
Justification
Replaced by amendment 23.
Amendment 36 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 1
1. This Directive establishes a framework for the protection of soil and the preservation of the capacity of soil to perform any of the following environmental, economic, social and cultural functions:	1. The objective of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection and sustainable use ofsoil, based on the need to prevent soil degradation, in particular due to climate change, to mitigate its consequences and to restore or remediate degraded soils, taking into account the location specific conditions, and recognising that the soil is, like water, a shared resource for mankind, an ecosystem, a non-renewable resource anda platformfor the following environmental, economic, social and cultural functions:
(a) biomass production, including in agriculture and forestry;	(a) a basis for life and biodiversity;
(b) storing, filtering and transforming nutrients, substances and water;	(b)storing, acting as a buffer, filtering, and transforming nutrients, substances and water, and preserving ground- and surface water resources;
(c) biodiversity pool, such as habitats, species and genes;	(c) basis for biomass production in agriculture and forestry;
(d) physical and cultural environment for humans and human activities;	(d) physical and cultural environment for humans and human activities, including for towns and cities, infrastructure, recreation and other forms of public and economic use;
(e) source of raw materials;	(e) repositoryof raw materials;
(f) acting as carbon pool;	(f) acting as carbon pool;
(g) archive of geological and archeological heritage.	(g) archive of geological, cultural, geomorphological and archeological heritage.
To that end, it lays down measures for the prevention of soil degradation processes, both occurring naturally and caused by a wide range of human activities, which undermine the capacity of a soil to perform those functions. Such measures include the mitigation of the effects of those processes, and the restoration and remediation of degraded soils to a level of functionality consistent at least with the current and approved future use.	To that end, it lays down measures for the prevention and control of avoidable serious soil degradation, caused by a wide range of human activities, with due account also being taken of natural causes, which undermine the capacity of a soil to perform those functions. It lays down measures that improve the soil characteristics and functions, where appropriate. The measures include the mitigation of the effects of those processes, and the restoration and remediation of degraded soils to a level of functionality consistent at least with the current and approved future sustainable use.
Justification
Compromise amendment.
Amendment 37 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 2
2. This Directive shall apply to soil forming the top layer of the earth’s crust situated between the bedrock and the surface, excluding groundwater as defined in Article 2(2) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council1 ____________ 1 OJ L327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.	2. This Directive shall apply to soil forming the top layer of the earth’s crust, including the liquid and gaseous components, provided that it performs the functions referred to in paragraph 1.
Justification
Compromise amendment.
Amendment 38 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 2 A (new)
	2a. Soil protection provisions contained in other Community legislation shall take precedence over the provisions of this Directive. This shall apply, in particular, to activities falling within the scope of Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, Directive 1996/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy and its daughter directives, Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, Directive 2006/12/EC on waste and its daughter directives (particularly Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste), Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from extractive industries, Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs or Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed, if they contain provisions relating to soil protection.
Justification
The new paragraph governs the demarcation between the scope of this directive and that of existing legislation which contains soil protection provisions. It is needed to prevent duplication of, and conflict with, other legal provisions, and for reasons of legal clarity and certainty.
Amendment 39 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 2 B (new)
	2b. This Directive shall not apply to areas of land in respect of which, prior to [date of entry into force of the Directive], by agreement with the competent authorities, remediation decisions have been taken or remediation has already been completed, so that the areas of land in question pose no significant danger to human health or the environment.
Justification
In order to guarantee bodies and individuals who have already carried out remediation measures legal certainty in respect of such completed measures, and with a view to preventing abuses of trust, the directive should contain a provision laying down a time-limit regarding its application. Repeated recourse to the provisions of the Directive would be disproportionate.
Amendment 40 ARTICLE 2 , POINT 1
Does not affect the English version.
Begründung
Klarstellung, dass die Versiegelung die Oberfläche betrifft. Der Begriff Decke ist hinsichtlich der Tiefe auslegbar.
Amendment 41 ARTICLE 2, POINT 2
(2) ‘dangerous substances’ means substances or preparations within the meaning of Council Directive 67/548/EC and Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.	(2) ‘dangerous substances’ means substances or preparations within the meaning of Council Directive 67/548/EC3 and Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, including substances having persistent and bio-accumulative and toxic properties or very persistent and very bio-accumulative properties as well as radioactive substances, which may have a damaging impact on human health, the environment or the soil functions referred to Article 1(1).
Justification
Dioxins and furans are not explicitly included in the chemical legislation referred to (as they are not intentionally produced) however it is necessary to include them in the scope of this Directive to comply with the provisions in Article 6 of the Stockholm Convention (POPs Convention) as regards the identification of POP-contaminated sites .
The definition of dangerous substances must be linked to the soil functions referred to in Article 1.
The relation with the harmful effects to human health, the environment or to the soil functions should be clarified.
Amendment 42 ARTICLE 2, POINT 2 A (new)
	(2a) 'acidification' means a lowering of the soil pH caused by human action.
Justification
In other amendments acidification is included in the directive. Therefore a definition of acidification should be inserted.
Amendment 43 ARTICLE 2, POINT 2 B (new)
	(2b) 'compaction' means a process of densification in which total and air-filled porosity and permeability are reduced, inducing severe and long term changes in soil structure.
Justification
The term "compaction" requires further clarification.
Amendment 44 ARTICLE 2, POINT 2 C (new)
	(2c) 'valuable soils' means soils meriting protection due to their specific characteristics, structures, outstanding ecological, cultural and/or historical value or due to their use.
Justification
This amendment introduces the concept of valuable soils. This concept is introduced to recognise the specific value certain soils can have for certain specific ecosystems, communities and cultures. It is left to the Member States to identify these soils, according to their own ideas.
Amendment 45 ARTICLE 2, POINT 2 D (new)
	(2d) 'priority areas which would need special protection' means areas where, due to their vulnerability caused by the soil types, climatic conditions and land management practices, there is decisive evidence or legitimate grounds for suspicion that one of the degradation processes listed in Article 6 has occurred or is likely to occur.
Justification
In Article 6 the negative term "risk areas" has been changed in "priority areas". This definition clarifies the meaning of priority areas.
Amendment 46 ARTICLE 2, POINT 2 E (new)
	(2e) 'geogenically contaminated soil' means a soil where there is a confirmed presence, caused by geogenic sources such as parent material and volcanic activity, of substances of such a level that Member States consider they may pose a significant risk to human health or the environment, taking the current and approved future use of the soil into account.
Justification
Also contamination that is not caused by man, but by geogenic sources such as parent material and volcanic activity, can pose significant risk to human health or the environment. Therefore these soils should also be defined in this directive.
Amendment 47 ARTICLE 2, POINT 2 F (new)
	(2f) 'land users' means persons who perform actions which have a direct or indirect impact on the soil or who plan or commission actions which have an impact on the soil.
Justification
The concept of 'land user' is of decisive importance in connection with precautionary measures and should therefore be defined.
Amendment 48 ARTICLE 2, POINT 2 G (new)
	(2g) ‘geological heritage’ includes soil, geomorphological and geological objects and processes.
Justification
To make it more clear that the geological heritage also includes the soil heritage and geomorphological heritage and can also involve processes having heritage value.
Amendment 49 ARTICLE 2, POINT 2 H (new)
	(2h) 'contaminated site' means a site where there is a confirmed presence on or in the soil, caused by human activities, of dangerous substances of such a level that Member States consider the soil poses a significant risk to human health or the environment, taking the current and approved future use of the site into account.
Justification
Compromise amendment.
Amendment 50 ARTICLE 2, POINT 2 I (new)
	(2i) 'remediation' means measures
	(a) to eliminate or reduce contaminants (decontamination measures),
	(b) to prevent or reduce the spread of contaminants for a protracted period without eliminating the contaminants (safeguard measures)
	(c) to eliminate or reduce damaging changes in the physical, chemical or biological properties of the soil.
Amendment 51 ARTICLE 2, POINT 2 J (new)
	(2j) 'protective and restrictive measures' means other measures which prevent or reduce a hazard to human health or the environment, particularly restrictions on use.
Justification
In addition to the various methods of remediation referred to in the proposal for a Directive, such as decontamination and safeguarding, other options, such as appropriate protective and restrictive measures, should be taken into account.
Amendment 52 ARTICLE 2, POINT 2 K (new)
	(2k) 'loss of organic substance' means a lasting reduction in the organic fraction of soil due to mineralisation into CO2.
Justification
A definition of 'loss of organic substance' is needed. Otherwise, for example, under Article 6, areas for the extraction of raw materials would in future be classified as risk areas, because a 'loss of organic substances' occurs in these areas due to the removal of soil and raw materials.
Amendment 53 ARTICLE 3, PARAGRAPH 1
In the development of sectoral policies likely to exacerbate or reduce soil degradation processes, Member States shall identify, describe and assess the impacts of such policies on these processes, in particular in the areas of regional and urban spatial planning, transport, energy, agriculture, rural development, forestry, raw material extraction, trade and industry, product policy, tourism, climate change, environment, nature and landscape.	In the development of sectoral policies which do not fall within the scope of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment1 and which are likely to exacerbate or reduce soil degradation processes, and in the development of policiesto protect soil functions, Member States shall establish an integrated and systematic approachto ensure that the relevant provisions in existing directives, such as the Birds Directive, Habitats Directive, Water Framework Directive, Groundwater Directive, Mining Waste Directive, Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive and Impact Assessment Directive, are met, and that the relevant links between the directives are identified and taken into account. _____________ 1 OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30
Justification
Since several other directives have direct or indirect links with soil protection, Member States should ensure in a more integrated and systematic approach that the relevant provisions in the existing directives are met.
Additional formal procedures and publications over and above the existing strategic environmental assessment (Directive 2001/42/EC) and the assessment of effects on the environment (Directive 85/337/EEC) need to be avoided.
Abstract rules on soil protection must not call into question specific provisions from other areas of legislation.
Amendment 54 ARTICLE 3, PARAGRAPH 2 A (new)
	Where appropriate, Member States shall endeavour to integrate measures or policies that preserve or improve the soil's function to act as a carbon pool in their future soil policies or strategies, based on the latest research results and technological improvements.
Justification
The function of the soil to act as a carbon pool is included in Article 1. This important role of the soil is not sufficiently addressed in the Commission proposal. Member States should endeavour to integrate measures to preserve or improve this function in their soil policies or strategies, based on the latest scientific results.
Amendment 55 ARTICLE 4
Member States shall ensure that any land user whose actions affect the soil in a way that can reasonably be expected to hamper significantly the soil functions referred to in Article 1(1) is obliged to take precautions to prevent or minimise such adverse effects.	Member States shall ensure that any land user whose actions could cause lasting and substantial damage of one or more of the soil functions referred to in Article 1(1) is obliged to take proportionateprecautions to avoid, reduceor control such adverse effects, in so far this is reasonable in the light of the purpose for which the land is being used and of the approved future use.
Justification
Compromise amendment.
Amendment 56 ARTICLE 4, PARAGRAPH 1 A (new)
	1a. Member States shall identify valuable soils as defined in Article 2 in their national territory, based on criteria to be established by the MemberState or the regional or local authorities.
	Bearing in mind their legislative capacities and responsibilities and without prejudice to the subsidiarity principle, Member States may promote measures and policies to increase awareness and scientific knowledge about these soils and to protect, preserve and improve their characteristics and functions where possible, especially where those soils, according to the assessment of the Member States, contribute to geological diversity or where they are a platform for valuable historical settlements, rural architecture and natural and cultural landscapes.
	Among the precautionary measures Member States may develop digital maps about the identified valuable soils, to indicate where protection is needed.
Justification
The Member States should be consistent in their common policies such as the European scenery card and the existence of a common cultural heritage, recognising the irreversible destruction of the landscape and of cultural heritage.
Amendment 57 ARTICLE 4, PARAGRAPH 1 B (new)
	1b. In agriculture, the requirement to take precautions is fulfilled by observing codes of good practice and applying the provisions to be laid down pursuant to Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers1 in conjunction with Annex IV thereof. _______ 1 OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 1.
Justification
In applying the principle that precautions must be taken, the requirements imposed must be proportionate. Reducing impairment of soil functions is also inserted as an objective, as in many cases it will not be possible to completely prevent such damage by means of precautions.
In agriculture, the requirement to take precautions is fulfilled by observing codes of good practice and applying the provisions to be laid down pursuant to Article 5 in conjunction with Annex IV of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003.
Amendment 58 ARTICLE 4, PARAGRAPH 1 C (new)
	1c. For the purpose of paragraph 1 and within five years from [transposition date], Member States shall develop voluntary codes of good practice as regards soil protection for those activities which may reasonably be expected to hamper significantly the soil functions referred to in Article 1. These codes of good practice may build on existing national or Community codes and may contain the elements provided for in Annex -I.
	Within three years from [transposition date], the Commission shall facilitate the distribution and exchange of information on the legislation or codes of good practice already existing in the Member States as regards the protection of the functions referred to Article 1, including the cultural heritage, natural parks and geologically valuable zones.
Justification
The precautionary principle is a key principle of this directive. Member States should therefore develop codes of good practice as regards soil protection.
Amendment 59 ARTICLE 4 A (new)
	Article 4a
	The Commission shall promote the use of certain products that contribute most to maintaining and increasing the organic material of soils and to the prevention of desertification. Member States shall also promote the use of green fertilisers and compost that enhance the fertility and biological activity of soil.
Amendment 60 ARTICLE 5
For the purposes of preserving the soil functions referred to in Article 1(1), Member States shall take appropriate measures to limit sealing or, where sealing is to be carried out, to mitigate its effects in particular by the use of construction techniques and products which will allow as many of those functions as possible to be maintained.	1. For the purposes of preserving the soil functions referred to in Article 1(1), Member States shall take suitablemeasures to limit sealing, and to minimise its effects, to the extent which is necessary, in particular where a proposed development project involves soil sealing, and where:
	(a) the project is of a type listed in either Annex I or Annex II of Council Directive 85/337/EEC and requires an assessment under that directive;
	(b) the assessment indicates that there are likely to be impacts arising from sealing that significantly impede one or more of the soil functions listed in Article 1(1).
	This will allow as many of those functions as possible to be maintained.
	2. Member States shall decide on the measures which are appropriate, in particular those mentioned in paragraph 3,taking into account the costs and benefits of such measures.
	3. As sealing is an irreversible process, Member States shall develop codes of good practice on sealing that:
	- preserve river basins and the natural flow of water;
	- prevent increased flood risks, resulting from sealing;
	- promote proper access to green areas in expanding cities;
	- preserve valuable geomorphological soil structures, characteristic landscapes and costal areas;
	- preserve archaeological sites, prehistoric caves and historical sites;
	- avoid the visual impacts of extractive industries;
	- facilitate industrial and urban spatial planning on areas already affected by industrial and urban planning; and
	- promote brownfield investments.
Justification
Compromise amendment.
Amendment 61 ARTICLE 5 A (new)
	Article 5a
	Methodology
	1. The state of the soil shall be monitored taking into account available information and, when necessary, generating new information using new technologies, such as GMES and INSPIRE. In particular, Member States shall encourage the use of digital technologies and digital mapping.
	2. For the identification of priority areas pursuant to Article 6, Member States may rely on existing empirical evidence or on modelling. If modelling is used, efforts shall be made to validate the models by comparing their results with measured data, which have not been used for the development of the model itself. Member States shall be allowed to use the information gathered with the new technologies mentioned in paragraph 1 for the identification of priority areas.
	3. The monitoring scale shall be determined at the discretion of the Member States.
Justification
Compromise amendment.
Amendment 62 ARTICLE 6
Identification of risk areas of erosion, organic matter decline, compaction, salinisation and landslides	Identification ofpriority areaswhich need special protectionagainsterosion, organic matter decline,soil biodiversity loss,compaction, salinisation, landslides,desertification or acidification
1. Within five years from [transposition date], Member States shall identify the areas in their national territory, at the appropriate level, where there is decisive evidence, or legitimate grounds for suspicion, thatone or more of the following soil degradation processeshas occurred or is likely to occur in the near future, hereinafter “the risk areas”:	1. Within fiveyearsfrom [transposition date], Member States shall identify the areas in their territory, the priority areas as defined in Article 2, which in their estimation require special protection against one or more of the following soil degradation processes:
(a) erosion by water or wind;	(a) erosion;
(b) organic matter decline brought about by a steady downward trend in the organic fraction of the soil, excluding undecayed plant and animal residues, their partial decomposition products, and the soil biomass;	(b) organic matter decline;
(c) compaction through an increase in bulk density and a decrease in soil porosity;	(c) an increase in bulk density and a decrease in soil porosity (compaction);
(e) salinisation through the accumulation in soil of soluble salts;	(e) salinisation;
(f) landslides brought about by the down-slope, moderately rapid to rapid movement of masses of soil and rock material.	(f) landslides;
	(fa) subsidence;
	(fb) desertification;
	(fc) adverse effects of climate change on the soil;
	(fd) soil biodiversity loss;
	(fe) acidification.
For thepurposes of that identification, Member States shall, in respect of each of those soil degradation processes, use at least the elements listed in Annex I and shall take into account the effects of those processes in exacerbating greenhouse gas emissions and desertification.	Forthispurpose,Member States shall determine the appropriate administrative level and geographical size unit, perform assessments using, where relevant according to their assessment,the criteria in Annex I and supply information about the assessment methods used by means of a procedure pursuant to Article 17.
	In identifying the areas, Member States shall take into account the effectsof those soil degradation processesin exacerbating greenhouse gas emissions and desertification, the loss of human life and well-being and the damage to cultural heritage. Member States shall take into account present land use practices which aim already at combating these degradation processes.
2. The risk areas identified pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be made public and reviewed at least every ten years.	2. The areas identified pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be made public and reviewed at least every ten years.
Justification
Compromise amendment.
Amendment 63 ARTICLE 6, PARAGRAPH 2 A (new)
	2a. Within two years from [transposition date] the Commission shall, in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 19(3), produce guidelines, based on best practice, for the definition and identification of priority areas.
Justification
Due to the different soil conditions in the various Member States it is not possible to have common uniform standards on the definition of risk areas. However, the European Commission should provide guidelines based on best practices. The use of such guidelines will also make easier the comparison of the priority areas throughout the European Union.
Amendment 64 ARTICLE 7
Article 7	deleted
Methodology
Member States may base the identification of risk areas on empirical evidence or on modelling. If modelling is used, the models must be validated by comparing the results on the basis of empirical data which have not been used for the development of the model itself.
Justification
Is covered by the compromise amendment on Article 5a.
Amendment 65 ARTICLE 8
1. For the purposes of preserving the soil functions referred to in Article 1(1), Member States shall in respect of the risk areas identified in accordance with Article 6, draw up, at the appropriate level, a programme of measures including at least risk reduction targets, the appropriate measures for reaching those targets, a timetable for the implementation of those measures and an estimate of the allocation of private or public means for the funding of those measures.	1. For the purposes of preserving the soil functions referred to in Article 1(1), Member States shall, in respect of the priority areas identified in accordance with Article 6, ensure that, at what they deem the most appropriate geographical and administrative level, risk reduction targets are formulated to combat the degradation processes and that the necessary measures are taken, including integrated territorial care strategies or programmes of measures, and where possible restoration targets, where there are legitimate grounds for suspicion that one or more of the soil degradation processes has occurred or is likely to occur in the near future, a timetable for the implementation of those measures and an estimate of the allocation of private or public means for the funding of those measures.
	1a.With a view to preventing any duplication of efforts, the programme of measures pursuant to paragraph 1 may build on obligations, plans and programmes already set up under national or Community legislation, including those set up pursuant to the Common Agricultural Policy, including Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003on cross compliance and in Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005on rural development, or international agreements, and may take into account the measures listed in Annex Ia.
2. When drawing up and revising the programmes of measures pursuant to paragraph 1, Member States shall give due consideration to the social and economic impacts of the measures envisaged.	2. Forthe drawingupand implementation of the programme of measures pursuant to paragraph 1, Member States may establish a prioritisation of action according to the magnitude of the degradation process in their national territory and the effects of such degradation on climate change and desertification.
Member States shall ensure that measures are cost-effective, technically feasible and shall carry out impact assessments, including cost-benefit analyses, prior to the introduction of the programmes of measures.	Member States shall ensure that measures are cost-effective, technically feasible and shall carry out impact assessments, including cost-benefit analyses, prior to the introduction of the programmes of measures.
	Member States shall provide information, pursuant to Article 17, concerning the objectives for preservation of the soil functions referred to in Article 1 and the measures taken.
	The choice of the measures shall be left to the Member States.
Member States shall indicate in their programmes of measures how the measures are to be implemented and how they will contribute to achievement of the environmental targets established.	2a.Member States shall give due consideration to the social and economic impacts of any measures pursuant to paragraph 1.
3. Where an area is at risk from different concurrent soil degradation processes, Member States may adopt a single programme in which appropriate risk reduction targets are to be set for all the risks identified together with the appropriate measures for reaching those targets.	3. Where areas would need special protection against different concurrent soil degradation processes, Member States may set appropriate risk reduction targets for all the risks identified together with the appropriate measures for reaching those targets.
4. The programme of measures shall be drawn up within seven years from [transposition date] and shall be in application no later than eight years after that date.	4. The programme of measures should be drawn up within seven years from [transposition date] and be in application no later than eight years after that date.
The programme of measures shall be made public and shall be reviewed at least every five years.	The programme of measures should be made public and shall be reviewed at least every five years.
Justification
Compromise amendment.
Amendment 66 ARTICLE 8 A (new)
	Article 8a
	Agricultural use of soil
	1. Each Member State, in accordance with its climate, soil characteristics and agriculture, as well as its best agricultural practices, may decide upon its own agricultural policy in relation to the soil.
	2. As regards the agricultural use of soil, Member States shall encourage the choice of crops and afforestation methods or programmes which have a beneficial effect on soil organic matter and soil fertility and which can prevent landslides and desertification.
	3. Member States shall also support agricultural practices which favour the filtering and water retention capacity of the soil, with a view to preventing compaction and erosion.
	4. The Commission and the MemberStates shall promote and exploit research in particular as regards the functions of the different crops in relation to climate change and carbon capture with the aim of integrating this scientifically-based knowledge in the development of soil policy.
	5. The use of compost shall be encouraged with the aim of maintaining soil fertility, enhancing soil organic matter levels and fighting erosion. For that purpose Member States shall adopt compost quality standards.
	6. No later than two years after the entry into force of this Directive, the Commission shall present a proposal for a biowaste directive setting quality standards for the use of biowaste as a soil improver.
	7. The development of the standards under cross compliance and the agri-environment measures under rural development aimed at protecting soil in the areas identified pursuant to Article 6 shall take into consideration the possible efforts and burden they may entail.
Justification
Compromise amendment.
Amendment 67 CHAPTER III, ARTICLE 8 B (new)
	Contaminated Land Management Strategy
	Member States shall establish a ContaminatedLand Management Strategy defining how competent authorities should deal with soil contamination that poses an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment, taking into account present and future land use. That strategy shall include a strategy for identification of contaminated sites and a contaminated sites remediation strategy.
Justification
The text benefits from mentioning the goals of the strategy at the beginning of this chapter since the following articles elaborate on the strategy's means.
Amendment 68 ARTICLE 9
For the purposes of preserving the soil functions referred to in Article 1(1), Member States shall take appropriate and proportionate measures to limit the intentional or unintentional introduction of dangerous substances on or in the soil, excluding those due to air deposition and those due to a natural phenomenon of exceptional, inevitable and irresistible character, in order to avoid accumulation thatwould hamper soil functions or give rise to significant risks to human health or the environment.	For the purposes of preserving the soil functions referred to in Article 1(1), Member States shall ensurethat appropriate and proportionate measures are taken at the appropriate administrative levelthat:
	(a) prevent the intentional or unintentional introduction of dangerous substances on or in the soil by illegal dumping, seepage or leakage. Measures shall be based on an assessment of the likelihood of whether activities involving hazardous substances on or in the soil might lead to soil contamination;
	(b) limit the intentional or unintentional introduction of dangerous substances on or in the soil, excluding those due to air deposition, those due to a natural phenomenon of exceptional, inevitable and irresistible character orthose which participate in the treatment or the improvement of the soil, in order to avoid accumulation to an extent at which soil functions are hampered or significant risks arise to human health or the environment.
Amendment 69 ARTICLE 9, PARAGRAPH 1 A (new)
	1a. In order to comply with this Article, Member States shall in particular take steps to limit the deposition of dangerous substances onto land through water used for irrigation, use of fertilisers, and waste spread on land.
Justification
This amendment emphasises the importance of limiting the deposition of dangerous substances on land through water, fertilisers and waste.
Amendment 70 ARTICLE 9, PARAGRAPH 1 B (new)
	1b. Measures to prevent soil contamination adopted by Community or national approval procedures aiming at protection of soil, are considered to be precautionary measures pursuant to paragraph 1.
Justification
The approach taken to the effects of introducing dangerous substances should be geared to the use made of the soil, and should observe the principle of proportionality.
Activities authorised under EU or national legislation, already fulfilling the obligation for preventing soil contamination in compliance with the relevant legal requirements, must not be subject to the requirements of this directive.
A doubling of regulatory regimes without any added value to soil protection must be avoided!
Amendment 71 ARTICLE 9, PARAGRAPH 1 C (new)
	1c. Member States shall ensure that contaminated soil is remediated taking account of the precautionary principle, the sustainability principle, the polluter-pays principle and the proportionality principle.
Justification
A distinction needs to be drawn between two types of soil contamination: contamination resulting from industrial activities and from agricultural activities. Whilst contamination resulting from industrial activities should be prevented, contamination arising from agricultural activities can only be limited so that it does not give rise to any risk to soil functions, health and the environment.
The need for these preventive measures should be assessed on the basis of a risk assessment of activities that have the potential to cause soil contamination.
Amendment 72 ARTICLE 9, PARAGRAPH 1 D (new)
	1d. For the purpose of preserving the soil functions and conditions required to ensure the protection of the environment and human health, sustainable economic activities, food safety, high quality standards and/or certified agricultural products and production systems, Member States shall take adequate measures in order to:
	(a) promote suitable and sustainable land management practices;
	(b) reduce contamination hazards in agricultural and forest soils;
	(c) integrate and update legislation and policies;
	(d) promote specific monitoring campaignswithin pilot areas representing specific soiland production systems.
Justification
Some prevention measures must be outlined in order to preserve the soil functions.
Amendment 73 ARTICLE 9, PARAGRAPH 1 E (new)
	1e. Member States shall take appropriate steps to establish a hierarchy of measures to protect soil from pollution, with priority being given to prevention.
	Not later than [three years after the entry into force of this Directive], the Commission shall, in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 19(3), adopt a priority list of dangerous substances on or in the soil which are liable to have persistentand bio-accumulative and toxic properties or very persistent and very bio-accumulative properties, have irreversible or long-term negative impacts or disrupt endocrine functions. European reference values based on risk assessment for these substances shall be established.
Amendment 74 ARTICLES 10 AND 11
Article 10	Article 10
Inventory of contaminated sites	Procedure for the identification, investigation and assessment of potentially contaminated sites
1. Member States shall, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 11, identify the sites in theirnationalterritorywhere there is a confirmed presence, caused by man, of dangerous substances of such a level that Member States consider they pose a significant risk to human health or the environment, hereinafter “contaminated sites”.	1. Member States shall ensure that the contaminated sites in their territory are identified.
That risk shall be evaluated taking into account current and approved future use of the land.
2. Member States shallestablish a national inventory of contaminated sites, hereinafter “the inventory”. The inventory shall be made public and reviewed at least every five years.	2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, Member States shall:
Article 11
Identification procedure
1. Each MemberState shall designate a competent authority to be responsible for the identification of contaminated sites.	(a) designate one or more competent authorities to be responsible for the identification of both potentially contaminated sites and contaminated sites and for the management of the related inventory;
2. Within fiveyears from [transposition date], the competent authoritiesshall have identified the location of at least the sites where the potentially soil-polluting activities referred to in Annex II are taking place or have taken place in the past.	(b) within 7 years from [transposition date], have identified the location of at least the sites where the potentially soil-polluting activities as indicated in Annex II are taking place or have taken place in the past. The identification shall be reviewed at regular intervals;
	(c) for sites identified in accordance with point (b), analyse existing information on present and past activities on the site, and carry out thorough investigations in particular as regards the handling, use and storage of dangerous substances over time, and any evidence of accidents involving the emission of dangerous substances;
	(d) establish risk related values for the most significant protection areas and uses on their territory;
	(e) measure the concentration levels of dangerous substances, which shall be restricted to substances handled in the sites identified in accordance with point (b);
For those purposes, the activities referred to in point 2 of Annex II shall be considered independently of the thresholds specified in Annex I to Council Directive 96/61/EC1 , except for the activities carried out by micro-enterprises, as defined in point 3 of Article 2 in the Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC2, and those relative to the rearing of livestock.	(f) carry out an on-site risk assessment on the sites where the levels of dangerous substances exceed the risk related values established according to point (d), taking into account the current and approved future use of the site. Such risk assessments shall include at least the risks posed by:
	(i) direct human contact on the basis of appropriate exposure estimates and scientifically recognised human toxicological principles;
	(ii) impaired quality of food and feed on the basis of the provisions for food laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 and for feed in Directive 2002/32/EC;
The identification shall be reviewed at regular intervals.	(iii) impaired water quality on the basis of the provisions of Directive 2000/60/EC;
	(g) report on the investigation and assessment methods used by them for risk assessment in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 17.
3. In accordance with the following time-table, the competent authorities shall measure the concentration levels of dangerous substances in the sites identified in accordance with paragraph 2, and where the levels are such that there may be sufficient reasons to believe that they pose a significant risk to human health or the environment, an on-site risk assessment shall be carried out in relation to those sites:	3. In accordance with the following time-table, the competent authorities shall ensure that soil investigations pursuant to paragraph 2 are carried out for the purpose of verifying whether the investigated site should be qualified as a contaminated site:
(a) within five years from [transposition date], for at least 10% of the sites;	(a) within five years from [transposition date], for at least 10% of the sites;
(b) within 15 years from [transposition date], for at least 60% of the sites;	(b) within 15 years from [transposition date], for at least 60% of the sites;
(c) within 25years from [transposition date], for the remaining sites.	(c) within 20years from [transposition date], for the remaining sites.
	3a. Member States shall establish national or regional inventories of contaminated sites. The inventory shall be made public and updated at least every five years on the basis of information delivered to them or generated on their behalf, in particular to include new contaminated sites that have been identified and to exclude sites which have undergone remediation and no longer pose a significant risk to human health or the environment.
	In compiling the inventory Member States may use the data and information already available at national level.
	3b. Member States shall, where appropriate, give special attention to the distinction between anthropogenic pollution and geogenic contamination. Geogenically contaminated soils as defined in Article 2 shall be evaluated in terms of their risks to human health and the environment.
_____________ 1 OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26. 2 OJ L 124, 20.5.2003, p. 36.
Justification
Compromise amendment.
Amendment 75 ARTICLE 10, PARAGRAPH 3 C (new)
	3c. Member States shall ensure that:
	(a) the potential buyer of a site identified in accordance with paragraph 2 is informed about the past activities on the site and, where existing, the results of the assessments and investigations under paragraphs 2 and/or 3 before the site is sold in parts or entirely,
	(b) the investigation and assessment necessary to decide whether a site is a risk to human health or the environment is always completed before construction of any new development begins. Member States may require the owner or a developer to carry out these investigations and assessments.
Amendment 76 ARTICLE 10, PARAGRAPH 3 D (new)
	3d. The reports of investigations according to paragraphs 3 and 3c(a) shall be made available to the competent authority.
.
Amendment 77 ARTICLE 12
Article 12	deleted
Soil status report
1. Where a site is to be sold on which a potentially polluting activity listed in Annex II is taking place, or for which the official records, such as national registers, show that it has taken place, Member States shall ensure that the owner of that site or the prospective buyer makes a soil status report available to the competent authority referred to in Article 11 and to the other party in the transaction.
2. The soil status report shall be issued by an authorised body or person appointed by the MemberState. It shall include at least the following details:
(a) the background history of the site, as available from official records;
(b) a chemical analysis determining the concentration levels of the dangerous substances in the soil, limited to those substances that are linked to the potentially polluting activity on the site;
(c) the concentration levels at which there are sufficient reasons to believe that the dangerous substances concerned pose a significant risk to human health or to the environment.
3. Member States shall establish the methodology necessary for determining the concentration levels referred to in paragraph 2(b).
4. The information contained in the soil status report shall be used by the competent authorities for the purposes of identifying contaminated sites in accordance with Article 10(1).
Amendment 78 ARTICLE 13, PARAGRAPH -1
	-1. Member States shall, within seven years from [transposition date], ensure that a remediation strategy or strategies are drawn up at the administrative level they consider appropriate, including at least a procedure for setting remediation targets, a procedure for prioritisation, a timetable for implementation of remediation measures for the sites identified in accordance with Article 10(2) and the funding mechanism pursuant to paragraph 3 of this Article. Member States shall notify the Commission in accordance with the procedure in Article 16 of their remediation targets, a procedure for prioritisation, a timetable for implementation of remediation measures for the sites identified in accordance with Article 10(2) and the funding mechanism pursuant to paragraph 3 of this Article.
Amendment 79 ARTICLE 13, PARAGRAPH 1
1. Member States shall ensure that the contaminated sites listed in their inventories are remediated.	1. Member States shall ensure that the polluted sites identified according to Article 10(2) are remediated(, in accordance with priorities to be set, or already set, by the Member States themselves.
	(Member States shall also ensure that temporary and urgent safety measures are adopted where there is a serious risk of contamination spreading, threatening both human health and the environment.
Amendment 80 ARTICLE 13, PARAGRAPH 2, SUBPARAGRAPH 1 A (new)
	Member States shall ensure the use of best available techniques for remedial action.
Amendment 81 ARTICLE 13, PARAGRAPH 2 A (new)
	2a. Member States shall determine the appropriate measure taking into account, inter alia, the costs and benefits of that measure.
Amendment 82 ARTICLE 13, PARAGRAPH 2 B (new)
	2b. If the means required for remediation are not technically available, or represent a disproportionate cost with respect to expected environmental benefits, sites may be conditioned in such a way that they do not harm the environment or human health, including by restricting access to them or allowing natural recovery. If Member States choose either of these options, they shall monitor the risk to human health and the environment.
Amendment 83 ARTICLE 13, PARAGRAPH 3
3. Member States shall set up appropriate mechanisms to fund the remediation of the contaminated sites for which, subject to the polluter pays principle, the person responsible for the pollution cannot be identified or cannot be held liable under Community or national legislation or may not be made to bear the costs of remediation.	3. Member States shall set up appropriate mechanisms at national level (including for instance funds, investment aids, tax exemptions or reductions, tax refunds, direct price support schemes) to fund the remediation or provide for the remediation, of those contaminated areas for which, subject to the polluter pays principle, the person responsible for the pollution cannot be identified or cannot be held liable under Community or national legislation or may not be made to bear the costs of remediation. With a view to fostering remediation, Member States shall guarantee the proper functioning of these mechanisms in order to maintain investor confidence and achieve the aims of this Directive.
	Member States shall establish processes for managing cases where liability for funding remediation (or a portion of the remediation) should be transferred from one potentially responsible person to another. Existing financing mechanisms in Member States should be maintained if they have proved effective.
Justification
Amendment 84 ARTICLE 14
Article 14	deleted
National Remediation Strategy
1. Member States shall, on the basis of the inventory and within seven years from [transposition date], draw up a National Remediation Strategy, including at least remediation targets, a prioritisation, starting with those sites which pose a significant risk to human health, a timetable for implementation, and the funds allocated by the authorities responsible for budgetary decisions in the Member States in accordance with their national procedures.
Where containment or natural recovery are applied, the evolution of the risk to human health or the environment shall be monitored.
2. The National Remediation Strategy shall be in application and be made public no later than eight years after [transposition date]. It shall be reviewed at least every five years.
Amendment 85 ARTICLE 15, PARAGRAPH 2
2. Article 2(1), (2), (3) and (5) of Directive 2003/35/EC shall apply to the preparation, modification and review of the programmes of measures on risk areas referred to in Article 8 and the National Remediation Strategies referred to in Article 14.	deleted
Justification
The efforts of the Commission to further raise public awareness, in line with Article 15(1) of the proposal, should be supported. Any further participation on the part of the public should be restricted to the situations covered in Directive 2003/35/EC on information concerning the environment. Paragraph 2 should, therefore, be deleted.
Amendment 86 ARTICLE 15 A (new)
	Article 15a
	Cooperation between Member States
	Where a Member State is aware that any of its priority areas or contaminated sites are likely to have significant negative effects on human health or the environment in another Member State, or where a Member State likely to be significantly affected so requests, the Member State in whose territory the risk areas or the contaminated sites are located shall inform the other Member State and consult it on the measures to be taken to prevent or reduce such negative effects.
Justification
Cooperation between Member States is needed to address transboundary soil degradation.
Amendment 87 ARTICLE 16, PARAGRAPH 1
1. Member States shall make the following information available to the Commission within eight years from [transposition date], and every five years thereafter: (a) a summary of the initiatives taken pursuant to Article 5; (b) the risk areas established pursuant to Article 6(1); (c) the methodology used for risk identification pursuant to Article 7; (d) the programmes of measures adopted pursuant to Article 8 as well as an assessment of the efficiency of the measures to reduce the risk and occurrence of soil degradation processes; (e) the outcome of the identification pursuant to Article 11(2) and (3) and the inventory of contaminated sites established pursuant to Article 10(2); (f) the National Remediation Strategy adopted pursuant to Article 14; (g) a summary of the initiatives taken pursuant to Article 15 as regards awareness raising.	1. Member States shall, by means of a procedure in accordance with Article 17,enable the Commission to have access to data which contains information in accordance with Articles 5, 6, 10 and 13, and to a summary of the awareness-raising initiatives taken on the basis of Article 15.
Justification
In order to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy and extra administrative load, any increase in documentation, mapping and reporting obligations must be avoided at all costs, as this would subject Member States' administrations to considerable extra personnel and material costs, on both a one-off and a permanent basis.
Member States should be able to set up their own reporting systems and use these to make information available to the European Commission.
The Commission must be given the opportunity to compare information and analyses gleaned from Member States using a unified data format.
Amendment 88 ARTICLE 16, PARAGRAPH 2
2. The information referred to in paragraph 1(b) shall be accompanied by metadata and shall be made available as documented digital georeferenced data in a format that can be read by a geographic information system (GIS).	2. The Member States may also use their own systems for gathering information, in accordance with paragraph 1.
Amendment 89 ARTICLE 16, PARAGRAPH 2 A (new)
	2a. Successful measures and programmes of measures evaluated and made available pursuant to this Article may be included in Annex -I .
Amendment 90 ARTICLE 17
Within one year from [entry into force], the Commission shall set up a platform for the exchange of information between Member States and stakeholders on the risk area identification pursuant to Article 6 and on risk assessment methodologies for contaminated sites currently in use or under development.	Within one year from [entry into force], the Commission shall set up a platform for the exchange of information and coordination between Member States,regional and local authorities and stakeholders on:
	(a) best practices in preserving and improving the soil's function to act as a carbon pool, pursuant to Article 3;
	(b) the identification of valuable soils and best practices to protect, preserve and improve their characteristics and functions pursuant to Article 4(1a);
	(c) codes of good practice pursuant to Article 4(1b), including best practices for preventing and combating erosion, organic matter decline, compaction, salinisation, landslides, adverse effects from climate change, desertification, and biodiversity decline resulting from soil degradation processes;
	(d) the codes of good practice for sealing pursuant to Article 5;
	(e) the priority area identification pursuant to Article 6;
	(f) risk assessment methodologies for polluted sites currently in use or under development;
	(g) scientific information on soil protection from inter alia the Seventh Framework Programme and subsequent programmes,and on the experience of preventing soil degradation and dealing with soil contamination. The Commission shall develop, in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 19(3), guidelines for risk assessment methodologies for contaminated sites.
Justification
The platform for the exchange of information should get a broader and more central role than in the Commission proposal.
Amendment 91 ARTICLE 17, PARAGRAPH 1 A (new)
	1a. In setting up the platform, the Commission shall take into consideration the existing systems in MemberStates and compatibility with national information systems. The rules of Directive 2007/2/EC shall remain unchanged. Member States shall support the Commission with regard to the quality of data and metadata and to the use of data from the past.
Justification
When setting up this kind of platform, a pragmatic approach bearing in mind the existing systems in the Member States must be taken.
Amendment 92 ARTICLE 17, PARAGRAPH 1 B (new)
	1b. If it becomes clear, on the basis of the exchange of the information referred to in paragraph 1, that the methods used for assessing the threat of soil contamination in accordance with Article 10 must be harmonised or that the Directive needs to be adapted in line with technical and scientific advances, the Commission shall, pursuant to Article 251 of the Treaty, propose common criteria for assessing the risk of soil contamination or implementing the requisite adjustments.
Amendment 93 ARTICLE 18
Article 18 Implementation and adaptation to technical progress 1. The Commission may, in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 19(3), adapt Annex I to technical and scientific progress.	deleted
2. Where, on the basis of the exchange of information referred to in Article 17, a need to harmonise the risk assessment methodologies for soil contamination is identified, the Commission shall adopt common criteria for soil contamination risk assessment in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 19(3).
3. Within four years after [date of entry into force], the Commission shall adopt, in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 19(2), the necessary provisions on data and metadata quality, utilisation of historical data, methods, access, and data-exchange formats for the implementation of the provisions of Article 16.
Amendment 94 ARTICLE 19, PARAGRAPH 4
4. The Committee shall adopt its rules of procedure.	4. The Committee shall adopt its rules of procedure. These rules shall allow stakeholders’ representatives to participate in the Committee’s deliberations.
Justification
It is important that a transparent, democratic and workable procedure takes place involving all stakeholders.
Amendment 95 ARTICLE 19, PARAGRAPH 4 A (new)
	4a. The Committee shall consult the affected economic stakeholders and environmental associations before taking its decisions.
Justification
It is important that a transparent, democratic and workable procedure takes place involving all stakeholders.
Amendment 96 ARTICLE 23 Article 6, paragraph 3 (Directive 2004/35/EC)
Article 23 Amendment to Directive 2004/35/EC	deleted
In Article 6 of Directive 2004/35/EC, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:
'3. The competent authority shall require the remedial measures to be taken by the operator. Subject to Article 13(1) of Directive xx/xx/xx, if the operator fails to comply with the obligations laid down in paragraph 1 or 2(b), (c) or (d) of this Article, or cannot be identified or is not required to bear the costs under this Directive, those measures may be taken by the competent authority itself.'
Justification
This provision does not make it possible to estimate what financial burden on public funds would be involved. It should be left to the discretion of the Member States to decide to what extent they wish, or are able, to remediate such environmental damage.
Amendment 97 ARTICLE 24, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 2 A (new)
	Where existing national provisions remain in force unamended, a notice of compliance shall suffice.
Justification
The Commission considers that some existing legislation in the Member States does not need adapting to the Directive, since it provides the same or a higher level of protection and is complies with the provisions of the directive. That being so, there is no need to issue a formal re-notification of this legislation with reference to the Directive, and the official notice of compliance is sufficient.
Amendment 98 ANNEX - I (new)
	ANNEX -I
	Possible elements in the codes of good practice for protection or improvement of the soil
	Codes of good practice for the different land use activities referred to in Article 4 may contain the following elements:
	1. a description of the impacts on soil functions that can be expected (only those soil functions likely to be significantly hampered would need to be considered);
	2. techniques, methods and land management practices that can minimise the disruption to soil functions, while at the same time allowing a sustainable use of the soil;
	3. a list of information sources and competent authorities that can advise the land user on how to use the soil with minimum soil disruption;
	4. a list of national and Community legislation relevant to soil protection and applicable to the specific activity;
	5. guidance for risk assessment methodologies.
Amendment 99 ANNEX I, SECTION 1, ROW 3 A (new)
	Organic matter content
Justification
Areas at risk from erosion are also characterised by a low organic matter/humus content in the soil. By measuring this parameter it will be possible, in conjunction with the other parameters, to draw up need assessments and take counter-measures accordingly. An adequate humus content in soil significantly improves its water retention capacity, thus permitting the avoidance of erosion.
Amendment 100 ANNEX I, SECTION 1, ROWS 8, 9 AND 9 A (new)
Hydrological conditions	Hydrological and hydrogeological conditions
Agro-ecological zone	Agro-ecological zone
	Anthropogenic factors (e.g. hydraulic works, etc.)
Justification
To identify areas at risk of erosion man made works should be included among the elements, as well as hydrogeology which is a crucial element influencing surface waters, directly responsible for erosion.
Amendment 101 ANNEX I, SECTION 1, ROW 9 B (new)
	pH
Justification
Only soils in an appropriate pH condition ensure a stable soil structure and decrease the danger of erosion. This is achieved by pore stabilisation of clay minerals. The soil aggregates card house structure is stabilised.
Amendment 102 ANNEX I, SECTION 4, ROW 4 A (new)
	Proximity to roads
Justification
In winter time, in many countries salt is still used to defrost frozen roads leading to salinisation through run off. Given the density of the road network in many parts of Europe this source of salinisation is significant and needs to be considered.
Amendment 103 ANNEX I, SECTION 5 A (new)
	SECTION 5a COMMON ELEMENTS FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF AREAS AT RISK OF ACIDIFICATION
	pH
	Soil typological unit (STU) (soil type)
	Soil texture
	Climate
	Land use
	Soil organic matter
	Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC)
Justification
Acidification is linked to all listed elements which are important for plant growth and ecological characteristics, including Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC).
Amendment 104 ANNEX I A (new)
	ANNEX Ia
	Possible measures pursuant to Article 8
	POSSIBLE MEASURES TO COMBAT EROSION
	Change arable land to grassland
	Planting of hedgerows, groups of trees and afforestation
	Restriction of construction work in very vulnerable sites
	Adequate crops/crop rotations and catch and interim crops
	Application of compost
	Reduced tillage
	Mulching
	Use of winter cover, buffer strips and hedgerows
	Proper use of machinery
	Construction and maintenance of terraces
	Prevention of fires
	Restriction of inappropriate practices on hill slopes
	Coastal management techniques
	POSSIBLE MEASURES TO COMBATORGANIC MATTER DECLINE
	Change arable land to grassland
	Planting of trees
	Application of compost
	Restriction of construction work in very vulnerable sites
	Adequate crops/crop rotations and catch and interim crops
	Reintroduction into the soil of crop residues
	Reduced tillage
	Mulching
	Avoid drainage of wetlands to protect peat soil
	POSSIBLE MEASURES TO COMBATSALINISATION
	Change arable land to grassland
	Adequate crops/crop rotations
	Application of appropriate irrigation techniques and equipment
	Use of water of appropriate quality
	Appropriate drainage of irrigated land
	Use of organic fertilisers (e.g. compost, manure)
	Soil washing
	POSSIBLE MEASURES TO COMBAT COMPACTION
	Change arable land to grassland
	Reduced tillage
	Application of compost
	Cultivation at optimal soil moisture
	Restriction of excessive heavy machinery use
	Use of low contact pressure and low pressure tyres
	Appropriate drainage
	Adequate stocking rates and duration of grazing
	POSSIBLE MEASURES TO COMBAT LANDSLIDES
	Restrict constructions that increase landslide risks, especially on steep slopes
	Avoid deforestation; planting of trees to retain the soil in place
	Prevention of land abandonment
	Establishment and maintenance of landscape elements such as terraces, hedgerows, groves
Amendment 105 ANNEX II
Annex II	deleted
Justification
Each Member State should draw up its own national list of contaminated sites. This has the advantage of taking into account specific national differences and improving knowledge of earlier activities which caused past contamination. Certain installations, which already comply with soil protection requirements under EU law (e.g. IPPC), should not be classified as potentially soil-polluting.

• [1]  Not yet published in OJ.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

The need for a Framework Directive for Soil Protection

Before clarifying the content of the draft report it is important to explain why the soil should be protected and why a framework directive would be the right instrument:

- Soil is a non-renewable resource. In a world with an increasing population the demand for food and water will grow. Agriculture will need to produce more food and will require more water. Protection of the soil is essential to safeguard food production and sufficient and clean water for future generations;

- Soil is a platform for many important functions. It is a platform for human activities, including cities and infrastructure, but also for nature and valuable landscapes. Protection of the soil is crucial for preserving our cultural heritage and natural resources;

- Soil protection is strongly related to mitigating and adaptating to climate change. Changes in soil use can result in increased carbon sequestration or in increased greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, climate change will have severe impacts on soil in terms of water scarcity, droughts and floods;

- Soil protection prevents the decline of organic matter, which is crucial for the fertility of the soil, for food production and for combating erosion, desertification and climate change;

- Protection of the soil ensures that human activities can take place in a safe and healthy environment. Polluted sites need to be identified and the risks to human health and the environment assessed;

- Sealing is an irreversible process that needs to be addressed. Proper access to green areas in cities, characteristic landscapes, coastal areas, historical sites need to be preserved. Increased flood risks need to be prevented;

- Land transactions in a transparent common market require adequate information on the quality of the soil. Therefore polluted sites need to be identified in a register under the responsibility of Member States;

- Exchange of information and coordination on best practices of soil protection, based on the latest scientific knowledge, can improve protection of the soil in Member States;

- A flexible framework directive that recognises the subsidiarity principle is the best instrument to encourage Member States to preserve their soils. A more prescriptive instrument, such as a regulation, would not recognise the different national circumstances and the different approaches towards soil protection. A non-binding instrument would not result in the minimum protection that is needed in all Member States and would not prevent the distortion of competition caused by different national policies.

The philosophy of the draft report

The draft report has completely changed the Commission proposal. The draft report contains many both conceptual and technical amendments, based on a different philosophy:

- The report includes on the one hand common objectives for protection of the soil related to soil degradation processes and to information on polluted soils, but at the same time it respects the subsidiarity principle to the utmost. Member States have to define their own measures, and set up their own strategies and identification systems, based on their own methodologies.

- In legislative terms this means that the report has been adjusted so that it corresponds more closely to Article 249 of the Treaty which makes the distinction between common objectives and the instruments used to realise those objectives. Article 249 clearly states that a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods.

The content of the draft report

This different philosophy resulted in several amendments. The most important changes are:

- The common objectives of the directive have been better clarified. Some objectives have been added or further elaborated (valuable soils, geogenically contaminated soils, the need for an integrated approach to the provisions in existing directives, the integration of the soil's function to act as a carbon pool in future soil policies). At the same time the draft report provides more flexibility for Member States.

- The draft report enhances the role of exchange of information and coordination through the platform established under Article 17. It reduces the role of the more binding Comitology procedure.

- The principle of subsidiarity has been amplified and guaranteed to the point of affirming that Member States who already have laws covering these objectives do not have to revise the laws. This is to pre-empt the complaints of some states who already have laws in place for contaminated soil and cataloguing and who are concerned about having to make many changes.

- The general tone of the report has been changed from having a negative character to having a positive one:

- The term "risk area" has been replaced with the term "priority area." In this way negative labelling of soil that is at risk is avoided.

- The concept of "valuable soil" has been introduced so that those Member States that so choose may use it as a legal basis for their protection policies. Many Member States such as Germany, the U.K. and France have similar legislation in place and the idea would be to extend this practice to other countries.

- With respect to agriculture, Amendment 57 ensures that the compliance with eco conditionality has to be decided at Member State level. Amendment 54 states that the directive should not overlap with existing legislation. Member States should build upon the obligations, plans and programmes that are already set up.

- Also for the contamination part, the overall philosophy is that the framework directive should ensure that Member States will protect their soils by providing objectives (the setting up of an identification system, based on a risk assessment taking into account the concentrations and the level of exposure, the information to be provided to buyers in the event of a land transaction, the establishment of remediation strategies), but that it should leave it to Member States to decide how to do this. The directive should not result in any unnecessary additional administrative burden.

- The draft report contains a requirement to report to the Commission on the priority areas, because these are larger areas, with possible consequences on a larger scale that are relevant for international issues such as climate change, desertification and biodiversity. For polluted sites this is not the case. Only Member States need to know where the sites are and ensure that in the event of land transactions potential buyers are informed. It is left to the Member States to decide whether they want a single national remediation strategy or remediation strategies at lower administrative levels.

- Instead of stating that Member States shall take measures, the directive provides that they shall ensure that measures are taken. This way they can also delegate for example to regional or local authorities (Article 9).

- A distinction has been made between "polluted" sites (the contamination is caused by man) and "geogenically contaminated soils" (the contamination is caused by geogenic sources, such as parent material and volcanic material). For geogenically contaminated soils the draft report merely requires Member States to give special attention to these soils and to evaluate them in terms of their risks to human health and the environment (amendment 67).

- Annex II has been redrafted. It no longer stigmatises airports, ports, former military sites and dry cleaners. Instead it establishes more of a link with the handling and storage of dangerous substances.

OPINION of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (18.9.2007)

for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the protection of soil and amending Directive 2004/35/EC
(COM(2006)0232 – C6-0307/2006 – 2006/0086(COD))

Draftsman: Joan Calabuig Rull

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

Soil is a vital resource. It is of great importance as a source of raw materials and as a carbon pool, and in its functions in the fields of biomass production and of storing and filtering of nutrients and water. However, soil is under increasing environmental pressure, often driven by human activity such as agriculture, industry and urban development. Soil degradations, such as erosion, organic matter decline, contamination, salinisation, compaction, soil biodiversity loss, sealing, landslides and flooding, has strong impacts on other areas, such as water, human health, climate change, biodiversity and food safety.

Though some soil protection aspects can be found scattered in current EU legislation, there is no specific Community legislation on soil protection. The current proposal aims at filling in this gap by establishing a common strategy for the protection and sustainable use of soil.

The proposal requires Member States to prevent soil contamination by limiting intentional and unintentional introduction of dangerous substances in the soil. Furthermore, Member States have to identify within 5 years risk areas for soil degradation, to set risk reduction targets and to establish programmes to reach those targets. An important element of the proposal is the requirement to establish within 25 years an inventory of contaminated sites, where there is a confirmed presence caused by man of dangerous substances that pose significant risk to human health or the environment. Based on this inventory, Member States are required to establish remediation strategies, including targets, prioritisation, timetable and funds allocated for so-called "orphan sites". Finally, in order to protect potential buyers and to speed up the setting up of the inventory, a soil status report has to be made for all land transactions where a potentially polluting activity is taking or has been taken place.

This proposal can be welcomed. Soil performs crucial functions for human activities, including industry. The total costs of soil degradation in the EU is estimated around € 40 billion per year, the majority of it borne by society in the form of damage to infrastructure, increased health-care costs, treatment of contaminated water, increased food safety controls, and depreciation of land surrounding contaminated sites. It is therefore vital to address existing soil threats.

Also, the chosen flexibility in the proposal is positive. It is essential to have Community action in this field in order to address the trans-boundary impacts of soil degradation, to ensure a level playing field in the internal market and to protect and enhance other areas of common interest, such as water, food safety and human health. On the other hand, the vast diversity in local specificities (as regards land use, local conditions and socio-economic aspects) requires a high degree of flexibility for Member States in identifying the most appropriate specific measures and geographical level.

Some amendments could, however, be made to the text in order to ensure legal clarity, to better protect confidential commercial information, and to enhance the overall workability of the proposal.

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy calls on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:

Text proposed by the Commission[1]	Amendments by Parliament
Amendment 1 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 1
1. This Directive establishes a framework for the protection of soil and the preservation of the capacity of soil to perform any of the following environmental, economic, social and cultural functions.	1. This Directive establishes a framework for the protection of soil and the preservation of the capacity of soil to perform the following environmental, economic, social and cultural functions:
(a) biomass production, including in agriculture and forestry;	1. natural functions:
(b) storing, filtering and transforming nutrients, substances and water;	(a) storing, filtering and transforming nutrients, substances and water;
(c) biodiversity pool, such as habitats, species and genes;	(b) biodiversity pool, such as habitats, species and genes;
(d) physical and cultural environment for humans and human activities;	(c) acting as carbon pool;
(e) source of raw materials;	2. archive of geological and archeological heritage; and
(f) acting as carbon pool;	3. functions such as:
(g) archive of geological and archeological heritage.	(a) a repository of raw materials and a location for other industrial, economic and public uses, transport, supply and distribution, and water and waste disposal;
	(b) physical and cultural environment for humans and human activities;
	(c) biomass production, including in agriculture and forestry.
To that end, it lays down measures for the preventionof soil degradation processes,both occurring naturally and caused by a wide range of human activities, which undermine the capacity of a soil to perform those functions. Such measures include the mitigation of the effects of those processes, and the restoration and remediation of degraded soils to a level of functionality consistent at least with the current and approved future use.	This Directive lays down measures for the mitigation of the effects of soil degradation processes, and the restoration and remediation of degraded soils to a level of functionality consistent with the current or approved future use, taking account of serious risks posed to human health or the environment.
(Points (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) in the Commission text have become points 3(c), 1(a), 3(b) and 1(c) respectively in Parliament's amendment.)
Justification
Re-classification of soil functions by analogy with Article 1 of the Soil Conservation Protocol to the Alpine Convention. A balance should be established between the soil’s natural and utilitarian functions.
In particular, areas for industrial and economic activities must be mentioned as functions of the soil (point 3(a)): the term “repository of raw materials” is more apt.
Amendment 2 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 2
2. This Directive shall apply to soil forming the top layer of the earth’s crust situated between the bedrock and the surface, excluding groundwater as defined in Article 2(2) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.	2. This Directive shall apply to soil forming the top layer of the earth’s crustsituated between the bedrock and the surface, excluding groundwater, watercoursesand waterbeds as referred to in Article 2(2) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Justification
The extended definition of soil as reaching down to the bedrock goes too far. It makes more sense to relate soil protection to its functions rather than to its location, since its uses are the basis for the measures to be taken.
Watercourses and waterbeds are already covered by the scope of the Water Framework Directive and should therefore be covered by the exclusion clause.
Amendment 3 ARTICLE 2, POINT 2 A (new)
	(2a) ‘remediation’ means measures
	- to remove or reduce pollutants (decontamination measures),
	- to prevent or reduce the spread of pollutants in the long term (safeguard measures).
Justification
The definition of “remediation” needs to be uniformly established, and must contain safeguard measures for reasons of proportionality.
Amendment 4 ARTICLE 3
In the development of sectoral policies likely to exacerbate or reduce soil degradation processes, Member States shall identify, describe and assess the impacts of such policies on these processes, in particular in the areas of regional and urban spatial planning, transport, energy, agriculture, rural development, forestry, raw material extraction, trade and industry, product policy, tourism, climate change, environment, nature and landscape.   Member States shall make public those findings.	In the development of sectoral policies likely to exacerbate or reduce soil degradation processes, Member States shall take into account the impacts of such policies on these processes, in particular in the areas of regional and urban spatial planning, transport, energy, agriculture, rural development, forestry, raw material extraction, trade and industry, product policy, tourism, climate change, environment, nature and landscape.
Justification
Additional formal procedures and publications over and above the existing strategic environmental assessment (Directive 2001/42/EC) and the assessment of effects on the environment (Directive 85/337/EEC) need to be avoided. Abstract rules on soil protection must not call into question specific provisions from other areas of legislation.
The reporting requirements provide no added value and should therefore be deleted.
Amendment 5 ARTICLE 4
Member States shall ensure that any land user whose actions affect the soil in a way that can reasonably be expected to hamper significantly the soil functions referred to in Article 1(1) is obliged to takeprecautionsto prevent or minimise such adverse effects.	Member States shall take the necessary legal and administrative measures to secure the protection of the soil functions referred to in Article 1(1). To meet the requirement to take precautionary measures, adverse effects on the soil shall be avoided or minimised. Precautions are measures which are proportional taking account of their cost-effectiveness, technical feasibility and current and future use of the soil. The Member States shall be responsible for monitoring those measures.
Justification
It seems sensible to use a wording by analogy with Article 2(1) of the Soil Conservation Protocol of the Alpine Convention.
The precautionary measures against adverse effects on the soil must be feasible and proportionate, and must take account of current and future use of the soil.
Amendment 6 ARTICLE 6, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1
1. Within five years from [transposition date], Member States shall identify the areas in their national territory, at the appropriate level, where there is decisive evidence, or legitimate grounds for suspicion, that one or more of the following soil degradation processes has occurred or is likely to occur in the near future, hereinafter “the risk areas”:	1. Within eight years from [transposition date], Member States shall identify the areas in their national territory where there is decisive evidence, or legitimate grounds for suspicion, that one or more of the following soil degradation processes has occurred or is likely to occur in the near future, hereinafter “the risk areas”:
(a) erosion by water or wind; (b) organic matter decline brought about by a steady downward trend in the organic fraction of the soil, excluding undecayed plant and animal residues, their partial decomposition products, and the soil biomass; (c) compaction through an increase in bulk density and a decrease in soil porosity; (e) salinisation through the accumulation in soil of soluble salts; (f) landslides brought about by the down-slope, moderately rapid to rapid movement of masses of soil and rock material.	(a) erosion by water or wind; (b) organic matter decline brought about by a steady downward trend in the organic fraction of the soil, excluding undecayed plant and animal residues, their partial decomposition products, and the soil biomass; (c) compaction through an increase in bulk density and a decrease in soil porosity; (e) salinisation through the accumulation in soil of soluble salts; (f) landslides brought about by the down-slope, moderately rapid to rapid movement of masses of soil and rock material.
	Areas in which a change to the soil has occurred and/or might occur in the near future for one of the reasons listed in the first sub-paragraph shall not be deemed to be risk areas if the activities in question will be or have been carried out in accordance with Articles 4 and 5.
Justification
The eight-year time limit is appropriate in the light of experience with other, comparable directives.
The term “at the appropriate level” is superfluous and should be deleted.
In order to avoid conflicts of assessment, it needs to be made clear that an area should not be classified as a risk area if the soil degradation is in accordance with the provisions of Articles 4 and 5. Otherwise, for example, mining areas would have to be classified as "risk areas” because the removal of soil and raw materials had resulted in “organic matter decline”.
Amendment 7 ARTICLE 8, PARAGRAPH 1
1. For the purposes of preserving the soil functions referred to in Article 1(1), Member States shall in respect of the risk areas identified in accordance with Article 6, draw up, at the appropriate level, a programme of measures including at least risk reduction targets, the appropriate measures for reaching those targets, a timetable for the implementation of those measures and an estimate of the allocation of private or public means for the funding of those measures.	1. For the purposes of preserving the soil functions referred to in Article 1(1), Member States shall in respect of all the risk areas identified in accordance with Article 6, draw up a programme of measures including at least risk reduction targets, the appropriate measures for reaching those targets, a timetable for the implementation of those measures and an estimate of the allocation of private or public means for the funding of those measures.
Justification
The Member States should draw up a programme of measures for the identified risk areas as a whole and not for individual risk areas, in order to concentrate scarce resources on specific dangers. In the case of less serious dangers, risk monitoring is adequate.
The term “at the appropriate level” is superfluous and should be deleted.
Amendment 8 ARTICLE 8, PARAGRAPH 4
4. The programme of measures shall be drawn up within seven years from [transposition date] and shall be in application no later than eight years after that date.	4. The programme of measures shall be drawn up within 12 years from [transposition date] and shall be in application no later than 15 years after that date.
The programme of measures shall be made public and shall be reviewed at least every five years.	The programme of measures shall be made public and shall be reviewed at least every 10 years.
Justification
The time limits of twelve, fifteen and ten years are realistic in the light of experience with other comparable directives, and reduce the burden of administration.
Amendment 9 ARTICLE 9
For the purposes of preserving the soil functions referred to in Article 1(1), Member States shall take appropriate and proportionate measures to limit the intentional or unintentional introduction of dangerous substances on or in the soil, excluding those due to air deposition and those due to a natural phenomenon of exceptional, inevitable and irresistible character, in order to avoid accumulation that would hamper soil functions or give rise to significant risks to human health or the environment.	For the purposes of preserving the soil functions referred to in Article 1(1), Member States shall take appropriate and proportionate measures to limit the intentional or unintentional introduction of dangerous substances on or in the soil, excluding those due to air deposition and those due to a natural phenomenon of exceptional, inevitable and irresistible character, in order to avoid accumulation that would affect existing soil functions with a view to current and future use or give rise to significant risks to human health or the environment
Justification
The approach taken to the effects of introducing dangerous substances should be geared to the use made of the soil, and should observe the principle of proportionality.
Amendment 10 ARTICLE 9, PARAGRAPH 1 A (new)
	Authorised installations in accordance with:
	- Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control1,
	- Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste2 and its daughter directives (in particular Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste3),
	- Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries4,
	meet the requirement to take precautionary measures laid down in paragraph 1 through compliance with the soil pollution avoidance measures called for under the authorisation procedure.
	-------------------------------------------- 1OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26, as last amended by Regulation (EC) 166/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council (OJ L 33, 4.2.2006, p.1). .OJ L 114, 27.4.2006, p. 9. 3 OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1. 4OJ L 102, 11.4.2006, p. 15.
Justification
Activities authorised under EU legislation which already takes soil protection issues into account must not be called into question by the soil protection directive.
Amendment 11 ARTICLE 10
1. Member States shall, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 11, identify the sites in their national territory where there is a confirmed presence, caused by man, of dangerous substances of such a level that Member States consider they pose a significant risk to human health or the environment, hereinafter “contaminated sites”. That risk shall be evaluated taking into account current and approved future use of the land.	1. Member States shall establish a national inventory of contaminated sites, hereinafter “the inventory”. The inventory shall be made public and reviewed at least every five years.
2. Member States shall establish a national inventory of contaminated sites, hereinafter “the inventory”. The inventory shall be made public and reviewed at least every five years.	2. Member States shall, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 11 (3), determine the sites in their national territory where it is necessary to measure the level of concentration, caused by man, of dangerous substances, in order to establish whether they pose a serious risk to human health or the environment, taking into account current and approved future use of the land. Sites where such a serious risk is confirmed are hereinafter referred to as “contaminated sites”.
(Paragraph 1, subparagraph 1 and paragraph 2 in the Commission text have become paragraphs 2 and 1 respectively in Parliament's amendment. Paragraph 2 in Parliament's amendment is amended)
Justification
The article can be clarified by a simplified wording taking account of exposure to risks and land use.
Amendment 12 ARTICLE 11, PARAGRAPH 1
1. Each Member State shall designate a competent authority to be responsible for the identification of contaminated sites.	1. Each Member State shall designate a competent authority to be responsible for the identification of contaminated sites. If appropriate, the competent authority may consult stakeholders.
Justification
Various stakeholders could be consulted, depending on the local situation, in order to streamline the identification process of contaminated sites.
Amendment 13 ARTICLE 11, PARAGRAPH 2, SUBPARAGRAPH 1
Within five years from [transposition date], the competent authorities shall have identified the location of at least the sites where the potentially soil-polluting activities referred to in Annex II are taking place or have taken place in the past.	Within five years from [transposition date], the competent authorities shall have identified the location of at least the sites where the activities referred to in Annex II are taking place or have taken place in the past.
Justification
The classification of whole industry sectors as potentially polluting is disreputable.
Amendment 14 ARTICLE 11, PARAGRAPH 3, INTRODUCTORY PART
3. In accordance with the following time-table, the competent authorities shall measure the concentration levels of dangerous substances in the sites identified in accordance with paragraph 2,and where the levels are such that there may be sufficient reasons to believethat they pose a significant risk to human health or the environment, an on-site risk assessment shall be carried out in relation to those sites:	3. In accordance with the following time-table, the competent authorities shall determine, by new measures if necessary, the presence of dangerous substances in the sites identified in accordance with paragraph 2. Where the results showthat there is a significant risk to human health or the environment taking into account the current or approved future use of the land, an on-site risk assessment shall be carried out in relation to those sites.
Justification
The option needs to be left open, where necessary, of re-using the measures already carried out by the competent authorities. This analysis must take place taking account of the current or approved future use of the land and of the level of risk exposure.
Amendment 15 ARTICLE 12, PARAGRAPH 1
1. Where a site is to be sold on which a potentially polluting activity listed in Annex II is taking place, or for which the official records, such as national registers, show that it has taken place, Member States shall ensure that the owner of that site or the prospective buyer makes a soil status report available to the competent authority referred to in Article 11 and to the other party in the transaction.	1. Where a site is to be soldor rented to a new user on which an activity listed in Annex II is taking place, or for which the official records, such as national registers, show that it has taken place, Member States shall ensure that the owner of that site makes a soil status report available to the competent authority referred to in Article 11 and to the prospective buyer or lessor.
Justification
Knowledge of whether a site is contaminated or not is not only relevant for the prospective buyer but also in the interest of the prospective user. This is for example relevant for when people rent a house with land in new residential areas in former brown fields. Such a clause will also speed up the process of setting up a register of contaminated sites.
Amendment 16 ARTICLE 12, PARAGRAPH 2, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, INTRODUCTORY PART
The soil status report shall be issued by an authorised body or person appointed by the Member State. It shall include at least the following details:	The soil status report shall be verified by an authorised body or person appointed by the Member State. It shall include at least the following details:
Justification
It should be possible for land owners to perform their own analysis of the soil. However, the result of the analysis should always be verified by an objective third party.
Amendment 17 ARTICLE 12, PARAGRAPH 2, POINT (C)
(c) the concentration levels at which there are sufficient reasons to believe that the dangerous substances concerned pose a significant risk to human health or to the environment.	(c) the concentration levels at which the dangerous substances concerned may pose a significant risk to human health or to the environment, taking into account current and approved future use of the land.
Justification
As stipulated in Article 10(1), the risk to human health and the environment need to be evaluated taking current and future use of the land into account. The same should apply for the soil status report.
Amendment 18 ARTICLE 13, PARAGRAPH 2
2. Remediation shall consist of actions on the soil aimed at the removal, control, containment or reduction of contaminants so that the contaminated site, taking account of its current use and approved future use, no longer poses any significant risk to human health or the environment.	2. Remediation shall consist of actions on the soil aimed at the removal, control, containment or reduction of contaminants,together with safeguard measures, including through natural recovery, so that the contaminated site, taking account of its current use and approved future use, no longer poses any significant risk to human health or the environment.
Justification
For reasons of proportionality, safeguard measures to protect a site should be explicitly recognised as part of the national strategy. In many instances, the remediation of soil pollution resulting from past activity will not be possible within the foreseeable future. Safeguard measures cannot remove all pollutants, but can rule out risks for human health and the environment.
Amendment 19 ARTICLE 13, PARAGRAPH 3
3. Member States shall set up appropriate mechanisms to fund the remediation of the contaminated sites for which, subject to the polluter pays principle, the person responsible for the pollution cannot be identified or cannot be held liable under Community or national legislation or may not be made to bear the costs of remediation.	3. Member States shall set up appropriate mechanisms to fund the remediation of the contaminated sites for which, subject to the polluter pays principle, the person responsible for the pollution cannot be identified or cannot be held liable under Community or national legislation or may not be made to bear the costs of remediation. Existing financing mechanisms in the Member States shall be retained where they have proved beneficial.
Justification
Tried and tested “mechanisms” for funding the remediation of “ownerless” soil containing inherited contamination must be retained.
Amendment 20 ARTICLE 14, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1
1. Member States shall, on the basis of the inventory and within seven years from [transposition date], draw up a National Remediation Strategy, including at least remediation targets, a prioritisation, starting with those sites which pose a significant risk to human health, a timetable for implementation, and the funds allocated by the authorities responsible for budgetary decisions in the Member States in accordance with their national procedures.	1. Member States shall, on the basis of the inventory and within nine years from [transposition date], draw up a National Remediation Strategy, including at least remediation targets, a prioritisation, starting with those sites which pose a significant risk to human health, a timetable for implementation, and the funds allocated by the authorities responsible for budgetary decisions in the Member States in accordance with their national procedures
Justification
The time limit of seven years for drawing up a remediation strategy with a risk assessment is too short: nine years is appropriate.
Amendment 21 ARTICLE 14, PARAGRAPH 2
2. The National Remediation Strategy shall be in application and be made public no later than eight years after [transposition date]. It shall be reviewed at least every five years	2. The National Remediation Strategy shall be in application and be made public no later than 10 years after [transposition date]. It shall be reviewed at least every 10 years
Justification
A period of ten years for the transposition of the remediation strategy, and a ten-year interval for review, are appropriate in the light of the effort involved.
Amendment 22 ARTICLE 14, PARAGRAPH 2 A (new)
	2a. Remediated sites shall be deleted from the inventory.
Justification
It is logical to provide that sites be deleted from the inventory once remediation is complete. The inventory must evolve and must retain its purpose, which is to list only contaminated sites.
Amendment 23 ARTICLE 16, PARAGRAPH 1
1. Member States shall make the following information available to the Commission within eight years from [transposition date], and every five years thereafter:	1. Member States shall make the following information available to the Commission within 10 years from [transposition date], and every 10 years thereafter:
(a) a summary of the initiatives taken pursuant to Article 5;	(a) a summary of the initiatives taken pursuant to Article 5;
(b) the risk areas established pursuant to Article 6(1);	(b) the risk areas established pursuant to Article 6(1);
(c) the methodology used for risk identification pursuant to Article 7;	(c) the methodology used for risk identification pursuant to Article 7;
(d) the programmes of measures adopted pursuant to Article 8 as well as an assessment of the efficiency of the measures to reduce the risk and occurrence of soil degradation processes;	(d) the programmes of measures adopted pursuant to Article 8 as well as an assessment of the efficiency of the measures to reduce the risk and occurrence of soil degradation processes;
(e) the outcome of the identification pursuant to Article 11(2) and (3) and the inventory of contaminated sites established pursuant to Article 10(2);
(f) the National Remediation Strategy adopted pursuant to Article 14;	(e) the National Remediation Strategy adopted pursuant to Article 14;
(g) a summary of the initiatives taken pursuant to Article 15 as regards awareness raising.	(f) a summary of the initiatives taken pursuant to Article 15 as regards awareness raising.
Justification
It is appropriate to allow a longer time limit in the light of the effort involved.
The reporting requirements imposed by the Commission are too extensive. The inventory of contaminated sites (former point (e)) is a matter for the Member States.
Amendment 24 ARTICLE 19, PARAGRAPH 4)
4. The Committee shall adopt its rules of procedure.	4. The Committee shall adopt its rules of procedure. These rules shall allow stakeholders’ representatives to participate in the committee’s deliberations.
	4a. The committee shall consult the affected economic stakeholders and environmental associations.
Justification
A transparent, democratic and effective procedure must take place with the participation of all stakeholders.
Amendment 25 ANNEX II, TITLE
List of potentially soil polluting activities	List of activities for the purpose of Chapter III
Justification
The classification of whole industry sectors as potentially polluting is disreputable.
Amendment 26 ANNEX II, POINT 1
1. Establishments where dangerous substances are or were present in quantities equal to or in excess of the amounts indicated in Parts 1 and 2, column 2 of Annex I to Council Directive 96/82/EC (Seveso).	1. Establishments covered by Parts 1 and 2, column 2 of Annex I to Council Directive 96/82/EC (Seveso).
Justification
It is essential that this directive focus as a priority on installations which are currently subject to the Seveso directive and that this list should be based solely on precise and clear criteria.

PROCEDURE

Title	Framework for the protection of soil
References	COM(2006)0232 - C6-0307/2006 - 2006/0086(COD)
Committee responsible	ENVI
Opinion by        Date announced in plenary	ITRE 26.10.2006
Drafts(wo)man        Date appointed	Joan Calabuig Rull 4.10.2006
Discussed in committee	22.1.2007		27.2.2007		27.3.2007
Date adopted	13.9.2007
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	38 5 2
Members present for the final vote	Šarūnas Birutis, Jan Březina, Philippe Busquin, Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, Giles Chichester, Silvia Ciornei, Den Dover, Nicole Fontaine, Adam Gierek, András Gyürk, Erna Hennicot-Schoepges, Ján Hudacký, Romana Jordan Cizelj, Romano Maria La Russa, Eluned Morgan, Angelika Niebler, Reino Paasilinna, Atanas Paparizov, Francisca Pleguezuelos Aguilar, Miloslav Ransdorf, Herbert Reul, Paul Rübig, Andres Tarand, Britta Thomsen, Radu Ţîrle, Claude Turmes, Nikolaos Vakalis, Alejo Vidal-Quadras, Dominique Vlasto
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Alexander Alvaro, Ivo Belet, Danutė Budreikaitė, Joan Calabuig Rull, Manuel António dos Santos, Neena Gill, Françoise Grossetête, Vittorio Prodi, Bernhard Rapkay, Esko Seppänen, Peter Skinner, Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote	Rosa Miguélez Ramos, Hans-Peter Mayer, Sepp Kusstatscher, Thomas Mann

• [1]  Not yet published in OJ.

OPINION of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (7.6.2007)

for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive establishing a framework for the protection of soil and amending Directive 2004/35/EC
(COM(2006)0232 – C6-0307/2006 – 2006/0086(COD))

Draftsman: Neil Parish

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development calls on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:

Text proposed by the Commission[1]	Amendments by Parliament

Amendment 1 RECITAL 2
(2) Soil degradation or soil improvements have a major impact on other areas of Community interest, such as surface water and groundwater protection, human health, climate change, protection of nature and biodiversity, and food safety.	(2) Soil degradation or soil improvements have a major impact on other areas of Community interest, such as surface water and groundwater quality, human health and life, climate change, degradation or protection of nature and biodiversity, and food safety.
Justification
Human life should be included among the areas covered by Community legislation on which soil degradation has an impact.
Amendment 2 RECITAL 9
(9) A common framework is needed in order to articulate the efforts of Member States to improve the protection of soils and its sustainable use, to control the transboundary soil degradation effects, to protect aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and to preclude distortion of competition between economic operators.	(9) A common framework is needed in order to articulate the efforts of Member States to improve the protection of soils and its sustainable use, to control the transboundary soil degradation effects, to protect aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and to preclude distortion of competition between economic operators. Such a framework should be adopted on the basis of a comprehensive survey of soil status and of the measures already taken in Member States.
Justification
The survey of soil status and of the measures already taken at national level should be carefully conducted before the Community framework directives comes into force.
Amendment 3 RECITAL 10
(10) Since the objectives of the action to be taken, namely to establish a common framework for the protection of soil, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore be better achieved at Community level by reason of the scale of the problem and its implications in respect of other Community legislation on nature protection, water protection, food safety, climate change, agriculture and areas of common interest, such as human health protection, the Community may therefore adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.	(10) Since the objectives of the action to be taken, namely to establish a common framework for the protection of soil, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore be better achieved at Community level by reason of the scale of the problem and its implications in respect of other Community legislation on nature protection, water protection, food safety, climate change, agriculture and areas of common interest, such as human health protection, the Community may therefore adopt measures only in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.
Justification
The patently obvious regional differences in soil characteristics and the extent to which soil is under pressure or under threat, and in terms of drawing up regionally adapted measures, make it imperative to apply the subsidiarity principle.
Amendment 4 RECITAL 11 A (new)
	(11a) Agriculture has always contributed positively to maintaining the structure of soil and its characteristics, and is an indispensable mechanism for conserving the organic quality of the soil and for helping to preserve the vegetal layer and avoid desertification.
Amendment 5 RECITAL 11 B (new)
	(11b) In order to avoid an increase in the economic burden on farmers, to preserve the activity of farming and to avoid any overlap of the present directive with existing environmental legislation, and given the subsidiary principle and the efforts required in the implementation of ecoconditionality, each Member State may decide to apply the present directive taking into account its own climate, agriculture and soil characteristics.
Amendment 6 RECITAL 12 A (new)
	(12a)Fertility of the soil is the basis of life. The aim of all agricultural activity must be to maintain and improve that fertility.
Justification
The soil - the basis of human life - is a valuable ecosystem to be protected.
Amendment 7 RECITAL 13
(13) Sealing is becoming significantly more intense in the Community as a result of urban sprawl and increasing demand for land from many sectors of the economy, and this calls for a more sustainable use of soil. Appropriate measures are needed to limit soil sealing, for instance by rehabilitating brownfield sites, thus reducing the depletionof greenfield sites. Where sealing does occur Member States should provide for construction and drainage techniques that would allow as many soil functions as possible to be preserved.	(13) Sealing is becoming significantly more intense in the Community as a result of urban sprawl and increasing demand for land from many sectors of the economy, and this calls for a more sustainable use of soil. Appropriate measures are needed to limit soil sealing.Member States should take appropriate steps to limit thedepletionofgreenfield sites on the basis of the principles laid down in the Spatial Development Prospective, with a view to preserving soil quality and its current and future functions.Where sealing nevertheless occurs Member States should provide for construction and drainage techniques that would allow as many soil functions as possible to be preserved.
Amendment 8 RECITAL 19
(19) This Directive should contribute to halting desertification, which results from concurrent degradation processes, and soil biodiversity loss, and enhance cooperation in the implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification and the Convention on Biological Diversity to which the Community is a party, and will enhance the implementation of these international environmental agreements.	(19) This Directive should contribute to combating desertification, which results from both natural and anthropogenic degradation processes, and soil biodiversity loss, and enhance cooperation in the implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification and the Convention on Biological Diversity to which the Community is a party, and will enhance the implementation of these international environmental agreements.
Amendment 9 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 1, INTRODUCTORY PART
1. This Directive establishes a framework for the protection of soil and the preservation of the capacity of soil to perform any of the following environmental, economic, social and cultural functions:	1. This Directive establishes a framework for the protection of soil as a non-renewable resource and as a support for life processes, and for the preservation of the capacity of soil as a platform of the following environmental, economic, social and cultural functions:
Amendment 10 ARTICLE 4 A (new)
	Article 4a
	Each MemberState, in accordance with its climate, soil characteristics and agriculture, as well as its best agricultural practices, shall decide upon its own agricultural policy in relation to the soil.
Amendment 11 ARTICLE 4 B (new)
	Article 4b
	The European Commission shall promote the use of certain products that contribute most to maintaining and increasing the organic material of soils and to the prevention of desertification. Member States shall also promote the use of green fertilizers and compost that enhance the fertility and biological activity of soil.
Amendment 12 ARTICLE 6, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 2 A (new)
	Where necessary, Member States shall identify pilot areas in which to apply and test procedures used to monitor such degradation processes, including biodiversity loss and processes that can lead to desertification.
Amendment 13 ARTICLE 8, PARAGRAPH 1
1. For the purposes of preserving the soil functions referred to in Article 1(1), Member States shall in respect of the risk areas identified in accordance with Article 6, draw up, at the appropriate level, a programme of measures including at least risk reduction targets, the appropriate measures for reaching those targets, a timetable for the implementation of those measures and an estimate of the allocation of private or public means for the funding of those measures.	1. For the purposes of preserving the soil functions referred to in Article 1(1), Member States shall in respect of the risk areas identified in accordance with Article 6, draw up, at the appropriate level, a programme of measures including at least risk reduction targets (including precautionary measures) and, where possible, restoration targets, the appropriate measures for reaching those targets, a timetable for the implementation of those measures and an estimate of the allocation of private or public means for the funding of those measures.
Amendment 14 ARTICLE 8, PARAGRAPH 2, SUBPARAGRAPH 1
When drawing up and revising the programmes of measures pursuant to paragraph 1, Member States shall give due consideration to the social and economic impacts of the measures envisaged.	When drawing up and revising the programmes of measures pursuant to paragraph 1, Member States shall give due consideration to the social and economic impacts of the measures envisaged. Programmes of measures may be based on measures already implemented at national and Community levels, such as measures relating to the common agricultural policy, without affecting the measures already implemented.
Justification
Compatibility with programmes of measures already implemented must be ensured. In particular, the measures provided for in this directive must not interfere to an excessive degree with measures already implemented in connection with the reformed CAP but must fill gaps existing in such legislation, with a view to protecting all soils against degradation and ensuring their sustainable use.

PROCEDURE

Title	Framework for the protection of soil
References	COM(2006)0232 - C6-0307/2006 - 2006/0086(COD)
Committee responsible	ENVI
Opinion by        Date announced in plenary	AGRI 26.10.2006
Drafts(wo)man        Date appointed	Neil Parish 5.6.2007
Previous drafts(wo)man	Markus Pieper
Discussed in committee	23.1.2007		7.5.2007		5.6.2007
Date adopted	5.6.2007
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	20 13 1
Members present for the final vote	Vincenzo Aita, Peter Baco, Thijs Berman, Niels Busk, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Giuseppe Castiglione, Albert Deß, Gintaras Didžiokas, Carmen Fraga Estévez, Ioannis Gklavakis, Lutz Goepel, Bogdan Golik, Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, Esther Herranz García, Atilla Béla Ladislau Kelemen, Heinz Kindermann, Véronique Mathieu, Mairead McGuinness, Rosa Miguélez Ramos, Neil Parish, Radu Podgorean, María Isabel Salinas García, Agnes Schierhuber, Willem Schuth, Czesław Adam Siekierski, Csaba Sándor Tabajdi, Marc Tarabella, Donato Tommaso Veraldi, Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Alejandro Cercas, José Manuel García-Margallo y Marfil, Béla Glattfelder, Milan Horáček, Jan Mulder, Markus Pieper, Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański, Teresa Riera Madurell, Guido Sacconi
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote	María Sornosa Martínez, Daniel Caspary
	The draftsman for opinion resigned as draftsman after the vote in committee. Therefore the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development acts as draftsman.

• [1]  Not yet published in OJ.

OPINION of the Committee on Legal Affairs (13.9.2007)

for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive establishing a framework for the protection of soil and amending Directive 2004/35/EC
(COM(2006)0232 – – C6-0307/2006 – 2006/0086(COD))

Draftswoman: Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg

rej

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

'Soil' is a substance which does not have any cross-border implications. Soil protection, therefore, is a local or regional issue which falls within the Member States' area of competence. There is neither any obvious need to harmonise the law on soil protection, nor any evidence that doing so would create any European 'added value'.

Moreover, the proposal would generate additional expense, does not contribute to achieving the Lisbon objectives, makes no reference to the principle of proportionality and does not contain any indication as to how the proposed measures are to be financed.

******

The Committee on Legal Affairs calls on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, as the committee responsible, to propose rejection of the Commission proposal.

PROCEDURE

Title	Framework for the protection of soil
References	COM(2006)0232 - C6-0307/2006 - 2006/0086(COD)
Committee responsible	ENVI
Opinion by        Date announced in plenary	JURI 26.10.2006
Drafts(wo)man        Date appointed	Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg 24.10.2006
Previous drafts(wo)man	Maria Berger
Discussed in committee	11.4.2007		3.5.2007
Date adopted	11.9.2007
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	14 10 0
Members present for the final vote	Marek Aleksander Czarnecki, Bert Doorn, Monica Frassoni, Giuseppe Gargani, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, Othmar Karas, Piia-Noora Kauppi, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Katalin Lévai, Alain Lipietz, Hans-Peter Mayer, Manuel Medina Ortega, Hartmut Nassauer, Aloyzas Sakalas, Francesco Enrico Speroni, Daniel Strož, Rainer Wieland
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Janelly Fourtou, Jean-Paul Gauzès, Barbara Kudrycka, Michel Rocard, Jacques Toubon
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote	Albert Deß, María Sornosa Martínez

PROCEDURE

Title	Framework for the protection of soil
References	COM(2006)0232 - C6-0307/2006 - 2006/0086(COD)
Date submitted to Parliament	22.9.2006
Committee responsible        Date announced in plenary	ENVI 26.10.2006
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)        Date announced in plenary	ITRE 26.10.2006		AGRI 26.10.2006		JURI 26.10.2006
Rapporteur(s)        Date appointed	Cristina Gutiérrez-Cortines 29.11.2005
Discussed in committee	22.1.2007		16.7.2007		11.9.2007
Date adopted	9.10.2007
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	45 13 2
Members present for the final vote	Adamos Adamou, Margrete Auken, Pilar Ayuso, Irena Belohorská, Johannes Blokland, John Bowis, Frieda Brepoels, Hiltrud Breyer, Martin Callanan, Dorette Corbey, Jill Evans, Anne Ferreira, Karl-Heinz Florenz, Françoise Grossetête, Cristina Gutiérrez-Cortines, Satu Hassi, Marie Anne Isler Béguin, Christa Klaß, Eija-Riitta Korhola, Holger Krahmer, Urszula Krupa, Aldis Kušķis, Marie-Noëlle Lienemann, Peter Liese, Jules Maaten, Linda McAvan, Alexandru-Ioan Morţun, Miroslav Ouzký, Vladko Todorov Panayotov, Vittorio Prodi, Frédérique Ries, Guido Sacconi, Daciana Octavia Sârbu, Karin Scheele, Carl Schlyter, Horst Schnellhardt, Richard Seeber, Kathy Sinnott, María Sornosa Martínez, Antonios Trakatellis, Evangelia Tzampazi, Thomas Ulmer, Anja Weisgerber, Glenis Willmott
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Jerzy Buzek, Christofer Fjellner, Milan Gaľa, Genowefa Grabowska, Umberto Guidoni, Jutta Haug, Karsten Friedrich Hoppenstedt, Miroslav Mikolášik, Hartmut Nassauer, Ulrich Stockmann, Lambert van Nistelrooij
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote	Paulo Casaca, Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop, Lasse Lehtinen, Vincenzo Aita, Francesco Ferrari