Evaluation of Soil Protection Aspects in Certain Programmes of Measures Adopted by Member States

Technical Report - 2007 - 047

Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States

Final Report 23rd of November 2007 Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union

New freephone number: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://ec.europa.eu).

ISBN : 978-92-79-20665-8 doi : 10.2779/12302

EVALUATION OF SOIL PROTECTION ASPECTS IN CERTAIN PROGRAMMES OF MEASURES ADOPTED BY MEMBER STATES Cont.No. 07010401/2006/443994/ATA/B1

Final Report

23rd of November 2007

European Commission, Environment Directorate-General, B1: Agriculture, Forests and Soil Unit 200 Rue de la Loi 1049 BRUXELLES, BELGIEN

Disclaimer: This report does not necessarily represent the position and views of the European Commission.

This report was prepared by:

ahu AG Wasser · Boden · Geomatik Kirberichshofer Weg 6 52066 Aachen (GERMANY) www.ahu.de Dr. Barbara Hudec, Carolin Kaufmann

Ecologic Institut für Internationale und Europäische Umweltpolitik Pfalzburger Str. 43/44 10717 Berlin (GERMANY) www.ecologic.de MSc. Ruta Landgrebe-Trinkunaite, Sandra Naumann

This report is delivered in: 5 paper copies and 1 electronic version in WORD and PDF format

Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

CONTENTS

Executive Summary

1 Introduction 1

2 Objectives of this study 2

3 Water Framework Directive (WFD) 3 3.1 Background and data sources 3 3.2 Methodology 9 3.3 Soil degradation in WFD Article 5 reports 19 3.3.1 Erosion 20 3.3.2 Decline in organic matter 35 3.3.3 Local Contamination 42 3.3.4 Diffuse Contamination 73 3.3.5 Sealing 108 3.3.6 Compaction 117 3.3.7 Decline in biodiversity 118 3.3.8 Salinisation 119 3.3.9 Floods and landslides 121 3.4 Summarised evaluation of the WFD Article 5 reports 122

4 Cross Compliance 130 4.1 Background and context of Regulation No 1782/2003 130 4.2 Methodology 135 4.3 GAEC under Cross Compliance and their contribution to soil conservation 141 4.3.1 Soil erosion 142 4.3.1.1 Introduction 142 4.3.1.2 Summary of the national measures against soil erosion 152 4.3.1.3 Evaluation of the measures against soil erosion 160 4.3.2 Soil organic matter 166 4.3.2.1 Introduction 166 4.3.2.2 Summary of the national measures against loss of soil organic matter 171 4.3.2.3 Evaluation of the measures against loss of soil organic matter 176

Contents, Page III Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

4.3.3 Soil structure 180 4.3.3.1 Introduction 180 4.3.3.2 Summary of the national measures to maintain soil in good structure 183 4.3.3.3 Evaluation of the measures for maintenance of good soil structure 186 4.3.4 Minimum level of maintenance 190 4.3.4.1 Introduction 190 4.3.4.2 Summary of the national measures to keep a minimum level of maintenance 207 4.3.4.3 Evaluation of the measures to keep a minimum level of maintenance 217 4.3.5 Summarised evaluation of GAECs 220 4.3.6 Country specific analysis of GAEC measures 223 4.4 SMR under Cross Compliance and their contribution to soil conservation 281 4.4.1 Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) 282 4.4.1.1 Introduction 282 4.4.1.2 Summary of the national SMRs in the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) 288 4.4.1.3 Evaluation of the measures under the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) 289 4.4.2 Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) 291 4.4.2.1 Introduction 291 4.4.2.2 Summary of the national SMRs in the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) 296 4.4.2.3 Evaluation of the measures under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) 297 4.4.3 Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC) 300 4.4.3.1 Introduction 300 4.4.3.2 Summary of the national SMRs in the Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC) 305 4.4.3.3 Evaluation of the measures under the Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC) 306 4.4.4 Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) 310 4.4.4.1 Introduction 310 4.4.4.2 Summary of the national SMRs in the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) 329 4.4.4.3 Evaluation of the measures under the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) 331

Contents, Page IV Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

4.4.5 Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC) 333 4.4.5.1 Introduction 333 4.4.5.2 Summary of the national SMRs in the Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC) 342 4.4.5.3 Evaluation of the measures under the Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC) 345 4.5 Summarised evaluation of SMRs 348

5 United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) 350 5.1 Background 350 5.2 Soil degradation in the UNCCD reports 365 5.2.1 Methodology for the evaluation of soil degradation 365 5.2.2 Information on soil degradation and evaluation 372 5.2.2.1 Erosion 373 5.2.2.2 Decline in organic matter 386 5.2.2.3 Local contamination 391 5.2.2.4 Diffuse contamination 396 5.2.2.5 Sealing 401 5.2.2.6 Compaction 406 5.2.2.7 Decline in biodiversity 409 5.2.2.8 Salinisation 411 5.2.2.9 Floods and landslides 415 5.2.3 Summarised evaluation of soil degradation in the UNCCD Reports 419

5.3 Measures for soil protection in the UNCCD Reports 426 5.3.1 Methodology for evaluation of measures 426 5.3.2 Information on measures 431 5.3.2.1 Affected countries that implemented the NAPs 432 5.3.2.1.1 Greece 432 5.3.2.1.2 Italy 442 5.3.2.1.3 Portugal 451 5.3.2.2 Affected countries which NAPs are in preparation 459 5.3.2.2.1 Cyprus 459 5.3.2.2.2 Hungary 465 5.3.2.2.3 Latvia 467 5.3.2.2.4 Malta 470 5.3.2.2.5 Slovak Republic 471 5.3.2.2.6 Slovenia 473 5.3.2.2.7 Spain 478

Contents, Page V Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

5.3.2.3 Not affected countries that prepare the National Reports but not the NAPs 483 5.3.2.3.1 Lithuania 483 5.3.2.3.2 Poland 485 5.3.3 Summarised evaluation of measures 487 5.3.3.1 Affected countries that implemented the NAPs 487 5.3.3.1.1 Greece 487 5.3.3.1.2 Italy 490 5.3.3.1.3 Portugal 491 5.3.3.2 Affected countries which NAPs are in preparation 493 5.3.3.2.1 Cyprus 493 5.3.3.2.2 Hungary 493 5.3.3.2.3 Latvia 493 5.3.3.2.4 Malta 494 5.3.3.2.5 Slovak Republic 494 5.3.3.2.6 Slovenia 494 5.3.3.2.7 Spain 494 5.3.3.3 Not affected countries that prepare the National Reports but not the NAPs 495 5.3.3.3.1 Lithuania 495 5.3.3.3.2 Poland 495 5.3.4 Conclusion of the evaluation 487

6 Conclusions and Recommendations 499 6.1 Conclusions 499 6.1.1 Identification and assessment of soil protection aspects in the characterisation of River-Basin Districts (WFD) 499 6.1.2 Identification, description and assessment of soil protection related standards under cross compliance 502 6.1.3 Identification and assessment of soil threats and measures under the national Action Programmes adopted by Member States pursuant the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) 505 6.2 Recommendations 510

References 512 List of Abbreviations 525

Contents, Page VI Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

ANNEXES

Annex 1: Description and manual of the Database Annex 2: Additional information for the evaluation of WFD Article 5 reports Annex 3: Cross-Compliance (CC) Data – Sources and difficulties faced due to data availability Annex 4: Additional information on a complete destruction of soil Annex 5: Statutory management requirements of cross-compliance and their impact on soil (protection)

FIGURES

Figure 3.2.1: Table structure for soil degradation data (example for WFD reports) 13 Figure 3.3.3.1 Example for a map of contaminated sites from international WFD Article 5 report RBD Danube (International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River, 2005) 70 Figure 3.3.3.2: Example for a map of point source sites from the Latvian WFD Article 5 report (Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Latvia & Latvian Environment, Geology and Meteorology Agency, 2005) 71 Figure 3.3.5.1: Example for a map of sealing/use of soil from the Schelde Report (International Commission of the Schelde, 2005) 115 Figure 5.2.1.1: Table structure for soil degradation data (example for UNCCD reports) 367

TABLES

Table 3.1.1: International and national WFD Article 5 reports (MS 25) 4 Table 3.2.1: Terms and indirect indicators used to identify relevant information about soil degradation in the WFD Article 5 reports 12 Table 3.2.2: Ranking of the evaluation of the quality of information that is given in the WFD Article 5 reports 16 Table 3.2.3: Parameters describing the soil status (examples for selected soil threats) 17 Table 3.2.4: Glossary 18 Table 3.3.1.1: Soil degradation by erosion designated in WFD Article 5 reports of international River Basin Districts 20 Table 3.3.1.2: Soil degradation by erosion designated in national WFD Article 5 reports 23 Table 3.3.2.1: Soil degradation by a decline in organic matter designated in WFD Article 5 reports of international River Basin Districts 35 Table 3.3.2.2: Soil degradation by a decline in organic matter designated in national WFD Article 5 reports 38 Table 3.3.3.1: Soil degradation by local contamination designated in WFD Article 5 reports of international River Basin Districts 42

Contents, Page VII Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Table 3.3.3.2: Soil degradation by local contamination designated in national WFD Article 5 reports 46 Table 3.3.4.1: Soil degradation by diffuse contamination designated in WFD Article 5 reports of international River Basin Districts 73 Table 3.3.4.2: Soil degradation by diffuse contamination designated in national WFD Article 5 reports 79 Table 3.3.5.1: Soil degradation by sealing designated in WFD Article 5 reports of international River Basin Districts 108 Table 3.3.5.2: Soil degradation by sealing designated in national WFD Article 5 reports 110 Table 3.3.6.1: Soil degradation by compaction designated in WFD Article 5 reports of international River Basin Districts 117 Table 3.3.8.1: Soil degradation by salinisation designated in WFD Article 5 reports 119 Table 3.4.1: Soil degradation in the European Member States due to the evaluation of the WFD Article 5 reports 124 Table 3.4.2: Amount and qualitiy of information on soil degradation in the WFD Article 5 reports 127 Table 4.1.1: Cross-compliance implementation in MS-27 131 Table 4.3.1: Good agricultural and environmental conditions as defined in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 142 Table 4.3.1.1.1: Measures to protect soil against soil erosion in Member States 143 Table 4.3.1.1.2: Specific national measures to protect soil against soil erosion in addition to the Community standards 150 Table 4.3.2.1.1: Measures to maintain or improve soil organic matter in Member States 167 Table 4.3.2.1.2: Specific national measures to maintain or improve soil organic matter in addition to the Community standards 170 Table 4.3.3.1.1: Measures to maintain a good soil structure in Member States 181 Table 4.3.3.1.2: Specific national measures to maintain a good soil structure in addition to the Community standards 182 Table 4.3.4.1.1: Measures to ensure a minimum level of maintenance in Member States 191 Table 4.3.4.1.2: Specific national measures on minimum level of maintenance in addition to the Community standards 204 Table 4.3.6.1: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Austria 225 Table 4.3.6.2: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Belgium 227 Table 4.3.6.3: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Cyprus 230 Table 4.3.6.4: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Czech Republic 231 Table 4.3.6.5: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Denmark 232 Table 4.3.6.6: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Estonia 234 Table 4.3.6.7: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Finland 235 Table 4.3.6.8: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – France 236

Contents, Page VIII Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Table 4.3.6.9: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Germany 238 Table 4.3.6.10: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Greece 241 Table 4.3.6.11: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Hungary 243 Table 4.3.6.12: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Ireland 245 Table 4.3.6.13: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Italy 247 Table 4.3.6.14: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Latvia 249 Table 4.3.6.15: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Lithuania 250 Table 4.3.6.16: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Luxembourg 251 Table 4.3.6.17: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Malta 253 Table 4.3.6.18: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Netherlands 255 Table 4.3.6.19: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Poland 257 Table 4.3.6.20: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Portugal 259 Table 4.3.6.21: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Slovak Republic 262 Table 4.3.6.22: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Slovenia 263 Table 4.3.6.23: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Spain 264 Table 4.3.6.24: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Sweden 268 Table 4.3.6.25: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – United Kingdom 270 Table 4.3.6.26: Overview of GAEC-measures implemented by the Member States examined 277 Table 4.4.1 Environmental statutory management requirements 282 Table 4.4.1.1.1: Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds 284 Table 4.4.2.1.1: Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna 292 Table 4.4.3.1.1: Council Directive 80/68/EEC on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances 301 Table 4.4.4.1.1: Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources 311 Table 4.4.5.1.1: Council Directive 86/278/EEC on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture 334 Table 5.1.1: Status and level of implementation of the UNCCD in the participating EU Member States 356 Table 5.1.2: Member States and data sources covered by UNCCD evaluation 363 Table 5.2.1.1: Terms and indirect indicators used to identify relevant information about soil degradation in the UNCCD reports 365 Table 5.2.1.2: Ranking of the evaluation of the quality of information that is given in the UNCCD reports 369 Table 5.2.1.3: Parameters describing the soil state (examples for selected soil threats) 370 Table 5.2.1.4: Glossary 371

Contents, Page IX Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Table 5.2.2.1.1: Soil degradation by erosion in the EU Member States designated in UNCCD reports 373 Table 5.2.2.2.1: Soil degradation by a decline in organic matter in the EU Member States designated in UNCCD reports 386 Table 5.2.2.3.1: Soil degradation by local contamination in the EU Member States designated in UNCCD reports 391 Table 5.2.2.4.1: Soil degradation by diffuse contamination in the EU Member States designated in UNCCD reports 396 Table 5.2.2.5.1: Soil degradation by sealing in the EU Member States designated in UNCCD reports 401 Table 5.2.2.6.1: Soil degradation by compaction in the EU Member States designated in UNCCD reports 406 Table 5.2.2.7.1: Soil degradation by a decline in biodiversity in the EU Member States designated in UNCCD reports 409 Table 5.2.2.8.1: Soil degradation by salinisation in the EU Member States designated in UNCCD reports 411 Table 5.2.2.9.1: Soil degradation by floods in the EU Member States designated in UNCCD reports 415 Table 5.2.2.10.1: Soil degradation by landslides in the EU Member States designated in UNCCD reports 416 Table 5.2.3.1: Soil degradation in the European Member States due to the evaluation of the UNCCD reports 420 Table 5.2.3.2: Amount and quality of information on soil degradation in the UNCCD reports 423 Table 5.3.1.1: Quality indicators of particular relevance to soil threats 429 Table 5.3.2.1.1: Measures in the NAP under the UNCCD to address desertification in Greece 432 Table 5.3.2.1.2: Measures under the UNCCD (in the NAP and the National reports) to address desertification in Italy 442 Table 5.3.2.1.3: Measures under the UNCCD (included in the NAP and in the National reports) to address desertification in Portugal 451 Table 5.3.2.2.1: Measures under the UNCCD National reports to address desertification in Cyprus 459 Table 5.3.2.2.2: Measures under the UNCCD National reports to address desertification in Hungary 465 Table 5.3.2.2.3: Measures under the UNCCD National report to address desertification in Latvia 468 Table 5.3.2.2.4: Measures under the UNCCD National report to address desertification in Malta 470 Table 5.3.2.2.5: Measures under the UNCCD National report to address desertification in the Slovak Republic 472 Table 5.3.2.2.6: Measures under the UNCCD National report to address desertification in Slovenia 473 Table 5.3.2.2.7: Measures under the UNCCD National reports to address desertification in Spain 478

Contents, Page X Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Table 5.3.2.3.1: Measures under the UNCCD National report to address desertification in Lithuania 483 Table 5.3.2.3.2: Measures under the UNCCD National report to address desertification in Poland 485

Contents, Page XI

Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

1 INTRODUCTION

The Communication ‘Towards a Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection’ (COM 2002/179 final) paved the way towards a common EU soil policy. In addition, the Commission commented on the inter-relationship of soil protection with other areas of Community policy (the Nitrates Directive and Water Framework Directive, the Air Quality Directive, the Common Agricultural Policy, Transport Policy and Research Policy). Hence, attention is also paid to measures already taken by and within Member States to evaluate the current integration of soil protection objectives into several areas of EU policy.

A 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’ was presented by the Commission on the 22nd of September 2006. The aim of the 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.

The objective of the contract is to carry out an analysis of certain measures adopted by the Member States (EU-25) in plans and programmes pursuant to Community and international legislation including the Water Framework Directive (WFD), Cross Compli- ance (CC) und United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD).

Report, Page 1 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

2 OBJECTIVES OF THIS STUDY

The proposed Soil Framework Directive should make provisions for Member States to identify and assess the impact of sectoral policies on the prevention of soil degradation processes and the protection of soil functions. As some sectoral EU policies either ex- acerbate or mitigate soil degradation processes, it is important to be able to evaluate to what extent given soil threats are effectively tackled already. On the one hand this depends on the instruments as such, may it be directives, regulations or conventions; and on the other hand, on the way these instruments are implemented in the Member States. The objective of this study is to identify, describe and evaluate the measures already taken by Member States under the Water Framework Directive (WFD), Cross- Compliance (CC) and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) to combat and mitigate the soil threats identified and their potential contribution to the soil conservation objectives as outlined in the EC Communication ‘Towards a Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection’ (COM (2006) 231 and 232). Other programmes, measures and policy instruments, including national provisions for soil protection, are outside the scope of this study.

The study ‘Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States’ will contribute to the discussion about the European Strat- egy for Soil Protection.

The key questions that will be addressed during the project are outlined in chapter 3.2 (WFD), chapter 4.2 (CC), chapter 5.2.1 and 5.3.1 (UNCCD).

Report, Page 2 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

3 WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE (WFD)

3.1 Background and data sources

Background

On 23 October 2000, the ‘Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy’, known as the Water Framework Directive (WFD), was adopted. It requires all inland and coastal waters to reach ‘good status’ by 2015.

The Water Framework Directive establishes a River Basin management planning process. For each river-basin district (RBD), a River Basin management plan (RBMP) will be prepared, implemented and reviewed every six years. River Basin Characterisation, required by Article 5 of the Directive, is an important early part of this process; for each RBD, an analysis of the characteristics, a review of the impact of human activity on the status of the water bodies within the RBD, and an economic analysis of water use are required.

It is important to notice that the WFD reporting is based on legal requirements and not on an agreement as the reports of the UNCCD Convention. The WFD sets up mandatory aims, assessment criteria, and does provide a time schedule; reporting requirements are specified clearly (e.g. contents of Article 5 reports).

The initial characterisation phase, which involved the identification of River Basin Dis- tricts, water bodies and the assigning of typologies, has been completed in December 2004. A Pressures and Impact Analysis was undertaken for each water body to assess the risk of failing to meet the environmental objectives of the Directive by 2015. In this regard, soil protection aspects mainly referring to soil degradation processes are considered herein. Because Article 5 reports focus primarily on the characterisation of water bodies, there is no valuable information available regarding measures. Measure- ment programmes pursuant to the 2000/60/EC directive will be provided in the framework of river-basin management plans, due to be finished in 2009.

Data sources

For this project, the Article 5 reports are evaluated, addressing mostly the area of one river-basin district, e.g. RBD Danube. In some cases, the reports have been prepared on a national scale and address the area of all river-basin districts in a given Member State (e.g. Estonia).

Further and more detailed information on the characterisation of the River Basin Dis- tricts can be found in the reports covering sub-basins (sub-basin reports), but a review of these is beyond the scope of this project. In addition, the sub-basin reports are rather heterogeneous, so their evaluation would not result in a reliable conclusion.

Report, Page 3 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Table 3.1.1 lists all the River Basin Districts in the 25 Member States. There are national (River Basin is located in one Member State) and international (River Basin is located in more than one Member State) River Basins. The table below shows which River Basin Districts are located in each given Member State and if a cross-border or national report has been compiled.

Table 3.1.1: International and national WFD Article 5 reports (MS 25) International RBDs in italics

Report, Page 4 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Member State RBDs with cross-border Article 5 RBD with national Article 5 report (s) report(s) (Data on soil degradation is (Data on soil degradation is compiled in the compiled in the first table of the second table of the chapters 3.3.1 to 3.3.9) chapters 3.3.1 to 3.3.9) 1 Spain ES - RBD Northern Spain (Norte) RBD Galician Coast (Galicia Costa) RBD Basque County internal basins (Cuencas Internas del Pais Vasco) RBD Duero RBD Tagus (Tajo) RBD Guadiana RBD Guadalquivir RBD Andalusia Mediterranean Basins (Cuencas Mediterraneas Andaluzas) RBD Segura RBD Jucar RBD Ebro RBD Internal Basins of Catalonia (Cuencas Internas Catalanas) RBD Balearic Islands (Islas Baleares) Finland FI - RBD Vuoksi (Vuoksen) RBD Kymijoki-Gulf of Finland (Kymijoen- Suomenlahden) RBD Kokemaenjoki-Archipelago Sea-Bothnian Sea (Kokemaenjoen-Saaristomeren-Selkameren) RBD Oulujoki-Iijoki (Oulujoen-Iijoen) RBD Kemijoki (Kemijoen) RBD Tornionjoki (Finnish part) (Tornionjoen (Suomen osuus)) RBD Tenojoki-Naatamojoki and Paatsjoki (Finnish part) (Teno-, Naatama- ja Paatsjoen, Suomen osuus) RBD Aland islands (Alands) France FR RBD Rhine (Rhin) RBD Scheldt, Somme and coastal waters of the RBD Meuse Channel and the North Sea (Escaut, Somme et cours d’eau côtiers de la Manche et la Mer du Nord) RBD Scheldt (Escaut) RBD Meuse (Meuse) RBD Sambre (Sambre)

RBD Rhin (Rhine) RBD Seine and Normandy coastal waters (Seine et cours d'eau côtiers normands) RBD Loire, Brittany and Vendee coastal waters (Loire et cours d'eau cotiers vendeens et bretons) RBD Rhone and Coastal Mediterranean (Rhône et côtiers méditerranéens) RBD Garonne, Adour Dordogne, Charente and coastal waters of aquitania (Garonne, Adour, Dordogne, Charente et cours d'eau cotiers charentais et aquitains) RBD Corsica (Cours d'eau de la Corse) RBD Guadeloupe (Cours d'eau de la Guadeloupe) RBD Martinique (Cours d'eau de la Martinique) RBD Reunion Island (Cours d'eau de la Reunion)

1 Some River Basins, Northern Spain, Duero, Tagus and Guadiana, are international River Basins, however the Spanish parts are characterised in the National art. 5 report from Spain and the Portu- guese parts only in the Portuguese report. Therefore these River Basin Districts have been classified as “District with National Report“.

Report, Page 5 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Member State RBDs with cross-border Article 5 RBD with national Article 5 report (s) report(s) (Data on soil degradation is (Data on soil degradation is compiled in the compiled in the first table of the second table of the chapters 3.3.1 to 3.3.9) chapters 3.3.1 to 3.3.9) Greece GR - RBD Northern Peloponnese RBD Eastern Peloponnese RBD Western Peloponnese RBD Western Sterea Ellada RBD Epirus RBD Attica RBD Eastern Sterea Ellada RBD Thessalia RBD Western Macedonia RBD Central Macedonia RBD Eastern Macedonia RBD Thrace RBD Crete RBD Aegean Islands Hungary HU RBD Danube (Duna) - Ireland IE - RBD Eastern (Oirthir) RBD Neagh Bann RBD North Western (Oir Larthair) RBD South Eastern (An Iar Deisceart) RBD Shannon (An tSionann) RBD South Western (Thiar Theas) RBD Western (Iarthair) Italy IT RBD Rhine RBD Tevere RBD Po RBD Alto Adriatico RBD Adige RBD Arno RBD Sardegna RBD Sicilia RBD Cecina Lithuania LT - RBD Nemunas (Neman) RBD Venta RBD Lielupe RBD Daugava (Dauguva) Luxemburg LU RBD Rhine (Rhin) - RBD Meuse Latvia LV - RBD Gauja (Gaujas upju baseina apgabals) RBD Venta (Ventas upju baseina apgabals) RBD Lielupe (Lielupes upju baseina apgabals) RBD Daugava (Daugavas upju baseina apgabals) Malta MT - RBD Malta

Netherlands NL RBD Rhine (Rijn) - RBD Meuse (Maas) RBD Scheldt (Schelde) RBD Ems (Eems) Poland PL RBD Danube (Obszar Dorzecza Dunaju) RBD Nemunas (Obszar Dorzecza Niemna) RBD Elbe (Obszar dorzecza Laby) RBD Vistula (Wisla) RBD Odra RBD Pregolya (Obszar Dorzecza Pregola) RBD Dniestr (Obszar Dorzecza Dniestru)

Report, Page 6 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Member State RBDs with cross-border Article 5 RBD with national Article 5 report (s) report(s) (Data on soil degradation is (Data on soil degradation is compiled in the compiled in the first table of the second table of the chapters 3.3.1 to 3.3.9) chapters 3.3.1 to 3.3.9) Portugal PT - RBD Duero (Douro) RBD Tagus and Western Basins (Tejo e Ribeiras do Oeste) RBD Guadiana RBD Minho and Lima (Minho e Lima) RBD Madeira (Arquipelago da Madeira) RBD Cavado, Ave and Leca RBD Vouga, Mondego and Lis RBD Sado and Mira (Sado e Mira) RBD Algarve Basins (Ribeiras do Algarve) RBD Azores (Arquipelago dos Acores) Sweden SE - RBD North Troendelag (Nord-Troendelagregionen) RBD North Land (Nordlandsregionen) RBD Troms (Tromsregionen) RBD Glomma (Glommaregionen) RBD Bothnian Bay (Bottenviken) RBD Skagerrak and Kattegat (Vaesterhavet) RBD Bothnian Sea (Bottenhavet) RBD North Baltic (Norra Östersjöns) RBD South Baltic (Södra Östersjöns) RBD South Troendelag (Sor-Troendelagsregionen) Slovenia SI - RBD Danube (Vodno obmoaje Donave) RBD North Adriatic (Vodno obmoaje RBD Jadranskega morja) Slovak SK RBD Danube (Dunaja) RBD Danube (Dunaja) Republic RBD Vah (Váhu) RBD Hron (Hrona) RBD Bodrog (Bodrogu) RBD Hornad (Hornádu) RBD Poprad and Dunajec (Poprad a Dunajec) United - RBD Anglian Kingdom RBD Dee RBD Humber RBD Northumbria RBD North West RBD Severn RBD South East RBD South West RBD Thames RBD Western Wales RBD Neagh Bann (Northern Ireland) RBD North Western (Northern Ireland) RBD Shannon (Northern Ireland) RBD North Eastern (Northern Ireland) RBD Solway Tweed RBD Scotland

The WFD Article 5 reports are available from the public CIRCA network of the Euro- pean Commission.

Report, Page 7 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

There are 134 River Basin Districts in 25 Member States. 61 national and international reports are available for the River Basin Districts. After diligent consideration of the reports, 51 of these reports (covering 121 River Basin Districts) have been evaluated by the contractors.

This covers about 99 % of the area of the 25 Member States.

A separate specific report does not exist for every RBD, and some of the reports could not or were not evaluated by the contractors, due to the following reasons:

(a) A small number of reports are not available because the countries have not prepared or delivered them. If the contractors could find out the reason why, it is added in the following list: • RBD Guyana (France) This RBD is not considered in the national WFD Article 5 report of France. • RBD Canary Islands in Spain The autonomous Region of the Canary Island has not yet compiled the report. • RBD North Adriatic in Slovenia • RBD Gibraltar in the United Kingdom The UK will not compile a report on Gibraltar, as the area is so small that it is not identified as a single River Basin. • 2nd National Report from Greece Greece has delivered its 1st Article 5 report in June 2006 for all water districts in Greece. In this report, a 2nd report is announced to be delivered on October 15th 2006; however, as of 16.08.2007, this 2nd report is still not available on the CIRCA network. This 1st National Report from Greece was evaluated. It addresses “14 water districts” and not single RBDs. Please note: The 14 water districts were regarded as 14 RBDs for the statistical tables and listings in the report.

(b) Some countries have prepared reports that cover several RBDs: • Some countries (Estonia, Latvia, Slovak Republic and Spain) have prepared summary reports on a national scale. These reports have been evaluated. In addition, they have prepared reports addressing the single RBDs or sub- RBDs in these countries, but these reports could not be evaluated within the scope of this project.

(c) Other reasons • Not all Italian reports were evaluated on the recommendation of Unit ENV D.2 - Water & Marine. However, the contractors checked this valuation by analysing two Italian RBDs, the two pilot RBDs Tevere and Cecina. This check supported the judgement of ENV D.2 that there is largely no useful information;

Report, Page 8 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

therefore and because a lower quality of information can be expected in the other RBDs that are not pilot RBDs were not evaluated. • Small parts of RBDs are located in one MS, the significantly larger parts are in other MS

This occurs in the Italian part of the river Rhine. Less than 100 sq km of the RBD Rhine (total area: 197,100 sq km) are located in Italy. Therefore, the information about soil threats gathered from the international WFD Article 5 report has not been referenced to Italy. This is due to the small spatial extent of the Italian area and the general nature of information in the report, which is not specifically differentiated for each Member State in the RBD.

Similarly, small part of the RBD Seine, about 80 sq km, is situated in Belgium. Therefore, the information about soil threats gathered from the national WFD Article 5 report from France has not been referenced to Belgium. • Denmark delivered 11 voluminous reports of 11 RBDs. This is a comparably large number of RBDs given in the area of the country. 8 of these reports were evaluated. These reports were selected by taking the geography of the country (several small and medium sized islands and the mainland) into consideration. The evaluation showed that it is sufficient to examine 8 of these as the information on areas with related infrastructures and features (urban or agricultural) was very similar. For further details on data sources see Annex 2.

3.2 Methodology

The review and evaluation of the WFD Article 5 reports focus on answering the following key questions:

(1) To what extent have soil threats been identified as a pressure for water quality in any given River Basin District? In such cases, how has soil status been taken into account?

(2) To what extent can the characterisation of River Basin Districts be used to identify and assess the soil degradation processes occurring in any given River Basin District? In such cases, what are the types and levels of soil degradation, as described in the River Basin Districts characterisation? What are the most threatened soil functions?

Report, Page 9 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

The review of every WFD Article 5 report has been performed separately for the nine main soil threats, namely

erosion, decline in organic matter, local contamination, diffuse contamination, sealing, compaction, decline in biodiversity, salinisation, and floods and landslides.

In addition to degradation by the nine main soil threats, a complete destruction of soil has been taken into account, e.g. by open pit mining activities (see Annex 4).

The methodology described in the following subchapters is also used during the review and evaluation of UNCCD reports (see chapter 5.3). The work follows a three-step approach:

1. The first step is the identification of relevant information about soil degradation in the WFD Article 5 reports.

2. The second step is a description of soil degradation as found in the WFD Arti- cle 5 reports.

3. The third step is an evaluation of this information referring to the key questions by the contractor.

Step 1: Identification of relevant information about soil degradation from the Article 5 reports

Article 5 reports have different sections. The sections which address the characteristics of the River Basin Districts or the economic analysis usually do not contain any useful information on soil to answer the key questions. Hence the review of the WFD Article 5 reports focuses on the section of the analysis of the pressures and impacts for water resources, present in every WFD Article 5 report, where the relevant information to answer the key questions can be found.

Due to the objectives of the Water Framework Directive, the Article 5 reports primarily address water issues. It is obvious that soil issues are mentioned under the specific view on pressures and impact on water resources. Hence, an interpretation of the water issues and descriptions is necessary to draw conclusions on soil issues.

Report, Page 10 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

On the one hand, soil threats are directly mentioned in some WFD Article 5 reports, e.g. ‘Soil erosion is the main cause for diffuse source pressures on surface waters.’ or ‘Contaminated soils are sources for potential contaminations of surface waters and/or groundwater.’ On the other hand, some reports contain indirect indicators leading to the assumption that a soil threat has been identified as a pressure for water quality, e.g. a reduced water infiltration capacity as an indicator for soil compaction or a phrase like ‘High concentrations of phosphorus have been found in surface water bodies’ as an indicator for the occurrence of soil erosion. Phosphorus, as phosphate, is strongly held by soils through both electrostatic and non-electrostatic mechanisms and usually do not leach in most soils. Therefore, the greatest concern with phosphorus is the contamination of streams and lakes via surface run-off and erosion (Sparks, 2003).

Moreover, some WFD Article 5 reports give accounts of activities like drainage of peat soils and moors or a drawdown (lowering) of groundwater level in surface mining areas. Organic-rich soils, e.g. peats, are normally formed in anaerobic and wet conditions which favour carbon accumulation because the organic matter cannot be decomposed without oxygen. During dewatering activities, the anaerobic conditions change to aerobic and the carbon pool is available for mineralization by biological decomposition, reducing the soil organic matter contents.

Against this background, dewatering activities are regarded as indicators for possible soil degradation.

It must be clear that all indirect indicators show a theoretical possibility of soil degradation and do not necessarily correspond to the actual soil status.

Basically, any information about soil degradation – including indirect indicators - has been considered as relevant information and has been gathered to ensure that the results of the review are as complete as possible. Hence, the understanding of indirect indicators must be clarified separately with respect to every single soil threat. Table 3.2.1 shows which indicators were taken into account during the collection of data to identify relevant information about soil degradation from the WFD Article 5 reports.

Report, Page 11 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Table 3.2.1: Terms and indirect indicators used to identify relevant information about soil degradation in the WFD Article 5 reports (In italics: Indirect effects of soil threats with one another.)

Soil Terms / Synonyms Indirect indicators threat - (soil) erosion - pollution of surface waters with substances which are 2 usually dislocated via soil erosion (especially phosphorus, - agricultural runoff or surface runoff under agricultural landuse (not runoff from pesticides) sealed surfaces) - surface water bodies at risk due to sediment delivery via Erosion transport of sediment from farmland - forest fires (without direct reforestation) - decline (reduction, decrease) in organic - drainage of peat soils/intensive drainage of (former) moor matter areas - mineralisation or decomposition of soil - drawdown (lowering) of groundwater level in wetlands, peat organic matter soils or flood plains or water-regulating measures in wetlands - leaching of organic carbon into subsoil or groundwater - dewatering due to surface mining activities matter - soil erosion

Decline in organic - deforestation - forest fires - contaminated or polluted sites - groundwater contamination by point source pressures via - contaminated or polluted soils leaching or leakages from soil - (local) contamination of soils - groundwater bodies which has been identified to be (probably) at risk due to point source pressures - contaminated land contamination via leaching - point source pressures for groundwater - accidents with an emission of toxic substances by (inappropriate) waste disposal sites, landfills, military sites , industrial sites, airports, roads

Local contamination - impregnation of wastewater into soil - sewage and waste disposal on soils - (diffuse) contamination of soils - contamination of water resources via atmospheric - accumulation of hazardous substances in deposition, leaching or drainage top soils - inappropriate use of fertilizers and chemicals - application of pesticides - nutrient surplus at arable land

- industrial atmospheric deposition - input of acidifying components (SO4, NOx, NH3, acid rain), nutrients (NH , NO , P) or potentially harmful substances 4 3 (e.g. heavy metals, POPs, pesticides) in soils - soil acidification, effects of a surplus of nutrients, effects of

Diffuse contamination contamination by heavy metals or organic pollutants or radioactive contamination - sealing or sealed (hard) surfaces - urban areas - developed areas - settlements Sealing - built-up areas

2 Runoff was associated with the soil threat Erosion, if it is mentioned in the context of agricultural land use and if is not clearly described as a transport process of soluble substances. In these cases (e.g. Greece), runoff is understood as a loss of soil via mass transport processes. If runoff cannot be assumed as a mass transport process, it is not understood as soil erosion. This applies if only “runoff” without any clarification of land use or transport processes is mentioned. In particular, runoff from sealed surfaces, which can be an important pressure for surface waters, is not associated with soil erosion.

Report, Page 12 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Soil Terms / Synonyms Indirect indicators threat - soil compaction - reduced water infiltration capacity - accelerated surface run-off - poor aeration (reduction of plant growth, denitrification in anaerobic sites) - crop yield reductions Compaction - degraded soil structure - decline in soil biodiversity - all other soil threats biodiversity Decline in

- soil salinisation - irrigation with high salt content waters - accumulation of soluble salts in soils - input of salts into soils by human activities (sodium, magnesium, calcium) and - water pollution by de-icing of roads impaired soil fertility - alkalinisation, sodification Salinisation - soil salinity leading to degradation - degraded soils due to floods or landslides - erosion, contamination, loss of biodiversity, destruction of soil resources landslides Floods and

Step 2: Description of soil degradation

The description of soil degradation is completed for every soil threat affected, according to the contents of the WFD Article 5 reports. To the extent available, the descriptive information is given in the left part of the tables in subchapters 3.3.1 to 3.3.9 and is labelled with ‘Information from WFD Article 5 reports’ (see Figure 3.2.1). The right part (Contactor’s evaluation) is further detailed in the subchapter ‘Evaluation’ below.

Description of soil degradation Evaluation of soil degradation as given in the WFD Article 5 report performed by the contractor

Information from WFD article 5 reports Contractor’s Evaluation River Member Information in WFD Art. 5 Causes of Covered Covered Quality of Assessment of Intensity of soil Basin States report referring to soil soil area area information indications degradation District degradation (summarized if degradation (qual.) (quant.) (RBD) necessary)

Figure 3.2.1: Table structure for soil degradation data (example for WFD reports)

Report, Page 13 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

The description of soil degradation includes the following columns:

• ‘River Basin District (RBD)’ and ‘Member State’ contain the region/state that is covered by soil degradation, as mentioned in the WFD Article 5 report;

• ‘Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to soil degradation (summarized, if necessary)’ contains the relevant terms as given in the evaluated report or - if necessary - a brief summary of the information given in the report;

• ‘Causes of soil degradation’ outlines the causes of soil degradation as mentioned in the WFD reports using categories3,

• ‘Pollutants causing soil degradation’ contains the contaminants causing soil degradation, if applicable (see tables in chapters 3.3.3 and 3.3.4), and

• ‘Covered area (qual.)’ and ‘Covered area (quant.)’ show data about the area that is covered by soil degradation, if available (e.g. quantitative as square kilometres or qualitative as arable land).

If a given River Basin District or Member State is not listed in the tables of chapter 3.3.1 to 3.3.9, there is no information on the given soil threat available in the WFD Arti- cle 5 report addressing the River Basin District or Member State.

In addition to the tables shown in this report, the database includes further details, e.g. the location of data in the report (e.g. chapter, page).

The methodology of gathering descriptive information about soil degradation from Arti- cle 5 reports in detail is based on the following principles: The information given in the Article 5 reports is quoted in the columns labelled ‘Information from WFD Article 5 reports’. If necessary, the information has been summarized, categorized (e.g. causes of soil degradation), and/or translated into English. The description of soil degradation given is gathered from the Article 5 reports and contains no evaluation by the contractor.

3 atmospheric deposition; agricultural land use; industrial land use; mining activities, production of raw materials; contaminated sites, waste disposal, landfill; urban land use; river training/river alteration; drainage; disposal of sewage; forestry; surface topography; lack of land use/countryside abandonment; forest fires; coastal erosion; forest grazing; deforestation; rainstorms; overgrazing; inappropriate irrigation techniques; inappropriate drainage techniques; climate conditions (e.g. aridity), drawdown of groundwater level (lowering of the water table).

Report, Page 14 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Step 3: Evaluation

To answer the questions mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, it is essential to evaluate the quality of information given in the Article 5 reports. How clear the answers can be to these key questions depends on the quality of information in the source documents. To prepare an evaluation for every soil threat in text form, a brief evaluation of soil degradation is given at the local stage of every given River Basin District. This evaluation is shown in the right part of the tables in subchapters 3.3.1 to 3.3.9 (see Figure 3.2.1) and has been performed by the contractor. It includes the columns

• ‘Quality of information’, which contains a numerical sum-up evaluation providing a general overview of the quality of information given in the Art. 5 report (see Table 3.2.2),

• ‘Assessment of indications’, which contains a categorisation as ‘direct indications’ (meaning the soil threat is identified directly) and as ‘indirect indications’ (according to the understanding of indirect indicators as explained in Table 3.2.1), as well as additional evaluation issues if the report provides appropriate information that can be evaluated, and

• ‘Intensity of soil degradation‘, which gives a brief textual evaluation of the intensity (level) of soil degradation (if available) and factors having an effect on soil degradation.

Table 3.2.2 explains the numerical sum-up evaluation of the information quality and gives an overview of the evaluation criteria. The set of descriptive data collected in the second step in the three-step approach provides the basis for answering the key questions. The information from the WFD Article 5 reports that is most important for evaluation purposes is marked bold.

The key questions are discussed in the subchapters 3.3.1 to 3.3.9 addressing the nine main soil threats.

For clarification, the subchapters on the evaluation of the information on soil threats in chapter 3.3 include theoretical issues in grey boxes.

Report, Page 15 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Table 3.2.2: Ranking of the evaluation of the quality of information that is given in the WFD Article 5 reports

Information Nature of the Data about the area about the Short How is soil degradation mentioned in information covered by soil intensity of value the report? in the report degradation… soil degradation… The report does not contain any 0 - is not available is not available information about soil degradation. The report contains information about 1 indirect indicators which lead to the not relevant is possibly available is not available assumption that soil degradation occurs. The soil threat is identified directly in the report. is not available or The kind of identification in this too general to get a category might differ and covers a spatial reference 2 range of information (for example the very general is not available (e.g. only land use, threat might just be mentioned, or roughly number of described, or with rough estimated and contaminated sites) implausible or unreliable or incomplete figures).

3 general is available is not available The soil threat is identified directly with general information in the report. 4 general is not available is available

A given soil threat is identified directly 5 detailed is available is available with detailed information in the report.

Background of the evaluation

To ensure a clear understanding of the evaluation of the WFD Article 5 reports by the contractor, this subchapter summarises basic information referring to the evaluation of soil protection issues.

In preparing the evaluation of the key questions, it is of particular importance to clarify the requirements which are necessary to answer the key questions. To derive the appropriate answers, a minimum amount of information is necessary. Table 3.2.3 lists different soil parameters that can be used to assess the state of the soil. In order to have a clear picture of the state of the soil in a given area, data on such parameters will be needed. Hence the reports have been screened in search for information on such parameters, and the conclusions regarding the intensity of the soil degradation have been based on the availability of such information in the reports. This background is taken into account during the evaluation of the characterisation of the River Basin Dis-

Report, Page 16 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

tricts under the WFD referring to soil degradation processes and should be considered when reviewing the detailed tables on soil threats in the following chapter 3.3.

Table 3.2.3: Parameters describing the soil state (examples for selected soil threats)

Parameter that can be used to Parameter describing the soil state Soil threat identify and assess the soil (Examples) degradation processes (Examples) - vulnerability for soil erosion - erosion rate (e.g. in tons per hectare) Erosion - soil texture/clay content - topography/slope - soil carbon content Decline in organic - content of soil organic matter matter - soil fertility Local - soil content of contaminants (e.g. heavy metals, organic pollutants) contamination - vulnerability for pollutant inputs via atmospherical deposition or landuse Diffuse activities contamination - soil content of contaminants (e.g. heavy metals, organic pollutants) and nutrients (e.g. nitrogen, phosphorus) - sealing degree (e.g. 90% of the soil - trend of soil sealing (e.g. hectares surface in a given area) per day) Sealing - type of sealing - change of underlying soil by sealing (e.g. infiltration rate, soil biodiversity) - vulnerability for soil compaction - bulk density Compaction - soil texture/clay content - soil fertility - soil permeability Decline in - number and diversity of species biodiversity - biomass indicators Salinisation - soil content of salts (sodium, magnesium, calcium) - soil loss rates induced by flooding events (e.g. in mm or tons / hectare) Floods - soil content of contaminants induced by flood emission (e.g. heavy metals, organic pollutants) - soil loss rates induced by landslides (e.g. in mm, m, or tons) Lanslides - spatial extent of landslides

Glossary

Within the evaluation of WFD Article 5 reports, it was also necessary to clearly define several terms concerning non-existing data or irrelevant information as well as evaluation terms. The following Table 3.2.4 is a guide through the terms as used in the project including the tables in the subchapters 3.3.1 to 3.3.9.

Report, Page 17 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Table 3.2.4: Glossary

Term Used in the Used in … Definition

context of … information not collection of data text and tables There is no information existing. available of data of data Collection

no information description of text, tables and There is no information or data on an available information database issue existing in the reviewed data sources.

no detailed description of text Information is incomplete or rather information information general. available Review of data sources

unknown evaluation of soil database, text There cannot be valuable assessment degradation and tables of the evaluation criterion (i.e. a level of soil degradation) made due to a lack of information in the reviewed document. Evaluation Evaluation

not relevant evaluation of database Information has been evaluated, but is information not relevant . The term means that there is a lack of mention (e.g. pollutants in the context of a decline in Review &

Evaluation Evaluation organic matter).

Excursus: Measures under WFD

Based on the pressures and impacts identified during the characterisation of the River Basin Districts, the WFD Article 5 reports include some information about intended or scheduled measures to be implemented within the River Basin Management Plans directly under the WFD. The review of the WFD Article 5 does not take into account these measures. As described before, the review focuses on the key question referring the extent to which soil threats have been identified as a pressure for water quality in the River-Basin Districts. However, in carrying out the evaluation, information on measures that might have effects on soil was found in some reports. This information was collected and is documented in Annex 2.

Report, Page 18 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

3.3 Soil degradation in WFD Article 5 reports

In the following chapters 3.3.1 to 3.3.9, the information regarding soil degradation, as documented in the WFD Article 5 reports and the contractor’s evaluation of the information, is provided according to the methodology described in chapter 3.2. At first, all details from the WFD Article 5 reports and a brief evaluation are given in tables.

At the beginning of each subchapter is a table for the international River Basin Dstricts (RBDs) that share more than one Member State as described in cross-border Article 5 reports. Subsequently, another table shows the information about ‘national’ River Basin Districts that are located in only one Member State or national parts of international RBDs.

In the database that was used to collect and gather the information (see Annex 1) there is more detailed data, such as the location of data (e.g. chapter of a report) in the source document. The database contains data, separated for each source document, that is either a report addressing a given River Basin District or a report addressing the territory of an entire Member State.

Table 3.1.1 above helps in locating all relevant information about soil degradation in a given Member State within the chapters 3.3.1 to 3.3.9. For each Member State, it lists which RBDs are located in it and if a cross-border or national report has been reviewed. As mentioned in the heading of the table, these can be found in the first (cross- border) or the second table (national) of the chapters 3.3.1 to 3.3.9.

Underneath the detailed tables in chapter 3.3.1 to 3.3.9, the information found in the WFD Article 5 reports is summarized and evaluated referring to the key questions mentioned at the beginning of chapter 3.2.

Report, Page 19 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

3.3.1 Erosion

Table 3.3.1.1: Soil degradation by erosion designated in WFD Article 5 reports of international River Basin Districts

Information from WFD Article 5 reports - Erosion - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin Member State Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to soil Causes of Covered area Covered Quality Assessment Intensity of soil degradation District (RBD) (-Region) degradation (summarized if necessary) soil area of of indications degradation (qual.) (quant.) inform. RBD Danube Austria, For phosphorus, erosion contributes about half of the no no information no informa- 2 direct The intensity of soil erosion is Czech diffuse inputs into the river system (result of information available tion indication of unknown. It can be expected, (International Republic, MONERIS model application). The contribution from the available available soil that the intensity is different in Commission for Germany, different diffuse nutrient pathways varies significantly degradation certain parts of the RBD the Protection of Hungary, within the Danube basin. The estimation of erosion into depending on soil condition and the Danube River, Poland, water, the main source of emissions, is based on a raw European soil land use. 2005) Slovenia, map of the soil losses in Europe. A new soil loss map loss map is Slovak is in preparation but at present not yet available. mentioned. Republic RBD Elbe Austria, Czech AT: Diffuse source pressures on surface waters can be agricultural RBD: agricultural no infor- CZ: 4 AT, CZ, DE: CZ:The intensity of soil erosion Republic, induced by soil erosion. land use; land; mation direct is quoted with 0.41 t/ha*a in the (Internationale Germany, surface available DE, AT: indication of Czech part of the RBD. This Kommission zum Poland CZ: Erosion has been identified as a significant diffuse topography DE: low mountain 2 soil level is low in relation to the Schutz der Elbe, source pressure for surface water bodies. Erosion is ranges and in hilly PL: 0 degradation level of natural soil formation, 2005) calculated by 0.41 t/ha*a. Differentiated information regions of which – in central Europe – is about soil erosion and soil contents of phosphorus is Mecklenburg- CZ: soil loss lower than 1 t/(ha*a) (= lower available in the sub-basin report (level B report). Western Pomerania rate is than 0.07 mm soil depth per and Schleswig- available year) (Van-Camp et al., 2004). DE: Diffuse source pressures on surface waters that are Holstein, Erzgebirge, induced by erosion (phosphorus) preferentially occur in But in the reviewed documents Thüringer Wald and there is not given any detailed the low mountain ranges and in the hilly regions of north-eastern Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and Schleswig- information about the regions, fertile plains, methodology of the calculation. Holstein. The erosion of heavy metals mainly takes place loess and marsh in the low mountain ranges (Erzgebirge: cadmium, lead, regions DE, AT: The intensity of soil arsenic; Thüringer Wald and north-eastern regions: erosion is unknown. chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, zinc). Erosion is identified as a main cause for pesticide inputs on RBD: It can be expected, that surface waters. This is significant in fertile plains the intensity is different in (Bördegebiete), loess and marsh regions with certain parts of the RBD widespread cultivation of root and tuber crops (sugar- depending on soil condition and beet, corn, potato) and at arable land in low mountain land use intensity. ranges.

Report, Page 20 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from WFD Article 5 reports - Erosion - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin Member State Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to soil Causes of Covered area Covered Quality Assessment Intensity of soil degradation District (RBD) (-Region) degradation (summarized if necessary) soil area of of indications degradation (qual.) (quant.) inform. RBD Ems Netherlands, High concentrations of phosphorus have been found in no areas which are no infor- 1 indirect The intensity of soil erosion is Germany surface water bodies which are located in areas which information vulnerable for soil mation indication of unknown. It can be expected, (Königreich der are vulnerable for soil erosion. available erosion available soil that the intensity is different in Niederlande & degradation certain parts of the RBD Bundesrepublik depending on soil condition and Deutschland, the intensity of land use. 2005) RBD Odra Poland, RBD: Erosion is a major process for surface water no no information no infor- CZ: 5 CZ, DE, PL: RBD: The intensity of soil Germany, pollution with phosphorus in the RBD. information available mation direct erosion is unknown. It can be (Internationale Czech available available DE: 4 indication of expected, that the intensity is Kommission zum CZ: Erosion is calculated by 0.3 t/ha*a. For the Republic PL: 2 soil different in certain parts of the Schutz der Oder, evaluation of the pressure by soil erosion the results of degradation RBD depending on land use. 2005) the project Val 650/04/98 ‘Eingrenzung der diffusen Belastung des Oberflächen- und Grundwassers in der CZ: soil loss CZ: The intensity of soil erosion Tschechischen Republik’ of the Forschungsinstitut für rate and a is quoted with 0.3 t/ha*a in the Wasserwirtschaft T.G.M. were used. A map of the map of Czech part of the RBD. This average soil loss in 50x50 m units was prepared average soil level is low in relation to the applying the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE- loss is level of natural soil formation, method). This method takes mainly into account the available which in central Europe is lower precipitation, slope length and slope angle, soil condition than 1 t/(ha*a) (Van-Camp et and vegetation cover. The results are added for every DE: soil loss al., 2004). water body and specified in tons per sq km. Together rate is with an estimation of the phosphorus contents in different available DE: Erosion is calculated by soil types which is based on a map 1:200,000 the USLE- 189 t/a in the German part of results were used to calculate the transport of RBD Odra (7987 sq km). phosphorus by soil erosion. The accumulation of Annual soil losses per hectare phosphorus during the transport process has been could not be calculated considered in the calculation. because the specific size of the model area is unknown. DE: Erosion is calculated by 189 t/a in the German part of RBD Odra (1998-2003, Behrendt et al. 2004). The calculation of pollutant loads into surface waters due to diffuse source pressures is performed with different model approches considering six input pathes (MONERIS, MODEST, NIIRS), namely erosion, surface runoff from agricultural land after intense rainfall, groundwater, drainage, atmospherical deposition, and sealed urban areas.

Report, Page 21 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 22 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 3.3.1.2: Soil degradation by erosion designated in national WFD Article 5 reports

Information from WFD Article 5 reports - Erosion - Contractor’s Evaluation River Basin District Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to soil Causes of Covered area Covered Quality of Assessment of Intensity of soil degradation (RBD) State degradation (summarized if necessary) soil area inform. indications (-Region) degradation (qual.) (quant.)

RBD Cyprus Cyprus Agricultural runoff and infiltration are significant agricultural no information no 2 Direct indication The intensity of agricultural pressures of diffuse source pollution to surface land use available information of soil runoff is unknown. It can be (Republic of Cyprus, waters. available degradation expected, that the intensity is 2005) (agricultural different in certain parts of runoff) the RBD depending on the intensity of land use. RBD Storstroem, RBD Denmark RBD Soenderjylland: The most significant sources of agricultural no information no RBD Fyn, RBD Fyn, RBD The intensity of soil erosion Fyn, RBD external nutrient discharge are run-off and dilution land use; available information RBD Soenderjylland is unknown. It can be Soenderjylland, RBD from agricultural areas as well as edge erosion, coastal available Soenderjyllan and RBD expected, that the intensity is Rinkjoebing sewage from sparsely populated areas and waste erosion d and RBD Rinkjoebing: different in certain parts of water from sewage treatment facilities and rain water Rinkjoebing: direct indication the RBD depending on soil (Storstrøms Amt, 2006; run-off (through municipal and individual sewer 2 of soil condition and land use. Fyns Amt, 2006; systems). degradation Soenderjyllands Amt, RBD 2006; Ringkjøbing Amt RBD Fyn: The primary cause of non-compliance with Storstroem: 1 RBD Teknik og Miljø, 2006) target objectives in lakes is nutrient discharge from Storstroem: agriculture, whereas phosphorus discharge from indirect sewage from sparsely populated areas will be indication of soil considerably reduced by 2015 as a result of improved degradation sewage treatment for these properties. Effects of eutrophication: Wetlands receive nutrients from the air, through drainage waters, groundwater bodies or as a result of surface run-off from cultivated agricultural areas. RBD Ringkjoebing: Coastal, beach and sandbar enrichment measures are implemented along most of the west coast of Jutland in conjunction with coastal protection programs (measures taken against coastal erosion). RBD Storstroem: Shallow water regions, such as inlets and all of the near-shore water areas, are heavily impacted by nutrients which come from the catchment area.

Report, Page 23 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus come from various sources, like Point sources, Area burden (agriculture, sparsely populated areas), Natural contributions or Atmospheric contribution. For most shallow water regions the contribution of nutrients from agriculture is greatest. RBD Scheldt, Somme France RBD Seine: Erosion of agricultural soils contributes to surface The risk of soil no RBD Seine: 5 RBD Seine, RBD Seine: The intensity of and coastal waters of phosphorus input into rivers and is quoted by 2 to 6 topography; erosion is mapped information RBD Martinique: soil erosion is quoted with up the Channel and the tons per year. A map of soil erosion risks shows agricultural for the RBD Seine available RBD direct indication to 6 t/(ha*a). In relation to the North Sea, RBD Meuse, areas with low, medium, and high risk. A very high risk land use (figure 8.5.b). Martinique: 2 of soil level of natural soil RBD Sambre, RBD of soil erosion is shown in wide areas north of the RBD Loire, degradation; formation, which - in central Rhine, RBD Seine and cities of Rouen, Beauvais and Laon as well as in small Europe - is lower than RBD RBD Loire, RBD Normandy coastal areas near Caen in the Normandy and in the Guadeloupe, 1 t/(ha*a) (Van-Camp et al., waters, RBD Loire, Champagne (figure 8.5b). Guadeloupe, 2004) this is a high level of RBD RBD Réunion: Brittany and Vendee Réunion: 1 soil degradation. In the coastal waters, RBD RBD Loire: Water courses are affected mainly by indirect RBDs Martinique, Loire, Rhone and Coastal phosphorus inputs (eutrophication). RBD Sambre, indication of soil Guadeloupe, and Réunion degradation Mediterranean, RBD RBD Martinique: The coastal and transitional waters RBD Rhone, there is no information on the Garonne, Adour are generally degraded by hypersedimentation, which RBD Corsica, level of soil degradation. Dordogne, Charente is related to the erosion of soils, inappropriate RBD Adour/ and coastal waters of cultivation methods, granulate quarries, earthworks in Garonne: 0 aquitania, RBD Corsica, coastal zones, and to the destruction of the RBD Guadeloupe, RBD mangroves. 3 of 4 transitional water bodies have been Martinique, RBD identified to be at risk due to the hypersedimentation. Reunion Island RBD Guadeloupe: 2 of 10 coastal water bodies (Republique Francaise underlie excessive inputs of terrestrial materials & Eaufrance, 2005) (hypersedimentation). RBD Réunion: Major pressures on the lagoons derive from the input of suspended solids by rain water, input of nitrogen and phosphorus from agriculture, urban modification of coastal morphology, and tourism.

Report, Page 24 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

RBD Eider Germany - Agricultural land use can induce pollution of surface agricultural agricultural land no 2 Direct indication The intensity of soil erosion Schleswig- waters by soil erosion at steep slopes (nutrients, land use; information of soil is unknown. It can be (Ministerium für Umwelt, Holstein pesticides). surface available degradation expected, that the intensity is Naturschutz und topography different in certain parts of Landwirtschaft des the RBD depending on Landes Schleswig- surface topography and the Holstein, 2004) intensity of agricultural land use. RBD Weser Germany For phosphorus, erosion is a major cause for diffuse agricultural spring areas of the no 2 Direct indication The intensity of soil erosion inputs into river systems, especially in areas with land use; river Fulda; region information of soil is unknown. It can be (Flussgebietsgemeinsch agricultural land use at steep slopes. Areas with high surface around Korbach; available degradation expected, that the intensity is aft Weser, 2005) potential for soil erosion and impacts on surface water topography region of the river different in certain parts of bodies are mentioned (see covered area qual.). Efze nearby the RBD depending on Homberg; region surface topography and the of the river Nesse intensity of agricultural land (Werra use. catchment); catchments of Mittelweser, Ilme, and Aller RBD Schlei/Trave Germany – Pollutant inputs into surface water derive from arable surface no information no 2 Direct indication The intensity of erosion is (Ministerium für Umwelt, Mecklen- land via surface-runoff depending on the slope. topography available information of soil unknown. It can be Naturschutz und burg- available degradation expected, that the intensity is Landwirtschaft des Western different in certain parts of Landes Schleswig- Pomera- the RBD depending on soil Holstein & nia, condition and land use. Umweltministerium Schleswig- Mecklenburg- Holstein Vorpommern (2004) RBD Warnow/Peene Germany - Erosion is one of the main paths for the phosphorus no no information no 2 Direct indication The intensity of soil erosion (Umweltministerium Mecklenbu input into rivers and lakes. 2.5 % of the diffuse information available information of soil is unknown. It can be Mecklenburg- rg-Western nitrogen and 40.9 % of the diffuse phosphorus inputs available available degradation expected, that the intensity is Vorpommern & Pomerania into surface waters derive from erosion. different in certain parts of Landesamt für Umwelt, the RBD depending on soil Naturschutz und condition and land use. Geologie Mecklenburg- Vorpommern, 2004)

Report, Page 25 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

14 water districts Greece The major non-point pollution sources derive from agricultural agricultural land; no 2 Direct indication The intensity of agricultural Greece surface runoff caused by agricultural activities and land use; forest land information of soil runoff and erosion is non-confined animals and contribute to the emission of forestry available degradation unknown. It can be (Hellenic Republic nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) on surface water. (agricultural expected, that the intensity is Ministry of Environment, One of the major pressures for phosphorus is runoff and different in certain parts of Physical Planning and agricultural runoff. The main characteristic of Greek erosion in the RBD depending on the Public Works - Central River Basins is the erosion of the ground due to forests) intensity of land use. Water Agency, 2006) inadequate forestry. RBD Tevere Italy The upper Tevere River Basin is mainly characterized no upper Tevere no 2 Direct indication The intensity of soil erosion by terrigeneous facies and flysch deposits. These information River Basin information of soil is unknown. It can be (General Secretary of deposits mainly consist of clayey-schistose and available available degradation expected, that the intensity is the Tevere River Basin clayey-marly sediments and are characterized by different in certain parts of Authority, 2005) erosion and calanches. named area depending on soil condition and land use. RBD Cecina Italy Potential pollutant loads are loads generated by the no agricultural land no 2 Direct indication The intensity of soil erosion use of fertilizers and phyto-pharmaceuticals and by information information of soil is unknown. It can be (Ministero dell' Ambiente manure from stock rearing; the complex of these available available degradation expected, that the intensity is e della Tutela del quantities dispersed in the soils, as inorganic fertilisers (Pollution of different in certain parts of Territorio, 2006) in the first instance and organic fertilisers in the surface waters the RBD depending on soil second, create pollution of surface waters by surface is caused by condition and land use. runoff and of groundwater by percolation. run-off from agricultural land.) RBD Gauja, RBD Venta, Latvia Results of agriculture run-off monitoring demonstrate agricultural no information no 2 Direct indication The intensity of agricultural RBD Lielupe, RBD that the amount of phosphorus run-off varies, land use available information of soil runoff is unknown. It can be Daugava depending on the land use patterns. In an average, available degradation expected, that the intensity is use of fertilizers is low; quite often the applied (agricultual different in certain parts of (Ministry of the amounts are smaller that the amounts used by plants. runoff and runoff the RBD depending on the Environment of the Meanwhile, large, business oriented farms have in forests) intensity of land use. Republic of Latvia & increased application of fertilizers during the last Latvian Environment, years. Geology and Meteorology Agency, Run-off of phosphorus from forests is less intense 2005) than from intensively used agricultural lands. Average yearly run-off of phosphorus is 0.099 kg/ha, however, in some River Basins run-off of phosphorus reach even 6 to 7 kg/ha per year.

Report, Page 26 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Risk caused by diffuse pollution with phosphorus For forests, compounds was assessed, considering: An area of runoff rates for agricultural lands, An area of arable lands, Density of phosphorus are livestock, Erosion potential characteristic for available, but no particular soil type, Level of phosphorus pollution in soil loss rates, rivers. The highest risk due to diffuse pollution with so there is no phosphorus compounds is detected in the rivers information running through Zemgale plain (central part of Latvia). about the There are the most fertile soils in Latvia. intensity of soil erosion. The Analysis of diffuse pollution from forests is based on data published by State Forest Service and Corine Soil type was Land Cover 2000 data base. Biogens run-off was taken into calculated using the data bases of Latvian Forestry account during Research Institute ‘Silava’ and data of integrated the assessment monitoring stored in LEGMA. Diffuse pollution from of the risk of forests was calculated by multiplying the area covered diffuse pollution by forest in the particular River Basin with annual run- of surface off of phosphorus and nitrogen. To calculate run-off of waters. biogens, models developed by Latvian Forestry Research Institute ‘Silava’ were used. RBD Nemunas, RBD Lithuania Erosion is identified as a cause for diffuse source agricultural agricultural land no 2 Direct indication The intensity of soil erosion Venta, RBD Lielupe, pressures for surface waters in Nemunas RBD, land use information of soil is unknown. It can be RBD Daugava Lielupe RBD and Venta RBD. available degradation expected, that the intensity is different in certain parts of (Environmental the RBD depending on the Protection Agency intensity of agricultural land Lithuania, 2005) use. RBD Malta Malta Surface run-off into the sea is comparatively small, no no information no 2 Direct indication The intensity of surface run- due to the morphology, good water absorption by the information available information of soil off is assessed in the report (Malta Resources soil and infiltration into the rock, and run-off available available degradation, if as comparatively small. The Authority, 2005) interception by numerous dams, walls and terraces surface run-off actual level of soil erosion built over centuries. implies transport cannot be specified due to of soil material the lack of further information.

Report, Page 27 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

RBD Vistula, RBD Poland The use of lakes for recreational purposes is urban land banks of lakes no 2 Direct indication The intensity of soil erosion Nemunas, RBD frequently accompanied by the deterioration of banks use information of soil is unknown. The spatial Pregolya, RBD Dniestr and littoral flora, which leads to soil erosion and available degradation extent of soil erosion is decrease in plant cover, and as a consequence restricted to the lake banks. (Rzeczpospolita Polska intensifies the inflow of chemical substances from the Ministerstwo catchment basin into the lake. Środowiska, 2005) RBD Danube, RBD Vah, Slovak Using a model called MONERIS, a calculation of no no information no 2 Direct indication Phosphorus input into RBD Hron, RBD Republic nutrient emissions in surface waters via six pathways information available information of soil surface waters is calculated Bodrog, RBD Hornad, has been carried out: atmospherical deposition, available available degradation by 2643 t P/a in the Slovak RBD Poprad and erosion, surface run-off, groundwater, drainage, urban Republic. Annual soil losses Dunajec areas not connected to a collective waste water could not be calculated, system, and rain water discharges. Erosion has been because the specific size of (Ministerstvo zivotného identified as the major pressure for phosphorus the model area and the soil prostredia SR at al., pollution of the surface waters (64 % of 2643 t P/a). contents of phosphorus are 2005) unknown. RBD Northern Spain, Spain On a general level, one of the most important no wetlands no 1 indirect The covering up of wetlands RBD Galician Coast, pressures affecting lakes are hydro morphological information information indication of soil with soil material can RBD Basque County alterations, which in some cases can be very available available degradation theoretically indicate soil internal basins, RBD aggressive, causing the covering up with soil in erosion (but it can also mean Duero, RBD Tagus, wetlands. a covering-up with fluvial RBD Guadiana, RBD sediments). The actual level Guadalquivir, RBD of soil erosion is unknown. Andalusia Mediterranean Basins, Erosion is not directly RBD Segura, RBD specified as a pressure for Jucar, RBD Ebro, RBD water resources in the Internal Basins of national WFD Art. 5 report Catalonia, RBD Balearic from Spain. Islands (Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, 2007)

Report, Page 28 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

RBD Anglian, RBD Dee, United During the assessment of diffuse source pressures the agricultural farmland no 2 Direct indication The intensity of soil erosion RBD Humber, RBD Kingdom transport of nutrients and sediment from farmland was land use information of soil is unknown. It can be North West, RBD identified as a pressure for surface waters. River water available degradation expected, that the intensity is Northumbria, RBD bodies have been identified to be at risk due to different in certain parts of Severn, RBD Solway sediment delivery (see table below). the RBD depending on the Tweed, RBD South intensity of agricultural land East, RBD South West, RBD Number of river bodies use. RBD Western Wales (Crown, 2005a-k; At risk due to Environment Agency & Total sediment Scottish Environment delivery Protection Agency, 2005) Anglian 752 114 Dee 86 22 Humber 890 139 North West 477 138 Northumbria 357 130 Severn 748 252 Solway Tweed 521 48 South East 354 54 South West 932 155 Thames 449 55 Western Wales 681 126

In the RBD Scotland, no river bodies have been identified to be at risk due to sediment delivery.

Report, Page 29 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Evaluation of the information on soil erosion

Information on soil erosion was found for 20 Member States in the reviewed WFD reports of 5 international River Basin Districts with cross-border reports (see Table 3.3.1.1) and 68 River Basin Districts with national reports (see Table 3.3.1.2). Here, erosion has been identified as a pressure for water quality. Erosion is not mentioned as a pressure for water resources in the evaluated WFD Article 5 reports of Estonia, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain. The quality of information given in the reports on soil erosion varies, but overall it can be described as very general or general; only in a few cases is detailed information presented. For example: In the international RBD Elbe, information on soil erosion is differentiated for every Member State. In the international RBD Danube, only basin-wide information is reported. Furthermore, the significance of the information varies. For example: For the Austrian part of the RBD Elbe, the analysis only indicates that ‘diffuse source pressures can be induced by soil erosion’. However, for the Czech part of the RBD Elbe, calculation results for soil loss by erosion in tons per hectare and year are available (Interna- tionale Kommission zum Schutz der Elbe, 2005).

Some reports mention ‘agricultural run-off’ (German RBD Odra, RBD Schlei/Trave in Germany, RBD Cecina in Italy, Cyprus, Greece, Latvia, Denmark) or ‘run-off from forests” (Latvia) or ‘sediment transport from farmland’ (United Kingdom). As described in chapter 3.2, these issues are interpreted as soil erosion processes. The background of this interpretation is that mass transport processes can be expected in areas with these kinds of non-sealed land use where vegetation does not cover the soil surface permanently.

In the following sections, the evaluation referring to the key questions (see chapter 3.2) is structured based on the quality of information, as the quality of the information determines how precisely the answer will address the key questions. Information of the categories 1, 2, 4 and 5 referring to the ‘Quality of information’ has been found. Descriptions of the five categories of information quality are given in Table 3.2.2 above.

Category of information 1 Indirect indicators for erosion are mentioned

Information about soil erosion based on indirect indicators was found in the RBD Ems with parts in Germany and the Netherlands as well as in the RBD Loire, RBD Guadeloupe, RBD Réunion in France, in the RBD Northern Spain, RBD Galician Coast, RBD Basque County internal basins, RBD Duero, RBD Tagus, RBD Guadiana, RBD Guadalquivir, RBD Andalusia Mediterranean Basins, RBD Segura, RBD Jucar, RBD Ebro, RBD Internal Ba- sins of Catalonia, RBD Balearic Islands in Spain and in the RBD Storstroem in Denmark. In case of the RBD Ems for example, ‘High concentrations of phosphorus have been found in surface water bodies which are located in areas which are vulnerable for soil erosion.’ (Königreich der Niederlande & Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 2005). Further information about the soil status or maps of soil erosion vulnerability are not available in the WFD Article 5 report although are likely in the sub-basin reports (as mentioned previously, these are not reviewed within this project). So in this RBD, soil erosion is identified as a possible cause for high concentrations of phosphorus in rivers and lakes. However, any

Report, Page 30 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report conclusions about the extent of this pressure and for the actual level of degradation cannot be derived. Soil status has been taken into account generally by considering the vulnerability for soil erosion during the analysis of pressures for water resources. But further information about methods is not available. This evaluation of soil erosion given as an example leads to the conclusion that the characterisation of the River Basin Districts based on indirect indicators cannot be used to identify and asses the soil degradation processes. This is because the information given is too general and does not have enough significance to draw any conclusions about the actual occurrence of soil degradation.

Category of information 2 Erosion is identified directly; no further information is available

Most information about soil erosion given in the WFD Article 5 reports has been classified in the second quality category. This is the information from the reports of the international RBDs Danube and Rhine, as well as the German and Austrian parts of the RBD Elbe; the RBD Warnow/Peene, RBD Schlei/Trave and RDB Eider in Germany; the Polish part of RBD Odra and the RBD Vistula, RBD Nemunas, RBD Pregolya, RBD Dniestr in Poland; the RBD Tevere and RBD Cecina in Italy; the RBD Danube, RBD Vah, RBD Hron, RBD Bodrog, RBD Hornad, RBD Poprad and Dunajec in the Slovak Republic; the RBD Malta, RBD Martinique in France and also the RBD Fyn, RBD Soenderjylland and RBD Rinkjoe- bing in Denmark. Furthermore, in the reports of RBD Cyprus, RBD Weser (Germany), Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, and the United Kingdom, erosion is described as a pressure for surface water and is thus identified clearly.

This indicates that soil erosion is mentioned in the reports directly (mostly with the term ‘erosion’; in some cases with the terms ‘agricultural runoff’, ‘forest runoff’ or ‘sediment transport from farmland’). But, there is a lack of specific information about the covered area and the level (intensity) of erosion in the area of the River Basin Districts. In most cases the reports mention the kind of land use under which erosion is expected as a pressure for water quality or general regional information (e.g. mountain ranges in the German part of the RBD Elbe), but they do not contain any particular spatial data about the occurrence of soil erosion.

The cause of soil degradation was mostly given as ‘agricultural land use’. Additionally, forested land with grazing activities is described in the reports of Greece and Cyprus as also affected by erosion.

Report, Page 31 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Because the information given in the reports is very general, clear conclusions about the extent of erosion identified as a pressure for water quality cannot, for the most part, be drawn. Four types of information have to be differentiated answering the first key question (see chapter 3.2):

• Erosion has been identified as a possible pressure for water quality without any information about the extent of this pressure (e.g. German and Austrian parts of RBD Elbe, RBD Eider in Germany and the four Latvian RBDs).

• Erosion has been identified as a cause for pressures for the water quality without any information about the extent being a pressure (e.g. four Lithuanian RBDs).

• Erosion has been identified as a significant or major pressure for water quality (e.g. Polish part of RBD Odra, RBD Rhine, RBD Cyprus, RBD Weser in Germany, Greece water districts, United Kingdom).

• Erosion has been identified as a significant or major pressure for water quality and the extent to which soil erosion contributes to diffuse source pressures for surface waters is quoted (e.g. about half of the diffuse phosphorus inputs RBD Danube).

For the RBD Danube, as well as the Czech and German part of the RBD Odra (and thus in parts of the seven Member States Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Po- land, Slovak Republic and Slovenia), a model (called MONERIS) has been developed for the evaluation of phosphorous fluxes. With this model, it was estimated to what extent the different input pathways (one being erosion) contribute to the diffuse emissions of phosphorous into surface waters in the River Basin Districts (for details see Table 3.3.1.1). It can be expected that further soil data is available in the framework of the model approach. But this is not available in the evaluated report.

In this category of information, the soil status has been taken into account in the RBD Da- nube, where a ‘raw map of soil losses in Europe” (ICPDR, 2005) was used to estimate the erosion of phosphorus into surface waters. Additionally, the erosion potential characteristics of particular soil types were taken into account during the assessment of the risk of diffuse pollution of surface waters in Latvian RBDs (Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Latvia & Latvian Environment, Geology and Meteorology Agency, 2005).

The information about soil erosion available in the WFD Article 5 reports and classified in category 2 can be used to identify the process of erosion in the River Basin Districts generally (i.e. it can be assumed if erosion is expected as a pressure for water quality or not). However, this information cannot be used to assess the soil degradation process of erosion occurring in the River Basin Districts because there is a lack of information about the level (intensity) of erosion. This is why conclusions about the most threatened soil functions cannot be drawn.

Report, Page 32 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Category of information 4 Erosion is identified directly; information about the intensity of soil degradation is available

Soil erosion is identified directly and information on the intensity of the soil degradation (rates of soil loss) are given for:

• the Czech part of the RBD Elbe: 0.41 t/ha*a and

• the German part of the RBD Odra: 189 t/a.

In the Czech part of the RBD Elbe, erosion has been identified as a significant diffuse source pressure for surface water bodies. The report contains no data about the extent to which erosion has been identified as a pressure for water quality. In the Article 5 report detailed information is not given regarding the methodology of the calculation or the data used. There is also a lack of information about the extent that soil status has been taken into account. Differentiated information about soil erosion and phosphorous contents of soil are possibly available in the sub-basin report (level B report). In the basin-wide report, no map about the intensity of erosion is available.

For the German part of RBD Odra, erosion was calculated at 189 t/a and the report contains a basin-wide assessment that identified erosion as a major process for surface water pollution. The report does not give any information about the area used in the calculation, which is necessary to evaluate the rates of soil loss. For example: The German part of RBD Odra was quoted with 7,987 sq km. With the calculated erosion of 189 t/a, the annual soil loss would be 0.0002 t/ha*a, but this includes all kinds of land use (not only the model area) and therefore is of little value. How the soil status has been taken into account cannot be answered by the information given in the report.

The characterisation of the River Basin Districts Odra (DE) and Elbe (CZ) can be regarded as a general basis to identify and assess the soil degradation processes of erosion, especially because it makes sense to use data and maps which already are available from the characterisation of RBDs. Because the basin-wide Article 5 reports only contain summarising information, further data collection is necessary to get precise data (e.g. erosion maps).

From the viewpoint of soil protection, it would be more helpful to have a characterisation of areas with similar soil condition and agricultural land use practices on a regional or local scale than on a basin-wide scale, because the types and levels of erosion could be very different in the RBD. The designation of a River Basin is based on hydrological criteria and not soil status. If data about erosion were prepared for River Basins, it would be unfa- vourable for the determination of cross-basin soil information.

Beyond this, the most threatened soil functions could not be identified locally on the basis of the information summarised in category 4.

Report, Page 33 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Category of information 5 Erosion is identified directly; detailed information about the intensity of soil degradation and the covered area is available

Detailed information about soil erosion was given only in the Czech part of the RBD Odra and the RBD Seine in France.

In the Czech part of the RBD Odra erosion was calculated at 0.3 t/ha*a. A map of the average soil loss was prepared by applying the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE- method). This method mainly takes into account the precipitation, slope length and slope angle, soil condition and vegetation cover. The results are added for every body of water and specified in tons per sq km. Together with an estimation of the phosphorus content in different soil types, the USLE-results were used to calculate the transport of phosphorus by soil erosion into surface waters.

The quantitative results of the calculations in tons per hectare available in the characterisation of the Czech RBD Odra can be used to identify and assess the soil degradation process of erosion. But from the viewpoint of soil protection, the value of this calculation is limited. Spatial information about soil loss, soil conditions or land use patterns on a local scale would be more helpful, as the level of soil erosion in the RBD Odra can be expected to vary on account of differences in climate and topography.

The map of soil loss mentioned in the report could be helpful for an identification and assessment of soil erosion in the River Basin District. But the map is not available in the report.

In the RBD Seine in France, the erosion of agricultural soils was identified as contributing to phosphorus in rivers. A map of soil erosion risks shows areas with low, medium, and high risk. A very high risk of soil erosion is shown in wide areas north of the cities of Rouen, Beauvais and Laon as well as in small areas near Caen in the Normandy and in the Champagne. This map can be characterised as an overview map, which can be used to asses the erosion risks in the RBD. But there cannot be any conclusions drawn on the actual level of soil erosion.

The details given in the Czech part of the RBD Odra and in the French report of the RBD Seine are not sufficient to derive any local conclusions about the most threatened soil functions. Generally, soil erosion reduces the ecological functions of soil, mainly: biomass production, crop yields due to removal of nutrients required for plant growth, and soil- filtering capacity due to disturbances of the hydrological cycle.

Report, Page 34 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

3.3.2 Decline in organic matter

Table 3.3.2.1: Soil degradation by a decline in organic matter designated in WFD Article 5 reports of international River Basin Dis- tricts

Information from WFD Article 5 reports - Decline in organic matter - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin Member State Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring Causes of Covered area Covered Quality Assessment Intensity of soil degradation District (RBD) (-Region) to soil degradation soil area of of indications (summarised if necessary) degradation (qual.) (quant.) inform. RBD Danube Austria, Czech RBD: Connected water tables in the drawdown of flood plains modified no 1 indirect A drawdown of groundwater level can Republic, alluvial flood plain are reduced as an groundwater during river training information indication of theoretically induce a decline in organic (International Germany, impact from river regulation works, level available soil matter in the mentioned flood plains. The Commission for Hungary, Poland, sometimes in a magnitude of several degradation real impact of the drawdown of the Protection of Slovak Republic, meters. (only relevant groundwater level on soil condition is the Danube Slovenia for wetlands) unknown. River, 2005) HU: Most important floodplain areas, such as the protected areas of Gemenc-Béda Karapancsa (Hungary) are slowly drying out. RBD Elbe Austria, Czech Groundwater resources in the coordination drawdown of surface mining: no DE: 1 indirect A drawdown of groundwater level can Republic, areas Havel, Saale, and Mulde-Elbe- groundwater coordination areas information indication of theoretically induce a decline in organic (Internationale Germany, Poland Schwarze Elster are significantly affected level Havel, Saale, and available AT, CZ, soil matter in wetlands. Wetlands are not Kommission zum by mining activities. The drawdown of Mulde-Elbe- PL: 0 degradation specifically mentioned in the report, but it Schutz der Elbe, groundwater level requires water- Schwarze Elster; (only relevant can be assumed, that soils in the 2005) regulating measures. Significant surface mining sites for wetlands) floodplains are waterlogged up to the groundwater abstractions are located at the Vereinigt topsoil. A drawdown of groundwater level surface mining sites Vereinigt Schleenhain, Schleenhain, then induces mineralisation processes in Nochten, Reichwalde (Saxony), Profen Nochten, Reichwalde floodplains within the catchment of (Saxony-Anhalt), and Cottbus (Saxony), Profen dewatering activities. (Brandenburg). 10 groundwater bodies (Saxony-Anhalt), and have been identified to be probably at risk Cottbus The real impact of the drawdown of due to a drawdown of groundwater level to (Brandenburg) groundwater level on soil condition is carry out surface mining unknown. (Weißelsterbecken mit Bergbaueinfluss, Niesky, Lohsa-Nochten, Mittlere Spree B, Hoyerswerda, Schwarze Elster, Lober- Leine, Strengbach).

Report, Page 35 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

RBD Meuse Belgium, A drawdown of groundwater level can be drawdown of areas of groundwater no DE: 1 indirect A drawdown of groundwater level can Germany, France, found in lignite mining areas. This can groundwater bodies in the information indication of theoretically induce a decline in organic (Internationale Luxembourg, deteriorate groundwater dependent level catchments of available FR, LU, soil matter in wetlands, if water-regulating Maaskom- Nethertlands ecosystems. In the area of German Schwalm and NL, BE: degradation measures are not sufficient to preserve a mission, 2005) groundwater bodies Schwalm and southern southern Niers 0 (only relevant near-natural groundwater level. Wetlands Niers, large amounts of groundwater are for wetlands are not specifically mentioned in the report, infiltrated to preserve wetlands. in surface but it can be assumed, that soils in the mining areas floodplains are waterlogged up to the with topsoil. A drawdown of groundwater level insufficient then induces mineralisation processes in water floodplains within the catchment of regulation) dewatering activities. The real impact of the drawdown of groundwater level on soil condition is unknown. RBD Odra Czech Republic, PL: The sub-basin areas Obere Oder, drawdown of PL: wetlands and no DE, PL: indirect A drawdown of groundwater level can Germany, Poland Lausitzer Neiße, Mittlere Oder, and Warthe groundwater peat soils in sub- information 1 indication of theoretically induce a decline in organic (Internationale are affected by mining activities. The level basin areas of Obere available soil matter in wetlands. Wetlands are not Kommission zum abstraction of groundwater and the Oder, Lausitzer CZ: 0 degradation specifically mentioned in the report, but it Schutz der Oder, drawdown of groundwater level induce Neiße, Mittlere Oder, (only relevant can be assumed, that soils in the 2005) substantial changes of the groundwater and Warthe; for wetlands) floodplains are waterlogged up to the budget. This can lead to damage topsoil. A drawdown of groundwater level groundwater dependent ecosystems. DE: areas nearby the then induces mineralisation processes in surface minings floodplains within the catchment of DE: Dewatering of the surface minings Jänschwalde dewatering activities. Jänschwalde (Brandenburg), Nochten and (Brandenburg), Reichwalde (Sachsen) affect 2 Nochten and The real impact of the drawdown of groundwater bodies. Reichwalde groundwater level on soil condition is (Sachsen) unknown.

Report, Page 36 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 37 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 3.3.2.2: Soil degradation by a decline in organic matter designated in national WFD Article 5 reports

RBD Warnow/ Peene Germany - Some groundwater dependent ecosystems are drawdown of no no 1 indirect Groundwater dependent ecosystems are Mecklenbu significantly affected by drainage for groundwater information information indication of named in the reports. It can be expected, (Umweltministerium rg-Western agricultural purposes. level; available available soil that soils in the those ecosystems are in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern & Pomerania agricultural degradation parts waterlogged up to the topsoil. A Landesamt für Umwelt, land use drawdown of groundwater level then Naturschutz und Geologie induces mineralisation processes in the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, catchment of drainage activities. 2004) The real impact of the drawdown of groundwater level on soil condition is unknown.

Report, Page 38 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from WFD Article 5 reports - Decline in organic matter - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin District (RBD) Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to soil Causes of Covered Covered Quality Assessment Intensity of soil degradation State degradation (summarised if necessary) soil area area of of indications (-Region) degradation (qual.) (quant.) inform. RBD Vistula, RBD Nemunas, Poland Potential alterations in the level of a groundwater (over-) wetlands no 1 indirect A drawdown of groundwater level can RBD Pregolya, RBD Dniestr - table resulting from intensive and concentrated exploitation of information indication of theoretically induce a decline in organic -- Rzeczpospolita Polska use of groundwater abstraction (human water available soil matter in wetlands. Waterlogged consumption, drainage, industrial consumption) resources; degradation ecosystems are specifically mentioned in (Ministerstwo Środowiska, can have a significant impact on the protected mining the report. A drawdown of groundwater 2005) water-logged valley ecosystems in the protected activities / level in wetland soils induces sites included in the Natura 2000 sites located production of mineralisation processes within the within the studied groundwater bodies. The raw materials catchment of dewatering activities. presence of such a decrease in the groundwater level implies the poor quantitative status of a The real impact of the drawdown of water body due to the fact of its negative impact groundwater level on soil condition is on water conditions in terrestrial ecosystems unknown. which are directly dependent on groundwater. Zones with local quantitative degradation of groundwater sources have been observed, created as a result of water consumption exceeding the natural level of resource recharge. Excessive consumption is reflected by the formation of a local depression sink of groundwater level. The sinks are observed within the territory of Upper Silesia (use of groundwater and mine drainage) and Bełchatów (drainage of an opencast mine). RBD Northern Spain, RBD Spain The type of land use that can have negative drawdown of forests; no 1 indirect Forest fires can theoretically cause an Galician Coast, RBD Basque effects on waters is for instance deforested groundwater wetlands information indication of increase of the decomposition of soil County internal basins, RBD areas, whether this is due to they are being level; available soil organic matter. It is not sure, how far a Duero, RBD Tagus, RBD exploited or due to forest fires. deforestation; degradation decline in organic matter actually occurs. Guadiana, RBD Guadalquivir, forest fires (only relevant A drawdown of groundwater level can RBD Andalusia One of the most important pressures affecting for wetlands theoretically induce a decline in organic Mediterranean Basins, RBD lakes are hydro morphological alterations, which and forests) matter in wetlands. Wetlands are Segura, RBD Jucar, RBD in some cases can be very aggressive, causing specifically mentioned in the report. Ebro, RBD Internal Basins of the drying up of wetlands. Organic and anaerobic soil condition is Catalonia, RBD Balearic typical for wetlands, thus after drying out Islands a decline in organic matter by mineralisation processes is likely. (Ministerio de Medio The real impact of the drawdown of Ambiente, 2007) groundwater level on soil condition is unknown.

Report, Page 39 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Evaluation of the information on decline in organic matter

In none of the WFD Article 5 reports, direct information indicating a decline of soil organic matter (SOM) was found. This soil threat has not been identified as a pressure for water quality in the River Basin Districts. Neither a ‘decline in organic matter’ or synonymous terms nor decomposition processes of organic matter or a leaching of organic carbon from soils are identified directly.

According to the scientific literature the main factors for a decline in organic matter are land use, land cover and agricultural practices, especially the conversion of grassland, forests and natural vegetation to arable land and deep ploughing of arable soils causing rapid mineralisation of organic matter, particularly humus. With the development of agriculture on natural soils, an important loss in carbon (30 to 50 %) normally occurs influenced by the nature of the crop residues and management of organic matter (Arrouays et al. 2001). Another process inducing a decline in organic matter occurs particularly in waterlogged peat soils, floodplains, wetlands, and moor areas, if a drawdown of groundwater level induces mineralisation processes, due to the change from anaerobic to aerobic soil condition (Sparks, 2003). Organic matter will be biologically decomposed in the presence of oxygen, resulting in a decline of organic matter. Beyond drainage and drawdown of the groundwater level, also forest fires and water / wind erosion can be responsible for destructing or physically removing organic matter from soils.

The scientific literature specifies land use and agricultural practices as the main factors of SOM decline (see box). Information about these processes of decline in organic matter under agricultural land use is completely missing in the WFD Article 5 reports reviewed. However, other indications that imply a possible SOM decline are mentioned in the WFD Article 5 reports, particularly information about dewatering or drainage activities impacting groundwater dependent ecosystems. During the evaluation, these issues in the WFD Arti- cle 5 reports are completetly regarded as indirect indicators (Category 1 of information quality) for an SOM decline (see Table 3.2.1).

Indirect indicators for a potential decline in organic matter by the lowering of groundwater level are found in the reports of 6 international RBDs and 20 national RBDs located in 11 Member States4. A theoretically possible decline in organic matter is mostly caused by a drawdown of groundwater levels in wetlands and flood plains through surface mining and river training5. Another cause of air exposure of waterlogged soils (and thus a potential SOM decline) is the drainage of former moor areas and peats for use by agriculture (RBD Ems, RBD Eider). Forest fires have been identified in Spain having potential negative effects on waters.

In relation to the SOM decline induced by agriculture, the process of a decline in organic matter by air exposure of organic soils can be assumed to be of secondary spatial importance. The spatial extent of the areas impacted by a drawdown of groundwater level (in particular peat soils) are assumed to be smaller than the spatial extent of the areas im-

4 RBD Elbe, RBD Meuse, RBD Odra, RBD Rhine, Estonian RBDs, RBD Danube and RBD War- now/Peene, RBD Northern Spain, RBD Galician Coast, RBD Basque County internal basins, RBD Duero, RBD Tagus, RBD Guadiana, RBD Guadalquivir, RBD Andalusia Mediterranean Basins, RBD Segura, RBD Jucar, RBD Ebro, RBD Internal Basins of Catalonia, RBD Balearic Islands, RBD Vistula, RBD Nemunas, RBD Pregolya, and RBD Dniestr 5 In general, the purposes of engineering works summed up in the term ‘river training’ are flood control, protection of floodplains, and shipping.

Report, Page 40 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report pacted by SOM decline under land use activities. This assumption is based on the larger spatial extent of agricultural land in relation to moor areas and peat bogs given in national maps of CORINE land cover (EEA, 2000). But it has to be mentioned that land use patterns in the Member States vary and the spatial extent of organic soils affected by dewatering can locally exceed the spatial extent of agricultural land.

Tables 3.3.2.1 and 3.3.2.2 illustrate the overview of the reports as regards the soil organic matter decline. Only indirect indications of soil organic matter decline could be found and that only for a few reports. Hence the evaluation of ‘Quality of information’ ranked as 1 at the best. No information at all on SOM decline was found in the WFD Article 5 reports of Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

The reports do not contain any information about the contents of organic matter in soils in the River Basin Districts. Due to this complete lack of information about an SOM decline, there is thus no data about the intensity or about the spatial extent of a decline in organic matter.

Because there is no information about the soil organic matter in the Article 5 reports and only indirect indicators for an SOM decline are mentioned in the WFD documents, it is not possible to assess the intensity (level) of the decline in organic matter in the affected areas.

It is assumed that the characterisation of the River Basin Districts is of very limited value for the identification and assessment of the soil degradation process with respect to a decline of SOM. The reason for this evaluation is that a decline in organic matter is not identified as a pressure for water quality. At the most, the characterisation of the River Basin Districts could be used for identification if there is a relevant drawdown of the groundwater level that is identified as a pressure for water quality. Hence, it is necessary to couple it with further information about the soil status for an assessment of soil degradation in those areas. For a detailed assessment, information about the carbon content of soil is necessary. Because the important processes of SOM decline under agricultural land use is not a focus of the WFD Article 5 reports, the characterisation of the RBDs will not contribute to an exhaustive identification of soil degradation from a decline in organic matter. From the soil protection point of view, it would be helpful to have a characterisation of areas with similar soil conditions and agricultural land use patterns on a regional or local scale, because the types and levels of SOM decline could be very different within a given RBD that has been designated on hydrological criteria alone, without consideration of soil state.

Based on this evaluation, conclusions on the local distribution of the most threatened soil functions cannot be drawn. Generally, a decline in organic matter reduces the capacity to buffer and filter water and nutrients and therefore threatens the soil fertility.

Report, Page 41 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

3.3.3 Local Contamination

Table 3.3.3.1: Soil degradation by local contamination designated in WFD Article 5 reports of international River Basin Districts

Information from WFD Article 5 reports - Local contamination - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to soil Causes of Pollutants Covered area Covered area Quality Assessment of Intensity of soil District (RBD) State degradation (summarised if necessary) soil causing soil of indications degradation (-Region) degradation degradation (qual.) (quant.) inform. RBD Danube Austria , Contaminated sites, namely closed-down waste contaminated no information Map 8 shows no 3 direct indication of Contaminated Czech disposal sites and industrial installations in flood-risk sites/ waste available Accident Risk information soil degradation sites indicate local (International Republic, areas, are referred as Accident Risk Spots (ARS) in disposal/ Spots (ARS) available soil contamination. Commission for Germany, the context of the prevention of accidents. landfill (industrial sites Maps of Accident The intensity of the Protection of Hungary, with ongoing Risk Spots and a soil contamination the Danube Slovak An inventory of contaminated sites related to activities map of old is unknown. River, 2005) Republic, closed-down waste disposal and industrial included). contaminated sites in Slovenia installations in flood prone areas is prepared. potentially flood area Map 9 shows are available, which A particular aspect reported by most countries in the old can be used to RBD is that shallow aquifers are at high risk of contaminated identify the pollution in the short as well as long term as a result sites in localisations of sites of leaching from contaminated soils. potentially with a potential All countries within the RBD have stated that the flooding areas. impact on water water quality of many surface and groundwater resources. But there bodies is not satisfactory. The main reasons for the is no further pollution of the water sources are: insufficient information about soil wastewater collection and treatment on municipal contamination at level, insufficient wastewater treatment at industrial these sites like enterprises, water pollution caused by intensive pollutants or agriculture and livestock breeding, inappropriate concentrations of waste disposal sites. contaminants. RBD Elbe Czech CZ: 204 contaminated sites have been identified contaminated heavy metals; CZ, DE: CZ: 204 2 direct indication of Contaminated Republic, on the basis of groundwater pollutant sites/ waste organic contaminated contaminated soil degradation; sites indicate local (Internationale Germany, concentrations. Several sites are potentially disposal/ pollutants; sites; disposal sites with . soil contamination. Kommission zum Poland, inducing risks for groundwater bodies, because landfill sulphate; sites groundwaterp CZ: The number of The intensity of Schutz der Elbe, Austria remediation activities are already carried out. arsenic; ollution; contaminated sites is soil contamination 2005) uranium; radium A map of available but the is unknown. DE: As regards groundwater, contaminated sites contaminated DE: no acual covered area is and disposal sites are relevant as point source sites is not information unknown. pressures. Groundwater relevant sites are selected available in the available from the local data sources (Altlastenkataster). report.

Report, Page 42 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

RBD Meuse Belgium , RBD: 40 % of the area of groundwater bodies in the contaminated no information contaminated no BE, DE, RBD: indirect Local Germany, RBD Meuse is identified to be at risk due to point sites/ waste available sites; waste information FR: 1 indication of soil contamination of (Internationale Netherlands, source pressures. disposal/ disposal sites; available degradation groundwater Maaskommis- France, landfill; industrial sites; BE: 2 indicates soil sion, 2005) Luxembourg Generally, the identification of groundwater bodies agricultural agricultural point BE: direct indication contamination at risk due to water quality was performed with a land use sources of soil degradation because it is combined approach of measured data and known usually caused by characteristics of the water bodies referring to its A map of leaching. risk for contamination. contaminated sites is not Contaminated BE: Pressures by point sources cause 9 of 10 available in the sites indicate local groundwater bodies in the Walloon region to be report. soil contamination. probably at risk. The main point sources are contaminated sites, waste disposal sites, industrial The intensity of land use, agriculture and waste water. In Flanders, soil contamination 6 groundwater bodies are identified to be at risk, but is unknown. it is unknown, if point or diffuse pressures are the cause.

Report, Page 43 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from WFD Article 5 reports - Local contamination - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to soil Causes of Pollutants Covered area Covered area Quality Assessment of Intensity of soil District (RBD) State degradation (summarised if necessary) soil causing soil of indications degradation (-Region) degradation degradation (qual.) (quant.) inform. RBD Odra Czech RBD: Direct discharges of waste water into contaminated heavy metals; dumps; waste CZ: 800 2 direct indication of Local Republic, groundwater are not a significant pressure in the sites/ waste organic disposal sites; locations soil degradation contamination of (Internationale Germany, RBD. disposal/ pollutants; contaminated environmenta groundwater Kommission zum Poland landfill nitrogen sites l pollution; 26 The number of indicates soil Schutz der Oder, CZ: The Czech Republic keeps a detailed of these with contaminated sites is contamination 2005) inventory of dumps and ecological pressures, A map of hazardous available but the because it is namely the Systém evidence zátězí zivotního contaminated substances in acual covered area is usually caused by prostředí (SEZ, inventory system of environmental sites is not the unknown. The leaching. pollution). At 26 of 800 locations in the SEZ available in the groundwater; information in the Contaminated database , hazardous substances in the report. further 11 report is a subset of sites indicate local groundwater are identified; further 11 locations are the inventory problematic soil contamination. assigned to the problematical locations. Remedial locations systems of The intensity of actions are carried out at all 26 locations with environmental soil contamination hazardous substances in the groundwater. PL: 353 pollution or the is unknown. significant inventory of PL: Inventories of contaminated sites point sources; contaminated sites in (Altlastenkataster) are maintained in all the Czech Republic, administrative units of the Polish RBD Odra. 353 DE: no Germany and Poland significant point sources for surface waters are information and declares how identified, which can potentially affect the available many sites have an groundwater. 12 groundwater bodies are identified impact on to be probably at risk due to point source pressures groundwater (9423 sq km; 10 % of the Polish part of the RBD). resources. The report DE: Inventories of contaminated sites does not give (Altlastenkataster) are maintained in all indications about the Bundeslaender that participate in the RBD Odra, soil contamination at namely Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Western the contaminated Pomerania, and Saxony. Closed waste disposal sites. sites and contaminated sites are relevant for groundwater pollution. Widely remediated sites are not taken into account. Point source pressures are assumed for 4 groundwater bodies.

Report, Page 44 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 45 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 3.3.3.2: Soil degradation by local contamination designated in national WFD Article 5 reports

Information from WFD Article 5 reports - Local contamination - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to soil Causes of soil Pollutants Covered area Covered area Quality of Assessment of Intensity of soil District (RBD) State degradation (summarised if necessary) degradation causing soil information indications degradation (-Region) degradation (qual.) (quant.) RBD Cyprus Cyprus There are five large solid waste landfills in Cyprus: contaminated heavy metals waste-sites 5 large solid 2 direct indication of Waste landfills Lefkosia, Lemesos, Larnaka, Pafos and Paralimni. sites waste waste soil degradation indicate potential soil (Republic of These sites can be considered as significant point disposal/ landfill (A map of landfills; 80 contamination. The Cyprus, 2005) sources of pollution to surface water and waste landfills small semi- intensity of soil groundwater. Additional 80 small semi-controlled is not controlled contamination is waste sites are spread over the country. The available in waste-sites unknown. potential discharge of toxic substances into the report.) groundwater due to the, in most cases, lack of adequate control of the disposal operations cannot be excluded. RBD Aarhus, Denmark RBD Aarhus and Viborg: One of the sources of TBT industrial land TBT; heavy no no RBD Aarhus, direct indication of Waste dumps and RBD Viborg, discharges from the Randers municipal sewage use; metals; information information RBD Viborg, soil degradation contaminated areas RBD treatment facilities may be contaminated soil. It is contaminated pesticides available available RBD were identified to be Soenderjylland, difficult to predict whether or not it will be possible to sites / waste Soenderjyllan RBD Rinkjoebing: a pressure for RBD find other potential sources and/or to effectively disposal / landfill d, RBD North A map of the groundwater quality, Rinkjoebing, reduce pollution contributions from contaminated Jutland, RBD locations of but no further RBD North soil by 2015. As a precautionary measure, Greater contaminated sites information about the Jutland, RBD discharges are pumped to surface water at four Copenhagen: is available, which intensity of soil Greater waste dumps. Primarily heavy metals are drained 2 can be used to contamination is Copenhagen from these facilities. The levels of heavy metals identify the available. contained in the discharged waters are lower than RBD localisations of (Århus Amt those permissible within the framework of water Rinkjoebing: sites with a Natur & Miljø, quality criteria. 3 potential impact on 2006;Soenderjyll water resources. ands Amt, 2006; RBD Soenderjylland: Soil contamination has not yet But there is no Ringkjøbing Amt been adequately studied in some regions of South further information Teknik og Miljø, Jutland. This means that as soil contamination about soil 2006; mapping continues to be carried out new contamination at Nordjyllands knowledge and information may become available these sites like Amt, 2006; which will make it possible to determine whether or pollutants or Frederiksborg not groundwater bodies are at risk. The same holds concentrations of Amt et al. 2006) true for all studies carried out in the region. New contaminants. findings may be able to shed additional light on the assessments presented in this risk analysis.

Report, Page 46 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 47 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from WFD Article 5 reports - Local contamination - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to soil Causes of soil Pollutants Covered area Covered area Quality of Assessment of Intensity of soil District (RBD) State degradation (summarised if necessary) degradation causing soil information indications degradation (-Region) degradation (qual.) (quant.) RBD Gauja Estonia Leakages from contaminated sites has been contaminated no contaminated no 2 direct indication of Local contamination identified as a less important pressure to the Upper sites/waste information sites; waste information soil degradation; of groundwater (Ministry of the Devonian groundwater body and the Middle- disposal/ landfill available disposal sites available direct discharge bodies caused by Environment Devonian groundwater body. into groundwater is leakages or Estonia, 2005) A map of not a soil relevant wastewater Leakages from waste disposal sites (landfill contaminated process and does impregnations into disposal, agricultural waste) have been identified as sites is not not give any soils indicate local a less important pressure in the Upper Devonian available in indication to soil soil contamination. groundwater body and the Middle-Devonian the report. contamination The intensity of local groundwater body. Wastewater is impregnated into soil contamination of soil on the basis of a permit in four cases. is unknown. RBD East Estonia In the East-Estonian River Basin District there are industrial land no contaminated no 2 direct indication of Local contamination Estonia big point sources only in the area of two use; information sites; landfills; information soil degradation; of groundwater groundwater bodies. The significance of a point contaminated available waste available direct discharge bodies caused by (Ministry of the source is defined separately about every source of sites/waste disposal into groundwater is leakages, discharge Environment pollution on the basis of inventories, surveys and disposal/ landfill; sites; not a soil relevant into the ground, and Estonia, 2005) assessments or on the basis of analogy. disposal of industrial process and does contaminated sites sewage sites; residual not give any indicate local soil All the 38 residual pollution sources of national pollution indication to soil contamination. The importance are definitely significant point sources. sources of contamination intensity of local Direct discharges and impregnations are not national contamination of soils significant point sources of pollution for groundwater importance; The number of is unknown. bodies. sites with point sources is available but the According to the assessments, up to 50 of the old impregnation s of effluent acual covered closed landfills and the landfills in the closing state area is unknown. may turn out to be potential point sources. discharge into soil Leakages from contaminated sites has been identified as a very important pressure to one A map of groundwater body and as an important pressure in contaminated several groundwater bodies. sites is not available in Leakages from waste disposal sites (landfill the report. disposal, agricultural waste) have been identified as an important pressure in one groundwater body and as a less important pressure to several first groundwater bodies from the ground.

Report, Page 48 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from WFD Article 5 reports - Local contamination - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to soil Causes of soil Pollutants Covered area Covered area Quality of Assessment of Intensity of soil District (RBD) State degradation (summarised if necessary) degradation causing soil information indications degradation (-Region) degradation (qual.) (quant.) Leakages associated with oil industry infrastructure have been identified as an important pressure in the Ordovician groundwater body of the oil shale basin of Ida-Viru and as a less important pressure to several first groundwater bodies from the ground. Impregnation of discharge into the ground has been identified as a less important pressure the East-Estonian area of the Silurian-Ordovician aggregated groundwater body. RBD West Estonia There are no big point sources in the West-Estonian industrial land no contaminated no 2 direct indication of Local contamination Estonia River Basin District, which alone could deteriorate use; information sites; landfills; information soil degradation of groundwater the status of a whole groundwater body. The contaminated available waste available (contaminated bodies caused by (Ministry of the potential risk of altering the status exists only in sites/waste disposal sites); leakages, discharge Environment case of the combined effect of all the point sources. disposal/ landfill; sites; into the ground, and Estonia, 2005) The significance of a point source is defined disposal of industrial There is not any contaminated sites separately about every source of pollution on the sewage sites; farms; further information indicate local soil basis of inventories, surveys and assessments or residual about the residual contamination. The on the basis of analogy. pollution pollution sources intensity of local sources of of national contamination of soils The significant point sources are: national importance. is unknown. a) the four known direct discharges the effluent importance; Direct discharge of discharge of the town of Tamsalu (> 100 m3/d) into sites with Savalduma turlogh; effluent into impregnation groundwater is not b) all the 35 residual pollution sources of national s of effluent importance; a soil relevant discharge into process and does c) from the 53 known impregnations of effluent into soil soil the effluent discharge of the town of Märjamaa not give any (> 100 m3/d); A map of indication to soil d) the closed phosphate rock quarry in Maardu. contaminated contamination. sites is not Leakages from contaminated sites have been The number of available in point sources is identified as an important pressure for the West- the report. Estonian area of the Silurian-Ordovician aggregated available but the groundwater body and several first groundwater acual covered bodies from the ground. area is unknown. According to the assessments, up to 50 of the old closed landfills and the landfills in the closing state may turn out to be potential point sources.

Report, Page 49 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 50 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 51 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from WFD Article 5 reports - Local contamination - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to soil Causes of soil Pollutants Covered area Covered area Quality of Assessment of Intensity of soil District (RBD) State degradation (summarised if necessary) degradation causing soil information indications degradation (-Region) degradation (qual.) (quant.) RBD Eider Germany - Contaminated sites and soils are sources for a contaminated no contaminated 9 contamina- 2 direct indication of The occurance of Schleswig- potential pollution of groundwater. 9 contaminated sites/waste information sites; ted sites, soil degradation contaminated sites (Ministerium für Holstein sites and 2 leaky disposal sites have been disposal/ landfill available disposal sites 2 leaky indicates local soil Umwelt, identified as point sources which endanger the disposal sites The number of contamination. The Naturschutz und groundwater potentially. Point sources occur locally A map of in the RBD contaminated sites intensity of local Landwirtschaft and are not identified as a significant risk for contaminated and waste contamination of soils des Landes groundwater resources. sites is not disposals is is unknown. A minor Schleswig- available in available but the spatial area in the Holstein, 2004) the report. acual covered RBD is considered to area is unknown. be affected. RBD Germany - Agglomerations of contaminated sites are located contaminated no no 16 2 direct indication of Contaminated sites Schlei/Trave Schleswig- in the area around the cities of Flensburg, Kiel and sites / waste information information contaminated soil degradation; indicate local soil Holstein Lübeck.16 isolated contaminated sites have been disposal / landfill available available sites contamination. The (Ministerium für observed in the area of 9 groundwater The number of intensity of soil Umwelt, bodies/groups of groundwater bodies. Hence, half locations and contamination at Naturschutz und of the groundwater bodies in the observed area region with those sites is Landwirtschaft show isolated point sources. The contaminated agglomerated unknown. des Landes sites are analysed in respect of the risk of leaching contaminated sites Schleswig- of pollutants and the spatial extent of impacts. If are available but Holstein & Um- necessary, safeguard and remediation activities will the acual covered weltministerium be initiated or continued. area is unknown. Mecklenburg- Vorpommern, 2004) RBD Warnow/ Germany – Point sources are contaminated sites and sewage contaminated no Locations of 205 3 direct indication of Contaminated sites Peene Mecklen- plants which infiltrate into the underground in the sites / waste information contaminated contaminated soil degradation indicate local soil burg- RBD. 205 contaminated sites have been identified disposal / landfill available sites sites (43 have contamination. The (Umweltministe- Western in the RBD. It was analysed, how far the identified as a been Locations of impregnation of rium Mecklen- Pomerania groundwater contamination influence/endanger the pressure for identified as a contaminated sites waste water on soils burg-Vorpom- quality of groundwater. The superficial layers, the groundwater pressure identified as a can theoretically mern & Landes- hydraulic permeability of the water-bearing strata quality are relevant for pressure for indicate soil amt für Umwelt, and the diffusion potential depending on the shown in map groundwater groundwater contamination, if low Naturschutz und characteristics of the site and the substances have 18. quality) quality are shown quality water is used. Geologie Meck- been taken into account. 43 sources of pollution in map 18. The intensity of soil lenburg-Vor- have been regarded as relevant for groundwater contamination is pommern, 2004) quality. These 43 locations of contaminated sites unknown. are shown in map 18. The infiltration of waste water of sewage plants into soils is a point source pressure for groundwater quality.

Report, Page 52 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 53 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 54 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 55 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from WFD Article 5 reports - Local contamination - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to soil Causes of soil Pollutants Covered area Covered area Quality of Assessment of Intensity of soil District (RBD) State degradation (summarised if necessary) degradation causing soil information indications degradation (-Region) degradation (qual.) (quant.) RBD Tevere Italy Landfill waste disposals are still the main means of industrial land organic waste no 2 direct indication of Waste landfills coping with the growing production of waste. The use; pollutants disposals; information soil degradation indicate potential soil (General most important industry sectors are represented by contaminated Municipalities available contamination. The Secretary of the metal processing, manufacturing and production, sites / waste hosting waste intensity of soil Tevere River and by the chemical sector. disposal / landfill landfills are contamination is Basin Authority, shown in two unknown. 2005) The main problems in the Terni Valley’s alluvial maps (the aquifer are linked to the presence of pollutants from localisations industrial activities. In this aquifer, organic volatile of sites are halogen compounds evidenced diffuse pollution not shown). from tetrachloroethylene. This compound was identified in almost all the monitoring points of the network. Among these compounds rare positive cases of trichloroethylene and trichloroethanol were identified. The most relevant municipalities hosting the sites and the volumes disposed of are summarized in Figure 5. Rome turns out to handle half of the overall load. Municipalities hosting major industrial waste ("special waste") landfills are shown in Figure 6. RBD Gauja, Latvia The following point sources are regarded as contaminated organic A map in the 66 industrial 3 direct indication of Groundwater RBD Venta, significant for groundwater point souce pollution: sites/waste pollutants; shows the waste dumps; soil degradation pollution at point RBD Lielupe, - Sites, where groundwater pollution is disposal/ landfill salts; nitrogen point source 41 municipal source pollution sites RBD Daugava compounds; pollution sites solid waste A map of point indicates soil investigated; source pollution - All IPPC installations; pesticides (figure dumps; contamination (Ministry of the 3.2.1.1). 132 petrol sites is available, because it is usually Environment of - All enterprises under SEVESO, SEVESO II which can be used Directives; stations; caused by leaching. the Republic of 57 oil depots; to identify the The intensity of local Latvia & Latvian - Former pesticides storage houses with storage localisations of of >10 tonnes of plant protection products; 22 former contamination of soils Environment, storage sites which are is unknown. Geology and - All USSR army sites used during the Soviet regarded as Period. houses of Meteorology toxic significant for Agency, 2005) There are 66 industrial waste dumps. groundwater chemicals Sulphonates, sulphates and other unidentified and pollution. organic substances are the main pollutants found in pesticides; Incukalns acid tar dump, while pyridine, butanol, 255 former chlorides, ammonia etc are present in Olaine dump military of liquid toxic wastes. objects

Report, Page 56 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Former storage houses of toxic chemicals and The number of

pesticides. Plant protection products were stored in former military 22 storage houses in Latvia. Just a few were objects used by subject to investigation. The main pollutants found the USSR army there are nitrogen compounds, pesticides and their seems to be fairly degradation products. high.

Former military objects used by the USSR army. A

database of polluted sites refers about 255 former military objects. Assessment of pollution level in these areas varies between ‘visually clean” and ‘soil and shallow groundwater polluted with oil products”. Altogether, the list of significant point sources of groundwater pollution includes 600 objects. The level of knowledge about them greatly varies; also reliable database is missing. Therefore it was not possible to identify, which objects would lead to the identification of the whole groundwater body as being at risk. Because of that only three very well investigated objects (0.5 % of the total number of significant pollution sources) were recognized so hazardous, so that connected groundwater bodies were identified as being at risk (acid tar ponds at Incukalns, Riga municipal and industrial landfill ‘Getlini’ and vicinity of groundwater well-field ‘Putnu fabrika’).

Report, Page 57 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from WFD Article 5 reports - Local contamination - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to soil Causes of soil Pollutants Covered area Covered area Quality of Assessment of Intensity of soil District (RBD) State degradation (summarised if necessary) degradation causing soil information indications degradation (-Region) degradation (qual.) (quant.) RBD Nemunas, Lithuania 17 landfills have been identified as significant point contaminated no landfills no 2 direct indication of Landfills identified as RBD Venta, sources of pollution in all 6 groundwater bodies in sites/waste information information soil degradation; a pressure for RBD Lielupe, Lithuania. disposal/ landfill available (A map of available groundwater quality RBD Daugava landfills is not The number of indicate potential soil available in point sources is contamination. The (Environmental the report.) available but the intensity of soil Protection acual covered contamination is Agency area is unknown. unknown. Lithuania, 2005) RBD Malta Malta The main threats to groundwater quality are contaminated organic refuse no 2 direct indication of Discharges of associated with point pollution incidents, such as sites / waste pollutants; dumps; information soil degradation substances, refuse (Malta unlawfully discharged substances in the soil, nitrate disposal / landfill nutrients municipal available dumps in the soil Resources contamination attributed to anthropogenic activities landfill/conta identified as a Authority, 2005) including agricultural practices, application of minated land pressure for fertilizers and contamination from human or animal area in the groundwater quality wastes and refuse dump runoff. One further impact Ghajn indicate soil facing the sea-level groundwater body is Damma contamination hydrocarbon pollution, particularly from leaks in the indirectly. fuel storage installations. In the area of the Xaghra Contaminated land Perched Groundwater Body the presence of an indicates soil extensive municipal landfill/contaminated land contamination area in the Ghajn Damma area has to be taken into directly. The actual consideration. Point source pollution has been level of soil identified in 2 of 16 groundwater bodies in Malta. contamination is unknown. RBD Vistula, Poland The report refers to significant local sources of contaminated no no no 2 direct indication of Local contamination RBD Nemunas, pollution for surface waters: communities and sites / waste information information information soil degradation of groundwater RBD Pregolya, industrial establishments discharging sewage disposal / available available available bodies caused by RBD Dniestr directly to surface water and soil. landfill; disposal sewage discharges of sewage into the ground (Rzeczpospolita Significant local sources of pollution have been indicate local soil Polska identified based on data contained in the database contamination. The Ministerstwo of the General Statistical Office (GUS) - Regional intensity of local Środowiska, Database (BDR) for 2002. contamination of soils 2005) The scale of anthropogenic threat to the quality of is unknown. the groundwater depends to a large extent on the depth of their location (air exposure zone thickness), the degree of isolation from the land surface through low-porosity media, the type of land use and the location of pollution sources.

Report, Page 58 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 59 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 60 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 61 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 62 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 63 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from WFD Article 5 reports - Local contamination - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to soil Causes of soil Pollutants Covered area Covered area Quality of Assessment of Intensity of soil District (RBD) State degradation (summarised if necessary) degradation causing soil information indications degradation (-Region) degradation (qual.) (quant.) RBD North Sweden Many activities in built-up areas may affect the de-icing chlorinated roads; no 2 direct indication of Contaminated sites Troendelag, groundwater, such as storm water management, activities; urban solvents; railways; information soil degradation and soils indicate RBD North Land, care of cemeteries and parks, drainage, wastewater land use; salts; organic airports; available clearly local soil RBD Troms, management etc. Elevated levels of heavy metals, drainage pollutants; shunting contamination. RBD Glomma, bacteria, pesticides, nitrogen, phosphorus, PAHs heavy metals; yards; Although there is RBD Bothnian and chloride may be found in the groundwater in pesticides industry sites; detailed information Bay, RBD built-up areas. In Stockholm, for example, elevated mining sites; on relevant Skagerrak and values of the heavy metals mercury, copper, cobalt, military sites; pollutants, the Kattegat, RBD arsenic, lead, nickel, chromium, cadmium and zinc petrol intensity of soil Bothnian Sea, have been detected in the groundwater. stations; contamination is RBD North cemeteries unknown due to a Baltic, RBD There is a risk of impact on groundwater bodies lack of data on South Baltic, alongside infrastructure objects such as roads, pollutant contents in RBD South railways and airports. Road networks recommended soils. Troendelag for transportation of hazardous goods, busy roads, roads with chemical anti-skid treatment, the rail Special about the (Naturvårdsverk network with stations and shunting yards and reports is, that the et, 2005) airports pose a risk of impact on groundwater. Road different kinds of storm water contains a large number of pollutants relevant from road traffic and road maintenance. The most infrastructure, like common categories of pollutants in road storm airports are water are suspended solids, oxygen-consuming mentioned. substances, metals (esp. Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb and Zn), organic pollutants, salt, oil products and nutrients. Road salt at high levels may cause increased groundwater hardness, an increased risk of corrosion and a risk of increased metal mobility through the soil. Fuels and hazardous goods may pollute the groundwater as a result of accidents. Alongside railways, the use of chemical herbicides on embankments and shunting yards poses a risk to the groundwater. Products containing diuron, glyfosate and imazapyr have been or are used for control. Creosote is mainly used for the impregnation of wooden sleepers and also overhead contact line poles. A number of heavy metals such as arsenic, copper, chromium, cadmium, silver, antimony, tin and lead may leach from the body of the track, for example due to wear and from impregnation fluid.

Report, Page 64 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 65 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Thames 45 3 2 In all other RBD in the United Kindom, no groundwater bodies have been identified to be at risk due to point source pressures.

Report, Page 66 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Evaluation of the information on local contamination

Information on local soil contamination was found in the majority of the reviewed WFD reports, usually in connection with the groundwater risk assessment for point source pres- sures6.

Local contamination has been identified as a pressure for water quality in all 25 Member States. The information about local soil contamination has been found in 37 of the 51 reports and it refers to 7 international River Basin Districts with cross-border reports (see Table 3.3.3.1) and approximately 100 River Basin Districts with national reports (see Ta- ble 3.3.3.2). Only in a few number of reports (14) any information on local soil contamination was found (e.g. RBD Madeira in Portugal, several RBDs in Denmark and the UK).

The quality of information given in the reports on local soil contamination varies. Overall it can be described as general, but in a few cases, more detailed information, e.g. a map of contaminated sites, is presented. The evaluation referring to the key questions (see chapter 3.2) is structured based on the quality of information, as the later determines how precisely the answers will be to the key questions. Information, which can be categorised into the classes 2 and 3 of the ‘Quality of information’, has been found in the reviewed reports.

Category of information 2 Local contamination is identified directly; no further information is available

The kind of identification in this category might differ (for example local contamination might just be mentioned, or roughly described, or with not reliable figures). In some cases, the WFD reports of this category provide the number of contaminated sites or landfills. But this does not give any detailed information on the area affected by soil contamination.

Local contamination is identified directly in several international River Basin Districts (cross-border reports) and national RBD7 using terms like ‘contaminated sites’, ‘contami-

6 The identification of groundwater bodies at risk due to water quality was mostly performed with a combined approach of measured data and known characteristics of the water bodies referring to its risk for contamination. Related to surface waters, point source pressures are associated mainly with direct discharges into rivers, lakes and coastal waters, which are not relevant for soil contamination processes. 7 RBDs in Ireland, RBDs in Estonia, RBD North West and South East in Estonia, and RBDs North West, South West, and Thames in the United Kingdom, further in Sweden (RBD North Troendelag, RBD North Land, RBD Troms, RBD Glomma, RBD Bothnian Bay, RBD Skagerrak and Kattegat, RBD Both- nian Sea, RBD North Baltic, RBD South Baltic, RBD South Troendelag); Germany (RBD Schlei/Trave, RBD Eider); Spain (RBD Northern Spain, RBD Galician Coast, RBD Basque County internal basins, RBD Duero, RBD Tagus, RBD Guadiana, RBD Guadalquivir, RBD Andalusia Mediterranean Basins, RBD Segura, RBD Jucar, RBD Ebro, RBD Internal Basins of Catalonia, RBD Balearic Islands), and Denmark (RBD Aarhus, RBD Viborg, RBD Soenderjylland, RBD Rinkjoebing, RBD North Jutland, and the RBD Greater Copenhagen)

Report, Page 67 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report nated land’ or ‘contaminated soils’8. Terms referring to local soil contamination indicated by landfill or waste disposal have been found in several other River Basin Districts 9.

Local soil contamination has been identified to a different extent as a pressure for water quality, for example:

‘As regards groundwater, contaminated sites and disposal sites are relevant as point source pressures.’ (Internationale Kommission zum Schutz der Elbe, 2005);

‘Contaminated sites and soils are sources for potential contaminations of surface waters and/or groundwater.’ (Republik Italien, Bundesrepublik Österreich, Bundes- republik Deutschland, Republik Frankreich, Großherzogtum Luxemburg, König- reich Belgien & Königreich der Niederlande, 2005);

‘17.7 % of the area of the Eastern RBD groundwater bodies are affected by point source pollution mainly due to inter alia contaminated land’ (Environmental Protec- tion Agency & River Basin District coordinating authorities, 2005) or ‘3 of 29 groundwater bodies have been identified to be at risk due to point source pollution at contaminated land’ (Crown, 2005c): These minor ratios lead to the assumption that contaminated land has been identified as a pressure for groundwater quality to a minor extent (e.g. Ireland, United Kingdom).

‘The main point sources are contaminated sites, waste disposal sites, industrial land use, agriculture and waste water.’ (Internationale Maaskommission, 2005).

‘Leakages from contaminated sites have been identified as a very important pressure for one groundwater body’ (Eastern RBD in Estonia; Ministry of the Environ- ment Estonia, 2005).

In Lithuania and Cyprus, landfills (or rather, large solid waste landfills) have been identified as significant point sources of pollution in all groundwater bodies.

In the English RBD Anglian, only two of 33 groundwater bodies have been identified to be at risk of failing the environmental objectives of the WFD due to landfill pressures.

8 RBD Elbe in the Czech Republic and Germany, RBD Ems in Germany, RBD Meuse in Belgium, Ger- many, Netherlands, France, and Luxembourg, RBD Odra in the Czech Republic, Germany and Poland, and RBD Rhine in Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and Netherlands, and the RBD Scheldt in Belgium, Netherlands and France 9 German, Dutch and French parts of RBD Meuse, 14 water districts in Greece, RBD Cyprus, RBD Ne- munas, Venta, Lielupe and Daugava in Lithuania, and RBD Anglian in the United Kingdom. Further there were indirect indicators in Italy (RBD Tevere and RBD Cecina); Finland (RBD Vuoksi, RBD Kymi- joki-Gulf of Finland, RBD Kokemaenjoki-Archipelago Sea-Bothnian Sea, RBD Oulujoki-Iijoki, RBD Ke- mijoki, RBD Tornionjoki, RBD Tenojoki-Naatamojoki and Paatsjoki); Portugal (RBD Azores RBD Duero; RBD Tagus and Western Basins; RBD Guadiana; RBD Minho and Lima; RBD Cavado, Ave and Leca; RBD Vouga, Mondego and Lis; RBD Sado and Mira and the RBD Algarve Basins); RBD of Malta; Slo- vak Republic (RBD Danube, RBD Vah, RBD Hron, RBD Bodrog, RBD Hornad, RBD Poprad and Duna- jec) and Poland (RBD Vistula, RBD Nemunas, RBD Pregolya, RBD Dniestr)

Report, Page 68 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

The information about contaminated sites and waste disposal sites in the WFD reports is extracted from national inventory systems, if available (e.g. Czech Republic, Poland, and Germany). Due to the objectives of the characterisation of River Basin Districts, usually only those sites which have a (potential) impact on water quality are included in the risk assessment (depending on methodology of risk assessment). It is very important to recall that sites with soil contamination but with a sufficient buffering capacity of soil or less mobile substances, so that there is not any risk of leaching of contaminants from soil into rivers or aquifers, are not a included in the Article 5 reports.

In most cases, the reports provide information about the number of different kinds of sites with an impact on water resources. In addition, the reports usually give the number or the area ratio of groundwater bodies which have been identified as failing the environmental objectives of the WFD (‘at risk’) due to contaminated sites, waste disposal sites or landfills. In a few cases, e.g. in RBD Elbe, pollutants are mentioned that are significant as a pressure for water quality, e.g. heavy metals, organic pollutants, or nitrogen compounds.

Beyond this, the information summarised in category 2 does not give any indication of the actual status of soil contamination (e.g. pollutant contents in ppm) or other soil characteristics (e.g. filter capacity, threatened soil functions). It could not be derived from the reports to what extent soil status has been taken into account during the risk assessment.

The information about local soil contamination classified in category 2 cannot be used to identify and assess the soil degradation process of local contamination occurring in the River Basin Districts because of the lack of information about the affected areas or locations and the level (intensity) of soil contamination. Conclusions about the most threatened soil functions cannot be drawn.

Category of information 3 Local contamination is identified directly; information about the covered area is available

Local contamination is identified directly and the report includes maps of contaminated sites in the RBD Danube (Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Slovak Republic, Slovenia), the RBDs Gauja, Venta, Lielupe and Daugava in Latvia, the RBD Scheldt in France, the RBD Rinkjoebing in Denmark and the RBD Warnow/Peene in Germany.

RBD Danube: Referring to the extent to which local soil contamination has been identified as a pressure for water quality, most countries in the RBD Danube reported that shallow aquifers are at high risk for pollution in the short- as well as long-term as a result of leaching from contaminated soils. But there is no information available how far the soil status has been taken into account during the risk assessment and which pollutants are problematic for water resources. Figure 3.3.3.1 shows a map of the locations of old contaminated sites, namely closed-down waste disposal sites and industrial installations in flood- risk areas. The report also provides a map with Accident Risk Spots and industrial sites with ongoing activities in potentially flooded areas. Hence, this is a subset of contaminated sites in the River Basin District and not a complete chart of all contaminated sites.

Report, Page 69 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Figure 3.3.3.1 Example for a map of contaminated sites from international WFD Article 5 report RBD Danube (International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River, 2005)

RBDs in Latvia: The number of contaminated sites, waste dumps, industrial sites, and military objects which are regarded as significant for groundwater pollution is quoted in the Latvian report. This appears as a complete overview of contaminated sites, and not only as a selection of locations with an impact on water resources. In addition, summarised information about the main pollutants is provided (e.g. sulphonates, sulphates at an acid tar dump). Only 0.5 % of the total number of significant pollution sources was recognized as hazardous, so that connected groundwater bodies were identified as being at risk. A map shows all point source pollution sites (see Figure 3.3.3.2). But there is no further local information about data sources and site-specific soil contamination.

Details of the information on the RBD Scheldt in France, RBD Rinkjoebing in Denmark and the RBD Warnow/Peene can be found and Table 3.3.3.2.

Report, Page 70 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Figure 3.3.3.2: Example for a map of point source sites from the Latvian WFD Ar- ticle 5 report (Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Latvia & Latvian Environment, Geology and Meteorology Agency, 2005)

The maps of point source pollution sites can be used to identify those localisations which are regarded as significant for groundwater pollution (Latvia, RBD Rinkjoebing, RBD War- now/Peene, French part of RBD Scheldt) or which are located in flood-risk areas as special risk sites for water resources (RBD Danube). But it is important to recall that these maps do not necessarily contain sites without an impact on groundwater resources. Moreover, there is no further information about soil contamination at these sites like a list of pollutants or pollutant contents. In conclusion, the benefit of this information for soil protection issues is limited, because they show only a selection of sites identified as problematic for water quality. There is no information about the intensity of soil degradation at contaminated sites, so that local assumptions about threatened soil functions cannot be made.

For a successful identification and assessment of local soil contamination in a given area it is essential to have an inventory of contaminated sites. This should include all sites where dangerous or hazardous substances were used in the past. Also there should be available important information about the history, information about the kinds of pollutants that contaminate soils and about the soil contents of pollutants. Against the background of these requirements of soil protection, the following sum-up conclusions referring local soil contamination can be drawn:

Report, Page 71 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

The basin-wide reports on the characterisation of the River Basin Districts as they stand, can not contribute to the identification and the assessment of local soil contamination10. The main reason is the general nature of information given in the reports. Local and site- specific information about the soil status is not available. In addition, only selected sites with soil pollution relevant for water protection are designated in the reports. This gives possible useful hints to combine the objectives of water and soil protection. But for an overall assessment of local soil contamination, a direct access to national inventories of contaminated sites or databases of environmental pollution with more detailed information about pollutants, environmental risks and sites history would be much more useful.

As a result of the risk assessment during the characterisation of RBDs, the Article 5 reports contain information, if groundwater bodies can achieve the environmental objectives of the WFD. Either the number of groundwater bodies which have been identified to be at risk due to point source pressures or a map of groundwater bodies at risk due to point source pressures or both is provided.

From the viewpoint of soil protection, this assessment is not useful to identify local soil contamination. Basically, there is no interlinkage between the boundaries of a groundwater body ‘at risk’ and the boundaries of the area which is affected by local soil contamination, because groundwater bodies have been defined according to hydro geological characteristics and not based on soil contamination aspects. It must be clear that direct discharge of effluent into groundwater is not a soil relevant process and does not give any indication to soil contamination. So maps about the risk of the water bodies ‘at risk due to point source pollution’ (not differentiated for direct discharge and leaching from contaminated sites) are not relevant for the identification of the spatial extent of the soil degradation.

10 It can be expected, that more useful, i.e. more detailed, data is available within the characterisation of the River Basins on a more local scale (e.g. in sub-basin reports).

Report, Page 72 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

3.3.4 Diffuse Contamination

Table 3.3.4.1: Soil degradation by diffuse contamination designated in WFD Article 5 reports of international River Basin Districts

Report, Page 73 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 74 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from WFD Article 5 reports – Diffuse contamination - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to soil degradation Causes of Pollutants Covered area Covered area Quality Assessment Intensity of soil District (RBD) State (summarised if necessary) soil causing soil of of indications degradation (-Region) degradation degradation (qual.) (quant.) inform. CZ: The atmospheric input of sulphur (and nitrogen) is a Available numerical relevant factor for the acidification of surface water and data does not give groundwater. The average input of pollutants in surface information about the waters in the Czech part of the RBD is quoted: 27 kg N /(ha*a) level of soil from agriculture, 20 kg N /(ha*a) from atmospherical deposition, contamination. 0.5 kg pesticides /(ha*a) from agriculture, 0.02 kg atrazine Hence the intensity /(ha*a) from agriculture, 13 kg S /(ha*a) from atmospherical of soil contamination deposition. Several groundwater bodies have been identified to is unknown. But the be probably at risk due to diffuse source pressures (atrazine, input loads of nitrogen). nutrients into soils DE: The input of nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus) and indicate pressure on pesticides in surface water bodies are mainly caused by soils causing agricultural land use. Furthermore diffuse source pressures are potential diffuse caused by urban land use (heavy metals), contaminated sites, contamination. and atmospherical deposition. 79 % of nitrogen and 77 % of Use of pesticides phosphorus input is induced by diffuse source pressures (UBA indicates diffuse soil 2003). Agricultural land use has been identified as a significant contamination. diffuse source pressure for groundwater bodies. Several groundwater bodies have been identified to be probably at risk due to diffuse source pressures. PL: No significant diffuse source pressures have been identified in the Polish part of the RBD. RBD Ems Germany, Most of the groundwater bodies are identified to be probably at agricultural phosphorus; agricultural no 2 direct Diffuse Netherl- risk of failing the environmental objectives caused by nitrate land use nitrate; land; moor information indication of contamination of (Königreich der ands pollution. Leaching of nutrients, in particular of nitrate, is identi- pesticides areas in the available soil water resources with Niederlande & fied as a main pressure on surface waters by interflow and Leda-Jümme degradation pesticides indicates Bundesrepublik groundwater. This is due to the high level of agricultural land use area Soil status diffuse soil Deutschland, in the catchment. contamination. 2005) was taken The lack of wide-ranging surface layers, which could protect the into account Nutrient pollution can groundwater resources against diffuse source pressures, and concerning theoretically indicate the intensive agricultural land use with concentration of life stock the lack of diffuse soil breeding result in diffuse contaminations of groundwater bodies surface layers contamination. by hazardous substances and nutrients. within the The intensity of soil In moor areas, leaching of phosphorus can induce assessment contamination of waters with phosphorus (Leda-Jümme area). contamination is of pressures unknown. Diuron, Isoproturon, Simazin, and Atrazin were detected in for ground- surface waters in the whole RBD. Two groundwater bodies are water identified to be at risk due to pesticide contamination. resources. About 75 % of the catchment is agricultural land.

Report, Page 75 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from WFD Article 5 reports – Diffuse contamination - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to soil degradation Causes of Pollutants Covered area Covered area Quality Assessment Intensity of soil District (RBD) State (summarised if necessary) soil causing soil of of indications degradation (-Region) degradation degradation (qual.) (quant.) inform. RBD Meuse Belgium - RBD: Leaching, mainly from agricultural land use, causes atmospheric heavy metals; agricultual no FR, BE, FR, BE: direct Diffuse Flemish nutrient pollution of surface waters (nitrates, phosphorus). deposition; phosphorus; land information DE: 2; indication contamination of (Internationale Region, Diffuse source pressures are the main cause for heavy metal agricultural nitrate; available of soil water resources with Maaskommis- Belgium - emissions into surface waters (cadmium, mercury, nickel, zinc). land use pesticides; NL: 1 degradation; pesticides and acid sion, 2005) Walloon 61 % of the area of groundwater bodies is identified to be at risk acids rain indicate diffuse Region, due to diffuse source pressures.The identification of water NL, DE: soil contamination. Germany, bodies that are at risk is performed with different methodological indirect Nitrate pollution of France, approaches in the Member States. In general, it was a indication groundwater and Luxembour combination of monitoring data and the known characteristics of of soil intensive agricultural g, Nether- the water body referring to its risk of pollution. degradation land use can lands theoretically indicate FR: The French part of the Meuse (and Sambre) is mainly diffuse soil exposed to agricultural pressures at sensitive carbonate bedrock contamination. and fluvial sediments (nitrates, pesticides). 6 groundwater bodies with nitrate and pesticide pollution are identified. BE: Diffuse sources pressures from agricultural activities cause 6 of 10 groundwater bodies in Wallonia to be probably at risk (nitrates, pesticides). In Flanders, 6 groundwater bodies are identified to be at risk, but it is unknown, if point or diffuse pressures are the cause. NL: Nitrate pollution of groundwater is identified in South Limburg. There is no data about pesticides in the report on the RBD Meuse. DE: Nearly all groundwater bodies in unconsolidated sediments are identified to be at risk mainly due to intensive agricultural land use. Groundwater bodies in the catchments of Rur, Niers, Schwalm, and Rodebach show acidification effects, which are caused by acid rain. RBD Odra Czech RBD: Nitrate inputs in surface waters are caused by agricultural atmospheric nitrogen; agricultural no CZ: 2; direct Diffuse pressures on Republic, land use, especially by drainage. deposition; pesticides; land information indication for water resources by (Internationale Germany, agricultural acids available PL, DE: pesticides; pesticides indicate Kommission zum Poland CZ: Diffuse source pressures are largely associated with land use 1 diffuse soil contami- Schutz der Oder, airborne deposition (sulphur, nitrogen) and agriculture CZ: Soil nation. 2005) (nitrogen, pesticides, atrazine). Pesticide application data exists status was in the Czech Republic for single plant species. Atrazine is found taken into Diffuse pressures on in surface waters and groundwater. An acidification of account with water resources by groundwater is induced by airborne inputs of nitrogen and the nutrients can theore- sulphur and nitrogen inputs from agriculture. characteri- tically indicate diffuse sation of soil contamination.

Report, Page 76 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from WFD Article 5 reports – Diffuse contamination - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to soil degradation Causes of Pollutants Covered area Covered area Quality Assessment Intensity of soil District (RBD) State (summarised if necessary) soil causing soil of of indications degradation (-Region) degradation degradation (qual.) (quant.) inform. Statistical data of the year 1999 was used to calculate nitrogen superficial Available maps loads under agricultural landuse. Three risk maps for deposits provide only superficial deposits exist for the territory of CZ, namely a map (3 maps information on the of the general risk referring nitrates, a map of risk due to available). groundwater bodies acidification, and a map of risk due to pesticides (atrazine). PL: Soil at risk but not on soil status was contamination. PL: Agricultural land use is a significant pressure for Numerical data on groundwater, because more than 50 % of nitrate pollution taken into account with input loads in surface derives from agriculture. 5 groundwater bodies are identified to waters do not give be at risk due to agricultural pollutants. The calculation of a map of soil permeability. any information background emissions of the nutrient loads, namely from forests about the level of soil and agricultural land, is based on experimental data. A map of contamination (soil soil permeability, land use statistics, application of fertilizer and content). Hence the hydrologic data was used within the model to calculate nurtient intensity of soil inputs from diffuse sources. contamination is DE: Diffuse source pressures contribute significantly to unknown. But the groundwater pollution, namely agricultural and industrial land input loads of use, airborne pollutants, transport. Diffuse source pressures nutrients into soils from agriculture are significant in 25 % of the German area of the indicate pressure on RBD. The calculation of pollutant loads into surface waters as a soils causing result of diffuse source pressures is performed with different potential diffuse model approches considering six input pathes (MONERIS, contamination. MODEST, NIIRS), namely erosion, surface runoff from agricultural land after intense rainfall, groundwater, drainage, atmospherical deposition, and sealed urban areas. The diffuse input of phosphorus and nitrogen into surface waters in the German RBD Oder varies depending on the different input pathways. Referring nitrogen, the main input pathways are via groundwater (2167 t/a, 55 %) and drainage (869 t/a, 20 %). Phosphorus input into surface waters occurs via erosion (189 t/a, 30-50 %) and surface runoff (approximately 452 t/a, 25 %).

Report, Page 77 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from WFD Article 5 reports – Diffuse contamination - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to soil degradation Causes of Pollutants Covered area Covered area Quality Assessment Intensity of soil District (RBD) State (summarised if necessary) soil causing soil of of indications degradation (-Region) degradation degradation (qual.) (quant.) inform. RBD Rhine Austria, As regards nitrogen, leaching and drainage under agricultural atmospheric heavy metals; agricultural no 2 direct Use of pesticides Belgium - land use are the main causes for diffuse source pressures on deposition; phosphorus; areas (nitrate, information indication of indicates diffuse soil (Republik Italien, Walloon surface waters. Referring phosphorus - beneath erosion and agricultural nitrogen; pesticides); available soil contamination. Bundesrepublik Region, surface runoff -leaching under agricultural land use is the main land use pesticides small-sized degradation Österreich, Nether- cause for diffuse source pressures on surface waters in the areas Diffuse pressures on Bundesrepublik lands, Delta Rhine area. (pesticides) water resources by Deutschland, Luxem- nitrogen can Republik bourg, Contamination of surface waters with heavy metals in rural theoretically indicate Frankreich, France, areas is caused by leaching, surface runoff and atmospheric diffuse soil Großherzogtum Germany deposition. contamination. The Luxemburg, intensity of soil Information about pesticides varies for any sub-basin. Three contamination is Königreich substances are permitted for application in DE, FR, NL and CH: unknown. Belgien & Dichlorvos, Isoproturon and Parathionethyl. Königreich der Niederlande, In the RBD Rhine, the main problem is the contamination of 2005) upper groundwater with nitrate caused primarily by agricultural fertilisers and intensive stock rearing. High nitrate contents in groundwater are found e.g. in areas with legume cultivation. At intensive used agricultural land there are often pesticide inputs into groundwater leading to an exceed of 98/83/EC limit values. Mostly there do not occur large and coherent areas with pesticide groundwater contamination. RBD Scheldt Belgium, Agriculture has been identified as pressure for water resources. atmospheric pesticides; no no 2 direct Use of pesticides France, Lindane is a problematic pollutant for coastal and transitional deposition; organic information information indication of indicates diffuse soil (Internationale Nether- water bodies. The prohibition on the use from Lindane has agricultural pollutants available available soil contamination. Scheldecommiss lands caused a measurable reduction of the concentration in surface land use degradation ie, 2005) waters. The pollution of water resources by transport via Diffuse atmospheric deposition has not been calculated, but it has been contamination of identified as a pressure for water quality (e.g. PAH). waters by agriculture Agricultural land use has been identified as a very important and atmospherical pressure in 8 of 13 clusters of water bodies. deposition can theoretically indicate soil contamination. The actual intensity of soil contamination is unknown.

Report, Page 78 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 3.3.4.2: Soil degradation by diffuse contamination designated in national WFD Article 5 reports

Information from WFD Article 5 reports – Diffuse contamination - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to soil degradation Causes of Pollutants Covered area Covered area Quality Assessment Intensity of soil District (RBD) State (summarised if necessary) soil causing soil of of indications degradation (-Region) degradation degradation (qual.) (quant.) inform. RBD Cyprus Cyprus Diffuse source pressures are largely associated with agricultural phosphorus; agricultural land no information 2 direct Use of pesticides agriculture and contribute to the enrichment of surface waters land use nitrogen; available indication of indicates diffuse soil (Republic of and groundwater with nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus). nitrate; soil contamination. Cyprus, 2005) Areas with increased loads of nitrogen and phosphorous are pesticides degradation located in the eastern part of Cyprus. Diffuse pressures on water resources by Groundwater bodies are identified as being at risk based on nitrogen can inter alia the presence of human activities which could theoretically indicate degrade the quality of the groundwater bodies (such as diffuse soil agricultural activities including the use of fertilizer and contamination. The pesticides, livestock; non-sewered discharge of urban waste intensity of soil water and solid waste). contamination is unknown. RBD Bornholm, Denmark RBD Bornholm: Rivers are generally impacted by discharged agricultural nitrate; no information no information Born- Bornholm, Diffuse pressures on RBD Aarhus, sewage, including, for example, sewage from individual land use; pesticides; available available holm, Soender- water resources by RBD Viborg, buildings in open areas, as well as by rain water overflow from atmospheric ammonia; Soender jylland, nitrogen can RBD Storstroem, sewer system catchment areas. By far the heaviest impact for deposition phosphorus; jylland, Ringkjoebing, theoretically indicate RBD Greater lakes is due to the release of nutrients. These nutrients stem, organic Ringkjoe North Jutland: diffuse soil Copenhagen, in part, from households which are not connected to sewer pollutants; bing, indirect contamination. Water RBD Fyn, RBD systems, as is the case for Hammersø, and in part from toxic North indication of pollution by Soenderjylland, agriculture, as is the case, for example, for Borgedal Sø. The substances Jutland: soil pesticides indicates RBD Rinkjoe- direct discharge of nitrogen from the atmosphere to the 1 degradation diffuse soil bing, RBD North coastal waters for which objectives have been set amounts to contamination. The Jutland approximately 200 tons/year. Aarhus/ Aarhus/ intensity of soil Viborg, Viborg, contamination is (Bornholms RBD Aarhus and Viborg: Well-documented correlations are Storstro Storstroem, unknown. Regionskommun available for the discharge of nutrients, in particular for em, Copenhagen, e, Natur & Miljø, regions in which model calculations of scenarios for reduced Copenh Fyn: direct 2006; Århus Amt nutrient burden have been carried out. This is the case, for agen, indication of Natur & Miljø, example, for Randers Fjord (Nielsen et al. 2003) and, to a Fyn: 2 soil 2006; Stor- certain extent, for Århus Bugt (Andersen et al. 2005). Diffuse degradation strøms Amt, nitrogen run-off is the contribution from agriculture plus the 2006; Frederiks- share which stems from the background contribution from borg Amt et al., agricultural areas, less 13 %. Pesticides are found in as 2006; Fyns Amt, much as 40 % of the groundwater bodies for water types A 2006; Soender- and B which contain nitrates, whereas pesticide findings in jyllands Amt, nitrate-free water are significantly lower. 2006;

Report, Page 79 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

RBD Storstroem: Shallow water regions, such as inlets and all of the near-shore water areas, are heavily impacted by nutrients which come from the catchment area. Nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus come from various sources, like Point sources, Area burden (agriculture, sparsely populated areas), Natural contributions or Atmospheric contribution. For most shallow water regions the contribution of nutrients from agriculture is greatest. Furthermore, measuring points which contain only very few or no microscopic fauna have been identified within the framework of monitoring activities. This may indicate that rivers have been polluted with, for example, herbicides or pesticides. RBD Copenhagen: Herbicides or pesticides from, for example, agriculture, exhaust from motor vehicles, fossil fuel consumption, industrial production facilities and emissions as well as discharge to sewage systems are significant sources of environmentally hazardous substances. Discharge to the aquatic environment can take place, for example, by means of atmospheric deposition, run-off as well as through seepage from catchment areas and sewage discharge.The use of pesticides in private parks and gardens as well as in public recreation areas can also be a significant source. Nutrients are primarily discharged to lakes from cultivated areas and through sewage discharge, sewage treatment facilities, rain water run-off as well as from individual buildings in open areas which are not connected to sewer systems. Pesticide findings can generally be related to point sources, line sources and diffuse sources and constitute a contamination threat for groundwater bodies.

Report, Page 80 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 81 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from WFD Article 5 reports – Diffuse contamination - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to soil degradation Causes of Pollutants Covered area Covered area Quality Assessment Intensity of soil District (RBD) State (summarised if necessary) soil causing soil of of indications degradation (-Region) degradation degradation (qual.) (quant.) inform. RBD Ringkjoebing: Sources of ecological impact comprise discharges from sewage treatment facilities, including seepage, as well as rain water run-off, burden from sparsely populated areas, industrial facilities, agriculture, atmospheric deposition (of N, P and hazardous substances) and internal burden. Levels of total N burden from sewage treatment facilities, industry, sparsely populated areas, rain water run-off, fish farming, sludge and agriculture are expected to fall as a result of innovations with agriculture. RBD North Jutland: Upper groundwater body aquifers located outside of nature preserves (> 10 ha) are generally considered to be at risk for non-compliance with good status in 2015. This is inter alia due to: Increased frequency of high levels of nitrate contents and pesticide findings which result in non-compliance with target objectives. RBD West Estonia West-Estonian RBD: Diffuse source pollution by agricultural agricultural nutrients; agricultural land no information 2 direct Diffuse source Estonia, RBD activity (use of fertilizers, pesticides, live stock-farming) land use pesticides available indication of pollution of water East Estonia, has been identified as an important pressure to the West- soil resources by RBD Gauja Estonian area of the Silurian-Ordovician aggregated degradation pesticides indicates groundwater body, Silurian-Ordovician groundwater body of diffuse soil (Ministry of the West-Islands, Middle-Devonian groundwater body, and contamination. Environment Middle-Lower-Devonian groundwater body. There is a very Estonia, 2005) important risk in West-Estonian area of the Silurian- Diffuse source Ordovician aggregated groundwater body in the part covered pollution of water with nitrate-sensitive area. resources by nutrients can East-Estonian RBD: Diffuse source pollution by agricultural theoretically indicate activity (use of fertilizers, pesticides, live stock-farming) diffuse soil has been identified as an important pressure to the contamination. The Ordovician groundwater body of Ida-Viru county, the intensity of soil Ordovician groundwater body of the oil shale basin of Ida-Viru, contamination is the East-Estonian area of the Silurian-Ordovician aggregated unknown. groundwater body, the Middle-Devonian groundwater body, the Middle-Lower-Devonian groundwater body, the Upper Devonian groundwater body, Sadala-Laiuse, Saadjärve-Elva, Otepää, Piigaste-Kanepi and Võru areas of the Quaternary aggregated groundwater body. The biggest risk is in the East-Estonian area of the Silurian- Ordovician aggregated groundwater body in the part covered with a nitrate vulnerable zone.

Report, Page 82 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 83 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 84 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from WFD Article 5 reports – Diffuse contamination - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to soil degradation Causes of Pollutants Covered area Covered area Quality Assessment Intensity of soil District (RBD) State (summarised if necessary) soil causing soil of of indications degradation (-Region) degradation degradation (qual.) (quant.) inform. RBD Scheldt, France RBD Scheldt: Although nearly half of the population is not agricultural pesticides; Maps of no information RBD direct Diffuse source Somme and connected to waste water treatment plants, agricultural land use nitrogen; agricultural available Rhone: indication of pollution of water coastal waters of nitrogen contributes major to the pollution of groundwater. All phosphorus; nitrogen 3 soil resources by the Channel and 16 groundwater bodies of the basin have been identified to be heavy metals; surpluses are degradation pesticides indicates the North Sea, qualitatively at risk, related to nitrate and the pesticide organic shown for the 2 (all diffuse soil RBD Meuse, pollution. pollutants RBD Rhine other RBD Rhone: contamination. RBD Sambre, (figure 8.4) and RBDs in A map of RBD Rhine, RBD Meuse: The pressures by the pollution with pesticides the RBD FR) areas with High nitrogen surplus RBD Seine and and hydro morphological alterations affect more than one third Garonne (figure high pesticide and pollution of Normandy of the river water bodies. The pollution with pesticides and 8.8.a). Figure index is surface and coastal waters, nitrates are the major pressures for groundwater resources. 8.7a shows a available. groundwater can RBD Loire, 39 % of the river water bodies (total 139) are classified to be pesticide index theoretically indicate Brittany and at risk due to pesticide pollution. 5 of 11 groundwater bodies in the area of diffuse soil Vendee coastal have been identified to be at risk not to reach the good the RBD Rhone. contamination. The waters, RBD condition until 2015, mainly because of nitrates and pesticide intensity of soil Rhone and pollution. contamination in unknown. Coastal RBD Sambre: Pollution by wastewater in rural areas and Mediterranean, agricultural pollution have been identified as the major RBD Garonne, RBD RBD Garonne, pressures on rivers in the RBD, especially by stock-breeding. Rhine: Numerical Adour The two groundwater bodies of the basin are classified to be data on nitrogen Dordogne, at risk because of pollution by nitrates and pesticides. surplus do not give Charente and any information coastal waters of RBD Rhine: Pollution by wastewater in rural areas has been about the level of soil aquitania, RBD identified as an important pressure on surface waters in the contamination. Corsica, RBD RBD. Pesticides (60 % of river water bodies) mainly from Hence the intensity Guadeloupe, agriculture are the major pressure in the Moselle-Sarre area. of soil contamination RBD Martinique, Further pressures are the pollution of organic substances, is unknown. But the RBD Reunion nitrogen and phosphorus from waste water, industry and input loads of Island agriculture. The principal pressures for groundwater are the nutrients into soils pollution with pesticides, nitrates, as well as the mineralization (Republique indicate pressure on (chlorides or sulphates) and chlorinated solvents. The nitrogen soils causing Francaise & surplus from agriculture is mapped (figure 8.4) and ranges Eaufrance, potential diffuse from 0 to 36 kg N/ha. A surplus of 10-36 kg N/ha is shown in contamination. 2005) wide areas outside the mountain ranges of the Vosges. 9 of 15 groundwater bodies have been identified to be at risk RBD Rhone: The because of pollution by nitrates and pesticides. pesticide index cannot be evaluated due to a lack of methodological information.

Report, Page 85 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 86 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 87 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 88 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 89 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from WFD Article 5 reports – Diffuse contamination - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to soil degradation Causes of Pollutants Covered area Covered area Quality Assessment Intensity of soil District (RBD) State (summarised if necessary) soil causing soil of of indications degradation (-Region) degradation degradation (qual.) (quant.) inform. 14 water districts Greece The main source of pollution of aquifers is placed to non- agricultural nitrate agricultural land no information 1 indirect Diffuse Greece point sources due to agricultural activities. The organic load land use available indication of contamination of and the load of suspended solids are primarily associated with soil water resources with (Hellenic the livestock activities. 1/3 of this is mainly diffuse pollution degradation nitrates can Republic and it is mainly located at the Prefectures of Messina and Ilia theoretically indicate Ministry of (West Peloponnesus), Achaia and Ilia (North Peloponnesus), diffuse soil Environment, in wider areas of Nafplio and Argos (East Peloponnesus), at contamination. Physical the Prefecture of Aitoloakarnania (West Sterea Ellada), Planning and Prefecture of Ioannina (Epirus), in the Asopos River Basin and Numerical data on Public Works - at the Prefectures of Evoia and Voiotia (East Sterea Ellada), nitrogen surplus do Central Water Prefectures of Larisa and Trikala (Thessaly), in the Sulu not give any Agency, 2006) stream basin and at the Prefectures of Florina and Kozani information about the (West Macedonia), at the Prefectures of Thessaloniki and level of soil Kilkis (Central Macedonia), at the Prefectures of Drama and contamination (soil Seres (East Macedonia), at the Prefectures of Evros, Rodopi content). Hence the and Xanthi (Thrace), at the Prefectures of Irakleio and intensity of soil Rethimo (Crete), and at the Prefectures of the Cyclades and contamination is Lesvou (Agean Islands). unknown. But the input loads of High nitrates concentrations of groundwater above the limit of nutrients into soils 50 mg/l or the guide limit of 25 mg/l due to agricultural and indicate pressure on livestock activities are reported for the Water Districts West soils causing Peloponnesus, North Peloponnesus, East Peloponnesus, potential diffuse Epirus, East Sterea Ellada, Thessaly, West Macedonia, East contamination. Macedonia, and Thrace. Existing land use practices very often involve excessive fertiliser uses, usually in the range 200-300 kg N/(ha*a), or occasionally even higher. Not adequate data on the quantities and types of pesticides and insecticides are available and in the relevant literature export coefficients are lacking.

Report, Page 90 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

RBD Cecina Italy Stock rearing activities inducing groundwater contamination urban land nitrogen; agricultural land; no information 2 direct Diffuse water after dispersion in the soil, and percolation have been use; pesticides; areas around available indication of pollution with (Ministero dell' identified as pressures for groundwater quality. agricultural phosphorus sewer collectors soil pesticides and Ambiente e della land use degradation pollution percolation Tutela del Diffuse pollution with nitrogen and phosphate compounds of during an overflow Territorio, 2006) fertilizers and pesticides has been identified as a pressure Soil status from sewer collectors for water resources caused by irrigation and rainwater runoff. was taken indicate diffuse soil into account contamination. Pollutant percolation into the groundwater caused by storm with a water infiltration during an overflow discharge from sewer Diffuse characterisati contamination of collectors has been identified as a pressure for groundwater on of quality. water resources with superficial nutrients and a Potential pollutant loads are loads generated by the use of deposits. nutrient surplus at fertilisers and phyto-pharmaceuticals and by manure from agricultural land can stock rearing; the complex of these quantities dispersed in the theoretically indicate soils, as inorganic fertilisers in the first instance and organic diffuse soil fertilisers in the second, create pollution of surface waters by contamination. surface runoff and of groundwater by percolation.

Report, Page 91 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from WFD Article 5 reports – Diffuse contamination - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to soil degradation Causes of Pollutants Covered area Covered area Quality Assessment Intensity of soil District (RBD) State (summarised if necessary) soil causing soil of of indications degradation (-Region) degradation degradation (qual.) (quant.) inform. The consumption of fertilisers used in the region Tuscany in Numerical data on 2000 is quoted as 73 kg /(ha*a) for nitrogen, as 45.3 kg/(ha*a) input loads of for phosphoric anhydtrite and as 16.6 kg/(ha*a) for potassium pesticides and oxide. The treatable surfaces include arable land (excluding nutrients do not give fallow land), permanent crops and farms (excluding sweet any information chestnut plantations), feed crops (excluding grasslands) and about the level of soil permanent orchards and market gardens. contamination (soil content). Hence the The consumption of pesticides is recorded for the year 2001. intensity of soil Fungicides are quoted as 5.8 kg/(ha*a), insecticides and contamination is miticides as 0.3 kg/(ha*a) and herbicides as 0.6 kg/(ha*a). unknown. But the The annual losses of nitrate via leaching in the farming sector input loads of averages 11 Kg N/(ha*a). substances into soils indicate pressure on Census of discharges in the territory highlights the fact that soils causing the disposal systems associated with recently restructured (in potential diffuse the nineties) rural dwellings use mainly private sewers with contamination. dispersion by means of sub-irrigation. If, based on the estimated total load, we can say that the nitrogen stemming from civil discharges is not too great in quantitative terms, it is also true that these discharges are not evenly distributed and that the location of some of them could well produce a strong impact in areas with high subsoil permeability (see Malandrone discharge). The results of several monitoring campaigns at seasonal intervals would seem to indicate that during the summer period the nitrates remain trapped in the initial metres of the ground, in the absence of rainfall, and enter the groundwater only in the late summer or early autumn. The increase in the piezometric level at the beginning of spring generally corresponds to an attenuation of the contamination. The permeability of the surface cover soils varies between two orders of magnitude, from very loose sandy soils to very loamy soils, albeit with marked presence of stony soil. Soil cover thicknesses of the aquifer system are again variable, extremely reduced or totally absent in the area of Vada and Polveroni, considerable in the area of Colle Mezzano.

Report, Page 92 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from WFD Article 5 reports – Diffuse contamination - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to soil degradation Causes of Pollutants Covered area Covered area Quality Assessment Intensity of soil District (RBD) State (summarised if necessary) soil causing soil of of indications degradation (-Region) degradation degradation (qual.) (quant.) inform. RBD Tevere Italy Agricultural land covers 53.6 % of the area of the RBD. agricultural phosphorus; no information no information 1 indirect Diffuse Diffuse pollution from agricultural or animal husbandry land use; sulphate; available available indicator of contamination of (General activities is widespread and relevant. atmospheric ammonia; soil water resources can Secretary of the deposition heavy metals; degradation theoretically indicate Tevere River Atmospheric deposition of sulphur, nitrogen, phosphorus, organic diffuse soil Basin Authority, heavy metals and organic compounds contributes to the pollutants; contamination. 2005) overall pollutant loading in the basin. nitrogen Numerical data on The atmospheric deposition of nitrogen as nitrogen oxides nitrogen surplus do and ammonia across the basin for year 2000 expressed in not give any kilograms per hectare per year is shown in an overview map information about the (figure 9). It ranges from < 6.7 up to 13.3 kg/(ha*a). level of soil Nitrogen surplus from agricultural and animal husbandry contamination (soil activities for year 2000 (kg/ha) varies from 0 to 80 kg/(ha*a), in content). Hence the small areas it exceeds 80 kg/(ha*a). A map of nitrogen intensity of soil surplus is shown in figure 4. contamination is unknown. But the input loads of substances into soils indicate pressure on soils causing potential diffuse contamination. RBD Gauja, Latvia Agricultural activities are the main source of diffuse pollution agricultural phosphorus; agricultural land; no information 2 direct Diffuse RBD Venta, for groundwater and surface waters in Latvia. Significant land use; nitrogen; urban areas available indication of contamination of RBD Lielupe, diffuse pollution of groundwater originates in urban areas and urban land pesticides; soil water resources with RBD Daugava intensively used agricultural land. Modelling was applied to use nitrate degradation pesticides indicates evaluate agricultural diffuse load. Shallow groundwater is diffuse soil (Ministry of the polluted with nitrates and pesticides below all intensively contamination. Environment of used agricultural lands and, especially, below intensively Diffuse the Republic of fertilised arable lands. contamination of Latvia & Latvian water resources with Environment, Data on groundwater pollution of agricultural origins are nutrients can Geology and limited at the moment. Detailed information will be available in theoretically indicate Meteorology August 2005 after conclusion of the Danish-Latvian joint diffuse soil Agency, 2005) project ‘Agricultural Influences on Groundwater in Latvia’. contamination. The Agricultural land covers 43.9 % of the state territory; urban intensity of soil areas cover 1.3 % of the Latvian territory. contamination is unknown.

Report, Page 93 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from WFD Article 5 reports – Diffuse contamination - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to soil degradation Causes of Pollutants Covered area Covered area Quality Assessment Intensity of soil District (RBD) State (summarised if necessary) soil causing soil of of indications degradation (-Region) degradation degradation (qual.) (quant.) inform. RBD Nemunas, Lithuania The main diffuse source pollutants in Lithuania for agricultural phosphorus; agricultural land no information 1 indirect Diffuse RBD Venta, groundwater and surface waters are nitrogen and land use; nitrogen use; urbanized available indication of contamination of RBD Lielupe, phosphorus due to agricultural activities because of leaching urban land territory soil water with nutrients RBD Daugava and direct drainage discharges. In several groundwater bodies use degradation resources can agricultural land use and urbanized territory have significant theoretically indicate (Environmental impact on the quality of groundwater. diffuse soil Protection contamination. The Agency intensity of soil Lithuania, 2005) contamination is unknown. RBD Malta Malta Agricultural land use attributed to nitrate contamination agricultural nutrients; agricultural land no information 2 direct Diffuse including application of fertilizers and pesticides is widely land use pesticides; available indication of contamination of (Malta common. On groundwater samples from Dingli Road Pumping nitrate soil water resources with Resources Station revealed high values of the pesticide/fungicide degradation pesticides indicates Authority, 2005) Chlorothal in groundwater. The Rabat-Dingli Groundwater diffuse soil Body should be considered as highly vulnerable to pesticide contamination. pollution particularly in view of the widespread usage of Diffuse pesticides in the catchment area, the relatively low thickness contamination of of the unsaturated zone and thin soil cover (generally not water resources with exceeding 30 cm). The area of the Mellieha Coastal nutrients can Groundwater Body is intensively cultivated and as such nitrate theoretically indicate contamination from irrigation sources is considered as the diffuse soil major pressure on the groundwater body. contamination. The 14 of 16 groundwater bodies have been identified to be at risk intensity of soil due to expected high nitrate content indicated by the main contamination is land use types (mainly agriculture). Indicative soil thickness is unknown. The quoted for each groundwater body and ranges from 18 to thickness of soil 100 cm. cover has been taken into account during the risk assessment for groundwater bodies.

Report, Page 94 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from WFD Article 5 reports – Diffuse contamination - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to soil degradation Causes of Pollutants Covered area Covered area Quality Assessment Intensity of soil District (RBD) State (summarised if necessary) soil causing soil of of indications degradation (-Region) degradation degradation (qual.) (quant.) inform. RBD Vistula, Poland Diffuse source is defined as an extensive linear emission of agricultural nutrients; no information no information 1 indirect Diffuse RBD Nemunas, substances which cannot be attributed directly to a business land use; toxic available available indication of contamination of RBD Pregolya, entity or a point source of emission. Typical examples of urban land substances soil water resourceswith RBD Dniestr diffuse source are intensive agriculture, general air pollution, use degradation nutrients can transport lines and unsealed wastewater drains. theoretically indicate (Rzeczpospolita diffuse soil Polska The main indexes for district pollution of surface waters contamination. Ministerstwo resulting from agricultural production and residential areas not Środowiska, connected to the sewage discharge system are nitrogen and Numerical data on 2005) phosphorus loads discharged from these sources. nutrient surplus do not give any Four types of pressure have been considered during the risk information about the assessment for surface waters by pollution: the quantity of level of soil pollutants discharged to surface water by population not contamination (soil connected to the sewage discharge system, the quantity of content). Hence the pollutants discharged from animal production, the intensity of soil consumption of mineral fertilizers in agriculture, and the contamination is disposal of industrial noxious waste. Baseline values were unknown. But the identified which, when exceeded, indicate pressure. input loads of 40 % of the surface water bodies in the Vistula Basin District substances into soils are categorised to be (potentially) at risk due to diffuse indicate pressure on pollution sources. soils causing potential diffuse Nitrogen and phosphorus loads discharged to the contamination. environment from district sources of pollution on the areas of groundwater bodies in the Vistula Basin District are quotes as sums for the eight groundwater bodies in the RBD: 8,560.44 t N/a and 4,274.13 t P/a from mineral fertilizers; 4518.49 t N/a and 1,652.48 t P/a from manure; and 1,013.39 t N/a and 230.33 t P/a from areas not connected to the sewage discharge system. Diffuse pollution affects only non-usable groundwater aquifers within large urban and industrial agglomerations or in areas of intensive agricultural production.

Report, Page 95 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from WFD Article 5 reports – Diffuse contamination - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to soil degradation Causes of Pollutants Covered area Covered area Quality Assessment Intensity of soil District (RBD) State (summarised if necessary) soil causing soil of of indications degradation (-Region) degradation degradation (qual.) (quant.) inform. RBD Azores Portugal In the terms of the diffuse source pollution, the pressures agricultural nutrients agricultural land; no information 1 indirect Diffuse considered significant (less important) for the groundwater land use cattle-raisings; available indication of contamination of (Secretaria bodies result from agricultural activities and cattle-raising areas without soil degra- water resources with Regional Do and from areas without sanitation network. The analysis sanitation dation nutrients can Ambiente E Dos reveals that the cattle raising represents a potentially network theoretically indicate Recursos significant pressure, when an area of more than 40 % of the diffuse soil Naturals, 2006) groundwater body consists of permanent pastures subject to contamination. The fertilising and there is an evidence of an impact on the intensity of soil agricultural activities and the cattle-raising. The parameters of contamination is pollution used for the analysis of the impact of this activity on unknown. the water body were: nitrate, phosphate and potassium. These data result from the monitoring programmes of the current groundwater and of historical data. The monitoring realized in the framework of the diffuse source pollution included an analysis of the pesticides. Their presence in the groundwater has not been verified to this day. RBD Duero; Portugal In the list of the main pollutants with significant loads no organic no information no information 2 direct Use of pesticides RBD Tagus and originating from diffuse sources into surface waters in each information pollutants; available available indication of indicates diffuse soil Western Basins; hydrographical region (without indication of quantities), diffuse available pesticides; soil contamination. RBD Guadiana; contamination is pointed out. The areas of agricultural land nitrate degradation Diffuse RBD Minho and are represented and classified as permanent pastures and contamination of Lima; RBD permanent cultures in sq km, and annual application of The pollutants Soil status water resources with Cavado, Ave nitrogen is denoted in kg N/(sq km*a). The nitrogen surplus in in the hydro- has been nutrients from diffuse and Leca; RBD the RBDs varies from 0.02 (RBD Duero) and 19.12 kg N/(sq graphical taken into sources can Vouga, km*a) (RBD Minho / Lima)11. During risk assessment for regions of account theoretically indicate Mondego and surface waters, the characteristics of the soil are considered. Portugal are during risk diffuse soil Lis; RBD Sado mainly 3,4 di- assessment, contamination. and Mira; RBD In the terms of the diffuse source pollution, the pressure chlor-anilin, but there is Algarve Basins considered significant for the subterranean water body results alachlor, atra- no infor- from agricultural activities. The analysis reveals that the zin, endo- mation on the agricultural activity represents a potentially significant sulfon, ethyl- methodology. pressure, when the area of the subterranean water body parathion, subject to fertilising would be higher than 40 % of the area of herbicides, the water body. hexachloro- benzene,

11 Note: The values of nitrogen surplus given as up to 19.12 kg N/(sq km*a) appear much to low. Translated into the application rate per hectare, 19.12 kg N/(sq km*a) is 0.19 kg/(ha*a) (1 sq km = 100 ha). This is not verisimilar in relation to application rates in other European Member States.

Report, Page 96 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from WFD Article 5 reports – Diffuse contamination - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to soil degradation Causes of Pollutants Covered area Covered area Quality Assessment Intensity of soil District (RBD) State (summarised if necessary) soil causing soil of of indications degradation (-Region) degradation degradation (qual.) (quant.) inform. (Ministério do If a significant area of the water body represents hexachloro- Numerical data on ambiente, do concentrations of nitrate higher than the quality objective, one butadiene, nitrogen surplus do ordamento do has observed that there is an impact of the agricultural activity hexachlorocy not give any território e do on the water medium. There are 62 groundwater bodies with clohexane, information about the desenvolvimento significant pressures in terms of diffuse source pollution in the lindan, level of soil regional, 2005) hydrographical regions in the Continental Portugal. From the metolachlor, contamination (soil main pollutants for groundwater originating from diffuse molinat, content). Hence the sources, only nitrogen has been identified referring to nitrogen, intensity of soil significant emissions. Nitrogen has been identified as a phosphorus, contamination is pressure in all groundwater bodies except of those in the RBD propanil, unknown. But the Minho/Lima. simazin, input loads of triflurali. substances into soils The main water pollutants in the hydrographical regions of indicate pressure on Portugal are mentioned (see column ‘Pollutants’). soils causing potential diffuse contamination. RBD Danube, Slovak Mineral and organic fertilizers have been identified as the agricultural phosphorus; agricultural land no information 2 direct Use of pesticides RBD Vah, RBD Republic major source for nutrient inputs into agricultural soils. The land use; acids; available indication of indicates diffuse soil Hron, RBD average application rate of mineral nitrogen fertilizers at atmospheric nitrogen; soil contamination. High Bodrog, RBD agricultural land in the Slovak Republic is quoted as deposition pesticides degradation nutrient surplus can Hornad, RBD 70 kg/(ha*a) (2002-2003). The rates vary significantly in the theoretically indicate Poprad and districts of the Slovak Republic and range from 10 to Soil status diffuse soil Dunajec 110 kg/(ha*a). The highest rates have been found in the has been contamination. districts Zlaté Moravce, Nitra, Topoľčany, Saľa, and taken into (Ministerstvo Partizánske. The application rates of mineral phosphorus account Numerical data on zivotného fertilizers range from 1 to 32 kg/(ha*a) whereas the average investigating application rates do prostredia SR amount is 15 kg/(ha*a); the rates of mineral potassic potential not give any et al., 2005) fertilizers range from 1 to 30 kg/(ha*a). permeability information about the of the soils level of soil In addition to the application of mineral fertilizer, the amount of and potential contamination (soil nutrient input into soils are affected by organic manure. The retaining content). Hence the amount of the application of organic manure on grassland ability. intensity of soil (calculated on the basis of livestock units of 500 kg live contamination is weight) is quoted for the Slovak Republic as 22.23 kg unknown. But the N/(ha*a) and 5.05 kg P/(ha*a). input loads of substances into soils indicate pressure on soils causing potential diffuse contamination.

Report, Page 97 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 98 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from WFD Article 5 reports – Diffuse contamination - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to soil degradation Causes of Pollutants Covered area Covered area Quality Assessment Intensity of soil District (RBD) State (summarised if necessary) soil causing soil of of indications degradation (-Region) degradation degradation (qual.) (quant.) inform. RBDs Northern Spain The most significant pressures on groundwater are point- agricultural nitrate; no information no information 2 direct Use of pesticides Spain, Galician source contamination and diffuse contamination. land use pesticides available available indication of indicates diffuse soil Coast, Basque soil contamination. County internal The main cause of diffuse contamination is agriculture, due to degradation Diffuse basins, Duero, the application of fertilisers, which causes nitrate contamination of Tagus, Guadi- contamination, and the use of pesticides. water resources with ana, Guadal- Diffuse sources have been identified as a pressure for nitrates can quivir, Andalusia groundwater quality in 21 of 22 River Basin Districts. Diffuse theoretically indicate Mediterranean contamination is also the most important pressure affecting diffuse soil Basins, Segura, lakes. One of the most important pressures, which is behind contamination. The Jucar, Ebro, the risk for groundwater bodies, is diffuse contamination by intensity of soil Internal Basins nitrates and pesticides. contamination is of Catalonia, unknown. Balearic Islands (Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, 2007) RBD North Sweden Agriculture has an impact on groundwater qualitatively and atmospheric organic agricultural land; no information 2 direct Leaching of Troen-delag, quantitatively through leaching of nutrients and pesticides, deposition; pollutants; areas affected available indication of pesticides into RBD North and through ditching and irrigation. Fertiliser application and urban land sulphate; by leakage from soil groundwater Land, RBD release of nitrates in the autumn after the crop has completed use; nitrate; individual degradation indicates diffuse soil Troms, RBD its uptake is the most significant cause of nitrate in agricultural pesticides; sewers; areas contamination. Glomma, RBD groundwater. Just less than 50 % of Swedish arable acreage land use nutrients; affected by Bothnian Bay, is treated with pesticides, with regional differences in intensity. acids atmospherical Diffuse souce RBD Skagerrak The presence of pesticides in groundwater has the subject of deposition polution of water and Kattegat, increasing discussion in the last decade. Much of the impact resources with RBD Bothnian noted in groundwater comes from earlier use of pesticides nutrients and metals Sea, RBD North outside arable land, principally for total control of weeds on can theoretically Baltic, RBD hard-surfaced areas. Sales of pesticides have also increased indicate diffuse soil South Baltic, slightly in recent times for various reasons. This is considered contamination. RBD South to be due to an increase in pesticide-intensive crops, such as Atmospheric Troendelag winter cereals and sugar beet, as well as increasingly uniform deposition is of major crop sequences. Increased requirements for set-aside have importance which (Naturvårdsverk increased the use of glyfosate, which accounts for a large part also causes soil et, 2005) of the increase. It happens that the pesticide isoproturon contamination. The exceeds Environmental Quality Standard (EQS) values for intensity of soil water protection in areas of intensive agriculture. contamination is unknown. The greatest metal pollution load into surface waters is in the Skagerrak/Kattegat water district, due to inputs in particular from leaching from agricultural land in the area.

Report, Page 99 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 100 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 101 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

RBD Number of river bodies Total At Risk due to acifidication Humber 830 22 Northumbria 357 7 Solway Tweed (Engl.) 521 1 South West 932 20 Severn 748 21 West. Wales 681 74 Dee 86 13 North West 10 477

Methodology England: To reflect the various causes of diffuse pollution, the authors separately assessed whether water bodies are at risk of failing the Directive’s objectives from the following pressures or activities: nutrients, sediment, pesticides and sheep dip, urban land use, acidification, mines and minewaters. They have combined these assessments to present the overall risk of water bodies not achieving the Directive’s objectives as a result of diffuse source pressures. Different combinations of pressures are used for different water categories, depending on data availability. Methodology Scotland: Water quality and fish monitoring data in combination with expert judgement and land use maps have been used in the risk assessments. A screening method using a suite of models has been developed to assess the risks from diffuse pollution based on pollutant inputs to the land surface and outputs to water bodies.

Report, Page 102 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 103 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Evaluation of the information on diffuse contamination

Direct information on diffuse soil contamination was not found in any of the WFD Article 5 reports reviewed under terms like ‘contamination of soils’ or ‘accumulation of pollutants in soils’. What can be observed is that water contamination via diffuse sources (e.g. atmospherical deposition or application of fertilizers) is identified in almost all reports as having a negative impact on water quality, but that is not the case for diffuse soil contamination. Diffuse soil contamination which is understood as a diffused accumulation of pollutants in soils has not been singled out as the problem but only refered to in general terms in the WFD reports. Therefore data is not provided about the pollutant content of soil and nutrient content of soil (e.g. in ppm). Due to this lack of information about diffuse soil contamination, there is no direct data available about the level of this degradation process or about the affected area.

Processes like the input of pollutants via atmospheric deposition or application of fertilizers refer indirectly to diffuse soil contamination. But pressures by nutrient inputs and diffuse atmospherical deposition do not necessarily result in soil contamination. It depends on input loads and in particular on the chemical characteristics of the substances which are incorporated into the soil whether soil contamination occurs and how far soil functions will be threatened. The chemical pollutants from diffuse sources can be grouped into four sectors that typify their behaviour in soils. It has to be taken into account whether the substance decays or conserves (organic or inorganic, respectively) and whether the substance is adsorbed within the structure of the soils (mobile or less mobile). The groups are as follows: mobile inorganic substances (e.g. nitrate); less mobile inorganic substances (e.g. phosphate, heavy metals); mobile organic substances (e.g. pesticides, hydrocarbons); less mobile organic substances (e.g. agrochemicals which bind to soils). Mobile and non-persistent substances do not accumulate in soils and therefore usually do not cause soil contamination from accumulation. However, less mobile substances, including heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants (POPs), often accumulate in soils. These substances have a negative impact on soil condition due to their toxicity. Nutrients such as ammonia, nitrate and phosphorus are primarily known in the context of the eutrophication of water resources. However, soil biota and nutrient cycles will also be threatened by a long-term nutrient surplus. Forest ecosystems and peat soils are primarily at risk. Phosphorus and nitrate do not usually directly threaten the soil functions of arable land, but indirect effects on water resources can be expected by leaching or erosion.

Acidifying components, such as SO4, NOx and ammonia from atmospheric deposition or fertilizers lead to a decrease in soil pH and a less-active population of soil micro-organisms, which in turn slows the decomposition of plant residues and the cycling of essential plant nutrients. This results in a deterioration of soil fertility and a decline in biodiversity.´ For the interpretation of the WFD Article 5 reports, it is essential to know the input pathways that are relevant during the risk assessment of diffuse water pressures. Only with this knowledge is it possible to make conclusions about the potential for soil contamination. Only those water pressures that actually affect the soil are relevant for soil quality. For example, groundwater pollution on agricultural land via leaching usually leads to the assumption that substances derive from soils. However, the methodology of risk assessment used during RBD characterisation determines whether water pollution via runoff from hard surfaces or leaky waste water canals are included within the diffuse source pressures for water quality. Impacts on surface waters or groundwater caused by these processes do not refer to soils as a source of pollutants. If surface waters or groundwater have been polluted via drainage or leaching, this can be indicated caused by diffuse soil contamination as the buffering capacity of the soil for pollutants is exceeded. But there is not a one-to-one relationship direct interlinkage between water and soil pollution, because the pollution of waters could be induced by other input pathways (e.g. input of phosphorus in rivers from waste water treatment plants via direct discharge).

Report, Page 104 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Although diffuse soil contamination is not identified specifically, the WFD Article 5 reports provide a variety of indirect indicators for diffuse soil contamination (Category 1 of information quality). Apart from indirect indicators, water pollution with pesticides and atmospheric deposition from industrial sources is mentioned in the WFD reports. These issues indicate that diffuse soil contamination is more likely to occur and have been ranked as category 2 with regard to quality of information. In one Article 5 report, there is a map which provides information on areas with high application rates of pesticides, and identifies area where diffuse soil contamination is likely (Category 3 of information quality).

The information on diffuse soil contamination in the international River Basin Districts with cross-border reports is compiled in Table 3.3.4.1, whereas the information of the River Basin Districts with national reports is shown in Table 3.3.4.2.

Diffuse source pressures have been identified as one of the main risks for groundwater quality in most River Basin Districts, so that many groundwater bodies have been identified as failing the environmental objectives of the WFD. No significant diffuse source pressures on water resources have been identified in the small Polish part of RBD Elbe, in the Estonian RBD Gauja, and in the RBD Madeira in Portugal. The main cause of the diffuse source pressures for water quality relevant to soil contamination is agricultural land use. In a few RBDs, further causes have been identified such as atmospherical deposition, urban land use, and (in Ireland) forestry in connection with acidification and eutrophication.

In accordance with the objectives of the characterisation of the River Basin Districts, the Article 5 reports focus on substances that deteriorate the quality of surface waters and groundwater. The two plant nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus are of greatest concern in nearly all River Basin Districts, as they cause eutrophication of water bodies, creating excessive growth of algae and other problematic aquatic plants. As given in the WFD Article 5 reports, further pollutants associated with diffuse source pressures for water quality are pesticides, heavy metals, and organic pollutants.

Information indicating that the soil status was taken into account during the risk assessment was found in some WFD Article 5 reports. The lack of protecting surface layers was identified as a risk for groundwater pollution via leaching e.g in the RBD Ems (Germany, Netherlands). In the RBD Odra, maps for superficial deposits for the Czech part and a map of soil permeability for the Polish part have been used. Soil maps also provide an essential component of the Irish risk assessment. Very general information is available for the RBDs in Scotland, where inter alia ‘soil factors’ have been taken into account.

Report, Page 105 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Category of information 1 Indirect indicators for diffuse contamination are mentioned

Indirect indicators for diffuse contamination are found in 14 of the 51 reviewed WFD Arti- cle 5 reports12. The indirect indicators on diffuse soil contamination in the reports range from general land use issues (e.g. intensive agriculture, livestock breeding) to information on the input of substances into soils (e.g. agricultural application of fertilizer, nutrient surplus in arable land, atmospheric deposition). This information refers to diffuse source pressures for water quality and includes in part data on input pathways (e.g. groundwater pollution via leaching of nutrients or pollutants, surface water pollution via drainage) or information on the extent of the pressure on water quality (e.g. number of groundwater bodies at risk due to agricultural nitrogen input or input loads of substances into surface waters for different pathways). But the actual level of soil contamination cannot be derived definitively.

Category of information 2 Diffuse contamination is identified directly; no further information is available

Direct information on diffuse soil contamination with regards to the application of pesticides, atmospheric deposition from industrial sources and acifidication/eutrophication of soils is given in 36 of the 51 reviewed WFD Article 5 reports13. Pesticides from agricultural activities are mentioned as a pressure for water quality in most reports included in this category. The input of acidifying components such as sulphur and nitrogen in the river catchments, or acid rain are mentioned in the German part of RBD Meuse, the Czech part of the Odra, in some of the RDB of the United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden as a pressure for surface waters (acifidication of rivers and lakes). Heavy metals from atmospheric deposition contribute to the contamination of water resources in the RBD Meuse, RBD Rhine. Chlorinated solvents are identified as a pressure for groundwater quality in the United Kingdom (in particular in the RBD Thames). These substances are likely to be associated with spillages and leakages and associated with their handling and storage in urban areas. It is not clear from the reports whether the pressures from chlorinated solvents derive from point sources (more likely) or from diffuse sources. So we presume this not to be interpreted as a pressure on the soil by diffuse sources, but instead from local contamination. The actual level of soil contamination cannot be derived from the information ranked as cateory 2 with regards to quality of information.

12 addressing Dutch part of the RBD Meuse; Polish and German parts of RBD Odra; RBDs Bornholm, Soenderjylland, Rinkjoebing, and North Jutland in Denmark; RBDs in Finland; RBDs Weser, Eider, and Warnow/Peene in Germany; water districts in Greece; RBD Tevere in Italy; RBDs in Lithuania; RBDs in Poland; and RBDs Azores in Portugal 13 addressing RBD Danube; Austrian, Czech, and German parts of RBD Elbe; RBD Ems; French and Belgium parts of RBD Meuse; Czech part of RBD Odra; RBD Rhine; RBD Scheldt; RBD Cyprus; RBDs Aarhus/Viborg, Storstroem, Copenhagen, and Fyn in Denmark; RBDs in Estonia; RBDs in France (except RBD Rhone); RBD Schlei/Trave in Germany; RBDs in Ireland; RBD Cecina in Italy; RBDs in Lat- via; RBD Malta; RBDs Duero, Tagus, Western Basins, Guadiana, Minho and Lima, Cavado, Ave and Leca, Vouga, Mondego and Lis, Sado and Mira, and Algarve in Portugal; RBDs in the Slovak Republic; RBDs in Spain; RBDs in Sweden; and RBDs in the United Kingdom

Report, Page 106 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Category of information 3 Diffuse contamination is identified directly and information about the covered area is available

The Article 5 report from France provides a map for the RBD Rhone showing areas with very high, high, moderate, low and very low pesticide indices. The methodology of this index is not described in the report. However, in areas with a high and very high pesticide levels, diffuse soil contamination is likely.

The available data identifies three important aspects with regards to the limited value for an assessment of soil state:

For a successful identification and assessment of diffuse soil contamination in a given area, it is essential to know concentrations in the soil of substances (e.g. in ppm). It would be best to have a spatial map of non-point soil pollution in soils. As described before, such information is scarce in the characterisation of the River Ba- sin District reviewed. At most, maps or data about factors impacting the level of soil contamination were used in the risk assessment concerning diffuse source pressures for water quality (e.g. land use, geological situation, soil condition, atmospheric deposition). But, the maps of soil condition are not available in the WFD Arti- cle 5 reports.

Maps of groundwater bodies ‘at risk’ due to pollution via leaching from soils do not give any notice of the level of soil contamination, as the extent of soil contamination depends on the characteristics of the substances. Data about input rates of substances, e.g. for pesticide application from agriculture in kg / (ha*a) as given in the Czech part of RBD Elbe, refers to the pressure for soil quality by pesticide input, but it does not give evidence on the level of pesticide contents in soils. Loads of the input of substances into surface waters, e.g. in tons per hectare as mentioned in the RBD Odra are useful for water protection. Despite their relevance to water protection, substance input loads are of limited added value for issues of soil protection. This is due to the probability that soil contamination varies within a River Basin Dis- trict. Therefore, it makes no sense, to back-calculate pollutant contents from load data.

Data and maps addressing the spatial unit of a River Basin District do not contribute to the identification and assessment of soil contamination, because RBDs have been designated according to hydrological aspects which are not relevant for the spatial distribution of the contamination of soils.

In conclusion, the value of available data and information for an identification and assessment of diffuse soil contamination provided in the WFD Article 5 reports is limited due to the fact that diffuse sources for water contamination are identified as a pressure for water quality in nearly all reports, but the reports do not address specifically the diffuse soil contamination. It is not described in detail in the reports, that although the inputs of water pollutants may come through the soil, the soil itself is contaminated and if the substances threaten the soil functions. At most, the indirect and direct indicators can be used to understand the regional diffuse source pressures for water quality that are concurrently pressures for soil quality in the River Basin Districts. Beyond this, few Article 5 reports provide information about available soil maps or data sources.

Report, Page 107 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

3.3.5 Sealing

Table 3.3.5.1: Soil degradation by sealing designated in WFD Article 5 reports of international River Basin Districts

Report, Page 108 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from WFD Article 5 reports – Sealing - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin District (RBD) Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to Causes of Covered Covered area Quality of Assessment of Intensity of soil degradation State soil degradation (summarised if necessary) soil degra- area inform. indications (-Region) dation (qual.) (quant.) RBD Odra Czech DE: The ratio of urban area in the German urban land urban area urban area: DE: 1 indirect A large extent of the urban area Republic, part of the RBD is quoted by 13 %. use indication of soil can be expected to be sealed. (Internationale Germany, DE: 13 % of the CZ, PL: 0 degradation Sealing indicates a high level of Kommission zum Schutz Poland CZ, PL: no information available German part of the (urban area ≠ soil degradation because soil der Oder, 2005) RBD sealed area) functions are severely impaired. It is nearly irreversible (Burghardt et al., 2004). The area ratio of 13 % in the German part of the RBD appears relatively high: The catchment icludes only small urban aglomerations such as Eberswalde, Prenzlau, and Schwedt, so that the area ratio appears not reliable. RBD Rhine Austria, The increase of flood risk is caused by the urban land developed developed area in 2 direct indication Soil sealing has been identified as Belgium - deterioration of natural flood plains along the use; area; flood sq km: of soil a pressure increasing flood risk. (Republik Italien, Walloon Rhine by more than 85 % after river river plains degradation Bundesrepublik Region, development, straightening and diking (base training/ AT: 70 (of 2370); (sealing along A large extent of the developed Österreich, France, year 1889) . This was associated with a river DE: 9750 (of the Rhine) area can be expected to be Bundesrepublik Germany, rapid increase of sealing and soil alteration 105670); sealed. Sealing indicates a high Deutschland, Republik Luxem- compaction. FR: 1490 (of 23830); indirect level of soil degradation because Frankreich, bourg, LU: 160 (of 2530); indication of soil soil functions are severely Großherzogtum Nether- The developed area in the RBD is quoted BE: 40 (of < 800); degradation impaired. It is nearly irreversible Luxemburg, Königreich lands for each Member State. NL: 2340 (of 33800) (developed area (Burghardt et al., 2004). Belgien & Königreich der ≠ sealed area) Niederlande, 2005) RBD Scheldt Belgium, The concentration of residential areas in urban land built-up built-up areas: 13 % 2 direct indication Soil sealing has been identified as France, cities and agglomerations has caused soil use area; of the RBD of soil a pressure for groundwater (Internationale Nether- sealing and urbanization of flood areas. residential degradation renewal. The ratio of built-up Scheldecommissie, 2005) lands Especially the Flemish part of the coast has areas in (soil sealing in areas is high due to the strong been modified by built-up areas for tourism cities and cities and urbanisation in the RBD. Sealing purposes. Cities and roads with hard agglomerat agglomerations) indicates a high level of soil surfaces offer limited space for the ions degradation because soil infiltration of rain water. indirect functions are severely impaired. It indication of soil is nearly irreversible (Burghardt The RBD Scheldt is a strongly urbanised degradation et al., 2004). area with a high percentage of built-up (built-up areas ≠ areas. The ratio of urban areas in the RBD sealed area) amounts to 13 % of the total surface. The built-up areas are shown in a map.

Report, Page 109 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 3.3.5.2: Soil degradation by sealing designated in national WFD Article 5 reports

Information from WFD Article 5 reports – Sealing - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin District (RBD) Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring Causes of Covered area Covered area Quality of Assessment Intensity of soil degradation State to soil degradation soil degra- inform. of indications (-Region) (summarised if necessary) dation (qual.) (quant.) RBD North Jutland Denmark Upper groundwater body aquifers located urban land urban areas no information 1 indirect A large extent of Metropolitan areas outside of nature preserves (> 10 ha) are use available indication of can expected to be sealed. Sealing (Nordjyllands Amt, 2006) generally considered to be at risk for non- soil indicates a high level of soil compliance with good status in 2015. This degradation degradation because soil functions is inter alia due to e.g. Metropolitan or (metropolitan are severly impaired. It is nearly populated areas. area ≠ sealed irreversible (Burghardt et al., 2004). area) RBD West Estonia, Estonia Settlements are mapped for each RBD urban land settlements < 5 % (Estimation on 1 indirect A large extent of the settlement area RBD East Estonia, (figure 2, 4, and 6). use the basis of figure 2, indication of can be expected to be sealed. RBD Gauja 4, and 6) soil Sealing indicates a high level of soil degradation degradation because soil functions (Ministry of the (settlements are severely impaired. It is nearly Environment Estonia, ≠ sealed irreversible (Burghardt et al., 2004). 2005) area) The area ratio of developed areas in the RBD is relatively low compared to densely developed areas in the Netherlands, Belgium and other regions of Germany. RBD Scheldt, Somme and France The urban areas are quoted for the urban land urban land urban land: RBD 1 indirect A large extent of the urban land can coastal waters of the territory of RBDs in France. use Scheldt: 8 %; RBD indication of be expected to be sealed. Sealing Channel and the North In the RBD Scheldt the urbanization of Meuse: < 3 %; RBD soil indicates a high level of soil Sea, RBD Meuse, RBD the coastal zone is characteristic. Sambre: 10 %; RBD degradation degradation because soil functions Sambre, RBD Rhine, RBD In the RBD Seine, urban areas are Rhine: 6.5 %; RBD (developed are severely impaired. It is nearly Seine and Normandy located in the area around the rivers. Seine: 5 %; RBD area ≠ sealed irreversible (Burghardt et al., 2004). coastal waters, RBD Loire, The major pressures on coastal waters in Loire: 3 %; RBD area) The area ratio of the RBD Scheldt Brittany and Vendee the RBD Corsica are related to Rhone: 4 %; RBD and RBD Sambre is relatively high. coastal waters, RBD urbanization, rejections, and invasive Garonne: 2 %; RBD This RBD Scheldt includes the Rhone and Coastal species. Corsica: 1 %; RBD agglomerations of Lille and Amiens Mediterranean, RBD In the RBD Guadeloupe the urbanization Réunion: 15 % whereas the small RBD Sambre Garonne, Adour Dordogne, is especially developed along the shore; includes the urban area of Charente and coastal apart from the two main agglomerations, Maubeuge, so that the area ratio waters of aquitania, RBD the urbanization increases in a diffuse appears rather unreliable. Corsica, RBD Guadeloupe, way on the territory. RBD Martinique, RBD In the RBD Réunion the urbanisation Reunion Island concentrates on the coastal zone of the (Republique Francaise & island. Eaufrance, 2005)

Report, Page 110 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from WFD Article 5 reports – Sealing - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin District (RBD) Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring Causes of Covered area Covered area Quality of Assessment Intensity of soil degradation State to soil degradation soil degra- inform. of indications (-Region) (summarised if necessary) dation (qual.) (quant.) RBD Weser Germany The developed area in the RBD is urban land developed developed area: 1 indirect A large extent of the developed area quoted and mapped. use area indication of can be expected to be sealed. (Flussgebietsgemeinschaft 3270 sq km soil Sealing indicates a high level of soil Weser, 2005) A map is (6.7 % of the RBD) degradation degradation because soil functions available. are severely impaired. It is nearly irreversible (Burghardt et al., 2004). The area ratio of urban areas in the RBD is relatively low compared to densely developed areas in the Netherlands, Belgium and other regions of Germany. RBD Eider Germany - The developed area in the RBD is urban land developed developed area: 1 indirect A large extent of the developed area Schleswig- quoted. use area indication of can be expected to be sealed. (Ministerium für Umwelt, Holstein 185.3 sq km soil Sealing indicates a high level of soil Naturschutz und (4 % of the RBD) degradation degradation because soil functions Landwirtschaft des Landes are severely impaired. It is nearly Schleswig-Holstein, 2004) irreversible (Burghardt et al., 2004). The area ratio of urban areas in the RBD is relatively low compared to densely developed areas in the Netherlands, Belgium and other regions of Germany. RBD Schlei/Trave Germany - The built-up area in the RBD is quoted urban land Built-up areas DE, RBD: 393 sq km; 1 indirect A large extent of the developed area Mecklenburg- as 393 sq km (363 sq km in Schleswig- use are shown in Schleswig-Holstein: indication of can be expected to be sealed. (Ministerium für Umwelt, Western Holstein and 30 sq km in Mecklenburg map 8. 363 sq km; soil Sealing indicates a high level of soil Naturschutz und Pomerania, Western-Pommerania). The area ratio of Mecklenburg degradation degradation, because soil functions Landwirtschaft des Landes Schleswig- urban areas is given as 6 % in the RBD. Western- (developed are severely impaired. It is nearly Schleswig-Holstein & Holstein Built-up areas are shown in map 8. An Pommerania: area does not irreversible (Burghardt et al., 2004). Umweltministerium accelerated catchment runoff is inter alia 30 sq km equal sealed The area ratio of urban areas in the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, of importance in urban areas with area) RBD is relatively low compared to 2004) significant surface sealing. densely developed areas in the Netherlands, Belgium and other regions of Germany.

Report, Page 111 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from WFD Article 5 reports – Sealing - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin District (RBD) Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring Causes of Covered area Covered area Quality of Assessment Intensity of soil degradation State to soil degradation soil degra- inform. of indications (-Region) (summarised if necessary) dation (qual.) (quant.) RBD Warnow/Peene Germany - The ratio of built-up areas in the RBD is urban land The built-up built-up area: 625.4 1 indirect A large extent of the built-up area Mecklenburg- quoted as 625.4 sq km, which is 4.6% of use areas are sq km (4.6% of the indication of can be expected to be sealed. (Umweltministerium Western the total RBD area (13619.2 sq km). shown in map total area of the soil Sealing indicates a high level of soil Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Pomerania 102.1 sq km (0.7% of the total area) is 11. RBD) degradation degradation because soil functions & Landesamt für Umwelt, densely developed. The built-up areas (built-up area are severely impaired. It is nearly Naturschutz und Geologie are shown in map 11. does not irreversible (Burghardt et al., 2004). Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, equal the The area ratio of urban areas in the 2004) sealed area) RBD is relatively low compared to densely developed areas in the Netherlands, Belgium and other regions of Germany. RBD Tevere Italy In the Tevere RBD 4.7 % of the area is urban land Figure 6 urban land: 4.7 % of 1 indirect A large extent of the developed area covered by urban land use. The use summarizes the RBD indication of can be expected to be sealed. (General Secretary of the urbanized surface area has considerably the main soil Sealing indicates a high level of soil Tevere River Basin increased as a consequence of the landscape degradation degradation because soil functions Authorit, 2005) population growth. features. (developed are severely impaired. It is nearly Land use area ≠ sealed irreversible (Burghardt et al., 2004). distribution in area) The area ratio of urban areas in the the Tevere RBD is relatively low compared to RBD is densely developed areas in the shown in Netherlands, Belgium and other Figure 8. regions of Germany. RBD Gauja, Latvia Urban areas cover 1.3 % of the Latvian urban land urban areas urban areas: 1.3 % of 1 indirect A large extent of the urban area can RBD Venta, territory. use Latvian territory indication of be expected to be sealed. Sealing RBD Lielupe, RBD soil indicates a high level of soil Daugava degradation degradation because soil functions (urban area ≠ are severely impaired. It is nearly (Ministry of the sealed area) irreversible (Burghardt et al., 2004). Environment of the The area ratio of urban areas in the Republic of Latvia & RBD is relatively low compared to Latvian Environment, densely developed areas in the Geology and Meteorology Netherlands, Belgium and other Agency, 2005) regions of Germany.

Report, Page 112 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 113 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Evaluation of the information on sealing

Information on soil sealing was found in 5 WFD reports addressing international River Basin Districts (see Table 3.3.5.1) and 10 national reports on RBDs (see Table 3.3.5.2). The information found has been ranked in categories 1, 2, and 3 as regards ‘Quality of information’. Soil sealing information from these sources addresses 13 Member States in total. Sealing is not mentioned in any other WFD reports reviewed.

Category of information 1 Indirect Indicators for sealing are mentioned

The majority of information on sealing is based on indirect indicators and is found in 3 reports addressing international RBDs14 and in 10 reports addressing national RBDs15.

Terms such as ‘urban area’, ‘developed area’, and ‘settlements’ refer to areas that are sealed to some extent. These terms normally include non-sealed surfaces that are located inside of urban areas; thus, they are classified as indirect indicators of soil sealing (see Table 3.2.1). Large parts of developed (urban) areas or settlements are sealed, because sealed infrastructure for buildings, industry, and transport is needed in those areas. Al- though the information on soil sealing is not a precise declaration of sealed surfaces, it gives a general indication of the extent to which sealing occurs within a River Basin Dis- trict. However, such general maps and numerical data cannot lead to an evaluation of the local impairment of soil functions.

The majority of the reports provide data about urban areas or settlements in tables of area ratios or in maps of land use. These are mostly provided within an introductory general description of the RBDs or in connection with the characterisation of land use in the River Basin District. Corine Land Cover is mentioned as the data base for the land use maps and data in the RBDs. In two reports, the area ratio of urban area is marginally quoted in the context with the risk assessment for diffuse source pressures where area ratios of arable land, pasture, and forest are of greater concern (German part of RBD Odra and Latvia). Because the information is not part of the risk assessment for water quality, sealing has not been identified directly as a pressure for water quality in any of the River Basin Districts.

14 RBD Elbe (Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Poland); RBD Ems (Germany, Netherlands); RBD Odra (Czech Republic, Germany, Poland) 15 RBD North Jutland in Denmark; RBDs in Estonia; RBDs in France; RBDs Weser, Eider, Schlei/Trave, and Warnow/Peene in Germany; RBD Tevere in Italy; RBDs in Latvia; and RBDs in Spain

Report, Page 114 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Category of information 2 Sealing is identified directly; no further information is available

In two reports addressing the international RBDs Rhine and Scheldt, the term ‘sealing’ is mentioned directly. In the RBD Rhine it is described as a process of deterioration of the natural flood plains causing an increase of flood risk. In the RBD Scheldt sealing is identified directly as a pressure for groundwater renewal. Further information about the level of sealing is not available. Only in these two cases sealing has been identified as a pressure as regards floods or water quantity.

Similar to the reports ranked among category 1 as regards the quality of information, both reports addressing Rhine and Scheldt provide numerical data or a map of developed area or built-up area (see Figure 3.3.5.1). As said before, such general maps and numerical data cannot lead to an evaluation of the local impairment of soil functions.

Figure 3.3.5.1: Example for a map of sealing/use of soil from the Schelde Report (International Commission of the Schelde, 2005)

Report, Page 115 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

For the identification and assessment of sealing as a soil threat, it is essential to be aware of sealing rates, e.g. as a result of aerial photograph analyses. Sealing rates, along with data on soil condition (e.g. infiltration capacity for partial sealed soils, biodiversity data), would make possible an assessment of the deterioration of soil functions. But this type of data is not available in the WFD Article 5 reports. Basically, the available area ratios of urban land give a general idea of the situation of sealing in the River Basin Districts. The area ratio of urban land ranges from 1.3 % of the Latvian territory to 13 % quoted in three German RBDs (Odra, Ems, Scheldt). The problem is more relevant in densely populated areas of Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands than in the less populated areas of Aus- tria, Estonia, and Latvia. Without any further information, it is assumed that sealing always indicates a high level of soil degradation. This is because the soil functions, in particular water storage and permeability and biodiversity pool, are severely impaired by all kinds of surface sealing (Burghardt et al., 2004).

Local conclusions of the level of soil sealing or the impairment of soil function in the area of the River Basin Districts cannot be derived from the available information. The main reason is that sealing has been identified as a pressure only in a few reports and that additional information is not given on soil sealing. It is not adequate to use the indirect information on urban land use from the characterisation of the River Basin Districts for the identification of soil sealing, because these information is too general and only a few WFD Article 5 reports provide data about developed land or the like, so that area-wide results cannot be derived. From our opinion it is better to use data sources directly which are also often during the RBD characterisation (e.g. Corine Land Cover) to derive such general information on land use.

Report, Page 116 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

3.3.6 Compaction

Table 3.3.6.1: Soil degradation by compaction designated in WFD Article 5 reports of international River Basin Districts

Information from WFD Article 5 reports – Compaction - Contractor’s evaluation River Basin District Member State Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring Causes of soil Covered area Covered area Quality of Assessment of Intensity of soil (RBD) (-Region) to soil degradation degradation inform. indications degradation (summarised if necessary) (qual.) (quant.) RBD Rhine Austria, Belgium The increase of flood risk is caused by the river training/ river flood plains no information 2 direct indication The intensity of - Walloon deterioration of natural flood plains along alteration modified during available of soil compaction is unknown. (Republik Italien, Region, France, the Rhine by more than 85 % after river river training degradation It can be expected, that Bundesrepublik Germany, development, straightening and diking the intensity is different Österreich, Luxembourg, (base year 1889) . This was associated in certain parts of flood Bundesrepublik Netherlands with a rapid increase of sealing and soil plains depending on the Deutschland, compaction. soil condition and the Republik effect of river Frankreich, development. Großherzogtum Luxemburg, Königreich Belgien & Königreich der Niederlande, 2005)

Report, Page 117 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Evaluation of the information on compaction

‘Soil compaction’ is mentioned directly (Category 2 of information quality) in one of the reviewed WFD Article 5 reports (RBD Rhine in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, see Table 3.3.6.1). Like sealing (see chapter 3.3.5), compaction is named as a process of deterioration of the natural flood plains, causing an increase of flood risk. Thus, compaction has been identified as a pressure in this case. There is no further information given about the level or intensity of soil compaction. But the increase of flood risk leads to the conclusion that the water storage capacity of the soils is reduced.

Neither direct nor indirect indicators for soil compaction - as named in Table 3.2.1 - have been found during the review of any of the other WFD reports.

Data on relevant soil parameters like bulk density or water permeability is needed for a reasonable identification and assessment of soil compaction. Such data is missing in the WFD Article 5 reports.

3.3.7 Decline in biodiversity

A decline of soil biodiversity is not mentioned in any of the reviewed WFD Article 5 reports. Hence, this soil degradation process has not been directly identified as a pressure for water quality during the risk assessment. Although soil biodiversity decline has an indirect impact on surface water and groundwater quality, it is very difficult to directly link pressures on water to a decline in soil biodiversity.

The characterisation of the River Basin Districts does not contribute to the identification and assessment of the decline in soil biodiversity due to the lack of information on soil biodiversity.

Report, Page 118 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

3.3.8 Salinisation

Table 3.3.8.1: Soil degradation by salinisation designated in WFD Article 5 reports

Information from WFD Article 5 reports - Salinisation - Contractor’s Evaluation River Basin Member Information in WFD Art. 5 report referring to soil Causes of soil Covered area Covered area Quality of Assessment of Intensity of soil degradation District (RBD) State degradation (summarised if necessary) degradation inform. indications (-Region) (qual.) (quant.) RBD Cecina Italy The use of salt water from coastal aquifers for inappropriate coastal zone no 2 direct indication The soil salinisation under irrigation worsens the soils significantly and, in irrigation information of soil extreme conditions is described (Ministero dell' extreme conditions, creates salty pans which impede available degradation to be at a high level threatening Ambiente e della seed germination. Finally, soil salinisation creates the ecosystems and especially Tutela del problems of the ecological and environmental type as the coastal pine forest. The Territorio, 2006) a result of the degradation induced in the coastal pine spatial extent of soil salinisation forests. is mentioned as the coastal zone. RBD Malta Malta An increase of groundwater abstraction by the agricultural land irrigated agricultural no 2 direct indication Soil salinisation is clearly agricultural sector for irrigation purposes occurs. Most use land; greenhouses information of soil identified as a significant (Malta of the land in the area of the Rabat-Dingli Ground- available degradation problem for groundwater quality Resources water Body is irrigated all year round. Irrigation with in the RBD. The level of Authority, 2005) saline water is practiced. In the central Ta Zerb region salinisation in unknown. agricultural activity is widely supplemented through the drilling of boreholes tapping the underlying sea-level groundwater body. This practice is expected to create a larger problem in the long term due to the expected increase in the chloride levels in the groundwater body through mixing with saline groundwater abstracted from the sea-level groundwater body as well as leading to the salinisation of the soil. The central regions of the area of the Pwales Coastal Groundwater Body host significant areas with greenhouse cultivation. Studies by the Department of Agriculture have indicated that the problem of soil salinity is most salient in greenhouse production systems. Salinisation has been identified in 12 of 16 groundwater bodies in Malta.

Report, Page 119 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Evaluation of the information on salinisation

Information on salinisation of soils was only found in two WFD Article 5 reports and it was ranked at category 2 as regards the ‘Quality of information’.

Category of information 2 Salinisation is identified directly; no further information is available

Salinisation is mentioned directly in the WFD reports of Malta and the RBD Cecina in Italy (see Table 3.3.8.1).

In the RBD Cecina in Italy the use of salt water from coastal aquifers for irrigation is described as a significant pressure for soil degradation. The soil salinisation under extreme conditions is described to be a high level threat to the ecosystems and especially the coastal pine forest. The spatial extent of soil salinisation is mentioned as the coastal zone.

In the RBD Malta the use of saline water for Irrigation is described. This practice is expected to create a larger problem in the long term due to the expected increase in the chloride levels in the groundwater body through mixing with saline groundwater abstracted from the sea-level groundwater body as well as leading to the salinisation of the soil. Studies by the Department of Agriculture have indicated that the problem of soil salinity is most salient in greenhouse production systems.

Salinisation is mentioned in Italy with the spatial focus on the costal zone, but there is no further information, e.g data about salt content of soils, needed for a proper assessment of the level of soil salinisation.

In conclusion, the characterisation of the River Basin Districts is not currently contributing to the identification and assessment of salinisation. At most, the general information on areas with conditions for salinisation can be used to get a general idea of regional risk areas for salinisation where the process has been identified as a threat for the environmental quality.

It has to be noticed that saltwater intrusion into groundwater bodies has been identified as a pressure for groundwater quality in many RBDs. But usually there is no interlinkage between this process and the process of soil salinisation.

Report, Page 120 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

3.3.9 Floods and landslides

Several WFD Article 5 reports contain general information about flood risks and flood defence measures (e.g. RBD Danube). Flood risks have not been directly identified as a pressure for water quality, but instead as a pressure for human activities and human lives, damaging buildings, infrastructures, and agricultural land in flood plain areas. Hence, flood risks usually do not play a role during the risk assessment for ecological and chemical water quality.

The information found on floods in the Article 5 reports only mentions that a flood risk occurs or that measures have been adopted to mitigate flood impacts. A one-to-one identification between flood risk areas and soil risk areas cannot be made, but there is a potential interlinkage between the two. Floods in flood risk areas have negative impacts on the soil (erosion, contamination, and biodiversity loss). The characterisation of the River Basin Districts does not provide any indication of a degradation of soils in flood plains or other affected areas. The general information on flood risk areas as soil degradation areas has not been collected in detail, because the given information does not imply any added information on the impact of floods on soils.

Landslides are not mentioned as a pressure for water quality in any of the WFD Article 5 reports.

In conclusion, the characterisation of the River Basin Districts does not contribute to the identification and the assessment of soil degradation processes by floods and landslides due to a lack of information on local impacts of these threats on soils.

Report, Page 121 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

3.4 Summarised evaluation of the WFD Article 5 reports

The information provided in the WFD Article 5 reports reviewed in this study is often too general to derive conclusions for soil degradation. Only in a few cases is comparatively detailed, quantitative information presented (e.g. for erosion and sealing). Not all reports provide enough background information to get a full insight into the methodology of risk assessment. Because of the different level of detail of the basin-wide reports which are provided the European Commission, it is not certain whether all relevant information available from the WFD process could have been gathered. The WFD Article 5 reports focusing on a sub-basin level, probably contain better information and more detail. But a review of these reports is not a subject of this project. The information on soil degradation is for the most part sufficient to answer the first key question concerning whether the soil threats that have been identified as a pressure for water quality. We assume that a soil threat has not been identified as a pressure if it is not mentioned explicitly in the report as such.

1) Extent to which soil threats have been identified as pressures for water quality (1st key question)

Erosion was identified to a different extent in 32 reports as a pressure for water qual- ity16 and it was identified indirectly in 3 WFD Article 5 reports. In 2 reports detailed information is given. Decline in organic matter was not identified specifically as a pressure for water quality in any of the reports. Rather, 11 reports identified practices which can be reasonably being expected to cause a decline in organic matter (such as a decrease in groundwater levels or air exposure of waterlogged soils). Local contamination of soils was identified as a pressure for water quality in 37 reports; but overall no detailed information was available on the location and intensity of local soil contamination. Only 5 reports provided specific information about the covered area in the form of maps. Diffuse sources for water contamination was identified as a pressure for water quality in nearly all reports, but the reports do not address specifically the diffuse contamination of soils. What can be observed is that 14 of the reports provide indirect indicators as regards diffuse soil contamination, such as nutrient input or atmospherical deposition. Apart from this, 36 of the reports mention pesticide application indicating that soil contamination is likely. However, the level of contamination and the pathways of contaminants causing water pollution are not described in detail.

16 Memo: 51 reports addressing 121 RBD in the 25 Member States have been evaluated (see Chapter 3.1).

Report, Page 122 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Sealing was identified as a pressure for water bodies with respect to groundwater renewal or increasing flood risk in only two reports: the Rhine RDB and the Scheldt RBD. Moreover, it has been mentioned indirectly in 13 reports. Compaction was only mentioned in one of the WFD Article 5 reports (RBD Rhine) directly and was identified as a pressure that increases flood risks. Salinisation was addressed directly in only 2 reports. In both cases, the process of soil salinisation was not identified as a pressure for water quality but rather as a consequence of groundwater overexploitation due to agriculture or tourism.17 Decline in biodiversity as well as Floods and Landslides as soil degradation processes were not mentioned in the evaluated reports. Several WFD Article 5 reports contain general information about flood risks and flood defence measures, but an impact on soils by floods has not been identified. Table 3.4.1 sums-up the results structured for the Member States. The table underlines the different extent to which soil threats have been identified in the WFD Article 5 reports, i.e. erosion, local and diffuse contamination much more important during the WFD risk assessment in the majority of RBDs than SOM decline, sealing, compaction, biodiversity decline, salinisation, floods and landslides.

17 Note: Saltwater intrusion into groundwater bodies has been identified as a pressure in many RBDs. But usually there is no interlinkage between this process and the process of soil salinisation.

Report, Page 123 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Table 3.4.1: Soil degradation in the European Member States due to the evaluation of the WFD Article 5 reports O = the soil threat has not been mentioned at all in the reports addressing the MS (x) = there is general information on the soil threat in the reports addressing the MS X = there is detailed information on the soil threat in the report (Quality category 5)

Member State

Erosion Decline in organic matter Local contamination Diffuse contamination Sealing Compaction Decline in biodiversity Salinisation & Landslides Floods

Austria (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) O O O Belgium (x) O (x) (x) (x) (x) O O O Cyprus (x) O (x) (x) O O O O O

Czech Republic X (x) (x) (x) (x) O O O O Denmark (x) O (x) (x) (x) O O O O Estonia O (x) (x) (x) (x) O O O O Finland O O (x) (x) O O O O O

France X (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) O O O Germany (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) O O O Greece (x) O (x) (x) O O O O O Hungary (x) (x) (x) (x) O O O O O Ireland O O (x) (x) O O O O O Italy (x) O (x) (x) (x) O O (x) O Latvia (x) O (x) (x) (x) O O O O Lithuania (x) O (x) (x) O O O O O Luxembourg (x) O (x) (x) (x) (x) O O O Malta (x) O (x) (x) O O O (x) O Netherlands (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) O O O Poland (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) O O O O Portugal O O (x) (x) O O O O O Slovak Republic (x) (x) (x) (x) O O O O O Slovenia (x) (x) (x) (x) O O O O O Spain (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) O O O O Sweden O O (x) (x) O O O O O United Kingdom (x) O (x) (x) O O O O O

Report, Page 124 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

2) Identification and assessment of soil degradation clustered by the categories of information quality (2nd key question)

Soil degradation processes can only be identified from the characterisation of the River Basin Districts if there is a minimum set of information provided (e.g. clear terms referring to soil threats, local information on the affected area). For a successful assessment of soil degradation processes, particular information about the level of soil degradation (e.g. quantitative data on soil threats such as pollutant contents in soils) is required (for background information on data requirements see Table 3.2.3). The five categories of information quality are discussed in the following sections (for an explanation of the categories see Table 3.2.2): (0) If there is a complete lack of useful information on soil degradation, an identification and assessment of soil degradation processes from the characterisation of River Basin Districts is not feasible. Thus, the characterisation of River Basin Dis- tricts is currently not an appropriate tool for the identification and assessment of a decline in biodiversity, floods and landslides. When information is provided on soil threats, the quantity and quality of information varies. If a soil threat such as erosion or local contamination has been identified as a pressure for water quality, there is more information given in the reports than if only indirect indicators imply that a soil threat is relevant for water quality in a given River Basin District. (1) Information based on indirect indicators cannot be used to identify and assess the soil degradation process, because the information given is too general and does not have enough significance to draw reasonable conclusions on soil degradation processes. The available information on a decline in organic matter, diffuse contamination and sealing is largely based on indirect indicators and is therefore of very limited value for the identification and assessment of these soil degradation processes. At most, broad indications of pressures for soil quality in the River Basin Districts can be derived that have been concurrently identified as pressures for water quality. (2) If a soil threat is identified directly, but no further useful information on the level of soil degradation and the affected area is available, this information can be used to identify general soil degradation processes in a River Basin District (e.g. if erosion is identified as a pressure or not). However, due to a lack of precise data about the affected area, it will not be possible to draw conclusions about the spatial extent of degradation. The information cannot be used for an assessment because there is no data on the types and levels of soil degradation. The majority of information on erosion, local and diffuse contamination gathered during the review of WFD Article 5 reports is of this type of quality.

Report, Page 125 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

(3) The more detailed information contains information about the covered area, e.g. a map. If the information is directly available in the WFD reports, it could be useful for an identification of soil degradation on a basin-wide scale, e.g. a selection of contaminated sites, which have been identified as a significant risk for water quality. Due to the lack of information on the level of soil degradation, this kind of information cannot be used for an assessment of soil degradation. Information like that is only available in 5 WFD Article 5 reports referring to local contamination. (4) If a soil threat is identified directly and there is information on the level of soil degradation, this can be regarded as a general basis to identify and assess soil degradation processes. Such information was only found in one WFD Article 5 reports concerning soil erosion. But the provided data such as basin-wide sediment loads into rivers and lakes is not useful without further data collection to get precise information on the local degradation level. (5) Information of category 5 mentions a soil threat directly and contains detailed information about the level of soil degradation and the covered area. Such information can be used for the identification of degradation processes and an assessment of the level of soil degradation, but it is very scarce in the WFD Article 5 reports. Only in two reports was detailed information found on soil erosion rates. In this special case, quantitative data on soil loss is provided, and a map of soil loss mentioned. Whereas the basin-wide soil loss rate is of limited value due to spatial variety of erosion processes, the map of soil loss would be useful. How- ever, it is not available in the report.

The detailed results are compiled in Table 3.4.2. This table summarises the quantity of findings for each soil threat and the quality of information classified according to Table 3.2.2. The number of findings and the quality of information demonstrate the variable importance of soil threats in the WFD Article 5 reports.

Report, Page 126 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Table 3.4.2: Amount and quality of information on soil degradation in the WFD Article 5 reports

Soil threat Information on soil Number of reports Extent of pressure for threat has been found with different quality of information water quality in… Number of Number of Member reports States (51 total (25 total) evaluated) no information about soil threat indirect Indicators for soil threat are mentioned is identified Soil threat directly; no further information is available information about covered area is available information about intensity of soil degradation is available detailed information about intensity of soil degradation and area is available

0 1 2 3 4 5 identified as a pressure, extent is unknown or Erosion 20 35 16 3 29 0 1 2 identified as a pressure, significant or major extent Decline in organic 11 11 40 11 0 0 0 0 not explicitely identified as a matter pressure identified as a pressure, extent is unknown or Local 25 37 14 0 32 5 0 0 contamintation identified as a pressure; less important, significant, or very important not explicitely identified as a pressure, Diffuse 25 50 1 14 36 0 0 0 diffuse source pressures contamintation (not only deriving from soils) identified as main risk for groundwater not explicitely identified as a pressure or Sealing 13 15 36 13 2 0 0 0 identified as a pressure for groundwater renewal or floods identified as a pressure for Compaction 6 1 50 0 1 0 0 0 an increase of flood risk, extent is unknown Decline in not explicitely identified as a 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 biodiversity pressure not explicitely identified as a Salinisation 3 3 48 0 2 0 0 0 pressure identified as a pressure (floods), extent is unknown Floods and 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 and Landslides not explicitely identified as a pressure (landslides)

Report, Page 127 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Conclusions

The information in the reports has been compiled by the Member States with a focus on water issues and aims to achieve sustainable water management. In the characterisation of the River Basins, the current situation of the water quality in all rivers, lakes, transitional, coastal and groundwater bodies had to be identified. Therefore, in the reports soil issues have only been mentioned if there was a link between water quality and soils. This link seems to be obvious for the Member States with regard to erosion and contamination. However for other threats such as sealing, compaction, landslides and salinisation where the interaction between soil quality and water quality is evident, they have not been identified as pressures for water quality. For soil organic matter decline and soil biodiversity, the link with water quality is much more difficult to establish, hence it is not surprising that none of the reports mention them as pressures on water. In most reports the causes and pathways for pressures related to soil issues and their impact on water quality are not described in detail. The evaluation of the WFD Article 5 reports showed:

Soil degradation was identified in the basin-wide and national Article 5 reports as a pressure on water quality for only a few soil threats. Soil status was taken into account in some cases regarding soil characteristics during the risk assessment for surface water and groundwater (e.g. the vulnerability of soils for erosion). Often no detailed information on the methodology was available, so the degree to which soil status was actually considered is unknown The identification of the soil status and soil degradation processes identified as pressures for water quality on a general level is possible, with particular refer- rence to the soil threats erosion and local soil contamination. Soil degradation processes not identified as a problem for water resources cannot be identified as soil threats from the WFD Article 5 reports. The basin-wide and national characterisation of the River Basin Districts mostly does not provide any applicable information on the level of soil degradation (e.g. soil loss maps for erosion, concentrations of pollutants in soils, soil carbon contents). Hence, the information given in the evaluated WFD Article 5 reports is limited for the assessment of soil degradation processes. Further, some general issues limit the value and usability of the characterisation reports for the River Basin Districts. This is primarily because of the designation of RBD based on hydrological criteria and not under consideration of soil condition (e.g. soil type) or soil pressures (e.g. pollutant emissions). Data that is based on the spatial designation of RBDs is not adequate for the identification and assessment of soil degradation processes. On one hand, areas with different soil state and soil degradation processes have to be distinguished within River Basins to derive meaningful results. On the other hand, areas with a homogeneous soil state are intersected by the basin boundaries. Cross-basin in-

Report, Page 128 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

formation on soil degradation processes cannot be derived easily due to the heterogeneity of methods and information quality within the characterisation of the River Basin Districts. The information of the WFD reports basically covers only those areas where soil threats are expected to have a significant impact on surface water and/or groundwater. Soil degradation processes which are not expected to have a significant impact on water quality are not mentioned in the characterisation of the River Basin District. Hence, an analysis of the WFD Article 5 reports does not yield area-wide results on soil degradation processes in the European Mem- ber States. It is assumed, that national inventory systems for contaminated sites contain more valuable information than the WFD Article 5 reports (e.g. pollutants, level of contamination). Thus, direct access to such data bases might be more useful for gaining information about this soil threat. In this case, the Article 5 reports at most give hints for the identification of contaminated sites which may be problematic for groundwater quality. From the information contained of the WFD reports a conclusion regarding what the most threatened soil function cannot be drawn on the local scale of River Basin Districts. It has to be underlined that, with very limited exceptions, the WFD Article 5 reports do not have relevant information on organic matter decline, sealing, compaction, salinisation and landslides. Even for those degradation processes, such as erosion and contamination, for which there is some information, the insufficient level of detail and the different focus of the reports, which are geared towards water rather than soil protection, make the reports of limited relevance in the context of soil policy. Moreover, given the potentially high impacts that salinisation, landslides, compaction and sealing can have on the water cycle, addressing these issues in the reports in more depth, would certainly have contributed to achieve an adequate protection of water bodies.

Report, Page 129 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

4 CROSS COMPLIANCE

4.1 Background and context of Regulation No 1782/2003

History and objectives Cross Compliance (CC) was introduced first, albeit in a limited way, by the McSharry reforms in 1992. In the Agenda 2000 reform from 1999, a more developed cross compliance policy was announced as an optional policy tool to promote environmental policy integration. This reform must be considered within the context of EU commitments to integrating environmental objectives into internal policies and improving the sustainable management of natural resources (Swales, 2007). However, relatively few countries used the option to implement CC on a voluntary basis (Kristensen and Primdahl, 2004; Dwyer et al., 2000). Through the 2003 mid-term reform CC became an obligatory policy of the CAP and was extended to include not only environmental issues but also public, animal and plant health and animal welfare issues. It has been in operation in the EU 15 since 2005 and in a limited/partial way in the EU 27.

CC is a policy tool that attaches conditions to the receipt of agricultural subsidies/direct payments. Therefore it can be considered a link between granting income support to farmers and their compliance with specified requirements (concerning the protection of the environment, food safety, public, animal and plant health and animal welfare, and good agricultural and environmental conditions) in theirs and in the public's interest.

Its aims are:

• to enforce compliance with pre-existing legislation in the areas concerned,

• to avoid abandonment of land and ensure that it is maintained in good agricultural and environmental condition, and

• to maintain permanent pastures.

The 2003 Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) reform introduced a Single Payment Scheme (SPS) and the decoupling18 of production for EU-farmers. Since 2005, all farmers receiving direct payments are subject to compulsory cross-compliance (Council Regulation No 1782/2003 and Commission Regulation No 796/2004).

18 Decoupling: breaking the link between production on farm level and the amount of support received.

Report, Page 130 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Single Payment Scheme and Single Area Payment Scheme

In the EU 15 farmers must apply the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) if they want to receive direct payments. The SPS pays farmers for the land that they manage or own. Farmers can submit a claim for each year based on their land and their entitlements. Entitlements are the farmer’s ‘right’ to claim. In order to gain these rights, farmers had to have made a successful claim during the first year of SPS, linked to previous years' production, or purchase them from another farmer.

As regards the New Member States, in the first years after accession these countries may opt for a different type of direct aid scheme - Single Area Payment Scheme (SAPS) - which is not available in the EU-15. This ‘Single Area Payment Scheme’ involves payment of uniform amounts per hectare of agricultural land in the Member State concerned, up to a national ceiling resulting from the accession agreements.

Ten of twelve new Member States have decided on this scheme (European Commission, 2007b). In 2007, Malta and Slovenia began the implementation of the regional model of Single Payment Scheme. This was possible since Malta and Slovenia already had an Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS, the EU’s subsidy payment scheme) or similar system before accession, and had programs in place that closely resembled the CAP direct aid system and therefore allowed a historic calculation of payments to farmers which is required for the SPS (Hofhanzl and Postulka, 2004). In those new Member States applying the SAPS, only the good agricultural and environmental condition and requirements on permanent pastures are mandatory. This possibility (SMRs not covered under CC) will be eliminated in 2009 (except Bulgaria and Romania)19. In the other new Member States, where the SPS or other CAP direct payments are operated, cross-compliance applies fully. The Table 4.1.1 below gives an overview of the timetable of the application of cross- compliance standards in old and new Member States.

Table 4.1.1: Cross-compliance implementation in MS-27

Applicable Statutory Management Requirements Articles Old MS-15, New MS-12, from Malta and except Malta Slovenia and Slovenia 2005 All 11 GAEC Standards √ √ Environment 2005 Wild Birds Directive 79/409/EEC 3, 4(1), √ (2), (4), 5, 7, 8 Groundwater Directive 80/68/EEC 4, 5 √ Sewage Sludge Directive 86/278/EEC 3 √

19 Application of cross compliance to Romania and Bulgaria is foreseen as from 2012 (2014 and 2016 respectively). GAEC standards for Romania and Bulgaria are compulsory from 2007.

Report, Page 131 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Applicable Statutory Management Requirements Articles Old MS-15, New MS-12, from Malta and except Malta Slovenia and Slovenia Nitrates Directive 91/676/EEC 4, 5 √ Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC 6, 13, 15, √ 22(b) Public and animal health/Identification and registration of animals 2005 Identification and Registration of Animals Directive 3, 4, 5 √ 92/102/EEC Regulation (EC) No 2629/97 on eartags, holding registers 6, 8 √ and passports in the framework of the system for the identification and registration of bovine animals Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 on identification and 4, 7 √ registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 on identification and 3, 4, 5 √ registration of ovine and caprine animals Public, animal and plant health 2006 Directive 91/414/EEC on the placing of plant protection 3 √ products on the market Directive 96/22/EC on the prohibition on the use in 3, 4, 5, 7 √ stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of beta-agonists Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 on general principles and 14, 15, √ requirements of food law, the European Food Safety 17(1), 18, Authority and procedures in matters of food safety 19, 20 Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 on the prevention, control 7, 11, 12, √ and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform 13, 15 encephalopathies Notification of diseases 2006 Directive 85/511/EEC on measures for the control of foot- 3 √ and-mouth disease Directive 92/119/EEC on measures for the control of 3 √ certain animal diseases and specific measures relating to swine vesicular disease Directive 2000/75/EC on specific provisions for the control 3 √ and eradication of bluetongue

Animal welfare 2007 Directive 91/629/EEC on minimum standards for the 3, 4 √ protection of calves Directive 91/630/EEC on minimum standards for the 3, 4(1) √ protection of pigs Directive 98/58/EC on protection of animals kept for 4 √ farming purposes

2009 All 19 Statutory Management Requirements √ √

Source: The table is compiled on the basis of information provided in Annex III and Annex IV of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and European Commission (2007b).

Report, Page 132 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Implementation

Based on the different objectives of the instrument farmers must adhere to cross- compliance standards in three ways:

• First, as Article 4 requires, they must comply with the statutory management requirements (SMRs) set-up in accordance with 19 EU Directives and Regulations, listed in Annex III of Regulation No 1782/2003 (amended by Regulation No 21/2004). The standards relate to the protection of the environment; public, animal and plant health; food safety and animal welfare.

• The second part of cross-compliance is the requirement of Article 5(1) that all agricultural land farmed by individuals claiming payment should be kept in good agricultural and environmental condition (GAEC). GAEC standards are defined in Annex IV to Regulation No 1782/2003 (amended by Regulation No 21/2004).

• In addition, Article 5(2) sets a provision to maintain permanent pasture. According to this provision, Member States (other than new Member States) have to ensure that land that was under permanent pasture on the date provided in the area aid applications for 2003 (for the new Member States - on 1st of May 2004) is maintained under permanent pasture. However, a Member State may derogate from that requirement, provided that it takes action to prevent any significant decrease in its total permanent pasture area. The provision is not applied to land under permanent pasture to be afforested, if such afforestation is compatible with the environment and with the exclusion of plantations of Christmas trees and fast growing species cultivated in the short term.

SMRs and GAEC standards As regards the SMRs, the Member States have to apply the legal provisions referred to in Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. Regarding regulations, the provisions should be implemented as they are defined in the regulation itself, and in the case of directives, as they are defined in the national legislation. In any case, only specific articles of the mentioned directives/regulations are concerned and not the directive/regulation as a whole.

SMRs and the GAEC standards are mandatory, but apply to the land area covered by direct payments. While Regulation No 1782/2003 specifies that all the land belonging to a farmer is subject to cross-compliance, even if only part of it is eligible for direct payments, it should be borne in mind that certain Common Market Organisations (e.g. for wine, vegetables and fruits) or certain land use types (e.g. forestry) are currently not included in the scheme. This means that cross-compliance, by itself, does not necessarily cover all European agricultural land. In case of non-compliance, farmers will be sanctioned by partial reduction or complete withdrawal of direct support for the year in which non-compliance occurred.

Report, Page 133 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

The intention to include GAEC standards in the cross-compliance regulation is based in part on the fear that large parts of formerly agricultural land will fall abandoned after the de-coupling. Abandonment of farmland on a large scale is considered to be counterproductive for the objectives of several directives (e.g. Habitat Directive), although the environmental impact, both positive and negative, is likely to be quite variable.

In order to adhere to the GAECs, Member States have to define minimum standards on the basis of the Community framework as set up in Annex IV to Regulation No 1782/2003. These should be defined, according to Art. 5(1), taking into account the specific characteristics of the areas concerned, including soil and climatic condition, existing farming systems, land use, crop rotation, farming practices and farm structures. This means that Member States implement the most relevant GAEC standards, based on local conditions. Implementation of all standards and measures is therefore not necessarily required. This results in a high variety of minimum requirements depending on the country, the location within the country and on the area chosen. The Member States can define the geographical level, (i.e. the national or the regional level), at which the minimum requirements for GAEC are defined. Although each Member State has flexibility in deciding which GAEC standards to implement, the Member States must, as part of the GAEC, ensure the maintenance of the permanent pasture at the national level.

While some Member States have used cross compliance to compensate for gaps in their existing national legislation, other Member States already had a legislative framework in place and merely adopted that framework for cross compliance. This resulted in some Member States incorporating measures within their GAEC framework that go beyond the scope and philosophy of Annex IV of Reg. 1782/03 (Dimopoulos et al. 2006).

The implementing rules for cross-compliance are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 796/2004. They include the provisions for:

• the management of permanent pastures (Articles 3 and 4); • the control provisions (Articles 9 and Articles 41 to 48); and • the provisions for the follow-up of findings after controls (Articles 65 to 67).

The Member States are required to carry out control, i.e. verify whether the farmer complies with the requirements and standards under cross-compliance. The Member States have to carry out administrative checks on cross-compliance (Art. 43 of Regulation No 796/2004) or on-the-spot-checks on cross-compliance (Art. 25(1) of Regulation 1782/2003 and Art. 44-48 of Regulation 796/2004). While the Member State itself decides on the rate of administrative checks, Article 44(1) of Regulation No 796/2004 requires on-the-spot-checks for at least 1 % of all farmers submitting aid applications for direct support, unless the Member State has set a higher rate. If there

Report, Page 134 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

is a significant degree of non-compliance in a given area of cross-compliance, the number of on-the-spot-checks can be increased in the following control period.

In accordance with Article 146 of Regulation No 1782/2003, Member States are obliged to inform the Commission of the measures taken to implement the maintenance of the GAEC on all agricultural land and of the ratio of permanent pasture in the Member States.

4.2 Methodology

The aim of this chapter on Cross Compliance is to determine how cross-compliance, as interpreted by the Member States, contributes to soil protection, i.e. prevents, reduces or combats, the risk of the nine soil threats indicated in the Soil Thematic Strategy, namely: • soil erosion, • decline in soil organic matter, • local and diffuse contamination, • sealing, • compaction, • decline in soil biodiversity, • salinisation, and • floods and landslides.

The Cross Compliance chapter is divided into two main parts, which will be evaluated separately: (1) the Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) standards, and

(2) the Statutory Management Requirements (SMRs).

The following four-step approach was used to evaluate how Cross Compliance contributes to soil protection:

1. The first step is to collect relevant information about how Cross Compliance, i.e. the national GAEC standards and SMRs are implemented in the different Member States.

2. The second step is to identify the measures among the national GAEC standards and from the national provisions under the relevant SMRs as defined by the Member States.

Report, Page 135 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

3. The third step is to classify the quality of information provided in the identified measures, focusing on details provided in the definitions as defined by the Member States.

4. The fourth step is to evaluate the measures, focusing especially on soil protection issues.

A short description of how these steps will be performed is provided below:

Step 1: Collection of relevant information

Information was collected for the following:

• national GAEC standards in Member States defined in accordance to the criteria set in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003;

• national statutory management requirements in Member States set under the relevant articles of the five environmental directives as indicated in the Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003; and

• implementation status of Cross Compliance in Member States.

This information was collected from three types of sources:

1. relevant ongoing research projects on the implementation of Cross Compliance (for more details see Annex 3 to this report);

2. relevant Ministerial websites of the Member States to determine national regulations on Cross Compliance implementation. In addition, we contacted the responsible persons by email or telephone in order to request these regulations; and

3. several Member States national experts in order to fill in data gaps and provide more detail.

The definitions of the national GAEC standards and relevant SMRs are cited directly from the indicated information sources; no adjustments were made. In most cases the data quality was very heterogeneous. In some cases, the data sources provided differently detailed information on measures for one Member State. In all cases the reviewed projects covered only a selected number of Member States.

Additional information on agricultural statistics in the Member States was collected. This includes data on the percentage of arable land or permanent pasture in a Member State as provided by the European Commission (2007b) as well as surveys and indicators on soil degradation status quo carried out by the European Environment Agency.

Report, Page 136 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Step 2: Identification of measures

Comparison of national GAEC standards and national SMRs is difficult due to differences in level of detail and definition of terms. As mentioned above, the definitions of the national standards are quoted from the indicated information sources; no adjustments were made.

Therefore, for clarity in this comparative analysis, in the GAEC part, measures were identified and classified according to the standards defined in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 under the four GAEC issues (see Table 4.3.1 below). The attribution of a given measure to one of the GAEC standards has been done by the Member States themselves. "Other standards" were identified as such by the used information sources, i.e. the CIFAS study (EEA, 2006) and the Cross Compliance Network Project (2005-2007) (IEEP, 2006). These studies used multiple sources (e.g. semi-structured interviews with officials from Member State governments who are actively involved in implementing or developing cross compliance in their country and translation of legal documents from Member States). Some Member States have indicated ‘Maintenance of olive groves in good vegetative conditions’ as an additional standard under the issue ‘Minimum level of maintenance’.

It is important to note that the Member States have identified a wide variety of measures to address one GAEC standard. For example, under the soil issue ‘soil erosion’, ‘minimum soil cover’ is one of the standards listed in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. To achieve this standard, different Member States have defined three different types of measures. These measures include:

• Measures concerning the establishment of plant cover or the reduction or restriction of ploughing;

• Measures concerning the performance of soil protection review or preparation of soil erosion plan; and

• Measures concerning the share of permanent grassland.

In the third and fourth steps respectively, each of these identified three measures will be described and evaluated separately.

For the SMRs part, measures were identified that have been set by Member States to transpose the SMRs (i.e. relevant articles) in the following five environmental directives, as defined in Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, into their national legislation (see Table 4.4.1 below):

• Birds Directive (79/409/EEC);

• Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC);

• Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC);

Report, Page 137 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

• Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC); and

• Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC).

The other fourteen directives are not relevant to soil protection and therefore were not analysed in detail. However, Annex 5 to this report provides an overview of all the SMRs of Cross Compliance and their possible impact on soil protection.

In this step, measures have been identified according to terms and criteria indicating soil protection, for example:

• application of fertilisers as indicated in the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) in order to prevent or reduce diffuse contamination; and

• discharge of dangerous substances in the Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC) in order to avoid local contamination.

Step 3: Classification of information quality

In the third step, the identified measures are described to determine the quality of information according to the following criteria:

• What measure-relevant details are provided in the definition of the national GAEC standards and national provisions of the relevant SMRs?; and

• How detailed are the measures defined by the Member States?

The first criteria consider quality indicators of particular relevance to soil threats, for example:

• site conditions: - scope of the measure, (i.e. if the measure is used on all agricultural land or part of it) (relevant for all soil threats); - slope (relevant especially for soil erosion); - areas prone/vulnerable to certain soil threats (relevant for soil erosion, soil compaction, soil salinisation); - soil quality/soil type, (e.g. amount of C, other chemical elements, or pH) (relevant for soil organic matter and soil salinisation).

• timing: - consideration of wet or dry periods of year (relevant to soil compaction);

Report, Page 138 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

• technical specifications: - characteristics of tyres – wide, low-pressure (relevant to soil compaction); - drainage systems (relevant to soil erosion and soil compaction);

• management practices: - reduced/no tillage (relevant to soil organic matter, soil erosion, soil compaction); contour tillage (relevant to soil erosion); and - grazing or mechanical treatment (relevant to soil compaction).

The second criteria considers quality of information according to two categories:

• simple measures providing general information (e.g. providing the name of the measure, but no details on it); and

• more complex measures providing detailed information, (e.g. giving details/instructions how the measure has to be performed).

Step 4: Evaluation of measures

A qualitative analysis of each measure (identified in Step 2) under both the GAEC standards and SMR will be evaluated answering two main questions, stemming from the nine key questions indicated in the Technical Annex and listed in the Box below:

1. Does the measure addresses (i.e. is likely to prevent, reduce or combat) any soil threat from the nine indicated in the Soil Thematic Strategy?; and

2. To what extent does the measure contribute to soil protection?

The most important source of information for this step is the authors' own evaluation supported by relevant statements from the scientific literature. Each question will be analysed as follows:

1. Does the measure addresses (i.e. prevents, reduces or combats) any soil threat from the nine indicated in the Soil Thematic Strategy?

Using expert and scientific knowledge, each measure will be evaluated to determine whether the measure addresses any soil threat. Examples will be drawn from the literature to show the relationship of the measure-relevant details, provided in the description of a measure, to certain soil threat.

Report, Page 139 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

The analysis will distinguish between:

• measures that do not have any impact on any soil threat, but rather focus on other aims than to protect the soil resources (e.g. protection of groundwater or human health); and

• measures that address one or more soil threat either directly or indirectly.

2. To what extent does a measure contribute to soil protection?

The analysis will also determine the extent to which measure contributes to soil protection on the basis of findings from the first question and the quality of information (identified in Step 3). Evaluation will be conducted in a qualitative way according to the following criteria:

• In cases where the measure provides detailed information and contains measure- relevant details that are determined to properly address a certain soil threat, the measure is considered very relevant/effective in solving soil problems.

• In cases where the measure provides general information but indicates several measure-relevant details that are determined to properly address a certain soil threat, the measure is considered relevant/effective in solving soil problems.

• In cases where the measure provides general information and does not indicate any measure-relevant details, the measure is not evaluated.

The following nine key questions on cross-compliance (see the box below) will be answered in this Report evaluating the contribution of SMRs and GAEC standards to soil protection.

Cross Compliance questions indicated in the Technical Annex:

(1) What statutory management requirements (SMRs) can be expected to contribute to preventing soil threats? To what extent can they contribute to preventing or reducing soil degradation processes?

(2) What standards are identified to combat soil erosion? To what extent can such standards contribute to preventing or reducing soil erosion?

(3) What standards are identified to combat organic matter decline? To what extent can such standards contribute to stabilising or increasing soil organic matter compared to 1990 levels?

(4) What standards are identified to combat compaction? To what extent can such standards contribute to preventing or reducing compaction?

Report, Page 140 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

(5) Are there any requirements (SMRs) or standards (GAECs) that may be expected to contribute to the prevention of local and diffuse contamination of soils? To what extent can such standards contribute to preventing or reducing soil contamination?

(6) Are there any requirements (SMRs) or standards (GAECs) that will contribute to preventing or minimising a loss of soil biodiversity? To what extent can such standards contribute to preventing or reducing soil biodiversity loss?

(7) Are there any requirements (SMRs) or standards (GAECs) that may be expected to contribute to combating soil salinisation? To what extent can such standards contribute to preventing or reducing soil salinisation?

(8) Are there any standards (GAECs) related to minimum level of maintenance that may be expected to contribute to preventing or reducing any soil threat? To what extent can such standards contribute to preventing or reducing specific soil threats?

(9) Art. 5 of Regulation (EC) No. 1782/2003 requires Member States to define the measures on the basis of local specific conditions, and that the possibility of transferring experience gained in one place to another maybe somewhat reduced. Therefore, what differences are there in the budget spending and administrative effort of different measures having a similar environmental outcome in terms of soil protection and optimisation of soil functions? How could less efficient measures be improved?

4.3 GAEC under Cross Compliance and their contribution to soil conservation

In this section we present a review and analysis of the national Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition standards that address the issues of soil erosion, soil organic matter, soil structure and minimum level of maintenance as adopted in the 25 reviewed Member States on the basis of the Community framework as set up in Annex IV to Regulation No 1782/2003 (see Table 4.3.1 below):

Report, Page 141 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Table 4.3.1: Good agricultural and environmental conditions as defined in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003

Soil Issue Standards Soil erosion: - Minimum soil cover Protect soil through - Minimum land management reflecting site-specific conditions appropriate measures - Retain terraces Soil organic matter: - Standards for crop rotations where applicable Maintain soil organic matter - Arable stubble management levels through appropriate practices Soil structure: - Appropriate machinery use Maintain soil structure through appropriate measures Minimum level of - Minimum livestock stocking rates or/and appropriate regimes maintenance: - Protection of permanent pasture Ensure a minimum level of maintenance and avoid the - Retention of landscape features deterioration of habitats - Avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land

The national GAEC standards adopted by Member States are mandatory for farmers and apply to the whole farm, provided that a part of it is covered by direct payments. They must be followed in order to comply with the cross compliance instrument.

4.3.1 Soil erosion

4.3.1.1 Introduction

In this section we consider the impact of the measures adopted by Member States for the GAEC standards relative to 'soil erosion'. Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 requires that soil is protected against soil erosion through the following three standards, i.e.:

• minimum soil cover;

• minimum land management reflecting site-specific conditions; and

• the measure to retain terraces.

The following Tables 4.3.1.1.1 and 4.3.1.1.2 show how the Member States define these standards in their national legislation. Chapter 4.3.1.2 gives a summarised overview of these national measures.

Chapter 4.3.1.3 further evaluates each measure to determine the extent to which each contributes to prevention or reduction of soil erosion.

Report, Page 142 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.1.1.1: Measures to protect soil against soil erosion in Member States

Measure/ Standard Description of Measure/Standard Member State – Region Minimum soil cover Soil Protection from erosion through the maintenance of green cover during winter. Cyprus 1. Plant cover on set-aside areas and agricultural areas no longer in use: Denmark - Sufficient plant cover has to be established (every year) not later than 2 weeks after the harvest, and never later than the 1st of October. If the harvest is later than 1st of October the plant cover must be established as quickly as possible and no later than 31st of May; and - The plant cover must be based on seeds leftover from earlier seasons or sowing of grass species or other seed combination approved by the Danish Plant Directorate. 2. Permanent grassland. The farmer has to respect the rules concerning the reference share of permanent grassland (a certain share of the total agricultural area on country level). If the total share of permanent grassland decreases by more than 10 %, farmers who have converted permanent grassland to arable land will be ordered to re-establish permanent grassland. If mono-cropping (i.e. the third crop or the second family of crop) covers less than 5 % of utilised agricultural area (UAA), soil cover [has to be France established] during winter or crush and superficial mulching of residues [should be used] (the text in square brackets is provided by the authors). Farmers have to sow a crop of environmental interest (precisely defined at NUTS3 level) on all plots taken out of production. In order to prevent soil erosion, 40 % of the arable area of an agricultural holding must not be ploughed between harvest and 15 of Germany20 February of the following year, unless a new crop is sowed on the ploughed area by 1 December. The responsible administrations in the Laender can decide that this is not applicable in areas with low danger of erosion or fair weather conditions. Ensure that in parcels in areas with an inclination greater than 10 %, there is plant cover at the period of rainfalls, up to the preparation of Greece the soil for the next seeding, depending on the crop. Ensure that soil is covered by vegetation (crop cover, crop residue, stubble cover) or else ploughed. Finely tiled bare (unsown) Ireland seedbeds are not permitted over the winter. 4.2 - Management of areas no longer in agricultural use. Italy 1. A green cover (natural or sowed) must be established on land which is no longer used for production purposes, including set- aside, throughout the year and grass has to be cut once a year at least. 2. Mowing is forbidden at least for a 120-days period within 15 of March and 15 of September. In Natura 2000 areas, the restriction time for mowing is for 150 days within from 15 of February and 30 of September. In these periods, farmers must make "firebreak strips", by cutting grass or by ploughing; in mountain areas, firebreak strips have to be done only in cases of dryness proclaimed by regional authorities. Ploughing and harrowing are generally not allowed, but Regions can specify different rules.

Arable land has to be sown with crops or the land should be laid fallow. Lithuania

20 Information for Germany was compiled from 14 regions: Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Brandenburg, Hamburg, Hesse, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein and Thuringia; used sources: CIFAS-study, CC-Network. This geographical coverage applies to all GAEC measures and will not be repeated.

Report, Page 143 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Measure/ Standard Description of Measure/Standard Member State – Region Minimum soil cover 1. Obligation to notify more than normal erosion and submit a farm erosion-reduction plan with the measurements they take to adequately Netherlands (continued) fight this erosion. This plan has to be evaluated and the evaluator can add additional elements if the proposed strategy is considered unsatisfactory. If the farmer has an erosion-reduction plan, s/he is required to take the measures indicated in the plan. In this case, certain elements of other measures listed under soil erosion issue are then no more obligatory. 2. Obligations to apply the following soil treatment measures: - soil treatment after the harvest (e.g. Crops should be sown directly after the harvest, but anyway before October 1 in case of cereals or before December 1 in case of other crops) to prevent soil erosion; post-harvest soil tillage shall have minimal depth of 20 cm aimed at avoiding soil erosion; - cover crop should be mulched, or the soil should be covered by straw; - Wipe tractor tracks while sowing sugar beet or maize; - Obligatory sowing of green cover on arable land after the maize and cereals; - Obligatory use of follow-up green manure crop after maize and cereal crops; - Measures to minimise water run-off should be installed at the bottom of fields (e.g. ditches, canals, hedges or soil protective crops). 3. It is generally prohibited to have bare fallow. This means that farmers have to sow a crop on all plots taken out of production (can be green crop, non-food/non-feed crop or forage legumes, in case of organic farming on all land). Fields of arable land must present a vegetation cover (green cover), either planted or spontaneous, between November 15 and the Portugal following March 1, excepting when carrying out soil measures relating to the planting of crops. 1. Required conditions to avoid erosion: Minimum coverage of soil. Fallow land, set-aside land. Spain21 2. On set aside-land: both compulsory and voluntary, as well as on those intended properly for fallow land, the following options can be applied: - traditional cropping practices; and - minimum tillage practices or practices to maintain an adequate vegetation cover, either spontaneous or through the sowing of enhancing species. All this to diminish the risks of erosion, of appearance of fires, weeds, plagues and illnesses, to keep the saline profile of the soil, its productive capacity and favour the increase in the biodiversity. The applications of authorised weed killers will be carried out only with those which do not take residual effect and are of low danger. 3. Non-cropped land: Those lands not cultivated, not intended for pastures, nor used to activate rights for set-aside, shall meet the same maintenance conditions as required for fallow-land (optionally: traditional cropping practices, minimum tillage practices or practices to maintain an adequate vegetation cover, either spontaneous or through the sowing of enhancing species. All this to diminish the risks of erosion, of appearance of fires, weeds, plagues and illnesses, to keep the saline profile of the soil, its productive capacity and favour the increase in the biodiversity), however, in this case, weed killers shall not be applied. On the contrary, maintenance works that are necessary could be made for the elimination of weeds and invading vegetation, bushes and trees.

21 Information for Spain was compiled from 9 regions: Andalucía, Aragón, Basque Country, Castilla y León, Extremadura, Galicia, La Rioja, Navarre, Asturias; used source: CIFAS-study. This geographical coverage applies to all GAEC measures and will not be repeated.

Report, Page 144 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Measure/ Standard Description of Measure/Standard Member State – Region Alternatively to the previously indicated practices and with the purpose of fertilisation, a total maximum amount of 20 tons per hectare (t/ha) of dung or 40m3/ha of slurry in a period of three years could be incorporated, provided that the soil has a vegetable cover or its immediate introduction is foreseen, complying in any case with what is set out in Royal Decree 261/1996, of 16 February, on the protection of waters against the pollution produced by nitrates coming from agricultural sources. The control of weeds shall be made in accordance with the criteria previously set out. 4. Arable crops: On agricultural plots with arable winter crops, the soil shall not be tilled between the date of the previous harvest and September the 1st, a date that is established as a reference to the beginning of pre-sowing. However, to favour the establishment of vegetation cover with arable crops and due to agronomic reasons, such as double harvests, climatic reasons and typology of soil, in certain areas the dates of beginning of pre-sowing could be adapted to local conditions, as well as adequate tillage techniques. Permanent crops - olives: In cases where weed-killers are used on the soil around olive trees, it is necessary to keep a vegetation cover in the passages that run contour to the line of maximum slope. Permanent crops - other than olives: The farmer must not pull up any trunk of the rest of dry land permanent crops other than olive trees situated in plots with a slope equal to or above 15 %, in those areas in which it is so established, and respect the regulations intended for its cultural and varietal restructuring and for the changes of crop or use. Minimum soil cover 1. By the 1st of September 2006 a risk-based Soil Protection Review must be completed. Measures must be selected to help avoid on-farm United Kingdom - England (continued) soil problems. These measures must be out into practice from 1 January 2007. The Review must be updated at least once a year and if management system or cropping practice is changed. The farmer must demonstrate that s/he has access to the Defra issued GAEC Soil Management Guidance Handbook and/or has considered the issues that need to be addressed for soil management. 2. Post-harvest management to reduce run-off. One of four management provisions must be implemented on land that has carried a combinable crop, such as oil-seeds, grain legumes or cereals (but not maize) and has been harvested by a combine harvester or mower. The farmer must ensure that from the day after harvest until the end of February in the following year one or more of the following provisions are met: - Stubble of harvested crop to remain on land; - Land to be sown with a temporary cover crop or sown with another crop; - The land is under cultivation sequences used to create stale seedbeds; and - The land is left after harvest with a rough surface to encourage infiltration of rain (e.g. by ploughing). . All cropped land over the following winter must be covered (where soil conditions allow) by: crop cover, grass cover, stubble cover, United Kingdom - Scotland ploughed surface or roughly cultivated surface. Fine seedbeds must be created very close to sowing. If land has carried a crop of oil-seeds, grain legumes or cereals which has been harvested using a combine harvester or a mower, a farmer United Kingdom - Wales must ensure that, throughout the period beginning with the first day after harvest and ending on the first day of March in the following year, one of the following conditions is met on that land at all times - a) the stubble of the harvested crop remains in the land; b) the land is left with a rough surface, following ploughing, discing, tine cultivation or any other suitable agricultural method; c) the land is prepared as a seedbed for a crop, with the crop to be sown within a period of 10 days beginning with the day after final seedbed preparation; d) the land is under cultivation sequences used to create a stale seedbed; or e) the land is sown with a temporary cover crop, so long as, if the cover crop is grazed out or cultivated out, the condition in sub-paragraph (b) must be met on the land, as soon as is practicable.

Report, Page 145 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Measure/ Standard Description of Measure/Standard Member State – Region Minimum land 1) At least one of the following anti-erosion measure must be taken on sites which are highly vulnerable to erosion: Belgium - Flemish Region management - maintain the land under permanent cover; reflecting site- specific conditions - cultivation of winter cereals: the land should be left without cover for no more than three months and should be sown as far as possible following the contours of the land if the plot of land is longer than 100 metres in that direction; - cultivation of summer cereals or flax: provide cover crops to be worked in no more than two weeks before the sowing date and sow the plot as far as possible following the contours of the land if it is longer than 100 metres in that direction; - cultivation of crops which are susceptible to erosion: land should be left without cover for no more than two months before the sowing of the main crop and one of the following measures should be taken: a) do not work the soil; b) work the soil only in such a way as not to turn it before sowing the cover or catch crop and immediately sow the main crop; c) provide a buffer zone of 10 m³ or a dyke half a metre high with a length of at least a quarter of the circumference of the plot, at the bottom of the plot; d) work the soil very superficially (no more than 5 cm deep leaving a rough seedbed behind) before sowing the main crop. 2) An arable parcel is considered to be at risk when more than 50 % of its area or more than 0.5 hectare lies on a slope greater than or equal to 10 %. Ploughing is forbidden (although stubble removal or other soil surface work is permitted) on at-risk parcels between harvest and 15 February. Ploughing shall, however, be allowed with a view to establishing a crop or ground cover before 30 November. The growing of root or similar crops is forbidden on at-risk parcels, unless a grassed strip (crop code 751, 82, 84 or 851) is established in the area at the bottom of the slope and adjacent to the parcel in question. This ban shall not apply if the contiguous parcel located below the parcel at risk of erosion is under grass (codes 61 or 62) or a crop corresponding to one of codes 82, 84, 851 or 891, provided that the cover of said contiguous parcel was established prior to 30 November. Said grassed strip shall be established before the root crop is sown and for a minimum period equivalent to the duration of the root crop, and it shall meet the following conditions: - Minimum size: the minimum width of the grassed strip shall be 6 metres; - seed composition: the grassed strip shall be sown with a mixture composed of meadow grasses or of meadow grasses and legumes; Other conditions: the strip shall not be grazed and, if mown, it shall only be mown after 1 July. In case of: maize, fodder beet, fodder carrots, potatoes, sugar beet, endives and market garden crops grown in the open ground - If the carbon content or the acidity level of one or more sites is too low the farmer must follow the fertilising recommendations given with the analysis on the sites in question or take other appropriate measures, such as the application of organic stall manure or compost or the digging in of straw in the case of low carbon content and the application of lime in the case of low acidity. 1. No destruction of landscape features, particularly field banks/hedgerows, terraces, windbreaks, grasslands in alluvial plains and field Czech Republic paths using natural slopes and respecting contour lines, eventually (field paths) accompanied by side ditches, as well as surface water streams and water bodies; 2. Exclusion of growing of wide-row crops (such as) maize, potatoes, beet, broad beans, soya-beans, and sunflowers on field blocks, eventually on parts of field blocks whose average slope exceeds 12 degrees. The farmer has to respect the rules concerning the reference share of permanent grassland (a certain share of the total agricultural area on Denmark country level). If the total share of permanent grassland decreases by more than 10 %, farmers who have converted permanent grassland to arable land will be ordered to re-establish permanent grassland. A grass-covered, uncultivated field must be kept in good agricultural condition (sown plants). Finland

Report, Page 146 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Measure/ Standard Description of Measure/Standard Member State – Region Minimum land In parcels with inclination above 10 % in danger from erosion, contour ploughing is a must or diagonal or alternatively permanent non Greece management reflecting uncultivated bands of interception should be left, in distances proportional with the soil attributes and inclination. Flood irrigation should site-specific conditions not be used. (continued) On common-ages, stocking requirements to avoid overgrazing as set out in the Commonage Framework Plan must be followed. Sand Ireland dunes must be retained and must not be overgrazed or damaged. Severe poaching should be avoided. Standard 1.1 - Temporary channelling of surface water on sloping ground. Italy - In order to avoid soil runoff, on sloping ground with clear erosion phenomena (diffuse presence of runnels), farmers are asked to insert temporary drainage furrows. Drainage furrows must be perpendicular to the highest slope and must have a distance of 80 m at the maximum. In case of slope too high (that is a potential risk for the stability of machinery), the drainage furrows could be replaced with green bands that must be 3 m wide at least and must have a distance of 80 m at the maximum. The standard applies to arable crops and set-aside land.

Meadows with an average slope of over 12% over a minimum distance of 50 metres shall not be ploughed up. Luxembourg On sloping land, ploughing should always be practised in parallel with the contours of the field. Malta On parcels having a slope greater than 10 %, ploughing, cultivation and planting should be carried out across the direction of the slope. There should be no evidence of sheet, rill or erosion gullies on site. - Prohibition of the production of a crop that enhances erosion on hills steeper than 2 degrees unless specific measures are being taken Netherlands (this prohibition is withdrawn if the farm has an approved farm erosion plan). - Prohibition of the use of steep slopes with an inclination of more than 18 degrees for another crop than grass. - In areas with soil erosion: directly after the harvest and before 1 of October for cereals and 1 of December for other crops, the soil must be cultivated and a cover crop must be sown. Limits of arable and use on slopes over 12 degrees: only perennial or grass cultivated or crops with not more than 16 cm wide rows. If land Slovakia parcel is in average on a slope of 7 to 12 degrees then tillage should be done in a way to avoid gully erosion.

Report, Page 147 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Measure/ Standard Description of Measure/Standard Member State – Region Minimum land 1. Tillage adapted to slope conditions – arable crops: In the surfaces that are intended for arable crops, the land must not be tilled (to alter Spain management reflecting and turn over the soil profile through mechanical implements in a depth equal or greater than 20 cm.) in the direction of the slope when, site-specific conditions the average slope gradient in the parcel exceeds 10 %. (continued) 2. Tillage adapted to slope conditions - permanent crops: Land shall not be tilled in vineyards, olive groves and nut groves when the average slope in the parcel equals or exceeds 15 %, unless special cropping techniques are adopted, such as plots, crop in girdles, conservation tillage, or a total cover of the ground with vegetation is kept. In case of an existence of plots, it will be compulsory to avoid any type of works that affect the structure of the existing banks; 3. What is set out in the previous paragraph will not be applicable in the case of cultivated plots equal to or less than 1 ha, those with complex form (those in which tillage operations encounter difficulties due to the presence of sharp angles, and therefore of minimal and changing turning circles), and when for reasons of maintenance of the traditional productive activity conservation agriculture techniques (those diverse agronomic practices adapted to local conditions addressed to alter in a minimum way the composition, structure and biodiversity of agricultural soil, so avoiding its later erosion and decline). Among various methods and technologies of agriculture of conservation the following are included: - direct sowing – no tillage; - minimum tillage - reduced tillage, where the waste of harvest is not incorporated or only partially and in very brief periods; and - the establishment of vegetable covers between successive annual crops or rows of trees in permanent crops considered suitable are determined and authorised by the competent Administration. In all the assumptions, the introduction of the crop will be made as quickly as possible, to avoid that the ground may be affected by erosion. 1. By the 1st of September 2006 a risk-based Soil Protection Review must be completed. Measures must be selected to help avoid on-farm United Kingdom - England soil problems. These measures must be out into practice from 1 January 2007. The Review must be updated at least once a year and if management system or cropping practice is changed. The farmer must demonstrate that s/he has access to the Defra issued GAEC Soil Management Guidance Handbook and/or has considered the issues that need to be addressed for soil management; 2. Natural and semi-natural vegetation must not be overgrazed; 3. Unsuitable supplementary feeding must not be carried out on natural and semi-natural vegetation except for the purpose of animal welfare in periods of extreme weather. 1. To prevent erosion of banks of watercourses, watering points and feeding areas: overgrazing, heavy trampling or heavy poaching United Kingdom - Scotland should be avoided (not applicable in gateways). When this occurs stock should be reduced until land recovers. All problems should be rectified during the next growing season after the period when the problem occurred; 2. Drainage systems must be maintained unless environmental gain is to be achieved (in that case this must be declared on the IACS return); 3. In areas prone to wind erosion, the steps to reduce risk of soil loss in spring include maintaining crop cover, using coarse seedbeds, shelter belts or nurse crops or other measures. Where capping is a problem, coarse seedbeds must be formed or cap must be broken; 4. Follow the instructions of the Muirburn Code in order to avoid extensive erosion on steep sites through burning. Retention of guidance on soils: A farmer must complete a soil management checklist form (in order to identify problems with soil erosion, United Kingdom - Wales soil structure and loss of organic matter on their holdings), which he or she must lodge with the National Assembly for Wales no later than 28 February 2005. It is the responsibility of the farmer to ensure that the soil management assessment checklist is reviewed annually, as a minimum, and that the review is recorded.

Report, Page 148 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Measure/ Standard Description of Measure/Standard Member State – Region Minimum land 1. Growing of row crops (potato, Jerusalem artichoke) on slopes steeper than 12 percent is prohibited. Hungary management reflecting 2. On arable land steeper than 12% the cultivation of the following crops is prohibited: tobacco, sugarbeet, fodderbeet, potato, Jerusalem site-specific conditions artichoke.. (continued) 3. On arable land steeper than 12% the cultivation of maize, silage maize, sunflower is allowed if: a) contour cultivation is applied, or b) cover crop is applied, or c) the stubble of the preliminary crop is maintained and managed after harvesting till 30th of October. Land treatment should not lead to visible soil erosion. According to the plan of soil protection against corrosion, it is of particular importance to Slovenia take into account the inclination of an agricultural holding, its exposure to water or wind erosion and the time and manner of land treatment (beside other factors). By ploughing in contour lines transversely to a slope and considering the adequate time, water erosion (which is most common in our territory) can mostly be prevented. Soil Protection from erosion through cultivation along the contour lines. Cyprus Arable land on slopes with an angle over 20° should not be: Poland a) used for cultivation of plants that require maintenance of ridges along the slope; b) maintained as bare fallow. If such lands are used of cultivation of perennial plants: plant cover or mulching between rows should be maintained, or cultivation should be performed with a terraced method Retain terraces Ban on destruction of terraces: no destruction of landscape features and other features which are preventing wind and water soil Czech Republic erosion, particularly field banks/hedgerows, terraces, windbreaks, grasslands in alluvial plains, grassland on the priority water paths and field paths using natural slopes and respecting contour lines, eventually (field paths) accompanied by side ditches, as well as surface water streams and water bodies. Terraces must not be removed. Terraces are linear structures in the agricultural landscape created by human effort, which are intended to Germany (except Schleswig- reduce the slope angle of the effective agricultural area. According to federal law the competent authority can approve the removal of a terrace Holstein) if there are no soil erosion risks. Do not destroy terraces. Greece Standard 4.4 - Maintenance of landscape distinguishing features. Italy Farmers must not destroy existing terraces and they must maintain them in good condition (against weather and agricultural practice). Terraces can be reshaped into "connected terraces" that are easier for agronomic operations. Prohibition to level the land without authorisation. In Natura 2000 areas, farmers must respect the regional measures and specific management plans, if there are any. Maintenance of retention terraces: Retention terraces shall be kept in working order for conservation, with necessary drainage capacity, as Spain well as the existing banks and hills, avoiding silting and collapses and, especially the appearance of gullies, and must be repaired or the necessary measures adopted, in each case. Existing terraces shall be conserved. Luxembourg Load-bearing rubble walls that serve to retain soil on terraced land should be maintained in a good state. Any breaches occurring as a result of Malta soil saturation following storms should be repaired in order to prevent further soil loss. Terraces, which are established against erosion in vineyards, must be maintained. Hungary Soil Protection from erosion through the retention of terraces. Cyprus Terraces must not be removed. Austria

Report, Page 149 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.1.1.2: Specific national measures to protect soil against soil erosion in addition to the Community standards22

Measure Description of Measure/Standard Member State - Region Buffer strips on 1) There must be 60 cm, untilled verge between fields and major ditches/watercourses.; 2) Along watercourses, CAP set-aside Finland watercourses land (3 m wide green fallow) is obligatory, unless 3 m of waterside vegetation for the entire length of the parcel abutting the watercourse already exists. If more than 30 percent is CAP set-aside land, then the part exceeding 30 per cent is green fallow (sown plants). Buffer strips on The farmer has to set up buffer strips (preferentially along watercourses). These lands can be declared as set-aside land, pastures France watercourses or non-productive land. Buffer strips on No tillage operations will be permitted within 10 metres of the edge of a lake (with a surface area of at least 1ha), or similar water body, Austria watercourses or within five metres of where there is running water (as measured from the river or stream’s edge and where the watercourse’s breadth is at least 5 metres). The prohibition does not apply to laying down new strips of land to create these buffer zones. Maintenance of set-side Maintenance of set-aside land (rules set at department level (NUTS3)) and grassland (mowing or grazing). France land and grassland Landscape features & Do not destroy dry stone walls, dykes and natural elevations in the limits of parcels. Greece stocking density Stocking density above 3 LU/hectare must be avoided. Reporting and control Obligation to report a more than normal erosion together with a package of agricultural practices (the Soil Erosion Plan) to Netherlands erosion adequately control erosion. Steep slopes Steep slopes more than 18 degrees must be covered by grass. Netherlands Areas with high risk of Areas with high risk of erosion: In areas with high risk of erosion, the restrictions and guidelines for rotation of crops, including Spain (except Andalucía, Navarre erosion organic manuring, as well as the types of vegetable cover that are established by the competent administration to avoid the decline and and La Rioja) the loss of soil and natural habitat, must be respected. Avoiding gully erosion Gully erosion is to be avoided by the farmer; an exception is erosion produced through external circumstances out of the farmer's control. Luxembourg Various approaches for avoiding the erosion associated with ditches are possible: a) conserve spontaneous vegetation cover. b) plough up fields only in springtime, directly before sowing (e.g. in the case of corn). c) nurse crops or intercrops. d) mulch-till or direct seed of summer crops. e) creation of erosion strips/ green strips.

22 The attribution of a given measure to one of the GAEC standards has been done by the Member States themselves. "Other standards" were identified as such by the used information sources, i.e. CIFAS study (EEA, 2006 and IEEP, 2006). The above mentioned studies used multiple sources (e.g. semi-structured interviews with officials from Member State governments who are actively involved in implementing or developing cross compliance in their country, translation of legal documents from Member States).

Report, Page 150 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Measure Description of Measure/Standard Member State - Region Restricted crop 1) Annual crops are not permitted on those lots of arable land with IQFP = 4 . Exempted are lots in steps or terraces and in areas Portugal cultivation integrated in meadows. The planting of new tree or shrub crops or of permanent pastures is only permitted in those situations where the regional services of MADRP consider these as technically adequate. 2) Neither the planting of annual crops nor that of new pastures is permitted in lots of arable land with IQFP = 5. Exempted are lots in steps or terraces and in areas integrated in meadows. Improvement of natural pastures is permitted only if this improvement does not imply soil movement, and the planting of new tree or shrub crops is only permitted in those situations where regional services of MADRP consider these technically adequate.

Report, Page 151 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

4.3.1.2 Summary of the national measures against soil erosion

As shown in Tables 4.3.1.1.1 and 4.3.1.1.2 above, all examined Member States with the exception of Estonia, Latvia, Sweden and Belgium (Walloon Region) have introduced requirements to protect soil against soil erosion (EEA, 2006; IEEP, 2006; Brás et al., 2006; CYPO, 2005; FÖMI, 2004 & 2006; MARD, 2004 & 2007; ARSKTRP, 2006a and 2006b; Karaczun and Wasilewski, 2006; AMA, 2007; National Assembly for Wales, 2004; MRAE, 2007). There is no information provided to explain why Estonia, Latvia and Belgium (Walloon Region) did not select any measure to combat soil erosion. According to the Board of Swedish Agriculture (2006), soil erosion in Sweden is a problem only in the form of wind erosion in a small area near the town Kristianstad in the very south. Moreover, Finland, Austria and Lithuania have very limited and general requirements (Austria only on terraces protection, Finland only on uncultivated grassland and Lithuania only on sowing of arable land).

Below for each standard under the soil erosion issue, the national measures that have been identified from the national provisions on Cross Compliance implementation will be presented.

a. Standard on minimum level of soil cover

Concerning the minimum level of soil cover, 12 Member States (Cyprus, Germany, Denmark, Greece, France, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom and Portugal) have introduced measures under this standard (EEA, 2006; IEEP, 2006; Brás et al., 2006; CYPO, 2005; National Assembly for Wales, 2007). While the other 13 Member States – Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden – have not introduced any measure under this standard.

Three types of measures are found in the examined Member States under the minimum level of soil cover standard:

• Measure concerning the establishment of plant cover or the reduction or restriction of ploughing (Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Spain, Cyprus, Portugal and UK);

• Measure concerning the performance of soil protection review or preparation of soil erosion plan (UK (England) and the Netherlands); and

• Measure concerning the share of permanent grassland (Denmark).

Report, Page 152 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Measure concerning the establishment of plant cover or the reduction or restriction of ploughing

In general, all measures address only a portion of the agricultural land on a farm (e.g. set-aside land, land no longer in use, part of arable land). Twelve Member States introduce either the requirement to establish a plant cover (Denmark, UK (England and Scotland), France, Greece, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Cyprus and Portugal) or the requirement to reduce/restrict the ploughing (Germany) or both of them (Ireland, Italy, Spain and UK (Wales)). The content of the measures varies from relatively simple to more comprehensive. Denmark, UK (England and Wales), Germany, Spain and Portugal each set time frames to establish a soil cover or to prohibit ploughing. For example, Denmark requires that soil cover be established on the set-aside land or fallow land in the period no later than 2 weeks after the harvest and no later than 1 of October. If the harvest is later than 1st of October – soil cover must be established as quickly as possible after the harvest, but no later than 31st of May. United Kingdom (England) requires soil cover in the period after the harvest until the end of February. For the same period UK (Wales) requires a temporary cover crop or rough surface following ploughing, or the stubble to remain in the land for the land that has carried oil- seeds, grain legumes and cereals. Germany and Spain prohibit ploughing/tilling arable land between the harvest and 15th of February and 1st of September respectively. Portugal requires vegetation (green) cover on arable land between 15th of November and the 1st of the following March.

Ireland, Cyprus and UK (Scotland) define the required soil cover period with less detail, but require a soil cover over winter. Lithuania sets an even less complex standard and requires the arable land be sown or laid fallow.

In contrast, Spanish requirements for minimum soil cover are very detailed, including the requirements for soil cover, tillage and cropping practices, application of weed killers, and protection of water against nitrate pollution. Italy prohibits mowing for at least a 120-day period between 15th of March and 15th of September; in Natura 2000 areas there is a stricter requirement.

In Greece and Spain, due to characteristic land-use on mountainous terrain, they have established requirements for slope areas. Greece requires a plant cover at the period of rainfall on areas with greater than a 10 degree slope (to prevent water erosion). Spain sets a requirement that prevents pulling up trunks other than olive trees on slopes greater than 15 degrees.

Measure concerning the performance of soil protection review or preparation of soil erosion plan

United Kingdom (England) and the Netherlands require that a Soil Protection Review or Soil Erosion Plan be completed. In England, the farmers are required to conduct a risk- based Soil Protection Review and select measures to avoid on-farm soil problems that

Report, Page 153 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

must be applied from 1 January 2007. The Review must be reviewed and updated at least once a year and if the management system or cropping practice is changed. The farmer must demonstrate that s/he has access to the Defra issued GAEC Soil Management Guidance Handbook and/or has considered the issues that need to be addressed for soil management. In the Netherlands, the farmers have to notify more than normal erosion and submit a farm Soil Erosion Plan with the measurements they take to adequately fight this erosion. This plan has to be evaluated and the evaluator can add additional elements if the proposed strategy is considered unsatisfactory. If the farmer has an erosion reduction plan, s/he is required to take the measures indicated in the plan. In this case, certain elements of other measures listed under soil erosion issue are then no more obligatory.

Measure concerning the share of permanent grassland

Denmark sets a requirement to protect a portion of permanent grassland.

b. Standards on minimum land management reflecting site-specific conditions

Measures related to minimum land management reflecting site-specific conditions were introduced in 17 Member States: Belgium (Flemish Region), the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Spain, Slovenia and United Kingdom (EEA, 2006; IEEP, 2006; FÖMI, 2004 & 2006; MARD, 2004 & 2007; MAVRD, 2005; MRAE, 2007; ARSKTRP, 2006a and 2006b; CYPO, 2005; Karaczun and Wasilewski, 2006; National Assembly for Wales, 2004). The other eight Member States – Germany, Estonia, France, Lithuania, Latvia, Austria, Portugal and Sweden – have not introduced this measure.

The content of the minimum land management standard varies from relatively simple to more comprehensive. The measures reflect at least three site specific erosion problems: the exposure of soil by overgrazing, water erosion risk on slopes and the risk of erosion due to the removal of certain landscape features.

Eight types of measures can be distinguished in the examined Member States under the minimum land management reflecting site-specific conditions standard:

• Measure concerning the performance of soil protection review or preparation of soil erosion plan (UK (England) and the Netherlands) or a soil management checklist (UK (Wales));

• Measure concerning the exposure of soil by overgrazing (Ireland, UK (England and Scotland) and Belgium);

• Measure on restricted agricultural activities on slopes (the Czech Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Greece, Belgium (Flemish Region), Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and UK (Scotland));

Report, Page 154 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

• Measure on the maintenance of a drainage system (UK (Scotland) and Italy);

• Measure on protection of landscape features (the Czech Republic);

• Measure concerning the establishment of plant cover or the reduction or restriction of ploughing (Belgium (Flemish Region), Cyprus, Finland, the Netherlands, Spain and UK (Scotland));

• Measure concerning the establishment of buffer zone, dyke or grassed strip (Belgium, Luxembourg); and

• Measure concerning the share of permanent grassland (Denmark).

Measure concerning the performance of soil protection review or preparation of soil erosion plan or a soil management checklist

As regards soil protection review or soil erosion plans, the same as it is described under the minimum soil cover standard. In addition under this standard, Wales (UK) set the requirement to complete a soil management checklist form (in order to identify problems with soil erosion, soil structure and loss of organic matter on their holdings). It is the responsibility of the farmer to ensure that the soil management assessment checklist is reviewed annually, as a minimum, and that the review is recorded.

Measure concerning the exposure of soil by overgrazing

Ireland and UK (England and Scotland) set stocking requirements to avoid overgrazing; while Scotland indicates that grazing management measures aim to prevent erosion of banks of watercourses, watering points and feeding areas. The national requirements do not set any limits for stocking density.

Measure on restricted agricultural activities on slopes

The Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta, Luxembourg, Greece, Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and UK (Scotland) set the requirement for slope areas. For example, the Czech Republic and Hungary prohibits growing wide-row crops that may raise soil erosion (e.g. maize, potatoes, beet, beans, tobacco, sunflowers and artichoke) on slopes steeper than 12 degrees. Hungary allows the cultivation of maize and sunflowers, if contour cultivation or cover crop is applied, or the stubble is maintained and managed after the harvesting till 30 October. Greece requires contour ploughing and uncultivated bands on the slopes steeper than 10 degrees and also forbids flood irrigation. Malta and Luxembourg also require contour ploughing on the slopes steeper than 10 degrees or 12 accordingly. The Netherlands prohibits erosion enhancing crop production on slopes steeper than 2 degrees, unless specific measures are being taken, or allows only grass cultivation on slopes steeper than 18 degrees. Slovakia sets limits on arable land use on the slopes greater than 7

Report, Page 155 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

degrees (e.g. only perennial or grass cultivated or crops with not more than 16 cm wide rows, and contour tillage to avoid gully erosion). Spain sets specific tillage requirements (e.g. depth, direction) for slopes steeper than 10 degrees for the arable crops, as well as tillage restrictions and ground coverage rules that require vegetation for slopes steeper than 15 degrees for permanent crops. United Kingdom (Scotland) requires that instructions of the Muirburn Code be followed in order to avoid extensive erosion on steep sites through burning. Poland bans cultivation of plants that require maintenance of ridges along the slope and maintenance of a bare fallow on the slopes steeper than 20 degrees; if such lands are used for cultivation of perennial plants, plant cover or mulching between rows is required to be maintained or cultivation should be performed with a terraced method. Slovenia requires taking into account the inclination of an agricultural holding not indicating a specific degree.

Measure on the maintenance of a drainage system

Few Member States have set a requirement to maintain drainage systems. United Kingdom (Scotland) has set a simple requirement to maintain a drainage system in order to achieve environmental gains. Italy has set one that is more detailed, requiring temporary drainage furrows be inserted or, where the slope is too steep, 3 m bright and 80 m long green bands.

Measure on protection of landscape features

The Czech Republic prohibits the destruction of landscape features (e.g. filed banks, hedgerows, terraces). The requirement gives a detailed list of the features that cannot be destroyed.

Measure concerning the establishment of plant cover or the reduction or restriction of ploughing

Belgium requires land be maintained under permanent cover as an anti-erosion measure. It sets specific requirements for winter and summer cereals, (e.g. not to leave the land without cover for more than three months and use contour ploughing). The Netherlands sets requirements for areas with soil erosion to time cultivation of the soil and planting of a cover crop – directly after the harvest and before 1 October for cereals and 1 December for other crops. United Kingdom (Scotland) requires, in areas prone to wind erosion, that crop cover be maintained. In contrast, Finland sets very general requirement to keep a grass-covered, uncultivated fields in good agricultural condition. Cyprus requires only cultivating the land along the contour lines in order to protect soil against soil erosion.

(For further restrictions on ploughing see also ‘Measure on restricted agricultural activities on lopes’).

Report, Page 156 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Measure concerning the establishment of buffer zone, a dyke or grassed strip

Belgium requires that a buffer zone of 10 m³ or a dyke half a metre high with a length of at least a quarter of the circumference of the plot be left at the bottom of the plot. This requirement is set for the cultivation of crops susceptible for erosion in addition to the requirement for cover crops. Furthermore, Belgium bans the growth of the root or similar crops on at-risk parcels, unless a grass strip is established in the area at the bottom and adjacent to the slope. Belgium also sets specific conditions for the grass strip, (e.g. minimum width of 6 m and seed composition).

Measure concerning the share of permanent grassland

Denmark requires that a share of permanent grassland be kept under the minimum land management rules that reflect a site-specific conditions standard.

c. Standard to retain terraces

Measures for the retention of terraces were introduced in only 10 Member States: Austria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg, Italy, Malta and Spain (EEA, 2006; IEEP, 2006; FÖMI, 2004 & 2006; MARD, 2004 & 2007; CYPO, 2005; AMA, 2007; MAVRD, 2005; MRAE, 2007). Fifteen Member States - Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Slovakia and United Kingdom – have not introduced this measure. It should also be noted that the protection of terraces may not be relevant for all Member States given their topography.

There is only one type of measure can be distinguished in the examined Member States under the standard to retain terraces:

• Measure setting a ban on destruction or removal of terraces or landscape features (Austria, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg, Italy, Malta and Spain).

Measure setting a ban on destruction or removal of terraces or landscape features (Austria, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg, Italy, Malta and Spain)

Austria, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Germany, Greece and Luxembourg have limited this requirement to include the protection of terraces. However, Italy, Hungary, Malta and Spain have also included maintenance requirements (e.g. in Spain the terraces should have drainage capacity; in addition, the Italian farmers must follow management plans in Natura 2000 areas, if any; Hungary simply requires to maintain the terraces which are established against erosion in vineyards; Malta requires to maintained the load-bearing rubble walls that serve to retain soil on terraced land in a good state). Two

Report, Page 157 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Member States, (the Czech Republic and Germany) provide a definition of terraces or protected landscape features and mention the prevention of soil erosion as a goal. Cyprus and Hungary also mention the prevention of soil erosion as a goal. Greece, Luxembourg and Austria, in contrast to other Member States, only state the title of the measure.

d. Specific national standards in addition to the Community standards

In addition to the Community standards, specific national standards to combat soil erosion were introduced in the eight Member States: Austria, Finland, France, Greece, the Netherlands, Portugal, Luxembourg and Spain (EEA, 2006; IEEP, 2006; AMA, 2007; Brás et al., 2006; MAVRD, 2005).

Seven types of measures can be distinguished in the examined Member States in the category of additional specific soil erosion standards:

• Measure to set up buffer stripes along watercourses (Austria, Finland and France) or erosion/green strips (Luxembourg);

• Measure to maintain a set-aside and grassland by grazing or mowing (France);

• Measure to keep soil cover (vegetation cover/grass) (Luxembourg) on the slopes (the Netherlands and Spain);

• Measure to manage overgrazing (Greece);

• Measure on crop cultivation restriction (Portugal) or ploughing restrictions (Luxembourg);

• Measure on protection of landscape features (Greece); and

• Measure on reporting and control of erosion cases (the Soil Erosion Plan) (the Netherlands).

Measure to set up buffer stripes along watercourses or erosion/green strips

Additional specific soil erosion standards have also been established in some countries. Finland and France have established a regulation to establish buffer stripes along watercourses. In France, the standard requires farmers who have a watercourse present on their farmland to set up buffer zones (grass strips) (of 5 m – 10 m as indicated in Kristensen and Primdahl, 2006). In Finland, the standard requires a 60 cm – 3 m untilled buffer strip between field and watercourses. In Luxembourg, the measure requires creation of erosion strips/ green strips in order to avoid gully erosion.

Report, Page 158 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Measure to maintain a set-aside and grassland by grazing or mowing)

France requires that set-aside land and grassland by maintained by grazing or mowing.

Measure to keep soil cover (vegetation cover/grass) on the slopes

The Netherlands requires farmers to report cases of extraordinary erosion and subsequently implement adequate agricultural practices to control erosion. In addition, soil cover (grass) is required on slopes steeper than 18 degrees. In areas with high erosion risk, Spain has set a requirement to respect guidelines and restrictions for crop rotation, organic manure and vegetable cover. In Luxembourg the measure requires to conserve spontaneous vegetation cover in order to avoid gully erosion.

Measure to manage overgrazing

Greece set limits of 3 LU/hectare for stocking density.

Measure on crop cultivation restriction or ploughing restrictions

Portugal bans cultivation/planting of annual crops and that of new pastures on the arable land that is vulnerable to erosion. Exemptions to this rule are applied to lots in steps or terraces and in areas integrated in meadows. Improvement of natural pastures is permitted only if this improvement does not imply soil movement. And the planting of new tree or shrub crops or of permanent pastures is only permitted in those situations where the regional services consider these as technically adequate. In Luxembourg, the measure requires to plough up fields only in springtime, directly before sowing (i.e. soil ploughing is prohibited in winter time - after harvest until spring).

Measure on protection of landscape features

Greece requires landscape elements (i.e. dry stone walls, dykes and natural elevations) be protected.

Measure on reporting and control of erosion cases (the Soil Erosion Plan)

The farmers are obliged to report more than normal erosion together with a package of agricultural practices (the Soil Erosion Plan) to adequately control/fight this erosion.

Report, Page 159 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

4.3.1.3 Evaluation of the measures against soil erosion

All together eight national measures have been identified under the soil erosion issue. In this section, the identified national measures will be evaluated considering their impact on soil. In some cases Member States have set identical measures under different standards (e.g. the measures in the Czech Republic on protection of landscape features). In such cases, the evaluation of a measure will be presented once.

Measure concerning the establishment of plant cover or the reduction or restriction of ploughing (Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Spain, UK, Cyprus and Portugal)

The Member States introduce either the requirement to establish a plant cover (e.g. maintaining a permanent or semi-permanent plant cover of perennial crops or leaving great amounts of plant residue at the soil surface), as well as the requirement to reduce/restrict the ploughing. Such soil management practices are source oriented measures and are of preventive nature that control the soil erosion process directly at the initial location, (e.g. reducing kinetic energy of falling drops with a protective vegetation cover, maintaining infiltration capacity and reducing flow velocity of surface runoff) (Kainz, 1991 in Van-Camp et al., 2004b, p. 85). Removal of vegetation strongly increase surface runoff and sediment yield (Castillo et al., 1997). The loss of soil through erosion results in soil that is in worse condition (e.g. less organic matter content). This poor soil does not develop good vegetation cover and thus is more susceptible to erosion, leading to a negative feedback (Van-Camp et al., 2004b, p.143). In the long-term, preventative/source-oriented measures are the most effective in reducing both the risks of on-site damages as well as risks of off-site-damages of soil erosion.

Soil tillage is carried out to prepare the seedbed to grow crops, to control weeds, and to incorporate manure, fertilisers, pesticides and other amendments. The conventional repeated tillage system accelerates decomposition of organic matter thus affecting the physical, chemical and biological attributes of soil quality. Inappropriate tillage practices accelerate the soil degradation processes, especially soil erosion and compaction. On the contrary, with the no-tillage system (direct sowing), several studies (e.g. Tebrugge and During, 1999) show that continuously organic matter increases and soil structure improves, restoring and improving soil quality, increasing crop yields, and controlling soil erosion. However, other studies (e.g. Arshad, 1999) point out how the level of success in no-tillage system varies with crop species, soil type, climatic conditions, and growing season length (Van-Camp et al., 2004b, p. 87). Choosing the tillage type and intensity for each particular soil is critical to combating soil erosion in agricultural lands.

Report, Page 160 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Timing of tillage practice and climatic condition is as important as tillage intensity. Tillage operations should be avoided when the soil is too wet or too dry. Any type of cultivation, conventional or otherwise at the wrong time, (i.e. when the soil is too wet), leads to a degree of compaction or soil sealing which prevents water infiltration and increases run-off. This can result in extensive sheet erosion and gullying on all soil types. In contrast, in Mediterranean countries, repeated tillage under dry soil conditions appears to promote topsoil pulverisation and enhance soil erosion. Finely pulverised soils are usually smooth, seal rapidly and have low infiltration rates (Van-Camp et al., 2004b, p. 87).

Sowing of green manure/catch crops after harvest has many positive indirect effects on soil. These advantages include reduced soil erosion, reduced nutrient losses over winter (e.g. Sörensen, 1992; Ninane et al., 1995), increased supply of organic matter (Kuo et al., 1997), improved soil structure and water infiltration rate.

The measures concerning the establishment of plant cover or the reduction or restriction of ploughing are relevant in that they directly prevent erosion of soil, reduce decline in soil organic matter and prevent soil compaction. These are preventive measures, which in a long-term may reduce the risks of on-site damages as well as off-site-damages of soil erosion. The Member States commonly apply these measures on a portion of agricultural land (e.g. set-aside land, land no longer in use, a part of arable land), which limits its overall impact. Some Member States (Denmark, Germany, Spain, Portugal and UK (England and Wales) set timeframes when to establish a soil cover or not to plough. In general, the timeframes relate to the time after the harvest (but no later than October) or winter period (Ireland, Cyprus and UK (Wales and Scotland)). This may help to prevent soil against compaction and sheet erosion. Greece and Spain, for example, establish requirements for slope areas. The fact that the measure considers a site quality indicator (i.e. steepness of slope) makes it more relevant to prevent soil against erosion. However, in this case the measure is limited to countries with specific geographical features. Italy restricts mowing activities to a certain number of days between 15 March and 15 September. This restriction does not have any impact on soil protection but rather is designed to protect birds.

Measure concerning the performance of soil protection review (UK (England)) or preparation of soil erosion plan (the Netherlands) / Measure on reporting and control of erosion cases (the Soil Erosion Plan) (the Netherlands) or a soil management checklist (UK (Wales))

This measure focuses on specific local conditions of soil and provides a set of tailor- made measures to address soil erosion problem. Any land at risk of high surface runoff, such as steep slopes, or vulnerable soils are likely to be affected by this measure

Report, Page 161 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

as management practices on this land will have to be justified or changed. According to this measure, the farmer has to show that s/he considers soil management issues in her/his farm.

This measure, which aims to prevent, reduce or combat soil erosion, considers the local context. The Soil Protection Review in England (UK) may simply formalise activities the majority of farmers normally undertake. For others, it will encourage the adoption of best practices in soil management. An annual revision of the SPR, or when there is a management system change, allows adaptation of the soil management practices/protection measures to changing soil conditions. Other soil erosion measures, such as green cover or suitable feeding sites, complement the SPR to the benefit of soil resources. Similarly, the requirement in the Netherlands to report more than normal erosion, together with a package of agricultural practices to adequately fight this erosion (the Soil Erosion Plan), shows a high concern about soil problems on the national level. This measure encourages farmers to change farm practices to improve soil management. Wales’ (UK) requirement to complete a soil management checklist form identifying problems with soil erosion, soil structure and loss of organic matter on holdings is a good measure to identify problem areas. Even so, the measure does not require applying measures against these soil threats, which makes it less effective.

Measure concerning the exposure of soil by overgrazing (Ireland, UK (England and Scotland)) / Measure to maintain a set-aside and grassland by grazing or mowing (France) / Measure to manage overgrazing (Greece)

Land degradation can be greatly accelerated by high densities of livestock, which lead to vegetation (plant cover) degradation and ultimately to soil compaction. The consequent gradual denudation of land caused by overgrazing and lowered soil infiltration capacity due to soil compaction, increases water runoff and hence exposes the soil to water and wind erosion (Schnabel, 2003). Overgrazing is among the most recognised causes of land degradation and desertification (Van-Camp et al., 2004b). The problem is especially acute when overgrazing occurs in Mediterranean marginal areas, where unproductive fields have been abandoned, and erosion may lead to desertification.

Report, Page 162 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

This measure on grazing management is very relevant to the prevention of soil compaction and soil erosion and is a source-oriented measure. Some Countries require that land be maintained by grazing and set stocking requirements to avoid overgrazing or under-grazing. With exception of Greece, all other reviewed Member States do not set any farm stocking rate. United Kingdom (Scotland) states that grazing management measures aim to prevent erosion of banks of watercourses, watering points and feeding areas. It is difficult to assume how effective the measures will be in solving the soil compaction and erosion problems, since the countries give little detail.

Measure on restricted agricultural activities on slopes (the Czech Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Greece, Belgium (Flemish Region), Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and UK (Scotland));

The risk of soil erosion is usually higher on slopes. Most slope processes are enhanced by the presence of water, which can cause landslides that carry debris (Gobin et al., 2002). Surface erosion processes such as rain-splash detachment, overland flow and associated gully erosion, then export the contaminated sediment to the river system.

Certain land management operations such as ploughing may alter the depth distribution of contaminants (Owens et al., 1996; Haygarth et al., 1998), which will have an effect on the delivery of contaminants to waters due to soil erosion.

Contour ploughing (increasing soil surface roughness) and the maintenance of linear landscape elements (decreasing slope length) are the measures that can control the amount of runoff and are considered as source-oriented.

Restriction of agricultural activities on slopes is a very relevant measure to prevent soil erosion. The measure is limited to the steep areas.

The Member States set a wide spectrum of measures limiting/restricting agricultural activities on slopes, which prevent soil erosion, e.g.: - prohibition to grow a wide-row crops/erosion enhancing crops (the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Poland and Hungary); - contour ploughing requirement (Greece, Cyprus, Hungary, Malta, Luxembourg and Slovenia), or set tillage restrictions (Spain); - uncultivated bands requirement (Greece); ground coverage with vegetation requirement (Spain, Hungary and Poland); ban on burning (UK (Scotland) and Hungary); and - ban on flood irrigation (Greece).

Report, Page 163 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Measure on the maintenance of a drainage system (UK (Scotland) and Italy)

The measure is evaluated in more detail under the “soil structure” standard (see Chapter 4.3.3.3).

In general, in addition to the measures by which the farmer can improve infiltration and avoid the formation of overland flow on arable field or grassland, drainage (pipe, mole or slit drainage) can reduce overland flow (i.e. surface soil erosion on the field itself and onto farm roads, tracks, concrete areas and other off-site objects). This controls drainage water from fields by maintaining land drains, pipe outlets and ditches and removes sediment deposited in ditches and drains.

Italy requires temporary drainage furrows to be inserted or where the slopes are too steep, as alternative the green bands. Both requirements address the issue of water erosion on soil.

The measure to maintain field drainage system in a good condition can contribute to maintaining good soil structure and preventing against water erosion. The main objective of agricultural drainage is to remove excess water. Thus, drainage is reasonable on wet agricultural soils. Affected areas are those that mainly contain particular soil textures (i.e. soils prone to subsoil compaction, in particular those with low organic matter, having fine texture, high water holding capacity, poor drainage, and slow permeability) and those with water tables that are close to surface. Soil compaction increases runoff at the soil surface and creates a soil pan within the soil. The latter inhibits drainage, causing water logging in some soils. Improving drainage on agricultural land not only enhances crop production but also has a role in reducing water erosion risks. On the other hand, poor maintenance of drainage systems may modify water runoff and contribute to increased erosion risk (Fons-Esteve et al. 2004, p. 17).

Since drainage systems are only reasonable on particular soil textures, this measure is spatially limited.

Measure concerning the establishment of buffer zone, a dyke or grassed strip (Austria, Belgium, Finland and France, Luxembourg)

Establishment of new constructions of landscape elements such as wooded strips, permanent grass strips as buffer areas within fields, contour strips, strips along riverbanks, terraces, etc. are impact-oriented prevention and mitigation measures to control soil erosion as close as possible to its source (Van-Camp et al., 2004b, p. 83). For example, Owens et al. (2000) argues that if tillage is performed on the bank side without leaving a buffer zone, erosion occurs as ‘slides’ along the stream banks.

Report, Page 164 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

In addition, grass buffer strips and drainage systems aim at reducing the amount of sediment (i.e. detached soil material) being transported into surface water bodies (streams and lakes) and any other area or infrastructure to be protected (housing, roads, nature reserve).

This measure is relevant to the prevention and mitigation of water erosion impact on soils.

Austria, Finland and France set the requirement to set up buffer strips along watercourses. In this case the countries focus more on water quality protection, even if the measure is also very relevant to help mitigate/prevent water erosion of soil. It is due to the fact that buffer strips impede soil movement along the stream banks after tillage is performed. In contrast, Belgium and Luxembourg clearly address soil erosion issue, since, in addition to the requirements for the buffer zone (length and width), it requires a cover crop (for more details see the measure on plant cover in this section). ). In Luxembourg, the measure creation of erosion strips/ green strips in order to avoid gully erosion. The measure is however limited on its extent.

Measure setting a ban on destruction or removal of terraces or landscape features (Austria, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Hungary, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, Malta, Italy and Spain)

As previously mentioned under the measure on the establishment of buffer zone or grass strip, the establishment of terraces, grass strips or buffer areas within fields as a new constructions of landscape elements is an impact-oriented prevention and mitigation measures to control soil erosion (Van-Camp et al., 2004b, p. 83).

Different landscape elements, such as terraces and plant-covered boundary strips subdivide the slope and diminish the erosion effective slope length and steepness. Hence, they support a harmless discharge of runoff and protect surface waters and other parts of the landscape.

The measure designed to protect terraces or other landscape features is directly related to preventing soil erosion.

Even if the majority of measures simply set the requirement to protect the terraces, without any detailed instruction, the measure is effective to prevent soil erosion. In Spain, it can be assumed that the measure will be even more effective in preventing soil erosion because of the prescribed maintenance requirements that ensure good functioning of the terraces. The measure is limited to certain countries having slopes.

Report, Page 165 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Measure concerning the share of permanent grassland (Denmark)

This measure depends to the provision set under Article 5(2) to maintain permanent pasture and will be dealt with under the ‘protection of permanent pasture’ standard in the Chapter on minimum level of maintenance.

4.3.2 Soil organic matter

4.3.2.1 Introduction

In this section the impact of the GAEC measures on soil organic matter is discussed. The Annex IV of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 requires that levels of soil organic matter are maintained through appropriate two standards, including:

• standards for crop rotation where applicable; and

• arable stubble management.

The following Tables 4.3.2.1.1 and 4.3.2.1.2 show how the Member States define these two standards in their national legislation. Chapter 4.3.2.2 summarises this information, providing an overview of national measures to maintain soil organic matter levels.

Chapter 4.3.2.3 further evaluates the extent to which each measure contributes to soil protection and addresses specific soil threats.

Report, Page 166 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.2.1.1: Measures to maintain or improve soil organic matter in Member States

Measure/ Description of the Measure/Standard Member State – Region Standard Standards for Yearly cultivation of at least three crops or crops from at least two different families (e.g. cereals, maize, oleaginous, ...) on the arable land of a France crop rotation holding (counting temporary pastures as one crop family, but not including permanent or multi-annual crops and set-aside land), each on at where applicable least 5 % of the area, is to be ensured. A dispensation exists for monocropping. 1) Yearly cultivation of at least three crops on the arable land of a holding (counting set-aside and non-cultivated land as one crop, but not Germany including permanent or multi-annual crops), each on at least 15 % of the area, is to be ensured. In case a holding cultivates more than three crops, several crops can be combined to achieve the minimum area of 15 %. 2) The crop rotations requirements can be complied with by growing a different crop on the holding each year for at least three years or by swapping fields with other farmers ensuring that on these areas different crops are cultivated within three years. 3) In case the crop rotation requirements are not met, farmers are obliged to a) either calculate the humus balance at farm level for the arable land until 31 December of the respective year according to certain prescriptions, or b) to analyse the soil organic matter of the arable land with the help of scientific soil tests at least every 6 years. The humus balance is to be prepared for the entire agricultural holding. The soil examination is to be carried out according to scientifically recognised methods. Documents of results have to be kept for 7 years. 4) If the average value of three years of the humus balance or the analysis is below a certain threshold level (minus 75 kg of humus carbon material per hectare per year for the humus balance), the farmer has to undergo a consultation and prove compliance with the requirements after two years at the latest. Cultivate and incorporate in the ground leguminous crops, in addition to the main crop, in the 20 % of cultivated area of the holding each year. Greece Maintain an adequate level of soil organic matter by means of appropriate cropping rotations or cropping practices where necessary. In case of Ireland low level of organic matter, farmer will be required to change this system by growing a suitable break crop or by incorporating organic materials.

On arable land: use suitable break crops in an arable rotation or optimise the use of organic materials by basing rates of application on soil and United Kingdom - crop needs. Where break crops are not used, a record should be kept for 5 years of organic materials and quantities applied to the arable land. Scotland If nothing else is grown on arable land it is considered as fallow and the farmer at least has to establish a cover crop no later than July 15. There Sweden is an exception for fields left unploughed or untilled after harvest the year before the field is laid fallow for only one vegetation year. On irrigated land, crop rotation should be practised regularly, and crops belonging to the same botanical family should not be grown successively on Malta the same parcel of land. Preferably, crops belonging to the same soil humus-depleting category should not be grown for more than three years successively on the same parcel and have to be put into rotation with at least one year of the soil-improving crops or with at least one year of set-aside. 1) Rye and wheat can be cultivated in 2 consecutive years with change of the crop variety. Hungary 2) Maize can be cultivated in 3 consecutive years with change of the crop variety. 3) The following crops can be cultivated for several consecutive years: multiannual horticultural crops, fodder crops, grass seed, apiculture crops, green manure crops, multiannual energy crops. All other crops can be cultivated only besides crop rotation.

Report, Page 167 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Measure/ Description of the Measure/Standard Member State – Region Standard Standards for crop Three-year crop rotation on min. 50% of fields on an agricultural holding. Explanatory notes for control: Grasses, clovers, grass-clover Slovenia rotation where mixtures and clover-grass mixtures on fields are part of crop-rotation and may be on the same area for more than 3 years. Set-aside, pre- applicable crops and post-crops are considered as crop-rotation parts. Corn on all fields of agricultural holding may be produced in monoculture for a (continued) max. period of 3 years. Half of the agricultural holding's areas must be sown by something else once in three years if on the holding only monoculture is sown. Set-aside, pre-crops and post-crops are also considered as crop-rotation parts. The corn monoculture may be discontinued by these crop-rotation parts. Farmers whose farms have less than 0.75 LMU/ha of agricultural useable surface, and over 50 % of this agricultural useable surface is agricultural crop Luxembourg land, have to ensure that on the scale of the farm the yearly cultivation relationship is made up of at least three crops; idle and unmanaged crop land counts as one crop. The share of the crop land of each crop has to be at least 15 %. Crops of the same species but of different varieties are considered as one crop. In the case that a farm features more than three crops, the minimum proportion of 15 % can be achieved combining several different crops. These requirements, however, do not apply to crop lands with permanent crops or perennial crops. In the case that a farmer should not follow these requirements, he shall compile each year a humus balance sheet for the whole farm, or a soil analysis for his/her agricultural crop lands before December 31 of the same year. (LMU-Livestock Manure Unite). Arable stubble It is forbidden to burn straw, stubble and other crop residues. Belgium – Flemish management Region, Walloon Region No burning of plant residuals on field blocks, eventually on parts of field blocks, after the harvest of cereals, oil-producing plants, eventually legumes, Czech Republic that have been grown on these blocks, eventually on parts of field blocks.

Prohibition of burning straw and residues (except if dispensation at department level). Note that a dispensation exists at national level for rice. France It is prohibited to burn stubble fields. For phytosanitary reasons, the responsible authority of the “Land” can approve exceptions to the ban on Germany stubble burning. Depending on local conditions, select at least one of the following practices in regard to crop stalks: Greece - incorporation in the soil; - stubble grazing; and - cutting and soil cover with the remains (mulching) and their incorporation next spring. In exceptional cases, only for areas outside Natura 2000 network and after proper authorisation from the local Directorate of Rural Development and the Fire Department, one can proceed with stubble burning.

Arable stubble management should be introduced where necessary. If this is not sufficient the farmer will be required to change this system, e.g. Ireland by allowing natural regeneration of vegetation by growing a suitable break crop or by incorporating organic materials. 2.1 – Arable stubble and vegetable residues management: Italy Prohibition to burn stubble and vegetable residues. The standard applies to arable crops and set-aside land. Rice fields are exempted.

Report, Page 168 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Measure/ Description of the Measure/Standard Member State – Region Standard Arable stubble Land is maintained in good agricultural and environmental condition, if plants or stubble remains are worked into soil with the purpose of fertility Latvia management maintenance of the land. (continued) On arable land, remnants of plants and stubble must be ploughed into the soil or used for the production of fertilisers. Lithuania It is forbidden to burn stubble or vegetation residues directly on the soil, except by order of the national plant health authority. Following such cases, Malta farmers shall adopt corrective actions, including green manuring or application of organic material prior to the establishment of the following crop. In cases where harvested vegetable residues are collected in a heap and need to be destroyed for the prevention of transmissible plant diseases, this should be done in a limited area of the field, not exceeding 10m2. Appropriate stubble management, including ploughing and incorporation of residues, should be practiced where possible and where agronomic conditions permit, in order to increase soil organic matter. The prohibition to burn stubble must be respected throughout the national area, unless, due to phytosanitary reasons, it is promoted or authorised Spain by the competent authority. The burning, which must be authorised, must fulfil the regulations established regarding prevention of fires, and in particular, the ones relating to the minimum width of a peripheral strip when the areas are next to forest areas. It is forbidden to burn crop residues (e.g. cereal straw), as legislated by national regulations. United Kingdom – England Incorporate organic manure within 2 weeks after spreading on stubble. In areas prone to wind erosion, incorporation of livestock manure can be United Kingdom – delayed. Scotland A farmer must not, on agricultural land, burn any crop residue of a kind specified in Schedule 1 to the Crop Residues (Burning) Regulations 1993 United Kingdom – Wales unless the burning is for the purposes of - a) education or research; (b) disease control or the elimination of plant pests where a notice has been served under article 22 of the Plant Health (Great Britain) Order 1993[12] or c) the disposal of straw stack remains or broken bales. A farmer must not, on agricultural land, burn - a) any crop residue of a kind specified in Schedule 1 to the Crop Residues (Burning) Regulations 1993 to which an exemption specified in paragraph 4(a) or (b) applies; or b) any linseed residues. (See also requirements regarding stubble management under “Minimum soil cover”) Earliest allowed dates for ploughing or tilling stubble the year before fallow or after one year fallow. Different dates for different groups of counties, Sweden depending on climatic factors. The dates range from 1 September in the six most northern counties to 20 October in the three most southern counties and are correlated with national provisions concerning nutrient leakage. The burning of stubble, reed, crop residue and grassland is prohibited, except for the ruling of plant protection authority. Hungary Maintenance of soil organic matter by soil incorporation of arable stubble and preventing its burning. Cyprus The burning of straw on stubble fields is not permitted, unless, due to phytosanitary reasons, it is promoted or authorised by the competent Austria authority It is allowed for meadows and pastures to be used interchangeably. Meadows, pastures and stubble fields should not be burnt. Poland Harvest residues in fields should not be burnt. Slovenia

Report, Page 169 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.2.1.2: Specific national measures to maintain or improve soil organic matter in addition to the Community standards

Measure/ Description of the Measure/Standard Member State - Region Standard Analysis of Determining the carbon content and the acidity of a number of sites which are not grassland and do not have permanent cover: depending on the size Belgium - Flemish Region carbon content of the total area of agricultural land excluding grassland and permanent cover, the farmer must be able to produce evidence of a number of valid and pH analysis results. Each analysis result is valid for three years. From 2006 the analyses must be carried out by an accredited laboratory. Application of (c) putting in of barnyard manure in liquid form into the soil within 24 hours after their application on fieldblocks, eventually on parts of fieldblocks, Czech Republic barnyards without growth, whose average slope exceeds 3 degrees, in case this application is not excluded by special law. manure into the soil Restriction on Straw in the fields should not be burned. Straw may be burned only if it is essential to successful sowing or the destruction of wild oats, diseases or Finland straw burning vermin. Restrictions on Fulfilment of the norms in force on burnings (use of fire for the renovation of pastures). According to Law N° 156/2004 of June 30, the carrying out Portugal burning of burnings is only permitted outside of the critical period (July 1 to September 30). This period can be altered by administrative rulings of the Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fishery provided that the fire-risk index is lower than “high”; and a) Under guidance and responsibility of a technician accredited by the competent authority, within the terms of the ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fishery; or b) After permission by the respective township which designates the date for the realization of the works Cleaning strip Before July 1 of every year, a stripe with a minimum breadth of 3 m must be cleared along the boundaries of the area occupied by individual or Portugal alongside parcel adjoining lots of arable land removed from production, of fallow arable land (pousio), and from the annual grassland surface of dry land borders (sequeiro). The residues resulting from the cleaning process must be incorporated into the soil or extracted from the lot to places where their accumulation minimizes the risk of fire to the field, provided that the norms concerning the burning of agricultural surplus and the carrying out of fires are complied with. In those cases where one or more boundaries of the lot are adjacent to forests or non-producing areas, the cleaning stripe can include these areas. Exceptions: a) Areas occupied by individual or contiguous lots inferior or equal to 1 ha; b) Areas of agricultural lots whose boundaries coincide with: 1) and destined to vegetable production, excluding the lots of natural forage crops surface of dry land (sequeiro).; water masses; 2) rural trails; 3) tree or shrub species with ecological or landscape interest, as vouched by the competent authorities.; c) Lots that are part of fallow land (baldios); d) Lots destined to vegetable production, with the exception of forage crops surfaces. Green cover on Obligation to have a green cover on fallow land in the framework of the CAP (sowing before 31 May and destruction after 31 August) Netherlands fallow land Harvest and Management of remains of harvest and pruning. The elimination of the remains of harvest in the case of arable crops and the ones of pruning of Spain (except País Vasco) pruning permanent crops must always be carried out in accordance with the established rules.

Report, Page 170 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

4.3.2.2 Summary of the national measures against loss of soil organic matter

With exception of Denmark, Estonia and Slovakia, all other Member States have established relevant requirements against loss of soil organic matter (EEA, 2006; IEEP, 2006; AMA, 2007; CYPO, 2005; FÖMI, 2004 & 2006; MARD, 2004 & 2007; Karaczun and Wasilewski, 2006; Brás et al., 2006; ARSKTRP, 2006a and 2006b; SVJ, 2006a; MRAE, 2007; National Assembly for Wales, 2004). There is no information available to answer why Denmark, Estonia and Slovakia did not introduce any provisions to maintain levels of organic matter in soils. But it can be assumed that these Member States either do not see any major deficiency concerning loss of soil organic matter in their countries or have other standards fulfilling the needs (e.g. Codes on Good Farming Practice).

A summary is provided below for each of two standards under the soil organic matter issue where national measures have been identified from the national provisions on Cross Compliance implementation.

a. Arable stubble management

As regards the arable stubble management standard, 18 Member States (Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom) have introduced measures under this standard (EEA, 2006; IEEP, 2006; AMA, 2007; CYPO, 2005; FÖMI, 2004 & 2006; MARD, 2004 & 2007; Karaczun and Wasilewski, 2006; ARSKTRP, 2006a and 2006b; MRAE, 2007; National Assembly for Wales, 2004; SVJ, 2006a).

Two main types of measure are found under the arable stubble management standard:

• Measure on the ban to burn straw, stubble or other crop plant residues (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Hungary, France, Malta, Poland, Germany, Italy, Spain, Slovenia and UK (England and Wales)); and

• Measure on management of crop/plant remains (Greece, Cyprus, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania and Sweden) or incorporation of organic manure (UK (Scotland)).

Measure on the ban to burn straw, stubble or other crop plant residues

The Member States define the ban of straw burning measure with different levels of detail. While Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, France, Germany and Slovenia only define the title of the measure, the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Malta, Italy and UK (England and Wales) provide more details. The Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, UK (England and Wales) list the crops that are addressed by this measure (e.g. field blocks, post-harvest of cereals, oil-producing plants, eventually legumes, cereal straw,

Report, Page 171 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

meadows, pastures, reed, crop residue and grassland). Italy defines which land the standard applies (e.g. arable crops and set-aside land). Malta requires an appropriate stubble management, including ploughing and incorporation of residues where possible and where agronomic conditions permit, in order to increase soil organic matter. Germany, Malta, Austria, Hungary and UK (Wales) foresee exemptions for this rule (e.g. due to phytosanitary reasons). Malta requires adopting corrective actions, including green manuring or application of organic material prior to the establishment of the following crop in case the stubbles are allowed to be burn on the land. In addition, exemptions for rice are foreseen in rice cultivating countries, which include France and Italy.

Measure on management of crop/plant remains or incorporation of organic manure

Greece, Cyprus, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania and Sweden require that crop/plant remains be managed in a specific way. Greece, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania and Sweden require that crop/plant remains are worked into the soil to maintain or restore soil fertility/productivity. Sweden sets also different earliest allowed dates for ploughing or tilling stubble for different groups of counties, depending on climatic factors. The dates range from the 1 September in the six most northern counties to the 20 October in the three most southern counties and are correlated with national provisions concerning nutrient leakage. Greece requires cutting and soil cover with remains (mulching) and their incorporation next spring. In addition, Greece includes stubble grazing. Ireland sets the requirement to manage stubble or allow natural regeneration of vegetation by growing a suitable break crop or by incorporating organic materials. United Kingdom (Scotland) requires that organic manure be incorporated on stubble fields within two weeks after spreading; the requirement foresees an exception in areas prone to wind erosion.

b. Standards for crop rotation where applicable

The standards for crop rotation where applicable were introduced in the ten Member States: France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Malta, Sweden and UK (Scotland) (EEA, 2006; IEEP, 2006; SVJ, 2006a; FÖMI, 2004 & 2006; MARD, 2004 & 2007; ARSKTRP, 2006a and 2006b; MRAE, 2007; MAVRD, 2005). Fifteen Member States - Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Spain - have not introduced any measure under this standard.

Four main types of measures are found under the standards for crop rotation where applicable:

• Measure on crop rotation or cropping practices (France, Germany, Malta, Luxembourg, Hungary, Ireland, Slovenia and UK (Scotland));

Report, Page 172 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

• Measure on humus balance calculation or soil organic matter analysis (Germany, Luxembourg and UK (Scotland));

• Measure on incorporation into the ground leguminous crops or organic materials (Greece and Ireland); and

• Measure on establishment a cover crop (Sweden).

Measure on crop rotation or cropping practices

France, Luxembourg and Germany established a requirement concerning crop rotation providing a yearly cultivation of at least three crops (excluding permanent crops) covering 15% of the area in Germany and Luxembourg and 5% in France. Set aside and unused areas are considered an acceptable crop in Germany, but not in France. Some exceptions from the rules exist in Germany and France. Slovenia requires three- year crop rotation on minimum 50% of fields on an agricultural holding; grasses, clovers, grass-clover mixtures and clover-grass mixtures on fields as well as set-aside, pre-crops and post-crops are considered as crop-rotation parts in Slovenia. Hungary requires rye and wheat to be cultivated in 2 consecutive years or maize to be cultivated in 3 consecutive years with change of the crop variety. Hungary also lists the crops that can be cultivated for several consecutive years: multi-annual horticultural crops, fodder crops, grass seed, apiculture crops, green manure crops, multi-annual energy crops. Ireland sets a simple requirement on appropriate cropping rotation or practices ‘where necessary’, but do not set a minimum number of crops and do not indicate the area of the land covered. United Kingdom (Scotland) also gives less detail and requires using suitable break crops in an arable rotation. Malta requires to implement crop rotation on irrigated land and not to grow crops belonging to the same botanically family successively on the same parcel; or not to grow crops belonging to the same soil humus-depleting category for more than three years successively on the same parcel; and have to be put into rotation with at least one year of the soil-improving crops or with at least one year of set-aside.

Measure on humus balance calculation or soil organic matter analysis

Germany, Luxembourg and UK (Scotland) go beyond the requirement on crop rotation and, in cases where the crop rotation requirement is not met, requires that the humus balance be calculated or the soil be analysed for organic matter at the farm level for the arable land. If the value (in Germany) falls below the threshold level for an average of three years, actions concerning the content of soil organic matter have to be taken. United Kingdom (Scotland) requires that the use of organic materials be optimised by basing rates of application on soil and crop needs. Where break crops are not used, a record should be kept for five years for organic materials and quantities applied to the arable land. United Kingdom (Scotland) requires that records of organic materials and quantities applied to the arable land be kept for seven years.

Report, Page 173 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Measure on incorporation into the ground leguminous crops or organic materials

In cases of low level of organic matter, Irish and Scottish farmers are required to grow a suitable break crop or incorporate organic materials. Greece requires, in addition to the main crop, that ground leguminous crops be cultivated and incorporated on 20 percent of the land cultivated area yearly. Germany and UK (Scotland) are required to keep records of organic materials and quantities applied to the arable land for seven and five years respectively.

Measure on establishment a cover crop

Sweden requires establishing a cover crop on a fallow land no later than 15th July. There is an exception for fields left unploughed or untilled after harvest the year before the field is laid fallow for only one vegetation year.

c. Specific national standards

In addition to the Community standards, specific national standards to keep or increase soil organic matter were introduced in six Member States: Belgium (Flemish Region), the Czech Republic, Finland, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain (EEA, 2006; IEEP, 2006; Brás et al., 2006). While Finland considers the restriction on straw burning a specific national measure on soil organic matter, other countries have introduced requirements going beyond the Community standards.

Five main types of measures are found under the specific national standards to keep or increase soil organic matter:

• Measure on an analysis of soil (Belgium);

• Measure on incorporation of organic matter (manure) into the soil (the Czech Republic);

• Measure on management of remains of harvest and pruning (Spain and Portugal);

• Measure on restriction on straw burning (Finland), and

• Measure on establishment of green cover (the Netherlands).

Measure on an analysis of soil

Belgium, for example, requires an analysis of the carbon content and the acidity by an accredited laboratory on the agricultural land (excluding grassland and land having permanent cover) be conducted every three years.

Report, Page 174 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Measure on incorporation of organic matters (manure) into the soil

The Czech Republic, like UK (Scotland) under the arable stubble management standard, sets the requirement to incorporate liquid barnyard manure into the soil within 24 hours after their application on field-blocks without cover, where the average slope exceeds 3 degrees. Scotland has set a two week time limit, which also applies to stubble.

Measure on management of remains of harvest and pruning

Spain has set a standard for the elimination of harvest remains in the case of arable crops, and the remains of pruning in the case of permanent crops. The measure has to be carried out in accordance to regulations established regarding prevention of fires.

Portugal requires clearing a stripe with a minimum breadth of 3 m along the boundaries of arable land removed from production, fallow arable land and grassland surface of dry land. The residues resulting from the cleaning process must be incorporated into the soil or extracted from the lot to places where their accumulation minimises the risk of fire to the field. In those cases where one or more boundaries of the lot are adjacent to forests or non-producing areas, the cleaning stripe can include these areas. Cleaning must be carried out before 1st of July every year.

Portugal also requires using fire for the renovation of pastures. The carrying out of burnings is only permitted (with exception foreseen) outside the critical period (1 July – 30 September).

Measure on restriction on straw burning

Finland has established a ban on straw burning in the fields. There are certain exceptions foreseen for this obligation, such as: straw may be burned only if it is essential to successful sowing or the destruction of wild oats, diseases or vermin. Finland considers the restriction on straw burning as a specific national measure on soil organic matter.

Measure on establishment of green cover

The Netherlands has established an obligation to have green cover on fallow land, setting time limits for sowing (before 31 May) and destruction (after 31 August). This standard is common for the Member States to use to reduce soil erosion.

Report, Page 175 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

4.3.2.3 Evaluation of the measures against loss of soil organic matter

In total, seven national measures have been identified under the soil organic matter issue. In this section the identified national measures designed to reduce loss of soil organic matter will be evaluated considering their impact on soil. In some cases, Member States have set identical measures under different standards, e.g. the measures on soil analysis. In such cases, the evaluation of a measure will only be presented once.

Measure on the ban to burn a straw, stubble or other crop plant residues (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Finland, Hungary, France, Malta, Poland, Germany, Italy, Spain, Slovenia and UK (England and Wales))

The soil organic matter content is the product of carbon input and carbon turnover time. Any measure that enhances carbon inputs and/or reduces the carbon turnover in soil will lead to higher soil organic matter content. Likewise, reducing the carbon input or stimulating the soil organic matter turnover reduces soil organic matter levels. The soil organic matter turnover is mainly determined by physical conditions (temperature, moisture, aeration), chemical properties (quality of organic materials), and biological activity in soil (Six et al., 2002).

The threat of soil organic matter loss differs according to soil properties and climate: in many countries, especially Mediterranean, soil organic matter concentrations are naturally low and more strongly concentrated near the soil surface. Under these conditions, the degradation of the soils due to soil organic matter loss induced by cultivation may appear earlier than in well-structured loamy soils in the Atlantic climate (Van-Camp, 2004c, p. 141).

The measure to ban straw burning and requirement to leave its residues on the fields, as well as consequent incorporation into the soil, increases soil organic matter content and prevents the land against erosion due to plant cover. In general, the soil management practices that are good for organic matter conservation are also good for combating soil erosion. For example, conservation agriculture includes practices to avoid residue burning to maintain enough surface residues through the year as well as reduce, change or eliminate tillage so that the soil is protected from rainfall erosion (Van-Camp et al., 2004b, p.86). In this way, the straw left on the fields serves as a plant cover and in this way contributes to combating soil erosion problem. (For more explanation, see also the evaluation of the measure concerning the establishment of plant cover under the soil erosion issue). Furthermore, the reduced or no-tillage requirement is a preventative measure against erosion (does not destroy a plant cover), but also adds to soil organic matter content, since the process of mineralisation is much slower in untilled soils. In addition, soils with higher soil organic matter content are more stable against erosion. In addition, straw that has not been burned is a better organic content for the soil since its turnover, i.e. mineralisation process, is much slower in comparison with ash.

Report, Page 176 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Measure on the ban to burn a straw or other plant residues is of particular importance to increase organic matter content in soil and combat soil erosion.

According to scientific evidence, the measure is very effective to combat both soil threats, i.e. loss of soil organic matter and soil erosion. Therefore even if countries (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, France, Germany and Slovenia) only define the ban on straw burning without giving any instruction in detail, we determine that this measure will be very effective (if it is implemented). In addition, the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and UK (England and Wales) list the crops that are addressed by this measure (e.g. legumes) which increase the fertility of soil and therefore clearly address the amount of soil organic matter in the soil. Malta also clearly considers soil organic matter content in soil through requirement to adopt corrective actions, including green manuring or application of organic material prior to the following crop in case the stubbles are allowed to be burn.

Measure on management of crop/plant remains (Greece, Cyprus, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania and Sweden) or incorporation of organic manure (UK (Scotland))

The measure on the management of plant/crop remains is very similar to the straw burning ban measure (see above). The plant/crop remains, worked into the soil, restore the fertility/productivity of the soil and is a high quality unpolluted source of both nutrients and soil organic matter. The crop/plant residues left on the fields or as mulch and incorporated next spring forms a plant cover and in combination with reduced or no-tillage (conservation agriculture practices) protects the soil against erosion. Even if the conservation tillage causes a relatively small increase in soil organic matter, at the same time it strongly reduces soil erosion by water, improves soil physical properties and increases soil biodiversity (Kuo et al., 1997). For more explanation on plant cover, see also the evaluation of the measures under the soil erosion issue.

Measure on plant/crop remains management is of particular importance/relevance to increase organic matter content in soil and to combat soil erosion. This measure can be widely applied.

The countries provide various practices, for example, incorporation of plant/crop remains in to the soil (Greece, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania and Sweden); incorporation of organic materials (Ireland) or manure (UK (Scotland)) into the soil, that all serve to restoration of soil and increase in soil organic matter. These practices are in general combined with reduced or no-tillage, serving to the prevention of soil erosion problem. Even if soil organic matter content differs according to soil properties and climate, the measure to manage plant/crop remains is very relevant to combat both soil threats.

Report, Page 177 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Measure on crop rotation or cropping practices (France, Germany, Malta, Luxembourg, Hungary, Ireland, Slovenia and UK (Scotland))

Crop rotation is an agricultural practice that prohibits crop succession or repetition at parcel level. Crop rotation and mulching is one of the most effective ways to maintain good organic matter content (Van-Camp, 2004c). Crop rotation is a key component, which positively influences the composition of the soil microbial community, increasing its diversity and function (Van-Camp et al., 2004c). Crop rotation provides a more permanent plant cover, which supports the enrichment of humus in the soil through the incorporation of their organic remains and prevents soil from erosion. In addition, crop change (i.e. break crop), makes combating weeds less expensive. Furthermore, soil water and nutrients are exploited better and soil fertility does not diminish for a long time (Sileika (eds.), 2001). Crop rotations usually comprise crops such as grass/clover mixtures or lucerne as fodder crops or for set-aside purposes in a higher proportion. These crops add high amounts of organic material to the soil in combination with a longer cover period (Shepherd, 2002). Suitable crop rotation is one of specific measures to combat wind erosion. However, on the land vulnerable to erosion, crops that can be considered as low-protection crops (e.g. maize, other row crops (sunflowers) and root crops (potatoes, sugar beet, endive roots that require heavy tillage; etc.) should be avoided in a rotation. These crops should also be forbidden in monoculture in case no sufficient erosion control measures have been set. Furthermore, a crop rotation on the land vulnerable to erosion should include cover crops (e.g. rye or mustard), or catch crops for reducing the loss of nitrogen during winter time. Cover crops should also be grown in perennial crops on steep slopes, particularly in no-tillage systems on soils with low infiltration rates and prone to surface sealing. Moreover, tillage activities have to be adjusted to soil conditions (e.g. soil water content), in order to avoid soil compaction. The measure on crop rotation or cropping practices is one of the most effective ways to maintain a good content of organic matter in the soil and increase its biodiversity. In addition, the measure prevents the soil from erosion due to more permanent plant cover. However, many factors have to considered selecting the share of crops and the crop rotation in case to avoid negative impact of crop rotation on soil, for example, soil erosion, soil compaction and soil decline as well as leaching and losses of fertilisers and pesticides due to surface runoff. France, Luxembourg and Germany require at least three crops yearly, however they do not provide any other instructions. Ireland and UK (Scotland) provide even less detailed definition of the measure. Based on the scientific evidence, we can assume that the measure will strongly contribute to combat loss of soil organic matter, soil biodiversity and soil erosion. Nevertheless, if the measure is not correctly implemented, it can have more negative impacts on soil than positive.

Report, Page 178 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Measure on humus balance calculation or soil organic matter analysis (Germany, Luxembourg and UK (Scotland)) / Measure on an analysis of soil (Belgium)

Soil analysis can address various soil threats, depending on its aims. In this case, only humus balance calculation and analysis of carbon content in soil should be done. Therefore, the measure focuses solely on soil organic matter content. This measure is therefore very relevant, albeit indirectly, to prevent, reduce or combat decline in soil organic matter and hence soil biodiversity. Soil carbon content and the soil pH both influence the structure of the soil microbial community. A soil analysis considers local conditions of soil, therefore it can provide a set of effective measures to increase soil organic matter content and consequently soil biodiversity.

This measure on soil analysis is very relevant, albeit indirectly, to prevent, reduce or combat loss of soil organic matter and consequently loss of soil biodiversity.

Measure on incorporation into the ground leguminous crops or organic materials (Greece, Ireland and UK (Scotland)) / Measure on incorporation of organic matters (manure) into the soil (the Czech Republic)

The leguminous cereals and perennial grasses (i.e. green manure) restore, maintain and increase soil fertility (Sileika, 2001). Therefore, application of leguminous crops measure has a positive effect against loss of soil organic matter. However, even if green manure is incorporated, the soil will mineralise rapidly and their contribution to increase soil organic matter content is therefore limited (Curtin et al., 2000). The application of green manure/catch crops does, however, result in many positive indirect effects, e.g. reduced soil erosion, reduced nutrient losses over winter (e.g. Sörensen, 1992; Ninane et al., 1995), improved soil structure and water infiltration rate (Kuo et al., 1997).

For more details on soil organic matter content in soil and its relation with other soil threats, see the evaluation of the measure on the ban to burn a straw or the measure on management of crop/plant remains.

The measure on incorporation into the ground organic materials is very relevant to prevent, reduce or combat loss of soil organic matter and has an indirect effect on loss of soil biodiversity.

Measure on management of remains of harvest and pruning (Spain and Portugal)

An evaluation of this measure for Spain cannot be completed because there are no details provided, rather there is only a definition and reference of established rules without any clarification.

Report, Page 179 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

In Portugal the measure may have a positive impact on soil organic matter, since the residues resulting from the cleaning process must be incorporated into the soil. As it is already described about the measure on management of crop/plant remains, the plant/crop remains, worked into the soil, restore the fertility/productivity of the soil.

The measure on management of remains of harvest and pruning may tackle decline of soil organic matter issue, but only if the remains are worked out into the soil.

Measure on maintaining a green cover (the Netherlands and Sweden)

The standard to establish or keep a minimum soil cover is set under the soil erosion issue. Therefore, the relevance of this measure to soil protection will be presented in the relevant section.

4.3.3 Soil structure

4.3.3.1 Introduction

In this section the GAEC standard’s impact on soil structure is evaluated. The Annex IV of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 requires that soil structure is maintained through an appropriate standard:

• Appropriate machinery use.

The following Tables 4.3.3.1.1 and 4.3.3.1.2 show how the Member States define this standard in their national legislation. Chapter 4.3.3.2 summarises this information, giving an overview of national measures to maintain a good structure of soil.

Chapter 4.3.3.3 further evaluates the extent to which each measure contributes to soil protection and specific soil threats.

Report, Page 180 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.3.1.1: Measures to maintain a good soil structure in Member States

Measure/ Description of the Measure/Standard Member State - Region Standard Appropriate Driving heavy machinery on wet fields should be avoided in order to not compact the soil. Finland machinery use Users of irrigated water need a water meter or appropriate machinery to measure water utilised to irrigate. France Do not proceed in mechanic treatment of soil when there is ice and/or the parcel is completely covered with water. Greece The use of machinery on land where soil is saturated with water (waterlogged) must be avoided. Ireland - Prohibition of machinery use in Standard 4.1. Italy - Ploughing and harrowing restrictions, apart from firebreak strips in Standard 4.2. Standard 4.1 - Protection of permanent pasture: Permanent pasture must be correctly managed and it is forbidden to convert them into different land use. Prohibition of machinery use, apart from that which is necessary to thicken turf and drain water. The Regions can specify minimum and maximum livestock stocking rates. Standard 4.2 - Management of areas no longer in agricultural use: A green cover (natural or sowed) must be established on land which is no longer used for production purposes, including set-aside, throughout the year and grass has to be cut once a year at least. Mowing is forbidden at least for a 120-days period within 15 of March and 15 of September. In Natura 2000 areas, the restriction time for mowing is for 150 days within from 15 of February and 30 of September. In these periods, farmers must make ‘firebreak strips’, by cutting grass or by ploughing; in mountain areas, firebreak strips have to be done only in cases of dryness proclaimed by regional authorities. Ploughing and harrowing are generally not allowed, but Regions can specify different rules. In saturated soils as well as flooded areas, except for rice fields, or fields or areas covered by snow, tillage is not allowed nor is to allowed Spain to pass or permit to pass of vehicles on the area, except in those cases considered necessary by the competent authority. Such cases include those related to the harvest operations, coverage fertilising, phytosanitary treatments, management and supply of food to livestock, that coincide accidentally with periods of rains. In these instances, the presence of vehicle tracks of that are more than 15 cm deep must not exceed 25 % of the surface of the parcel in the harvest period and 10 % for the rest of the farm activities.

No mechanical field operations (e.g. harvesting, spreading manures) to be carried out on areas of waterlogged soil. There are some United Kingdom - England exemptions, e.g. if the waterlogged soil is within 20m of an access point, or to harvest a crop of vegetables or fruit to meet a contractual deadline or avoid deterioration of the produce. Any operation should not be undertaken if water is standing on the surface or the soil is saturated. United Kingdom - Scotland A farmer must not carry out a mechanical field operation on waterlogged soil unless - United Kingdom - Wales a) the soil is within 20 metres of the access point to an area of soil which is not waterlogged; b) the soil forms part of a track to an area of soil which is not waterlogged; c) the mechanical field operation is necessary - (i) to improve the drainage of the soil, or (ii) to incorporate gypsum into the soil following an intrusion of saltwater, or (iii) for reasons of animal welfare or human safety, or (iv) in order to harvest a crop of fruit or vegetables: aa) in order to meet contractual obligations, or bb) where the quality of the crop would deteriorate if it was not harvested

Report, Page 181 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Measure/ Description of the Measure/Standard Member State - Region Standard

Appropriate All machinery use is prohibited on water logged land, except for the establishment of inland/flood water draining ditches. Hungary machinery use (continued) It is prohibited to use machinery for normal agronomic purposes when the soil is water-saturated or flooded to avoid compaction and deterioration Malta of soil structure. 2. Unnecessary trampling on soil with heavy machinery should be avoided at all times. It is forbidden to enter into the field unnecessarily with a vehicle, and to use any part of the field as a parking space for vehicles and machinery. No visible traces of the use of inadequate mechanisation may exist on the majority of the land that means adequate mechanisation was used Slovenia at adequate time. Ground preparation in agricultural areas with agricultural machinery is not permitted for the following reasons: a) if the ground is frozen; b) if the Austria soil is saturated; c) if the ground is flooded; d) if the ground has snow cover (of at least 5 cm).

Table 4.3.3.1.2: Specific national measures to maintain a good soil structure in addition to the Community standards

Measure/ Description of the Measure/Standard Member State - Region Standard pH or salinity in There is no major deficiency concerning soil structure in the Walloon Region, except possibly in the case of intensive irrigation of vegetable Belgium - Flemish Region, irrigated soils crops. Farmers have to apply corrections of possible anomalies (e.g. in pH or salinity) in irrigated soils according to the latest soil Walloon Region analysis results. Authorisation of The farmer has to declare and to have been authorised to use water for irrigation (authorisation set at department (NUTS3) level). France water use

Maintenance of Standard 3.1 - Protection of soil structure through maintenance of efficient surface water drainage: Italy water drainage Farmers are asked to maintain an efficient water drainage system and to clean ditches, drains and channels by removing natural system vegetation, ground and sediments. If there is ‘baulatura’ (traditional convex shaping of land), it must be maintained. In Natura 2000 areas farmers must respect Management Plans, if the Regions have adopted them. The standard applies to all land, including areas that do not benefit of direct payments. Ploughing at the Maintenance of soil structure by ploughing at the appropriate time when the soil moisture is at its optimum level. Cyprus appropriate time

Report, Page 182 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

4.3.3.2 Summary of the national measures to maintain soil in good structure

As seen in the above Tables 4.3.3.1.1 and 4.3.3.1.2, 13 Member States (Austria, Belgium (Flemish region), Cyprus, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Spain, Slovenia and UK) have introduced requirements to maintain good soil structure (EEA, 2006; IEEP, 2006; AMA, 2007; CYPO, 2005; FÖMI, 2004 & 2006; MARD, 2004 & 2007; ARSKTRP, 2006a and 2006b; MRAE, 2007; National Assembly for Wales, 2004). The other Member States have not addressed this issue (Belgium (Walloon Region), the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Sweden). There is no information available to answer why these Member States did not introduce this standard. But it can be assumed that these Member States do not see any major deficiency concerning soil structure in the territory of their countries.

A summary of national measures that have been identified from the national provisions on Cross Compliance implementation is provided below for the only standard under the soil structure issue.

a. Appropriate machinery use

As regards appropriate machinery use standard, 11 Member States (Austria, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Malta, Slovenia and UK) have introduced measures under this standard (EEA, 2006; IEEP, 2006; AMA, 2007; MRAE, 2007; FÖMI, 2004 & 2006; MARD 2004 & 2007; National Assembly for Wales, 2004; ARSKTRP, 2006a and 2006b). 14 Member States have not introduced any measure under this standard.

Three main types of measures are found under the appropriate machinery use standard in the Member States:

• Measure concerning the restriction/ban of use of machinery on water logged soils (Austria, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Malta, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Slovenia, UK);

• Measure concerning the use of water for irrigation (France); and

• Measure concerning a green cover on set-aside land (Italy).

Report, Page 183 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Measure concerning the restriction/ban of use of machinery on water logged soils

Ten Member States have introduced the requirement to restrict/ban the use of machinery on water logged soils. This requirement corresponds with the Community standard on soil structure, i.e. appropriate machinery use standard. With the exception of Austria, Hungary, Spain, Malta, Slovenia and UK (England and Wales), the Member States that have introduced a ban to use machinery on water logged soils (Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, and UK (Scotland)) define this measure relatively simply, only setting a ban without providing further explanation. In contrast, Austria, Malta, Spain and UK (Wales) provide detail on the areas were the mechanical treatment of soil is banned (e.g. saturated soils, flooded areas, areas covered by snow or frozen). In addition, Spain and UK (Wales) list the exceptionally allowed types of soil mechanical treatment on the water saturated soils, waterlogged soils, (e.g. drainage, intrusion of gypsum, harvest operations, coverage fertilising, management and supply of food to livestock) as well as indicates the maximum surface area of the parcel, where these types of soil mechanical treatment are allowed. Malta does not give any exceptions and requires avoiding unnecessary trampling on soil with heavy machinery at all times. England (UK) lists the prohibited mechanical field operations (e.g. harvesting, spreading manure) and exemptions (e.g. harvest of vegetables). In addition to the restriction to use machinery on water logged soils, Italy also sets a provision to keep a green cover on set aside land, apart from firebreak strips. Hungary makes an exception to the ban on machinery use on water logged land, if inland/flood water draining ditches are established. Slovenia, in contrast to other countries, uses other wording to define a ban on machinery use: “No visible traces of the use of inadequate mechanisation may exist on the majority of the land that means adequate mechanisation was used at adequate time”. In case there are no visible traces, this means that adequate mechanisation was used at adequate time. Too deep – evident traces are usually left behind by too heavy mechanisation or mechanisation used at inappropriate time (on waterlogged soil).

Measure concerning the use of water for irrigation

Under the Community standard on soil structure, France sets the requirement to measure water volume used for irrigation.

Measure concerning a green cover on set-aside land

Italy requires establishing a green cover (natural or sowed) on land which is no longer used for production purposes, including set-aside. It should be done throughout the year and grass has to be cut once a year at least. Mowing is forbidden at least for a 120-days period within 15 of March and 15 of September. In Natura 2000 areas, the requirements are stricter, e.g. the restriction time for mowing is for 150 days.

Report, Page 184 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

b. Specific national standards

In addition to the Community standards, specific national standards to maintain good soil structure were introduced in four Member States (Belgium (Walloon Region), Cyprus, France and Italy). While Cyprus considers the restriction of ploughing on water-logged soils as a specific national measure on soil structure, other countries have introduced requirements going beyond the Community standards standard (EEA, 2006; IEEP, 2006; CYPO, 2005).

• Measure concerning the use of water for irrigation (France and Belgium);

• Measure concerning the maintenance of a field drainage system in a good condition (Italy); and

• Measure concerning the restriction of ploughing on water-logged soils (Cyprus).

Measure concerning the use of water for irrigation

Belgium requires that corrections of possible inconsistency with, e.g. pH or salinity values based on the latest soil analysis results be carried out for irrigated soils. Belgium defines this requirement as a specific national standard to maintain good soil structure. Belgium requires the farmers to carry out the soil analysis, but does not provide further details.

France also sets a specific national standard that requires farmers to get permission from the government to use a certain volume of water for irrigation activities; however there are no additional details provided for this requirement.

Measure concerning the maintenance of a field drainage system in a good condition

Italy requires maintenance of field drainage systems to ensure good working order. In addition, it requires that Management Plans in Natura 2000 areas be respected, in order to avoid any disturbance of wild birds. Both requirements are set as specific national standards to maintain good soil structure. Italy defines this requirement without details.

Measure concerning the restriction of ploughing on water-logged soils Cyprus requires that the ploughing is carried out at the appropriate time when the soil moisture is at its optimum level. This corresponds with the “appropriate machinery use” standard set under the Community soil structure issue.

Report, Page 185 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

4.3.3.3 Evaluation of the measures for maintenance of good soil structure

In this section the four identified measures designed to maintain good soil structure will by evaluated to determine their impact on soil protection.

Measure concerning the restriction/ban of use of machinery on water logged soils (Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Malta, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Slovenia and UK) Soil (in particular subsoil) compaction can occur when soil is subject to mechanical pressure through the use of heavy machinery or dense stocking with grazing animals, especially in wet soil conditions (Jones et al., 2004, p. 60). Although overgrazing has an impact on soil compaction, ten Member States (Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Spain, Slovenia and UK) have chosen only measures to reduce mechanical treatment of soil covered with water through the prohibited use of heavy machinery.

The risk of subsoil compaction increases with increased farm size, for example, i.e. increased mechanisation, equipment size, and the drive for greater productivity (Hakansson, 1994). This is true particularly for the northern and old Member States, the latter having 92 % of farms with over 10 ha, e.g. France, UK and Germany (European Commission, 2007b). However, as seen in Table 4.3.3.1.1 above, Germany does not define any measures to maintain good soil structure. Nevertheless, the measures to maintain or improve soil organic matter are found to be sufficient to address the overall issue of soil structure in the country.

The effects of surface compaction can be relatively easily restored by cultivation. In contrast, the remedial treatments of subsoil compaction are very difficult and expensive to reverse (Chamen et al., 2002; Renius, 1994 and Tijink, 1995 in Robert et al., 2004, p. 60). The measures against soil compaction chosen by the examined Member States focus on prevention of soil compaction rather than on remediation. This approach is also proposed by Crescimanno et al. (2004, p. 137). The authors argue that the key way to solve the compaction problem is to prevent compaction due to its persistence. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the measures for repairing the damage created by subsoil compaction, (e.g. mechanical loosening of the subsoil), has to be combined with changes in the cropping system, which is related to the changes in mechanical treatment of soil (e.g. tillage depth) and timing.

The precautionary measures to prevent subsoil compaction, as described in Crescimanno et al. (2004, p. 135) and Chamen et al. (2003), address technical and management solutions. Technical responses include different wheel arrangements, reduced tyre inflation pressure, tracks instead of wheels or automated low-weight machinery. The management practices address the choice of crop rotation and adjusting soil cultivation/tillage to soil water content. Other options are drainage and minimum tillage systems.

Report, Page 186 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

In addition to the detrimental effects of soil compaction (topsoil and subsoil) on the farming systems (e.g. a decrease in yield and increase in management costs), as demonstrated by Hakansson (1994), soil compaction, affecting the overall deterioration in soil structure, can increase the risk of soil erosion on sloping land. This increased risk of soil erosion is due to the concentration of excess water above compacted layer and accelerated effective runoff from and within catchments and primarily impact water contamination through the transfer of pollutants. The role of soil compaction on soil erosion is described in number of scientific reports (Kulli et al., 2000; Schjønning et al., 1995, 1996).

The impact of subsoil compaction is more evident in years with extreme dry or wet periods, which have happened more frequently in recent years. This may have an influence on the design of the national GAEC standards in the future.

The measure concerning the restriction/ban of use of machinery on water logged soils is an effective measure to combat soil compaction. This measure addresses subsoil compaction and focuses on its prevention. However, its effectiveness to reduce or solve the soil compaction problem depends on:

- technical specifications (e.g. reduced tyre inflation pressure, tracks instead of wheels or automated low-weight machinery); and - management practices (e.g. the choice of crop rotation, adjusting soil cultivation/tillage to soil water content and minimum tillage). The majority of countries setting this provision do not provide any technical detail for this measure (Cyprus, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy and UK (Scotland)), therefore it is impossible to evaluate how effective this measure will be. Austria, Hungary, Malta, Spain, Slovenia and UK (England and Wales), however, do provide details on implementation. Therefore, it can be expected that these Member States will address the soil compaction problem more effectively, thereby achieving better results. In addition to other measures, Italy sets a provision to keep a green cover on set aside land, apart from firebreak strips.

The restriction/ban to use machinery on water logged soils can also contribute to solving the soil erosion problem, by reducing soil compaction and hence a risk of landslide above the compacted land on slopes. However, the effectiveness of the measure against soil erosion is limited to slopes. The countries do not indicate any specific requirements for the sloping areas; therefore we assume that this measure could contribute to combating soil erosion in countries that use slopes for farming, but it is not designed for this. These countries set specific GAEC standards to combat soil erosion issue.

Report, Page 187 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Measure concerning the use of water for irrigation (France and Belgium) Irrigation is used in southern European regions with seasonal rainfall, which makes farming possible during the dry months. When applying irrigation, four main circumstances have to be taken into consideration including: quality, method, amount and how often irrigated water is applied. The amount of water needed for farming varies with the type of crop, climate, the ability of soil to hold water, the amount of moisture present in soil and drainage (Mays, 1999 and Rouppet, 2006). When land receives too much water, the water table rises and the soil becomes saturated, which negatively influence soil structure (Bouma, 1982). Irrigation can have a direct negative impact on soil quality (e.g. through soil contamination when poor quality water is used for irrigation) and quantity (e.g. when soil is moved due to erosion). Irrigation can increase the rate of erosion of cultivated soils on slopes and, due to siltation, also leads to deterioration in water quality (i.e. water contamination) downstream. The erosion of cultivated soils in some arid areas with light and erosion- prone soils, particularly on steep slopes can lead to the subsequent desertification (IEEP, 2000).

Irrigation can also have secondary negative impacts on soil quality, through intensively managed crops (such as maize or potatoes) leading to the conversion of pasture to irrigated cropland with associated biodiversity loss and landscape impacts as well as loss in soil organic matter and consequently soil biodiversity. In this case, the negative environmental consequences are related to the change in land use patterns rather than the direct impact of irrigation itself. However, it is the ability of irrigation to increase the profitability of certain more damaging crop types that has induced such change.

In addition, irrigation can also directly affect the other natural resources, for example, water, biodiversity and overall ecosystem health. These direct impacts include negative impacts on both the quality and quantity of ground and surface waters, in addition to displacement of former habitats and creation of new ones, thereby affecting the diversity and composition of ecosystems. Irrigation can also cause secondary impacts arising from the intensification of agricultural production permitted by irrigation, such as increased fertiliser use (IEEP, 2000).

Soil salinisation is another problem caused by irrigation. Irrigation water always contains variable amounts of salts, especially in regions where rainfall is low or evapo- transpiration is high. If soil textural characteristics impede the washing out, there is a subsequent build-up of the salts in the surface soil layers. Soil salinity can also be caused by climatic changes and by sea-level rise (Robert et al., 2004, p. 62). In Europe, the problem of salinisation is restricted to certain countries (e.g. Austria, Bulgaria, Slovakia, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Rumania, Spain, Russia, Bosnia, Ukraine, Serbia and Croatia). The main climatic conditions favouring salinisation are arid, semi-arid and semi-humid (Robert et al., 2004, p. 62).

Report, Page 188 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Soil salinisation mainly affects the Mediterranean countries and is regarded as a major cause of desertification, and therefore is a serious form of soil degradation. With recent increases in temperature and decreases in precipitation, characteristic of climate in recent years, the problem of salinisation in Europe is getting worse (Robert et al., 2004, p. 31). The overall incidence of such problems seems likely to increase with global warming as water supplies are predicted to decrease across many areas of the EU (CEC, 1999).

The measure concerning the use of water for irrigation is an effective measure against soil salinisation. In addition, the measure can also contribute to addressing soil contamination and soil erosion issues. The extent to which this measure can effectively deal with these soil threats depends strongly on the content of these provisions.

France and Belgium have introduced this measure. France has set a requirement to obtain permission to use irrigated water, detailing the specific amount required. The aim of this measure is to protect both water resources and soil structure (to avoid soil saturation and water erosion). The measure does not consider the quality of irrigated water. This measure is effective in maintaining good soil structure and combating soil salinisation and erosion issues. In contrast, Belgium requires that actions be taken to correct particular values (e.g. pH or salinity) in irrigated soils on the basis of the latest soil analysis. This measure is effective in order to combat soil salinisation and soil contamination issues.

Measure concerning the maintenance of field drainage system in a good condition (Italy) The main objective of agricultural drainage is to remove excess water. Thus, drainage is reasonable on wet agricultural soils. Affected are mainly the particular soil textures and areas with water tables that are close to surface. Improving drainage on agricultural land not only enhances crop production but also has a role in soil conservation.

This measure to maintain field drainage systems is directly related to soil salinity, compaction and soil erosion problems. Soil compaction increases runoff at the soil surface and creates a soil pan within the soil. The latter inhibits drainage, causing water logging on some soils (e.g. fine texture, high water holding capacity, poor drainage, and slow permeability). One the one hand, the water logged soils are prone to subsoil compaction, in particular those with low organic matter. Soil salinity problems are also higher in water logged soils. On the other hand, poor maintenance of drainage systems may modify water runoff and contribute to increased erosion risk (Fons-Esteve et al. 2004, p. 17).

Report, Page 189 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

The measure to maintain field drainage system in a good condition can contribute to maintain good soil structure and solve the problems of soil compaction and water erosion on soil. Italy is the only country that sets this requirement, giving rather detailed explanation on what has to be done (e.g. to clean ditches, drains and channels by removing natural vegetation, ground and sediments). Since drainage is reasonable on wet agricultural soils, the measure is applicable only in certain regions. Therefore this measure can only solve this problem to a certain extent.

Measure concerning a green cover on set-aside land (Italy) Italy has adopted a requirement, in addition to the restriction of machinery-use on water logged soils, to keep a green cover on set aside land, apart from firebreak strips. This measure is predicted to combat soil erosion and described under the Chapter on soil erosion issue.

4.3.4 Minimum level of maintenance

4.3.4.1 Introduction

In this section we will consider the impact on soil of the GAEC standards under the minimum level of maintenance issue. The Annex IV of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 requires that a minimum level of maintenance is ensured and the deterioration of habitats is avoided through appropriate standards:

• Minimum livestock stocking rates/and appropriate regimes;

• Protection of permanent pasture;

• Retention of landscape features; and

• Avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land.

The following Tables 4.3.4.1.1 and 4.3.4.1.2 present how the Member States define these standards/measures in their national legislation. Chapter 4.3.4.2 summarises this information, giving an overview of national standards/measures to keep a minimum level of maintenance.

Chapter 4.3.4.3 further evaluates each measure/standard to determine the extent to which each measure/standard contributes to soil protection, (i.e. specific soil threats).

Report, Page 190 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.4.1.1: Measures to ensure a minimum level of maintenance in Member States

Measure/ Description of the Measure/Standard Member State – Region Standard Minimum The farmer can apply for the support only for land which is kept in a good agricultural condition, i.e.: Estonia livestock stocking - Grassland has to be mown once and the hay has to be collected, or the land has to be grazed before the 31st of July. rates or/and appropriate - The farmer has to grow crops which has been sown or established by 15th of June or kept under black fallow. regimes - Land which has been abandoned must also be sown by 15th of June or kept under black fallow or mechanical weed treatment could be carried out. Pastures have to be maintained by mowing or grazing (minimum livestock stocking rate), as defined at department (NUTS3) level. France Comply with the minimal livestock stocking density, which is fixed in 0.2 LU/hectare for all animal categories, except in the cases where Greece there are specific local regulations. In case where grazing is not possible, clear the bushy vegetation of pastures. On non-tillage land/grassland: Grazing and/or cutting management practices must be in place to avoid undergrazing except where deemed Ireland unnecessary by the relevant authority. In case of undergrazing the stocking rate must be increased to sufficient level or the land must be harvested or topped at least once between 1st of June and 31st of July in a way that provides escape routes to wildlife. On tillage land: Crop must be grown except to the land that is in set-aside or where natural regeneration is practised (in this case it is adequately topped at least once between 16th of July and 15th of September in a way that provides escape routes to wildlife.

Standard 4.1 - Protection of permanent pasture23: Italy permanent pasture must be correctly managed and it is forbidden to convert them into different land use. Prohibition of machinery use, apart from that which is necessary to thicken turf and drain water. The Regions can specify minimum and maximum livestock stocking rates. Land is maintained in good agricultural and environmental condition, if: Latvia - grassland, meadows and perennial grasses sown on arable land are used for grazing of animals or feed production. - grazing lands and meadows are grazed or meadows are mowed for the first time no later than 1 August of a respective year and grass is gathered in due time or shredded in small pieces and spread. Protection of permanent pasture against under- and overgrazing. Spain To guarantee the good handling of permanent pasture, the farmer may choose to keep a minimum level of effective livestock load that shall be always equal or above 0.1 LU/ha. Above this minimum level, in accordance with the type of pasture and the local conditions, the minimum and maximum levels of effective livestock load can be established if it is considered more appropriate with regard to the functioning of different agri- ecosystems. Alternatively, in cases the suitable level of effective livestock load is not reached, it is compulsory to make an adequate work of maintenance to avoid the decline of the permanent pasture and its invasion by scrub.

23 Authors note: as defined under the “Protection of permanent pasture” standard.

Report, Page 191 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Measure/ Description of the Measure/Standard Member State – Region Standard Minimum livestock Overgrazing should be avoided with livestock and other species in such numbers as to adversely affect the growth, structure or species United Kingdom - Scotland stocking rates composition of vegetation on the land. Exception in cases where vegetation will be later destroyed (i.e. land is to be cultivated after the grazing). or/and appropriate When caused by deer and geese (unexpected and unpredictable case) and it has been shown that appropriate action has been taken to deal with regimes (continued) the problem than the farmer will not be taken accountable for overgrazing. Where overgrazing is attributable to rabbits the farmer is expected to provide evidence of the use of available control methods. Avoid under-grazing at a level where the growth of shrubs or coarse vegetation is detrimental to the environmental or agricultural interest in the field. Where under-grazing is identified, a management regime to be observed on that site must be approved by SEERAD. If the National Assembly has given a farmer written directions concerning the management of land which is in its opinion subject to overgrazing or United Kingdom - Wales the use of unsuitable supplementary feeding methods, he or she must comply with those directions on any area of land specified in them. On any other land a farmer must - a) not allow overgrazing; b) not use unsuitable supplementary feeding methods; c) not locate within 10 metres of a watercourse, sites where supplementary feeding for livestock is provided; or d) regularly rotate sites where supplementary feeding for livestock is provided. Maintaining agricultural surfaces in good agricultural condition can be achieved through either its grazing or mowing. The abandonment of Luxembourg agricultural surface and its transformation into wasteland is prohibited. For pasturing, the minimum livestock stocking rate of 0.5 LU/ha of fodder surface has to be met. On all meadows not used for grazing, the fodder has to be harvested. In the case no livestock is maintained, at least one cutting per year has to be realised and the cuttings have to be removed from the allotment. In the case of no harvest being carried out, the vegetation cover of all agricultural crop lands including those lands currently not in use has to be mowed once a year. For fodder lands, the conditions mentioned above apply when harvesting or grazing. Natural (non-cultivated) pasture must be grazed by animals every year. No specific livestock rates, but the entire area of each parcel of natural Sweden pasture must be visibly affected by grazing animals. There is an exception from the grazing standard allowed at the most every third year, for example if the pasture needs to recover from parasite infestation. Then the forage must be cut and taken away from the parcel. The forage on meadows must be cut and taken away from the parcel every year. Overgrazing of grassland, further more any substantial damage by machinery is prohibited. Hungary

Report, Page 192 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Measure/ Description of the Measure/Standard Member State – Region Standard Protection of If there has been a decrease equal to or greater than 5 % but less than 7.5 % of the reference ratio, the following measures shall apply: Belgium24 permanent - there shall be a general ban on allocating grassland considered to form part of permanent pasture to other uses. If the holding is subject to pasture restructuring, farmers who wish to allocate such grassland to other uses after August 2005 shall submit in advance a reasoned application for authorisation to the administration and inform it of the parcels that they will return to grassland in lieu, in the knowledge that they will have the obligation of keeping these new parcels under permanent pasture for at least the next five years. If there is a decrease of 7.5 % or more of the reference ratio: - there shall be a general ban on allocating grassland considered by the administration to form part of permanent pasture to other uses. In addition, farmers who have allocated parcels considered by the administration to be permanent pasture to another use shall be required to restore an equivalent area to grassland with the obligation of keeping these new parcels under permanent pasture for at least five years. Permanent pasture must only be converted if new permanent pasture of an equivalent area is created in its place. Permanent pasture must Belgium - Flemish Region, also be maintained if the land is transferred. Permanent pasture may be converted only in the event of force majeure (e.g. expropriation). Walloon Region In case grassland (previously declared as grassland) is turned into arable land, this land is not eligible for direct payments this year and Czech Republic subsequent years (according to the law No. 252/1997 Coll. , On Agriculture, as amended). GAEC standard: d) exclusion of change of grasslands culture into arable land culture on managed field blocks, eventually on parts of field blocks (§ 3, subsection 5, letter b of law No. 252/ 1997, On Agriculture, as amended), Also in Principles of Good Agriculture Practices for LFA.

1. Maintenance of set-aside areas and agricultural areas no longer in use: the plant cover must not be cut in the period of 1st of May to Denmark 30th of June (there exist some exceptions). 2. Permanent grassland:25 The farmer has to respect the rules concerning the reference share of permanent grassland (a certain share of the total agricultural area on country level): - If the total share of permanent grassland decreases by more than 10 %, farmers who have converted permanent grassland to arable land will be ordered to re-establish permanent grassland; and - If the total share of permanent grassland in one year decrease more than 5 % compared to the reference share, permanent grassland can only be ploughed up if it is permitted by the Ministry of Agriculture. 3. Maintenance of plant cover on permanent grassland: Plant cover on permanent grassland must be maintained in such away that it is kept free of re-growth of trees and scrubs. Permanent pasture must continue to be used as such and it must be kept free from bushes by grazing, mowing or grubbing up. Finland The farmer has to respect the rules concerning the reference share of permanent grassland (a certain share of the total agricultural area on France country level): - If the total share of permanent grassland decreases by more than 10 %, farmers who have converted permanent grassland to arable land will be ordered to re-establish permanent grassland. - If the total share of permanent grassland decreases by more than 5 %, the farmer has to ask for authorisation before converting permanent pasture to arable land.

24 Article 5(2) of Regulation 1782/2003, Article 4 of Regulation 796/2004. 25 Article 5(2) of Regulation 1782/2003, Article 4 of Regulation 796/2004.

Report, Page 193 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Measure/ Description of the Measure/Standard Member State – Region Standard Protection of The Laender have to make sure that the ratio of permanent grassland in relation to the total agricultural area (referring to 15 May 2003) is Germany26 permanent pasture maintained: (continued) - In case this ratio decreases by more than 5 %, the Laender have to legally determine, that grassland must not be ploughed without prior authorisation. - In case of a decline of more than 8 %, the Laender may determine that farmers who ploughed their grassland in the year before have to re- establish permanent grassland. - When the ratio decreases by 10 %, the Laender must force the farmer to re-establish permanent pasture. If necessary the governments of the Laender are entitled to lay down regulations with requirements differing from the general rules, in order to allow for regional conditions in areas with high groundwater table or a high share of steep slopes, or special regional conditions due to reasons of nature conservation or plant production. The responsible administrations of the Laender can allow exceptions if negative impacts on the ecosystem are not to be feared. 1. On permanent pastures, which are not used agriculturally any more, the grass growth is to be cut or mulched at least once annually and Germany distributed over the total surface, or to be mown at least every two years with the cut material to be removed from field concerned. For reasons of nature conservation or water protection, the competent authority of the Land can approve exceptions. 2. The surfaces of permanent pasture or set aside arable land must be neither topped, mowed or mulched between 1 April and 15 July (nesting time). 3. The described rules do not apply to particularly protected grassland habitat types and species of the Habitat Directive, Natura 2000 sites as well as other nature protection areas. The surfaces within such areas or sites may in principle not be ploughed. (This does not belong here but to protection of permanent pasture according to Article 4 of Regulation 796/2004; ratio of permanent pasture to arable land - it is as well not stated in the legal text, but in the information brochure for farmers). In general, the areas that must not be ploughed include: - areas where legal restrictions exist, e.g. in the context of the nature protection law or water law (e.g. SchaLVO), or - surfaces due to the participation in certain agri-environment measures (e.g. MEKA) or the landscape conservation measures (belongs as well down to protection of permanent pasture according to Article 4 of Regulation 796/2004). Do not proceed in ploughing of permanent pastures apart from the cases there is environmental or archaeological necessity, documented by Greece competent authorities.

If national area of permanent pasture as a proportion of the total agricultural are decreases by more than 5 %, landowner or occupier will be Ireland27 required to obtain prior authorisation to grow tillage crop. In case of reduction by more than 10 %, farmer will be required to re-convert tillage land into permanent grassland. Standard 4.1 - Protection of permanent pasture: Italy Permanent pasture must be correctly managed and it is forbidden to convert them into different land use. Prohibition of machinery use, apart from that which is necessary to thicken turf and drain water. The Regions can specify minimum and maximum livestock stocking rates.

26 Article 5(2) of Regulation 1782/2003, Article 4 of Regulation 796/2004. 27 Article 5(2) of Regulation 1782/2003, Article 4 of Regulation 796/2004.

Report, Page 194 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Measure/ Description of the Measure/Standard Member State – Region Standard Protection of Pastures and fields as well as perennial pastures should be in good condition and used for pasturing and/or cut at least once a year Lithuania permanent pasture (before 15 July). (continued) Farmers have to declare their area of grassland. Grassland can be renewed in case the plot is immediately re-sown with grass. Grass can Netherlands be renewed: on sandy soils between 1 February and 11 May, for clay and peat soils between 1 February and 16 September.

Obligation to register land use including grass land (annually): The aim is to maintain the amount of permanent pasture present in 200328: - In case the pasture decreases by 10 %, farmers will need a permit to convert grassland to different forms of land use. - If the share of pasture decreases further, farmers will be ordered to convert certain land back to grassland and keep it for the next 5 years. All grassland parcels must be maintained by cutting and/or grazing and mulching. Slovakia 1. Protection of permanent pasture against burning or ploughing. Permanent pasture must not be burned or ploughed, except for in vegetation Spain regeneration works. In this case, authorisation and control by the competent administration is necessary. In any case, the adoption of measures intended for the protection of the woods included in the burning area and its environment is compulsory. 2. Protection of permanent pasture against under- and overgrazing. To guarantee the good handling of permanent pasture, the farmer may choose to keep a minimum level of effective livestock load that shall be always equal or above 0.1 LU/ha. Above this minimum level, in accordance with the type of pasture and the local conditions, the minimum and maximum levels of effective livestock load can be established if it is considered more appropriate with regard to the functioning of different agri-ecosystems. 3. Alternatively, in cases the suitable level of effective livestock load is not reached, it is compulsory to make an adequate work of maintenance to avoid the decline of the permanent pasture and its invasion by scrub. 1. To protect rough grazing and other semi-natural areas, pesticides, lime or fertiliser must not be applied except in certain cases specified United Kingdom - Scotland or as approved under the EIA: - herbicides may be applied to control injurious weeds after prior written approval of SEERAD; - for control of bracken with Asulan or other approved herbicides; or - the application of lime or fertiliser where no conservation damage will result. 2. Any proposal to plough up pasture of high environmental or archaeological value e.g. species-rich grassland, machair habitats, pastoral woodland and heather moor-land requires the consent of the relevant authority or approval under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The following activities must not be carried out to protect rough grazing: new drainage, ploughing, clearing, levelling, re-seeding or cultivating unless approved under the EIA.

28 Article 5(2) of Regulation 1782/2003, Article 4 of Regulation 796/2004.

Report, Page 195 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Measure/ Description of the Measure/Standard Member State – Region Standard Protection of 1) Where the National Assembly establishes that the ratio in Article 3(1) of the Commission Regulation is decreasing, it must prohibit a farmer from United Kingdom - Wales permanent pasture converting land under permanent pasture, in accordance with Article 4(1) of the Commission Regulation. (continued) 2) Where the National Assembly establishes that the obligation in Article 3(2) of the Commission Regulation cannot be met, it must require a farmer to re-convert land to permanent pasture in accordance with Article 4(2) of the Commission Regulation. A combination of the standard for yearly grazing on natural pasture and harvest on meadows described above and the standard for avoiding of Sweden encroachment of unwanted vegetation, described below. The Swedish Board of Agriculture monitors the national ratio of permanent pasture. If the ratio on national level falls short of 95 per cent of the reference ratio a farmer may not convert permanent pasture without prior authorisation from the County Board of Administration (CBA). If the ratio on national level falls short of 90 per cent of the reference ratio the CBA shall impose farmers who have converted land from permanent pasture into other uses to re-convert. 29 Permanent pastures (land used as pasture for more than 5 years and areas utilised with annual fodder crops not in crop rotation) must be Hungary maintained. Controlling unwanted natural vegetation and avoiding overgrazing. Cyprus 1) If the total share of permanent grassland decrease more than 10 % compared to the reference year level (2003), the Austrian authorities will Austria be obliged to only allow those farm businesses with previous approvals to convert land from permanent pasture. If the total decline in the level of permanent pasture is more than 10 % (in spite of authorization processes) the re-establishment of permanent pasture will become an urgent stipulation. 2) A regional scheme was designed, given the circumstances particular to the Alps: a) In areas where the average slope angle is greater than 15% the allowable area for conversion from permanent pasture will be restricted to just 0.5 ha so long as the total area of permanent pasture accounts for more than 80 % of the holding. b) The conversion from alpine pastures and certain other alpine production systems is forbidden outright. c) Conversion is also not permitted within 20 m of an area of standing water (with a surface area of at least 1 ha), and not within 10 m of running water if the width of the waterway is more than 5 m.

29 Article 5(2) of Regulation 1782/2003, Article 4 of Regulation 796/2004

Report, Page 196 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Measure/ Description of the Measure/Standard Member State – Region Standard Protection of 1) Land-use change/exchange of land-use between lots classified as permanent pastures: Portugal permanent pasture Alteration of land use of lots classified as permanent pastures, as well as an exchange of land use between lots explored by the same farmer, (continued) depend on prior authorization of INGA. This is to be conceded by written request, except in the case of lots exempted from replacement (permanent pastures created as a result of agro-environmental compromises or covered by the regime of specific reserves of rights to the interest of dairy cows, sheep and goats, as well as lots with permanent pastures in 2003 that are to be forested (3rd paragraph of n° 2 of Article 5 of the EC regulation n° 1782/2003)), where the respective alteration depends exclusively on prior communication, provided it is verified that the alteration of use affects non-forage crops ends. Only alterations of use to permanent cultures, irrigated land, forest or infrastructure are authorized, and only as long as it is possible to respect the value of 95% of the RN (National Reference) for permanent pastures. If required, the procedure would ration the requests, giving precedence to the reconversion to olive groves and forests, with priority given to the former. 2) Replacement of surface to permanent pastures: Whenever the annual relation of permanent pastures is inferior to 90% of the value of the National Reference (RN), a national replacement of permanent pastures will be carried out until the value of 92% of the value of the RN is attained. In this case, INGA notifies the farmers to reconvert a determined surface to permanent pastures until the following 1st of November, or after 30 days of the referred notification have elapsed, provided this ultimate term presents itself as more favourable to the farmer. 3) New lots of permanent pastures: New lots of permanent pastures which have been subjected to reconversion, by exchange or as a result of national replacement, are obliged to remain in their new state during 5 years following the fact that gave origin to their state. In accordance with EU regulations, permanent pastures are defined as follows: Luxembourg Surfaces, that either due to sowing or through natural processes (self-sowing) is used for the cultivation of grass or other green fodder plants, and which have not been part of the farm's crop rotation for at least 5 years. For the verification of this national obligation, the ratio permanent pasture/agricultural useable surface of the corresponding year will be calculated, and compared with the ratio permanent pasture 2003/agricultural useable surface 2003. In the case this ratio declines, measures have to be taken to limit the free conversion of permanent pastures to agricultural crop land (e.g. an authorisation process can be set up). If the ratio's decline is of 10% or more, those farmers that transformed permanent pastures into agricultural crop lands will be compelled to sow again permanent pastures to the same extent of their previous transformation. Retention of No destruction of landscape and other features which are preventing wind and water soil erosion (particularly: field banks/hedgerows, Czech Republic landscape terraces, windbreaks, grassland in alluvial plains and field paths using natural slopes and respecting contour lines, eventually (field paths) features accompanied by side ditches, as well as surface water streams and water bodies. 1. Maintenance of plant cover on permanent grassland: Plant cover on permanent grassland must be maintained in such away that it is kept Denmark free of re-growth of trees and scrubs. 2. Permanent grassland: The farmer has to respect the rules concerning the reference share of permanent grassland (a certain share of the total agricultural area on country level): - If the total share of permanent grassland decreases by more than 10 %, farmers who have converted permanent grassland to arable land will be ordered to re-establish permanent grassland. Small groups of trees and bushes as well as patches of rocks located in fields must be retained. Substantial impediments to farming can, Finland however, be removed with the permission of the municipal rural business authorities.

Report, Page 197 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Measure/ Description of the Measure/Standard Member State – Region Standard Retention of Landscape features fulfil important functions for nature conservation and the environment. From the point of view of species diversity they often Germany landscape features have an outstanding importance in the agricultural landscape, by offering special living spaces. At the same time they represent an enrichment of (continued) the landscape. Therefore it is prohibited to eliminate the following landscape features totally or partly: - Single trees, which are protected according to Laender legal regulations as a protected natural monument in the sense of § 28 of the Federal nature protection law (BnatschG). - Rows of trees, which consist of at least 5 trees and show a length of at least 50 meters; (Definition of rows of trees: not agriculturally used species in a linear arrangement. Thus fruit trees and nut trees do not fall under the abolition prohibition). - Hedgerows or walled hedges ('Knicks') starting from a length of 20 meters (Definition: Linear structural elements, which are covered predominantly with woody species.). - Field woods or small woods with a size of at least 100 square meters to a maximum of 2000 square meters. (Definition: Areas mainly covered with woody species, which do not serve agricultural production. Areas, for which an aid for afforestation or an afforestation premium was granted, are not considered as spinneys or woodland). In the case of woodlands and wetlands the upper limit of 2000 square meters applies to each individual landscape element, i.e. several such landscape features, which keep in each case the upper limit, may occur on one field. - Small wetlands with a size up to 2000 square meters. (Definition: Biotopes, which are protected according to national legal regulations in the sense of § 30 of the federal nature protection law and that are registered following a habitat survey). For all: In principle, the ban on removing such landscape features does not imply management obligations. The proper management of landscape features is not a removal. The authority responsible according to federal state law can approve the removal of a landscape feature. Do not destroy dry stone walls, dykes and natural elevations in the limits of parcels. Greece 1. Archaeological sites and Monuments protected under National and EU legislation must not be damaged or removed. Ireland 2. Designated National Heritage Areas (NHAs), Special Areas for Conservation (SACs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and other habitats protected under EU or national legislation must not be damaged. 3. Vegetation growing on land that is not cultivated or vegetation growing in any hedge or ditch must not be burned between the dates of 1 March to 31 August in any year. 4. All external farm boundaries (walls, hedges or post and wire fences) on land occupied by livestock, excluding commonage land and unenclosed land must be maintained. Maintenance of terrain structure: To keep the peculiarities and topographical characteristics of the terrain, such as field borders and other Spain (except Extremadura structural elements; any significant alteration (actions of structural reform of terrain which include land use changes and modification of structural and Navarre ) elements, horizontal and vertical, carried out on surfaces greater than 5 ha, as well as the construction of infrastructures) must be authorised by the competent authority. Exempted from this obligation are the construction of dykes for the correction of sporadic watercourses, ditches and plots, as well as land levelling operations carried out on those parcels intended for rice cropping and others of irrigated land.

Report, Page 198 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Measure/ Description of the Measure/Standard Member State – Region Standard Retention of 1. Ancient monuments and archaeological sites, as protected by law, must not be demolished or damaged, altered or added to. United Kingdom - England landscape features 2. Stone walls used as field boundary of at least 10m in length must not be removed. Also stone walls less then 10m but meeting another (continued) field boundary (e.g. a hedge) at each end must not be removed. 3. Following national Hedgerow Regulations, no hedgerow or part of a hedgerow can be removed unless certain conditions are met (e.g. applying for a removal notice from the local authority). 4. Hedgerows must not be cut or trimmed between 1 March and 31 July (the main bird breeding season) other than for safety reasons (e.g. the hedge obscures a road). 5. Trees protected by national legislation (called Tree Preservation Orders) must not be felled, damaged, destroyed, topped or uprooted, TPOs protect trees, groups of trees and woodlands on the grounds of amenity. 1. Avoid altering, damaging or destroying protected elements of the historic environment (scheduled monuments, listed buildings and sites). United Kingdom - Scotland 2. Do not damage any boundary features: dry-stone or flagstone dykes, turf and stone-faced banks, walls, hedges and hedgerow trees, boundary trees and watercourses. 3. No hedge trimming is permitted between 1 March and 31 July except for roadside hedge trimming, required in the interest of road safety. 4. Avoid the deterioration of non-productive landscape features which are part of the agricultural unit, such us shelter belts (poaching), copses (non-maintaining of stock proof fences around shelter belts and copses) and ponds (eutrophication and drainage). 1) - Boundaries: A farmer must not remove, destroy or damage stone walls, stone faced banks, hedges, earthbanks, slate fences, stone gate United Kingdom - Wales posts and traditional stiles which serve as boundaries to agricultural land without consent from the relevant authority. A farmer may remove, or remove stone from, a stone feature - a) to widen an existing gap in the stone feature to no more than 10 metres in order to provide access to the land for machinery or livestock, but the ends of the feature created by the widening operation must be finished with a vertical face; or b) if the National Assembly has given the farmer written permission to do so because it considers that the removal is necessary in the circumstances of the particular case. 2) - Hedgerows: A farmer must not a) …remove a hedgerow in breach of regulation 5(1) or (9) of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997; b) …cut or trim any hedgerow on his or her farm during the period beginning on 1st March and ending on 31st August . A farmer may cut or trim a hedgerow at any time if – a) it is necessary to cut or trim it because it (i) overhangs a highway or any other road or footpath to which the public has access so as to endanger or obstruct the passage of vehicles or pedestrians; (ii) obstructs or interferes with the view of drivers of vehicles or the light from a public lamp; or (iii) overhangs a highway so as to endanger or obstruct the passage of horse-riders. b) it is necessary to cut or trim it because - (i) it is dead, diseased, damaged or insecurely rooted, and (ii) because of its condition it, or part of it, is likely to cause danger by falling on the highway, road or footpath; or c) the cutting or trimming is carried out in order to maintain a ditch. A farmer may a) …carry out hedge-laying and coppicing during the period beginning on 1 March and ending on 31st March if he or she does not disturb any birds nesting in the hedgerow; b) …trim a hedgerow by hand during a period of six months beginning with the first day after the hedgerow was laid. 3)- Scheduled monuments: A farmer must not, without consent under section 2(3) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, execute any of the following works - a) any works resulting in the demolition or destruction of or any damage to a scheduled monument; b) any works for the purpose of removing or repairing a scheduled monument or any part of it; c) any works for the purpose of making any alteration or additions to a scheduled monument or any part of it; d) any flooding or tipping operations on land in, on or under which there is a scheduled monument.

Report, Page 199 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Measure/ Description of the Measure/Standard Member State – Region Standard Retention of Ban on destroying or removing some landscape features in natural pastures. Sweden landscape features (continued) The removal of protected landscape ‘elements’ is forbidden. These include protected by nature conservation laws such as ‘natural Austria monuments’. Uprooting of indigenous trees listed in Schedule I-III of LEGAL NOTICE 12 of 2001 is forbidden, except when authorised by a permit from the Malta national competent authority. The deposition of soil or dumping of sublayer material on garrigue habitats (lying within the perimeter of the holdings) is prohibited. Agricultural land should not be grown with trees and shrubs, except for trees and shrubs that: Poland a) should not be cut down pursuant to nature conservation provisions; b) are important for water and soil protection; c) do not have impact on plant production conducted within the area; d) occur on plantations of roses (Rosa multiphlora) or willow (Salix sp.) Retention of 1. Prevention of scrub on plots taken out of production (land use of environmental interest). France landscape 2. Prohibition of the grubbing up of olive trees. features, (including where Standard 4.4 (see measure/ standard "Retain terraces").; Italy appropriate the Standard 4.3 - Maintenance of olive groves: prohibition of the Olives trees (both commercial or not) can not be cut down. Multiyear offshoots, brambles and weed must be removed. Farmers are therefore grubbing up of requested to prune olive trees at least once every five years, apart from phytosanitary reasons, that must be verified by competent olive trees) authorities. For re-plantation an authorisation is required.

Maintenance of Absence of scrub, maintenance in good vegetative conditions (e.g. pruning). France olive groves in good vegetative Olive groves should be maintained in good condition: Malta conditions a) suckers must be removed from olive trees every year or at least every two years, b) the olive trees have to be pruned at least once every 5 years, c) infesting plants must be removed from aerial part of the trees every year. Maintenance of olive groves in working vegetative order: The farmer must not remove olive trees and, in the areas where it is so Spain (except Astuarias established, must respect the regulations that are established for the maintenance of the olive groves in working vegetative order, its cultural and Galicia) and varietal restructuring, and for the changes of crop or use.

Report, Page 200 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Measure/ Description of the Measure/Standard Member State – Region Standard Avoiding the 1. For grassland taken out of production: mowing or crushing must be done at least once a year between 1 July and 31 August of the Belgium – Flemish Region, encroachment of current agricultural year. Walloon Region unwanted 2. For arable land taken out of production apart from set-aside entitlements the following is necessary: vegetation on agricultural land - either establish grassland, or - mandatory annual sowing of fallow cover other than the natural cover (codes 82, 83, 84, 85 or 851) must take place before 31 May of the current agricultural year. 3. For all parcels of the holdings: a control of weeds as laid down in legal provisions (e.g. thistles etc.). 4. To prevent the spread of weeds, cover crops must be destroyed in an appropriate manner and in good time (before seed release). This can be done, for example, by mowing the growth or grinding it up finely. Departures from this rule may be permitted with a view to certain environmental objectives or management agreements. 5. Uncultivated fields must be sown no later than 31 May. 6. The proliferation of woody growth must be removed in good time from grasslands which are not used for farming. 7. Thistles must be controlled in some areas of grasslands which are not used for farming. Thistles (Cardus pratense and Cardus vulgare) must not be allowed to bloom and set and release seed. 1. Maintenance of plant cover on permanent grassland: Plant cover on permanent grassland must be maintained in such away that it is kept Denmark free of re-growth of trees and scrubs. 2. Maintenance of set-aside areas and agricultural areas no longer in use: Set-aside areas and agricultural areas no longer in agricultural use must be maintained by cutting according to requirement, re-growth of trees and scrubs must not be older than 5 years. On set-aside agricultural land maintenance may be done by grazing or mowing. 1. The farmer can apply for the support only for land which is kept in a good agricultural condition, i.e.: Estonia - Grassland has to be mown once and the hay has to be collected, or the land has to be grazed before the 31st of July. - The farmer has to grow crops which has been sown or established by 15th of June or kept under black fallow. - Land which has been abandoned must also be sown by 15th of June or kept under black fallow or mechanical weed treatment could be carried out. 1. Stubble fallow land and untilled bare fallow land must be mown annually or weeds must be prevented from spreading by some other Finland means. 2. Uncultivated fields to be kept in good agricultural condition and green fallow parcels must be mown once during the growing period; the mowing should be planned taking into consideration birds and mammals. 3. Preventing wild oats spreading is required according to national legislation. Destruction of weed (precisely defined at department (NUTS3) level). France Proceed in the necessary farming interventions in the parcel in order to maintain it in good conditions and avoid invasion of undesirable species. Greece Farmers can remove the undesirable vegetation either by grazing or with mechanical weeding and removal.

Report, Page 201 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Measure/ Description of the Measure/Standard Member State – Region Standard Avoiding the 1. Appropriate measures must be adopted to prevent the establishment of invasive species onto forage/arable area that would result in the Ireland encroachment of land being incapable of agricultural production (e.g. black-horn, furze, briars, scrub species, rhododendron or bracken). unwanted 2. Appropriate measures must be adopted to minimise the spread of noxious weeds (e.g. ragwort, thistle, dock, wild oat, common barberry vegetation on and wild hop). agricultural land 3. On non-tillage land/grassland: Grazing and/or cutting management practices must be in place to avoid under-grazing except where (continued) deemed unnecessary by the relevant authority. In case of under-grazing the stocking rate must be increased to sufficient level or the land must be harvested or topped at least once between 1 June and 31 July in a way that provides escape routes to wildlife. 4. On tillage land: Crop must be grown except to the land that is in set-aside or where natural regeneration is practised (in this case it is adequately topped at least once between 16 July and 15 September in a way that provides escape routes to wildlife. Land is maintained in good agricultural and environmental condition, if: Latvia - Agricultural land is cultivated and crops are grown in accordance with agricultural practices, and agricultural land is free from invasive plant species (Heracleum sosnowskyi) and bushes. On the agricultural farming areas there must be no trees and bushes (except for willows and osiers which are grown for the manufacture of Lithuania twigs or for weaving and where a group of bushes and trees, grow as a separate area on the field, that is not included in the area against which the payment is claimed) and no lignified herbage (wormwood, absinthium, thistle, etc.). All agricultural surfaces shall be kept in good agricultural conditions. The spread of undesirable plants such as stinging-nettles, sorrel, thistles, fern, Luxembourg brome grass and milo has to be avoided; plant encroachment is also to be avoided. The encroachment of unwanted vegetation which interferes with the cultivation of agricultural crops should be controlled through appropriate weed Malta control measures in order to prevent the marginalisation or abandonment of parts or all of the parcels of agricultural land. In cases where farmers establish buffer areas or conservation bio-belts within their fields for the purpose of encouraging biodiversity or protection of natural habitats, wildlife and water bodies using non-agricultural species, and in cases where the farmers adopt inter-row cultivation of non-agricultural species between trees or other crops for the purpose of soil cover, such proliferation of non-agricultural species is not to be considered as encroachment of unwanted vegetation. Arable land that is not used for crop production must be maintained by cutting and/or mulching (before flowering of weeds). Slovakia The cleanliness of crop plots invaded by unwanted spontaneous vegetation (those species which do not put at risk the productive capacity of Spain agricultural soils in the medium and longer term, or may threaten with their proliferation to break the traditional agri-ecological equilibrium of a land or of a determinate crop area and by extension affect neighbouring crop lands) is compulsory. The competent administration will determine, for each area, the temporary cycle and the list of vegetation species that must be eliminated. This measure will not be obligatory in those cases where at the right moment, as a result of adverse meteorological conditions, it has been impossible to carry out measures for its elimination. 1. On eligible land that is not used for agricultural production, scrub must not develop and action should be taken to prevent the spread of United Kingdom – England weeds. As a minimum scrub must be cut and rank vegetation cut or grazed on the whole area at least once every 5 years. No more than 50 % of land area should be cut in year 4 or 5 and when no cutting or grazing has occurred or 3 years, 50 % of the land area must be cut or grazed in year 4. Vegetation cannot be cut between 1 March and 31 July so as to protect ground nesting birds. 2. All reasonable steps must be taken to prevent the spread of nine weeds including common ragwort, spear thistle etc. A code of practice should be referred to and notices served under a national weeds act must be complied with. Avoid the encroachment of unwanted vegetation which degrades the agricultural and environmental value of the land to the extent that the United Kingdom – Scotland land is not capable of returning to agricultural production at any time during the next growing season. Exceptions: re-colonisation of trees across the boundary line from native woodland and scrub species as part of a mosaic of habitats, reversion of land to wet grassland or wetland.

Report, Page 202 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Measure/ Description of the Measure/Standard Member State – Region Standard Avoiding the 1) If a notice has been served on a farmer under section 1 of the Weeds Act 1959, he or she must not unreasonably fail to comply with the United Kingdom – Wales encroachment of requirements of that notice: unwanted a) A farmer must take all reasonable steps to prevent the spread of ragwort (Seneccio jacobaea), spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare), creeping or field vegetation on thistle (Cirsium arvense), broad-leafed dock (Rumex obtusifolius) and curled dock (Rumex crispus) on his or her land. agricultural land b) If, in any appeal against a determination of the National Assembly in relation to this paragraph, a code of practice providing guidance on how to (continued) prevent the spread of ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) made under section 1A(1) of the Weeds Act 1959 appears to be relevant to any question arising in the appeal, it is to be taken into account in determining that question. 2) A farmer must take all reasonable steps to prevent the spread of Rhododendron ponticum, Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica), giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) and Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera) on his or her land. 1) Arable land: No bushes or woody vegetation older than one year allowed. Sweden 2) Natural pasture and meadows: No encroachment of vegetation that significantly damages natural or cultural values allowed.

1) Utilised agricultural areas (arable land, grasslands, permanent crops) must be kept under appropriate weed control.; Hungary 2) On utilised agricultural areas (arable land, grasslands, permanent crops) the undesirable shrubs and invasive trees must be eradicated.

Arable land should not lay fallow for longer than five years. Arable land is considered as fallow if at least once a year, prior to 15 July: a) it is Poland cut, b) it undergoes other cultivation measures that prevent weeds from occurring or spreading. For those lots of arable land and of grassland (forage crops) surface that benefit from direct payments, only 25% of their surface area can be taken Portugal up by wood formations dominated by shrubbery of a height superior to 50cm. Vegetation control must comply with the following norms: a) It must be undertaken outside of the season in which bird breeding is at its highest (March and April). Exempt from this rule are those cases where, due to land seasons, vegetation control has to be carried out during this period; in this case the execution depends on an authorisation of the corresponding Regional Agriculture Authority (Direcção Regional de Agricultura); b) It must be concluded before July 1 of the year the request was made; c) Residues resulting from control operations in this field must be mixed into the soil or extracted from the lots to areas where their accumulation minimizes the risk of fire to the field, provided that the norms concerning the burning of agricultural surplus and the carrying out of fires are complied with; d) In lots with IQFP equal or superior to 4, vegetation control can only be realized without upturning of soil. Exempt from this rule are lots of land in steps or terraces and in areas integrated in meadows. Exceptions to this norm: a) Lots that are part of fallow land (baldio); b) Lots occupied by tree or shrub species of ecological or landscape interest, as vouched by the competent authorities; c) Lots of grassland (forage crops) surface integrated into agricultural exploration with a start point livestock equal or superior to 0.15 CN/ha (for the calculation of this start point, "diary cows and heifers with more than 24 months," "heifers including age between 8 months and 2 years," and "heifers and goats" are considered for conversion effects, with the following coefficients respectively: 1, 0.6 and 0.15).

Report, Page 203 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.4.1.2: Specific national measures on minimum level of maintenance in addition to the Community standards

Measure/ Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Member State – Region Appropriate timing of Herbage and/or hay harvest should be dealt with in good time. Lithuania herbage and hay harvest Burning heather and grass The national laws regarding the burning of heather and grass must be followed. These laws control the dates and timing of United Kingdom - England burning amongst other requirements.

Burning heather and grass 1) A farmer must not commence burning heather, rough grass, bracken, gorse or vaccinium on any land between sunset and sunrise. United Kingdom - Wales 2) A farmer must not burn heather, rough grass, bracken, gorse or vaccinium unless - a) there are, where the burning is taking place, sufficient persons and equipment to control and regulate the burning during the entire period of the operation; b) he or she takes, before commencing burning and during the entire period of the operation, all reasonable precautions to prevent injury or damage to any adjacent land, or to any person or thing whatsoever on that land; and c) he or she has, not less than 24 hours and not more than 7 days before commencing burning on any land, given notice in writing of the date or dates, time and place at which, and the extent of the area on which it is his or her intention to burn - (3) A farmer must not burn heather, rough grass, bracken, gorse or vaccinium - a) on land which is within an upland area, during the period beginning on 16th April and ending on 30th September, and b) on land which is not within an upland area, during the period beginning on 1st April and ending on 31st October, except under, and in accordance with any conditions specified in, a licence issued by the National Assembly under regulation 7 of the Heather and Grass etc (Burning) Regulations 1986. EIA, SSSI, rights of way, 1. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) must be conducted before using uncultivated land or semi-natural areas for United Kingdom - England tree-protection intensive agricultural purposes or construction works. An EIA must also be conducted before afforestation or deforestation takes place on agricultural land. 2. Do not damage or destroy land that is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), including plants, animals, geological or other landscape features which led to the land being designated a SSSI. This GAEC is based on existing national legislation. 3. All legal public rights of way (footpaths, bridle-ways etc) must be maintained, e.g. by reinstating a path after ploughing a field or by maintaining a stile or gate in a safe condition. This is based on existing national legislation. 4. A felling licence is needed before a tree can be felled, as required by national forestry laws. EIA, SSSI, tree-protection 1) - SSSI: a) Do not carry out any activities on the “Operations likely to damage the special interest” (OLDSI) list that apply to the SSSI United Kingdom - Wales without giving notice and receiving consent in writing from the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW), b) If you have a SSSI management agreement, you must also comply with the prescriptions set out in that agreement.; c) You must comply with a restoration order made under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.; d) If you have not been notified of the SSSI but know that it exists, you cannot intentionally or recklessly damage or destroy the special interest or disturb any of the flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features.; e) As an owner you must inform CCW of any changes to ownership, tenancy or lease within four weeks of the change taking place. 2) - EIA: A farmer must not… a) …begin or carry out a project without first obtaining either a decision that the project is not a relevant project or a decision granting consent for the project in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (Uncultivated Land) Regulations.; b) …breach a stop notice served on him or her under regulation 22(1) of the EIA (Uncultivated Land) Regulations.

Report, Page 204 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Measure/ Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Member State – Region c) …carry out, on any land, work or operations relating to a relevant project unless - consent has been granted for that project by the Commissioners or by the appropriate authority; or the project is carried out in accordance with the consent (including any conditions to which the consent is subject). d) … carry out work in relation to a relevant project in contravention of a requirement to discontinue that work in an enforcement notice served in accordance with regulation 20 of the EIA (Forestry) Regulations. 3) - Tree-protection: a) Do not breach TPO (Tree Preservation Orders) by cutting down, uprooting or wilfully destroying tree or wilfully damaging, topping or lopping a tree in such a way as to likely to destroy it; b) Obtain necessary felling licences; c) In any calendar quarter*, you may fell up to 5 cubic metres on your property without a licence as long as no more than 2 cubic metres are sold (*1 Jan to 31 March, 1 April to 30 June, 1 July to 30 September and 1 October to 31 December); d) Certain types of felling do not need permission from the Forestry Commission. Maintenance of areas taken Plant cover on set-aside areas and agricultural areas no longer in use: Denmark out of production - Areas taken out of production must not used in such away that the plant cover is destroyed. Temporary activities are allowed (for example storage gravel, sand etc.) if the plant cover is re-established immediately after use. - Plant protection, manure spreading and irrigation on set-aside areas and agricultural areas no longer in use: 1) pesticides must not be used, with the exception of products approved for control of specific weeds (wild oat, giant hog-weed); 2) mineral fertilisers must not be used; and 3) irrigation is not allowed. Maintenance of areas taken It is generally prohibited to have bare fallow. This means that farmers have to sow a crop on all plots taken out of production Netherlands out of production (can be green crop, non-food/non-feed crop or forage legumes, in case of organic farming on all land). Maintenance of areas taken No use of chemical biocides or any kind of fertilizers allowed on fallow except as part of preparation for winter crops. In that case Sweden out of production biocides and fertilizers may be used no earlier than from specified dates that differ between crops. Maintenance of areas taken Grass must be planted on unused arable land (as with set aside) and maintained over the growing season (normally from April until Austria out of production September). Exceptions are possible for nature conservation when other measures can be introduced. Maintenance of agricultural Through retention of landscape features (e.g. fences, trees, bushes, paths), preventing the development of unwanted vegetation Cyprus areas and areas taken out on agricultural land and keeping fallow land free of weeds. of production Maintenance of set-aside On obligatory or voluntary set-aside arable land, passive or active greening has to be allowed for, and the vegetation has to be cut Germany land and mulched, or mowed and removed from the land. For reasons of nature conservation or water protection, the competent authority of the Land can approve exceptions. If necessary the governments of the Laender are entitled to lay down regulations with requirements differing from the general rules, in order to allow for regional conditions in areas with high groundwater table or a high share of steep slopes, or special regional conditions due to reasons of nature conservation or plant production. Maintenance of set-aside Except on land which is set aside pursuant to a set aside obligation under Article 54 of the Council Regulation, on any eligible hectare United Kingdom - Wales land which is not used for agricultural production a farmer must - a) cut down any scrub and cut down or graze any rank vegetation at least once every 5 years, but - (i) where vegetation has not been cut down or grazed for 3 years, he or she must only cut down or graze 50% of the area of that vegetation in either of the next two years; and (ii) he or she must not cut down or graze any vegetation between 15th March and 31st July in any year, unless cutting or grazing are necessary in order for the farmer to comply with requirements regarding “control of weeds “ (see “avoiding the encroachment….”);

Report, Page 205 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Measure/ Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Member State – Region b) on any land which has carried a crop of oil-seeds, grain legumes or cereals which has been harvested using a combine harvester or a mower, establish a green cover (either through sowing or self-seeding) as soon as is practicable on or after 1st March in the first year after the land has ceased to be used for agricultural production, unless the farmer can prove that he or she intends to bring the land back into agricultural production before 15th May in that year; c) not use the land for non-farm vehicular use; d) not apply any inorganic fertiliser to the land; e) not apply organic fertilisers to the land, except as part of seedbed preparation during a period beginning two months before the day the crop is sown. Maintenance of agricultural Maintain the land in satisfactory agricultural condition by: Austria areas and set-aside land 1) Avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation. The entire agricultural area should be maintained so that there is no scrub or tree invasion. 2) Set-aside management. The total area used as set-aside should not total more than 50 % of the agricultural area of the farm. Maintenance of agricultural Land should be cultivated each year. Slovenia land Maintenance of hedgerows Land within 2 metres of the centre of a hedgerow or watercourse must not be cultivated or have fertilisers, dredging, slurry, United Kingdom - England and watercourses manure or pesticides applied to it. This measure does not apply to new hedgerows for the first 5 years after planting or in fields of 2 hectares or less. Management of pastures a) cultivating the land with plants or laying it idle for farmland; Poland and meadows b) cutting the plant cover and removing it at least once a year before 31 July for meadows; c) cutting plant cover and removing it at least once a year before 30 September for molinia meadows under agri-environmental programmes; d) animal grazing during the vegetation period for grass or cutting the plant cover and removing it at least once a year before 31 July for pastures. Prohibition of use of agri Agricultural land must not be used for a profit-making purpose, which has no connection with agriculture. Belgium - Walloon Region land for non-agricultural activities Maintenance of water Present drainage system on arable land must be maintained in order to avoid the arable land to become too soggy to plough. Sweden drainage system Disposal of agricultural The collection of farming related plastic materials, tyres and oils is mandatory. Portugal residues Storage of fertilisers and Fertilizer and pesticides must be stored in places that are protected, dry and equipped with impermeable floors. These storerooms must Portugal pesticides be at distance greater than 10 m away from streams, ditches, wells, water drill holes and springs, except in cases where fertirrega deposits are equipped with an outflow protection system.

Report, Page 206 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

4.3.4.2 Summary of the national measures to keep a minimum level of maintenance

As shown in Tables 4.3.4.1.1 and 4.3.4.1.2 above, all 25 Member States introduced one or more standards to ensure a minimum level of maintenance (EEA, 2006; IEEP, 2006; FÖMI, 2004; MARD, 2004; SVJ, 2006a; FÖMI, 2004 & 2006; MARD, 2004 & 2007; CYPO, 2005; AMA, 2007; Brás et al., 2006; Karaczun and Wasilewski, 2006; ARSKTRP, 2006a and 2006b; MAVRD, 2005; MRAE, 2007; National Assembly for Wales, 2004).

Below, measures that have been identified in the national provisions on cross- compliance implementation, under each of the four standards related to the minimum level of maintenance, will be summarised.

a. Minimum livestock stocking rates or/and appropriate regimes

As regards the minimum livestock stocking rates or/and appropriate regimes standard, 11 Member States (Estonia, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Spain, UK (Scotland and Wales), Sweden and Hungary) have introduced measures under this standard (EEA, 2006; IEEP, 2006; FÖMI, 2004; MARD, 2004; Swedish Board of Agriculture, 2006). 14 Member States have not introduced any measure under this standard.

Just one type of measure on minimum livestock stocking rates or/and appropriate regimes can be distinguished in the Member States:

• Measure on maintenance of grassland and pastures by mowing or grazing (Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Spain, Sweden and UK (Scotland and Wales)).

Measure on maintenance of grassland and pastures by mowing or grazing Almost all of the examined Member States (with exception of Italy) have set requirements for maintenance of grassland and pastures by mowing or grazing. Estonia requires that the grassland be mowed or grazed before the 31 of July, while Ireland requires grassland to be harvested between 1 of June and 31 of July and Latvia requires that the meadows be mowed not later than 1 of August. In Luxembourg, on all meadows not used for grazing, the land has to be mowed once a year and the cuttings have to be removed from the allotment. Only Scotland (UK) requires that available control methods be used for grazing caused by rabbits. Sweden requires natural pastures to be grazed by animals not setting any specific livestock rates or meadows harvested every year. Hungary prohibits overgrazing of grassland and substantial damage by machinery. Wales (UK) prohibits overgrazing and requires farmers to regularly rotate sites where supplement feeding for livestock is provided.

Report, Page 207 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

France, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Italy and Spain have set a requirement for a minimum livestock density/appropriate regimes, accordingly 0,2 LU/hectare for Greece, 0,5 LU/ha in Luxembourg and 0,1 LU/hectare in Spain.

b. Protection of permanent pasture

Concerning the protection of permanent pasture measure/standard, 20 Member States (with exception of Estonia, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and UK (England) have introduced the measure (EEA, 2006; IEEP, 2006; SVJ, 2006a; FÖMI, 2004 & 2006; MARD, 2004 & 2007; CYPO, 2005; AMA, 2007; Brás et al., 2006; National Assembly for Wales, 2004; MAVRD, 2005).

The protection and maintenance of permanent pastures has been handled in very different ways among the examined Member States. Nevertheless, two main types of measures on permanent pasture protection can be distinguished in the Member States:

• Measure on the share30 of permanent pasture and prevention of land conversion (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Finland, Luxembourg, Portugal, UK (Wales and Scotland), Sweden and Spain); and

• Measure on minimum requirements to manage permanent pastures (Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Italy, Slovakia and Spain).

Measure on the share of permanent pasture and prevention of land conversion Certain Member States have standards referring to the share of permanent pasture that may not be changed (relative to the reference level: Belgium – from 5 percent to 7.5 percent, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Portugal and Sweden – from 5 percent to 10 percent, Austria, Luxembourg and the Netherlands – 10 percent and more). In contrast, the Czech Republic indicates any reference level and sets an exception from direct payments in cases where grassland is turned into arable land. Finland, Greece, Italy and UK (Wales) also prohibit the conversion of permanent pasture, setting any reference levels.

Spain does not clearly set a ban to convert the permanent pasture, but prohibits the ploughing of permanent pasture. In UK (Scotland) there is also no general ban on the removal of permanent pastures. However, to plough pasture of high environmental or archaeological value (e.g. species-rich grassland, machair habitats, pastoral woodland and heather moor-land) requires the consent of the relevant authority or approval under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). In addition, unless approved under the EIA, the following activities must not be carried out to protect rough grazing: new

30 As required by the Article 5(2) of Regulation 1782/2003 and Article 4 of Regulation 796/2004.

Report, Page 208 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

drainage, ploughing, clearing, levelling, re-seeding or cultivating. The Netherlands requires annual land use registration, including grass land.

In general, the Member States introducing a reference level of permanent pasture require that permanent pasture be re-established (Austria, Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Germany, Denmark, Ireland, Portugal, Sweden and UK (Wales)) or that certain land be converted back to grassland and keep for the next 5 years (the Netherlands). In some cases, authorisation is required before converting/ploughing (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Denmark, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, Sweden and UK (Scotland)). Austria has specific and detail requirements for the Alpine region. For example, if average slope is greater than 15%, the allowable area for conversion from permanent pasture will be restricted to just 0.5 ha; The conversion from alpine pastures and certain other alpine production systems is forbidden outright, moreover conversion is not permitted within 20 m of an area of standing water, not within 10 m of running water if the width of the waterway is more than 5 m. Portugal also defines the measure very detail, indicating specific requirements for particular crops or areas (e.g. re-conversion to olive groves or forest).

Measure on minimum requirements to manage permanent pastures Cutting/mowing, grazing, mulching or clearing of permanent pastures or agricultural land no longer in use is prescribed as a minimum requirement, and in most countries, a minimum frequency of management is prescribed (management every 1-5 years). For example, Germany requires that grass be cut or mulched at least once annually and distributed over the total surface or mowed at least every two years with the cut material removed from field. Germany and Denmark set time restrictions for cutting/mowing. For example, Denmark bans cutting of the plant on set-aside areas or agricultural areas no longer in use from the period between 1 of May and 30 of June; Germany bans mowing or mulching of permanent pasture between 1 April and 15 July; while Lithuania requires pastures be cut at least once a year before 15 of July. In addition, Denmark requires that plant cover be maintained on permanent grassland in such away that it is kept free of re-growth of trees and scrubs. Finland requires that permanent pasture be kept free from bushes by grazing, mowing or grubbing up. Slovakia requires all grassland parcels maintain by cutting, mulching and/or grazing. Hungary simply requires maintaining permanent pasture not giving any details.

With respect to minimum management requirements, Denmark and Germany consider environmental protection (i.e. nesting time), while Lithuania focuses on good agricultural conditions.

Cyprus, Italy, Lithuania, Slovakia and Spain introduce grazing as a measure to manage permanent pastures. While Lithuania and Slovakia simply indicate the pasturing/grazing as a measure; Italy and Spain set minimum and maximum livestock stocking rates as the good management requirements in order to protect permanent pastures against under and overgrazing. For example, Spain sets the rate equal or above 0.1 LU/ha. Spain, in an alternative to effective livestock stocking rates, requires

Report, Page 209 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

that farmers maintain permanent pasture to avoid its decline and invasion by scrub. Italy prohibits machinery use on permanent pasture and requires that permanent pasture be mowed at least once a year, if pasture is not grazed. Cyprus requires controlling unwanted natural vegetation and avoiding overgrazing.

In Italy, permanent pasture established on arable land through agri-environment schemes is exempted from the standard. In Germany, the described rules do not apply to any protected grassland habitat types and species of the Habitat Directive, Natura 2000 sites or other nature protection areas. However, the surfaces within such areas or sites in principle cannot be ploughed.

c. Retention of landscape features, including where appropriate the prohibition of the grubbing up of olive trees

The retention of landscape features, including where appropriate the prohibition of the grubbing up of olive trees standard, was introduced in 14 Member States: the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Malta, UK, Sweden, Austria and Poland (EEA, 2006; IEEP, 2006; SVJ, 2006a; AMA, 2007; Karaczun and Wasilewski, 2006; MRAE, 2007; National Assembly for Wales, 2004). Eleven Member States – Belgium, Cyprus, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia and Slovenia – have not introduced this measure.

Four types of measures on landscape features retention can be distinguished in the Member States:

• Measure on landscape features protection (Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Malta, UK, Spain, Sweden and Italy); • Measure on the prevention of re-growth of trees and scrubs (France, Poland and Denmark); • Measure on reference share of permanent grassland (Denmark); and • Measure on the maintenance of olive groves in good vegetative conditions (France, Italy, Malta and Spain).

Measure on landscape features protection The Member States introducing the measure on landscape features protection focus on the ban to destruct or remove landscape features. There is a great variety of landscape elements protected by the Member States including historic monuments, nature protection areas and objects, surface water bodies.

For example, Austria bans the removal of natural monuments protected by nature conservation laws. In the Czech Republic, field banks, terraces, windbreaks or field patches as well as water streams and water bodies must be maintained in order to prevent wind and soil erosion. In Finland, small groups of trees or bushes and small

Report, Page 210 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

patches of rocks are protected; whereas in Germany hedges, tree rows, field woods, wetlands and single trees, if they fulfil certain criteria are maintained. In Greece, dry stone walls, dykes and natural elevations are protected. In Ireland and UK, the external farm boundaries, including walls and hedges have to be maintained (not removed, destroyed or damaged), in addition to post and wire fences in Ireland. Trees are protected by national legislation in UK (England) and Malta. Dry-stone or flagstone dykes, turf and stone-faced banks, boundary trees and water courses are protected in UK (Scotland). In Spain, topographical characteristics of the terrain, such as field borders or any significant alteration must be maintained. United Kingdom (Wales) focuses strongly on the protection of boundaries, hedgerows and scheduled monuments. In general, all the Member States setting this requirement list the landscape elements that have to be protected; however, just Germany provides a definition of the protected objects. Finland and Germany, however, foresee exceptions; and Italy refers to “retain terraces” measure as standard to prevent soil erosion. Sweden simply sets a ban on destroying or removing some landscape features in natural pastures not giving any details. Moreover, Malta prohibits the deposition of soil or dumping of sub-layer material on garrigue habitats.

In addition, Ireland and UK (England and Scotland) set management requirements for certain protected landscape elements. For example, while Ireland prohibits burning of vegetation growing in hedges and ditches between 1 of March to 31 of August; UK (England and Scotland) prohibit cutting or trimming hedges between 1 of March to 31 of July, in order to protect nesting birds.

Measure on the prevention of re-growth of trees and scrubs While France prevents the scrubs on areas taken out of production; Denmark prohibits re-growth of trees and scrubs on permanent grassland as a requirement to maintain a plant cover on permanent grassland. Poland prohibits trees and shrubs to be grown on agricultural land. There are exceptions foreseen that take into consideration nature conservation provisions, water and soil protection, etc.

Measure on reference share of permanent grassland Denmark sets the requirement to restore the permanent grassland above 10 percent of the decrease threshold, as is already defined under the permanent pasture protection standard.

Measure on the maintenance of olive groves in good vegetative conditions Under the retention of landscape features standard, France, Italy, Malta and Spain set a specific requirement to maintain olive groves in good vegetative conditions (EEA, 2006; IEEP, 2006 and MRAE - Ministry for Rural Affairs and the Environment, 2007). France, Italy and Spain prohibit the grubbing up or cutting down of olive trees. Italy and Malta require that olive groves be pruned at least once every five years, apart from phytosanitary reasons. For replanting an authorisation is required. France and Malta

Report, Page 211 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

requires that re-growth of scrubs be prevented and that olive threes be pruned in order to keep them in good vegetative conditions. Spain require that olive groves be maintained in working vegetative order (e.g. the farmer is not allowed to remove olive trees). The farmers must respect cultural and diverse restructuring of olive groves.

d. Avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land

The avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land measure/standard was introduced in 18 Member States (Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, and UK) out of 25 reviewed Member States (EEA, 2006; IEEP, 2006; FÖMI, 2004 & 2004; MARD, 2004 & 2007; Karaczun and Wasilewski, 2006; Brás et al., 2006; SVJ, 2006a;MAVRD, 2005; MRAE, 2007; National Assembly for Wales, 2004). Seven Member States – Austria, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Slovenia – have not introduced this measure.

Two main types of measures on avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land can be distinguished in the Member States:

• Measure on the removal of undesirable vegetation (Belgium, Ireland, Latvia, Spain, France, Finland, Hungary, Malta, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Sweden, Denmark, Greece, Lithuania and UK); and

• Measure on grassland mowing (Belgium, UK (England), Estonia, Ireland and Finland).

Measure on the removal of undesirable vegetation The measure focuses on the removal of undesirable vegetation (weeds and scrub/woody growth) either by grazing or mechanical removal in order to prevent the marginalisation or abandonment of agricultural land. For example, Belgium, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Spain, Sweden and UK have paid attention to both weeds and scrub/woody growth, whilst the remaining Member States refer only to one of the issues. France, Estonia, Finland, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland and Slovakia refer only to weeds for example, land must be kept under the black fallow or mechanical weed treatment could be carried out to prevent weeds from spreading. Denmark, Greece, Portugal and Lithuania only refer to scrub, for example, to keep plant cover free of re- growth of threes and scrubs by grazing or with mechanical removal.

The countries define the provisions giving different level of information detail (i.e. some countries require the measures not giving any instruction in detail, other countries provide more details). For example, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Poland and UK (England) have included prescriptions on how to remove the scrubs and weeds (e.g. mowing the growth or grinding it up finely or by grazing or mechanical removal for scrubs). Other countries (Belgium, Denmark, Poland, Portugal and UK

Report, Page 212 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

(England)) provide details on timing of removal, e.g. before seed release or once every five years for scrubs; or prior to 15th July (in Poland); outside of the season in which bird breeding is at its highest (March and April) (Portugal). The majority of Member States list the species of plants, e.g. Thistles (Cardus pratense and Cardus vulgare) (Belgium); oats (Finland); black-horn, furze, briars, scrub species, rhododendron or bracken as well as ragwort, thistle, dock, wild oat, common barberry and wild hop (Ireland); Heracleum sosnowskyi (Latvia); lignified herbage (wormwood, absinthium, thistle, etc.) (Lithuania); common ragwort, spear thistle etc. (UK (England)), ragwort (Seneccio jacobaea), spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare), creeping or field thistle (Cirsium arvense), broad-leafed dock (Rumex obtusifolius) and curled dock (Rumex crispus) as well as Rhododendron ponticum, Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica), giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) and Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera) (UK (Wales)), stinging-nettles, sorrel, thistles, fern, brome grass and milo (Luxembourg). UK (England) also refers to a Code of Practice and the National Weeds Act. Spain indicates that the competent authority will determine the list of vegetation species that have must be eliminated. Sweden prescribes specific requirements for arable land, natural pastures and meadows; Hungary only for utilised agricultural areas. Portugal sets specific details and, e.g. requires the residues to be mixed into the soil or extracted from the lots to areas where their accumulation minimises the risk of fire to the field; It also prescribes specific rules for the areas vulnerable to erosion - vegetation control can only be realised without up-turning of soil. Malta excepts buffer areas or conservation bio-belts as well as inter-row soil cover from this requirement.

Measure on grassland mowing Belgium requires mowing or crushing of grassland taken out of production between 1 July and 31 August; and mandatory annual sowing of fallow cover before 31 May. Estonia requires as a standard that land be kept in good agricultural condition and that it be mowed or grazed before 31 July. Finland requires the mowing of uncultivated land once during the growing period as a good agricultural condition standard. Finland requires that birds and mammals be considered when carrying land management activities. Ireland requires grazing and/or cutting management practices in order to avoid under-grazing. Ireland also sets the requirement to harvest or top grassland/non- tillage land between 1 June and 31 July; or top tillage land between 16 July and 15 September. In both cases management should be conducted in ways that provide escape routes to wildlife. Slovakia requires that arable land be maintained when it is not used for crop production by cutting and/or mulching. United Kingdom (England) bans cutting of vegetation between 1 March and 31 July in order to protect ground nesting birds.

Report, Page 213 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

e. Specific national standards

In addition to the Community standards on the minimum level of land maintenance, specific national standards were introduced in 12 Member States: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, Slovenia and UK (England and Wales) (EEA, 2006; IEEP, 2006; AMA, 2007; CYPO, 2005; Karaczun and Wasilewski, 2006; Brás at al., 2006; SVJ, 2006a; ARSKTRP, 2006a and 2006b). 13 Member States have not introduced any measure under this standard.

The Member States define a wide variety of specific national measures under the minimum level of maintenance standard. Eleven types of measures can be distinguished in the Member States:

• Measure on an appropriate timing of herbage and hay harvest (Lithuania); • Measure on management of burning heather and grass (UK (England and Wales)); • Measure on performance of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (UK (England and Wales); • Measure on rules for a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (UK (England and Wales)); • Measure on public rights of way (UK (England)); • Measure on tree-protection (UK (England and Wales)); • Measure on the maintenance of areas taken out of production (Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, UK (Wales) and Germany), on maintenance of agricultural land (Austria, Cyprus and Slovenia) and on management of pastures and meadows (Poland); • Measure on maintenance of hedgerows and watercourses (UK (England)); • Measure on the maintenance of a water drainage system (Sweden); • Measure on disposal of agricultural residues (Portugal); and • Measure on storage of fertilisers and pesticides (Portugal).

Measure on an appropriate timing of herbage and hay harvest Lithuania requires that herbage and/or hay harvest be completed in a timely fashion, providing detailed explanation (e.g. setting a time for harvesting activities).

Measure on management of burning heather and grass Under this measure UK (England and Wales) requires to follow the national laws regarding the burning of heather and grass. These national laws provide details on the

Report, Page 214 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

dates and timing of burning, on location, the addressed species of plants and procedural rules.

Measure on performance of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Under this measure UK (England as well as Wales) sets the provision to perform an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) before using uncultivated land or semi-natural areas (England) for intensive agricultural purposes or construction works. Moreover, in both countries it is required to perform the EIA before afforestation or deforestation on agricultural land.

Measure on rules for the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) Under this measure the UK countries England and Wales protect the land that is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). There is a prohibition to damage or destroy plants, animals, geological or other landscape features which led to the land being designated a SSSI. This GAEC is based on existing national legislation. In Wales, for example, farmers are required to comply with a restoration order made under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Measure on public rights of way United Kingdom (England) sets the requirement to maintain all legal public rights of way (footpaths, bridle-ways, etc.), e.g. by reinstating a path after ploughing a field or by maintaining a stile or gate in a safe condition. This is based on existing national legislation.

Measure on tree-protection Under this measure UK (England and Wales) requires getting authorisation (felling licence) before a tree can be felled, as required by national forestry laws.

Measure on the maintenance of areas taken out of production, on maintenance of agricultural land and on management of pastures and meadows Austria, Cyprus, Germany, UK (Wales) Denmark, Poland, Sweden and the Netherlands introduced the measure on set-aside land/ land taken out of production maintenance, while Belgium restricts the use of agricultural land to non-agricultural activities. For example, Germany requires passive or active greening of land, cutting or mulching of vegetation, or mowing and removal of vegetation from the land. For reasons of nature conservation or water protection, the competent authority of the Land can approve exceptions. In this way, the Land authority can consider regional conditions, e.g. in areas with high groundwater table or a high share of steep slopes, or special regional conditions due to reasons of nature conservation or plant production. Poland requires animal grazing during the vegetation period for grass or cutting the plant cover and

Report, Page 215 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

removing it at least once a year before 31 July for pastures and meadows; or cutting the plant cover and removing it at least once a year before 30 September for molinia meadows under agri-environmental programmes. United Kingdom (Wales) requires cutting down any scrub and cutting down or grazing any rank vegetation at least once every 5 years. These activities are forbidden between 15th March and 31st July in any year, unless cutting or grazing are necessary in order for the farmer to comply with requirements regarding ‘control of weeds’. The Netherlands prohibits bare fallow land; the farmers must sow a crop on all plots taken out of production (can be green crop, non-food/non-feed crop or forage legumes, in case of organic farming on all land). Denmark also requires a plant cover on set-aside areas and agricultural areas no longer in use. On these areas, Denmark sets a ban on the usage of pesticides, with the exception of specific weed control (wild oat, giant hog-weed); the usage of mineral fertilisers; and irrigation. Sweden also ban a use of chemical biocides or fertilisers on fallow land with exception for winter crops. United Kingdom (Wales) prohibits the application of organic and inorganic fertiliser. Cyprus under this measure requires retention of landscape features (e.g. fences, trees, bushes, paths), preventing the development of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land and keeping fallow land free of weeds. Slovenia requires cultivating the agricultural land each year, not providing any specific details. Austria sets the provision to plant grass on unused arable and set aside land and maintain it over the growing season (normally from April until September); The entire agricultural area should be maintained so that there is no scrub or tree invasion; The set aside land cannot exceed 50 percent of farms agricultural land.

Measure on maintenance of hedgerows and watercourses United Kingdom (England), with some exceptions, bans intensive agricultural activities on the land within 2 m of the centre of the hedgerow or watercourse, and regulates the timing of heather and grass burning.

Measure on the maintenance of a water drainage system Sweden requires maintaining the existing drainage system on arable land in order to avoid the arable land to become too soggy to plough.

Measure on disposal of agricultural residues Portugal requires the collection of farming related plastic materials, tyres and oils.

Measure on storage of fertilisers and pesticides Portugal requires storing fertiliser and pesticides in places that are protected, dry and equipped with impermeable floors. These storerooms must be at distance greater than 10 m away from streams, ditches, wells, water drill holes and springs, except in cases where deposits are equipped with an outflow protection system.

Report, Page 216 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

4.3.4.3 Evaluation of the measures to keep a minimum level of maintenance

In this section the seven identified types of measures to keep a minimum level of maintenance will by evaluated considering their impact on soil protection. Member States have set sometimes identical measures under different standards, e.g. the measures on pasture maintenance/management. In such cases, the evaluation of the measures will be presented once.

Measure on maintenance/management of arable land, permanent pastures, grassland, set-aside land and land taken out of production (Austria, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Spain, UK, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Italy, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands)

Different measures address one or more of the following land-use forms: arable land, permanent pasture, grassland, set-aside land and land taken out of production. The measures require the following maintenance forms: mowing/cutting, grazing and mulching or removal of vegetation from the land. The countries set therefore timing for mowing or livestock stocking rates. Juts in one case the requirements ban the usage of pesticides and fertilisers, and the irrigation of the lands taken out of production (Denmark and Sweden).

The maintenance of permanent pasture, grassland, set-aside land and land taken out of production ensures soil cover on the land and consequently can have a positive effect on soil organic matter content and hence soil biodiversity, prevent soil erosion (for more details see the evaluation part of minimum soil cover standard under soil erosion issue). With respect to land-use, soils under permanent vegetation cover in general have higher soil organic matter levels due to higher residue inputs (e.g. roots) and limiting conditions for soil organic matter turnover (less aeration and moisture compared to tilled soils).

The appropriate managed livestock stocking rates and mowing as alternative can reduce land over-grazing or under-grazing. In case of over-grazing, the soil becomes more vulnerable to soil erosion, and may have decrease in soil organic matter as well as soil compaction due to dense stocking with graze animas may occur. In case of the ban on pesticides and fertilisers use, prevention of diffuse soil contamination may be prevented.

Therefore, it can be judged that the measures on maintenance of permanent pasture, grassland, set-aside land and land taken out of production has a direct positive impact on organic matter content in soil and prevents soil erosion. The measure can also have, however a minor preventative effect against soil compaction and diffuse soil contamination as well as indirectly positive effect on soil biodiversity. It would however depend on detail management rules and their implementation.

Report, Page 217 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Measure on the share of permanent pasture and prevention of land conversion (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Finland, UK (Scotland and Wales) and Spain) / Measure on reference share of permanent grassland (Denmark)

As it is shown in the literature, the soil organic matter content in old pastures is much higher than in comparable arable soils (Mensah et al., 2003; Vleeshouwers and Verhaegen, 2002; Post and Kwon, 2000; Römkens et al., 1999 in Van-Camp, 2004c, p. 141). The conversion of permanent pasture to arable land is associated with a rapid loss of soil organic matter (Smith et al., 1996; Huggins et al. 1998), which is due to reduced inputs of organic carbon into the soil, increased mineralisation as a result of soil tillage (Sauerbeck, 2001), and soil erosion. This is true in particular in areas sensitive to erosion (sloping lands) or nitrate leaching.

The measure on reference share of permanent grassland is very relevant to prevent and combat loss of organic matter content in soil. Indirectly the measure is relevant to prevent loss of soil biodiversity and soil erosion.

In general, the requirement to keep permanent grassland in Member States is related to biodiversity (not soil biodiversity) protection.

Measure on landscape features protection (the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Greece, Malta, Ireland, UK, Spain and Italy) / Measure on tree- protection (UK (England and Wales)) / Measure on public rights of way (UK (England))

In general, this measure focuses on the protection of landscape elements, historic monuments, nature protection areas and objects; and do not considers soil as protection objective, with exception of the Czech Republic.

Different landscape elements help to prevent the soil erosion; they support a harmless discharge of runoff and protect surface waters and other parts of the landscape (Van-Camp, 2004b).

This measure on landscape features protection cannot be judged as relevant to protect soil. Just in case the countries indicate the soil protection as an aim; or the measure considers terraces. For this measure just indirect effect against soil erosion can be assumed.

Measure on the maintenance of olive groves in good vegetative conditions (France, Italy, Malta and Spain)

This measure on the maintenance of olive groves in good vegetative conditions is very relevant to prevent soil erosion. However, it is limited to slope areas and areas with olive groves.

Report, Page 218 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Measure on the removal of undesirable vegetation (Estonia, Belgium, Ireland, Latvia, Spain, Malta, Luxembourg, France, Finland, Slovakia, Denmark, Greece and Lithuania, UK) / Measure on the prevention of re-growth of trees and scrubs (France and Denmark)/ Measure on grassland mowing (Belgium, UK (England), Estonia, Ireland and Finland)

The measure on the removal of undesirable vegetation aims to keep a land in good agricultural conditions. It is not expected that the measure will have an impact on soil protection, unless the national rules set relevant specific instructions, e.g. to keep plant cover (Denmark).

Measure on performance of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)/ Measure on rules for a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (UK (England and Wales))

The measure does not explicitly address soil protection, however it depend on national legislation which environmental media are considered under the Environmental Impact Assessment.

The measure to protect the Sites of Special Scientific Interest also does not address soil protection, but biodiversity (not soil biodiversity) and cultural, historic heritage.

Neither Environmental Impact Assessment nor the Sites of Special Scientific Interest contribute to soil protection, unless it is explicitly addressed.

Measure on maintenance of hedgerows and watercourses (UK (England)) This measure considers the creation of buffer strips along the borders of agricultural fields and serves not only as a carbon reservoir but reduces at the same time soil erosion, the discharge of pesticides and nutrients to waterways and increases soil biodiversity.

The measure on maintenance of hedgerows and watercourses is relevant to protect soil erosion, but also have a positive impact on soil organic matter content and soil biodiversity. However the measure contributes to a very small extent to the latter two soil threats.

Measure on the maintenance of a water drainage system (Sweden) The measure is evaluated in more detail under the “soil structure” standard (see Chapter 4.3.3.3).

Report, Page 219 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Measure on disposal of agricultural residues (Portugal) The measure considers the collection and removal of farming related plastic materials, tyres and oils.

This measure could prevent soil contamination.

Measure on storage of fertilisers and pesticides (Portugal) The measure considers the storage of fertiliser and pesticides. It considers the distance to water sources.

Even if this measure is aimed to protect water resources, it could in particular contribute to preventing local soil contamination.

4.3.5 Summarised evaluation of GAECs

It is important to note that, in some cases, Member States have identified a wide variety of measures to address one GAEC standard. For example, as regards the ‘minimum soil cover’ standard under the soil erosion issue, Member States have defined three different types of measures: the establishment of plant cover or restrictions of ploughing; the performance of soil protection review or preparation of soil erosion plan; and the share of permanent grassland. Moreover, Member States place similar requirements/measures under different Annex IV issues since several issues are interrelated (e.g. both a minimum livestock density and the protection of permanent pasture concern the protection of grassland habitats). Furthermore, certain Member States have introduced measures that are beyond the scope of Annex IV.

It seems that most of the national GAEC measures can fulfil both environmental and agricultural concerns at the same time. However, for example, the requirements under the minimum level of maintenance in some Member States have low minimum requirements that may only reflect an agricultural concern (e.g. keeping land free of scrubs) or landscape concern (e.g. by maintaining an open landscape). However, other Member States set specific requirements in order to be sure the environment is considered.

Majority of identified measures are applied on a portion of agricultural land (e.g. set- aside land, land no longer in use, a part of arable land), which limits its overall impact on soil conservation. Moreover, the extent to which soil is protected by the identified measures will depend on the level of implementation for these different measures.

The impact of certain soil threats, e.g. subsoil compaction, is more evident in years with extreme dry or wet periods, which have happened more frequently in recent years. This may have an influence on the design of the national GAEC standards in the future.

Report, Page 220 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

In conclusion, the national GAEC measures have a certain potential impact on soil conservation (depending on how they will be implemented), tackling in particular soil erosion and decline in soil organic matter, at least for those Member States that have adopted relevant national standards. Soil sealing, floods and landslides are not tackled at all.

Below the questions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 to Technical Annex will be answered:

What standards are identified to combat soil erosion? To what extent can such standards contribute to preventing or reducing soil erosion? (Question 2)

All four GAEC standards (soil erosion, soil organic matter, soil structure and minimum level of maintenance) consider soil erosion issue. Most relevant were the national measures identified under the soil erosion and soil structure issues. The national measures under the soil organic matter issue has in general an indirectly effect on soil erosion, since the soil with a higher organic matter content is more stable and less vulnerable to erosion. The national measures set under the minimum level of maintenance standard also have only indirect impact to soil erosion, since they also strongly address the soil organic matter issue.

What standards are identified to combat organic matter decline? (Question 3, first part)

Three GAEC standards (soil erosion, soil organic matter and minimum level of maintenance) consider the soil organic matter issue. The national measures under the soil structure standard do not have an impact on soil organic matter. The national measures under the soil organic matter are most relevant to combat organic matter decline, while the national measures under the soil erosion and minimum level of maintenance standards indirectly contribute to prevent soil organic matter decline.

To what extent can such standards contribute to stabilising or increasing soil organic matter compared to 1990 levels? (Question 3, second part)

There are two groups of factors that influence inherent organic matter content: natural factors (e.g. climate, soil type, land cover and topography), and human-induced factors (e.g. land use, management and degradation). The identified measures in the Member States (e.g. crop rotation, incorporation of plant residues, manuring) have a potentially large influence on the accumulation of soil organic matter content. However, it is impossible to quantitatively evaluate to what extent these measures can contribute to stabilising or increasing soil organic matter content.

What standards are identified to combat compaction? To what extent can such standards contribute to preventing or reducing compaction? (Question 4)

Report, Page 221 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Two GAEC standards (soil erosion and soil structure) consider soil compaction problem. The measures under the soil organic matter standard do not consider soil compaction problem; and the national measures under the minimum level of maintenance standard consider soil compaction problem just to a minor extent. Even if the national measures under the soil structure standard are most relevant to combat soil compaction, the national measures under the soil erosion can also strongly contribute to reducing soil compaction.

Are there any requirements (SMRs) or standards (GAECs) that may be expected to contribute to the prevention of local and diffuse contamination of soils? To what extent can such standards contribute to preventing or reducing soil contamination? (Question 5)

There are no GAEC standards that may be expected to contribute to the prevention of local contamination. As regards diffuse contamination, the national measures on irrigation (normally set under the soil structure issue) could to a minor extent contribute to preventing diffuse soil contamination. In this case, the quality of irrigated water should be controlled. The measure is, however, limited to certain areas. The national measures under the minimum level of maintenance standard could also to a minor extent contribute to preventing the soil from soil contamination, since it is generally prohibited to use pesticides and fertilisers on permanent pastures, grasslands, set- aside land or land no longer in production.

Are there any requirements (SMRs) or standards (GAECs) that will contribute to preventing or minimising a loss of soil biodiversity? To what extent can such standards contribute to preventing or reducing soil biodiversity loss? (Question 6)

Two GAEC standards (soil organic matter and minimum level of maintenance) indirectly consider loss of soil biodiversity. The national measures under the soil organic matter standard are most relevant to prevent or minimise a loss of soil biodiversity. There is a relationship between increasing organic matter content in soil and increase in soil biodiversity. The national measures under the minimum level of maintenance standard contribute indirectly to preventing or combating the loss of soil biodiversity through increasing organic matter content in soil as well. It is difficult to evaluate which national measures could contribute to preventing or minimising a loss of soil biodiversity, since in places where soil threat is reduced or combated, the quality of soil improves (at different levels). This gradual improvement is expected to result in improvement of soil biodiversity.

Are there any requirements (SMRs) or standards (GAECs) that may be expected to contribute to combating soil salinisation? To what extent can such standards contribute to preventing or reducing soil salinisation? (Question 7)

Report, Page 222 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

The national measures on irrigation (normally set under the soil structure issue) are relevant to contribute to combating soil salinisation. The national measures should in this case control the quantity and quality of water used for irrigation, and the quality of irrigated soil. The indicated national measures focus mainly on quantity of water used for irrigation, considering in this way rather crop production than soil conservation.

Are there any standards (GAECs) related to minimum level of maintenance that may be expected to contribute to preventing or reducing any soil threat? To what extent can such standards contribute to preventing or reducing specific soil threats? (Question 8)

The national measures related to minimum level of maintenance standard are relevant to combat organic matter decline. The measures may also to a minor extent contribute to preventing the loss of soil biodiversity. The national measures setting the livestock stocking rates may prevent soil compaction.

Each measure should be considered separately in order to determine its impact on soil protection, due to the fact that Member States establish differing level of detail for each measure, ultimately affecting final implementation and effects on soil health.

4.3.6 Country specific analysis of GAEC measures

The following chapter provides an overview of the national GAEC standards/ measures31 for each Member State of the EU 25. For these Member States GAEC standards are listed and described according to the four main GAEC issues; soil erosion, soil structure, soil organic matter and minimum level of maintenance. This information is quoted from the indicated data sources without any modifications. The information on data sources is included in Annex 3 to this Report.

It is important to note that some countries adopt different measures in different regions, resulting from their federalist or regional state system such as in Spain, Belgium, Germany and United Kingdom. In such cases, relevant regions are indicated in the last column of GAEC standards table.

Following the country-by-country description of GAEC standards, measures will be summarised and evaluated according to the criteria indicated in the text box below. In general, this evaluation focuses on determining which soil threats are addressed by the Member State and whether their national measures correspond to these threats. The extent to which these questions can be answered varies according to the available background information. An analysis regarding the extent to which each of these measures prevents or reduces the corresponding soil threat(s) is addressed in Chapters 4.3.1.3, 4.3.2.3, 4.3.3.3 and 4.3.4.3.

Report, Page 223 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Sum-up evaluation

Agricultural Statistics: What is the farmland cover, main agricultural services etc.? This additional data will help evaluate the relevance of the national measures (source: European Commission, 2007b).

Selected standards and relevance: Which measures were adopted in the Member State? Does the Member State addresses all four GAEC issues or just one? In countries with regional differences, are there slight or strong differences between/among the regional GAEC standards? Are there national specific standards, in addition to the Community standards? If so, are they really additional or do they merely support existing Community standards? Discussion of the selected measures should also focus on the existing soil problems in order to assess their relevance.

Conclusion: Are the adopted measures address the existing soil problems/threats? Which measures would better solve the existing soil problems?

Further information: For some countries additional information on GAEC relevant issues was available and included in this analysis.

Following this analysis, all measures identified for soil protection are listed according to the Member States in order to give an overview (see Tables 4.3.6.1 to 4.3.6.25 in chapter 4.3.6.1). It must be considered, that degree, rigour and level of sophistication of the measures vary between Member States. Key results and tendencies about the measures that have been adopted in the investigated Member States are provided in the conclusion part (see chapter 4.3.6.2).

31 GAECs are defined under the Annex IV of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003.

Report, Page 224 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

4.3.6.1 Country analysis of the GAEC measures

Table 4.3.6.1: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Austria

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Soil erosion Retain terraces Terraces must not be removed. Other standards ("buffer strips on No tillage operations will be permitted within 10 metres of the edge of a lake (with a surface area of at least 1ha), or similar water body, watercourses") or within five metres of where there is running water (as measured from the river or stream’s edge and where the watercourse’s breadth is at least 5 metres). The prohibition does not apply to laying down new strips of land to create these buffer zones.

Soil organic Arable stubble management The burning of straw on stubble fields is not permitted, unless, due to phytosanitary reasons, it is promoted or authorised by the matter competent authority

Soil structure Appropriate machinery use Ground preparation in agricultural areas with agricultural machinery is not permitted for the following reasons: a) if the ground is frozen; b) if the soil is saturated; c) if the ground is flooded; d) if the ground has snow cover (of at least 5 cm).

Minimum level Protection of permanent pasture 1) If the total share of permanent grassland decrease more than 10 % compared to the reference year level (2003), the Austrian of maintenance authorities will be obliged to only allow those farm businesses with previous approvals to convert land from permanent pasture. If the total decline in the level of permanent pasture is more than 10 % (in spite of authorization processes) the re-establishment of permanent pasture will become an urgent stipulation. 2) A regional scheme was designed, given the circumstances particular to the Alps: a) In areas where the average slope angle is greater than 15% the allowable area for conversion from permanent pasture will be restricted to just 0.5 ha so long as the total area of permanent pasture accounts for more than 80 % of the holding. b) The conversion from alpine pastures and certain other alpine production systems is forbidden outright. c) Conversion is also not permitted within 20 m of an area of standing water (with a surface area of at least 1 ha), and not within 10 m of running water if the width of the waterway is more than 5 m. Retention of landscape features (including The removal of protected landscape ‘elements’ is forbidden. These include protected by nature conservation laws such as ‘natural where appropriate the prohibition of the monuments’. grubbing up of olive trees) Other standard ("maintenance of areas Grass must be planted on unused arable land (as with set aside) and maintained over the growing season (normally from April until taken out of production ") September). Exceptions are possible for nature conservation when other measures can be introduced. Other standard ("maintenance of set-aside Maintain the land in satisfactory agricultural condition by: arable land") 1) Avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation. The entire agricultural area should be maintained so that there is no scrub or tree invasion. 2) Set-aside management. The total area used as set-aside should not total more than 50 % of the agricultural area of the farm. Sum-up evaluation – Austria: Agricultural statistics: Almost 40 % (3,2 Mio. ha) of the total area is covered by agricultural land, consisting of 42 % arable land, 56 % permanent pasture and 2 % permanent crops. Regarding the share of permanent pasture compared to the total area, Austria occupies the third place after UK and Ireland (European Commission 2007).

Report, Page 225 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Selected standards and relevance: The Austrian GAEC standards focus on all four main issues. Since 2005 also standards to protect permanent pasture and maintenance of set-aside arable land have been established. However, there are no standards set for minimum soil cover, minimum land management reflecting site-specific conditions, crop rotations, minimum livestock stocking rates or/and appropriate regimes, and avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land. The Austrian interpretation of Annex IV is particularly strong on the protection of water bodies, e.g. “buffer strips on watercourses“. This measure has also a certain impact on soil erosion reduction. Stronger measures to address soil erosion are set through the protection of terraces and through the maintenance of green cover on areas taken out of production. These standards correspond to the problem that 7 % of the total area is affected by erosion (EEA 2003a) and also characterised by agricultural land use. An elevated annual soil loss (1-5 tonnes/ha/year) was identified in south- west Austria and in small part adjacent to Hungary (EEA 2005b). Soils in Austria are generally in good conditions and not facing serious problems: organic carbon content in the surface horizon (0–30 cm) range between 2.5-5% eastern parts, and in western Austria between 5-10% (EEA 2005b). Susceptibility to subsoil compaction is moderate in most parts of the country (ESDAC 2007). Conclusion: In general, measures seem to be adapted to the identified threats, although there are gaps concerning a number of standards that have not been set. Standards to prevent and combat soil erosion could be improved by introducing minimum land management reflecting site-specific conditions (e.g. contour ploughing, appropriate management adapted to slope conditions etc.) in particular in mountainous regions. The measure to protect landscape elements could be defined in more detail not only to provide clear instructions for farmers but also to contribute efficiently to the protection of landscape features. Further comments: According to EEA (2005b) in areas at risk in Austria, the local administration can set up measures such as minimum tillage or soil requirements, or make recommendations to minimise pressure on soil.

Report, Page 226 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.6.2: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Belgium

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Member State - Region soil erosion Minimum land 1) At least one of the following anti-erosion measure must be taken on sites which are highly vulnerable to erosion: 1. Belgium - Flemish management reflecting maintain the land under permanent cover; 2. cultivation of winter cereals: the land should be left without cover for no more Region site-specific conditions than three months and should be sown as far as possible following the contours of the land if the plot of land is longer than 100 metres in that direction; 3. cultivation of summer cereals or flax: provide cover crops to be worked in no more than two weeks before the sowing date and sow the plot as far as possible following the contours of the land if it is longer than 100 metres in that direction; 4. cultivation of crops which are susceptible to erosion: land should be left without cover for no more than two months before the sowing of the main crop and one of the following measures should be taken: a) do not work the soil; b) work the soil only in such a way as not to turn it before sowing the cover or catch crop and immediately sow the main crop; c) provide a buffer zone of 10 m³ or a dyke half a metre high with a length of at least a quarter of the circumference of the plot, at the bottom of the plot; d) do not work the soil or work it only superficially in such a way as not to turn it before sowing the cover or catch crop and additionally work the soil very superficially (no more than 5 cm deep leaving a rough seedbed behind) before sowing the main crop.; 2) An arable parcel is considered to be at risk when more than 50 % of its area or more than 0.5 hectare lies on a slope greater than or equal to 10 %. Ploughing is forbidden (although stubble removal or other soil surface work is permitted) on at-risk parcels between the 2004 harvest and 15 February 2005. Ploughing shall, however, be allowed with a view to establishing a crop or ground cover before 30 November 2004. The growing of root or similar crops is forbidden on at-risk parcels, unless a grassed strip (crop code 751, 82, 84 or 851) is established in the area at the bottom of the slope and adjacent to the parcel in question. This ban shall not apply if the contiguous parcel located below the parcel at risk of erosion is under grass (codes 61 or 62) or a crop corresponding to one of codes 82, 84, 851 or 891, provided that the cover of said contiguous parcel was established prior to 30 November 2004. Said grassed strip shall be established before the root crop is sown and for a minimum period equivalent to the duration of the root crop, and it shall meet the following conditions: a) minimum size: the minimum width of the grassed strip shall be 6 metres; b) seed composition: the grassed strip shall be sown with a mixture composed of meadow grasses or of meadow grasses and legumes; c) other conditions: the strip shall not be grazed and, if mown, it shall only be mown after 1 July.; In case of: maize, fodder beet, fodder carrots, potatoes, sugar beet, endives and market garden crops grown in the open ground - If the carbon content or the acidity level of one or more sites is too low the farmer must follow the fertilizing recommendations given with the analysis on the sites in question or take other appropriate measures, such as the application of organic stall manure or compost or the digging in of straw in the case of low carbon content and the application of lime in the case of low acidity. soil organic matter Arable stubble It is forbidden to burn straw, stubble and other crop residues. Belgium - Walloon management Region, Flemish Region Other standards ("analysis Determining the carbon content and the acidity of a number of sites which are not grassland and do not have permanent Belgium - Flemish of carbon content and cover: depending on the size of the total area of agricultural land excluding grassland and permanent cover, the farmer Region pH") must be able to produce evidence of a number of valid analysis results. Each analysis result is valid for three years. From 2006 the analyses must be carried out by an accredited laboratory.

Report, Page 227 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Member State - Region soil structure Other standards ("pH or There is no major deficiency concerning soil structure in the Walloon Region, except possibly in the case of intensive Belgium - Walloon salinity in irrigated soils") irrigation of vegetable crops. Farmers have to apply corrections of possible anomalies (e.g. in pH or salinity) in irrigated Region soils according to the latest soil analysis results. minimum level of Avoiding the 1) For grassland taken out of production: mowing or crushing must be done at least once a year between 1 July and 31 Belgium - Walloon maintenance encroachment of August of the current agricultural year. Region, Flemish unwanted vegetation on Region agricultural land 2) For arable land taken out of production apart from set-aside entitlements the following is necessary: either establish grassland or mandatory annual sowing of fallow cover other than the natural cover (codes 82, 83, 84, 85 or 851) must take place before 31 May of the current agricultural year. 3) For all parcels of the holdings: a control of weeds as laid down in legal provisions (e.g. thistles etc.). 4) To prevent the spread of weeds, cover crops must be destroyed in an appropriate manner and in good time (before seed release). This can be done, for example, by mowing the growth or grinding it up finely. Departures from this rule may be permitted with a view to certain environmental objectives or management agreements. 5) Uncultivated fields must be sown no later than 31 May. 6) The proliferation of woody growth must be removed in good time from grasslands which are not used for farming.; 7) Thistles must be controlled in some areas of grasslands which are not used for farming. Thistles (Cardus pratense and Cardus vulgare) must not be allowed to bloom and set and release seed. Protection of permanent Permanent pasture must only be converted if new permanent pasture of an equivalent area is created in its place. Belgium - Walloon pasture Permanent pasture must also be maintained if the land is transferred. Permanent pasture may be converted only in the Region, Flemish event of force majeure (e.g. expropriation). Region

1) If there has been a decrease of 5 % of the reference ratio, the following measures shall apply: If the decrease is equal to Belgium or greater than 5 % but less than 7.5 % of the reference ratio, there shall be a general ban on allocating grassland considered to form part of permanent pasture to other uses. If the holding is subject to restructuring, farmers who wish to allocate such grassland to other uses after August 2005 shall submit in advance a reasoned application for authorisation to the administration and inform it of the parcels that they will return to grassland in lieu, in the knowledge that they will have the obligation of keeping these new parcels under permanent pasture for at least the next five years.; 2) If there is a decrease of 7.5 % or more of the reference ratio, there shall be a general ban on allocating grassland considered by the administration to form part of permanent pasture to other uses. In addition, farmers who have allocated parcels considered by the administration to be permanent pasture to another use shall be required to restore an equivalent area to grassland with the obligation of keeping these new parcels under permanent pasture for at least five years.

Other standards Agricultural land must not be used for a profit-making purpose, which has no connection with agriculture. Belgium - Walloon ("prohibition of use of agri Region land for non-agricultural activities")

Report, Page 228 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Sum-up evaluation - Belgium: Agricultural statistics: Belgium’s agriculture covers about 45 % of its total area, of which 27,6 % consists of arable land, 17,0 % of permanent grassland and only 0,7 % of permanent crops. Selected standards and relevance: Belgium set standards for all four GAEC issues. As Belgium has a regional structure, GAEC standards and design differ to a certain extent within the Flemish and Walloon regions. In total, the Flemish region has more standards, which show a heavy emphasis on measures for soil erosion. These measures vary according to slope, crop type and erosion susceptibility and are intended to produce beneficial environmental outcomes. In order to ensure these benefits, advisory and guidance procedure for farmers are required. This emphasis is likely due to the soil erosion problem that Flanders faces (Farmer and Swales, 2004). The specific national measure “analysis of carbon content and pH" addresses the low organic carbon content of Flemish soils, which ranges between 0-5 % in the surface horizon (EEA, 2005b), and is required in areas that are not grassland and do not have permanent cover. There are no standards addressing soil structure. In the Walloon region the GAEC standards loosely address some of the Annex IV standards and are likely to produce mixed environmental benefits. According to the database references there are no measures addressing soil erosion (EEA, 2004). Nevertheless, other sources (e.g. Farmer and Swales, 2004) mention standards to combat soil erosion such as, prohibition of ploughing on parcels at risk from soil erosion between the harvest and mid February, and planting a cover (margin or strip) at the bottom of all slopes. The requirement for agricultural land taken out of production could provide a range of positive environmental outcomes, not only for soils, but also for buffering pesticide drift, and increasing animal and plant biodiversity at the field’s edge. With regard to the standard concerning soil structure, there are no clear measures (e.g. appropriate machinery use), except for a specific regional requirement for farmers to apply corrections of possible anomalies (e.g. in pH or salinity) in irrigated soils. This loose regional measure probably stems from the fact that there is no major threat to soil structure in the Walloon region. Conclusion: In general, measures seem to be adapted to the identified soil threats with the exception of missing standards designed to avoid or reduce soil compaction in the Flemish region. According to several data sources (EEA, 2003a; ESDAC, 2007) soils in this region show a high to very high susceptibility to subsoil compaction and are already negatively affected by this problem. Therefore, the introduction of measures concerning appropriate machinery use could be considered. Further comments: -

Report, Page 229 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.6.3: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Cyprus

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Soil erosion Minimum soil cover Soil Protection from erosion through the maintenance of green cover during winter. Minimum land management reflecting Soil Protection from erosion through cultivation along the contour lines. site-specific conditions Retain terraces Soil Protection from erosion through the retention of terraces.

Soil organic matter Arable stubble management Maintenance of soil organic matter by soil incorporation of arable stubble and preventing its burning.

Soil structure Other standards ("ploughing at the Maintenance of soil structure by ploughing at the appropriate time when the soil moisture is at its optimum level. appropriate time")

Minimum level of Protection of permanent pasture Controlling unwanted natural vegetation and avoiding overgrazing. maintenance Other standards ("maintenance of areas Through retention of landscape features (e.g. fences, trees, bushes, paths), preventing the development of unwanted vegetation on taken out of production") agricultural land and keeping fallow land free of weeds. Sum-up evaluation – Cyprus: Agricultural statistics: Approximately 15 % of country area (136.000 ha) is used for agriculture, two-thirds of which consists of arable land and one-third of permanent pasture (European Commission 2006). Selected standards and relevance: National GAEC measures address all four main issues such as soil erosion, soil structure, soil organic matter and minimum level of maintenance but are described very succinctly. One major soil problem is soil erosion affecting about 13 % of the total area, which is moreover used for agricultural purposes. Annual soil loss through erosion in agricultural land averaged approximately 5 tonnes/ha/year in 1990-1999 (EEA 2003a, p.203). Conclusion: In general, measures seem to be adapted to the identified threats but could be improved through more clearly defined measures and specified management measures addressing soil erosion, particularly in hilly regions. Such measures should take into account the degree of slope and channelling of surface water on sloping ground. Further comments: -

Report, Page 230 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.6.4: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Czech Republic

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Soil erosion Minimum land management (a) no destruction of landscape features and other features which are preventing wind and water soil erosion, particularly field banks/hedgerows, reflecting site-specific conditions terraces, windbreaks, grasslands in alluvial plains and field paths using natural slopes and respecting contour lines, eventually (field paths) accompanied by side ditches, as well as surface water streams and water bodies; (b) exclusion of growing of wide-row crops (such as) maize, potatoes, beet, broad beans, soya-beans, and sunflowers on field blocks, eventually on parts of field blocks whose average slope exceeds 12 degrees. Retain terraces Ban on destruction of terraces: no destruction of landscape features and other features which are preventing wind and water soil erosion, particularly field banks/hedgerows, terraces, windbreaks, grasslands in alluvial plains, grassland on the priority water paths and field paths using natural slopes and respecting contour lines, eventually (field paths) accompanied by side ditches, as well as surface water streams and water bodies.

Soil organic Arable stubble management (e) no burning of plant residuals on field blocks [parcels], eventually on parts of field blocks, after the harvest of cereals, oil-producing plants, matter eventually legumes, that have been grown on these blocks, eventually on parts of field blocks. Other standards ("application of (c) putting in of barnyard manure in liquid form into the soil within 24 hours after their application on fieldblocks, eventually on parts of fieldblocks, barnyards manure into the soil") without growth, whose average slope exceeds 3 degrees, in case this application is not excluded by special law.

Minimum level of Protection of permanent pasture (1) In case grassland (previously declared as grassland) is turned into arable land, this land is not eligible for direct payments this year and maintenance minimum level of maintenance subsequent years (according to the law No. 252/1997 Coll. , On Agriculture, as amended); (2) GAEC standard: d) exclusion of change of grasslands culture into arable land culture on managed field blocks, eventually on parts of field blocks (§ 3, subsection 5, letter b of law No. 252/ 1997, On Agriculture, as amended), Also in Principles of Good Agriculture Practices for LFA Retention of landscape features, (a) no destruction of landscape features landscape and other features which are preventing wind and water soil erosion, particularly field including where appropriate the banks/hedgerows, terraces, windbreaks, grasslands in alluvial plains and field paths using natural slopes and respecting contour lines, eventually prohibition of the grubbing up of (field paths) accompanied by side ditches, as well as surface water streams and water bodies olive trees Sum-up evaluation – Czech Republic: Agricultural Statistics: About 45 % of the total area is covered by agricultural land use, which is primarily arable land (European Commission, 2007b). The country, similar to Slovakia, has large farms with large field plots. One major problem is that around 40 % of grasslands in the Czech Republic are not used for grazing due to the intensification of animal husbandry and decreases in the number of extensively bred herds of cattle and sheep (IREAS, 2004). Selected standards and relevance: All main GAEC issues (except soil structure) are addressed in the Czech Republic. The first standard that was adopted focuses on soil erosion. This may result from the fact that about 15 % of the total area is lightly or moderately affected by water erosion (EEA, 2003b). The standard calls for the protection of landscape features that help to avoid soil erosion from wind and water (e.g. hedges, terraces, wind-break strips and contour field paths with drains; Hofhanzl & Postulka 2005). The same standards are applied for under the GAEC-issue on minimum level of maintenance, in addition to measures on the protection of permanent grassland according to the law No. 252/1997 Coll. on Agriculture, as amended. Analyses show that topsoil organic carbon content range between 1-6 % (ESDAC, 2007). The prohibition of burning of plant residuals on field blocks may be to prevent further decline in soil organic matter. In addition, application of barnyard manure, which aims to reduce diffuse contamination, can indirectly (as national specific measures) contribute to maintenance of soil organic matter. Conclusion: In order to address all GAEC standards, measures addressing soil compaction could be introduced, in particular, in the neighbouring areas with Germany, where susceptibility to subsoil compaction is very high (ESDAC, 2007). In addition, grasslands in the Czech Republic that are not used for grazing would need to be maintained in order to avoid the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land. Further comments: -

Report, Page 231 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.6.5: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Denmark

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Soil erosion Minimum soil cover 1) Plant cover on set-aside areas and agricultural areas no longer in use: a) These areas must have a plant cover. b) Sufficient plant cover has to be established (every year) not later than 2 weeks after the harvest, and never later than the 1st of October. If the harvest is later than 1st of October the plant cover must be established as quickly as possible and no later than 31st of May.; c) The plant cover must be based on seeds leftover from earlier seasons or sowing of grass species or other seed combination approved by the Danish Plant Directorate.; d) Set-aside areas and agricultural areas no longer in agricultural use must have a plant cover.; e) Every year before the 1st of October sufficient plant cover has to be re-established.; 2) Permanent grassland: The farmer has to respect the rules concerning the reference share of permanent grassland (a certain share of the total agricultural area on country level). If the total share of permanent grassland decreases by more than 10 %, farmers who have converted permanent grassland to arable land will be ordered to re-establish permanent grassland. (see also “Minimum land management reflecting site-specific conditions”). Minimum land management Permanent grassland (The farmer has to respect the rules concerning the reference share of permanent grassland (a certain share of the total reflecting site-specific agricultural area on country level). - If the total share of permanent grassland decreases by more than 10 percent, farmers who have converted conditions permanent grassland to arable land will be ordered to re-establish permanent grassland.

Minimum level of Protection of permanent 1) Maintenance of set-aside areas and agricultural areas no longer in use: The plant cover must not be cut in the period of 1st of May to 30th of maintenance pasture June (there exist some exceptions). 2) Permanent grassland (The farmer has to respect the rules concerning the reference share of permanent grassland (a certain share of the total agricultural area on country level). - If the total share of permanent grassland decreases by more than 10 %, farmers who have converted permanent grassland to arable land will be ordered to re-establish permanent grassland.; If the total share of permanent grassland in one year decrease more than 5 % compared to the reference share, permanent grassland can only be ploughed up if it is permitted by the Ministry of Agriculture. (see also “Retention of landscape features, including where appropriate the prohibition of the grubbing up of olive trees”) 3) Maintenance of plant cover on permanent grassland: Plant cover on permanent grassland must be maintained in such away that it is kept free of re-growth of trees and scrubs. Retention of landscape 1) Maintenance of plant cover on permanent grassland: Plant cover on permanent grassland must be maintained in such away that it is kept free of features, including where re-growth of trees and scrubs. appropriate the prohibition of the grubbing up of olive 2) Permanent grassland (The farmer has to respect the rules concerning the reference share of permanent grassland (a certain share of the total trees agricultural area on country level). - If the total share of permanent grassland decreases by more than 10 %, farmers who have converted permanent grassland to arable land will be ordered to re-establish permanent grassland.

Avoiding the encroachment Maintenance of plant cover on permanent grassland: Plant cover on permanent grassland must be maintained in such away that it is kept free of re- of unwanted vegetation on growth of trees and scrubs. agricultural land Maintenance of set-aside areas and agricultural areas no longer in use. - Set-aside areas and agricultural areas no longer in agricultural use must be maintained by cutting according to requirement, re-growth of trees and scrubs must not be older than 5 years. On set-aside agricultural land maintenance may be done by grazing or mowing.

Report, Page 232 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Other standards Plant cover on set-aside areas and agricultural areas no longer in use. - Areas taken out of production must not used in such away that the plant (Maintenance of areas taken cover is destroyed. Temporary activities are allowed (for example storage gravel, sand etc.) if the plant cover is re-established immediately after out of production) use. - Plant protection, manure spreading and irrigation on set-aside areas and agricultural areas no longer in use. On areas taken out of production; 1) pesticides must not be used, with the exception of products approved for control of specific weeds (wild oat, giant hogweed); 2) mineral fertilizers must not be used; 3) irrigation is not allowed. Sum-up evaluation – Denmark: Agricultural statistics: In Denmark almost 63 % of the total area is used for agriculture. This area consists mainly of arable land and of small areas of permanent grassland and permanent crops. Animal production does not play a significant role. (European Commission, 2007b). Selected standards and relevance: Danish GAEC standards address only two GAEC issues, soil erosion and minimum level of maintenance. In particular, the measures focus on protection of permanent grassland and maintenance of set-aside areas and agricultural areas no longer in use. Standards are very ambitious in relation to soil cover. However, according to some modelling results from the PESERA-project (EEA, 2005a) soil erosion risk is overestimated in Denmark. Standards with regard to maintenance of areas taken out of production aim to protect soil cover as well as avoid diffuse contamination through the prohibition of pesticides and fertilisers use. There are no standards provided for soil structure or for soil organic matter, although most agriculture land is used for arable land and risk for soil compaction is rather high. Conclusion: Measures seem to be adapted to the identified threats but could be improved. Large portions of the total agricultural area are characterised by a high susceptibility to subsoil compaction (ESDAC, 2007), therefore the introduction of measures concerning an appropriate machinery use could be a beneficiary tool in preventing and reducing soil compaction. Due to the fact that a majority of Danish topsoil is characterised by moderate organic carbon content, there may be no significant need for supplementary measures supporting soil organic matter. Further comments: Restrictions on cutting plant cover will provide benefits to ground nesting birds. The decision as to whether a farmer chooses to either graze or mow unused agricultural areas could result in variable environmental outcomes, given that grazing is probably more suitable from an environmental viewpoint (Farmer and Swales, 2004).

Report, Page 233 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.6.6: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Estonia

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Minimum level of Minimum livestock stocking rates The farmer can apply for the support only for land which is kept in a good agricultural condition, i.e. maintenance or/and appropriate regimes 1) Grassland has to be mown once and the hay has to be collected, or the land has to be grazed before the 31st of July. 2) the farmer has to grow crops which has been sown or established by 15th of June or kept under black fallow. 3) land which has been abandoned must also be sown by 15th of June or kept under black fallow or mechanical weed treatment could be carried out. Avoiding the encroachment of The farmer can apply for the support only for land which is kept in a good agricultural condition, i.e. unwanted vegetation on agricultural land 1) Grassland has to be mown once and the hay has to be collected, or the land has to be grazed before the 31st of July. 2) the farmer has to grow crops which has been sown or established by 15th of June or kept under black fallow. 3) land which has been abandoned must also be sown by 15th of June or kept under black fallow or mechanical weed treatment could be carried out. Sum-up evaluation – Estonia: Agricultural statistics: In Estonia only about 18 % of the total area is under agricultural land-use, mostly covered by arable land (European Commission, 2007b). Selected measures and relevance: Estonian GAEC standards only address issues concerning land abandonment. They also comprise measures with a positive direct impact on soil erosion by promoting the use of plant cover on fallow land. Other measures (e.g. schedule for mowing and grazing) do not seem to have a direct or indirect positive impact on soil, rather, they have been adopted in order to avoid the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land. Conclusion: Estonian measures only address the GAEC issue ‘minimum level of maintenance’. Given that soil in some parts of the country shows high to very high subsoil compaction (ESDAC, 2007), the adoption of appropriate measures in order to maintain soil structure could be considered. Further comments: During a seminar on Central and Eastern European Countries held in Prague on September 2004 (Hofhanzl and Postulka, 2005), the Estonian Ministry of Agriculture highlighted a poor awareness about GAEC amongst farmers and administrators, and stated that more detailed Guidance from the EU on GAECs would be welcome.

Report, Page 234 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.6.7: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Finland

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard soil erosion Minimum land management reflecting site- A grass-covered, uncultivated field must be kept in good agricultural condition (sown plants). specific conditions Other standards ("buffer strips on 1) There must be 60 cm, untilled verge between fields and major ditches/watercourses. watercourses") 2) Along watercourses, CAP set-aside land (3 m wide green fallow) is obligatory, unless 3 m of waterside vegetation for the entire length of the parcel abutting the watercourse already exists. If more than 30 percent is CAP set-aside land, then the part exceeding 30 per cent is green fallow (sown plants). soil organic matter Other standards ("restriction on straw burning") Straw in the fields should not be burned. Straw may be burned only if it is essential to successful sowing or the destruction of wild oats, diseases or vermin. soil structure Appropriate machinery use Driving heavy machinery on wet fields should be avoided in order to not compact the soil. minimum level of Protection of permanent pasture Permanent pasture must continue to be used as such and it must be kept free from bushes by grazing, mowing or grubbing up. maintenance Retention of landscape features, including Small groups of trees and bushes as well as patches of rocks located in fields must be retained. Substantial impediments to where appropriate the prohibition of the farming can, however, be removed with the permission of the municipal rural business authorities. grubbing up of olive trees Avoiding the encroachment of unwanted 1) Stubble fallow land and untilled bare fallow land must be mown annually or weeds must be prevented from spreading by vegetation on agricultural land some other means.; 2) Uncultivated fields to be kept in good agricultural condition and green fallow parcels must be mown once during the growing period; the mowing should be planned taking into consideration birds and mammals.; 3) Preventing wild oats spreading is required according to national legislation. Sum-up evaluation – Finland: Agricultural statistics: Only less than 7 % of the total area is covered by arable land and 0,1 % by grassland (European Commission, 2007b). Nevertheless, agriculture is an important source of employment, which together with the rest of the food chain employs directly or indirectly over 300,000 people. In general, agricultural production is characterised by the cultivation of cereals, potato and vegetables and the production of milk (1.7 % of EU’s total production rate), meat and eggs. Selected measures and relevance: National GAEC standards cover all issues and highlight issues concerning land abandonment. A similar system exists in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, except that in these countries no or only limited emphasis on other GAEC issues is given. As regards soil erosion, the national specific measure “buffer strips on watercourses” has been set up and in addition to its impact, even if to a limited extent, on soil erosion prevention, represents a useful tool to avoid diffuse contamination, protect surface water and improve biodiversity. However, these positive effects are strongly limited when the strip only comprises a width of 60 cm (a width of 2 or 3 m would be much more efficient). Subsoil is very susceptible to compaction in the northern part of Finland (ESDAC, 2007) where agriculture is dominated in particular by livestock of reindeer. Therefore special emphasis should be given to areas with high livestock rates and, if necessary, appropriate measures setting maximum livestock rates per hectare should be implemented. Conclusion: In general, measures seem to be adapted to the identified threats but should be described in more detail in order to provide helpful guidance. For example, additional information about methods, frequency and timing related to maintenance of permanent pasture by mowing, grazing or ‘otherwise clearing vegetation’ would need to be indicated (Farmer and Swales, 2004). In addition, further detail on the requirement for ‘appropriate machinery use by avoiding driving heavy machinery on wet fields’ would be beneficial. Further comments: -

Report, Page 235 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.6.8: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – France

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Soil erosion Minimum soil cover If monocropping (i.e. the third crop or the second family of crop covers less than 5 % of UAA): whether soil covers during winter or crush and superficial mulching of residues. Farmers have to sow a crop of environmental interest (precisely defined at NUTS3 level) on all plots taken out of production. Other standards ("buffer strips on The farmer has to set up buffer strips (preferentially along watercourses). These lands can be declared as set-aside land, pastures or watercources") non-productive land. Other standards ("maintenance of set-side Maintenance of set-aside land (rules set at department level (NUTS3)) and grassland (mowing or grazing). The farmer has to set up land and grasland, buffer strips") buffer strips (preferentially along watercourses). These lands can be declared as set-aside land, pastures or non-productive land.

Soil organic Arable stubble management Prohibition of burning straw and residues (except if dispensation at department level). Note that a dispensation exists at national level matter for rice. Standards for crop rotation where Yearly cultivation of at least three crops or crops from at least two different families (e.g. cereals, maize, oleaginous, ...) on the arable applicable land of a holding (counting temporary pastures as one crop family, but not including permanent or multi-annual crops and set-aside land), each on at least 5 % of the area, is to be ensured. A dispensation exists for monocropping.

Soil structure Appropriate machinery use Users of irrigated water need a water meter or appropriate machinery to measure water utilised to irrigate.

Other standards ("authorisation of water The farmer has to declare and to have been authorised to use water (authorisation set at department (NUTS3) level). use")

Minimum level Minimum livestock stocking rates or/and Pastures have to be maintained by mowing or grazing (minimum livestock stocking rate), as defined at department (NUTS3) level. of maintenance appropriate regimes Protection of permanent pasture The farmer has to respect the rules concerning the reference share of permanent grassland (a certain share of the total agricultural area on country level). If the total share of permanent grassland decreases by more than 10 percent, farmers who have converted permanent grassland to arable land will be ordered to re-establish permanent grassland. If the total share of permanent grassland decreases by more than 5 %, the farmer has to ask for authorisation before converting permanent pasture to arable land.

Retention of landscape features, including Prevention of scrub on plots taken out of production (land use of environmental interest). Prohibition of the grubbing up of olive trees. where appropriate the prohibition of the grubbing up of olive trees Avoiding the encroachment of unwanted Destruction of weed (precisely defined at department (NUTS3) level). vegetation on agricultural land Maintenance of olive groves in good Absence of scrub, maintenance in good vegetative conditions (pruning...) vegetative conditions

Report, Page 236 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Sum-up evaluation – France: Agricultural statistics: France is one of the most important agricultural producers in the EU. About 53 % of France’s area is under agricultural use; from which two-thirds consists of permanent grassland, one-third of arable land and a small percentage of permanent crops. Moreover, France is the largest producer of cereals in the EU (about a quarter of the harvest) and accounts, together with Germany and Italy, for almost 50 % of the slaughtering in the EU. With regard to the milk production, France is second (with 17 % of the EU’s total production) after Germany (European Commission, 2007b). Selected standards and relevance: Within the French GAEC-system, all four main issues focus on soil protection. Special emphasis is given to maintenance of set-aside land, related to both soil erosion and minimum level of maintenance. In general, GAEC measures comprise soil cover, prohibition of the incineration of residues, crop rotation, irrigation and minimum level of maintenance. For some measures (e.g. minimum soil cover, maintenance of set-aside land, and destruction of weeds) rules are defined at the department level (NUTS3). Measures addressing soil erosion correspond to the existing soil erosion problem. In northern France there are some areas characterised by light and easily eroded soils (in particular in the loess zone). These areas show, for example, off-site effects such as eutrophication and siltation of water courses (EEA, 2005a). Moreover, in almost 25 % of the total area, the annual soil erosion risk by water based on estimates of annual soil loss ranges from 1-5 t/ha/year (EEA, 2005b). The adopted measures, such as minimum soil cover and the establishment of cover next to waterways, provide a range of environmental benefits in order to avoid soil erosion as well as reduce diffuse contamination and biodiversity by decreasing the runoff of fertilisers and pesticides. Further benefits could result from the crop rotation standard, which addresses the content of organic matter in the surface horizon. In most parts organic carbon content differs between 0-5 % (EEA, 2005b). Unfortunately this measure is not extended to current monoculture producers. The national-specific requirement that the farmer declare and to have been authorised to use water does underline a commitment by the French to address the key environmental problem of unsustainable irrigation systems, which can contribute significantly to the salinisation and erosion of cultivated lands (Farmer and Swales, 2004). Therefore, this measure can contribute to manage this problem. Conclusion: In general, all soil threats are addressed by the GAEC standards. Given the fact that soil erosion is significant in some parts of France, appropriate measures (e.g. tillage adapt to slope conditions under ‘minimum land management reflecting site-specific conditions’) department level (NUTS3) could help combating this problem in areas where it occurs. Further improvement for increasing soil organic matter may be achieved through the extension of crop rotation to monoculture producers. According to ESDAC (2007), low to moderate susceptibility to subsoil compaction is characteristic in France. EEA (2003a) indicates sensitive soils to sub-soil compaction in North-west France. Improvements in soil structure may be achieved by introducing appropriate measures, e.g. provisions on appropriate machinery use. Further comments: -

Report, Page 237 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.6.9: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Germany32

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard

Soil erosion Minimum soil cover In order to prevent soil erosion, 40 % of the arable area of an agricultural holding must not be ploughed between harvest and 15 February of the following year, unless a new crop is sowed on the ploughed area by 1 December. The responsible administrations in the Laender can decide that this is not applicable in areas with low danger of erosion. They can also allow for further exceptions in case the requirements cannot be complied with due to weather conditions. Retain terraces Terraces must not be removed. Terraces are linear structures in the agricultural landscape created by human effort, which are intended to reduce the slope angle of the effective agricultural area. According to federal law the competent authority can approve the removal of a terrace if there are no soil erosion risks (not applicable in Schleswig-Holstein).

Soil organic Arable stubble management It is prohibited to burn stubble fields. For phytosanitary reasons, the responsible authority of the "Land" can approve exceptions to the ban on matter stubble burning. Standards for crop rotation 1) Yearly cultivation of at least three crops on the arable land of a holding (counting set-aside and non-cultivated land as one crop, but not including where applicable permanent or multi-annual crops), each on at least 15 % of the area, is to be ensured. In case a holding cultivates more than three crops, several crops can be combined to achieve the minimum area of 15 %. 2) The crop rotations requirements can be complied with by growing a different crop on the holding each year for at least three years or by swapping fields with other farmers ensuring that on these areas different crops are cultivated within three years.; 3) In case the crop rotation requirements are not met, farmers are obliged to a) either calculate the humus balance at farm level for the arable land until 31 December of the respective year according to certain prescriptions, or b) to analyse the soil organic matter of the arable land with the help of scientific soil tests at least every 6 years.; The humus balance is to be prepared for the entire agricultural holding. The soil examination is to be carried out according to scientifically recognised methods. Documents of results have to be kept for 7 years. 4) If the average value of three years of the humus balance or the analysis is below a certain threshold level (minus 75 kg of humus carbon material per hectare per year for the humus balance), the farmer has to undergo a consultation and prove compliance with the requirements after two years at the latest.

32 Information for Germany was compiled from 14 regions out of 16. Berlin and Bremen were excepted.

Report, Page 238 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard

Minimum level of Protection of permanent 1) On permanent pastures, which are not used agriculturally any more, the grass growth is to be cut or mulched at least once annually and maintenance pasture distributed over the total surface, or to be mown at least every two years with the cut material to be removed from field concerned. For reasons of nature conservation or water protection, the competent authority of the Land can approve exceptions. 2) The surfaces of permanent pasture or set aside arable land must be neither topped, mowed or mulched between 1 April and 15 July (nesting times).; If necessary the governments of the Laender are entitled to lay down regulations with requirements differing from the general rules, in order to allow for regional conditions in areas with high groundwater table or a high share of steep slopes, or special regional conditions due to reasons of nature conservation or plant production. The responsible administrations of the Laender can allow exceptions if negative impacts on the ecosystem are not to be feared. 3) The described rules do not apply to particularly protected grassland habitat types and species of the Habitat directive, Natura 2000 sites as well as other nature protection areas. The surfaces within such areas or sites may in principle not be ploughed. (This does not belong here but to protection of permanent pasture according to Article 4 of Regulation 796/2004; - ratio of permanent pasture to arable land - it is as well not stated in the legal text, but in the information brochure for farmers). 4) Areas that must not be ploughed include: a) areas where legal restrictions exist, e.g. in the context of the nature protection law or water law (e.g. SchaLVO), or b) surfaces due to the participation in certain agri-environment (e.g. MEKA) or landscape conservation measures. (belongs as well down to protection of permanent pasture according to Article 4 of Regulation 796/2004). Protection of permanent 1) The Laender have to make sure that the ratio of permanent grassland in relation to the total agricultural area (referring to 15 May 2003) is pasture (Article 5(2) of maintained. In case this ratio decreases by more than 5 % the Laender have to legally determine, that grassland must not be ploughed without prior Regulation 1782/2003, authorisation. In case of a decline of more than 8 %, the Laender may determine that farmers who ploughed their grassland in the year before have Article 4 of Regulation to re-establish permanent grassland. When the ratio decreases by 10 % the Laender must force the farmer to re-establish permanent pasture.; 796/2004) 2) If necessary the governments of the Laender are entitled to lay down regulations with requirements differing from the general rules, in order to allow for regional conditions in areas with high groundwater table or a high share of steep slopes, or special regional conditions due to reasons of nature conservation or plant production. Retention of landscape Landscape features fulfil important functions for nature conservation and the environment. From the point of view of species diversity they often features, including where have an outstanding importance in the agricultural landscape, by offering special living spaces. At the same time they represent an enrichment of appropriate the prohibition the landscape. Therefore it is prohibited to eliminate the following landscape features totally or partly: of the grubbing up of olive trees 1) Single trees, which are protected according to Laender legal regulations as a protected natural monument in the sense of § 28 of the Federal nature protection law (BNatschG); 2) Rows of trees, which consist of at least 5 trees and show a length of at least 50 meters; (Definition of rows of trees: not agriculturally used species in a linear arrangement. Thus fruit trees and nut trees do not fall under the abolition prohibition.); 3) Hedgerows or walled hedges ('Knicks') starting from a length of 20 meters (Definition: Linear structural elements, which are covered predominantly with woody species.); 4) Spinneys or small woods with a size of at least 100 square meters to a maximum of 2000 square meters. (Definition: Areas mainly covered with woody species, which do not serve agricultural production. Areas, for which an aid for afforestation or an afforestation premium was granted, are not considered as spinneys or woodland.); In the case of woodlands and wetlands the upper limit of 2000 square meters applies to each individual landscape element, i.e. several such landscape features, which keep in each case the upper limit, may occur on one field.; 5) Small wetlands with a size up to 2000 square meters. (Definition: Biotopes, which are protected according to national legal regulations in the sense of § 30 of the federal nature protection law and that are registered following a habitat survey.); For 1)-5): In principle, the ban on removing such landscape features does not imply management obligations. The proper management of landscape features is not a removal. The authority responsible according to federal state law can approve the removal of a landscape feature.

Report, Page 239 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard

Other standard On obligatory or voluntary set-aside arable land, passive or active greening has to be allowed for, and the vegetation has to be cut and mulched, or (Maintenance of set-aside mowed and removed from the land. For reasons of nature conservation or water protection, the competent authority of the Land can approve arable land) exceptions. If necessary the governments of the Laender are entitled to lay down regulations with requirements differing from the general rules, in order to allow for regional conditions in areas with high groundwater table or a high share of steep slopes, or special regional conditions due to reasons of nature conservation or plant production. Sum-up evaluation – Germany: Agricultural statistics: Approximately 50 % of the total national area of 35 million hectares in Germany is in agricultural use. In 2006, there were 371,100 farms in Germany, together cultivating about 17 million hectares of land (European Commission, 2007b), consisting of 33 % arable land and 14 % permanent grassland. Grazing livestock and field crop farming are the dominant farm types in Germany. Selected standards and relevance: The German GAEC standards focus on erosion, soil organic matter, and minimum level of maintenance. Although the ordinance sets uniform standards for GAEC in Germany, they are implemented under the responsibility of the Laender in accordance with the federalist system in Germany. Measures focus primarily on the minimum level of maintenance; defining requirements for greening and removing of vegetation on land taken out of production, and also describing in detail the landscape elements to be maintained. Some of these landscape elements have already been covered by Federal Nature Conservation Act (protected wetland habitats and single trees). These measures focussing on minimum level of maintenance do not provide any significant benefits for soil protection. Very beneficial and sophisticated measures have been introduced with respect to the soil crop rotation system and requirements to measure the soil humus balance. Across Germany, soil organic content in the surface horizon (30 cm) ranges between 2,5-5 % and is therefore moderate. The measures mentioned above, as well as the ban on burning stubble fields can strongly contribute to increase soil organic matter. The obligation for minimum soil cover is especially needed in western Germany on the French border, where light, easily eroded soils occur (EEA, 2005a). Conclusion: German GAEC measures are very specific and ambitious (e.g. minimum soil cover, standards for crop rotations, protection of permanent pasture and retention of landscape features) and seem to be adapted to the identified soil threats. However, there is a standard missing in order to maintain soil structure. A measure for appropriate machinery use could be considered, especially because soil compaction is a concern for Germany. In particular, subsoil in northern Germany shows a high or very high susceptibility to compaction (ESDAC, 2007). In addition, restrictions for livestock density may be helpful to address soil erosion and compaction. This is important because grazing livestock is a dominant farm type in Germany. Further comments: The Laender (regional) authorities may approve exceptions in certain cases or areas, and are also responsible for measures concerning the retention of permanent pasture. Measures adopted in the Laender seem to be identical in spite of significant topographic and regional differences in the country.

Report, Page 240 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.6.10: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Greece

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Soil erosion Minimum soil cover Ensure that in parcels in areas with an inclination greater than 10 %, there is plant cover at the period of rainfalls, up to the preparation of the soil for the next seeding, depending on the crop. Minimum land management In parcels with inclination above 10 % in danger from erosion, contour ploughing is a must or diagonal or alternatively permanent non reflecting site-specific uncultivated bands of interception should be left, in distances proportional with the soil attributes and inclination. Flood irrigation should not be conditions used. Retain terraces Do not destroy terraces. Other standards ("landscape Do not destroy dry stone walls, dykes and natural elevations in the limits of parcels. Stocking density above 3 LU/hectare must be avoided. features & stocking density")

Soil organic matter Arable stubble management Depending on local conditions, select at least one of the following practices in regard to crop stalks: a. incorporation in the soil; b. stubble grazing; c. cutting and soil cover with the remains (mulching) and their incorporation next spring.; In exceptional cases, only for areas outside Natura 2000 network and after proper authorisation from the local Directorate of Rural Development and the Fire department, one can proceed with stubble burning. Standards for crop rotation Cultivate and incorporate in the ground leguminous crops, in addition to the main crop, in the 20 % of cultivated area of the holding each year. where applicable

Soil structure Appropriate machinery use Do not proceed in mechanic treatment of soil when there is ice and/or the parcel is completely covered with water.

Minimum level of Minimum livestock stocking Comply with the minimal livestocking density, which is fixed in 0.2 LU/hectare for all animal categories, except in the cases where there are maintenance rates or/and appropriate specific local regulations. In case where grazing is not possible, clear the bushy vegetation of pastures. regimes Protection of permanent Do not proceed in ploughing of permanent pastures apart from the cases there is environmental or archaeological necessity, documented by pasture competent authorities. Retention of landscape Do not destroy dry stone walls, dykes and natural elevations in the limits of parcels. features, including where appropriate the prohibition of the grubbing up of olive trees Avoiding the encroachment of Proceed in the necessary farming interventions in the parcel in order to maintain it in good conditions and avoid invasion of undesirable species. unwanted vegetation on Farmers can remove the undesirable vegetation either by grazing or with mechanical weeding and removal. agricultural land

Report, Page 241 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Sum-up evaluation – Greece: Agricultural statistics: Agriculture in Greece is based on small-sized, family-owned dispersed units (< 5 ha), where the extent of co-operative organisation is comparatively low. Almost 29 % of the total area is used for agricultural purposes (20 % arable land, 9 % permanent crop land). Greece produces a wide variety of crops and livestock products (European Commission, 2007b). However, Greek agriculture produces only 7 % of the national GDP and employs only 5 % of its population. Selected measures and relevance: Greek GAEC standards focus on all four issues: soil erosion, soil organic matter, soil structure and minimum level of maintenance with special regard to mountainous regions. Greece belongs to the group of countries with the highest risk of soil erosion. Besides southern Spain and Portugal, the parts of Greece most seriously affected are areas with moderate or low sensitivity, ranging from approximately 65% to more than 85% of the region concerned (EEA, 2005a). This problem is combated by ensuring plant cover, contour ploughing, permanent non-uncultivated bands of interception as well avoiding flood irrigation. In addition, the national specific standard on stocking density and the retention of landscape features support this purpose. Most soil erosion measures are only effective in areas with an inclination greater than 10% (which is also the case in Italy). Areas with very low organic carbon content (0-1 %) correspond to areas with high soil erosion rates and warmer climates (EEA, 2005b). In order to reduce the further decline in soil organic matter, measures such as crop rotation and arable stubble management have been established. Several standards focus on maintenance of agricultural land, which comprise the protection of permanent pasture and landscape features (such as stone walls, dykes and natural elevations), restriction of livestock density and avoidance of the encroachment of unwanted vegetation. Currently, there are no standards for the maintenance of olive groves in good vegetative conditions. Conclusion: The most important soil threats are addressed by the adopted measures. Standards set up in order to combat soil erosion (addressing areas with an inclination above 10%) should be evaluated against their results to verify whether parcels with lower inclination should be included as well. Moreover, the introduction of standards for the maintenance of olive groves in good vegetative conditions as well as standards for appropriate water management could be considered in order to strengthen soil protection and prevent further soil erosion and loss in soil organic matter. Further comments: -

Report, Page 242 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.6.11: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Hungary

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Soil erosion Minimum land management reflecting site- Growing of row crops (potato, Jerusalem artichoke) on slopes steeper than 12 percent is prohibited. specific conditions 1) On arable land steeper than 12% the cultivation of the following crops is prohibited: tobacco, sugarbeet, fodderbeet, potato, Jerusalem artichoke. 2) On arable land steeper than 12% the cultivation of maize, silage maize, sunflower is allowed if: a) contour cultivation is applied, or b) cover crop is applied, or c) the stubble of the preliminary crop is maintained and managed after harvesting till 30th of October Retain terraces Terraces, which are established against erosion in vineyards must be maintained.

Soil organic Arable stubble management The burning of stubble, reed, crop residue and grassland is prohibited, except for the ruling of plant protection authority. matter Standards for crop rotation where 1) Rye and wheat can be cultivated in 2 consecutive years with change of the crop variety. applicable 2) Maize can be cultivated in 3 consecutive years with change of the crop variety. 3) The following crops can be cultivated for several consecutive years: multiannual horticultural crops, fodder crops, grass seed, apiculture crops, green manure crops, multiannual energy crops. All other crops can be cultivated only besides crop rotation

Soil structure Appropriate machinery use All machinery use is prohibited on water logged land, except for the establishment of inland/flood water draining ditches.

Minimum level Minimum livestock stocking rates or/and Overgrazing of grassland, further more any substantial damage by machinery is prohibited. of maintenance appropriate regimes Protection of permanent pasture Permanent pastures (land used as pasture for more than 5 years and areas utilised with annual fodder crops not in crop rotation) must be maintained. Avoiding the encroachment of unwanted 1) Keep arable land in good agricultural condition while ensuring a weed-free condition. vegetation on agricultural land 2) The spreading of herbaceous and woody plants not desirable for utilisation in agricultural areas should be prevented.

1) Utilised agricultural areas (arable land, grasslands, permanent crops) must be kept under appropriate weed control.; 2) On utilised agricultural areas (arable land, grasslands, permanent crops) the undesirable shrubs and invasive trees Sum-up evaluation – Hungary: Agricultural statistics: Approximately 63 % of the total national area of 9,3 million hectares in Hungary is in agricultural use , making it the highest national share of agricultural land in the EU. Agricultural land consists of 77% arable land, 18 % permanent grassland and 4 % permanent crops (European Commission 2007). Selected standards and relevance: Measures adopted: According to the Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Department (MARD), there are three measures adopted at this moment that address soil erosion and minimum level of maintenance. These measures, described in a very general manner, comprise 1) prohibition of growing row crops on slopes steeper than 12 percent, 2) keeping arable land in good agricultural condition while ensuring a weed-free condition and 3) the prevention of spreading of herbaceous and woody plants in agricultural areas.

Report, Page 243 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

The first measure was applied to tackle “soil erosion rising from the cultivation of row crops and shall also help to maintain soil organic matter” (ARDA 2007). The second measure is commented by the Hungarian Agricultural and Rural Development Agency (ARDA, 2007) as following “The avoidance of ploughing up of agricultural land has a significant anti-erosion and anti-physical degradation effect. It also helps to avoid the organic matter decrease by farming, the minimum level of maintenance is provided “. The third measure also referring to avoiding encroachment was commented: “By proper cultivation of arable land the water management of soils are improved, and so the risk of erosion is reduced, likewise the risks in connection with the organic matter of soils are reduced. Furthermore by appropriate shrub and weed control, the minimum level of maintenance is provided” (ARDA 2007). Measures intended: All measures written in italic style are proposed for the year 2008. When these measures come into force, Hungary will have implemented the full range of standards, covered by Annex IV, with detailed indicators. Some of these measures seem to strengthen or continue the measures, which have already adopted, for example, the two measures under “Minimum land management reflecting site-specific conditions”, determining the type of crops which are not allowed to cultivate on slopes steeper than 12 percent. Measures addressing soil erosion are necessary given the elevated degree of water erosion that range between light and moderate and affects approximately 40 % of the total area (EEA 2003b). Moreover, appropriate machinery use will be applied and will provide a useful tool to tackle the problem of high up to very high susceptibility to subsoil compaction in some parts in Hungary (ESDAC 2007). Conclusion: The introduction of further and more ambitious measures addressing soil erosion, e.g. minimum soil cover, could be considered. Further comments: In comparison with other new Member States, several truly environmental standards exist in the Hungarian system of GAEC (preserving natural landscape elements; preservation of natural grasslands; appropriate grazing densities on certain grassland) (Hofhanzl and Postulka 2005).

Report, Page 244 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.6.12: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Ireland

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Soil erosion Minimum soil cover Ensure that soil is covered by vegetation (crop cover, crop residue, stubble cover) or else ploughed. Finely tiled bare (unsown) seedbeds are not permitted over the winter. Minimum land management On commonages, stocking requirements to avoid overgrazing as set out in the Commonage Framework Plan must be followed. Sand dunes must reflecting site-specific be retained and must not be overgrazed or damaged. Severe poaching should be avoided conditions

Soil organic Arable stubble management Arable stubble management should be introduced where necessary. If this is not sufficient the farmer will be required to change this system e.g. by matter allowing natural regeneration of vegetation by growing a suitable break crop or by incorporating organic materials. Standards for crop rotation Maintain an adequate level of soil organic matter by means of appropriate cropping rotations or cropping practices where necessary. In case of low where applicable level of organic matter, farmer will be required to change this system by growing a suitable break crop or by incorporating organic materials.

Soil structure Appropriate machinery use The use of machinery on land where soil is saturated with water (waterlogged) must be avoided.

Minimum level of Minimum livestock stocking On non-tillage land/grassland: Grazing and/or cutting management practices must be in place to avoid undergrazing except where deemed maintenance rates or/and appropriate unnecessary by the relevant authority. In case of undergrazing the stocking rate must be increased to sufficient level or the land must be harvested regimes or topped at least once between 1 June and 31 July in a way that provides escape routes to wildlife. On tillage land: Crop must be grown except to the land that is in set-aside or where natural regeneration is practiced (in this case it is adequately topped at least once between 16 July and 15 September in a way that provides escape routes to wildlife. Protection of permanent If national area of permanent pasture as a proportion of the total agricultural decreases by more than 5 %, landowner or occupier will be required to pasture obtain prior authorisation to grow tillage crop. In case of reduction by more than 10 %, farmer will be required to re-convert tillage land into permanent grassland. Retention of landscape Archaeological sites and Monuments protected under National and EU legislation must not be damaged or removed.; Designated National Heritage features, including where Areas (NHAs), Special Areas for Conservation (SACs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and other habitats protected under EU or national appropriate the prohibition legislation must not be damaged.; Vegetation growing on land that is not cultivated or vegetation growing in any hedge or ditch must not be burned of the grubbing up of olive between the dates of 1 March to 31 August in any year. trees All external farm boundaries (walls, hedges or post and wire fences) on land occupied by livestock, excluding commonage land and unenclosed land must be maintained.

Avoiding the encroachment 1) Appropriate measures must be adopted to prevent the establishment of invasive species onto forage/arable area that would result in the land of unwanted vegetation on being incapable of agricultural production (e.g. blackhorn, furze, briars, scrub species, rhododendron or bracken). Appropriate measures must be agricultural land adopted to minimise the spread of noxious weeds (e.g. ragwort, thistle, dock, wild oat, common barberry and wild hop). 2) On non-tillage land/grassland: Grazing and/or cutting management practices must be in place to avoid undergrazing except where deemed unnecessary by the relevant authority. In case of undergrazing the stocking rate must be increased to sufficient level or the land must be harvested or topped at least once between 1 June and 31 July in a way that provides escape routes to wildlife. On tillage land: Crop must be grown except to the land that is in set-aside or where natural regeneration is practiced (in this case it is adequately topped at least once between 16 July and 15 September in a way that provides escape routes to wildlife.

Report, Page 245 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Sum-up evaluation – Ireland: Agricultural statistics: About 60 % of the total area is dedicated to agriculture, where three quarters consist of permanent grassland and the remainder of arable land (European Commission 2007b). Beef and milk production currently account for most of the total agricultural output at producer prices. The animal production is dominated by cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry. Selected measures and relevance: GAEC in Ireland is concerned with soil erosion, soil organic matter, soil structure, minimum level of maintenance, retention of landscape features and encroachment of unwanted vegetation and correspond with the high percentage of agricultural production. The minimum requirements are defined by the Department of Agriculture and Food in Ireland according to Annex IV of Regulation (EC) 1782/2003. Measures have been established in order to manage grazing sustainably and to minimise soil erosion. For example, finely tilled unsown seedbeds are not permitted over winter, sand dunes must be retained and must not be overgrazed or damaged and there are stocking requirements to avoid overgrazing. In regard to the adoption of soil erosion measures in Ireland, the following difficulties on farms have been observed: a) finely tilled soils after the potato harvest in the late Autumn; b) by-products such as beet tops grazed off by sheep after the beet harvest, and c) traditional winter grazing of kale or rape crops by beef cows over winter, which leaves the land in varying conditions depending on winter rainfall (Grogan, 2005). Irish GAEC standards focus mainly on maintenance of non-tillage land and grassland as well as the retention of landscape features (e.g. external farm boundaries). Grazing and cutting management practices are in place to prevent and avoid, for example, establishment of invasive species onto forage/arable area. Under-grazing must be avoided and if necessary stocking rates must be increased to a sufficient level or the land must be harvested or topped at least once a year. Conclusion: In general, GAECs adopted in Ireland address all soil threats and are in most cases well described. Some improvements can be made, for example, with regard to the measure for appropriate machinery use. Given the fact that there are some parts in western and southern Ireland where subsoil shows a very high susceptibility to compaction, clearer requirements (e.g. use of large tyres with low inflation pressures or use improved steering systems) may be useful (ESDAC, 2007). Further comments: Ireland is one of only a handful of Member State to include measures to protect historical or archaeological features on farms (Farmer and Swales, 2004).

Report, Page 246 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.6.13: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Italy

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Soil erosion Minimum soil cover Standard 4.2 - Management of areas no longer in agricultural use. A green cover (natural or sowed) must be established on land which is no longer used for production purposes, including set-aside, throughout the year and grass has to be cut once a year at least. Mowing is forbidden at least for a 120-days period within 15 March and 15 September. In Natura 2000 areas, the restriction time for mowing is for 150 days within from 15 February and 30 September. In these periods, farmers must make "firebreak strips", by cutting grass or by ploughing; in mountain areas, firebreak strips have to be done only in cases of dryness proclaimed by regional authorities. Ploughing and harrowing are generally not allowed, but Regions can specify different rules. Minimum land management Standard 1.1 - Temporary channelling of surface water on sloping ground. reflecting site-specific In order to avoid soil runoff, on sloping ground with clear erosion phenomena (diffuse presence of runnels), farmers are asked to insert temporary conditions drainage furrows. Drainage furrows must be perpendicular to the highest slope and must have a distance of 80 m at the maximum. In case of slope too high (that is a potential risk for the stability of machinery), the drainage furrows could be replaced with green bands that must be 3 m wide at least and must have a distance of 80 m at the maximum. The standard applies to arable crops and set-aside land. Retain terraces Standard 4.4 - Maintenance of landscape distinguishing features. Farmers must not destroy existing terraces and they must maintain them in good condition (against weather and agricultural practice). Terraces can be reshaped into "connected terraces" that are easier for agronomic operations. Prohibition to level the land without authorisation. In Natura 2000 areas, farmers must respect the regional measures and specific management plans, if there are any.

Soil organic Arable stubble management Standard 2.1 - Arable stubble and vegetable residues management. matter Prohibition to burn stubbles and vegetable residues. The standard applies to arable crops and set-aside land. Rice fields are exempted.

Soil structure Appropriate machinery use 1) Prohibition of machinery use in Standard 4.1. 2) Ploughing and harrowing restrictions, apart from firebreak strips in Standard 4.2. Other standards Standard 3.1 - Protection of soil structure through maintenance of efficient surface water drainage. ("maintenance of water Farmers are asked to maintain an efficient water drainage system and to clean ditches, drains and channels by removing natural vegetation, ground drainage system") and sediments. If there is "baulatura" (traditional convexing shaping of land), it must be maintained. In Natura 2000 areas farmers must respect Management Plans, if the Regions have adopted them. The standard applies to all land, including areas that do not benefit of direct payments.

Minimum level of Minimum livestock stocking In Standard 4.1 (see below), Regions can specify minimum and maximum livestock stocking rates. maintenance rates or/and appropriate regimes Protection of permanent Standard 4.1 - Protection of permanent pasture. pasture Permanent pasture must be correctly managed and it is forbidden to convert them into different land use. Prohibition of machinery use, apart from that which is necessary to thicken turf and drain water. The Regions can specify minimum and maximum livestock stocking rates.

Retention of landscape 1) Standard 4.4 (see measure/ standard "Retain terraces"). features, including where 2) Standard 4.3 - Maintenance of olive groves: Olives trees (both commercial or not) can not be cut down. Multiyear offshoots, brambles and weed appropriate the prohibition must be removed. Farmers are therefore requested to prune olive trees at least once every five years, apart from phytosanitary reasons, that must of the grubbing up of olive be verified by competent authorities. For re-plantation an authorization is required. trees

Report, Page 247 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Sum-up evaluation – Italy: Agricultural statistics: About 49 % of Italy’s area is under agricultural use; of which one-third consists of arable land and two-thirds of permanent grassland. Moreover, Italy together with Germany and France account for almost 50 % of slaughtering bovines in the EU as well as almost 8 % of the EU’s production of milk. The country belongs (together with Spain) to the most important producer countries in terms of harvested area of vegetables and fruits (European Commission 2007b). Selected measures and relevance: In general, Italian GAEC standards focus on all issues: soil erosion, soil organic matter, soil structure and minimum level of maintenance. For NATURA 2000 sites, specific and stronger standards are set up. There are standards defined and enforced at the national and regional levels. Strong emphasis is given to soil erosion due to the fact that 35 % of the total area in Italy is affected by this soil problem (EEA, 2003a), in particular in mountainous regions. Evidence can be seen in the sharp rise in instances of landslides in the past 20 years, affecting more than 70.000 people and causing economic damage approaching EUR 11.000 Mio. in Italy (EEA, 2005a). With regard to avoidance or reduction of soil erosion in mountainous regions, the measure ‘temporary channelling of surface water on sloping terrain’ has been set up. The description of this standard has been made it possible to avoid the defining the land slope. In Italy, more then 60 % of the arable land is classified as “hill” or “mountain”. According to Tosi (2005), the task of defining the percent of slope degree, at land parcel level, is difficult and the results are not completely accurate. Moreover, temporary channelling is not mandatory; rather the standard leaves the choice to the farmers. In practice, if the farmer judges that the slope of his land is not too steep or that the soil structure is well balanced, channelling can be avoided, but if there is subsequent erosion, there is a risk of possible reduction. Some areas in central Italy show a very low organic carbon content (0-2,5 %) and correspond with areas with high soil erosion rates. In this region, erosion risk is high with predicted losses of more than 5 tonnes/ha/year (EEA, 2005b; ESDAC, 2007). Therefore, arable stubble management can bring benefits in order to avoid or reduce decline in soil organic matter. According to the land use structure, standards have been set up concerning minimum livestock rates. Restrictions on stocking density are useful and necessary in particular in mountainous regions, where soil compaction and soil erosion risk are higher. Defence of ground structure through maintenance of surface water drainage also provides benefits, but these are likely to be agricultural rather than environmental. In the context of maintenance measures, emphasis on the protection of permanent pasture, management of set-aside areas, maintenance of olive groves as well as of distinguishing landscape and habitat features is given. There is a clear focus on avoiding land abandonment with measures to maintain land that is not entirely in agricultural production, including less productive olive groves (Farmer and Swales, 2004). Besides positive effects for nesting birds, indirect benefits can be achieved through appropriate grazing management as well as protection of permanent pasture. Conclusion: In general, all soil threats are addressed through the GAEC standards, which seem to be adapted to the identified soil threats. In order to strengthen soil erosion protection, additional measures could be adopted, for example, minimum or no tillage operations in olive groves. Moreover, crop rotation systems can provide environmental benefits and increase organic carbon content. Allowing the Regions to adapt baseline standards to local conditions, could be seen as a positive step. Further comments: -

Report, Page 248 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.6.14: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Latvia

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Soil organic Arable stubble management Land is maintained in good agricultural and environmental condition, if plants or stubble remains are worked into soil with the purpose of fertility matter maintenance of the land.

Minimum level of Minimum livestock stocking Land is maintained in good agricultural and environmental condition, if maintenance rates or/and appropriate 1) grassland, meadows and perennial grasses sown on arable land are used for grazing of animals or feed production.; regimes 2) grazing lands and meadows are grazed or meadows are mowed for the first time no later than 1 August of a respective year and grass is gathered in due time or shredded in small pieces and spread. Avoiding the encroachment Land is maintained in good agricultural and environmental condition, if: Agricultural land is cultivated and crops are grown in accordance with of unwanted vegetation on agricultural practices, and agricultural land is free from invasive plant species (Heracleum sosnowskyi) and bushes. agricultural land Sum-up evaluation – Latvia: Agricultural statistics: In Latvia about 28 % of the total area is used for agriculture, of which approximately 63 % is covered by arable land and 36 % by permanent grassland. Agriculture is dominated by the cultivation of cereals and the production of milk (European Commission, 2007b). Selected measures and relevance: Latvian GAECs are developed and adopted under national law (Regulation No. 273, 19.04.2005) and are mainly targeted at avoiding land abandonment (a widespread problem). Only one measure is focused on promoting organic matter in soils. There are no measures addressing soil structure or soil erosion despite the fact that about 11 % of the total area is affected by moderate erosion (EEA, 2003b). Conclusion: Adopted measures do not specifically address soil threats but rather focus on land abandonment. At least some measures to avoid or reduce soil erosion could be introduced. Further comments: -

Report, Page 249 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.6.15: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Lithuania

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Soil erosion Minimum soil cover Arable land has to be sown with crops or the land should be laid fallow.

Soil organic matter Arable stubble management On arable land, remnants of plants and stubble must be ploughed into the soil or used for the production of fertilizers.

Minimum level of Protection of permanent pasture Pastures and fields as well as perennial pastures should be in good condition and used for pasturing and/or cut at least once a maintenance year (before 15 July). Avoiding the encroachment of unwanted On the agricultural farming areas there must be no trees and bushes (except for willows and osiers which are grown for the vegetation on agricultural land manufacture of twigs or for weaving and where a group of bushes and trees, grow as a separate area on the field, that is not included in the area against which the payment is claimed) and no lignified herbage (wormwood, absinthium, thistle, etc.). Other standards ("appropriate timing of Herbage and/or hay harvest should be dealt with in good time. herbage and hay harvest") Sum-up evaluation – Lithuania: Agricultural statistics: Lithuania is principally used for agriculture (43 % of the total area). Two-thirds are arable land and one-third is permanent grassland (European Commission 2007b). Selected measures and relevance: In spite of this high percentage of agriculture land, only a few GAEC standards have been established under national law (Lietuvos Respublikos, žemės ūkio ministro, 2004 m. vasario 6 d. įsakymas Nr. 3D-40). Two very simple measures (plant cover and stubble management) have been adopted in order to reduce soil erosion and decline in soil organic matter. In general, GAEC standards focus mainly on preventing land abandonment (similar to Estonia) without any significant benefits toward the preventing or reducing of soil threats. There are no measures to address the high susceptibility to subsoil compaction (ESDAC, 2007). Conclusion: Measures that maintain the soil structure, such as appropriate machinery use could be considered. Moreover, measures focussing on reducing soil erosion and increasing soil organic matter could be described in more detail or addressed by additional measures. Further comments: A similar strong emphasis on land abandonment can be found in Latvia and Estonia.

Report, Page 250 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.6.16: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Luxembourg

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Soil erosion Minimum land management reflecting site- Meadows with an average slope of over 12% over a minimum distance of 50 metres shall not be ploughed up. specific conditions Retain terraces Existing terraces shall be conserved. Other standards (“avoiding gully erosion”) Gully erosion is to be avoided by the farmer; an exception is erosion produced through external circumstances out of the farmer's control. Various approaches for avoiding the erosion associated with ditches are possible: a) conserve spontaneous vegetation cover. b) plough up fields only in springtime, directly before sowing (e.g. in the case of corn). c) nurse crops or intercrops. d) mulch-till or direct seed of summer crops. e) creation of erosion strips/ green strips.

Soil organic Standards for crop rotation where Farmers whose farms have less than 0.75 LMU/ha of agricultural useable surface, and over 50 % of this agricultural useable surface is matter applicable agricultural crop land, have to ensure that on the scale of the farm the yearly cultivation relationship is made up of at least three crops; idle and unmanaged crop land counts as one crop. The share of the crop land of each crop has to be at least 15 %. Crops of the same species but of different varieties are considered as one crop. In the case that a farm features more than three crops, the minimum proportion of 15 % can be achieved combining several different crops. These requirements, however, do not apply to crop lands with permanent crops or perennial crops. In the case that a farmer should not follow these requirements, he shall compile each year a humus balance sheet for the whole farm, or a soil analysis for his/her agricultural crop lands before December 31 of the same year. (LMU- Livestock Manure Unite).

Minimum level Minimum livestock stocking rates or/and Maintaining agricultural surfaces in good agricultural condition can be achieved through either its grazing or mowing. The abandonment of maintenance appropriate regimes of agricultural surface and its transformation into wasteland is prohibited. For pasturing, the minimum livestock stocking rate of 0.5 LU/ha of fodder surface has to be met. On all meadows not used for grazing, the fodder has to be harvested. In the case no livestock is maintained, at least one cutting per year has to be realised and the cuttings have to be removed from the allotment. In the case of no harvest being carried out, the vegetation cover of all agricultural crop lands including those lands currently not in use has to be mowed once a year. For fodder lands, the conditions mentioned above apply when harvesting or grazing.

Report, Page 251 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Protection of permanent pasture In accordance with EU regulations, permanent pastures are defined as follows: Surfaces, that either due to sowing or through natural processes (self-sowing) is used for the cultivation of grass or other green fodder plants, and which have not been part of the farm's crop rotation for at least 5 years. For the verification of this national obligation, the ratio permanent pasture/agricultural useable surface of the corresponding year will be calculated, and compared with the ratio permanent pasture 2003/agricultural useable surface 2003. In the case this ratio declines, measures have to be taken to limit the free conversion of permanent pastures to agricultural crop land (e.g. an authorisation process can be set up). If the ratio's decline is of 10% or more, those farmers that transformed permanent pastures into agricultural crop lands will be compelled to sow again permanent pastures to the same extent of their previous transformation. Avoiding the encroachment of unwanted All agricultural surfaces shall be kept in good agricultural conditions. The spread of undesirable plants such as stinging-nettles, sorrel, vegetation on agricultural land thistles, fern, brome grass and milo has to be avoided; plant encroachment is also to be avoided. Sum-up evaluation – Luxembourg: Agricultural statistics: In Luxembourg, approximately 50 % (130.000 ha) of the total area is used for agriculture, consisting of 52 % permanent grassland, 47 % arable land and only 1 % permanent crops (European Commission, 2007). Main parts of agricultural income results from production of milk and bovine meat. Importance of agriculture and its contribution to the national GDP are regressing. Selected standards and relevance: A good range of GAEC measures have been adopted and address all GAEC issues, except maintenance of soil structure. Strong emphasis is attributed to the minimum level of maintenance and soil erosion. According to EEA (2005b), estimates of annual water-based soil erosion are very low, expressed by 0.5–1 tonnes/ha/year. Nevertheless, several anti-erosion measures are applied. Gully erosion is particularly addressed, under the assumption that this type of erosion occurs frequently or is a rather significant soil threat in Luxembourg. Referring to vineyards, conservation of existing terraces and the ban on ploughing of meadows with an average slope of over 12% apply as further measure in order to combat soil erosion. Moreover, farms having less than 0.75 DE/ha of agricultural useable surface, and using over 50 % of the agriculturally useable surface for agriculture must either apply standards for crop rotation, compile a balance sheet for the whole farm, or perform a soil analysis for his/her agricultural crop lands in order to maintain soil organic matter. Such measures can contribute to avoid a decline in organic carbon content that differs in general from 2.5–5 % in the surface horizon (0–30 cm) (EEA, 2005b). Strong focus on maintenance of pastures and agricultural land might stem from the tendency that agriculture’s importance is decreasing and therewith land abandonment becomes a more and more serious problem. Conclusion: GAEC standards adopted in Luxembourg seem to be ambitious. There could be a further benefit if standards to maintain good soil structure also would apply. Further comments: -

Report, Page 252 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.6.17: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Malta

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Soil erosion Minimum land management On sloping land, ploughing should always be practised in parallel with the contours of the field. reflecting site-specific conditions On parcels having a slope greater than 10 %, ploughing, cultivation and planting should be carried out across the direction of the slope. There should be no evidence of sheet, rill or erosion gullies on site. Retain terraces Load-bearing rubble walls that serve to retain soil on terraced land should be maintained in a good state. Any breaches occurring as a result of soil saturation following storms should be repaired in order to prevent further soil loss.

Soil organic Arable stubble management It is forbidden to burn stubble or vegetation residues directly on the soil, except by order of the national plant health authority. Following such cases, matter farmers shall adopt corrective actions, including green manuring or application of organic material prior to the establishment of the following crop. In cases where harvested vegetable residues are collected in a heap and need to be destroyed for the prevention of transmissible plant diseases, this should be done in a limited area of the field, not exceeding 10m2. Appropriate stubble management, including ploughing and incorporation of residues, should be practiced where possible and where agronomic conditions permit, in order to increase soil organic matter. Standards for crop rotation On irrigated land, crop rotation should be practised regularly, and crops belonging to the same botanical family should not be grown successively on where applicable the same parcel of land. Preferably, crops belonging to the same soil humus-depleting category should not be grown for more than three years successively on the same parcel and have to be put into rotation with at least one year of the soil-improving crops or with at least one year of set- aside.

Soil structure Appropriate machinery use It is prohibited to use machinery for normal agronomic purposes when the soil is water-saturated or flooded to avoid compaction and deterioration of soil structure. Unnecessary trampling on soil with heavy machinery should be avoided at all times. It is forbidden to enter into the field unnecessarily with a vehicle, and to use any part of the field as a parking space for vehicles and machinery.

Minimum level of Retention of landscape Uprooting of indigenous trees listed in Schedule I-III of LEGAL NOTICE 12 of 2001 is forbidden, except when authorised by a permit from the maintenance features, including where national competent authority. appropriate the prohibition of the grubbing up of olive The deposition of soil or dumping of sublayer material on garrigue habitats (lying within the perimeter of the holdings) is prohibited. trees Avoiding the encroachment The encroachment of unwanted vegetation which interferes with the cultivation of agricultural crops should be controlled through appropriate weed of unwanted vegetation on control measures in order to prevent the marginalisation or abandonment of parts or all of the parcels of agricultural land. In cases where farmers agricultural land establish buffer areas or conservation bio-belts within their fields for the purpose of encouraging biodiversity or protection of natural habitats, wildlife and water bodies using non-agricultural species, and in cases where the farmers adopt inter-row cultivation of non-agricultural species between trees or other crops for the purpose of soil cover, such proliferation of non-agricultural species is not to be considered as encroachment of unwanted vegetation. Maintenance of olive groves Olive groves should be maintained in good condition: in good vegetative a) suckers must be removed from olive trees every year or at least every two years, conditions b) the olive trees have to be pruned at least once every 5 years, c) infesting plants must be removed from aerial part of the trees every year.

Report, Page 253 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Sum-up evaluation – Malta: Agricultural statistics: In Malta, approximately 32 % (10.300 ha) of the total area is used for agriculture, consisting of 85 % arable land and 15 % permanent crops. The majority of the agricultural holdings are <5ha. Meat and milk production do not play a significant role in Malta (European Commission, 2007). Selected standards and relevance: In general, Maltese GAEC standards focus on all issues: soil erosion, soil organic matter, soil structure and minimum level of maintenance. With regard to avoidance or reduction of soil erosion in hilly regions, measures such as prohibiting agricultural activities in parcels having a slope greater than 10% and maintaining load-bearing rubble walls within terraced fields have been set up. According to the given topography, also detailed standards focussing on maintenance of soil organic matter are provided. Hence, farmers are required not to burn stubble and vegetation residues. Following such cases, farmers are required to adopt corrective actions, such as to apply green manure or organic material prior to the establishment of the following crop. Moreover, on irrigated land farmers should establish crop rotation as well as avoid successively growing plants from the same botanical family on the same parcel. Regarding the ‘minimum level of maintenance’, specific emphasis is given 1) to the protection of garrigue habitats33 through the ban on depositing soil or dumping sublayer material on these habitats and 2) to the protection of biodiversity, natural habitats or soul cover (e.g. supported by established buffer areas or conservation bio-belts) within agricultural land. Given the fact there are no permanent grasslands (according to European Commission, 2007), requirements for the protection of permanent grassland are not provided. Conclusion: In order to strengthen soil erosion protection, additional measures could be adopted, for example minimum soil cover through establishment of plant cover on fallow land/ set-aside land. Moreover, retention of landscape features (e.g. field banks/hedgerows, terraces, windbreaks) can contribute to the prevention of wind and water soil erosion as well as to the maintenance of terrain structures. Further comments: -

33 Garrigue is a type of low, soft-leaved scrubland found on limestone soils around the Mediterranean Basin, generally near the seacoast, where the climate is mild. This habitat type is characterised by a richness of plants.

Report, Page 254 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.6.18: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Netherlands

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Soil erosion Minimum soil cover 1. Obligation to notify more than normal erosion and submit a farm erosion-reduction plan with the measurements they take to adequately fight this erosion. This plan has to be evaluated and the evaluator can add additional elements if the proposed strategy is considered unsatisfactory. If the farmer has an erosion-reduction plan, s/he is required to take the measures indicated in the plan. In this case, certain elements of other measures listed under soil erosion issue are then no more obligatory. 2. Obligations to apply the following soil treatment measures: - soil treatment after the harvest (e.g. Crops should be sown directly after the harvest, but anyway before October 1 in case of cereals or before December 1 in case of other crops) to prevent soil erosion; post-harvest soil tillage shall have minimal depth of 20 cm aimed at avoiding soil erosion; - cover crop should be mulched, or the soil should be covered by straw; - Wipe tractor tracks while sowing sugar beet or maize; - Obligatory sowing of green cover on arable land after the maize and cereals; - Obligatory use of follow-up green manure crop after maize and cereal crops; - Measures to minimise water run-off should be installed at the bottom of fields (e.g. ditches, canals, hedges or soil protective crops). 3. It is generally prohibited to have bare fallow. This means that farmers have to sow a crop on all plots taken out of production (can be green crop, non-food/non-feed crop or forage legumes, in case of organic farming on all land). Minimum land management In areas with soil erosion: directly after the harvest and before 1 October for cereals and 1 December for other crops, the soil must be reflecting site-specific conditions cultivated and a cover crop must be sown. 1) Prohibition of the production of a crop that enhances erosion on hills steeper than 2 % unless specific measures are being taken (this prohibition is withdrawn if the farm has an approved farm erosion plan). 2) Prohibition of the use of steep slopes with an inclination of more than 18 degrees for another crop than grass.

Other standards ("reporting and Obligation to report a more than normal erosion together with a package of agricultural practices (the Soil Erosion Plan) to adequately control control erosion") erosion. Other standards ("steep slopes") Steep slopes more than 18 degrees must be covered by grass.

Soil organic matter Other standards ("green cover on Obligation to have a green cover on fallow land in the framework of the CAP (sowing before 31 May and destruction after 31 August) fallow land")

Minimum level of Protection of permanent pasture The aim is to maintain the amount of permanent pasture present in 2003. In case the pasture decreases by 10 %, farmers will need a permit maintenance to convert grassland to different forms of land use. If the share of pasture decreases further, farmers will be ordered to convert certain land back to grassland and keep it for the next 5 years. (Article 5(2) of Regulation 1782/2003, Article 4 of Regulation 796/2004) Farmers have to declare their area of grassland. Grassland can be renewed in case the plot is immediately re-sown with grass. Grass can be renewed: on sandy soils between 1 February and 11 May, for clay and peat soils between 1 February and 16 September. Obligation to register land use including grass land (annually). Other standards ("maintenance It is generally prohibited to have bare fallow. This means that farmers have to sow a crop on all plots taken out of production (can be green of areas taken out of production") crop, non-food/non-feed crop or forage legumes, in case of organic farming on all land).

Report, Page 255 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Sum-up evaluation – the Netherlands: Agricultural statistics: In the Netherlands, more than 51 % of the total area is used for agriculture (29 % arable land and 21 % permanent grassland) and production of milk and bovine meat play an important role (European Commission, 2007b). Selected measures and relevance: A wide range of GAEC measures have been adopted and address all GAEC issues. Most measures are focused on erosion, and particularly how it affects the arable sector in one particular region (Limburg province). Where dairy and beef farms have arable land (for example, for fodder maize growing), standards applicable to the arable sector also apply (Müssner et al., 2007). Farms in erosion sensitive areas have to come up with an erosion management plan, in which they indicate the erosion problems and the strategy chosen to avoid erosion damage. This plan has to be evaluated and the evaluator can add additional elements if the proposed strategy is considered unsatisfactory. The standards for crop rotation, stubble management and appropriate machinery use are not explicitly defined under the Dutch GAEC standards, however the existing soil erosion measures comprise these standards. For example, the measure under the soil erosion issue (e.g. obligatory use of follow-up green manure crop after maize and cereal crops) considers the crop rotation but is primarily aimed at combating soil erosion and not improving the soil organic matter. Similarly, the measure under the soil erosion issue “cover crop should be mulched, or the soil should be covered by straw” considers stubble management but is primarily aimed at combating soil erosion and not improving the soil organic matter. The appropriate machinery use standard with regard to removing of wheel compaction lines in cereal and maize production is also listed under the soil erosion issue. This measure improves the structure of soil and consequently reduces the possibility of soil erosion. This measure on appropriate machinery use is specifically for the northern parts of the Netherlands, where susceptibility to subsoil compaction is high (ESDAC, 2007; EEA, 2003a). No direct stocking density requirements are specified. However, the Dutch manure legislation (based on the Nitrate Directive-SMR) indirectly constrains stocking densities. Protection of permanent pasture actually applies to all permanent pasture, which is however, mainly allocated to dairy and beef producers. Terracing, retention of landscape features and the avoidance of the encroachment of unwanted vegetation are not relevant and/or no constraints were specified. Conclusion: Measures addressing soil erosion are ambitious. However, improvement related to soil structure maintenance as well as additional requirements aimed at soil organic matter maintenance could be considered. In general, the Netherlands could focus more on preventing over intensification, which is one aim of Cross Compliance. Further comments: -

Report, Page 256 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.6.19: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Poland

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Soil erosion Minimum land management Arable land on slopes with an angle over 20° should not be: reflecting site-specific conditions a) used for cultivation of plants that require maintenance of ridges along the slope; b) maintained as bare fallow. If such lands are used of cultivation of perennial plants: plant cover or mulching between rows should be maintained, or cultivation should be performed with a terraced method

Soil organic matter Arable stubble management It is allowed for meadows and pastures to be used interchangeably. Meadows, pastures and stubble fields should not be burnt.

Minimum level of Retention of landscape features Agricultural land should not be grown with trees and shrubs, except for trees and shrubs that: maintenance a) should not be cut down pursuant to nature conservation provisions; b) are important for water and soil protection; c) do not have impact on plant production conducted within the area; d) occur on plantations of roses (Rosa multiphlora) or willow (Salix sp.) Avoiding the encroachment of Arable land should not lay fallow for longer than five years. Arable land is considered as fallow if at least once a year, prior to 15 July: unwanted vegetation on a) it is cut, agricultural land b) it undergoes other cultivation measures that prevent weeds from occurring or spreading. Other standards ("management a) cultivating the land with plants or laying it idle for farmland; of pastures and meadows") b) cutting the plant cover and removing it at least once a year before 31 July for meadows; c) cutting plant cover and removing it at least once a year before 30 September for molinia meadows under agri-environmental programmes; d) animal grazing during the vegetation period for grass or cutting the plant cover and removing it at least once a year before 31 July for pastures. Sum-up evaluation – Poland: Agricultural statistics: Poland is the new member state with the strongest agricultural tradition. Almost 51 % of its total area is used for agricultural purposes, comprising about 16 Mio. ha. Thereof, 75 % are covered by arable land, 21 % by permanent pastures and the rest by permanent crops. Poland is the largest producer of pig and bovine meat amongst the new member states and is occupying rank four in the EU in producing milk. Moreover, Poland is a large producer of cereals with a share of 10 % of the EU-25 production (European Commission, 2007). Taking these data into account, it becomes obvious that the agriculture sector constitutes an important part of economy. Agriculture gave jobs to 16.5 percent of professionally active people (Karaczun and Wasilewski, 2006) Selected standards and relevance: All main GAEC issues (except soil structure) are addressed in Poland. Prevention of land abandonment is a priority as well as in other new member states such as Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania. These measures set under “Minimum level of maintenance” are without any significant benefits toward the prevention or reduction of soil threats. Nevertheless, soil protection is directly addressed by the measure of retained landscape features such as trees and shrubs that are important for water and soil protection. Unfortunately, there is no information on which soil should be addressed by this measure. National standards are also focusing on combating soil erosion on sloping ground, coming into force when slopes have an angle over 20°. Area affected by soil erosion is estimated with 7% of non- agricultural use and 13 % of agricultural area referring to the country area (EEA 2003a). The very simple described measure “ban on burning Meadows, pastures and stubble fields” might contribute indirectly to maintain minimum soil cover, but more notably provides benefits to soil organic matter. Soil quality in Poland ranges from low to moderate, characterised by 1-5% organic carbon content in the surface horizon (0–30 cm) (ESDAC, 2007).

Report, Page 257 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Conclusion: Considering that soil in some parts of the country show high to very high subsoil compaction (ESDAC, 2007), appropriate measures in order to maintain a soil structure are recommended. In particular soils in north eastern and north western Poland could benefit from appropriate machinery use, including, for example, use of large tyres with low inflation pressures or use improved steering systems. Limiting livestock density could be another possibility to avoid soil compaction as well as erosion in areas dominated by cattle breeding holdings. Moreover, crop rotation systems can provide environmental benefits and increase organic carbon content. Standards set up in order to combat soil erosion could be verified in order to clarify whether it is sufficient to address areas with an inclination above 20 % only, or if measures should come into force for parcels with lower inclination. Soil erosion management could be enhanced by introducing standards ensuring minimum soil cover on arable land. Further comments: -

Report, Page 258 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.6.20: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Portugal

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Soil erosion Minimum soil cover Fields of arable land must present a vegetation cover (green cover), either planted or spontaneous, between November 15 and the following March 1, excepting when carrying out soil measures relating to the planting of crops. Other standards ("restricted crop 1) Annual crops are not permitted on those lots of arable land with IQFP = 4 (IQFP - plot physiographic qualification index). Exempted occupation") are lots in steps or terraces and in areas integrated in meadows. The planting of new tree or shrub crops or of permanent pastures is only permitted in those situations where the regional services of MADRP consider these as technically adequate. 2) Neither the planting of annual crops nor that of new pastures is permitted in lots of arable land with IQFP = 5. Exempted are lots in steps or terraces and in areas integrated in meadows. Improvement of natural pastures is permitted only if this improvement does not imply soil movement, and the planting of new tree or shrub crops is only permitted in those situations where regional services of MADRP consider these technically adequate.

Soil organic Other standards ("restrictions on burning") Fulfilment of the norms in force on burnings (use of fire for the renovation of pastures). According to Law N° 156/2004 of June 30, the matter carrying out of burnings is only permitted outside of the critical period (July 1 to September 30). This period can be altered by administrative rulings of the Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fishery provided that the fire-risk index is lower than “high”; and a) Under guidance and responsibility of a technician accredited by the competent authority, within the terms of the ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fishery; or b) After permission by the respective township which designates the date for the realization of the works Other standards ("cleaning strip alongside Before July 1 of every year, a stripe with a minimum breadth of 3 m must be cleared along the boundaries of the area occupied by parcel borders") individual or adjoining lots of arable land removed from production, of fallow arable land (pousio), and from the annual grassland surface of dry land (sequeiro). The residues resulting from the cleaning process must be incorporated into the soil or extracted from the lot to places where their accumulation minimizes the risk of fire to the field, provided that the norms concerning the burning of agricultural surplus and the carrying out of fires are complied with. In those cases where one or more boundaries of the lot are adjacent to forests or non-producing areas, the cleaning stripe can include these areas. Exceptions: a) Areas occupied by individual or contiguous lots inferior or equal to 1 ha; b) Areas of agricultural lots whose boundaries coincide with: 1) and destined to vegetable production, excluding the lots of natural forage crops surface of dry land (sequeiro).; water masses; 2) rural trails; 3) tree or shrub species with ecological or landscape interest, as vouched by the competent authorities.; c) Lots that are part of fallow land (baldios); d) Lots destined to vegetable production, with the exception of forage crops surfaces.

Report, Page 259 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Minimum level Protection of permanent pasture 1) Land-use change/exchange of land-use between lots classified as permanent pastures: of maintenance Alteration of land use of lots classified as permanent pastures, as well as an exchange of land use between lots explored by the same farmer, depend on prior authorization of INGA. This is to be conceded by written request, except in the case of lots exempted from replacement (permanent pastures created as a result of agro-environmental compromises or covered by the regime of specific reserves of rights to the interest of dairy cows, sheep and goats, as well as lots with permanent pastures in 2003 that are to be forested (3rd paragraph of n° 2 of Article 5 of the EC regulation n° 1782/2003)), where the respective alteration depends exclusively on prior communication, provided it is verified that the alteration of use affects non-forage crops ends. Only alterations of use to permanent cultures, irrigated land, forest or infrastructure are authorized, and only as long as it is possible to respect the value of 95% of the RN (National Reference) for permanent pastures. If required, the procedure would ration the requests, giving precedence to the reconversion to olive groves and forests, with priority given to the former. 2) Replacement of surface to permanent pastures: Whenever the annual relation of permanent pastures is inferior to 90% of the value of the National Reference (RN), a national replacement of permanent pastures will be carried out until the value of 92% of the value of the RN is attained. In this case, INGA notifies the farmers to reconvert a determined surface to permanent pastures until the following 1st of November, or after 30 days of the referred notification have elapsed, provided this ultimate term presents itself as more favourable to the farmer. 3) New lots of permanent pastures: New lots of permanent pastures which have been subjected to reconversion, by exchange or as a result of national replacement, are obliged to remain in their new state during 5 years following the fact that gave origin to their state. Avoiding the encroachment of unwanted For those lots of arable land and of grassland (forage crops) surface that benefit from direct payments, only 25% of their surface area vegetation on agricultural land can be taken up by wood formations dominated by shrubbery of a height superior to 50cm. Vegetation control must comply with the following norms: a) It must be undertaken outside of the season in which bird breeding is at its highest (March and April). Exempt from this rule are those cases where, due to land seasons, vegetation control has to be carried out during this period; in this case the execution depends on an authorisation of the corresponding Regional Agriculture Authority (Direcção Regional de Agricultura); b) It must be concluded before July 1 of the year the request was made; c) Residues resulting from control operations in this field must be mixed into the soil or extracted from the lots to areas where their accumulation minimizes the risk of fire to the field, provided that the norms concerning the burning of agricultural surplus and the carrying out of fires are complied with; d) In lots with IQFP (plot physiographic qualification index) equal or superior to 4, vegetation control can only be realized without upturning of soil. Exempt from this rule are lots of land in steps or terraces and in areas integrated in meadows. Exceptions to this norm: a) Lots that are part of fallow land (baldio); b) Lots occupied by tree or shrub species of ecological or landscape interest, as vouched by the competent authorities; c) Lots of grassland (forage crops) surface integrated into agricultural exploration with a start point livestock equal or superior to 0.15 LU/ha (for the calculation of this start point, "diary cows and heifers with more than 24 months," heifers including age between 8 months and 2 years," and "heifers and goats" are considered for conversion effects, with the following coefficients respectively: 1, 0.6 and 0.15).

Report, Page 260 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Other standards ("disposal of agricultural The collection of farming related plastic materials, tyres and oils is mandatory. residues") Other standards ("storage of fertilisers and Fertilizer and pesticides must be stored in places that are protected, dry and equipped with impermeable floors. These storerooms must pesticides") be at distance greater than 10 m away from streams, ditches, wells, water drill holes and springs, except in cases where fertirrega deposits are equipped with an outflow protection system. Sum-up evaluation – Portugal: Agricultural statistics: About 41 % (3,8 Mio. ha) of the total area is dedicated to agricultural production, consisting of 39 % arable land, 40 % permanent pasture and 21 % permanent crops. Due to appropriate climate conditions, production of citrus, olives and fruits trees play an important role even if production compared to Spain and Italy is relatively small. There is high number of small holdings (>5 ha) cultivating agricultural land in Portugal (European Commission, 2007). Selected standards and relevance: All main GAEC issues (except soil structure) are addressed in Portugal. Strong emphasis is given to minimum level of maintenance by protecting permanent pasture and avoiding encroachment of agricultural land. Perhaps increasing land abandonment and lack of standards to maintain the level of permanent pasture (Farmer and Swales, 2004) enhanced this setting of priorities. Moreover, GAECs are targeted at soil organic matter by preventing fires (measures: cleaning strip alongside parcel borders and restrictions on burning). Such measures correspond to the very low organic carbon content (0-1 %) in the whole country stemming from soil erosion as well as the warmer and dry climate leading to faster decomposition of organic matter (EEA, 2005b). Annual soil erosion risk by water based on estimates of annual soil loss is extremely high and differs from 5-10 tonnes/ha/year in northern Portugal and between 1-5 tonnes/ha in/year in the rest of the country (EEA, 2005b). Thus Northern Portugal is (besides Spain, Italy and Greece) one of the largest areas with a high erosion risk. In order to address this soil threat a very simple measure for minimum soil cover and restricted crop occupation have been adopted. The last measure will be largely dependent on the workability of the ‘IQFP’ (plot physiographic qualification index) system. Farmer and Swales (2004) have interpreted this (IQFP >=4) to mean either that plots with a reasonable level of green cover will not be subject to this measure, or plots with a higher erosion risk will be subject to more stringent controls. The last two GAEC measures (disposal of agricultural residues and storage of fertilisers and pesticides) are probably not covered by Annex IV, but are welcome from an environmental point of view and correspond strongly to a SMR within the Nitrates Directive. These national and measures provide benefits to avoid local and diffuse contamination of soils and could be seen as unique amongst the EU member states. Conclusion: In general, GAECs adopted in Portugal in most cases are well described but do not address all soil threats. Significant improvements could be made, for example, through the implementation of measures under the GAEC issue to maintain soil structure. Given the fact that subsoils in northern Portugal’s show a very high susceptibility to compaction (ESDAC, 2007), requirements for appropriate machinery use, appropriate irrigation management or limiting livestock density could be considered. In addition, measures addressing soil erosion could be strengthened (e.g. for minimum soil cover) and extended by adopting measures for minimum land management reflecting site-specific conditions (e.g. contour ploughing, appropriate management adapted to slope conditions etc.). Also more requirements aimed at soil organic matter maintenance could be considered that could be achieved trough enhancing crop rotation systems. Further comments: -

Report, Page 261 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.6.21: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Slovak Republic

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Soil erosion Minimum land management reflecting Limits of arable and use on slopes over 12°: only perennial or grass cultivated or crops with not more than 16 cm wide rows. If land site-specific conditions parcel is in average on a slope of 7° to 12° then tillage should be done in a way to avoid gully erosion.

Minimum level of Protection of permanent pasture All grassland parcels must be maintained by cutting and/or grazing and mulching. maintenance Avoiding the encroachment of unwanted Arable land that is not used for crop production must be maintained by cutting and/or mulching (before flowering of weeds). vegetation on agricultural land Sum-up evaluation – Slovakia: Agricultural statistics: In Slovakia about 25 % of the total area is in agricultural use, which is dominated by arable land use. Most of the cereals are cultivated and production of cow’s milk plays an important role (European Commission, 2007b). Selected measures and relevance: According to the CIFAS study (EEA, 2006), which was used as one key source for this analysis and refers to national law (podľa § 5 a § 6 ods.1 písm. A) zákona č.473/2003), GAEC standards focus in particular on minimum level of maintenance and soil erosion. Due to the fact that Slovakia is primarily characterised by a mountainous region (part of Carpathians), there are restrictions for agricultural land use as well as special management practices determined by the given slope that provide a direct benefit in order to avoid and minimise soil erosion. About 18 % of the total area is affected by erosion (EEA, 2003a). Conclusion: In general, GAECs seem to be adapted to the identified soil threats but could be improved, for example, through a requirement for minimum soil cover, in particular in zones with higher risk of soil erosion. Further comments: -

Report, Page 262 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.6.22: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Slovenia

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Soil erosion Minimum land Land treatment should not lead to visible soil erosion. According to the plan of soil protection against corrosion, it is of particular importance to management reflecting take into account the inclination of an agricultural holding, ist exposure to water or wind erosion and the time and manner of land treatment site-specific conditions (beside other factors). By ploughing in contour lines transversely to a slope and considering the adequate time, water erosion (which is most common in our territory) can mostly be prevented.

Soil organic matter Arable stubble Harvest residues in fields should not be burnt. management Standards for crop Three-year crop rotation on min. 50% of fields on an agricultural holding. Explanatory notes for control: Grasses, clovers, grass-clover rotation where applicable mixtures and clover-grass mixtures on fields are part of crop-rotation and may be on the same area for more than three years. Set-aside, pre- crops and post-crops are considered as crop-rotation parts. Corn on all fields of agricultural holding may be produced in monoculture for a max. period of three years. Half of the agricultural holding’s areas must be sown by something else once in three years if on the holding only monoculture is sown. Set-aside, pre-crops and post-crops are also considered as crop-rotation parts. The corn monoculture may be discontinued by these crop-rotation parts.

Soil structure Appropriate machinery No visible traces of the use of inadequate mechanisation may exist on the majority of the land that means adequate mechanisation was used use at adequate time.

Minimum level of Other standards Land should be cultivated each year. maintenance (“maintenance of agricultural land”) Sum-up evaluation – Slovenia: Agricultural statistics: A quarter of the total area is dedicated to agricultural purposes in Slovenia and comprises about 500.000 ha. 60 % of this area is covered by permanent pastures, 35 % by arable land and 5 % by permanent crops (European Commission, 2006). Selected standards and relevance: Slovenia set standards for all four GAEC issues. Some of the adopted measures are not described very detailed such as measures under appropriate machinery use and maintenance of agricultural land. Therefore, its benefits cannot be evaluated at this point. Very ambitious measures are provided to maintain soil organic matter although organic carbon content is moderate and ranges between 2-5 % or 5-10 % in the surface horizon (0–30 cm) in most parts of Slovenia (ESDAC, 2007). Conclusion: In general, measures seem to be adapted to the soil threats considered. GAEC standards could be improved by clearer defined measures for appropriate machinery use and maintenance of agricultural land as well as the introduction of standards addressing minimum level of maintenance. Further comments: -

Report, Page 263 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.6.23: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Spain

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Member State – Region34 Soil erosion Minimum soil cover 1) Required conditions to avoid erosion. Minimum coverage of soil. Fallow land, set-aside land; All 9 examined regions 2) On set aside-land: both compulsory and voluntary, as well as on those intended properly for fallow land, the following options can be applied: traditional cropping practices, minimum tillage practices or practices to maintain an adequate vegetation cover, either spontaneous or through the sowing of enhancing species. All this to diminish the risks of erosion, of appearance of fires, weeds, plagues and illnesses, to keep the saline profile of the soil, is productive capacity and favour the increase in the biodiversity. The applications of authorised weed killers will be carried out only with those which do not take residual effect and are of low danger; 3) Non-cropped land: Those lands not cultivated, not intended for pastures, nor used to activate rights for set-aside, shall meet the same maintenance conditions as required for fallow-land (optionally: traditional cropping practices, minimum tillage practices or practices to maintain an adequate vegetation cover, either spontaneous or through the sowing of enhancing species. All this to diminish the risks of erosion, of appearance of fires, weeds, plagues and illnesses, to keep the saline profile of the soil, is productive capacity and favour the increase in the biodiversity), however, in this case, weed killers shall not be applied. On the contrary, maintenance works that are necessary could be made for the elimination of weeds and invading vegetation, bushes and trees; 4) Alternatively to the previously indicated practices and with the purpose of fertilisation, a total maximum amount of 20 tons per hectare (t/ha) of dung or 40m3/ha of slurry in a period of three years could be incorporated, provided that the soil has a vegetable cover or is immediate introduction is foreseen, complying in any case with what is set out in Royal Decree 261/1996, of 16 February, on the protection of waters against the pollution produced by nitrates coming from agricultural sources. The control of weeds shall be made in accordance with the criteria previously set out; 5) Arable crops: On agricultural plots with arable winter crops, the soil shall not be tillaged between the date of the previous harvest and September the 1st, a date that is established as a reference to the beginning of pre-sowing. However, to favour the establishment of vegetation cover with arable crops and due to agronomic reasons, such as double harvests, climatic reasons and typology of soil, in certain areas the dates of beginning of pre-sowing could be adapted to local conditions, as well as adequate tillage techniques; 6) Permanent crops – Olives: In cases where weed-killers are used on the soil around olive trees, it is necessary to keep a vegetation cover in the passages that run contour to the line of maximum slope; 7) Permanent crops – other than olives: The farmer must not pull up any trunk of the rest of dry land permanent crops other than olive trees situated in plots with a slope equal to or above 15 %, in those areas in which it is so established, and respect the regulations intended for ist cultural and varietal restructuring and for the changes of crop or use.

34 Information for Spain was compiled from 9 regions: Andalucía, Aragón, Basque Country, Castilla y León, Extremadura, Galicia, La Rioja, Navarre, Asturias; used source: CIFAS-study.

Report, Page 264 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Member State – Region34 Soil erosion Minimum land management 1) Tillage adapted to slope conditions – Arable crops: In the surfaces that are intended for arable crops, the land must not All 9 examined reflecting site-specific be tilled (to alter and turn over the soil profile through mechanical implements in a depth equal or greater than 20 cm.) in regions conditions the direction of the slope when, the average slope gradient in the parcel exceeds 10%.; 2) Tillage adapted to slope conditions – Permanent crops: Land shall not be tilled in vineyards, olive groves and nut groves when the average slope in the parcel equals or exceeds 15 %, unless special cropping techniques are adopted, such as plots, crop in girdles, conservation tillage, or a total cover of the ground with vegetation is kept. In case of an existence of plots, it will be compulsory to avoid any type of works that affect the structure of the existing banks.; 3) What is set out in the previous paragraph will not be applicable in the case of cultivated plots equal to or less than 1 ha, those with complex form (those in which tillage operations encounter difficulties due to the presence of sharp angles, and therefore of minimal and changing turning circles), and when for reasons of maintenance of the traditional productive activity conservation agriculture techniques (those diverse agronomic practices adapted to local conditions addressed to alter in a minimum way the composition, structure and biodiversity of agricultural soil, so avoiding its later erosion and decline). Among various methods and technologies of agriculture of conservation the following are included: direct sowing –no tillage; minimum tillage-reduced tillage, where the waste of harvest is not incorporated or only partially and in very brief periods; and the establishment of vegetable covers between successive annual crops or rows of trees in permanent crops) considered suitable are determined and authorized by the competent Administration. In all the assumptions, the introduction of the crop will be made as quickly as possible, to avoid that the ground may be affected by erosion. Retain terraces Maintenance of retention terraces: Retention terraces shall be kept in working order for conservation, with necessary All 9 examined drainage capacity, as well as the existing banks and hills, avoiding silting and collapses and, especially the appearance of regions gullies, and must be repaired or the necessary measures adopted, in each case. Other standards Areas with high risk of erosion: In areas with high risk of erosion, the restrictions and guidelines for rotation of crops, Except Andalucía, (“high risk of erosion”) including organic manuring, as well as the types of vegetable cover that are established by the competent administration to Navarre and La Rioja avoid the decline and the loss of soil and natural habitat, must be respected.

Soil organic matter Arable stubble management The prohibition to burn stubble must be respected throughout the national area, unless, due to phytosanitary reasons, it is All 9 examined promoted or authorised by the competent authority. The burning, which must be authorised, must fulfil the regulations regions established regarding prevention of fires, and in particular, the ones relating to the minimum width of a peripheral strip when the areas are next to forest areas. Other standards (“harvest Management of remains of harvest and pruning. The elimination of the remains of harvest in the case of arable crops and Except País Vasco and pruning”) the ones of pruning of permanent crops must always be carried out in accordance with the established rules.

Soil structure Appropriate machinery use In saturated soils as well as flooded areas, except for rice fields, or fields or areas covered by snow, tillage is not allowed All 9 examined nor is allowed to pass or permit to pass of vehicles on the area, except in those cases considered necessary by the regions competent authority. Such cases include those related to the harvest operations, coverage fertilising, phytosanitary treatments, management and supply of food to livestock that coincide accidentally with periods of rains. In these instances, the presence of vehicle tracks of that are more than 15 cm deep must not exceed 25 % of the surface of the parcel in the harvest period and 10 % for the rest of the farm activities.

Report, Page 265 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Member State – Region34 Minimum level of Minimum livestock stocking Protection of permanent pasture against under- and overgrazing. To guarantee the good handling of permanent pasture, No data on regions maintenance rates or/and appropriate the farmer may choose to keep a minimum level of effective livestock load that shall be always equal or above 0.1 LU/ha. available regimes Above this minimum level, in accordance with the type of pasture and the local conditions, the minimum and maximum levels of effective livestock load can be established if it is considered more appropriate with regard to the functioning of different agri-ecosystems. Alternatively, in cases the suitable level of effective livestock load is not reached, it is compulsory to make an adequate work of maintenance to avoid the decline of the permanent pasture and its invasion by scrub. Protection of permanent 1) Protection of permanent pasture against burning or ploughing. Permanent pasture must not be burned or ploughed, All 9 examined pasture except for in vegetation regeneration works. In this case, authorisation and control by the competent administration is regions necessary. In any case, the adoption of measures intended for the protection of the woods included in the burning area and its environment is compulsory. 2) Protection of permanent pasture against under- and overgrazing. – To guarantee the good handling of permanent pasture, the farmer may choose to keep a minimum level of effective livestock load that shall be always equal or above 0.1 LU/ha. Above this minimum level, in accordance with the type of pasture and the local conditions, the minimum and maximum levels of effective livestock load can be established if it is considered more appropriate with regard to the functioning of different agri-ecosystems. Alternatively, in cases the suitable level of effective livestock load is not reached, it is compulsory to make an adequate work of maintenance to avoid the decline of the permanent pasture and its invasion by scrub. Retention of landscape Maintenance of terrain structure: To keep the peculiarities and topographical characteristics of the terrain, such as field Except Extremadura features, including where borders and other structural elements, any significant alteration (actions of structural reform of terrain which include land and Navarre appropriate the prohibition use changes and modification of structural elements, horizontal and vertical, carried out on surfaces greater than 5 ha, as of the grubbing up of olive well as the construction of infrastructures) must be authorised by the competent authority. Exempted from this obligation trees are the construction of dykes for the correction of sporadic watercourses, ditches and plots, as well as land levelling operations carried out on those parcels intended for rice cropping and others of irrigated land. Avoiding the encroachment The cleanliness of crop plots invaded by unwanted spontaneous vegetation (those species which do not put at risk the All 9 examined of unwanted vegetation on productive capacity of agricultural soils in the medium and longer term, or may threaten with their proliferation to break the regions agricultural land traditional agri-ecological equilibrium of a land or of a determinate crop area and by extension affect neighbouring crop lands) is compulsory . The competent administration will determine, for each area, the temporary cycle and the list of vegetation species that must be eliminated. This measure will not be obligatory in those cases where at the right moment, as a result of adverse meteorological conditions, it has been impossible to carry out measures for its elimination.

Maintenance of olive groves Maintenance of olive groves in working vegetative order: The farmer must not remove olive trees and, in the areas where it Except Astuarias and in good vegetative is so established, must respect the regulations that are established for the maintenance of the olive groves in working Galicia conditions vegetative order, its cultural and varietal restructuring, and for the changes of crop or use. Sum-up evaluation – Spain: Agricultural statistics: More than 50,0 % of Spain’s total area is under agricultural land use. This area is subdivided in 25 % arable land, 14 % permanent grassland and 11 % permanent crops land. Spain is (with Italy) one of the most important producer countries in terms of harvested area of vegetables and fruits (European Commission, 2007b).

Report, Page 266 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Member State – Region34

Selected measures and relevance: The GAECs are developed in Article 4 of the National Council 2352/2004 and legislate on all four main issues related to soils: erosion, soil organic matter, soil structure and maintenance of the habitats. The implementation of Cross Compliance concerned three central authorities and 17 regional authorities.35 Strong emphasis is attributed to the minimum level of maintenance and soil erosion. With a predicted soil loss of more than 5 tonnes/ha/year southwestern Spain belongs to the areas with a high erosion risk (EEA, 2005b). Agricultural land, which makes up 15 % of the total area, is affected by erosion. According to the PESERA project soil erosion is even underestimated in Spain (EEA, 2005a). With regard to avoidance or reduction of soil erosion in mountainous regions, certain measures which vary with slope, crop type and erosion susceptibility have been set up and provide a useful and flexible tool. In particular, intensively ploughed olive groves cause soil erosion. Therefore, special measures addressing the cultivation of olive groves are adopted. Due to high erosion risk and soil loss, soil organic content is very low and ranges in most areas between 0 % and 2,5 % in the surface horizon. This deficit is addressed by the arable stubble management as well as the national specific measures of remains of harvest and pruning. Very high susceptibility to subsoil compaction (ESDAC, 2007), which occurs in the northwestern Spain is tackled by appropriate machinery use. This measure is in contrast to other Member States, in that it is clearly defined, but hardly controllable (specifically, in the restrictions for vehicle tracks that are more than 15 cm deep and that must not exceed 25 % of the surface of the parcel in the harvest period). One key environmental problem is the exploited aquifers and respective unsustainable irrigation systems, which can contribute significantly to the salinisation and erosion of cultivated lands. Farmers open the illegal wells and use water without any restrictions. The institutions have problems controlling the illegal wells because they have trouble accessing the farms. The regional institutions or river basin authorities must elaborate the specific plans when there is an over exploited area (Varela Ortega and Simó, 2007). Measures addressing the protection and sustainable use of water resources state that farmers will a) need an authorised activity record in order to be able to exploit subterranean aquifers; b) need to maintain their irrigation equipment in good order, so as to avoid the unnecessary loss of water. Moreover, these conditions concerning water quality also prohibit application of fertilisers and manure on waterlogged ground.36 Conclusion: All soil threats are addressed trough detailed measures, which seem to be adapted to the soil threats considered. Improvements may be achieved by the adoption of crop rotations in order to increase very low soil organic matter. Further comments: -

35 In total, there are 9 regional authorities covered through the given reference (EEA 2006) 36 These measures are not included within the database reference (EEA 2006).

Report, Page 267 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.6.24: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – Sweden

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Soil organic Arable stubble management Earliest allowed dates for ploughing or tilling stubble the year before fallow or after one year fallow. Different dates for different groups of counties, matter depending on climatic factors. The dates range from 1 September in the six most northern counties to 20 October in the three most southern counties and are correlated with national provisions concerning nutrient leakage. Standards for crop rotations If nothing else is grown on arable land it is considered as fallow and the farmer at least has to establish a cover crop no later than July 15. There is where applicable an exception for fields left unploughed or untilled after harvest the year before the field is laid fallow for only one vegetation year.

Minimum level of Minimum livestock stocking Natural (non-cultivated) pasture must be grazed by animals every year. No specific livestock rates, but the entire area of each parcel of natural maintenance rates or/and appropriate pasture must be visibly affected by grazing animals. There is an exception from the grazing standard allowed at the most every third year, for regimes example if the pasture needs to recover from parasite infestation. Then the forage must be cut and taken away from the parcel. The forage on meadows must be cut and taken away from the parcel every year. Protection of permanent A combination of the standard for yearly grazing on natural pasture and harvest on meadows described above and the standard for avoiding of pasture encroachment of unwanted vegetation, described below. The Swedish Board of Agriculture monitors the national ratio of permanent pasture. If the ratio on national level falls short of 95 per cent of the reference ratio a farmer may not convert permanent pasture without prior authorisation from the County Board of Administration (CBA). If the ratio on national level falls short of 90 per cent of the reference ratio the CBA shall impose farmers who have converted land from permanent pasture into other uses to re-convert. (legal act: Article 5(2) of Regulation 1782/2003, Article 4 of Regulation 796/2004)

Retention of landscape Ban on destroying or removing some landscape features in natural pastures. features, including where appropriate the prohibition of the grubbing up of olive trees Avoiding the encroachment of 1) Arable land: No bushes or woody vegetation older than one year allowed. unwanted vegetation on agricultural land 2) Natural pasture and meadows: No encroachment of vegetation that significantly damages natural or cultural values allowed. Other standards No use of chemical biocides or any kind of fertilizers allowed on fallow except as part of preparation for winter crops. In that case biocides and (“Maintenance of areas taken fertilizers may be used no earlier than from specified dates that differ between crops. out of production”) Other standards Present drainage system on arable land must be maintained in order to avoid the arable land to become too soggy to plough. (“Maintenance of water drainage system”)

Report, Page 268 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Sum-up evaluation – Sweden: Agricultural Statistics: Land use in Sweden is determined by geological and climate conditions. Less than 7 % of the total area is used for agricultural purposes. Therewith Sweden and Finland are the countries with the smallest area of agricultural land in the EU. In spite of the fact that most parts of agricultural land is covered by arable land, animal husbandry makes a profit of about 60 %, in particular through the production of milk (European Commission, 2007). Selected standards and relevance: A minimal set of standards for GAECs has been adopted in Sweden, highlighting issues concerning minimum level of maintenance and land abandonment. Moreover, measures addressing soil organic matter are provided. Given the existing medium up to high organic carbon content, which ranges between 5-15 % in the surface horizon (0–30 cm) in Swedish soils (EEA, 2005a), such measures seem to be ambitious and can contribute to maintain soil organic matter. Further benefits for soil protection can be obtained trough the specific national measures “Maintenance of areas taken out of production” and “Maintenance of water drainage system”. While the prohibition of use of chemical biocides or any kind of fertilizers on fallow land contribute strongly to avoid diffuse contamination, a good maintained drainage system can contribute indirectly to a good soil structure. Another measure for avoiding water pollution from nutrient leakage has been set up under arable stubble management, when dates for ploughing or tilling stubble are determined by taking into account county and climatic conditions. Another measure for avoiding water pollution from nutrient leakage has been set up under arable stubble management, when dates for ploughing or tilling stubble are determined by taking into account county and climatic conditions. Conclusion: GAECs adopted in Sweden could be completed by clear measures addressing soil compaction, because soils in some parts of south and central Sweden show a high susceptibility to subsoil compaction (ESDAC, 2007). Thus, measures for appropriate machinery use could be considered. In addition, restrictions for livestock density may be helpful to address soil compaction where grazing livestock could enhance soil compaction. Further comments: -

Report, Page 269 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.6.25: Country specific analysis of GAEC measures – United Kingdom

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Member State – Region Soil erosion Minimum soil cover 1) By the 1st of September 2006 a risk-based Soil Protection Review must be completed. Measures must be selected to help UK - England avoid on-farm soil problems. These measures must be out into practice from 1 January 2007. The Review must be updated at least once a year and if management system or cropping practice is changed. The farmer must demonstrate that s/he has access to the Defra issued GAEC Soil Management Guidance Handbook and/or has considered the issues that need to be addressed for soil management. 2) Post-harvest management to reduce run-off. One of four management provisions must be implemented on land that has carried a combinable crop, such as oil-seeds, grain legumes or cereals (but not maize) and has been harvested by a combine harvester or mower. The farmer must ensure that from the day after harvest until the end of February in the following year one or more of the following provisions are met: Stubble of harvested crop to remain on land; Land to be sown with a temporary cover crop or sown with another crop; The land is under cultivation sequences used to create stale seedbeds; and The land is left after harvest with a rough surface to encourage infiltration of rain (e.g. by ploughing). All cropped land over the following winter must be covered (where soil conditions allow) by: crop cover, grass cover, stubble UK - Scotland cover, ploughed surface or roughly cultivated surface. Fine seedbeds must be created very close to sowing.2 If land has carried a crop of oil-seeds, grain legumes or cereals which has been harvested using a combine harvester or a UK - Wales mower, a farmer must ensure that, throughout the period beginning with the first day after harvest and ending on the first day of March in the following year, one of the following conditions is met on that land at all times - a) the stubble of the harvested crop remains in the land; b) the land is left with a rough surface, following ploughing, discing, tine cultivation or any other suitable agricultural method; c) the land is prepared as a seedbed for a crop, with the crop to be sown within a period of 10 days beginning with the day after final seedbed preparation; d) the land is under cultivation sequences used to create a stale seedbed; or e) the land is sown with a temporary cover crop, so long as, if the cover crop is grazed out or cultivated out, the condition in sub-paragraph (b) must be met on the land, as soon as is practicable. Minimum land management 1) By the 1st of September 2006 a risk-based Soil Protection Review must be completed. Measures must be selected to help UK - England reflecting site-specific avoid on-farm soil problems. These measures must be out into practice from 1 January 2007. The Review must be updated at conditions least once a year and if management system or cropping practice is changed. The farmer must demonstrate that s/he has access to the Defra issued GAEC Soil Management Guidance Handbook and/or has considered the issues that need to be addressed for soil management; 2) Natural and semi-natural vegetation must not be overgrazed; 3) Unsuitable supplementary feeding must not be carried out on natural and semi-natural vegetation except for the purpose of animal welfare in periods of extreme weather.

Report, Page 270 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Member State – Region Soil erosion 1) To prevent erosion of banks of watercourses, watering points and feeding areas: overgrazing, heavy trampling or heavy UK - Scotland (continued) poaching should be avoided (not applicable in gateways). When this occurs stock should be reduced until land recovers. All problems should be rectified during the next growing season after the period when the problem occurred.; 2) Drainage systems must be maintained unless environmental gain is to be achieved (in that case this must be declared on the IACS return).; 3) In areas prone to wind erosion, the steps to reduce risk of soil loss in spring include maintaining crop cover, using coarse seedbeds, shelter belts or nurse crops or other measures. Where capping is a problem, coarse seedbeds must be formed or cap must be broken. 4) Follow the instructions of the Muirburn Code in order to avoid extensive erosion on steep sites through burning.

Retention of guidance on soils: A farmer must complete a soil management checklist form (in order to identify problems UK - Wales with soil erosion, soil structure and loss of organic matter on their holdings), which he or she must lodge with the National Assembly for Wales no later than 28 February 2005. It is the responsibility of the farmer to ensure that the soil management assessment checklist is reviewed annually, as a minimum, and that the review is recorded.

Soil organic matter Arable stubble management It is forbidden to burn crop residues (e.g. cereal straw), as legislated by national regulations. UK - England Incorporate organic manure within 2 weeks after spreading on stubbles. In areas prone to wind erosion, incorporation of UK - Scotland livestock manures can be delayed. A farmer must not, on agricultural land, burn any crop residue of a kind specified in Schedule 1 to the Crop Residues (Burning) UK - Wales Regulations 1993 unless the burning is for the purposes of - a) education or research; (b) disease control or the elimination of plant pests where a notice has been served under article 22 of the Plant Health (Great Britain) Order 1993[12] or c) the disposal of straw stack remains or broken bales. A farmer must not, on agricultural land, burn - a) any crop residue of a kind specified in Schedule 1 to the Crop Residues (Burning) Regulations 1993 to which an exemption specified in paragraph 4(a) or (b) applies; or b) any linseed residues. (See also requirements regarding stubble management under “Minimum soil cover”) Standards for crop rotation On arable land: use suitable break crops in an arable rotation or optimise the use of organic materials by basing rates of UK- Scotland where applicable application on soil and crop needs. Where break crops are not used, a record should be kept for 5 years of organic materials and quantities applied to the arable land.

Soil structure Appropriate machinery use No mechanical field operations (e.g. harvesting, spreading manures) to be carried out on areas of waterlogged soil. There are UK - England some exemptions e.g. if the waterlogged soil is within 20m of an access point, or to harvest a crop of vegetables or fruit to meet a contractual deadline or avoid deterioration of the produce. Any operation should not be undertaken if water is standing on the surface or the soil is saturated. UK - Scotland A farmer must not carry out a mechanical field operation on waterlogged soil unless - UK - Wales a) the soil is within 20 metres of the access point to an area of soil which is not waterlogged; b) the soil forms part of a track to an area of soil which is not waterlogged; c) the mechanical field operation is necessary - (i) to improve the drainage of the soil, or (ii) to incorporate gypsum into the soil following an intrusion of saltwater, or (iii) for reasons of animal welfare or human safety, or (iv) in order to harvest a crop of fruit or vegetables: aa) in order to meet contractual obligations, or bb) where the quality of the crop would deteriorate if it was not harvested

Report, Page 271 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Member State – Region Minimum level of Minimum livestock stocking 1) Overgrazing should be avoided with livestock and other species in such numbers as to adversely affect the growth, UK - Scotland maintenance rates or/and appropriate structure or species composition of vegetation on the land. Exception in cases where vegetation will be later destroyed (i.e. regimes land is to be cultivated after the grazing). When caused by deer and geese (unexpected and unpredictable case) and it has been shown that appropriate action has been taken to deal with the problem than the farmer will not be taken accountable for overgrazing. Where overgrazing is attributable to rabbits the farmer is expected to provide evidence of the use of available control methods. 2) Avoid undergrazing at a level where the growth of shrubs or coarse vegetation is detrimental to the environmental or agricultural interest in the field. Where undergrazing is identified, a management regime to be observed on that site must be approved by SEERAD. If the National Assembly has given a farmer written directions concerning the management of land which is in its opinion UK - Wales subject to overgrazing or the use of unsuitable supplementary feeding methods, he or she must comply with those directions on any area of land specified in them. On any other land a farmer must - a) not allow overgrazing; b) not use unsuitable supplementary feeding methods; c) not locate within 10 metres of a watercourse, sites where supplementary feeding for livestock is provided; or d) regularly rotate sites where supplementary feeding for livestock is provided. Protection of permanent 1) To protect rough grazing and other semi-natural areas, pesticides, lime or fertiliser must not be applied except in certain UK - Scotland pasture cases specified or as approved under the EIA: a) herbicides may be applied to control injurious weeds after prior written approval of SEERAD, b) for control of bracken with Asulan or other approved herbicides, or c) the application of lime or fertiliser where no conservation damage will result. 2) Any proposal to plough up pasture of high environmental or archaeological value e.g. species-rich grassland, machair habitats, pastoral woodland and heather moorland requires the consent of the relevant authority or approval under the EIA. The following activities must not be carried out to protect rough grazing: new drainage, ploughing, clearing, levelling, re- seeding or cultivating unless approved under the EIA. 1) Where the National Assembly establishes that the ratio in Article 3(1) of the Commission Regulation is decreasing, it must UK - Wales prohibit a farmer from converting land under permanent pasture, in accordance with Article 4(1) of the Commission Regulation. 2) Where the National Assembly establishes that the obligation in Article 3(2) of the Commission Regulation cannot be met, it must require a farmer to re-convert land to permanent pasture in accordance with Article 4(2) of the Commission Regulation. Retention of landscape 1) Ancient monuments and archaeological sites, as protected by law, must not be demolished or damaged, altered or added UK - England features, including where to. appropriate the prohibition 2) Stone walls used as field boundary of at least 10m in length must not be removed. Also stone walls less then 10m but of the grubbing up of olive meeting another field boundary (e.g. a hedge) at each end must not be removed. trees 3) Following national Hedgerow Regulations, no hedgerow or part of a hedgerow can be removed unless certain conditions are met (e.g. applying for a removal notice from the local authority). 4) Hedgerows must not be cut or trimmed between 1 March and 31 July (the main bird breeding season) other than for safety reasons (e.g. the hedge obscures a road). 5) Trees protected by national legislation (called Tree Preservation Orders) must not be felled, damaged, destroyed, topped or uprooted. TPOs protect trees, groups of trees and woodlands on the grounds of amenity.

Report, Page 272 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Member State – Region Minimum level of Retention of landscape 1) Avoid altering, damaging or destroying protected elements of the historic environment (scheduled monuments, listed UK - Scotland maintenance features, including where buildings and sites). (continued) appropriate the prohibition 2) Do not damage any boundary features: drystone or flagstone dykes, turf and stone-faced banks, walls, hedges and of the grubbing up of olive hedgerow trees, boundary trees and watercourses. No hedge trimming is permitted between 1 March and 31 July except for trees (continued) roadside hedge trimming, required in the interest of road safety. Avoid the deterioration of non-productive landscape features which are part of the agricultural unit, such us shelter belts (poaching), copses (non-maintaining of stock proof fences around shelter belts and copses) and ponds (eutrophication and drainage). 1) - Boundaries: A farmer must not remove, destroy or damage stone walls, stone faced banks, hedges, earthbanks, slate UK - Wales fences, stone gate posts and traditional stiles which serve as boundaries to agricultural land without consent from the relevant authority. A farmer may remove, or remove stone from, a stone feature - a) to widen an existing gap in the stone feature to no more than 10 metres in order to provide access to the land for machinery or livestock, but the ends of the feature created by the widening operation must be finished with a vertical face; or b) if the National Assembly has given the farmer written permission to do so because it considers that the removal is necessary in the circumstances of the particular case. 2) - Hedgerows: A farmer must not a) …remove a hedgerow in breach of regulation 5(1) or (9) of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997; b) …cut or trim any hedgerow on his or her farm during the period beginning on 1st March and ending on 31st August . A farmer may cut or trim a hedgerow at any time if – a) it is necessary to cut or trim it because it (i) overhangs a highway or any other road or footpath to which the public has access so as to endanger or obstruct the passage of vehicles or pedestrians; (ii) obstructs or interferes with the view of drivers of vehicles or the light from a public lamp; or (iii) overhangs a highway so as to endanger or obstruct the passage of horse- riders. b) it is necessary to cut or trim it because - (i) it is dead, diseased, damaged or insecurely rooted, and (ii) because of its condition it, or part of it, is likely to cause danger by falling on the highway, road or footpath; or c) the cutting or trimming is carried out in order to maintain a ditch. A farmer may a) …carry out hedge-laying and coppicing during the period beginning on 1 March and ending on 31st March if he or she does not disturb any birds nesting in the hedgerow; b) …trim a hedgerow by hand during a period of six months beginning with the first day after the hedgerow was laid.

3)- Scheduled monuments: UK – Wales A farmer must not, without consent under section 2(3) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, execute (continued) any of the following works - a) any works resulting in the demolition or destruction of or any damage to a scheduled monument; b) any works for the purpose of removing or repairing a scheduled monument or any part of it; c) any works for the purpose of making any alteration or additions to a scheduled monument or any part of it; d) any flooding or tipping operations on land in, on or under which there is a scheduled monument. Avoiding the encroachment 1) On eligible land that is not used for agricultural production, scrub must not develop and action should be taken to prevent UK - England of unwanted vegetation on the spread of weeds. As a minimum scrub must be cut, and rank vegetation cut or grazed on the whole area at least once agricultural land every 5 years. No more than 50 % of land area should be cut in year 4 or 5 and when no cutting or grazing has occurred or 3 years, 50 % of the land area must be cut or grazed in year 4. Vegetation cannot be cut between 1 March and 31 July so as to protect ground nesting birds. 2) All reasonable steps must be taken to prevent the spread of nine weeds including common ragwort, spear thistle etc. A code of practice should be referred to and notices served under a national weeds act must be complied with.

Report, Page 273 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Member State – Region Minimum level of Avoiding the encroachment Avoid the encroachment of unwanted vegetation which degrades the agricultural and environmental value of the land to the UK - Scotland maintenance of unwanted vegetation on extent that the land is not capable of returning to agricultural production at any time during the next growing season. (continued) agricultural land (continued) Exceptions: re-colonisation of trees across the boundary line from native woodland and scrub species as part of a mosaic of habitats, reversion of land to wet grassland or wetland.

1) If a notice has been served on a farmer under section 1 of the Weeds Act 1959, he or she must not unreasonably fail to UK - Wales comply with the requirements of that notice: a) A farmer must take all reasonable steps to prevent the spread of ragwort (Seneccio jacobaea), spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare), creeping or field thistle (Cirsium arvense), broad-leafed dock (Rumex obtusifolius) and curled dock (Rumex crispus) on his or her land. b) If, in any appeal against a determination of the National Assembly in relation to this paragraph, a code of practice providing guidance on how to prevent the spread of ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) made under section 1A(1) of the Weeds Act 1959 appears to be relevant to any question arising in the appeal, it is to be taken into account in determining that question. 2) A farmer must take all reasonable steps to prevent the spread of Rhododendron ponticum, Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica), giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) and Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera) on his or her land.

Other standard Except on land which is set aside pursuant to a set aside obligation under Article 54 of the Council Regulation, on any eligible UK - Wales (Maintenance of set-aside hectare which is not used for agricultural production a farmer must - arable land) a) cut down any scrub and cut down or graze any rank vegetation at least once every 5 years, but - (i) where vegetation has not been cut down or grazed for 3 years, he or she must only cut down or graze 50% of the area of that vegetation in either of the next two years; and (ii) he or she must not cut down or graze any vegetation between 15th March and 31st July in any year, unless cutting or grazing are necessary in order for the farmer to comply with requirements regarding “control of weeds “ (see “avoiding the encroachment….”); b) on any land which has carried a crop of oil-seeds, grain legumes or cereals which has been harvested using a combine harvester or a mower, establish a green cover (either through sowing or self-seeding) as soon as is practicable on or after 1st March in the first year after the land has ceased to be used for agricultural production, unless the farmer can prove that he or she intends to bring the land back into agricultural production before 15th May in that year; c) not use the land for non-farm vehicular use; d) not apply any inorganic fertiliser to the land; e) not apply organic fertilisers to the land, except as part of seedbed preparation during a period beginning two months before the day the crop is sown.

Other standards ("Burning The national laws regarding the burning of heather and grass must be followed. These laws control the dates and timing of UK - England heather and grass") burning amongst other requirements.

Report, Page 274 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Member State – Region Minimum level of Other standards ("Burning 1) A farmer must not commence burning heather, rough grass, bracken, gorse or vaccinium on any land between sunset and UK - Wales maintenance heather and grass") sunrise. (continued) 2) A farmer must not burn heather, rough grass, bracken, gorse or vaccinium unless - a) there are, where the burning is taking place, sufficient persons and equipment to control and regulate the burning during the entire period of the operation; b) he or she takes, before commencing burning and during the entire period of the operation, all reasonable precautions to prevent injury or damage to any adjacent land, or to any person or thing whatsoever on that land; and c) he or she has, not less than 24 hours and not more than 7 days before commencing burning on any land, given notice in writing of the date or dates, time and place at which, and the extent of the area on which it is his or her intention to burn - (3) A farmer must not burn heather, rough grass, bracken, gorse or vaccinium - a) on land which is within an upland area, during the period beginning on 16th April and ending on 30th September, and b) on land which is not within an upland area, during the period beginning on 1st April and ending on 31st October, except under, and in accordance with any conditions specified in, a licence issued by the National Assembly under regulation 7 of the Heather and Grass etc (Burning) Regulations 1986. Other standards ("EIA, 1) An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) must be conducted before using uncultivated land or seminatural areas for UK - England SSSI, rights of way, tree- intensive agricultural purposes or construction works. An EIA must also be conducted before afforestation or deforestaion protection") takes place on agricultural land. 2) Do not damage or destroy land that is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), including plants, animals, geological or other landscape features which led to the land being designated a SSSI. This GAEC is based on existing national legislation. 3) All legal public rights of way (footpaths, bridleways etc) must be maintained e.g. by reinstating a path after ploughing a field or by maintaining a stile or gate in a safe condition. This is based on existing national legislation. 4) A felling licence is needed before a tree can be felled, as required by national forestry laws. Other standards ("EIA, 1) - SSSI: a) Do not carry out any activities on the “Operations likely to damage the special interest” (OLDSI) list that apply to UK - Wales SSSI, tree-protection") the SSSI without giving notice and receiving consent in writing from the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW), b) If you have a SSSI management agreement, you must also comply with the prescriptions set out in that agreement.; c) You must comply with a restoration order made under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.; d) If you have not been notified of the SSSI but know that it exists, you cannot intentionally or recklessly damage or destroy the special interest or disturb any of the flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features.; e) As an owner you must inform CCW of any changes to ownership, tenancy or lease within four weeks of the change taking place. 2) - EIA: A farmer must not… a) …begin or carry out a project without first obtaining either a decision that the project is not a relevant project or a decision granting consent for the project in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (Uncultivated Land) Regulations.; b) …breach a stop notice served on him or her under regulation 22(1) of the EIA (Uncultivated Land) Regulations. c) …carry out, on any land, work or operations relating to a relevant project unless - consent has been granted for that project by the Commissioners or by the appropriate authority; or the project is carried out in accordance with the consent (including any conditions to which the consent is subject). d) … carry out work in relation to a relevant project in contravention of a requirement to discontinue that work in an enforcement notice served in accordance with regulation 20 of the EIA (Forestry) Regulations. 3) - Tree-protection: a) Do not breach TPO (Tree Preservation Orders) by cutting down, uprooting or wilfully destroying tree or wilfully damaging, topping or lopping a tree in such a way as to likely to destroy it; b) Obtain necessary felling licences; c) In any calendar quarter*, you may fell up to 5 cubic metres on your property without a licence as long as no more than 2 cubic metres are sold (*1 Jan to 31 March, 1 April to 30 June, 1 July to 30 September and 1 October to 31 December); d) Certain types of felling do not need permission from the Forestry Commission.

Report, Page 275 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard Description of the Measure/Standard Member State – Region Minimum level of Other standards Land within 2 metres of the centre of a hedgerow or watercourse must not be cultivated or have fertilisers, dredgings, slurry, UK - England maintenance ("Maintenance of hedgerows manures or pesticides applied to it. This measure does not apply to new hedgerows for the first 5 years after planting or in (continued) and watercourses") fields of 2 hectares or less.

Sum-up evaluation – United Kingdom: Agricultural statistics: In the United Kingdom about 61 % of the total area is characterised by agricultural land use, in particular permanent grassland. The production of milk and bovine meat plays a significant role (European Commission, 2007b). Selected measures and relevance: The GAEC standards in the UK address all the issues indicated by Annex IV of the Council Regulation 1782/2003 (e.g. soil erosion, soil organic matter, soil structure and minimum level of maintenance); however, there are differences between the level of standards in Scotland, England and Wales. In England there are often several separate GAEC standards for each Annex IV standard, which differ among the conditions or restrictions. Most potential measures designed to avoid and minimise soil threats are the Soil Protection Review (http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/land/soil/information/publications.htm) (adopted under soil erosion), protection of permanent pasture (as requirement for EIA on uncultivated and semi-natural areas), and retention of landscape features (main impacts are hedge cutting days and protection of hedges and watercourses). Restriction for livestock rate is only tackled within the GAEC issue of soil erosion as a specified measure for minimum land management reflecting site-specific conditions and with the focus on natural and semi-natural vegetation. This was a pre-existing requirement under Good Farming Practice (GFP). A new requirement is appropriate machinery use, which applies to harvesting of crop of vegetables or fruit, with a main impact on potatoes and root crops. In contrast to Scotland, there is no corresponding GAEC standard on crop rotation adopted in England. The adopted measure for maintenance of hedgerows and watercourses provides a range of environmental benefits in order to avoid soil erosion as well as reduce diffuse contamination and biodiversity by decreasing the runoff of fertilisers and pesticides. The GAEC measures as defined in Scotland focus also to a large extent on soil-related measures. Most of these measures address soil erosion and minimum level of maintenance. Measures to prevent soil erosion address the light annual soil risk by water based erosion in eastern Scotland, which is characterised by a soil loss of 0.5-1 tonnes/ha/year (EEA, 2005b). The measures provided under soil erosion, for example, are subdivided in the following categories: post-harvest management of land, wind erosion soil capping, erosion caused by livestock, maintenance of functional field drainage systems and Muirburn Code (see Guidance Manual: Scottish Executive (2005): Cross Compliance - Notes for Guidance). In general, soils in Scotland are characterised by a very high organic carbon content which ranges between 10 – 35 % (ESDAC, 2007). The soil problem of high to very high susceptibility of subsoil compaction, which exists in wide areas of Scotland (ESDAC, 2007), is addressed by appropriate machinery use. In addition, measures such as prohibition of use of fertilisers and pesticides in semi-natural habitats reduce diffuse contamination and protect biodiversity. GAEC measures in Wales have a strong emphasis on minimum level of maintenance, in particular retaining landscape features, which is addressed by separate articles (within the national legislation ‘Welsh Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 3280 (W.284)’) on boundary features, hedgerows, scheduled monuments and trees. Moreover, there are standards on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and the protection of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), which are also in England. Further emphasis is given on practice methods to tackle overgrazing or the use of unsuitable supplementary feeding methods. Such standards can contribute to minimising and avoiding soil compaction, deterioration of vegetation and habitats of wildlife as well as to the protection of watercourses from nitrogen (livestock manure). In general, Wales does not face serious soil threats at this point. According to EEA (2005b), soil loss is very low and ranges between 0-0.5 tonnes/ha/year. According to ESDAC (2007), organic carbon content is high and differs from 10-25 % and susceptibility to subsoil compaction is rather low. (The Welsh Assembly Government provides useful factsheets37 on GAEC measures as well as SMRs for farmers). Conclusion: All UK regions examined (England, Scotland and Wales) address all GAEC issues. However, some improvements could be made, for example in England by adopting further measures such as crop rotation system in order to avoid the decline in soil organic matter, as organic carbon content in most English soils is rather low and range from 0-5 % (EEA, 2005b). In Scotland stronger, clearer restrictions for appropriate machinery use could be introduced to avoid subsoil compaction. The Soil Management Checklist in Wales could provide more clear information on proposed remedial actions to assess how well soil problems, e.g. of soil erosion, will be addressed (Farmer and Swales, 2004). Further Comments: -

37 Source: http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/countryside_policy/farming/CAP/xcompliancefactsheets?lang=en

Report, Page 276 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.3.6.26: Overview of GAEC-measures adopted by the Member States examined (*No. of Member States that implemented the indicated GAEC standard (regions such as Flanders/Wallonia or England/Scotland/Wales are not double/triple counted; **France and Italy provide measures concerning the prohibition of the grubbing up of olive trees/groves; ***The maintenance of olive groves in good vegetative conditions standard was indicated by France, Spain and Malta as a separate standard.)

GAEC Issue Measure/Standard AT BE CY CZ DE DK EE EL FI FR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT SI SK SE ES UK ∑ Fl Wa EN SC WA MS*

Soil erosion Minimum soil cover ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 12 protect soil ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● through Minimum land management 17 appropriate reflecting site-specific conditions measures Retain terraces ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 10 Other standards ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 8 Soil organic Arable stubble management ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 18 matter maintain soil Standards for crop rotation where ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 10 organic matter applicable levels through Other standards ● ● ● ● ● ● 6 appropriate practices Soil structure Appropriate machinery use ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 11 maintain soil structure through Other standards ● ● ● ● 4 appropriate measures Minimum level of Minimum livestock stocking rates ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 11 maintenance or/and appropriate regimes ensure a ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● minimum level of Protection of permanent pasture 20 maintenance Retention of landscape features, ● ● ● ● ● ● ●** ● ●** ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 14 and avoid the including where appropriate the deterioration of prohibition of the grubbing up of habitats olive trees Maintenance of olive groves in ● ● ● 3 good vegetative conditions*** Avoiding the encroachment of ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 18 unwanted vegetation on agricultural land Other standards ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 12

Report, Page 277 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

4.3.6.2 Conclusion on country specific analysis of GAEC measures

Selected standards and measures

Member States have selected a wide range of measures in order to implement Annex IV to the Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. According to Article 5 of this Regulation, “Member States shall define, at national or regional level, minimum requirements for good agricultural and environmental condition on the basis of the framework set up in Annex IV, taking into account the specific characteristics of the areas concerned, including soil and climatic condition, existing farming systems, land use, crop rotation, farming practices, and farm structures.” Therefore, each Member State adopts measures that it finds appropriate within its national context (i.e. not all measures necessarily need to be adopted).

In some countries, definition and implementation of GAEC standards is the responsibility of regional authorities (e.g. Belgium, Spain and Germany). In others (e.g. Italy), Regions have the possibility of supplementing national standards with more adapted measures at the regional level. In this way, regions can adopt and define different standards that are appropriate and focus on existing soil threats in these areas. In some countries, different measures have been adopted for different regions, for example for Flanders and Wallonia in Belgium and England, Scotland and Wales in the United Kingdom.

In addition to the differences between measures adopted by different Member States, these measures also vary by degree, complexity, rigour and level of sophistication among Member States. Most Member States address some of the Annex IV standards, but not all of them.

The Annex IV standards addressed by the most Member States examined are the standard of ‘protection of permanent pasture’ and ‘avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land’, which belong to the GAEC issues ‘minimum level of maintenance’. This GAEC issue can gain benefits that are likely to be agricultural rather than environmental. Significant benefits can be achieved through a shift from arable land to permanent pasture, which allows soil organic matter to be restored and the prevention of soil erosion from the permanent plant cover. A further standard addressed by many Member States is ‘arable stubble management’. Prohibition on burning of plant residuals on parcels after the harvest provides strong benefits for the improvement and growth of soil organic matter. The fourth most predominant standard is ‘minimum land management reflecting site conditions’. In order to adapt management practices to site-specific conditions, farmers are required either to plough in contour lines or to cultivate their land according to the given slope

Report, Page 278 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

conditions. Further predominant standards are ‘Retention of landscape features’ and ‘Minimum soil cover’ by maintaining a green cover on arable land after harvesting or on set-aside land. Such measures can help to prevent and reduce soil erosion as well as loss of organic matter.

All four main GAEC issues (soil erosion, soil organic matter, soil structure, minimum level of maintenance) are addressed by the countries France, Greece, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Spain, United Kingdom, Slovenia, Cyprus, Austria and Hungary. However, full consideration of all issues does not correspond directly to a good level of implementation or comprehensive coverage of existing soil threats. In addition, some standards are not relevant to the national or regional conditions; for example, retain terraces are not relevant for Finland or Sweden due to agricultural traditions.

Relevance of selected standards

In some Member States (Austria, France, Greece, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Cyprus, Slovenia, Luxembourg and UK), all the soils threats considered by cross compliance38 seem to be addressed by adopted measures. Nevertheless, improvements can be made and are necessary in these Member States, such as more detailed requirements for soil erosion measures in Greece and Italy, the introduction of crop rotation systems in Spain and UK (England), more clearly defined measures in Cyprus or the enhancement of standards addressing minimum level of maintenance in Slovenia.39

It became clear through this study that the standard of ‘appropriate machinery use’ in order to maintain soil structure has only been implemented by 11 Member States, although soil compaction is a widespread problem across Europe (ESDAC, 2007). In particular, the following Member States should consider introducing appropriate measures, where necessary: Belgium (Flemish Region), the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Sweden. Also, standards for crop rotations are relatively rare throughout the Member States examined, but such standards could provide significant benefits to increase soil organic matter (e.g. in Portugal and Poland).

In a few new Member States (Estonia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Latvia), GAEC standards have a strong emphasis on minimum level of maintenance; however, additional measures are poorly designed. These measures (avoiding encroachment, retention of landscape features) do not directly benefit the soil threats and need strong improvement considering the fact that the area of agricultural land use ranges from 18% to 40% of the total area in those Member States. Such results may come from the fact that GAEC standards can be defined and selected by the countries themselves, while the Annex IV only provides the framework. Therefore, it is not surprising that the

38 Soil erosion, decline in organic matter, compaction. 39 For further details see 4.3.6 Country specific analysis of GAEC measures.

Report, Page 279 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

new Member States have defined a somewhat smaller number of GAEC standards, which can be understood as a way to minimise the risk for farmers to lose the direct payments.

In contrast to these countries, certain Member States have introduced Cross Compliance measures that are beyond the scope of Annex IV or have adopted a very detailed range of GAEC measures (e.g. France, the Netherlands, Spain, UK (Wales) and Germany).

Member States also exercised considerable flexibility in determining appropriate standards for Cross Compliance and defined national specific measures. There are multiple examples of these measures. France, Austria and Finland require ‘buffer strips on watercourses’, a useful tool to avoid diffuse contamination, protect surface water, reduce erosion and improve biodiversity. The Czech Republic requires the ‘appropriate application of manure from barnyards into the soil’ to avoid decline in soil organic matter. In Denmark, Sweden and Germany, the measure requiring ‘maintenance of areas taken out of production’ is designed to reduce soil contamination through restricting the use of pesticides and fertilisers. In Portugal, farmers must ensure appropriate disposal of agricultural residues in order to avoid soil contamination.

Far reaching requirements have been established for soil organic matter in Germany. At the other end of the range is Denmark, which has only 5% permanent grasslands, but also has the most measures to protect permanent grassland (Danish GAEC-issues include: protection of permanent pasture, soil erosion and minimum level of maintenance).

A number of Member States have already adopted appropriate measures in order to prevent or combat existing soil threats. However, there is a need to change the strong emphasis on “minimum level of maintenance” 40 toward a focus on soil erosion, soil organic matter and in particular soil compaction. In general, more detailed requirements (as guidance tool for farmers) instead of general, relatively weak measures for the GAEC issues regarding in particular soil compaction are needed to provide direct environmental benefits and contributions to soil protection.

Evaluation

40 The Annex IV standards addressed by the most Member States examined are the standard of ‘protection of permanent pasture’ and ‘avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land’, which belong to the GAEC issues ‘minimum level of maintenance’

Report, Page 280 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

the area addressed by the measure (i.e. soil type, geography, geomorphology, climate and predominant farming systems, land/vegetation cover, as well as measure implementation/control status). The available information sources do not provide this kind of information, hence there is a limited possibility of assessing the effectiveness of the measures.

A comparative evaluation between the measures chosen by Member States is difficult as well. It is not feasible to prove, for example, if the approach to soil erosion (requiring farmers to complete and implement a Soil Management Review) will prove to be more effective in combating soil erosion than the requirement to establish a green cover on certain land (common GAEC measure in a number of Member States). Only more or less similar measures might be suitable for possible Member States’ comparisons.

In general, the information given from the control system depends heavily on the selected standards. While it is relatively easy to control the extent of a farmed area for which claims are made and quite simple to control certain mandatory standards (e.g. housing rules for pigs or the documentation obligations (book-keeping)), in on-spot inspections, it is rather difficult to evaluate the exact soil conditions and the way machinery has been used at different times of the year. These methodological problems along with implementation difficulties of cross-compliance controls have effects on the interpretation of data about the level of compliance.

4.4 SMR under Cross Compliance and their contribution to soil conservation

In this section we present a review and analysis of the national statutory management requirements for the five environmental directives in the Member States:

• Birds Directive (79/409/EEC)

• Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)

• Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC)

• Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC)

• Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC)

These environmental SMRs will be analysed according their contribution to soil conservation, i.e. relevant soil threats as defined in the Soil Strategy (see Tables 4.4.1.1.1 – 4.4.5.1.1). The SMRs concerning public, animal and plant health and animal welfare issues are considered to be not relevant in the context of this study.

Report, Page 281 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Table 4.4.1: Environmental statutory management requirements

Applicable Statutory Management Requirements Articles from 2005 Wild Birds Directive 79/409/EEC 3, 4(1), (2), (4), 5, 7, 8 Groundwater Directive 80/68/EEC 4, 5 Sewage Sludge Directive 86/278/EEC 3 Nitrates Directive 91/676/EEC 4, 5 Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC 6, 13, 15, 22(b)

The survey on SMRs was done in EU-1541 plus Poland, Lithuania and the Czech Republic. Unfortunately there was no information available for Slovenia and Malta.

These SMRs are mandatory for farmers receiving direct payments. They must be followed in order to comply with the cross compliance instrument. The SMRs are laid out in the relevant directives, which must be implemented in the Member States. The main aim of the cross-compliance regulation is to reinforce the compliance with existing regulations.

4.4.1 Birds Directive (79/409/EEC)

4.4.1.1 Introduction

In this section we will deal with the impact of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) on soil. The Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 requires that the Articles 3, 4(1), (2), (4), 5, 7 and 8 have to be respected by farmers receiving the direct payments. In particular the Articles 3, 4(1), (2), (4), 5 may have a certain impact on soil protection; the Articles 7 and 8 are not relevant for soil protection. Annex 5 to this report gives an overview of all statutory management requirements of cross-compliance and their impact on soil protection. The requirements of the relevant SMRs in the Birds Directive are summarised below:

• Article 3: Measures need to be taken to preserve, maintain or re-establish a sufficient diversity and area of habitats for all species of naturally living birds in the wild, including the following measures: creation of protected areas; upkeep and management in accordance with the ecological needs of habitats inside and outside the protected zones; re-establishment of destroyed biotopes and creation of biotopes.

41 Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom.

Report, Page 282 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

• Article 4: The most suitable territories shall be classified in number and size for the conservation of species in danger of extinction, being vulnerable to specific changes in their habitats, considered rare because of small populations or restricted local distribution and other requiring particular attention for reasons of the specific nature of their habitats (Article 4(1)). Similar measures shall be taken for regularly occurring migratory species not listed in Annex I (Article 4 (2)). Appropriate steps shall be taken in such protection areas and outside the protected zones to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats or disturbances affecting the birds (Article 4 (4)).

• Article 5: A system of protection shall be established for all naturally living birds within the territory of Member States, prohibiting in particular: deliberate killing or capturing by any method; deliberate destruction of, or damage to, their nests and eggs or removal of their nests; taking their eggs in the wild and keeping these eggs even if empty; deliberate disturbance of these birds during the period of breeding and rearing; and keeping birds of species the hunting and capture of which is prohibited.

The following Table 4.4.1.1.1 presents how the Member States define these SMRs in their national legislation; and the Chapter 4.4.1.2 summarises this information, giving an overview of national requirements/measures relevant to soil protection.

The Chapter 4.4.1.3 further evaluates each measure/requirement according to the extent to which each measure/requirement contributes to the prevention or reduction of soil problems.

Report, Page 283 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.4.1.1.1: Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds

Policy: Nature Conservation Policy, Legal Act: Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) Measure Art. (Legal Description of Measure Member State Act) Preservation, maintenance Art.3 1) Protection of (listed) dunes in Natura 2000 areas: a) No changes are permitted in the condition of protected dunes. Hedges must Denmark and re-establishment of not be built and grazing is not allowed. No caravans or the like must be placed in the area. Parcelling out is not permitted. b) In biotopes and habitats for addition, it is not permitted to: a) remove or damage trees and plants which help protect the dunes, b) use motor vehicles, including wild birds scooters, outside public roads, c) camp, d) dig, e) burn vegetation/shrubbery, f) bicycle and horse ride outside public roads.; 2) Protection of nature types in Natura 2000 areas: a) Changes to the conditions of natural lakes (with an area above 100 m2) or water courses (or parts of water courses) are not permitted. This does not apply to maintenance work in water courses., b) Changes to the condition of heaths, moors (or the like), beach meadows and marshes, freshwater meadows and semi-natural pastures are not permitted when such nature types individually, together or in connection with lakes (mentioned above) are larger than 2 500 m2 (adjoining area). c) Similarly, changes to the conditions of moors and the like that are less than 2 500 m2 are not permitted, when they are placed close to a lake or a water course included in the protection requirements. Art. 3 1) a) All over the country, farmer has to have not been fined for destruction of vegetal or animal species and their habitats and/or for France introduction of a none endogeneous species. b) in Natura 2000 areas, farmer has to have been authorised before any work potentially impacting the habitats. Art.3 Law No. 114/1992 Coll., as amended, § 4/1 - systems of ecological stability, § 4/2 significant landscape features42, § 68/3 Czech Republic authorisation of nature protection administration to take measures for improvement of environment, § 45e/2 authorisation for the government for demarcation of bird areas, §68/2 voluntary agreements with land owners/renters. Art. 4(1) Prohibition of the killing, disturbing, possession, sale etc of protected indigenous birds. Natura 2000 goal in Lithuania is to ensure Lithuania survival of species, such as crakes (Crex crex), snipes (Gallinago media) and reed-warblers (Acrocephalus paludicola), that's why the use of agricultural land is restricted; it is prohibited to plough in grasslands and pastures, to change of the water regime, afforestation.

All Art. Failing specific Regional Acts and Management Plans for SPA areas, farmers must adopt the GAECs standards: 2.1 (Arable stubble Italy and vegetable residues management), 4.1 (Protection of permanent pasture), 4.2 (Management of areas no longer in agricultural use) and 4.4 (Maintenance of landscape distinguishing features). Art. 3 1) In Special Protection Areas (SPAs) English Nature's consent must be sought before carrying out an operation likely to damage the United Kingdom SPA (its flora, fauna etc). All management notices served by English Nature in order to protect or restore a Site of Special Scientific (England) Interest (SSSI) in an SPA must be complied with. Art. 3 1) The EU Member States are obliged to maintain and/or re-establish living spaces for all European wild species of birds in or outside of Germany protected areas. From this the following statutory duties arise for agricultural holdings: The prohibition of the removal of certain landscape features, the legitimate biotope protection, the standards of the intervention regulation, the standards of the protection of species. This means nesting sites, breeding places, dwellings and places of refuge of the European species of bird may neither be eliminated nor damaged without individual special permission.

42 Not to be confused with GAEC landscape features.

Report, Page 284 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Policy: Nature Conservation Policy, Legal Act: Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) Measure Art. (Legal Description of Measure Member State Act) Preservation, maintenance Art. 4(1) Notification and written consent is required in cases: of proposal to carry out any operation likely to damage the protected interest of the United Kingdom and re-establishment of Special Protection Area (SPA) (unless specifically permitted by the terms of a management agreement). Farmers must comply with a) (Scotland) biotopes and habitats for any other management order or restoration order that is relevant to the purpose of the SPA. Farmers must comply with, b) the terms of wild birds (continued) any management agreement that relates to the purpose of the SPA and c) the terms of any agri-environmental agreement that relates to the purpose of the SPA. Art. 4(2) 2) For the conservation of birds protected by the bird protection Directive the Member States, in Germany the countries (Laender), must Germany select and notify the most suitable areas as bird protected areas. Additional requirements for farmers on the Laender level could be designed in the form of a protected area regulation or a single arrangement. Such additional regulations can concern for example: a) A ban on the ploughing of grassland surfaces; b) The change of the water regime, particularly in humid areas; c) the maintenance of water bodies. Art 4(4) 2) A SSSI (as relevant to the SPA) must not be intentionally or recklessly destroyed or damaged. United Kingdom (England) Art. 6 1) Properly incorporate granular agro-chemicals in the soil. Greece 2) Baits should be placed inside rodents’ tunnels, so that they are not visible (Birds Directive 79/409/EEC). 3) Do not destroy zones of natural vegetation in the limits of agricultural areas with streets and natural aquatic recipients. A minimum width of maintenance area is fixed (Birds Directive 79/409/EEC, Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC): for bushes 0,50m at both sides of the root and for trees the vertical projection of the tree crown on the ground. No 1) Management plan for a Natura 2000 site should contain a description of conditions for preservation or restoration of proper Poland information protection state for habitats and species and a register of protection measures, including the manner of their implementation, their type, available scope and location. These requirements relate among others to agricultural activities conducted within Natura 2000 areas. 2) Agricultural activities in Natura 2000 areas are allowed if they do not pose a threat for preservation of natural habitat types and plant and animal habitats nor do they have a negative impact on plant and animal species for which the particular Natura 2000 site was established. Moreover, agricultural activities can be conducted only to an extent that does not violate the binding bans. 3) If agricultural activities need to be adjusted to protection requirements for a particular Natura 2000 site and the area is not eligible for support measures due to lower profitability, a voivod can sign an agreement with the owner or user of the area which will specify all the necessary activities, how they should be implemented and by which dates, conditions and dates for settling the payments for performing the activities as well as the level of compensation for the profit lost due to the restrictions. Art. 4(4) 1) Overgrazing should be avoided especially on coastal sandy areas and peat and thin peaty soils. If the supplementary feed Ireland was not used for the last ten years, the start of such an activity could be done only with consent from the Statutory Authority. "Notifiable actions" should not be carried out without consent from the Statutory Authority. It is not allowed to extract turf mechanically using "sausage" machine on bog areas of the Special Protection Area (SPA) unless consent is obtained from the Statutory Authority. Following operations cannot be engaged unless provided for in REPS/DEHLG approved farm plan or with a written consent from the Dept. of Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DEHLG): altering watercourses, reclaiming or re-seeding land, dumping any material or burning any vegetation, cutting trees or clearing waterside vegetation on a wide scale. Art. 4 (1); 2) Observe the Wild Life Act regarding hunting and shooting of birds. It is not allowed to: cut, grub, burn or destroy growing vegetation on land that is not cultivated during the period 1 March to 31 August (except vegetation normally harvested for hay or silage or isolated bushes or clumps of gorse or the mowing of growths of fern).

Report, Page 285 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Policy: Nature Conservation Policy, Legal Act: Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) Measure Art. (Legal Description of Measure Member State Act) Preservation, maintenance Art. 3 (1); 1) In and outside of SAC: Sunken pathways, wooded embankments, traditional grassland in green areas, parks, buffer zones or Belgium and re-establishment of Art. 4 (1) wooded areas, swamps or wetlands and dune vegetation may not be changed (no exemption from prohibition and no special biotopes and habitats for conditions granted by the minister). Vegetation or SAEs (small agricultural elements) may not be changed without a nature authorisation wild birds (continued) or building authorisation, where appropriate, (no exemption from authorisation requirements or there is no observance). (Note: This article does not apply to the Walloon region!) 2) It is forbidden to plough grassland on a Natura 2000 site without prior authorisation from the Statutory Authority. 3) It is forbidden to destroy lines of native trees and hedges without a development permit in Natura 2000 areas. 4) It is prohibited to change vegetation and SAEs, in particular habitat types referred to in Annex I, and the habitat of species referred to in Annex II of the Nature Decree, as amended (no exemption of special conditions granted by the minister). 5) It is forbidden to alter the relief of the land by adding soil or carrying out earthworks on a Natura 2000 site without a development permit. 6) It is forbidden to use herbicides on grassland located on a Natura 2000 site without prior authorisation from the DGRNE. The protection of electric fences and localised use of herbicides to control thistles, dock and nettles are excluded form this requirement. 7) Land use allocations laid down in the development plan of Natura 2000 site, particularly forested areas, must be observed. No 1) The destruction or reduction of biotopes and structural elements of landscape is prohibited. Luxembourg information 2) The trimming of hedges, the use of slash and burn methods as well as the burning of the plant cover of meadows, fallow available lands, field margins, meadow margins or wood margins, as well as of the margins of trails and roads, is forbidden between March 1 and September 30. 3) Protected areas shall not be affected. 4) Alien animal and plant species shall not be freed into nature. 5) In the specific Protected Areas of Common Interest (Natura 2000), the management plans developed by the Environment Ministry have to be followed. 6) Prohibition of the killing, disturbing, possession, sale etc. of protected birds. No 1) The building of infrastructure/buildings outside of urban perimeters is subject to permission of the Institute for Nature Conservation Portugal information (ICN), with the exception of maintenance and small expansions of existing buildings. The same is valid for new roads, power and available telecommunication grids, pipelines for gas or other fuels, and sanitation networks. 2) The alteration of soil use in areas of more than 5 ha in size, the modification of the plant cover as a result of changes of the agricultural or forestry use, in continuous areas of over 5 ha in size, and the alteration of the current use of wetlands and coastal areas, are subject to permission from the Institute for Nature Conservation. 3) Alterations to soil morphology (with the exception of those usually executed under agricultural and forestry activities), and alterations to the configuration and topography of wetland and coastal areas, are subject to permission of the Institute for Nature Conservation. 4) The requirements defined under the GAEC relative to the recollection and storage of plastics, oils and tires shall be upheld.

Report, Page 286 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Policy: Nature Conservation Policy, Legal Act: Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) Measure Art. (Legal Description of Measure Member State Act) Preservation, maintenance No If the farms are included in a ZEPA (Zonas de especial conservación de aves- Special Protected Areas (SPAs)).Farmers must fulfil the Spain and re-establishment of information requirement of the competent authority. biotopes and habitats for available - Maintenance and management of the of the natural resources use. wild birds (continued) - Reestablishment of the destroyed biotopes - Develop of new biotopes - Management of fluvial resources, cattle net and margins (traditional system of demarcations ) - Maintenance of reservoirs and hedges Art. 3; Art. 1) Smaller land or water areas that are habitats for endangered animal or plant species or that for other reasons are considered worth of Sweden 4(4) protection may be declared as biotope protection areas by the Government or the authority it delegates. Such declarations may apply to specific objects or all areas of a certain type within the country or a part of the country. Within the biotope protection area, no activities or other measures may be done that may harm the natural environment. If the Government declares all objects of a certain type as biotope protection areas, it may announce that exemptions can be given for such measures. Exemptions may be granted only when there are special reasons. The Government or the authority that the Government appoints may take all measures needed to maintain the biotope protection area. 2) The Government may declare a nature area as a specific protection area if it according to Directive 79/409/EEG is of special interest for the protection of wild birds: Permission is required for carrying on activities or take other measures that in a significant way may have an effect on the environment of an area that is registered as protected area. Permission is not needed for activities and measures which are related to the management and maintenance of the area concerned: Permission may be given only if the activity or the measure by itself or together with other present or planned activities and measures do not: 1. risk to harm the habitat or habitats in the area that are intended to be protected, 2. imply that the specie or species that are intended to be protected get exposed to a disturbance which in a significant way may harm the protection of the specie or species in the area. 3) Permission is required for carrying on activities or take other measures that in a significant way may have an effect on the environment of an area that is registered as protected area. Permission is not needed for activities and measures which are related to the management and maintenance of the area concerned. 4) Concerning wild birds and animals that are marked with an "n" or "N" in the enclosure to this Regulation, it is forbidden to: damage or destroy the reproduction sites or resting areas. No According to the region and the type of protected area the following aspects/facts can be examined and controlled in the Cross- Austria information Compliance Procedure. available 1. The destruction and impairment of landscape elements (for example the trimming of hedges, etc.). 2. Measures changing the form and quality of the territory (e.g. the destruction of lakes, degradations, aggradations, etc.). 3. Alterations of the water balance (e.g. the destruction of wet meadows, the canalisation of streams) 4. Alterations of land use (e.g. intensification of meagre meadows), other impairment of habitats and species

Report, Page 287 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

4.4.1.2 Summary of the national SMRs in the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC)

As it can be seen from the Tables 4.4.1.1.1 above, with exception of the Netherlands, Finland and UK (Wales)43, all Member States examined have introduced requirements under the Birds Directive to a certain extent related to soil protection.

Seventeen types of measures/requirements related to soil protection can be distinguished among the Member States:

• Measure on the prohibition of hedges building and grazing for the protection of dunes in Natura 2000 sites and to remove or damage trees and plants which help protect the dunes in Natura 2000 sites (Denmark);

• Measure on prohibition of the removal of certain landscape features (for agricultural holdings in protected areas) (e.g. Germany);

• Measure on ban to destroy zones of natural vegetation in the limits of agricultural areas in the protected areas (Greece);

• Measure on restrictions of any operation likely to damage SPA, i.e. flora and fauna (United Kingdom)

• Ban on changing sunken pathways, wooded embankments, traditional grassland in green areas, parks, buffer zones or wooded areas, swamps or wetlands and dune vegetation (Belgium)

• Restriction on the alteration of soil use, modification of the plant cover and the alteration of the current use of wetlands and coastal areas (Portugal)

• Measure on the prohibition to burn vegetation/shrubbery for the protection of dunes in Natura 2000 sites (Denmark);

• Prohibition of altering watercourses, reclaiming or re-seeding land, dumping any material or burning any vegetation, cutting trees or clearing waterside vegetation on a wide scale (Ireland)

• Measure on the prohibition of ploughing of grassland and pastures (restricted use of agricultural land) (Lithuania);

• Avoiding overgrazing especially on coastal sandy areas and peat and thin peaty soils and ban on extraction of turf mechanically using "sausage" machine on bog areas of the SAC (Ireland)

• Measure on the prohibition to change of the water regime (restricted use of agricultural land) (Lithuania, Germany);

• Measure on authorisation of any work for farmers potentially impacting the habitats in Natura 2000 areas (France);

43 These member states/regions have implemented the Birds Directive into national law, but the measures are not related to any extent to soil.

Report, Page 288 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

• Measure on significant landscape features44 (the Czech Republic);

• Measure to prepare a Management Plans for SPA areas (Italy);

• In case a Management Plans for SPA areas is failing, the farmers must adopt the GAECs standards: (1) Arable stubble and vegetable residues management, (2) Protection of permanent pasture, (3) Management of areas no longer in agricultural use, and (4) Maintenance of landscape distinguishing features (Italy);

• Ban on use of herbicides on grassland on a Natura 2000 (Belgium)

• Measure on recollection and storage of plastics, oils and tires (Portugal)

4.4.1.3 Evaluation of the measures under the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC)

Article 3 of the Birds Directive states that Special Protected Areas (SPAs) must be maintained and managed in accordance with the ecological needs of habitats for all the species of birds referred to in Article 1. These together with Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) designated by Article 6 of the Habitats Directive form the Natura 2000 network45. The directive demands that any activities on designated sites must not have an adverse affect on them – however do not mention soils.

There is a big variety of measures defined by the Member States under the Birds Directive SMRs. However, only a few of them may be relevant, indeed indirectly, to a certain extent to soil protection. Most of them have another aim, rather than soil protection. The measures in all cases are defined simply not giving any instruction in detail. The most relevant soil protection measures are evaluated below.

Measure on the prohibition of ploughing of grassland and pastures (restricted use of agricultural land) (Lithuania) and avoiding overgrazing especially on coastal sandy areas and peat and thin peaty soils (Ireland)

In the protected areas it can be assumed that either no land use or only extensive forms of land use are accepted. Positive effects for soil conservation will be indirect where ploughing and overgrazing are prohibited. In addition, positive benefits may be achieved in order to avoid soil compaction, assuming no heavy machinery is used (for ploughing).

Restriction on the alteration of soil use, modification of the plant cover and the alteration of the current use of wetlands and coastal areas (Portugal)

This measure, which is controlled by the Institute for Nature Conservation, focuses on alteration processes in protected areas > 5 ha and might have positive effects on soil structure, soil erosion, soil biodiversity and compaction.

44 Not to be confused with GAEC landscape features. 45 In Europe as a whole, the Natura 2000 network covers around 20 % of the land surface, see http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/nature_conservation/useful_info/barometer/barometer.htm.

Report, Page 289 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Measure on the prohibition to change of the water regime (restricted use of agricultural land) (Lithuania, Germany)

In the protected areas it can be assumed that no land use or only extensive forms of land use are accepted. The prohibition of changing the water regime may have positive effects on soil structure, soil biodiversity and compaction.

Measure on a “proper” incorporation of agro-chemicals in the soil (Greece)

In the case of Greece, the “proper” incorporation of agro-chemicals is mandatory; what can have a positive effect on prevention of diffuse soil contamination.

Ban on use of herbicides on grassland on a Natura 2000 (Belgium) and measure on recollection and storage of plastics, oils and tires (Portugal)

Such measures contribute directly to protect surface and groundwater from pesticides as well as agricultural residuals and help indirectly to avoid local and diffuse contamination of soils.

Ban on applying slash and burn methods as well as the burning of the plant cover of meadows, fallow lands, field margins, meadow margins or wood margins (Luxembourg)

This measure shall come into force from March 1 and September 30 and seeks to protect breeding sites or resting places for protected species as well as to avoid disturbance of the species. Moreover, the ban on burn methods may contribute to prevent soil erosion and thus to maintain soil organic matter.

Other stipulations

The adoption of GAECs, in cases where the Management Plan for SPAs areas is failing, provides several direct and indirect benefits in order to prevent and reduce soil threats (for more information see GAEC-Chapter 4.3)

The Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) does not specifically address soil threats. There is no evident soil-related relevance in the provisions of the Member States implementing the Birds Directive into national law. But indirect positive impacts on decline in soil biodiversity diffuse soil contamination, soil compaction and soil structure might be expected due to the provision to create Special Protected Areas and establish appropriate management.

Report, Page 290 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

4.4.2 Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)

4.4.2.1 Introduction

In this section we will consider the impact of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) on soil. The Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 requires that the Articles 6, 13, 15 and 22(b) be respected by farmers receiving the direct payments. In particular, the Articles 6, 12 and 13 may have a certain impact on soil protection; Articles 15 and 22(b) are not relevant for soil protection. Annex 5 to this report gives an overview of all statutory management requirements of cross-compliance and their impact on soil protection. The requirements of the relevant SMRs in the Habitats Directive are summarised below:

• Article 6: Promote the maintenance of biodiversity, taking into account the economic, social, cultural and regional requirements. Conservation measures shall be established for special areas of conservation; design appropriate management plans for the sites; avoid deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species.

• Article 12 and 13: Measures to establish a system of strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV, prohibiting deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places. (Article 12d). Derogation (deliberate or accidental) of animal and plant species and populations (including temporary habitats) of Annex IV of the Directive due to farming activities (Article 12d/13).

The following Table 4.4.2.1.1 presents ways that the Member States define these SMRs in their national legislation. Chapter 4.4.2.2 summarises this information, giving an overview of national requirements/measures relevant to soil protection.

Chapter 4.4.2.3 further evaluates each measure/requirement according to the extent to which each measure/requirement contributes to the prevention or reduction of soil problems.

Report, Page 291 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Table 4.4.2.1.1: Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna

Policy: Nature Conservation Policy, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)

Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State

Avoiding the deterioration Art. 6 1) Do not destroy zones of natural vegetation in the limits of agricultural areas with streets and natural aquatic recipients. A Greece of natural habitats minimum width of maintenance area is fixed (Birds Directive 79/409/EEC, Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC): for bushes 0,50 m at both sides of the root and for trees the vertical projection of the tree crown on the ground.; 2) Maintain all installations in good condition in order to deter pollutant leakage to the environment (Groundwater Directive 80/68/EEC and Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC).; 3) Moreover, for the parcels in the areas of Natura 2000 network the farmer should observe the below mentioned (Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC): iv. Do not destroy the natural vegetation in the limits of parcels and in wild life islands inside the parcels.; 4) Moreover, for the parcels in the areas of Natura 2000 network the farmer should observe the below mentioned (Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC): In holdings where manure is stocked this should take place in a covered space, where appropriate measures are taken to avoid leaching of pollutants. All Art. NATIONAL LEVEL: Failing specific Regional Acts and Management Plans for special areas of conservation (SAC), farmers must Italy adopt the GAECs standards: 2.1 (Arable stubble and vegetable residues management), 4.1 (Protection of permanent pasture), 4.2 (Management of areas no longer in agricultural use), and 4.4 (Maintenance of landscape distinguishing features). Art. 6 1) Prohibition of the picking, destruction, possession, sale etc of protected indigenous plants. Netherlands 2) Prohibition of the killing, disturbance, possession or trade of protected indigenous animals. Art. 6 1) Protection of nature types in Natura 2000 areas: a) Changes to the conditions of natural lakes (with an area above 100 m2) or Denmark water courses (or parts of water courses) are not permitted. This does not apply to maintenance work in water courses.; b) Changes in the condition of heaths, moors (or the like), beach meadows and marshes, freshwater meadows and semi-natural pastures are not permitted when such nature type individually, together or in connection with lakes (mentioned above) are larger than 2 500 m2 (adjoining area).; c) Similarly, changes to the conditions of moors and the like that are less than 2 500 m2 are not permitted, when they are placed close to a lake or a water course included in protection requirements. 2) Protection of (listed) dunes in Natura 2000 areas: (1) No changes are permitted to the condition of protected dunes. Hedges must not be built and grazing is not allowed. No caravans or the like must be placed in the area. Parcelling out is not permitted.; (2) In addition, it is not permitted to: a) remove or damage trees and plants which help protect the dunes, b) drive with motor vehicles, including scooters, outside public roads, c) camp, d) dig, e) burn vegetation/shrubbery, f) bicycle and horse ride outside public roads. 3) 2 metre strips (protected) around natural lakes and water courses: Cultivation, planting, landscape changes, placing of hedges and other construction are not permitted within a 2 metre buffer strip around natural watercourses or lakes, or those highly valued in the regional plan. The requirement does, however, not apply to isolated lakes under 100 m². Art. 6 On land designated as a Special Area of Conservation you must comply with requirements which apply to Special Protection United Areas under the Wild Birds Directive. Kingdom (England)

Report, Page 292 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Policy: Nature Conservation Policy, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)

Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State

Avoiding the deterioration of Art. 6 (1); 1) Notification and written consent is required in cases: of proposal to carry out any operation likely to damage the protected interest United natural habitats (continued) 13(1) a) of the Special Area of Conservation (SAC) (unless specifically permitted by the terms of a management agreement or in emergency Kingdom situation - soon after the action notification is required)., a) Where a Special Nature Conservation Order applies, the farmer must (Scotland) notify relevant the Authority of the proposal to carry out any specified operation and obtain consent before commencing that operation., b) Farmers must comply with any other management order or restoration order that is relevant to the purpose of the SAC., c) Farmers must comply with the terms of any management agreement that relates to the purpose of the SAC., d) Farmers must comply with the terms of any agri-environmental agreement that relates to the purpose of the SAC. 2) Farmers must not: Intentionally or recklessly destroy or damage the protected features of a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) that are also relevant to the purpose of the SAC, or disturb any protected animals. No information Main requirements for Sites of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSIs): United available 1) Do not carry out any activities on the “Operations Likely to Damage the Special Interest” (OLDSI) list that apply to the SSSI without Kingdom giving notice and receiving consent in writing from Countryside Council Wales (CCW). (Wales) 2) If you have a SSSI management agreement, then you must also comply with the prescriptions set out in that agreement. 3) Even if you have not been notified of the SSSI but know the SSSI exists you cannot intentionally or recklessly damage or destroy the special interest or disturb the notified species. 4) As an owner you must inform CCW of any changes to ownership, tenancy or lease within 4 weeks of the change taking place. Art. 6 1) All over the country, farmer has to have not been fined for destruction of vegetal or animal species and their habitats and/or for France introduction of non-endogenous species. 2) In Natura 2000 areas, farmer has to have been authorised before any work potentially impacting the habitats. Art. 6 Law No. 114/1992 Coll., as amended, § 38/1 - management plans for specially protected areas (binding for government Czech authorities, but not for land owners), § 16/1/a - limitations on activities in national parks, § 26/3/a - limitations on activities in Republic 1st and 2nd zones of landscape protection areas, § 29/a limitations on activities in national natural reserves, § 34/1/a - limitations on activities in natural reserves, § 45 - EIA. H-D. Art. 6 1) The Member States must specify the necessary conservation measures for the types of habitat and species occurring in Natura Germany 2000 areas and take appropriate legal, administrative or contractual measures, in order to reach the protection aims. The Laender of the Federal Republic convert this regulation in the national protected areas in Laender law. The directive requires appropriate measures, in order to avoid the deterioration of the natural living spaces and habitats of the species as well as disturbance in the protected areas. 2) As far as surfaces in habitats directive or bird protection areas are cultivated, additional cultivating standards or cultivating limits only arise if obligatory regulations were clearly specified in the protected area regulation, or in contractual agreements for such areas. In all other respects habitat types and habitats may not be substantially impaired. Art.6 (1) In Special Areas of conservation (SACs) the following must be observed: Overgrazing should be avoided especially on coastal Ireland sandy areas and peat and thin peaty soils. If the supplementary feed was not used for the last ten years start of such activity could be done only with consent from Statutory Authority. "Notifiable actions" should not be carried out without consent from the Statutory Authority. It is not allowed to extract turf mechanically using "sausage" machine on bog areas of the SAC unless consent is obtained from the Statutory Authority. Following operations cannot be engaged unless provided for in REPS/DEHLG approved farm plan or with written consent from the Dept. of Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DEHLG): altering watercourses, reclaiming or re-seeding land, dumping any material or burning any vegetation, cutting trees or clearing waterside vegetation on a wide scale.

Report, Page 293 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Policy: Nature Conservation Policy, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)

Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State

Avoiding the deterioration of No information 1) Management plan for a Natura 2000 site should contain a description of conditions for preservation or restoration of proper Poland natural habitats (continued) available protection state for habitats and species and a register of protection measures, including the manner of their implementation, their type, scope and location. These requirements relate among others to agricultural activities conducted within Natura 2000 areas. 2) Agricultural activities in Natura 2000 areas are allowed if they do not pose a threat for preservation of natural habitat types and plant and animal habitats nor do they have a negative impact on plant and animal species for which the particular Natura 2000 site was established. Moreover, agricultural activities can be conducted only to an extent that does not violate the binding bans. 3) If agricultural activities need to be adjusted to protection requirements for a particular Natura 2000 site and the area is not eligible for support measures due to lower profitability, a voivod can sign an agreement with the owner or user of the area which will specify all the necessary activities, how they should be implemented and by which dates, conditions and dates for settling the payments for performing the activities as well as the level of compensation for the profit lost due to the restrictions. Art.6 (1) Plans for the management of protected sites shall define procedures relating to farming. It is advisable to take value-preserving Finland measures in those locations, fields and grazing areas (mowing and grazing conditions). The measures should, however, be planned on a case-by-case basis in cooperation with the environmental authority. Art. 6 (1); Art. 6 1) Land use allocations laid down in the development plan of Natura 2000 sites, particularly forested areas, must be kept under Belgium (2) observation. (Note: This article does not apply to the Walloon region!) 2) It is forbidden to plough grassland on a Natura 2000 site without prior authorisation from the Statutory Authority. 3) It is forbidden to alter the relief of the land by adding soil or carrying out earthworks on a Natura 2000 site without a development permit. 4) It is prohibited to change the vegetation and SAEs, in particular habitat types referred to in Annex I, and the habitat of species referred to in Annex II of the Nature Decree (no exemption of special conditions granted by the minister). Vegetation or SAEs shall not be changed without a nature or building authorisation (no exemption from this authorisation requirement). 5) It is forbidden to destroy lines of native trees and hedges without a development permit in Natura 2000 areas. 6) It is forbidden to use herbicides on grassland on a Natura 2000 site without prior authorisation from the DGRNE. The protection of electric fences and localised use of herbicides to control thistles, dock and nettles are excluded from this prohibition. 7) It is forbidden to drain parcels located on a Natura 2000 site without prior approval from the Statutory Authority. No information The Autonomous regions have to design the conservation measures or requirements in the ZEC (Zonas de especial conservación - Spain available Special Conservation Areas (SCAs)). In every specific case, it is necessary to define a ‘management plans’ (for specifics areas or they can be integrated into other development plan) besides the regulation, answering to the ecological concrete requirements of every ZEC. Art. 6 1) Permanent pastureland has to be grazed every year. It implies that all parts of the pasture have to be grazed so that it is visible Sweden at the end of the grazing season. Any kind of grazing animals may be used. The grazing may be replaced by mowing and harvesting a single year. All parts of the pasture that is not grazed have to be mowed and harvested in that case. Two years of grazing have to intervene until mowing and harvesting the pasture is permitted again. 2) Traditional meadows have to mowed and harvested annually. 3) Pastureland and meadows have to be maintained so that invasion of brushwood, bushes or trees that evidently harm environmental or cultural values does not take place. The county administrative board may decide of exception from this regulation if it does not impair the environmental or cultural qualities of the land.

Report, Page 294 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Policy: Nature Conservation Policy, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)

Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State

4) There must not be perennial coppice shoots, brushwood, bushes or trees, ligneous plants on arable land. Solitary trees, planted bioenergy forest and baciferous shrubs that are eligible for farm payments are excluded from this demand. 5) Permission is required to carry out activities or measures that significantly may influence the environment in areas listed according to 27 § 1 (concerning EU Regulation 79/409/EEG, 97/62/EG7, international conventions and national objectives) Avoiding the deterioration of No information 1) The destruction or reduction of biotopes and structural elements of landscape is prohibited: Tree orchards ("Bongerten") Luxembourg natural habitats (continued) available and tree rows shall not be replaced, removed or destroyed. Hedges and other structural elements of landscapes such as embankments, shrubbery, solitary trees, etc., must be maintained. It is forbidden to destroy wetlands, meadows and pastures with a continuous high groundwater level which is flooded with summer rains, and dry grasslands and heathlands, due to landfills, drainage, ploughing and improper fertilisation.) 2) The trimming of hedges, the use of slash and burn methods as well as the burning of the plant cover of meadows, fallow lands, field margins, meadow margins or wood margins, as well as of the margins of trails and roads, is forbidden between March 1 and September 30. 3) Protected areas shall not be affected. 4) Alien animal and plant species shall not be freed into nature. 5) No new drainage measures shall be carried out. Nevertheless, the following measures are permitted: Maintenance of existing drainages as well as small-scale drainage measures. 6) Agricultural fields or wasteland/moors shall not be afforested. 7) The destruction of protective stripes along trails and embankments through ploughing or application of pesticides is forbidden. 8) The application of slash and burn methods, as well as the burning of the vegetation cover of meadows, fallow land, field margins, meadow margins, wood margins, and trail and road margins, is prohibited between March 1 and September 30. 9) In the specific Protected Areas of Common Interest (Natura 2000), the management plans developed by the Environment Ministry have to be followed. No information 1) The building of infrastructure/buildings outside of urban perimeters is subject to permission of the Institute for Nature Conservation Portugal available (ICN), with the exception of maintenance and small expansions of existing buildings. The same is valid for new roads, power and telecommunication grids, pipelines for gas or other fuels, and sanitation networks. 2) The alteration of soil use in areas of more than 5 ha in size, the modification of the plant cover as a result of changes of the agricultural or forestry use, in continuous areas of over 5 ha in size, and the alteration of the current use of wetlands and coastal areas, are subject to permission from the Institute for Nature Conservation. 3) Alterations to soil morphology (with the exception of those usually executed under agricultural and forestry activities), and alterations to the configuration and topography of wetland and coastal areas, are subject to permission of the Institute for Nature Conservation. 4) The requirements defined under the GAEC relative to the recollection and storage of plastics, oils and tires shall be upheld. No information According to the region and the type of protected area the following aspects/facts can be examined and controlled in the Cross- Austria available Compliance Procedure. 1. The destruction and impairment of landscape elements (for example the trimming of hedges, etc.). 2. Measures changing the form and quality of the territory (e.g. the destruction of lakes, degradations, aggradations, etc.). 3. Alterations of the water balance (e.g. the destruction of wet meadows, the canalisation of streams) 4. Alterations of land use (e.g. intensification of meagre meadows), other impairment of habitats and species

Report, Page 295 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

4.4.2.2 Summary of the national SMRs in the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)

As shown in Table 4.4.2.1.1 above, all Member States examined (except Lithuania)46 have introduced requirements under the Habitats Directive that are to a certain extent related to soil protection.

Seventeen types of measures/requirements related to soil protection can be distinguished among the Member States:

• Measure on the prohibition of destruction of zones of natural vegetation in the limits of agricultural areas and in Natura 2000 areas (Greece), the destruction or reduction of biotopes and structural elements of landscape in general (Luxembourg) and of removing or damaging trees and plants which help protect the dunes in Natura 2000 sites (Denmark);

• Adoption of appropriate measures, in order to avoid the deterioration of the natural living spaces and habitats of the species as well as disturbance in the protected areas (Germany);

• Restriction on the alteration of soil use, modification of the plant cover and the alteration of the current use of wetlands and coastal areas (Portugal)

• Additional cultivating standards or cultivating limits if obligatory regulations are clearly specified in the protected area regulation in cultivated Natura 2000 areas (Germany)

• Avoiding overgrazing especially on coastal sandy areas and peat and thin peaty soils and ban on extraction of turf mechanically using "sausage" machine on bog areas of the SAC (Ireland)

• Prohibition of altering watercourses, reclaiming or re-seeding land, dumping any material or burning any vegetation, cutting trees or clearing waterside vegetation on a wide scale (Ireland)

• Ban on applying slash and burn methods as well as the burning of the plant cover of meadows, fallow lands, field margins, meadow margins or wood margins, as well as of the margins of trails and roads (Luxembourg)

• If the Management Plan for SAC areas is failing, the farmers must adopt the GAECs standards: (1) Arable stubble and vegetable residues management, (2) Protection of permanent pasture, (3) Management of areas no longer in agricultural use, and (4) Maintenance of landscape distinguishing features (Italy);

• Measure to prepare a Management Plan for SAC areas and limitations on activities in nationally protected areas (Czech Republic);

• Maintenance of permanent pasture and meadows through grazing and mowing (Sweden)

46 No detailed information on introduced requirements was available.

Report, Page 296 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

• Measure to maintain all installations in good condition in order to deter pollutant leakage to the environment (Greece);

• Adoption of appropriate measures in order to avoid leaching of pollutants in holdings where manure is stocked in Natura 2000 areas (Greece)

• Ban on use of herbicides on grassland on a Natura 2000 (Belgium) and measure on the protection buffer stripes along trails and embankments through ban on ploughing or application of pesticides (Luxembourg)

• Measure on the prohibition of ploughing grassland on a Natura 2000 site (Belgium)

• Measure on the prohibition of building and grazing of hedges for the protection of dunes in Natura 2000 sites (Denmark);

• Measure on the prohibition of cultivation, planting, landscape changes, placing of hedges within a 2-metre buffer strip around natural watercourses or lakes or highly valued areas (Denmark);

• Measure on authorisation of any work for farmers potentially impacting the habitats in Natura 2000 areas (France);

• Measure on maintaining existing drainages and prohibition of new drainage measures (Luxembourg)

4.4.2.3 Evaluation of the measures under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)

The aim of the Directive47 is to contribute to the maintenance and protection of biodiversity through the conservation of wild plants and animals as well as habitats of Community interest (Art. 6, 12, 13; 92/43/EEC). Therefore, appropriate conservation and management measures must be undertaken in Special Areas of Conservation (SACs).

Some of the concerned habitat types are based on the existence of specific soil types, thus protecting the habitat will indirectly protect the soil. If there are constraints on farm land, these will differ largely as the regulations for each individual protection area will vary according to the conservation objectives, the species and habitats concerned, and the degree to which they are threatened. This will be defined in the management plans.

In some cases, protection ordinances prohibit or restrict the use of fertiliser and pesticides, the ploughing of grassland or grazing, or set limits for livestock densities48. But in most cases the current modes of agricultural practices (mainly extensive forms of agricultural land use) can be maintained (especially when they have been a precondition

47 The Directive established the European ecological network "Natura 2000". The network comprises of Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) in order to ensure habitat and species protection, designated by Member States in accordance with the provisions of the Directive, and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) classified pursuant to Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds. 48 Such detailed information was not provided in the used data sources.

Report, Page 297 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report for the conservation value of the area) and in most other cases a compensation for income losses due to restrictions is to be paid through agri-environmental schemes or through Art. 38 of the Rural Development Regulation.

The Member States introduced a certain variety of measures under the Habitats Directive SMRs. Just few of them may contribute to a certain extent to soil protection. In all cases measures are defined simply and do not provide any detailed instruction. The most soil protection relevant measures are evaluated below.

Measure to maintain all installations in good condition in order to deter pollutant leakage to the environment and adoption of appropriate measures in order to avoid leaching of pollutants in holdings where manure is stocked in Natura 2000 areas (Greece) and measure on recollection and storage of plastics, oils and tires (Portugal) Measures seeking to prevent and avoid leaching of pollutants/agricultural residuals, such as those adopted in Greece and Portugal can have significant benefits in order to avoid local or diffuse soil contamination. These measures are also conforming to the Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC), which aims to protect the groundwater as well as the consumer’s welfare.

Measure on the prohibition of cultivation, planting, landscape changes, placing of hedges and within a buffer strip around natural watercourses or lakes or highly valued areas (Denmark) In the protected areas it can be assumed that no land use or only extensive forms of land use are accepted. Positive effects for soil conservation (in particular soil erosion) will indirectly appear where uncultivated hedges and buffer strips are maintained.

Restriction on the alteration of soil use, modification of the plant cover and the alteration of the current use of wetlands and coastal areas (Portugal) This measure, which is controlled by the Institute for Nature Conservation, focuses on alteration processes in protected areas > 5 ha and might have positive effects on soil structure, soil erosion, soil biodiversity and compaction.

Ban on applying slash and burn methods as well as the burning of the plant cover of meadows, fallow lands, field margins, meadow margins or wood margins (Luxembourg) This measure shall come into force from March 1 and September 30 and seeks to protect breeding sites or resting places for protected species as well as to avoid disturbance of the species. Moreover, Ban on burn methods can contribute to prevent soil erosion and thus to maintain soil organic matter.

Report, Page 298 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Measure on the prohibition of ploughing grassland on a Natura 2000 site (Belgium) and avoiding overgrazing especially on coastal sandy areas and peat and thin peaty soils (Ireland) Both measures address indirectly soil structure and might be help to avoid soil compaction in very sensitive areas where susceptibility to subsoil compaction is rather high.

Ban on use of herbicides on grassland on a Natura 2000 (Belgium) and measure on the protection buffer stripes along trails and embankments through ban on ploughing or application of pesticides (Luxembourg) Such measures contribute directly to protect surface and groundwater from pesticides and help indirectly to avoid local and diffuse contamination of soils.

Other stipulations

The adoption of GAECs, where the Management Plan for SPAs areas is failing, provides several direct and indirect benefits in order to prevent and reduce soil threats (for more information see GAEC-chapter, 4.3). In general all measures adopted in order to avoid the deterioration of the natural living spaces and habitats of the species, as well as disturbance in the protected areas, can indirectly contribute to soil conservation.

The Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) does not specifically address soil threats. But indirect impacts including decline in soil biodiversity, soil contamination, soil compaction and soil erosion may be expected due to the provision to create Special Areas of Conservation. Similar benefits can result from to the Birds Directive49 and vary according to the developed and implemented management plans for these areas.

Most of the selected areas for the NATURA 2000 network (SPAs and SCAs) are not characterised by intensive forms of agricultural land use and therefore do not have large areas of human induced land degradations. There is no correlation between the areas with severe soil problems and the selection of protected areas. For most countries the exact standards that hold for Natura 2000 areas are still in the process of stipulation or are in need further refinement or implementation at lower layer governance levels. Similarly, for most countries, the management plans for the NATURA 2000 areas are still in the process of being designed.

The concrete contribution of the Habitats Directive to soil conservation depends on the existing management plans. In general, the contribution of the Habitats Directive in achieving the objectives of soil conservation is seen as minor.

49 Both the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive require management plans for the protected areas (SAC and SPA) and are set up in order to build the Natura 2000-Network.

Report, Page 299 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

4.4.3 Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC)

4.4.3.1 Introduction

In this section we will deal with the impact of the Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC)50 on soil. The Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 requires that the Articles 4 and 5 of this directive have to be respected by farmers receiving direct payments. Annex 5 to this report gives an overview of all statutory management requirements of cross-compliance and their impact on soil protection. The requirements of the relevant SMRs are summarised below:

• Article 4: Direct discharge of substances in List I (e.g. organohalogen, organophosphorus or organotin compounds; mercury and cadmium and its compounds; mineral oils or cyanides) shall be prohibited. Disposal or tipping that might lead to indirect discharge is prohibited as well.

• Article 5: In addition, the direct discharge of substances in List II (e.g. individual substances and the categories of substances of zinc, copper and nickel; certain biocides; toxic or persistent organic compounds of silicon; fluorides) shall be limited.

The new Directive establishes specific measures in order to prevent and control groundwater pollution, including in particular criteria for the assessment of good groundwater chemical status; and criteria for the identification and reversal of significant and sustained upward trends and for the definition of starting points for trend reversals. It aims to prevent the deterioration of the status of all bodies of groundwater. In view of its recent approval, its lack of implementation in Member States, and as consequence its not having been translated into (current) SMRs, the influence of this new directive on soil protection aspects will only be summarily discussed at the end of this chapter, and the following analysis will centre on the older directive.

The following Table 4.4.3.1.1 presents how the Member States define these SMRs in their national legislation; and the Chapter 4.4.3.2 summarises this information, giving an overview of national requirements/measures relevant to soil protection.

The Chapter 4.4.3.3 further evaluates each measure/requirement due to what extent does each measure/requirement contribute to prevention or reduction of soil problems.

50 Only very recently a new Directive 2006/118/EC was passed, on 12 December 2006. This Directive, though, does not supersede the Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC): ‘... Council Directive 80/68/EEC ... is to be repealed with effect from 22 December 2013. It is necessary to ensure the continuity of the protection provided by Directive 80/68/EEC with regard to measures aimed at preventing or limiting both direct and indirect inputs of pollutants into groundwater.’ (Directive 2006/118/EC).

Report, Page 300 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.4.3.1.1: Council Directive 80/68/EEC on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances

Policy: Water Policy, Legal Act: Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC)

Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State Prevention of direct Art. 5(1), first 1) Law No. 254/2001 Coll., as amended, § 39 - obligatory measures for persons handling dangerous and especially dangerous Czech Republic discharge of certain indent harmful, as well as harmful substances in larger amounts (placing of equipment with substances, type of equipment, control system dangerous substances obligation, fire proofness in new buildings). 2) Law No. 254/2001 Coll., as amended, § 39.4 c - periodical check-ups of storage places.

5(1), first indent Substances, products and materials which can pollute groundwater, top and subsoil. a) Substances, products and materials Denmark which can pollute the groundwater, top and subsoil must not be buried in the ground without permission. b) Containers with substances, products and materials which can pollute the groundwater, top and subsoil must not be buried in the ground without permission.51 Prevention of indirect Art. 4(1), third 1) Comply with the terms of application of plant-protection products (Art. 4, Directive 80/68/EEC).; Greece discharge of certain indent 2) Mechanical (not chemical) cleaning of vegetation in irrigation and drainage networks. (Arts. 4 & 5, Directive 80/68/EEC).; dangerous substances 3) Specify and clearly indicate a space for concentration and collection of litter in the holding, where the collection of all pollutant elements and packing of agrochemical is ensured (Arts. 4 & 5, Directive 80/68/EEC). Art. 4(1), third 1) Law No. 254/2001 Coll., as amended, § 39 - obligatory measures for persons handling dangerous and especially dangerous Czech Republic indent harmful, as well as harmful substances in larger amounts (placing of equipment with substances, type of equipment, control system obligation, fire-proofness in new buildings). 2) Law No. 254/2001 Coll., as amended, § 39.4 c - periodical check-ups of storage places. Art. 4(1), third You must comply with notices served by the Environment Agency for the protection of groundwater. United Kingdom indent (England) No information When applying pesticides, the pollution of water bodies due to their being flushed off from the applied surface shall be avoided. The Luxembourg available application of pesticides shall not be carried out when meteorological conditions would significantly curb their effectiveness, particularly regarding the factors wind and temperature. This means desisting from applying pesticides under strong wind conditions, high temperatures or blazing sun. The recommendations of ASTA have to be followed. Pesticides have to be applied in such a manner that the maximum allowed application rate, the regulations concerning application, and the limitations valid for official drinking water protection areas are met. The filling up and the cleaning of the spreader machinery shall be carried out in such a manner as to avoid direct or indirect input of pesticides in surface- and groundwater. Prevention of direct and No information It is forbidden to discharge to waters and ground hazardous substances. Poland indirect discharge of certain available dangerous substances

51 The measure addresses also ’Prevention of indirect discharge of certain dangerous substances and Limitation of indirect discharge of certain dangerous substances.

Report, Page 301 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Policy: Water Policy, Legal Act: Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC)

Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State Art. 4 (1) first & 1) The spreading of organic matter containing List II substances should be done in accordance with good farming practice. All silage Ireland third indent; Art. 5 and slurry pits should be structurally sound. Clean water run-off should be channelled away from dirty water collection points. Art. 4 (1) second indent (1) first & third indent; 2) It is not allowed to spread slurry close to wells or in excess amounts for soil absorption. The spreading of organic matter materials containing List II substances is done according to good farming practice. Where dung steads form part of traditional farming practice and there is no risk to pollution this practice may continue. Art. 4 (1) third 1) Compulsory technical inspection of spraying devices at the ILVO (Institute for Agriculture and Fisheries Research), except for Belgium indent; portable spraying devices. Drilling pits for the extraction of groundwater may not result in pollution of groundwater through bore holes. 2) Farmers must be able to produce evidence that tanks containing 3 000 litres or more of heating oil used for their professional activity are leak proof. Farmers must adopt appropriate measures in the event of leaks and/or accidental spillages, the farmer must inform the competent authority, i.e. the Division de la Police de l'Environnement DPE [Environmental Police Division]. Prohibition of direct Art. 4(1), first Substances, products and materials which can pollute groundwater, top and subsoil. a) Substances, products and materials Denmark discharge of certain indent which can pollute the groundwater, top and subsoil must not be buried in the ground without permission. b) Containers dangerous substances with substances, products and materials which can pollute the groundwater, top and subsoil must not be buried in the ground without permission.52 Art. 4(1), first The groundwater regulation prohibits and/or limits direct leaching (e.g. over lines or seeping pits) and indirect leaching of Germany indent certain dangerous materials in the groundwater. On agricultural holdings petroleum products and certain chemical plant protection substances are to be handled in such a way that leaching to groundwater does not take place. The danger of leaching exists in particular with non-adequate storage of these materials used in the agricultural enterprise and with the incorrect disposal of pesticide rests. All Art. NATIONAL LEVEL: Italy a) Prohibition of direct discharge of substances indicated in list I in the Annex to Council Directive 80/68/EEC (plant protection products, oil, fuel, etc.) on the ground and under the ground. b) An authorisation is required for direct discharge of dangerous substance into water or sewerage, if agro-industrial activities are operative in the farm. Art. 4(1), first Do not cause or knowingly permit the entry into groundwater of poisonous, noxious or polluting matter. United Kingdom indent (England) Art. 4(1), first Law No. 254/2001 Coll., as amended, § 38/4 - no permission of direct discharge of sewage waters into groundwater. Czech Republic indent Art. 4(1), first Farmer has not to have been fined for direct discharge of none authorised products in groundwater. France indent

52 The measure addresses also the Prohibition and Prevention of indirect discharge of certain dangerous substances.

Report, Page 302 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Policy: Water Policy, Legal Act: Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC)

Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State Prohibition of direct discharge (Art. 4(1), first Prohibition of discharge of other fluids (other than domestic waste water or cooling water) in or on the soil without a valid Netherlands of certain dangerous attend) permit. substances (continued) Art. 4 (1), Art. 5(1) Farmers must not: discharge list I and list II substances directly into groundwater. Ireland first indent Art. 4 (1) first 1) Compliance with the provisions of the Dangerous Substances Decree: The direct discharge of dangerous substances into Belgium indent groundwater is forbidden. Direct discharge means the introduction of substances into groundwater without passing through the soil or subsoil: it involves artificial points of entry such as catchment points, piezometers or soak ways, or natural points of entry such as karstic features (swallow holes, karst windows or fissures which either reach the surface or are made accessible from the surface through an artificial entrance). Dangerous substances include pesticides and hydrocarbons. 2) No discharge of dangerous substances into groundwater: Where appropriate, the farmer must be in possession of environmental authorisation in accordance with part 52 of Vlarem I (Flemish Regulation on Environmental Authorisations) or part 54 (artificial recharges of groundwater). Prohibition of indirect Art. 4(1), second Maintain all installations in good condition in order to deter pollutant leakage to the environment (Groundwater Directive Greece discharge of certain indent + Art. 4(2) 80/68/EEC and Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC). dangerous substances Art. 4(1), second Law No. 254/2001 Coll., as amended, § 38/4 - discharge of sewage waters not containing dangerous and especially Czech Republic indent + Art. 4(2) dangerous harmful substances (§39/3) into the soil strata, through which they could penetrate into groundwater, is possible to permit only exceptionally in case of single family houses a individual recreation buildings on the basis of an assessment of their influence upon the quality of groundwater. Art. 4(1), second Do not cause or knowingly permit the disposal or tipping to land of any List I substances in circumstances which lead to an United Kingdom indent + Art. 4(2); indirect discharge of that substance into groundwater, unless this is carried out under a permit granted by the Environment (England) Art. 5(1), first Agency. You must take particular care with List I substances, such as sheep dip and pesticides, as small quantities can cause indent serious damage to groundwater. You must comply with notices served by the Environment Agency for the protection of groundwater. Art. 4 (1) second Farmers must not: dispose any List I or List II substance in circumstances which will lead to a indirect discharge of that substance Ireland indent into groundwater, unless this is carried out under an authorisation granted by Local Authority. Prohibition and Art. 4 (1) first 1) Land managers need authorisation from the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) before disposing List I and United Kingdom authorisation of direct and indent; List II substances to land. It means that farmers need an authorisation for disposal of sheep dip and pesticide washing to land. (Scotland) indirect discharge of certain Farmers should also ensure that groundwater is not polluted when dipping and spraying operations are being carried out. Art. 4 (1) dangerous substances first indent; 2) Where List I and List II substances are otherwise used, manufactured, stored or handled, farmers will be expected to comply with the relevant legislation, codes of practice or other relevant good practices. Where necessary SEPA will serve a Notice that requires the activity to comply with certain conditions, or, where the risks cannot be controlled, SEPA may prohibit the activity altogether. The Sheep Dipping Code Practice may be cited in a Notice served by SEPA.

Report, Page 303 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Policy: Water Policy, Legal Act: Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC)

Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State Prohibition and authorisation No information 1) Under the Groundwater Regulations, an authorisation is required from the Environment Agency before disposing of various listed United Kingdom of direct and indirect available substances to land. (Wales) discharge of certain a) Examples of List I substances are: Pesticides (including herbicides & fungicides) and sheep dip; Most oils, including fuel oil dangerous substances b) Examples of List II substances are: Ammonia (from silage effluent), Biocides (from dairy washings, disinfectants) (continued) (A full list of the above is available from the Environment Agency Wales.) 2) If you are disposing of sheep dip or pesticides washings on to any land then you must hold a valid Groundwater Regulations authorisation from the Environment Agency and comply with conditions therein. For example spread used sheep dip only on land that is not steeply sloping, poorly drained, water logged or has cracked soil. Do not spread on land which is important to wildlife, such as wildflower meadows, or within 10 metres of any watercourse or 50m of any well, borehole or spring. 3) Where List I and List II substances are used, stored or handled, farmers & contractors will be expected to comply with relevant codes of practice i.e. use and disposal of sheep dip chemicals. No information The indirect discharge of the substances mentioned in list I and II of the Annex of the Groundwater Directive via percolation Austria available throughout the soil has to be permitted by the water authority. Cross compliance controls will examine and assess compliance with the following requirements: 1) Ban of direct discharge of substances contained in Annex I and II 2) Indirect discharge of substances contained in Annex I and II only based on a permit issued by water authorities No information 1) Concerning the substances of the List I (Annex of 80/68/CEE Directive): The prohibition of direct split. The basin authorities have Spain available the competences to introduce measures for hinder the use of danger substances (There are some exceptions). 2) Concerning the substances of the List II (Annex of 80/68/CEE Directive);it is forbidden the direct split without authority permission. Every activity related to the elimination or stock of List I and II substances being able to cause an indirectly split, mustn’t be carried out without an authority permission. Prohibition of polluting Art.4 (1) first indent It is prohibited to pollute groundwater (Environmental Protection Act). Specific rules for groundwater protection are defined on Finland groundwater municipal level. Conditions for the No information Conditions under which it is possible to discharge sewage from own household or agricultural holding to the ground, within the Poland discharge of sewage available boarders of the area owned by the person discharging the sewage: 1) the volume of sewage cannot exceed 5.0 m3 a day; 2) BOD5 of the sewage supplied is reduced at least by 20%, whilst the share of suspended solids at least by 50%; 3) the place of the discharge is separated with a layer of soil at least 1.5 m thick from the highest water supply aquifer for underground waters. Appropriate application of No information Domestic and municipal sewage as well as sewage from fish-farming can be used for agricultural purposes - they can be used for Poland sewage available irrigation and fertilization of farmland and in ponds used for fish-farming. Annual and seasonal doses of sewage used for agricultural purposes cannot exceed plant demand for nitrogen, potassium or water, nor should they impede soil self-purification processes. Sewage cannot be used for agricultural purposes under the following conditions: 1) when the ground is frozen up to 30 cm down or covered with snow, except for the bed of earth pond used for fish-farming; 2) on land used for cultivation of plants to be consumed raw; 3) on land with underground water-table closer than 1.5 m from the surface of the land or from the bed of ditch for sewage distribution; 4) on areas with fall of the land over: a) 10% for arable land, b) 20% for meadows, pastures and forest trees plantations.

Report, Page 304 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

4.4.3.2 Summary of the national SMRs in the Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC)

As can be seen from Table 4.4.3.1.1 above, with the exception of Sweden53, Lithuania54 and Portugal55, all other examined Member States have introduced to a certain extent soil- related requirements under the Groundwater Directive (IEEP, 2006; AMA, 2007; EEA, 2005; MAVRD, 2005; Karaczun and Wasilewski, 2006; SJV, 2006b).

Fifteen types of measures/requirements can be distinguished in the Member States:

• Measures that prohibit the direct discharge of polluting (hazardous) substances into groundwater (UK, Germany, Luxembourg, Poland, Ireland, Belgium, Finland).

• Measures that prohibit the disposal of polluting substances in such a way that will lead to an indirect discharge to groundwater (UK (England) (allowing for exceptions), Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium (allowing for exceptions), Finland).

• Measures that prohibit the direct discharge of polluting substances onto the ground or under the ground (Italy, Poland, UK (Scotland) (allowing for exceptions)).

• Measures that prohibit the direct discharge of polluting substances into sewerage water (Italy).

• Measures that prohibit the direct discharge of waters which may contain polluting substances (e.g. sewage) into groundwater (Czech Republic, Netherlands).

• Measures that regulate the application of slurries/organic matter/sewage/List I and List II substances/waters which may contain polluting substances onto or into soil strata (Ireland, UK (Scotland), Poland, Czech Republic).

• Measures that require permission for the discharge of waters (with the exception of domestic sewage and cooling water) in or on the soil (the Netherlands).

• Measures that require permission for burial of substances that can pollute groundwater, soil and topsoil; this refers to both their direct burial as the burial of containers with dangerous substances in them (Denmark).

• Measures controlling the storage of dangerous substances (which applies to substances on List I and List II) (Czech Republic, Germany56, Greece, Belgium).

53 There are requirements to protect groundwater from dangerous substances indicated in list I in the Annex to Council Directive 80/68/EEC in Sweden, but not as Cross Compliance condition. 54 All requirements from the directive were adopted in Lithuanian Law (IEEP, 2006). No detailed information on requirements was available. 55 There are no specified requirements addressing the Groundwater Directive directly. Some measures, implemented under the Nitrates Directive and the Sewage Sludge Directive (as Cross Compliance conditions) focuses, for example, on the protection of drinking water (see corresponding sections). 56 The evaluation of the German regulations concerning the leaching of substances into groundwater considers that the main opportunities for leaching are during storage and disposal of dangerous substances.

Report, Page 305 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

• Measures addressing the disposal of residues of dangerous substances and their packing (Czech Republic, Germany, Greece).

• Measures related to the manipulation/handling/application of dangerous substances, referring e.g. to the type of equipment (Czech Republic, Belgium, UK (Scotland)).

• Measures aiming to avoid the flushing of substances (pesticides) into water bodies (Luxembourg) or/and measures relating to the compliance with application instructions of products such as pesticides (Greece, Luxembourg, UK (Wales)).

• Measures forbidding the contamination of groundwater due to borehole drilling (Belgium).

• Measures relating to prior compliance with regulations concerning the pollution of groundwater, e.g. farmers cannot have been fined previously for polluting groundwater (France).

• Compliance with regulations of European environmental authorities, e.g. EEA (UK).

4.4.3.3 Evaluation of the measures under the Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC)

Because all measures analysed impinge (by definition) to some extent on groundwater contamination, they are also all relevant to some extent to the threat of soil contamination. This connection, however, can be extremely tenuous, as is the case for instance of regulations that address the manipulation/handling of dangerous substances: the connection with any particular soil threat is hard to evaluate clearly. As a consequence, an evaluation of this kind of measures is not considered to the point; in the following discussion, only those measures with a direct relationship to soil will be discussed.

Of importance in this discussion is the fact that the relationship of groundwater to soil is not always of the same nature. The groundwater table can be situated at depths of tens or hundreds of meters, having no interaction with soil, or be practically at ground surface, completely saturating the soil. In the latter case, a regulation relevant for groundwater is very often also relevant for the soil containing it; in the former case, there is a big difference between a regulation that refers to groundwater and a regulation that refers to soil. (It often occurs that groundwater is contaminated without a contamination of the soil lying above it, as in the (frequent) case of leakages from the underground petrol tanks of petrol stations or other underground storage facilities.) As a consequence, the following evaluation will focus on those kinds of regulations that refer directly or indirectly to soil.

Report, Page 306 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Measures that prohibit the disposal of polluting substances in such a way that will lead to an indirect discharge to groundwater (UK (England) (allowing for exceptions), Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium (allowing for exceptions), Finland). The contamination of groundwater water bodies is most typically indirect; the pathway of the pollutants usually begins at or very close to ground surface and infiltrates vertically through the unsaturated zone into groundwater. Regulations that prohibit the disposal of substances in such a way as to produce indirect discharge to groundwater address this very common case leading to groundwater contamination, and thus also indirectly address the problem of local and diffuse soil contamination. The measure is of direct relevance and targets threat prevention.

Measures that prohibit the direct discharge of polluting substances onto the ground or under the ground (e.g. Italy) This measure addresses among other issues the threat of local and diffuse soil contamination. No other soil threat is addressed within this regulation. The measure is of direct relevance, and can be seen as targeting threat prevention (rather than its reduction or combat).

Measures that prohibit the direct discharge of polluting substances into sewerage water (e.g. Italy) This measure is related indirectly to the threat of both local and diffuse soil contamination. Because of the typical multiple usage of water within a river basin, sewage water can re- enter the hydrological cycle and be used for irrigation: in this way pollutants could be applied over a vast surface, generating diffuse contamination. In addition, sewage water could generate point pollution in those areas where it is discharged, along river or canal banks, etc. This measure has a preventive effect for the threat of soil contamination.

Measures that regulate the application of slurries/organic matter/sewage/List I and List II substances/waters which may contain polluting substances onto or into soil strata (Ireland, UK (Scotland), Poland, Czech Republic) This measure is of relevance for soil in much the same way as the previous measure, with the only difference that it is of direct relevance to the soil threat of soil contamination. Application of water, slurries, or compounds containing polluted substances can represent both a local and a diffuse source of soil contamination. Particularly in the case of irrigation the risk of pollutants being spread over vast areas is large. This measure can be seen as preventing soil contamination.

Measures that require permission for the discharge of waters (with the exception of domestic sewage and cooling water) in or on the soil (the Netherlands) Same as previous measure. (As opposed to the previous measure, this case targets all waters, not only those which may contain polluting substances.)

Report, Page 307 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Measures that require permission for burial of substances that can pollute groundwater, soil and topsoil; this refers to both their direct burial as well as the burial of containers with dangerous substances in them (Denmark) This measure is of direct relevance for the threat of local soil contamination. Direct contact with polluting substances contaminates soil; leaky containers or otherwise faulty disposal in underground containers can also contaminate soil. This measure also targets prevention of this soil threat.

Measures controlling the storage of dangerous substances (which applies to substances on List I and List II) (Czech Republic, Germany, Greece) This measure is of indirect relevance to soil protection. By controlling the storage of dangerous substances, it minimises the risk of releasing pollutants into the environment, where they can often end up polluting soil, e.g. while leaching through soil to groundwater. This measure is relevant for the prevention of the threat of soil contamination.

Measures aiming to avoid the flushing of substances (pesticides) into water bodies (Luxembourg) or/and measures relating to the compliance with application instructions of products such as pesticides (e.g. UK (Wales)). These measures are of indirect relevance to the threat of diffuse soil contamination. By aiming to reduce the flushing or transport of pesticides from the fields into water bodies, it targets excessive application or application under undesirable environmental conditions (e.g. land that is steeply sloping, poorly drained, water logged) of pesticides. Thus, this measure should also have a positive effect on the amount of leftover pesticides in soil.

Measures forbidding the contamination of groundwater due to borehole drilling (Belgium) This measure is of indirect relevance to the threat of (very) local soil contamination.

Measures relating to prior compliance with regulations concerning the pollution of groundwater, e.g. farmers cannot have been fined previously for polluting groundwater (France) This measure is of a total different nature than the previous ones, because it leaves the burden of avoiding groundwater pollution (which often, but not always, goes hand-in-hand with soil pollution) on the shoulders of farmers, does not provide guidelines or regulations regarding soil contaminants, but only sanctions the infringement of these regulations. In this way, it is of indirect relevance for soil protection, and, as all the other measures analysed, targets the prevention of the threat of soil contamination.

The Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC) does not specifically address soil threats. But indirect as well as direct impacts on local contamination, in some cases diffuse contamination and soil biodiversity might be expected due to the provision to prohibit direct and indirect discharge of certain dangerous substances. In most cases, measures can be seen as preventing soil contamination.

Report, Page 308 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Among the measures not analysed in this section were those that referred directly to groundwater contamination. A clear example would be that of measures that prohibit the direct discharge of polluting substances into groundwater (e.g. UK, Germany). In opposition to this type of measures that refer only to groundwater, most national regulations aim to avoid the application of pollutants on the soil or within it as their strategy to avoid groundwater contamination (this as a result of the fact that groundwater pollutants normally traverse through soil and unsaturated strata before reaching groundwater). The main reason for this approach is probably that it allows for a more simple verification of compliance: it is much easier to verify that substances are being manipulated/applied in a certain way on ground surface than verify the existence or not of groundwater contamination for the series of pollutants addressed in this regulation (which would imply boreholes, etc).

Whatever the reasons for the predominance of this approach, measures that address the prevention of groundwater contamination through the prevention of the application of contaminants on or in soil raise the possibility of synergies with soil protection efforts. The soil threat that can be involved in these synergies is that of soil contamination. As an indirect consequence of avoiding contamination, soil biodiversity could also be affected positively.

Report, Page 309 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

4.4.4 Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC)

4.4.4.1 Introduction

In this section we will deal with the impact of the Nitrates Directive (Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources) on soil. The requirements of the relevant SMRs are summarised below:

• Article 4: Codes of Good Agricultural Practice shall be established with provisions in so far as they are relevant on the periods when the application of fertiliser is inappropriate; the land application of fertiliser to steeply sloping ground or to water- saturated, flooded, frozen or snow-covered ground; the conditions for land application of statutory management requirements. (Art. 4, Annex II, A.1-4).

Fertiliser near water courses; the capacity and construction of storage vessels for livestock manures; as well as procedures for the application of nutrients that will maintain nutrient losses to water at an acceptable level (Article 4, Annex II, A.5-6).

• Article 5: Action programmes relating to vulnerable zones shall be established with rules relating to periods when the land application of certain type of fertiliser is prohibited; the capacity of storage vessels for livestock manure; limitation of the land application of fertilizers. Measures will ensure that the amount of livestock manure applied to the land each year shall not exceed 170 kg N (Article 5, Annex III, 1, 2).

The following Table 4.4.4.1.1 presents how the Member States define these SMRs in their national legislation; and the Chapter 4.4.4.2 summarises this information, giving an overview of national requirements/measures relevant to soil protection.

The Chapter 4.4.4.3 further evaluates each measure/requirement due to what extent does each measure/requirement contribute to prevention or reduction of soil problems.

Report, Page 310 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Table 4.4.4.1.1: Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources

Policy: Water Policy, Legal Act: Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State Appropriate application and Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. 1) For parcels inside areas established as nitrate vulnerable zones according to JMDs: 20417/2520 (B 1195/14-9-01), Greece storage management of 4(1)(a) + Annex IIA, 20416/2519 (B 1196/14-9-01), 20418/2521 (B 1197/14-9-01), 25638/2905 (B 1422/22-10-01), farmers should apply fertiliser and livestock point 2 the quantities of nitrogenous fertilisers and observe the directions with regard to frequency, time and quantity of manure applied nitrogen per dose, as determined per crop and soil class in the fertilising schedules determined in the Action Plans, as mentioned in the above mentioned JMDs (Art 5, Nitrates Directive 91/676/EEC). 2) For parcels in areas established as nitrate vulnerable zones according to JMDs: 19652/1906 (B 1575/5-8-99) and 20419/2522 (B 1212/18-9-01), the following must be observed (Arts. 4 &5, Directive 91/676/EEC): a) The waste management process should ensure the reduction of nitrate pollution of waters. For this reason solid waste resulting from the liquid -solid segregation is led in manure storage container of such a capacity so that a time of 90-180 days of storage is ensured, including the time where they remain in the stable. In case where the waste is maintained in liquid form in underground channels provision should be taken in order to secure a capacity of retaining manure for a sufficient time period, depending on the geographic region, during which the soil is saturated or frozen or covered with snow. These time periods can be modified provided that other additional techniques that could justify reduction of storage volumes are also applied for waste handling. b) The quantity of manure that is added each year in the soil, either by the farmers or directly by animals, should not contain nitrogen above 170 kg/hectare. c) Avoid use of nitrogenous fertilizers in a distance smaller than two metres from ditch or irrigation or drainage channels’ banks for level areas and in a distance smaller than six metres for areas with a slope bigger than 8 %.; d) Avoid the disposal of liquid waste as well as the application of organic manure in areas with a slope bigger than 8 %.; e) Dispose of liquid livestock waste in area of at least 20 metres distance from surface waters and 50 metres from sources, wells or water drillings that are used for human consumption. Appropriate application of Art. 5(4) (a) + + Annex 1) Note: The obligations for good agricultural practice stated by the Nitrates directive have not been transposed into Czech Republic fertiliser III (1), point 1 the Czech law yet (beg. 2006). The principles of good agriculture practice related to the protection of water against nitrates pollution have been worked-out, approved and published as a farmer’s manual. The principles are not legally binding, only recommended. A few of related measures are a part of the Law No. 156/1998, On Fertilisers, as amended, Ordinance No. 274/1998, on Storage and Use of Fertilisers, as amended, and of Government Regulation No. 103/2003, on delimitation of vulnerable zones and on use and storage of fertilisers and barnyard manure and anti- erosion measures in these areas. Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. 2) Law No. 156/1998, On Fertilisers, as amended, § 9 - prohibition on use of fertilisers when the agricultural soil is 4(1)(a) + Annex IIA, oversaturated (soaked) with water, covered with snow higher than 5 cm or frozen into the depth of more than 8 cm. point 3 Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. 3) Government Regulation No. 103/2003, § 12 - protection of bank vegetation of water streams, protective 1 m belt 4(1)(a) + Annex IIA, of not-ploughed grassland next to all waters, no application of liquid fertilisers with fast-released nitrogen at least 25 m point 4 from waters on more than 7 % slopes (vulnerable zones).

Report, Page 311 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Policy: Water Policy, Legal Act: Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State Appropriate application of Art. 5(4) (a) + Annex III 1) Prohibition of the use of animal manure from 1 September to 31 January; Prohibition of the use of nitrogen fertiliser Netherlands fertiliser (continued) (1), point 1 from 16 September to 31 January. Prohibition of the ploughing of grassland in the period from 16 September to 31 January. Art. 5(4) (a) + Annex III 2) Prohibition of the use of animal manure on nature reserves and on other soils than agricultural land. (1), point 3 Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. 3) Prohibition of the use of animal manure on a) steep hills (inclination more than 7 %) met traces of erosion deeper 4(1)(a) + Annex IIA, than 30 cm.; b) fallow land with an inclination of more than 7 %.; The prohibition of the use of animal manure or point 2; nitrogen fertiliser on arable land or fallow land with an inclination of more than 18 %. Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. 4) Prohibition of application of animal manure or nitrogen fertiliser on a) snow-covered or frozen ground.; b) wet or 4(1)(a) + Annex IIA, flooded land (land saturated with water). point 3. Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. 5) The prohibition on the use of animal manure and fertilisers in the fertiliser-free-zone. 4(1)(a) + Annex IIA, point 4 Art. 5(4) (a) + + Annex 1) In vulnerable zones (VZ), respect of banning period of nitrogen (both mineral and organic) application, precisely France III (1), point 1 defined at department level (NUTS3), on climate criteria. Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. 2) In VZ, restrictions of manure spreading near from surface water (minimum distance precisely defined at department 4(1)(a) + Annex IIA, (NUTS3) level). This applies only to authorised livestock facilities (Installations classées pour la protection de point 4 l'environnement) or farms involved in special programs of agricultural pollutions control (Programme de maîtrise des effluents d'origine agricole). Annex II A.3 and A.6. 1) Nitrogenous fertilisers may not be applied on frozen, snow-covered or water-saturated ground. Finland 2) Organic fertiliser that has been spread in the autumn must always be incorporated or the field must be ploughed within 24 hours. Art. 5 (4)(a); Annex Farmers shall spread materials at doses that comply with the statutory doses. These shall be justified from an Belgium III(1), point 1 agricultural viewpoint to meet both the physiological needs of the plants, while ensuring that any loss of nutritional elements is limited and meet the demands of the soil. Farmers shall observe the statutory periods for spreading mineral fertilisers. No information Farmer must fulfil the obligatory program established by the Autonomous region for the vulnerable zone. These Spain available programs include specific measures and requirements, e.g.: - To respect the periods where there is not allowed the application of certain types of fertilizers. - Limitation of fertilizers application, especially respecting the nearness to water courses, being compatible with the good agrarian practices and having in it counts the characteristics of the vulnerable considered zone. - Soil, Texture, Constructs, Slope, Climatic, (rainfall) and irrigation conditions, uses of the land (Cropping pattern) and agrarian Practices.

Report, Page 312 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Policy: Water Policy, Legal Act: Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State Appropriate application of No information Control at the level of farms: Portugal fertiliser (continued) available 1) Register of fertilisation per farm or group of similar farms, defined according to their being located within Nitrate Vulnerable Zones. 2) Chemical analyses and their technical evaluation for organic effluents, soil, water and vegetation (foliar)’ 3) Quantity of nitrogen per crop in the register of fertilisation. 4) Time period of fertiliser application 5) Limitations to the crops and the agricultural practices associated to them, according to the IQFP value (plot physiographic qualification index) of the plot of land, the type of crop (annual, trees and bushes, pastures, and horticultural) and according to the Nitrate Vulnerable Zone in which it is located. Appropriate application of Art. 5(4) (a) + + Annex 1) Periods for manure spreading: a) In the period from harvest to 1 February, no liquid manure must be spread. The Denmark fertiliser and livestock III (1), point 1 exception is spreading from harvest to October 1 on areas with fodder grass that stands throughout the winter, and for manure areas where winter rape is planned that following year. Another exception is spreading from harvest to 20 October on areas with grass seeds for which a contract with a seed producing company has been arranged about the delivery of seeds in the season to come. b) In the period from harvest to 20 October solid manure must only be spread on areas where crops are planned the following winter. c) In the period from harvest to 1 November, no silage juice must be spread unless the spreading takes place on cultivated areas or areas where crops are planned the following winter. d) In the period from 1 September to 1 March, no liquid manure must be spread on crops that are not harvested every year. (Note: The objective 1) for the measure is also used within other articles of the Nitrate Directive (Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. 4(1)(a) + Annex IIA, point 1 and 3) Art. 5(4) (a) + Annex III 2) Creation of manure accounts: The farm must create a manure account every year for the completed planning (1), point 3 period and send a signed copy to the Minister for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries.; The manure account must be calculated on the basis of the farm’s manure planning and show: a) The total nitrogen quota and the total use of nitrogen. b) Information about the livestock and the total area with nitrogen needs. c) The total area with plant cover. d) Information about lease agreements used for spreading of manure. 3) Trading of manure: The farm can only subtract nitrogen from manure, if the manure is sold to a registered business, to biogas and manufacture plants. Moreover, a farm that has ist own biogas or manufacture plant and sells a manure product can deduct the nitrogen in the sold manure product from the farm’s total use of nitrogen. 4) Balance between nitrogen supply and demand: In the planning period, the use of nitrogen for manure purposes must not exceed the farm’s nitrogen quota. Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. 5) Restrictions on where and how manure is spread: Animal manure, silage juice and waste water must not be spread 4(1)(a) + Annex IIA, in such a way or on such areas, that there is a risk of runoff to lakes, water courses and drains (in the course of thaws point 3 or heavy showers). Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. 6) 2metre-wide strips (protected) around natural lakes and water courses: 4(1)(a) + Annex IIA, Cultivation, planting, landscape changes, placing of hedges and other construction are not permitted within a metre- point 4 wide strip around natural watercourses or lakes, or those that are highly valued in the regional plan. The requirement does, however, not apply to isolated lakes under 100 m2.

Report, Page 313 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Policy: Water Policy, Legal Act: Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State Appropriate application of Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. 7) Methods for spreading of manure on non-cultivated areas: Liquid and solid manure that is spread on non-cultivated fertiliser and livestock manure 4(1)(a) + Annex IIA, areas must be ploughed down as fast as possible and within 6 hours. If this due to non-predictable circumstances (continued) point 6 cannot be achieved, the ploughing must take place as soon as possible. Art. 5(4) (a) + + Annex 1) Proper fertilisation and use of plant protection agents do not represent an offence against the regulations of the Germany III (1), point 1 groundwater directive. Requirements for the correct storage and handling of liquid manure and liquid containing livestock manures are described in the nitrate directives. (This is rather an explanatory sentence for the Groundwater Directive). Art. 5(4) (a) + Annex III 2) Fertilisation with liquid manure, poultry excrements or other nitrogenous-liquid fertilisers (all with more than 1.5 % (1), point 3 N/kg dry matter) after harvesting is only permitted on field grass, undersown crops, autumn sowings including intercropping and for straw fertilisation. Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. 3) There is a general prohibition of the application of fertilisers with more than 1.5 % N/kg dry matter between 1 4(1)(a) + Annex IIA, November and 31 January (2006: 15 January) on arable land and between 15 November and 31 January (2006: 15 point 1 January) on grassland. (This is not valid for farmyard manure, unless it is dried poultry manure). The competent authority may permit exemptions with regard to the location conditions and the agricultural use or arrange further temporal prohibitions of application. Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. 4) Fertilisers and other substrates with more than 1.5 % N/kg dry matter must not be applied on soil that is saturated 4(1)(a) + Annex IIA, or flooded with water or continuously frozen and not melting during the day or has a continuous snow cover of more point 3 than 5 cm. Exemptions can be granted by responsible authority. Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. 5) Application of fertiliser or other substrates with more than 1.5 % N/kg dry matter near water courses: direct entry 4(1)(a) + Annex IIA, has to be avoided and and a minimum distance of 3 meters must be kept unless certain application techniques with point 4 high precision are used). 6) Application of fertiliser with more than 1.5 % N/kg dry matter on arable land near water courses in case of slope of more than 10 % towards water course a distance of 10 m has to be kept (unless fertiliser is injected directly into the soil). From 10-20 m fertiliser may only be applied on bare soil with immediate incorporation and on cultivated soil in row crops (distance of rows 45 cm or more) only with direct incorporation or existence of developed undersown crops, in other crops only when sufficiently developed, or after conservation tillage. Farmyard manure may be applied within the first 10 m, if the above requirements relevant for 10-20 m are complied with. 7) The requirements are not valid for water courses that are not included in the German Federal Water Resources Act. Stricter distance rules laid down legally are still valid (can differ from Land to Land). Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. Law No. 156/1998, On Fertilisers, as amended, § 9 - prohibition on use of fertilisers when the manner of their use Czech Republic 4(1)(a) + Annex IIA, does not allow an uniform/regular cover of the land. point 5 Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. Obligation on low-emission utilisation of animal manure. Netherlands 4(1)(a) + Annex IIA, point 5

Report, Page 314 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Policy: Water Policy, Legal Act: Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State Appropriate application of Nitrates Directive On land this is located within a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ), you must comply with the NVZ Action Programme United Kingdom fertiliser and livestock manure (91/676/EEC) Measures. (Note that the NVZ Action Programme is due to be revised in 2006). (England) (continued) 1) N cannot be applied during the following periods: A) non-spreading dates-arable land A1) sandy shallow soils (organic manures with high available N): 1.9.-1.10. (autumn sown crop) or 1.8.-1.11. (non-autumn sown crops); A2) all soil types (manufactured N fertilisers): 1.9.-1.2.; B) non-spreading dates-grassland B1) sandy shallow soils (organic manures with high available N): 1.9-1.11.; B2) all soil types (manufactured N fertilisers): 15.9.-1.2; Art. 5(4) (a) + + Annex III (1), point 1; 2) Any material or fertiliser that contains N and is applied to the land must be taken account of in the N fertiliser calculations. Art. 5(4) (a) + Annex III (1), point 3; 3) Do not apply any organic manures or N fertilisers to steeply sloping fields. Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. 4(1)(a) + Annex IIA, point 2; 4) Do not apply any organic manures or N fertilisers when the ground is waterlogged, flooded, frozen hard or snow covered. Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. 4(1)(a) + Annex IIA, point 3; 5) Do not apply any organic manures or N fertilisers in a way that contaminates water courses. Do not apply organic manures within 10 metres of watercourses. Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. 4(1)(a) + Annex IIA, point 4; 6) Do not apply more N fertiliser than a crop requires, taking account of crop uptake, soil N supply, excess winter rainfall and N available from organic manures. You must spread N fertiliser and organic manures as evenly and accurately as practically possible. Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. 4(1)(a) + Annex IIA, point 5

Art. 4 (1) a); Annex II 1) Inorganic nitrogen fertilisers and organic manure must not be applied: when the soil is waterlogged, flooded, frozen United Kingdom A.1.+ A.2. + A.6.; hard (for last 12 hours or longer in the preceding 24 hours) or snow covered. (Scotland) Annex III (I), point 3; 2) Closed periods when NO application should be made: Inorganic nitrogen fertilisers - all soils (depends on NVZ): 15 Annex III (2) Sept - 20 Feb on grassland, 1 Sept - 20 Feb on other land (exceptions are possible after justification, 3 day notice should be made). Slurry, poultry manure and liquid digested sewage sludge on sandy/shallow soil only: 1 Oct - 1 Nov on grassland and autumn sown crop, 1 Aug - 1 Nov on other land. 3) Inorganic nitrogen fertilisers and organic manure must not be applied: To steeply sloping fields. 4) Inorganic nitrogen fertilisers and organic manure must not be applied: unevenly and inaccurately. 5) Nitrogen applications from all sources (organic and inorganic) must not exceed the crop/grassland nitrogen requirements. 6) Organic manure use within the NVZ must not exceed the farm-based limits (including grazing deposition): 250 kg organic N/ha averaged over all of the grassland in an NVZ, 170 kg organic N/ha, averaged over all the non-grassland in an NVZ.

No information Control the spreading of nitrogen fertiliser and organic manure. United Kingdom available Limit nitrogen fertiliser use to crop requirement only, whilst taking account of closed periods. (Wales)

Report, Page 315 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Policy: Water Policy, Legal Act: Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State Appropriate application of No information Periods when application of fertilizers is banned: Poland fertiliser and livestock manure available 1) Introduction of a detailed schedule for fertilization of different types of crops (cereals, root plants, permanent arable (continued) land, etc.); 2) Ban on fertilization during intensive rainfall, thaw and vegetation of plants for direct consumption as well as on land not used for agricultural purposes; 3) Ban on application of liquid natural fertilizers on organic soils with high groundwater level. Fertilizing and cultivation measures on soils located on steep slopes: 1) Ban on application of liquid natural fertilizers and mineral nitric fertilizers on fields with a slope larger than 10% (6°) without plant cover; 2) Obligation to apply proper fertilization techniques and equipment for fertilization on slopes; 3) Ban on removing of tree plantings and shrub at slope-foot; 4) Obligation to apply ploughing with a reversible plough, which directs furrow-slices up the slope; 5) Obligation to conduct cultivation activities in the diagonal direction to the slope. Fertilizing on frozen soil or soil covered with snow: Ban on fertilization of soils with deep frost or covered with snow. Fertilizing in the vicinity of watercourses and surface water reservoirs: 1) Ban on application of natural fertilizers closer than 20 m from surface waters or water protection zones, an obligation to apply manual fertilization with mineral fertilizers; 2) Ban on cleaning of fertilizer distributors and spraying machines close to surface waters or water protection zones; 3) Obligation to limit animal grazing in direct vicinity of watercourse and water reservoir bank-line; 4) Ban on establishing watering places directly in a watercourse or a water reservoir. Fertilization doses and manners: 1) An annual dose of a natural fertilizer cannot exceed 170 kilo of nitrogen in pure ingredient for 1 hectare of arable land; 2) Obligation to adjust livestock density to the possibilities for utilization of natural fertilizers in your own agricultural holding or an obligation to secure customers for the surplus volume of these fertilizers. Annex II A.1. Farmers shall comply with the statutory bans on the spreading of organic fertilisers and on the spreading of fast acting Belgium organic fertilisers. They shall, where appropriate, comply with the provisions on long-term nitrogen management in agriculture laid down in the following authorisations: federal derogation and regional certificate of use. The prohibition on the use of manures in the winter period, as laid down in the Manures Decree, shall be complied with. 5(4) (a) + Annex III 1) It is forbidden to spread fertilizers from November 1 to February 15. Sweden (1), point 1 & 3 + 2) In the established Sensitive areas, the supply of nitrogen by fertilizers or manure must not exceed the amount that Annex III (2); Art. would be assessed as necessary for the concerned crop to utilize the production conditions of the site. The supply 4(1)(a) + Annex IIA, also has to be adapted to the environmental conditions of the growth site and the economic conditions of nitrogen fertilization for the concerned crop. The following factors have to be considered in particular when calculating the point 3 & 5 nitrogen supply to a certain crop: 1. The assessed nitrogen demands of the concerned crop and the total supply of nitrogen from all sources. 2. The site conditions with respect to the ground, the soil and the slope. 3. The site conditions with respect to climate, precipitation and irrigation. 4. The land use and agricultural technology, including crop rotation, of the site.

Report, Page 316 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Policy: Water Policy, Legal Act: Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State Appropriate application of 3) In areas that are declared as Sensitive areas, it is forbidden to spread more manure or other organic fertilizers, e.g. fertiliser and livestock manure sewage sludge, than what corresponds to 22 kg of phosphorous per year and hectare of Spreading area that belongs (continued) to the farm, calculated as an average over the last 5 years. 4) In the established Sensitive areas, it is forbidden to spread fertilizer or manure: 1. on water-saturated or flooded land, 2. on snow-covered land 5) In areas that are declared as Sensitive areas, it is forbidden to spread fertilizer or manure if the ground is frozen. Spreading is, however, permitted if: a. the ground has thawed deep enough to be cultivated, b. the ground has thawed at least 15 cm deep (in such cases, night ground frost is not considered as frozen ground), c. the ground is covered with ley (in such cases, spreading is permitted after February 28). 6) Manure and other organic nitrogen sources that are spread during the period December 1 to February 28 have to be cultivated into the soil the same day. Manure which any time of the year is spread on bare fields in Hallands, Skåne or Blekinge counties has to be cultivated into the soil within 4 hours. 7) In the established Sensitive areas, it is permitted to spread manure and other organic fertilizers only to growing crops only in the period August 1 to November 30, except to catch crops and before autumn sowing. There are some exceptions for solid manure except from poultry in some counties if the manure is tilled down within 4 hours or within one day. No information 1) The application of nitrogen as fertiliser is only permitted so that it covers the physiological needs of plant growth. At Luxembourg available the same time fertiliser loss has to be reduced to a minimum, through the accounting for the availability of nitrogen in the soil. The application of organic and mineral nitrogen fertilisers (i.e. liquid manure, dung, compost, sewage sludge, as well as calcium ammonium nitrate, AHL, and all poli-nutrient mineral fertilisers which contain nitrogen (NP and NPK types)) is forbidden in the following contexts: a) on bare fallow, fallow lands with spontaneous (i.e. not sown) vegetation, and on fields that have been lying fallow several years.; b) on soils that are deeply frozen.; c) on saturated, flooded or snow-covered soils. 2) Fertiliser application has to be carried out in a manner that avoids the leaching of nitrogen towards water bodies, both of surface waters and groundwater. Organic fertilisers shall not be applied at less than 10 metres distance from waterways or still waters. The application of liquid manure and liquid sewage sludge on hillside surfaces should be carried out in a manner that avoids its being flushed away from the applied surface. 3) In principle, fertilisation between September 1 and March 1 has to comply with various restrictions, which have to be followed in every case. In protected areas of type II and III, following restrictions apply: a) for dung, compost and drained sewage sludge: (1) on soil with no cover: ban from August 1 till February 1. (2) on covered (field) soils: ban from October 1 till February 1. (3) on meadows and pastures, field fodder: van from October 1 till February 1.; b) for all other organic fertilisers (liquid manure, liquid sewage sludge, etc.): (1) on soil with no cover: ban from August 1 till March 1. (2) on covered* (field) soils: ban from October 1 till March 1. (Winter wheat, winter triticale and winter rye are not considered "covered soils" in drinking water protected areas.) 4) In principle, fertilisation between September 1 and March 1 has to comply with various restrictions, which have to be followed in every case. The application of liquid manure and liquid sewage sludge is forbidden on uncovered soils from October 15 to March 1. The sum total of liquid manure or liquid sewage sludge applied on meadows and pastures between September 1 and March 1 should not exceed the equivalent of 80 kg total nitrogen per hectare.

Report, Page 317 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Policy: Water Policy, Legal Act: Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State Appropriate application of No information 1) There are quantitative limits to the use of nitrogen as a fertilizer on agricultural soil: Austria fertiliser and livestock manure available The quantitative limit of the use of nitrogen-containing fertilizers is generally set at 175 kg/ha (agricultural soil without (continued) vegetation cover) and 210 kg/ha (agricultural soil with vegetation cover or agricultural soil on which plants with a high N consumption are bred in rotation). Within these global limits, the share of nitrogen coming from chemical fertilizers may not exceed 170kg/ha and year. Vegetation cover refers to annual or multi-annual winter-resistant crops which have remained on the field after the harvest or that were planted after the main crop's harvest and in the same year. Fertilizers containing nitrogen have to be used according to the needs within the quantitative limits and time frames. 2) Periods in which the use of fertilizers containing nitrogen is banned: The use of nitrogen-containing fertilizers is not allowed on frozen soil (soil which does not thaw during the day), on water-saturated soil (soil which does not receive any water any more), or flooded soil and soil covered by snow (at least 5 mm). For the following time spans a ban of the use of nitrogen-containing fertilizers is laid down: a) From 15 October till 15 February the use of chemical fertilizers containing nitrogen, sewage sludge, liquid manure is forbidden on agricultural soil without vegetation cover. b) From 15 November till 15 February the use of chemical fertilizers containing nitrogen, sewage sludge, liquid manure is forbidden on agricultural soil featuring a vegetation cover. c) From 30 November till 15 February the use of dung, compost, dehydrated sewage sludge, sewage sludge compost is forbidden on all agricultural territories. d) From 1 October till the beginning of the ban period, at most 60 mg of nitrogen/ha may be put on the soil via nitrogen-containing fertilizers, manure, etc. 3) Nitrogen-Fertilizations in hillside situations: In general, the use of nitrogen-containing fertilizers is forbidden in hillside locations if there is danger of flooding and subsequent discharge of nitrogen in surface water bodies. In order to avoid the leaching of nitrogen-containing fertilizers, the following measures have to be taken on territories featuring a > 10% inclination with regards to the water body. a) The application of nitrogen of more than 100kg/ha has to be divided, with the exception of dung and compost. Immediately before the beginning of cultivation, a maximum of 100kg nitrogen per ha is allowed. b) There are specific requirements for crops featuring a specifically late development in the spring (sugar cane and maize). (These requirements do not concern plots which are below 1 ha and are located in mountain areas in the Alps.) 4) Nitrogen Fertilization alongside water bodies: In the case of fertilization alongside surface waters, the marginal fertilization areas have to be taken into consideration so that the direct or indirect discharge of the fertilizer into the water is avoided. The minimum distances to the water depend on the water body type and the inclination of the territory. For example, the minimum distance to lakes is 20m, to other still water smaller than 1 ha it is 10m. For water ways, the minimum distances are 10 m (if the inclination of the territory to the water is more than 10%), 5m (if the inclination of the territory to the water is less than 10%) and 3m if the inclination of the territory to the water is less than 10%, the field is smaller than 1 hectare, and its width in the direction of river flow under 50 m.

Report, Page 318 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Policy: Water Policy, Legal Act: Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State 5) General requirements: Industrial fertilisers, liquid and solid manure, and sewage sludge may only be used on covered soil, immediately before the cultivation, or - up to 30 kg/ha - on straw cover. The application of highly active or easily soluble nitrogen of more than 100kg/ha shall be divided (with the exception of root crops and vegetables on soil with over 15% clay. The introduction of liquid/solid manure und sewage sludge in soil shall be carried out within four hours, or at the very latest carried out on the day following the application. The interim storage of dung in the form of piles ("Feldmiete") have to fulfil inter alia the following requirements, for example, a) The manure may be taken from the farm at the earliest after three months b) The piles should be built on even, not sandy ground c) The distance to surface water should be at least 25m d) The piles shall be dismantled every year and their location changed. Appropriate application of Art. 5(4) (a) + Annex III There is derogation on certain soil types of 250 kg N. Netherlands livestock manure (2) Art. 5(4) (a) + Annex III Limits for manure spreading (harmony rules): a) The amount of manure used on a farm must not exceed 1.4 livestock Denmark (2) units per ha per planning period (1 August to 31 July). b) On farms with cattle, sheep or goats, the amount of manure (from the animals on the farm) can, however, correspond to 1.7 animal units per ha per planning period. c) On farms, where at least 2/3 of the livestock is cattle, the amount of manure which can be used, corresponds to 2.3 livestock units per ha per planning period, if all other requirements are followed. d) The farmer must be able to document that harmony rules are being followed. e) Details on documentation (the forms must contain name, address, social security number etc.) All Art. NATIONAL LEVEL: Failing specific Regional Acts and Management Plans for Nitrate Vulnerable Zones, farmers must Italy adopt the GAECs standards 1.1 (Temporary channelling of surface water on sloping ground), 4.2 (Management of areas no longer in agricultural use) and the storage of slurry of the in-house livestock, inside naturally or artificially proofed reservoirs, must be respected.;

Art. 5(4) (a) + Annex III In vulnerable zones (VZ), limitation of organic effluent application: 170kgN/ha. France (2) Art. 5(4) (a) + Annex III 1) Maximum limits for the application of fertilisers containing N: 170 kg N/ha on farm level per year from livestock Germany (2) manure (including grazing) (Germany got allowance from the Commission to permit application of up to 230 kgN/ha on grassland under certain conditions e.g. very intensive use with 3-4 cuts, application techniques with low emissions…); 2) After harvesting of the main fruit only 40 kg NH4-N/ha (ammonium nitrogen) or 80 kg total N/ha (total nitrogen) are to be applied on arable land with liquid manure, poultry excrements or nitrogenous-liquid secondary raw material fertiliser.; 3) The determination of the content of total nitrogen of organic or organic-mineral fertilisers or other substrates, in case of slurry and other liquid organic fertilisers additionally NH4 (ammonium nitrogen) has to be documented before the application on the basis of labelling, laboratory analyses, or on the basis of the calculation and estimation procedures recommended by the competent authority or approximate values.

Report, Page 319 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Policy: Water Policy, Legal Act: Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State Appropriate application of Art. 5 (4)(a); Annex II 1) The amount of nitrogen applied is based on average crop yield; cultivation zone and crop rotation with the aim of Finland livestock manure (continued) A.2. and A.4; Annex III retain a balanced nutrient level in the soil. For particular crops the following amounts should not be exceeded (in kg of (I), point 1 and 3 N): winter cereals 200, potatoes 130, grassland, pasture, silage and horticultural plants 250, spring cereals, sugar beet, oilseed crops and other 170. Area specific rules should be following when adjusting these amounts (type of soils, geographical locations etc.). 2) Spreading of manure is forbidden from 15 October to 15 April. Manure may not be spread on grassland after 15 September. 3) Surface application of animal manure is always prohibited on fields that have an average slope exceeding 10 per cent. It is not considered surface application when: the field is ploughed/tilled within 24 hours after application, manure is applied locally or by injection or if the manure is spread by trailing hoses on cereal/rape seedlings or grassland. 4) In the spring, manure spreading may start at the earliest on 1 April, provided that the ground is not frozen and that it is dry enough to avoid any spillage into watercourses and the danger of subsoil compaction. 5) For grassland, manure must be applied with trailing hoses no later than the second silage harvest or immediately after making hay if the rowan is going to be used. 6) In autumn, no more than 30 tonnes/ha of solid manure, 20 tonnes/ha of cattle slurry, 15 tonnes/ha of pig slurry or 10 tonnes/ha of poultry or fur animal manure may be applied. For manure, an amount equal to no more than 170 kg of total nitrogen can be applied to a hectare of reference parcel in a calendar year, in which case the rules pertaining to the amount of nitrogenous fertilisers must also be considered. Annex II A.4.; Annex III Exceeding the manure balance (too much manure used / too little disposed of). Belgium (I), point 3 Annex II A.3. + A.4. + 1) The prohibition on the application of manures on water-saturated, flooded or frozen ground laid down in the Belgium (Flemish A.6. Manures Decree is complied with. region) 2) Manure may not be applied within 5 metres (10 metres in VEN) of water courses. 3) No manure may be discharged (accidentally > knowingly). 4) The provisions on low-emission application laid down in the Manures Decree are complied with. No information Annual quantity of manure applied. This quantity must never exceed the quantity of manure that contains 170 kg of N Spain available existing two exceptions: 1) During the first program of performance (4 years), it will be allowed a manure quantity for hectare and year containing up to 210 kg of N. 2) During and passed the first program of performance, it would be possible the application of manure quantities different from the mentioned (170 kg of N and 210 kg of N), always with the competent authorities permission.

Report, Page 320 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Policy: Water Policy, Legal Act: Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State Establishment of fertiliser Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. Ordinance No. 274/1998, on Storage and Use of Fertilisers, as amended, § 7 - obligation of keeping records on Czech Republic plans 4(1)(a) + Annex IIB, fertiliser use. point 9 Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. 1) The content of N of the soil has to be determined and documented annually through soil analyses - except on Germany 4(1)(a) + Annex IIB, grassland (Exception: areas with a maximum fertilisation of 50 kg N/ha *a). Alternatively, published test results from point 9 comparable locations or recommended procedures for calculation and estimation of N-content (for grassland, fruit, vegetable and vine) can be used. 2) An N-balance has to be produced every year till the 31 March (not for areas with ornamental plants, tree nurseries and orchards, or areas that are only grazed with a maximum N-input of 100 kg N/ha and no additional fertilising). N- balance not required on farms where each field is not fertilised with more than 50 kg N/ha*a, or on farms with less than 10 ha agriculturally used land - already excluding the above named areas - with a maximum of 1 ha vegetable, hops and strawberries and producing not more than 500 kg N from manure. (The allowed N-surplus is reduced gradually, but it is not yet clear in how far it would be CC-relevant if limits are exceeded). x Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. Keep farm and field records on cropping, livestock numbers, N fertiliser usage and manure usage for a minimum of United Kingdom 4(1)(a) + Annex IIB, five years after the relevant activity takes place. (England) point 9 Annex II B.9. Farm records must be kept for at least five years. A Fertiliser and Manure Plan must be prepared and implemented United Kingdom each year and is required to: a) establish the quantities of livestock manure produced on the farm, b) demonstrate (Scotland) sufficient storage capacity and land available for spreading organic manure, c) contain an assessment of the amount of nitrogen available to grass and crops following application of organic manure, d) contain an assessment of the crop and grass requirements for nitrogen fertiliser in each field taking account of nitrogen supply from soil organic matter, crop residues and organic manure. No information Keep accurate field records - to include details of cropping, livestock numbers and nitrogen used (organic and United Kingdom available manufactured). (Wales) Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. In vulnerable zones (VZ), fertilisation plan and register of applications done. France 4(1)(a) + Annex IIB, point 9 No information Obligation to prepare annual fertilization plans and nitrogen balances. Poland available Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. Creation of manure accounts: 1) The farm must create a manure account every year for the completed planning Denmark 4(1)(a) + Annex IIB, period and send a signed copy to the Minister for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries. point 9 2) The manure account must be calculated on the basis of the farm’s manure planning and show: a) The total nitrogen quota and the total use of nitrogen. b) Information about the livestock and the total area with nitrogen needs. c) The total area with plant cover. d) Information about lease agreements used for spreading of manure.

Report, Page 321 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Policy: Water Policy, Legal Act: Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State Limit concerning the Art. 5(4) (a) + Annex III Organic manure loading averages over the whole farmed area each year (beginning on 19 December) is limited to: United Kingdom maximum amount of (2) 250kg total N per ha for grassland in any NVZ; 170kg total N per ha for non-grass crops in an NVZ designated in 1996 (England) nitrogen from livestock or 210kg total N per ha for non-grass crops in an NVZ designated in 2002. The 210kg limit applies until 19 Dec 2006 manure when the limit will revert to 170kg N. These limits include N from manure deposited by animals while grazing. Applications of organic manure to individual fields must not exceed 250kg per ha of total N per year. This limit does not include manure deposited by grazing animals. No information Limit organic manure use to 250Kg/ha of nitrogen. United Kingdom available (Wales) Art. 5(4) (a) + Annex III In areas that are declared as Sensitive areas, it is forbidden to spread more manure or other organic fertilizers, e.g. Sweden (2) sewage sludge, than what corresponds to 22 kg of phosphorous per year and hectare of Spreading area that belongs to the farm, calculated as an average over the last 5 years. Art. 5(4) (a) + Annex III Under no circumstances shall organic fertilisation exceed 170 kg of total nitrogen. Luxembourg (2) Minimum soil cover Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. Crop free zones should be present and managed. Netherlands 4(1)(a) + Annex IIB, point 8 Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. In special areas, where the high nitrate pollution lead to enhanced action plans in (named "complementary action France 4(1)(a) + Annex IIB, zones"): obligation of soil covert during winter. point 8 Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. Plant cover: a) The farm must either sow spring crops or create areas with catch crops in the autumn in order to Denmark 4(1)(a) + Annex IIB, ensure effective nitrogen uptake during autumn. b) The area with catch crops must make up at least 6 % of the catch point 8 crop area. For farms that spread an amount of manure corresponding to 0.8 LU per ha and above, the area with catch crops must be at least 10 % of the catch crop area. c) Catch crops must not be ploughed down or destroyed in any way before 20 Oct and areas with catch crops must be used for spring crops in the following planning period.

Other standards ("limitation Art. 5(5) 1) Prohibition on exceeding the manure production of poultry beyond the designated amount (expressed in poultry Netherlands of livestock") permits). 2) Prohibition to possess more than 250 laying hens without poulty permit. 3) Prohibition to keep more laying hens or turkeys than allowed by the Minister of Agriculture. Prevention of water Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. Prohibition of the use of animal manure or nitrogen fertiliser at the same time as irrigiation takes place. Netherlands pollution 4(1)(a) + Annex IIB, point 10 Art.4(1) a); 1) Chemical fertiliser shall not be applied to any land in a location or manner that makes it likely that the chemical United Kingdom fertiliser will directly enter any inland or coastal waters. (Scotland) 2) Organic manure shall not be applied to or stored (on middens) on any land which is situated fewer than: 10 metres from any inland or coastal waters or 50 metres from any well, borehole or similar work into underground strata for the purposes of any water supply.

Report, Page 322 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Policy: Water Policy, Legal Act: Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State Prevention of water pollution Art. 4 (1) a); Annex III 1) If a field manure pile (stack) is created, the following rules should be applied: the pile must not be closer than 100 Finland (continued) (I), point 2; Annex II metres from a watercourse and five metres from a ditch, a 15 centimetres deep layer of mud or peat must be spread A.4. on the bottom of the stack, it should not be placed on the same spot every year, it must always be covered with tarpaulin or a layer of peat or some equivalent protective layer at least 10 cm thick, and stacks made during autumn should be spread the following spring. 2) Effluents resulting from the silage preparation must be recovered. 3) Manure stacks shall not be located in groundwater areas. Animal shelters may not be built in such a way that they might pollute the groundwater. The location and management of outdoor yards for domestic animals must sufficiently consider the need for protecting groundwater. Animal shelters and outdoor yards for animals may not have any spillage. 4) The use of nitrogen fertilisers is prohibited in areas closer than five metres to a watercourse. If the field slope of the next five metres away from the water course is higher than two per cent, the surface application of nitrogen fertilisers is also prohibited in this area.

Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. 1) Specific regulations apply in the case of drinking water protected areas. Under no circumstances shall organic Luxembourg 4(1)(a) + Annex IIB, fertilisation exceed 130 kg of total nitrogen. In protected areas of type II and III the applied amount of organic fertilisers point 10 shall not exceed the equivalent of 130 kg/ha total nitrogen. In the case of leguminous plants, sowed either for their fruits (seed pee, field beans...) or for the purpose of soil regeneration (alfalfa, clover...), the application of organic fertilisers in drinking water protected areas is forbidden. 2) Livestock husbandry must be carried out in such a way that the direct or indirect turnout of excrements (liquid manure, percolated fluids, etc) that could pollute water bodies is avoided. 3) The sitting of silos on unfortified terrain has to comply with certain restrictions, which have to be followed in every case. The sitting of green fodder silos on unfortified terrain is forbidden under certain conditions, e.g. located at a distance of less than 50 metres from waterways as well as water mains, wells/springs, and water supply tanks for drinking water.

No information Control of plots of land adjacent to drinking water abstraction points: Portugal available a) Temporary storage of manure and lards (chorumes) has to be located at a distance of more than 5 m of a water source, water well, or other water abstraction works.

No information Protection of water from nitrate pollution: Austria available The objective of the action programme is the protection of the water from nitrate discharges from agricultural sources. The most important elements of the programme are: 1. Setting a limit in time and quantity of the use of fertilisers containing nitrates; 2. Requirements regarding the storage capacity of six months as a minimum for chemical fertilizers addressed at all establishments with livestock; 3. Certain requirements regarding the use of fertilizers containing nitrate, especially alongside waters and in hillside locations.

Report, Page 323 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Policy: Water Policy, Legal Act: Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State Standards for storage Art. 5(4) (a) + Annex III 1) Storage capacities must be present for at least 6 months. Existing facilities have to be adapted till 31.12.2008. Until Germany vessels for livestock (1), point 2; this date storage capacities of 2.5 to 3 months are present plus reserves for times where the soil might be water manure saturated, frozen or covered with snow. In individual cases a smaller storage capacity can be specified, if storage outside the holding can be demonstrated or there is proof that the manure is utilised or disposed of in an environmentally compatible manner elsewhere (e.g. production of biogas). 2) Open vessels must not be filled to the brim and a reserve has to be kept for precipitation. 3) 'Running off or overflowing of the liquid manure or seeping of liquids of storing farmyard manure and penetration into the groundwater, into ground and surface waters and into drains must be prevented reliably. 4) Constructions for storing and filling of liquid manure including their collecting filling mechanisms, decanting mechanisms and replenishing mechanisms must be stable and leak-proof. 5) Stationary constructions for storing solid manure are to be provided with a close and water-impermeable base plate. For proper collection of the liquid manure the base plate is to be set in laterally and be protected from the penetration of surface water. If for the liquids a pipe into an existing liquid manure pit is not possible, a separate collecting mechanism is to be planned. Art. 5(4) (a) + Annex III Obligation of sufficient storage capacity for animal manure produced in the period from September to February.; Netherlands (1), point 2; Obligation to respect the norms with regards to the storage of animal manure and the calculation of the storage capacity.; Obligation to respect the forfaitair production norms used in the calculation of the storage capacity of animal manure. Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. 1) Gov. Reg. No. 103/2003, § 9/2 - capacity of storage spaces for barnyard manure, technical requirements for Czech Republic 4(1)(a) + Annex IIA, storage spaces for barnyard manure, conditions for storage of barnyard manure directly on soil (vulnerable zones).; point 6 2) Ordinance No. 274/1998, on Storage and Use of Fertilisers, as amended, § 4 - obligation of storage capacity for barnyard manure equivalent to 6 months production of barnyard manure. No specified Art. NATIONAL LEVEL: Failing specific Regional Acts and Management Plans for Nitrate Vulnerable Zones, farmers must Italy adopt the GAECs standards 1.1 (Temporary channelling of surface water on sloping ground), 4.2 (Management of areas no longer in agricultural use) and the storage of slurry of the in-house livestock, inside naturally or artificially proofed reservoirs, must be respected.;

Art. 5(4) (a) + Annex III 1) In vulnerable zones (VZ), storage vessels leakproof, and sufficient capacity according to periods where spreading is France (1), point 2 prohibited (these periods are precisely defined at department level (NUTS3), on climate criteria). Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. 2) In VZ, respect of statutory duration of effluent storage, according to banning period of spreading, precisely defined 4(1)(a) + Annex IIA, at department level (NUTS3), on climate criteria. point 6 Annex III (I), point 2 The capacity of storage facilities must be sufficient to hold all of the slurry/poultry manure that cannot be applied due United Kingdom to closed periods. (Scotland) No information Have sufficient slurry storage to comply with annual closed periods for spreading manure (where appropriate). United Kingdom available (Wales)

Report, Page 324 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Policy: Water Policy, Legal Act: Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State Standards for storage vessels No information 1) The capacity of leak-proof tanks for manure dung should enable storage of the manure for at lest six month; if Poland for livestock manure available manure dung is used only once a year, the tank should have a sufficient capacity to hold the manure during the whole (continued) period required; 2) The capacity of tanks for fermented and unfermented liquid manure should enable storage of at least four-month or six-month (recommended) production of this natural fertilizer plus the necessary reserves; 3) Ban on discharging sanitary sewage to liquid manure tanks; Obligation to harden the surface of corrals, runs and other places with animals, with a possibility to direct precipitation waters from such places to the tank for liquid animal excrements. Annex II A.5. 1) Manure stacks will be approved as manure storage, if the holding only has a few animals (less than 20 cubic metres Finland per year of solid manure) or if the dry-matter content of the manure is at least 40 % and does not cause spillage.; 2) Manure storages and manure gutters must be watertight. No leakage must occur when the manure storage is being emptied and the manure relocated. Annex II A.5.; 1) Farmers shall comply with storage requirements for manures and poultry effluents in the field and on the farm, as Belgium well as the storage requirements for slurries and liquid manures. Tanks constructed after 29 November 2002 shall be provided with a system making it simple to check that they are leak proof. 2) The livestock establishment must have sufficient storage capacity for livestock manures (6 months mixed manures, 3 months stall manures). Storage places for livestock manures must comply with VLAREM requirements. Art. 5(4) (a) + Annex III 1) The storage capacity for manure at the farm has to be enough to hold the manure production from cattle, horses, Sweden (1), point 2, Art. 4(1)(a) sheep and goats of 8 months, and of 10 months for other animals, if the farm is situated in Götaland and most of + Annex IIA, point 6, Svealand. If the farm has less than 10 animal units, 6 months of storage capacity suffice. If the farm has 10 - 100 animal units and is located in some non-coastal districts, storage capacity corresponding to 6 months of manure production suffices. Storage vessels inside the production houses may be included in the capacity. 2) The storage facilities of manure have to be built so that there is no leaching or no run-off to the surroundings. Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. 1) Farmers must count with appropriate facilities for the storing and application of organic fertilisers, or to assure their Luxembourg 4(1)(a) + Annex IIA, availability. In the case that storage facilities for liquid manure or sewage were modernised or newly built, a total point 6 storage capacity has to be assured that covers a continuous time period of at least 6 months for the whole farm. 2) The temporary storage of dung on fields has to be carried out in such a way as to avoid the pollution of water bodies. It is permitted to temporarily store dung on fields, so as to guarantee the decomposition process. Nevertheless, temporary storage is forbidden on some agricultural surfaces, e.g.: a) those surfaces that are at a distance of less than 20 metres from permanent or sporadic water ways and still waters.; b) surfaces that are at a distance of less than 20 metres from buildings inhabited by third parties or open to the public No information Control of the infrastructure for the storage of organic matter: Portugal available 1) floor of the storage tanks (nitreiras) impermeabilised 2) limits to the capacity of the nitreiras and of manure storage tanks, according to the area and its being located in specific Nitrate Vulnerable Zones No information The capacity of the tanks of manure storage will be largest than the required needs applicable during the longest Spain available period of application is prohibition in the vulnerable zones.

Report, Page 325 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Policy: Water Policy, Legal Act: Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State Standards for storage vessels No information Required capacity for nitrogen-containing fertilizer storage: Austria for livestock manure available In order to facilitate the use of chemical fertilizers shortly before or during the peek of nitrogen-needs of the plants, a (continued) certain minimum storage capacity for manure, liquid and solid manure is required. The Action Programme requires a storage capacity of at least six months for all agricultural establishments to be effective from 1 January 2007. There might be a need for higher capacities on the grounds of the ban of the use of fertilizers or because of the existence of certain crops on which fertilizers may not be used. Agricultural establishments with a certain minimum use of fertilizers can restrict their solid manure storage capacity to three months on an impermeable storage surface, if the solid manure is built up to form piles ("Feldmiete"). Standards for storage Art. 5(4) (b) + Art. 1) Storage of solid manure: a) Solid manure must only be stored at dung hills or in sealed containers. b) Dung hills Denmark vessels for livestock 4(1)(a) + Annex IIA, must be placed so that the surface water from surrounding areas and roofs cannot run into the dunghill area. c) Dung manure, compost, silage point 5; Annex III (1), hills must have an outlet from the lowest point so that clogging is avoided and that at least 100 mm fall of rain per hour and waste water point 2; can be drained off. d) The dung hill must have (as a minimum) 1 metre high walls. e) The dung hill bottom and walls must be made of a moist-resistant material in order to prevent the impacts from vehicles and equipment at filling and emptying and from the stored manure.; e) Storage systems for solid manure should be emptied often enough not to run over, on a dunghill manure must not be placed on the border cover. The dunghill site should be used in a way, so manure will not float of the site. f) Dunghills or closed containers for storage of solid manure must be kept clean and in good condition to avoid decay, to minimize pollution from animal husbandry practises to the aquatic environment.; 2) Storage of compost and solid manure: Compost with a dry matter content above 30 % can be stored in the field (in accordance with distance requirements see below).; Storage of solid manure in field dung hills is only permitted with the approval of the municipal council. The municipal council can (for farms in villages) allow for storage of solid manure in field dung hills, if it is proven that it is not possible to achieve environmentally satisfactory storage in connection with the stables. Permission must be accompanied by terms for placement, organisation and running of the field dung hill, so that there is no risk of pollution of ground water or watercourses, lakes and the ocean. Distance requirements: a) To individual water supply wells 25 m; b) To common water supply wells 50 m; c) To water courses (including drains) and lakes 15 m; d) To public road and neighbour dividing lines 15 m; e) To food producing properties 25 m; f) To residential areas within the same property 15 m.; 3) Maximum storage capacity of manure: a) The maximum storage capacity of animal manure and manufactured manure for farms with more than 30 livestock units must not exceed 50 % of the total amount of nitrogen produced and received at the farm in the period from 1 Aug to 31 July. For farms without livestock or farms with less than 30 livestock units, the maximum storage capacity should correspond to the total amount of nitrogen produced and received at the farm in the period from 1 Aug to 31 July. b) Special rules apply for farms that produce eggs for consumption.; 4) Manure storage capacity: a) For properties that have livestock or store manure, slurry tanks must have a capacity which is large enough to ensure that the spreading takes place in accordance with the rules for manure and silage and the harmony rules. Slurry tanks must at least have a capacity that corresponds to 6 months supply. The sufficient storage capacity will usually correspond to 9 months supply (7 months supply for farms with cattle, where at least 2/3 of the livestock units are outside during the summer). b) The supply corresponds to the amount of manure which is produced in the given period (as well as silage juice) based on the assumption that the livestock is kept inside. At stock-taking, manure stored as compost or solid manure can however be deducted. If special conditions apply, for example where the cattle is kept outside for most of the year, the storage capacity must as a minimum correspond to

Report, Page 326 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Policy: Water Policy, Legal Act: Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State the period, where the cattle is kept inside. c) Systems used for keeping of silage water and waste water must have sufficient storage capacity for spreading to be conducted environmentally safe. d) The demand on storage capacity may be met by signing of written agreements on delivery of manure for storage on other estates or delivery for biogas plants, manure treatment plants or manure storage plants, these agreements must have a duration of minimum 5 years. 5) Storage of liquid manure, silage and waste water a) Containers for liquid manure, silage juice and waste water must be built with long-lasting and moist-resistant materials. The containers must have a dimension corresponding to the capacity so that impacts from stirring, covering and emptying can be prevented. b) The requirements also apply to silage containers (with non-juicy silage) constructed after 1 Aug 2004. c) Silage silos must have a bottom which is moist-resistant. d) Storage systems for manure, silage and wastewater should be emptied often enough not to run over e) Containers for liquid manure, silage and waste water must be kept clean and in good condition to avoid decay, to minimize pollution from animal husbandry practises to the aquatic environment.; 6) 'Storage of silage: a) Juicy silage, including silage from sugar beet tops, sugar beet waste and certain types of grass must be stored at a special place for silage (or silage silo). b) The requirements also apply to silage silos build after 1 August 2004 that store non-juicy silage. c) Silage silos must have a bottom which is moist-resistant. They must furthermore be built with long-lasting materials in order to prevent impacts from the contents and from filling and emptying it. They must be organised so that ensilage can only be diverted through drains (created after the same requirements as dung hills). d) Storage systems for silage should be emptied often enough not to run over, on a silage storage site silage must not be placed on the border cover. e) Silage silos and silage sites must be kept clean and in good condition to avoid decay, to minimize pollution from animal husbandry practises to the aquatic environment. Land use management Art. 4 (1) a) On farmland which was used in any year to produce a leafy vegetable crop: a) any further cultivation of that land prior United Kingdom (leavy vegetable crops) to 1st December for that year shall be for autumn sown crops only, b) any preparation of that land for a spring crop (Scotland) shall not commence before 1st December, c) any un-harvested residues of that crop shall be: either removed from the Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ), or incorporated into the soil. Land use management No information 1) Obligation to apply crop rotation; Poland (leavy vegetable crops) available 2) Obligation to cultivate plants with high nitrogen demand after cultivation of leguminous plants. Specific requirements for No specified Art, Farmers shall not use unauthorised substances or illegally imported substances. They must produce a contract with Belgium (Walloon the use of agricultural the supplier specifying that the materials supplied are authorised and not imported. They shall not transfer materials to region) substances third parties without statutory control if such control is required (SI > 1). He shall comply with the ban on the direct discharge of fertilisers and of seepage liquors, including those deriving from stored plant matter, into the subsoil, public sewers or surface waters. Ensure a low soil impact No specified Art, Compliance with administrative obligations: Farmers must ensure that their agricultural holdings have a low soil impact Belgium (Walloon rate of agricultural holdings rate (SI ≤1). Farmers whose holdings do not have low soil impact rates (SI > 1) have an obligation to sign a 'contracts region) de valorisation' [contract regulating the transfer of organic fertilisers and transactions linked to pasture] or to undertake quality controls. Farmers must comply with the statutory obligations set out in the 'contracts de valorisation'. They shall supply the statutory information or whatever is requested by the authorities. Other standards No information 1) Obligation to prepare a training programme (municipal authorities and Regional Agricultural Advisory Centres); Poland ("Education and training") available 2) Obligatory trainings for agricultural advisers; 3) Organisation of training for farmers.

Report, Page 327 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Policy: Water Policy, Legal Act: Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State Other standards Art. 5(5) 1) In areas that are declared as Sensitive areas, farms having more than 10 animal units are obliged to have access to Sweden (“Restricting the maximum a minimum area for spreading of manure, the spreading area. The spreading area limits the number of animals of the number of animals”) farm. The spreading area may be arable fields, or pastureland corresponding to 50 % of the spreading area of the grazing animals of the farm. The spreading area may be extended by contracts with other land-owners that comply with specified standards. The maximum number of animals per hectare spreading area is for milk cows 1.6, suckling cows 2.3, heifers, bulls and steers older than 1 year 4.6, calves less than 1 year 5.8, sheep and goats 15, sows 2.2, pigs 10.5, horses 3, laying hen 100, young hen 250, chicken 470, turkeys, ducks, geese 140, and minks 50. 2) It is forbidden to spread manure or other organic fertilizers from January 1 to February 15. Other standards (“Sowing Art. 5(5) Fallow fields of several years have to be sown with a catch crop. Annual fallows may be uncultivated after harvest the Sweden catch crops on fallow land”) year before the fallow year in some counties; see below. If a catch crop is established in the main crop before the fallow, the farmer is free to choose an annual or several year fallow. The following plants are accepted as catch crops: grass (not cereals), clover, lucerne, vetch, Galega orientalis, Lotus corniculatus, Phacelia tanacetifolia and Sinapsis alba. There must not be more than 30 % of leguminous plant seeds in the sowing. It is also permitted to transfer a ley into a catch-crop. If spreading of weed seeds to neighbour farms can be anticipated, the fallow has to be cut before the seed dispersal. Other standards ("avoiding No information Grassland management has to be carried out in such a way as to avoid overgrazing; this means that the stocking Luxembourg overgrazing") available capacity has to correspond with the potential yield of the pastures, so as to avoid irreversible erosion.

Report, Page 328 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

4.4.4.2 Summary of the national SMRs in the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC)

As can be seen from Table 4.4.4.1.1 above, with the exception of Lithuania57 and Ireland58, all other examined Member States have introduced requirements, which are to a certain extent soil-related, as a result of the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (IEEP, 2006; AMA, 2007; EEA, 2005; MAVRD, 2005; Karaczun and Wasilewski, 2006; SJV, 2006b).

An important category for the SMRs of most countries is that of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs). The definition of these zones, considered a problem-oriented approach, in practice implies that many of the measures are only valid for these particular zones, and not for the whole countryside. The countries have designated their NVZs, the extent of which differs considerably and does not fit the assessment carried out by the EEA. Five countries, though, have designated the entirety of their territory as NVZ: Austria, Denmark, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands. In these countries, then, the SMRs are valid in all the countryside with agricultural activities.

All old Member States, except Italy (where no requirements for the Nitrates Directive have been adopted at the national level yet, but reference to GAECs is given) have adopted rules concerning storage capacity livestock manure (on average most Member States select a 6-months period, Greece 90-180 days) and the maximum amount of nitrogen from livestock manure to be applied (on average 170 kg/ha/year). The Netherlands and Germany have been granted exceptions from this rule for certain areas: while the derogation for the Netherlands is based on certain soil types, the derogation for Germany is based on certain intensive and high vegetative uptake cultivation. However, so it can be said that even an application of 170 kg/ha/year is still high for some soil types (e.g. sandy soils).

For the rules concerning countries like the Czech Republic, Germany or the Netherlands define the land conditions under which fertiliser application is not permitted (frozen, snow cover or water-saturated or flooded soils). Furthermore, neither Greece nor Italy has established any rules concerning periods where application of certain fertiliser is prohibited. The rules concerning periods where application of fertiliser is prohibited refer in some countries to both manure and inorganic fertiliser (UK (England), the Netherlands and France), and in other countries to manure only (e.g. Denmark). Except for Italy, all old Member States have adopted obligatory standards related to the existing code of good farming practice. In most countries the standards of the nitrate directive relevant for CC imply no changes to the existing regulations.

As can be seen in Table 4.4.4.1, there is a high level of detail in the regulations passed in the Member States. Nevertheless, the SMRs aim to diminish the extent and risk of the contamination of surface or groundwater with nitrate. Their positive effect on soil charac- terristics, while definitely there, are only a side-effects. A fine typology with a high degree

57 All requirements from the Nitrates directive were adopted in Lithuanian Law (IEEP, 2006). No detailed information on requirements was available. 58 Standards will be defined to reflect forthcoming legislation (Farmer and Swales, 2004). No detailed information on requirements was available.

Report, Page 329 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report of detail could be set up for the national measures under consideration, but for effects of this study, and for the reasons just explained, a broad classification will suffice.

Thirteen broad groups of measures/requirements can be distinguished in the Member States:

• Measures concerning compliance with the recommendations of fertiliser application, concerning frequency, time, and quantity of applied fertiliser and manner of application, according to type of crop and soil class (e.g. Greece, the Czech Republic, Germany, United Kingdom (England and Scotland), Finland, Belgium, Poland, Sweden).

• Measures concerning the manipulation of manure (e.g. the Netherlands, Denmark, and Finland).

• Measures limiting the total quantity (usually in kg/ha) of nitrate/fertiliser application, usually according to specific time-frames and land use (e.g. Germany, United Kingdom (England), Poland, Finland, Luxembourg).

• Measures limiting the quantity of nitrate/fertiliser application in view of the plant requirements, explicitly based on an evaluation of the availability of nitrogen in the soil (e.g. Luxembourg, United Kingdom (Scotland), Germany)

• Measures limiting/prohibiting fertiliser or manure application in view of geographical characteristics related to hydrology (e.g. at less than 2 m – 10 metres from rivers or water wells, on a field with more than 8 % incline, within “nitrogen-free” zones, etc.) (e.g. France, Austria, Denmark, Germany, United Kingdom (England and Scotland), Poland, Luxembourg, Finland, Belgium (Flemish region)).

• Measures which only allow the application of fertiliser or manure within certain time frames (typically either based on seasons, or on the basis of physical phenomena such as depth of ground ice, water saturation, and depth of snow, or mixing both) (e.g. Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, United Kingdom (England and Scotland), Finland, Poland, Belgium, Sweden, Luxembourg).

• Measures which refer to the storage of manure (typically aiming to avoid its being washed away when flooding occurs, or its leaching to groundwater, as well as ensuring that storage will only occur in facilities designed for this purpose) (e.g. Germany, the Netherlands, Czech Republic, Italy, France, Denmark, United Kingdom (Scotland), Poland, Finland, Belgium, Sweden, Luxembourg).

• Measures which establish an accounting system for the nutrients (fertiliser and manure) applied on the farm or respectively the establishment of fertiliser plans (e.g. Denmark, Germany, Belgium, United Kingdom (Scotland), Poland).

• Measures that refer to an “impact value” for the agricultural holdings; farms which do not comply with low impact values have to implement compensation schemes (e.g. Belgium (Walloon region)).

• Measures that ensure the provision of training for agricultural advisers and farmers (e.g. Poland).

Report, Page 330 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

• Measures which refer to the way in which certain types of crops are produced, to the way the soil is prepared, and to related measures such as crop rotation, etc. (e.g. establishing cut times, ploughing, etc) (e.g. Denmark, Poland, United Kingdom (Scotland)).

• Minimum soil cover during winter, for example, in special areas, where the high nitrate pollution lead to enhanced action plans (Denmark, France).

• Measures that refer to the cultivation of “catch crops” and its implementation (e.g. Sweden, Denmark).

4.4.4.3 Evaluation of the measures under the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC)

The Nitrate Directive is expected to have considerable impact on the soil threat contamination (i.e. eutrophication). The regulations for the application of fertilisers tackle mainly diffuse contamination risks while the requirements on storage capacities focus on local contamination. The most effect to fight the soil threats can be expected in those zones designated as Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ).

As already discussed, the national SMRs that aim to protect waters from nitrate derived from agricultural activities are very varied and have a high degree of detail. The broad classification presented above could be (assuming a certain degree of oversimplification and inaccuracy) again classified in several categories. The first two groups of measures have more general validity than the third group, which is restricted to limited areas such as buffer strips.

- Measures that aim to reduce the (possibility of) transport of applied nitrogen towards water bodies, e.g. through runoff or leaching, typically by restricting the application to certain time periods. (This group includes measures such as those targeting the training of farmers, which typically aim to achieve more efficiency in application of agricultural products.)

- Measures that aim to limit nitrogen availability in the soil, typically by estimating nitrogen requirements of a particular crop and limiting nitrogen application to the necessary amount. (This group of measures also includes those that refer to “catch crops”, which reduce the amount of nitrogen available in the soil, and those that establish nitrogen-accounting systems.)

- Measures that establish a certain (often “nitrogen-free“) barrier zone between watercourses or water wells and areas with nitrogen application.

- Measures targeting minimum soil cover during winter (e.g. in special areas, where the high nitrate pollution lead to enhanced action plans)

The first set of measures aims to avoid nitrogen transport via water towards water bodies, and the actual amount of nitrogen in the soil is irrelevant as long as the conditions will not allow its being flushed away directly. The second set of measures, on the other hand, while also aiming at reducing the possibility of nitrogen transport, approaches the problem

Report, Page 331 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report through reducing to a minimum the amount of nitrogen available to be “leached“. Under ideal circumstances, the first set of measures would reduce the transport of nitrogen towards water bodies, but by ignoring the actual amount of nitrogen present in the soil could still generate its eutrophication (excess of available nutrients), a growing problem in agricultural soils. The second set of measures, on the other hand, would in its approach both avoid nitrogen leaching and avoid having an excess of nutrients in the soil, thus also protecting the soil from the threat of soil contamination. The eutrophication of soils also has a strong impact on soil biodiversity, as well as representing a threat to the water environment.

When considering the measures that address nitrogen application, it is clear that, even though all of these measures aim for forms of application that will reduce nitrogen transport into water bodies, and as such imply limitations to the application of nitrogen on the fields, some measures also provide protection for soil contamination. (These measures, because they most effectively limit nitrogen availability in the soil to the actual crop requirements, are also more effective in avoiding leaching of nitrogen, thus also delivering better protection of the water bodies). The downside of this kind of measures is that they are more complex than other, rule-of-thumb measures, among other things because they often require soil analysis or nitrogen-accounting systems.

The fourth measure might have a positive impact on soil erosion, by preventing or reducing this soil threat.

In conclusion, there is clear potential synergy between the SMRs derived from the Nitrates Directive and soil protection. This potential is basically limited to the threats of soil contamination and biodiversity.

The Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) does not specifically address soil threats. But indirect or direct impacts on soil contamination as well as soil biodiversity might be expected. The requirements for the application of fertilisers and livestock manure tackle mainly diffuse contamination risks (i.e. eutrophication) while the requirements on storage capacities focus on local contamination. Further measures such as minimum soil cover may provide indirect benefits in order to prevent or reduce soil erosion. Zones designated as Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ) should be targeted to prevent such soil threats.

Report, Page 332 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

4.4.5 Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC)

4.4.5.1 Introduction

This section will cover the impact of the Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC) on soil. The Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 requires that Article 3 have to be respected by farmers receiving the direct payments. Annex 5 to this report gives an overview of all statutory management requirements of cross-compliance and their impact on soil protection. The requirements of the relevant SMR in the Sewage Sludge Directive are summarised below:

Article 3:

The use of sewage sludge is regulated differently according to the type of sewage sludge:

• Residual sludge from sewage plants treating domestic or urban waste waters and from other sewage plants treating waste waters of a composition similar to domestic and urban waste waters: the use is regulated in other articles of the Directive.

• Residual sludge from septic tanks and other similar installations for the treatment of sewage: general use in agriculture permitted according to the conditions that the Member States deem necessary for the protection of human health and the environment.

• Residual sludge from sewage plants other than those referred to above: use is only permitted if the Member States regulate the use.

Sewage sludge may only be used in agriculture subject to conditions for the protection of human health and the environment. Such conditions need to be defined by the Member States.

The following Table 4.4.5.1.1 presents how the Member States define these SMRs in their national legislation; and the Chapter 4.4.5.2 summarises this information, giving an overview of national requirements/measures relevant to soil protection.

The Chapter 4.4.5.3 further evaluates each measure/requirement due to what extent does each measure/requirement contribute to prevention or reduction of soil problems.

Report, Page 333 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 4.4.5.1.1: Council Directive 86/278/EEC on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture

Policy: Waste Policy, Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC) Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State

Analysis of sludge and Art. 3(1) + Art. 9, first Obligation on sewage sludge and soils to sample them and respect the norms. Netherlands soil on which it is used paragraph + Annex II B; Art. 3(1) + Art. 9, first Sludge can only be used on agricultural land if the land is tested or assessed in accordance with the requirements of domestic United Kingdom paragraph + Annex II B legislation. (England) Art. 3 (1) first indent Farmers using sludge on their land and the sludge producers are both required to comply with the Sludge (Use in Agriculture) United Kingdom Regulation 1989. These include testing of sludge and soil and withdrawal periods for grazing animals or harvesting of crops. (Scotland) No information available The producers of the sludge are responsible for keeping to the legal requirements on concentrations of metal contaminants in the United Kingdom sludge itself and the soil to which it is applied. (These are summarised in the Defra Leaflet “General Information on the (Wales) Application of Sewage Sludge to Agricultural Land”.) Art. 3(1) + Art. 9, first Government regulation No. 382/2001, § 1 - the need for nutrition input needs to be proved by an analysis of agrochemical Czech Republic paragraph + Annex II B characteristics of the soil. Art. 3(1) + Art. 9, first Only application on soil that has been tested for pH and available nutrients (P, K, Mg) Germany paragraph + Annex II B Art. 3(1) + Art. 9, first Government regulation No. 382/2001, § 1 - the need for nutrition input needs to be proved by an analysis of agrochemical Denmark paragraph + Annex II B characteristics of the soil.

Art. 3 (1) first indent Any farmer who accepts sludge has to know all analysis results and processing methods for the accepted sludge as well as the Finland heavy metal concentrations and pH values for the parcels on which it will be applied. The farmer has to record the use of sludge. No information available Producers of municipal sewage sludge are required to: Poland 1. conduct an analysis of both municipal sewage sludge and soil on which it is supposed to be used; 2. provide the owner of land on which municipal sewage sludge is to be used with the results of the analysis and information on the doses of the sludge that can be applied for respective pieces of land. Art. 3(1) + Art. 9, first Analyses of the soil have to be performed: if there is a risk that the ground has naturally high concentrations of metals, if the Sweden paragraph + Annex II B ground is accidentally polluted, if there are or have been industrial emissions in the neighbourhood. No information available The farmer may only use (spread) sewage sludge after the testing of its quality and of the soil's suitability for the sludge; both Austria have to be documented. Appropriate use of Art. 3(1) + Art. 8, first Law No. 185/2001 Coll., as amended, § 33 - legal and physical persons that are using soil are obliged to use only treated Czech Republic sewage sludge indent sewage sludge with consideration of nutritional needs of plants, while respecting legal obligations, so that the quality of soil and the quality of surface and underground waters would not be deteriorated.

Report, Page 334 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Policy: Waste Policy, Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC) Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State

Art. 3(1) + Art. 8, first The sludge must be used in such a way that account is taken of the nutrient needs of the plants and the quality of the soil and of United Kingdom indent the surface and groundwater is not impaired. The pH value of the soil must not be less than 5. (England) No information available When sludge is applied to land the amount applied should not contain more than 250 kg/ha/year of “total nitrogen”. United Kingdom (Wales) Art. 3(1) + Art. 8, first 1) Nutrients in the sewage sludge have to be included in the nutrient balance (see Nitrates Directive). Germany indent 2) The allowed maximum amount of sewage sludge, that may be applied, might have to be reduced in case the contents of P are higher than necessary for the nutrient needs of the plants, as well taking into account available nutrients in the soil. Art. 3(1) + Art. 8, first Obligation on low-emission utilisation of sludge. Obligation to spread the sewage sludge evenly on the parcel. Netherlands indent Art. 3 (1) seventh indent; 1) Farmers should have a nutrient management plan in place to take into account the nutrient needs of the plants when using Ireland Art. 3 (2) first indent sludge. 2) Sludge must not be used or supplied for use except in accordance with National legislation, i.e. Waste Management. Article 3 (1) seventh The farmer must follow the provisions for sludge targets (allowable plants), times and amounts of spreading (heavy metals, Finland indent nitrogen and phosphorous limits); and record the use of sludge in his or her cultivation ledger.

No information available 1) The sewage sludge must be previously treated by a biologic, chemical or a technical way. Spain 2) The heavy metals concentration in sewage sludge, heavy metals concentration in soils and the limits for heavy metals No information available Sludge can be used upon the following conditions: Poland 1) the sludge has been produced in the course of treatment of sewage from households or municipal sewerage networks or sewage with a similar composition; 2) the sludge undergoes regular analysis; 3) the sludge is stabilised and prepared for the purpose and manner in which it will be used; 4) heavy metal content in sewage sludge should not exceed permissible levels 5) Salmonella-type bacteria have not been identified in the sludge; 6) the number of helminth living eggs: Ascaris sp., Trichuris sp., Toxocara sp. in one kilo of dry matter does not exceed 10; 7) heavy metal content in top soil layer (0-25 cm) on which sewage sludge is to be used does not exceed permissible levels 8) the pH of the soil is not lower than 6.0. 9) the dose of sewage sludge used for agricultural purposes cannot exceed 10 tons of dry matter for a hectare during 5 years. Appropriate use of Art. 3(1) + Art. 8, first 1) No application may be more than a seven-year dose of sewage sludge. Sweden sewage sludge indent 2) It is forbidden to spread more than 245 kg of phosphorous per hectare at each application of sewage sludge on soils of (continued) phosphorous classes I or II, or 154 kg P/ha on soils of P-classes III or IV, counted over a seven-year period. It corresponds to maximum 35 respective 22 kg P per hectare and year by sewage sludge. 3) It is forbidden to spread more than 150 kg ammonium-nitrogen per hectare and year

Report, Page 335 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Policy: Waste Policy, Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC) Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State

No information available 1) Sewage sludge shall not be applied on fields growing fodder or vegetables if they have not been hygienised. Luxembourg 2) Sewage sludge shall only be applied if the regulations regarding hygiene and threshold values for heavy metals are complied with. 3) The application of sewage sludge has to be carried out in such a way as to produce no risk for man, animals and environment. No information available 1) Control of the application of sewage sludge relative to distance to other infrastructure: Portugal a) minimum distance of 100 m to buildings b) minimum distance of 200 m to populated areas, schools, or areas of public interest c) minimum distance of 50 m to works of water abstraction for irrigation d) minimum distance of 100 m to works of water abstraction for drinking water e) minimum distance of 50 m to the water line of sea or navigable waters f) minimum distance of 10 m to margin of water bodies that are non-navigable or sea 2) Control of the application of sewage sludge with respect to the kind of use of the agricultural surfaces and the sludge distribution period. No information available The maximum limits of sewage sludge use have to be complied with. Each of the Laender has different specific requirements for Austria sewage sludge use. Prohibition of sewage Art. 3(1) + Art. 7(a) Prohibition of the use of sewage sludge from 1 September to 31 January. Netherlands sludge use on grassland or forage Art. 3(1) + Art. 7(a) 1) Prohibition of application on permanent grassland. If sewage must only be applied and incorporated deeply into the soil before Germany crops the seeding of forage crops or silage maize. 2) Sewage sludge must not be applied in forest areas, water protection zones and in certain nature conservation areas. Art. 3(1) + Art. 7(a) After sludge or septic tank sludge has been used on agricultural land, do not graze animals or harvest forage crops for three United Kingdom weeks from the date of use. (England) No information available 1) Conventionally treated sludge can only be applied to grazed grassland where it is deep injected into the soil. United Kingdom 2) No grazing or harvesting within 3 weeks of application. (Wales) 3) Where grassland is reseeded, sludge must be ploughed down or deep injected into the soil. 4) Conventionally treated sewage sludge can be applied to the surface of grassland or for forage crops such as maize, which will subsequently be harvested. But there can be NO grazing of that land within the season of application (ie it is not permissible to graze any grass re-growth or aftermath in the season that the sludge was applied).

Art. 3 (1) forth indent Residual sludge from septic tanks may be used on grassland provided that the grassland is not grazed within six months Ireland following such use. Prohibition of sewage Art. 3(1) + Art. 7(a) Sewage sludge must not be used on: pastureland, arable land that will be used for grazing, where ley is going to be harvested Sweden sludge use on grassland within 10 months. or forage crops Art. 3(1) + Art. 7(a) The application of sewage sludge on pastures or on fields growing fodder is forbidden if these pastures or fodder crops will be Luxembourg (continued) harvested within a period of 3 weeks. The amount of sewage sludge applied shall not exceed 3 metric tonnes of dry matter per hectare of fertilised surface.

Report, Page 336 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Policy: Waste Policy, Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC) Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State

Prohibition of sewage Art. 3(1) + Art. 5(1) and 1) Manure purposes, manure planning, manure accounts, manure needs and field planning: a) Waste used for agricultural Denmark sludge use on soil all other Art. purposes must appear in the manure planning/accounts.; b) Waste must only be spread on agricultural lands used for crops with a nitrogen norm or a norm for phosphorus and potassium. On other areas, waste must only be used for crops with nutrient needs.; c) In cases where the user receives an amount of waste which exceeds 10 tonnes of dry matter per year, the user must every year (before 31 March) send a field plan and a map showing the areas where the waste has been spread to the municipal board in the municipality, where he/she lives.; 2) 'Use of waste for agricultural purposes: a) Waste must not be used on areas where there is a risk of run-off to lakes, water courses and drain (in the course of thaws or heavy showers). B) Waste must not be used on areas where there is a risk of ground water pollution. C) Waste must be used according to declarations. 3) Distribution of waste for agricultural purposes: In the period from harvest (no later than 1 September) to 1 February, liquid waste must not be spread. This does not apply to the spreading of liquid waste from harvest to 1 October on areas with fodder grass that stands throughout the winter, and for areas where winter rape is planned that following year. On these areas, liquid waste must be spread (maximum of 50 kg nitrogen per ha). This does furthermore not apply to the spreading of liquid waste from harvest to October 15 on areas with grass seeds for which a contract with a seed producing company has been arranged about the delivery of seeds in the season to come. On these areas, liquid waste must be spread (maximum of 50 kg nitrogen per ha). In the period from 1 September to 1 March, liquid animal waste must not be spread on crops which are not harvested every year. This does not apply to the spreading of liquid waste from harvest to 1 October on areas with fodder grass that stands throughout the year. No more than 3 000 m3 of liquid waste per ha per planning period must be spread (only 1 000 m3 per ha per planning period from 1 Feb to 1 April). Spreading of solid waste must only take place on areas where crops are planned the coming winter in the period from harvest to 20 October.; 4) Restrictions on spreading of animal waste: a) On areas where animal waste is spread, the total supply of nitrogen must not be more than 170 kg (30 kg phosphorus) per ha per year. The phosphorus dosage can be calculated as an average over 3 years. b) No more than 7 tonnes of dry matter per ha per year must be spread (calculated as an average over 10 years). c) If the dosage is calculated as an average over a number of years, the user must every year (no later than 31 March) send a field plan to the municipal board in the municipality, where he/she lives. d) The stated maximum amounts per year must be followed within every planning period. Where the amounts are calculated as an average over 3 or 10 years, the requirements must be followed in every 3/10 year planning period, respectively. e) For waste, which contains more then 75 % animal manure (dry matter content), Regulation no 604 applies instead of the listed requirements. The nitrogen supply by waste must be calculated as in livestock units, so at maximum 100 kg nitrogen equals one livestock unit. 5) Hygienic restrictions on use of animal waste: a) Non-treated waste water sludge must not be used for agricultural purposes. b) Stabilised waste water must not be used on crops produced for consumption. c) Stabilised waste water must be ploughed down within 6 hours. d) Sewage sludge may not be used on crops for consumption. e) On areas, where non-treated waste water sludge has been applied, only crops or seeds as well as grass for industrial production of dried fodder can be cultivated for one year after the application. (Note: The objective for the measure is also used within the other articles of the Sewage Sludge Directive.) Prohibition of sewage Art. 3(1) + Art. 5(1) 1) Wash spraying instruments in a distance larger than 30 metres from water drillings, ditches or aquatic recipients ' (Art. 5, Greece sludge use on soil Directive 80/68/EEC).; 2) Mechanical (not chemical) cleaning of vegetation in irrigation and drainage networks. (Arts. 4 &5, (continued) Directive 80/68/EEC).; 3) Specify and clearly indicate a space for concentration and collection of litter in the holding, where the collection of all pollutant elements and packing of agrochemical is ensured (Arts. 4 &5, Directive 80/68/EEC).

Report, Page 337 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Policy: Waste Policy, Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC) Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State

Art. 3(1) + Art. 5(1) Prohibition of the use of sewage sludge on: a) agricultural land unless the norms are met (after sampling and analysis); b) other Netherlands land that agricultural land or nature reserves. Art. 3(1) + Art. 5(1) 1) Farmer has to own the contract between him and the sewage sludge producer, including all the information required (name of France farmer and sludge producer, addresses, signatures, list of plots concerning by spreading, authorisation or receipt of the declaration of spreading, farmer commitment to spread according to existing rules). 2) The sewage sludge producer has the responsibility to check the compliance with the articles of this directive. (Note: The objective for the measure is also used within the other articles of the Sewage Sludge Directive.) Art. 3(1) + Art. 5(1) Government regulation No. 382/2001, § 3 - on agricultural soil only sludge may be applied that meets the maximum values of Czech Republic concentration of selected hazardous substances and elements in Annex 3 of the regulation (Annex 3 table of values of heavy metals, AOX, PCB). Art. 3(1) + Art. 5(1) Unless the land is a dedicated site (for sludge spreading?) the concentration in the soil of any elements listed in the soil table United Kingdom must not exceed the specified limit either at the time of using sludge or as a result of applying it. (England) Art. 3(1) + Art. 5(1) 1) No application of sewage sludge when concentration of heavy metal exceeds certain levels.; Germany 2) No application of sewage sludge on soils with pH of 5 or smaller, of in case such values are planned to be reached through the management. Art. 3(1) + Art. 5(1) Sewage sludge must not be used on arable land if the ground has a concentration of lead higher than 40, cadmium 0,4, copper Sweden 40, chromium 60 and mercury 0.3 mg/kg dry matter of soil. Prohibition of sewage Art. 3(1) + Art. 7(b) Prohibition of sewage sludge use on soil in which fruit and vegetable crops are growing. Czech Republic sludge use on soil in which fruit and Art. 3(1) + Art. 7(b) No fruit or vegetable crops, other than fruit trees, should be growing or being harvested in the soil at the time of use. UK (England) vegetable crops are growing Art. 3(1) + Art. 7(b) Sewage sludge must not be applied to soil, where vegetables or fruits are grown. Germany Art. 3(1) + Art. 7(b) Sewage sludge must not be used on land where berries, potatoes, root vegetables or vegetables are cultivated. Sweden Art. 3 (1) sixth indent 1) Residual sludge may not be used on soil in which fruit or vegetable crops are growing, with the exception of fruit trees during Belgium the growth period. 2) A period of 10 months must elapse before harvesting when the sludge is used on ground intended for the cultivation of fruit and vegetable crops which are normally eaten raw. Art. 3(1) + Art. 7(b) The application of sewage sludge on fruit and vegetable crops during their growing season is forbidden, with the exception of fruit Luxembourg tree crops. Prohibition of sewage Art. 3(1) + Art. 7c Law No. 185/2001 Coll., as amended, § 33/3 - prohibition on sludge application on land used for growing of field vegetables in Czech Republic sludge use on soil in the year of their growing and in the preceding year. which fruit and vegetable crops are growing Art. 3(1) + Art. 7c After sludge or septic tank sludge has been used on agricultural land, do not harvest fruit and vegetable crops that are grown in United Kingdom and are in direct con- direct contact with the soil and normally eaten raw for ten months from the date of use. (England) tact with the soil

Report, Page 338 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Policy: Waste Policy, Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC) Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State

Art. 3(1) + Art. 7(c) Sewage sludge must not be used 10 months in advance on land that is going to be cultivated with berries, potatoes, root Sweden vegetables or such vegetables that normally are in direct contact with the soil and eaten raw. Art. 3(1) + Art. 7(c) On soils to be used for the cultivation of fruits and vegetables that normally come into direct contact with the soil and whose Luxembourg products are normally consumed raw, the application of sewage sludge is forbidden beginning 10 months before harvest and including the duration of harvest. No information available For vegetables and fruits ( save the trees), the use of sewage sludge is forbidden during the vegetative period or in a harvest Spain period if there are crops in direct contact with the soil. Prohibition of use of Art. 3(2), second indent Prohibition of the use of sewage on a) steep hills (inclination more than 7 %) met traces of erosion deeper than 30 cm.; b) fallow Netherlands residual sludge from land with an inclination of more than 7 %.; c) arable land or fallow land with an inclination of more than 18 %. sewage plants other than those treating Art. 3(2), second indent Application of residual sludge from other treatments than treating domestic, communal or similar waste water on agricultural land Germany domestic or urban is not allowed. waste waters Prohibition of use or Art. 3(1) + Art. 6; Prohibition of application of sewage sludge on wet, submerged, snow-covered or frozen ground. Prohibition of the use of sewage Netherlands appropriate application sludge on wet or flooded land (land saturated with water). of untreated sewage sludge on soil Art. 3(1) + Art. 6 It is prohibited to apply untreated sewage sludge. Germany Art. 3(1) + Art. 6 Law No. 185/2001 Coll., as amended, § 33 - legal and physical persons that are using soil are obliged to use only treated Czech Republic sewage sludge with consideration of nutritional needs of plants, while respecting legal obligations, so that the quality of soil and the quality of surface and underground waters would not be deteriorated. Art. 3(1) + Art. 6 Where any untreated sludge has been used on the land without being injected into the soil, you must, as soon as reasonably United Kingdom practicable afterwards work the sludge into the soil. (England) Art. 3 (1) third indent; 2) Untreated sludge may only be used in agriculture when it is injected or otherwise worked into land. Ireland

Art. 3(1) + Art. 6 Sewage sludge has to be treated before use. If the sludge is worked into the ground within 24 hours, it is, however, permitted to Sweden use also untreated sludge. The treatment has to involve biological, chemical or heating processing, but long-term storing or other methods that significantly reduce the risks of stench and the transmissions of diseases may also be permitted. (Art. 3(1) + Art. 6) Sewage sludge shall not be applied in agriculture if these haven't been treated; this rule is excepted when the sludge is dug or Luxembourg injected into the soil before the sowing or planting.

Report, Page 339 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Policy: Waste Policy, Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC) Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State

Specific rules for the Art. 3(1) + Art. 5(2) 1) Within 3 years the maximum amount of sewage sludge to be applied is 5 t of dry matter/ha. In case of sewage sludge compost Germany use of sewage sludge the amount can be up to 10 t dry matter/ha, if the concentration of heavy metals and certain organic pollutants is not higher than half of the allowed value (values according to the national ordinance).; 2) Not more than this maximum amount may be stored on or near the area, where the sewage sludge is applied.

Art. 3(1) + Art. 5(2) Unless the land is a dedicated site the average annual rate of addition to the land of sludge (in terms of any elements in the United Kingdom sludge table in national legislation) must not exceed the specified limit. In addition, the following information must be supplied to (England) the sludge producer: 1) the address and area of the agricultural unit concerned, 2) the date on which sludge was used, 3) the quantity of sludge used. Art. 3(1) + Art. 5(2); Prohibition of the use of liquid and solid sewage sludge beyond the maximum norm of dry matter per hectare. Prohibition of the Netherlands use of sewage sludge on frozen land or on land covered by snow. Art. 3(1) + Art. 5(2) Government regulation No. 382/2001, § 4 - soil monitoring before the use and in 10-year intervals, § 2 maximum values of Czech Republic hazardous substances. Art. 3(1) + Art. 5(1) NATIONAL LEVEL: Italy 1) Use of treated sewage sludge, suitable for fertilisation purposes and concentration of toxic substances under the limit values indicated in the Legislative Decree n. 99/1992 which adopted the Directive 86/278/EEC. 2) Observance of maximum amount throughout a three-year period in the usage of sewage sludge on/into soils. 3) Authorisation from the Region or other deputed body. 4) Notice of sludge spreading to deputed body within at least 10 days before the starting date. 5) Prohibition of using sewage sludge considered noxious waste following the legislation on waste management. 6) Prohibition of using sewage sludge not considered noxious waste on specific land (high water table ground, steeply sloping ground, and grassland or forage crops within 5 weeks from grazing or harvest period, soil in which fruit and vegetable crops are growing). (Note: The objective for the measure is also used within the other articles of the Sewage Sludge Directive.) Art. 3 (1) first indent If a farmer accepts sewage sludge, the accepted sewage sludge must have been processed with an acceptable method and it Finland must fulfil the hygiene requirements. No information available Definition of volume of heavy metals that can be introduced together with the sewage sludge to the soil. Within a 10-year period, Poland these levels should not exceed the following values: a) lead - 1000 g/ha/year, b) cadmium - 20 g/ha/year, c) chromium - 1000 g/ha/year, d) copper - 1600 g/ha/year, e) nickel - 200 g/ha/year, f) mercury - 10 g/ha/year, g) zinc - 5000 g/ha/year.

No information available In the areas used by the livestock, it is forbidden the use of sewage sludge before three weeks of the livestock date entry. Spain

Report, Page 340 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Policy: Waste Policy, Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC) Measure Art. (Legal act) Description of Measure Member State

Specific rules and Art. 3(1) + Art. 5(2) 1) Sewage sludge must not be used on arable land if it has a concentration of lead higher than 100, cadmium 2, copper 600, Sweden authorisation for the chromium 100 and mercury 2.5 mg/kg dry matter of sludge. use of sewage sludge 2) Sewage sludge must not be used on arable land if the total load from sewage of lead become higher than 25, cadmium 0.75, copper 300, chromium 40 and mercury 1.5 g/ha in average over a seven year period. Art. 3 (1) first + second + 1) Farmers are required to keep up-to-date records containing in particular soil analysis reports and parcel summary forms, which Belgium third indent; they shall fill out every time after spreading sludge and which they shall have countersigned by an agricultural engineer. 2) No usage certificates for residual sludge or authorisations to use it are issued by the FOD Volksgezondheid (federal public health authorities). Transport authorisation is granted by the VLM Mestbank (Flemish Land Agency Manure Bank). 3) The maximum permissible quantity shall not significantly be exceeded. 4) A farmer may only use sludge covered by a valid certificate of use including a federal derogation. He must have a purchase order mentioning that the products are approved. He may not transfer the sludge that he has ordered to third parties or market it. All farmers who use sludge must be identified within the integrated administration and control system, SIGEC, by means of a producer number. Compliance with prohibitions, restrictions and statutory conditions of use Farmers must comply with the provisions imposed by the regulations on sludge, the federal derogation and the regional certificate of use. 5) When sludge is used on grassland or forage crops, a period of 6 weeks must elapse before the grassland may be grazed or the forage crops harvested. Art. 3(1) + Art. 5(2) Sewage sludge shall not be used for agriculture if the concentration of one or more heavy metals higher is higher than the Luxembourg established limit values. No information available It is necessary to have the documents indicating the sewage sludge plant, and some parameters ( sec matter, organic matter, Spain pH, nitrogen, phosphor and heavy metals. Reporting the use of Art. 3 (1) seventh indent Farmers in Nitrate Vulnerable Zones will be expected to record the use of sludge in their Fertiliser and Manure Plan and to United Kingdom sewage sludge observe the relevant closed period, as necessary. (Normally, the treatment of agricultural land with sewage sludge will be (Scotland) supported by professional advice as to the nutrients supplied, timing and method of application etc. Guidance is provided in the PEPFAA code of good practice.) No information available Operators of Sewage Sludge must register with the Environment Agency. United Kingdom (Wales) No information available Both a licence for the application of sewage sludge in agricultural areas, and a register of the date of application and the quantity Portugal of sewage sludge, are required.

Report, Page 341 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

4.4.5.2 Summary of the national SMRs in the Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC)

As evident from Table 4.4.5.1.1 above, all examined Member States with the exception of Lithuania59 have introduced requirements under the Sewage Sludge Directive to a certain extent related to soil protection:

Measure on soil and sewage sludge testing

The requirements of the testing vary from country to country:

• Sludge can only be used if the need for nutrition input is proven by an analysis of agrochemical characteristics of the soil (Denmark, Czech Republic) or after the soil has been tested for pH and available nutrients (P, K, Mg) (Germany and Finland); Germany prescribes that the use of sewage sludge has to be reduced in cases where the contents of P are higher than necessary for the nutrient needs of the plants as well as taking into account available nutrients in the soil. Sweden demands analyses of the soil concerning concentration of metals, accidental pollution or industrial emissions.

• Sludge can only be used after the land has been tested according to requirements of domestic legislation (see United Kingdom and the Netherlands, no specific standard given). Scottish legislation prescribes testing of sludge and soil and withdrawal periods for grazing animals of harvesting of crops.

• Poland requires the producers of municipal sludge to conduct an analysis of both municipal sewage sludge and the soil on which it is supposed to be used. The producers are, moreover, required to provide the owner of the land on which municipal sewage sludge is to be used with the results of the analysis and information on the amount of sludge that can be applied for respective pieces of land.

• Finland requires any farmer who uses sludge to know all analysis results and processing methods for the accepted sludge.

• The United Kingdom and the Czech Republic allow the use of sewage sludge only in cases where the soil is in need of nutrients and where the quality of soil would not be deteriorated.

Measure on restriction of use of sewage sludge, especially on agricultural land • The Netherlands prohibits the use of sewage sludge from 1 September to 31 January on ground intended for grassland and forage crops.

• The Netherlands prescribes an obligation on low-emission utilisation of sludge. An obligation to spread the sewage sludge evenly on the land is mentioned as well.

59 There was no information available, if all requirements from the Sewage Sludge directive were adopted in Lithuanian Law.

Report, Page 342 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

• Animals may not graze and no forage crops may be harvested until three weeks after sludge has been used (United Kingdom, also septic sludge), 6 weeks for Belgium, 10 months for Sweden.

• Prohibition of the use of sewage sludge on wet, submerged, snow-covered or frozen ground as well as on wet or flooded land (Italy).

• Prohibition of sewage sludge in forest areas, water protection zones and in certain nature conservation areas (Germany, as for nature conservation areas also the Netherlands).

• Prohibition of the use of sewage sludge on a.) steep hills (inclination more than 7 % with traces of erosion deeper than 30 cm); b.) fallow land with an inclination of more than 7 %; c.) arable land or fallow land with an inclination of more than 18 % (the Netherlands).

• Restriction on the type of agricultural areas where sewage sludge may be used (e.g. only in areas used for crops with a nutrient needs) (Denmark).

• No application of sewage sludge on soils with pH lower than 5 in United Kingdom and lower than 6 in Poland.

Measure on prohibition of use of sewage sludge where fruit and vegetable crops are growing • Outright prohibition (the Czech Republic and Germany).

• No fruit or vegetable crops, other than fruit trees, should be growing or harvested in the soil at the time of sludge use (United Kingdom).

• Sewage sludge may not be used on land where berries, potatoes, root vegetables or vegetables are cultivated (Sweden).

Measure on prohibition of use of sewage sludge on ground intended for fruit and vegetable crops which are normally in direct contact with the soil and normally eaten raw • Prohibition in the year of growing and the preceding year (the Czech Republic).

• After sludge or septic tank sludge has been used on agricultural soil no such fruits should be harvested ten months after the use (United Kingdom, Sweden, Belgium for sludge); United Kingdom also for septic tank sludge.

• Sewage sludge may not be used on land 10 months before its is cultivated with berries, potatoes or root vegetables or such vegetables which are normally in direct contact with the soil and eaten raw (Sweden).

Report, Page 343 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Measure on limitation of values of hazardous substances (e.g. heavy metals) in the sewage sludge • On agricultural soil only sludge may be applied that meets the maximum values of concentration of selected hazardous substances and elements in the national regulations (the Czech Republic, United Kingdom).

• In Finland and Poland the sewage sludge used in farming, must have been processed (stabilised) with an acceptable method and must fulfil the hygiene requirements. Poland demands that salmonella-type bacteria have not been identified in the sludge.

• Sweden forbids spreading more than 245kg of phosphorous per hectare at each application of sewage sludge or soils of phosphorous classes I or II or 154 kg P/ha on soils of P-classes III or IV, counted over a seven-year period. It corresponds to maximum 35 respective 22 kg P per hectare and year by sewage sludge. It is forbidden to spread more than 150 kg ammonium-nitrogen per hectare and year. Sewage sludge may not be used on arable land if it has a concentration of lead higher than 100, cadmium 2, copper 600, chromium 100 and mercury 2.5 mg/kg dry matter of sludge. Sewage sludge must not be used on arable land if the total load from sewage of lead become higher than 25, cadmium 0.75, copper 300, chromium 40 and mercury 1.5 g/ha in average over a seven-year-period.

Measures on documentation of sewage sludge use • In Ireland farmers should have a nutrient management plan in place to take into account the nutrient needs of plants when using sludge. Sludge must not be used or supplied except in accordance with national legislation.

• In Belgium farmers are required to keep up-to-date records containing in particular soil analysis reports and parcel summary forms, which they shall fill out every time after spreading sludge and which they shall have countersigned by an agricultural engineer. In Belgium a farmer may only use sludge covered by a valid certificate of use. All farmers who use sludge must be identified within the integrated administration and control system, SIGEC.

• In UK (Scotland) farmers in the Nitrate Vulnerable Zones will be expected to record the use of sludge in their Fertiliser and Manure Plan and to observe the relevant closed period, as necessary.

• In Finland the farmers must follow the provisions for sludge targets (allowable plants), times and amounts of spreading (heavy metals, nitrogen, and phosphorous limits); and record the use of sludge in their cultivation ledger.

• In France a contract has to be formed between the farmer and sewage sludge producer, documenting all information required. The sewage sludge producer has the responsibility to check the compliance with the articles of the Sewage Sludge Directive.

Report, Page 344 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Measure on use of untreated sewage sludge • Outright ban (Germany, Denmark and the Czech Republic).

• Obligation to work the sludge into the soil immediately where any untreated sludge has been placed on the land without being injected into the soil (United Kingdom, Ireland).

• Sweden allows the use of untreated sewage sludge only if the sludge is worked into the ground within 24 hours. The treatment has to involve biological, chemical or heating processing but long-term storing or other methods that significantly reduce the risks of stench and the transmissions of diseases are also permitted.

Measure on quantity of sludge allowed to be used on the soil Maximum values for sewage sludge in Germany, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Italy, Belgium and Poland. In Germany: the following limits are given: within 3 years 5 tons of dry sludge/ha (sewage sludge compost up to 10t) if the concentration of heavy metals and certain organic pollutants is not higher than half of the allowed value (values according to the national ordinance). In Poland the sewage sludge may not exceed 10 tons of dry matter per hectare during 5 years.

4.4.5.3 Evaluation of the measures under the Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC)

The following measures are analysed in more detail.

Measure on soil and sewage sludge testing The analysed countries explicitly demand the testing of soil before sewage sludge is used. The results of the tests should yield an indication whether the soil is in need of nutrients or not. Germany, e.g. prescribes the testing for P, K, Mg and pH. The quantity of sewage sludge to be used is related to the need of P. The United Kingdom and the Czech Republic allow the use of sewage sludge only in cases where the soil is in need of nutrients and where the quality of soil would not be deteriorated.

The measure is highly relevant for soil protection through the prior identification of the nutrient needs of the soil. Sewage sludge has generally a high proportion of readily available nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus and, to a lesser extent, potassium and sulphur) and therefore it can substitute to some extent mineral fertilisation. Through the restriction of the application rates the correct supply of nutrients, avoiding leaching and run off of N and accumulation of P in soil, is guarantied. With this measure the diffuse soil contamination can be prevented.

Report, Page 345 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Measure on restriction of use of sewage sludge, especially on agricultural land The general bans of use of sewage sludge in particular areas (e.g. steep hills (Netherlands), wet land (Italy)), aim at excluding the risk of N leaching and diffusion of the hazardous contents of sewage sludge. This measure has a relevant effect on soil protection as it acts against diffuse soil contamination. The ban of the use of sewage sludge in nature conservation areas prevents the addition of harmful substances to these areas and also acts against soil contamination.

The temporary ban on use of sewage sludge on grassland (where animals graze) and where forage crops are harvested rather serves purposes of animal and consumer protection and thus only have an indirect effect on soil protection (acting against soil contamination).

Measure on prohibition of use of sewage sludge where fruit and vegetable crops are growing The measures on the use of sewage sludge on grazing land or on agricultural land growing certain crops or fruits/vegetables are to a lesser extent related to soil protection than to hygienic considerations or the protection of consumers and animals. Thus, the ban is only indirectly relevant for soil protection.

Measure on prohibition of use of sewage sludge on ground intended for fruit and vegetable crops which are normally in direct contact with the soil and normally eaten raw See preceding paragraph.

Measure on limitation of values of hazardous substances (heavy metals, etc.) in the sewage sludge On agricultural soil only sludge may be applied that meets the maximum values of concentration of selected hazardous substances and elements in the national regulations (the Czech Republic, United Kingdom). This regulation is highly relevant for prevention and reductions of diffuse soil contamination with heavy metals as it limits the introduction of heavy metal elements into the soil via sewage sludge. In addition, in soils contaminated by heavy metals, the ratio of the resistant and sensitive bacteria increases. The metal-resistant bacteria are much less effective in the decomposition of a number of organic pollutants than the trace elements sensitive bacteria (Kubat, 2003).

Measures on documentation of sewage sludge use The documentation of sewage sludge use and the documentation of the nutrient needs of the soil is highly relevant for soil protection (to prevent or reduce soil contamination), although only indirectly. The documentation helps the farmers and authorities to gain insight into the quantity and type of sewage sludge used on the agricultural land and to track sewage sludge use and the developing nutrient needs of the soil (for example Belgium) and thus supports the compliance with and the enforcement of the Sewage Sludge legislation.

Report, Page 346 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Measure on ban of untreated sewage sludge on agricultural land The ban on the use of untreated sewage sludge (e.g. the Czech Republic, Denmark and Germany) is reflected by the requirement of a treatment of the sewage sludge. This has different purposes. The first is to eliminate germs, pathogens and weeds via a hygienic stabilisation (sanitation) of sewage sludge. In addition, the treatment processes ensure that stabilisation of organic matter are achieved, resulting in good quality sludge and therefore in crop and soil protection (against decline in soil organic matter).

Measure on maximum quantity of sludge allowed to be used on the soil in relation with heavy metal content in soil There are maximum quantities of sewage sludge allotted on soil in relation with the concrete heavy metal contents in the soil (Germany, Italy, the Czech Republic, Netherlands, Belgium, Poland and Sweden). For Germany these quantities are 5 tons of dry sludge/ha within three years (sewage sludge compost up to 10t) if the concentration of heavy metals and certain organic pollutants is not higher than half of the allowed value (values according to the national ordinance). This measure is highly relevant for soil protection as it prevents the accumulation of heavy metals (soil contamination with heavy metals) exceeding the limit values in the soil via sewage sludge.

From the environmental SMRs under the cross-compliance, the Sewage Sludge Directive is the most relevant directive for soil protection. Several countries established standards for the quantity/quality and content of the sewage sludge that can be used on agricultural land as well as specific application rules (which are some times quite similar to those for the Nitrate Directive, e.g. no application during frozen, snow covered or water saturated soil). Particularly effective seems the approach to analyse the soil for its capacities to keep nutrients to avoid eutrophication and leaching.

Sewage sludge is an organic amendment with a fertiliser value, which can add nutrients to soil and increase soil organic matter content and improving the biodiversity in the soil. This leads to improved soil quality and decreased sensitivity to erosion or compaction. In turn, the use of sewage sludge can also have a contaminating effect on soil. As the sludge may contain high amounts of heavy metals and other hazardous materials, this may lead to phyto-toxicity and environmental deterioration of the soil.

The Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC) is highly relevant for soil protection, as the provisions on appropriate management and application of sewage sludge tackle the problem of soil organic matter decline and prevent or reduce diffuse soil contamination. In addition, positive impacts may be expected on soil biodiversity, preventing soil erosion and compaction.

The impact of the Directive is limited to the agricultural and forestry land on which sludge is spread.

Report, Page 347 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

4.5 Summarised evaluation of SMRs

The summarised evaluation of SMR will focus on answering the questions provided in the methodology section on Cross Compliance. This comprises questions 1, 5, 6, 7. More detailed information is given in the previous chapters, which focus on each environmental directive separately.

The extent to which soil relevant SMRs can contribute to prevent or reduce soil threats depends on the level of their implementation. In addition, most requirements set under the five Environmental Directives have only indirect impacts on soil protection which makes is difficult to evaluate the extent of contribution.

What statutory management requirements (SMRs) can be expected to contribute to preventing soil threats? To what extent can they contribute to preventing or reducing soil degradation processes? (Question 1)

Measures for soil protection do not figure highly in the SMRs. From the relevant articles in the 19 directives listed in the Annex III of Regulation No 1782/2003, the five Directives setting environmental protection standards are those that are at least partially relevant to the protection of soil and can to a certain extent contribute to preventing soil threats60, in particular, local and diffuse soil contamination and decline in soil organic matter. Moreover, impacts on soil compaction, soil erosion and soil biodiversity might be expected.

Out of the five environmental directives, the Sewage Sludge Directive and the Nitrates Directive can have a significant impact in mitigating and/or avoiding the risk of diffuse and local contamination of soils (for sludge, only on those soils which is spread). However, only the Sewage Sludge Directive addresses soil protection issues directly. Also, the Groundwater Directive may have indirect impacts on local and diffuse soil contamination due to the provision to prohibit any discharge of certain dangerous substances and due to the close link between groundwater and soils.

All the other directives have primarily different scopes but are expected to have positive side effects/indirect effects in preventing soil threats. Reduced land use intensity to protect the concerned species and habitats in protected areas can be expected due to the Habitat and Wild Birds Directives. Therefore these Directives may have side effects on soil compaction, soil erosion, soil structure and loss of soil biodiversity. Thus, there is an indirect contribution to preventing these soil threats, although the designated areas are in most cases not those that are characterised by high levels of soil degradation. The concrete contribution of the Habitats Directive to soil conservation depends on the existing management plans.

Are there any requirements (SMRs) or standards (GAECs) which may be expected to contribute to the prevention of local and diffuse contamination of soils? To what extent can such standards contribute to preventing or reducing soil contamination? (Question 5)

60 Annex 5 provides an overview of all the SMRs of cross-compliance and their most significant impact on soil protection.

Report, Page 348 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Soil contamination is the most often addressed soil threat by the statutory management requirements. Three out of the five environmental Directives, the Sewage Sludge, Nitrates and Groundwater Directives will contribute to a certain extent to the prevention of local and diffuse contamination of soils. While the Sewage Sludge Directive addresses the diffuse soil contamination issue directly, the Nitrates Directive might contribute to this problem in most cases only indirectly. The Groundwater Directive also addresses the local soil contamination issues mainly indirectly.

Are there any requirements (SMRs) or standards (GAECs) which will contribute to preventing or minimising a loss of soil biodiversity? To what extent can such standards contribute to preventing or reducing soil biodiversity loss? (Question 6)

There is no measure indicated under the statutory management requirements that would directly contribute to preventing or minimising a loss of soil biodiversity. However, it can be assumed that the measures under the SMRs, in particular the Sewage Sludge Directive, if applied correctly, might indirectly contribute to preventing or reducing soil biodiversity loss as a side effect.

Are there any requirements (SMRs) or standards (GAECs) which may be expected to contribute to combating soil salinisation? To what extent can such standards contribute to preventing or reducing soil salinisation? (Question 7)

No statutory management requirements could be find contributing to combat soil salinisation.

In conclusion, only indirect and minor effects can be expected from the SMRs under Cross Compliance, with the exception of the Sewage Sludge Directive and the Nitrates Directive, which can have more significant impacts on soil. In particular diffuse soil contamination and decline in organic matter content are addressed. Moreover, impacts on soil compaction, soil erosion and soil biodiversity might be expected. There may also be an indirect positive impact on local soil contamination reduction through the Groundwater Directive. The Habitats and Wild Birds Directives may have side effects on soil compaction, soil erosion and loss of soil biodiversity. The concrete contribution of the Habitats Directive to soil conservation depends on the existing management plans.

Report, Page 349 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

5 UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION TO COMBAT DESERTIFICATION (UNCCD)

5.1 Background

The aim of the “Convention to Combat Desertification in Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and / or Desertification, particularly in Africa”61 adopted in June 1994 and entered into force on 26th of December 1996, is to prevent and reduce land degradation, rehabilitate partly degraded land and reclaim partly desertified land.

In 2002, at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, it was agreed that the Global Environment Facility (GEF) should be responsible for the provision and mobilisation of financial resources for the effective implementation of the UNCCD. Regular national and regional conferences take place in order to move the process forward.

Desertification is the degradation of land in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas. It is caused primarily by human activities and climatic variations. Land degradation means the reduction or loss of the biological and economic productivity and complexity of irrigated and non-irrigated agricultural land, pastures, rangeland, forest and woodland.

The drivers of desertification always include both the human and the biophysical factors. Neither dimension can be regarded as the sole triggering factor. Land management practices and land use changes leading to overgrazing, deforestation, forest fires, overexploitation of water resources, and secondary salinisation are among the most recognized causes of land degradation and desertification (United Nations, 1994; Van-Camp et al., 2004). Combating desertification includes activities which are part of the integrated development of land in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas for sustainable development which are aimed at: - prevention and/or reduction of land degradation; - rehabilitation of partly degraded land; and - reclamation of desertified land.

Reporting requirements In the European region, countries can be separated into three categories regarding their status within the UNCCD process (UNCCD secretariat, 2007):

1) Affected Recipient countries (for example Albania, Georgia). These countries prepare a National Action Programme and report on activities as affected countries (national reports). None of the 27 European Union Member States is a Recipient country.

61 United Nations, 1995: United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Treaty Series, vol. 1954, p. 3; and depositary notification C.N.176.1995.TREATIES-6 of 27 July 1995.

Report, Page 350 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

2) Affected Developed countries. These donor countries prepare a National Action Programme and report on activities as affected countries (national reports). 12 of the 27 European Union Member States declared themselves as affected countries (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Hungary, Italy, Greece, Latvia, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain) and as such prepared national reports as affected countries to the UNCCD. In addition to the EU, we have in the European region Turkey as an OECD country and the Federation of Russia which are developed and affected.

3) Non-affected Developed countries The EU countries Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, UK considered themselves as not being affected, but they are acting as donor countries.

All developed countries from the European region are requested by the UN to report (regardless of whether they are affected or not) on their financial assistance activities (if any) as developed countries to support worldwide the activities of implementation of the UNCCD in eligible affected recipient countries. Of the 27 EU Member States, 17 delivered developed national country reports on their donor activity within the framework of the UNCCD (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, Spain, UK). The European Community also submitted a report being the only organization Party to the UNCCD. Several other developed countries from the European region also provided reports as developed countries regarding their funding activities (Liechtenstein, Monaco, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey). Serbia and Estonia are not yet Parties of the UNCCD. Montenegro just acceded to the UNCCD (UNCCD secretariat, 2007).

The decision if a country is affected is judged by the countries themselves.

It is important to notice that the UNCCD reporting is based on an international agreement and not on legal requirements at the EU level as the reports of the Water Framework Directive and the regulation of standards under Cross Compliance. The UNCCD does not set up mandatory aims, criteria for assessments, and does not provide a time schedule. According to the lack of an obligatory time schedule, the participating countries actually keep a different level of implementation due to their date of accession to the UNCCD. Therefore the content and the quality of the UNCCD reports vary considerably and depend on the actual level of implementation, and if a UNCCD country has already reported on measures mitigating desertification until now. The preparation of the UNCCD national reports is under the responsibility of the National Focal Points in the Member States. Because of the different kinds of ministries to which the Focal Points belong, the Focal Point is supported by different political powers and so the (financial) resources available for preparing the report vary widely.

Against this background, until now most of the reports reflect the situation in the countries from a high level perspective and without much detail. It has to be pointed out

Report, Page 351 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

that: When a report doesn't mention information, it could be that the information has been forgotten or that the National focal point did not have the information, or that the information was not considered to be interesting enough to mention62.

Several reporting cycles and meetings have been held so far. The 8th session of the conference of the parties to the UNCCD (COP-8) was held on the 3rd – 14th of September 2007. Within this conference a review of reports and activities and the programme and budget for the biennium 2008-2009 have been discussed.

The participating countries meet in the ‘Conferences of the Parties’ (COP) and in subsidiary bodies, such as the ‘Committee for the Review of the Implementation of the Convention’ (CRIC) at a regular basis. For these sessions the countries compile national reports. In these reports the countries report on the adoption of their NAPs and on their progress in combating desertification.

Affected recipient and affected developed countries prepare National Action Programmes (NAP)63. The National Action Programmes are the key instruments in the implementation of the Convention (see box below). They are strengthened by Action Programmes on Sub-regional (SRAP) and Regional (RAP) levels. National Action Programmes are developed within the framework of a participative approach involving the local communities and they spell out the practical steps and measures to be taken to combat desertification in specific ecosystems.

The purpose of National Action Programmes is to identify the factors contributing to desertification and practical measures necessary to combat desertification and mitigate the effects of drought. According to the annexes IV and V of the UNCCD Convention, National Action Programmes shall specify the respective roles of government, local communities and land users and the resources available and needed. They shall, inter alia:

a) Incorporate long-term strategies to combat desertification and mitigate the effects of drought, emphasize implementation and be integrated with national policies for sustainable development; b) Allow for modifications to be made in response to changing circumstances and be sufficiently flexible at the local level to cope with different socio-economic, biological and geo-physical conditions; c) Give particular attention to the implementation of preventive measures for lands that are not yet degraded or which are only slightly degraded; d) Enhance national climatological, meteorological and hydrological capabilities and the means to provide for drought early warning; e) Promote policies and strengthen institutional frameworks which develop cooperation and coordination, in a spirit of partnership, between the donor community, governments at all levels, local populations and community groups, and facilitate access by local populations to appropriate information and technology; f) Provide for effective participation at the local, national and regional levels of nongovernmental organizations and local populations, both women and men, particularly resource users, including farmers and pastoralists and their representative organizations, in policy planning, decision-making, and implementation and review of national action programmes; and g) Require regular review of, and progress reports on, their implementation.

62 Information of personal communication with UNCCD secretariat 63 The term “National Action Plan” does not exist; there are only ‘National Action Programmes”’ (Information of personal communication with UNCCD secretariat). However, some countries use the term ‘National Action Plan’ in their reporting.

Report, Page 352 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

National Action Programmes may include, inter alia, some or all of the following measures to prepare for and mitigate the effects of drought:

a) Establishment and/or strengthening, as appropriate, of early warning systems, including local and national facilities and joint systems at the subregional and regional levels, and mechanisms for assisting environmentally displaced persons; b) Strengthening of drought preparedness and management, including drought contingency plans at the local, national, subregional and regional levels, which take into consideration seasonal to interannual climate predictions; c) Establishment and/or strengthening, as appropriate, of food security systems, including storage and marketing facilities, particularly in rural areas; d) Establishment of alternative livelihood projects that could provide incomes in drought prone areas; and e) Development of sustainable irrigation programmes for both crops and livestock.

Guidelines for affected countries in the European region

The annexes IV and V of the UNCCD Convention provide guidelines and arrangements necessary for the effective implementation of the Convention in affected country Parties of the Northern Mediterranean region (annex IV) and the Central and Eastern European region (annex V) in the light of their particular conditions:

Northern Mediterranean (EU-MS Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain) As described by the UNCCD, Mediterranean land degradation is often linked to poor agricultural practices. Soils become salinised, dry, sterile, and unproductive in response to a combination of natural hazards - droughts, floods, forest fires - and human-controlled activities, notably overtilling and overgrazing. The situation has been aggravated by the recent social and economic crisis in traditional agriculture and the resulting migration of people from rural to urban areas. The result is abandoned land, particularly on marginal and easily eroded hillsides, and weakened agricultural planning and land management. The modern economy is also contributing to the problem. Fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation, contamination by heavy metals, and the introduction of exotic (invasive) plant species is undermining the long-term health of the region‘s soils. Physical changes imposed on watercourses by the construction of reservoirs, the canalization of rivers, and the drainage of wetlands are affecting land quality. Meanwhile, groundwater levels are declining widely, resulting among other things in salt-water intrusion into coastal aquifers. Some 80 percent of the region‘s available freshwater is used for irrigation.

Report, Page 353 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Central and Eastern Europe (EU-MS Hungary, Latvia, Slovak Republic, Bulgaria, Romania) Land degradation/desertification and drought affect some parts of central and eastern regions of the European Community, as the climate here is dry or subhumid. The level of soil degradation is high throughout much of Central and Eastern Europe, and very high in some parts, for example along the Adriatic. While wind is not a major factor in soil erosion, water-induced erosion is considered to be medium to very high in many countries. As described by the UNCCD, a major concern is the crisis in agriculture due to soil depletion in arable lands and to other stresses. Inappropriate irrigation and the unsustainable exploitation of water resources are contributing to chemical pollution, salinisation and the exhaustion of aquifers. Deforestation, due to pollution stress and frequent forest fires, also remains a serious problem.

Guidelines are given inter alia on the obligation of National Action Programmes and further subregional Programmes as appropriate including recommendations for the implementation (e.g. designation of coordinative bodies, involving affected parties, surveying the state of environment), the integration of National Action Programmes into the strategic framework for sustainable development, and the content of national Action Programmes in the Northern Mediterranean (e.g. water management, soil conservation, fire protection, research, public awareness). Contents of National Action Programmes in Eastern and Central Europe are not outlined in annex V.

Country information

Three affected countries in the European Union - Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Romania64 - have already adopted and published National Action Programmes (NAP). They also provide national reports in accordance to the reporting requirements.

The other affected Member States – Cyprus, Hungary, Latvia, Malta, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, and Bulgaria65 - are still developing their National Action Programmes. In their national reports, they submit information about measures already taken to mitigate desertification as well as measures planned within the framework of the NAP.

Lithuania and Poland are officially not affected and do not prepare National Action Programmes. But they are reporting main problems regarding land degradation and the current status of the UNCCD counteracting drought and mitigation its effects at the national level.

64 Romania is not a topic of this study. 65 Bulgaria is not a topic of this study.

Report, Page 354 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

As described above, the other EU countries (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden, UK) considered themselves as not being affected and do not prepare an NAP. They are not reporting on UNCCD implementation at their national territory. Estonia is not Party of the UNCCD yet.

The Table 5.1.1 gives an overview of the level of implementation and provides general country information on the UNCCD implementation. The table is structured according to the status of the country (affected/not affected) and the level of implementation (NAP adopted / NAP in preparation).

Report, Page 355 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 5.1.1: Status and level of implementation of the UNCCD in the participating EU Member States

MS Country information Greece signed the Desertification Convention on October 14th, 1994 and ratified it on March 6th, 1997. The Ministry of Agriculture, complying with the mandate of the UNCCD, which has been ratified by the Parliament, delegated the Greek National Committee for Combating Desertification to prepare the respective National Action Plan. Greece has delivered three reports so far: - COP3/4 report (2000) in the 1st reporting cycle (Greek National Committee for Combating Desertification, 2000); - In 2001, the National Action Programme (NAP) was outlined and described (Greek National Committee for Combating Desertification, 2001); - CRIC 1 report (2002) in the 2nd reporting cycle in (Greek National Committee for Combating Desertification, 2002) . In CRIC 1 report, Greece described the continued implementation of the UNCCD through the acceptance of the National Action Programme (NAP) for combating

Greece desertification by the Government and the publication in the Government’s Gazette of the Common Ministerial Decision (CMD), which instructs the public services and the stakeholders to implement it. The CMD contains guidelines for the creation of the required agencies and the application of policies and measures described in the NAP. The Greek National Committee for Combating Desertification (GNCCD) is responsible for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the NAP. The Committee is responsible for collecting and evaluating information relative to desertification. The data sources are the relevant services of Ministries, research foundations, regional authorities’ services, NGOs, other governmental organizations and committees. Funding difficulties have slowed down the performance of the Committee during 2001. Italy ratified the UNCCD on June 4, 1997 becoming a country Party as both an affected and a donor country. Italy has a large economy and a population of 57 million, concentrated on a relatively small territory, with strong regional disparities. High densities lead to strong environmental pressures which, together with the diversity and sensitivity of Italy’s natural patrimony and its important cultural heritage, have made environmental protection a matter of serious public concern. Italy has delivered four reports so far: - National Action Programme to Combat Drought and Desertification (1999) approved by the National Committee to Combat Drought and Desertification (Italian Committee to Combat Drought and Desertification, 1999). - COP 3/4 report (2000) in the 1st reporting cycle: National Report of Italy on the Implementation of the UNFCCD (Italian Committee to Combat Desertification, 2000). - CRIC 1 report (2002) in the 2nd reporting cycle: Italy National Report (Ministry of Environment and Territorial Protection of Italy, 2002). - CRIC 5 report (2006) in the 3rd reporting cycle: Italy National Report (Ministry of Environment and Territory of Italy, 2006). The Italian UNCCD reports (Ministry of Environment and Territorial Protection of Italy, 2002 and Ministry of Environment and Territory of Italy, 2006) provide Affected country / NAP adopted / NAP adopted country Affected information on strategies and priorities established within the framework of sustainable development plans and policies as well as information on measures taken or Italy planned within the framework of National Action Programmes. On 21 December 1999, with Resolution 229/99, the Inter-Ministerial Committee for Economic Programming (CIPE) approved the National Programme to Combat Drought and Desertification (Italian Committee to Combat Drought and Desertification, 1999). A working group is established within the VI Commission on Sustainable Development of this Committee, consisting of representatives of the National Committee to Combat Drought and Desertification. The working group’s co-ordinator participates in meetings of the Sustainable Development Commission on the topic. The Ministries of the Treasury, Budget and Economic Planning, the Environment, Industry, Transport, Public Works, Scientific Research, Agricultural and Forestry Policies, Foreign Affairs, and Foreign Trade send to the Sustainable Development Commission and the National Committee to Combat Desertification an outline of the resources allocated in the ordinary budgets of each ministry involving soil protection; sustainable management of water resources; reduction of the impact of productive activities; land restoration; and information, training and research A process of reviewing CIPE Resolution 229/99 (i.e. the NAP) might be soon established. Regarding financial allocation for NAP funding, IMET attributed to the NCCDD € 1 million for the year 2004 and € 1 million for the year 2005 for programs and project supporting the implementation of the NAP. Funds for field activities have to be made available at local level.

Report, Page 356 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

MS Country information

Portugal ratified the Convention on the 15th October 1996. It has delivered four reports so far: - The National Action Programme (NAP) to Combat Desertification in Portugal was outlined and described in 1999. (Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries of Portugal, 1999). The general objectives of the NAP are Soil and water Conservation (Axis 1); Keeping working-age population in rural areas (Axis 2); Recovery of areas most threatened by desertification (Axis 3); Awareness of the population of the desertification problem (Axis 4); and Making the fight against desertification an integral part of general and sectorial policies (Axis 5). - COP3/4 report (2000) in the 1st reporting cycle (Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries of Portugal, 2000): This first national report reflects to a large extent the process of implementation of the Portuguese National Action Programme for Combating Desertification and gives a brief overview of the current soil problems. - CRIC 1 report (2002) in the 2nd reporting cycle: National Report on the Implementation of the Convention to Combat Desertification in Portugal (Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries of Portugal, 2002). This report describes the continued implementation of the UNCCD through the acceptance of the National Action Programme (NAP) for combating desertification by the Government. The report contains strategies and priorities established under the plans and/or policies for sustainable development, institutional measures taken to implement the Convention and indicators for the monitoring of the desertification process. - CRIC 5 (2006) report in the 3rd reporting cycle (Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries of Portugal, 2006): This Report describes the continued implementation of the UNCCD through the acceptance of the National Action Programme (NAP) for combating desertification by the Government. The report follows the same structure as the second report does. Portugal The NAP elaboration process occurred between December 1997 and June 1998. The NAP was approved by the Government on the 17th of June 1999, Resolution of Cabinet number 69/99. The National Co-ordinating Body of NAP, created by Ministerial Dispatch number 979/99 of 19/10/1999, took a year to be established and had its first meeting on June 19th, 2000. Nowadays it has regular meetings and has five Regional Sub-commissions. The NAP is the result of widespread participation by agents involved and interested in the question of desertification, above all from the regions most affected, in strict compliance with the spirit of the Convention to Combat Desertification. It is in this context that the NAP should be understood as a tool offering guidance for action, especially bearing in mind its Affected country / NAP adopted / NAP adopted country Affected objectives when formulating measures and policy instruments for sustainable economic and social development. Portugal has several plans and sectoral strategies concerted with a sustainable development. It is necessary to ensure coherence between them. There is no specific financing fund for the application of UNCCD. Public financing under the programs for regional, rural and environment development might support the activities. Nineteen indicators are under analysis covering parameters like: soil, climate/water, vegetation and, land and land resources management, leading to further selection of the necessary indicators for the monitoring of the desertification process with up dates every ten years. The main problems are, e.g. the constant flow of population to the cities, especially the cities along the coastal strip, that cause serious problems both at the source of the moving population and their destination: abandoned land in the country, with its attendant effects on natural resources and the landscape, and overpopulation in the cities, which has direct consequences on ecological balance, biodiversity and the environment.

Report, Page 357 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

MS Country information

Since Romania’s political shift in 1990, ongoing political, economical and social changes are suported by a number of national strategies, plans and programs which sometimes are ambitious and overlapping in scopes, but as a general rule they all are approaching the conciliation of economical development and social needs with environment protection, and recognizes the need of conservation and sustainable management of natural resources, while a current reform of the public administration is implemented. Main national approaches relevant for drought, land degradation and desertification, sometimes within larger frames of development, agriculture, forestry, land use policies and other framework, are: National Sustainable Development Strategy, Program for the implementation of National Plan for Poverty Combat and the Promotion of Social Inclusion, National Program for Agriculture and Rural Development, National Development Plan 2007-2013, National Program for Environmental Protection (2000), National Action Plan for Environmental Protection, Regional Environmental Action Plans and Local Environmental Action Plans, National Strategy on the Flooding Risk Management, 2005, National program for the rehabilitation of pastures for 2005-2008, Policy and strategy of development of forestry sector in Romania (2001-2010). National Strategy and the Action Program to Combat Drought, Land Degradation and Desertification (NAP) is the strategic national document that states the issues and dimension of drought, land degradation and desertification in Romania. It was elaborated in 2000 and approved at the time at ministerial level. The document Romania reveals the issue and necessity to systematic approach of drought and land degradation phenomenona at national level. NAP was organized in several axis, that comprise several targeted actions needed to enhance the implementation of the Convention: legislation improvement; institutional development; human resources; development of the scientific basis for research, planning and information; rural development and landscape reorganization in the areas under risk of desertification; land degradation and droughts. NAP has a very limited participatory component in its preparation, and currently there are discussions on the need to revisit it and

Affected country / NAP adopted / NAP adopted country Affected adapt to current development stage of Romania. NAP objectives are approached by sectorial projects of different concerned sectors of activity: forestry, land improvement, agriculture, livestock rising, pasture improvement, etc. Limited coordination have happened in its implementation as authorities and implementing agencies have been in a permanent restructuring process, but its objectives are mainstreamed within different consequent national strategies and plans (Viorel Blujdea – National Focal Point, Forest Research and Management Institute Romania, 2006). On 12.01.2001 through adoption of a law, the National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria ratified the UN Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa (prom. SG, Vol. 7 dd. 23.01.2001). The Ministry of Environment and Water is the institution, which performed the act of ratification of the Convention, and has undertaken the responsibilities for its implementation as well as the functions of the National coordinating institution. The national focal point is Mrs. Tatyana Dimitrova, expert in “National Nature Protection Service” Directorate with the Ministry of Environment and Water (Ministry of the Environment and Water of the Republic of Bulgaria, 2002). The main goal of current stage is to achieve compliance with respect both to the cooperation of sector policies and to awarding the actions for more integrated effect

Bulgaria of the overall management of the lands and control of desertification. Therefore, Bulgaria has focused its efforts on the legal regulation of these requirements. A step towards achieving the goals is the development of a new Soils Act and development and adoption of a National Action Program, with clearly formulated priorities for their sustainable management and specific strategic actions for control of desertification and sustainable land management, joining the sustainable land management to the local regulation of land management, as well as joining the National Action Program to the forthcoming plans for development of the municipalities and plans for river basins management (ВТОРОЙНАЦИОНАЛЬНЫЙ ДОКЛАД РЕСПУБЛИКИБОЛГАРИЯ 2006). Cyprus signed and followed the necessary procedures in order to ratify the Convention to Combat Desertification, which were finally concluded in December of 1999. The Convention was ratified by the House of Representatives in 23.12.1999 by Law Number 23(III) 1999. The competent authority for implementing the Convention is the Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment. Cyprus has delivered two reports so far: - CRIC 1 report (2002) in the 2nd reporting cycle (Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment of Cyprus, 2002); and

Affected country / NAP in preparation preparation / NAP in country Affected Cyprus - CRIC 5 report (2007) in the 3rd reporting cycle (Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment of Cyprus, 2007). Until now, the basic guidelines for a NAP have been established. The Environment Service of Cyprus is currently in the process of preparing the tenders for preparation of a National Action Programme (Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment of Cyprus, 2002 and 2007).

Report, Page 358 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

MS Country information

The Hungarian Parliament decided upon Hungary’s accession to the UNCCD in 1999 (Parliamentary Resolution No. 47/1999 (VI. 3.)). The country’s accession to the Convention entered into force on 11 October 1999. In Hungary, the responsible national co-ordinating body for the implementation of the UNCCD is the Ministry of Environment and Water, and the national focal point is a representative of the Ministry. Hungary has delivered two reports so far: - CRIC 1 (2002) as a 2nd reporting cycle (Ministry of Environment and Water of the Republic of Hungary, 2002); and CRIC 5 (2006) as a 3rd reporting cycle (Ministry of Environment and Water of the Republic of Hungary, 2006). -

Hungary The formulation of the National Action Programme is currently under way in Hungary. The fight against drought is the first and most important step of combating desertification in Hungary. The basis of the NAP is the National Drought Strategy which has been in the very final stage of Governmental acceptance in 2006. Legal base is the Hungarian Government decision No. 2142/2005 (VII.14.) on the preparation and elaboration of the National Drought Strategy and the National Action Programme related to the fight against drought and desertification in the country. On October 9, 2002 Latvia enforced the law on “United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa” (UNCCD). Law was worked out in order to ratify the Convention and implement its requirements. Latvia became a Party to the Convention on January 19, 2003. Implementation of the Convention in Latvia will ensure the realisation of soil protection measures, promoting the increase of soil productivity, providing sustainable management of soil and water resources, thus improving social conditions what is the main goal of the Convention. Latvia has delivered one report so far: CRIC 5 (2006) in the 3rd reporting cycle, i.e. National Report on the Implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification / Land Degradation (UNCCD) (Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Latvia, 2006).

Latvia Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Latvia is responsible for the implementation of the Convention. It has prepared the first National report on the implementation of the Convention in Latvia, which summarises all the activities taken since ratification of the Convention an provides as well an overview on the situation and land degradation in Latvia. Elaboration process of NAP in Latvia started at second half of 2006 and planned to be completed by end of 2007. It will be based on stocktaking/inventory process of land degradation situation in country performed in selected areas to be completed by the end of 2006. Affected country / NAP in preparation in / NAP country Affected The Government of Malta ratified the Convention in January 1998. The UNCCD National focal point is theMalta Environment and Planning Authority. Malta has prepared one report so far: CRIC 1 report in the 2nd reporting cycle (2002) (Malta Environment and Planning Authority, 2002). CRIC 1 (Malta Environment and Planning Authority, 2002) is the 1st National report in on the implementation of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification in

Malta Malta. This report outlines the outcomes and achievements of the implementation of a soil erosion/desertification control management activity initiated in February 2000.

Report, Page 359 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

MS Country information

National activities after the accession of Slovakia to the Convention (January 7, 2002) were focused on the establishment of administrative structures. The following bodies were designated: the National Secretariat to the Convention – the Department of Foreign Affairs at the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), the National Focal Point – Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute Bratislava (SSCRI), and the National Advisory Committee of the Convention, that functions in a coordination with Secretariat and the NFP. It includes representatives of central bodies, scientific and research institutions and academics. Based upon Government Resolution No. 348/2001, for implementation of the Convention in the Slovak Republic are responsible ministries, namely the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Slovak Republic has delivered one report so far: CRIC5 report in the 3rd reporting cycle in 2006 (Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute of Bratislava, 2006). In line with the UNCCD Convention a consultative and participatory process, involving appropriate levels of government, local communities and non-governmental Slovak Republic organization, has to be undertaken to provide guidance on a strategy with flexible planning and implementation of action programme. Till now participatory approach is considered as in structure of National Advisory Committee of the Convention as well as in the process of elaboration and acceptance of the National Action Programme (NAP) in the Slovak Republic. At present stage the NAP draft is under process of comments from broader society. The national report reflects reality and gives a short analysis of existing status and proposed activities within the NAP. The Republic of Slovenia ratified the Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa in June 2001, while the Convention entered into force on 28th September 2001. Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning and Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food are competent authorities. Slovenia has delivered one report so far: CRIC 5 (2006) in the 3rd reporting cycle (Center for Soil and Environmental Science, 2006). This report describes the results of the NSCA (National Capacity Self-Assessment) project and thus mainly emphasis the gaps and needs of Slovenia for the implementation of the UNCCD. In Slovenia the objective of the NCSA project was to identify capacity building needs for global environmental management and to prepare an action plan proposing activities to improve the capacities required for the implementation of three global conventions (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification/Land Degradation (UNCCD)) in Slovenia. Assessments of capacities for the implementation of the three global conventions and capacities in the cross-cutting areas are presented in the report in four Affected country / NAP in preparation in / NAP country Affected thematic profiles for individual thematic areas while summarised capacity building needs and the action plan – a list of activities required for capacity building – are Slovenia presented in the synthesis report on the implementation of the three conventions. At the level of measures in the area of land degradation, Slovenia is still in the process of identifying the current state. Monitoring to provide important information on soil quality (soil fertility, soil pollution, inventory of best-quality agricultural land) is not implemented due to the lack of relevant legislation. Establishment of systematic monitoring of soil pollution is under preparation. Unfortunately, in the period until 2008, there are no planned measures for identifying other processes of land degradation such as erosion, decline in organic matter content, increased soil compaction, decline in agricultural land due to urbanisation (soil sealing). Similarly, measures related to remediation of the already known polluted areas (Mežica Valley, Šaleška Valley, Celje) are not included in the following NEAP (National Environmental Action Plan) period.

Report, Page 360 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

MS Country information

Spain has delivered three reports so far: - COP3/4 report (2000) in the 1st reporting cycle (Ministry of the Environment of Spain, 2000): This first national report reflects to a large extent the strategies and

priorities established in order to ensure sustainable development and describes the process of elaboration and development of the Spanish National Action Programme for Combating Desertification. - CRIC 1 report (2002) in the 2nd reporting cycle (Ministry of the Environment of Spain, 2002): This second national report describes the debate and participatory process attached to the elaboration of the NAP. - CRIC 5 report (2006) in the 3rd reporting cycle (Ministry of the Environment of Spain, 2006a): This third national report focuses on the key thematic topics established in decision 1/COP5. From 2000-2001 there were a debate and participatory process attached to the elaboration of the NAP. The end of the process was followed by the analysis and incorporation of the suggestions and contributions made during and after the meetings and round-table discussions were held. In order to discuss those themes most linked to the agrarian sector that have been gradually incorporated to the document, a collaboration agreement was established with the Ministry of Spain Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The NAP was again under scrutiny by the National Commission for the Protection of the Environment, which is the consultative body for the co-operation between the General State Administration and the Autonomous Communities regarding this topic. The Ministry of the Environment, in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the autonomous communities, is responsible for the elaboration and approval of the National Action Programme for combating Desertification (Forest Law 4/2003, 21 November, modified on 21 April, 2006 (Law 10/2006)). The implementation and monitoring of the Programme falls, according to a co-ordination principle, to the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fishery and Food and the autonomous communities, within their own fields.

Affected country / NAP in preparation in / NAP country Affected Previous reports have stated that in Spain the institutional co-ordination and handling for the implementation of the CCD and NAP leans over the existing structure of mechanisms of institutional co-ordination and public participation, of which four could be highlighted for their close co-operation with the NAP: (1) the National Commission for the Protection of the Environment, (2) the Sectoral Environmental Conferences, (3) the Advisory Environmental Council, and (4) the National Forest Council.

Report, Page 361 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

MS Country information

The Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania ratified the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa (the UNCCD) on 3 July 2003 (by adopting Law No. IX-1684). Regional Implementation Annex V intended for Central and Eastern Europe is in force in the Republic of Lithuania. The above Annex stipulates 8 region-specific conditions under which the following 3 are relevant for the implementation of the provisions of the Convention: soil erosion caused by water and wind; impoverishment of arable land; and reduction of forested areas. Lithuania has delivered one report so far: CRIC 5 report (2006) in the 3rd reporting cycle, i.e. Implementation of the United Convention to Combat Desertification in Countries Experiencing serious Drought and/or Desertification, particularly in Africa (UNCCD) in Lithuania (Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania,

2006). This report provides a brief overview about the main problem regarding land degradation and the current status of the UNCCD in Lithuania. The National Action Lithuania Programme (NAP) for the UNCCD implementation has not been drafted, no targeted financing has been provided for either. On the other hand, relevant activities falling within the UNCCD scope are integrated into national strategies and corresponding implementation measures. The activities of implementing the fields regulated by the Convention in Lithuania are defined in the following legal acts: Programme of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania for 2004-2008; and Rural Development Plan for 2004-2006. Lithuania is a country officially not affected but presenting activities on the implementation of the UNCCD at national level (http://www.unccd.int/cop/reports/centraleu/centraleu.php). Poland has delivered one report so far: CRIC 5 report in the 3rd reporting cycle in 2006 (Ministry of Environment of Poland, 2006). This Report presents actions undertaken by Poland in scope of implementation of the UNCCD between 2004 and 2005, with special regard to the actions supporting desertification combat in those countries that are especially affected by the phenomenon (e.g. African countries). The report also contains a chapter on counteracting drought and mitigation its effects in Poland. For Poland the resolutions of the United Nations Convention to combat desertification in countries seriously affected by drought and/or desertification, particularly in Africa came into force on 12 February 2002. The Report hereby submitted is a second formal report developed by Poland under the Article 26 of the Convention (the first report, issued in November 2004, presented actions undertaken by Poland for the Convention between 2002 and 2003). As Poland is not located in the area of real desertification, the basic problems related to the implementation of the Convention existing directly on the territory of the country are the problems of intensifying and long-lasting droughts, soil degradation caused by droughts along with numerous other factors, and impact of droughts Not affected country / Reporting / No NAP / / Reporting country Not affected

Poland and soil degradation on agriculture, fishery, biodiversity, forestry, navigation, water and municipal management, industry and power industry, and for health and recreation. Actions undertaken in those fields are hindered by a very disperse structure of Polish agriculture and domination of small, family-owned farms under 5 hectares in area. Implementation of a unified soil protection policy in communities or other basic organisation-spatial units, in which there are thousands of small farms of a very diversified agro-technical level, is almost impossible. However, Polish asset in combat against drought and soil degradation is domination of national ownership of the forests (allowing consistent implementation of sustainable forest management and the multi-annual program for increasing forestation), as well as also a low level of agricultural production intensity, favourable for development of ecological and integrated farming and for implementation of agro-environmental programs (Ministry of Environment of Poland, 2006).

Report, Page 362 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Data sources

12 Member States of EU-25 (topic of this study) have submitted 21 national reports during the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd reporting cycles providing information on soil degradation and – to some extent depending of the country’s status and the national level of implementation – on measures mitigating desertification and land degradation. The evaluation of the UNCCD reports consists not only of the most recent ones, but also includes previous reports. This is to avoid repetition of information in subsequent reports, for example on the characterisation of a country. Several countries have not participated from the beginning, therefore for some countries the 1st or 2nd reports do not exist. In addition, Greece, Italy, and Portugal have submitted their National Action Programmes (see Table 5.1.2).

Table 5.1.2: Member States and data sources covered by UNCCD evaluation

Member State UNCCD Report/NAP Year CY Cyprus 2nd reporting (CRIC 1) 2002 3rd reporting (CRIC 5) 2007 GR Greece 1st reporting (COP 3/4) 2000 National Action Programme (NAP) 2001 2nd reporting (CRIC 1) 2002 HU Hungary 2nd reporting (CRIC 1) 2002 3rd reporting (CRIC 5) 2006 IT Italy National Action Programme (NAP) 1999 1st reporting (COP 3/4) (report & summary) 2000 2nd reporting (CRIC 1) 2002 3rd reporting (CRIC 5) 2006 LT Lithuania 3rd reporting 2006 LV Latvia 3rd reporting 2006 MT Malta 2nd reporting (CRIC 1) 2002 PL Poland 3rd reporting (CRIC 5) 2006 PT Portugal National Action Programme (NAP) 1999 1st reporting (COP 3/4) 2000 2nd reporting (CRIC 1) 2002 3rd reporting (CRIC 5) 2006 SK Slovak Republic 3rd reporting (CRIC 5) 2006 SI Slovenia 3rd reporting (CRIC 5) 2006 ES Spain 1st reporting (COP ¾) 2000 2nd reporting (CRIC 1) 2002 3rd reporting (CRIC 5) 2006

COP: national reports submitted to the Conference of the Parties CRIC: national reports submitted to the Committee for the Review of the Implementation of the Convention

Report, Page 363 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Key questions of the evaluation

The evaluation of the UNCCD reports and National Action Programmes of the above mentioned Member States focuses on these key questions:

(1) To what extent have soil threats been identified to be a driver for desertification in the Member State concerned?

(2) Can the Action Plans be used to quantify the extent to which soil threats contribute to the desertification process? In such cases, what is the level of soil degradation, as described in the Action Programmes?

(3) What measures have been planned by Member States to address desertification? To what extent can such measures be expected to contribute to preventing or reducing soil threats?

The evaluation of the UNCCD reports has been performed separately for soil degradation aspects referring to the 1st and the 2nd key question (chapter 5.2) and measures referring to the 3rd key question (chapter 5.3). The methodology is described in the chapters 5.2.1 and 5.3.1.

Report, Page 364 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

5.2 Soil degradation in the UNCCD reports

5.2.1 Methodology for the evaluation of soil degradation

The review of the UNCCD reports on soil degradation processes as drivers for desertification has been carried out regarding the nine main soil threats, namely erosion, decline in organic matter, local contamination, diffuse contamination, sealing, compaction, decline in biodiversity, salinisation, floods and landslides.

Analogous to the evaluation of the WFD reports (see chapter 3), the work follows a three-step approach:

1. The first step is the identification of relevant information about soil degradation from the UNCCD documents.

2. The second step is a description of soil degradation as found in the UNCCD reports.

3. The third step is an evaluation of this information by the contractor referring to the key questions.

Step 1: Identification of relevant information about soil degradation from the UNCCD documents

Soil degradation processes are common issues within the UNCCD reports. The UNCCD reports mainly mention soil threats directly in terms such as ‘soil erosion’ or ‘organic matter decline’. Beyond this, indirect indicators are given leading to the assumption that soil degradation has been identified in a given region, e.g. forest fires causing an SOM decline. However, a matrix of interpretation is useful to clarify the interpretation of the UNCCD documents. The matrix shown in Table 5.2.1.1 was prepared to ensure a common understanding of direct and indirect indicators for soil degradation during the review of the UNCCD documents. It must be clear that indirect indicators as given in the right column of Table 5.2.1.1 show only a theoretical possibility of soil degradation and do not necessarily correspond to the actual soil status.

The entire information about soil degradation including indirect indicators given in the UNCCD reports has been considered as relevant information and has been collected to ensure that the review results are as complete as possible.

Report, Page 365 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Table 5.2.1.1: Terms and indirect indicators used to identify relevant information about soil degradation in the UNCCD reports (in italics: indirect effects of soil threats with one another)

Soil Terms / Synonyms Indirect indicators threat - (soil) erosion - forest fires (without direct reforestation) - agricultural runoff66 or surface runoff - soil degradation due to a deficiency of moisture in soil under agricultural landuse

Erosion

- decline (reduction, decrease) in organic - soil erosion matter - deforestation - mineralisation or decomposition of soil - overgrazing

matter organic matter organic

Decline in - forest fires

- contaminated or polluted sites - accidents with an emission of toxic substances - contaminated or polluted soils - (local) contamination of soils

Local - contaminated land - impregnation of wastewater into soil contamination - sewage and refuse disposal on soils - (diffuse) contamination of soils - application of pesticides - accumulation of hazardous substances in - inappropriate use of fertilizers and chemicals top soils - input of acidifying components (SO4, NOx, NH3, acid rain), nutrients (NH4, NO3, P) or potentially harmful substances (e.g. heavy metals, POPs, pesticides) in soils Diffuse - soil acidification, effects of a surplus of nutrients, effects of contamination contamination by heavy metals or organic pollutants or radioactive contamination - sealing or sealed (hard) surfaces - urban areas - developed areas - settlements Sealing - built-up areas - soil compaction - reduced water infiltration capacity - accelerated surface run-off - poor aeration (reduction of plant growth, denitrification in anaerobic sites) - crop yield reductions Compaction - degraded soil structure - decline in soil biodiversity - all other soil threats biodiversity Decline in

66 Runoff was associated with the soil threat Erosion, if it is mentioned in the context of agricultural land use and if is not clearly described as a transport process of soluble substances. In these cases, runoff is understood as a loss of soil via mass transport processes. If runoff cannot be assumed as a mass transport process, it is not understood as soil erosion. This applies if only “runoff” without any clarification of land use or transport processes is mentioned.

Report, Page 366 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Soil Terms / Synonyms Indirect indicators threat - soil salinisation - intensive irrigation activities in areas with a negative water balance (evaporation greater than precipitation) - accumulation of soluble salts in soils (sodium, magnesium, calcium) and - irrigation with high salt content waters impaired soil fertility - input of salts into soils by human activities - alkalinisation, sodification

Salinisation - water pollution by de-icing of roads - soil salinity leading to degradation - degraded soils due to floods or landslides - erosion, contamination, loss of biodiversity, destruction of soil resources landslides Floods and

Step 2: Description of soil degradation

The description of soil degradation is completed for every soil threat affected, according to the contents of the UNCCD documents. To the extent available, the descriptive information is given in the left part of the tables in subchapters 5.2.2.1 to 5.2.2.9 and is labelled with ‘Information from UNCCD reports’ (see Figure 5.2.1.1). The right part (Contractor’s evaluation) is further detailed in the subchapter ‘Evaluation’ below.

Description of soil degradation Evaluation of soil degradation as given in the UNCCD document performed by the contractor

Information from UNCCD reports Contractor’s Evaluation Member Information in UNCCD reports Causes of soil Covered Covered Quality of Assessment of Intensity of soil State referring to soil degradation degradation area area information indications degradation (summarised if necessary) (qual.) (quant.)

Figure 5.2.1.1: Table structure for soil degradation data (example for UNCCD reports)

The description of soil degradation includes the following columns:

• ‘Member State’ as given in the UNCCD document;

• ‘Information in UNCCD reports referring to soil degradation (summarized, if necessary)’ contains the relevant terms as given in the evaluated report or - if necessary - a brief summary of the information given in the report;

Report, Page 367 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

• ‘Causes of soil degradation’ outlines the causes of soil degradation as mentioned in the UNCCD documents using categories67,

• ‘Pollutants causing soil degradation’ contains the contaminants causing soil degradation, if applicable (see tables in chapters 5.2.2.3 and 5.2.2.4), and

If a given Member State is not listed in the tables of chapter 5.2.2.1 to 5.2.2.9, there is no information on the given soil threat available in the UNCCD reports of this country.

In addition to the tables shown in this report, the database includes further details, e.g. the location of data in the report (e.g. chapter, page).

The methodology of gathering descriptive information about soil degradation from UNCCD documents in detail is based on the following principles: The information given in UNCCD document is quoted in the columns labelled ‘Information from UNCCD reports’. If necessary, the information has been summarized, categorized (e.g. causes of soil degradation), and/or translated into English. The description of soil degradation given is gathered from the UNCCD reports and contains no evaluation by the contractor.

Step 3: Evaluation

To answer the questions mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, it is essential to evaluate the quality of information given in the UNCCD documents. How clear the answers can be to these key questions depends on the quality of information in the source documents. To prepare an evaluation for every soil threat in text form, a brief evaluation of soil degradation is given at the local stage of every given Member State. This evaluation is shown in the right part of the tables in subchapters 5.2.2.1 to 5.2.2.9 (see Figure 5.2.1.1) and has been performed by the contractor. It includes the columns

• ‘Quality of information’, which contains a numerical sum-up evaluation providing a general overview of the quality of information given in the UNCCD document (see Table 5.2.1.2),

67 atmospheric deposition; agricultural land use; industrial land use; mining activities, production of raw materials; contaminated sites, waste disposal, landfill; urban land use; river training/river alteration; drainage; disposal of sewage; forestry; surface topography; lack of land use/countryside abandonment; forest fires; coastal erosion; forest grazing; deforestation; rainstorms; overgrazing; inappropriate irrigation techniques; inappropriate drainage techniques; climate conditions (e.g. aridity), drawdown of groundwater level (lowering of the water table)

Report, Page 368 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

• ‘Assessment of indications’, which contains a categorisation as ‘direct indications’ (meaning the soil threat is identified directly) and as ‘indirect indications’ (according to the understanding of indirect indicators as explained in Table 5.2.1.1), as well as additional evaluation issues if the report provides appropriate information that can be evaluated, and

• ‘Intensity of soil degradation’, which gives a brief textual evaluation of the intensity (level) of soil degradation (if available) and factors having an effect on soil degradation.

Table 5.2.1.2 explains the numerical sum-up evaluation of the information quality and gives an overview of the evaluation criteria. The set of descriptive data collected in the second step in the three-step approach provides the basis for answering the key questions. The information from the UNCCD documents that is most important for evaluation purposes is marked bold.

The evaluation of the intensity of soil degradation is based on the scientific literature and includes reference values as far as these are available on the level of the European Union. It has to be pointed out that reference values are not available for all the nine main soil threats. Although soil degradation at the European level is generally recognised as an ever increasing, serious and widespread problem, its quantification, geographical distribution and the total area affected are only roughly known (EEA 2001).

The key questions are discussed in the subchapters 5.2.2.1 to 5.2.2.9 addressing the nine main soil threats. The conclusions regarding the evaluation of soil threats as indicated in the UNCCD reports are summarized in boxes.

To clarify the theoretical background, the subchapters on the evaluation of the information on soil threats in chapter 5.2.2 include methodological issues in grey boxes.

Report, Page 369 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Table 5.2.1.2: Ranking of the evaluation of the quality of information that is given in the UNCCD reports

Information Nature of the Data about the area about the Short How is soil degradation mentioned in information covered by soil intensity of value the report? in the report degradation… soil degradation… The report does not contain any 0 - is not available is not available information about soil degradation. The report contains information about 1 indirect indicators which lead to the not relevant is possibly available is not available assumption that soil degradation occurs. The soil threat is identified directly in the report. The kind of identification in this is not available or category might differ and covers a too general to get a 2 range of information (for example the very general is not available spatial reference threat might just be mentioned, or roughly (e.g. only land use) described, or with rough estimated and implausible or unreliable or incomplete figures).

3 general is available is not available The soil threat is identified directly with general information in the report. 4 general is not available is available

A given soil threat is identified directly 5 detailed is available is available with detailed information in the report.

Background of the evaluation

To ensure a clear understanding of the evaluation of the UNCCD documents by the contractor, this subchapter summarises basic information referring to the evaluation of soil protection issues.

In preparing the evaluation of the key questions of the contract (see chapter 5.1), it is of particular importance to clarify the requirements which are necessary to answer the key questions. To derive the appropriate answers, a minimum amount of information is necessary. Table 5.2.1.3 lists different soil parameters that can be used to assess the state of the soil. In order to have a clear picture of the state of the soil in a given area, data on such parameters would be needed. Hence the reports have been screened in search for information on such parameters, and the conclusions on the intensity of the soil degradation have been based on the availability of such information in the reports. This background is taken into account during the evaluation of the National Action Programmes under the UNCCD referring to soil degradation processes and should be considered reviewing the detailed tables on soil threats in the following chapter 5.2.2.

Report, Page 370 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Table 5.2.1.3: Parameters describing the soil state (examples for selected soil threats)

Glossary

Within the evaluation of UNCCD documents, it was also necessary to clearly define several terms concerning non-existing data or irrelevant information as well as evaluation terms. The following Table 5.2.1.4 is a guide through the terms as used in the project including the tables in the subchapters 5.2.2.1 to 5.2.2.9.

Report, Page 371 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Table 5.2.1.4: Glossary

Term Used in the Used in … Definition

context of … information not collection of data text and tables There is no information existing. available of data of data Collection

no information description of text, tables and There is no information or data on an available information database issue existing in the reviewed data sources.

no detailed description of text Information is incomplete or rather

sources information information general. available Review of data

Evaluation Evaluation organic matter).

Measures under UNCCD

The second objective of the UNCCD review is an evaluation of measures that have been planned by Member States to address desertification. The methodology and results for this purpose are described in chapter 5.3.

5.2.2 Information on soil degradation and evaluation

In the following chapters the information on soil threats as documented in the UNCCD Reports and the contractor’s evaluation is provided. For every soil threat, the details found in the UNCCD documents and a brief evaluation is provided in a table. Below the detailed table, the information is summarised and evaluated referring to the 1st and the 2nd key question mentioned at the beginning of chapter 5.2.

The database (see Annex 1) contains even more detailed information like the location of data (e.g. chapter of a report).

Report, Page 372 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

5.2.2.1 Erosion

Table 5.2.2.1.1: Soil degradation by erosion in the EU Member States designated in UNCCD reports

Information from UNCCD reports - Erosion - Contractor’s Evaluation Member State Information in UNCCD reports referring to soil degradation Causes of soil Covered area Covered area Quality Assess- Intensity of soil degradation (summarised if necessary) degradation (qual.) (quant.) of ment of inform. indications Cyprus From the agricultural point of view, the most important and Forest fires; areas with steep >15 % of the area 5 direct The intensity of soil loss varies and severe factor causing desertification is erosion. overgrazing; slopes and / or of Cyprus; indication was at a high level in the years 1988- (Ministry of deforestation; forest high elevation; of soil 1998 in relation to the level of natural Agriculture, More than 15 % of the island’s area is characterized by steep grazing; lack of land areas that have Agricultural land degradatio soil formation, which – in central Natural slopes and / or with high elevation. Areas that have been use / countryside been affected by erosion n Europe – is lower than 1 t/(ha*a) (= Resources abandoned by people are more vulnerable and more likely to abandonment; abandoned from 1995-2000 (sq lower than 0.07 mm soil depth per and face desertification. Absence of people means lack of human surface topography; people; km): The year) (Van-Camp et al., 2004). Environment activities, which in turn means less protected or cultivated amount of agricultural land use agricultural land; Total: 1125; Cyprus, 2002 areas, exposed to winds, erosion and other natural forces. forested land affected The amounts of soil loss in the UNCCD & 2007) Wild forest fires constitute a major cause of land degradation with grazing Arable and agricultural report of Cyprus (2.3-8.0 t/(ha*a) are in Cyprus. Forest grazing constitutes a major cause of land activities permanent crop land is within the range of averages degradation. (particularly land: 1110; quoted. summarized by Gobin et al. (2004) Akamas, Permanent from plot measurements in Erosion mainly affects arable land and land under Mediterranean countries (Sardinia, permanent crops. Generally, soil erosion is at low levels, with Machairas and meadows and Randi forests) pasture: 15 Italy, Greece, and Portugal; 93 plots; less than 1 mm of eroded soil per year. averages: 0.9-8.7 t/(ha*a); ranges 0.0- The amounts of soil lost through erosion are quoted for the 83.3 t/(ha*a)). years 1988-1998 (tones/hectare): 5.9 (1988); 2.3 (1989); 3.6 The evaluation in the report, that soil (1990); 3.5 (1991); 7.0 (1992); 6.2 (1993); 6.5 (1994); 2.5 erosion is at low levels, with less than 1 (1995); 8.0 (1996); 7.0 (1997); 2.5. (1998). mm of eroded soil per year, is not comprehensible (1 mm is equivalent to 13-15 t//(ha*a) assumed a bulk density of 1.3-1.5 g/cm³). The size of affected area appears with 15 % of Cyprus in relation to an estimation of the area affected by soil erosion in Europe with 17% of total land (EEA 2003b) as low. Assumed that Cyprus as a mediterranean country should have a higher percentage than the European average.

Report, Page 373 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 374 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

The GNNCCD and the Agricultural University of Athens are co-operating in the EU supported multinational project PESERA for the development of a regional diagnostic tool for predicting soil erosion rates under various types of land use, soil, and landscape characteristics. The model developed assesses the sensitivity of an area to soil erosion and making predictions of erosion rates under changing conditions of climate, land use and management practices. It has been validated in desertification threatened areas of Greece and has been applied on an erosion sensitive area in the Ionian island of Zakinthos. The model consists of components on climate, vegetation topography and soil. Erosion rates of each particular land unit, which is defined by soil, geological, topographic and land use parameters. The estimated erosion rates matched satisfactorily the measured rates. However, there is a need for further improvement of the model and especially refinement, so that it considers local conditions and weights in the parameters used.

Report, Page 375 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 376 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from UNCCD reports - Erosion - Contractor’s Evaluation Member State Information in UNCCD reports referring to soil degradation Causes of soil Covered area Covered area Quality Assess- Intensity of soil degradation (summarised if necessary) degradation (qual.) (quant.) of ment of inform. indications Desertification is a problem for a considerable portion of Southern Italy (islands included). It is present in areas exposed both to the stress of climatic conditions and to pressure from not sustainable human activities. Dryness, drought and erosion dramatise the desertification phenomenon. Lithuania Water and, in some circumstances, wind erosion are the Agricultural land use; Most of the About 14 % of 3 direct The area of affected land (14 % of the main factors causing land degradation in Lithuania. surface topography lands affected agricultural land is indication Lithuanian territory) just about equals (Ministry of by erosion affected by of soil the estimation of the area affected by Environment About 14 % of agricultural land is affected by erosion, which caused by water erosion, which degradatio soil erosion in Europe with 17% of total of the causes damage to the valuable layer and fertility of arable and wind are in causes damage to n land (EEA 2003b). Republic of lands. Most of the lands affected by erosion caused by water the western and the valuable layer Lithuania, and wind are in the western and eastern parts of Lithuania. eastern parts of and fertility of 2006) Damage caused by water erosion is very diversified: washing Lithuania. arable lands. of the fertile soil layer and nutrients from slopes, destruction of crops on eroded slopes, erosion of trench slope roads, sanding of trench beds, silting of water bodies and water pollution. Latvia The main types of land degradation are erosion caused by, Deforestation; agricultural land; The total extent of 5 direct The intensity of soil degradation by wind and water, including erosion of the Baltic Sea coast. inappropriate regions water-eroded soil indication erosion is estimated into erosion (Ministry of irrigation / irrigation bordering on the is estimated at of soil classes and to a certain spatial extent. the There are significant variations among the administrative with low quality Baltic Sea; 17.3 % from the degradatio Because the erosion classes are not Environment regions of Latvia where water eroded soils can occur from water; inappropriate sandy and total agricultural n defined in quantitative terms, the value of the 0 % (in Jelgava region –central part of Latvia, Zemgale) up to drainage techniques; organic land (0.43 million of this imprecise information is limited. Republic of 45 % (in Krāslava region – eastern part of Latvia, Latgale). agricultural land use (peatlands) ha) from which Latvia, 2006) soils, which are 12.5 % fall into As regards the percentages of affected Sandy and organic (peatland) soils, which are used for field area (0-45%) we presume that they crop production as well as regions bordering on the Baltic used for field slightly and 4.8 % crop production into medium and correspond to the area of the Sea, are at risk of wind erosion. As many factors that are administrative regions of Latvia. natural and human–induced significantly influence the wind strong erosion erosion process, there are still no detailed statistics and classes. The maximum spatial extent with up to estimates of the causes, extent and effects of wind erosion in Water eroded soils 45% of administrative regions appears Latvia. can occur from high in relation to an estimation of the 0 % (in Jelgava area affected by soil erosion in Europe Increasing deforestation raises the risk of erosion on areas with 17% of total land (EEA 2003b). which were expected to be stable before. region –central part of Latvia, The minimum spatial extent (0%) is Land degradation processes are mainly caused by improper Zemgale) up to very low in relation to the reference land use, especially agricultural practices, and excessive or ill- 45 % (in Krāslava value of the EEA (2003b). Data on managed state-run or private logging. In terms of agriculture, region – eastern single administrative regions is not

Report, Page 377 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from UNCCD reports - Erosion - Contractor’s Evaluation Member State Information in UNCCD reports referring to soil degradation Causes of soil Covered area Covered area Quality Assess- Intensity of soil degradation (summarised if necessary) degradation (qual.) (quant.) of ment of inform. indications the main causes are unbalanced crop rotations with large part of Latvia, available. percentage of annual crops, limited use of soil conservation Latgale). tillage and other methods, inadequate crop residue use, unsustainable plant nutrient management, improper irrigation and drainage management systems and inappropriate rent- tenure relationships that preclude any incentives as well as endorsement of administrative measures to promote adoption of sustainable land management practices on overly fragmented land. In terms of deforestation, the main cause is inadequate incentives, knowledge, and organization to abide by afforestation laws. Land degradation is more evident in the areas of lower soil fertility and low suitability for intensive farming. Low-incomes result in greater exploitation and pressure on the land, while at the same time limited capacity to take preventive and rehabilitative measures to improve the situation. Malta Soil erosion in the Maltese Islands has been recognised as Agricultural land use; agricultural land no information 2 direct The intensity of soil erosion in t/(ha*a) a problem and a major threat to the sustainability of the climate conditions available indication is unknown. (Malta agricultural sector, due to a number of factors, i.e. aridity, (e.g. aridity); surface of soil Environment low level of vegetation cover, topography and a set of human topography degradatio & Planning induced processes. Maltese farmers have long been aware of n Authority, this problem and responded by creating an extensive series of 2002) terraces retained behind dry rubble walls. The major problem today is that many of these terraces are not adequately maintained, therefore increasing the threat of losing whatever soil has been retained for several hundreds of years. Poland As Poland is not located in the area of real desertification, the Droughts no information no information 1 indirect Soil degradation due to a deficiency of basic problems related to the implementation of the available available indication soil moisture can theoretically induce (Ministry of Convention existing directly on the territory of the country are of soil soil erosion, if the plant cover of the Environment the problems of intensifying and long-lasting droughts, soil degradatio soil is significantly deteriorated. The Poland, 2006) degradation caused by droughts along with numerous other n. real impact on soil erosion is unknown. factors, and impact of droughts and soil degradation on agriculture, fishery, biodiversity, forestry, navigation, water and municipal management, industry and power industry, and for health and recreation.

Report, Page 378 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from UNCCD reports - Erosion - Contractor’s Evaluation Member State Information in UNCCD reports referring to soil degradation Causes of soil Covered area Covered area Quality Assess- Intensity of soil degradation (summarised if necessary) degradation (qual.) (quant.) of ment of inform. indications Significant problem, especially in the context of deficiency of moisture in soil, is also the question of improper melioration aimed at fast drain and land reclamation for agriculture (in the Polish landscape there are no longer small ponds field hedges, 80% of ponds and dammed-up water for mills has been cleared). Portugal Desertification has consequences in Portugal, above all in the Lack of land use / The areas most no information 2 direct The spatial extent and the intensity of eastern and southern interior, which have been seriously countryside susceptible to available indication soil erosion in t/(ha*a) is unknown. (Ministério da affected by soil erosion resulting from incorrectly chosen abandonment; desertification of soil Agricultura, do crops and unsuitable farming practices, as well as the agricultural land use; correspond to degradatio There is an indication on an Index- Desenvolvime occurrence of periods of intense rainfall in short time periods. surface topography; some parts of n System used to estimate the intensity nto Rural e climate conditions the interior of of soil degradation. The basic input das Pescas , The area susceptible to desertification and drought (moderate (e.g. aridity); urban Alentejo and parameters for water erosion are 1999, 2000, risk) is estimated to be about 60% of the continental territory. land use some parts of considered in this index, so that it can 2002, 2006) About 11% are most susceptible to desertification (“above all the North of the deliver useful results to assess this soil in the eastern and southern interior”), This is a moderate risk country. threat. But due to a lack of further of desertification in 60 % of Portuguese territory. 36 % are information on the methodology this is susceptible to desertification. a general presumption. However, one should also not overlook water and wind erosion as important factors in desertification, since these are relevant questions in some regions of the country. It is essential to put a stop to this marked trend towards depopulation and ageing in vast areas of Portugal and, if at all possible, to invert it. The climate has great influence on the processes of desertification due to its impact on vegetation, the water cycle and land use. Indices used: Climate index (e.g. average yearly precipitation), Soil loss index (erosivity of precipitation, soil type, plant cover and slope, Drought index). Slovak The significance of soil threats in agricultural sector Forestry; agricultural agricultural land; 56 % (water 3 direct The potentially threatened area in the Republic decreases in order: decrease of soil organic matter (organic land use sloppy areas in erosion) and 6.5 % indication agricultural sector cannot be evaluated carbon) > water erosion > compaction > acidification > wind forests after (wind erosion) of soil due to a lack of reference values for (Soil Science erosion > pollution. timber area SK are degradatio agricultural land. The actual intensity of and Conser- extraction or potentially n soil erosion is unknown. vation Re- Erosion (water): 56 % area SK are potentially threatened in disasters. threatened in the search Insti- the agricultural sector. agricultural sector. tute Bratisla- va, 2006)

Report, Page 379 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 380 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 381 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 382 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Evaluation of the information on soil erosion

Soil erosion is counted among the main drivers for desertification (Van Camp et al., 2004). Thus, information on the threat of soil erosion is expected to receive higher priority in the UNCCD process than soil threats regarded as less relevant, such as sealing or soil contamination.

Information on soil erosion was found in all UNCCD Reports of 12 UNCCD countries reviewed. The majority of reports mention soil erosion explicitly as a relevant process for desertification or land degradation. Only in Poland, an indirect indicator implies the theoretical possibility of soil erosion processes.

As categorised in Table 5.2.2.1.1, the quality of information varies in the reports, but it can be described as relatively detailed. In the following sections, the evaluation referring to the key questions (see chapter 5.1) is structured based on the quality of information, as the quality of the information determines how precisely the answer will address the key questions. Descriptions of the five categories of information quality are given in Table 5.2.1.1.

Information of the categories 1, 2, 3 and 5 referring to the ‘Quality of information’ has been found.

Category of information 1 Indirect Indicators for erosion are mentioned In the Polish report, indirect information on soil erosion is presented. As Poland is not located in the area of real desertification, this is to be expected. Erosion has not been identified as a driver for desertification in Poland, so the Polish report cannot be used to quantify the extent to which soil erosion contributes to desertification process.

Category of information 2 Erosion is identified directly; no further information is available The information given on erosion in the reports from Greece, Malta, Italy, and Portugal falls into the category 2.

The general information categorised in the second class of quality can be used to answer the 1st key question in a general way: Erosion has been identified in Greece, Italy and Portugal as a main driver for desertification whereas Malta identifies erosion only as a relevant soil threat. However, the information given in the UNCCD reports cannot be used to quantify the extent to which soil erosion contributes to desertification process (2nd key question).

Report, Page 383 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Category of information 3 Erosion is identified directly; information about the covered area is available Four of the reviewed reports from Member States identify erosion directly and provide information for the areas identified in the table below:

Member State Information Information on area under soil erosion in percentages Hungary Erosion is the limiting factor for soil 15.6 % of the country (that means fertility in: 1,455,000 ha of the country) Lithuania Erosion causes damage to the 14 % of the agricultural land valuable layer and fertility of arable land in: Slovak Republic Significant soil threat: water erosion: 56 % water erosion of the agricultural land 6.5 % wind erosion of the agricultural land Slovenia Erosion phenomena extend over: 44 % of the country (that means > 9,000 sq km are influenced by soil erosion)

Erosion has been identified as a driver for desertification or as an important soil degradation process in each of the five countries (1st key question). But in the reports, there is no detailed information available as to what extent soil erosion contributes to desertification (2nd key question). For example, maps showing the distribution of areas affected by erosion are not mentioned or cited in the reports.

The information classified into category 3 can be used to answer the 1st key question as specified above referring to the identification of the soil threat as a driver for desertification. Further on, the information can be used to describe the affected area of soil degradation generally, i.e. in percent of the total area of the country. But the information is not detailed enough to quantify the extent to which erosion contributes to desertification processes. The quantitative level of soil erosion cannot be derived (2nd key question).

Category of information 5 Erosion is identified directly; detailed information about the intensity of soil degradation and the covered area is available UNCCD reports from the three Member States - Cyprus, Latvia, and Spain - provide detailed information on soil erosion. This soil threat has been identified as the most important and severe factor causing desertification in Cyprus. Both the spatial extent of erosion and the quantitative level of soil loss are described in detail. However, a map is not available in the report. Latvia’s report also identifies erosion as the main type of land degradation. The level of erosion is given in a more general way than in the report from Cyprus, but several regions and areas with specific soil types are described. However, a map is not available in the report. In Spain, a National Soil Erosion

Report, Page 384 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Inventory and several Soil maps are currently used or being developed. A detailed diagnosis of the desertification in Spain is given and erosion is identified as one of the major soil threats. A map of the erosion of soils (INES) exists for the national territory of Spain, but it is not available in the UNCCD reports.

The information classified into the fifth category of quality can be used to answer the 1st key question: Soil erosion has been identified as a driver for desertification in Cyprus, Spain, and Greece. The extent to which soil erosion contributes to desertification process can be quantified referring to the affected area. The level of soil degradation caused by erosion could be evaluated quantitatively in Cyprus and Spain (2nd key question) (see Table 5.2.2.1.1).

From the evaluation of the UNCCD reports of 12 European Member States, it is clear that in 7 countries of the Northern Mediterranean Region (Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain) as well as in 4 countries of Central and Eastern Europe (Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia and Slovak Republic), erosion has been identified as a serious soil threat to be tackled. In only 1 report (Poland) erosion has not been addressed directly.

In conclusion, soil erosion by water and, to a lesser extent, by wind is identified as a problem for soils and as a major driver for desertification in the majority of the reviewed countries. Hence the affected Member States are aware of the problem. But only a few countries have already gathered detailed information on erosion or are planning to do further investigations and data collection.

The level of detailed information in the Member States varies. In 3 countries (Greece, Malta and Italy), the information on erosion is rather sketchy. In 5 countries (Hungary, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovak Republic and Slovenia), information about the regions or areas affected by erosion is available. 3 countries (Cyprus, Latvia and Spain) have collected already more detailed information and have soil maps or information on the intensity of erosion at their disposal.

The National Action Programmes or UNCCD reports can be used to describe and evaluate erosion’s contribution to desertification processes qualitatively. These can to some extent also be used for a quantitative evaluation, but there are several reasons why the information given in the reports is not sufficient in order to quantify the level of erosion in the Member States precisely:

• Maps on erosion or soil status are not found in the reports.

• The soil status has not been taken into account in the reports.

• There is a lack of information on the methodology for calculations of soil loss rates.

Report, Page 385 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

5.2.2.2 Decline in organic matter

Table 5.2.2.2.1: Soil degradation by a decline in organic matter in the EU Member States designated in UNCCD reports

Information from UNCCD reports - Decline in organic matter - Contractor’s Evaluation Member State Information in UNCCD reports referring to soil degradation Causes of soil Covered area Covered area Quality Assessment Intensity of soil degradation (summarised if necessary) degradation (qual.) (quant.) of of indications inform. Cyprus Wild forest fires constitute a major cause of land Forest grazing; forested land; forest area 1 indirect Increased fire frequency can degradation in Cyprus. Forest area burnt was considerably forest fires; intensive burnt: 380 ha in indication of theoretically cause an increase of the (Ministry of small in 2000/2001. agricultural land potatoe 2001; 334 ha in soil decomposition of soil organic matter. Agriculture, use cultivation 2000 degradation Natural Forest grazing constitutes a major cause of land Forest grazing can theoretically induce Resources and degradation. a decline in organic matter. Environment Cyprus, 2002 & Due to many years of intensive cultivation of potatoes, A reduction in the productivity of the 2007) usually as continuous monocultures in relatively large soils is an indicator of a decline in areas of the island, serious problems have been created, organic matter. such as the overburdening of the environment and reductions in the productivity of the soils in these areas. It is not sure, how far a decline in organic matter actually occurs. Greece Forest fires have always played a significant role to Overgrazing; forests; no information 1 indirect Forest fires and overgrazing can environmental degradation leading to desertification of forest fires; climate agricultural available indicator of theoretically cause an increase of the (Greek National extensive areas. During the last 40 years the forest fires conditions (e.g. land soil decomposition of soil organic matter. It Committee for were rapidly increased. Approximately 90 % of the areas aridity) degradation is not sure, how far a decline in organic Combating burned every year concern the Mediterranean type matter actually occurs. Desertification ecosystems, i.e. areas largely susceptible to desertification. (2000, 2001 & 2002) Most of the Greek territory, has nowadays dry warm climate, while land is covered by degraded forestland, grazed by farm animals, especially sheep and goats. Usually, degradation of natural ecosystems results from overgrazing. In the arid and semi-arid regions of the country, this phenomenon is particularly intense. Desertification results not only from overgrazing but also, under certain conditions, from undergrazing as well, or from no grazing at all. In this case, ceasing of livestock activity results in dangerous accumulation of combustible materials, which can cause extensive and disastrous fires.

Report, Page 386 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from UNCCD reports - Decline in organic matter - Contractor’s Evaluation Member State Information in UNCCD reports referring to soil degradation Causes of soil Covered area Covered area Quality Assessment Intensity of soil degradation (summarised if necessary) degradation (qual.) (quant.) of of indications inform. Hungary Decrease of organic matter content is identified as a soil no information no no information 2 direct The intensity of the decline in organic degradation process in Hungary. available information available indication of matter is unknown. (Ministry of available soil Environment and degradation Water of the Republic of Hungary, 2002 & 2006) Italy Land degradation is a threat even in humid areas when climate conditions no no information 2 direct The intensity of the decline in organic facing a depletion of soil organic content. Moreover, the (e.g. aridity); information available indication of matter is unknown (Ministry of exposure of the mountain sides, the slope and the surface available soil Environment and degradation of the vegetable cover all constitute important topography; degradation Territory (IMET), factors of land within the climatic and geomorphic context of deforestation 1999, 2000, regions subject to water stress. 2002, 2006) Latvia Other types of degradation are fertility decline and agricultural land no no information 2 direct The intensity of the decline in organic reduced organic matter content. use information available indication of matter is unknown. (Ministry of the available soil Environment of degradation the Republic of Latvia, 2006) Portugal Depopulation is both a cause and an effect of degradation agricultural land no no information 1 indirect Depopulation and thus the lack of of the land. It occurs in many situations due to the fact that use; forest fires; information available indicator of encouraging replacement of plant (Ministério da the land has become incapable of producing the means of climate conditions available soil cover als well as forest fires can Agricultura, do satisfying the population’s needs, as a consequence of the (e.g. aridity) degradation theoretically cause an increase of the Desenvolviment degradation to which Man has subjected it over time, or due decomposition of soil organic matter. It o Rural e das to the fact that the poverty of the land has not aroused the is not sure, how far a decline in organic Pescas, 1999, necessary and adequate interest of economic and social matter actually occurs. 2000, 2002, agents. 2006) Depopulation leaves areas totally abandoned, deprived of the conditions that might mitigate the problem by encouraging replacement of plant cover and, as a consequence, infiltration of water into soil and sub-soil. This is what is happening in vast areas of Portugal, where the land has been allowed to fall into extreme degradation, and is now abandoned and often subject to such destructive phenomena as fire or landslides.

Report, Page 387 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from UNCCD reports - Decline in organic matter - Contractor’s Evaluation Member State Information in UNCCD reports referring to soil degradation Causes of soil Covered area Covered area Quality Assessment Intensity of soil degradation (summarised if necessary) degradation (qual.) (quant.) of of indications inform. Slovak Republic The significance of soil threats in agricultural sector agricultural land agricultural > 59 % area SK 3 direct It is specified, that approximately 2/3 decreases in order: decrease of soil organic matter use land are affected indication of of the SK area is affected by deficient (Soil Science (organic carbon) > water erosion > compaction > through soil soil OM input. The intensity at agricultural and acidification > wind erosion > pollution. cultivation and degradation land is evaluated in the report as more Conservation deficient OM significant as at forested land. But the Research Decrease of SOM in the agricultural sector: more than 59 % input actual intensity of soil degradation is Institute area SK are affected through soil cultivation and deficient unknown. Bratislava, 2006) OM input. Decrease of SOM in the forestry sector: minor extent, areas under forest rather accumulate SOM Slovenia Data on organic matter content in soil is collected within no information no no information 1 indirect The intensity of a organic matter the pedologic map of Slovenia; however data is not available information available indication of decline is unknown due to the lack of (Center for Soil sufficient in order to estimate trend (systematic monitoring available soil monitoring data. Actual contents of soil and would be necessary). degradation organic matter are not available in the Environmental source document. Science, Biotechnical Faculty, Agronomy Department Ljubljana, 2006) Spain Forest fires: annual average of area affected by forest forest fires no Forest fires: 1 indirect Forest fires can theoretically cause an fires: information annual average indication of increase of the decomposition of soil (Ministerio de 1990 - 1999: 0.144 million ha (0.28 % of total area); available of area affected soil organic matter. Medio Ambiente, 2000 - 2005: 0.134 million ha (0.27 % of total area) by forest fires: degradation 2000, 2002, 1990- It cannot be deduced, how far a decline 2006) 1999:0.144 in organic matter actually occurs. million ha (0.28 % of total area); 2000 - 2005: 0.134 million ha (0.27 % of total area)

Report, Page 388 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Evaluation of the information on decline in organic matter

A decline in organic matter is counted among the consequences of desertification processes (Hein, 2002). Secondarily, SOM decline can also be regarded as a driver. This is because SOM decline increases the soil erosion risk (Van-Camp et al. 2004). Hence, information on this soil threat in the UNCCD process is expected to receive higher emphasis than soil threats that are regarded as less relevant, such as sealing or soil contamination.

Land use, land cover and agricultural practices are the main factors for a decline in organic matter (Arrouays et al. 2001). In addition to the conversion of grassland, woodlands and natural vegetation to arable land and deep ploughing of arable soils, overgrazing and fires are the most important factors responsible for a decline in soil organic matter by a loss of the soil litter pool and an increase of mineralization processes (Van-Camp et al. 2004).

Information on a decline in organic matter was found in the reviewed reports of nine Member States: Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Spain.

The reports from the three Member States Lithuania, Malta and Poland did not contain any direct or indirect information on a decline in organic matter.

This information is compiled in detail in Table 5.2.2.2.1. As explained in the following subchapters, the overall quality of information is indirect and/or general.

Category of information 1 Indirect Indicators for a decline in organic matter are mentioned Indirect indicators referring to a decline of organic matter have been found in the UNCCD reports of Cyprus, Greece, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain, such as a reduced productivity of soils, fires, forest grazing, missing plant cover. This soil threat has not been mentioned directly as a driver for desertification. Neither a ‘decline in organic matter’, synonymous terms, nor decomposition processes of organic matter is mentioned. The reports do not contain any information about the contents of organic matter in soils. Due to this lack of information about a SOM decline, there is no data about the level or about the spatial extent of a decline in organic matter. As regards the 1st key question, in the UNCCD reports of Cyprus, Greece, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain a decline in organic matter has not been directly identified as a driver for desertification. But there have been identified processes as drivers for desertification, which can theoretically induce a decline in organic matter, such as forest fires or overgrazing. Given that a SOM decline has not been identified directly as a driver for desertification, the reports of the aforementioned countries cannot be used to quantify the extent to which the soil threat contributes to desertification process (2nd key question).

Report, Page 389 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Category of information 2 Decline in organic matter is identified directly; no further information is available In the UNCCD reports for Hungary, Italy and Latvia, qualitative information on SOM decline is given directly. This soil threat has been identified as a soil degradation process, which is relevant for the desertification process. Beyond this, there is neither any information about the extent the soil threat contributes to desertification nor about the affected area. Hence, this information cannot be used to quantify the level of soil degradation by a decline in organic matter.

Category of information 3 Decline in organic matter is identified directly; information about the covered area is available In the Slovak Republic the soil threat SOM decline has been identified as a driver for desertification. Further details on how this information was derived are not given in the report. There was also no information on the spatial extent for example on a map. The soil status or the aim for the soil status concerning regional typical organic matter contents is also not mentioned. Hence, the area can be quantified that is affected by soil threat, but any further quantitative conclusions on the level of soil degradation cannot be derived. The information given is not adequate to quantify the extent to which SOM decline contributes to desertification process.

A decline of organic matter has been identified in 4 of the 12 UNCCD countries as one of the main soil threats associated with desertification or land degradation (Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Slovak Republic). Additionally, five Member States mention processes as drivers for desertification, which can theoretically cause SOM decline, but the soil threat itself has not been mentioned directly (Cyprus, Greece, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain). Three UNCCD countries have not been identified a decline in organic matter at all (Malta, Lithuania and Poland).

The evaluation referring an SOM decline leads to the conclusion that the information from Hungary, Italy, Latvia, and the Slovak Republic is adequate to answer the 1st key question: SOM decline has been identified here as a soil threat associated with desertification. But the UNCCD reports can only be limitedly used to quantify the extent to which the soil threat contributes to desertification process or is a consequence of desertification. Conclusions on the level of SOM decline cannot be drawn.

The information from the UNCCD reports based on indirect indicators cannot be used to identify and asses the soil degradation process of SOM decline at all. This kind of information is given in the UNCCD reports of Cyprus, Greece, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain. It is too general and has not enough significance to draw any conclusions about the level of soil degradation.

Report, Page 390 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

5.2.2.3 Local contamination

Table 5.2.2.3.1: Soil degradation by local contamination in the EU Member States designated in UNCCD reports

Greece Chemical pollution is mainly due to no information no information no information no 2 direct indication of Soil contamination is toxic materials, which restrain flora and available available available information soil degradation currently mentioned (Greek National Committee fauna growth. This problem, in contrast to available as a minor problem, for Combating Desertification other northern European countries, is of which is possible (2000, 2001 & 2002). minor importance to Greece at present. increasing in the However, it may become serious in the future. Precise data future. on the level of contamination is not available in the report, so that the intensity canot be assessed. Hungary Soil pollution (toxicity) is identified as a no information toxic no information no 2 direct indication of The intensity of soil soil degradation process in Hungary. available substances available information soil degradation contamination is (Ministry of Environment and available unknown. It is Water of the Republic of unknown if soil Hungary, 2002 & 2006) pollution is local or diffuse.

Italy Local contamination is identified as a no information no information no information no 2 direct indication of The intensity of soil soil degradation process in Italy. available available available information soil degradation contamination is (Ministry of Environment and available unknown. Territory (IMET), 1999, 2000, 2002, 2006)

Report, Page 391 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from UNCCD reports - Local contamination - Contractor’s Evaluation Member State Information in UNCCD reports referring to Causes of soil Pollutants Covered area Covered area Quality Assessment of Intensity of soil soil degradation (summarised if degradation causing soil (qual.) (quant.) of indications degradation necessary) degradation inform. Latvia Other types of degradation are heavy agricultural land organic no information no 2 direct indication of The intensity of soil metals in agricultural soil; soil use pollutants; available information soil degradation contamination is (Ministry of the Environment pollution by pesticides and other pesticides available unknown. It is of the Republic of Latvia organic contaminants. unknown if soil (2006) pollution is local or diffuse. Portugal The people who abandon areas urban land use; no information no information no 1 indirect indication of The intensity of soil (impoverished land, degraded area) move contaminated sites available available information soil degration (It is contamination is (Ministério da Agricultura, do to the cities, especially on the coastal / waste disposal / available not clear from the unknown. It is Desenvolvimento Rural e das strip, creating enormous pressure on this landfill; coastal report, if soil pollution unknown if soil Pescas (1999, 2000, 2002, area in both demographic and erosion; lack of is meant). pollution is local or 2006) environmental terms. land use / diffuse. countryside Managing the larger cities thus becomes abandonment extremely difficult and costly, calling for increasing resources; there are increasingly serious phenomena of degradation of the landscape and natural resources (e.g. pollution, impermeabilisation of the soil, degradation of plant-life, transformation of rural areas etc.). Slovenia Systematic research of soil pollution has mining activities / heavy metals; metal no 2 direct indication of The level of soil been so far carried out in areas covering production of raw organic processing information soil degradation degradation is (Center for Soil and about 13 % of Slovenia’s territory. The materials; pollutants industry at available described as Environmental Science, areas differ according to soil use, type of industrial land use Celje, Jesenice; regionally increased Biotechnical Faculty, potential pollution, and the content of coal mining and without any further Agronomy Department organic and inorganic hazardous matters smelter information on the Ljubljana, 2006) in the soil. An increased metal content activities in the methodology of the was recorded in the area close to metal Upper Mezica assessmenrt. processing industry (Celje, Jesenice). Valley; Anhovo; Maribor; soils Pollutant contents in Two areas in Slovenia are affected by along main soils are not coal mining and smelter activities: the roads available. Upper Mezica Valley, polluted by Pb, Zn and Cd, and Idrija, where soil in the city and its surroundings is polluted by Hg. It is characteristic of both areas that, particularly in the past, a part of metals was transported downstream.

Report, Page 392 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 393 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Evaluation of the information on local contamination

Van-Camp et al. (2004) do not announce soil contamination as a main driver of desertification or a as a widespread consequence of it. Therefore, the relevance of soil contamination as a driver for desertification is rather indirect; local (and diffuse) contamination can be expected to be a driver for desertification only, if the soil pollution poses such adverse effects on crops, that the vegetation cover will be reduced and secondary effects such as erosion, a decline in organic matter or salinisation may occur. Given this indirect nature, only little information on this soil threat is expected to be given in the UNCCD documents.

Information on local contamination was found in the UNCCD reports of Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Portugal, and Slovenia (see Table 5.2.2.3.1). The information given from these countries can be described as general. In the reports from Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovak Republic and Spain local contamination of soils is not mentioned.

Category of information 1 Indirect Indicators for local contamination are mentioned The report from Portugal gives only indirect information on local contamination. The report highlights the demographic change causing pollution because more people move into cities on the coastal strip and therefore environmental problems (e.g. pollution) increase in these areas. This information is not adequate to answer the key questions of the evaluation.

Category of information 2 Local contamination is identified directly; no further information is available The reports from Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia and Slovenia have to be classified in the second category of ‘Quality of information’, i.e. contamination is identified clearly in the reports, but no further useful information on the level of contamination, pollutants or affected areas is given. Information about the extent of the problem to be a driver for desertification is not available. In this case, information of the 2nd category of quality is not sufficient to answer the first key question and it is not adequate to quantify the extent to which soil contamination contributes to desertification process (2nd key question).

Report, Page 394 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

(Local) soil contamination has been identified as a soil threat in 7 of the 12 UNCCD countries (Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Portugal, and Slovenia). Five UNCCD countries have not been identified soil contamination at all (Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovak Republic and Spain).

Based on the general kind of information on local soil contamination given in the UNCCD reports of 7 of 12 Member States, it is not possible to derive any quantitative conclusions on the contribution of local contamination to the desertification process. This is because spatial data on the level of soil contamination, e.g. pollutant contents in ppm, are required to draw conclusions for the intensity of soil degradation. Local contamination is mentioned as pressure for soils, but not explicitly as a driver for desertification or land degradation respectively. As regards local contamination, the UNCCD reports cannot be used to describe the level of soil contamination.

Report, Page 395 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

5.2.2.4 Diffuse contamination

Table 5.2.2.4.1: Soil degradation by diffuse contamination in the EU Member States designated in UNCCD reports

Greece The quality of water resources has degraded in agricultural land no no no information 1 indirect The use of low quality waters for many locations. Pollution of water is due to use; information information available indication of irrigation as well as (Greek National agricultural acitvites, urban effluents and inappropriate available available soil atmospherical deposition of acids Committee for industrial discharges. Quality problems have also irrigation / degradation can theoretically cause diffuse Combating occurred due to over-pumping, as in many irrigation with soil contamination. It is unknown, Desertification coastal regions brackish water has been low quality if soil contamination actually (2000, 2001 & 2002) observed in aquifers. Water resources are water occurs. intensively exploited, especially for irrigation purposes (80-84 % of consumed freshwater in an annual basis) through a non-satisfactory infrastructure resulting in major water losses. Rapid soil acidification is due to acid rain coming from the use of fuels containing sulphur and other human actions. Hungary Soil acidification and soil pollution (toxicity) no information toxic no no information 2 direct The intensity of soil are identified as soil degradation processes in available substances; information available indication of contamination is unknown. It is (Ministry of Environment Hungary. acids available soil unknown if soil pollution is local and Water of the degradation or diffuse. Republic of Hungary, 2002 & 2006)

Report, Page 396 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Latvia Types of degradation are soil acidification and agricultural land phospho- no no information 1 indirect The input of nutrients deriving eutrophication by nitrates and phosphates. use rus; nitrate information available indication of acidification and eutrophication (Ministry of the available soil can theoretically imply diffuse soil Environment of the degradation contamination. Republic of Latvia, 2006) Lithuania Damage caused by water erosion is very no information no no no information 1 indirect Water pollution induced by the diversified: washing of the fertile soil layer and available information information available indication of washing of nutrients from slopes (Ministry of Environment nutrients from slopes, destruction of crops on available available soil degration can theoretically imply diffuse soil of the Republic of eroded slopes, erosion of trench slope roads, contamination with nutrients.. Lithuania, 2006) sanding of trench beds, silting of water bodies and water pollution. Portugal People who abandon areas (impoverished land, lack of land use no no no information 1 indirect The intensity of soil degraded area) move to the cities, especially on / countryside information information available indication of contamination is unknown. It is (Ministério da the coastal strip, creating enormous pressure on abandonment; available available soil degration unknown if soil pollution is local Agricultura, do this area in both demographic and environmental coastal erosion; (It is not clear or diffuse. Desenvolvimento Rural terms. Managing the larger cities thus becomes contaminated from the e das Pescas, 1999, extremely difficult and costly, calling for sites / waste report, if soil 2000, 2002, 2006) increasing resources; there are increasingly disposal / pollution is serious phenomena of degradation of the landfill; urban meant). landscape and natural resources (e.g. pollution, land use impermeabilisation of the soil, degradation of plant-life, transformation of rural areas etc.) Slovak Republic The significance of soil threats in agricultural atmospheric no agricultural agricultural 3 direct A percentage of < 1.5 % of sector decreases in order: decrease of soil deposition; information land; forests; sector: < 1.5 % indication of agricultural areas (Soil Science and organic matter (organic carbon) > water erosion urban land use; available urban or area: reaching/ soil reaches/exeeds the acceptable Conservation Research > compaction > acidification > wind erosion > agricultural land industrial exceeding of degradation values, but it is unknown which Institute Bratislava, pollution. use areas acceptable values are meant. 2006) limits; Below 1.5 % area in the agricultural sector: The quoted ratio of acifidication in reaching/exceeding of acceptable limits. agriculture appears high in relation to an estimation of the

Report, Page 397 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Information from UNCCD reports - Diffuse contamination - Contractor’s Evaluation Member State Information in UNCCD reports referring to soil Causes of soil Pollutants Covered area Covered area Quality Assessment Intensity of soil degradation degradation degradation causing soil of of indications (summarised if necessary) degradation (qual.) (quant.) inform. acidification: area exceeding critical loads for 17.5 % of the acidfication with more than 10 % Acidification in the agricultural sector: 17.5 % of area SK; of the land area of Western and the area SK. Central Europe (RIVM/CCE forestry sector: 1998); but there is no information Soils in forestry sector are often affected by around 7 % of available on the level of acidification and pollution. In the forestry the area acifidication of soils. sector: around 7 % of the area is directly influenced by influenced by local sources of immissions. In the local Anthropogenic acidfication at forestry sector: 55 % of the area has soil pH immissions, more than a half of forest soils is below 5.0 due to emission deposition. 55 % of the area indicate a high spatial extent of has soil acifidication in relation to the Soils in urban or industrial areas are regionally pH < 5.0 due to aforementioned estimation of affected by pollution and compaction. In urban emission affected land area in Europe. The and industrial areas contamination is most deposition. level of acifidication is announced relevant to cities with high traffic and industrial as very strongly to extremely acid influence. conditions due to pH ranges <5.0. The spatial extent and the level of soil contamination in urban and industrial areas cannot be evaluated due to a lack of data on contents of pollutants in soils. Slovenia Systematic research of soil pollution has been agricultural land pesticides; areas of no information 2 direct The level of soil degradation is so far carried out in areas covering about 13 % use heavy intensive available indication of described as regionally increased (Center for Soil and of Slovenia’s territory. The areas differ according metals; agriculture; soil without any further information on Environmental Science, to soil use, type of potential pollution, and the toxic orchards and degradation the methodology of the Biotechnical Faculty, content of organic and inorganic hazardous substances vineyards in assessmenrt. Pollutant contents Agronomy Department matters in the soil. An increase in some organic the area of in soils are not available. Ljubljana, 2006) hazardous matters was recorded in areas of Koper intensive agriculture. Increased metal contents in the soil can be also contributed to agricultural technologies. In the area of Koper, research covered also orchards and vineyards where increased copper contents in the soil were recorded due to long and regular application of substances for plant protection.

Report, Page 398 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Evaluation of the information on diffuse contamination

Similar to local contamination, diffuse contamination is only regarded as a driver for desertification if the soil pollution causes adverse effects on crops (see chapter 5.2.2.3). Given this indirect nature, UNCCD documents are only expected to provide little information on this soil threat.

In the context of desertification, it has to be assumed that pollution is understood as pollution from persistent substances or acidifying substances and not by phosphorous or nitrates, as described in the WFD Article 5 reports.

Information on diffuse contamination was found in the UNCCD reports from Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovenia and Slovak Republic (see Table 5.2.2.4.1). The information given by these countries is rather general. In the reports from Malta, Poland and Spain, diffuse contamination of soils is not mentioned directly or indirectly.

Category of information 1 Indirect Indicators for diffuse contamination are mentioned The reports from Greece, Latvia, Lithuania and Portugal provide only indirect information on diffuse contamination. In the Greek report, only pollution of water due to agricultural activities and soil acidification are mentioned. These are interpreted as indirect indicators for existing diffuse contamination. Latvia also mentions soil acidification in its report. Soil contamination is not explicitly mentioned as a driver for desertification or land degradation. This quality of information is not adequate to answer the key questions of the evaluation.

Category of information 2 Diffuse contamination is identified directly; no further information is available The reports from Cyprus, Hungary, Italy and Slovenia are classified in the second category ‘Quality of information’, (i.e. contamination is identified clearly in the reports) but no further useful information on the level of contamination, pollutants or affected areas is given. Irrigation is given as one of the causes for diffuse contamination. The reports include information about irrigated areas, but there is no consistent and complete information on diffuse contamination, for example by atmospheric or industrial input. This issue is described quite generally. In this case, information pertaining to the 2nd category of quality is not sufficient to answer the first key question regarding the extent to which the soil threat has been identified to be a driver for desertification and it is not adequate to quantify the level of soil contamination.

Report, Page 399 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Category of information 3 Diffuse contamination is identified directly; information about the spatial aspects of soil degradation is available The report from the Slovak Republic presents the most information on diffuse contamination. Since the soil threat is described in the UNCCD document, it is regarded as relevant for desertification in the Slovak Republic (1st key question). There is no further information given on the substances and their concentrations in the soil. A map showing the spatial extent is also not available in the report, thus the information given is not adequate to quantify the extent to which SOM decline contributes to desertification process (2nd key question).

(Diffuse) soil contamination has been identified by 9 of 12 Member States as a relevant process for desertification. However, based on the general information given, it is not possible to derive any quantitative conclusions on the contribution of diffuse contamination to the desertification process. This is because spatial data on the level of soil contamination (e.g. pollutant contents in ppm) are required to draw conclusions for the intensity of soil degradation.

Only Cyprus clearly points out in its report that ‘the use of low quality waters for irrigation is a factor that contributes to desertification’. Thus, diffuse contamination has been identified directly only in one Member State as a driver for desertification.

With the exception of Latvia, only information on the occurrence of soil contamination is given, but the substances causing the contamination are not specified. Generally, substantial data concerning the soil status is missing. Due to the general information, the UNCCD reports can be used only to a limited extent to describe level of diffuse soil contamination.

Report, Page 400 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

5.2.2.5 Sealing

Table 5.2.2.5.1: Soil degradation by sealing in the EU Member States designated in UNCCD reports

Hungary Surface sealing is identified as a soil degradation no no no 2 direct indication of The intensity of soil sealing is unknown. process in Hungary. information information information soil degradation (Ministry of available available available Environment and Water of the Republic of Hungary, 2002 & 2006)

Portugal The people who abandon areas (impoverished land, coastal no no 1 indirect indication of The intensity of soil sealing is unknown. degraded area) move to the cities, especially on the erosion; road information information soil degradation (Ministério da coastal strip, creating enormous pressure on this construction; available available Agricultura, do area in both demographic and environmental terms. urban land Impermeabilisation of Desenvolvimento Managing the larger cities thus becomes extremely use the soil is understood Rural e das Pescas, difficult and costly, calling for increasing resources; as sealing of soil 1999, 2000, 2002, there are increasingly serious phenomena of surface. 2006) degradation of the landscape and natural resources (e.g. pollution, impermeabilisation of the soil, degradation of plant-life, transformation of rural areas etc.)

Report, Page 401 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from UNCCD reports - Sealing - Contractor’s Evaluation and Notes Member State Information in UNCCD reports referring to soil Causes of Covered Covered area Quality Assessment of Intensity of soil degradation degradation (summarised if necessary) soil area (quant.) of indications degradation (qual.) inform. Slovak Republic Agricultural soil sealing, 4-5 hectare per day, is urban land agricultural agriculture: 4- 4 direct indication of Sealing indicates a high level of soil regionally specific. In comparison to EU countries use; industrial land; urban 5 ha/day soil degradation degradation, because soil functions are (Soil Science and seems acceptable, but an increasing trend is land use and (increasing); severly impaired. It is nearly irreversible Conservation identified. industrial forestry: It is not fully clear, (Burghardt, et al. 2004). Research Institute areas negligible what is meant by Bratislava, 2006) In the forestry sector sealing appears to a extent 'agricultural soil The level of soil sealing quoted as approx. negligible extent, recently forest area increases on sealing'. Although it 4 - 5 ha per day is low in comparison to e.g. account of agriculture. might be interpreted the actual German daily increase of soil as a taking up of land sealing at about 93 ha in 2003 per day Sealing in urban and industrial areas gradually for agricultural (Federal Government of Germany 2003). increases due to sealing of next mostly agricultural cultivation, it is Because it is not sure that both values can soil. interpreted here as be compared due to the lack of information soil sealing by hard on the methodology, we use it here as an surfaces at indication only. The value cannot be proved agricultural land, properly due to the lack of information on because it is also the methodology. mentioned as ‘soil sealing’ in the report The statement in the report that sealing of with the same forest areas is a minor problem in the SK, number of ha/day. cannot be proved and evaluatd due to a lack Soil sealing can be of quantitative data. caused by agricultural buildings such as stables etc., but also for infrastructure, urban settlement and industrial purposes.

Report, Page 402 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from UNCCD reports - Sealing - Contractor’s Evaluation and Notes Member State Information in UNCCD reports referring to soil Causes of Covered Covered area Quality Assessment of Intensity of soil degradation degradation (summarised if necessary) soil area (quant.) of indications degradation (qual.) inform. Slovenia Similarly to other threats that can cause land urban land built-up built-up 4 direct indication of The percentage of built-up areas in SI is degradation, Slovenia has very little information on use areas; areas: 2.9 % soil degradation relatively low in relation to an estimation by (Center for Soil and the loss of soil due to sealing and construction of roads in 1993, the EEA (2006b) specifying 25 % of the Environmental roads. Slovenia has lost extensive areas of arable 3.8 % European Union’s territory as directly Science, Biotechnical land due to construction of settlements, industrial (18246 ha) in affected by urban land use . However, the Faculty, Agronomy and other facilities, shopping centres and numerous 2001; road indicator of municipal land conversion has Department Ljubljana, other buildings. In a period 1993-2001 a share of construction: been increased from 1995 to 2002. 2006) urban land (built-up areas covered by buildings 12164 ha; and roads) in total surface area increased by 0.9 % municipalities’ The amount of available information on built- (i.e. from 2.9 % to 3.8 %), accounting to 18,246 ha. proposals for up areas seems to be quite contradictory to The majority of land (12,164 ha) was used for road conversion of the statement in the UNCCD report that construction. A combination of data on surface area agricultural Slovenia has very little information on the and quality of soil (soil type and soil production land: 140 ha loss of soil due to sealing. potential) would be definitely more explicit than bare in 1995, Our interpretation of the statement on a total surface area lost due to construction. 2384 ha in combination of data on surface area and soil 2002 quality is that additional data on the natural soil state is desired in areas lost due to construction. We endorse this statement, because additional data on the quality of soil under sealed surfaces allow a better understanding of the severity of the problem and the extent to which soil functions are actually impaired by sealing. For example: Soil functions are more impaired, if soils with a high soil production potential are affected by sealing than if low productive soils are affected. However, data on total surface area lost by sealing on its own is also valuable for an assessment.

Report, Page 403 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Evaluation of the information on sealing

Soil sealing occurs mainly through the development of technical, social and economic infrastructures, especially in urban areas. Sealed areas are lost for uses such as agriculture or forestry, which severely impairs natural ecological soil functions. Sealing interrupts the contact between the pedosphere and atmosphere and thus changes the gas fluxes. Sealed soils do not act as water storage bodies any more. Sealed areas are life hostile places. They do not allow the establishment of plant communities and accompanying fauna. In addition, surrounding soils may be influenced by changes in water flow patterns or the fragmentation of habitats. Sealing causes an irreversible loss of soil resources (e.g. fertility, humus, rootable soil volume) and soil functions (e.g. water storage capacity, ground water renewal, soil as sink and diluter for pollutants, transformation of organic wastes) (Burghardt et al., 2004).

According to the scientific literature, sealing is not a direct driver for desertification (Van-Camp, 2004). Therefore, information on this soil threat is expected to receive less attention in the UNCCD documents than soil threats that are regarded as main causes of desertification, such as soil erosion.

Information on sealing was found in the UNCCD reports from Cyprus, Hungary, Portugal, Slovak Republic and Slovenia (see Table 5.2.2.5.1). The information collected from these countries is general in nature. In the other 7 UNCCD countries (Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta, Poland, and Spain), sealing is not mentioned directly or indirectly at all.

Category of information 1 Indirect Indicators for sealing are mentioned The reports from Cyprus and Portugal give only indirect information on sealing, for example ‘land uptake for urbanisation’. The Portuguese report highlights the demographic change resulting in impermeable soil due to an increased urban coastal population. Information of this quality is not adequate to answer the key questions of the evaluation.

Category of information 2 Sealing is identified directly; no further information is available The report from Hungary mentions surface sealing directly, but no further information on spatial extent is given. Information regarding the 2nd category of quality is sufficient to answer the first key question referring to the identification of the soil threat. However, the information is not adequate to quantify the extent to which soil sealing contributes to desertification process.

Report, Page 404 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Category of information 4 Sealing is identified directly; information about the intensity of soil degradation is available The report from the Slovak Republic describes ‘soil sealing’ in agricultural areas and provides quantitative information on the level of soil sealing as 4 to 5 hectares per day. According to the Slovak UNCCD report, sealing appears to a negligible extent in the forestry sector. The soil threat is regarded as a less significant soil degradation process in the Slovak Republic.

Slovenia‘s report contains more detailed information on sealing. The increase of urban land and land used for roads is given in detail. The report points out that the Statistical Office of Slovenia (SORS) does not keep data on land categories that were lost due to construction, while data on soil types and production potential have not yet been prepared sufficiently to make a detailed calculation.

Soil sealing has been identified as a relevant process for desertification and is mentioned in the UNCCD documents (1st key question). For Slovakia and Slovenia, the information categorized in the 4th class of information quality provides data on the intensity of soil degradation in the form of soil sealing rates. Hence, the level of soil sealing can be quantified (see above) and used to assess this soil threat (2nd key question). However, there is a lack of methodological information to prove and evaluate the data properly.

As expected, only a small number of Member States (5 of 12) mention ’sealing’ in their UNCCD reports. The information ranges from very general descriptions, as in the Portuguese reports, to a more detailed evaluation as found in the Slovak and Slovenian reports.

Soil sealing has been identified as a relevant process for desertification due to the fact that sealing is considered a soil degradation process in the UNCCD documents. Nevertheless, none of the reports describes how soil sealing impacts the desertification process. Based on the general information provided from the aforementioned countries, it is not possible to derive any quantitative conclusions on the contribution of sealing to the desertification process.

As regards sealing, the UNCCD reports can be used only to a limited extent to describe the soil state and the level of soil degradation.

Report, Page 405 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

5.2.2.6 Compaction

Table 5.2.2.6.1: Soil degradation by Compaction in the EU Member States designated in UNCCD reports

Information from UNCCD reports - Compaction - Contractor’s Evaluation Member State Information in UNCCD reports referring to Causes of soil Covered area Covered area Quality of Assessment of Intensity of soil soil degradation (summarised if necessary) degradation (qual.) (quant.) information indications degradation Hungary Compaction is identified as a soil no information available no information no information 2 direct indication The intensity of degradation process in Hungary. available available of soil compaction is unknown. (Ministry of Environment degradation and Water of the Republic of Hungary, 2002 & 2006)

Latvia Other types of degradation are soil agricultural land use no information no information 2 direct indication The intensity of compaction; lowering of the soil surface available available of soil compaction is unknown. (Ministry of the and waterlogging. degradation Environment of the Republic of Latvia, 2006) Slovak Republic The significance of soil threats in agricultural agricultural land use; all urban and 27 % of the area 3 direct indication Almost 1/3 of the SK area sector decreases in order: decrease of soil urban land use industrial areas; SK are affected by of soil is affected by subsurface (Soil Science and organic matter (organic carbon) > water agricultural land; subsurface degradation compaction under Conservation Research erosion > compaction > acidification > wind forests to a compaction in agricultural land use. But Institute Bratislava, erosion > pollution. negligible extent agriculture there is a lack of reference 2006) values on the European In urban and industrial areas practically all level to evaluate the area is affected by compaction in different spatial extent as high or extent. low. In the agricultural sector 27 % of the area The actual intensity of SK are affected by subsurface compaction. compaction is unknown. A Compaction in the forestry sector is to a very high spatial extent of negligible extent. soil compaction is given for urban and industrial areas, whereas forests are affected to a negligible extent (no numeric data available).

Report, Page 406 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Evaluation of the information on compaction

Physical degradation of the soil structure is a consequence of desertification processes (Hein, 2002). Furthermore, compaction can also be regarded as a driver, because it can increase the soil erosion risk (Van-Camp et al. 2004). Hence, UNCCD documents are expected to include more information for compaction than for soil threats that are regarded as less relevant in the framework of desertification, such as sealing or soil contamination.

Information on compaction was found in the UNCCD reports from only 3 Member States (Hungary, Latvia and Slovak Republic) (see Table 5.2.2.6.1). Compaction is not mentioned directly or indirectly in the UNCCD reports from Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, and Spain.

Category of information 2 Compaction is identified directly; no further information is available The reports from Hungary and Latvia mention compaction directly in their UNCCD documents, but no further information on spatial extent or the intensity is given. Information regarding the 2nd category of quality is adequate to answer the first key question referring to the identification of the soil threat as a driver for desertification. However, the information is not adequate to quantify the extent to which compaction contributes to desertification process. provide

Category of information 3 Compaction is identified directly; information about the covered area is available The report from the Slovak Republic describes compaction as a significant soil threat. The report specifies that 27 % of the country is affected by subsurface compaction under agricultural land use. As the soil threat is described in the UNCCD document, it is regarded as relevant for desertification in the Slovak Republic (1st key question). Since the UNCCD document does not give the level of compaction, the information is not adequate to quantify the extent to which compaction contributes to desertification process (2nd key question).

Report, Page 407 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Contrary to our expectations, based on the theoretical background, only a few Member States (3 of 12) mention ‘soil compaction’ explicitly in their UNCCD reports. One possible reason is that soil compaction is not well known as a specific soil degradation process in many Member States, mainly due to a lack of knowledge how to identify soils that are affected by soil compaction and on identification methods to detect soil compaction.

The information ranges from very general, as in the Hungarian reports, to somewhat more information, as found in the Slovakian report. Based on the reports, it cannot be concluded to which extent compaction contributes to desertification processes or to which extent it is a consequence of desertification. Using the general and incomplete information at hand, it is not possible to derive any quantitative conclusions on the level of compaction. Hence, the UNCCD reports can not be used to describe the soil status and the risk compaction poses on soil.

Report, Page 408 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

5.2.2.7 Decline in biodiversity

Table 5.2.2.7.1: Soil degradation by a decline in biodiversity in the EU Member States designated in UNCCD reports

Information from UNCCD reports - Decline in biodiversity - Contractor’s Evaluation Member State Information in UNCCD reports referring to soil degradation Causes of soil Covered area Covered area Quality Assessment of Intensity of soil (summarised if necessary) degradation (qual.) (quant.) of indications degradation inform. Greece Over-exploitation of forests, during which the most productive tree land clearing; land clearings; no 2 direct indication of The intensity of soil individuals are removed, as well as, the uncontrolled activities forestry forests information soil degradation degradation is (Greek National aiming at the construction and maintenance of forest roads, result available unknown. Committee for in biodiversity decline, and simplification of the forest ecosystem. Combating Desertification (2000, 2001 & 2002) Hungary Deterioration of soil biota is identified as a soil degradation climate conditions agricultural land; no 2 direct indication of The intensity of the process in Hungary. Drought is a considerable risk factor, (e.g. aridity) information soil degradation decline in biodiversity (Ministry of especially on the Great Hungarian Plain and other parts of the middle region of available is unknown. Environment and country, and the signs of desertification can also be found. The the country Water of the country suffered from numerous droughts in its history, and drought between the River Republic of events have become more intensive and more frequent during the Danube and River Hungary, 2002 & past decades. Despite the fact that the agricultural sector is the Tisza; some other 2006) most directly exposed to the harmful impacts of extremely dry parts of the conditions, it is also becoming more and more evident that all country living organisms, the natural habitat, all other sectors of the economy and a significant part of the society suffer from the adverse impacts of drought. Until now desertification is not a definite phenomenon, but it could be developed first of all in those areas, where soil and habitat degradation processes take place, especially in the middle region of the country between the River Danube and River Tisza, but in some other parts of the country as well. Latvia Land degradation in Latvia declines the richness of biodiversity agricultural land no information no 2 direct indication of The intensity of the (including agrobiodiversity). use available information soil degradation decline in biodiversity (Ministry of the available is unknown. Environment of the It is not possible to estimate the extent to which the land Republic of Latvia, degradation impacts a biological diversity at this time due to limited 2006) soil and vegetation monitoring activities.

Report, Page 409 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Evaluation of the information on decline in biodiversity

According to the scientific literature, a decline in biodiversity is a consequence of desertification processes (Hein, 2002). Hence, information on this soil threat is expected to be provided to a greater extent in the UNCCD documents compared to soil threats that are regarded as a minor relevance for desertification.

Information on biodiversity was found only in 3 UNCCD reports (Greece, Hungary and Latvia) (see Table 5.2.2.7.1). The quality of the information of all three sources falls into category 2 (i.e. decline in biodiversity is identified directly) but no further information is available in the UNCCD documents. Biodiversity is not mentioned directly or indirectly in the UNCCD reports from Cyprus, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, and Spain.

Direct but general information on decline in biodiversity was found in the Hungarian UNCCD reports. Deterioration of soil biota is clearly identified as a soil degradation process in Hungary. While there is a general description of eminently affected areas, further information regarding the soil threat’s contribution to desertification is not available. The level of biodiversity cannot be derived based on the information given in the reports because there is no specific information on the soil status or biodiversity indicators (e.g. decomposition rates). Greece and Latvia mention biodiversity decline without giving further data on the spatial extension or intensity.

Information of the 2nd category of quality is adequate to answer the first key question referring to the identification of the soil threat and its relevancy in the context of the desertification process. Nevertheless, the information is not adequate to quantify the extent to which biodiversity decline contributes to desertification process or is a consequence of desertification.

Contrary to our expectations only a few Member States (3 of 12) mention ‘biodiversity decline’ explicitly in their UNCCD reports as a consequence of desertification. One possible reason is that biodiversity decline is not well known as a specific soil degradation process in many Member States. As a consequence, there is a lack of knowledge how to identify soils that are affected by a decline in soil biodiversity.

The information given on biodiversity decline ranges from very general,as in the Hungarian reports, to somewhat more information, as found in the Slovakian report. It is of a general nature without any specified data on the level of the decline in biodiversity. Based on this general information, it is not possible to derive any quantitative conclusions on the contribution of biodiversity decline to the desertification process or the extent to which it is a consequence of desertification processes. The UNCCD reports cannot be used to describe the level of soil degradation resulting from biodiversity decline.

Report, Page 410 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

5.2.2.8 Salinisation

Table 5.2.2.8.1: Soil degradation by salinisation in the EU Member States designated in UNCCD reports

Information from UNCCD reports - Salinisation - Contractor’s Evaluation Member State Information in UNCCD reports referring to soil degradation Causes of soil Covered area Covered area (quant.) Quality Assessment Intensity of soil degradation (summarised if necessary) degradation (qual.) of of indications inform. Cyprus The use of low quality waters for irrigation is a factor that inappropriate agricultural no information available 2 direct The intensity of salinisation is contributes to desertification. The long-term use of these drainage land, which is indication of unknown. It can be expected, that the (Ministry of waters causes degradation of the colloidal phase of the techniques; irrigated with soil intensity is different depending on soil Agriculture, soils, high build-up of salinity, high concentration of toxic inappropriate low quality degradation condition, water quality and intensity of Natural elements with an inevitable effect on commercial growing irrigation / waters irrigation. Resources and plants, etc. The use of low quality water in irrigation, and the irrigation with Environment inappropriate irrigation and drainage techniques often applied low quality Cyprus, 2002 & increase the soil salinity in agricultural lands leading to their water; 2007) degradation. agricultural land use Greece Agricultural practices have had a severe impact on cultivated inappropriate relative small no information available 2 direct The intensity of salinisation is areas through three processes of desertification: Soil erosion; irrigation / area in indication of unknown. (Greek National Over-exploitation of available water resources resulting to irrigation with Greece is soil Committee for their downgrading or even exhaustion; Secondary soil low quality threatened by degradation Combating salinization (caused by irrational irrigation). water; salinisation Desertification agricultural land and (2000, 2001 & Salinization and sodification are the main chemical use sodification 2002) procedures causing desertification in sensitive alluvial plains. Salinization and high alkalinity threaten a relatively small area in Greece. Especially dangerous is secondary salinization, caused by irrational irrigation of agricultural land. About 30% of the Greek area is currently seriously threatened by desertification. Hungary Salinisation/alkalinisation is identified as a soil degradation climate no Salinity/alkalinity is the 3 direct The spatial extent of process in Hungary. conditions information limiting factor for soil indication of salinisation/alkalinisation (8.1 % of (Ministry of (e.g. aridity) available fertility at 757000 ha soil Hungarian territory) appears relatively Environment and (8.1 % of Hungarian degradation low in comparison to an estimation of Water of the territory). In deeper 25 % of irrigated land affected by Republic of layers it is the limiting salinisation in the European Hungary, factor for soil fertility at Mediterranean (France, Italy, Portugal, 2002 & 2006) 245000 ha (2.6 % of Spain, Yugoslavia) (Szabolcs 1990). Hungarian territory) We evaluate the level of salinisation as (1999). high due to the fact that soil fertility is limited by salinisation/alkalinity.

Report, Page 411 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Slovak Republic In the agricultural sector: 0.2 % of the area of SK are occupied de-icing saline soils; saline soils: 0.2 % of 3 direct The causes for soil salinity in the by saline soils (Solonchaks and Solonetz). In the forestry activities soils around the area of SK indication of agricultural sector cannot be assumed (Soil Science sector: negligible extent around routes. In urban and industrial routes in soil on the basis of given information and areas the areas around roads are chemically treated in winter forests; degradation (naturally or secondarily). However, Conservation period. around roads saline soils occur to a small spatial Research in urban and extent of the SK in comparison to an Institute industrial estimation of 25 % of irrigated land Bratislava, 2006) areas affected by salinisation in the European Mediterranean (France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Yugoslavia) (Szabolcs 1990). The spatial extent due to chemical treatment of roads is assumed to be also of minor spatial importance, because the main impact on soils is located up to approximately 10 meters from the treated road surface, and to a minor level up to 100 meters (UMEG 2003). The level of salinisation is unknown. Spain Salinisation is identified as a soil degradation process in no information no no information available 2 direct The intensity of salinisation is Spain. available information indication of unknown. (Ministerio de available soil Medio Ambiente, degradation 2000, 2002, 2006)

Report, Page 412 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Evaluation of the information on salinisation

Salinisation is one of the main drivers for desertification (Van-Camp et al, 2004). Thus, information on this soil threat is expected to be given to a greater extent in the UNCCD process compared to soil threats that are regarded as less relevant.

Soil salinisation is mentioned in 6 countries reviewed, namely Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Slovak Republic, and Spain (see Table 5.2.2.8.1). The quality of information varies and can be described as general. There is information provided for categories 2 and 3 referring to the ‘Quality of information’. Salinisation is not mentioned in the reports from Lithuania, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Portugal, and Slovenia directly or indirectly.

Category of information 2 Salinisation is identified directly; no further information is available In the UNCCD reports from Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Spain, information on salinisation is given directly in the description of irrigation activities. The use of low quality water in irrigation, the overexploitation of coastal groundwater, and the inappropriate irrigation and drainage techniques often applied lead to an increase of soil salinity in agricultural lands. Hence, salinisation due to the use of low quality waters has been identified as a driver for desertification. However, there is neither any information about the quantitative extent the soil threat contributes to desertification nor any precise data about the affected area.

Since the information is so general in nature, it cannot be used to quantify the level of soil degradation by salinisation.

Category of information 3 Salinisation is identified directly; information about the covered area is available Hungary’s reports directly identify ‘salinisation/alkalinisation’ as a soil degradation process, which is relevant in the UNCCD context. However, there is no information available concerning the extent to which salinisation contributes to desertification. Additional information about the area where salinisation is the limiting factor for soil fertility is available. Hence, it is possible to assess the spatial extent of the soil degradation process and the level of salinisation qualitatively (see Table 5.2.2.8.1). A map of salinisation is not available. The Slovak Republic’s report indicates that 0.2 % of the country contains saline soils but the level of salinisation is unknown.

The information classified in category 3 can be used to describe the affected area of soil degradation generally. Nevertheless, the information is not adequate to quantify the extent to which salinisation contributes to desertification processes. The quantitative level of soil degradation cannot be derived.

Report, Page 413 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Salinisation was not elaborated very well in the UNCCD reports. Although it is mentioned as a problem in six of twelve UNCCD countries, this soil threat is only explicitly identified as a significant driver for desertification in the Greece alluvial plains. With the exception of the Greek example, the given information describes the occurrence of salinisation in a general way. One possible reason for the general nature of the information is that salinisation is not well known as a specific soil degradation process in many Member States. As a consequence, we expect a lack of measurement data on salinisation and a lack of knowledge on the correlation between soil salinisation and the impairment of soil functions.

Moreover, it is remarkable that two Mediterranean countries (Malta and Portugal) have not identified soil salinisation at all. Appropriate reasons for that could not be found.

To conclude, the UNCCD reports can only be used to a limited extent to quantify the extent to which salinisation contributes to the desertification process. The information given by the six aforementioned Member States is not adequate to describe the level of soil degradation by salinisation.

Report, Page 414 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

5.2.2.9 Floods and landslides

In the evaluated UNCCD reports, the information on floods and landslides is given separately. Therefore, the information is documented in two tables, Table 5.2.2.9.1 on floods and below Table 5.2.2.10.1 on landslides.

Table 5.2.2.9.1: Soil degradation by floods in the EU Member States designated in UNCCD reports

Information from UNCCD reports – Floods - Contractor’s Evaluation Member State Information in UNCCD reports referring to soil Causes of soil Covered area Covered area Quality Assessment of Intensity of soil degradation (summarised if necessary) degradation (qual.) (quant.) of indications degradation inform. Italy Floods are identified as a soil degradation no information no information no information 2 direct indication The intensity of soil process in Italy. available available available of soil degradation by floods is (Ministry of degradation unknown. Environment and Territory (IMET), 1999, 2000, 2002, 2006)

Slovenia Over 300,000 hectares of Slovenian territory is no information no information no information 2 direct indication The size of flood risk exposed to flooding. Severe floods affecting available available available of soil areas is quoted. However, (Center for Soil and larger areas can be expected on the territory of degradation this is not the area of Environmental 94,000 ha. More than 2,500 ha of urban areas threatened soils by flood Science, Biotechnical can also be flooded. More than a quarter of events. The actual Faculty, Agronomy Slovenia’s population lives in areas where intensity of soil Department Ljubljana, catastrophic floods (with occurring period of degradation is unknown. 2006) 50 years or more) can occur. Spain Floods are identified as a soil degradation no information no information no information 2 direct indication The intensity of the floods process in Spain. available available available of soil is unknown. (Ministerio de Medio degradation Ambiente, 2000, 2002, 2006)

Report, Page 415 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Table 5.2.2.10.1: Soil degradation by landslides in the EU Member States designated in UNCCD reports

Information from UNCCD reports – Landslides - Contractor’s Evaluation Member State Information in UNCCD reports referring to soil Causes of soil Covered area Covered area Quality Assessment of Intensity of soil degradation (summarised if necessary) degradation (qual.) (quant.) of indications degradation inform. Portugal Depopulation leaves areas totally abandoned, lack of land use no information no information 2 direct indication As given in the UNCCD deprived of the conditions that might mitigate the / countryside available available of soil reports, vast areas of (Ministério da problem by encouraging replacement of plant cover abandonment degradation Portugal that are Agricultura, do and, as a consequence, infiltration of water into soil abandoned are prone to Desenvolvimento and sub-soil. This is what is happening in vast areas of landslides. A proper Rural e das Pescas, Portugal, where the land has been allowed to fall into evaluation of the spatial 1999, 2000, 2002, extreme degradation, and is now abandoned and extent cannot be given 2006) often subject to such destructive phenomena as fire or due to a lack of landslides. methodological information. However, the intensity of the soil degradation caused by landslides is unknown. Slovak Republic Soil degradation by landslides: Negligible extent in surface forests; urban and no information 2 direct indication Landslides are identified the agricultural sector; minor extent in the forestry topography industrial areas available of soil to a minor extent without (Soil Science and sector and in urban and industrial areas, on deforested degradation any further information. Conservation steep slopes or forest/infrastructure interface. The intensity of soil Research Institute degradation is unknown. Bratislava, 2006) Slovenia In Slovenia land sliding is a frequent phenomenon surface no information no information 2 direct indicator It is stated that landslides on as much as one third of the country’s territory. Land topography available available of soil are frequent (Center for Soil and sliding differs with regard to the speed of sliding degradation phenomenons at 1/3 of Environmental material, its mass, depth and type. Areas prone to land inappropriate the country's territory. The Science, Biotechnical sliding are unstable and conditionally stable. Land spatial planning actual spatial extent and Faculty, Agronomy sliding occurs when soil is saturated with water and the intensity of soil Department Ljubljana, in cases of inappropriate spatial planning. degradation by landslides 2006) is unknown.

Report, Page 416 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Evaluation of the information on floods and landslides

(a) Floods

Flood risks can be a consequence of desertification processes (Hein, 2002; Van-Camp et al, 2004). Thus, information on this soil threat is expected to be given to a greater extent in the UNCCD reports compared to soil threats that are regarded as less relevant.

In 3 of the 12 evaluated countries, floods are mentioned in the UNCCD documents (Italy, Slovenia, and Spain). All three of the Member States are categorised in category 2 (see 5.2.2.9.1). Floods are not mentioned in the UNCCD reports from Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Portugal, and the Slovak Republic.

Category of information 2 Floods are identified directly; no further information is available In the reports from Italy, Slovenia and Spain, information on floods is provided directly in the description, and floods are identified clearly as a soil degradation process. While the Italy and Spain reports only briefly and generally mention floods, the Slovenian report points out that over 300,000 ha of the country are exposed to flooding. However, this is not the area of threatened soils by flood events, so this information is viewed as superficial.

Due to the general quality of information, the given information cannot be used to quantify the extent to which floods contribute to desertification processes or to describe the level of soil degradation by floods.

(b) Landslides

The risk for landslides can be a consequence of desertification processes (Hein, 2002; Van-Camp et al, 2004). Thus, the UNCCD reports are expected to give more information on the soil threat of landslides than for soil threats that are regarded as less relevant. Although gravity acting on an over steepened slope is the primary reason for a landslide, there are other contributing factors affecting the original slope stability: erosion by rivers or ocean waves; rock and soil slopes which are weakened through saturation by heavy rains; and in shallow soils, the removal of deep-rooted vegetation that binds the soil to bedrock. Landslides occur more frequently in areas with highly erodible soil, steep slopes and intense precipitation, such as the Mediterranean regions.

In three of the evaluated UNCCD countries, landslides are mentioned directly as relevant soil degradation processes, namely Portugal, Slovak Republic, and Slovenia. All three of them are classified in category 2 (see Table 5.2.2.9.1). Landslides are not mentioned in the UNCCD reports from Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta, Poland, and Spain.

Report, Page 417 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Category of information 2 Landslides are identified directly; no further information is available In the reports from Portugal, Slovak Republic and Slovenia, information on landslides is given directly in the description and landslides are identified as a soil degradation process. While the Portugal and Slovak Republic reports are very brief and general in nature, the Slovenian report points out that landslides are frequent on as much as one third of the country’s territory. However, there is no information given on the dimension and the spatial distribution of landslides.

The information categorised in the second class of quality can be used to answer the 1st key question in a general way: Landslides have been identified as a relevant degradation process in Portugal, Slovak Republic and Slovenia. However, the information given in the UNCCD reports is not adequate to quantify the extent to which landslides contribute to desertification process or to quantify the extent to which they are a consequence of desertification (2nd key question).

It is interesting to note that there is only scarce information on floods and landslides in the UNCCD reports, since according to the scientific literature, floods and landslides occur frequently and are consequences of desertification processes. These soil threats have not been directly identified as drivers for desertification and are only regarded as significant soil degradation processes in a few UNCCD countries (5 of 12). The general nature of information on floods and landslides is possibly a result of a lack of measurement data on the effects of those soil threats.

As mentioned for floods, the information provided is not adequate to quantify the level of soil degradation by landslides due to the general quality of information.

Report, Page 418 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

5.2.3 Summarised evaluation of soil degradation in the UNCCD Reports

12 of the 25 Member States (topic of the study) provided information on soil degradation in their national UNCCD reports and National Action Programmes because they considered themselves being affected by desertification (Cyprus, Hungary, Italy, Greece, Latvia, Malta, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain) or they reported on activities and main problems without considering themselves as affected (Lithuania, Poland). As regards this study, UNCCD does not cover 13 Member States because these countries do not consider themselves as affected by desertification (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden, and United Kingdom). The information on soil degradation in the reviewed UNCCD reports is general and varies in its interpretability and in its value to come to conclusions for soil degradation. Not all reports provide enough background information to get full insight into the methodology of the analysis of desertification processes.

1) Extent to which soil threats have been identified as a driver for desertification in the concerned Member States (1st key question)

The information on soil degradation in the UNCCD reports is mostly sufficient to answer the first key question concerning the extent to which soil threats have been identified as drivers for desertification in the Member States. The detailed evaluation in chapter 5.2 shows that soil threats have been identified as relevant degradation processes but to differing extents. Table 5.2.3.1 sums-up the results and is structured for the Member States. Soil erosion by water and to a lesser extent by wind was mentioned directly as a problem for soils by all 12 Member States involved, especially in the southern parts of Europe, and has been identified as a major driver for desertification. Decline in organic matter was identified as a soil threat associated with desertification by four of the Member States. Five other Member States mention indirect indicators for SOM decline. A decline in organic matter was mentioned, but it is not clear from the reports, whether this degradation process has been identified as a driver for desertification or as a consequence of desertification. Local contamination was mentioned indirectly by one and directly by six Member States’ reports, but it has not been identified as a driver for desertification in the reports. Diffuse contamination was mentioned indirectly by four and directly by five Member States. Only by Cyprus was diffuse contamination clearly described as a driver for desertification. Sealing has been mentioned indirectly by two and directly by three Member States, but it has not been identified clearly as a driver for desertification in the reports. Compaction and decline in biodiversity were identified as soil threats by only three Member States. These soil threats are not clearly specified as drivers for desertification in the UNCCD reports, but biodiversity decline was described as a consequence of desertification.

Report, Page 419 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Salinisation was mentioned directly by six Member States, but only by Greece has it been identified explicitly as a significant driver for desertification. Floods and landslides were mentioned by three Member States as occurring soil degradation processes. These soil threats have not been identified as drivers for desertification but as consequences of desertification.

Table 5.2.3.1: Soil degradation in the European Member States due to the evaluation of the UNCCD reports O = the soil threat has not been mentioned at all in the reports addressing the MS (x) = there is general information on the soil threat in the reports addressing the MS X = there is detailed information on the soil threat in the report addressing the MS (Quality category 5)

Member State

Erosion Decline in organic matter Local contamination Diffuse contamination Sealing Compaction Decline in biodiversity Salinisation Floods & Landslides

Northern Mediterranean Cyprus X (x) (x) (x) (x) O O (x) O Greece (x) (x) (x) (x) O O (x) (x) O Italy (x) (x) (x) (x) O O O (x) (x) F Malta (x) O O O O O O O O Portugal (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) O O O (x) L Slovenia (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) O O O (x) F+L Spain X (x) O O O O O (x) (x) F Central and Eastern Europe Hungary (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) O Latvia X (x) (x) (x) O (x) (x) O O Lithuania* (x) O O (x) O O O O O Poland* (x) O O O O O O O O Slovak Republic (x) (x) O (x) (x) (x) O (x) (x) L * These countries are officially not affected by desertification.

Report, Page 420 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

In conclusion, soil degradation is considered a driver for desertification for only a few soil threats, and only erosion has been recognised and depicted in more detail in the reports.

The different extent to which soil threats have been identified as drivers for desertification in the UNCCD reports is evaluated in the following sections and grouped by the soil threat’s theoretical association to the desertification process:

Soil threats known as main drivers for desertification Due to the results of the review of the UNCCD reports and National Action Programmes, the majority of affected Member States are aware of the problem of soil erosion and have already gathered detailed information on erosion or are planning to do further investigations and data collection. This is based on the fact that erosion is identified as a soil threat in all countries, and data on affected areas are available in many cases in the UNCCD documents. A reason for the widespread awareness of soil erosion is the good availability of erosion maps and research data in Europe (e.g. PESERA – Pan-European Soil Risk Assessment). Another reason is - particularly in Spain and Cyprus - the severity of soil erosion. The soil erosion rates and the amount of affected area given in the UNCCD reports of Spain and Cyprus are evaluated being irreversible (see chapter 5.2.2.1). Hence, it is assumed that soil erosion in those countries leads to a severe impairment of soil functions and land degradation. The awareness of the damage caused by erosion on agricultural productivity in several Member States is the major driver for its identification and research, which explains the relatively high availability of erosion data in UNCCD reports.

Apart from erosion, according to the scientific literature, salinisation and soil contamination are regarded as potential drivers for desertification (see chapter 5.2). These soil threats are taken into account in more than a half of the evaluated countries, either directly or indirectly. Salinisation has been identified explicitly as a significant driver for desertification only in Greece alluvial plains. Hence, salinisation is of minor importance as a driver for desertification as given in the UNCCD reports. It is particularly surprising that two Mediterranean countries (Malta and Portugal) have not been identified soil salinisation as a soil degradation process at all.

Soil contamination is mentioned in about half of the UNCCD countries without clarifying the link between contamination and desertification or land degradation in the majority of cases. Due to the evaluation results, soil contamination is of minor importance in the UNCCD reports.

Soil threats mainly known as consequences of desertification (but also can be drivers) SOM decline, compaction, biodiversity decline, floods and landslides are soil threats that are known primarily as consequences from desertification processes (see chapter 5.2). SOM decline plays a role in the UNCCD reports, but mostly it is indirectly mentioned as a possible effect of forest fires and overgrazing. Biodiversity decline, floods, and landslides have been identified as a consequence of desertification in only a few country reports (each with 3 of 12). The UNCCD reports consider these soil threats as less relevant as those soil threats known as main drivers for desertification.

Report, Page 421 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Other soil threats not directly associated with desertification Against expectations that based on scientific literature (see chapter 5.2), sealing has been identified as a relevant degradation process in the UNCCD reports in approximately half of the countries. However, if sealing has been identified as a degradation process, the link from sealing to desertification processes has not been drawn in the UNCCD reports. This degradation process is mentioned in the UNCCD reports as a side-effect of land use changes. Land use changes are of overriding importance as a main pressure for desertification and land degradation. But sealing per se is not identified as a direct driver or a consequence of desertification.

The evaluation shows that the approach of the desertification assessment under the UNCCD is primarily based on those soil threats known as the main drivers for desertification. This is reflected in the focus on erosion in the majority of Member States, especially in the Northern Mediterranean (see Table 5.2.3.1). In those Member States, the theoretic concept of desertification regarding selective soil threats as drivers or consequences does not allow an entire assessment of all soil degradation processes. However, affected Member States in central and eastern Europe mostly regard soil threats apart from the main desertification drivers, because they mostly focus on land degradation due to drought problems. The latter approach could be more valuable for a complete assessment for the nine main soil threats, but the value of UNCCD reporting for soil protection depends on the usability of reports for quantitative assessments (see 2nd key question below).

2) Usability of UNCCD reports and Action Programmes to quantify the extent to which soil threats contribute to desertification process; Identification and assessment of the level of soil degradation (2nd key question)

The usability of UNCCD reports and Action Programmes depends on the quality of information (Category 0 to 5). An overview of the results of quality of information found in UNCCD reports is compiled in detail in Table 5.2.3.2, showing the quantity of findings for each soil threat and the quality of information classified according to Table 5.2 (see chapter 5.1). The number of findings and the quality of information demonstrate the variable importance of soil threats in the reports of the 12 UNCCD countries.

Report, Page 422 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Table 5.2.3.2: Amount and quality of information on soil degradation in the UNCCD reports

Number of Member States with different quality of information

Number of Member States with information on soil Soil threat threat

(12 Member States were evaluated in total) no information about soil threat indirect Indicators for soil threat are mentioned Soil threat is identified directly; no further information is available information about covered area is available information about intensity of soil degradation is available detailed information about intensity of soil degradation and area is available

0 1 2 3 4 5

Erosion 12 0 1 4 4 0 3

Decline in organic 9 3 5 3 1 0 0 matter Local 7 5 1 6 0 0 0 contamintation Diffuse 9 3 4 4 1 0 0 contamintation Sealing 5 7 2 1 0 2 0 Compaction 3 9 0 2 1 0 0 Decline in 3 9 0 3 0 0 0 biodiversity Salinisation 6 6 0 4 2 0 0 Floods 3 9 0 3 0 0 0 Landslides 3 9 0 3 0 0 0

The evaluation of the usability of the UNCCD reports to quantify the extent to which soil threats contribute to desertification process is clustered by the quality of information on soil degradation: (0) If there is a complete lack of information on soil threats, an identification and assessment of soil degradation processes is not feasible. The nine main soil threats are addressed within the UNCCD reports but not in all 12 UNCCD countries. The number of reports with a complete lack of information on soil threats is highest (9 reports) for the soil threats compaction, floods and landslides.

(1) Information which is based on indirect indicators cannot be used to identify and assess the soil degradation process. The available information on a decline in organic matter and diffuse contamination is largely based on indirect indicators. Therefore, this information is of very limited value for the identification and assessment of these soil degradation processes and the quantitative evaluation of the link between soil degradation processes and desertification.

Report, Page 423 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

(2) If a soil threat is identified directly but no further useful information is available, this information can be used to identify general soil degradation processes (e.g. if erosion is identified as a pressure or not). However, the information cannot be used for a quantitative assessment of the contribution the soil threat to desertification process. The majority of information on erosion and local contamination gathered during the review of UNCCD reports is of this kind of quality. (3) If more detailed information about the covered area were directly available in the UNCCD reports, it would be useful for an identification of soil degradation on a more detailed scale. However, this information cannot be used for an assessment of the level of soil degradation. Information regarding area affected is only available for erosion in four Member States, for salinisation in two Member States, for a decline in organic matter, diffuse contamination and compaction in one Member State. (4) If a soil threat is identified directly and there is information on the level of soil degradation, this can be regarded as a general basis to identify and assess soil degradation processes. Such information was only found in two Member States for sealing. (5) If detailed information about the level of soil degradation and the covered area is available, the level of soil degradation and the extent to which a soil threat contributes to desertification processes can be assessed quantitatively. Such information is very scarce in the UNCCD reports. Detailed information has been found on soil erosion in the national reports of only three countries (Cyprus, Latvia, and Spain). In this special case, quantitative data on soil erosion are provided and could be evaluated.

According to the results of the evaluation of the UNCCD National Action Programmes and National reports, it is concluded that a quantitative assessment of the extent to which a soil threat contributes to desertification processes was impossible as - apart from Cyprus and Spain for erosion - the UNCCD reports do not provide any quantitative information on the level of soil degradation. Only a general identification and qualitative assessment can be based on the information provided. It is possible that this gap of information will be filled during further research activities of the UNCCD countries on the drivers of desertification. Regardless of the further developments concerning the next implementation steps of the UNCCD in the concerned countries, it has to be assumed there will still be soil issues (e.g. soil sealing or compaction) that will never be handled by this policy field, because these are not main issues in controlling desertification processes.

The value of the reports is limited for the assessment of soil degradation processes for the following reasons:

Only erosion and, in one country, salinisation have been clearly identified as drivers for desertification. Apart from this, soil threats are mentioned in the reports (see 1st key question) but the link between soil threats and desertification has not been specified.

Report, Page 424 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

The reports evaluated are under the responsibility of the National Focal Points in the Member States with different political background and (financial) resources available for preparing the reports (see chapter 5.1). Hence, political and organisational issues can be the reasons why the quality of information in the UNCCD documents varies widely.

Information on soil contamination, salinisation, decline in organic matter, biodiversity decline, floods and landslides was expected to be mentioned in more countries and in a more detailed way in the UNCCD reports due to the relevance of these soil threats in the desertification process. A reason for the marginal availability of information on these threats can be that these soil threats are not well known as specific soil degradation processes in many Member States. As a consequence, we expect a lack of measurement data and knowledge on the correlation between these soil threats and the impairment of soil functions. As regards local contamination, another reason for the marginal availability of information may be the local occurrence and assumed small spatial extent of this soil degradation process, thus implying a minor spatial importance for desertification processes.

Soil threats such as erosion, organic matter decline, contamination, salinisation, and compaction are mostly identified as a problem for agriculture or forestry. In accordance with the information evaluated in detail in chapter 5.2 and the background information from the UNCCD secretariat, it is concluded that UNCCD reports focus on the agricultural usability of the soils and to a minor extent on the usability of soils for forestry. The reports do not focus on the preservation of the soil regarding all soil functions apart from soil fertility. This aspect underpins the result of the evaluation that there is not complete awareness of all nine main soil threats in the UNCCD countries (see 1st key question). The main focus of the UNCCD reports implies that area-wide information is scarce.

The heterogeneity of the reports hinders a comparative analysis of the reports and the countries.

Report, Page 425 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

5.3 Measures for soil protection in the UNCCD Reports

5.3.1 Methodology for evaluation of measures

Chapter 5.3 will answer the third key question (see chapter 5.1): (3) What measures have been planned by Member States to address desertification? To what extent can such measures be expected to contribute to preventing or reducing soil threats?

To answer this question, the available 24 UNCCD National reports and the 3 adopted National Action Programmes (NAPs) under the UNCCD were reviewed. The work was done in four steps: 1. Identification of measures to address desertification 2. Description of identified measures 3. Classification of identified measures 4. Evaluation of selected measures

Step 1: Identification of measures to address desertification

To identify measures, all measures planned or already adopted by Member States addressing desertification were collected. All measures with the exception of institutional and legal measures75 are identified and described in Step 2. This approach gives a full overview of the desertification mitigating activities under the UNCCD in Member States and highlights (in further work steps) the measures contributing to soil protection. As described in chapter 5.1, it is important to put emphasis on the fact that only the adopted NAPs provide an ultimate list of measures to implement the objectives of the Convention on the national level and foresee financing for these measures. The UNCCD National reports of the countries that have not adopted a NAP yet mostly describe all activities to mitigate desertification already performed under other policy areas or national legislation and activities. It has to be noted that it is not always clear from the National reports if the measures which are described as being in process or already finished will be proceeded as a part of a NAP (e.g. a Plan for the Sustainable Development of the Portuguese Forest that establishes objectives, strategy axes and goals for the national forest management, first approved in 1999). The identified measures were split into three categories: • (1) Measures listed in the already adopted NAPs; and • Measures listed in the National reports, distinguishing between: (2) the measures planned to be included in the NAPs; and (3) the measures not planned to be included in NAPs.

75 Institutional and legal measures (national standards and legislation) have not been considered and included in the country tables in chapter 5.3.2. Even if these measures mention soil as an issue, in most case it is impossible to judge their real impact to soil protection. However, the national standards and legislation setting specific detailed requirements on soil protection have been distinguished.

Report, Page 426 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

These categories are important for the following work steps, because the feasibility to evaluate the contribution of measures to soil protection depends on the stage of adoption of the NAPs.

Step 2: Description of identified measures

All available information on measures in the National reports and NAPs considered as relevant has been collected and documented in the database (see Annex 1). The description of the identified measures is based on all data that is available in the National reports and the adopted NAPs and does not imply any evaluation by the contractor. The information on the identified measures is compiled in the country tables in chapter 5.3.2 “Information on measures”. The country tables provide descriptive information and columns are only filled out if information is available from the UNCCD National reports and/or adopted NAPs (otherwise columns are not integrated in the tables). The tables include the following columns: • ‘Measure’ contains the name of the measure. • ‘Form of measure’ (in process/intended and implemented/finished) describes if the measure is intended, currently in process or if it is already completed. This information is derived from the categories to which the measure belongs to: adopted NAP, planned NAP or not a part of NAP. • ‘Kind of measure’ categorises the measures into action plan/ management plan/programme, national standard, legislation, promotion/subsidy, research/ further investigation, technical measure, education/ public awareness, and others76). • ‘Description of the measure and objectives’ contains a description of the measure and its objectives as given in the source document (summarised if necessary). All information considered relevant to answer the 3rd key question is included. • ‘Target group’ summarises who will execute the measure (e.g. farmers, forest authorities), if appropriate information is given in the reports. • ‘Costs’ describes the expenses of the measure, if such information is available in the reports. • ‘Control mechanisms’ shows information about the control of the measure, if such information is available in the reports77. • ‘Covered area (qual.)’ and ‘Covered area (quant.)’ show qualitative and quantitative data about the area that is addressed by the measure, as available in the reports.

76 ‘Other’ kind of measure was indicated in the cases, where the measure could not be assigned to a particular measure. 77 This information might be useful for the evaluation, because control is an important factor for the effectiveness of measures.

Report, Page 427 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Step 3: Classification of identified measures

In the third step, a classification according to the relevance for soil protection and the quality of information is done for all identified measures to structure them for the evaluation step. The classification is given for each identified measure in the column labelled ‘Quality of information’ under the ‘Evaluation and Notes’ of the country tables in chapter 5.3.2 ‘Information on measures’. This brief evaluation provides an initial classification of measures which are relevant to contribute to soil protection and show ‘quality of information’, i.e. how detailed they are described. A detailed evaluation of measures (see step 4) is provided in chapter 5.3.3.

The brief evaluation in the country tables of chapter 5.3.2 is based on the principles mentioned below.

Based on expert judgement, measures are considered relevant to contributing to preventing, reducing or combating soil threats:

• if soil protection or a particular soil threat is specifically mentioned as an objective of the measure; or • if a measure includes principles or techniques that address particular soil threats (this can also be indirect effects, e.g. use of high quality water for irrigation, which implies prevention of diffuse soil contamination). In the ‘Description of the Measure’ in the country tables in section 5.3.2, the specific aspects relevant to soil protection that were the basis of our evaluation are marked in bold.

Measures are considered not relevant to preventing, reducing or combating soil threats if soil is not mentioned in the description of the measures at all and the measures do not address soil threats directly or indirectly.

Moreover, the quality of information is evaluated briefly. This brief evaluation is necessary because how far an evaluation of measures is possible and meaningful depends on the amount of details available for a single measure. To distinguish between very general, general and detailed information, quality indicators of particular relevance to soil threats are considered, i.e. if site conditions, timing issues, technical specifications, or management practices are specified for the measure (see Table 5.3.1.1 below).

Hence, the quality of the information of the measure is split into the following categories:

• measures providing very general information, for example only the name of the measure is given but no details (implying that there is not enough information to judge the extent of contribution to soil protection); • measures providing general information, for example objectives of the measure are given but no details (implying that there is not enough information to judge the extent of contribution to soil protection); and • measures providing detailed information, for example giving details/instructions how the measure has to be performed (implying that information to judge the extent of contribution to soil protection is good enough).

Report, Page 428 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Table 5.3.1.1: Quality indicators of particular relevance to soil threats

Site - scope of the measure, (i.e. if the measure is used in the whole territory or only in special conditions regions) (relevant for all soil threats); - slope (relevant especially for soil erosion); - areas prone/vulnerable to certain soil threats (in particular relevant for soil erosion, soil compaction and soil salinisation); - soil quality/soil type, (e.g. amount of C, other chemical elements, or pH) (in particular relevant for soil organic matter and soil salinisation); Timing - consideration of wet or dry periods of year (relevant to soil compaction); Technical - irrigation systems (in particular relevant to soil erosion and soil compaction) specifications Management - reduced/no tillage (in particular relevant to soil organic matter, soil erosion and soil practices compaction); contour tillage (in particular relevant to soil erosion); and - grazing or mechanical treatment (in particular relevant to soil compaction).

Step 4: Evaluation of selected measures

During this step, a detailed evaluation of selected measures is carried out. The results are provided in chapter 5.3.3. The evaluation is based on all information that is available on measures in the National reports and the adopted NAPs. However, most important for the evaluation is the ‘Form of measure’, the ‘Description of the measure’, and the ‘Covered area’, because these are the main factors defining the extent to which a measure contributes to soil protection. The measures will be selected considering the following criteria:

• the category with respect to the stage of adoption of the NAPs (see step 1); • the relevance for soil protection (see step 3) • the ‘Form of measure’ (see step 2); and • the ‘Quality of information’ (see step 3).

The stage of adoption of the NAPs is the most essential factor for the assessment of the measures. In fact, only measures included in adopted NAPs allow for meaningful conclusions on the contribution to soil protection. Planned measures can only be evaluated with respect to their potential effectiveness. The methodology takes this aspect into account as follows:

Actual effectiveness can be assessed for a specific measure in a specific MS (categories 1 and 3, step 1), given that it has been already implemented (implemented/finished ‘Form of measure’, see step 2) and its effectiveness as regards soil protection can be assessed on the basis of existing information (detailed ‘Quality of information’, see step 3).

Report, Page 429 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Potential effectiveness of measures distinguishing between: a) Already implemented but where information to assess its effectiveness is absent and, therefore, is based on the general information available and expert judgement. This potential effectiveness can be assessed for a specific measure in a specific MS (all three categories, step 1), given that it has been already implemented (implemented/finished ‘Form of measure’, see step 2) but its effectiveness as regards soil protection cannot be assessed on the basis of existing information (general or very general ‘Quality of information’, see step 3). b) Envisaged but not yet implemented. This potential effectiveness can be assessed for a specific measure in a specific MS (all three categories, step 1), given that it has been planned (planned/in process ‘Form of measure’, see step 2) and its effectiveness as regards soil protection can be assessed on the basis of existing information (detailed ‘Quality of information’, see step 3).

Irrelevant measures are excluded from the evaluation, namely measures which are not relevant for soil protection as evaluated in work step 3.

The selected measures are evaluated in a descriptive way based on expert knowledge and answer the two main questions that stem from the third key question (see above): a) Do the measures address (i.e. prevent, reduce or combat) any soil threat from the nine main soil threats indicated in the Thematic Soil Strategy? b) To what extent do the measures contribute to soil protection?

The first question will be answered by analysing which soil threats are considered by a measure and whether the threat is a direct or indirect effect. In this case, the measure- relevant details in the definition of a measure will be considered (see step 3). Furthermore, if the objective of the measure is to reduce a soil threat, it is a direct effect. If the measure’s main aim is not to reduce a soil threat but is likely to have a positive side effect, it is considered an indirect effect.

The second question will be answered by evaluating the extent to which a measure contributes to soil protection. In this case, the quality of information on the measure (see step 3) will be considered:

• In case the measure provides detailed information and contains measure-relevant details that are evaluated as matching to a certain soil threat, the measure can be evaluated as being very relevant/effective to solve soil problems. • In case the measure provides general information but indicates several measure- relevant details that are evaluated as matching to a certain soil threat, the measure can be evaluated as assuming relevant/effective to solve soil problems. • In case the measure provides very general and general information and does not indicate any measure-relevant details, the measure cannot be evaluated. In such situations, conclusions for the soil threats, which are expected to be tackled by the measure, can be given as general information.

Report, Page 430 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

5.3.2 Information on measures

This chapter presents a detailed description of the identified measures in the twelve MSs that have submitted the National reports and the NAPs accordingly. The reviewed countries are grouped regarding their status within the reporting process: • affected countries that adopted the NAPs (Greece, Italy and Portugal); • affected countries, which NAPs are in preparation (Cyprus, Hungary, Latvia, Malta, Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Spain); and • not affected countries, which prepare the National reports but not the NAPs (Lithuania and Poland).

This information on the identified measures is compiled in the country tables and is grouped according to whether: • national measures are (or are planned to be) an integral part of the NAP under the UNCCD; and • national measures are (or are planned to be) not an integral part of the NAP under the UNCCD.

Report, Page 431 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

5.3.2.1 Affected countries that implemented the NAPs

5.3.2.1.1 Greece In Greece all the measures to combat desertification are indicated in the NAP under the UNCCD (Greek National Committee for Combating Desertification, 2001). There are no additional measures indicated in the National reports (Greek National Committee for Combating Desertification, 2000 and 2002).

Table 5.3.2.1.1: Measures in the NAP under the UNCCD to address desertification in Greece (There is no information available on Control mechanisms and Covered area (quant.)).

Report, Page 432 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from the Greek NAP under the UNCCD (Greek National Committee for Combating Desertification, 2001) Evalua- tion and Measure Form of Kind of measure Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD reports Target group Costs Covered area Notes measure (summarised if necessary) (qual.) Land use implemented action plan/ The main principle applied for determining land use will be: Permitted land uses no information no information no information Very planning and its management and changes will be only those, which ensure sustainability and do not degrade available available available general implementation programme biomass productivity and other land functions and processes. Following this principle, proper land uses for each region should be defined. Relevant Financing implemented promotion/ NAP: The main condition for the realisation of the Action Program is to be no information total amount no information Not subsidy financed. The necessary funds amount to some hundreds of billion drachmas. available spent in 2001: available relevant CRIC 5: Financial support has not been explicitly allocated for combating 695.2 million desertification. Funds allocated as well as measures taken are incorporated in the Euro (estim.); development programmes of the respective Ministries and of the local funds 2000- government agencies. Thus is not easy to exactly separate and estimate the 2006 in million budget available for the implementation of the Convention in the country. The Euro: 66 for total amount spent in 2001 is estimated to 695,200,000 Euro. Funding that could biological be considered as directly and indirectly dedicated to combating desertification in agriculture, 44 the agricultural sector e.g. is that of the subsidies. These funds allocated for the for biological period of 2000 - 2006 include: animal production, 43 - Biological agriculture: 66,000,000 Euro. for set- aside - Biological animal production: 46,000,000 Euro. of agricultural - Long period set- aside of agricultural lands: 43,000,000 Euro. lands, and 56 for the - Reduction of ground water- pollution by nitrogen of agricultural origin: reduction of 56,000,000 Euro groundwater pollution International co- implemented others Greece will co-operate with other EU Mediterranean countries to get EU funding no information no information no information Not operation through INTEREG programme. The Greek National Program or part of it should available available available relevant become a part of a joint Mediterranean Action Program against desertification. Greece will co-operate and provide assistance to countries of Africa and of the Middle East. Selection of pilot intended/in others The NAP should be initially applied to some pilot areas. Such places are: The hilly no information no information The hilly area of Not areas process area of Central Thessaly; Eastern Crete (eastwards of Heraklion-Tymvakion); available available Central Thessaly; relevant Attica; The western part of Lesvos island; The Central Aegean islands; The Kilkis Eastern Crete Plain in Central Macedonia. (eastwards of Heraklion-Tymva- kion); Attica; The western part of Lesvos island; The Central Aegean islands; The Kilkis Plain in Central Macedonia

Report, Page 433 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Soil Erosion implemented technical NAP: Effective control of soil erosion will be achieved by applying the farmers no information no information General Control related measure principles of sustainable Land Use planning. The criteria for ascribing land available available to the to agricultural use will be: slope, soil depth and degree of the soil’s Relevant agricultural resistance against erosion. sector Agricultural land on slope gradients greater than 6% will be subject to proper erosion control measures. These measures, should be selected on the basis of their proven effectiveness; their compatibility with the already applied sustainable crop systems; an acceptable cost-benefit relation; the farmer’s acceptance.

The main and most effective technical measure for the protection of the sloping land in the Mediterranean had been the construction of terraces, which are supported by dry stonewalls or nets made from tree or shrub branches.

Report, Page 434 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 435 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from the Greek NAP under the UNCCD (Greek National Committee for Combating Desertification, 2001) Evalua- tion and Measure Form of Kind of measure Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD reports Target group Costs Covered area Notes measure (summarised if necessary) (qual.) Plans or implemented action In the Agricultural sector, the Agro-Environmental Measure of Rural Development farmers no information agricultural land Very Strategies in the plan/manageme Planning for the period 2000 - 2006, has been approved and is being available general field of nt programme implemented. The measures includes the following plans: Relevant combating - Biological agriculture: The plan aims to the reduction of pollution of desertification, agricultural origin, the protection of wild flora and fauna, the preservation of agricultural biodiversity of agricultural ecosystems and landscapes, the sustainable sector management of soils, the protection of public health and the creation of solid areas biologically cultivated in small scale economies. - Biological animal production: The plan aims to the production of biologic products respectfully to the relevant regulations and standards, the environmental protection, the preservation of biodiversity of agricultural ecosystems and landscape and the sustainable management of soils. - Long period set-aside of agricultural lands: The plan aims at reducing surplus agricultural production and at the same time conserves soil and water resources. Reduction of groundwater pollution by nitrogen of agricultural origin. Action plans are being implemented aiming at the reduction of nitrogen pollution, the protection of water resources and the protection of soils from erosion. - Conservation and reconstruction of terraces on inclined lands for the protection from erosion: The plan aims to the protection of soils from erosion, the increase of sub terrestrial water storage (especially in arid areas) and the preservation of agricultural landscape. Facing drought implemented technical Saving of irrigation water: Irrigation should be spatially, temporally and farmers no information agricultural land Very conservation of measure quantitatively controlled so that water usage does not exceed maximum crop available general soil water requirements. Applied water should also cover the needs for leaching of soluble salts. Irrigation water usage should be subjected to the principles of maximum Relevant effectiveness. These refer to the infiltration depth of irrigation water, the water quantity and the irrigation method. Evaporation reduction of the stored soil water: Cultivation related measures could reduce the water losses and increase stored soil water. Soil treatment: Experiments in Greek soils indicated that, compared to surface ploughing, non-ploughing is more effective in reducing evaporation losses and in retaining soil water. Soil surface coverage: Dry plant residues will not be burned or removed if this does not interfere seriously with the farming practices. Small stones or coarse gravel should not be removed from soil surface.

Report, Page 436 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from the Greek NAP under the UNCCD (Greek National Committee for Combating Desertification, 2001) Evalua- tion and Measure Form of Kind of measure Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD reports Target group Costs Covered area Notes measure (summarised if necessary) (qual.) Facing implemented technical These measures aim at preventing the enrichment of irrigated soils with farmers no information irrigated General secondary measure water-soluble salts. These salts constitute a very serious desertification threat. available agricultural and salinisation of The most important measures are: Relevant irrigated soils - Regular control of the quality of the irrigation water; - Regular control of the water-soluble salts and soil alkalinity; - Ensuring the drainage and leaching requirements of irrigated soils. Measures implemented technical The following measures will be taken for forest fire control: private forest no information forests Very related to the measure 1. Promoting public awareness owners; forest available general forest sector authorities 2. Measures to prevent forest fires and discourage prospective arsonists. These Relevant measures could comprise: - Clarification of the land ownership status in forests and woodlands according to the current cadastral plan. - Restoration of the pre-fire land use in all burned forest lands - Development of an effective system for arresting and punishing the arsonists. - Application of special forest management practices and techniques minimising fires. - Establishment of less flammable forest communities. - Forest thinning and maintenance of appropriate forest structure. - Clearing, pruning, controlled brushwood burning and removal of wood residues. - Measures for quick fire detection and control and for keeping damages low. More specifically: - Development and implementation of quick fire detection and warning system by the agencies in charge. - Development and implementation of an emergency Action Scheme. - Organisation and effective use of necessary gear and personnel for immediate fire control. - Development of mechanisms for the implementation of the above-mentioned measures. 3. Measures for restraining fire consequences, such as: - Effective protection of burned land from grazing. - Effective implementation of the prohibitions. - Avoidance of soil disturbance and support of natural regeneration. - Sowing and planting of the appropriate forest trees, bushes or grasses at the vulnerable sites.

Report, Page 437 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from the Greek NAP under the UNCCD (Greek National Committee for Combating Desertification, 2001) Evalua- tion and Measure Form of Kind of measure Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD reports Target group Costs Covered area Notes measure (summarised if necessary) (qual.) Forests should be properly managed so that sustainable forest yield can be achieved: - The Forest Service will supervise woodcutting and transportation of wood products to forest roads. - Forest products will be put on the market either by the Forest Service or by Forest Cooperatives. - Seedlings for reforestation will be produced by the Forest Service itself or by private seedbeds under the supervision of the Forest Service. - Land use will be properly planned while changes regarding these uses should be strictly controlled. - Measures will be taken for the protection and restoration of hydrologic conditions of the watersheds. - Regarding degraded areas, the program mainly aims at maintaining and recovering the protective vegetation, which shall enrich the soil with organic matter while eventually create forest cover. - Bio climatic zones and regions needing immediate protection will be determined. These regions should be subjected to special restoration projects. - Information mechanisms will be established and responsible persons will be appointed to prepare the local action programmes. - Measures provided for in the NAP will be harmonised with current or projected developmental projects at local and national level. Soil classification is mentioned in CRIC 5 as a strategy in the field of combating desertification in the forest sector. Measures implemented others 1. Legal measures no information no information no information Not concerning the - Demarcation of the grazing forest land at Municipality level available available available relevant life stock-raising sector - Abolition of the public use status that characterises the grazing lands. This status will become of controlled use. 2. Technical measures - Preparation and application of special studies concerning management and rehabilitation actions for every Municipality or community. - Development of alternative foodstuffs. 3. Political measures - Enacting of a single common policy. - Modification of the existing subsidising status. - Financing for amelioration of grazing land

Report, Page 438 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from the Greek NAP under the UNCCD (Greek National Committee for Combating Desertification, 2001) Evalua- tion and Measure Form of Kind of measure Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD reports Target group Costs Covered area Notes measure (summarised if necessary) (qual.) 4. Educational measures - Training of the scientists concerned - Information and awareness of the livestock breeders Measures implemented action plan/ Measures for irrigation: no information no information no information Very concerning the management - Repairing the irrigation networks. available available available general water resources programme sector - Renewal of the various components of the networks and use of new Relevant technologies. - Integrated management of irrigation water. - Water recycling and re-usage. Measures for increasing available water: - Studies on water insufficiency in vulnerable regions. - Evaluation and improvement of management applied on the reservoirs. - Retention and storage of running and surface water. - Financing of projects dealing with water recycling and water re-usage. - Enrichment of underground water. - Ensuring the readily available ground water - Transport of surface water to regions threatened by desertification. A well documented feasibility study is needed for the implementation of this measure. - Water supply increasing management of forest lands. Measures implemented action plan/ - Financial measures: subsidies, price support to traditional practices. no information no information no information Not concerning the management - Technological measures: environmental friendly technologies, transfer of available available available relevant socio-economic programme technology. sector - Developmental measures: supplementary activities, modification of local economies. - Demographic measures: encouragement of population’s decentralisation, population’s restrain from emigration. - Social measures: education, information, provision of social services. - Legislative measures: implementation of the respective E.U. regulations, coordination and completion of the legislation for soil, water and nature protection and management, as well as for prevention of land profiteering (speculation). - Institutional measures: co-ordination of services and activities of the responsible agencies, establishment of a "Fund to Combat Desertification", and of agencies for monitoring and implementing policy against desertification.

Report, Page 439 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from the Greek NAP under the UNCCD (Greek National Committee for Combating Desertification, 2001) Evalua- tion and Measure Form of Kind of measure Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD reports Target group Costs Covered area Notes measure (summarised if necessary) (qual.) - Infrastructure: improving access of Services related to Health, Information, Education and Distribution of goods. - Research: on socio-economic factors inducing desertification and on methods and techniques intercepting the phenomenon. Research intended/in research/further The Greek National Committee for Combating Desertification (GNNCD) and the no information no information no information Very Project PESERA process investigation Agricultural University of Athens are co-operating in the EU supported available available available general on soil multinational project PESERA for the development of a regional diagnostic tool for predicting soil erosion rates under various types of land use, soil, and Relevant landscape characteristics. Activities of the intended/in research/ further N.AG.RE.F. is carrying out the following research projects, which are directly or no information no information no information Not national process investigation indirectly related to desertification: available available available relevant agricultural - Soil survey, evaluation and classification. research foundation - Soil fertility and plant nutrition. (N.AG.RE.F.) - Agricultural usage of sewage sludge and other liquid wastewaters. - Soil pollution. - Soil degradation. - Study of the water runoff. - Land reclamation, efficient water use.. The reuse, mainly of urban liquid sewage and industrial effluents as well as its desalination, with special emphasis given on the quality of the water in agriculture. - Analysis and ecosystems management, including forest ecology, forest management and economy, pastures and management of natural biotopes. - Forest policy and socio-economic research of forestry and rural economy. - Preservation, restoration and rehabilitation of forests and natural environment including prevention and suppression of forest fires, forest protection. - Development of friendly to the environment cultivation systems - Cultivation systems Organic Agriculture Programme. - Sociological traits and demographical analysis of rural areas and rural population. - Economic efficiency of alternative agricultural production technologies.

Report, Page 440 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from the Greek NAP under the UNCCD (Greek National Committee for Combating Desertification, 2001) Evaluation and Notes Measure Form of Kind of measure Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD reports Target group Costs Covered area measure (summarised if necessary) (qual.) Creation of implemented others The 1:000,000 scale Desertification vulnerability map was compiled on the basis no information no information no information General maps identifying of principles and indicators proposed by Yassoglou (1995) and of CORINE available available available areas vulnerable (1992): Relevant to desertification Indicators used for the definition of the sensitivity of the mapping units were compound: a. The soil mapping units of the ESB 1:1,000, 000 Soil Map of Europe. The Greek mapping units are characteristic of erosional sequences of each soil in each geologic formation, climatic zone and vegetation cover. Therefore, soil units are indicative of the extend of the erosion that has taken place, the erosion risk, the soil depth and the soil drought risk. Tabular data concerning the composition of the soil mapping unit and the erodility of the soils are derived from the tabular data of the ESB geo-referenced Soil Map of Europe. b. The bioclimatic zone. The bioclimatic classification and particularly of each soil mapping unit were derived from the Bioclimatic Map of Greece. The aridity of each unit was derived from this map and it was used to estimate soil drought, soil salinity and potential resilience of damaged vegetation cover. c. Irrigation intensity and salt seawater intrusion were derived from information on irrigation works and the sea water intrusion map (Ministry of Agriculture). The data were used along with the proximity to the sea estimate the secondary salinisation risk of the irrigated soils. The soil mapping system used by the Greek National Soil Survey was used, modified for the local conditions and the purpose of the study. This system is based on soil texture, depth to bedrock, drainage, degree and direction of soil development, topography, erosion of the soil surface, and parent material. All these land characteristics were studied in a dense network of 8520 field observations (soil auger holes and road cuts to the depth of bedrock or to a maximum depth of 150 cm in case of deep soils), and were recorded on each soil mapping unit. The boundaries of the mapping units were drawn on 6 topographic maps (scale 1:50,000). Traditional implemented others Concerning traditional knowledge, the GNAP suggests and enhances the farmers no information no information Very knowledge expansion of the traditional olive tree cultivation on sensitive sloping land in available available general the semiarid and dry sub humid zones of the country. Additionally, the restoration or construction of traditionally stone built terraces in inclined cultivated Relevant areas is suggested, as an appropriate measure to prevent soil erosion.

Report, Page 441 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

5.3.2.1.2 Italy In Italy the measures to combat desertification under the UNCCD are indicated in the NAP (Italian Committee to Combat Drought and Desertification, 1999) and in the National reports (Italian Committee to Combat Desertification, 2000; Ministry of Environment and Territorial Protection of Italy, 2002; and Ministry of Environment and Territory of Italy, 2006).

Table 5.3.2.1.2: Measures under the UNCCD (in the NAP and the National reports) to address desertification in Italy (There is no information available on Control mechanisms).

Information from the Italian NAP under the UNCCD (Italian Committee to Combat Drought and Desertification, 1999) and the National reports (Italian Committee to Combat Evaluation Desertification, 2000; Ministry of Environment and Territorial Protection of Italy, 2002; and Ministry of Environment and Territory of Italy, 2006) and Notes Measure Form of Kind of Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD reports Target group Costs Covered area Covered Measure Measure (summarised if necessary) (qual.) area (quant.)

The measures are part of the NAP Preparation of implemented national These measures and strategies take the form of specific programs to combat farmers, no Ten regions and 87% of Not regional action standard drought and desertification in vulnerable areas. These programs must include: local informatio nineteen basin the relevant programs with the - the preparation of an integrated program of measures of prevention and population n authorities national (See priority sectors of: mitigation involving both rural and urban areas which integrate the use of and available responded to the territory. below the soil protection, traditional knowledge and that of new technologies, based on an inventory of authorities, NAP. sets of sustainable the above and on a land informational outline of the region; stakeholders measures management of - a framework consistent with the overall objectives of the national economic in four water resources, policy; priority reduction of - pursuing the alleviation of desertification and drought effects that may help sectors. environmental consolidate and develop employment in the affected areas; This impact from - the use of local community resources; measure productive activities, - specific training, education and information activities; sets only land restoration: - measures of an agricultural, forestry, civil and social nature that must the context involve inter-sectoral action and the greatest possible number of public and for these 4 private participants. groups of measures) (Legal Act: These (regional) programs may be adopted as part of: - sectoral emergency plans called for under Law 183/89 affecting the priority sectors indicated below; - plans for national implementation of the Community agricultural policy; - “Agenda 2000”; - Regional Operating Programmes (R.O.P.) for the use of structural funds.)

Report, Page 442 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Measures implemented national Among possible measures for soil protection, the Guidelines identify forest no Soil protection in no Very addressing soil standard measures for: authorities, informatio areas vulnerable informatio general protection - creation of adequately scaled soil maps; stakeholders n to desertification n - sustainable management and increase of forest asset; available primarily available Relevant - updating of forestry inventories and reference regulations in order to bring involves: Italian forestry policy in line with the Italian national commitments taken within - agricultural Europe and internationally; areas with - fire prevention and fighting; intensive and - slope protection and flood control using measures with low environmental marginal impact. production; - areas at risk for (Legal act: see first measure) accelerated erosion; - areas damaged by contamination, pollution, fires; - fallow and abandoned areas. Measures implemented national Among possible measures for sustainable management of water resources, agriculture, no no information no Very addressing standard the Guidelines identify measures for: stakeholders informatio available informatio general sustainable - adoption of water protection plans and definition of the water balance in , local n n management of watersheds or for more limited but significant areas; population, available available Relevant water resources - definition of water needs and control of its demand; River basin - updating and revision of tools for monitoring and verifying authorisations for authorities discharges and diversion in order to pursue greater protection of surface and underground of water bodies; - improvement in the efficiency of water distribution systems to reduce waste and losses; - rationalisation of irrigation activities by adoption of techniques of efficient distribution and correct planning of irrigation measures that favour typical Mediterranean crops; - control and rationalisation of water runoff; - providing incentives for research into multiple uses of water in rural and urban areas; - development of reuse of sewage in agriculture; - development of plans for prevention, mitigation and adaptation in terms of the effects of droughts;

Report, Page 443 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

- collection and reuse of rainwater in new urban areas and restoration of abandoned collection systems in historic centres (Legal act: see first measure) Measures implemented national Among possible measures for reducing the impact from productive activities, agriculture, no infor- no information no Very addressing standard the Guidelines identify measures for: tourism mation available informatio general reduction of - mitigation of the impacts of productive activities in order to reduce sector available n environmental consumption of non renewable resources; available Relevant impact from - implementation of measures aimed at the adoption of agricultural, productive activities animal-husbandry and forestry production systems capable of preventing physical, chemical, and biological damage to the soil; - increased use of the organic fraction of urban waste deriving from differentiated waste collection, and of organic wastes of agricultural origin to produce high-quality compost; - reducing of pressure from tourism activities in vulnerable areas by means of incentives for diversification of the offer, relieving it from seasonal periodicity and reduction in water consumption. (Legal act: see first measure) Measures implemented national Among possible measures for land restoration, the Guidelines identify no no infor- no information no Very addressing land standard measures for: information mation available informatio general restoration - recovery of soils damaged by erosion, salinisation, etc.; available available n - reclamation and re-naturalisation of contaminated disposal sites in available Relevant abandoned mining areas; - landscape reconstruction and implementation of integrated planning policies for regional systems, in particular along the coast and on the smaller islands; - incentives for sustainable production and tourism in marginal hilly and mountainous areas; - re-naturalisation and environmental transformation of areas subject to deterioration in urban and industrial environments; - incentives for adoption of urban-development plans that call for the use of technologies aimed at the renewal and appropriate use of natural resources; - reuse of traditional technologies and integrated revitalisation of historic centres. (Legal act: see first measure)

Report, Page 444 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Monitoring activities implemented national The monitoring activities called for in the programs must be carried out both in no no infor- no information no Not and standard the preliminary appraisal, in the form of a preliminary evaluation, during the information mation available informatio relevant work, and at its conclusion to evaluate the results achieved. In addition to available available n (See Assessment of environmental aspects, social aspects (in terms of new employment, available above the social and economic improvement in quality of life, etc.) and economic aspects (cost/benefit sets of aspects analysis, opportunities for economies of scale, etc.) must also be taken into measures consideration. The results obtained will make it possible to identify the best in four practices to combat drought and desertification that can be extended to areas priority affected by analogous desertification phenomena. The results will be sectors. disseminated in public information sessions. This measure is (Legal act: see first measure) a cross- cutting measure as regards the previous 4 groups of measures) Measures for intended/ national The Guidelines identify the following measures: no no infor- no information no Not information, training in process standard - development of public-information programs by government offices; information mation available informatio relevant and research - promotion of information campaigns by public and private enterprises and available available n associations through accords with government offices; available - survey of research activity in Italy on drought and desertification; - analysis and evaluation of strategies to prevent and combat drought and desertification; - study of the causes and processes of desertification and the evolution of the phenomenon in Italy; - evaluation of the environmental, social and economic implications and consequences of drought and desertification; - development of research programs in association with the international scientific community and international programs; - dissemination of know-how and new acquisitions in scientific research; - scientific and technical support for government offices; - extension of information to the other countries in the Mediterranean Basin; - support for strengthening the clearing-house mechanism; - an inventory of traditional know-how and technologies aimed at reproducing them with modern techniques.

Report, Page 445 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Guidelines on the finished research/ The activity is carried out by APAT together with the Sassary University no Is funded no information no Not elaboration and further (Departement of Ecology) information with € available informatio relevant monitoring of investigati available 65.000. n activities carried out on available by the Italian administrative Regions and the River Basin Authorities in the implementation of the NAP.

National projects finished national In the years 2004 and 2005, a number of national projects have been funded in no no no information no Not relevant currently under standard the framework of the Agreement between IMET, the NCCDD and the University information information available information implementation which of Calabria to improve national and local technical capacity in the establishment available available available are directly or and implementation of local action plans and projects. indirectly related to the UNCCD in the (The measure will be partly integrated into the NAP) framework of NAP/SRAP/RAP It is not clear from the report, if the measures will be part of the NAP

Guidelines on the finished research/ The activity is carried out by APAT (The Agency for Environmental Protection no Is funded no information no Not relevant identification of further and Technical Services) information with € available information drought sensitive investigatio available 55.000. available areas n Management and finished others The activity is carried out by APAT (The Agency for Environmental Protection no Is funded no information no Not relevant updating of an Italian and Technical Services) information with available information Clearing House available € 25.000. available Mechanism.

Assessment and finished research/ The activity is carried out by APAT together with UCEA (Central Unit for no Is funded no information no Not relevant deployment of a further Ecology and Agriculture) information with available information desertification risk investigatio available € 65.000. available model to be applied n at national scale.

Report, Page 446 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Elaboration of finished research/ The activity is carried out by Tuscia University and the Italian Accademy on no Is funded no information no Very operational standards further Forestry Science. information with € available information general for sustainable investiga- available 60.000. available management and tion Relevant improvement of forestry patrimony in desertification prone areas.

State and evolution of finished research/ The activity is carried out by ENEA (Italian National Agency for New no Is funded no information no Very vegetation cover in further Technologies, Energy and the Environment). information with € available information general Italy through tele- investigatio available 45.000. available detection techniques. n Relevant

Education, training, intended/in education, “Education, training, public awareness” is carried out by ENEA with the everybody Is funded Not relevant public awareness process research/ scientific and technical support of experts coming from other national and with € further international organizations (such as APAT, INEA, IPOGEA, teachers of 65.000,00. investigatio secondary schools; Desert Research Institute, Arizona, USA; CENESTA, Iran) n also in coordination with the UNCCD Secretariat. In the context of current global environmental changes and challenges, the project aims at disseminate scientific knowledge and operational findings on desertification and related field among schools, primary and secondary level, local authorities, professionals and environmental associations.

Administrative intended/in research/fu The activity is carried out by the University of Sassari (Research Unit on stakeholders Is funded no information no Not relevant Region’s experts process rther desertification) together with Basilicata University. The second edition of with € available information training to combat investigatio “Region’s experts training on combating desertification” is going to be 70.000,00. available desertification n organised by the Research Unit on desertification of Sassari University together with the Basilicata University. The training will include both technical knowledge and operational skills, mainly focused on the utilisation of new technologies for spatial analysis. Furthermore, the social, economic and institutional dimension of desertification will be explored as well as sustainable land management policies. Diffusion of intended/in action plan/ The activity is carried out by IPOGEA (Research Centre on Traditional and no Is funded no information no Not relevant information and process manageme Local Knowledge to combat Desertification). information with € available information awareness on nt plan available 15.000,00. available traditional knowledge to combat desertification

Report, Page 447 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Monitoring and intended/in research/ The activity is carried out by Bar, Universiy (IPLA), Piemonte Region, Tuscia no Is funded no information no Not relevant functional evaluation process further University, ENEA, Calabria Universiy. information with € available information of reforestation and investigatio available 120.000,00. available olive trees cultivation n in combating desertification in Italy Methodology on the intended/in research/ The activity is carried out by Bari University. no Is funded no information no Not relevant assessment of process further information with € available information environmental and investigatio available 60.000,00. available economic damages n drought-related

Local Action Plans: intended/in action plan/ The activities aiming to support the definition of Local Action Plans will be no The activity no information no Not relevant some implementation process manageme carried out in some Italian Regions (Abruzzo, Basilicata, Calabria, Piedmont, information is funded available information pilot experiences in nt plan Apulia, Sardinia, Sicily) and the focus will be the implementation of pilot available with € available Italian Regions: experiences in homogeneous areas. Starting from the analysis of 255.000,00. Abruzzo, Basilicata, desertification vulnerability, the LAPs will envisage operational measures in a Calabria, Piemonte, priority framework also accompanied by a funding plan, accordingly with CCD Apulia, Sardinia, prescriptions. The final result will be the elaboration of user-friendly diagnostic Sicily tools and planning methodologies for the elaboration and implementation of Local Action Plans by local Authorities. National Mapping intended/in research/ The activity is carried out by CRA – UCEA (Research Institute for Agriculture - no Is funded no information no Not relevant System on process further Central Unit for Ecology and Agriculture) information with € available information environmental investigatio available 80.000,00. available vulnerability to n desertification

Education/Traditional implemented education Italy has carried out various initiatives on the topic of traditional knowledge. In no no no information no Not relevant knowledge 1998 and in 1999, two international conferences have been held in Matera information information available information (Basilicata), in order to share experiences among Mediterranean countries. available available available With decision 12/COP5, Italy was invited to continue its work on traditional knowledge. In 2005, the Italian Committee to Combat Drought and Desertification and the University of Tuscia promoted a Conference titled: “Toward an integration of traditional knowledge and new technologies for combating drought and desertification”, aiming at illustrate experiences at national and international level. The Conference outcome including a demonstrative CD on a “World Bank on Traditional Knowledge” were elaborated, in cooperation with IPOGEA, and made available at COP 7. The main issues dealt with by the Conference were:

Report, Page 448 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

- Traditional methods and techniques - Innovative methods and techniques - Best Practices and Case studies: comparison of experiences for a better integration - Technology A

Participation in the implemented research/ Desert Watch aims to develop a user-tailored, standardised, commonly no no no information no Not relevant European Space further accepted and operational information system based on Earth Observation information information available information Agency project, investigatio technology to support national and regional authorities of Annex IV countries in available available available Desert Watch (2004) n reporting commonly to the UNCCD and assessing and monitoring desertification and its trends over time. The measures are not part of the NAP

Soil erosion rate and finished research/ The activity is carried out by Arno River Basin Authority. no Is funded no information no Very lithological sub-layer further information with € available information general relation investigatio available 30.000 available n (funded at Relevant local level)

Forest coverage in finished research/ The activity is carried out by the Adige River Basin Authority. no Is funded no information no Not relevant Veneto, Adige River further information with € available information Basin. Evaluation of investigatio available 35.000 available desertification n (funded at processes. local level)

Iconographic System implemented Research At COP 7, on October 2005 in Nairobi, Italy presented An Iconographic System no no no information no Not relevant of Traditional and further of Traditional and Innovative Techniques, SITTI. This iconographic system is information information available information Innovative investigatio based on traditional techniques and their innovative use for recording and available available available Techniques (SITTI) n identifying the traditional techniques is a further elaboration of The Water Atlas. Traditional Knowledge to Combat Desertification by Pietro Laureano, whose English and Spanish versions were published by UNESCO. SITTI is a technical operating system which enables to manage and systematize all information available on traditional knowledge. The idea of an iconographic system to classify traditional knowledge heritage, divided by functional and typological categories arises from the need to provide a visual synthesis of such a wide and complex subject. The structure of SITTI was not conceived as a mere unstructured container of data and proofs but rather as an innovative tool able to adapt itself to diversified thematic analyses and increasingly diverse operating contexts, to be a grid of reference and to encourage identification and notification of existing knowledge.

Report, Page 449 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Early-warning system intended/in research/ The Italian regions most vulnerable to desertification are developing a system no no no information no Not relevant process further for monitoring the climate and its variations, with particular reference to information information available information investigatio drought. To this end e.g. Sicily has over 300 telemetry stations to measure available available available n atmospheric parameters and 40 underground water meters that make possible to evaluate drought indexes as the Drought Palmer Index, the Standardised Precipitation Index and others. Training and studies implemented education Many Italian universities and research centres have included the topic of no no no information no Not relevant desertification in their activities, in the environmental and socio-economic information information available information sciences as well as in agro-forestry. The training project aims to support the available available available necessity of methodological and technological qualification of the researchers involved in problems regarding the sustainable management of the environment in areas vulnerable to the desertification.

Italian Clearing implemented others An Italian Clearing House on Desertification – ICHD has been established stakeholders no no information no Not relevant House on toward sharing and distributes information, which features as a key element of information available information Desertification – the global strategy. The Italian Ministry of Environment and FAO established, in available available ICHD 1999, a working group, primarily aimed at the development of a mechanism, over a computer supported mechanism, for the dissemination of information. The first results of this joint activity were presented in Recife, during a side event of the third Conference of the Parties. The ICHD was conceived as an instrument supporting: - all concerned actors in implementing the Italian National Action Programme; - Collection and spreading of official information; - Gathering and dissemination of Italian technical and scientific information; - Development of a network, comprising national, international and regional/subregional nodes.

Report, Page 450 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

5.3.2.1.3 Portugal In Portugal the measures to combat desertification under the UNCCD are indicated in the NAP (Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries of Portugal, 1999) and in the National reports (Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries of Portugal, 2000, 2002 and 2006).

Table 5.3.2.1.3: Measures under the UNCCD (included in the NAP and in the National reports) to address desertification in Portugal (There is no information available on Costs and Covered area (qual.)).

Report, Page 451 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from the Portuguese UNCCD National reports (Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries of Portugal, 2000, 2002 and 2006) and the Portuguese NAP Evaluation (Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries of Portugal, 1999) and Notes Measure Form of Kind of Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD reports Target group Control Covered area measure measure (summarised if necessary) mechanisms (quant.) Condition activities aiming to defend water courses. Expand stream training work. Expand work to clean and preserve water courses. Ensure that the National Plan for the Rehabilitation of the Hydrographic Network is properly applied. Monitor urban/industrial pollution. Manage water resources in an integrated way. Reinforce the defence of reservoirs. Support the recycling of waste water. Draft emergency plans for drought situations. Ensure that rural infrastructures can deal adequately with maximum stream flows. Making the fight intended/ action plan/ Include the issue of desertification in the national and regional objectives of research no no information no information Not relevant against in process management programmes. Take account of the issue of desertification in the activity plans of information available available desertification an programme public bodies. available integral part of Weigh up the needs related to the fight against desertification and drought in the general and ambit of work to plan and manage land use and in defining national strategies for sectorial policy nature conservation and the planning and management of water resources. (strategic objective 5 of NAP) Take the strategic and specific objectives of the National Action Programme to Combat Desertification into account in policy measures and Instruments for economic and social development. Reflect the objectives of the National Action Programme to Combat Desertification in all activity related to the programming of EU support, especially in the areas of environment, agriculture and rural and infrastructure development. Campaigns to raise intended/in action plan/ Research the causes of drought and desertification no no information no information Not relevant public awareness process management Research and apply means of fighting drought information available available of the issue of programme available desertification Produce soil and interpretative Charts in a larger scale (strategic objective Harmonise Portuguese and EU soil charts 4 of NAP) Prepare pilot projects on the protection and enhancement of cork oak Stands Create demonstration fields Enrich school and university syllabuses Ensure training and refresher courses for technical staff Promote and implement environmental education Organise public awareness campaigns on desertification

Report, Page 452 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from the Portuguese UNCCD National reports (Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries of Portugal, 2000, 2002 and 2006) and the Portuguese NAP Evaluation (Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries of Portugal, 1999) and Notes Measure Form of Kind of Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD reports Target group Control Covered area measure measure (summarised if necessary) mechanisms (quant.) Support Farmers’ Organisations (visits, diffusion of results, etc.) Publicise hydrological, hydro-meteorological and agricultural forecasts Publicise the National Action Programme to Combat Desertification DIS/MED implemented research/ Initiative of the Secretariat of the CCD and Italy Government that covers the no no information no information Not relevant (Desertification further countries of Southern Europe and those of the Northern Africa, nineteen indicators information available available Information System investigation are under study based on the soil, vegetation, climate/water and land and land available to support National resources management parameters, that will allow the updating of the Action susceptibility map of desertification of our NAP and answer the demands at the Programmes in the level of the Mediterranean exercise. Mediterranean) EASW method implemented education The method showed to be a useful tool able to make all the presents participate stakeholders no information no information Not relevant (European independently of their socio-professional category; farmer, politician, technician, available available Awareness NGO, businessman or simple citizen, and to create “natural partnership”, so that, Scenario each element present promises to follow and evaluate the activities of the solutions Workshops) adopted. The next step of the activities will consist on the consolidation of the concerns expressed, in an Activity Program that the Regional Subcomissions worked on, making partnerships with local actors. Financed by the EU, DESERTLINKS (Combating Desertification in Mediterranean Europe: Linking Science with Stakeholders) and MEDACTION (Policies for Land Use to Combat Desertification). This participatory process of the local communities will also be useful as support the second workshop of the MEDRAP (EU Concerted Action of support the Northern Mediterranean Regional Action Programme to combat Desertification), in “Identification of Sensitive Areas”, that will take place in Portugal, next June (2003). Recovery of intended/in action plan/ Support the recovery of farming records. no no information no information Very general affected areas process management Promote the drainage and conservation of soils. information available available (strategic objective programme available Relevant 3 of NAP) Foster and support environmental re-qualification. Reinforce support for afforestation and forest protection. Widen and adapt agro-environmental measures to the objectives of the fight against desertification. Modulate the type and level of support to agriculture and forestry in view of the degree of susceptibility to desertification. Improve and valorise land.

Report, Page 453 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from the Portuguese UNCCD National reports (Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries of Portugal, 2000, 2002 and 2006) and the Portuguese NAP Evaluation (Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries of Portugal, 1999) and Notes Measure Form of Kind of Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD reports Target group Control Covered area measure measure (summarised if necessary) mechanisms (quant.) Fix working-age intended/in action plan/ Ensure land use planning and management. no no information no information Very general population in rural process management Improve basic infrastructures and accessibility. information available available areas (strategic programme available Relevant objective 2 of NAP) Implement a decentralised administrative structure. Promote modernisation and renovation of farming and encourage agriculture to perform a variety of functions. Encourage the continuation of traditional modes of production which have positive effects in environmental terms. Support forestry and encourage and ensure the sustainable management of forests. Guarantee the development and consolidation of towns, villages and other small and medium sized settlements. Encourage and Support the diversification of the economic structure of rural areas. Support renovation of real estate and the recuperation of heritage and built Space. Implementation of implemented research/ Due to the limited technical and financial resources and to the vast area susceptible not relevant no information no information Not relevant 5 Pilot Areas further to desertification (36%) of Continental Portugal, the NCC decided to concentrate its available available (2002) investigation action in the field in 5 Pilot Areas where it would be possible to demonstrate that the critical situations can be reversed and its effects mitigated. 2003-2004: 3 of the 5 Pilot Areas finalised the Activity Plans. Of the reminding, one is in final step and the last one still did not start on it. Measures taken or finished research/ The axes of intervention and the operation guidelines established in the NAP has stakeholders no information no information Not relevant scheduled under further been a constant concern to agents and institutions involved and interested in the available available the NAP to improve investigation question of desertification. the knowledge of The operation guidelines have been developed under many ways, for example: the phenomenon of desertification and - Projects developed by government bodies, universities, scientific researches monitor and centres as ‘Land use management and urban development in the sensitive areas to evaluate the effects desertification’, ‘Dam’s recovery’, ‘Recovery of network monitoring of hydrological of drought resources’; - Rural extension activities of regional technical staff like ‘The open day in the Experimental Erosion Centre of Vale Formoso’ and Commemoration of ‘International day of Tree’ in the school community.; - And many other activities taken by public and private organisms, such Thematic Meetings, Courses and Workshops.

Report, Page 454 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from the Portuguese UNCCD National reports (Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries of Portugal, 2000, 2002 and 2006) and the Portuguese NAP Evaluation (Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries of Portugal, 1999) and Notes Measure Form of Kind of Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD reports Target group Control Covered area measure measure (summarised if necessary) mechanisms (quant.) National Strategic intended/in action plan/ The Plan is based on the criteria competitiveness, environment, quality of life, no no information no information Not relevant Plan for Rural process management economic diversity. The National Commission of Coordination of the PAN was information available available Development programme consulted at the beginning of the process. The current version refers to the NAP available concerning the fight against desertification. In this context, the national strategic Plan for Rural Development is an instrument for the protection of soil and desertification. It is not clear from the report, if the measure will be part of the NAP Plan for the intended/in action plan/ It establishes objectives, strategy axes and goals for the national forest. (first no no information no information Very general Sustainable process management approval in 1999) Measures against desertification play a major role in the following information available available Development of the programme aspects: current context of the forest sector, protection of soil and water, the available Relevant Portuguese Forest multifictional systems, the forest fires, and the necessity of a differentiated treatment of susceptible zones entailing positive discrimination. Participation in the implemented research/ Monitoring the desertification evolution in the Mediterranean region by satellite no no information no information Not relevant European Space further imaging. Presently is taking place the validating of the field works of the indicators in information available available Agency project, investigation the 5 Pilot Areas. available Desertwatch (2004) Updating the Map finished research/ After the catastrophic forest fires that covered more than 425 000 hectares, the not relevant no information no information General of Desertification further NCC presented a proposal to the government about the measures to prevent the available available Sensitive Area investigation predictable erosion after the first rains on naked soils. Relevant (2003) The measures are/will not ne part of the NAP National Strategy implemented national Portugal has several important planning tools to combat desertification and drought no no information no information Not relevant for the standard whose synergies between them and NAP must be assured. Some of the strategically information available available Conservation of options are: to promote the integration of the nature conservation policy and the available Nature and sustainable management of biological resources under the policy of land use and Biodiversity with a under the others sectorial policies. (adopted by the Government, Resolution of deadline of 2010 Cabinet number 152/2001 of 11/10/2001) National Program intended/in action plan/ Natura 2000 Network established by Resolution of Cabinet number 66/2001 of land use no information no information Very general of Land Use process management 06/06/2001, whose management plan must define the system of safeguard of the planning available available Policies programme natural resources and the landscape’s value of all places within the network, authorities Relevant consistent with sustainable land use.

Report, Page 455 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from the Portuguese UNCCD National reports (Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries of Portugal, 2000, 2002 and 2006) and the Portuguese NAP Evaluation (Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries of Portugal, 1999) and Notes Measure Form of Kind of Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD reports Target group Control Covered area measure measure (summarised if necessary) mechanisms (quant.) Special Plans of no action plan/ With compulsive application, establishing preferential, conditioned and interdict uses, no no information no information Very general Land Use information management determined by criteria of nature conservation, they protect the uses of soil and information available available (Management available programme water and the conditions of change of that uses. available Relevant Plans of Protected Areas, of Watershed and of Border Coast) National Program intended/in action plan/ In spite of basically focused on the problem of reduction of gas emissions with no no information no information Very general of Climate Change process management influence of the greenhouse effect, the Program selects among the key sectors; the information available available programme Forestry sector. The reduction of forest fires and the increase in productivity of available Relevant forestry areas are determining elements. Both are achieved by the adoption of sustainable management plan of forestry that go, hand in hand, with the conservation and rational use of soil and water resources. Portugal ratified recently the Kyoto Protocol. Regional Plans for intended/in action plan/ The plans will lay down concrete laws and guidelines on silviculture and on how to no no information no information Very general Forestry Planning process management use forest spaces. (Resolution of Cabinet number 118/2000 of 13/07/2001) information available available programme Depending on the significance of the forest species for the water and soil available Relevant protection, these norms will be a measure against desertification. The National Commission of Coordination of the PAN was engaged at the beginning of the process. (21 plans are about to be developed, 10 are already completed and the other in public debate) National Water implemented action plan/ Even though it announces that in a whole there is no lack of water in the country, no no information no information Not relevant Plan management nevertheless it draws our attention towards the critical regions where the supply does information available available programme not satisfy the demand. (recently approves by the Government, Decree-Law available number112/2002 of 17/04/2002.) National implemented national Portugal has several important planning tools to combat desertification and drought farmers no information no information Very general Agricultural Policy standard whose synergies between them and NAP must be assured. Some of the strategically available available based in two options are: to promote the integration of the nature conservation policy and the Relevant fundamental axes - sustainable management of biological resources under the policy of land use and irrigation and under the others sectorial policies. forestry

Report, Page 456 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from the Portuguese UNCCD National reports (Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries of Portugal, 2000, 2002 and 2006) and the Portuguese NAP Evaluation (Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries of Portugal, 1999) and Notes Measure Form of Kind of Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD reports Target group Control Covered area measure measure (summarised if necessary) mechanisms (quant.) Key requirements finished others Campaigns to raise public awareness on the issue of the desertification; everybody no information no information Not relevant for the Creation of conditions for a strong participation of public and private entities; available available implementation of the NAP Integrated interdepartmental and multi-disciplinary cooperation, from the drafting of policies up to the preparation of the implementation of specific actions; Creation of a National Committee to Coordinate the NAP and to monitor its implementation; Creation of a National Desertification Observatory, working closely with the National Committee that will make possible the monitoring and the assessment of the programme’s implementation. System of intended/in research/ Another phenomenon with catastrophic character affected the country, the drought. no no information no information Not relevant Permanent process further In September it covered the whole territory, 97 % severe to extreme, 3 % moderate. information available available Observation and investigation available Management of the Drought (2006) National implemented action Protection of territory of agricultural value against urbanisation. The concept is being no no information no information Very general Agricultural plan/manage revised at the moment. information available available Reserves ment available Relevant programme National Ecologic implemented action Protection of territory of high ecologic value against urbanisation. The concept is no no information no information Very general Reserves plan/manage being revised at the moment. information available available ment available Relevant programme Towards the intended/in education IYDD, the NCC agrees as objectives: stakeholders no information no information Not relevant commemorations process - To raise the awareness of people on risks of desertification in available available of the International Year of Deserts Portugal all its dimensions. and Desertification - To promote the participation of Civil Society. (IYDD, 2006) - To promote the coordination between public institutions. National Plan of the intended/in action plan/ Encourages the active management of woods aiming at reducing progressively no no information no information Very general defense of forests process management forest fires but does not actively contain measures against desertification. (already information available available against fires programme approved) available Relevant Emergence of finished action plan/ With interest for the fight against desertification. no no information no information Not relevant different management information available available management’s programme available tools/plans (2004- 2005)

Report, Page 457 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 458 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

5.3.2.2 Affected countries, which NAPs are in preparation

5.3.2.2.1 Cyprus In Cyprus the National reports (Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment of Cyprus, 2002 and 2007) list the measures to combat desertification under the UNCCD and indicate the measures which are planned to be a part of the NAP (currently under preparation).

Table 5.3.2.2.1: Measures under the UNCCD National reports to address desertification in Cyprus (There is no information available on Control mechanisms and Covered area (quant.)).

Management in action plan/ Currently the Government water policy focuses on the maximum potential farmers no information irrigated General The of Water process/ management exploitation of non-conventional water resources, such as recycled water. available land Management of Resources intended programme Tertiary treated recycled water is used for irrigation of existing crop land Relevant Water and for recharging aquifers. Resources is Another aspect of Government policy is the efficient use of available water, planned to be including the better use of pricing and water conservation measures, as part of the NAP. well as the protection, preservation and improvement of water quality, and the introduction of new effective management procedures. Another important factor is the quality of water used for irrigation. Substantial work has been carried out so far in Cyprus, particularly in investing in and developing appropriate irrigation methods, identifying water requirements by main irrigated crop, scheduling of irrigation and effective water use, and water quality combined with crop resilience. More than 95 % of the irrigated agricultural lands are under modern improved irrigation systems, thus ensuring appropriate irrigation methods, reducing the possibilities of soil pollution, and contributing to the conservation of water. Additionally, guidance in protecting and technical support is given to farmers regarding salinity and infiltration problems, and irrigation management methods for overcoming them, as well as guidelines and indicative concentration limit values for crops. The Water Development Programme is a project currently under implementation which is directly or indirectly related to the UNCCD. The scheduled timeframe of the Water Development Programme is until 2015.

Report, Page 459 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from the Cyprian UNCCD National reports (Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment of Cyprus, 2002 and 2007) Evaluation and Notes Measure Form of Kind of Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD reports Target group Costs Covered Evaluation Notes measure measure (summarised if necessary) area (qual.) Promotion of in promotion/ The measure aims at the preservation and enhancement of the farmers 24.5 million € in arable General The measure is sustainable process/ subsidy environment and the reduction of the risks to the environment arising from the framework of land; part of the Rural agricultural intended the degradation of ground and surface waters, and soils. Rural vineyards Relevant Development practices It consists of a rational use of pesticides, fertilizers and water, the Development Plan Plan 2004 - reduction of the pollution caused by agriculture ensuring the sustainable 2004-2006 2006 management of soil resources, the preservation of the biological diversity (estimation) of agricultural ecosystems, the cultivation of potatoes in the traditional system of the three-year crop-rotation, the re-introduction of mechanical cultivation at vineyards, appropriate citrus cultivations, and the encouragement of organic farming. Promotion of in promotion/ The measure aims at the preservation and enhancement of the farmers 7.6 million € in the agricultural General The measure is traditional process/ subsidy environment and consists of the preservation of traditional varieties of framework of Rural land part of the Rural agricultural intended cultivations, such as almond trees, carob trees, etc., the preservation of Development Plan Relevant Development methods and shrubs and other plants, the annual cleanup of and removal of unwanted 2004-2006 Plan 2004 - traditional vegetation in agricultural lands which are not extensively exploited (estimation) 2006 crop varieties anymore or have been abandoned, and the conservation and reconstruction of bench terraces and dry stonewalls. Promotion of in promotion/ The measure aims to extent the forest cover of the island, the utilization forest 2.5 million € non- General The measure is afforestation process/ subsidy of land expanses which are no longer exploited for agricultural purposes authorities; (agricultural land); agricultural part of the Rural intended and which will eventually be degraded if left abandoned. The measure private forest 3 million € (non- land Relevant Development addresses also the afforestation of non-agricultural land and the owners agricultural land) in Plan 2004 - development of private forestry. the framework of 2006 Rural Development Plan 2004-2006 Enhancement in awareness The measure aims at the protection of state forests and areas outside the forest 4.5 million Euro in forest Very general The measure is of the fire process/ raising/ state forest against fires. It consists of the information provision and authorities; the framework of areas; part of the protection intended technical awareness raising, the development and improvement of the existing private forest the National Forest Akamas Relevant National Forest system prevention system, and the improvement of the detection system. owners Programme forest Programme In 2001, the EU 2001 - 2010 approved 0.5 million € to support a project for fire protection in the Akamas forest.

Report, Page 460 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from the Cyprian UNCCD National reports (Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment of Cyprus, 2002 and 2007) Evaluation and Notes Measure Form of Kind of Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD reports Target group Costs Covered Evaluation Notes measure measure (summarised if necessary) area (qual.) Encourage- in promotion/ Objectives of the measure are the support of agriculture in farmers 42 million € in the disadvan- Very general The measure is ment of process/ subsidy disadvantageous areas to balance the loss of income that results from framework of Rural tageous part of the Rural population to intended permanent physical disadvantages (steep slopes, high altitude, shallow Development Plan areas Relevant Development remain in rural or barren soils) or adverse physical phenomena (low rainfall) and 2004 - 2006 Plan 2004 - areas ensuring the continued use of the agricultural lands in such areas. 2006 Institutional and fiscal measures to encourage population to remain in rural areas, and/or maintain its interest on the land even if it has moved, thus preventing the abandonment of the countryside for urbanization will be included in the National Action Programme under the UNCCD-Convention. Management in action plan/ The objective of the measure is the protection of biodiversity with a focus no no information rural land Very general and process/ management on rural lands. information available conservation intended programme available Relevant measures for the protection of biodiversity Education and in education The measure includes training regarding the impacts of desertification, no no information whole Very general The measure is awareness process/ appropriate agricultural, irrigation and drainage practices, traditional information available territory part of the Rural raising intended cultivation methods, and traditional crop varieties and their advantages available Relevant Development and raising public awareness regarding the issue of desertification and the Plan 2004 - actions that must be taken to combat it. 2006 The measures will not be part of the NAP Fertigation no technical The method of fertigation (fertilization and irrigation simultaneously) widely farmers no information irrigated Very general (fertilization informati measure accepted by farmers has minimized fertilizers depletion, especially in available land, and irrigation on mountainous areas and shallow soils. especially Relevant simulta- available in moun- neously) tainous areas and shallow soils

Report, Page 461 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from the Cyprian UNCCD National reports (Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment of Cyprus, 2002 and 2007) Evaluation and Notes Measure Form of Kind of Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD reports Target group Costs Covered Evaluation Notes measure measure (summarised if necessary) area (qual.) National impleme action The Programme promotes the protection and extension of the country’s forest $15 million for forested Very general Forest nted plan/manage forest cover and the afforestation of abandoned land and degraded authorities 10000 ha land; land Programme ment areas. Furthermore, the Rural Development Plan covers measures for the afforested land under Relevant 2001-2010 programme protection of forests against fire, the reforestation of burnt areas, the under extreme extreme afforestation of agricultural and non-agricultural land and the development conditions; $4 conditions; of private forests. An extensive protection system against fires is also in million for 5000 ha abandoned place. The National Forest Programme is a project currently under abandoned and and implementation which is directly or indirectly related to the UNCCD. degraded degraded agricultural land agricultural land Elimination or no national Measures have been taken to eliminate or diminish grazing in the state forest no information state Not releavnt diminishing informati standard forests by enforcing the Forests Law. authorities; available forests grazing in the on farmers forests available Land use no action Appropriate land use planning can help a lot in combating desertification. land use no information whole Not relevant planning informati plan/manage In order to achieve this, the following measures are currently (2002) planning available territory of on ment pursued: introduction of the strategic impact assessment of plans and authorities Cyprus available programme programmes, such as the existing statutory development plans, that are the Local Plans and the Policy Statement for the Countryside; preparation of the Island Plan that will provide for the strategic land use planning of the island as a whole; enactment of a new type of physical plan, the regional plan; and ensuring that all the above plans are focused towards sustainability in a sense that they do not ignore the various economic, demographic and environmental factors and they do not degrade biomass productivity and other land activities and processes. EU co- intended/ research / The research project aims at developing a context-sensitive strategy for no no General operative in further managing irrigation and nutrient supply of protected crops with constrains information information research process investigation on the quantity and quality of water supply. The economic and ecological available available Relevant programme factors affecting the strategic decisions will also be considered. HORTIMED - Sustainable water use in the Mediterranean Horticulture

Report, Page 462 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from the Cyprian UNCCD National reports (Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment of Cyprus, 2002 and 2007) Evaluation and Notes Measure Form of Kind of Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD reports Target group Costs Covered Evaluation Notes measure measure (summarised if necessary) area (qual.) EU co- intended/ research / The research project aims at developing a cropping system where partial no no General operative in further root drying technique may be used to control excessive vigour, save information information research process investigation irrigation water and reduce fertilizer use without influencing fruit yield available available Relevant programme and quality. IRRISPLIT - Partial root drying: A sustainable irrigation system for efficient water use without reducing fruit yield EU co- intended/ research / Objectives of this research project are to produce in a sustainable way, no no information no General operative in further irrigated crops with wastewater treated by low cost technology adapted information available information research process investigation to the Mediterranean environment. The two designated fields of research available available Relevant programme are wastewater treatment to obtain an effluent that can be reused in INCO-DC - agriculture and irrigation techniques that are compatible with sustainable Sustainability agriculture practices. and Optimization of treatments and use of wastewater in Agriculture Coastal Area no infor- action The programme, initiated with UNEP/MAP findings, will cover most of the no no information no Not relevant Management mation plan/manage coastal area of Cyprus, in which the majority of economic activities such as information available information Programme available ment tourism, housing, agricultural, etc., are concentrated. The coastal available available (CAMP) programme management programme will give emphasis to measures for combating desertification. The programme is mentioned as a relevant initiative for mitigating desertification. Habitat no action One of the supporting pillars for a sustainable housing policy is to combine no no information no Not relevant Agenda informa- plan/manage adequate housing land with employment opportunities. To this extent, the information available information programme tion ment housing policy will be combined with the various countryside development available available available programme programmes, in order to reach appropriate strategic decisions. A proper decentralization policy for instance could facilitate the reversion of desertification processes. The programme is mentioned as a relevant initiative for mitigating desertification.

Report, Page 463 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 464 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

5.3.2.2.2 Hungary In Hungary the National reports (Ministry of Environment and Water of the Republic of Hungary, 2002 and 2006) list the measures to combat desertification under the UNCCD and indicate the measures which are planned to be a part of the NAP (currently under preparation).

Table 5.3.2.2.2: Measures under the UNCCD National reports to address desertification in Hungary (There is no information available on Costs, Control mechanisms and Covered area (quant.)).

Risk management intended/ others Until 2006, there have been several measures taken by both governmental and nongovernmental no no Not in process organisations to mitigate the harmful impacts of drought in Hungary. However, in most cases, those information information relevant measures have been inadequately consolidated. Most of the measures have been reactive rather than available available preventive, and the actions have had partial effects. In order to learn as much as possible from the past experiences of drought mitigating measures, it is essential to carefully analyse those measures, and to draw the conclusions of their evaluation as precisely as possible. Attitude towards drought mitigation actions should shift from the crisis management type of actions to risk management, where a proactive approach is taken well in advance of drought events, so that mitigation can really reduce drought impacts. Strategy of drought intended/ Action plans Among the final conclusions of intensive research activities, the necessity of a strategy on drought farmers agricultural Not mitigation in in process and mitigation in agriculture was raised as a complex system of means and measures for the reduction of land relevant agriculture programmes drought damages in agricultural production. Prevention is the most important and preparedness should be increased including the help of a better forecast service for drought mitigation. Also more effective international cooperation has been urged. Plant breeding intended/ technical Very important part of the fight against drought damages is plant breeding: to develop drought tolerant no agricultural Not in process measure varieties of the cultivated crop species. Especially in the very drought sensitive areas the farmers can use information land relevant these types of crops and avoid the complete destruction of yield. Hungarian plant breeders are doing available continuous research and development work for having a wider offer from more drought tolerant crops.

Establishing of an intended/ technical A new and comprehensive information system should be established including mapping of drought prone no no Not information system in process measure areas, specific database of relevant meteorological, hydrological, agrotechnical, social and other data, information information relevant with the help of which a better forecast can be given on drought occurrence as well as on estimation of available available drought impacts.

Report, Page 465 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from the Hungarian UNCCD National reports (Ministry of Environment and Water of the Republic of Hungary, 2002 and 2006) Evaluation and Notes Measure Form of Kind of Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD reports (summarised if necessary) Target Covered area measure measure group (qual.) Application of intended/ in technical Based on the results of recent country-wide research works carried out on the better understanding of farmers agricultural Not adequate drought process measure drought impacts and adequate drought mitigation technologies – both for dry and irrigated farming – have land relevant mitigation technolo- been developed and are available for farmers. gies for farming On account of valuable soil conditions and the great importance of agricultural production, the causes of soil degradation have been investigated very intensely in Hungary, and the requirements of soil protection and conservation are mainly built in to the everyday agro-technical practice, and into the best agro-technical technologies. Preparation of a intended/ in research/ One of the most urgent research tasks is drawing a drought sensitivity map, not only for Hungary, but for no no Not drought severity process further the whole continent or at least some part of it. An international project proposal has been made and sent information information relevant map investigation to the European Commission as an Expression of Interest for the Sixth Framework Programme for available available Research, Technological Development and Demonstration, but the proposal was not approved by the European Commission. Establishing an intended/ in technical One of the most important general preventive actions is forecasting, and all the methods awakening to no no Not early warning process measure the consciousness in the people giving as wide and detailed information as possible. An early warning information information relevant system for system should be established and operated as a basis of further and necessary decisions in due time available available droughts before severe drought situation develops, especially in those areas where drought is occurring frequently. For this, the drought sensitive regions should be known in each country involved. The measures will not be a part of the NAP National Drought intended/in others Both the National Soil Conservation Strategy and the National Drought Strategy are in the process of no no Not Strategy (NDS) and process finalization. These documents address the risk imposed by threats arising from these natural disasters, information information relevant National Soil and summarize the necessary steps to be implemented for the mitigation of their harmful effects. The available available Conservation National Drought Strategy in the final stage of acceptance. This Strategy summarises the necessary Strategy concepts, methods, steps and sources of prevention and drought mitigation in the country, and provides a basis for further detailed and short-term actions in this field. Constructing a intended/in research / Based on the use of the Palfai Aridity Index, a partial drought monitoring system is operating in water no no Not nation-wide process further management and provides information first of all to the experts of the local water authorities dealing with information information relevant monitoring system investigation drought mitigation. It is planned that this system will be extended, and a general drought monitoring and available available for drought analysis forecasting system is planned to be established in co-operation with the Hungarian Meteorological and forecasting Service, and a special data-base for drought analysis is ahead to be created. National implemented action plan/ The National Development Plan summarizes the required tendencies and necessary actions for the long- no no Not Development Plan management term development of the country. It determines a frame for future activities, inter alia, for drought information information relevant (NDP) programme mitigation actions. First version was approved by the Hungarian Parliament in 1996 for the period of available available 1997-2002, and now the second version for 2003 - 2008 is valid, according to which all the different sectors are obliged to elaborate their own development plans.

Report, Page 466 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from the Hungarian UNCCD National reports (Ministry of Environment and Water of the Republic of Hungary, 2002 and 2006) Evaluation and Notes Measure Form of Kind of Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD reports (summarised if necessary) Target Covered area measure measure group (qual.) National Agri- implemented action plan/ This program was developed on the basis of the Act No. CXIV of 1997 on the development of agriculture farmers agricultural Not Environmental management and on the requirements of the National Environmental Programme (adopted by the Parliament in 1997) land; forested relevant Programme programme and supports the implementation of both the National Environmental Programme and the National land Regional Development Concept. The establishment of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Network is also a related task that forms a part of the planned measures of the agri-environmental programme. National implemented action plan/ The programme incorporates drought mitigation issues to handle and tasks to fulfil the long-term no no Not Environmental management objectives. information information relevant Programme for programme available available 1997-2002 and 2nd version for 2003- 2008 Programmes of the finished action plan/ The International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID), and its working groups started to deal farmers irrigated land Very International management with drought problems from the year of 1992. ICID - focusing on irrigation, drainage and flood control general Commission on programme questions - is practically active in all problems related to agricultural water management. It has been Irrigation and established as a scientific, technical, professional and voluntary, international non-profit and non- Relevant Drainage (ICID) governmental organizations, and dedicated, inter alia, to enhance the world-wide support of food and fibre for all people. ICID strives to achieve this by improving water and land management, and the productivity of irrigated and drained lands through the appropriate management of water, environment and the application of irrigation, drainage and flood control techniques. ICID is interested in matters relating to the planning, financing and economics of the mentioned fields. One of the main tasks of the ICID was to compile a guide entitled How to Work Out a Drought Mitigation Strategy. It was completed in 1999. Research and in process research / The national research and development project deals partly with water management and water scarcity farmers agricultural Not development further problems in agriculture, under the leadership of the Research Institute of Soil Science and Agro- land relevant project investigation chemistry (RISSAC) of the National Academy of Sciences, with participation of several academic and AGROECOLOGY scientific institutions of Hungary. The project is going to give a comprehensive outlook on the different problems of agroecological systems, and making proposals for a better and environmentally safe operation of these kinds of systems, with special regard to the most effective use of the national water resources and water retention possibilities under different climatic and ecological conditions.

Strategy for in process others The two national strategies are under preparation in relation to drought and desertification; both of these no no Not Sustainable are based on the results and proposals of a recent comprehensive research and development work information information relevant Development and conducted by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. available available National Climate Change Strategy National implemented action plan/ The programme was developed on the International Hydrological Programme of the UNESCO is also no no Not Hydrological management taken into consideration during the implementation of the UNCCD. information information relevant Programme programme available available

Report, Page 467 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

5.3.2.2.3 Latvia The Latvian National report (Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Latvia, 2006) summarises all the activities planned or taken regarding the implementation of the Convention in Latvia. Up to now, it is not clear from this National report if the identified measures will be a part of the NAP (currently under preparation).

Table 5.3.2.2.3: Measures under the UNCCD National report to address desertification in Latvia (There is no information available on Costs, Control mechanisms and Covered area (quant.)).

Information from the Latvian UNCCD National report (Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Latvia, 2006) Evaluation and Notes Measure Form of Kind of Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD report (summarised if Target group Covered area measure measure necessary) (qual.) It is not clear from the report, if the measures will be a part of the NAP. Regulations on intended/ national Threshold values for assessment of soil and ground quality are mentioned. One of purpose no no information General Quality Standards for in process standard is to take an account for rehabilitation of contaminated sites. (Regulations of the Cabinet of information available Soil and Ground Ministers No. 804 of October 25, 2005) available Relevant Regulations on intended/ national Regulates pollution prevention activities from animal farms, to prevent pollution of ground farmers whole Latvian General special requirements in process standard and surface water from manure and silage use and storage. (Regulations of the Cabinet of territory regarding pollution Ministers No.628 July 27, 2004) Relevant activities in animal farms Regulations for intended/ national Determine the requirements for the water and soil protection against contamination by farmers no information General Water and Soil in process standard nitrates caused by agricultural activities; particularly vulnerable areas, to which more stringent available Protection Against requirements regarding the water and soil protection against contamination by nitrates caused Relevant Contamination by by agricultural activities are applicable, and their boundaries, as well as the criteria for the Nitrates Caused by determination of such areas and management procedures. The procedure on management is Agricultural Activities stipulated in the programme developed by Ministry of Agriculture Order Nr.163 of March 18, 2004. (Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 531 of December 18, 2001) Regulations on the intended/ national Regulate the procedures of use, as well as monitoring and control of sewage sludge and its farmers no information General Use, Monitoring and in process standard composts. Use of sewage sludge and its compost which is classified as hazardous waste (in available Control of Sewage accordance with mentioned rules above on sewage sludge) is regulated by legislation on Relevant Sludge and Its Waste management. (Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers No.365 of August 20, 2002) Composts National intended/ action Foresees concrete actions for the inventory of land contamination sites, the sanitation of farmers no information General Environmental Policy in process plan/mana polluted sites, preservation and protection of soil quality, and measures to decrease soil available Plan for 2004 – 2008 gement erosion and degradation of agricultural lands. Relevant programme

Report, Page 468 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 469 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

5.3.2.2.4 Malta Up to now, it is neither clear from the Maltese UNCCD National report (Malta Environment and Planning Authority, 2002) if Malta will prepare the NAP, nor if the defined measures will be incorporated into this NAP.

Table 5.3.2.2.4: Measures under the UNCCD National report to address desertification in Malta

(There is no information available on Costs, Control mechanisms and Covered area (quant.)).

Information from the Maltese UNCCD National report (Malta Environment and Planning Authority, 2002) Evaluation and Notes Measure Form of Kind of Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD report (summarised if necessary) Target Covered area measure measure group (qual.) It is not clear from the National report, if Malta will prepare the NAP Prohibition of soil imple- legislation No person may transport soil to any site for any purpose in larger quantities than one half cubic everybody whole General transport and mented metre without permission from the Director of Agriculture. Fertile soil is not to be covered with stones territory soil covering or similar material. All soil effected by building development has to be removed from site and Relevant transported elsewhere. (Legal Act: Fertile Soil (Preservation) Act 1973 - Amended in 1983 [Act XXIX of 1973] and Preservation of Fertile Soil Regulations, 1973 [L/N 104/1973] (Malta)) Protection of imple- legislation Rubble walls and non-habitable rural structures are protected, in view of their exceptional beauty, their everybody whole General rubble walls and mented affording a habitat for flora and fauna and their vital importance in the conservation of soil and of territory non-habitable water. Relevant rural structures These regulations prevent any person from demolishing or endangering by any means whatsoever, the stability or integrity of any rubble wall or to prevent the free percolation of rainwater through the structure of a rubble wall. (Legal Act: Rubble Walls and Rural Structures (Conservation & Maintenance) Regulations 1997 (Malta)) Restriction on imple- legislation No person is allowed to drive any motor vehicle other than in a locality which is marked as an off-road everybody whole General driving motor mented site (any place authorised in writing by the Environment Protection Department). These regulations thus territory vehicles prevent activities that have an impact on the soil structure, thereby increasing soil erosion risk. Relevant (Legal Act: Motor Vehicle (Offroading) Regulations 1997 (Malta)) Soil conservation imple- legislation Soil conservation and soil saving measures will continue to be mandatory in accordance with the Fertile no no General and soil saving mented Soil (Preservation) Act 1973. Development will only be granted if existing rubble walling is suitably information information measures in constructed or if new walling is required, it must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning available available Relevant Local Plans (Soil Authority using traditional methods which are compatible with the landscape. Conservation) (Legal Act: Fertile Soil (Preservation) Act 1973 - Amended in 1983 [Act XXIX of 1973] and Preservation of Fertile Soil Regulations, 1973 [L/N 104/1973] (Malta))

Report, Page 470 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from the Maltese UNCCD National report (Malta Environment and Planning Authority, 2002) Evaluation and Notes Measure Form of Kind of Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD report (summarised if necessary) Target Covered area measure measure group (qual.) Research project finished research/ Within the framework of the Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP) and within its Coastal Area Management no Northwest General on the further Programme (CAMP), a project for Malta was launched in November 1999, to be completed by 2002. The information (CAMP sustainable investiga- implementation of the project is harmonised, co-ordinated and integrated at the level of individual project available Project study Relevant management of tion activities and at the project level. area) and 3 the coast The Project was oriented towards sustainable management of the coast of Malta, in particular the pilot areas Northwest area, whilst introducing and applying principles, methodologies and practices of sustainable within the coastal management and Integrated Coastal and Marine Areas Management (ICAM). Northwest CAMP is performed though individual activities. The activity related to management of erosion control was implemented by an interdisciplinary team of selected national experts and officials from the main organisations (EPD, PA, Department of Agriculture & University of Malta) working together to achieve this goal. The general objective of the project activity was contributing to the national efforts towards the sustainable management of resources and environment protection in Malta. This was achieved by undertaking and completing systematic erosion/desertification surveys and mapping activities at two scales: the Northwest (the CAMP Project study area) and three pilot areas within the Northwest, where a more detailed study was carried out. These pilot area represented typical features of the Northwest, namely fields along the coastal fringe, terraced and flat lands and a valley system exhibiting typical slope processes. The major output of the activity has been the production of a series of site-descriptive maps (1:2,500) for the three pilot areas. Actual on-site erosion processes were identified and assessed. The different grades of erosion risk and evaluative trends were also assessed. An example of the final digitised (MAP Info) map is given in the report. A predictive erosion risk map for the Northwest (based on a scale of 1:25,000) has also been produced. Erosion status homogenous units and the general erosion potential and trends were mapped. The basic physical parameters, namely slope, geology, soils, land vegetation cover and land use were identified, assessed and integrated to determine the erodibility-potential erosion. Participation of implement research/ The first exercise taken in this regards was the identification of major stakeholders. Farmers and their stakeholde no General stakeholders ed further Co-operatives were identified as being the main stakeholders since they are the ones working the land. rs information investiga- Other actors who may have a role in erosion control management include hunters/trappers, land owners available Relevant tion and NGOs. Several lectures at the University as well as to the Geography Teachers’ Association were given on the issues and processes of land degradation and soil erosion in Malta. University dissertations were also geared towards desertification by the undertaking of specific issues on land degradation, e.g. the effect of salinisation and the state of terracing and rubble walls in specific valleys located on the two main Islands.

Report, Page 471 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

5.3.2.2.5 Slovak Republic Even if the final draft NAP exists, it is not clear from the Slovakian National report (Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute of Bratislava, 2006), if the identified measures will stay in the NAP (or the NAP will be adopted at all).

Table 5.3.2.2.5: Measures under the UNCCD National report to address desertification in the Slovak Republic (There is no information available on Target group, Costs, Control mechanisms, Covered area (qual.), and Covered area (quant.)).

Information from the Slovakian UNCCD National report (Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute of Bratislava, 2006) Evaluation and Notes Measure Form of Kind of measure Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD report (summarised if necessary) measure Preservation of the soil implemented legislation Preservation of the soil against sealing for economy use, soil preservation through forest vegetation, General in forested territory enhancement of water retention in forested territory. Relevant (Legal Act: Act No. 326/2005 of Code on forests (Slovak Republic)) Creating and operation intended/ action Definition the extent and intensity of soil degradation processes is first precondition for planning necessary Very general of information tools for in process plan/manageme actions and measures based on objective information. To solve this problem it is necessary to continue in strategic decision nt programme provision of permanent monitoring of agricultural and forest soil properties development (provided in the Relevant support Slovak Republic since 1992) taking into account recent EU demands. Non-negligible is also need to develop special information system on urban and industrial areas. Increase of intended/ education/public Spontaneous or non-regulated economy changes in society, having positive environmental effect, usually General environmental in process awareness negatively influence the living standard of population in countryside. As example can be mentioned decrease of awareness of soil users production intensity in agriculture in previous period. This process have had positive effect on decrease of Relevant and broader population soil erosion and loading of soil by chemicals (fertilisers, pesticides) but simultaneously have contributed to worsening of economic conditions of agricultural subjects and population on countryside. Primary reason and accelerator of changes in soil and environment is the human and permanent satisfying his increasing demands. Quality of thinking and subsequently of life is decisive factor of next progress. In line with mentioned increasing of soil users and public awareness on reasons and consequences of soil degradation and its broad societal context. It is necessary to develop sufficient capacities for periodical education of soil users in agriculture and forestry. Positively is evaluated the elaboration of codes of good agricultural practice for protection of soils and affected environmental sources in agriculture. Improvement and enforcement of cooperation professional institutions with media can create good basis for gradual improvement the status in soil and environment protection.

Report, Page 472 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

5.3.2.2.6 Slovenia It is not clear from the Slovenian National report (Center for Soil and Environmental Science, 2006) if the NAP will be prepared and if the identified measures will be incorporated into the NAP.

Table 5.3.2.2.6: Measures under the UNCCD National report to address desertification in Slovenia

(There is no information available on Cost, Control mechanisms, and Covered area (quant.)).

Report, Page 473 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 474 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from the Slovenian UNCCD National report (Center for Soil and Environmental Science, 2006) Evaluation and Notes Measure Form of Kind of Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD report (summarised if necessary) Target group Covered measure measure area (qual.) Soil fertility control imple- technical The implementation of soil fertility control as defined in the Agricultural Land Act is not systemically farmers agricultural Very mented measure regulated. Farmers who want to acquire different support from the European structural funds have been land general from 2004 obliged to ensure analyses of their land (lots) according to some soil parameters. With regard to these requirements the problem is that there is no elaborated system of soil fertility control at the national Relevant level: There are no clear instructions for soil sampling and analysing; All laboratories carrying out such analyses in Slovenia are not fully trained, balanced and verified; There is no integrated system of data collection and processing. Farmers will be able to use analytical data (also with the help of consultants) for the elaboration of manuring plans. However, judging from the existing approach, a mass of data “will get stuck” among farmers. It is of extreme importance for the state to be aware of the soil’s production potential. From such a rich database the state could elaborate also model calculations and formulate measures for improving environmental protection and/or soil quality and along with it improve the quality of agricultural production. If droughts in Slovenia are likely to occur more frequently, this data could serve as a basis for planning different agricultural technologies and selection of crops more resistant to droughts. Spatial planning imple- action plan/ The Spatial Planning Act (SPA-1, in force from 1st January, 2003) modified the procedure of inter-sectoral no no Not mented management harmonisation towards spatial plans (abolishment of the inter-sectoral commission). The MAFF gives its information information relevant programme opinion on a proposed spatial planning document of a municipality, however different use of agricultural land available available can be achieved also without consensus of the MAFF. More detailed regulations for construction outside settled areas are determined by the national spatial order (in force from 13th November, 2004) and municipal spatial orders which are currently being prepared. But: In practice, municipalities ask the MAFF to give its opinion on spatial orders, however the opinions are often not expressed (silence of the authority) due to a high number of municipalities asking for opinions and limited time period (30 days, SPA- 1). Since silence of the authority (MAFF) in legal terms does not imply opposition, the procedure continues. In this case the MAFF fails to use all legal possibilities of protecting agricultural land in spite of the fact that the need for protecting agricultural land remains the same if not more important than before. A spatial planning document producer is obliged to consider the entire legislation, including the Agricultural Land Act, however active participation of the MAFF in the procedure (personnel strengthening) should - due to its role of directing and controlling - be ensured as soon as possible. The role of different sectors during the preparation and approval of planning documents of local communities should be re-defined as well. Outdated inventories of best-quality and other agricultural land are a very serious problem, not easily solved in practice. Since the MAFF demands that outdated inventories should be consistently used and considered, information overlapping (areas with double land use) occurs which is not in accordance with spatial planning legislation under which basic land use should not overlap. Classification of agricultural land into »categories« and subsequently into »zones« was prepared during the period 1975-1980 and amended during the period 1980 - 1985 when the pedologic map of Slovenia was not yet elaborated (mapping was concluded only in 1999) neither were the cartographic bases adequate.

Report, Page 475 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Sustainable forest intended/in technical The role of forestry as a sector is extremely important also from the perspective of preventing no no General management and process measure erosion because in sub-Alpine and Alpine areas forest has an essential counter-erosion role, which information information monitoring of soil forestry maintains through careful and sustainable forest management. It is also important that Slovenia available available Relevant quality ensures monitoring of soil quality in forests. Based on the rules, the system of systematic monitoring of forest damage on plots has already been introduced; monitoring also includes the inventory of the state of forest soil (soil type, pH, organic matter content, cation exchange capacity, content of individual nutrients: N, P, K, Ca and Mg, presence of free carbonates, content of heavy metals: Pb, Zn, Cd, Cr). In the procedure of land use conversion it will be necessary to establish easier shift from forest to agricultural use (especially in case of overgrowing). Spatial documents should therefore comprise data on the previous use of rural space. In Spatial Planning it would be furthermore necessary to consider the idea of equalizing decision criteria for land use conversion of forest and agricultural land, considering the fact that 63.3 % of Slovenian territory is covered with forests. Another reason is that the pressure of urbanisation and nonagricultural activities on forest land is definitely weaker than on agricultural land. Since the problem is rather complex, searching solutions undoubtedly requires interdisciplinary approach (agriculture, forestry, spatial planning).

Report, Page 476 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 477 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

5.3.2.2.7 Spain In Spain the National reports (Ministry of the Environment of Spain, 2000, 2002 and 2006a) list the measures to combat desertification under the UNCCD and indicate the measures which are planned to be a part of the NAP (currently under preparation).

Table 5.3.2.2.7: Measures under the UNCCD National reports to address desertification in Spain (There is no information available on Control mechanisms).

Information from the Spanish UNCCD National reports (Ministry of the Environment of Spain, 2000, 2002 and 2006a) Evaluation and Notes Measure Form of Kind of Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD Target Costs Covered area Covered area measure measure reports (summarised if necessary) group (qual.) (quant.) The measures are proposed to be included in the NAP Sustainable forest no action Through the fostering, forest management projects and forest land use no information no information no information Very management information plan/manage improvement oriented silviculture as well as the creation of a new planning available available available general available ment planning tool, the Plans for the Management of Forest Resources. authorities programme Relevant Integration of the implemented others Integration of the environmental considerations in the price and farmers no information no information no information Not environmental market policies, on the coordinated elaboration between several State available available available relevant considerations in Bodies of the regulation for the setting of the agri-environmental the price and requirements for granting PAC aid (cross-compliance). Nowadays market policies Spain has a complete set of requirements and practices, most of which are claimed as preventive measures of the desertification triggering processes. Agri-environmental implemented technical Most of this programme’s measures are actions focussed directly on farmers no information no information more than 2 million General measures measure the prevention and mitigation of land degradation processes, such available available hectares programme as the 'Combat against desertification in fragile ecosystems', which Relevant comprises many of the practices of the so called 'Conservation Agriculture'. Restoration of intended/in technical Using tools such as the National Soil Erosion Inventory and the no no information no information no information General vegetation cover process measure implementation of the 'National Plan of Priority Actions related to information available available available and increase of the Forest-Hydrological Restoration, erosion control and defence available Relevant wooded area against desertification'. The fight against implemented education Through the increasing resource endowments for the prevention and no no information no information no information Very forest fires extinction of forest fires by means of preventive silviculture, information available available available general awareness-raising campaigns and increment of the ground and aerial available resources for extinction and monitoring. Relevant

Report, Page 478 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from the Spanish UNCCD National reports (Ministry of the Environment of Spain, 2000, 2002 and 2006a) Evaluation and Notes Measure Form of Kind of Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD Target Costs Covered area Covered area measure measure reports (summarised if necessary) group (qual.) (quant.) Forest defence and no action plan/ Against pests, diseases and damage resulting from adverse weather no no information no information no information Not protection information management events, such as drought. information available available available relevant available programme available Special Action implemented action plan/ National Basin Bodies developed for early warning global system of no no information no information no information Not Plans for danger management hydrological indicators. information available available available relevant situations and programme available possible drought National Drought intended/in research/furth Both the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, no no information no information no information Not Observatory (ONS) process er Fisheries and Food’s request, in order to comprise every Spanish information available available available relevant investigation water administration for setting up a Centre of knowledge, early available warning, mitigation and monitoring of the drought’s national effects. Integration of the intended/in action As a key point within the hydrological planning. Consequently, the no no information no information no information Not groundwater process plan/manage elaboration of a Groundwater Action Plan is stipulated for every basin, information available available available relevant management and ment in order to allow the sustainable use of the resources and include available protection programme programmes focussed on the improvement of the hydrogeological knowledge and the management and protection of aquifers and groundwater. Developing actions intended/in action plan/ Framed within some guidelines that incorporate the environmental no no information no information no information Very included in the process management requirements in land and water management in order to avoid their information available available available general National Irrigation programme degradation, the recovery of aquifers and the reduction of available Plans (PNR) desertification processes. An Environmental Monitoring Relevant Programme of the irrigation has also been designed including a plan for surveying the effects on the environment of the actions planned in the PNR as well as the adaptation of the implemented corrective measures. National Soil intended/in research/ National Soil Erosion Inventories have already been published for no no information no information no information General Erosion Inventory process further 15 out of the 50 Spanish provinces and 8 more are currently being information available available available (INES) (2002-2012) investigation implemented in co-ordination with the National Forest Inventory. available Relevant Soil Maps of the implemented research/ The objective is to cover all the Spanish provinces affected by no no information no information no information Not LUCDEME Project further desertification. A digital edition of the Soil Map is already running. information available available available relevant (Combating investigation Several Universities and the Spanish Council for Scientific Research available Desertification in (CSIC) are involved in this Project. the Mediterranean)

Report, Page 479 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from the Spanish UNCCD National reports (Ministry of the Environment of Spain, 2000, 2002 and 2006a) Evaluation and Notes Measure Form of Kind of Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD Target Costs Covered area Covered area measure measure reports (summarised if necessary) group (qual.) (quant.) Experimental implemented research/ The Network started in 1995 and integrates over 40 stations. The no no information no information no information General Stations Network further RESEL network obtains long term information on desertification information available available available for the Assessment investigation systematically in the most representative places of the desertification available Relevant and Monitoring of landscapes mainly in the Mediterranean basin. In 2005 the the Erosion and organisation and homogenisation of the obtained data and results Desertification begun, meaning to make them suitable to be used in the works (Red RESEL) on monitoring, assessment and control of the erosion and (1995) degradation of soil, as well as in the planning and implementation of the forest-hydrological restoration works. Setting up a implemented research/ In 2002 the General Directorate for Biodiversity started the so-called no no information no information no information Not desertification further 'Identification of desertification indicators in Spain'. The main objective information available available available relevant indicators system investigation of this initiative was the beginning of the implementation of the set of available in Spain (2002) desertification indicators identified as useful for fulfilling the necessities identified in the framework of the several ongoing national and international work strands. Afforestation of implemented action plan/ Obtained extremely positive results due to the incentives offered, no no information no information > 555.000 ha were General agricultural land management especially in the following cases: afforestation of fallow land, the information available available forested since the programme programme possible reforestation of two rather frequent Mediterranean situations available programm started, Relevant such as marginal zones unsuitable for agriculture or ligneous crops in 160.000 ha of steep slope areas and, finally, the forestation of those scarce which were vegetation areas classified as 'waste lands or pastures', which are reforested sometimes the object of shifting cultivations. between 2000 and 2004 The measures will not be part of the proposed NAP Implementation of implemented national That is, the compulsory fulfilment of the environmental farmers no information farmers, fulfilling no information Very "cross-compliance" standard requirements in receiving the direct payments the CAP grants to available the environ- available general agriculture. It should be emphasised that every Administration body mental require- linked with combating the desertification participated in the ments in recei- Relevant elaboration process of the environmental requirements. ving the direct payments the CAP grants to agriculture

Report, Page 480 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Information from the Spanish UNCCD National reports (Ministry of the Environment of Spain, 2000, 2002 and 2006a) Evaluation and Notes Measure Form of Kind of Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD Target Costs Covered area Covered area measure measure reports (summarised if necessary) group (qual.) (quant.) Basic Hydrological implemented legislation This is a great opportunity to count on management tools that could stakeholde The average no information no information Not Plans (since 1998) and should integrate actions related with the protection of the rs annual available available relevant environment, the spatial development and the management and investment protection of coast and water. Such revision will go through an regarding important public participation process. (basis: Directive 2000/60/EC of desertification the European Union) actions for the period 2002- 2006 has been increased in comparison to former periods. Sustainable implemented research/ In 2004, a new programme for the establishment of improving stakeholde no information no information no information Not Observatory (2005) further strategies for the sustainable development in Spain started, giving rs available available available relevant investigation more importance to the collaboration, cooperation and the participation of the remain Public Administrations, Autonomous Communities and Local Administrations. In 2005 the Sustainable Observatory in Spain was created. Spanish Strategy of intended/in action plan/ National Climate Council approves the Spanish Strategy of Fight private no information no information no information Very Fight against process management against Weather Change. This document is the starting point for the forest available available available general Weather Change programme development of the action plans for fighting against the causes and owners (2004) effects of the climate change. It includes some encouraging actions Relevant focussed on the increase of forest area and preventing forest fires. Spanish Forest implemented action plan/ Many of the comprised actions follow completely the measures for private no information no information Among other Very Plan (PFE) (2002) management combating desertification in the forest sector proposed by the NAP. forest available available actions, the PFE general programme Among other actions, the PFE proposes the reforestation of 3,8 owners proposes the million hectares, which will also mean the sequestration of over 60 reforestation of 3,8 Relevant million tons of Carbon along the 30 years of implementation million hectares, envisaged (2002-2032). which will also mean the sequestration of over 60 million tons of Carbon along the 30 years of implementation envisaged (2002- 2032).

Report, Page 481 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 482 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

5.3.2.3 Not affected countries, that prepare the National reports but not the NAPs

5.3.2.3.1 Lithuania Lithuania presents activities on the implementation of the UNCCD at national level (i.e. the National report (Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania, 2006)) but does not prepare a NAP.

Table 5.3.2.3.1: Measures under the UNCCD National report to address desertification in Lithuania

(There is no information available on Costs, Control mechanisms, Covered area (qual.) and Covered area (quant.)).

Information from the Lithuanian UNCCD National report (Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania, 2006) Evaluation and Notes Measure Form of Kind of measure Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD report Target group measure (summarised if necessary) Lithuanian National finished research/ further From 2004 to 2006 the Government of Lithuania in collaboration with UNDP (United Nations no information Very general Capacity Self- investigation Development Programme) and GEF (Global Environment Facility) has been running out a project on available Assessment for Global Lithuanian National Capacity Self-Assessment for Global Environment Management. The analysis was Relevant Environment concentrated on three thematic spheres – climate change, biological diversity and land degradation. The Management (2004- primary objective of the project is to identify and assess capacity gaps. The project results show the main 2006) barriers in the implementation of the UNCCD: a) Lack of Integrated Soil Research Programme; b) Soil monitoring has no comprehensive and integrated approach; c) Insufficient capacity and financial resources. (The meeting, held on the initiative of the Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania regarding the implementation of the UNCCD in Lithuania on 23 May 2005, discussed the relevance of the spheres regulated for Lithuania by the Convention. With the consent of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Lithuania, it was decided that in 2005-2006 in the context of the Convention, Lithuania was not deemed to be an affected state). Strategic Plan of the intended/in action plan/ The Strategic Plan mentions the strategic objective related to the management of the processes farmers General Ministry of Agriculture of process management affecting soil to promote environment protection and ecological farming promoting biological diversity the Republic of programme and preserving the landscape. Relevant Lithuania (2005-2007) Strategic Plan of the intended/ action plan/ The Strategic Plan lists strategic objectives related to the protection of environment components no information Very general Ministry of Environment in process management (including soil) – to ensure the proper quality of environment for the Lithuanian population taking into available of the Republic of programme account the norms and standards of the European Union; to ensure rational use of natural resources Relevant Lithuania (2005-2007) (including forests) and their further reproduction, to preserve biological diversity, natural heritage values and uniqueness of the landscape. Agriculture and Rural finished action plan/ The Strategy defines agricultural and rural development trends for 2000-2006, agricultural and rural no information Not relevant Development Strategy management development goals, principles and priorities. available (2000) programme

Report, Page 483 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 484 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

5.3.2.3.2 Poland Poland presents activities on the implementation of the UNCCD at national level in the National report (Ministry of Environment of Poland, 2006) but does not prepare a NAP. There are identified measures indicated in the Polish National report to counteract drought and to mitigate its effects.

Table 5.3.2.3.2: Measures under the UNCCD National report to address desertification in Poland (There is no information available on Target group, Costs and Control mechanisms).

Information from the Polish UNCCD National report (Ministry of Environment of Poland, 2006) Evaluation and Notes Measure Form of Kind of Description of the Measure and objectives as given in the UNCCD report (summarised if necessary) Covered area Covered area measure measure (qual.) (quant.) Increasing forestation intended/in technical Increasing forestation of the country from app. 29 % at present to 33 % in 2050, taking into account no information + app. 4 % of Very process measure the necessity to reconstruct forest stands and provision of optimal time and spatial distribution of available the country until general forestation is part of the set of planned actions against drought and soil degradation. 2050 Relevant Maintenance and intended/in technical The maintenance and development of agricultural and forestation melioration, i.e. water agricultural land; no information Very development of process measure melioration (especially with the option of dry soil irrigation through trenches, draining runs, etc.), forested land available general agricultural and agro-melioration (cultivation treatments aimed on improvement of physical and chemical forestation melioration conditions of water relations in low-class soils) and phytomelioration (forestation and increasing Relevant vegetation) is part of the set of planned actions against drought and soil degradation. Expansion of a intended/in Others The expansion of the respond system for extraordinary threats with the module devoted to the no information no information Very respond system process disaster of drought is part of the set of planned actions against drought and soil degradation. available available general Relevant Development of intended/in research/furth The further development of drought monitoring methods and forecasting methods is part of the no information no information Not drought monitoring process er set of planned actions against drought and soil degradation. available available relevant methods and investigation forecasting methods Agro-meteorological intended/in others The start of a agro-meteorological service for planning and realization of tasks directed on no information no information Not service process counteracting, and in fact on reduction of drought effects for the environment, humans and economy available available relevant is part of the set of planned actions against drought and soil degradation. Development of a soil intended/in action plan/ The development of a soil protection strategy and of a proper action program for its no information no information Very protection strategy process management implementation, including establishment of a unified soil protection management system and available available general and an action programme development of a stable mechanism for financing of the program and soil protection and land re- program cultivation projects is part of the set of planned actions against drought and soil degradation. Relevant

Report, Page 485 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States - Final Report

Report, Page 486 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

5.3.3 Summarised evaluation of measures

5.3.3.1 Affected countries that implemented the NAPs

Greece, Italy and Portugal are the only Member States that prepared NAPs for the implementation of the UNCCD up to now. Due to their geographical location in the Northern Mediterranean, these are countries historically known as affected by desertification and drought problems (see chapter 5.1).

5.3.3.1.1 Greece In Greece, all twenty identified measures were listed in the NAP. The majority of these measures are already implemented. There are no additional measures listed in the National reports. From these twenty measures, we evaluated eleven measures that we regard relevant to soil protection. Four of the relevant measures were determined to have general quality of information, seven have very general quality of information. Therefore, only potential effectiveness as regards soil protection can be assessed and the conclusions on assessment can be given as general information.

The eleven relevant measures focus in particular on soil erosion (through the ban on grazing in the burnt forests, artificial reforestation in areas where the natural recovery is not possible, application of protective management in the degraded forests, limitation of the number of grazing animals within the carrying capacity of the degraded pasturelands and erosion control measures in sloping farmlands such as restoration and construction of terraces, extensive vegetation cover on agricultural land, strip crop rotation along the contour lines, winter crops, maintenance of under story vegetation in vineyards, olive groves and orchards, minimum ploughing, ploughing along the contour lines, a ban on continuously cultivated and/or irrigated crops and a ban on residues burning on sloppy areas, drainage requirements for irrigated soils as well as requirement to change the arable land into forest or permanent pasture on all sloppy areas greater that 39%). The majority of these erosion control measures have, in general, indirect positive effects on soil organic matter content. The issue of decline of soil organic matter and soil biodiversity is also addressed by other measures. These include measures such as the requirement to increase the organic matter in farm lands, to create biologically cultivated areas and the requirement to get a permit for the land use activities that do not degrade biomass productivity. The reduction of diffuse soil contamination is expected through the measures, such as, reduction of pollution of agricultural origin, irrigation water quality control and control of soil quality. The control of irrigated water quality and soil quality as well as the management of irrigation water and its spatial, temporal and quantitative control are the measures directly addressing soil salinisation issue. The measures are spatially limited to agricultural and forest land.

The detailed evaluation of relevant measures is provided below.

Land use planning and its implementation

The main principle applied for determining land use is permitted land uses and whether these changes that ensure sustainability and do not degrade biomass productivity and other land functions and processes. Proper land uses for each region should be defined.

Report, Page 487 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

This planning measure might reduce or prevent various soil threats, in particular decline in soil organic matter and accordingly soil biodiversity, since only such land use is permitted that does not degrade biomass productivity. The measure is applicable in different regions.

Restoration of the affected areas

There are two sets of measures that apply in the NAP: for reversibly desertified areas and for irreversibly desertified areas. The measures for reversibly desertified areas directly address soil erosion issues (through the ban on grazing in the burnt forests, artificial reforestation in areas where the natural recovery is not possible, limitation of the number of grazing animals within the carrying capacity of the degraded pasturelands; erosion control measures in sloping farm lands). Secondary (indirect) effects of these measures may be expected to prevent soil organic matter and soil biodiversity decline. The measures for irreversibly desertified areas directly address soil erosion (through application of protective management in the degraded forests; restoration of the terraces (where economically feasible) and soil organic matter issues (through the requirement to increase of the organic matter in farm lands). Secondary (indirect) effects of these measures may be expected prevent soil biodiversity decline.

Soil Erosion Control related to the agricultural sector

This measure directly addresses soil erosion (by preventing and minimising) on agricultural land through a set of practices on sloppy areas (greater than 6%) that should be compatible with sustainable crop systems. These are: the construction of terraces, extensive vegetation cover on agricultural land, strip crop rotation along the contour lines, winter crops, maintenance of under story vegetation in vineyards, olive groves and orchards located on strongly sloping areas, minimum ploughing, ploughing along the contour lines, a ban on continuously cultivated and/or irrigated crops on sloping land, a ban on residues burning on sloppy areas. On all areas that slope is more than 39% the arable land should be afforestated or changed into permanent pasture. The measure is spatially limited to agricultural land, however it takes into account those land use practices that avoid or minimise soil erosion. Furthermore, these erosion control measures have, in general, indirect positive effects on soil organic matter and soil biodiversity.

Plans or Strategies in the field of combating desertification, agricultural sector

This measure addresses a wide spectrum of soil treats, in particular direct reduction of diffuse soil contamination (through reduction of pollution of agricultural origin), improvement of soil organic matter content and soil biodiversity (through creation of biologically cultivated areas) as well as prevention of soil erosion (through conservation and reconstruction of terraces on inclined lands). The measure is spatially limited to agricultural land.

Report, Page 488 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Facing drought conservation of soil water and measures concerning the water resources sector

These two measures directly address the protection of water resources (i.e. saving of irrigation water). The measures may also target soil salinisation, since it considers management of irrigation water and its spatial, temporal and quantitative control. However, the qualitative control of irrigation water is not mentioned, therefore the effectiveness of the measures against soil salinisation is only limited. The required land cultivation practices that support effective irrigation (i.e. non-ploughing and a ban on dry plant residue burning) are effective preventative measures against decline in soil organic matter and soil erosion. The measure is spatially limited to agricultural land.

Facing secondary salinisation of irrigated soils

This technical measure directly tackles soil salinisation and diffuse soil contamination problems by preventing the enrichment of irrigated soils with water-soluble salts through irrigation water quality control and control of soil quality. This measure is also indirectly relevant for prevention of soil erosion through drainage requirements for irrigated soils. The measure is spatially limited to agricultural land.

Measures related to the forest sector

This measure addresses forest fire control. However, forest fire prevention has a positive effect on forest soil generally through vegetation cover protection. The vegetation cover enriches soil with organic matter and improves consequently soil biodiversity as well as prevents soil from erosion. The measure is spatially limited to forest land.

Research Project PESERA on soil

The project PESERA focuses on the development of a regional diagnostic tool for predicting soil erosion rates under various types of land use, soil, and landscape characteristics. It is an effective preparatory step to indicate problem areas and the land use forms that may cause or increase the risk of soil erosion.

Creation of maps identifying areas vulnerable to desertification

Mapping of areas vulnerable to desertification is a preparative step to regulate desertification mitigation measures. The map considers soil erosion through the data on the extent of the erosion that has taken place, erosion risk, soil aridity, soil depth and potential resilience of damaged vegetation cover. In addition, the map considers, soil salinisation through the data on soil aridity, soil salinity, salinisation risk of the irrigated soils. Therefore, such map is important in order to plan, among others, soil erosion and salinisation mitigation and prevention measures.

Report, Page 489 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Traditional knowledge

The expansion of traditional knowledge on olive tree cultivation on sensitive sloping land in the semiarid and dry sub-humid zones of the country, as well as the restoration or construction of traditional stone built terraces on inclined cultivated areas is an important piece of information for farmers on seeking appropriate measures to prevent soil erosion. However, an assessment of the extent of the contribution of such measures to soil protection against soil erosion is fairly difficult because the effect is indirect and difficult to measure.

5.3.3.1.2 Italy

The four measures in the Italian NAP that we regard relevant to soil protection (out of 9 identified in total) have only very general quality of information. This is basically due to the fact that the Italian NAP acts as a framework for regional action plans73. Therefore only the potential effectiveness as regards soil protection can be assessed and the conclusions on assessment can be given as general information. These four relevant measures have a general impact on all soil threats (through recovery of soils damaged by erosion, salinisation, etc.). More specifically, the measures address soil erosion reduction (through the enlargement of forest asset, fire prevention and fighting, slope protection and flood control, control and rationalisation of water runoff); soil salinisation (through correct planning of irrigation measures); soil organic matter and soil biodiversity decline reduction (through regulation of sewage sludge use in agriculture, increased use of organic wastes of agricultural origin to produce high-quality compost); and soil contamination reduction (through and re-naturalisation of contaminated disposal sites in abandoned mining areas).

Beyond the NAP, twenty measures were identified in the Italian National Reports. Three of them have only very general quality of information and the others are not relevant. Therefore only potential effectiveness as regards soil protection can be assessed and the conclusions on assessment can be given as general information. These measures generally do not focus specifically on soil protection. Therefore, in our opinion, the relevant measures can only have an indirect impact on soil erosion (through evolution of vegetation cover measure, evaluation of soil erosion rate and lithological sub-layer relation and improved forest management in desertification prone areas).

The detailed evaluation of NAP measures relevant to soil protection is provided below.

Measures addressing soil protection

The set of soil protection measures may indirectly address soil erosion issues (through afforestation and fire prevention measures as well as slope protection and flood control

73 In Italy the regions have a high executive power. Therefore, the regions are the competent authorities to adopt specific measures in order to address specific regional problems. The Italian NAP provides for or plans a framework for the implementation of measures on the national level and is therefore of a more general nature, making it even harder to assess the relevance of measures to soil protection.

Report, Page 490 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report measures). The area covered by this measure is vulnerable to desertification and primarily involves agricultural areas with intensive and marginal production; areas at risk for accelerated erosion; areas damaged by contamination, pollution, fires; and fallow and abandoned areas. Against this background, we can assume that soil contamination can also be addressed with these measures.

Measures addressing sustainable management of water resources

The set of measures may indirectly address soil salinisation issues (through correct planning of irrigation measures), soil erosion issues (through control and rationalisation of water runoff) and diffuse soil contamination issues (through regulation of sewage sludge use in agriculture). These measures are limited to agricultural land.

Measures addressing reduction of environmental impact from productive activities

The set of measures on the impact reduction from productive activities may indirectly address soil organic matter decline issues (through the use of organic wastes of agricultural origin to produce high-quality compost). This measure may also have a positive impact on soil biodiversity and reduction of diffuse soil contamination. These measures are limited to agricultural land.

Measures addressing land restoration

The set of measures on land restoration addresses all soil threats (through the measure on recovery of soils damaged by erosion, salinisation, etc). In addition, the measure on reclamation and re-naturalisation of contaminated disposal sites in abandoned mining areas addresses soil contamination issue. Almost 90 % of the national territory is covered by these four identified measures.

5.3.3.1.3 Portugal

The three out of ten identified measures in the Portuguese NAP we consider relevant to soil protection only have very general quality of information. Therefore, only their potential effectiveness as regards soil protection can be assessed and the conclusions on assessment can only be given as general information. The three relevant measures focus on reduction of soil salinisation (through investment support in small-scale irrigation schemes); soil erosion (through the reinforcement of fire detection and prevention systems, the reinforced support for afforestation and forest protection, the promotion of the drainage); soil organic matter decline (through the reinforcement of support for the continuation of farmland areas within forests, the expanded support for biological farming and traditional agricultural systems which generate positive environmental externalities, as well as the measure on the application of codes of good practice for farming and forestry, the reinforced support for afforestation and forest protection); and soil contamination (through the expanded support for biological farming and traditional agricultural systems which generate positive environmental externalities, as well as the measure on the application of codes of good practice for farming and forestry). The measures are mostly limited to agricultural and forest land.

Report, Page 491 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Beyond the NAP, eighteen measures were identified in the Portuguese National Reports. Ten of them have only very general quality of information, one has general quality of information and in our view the others are not relevant to soil protection. Therefore only potential effectiveness as regards soil protection can be assessed and the conclusions on assessment can be given as general information. These measures in generally do not focus on soil protection. Some of them can only have an indirect impact on soil erosion (through forest management practices and fire protection measures), soil sealing (through protection of territory of agricultural value against urbanisation) and soil salinisation (through irrigation practices). There are several measures identified concerning the Natura 2000 Network. Since land use practices are generally reduced or prohibited in protected areas, therefore, there may be a positive effect on soil quality in these places.

The detailed evaluation of Portuguese NAP measures relevant to soil protection is provided below.

Soil and water conservation (strategic objective 1 of NAP)

This set of measures focuses on soil and water conservation. It might be expected that through implementation of these measures, various soil threats will be tackled, e.g. soil salinisation through investment support in small-scale irrigation schemes; soil erosion through the reinforcement of fire detection and prevention systems; improvement of soil organic matter content through the reinforcement of support for the continuation of farmland areas within forests, the expanded support for biological farming and traditional agricultural systems which generate positive environmental externalities, as well as the measure on the application of codes of good practice for farming and forestry. The latter measures might also have a positive effect on other soil threats, e.g. soil contamination.

Recovery of affected areas (strategic objective 3 of NAP)

Few from the provided set of measures consider soil protection and address soil organic matter decline and reduction of soil erosion through the reinforced support for afforestation and forest protection. In addition, soil erosion is addressed through the promotion of the drainage.

Fix working-age population in rural areas (strategic objective 2 of NAP)

The measure considers the issue of land use planning and management, multi-func- tionality of agriculture, continuation of traditional modes of production and sustainable management of forests, and aims to mitigate land abandonment. However, there is not enough detail to permit more precise determination about which soil threats will be tackled and to what extent by this measure. Nevertheless, soil quality in general will likely stay the same or improved on the land rescued from abandonment.

Report, Page 492 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

5.3.3.2 Affected countries, which NAPs are in preparation

Cyprus, Malta, Slovenia and Spain (Northern Mediterranean) as well as Hungary, Latvia, and the Slovak Republic (Central and Eastern Europe) are in the process or planning to prepare NAPs to implement the UNCCD. Desertification and drought problems for each country vary according to geographical location (see chapter 5.1).

5.3.3.2.1 Cyprus The identified measures in the Cyprian National reports have both very general and general quality of information, therefore only potential effectiveness related to soil protection can be assessed and the conclusions on assessment can be given as general information.

Fifteen measures out of nineteen identified are relevant to soil protection. They focus on reduction of diffuse soil contamination and salinisation (through controlling the quality of water used for irrigation); reduction of diffuse soil contamination and soil biodiversity (through control of pesticides and fertilisers used in agriculture); prevention on decline in organic soil matter and soil biodiversity loss (through crop rotation measure and promotion of organic farming); reduction of erosion (through reconstruction of bench terraces and stonewalls, the preservation of shrubs and other plants on set-aside land, afforestation in particular of abandoned agricultural land, enhancement of fire protection measures); and reduction of soil compaction (through re-introduction of traditional cultivation methods).

5.3.3.2.2 Hungary The sixteen identified measures in the Hungarian National reports focus mainly on drought mitigation. There is only one measure identified relevant to soil protection. The measure is completed and only very general quality of information is provided. Therefore only potential effectiveness as regards soil protection can be assessed and the conclusions on assessment can be given as general information. We can assume that the measure may have effect on soil erosion and soil salinisation prevention through application of irrigation, drainage and flood control techniques. The measure is spatially limited to irrigated land.

5.3.3.2.3 Latvia The identified measures in the Latvian National report have very general and general quality of information, therefore only potential effectiveness as regards soil protection can be assessed and the conclusions on assessment can be given as general information.

Five measures out of six identified, are relevant to soil protection focusing on: in particular on soil contamination caused by agricultural activities (e.g. through pollution prevention activities from animal farms, control of sewage sludge) and also on soil erosion (e.g. through measures to decrease soil erosion and degradation of agricultural land).

Report, Page 493 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

5.3.3.2.4 Malta The identified measures in the Maltese National report have general quality of information, therefore only potential effectiveness as regards soil protection can be assessed and the conclusions on assessment can be given as general information.

All six identified measures are relevant to soil protection. They address: in particular soil erosion (through the ban on soil transport in larger quantities than one half cubic meter, protection of rubble walls, ban on motor vehicle use in other than marked localities, management of erosion control in the coastal areas), soil sealing (through ban to cover soil with stones or similar material), soil contamination (through removal of soil effected by building development), soil salinisation and soil structure (through the ban on motor vehicle use in other than marked localities).

5.3.3.2.5 Slovak Republic The three identified measures in the Slovakian National report have very general or general quality of information, therefore only potential effectiveness as regards soil protection can be assessed and the conclusions on assessment can be given as general information.

All three identified measures are relevant to soil protection as they address soil sealing, soil preservation against soil erosion through forest vegetation, soil erosion and contamination through decreased intensity of agricultural production and general improvement of soil through application of codes of good agricultural practices.

5.3.3.2.6 Slovenia The identified measures in the Slovenian National report have very general or general quality information, therefore, only potential effectiveness as regards soil protection can be assessed and the conclusions on assessment can be given as general information.

Out of seven identified measures, five are relevant to soil protection. They address erosion through sustainable forest management practices in the sub-Alpine und Alpine areas, minimisation of floods and landslides risk, soil quality monitoring and an inventory of soil. In general, these measures aim to improve the quality/productivity of agricultural land.

5.3.3.2.7 Spain The identified measures in the Spanish National reports have very general and general quality information, therefore, only potential effectiveness as regards soil protection can be assessed and the conclusions on assessment can be given as general information.

Eleven of twenty-one measures identified are considered relevant to soil protection. They address in particular soil erosion (through soil erosion inventories or forest management practices, e.g., afforestation of fallow land and on steep slopes, forest fire prevention and conservation agriculture), soil contamination (indirectly through groundwater management and protection), and soil structure and salinisation (indirectly through

Report, Page 494 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Environmental Monitoring Programme of the irrigation). The decline of soil organic matter content may be prevented through the forest management measures and conservation agriculture. The measures are mainly limited to agricultural and forest land.

5.3.3.3 Not affected countries that prepare the National reports but not the NAPs

Since Lithuania and Poland do not regard themselves as affected countries, they are not preparing a NAP for the UNCCD implementation. As a consequence, both do not provide for targeted financing. Nevertheless, the countries perform activities at national level on the implementation of the UNCCD, as given in the National reports.

5.3.3.3.1 Lithuania The identified measures in the Lithuanian National report have very general or general quality information, therefore, only potential effectiveness as regards soil protection can be assessed and the conclusions on assessment can be given as general information. In Lithuania, relevant activities falling within the UNCCD scope are integrated into national strategies. Five out of six identified measures focus in general on protection of environmental components (including soil), ecological farming and afforestation. In all these cases, improvement of soil quality can be expected, in particular for addressing the loss of soil organic matter (through promotion of ecological farming, see, e.g. Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Lithuania, 2005-2007) and soil erosion (through afforestation or development of anti-erosion farming measures and plans e.g. see the National Sustainable Development Strategy, 2003).

5.3.3.3.2 Poland In Poland, the four relevant measures out of the seven identified in the National report have very general quality of information and all are intended/in process. Therefore only potential effectiveness as regards soil protection can be assessed and the conclusions on assessment can be given as general information. Some identified measures address the improvement of physical and chemical conditions of soil, which consequently may have a positive effect on soil quality and soil erosion through forest management and agricultural practices.

Report, Page 495 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

5.3.4 Conclusions on the evaluation

Twelve74 out of twenty five Member States have so far reported on their activities to mitigate desertification under UNCCD (see chapter 5.1).

Only three Member States (Greece, Italy and Portugal) have adopted NAPs. Only in these countries the actual effectiveness of the identified measures could be evaluated. In the countries that are in the process of preparing a NAP (Cyprus, Malta, Slovenia, Spain, Hungary, Latvia, Slovak Republic) or are reporting on their national activities without considering themselves as affected by desertification (Lithuania, Poland) the potential effectiveness of the identified measures could be assessed.

The quality of information on the identified measures in National reports and adopted NAPs is in all cases very general or general. Therefore, it is only possible to evaluate the potential effectiveness for all measures as general information. Specific conclusions on the actual effectiveness of the measures could therefore not be determined. Because in some cases only the names of measures are available in the NAPs and National reports, the available information is clearly not sufficient to properly evaluate the relevance of such measures.

Although the quality of information provided in the National reports and the adopted NAPs in the twelve Member States vary greatly, the identified measures can be grouped to six different categories as follows. These categories provide an overview of the main objectives the measures focus on.

Land planning measures: For example, measures on soil conservation (Italy and Portugal), land use planning (Greece), determination of threatened areas (Greece), recovery of affected areas (Portugal), soil erosion control (Greece and Spain), and measures to combat desertification, including maps, plans and technical control activities (Portugal, Greece, Spain); management of erosion control in the coastal areas (Malta); minimisation of floods and landslides risk (Slovenia);

Water management measures: For example, measures on groundwater resource management (Cyprus, Portugal, Italy and Spain), drought mitigation measures (Hungary, Greece and Spain) and irrigation measures (Greece and Spain);

Forest management measures: For example, measures on promotion of forestry (Cyprus, Greece and Spain, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Lithuania, Poland), and enhancement of the fire protection system (Cyprus);

Agricultural measures: For example, measures on promotion of sustainable and traditional agricultural practices as well as agri-environmental measures (Cyprus, Spain, Lithuania); through pollution prevention activities from animal farms, control of sewage sludge (Latvia); decreased intensity of agricultural production and application of codes of good agricultural practices (the Slovak Republic);

74 Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Spain.

Report, Page 496 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Awareness raising measures: For example, measures on education and awareness raising (Cyprus and Greece), measures on information, training and research (Italy, Greece and Portugal, Slovenia);

Socio-economic measures: For example, measures on management of population remain in rural areas (Cyprus and Portugal).

The evaluation of the relevance of measures for soil protection lead to the following conclusions: It is evident that the ‘land planning measures’, and ‘agricultural and forest management measures’ are mostly relevant to soil protection and have direct as well as indirect effects. The ‘water management measures’ are less relevant but also indirectly address soil threats.

The ‘agricultural measures’ contribute directly to reducing or preventing soil erosion (e.g. erosion control measures in sloping farmlands such as restoration and construction of terraces, extensive vegetation cover on agricultural land, strip crop rotation along the contour lines, winter crops, maintenance of under story vegetation in vineyards, olive groves and orchards, minimum ploughing, ploughing along the contour lines), decline in soil organic matter (e.g. non-ploughing and a ban on dry plant residue burning, the requirement to increase the organic matter in farm lands, to create biologically cultivated areas and land use activities that do not degrade biomass productivity) and soil contamination (e.g. reduction of pollution of agricultural origin, irrigation water quality control and control of soil quality). The ‘forestry management measures’ contribute indirectly to protection of soil against soil erosion or decline in soil organic matter (e.g. forest fire control and prevention has a positive effect on forest soil generally through vegetation cover protection). The ‘water management measures’ may have an impact preventing or reducing soil salinisation problem (e.g. irrigation measures) or preventing diffuse soil contamination (e.g. the measures on (ground) water protection). The ‘awareness raising measures’ and ‘social measures’ may have only indirect effects on soil protection. No sound basis exists to evaluate these indirect effects. Any conclusion for these specific measures would therefore be hypothetical.

As a result of the evaluation of the information quality it becomes clear that due to the lack of detailed (measure specific) information, only general and qualitative conclusions on the contribution of the UNCCD process to soil protection can be drawn. No concrete conclusions on the extent to which measures contribute to soil protection can be drawn.

The evaluation of measures in the Member States that have already adopted the NAPs with respect to their contribution to soil protection shows that the relevant measures address mainly soil erosion, soil contamination and soil salinisation. Soil organic matter decline and loss of soil biodiversity are addressed generally indirectly in these Member States.

The brief evaluation of all measures with respect to their contribution to soil protection shows that the relevant measures tackle all nine soil threats, in particular soil erosion (all twelve Member States), soil contamination and soil salinisation. Soil organic matter decline is addressed in most cases, but only indirectly. Soil sealing and loss of soil biodiversity are addresses only in a few cases (Malta, Slovak Republic and Greece accordingly). Floods and landslides and soil compaction are identified only one time (Slovenia and Cyprus accordingly).

Report, Page 497 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Soil salinisation (Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Malta, Hungary and Cyprus) and decline in soil organic matter content (Greece, Italy, Portugal and Cyprus) are addressed mainly by Northern Mediterranean countries as a regional problem. Soil contamination is addressed by both Northern Mediterranean and Central and Eastern Europe Member States. It is not surprising that soil erosion, contamination and salinisation are the most frequently addressed soil threats since the desertification process is in theory strongly related to these threats (Van Camp et al., 2004) and this is in line with the main identified soil threats in the affected Member States. In general, the measures focus on agricultural and forest land; therefore, the spatial extent is limited to these areas.

In conclusion:

• The UNCCD reports in general address all soil threats to some extent.

• Due to the wide application of measures addressing soil erosion, soil contamination and soil salinisation, these measures could contribute to some extent to soil protection against these soil threats in the Member States.

• The measures are in most cases spatially limited to agriculture and forest land. Therefore, measures that contribute to soil protection do cover only a part of the territory of the countries involved.

• Since not all Member States participate in the implementation process of the Convention, an EU-wide impact of measures taken in the scope of the UNCCD is rather limited.

• The added value of the reports to evaluate the extent to which such measures be expected to contribute or reducing soil threats is limited due to the general quality of information given in the reports.

• Even in the three Member States that have already adopted the NAPs and where the actual effectiveness of identified measures to soil protection in theory could be evaluated, the quality of information given is too general to allow for a more in depth evaluation. Therefore, also for these countries no concrete conclusions on the extent to which measures contribute to soil protection can be drawn.

Report, Page 498 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the conclusions drawn from the evaluation of soil protection aspects in the description of river basin districts pursuant to Article 5 of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), the cross-compliance (CC) scheme in the framework of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). Based on the conclusions, recommendations regarding additional actions during the further process of developing a European soil strategy or the integration of soil protection aspects into other policy areas at EU level, respectively, are given.

The conclusions given here in chapter 6 focus on a general level. For conclusions on a more detailed level like for example comparisons of the quality of information given and different approaches in the Member States or special detailed features in Member States please refer to the conclusion sections of the chapters 3, 4 and 5.

6.1 Conclusions

6.1.1 Identification and assessment of soil protection aspects in the characterisation of River-Basin Districts (WFD)

Extent to which soil threats have been identified as a pressure for water quality (1st key question) The reviewed 51 WFD article 5 reports (basin wide characterisation of the river basin districts) of 121 RBD in the 25 Member States contain information about soil degradation processes. However, only a few of soil degradation processes have been identified explicitly in some RBD as a pressure for water resources, namely erosion and soil contamination (local and diffuse). Beyond this, the reports provide a variety of indirect indicators for diffuse soil contamination, and to a minor extent, for sealing, salinisation, and organic matter decline. Decline in soil bio-diversity as well as floods and landslides were not mentioned in the reports as soil degradation processes. The results for the nine main soil threats are as follows:

Erosion was identified as a pressure for water quality to differing extents in more than half of the WFD Article 5 reports (62 % of the reports assessed) concerning 20 Member States, although in most of the reports the information provided is only general in character. Some explicitly mention erosion as a major pressure for water quality, while some others concentrate on nutrient run-off in the water possibly due to erosion. Detailed information on erosion is given only in the Odra River Basin75 and the Seine River Basin76 reports, where soil erosion rates, including quantitative data and maps, are presented.

75 Covering parts of the Czech Republic. 76 Covering parts of France.

Report, Page 499 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Decline in organic matter was not addressed directly by any of the reports. Rather, 11 reports (21%) identified practices, such as the draining of peat soils, which can be reasonably being expected to cause a decline in organic matter. However, the decline of organic matter itself was mentioned as a pressure for water quality in any of the reports. Local contamination was addressed in the majority of the WFD reports (73%). This threat has been identified as a pressure for water quality in all 25 Member States, but overall no detailed information was available on the location and intensity of soil contamination. Only in the reports of the River Basins Danube77, Warnow/Peene78, Scheldt79, Rinkjoebing80, and Latvia was further information provided about the covered area and the location of the sites in the form of maps. Diffuse sources for water contamination was identified as a pressure for water quality in nearly all reports (98%), but the reports do not address specifically the diffuse contamination of soils. However, what can be observed is that 70% of the reports mentioned pesticide application as a pressure for water quality, so soil contamination with pesticides is likely. Apart from this, one third of the reports provided indirect indicators as regards diffuse soil contamination, such as nutrient input into soils or atmospheric deposition. However, the reports do not include any information on the actual surface, location or existence of diffuse soil contamination. Sealing was identified as a pressure for water bodies with respect to groundwater renewal or flood risk in only two reports: the Scheldt RBD and the Rhine RBD. In other 13 reports (25%), information on the built-up area or urban sprawl could be found as general characteristics of the basins, but how far sealing may be a problem for water quality is not explained. Compaction was only mentioned in the Rhine River Basin District report, where it was explicitly identified as a pressure that increases flood risks. Salinisation was addressed directly in only two reports, which identified the process as a consequence of groundwater overexploitation or tourism but not specifically as a pressure for water quality. Decline in soil biodiversity and landslides were not mentioned as soil degradation processes in any the evaluated reports as a pressure for water quality. Several WFD Article 5 reports contain general information on flood risks and flood defence measures, but an impact on soils by floods was not identified. Overall, soil degradation was identified as a pressure for water quality in many reports but only with respect to erosion and contamination (local and diffuse). The state of the soil was taken into account in a few cases regarding soil characteristics during the risk assessment of surface water and groundwater (e.g. the vulnerability of soils for erosion). However, very often there is no detailed information on the methodology used, so it is unclear how far the state of the soil was actually considered.

77 Covering parts of Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia, and Slovenia. 78 Covering Schleswig-Holstein in the North of Germany. 79 Covering parts of Belgium, France, and the Netherlands. 80 Covering parts of Denmark.

Report, Page 500 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Extent to which the characterisation of River Basin Districts can be used to identify and assess the soil degradation processes occurring in any given River Basin District (2nd key question)

In principle, soil degradation processes that have not been identified as a problem for water resources cannot be identified as soil threats from the WFD Article 5 reports. Due to the limited extent to which soil threats have been identified as a pressure for water quality, an identification of the degradation processes erosion and soil contamination (local and diffuse) is possible only on a general level. The basin-wide and national characterisation of the River Basin Districts mostly does not provide any relevant information on the level or actual presence of soil degradation (e.g. soil loss maps for erosion, concentrations of pollutants in soils, soil carbon contents). Hence, the value of the information given in the reports is very limited for the identification and assessment of soil degradation processes. A local identification of affected areas or/and an assessment of types and levels of soil degradation are not feasible with the given information. Therefore, a conclusion on the most threatened soil functions cannot be drawn on the local scale of River Basin Districts. The WFD Article 5 reports focus on water issues and aim to achieve sustainable water management. For the characterisation of the River Basins, the current situation of the water quality in all rivers, lakes, transitional, coastal and groundwater bodies had to be identified. Therefore, in the reports, soil issues were only mentioned if there was a link between water quality and soils. This link appeared to be obvious for the Member States with respect to erosion and contamination. However, other threats, such as sealing, compaction, landslides and salinisation, the interaction between soil quality and water quality seems to be less evident as they have not been identified as pressures for water quality. For soil organic matter decline and soil biodiversity, the link with water quality seems much more indirect; hence, it is not surprising that none of the reports mention them as pressures for water. In most cases, the causes and pathways for pressures related to soil issues on water quality are not described in detail. According to the WFD requirements, the designation of River Basin Districts is based on hydrological criteria and not soil condition (e.g. soil type) or soil pressures (e.g. pollutant emissions). Data based on the spatial designation of RBDs are not adequate for the identification and assessment of soil degradation processes. On the one hand, areas with different soil state and soil degradation processes have to be distinguished inside the River Basins to derive meaningful results. On the other hand, areas with a homogeneous soil state are intersected by the basin boundaries. Cross-basin information on soil degradation processes cannot be derived easily due to the heterogeneity of methods and information quality within the characterisation of the River Basin Districts. In conclusion, it should be underlined that, with very limited exceptions, the WFD Article 5 reports do not have relevant information on organic matter decline, sealing, compaction, salinisation and landslides. Even for those degradation processes, such as erosion and contamination, for which there is some information, the insufficient level of detail and the different focus of the reports, which are geared towards water rather than soil protection, make the reports of limited relevance in the context of soil policy.

Report, Page 501 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Moreover, given the potentially high impacts that salinisation, landslides, compaction and sealing can have on the water cycle, addressing these issues in the reports in more depth would certainly contribute to achieving adequate water body protection.

6.1.2 Identification, description and assessment of soil protection related standards under cross compliance

In order to determine the contribution of the cross-compliance instrument on soil protection, national definition and implementation of the statutory management requirements (SMRs) and Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition’ (GAEC) standards81 in Member States were evaluated.

The cross-compliance instrument has been introduced recently (i.e. it is in force since the beginning of 2005), and some of its standards are still pending on the national level. Comparing to other two fields (WFD and UNCCD), there is any relevant report available on the Community level yet. The most relevant information on the definition of standards and requirements in Member States was the information gathered by various research projects and email communication/interviews with national experts. Just certain and heterogeneous information on the implementation was available.

The cross-compliance instrument is quite new, and there is not much empirical evidence about its effects. Therefore, it is too early to provide a practical evaluation of the effects of identified measures on soil conservation, but it is possible to consider some of their likely impacts. A full appreciation will only be possible when the measures adopted by Member States are implemented on the ground and enough information has been gathered to evaluate the contribution of the different measures to the reduction of soil degradation processes.

Nevertheless, a number of conclusions can already be drawn on the basis of the way in which cross-compliance has been set up and of the existing information analysed in this study.

Some Member States have considered that certain GAEC standards were not relevant in their national context and have therefore not developed corresponding measures. This means that the theoretical contribution of cross-compliance to soil protection may not be as broad as the Community legislature intended when adopting the Regulation.

The results on the contribution of SMRs and GAECs to prevent, reduce or combat the nine main soil threats are as follows:

Contribution of SMRs to prevent soil threats: Measures for soil protection do not figure highly in the SMRs. Out of the 19 directives listed in Annex III to the Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, the five Directives setting environmental protection standards are those that are at least partially relevant to the protection of soil. These directives can to a certain

81 As laid down in Regulation No 1782/2003/EC and No 796/2004/EC.

Report, Page 502 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

extent contribute to preventing soil threats, in particular, local and diffuse soil contamination and decline in soil organic matter. Moreover, impacts on soil compaction, soil erosion and soil biodiversity might be expected.

From the five environmental directives, the Sewage Sludge Directive and the Nitrates Directive can have a significant impact in reducing the risk of diffuse and local contamination of soils and fighting against SOM decline. However, only the Sewage Sludge Directive addresses soil protection issues directly and tackles SOM decline. All of the other directives have primarily different scopes but are expected to have positive indirect effects or side effects in preventing soil threats. Also, the Groundwater Directive might have indirect impacts on local and diffuse soil contamination due to the provision to prohibit direct and indirect discharge of certain dangerous substances and due to the close link between groundwater and soils. Reduced land use intensity to protect the concerned species and habitats in protected areas can be expected due to the Habitat and Wild Birds Directives. Therefore these Directives may have side effects on soil compaction, soil erosion and loss of soil biodiversity. Thus, there is an indirect contribution to preventing these soil threats, although the designated areas are in most cases not those that are characterised by high levels of soil degradation. The concrete contribution of the Habitats Directive to soil conservation depends on the existing management plans.

Contribution of GAEC standards to prevent soil threats: the national GAEC measures have a certain potential impact on soil conservation (depending on how they will be implemented), tackling in particular soil erosion and decline in soil organic matter, at least for those Member States that have adopted relevant national standards. Soil sealing, floods and landslides are not tackled at all.

Soil erosion is considered by all four GAEC standards (soil erosion, soil organic matter, soil structure and minimum level of maintenance). The most relevant were the national measures identified under the soil erosion and soil structure issues. The national measures under the soil organic matter issue has, in general, an indirect effect on soil erosion, since soil with a higher organic matter content is more stable and less vulnerable to erosion. The national measures set under the minimum level of maintenance standard also have only indirect impact on soil erosion, since they also strongly address the soil organic matter issue.

Decline in soil organic matter are addressed by the following GAEC standards: soil erosion, soil organic matter and minimum level of maintenance. The national measures under the soil structure standard do not have an impact on soil organic matter. The national measures under the soil organic matter are most relevant to combat organic matter decline, while the national measures under the soil erosion and minimum level of maintenance standards indirectly contribute to prevent soil organic matter decline.

There are two groups of factors that influence inherent organic matter content: natural factors (e.g. climate, soil type, land cover and topography), and human-induced factors (e.g. land use, management and degradation). The identified measures in the Member States (e.g. crop rotation, incorporation of plant residues, adding manure) have a large influence on the accumulation of soil organic matter content. However, it is impossible to

Report, Page 503 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

quantitatively evaluate to what extent these measures can contribute to stabilising or increasing soil organic matter content.

Soil compaction is an issue within the GAEC standards soil erosion and soil structure. The measures under the GAEC soil organic matter standard do not consider soil compaction; and the national measures under the minimum level of maintenance standard consider soil compaction to a minor extent. Even if the national measures under the soil structure standard are most relevant to combat soil compaction, the national measures under soil erosion can also strongly contribute to reducing soil compaction.

There are no GAEC standards that are expected to contribute to the prevention of local contamination of soils. As regards diffuse contamination of soils, the national measures on irrigation (normally set under the soil structure issue) could to a minor extent contribute to preventing diffuse soil contamination. In this case, the quality of irrigated water should be controlled. The measure is, however, limited to certain areas. The national measures under the minimum level of maintenance standard could also to a minor extent contribute to preventing the soil from soil contamination, since pesticides and fertilisers are generally prohibited on permanent pastures, grasslands, set-aside land or land no longer in production.

In contrast, soil contamination is the most often addressed soil threat by the statutory management requirements. Three out of the five environmental Directives, the Sewage Sludge, Nitrates and Groundwater Directives will contribute to a certain extent to the prevention of local and diffuse contamination of soils. While the Sewage Sludge Directive addresses the diffuse soil contamination issue directly, the Nitrates Directive might contribute to this problem in most cases only indirectly. The Groundwater Directive also addresses the local soil contamination issues indirectly.

The loss of soil of biodiversity is indirectly addressed by the GAEC standards on soil organic matter and minimum level of maintenance. The national measures under the soil organic matter standard are most relevant to prevent or minimise a loss of soil biodiversity. There is a relationship between increasing organic matter content in soil and increase in soil biodiversity. The national measures under the minimum level of maintenance standard contribute indirectly to combating or preventing the loss of soil biodiversity through increasing organic matter content in soil as well. It is difficult to evaluate which national measures could contribute to preventing or minimising a loss of soil biodiversity, since in places where soil threat is reduced or combated, the quality of soil improves (at different levels). This gradual improvement is generally expected to result in improvement of soil biodiversity.

Similar to the GAEC standards, there is no measure indicated under the statutory management requirements that would directly contribute to preventing or minimising a loss of soil biodiversity. However, it can be assumed that the measures under the SMRs, in particular the Sewage Sludge Directive, if applied correctly, might indirectly contribute to preventing or reducing soil biodiversity loss as a side effect.

The national measures on irrigation (normally set under the soil structure issue) are relevant to contribute to combating soil salinisation. The national measures should in

Report, Page 504 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

this case control the quantity and quality of water used for irrigation, and the quality of irrigated soil. As regards SMRs, no statutory management requirements were identified as contributing to combat soil salinisation.

The national measures related to minimum level of maintenance standard (the only GAEC standard not addressing soil issues directly) are relevant to combat organic matter decline in soil. The measures may also contribute to preventing the loss of soil biodiversity to a minor extent. The national measures setting the livestock stocking rates may prevent soil compaction.

Extent to which soil relevant SMRs and GAECs can contribute to prevent, reduce or combat soil threats:

As regards the qualitative evaluation of the effectiveness of the measures adopted by Member States, one needs to say at the outset that the relationship between farming and the environment is complex. A quantitative assessment of the extent to which the identified measures contribute to preventing or reducing specific soil threats can only be performed if there is a minimum of information about specific factors, for example the area addressed by the measure (i.e. soil type, geography, geomorphology, climate and predominant farming systems, land/vegetation cover, as well as measure implementation/control status). The available information sources do not provide this kind of information, hence there is a limited possibility of assessing the effectiveness of the measures.

A comparative evaluation between the measures chosen by Member States is difficult as well. It is not feasible to prove, for example, if the approach to soil erosion (requiring farmers to complete and implement a Soil Management Review) will prove to be more effective in combating soil erosion than the requirement to establish a green cover on certain land (a common GAEC measure in a number of Member States). Only more or less similar measures might be suitable for possible Member States comparisons.

6.1.3 Identification and assessment of soil threats and measures under the national Action Programmes adopted by Member States pursuant the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)

Extent to which soil threats have been identified to be a driver for desertification (1st key question)

Three affected Member States (Greece, Italy, and Portugal) have already implemented a NAP and delivered National reports on the progress of implementation. The other seven Member States have so far only delivered National reports in the frame of UNCCD concerning desertification problems, general approaches mitigating desertification or intended measures for a NAP. Moreover, Lithuania and Poland officially regard themselves as ‘not affected’ but are nevertheless presenting activities on the implementation of the UNCCD at the national level. The quality information on soil threats

Report, Page 505 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

in the reviewed documents varies in its interpretability and in its value to arrive at conclusions for soil degradation. Soil erosion by water and to a lesser extent by wind was mentioned directly as a problem for soils by all 12 Member States involved, especially in the southern parts of Europe, and has been identified as a major driver for desertification. Decline in organic matter (SOM decline) was identified as a soil threat associated with desertification by less than half of the Member States. Five other Member States mention indirect indicators for SOM decline. It is not clear from the reports, whether this degradation process has been identified as a driver for desertification or as a consequence of desertification. Local contamination was mentioned indirectly by one and directly by six Member States’ reports, but it has not been identified as a driver for desertification in the reports. Diffuse contamination was mentioned indirectly by four and directly by five Member States. Only by Cyprus was diffuse contamination clearly described as a driver for desertification. Sealing was mentioned indirectly by two and directly by three Member States, but it has not been identified clearly as a driver for desertification in the reports. Compaction and decline in biodiversity were identified as soil threats by only three Member States. These soil threats are not clearly specified as drivers for desertification in the UNCCD reports, but biodiversity decline was described as a consequence of desertification. Salinisation was mentioned directly by six Member States, but only by Greece has been identified explicitly as a significant driver for desertification. Floods and landslides were mentioned by three Member States as occurring soil degradation processes. These soil threats have not been identified as drivers for desertification but as consequences of desertification.

In conclusion, soil degradation is considered a driver for desertification for only a few soil threats, and only erosion is recognised and depicted in more detail in the reports. The evaluation showed that the approach of the assessment of desertification under the UNCCD is primarily based on those soil threats known as the main drivers for desertification (erosion, salinisation, contamination). This is reflected in the focus on erosion in the majority of Member States, especially in the Northern Mediterranean. In those Member States, the theoretic concept of desertification regarding selective soil threats as drivers or consequences does not allow for an entire assessment of all soil degradation processes. However, affected Member States in Central and Eastern Europe mostly regard soil threats apart from the main desertification drivers, because they mostly focus on land degradation due to drought problems. The latter approach could be more valuable for a complete assessment for the nine main soil threats, but the value of UNCCD reporting for soil protection depends on the usability of reports for quantitative assessments (see below).

Report, Page 506 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Extent to which Action Programmes and UNCCD National reports can be used to quantify the extent to which soil threats contribute to desertification process (2nd key question)

A quantitative assessment of the extent to which a soil threat contributes to desertification processes was impossible as - apart from Cyprus and Spain for erosion - the UNCCD reports do not provide any quantitative information on the level of soil degradation. Only a general identification and qualitative assessment can be based on the information provided. It is possible that this gap in information will be filled through further research activities of the UNCCD countries on the drivers of desertification. Regardless of the further developments concerning the next implementation steps of the UNCCD in the concerned countries, it has to be assumed there will still be soil issues (e.g. soil sealing or compaction) that will never be handled by this policy field, because these are not main issues in controlling desertification processes.

The value of the reports is limited for the assessment of soil degradation processes for the following reasons:

Only erosion and, in one Member State, salinisation have been clearly identified as drivers for desertification. Apart from this, soil threats are mentioned in the reports, but the link between soil threats and desertification has not been specified.

The reports evaluated are under the responsibility of the National Focal Points in the Member States, which have different political backgrounds and (financial) resources available for preparing the reports. Hence, political and organisational issues can be the reasons why the quality of information in the UNCCD documents varies widely.

Soil threats such as erosion, organic matter decline, contamination, salinisation, and compaction are mostly identified as a problem for agriculture or forestry. In accordance with the information evaluated and the background information from the UNCCD secretariat, it is concluded that UNCCD reports focus on the agricultural usability of the soils and to a minor extent on the usability of soils for forestry. The reports do not focus on the preservation of the soil regarding all soil functions apart from soil fertility. This aspect underpins the evaluation result that there is not complete awareness of all nine main soil threats in the UNCCD countries. The main focus of the UNCCD reports implies that area-wide information is scarce.

Report, Page 507 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

The heterogeneity of the reports hinders a comparative analysis of the reports and the countries.

Measures planned by the Member States to address desertification and extent to what such measures can be expected to contribute to preventing or reducing soil threats (3rd key question)

Only for the three Member States that have adopted a National Action Programme and have reported on the progress of implementation actual effectiveness of the identified measures could be evaluated. As there is no such reference, for the other nine Member States, only potential effectiveness of the identified measures could be evaluated.

The quality of information on the identified measures in National reports and adopted NAPs could only be qualified as ‘very general’ or ‘general’. Therefore, it is only possible to evaluate the potential effectiveness for all measures as ‘general information’. Conclusions on the actual effectiveness of the measures could not be derived. Since in some cases only the names of measures are available in the NAPs and National reports, the available information is clearly not sufficient to evaluate the relevance of such measures to soil protection.

Although the quality of information provided in the National reports and the adopted NAPs in the twelve Member States varies greatly, the identified measures can be grouped in accordance to their objectives into land planning measures, water management measures, forest management measures, agricultural measures, awareness raising measures, and socio-economic measures. The ‘land planning measures’, and ‘agricultural and forest management measures’ are mostly relevant to soil protection and have direct as well as indirect effects. The ‘water management measures’ are less relevant but also indirectly address soil threats. The ‘agricultural measures’ contribute directly to reducing or preventing soil erosion, decline in soil organic matter and soil contamination. The ‘forestry management measures’ contribute indirectly to protection of soil against soil erosion or decline in soil organic matter. The ‘water management measures’ may have an impact preventing or reducing soil salinisation problem or preventing diffuse soil contamination. The ‘awareness raising measures’ and ‘social measures’ may have only indirect effects on soil protection.

Report, Page 508 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

In conclusion, even if the UNCCD reports in general address all soil threats to some extent, measures address mostly soil erosion, soil contamination and soil salinisation. With respect to these soil threats measures could contribute to some extent to soil protection in the affected Member States. The added value of the reports to evaluate the extent to which such measures contribute or reduce soil threats is limited due to the general quality of information given in the reports. Even in the three Member States that have already adopted the NAPs and where the actual effectiveness of identified measures to soil protection could in theory be evaluated, the quality of information given is too general to allow for a more in depth evaluation. Therefore, also for these countries no concrete conclusions on the extent to which measures contribute to soil protection can be drawn.

Report, Page 509 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

6.2 Recommendations

The analysis has lead to a number of recommendations regarding additional actions that the Commission might undertake in further assisting the process of developing a European soil strategy or the integration of soil protection aspects into other policy areas at EU level, respectively.

Policy Area “Water Framework Directive” One could assume that an evaluation of reports on sub-basin and local level may give more information on soil threats, level of degradation and threatened soil functions in order to give more precise answers to the key questions. Because we expect the same heterogeneity of information in the reports on sub-basin and local level, but on an even more voluminous level, the relationship between time and effort and the results expected would not be reasonable. The WFD River Basin Management Plans will be further implemented and developed in accordance with the timetable laid down in the relevant provisions of the Water Framework Directive. These plans will include measures to achieve the good status in water bodies. A further integration of soil protection aspects should be strengthened in this process. This could be also an opportunity to address soil threats, which have an impact on water and which have not been identified in the RBD characterisation.

Policy Area “Cross Compliance” Regarding possible future developments, there will still be soil issues, such as soil sealing and landslides, that will never be handled by the cross-compliance instrument. These soil issues are not considered a priority for land management/agricultural practices.

The same can be true for soil biodiversity. It is difficult to evaluate the effect of measures on soil biodiversity, since in places where a soil threat is reduced or removed, the quality of soil improves (at different levels). This gradual improvement is generally expected to result in improvement of soil biodiversity.

Therefore, other policy fields like Organic Farming (Action Plans) or Natura 2000 (Management Plans) for soil biodiversity, as well as the WFD (Programmes of measures) for floods and landslides should be evaluated for their impact on soil conservation/relevant soil threats. Measures addressing the above mentioned soil threats could likely be addressed by these policy fields.

In some Member States (Austria, France, Greece, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Cyprus, Slovenia, Luxembourg and UK), all the soils threats considered by cross compliance82 seem to be addressed by adopted measures. Nevertheless, improvements can be made and are necessary in these Member States, such as more detailed requirements for soil erosion measures in Greece and Italy, the introduction of crop rotation systems in Spain

82 Soil erosion, decline in organic matter, compaction.

Report, Page 510 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

and UK (England), more clearly defined measures in Cyprus or the enhancement of standards addressing minimum level of maintenance in Slovenia.

In addition, in most new Member States there is a strong emphasis on agricultural rather than environmental standards. For example, in Estonia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Latvia, GAEC measures have a strong emphasis on minimum level of maintenance, whereas the other measures have not received the same level of attention. An improvement of measures addressing soil threats would be necessary, especially considering the fact that the area of agricultural land use ranges from 18% to 40% of the total national area in those Member States.

In general, more detailed requirements (as guidance tool for farmers) instead of general, relatively weak measures for the GAEC issues regarding in particular soil compaction are needed to provide direct environmental benefits and contributions to soil protection.

Policy Area “Desertification and Land Degradation (UNCCD)” The UNCCD reports are based on a user-guide format that has been distributed to the countries. The UNCCD subsidiary bodies are discussing how to develop a more appropriate reporting scheme. A further integration of soil issues towards soil protection should be encouraged.

For the final report:

Carolin Kaufmann b.p. Barbara Hudec

Aachen, 23rd November 2007

Report, Page 511 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

REFERENCES

Alands landskapsregering (2005): Rapport entligt EGs Ramvatten-Direktiv om Karakterisering, Konsekvender av Mänsklig Verksamhet samt Ekonomisk Analys för vatten i Landskapet Aland. 18.03.2005. AMA (2007): Cross Compliance- Einhaltung anderweitiger Verpflichtungen. Agrar Markt Austria (AMA). URL: http://www.ama.at/Portal.Node/public?am=PCP&p.contentid=10007.19468 ARDA (2007): Current state of cross compliance in Hungary - Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions. Presentation. Agricultural and Rural Development Agency (ARDA). Århus Amt Natur & Miljø (2006): Basisanalyse del II Vanddistrikt 70 & 76. webrapport. Arrouays D., Balesdent J., Deslais W., Daroussin J. & Gaillard J. (1999): Construction d'un modèle d'évolution des stocks de carbone organique dessols et evaluation des données disponibles pour sa validation. (Premières estimations des stocks français). Rapport final pour la Mission Inter-Ministérielle de l'Effet de Serre. Rapport final de la commande N°17/98. INRA Orléans, 40 p. Arshad, M.A. (1999): Tillage and soil quality: Tillage practices for sustainable agriculture and environmental quality in different agroecosystems. Soil & Tillage Research 53: 1-2. ARSKTRP (2006a): GAEC in Slovenia. One page summary. Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for Agricultural Markets and Rural Development (ARSKTRP). ARSKTRP (2006b): Cross-compliance (CC) requirements - strategic element of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for Agricultural Markets and Rural Development (ARSKTRP). Bornholms Regionskommune, Natur & Miljø (2006): Basisanalyse II for vanddistrikt Bornholm. Marts 2006. Bouma J.; Brown, R.B. and Rao, P.S.C. (1982): "Basics of Soil-Water Relationships -Part I. Soil as a Porous Medium." Soil Science Fact Sheet SL-37. Florida Cooperative Extension Service. IFAS. Gainesville, FL. Brás, A.M.; Miranda, F. and Hipólito, L. (2006): Condicionalidade.; Direcção Regional de Agricultura de Entre Douro e Minho. Burghardt, W.; Banko, G.; Hoeke, S.; Hursthouse, A.; de L'Escaille, T.; Ledin, S.; Marsan, F.A.; Sauer, D.; Stahr, K. ; Amann, E.; Quast, J.; Nerger, M.; Schneider, J. & Kuen, K: (2004): Report of Task Group 5 on sealing soils, soils in urban areas, land use and land use planning . In: Van-Camp. L., Bujarrabal, B., Gentile, A-R., Jones, R.J.A., Montanarella, L., Olazabal, C. and Selvaradjou, S-K. (eds.) (2004). Reports of the Technical Working Groups Established under the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection.

Report, Page 512 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

ВТОРОЙНАЦИОНАЛЬНЫЙ ДОКЛАД РЕСПУБЛИКИБОЛГАРИЯ (2006): В ИСПОЛНЕНИИ КОНВЕНЦИИ ОРГАНИЗАЦИИ ОБЪЕДИНЕННЫХ НАЦИЙ ПО БОРЬБЕ, С ОПУСТЫНИВАНИЕМ. (CRIC 5 report) (http://www.unccd.int). Castillo, V.; Martínez-Mena, M. and Albaladejo, J. (1997): Runoff and soil loss response to vegetation removal in semiarid environments. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 61: 1116-1121. Center for Soil and Environmental Science (2006): Assessment of the implementation of UN Convention to Combat Desertification / Land degradation in Slovenia. Center for Soil and Environmental Science, Biotechnical Faculty, Agronomy Department. Ljubljana, December 2005. (CRIC 5 report). (http://www.unccd.int) Crown (2005a): Water framework directive - Summary report of the characterisation, impacts and economics analyses required by Article 5 - Anglian River Basin District, March 2005. Crown (2005b): Water framework directive - Summary report of the characterisation, impacts and economics analyses required by Article 5 - North West River Basin District, March 2005. Crown (2005c): Water framework directive - Summary report of the characterisation, impacts and economics analyses required by Article 5 - South East River Basin District, March 2005. Crown (2005d): Water framework directive - Summary report of the characterisation, impacts and economics analyses required by Article 5 - Thames River Basin District, March 2005. Crown (2005e): Water framework directive - Summary report of the characterisation, impacts and economics analyses required by Article 5 - Dee River Basin District, March 2005. Crown (2005f): Water framework directive - Summary report of the characterisation, impacts and economics analyses required by Article 5 - Humber River Basin District, March 2005. Crown (2005g): Water Framework Directive - Summary Report of the characterisation and impact analyses required by Article 5 - Northern Ireland, March 2005. Crown (2005h): Water framework directive - Summary report of the characterisation, impacts and economics analyses required by Article 5 - Northumbria River Basin District, March 2005. Crown (2005i): Water framework directive - Summary report of the characterisation, impacts and economics analyses required by Article 5 - Severn River Basin District, March 2005. Crown (2005j): Water framework directive - Summary report of the characterisation, impacts and economics analyses required by Article 5 - South West River Basin District, March 2005. Crown (2005k): Water framework directive - Summary report of the characterisation, impacts and economics analyses required by Article 5 - Western Wales River Basin District, March 2005.

Report, Page 513 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Curtin, D.; Wang, H.; Selles, F.; Zentner, R.P.; Biederbeck, V.O. and Campbell, C.A. (2000): Legume green manure as partial fallow replacement in semiarid Saskatchewan: effect on carbon fluxes. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 80, 499-505. Cyprus Agricultural Payments Organisation (2005): Special conditions for the implementation of Remote-Sensing Control of Area –based Subsidies 2005 by Cyprus Agricultural Payments Organisation. ΟΑΠ/CWRS/002/04. Dimopoulos, D., Fermantzis, Y., Vlahos, G., Farmer, M. (2006): The Responsiveness of Cross Compliance Standards to Environmental Pressures. In: IEEP (2006): Cross Compliance network bulletin (autumn 2006), p.7-8. EEA (2000): Corine land cover 2000 by country. [http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/] EEA (2001): Proposal for a European soil monitoring and assessment framework. European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen. EEA (2003a) Europe’s environment: the third assessment, European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen. EEA (2003b): Assessment and reporting on soil erosion, EEA, Copenhagen. EEA (2005a): The European environment - State and outlook 2005, EEA, Copenhagen. EEA (2005b): Agriculture and environment in EU-15 - the IRENA indicator report, EEA, Copenhagen. EEA (2006): Database on national standards of Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC). CIFAS study (2005-2006): Cross-Compliance Indicators in the context of the Farm Advisory System. European Environment Agency. http://cifas.ewindows.eu.org/. EEA (2006b): Urban sprawl in Europe - The ignored challenge. European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen. Environment Agency & Scottish Environment Protection Agency (2005): Solway Tweed River Basin District - Characterisation and impacts analyses required by Article 5 of the Water Framework. Environmental Protection Agency & River Basin District coordinating authorities (2005): The Characterisation and Analysis of Ireland’s River Basin Districts in accordance with Section 7(2 & 3) of the European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations 2003 (SI 722 of 2003). National Summary Report (Ireland), 2005. Environmental Protection Agency Lithuania (2005): Report on Articles 5 and 6 of the Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. ESDAC (2007): European Soil Data Centre. European Commission - DG Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability. [http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu]; Map: Susceptibility to Subsoil Compaction (Soil Themes: Soil Compaction); Map: Organic carbon content ( %) in the surface horizon of soils in Europe, S.P.I.04.72 (Soil Themes: Soil Organic Carbon Content).

Report, Page 514 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

European Commission (2006a): Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament of the Council establishing a framework for the protection of soil and amending Directive 2004/35/EC, COM (2006) 232 final, 22.09.2006, Brussels. European Commission (2006b): Communication from the Commission to Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection, COM (2006) 231 final, 22.09.2006, Brussels. European Commission (2007a): Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Towards sustainable water management in the European Union. First stage in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC, COM(2007) 128 final, 22.03.2007, Brussels. European Commission (2007b): Agricultural Statistics. Data 1995-2005. Eurostat Pocketbooks. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. 2007 edition. Farmer, M. and Swales, V. (2004): The development and Implementation of Cross Compliance in the EU 15: An Analysis. Report for the RSPB. Institute for European Environmental Policy, London. Fermantzis, I.; Dimopoulos, D. and Vlahos, G. (2007): Cross Compliance – A view from Greece. Cross – Compliance Network Project 2005 – 2007. Presentation held in Brussels, 26 April 2007. Flussgebietsgemeinschaft Weser (2005): EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie - Bewirtschaftungsplan Flussgebietseinheit Weser. Bestandsaufnahme. FÖMI - Institute of Geodesy, Cartography and Remote Sensing (2004): GAECs in Hungary in force; Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Department. FÖMI - Institute of Geodesy, Cartography and Remote Sensing (2006): Control of the Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions with the support of remote sensing in Hungary. 3rd Workshop on GAECs: management, control and impact assessment; Ispra, Italy, 26-28 June, 2006). Fons-Esteve, J.; Imeson, A.; Jarman, R.; Barberis, R.; Rydell, B.; Castillo Sánchez, V.; Vandekerckhove, L. (2004): Soil Erosion. Task Group 1 on Pressures & Drivers Causing Soil Erosion. In: Van-Camp. L., Bujarrabal, B., Gentile, A-R., Jones, R.J.A., Montanarella, L., Olazabal, C. and Selvaradjou, S-K. (eds.) (2004). Reports of the Technical Working Groups Established under the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection. Frederiksborg Amt, Københavns Amt, Roskilde Amt, Københavns Kommune & Frederiksberg Kommune (2006): Risikoanalyse til første basisanalyse del 2 - Vanddistrikt HUR 2006. Fyns Amt (2006): Vanddistrikt Fyn - Basisanalyse del II - Risikovurdering Sammenfatning. General Secretary of the Tevere River Basin Authority (2005): Tevere pilot river basin article 5 report pursuant to the water framework directive. [http://www.abtevere.it/prb/inglese/index_ing.htm].

Report, Page 515 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Gobin, A.; Govers, G.; Jones, R.J.A.; Kirkby, M.J. and Kosmas, C. (2002): Assessment and reporting on soil erosion: Background and workshop report, EEA Technical Report No.84, 131pp. Copenhagen. Gobin, A.; Jones, R.; Kirkby, M.; Campling, P.; Govers, G.; Kosmas, C.; Gentile, A.R. (2004): Indicators for pan-European assessment and monitoring of soil erosion by water. Environmental Science & Policy 7 (2004) 25-38. Greek National Committee for Combating Desertification (2000): First National Report on the Implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Athens, March 2000. (COP 3/4 report). [http://www.unccd.int]. Greek National Committee for Combating Desertification (2001): Greek National Action Plan for Combating Desertification (Extended Summary). Athens, January 2001. (Greek NAP). [http://www.unccd.int]. Greek National Committee for Combating Desertification (2002): Second National Report of Greece on the Implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Athens, April 2002. (CRIC 1 report). [http://www.unccd.int]. Grogan, A. (2005): Definition and implementation of GAEC in Ireland. Department of Agriculture/Ireland. 2nd Workshop on the implementation and control of GAECs. ISPRA 26-27 October 2005. [http://agrifish.jrc.it/marspac/GAECS/Ispra_26oct05/Session_1/GAEC_A_GROGAN_ IE.pdf] Haygarth, P.M.; Lepworth, L. and Jarvis, S.C. (1998): Forms of phosphorus transfer in hydrological pathways from soil under grazed grassland. European Journal of Soil Science, 49, 65-72. Hellenic Republic Ministry of Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works - Central Water Agency (2006): Report on the pressures and qualitative characteristics of water bodies in the water districts of Greece and a methodological approach for further analysis, June 2006. Hofhanzl, A. and Postulka, Z. (2005): Cross-compliance in Central and Eastern European Countries. Seminar summary, Prague September 2004, Ministry of Environment, Czech Republic. Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Department (2007): Good Agriculture and Environmental Condition in Hungary from year 2008. IEEP (2000): The Environmental Impacts of Irrigation in the European Union. The Institute for European Environmental Policy. IEEP (2006): Deliverable 4 - Overview of GAEC Standards. Cross Compliance Network Project (2005-2007). Institute for European Environmental Policy. http://www.ieep.eu/projectMiniSites/crosscompliancenetworkproj/index.php [status as of May 2006]. Institute of Geodesy, Cartography and Remote Sensing (FÖMI) (2004): GAECs in Hungary in force; Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Department.

Report, Page 516 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Institute of Geodesy, Cartography and Remote Sensing (FÖMI) (2006): Control of the Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions with the support of remote sensing in Hungary. 3rd Workshop on GAECs: management, control and impact assessment; Ispra, Italy, 26-28 June, 2006). International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) (2005): The Danube River Basin District - River basin characteristics, impact of human activities and analysis required under Article 5, Annex II and Annex III, inventory of protected areas required under Article 6, Annex of the EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) - Part A - Basin-wide overview. 18 March 2005. Internationale Kommission zum Schutz der Elbe (2005): Internationale Flussgebietseinheit Elbe. Merkmale der Flussgebietseinheit, Überprüfung der Umweltauswirkungen menschlicher Tätigkeiten und wirtschaftliche Analyse der Wassernutzung. Bericht an die Europäische Kommission gemäß Art. 15 Abs. 2 der Richtlinie 2000/60/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 23. Oktober 2000 zur Schaffung eines Ordnungsrahmens für Maßnahmen der Gemeinschaft im Bereich der Wasserpolitik (Bericht 2005). Dresden, 03.03.2005. Internationale Kommission zum Schutz der Oder (2005): Internationale Flussgebietseinheit Oder. Bericht an die Europäische Kommission gemäß Artikel 15, Abs. 2, 1. Anstrich der Richtlinie 2000/60/EG des Europäischen Parlamentes und des Rates vom 23. Oktober 2000 zur Schaffung eines Ordnungsrahmens für Maßnahmen der Gemeinschaft im Bereich der Wasserpolitik. Bericht 2005. Internationale Maaskommission (2005): Internationale Flussgebietseinheit Maas. Analyse, übergeordneter Bericht. Lüttich, 23 März 2005. Internationale Scheldecommissie, Commission Internationale de l'Escaut (2005): Europese Kaderrichtlijn Water 2000/60 - Internationale Stroomgebiedsdistrict van de Schelde - Analyse, overkoepelend rapport. Februari 2005. IPCC (2000): Land use, land-use change, and forestry. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a special report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. IREAS (2004): Cross-Compliance in Central and Eastern European Countries. December 2004. Institute for Structural Policy. Czech Republic. Italian Committee to Combat Desertification (2000): National Report of Italy on the Implementation of the UNFCCD. Report and Summary. Italian Committee to Combat Desertification. Focal Point: Directorate General for Development Co-operation. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Rome. October 2000. (COP 3/4 report). [http://www.unccd.int]. Italian Committee to Combat Drought and Desertification (1999): National Action Programme to Combat Drought and Desertification. Focal Point: Directorate General for Development Cooperation. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Rome. December 1999. (Italian NAP). [http://www.unccd.int].

Report, Page 517 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Jones, R.; Le Bissonnais, Y.; Bazzoffi, P.; Sánchez Díaz, J.; Düwel, O.; Loj, G.; Øygarden, L.; Prasuhn, V.; Rydell, B.; Strauss, P.; Berényi Üveges, J.; Vandekerckhove, L. and Yordanov, Y. (2004): Soil Erosion. Task Group 2 on Nature and Extent of Soil Erosion in Europe. In: Van-Camp. L., Bujarrabal, B., Gentile, A-R., Jones, R.J.A., Montanarella, L., Olazabal, C. and Selvaradjou, S.-K. (eds.) (2004): Reports of the Technical Working Groups Established under the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection. Kainz (1991): Schutzmaßnahmen gegen Bodenerosion. Berichte über Landwirtschaft, Bodennutzung und Bodenfruchtbarkeit, Band 3, 83-98, Parey. In: Van-Camp. L., Bujarrabal, B., Gentile, A-R., Jones, R.J.A., Montanarella, L., Olazabal, C. and Selvaradjou, S.-K. (eds.) (2004): Reports of the Technical Working Groups Established under the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection. Karaczun, Z. M. and Wasilewski, A. (2006): Cross-Compliance. Facilitating the CAP reform: Compliance and competitiveness of European agriculture. Mandatory standards in Poland. Project no. SSPE-CT-2005-006489. Königreich der Niederlande & Bundesrepublik Deutschland (2005): Bericht (Teil A) der internationalen Flussgebietseinheit Ems - Bericht 2005 EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie. Kubat, J. (2003): Incidence and activities of the soil microorganisms as an indicator of soil biodiversity. Proceedings “OECD Expert meeting on Soil erosion and soil biodiversity indicators”, Rome, March 25-28, 2003. Kuo, S.; Sainju, U.M. and Jellum, E.J. (1997): Winter cover crop effects on soil organic carbon and carbohydrate in soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal 61, 145- 152. Malta Environment and Planning Authority (2002): National report on the implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, April 2002. (CRIC 1 report). [http://www.unccd.int]. Malta Resources Authority (2005): Initial Characterisation of the Groundwater Bodies within the Maltese Water Catchment District under the Water Policy Framework Regulations, 2004. Final Draft, 13. January 2005; Malta Environment and Planning Authority (2005): CD 2000/60/EC - Water Framework Directive - Article 5 Summary Reports for Surface Waters - Malta. December 2005. MARD (2007): Good Agriculture and Environmental Condition in Hungary from year 2008. Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Department (MARD). MAVRD (2005): Cross Compliance (Status October 2005) in Luxembourg. Ministry for Agriculture, Viticulture and Rural Development (MAVRD). Mensah F.; Schoenau, J. and Malhi, S. (2003): Soil carbon changes in cultivated and excavated land converted to grasses in east-central Saskatchewan. Biogeochemistry 63 (1): 85-92. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente (2007): Planificación Hidrológica - Síntesis de los estudios generales de las Demarcaciones Hidrográficas en España.

Report, Page 518 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Ministério do ambiente, do ordamento do território e do desenvolvimento regional (2005): Relatório Síntese da Caracterizacao das Regiao Hidrográficas prevista na Directiva- Quadro da Água, Portugal. Setembro 2005. Ministério da agricultura, do desenvolvimiento rural e das pescas(2007): Aviso n° 2555/2007. Anexo: Lista de indicadores relative aos requisitos legais de gestão aplicáveis a partir de 1 de Janeiro de 2007. Ministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Landwirtschaft des Landes Schleswig-Holstein & Umweltministerium Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (2004): Flussgebietseinheit Schlei/Trave. Bericht über die Analysen nach Artikel 5 der Richtlinie 2000/60/EG. 22.12.2004. Ministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Landwirtschaft des Landes Schleswig-Holstein (2004): Flussgebietseinheit Eider. Bericht über die Analysen nach Artikel 5 der Richtlinie 2000/60/EG. 22.12.2004. Ministerstvo zivotného prostredia SR, Výskumný ústav vodného hospodárstva, Slovenský hydrometeorologický ústav, Slovenský vodohospodársky podnik, s.p.(2005): Správa Slovenskej republiky o stave implementácie Rámcovej smernice o vode spracovaná pre Európsku komisiu v súlade s článkom 5, prílohy II a prílohy III a článkom 6, prílohy IV RSV. Bratislava, Marec 2005. Ministry for Agriculture, Viticulture and Rural Development (2005): Cross Compliance (Status October 2005). Luxembourg. Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment of Cyprus (2002): Cyprus Report for Combating Desertification. (CRIC 1 report). [http://www.unccd.int] Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment of Cyprus (2007): National Report on Combating Desertification - Cyprus. February 2007. (CRIC 5 report). [http://www.unccd.int] Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries of Portugal (1999): National Action Programme to Combat Desertification in Portugal. Ministério da Agricultura, do Desenvolvimento Rural e das Pescas. (Portuguese NAP, in English) [http://www.unccd.int] Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries of Portugal (2000): Rapport National sur la Mise en oeuvre de la Convention de Lutte Contre la Desertification au Portugal. Portugal. Point Focal, avril 2000. Ministério da Agricultura, do Desenvolvimento Rural e das Pescas. (COP 3/4 report, in Portuguese, summary in English). [http://www.unccd.int] Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries of Portugal (2002): National Report on the Implementation of the Convention to Combat Desertification in Portugal. Portugal. Ministério da Agricultura, do Desenvolvimento Rural e das Pescas. Focal Point, April 2002. (CRIC 1 report). [http://www.unccd.int] Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries of Portugal (2006): Rapport National sur la Mise en oeuvre de la Convention de Lutte Contre la Desertification au Portugal. Portugal. Ministério da Agricultura, do Desenvolvimento Rural e das Pescas. Point Focal, juillet 2006. (CRIC 5 report). (Portuguese report 2006 contains English summary). [http://www.unccd.int]

Report, Page 519 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Ministry of Environment and Territorial Protection of Italy (2002): Italy National Report. The Ministry of Environment and Territorial Protection of Italy. April 2002. (CRIC 1 report). [http://www.unccd.int] Ministry of Environment and Territory of Italy (2006): Italy National Report. Ministry of Environment and Territory (IMET). July 2006. (CRIC 5 report). [http://www.unccd.int] Ministry of the Environment and Water of the Republic of Bulgaria (2002): First National Report of the Republic of Bulgaria on the Implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. (CRIC 1 report). [http://www.unccd.int] Ministry of Environment and Water of the Republic of Hungary (2002): First National Report of the Republic of Hungary on the implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. (CRIC 1 report). [http://www.unccd.int] Ministry of Environment and Water of the Republic of Hungary (2006): Second National Report of the Republic of Hungary on the implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. (CRIC 5 report). [http://www.unccd.int] Ministry of Environment of Poland (2006): Second national report of the Republic of Poland on the implementation of resolutions of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in countries seriously affected by drought and/or desertification, particulaly in Africa (2004-2005), Warsaw, June 2006. (CRIC 5 report). [http://www.unccd.int] Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania (2006): Implementation of the United Convention to Combat Desertification in Countries Experiencing serious Drought and/or Desertification, particularly in Africa (UNCCD) in Lithuania. Nature Resources Division. Nature Protection Department. Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania. 2006. (CRIC 5 report). [http://www.unccd.int] Ministry of the Environment Estonia (2005): Summary Report of River Basin Districts - Compliance with the Requirements of Article 5 of the Water Framework Directive in Estonia. West-Estonian River Basin District, East-Estonian River Basin District, Koiva River Basin District. Tallin. Ministry of the Environment of Spain (2000): Informe sobre el Programa de Acción Nacional contra la Desertificación. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. Espana. Abril 2000. (COP 3/4 report, in Spanish). (http://www.unccd.int) Ministry of the Environment of Spain (2002): II Informe sobre el Programa de Acción Nacional contra la Desertificación. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. Espana. Abril 2002. (CRIC 1 report, in Spanish). [http://www.unccd.int] Ministry of the Environment of Spain (2006a): III Informe sobre el Programa de Acción Nacional contra la Desertificación. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. Espana. Mayo 2006. (CRIC 5 report, in Spanish). [http://www.unccd.int] Ministry of the Environment of Spain (2006b): Summary of the third Spanish report on the national action programme to combat desertification. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. Espana. Mayo 2006. (Summary of CRIC 5 report, in English). [http://www.unccd.int]

Report, Page 520 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Latvia & Latvian Environment, Geology and Meteorology Agency (2005): Characteristics of the Latvian River Basin Districts - A Review of the Impact of Human Activity on the Status of Surface Waters and on Groundwater - Economic Analysis of Water use (Article 5 report). Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Latvia (2006): National Report on the Implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification / Land Degradation (UNCCD). Riga. 2006. (CRIC 5 report). [http://www.unccd.int] Müssner, R.; Leipprand, A. and Schlegel, S. (2007): Deliverable 13: Cost impacts of cross compliance standards to different farm sectors. Discussion paper prepared as input for Deliverable 13 (not published). Project no. SSPE-CT-2005-006489: Cross- Compliance - Facilitating the CAP reform: Compliance and Competitiveness of European Agriculture. Ecologic. Germany. National Action Programme to Combat Drought and Desertification (1999). NAP. National Assembly for Wales (2004): Welsh Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 3280 (W.284) - The Common Agricultural Policy Single Payment and Support Schemes (Cross Compliance) (Wales) Regulations 2004. [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/wales/wsi2004/20043280e.htm] National Report of Italy on the Implementation of the UNFCCD (2000). Report and Summary. COP 3/4.; Naturvårdsverket (2005): Beskrivning, kartläggning och analys av Sveriges ytvatten och grundvatten - Sammanfattande rapport den 22 mars 2005 enligt artikel 5 i - EU:s ramdirektiv för vatten (2000/60/EG). Ninane, V.; Goffart, J.P.; Meeùs-Verdinne, K.; Destain, J.P.; Guiot, J. and François, E. (1995): Incorporation of organic material and the agricultural and environmental consequences. In: Geypens, M. and Honnay, J.P. (eds.): Agricultural and environmental functions of soil organic matter (in Dutch). IWONL, Brussels, 67-104. Nordjyllands Amt (2006): Vandrammedirektivets Basisanalyse del II Vanddistrikt 80 - Vurdering af vandforekomsters tilstand og en vurdering af risikoen for, at vandforekomsterne ikke kan opfylde målene i regionplanen senest 22. december 2015. Ortega, C.v. & Simó, A. (2006): Cross-Compliance. Facilitating the CAP reform: Compliance and competitiveness of European agriculture. Mandatory standards in Spain. Project no. SSPE-CT-2005-006489. Owens, P.N.; Walling, D.E. and He, Q. (1996). The behaviour of bomb-derived caesium- 137 fallout in catchment soils. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 32, 169-191. Post, W.M. and Kwon, K.C. (2000): Soil carbon sequestration and land-use change: processes and potential. Global Change Biology 6, 317-327. Republic of Cyprus (2005): EU-summary report Articles 5 & 6 - Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), March 2005 Report. Ministry of Agriculture Natural Resources and Environment, Nicosia, March 2005.

Report, Page 521 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Republik Italien, Bundesrepublik Österreich, Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Republik Frankreich, Großherzogtum Luxemburg, Königreich Belgien & Königreich der Niederlande (2005): Internationale Flussgebietseinheit Rhein - Merkmale, Überprüfung der Umweltauswirkungen menschlicher Tätigkeiten und wirtschaftliche Analyse der Wassernutzung. Bericht an die Europäische Kommission über die Ergebnisse der Bestandsaufnahme nach Richtlinie 2000/60/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 23. Oktober 2000 zur Schaffung eines Ordnungsrahmens für Maßnahmen der Gemeinschaft im Bereich der Wasserpolitik (Artikel 15 (2), 1. Anstrich). Teil A = übergeordneter Teil. Stand: 18.03.2005. Republique Francaise & Eaufrance (2005): Synthèse des états des lieux. [http://www.eaufrance.fr/docs/dce2004/]. Remote Sensing Centre (2004): Implementation and control of the Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions within the CwRS programme in Hungary. Ringkjøbing Amt Teknik og Miljø (2006): Vandrammedirektivets Basisanalyse del II for Oplandet til Ringkøbing Fjord, Nissum Fjord og Dybe Å i Vanddistrikt 65. Vurdering af vandforekomsters tilstand og en vurdering af risikoen for, at vandforekomsterne ikke kan opfylde regionplanmålene senest 22. december 2015. Römkens, P.F.A.M.; van der Plicht, J. and Hassink, J. (1999): Soil organic matter dynamics after the conversion of arable land to pasture. Biology and fertility of soils 28, 277-284. Rzeczpospolita Polska Ministerstwo Środowiska (2005): Raport dla Obszaru Dorzecza Wisły z realizacji art. 5 i 6, zał. II, III, IV Ramowej Dyrektywy Wodnej 2000/60/WE. Warszawa, marzec 2005r. Sauerbeck, D.R. (2001): CO2 emissions and C sequestration by agriculture- perspectives and limitations. Nutrient cycling in Agroecosystems 60, 253-266. Szabolcs, I. (1990): Effects of predicted climatic change on European soils, with particular regard to salinisation. In: Boer, M., De Groot, R.S. (eds): Landscape Ecological Impact of Climatic Change. Amsterdam, IOS. 177-193. Schnabel, S. (2003): Soil degradation and silvopastoral land use. SCAPE Workshop 14- 16 June 2003 Alicante (Spain). Schwartz, L. and Graciette, J.-C. (2005): Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions in France. 2nd Workshop on the implementation and control of GAECs. ISPRA 26- 27 October 2005. [http://agrifish.jrc.it/marspac/GAECS/Ispra_26oct05/Session_1/GAEC_L_ SCHWARTZ_FR.pdf] Scottish Executive (2005): Cross Compliance - Note for Guidance. Secretaria regional do ambiente e dos recursos naturais and direcção regional do ambiente (2006): Relatório síntese da caracteraçã da região hidrográfica - Archipélago da Madeira. Janueiro de 2006. Secretaria Regional Do Ambiente E Dos Recursos Naturals (2006): Relatório Síntese da Caracterizacao da Regiao Hidrográfica - Arquipélago dos Acores, Portugal.

Report, Page 522 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

Seerad (2004): Single Farm Payment Scheme, Information Leaflet 7: Cross Compliance. Website: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/10/20108/45384#6. Shepherd, M.A.; Harrison, R. and Webb, J. (2002): Managing soil organic matter – implications for soil structure on organic farms. Soil Use and Management 18, 284-292. Sileika, A. (eds.) 2001: Code for good agricultural practices for Lithuania. Rules and recomendations. Lithuanian Ministry of Agriculture, Lithuanian Ministry of Environment and Lithuanian Institute of Water Management. Six, J.; Conant, R.T.; Paul, E.A. and Paustian, K. (2002): Stabilization mechanisms of soil organic matter: Implications for saturation of soils. Plant and Soil 241: 155-176. Soenderjyllands Amt (2006): Basisanalyse for Vanddistrikt 50 del II vurdering af Vandforekomsters Tilstand - Teknisk Rapport. Marts 2006. Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute of Bratislava (2006): United Nation Convention to Combat Desertification - First National Report of the Slovak Republic. Bratislava, June 2006. (CRIC 5 report). [http://www.unccd.int] Sörensen, J.N. (1992): Effect of catch crops on the content of soil mineral nitrogen before and after winter leaching. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenernährung und Bodenkunde 155, 61-66. Sparks, D.L. (2003): Environmental Soil Chemistry. Academic Press. Storstrøms Amt (2006): Vanddistrikt 35 - Basisanalyse del 2 Vurdering af vandforekomsters tilstand Risikovurdering. SVJ (2006a): Overview of GAECs in Sweden (questionnaire prepared in July 2006). Jordbruksverket Sweden (SVJ) - Swedish Board of Agriculture. SVJ (2006b): Overview of SMRs in Sweden (report prepared in September 2006). Jordbruksverket Sweden (SVJ) - Swedish Board of Agriculture. Tebrugge, F. and During, R.A. (1999): Reducing tillage intensity - a review of results from a long-term study in Germany. Soil & Tillage Research 53: 15-28. Tosi, P. (2005): First year of GAEC check in Italy. 2nd Workshop on the implementation and control of GAECs. ISPRA 26-27 October 2005. Online: [http://agrifish.jrc.it/marspac/GAECS/Ispra_26oct05/Session_1/GAEC_P_TOSI_IT. pdf] UBA – Umweltbundesamt (2003): Internationale Harmonisierung der Quantifizierung von Nährstoffeinträgen aus diffusen und punktuellen Quellen in die Oberflächengewässer Deutschlands, uba texte 82/03. UMEG Zentrum für Umweltmessungen, Umwelterhebungen und Gerätesicherheit Baden- Württemberg (2003): Autobahntransekt. Intensiv-Messstelle Forst. Stoffgehalte. Onlinejournal U722. [http://www.umweltbeobachtung.org/journal/U722-MDBW1101-de.pdf] Umweltministerium Mecklenburg-Vorpommern & Landesamt für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Geologie Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (2004): Bericht über die Umsetzung der Artikel 5 und 6 der Richtlinie 2000/60/EG in der Flussgebietseinheit Warnow/Peene.

Report, Page 523 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

United Nations (1994): Elaboration of an international convention to combat desertification on countries experiencing serious drought and/or desertification, particularly in Africa. Final text of the convention. A/AC.241/27. 12 September 1994. Van-Camp. L.; Bujarrabal, B.; Gentile, A-R.; Jones, R.J.A.; Montanarella, L.; Olazabal, C. and Selvaradjou, S-K. (eds.) (2004): Reports of the Technical Working Groups Established under the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection. EUR 21319 EN/2, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Varela Ortega, C. and Simó, A. (2007): Deliverable 5: Mandatory standards in 7 EU countries and 3 non-EU countries. Country report Spain. Final version (not published). Project no. SSPE-CT-2005-006489: Cross-Compliance - Facilitating the CAP reform: Compliance and Competitiveness of European Agriculture. Departamento de Economía y Ciencias Sociales Agrarias Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain. Viorel Blujdea – National Focal Point, Forest Research and Management Institute Romania (2006): 3rd Romania’s National Report on the Implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. (CRIC 5 report). Bucharest 2006. [http://www.unccd.int] Vleeshouwers, L.M. and Verhagen, A. (2002): Carbon emission and sequestration by agricultural land use: a model study for Europe. Global Change Biology 8, 519-530. Welsh Assembly Government (2004): Fact Sheets on Statutory Management Requirements (SMRs). November 2004. [http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/countryside_policy/farming/ CAP/xcompliancefactsheets?lang=en] Ympäristöministeriö (2005): Suomen yhteenveto vesien ominaispiirteistä ja vesiin kohdistuvien vaikutusten alustavasta tarkastelusta - Vesipuitedirektiivin (2000/60/EY) 5 artiklan mukainen yhteenveto. 17.03.2005. Zbigniew, M. K. and Wasilewski, A. (2006): Cross-Compliance. Facilitating the CAP reform: Compliance and competitiveness of European agriculture. Mandatory standards in Poland. Project no. SSPE-CT-2005-006489.

Report, Page 524 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

List of Abbreviations

AMA Agrar Markt Austria ARDA Agricultural and Rural Development Agency, Hungary Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for Agricultural Markets and Rural ARSKTRP Development AT Austria BE Belgium CAP Common Agriculture Policy CC Cross Compliance Environmental Cross-compliance Indicators in the context of the Farm CIFAS Advisory System CY Cyprus CYPO Cyprus Agricultural Payments Organisation CZ Czech Republic DE Germany DG AGRI Directorate General Agriculture and Rural Development DG ENV Directorate General Environment DK Denmark EE Estonia EEA European Environmental Agency EC European Community ES Spain FI Finland Földmérési és Távérzékelési Intézet/ Institute of Geodesy, Cartography and FÖMI Remote Sensing, Hungary FR France GAEC Good agricultural and environmental condition GFP Good Farming Practice GR Greece HU Hungary IACS Integrated Administration and Control System IE Ireland IEEP Institute for European Environmental Policy IT Italy LT Lithuania LU Luxemburg

Report, Page 525 Evaluation of soil protection aspects in certain programmes of measures adopted by Member States Final Report

LV Latvia MARD Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Department MAVRD Ministry for Agriculture, Viticulture and Rural Development, Luxembourg MS Member State MT Malta N nitrogen NAP National Action Programmes NL Netherlands P phosphorus PL Poland PT Portugal RBD River basin district SAPS Single Area Payment Scheme SE Sweden SEERAD Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department SI Slovenia SK Slovak Republic SMR Statutory management requirements SOM Soil Organic Matter SPS Single Payment Scheme TWG Technical Working Group UK United Kingdom UN United Nations UNCCD UN Convention to Combat Desertification WFD Water Framework Directive

Report, Page 526

KH-31-11-218-EN-N