The Pathway Towards Sustainable Europe“

EU Land Policy “The Pathway Towards Sustainable Europe“

Anna Bandlerová – Pavol Bielek - Pavol Schwarcz - Lucia Palšová

NITRA 2016 Title: EU Land Policy “The Pathway Towards Sustainable Europe“

Authors: prof. JUDr. Anna Bandlerová, PhD. (2 AH), chapter 10

Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra

prof. RNDr. Pavol Bielek, DrSc. (12,72 AH), chapter 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9;

Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra

prof. Ing. Pavol Schwarcz, PhD. (1,35 AH), chapter 2;

Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra

JUDr. Lucia Palšová, PhD. (2,57 AH), chapter 3, 11;

Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra

Reviewers: prof. Ing. Dušan Húska, PhD.

prof. Dr. Edward Pierzgalski, PhD.

Approved by the Rector of the Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra on 25.4.2016 as a scientific monograph.

This scientific monograph was created with the support of the following international projects: Jean Monet Centre of Excelence, DECISION n. 2013-2883/001-001 Project No: 54260o-LLP-1-2013-1-SK-AJM-P, EU Land Policy “The Pathway Towards Sustainable Europe“

"This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein."

"With the support of the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Union"

ISBN 978-80-552-1499-3

Look deep in to nature and than you will understand everything better. Albert Einstein

CONTENTS

PREFACE ...... 7

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 7

2 EU AGRICULTURAL POLICY (CAP) ...... 8

2.1 Introduction to CAP ...... 8

2.2 Agri-environmental principles in CAP ...... 17

3 EU ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ...... 22

3.1 History of environmental policy in EU ...... 22

3.2 Environmental law ...... 27

3.3 EU Institutions acting in environmental protection ...... 32

3.4 Environmental law in Slovakia ...... 35

4 WHAT IS SOIL? ...... 46

4.1 Definitions of Soil ...... 46

4.2 Functions of Soil ...... 48

4.3 Concept of Ecosystem Services ...... 52

4.4 Soil Classification ...... 53

4.5 Soil Mapping ...... 56

4.6 Soil Information Systems in Slovakia ...... 58

5 SOIL TYPES ...... 61

6 SOIL EVALUATION ...... 74

6.1 Theoretical Principles of Evaluation of Soil Quality and Production Capability ...... 74

6.2 Evaluation of Soil Production Potential ...... 76

6.3 Typological Production Categories of Agricultural Soils in Slovakia ...... 83

6.4 Evaluation of Soil Bioenergetic Potential ...... 86

6.5 Soil Productivity Indexes ...... 87

6.6 Indexes of Non-Commodity Soil Functions ...... 88

6.7 Indicators of State and Development of Soils in Slovakia ...... 88

7 SOILS IN SLOVAKIA AND IN THE EU IN NUMBERS ...... 96

8 THREATS TO SOIL ...... 105

8.1 Loss by Soil Sealing ...... 105

8.2 Physical Soil Degradation ...... 114

8.2.1 Soil Erosion ...... 114

8.2.2 Pedocompaction ...... 121

8.2.3 Soil Degradation by Linear Underground Structures ...... 125

8.3 Chemical Soil Degradation ...... 125

8.3.1 Soil Acidification and Alkalinisation ...... 125

8.3.2 Soil Salinization ...... 127

8.3.3 Pollution of Soil ...... 128

8.3.4 Pollution by Soil ...... 135

8.4 Biological soil degradation ...... 138

8.4.1 Decrease in Amount and Activities of Soil Organisms ...... 138

8.4.2 Increased Mineralization of Soil Organic Matter ...... 139

8.5 Agricultural Soil Degradation ...... 144

8.5.1 Soil Sealing due to Agricultural Construction Activities ...... 144

8.5.2 Intentional Soil Water Regime Changes ...... 144

8.5.3 Destruction of Physical Soil Structure ...... 146

8.5.4 Soil Degradation due to Agricultural Production Techniques ...... 146

8.5.5 Use of agrocehmiclas in Agricuture ...... 146

8.5.6 Allelopathy in Soil ...... 150

8.5.7 Soil Fatigue ...... 151

8.6 Overall Evaluation of Soil Degradation in Slovakia ...... 151

8.7 System Measures against Soil Degradation ...... 154

9 SOIL AND GLOBAL WORLD PROBLEMS ...... 157

9.1 Soil Sealing and Other Types of Soil Loss ...... 157

9.2 Global Problems of Soil Degradation ...... 158

9.3 Food Security ...... 159

9.4 Disruption of Nitrogen Cycle ...... 160

9.4.1 Impact on Air Quality ...... 160

9.4.2 Impact on Water Resources Quality ...... 161

9.4.3 Impact on Plant Production Quality ...... 162

9.4.4 Impact on Human Health ...... 163

9.5 Disruption of Carbon Cycle ...... 163

9.6 Climate Change ...... 168

9.7 Ozone Layer Depletion ...... 171

9.8 Desertification and Drought ...... 172

9.9 Soil Fighting against Water and for Water ...... 176

10 THE OWNERSHIP AND THE RIGHT OF USE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN SLOVAKIA ...... 179

10.1 Sources of the land law in Slovakia ...... 181

10.2 Ownership relations to agricultural land ...... 183

10.3 The price of the agricultural land ...... 195

10.4 The importance of land policy ...... 197

11 LAND PROTECTION IN THE EU AND SLOVAK REPUBLIC ...... 199

11.1 Land protection in the EU ...... 199

11.2 Land protection in Slovak republic ...... 201

12 REFERENCES ...... 205

Preface ,,I think we've all heard that many times, but it is necessary to repeat it: the greatest natural wealth of every country is not oil or gold, but water and soil." VÁCLAV CÍLEK

1 INTRODUCTION

Land policy lies at the heart of economic and social life and environmental issues in all countries. The distribution of property rights between people has a tremendous impact on both equity and productivity. Inequitable land distribution, land tenure problems and weak land administration can lead to severe injustice and conflict. Changes of legislation and administrative structures are likely to have long-term consequences, positive or negative, for political, economic and social development and environmental management. Land policy has strong links with agricultural, economic and environmental policy. Securing access to land is a necessary condition for encouraging investment and improvement in land. However land issues are rarely the only limiting factor in raising productivity. Land policy is also crucial for environmental sustainability as it can create incentives for sustainable land use and management. Land provides for a range of environmental services which a sound land policy can contribute to enhancing: water retention, pollution mitigation and soil protection. Therefore, land policy has a role in preventing environmental degradation. Clear protected rights, effective rules defining access and regulating use of land, water and other natural resources are essential means of ensuring long-term management of land and resources.1 The aim of the collective of authors was to offer not only a one-time comprehensive material, but mainly to enhance the trust and confidence in the EU land policy, to provide the PhD. students, post-doctoral students and young researchers under 35 who do not automatically come into contact with European integration studies the possibility to use the material later as well to be able to focus on and to solve some of the basic issues within the field of the EU land policy. The book has been created with the EU financial support in the frame of the Jean Monnet project Centre of Excellence “EU land policy - the pathway towards suistainable Europe”no. 542600-LLP-1-2013-1SK-AJM-PO,DECISION n.2013-2883/001-001.

Nitra 2015 Authors

1 COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT EU Guidelines to support land policy design and reform processes in developing countries, SEC(2004)1289

2 EU AGRICULTURAL POLICY (CAP)

2.1 Introduction to CAP The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is one of the oldest policies of EU. Today it belongs to one of the most integrated policies with large financial transfers between Member States. Creation of the policy was accompanied by many problems. While in 1997 expenditures of European agriculture represented app. 75% of the budget of the EEC, currently expenditures of the Common Agricultural Policy represent 44.5% of the EU budget.

Objectives of the CAP The objectives of the Common agricultural policy (according to the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union shall be: (a) to increase agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress and by ensuring the rational development of agricultural production and the optimum utilisation of the factors of production,in particular labour; (b) thus to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, in particular by increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture; (c) to stabilise markets; (d) to assure the availability of supplies; (e) to ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices.

Pillars of the CAP 1. The 'first pillar' is support to farmers' incomes. This support is provided in the form of direct payments and market measures and is entirely financed from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund. 2. The 'second pillar' is the support provided for the development of rural areas. This support takes the form of rural development programmes and is co-financed from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development.

Policy Instruments 1. Policy instruments that have been dropped or are effectively defunct (green currencies/switchover mechanism; monetary compensation amount; objective method; target price; threshold price; variable import levy; guarantee thresholds; budgetary stabilisers; butter disposal aids). 2. Policy instruments that are still in place, but are likely to diminish in importance over time or in some cases disappeared (intervention purchasing (including distillation); export subsidies; quotas; co-responsibility payments; set aside; tariffs). 3. Relatively new policy instruments (decoupling; single payment scheme; single area payment scheme; modulation; cross-compliance; financial discipline mechanism; IACS). New policy instruments (greening, young farmers support scheme, single payment scheme, redistributive payment, payment for areas with natural or other specific constraints).

HISTORY OF CAP 1958 The Conference held in Stresa (Italy) brought together a committee of experts consisting of Members of the Commission, the six Ministers of Agriculture, representatives from farmers’ unions and national experts. After the conference, the Commissioner for Agriculture, Sicco Mansholt, was asked to draw up detailed proposals. Commission presented proposals in June 1960 aimed to: establish unity of the market based on the free movement of agricultural products, abolish barriers to trade, organise markets by product with prices being progressively unified and guaranteed, ensure Community preference, enable common intervention, set up a European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and establish financial solidarity.

1962 Council decisions taken in January 1962 brought:  the organisation of six common agricultural markets (cereals, pigmeat, eggs, poultrymeat, fruit and vegetables and wine),  the introduction of rules on competition,  the establishment of a schedule for dairy products, beef and veal, sugar and other measures to assist intra-Community trade,  the establishment of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) to finance the operations of the CAP (a Guarantee Section for prices and a Guidance Section for structural measures).

1968-1972 - The Mansholt Plan In the late 1960s, when the common organisations of markets (COMs) were gradually being put in place, the Commission was determined to limit the CAP expenditure. Prepared by the Commissioner Sicco Mansholt, the aim of the first reform plan was to encourage nearly five million farmers to give up farming: that would make it possible to redistribute their land and increase the size of the remaining family farms, in order to make them viable and guarantee for their owners an average annual income comparable to that of all the other workers in the region. The plan was rejected by the agricultural community, and only three directives on agricultural reform were approved in 1972 (modernization of agricultural holdings, abandonment of farming and training of farmers).

1984 In 1984 and following the Commission proposals of July 1983, the production quota system, already applied to sugar, was extended to milk, in order to limit the surplus of production in the Community.

1992 The MacSharry reform started the shift from product support (through prices) to producer support (through income support).

The reform aimed to improve the competitiveness of EU agriculture, stabilise the agricultural markets, diversify the production and protect the environment, as well as stabilise the EU budget expenditure. Direct payments were introduced in order to compensate for the decrease of the price support (cereal guaranteed prices were lowered by 35%, and beef prices by 15%). Compulsory set-aside and other accompanying measures (agri-environment programmes, afforestation, early retirement, diversification) were also introduced.

1999 The Agenda 2000 objectives included:  more market orientation and increased competitiveness,  food safety and quality,  stabilization of agricultural incomes,  integration of environmental concerns into agricultural policy,  developing the vitality of rural areas,  simplification and  strengthened decentralization. A new rural development policy was introduced as a second pillar of the CAP. This new policy encouraged many rural initiatives while also helped farmers to diversify, to improve their product marketing and to otherwise restructure their businesses.

2003 – Fischler reform In June 2003, the ministers of agriculture of the EU Member states agreed on the compromise related to the radical medium-term reform of the EU Common Agricultural Policy. The reform was defined by key elements concerning certain fields as follows:  introducing the system of the Single Farm Payment Scheme to make farmers’ independent on the production while the payment will relate to the legislation regarding environment, food safety, crop and animal health and animal welfare. The payment was conditioned by the maintained good status of agricultural land from the agricultural and environmental point of view (“cross-compliance”),  strengthening the Rural Development Policy by a larger volume of financial sources from the EU, by new measures supporting environment, by animal quality and welfare,  by decreasing direct payments (“modulation”) for larger farms, through which the new Rural Development Policy was financed.  introduction of Mechanism for financial discipline which guarantees that the agricultural budget designed is not exceeded,  assymmetrical decrease of prices in the branch of milk production,  reduction of the monthly additional charge in the branch of cereals production while maintaining the contemporary intervention price level,  reforms in the branches of production of rice, triticum durum (wheat), nuts, potato starch and desiccated feed. 10

2008 – Health Check of Fishler reform Health check is the mid-term reform of Fischler reform from 2003. The main innovations of Health check are as follows: Phasing out milk quotas: As milk quotas will expire by April 2015 a 'soft landing' is ensured by increasing quotas by one percent every year between 2009/10 and 2013/14. For Italy, the 5 percent increase will be introduced immediately in 2009/10. In 2009/10 and 2010/11, farmers who exceed their milk quotas by more than 6 percent will have to pay a levy 50 percent higher than the normal penalty. Decoupling of support: The CAP reform "decoupled" direct aid to farmers i.e. payments were no longer linked to the production of a specific product. However, some Member States chose to maintain some "coupled" – i.e. production-linked - payments. These remaining coupled payments will now be decoupled and moved into the Single Payment Scheme (SPS), with the exception of suckler cow, goat and sheep premia, where Member States may maintain current levels of coupled support. Assistance to sectors with special problems (so-called 'Article 68' measures): Currently, Member States may retain by sector 10 percent of their national budget ceilings for direct payments for use for environmental measures or improving the quality and marketing of products in that sector. This possibility will become more flexible. The money will no longer have to be used in the same sector; it may be used to help farmers producing milk, beef, goat and sheep meat and rice in disadvantaged regions or vulnerable types of farming; it may also be used to support risk management measures such as insurance schemes for natural disasters and mutual funds for animal diseases; and countries operating the Single Area Payment Scheme (SAPS) system will become eligible for the scheme. Extending SAPS: EU members applying the simplified Single Area Payment Scheme will be allowed to continue to do so until 2013 instead of being forced into the Single Payment Scheme by 2010. Additional funding for EU-12 farmers: €90 million will be allocated to the EU-12 to make it easier for them to make use of Article 68 until direct payments to their farmers have been fully phased in. Using currently unspent money: Member States applying the Single Payment Scheme will be allowed either to use currently unused money from their national envelope for Article 68 measures or to transfer it into the Rural Development Fund. Shifting money from direct aid to Rural Development: Currently, all farmers receiving more than €5,000 in direct aid have their payments reduced by 5 percent and the money is transferred into the Rural Development budget. This rate will be increased to 10 percent by 2012. An additional cut of 4 percent will be made on payments above €300,000 a year. The funding obtained this way may be used by Member States to reinforce programmes in the fields of climate change, renewable energy, water management, biodiversity, innovation linked to the previous four points and for accompanying measures in the dairy sector. This

transferred money will be co-financed by the EU at a rate of 75 percent and 90 percent in convergence regions where average GDP is lower. Investment aid for young farmers: Investment aid for young farmers under Rural Development will be increased from €55,000 to €70,000. Abolition of set-aside: The requirement for arable farmers to leave 10 percent of their land fallow is abolished. This will allow them to maximise their production potential. Cross Compliance: Aid to farmers is linked to the respect of environmental, animal welfare and food quality standards. Farmers who do not respect the rules face cuts in their support. This so-called Cross Compliance will be simplified, by withdrawing standards that are not relevant or linked to farmer responsibility. New requirements will be added to retain the environmental benefits of set-aside and improve water management. Intervention mechanisms: Market supply measures should not slow farmers' ability to respond to market signals. Intervention will be abolished for pig meat and set at zero for barley and sorghum. For wheat, intervention purchases will be possible during the intervention period at the price of €101.31/tonne up to 3 million tonnes. Beyond that, it will be done by tender. For butter and skimmed milk powder, limits will be 30,000 tonnes and 109,000 tonnes respectively, beyond which intervention will be by tender. Other measures: A series of small support schemes will be decoupled and shifted to the SPS from 2012. The energy crop premium will be abolished.

2015-2020 After a wide-ranging public debate the Commission presented on 18 November 2010 a Communication on 'The CAP towards 2020'0, which outlined options for the future CAP and launched the debate with the other institutions and with stakeholders. On 12 October 2011 the Commission presented a set of legal proposals designed to make the CAP a more effective policy for a more competitive and sustainable agriculture and vibrant rural areas. After almost two years of negotiations between the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council, a political agreement on the reform of the CAP has been reached on 26 June 2013.After the approval by the European Parliament and the formal adoption by the Council the four Basic Regulations and the Transition Rules for 2014 were published in the Official Journal on 20 December 2013. These four legislative texts reflect the political agreement between the European Commission, EU Member States Agriculture Ministers (in the Council) and the European Parliament Main elements of the reform are as follows: Basic Payment Scheme The Basic Payment Scheme is operated on the basis of payment entitlements allocated to farmers in the first year of application of the scheme and activated each year by farmers. Greening 30% of direct payments subject to the observation of farming practices that are beneficial for the environment and the climate, particularly crop diversification, maintenance of permanent grassland and the establishment of 'Ecological Focus Area' on each farm. 12

Redistributive payment The option for MS to redistribute direct income support between farmers by using up to 30% of their national direct payments envelope for granting small farmers an extra payment for the first hectares on which they activate payment entitlements Cross-compliance It consist of certain rules with should be met in order to receive direct payments and some other forms of support. These rules concern food safety, animal health, plant health, the climate, the environment, the protection of water resources, animal welfare and the condition in which farmland is maintained. There are two components of these rules: statutory management requirements and good agricultural and environmental conditions. Payment for areas with natural or other specific constraints In order to avoid the abandonment of land in areas with natural constraints or other specific constraints, member states (or regions) may grant an additional amount of direct payment for farmers in these areas. Payment for young farmers The reform of the Common Agricultural Policy for the period after 2013 foresees that young farmers (farmers starting-up their farming activity and not older than 40 in the year of application) eligible for the basic payment may receive a payment under the young farmers scheme for a maximum period of five years. The payment is 25% of the basic payment. Member states can choose to allocate up to 2% of their direct payment envelope to these payments. Degressivity In the context of the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy for the period after 2013, the direct support (basic payment scheme and single area payment scheme) that any farmer is entitled to receive shall be reduced by at least 5% of the amount of the payment above EUR 150 000. IACS Obligatory system used by member states to control the direct payments to which farmers are entitled. Specifically, IACS ensures that the payments are made correctly, that if irregularities are found to have occurred then they are followed up. In physical terms, IACS consists of a number of computerized and interconnected databases which are used to receive and process aid applications and respective data. Thus it provides for:  a unique identification system for farmers;  an identification system covering all agricultural areas called Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS);  an identification system for payment entitlements;  a system for identification and registration of animals (in Member States where animal-based measures apply). The system ensures a unique identification of each farmer as well as of all agricultural parcels of land and, if needed, of animals. The system covers also the processing of the aid applications. 13

Figure 2.1 Type of direct payments in 2015-2020

CAP Funding Funding of 2 pillars of CAP is realized from 2 funds: 1. European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) This fund was created in September 2005 and came into operation at the beginning of 2007. It replaced the guarantee section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund. It provides funding for direct payment to farmers, for the management of the agricultural markets and for a number of other purposes such as veterinary and plant health measures, food programmes and information activities 2. European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) This fund was created in September 2005 and came into operation at the beginning of 2007. It replaced the Guidance Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund and that part of the guarantee section from which some of the Rural Development measures had been funded. It is the single source of funding from the European Union for Rural Development. Expenditures of CAP were inreasing in past 20 years period of time. It was caused mainly by joining of new member states into EU. As for the percentage of support from overall budget of EU, expenditures of CAP decreased from75% in 80´s years to 44,5% in present time.

Figure 2.2 Evolution of EU budget for CAP Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development

There exist differences in the amount of direct payments between member states particularly old and new member states of the EU. New proposed reform aims at decreasing of these disparities.

Figure 2.3 Distribution of direct payments between member states for 2014-2020 Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development

Basic legislation related to CAP Direct payments for farmers: Regulation 1307/2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 This Regulation establishes:  common rules on payments granted directly to farmers  specific rules concerning: o a basic payment for farmers (the basic payment scheme and a transitional simplified scheme, the single area payment scheme) o a voluntary transitional national aid for farmers o a voluntary redistributive payment o a payment for farmers observing agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment o a voluntary payment for farmers in areas with natural constraints o a payment for young farmers commencing their agricultural activity o a voluntary coupled support scheme o a crop-specific payment for cotton o a voluntary simplified scheme for small farmers Rural Development: Regulation 1305/2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 This Regulation lays down general rules governing Union support for rural development, financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and established by Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013. It sets out the objectives to which rural development policy is to contribute and the relevant Union priorities for rural development. It outlines the strategic context for rural development policy and defines the measures to be adopted in order to implement rural development policy. In addition, it lays down rules on programming, networking, management, monitoring and evaluation on the basis of responsibilities shared between the Member States and the Commission and rules to ensure coordination of the EAFRD with other Union instruments. Market measures: Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 This Regulation establishes a common organisation of the markets for agricultural products, which means all the products listed in Annex I to the Treaties with the exception of the fishery and aquaculture products as defined in Union legislative acts on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products.

"Horizontal" issues such as funding and controls: Regulation 1306/2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 This Regulation lays down the rules on:  the financing of expenditure under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), including expenditure on rural development  the farm advisory system  the management and control systems to be put in place by the Member States  the cross-compliance system  clearance of accounts Regulation 1310/2013 laying down certain transitional provisions on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), amending Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards resources and their distribution in respect of the year 2014 and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 and Regulations (EU) No 1307/2013, (EU) No 1306/2013 and (EU) No 1308/2013of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards their application in the year 2014.

2.2 Agri-environmental principles in CAP The integration of environmental concerns into the Common Agricultural Policy is based on a distinction between a) ensuring a sustainable way of farming by avoiding environmentally harmful agricultural activity and b) providing incentives for environmentally beneficial public goods and services. For ensuring sustainable agricultural activities, farmers are obliged to respect common rules and standards for preserving the environment and the landscape. The common rules and standards are mandatory and form the very basis for ensuring that agricultural activity is undertaken in a sustainable way. Since 1992, the CAP has progressively been adapted to better serving the aims of sustainability, including environmental protection. This development became manifest in a reform process designed to moving from price and production support to a policy of direct income aid and rural development measures. Today making the CAP compatible with market requirements goes hand in hand with environmental integration with the latter being reflected via four types of measures:  Measures targeted towards objectives such as market stability or income support having positive secondary effects on the environment or contributing to maintaining environmentally beneficial structures or types of farming (e.g. LFA payments).  Measures targeted towards objectives such as income support, designed to contribute to the enforcement of mandatory environmental requirements and the polluter pays principle (e.g., decoupled payments in combination with cross-compliance).  Measures targeted towards encouraging the provision of environmental services on a voluntary basis (agri-environment measures).

 Measures targeted towards facilitating compliance with compulsory environmental requirements (e.g., "meeting standards" measure) or compensate the relative economic disadvantage resulting from a region-specific pattern of environmental requirements (e.g. Natura 2000 and Water Framework Directive).

Cross-compliance Cross-compliance is a mechanism that links direct payments to compliance by farmers with basic standards concerning the environment, food safety, animal and plant health and animal welfare, as well as the requirement of maintaining land in good agricultural and environmental condition. Since 2005, all farmers receiving direct payments are subject to compulsory cross-compliance. Cross-compliance includes two elements:  Statutory Management Requirements: These requirements refer to 18 legislative standards in the field of the environment, food safety, animal and plant health and animal welfare.  Good agricultural and environmental condition: The obligation of keeping land in good agricultural and environmental condition refers to a range of standards related to soil protection, maintenance of soil organic matter and structure, avoiding the deterioration of habitats, and water management. In order to define rules and conditions for providing (or withdrawing in the case of violation) direct payments for farmers, the European Parliament and Council approved legal documents on the financing, management and monitoring of the Common Agricultural Policy and supplementing regulations on direct payments, rural development support and cross – compliance: 1. Regulation (EU) No. 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008; 2. Commission delegated Regulation (EU) No. 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system and conditions for refusal or withdrawal of payments and administrative penalties applicable to direct payments, rural development support and cross compliance; 3. Commission implementing Regulation (EU) No. 809/2014 of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system, rural development measures and cross compliance.

Objectives of the cross – compliance are:  to contribute to the development of a sustainable agriculture through improved awareness of beneficiaries on a necessity to respect these basic rules;  to contribute to a better harmonisation of the CAP with expectations of the society through improvement of this policy compliance with policies in the field of environment, public health, animal health, plant health and animal welfare. As stated in the Regulation No. 1306/2013 (latest consolidated version No. 02013R1306- 20140101), the “cross-compliance system forms an integral part of the CAP and should therefore be maintained”. It “incorporates in the CAP basic standards concerning the environment, climate change, good agricultural and environmental condition of land, public health, animal health, plant health and animal welfare.” In Annex II of the Regulation the list of cross – compliance rules is provided with division on statutory management requirements (SMR) and Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC): Area Main Issue Requirements and Standards Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution SMR 1 caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (latest consolidated version: 01991L0676-20081211) Establishment of buffer strips along GAEC 1 water courses Where use of water for irrigation is GAEC 2 subject to authorisation, compliance with authorisation procedures Water Protection of ground water against pollution: prohibition of direct discharge Environment, into groundwater and measures to climate change, prevent indirect pollution of good agricultural groundwater through discharge on the condition of land GAEC 3 ground and percolation through the soil of dangerous substances, as listed in the Annex to Directive 80/68/EEC in its version in force on the last day of its validity, as far as it relates to agricultural activity GAEC 4 Minimum soil cover Minimum land management reflecting GAEC 5 site specific conditions to limit erosion Soil and carbon Maintenance of soil organic matter level stock through appropriate practices including GAEC 6 ban on burning arable stubble, except for plant health reasons

Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 SMR 2 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (latest consolidated version: 02009L0147-20130701) Biodiversity Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural SMR 3 habitats and of wild flora and fauna (latest consolidated version: 01992L0043-20130701) Retention of landscape features, including where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or Landscape, isolated, field margins and terraces, and minimum level of GAEC 7 including a ban on cutting hedges and maintenance trees during the bird breeding and rearing season and, as an option, measures for avoiding invasive plant species Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of SMR 4 food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (latest consolidated version: 02002R0178-20140630) Food safety Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain Public health, substances having a hormonal or animal health and SMR 5 thyrostatic action and beta-agonists, and plant health repealing Directives 81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 88/299/EEC (latest consolidated version: 01996L0022- 20081218) Council Directive 2008/71/EC of 15 July 2008 on identification and SMR 6 registration of pigs (latest consolidated Identification and version: 02008L0071-20080808) registration of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the animals European Parliament and of the Council SMR 7 of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the

labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 (latest consolidated version: 02000R1760-20141213) Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 of 17 December 2003 establishing a system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals and amending SMR 8 Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and Directives 92/102/EEC and 64/432/EEC (latest consolidated version: 02004R0021-20130701) Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for Animal diseases SMR 9 the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (latest consolidated version: 02001R0999-20150805) Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the Plant protection placing of plant protection products on SMR 10 products the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (Latest consolidated version: 02009R1107-20140630) Council Directive 2008/119/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum SMR 11 standards for the protection of calves (latest consolidated version: 02008L0119-20090115) Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum Animal welfare Animal welfare SMR 12 standards for the protection of pigs (Latest consolidated version: 02008L0120-20090310) Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of SMR 13 animals kept for farming purposes (latest consolidated version: 01998L0058- 20030605)

3 EU ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

3.1 History of environmental policy in EU Environmental policy is a synergic system of tools and factors that refers to the everyday human activities. Environmental policy comprises two major terms: environment and policy. Environment can be define in accordance with the legal definition as all that create the natural conditions of existence organisms, including humans, and is a prerequisite for their further development; in particular: air, water, soil, rocks, organisms (§2 Act No. 17/1992 Coll. on environment as amended; Figure 3.1). Nowadays, it is necessary to interpret the environment by extensive way of the human being, because the environment refers not only to the physical ecosystems, but can also take into consideration the social dimension (quality of life, health, hygiene) and an economic dimension (resource management, biodiversity)2. Policy can be defined as a "course of action or principle adopted or proposed by a government, party, business or individual"3.

Figure 3.1 Components of the Environment Source: Hupková4

Discussion concerning the environmental problems began to resonate around the world since the mid-20th century, but because many environmental problems are transnational by nature, they cannot be addressed effectively by individual countries acting alone. Recognition of this reality responses to a major environmental problems5.

2 BÜHRS, T., BARTLETT, R. V. 1991. Environmental Policy in New Zealand. The Politics of Clean and Green. Oxford University Press and KOŠIČIAROVÁ, S. 2006. Právo životného prostredia. 1. Vydanie. Bratislava: Poradca podnikateľa, 2006. ISBN 8088931576 3 Available online at www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/concise 4 HUPKOVÁ, M. 2015. Organisation as a subject of environmental law. Diploma thesis. Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra. 5 McCORMICK, John (2001). Environmental Policy in the European Union. The European Series. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0333772040, 9780333772041 p. 21.

The most important world conferences related to the environment were organized by the United Nations: - Stockholm, 1972: “UN Conference on the Human Environment”; the conference is considered as the beginning of modern political and public awareness of global environmental problems.  The result of the conference was Declaration of the UN Conference on the Human Environment and its Action Plan, which defined 26 principles for the preservation and enhancement of the natural environment, and highlighted the need to support people in this process.  United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) was established The 1970s marked the beginning of modern environmental policy by making and international environmental law as an area of public international law. - Rio de Janeiro, 1992: “UN Conference on environment and development” (Earth Summit); The conference resulted in the following documents:  Rio Declaration on Environment and Development – the declaration consisted of 27 principles intended to guide future sustainable development around the world and should be integrated to all politics of states)  Agenda 21 - is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the UN with regard to sustainable development (main topic: poverty eradication, excessive consumption, health, education, cities and countryside, etc.)  Forest Principles - one of the principles is that natural forests are the source of goods and services, and their conservation, sustainable management and use should be encouraged  Important agreements based on the conference results: o United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change o The Convention on Biological Diversity o The Convention to Combat Desertification - Johannesburg, 2002: “World Summit on Sustainable Development” The conference resulted in the following documents:  Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development - it is an agreement and commitment to sustainable development and multilateralism; it focuses particularly on "the worldwide conditions that pose severe threats to the sustainable development of our people”  Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development – implementation plan and results of the conference were vague and for setting weaker goals than those agreed upon in previous summits - Rio de Janeiro, 2012: “United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development” The conference resulted in the following document:

- The Future We Want – the agreement renewed political commitment of states to sustainable development and declared commitment of states to the promotion of a sustainable future. Development of the EU environmental policy was linked to global environmental policy. European states, responded to the Stockholm Conference, convened a meeting of representatives of the European Council in Paris, 1972. During the European council the member states stated that „Economic growth is not an objective in itself, but must particularly help to overcome and remove barriers and differences in the living conditions of the citizens of the Member States of European communities“. Based on the commitments of European Council, the first European Action Programme in 1973 was established.

1. European Action Programme (1973-1976, OJ C112/1 from 20.12.1973) - It was founded on the principles: prevention, the principle of "polluter pays" principle of immediacy - Emphasis of the Programme was mainly on:  prevention of environmental pollution, respectively reduction of existing pollution;  improving the quality of the environment;  intensification of activities in international organizations and related involvement in international cooperation on environmental protection;

2. European Action Programme (1977-1981, OJ C 139/1 from 13.6.1977) - continued the trend of first EAP - standards of product quality and the environment were proposed In terms of a practical approach, the First and the Second EAP (1973-1981) advocated quality values for water and air. The quality objectives for drinking water were very strict – those for air could be achieved without strong policy intervention. The Third EAP (1982 - 1986) and partially the Fourth EAP (1987 - 1992) reflect a considerable change in policy approach, being much more closely related to the completion of the Internal Market than their predecessors.

3. European Action Programme (1982-1986, OJ C 46/1 from 17.2.1983) - objective of the programme was to stabilize the environmental policies of EU Member States in line with developments in most Member States; - for the first time appears the goal of economical use of natural resources; - Requirement = the integration of environmental concerns into transport, agriculture and regional policy (principle of integration).

4. European Action Programme (1987-1992, OJ C328/1 from 7.12. 1987) The year 1987 is often seen as a turning point in European Communities environmental policy, since environmental protection received its own chapter in the EC Treaty. Yet in terms of approach and practice, one finds much more continuity than change, with the Treaty

codifying many principles, which can already be found in earlier policy documents (Hey, 2005). - Main objectives of the EAP are the conservation, protection and improvement of the environment, contributing to protecting the environment and ensuring the economical and rational management of natural resources with the respect of the principle of sustainable development.

5. European Action Programme (1993-2000, C 138 from 17.05.1993) - protecting the environment connected with the broader concept of sustainable development should be introduced in all economic and political areas; - the programme also attempts to integrate environmental policy into sectors: agriculture, energy, industry, tourism and transport, and propose the structural changes in favour of public transport, energy efficiency and waste prevention; - EAP also set medium and long term targets for reducing pollutants. The ambitious objectives of 5 EAP failed mainly because member states were not effective and often used veto for EU proposals, because the EU has not been prepared for effective political integration and also because of industry, which made a strong pressure against progressive measures for the introduction of producer responsibility to strict standards and requirements. Lisbon strategy 2000 (March 2000) The European Union has set itself a new strategic goal for the next decade: “to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion”. Achieving this goal requires an overall strategy aimed at:  preparing the transition to a knowledge-based economy and society by better policies for the information society and R&D, as well as by stepping up the process of structural reform for competitiveness and innovation and by completing the internal market;  modernising the European social model, investing in people and combating social exclusion;  sustaining the healthy economic outlook and favourable growth prospects by applying an appropriate macro-economic policy mix.

6. European Action Programme, "Environment 2010: Our future, Our choice" (2001- 2012, COM (2001) 31 final) - protection of the environment is very complex and determines the strategic direction of EU environmental policy by 2010; - the 6. EAP defines the priority areas of environmental policy and objectives and to detail the measures to achieve them:  Efforts to reduce climate change;  Protection of nature and biodiversity-protecting a unique resource;  Environment and health and quality of life 25

 Sustainable use of natural resources and sustainable waste management. - Environmental policy must seek new approaches to reach the broadest segment of society (public information policy). The aim is also to improve the implementation of environmental policy. Strategy Europe 2020 Smart, sustainable and inclusive Europe (COM/2010/2020 final) - represents major initiative "Resource efficient Europe”. The Europe 2020 strategy is about delivering growth that is: smart, through more effective investments in education, research and innovation; sustainable, thanks to a decisive move towards a low-carbon economy; and inclusive, with a strong emphasis on job creation and poverty reduction. The strategy is focused on five ambitious goals in the areas of employment, innovation, education, poverty reduction and climate/energy. To ensure that the Europe 2020 strategy delivers, a strong and effective system of economic governance has been set up to coordinate policy actions between the EU and national levels. The strategy includes major initiatives such as:  Innovation EU;  Youth on the Move;  A digital agenda for Europe;  Resource efficient Europe;  Industrial policy for the globalization era;  An Agenda for new skills and jobs;  The European Platform against Poverty.

7. European Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’ (Decision No 1386/2013/EU) The vision of the EU to the year 2050: "In 2050, we live well, within the planet’s ecological limits. Our prosperity and healthy environment stem from an innovative, circular economy where nothing is wasted and where natural resources are managed sustainably, and biodiversity is protected, valued and restored in ways that enhance our society’s resilience. Our low-carbon growth has long been decoupled from resource use, setting the pace for a safe and sustainable global society." The European Action Programme identifies three key objectives:  to protect, conserve and enhance the Union’s natural capital;  to turn the Union into a resource-efficient, green, and competitive low-carbon economy;  to safeguard the Union's citizens from environment-related pressures and risks to health and wellbeing. Four so called "enablers" will help European Union deliver on these goals:  better implementation of legislation;  better information by improving the knowledge base;  more and wiser investment for environment and climate policy;  full integration of environmental requirements and considerations into other policies. 26

Two additional horizontal priority objectives complete the programme:  to make the Union's cities more sustainable;  to help the Union address international environmental and climate challenges more effectively. Environmental policy of the EU is also influenced by results of the Ministerial conferences “Environment for Europe” organized by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). UNECE's major aim is to promote pan-European economic integration, including environmental policy6.

3.2 Environmental law Environmental law is a summary of legal rules, which regulate behaviour of legal entities and individuals in relation to the environment. Depending on the definition of the environment, it can define a set of legal relationships relating to environmental law7. Legal definition of the environment is stipulated only in some legal orders in the EU (e.g. Slovak republic); the European Unions does not specify the term “environment”. The object of the legal regulation is the behaviour of people in relation to the environment; it means regulation of their impacts on environmental conditions. The aim of the legal regulation is achieving of the favourable status of environment8. Legal relations to the environment are reglemented in European and at national level. At the European level, environmental issue is regulated:

Primary law The European Union has its own legal order, which is separate from international law and forms an integral part of the legal systems of the Member States. The legal order of the Union is based on its own sources of law. Primary legislation is at the top of the hierarchy and is represented by the Treaties and general legal principles. This is followed by international agreements concluded by the Union and secondary legislation, which is based on the Treaties9.

Sources of Union law: - primary law:  Treaty on European Union (TEU);  Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU);  Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom);  Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; - international agreements;

6 More information available online at http://www.unece.org/env/welcome.html 7 DAMOHORSKÝ, M. 2010. Právo životního prostředí. 3. Edition. Praha: C.H. Beck. ISBN 978-80-7400-338-7 8 KOŠIČIAROVÁ, S. et al. 2009. Právo životného prostredia. 2. Revised and changed edition. EUROKÓDEX: Vydavatelství a nakladatelství Aleš Čeněk, s.r.o. ISBN 978-80-7380-143-4 9 Available online at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12012M%2FTXT 27

- general principles of Union law; - secondary legislation: constitutes acts of the institutions and bodies of the EU and should always be in conformity with primary law. Secondary acts can be, in terms of legislation, divided into typical (regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions) and atypical acts (resolutions, programs, etc.). In the past 30 years, the EU has adopted a substantial and diverse range of environmental measures aimed at improving the quality of the environment for European citizens and providing them with a high quality of life. Our environment can only be well protected if Member States properly implement the legislation they have signed up to. Whatever the means used, the overall objective of the Commission is to ensure that EU environmental legislation is implemented in full, correctly and on time. This is important because legislation which is not or incorrectly implemented will not achieve the desired effect on the environment10. The quality of the environment is highlighted in several provisions of primary and secondary Union law. In connection with the environment is sometimes used the term “environmental union law”. It is important to understand that the term "environmental union law" indicates much more than just legal provisions. Countries accepting the Union law must also understand and identify with the spirit of a deeper cultural context of this legislation. Environmental protection is declared in the preamble of the TEU “Determined to promote economic and social progress for their peoples, taking into account the principle of sustainable development and within the context of the accomplishment of the internal market and of reinforced cohesion and environmental protection, and to implement policies ensuring that advances in economic integration are accompanied by parallel progress in other fields” and is also defines as one of the main objectives of the EU (Article 3 TEU): “The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance“. The environment is considered as one of the priority that crosses all other policies. As the Article 11 TFEU emphasis “Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Union's policies and activities, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development“. In this regard, the TFEU includes the environment to all aspects of the European policies. More concentrated provisions related to the environment is possible to find in the following titles of the TFEU:  Title III Agriculture and Fisheries  Title XVIII Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion  Title XIX Research and Technical Development and Space  Title XX Environment (Articles 191 – 193)

10 Available online at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/implementation_en.htm

The Title XX Environment, Article 191 and Section 1 the TFEU v the Title XX stipulates: Union policy on the environment shall contribute to pursuit of the following objectives:  Preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment;  Protecting human health;  Prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources;  Promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change. In preparing its policy on the environment, the Union shall take account of:  available scientific and technical data;  environmental conditions in the various regions of the Union;  the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action;  the economic and social development of the Union as a whole and the balanced development of its regions. Articles 191 – 193 TFEU confirm the core principles of EU environmental law. The main European principles of EU environment policy are: - The Prevention Principle - is the fundamental political principle of EU policy on the environment. This principle is inherent to the prevention of environmental damage, which should exclude the emergence of non-renewable changes in the environment. - The Precautionary Principle - it is an extension of the prevention principle. The basis of this principle is the obligation of decision-making bodies, in cases when it is not in the decision-making process, a sufficient amount of precise and unambiguous information about the possible consequences of decisions on the environment, to always decide in favour of the environment. - The "Polluter Pays" Principle - it lies in the fact that environmental damage should be covered by the one who cause them. This principle includes economic instruments (fees, taxes, fines ...) to the environmental protection. - The High Level of Environmental Protection Principle - it means that environmental protection must always be secured with regard to the latest scientific and technical knowledge and solutions that are available to Member States. - The Proximity Principle - also called the principle of compensation at source is based on requirement that the pollution is necessary to remove immediately at the source of the pollution. - The Integration Principle - it means that the principles and requirements of environmental protection must be included in all other EU policies and EU Member States. - The Subsidiarity Principle - it is included in all sectoral policies of the EU and also in environmental policy. Based on the principle of subsidiarity, the competences in the field of environment should be placed at the lowest possible level of management, i.e. level bodies have to address the issue closest and therefore have the opportunity to obtain first- hand information on the specific case. It is believed that the following cases are addressed efficiently.

- The Sustainability Principle - is the fundamental principle contained in the sectoral policies of the EU. EU adopts the definition of sustainable development formulated at a conference of the UN Commission on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992; “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs“(document “Our Common Future”). Principles of the EU have significantly interpretative character. Articles 191-193 TFEU are not directly applicable. Unlike other provisions that are directly applicable, there is no fixed direct ban of pollution or to have polluters pay for pollution. It is therefore essential to precise provisions of Article 191-193 TFEU and give them specific content for secondary legislation to be applied by state authorities, courts, individuals and legal entities11. The TFEU specifies the environment as a shared competence between the Union and the Member States. Within their respective spheres of competence, the Union and the Member States shall cooperate with third countries and with the competent international organisations. The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Without prejudice to certain measures adopted by the Union, the Member States shall finance and implement the environment policy.

Secondary law Secondary law represents a set of normative acts adopted by the European institutions for the application of the provisions of primary law. Secondary law must always be in accordance with primary law. The acts of secondary law are divided into: 1) Typical legal acts - in accordance with the Article 288 TFEU to exercise the Union's competences, the institutions shall adopt: a) regulations, b) directives, c) decisions, d) recommendations and opinions. a) Regulation Regulations are adopted in cases where it is necessary to establish uniform rules for environment for all EU Member States. The regulation is addressed to abstract categories of persons, not to identified persons. It shall be binding in its entirety and directly effect in all Member States; it has the same legal power as national legislation, without any intervention by national authorities. This means that it:

11 DAMOHORSKÝ, M. 2010. Právo životního prostředí. 3. Edition. Praha: C.H. Beck. ISBN 978-80-7400-338- 7

 applies immediately as the norm in all EU member states, without needing to be transposed into national law;  creates rights and obligations for individuals and they can therefore invoke it directly before national courts;  can be used as a reference by individuals in their relationship with other individuals, EU member states or EU authorities. Its legal effects are simultaneously, automatically and uniformly binding in all the national legislations. b) Directive Directives are the most common form of the EU environmental law. A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods. Directive is used most often in situations where it is necessary to harmonize a concrete field of legal regulation or to introduce a comprehensive change in the rules across Member States, which is especially the case of the environment. Directives in the field of the environment have in a comparison with other fields more general character without a concrete specification of the methods or limits. Directives are addressed to the Member states. This means that individuals and legal entities are not directly bound by the Directive. Member States must adopt national legislative acts, which come to the force on the concrete date intended in the transposition act. Transposition is the process by which the Directive becomes the part of the Member state´s legal order. However, in certain cases the Court of Justice recognises the direct effect of directives in order to protect the rights of individuals. Therefore, the Court laid down in its case-law that a directive has direct effect when its provisions are unconditional and sufficiently clear and precise and when the EU country has not transposed the directive by the deadline (Judgement of 4 December 1974, Van Duyn). However, it can only have direct vertical effect (consequence in relations between individuals/legal entities and the state); EU countries are obliged to implement directives but directives may not be cited by an EU country against an individual (Judgement of 5 April 1979, Ratti). c) Decision A decision shall be binding in its entirety. A decision which specifies those to whom it is addressed shall be binding only on them. By a decision of the institution may require the Member State or a citizen of the EU to act or refrain from acting, to grant him/her rights or impose obligations. Decisions may have direct effect when they refer to an EU country as the addressee. The Court of Justice therefore recognises only a direct vertical effect (Judgement 10 November 1992, Hansa Fleisch) d) Recommendations and opinions Recommendations and opinions are only indicative and are not binding on Member States. Objective of recommendations and opinions is to approach and describe certain situations or practices addressees to whom these instruments are intended. Non-binding nature of these acts

does not mean they were unimportant legally. They provided the basis for the realization of further proceedings or other procedures. In connection with the action recommendations and opinions it speaks of so-called protection of confidence. This means that such acts contain some assessment of the situation by an institution of the EU and in the case that the person relies on this assessment, this shall not ensue disadvantage for the person. The ordinary legislative procedure shall consist in the joint adoption by the European Parliament and the Council of a regulation, directive or decision on a proposal from the Commission. This procedure is defined in Article 294 TFEU. Legal acts adopted by legislative procedure shall constitute legislative acts. Legislative acts shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union. They shall enter into force on the date specified in them or, in the absence thereof, on the twentieth day following that of their publication12.

2) Atypical legal acts - other acts, for example: measures, mainstreaming, white Papers, green Papers, and so on. This category includes all legal acts of secondary legislation referred to in Article 288 of the TFEU, which does not contain an exhaustive and complete computation of the legal acts. It is therefore possible, by means of primary law were subsequently modified also other types of legal acts. Characteristic features of atypical legal acts are:  legal acts targeting inwards the EU against authorities of the EU or third countries;  legal acts are not targeting the Member States and their citizens (individuals or legal entities of the Member States);  legal acts especially acts organizational, work character respectively, programmes and acts with fiscal purpose. Green papers and white papers adopted by the European Commission are the most important form of atypical legal acts. A green paper released by the European Commission is a discussion document intended to stimulate debate and launch a process of consultation, at European level, on a particular topic. A green paper usually presents a range of ideas and is meant to invite interested individuals or organizations to contribute views and information. It may be followed by a white paper, an official set of proposals that is used as a vehicle for their development into law.

3.3 EU Institutions acting in environmental protection EU environmental policy is formed by a variety of subjects including:  all of the main EU institutions - The Council of the European Union is a central actor in decision making in the EU environmental legislation sharing its decision-making power with the European Parliament under the ordinary legislative procedure. The European Commission is considered as one of the most important subject of the environmental policy and law. Economic and Social Committee and Committee of Regions represent several non-governmental organisations and municipalities within

12 Available online at eur-lex.europa.eu

the EU. The Court of Justice hears and decides the actions related to the environmental issues.  lobby groups,  non-governmental organisations. One of the most important institutions in relation to EU environmental law is without doubt the European Commission. The European Commission has an exclusive right to propose new environmental policy and has a responsibility to ensure the implementation of environmental law. The Commission operates as a cabinet government, with 28 members of the Commission. There is one member per member state, though members are bound to represent the interests of the EU as a whole rather than their home state. One of the 28 is the Commission President (currently Jean-Claude Juncker; 2014-2019). The term Commission also include the administrative body of about 23,000 European civil servants who are split into departments called directorates-general and services13. The most important directorates- generals related to the environment are: Agriculture and Rural Development, Climate Action, Energy, Environment, Health and Food Safety, Joint Research Centre, Marine Affairs and Fisheries, Regional and Urban Policy, Research and Innovation. The Directorate-General for Environment14 (DG Environment) is the European Commission´s department responsible for EU policy on the environment. Aims of the DG Environment are:  to protect, preserve and improve the environment for present and future generations;  to propose and implement policies that ensure a high level of environmental protection;  to preserve the quality of life of EU citizens. It also makes sure that Member States apply EU environmental law correctly and represents the European Union in environmental matters at international meetings. DG Environment works under the political leadership of Karmenu Vella, Commissioner for the Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, and is managed by Director-General Daniel Calleja Crespo. Mission statement - to enable EU citizens to live well, within the planet's ecological limits, in an innovative, circular economy, where biodiversity is protected, valued and restored and environment-related health risks are minimized in ways to enhance our society's resilience, and where growth has been decoupled from resource use. Policy areas of DG Environment: action programmes, air, chemicals, circular economy, environmental assessment, green public procurement, industry, international issues, land, marine and coast, nature and biodiversity, noise, soil, sustainable development, urban development, waste and water.

13 List of directorates-generals and service are available at http://ec.europa.eu/about/ds_en.htm 14 Available online at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/index_en.htm 33

Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development15 (DG Agri) is the European Commission department responsible for the European Union policy area of agriculture and rural development. The work of the DG AGRI is closely linked with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). DG Environment works under the political leadership of Phil Hogan. Mission statement is to promote the sustainable development of Europe's agriculture and to ensure the well-being of its rural areas. The mission will be achieved through:  Promoting a viable food production, with the focus on agricultural income, agricultural productivity and price stability;  Promoting sustainable management of natural resources and climate action, with a focus on greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity, soil and water;  Promoting balanced territorial development, with a focus on rural employment, growth and poverty in rural areas. Policy areas of DG Agri: direct support, market measures, rural development, agriculture and environment, bioenergy, climate change, organic farming, quality policy, biotechnology, promotional measures, forest resources, state aid, research and innovation, food and feed safety, animal health and welfare, plant health. The European Commission currently operates several affiliated institutions, whose aim is to assist the Commission in forming and implementing environmental policy. The most important are the European Environmental Agency, European Union Network for the implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law (IMPEL), Environmental Policy Review Group etc. The European Environment Agency16 (EEA) is an agency of the European Union. The Regulation (EC) No 401/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the European Environment Agency and the European Environment Information and Observation Network, establishing the EEA; work started in 1994. The regulation also established the European environment information and observation network (Eionet, available at https://www.eionet.europa.eu/). EEA's mandate is:  to help the Community and member countries make informed decisions about improving the environment, integrating environmental considerations into economic policies and moving towards sustainability;  to coordinate the European environment information and observation network. The European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law17 (IMPEL) is an international non-profit association of the environmental authorities of the European Union Member States, acceding and candidate countries of the EU, EEA and EFTA countries. The Network’s objective is to create the necessary impetus in the European

15 Available online at http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/index_en.htm 16 Available online at http://www.eea.europa.eu 17 Available online at http://www.impel.eu 34

Union to make progress in ensuring a more effective application of environmental legislation. The core of IMPEL’s activities take place within a project structure and concern awareness raising, capacity building, peer review, exchange of information and experiences on implementation, international enforcement collaboration as well as promoting and supporting the practicability and enforceability of European environmental legislation.

3.4 Environmental law in Slovakia Environmental law arose as a result of efforts to address the adverse impacts of anthropogenic (human) activity on the environment. The versatile role of environmental law is widely coordinated interaction of institutions and individuals, government and NGOs. It aims to create a potential optimum balance between human activity, satisfying the needs and capacity of nature to get rid of loads of natural or artificial18. Environmental law shows the features of mixed law, in particular because of extensiveness of legal regulation of the environment, which has the character both private and public law. Sources of the environmental law - source, which includes at least one legal norm of care for the environment: - Legal acts  Constitution of the Slovak Republic;  Legal acts of the Slovak National Council;  Governmental Regulations;  Generally binding legal acts of ministries, other central state administration bodies – the decrees, measures;  General application of the district offices;  Generally binding regulations of self-governmental region;  General application of the municipalities; - International Treaties - Final decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic on non- compliance of acts with the Constitution a) Constitutional Regulation Protection of the Environment Constitution of the Slovak Republic No. 460/1992 Coll. as amended defined in several articles the fundamental principles of constitutional protection of the environment. Provisions according to legal regulation may be divided between the provisions related to: 1. the position of persons; 2. the definition of care for the environment as one of the functions of the state;

18 JURÍK, Ľ., MEDOVIČOVÁ, M., PALŠOVÁ, L. 2009. Krajinné inžinierstvo a právo : legislatíva ochrany životného prostredia. 2. Revised edition. Nitra: Slovak university of agriculture. ISBN 978-80-552-0216-7

3. economic foundations of the State19.

1. The position of persons The Constitution proclaimed the rights connected with the environment as fundamental human rights20. These rights are in accordance with the Article 12 Sec. 2 Constitution of the SR guaranteed to everyone regardless of sex, race, colour of skin, language, faith and religion, political, or other thoughts, national or social origin, affiliation to a nation, or ethnic group, property, descent, or any other status. No one may be harmed, preferred, or discriminated against on these grounds. Article 44 Sec. 1 Constitution of the SR: „Everyone has the right to a favourable environment“. Subject of this right is each individual; the right is not intended for legal entities. On the other side, the content and scope of constitutional rights is expressed indirectly, what causes confusion in the interpretation of this right. Problematic part of the provision is the definition of the term “favourable”. Until the presence the term does not have the relevant interpretation. It is possible to interpret it in terms of achieving the sustainable development – it means a person's right to live in an environment which allows him/her to satisfy basic needs and to use them so that the loss in the diversity of nature and to preserve the natural functions of ecosystems21. Article 44 Sec. 2 Constitution of the SR: „Everyone is obliged to protect and enhance the environment and cultural heritage. Obligations are intended to all individuals and legal entities. The provision defines obligations for two types of human behaviour:  Environmental protection - is the behaviour of the entity to maintain a favourable environment (§ 9 of Act No. 17/1992 Coll. on environment as amended defines "protection includes activities that prevent pollution or damage to the environment or that pollution or damage to reduce and eliminate")  Environmental enhancement - conduct of a person that follows the aim to achieve the desired social or economic effect (not enforceable). Article 44 Sec. 3 Constitution of the SR: “No one shall imperil or damage the environment, natural resources and cultural heritage beyond the limits laid down by a law.” The provision expresses general ban threatening and damage the environment, natural resources and the cultural monuments. It integrates the precautionary principle.

19 KOŠIČIAROVÁ, S. 2006. Právo životného prostredia. 1. Edition. Bratislava: Poradca podnikateľa. ISBN 8088931576 20 Right to environment is consider as a third-generation of human rights. Third-generation human rights are those rights that go beyond the mere civil and social, as expressed in many progressive documents of international law, including the 1972 Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and other pieces of generally aspirational "soft law." These human rights related to environment are for example: right to economic and social development; right to a healthy environment; right to natural resources; right to participation in cultural heritage; rights to intergenerational equity and sustainability. Rights to environment can be also derived from the other rights like the right to life, the right to health, right to property etc. 21 ČIČ. M et al. 2012. Komentár k Ústave Slovenskej republiky. EUROKÓDEX: Vydavatelství a nakladatelství Aleš Čeněk, s.r.o. ISBN 978-80-894-4793-0 36

Article 45 Constitution of the SR: „Everyone has the right to timely and complete information on the state of the environment and causes and consequences of this condition”. Obligations are intended to all individuals and legal entities. The right can be executed in two directions: access to information and disclose of information22. Related acts:  Act No. 211/2000 Coll. on freedom of information as amended;  Act No. 205/2004 Coll. on the collection and dissemination of information on the environment as amended;  Act No. 3/2010 Coll. on the national infrastructure for spatial information as amended.

2. The definition of care for the environment as one of the functions of the state Article 44 Sec. 4 Constitution of the SR stipulates: „The state looks after a cautious use of natural resources, ecological balance, and effective environmental care, and provides for the protection of specified species of wild plants and animals“. It is a positive obligation of the state in caring for the environment. Realization of the task resulting from the provision is in the public interest.

3. Economic foundations of the State Article 4 Constitution of the SR stipulates: “Natural wealth, caves, underground water, natural medicinal springs, and waterways are in the ownership of the Slovak Republic”. Article 55 Sec. 1 Constitution of the SR stipulates: “The economy of the Slovak Republic is based on the principles of a socially and ecologically oriented market economy“. The Slovak Republic thereby integrating the countries that the business environment respects the basic principles of environmental policy b) Legal acts related to the environment Environmental law is not codified legal area what means that the legal regulation is spread in large number of legal acts. Legal regulation can be divided into23: 1. General  Act No. 17/1992 Coll. on environment as amended

22 The realisation and amending of the right was influenced by the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, so called Aarhus Convention which entered into force 2001. The Aarhus Convention formulate three pillars 1. Access to information: any citizen should have the right to get a wide and easy access to environmental information. Public authorities must provide all the information required and collect and disseminate them and in a timely and transparent manner. They can refuse to do it only under particular situations. 2. Public participation in decision making: the public must be informed over all the relevant projects and it has to have the chance to participate during the decision-making and legislative process. 3. Access to justice: the public has the right to judicial or administrative recourse procedures in case a Party violates or fails to adhere to environmental law and the convention's principles. 23 KOŠIČIAROVÁ, S. et al. 2009. Právo životného prostredia. 2. Revised and changed edition. EUROKÓDEX: Vydavatelství a nakladatelství Aleš Čeněk, s.r.o. ISBN 978-80-7380-143-4

 cross-cutting legal acts (for example Act No. 24/2006 Coll. on environmental impact assessment as amended) 2. Sectorial - component legal acts (for example Act No. 326/2005 Coll. on forests as amended, Act No. 220/2004 Coll., on the conservation and use of agricultural land and amending the Act No. 245/2003 Coll. on integrated pollution prevention and control and amending certain acts as amended) Relation between Act on the environment and cross-cutting and component legal acts are guided by the principle of subsidiarity. Act No 17/1992 Coll. on environment as amended The act is a general act within the field of environmental protection. Objective of the legal act is: a) to define the basic term and lay down basic principles of environmental protection and obligations of legal entities and individuals in protecting and improving the environment and in natural resources (§1 Purpose of the act) b) to regulate all kinds of tools to care for the environment (legal, economic, non-legal) c) to coordinate the sectoral legal regulation of the environment The act formulates the legal definition of the „environment“– it is all that creates the natural conditions of existence of organisms, including humans, and is a prerequisite for their further development; in particular: air, water, soil, rocks and organisms (§2 of the act). The act recognises main principle of the environment (§11 and the following of the act):  Principle of sustainable load of the territory  Principle of sustainable development: rational use of natural resources  Principle of rate of pollution of environment  Principle of the greening of education, enlightenment  Principle of environmental protection as a general obligation  Principle of public participation in environmental protection  Principle of law enforcement  Principle of integration  Principle of "Polluter pays"  The principle of maximum protection  Principle of prevention  Principle of precautionary The act has as interpretative, interpretive character especially because of the legal definitions of terms used in the environmental law (like ecosystem, ecological stability, pollution etc.). Although the act provides penalties for environmental damage, but the act does not empower the state authorities to implement this power. The Act further states generally economic instruments of environmental pollution or its components, and economic use of natural resources, such as taxes, fees, contributions or other payments. However, special legal acts

stipulate the concrete reasons for penalty, taxes, fees, together with design of state administration competences. The final part of the act stipulates disclosure of information on the environment and Reports on environmental conditions drawn up each year by the Ministry of Environment of the SR and published on December 15 for the previous calendar year.

Subjects of environmental law in Slovakia Environmental law entities are individuals and legal entities who act in legal relations as the holders of specific rights and obligations, respectively powers. If they act in legal relations concerning environmental care are subjects of environmental law24. Subjects of environmental law are:  State;  Territorial self-government administration;  Third sector;  Entrepreneurs;  Individuals.

State as a subject of environmental law State is represented by a system of public bodies that are holders of state power as follows: 1) Legislative power - National Council of the SR (Chapter V. of the Constitution of the SR) National Council of the SR is the sole constituent and legislative body of the SR. The jurisdiction of the National Council of the SR related to the care of the environment comprises, above all:  deciding upon the Constitution and constitutional and other laws and controlling compliance with them;  voicing consent, prior to ratification, with the conclusion of international political treaties, international economic treaties of a general nature, as well as with international treaties whose execution requires the passing of a law;  establishing ministries and other state administration bodies by means of law;  discussing the policy statement of the Government of the Slovak Republic, controlling the Government’s activity, and passing a vote of confidence in the Government or its members;  approving the state budget, checking on its fulfilment, and approving the state closing account;  discussing basic domestic, international, economic, social, and other political issues.

24 KOŠIČIAROVÁ, S. et al. 2009. Právo životného prostredia. 2. Revised and changed edition. EUROKÓDEX: Vydavatelství a nakladatelství Aleš Čeněk, s.r.o. ISBN 978-80-7380-143-4

2) Executive power (Chapter VI, Part 2 of the Constitution of the SR) a) Government of the SR is the supreme body of executive power. The Government shall consist of the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Ministers and Ministers. The Government is accountable for the execution of its duties to the National Council of the Slovak Republic, which can pass a vote of no-confidence in it at any time. The Government decides in the scope of the care of the environment on:  draft of legal acts;  government regulations to implement laws within limits laid down by the law;  principal measures to be taken to guarantee the economic/social programmes of the SR;  international treaties delegated to the Government;  fundamental issues of internal and foreign policy. b) Ministries and other central bodies of state administration Ministry is a monocratic state body headed by the minister. Central state administration body in the field of environmental protection is Ministry of environment of the SR. Its competences are regulated by  by the Act No 575/2001 Coll. on the organization of the government and central state administration as amended;  by specific legal acts (Act No 24/2006 Coll. on the assessment of impacts on the environment as amended, Act No 50/1976 Coll. on land planning and building procedure as amended, Act No 543/2002 Coll. on nature and landscape protection as amended etc.) Ministry of environment of the SR is responsible for the care and protection of the environment, especially through the environmental state policy. Ministry is the central state is responsible for and environmental care and protection (§16 Act No 575/2001 Coll.), including:  protection of nature and landscape;  protection of water quality and quantity, and their rational use;  protection of air, the ozone layer and climate system;  ecological aspects of land use planning;  waste management;  assessment of environmental impact;  ensuring a unified information system on environment and area monitoring;  geological research and exploration;  protection and regulation of trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora;  genetically modified organisms. Professional control authority of the ministry is Slovak Environmental Inspection carrying out the main state inspection and supervision in the field of environmental protection for concrete areas of the environment.

Professional organization of the ministry is also Slovak Environmental Agency, which focuses on the care for environment and landscape and provides information about the conditions of the environment. Other organizations of the Ministry of environment of the SR in the field of environment are:  Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute;  State Nature Conservancy of Slovak Republic;  State Geological Institute of Dionýz Štúr;  Environmental Fund;  Slovak Caves Administration;  Others. The social role of environmental protection is much more extensive and therefore it must be to comprehensively participate in all components of social and economic governance. Ministry of environment of the SR cooperates also with other ministries and central state administration bodies:  Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of the SR supervises in particular the protection of land resources, determines the conditions for the use of pesticides and dangerous chemical substances and chemical preparations and, more recently, genetically modified crops.  Ministry of Finance of the SR provides financial management of the external assistance instruments form, and receive proposals on economic instruments in environmental protection and creating financial resources to implement environmental projects.  Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs of the SR ensures ratification of international treaties and conventions on the protection of environment.  Ministry of economy of the SR regulates the production of certain products be licensed for the chemical sector, it publishes lists of approved chemicals and chemical preparations and certain dangerous chemicals on the market.  Ministry of Health of the SR provides evaluation of health hazards of the chemicals listed on the market, proposes a strategy for reducing health risks, cooperate in identifying and deposition of ambient air quality limits and standards for drinking water quality and other water types.  Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development of the SR specifies emission limits for mobile sources of air pollution. c) Local state administration At the local level of the state administration act district offices that are advance organizations of the Ministry of Interior of the SR. District office is managed by the head of the district office, who is appointed and recalled by the Government of the Slovak Republic on the proposal of the Minister of Interior of the SR. District offices can be divided into:  District offices with the seat in capital of the district (72 district offices) - in the environmental field are responsible for the following sections of the state administration: land register, care for the environment, road transport and roads, 41

agriculture, forestry, hunting and landscaping, general internal administration, trade business.  District offices with the seat in the capital of the region (8 district offices) - manage, supervise, coordinate the execution of state administration carried out by district offices in the seat of the district lying within their region, performed in the second instance of state administration in matters in which the administrative proceedings in the first instance by the district authority in the seat the district lying within their region, manage state property within the scope of the general provisions on the management of state property. Within its decision-making activities, district offices issue relevant permits, consents, instructions, prohibitions, commands, statements for local activities in the fields of:  Assessment of environmental impact;  Air Protection;  Water protection;  Nature and landscape protection;  Waste management.

3) Judicial power Judicial power is represented by the courts (Article 46 of the Constitution of the SR). Right to judicial protection is understood as right of access to court and the right to a fair trial. Courts of judicial power are: - general courts = district court, regional court, Supreme court of the SR, Special court, military courts (Higher Military Court, military district courts, special courts during the military conscription) - The Constitutional Court of the SR is an independent judicial body charged with protecting constitutionality.

Territorial self-government as a subject of environmental law Environmental care is an important part of the role of government (in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity). Territorial self-administration shall be, in accordance with the Chapter IV Constitution of the SR, composed of a municipality and a higher territorial unit. A municipality and a higher territorial unit are independent territorial and administrative units of the Slovak Republic, associating individuals permanently residing therein. Municipality Self-governing powers of municipality in the field of the environment (in the terms of § 4 Section 3 Act No 369/1990 Coll. on municipalities as amended) are in particular:  ensures construction and maintenance and administers local roads, public spaces, municipal cemetery, cultural, sporting and other municipal facilities, cultural monuments, historic sites and monuments of the village;  provides public services, in particular the treatment of municipal waste and minor construction waste, maintain cleanliness in the village, management and maintenance

of public green areas and public lighting, water supply, wastewater collection, treatment of waste water from cesspools and local public transport;  creates and protects healthy conditions and healthy way of life and work of community residents, protects the environment and creates conditions for providing health care, education, culture, public education, interest artistic activities, physical culture and sport;  procures planning documentation in approved residential units and zones, the development of various areas of community life, procures and approves housing development programs and assists in shaping the appropriate conditions for housing in the village;  ensures the protection of cultural monuments under special regulations and ensures preservation of natural values. Higher territorial unit Self-governing powers of higher territorial unit in the field of the environment in the terms of § 4 Section 1 Act No 302/2001 Coll. on self-government of higher territorial units (Act on Self-Governing Regions) as amended, are in particular:  carries out planning activities on the territory of the self-governing region;  procures, discuss and approve planning documents of autonomous region and land-use plans;  efficiently utilizes local human, natural and other resources;  participates in the creation and protection of the environment;  creates conditions for the development of tourism and coordinates the development;  cooperates with municipalities in the development of programs of social and economic development of municipalities;  participates in solving problems affecting several municipalities in the self-governing region. Powers of municipalities and higher territorial units are listed demonstratively, because there are other legal acts that regulate powers of local self-government in the field of environment (especially Act No. 416/2001 Coll. on transfer of some competencies from state administration to municipalities and higher territorial units as amended; as well as other sectoral legal acts on specific components of the environment).

Third sector as a subject of environmental law Third sector (non-profit sector) consists of the non-state (non-governmental) institutions of a non-profit character. It can exist in different forms: 1. property associations (foundations) 2. associations of individuals and legal entities (civil associations, non-investment funds, public utility organisations) 3. combinations of elements (non-investment funds) The mission of the third sector is the protection of social interests (i.e., among others the protection of the environment). These entities play an important role in implementing

environmental policies, depending on their social and political influence. They are involved in the disclosure of conflicts between human activities and the environment and propose solutions. Legal acts do not stipulate position of the third sector often and therefore promote their interest and rights indirectly through constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights and freedoms: the right to petition, freedom of expression and right to information, right to assemble, right to participate in public affairs, etc.)

Entrepreneurs as a subject of environmental law In accordance with the §2 Section 2 Act No 513/1991 Coll. Commercial Code as amended, entrepreneurs are defined as follows: - person registered in the Business Register; - person, who operates under the trade permission (Act No 455/1991 Coll. on Trade Licensing); - person, who operates on the basis of other than trade license act, under special regulations; - physical entity, performing agricultural production and registered under special regulation; Obligations of entrepreneurs according to environmental law regulations and regulations of environmental law modify the requirements related to activities affecting the environment, respectively human health (in particular operating activities involving the use of natural resources or performance of products). Among the administrative legal tools dedicated to control the impact of operations affecting the state of the environment can be included25: 1. Emission standards represent the maximum amount of pollutant that can be (for some time) in a particular activity released into the environment (e.g. emission limits, emission allowances). For example, the European Parliament approved a regulation that will lead to a gradual reduction of emission limits for new passenger cars sold in 26 the EU to 95 g CO2/km by 2020 . 2. Operational requirements are requirements for devices, which pose a potential or actual danger to the environment (particular method is prescribed for operation of device or more precisely, specify resources which must be used). Specific operational requirement is operator`s obligation to use the best available technology. 3. Professional qualifications of persons include specific requirements for the physical entity, which are performing activities or covering them within the premises from technical point of view.

25 KOŠIČIAROVÁ, S. 2006. Právo životného prostredia. 1. Edition. Bratislava: Poradca podnikateľa. ISBN 8088931576 26 EURACTIV, 2014. Europarlament odsúhlasil prísnejšie emisné limity pre autá, 2014. [on-line] [cit. 2015-01- 12]. Available online at http://www.euractiv.sk/zivotne-prostredie/clanok/europarlament-odsuhlasil-prisnejsie- emisne-limity-pre-auta-022116#sthash.MU9vNx44.dpuf

4. Requirements for products, the main goal of legislation is to ensure that the products minimize adverse impacts on the environment and human health. The specific duties of entrepreneurs performing environment-affecting activities are bound to the times:  before carrying out such activities;  during the operation of activities;  after the end; Before starting a business with the environmental impact, entrepreneurs must apply to the competent authority for a permit or consent. The assessment/evaluation of the impacts of proposed activities on the environment covers complex detection, description and evaluation of the expected affection of projects, buildings, plants, devices and other interventions on environment in terms of impacting the environment, including health.

Individuals as a subject of environmental law Individuals as a subject of environmental law are general holders of the fundamental right to a favourable environment, right to timely and complete information about the state of the environment and the causes and consequences of this condition and fundamental duty to protect and enhance environment and cultural heritage. Individuals can act under the care of the environment in different positions as follows:  Individual as a resident of municipality/higher territorial unit - resident of the municipality is obliged to participate in the development and building upon the environment in the municipality/higher territorial unit.  Individual as an owner of environmental components – individual need to follow legal acts regulated the protection of property rights and obligations arise from the ownership.  Individual as the public - in specific cases that are stipulated in the legal norms the public can act as a formalized group and can have a position as a party in administrative procedure.

4 WHAT IS SOIL?

This question has already has been asked by both the powerful and the ordinary people all over the world since ancient times. However, especially in the past when the soil science was not developed enough, the answers depended on the level of progress of knowledge about other areas. It was especially geology, geography, climatology, botany and other fields that wrote the first more or less correct mentions about what they thought soil was. Those were largely inaccurate statements which cannot be entirely agreed with today.

4.1 Definitions of Soil The first simple scientific facts about soil were formed in the second half of the 19th century, which is relatively too late in comparison with other sciences, such as mathematics, astronomy and physics that began the process before Christ. The paradox is that the undisputed fact that soil was and still is a direct or indirect most important food provider for humans has not changed since ancient times. According to D. Schroeder (1984), the pioneers presenting the soil science also in literature were probably F. A. Fallou (Pedology or General and Applied Soil Science), V. V. Dokučajev and his work named Russkije čenozjomy and E. Ramann known as one of the founders of forestral pedology (Forestral Soil Science). Definitions of soil gradually accepted at the professional level were strongly influenced by the general knowledge. The first definitions were very simple and greater importance was attached to plants and soil was only a layer of the Earth, which was cable of carrying the plant cover. It was only the above-mentioned Ramann who expressed the opinion that “soil is the upper weathered layer of the earth’s crust”. It is a definition already recognizing that soil is formed by rock weathering and that the rock properties determine the properties of soil in a significant way. In Slovakia, the definition of Viľjams (1940) that “soil is a loose surface of the earth capable of providing harvest” was originally widely accepted and recognized for a long period. It was a highly simplified definition (for its time) with a strong ideological charge emphasizing the need for the provision of nutrition to population, but actually said nothing about soil itself. However, it fulfilled its objective, because in the post-war period the emphasis that was laid on soil fertility started the promotion of soil science in an ambitious way and with a lot of professional and practice support and achievements. In the 1990s, activities of the European Union were a breakthrough in relation to soil. For example, in 1992 the Council of Europe issued Recommendation R(92)8 on soil protection which is by now the most important document related to soil. It presents the following relatively similar and lengthy definition of soil: “Soils are integral parts of the earth’s ecosystems and are situated at the interface between the earth’s surface and the bedrock. They are subdivided into horizontal layers with specific physical, chemical and biological

characteristics. From the standpoint of the soil use and from an ecological and environmental point of view, the concept of soil also embraces permeable materials and reserves of underground water. Soils so defined may reach considerable depth, and therefore, in some context, include the concept of land”. It is a definition which is not only complicated but also controversial when assigning for instance gravel to soil and it is so in particular between landowners and legislations of the Member States (it is necessary to strictly apply the law on soil protection to prevention of excessive gravel extraction). On the other hand, we must admit that the definition rightly considers soil to be a part of the earth’s ecosystems, which predetermines it to a high level of protection. The proposal for the Convention on Sustainable Use of Soil (Tutzing Project, 1998, Germany) presents soil as a “four dimensional (the fourth dimension is the time representing soil development, author’s note) natural body (source) of the earth’s crust consisting of rocks, water, air and living organisms”. We have to appreciate that this definition considers soil to be a natural body (source), to which the highest legal standards of states, including their constitutions, usually apply. Unfortunately, the draft was not accepted. The proposal for the Framework Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of Europe on protection of soil (only unofficial, 2008), which has not yet been accepted, does not provide the definition of soil with its explanation that would include its recognized characterizations and its functions in the Art. 1 as well (it introduces a new function: a natural reservoir of carbon, see below). As for definitions offering emotional rather than exact perception of soil, we can mention the statement of a great Russian thinker, scientist and dissident V. I. Vernadský, according to whom soil was a “noble rust of the earth” (1960). We have got used to designations of soil as a national wealth or an irreplaceable source that have a positive political and civic potential, which is, unfortunately, often presented only formally and without proper reasoning. We can find also a religious opinion that soil is life and we must treat it like life, because the possibility of living must be preserved into the future as well (Ruh, Bruger and Schenk, 1990). Agricultural and forestry practice tried to orient their definitions of soil especially towards inclusion of elements related to crop cultivation and production particularly in the past. In this way, the specific term of “agricultural land fund” was established and comprised the reference to soil from the cadastre that divides land into arable land, hop gardens, vineyards, orchards and permanent grassland. Regarding the theory of the unity of soil cover (soil use is an episode in its history, author’s note), the definition is irrelevant as a definition of soil, and therefore the term is no longer used in professional sphere or nomenclature of legal documents (Slovakia’s newest Act 220/2004 is already named “on protection and use of agricultural land”). Overall, it seems that soil still waits for a really good and modern definition, which would satisfy everyone, from soil scientists, through environmentalists, politicians, landowners and

land users, up to ordinary citizens and their communities (if it is ever possible to formulate it that way).

4.2 Functions of Soil Humans have known functions of soil since formation of their relationship to soil and since the beginning of its active functioning in the form of soil use. However, a professionally accepted approach to this topic can be identified only in the second half of the 19th century when the epoch of scientific research started soil studies were established as a science. At the beginning, it involved only timid statements about soil being a site for plants, and therefore it was studied as their habitat. Relevant theories were formed later. However, it is still true that the descriptive approach to the scientific representation of knowledge about soil had prevailed until recently when new theories of soil evaluation and information related to promotion of their more reasonable use started to develop. The first official technical, political and legal document regarding functions of soil and needs of their protection was published within Recommendation R(92)8 of the Committee of Ministers on soil protection (1992), where specific main functions of soil are introduced along with a recommendation to make them a key basis not only for further research but also in political decision making related to soil protection and use in the EU Member States. This topic finally resulted in German Federal Soil Protection Act (1998), which is the first document in the world to protect soil functions (instead of the size of the area and quality only) and the whole philosophy of German soil policy was subordinate to it. In Slovakia, this principle was adopted by Act of the National Council of the Slovak Republic No. 220/2004 “on protection and use of agricultural land” in 2004. Though it mentions the need to protect soil functions, nothing else has actually been subsequently prescribed or later done to foster the application of this principle (except for writing some professional scientific works). At present, the structure of soil functions is professionally stable and includes the following aspects.

Biomass Production In the past, this function was closely connected with agriculture and forestry only. Modern standpoint appreciates that soil participates in the production of all forms of biomass, i. e. outside the agricultural and forest production as well. Thus, the importance of soil in production of all plant habitats grows and is interlinked with landscape and ecological, environmental, and other influences on the human environment. It fundamentally questions the designation of this function of soil as a (forestry and agricultural) production function and admits its broader socio-economic impact. The OECD has found a way out by subdividing the function into commodity and non-commodity production, which clarifies the interface between the results of its production activities that can be understood in different ways.

Reservoir of Substances, Their Transformation and Natural Cycles It represents a very complex and wide participation of soil in functioning of nature and earth. There is no doubt that soil hides vast reserves of substances and elements, which do not 48

represent static volumes, but constantly transform in order to ensure their natural cycles, and thus the environmental resistance and stability as well. All metabolisms and transfers of substances (in huge quantities) between individual components of environment (land, water, air, biota, and other) that are essential for both nature and humans would stop without soil, which would inevitably lead to cessation of functioning of nature and to the end of life on our planet.

Natural Reservoir of Water This is also a vital function of soil related to both nature and society. It can be easily explained using water management situation of Slovakia. Slovakia as a rain feed area receives an average annual precipitation of about 33 billion cubic meters, out of which approximately one third is retained in soil, one third evaporates and one third drains out of the territory. Water retained in soil represents about 11 billion cubic meters and is known as either soil water or the third natural water supply (following groundwater and surface water). Soil water is an essential condition for the functioning of soil and terrestrial nature (plants, animals) and an essential need for the life of humans, by the way, also due to moisturising the air and making it breathable for us. This ability of soil is to act as a barrier mitigating the threat of flooding is also important, because it is only the water not soaked into soil that may form a flood.

Reservoir of Carbon and a Part of Its Natural Cycle This function was originally independently incorporated into the soil functions referred to in the Recommendation R(92)8. As the issue of carbon is nowadays more popular, this function was included into the list of soil functions individually in the proposal to the Framework Directive of the EU on soil protection (RE, 2008). We must say that it was justified because this substance is closely linked to climate change and the life cycle in nature. The amount of carbon in soils throughout the world is estimated to be 1,500-2,000 Pg (Pg = petagram, 1 Pg = 1015 g). There are about 760 Pg of carbon in the earth’s atmosphere, and about 500 Pg in terrestrial biota, particularly vegetation and especially in the forests, which contain more than a half of the total stock of carbon in the terrestrial vegetation. The largest amount of carbon can be found in seas and oceans (about 9,000 Pg C), however, it is the carbon that is less environmentally active. In general, carbon stocks constantly move between the components of nature in relatively large amounts. It is important for the overall carbon content in the natural components not to be disrupted so much that the performance of its functions in nature is endangered. Soil is the most important provider of transformation and movement of carbon in nature as it is in soil where carbon from dead organic matter is transformed into mineral carbon (either remaining or escaping from soil into the air in the form of CO2), which is then used in formation of living organic matter of bodies of plants and soil organisms and subsequently that of a man through food as well. In this way, soil is critically involved in the life cycle in nature and fulfils the important function of protection of life on our planet.

Biodiversity Pool Selective characteristics of soil create conditions for a differentiated structure of its plant covers, which is a fundamental factor in the formation of biodiversity in different areas of the world. In addition to the biodiversity of plants, soil also creates the biodiversity of huge amounts of soil organisms, especially microorganisms. Both of those soil parameters are subject to the diversity of soil types in different areas. This multiplier effect that soil has on the biodiversity of organisms is remarkably successful in protecting biodiversity and ensuring the stability of the nature. In relation to that, there is a unique work named European Atlas of Soil Biodiversity (2010) issued by the EU DG-Environments. It offers a presentation of huge biological and gene power of soil for life on our planet. However, the truth is that particularly agricultural use of soil limits this function by an effort to create a non-competitive environment for biological crop production.

Source of Raw Materials Soil is an environment with deposits of sand, stone, clay, and maybe other materials for practical human use as well. Their use is, however, connected with degradation, destruction, or even irreversible soil sealing, which of course cannot be assessed as positive. In addition to the fact that soil is a deposit of raw materials, it is also a producer of raw materials for food, textile, chemical and other industries with positive effects in society.

Basis for Human Activities More information about this function is provided in the chapter related to soil sealing. However, at this point, we should mention that though this feature is recognized as eligible for the use by humans and society, it must be reasonably regulated.

Deposit of Archaeological Heritage There is much evidence (artefacts) of the history of mankind in soil. It is important not to destroy the objects after they are discovered, but to make them available to all of us. If such objects are discovered, we have the legal obligation to inform Institute of Archeology in Nitra. Soil can also contain a paleopedological “record” of its evolution and development trends of environment offering us a testimony about the distant past. It is a legacy as well and it has not only a material form of soil, but also an intellectual form encompassing knowledge of the history of the earth and the location of soil. Soil can also give us visual records of changes that humans cause in the environment (layers of eroded soil, places of accumulation of contaminants, profile destruction, etc.). There are also other ways of classification and assessment of soil functions. This approach conforms to the standards of the EU documents. In addition, the monograph entitled Ethics and Soil (Ruh et al., 1996) emphasizes the establishment of a separate cluster in order to group soil functions having a designation of being “eco-social” as a set of more functions with a significant ecological and social potential. Though within the framework of anthropized soils, this terminology is also used by Szombathová and Sobocká (2006) and, moreover, they add the concept of environmental soil functions, including their aesthetic function. Such crumbling of functions of soil based on a large number of their potentials in nature and 50

society does not always bring a better understanding of the importance of soil functions or more efficient activity in terms of their protection. From a practical point of view, it is appropriate to preserve the official positions referred to in the document R(92)8. It is important that this document stresses that all soil functions are equal, which leads us to a new basic philosophy of soil protection according to its functions, which consequently weakens the power of soil protection according to the agricultural production potential that has been so far dominantly prioritized (though soil has worse conditions, it has to be protected more than soil with a high yield potential if it is in the interest of the protection of country and environment). As for the evaluation of non-production (non-commodity) functions, only partial progress has been achieved so far, because the issue involves both theoretically very complex problems and a connection to complicated practical expression. In Slovakia, the first officially approved document (Ministry of Agriculture of the Slovak Republic) assessing the potential of non- commodity functions of soils was a study elaborated by Linkeš et al. (1996), which assessed the so-called non-production potential of Slovak agricultural soils comprehensively and based on the BSEU codes. It was a work not preceded by any direct theoretical studies. It occurred spontaneously based on the so far collected knowledge and with the aim to address the needs of agriculture. There are also literary presentations oriented in a more narrow way but having better theoretical basis provided by Barančíková and Madaras (2003a; 2003b), which determine the theoretical background for the assessment of transformation function of soil in relation to organic pollutants understood as soil’s ability to degrade, or otherwise inactivate organic pollutants. They contain indexed intensity of those processes and based on that Slovak soils are divided into 5 categories and presented on a map. Those works have a relatively significant practical impact and enable to predict the length of different periods of negative ecological influence of organic pollutants based on soil quality. In compliance with their work, it can be assumed, in short, that more productive and more commodity effective soils have a higher potential for degradation and elimination of organic pollutants. Other non-production (non-commodity) functions are elaborated in the work of Vilček et al. (2010), which adds environmental soil potential indexes (ESPI) to the selected environmental soil potentials. The work shows that the average ESPI point value in Slovakia is 55.3 points, while the average point value of production potential of soils in Slovakia represents 54.6 points (Džatko, 2002), which implies the assumption that the environmental potential is higher in more productive soils and vice versa. National map of Slovakia presenting the environmental potential of its soils is therefore almost identical with the national map of environmental soil potential indexes. Maybe it won’t be the same when assessing other environmental functions of soil cover of Slovakia, however, we have no specific exact studies for those so far. Juráni (1998) addresses soil functions in a wider and more comprehensive way. The importance of his work lies mainly in the fact that he assigns the crucial soil functions to the main soil types existing in the territory of Slovakia, which makes it accessible for us to see the importance of individual soil types in identification of differentiated local or regional eco- 51

social relations formed in dependence on soil ecological conditions of the territory. It could be a good basis for a future national doctrine of soil protection and in particular of land take for non-biological use. Both professional and non-professional public perceives forest soils as an integrated part of forests and as having smaller content and functional autonomy in comparison to agricultural habitats. This is due to the fact that forests cover represents significantly longer period of history of soils with highlighted influence of the same plant cover. It extends the functional potential of forest habitat, and thus forest soil as its part as well.

Functions of forests are summarized in Act of the National Council of the Slovak Republic No. 326/2005 Coll. on forests. Based on the use of their functions, forests are divided into protective forests, special-purpose forests and commercial forests. Protective forests have a major function to protect soil, other ecosystems (peat bogs, wetlands, unconsolidated deposits, inundation areas, etc.) and other forest cenoses threatened by various influences. Function of the special-purpose forests is to protect the protected areas, protective zones, suburban territories, water management areas and other areas. Commercial forests fulfil mainly the function of production (in Slovakia, those represent up to 70% of the total area of forests). The non-production (community) functions are recognized in all types of forest cenoses and the above-mentioned Act denies their financial value, which must be paid when forests are cut off and deforested and the area is used for non-biological purposes. However, this approach appreciates mainly functions of forest cover, and those of soil, from which the forest grows, are recognized only as mediators.

Complex presentation of functions of soil in urbanized areas was offered by Szombathová and Sobocká (2006) with reference to the classification of functions of urban soils according to Working Group DBG (2002). The classification defines the following three main groups of functions of urban soils: 1. soil as a living space, 2. soil as a basis for construction activities, 3. soil as a natural and a cultural archive. A more detailed information about this topic shows that there is a wider range of especially environmental soil functions applied in urbanized areas in comparison with spatially organized soil in open countryside. Even the civil perception of soil functions as a space for living is more sensitive to built-up areas than to open countryside. Therefore, there is a strong need for the protection of both soil and its functions in built-up areas to be applied and legally addressed in a sufficient and binding manner, as there is practically no legal support or way of enforcement.

4.3 Concept of Ecosystem Services The principle of ecosystem services is one of the results of a very extensive international project – the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), which brought together about

1,300 scientists. The roots of this concept can be traced back to ancient times, Asian Taoism (religion and traditions), Buddhism (religious and philosophical system), Jainism (related to Buddhism), Mazdaism (cult of truth and goodness in old Iranian state), works of European pantheists (identification of God with nature), and newer works of natural philosophers (Kušíková, 2013). The best known works addressing the use of natural resources are those elaborated by the American WRI (World Resource Institute, Washington) and, in particular, concepts of “green growth”, “green economy” or “green future” (Rio+20, 2012). In the EU, it is the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (COM/2011/244) that has a key position in this field. It is aimed at strengthening the meaning and importance of ecosystems and their services, at first by their mapping (until 2014) and then by their incorporation into mandatory reporting required from all EU Member States (2020). Ecosystem services are defined as benefits that people obtain from ecosystems and that influence their living standards. Soil functions thus have practically identical meaning in basic aspects within the framework of this context, but the concept of ecosystem services gives them an additional value, mainly through its structures and characteristics that extend the importance of soil functions and assigns a high level of significance to soil functions in both nature and society. It follows especially from the adopted categories of ecosystem services (according to MA), which are:  provisioning ecosystem services representing products of ecosystems that are inevitable for human existence (water, food, forage, mineral resources, energy, genetic resources, etc.);  cultural ecosystem services representing intangible benefits and having the form of aesthetic and other experience, recreation, spiritual enrichment, even cultural diversity, knowledge systems, spiritual and religious values, education, aesthetics, social relationships, inspirations, scientific discoveries, and so on;  supporting ecosystem services that are necessary for production of other three ecosystem services (photosynthesis, production and development of soils, natural cycles of many substances, etc.). The concept of ecosystem services must be considered as an already accepted principle in practical implementation of protection and use of soil functions and it must be respected as an inspiration in wider political, economic and legal soil protection activities. Simply said, ecosystem services brought soil into the imperative paradigm of its protection through the protection of ecosystems, but at the same time search for a wider modus operandi for its reasonable and sustainable use.

4.4 Soil Classification It is currently a relatively complex science (in terms of content, terminology, and interpretation) with difficult approaches to its explanation and improvement. Therefore, we often encounter with different opinions in theoretical discussions, but also in reality of field research practice. However, it is not possible to create map and basic information sources

about soil cover of a certain territory that would serve as a basis for a purposeful use of knowledge about soil in practice without soil classification. Before the soil studies became a separate science, static and mostly geological viewpoints missing explanation of origin of soil, its development and, finally, its functions. It was only in the second half of the 19th century when, due to the Russian school of soil science led by V. V. Dokučajev, S. P. Kostyčev and N. M. Sibircev, soil was looked at in the context of dynamics of soil-forming factors and the overall impact of nature and humans. Therefore V. V. Dokučajev considers soil to be a part of a large whole, a part of indivisible nature, in which everything is interconnected (Hroššo, 1958). The influence the Russian school of soil science had quickly spread beyond the Russian borders, as evidenced by many Russian names of soils that have been used in the world until today (Chernozems, Podzols, Solonchaks, Solonetz). Genetic developmental principles of origin of soil have been accepted internationally and elaborated practically all over the world. In this spirit, Slovakia has used the genetic soil classification designed by Novák since the 1920s. The new soil classification system developing after 1945 divides the genetic characteristic of soils into 3 areas (Hroššo, 1961): 1. lowland and fluvial (Chernozems, floodplain soils, sod soils), 2. hill land and upland (Haplic Luvisols, Podzols and Gleysols), 3. mountain and submontane areas (Podzols and sod-podzol soils). The suggestion to divide soil types into sub-types, subsequently into orders and finally into varieties with affected development or defection has been preserved. Further development continued with improvement of genetic principles of classification of soils and their practical use in surveys and soil mapping. In terms of the genetic classification, a Complex Survey of Agricultural Soils of Slovakia has been carried out. The year 1960 when the 7th Approximation of Soil Classification was adopted in the USA marked a turning point in western world. Its taxonomy was completely based on characteristics of soils of that time and it divided soils into 10 orders with internationally accepted Latin Greek names (Alfisols, Aridisols, Entisols, Histosols, Inceptisols, Mollisols, Oxisols, Spodosols, Ultisols, Vertisols). The orders consisted of 47 suborders, 185 large groups and many subgroups, genera and series. The system was substantially incompatible with the genetic classifications, because it was based on specific measured properties of soil instead of the logic of their development. In 1974, FAO classification system that had the advantage of being practically verified during the creation of Soil Map of the World (1988) was spread into the world. It was developed on pedogenetic principles with elements of the USA classification preferring specific soil parameters. The nomenclature of soils mixes the names from the USA classification with new ones and offers 26 major soil classes (Fluvisols, Gleysols, Regosols, Lithosols, Arenosols, Rendzinas, Rankers, Andosols, Vertisols, Solochaks, Solonetz, Yermosols, Xerosols, Castanozems, Chernozems, Phaeozems, Greyzems, Camisols, Luvisols, Podzoluvisols, Podzols, Planosols, Acrisols, Nitosols, Ferralsols, Histosols). At that time, Germany started to use a soil classification system established by Kubiena and Mickenhausen. It contained the following four soil divisions: terrestrial soils, hydromorphic

soils, subhydric soils and peat soils, which corresponded to the fact that German soils developed mainly on glacial and periglacial deposits from the Pleistocene period in a warm and humid climate. In 1980, elaboration of a universal and internationally unifying version of soil classification started under the leadership of FAO and UNESCO and with the support of UNEP and ISSS. Its outcome was the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (WRB) as a motivation for creation of soil classification systems at national level. Its last modified version was issued in 2007. Up to this day, it is a project of permanent improvement and choice of the best starting points for the world and national soil classifications. It respects both the principles of pedogenesis and the soil parameters and properties of their horizons. Therefore, the system is relatively well supported practically all over the world. Since 1985, the system has been respected and it was issued also in Slovakia (Hraško et al., 1987) as a Morphogenetic Soil Classification System of Slovakia with national specific characteristics corresponding to conditions of origin, position and development of soils in Slovakia. It was compared with the WRB by Šurina (1997) and published as a book in its absolute complexity for the last time in 2000 (Collective, 2000). A newer comparison was published by Šurina in 2003. Nowadays, the FAO Global Soil Partnership and the DG – Environment (JRC Ispra, Italy) are preparing a new and maybe more internationally accepted Universal Soil Classification (USC), which should integrate mainly non-European schools and approaches to soil classification more tightly. Current morphogenetic soil classification identifies the following groups of soils: initial soils (Lithic Leptosols, Regosols, Leptosols, Fluvisols), rendzic soils (Rendzic Leptosols, Calcaric Cambisols), mollic soils (Chernozems, Mollic Fluvisols and Mollic Gleysols), verctic soils (Vertisols), umbric soils (Umbrisols), illimeric soils (Haplic Luvisols, Albic Luvisols), cambic soils (Cambisols), andic soils (Andosols), podzolic soils (Podzols), hydromorphic soils (Planosols and Stagnosols, Gleysols), organic soils (Histosols), saline soils (Solonchaks, Solonetz), cultivated soils (Kultizems, Hortisols) and technogenic soils (Anthrosols, Technosols). Each soil type has its own precise description of its location, characteristics and potentials for its use. The most important types are described in more detail in a separate chapter and Annex of this work (Atlas of Main Soil Types in Slovakia). Classification of forest soils had been developing separately until 1993 (Šaly, 1962; 1999). At present, we can see that forest soils have also gradually passed under the morphogenetic classification, which led to a relatively unifying procedure for soil mapping and interpretation of scientific soil map bases and other documents.

Table 4.1 The most important soil types in agricultural land in Slovakia Soil type Area in thousand ha Area in (%) Chernozems 218.7 8.9 Haplic Luvisols 265.4 10.8 Eutric Cambisols 464.5 18.9 Dystric Cambisols 238.4 9.7 Albic Luvisols and Planosols and Stagnosols 238 9.7 Regosols and sandy Cambisols 19.6 0.8 Mollic Fluvisols and Mollic Gleysols 186.8 7.6 Fluvisols 309.7 12.6 Gleysols 110.6 4.5 Rendzic Leptosols 314.6 12.8 Cambic Podzols 58.9 2.4 Ssaline soils 19.6 0.8 (Nonrendzic) Leptosols 12.2 0.5 Source: Bielek, 2008

Urbanized areas are dominated by soils created by men, altered or degraded, which may neither have long-term development nor possess the most important soil features. They act as a component of the urban environment and need to be divided into urban and anthropogenic soils. Anthropogenic soils represent a general term encompassing soils affected by man. The term urban soils was introduced by Burghard (1994) as a concept for soils occurring in urbanized, industrial, traffic, mining and military areas. They are characterized by the consequences of anthropic influence and are often also contaminated (Sobocká et al. 2007). They usually involve complex built-up areas and soils surrounding them and affected by man, which together create what is called pedo-urban complex. Soils in urbanized areas are classified as cultivated soils significantly changed by amelioration or field modifications and are called either Kultizems (with Akm amelioration horizon), or Hortisols with hortic horizon (Akh, changed by human cultivation). In addition, this group also includes soils with significant technogenic influence, i.e. with surface anthropogenic horizon (Ad), or even with subsurface horizon (Hd), which are formed either from athropogenic replaced and accumulated soil materials (Anthrosols), or from materials of technogenic origin with a high proportion of waste (Technosols).

4.5 Soil Mapping It is a means for detection of spatial extension of soils and their diversity in the landscape area. It represents identification of soil types and lower units in situ including description of the structure and characteristics of soil profile with georeferenced allocation (GPS), determination of area of occurrence of individual soil units on maps or other digital or hard copy visual records. In Slovakia, a soil survey is typically carried out in accordance with a universal methodology (Čurlík and Šurina, 1998) with modifications in compliance with the aim of soil mapping. There are the following types of mapping: very detailed (16 points per 1 56

ha), more detailed (4 points per 1 ha), detailed (2-3 points per 1 ha), reconnaissance (1 point per 200-400 ha) and schematic (more sparse). Scales of individual soil maps are adapted to the density of observation points (or vice versa). Observation points may be positioned either to form a network or freely. Such created maps and their content can be digitalized and stored in various forms (as basic maps, aerial photographs, orthophotomaps, satellite images).

Figure 4.1 Generalized scheme of occurrence of soil types depending on the relief of the territory Source: Tobiašová, 2013

Figure 4.2 Soil types on the territory of Slovakia Source: Bielek, 2008

The soil maps are accompanied by supporting reports with content derived from the objectives of soil surveys. It is also possible to supplement the map bases with a database or geographic information systems. A set of soil maps can be either published as an atlas of soils of the given area or offered with the support of electronic presentation technologies (e.g. the Internet).

Geographical distribution of naturally formed soils in Slovakia is defined by geological structure of the territory and its variability and relief dissection. Geological structure determines the basic soil-forming material from which soils have originated. Of course, it is necessary to respect the often substantial migration of substances (through water, wind, erosion, landslides) having a potentially significant impact even in the areas outside of their original occurrence. However, there is a certain rule unifying various opinions and stating that, for instance, granitic rocks are usually covered with sandy, sandy-loamy and stony soils, heavy clayey soils with no skeleton are found on marls, and acidic soils prevail on acid substrates and carbonate substrates are covered with carbonate soils. The variability and relief dissection define the structure of soil-forming processes and their application influenced by latitude and altitude, and hence climate and vegetation conditions as well. Based on the size of the territory, latitude (latitudinal zonation) is not clearly reflected. We can accept certain zonation of soils in Slovakia according to altitude, though it may not be clearly or evidently regular, with the exception of microrelief of high altitudes, where the soil line of Camibsols – Podzols – (nonrendzic) Leptosols dominates (from lower to higher altitudes). As for mesorelief, such function can be performed by hydrological characteristics of the area depending on the extent of effect of ground and surface water (river basins and the area above them), which, for example, result in differences in soils between floodplains near to river beds and more distant areas. In this comparison it is not only the influence of water, but also, for example, rock and other structures of river deposits affecting both chemical status and physical and biological features of soils.

There is no doubt that soil diversity (heterogeneity) is an important characteristic of soil cover. The heterogeneity can be represented by properties within a single soil unit, or among more soil units (types, subtypes, varieties, forms, and species) in a particular territory. There are approximately 320 different soil types in Europe (Soil Atlas of Europe, 2005) and 26-27 in Slovakia. Both of those assessments of diversity demonstrate that variability of soil cover contributes to its stability against natural and anthropic influence. Of course, it may not fit the interests of agriculture, since the heterogeneity of soil cover requires the “heterogeneity” of soil management. This problem can be overcome by strict respecting of diversity of soil units in soil organization, or by application of systems of precise agriculture with measures realized under the guidance of satellites.

4.6 Soil Information Systems in Slovakia The first theoretical foundations for Slovak soil information systems were created by Linkeš et al. (1988). Unfortunately, at the time when they were writing their work, neither technical

nor electronic means for creation of a comprehensive Slovak soil information system were available, therefore its realization started later, in 1991-1995, it means after digitalization of map sources and databases of about 12 thousand pages of bonity maps (1:5,000) and establishment of digital database of all parameters of BSEU codes. The creation of the system itself has to be dated back to the end of the 1990s, when a level enabling formation of purposeful products in electronic versions was reached. In 2003, information was stored on digital map records of the territory of the Slovak Republic, and the setting of Arc-Info, or Arc-View subsequently developed and produced outcomes of an Internet offer for wide use by both professional and laic public, especially in science and research activities. In order to implement the EU land policy, Land Parcel Information System (LPIS) covering also boundaries of individual land parcels and other important parameters related to distribution of agricultural production within the territory of the Slovak Republic was created. It was only after 2005 that expert and advisory systems allowing users to enter into the system to get ask questions and get answers were developed based on the soil information system. The information system on agricultural soils has been created in the Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute in Bratislava. The information system on forest soils, including ownership relations regarding forests, is operated in National Forest Centre in Zvolen. Unfortunately, those two systems have so far not been unified, although there are some common partial products. Main causes of the persistent separation include objective competency and their technical differences. Another aspect related to informatization in the area of soil issues is presentation technologies that complement the basic information forms and represent a solution to the need for practical provision (the word “sharing” is used incorrectly) of information about soil to anyone who needs it. It is a relatively complex tool, because the information about soil has to be provided on maps, most commonly orthophotomaps or satellite image records, and, moreover, with an exact and georeferenced identification of location of information, which may be either individual or compressed from a variety of data parameters. The level of complexity is affected by both data creators and data providers. Nowadays the main medium for the presentation technologies is electronic distance portable systems (Internet, smartphone). Top information products are expert systems that assist their users electronically from a distance and offer them possible solutions to their practical problems. The systems are expert and complex tools establishing a software basis and communication technologies with users, and thus ensuring assistance with several variants (based on users’ requirements) with a reliable offer of solutions. In Slovakia, there is currently a system named E-Government being created with the help of the EU. It is a central comprehensive information system of state administration, which has already got specific contours, but is still at the beginning of its possibilities. Current electronic provision of information about soil is partially managed at the level of the cadastre (Geodesy, Cartography and Cadastre Authority) and other more detailed professional knowledge about soil is provided by the Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute in Bratislava.

At the EU level, in 2007 INSPIRE Directive (Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community) entered into force. It responded to an inadequate situation in compatibility of information systems in the EU and limitation of the exchange of information by different concepts and approaches. It focuses on coordination of production and provision of spatial information, and therefore fundamentally affects information about soil as well. It is a very difficult directive from the perspective of both content and realization, and therefore its implementation by the Member States is substantially delayed. In order to address soil issues and problems, the initiative was taken over by the EC JRC in Ispra (Italy), which established an international team with the aim to formulate the content regarding the provision of information in the form of guidelines on an integrated approach of the Member States in joint construction of the system for instance. However, the implementation is still slow. Generally, the main problem is personnel and institutional unpreparedness of the countries to form and to subsequently provide spatial information in a unified manner. Any change in the provision of information also brings a change in lifestyle. Invention of writing system raised concerns over further development of human memory storage potential, introduction of television led to a threat of reduced interest in literature, extension of computers supported the average IQ of the population though it also causes worries over a decrease in the level of expertise and knowledge of the population. Electronization is of a great help in soil observation and study to such an extent that even the fear that soil science is only a saloon research made up in front of a computer and having no ability to understand the real soil on the earth occurred. Laboratory work has become less interesting and has no longer been as valued and appreciated as the science from behind the computer. Research workplaces change, people and unique instruments are replaced by computers and electronic devices. So far, it helps. But what will happen when there is nothing that could be used to create the information systems and computer products? That is a question which needs our answer now.

5 SOIL TYPES

Soil type is a fundamental identification category of genetic-agronomic and morphogenetic soil classification. It involves a group of soils characterized by the same stratigraphy of soil profile, i.e. certain combination of diagnostic horizons as a result of a qualitatively specific type of soil formation process. Lower categories of soil classification include sub-types, varieties and forms. The work presents characteristics and a schematic map of allocation of 12 most commonly occurring soil types representing 94.9% of the total area of agricultural land in the Slovak Republic. But small areas of the country are also covered by Lithic Leptosols, Calcaric Cambisols, Andosols, Gleysols, Histosols, Kultizems and Anthrosols (Bielek et al., 1998).

REGOZEM (RM), corresponding to Regosols in WRB (2014)

Figure 5.1 Spatial differentiation of Regosols in the Slovak Republic Source: Bielek et al., 1998

Area and percentage out of the total agricultural land in Slovakia: 62,810 ha (2.56%).

Typological production category: OT3, low productive arable soils and less productive grassland.

Production potential: 40-45 points on 100 point scale.

Agronomic characteristics: this type is less fertile, suitable for cultivation of rye and less demanding forage crops.

Typical sequence of soil horizons: Ao-C.

Basic description: young two-horizon A-C soils with initial soil formation process evolved on non-alluvial medium-heavy unconsolidated sediments on convex parts of hill lands. These soils have a bright ochric horizon that is formed from aeolian sands, clay, marl or loess and are often found in the places where the original soil has been completely removed by soil erosion. According to the soil profile texture, they can be divided into silicate and carbonate varieties.

Sub-types of Regosols: modal, umbric, podzolic, stagnic, gleyic, kultizemic.

ČERNOZEM (ČM), corresponding to Chernozems in WRB (2014)

Figure 5.2 Spatial differentiation of Chernozems in the Slovak Republic Source: Bielek et al., 1998

Area and percentage out of the total agricultural land in Slovakia: 345,740 ha (14.1%).

Typological production category: O1-O5, the most productive to medium productive arable soils.

Production potential: 63-100 points on 100 point scale.

Agronomic characteristics: these soils are fertile, sometimes with a lack of water, most suitable for cultivation of wheat, sugar beet, maize, clover, legumes and oilseeds.

Typical sequence of soil horizons: Am-A/C-C.

Basic description: two-horizon A-C soils that evolved on unconsolidated sediments, mostly eolithic carbonate (loess) sediments in conditions of warm, dry climate with non-percolative to periodically percolative regime. These soils have a dark (mollic) humus horizon. Sub-types of Chernozems: modal, luvi-haplic, salic, sodic, kultizemic.Haplic Chernozems,

HNEDOZEM (HM), corresponding to Haplic Luvisols in WRB (2014)

Figure 5.3 Spatial differentiation of Haplic Luvisols in the Slovak Republic Source: Bielek et al., 1998

Area and percentage out of the total agricultural land in Slovakia: 317,360 ha (12.9%).

Typological production category: O2-T3, highly productive arable soils and less productive permanent grassland.

Production potential: 34-90 points on 100 point scale.

Agronomic characteristics: fertile soils suitable for a wide range of plants. Due to the lower content of humus, they require organic fertilisation and cultivation of perennial forage crops.

Typical sequence of soil horizons: A-Bt-C.

Basic description: three-horizon A-B-C soils that evolved primarily on loess and other Quaternary and Neogene sediments in conditions of periodically percolative regime. They have a thin bright (ochric) humus horizon and a strong B horizon, which was formed by translocation and from clay particles. They usually do not contain a skeleton in their soil profile.

Sub-types of Haplic Luvisols: modal, albi-, stagni-, kultizemic.

LUVIZEM (LM), corresponding to Albic Luvisols in WRB (2014)

Figure 5.4 Spatial differentiation of Albic Luvisols in the Slovak Republic Source: Bielek et al., 1998

Area and percentage out of the total agricultural land in Slovakia: 52,840 (2.2%).

Typological production category: O3-OT1, very productive and medium productive arable soils and very productive grassland.

Production potential: 33-65 points on 100 point scale.

Agronomic characteristics: less fertile soils that require liming and sufficient fertilisation. They are suitable for cultivation of rye, oilseed rape, hemp, clover, and maize as well if situated on loess.

Typical sequence of soil horizons: A-El-Bt-C

Basic description: four-horizon A-E-B-C soils that evolved on non-carbonate substrates in conditions of percolative water regime in the areas where lowlands and hill lands or uplands meet. They have a thin bright (ochric) humus horizon, mostly also an eluvial (leached) horizon and a deep B horizon, which was formed by accumulation of clay (referred to as an illimerised soil type in older classifications).

Sub-types of Albic Luvisols: modal, podzolic, stagnic, kultizemic.

PSEUDOGLEJ (PG), corresponding to Planosols and Stagnosols in WRB (2014)

Figure 5.5 Spatial differentiation of Planosols and Stagnosols in the Slovak Republic Source: Bielek et al., 1998

Area and percentage out of the total agricultural land in Slovakia: 185,000 ha (7.6%).

Typological production category: O4-T3, productive arable soils and less productive grassland.

Production potential: 31-50 points on 100 point scale.

Agronomic characteristics: these soils originated in waterlogged areas, which do not have an appropriate drainage of percolating water due to heavy impermeable bottom soil. They are good for oats and clover.

Typical sequence of soil horizons: A-Bg-Cg; A-En-Bg-Cg.

Basic description: four-horizon A-E-B-C or three-horizon A-B-C soils that evolved on various mostly non-carbonate substrates in conditions of percolative water regime with an excess of water at the base of slopes. They have a thin bright (ochric) humus horizon under which we can find both leached eluvial horizon and a deep B horizon with a strong gleization. The whole profile is seasonally significantly overwatered due to the low water permeability of the B horizon.

Sub-types of Planosols and Stagnosols: modal, umbric, albic, luvic, cambic, stagno-gleyic, gleyic, organogenic, kultizemic.

RANKER (RN), corresponding to Leptosols in WRB (2014)

Figure 5.6 Spatial differentiation of (nonrendzic) Leptosols in the Slovak Republic Source: Bielek et al., 1998

Area and percentage out of the total agricultural land in Slovakia: 1,660 ha (0.06%). Typological production category: N, areas not suitable for agroecosystems.

Production potential: maximum of 5 points on 100 point scale.

Agronomic characteristics: extremely skeletal soil type suitable only for permanent grassland from viewpoint of agriculture.

Typical sequence of soil horizons: A-C-R.

Basic description: two-horizon A-C soils that evolved on highly skeletal shallow weathered material of solid and consolidated acidic silicate rocks in higher and medium altitudes. Their typical feature is accumulation of soil organic matter.

Sub-types of Leptosols: modal, umbric, cambic, andic, podzolic, organogenic, kultizemic.

Kambizem (KM), corresponding to Cambisols in WRB (2014)

Figure 5.7 Spatial differentiation of Cambisols in the Slovak Republic Source: Bielek et al., 1998

Area and percentage out of the total agricultural land in Slovakia: 656,870 ha (26.8%).

Typological production category: O4-T4, productive arable soils and low productive permanent grassland.

Production potential: 10-60 points on 100 point scale.

Agronomic characteristics: the most extended soil type in Slovakia. These soils can be found in uplands and highlands, especially on weathered solid non-carbonate rocks. They are of medium fertility and often contain gravel and stones. Their agricultural use can be either limited or suitable for less demanding crops.

Sequence of soil horizons: A-Bv-C.

Basic description: three-horizon A-B-C soils on weathered solid non-carbonate rocks, or sometimes on consolidated and unconsolidated sediments. They are usually bright in lower positions and more contrast in higher positions. These soils have a humus horizon of various widths with the B horizon of internal soil weathering below it. They are often skeletal (they were known as brown soils in older literature).

Sub-types of Cambisols: modal, rendzic, skelic, calcaric, umbric, podzolic, albic, andic, stagnic, gleyic, kultizemic.

PODZOL (PZ), corresponding to Podzols in WRB (2014)

Figure 5.8 Spatial differentiation of Podzols in the Slovak Republic Source: Bielek et al., 1998

Area and percentage out of the total agricultural land in Slovakia: 3,000 ha (0.12%).

Typological production category: N, soils not suitable for agroecosystems.

Production potential: 3-10 points on 100 point scale.

Agronomic characteristics: soils that evolved on cold and wet areas under mountain coniferous forests and scrub on weathered solid acidic rocks. They have agronomically adverse properties (they are acidic, non-structural, and gravelly to stony).

Sequence of soil horizons: Aop-Ep-Bs-C.

Basic description: four-horizon A-E-B-C soils on lighter acidic rocks. They have a dominant coloured horizon formed by podzolization, i.e. translocation of low molecular organic substances and sesquioxides through percolating water. These soils have a strong acidic soil reaction. Humus and eluvial horizons are more distinct. There is a B horizon below them, in which Fe, Al, humic substances and sesquioxides are accumulated. These soils occur mostly above 1,300 m (alpine pastures) and can occur in lower areas only on poor substrates (e.g. aeolian sands in Záhorie region).

Sub-types of Podzols: modal, umbric, humus-iron, gleyic, histic, kultizemic.

RENDZINA (RA), corresponding to Rendzic Leptosols in WRB (2014)

Figure 5.9 Spatial differentiation of Rendzic Leptosols in the Slovak Republic Source: Bielek et al., 1998

Area and percentage out of the total agricultural land in Slovakia: 115,000 (4.7%).

Typological production category: O4-T4, productive arable soils and low productive permanent grassland.

Production potential: 10-55 points on 100 point scale.

Agronomic characteristics: usually shallow and gravelly soils in mountain areas, mostly as those of meadows and pastures.

Sequence of soil horizons: Amc-Cc-Rc.

Basic description: two-horizon A-C soils of rugged reliefs on solid and consolidated carbonate rocks with high contents of CaCO3 a MgCO3. These soils have a dark (mollic) and humic A horizon with a skeletal carbonate substrate under it (more than 30%).

Sub-types of Rendzic Leptosols: modal, lithic, skelic, umbric, cambic, organogenic, kultizemic.

FLUVIZEM (FM), corresponding to Fluvisols i WRB (2014)

Figure 5.10 Spatial differentiation of Fluvisols in the Slovak Republic Source: Bielek et al., 1998

Area and percentage out of the total agricultural land in Slovakia: 375,020 (15.3%).

Typological production category: O2-T3, highly productive arable soils and less productive permanent grassland.

Production potential: 33-90 points on 100 point scale.

Agronomic characteristics: they are located in floodplains and alluvial plains. They are fertile and good for cereal, technical and root crops. They are also good vegetable soils.

Sequence of soil horizons: Ao-C.

Basic description: young two-horizon A-C soils on recent alluvial sediments of all climate areas. Their typical feature is a bright low-humus ochric floodplain horizon (Aon) with a thickness of up to 0.3 m. These soils occur mostly in flat areas of streams or rivers that are (or have been) affected by flooding and fluctuation of groundwater level (referred to as floodplain or alluvial soils in older classifications).

Sub-types of Fluvisols: modal, gleyic, salic, sodic, kultizemic.

SLANISKO (SK), corresponding to Solonchaks in WRB (2014)

Figure 5.11 Spatial differentiation of Solonchaks in the Slovak Republic Source: Bielek et al., 1998

Area and percentage out of the total agricultural land in Slovakia: 4,890 (0.2%).

Typological production category: T4, low productive permanent grassland.

Production potential: 1-10 points on 100 point scale.

Agronomic characteristics: soils in floodplains with strongly mineralized underground water. Their fertility is low and to make them more fertile is highly demanding.

Sequence of soil horizons: As-C-G.

Basic descriptions two-horizon A-C soils with a high content of easily soluble salts rich in chlorides and sulphates (especially near the soil surface) and with high electrical conductivity. These soils occur in areas where the surface of mineralized underground water is in contact with the soil surface. They are mostly situated in a complex with Mollic Fluvisols and Mollic Gleysols.

Sub-types of Solonchaks: modal, mollic, gleyic, sodic, kultizemic.

ČIERNICA (ČA), corresponding to Mollic Fluvisols and Mollic Gleysols in WRB (2014)

Figure 5.12 Spatial differentiation of Mollic Fluvisols and Mollic Gleysols in the Slovak Republic Source: Bielek et al., 1998

Area and percentage out of the total agricultural land in Slovakia: 205,720 ha (8.4%).

Typological production category: O1-T3, the most productive arable soils and less productive permanent grassland.

Production potential: 45-100 points on 100 point scale.

Agronomic characteristics: soils in wide floodplains that are affected by flooding minimally. They may be more fertile than Chernozems, which is a result of ground water activity.

Sequence of soil horizons: Amč-A/CGo-Gro.

Basic description: two-horizon soils on non-carbonate alluvial sediments in warmer areas with exudative water regime. These soils have a dark (mollic) humic A horizon and can be found mostly in floodplains, or less often in terraces affected by higher level of groundwater (referred to as floodplain soils in mapping systems in the past).

Sub-types of Mollic Fluvisols and Mollic Gleysols: modal, haplic, gleyic, histic, salic, sodic, kultizemic.

The information presented and the pictures come from the publication entitled Naše pôdy poľnohospodárske (Our Agricultural Soils; Bielek et al., 1998). There is also a photograph

album of soil profiles and their brief basic description provided in the Annex of this scientific monograph. In order to identify soil units, scientists use soil pits. The data obtained from visual observation and analyses of samples taken from walls of a soil profile are considered to be specific values of variables, which, however, do not define the spatial variability of soil environment of the given area. In this sense, the soil profile (in the pit) is a two-dimensional object in the vertical, though natural soil units are logically three-dimensional. Hence their basic properties must have a spatial three-dimensional value. And this can be provided by the characteristics of the three-dimensional cut-out from a soil unit in a natural state, which is called a pedon. Properties of the pedon are represented by the data obtained from the soil profile, which means that the soil profile is a central concept of the pedon. A set of pedons of the same taxonomic level in a certain area forms a natural three-dimensional soil unit of the soil cover that is called polypedon. Polypedons are individual bodies of soil classification (such as individual plants in botany) and a set of identical polypedons forms a specific unit of soil classification (type, sub-type, etc.). Pedons and polypedons are most commonly determined with soil probe rods in the field. According to the Morphogenetic Soil Classification System of Slovakia, the size of the pedon may represent 1-10 m2 and the depth of the pedon can sometimes be even more than 10 m. In that case, the pedon is characterised by using geological probes or a study of deep soil exposures (excavations, landslides, stone quarries and other).

Soil classifications sometimes also use the term soil solum. It is the upper part of the pedon including all horizons that are formed by pedogenetic processes up to the level of soil-forming substrate.

6 SOIL EVALUATION

The concept of soil evaluation encompasses guidelines on a wide range of use of information about the soil cover in theory and especially in practice. Soils can be evaluated according to their individual characteristics, or through an algorithm of properties and relations with a potential for a specific use. In such case, it is a purposeful soil evaluation.

6.1 Theoretical Principles of Evaluation of Soil Quality and Production Capability Evaluation of production potential of soils is an important product created on the basis of relatively detailed knowledge of individual properties of soils complemented with environmental conditions and demands of plants on characteristics of their habitats. It usually refers to the production of agricultural and other commodities with a relevant economic impact and eco-social manifestation. Evaluation of the production potential of soils is primarily associated with the term soil fertility. According to Viľjams (1953), it is a qualitative parameter, although we do not appreciate it. Hroššo (1958) adds that soil fertility is the ability of soil to provide plants with such living conditions that ensure their yield. Boguslawski (1954) defines soil fertility as an existing balance of dynamic and interconnected system of soil, climate and plants. Džatko (1981) claims that soil fertility is an essential property of every soil unit, according to which soils differ from the rocks and he suggests to use the term soil production capability in quantitative evaluation of fertility. He defines it as “a measurable degree of the basic attribute of every soil unit to take, to transform, to accumulate and to deliver the necessary amount of water, nutrients and energy for both growth and production of specific plants and their communities”. However, production capability is not a synonym for soil fertility. The terms soil fertility and soil productivity (soil capability) significantly differ especially in English literature. Soil capability, i.e. the production capability of soils, depends on specific crops in a specific farming system. For instance, when searching for the possibilities of programming and prognosticating the yield, Džatko (1997) started to use the term soil production potential as designating “an optimum possible level of production capability of soil in a specific location and at an estimated time, which will result in an optimum production without any major disruption of balance of factors and biological stability of the environment”, and therefore the value of the soil production potential should not be seen as an indicator of a possible maximization, but only as an indicator of optimization of the use of soil and country. The meaning of the term soil bonitation also fits the context. Bonity (bonitas atis – goodness) is an indicator of quantitative assessment of soil quality. Bonitation as a part of evidence of soil quality has had a long tradition in the territory of Slovakia at least since 1654, when a so-called rustic cadastre was established to define obligations of feudal landowners. During the period of reforms of Maria Theresa and Joseph II, Theresian and later also Josephian Cadastres were established to identify the quality of 74

soils according to their fertility and location within the village. In 1817, the formation of a so- called Stabile Cadastre started. It is probable that the Stabile Cadastre was used in the preparation of Act No. 177/1927 on land cadastre in the territory of the Czechoslovak Republic. The Theresian Cadastre offered an inventory of land parcels and their representation on maps with a scale of 1:2,880. Land parcels were classified according to altitude, climate, bedrock and terrain characteristics. It also took into account so-called net cadastral yield of sample land parcels with the classification recognizing 8 bonity classes in every cadastre. Pedologic properties taken into account involved easily recognized texture, workability, stoniness, aeration, moisture holding capacity, thickness of topsoil and slope angle of land. The first modern work about soil bonity in Slovakia including 1:500,000 scale maps was published by Lukniš in 1956. He defined 7 bonity soil categories according to the index of the net yield. In the period of 1950-1960, a set of “geonomic” knowledge and maps focusing on production types and subtypes was formed. Based on the gained information, in 1958 soils were divided into the following four production types – maize, beet, potato, and mountain farm production types – and into 12 production sub-types. In Slovakia, a detailed and modern soil bonitation system was created in 1965-1972 following the results of the Complex Survey of Agricultural Soils of Slovakia. The first output was a system of 63 site units, which was later followed by a system of soil ecological units and subsequently by a 100-point evaluation and a map system of relative bonity of agricultural soils and then by a system of maps categorising suitability of soils for crop cultivation (Džatko et al., 1981; 1985). From a practical standpoint, the most important output of soil evaluation in Slovakia has so far been the System of Bonited Soil Ecological Units (BSEU). The term BSEU is understood as a homogeneous area having a unique character of soil and ecological properties (Džatko et al., 1976). BSEUs have been created and mapped based on characteristics of climate (T), soil type (P), soil-forming substrate (G), soil texture (Z), skeleton content (K), soil depth (H), slope (S) and exposure of the area (E). The system combines 11 climate regions, 100 main soil units, 6 slope categories, 4 exposure categories, 4 categories of skeleton content, 3 categories of soil depth and 5 categories of soil texture. Innovated BSEU maps show characteristics of the basic units expressed in 7-digit code (Linkeš et al., 1996) and are available in electronic form stored on orthophotomaps as well. The code structure is presented in Figure 6.1. The structure shows the enormous diversity and map variety of BSEUs on the territory of Slovakia. According to the latest Manual for the Use of Maps of bonited soil ecological units (Džatko et al., 2009), soil science recognizes 9,382 BSEUs on the territory of Slovakia and integrates them into 100 main soil units, which have associated codes and are divided into soil types, sub-types, varieties and forms in compliance with the Morphogenetic Soil Classification System of Slovakia (Collective, 2000). The BSEU system is widely used in the management of agricultural practice. Since 1990, it has served as a basis for the “differential premiums” in agriculture, then as an instrument for the promotion of development of agriculture, and it has also been used in the coordination and

management of application of the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU in Slovakia since 2003. It has a wide application in science, research, and decision-making sphere of many state and management institutions and in international discussions and negotiations related to soil as well.

Figure 6.1 Structure of the 7-digit BSEU code

6.2 Evaluation of Soil Production Potential The portfolio of basic data for a specific assessment of soil bonity and production potential in Slovakia is provided by outputs of the Complex Survey of Agricultural Soils of Slovakia carried out in 1960-1970. Not only this one, but also other surveys and assessments have gradually led to the creation of several areally interpreted presentations of production potential of agricultural soils in Slovakia with detailed information for practically every site on the territory (Džatko et al., 2002). The system assigns a certain point value of relative bonity to every agricultural site in Slovakia. It is a concentrated information representing the production potential of the site in the range from 1 to 100 (sites with the lowest fertility have the value of 1 and those with the highest fertility have the value of 100). Values of all sites are available at www.vupop.sk. The information shows a relatively significant geographical diversity of the production potential of soils in Slovakia, which is also demonstrated in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 Weighted average of point values of production potential of soils in individual Regions Bratislava Region 72.4 Žilina Region 29.9 Nitra Region 75.5 Banská Bystrica Region 43.2 Trnava Region 76.9 Prešov Region 36.3 Trenčín Region 45.7 Košice Region 54.2 Source: Bielek, 2008

The value of the weighted average of production potential of agricultural soils in Slovakia is 53.9 points (Bielek, 2008). It means that agricultural soils in Slovakia have a relatively good

potential for agricultural production, which can reach slightly above-average results from the soil ecological perspective. This fairly favourable situation is also visible in comparison to other countries (Figure 6.2).

Figure 6.2 Comparison between the average soil production potential of selected states and the soil production potential of Slovakia (%) Source: Bielek, 2008

Further information about the production potential of agricultural soils in Slovakia can be found in Table 6.2 presenting differences between production potentials of individual Districts. It could motivate people to make strategic decisions not only in the management of agricultural production, but also in the decision-making process related to land use connected with other agricultural interests and contexts.

Table 6.2 Average point value of production potential of agricultural soils (PV) in individual districts of Slovakia Order District PV Order District PV 1 Bánovce nad Bebravou 56 41 Nové mesto nad Váhom 58 2 Banská Bystrica 32 42 Nové Zámky 80 3 Banská Štiavnica 31 43 Partizánske 66 4 Bardejov 36 44 Pezinok 67 5 Bratislava I 0 45 Piešťany 73 6 Bratislava II 83 46 Poltár 46 7 Bratislava III 46 47 Poprad 30 8 Bratislava IV 66 48 Považská Bystrica 36 9 Bratislava V 81 49 Prešov 40 10 Brezno 27 50 Prievidza 44 77

11 Bytča 35 51 Púchov 36 12 Čadca 26 52 Revúca 49 13 Detva 32 53 Rimavská Sobota 54 14 Dolný Kubín 26 54 Rožňava 38 15 Dunajská Streda 86 55 Ružomberok 27 16 Galanta 84 56 Sabinov 35 17 Gelnica 26 57 Senec 82 18 Hlohovec 71 58 Senica 62 19 Humenné 45 59 Skalica 67 20 Ilava 41 60 Snina 41 21 Kežmarok 30 61 Sobrance 60 22 Komárno 82 62 Spišská Nová ves 37 23 Košice - okolie 54 63 Stará Ľubovňa 28 24 Košice I 34 64 Stropkov 40 25 Košice II 58 65 Svidník 42 26 Košice III 49 66 Šaľa 85 27 Košice IV 61 67 Topoľčany 70 28 Krupina 47 68 Trebišov 63 29 Kysucké Nové Mesto 32 69 Trenčín 48 30 Levice 71 70 Trnava 78 31 Levoča 33 71 Turčianske Teplice 43 32 Liptovský Mikuláš 33 72 Tvrdošín 30 33 Lučenec 54 73 Veľký Krtíš 58 34 Malacky 67 74 Vranov nad Topľou 51 35 Martin 40 75 Zlaté Moravce 63 36 Medzilaborce 36 76 Zvolen 43 37 Michalovce 65 77 Žarnovica 36 38 Myjava 40 78 Žiar nad Hronom 41 39 Námestovo 29 79 Žilina 35 40 Nitra 74

Figure 6.3 highlights the spatial distribution of the production potential of agricultural soils in Slovakia. It allows us to clearly identify both the agriculturally most productive areas of Slovakia and areas where the agricultural production does not prosper that much. This purposeful assessment of soil production potential has a wide application in agriculture and its economic and eco-social management, as well as in terms of global social needs to regulate the development of our society. An important potential is also represented by the use of this professional basis for the protection of soil and conservation of nature, including environmental parameters such as regional development factors.

Figure 6.3 Production potential of agricultural soils in Slovakia Source: Bielek, 2008

The production potential of agricultural soils in Slovakia is presented separately for the purposes of their protection, and hence 9 soil groups with different intensity of protection are distinguished in relation to the land take for the non-biological use. Each group is assigned a specific BSEU structure, and thus a specific size of area within the agricultural land in Slovakia. This can be seen in Table 6.3, which also shows a relatively favourable soil and ecological situation to agricultural production and its efficiency.

Table 6.3 Classes of protection of soil production potential Protection class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Area in % 9.2 19.6 20 7.9 13 13.5 9.6 5.2 2 Source: Bielek, 2008; 1 – very high productivity, 2 – high productivity, 3 – productive, 4 – medium productivity, 5 – lower productivity, 6 – very low productivity, 7 – less suitable for agriculture, 9 – unsuitable for agriculture

Unfortunately, we are not always capable of taking advantage of the production potential of soils at the same level at which it is offered by nature. This may be caused by many shortcomings of either objective (for example annual climate anomalies) or subjective nature (shortcomings in management). It is presented more specifically in Table 6.4.

Table 6.4 Use of production potential of agricultural soils in Slovakia Crop % Crop % Winter wheat 83.1 Sunflower 70.2 Rye 77.8 Soya-bean 71.3 Spring barley 86.1 Annual forage crops 65.4 Oat 62.4 Oilseed rape 89.6 Maize for grain 85.1 Perennial forage crops 76.4 Legumes in total 77.2 Arable land in total 80.3 Potatoes 67.5 Permanent grassland in total 57.6 Sugar beet 80.5 Source: Vilček, 2011

Vilček (2006) also offers economic indicators expressed in the form of values of plant production profitability (Table 6.5). The values show that over 50% of soil is not profitable for farming and it is partly due to inappropriately set or otherwise deformed economic instruments that are applied in agriculture.

Table 6.5 Profitability of agricultural use of soils in Slovakia (without subsidies) Category Degree (%) Size of the area (%) Unprofitable soils < 0 54.4 Soils with low profitability 0-3 13.9 Soils with medium profitability 3-6 7.3 Soils with high profitability 6-9 10.6 Soils with very high profitability > 9 13.8 Source: Vilček, 2006

Different agricultural crops have different demands on soil quality. Vilček (2011) categorizes specific suitability of soils for cultivation of the main field crops in relation to the size of the area (Table 6.6). The assessment shows that there are relatively good conditions especially for cultivation of winter wheat, oilseed rape, as well as sunflower, barley and oats in Slovakia. There is a sufficient number of suitable sites for other main crops as well and they can provide food for the country’s citizens in sufficient amount. All of the data on suitability are identified on orthophotomaps of the territory of Slovakia and electronically visualized for every field at www.vupop.sk. It is a good tool that helps farmers to decide on the structure of sowing and crop rotation. The total area of agricultural land in Slovakia currently represents about 2,432 thousand ha. It accounts for about 0.44 ha per capita and out of that 0.26 ha stands for arable land. The largest area of agricultural land per capita is identified in Nitra (6,599 m2) and Banská Bystrica Regions (6,341 m2) whereas the smallest area is in Žilina Region (3,549 m2). Vilček (2011) states this comparison points out the critical size of the arable land area. If it is less than 0.18 ha per capita (or more than 5.5 persons per 1 ha), the territory cannot feed its population and is dependent on food imports. According to this assessment, the critical positions belong to Žilina, Bratislava and Trenčín Regions (11.0; 8.0; 6.1 persons per ha). 80

Table 6.6 Suitability of soils for cultivation of the main field crops in Slovakia (as % of the total area) Crop Very suitable Suitable Less suitable Unsuitable Winter wheat 28.7 25.4 9.2 36.7 Rye 12 21.2 37.1 29.7 Spring barley 20 23.8 24.1 32.1 Oat 23.6 20.1 19.2 37.1 Maize for grain 14.4 16.8 17.1 51.7 Pea 19 11.2 3.8 66 Bean 19.9 18.2 3.1 58.8 Sugar beet 11.8 12.3 32.8 43.1 Oilseed rape 23.2 31 13.8 32 Potatoes 11.8 12.3 32.8 43.1 Sunflower 18.8 24.9 16.6 39.7 Soya-bean 25 19.9 3.7 51.4 Poppy 18.1 14.7 22 45.2 Flax 14.9 24.6 17.4 43.1 Hop 16.7 2.5 0.1 80.7 Source: Vilček, 2011

The current production potential of soils, on average, can sufficiently ensure food security for about 6.2 million citizens. Thus the country has a good starting point for the production of sufficient amount of food for its population. In order to feed it, Slovakia needs at least 1,368.8 thousand ha of the best soils that are mostly profitable for agricultural production, and this accounts for about 56% of the total area (Vilček, 2011). The range of the production potential of those soils is 38-100 points, the average value is 70.3 points. Together the soils create a so- called primary land fund representing the most precious soil resource. The location of this type of soil is precisely known, and thus it can be protected sufficiently if a good land and food policy is chosen. The largest area is located in Nové Zámky District (103,000 ha), Levice District (96,000 ha), Komárno District (83,000 ha), Dunajská Streda District (76,000 ha), Nitra District (63,000 ha) and Trnava District (49,000 ha). Figure 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 point out that the primary land fund is dominantly located on the south-west, south and south-east of Slovakia. The secondary land fund can be found mostly in the middle and north of the country. The incidence of other land types is scattered equally throughout the territory.

Figure 6.4 Primary land fund on the territory of Slovakia

Of course, in order to ensure the sufficient food production, the country must keep and protect the reserve area of land, which may produce commodities for export in good years and in case of an agriculturally adverse year, it can provide food supply that may be necessary for the population. It is a so-called secondary land fund with the area of about 696,000 ha and the average value of 29.4 points and it represents about 29% of the current area of registered agricultural land in Slovakia. The location of the secondary land is known as well and it also needs a well-organized protection.

Figure 6.5 Secondary land fund on the territory of Slovakia

Figure 6.6 Distribution of other land fund on the territory of Slovakia

The other land fund having about 368.5 thousand ha (approximately 15% of the total area) represents the area, on which the Slovak food production does not so significantly depend. However, it is very important within the framework of environmental structure of the territory, and therefore its use and especially protection must be managed by other interests than food production. Integrated content, map and tabular presentations of primary, secondary and other land fund in Slovakia can be found in the works of Vilček (2006; 2011) and Bielek (2008).

6.3 Typological Production Categories of Agricultural Soils in Slovakia Based on the results of the assessment of soil production potential and bonity, including numerous analyses of BSEU properties and production of major crops, all BSEUs in Slovakia were incorporated into 4 types and 15 sub-types reflecting their rational use, which are considered to be 15 typological production categories of agricultural soils in Slovakia (Džatko, 1998). Their structure is demonstrated in Table 6.7. Databases and maps that characterize the distribution of soils according to the typological production groups lead to the elaboration of proposals for restructuring and greening of the use of soils on both cadastral and national levels. Based on that, it is possible to identify and quantify the compliance of the real use of soils with their suitability for the specific use. The largest non-compliance was found between the real and the rational use of soils in submontane and upland areas, where approximately 12% of registered arable land does not meet the parameters for such use (Džatko, 1998).

Table 6.7 Structure of typological production categories of agricultural soils in Slovakia Symbol Sub-type characteristic Area in % Potentially arable soils: O 1 the most productive arable soils 6.6 O 2 highly productive arable soils 14.1 O 3 very productive arable soils 7.1 O 4 productive arable soils 10.9 O 5 medium productive arable soils 10.5 O 6 less productive arable soils 6.9 O 7 low productive arable soils 3.6 In total 59.7 Alternating fields OT 1 medium productive fields and productive grassland 1.4 OT 2 less productive fields and productive grassland 3.4 OT 3 low productive fields and productive grassland 8.4 In total 13.2 Permanent grassland T 1 - T 3 productive permanent grassland 11.1 T 4 low productive permanent grassland 14.1 In total 25.2 Not suitable N areas not suitable for agro-systems 1.9 O: BSEUs of plains, OT: very light and very heavy soils, T: shallow gleyic soils on slopes above 12o, N: soils not suitable for agricultural production, extremely shallow, waterlogged, on slopes above 25o

Classification of soils according to BSEU and typological production categories is a relatively detailed concept for the division of the territory based on soil characteristics and specific potential for their use. The division of Slovakia that was accepted in the past (in the 1950s) and that created 4 production areas (maize, beet, potato, mountain production areas) did not quite take into account natural and soil ecological differences in conditions of agricultural production, and therefore it is not sufficient. However, thanks to its simple classification, the system is still mentioned and sometimes also used. Its characterization by parameters of the current knowledge (Vilček, 2010) may, however, be interesting and explain the nostalgia for it and for its use in many respects. It can be commented by Table 6.8. The Table shows that due to the absence of the current knowledge, the division of the territory into the production areas was estimated quite well, but it was not detailed enough for the specific fields, and we can afford it neither in science nor in practice if the implementation of the agricultural policy, support mechanisms and the complex management of agricultural production are to function properly.

Table 6.8 Division of the territory of Slovakia according to the production areas Percentage out Point value Production of the total of soil Predominant Degree of area area production soil type profitability in % potential in %* Maize PA 37 73.6 Fluvisols 6.15 Beet PA 21.5 50.5 Haplic Luvisols -0.07 Potato PA 27.5 26.8 Haplic Luvisols -3.15 Mountain PA 14 19.2 Cambisols -3.97 Source: Vilček, 2010 *with no subsidies

The structure of typological production categories of soils in Slovakia in connection with the database of their occurrence and characteristics can be used to optimize the exploitation of soils with theoretical proposals and practical solutions. A good example of such an approach may be the identification of areas suitable for sealing, afforestation, or even of soils that are currently improperly used, and thus recommended for change.

Figure 6.7 Typological production categories of soils on the territory of Slovakia Source: Džatko, 1998

Figure 6.8 Agricultural production areas on the territory of Slovakia Source: Bielek, 2008

6.4 Evaluation of Soil Bioenergetic Potential According to the theory of Kudrna (1967, 1979), the bioenergetic potential of soils represents an energy state of active soil surfaces determined by their size and composition of the substances they consist of. In this context, it is very rightly pointed out that the soil bioenergetic potential cannot be increased by chemical fertilisers for instance if it lacks active soil surfaces (Kudrna, 1970). It proves that the bioenergetic potential is primarily determined by the soil characteristics and it is not always a result of intensive farming. The major advantage in the evaluation of soil bioenergetic potential is the definition of state, changes and activities by means of energy units, for example the values of J, kJ, or GJ. Vilček (2013) estimates that there is about 10,206 PJ (1 PJ equals 1015 J) accumulated in agricultural soils in Slovakia, which is 13 times more than the annual production of the country’s power plants. The amount of energy transferred from soil to plants depends on soil and farming system. Another type of energy entering the soil–plant system is that of solar radiation. Its effects allow us to assume that soil seems to be an ecosystem producing more energy than it consumes. Plants consume only about 0.8% of the solar radiation energy that is absorbed during photosynthesis by organic matter of their organisms. It represents 98% of what they need for their growth and the rest is obtained from the resources that intensify the crop production (fertilisers, pesticides, fuel, irrigation, mechanical equipment). The most valuable information provided by the work is that about energy output and yield from an agricultural 86

soil unit in Slovakia. For instance, 1 m2 of soil can annually offer 10.2-11.1 MJ of energy in Danubian Lowland, 9.2-9.4 MJ of energy in Záhorská Lowland and 8.2-8.8 MJ of energy in Eastern Slovak Lowland. The lowest energy yield can be found on flysch (5.7-5.9 GJ) or on soils in mountain areas (4.6 MJ). Net energy profit (production minus investment) from 1 m2 is estimated to be 7.8-8.6 MJ in lowlands and 3.7-5.0 MJ in mountain valleys.

Figure 6.9 Spatial differentiation of energetic potential of agricultural soils in Slovakia Source: Vilček, 2006

The mentioned contribution of Vilček (2013) and other previous works (Pospíšil and Vilček, 2000) to the knowledge about bioenergetic potential of soil in Slovakia has not yet been compared in detail with the results of the soil production potential by Džatko (1998), which could lead to new important knowledge and orientation to the study of production potential of soils in Slovakia.

6.5 Soil Productivity Indexes In a simplified interpretation, soil productivity indexes are expressions of the production ability of soil obtained in a complicated way and often only through partial information that is usually derived from field experiments using various methods and measures, sometimes even from large areas of agriculturally used soils (one farm, few farms, one area). To put it simply, soil production potential is not primarily assessed by the amount of yield, but by the change of soil parameters caused by the method of farming (Jaenicke and Lengnick, 1999; Eckert et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2000). It is often a very difficult (sometimes unnecessarily difficult) approach to the evaluation of soil quality and agricultural production potential. The index system specifically aims at indexes of sustainable soil productivity and expressions of the influence of the given productivity index on the quality of the surrounding environment. The importance of the evaluation can be of benefit to corrections of usual expressions of the soil production potential after the management system is changed (use of minimum soil 87

cultivation, prevailing cultivation of monocultures, low C farming, etc.). The truth is that this assessment of soils has found only limited use so far. From the theoretical point of view, it is, however, a promising approach for unusually detailed interpretation of practical problems that may be even crucial.

6.6 Indexes of Non-Commodity Soil Functions Those are functions that represent a set of soil expressions not intended as an interest in sale or purchase, and therefore usually provide neither direct economic income nor profits. On the other hand, they may require special expenses in various forms of ecological farming. In Slovakia, Vilček et al. (2010) with the support of other works (Barančíková and Szaboóvá, 1999; Makovníková, 2003; Makovníková, 2007) has developed the principle of identifying selected environmental soil potential indexes (ESPI) according to four ecological soil functions, namely to accumulate water (1), to immobilize inorganic hazardous elements (2), to immobilize organic pollutants (3), and to transform organic pollutants (4). Based on those four parameters, 493 codes (indexes) were created for soils in Slovakia, expressed through the point value of the environmental soil potential and assigned points from 0 to 100. The division of very low (0-20 points), low (21-40), moderate (41-60), high (61-80) and very high (81-100) environmental efficiency of soil formed the soil map of Slovakia. Its correlation with the map of the soil production potential is very strong and the average value (weighted average) of environmental indexes of Slovak soils (55.3 points) is very similar to the average value of the soil production potential (53.9 points). It follows that the bonited soil ecological units can be altogether objectively considered not only a measuring instrument of the soil production potential, but also an expression of environmental potential values of so far four evaluated environmental soil functions.

6.7 Indicators of State and Development of Soils in Slovakia The concept of indicators of the state of the environment originated as a forced need to speed up and to handle the financial aspect of the evaluation of the state and development of the quality of components of the environment. It turned out that a strictly scientific assessment of the state of the environment is complex, not always manageable from the methodological perspective and financially challenging, and hence it is necessary to search for its simplification. Generalized definition of indicators says that they are direct or indirect evaluation criteria for the assessment of the state and development of phenomena and processes acting in individual and aggregate manner27. The preference is given to information sources that can be easily obtained regardless of the purpose of indication and used for its evaluation. An example can be an indication of expected development of the soil pH (on the territory of a

27 In this context, it is often incorrectly considered that the usually obtained values of the current state of components of the environment, that have the character of properties or parameters and are usually connected with the DPSIR interpretation in no way, are indicators.

state for instance) without any extensive organized measurement but based on records of the purchase of lime materials and their consumption in agriculture by using simplified principles of efficiency of lime fertilisers. It means that the growth in the consumption of lime fertilisers indicates a decrease in acidity of soil with no complicated measurement. Of course, in order to get a more accurate expression, it is necessary to know (to develop) a conversion operations taking into account the average changes of the soil pH when applying lime materials. This may indicate the nutrient supply of soils, development of soil organic matter content and other soil parameters without measuring them. However, effort needs to be devoted to developing evaluation mechanisms (preferably automated) of assessment and presentation of obtained knowledge. Without this simple-complex philosophy of the use of indicators, a lot of work and financial means are blown away in soil analyses that are often of low informative value (and done always only on a part of the total area), which also implies a low informative value of the effort made. A more active approach to the use of indicators can provide more information with less effort and finances. In this context, in 1991 the OECD Council took the initiative and adopted the Recommendation on Environmental Indicators, which bound the OECD Environment Policy Committee “...to develop basic groups of comparable, readable and measurable environmental indicators usable in the field of environmental policy” and presented this proposal to the UN Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, June 1992). One of the results of the efforts was the publication of instruction named Environmental Indicators for Agriculture (OECD, 1997). It identified the basic principles for determining the indicators and required their designing in a simplified DPSIR model system (driving force ↔ responses ↔ state, Figure 6.10).

Figure 6.10 Basic Scheme of the DPSIR model (Driving force; Pressure; State; Impact; Response)

Note: Identification of the status and making of decisions most often take place in a circular succession together with activities that form a precondition for new situations and new solutions on the way to a higher level at each position in the model. The scheme picks up the concept of a spiral development of society introduced already in the 18th century by the German philosopher of Classicism, G. W. F. Hegel.

Figure 6.11 Scheme of DPSIR model adapted for identification and testing of environmental indicators

In Slovakia, the first official document summarizing the environmental indicators was a Catalogue of the same name issued in 2009 by the Slovak Environment Agency and having 495 pages encompassing indicators of assessment of the state and development of soil (pp. 201-214). The work also proposes the following indicators for soil: structural change of land parcels (according to the Central Geological Library of the Slovak Republic), decrease in agricultural and forest land fund, soil contamination, soil reaction and active extractable aluminium, soil water erosion, soil wind erosion. It is gratifying that some of the indicators have already been incorporated into the reports on the state of the environment, but no way of data obtaining and evaluation has yet been found for the other ones. It is important to mention the subsequent initiative of the Slovak Environment Agency aimed at elaboration of “Indicator reports on the state of the environment according to the DPSIR structure” including such a report focusing on soil named “Soil as a component of the environment in the Slovak Republic up to 2008” (Kanianská, 2009). It is a relatively detailed study of basic and aggregate indicators that evaluate the (agricultural and forest) soil cover according to the DPSIR Figure 6.12.

Figure 6.12 DPSIR model for soil in Slovakia Source: Kanianská, 2008

The effort to identify and evaluate the key characteristics and functions of soil in a simplified way started already when the concept of indicators was neither created nor accepted. For example, in the 1950s, soil microbiology, which is undoubtedly one of the most complex disciplines of soil research, was able to identify the overall biological potential of soil microorganisms by measuring their CO2 called total soil biological activity (soil respiration). Later, various additions to the measured soil made it possible to identify specific physiological groups of microorganisms (autotrophs, heterotrophs, cellulose decomposers, nitrogen mineralizers, etc.). Those findings enabled identification of changes and impacts on soil under the influence of various factors and creation of measures for their correction (Bielek, 1998). Javoreková et al. (2008) provided a presentation and comments on indicators for healthy and high-quality soil. Their starting point was a quite good definition of soil quality by Harris et al. (1996), who claim that soil quality and soil health represent a level of capacity of soil to maintain the quality of water and air, to form a corresponding production and quality of plants as food for humans and forage for animals, and to threaten the human health in no way and to do so within the framework of the given use of soil and in the given landscape and climate conditions. A similar definition of soil was introduced by Doran and Parkin (1994). Javoreková et al. (2008) presented a comprehensive definition of soil quality according to Sáňka and Materna (2004) as follows (wording abridged by the author of this

publication): (1) soil quality is determined by the basic characteristics obtained by either direct or indirect study; (2) soil quality is the ability of soil to maintain the content of soil organic matter, structure, water regimes, pH, etc.; (3) soil quality is the ability of soil to maintain or improve its impact on the living conditions of plants, animals and humans; (4) soil quality is the ability of soil to perform its functions and to interact positively with the external environment; (6) soil quality is the ability of soil to produce healthy and high-quality food for humans and forage for animals. Table 6.9 provides some of the indicators of soil quality according to Šimek and Šantručková (2002) and names of authors who defined them.

Table 6.9 Indicators for the evaluation of soil quality Type of indicator Group Description Author soil profile description depth of rooting morphology of horizons of low variability texture bulk density porosity stability of aggregates sensitive to changes compaction Arshad et al.,1996 soil moisture infiltration of water hydraulic conductivity Physical related to water hydrolimits Lowery et al.,1996 organic C Sikora et Organic matter organic N Stat,1996

soil pH Smith et conductivity of water solutions Doran,1996 mineral N content

P content Allan et Chemical K content Killorn,1996

total soil respiration Parkin et activity decomposition of cellulose Doran,1996 biomass of microorganisms Rice et al.,1996 microorganism mineralizable N Drinkwater et community growth activity al.,1996 dehydrogenase and other activity of enzymes phospholipid content structure of DNA Biological microorganisms functional diversity Dick et al.,1996 Source: Šimek and Šantručková, 2002

The development and use of indicators in order to simplify the identification of complex soil relations have also become hopeful in the assessment of the state and development of content and quality of soil organic matter. It is generally known that the content and quality of soil organic matter evolve as an internal complex of soil mechanisms often with a long development and difficulties in the use of standard measurement and evaluation procedures and that they require not only complex analyses of organic carbon, but also very demanding analyses of organic nitrogen fractions (Kubát et al., 2006). Thus we should appreciate the research effort of Tobiašová (2010), who derived and verified several approaches (carbon management index, carbon pool index, nitrogen management index and other partial parameters). She stated that the most suitable index is that of carbon pool (CPI) derived from a functional relationship using data about the total organic carbon, labile carbon content and the C2O content. A decrease in the CPI value shows an increase in the susceptibility of soil to degradation caused by the loss of soil organic matter. In addition, she also determined the critical CPI values, which may serve as a basis for the assessment of threats of soil organic matter decline. They represent values of very high susceptibility (less than 0.440), high susceptibility (0.440-0.690), moderate susceptibility (0.690-0.950), low susceptibility (0.950- 1.300) and minimum susceptibility (more than 1.300). There is a strategic document aimed at indicators for agriculture represented by the OECD study of 2001 (OECD internal document) evaluating indicators for some of the selected soil parameters. According to the study, the parameters of USLE model (Universal Soil Loss Equation) are indicators for the assessment of soil erosion and their changes create a basis for determining possible changes of impact of potential soil erosion in a given territory. Those are for instance centrally registered changes in the use of slopes, changes in the structure of cultivated crops, development of occurrence of torrential rainfall, etc. In terms of indication of wind erosion, it is also recommended to collect parameters entering into the equations for the calculation of potential of erosion (in particular, development of soil moisture, percentage of minimization of soil cultivation, predominantly grown crops, etc.). Similarly, it is recommended to identify other soil deficits as well. The evaluation is based on the proportion of endangered soils to those that are not. A more recent and complex study is offered by the OECD (in 122 pages) with the title of Environmental Performance of Agriculture at a Glance (2008). It uses a structure of indicators drawn up by the OECD to identify the impact agriculture has on soil and the rest of the environment. The study provides the results in the form of a comparison between the periods of 1990-1992 and 2002-2004. In that decade, the volume of agricultural production increased by 4% in the OECD countries whereas the percentage of cultivated soil decreased by 4% and the employment rate in agriculture decreased by 15%. A decline also occurred in the consumption of phosphatic fertilisers by 10% and that of pesticides by 5%, but an increase occurred in the consumption of nitrogenous fertilisers by 3%, water consumption by 2% and energy consumption by 3%. Support to agriculture reached 30% of all farmers ’ incomes. It visibly influenced some of the basic parameters of the quality of our environment. For instance, ammonia emissions from agriculture increased by 1%, although the overall production of greenhouse gases decreased by 3%, contamination of water resources by 93

agricultural substances started to decrease slightly, and a decline occurred in the potential of soil erosion caused by the expansion of protective soil cultivation. The study is based on the principles of assessment of selected indicators instead of extensive measurements and studies. It is complemented by a large number of charts and tables, including the assessment of agricultural policies and their impact and future challenges through the DPSIR modelling. It is a report that was created in the place of birth and dissemination of the principles of indicators and that is a model proof of success of the use of indicators in evaluation of major strategic themes of today’s world. In addition to the evaluation of soil and the development of its parameters, the indicators are suitable (and recommended to be used) for indicating effectiveness of legal, legislative and other centrally adopted measures related to soil at national and mainly EU levels. An example may be the EU policy on support of rural development using the indicators as tools for the assessment of implemented Rural Development Programmes, including their agri- environmental programmes for 2007-2013 (DG-Agriculture, 2006). They are derived based on “intervention logic” and from the needs that the programme should address, and they should enable monitoring and evaluation of the fulfilment of objectives at the level of outputs of the measures (operational objective), outcome of the measures (specific objective) and the impact of the measures (overall objective). Indicators of the National Strategic Plans (NSP) are amended by the Council Regulation (EC) No. 1968/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in art. 11, par. 3, point “c” and in art. 13, par. 2, point “a”. The Council Regulation (EC) No. 1774/2006 sets common indicators for all EU Member States. It follows from the documents that each national rural development programme is to establish a small number of their own national indicators at their own discretion. Thus, the following indicators were proposed for soil: 1. land use change, 2. percentage of vulnerable areas, 3. water retention in the country. They were all designed within the structure of the DPSIR model, including the basic and subsequently also aggregate indicators (Bielek et al., 2010). In this context, Slovakia has a huge deficit due to not developing sufficient and not starting to operate any larger system of indicators to evaluate the implementation of national and EU policies in agricultural as well as other sectors of the life of our society. There is still a problem of the relative lack of political order on the development and monitoring of indicators as a basis for qualified management and decision making. A perfect model in relation to the indicators is presented by the Communication of the EU No. 11505 (2009) on climate change that identifies indicators according to the parts of the DPSIR model, including national policies related to them. Another great document related to this topic is a relatively comprehensive OECD study named Environmental Indicators for Agriculture: Methods and Results (2001), in which a relatively large portion of the text deals with soil and in which both pragmatic and economic issues were addressed.

In conclusion, it is necessary to add that it is no longer possible to achieve the internationally conformable state of agriculture and all conditions related to it without applying a set of indicators and their evaluation. The low level of those activities does not make it possible for Slovakia to be an equal partner of other EU and OECD countries, which causes significant losses in acceptance of benefits of the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU and other international organizations and resources.

7 SOILS IN SLOVAKIA AND IN THE EU IN NUMBERS

Soil represents a crucial part of the territory of Slovakia. It is more than 90% of its area and when you realize that even the rest is actually soil fulfilling its function of natural basis for economic, ecological and social functions of the society, we must admit that soil is a territorial base, and therefore the state-forming parameter of the Slovak Republic. At the international level, it this fact is accepted and used in practice when determining boundaries of states that are always marked on soil, or boundaries of other objects created on it. In case of any exchange of small territories between states, soil quality becomes a paramount principle of exchange agreements. Even in the case when a state boundary is represented by a water resource, its line is determined by the distance from the shore that is almost always formed by soil. For example, the original definition of soil provided in the Recommendation R(92)8 of the Committee of Ministers (of 1992) directly states that soil represents a country or a territory by its dimensions of surface and depth. It is mainly because of those reasons the EU charter still states that the care of soil is delegated to the governments of the Member States and the European Union can take action only by means of recommendations or creation of framework opinions on the protection and proper use of soil. Therefore, it is such a lengthy and complicated process in the EU to adopt a framework directive on soil protection generally binding for all Member States. The second important state-forming soil factor is the quality of soil, which determines the value of the state’s natural wealth and is a significant criterion for the evaluation of economic and eco-social potential of the state and its inhabitants. Every soil degradation process means a loss of this wealth and every land take reduces conditions for the life of the population, which results from both production and non-production functions of soil in nature and society. Hence it is of crucial importance that the state assumes responsibility for soil and carries out the legislative and executive role in soil protection and land use. Absence of this obligation in any state leads to its lag in economic and eco-social parameters and brings harm to its international position. In order to be able to fulfil its obligations related to soil protection and land use, the state must possess all necessary information about the soil cover of its territory and have a professional potential for providing qualified care of soil in favour of the state and its inhabitants. Slovakia has a relatively good potential of information on soil, which should be a guarantee of a quality soil policy. Unfortunately, specific legislative and executive activities do not always lead to solutions that correspond to the general interest in the sustainable size of the area of soil and sustainable soil quality. On the other hand, even the enforcement of obligations of land owners and users is a considerable problem in the society. Exaggerated economic interests in the use of soil complemented with Slovakia’s 96% of agricultural activities being carried out on leased land with a lower degree of relation to its protection (the EU average is 53%) also represent an obstacle in taking better care of soil. Simply said, in Slovakia, problems with ownership and non-ownership of land are difficult and maybe becoming more

and more difficult (Bandlerová and Škulecová, 2002; Bielik et al., 2005). And not just for us, and not only now. Even in his work “Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men”, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), a French philosopher of the first rank, claims that it is the ownership of land which was historically the first most important reason for the emergence of the rich and the poor, and it seems that this principle remains in minds of many citizens until nowadays (though it can sometimes be just a self-delusion). There is also a serious problem of low awareness of the population about the importance of land and soil, which is the cause of the lack of interest and benevolence of citizens towards the protection of soil and its functions. The total area and structure of agricultural land of Slovakia are proportional to the size of the country and its population. Comparison of the main types of land parcels between the OECD Member States is provided in Figure 7.1. It shows a favourable proportion of agricultural land (the darker part of the column) to the total area of the territory, which makes Slovakia the state with a sufficient soil potential for agriculture. Thanks to its size, the potential of forest soil in Slovakia belongs among the highest in the EU when compared with the remaining area of the country (41.9%) and this proportion is still increasing (Figure 7.2). The EU-27 has 166 million ha of agricultural land and 177 million ha of forest land (Eurostat 2010).

Figure 7.1 Proportion of agricultural land to the total area of the territory of the OECD Member States Source: OECD, 2008

In Slovakia, there is 0.44 ha of agricultural land per capita, out of which 0.26 ha represents arable land and 0.37 ha represents forest. Those parameters classify Slovakia among the states with good and especially balanced economic and eco-social potential of the main natural resources (which applies to water as well) and predispose the country to be a part of a society

of successful states of the world. Slovakia fulfils the criterion of good conditions for agriculture in particular in the size of arable land per capita (Figure 7.3).

Figure 7.2 Proportion of forest land to the total area of some countries (%)

Figure 7.3 Comparison of states according to the area of arable land per capita

Unfortunately, the country is not capable of taking advantage of the potential sufficiently. It can be seen in the example of comparison of the gross agricultural production in the country and the neighbouring states (Figure 7.4), though the quality of soil and environmental conditions for agriculture is not so different. Furthermore, the efficiency of forest production does not correspond with the conditions of the country as well. 98

Figure 7.4 Comparison of gross agricultural production of the Slovak Republic with neighbouring states Source: according to the data from Eurostat, comparison made for the year 2011

As for the assessment of specific types of land within the area of agricultural land, we should mention a relatively high proportion of arable land (slightly higher than that corresponding to Slovakia’s natural conditions, Džatko, 1998) and a relatively adequate proportion of permanent grassland with a significant protective effect against soil degradation. Slovakia has a relatively high proportion of built-up area if we look at the the current number of residents. It represents about 429 m2 of built-up area per capita (the EU average is 389 m2).

Table 7.1 Statistical overview of types of land in Slovakia on January 1, 2013 Type of land Area in ha Agricultural land in total 2,405,971 comprising arable land 1,413,739 hop gardens 515 vineyards 26,964 gardens 76,568 orchards 16,861 permanent grassland 871,324 Forest land 2,014,059 Water areas 94,764 Built-up areas 232,599 Other areas 156,163 In total 4,903,557 Source: Statistical Yearbook..., 2013 99

The largest area of agricultural land (Table 7.2) can be found in Nitra Region, which corresponds to the proportion of other agricultural infrastructures. The highest proportion of agricultural land within the total area of land (Figure 7.5 can be found in the south-west and south-east parts of the territory), as forests cover a small area there Figure 7.6). Banská Bystrica and Žilina HTUs have the highest proportion of forests, which is understandable, because there are good conditions for forestry.

Table 7.2 Balance in the size of land area in Higher Territorial Units of Slovakia (ha) Higher Territorial Unit Agricultural land Forest land Built-up land Bratislava HTU 91,661 75,121 16,434 Trnava HTU 289,537 65,249 28,797 Trenčín HTU 183,665 221,776 14,622 Nitra HTU 466,805 39,641 38,099 Žilina HTU 243,990 380,648 27,783 Banská Bystrica HTU 413,959 464,487 33,552 Prešov HTU 380,895 442,159 31,838 Košice HTU 335,458 268,007 34,155 Source: Statistical Yearbook..., 2013

Figure 7.5 Proportion of agricultural land in the districts of Slovakia Source: Bielek, 2008

100

Figure 7.6 Proportion of forest land in the districts of Slovakia Source: Bielek, 2008

A brief look at the decrease in agricultural land area (Table 7.3) is not a reason for being disconcerted, as it occurs only in relatively small areas and two thirds comprising 1,723 hectares cover soils preserved in a biological regime thanks to afforestation. Table 7.4 reflects a relatively low potential of land take in Slovakia.

Table 7.3 Comparison of the size of agricultural and forest land areas in Slovakia Agricultural land On in total arable land Forest land January 1, 2012 2,410,812 1,415,653 2,012,336 January 1, 2013 2,405,971 1,413,739 2,014,059 Difference -4,841 -1,914 +1,723 Source: Statistical Yearbook..., 2013

Table 7.4 Balance in the decrease of agricultural land area in Slovakia (ha) Decrease in agricultural land in 2012 for coal and other types in total for construction of mining and production other 4,841 1,299 56 3,601 Source: Statistical Yearbook..., 2013

Figure 7.7 shows a relatively good position of Slovakia among other EU Member States in the protection of soil against sealing. However, the problem is that land take usually occurs on the best local soils with the highest local fertility and environmental efficiency.

101

Figure 7.7 Land take per administrative unit of the EU in the period 2000-2006 Source: Prokop et al., 2011

After Slovakia joined the EU, a major change occurred in the support provided to agriculture. Slovakia started to apply the principle of direct area payments (for land), which required

102

creation of an electronic system of registration of agricultural land according to the LPIS (Land Parcel Identification System) principle. It meant that according to the EU standards, soils meeting the criteria for the receipt of direct payments from the EU were identified on agricultural land and an information system on those soils (production blocks) was created. At first, the support was realized through single area payments only for the land accepted in the LPIS system. Since not all areas fulfilled the criteria to be registered in the LPIS, the size of agricultural land area was administratively reduced by the areas not fulfilling the requirements for the receipt of direct payments. It caused that Slovakia kept two registers of agricultural land, i.e. according to both original statistical data and the LPIS. Land registered in the LPIS covers smaller area than agricultural land in total and it is demonstrated by the values from the beginning of the EU programming period (2007-2013) in Figure 7.8. The numbers have not changed significantly so far.

Figure 7.8 Overview of registration of agricultural land in Slovakia according to the LPIS principles (on August 1, 2007)

Introduction of the LPIS often leads to agricultural entities having two registrations of their land, i.e. that of their total area and separate LPIS registration. This approach is efficient even at the level of registration of land on the whole territory of Slovakia, since the law on the protection of land determines general rules for soil protection on the whole territory, but the rules are tightened by the GAEC (Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition) measures regulating conditions of implementation of direct area payments regarding areas coming under the LPIS.

103

Figure 7.9 Agricultural land in the districts of Slovakia registered in the LPIS (on August 1, 2007) Source: Bielek, 2008

104

8 THREATS TO SOIL

The greatest threat to soil is degradation. It often represents either irreversible loss of soil by sealing for non-biological use (stopping), or continuous deterioration of properties of soil mainly by external influences. In general, soil degradation can be defined as a process reducing basal and potential capability of soil and agriculturally used land to be productive, to have ecological function and to provide certain services. In relation to the adopted concept of soil functions in nature and society (EU-R(92)8), it is an extremely adverse effect that may be negatively reflected in the prosperity and overall socio-economic state of both territories and states. Considering the complexity of existence of soil in a given territory, we can distinguish between natural and human-induced (accelerated) soil degradation. Natural soil degradation is caused by natural forces (wind, rain, seismic phenomena, avalanches, floods, changes in water regime, climate change, etc.) whereas human-induced soil degradation either accelerates the natural soil degradation or finds new ways. Crucial driving forces of the human-induced soil degradation are an incorrect use, mechanization, exploitation, bad farming, pollution, accumulation of waste, expansion of territorial settlement, increasing mobility of goods and population, tourism, intensive agriculture, industry, energy production and mining. Wars and humanitarian problems of individual territories and states including terrorist attacks in open nature play a special role (German Advisory Council on Global Change, 1994).

8.1 Loss by Soil Sealing It is the worst variant of soil degradation, because it results in destruction of soil and its functions by sealing. Thus it creates “artificial surfaces” having many adverse effects on nature and landscape. In addition to that, it limits the potential for economic and eco-social development coming from soil and, in particular, it aggravates natural conditions for life in the given area or state. Though arguments arising from the correspondence between the intensity of sealing and the growth of economic performance of territories are often demonstrable (e. g. Figure 8.1), they can be false due to not reflecting negative effects on other parameters of evaluation of society and irreversible loss of non-production soil functions in nature and society. Emerging artificial surfaces are constantly expanding. Since 1990 to 2006, they spread by about 8% in the EU, while the population increased only by 5%. In 2006, the numbers represented 389 m2 of built-up area per EU citizen, which was about 15 m2 more than in 1990. This so-called decoupling of the relationship between the population growth and the growth of the size of artificial surfaces contributes to unsustainable development of potential of natural resources in several EU Member States. In the EU, approximately 1,000 km2 of land are taken every year, which is about 275 ha per day (European Commission, 2011).

105

Figure 8.1 Relationship between the economy and agricultural land take in Slovakia Source: Blaas, 2012

The main driving force for soil sealing is the demand for new housing, industrial and commercial sites, as well as transport infrastructure. However, the European Environment Agency (EEA, 2006) points out that the urban development is rather a reflection of a changing lifestyle and new consumer habits than of a growing number of the population. Other driving forces of sealing include dependence of local authorities on revenue from fees and taxes. Famous Serbian architect and urbanist Bohdan Bohdanovič has recently responded to this situation in a newspaper by stating that “cities are greedy land-eaters”. Interest in the protection of soil in civic and decisive spheres may play a considerable role as well. Consequences give us sufficient warning to prevent them and for many reasons. Soil sealing can, for instance, create a huge pressure on water resources (1 ha of soil can hold up to 3,750 tons of water equal to about 375 mm of precipitation), which may be accompanied by increased threats of drought in the country (EC, 2012). Soil sealing negatively affects biodiversity both under the ground and on the soil surface (limitation of the potential of life in soil, obstacle to the development of organisms by restricting their movement, complicated nesting of birds, hampering animal reproduction, etc.). Sealing of the best soils threatens food security (Gardi et al., 2012)28. The loss of soil organic matter occurs as a result of accelerated degradation of soil humus in the overburden of humus horizon that is

28 In 2012, the EC stated that 19 EU Member States lost the potential agricultural production capacity corresponding to 6.1 million tons of wheat in the period 1990-2006.

106

formed during the preparation for construction activities (Jones et al., 2004, claim that soils in the EU comprise approximately 70-75 billion tons of organic carbon, a part of which is lost in this way every year). Constructions taking place on larger areas can lead to the formation of urban heat islands (Juráni et al., 2011), which requires creation of un-built-up corridors enabling through-flow of fresh air to remedy the problem (Fruh et al., 2011). Vegetation growing on soil positively affects the air quality (absorption of dust particles and chemical pollutants) and is limited by soil sealing. Sealing also cuts down the share of soil in formation of humidity, and hence worsens the conditions of life of people in the built-up areas (especially in still air). The report of the EC DG-Environment (2011) comprehensively evaluates Slovakia as a Member State with the intensity of soil sealing at an average level and with its gradual slight decrease. The worst situation with unsustainable negative trend is reported in Cyprus, Denmark, the Netherlands and Portugal. The annual limit on soil sealing is adopted as an internal regulatory tool for the management of sealing only in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the UK. Unfortunately, Slovakia has not yet decided to do the same, despite the fact that it seems to be a very effective tool for a reasonable regulation of soil sealing and it has solid professional starting points for the adoption such regulation. Primary solutions aimed at the limitation of soil sealing are searched for in purposeful restrictions of land use plans of municipalities, cities, regions and states. For instance, Latvia has restricted its construction works by defining 300 m coastal protection zone. In Germany, some cities have designed concepts for sustainable land management. In France and the Netherlands, the so-called blue and green areas have been defined and are protected against infrastructure development. Several EU Member States offer basic or support financing of the development of new infrastructure in abandoned industrial areas (brownfields) through the cohesion policy (cohesion funds). This concept has been used already since the 1950s in the USA, whereas Europe noticed the boom in the interest in such areas mainly in England, where many abandoned areas remained after the industry built up at the time of the Industrial Revolution. The EU used approximately 3.5 billion euros for revitalization of such areas in the period 2007-2013 (SEC/2010/360). Those resources were put into the recovery of abandoned and contaminated areas. The programming period 2014-2020 can use a similar amount. In England, the Homes and Communities Agency supports the financing of the development of social housing in deprived areas. Spain creates incentives for hiring uninhabited houses (which slows down the intensity of construction of the new ones). France registers more than 20 public agencies transforming abandoned industrial zones into social housing. In Flanders, local government and investors conclude beneficial contracts to support the re-development of abandoned areas. In 1998, Portugal held Expo in an abandoned industrial zone. Stuttgart creates detailed information systems for potential constructions, they are available online to investors and provide related terms and conditions for obtaining them. In Germany, a law according to which investors do not have to be obliged to remedy the old environmental burden has been adopted for the Eastern federal countries (those costs are paid by local authorities and the federal government). Those and other examples are currently promoted by 107

the URBACT Commission (www.urbact.eu) enjoying a strong popularity among urban self- governments and investors. A relatively good initiative in this field has been reported even in the Czech Republic (Kraft, 2005; Vráblik, 2009). In Slovakia, such areas are mapped and named old burden, but the country has not yet made any progress in their use and it even does not try enough. Fundamental measures must be incorporated already into the design of development city plans. For instance, in 2008, Osnabrück introduced new ecologic standards containing criteria defining protection zones based on the sufficiency of soil for its capacity to infiltrate water and to limit the creation of water retention areas (which would be another forced land take). Stuttgard has created comprehensive maps of soil functions and divided its territory according to them into 6 degrees of protection based on soil indexes (points). As for the regulation of soil protection, eco-accounts and soil sealing compensation systems related to them are also interesting. Simply said, developers must prove that they perform compensatory measures of the same value in some other area (something similar to the Slovak compensatory soil recultivation, which is no longer required, but had to be carried out pursuant to the amendment of the Act 53/1966 from 1976). The measure introduced in Dresden which limited the size of the built-up area on its territory to 40% is also an eco-account. If the limitation of soil sealing is difficult, as it is often obtained through measures with low enforceability only, technical solutions for the mitigation of negative effects are searched for. The following solutions can serve as examples.

1. Permeable surfaces increase the infiltration capacity of the built-up areas with the following positive effects: prevention of floods, contribution to the natural development of groundwater levels, improvement of micro-climate, possible value addition to waste material and improvement of design of the area. The material used in this measure may be stone, artificial grass, perforated grass blocks, hard stone surface (macadam), surface with permeable pavement, use of porous asphalt, green roof, and so on. In some states, those measures are subsidised (the UK, Austria, Germany). England introduced a SUDS system to support policy of the use of permeable materials in construction works. Malta adopted a measure creating an obligation for investors to build water management objects for water retention as a compensatory measure. Fees for soil sealing may be reduced if water permeable materials are used.

2. Compensatory payments for sealing of agricultural soils represent a specific financial policy based on levies for sealing of the best soils. In the Czech Republic, the first five bonity classes are protected in this way, whereas in Slovakia, all agricultural soils are currently protected in this way. Modified variants of this measure exist in Bulgaria, Poland and Italian Lombardy region. In the Netherlands, levies for the land take for highways were introduced in 1993. In Germany, the sealed soil is assigned so-called eco-points that determine fees not only for sealing, but also for other types of environmental damage (pursuant to the Act on nature conservation). In Dresden, local government adopted the local principle of compensation for the recovery of the sealed soil (up to 20 euros per m2). In Israel, the possibility of soil sealing 108

is conditioned by the number of people potentially living in the built-up area and the sealing is approved by the local government. We can see a gradual transition from national to regional (self-government) level even within this policy. New soil paradigm derives the importance of soil from its functions and bases the principles of soil protection on the protection of its functions. There are efforts (such as TUSEC-IP project) to identify the principles of spatial planning according to priorities arising from the real functions of soil in a given territory. Specific proposals have so far been finalised for the cities of Hamburg, Salzburg and the territory of Bavaria. Wider real application of those approaches is still being only tested. Normally, the principle protecting also the soil of lower quality is used, as such soil performs an important function of yield production. It is necessary to improve and to adapt national principles to small regional interests as well. For instance, Slovakia’s newest national levy system (Regulation of the Government of the Slovak Republic 58/2013) for sealing of agricultural land is especially strict about bonity classes located in the south of Slovakia and only a little less strict about the soils prevailing in other areas. Thus it happens that Slovakia protects almost everything by levies in the south and almost nothing due to low levies for worse local soils in the north. And the situation remains the same in spite of the measure protecting only the best soils in the cadastre up to 30% of their size. It would be suitable to protect the best soils of every cadastre by higher prices, as it is set by nationally applicable levy obligation based on the BSEU system. Simply said, the best soils in every cadastre should be protected by the same or nearly the same levies as the best soils at national level are, because the soil fertility (the value of the production potential according to BSEU) represents only one of the eight main soil functions in nature and society. In order to set it right and to adapt to international standards, we need to start in a different way. It seems that Henry Ford knew what he was saying when he said “if you do what you always did, you will get what you always got” (it is also a nice pun for language schools, author’s note). In Slovakia, fees are paid only for forest land take. However, no fee is paid for the land take, but fees are paid for the destruction of plants and their functions (according to the Act on forests No. 326/2005). Inaccuracy in determination of the size of built-up areas is another problem. The right method is to subtract afforested areas, created parks and to exclude the green areas around buildings. Especially forest land area is visibly getting larger in Slovakia. Since 1945, the proportion of forest land area has increased on the territory of the country from 35.1% in 1945 up to 41.9% in 2012. As the principle of accurate reporting of land take is more complicated than the current one, it is necessary to use remote sensing of the Earth. For example, the European Commission uses CORINE (Coordination of Information on the Environment) project including the participation of Slovakia (Slovak Academy of Sciences) for those purposes. More detailed and more specific description of the land take was offered by Juráni et al. (2011), but only for selected areas. In Slovakia, sealing of agricultural land has developed from historical relatively enormous state (involving the years of industrialization of Slovakia) to the current rather acceptable additions to the built-up areas. However, it has to be added that the loss of agricultural land, 109

particularly in the recent years, has been caused by accelerated afforestation of agricultural land, which is not always reminded. In addition, not all of the reported cases of land take represent sealing, and thus the biological loss is significantly lower. Therefore it would be right to evaluate the statistical data about the built-up areas and not the statistical values related to the development of the area representing the agricultural land take in total. And thus the net sealing of agricultural land has been estimated to represent around 4-5 hectares per day, which leads to annual decrease in the size of areas of soils used for biological purposes in the average by 1,500-1,800 ha. The numbers are not high, especially when we realize that at least 250 thousand hectares of neglected so-called white areas (with natural seeding) and other thousands of hectares of abandoned and neglected soils are excluded from the agricultural production (Midriak et al., 2011). In addition, the current soil production potential is still at the level that goes beyond food security (see the production potential of soils), which has not been reached due to other reasons for a longer period.

Figure 8.2 Development of size of land area in Slovakia

The remaining proportion of the total area of agricultural land may be important in relation to the land take. Those data are more accurate and maybe even more meaningful. They can be found elaborated in two subsequent monographs separately evaluating the situation since 1989 and subsequently until 2005 (Bielek et al., 1991; Bielek, 2008). The works show that the area of agricultural land had been rather stable until 1945. The most significant loss of land was recorded in the periods 1960-1965 and 1970-1980. The total loss of agricultural land area in Slovakia represented 307 thousand hectares in the period 1945-1985 and then 367 thousand ha by 2010 and its size per capita had fallen down to nearly a half. On the other hand, the forest land area increased from the original 1,720 thousand ha up to 2,005 or today’s 2,016 thousand ha. While in 1945 one hectare of agricultural land fed 1.23 inhabitants, it had to feed 2.09 inhabitants in 1985 and even 2.17 inhabitants in 2005 (due to the population growth). In the period of the most intensive land take, an area for about 9,500 people was annually

110

excluded from the food production. Land areas feeding on average 26 people were being lost every day (a significant proportion of soil now represents ecological burden, which will cost us considerable money). It is interesting that it happened under the conditions of a relatively strong interest of the state in soil protection driven by a well-known food doctrine aimed at ensuring nutrition for the population by own food production. It happened in spite of well- though-out legislative soil protection measures and adequate capacities for their implementation from the side of the state. Unfortunately, the bad reality was not prevented. Moreover, we impoverished ourselves by the loss which took other extremely important functions of soil and nature in the area with it. Since 1990, Slovakia has reported rather acceptable and relatively stabilized loss of agricultural land with values that do not represent a fundamental threat to the total size of the area of soils. However, the problem is that we fail to limit the construction works on the best soils (see Soil Conservation Service Yearbooks, Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute Bratislava), and we are not able to find any satisfactory solution to the transfer of new construction activities to abandoned areas, which is at the same time an unsolved environmental problem. We have also neglected the problems of regulation of construction works in already built-up areas, and therefore we have not created sufficient legal environment, even despite the fact that the intensity of this type of land take is heavily monitored and regulated in the EU. It is mainly caused by deficiencies in the distribution of competencies for the care for soil in Slovakia (an unusual institutional integrity of responsibility for the soil protection in the EU, and with competencies trying to reach the maximum production interest in soil). From the professional point of view, we have to be prepared for the regulation of land take by services that will navigate investors to areas, where they will not cause such an enormous damage by sealing and where they will not pay high levies and hence not pay overpriced costs for construction works. In this context, there is an information system providing investors with cheaper solutions for virtually every field on the territory of Slovakia (Figure 8.3). This system, however, needs to be supplemented with other mainly environmental restrictions.

111

Figure 8.3 Soils suitable for sealing Source: Bielek, 2008

Use of soil for other biological purposes, such as food production, can be successfully regulated while not unnecessarily reducing the agricultural production potential of soils and at the same time satisfying the requirement of those interested in such type of use. An information system aimed at areas suitable for cultivation of other energy crops than typical agricultural plants (fast-growing tree species for instance) can be an example. An illustration is offered by Figure 8.4. Information on their cultivation and use was published by Demo et al. (2011), Habán et al. (2013) and Jureková et al. (2011).

112

Figure 8.4 Soils suitable for cultivation of fast-growing energy tree species Source: Bielek, 2008

The latest initiative of the EU that has been under negotiation by the European Parliament since October 2013 should be mentioned as well. It comprises so-called ILUC (Indirect Land Use Change) measures which they review and amend the policy on bioenergy production on soil. The effort to expand the areas used for bioenergy production may not be energy- and, in particular, emission-friendly, as it can lead to hypertrophied preference in bioenergy production on soil and changes in the overall size of soil areas. This state is reached mainly in such decrease in the size of agricultural land area intended for food production that requires ploughing of grassland and deforestation, which subsequently makes the produced biofuels both socially and energetically unfavourable and causes a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions (from soil). All biofuels should be gradually marked with a so-called ILUC factor reflecting additions of emissions arising from the change in the land use. After 2020, only the biofuels not causing such changes should be subsidized in the EU. It is necessary to conclude the issue of land take for other than agricultural use by saying that neither official statistics nor expert studies offer absolutely precise figures about the agricultural land take. Zaušková (2011) writes about it in the context of evaluation of quantity and quality of land use changes. There are data available on the loss of agricultural land without any records of land that has lost its biological function (under constructions). It means that the concept of soil functions has not been accepted in this context and it seems that we are not even preparing to do so. We remain in the content and legal position of the middle of the last century with a relatively low potential for better regulation of protection of soils against sealing. There has been no evidence on the development of the size of unsealed soil in urbanized territories since a long time ago, therefore we can neither address it nor regulate its biological potentials for urban population in a better way. Simply said, Slovakia has still not shifted to the EU philosophy of protection of soil functions (EU R(92)8) and especially the 113

production, i.e. agricultural, interest in land is protected there. Many of the above-mentioned examples of solutions for the protection of soil against sealing have moved away from this platform. And they are right. There are various approaches to soil protection. Many of them have good scientific bases and are well managed in practice. They differ only in the efforts to point out that something is being done in this area. However, the truth is that we have moved only a little closer to the ideal state, in which the threats to soil are stopped or at least reduced to a professionally and socially acceptable level. This may be caused by what a well-known Russian diplomat, poet, and playwright, A. S. Griboyedov (1795-1829) called “gore ot uma” (woe from wit), or maybe Džatko and his work entitled “Stvoriteľské dielo, človek a udržateľný rozvoj stvorenstva” (Work of the Creator, Man and the Sustainable Development of the Created) was right when he said that “a man cannot understand the system he did not create, and therefore he must destroy and rebuild it at first to understand the limits within which it can be used”.

Abandoned and neglected soils are a serious problem in Slovakia. They include contaminated soils, soils in alpine areas, abandoned areas distant from municipalities (scattered settlement), displaced areas (former military objects), and, in particular, all degraded soils (by erosion, salinization, landslides), which are no longer used and have a reduced potential of their functions. They reduce the functional size of area of agricultural and forest soils and represent a problem that affects the whole society and have a minimum- degree solution. Their identification, characterization and complex assessment for the territory of Slovakia were done by Midriak et al. (2011). Some localities with neglected soils began to be monitored within the framework of a Partial Monitoring System – Soil.

8.2 Physical Soil Degradation Physical soil degradation is caused by physical or mechanical forces resulting in a disruption of soil structure and other physical characteristics and parameters. It encompasses a number of significant negative impacts on soil, its characteristics and functions.

8.2.1 Soil Erosion It is an irreversible and immediate soil loss over time scales of hundreds of years and an increasing phenomenon in the current soil development (Blum, 1990). Other definitions of soil erosion state that it represents eroding (Latin erodere – to gnaw) of soil by water, wind, ice and other activities, and its shift to other places, where soil mass is accumulated (Šarapatka et al., 2002). It means that it negatively influences both the place of erosion and its surrounding environment. It actually stands for a loss of land and its placement to another usually unwanted location.

On-site erosion impacts affect all of the most important potentials of soil functions, especially the biomass production, water filtration, hydrological precipitation cycle, and the overall value in use which are reduced in the given area. Off-site erosion impacts are

114

consequences of the erosion having the form of a threat of unwanted supply of soil mass, pollutants, nutrients and agrochemicals destroying terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Soil erosion reaches a huge dimension in the world. It is estimated that 26 million ha of soils are threatened by water erosion only in the European Union. Wind erosion damages about 1 million ha (Šarapatka, 2002). According to Fulajtár Jun. and Jánsky (2001) water erosion may lead to reduction in the yield of agricultural crops by one third, but also by two thirds in barley and other densely sown cereals. As for the wind erosion, we can find similar information. Water erosion is linked to a large amount of sediment load in running and stagnant water. Šarapatka et al. (2002) assume that in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, 10- 100 m3 of sediments annually get into water tanks in this way (depending on the given year). Wind erosion can create dunes that cover up the harvest and change the landscape. Slight movements of the soil mass (by water, wind, ice, snow) are also often considered to be an erosion. They balance small depressions on the soil surface, which can be regarded as a harmless effect of erosion even on plains.

Water (fluvial) erosion is a dominant form of erosion in nature. During its course, we distinguish the primary form of soil erosion caused by the kinetics of raindrops which is followed by surface erosion caused by water runoff and the impact of its force on the soil surface causing surface soil loss and in terms of concentrated runoff, it may also be the worst form of erosion, i.e. line (rill) erosion, which can be well observed by the methods of remote sensing. Water erosion depends on several factors such as: rainfall erosivity factor (R), depending on rainfall intensity; soil erodibility factor (K) depending on physical characteristics of soil; length of slope (L); gradient of slope (S); factor of protective effect of vegetation (C) and impact factor of anti-erosion measures (P). Based on those factors, Wischmeier and Smith (1978) created a special equation, with which it is possible to calculate approximate potential erosion for any field (if we have the data on factors). There is also a newer commercial version of this equation named USLE or RUSLE and it has gained a great international popularity. It is a good tool for non-field method of obtaining information about soil erosion. Field measurement of erosive wash-out representing so-called actual erosion can be done by using several methods – erodometers of various types, by means of sophisticated constructions of pitched surfaces with the possibility of measuring their gradient by waiting for rainfall, or artificial rainmaking. Measurement of subsidence of the area after erosion against a fixed point through remote sensing of the Earth is also a successful method. In 2005, an online system was developed and made available to provide information about water erosion threat to any soil block and to offer a choice of alternative versions of farming to mitigate it (www.vupop.sk). It allows farmers to choose the right farming method in order to minimize the threat of water erosion. The ratio between the potential and allowable water erosion (0.1 mm of soil per year) can determine a so-called erosion threat index. When its value is lower than 1, soil is not threatened by water erosion, the value of 2 indicates a medium level of threat to soil and when the value is more than 2, the level of threat of water erosion is either high or very high. Accelerated water erosion is most commonly induced by 115

human activities (deforestation, ploughing of grasslands, cultivation of unsuitable crops, inappropriate agrotechnology, inappropriate adjustment of terrain, neglected physical soil characteristics, incorrect arrangement of fields, etc.). At present, a major cause of accelerated water erosion is in particular climate change, which brings much more often torrential rainfall causing not only a high intensity of water erosion, but also subsequent floods containing soil that was washed out. The most important anti-erosion activities are considered to be organisational measures (size and shape of land parcels), agrotechnical measures (protective farming, mulching, crop barriers, deep mellowing, hole digging) and technical measures (terrain adjustments, terraces, intercepting ditches, small groves in fields). Those issues are dealt with in detail in specialized professional literature. Unfortunately, the fight against water erosion is still not successful even in spite of the existence of SAPS (Simplified Area Payments Scheme) measures that are a part of requirements for direct payments to farmers, or other types of support for farmers. The reason is prevailing formalism and the choice to rather take the risk of neglecting the anti-erosion measures. Another problem is how support payments are set through the Rural Development Plan (2007-2013), as they also motivate to formalism and do not prevent the soil erosion. As for this issue, Slovakia needs to learn from other countries. For instance, in the USA, the prohibition of cultivation of erosive crops is addressed by the reduction of the price of those commodities in erosion threatened areas. In Slovakia, water erosion potential of agricultural soils can be briefly characterized with the data in Table 8.1 which shows that up to 43% of the current total area of agricultural soils can be potentially damaged by erosion. The finding that extreme intensity of water erosion may affect almost 500 thousand hectares, which represents more than 20% of the total area of agricultural land in Slovakia, is critical.

Table 8.1 Water erosion potential of agricultural soils in Slovakia Erosion category Area in ha As % of the total area of agricultural land None or light 1,378,697 56.7 Moderate 227,392 9.3 Strong 332,519 13.7 Extreme 494,371 20.3

Even the real incidence of water erosion is common and extensive in Slovakia due to the fact that there is a relatively high representation of soils on slopes above 7o (363,000 ha). And it is even more than 135,000 ha of soils that lie above 12o.

116

Figure 8.5 Significantly sloping agricultural soils on the territory of Slovakia Source: Bielek, 2008

Figure 8.6 offers a view of an erosion situation.

Figure 8.6 Water erosion threat to agricultural soils in Slovakia Source: Bielek, 2008

117

The newest definition of limits of soil loss by water erosion is provided by the Decree of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development No. 59/2013 Coll.

Table 8.2 Limits of soil loss by water erosion Shallow soils depth to 0.3 m 5 t from 1 ha.year-1 (1.0)* Medium deep soils depth of 0.3-0.6 m 10 t from 1 ha.year-1 (4.0)* Deep soils depth of 0.6-0.9 m 15 t from 1 ha.year-1 (10.0)* Very deep soils depth more than 0.9 m 20 t from 1 ha.year-1 * according to STN 75 4501 Hydromelioration: anti-erosion protection of agricultural soil

Threat of water erosion on forest soils is very high in Slovakia. Potential acute erosion with a potential soil loss of more than 0.5 mm from 1 ha.year-1 is a threat to more than 90% of the forest area. However, the average soil loss is up to 2.6 mm.year-1 in the most of that area (Juráň, 1986). According to Midriak (2011), the level of soil loss can be even 5-15 mm.year-1 and occur on 8% of the total forest land area in Slovakia. The main cause of the relatively high amount of eroded soil in forest habitats is especially the use of slope positions in the forestry sector. The progress of erosive and other destructive processes on forest soil is significantly influenced mainly by the forestry activities of individual countries – clear cutting, use of harvesting and transport machines, construction of roads to make forests accessible. Especially in the areas of clear cutting, the erosion leads to the soil loss 10 to 100 times bigger than that caused by the past erosion activities (generalized by the author based on more data sources).

Figure 8.7 Reduction of production potential of agricultural soils due to water erosion Source: Bielek, 2008

Water erosion is not a big threat in larger urbanized territories mainly because of the fact that those territories are usually built in flat areas. Furthermore, buildings can serve as a natural barrier against larger erosive wash-out. And smaller areas (parks, greenery) have a natural

118

protective anti-erosion surface (grass cover for instance). But it is worse at the interface between urbanized areas and adjacent slopes of agriculturally used land (or forests), which threaten the urbanized areas and often lead to substantial consequences and especially if the anti-erosion measures are not followed. It is good to have adequately wide grassland fields at least in the place where slopes touch the residential areas, as they are less erodible and, at the same time, able to slow down the erosive wash-out coming from other habitats.

Wind (eolic) erosion is a smooth or intermittent (saltation) transport of soil particles by wind. It affects soils that are dry, light, contain small amount of humus, and are usually in flat terrain, especially during the period with no vegetation. It can be accelerated during tillage or other method of soil cultivation during a period of strong winds. It causes damage to farmers not only by the transport of soil particles and fertilisers, but also by uncovering roots of plants and when depositing the soil particles, it can cover the future harvest of cultivated crops with consequences such as defect in functions of soils and the environment as a whole. In the USA, it was the threat of wind erosion that became an incentive for the establishment of Soil Conservation Service (in 1924) during the Great Depression in the 1920s and the Service plays a crucial role in the protection of soil and successful agriculture in the USA until today (its orientation has been enlarged and it acts as an Environmental Protection Conservation Service). Wind erosion is measured by using equipment (tunnels) capturing eroded particles (deflameters). Wind erosion can be calculated with a specialized Woodruff-Siddoway equation consisting of the following factors: erodibility factor based on soil characteristics (I), soil surface roughness factor (K), climate factor (C), length of unprotected land parcel (L) and vegetation factor (V). Other models can be used as well (e.g. VEQ TEAM, WEAM, RWEQ). Of course, their use is subject to identification of the majority of the above-mentioned factors. Another approach is to determine the potential of wind erosion by means of BSEU (Jambor and Ilavská, 1998; methodology according to STN 75 4501; Janeček et al., 2000), which uses parameters of the BSEU codes to identify the erosion potential and, at the same time, it allows us to create maps that show threat potential of wind erosion on the territory of a country.

Table 8.3 Wind erosion potential of agricultural soils in Slovakia Area in As % of the Category Loss in t.ha-1 per year thousand ha total area Light 0.7 1,398 57 Moderate 0.71-22 113 4.8 Strong 22.1-75 9 0.4 Very strong more than 75 31 1.3 In Slovakia, wind erosion affects mainly soils in Záhorie region and scattered habitats in the south of eastern and western territory. Slovakia’s wind erosion limit is determined in the Act of the NC SR No. 220/2004 on protection and use of agricultural land as 40 t.ha-1.year-1.

Measures for wind erosion control are: smaller size of fields; soil moisture maintenance (e.g. by irrigation); maintenance of permanent plant cover; soil covering by living plants,

119

mulching, or keeping of stubble; establishment of windbreaks, vegetation barriers (to be effective, their horizontal length has to be 30 times bigger than their height), vegetation strips, herbaceous wind barriers, or protective portable barriers; land use change (afforestation, grassing, sporadic construction build-up reducing the wind force), strip crop rotation, etc. Soil surface conditioners (compactors) can also be mentioned (Stabilose in the Netherlands, Unisol in Germany, sulphite liquor in the Czech Republic), though their use is still not economically profitable. Aerial application of agrochemicals is forbidden in those areas. The issue of wind erosion is addressed in detail in the monograph of the same name published by Streďanský and Grešová (2012).

Glacial and snow (nival) erosions are caused by the movement of snow and ice on soil surface and lead to the creation of furrows and glacial valleys, which are most commonly “U- shaped” (troughs), and if flooded with water, they are called “fjords”. A typical feature of the glacial erosion is presence of furrows and long scratches on the subsoil. In Slovakia, glacial erosion occurs only in a small scale in higher mountain areas. In the distant past, it could result in complete transport of soil, i.e. complete soil loss at one place and its subsequent deposition at a new place (overlying).

Biological erosion arises from excessive activities of livestock (overgrazing), rodent, or other overpopulated species living on the soil surface or just below it (mouse, mole). However, only overgrazing may reach the intensity that has stronger negative impact on soil and its functions.

Intersoil erosion is a common phenomenon in more permeable soil profiles when certain quantities of soil substances, namely small solid soil particles, humus, nutrients and microorganisms, are transported either deeper or laterally on subsoil by water flowing through the soil, in particular through the so-called preferred zones. Increased intensity of intersoil erosion known as soil depletion results in such a level of soil degradation that significantly reduces soil fertility and other soil functions.

Tillage erosion occurs on arable land due to the soil mass translocation by mechanical ploughing that subsequently causes movement of soil particles which are moved down the slope by gravitational forces. It is a process during which, at first, soil is displaced from convex to concave slope positions, then it may gradually reach the intensity comparable to water erosion. It is measured based on slope movement of dural marks (the size of about 2 cm3) which are applied to soil surface at a precisely defined place. After an agrotechnical operation (such as tillage), new position of the marks is detected by using a special tool (Soil Conductivity Meter, e.g. EM 38). The difference between their initial position and the position detected by measuring determines the distance of the tillage erosion.

Solifluction and landslides are phenomena caused by natural environmental conditions, though constructions and their weight, for instance, disrupt the slope structure and can have an accelerating effect. They represent either slow (solifluction) or accelerated (landslides) soil 120

mass movement on subsoil surface and are a result of slippery area between soil and subsoil created by water. Drainage and slope strengthening by using various technologies can limit it. Due to its movement, soil more or less loses its agricultural utility value and other functions. However, especially the threat of those phenomena to the safety of constructions and human lives is assessed negatively. In Slovakia, areas really and potentially threatened by landslides are mapped and this information is offered in the form of an information system by the State Geological Institute of Dionýz Štúr in Bratislava and by the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic (available at www.minzp.sk, www.geology.sk).

8.2.2 Pedocompaction Soil compaction is a process that seriously damages soil, reduces its volume and worsens the conditions for water-air soil regime. In structural soils, the ratio of the amount of solid matter to space for water and air is usually balanced, which is changed in favour of the solid matter during the compaction. The primary prerequisite for the pedocompaction (primary pedocompaction) is a low humus content (less than 1%), poorly formed soil structure (especially in heavy and very heavy soils representing about 20% of the total area of agricultural soils), and in terms of the secondary pedocompaction, it is a gradual soil structure decomposition as a result of negligence in caring for the soil organic matter, absence of deep rooting plant species cultivation, influence of the surplus of soil potassium (fertilisation), insufficient liming of acidic soils, and mainly the use of heavy equipment at inappropriate time (overmoistured soils). In Slovakia, soil compaction potentially damages at least 600 thousand ha, in particular, of heavy and very heavy soils. The area affected by the real soil compaction has not been precisely identified so far, but it is estimated that it could represent about 500 thousand ha. In forest soils, compaction is limited only to forest roads and areas constantly used to timber harvesting activities. But it is interesting that compacted soils also occur in ski lift tracks. Pedocompaction can be found especially in soil layers under cultivated soil profile zones, and the reason is that the layers are both not taken into account within the ordinary soil cultivation management and influenced by heavy equipment. It results in more or less compacted subsoil deteriorating conditions for plant rooting (root crops are especially sensitive), for water and air infiltration into deeper soil layers and is reflected in yield reduction by 30-40%, lower water retention capacity, waterlogging of soil surface after rain and higher possibility of flooding from rainfall (especially the torrential one). A typical measurable feature of soil compaction is the bulk density of soil. Fulajtár Sen. (2006) states that soil compaction occurs in conditions of Slovakia when the bulk density reaches about 1.5 g.cm-3, and 1.4 or 1.3 g.cm-3 in medium heavy and heavy soils. Soil compaction can be measured directly in the field by a penetrometer, which identifies the value of the resistance to its penetration into soil (usually up to the depth of 1 m). Obtained curve allows us to determine the beginning and the end of the compaction in the soil profile. Of course, the measurement can be combined with other findings, such as the values of porosity and water infiltration processes (hydraulic conductivity).

121

In Slovakia, physical soil degradation by compaction has extensive spatial potential derived from the susceptibility of soils to compaction based on the complex of their characteristics. It can be seen in Figure 8.8.

Figure 8.8 Potential of pedocompaction of agricultural soils in Slovakia Source: Bielek, 2008

Figure 8.9 shows that 11% of the total area of agricultural soils suffer from yield reduction by 30% due to pedocompaction. Compaction does not negatively affect only about 30% of agricultural soils in terms of production and other functions. Remediation of pedocompaction is not easy and requires a comprehensive strategy. A radical remediation measure is offered by deepening of topsoil and deep soil loosening up to the depth of 0.6 meter and more, even with the lateral movement in soil (preferably in autumn, but good efficiency has been recorded in spring as well). In order to maintain the effect of this intervention, it is recommended to cultivate deep rooting plant species immediately after it, cultivation of lucerne is the best, as after its roots die, it creates small canals for water to flow through the soil profile. Subsequently, the minimization of farming can limit the movement of heavy machinery across the soil surface. When the symptoms of pedocompaction return, it is recommended to repeat the procedures after 3-5 years. Compared to the cost of ordinary ploughing, deep soil loosening is more expensive by approximately 35-40% (Raghavan, 1990), while our current evaluation with the help of a foreign project (GWP Stockholm) reports about 50%. The costs can reduce the use of this technology. If the technology is supported supported (through the EU funds), the potential of agricultural production would significantly increase and the conditions for the prevention of flooding would improve. Its implementation can be simply controlled with the penetrometer. The potential allocation of such support is provided by the soil information system. 122

Figure 8.9 Impact of soil compaction on production potential expressed by the production index Source: Bielek, 2008

When addressing technical details of those measures, few basic procedures improving the consistency of soil profile of compacted or less permeable soils should be mentioned as well. It can be a direct ploughing of subsoil and mixing it with topsoil by ploughs used for deep ploughing that can reach the 50-80 mm deep subsoil layer. This can be enough to break the thin bottom topsoil layer with reduced permeability and formed at the interface between the topsoil and the subsoil. It is recommended to use this technology only when the topsoil and subsoil characteristics are not very different (Chernozems, Haplic Luvisols, and other soils in good condition). Another option is subsoil loosening usually by subsoiling into the depth of 0.6 m (suitable for soils with compacted subsoil layers). It is done with specialized machines (subsoilers). Another procedure is a multi-layer ploughing (two-layer, three-layer), which is sometimes connected with the movement of soil horizons (especially in reclamation of salinized soils). In soils having heavy clayey subsoil (Albic Luvisols, Planosols and Stagnosols, Gleysols), it is recommended to apply chiselling with chisel ploughs or specially adapted ploughs reaching the depth of 0.45 m. Deep soil loosening with looseners getting to the depth of 0.7-0.8 m should be done in heavy fully gleyed soils (Albic Luvisols, Planosols and Stagnosols) with the depth of the groundwater level not exceeding 1 m (Kollár, 1995).

Table 8.4 Impact of different methods of topsoil deepening on the yield of selected crops Variant Spring barley Red clover Maize for grain Control (tillage to the depth of 0.24 m) 100 100 100 Tillage to the depth of 0.30 m 126.4 111.8 104.4 Tillage to the depth of 0.36 m 141.7 113.1 110.5 Subsoiling to the depth of 0.36 m 111.1 106.4 109.5 Loosening by ploughing to 0.36 m 98.7 112.2 105.5 Source: Kollár 1995 123

Experiments carried out on Albic Luvisols during cultivation of maize for grain showed that subsoiling to 0.6 m clearly positively influenced all the main parameters of the yield of the cultivated crop (Table 8.5; Picture 9.1). In addition, subsoiling significantly reduced the soil penetration resistance after getting under the topsoil layer (Figure 8.11) and increased the speed and amount of water infiltrated into the soil profile (Bielek et al., 2013).

Table 8.5 Comparison of parameters of yield of maize for grain in subsoiled and unsubsoiled soil Yield parameter Subsoiled soil Unsubsoiled soil Plant height in m 2.27 1.64 Plant weight in kg.m-2 2.43 1.51 Grain yield in t.ha-1 9.25 8.28 Source: Bielek et al. 2013

Figure 8.10 Increase in maize yield after subsoiling to the depth of 0.6 m (on the right) Photo: D. Húska

Figure 8.11 Difference in penetrometer resistance between subsoiled and unsubsoiled soil

124

8.2.3 Soil Degradation by Linear Underground Structures It is a human-induced soil degradation connected with long distance transmission of various media (gas, oil, water vapour) by underground pipelines. In Slovakia, those issues were dominantly addressed by Demo (2012) whose work provided a lot of knowledge on this issue. In Slovakia, most of information deals with soil and agriculture in relation to gas transportation pipelines. Currently, there is a five-line gas pipeline with the total length of each pipe about 3,000 km in Slovakia. Each of the pipes required an excavation to a depth of 1.5-2 m, placing of the pipes and their subsequent cover-up. This creates the first prerequisite for soil degradation, i.e. soil profile stratigraphy is changed, which can logically lead to the reduction of production potential and other soil function potentials. In Slovakia, it represents approximately 30 thousand ha of land. However, the most serious problem is that the gas must be pressurized in compressor stations, thus the content of the pipes is heated up to 40 °C (in particular behind the compressor station in the direction of the gas transportation). The heat spreads from the pipelines into the soil environment and heats it up, which reduces the soil moisture by evaporation of water from soil by 15-40%. Furthermore, some soil biological processes are also activated, in particular the mineralization of the soil organic matter, with a subsequent reduction of its content, excessive production of nitrates and reduction of water availability for plants. The development of the vegetation cover above the pipelines adapts to the new temperature and moisture conditions mainly by the earlier start of vegetation in spring and later vegetation dormancy in autumn (vegetation period is extended). It may not be negatively reflected in crop yield especially if warmer summer eliminates the risk of drought when soil is heated from the underground. On the contrary, it may even lead to an increase in the yield of crops cultivated above the pipelines. It all depends on soil properties, particularly water regime parameters and the type of cultivated crops. Currently, there is no general algorithm for professional evaluation of the impact of underground transmission systems on agricultural productivity or on other aspects in relation to the rest of the external natural environment. Therefore, it must be identified and evaluated separately for each of the aspects.

8.3 Chemical Soil Degradation It is a change of chemical composition and soil chemism induced mainly by the external environment. It can have various causes, as well as various impacts on both soil itself and the surrounding environment.

8.3.1 Soil Acidification and Alkalinisation They are a result of the decrease in acid and alkali neutralisation capacity of soil. They lead to changes in soil reaction expressed in the pH value, which is the negative decadic logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration within the range from 1 to 14. If pH < 7, the concentration of H+ is higher than the concentration of OH- ions and the soil reaction is acidic. And vice versa, if pH > 7, soil reaction is alkaline. Acidification and alkalinisation can activate natural soil

125

processes (e.g. podzolization, illimerization, salinization), or human-induced phenomena (e.g. acid rain, immissions, fertilisation, liming, irrigation).

Soil acidification is most commonly associated with acid rain (pH value up to 3-4), which is a result of increased amount of emissions of NOx and SO2 in the air. In Europe, those problems are concentrated into the so-called black triangle (Poland, former GDR and former Czecho-Slovakia) as an industrial centre of the former Eastern Bloc. They were caused by the development of industrial production and increased amount of its emissions. Acidification of soil leads to the release of plant toxic aluminium and to increased mobility of heavy metals which subsequently get into plants and thus into food in higher amounts. Bublinec and Gregory (2003) state that the most acidic rain appears in the altitude range from 700 to 1,200 meters, which explains the real concern about acidification of particularly forest soils. In addition to acid rain, acidification of soils can also be connected with the use of fertilisers (especially nitrogenous ones), application of liquid excrements (the pH of the pig slurry can be less than 6.6), and insufficient liming currently causes reacidification of soils limed in the past. It is the absence of liming that has caused the recent higher proportion of moderately acidic and acidic soils in agricultural land. Liming of forest soils has occurred to be problematic, and therefore its current absence is not considered to be negative. To change the soil reaction by 1 pH degree, it is necessary to add lime fertilisers in the amount of 1-3 t.ha-1 in sandy soils, 3-6 t.ha-1 in loamy soils, and 6-10 t.ha-1 in clayey soils (amount of application of CaCO3). As soil tends to return to its natural pH (especially as a result of leaching of calcium from soil), it is generally claimed that acidic soils in mountain areas should be limed every 3-5 years and that acidic soils in uplands and hill lands should be limed every 4-6 years. Slightly acidic soils need liming every 4-6 years if in mountain areas and every 6-8 years if in hill lands and lowlands.

As for acidification, soil’s natural ability of buffering of acids should be mentioned as well. The highest buffering capacity is conditioned by the presence of strong alkali and weak acids in soils (carbonate soils). Medium buffering capacity can be found in soils with sorption complex with alkaline cations, high buffering capacity is in soils having high content of minerals and organic colloids (such as Cambisols), and lower buffering capacity occurs in soils with the absence of carbonates, sorption complex with lower content of alkaline cations, lower amount of aluminosilicates, clay and humus (Šarapatka et al., 2002). Due to the fact that there is a relatively higher amount of carbonate soils (more than 21%) in Slovakia and based on the overall geochemical composition of soils of Slovakia, resistance of the soil cover against acidification is determined to be satisfactory.

Soil alkalinisation can either be caused by salinization or purposely induced by liming of acidic soils (positive alkalinisation) or be a result of the influence of immissions from cement factories, lime kilns and magnesite plants when the intensity of soil alkalinisation may be extreme and, moreover, if the pollutant emission MgO enters soil, it can even lead to soil intoxication supplemented with the formation of gray brucite crust (Mg(OH)2) on the soil surface with very adverse effects on soil, its fertility and other functions (negative

126

alkalinisation). Soil alkalinisation (especially the extreme one) can lead to problems in the availability of nutrients for plants, disrupt soil structure and deteriorate overall physical, chemical and biological soil properties (Holobradý, 1981; Michalík and Hanáčková, 2011). Reclamation of alkalinised soils is difficult, and therefore rare. The most accessible method of improvement of alkalinised soils is the application of elemental sulphur, or mineral fertilisers containing sulphur. If alkalinity is caused by MgO immissions, Holobradý (1981) recommends application of 10-50 t.ha-1 of calcium citric acid/citric sulphate, or 2,000 l.ha-1 of bisulphite liquor together with 40-50 t.ha-1 of farmyard manure.

8.3.2 Soil Salinization Typical feature of soil salinization29 is accumulation of salts in the soil profile. Salinized soils are divided into saline soils (Solonchaks, Salisols), alkali soils (Solonetz, Natrisols) and Soloth soils. Solonchaks have a salic horizon from the surface and it has a high content of water-soluble salts, especially that of Na2SO4, MgCl2 and K2CO3. Solonetz soils are sodic soils with a high content of sodium in natric horizon sometimes reaching up to a depth of 80 cm. In contrast to Solonchaks, Solonetz soils have a relatively strong alkaline soil reaction + with pH > 8.5 caused by a high content of Na2CO3. Soloth soils contain salts and Na in deeper layers of the soil profile. Surface horizons have slightly acidic soil reaction, which is a result of leaching of salts and removal of Na + from the sorption complex by the influence of H +. The release of salts can occur during weathering of mineralogical components of soil. However, the most common reason for soil salinization is mineralized groundwater with the salt evaporation residue more than 0.1 g.l-1. The intensity of salinization depends on the capillary rise of mineralized water dependent on soil texture and evaporation from the environment (climate aridity). It is possible to see salinization by surface (mostly marine) 2+ 2- waters (salinization by NaCl near seacoasts, while inland is dominated by Ca and SO4 ). The threat of salinization of non-salinized soils is formed as a human-induced consequence of increasing salt content in groundwater, which can lead to the so-called secondary soil salinization. It appears when the level of mineralized groundwater rises (e.g. after water construction works), or as a consequence of irrigation, excessive salting of roads, as well as when mineral fertilisers are used more often, especially on heavy waterlogged soils. Such soils suffer from failure in crop cultivation due to the negative impact of higher salt content on plants leading to the decrease in the yield. Effects of the secondary soil salinization are also demonstrated by the decline of the Sumerian Empire in Mesopotamia after the construction of extensive irrigation systems and intensive irrigation of local soils (subirrigation). It is estimated that up to 10% of the current world’s salinized soils (approximately 150 million km2) originated due to the secondary salinization. In Slovakia, the first signs of secondary salinization have been recently observed in the area of Žitný ostrov as a result of increasing mineralization of local groundwater (Fulajtár Sen., 2006). The consequences are not yet significant.

29 For illustration, soil salinization can be observed as a bright film on the surface of soil in pots after a longer period of watering by water having a higher degree of mineralization (salt content). Such soil should be replaced.

127

Remediation of unfavourable characteristics of salinized soils is usually difficult and very long. Solonchaks can be more fertile if ameliorative (high) doses of peat, or other organic substrate are added and, in particular, by ensuring the leaching regime in soil and by drainage.

To reclaim Solonetz soils, application of high doses of calcium sulphate (CaSO4), sulphur, lime materials and biological organic fertilisers is needed. Soil has to be leached several times and then sown with clover grass mixture. Soloth soils require liming and application of organic fertilisers.

Table 8.6 Possibility of secondary soil salinization based on groundwater salt concentration and groundwater surface levels Degree Salt content in water in mg.l-1 Groundwater surface level in m Weak 500 1 500-1,500 1-2 Moderate > 1,500 2-3 500-1,500 < 1 Strong > 1,500 < 2 Source: Sedlák, 1981

8.3.3 Pollution of Soil It is one of the most common types of soil degradation having a considerable negative impact on nature, human, social and economic aspects of life. Current global level of soil pollution is high especially in industrially developed countries or in areas of industrialization of less developed countries using less progressive technologies and techniques. Considerable part of soil pollution can also come from agriculture and municipal waste. In some areas, the source of the pollution is the base rock, on which soil is formed (geochemical anomalies occurring for instance in the “ored” area of Slovak Ore Mountains). Conceptually, it is necessary to distinguish pollution of soil from pollution by soil. Pollution of soil stands for the presence (or higher concentration) of pollutants in soil. It occurs either due to thier large amount, i.e. when there is a high level of substances commonly present in soil (Paracelsus: “only the dose makes the poison”), or due to their type, i.e. when a new chemical compound is introduced into soil. Pollution by soil occurs when soil or its part (dust, soil water, soil air) transfers its pollution into other natural sources. This type of pollution of nature is currently present as a consequence of a previous pollution of soil. In this context, soil can be likened to a source of pollution, or an industrial chimney. This way of threatening of nature and the human health is topical especially in states that have been able to reduce the intensity of industrial pollution of air and then of soil as well, but its consequences remain due to this type of pollution. Recent soil pollution is dominantly caused by human activities. However, it can also occur as a consequence of a natural disaster, volcanic activities, landslides, floods or erosive wash-out processes and other erosion phenomena.

128

Pollutants remaining in soil can be divided into degradable and non-degradable. Degradable pollutants include mainly organic compounds which can be decomposed by physical and chemical reactions, and, in particular, by the activity of soil microorganisms, which detoxifies and eliminates them in the soil environment. They include:  petroleum and its derivatives (gasoline, asphalt, bitumens, kerosene, mineral oils, goudron),  polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (naphthalene, naphthylene),  polychlorinated biphenyls (monochlorbiphenyl, decachlorbiphenyl),  aromatic hydrocarbons (benzene, toluene, xylene),  chlorinated hydrocarbons (trichloroethane, tetrachlormethane, trichlormethane) and  heterocyclic hydrocarbons (furan, pyridine, pyrazine, pyrrole). They get into soil by various ways in the form of organic immissions, as a result of accidents or agricultural production activities (especially oil pollution, organic fertilisers and pesticides). They are decomposed with varying degrees of intensity, which depend on the type of substance, its form, concentration in soil, physical, chemical and mainly biological properties of the given soil type and the way it is used and farmed, etc. As they are biodegradable, they do not usually represent an unsolvable problem, though their elimination in the soil environment can take a number of years (usually just a few, although the persistence of DDT or PCBs can cause worries even for decades). Moreover, they cannot get into plants and intoxicate them directly, and therefore can serve a source of food. They can, however, volatilize from the soil surface, settle on plants and pollute them. Washing of such production may not be successful, and hence it is not recommended to consume such crops. It is necessary to eliminate the possibility for the substances to get into water resources and other habitats by erosive transport. Problem arises in particular if the organic pollution of soil is so intense that it gets from soil to water resources which require cleaning by difficult technologies, especially in terms of groundwater (e.g. venting). Petroleum substances lead to the worst accidents when they are released and contaminate neighbouring petroleum storage places and sale points during their transfer, but other bad situations also occur when a defective technology is used, or due to an individual irresponsibility (in smaller scale). The biggest problems in agriculture are triggered by pesticides, because soil is not sufficiently ready for them, as they are substances unknown to nature, and therefore they cannot be completely processed during the soil’s self-cleaning. In forest soils, the degradable pollution appears as a result of the use of skidding techniques and frequently used chain saws. In urbanized territories, those substances occur as residues after construction activities or as a consequence of local human activities. They can cause pollution either of a spot size or having a size of a larger area. Persistence of degradable pollutants in soil may be identified based on the quality of contaminated water. It is known that the persistence of those substances is smaller in soils of higher quality in comparison to soils of lower quality. Decomposition may be enhanced by aeration of affected soil in the form of loosening and especially application of higher doses of mineral fertilisers (mainly nitrogenous ones). Both of them foster soil biological activity. Phytoremediation as a final stage of detoxification of soils from organic pollutants is usually 129

carried out by cultivation of clover grass mixtures (deeper soil aeration, large production of root secretions and stimulation of activity of microorganisms, a rich source of organic matter remaining in soil). Small-scale pollution can be solved by putting soil into bio-composters, or placing it upon a dunghill or a compost heap. In terms of large-scale pollution, it is necessary to call and ask for assistance a competent service that either applies biological activators decomposing such substances in soil (Ropstop for instance) or removes the soil overburden and subsequently clean it in a landfill site.

Non-degradable hazardous substances are also a serious problem, since they were emitted30 from production and then deposited by dry and wet deposition in soil mainly in the past. They do not decay, and therefore have a long-term persistence in soil. Emissions come from industry, transport and energy sector, application of water treatment sludges, fertilisers, sediments, water tanks, as well as municipal waste in landfill sites. They may also be of geogenous origin if they get into soil from the base rock rich in hazardous elements. They include mainly heavy metals moving from soil into plants, food, air and water resources, and thus threatening their quality, as well as the health of the population. Behaviour of hazardous elements in soil is usually of physical and chemical nature. When in contact with soil, they react with organic matter and create low soluble complexes with humic acids and almost insoluble compounds with fulvic acids. As cations, they can also be adsorbed by negatively charged clay minerals or surfaces of hydrated oxides of Fe, Mn, or Al and amorphous alumosilicates. They can also be coprecipitated on the surface of soil colloids and they can be found out of the soil solution as a precipitate. Most of the hazardous elements increase their mobility when the acidity of the soil solution is increasing. Therefore, they are more accessible to plants in acidic soils than in neutral or alkaline soils. Their mobility in soil, and thus accessibility to the intake of plants, may depend on their origin as well. Lower accessibility has been proven when they come from geogenous sources in comparison with immission origin (Podlešáková and Němeček, 2000). Limits on the content of heavy metals in soils are derived from a variety of approaches and it can be often difficult to find a consensus. Currently, the limits set by the Act of the NC SR No. 220/2004 on protection and use of agricultural land are valid in Slovakia. Table 8.7 shows the total allowable contents measured to obtain information about all forms (both accessible and inaccessible to plants) of soil pollutants. It is actually a rough indicator of soil pollution and is of a lower value for the evaluation of risks of pollution.

30 Emissions are substances emitted from production plants chimneys and become immissions after their deposition in soil.

130

Table 8.7 Limit values for hazardous elements in agricultural soils in mg.kg-1 (decomposition by Aqua regia, total content) Soil type AS Cd Co Cr Cu Hg Ni Pb Se Zn F S, LS 10 0.4 15 50 30 0.15 40 25 0.25 100 400 SL, L 25 0.7 15 70 60 0.5 50 70 0.4 150 550 CL, C, clay 30 1 20 90 70 0.75 60 115 0.6 200 600 S: sandy, LS: loamy-sandy, SL: sandy-loamy, L: loamy, CL: clayey-loamy, C: clayey soils

The limits defined in Table 8.8 (pursuant to the Act of the NC SR No. 220/2004) specifically inform about immediate threats of pollution of crop production by polluted soil. Limits for agricultural soils are also valid for the pollution of forest soils.

Table 8.8 Limit values of hazardous elements in soil in mg.kg-1 of dry soil in 1 M of ammonium nitrate in relation to the quality of agricultural production Element Critical value Arsenic (As) 0.4 Copper (Cu) 1 Nickel (Ni) 1.5 Zinc (Zn) 2 Cadmium (Cd) 0.1 Lead (Pb) 0.1 Fluorine (F) water-soluble 5 Other pollutants Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 1 Polychlorinated biphenyls 0.05 Chlorinated pesticides 0.5 HCB 0.02 DDT 0.015 DDE, DDD 0.01 Non-polar hydrocarbons (NEL) 0.1

There are no specific legal regulations or mandatory limits related to soil pollution in urbanized areas. Assessment is carried out in accordance with measures aimed at the protection of nature and the landscape and in comparison with the measures relating to agricultural and forestry soils.

Reduction of pollution of soil by heavy metals is still not successful enough, because heavy metals are substances with unlimited or a very long persistence in nature. If the pollution of agricultural soil is minimal, the fact that the mobility of heavy metals is reduced by increasing alkalinity of acidic soils can be used. For instance liming (or application of calcium carbonate) can be applied, a certain part of heavy metals may “fall out” from the soil solution and create an insoluble form that is inaccessible to plants, and thus plants cannot be intoxicated. This form is not suitable even for leaching of heavy metals from soil, but it does

131

not prevent other types of transfer (by wind or erosive wash-out). In this context, Šarapatka et al. (2002) recommends to apply the following doses of CaCO3 on 1 ha of land: 6 t (sandy soils), 8 t (loamy soils) and 12 t (clayey soils). Though the measure reduces the solubility of heavy metals in soil, it does not eliminate them. A similar effect can be achieved by the application of decontaminants, usually of bentonite, zeolite, or modified Beringit (which is a trade name), or the application of ecofert, high doses of organic fertilisers or wood charcoal. They all act as sorbents preventing the movement, and thus the accessibility of heavy metals both to plants and for leaching. However, they do not remove heavy metals from soil. That can happen if the overburden of intoxicated soil is removed, transported to a landfill site where the intoxicated soil is washed with water, acids, or alkalis. Those are usually heavily invasive techniques significantly changing the properties of washed soil and resulting in its subsequent limited use. But the most attractive technique is phytoremediation, i.e. technique in situ with drawing heavy metals from soil by plants. This can be done by some higher plants (metalophytes) having a higher potential of withdrawal of heavy metals from soil than other plants, and this effect is commonly referred to as a hyperaccumulation. Although it is a gently acting technique, it is not widely used, because it may take several tens of years for it to bring the required effect. In this case, some already known genetic modifications of certain plants that increase the withdrawal of heavy metals from soil more significantly can be a perspective. Another interesting technology of cleaning of soil from heavy metals that should be mentioned is phytovolatilization, i.e. the ability of some natural or genetically modified plants and soil microorganisms to absorb and then to gasify and emit certain metals (Hg, Se) into the air. A negative off side effect of this technique is so far unknown. Another option is the soil electrodialysis which uses electrodes on photovoltaic cells that are inserted into soil to reach the accumulation of heavy metals in the anode with the possibility of its removal from soil. However, it still not possible to reach a desired effect in larger areas. A resolute procedure how to “efface” the pollution of soils is encapsulation, or soil capping, which consist of sealed overlapping of contaminated sites with impermeable soils, geomembranes or asphalt-concrete seals, however, there is no certainty that this problem does not occur again. At present, researchers also focus on finding the optimal algorithm of soil characteristics related to soil resistance (tolerance) to impact of pollution. It is a mechanism that should prevent the movement of pollutants in soil in order to limit their participation in the consequences in relation to soil itself, plants, but also other natural environments to the highest possible degree. For instance, the Czech Republic has a map (1:500,000) demonstrating the resistance of its soils to the consequences of their pollution (Podlešáková and Němeček, 2000). Slovakia has a spatial differentiation map showing the potential ability of soils to immobilize the hazardous elements and to decompose organic pollutants (Barančíková and Madaras, 2003a, 2003b; Barančíková and Makovníková, 2003). In terms of petroleum substances, soils have the ability to decompose them by biological degradation mechanisms (mineralization), which is experimentally verified and presented in Figure 8.12. There is also a separate information system that makes it possible to predict the degradation period and the risk of pollution by various petroleum products (petroleum, diesel fuel, oil) for any area in the territory of Slovakia. The map shows that biologically more

132

active soils are normally more aggressive in degradation of petroleum substances and in performance of self-cleaning.

Figure 8.12 Soils in Slovakia and their potential of microbial degradation of petroleum products Source: Bielek, 2008

Complexity of relations between soil and its pollution is questioned by the assessment of soil pollution that is done only by a one-time measurement of concentration of pollutants, even though it is a concentration measured by prescribed soil pollution assessment methods according to set limits. It means that the limits of soil pollution are only the first warning that soil can be polluted to such a level that it can represent a threat to the quality of food, nature and human health. However, this may not always be true, as it primarily depends on physical and chemical features of pollutants. Therefore it is also important to distinguish it from the overall (total) content of a given hazardous element in soil, which represents the sum of all forms of the element in soil, and thus very diverse and not so valuable data about its harmful potential in soil and nature. To better understand those links, it is necessary to know the releasable content of the hazardous element in soil, or those forms in its overall content which are less movable, but are releasable to soil solution by weak acids or their salts (e.g.

2M HNO3, 1N HCl, NH4Cl), which are commonly produced by microorganisms in soil microzones and may contribute to the release of the hazardous element for its negative interaction. It is particularly important to identify the actual absorbable (accessible, assimilable) soil content of the given hazardous element, as it reflects the actual danger resulting from the presence of the element in soil. It is identified from either a hot water extract or very weak acids (e.g. 0.1 M HCl, 1 M of ammonium nitrate, or 1% solution of citric acid). Every structure of any form of a hazardous element is always a reflection of actual soil conditions and can be continuously modified and move in the line of: total content ↔ releasable content ↔ soluble content 133

based on the soil pH, soil oxidation reduction potential and physical and biological processes, including the effects of changing climate and human activities. It is all a reason for the soil pollution to be assessed through the risk assessment, which must correspond to adopted measures as well. In this context, soil protection can also be supported by an essential tool of the environmental policy of the EU, i.e. Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment and its amendment by Directive 2003/35/EC defining public participation in those activities. In Slovakia, this effort begins with Act of the NC SR No. 127/1994 on environmental impact assessment and its amendment (391/2000), but mainly Act of the NC SR No. 24/2006 on environmental impact assessment (coming into effect in February 1, 2006) supplemented with adopted Decree of the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic No. 113/2006 laying down professional competences to the Act (24/2006). Of course, specific features of soil require respecting other legal regulations and standards, in particular those of Act of the NC SR No. 220/2004 on protection and use of agricultural land. Streďanská (2008) considers those measures to be a key instrument for sustainable development of the main components of the environment. In her monograph, she defines 5 most important procedures for the environmental impact assessment. The first one is EA (Environmental Assessment) as a form of common evaluation and documentation of information for the needs of current planning and decision-making related to the environment. EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) which identifies, assesses and mitigates effects of proposed projects and activities in nature. SEA (Strategic Environmental Assessment) assesses environmental aspects in the decision-making process at governmental and political level. SIA (Social Impact Assessment) evaluates social consequences of governmental and political proposals and RA (Risk Assessment) determines both type and degree of risks (environmental, health-related) coming from the decisions on plans and projects carried out in nature and environment.

In Slovakia, the level of soil pollution by hazardous elements has been mapped by the Geochemical Soil Survey (1991-1999) that used the density of one profile soil analysis at 10 km2 to identify the presence of 35 elements (heavy metals mostly). The obtained information is available in Soil Geochemical Atlas (Čurlík-Šefčík, 1999) and an information system (Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute Bratislava), the value of which exceeds the framework of the EU Member States and reaches even the global level. Another approach to identification of soil pollution in Slovakia is information extrapolated from the quality and intensity of emission situation of the territory of Slovakia (Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute Bratislava), from the information system on environmental burdens (ME SR) and since 1993, it has been possible to use the data from the ongoing monitoring of soil pollution on more than 400 monitoring stations. Simply stated, there are about 150 thousand ha of agricultural soils polluted with hazardous elements in Slovakia and about 30 thousand ha of them exceed the allowable limits. Pollution is present mainly in areas affected by emission activities or areas of geogenous soil pollution with the largest enclaves in Štiavnica Mountains and Slovak Ore Mountains. Soil pollution in Slovakia is generally

134

attributed to 80% of immission impact, which means that only 20% of hazardous elements in soils are of other than emission origin. In Slovakia, 9 main areas with proven soil pollution have been identified, which can be seen in Table 8.9.

Table 8.9 The most polluted areas of Slovakia Area of pollution Districts Area in thousand ha Contaminants

Bratislava BA, DS 17 SO2, NOx, CS2,F, Pb, Cd, As

Trnava and Galanta TT, GA 3 SO2, NOx, Ni, Cr

Upper Nitra region PD, TO, NR 40 SO2, NOx, As, Cd, Pb, Cu

Upper Váh river region ZA,DK, MT, LM 14 SO2, NOx, Cr, Mn, Fe, Cd, Ni,

Middle Hron river region BB, ZV 15 F, SO2, NOx

Middle Spiš region SN, RV 17 Hg, Cu, Pb, As, Zn, Cd, SO2

Middle Gemer region RV, RS 21 Mg, SO2, NOx

Košice KE, RV, TV 12 SO2, NOx, Mg, Mn, Cr

Middle Zemlín region MI, HN 12 SO2, NOx, F, NH3, org. poll. In total SR 151

A newer environmental regionalization of the Slovak Republic (Bohuš and Klinda, 2010) identifies 7 burdened areas (Bratislava, Galanta, Lower Váh river region, Nové Zámky, Upper Nitra region, Košice and Zemlín areas) and 6 zones with significantly impaired environment (Žiar, Lower Hron river region, Jelšava, Lubeník, Prešov and Latorica river region zones). Slovakia has 878 localities with environmental burden, out of which 125 are of a high risk nature (Paluchová et al., 2008). All of the above-mentioned information sources demonstrate the pollution of forest soils as well. Especially soil pollution by engine oils should be considered dangerous (chainsaws). In Slovakia, forest management consumes about 600-700 thousand litres of oil annually (0.3 litres of oil for harvesting of 1 m3 of timber), while it takes about 7 months for 1 litre of oil to be decomposed in soil (Bublinec and Gregor, 2003). Soil pollution in urbanized areas is not sufficiently mapped, which is partly compensated by information systems on old burdens and their threats presented in wider contexts than that of soil only (ME SR).

8.3.4 Pollution by Soil Pollution by soil occurs when the soil mass itself and mainly soil pollutants in it penetrate into other components of the environment and pollute them, thereby threatening the quality of both nature and human health. They are transported by soil profile washing, washing from the soil surface, (air, wind) erosion of the soil mass, transfer of agricultural production, by using agricultural technologies, tools and techniques connected with construction activities, etc.

135

Soil as Natural Dirt Precursors of this threat are many substances commonly occurring in soil, soil matter, products of decomposition process of dead plants and animals, but also excrements of animals living on soil, or substances brought in by natural events and disasters and so on. Soil microorganisms play an important role in soil pollution. They commonly occur in soil and their higher contents are induced either by activities carried out on soil or by natural events and disasters (especially floods). Although it is true that the presence of pathogens in soil usually does not exceed 20% of the total content of microorganisms in soil, their transport into more favourable conditions (including the human body) may result in their overpopulation and threats caused by it. Spreading of soil heterotrophic microorganisms can cause decay and other decomposition processes on bodies of plants and in other areas. Therefore, soil is generally considered to be a dirt with prescribed hygienic measures for people during manipulation with it and even in case it is not assumed to be contaminated (hygienic bonuses for people exposed to soil, prohibition of free cross-border transport of soil, as well as anti-pollution measures related to storing places and food storage, comprising transport of products produced on soil, and compulsory cleaning of roads and work environment that is used to be polluted by soil). Pollution by Contaminated Soil Soil contamination is mostly unnatural introduction of foreign substances (either by their form or their excessive amount) into soil while more or less increasing the threats to soil, nature and humans. Measures related to manipulation with such soil are becoming stricter and take the form of obligations applicable to toxic materials. Causes of soil pollution have already been described. Special threat is represented also by landfill sites and anthropogenic waste dumps (wildly) established on the soil surface and containing both municipal and industrial manufacture waste. There is also a threat coming from disposal areas created in inadequate quality (landfill sites of well-known homogeneous waste) and neglected hazardous waste landfills. Soil usually represents a place of the first contact with pollution and with many problems resulting from it. Some landfills spread dust pollution contaminating surrounding soil and affecting wider environment. A common problem is to cover those places and the best method is to do it by plant cover that would solve not only the hygienic, but also the aesthetic sides of the problem (Pariláková, 2003; Urminská et al. 2008; Hronec et al. 2010; and others). Possible effect of pollution by contaminated soil may represent environmental problems, as well as serious social and economic consequences resulting from the perception of soil as of a possible direct threat to population by the dust coming into houses and flats from surrounding soils. This threat leads to the lack of population’s interest in flats built on polluted soils and purchase of polluted plots for construction of flats or houses. This is caused by the facts that the dust comes from soil, that the dirt brought into flats from the surrounding environment (on shoes, clothes) comes from soil, that even the air in zones currently not used for industrial purposes can contain pollution coming from previously polluted soils situated in the neighbourhood, that local water sources can contain dirt washed out from soil and so on. In addition to soil pollution by industrial immissions, impurities getting into soil during their 136

agricultural use are frequently mentioned as well. Other concerns arise from mineral fertilisers (for instance phosphate fertilisers can contain toxic heavy metals, particularly cadmium), applied sludges (heavy metals or organic impurities), organic fertilisers (farmyard manure or industrial substrates), polluted irrigation water, and especially pesticides used in plant protection. Pollution by Substances Originating in Soil There are continuously complex chemical and biochemical transformations of substances going on in soil. They ensure soil functions and their permanent recovery. In healthy soil, the processes are subject to a strict inner soil regulation ensuring the stability of the soil system. It is most commonly disrupted by human induced impacts on soil, targeted invasion into the soil environment, or as a by-product of activities outside of the soil environment. There are many substances with possible accelerated production and accumulation in soil which can negatively affect the soil properties and, subsequently, other components of nature. Textbooks provide examples of some of the effects of fertilising. Nitrogenous fertilisers dominantly transform into nitrates in excessive contact with soil (nitrification) and those can subsequently get into the groundwater and pollute it. Furthermore, they can cause a luxurious absorption of nitrates by plants, then they can accumulate in them, intoxicate them and make them unsuitable for human consumption (Prugar, 2008). Accumulated nitrates can also create and emit nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere (denitrification) and, for instance, nitrogen monoxide (N2O) acts as a greenhouse gas and at the same time as a reagent in reduction of ozone content in the atmosphere (creation of the ozone hole). It has negative effects on human respiratory organs as well. Climate change is also a result of ammonia emissions getting from soil into the air (after fertilisation with urea, after application of liquid animal excrements or farmyard manure). Thus it is clear that this subsequence of soil reactions depend mainly on the applied nitrogenous fertilisers and their intensity increases with higher doses (Bielek, 1998). Another example is a human induced soil acidification which increases the production of more soluble forms of phosphates in soil followed by the possibility of their getting into water resources and their eutrophication (with nitrogen). Higher mineralization of soil organic matter after soil loosening and fertilisation mainly by mineral nitrogen can have negative influences as well. In such cases, soil dewatering may help (Novák and Zlatušková, 2000). It leads to the production of excessive amount of carbon dioxide (CO2), which escapes into the air and acts as a greenhouse gas. At the same time, the content of soil organic matter in soil is reduced, which worsens many important soil properties and their functional efficiency declines, while including the emergence of disturbances in its recovery. Contamination of Production Grown on Polluted Soil It arises mainly from the plants’ intake of soil impurities. Both intake of nutrients and intake of impurities have basic rules applied to the interface between soil and roots. In general, it simply means that plants do not choose from the offer of substances in the soil solution or in the sorption complex, but they absorb them mainly based on a concentration gradient of nutrients (hence they absorb impurities as well) between soil and roots. There is a rule that substances move through the cell walls (protoplasmatic membrane) on the surface of the roots into the internal space (cytoplasm) of the root cells mainly based on the principle of difference 137

in concentrations of the given element, i.e. from the place of higher concentration of a certain element (soil) to the place of its lower concentration (the root). If soil offers higher concentration of hazardous substances (their ions), plants absorb those substances based on that principle as well. It should be added that large molecules of organic impurities have a problem to penetrate into the roots, and therefore are usually not absorbed by plants from soil. It follows from the above-mentioned principles that plants can have no problem to absorb inorganic impurities and to store them in their bodies. The amount of toxic substances stored in body parts that are consumed determines plants’ suitability for entering the human food chain, which can happen either directly or through the animal production. A special situation occurs when a nutrient itself acts as an impurity, which is most commonly associated with nitrogen in the nitrate form. It is a result of luxurious (excessive) plant nutrition with nitrogen reached after excessive fertilisation with nitrogenous substances.

8.4 Biological soil degradation Biological degradation designates: 1. a reduction in the biological recovery of soil, 2. slowing down of functionally important biological soil processes. It usually occurs after physical and chemical soil degradation, i.e. after deterioration of living conditions of soil organisms, the activity of which strengthens and highlights the consequences of the mentioned types of soil damage. As the issue is very complex, this work will name only the most important ones.

8.4.1 Decrease in Amount and Activities of Soil Organisms It is a critical result of negative changes of the living conditions of soil organisms. Changes in the quantity and activities of soil organisms do usually not affect the full range of species and physiological groups of organisms, but only selectively affect some living soil organisms, and thus influence certain biological features provided by them. For example, disruption of a favourable proportion of aerobic and anaerobic conditions in soil (soil compaction, waterlogging, structure disintegration) may, inter alia, lead to the deficit of aerobic decomposition of soil organic matter and the lack of nutrients needed by plants, including accumulation of undecomposed plant residues in soil. Excessive fertilisation with mineral fertilisers (e.g. nitrogen) can cause a strong predominance of biological processes leading to their ousting from soil (e.g. creation of nitrogenous gases or nitrates that can be washed out). The lack of inputs of organic matter to soil leads to heterotrophic microflora consuming soil organic matter and decreasing its content in soil. Pollutants can also cause an undesirable restructuring of physiological groups of microorganisms and complete disruption of biological soil regimes. Persistence of the above-mentioned (but also other) changes in the amount and activities of soil microorganisms usually continues until their cause does not stop. The advantage is that biological features of soil can be relatively quickly regenerated and hence may not represent a

138

long-term problem, of course, if not induced by deep and long-term changes of physical or chemical features.

8.4.2 Increased Mineralization of Soil Organic Matter Humus content in soil is a product of conditions under which soil was formed and has developed. There is a general rule that accumulation of organic substances in soil occurs in moist and warm climatic conditions (high level of post-harvest residues) and their transformation into humus is stimulated when those conditions are alternated with warm and dry conditions. As most of the products in soil, the humus content is also a result of processes of formation and decomposition. It was a long time ago that humans started to interfere into the balance of those processes and, in particular, by causing the dominance of the loss of humus over its creation. According to Act of the NC SR No. 220/2004 Coll. on protection and use of agricultural land, the content and quality of the soil organic matter are threatened if the balance of inputs and -1 -1 outputs of Cox starts to be dominated by the loss, which should not exceed 2 t Cox.ha .year in -1 -1 low humic soils with the humus content up to 1.5%, or 3 t Cox.ha .year in soils with the humus content of more than 1.5%. However, the truth is that maintaining of those limits is not always successful. There are many works that confirm a considerable predisposition of current soils to the decline in the content of humus. It occurs due to the conversion of areas rich in vegetation into areas with lower levels of organic residues in soil (conversion of forests into agricultural soil, ploughing of meadows and pastures), when not only inputs of organic matter into soil are radically reduced, but also soil decomposition by regular cultivation is accelerated. However, the decline in soil organic matter occurs even without any change in land use, due to its intensive aeration, bad crop rotation, dewatering, excessive fertilisation with mineral fertilisers, i.e. when the main cause of the decline in the soil humus content is the increase in intensity of decomposition of plant residues. Another cause of those problems is forgetting about organic fertilisation, and thus about provision of sources for the production of humus in soil. It all leads to deterioration of physical, chemical and biological soil characteristics and decrease in the performance of their functions. Global environmental consequences of reduction of the soil humus content (for instance produced by CO2 and its impact on climate change) will be addressed in another chapter. It is estimated that about 60% of the total area of agricultural soils in Slovakia suffer from the consequences of reduced humus content. It is a problem mainly because the restoration of the content and quality of soil humus is a long process requiring considerable effort connected with reconstruction of management and an economic risk related to the land use. Therefore it must be sad to look at some known declines in the humus content recorded after cutting down rainforests with insufficient development of agriculture, reduction of the humus content in vast Central Asian Chernozem areas, increasing soil desertification and their conversion into desert in the vast territories of Africa, Asia, as well as Europe and America, but also many 139

local actions dewatering areas (Kalmyk steppe near the Caspian Sea), and thus leading to “emptying” of humus from soil. Development of both content and quality of soil organic matter depends on several factors. The most important factors encompass amount, quality and internal transformation of organic matter entering soil. The amount and duration of sequestration (storing) of soil organic matter entering soil is determined by two successive processes: active sequestration when the first signs of storing of organic matter in soil are visible (after one year) and subsequent passive sequestration that stores residues after the first sequestration (West and Six, 2007). It means that plant residues and other organic material are decomposed in soil in two stages. The first stage is quick and decomposes easily decomposable substances and is followed by a slower stage which decomposes the remaining more resistant organic matter fractions (Duong et al., 2009). The first decomposition phase is dominated by the activities of bacteria that develop very well on fresh plant residues (Paterson et al., 2008), while later decomposition phase is dominated mainly by microscopic fungi that are able to decompose complex structures of the substances (Rantalainen et al., 2004). Humus accumulates in soil only if the supply of organic substances prevails over their decomposition. There is a term limit of soil humus reserve, which is a kind of a long-term balance between the inputs and outputs of organic substances in soil, and thus stability of the soil humus content (Zaujec, 2003). The truth is that if agricultural land is used intensively, the reserve may not be maintained for a long period (it usually drops down). The process of decomposition is followed (or accompanied) by stabilization of organic substances transformed by physical and chemical mechanisms. It can be achieved by prevention of water and microorganisms from getting to organic matter, chemisorption of organic matter on a mineralogical soil component, formation of organic-mineral complexes, entry of organic substances into soil aggregates, and so on (Bachman et al., 2008; Basile- Doelsch, 2009; Lamparter et al., 2009). A decisive factor for the stability of soil organic matter is soil moisture. It is almost axiomatic that soil organic matter is better preserved in wetter conditions, on the contrary, more decomposed in drier soils. If there is less air in soil, it is decomposed in a smaller amount and higher amount is preserved in soil. The deeper we are, the more rapid is the decrease in its content mainly if deep rooting plants are cultivated there. Plants rich in post-harvest residues are beneficial to the soil organic matter content. Root exudates are also important, as they can contain up to 40% of carbon that is photosynthetically assimilated by plants (Paterson et al.,

1997). Rhizodeposition of CO2 is a major source of labile soil carbon suitable for activities of heterotrophic microorganisms (Högberg and Read, 2006) which causes a higher level of microorganisms in the rhisosphere in comparison with free soil. In order to create conditions for maintaining the quality and functionality of soil, it is necessary not to allow the soil organic matter to fall under the balanced level of inputs and outputs of organic substances in soil during soil cultivation. Of course, the primary aim should be to achieve surpluses of organic matter in soil and its transformation to humus. Based on those principles, Bielek and Jurčová (2010) created a principle of assessment of the

140

balance of soil organic matter for any field within the territory of Slovakia and, subsequently, a procedure for determination of organic manure necessary for the correction of the deficit situation. Inputs of organic matter to soil are presented on the basis of multiannual studies of the amount of post-harvest residues of the main field crops cultivated on the territory. The data obtained are briefly provided in Table 8.10. Loss of organic matter from soil was derived from experimentally measured and generalized CO2 flux from soil as a product of microbial decomposition of organic substances in soil. The difference between the processes points out either a positive or a negative balance of soil organic matter. Both parameters are functionally linked to the BSEU point value, which means that it is possible to calculate them for any of the fields within Slovakia and that the balance of organic matter can be identified for every individual type of soil ecological conditions.

Table 8.10 Dry matter of plant residues per specified harvest (t.ha-1) Post-harvest Root Crop Harvest residues residues Residues in total Winter rape + straw 2.57 8.42 2.70 11.12 Maize for grain + maize stalks 5.85 7.04 2.30 9.34 Winter wheat + straw 5.04 6.54 2.75 9.29 Sunflower + maize stalks 2.17 6.78 2.00 8.78 Winter rye + straw 3.85 5.77 2.76 8.53 Oats + straw 3.78 4.91 2.38 7.29 Opium poppy + poppy straw 0.36 5.37 1.64 7.01 Lentil + straw 0.71 4.47 2.53 7.00 Winter barley + straw 4.99 4.71 2.06 6.77 Pea + straw 3.56 5.14 1.37 6.51 Spring barley + straw 4.19 4.19 1.78 5.97 Common bean 1.95 4.14 1.68 5.82 Oilseed flax + straw 1.56 2.65 2.41 5.06 Maize for silage 32.13 1.36 3.31 4.67 Triticale + straw 4.69 6.57 2.36 8.93 Potatoes 19.5 1.57 0.87 2.44 Sugar and fodder beet 49.95 0.61 0.50 1.11 Lucerne – full year of use 10.83 – 0.41 0.41 Red clover – full year of use 7.76 – 0.30 0.30

The system is interconnected with a database and a map of BSEU on the territory of Slovakia, which enables people to search for any field in orthophotomaps, insert names of plants cultivated in the last three years into an attached table, fill in their harvest and amount of organic fertilisers applied and then the programme offers information about the balance of organic matter levels in the tested land parcel and, at the same time, suggests another type of application of organic fertilisers if the balance is negative.

141

It is actually an expert system that not only informs, but also gets farmers “into the game” and allows them to correct the deficit either directly by organic fertilisation or by another future structure of crop cultivation, which can be modelled (optimized) in various combinations. Now the system is interlinked with the criteria of the Nitrate Directive and limits inadequately high doses of organic fertilisers that would otherwise exceed the nitrogen fertilisation limits laid down by the Directive (Bielek and Jurčová, 2010). Another approach (Barančíková et al., 2011) is provided by a foreign tested ROTHC 26.3. model named after the place where it was created, which is the Experimental Station in Rothamsted, England. Its objective is to identify the retrospective and prognosticated development of the soil organic matter content, but so far does not offer specific expert solutions with auto navigation and online participation of farmers. And there is also a model named CENTURY that can be used for those purposes, however, it is a relatively large system suitable for ecosystem services rather than for being used as a solo model regulating the soil organic matter content. In the strategic context, the EU offers an excellent and relatively extensive study – DG Environment (Gobin et al., 2011) which is supported by REGSOM model designed to assess regional carbon balances and LUMOCAP model aimed at evaluation of results of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The study addresses the expected development of the content of organic matter of the EU-27 soils in four proposed variants compared with the current method of the soil use called BAU (Business As Usual). It is oriented towards the 2030 assessment. Results of the study show that the first place belongs to the requirement of change and regulation of the proportion of individual types of soil use (agricultural, forest, urbanized, free) to accelerate the dominance of carbon stock in soil over carbon flux from soil. Another requirement necessary in order to achieve the essential reconstruction of soil cultivation methods in favour of storing of plant residues in soil to the exclusion of their use in energy production. The document appeals to search for solutions related to the use of agricultural organic waste in order to use every form of carbon reasonably in favour of its retention in soil. Special attention is paid to the use of forest waste to improve the balance of carbon in forest and agricultural soils. Radical protection is demanded in relation to peat bogs (it is assumed that the loss of carbon from peat bogs may reach 13-36% in the EU-27 until the end of this century while it may appear in the form of greenhouse gases). The study focuses not only on the soil and agricultural potential of the EU-27 Member States, but also on the development of the climate change. Therefore it proposes to launch a strong political and legislative pressure against the negative effects of the climate change. We should appreciate that the real situation and future concerns are presented on map templates of the EU regional division, which means that they provide visual information for every higher territorial unit. It is a study, which must be followed by national and regional activities, comprising activities of agricultural and environmental managing authorities, without which qualified strategic and prognostic thinking is not possible. As for the chemical measures fighting the decline in the soil organic matter content, the latest trends in the search for artificial chemical preparations acting as antioxidants should be mentioned as well. This effort arises from the awareness that soil organic matter losses are 142

caused mainly by soil oxidation processes which must be limited (the principle of protection against entropy). Although the principle is not yet commercially used, there is a rule that everything scientists have made possible becomes also real. Several other approaches to stabilization of the soil organic matter content are summarized by Tobiašová (2010). She mentions biochemical recalcitration and physical stabilization of organic substances in soil. They prevent water from accessing the place of decomposition of organic matter and lead to the creation of microaggregates, into which microorganisms can get only with difficulties, and chemisorption of organic substances and so on. Stability of the soil organic matter also significantly depends on the natural resistance of the organic matter to decomposition which crucially depends on its internal structure, which was quite fittingly presented by Baldock and Skjemstad (1999). Their scheme (Figure 8.13) shows a differentiated structure of the main groups of organic substances in soil with a differentiated resistance to decomposition. And thus according to the scheme, dissolved (DOM) and particulate organic matter (POM) are renewed approximately once every 10 years, while it takes dozens of years for humified organic matter (HOM) to be renewed and inert organic matter (IOM) needs hundreds of years. It is interesting that decomposition of all of the substances is significantly faster than their origin if anthropically induced (Gobin 2011).

Litterfall DOM: dissolved organic matter Dissolved organic POM: particulate organic matter matter HOM: humified organic matter DOM Macro fraction IOM: inert organic matter

Light fraction Non-living Particles larger organic than 0,53 µm Soil matter POM

organic matter Non-humic Biomass of biomolecules microorganisms Humus HOM

Inert organic Humic matter substances IOM

Figure 8.13 Soil organic matter structure Source: Baldock and Skjemstad, 1999

143

8.5 Agricultural Soil Degradation It represents a set of numerous physical, chemical, and biological types of soil degradation caused by prioritization of economic interests in agricultural use of soil. Agricultural degradation is a result of harmful prioritization of a single (agroproduction) function of soil at the expense of other functions, paradoxically, with consequences that do not correspond with the aim to achieve an efficient agriculture and sustainable prosperity of farming on soil. At the same time, it also reflects the absence of respect for the importance of irreplaceable soil potentials for healthy and intact natural environment.

8.5.1 Soil Sealing due to Agricultural Construction Activities Soil sealing is a natural part of a developed agricultural production. However, it is perceived to be negative when excessively large areas of agricultural land that is even of good quality are sealed purposelessly and, in particular, if the constructions become surplus and represent a real environmental burden (coming from unsecured former agricultural fertiliser storages, former agrochemical and fuel storages, unused technologies, “forgotten” dead animals and animal waste, etc.). Prevention and solution to those problems are not legally addressed in Slovak legislation (and it is the same in terms of other abandoned constructions).

8.5.2 Intentional Soil Water Regime Changes They result from the efforts of farmers to use soils that have naturally disrupted water regime without any restrictions. Those can be either seasonally waterlogged soils and wetlands or soils that require irrigation to reach a high intensity of agriculture. Such accessing of waterlogged soils and wetlands for agricultural production is usually reached by drainage, which means that “excess” water is taken away from fields by underground (pipe) or surface (drain) routes. Underground drainage leads to irreversible removal of water from the territory into streams, rivers and seas, which is not considered to be positive, as it leads to disruption of natural water regime of the country. The worst situation occurs if water from wetlands is removed, and thus such a unique ecosystem is destroyed. It can even happen that drained areas begin to suffer from drought and the solution of such induced condition requires new investments in construction and operation of irrigation system. If drains are used, the loss of soil water is not completely irreversible and the water can be re-used to ensure soil moisture in the period of drought (artificial lifting of water levels in drains). Water removal from soil profile is usually accompanied by washing out of nutrients and other substances and particles that are essential for soil, which worsens the soil properties and threatens the quality of water resources (mainly washed out nitrates, phosphates, and sometimes pesticides) and it occurs especially if preferred passages of water movement are created in soil. The most serious consequence of soil drainage is accelerated mineralization of soil organic matter (due to better soil aeration) and gradual loss of one part of the soil organic matter content. Novák and Zlatušková (2000) experimentally proved that gradual decline may last 10-15 years after drainage of soil and lead to a decrease in the soil organic matter content even to a half.

144

In Slovakia, there are approximately 425 thousand ha of agricultural land that were drained (before 1989). Although the drainage is not functional at one part of that area, its consequences are still present. Drainage is currently professionally acceptable only in potentially waterlogged areas that are being prepared for construction works or other specific purposes (e.g. as an anti-landslide measure). Drainage of large areas of agricultural land reduces water retention ability of soil and worsens the balance of water resources in the territory. Arguments about the need for drainage of soils to improve their accessibility for agricultural production do not stand up, because there is excess area of agricultural land for food production (Slovakia is able to feed about 6.5 million inhabitants) and there is no reason for further increasing of this potential at the expense of a negative development of water resources situation in the territory. In addition, carbon originating during increased decomposition of soil organic matter gets in the form of CO2 into the atmosphere and contributes to climate change.

Irrigation systems act as regulators of soil water regime. They offer a solution to elimination of agricultural drought caused by the lack of rainfall, weak support of soil profile by groundwater and in soils susceptible to drying (e.g. sandy soils). The positive impact of irrigation on agricultural production is undisputable. It is estimated that up to 40% of the current world agricultural production depends on irrigation water. However, irrigation must be applied with respect to soil, plants and must have an economic justification. Its adverse effects are connected with mechanical operation of water sprayed on soil surface (disintegration of the soil structure and creation of soil crust) and mainly with the quality of water used for irrigation. Slovakia has built about 310 thousand ha of irrigation systems (mostly spray, sprinkler design). It is estimated that only 60% of them are currently functional and even their use is limited due to expensive costs. Regulation of the quality of water used for irrigation is laid down in Resolution of the Government of the Slovak Republic No. 269/2010 according to STN 75 7143 Water Quality (Irrigation Water). It includes 42 indicators with the possibility of inclusion of irrigation water into quality class I (suitable for irrigation), quality class II (conditionally suitable for irrigation) and quality class III (unsuitable for irrigation). It puts a heavy emphasis on the pH (especially in order not to allow acidification of soil), presence of salts (in order not to allow salinization of soil) and not to pollute soil especially by organic pollutants. The regulation also involves biological indicators (fecal coliform bacteria, enterococci, pathogens, salmonella, parasites). It is a pity that cyanides, nitrates, heavy metals, phenols, and other dangerous substances that can pollute soil and directly contaminate plant production intended for consumption are identified only as additional indicators of the quality of irrigation water. The use of irrigation has decreased rapidly after 1990 and reached a minimum level at the end of the last decade. Nowadays, its use is relatively stable at about 10% of the total area of irrigation systems established before 1990.

145

8.5.3 Destruction of Physical Soil Structure When talking about compaction, the destruction of soil structure should be mentioned as well. It is a result of soil cultivation, specifically by excessive soil wetness, absence of organic fertilisation, pressure of technologies, excessive ploughing (strong aeration), excessive irrigation, neglected liming, accelerated erosion, excessive fertilisation with potassium (peptization of colloids), a well as secondary soil salinization. Correction of this type of degradation requires a change in farming and elimination of its causes. The latest method of correction of destructed soil structure involves the use of so-called stabilizers, i.e. synthetic substances on the basis of polymers (HPAN, VAMA), as well as inorganic or organo-mineral combinations, for instance Kirilium (sodium salt of polyacrylic acid), Flotal (ferric ammonium alum), Verdickung (potassium ammonium salt of polyacrylic acid), Separan (hydrolyzed polyamide), PAN (polyacrylonitril), etc. A serious disruption of soil physical condition is caused mainly by the compaction of the soil profile.

8.5.4 Soil Degradation due to Agricultural Production Techniques In this context, agricultural large-scale production and a high concentration of agricultural activities on soil are important factors. They have led to a high concentration of livestock and large production of traditional wastes (farmyard manure, liquid excrements) and induced waste products (silage juices). They are harmful, because they consist of both original substances and chemicals, pharmaceutical and hygienic preparations and substances, which get not only into soil, but also to other components of nature. The size of fields often increased to a level, at which it is not possible to protect soil from water or wind erosion. An insensitive relationship to soil has been formed as a result of the large size of its areas (it is usually easier to protect small areas). Overgrazing of pastures has occurred and had many negative effects and a chemical impact on soil (e.g. an area under one dose of cattle excrements is fertilised with 1,000 kg N.ha-1). Mistakes in the spatial arrangement of soil eliminate the natural proportion of pests eaten by birds (ploughing of balks, removal of terraces and non-agricultural greenery), reduce the biodiversity of animals, limit the usability of fields and interfere in the interaction between different types of ground cover (forest vs agriculture). Inappropriate assistance to quantify the yield by soil cultivation also leads to many various consequences.

8.5.5 Use of agrocehmiclas in Agricuture It has been present since Justus von Liebig’s (1803-1873) success with the theory of mineral nutrition of plants and proving that the source of carbon for plants is not soil but the atmosphere, and therefore adding of organic matter to soil has no longer been considered necessary. This has led to efforts to find sources of mineral nutrients in nature and to apply them to soil to achieve higher yields. At first, natural raw materials (such as Chile saltpeter, phosphates, potassium salt) were used and soon nutrients were produced like fertilisers by using chemical technologies. However, a “boom” in this assisted plant nutrition occurred in the last 3-4 decades of the 20th century when high doses of mineral fertilisers started to be

146

used, and thus together with the plant breeding brought a rapid increase in agricultural yields, increased food availability, but at the same time raised concerns about their negative effects on the natural environment. Those concerns arose from proved adverse effects of mineral fertilisers on soil especially by acceleration of soil organic matter decomposition, negative changes in the occurrence and activities of the living soil component, acidification of soil solution, soil pollution (with heavy metals, nitrates), or even reduced yield and its lower quality (when excessively used). Some of the effects of mineral fertilisers got beyond the soil environment and lowered the quality of water resources and even that of air. The deficit soil management that is currently used is another problem regarding the balance of nutrients and the development of their content in soil. Expression of the deficit for the period 1998-2005 can be seen in the Figure 8.14. There is practically no difference between the current condition and the presented one.

Figure 8.14 NPK nutrient deficiencies in cultivation of various types of crops Source: Kováčik, 2007

The Figure 8.15 clearly shows that more nutrients have been taken from soil than have been replaced by fertilisation in Slovakia for the last two decades. It leads to soil degradation referred to as depletion that can reach the level, at which it is accompanied by the decrease in the yield (soil is no longer able to rectify the negative balance of nutrients from its own stock). The cause of the decline in the consumption of industrial fertilisers is their price that has been increasing since 1990 (nitrogen and phosphorus are twice more expensive, potassium is almost three times more expensive). It has not yet been reflected in the yield only thanks to the high nutrient saturation of soil, which has preserved since the period before 1990 and has not been depleted so far.

147

Figure 8.15 Development of consumption of industrial fertilisers in Slovakia in kg of pure nutrients per ha Source: Statistical Yearbook of the Slovak Republic

Figure 8.16 Production of livestock manure in t.ha-1 of agricultural land in Slovakia Source: Green Report, 2012

The consumption of organic fertilisers, and thus the nutrient supply to soil have also dropped down deep since 1990. It can be seen in Figure 8.16. Those data are connected with the imbalance of soil organic matter that currently reaches an average of 40% deficit with all the negative impacts on the soil quality and sustainability of its functions. The reasons include an enormous decline in the number of farm animals after 1990, especially in cattle and pigs (to one-third), which is also connected with the lower production and application of fertilisers in soil. Another reason is a relatively small use of protective soil management methods in agriculture, and therefore prevailing intensive soil cultivation techniques with a high carbon flux from soil to the atmosphere. 148

The reduced production of agricultural fertilisers is currently perceived as positive, because their application does not prevent pollution of water resources by nitrates and, at the same time, has other negative impacts on the environment. Organic fertilisers made from livestock excrements may, for example, contain animal hormones, in particular estradiol, estrone and estriol, which can potentially pollute surface and underground water resources. Even very low concentration (10-100 µg.l-1) can affect the reproductive ability of aquatic organisms by disruption of normal functions of their endocrine systems. The risk of damage to human health by the mentioned hormones is not yet clear, but it is evident that the new situation they lead to is not natural and may affect people’s lives (Hanselman et al. 2003). That is why the preliminary caution principle was adopted and is more and more promoted mainly in the Western Europe (England, Germany). The Netherlands chose the method of production of fertilisation substrates from animal excrements with better quality and removed hazardous substances. It follows that livestock manure is no longer perceived as the best source for organic soil fertilisation. It is much more often recommended not to be used and is very critically assessed especially in relation to organic farming (particularly in England).

Pesticides as the second significant negative impact factor affecting soil and the environment appeared during the World War II (DDT for instance), but their massive spatial extension occurred in the 1960s. They are artificially produced substances foreign to nature and potentially aggressive towards the targeted pests and, moreover, they often have negative side, mainly residual, effects (either on their own or the products of their decomposition) on soil and nature. Many pesticides have a long persistence in nature and remain in it for many years (DDT is present for more than 30 years) while causing a number of concerns about the health of both animals and humans. Another group of agrochemicals is represented by agricultural dressing that often used to be synthesized on the basis of mercury in the past (which is now prohibited) and is replaced with less toxic substances nowadays. Defoliants are much more aggressive and are used to facilitate the collection of agricultural crops and were misused for instance during the Vietnam War as “agent orange” with thousands of local inhabitants killed. Modern danger lies in medicines and disinfectants in animal production. They can leave stables in either meat or excrements widely active in nature.

Genetically modified plants can be the newest problem, as their genes can get into genetic systems of other organisms (especially those in soil or on soil) and influence the nature and its stability into a degree that is for now only estimated. As the importance of the soil microflora for soil and its properties is enormous, the above-mentioned threats could lead to the collapse of regulatory and revitalization biological mechanisms of soil with unimaginable challenges. Current problems also involve industrial production and the use of organic fertilisers and compost, into which not always clean and high-quality waste (municipal waste, industrial waste) is added and which can transfer the pollution to soil (Table 8.11). Thus organized compost control, mainly in relation to the presence of heavy metals, was adopted. 149

Table 8.11 Limits of heavy metals in mg.kg-1of dry matter in compost pursuant to STN 465735 Element 1st class 2nd class As 10 20 Cd 2 4 Cr 100 300 Cu 100 400 Hg 1 1 Mo 5 20 Ni 50 70 Pb 100 300 Zn 300 600

A more serious problem is the pollution of soil by waste, rubbish, and illegal landfill sites, including the agricultural ones. In Slovakia, the problems caused by the impact of chemization of agriculture are evident, but their size does not cause a big danger. Accumulation of pesticides in soil and in nature is only minimal and mostly below the acceptable standards (pursuant to Decision of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Slovak Republic No. 531/1994-540 and Act No. 220/2004). Pollution of soil and nature due to the use of fertilisers, dressing, defoliants and medicines has proved to be a problem only in the case of pollution of water and crop production by nitrates (see the Nitrate Directive). Genetically modified plants are almost not grown on the territory. In spite of that, it should be reminded that agriculture is spatially the largest sector, and thus it is considered to be a dominant pollutant of soil and nature. Pollution of small spots having much more serious impact than the pollution of larger areas is not rare as well. Nowadays, there is a critical problem of exaggerated considering soil to be an environment with a huge potential for decomposition processes, which may lead to the effort to feel free to make the soil a “rubbish dump” and to throw there anything that is no longer necessary, because it is rubbish. The worst thing is when this philosophy is taken over by the producers of agricultural and industrial waste and it leads to a long-term damage to soil and deterioration of its functions. This situation is problematic even in terrain adjustments around finished constructions, when certain substances, the activities of which are sometimes unknown, are stored in the subsoil in an undisciplined manner. The seriousness of this situation arises mainly from the fact that a concentrated population of settlements or workers of large factories get under the influence of such action.

8.5.6 Allelopathy in Soil It is an unwanted enrichment of soil with secretions of microorganisms, root secretions, or even products of biological decomposition of plant residues in soil. Simply said, one organism influences the growth and development of another one by means of its biological activities (influence of one plant on another, influences between soil microorganisms and plants, mutual

150

influences between soil microorganism, or suppression of soil microorganisms by plants). Those are very complex relations with both negative and favourable impacts on soil and cultivated plants. The favourable allelopathic impact of cultivation of garlic on the health of strawberries, as well as other examples often used in gardening practice, or in the application of multi-crop agricultural systems, in particular intercropping, can be mentioned (Lacko- Bartošová, 1998).

8.5.7 Soil Fatigue It is a decrease in soil fertility by repeated planting of the same or very closely related plant species lasting for many years. It leads to a decreased yield, death of germinated seeds and planted seedlings and sometimes even adult plants. The reasons are specific long-term plant activities with the surplus of plant residues of the same composition in soil, accumulation of pesticides or their residues used in their cultivation, unilateral depletion and thus reduction of the content of certain soil nutrients, pH changes of the soil environment, allelopathy, increased pressure from diseases and pests, and so on. That is why it is not recommended to cultivate some plants twice in a row (potatoes, beetroot, garlic, onions, beet), others more than 3-4 years in a row (cabbage, strawberries, cucumbers, beans, peas), but some plants can stand the same habitat longer, up to 7-8 years (maize). The prevention of fatigue consists of compliance with the permissible periods of repetition of planting of the same crops in the same habitat, removal of plant residues and roots of dead plants consistently from soil, and the use of technology of simultaneous cultivation of several species in one area. Fatigue damage can be rectified by soil disinfection (by using water vapour or chemical preparations), full fertilisation by mineral and especially organic substances and amelioration materials (farmyard manure, peat, coal dust), but also regulation of overpopulated pests by chemical or biological methods.

8.6 Overall Evaluation of Soil Degradation in Slovakia The overall extent of the dominant types of soil degradation in Slovakia, while taking into account their impact on both soil and environment and including the possibility of their rectification, can be estimated as follows:

Table 8.12 Threats due to soil degradation in Slovakia Type of degradation Extent Threat Soil sealing up to 5-7 ha per day medium threat almost 50% (agricultural land) Water erosion 90% of forest land very strong threat Wind erosion 5-6% of the agricultural land area weak threat Loss of humus approximately 60% of the agricultural land area medium threat Soil compaction approximately 30% of the agricultural land area strong threat Contamination 30 thousand ha above the limit medium threat

151

Type of degradation Extent Threat Acidification 10-15% of the agricultural land area weak threat Salinization minimum occurrence weak threat

In the summary of corrective measures, five basic approaches to the damaged soil should be identified: 1. Soil rehabilitation applies common procedures to improve disrupted soil conditions (organic and mineral fertilisation, liming, use of special preparations). 2. Soil amelioration represents a stronger intervention in the soil environment, which affects soil with a longer lasting effect and significantly changes its properties (terracing, trenching, deep loosening, amelioration liming and fertilisation). 3. Revitalization is a revival of reduced natural tenancies and activities of soils damaged by floods, drying, or extreme effects of natural disasters (organic fertilisers, biological preparations, grassing, afforestation). 4. Renaturalization represents soil’s return to its original state after an inappropriate human intervention (disconnection of drainage devices, cutting down of neglected natural seedling areas, man-made ground). 5. Soil reconstruction stands for soil recovery after landslides, strong water or wind erosion, construction activities, wash-out cavities, etc. (challenging measures implemented within certain projects and with relatively high costs). It should be objectively noted that soil degradation phenomena are evident in Slovakia and that they require attention at all levels of professional, political, as well as civic interest in soil. The truth is that the extent of the processes and results of soil degradation is usually smaller than in many other EU Member States (see the EU Soil Thematic Strategy), which places Slovakia among the territories with a relatively good perspective of the use of soils and their potentials in the future. Global information on the overall extent of damage to soil is provided in Table 8.13.

Table 8.13 Global extent and degree of soil degradation (Oldeman 1994) Type of degradation Weak Moderate Strong In total Water erosion 343 527 224 1,094 Wind erosion 269 254 26 549 Loss of nutrients 93 103 43 239 Salinization 35 20 21 76 Pollution 4 17 1 22 Acidification 2 3 1 6 Physical degradation 44 27 12 83 In total 749 911 305 1,965 Source: Šarapatka et al., 2002

As for the damage to soil, prevention remains the primary solution to possible consequences, which may not always be corrected completely. The primary principle of the relationship to

152

soil in terms of its protection and land use is to be aware of all of the key facts about its characteristics and functions, which are the subject of our interest. Before searching for the possibilities of land use, it is always necessary to identify the main soil functions in the given habitat, in particular the condition (quality) of soil. During the preparation of the EU Soil Framework Directive, the Committee on the Environment of the Council of Europe argued for the adoption of this Directive in detail and discussed the damage and the costs connected with soil degradation. The discussion can be briefly summarized in the conclusions provided in the following Table 8.14 (created based on the personal participation of the author of this monograph in the preparation of the Directive).

Table 8.14 Losses and costs due to soil degradation Type of degradation Losses caused to land users Costs caused to society Depreciation of soil as a natural resource and as a property Higher costs for the healthcare sector Increased insurance costs for the Costs for cleaning of degraded water soil management resources Increased costs for the protection Soil contamination of agricultural production Costs for more intensive food control Reduction in yield Costs for technical area adjustments Damage to soil and other properties Costs for infrastructure repairs Soil erosion Reduced profit from farming Costs for water purification Reduction in yield Costs for anti-climate change measures Decrease in the soil Costs for the compensation of soil’s organic matter content Higher costs for the land use cleaning ability in relation to water Costs for the protection and Salinization Losses in yield rehabilitation of water infrastructures Loss of lives and property Costs for road and railway Landslides Damage to property reconstruction

According to the already invalid (but professionally respected) Act of the NC SR No. 307/1992 on protection of agricultural land fund, we distinguish between protective and threatened land fund. The protective land fund has a production function and, at the same time, protects other natural resources. It contains soils especially situated in water resources protection areas (PWMA, HPZ). The threatened land fund represents a group of soils with negatively modified chemical, physical and biological properties. Simply said, those soils are damaged by degradation or even destruction and require a special approach to their use and protection against further deterioration. This division is very important for the practical assessment of the basic possibilities of the use of soil and landscape, as well as for designing measures that would ensure production, economic and eco-social (especially endogenous) development of the territory.

153

8.7 System Measures against Soil Degradation A lot of partial measures against soil degradation are well known, accepted and also applied in an effort to protect soil. Many of them have become a subject of national and international documents, comprising the legislative ones. However, the truth is that the progress in the soil protection is only sporadic which is mainly caused by the civic and state benevolence to soil and especially relatively very low law enforcement in terms of soil protection. As the adoption of principal national and international documents on soil protection often fails, solutions must be found elsewhere. The effort focuses on designing and adoption of system changes in the use and management of soil while arguing for the increase in yield, reduction of dependence of farming on weather, stabilization of the yield potential of soils, as well as modernization of farming with the aim of increasing the attractiveness of agriculture – all this with a positive effect on protection and improvement of soil. Those measures are very often commonly referred to as conservation agriculture. The development of conservation agriculture started earlier parallelly with the realization that tillage may not necessarily represent a precondition for the agricultural use of soil, but, on the contrary, it may even have a negative effect on soil, plant production and other aspects of agricultural sustainability. Conservation agriculture thus results is minimization technologies involving reduced tillage, mulch tillage, ridge tillage, no-tillage or zero-tillage crop production, and strip tillage. It saves the costs for tillage, reduces the loss of soil organic matter connected with all relevant positive effects on soil and yield, saves soil water, protects soil from erosion in a better manner, i.e. leads to lower costs for stabilization or improvement of soil properties and fertility. A relatively comprehensive summary of information is offered in the works focusing on tillage (Demo et al., 1995; Kováč et al., 2010; Ďuďák, 2010). Another approach is organic farming, which bases its existence on the production of food of higher quality and better economic evaluation and on benefits arising from the protection of soil and its properties. The technology (or even philosophy) became a part of the EU’s agricultural policy, including support as well, in 1991 (Regulation (EC) No. 2092/91) and this sector has developed rapidly in the recent years. According to the Eurostat data, organic farming was used on the area of 9.6 million ha of agricultural land in the EU in 2011 in comparison to only 5.7 million ha in 2002. In the EU, the area cultivated by organic farming has increased by 500 thousand ha every year during the last decade. This method is used by more than 186 thousand farmers. The growth rates of organic land use are enormous especially in the new EU Member States. For example, the area under organic farming increased by almost ten times in the period 2003-2010. In Slovakia, organic farming is used on about 7% of the total area of agricultural soils. In addition to the improved production quality, organic farming is appreciated mainly for its positive effect on soil and its natural properties, as well as against negative soil anthropization by the use of fertilisers, chemical protection and damage to the biological soil component. Other approaches involve water saving agriculture (deep soil loosening), low input farming, low carbon farms, etc. Those approaches always try to achieve an appropriate effect with a higher respect for the global environmental issues and the need to find a solution 154

to them. Their promotion is gradually being justified from the economic perspective and more considered for future use. There is also an important modern method reducing the agricultural degradation of soils named precision farming. It is a response to the need for the respect of the spatial variability of properties of soil habitats with aim to assist the agricultural production by differentiated application of intensification means based on specific conditions. It is a system that helps the agricultural economy by preventing either an overload or an underload in specific field areas. Thus, this system is more ecological and definitely more economical (although its technical side is currently more expensive) in comparison with the traditional methods of farming. The pedological perspective appreciates the considerable benefits of this system related to the protection of soil and its properties. The spread of the precision farming started in the USA after the GPS system was made accessible to the civil society (at the beginning of the 1990s). This is an important precondition, as the system maps specific soil properties with the support of remote navigation by a mapping facility and subsequently makes corrections with the GPS navigated device. It is used in tillage, sowing, application of agrochemicals and in evaluation of yield variability. The use of spatial variability of individual soil properties (such as the soil nutrient content) is based on soil samples from precisely georeferenced places, analysis of the content of a specific nutrient in the samples, creation of a digital record of spatial differentiation of variability of the nutrient content in the given area, creation of an application record for the application device (fertiliser spreader), insertion of the record into the applicator and then the automated differentiated fertilisation starts depending on the content of the nutrient found in the sample. Those operations will ensure that more fertiliser is applied in places with a lower nutrient content than in the places where their soil content is higher which will balance the nutrient content in the entire cultivated area. The SUA in Nitra currently tests a special method of the use of this technology at its experimental sites. It is a GPS navigation of the movement of technical machines along the same routes in order to prevent the full-area soil compaction and degradation of soil characteristics. The results obtained show that this technology has a positive effect in terms of the soil compaction prevention and the expenses indicate that its future use is really possible (Rataj and Galambošová, 2011; Galambošová and Rataj, 2011).

Environmental soil management represents a set of measures aimed at the management of processes of the use of commodity and non-commodity soil functions. Those measures are active (conscious) actions contributing to the sustainable agricultural and forestry land use from both production and environmental perspectives and are either motivated by supports or enforced by the legislation. Rural Development Plans (RDP) and in particular the agri- environmental programmes as their components are effective in this context. Another active tool is offered by direct payments to farmers conditioned by the SAPS measures involving soil protection measures within the agricultural land use. In this way, in 2013 in Slovakia, soil

155

conservation was supported by 390.1 million euros, which represents about 177 euros per 1 ha of agricultural land for more than 26 thousand farmers and companies conducting business in agriculture in Slovakia. Unfortunately, the enforcement of efficiency of the payments is low (only 5% of the area is controlled) and, furthermore, there is an inadequate public documentation, which is perceived with displeasure and distrust by the professional public.

156

9 SOIL AND GLOBAL WORLD PROBLEMS

Many of the current political, economic, social and environmental global world problems are connected with soil. It clearly results from the essential meaning of soil functions in nature and society. If they are disrupted, it leads to changes not only in the soil properties but also in other components of nature and it either directly or indirectly influences living conditions on the Earth. The influence may be positive, but since it is most commonly a product of driving forces motivated by commercial interests of humans, the impact is mostly negative. As it is usually expanded spatialy, it may has extensive effects with limited opportunities for their remediation.

Soil science is a scientific discipline multifunctionally oriented to problems of both sides of the interface between the animate and inanimate nature, which hence gains the support and new allies for addressing the major topics of today’s world. Its scope (comprising traditional forestry pedology) is also supplemented with the expertise of geology and together they create a professional community of pedogeologists or agrogeologists in the same way as in the beginning of the pedology and the community helps to discover and solve both internal and external issues related to soil and its mission. It is sometimes perceived as a threat to the scientific autonomy of pedology, but the truth is that it helps to disseminate the knowledge about soil and other aspects connected with it. Similarly, the water-related scientific and research disciplines have also started to be less interested in the management of flows or surface water sources and have taken over the duties of river basin management, and thus of large areas covered with soil and having certain functions in the water regime regulation. There are new modern directions of discovery and management of soil environment that develop timidly, namely land law, land policy, environmental pedology, eco-social pedology, or pedology of urbanized areas. These and other professional interests in soil contribute to the awareness that if soil’s problems are solved, it can at the same time solve the global world problems.

9.1 Soil Sealing and Other Types of Soil Loss They become global problems when they lead to an increase in the size of biologically inactive area of terrestrial surface and reduction of the size of the part of land, which ensures the crucial conditions for life through soil. It is evidently shown by the data, according to which, for instance, approximately 75% of the European population currently lives in urbanized areas and this proportion is estimated to increase to 80% by 2020. This proportion could exceed 90% in seven Member States (EEA 2010). Since the 1950s, the EU’s total area of cities increased by 78%, while the number of residents has increased only by 33%. Reduction of biologically active area of soil and simultaneous population growth reduce the living conditions of humans and other organisms. Ideas about the so-called soil carrying capacity, i.e. the minimum area of soil per capita, are still more and more topical and in

157

particular in the most densely populated world areas. World’s mega-agglomerations are a clear example of the fact that soil is not able to eliminate the environmental pressure of the population without an adequate internal area and hence the situation results in an undignified life, eco-social problems and expansion of pollution to wide surroundings, including seas adjacent to coastal agglomerations. That is indisputable evidence that the use of soil resources for non-biological purposes can become a global problem of both current and future development. The whole problem becomes more difficult by simultaneous increase in the size of abandoned and neglected areas after previous human activities and, furthermore, soils in urbanized territories are so anthropized that they can represent a problem in terms of the intensity of their environmental potential for the benefit of humans. For those reasons, it is for instance proposed (COM/2011/571) to apply pressure on the governments of the EU Member States to direct the proportion of land take towards the goal of achieving zero net land take by 2050 (in the balance of the development of built-up areas). It should raise an interest in the use of abandoned areas and in substitution of newly built-up areas for soil revitalization on other places. Another problem is the exclusion of considerable areas of soil due to them being damaged and their loss of function. For those reasons, a relatively extensive part of population moves from the areas affected by soil degradation (desertification for example) to places where it finds acceptable living conditions (ecological emigration). The UN studies inform us that approximately 60 million people will leave North Africa and migrate to mainly southern territories of Europe in the period 2000-2020, while 700-900 thousand Mexican residents flee from drought affected territories mainly to the USA every year. This phenomenon could occur in the territory of Slovakia in a small scale as well, for example by the migration of population from the areas affected by emissions or damage to soil in the vicinity of magnesite plants in villages of Jelšava, Ľubeník, from the vicinity of Žiar nad Hronom, or other environmentally inhospitable areas.

9.2 Global Problems of Soil Degradation In global assessment of the extent of soil degradation, only few data are necessary for us to become aware of global threats and their consequences. The results of the GLASOD international project (Global Assessment of Human Induced Soil Degradation, ISRIC-NL, 1990) show that 1.964 billion ha of soils of the Earth are affected and suffer from degradation: 55.6% are affected by water erosion, 27.9% are affected by wind erosion, 12.2% suffer from chemical degradation, 4.2% suffer from physical degradation and the rest is otherwise damaged. Only 38.1% of soils can be considered slightly damaged, 46.4% of soils are moderately damaged and 15.5% of soils are severely damaged. The EU Soil Thematic Strategy (2006) provides data specifically on soil degradation in Europe and it shows that about 115 million ha of soil in Europe (12% of the total area) are regularly affected by water erosion and 42 million ha suffer from the impact of wind erosion. There are about 3.5 million cities with more or less polluted soil. Considerable areas are affected by compaction, salinization, landslides, or decrease in the soil organic matter content to the level, at which soil loses its essential functions. In the EU-25, the consequences of soil 158

degradation (both of the past and newly formed degradation) represent about 38 billion € per year and their remediation would require at least the same amount. The mentioned data point out that there is a tremendous world drama taking place on soil and it is induced mainly by humans. However, the problem is that the consequences influencing soil have gradually become limits of the life of humans with their acceleration of an unprecedented extent.

9.3 Food Security The crucial function of soil is biomass production including mainly food production for humans. In spite of the fact that the production potential of soil of the Earth and the current world food production are sufficient and able to ensure the nutrition for all inhabitants of our planet, concerns about the sustainability of this condition are justified for many reasons. Primary causes involve enormous land loss for food production either due to the land take for non-biological use or as a result of its destruction by other activities. According to the World Bank experts study (2009), the minimum value of the energy consumption, which is 2,803 kcal.person-1.day-1, is exceeded by the current world food production to the average level of 112%. It means that the soil surface of our Earth (in combination with the sea production) is able to produce enough food for all inhabitants and even with a reserve in case of a fail year. In his Encyclical Centesimus Annus (1991), Pope John Paul II added that the cause of food insecurity in many areas of our planet and in rich states is economically reckless and socially unjust restricted access to food for all.

Another problem is the accelerated population growth. World statistics show that at present, the number of people on our planet increases by about 120 million people every year. The Earth has been reaching the level of 1 billion inhabitants for about 10 thousand years. This number was doubled in the last century (1920). The third billion was reached in the next 30 years (1960), the fourth one was reached in 15 years (1975), and the fifth one followed in 12 years (1987). We reached the level of six billions in 1999 and in 2006 our planet was inhabited by 6.5 billion people. Since 2012, it is over 7 billions. It is assumed that there could be 9 billion people in 2050. Those are data that may raise concerns. What can be soothing is that the world food production still has higher rates of growth than the population growth has. However, this is at the expense of a higher burden on soil and nature by the measures that are not always without consequences. It includes especially the tropical and temperate zones, which are the main world “granaries” and places where it is necessary to achieve the highest levels of soil protection for food production.

The problem in securing food for population is mainly the inappropriate redistribution of food supply from places with high production to places with deficit production. It is considered the main cause of the fact that there are about 800 million people in the Earth that do not currently have the necessary food particularly due to poverty preventing them from getting enough foodstuffs. It is a political and economic problem rather than a problem of food production. Therefore, the threat of hunger for considerable communities, mainly the poor, is still possible and also real even in the countries with agricultural surplus.

159

There are several approaches recognized in connection with the evaluation of the food security potential. Food security as meeting consumption needs of inhabitants by own food production. FAO (The state of Food Security, 2001) defines it precisely as a situation when all people at all times have physical, social and economic access to sufficient food ensuring their nutritional and energy need for active life and good health. It is a concept emphasizing mainly the humane principles of the need for food production with the threat of failure to respect ecological and nutrition principles of its implementation. Food safety refers to ensurance of production of high quality food with no consequences on the environment. The emphasis is placed on ecological production respecting the necessary environmental restrictions. Food sovereignty is based on free decisions of states with liberalized attitude to the use of soil as a natural resource in the liberalized food market. It is not easy to choose any model of food production on soil. Every food doctrine has a lot of limiting conditions, which must be taken into account and, subsequently, ensured by political, economic and eco-social decisions.

9.4 Disruption of Nitrogen Cycle Disruption of nitrogen cycle is dominantly linked to soil. It is a result of a change in the most sensitive component of soil – soil microflora which, under certain adverse conditions, takes over the task to regulate and eliminate inappropriate impact on soil, unfortunately, with consequences that become global world problems. The majority of those problems represents soil’s defensive mechanism against disruption of the balanced proportion of soil elements (in particular nitrogen to carbon) after nitrogen fertilisers are added.

9.4.1 Impact on Air Quality It is a typical result of soil’s effort to get rid of excess nitrogen after nitrogenous fertilisers are added. When ammonia form of nitrogenous fertiliser is added, soil immediately starts mechanisms of ammonia volatilization into the air in particular if it does not have enough capacity for either physical and chemical sorption of the ammonia on soil particles or its biological sorption by soil microorganisms. Field measurements (Bielek, 1998) confirmed it when 3-5 kg of N volatilized into the air during the first two weeks after the application of 130 kg of ammonia N.ha-1. Another problem is that when the ammonia fertiliser is added, soil immediately accelerates biological oxidation of the additional ammonia into nitrates, while nitrous oxide (N2O) originates as a by-product and is also volatilized from soil into the atmosphere. Finally, nitrates formed from the rest of the additional ammonia can be subsequently denitrificated into nitrogen oxides (including N2O) which also move from soil into the atmosphere. This mechanism is triggered immediately even if a nitrous fertiliser is applied in soil (nitres).

160

The result of all of the above-mentioned mechanisms is the release of surplus nitrogen into the atmosphere in two very harmful forms. It is the already mentioned ammonia and nitrous oxide

(N2O), which is 300 times more powerful than a greenhouse gas like CO2, and at the same time also contributes to the formation of the ozone hole (ozone decomposition). In 1996,

Bowman published a calculation of total emissions of N20 by using his so-called Bowman’s coefficient based on the dose of nitrogen fertiliser applied to soil. The calculation shows that about 0.225 kg N2O is emitted into the atmosphere from 100 kg of nitrogen applied as a fertiliser. When we imagine the huge areas fertilised with nitrogen in the whole world, we cannot be surprised by the information of IPCC that up to 60% of the overall N2O accumulated in the air comes from soil (fertilisers) and agriculture is thus considered to be the largest producer of this greenhouse gas (the rest comes mainly from the traffic).

9.4.2 Impact on Water Resources Quality This problem results from the mentioned acceleration of nitrification in soil after the addition of nitrogen fertilisers. Soil converts the added nitrogen into nitrates. At the same time, it accelerates the decomposition of soil organic matter and adds extra ammonia to the soil environment (priming effect) with the coefficient of 0.25, i.e. about 0.25 kg of ammonia is released from soil per every 1 kg of applied nitrogen and the ammonia can also be converted into nitrates. Thus the higher quality of soil, the higher process of nitrate creation. And hence whereas unfertilised soil contains a maximum average of 50% proportion of nitrates in the overall mineral nitrogen, after the addition of fertilisers, it can be up to 90%. It is possible that soil does it with the aim of increasing the proportion in mineral nitrogen that is of good solubility (nitrates), to give it to plants, but if plants do not consume it, it can be released from soil (not only by the already mentioned denitrification, i.e. into the air) also by leaching. It is confirmed again that the added nitrogen is an unwanted phenomenon, and therefore soil changes it into other forms that can help its movement from the soil environment. A solution may be the addition of organic carbon resources to soil (e.g. straw, maize stalks, not farmyard manure) which will create the conditions for at least a temporary increase in soil’s capture of mineral nitrogen (immobilization by carbon sources) and limitation of its leaching. All of those relations are experimentally confirmed and quantified in conditions of Slovakia (Bielek, 1998). Leaching of nitrates is a process of their removal by water running into deeper layers of the soil profile either after rainfall or during seasonal decline of groundwater levels. The mentioned mechanisms of formation of nitrates in soil point out that it is a problem especially after the application of nitrogen fertilisers and especially in the spring. Seasonality of water movement in soil predicates the highest intensity of leaching of soil nitrates both in the spring and winter. Unfortunately, during that time, the level of plants’ consumption of soil nitrates is the lowest, and thus the highest level of leaching of nitrates from soil is presumed. There is a relatively strong dependence of the intensity of leaching of nitrates on the dose of nitrogen fertilisers. There is also sufficient evidence that leaching of nitrates is determined by the form of applied mineral nitrogen fertiliser. Even the farmyard manure is considered as hazardous as other fertilisers containing nitrogen. Especially liquid agricultural fertilisers are 161

harmful, because they contain nitrogen, as well as the carrier of leaching of nitrates (water). Experiments carried out on Carbonate Fluvisols (area of Žitný ostrov), where nitrogen was applied in various forms, showed the following gradation in the intensity of nitrate leaching (Bielek, 1997a): not fertilised with nitrogen < fertilised with sludge < fertilised with ammonium sulphate < fertilised with calcium nitrate

The difference in the amount of leached nitrogen between the first and the last variant was almost double (not fertilised – 26 kg N, fertilised with nitrate – 45 kg N.year-1 from 1 ha from a dose of 100 kg N.ha-1, leaching to the depth of more than 60 cm). For the above-mentioned reasons, fertilisation with nitrogen is critically harmful in the early spring and the late autumn. Other factors that must be respected include hydropedological soil properties and especially stability, or patterns of changes in groundwater levels. Movement of nitrates to the depth below the level of plant roots that could consume them is environmentally unacceptable. Nitrogen fertilisation of high quality soils is especially harmful, because they have a good potential for the creation of nitrates from any source of ammonia. Experiments with 15N (Bielek, 1997a, including many foreign works) showed that the leached nitrogen usually contains only 2-5% of the applied nitrogen fertilisers. Other nitrates come from the soil nitrogen. This knowledge motivates agricultural practice to claim that soil fertilisation does not have a substantial impact on nitrate leaching. However, the truth is that after the application of nitrogen fertilisers, nitrogen in fertiliser is immediately exchanged for the nitrogen present in soil (especially in organic forms) by means of physical, chemically and biological processes, which leads to both binding of the added nitrogen to soil structures and release of the soil nitrogen for the creation of nitrates. These so-called mineralization and immobilization processes result in the soil solution dominated by the nitrogen from soil reserves in a very short time after the application of the fertiliser. This is also the reason why the plant production has only a small percentage of 15N after its application to soil. The truth and the fundamental argument for understanding the impact of fertilisers on leaching of nitrates is that fertilised and especially high-quality soils generally contain more nitrates in their soil solution than soils that are either not fertilised or of lower quality. Leaching of nitrates from the soil profile represents a serious problem when water with the leached nitrates becomes a source of drinking water. The limits of the content of nitrates in - - drinking water are 15 mg NO3 in 1 litre of water for infants and 50 mg NO3 in 1 litre for - adults and 0.5 mg NO2 in 1 litre of water for all (according to Regulation of the Government of the Slovak Republic No. 334/2006). Higher values are deemed to be over the limits. Some - countries (including the EU) accepted a standard defining 30 mg NO3 in 1 litre as water contaminated by nitrates (mainly in terms of surface water).

9.4.3 Impact on Plant Production Quality It results from a change in conditions after soil fertilisation with nitrogen causes nitrogen plant nutrition. Due to the fact that the offer of nitrogen nutrients in soils fertilised with nitrogen is usually dominated by nitrates, plants adapt to it and consume more nitrates than 162

ammonia. Although it is claimed that plants have their mind stored in root caps (Baluška et al., 2010; Masarovičová, 2011), plants cannot direct their growth or root development to search for soil microzones where they would find less nitrates. On the contrary, since nitrates are of good solubility, they are sought after by plants. This leads to plants’ luxurious intake of nitrates from soil and due to a high energy need for their binding to plants’ protein structures, they can be stored in plants’ bodies with no changes. Limits of nitrate concentration in agricultural production are defined primarily in relation to - the content in vegetables. The limits are: 1,000 mg NO3 in 1 kg of fresh matter in lettuce, - spinach, beetroot, radish and kohlrabi; 250-1,000 mg NO3 in 1 kg of fresh matter in cabbage, - carrots, pumpkins, garlic and potatoes; and it should not be more than 250 mg of NO3 in 1 kg of fresh matter in onions, tomatoes, pepper, pea, cucumbers and maize. The European Union - limits nitrate concentration only for leaf vegetables and it is 2,000-4,500 mg NO3 per 1 kg of fresh matter (Regulation 864/1999/EEC). The content of nitrates in vegetables is lower in the evening, and therefore it is not recommended to collect vegetables in the morning (nitrates are bound to proteins by photosynthesis during daylight, plants take them in at night as well, but they remain free in the cell sap without the photosynthesis). Boiling reduces the nitrate content in vegetables by 70-80%. The negative impact of nitrates on human health is less dangerous if they get to human body from vegetable consumption in comparison to their intake from drinking water, because the content of vitamin C present in vegetables reduces their toxicity. It is also true that their activity can be positive, because they kill some stomach bacteria that are dangerous to health (e.g. salmonella). Another problem of plants’ high intake of nitrates is the lower quality of those plants leading to the decrease in fodder, consumption, technological and, finally, the economic value of agricultural production (Prugar et al., 2008).

9.4.4 Impact on Human Health The high concentration of nitrates in both drinking water and food causes an increased intake of nitrates. In infants, the nitrate ion gets from water or food and binds to hemoglobin during the prenatal development. It occupies places that should bind oxygen and creates so-called methemoglobin, which is not able to carry enough oxygen through body and the child can suffocate. The manifestation is a blue to purple skin colour of the newly born child, but it can also last for some time (few weeks). In adult organisms, stomach converts nitrates to nitrites and then to toxic nitrosocompounds and they can lead to several serious or less serious diseases.

9.5 Disruption of Carbon Cycle Soil environment is undoubtedly the most important natural deposit of carbon and the main reason is that soil is quantitatively important, dynamically active and dominantly involved in many functions in the nature. At the same time, soil environment also involves regulatory mechanisms that primarily influence not only the forms and the content of soil carbon, but also the presence of carbon in other natural environments, including the carbon cycle in 163

nature. For those reasons, we have to understand the transformations and movements of carbon in soil if we want to understand and manage the carbon regimes in nature. The content and the quality of soil carbon are determined by many factors. In the present stage of pedogenesis, carbon content in agricultural soils is only satisfactory. It can be seen in Table 9.1 (Bielek, 1998).

Table 9.1 Average carbon content in agricultural soils in Slovakia

Soil type Cox content in % Podzols 2.88 Gleysols 3.07 Regosols 2.16 Mollic Fluvisols and Mollic Gleysols 2.14 Rendzic Leptosols 2.06 Chernozems 1.51 Fluvisols 1.71 Cambisols 1.71 Planosols and Stagnosols 2.01 Albic Luvisols 1.35 Haplic Luvisols 1.27

The following map (Figure 9.1) shows that the highest amount of carbon is present in soils in southern part of Slovakia with a sporadic occurrence in central and northern area.

Figure 9.1 Cox content in agricultural soils in Slovakia Source: Bielek, 2008

164

It follows from Figure 9.2 that in terms of the structures of changes and storage of carbon in soil, Slovakia is geographically located between the territories with the most active carbon accumulation in soil in the north of Europe and a deficit of carbon in the south. In this context, there is enough evidence to assume that the past treated Slovakia well and allowed the country to obtain relatively good conditions for the humus storage in soil, and it did so in climatic conditions where this soil property can be successfully assessed by the manifestations of production as well as other soil functions. However, the current development of the soil organic matter content can be negatively affected by inappropriate farming technologies, which can gradually lead to deterioration of the relatively good position of soils of Slovakia among the soils of the EU Member States.

Figure 9.2 Soil carbon content in Europe (% of Cox) Source: Jones et al., 2003

Carbon content has been maintaining a relatively stable weight ratio for many centuries in the main components of nature. However, it is also true that natural carbon reserves are in a 165

constant cycle, which means that they move from one component of nature to another in relatively large quantities. The world net annual flux of carbon from the soil vegetation complex to the atmosphere and back is estimated to be 60 Pg C (IPCC, 2000), which is less than in case of carbon moving between seas and the atmosphere (90 Pg C). This exchange is illustrated in Figure 9.3.

Figure 9.3 Global carbon cycle in nature (Pg = Petagram, 1 Pg = 1015 g)

The exchange of carbon between individual components of the natural environment is an essential condition for maintenance of the most important functions of the nature. However, it is crucially important that those processes take place at the interface between the animate and inanimate nature and are therefore essential and irreplaceable for preserving life on our planet. They indirectly affect life by influencing characteristics of the environment of living organisms (for instance climate). It is known that each hectare of land is involved in the natural carbon cycle with important activities. General summaries of many years of measurements (Bielek, 1998) indicate that

1 ha of land can emit about 3-5 tons of C-CO2 into the atmosphere every year and that it depends on soil and its use. Figure 9.4 shows that the higher the production potential of soils, the lower the amount of net CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere. It seems that more productive soils of higher quality have more economical regime of carbon conversion in their environment.

On average (weighted average), about 4.2 t of C-CO2 is annually released from 1 ha of land into the air. It represents 10,061 thousand tons of C-CO2 from the whole area of agricultural soils in Slovakia (industrial emissions represent about 40 thousand tons).

166

Figure 9.4 Release of CO2 from soil depending on its production potential Source: Bielek, 1997

CO2 emitted from soil is compensated through the mechanisms of assimilation of atmospheric CO2 by plants or other depositions into soil and subsequently it is incorporated into the soil carbon pool. There is a lot of evidence according to which the compensation may not be in balance with the CO2 release from soil, which may result in lower soil carbon content. It occurs mainly in the conversion of meadows into arable land, conversion of forests into arable land, drainage of wetlands, intensive agriculture, mineral fertilisation and so on. Those and other world land use changes have released about 136 ± 55 Pg C since 1750 (IPCC, 2000).

Of course, higher inputs of CO2 into the atmosphere were caused by industry and traffic (nowadays it is about 7 Pg C per year). And due to that, CO2 that has been stabilized at the level of 180 to 280 ppmv in the atmosphere for centuries, which was observed by glacier analysis, reaches 370 ppmv and increases on average by about 1.5 ppmv every year. Soil and agriculture cause 9-11% of that.

Ecological effects of increasing level of atmospheric CO2 are alarming mainly in connection with global climate change. One of the solutions to these problems is considered to be the sequestration (storage) of carbon in soil by agricultural measures that will not reduce the economic profit of agriculture and, at the same time, will contribute to the increase in soil quality (increase in the soil organic matter content). Solutions are summarized in Table 9.2 (Gumbert, 2002). Cole estimated already in 1996 that 22-44 Pg C may be sequestrated on our planet in the next 50 years (0.4-0.8 Pg annually) by means of reconversion of agriculturally used soils, reclamation of degraded soils and improvement of methods of agricultural land use. Recarbonization of the biosphere is considered by Lal et al. (2013) the most appropriate strategy for the redistribution of C and especially to soil (C sink) by the mentioned methods. In another work Lal and Steward (2013) ask for support to be provided mainly by using no-till technologies, modern technologies of soil water retention and the transition to nano-fertilisers. 167

In 2002, Gumbert estimated that the potential of soil carbon sequestration in the EU is 60-70

Mt C-CO2 per year. He presented potentials of sequestration for many specific agricultural and farming techniques and technologies and suggested supporting the EU farmers with the -1 amount of 20 €.t of sequestrated C-CO2 per year, which was also recommended by Cole for the USA in the amount of 10-25 $.

Table 9.2 Methods of assisted carbon sequestration in soil and its benefits in t C.ha-1 per year Measure Benefits (on average) Zero tillage 1.42 Minimum tillage < 1.42 Setting aside of land > 1.42 Cultivation of deep rooting plants 2.27 Application of agricultural fertilisers to soil 1.38 Ploughing of plant residues into soil 2.54 Application of sludge to soil 0.95 Addition of compost to soil 1.38 Extensification of agriculture 1.98 Organic farming 1.90 Conversion of arable land to forests 2.27 Conversion of arable land to meadows 7.03 Conversion of meadows to arable land -3.60 Conversion of permanent grassland to arable land -3.66 Conversion of forests to arable land -7.00 Absence of deep ploughing 5.00 Restoration of wetlands 17.00

9.6 Climate Change Based on the already mentioned and other considerations, the problem of climate change is pointed out convincingly and even with additional information on some details. We should not underestimate the First National Communication of the Slovak Republic on Climate Change (Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic, 1995), which says that the extent that has been reached by the current climate change has not occurred since the last Ice Age (10 thousand years ago). And a reason for that is considered to be the ongoing increase in the concentration of CO2, CH4, N2O and halogenated hydrocarbons (HCFC, HFC) in the atmosphere, which causes the greenhouse effect with a gradual increase in the average temperature of the air by 2-4°C from 1750 to 2075. As it is a specific anthropically induced change, it represents a single climate event, and therefore is referred to in the singular – Climate Change. But the problem is that we cannot distinguish it from climatic changes commonly occurring in nature, and thus it is a widely discussed and even controversial topic. The 5th IPCC Report (2013, available only on the Internet so far) identified 95% certainty that 168

human induced climate change is the major cause of all climatic changes. As it resulted from the growth of the standard of living, it is also becoming a political problem and a subject of international disputes. It is important to be aware of possible either direct or indirect impact of climate change on soil and its functions in both nature and society. In Slovakia, the first comprehensive study regarding this issue was published in 1999 (Bielek et al., 1999) as a product of realization of a project of the MARD SR, which evaluated not only expected changes in soil properties, but also changes in their functions. The study was based on data from the National Climate Programme of the Slovak Republic and the well-known Country Study of the Slovak Republic (Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute, 1997) and the results obtained from the DSSAT3 and DAISY models (Špánik et al., 1997) which expect the sum of average air temperatures to be higher by 24% in the large growing season and by 14% in the main growing season in 2075. This will lead to a delay in the onset of dormancy (temperature lower than 5 °C) for at least 18 days in 2075. Moreover, changes in annual precipitation regime are also predicted and that can lead to a decrease in the available soil water content especially in the period from May to October. Agroclimatic production potential may decrease by up to 38% by 2075 (in southern Slovakia). All of the data either directly or indirectly affect soil, its properties, and even its functions. It is not sure whether the expected changes of climatic conditions on the territory of Slovakia (Bielek et al., 1999, and then Sobocká et al., 2005) will cause a change in the structure of soil types on the territory of Slovakia. However, a certain degree of retrograde soil-forming processes that will influence characteristics of some soils is expected. Furthermore, the higher temperature that is expected could increase mineralization of soil organic matter and subsequently reduce the soil humus content. It could increase the amount of available nutrients in soil, and thus improve the conditions for plant nutrition, on the other hand, the lower soil organic matter content would deteriorate the soil structure (disintegration of aggregates) and adversely affect other living conditions of plants (especially the air and water regime). The increased nitrogen mineralization can also be followed by accelerated nitrate formation with all its negative manifestations. Decomposition of soil organic matter will release CO2 which will get into the atmosphere and contribute to stabilization or increase in the manifestations of climate change.

In the global dimension, increased the decomposition of soil organic matter fuels further development of effects of climate change that will release even higher amount of CO2 from soil and hence cause even greater warming of the Earth, and this “perpetum mobile” can continue until reaching changes, the consequences of which we are not able to imagine. It involves mainly permafrost (permanently frozen soils near the North Pole) which can gradually release a huge amount of ammonia and CO2 and increase the greenhouse effect to such a high level that it will stop the main temperature regulators of our planet (Gulf Stream, Labrador Current, etc.), which will subsequently lead to overheating of the Earth to a life- threatening level.

169

The international community is engaged in solving problems related to climate change in a higher extent than national activities of individual countries. The first powerful document on this topic was the UN resolution entitled “Protection of the global climate for present and future generations of mankind” (1988). Climate change was extensively discussed at the World Conference on Environment in Rio de Janeiro (1992), where it was decided to adopt the UN Convention on Climate Change (it was adopted in 1995). A powerful tool for solving the problems of climate change was the Kyoto Protocol (2002) that committed the international community to reduce the production of greenhouse gases reached in 1990 by 5.2% by 2012. Unfortunately, its actions and commitments are failing to be fulfilled. However, we are pleased to say that Slovakia has reduced emissions released into the atmosphere to the largest extent among all of the OECD Member States. The total ammonia emissions dropped by 44% in comparison to 1990-1992 and 2001-2003 and 90% of that was reduced in agricultural sector. It was a result of decreased number of farm animals and partially reduced nitrogen fertilisation of soil. Slovakia met its emission target that was set in the Copenhagen Protocol for 2010 already in 2003. The decrease in emissions of other greenhouse gases was just as successful in that year and reached a 42% drop (Blaas et al., 2010). Despite a slight increase after 2010, the greenhouse gas emissions are still at the level lowered by at least one third in comparison with the level from 1990. There are several fundamental studies related to soil and agriculture, which, in spite of their good quality and value and even officially adopted and gradually implemented documents, have not yet forced either states or the international community to start any specifically effective activities. The emphasis is laid on the need for the adoption of both mitigation measures that should slow the rate of climate change and adaptation measures adapting life and economy to the new changed climatic conditions. Mitigation should focus on the reduction of agricultural technologies accelerating the production of CO2 emissions and measures of assisted CO2 sequestration mainly to soil organic matter. Another serious problem is the production of methane. In practice, 1 t of methane released to the atmosphere equals 21 t of CO2. The largest producers of methane are ruminant animals. For example, single dairy cow weighing 650 kg produces about 130 kg of methane per year through enteric fermentation and subsequently in the form of excrements.

After converting it to CO2, it is the same amount that is released by a mid-size car after 15 to 20 thousand km. Chris Goodall, an English Green Party parliamentary candidate (The Times, August 4, 2007), adds that it is even worse if cows are bred in the system of organic agriculture with a lower production of meat and milk, as the level of methane emissions stays the same. He also claims that it is better for people to go to work by car rather than on foot to ensure the so-called “low-carbon life”. He states that a car releases about 0.9 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere in 5 km, but if we go the same distance on foot, we have to replace the energy with the same amount of energy from beef (about 100 g), during the production of which the animal releases about 3.6 kg of gases equal to CO2. Therefore, the EU has proposed the introduction of the so-called cow tax or flatulence tax. It is a tax of 5-13 € per diary cow per year. In the USA, the amount mentioned is 125-150 $ per diary cow. In New Zealand, the tax has been paid already since 2003 and comprises the total amount of more than 4 million € per 170

year (8 million NZ$) for the state treasury. Therefore, Chicago region (USA) started to test trading methane from agricultural production few years ago. Simply said, if the livestock numbers increase, it is necessary to buy an emission quota, if the numbers are lower, the quota can be sold. It is interesting that the USA trades emissions from livestock more and more intensively, whereas it stopped trading industrial emissions in 2010.

As for the efforts to reduce the soil N2O production accelerated by soil nitrogen fertilisation and to reduce the CO2 emissions from intensification tillage technologies that are currently being strengthened, there is some hope offered by new approaches to soil nitrogen fertilisation and progressive tillage technologies, in particular by minimization which is used at larger and larger areas and has a positive impact not only on the reduction of soil CO2 emissions, but also on the improvement of agricultural economy. Adaptation must be directed towards a new agricultural regionalization and system measures within the entire agricultural sector (e.g. low carbon farming trends, plant breeding, soil water regime regulation, protective farming), i.e. such measures that will mitigate the negative impact of climate change on soil and agricultural production. Although it is necessary to consider climate change a real ecological threat, controversial opinions cannot be avoided. Political history, for instance, has heard several sarcastic comments and also a relieving note that “global warming occurred after the Cold War”. This type of reactions can be joined by the view that climate change is “an alarm of bureaucrats dreaming of CO2 emissions control” (i.e. industrial production control). A more constructive approach claims that “the West must take over the responsibility for the future of our planet”, because “climate change is the greatest failure of the market the world has seen”. Sceptical environmentalists warn that “the increase in the temperature of the Earth by about 2 °C can destroy 20-30% of species of living organisms”. Whatever the opinions on climate change are, there are enough arguments for us to be more responsible towards this topic than the preliminary caution principle requires. And even in relation to soil and its future.

9.7 Ozone Layer Depletion The ozone layer around our planet acts as an important barrier preventing the excessive UV radiation from the Sun from entering the Earth’s atmosphere. In the past decades, the higher level of emissions (such as freon, N2O and others) has led to ozone depletion with an epicentre over Antarctica, where the ozone depleted area is about 5 times larger than the territory of Germany. This phenomenon has also influenced the Arctic (North Pole) to a smaller extent, but it can potentially cause more problems, because it is closer to populated areas than in the Southern Hemisphere. The Montreal Protocol adopted in 1987 has proved to be successful in limiting the production of relevant emissions to such an extent that the latest studies admit that the “ozone hole” is closing up over Antarctica and assume that its intact condition will have been restored by 2045. It seems that the right “thread” for patching the ozone hole has been found. The impact the ozone layer depletion on soil is not explored to such an extent that we could come to conclusions, which would require adoption of any fundamental measures. It seems

171

that the lethal effect of higher UV radiation on soil organisms may not threaten soil properties and functions. Moreover, no indirect negative impact of UV radiation on soil through affecting plants is expected.

9.8 Desertification and Drought Almost 5 billion ha (out of the total of almost 9 billion ha) of the Earth’s soil surface are located in arid, semi-arid, or dry sub-humid areas (Hurni, 1996). About a quarter of population of our planet lives on them and about 250 million of those people are food producers. After the UN Conference in Nairobi (1977), the term desertification simply referred to catastrophic drought associated with the disaster in Sahel region (Africa) lasting for several years. The UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) that took place in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 defined desertification as degradation of soil and nature in arid, semi-arid and sub-humid areas due to various factors involving climate change and human activities. It led to adoption of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification. A typical characteristic feature of desertification is the onset or persistence of drought and its influence causing the loss of soil organic matter, loss of soil structure, lower soil water retention ability and high soil water evaporation, increasing deficit in the area of plant cover and high susceptibility of degraded soil to water and wind erosion. Soil salinization is also an important negative manifestation of desertification. In general, it results in lower economic profit from soil and ecological and eco-social problems in the given territory. The above-mentioned manifestations of desertification imply that the area suffering from desertification may not be a desert only. The most significant indicator of the onset of desertification is reduced soil organic matter content. Professional society evaluates soil carbon content and its development according to the following indicators (EU Soil Thematic

Strategy, 2006): soils containing less than 1.2% of Cox have lower potential of their functions (about 510 thousand ha of soils in Slovakia) and soils containing less than 1.0% of Cox are in pre-desertification stage and on their way to desertification (about 222 thousand ha of soils in Slovakia). Their allocation on the territory is provided in Figure 9.5 and 9.6.

172

Figure 9.5 Critical levels of soil organic matter in soils in Slovakia (Cox < 1%) Source: Bielek, 2008

Figure 9.6 Critical levels of soil organic matter in soils in Slovakia (Cox < 1.2%) Source: Bielek, 2008

The maps show that a substantial area of soils in Slovakia is potentially threatened with desertification. It is a manifestation of natural susceptibility of those soils to decrease in soil organic matter content (typical for Haplic Luvisols), but it is also a result of improper farming techniques. As it involves relatively large areas of land, we cannot be indifferent to the 173

situation and we must take action. We should try to deal with it in particular through the agri- environmental support to local farmers. And thus, in addition to natural climatic changes and the current climate change, the process of desertification of soils can also be accelerated by an inappropriate land use and farming techniques, which can lead to the loss of soil organic matter and consequent impact on soil and landscape water regime with manifestations of desertification. Simply said, the worse we treat the soil, the closer we are to its degradation, and it can lead to its transformation into a desert. Therefore drought must be regarded not only as a result of the lack of rainfall, but also as a man induced accelerated inability of soil to retain water, both of which lead to creation of conditions for a gradual transformation of landscape into an area with manifestations of drought and finally into a desert. Drought represents a decrease in biological availability of water at a particular time and in a particular place. It is a simple characterization of this critically important natural phenomenon. We can distinguish between meteorological, hydrological, socio-economic and agricultural drought.  Meteorological (climatological) drought is defined based on the size of deviation of precipitation from either the normal state or a quantitative difference between the normal and current evapotranspiration at a particular time and in a particular place.  Hydrological drought occurs when there is a shortage of water for the formation of its normal river flow and for the maintenance of the average groundwater levels.  Socio-economic drought refers to the lack of water for standard economic and social activities in the society. Each of the mentioned types is primarily connected with soil’s functions to retain and provide nature and society with water.  Agricultural drought (syn. of agrometeorological drought, agro-climatic drought) is defined as a lack of moisture in the plant root zone for the maintenance of the plant growth. It depends on climate, hydropedological soil properties and water requirements of plants. Assessment of agricultural drought is very complex. It is based mainly on water availability to plants (SWAP – Soil Water Available to Plants, Thomasson, 1979). Water is adsorbed on soil particles and soil organic matter by a pressure of more than 1,500 kPa, which determines the so-called wilting point valid for most of agricultural crops. Water available to a plant is water between the wilting point and the field water capacity, which can be directly measured in the field. The best water availability to plants is found in water “held” in soil by an average pressure of up to 33 kPa (depending on soil texture and structure). It is difficult to measure those variables, therefore the so-called pedotransfer functions are used more often and they can help us to characterise large areas. For example, the EU is described by Jones et al. (2000) in this way. Their work shows that the territory of Slovakia does not have any big problems with soil water availability, however, some regional details may not be so favourable.

Content of water in soil depends on water infiltration into the soil profile, its evaporation from the soil surface, its transpiration through plants and its excessive movement into deeper layers of the soil profile or into deep groundwater resources. Soil water content affects biological conditions of plants, but at the same time significantly influences the extent, into which soil 174

participates in a number of functions of water in nature. Therefore soil water retention ability also called water holding capacity is crucially important. In addition to the already mentioned positive meaning of this soil property in nature, it is also a flood protection capacity.

The average level of soil water content depends on soil texture as follows: 5% (of the volume) in sand, 15% in sandy soils, 17% in sandy-loamy soils, 32% in loamy soils, 35% in clayey- loamy soils, 20% in loamy-clayey soils, 18% in clayey soils, 22% in clay, and 50% in peat. However, it significantly depends on the land use (arable land, grassland, forest) and mainly on farming techniques. Inappropriate farming techniques can lead to compaction substantially decreasing the soil water retention ability through reduced water infiltration into the soil profile. Soil compaction is not an old historical problem. It is a result of intensification farming systems and, in particular, the use of large and heavy agricultural machinery and economically motivated agricultural approaches (deficit in the use of organic fertilisers, rare cultivation of deep rooting plants).

Several fundamental works have been published in order to clarify those problems. In the past, they were evaluated mainly in relation to crop yield. Emphasis was laid on the influence of heavy mechanisms that can affect soil to a depth of 30 cm and sometimes even deeper, i.e. to 50 cm or more (Voorhees et al., 1986; Lowery and Schuler, 1991; Gameda et al., 1985). Today’s agricultural machinery can create a pressure of 12-13 Mg on a single axis, while large cereal harvesters can reach even 24 Mg, and large goods vehicles may press soil with a force of 36 Mg from a single axis. Natural elimination of consequences of such pressure (plant roots, frozen soil surface) is not enough to solve the problem and its negative manifestations occur in infiltration and production soil abilities. Therefore, deep soil loosening has been considered. It has been regarded as an effective measure reducing the bulk weight of soil (up to 30%), lightening the soil profile and increasing its macroporosity by 40%. Other studies showed that those effects significantly increase soil hydraulic conductivity and water infiltration into the soil profile (Drewry et al., 2000). Other results showed an increase in the yield by 18-29%, and an increase in individual efficiency of water in the production of yield by 16% (QIN Hong-Ling et al., 2008). Furthermore, deep soil loosening and subsoiling have been regarded to have a positive impact on water regime of the landscape and to be effective methods for fighting drought. If we realize a higher water infiltration into the soil profile, we must recognize the positive influence of those measures in flood fighting. Drought and floods have gradually achieved specific contours in Slovakia and it has happened not only based on scientific observations, but also based on the overall perception of evolution of climate on the territory. It is therefore justified to deal with those problems and to search for their solutions through the land and its use as well. To find a solution for the problems of drought and desertification is an important scientific, economic and social goal, which, unfortunately, we have been so far unable to address satisfactorily. A good example is Israel which adopted a national doctrine stating “if we do not go to a desert, the desert will come to us”. Israel uses water carrier system to deliver water 175

from the Sea of Galilee into desert areas that are becoming still larger and larger, it enables greening of those areas and makes them inhabitable and prosperous for the whole country.

9.9 Soil Fighting against Water and for Water The importance of water in nature and society has become a critically important part of life particularly in recent decades. Water is an essential condition for every form of life on the Earth, but it is much more often a cause of a natural disaster that has a huge impact on lives of people, quality of nature and prosperity of affected areas and states. The natural disaster it can cause covers two extremes of its potentials – drought and floods. It is addressed by a study elaborated by the United Nations in 2008, according to which five of 11 world’s worst natural disasters that occurred in the period 1974-2007 were caused by drought and floods that killed almost 1 billion people (Figure 9.7). The other 6 most serious natural disasters (earthquake, tsunami, cyclone, heat waves) claimed about 750 million victims. Moreover, numerous records of many local disasters caused by either excess water or the lack of it in the environment should be taken into account as well.

Figure 9.7 Top 11 worst natural disasters in the world in the period 1974-2007 Source: United Nations, 2008 Drought, earthquake, tsunami, cyclone, heat waves, floods

Excess water and the lack of water in nature represent two sides of the same coin. The “coin” is mainly soil, the role of which is to infiltrate and retain rain water, which acts as a principle of protection against floods and at the same time as a supply of water protecting the country against drought. It is still true that floods are caused only by the rain water that is not retained (mainly) in soil and that drought occurs when soil does not retain enough rain water to serve as a water supply for the periods with insufficient rainfall. It was proved long time ago that the prevention of both extremes may require not only difficult, extensive and expensive 176

technical solutions (construction of water reservoirs, adjustment of river flows, construction of flood barriers, dry polders, etc.), but also their supplementing with measures increasing water infiltration into the given territory and, in particular, into soil. It brings both individual benefits to citizens and economic prosperity through agriculture, forestry and other types of land use. People gradually realize those links, their opinions on water regime regulation gradually change as well and the concept of river basin management becomes dominant. And hence water regulation includes also measures related to practically all components of relatively large areas with the aim of achieving a synergic effect with ever-increasing proportion of technologies that considerately influence (improve) the natural environment and, at the same time, contribute to positive development of the country and its harmless use. Those approaches compress a lot of expertise, regulatory measures, support mechanisms, technical and technological innovations, as well as sectoral and non-sectoral effort to be successful. This path is strongly supported by the EU, many governmental and non-governmental organizations and financial resources. The above-mentioned requirements come from the EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) stating that the EU Member States must form an integrated water river basin management plan for every basin. Integrated River Basin Management (IRBM) is a common multi-sectoral approach to both protection of water and its better and sustainable use and it encompasses surface water, groundwater and ecosystem water (soil water, wetlands). A river basin is an area of land drained by a river and involves every activity carried out in that area related to the protection and better use of water, conservation of nature, forestry and agricultural activities, ensuring the safety of landfills and waste disposal sites, as well as communal activities of municipalities and individual citizens. Because of that, an updated information is provided by the current documents such as Principles of Integrated Water Resources Management (2008) coordinated by the Association of Tows and Municipalities of the Slovak Republic and Integrated River Basin and Landscape Management elaborated by the Government of the Slovak Republic (2010). In order to update those problems for the conditions of Slovakia, it is necessary to say that both the intensity and frequency of both of the two extremes – floods and drought – increase. Slovakia is a rain feed area, which means that its water regime dominantly depends on rainfall. Qualified analyses and assessments show that annual rainfall in its territory is about 33 billion m3, while about one-third of the water is retained in soil (agricultural land – 7 billion m3, forest land – 4 million m3, Šútor 2003), one-third evaporates and one-third runs off from the territory. When evaluating the phenomena, it is highly disturbing to realize that water retention potential particularly of agricultural land decreases, which results in a greater surplus of rain water casuing floods and greater run-off (loss) of rain water from the territory.

Reduction of the water retention potential of the soil cover in Slovakia is implied by findings that one-third of the area of country’s agricultural land suffers or is threatened by subsoil compaction and other areas are on the path to get to this condition. It reduces the ability of soils to infiltrate rain water and leads to the threat of decreasing ability to retain water, to accelerate flooding and to suffer from drought more quickly. Those are negative 177

consequences affecting not only the water regime of the country, but also the efficiency of agriculture, because it can reduce the yield of certain crops by up to 40% (Bielek, 2008). In this context, we should appreciate the initiative of the international organization Global Water Partnership (Stockholm), which, inter alia, finances verification of practical measures aimed at increasing the ability of agricultural soils to infiltrate rain water. In Slovakia, the verification is done by the SUA in Nitra, which coordinates the activities in Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovenia. Preliminary results show that agriculture has a good potential for increasing soil water retention with the following hierarchy of efficiency of examined measures: subsoiling > humus addition into soil > soil mulching to a depth of 10 cm > minimum tillage. Espesially subsoiling has had significant effects – increased soil permeability (penetrometric measurements), increased speed and quantity of water infiltrated into the soil profile (hydraulic conductivity measurements) and increased maize yield by almost 20% (Bielek et al., 2013, Hladík et al., 2013).

178

10 THE OWNERSHIP AND THE RIGHT OF USE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN SLOVAKIA

Europe is one of the most intensively used continents on the globe, with the highest share of land (up to 80%) used for settlement, production systems (including agriculture and forestry) and infrastructure. Conflicting land-use demands often arise, requiring decisions that will involve hard trade-offs. There are several important drivers for land use in Europe: the increasing demand for living space per person and the link between economic activity, increased mobility and growth of transport infrastructure usually result in land take. Land is a finite resource: how it is used constitutes one of the principal reasons for environmental change, with significant impacts on quality of life and ecosystems, as well as on the management of infrastructure31. The land question is currently being reappraised worldwide. More highlighted importance is linked to agricultural land ownership, land leasing, its taxation, evaluation, as well as protection. Land and resource policy is the key to future economic and social development. The outbreak of land conflicts is only an indicator of a more complex process. Functioning land tenure systems are crucial for efficient agricultural production, more diversified land use in rural areas and the dynamics of sectorial change and urbanization. Focusing on economic efficiency should not, however, obscure the crucial role of land tenure and land policy for equity and social balance as well as environmentally sound development. In each country the agricultural land tenure is the result of long lasting development of the society. Individual legal institutions originate and exist under certain historical conditions. We agree with FAO Land Tenure Studies (2002) that security of tenure is the certainty that a person’s rights to land will be recognized by others and protected in cases of specific challenges. People with insecure tenure face the risk that their rights to land will be threatened by competing claims, and even lost as a result of eviction. Without security of tenure, households are significantly impaired in their ability to secure sufficient food and to enjoy sustainable rural livelihoods. Issues related to the regulation of land relationships are legislated exclusively by national legislation of the EU member states. Every member state can manage the property rights by its own law. This arises also from Article 345 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and from Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Comparing the land law in individual EU-28 member states, we can find out that there are many approaches within legislation of land ownership and use of agricultural land. Although the decisions on land law are in competence of national governments and parliaments, they are affected by EU policy anyway.

31 http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/landuse/intro

179

Several problems such as land consolidation; spatial planning; land expropriation; fragmentation of agricultural land ownership; etc. occur in the Slovak land law as well. Land law (Droit fonciere, Bodenrecht) represents an individual branch of law in Slovakia. Social relationships with the land representing its object are the subject of the land law. Land law is characterised mainly by the following features: a) it is always related to land; b) it is always related to owner relationships (ownership represents an essential and integral feature of land-law relationships) International documents dealing with soil justify its importance and functions and encourage the public, states and governments to protect and reclaim this irreplaceable and non-renewable natural resource. The most important documents are: European Soil Charter (1972); World Soil Charter (1981); World Soils Policy (United Nations, 1982) United Nations Environment Programme (Nairobi, 1982); Agenda 21 (Rio de Janeiro, 1992) and Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers R(92)8 on soil protection focused on protection, research and monitoring of soil (adopted on May 18, 1992). All these documents repeatedly highlight the need of the more active attitude of governments to soil/land protection and cultivation. According to the documents issued by United Nations and Council of Europe, soil/land represents the common wealth of the state citizens and, at the same time, the subject of international interests. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure its protection in terms of the fundamental care on its quality and quantity both by the citizens and the state. Taking care of the soil/land expresses the level of the state development and cultural level of its inhabitants. Soil/land cultivation, fertilisation and protection belong to the existential obligations of individuals and society. In line with European Soil Charter and World Soil Charter, it is necessary to ensure: taking care of the soil; way of the use of individual types of agricultural land plots and put into agricultural practice the rotation system involving crops of different biological characteristics, different growing requirements (cereals, vetches, root crops) and of different agro-technical requirements (deeper tillage for sugar beet). State plays an important role in land-law relationships. Through its decisions, it intervenes actively into arrangements of land relations. Legal regime of the owner is considered to be a basis of the land law.

Structure of the land fund in EU member states Table 10.1 shows the basic data on state area and area of agricultural and arable land. France, Spain and Sweden belong to the largest EU-28 countries. On the other hand, Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta are the smallest ones. The largest share of agricultural land can be found in Great Britain (70%), Hungary (65%) and Denmark (64%). The smallest share of agricultural land in comparison to the total area is in Sweden (8%) and Finland (7%).

180

Table 10.1

Share of Share of arable Area Agricultural Arable land agricultural land on Country thousand land thousand land on total agricultural ha thousand ha ha land area land

Belgium 3028 1386 844 46% 61% Czech republic 7727 3606 2703 47% 75% Denmark 4240 2712 2481 64% 91% Germany 34895 17035 11903 49% 70% Estonia 4239 770 517 18% 67% Greece 13065 3805 2670 29% 70% Spain 49950 25690 12608 51% 49% France 54703 29632 18305 54% 62% Ireland 6889 4307 1205 63% 28% Italy 29412 14710 7744 50% 53% Cypre 925 136 87 15% 64% Lithuania 6229 1734 1092 28% 63% Latvia 6268 2837 1877 45% 66% Luxembourg 256 129 60 50% 47% Hungary 8961 5864 4502 65% 77% Malta 32 10 9 31% 90% Netherlands 3378 1924 1099 57% 57% Austria 8275 3263 1379 39% 42% Poland 30430 15906 12085 52% 76% Portugal 9147 3722 1418 41% 38% Slovenia 2014 509 176 25% 35% Slovakia 4903 1941 1357 40% 70% Finland 30460 2267 2234 7% 99% Sweden 41034 3201 2687 8% 84% Great Britain 24082 16761 5484 70% 33% Bulgaria 10877 5331 3297 49% 62% Romania 22899 14264 9017 62% 63% Source: Europe in figures. Eurostat yearbook 2006-2007. Eurostat statistical books. Luxembourg: Office Officiel Publications of European Communities, 2007. s.290 ISBN 1681-4789

The total area of Croatia, which is not included in the table as it joined EU in 2013 is 56542 km2. In 2010 (according to the World Bank report on the year 2010) Agricultural land covered 23% of arable land and 15.4% of the total area of Croatia.

10.1 Sources of the land law in Slovakia As there is no uniform land code in Slovakia land relations are included in several regulations. The most important are the following:

181

 Act No. 460/1992 Coll. as amended (Constitution of the Slovak Republic): Article 4 of the Constitution specifies which assets can be owned by the state exclusively. These are: caves, mineral resources, watercourses, natural healing resources and groundwater. Each owner’s property right shall have the same content and enjoy the same protection. Inheritance is guaranteed.  Act No. 23/1991 Coll. (Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms): the principle resulting from this Charter says that all owners have equal rights and obligations. There is no law imposing restrictions nor on the size of the individual´s property neither on the area of land that can be owned by an individual citizen. This provision on ownership, in fact, declares the contrary to a previous situation. Before 1990, the size of the individual´s property and area of land was restricted by law.  Act No. 229/1991 Coll., on the ownership of land and other agricultural properties (as amended by Act No. 11/1994 coll.) and as amended  Act No. 140/2014 Coll. on the acquisition of ownership of agricultural land and amending and supplementing certain laws  Act No. 330/1991 Coll. on land arrangements, settlement of land ownership rights, district land offices and the land fund and land associations as amended  Act No. 161/2005 Coll. on Restitution of Real Estate Ownership to Churches and Parishes and on Transfer of Ownership to Some Real Estates  Act No. 42/1992 Coll. on the arrangement of property relationships and settlement of property claims in cooperatives, as amended  Act No 293/1992 Coll. on the settlement of certain ownership rights to real estate  Slovak Government Regulation No 389/2005 Coll. on correct farming practice  Act No. 220/2004 Coll. on the conservation and use of agricultural land and amending Act No. 245/2003 Coll. concerning integrated pollution prevention and control and amending certain laws, as amended  Act No. 162/1995 Coll. on Real Estate Cadastre and entries for ownership and other rights to the real estates (“The Cadastre Act”) as amended  Act no. 180/1995 Coll. on some measures for land ownership arrangements as amended  Act No. 97/2013 Coll. on land communities  Decree of the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic No. 492/2004 Coll. on appraisal of the general value of assets as amended  Decree of Ministry of Agriculture No. 38/2005 Coll. on the determination of land value and overgrows value for the purpose of the land consolidation  Act No. 582/2004 Coll. on local taxes and local charges for municipal and minor construction waste as amended  Act No. 504/2003 Coll. on lease of agricultural land plots, agricultural enterprise and forest plots as amended  Act No. 64/1997 Coll. on Use of Land in Established Garden Areas and Settlement of Ownership Thereto as amended.

182

In addition to the abovementioned legal regulations, there are also several regulations of broader or society-wide importance. Such regulations represent significant sources of law in the field of ownership and user relations related to agricultural land. These include the following:  Civil Code as amended – Act No. 40/1964 Coll.  Commercial Code as amended – Act No. 513/1991 Coll. General provisions on land ownerships can be found in the Constitution of the Slovak Republic. According to Article 20, everyone shall have the right to own property.

10.2 Ownership relations to agricultural land Ownership right is the fundamental and the most important right in rem. The notion of ownership is defined in the Civil Code. Ownership right is a subjective right of the owner that enables him to hold, use and dispose the subject of his ownership within the law. This right is not dependent on any other right of any other subject to the same thing. Ownership right is an absolute and exclusive right enabling owner to handle with his assets at his own discretion. However, this does not mean that the ownership right is absolutely unlimited. As stipulated in Article 20 (Section 3) of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic, the ownership is binding. It follows that the owner has the rights but also the obligations. While exercising his ownership rights, owner must also take into account the interests of others. The exercise of the property right must not be detrimental to the health of other people or the environment. The current law provides the equality of all forms of ownership. The owner shall have the right to protection against anyone who unlawfully infringes his ownership right. Regarding the subject of his ownership, owner is entitled to:  possess (ius possidendi) Right of possession belongs to the owner´s fundamental rights even in the case if the possessor is not the same person as the owner.  usufruct (ius utendi a ius fruendi) Through the legal right of using and enjoying the fruits or profits the holder of a usufruct carries out the utility value of the property. The holder of a usufruct, known as a usufructuary, has the right to use (usus) the property and enjoy its fruits (fructus). Usufructuary has a right to use the usufruct for his own use, for use of his family or can rent or lend it. Usufructuary has a right of appropriation of gains from fruits. Typically fruitful properties, such as crops or livestock are called natural fruits (fructus naturales). For instance, interests on passbook are considered as fruits as well.  the right to dispose (ius disponendi) Owner´s right to dispose with the subject of his ownership means that owner can transfer it (sell it, donate it, exchange it, make a will about it, charge it, encumber easement, rent it, borrow it, etc.). The right to dispose allows owner to benefit from the economic value of his property. Owner exercises this right through either bilateral legal acts (agreement) or unilateral acts (will; renouncement of property). Generally, the application of such right leads

183

to change of the person of the owner. Owner can use his property in another way. Owner can allow another person to use it or, unless a specific regulation stipulates otherwise, destroy it.

Co-ownership Co-ownership is the form of ownership in which the ownership of one thing belongs to two or more persons. There are two forms of co-ownership: a) Divided co-ownership: is a legal relationship, in which one thing is under joint ownership of more persons. Typical feature is that the extent of co-owners´ rights and obligations depends on co-owners´ shares. Shares represent an ideal part of the thing belonging to individual owners. Share expresses the extent to which the co-owners participate on rights and obligations resulting from the co-ownership of a common thing. Unless stipulated otherwise, the shares of all co-owners are equal. Divided co- ownership may arise between natural (physical) persons mutually; between natural and legal person and between natural persons and state. Divided co-ownership arises by the same ways as the exclusive ownership does. b) Undivided co-ownership: arises between spouses exclusively. Under the undivided co-ownership of spouses falls everything that can be a subject of ownership and anything that has been acquired by one of the spouses during the marriage. Exceptions are: things obtained by inheritance or by donations; things being used by only one spouse (for personal need or for exercise of the profession); things obtained by one of the spouses within restitution, if such thing was issued to a spouse before wedding or if such thing was issued to a legal successor of original owner.

Subjects of the land-law relationships According to current legislation, subjects of the land-law relationships can be both physical and legal persons. All subjects within ownership right have equal rights and obligations and are provided with equal legal protection. Legal persons (entities) are:  Companies (limited liability company, joint-stock company, public company, limited partnership);  Cooperatives;  Land associations were originally created after the abolition of serfdom in 1848 when peasants were compensated for the loss of traditional use rights in landlords land with land plots assigned in shared ownership. In 1949, law transferred this community land to farming cooperatives and land associations were reinstated in 1991 by law 330/1991 Coll. Association members never had a title to a specific demarcated plot and were only entitled to a share of communal land. Restitution claims therefore had to be submitted by the association on behalf of its thousands of members.  Communal owners – municipalities and self-governing regions. Municipalities were the subject of ownership rights to real estates until 1949. From January 1950, former municipal assets were transferred under the state ownership. Certain part of the state- owned land located in municipal area returned back to the municipal ownership by Act No. 138/1991 Coll. on Municipal Property as amended, which entered into force on May 1, 1991. Lands that can be owned by state exclusively, property of schools and objects of 184

civil or technical infrastructure did not become the property of municipalities. Municipality can manage its property itself or may entrust it to organisations being established for this purpose. In case of towns, the management may be carried out by town district offices. Municipal property shall be sized up and valorised. Donation of immovable property of the municipality is unacceptable.  Churches shall be governed by general provisions of the Civil Code. According to the Act No. 308/1991 Coll. on the Freedom of Religious Beliefs and on the Status of Churches and Religious Societies, these are considered as legal persons and as such may own the property and therefore the land. Legal personality of churches and religious societies is given by the registration at the Ministry of Culture of the Slovak Republic. Agricultural land previously possessed by state was returned to churches by the Act No. 161/2005 Coll. on Restitution of Real Estate Ownership to Churches and Parishes and on Transfer of Ownership to Some Real Estates (from March 17, 2005).  State generally does not exercise its ownership rights itself and in its own name. It exercises these rights indirectly through legally independent legal entities established by state, such as state enterprises, budgetary and contributory organisation and other legal entities. When disposing with lands, these organisations respect specific provisions (e.g. state-owned agricultural land is managed by Slovak Land Fund established on January 1, 1992 as a legal entity registered in the Business Register).

Term: unknown – not identified owner The term “unknown owners” as such merges two groups of owners. One group includes known owners with unknown residence (known are only the data contained in Land Registry Book; addresses, birthdates, etc. are unknown). The second small group includes unknown owners (lost or destroyed – burned, flooded – items in Land Registry Book). Manifesto of the Government of the Slovak Republic contains the hybrid term “land of not identified owners” that is related only to the second small group. Not identified owner is: (1) the owner registered in Land register, but the place of his residence or seat is unknown; (2) deceased owner whose inheritance proceedings already took place, but the decision in these proceedings has not been delivered into the central evidence of Land Register (for some reasons); (3) deceased owner whose inheritance has not been negotiated, because if the lands were in use of a socialist organization, such land was, in some cases, not included into inheritance proceeding. Position of owners while exercising their rights is different from the aspect of their initiative and ability to prove their ownership rights. For some reasons, there is a part of owners who are still passive even in the cases in which they will be able to prove their ownership. According to the Slovak Land Fund´s annual report (2012), approximately 13.75% of agricultural land in Slovakia is owned by unknown or not identified owners.

185

Subject of the ownership Things may be the subject of the ownership. Things are tangible subjects and controllable natural powers that serve to the human needs. Things are either movable or immovable. Real estates are understood as lands and buildings connected with ground by solid foundations.

Agricultural land fund (real estate) consists of agricultural lands that are, according to the Land Register, divided into arable land, hop fields, vineyards, gardens, orchards and permanent grasslands. Agricultural land fund includes also the lands that serve for ensuring the purpose of use of individual land categories.

Easement Regarding the interpretation of ownership, it is necessary to clarify the term “easement”. In the Civil Code, easement is classified within the rights in rem. Such rights are related to a specific thing and not to the subjects of this relationship (as it is e.g. in the case of law of obligations). The Civil Code defines an easement as follows (§ 151 n): Easements shall restrict the owner of a real estate property in favour of someone else in the manner that he must suffer something, omit something or do something. The rights corresponding to the easements shall be either connected with ownership of certain real estate property or belong to certain person. Easement has a permanent character. It is protected by law and it is connected directly with ownership of a real estate. If there is a change of the owner of a real estate property, the acquirer is taking over the obligations connected with easement. If a neighbour has a right to cross the yard when going to adjacent garden, this right remains if the yard´s owner changes. Easement applies only to the concrete person and only this person can use a right arising from easement. Easement may apply not to the person, but to the real estate. For instance, if the path to a mineral spring leads through the field, this easement (allowing the public cross the field) will be based on the agreement between municipality and owner of the field. Civil Code does not provide the examples of easements. However, it provides the forms of how easements can arise:  by operation of law; as an example of such easement may serve placing of underground network (cables, water conduits, gas pipeline) into the land, through which this network leads. Law allows its provider to establish and maintain such network – this is the case of legal easement. Conditions under which is this network placed and maintained are regulated by law. This law takes into account the rights of owner or real estate´s user, including claims for damage;  on the basis of a decision of the competent authority; e.g. decisions on expropriation (by building authority) or court decision;  on the basis of a written agreement; this way of the easement´s establishment may be done by real estate´s owner. To do an easement effective, this must be registered in the Land Register. Right will become effective by this registration (Lazar, J. et al. 2006);  on the basis of a will connected with results of the inheritance proceedings – on the basis of an approved agreement of the heirs;

186

 by positive prescription of the easement right, if it was uninterrupted and used continuously for 10 years according to regulations on positive prescription Obligations arising from the easement are regulated by the Civil Code (§ 151 n): Unless the participants agreed on anything else, the person who is entitled to use somebody else's thing on the basis of a right corresponding to the easement must bear adequate costs of its maintenance and reparations; however, if the thing is used also by its owner, he must bear these costs according to the extent of the joint use. Easement shall become extinct: a) by operation of law; b) on the basis of a decision of the competent authority; c) on the basis of a written agreement.

Possession (Possessio) Possession expresses the general power over the thing. According to the Roman law, right of possession is based on the belief, that de facto state is equivalent to de iure state – from this point of view, possession manifests the ownership right. The possessor is primarily the owner. On the other hand, according to the Roman law there is no need to be a full compliance between de iure and de facto status. Possession may act as an independent phenomenon. It means that if one subject acts as an owner and another one acts as a possessor then the possession as a factual state does not act as an independent right, but as the fact, through which the ownership right is manifested. Possession is understood as the way of exercise of the ownership right. It means that the land is possessed by the one who exercises his power against it. Legal regime of the possession, including positive prescription as a way of transferring the ownership to new owner, is regulated by Civil Code (§ 129 – 131). According to § 129, possessor shall be defined as a person who possesses a thing as it was his own or who exercises a right for himself. Regarding lands, a right of possession is exercised very often, in particular by someone who commonly uses the land (e.g. in the form of easement). Is the rule that lawful possessor shall be defined as a possessor who is, with regard to all circumstances, in good faith that he is the owner of the thing or the right. In case of doubts, the possession must be presumed lawful. This is important especially when the user is undisturbed in the possession for a long time and besides he finds out that his ownership is doubtful. Real owner has a right to ask such possessor to terminate the possession (and thus terminate his use of the land). Land is in possession as an object of the legal relationship as a real estate. Everything that emerges from the land is in the possession too. If the possessor builds a building on the land, such building is an independent subject of ownership right (ownership can be decoupled from land). If such building is not built by the land´s owner, but by the land´s possessor, this building belongs to the possessor by ownership right. Land may be in possession of more persons, spouses, state or legal person. Unless the law stipulates otherwise, lawful possessor has the same right as the owner. Regarding land, he has a right to enjoy the fruits or profits

187

throughout the period of lawful possession. Lawful possessor is a possessor who is, with regard to all circumstances, in good faith that he is the owner of the thing or the right. We distinguish between lawful and unlawful possessor. The difference lies not on what the possessor declares, but in the objective reality, thus he has to prove his honesty. This is important while solving the current problems in settlement of land ownership for purposes of the renewal of the real estate´s evidence registry. As an example, it is not enough if someone proves that he possess the land for more than 10 years. In addition, possessor has to prove a good faith, i.e. the way of acquiring the land into his possession. Lawful possessor has a wide range of rights towards the land. He can valorise it, build irrigation, establish permanent grassland, etc. If a real owner decides to exercise his right and asks for returning his land back (rid the current possessor of his possession right), such lawful possessor shall have the right against the owner to reimbursement of costs reasonably spent on the thing during the lawful possession up to the extent corresponding to the valorisation of the thing at the moment when it was returned. However, usual expenses connected with the maintenance and operation shall not be reimbursed. On the other hand, an unlawful possessor must always surrender the thing to its owner together with all its proceeds and compensate the damage arisen due to the unlawful possession. The unlawful possessor may separate what he valorised the thing by if it is possible without impairment of the substance of the thing. For instance, he can take away irrigation facilities.

Acquisition of ownership Land is never just a commodity. It combines being a factor of production, with its role as family or community property, a capital asset and a source of identity. This mixture of qualities is not necessarily a constraint, as can be seen from the active market in land use rights that exists in many smallholder farming systems operating under customary land regulation.32 Ways of acquisition of ownership in Slovakia are regulated by Civil Code (§ 132 – 135). According to this regulation, ownership of a thing, including agricultural land, may be acquired:  on the basis of purchase contract;  by donation agreement;  by interchange agreement;  by way of succession;  on the basis of a decision of a state authority;  on the basis of other facts laid down by an act (positive prescription, privatisation)

32 EU LAND POLICY GUIDELINES, Guidelines for support to land policy design and land policy reform processes in developing countries,2004, https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/methodology-eu-land- policy-guidelines-200411_en_2.pdf

188

Ownership of things may be acquired also by an innominate agreement, but by such agreement it is not possible to acquire ownership of lands. While acquiring the ownership right by an agreement we are generally talking about a transfer of ownership right. The most common way of acquiring of both movable and immovable things is on the basis of purchase agreement. Purchasing of agricultural land in Slovakia The new legal regulation allows the purchase of the agricultural land only to a certain group of citizens – regardless of the nationality; this explicitly specifies that the purchaser of the agricultural land can be just a businessman in the field of agriculture. The Act requires him/her to carry on business in the agriculture for at least three years and to has either permanent residence (in the case of natural person) or registered office (in the case of legal person) in the territory of the Slovak Republic for at least ten years before the date of the conclusion of the contract on the transfer of ownership of the agricultural land (this requirement is not required in the case of young farmer in the field of agriculture, because of the interest of our state in a support of young farmers). The Act on acquisition of ownership of agricultural land distinguishes the sale of agricultural land in the cadastre where a buyer – businessman carries out agricultural production, and the sale of agricultural land in a cadastre different from the one where a buyer carries on his/her business. In these cases, when the person interested in the purchase of the agricultural land is the businessman from different cadastral area than the one where offered agricultural land plot is located, the seller has an obligation to publish his/her offer for sale of agricultural land plot through complicated procedure via the Register of Publication of Offers of the Agricultural Land, which was created for this purpose. So if the buyer is interested in buying of agricultural land outside the cadastral area where he/she carries on his/her business, he/she should do so just via the Register of Publication of Offers of the Agricultural Land at the web side of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of the Slovak Republic. If a person interested in the agricultural land plot which is located in the same cadastre where he/she carries out agricultural production as a business, there are no obstacles on the purchase of agricultural land. This businessman can easily conclude the contract on the transfer of ownership of the agricultural land and acquire the ownership to the agricultural land (Figure10.1). The development of land relations in the Slovak Republic is influence by the land policy of the relevant period and its result is the current state of land law relations. There is no doubt that the new Act no. 140/2014 Coll. on acquisition of ownership of agricultural land affects the disposal right of the owners of agricultural land; it limits not only foreigners but also domestic persons interested in purchasing of agricultural land; and it directly favours certain groups interested in purchasing of land.

189

Figure 10.1 The process of acquisition of agricultural land in the Slovak republic Source: Bandlerová et al., 2015

Structure of the ownership relations to agricultural land in Slovakia Regarding the structure of the ownership relations to agricultural land in Slovakia, which is different from the structure of the users´ relations, can be concluded that 81% of agricultural land is in private ownership, 5.32% is in state ownership and 13.58% belongs to the unknown owners (Schwarcz et al. 2013). Current legal state of the relations to agricultural land is a result of a long-term development of our society as a result of which all rights and obligations related to land are being implemented. Basis of these rights and obligations is the ownership relation under the protection of our society. Soil has a specific role and function mainly for agriculture, which is inseparably connected with land. In Slovakia, as in other EU countries, the majority of agricultural land falls under private ownership. However, most of the owners do not farm on their land by themselves, but they rent it to the other subjects dealing with farming.

190

Expropriation Expropriation seriously interferes into ownership right. It is possible only in exceptional cases. Expropriation or forced restriction of ownership right is allowed only if the following conditions are fulfilled simultaneously:  to the necessary extent  in the public interest  by operation of law  for adequate compensation Aim of the expropriation is to achieve a transfer, respectively restriction of ownership right to lands and building; or establishment, repeal, respectively restriction of the right of easement to lands and buildings. Unless the decision stipulates otherwise, expropriation repeals any other rights to expropriated lands and buildings. Expropriation may be applied only if a target of expropriation cannot be reached by agreement or by any other way. Expropriation must be in compliance with aims and objectives of the spatial planning that is proven by spatial planning decision. If the purpose of expropriation does not require the issue of spatial planning decision, the compliance with aims and objectives of the spatial planning is reviewed directly within the expropriation proceeding. Expropriation may be executed only to the necessary extent. If the target of the expropriation is achievable only by the restriction of right, such right cannot be fully repealed. If an expropriation is used for transferring of the ownership right to the certain part of the land only, or for the restriction of the other right related to land or building and the owner (or other authorised person) would be consequently restricted in his right to use the remaining part of the land or building (or use them facing inadequate difficulties), this expropriation shall be extended also to the remaining part, if the owner (or other authorised person) will apply for it.

User rights to agricultural land In the initial stages of privatisation there prevailed an opinion that agricultural land will be gradually used directly by its owners. Neither restituents nor landowners who regained in Slovakia their right to use the land did not vastly use their possibility to take their land from agricultural cooperatives that have used it to start their own activities, but let it in the usage of the cooperatives or leased it to new commercial enterprises and other businesses. Only a fraction of the land owners began to manage it themselves. Thus in Slovakia dominant superiority over the proprietary right of use was obtained. Secure access to land, is necessary for rural households to enjoy sustainable livelihoods, and is an important part of sustainable development. Land tenure problems are often an important contributor to food insecurity, to restricted livelihood opportunities. Secure access to land should thus be considered when designing solutions to specific rural development or food insecurity situations. This requires recognizing and tackling land tenure related problems. By access to agricultural land we mean issues within legal accessibility such as identification of land, willingness of sale/purchase, and lease. Most of the agricultural land, regardless of whether it is managed by Slovak Land Fund or owned by private owners, is rented and only a very few owners use their land. This trend, 191

which can be seen in Slovakia, corresponds with trend in most of the EU member states. Leasing or renting land is important in Slovakia agriculture. For many farmers, a lease or rental agreement may be the best method to control more land resources. Whether you are leasing or renting depends on the time length of the agreement, local tradition, and other factors. The terms "leasing" and "renting" are used interchangeably in this publication. Renting of agricultural land is legislated in each country differently. This renting allows flexible and therefore more productive using of the land. Ownership structure and the ratio of the land used by owners and renters in EU member states significantly differ and change over time. The fact that in our country the rent of agricultural land prevails over its use by owner himself arises from the historical development over the last 40 years, during which the agricultural land ownership was restricted and legal protection was provided to owners such as cooperatives and state agricultural farms. Regarding the social and professional structure of current owners, mainly concluding of contracts with other subjects focused on agriculture (e.g. private farmers or legal persons such as business companies and cooperatives) prevailed and, apparently, this is going to happen also in future. For these reasons, our legislation pays close attention to the rent of agricultural land.

Legislation on renting of agricultural land in general As there is no uniform land code in Slovakia, the legal system of agricultural land plots lease is governed by several regulations:  Civil code as a general regulation;  Act No. 229/91 Coll. on the agreement of ownership relations towards agricultural land and other agricultural property as amended, entitled also the Act on land that regulates the cases of so-called obligatory lease to agricultural land;  Act No. 504/2003 Coll. on lease of agricultural land plots, agricultural enterprise and forest plots. Civil code provides general regulation on the issue of lease agreements within its provisions (§ 663 and following). On the basis of a lease agreement, the lessor gives the lessee a thing against payment and allows him to use it or take proceeds from it temporarily (for the agreed period of time). It is stipulated that the lessor must give the leased thing to the lessee in a state making an agreed way of use possible; unless the way of use was agreed, in a state making a usual use possible; the lessor must keep the thing in this state at his own costs. The lessee shall be entitled to use the thing in a way stipulated in the agreement; unless something else was agreed, the lessee must use the thing in a way adequate to the nature and destination of the thing. The lessor may demand access to the thing in order to control whether the lessee uses the thing in a proper way. The lessee of the land may sub-lease the thing unless the agreement stipulates otherwise. Lease agreement shall be done in writing, but as to the short- term lease, the violation of a written form does not lead to the invalidity of the agreement. Conceptual feature of the lease is its establishment against payment (rent). The rent can be agreed in money but also in-kind or otherwise. Agreement on the amount of the rent forms a substantial part of the lease agreement. 192

The commercial lease of agricultural land is regulated by the Act No. 504/2003 Coll. on lease of agricultural land plots, agricultural enterprise and forest plots, as amended. This Act supplements the general regulation on lease agreement (stated in Civil Code) with special provisions. The Act consists of 5 parts. Mainly the first and the second part of the Act are dedicated to the lease of agricultural land. Moreover, the Act regulates the issue of the lease of the enterprise for agricultural production in its third part. The fourth part regulates the lease of the forest lands in order to carry out the forest management. The fifth part consists of the final and intertemporal provisions with significant impact on lease of agricultural land. This act serves as the special legal regulation. It means that unless it not regulates certain issue otherwise, the provisions from the Civil Code shall be applied. Within the first part of the Act, the legislator defines the land as the land, which forms the agricultural land fund or belongs to this agricultural land fund. Part of this land or other land used for agricultural purposes (or its part) is considered as a part of such land as well. Of course, general provisions from the Civil Code shall be used for drawing up the lease agreement on agricultural land. Unless this Act stipulates otherwise, the lease agreement is concluded in accordance with the Civil Code. It means that the lease agreement may be concluded verbally unless it is not a lease of the agricultural land for a commercial purpose. Written form of the agreement on lease of the agricultural land for a commercial purpose is not the only condition for its validity, but also the amount of rent (or way of its calculation) has to be agreed. Unless something else is agreed or stipulated by special regulations, the rent from agricultural lands shall be paid back for the elapsed year on October 1 of the calendar year. If the lessee gave the leased thing to the sub-lease for the period exceeding one year, the lessor acquires a right to rent against the sub-lessee. Sub-lessee shall have the similar right to an adequate rent rebate, respectively a right to not pay a rent in the case of law-based reasons as if he was a lessee. According to the Act No. 504/2003 Coll., the minimal period of leasing of agricultural land is 5 years if the land is leased for a commercial purpose (as stipulated expresis verbis in Section 1, § 8). The Act regulates also the maximal period of leasing.

Within its § 13, the Act regulates different reasons, in which arises a right of a lessee towards the lessor to adequately prolong the lease period or for adequate compensation. Such reasons occur when the lessee spent necessary expenses for keeping the land to be able for agricultural use and these expenses were not consider as the usual expenses connected with maintenance of the leased land. Such reasons also occur when the lessee usefully spent the expenses within the measures approved by respective state administration body and agreed lease period; respectively the termination of the lease agreed for an infinite period of time is to be terminated before expiration of payback period of the expenses spent for such purpose and thus the lessee cannot take proceeds from it. In the same rigorous way, as the new legislation regulates the establishment of the lease relationships, it also regulates its expiration in case of lease of the agricultural land for a commercial purpose. If such lease agreement is agreed for an infinite period of time (for at least 5 years), it is possible to terminate it at the date of 193

November 1. Unless agreed otherwise, termination period lasts one year. Termination has to be written only in the case of agricultural land for a commercial purpose, respectively in the case, in which the lease agreement agreed by parties was concluded in writing. Termination period shall not end before the expiration of the time provided by law. It means that both maximal and minimal time of lease period must be respected. Lease shall not be terminated in the case, in which there is no access to the land. In such case, the lease shall not be terminated before carrying out the land consolidation procedures. The law imposes an obligation towards lessor (respectively towards the lessee of the land if this land is used by the lessee on the basis of the lease agreement of the agricultural land for a commercial purpose) to call the second party in writing one year before the expiration of the agreed lease period to return or take over the leased land after the end of the lease. If this is not done – the abovementioned call in writing is not provided, then the agreement is repeatedly renewed for a certain period (for at least 5 years). Important are the provisions on the lease of agricultural lands related to the situation, in which the lessee is not obliged to pay a rent, or has a right to an adequate rent rebate, respectively lessee or lessor has a right to ask for prorated rent adjustment (Section 2, § 10). The Act (§11, Section 1, 2) provides exact reasons for the lessee to have a right to mitigation of the rent or to provision of the rent rebate and also the reasons, for which the lessee has a right to ask for the adequate reduction of the rent. Reasons for mitigation of the rent or the rent rebate as such are regulated by the Civil Code, in which is stipulated that the lessee does not have to pay the rent if defects of the thing that were not caused by caused that he could not use the thing in the agreed way or, unless the way of use was agreed, in the way adequate to the nature and destination of the thing or if he could not achieve any product in case of lease of agricultural lands for the aforesaid reasons. In those cases where the lessee can use the leased thing only in a limited extent or if the product of the leased agricultural lands dropped under a half of the usual product, the lessee shall have the right to an adequate rent rebate. The law protects the lessee primarily.

The rental price of agricultural land in Slovakia The rental price in accordance with valid legislation in Slovakia is determined by reached agreement, while the Act. No. 504/2003 Coll. regulates the minimum level of rent, which is 1.5% of the value of agricultural land designated under the decree of the Ministry of Agriculture No. 38/2005 Coll. determining the value of land and plantations. On the other hand, based on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights “the state concerned should remove all the barriers preventing the implementation of land renting under conditions, which take into consideration the real land price and the current market conditions in the given location and therefore, it would be necessary to consider the real market price of the land in the time of enclosing the lease agreement, as in the land value given by the estimated pedologic – ecological unit it is not possible to consider future factors influencing the change of the market price (e.g. industrial constructions, highways constructions etc. are factors which have significant impact on the market price and it is impossible to estimate them for decades ahead). 194

Scope of renting of agricultural land is an interesting indicator of the land turnover. Rent, which in each country is a subject of different legislation, allows flexible and therefore more productive land use.

10.3 The price of the agricultural land The price of the agricultural land in Slovak republic is lower in comparison with price levels in EU member states. The difference is also evident when comparing the price of land lease. We can assess the process of determination of agricultural land prices as chaotic at the present since there is no uniform price regulation available which would determine the price of agricultural land. Depending on the purpose what the agricultural land price is required for there are 3 types of prices defined : 1. Administrative (regulated ) prices 2. Market price 3. Supply price

Figure 10.2 Source : Own processing

195

1. Administrative (regulated) prices Administrative price of the agricultural land is applied mainly for the purpose of payment of property taxes - regulated by Act No. 582/2004 Coll. as amended by Act No. 465/2008 Coll. on local taxes and fees for municipal waste and small construction wastes. In the Annex No. 1 of the Act there are average administrative prices of agricultural and arable land declared according to appropriate cadastral areas of Slovak republic. These administrative prices serve as the basis for the determination of the agricultural land taxes in appropriate communities. In accordance with the Act No. 465/2008 Coll. the average value of arable land in Slovak republic is app. 0.53 €*m-2. The overall values range from 0.06 €*m-2 to 1.2 €*m-2. The determination of the value of land for the purposes of land consolidation, for the minimum rent for the use of agricultural land, for the payment of contributions for temporary or permanent withdrawal of agricultural land and for the calculation of the fee for fragmentation of land under the Act No. 180/1995 Coll. land prices are determined by the Decree of the Ministry of Agriculture No. 38/2005 Coll.. This Decree sets the land value based on the soil quality– Ecological Credit Units (ECU) - and does not reflect the current market price of the land. ECU expresses the quality and the value of production – ecological potential of the agricultural land. The agricultural land is thereby qualified into 9 clusters of Ecological Credit Units. The value of the appropriate plot of agricultural land is thus determined by ECU and relevant tariff rates stated in the Annex 1 of the Decree. Under this Annex, the rate of agricultural land per square meter varies depending on the designation of the certain soil-ecological units. Prices determined by soil-ecological units range from 0.0049 €

2. Market prices For the purpose of the purchase contracts on agricultural land concluded between natural (individuals)and legal persons the market price is applied. These are prices which are mutually agreed by the contracting parties in the purchase agreement. Agreed price is not subject to legal restrictions. It is independent of the official price of land designated under any of the laws governing the price of land. The exemption when in the purchase of agricultural land the administrative price is used instead of market price is the process when purchasing party is represented by the State (or legal entity established by the state). Additionally we could admit that administrative prices are essential when serving as informative prices at concluding purchase contracts and at forming the level of agricultural land prices.

196

3. Supply prices As defined above in Slovakia in cases stipulated by the law no. 140/2014 Coll. if the sellers are interested to sell agricultural land plot to buyers who are doing business in agriculture in different cadastral area than the land plot in sellers property are situated , sellers of land of more than 2,000 square meters are obliged to announce their offers, so they have an obligation to publish his/her offer for sale of agricultural land plot through complicated procedure via the Register of Publication of Offers of the Agricultural Land. At the same time seller has obligation publish the price required for the land. To publish the price in Register is mandatory and is obligatory for the potential buyers .There is not possible to change required price for land plot .This is the price we call “Supply price “.The published prices cannot be considered market prices as it is not known whether a potential buyer has been found, and, more importantly, whether he or she would be willing to accept the required price33

10.4 The importance of land policy34 Land policy lies at the heart of economic and social life and environmental issues in all countries. The distribution of property rights between people has a tremendous impact on both equity and productivity. Inequitable land distribution, land tenure problems and weak land administration can lead to severe injustice and conflict. Changes to legislation, the distribution of property rights, and administrative structures are likely to have long-term consequences, positive or negative, for political, economic and social development. Similarly land policy is also crucial for environmental sustainability as it can create incentives for sustainable land- use and environmental management. Land policy reform is an essential aspect of the policy and institutional reforms required to empower the poor and promote equitable and sustainable development; it should be seen as an essential means of securing the broader objectives of social justice and economic development. Drawing up a national land policy is the responsibility of the state, but will need to build on and respond to the concerns of many non-state actors. Land policy reform also has a key role to play in processes of democratisation, the drive for improved governance, and decentralisation. Land tenure is at the heart of a number of rural development issues. Access to land is linked to some basic economic and social human rights, such as the right to food. Land tenure has strong linkages to poverty reduction and food security, economic development, public administration and local government, private contract law, family and inheritance law and environmental law (to mention but a few). Given the far reaching consequences of land policy reform, an explicitly multi-disciplinary approach is required to ensure that the varied

33 Dušan DRABIK - Miroslava RAJČÁNIOVÁ (2014) 34 EU LAND POLICY GUIDELINES, Guidelines for support to land policy design and land policy reform processes in developing countries,2004, https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/methodology-eu-land- policy-guidelines-200411_en_2.pdf

197

implications of reform programmes are well understood and that the needs of different stakeholder groups, in particular the poor and vulnerable, can be effectively accommodated.

198

11 LAND PROTECTION IN THE EU AND SLOVAK REPUBLIC

11.1 Land protection in the EU In terms of the soil protection, agricultural land represents one of the most important areas, because it is this soil type that is influenced by the current mainly conventional agricultural production, which burdens this natural resource unbearably. Soil degradation is one of the biggest and persistent problems of the EU. European Union responded to the situation with the adoption of the Thematic strategy for Soil Protection consisting of the Communication from the Commission to other European institutions COM (2006) 231 final, from the Proposal for the Framework Directive COM (2006) 232 final and the Impact Assessment SEC (2006) 620 and SEC (2006) 1165. The reason for issuing the Thematic Strategy was the fact that the state of the soil in Europe is worsening and soil protection policy in the EU is not coherent; measures adopted for soil protection are fragmented to many areas aimed at protection of other components of the environment. The general objective of the strategy is to protect sustainable soil use and the Strategy is based on the following principles: 1. to prevent further soil degradation and to protect functions of soil; 2. to restore the soil affected by degradation to the level of functionality that would be compatible with the current and planned use at least, and thereby to take into account the cost invested into the soil restoration. To achieve those objectives, the EU appeals for the implementation of the activities on several levels while preserving the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. The Strategy is based on four fundamental pillars: 1. framework legislation; 2. integration – inclusion of soil protection into policies elaborated and implemented on both domestic and EU levels; 3. filling the known gaps in knowledge in some areas of soil protection through the research supported by the EU; 4. raising public awareness of the need for soil protection. As the evaluation review of the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection, the European Commission issued a report to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM (2012) final named Implementation of the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection and ongoing activities. The Communication points out the overview of the implementation of the four pillars of the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection from 2006-2012 and refers to the current tendencies in soil degradation in Europe and on the global level and to future challenges related to ensuring the protection as well.

199

Pillar I – Framework Directive Although the very report does not reflect the evolution of the framework legislation, a Proposal for a Framework Directive for the Protection of Soil was elaborated in 2006 and was published as a Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council laying down the framework for the soil protection and amending Directive 2004/35/EC COM (2006) 232 final. Art. 1 of the Directive amends its material scope, which represents the provision of the framework for the soil protection and the preservation of the ability of the soil to perform any of the following environmental, economic, social and cultural functions:  biomass production, including the areas of agriculture and forestry as well;  collection, filtration and transformation of nutrients, substances and water;  the source of biological diversity, such as habitats, species and genes;  physical and cultural environment for humans and human activity;  source of raw materials;  carbon reservoir;  archieve of the geological and cultural heritage. The directive also establishes the measures designated to prevent soil degradation processes, which occur either naturally or as a result of a wide range of human activities and disrupt the ability of the soil to perform the functions mentioned. Despite the fact that it establishes a framework for legislative adjustment in maintaining the principle of subsidiarity declared and while providing the EU Member States a great deal of flexibility in the implementation of the requirements, the Directive has not been adopted to the present date.

Pillar II Integration – Inclusion of Soil Protection into Policies Elaborated and Implemented on Both Domestic and EU Levels From the perspective of the integration of the soil protection issues as a part of the environment into other policies, the connection with the Common Agricultural Policy was important. The introduction of cross-compliance in 2003 was a significant step in reducing erosion, maintaining and increasing the content of organic substances and preventing their compaction. In the programming period 2014-2020, the modification of the cross-compliance will be tightened, particularly in terms of the soil protection35. In addition to establishing the cross-compliance in the pillar I, Member States have been allowed to address agri- environmental measures under the framework of the Axis 2 of the Rural Development Programme. The aim of the measures mentioned above was to support the additional soil protection activities. Among other things, the report claims that the soil protection had been integrated into other areas such as: industrial equipment, cohesion policy, state aid for the reclamation of the contaminated soil.

35 More information available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/study1_en.htm.

200

Pillar III Filling the Known Gaps in Knowledge in Some Areas of Soil Protection through the Research Supported by the EU In terms of the third pillar, it was stated that awareness of the soil had improved in the EU, due to, among other things, the organization of public events devoted to soil protection, publication of soil atlases and support of numerous instruments and networks, including the European Network on Soil Awareness (ENSA).

Pillar IV Raising Public Awareness of the Need for Soil Protection The 4th pillar has been implemented by means of the research activities related to solving soil problems, particularly through the 7th Framework Programme for Research.36

11.2 Land protection in Slovak republic As far as Slovakia is concerned, agricultural land represents 2,405,971 ha (49.01%) of the total amount of land in Slovakia (Geodesy, Cartography and Cadastre Authority of the Slovak Republic, 2014) and as defined within the meaning of Section 2 Point (b) of the Act No. 220/2004 Coll., on the conservation and use of agricultural land and amending the Act No. 245/2003 Coll. on integrated pollution prevention and control and amending certain acts as amended, agricultural land stands for a production potential land, which is registered as arable land, hop gardens, vineyards, orchards, gardens and permanent grassland in the Cadastre.

Figure 11.1 Agricultural land types in Slovakia on 1.1.2015 Source: Geodesy, Cartography and Cadastre Authority of the SR (2015), own processing

In Slovakia, agricultural land represents 2,405,971 ha (49.01%) of the total amount of land in Slovakia (Geodesy, Cartography and Cadastre Authority of the Slovak Republic, 2014).

36Community Research and Development Information Service. Available at: http://cordis.europa.eu

201

Figure 11.1 leads us to a conclusion that the protection of the quality of agricultural land has its meaning, since only 1,412,228 ha (58.92%) from the total agricultural land can be used as an arable land, the rest of the agricultural land is represented by permanent grassland 864,681 ha (36.07%), a smaller amount of the land includes gardens 76,362 ha (3.19%), vineyards 26,513 ha (1.11%), orchards 16,744 ha (0.7%) and the smallest part is represented by the hop gardens 512 (0.02%) of the total agricultural land area. In general, however, it can be stated that the agricultural and arable lands area decreases in favour of forest, non-agricultural and non-forest lands. In spite of the data mentioned above, the very agricultural land area is not meaningful in relation to the quality of agricultural land. As asserted by the European Union, Slovakia also records soil degradation, contamination, erosion and compaction as results of the conventional land use utilizing heavy agricultural machinery, which is used in rather large areas of agricultural land. Legislation on the land protection is fragmented into more regulations, for example, in the Act No. 364/2004 Coll. on waters (water act), Act No. 326/2005 Coll. on forests, Act No. 24/2006 Coll. on environmental impact assessment, etc. Agricultural land protection is regulated by Act No. 220/2004 Coll., on the conservation and use of agricultural land and amending the Act No. 245/2003 Coll. on integrated pollution prevention and control and amending certain acts as amended. In terms of Section 1 of the Act, subject of the Act is legislative regulation of:  protection of qualities and functions of agricultural land and ensuring of its sustainable management and agricultural exploitation,  protection of the environmental functions of agricultural land, which are: biomass production, filtration, neutralization, and transformation of substances in nature, maintenance of the environmental and genetic potential of living organisms in nature,  protection of agricultural land area against unauthorized occupation for non- agricultural use,  procedures used when changing land type and procedures used when withdrawing agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes,  penalties for breach of the obligations established by the Act. Part II of the Act (Section 3-8 of the Act) lays down the principles of the sustainable agricultural land use and agricultural land management and land protection. Within the framework of the agricultural land care, the subjects mentioned are obliged to (Section 3 of the Act): a) implement agro-technical measures aimed at the protection and preservation of the qualitative features and functions of the agricultural land and the protection against damage and degradation, b) prevent the occurrence and spread of weeds on uncultivated lands, c) ensure that the agricultural land is used in the way that does not threaten the ecological stability of the area and maintains the functional interrelatedness of the natural processes in the landscape,

202

d) organize and harmonize the agricultural land type with its data registered in the Cadastre. Thus part II of the Act adjusts the most important environmental risks emerging in the agricultural land (degradation, erosion, compaction and protection against hazardous substances) and the maintenance of soil organic materials. The agricultural land care is left solely as an obligation of the owner, tenant or manager of agricultural land. Although the National Agricultural and Food Centre – Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute such serving representing a soil service can monitor and propose appropriate measures to mitigate or eliminate the unsatisfactory state, the implementation of the agro-technical measures itself, including financial costs, is left to the entities mentioned above. The Annexes to the Act quantify the limits for soil erosion, compaction and values of organic matter, and hazardous substances in soil. On the other hand, it is questionable whether specifying the limits is effective enough and sufficient for the maintenance of the good quality of agricultural land with a character determined by the nature of the land management practice during the socialist regime, when several negative procedures were applied in order to increase the yield from land (crop management in large areas, the removal of the limits, windbreaks, etc.). The legislation on environmental risks and the legislation on breaches and other administrative offences following it (part VI of the Act) lacks a conceptual formulation of obligations with connection to the historical character of agriculture in Slovakia and specification of the extent of the breach of the obligations of the owner, tenant or manager when caring for the environment. The key part of the Act is part IV referring to the protection of agricultural land related to non-agricultural use. This part of the Act had been amended in order to limit the decrease in the amount of agricultural land several times. The basic principle in the protection of the agricultural land area is defined by Section 12 Paragraph 1 of the Act, which states that the agricultural land can be used for construction purposes and other non-agricultural purposes only when necessary and in legitimate amount. The basis used to indicate changes in the agricultural land type in the Cadastre are a final decision, binding opinion or an opinion of an agricultural land protection authority and a geometric plan, if the subject of the amendment is a part of the land registered in the Cadastre. In the procedures amending the agricultural land type, the agricultural land protection authority is obliged to ensure the protection of a) agricultural land of the highest quality in the cadastral area according to the code of the bonited soil-ecological units (BSEU) provided in a separate regulation and b) vineyards. The Act also introduced levies on withdrawal of agricultural land for the construction and other non-agricultural purposes through the institute of levies on withdrawal of agricultural land representing a systematic economic instrument for the protection of agricultural land of the highest quality. Levies are regulated by the Governmental regulation No 58/2013 Coll. on the levies and unauthorized withdrawal of agricultural land as amended.

203

Establishing the levies on withdrawal results in achieving three objectives beneficial for the whole society:  protection and stabilization of the Slovak agricultural land area of the highest quality;  guidance and, in a certain way, forcing construction investors to decrease the financial costs via directing at Slovak sites outside of the Bratislava and Trnava regions and orienting at soil of lower quality (BSEU in the 5th to 9th group), sites less important in terms of the agricultural primary production and offering lower levies, and, based on the same economic interest, to limit their land requirements on the extent of withdrawal necessarily needed as well;  ensuring the financial means for the operation of certain provisions of the Act, mainly activities related to the organization of agricultural land data in the Cadastre, including the true state of the terrain, the identification of the risk areas of the agricultural landscape and funding the remediation of the contaminated and otherwise devalued agricultural land sites, the establishment of an information system on lands. European Union legislation implemented in the Slovakia As far as the integration of environmental aspects into the protection of agricultural land is concerned, subsidy policy of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (I. and II. Pillar) played an important role, because it made the full amount of direct payments (single area payment) subject to by meeting the requirements of the cross-compliance (I. Pilar of the CAP) and to implement Measures of the II: Pilar od the CAP in particular Measure 10 Agri-environmental- climate action (non-project measure) and Measure 11 Organic farming (non-project measure).

204

12 REFERENCES

ANTAL, J. 1999. Agrohydrológia. SPU Nitra, 168 s., ISBN 80-7137-610-4. ATLAS KRAJINY SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY, 2002. MŽP SR a SAŽP. Esprit Banská Štiavnica, 344 s. BACHMANN, J. - GUGGENBERGER, G. - BAUMGARTL, T. - ELLERBROCK, R. H. - URBANEK, M. - KAISER, K. - HORN, R. - FISCHER, W. R. E. - GOEBEL, M. O. 2008. Physical carbon sequestration mechanism under special consideration of soil wettability. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 171, č.1, s. 14 - 26. BALDOCK, J. A. – SKJEMSTAD, J. O. 1999. Soil organic carbon/soil organic matter. In: Soil Analysis: an Interpretation Manual (Peverill, K.I. – Sparov, L.A. – Reuter, D.J.), s. 159 - 170, CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood. BALIK, J. - TLUSTOŠ, P. - PAVLÍKOVÁ, D. - VANĚK, V. 1996. The efficiency of banded application of ammonium sulphate (15N) by maize. In: Transaction of the 9th Nitrogen Workshop, Braunschweig, s. 387 - 390. BALUŠKA, F. - MANCUSO, S. - VOLKMANN, D. - BARLOW, P. W. 2010. Root apex transition zone: a signalizing-response nexus in root. Trends in Plant Science 15, s. 402 - 408. BANDLEROVÁ, A. - ŠKULECOVÁ, L. 2002. Aktuálne otázky nájmu poľnohospodárskej pôdy vo vybraných krajinách EÚ. In: Ekonomika a manažment v procese globalizácie. Zb. z konferencie, s. 872 - 877, ISBN 80-8069-030-8. BANDLEROVÁ, A. a kol. 2007. Agrárne právo EU. ISBN 978-80-8069-990-1. BARANČÍKOVÁ, G. - MADARAS, M. - 2003b. Attempt to assessment of non-production soil functions – filtration of organic contaminants. Ekológia, vol. 22, 3, s. 100 - 108. BARANČÍKOVÁ, G. - MADARAS, M. 2003a. Pokus o hodnotenie mimoprodukčných funkcií pôd – transformácia organických kontaminantov. Zb. Druhé pôdoznalecké dni v SR. VÚPOP Bratislava, s. 105 – 109, ISBN 80-80128-06-8. BARANČÍKOVÁ, G. - SZABOÓVÁ, J. - 1999. PCP retention experiments on soils and humic acids. Vedecké práce, VÚPOP Bratislava, č. 22, s. 5 - 11. BARANČÍKOVÁ, G. - GUTEKOVÁ, M. - HALAS, J. - KOCO, Š. - MAKOVNÍKOVÁ, J. - NOVÁKOVÁ, M. - SKALSKÝ, R. - TARASOVIČOVÁ, Z. - VILČEK, J. 2011. Pôdny organický uhlík v poľnohospodárskej krajine – modelovanie zmien v priestore a čase. VÚPOP Bratislava, 84 s., ISBN 978-80-89128-86-0. BARANČÍKOVÁ, G. - MAKOVNÍKOVÁ, J. 2003. The influence of soil humic acid quality on sorption and mobility of heavy metals. In: Plant Soil and Environment, 49, s. 565 - 571. BARLETT, R.V. - KURIAN, P. A. - MALIK, M. 1995. International Organizations and Environmental Policy. ISBN 0-313-29623-3. BASILE-DOELSCH, I. - BRUN, T. - BORSCHNECK, D. - MASION, A. - MAROL, C. - BALESDENT, J. 2009. Effect of land use on organic mater stabilized in organomineral complexes: A study combining density fractionation, mineralogy and 13C. Geoderma, 151, s. 77 - 86. BEDRNA, Z. 1989. Pôdne režimy. Veda Bratislava, 224 s.

205

BEDRNA, Z. - GAŠPAROVIČ, J. 1986. Typy teplotného režimu pôd ČSSR. Geografický časopis 1, Veda, SAV Bratislava. BEDRNA, Z. - HRAŠKO, J. - SOTÁKOVÁ, S. 1968. Poľnohospodárske pôdoznalectvo. SPVL Bratislava. BEDRNA, Z. 2002. Environmentálne pôdoznalectvo. Veda, Bratislava, 352 s., ISBN 80-224- 0660-0. BIALOUSZ, S. 2011. Soil physical degradation: assessment with the use of remote sensing and GIS. In: Encyclopedia of Agrophysics (Glinski,J. - Horabik,J. – Lipiec,J.). Springer Sci. and Busines Media, B. V. DOI 10, 1007/978-90-481-3585-1. BIELEK, P. - MATÚŠKOVÁ, L. 1987. Biologicky aktívne látky zvyšujúce úrodnosť pôd a rast a vývoj rastlín. Záverečná správa, VÚPÚ Bratislava, 111 s. BIELEK, P. - BLAAS, G. - MIŠKOVÁ, M. 2010. Agroenvironmentálne indikátory. Monitorovanie a hodnotenie agroenvironmentálnych opatrení. Štúdia VÚPOP Bratislava, 53 s. BIELEK, P. - FULAJTÁR, E.-jun. - SOBOCKÁ, J. - JAMBOR, P. 2005. History of soil science development in Slovakia. Newsletter of the Commission on the History. In: Philosophy and Sociology of Soil Science of the IUSS, 12, s. 11 - 17. BIELEK, P. - FULAJTÁR. E.-jun. - SOBOCKÁ, J. - JAMBOR, P. 2004. A short history of Slovak soil science development. Vedecké práce VÚPOP Bratislava, č.26, s. 5 - 17. BIELEK, P. - JURČOVÁ, O. 2010. Metodika bilancie pôdnej organickej hmoty a stanovenie potreby organického hnojenia poľnohospodárskych pôd. VÚPOP Bratislava, 145 s., ISBN 978-80-89128-80-8. BIELEK, P. - OTEPKA, P. - HÚSKA, D. - DEMO, M. - BROOŠOVÁ, N. - BOREK, L. - MAGA, J. 2013. Drought management by agricultural practices and measures increasing soil water holding capacity. National Report, SPU Nitra, GWP Project, 18 s. BIELEK, P. - ŠURINA, B. - ILAVSKÁ, B. - VILČEK, J. 1998. Naše pôdy (poľnohospodárske). VÚPÚ Bratislava, 82 s., ISBN 80-85361-42-6. BIELEK, P. 1997. Nitrogen transformation to carbon mineralisation in soil. In: Plant nutrition for sustainable food and environment (Ando,T. et al). Kluwer Acad. Publ., Japan, s. 763-764. BIELEK, P. 1997a. Vonkajší cyklus dusíka v poľnohospodárskych pôdach Slovenskej republiky. Habilitačná práca, SPU Nitra, 239 s. BIELEK, P. 1998a. Nitrate in nature: product of soil cover. Environmental Pollution 102, S1, s. 527 – 530. BIELEK, P. 1999. Soil degradation in Slovakia. ESSC, Paulus and Partner GmbH, Manschnow, Germany, 30 s. BIELEK, P. 2008. Poľnohospodárske pôdy Slovenska a perspektívy ich využitia. VÚPOP Bratislava, 140 s., ISBN 978-80-89128-41-9. BIELEK, P. a kol. 1999. Dopady prognózovanej zmeny klímy na vlastnosti a funkcie pôdneho pokryvu SR. Záverečná správa, VÚPOP Bratislava, 162 s. BIELEK, P. a kol. 1991. Ohrozená pôda. VÚPÚ Bratislava, 76p., ISBN80-85361-01-9. BIELEK,P. 1998. Dusík v poľnohospodárskych pôdach Slovenska. VÚPOP Bratislava, 256 s., ISBN 80-85361-44-2.

206

BIELIK, P. - BELICA, M. - BANDLEROVÁ, A. - ŠIMO, D. 2001. Podniková hospodárska teória agrokomplexu. SPU Nitra, 269 s., ISBN 80-7137-861-5. BIELIK, P. - HORSKÁ, E. - TURČEKOVÁ, N. 2005. Vybrané aspekty trhu s pôdou v krajinách strednej a východnej Európy: dôraz na Slovensko. Agricultural Economics, 51, 8, s. 335 - 342. BIZÍK, J. 1989. Podmienky optimalizácie výživy rastlín dusíkom. Veda - SAV Bratislava, 192 s., ISBN 80-224-0041-6. BLAAS, G. - BIELEK, P. - BOŽÍK, M. 2010. Pôda a poľnohospodárstvo. Úvahy o budúcnosti. VÚPOP Bratislava, 36 s., ISBN 978-80-89128-63-1. BLAAS, G., 2012. Poľnohospodárska pôda Slovenska v procese spoločenskej transformácie. Rukopis monografie, 117 s. (dostupné u autora). BLUM, W. E. H. 1990. The chalenge of soil protection in Europe. Environmental Conservation 17. In: World Resources Institute, Account Overdue. Natural Resource Depreciation in Costa Rica. Oxford University Press. Oxford, New York. BOGUSLAWSKI, E. V. 1954. Bodenfruchtbarkeit von Standpunkt des Ackerbauers. In: Der Bodenfruchtbarkeitdienst. Landwirtschaft-angewandte Wiesenschaft 26, 23 s. BOHUŠ, P. - KLINDA, J. 2010. Environmentálna regionalizácia Slovenskej republiky. III. aktualizované a rozšírené vydanie. MŽP SR a AŽP, 102 s., ISBN 978-80-88503-00-1. BUBLINEC, E. - GREGOR, J. 2003. Kvalita pôdy v súčasných environmentálnych podmienkach Slovenskej republiky. In: Zb. Druhé pôdoznalecké dni v SR, VÚPOP Bratislava, s. 49 - 54, ISBN 80-89128-06-8. BÜHRS, T. - BARTLETT, R. V. 1991. Environmental Policy in New Zealand. The Politics of Clean and Green. Oxford University Press. BURGHARDT, W. 1994. Soil in urban and industrial environment. Pflanzenernährung und Bodenkunde, 157, s. 205 - 2014. BUTTERY, B. R. - PARK, S. J. - HUME, D. L. 1992. Potential for increasing nitrogen fixation in grain legumes. Canad. J. Plant Sci. 72, s. 323 - 349. CHLPÍK, J. - POSPÍŠIL, R. 2004. Plošná charakteristika mechanických a chemických vlastností pôdy na výskumnej báze Slovenskej poľnohospodárskej univerzity v Nitre, Kolíňany. Rukopis publikácie, 11 s. CHLPÍK, J. 2010. Vplyv hnojenia na chemické vlastnosti pôdy, stabilitu štruktúrnych agregátov a kvalitu organickej hmoty. In: Využitie biokalu pri pestovaní poľných plodín (Pospíšil, R. a kol.), SPU Nitra, s. 29 - 38, ISBN 978-80-552-0289-1. CHLPÍK, J. 2012. Pôda ako základná zložka životného prostredia. In: Ochrana a tvorba životného prostredia (Noskovič, J. a kol.). SPU Nitra, s. 55 - 78, ISBN 978-80-552-0873-2. ČIČ, M. et al. 2012. Komentár k Ústave Slovenskej republiky. EUROKÓDEX: Vydavatelství a nakladatelství Aleš Čeněk, s.r.o. ISBN 978-80-894-4793-0. COLE, V. 1996. Agricultural options for mittigation of greenhouse gas emissions. In: Climate change. Cambridge Univ. Press., s. 745 - 771. CONVENTION ON SUSTAINABLE USE OF SOIL (Proposal for a Convention on Sustainable Use of Soil). 1998. Preserving soil for life. The Tutzing project, Tutzing (Germany), 41 s.

207

ČURLÍK, J. - ŠEFČÍK, P. 1999. Geochemický atlas Slovenska: Pôdy. VÚPOP Bratislava, 180 s., ISBN 80-88833- 14-0. ČURLÍK, J. - ŠURINA, B. 1998. Príručka terénneho prieskumu a mapovania pôd. VÚPÚ Bratislava, 134 s., ISBN 80-85361-37-X. DAMOHORSKÝ, M. 2010. Právo životního prostředí. 3. Edition. Praha: C.H. Beck. ISBN 978-80-7400-338-7. DEMO , M. a kol. 2001. Dejiny poľnohospodárstva na Slovensku. SPU Nitra, 662s., ISBN 80-7137-894-1. DEMO, M. - BLAŠKO, P. - PRČÍK, M. - TORMA, S. - KOCO, Š. 2012. Tranzitný plynovodný systém v poľnohospodárskej krajine. SPU Nitra, 87 s., ISBN 978-80-552-0878-7. DEMO, M. - FAZEKAŠ, A. - HAUPTVOGL, M. - SKLADAN, B. - TOTHOVÁ, M. 2011. Produkčný a energetický potenciál švédskych odrôd rýchlorastúcej dreviny rodu Salix. SPU Nitra, 110 s., ISBN 978-80-552-0577-9. DEMO, M. - JUREKOVÁ, Z. - HÚSKA, D. a kol. 2011. Projektovanie udržateľných poľnohospodárskych systémov v krajinnom prostredí. SPU Nitra, 663 s., ISBN 978-80-552- 0547-2. DEMO, M. - KOLLÁR, B. - HRAŠKO, J. 1995. Obrábanie pôdy. SPU Nitra, 309 s., ISBN 80-7137-255-2. DEMO, M. 2005. Základy poľnohospodárstva. SPU Nitra, 145 s., ISBN 80-8069-598-9. DLAPA, P. - DOERR, S. H. - LICHNER, Ľ. - ŠÍR, M. - TESAŘ, M. - 2004. Effect of caolinite and Ca-montmorillonite on the evaluation of soil repelency. Plant and Soil and Environment, 50, s. 358-363. DLAPA, P. - ŠARAPATKA, B. - BUSINOW, M. 2002. Acidifikácia pôd vyvolaná oxidáciou pyritu zo starých ekologických záťaží. II. Experimentálne územie Banská Štiavnica. Phytopedon, 1, 1, Suppl., s. 286 – 291. DLAPA, P. 1997. Dynamika procesov acidifikácie a priestorová variabilita obsahu rizikových prvkov v pôdach. Dizertačná práca. PriF UK Bratislava. DOERR, S. H. - SHAKESBY, R. A. - WALSH, R. P. D. 2000. Soil water repelency: its cause, characteristic and hydro-geomorphological significance. Earth Science Reviews 51, s. 33 - 65. DORAN, J. W. - JONES, A. J. 1996. Methods for assessing of soil quality. Madison, Wisconsin, SSSA, no.49, s. 25 - 37. DORAN, J. W. - PARKIN, T, B. 1994. Defining and assessing of soil quality. In: Defining of soil quality for a sustainable Environment (J. W. Doran - D. C. Coleman, D. F. - Bezdicek and B. A. Stewart). SSSA Madison, Wisconsin USA, s. 3 - 21. DREWRY, J. J. - LOWE, J. A. H. - PATON, R. J. 2000. Effect of subsoiling on soil physical properties and pasture production on a Pallic soil in Southland, New Zealand. New Zealand J. of Agr.Res., 43, s. 269 - 277. DRGONEC, J. 1993. Štát a právo v službách životného prostredia. Tulčík: Vydavateľstvo Lesoochranárskeho zoskupenia Vlk - ABIES, 1993. ISBN 80-88699- 00-2. DRUHÁ NÁRODNÁ SPRÁVA SR O ZMENE KLÍMY, 1997. MŽP SR Bratislava. ĎUĎÁK, J. 2010. Technologické trendy pri obrábaní pôdy. Moderná mechanizácia v poľnohospodárstve XIII, č. 2, s. 5 - 7, ISSN 1335-6178.

208

DUONG, T. T. - BAUMANN, K. - MARSCHNER, R. 2009. Frequent addition of wheat straw residues to soil enhances carbon mineralization rate. Soil Biol. Biochem., 41, s. 1475 - 1482. DŽATKO, M. - SOBOCKÁ, J., a kol. 2009. Príručka pre používanie máp pôdnoekologických jednotiek. VÚPOP Bratislava, 102 s., ISBN 978-80-89128-55-6. DŽATKO, M. 1981. Hodnotenie agroekosystémov pre účely špecializácie rastlinnej výroby a usporiadania pôdneho fondu (výskumná správa), VÚPVR Bratislava, 37s. DŽATKO, M. 1997. Sustainable land use modeling and agricultural landscape managing in Slovakia. In: Landscape Ecology: Things to do. Proc. WLO Amsterdam, s. 27 - 28. DŽATKO, M. 1998. Hodnotenie a využívanie pôd. In: Usporiadanie a využívanie pôdy v poľnohospodárskej krajine (Demo a kol.), SPU Nitra, s. 111 - 125, ISBN 80-7137-525-X. DŽATKO, M. 2002. Hodnotenie produkčného potenciálu poľnohospodárskych pôd a pôdnoekologických regiónov Slovenska. Výskumná správa, VÚPOP Bratislava, 88 s., ISBN 80-85361-94-9. DŽATKO, M. a kol. 1976. Charakteristika bonitovaných pôdnoekologických jednotiek SSR. Príroda Bratislava, 102 s. ECE-SEC (2010)360, 2010. Politika súdržnosti. Strategická správa o vykonaní programov 2007-2013 (slovenský preklad). ECKELMAN, W. - BARITZ, R. - BIALOUSZ, S. - BIELEK, P. - CARRE, F. - HOUŠKOVÁ, B. - JONES, R. J. A. - KIBBLEWIHITE, M. - KOZÁK, J. - LABAS, CH. - TOTH, G. - VARALLYAY, G. - HALLA, M. Y. - ZUPAN, M. 2006. Common Criteria for Risk Areas Identification According to Soil Threats. JRC Ispra, Italy, Research Report No. 20, 94 s., EUR 22185 EN. ECKERS, H. - BREITSCHUH, G. - SAUERBECK, D. R. 2000. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 163, s. 337 - 351. EEA 2006. Urban sprawl in Europe. The ignored challenge. EEA Copenhagen, Rep. No.10. EEA 2010. The European environment – state and outlook 2010: Urban environment. EEA Kodaň. ENVIRONMENT. 2010. Our Future, Our Choice. 6th EU Environment Action Programme. European Commission, Luxembourg 2001. EURACTIV. 2014. Europarlament odsúhlasil prísnejšie emisné limity pre autá, 2014. [online] [cit. 2015-01-12]. Available online at http://www.euractiv.sk/zivotne- prostredie/clanok/europarlament-odsuhlasil-prisnejsie-emisne-limity-pre-auta- 022116#sthash.MU9vNx44.dpuf EUROPE IN FIGURES. Eurostat yearbook 2006-2007. Eurostat statistical books. Luxembourg: Office for Officiel Publications of European Communities, IDEMA, 2007, s. 290 ISBN 1681-4789. EUROPEAN ATLAS OF SOIL BIODIVERSITY, 2010. European Commission, DG- Environment. Publ. Office of the EU, Luxembourg, 128 s., ISBN 978-92- 79-158-3. EUROPEAN COMMISSION. Environment 2010: Our Future, Our Choice. 6th EU Environment Action Programme. European Commission, Luxembourg 2001, s. 3. EUROPEAN COMMISSION. 2008. Návrh smernice Európskeho parlamentu rady, v ktorom sa ustanovuje rámec pre ochranu pôdy a mení a dopĺňa sa Smernica 2004/35/ES. Brusel.

209

EUROPEAN COMMISSION. 2011. Overview of best practices for limiting soil sealing its effect in EU-27 (Prokop,G., Jobstmann,H., Schönbauer,A.), 127 s. EUROPEAN COMMISSION. 2013. Agricultural Policy Perspectives Brief N°5*, Overview of CAP Reform 2014-2020, European Union, 2013. EUROPEAN COMMISSION. 2014. The EU explained: Agriculture, Directorate-General for Communication, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014, doi:10.2775/95349. EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY. 2010. Environmental Issues. Copenhagen. EURÓPSKA KOMISIA. 2012. Usmernenie týkajúce sa najlepších postupov na obmedzenie, zmiernenie, alebo kompenzáciu zástavby pôdy (slovenský preklad). Brusel, SWD 2012, 101 final/2, 70 s. FAO-UNESCO-ISRIC, 1988. Soil Map of the World. Revised legend. World Soil Resources Report, No 60, FAO Rome, 118 s. FECENKO, J. - LOŽEK, O. 2000. Výživa a hnojenie poľných plodín. SPU Nitra, 442 s., ISBN 80-7137-777-5. FEDERAL SOIL PROTECTION ACT OF GERMANY (anglický preklad). 1998. Federal Low Gazete pp. 502. FIALA, K. - KOBZA, J. - MATÚŠKOVÁ, L. - BREČKOVÁ, V. - MAKOVNÍKOVÁ, J. - CHOMANIČOVÁ, A. – BÚRIK, V. - LITAVEC, T. - HOUŠKOVÁ, B. - VÁRADYOVÁ,D. - PECHOVÁ, B. 1999. Záväzné metódy rozborov pôd. ČMS pôda. VÚPOP Bratislava, 142p. FILIP, Z. - BIELEK, P. 2002. Susceptibility of humic acid from soils with various contents of metal to microbial utilization and transformation. Biol. Fertil. Soils, 36, s. 426 - 433. FILIP, Z. 2003. Significance of microbial biomass in natural and contaminated soils. In: Zb. Druhé pôdoznalecké dni v SR, VÚPOP Bratislava, s. 73-79, ISBN 80-89128-06-8. FRUCH, B. - KOSMANN, M. - ROOS, M. 2001. Frankfurt am Main im Klimawandel – Eine Untersuchung zur Stadtischen Warmebelastung. Offenbach am Main: Selbstverlag Deutschen Wetterdienstes, ISBN 978-3-88148-453-4. FULAJTAR, E.- jun. - JANSKÝ, L. 2001. Vodná erózia a protierózna ochrana. VÚPOP Bratislava a PriF UK Bratislava, 307 s. FULAJTÁR, E.- sen. 2006. Fyzikálne vlastnosti pôd. VÚPOP Bratislava, 142 s., ISBN 80- 89128-20-3. GÁBRIŠ, J. a kol. 1987. Chemizácia poľnohospodárskej výroby a ochrana životného prostredia. Príroda Bratislava, 231 s. GALAMBOŠOVÁ, J. - RATAJ, V. 2011. Determination of machinery performance for random and controled traffic farming. In: Precision agriculture. Czech Centre of Sci. and Soc., Prague, s. 449-456, ISBN 978-80-904830-2-6. GAMEDA, S. - RAGHAVAN, G. S. V. - THERIAULT, R. - McKYES, E. 1985. High axle load compaction and corn yields. Trans. ASAE, 28, s.1759 - 1765. GERMAN ADVISORY COUNCIL. 1994. World in Transition: The threat to soils. Annual Report. Economica Verlag, Bonn, 252 s. GLOSSARY OF SOIL SCIENCE TERMS. 2008. Soil Science Glossary Terms Committee. Madison, Soil Sci. Soc. of America, 92 s.

210

GOBIN, A. - CAMPLING, P. - JANSEN, L. - DESMET, N. - van DELDEN, H. - HURKENS, J. - LAVELLE, P. - BERMAN, S. 2011. Soil organic mater management across the EU – best practices, constraints and trade-offs. Final Reports for the European Commission΄s DG Environment. GUMBERT, A. 2002. Soil organic carbon in the context of the European climate change programe. Proc. OECD expert meeting on soil organic carbon indicators for agricultural land. Otava, part II. HABÁN, M. - OTEPKA, P. - BOROŠ, J. 2013. Produkcia biomasy vŕby košikárskej na energetické účely na Slovensku a vo Švédsku. SPU Nitra, 91 s., ISBN 978-80-552-1006-3. HAMZA, E. - MISKO, K. 2007. Characteristics of Land Market in Hungary at the Time of EU Accession. In: Agricultural economics, 53, (40), s. 161 – 166. HANES, J. 1999. Analýza sorpčných vlastností pôd. VÚPOP Bratislava, 138 s., ISBN 80- 85361-47-7. HANSELMAN, T. A. - GRAETZ, D. A. - WILKIE, A. C. 2003. Manure-born estrogens as potential environmental contaminants: a review. Environmental Science and Technology, 37, 24, s. 5471 – 5478. HARRIS , R. F. - KARLEN, D. L. - MULLA, D. J. 1996. A conceptual framework for assessment and management of soil quality and health. In: Methods for assessing soil quality (Doran,J.V., Jones,A.J.). SSSA Special Publ., Madison, Visconsin No. 49, s. 61-82. HEY, CH. 2005. EU Environmental Policies: A short history of the policy strategies in EU Environmental Policy Handbook. A Critical Analysis of EU Environmental Legislation. European Environmental Bureau. ISBN 9057270552 [cit. 2016-01-05] Available online at http://www.eeb.org/publication/chapter-3.pdf HLADÍK, J. - VOPRAVIL, J. - KULÍŘOVÁ, P. - NAVRKALOVÁ, T. - BATYSTA, M. 2013. Drought management by agricultural practices and measures increasing soil water holding capacity. National report, RISWC Prag, GWP Project, 38 s. HNÁTOVÁ, V. 2013. Vodoretenčné vlastnosti vybraných humusových horizontov pôd. Doktorandská dizertačná práca. PriF UK Bratislava, 92 s. HÖGBERG. P. - READ, D. J. 2006. Toward a more plantphysiological perspective on soil ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evaluation, 21, s. 10 - 21. HOLOBRADÝ, K. - HRTÁNEK, B. 2003. Výpočty dávok vápenatých hnojív a súčasne platné normatívy pre melioračné a udržiavacie vápnenie. In: Pôdna reakcia a jej úprava (ed. Čurlík, J.). Suma Print, s. 169 - 178, ISBN 80-967696-1-8. HOLOBRADÝ, K. - ILKA, P. 1997. Metodika priamej aplikácie stabilizovaných čistiarenských kalov a dnových sedimentov na pôdu. VÚPÚ Bratislava, 57p. HOLOBRADÝ, K. 1981. Výskum intoxikácie pôdy zlúčeninami horčíka a vápnika. Záverečná správa, VÚPVR Bratislava, 35 s. HOPFER, A. – ŻUK, Ł. 2002. Methodological and practical Aspects of Rural Land Market Assessment – the Polish example. HOUŠKOVÁ, B. 1999. Vplyv pôdneho prostredia na retenciu vody. Záverečná správa, VÚPOP Bratislava, 31 s. HRAŠKO, J. - BEDRNA, Z. 1988. Aplikované pôdoznalectvo. Príroda Bratislava, 474 s.

211

HRAŠKO, J. - NĚMEČEK, J. - ŠALY, R. - ŠURINA, B. 1987. Morfogenetický klasifikačný systém pôd ČSSR. VCPÚ Bratislava, 107 s. HRONEC, O. - VILČEK, J. - TOMÁŠ, J. 2010. Kvalita zložiek životného prostredia v problémových oblastiach Slovenska. Mendelova univerzita Brno, 225 s., ISBN 978-80- 7375-387-0. HROŠŠO, F. 1958. Pôdoznalectvo. SVPL Bratislava, 313 s. HROŠŠO, F. 1961. Úrodnosť pôdy a jej zvyšovanie. SVPL Bratislava, 225 s. HUPKOVÁ, M. 2015. Organisation as a subject of environmental law. Diploma thesis. Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra. HURNI, H. 1996. Precious Earth: from soil and water conservation to sustainable land management. ISCO-International Soil Conservation Organisation, Bern, 89 s., ISBN3- 906151-11-5. IPCC, 2000. Land use, land use change and forestry. Special report. Cambridge Univ. Press., UK, 377 s. ISSS-ISRIC-FAO, 1998. World Reference Base for Soil Resources. World soil resource report, 84, FAO Rome, 88 s. JAENICKE, E. C. - LENGNICK, L. L. 1999. A soil-quality index and its relationships to efficiency and productivity growth measures: Two decompositions. Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 81, s. 881-893. JAMBOR, P. - ILAVSKÁ, B. 1998. Metodika protierózneho obrábania pôdy. VÚPOP Bratislava, 68 s., ISBN 80-85361-46-9. JANEČEK, M. a kol. 2002.Ochrana zemědělské půdy před erozí. SVI Praha, 197s. JANZEN, H. H. a kol. 2003. Management effects on soil C storage on the Canadian prairies. Soil Till. Res, 47, s. 181 - 195. JAVOREKOVÁ, S. - KRÁLIKOVÁ, A. - LABUDA, R. - LABUDOVÁ, S. - MAKOVÁ, J. 2008. Biológia pôdy v agroekosystémoch. SPU Nitra, 349 s., ISBN 978-80-552-0007-1. JONES, R. J. - ZDRULI, P. - MONTANARELLA, L. 2000. The estimation of drought risk in Europe from soil and climate data. In: Drought a drought mittigation in Europe. Kluwer Acad. Publ., Nederlands, 14 s. JONES, R. J. A. - HIEDERER, R. - RUSCO, E. - LOVELAND, P. J. - MONTANARELLA, L. 2004. The map of organic carbon in topsoils in Europe. Special edd. JRC Ispra, No. 72 (S.P.I.-04.72). JONES, R. J. A. a kol. 2003. The map of organic carbon in topsoil in Europe. EC-JRC. JORDAN, A. - ZAVALA, L. M. - MATAIX-SOLERA, J. - DOERR, S. H. 2013. Soil water repelency: origin, assessment and geomorphological consequences. Catena 108, 1-5. VEGA 1/0431/09, PriF UK Bratislava, 80 s. JURÁŇ, C. 1986. Erózne procesy a ochrana pôdy. In: Kapitoly o pôde a jej ochrane. Metodicko-námetová príručka, č.8, ÚVSZOPK Bratislava, s. 89 - 95. JURÁNI, B. - DLAPA, P. - BEDRNA, Z. - ŠTERUSKÁ, A. 2011. Prekrytie pôdy (soil sealing) na Slovensku. Výstup grantového projektu Vega 1/0431/09. PriF UK Bratislava, 78 s., ISBN 978-80-223-3169-2. JURÁNI, B. 1996. Environmentálna charakteristika vybraných pôd Slovenska. Habilitačná práca. PriF UK Bratislava. 212

JURÁNI, B. 1998. Mimoprodukčné funkcie pôdy. In: Usporiadanie a využívanie pôdy v poľnohospodárskej krajine (Demo, M. a kol.). SPU Nitra a VÚPOP Bratislava, s. 69 - 98, ISBN 80-7137-525-X. JUREKOVÁ, Z. - DRAŽIČ, G. - KOTRLA, M. - MARIŠOVÁ, E. - MILOVANOVIČ, J. - TÓTHOVÁ, M. - KONČEKOVÁ, L. 2011. Biological factors influencing the growth and biomass production of willows planted in Southern Slovakia. Acta regionalia et environmentalistica, 2, s. 47-52, ISSN 13364552. JURÍK, Ľ. - MEDOVIČOVÁ, M. - PALŠOVÁ, L. 2009. Krajinné inžinierstvo a právo: legislatíva ochrany životného prostredia. 2. Revised edition. Nitra: Slovak university of agriculture. pp 126. ISBN 978-80-552-0216-7. JURÍK, Ľ. - PALŠOVÁ, L. 2012. Legislatíva ochrany životného prostredia. 1. Edition. Nitra: Slovak university of agriculture. pp138. ISBN 978-80-552-0906-7. KANIANSKÁ, R. 2009. Pôda ako zložka životného prostredia v Slovenskej republike k roku 2008. Indikátorová správa, SAŽP Banská Bystrica, 46 s. KIM, K. - BARHAM, B. L. - COXHEAD, I. 2000. Recovering soil productivity attributes from experimental data: a statistical method and an application to soil productivity dynamics. Geoderma, 96, s.239 - 259. KLUTE, A. 1986. Water retention: laboratory methods. SSSA Madison: ASA, s. 635-662. KOBZA, J. a kol. 2013. Monitoring pôd Slovenska (pri príležitosti 20. výročia realizácie monitoringu pôd na Slovensku). VÚPOP Bratislava, 26 s. (bez ISBN). KOBZA, J. a kol. 2009. Monitoring pôd SR. VÚPOP Bratislava, 199 s., ISBN 978-8089128- 54-9. KOLEKTÍV AUTOROV. 2000. Morfogenetický klasifikačný systém pôd Slovenska. Bazálna referenčná taxonómia, VÚPOP Bratislava, 76 s., ISBN 80-85361-70-1. KOLEKTÍV AUTOROV. 2005. Slovník cudzích slov. SPN Bratislava, 1054 s. (on-line). KOLLÁR, B. 1995. Regulácie bioenergetických procesov v pôde a rizosfére hlbokým obrábaním. In: Obrábanie pôdy (Demo, M.). SPU Nitra, 309 s., ISBN 80-7137-255-2. KOM (2011)571: Oznámenie Komisie európskemu parlamentu, Rade, Európskemu hospodárskemu a sociálnemu výboru a Výboru regiónov. Plán pre Európu efektívne využívajúcu zdroje. KOŠIČIAROVÁ, S. 2006. Právo životného prostredia. 1. Edition. Bratislava: Poradca podnikateľa. ISBN 8088931576. KOŠIČIAROVÁ, S. et al. 2009. Právo životného prostredia. 2. Revised and changed edition. EUROKÓDEX: Vydavatelství a nakladatelství Aleš Čeněk, s.r.o. ISBN 978-80-7380-143-4. KOVÁČ, K. - NOZDROVICKÝ, L. - MACÁK, M. a kol. 2010. Minimalizačné a pôdoochranné technológie. Agroinštitút Nitra, 142 s., ISBN 978-80-7139-139-5. KOVÁČIK, P. 2007. Stručná história agrochémie a úroveň hnojenia na Slovensku. Vydavateľstvo M. Vaška, Prešov, 76 s., ISBN 978-80-7165-608-1. KOZLOWSKI, J. 1997. Polish experience in creation of real property registration system. In: Private and Public Sector Cooperarion in National Land Tenure development in Eastern and Central Europe, Bertinoro: Land Tenure. KOŽUCH, O. 1945. Praktické pôdoznalectvo. Tranoscius, L. Mikuláš. KRAFT, J. 2005. Brownfields - negatívní externality, ztracená příležitost a pozitívní externality. TU Liberec, ISBN 80-7083-925-2. 213

KRAIJENHOFF van de LEUR, D. A. 1966. Rainfall-runoff and watershed runoff. In: Drainage principles theories of field drainage and watershed runoff. Wageningen, s. 245-320. KRISTENSEN, K. J. 1975. Characterization of water in the soil. Soil water distribution. Nordic IHD, Oslo. KROMKA, M. - BEDRNA, Z. 2002. Hygiena pôdy. UK Bratislava, 8 s., ISBN 80-223-1602- 4. KUBÁT, J. - CERHANOVÁ, D. - NOVÁKOVÁ, J. - LIPAVSKÝ, J. 2006. Total organic carbon and its composition in log term field experiments in the Czech Republic. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci., 52, s. 495 - 505. KUDRNA, K. 1970. Příspěvek k řešení zemědělských soutav v krajinném prostoru z hlediska racionálního využití přírodních podmínek. Sb VŠZ Praha, č. 9. KUDRNA, K. 1967. Příspěvek k řešení optimální struktury zemědělské soustavy ČSSR. ÚVTI, Rostlinná výroba, 12, Praha. KUDRNA, K. 1979. Zemědělské soustavy. SZN Praha, 719 s. KUTÍLEK, M. 1978. Vodohospodářska pedológie. SNTL/ALFA, Praha, 296 s. LACKO-BARTOŠOVÁ, M. 1998. Projektovanie využívania pôdy v trvalo udržateľných poľnohospodárskych systémoch. In: Usporiadanie a využívanie pôdy v poľnohospodárskej krajine (Demo, M. a kol.), SPU Nitra a VÚPOP Bratislava, s. 229 – 245, ISBN 80-7137-525- X. LAL, R. - LORENZ, K. - HUTTL, R. F. - SCHNEIDER, B. U. - VON BRAUN, J. 2013. Ecosystem services and carbon sequestration in the biosphere. Springer, 464 s., ISBN 978-94- 007-6454-5. LAL, R. - STEWART, B. A. 2013.Principles of sustainable soil management in agroecosystems. CRC Press, 568 s., ISBN 978-1-46-651346-4. LAMPARTER, A. - BACHMANN, J. M. - GOEBEL,O. - WOCHE, S. K. 2009. Carbon mineralization in soil: Impact of wetting-drying, aggregation and water repellency. Geoderma, 150, s. 324-333. LATRUEFE, L. – LE MOUEL, CH. 2006. Descripion of agricultural land market functioning in partner countries. „IDEMA“ projekt 6RP SSPE-CT-2003-502171. LAZÍKOVÁ, J. – TAKÁČ, I. 2010. Právne a ekonomické aspekty nájmu poľnohospodárskej pôdy. 1. vydanie. Nitra: SPU, 100 s. ISBN 978-80-552-0447-5 . LAZÍKOVÁ, J. a kol. 2011. Agrárne parvo. ISBN 978-80-552-0538-0. LHOTSKÝ, J. 2000. Zhutňovaní půd a opatření proti němu. ÚZPI Praha, 61 s. LINKEŠ, V. - BIELEK, P. - JURÁNI, B. 1996a. Prínosy z mimoprodukčných funkcií pôd a z jej poľnohospodárskeho využívania. Študijná správa, VÚPÚ Bratislava, 16 s. LINKEŠ, V. - GROMOVÁ, A. - ĽUPTÁK, D. - PESTÚN, V. - POLIAK, P. 1988. Informačný systém o pôde. Príroda Bratislava, 199 s. LINKEŠ, V. - PESTÚN, V. - DŽATKO, M. 1996. Príručka pre používanie máp bonitovaných pôdnoekologických jednotiek. VÚPOP Bratislava, 103 s. Lisbon strategy 2000. 2000. [cit. 2016-01-05] Available online at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm LOWERY, B. - SCHULER, R. T. 1991. Temporal effects of subsoil compaction on soil strength and plant growth. Soil Sci. Amer. J. 55, s. 216 - 223. 214

LOŽEK, O. - BIZÍK, J. - FECENKO, J. 2000. Hnojenie záhradných plodín. SPU Nitra, 112 s., ISBN 80-7137-735-X. LUKNIŠ, M. 1956. Bonita pôd na Slovensku. Geografický časopis, 4, s. 202 - 207. MAKOVNÍKOVÁ, J. 2007. Využitie indikátorov pri identifikácii rizikových oblastí acidifikácie pôdy. VÚPOP Bratislava, 30 s. MAKOVNÍKOVÁ, J. 2004. Vývoj indikátorov zraniteľnosti environmentálnych funkcií pôd z pohľadu ťažkých kovov. Monitorovací systém – pôda. Priebežná správa, VÚPOP Bratislava, s.87-96. MARENDIAK, D. - KOPČANOVÁ, Ľ. - LEITGEB, S. 1987. Poľnohospodárska mikrobiológia. Príroda Bratislava, 444 s.

MARLAND, G. - BODEN, T. A. - ANDRES, R. J. 2001. Global regional and national CO2 Emissions. In: Trends – a compendium of data on global change. Carbon dioxide information analysis center. US Department of Energy. Oak Ridge, Tennes, USA. MASAROVIČOVÁ, E. 2011. Pedológia očami rastlinného fyziológa. Phytopedon 10, s. 21- 22. MASARYK, Š. - BÁBEK, R. - HRAŠKO, J. 1980. Vápnenie pôd. Príroda Bratislava, 189 s. McCORMICK, J. 2001. Environmental Policy in the European Union. The European Series. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0333772040, 9780333772041 p. 21. MICHALÍK, I. - HANÁČKOVÁ, E. 2011. Agrochémia. Univerzita sv. Cyrila a Metoda v Trnave, 181 s., ISBN 978-80-8105-218-7. MICHALÍK, I. 2001. Molekulárne a energetické aspekty príjmu živín v rastlinách. SPU Nitra, 158 s., 80-7137-836-4. MIDRIAK, R. a kol. 2011. Spustnuté pôdy a pustnutie krajiny Slovenska. Univerzita Mateja Bela v Banskej Bystrici, 400 s., ISBN978-80-557-0110-3. MIKLOŠ, L. - IZAKOVIČOVÁ, Z. 1997. Krajina ako geosystém. SAV Bratislava, 152 s., ISBN 80-224-0519-1. NĚMEČEK, J. a kol. 1966. Průzkum zemědělských půd ČSSR. (Súborná metodika), Ministerstvo zemědělství a výživy ČSSR. Praha. NOSKOVIČ, J. 2012. Ochrana a tvorba životného prostredia. SPU Nitra, 414 s., ISBN 978- 80-552-0873-2. NOVÁK, P. - ZLATUŠKOVÁ, S. 2000. Odvodnení a rekultivace: důsledky pro půdu a vodu. In: Antropizácia pôd. Zb. z medzinárodnej konferencie. VÚPOP Bratislava, s. 8-10. NOZDROVICKÝ, L. - MACÁK, M. - RATAJ, V. - GALAMBOŠOVÁ, J. - BUC, M. 2011. Výskum účinkov technológii a techniky pre obrábanie pôdy s ohľadom na intenzitu uvoľňovania emisií CO2 do atmosféry. SPU Nitra, 111 s., ISBN 978-80-552-0695-0. OECD. 2008. Environmental Performance of Agriculture at a Glance. Harting Hill, The Sound Downs, West Sussexs, UK, 122 s., ISBN 978-92-64-04589-7. ORFÁNUS, T. - DLAPA, P. - NÁNDOR, F. - RAJKAI, K. - SÁNDOR, R. - NOVÁKOVÁ, K. 2014. How severe and subcritical water repelency determines the seasonal infiltration in natural and cultivated sandy soils. Soil and Tillage Research, 135, s. 49 – 59. OSKAM A. - MEESTER, G. - HUIB, S. 2011. EU policy for Agriculture, food and rural areas, ISBN 978-90-8686-180-4, 453 pg.452, Wageningen.

215

PAICE, C. 2001. Forecast for agricultural land prices 2001 – 2003. In: Farmlandmarket, published by Farmers weekly, London, No. 56, p. 1-3. PALUCHOVÁ, K. a kol. 2008. Systematická identifikácia environmentálnych záťaží Slovenskej republiky (on-line). MŽP SR a AŽP, 154 s., http://www.sazp.sk./public/index/go.php?=1433. PAMFIL, V. 2005. Development of agricultural land markets in Romania. In: Development of land markets and related institutions in countries of Central and Eastern Europe. FAO Workshop, ISBN 80-8069-515-6. PARILÁKOVÁ, K. 2003. Kritériá výberu drevín pre biologickú rekultiváciu kalových polí ZSNP a.s. Žiar nad Hronom. In: Funkcia energetickej a vodnej bilancie v biologických systémoch., Zb. z konferencie, s. 1 - 5, ISBN 80-8069-244-0. PATERSON, E. - HALL, J. M. - RATTRAY, E. A. S. - GRIFFITHS, B. S. - RITZ, K. -

KILLHAM, K. 1997. Effect of elevated CO2 on rhisosphere carbon flow and soil microbial processes. Global Change Biol., 3, s. 363 - 377. PATERSON, E. - OSLER, G. - DAWSON, E. A. - GEBBING, T. - SIM,A. - ORD, B. 2008. Labile and recalcitrans plant fractions are utilized by distinct microbial communities in soil:independent of the presence of roots and mycorrhizal fungi. Soil Biol. Biochem., 40, s. 1103 - 1113. PICHLER, V. 2003. Súčasný stav výskumu a hodnotenia lesných pôd z hľadiska ich produkčnej ekologickej a environmentálnej funkcie. In: Zb. Druhé pôdoznalecké dni v SR., VÚPOP Bratislava, s. 41 – 48, ISBN 80-89128-06-8. PODLEŠÁKOVÁ, E. - NĚMEČEK, J. - VÁCHA, R. 1999. Approaches to the assessment of soil vulnerability against contaminants and soil pollutions. In: Soil conservation in large-scale land use. In: Soil Conservation in large-scale land use. VÚPOP Bratislava, s. 241 - 246. PODLEŠÁKOVÁ, E. - NĚMEČEK, J. 2000. Faktory diferenciace mobility stopových prvků v půdě. Vědecké práce VÚMOP Praha, 11, s. 105-125. POPP, J. - STAUDER, M. 2003. Land Market in Hungary In: Agricultural economics, Praha: Agricultural Economics, 49, (4), s. 173 – 178. POSPÍŠIL, R. - VILČEK, J. 2000. Energetika sústav hospodárenia na pôde. VÚPOP Bratislava, 108 s., ISBN 80-85361-75-2. POSTERMAN, R. L. - ROLFES, L. 1999. Review of the Legal Basis for Agricultural Land Markets in Lithuania, Poland, Romania. In: Structural Change in the Farming Sectors of Central and Eastern Europe. Second EU Accession Workshop in the Rural Sector, Warsaw, s. 110 -126 ISBN 0-8213-4733-0. PROKOP, G. - JOBSTMANN,H. - SHÖNBAUER, A. 2011. Overview on best practices for limiting soil sealing and mittigating effect in EU-27. Environmental Agency of Austria. Tech. Report 2011-50., ISBN 978-92-79-20669-6. PRUGAR, J. a kol., 2008. Kvalita rostlinných produktů na prahu 3.tisíciletí. VÚPaS, 327 s., ISBN 978-80-86576-28-2. QIN HONG-LIN, - GAO WANG-SHENG, - MA YUE-CUM, - MA LI, - YIN CHUN- MEI, - CHEN ZHE, - HUN-LAN, 2008. Effect of subsoiling on soil moisture under no- tillage for two years. Agricultural Science in China, 7, 1, s. 88-95.

216

RAGHAVAN, G. S. V. - ALVO, P. - MCKYES, E. 1990. Soil compaction in agriculture: a view towards managing the problem. Advances in soil Science, 11, s. 1-36. RANTALAINEN, M. L. - KONTIOLA, L. - HAIMI, J. - FRITZE, H. - SETAELAE, H., 2004. Influence of resource quality on the composition of soil decomposer community in fragmented and continuos habitat. Soil Biol. Biochem., 36, s. 1983-1996. RATAJ, V. - GALAMBOŠOVÁ, J. 2011. Economical assessment of information in precision agriculture. In: Precission Agriculture. Czech Centre for Sci. and Soc., Prague, s. 668 - 674, ISBN 978-80-904830-2-6. RECOMENDATION No. R(92)8 of the Committee of ministers to EU member states on soil protection, 1992. REGULATION (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008. REHÁK, Š. 1996. Štruktúra krajinného systému. In: Program starostlivosti o poľnohospodársku krajinu z hľadiska vstupu do EÚ. SPU Nitra, 1996, s. 70 - 77. REHÁK, Š. 1996. Voda v poľnohospodárskej krajine. Fakty o Slovenskej republike. VÚZH Bratislava a VÚPÚ Bratislava, 39 s. ROY L. POSTERMAN - LEONARDO ROLFES, Jr. 1999. Review of the Legal Basis for Agricultural Land Markets in LIthuania, Poland, Romania. In: Structural Change in the Farming Sectors of Central and Eastern Europe. Second EU Accession Workshop in the Rural Sector, Warsaw, s. 110 -126 ISBN 0-8213-4733-0. Rozhodnutie Ministerstva pôdohospodárstva SR č. 531/1994-540 „O najvyšších prípustných hodnotách škodlivých látok a o určení organizácií oprávnených zisťovať skutočné hodnoty týchto látok“. RUH, H. - BRUGER, F. - SCHENK, CH. 1990. Ethik und Boden. Bericht 52 des Nationalen Forschungsprogrames „Boden“. Lieberfeld - Bern. Český preklad Etika a půda, Prokopová, J. a Staňa, J., UKSUZ Brno, 1996, 112 s. RUMANOVSKÁ, J. - LAZÍKOVÁ, J. - SCHWARCZ, P. - SZOVICS, P. - ŠUSTER, M. - TAKÁČ, I. - TÓTHOVÁ, V. 2012. Poznaj EÚ, si jej súčasťou! SPU Nitra, 223 s., ISBN 978- 80-552-0927-2. RUMANOVSKÁ, Ľ. a kol. 2012. Poznaj EÚ, si jej súčasťou. Nitra: SPU, s. 123 ŠALY, R. 1962. Hlavné typy lesných pôd na Slovensku. Vyd. SAV, Bratislava, 256 s. ŠALY, R. 1999. Lesnícke pôdoznalectvo. TU Zvolen, 177 s. SÁŇKA, M. - MATERNA, J. 2004. Indikátory kvality zemědělských a lesních pud ČR. In: Planeta, Praha, MŽP, roč.12, č. 11, ISSN 1213-3393. ŠARAPATKA, B. - DLAPA, P. - BEDRNA, Z. - 2002. Kvalita a degradace půdy. Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci. 246 s., ISBN 80-244-0584-9. SCHROEDER, D. 1984. Soil - Facts and Concepts. Potas Institute, Bern/Switzerland, 140 s. SEDLÁK, Š., 1981. Kategorizácia a zúrodňovanie zasolených pôd v ČSSR. Metodika ÚVTIZ, č. 8, Praha, 81 s.

217

SHAKESBY, R. A. - Doer, S. H. - Walsh, R. P. D. 2000. The erosional impact of soil hydrophobicity: current problems and future research directions. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss, 4, s. 407 - 437. ŠÍBL, D. Európska únia. Encyklopédia, výkladový slovník. Sprint, s. 343 ISBN 80-88848- 32-6 ŠIMEK, M. - ŠANTRUČKOVÁ, H. 2002. Jsou charakteristiky mikrobiálního společenství vhodními indikátory kvality pudy? In: Biologické indikátory kvality půd. MZLU Brno, s. 32- 38. ŠIMONOVIČOVÁ, A. 2011. Mikroskopické huby v pôdach Slovenska. Univerzita Komenského, Bratislava, 272 s. SKALOVÁ, J. 2001. Pedotransférové funkcie pôd Záhorskej nížiny a ich aplikácia pri modelovaní vodného režimu pôdy. SvF STU Bratislava, 112 p. SLOVENSKÝ POZEMKOVÝ FOND. 2013. Výročná správa. Bratislava: SPF. SOBOCKÁ, J. - FULAJTÁR, E. 2010. Stručná história výskumu pôd na Slovensku. In: Stručná história pôdoznaleckého výskumu a spolkovej činnosti pôdoznalcov na Slovensku. (www.vupop.sk), s. 5-11. SOBOCKÁ, J. - JAĎUĎA, M. - POLTÁRSKA, K. - ŠURINA, B. 2007. Pôdy Bratislavy. VÚPOP Bratislava, 126 s. SOBOCKÁ, J. - ŠURINA, B. - TORMA, S. - DODOK, K. 2005. Klimatická zmena a jej možné dopady na pôdny fond Slovenska. Záv. Správa, VÚPOP Bratislava, 48 s. SOIL ATLAS OF EUROPE, 2005. European Commission, DG-Environment. Publ. Office of the EU, Luxemburg, 128 s., ISBN 92-894-8120-X. SOIL ATLAS OF THE NOTHERN CIRCUMPOLAR REGION. 2010. European Commission, DG-Environment. Publ. Office of the EU, Luxembourg, 144 s., ISBN 978-92- 79-09770-6. SOIL BIODIVERSITY - THE FACTOR OF LIFE. 2013. In: Nature in Europe. EC, DG- Environment, www.facebook.com/Nature in Europe. ŠPÁNIK, F. - ŠIŠKA, B. a kol. 2004. Biometeorológia. SPU Nitra, 227 s., ISBN 80-8069- 315-3. ŠPÁNIK, F. a kol. 1997a. Zmena klímy a poľnohospodárstvo Slovenska. Leaflet NKP SR, SHMÚ Bratislava. ŠPÁNIK, F. a kol., 1997. Aplikovaná agrometeorológia. SPU Nitra, 194 s., ISBN 80-7137- 421-0. SPARKEWRS, P. 2007. European Land law, ISBN 978-1-84113-758-2, HART Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon. ŠTATISTICKÁ ROČENKA O PÔDNOM FONDE V SR k 1.1.2013. Úrad geodézie, kartografie a katastra SR. ISBN 978-80-85672-97-8. Štatistická ročenka Slovenskej republiky, 2012. ŠÚSR Bratislava. ŠTEFANOVIČ, M. 2009. Pozemkové právo, 3. Aktualizované vydadanie. Bratislava: Eurounion, ISBN 978-80-89374-10-6. ŠTEKAUEROVÁ, V. - SKALOVÁ, J. - ŠÚTOR, J. 2002. Using of pedotransfer functions for assessment of hydrolimits. Rostlinná výroba 48, s. 407 - 412. STN 75 7143 Kvalita vody. Závlahová voda. 218

STREĎANSKÁ, A. 2008. Posudzovanie vplyvov na životné prostredie v rezorte pôdohospodárstva. SPU Nitra, 130 s., ISBN 978-80-552-0154-2. STREĎANSKÝ, J. 1993. Veterná erózia – ochranný účinok poľnohospodárskych plodín voči účinkom veternej erózie. MZ ČR. Metodika ÚZPI 15/1993. STREĎANSKÝ, J. - GREŠOVÁ, L. 2012. Veterná erózia pôdy. SPU Nitra, 89 s., ISBN 978- 80-552-0812-1. ŠURINA, B. 1997. World Reference Base for Soil Resources - its Evaluation from the Point of View of Slovak MSCS Soil Unit Comparison. Vedecké práce VÚPÚ Bratislava, 20/1, s. 133 - 142. ŠURINA, B. 2003. Komparácia pôdnych jednotiek v taxonómii MKSPS-2000 a WRB-1998. In: Zb. Druhé pôdoznalecké dni v SR, VÚPOP Bratislava, s. 393 – 404, ISBN 80-89128-06-8. ŠÚTOR, J. 2003. Súčasné aspekty hydrológie pôdy vo vzťahu k pedológii. In: Zb. Druhé pôdoznalecké dni v SR, VÚPOP Bratislava, s. 19 – 25, ISBN 80-89128-06-8. SZOMBATHOVÁ, N. - SOBOCKÁ, J. 2006. Antropizácia pôdy. SPU Nitra, 114 s. SZOMBATHOVÁ, N. 2010. Chemické a fyzikálno-chemické vlastnosti humusových látok pôd ako ukazovateľ antropogénnych zmien v ekosystémoch. SPU Nitra, 96 s., ISBN 978-80- 552-0329-4. TAKÁČ, I. - BANDLEROVÁ, A. 2010. The agricultural land prices and land transactions development in Slovakia and selected EU countries, Global Economy: Challenges and Perspectives, s.705-728, ISBN 978-80-552-0386-7. TAKÁČ, I. – LAZÍKOVÁ, J. 2013. "The Legal Regulation of Rental Contracts on the Land Rental Market in Slovakia" EU agrarian Law, 2.1 (2013): 32-36. Retrieved 7 Jan. 2014, from doi:10.2478/eual-2013-0005. TAKÁČ, I. 2008. Trh s poľnohospodárskou pôdou na Slovensku. Písomná dizertačná práca. TAKÁCS – GYÖRGY, K. – BANDLEROVÁ, A. – SADOWSKI, A. 2007. Land use and land reform in former Central and Eastern European countries. In: Joint IAAE – 104th EAAE Seminar. THE CONVENTION ON LONG-RANGE TRANSBOUNDARY AIR POLLUTION. 1998. UNEC, 9 s. THOMASSON, A. J. 1979. Assessment of average soil droughtiness. In: Soil Survey Applications (M. G. Jarvisand - D.Mackney). Soil Survey Technical Monograph, 13, Harpenden, UK, s. 43-50. TOBIAŠOVÁ, E. 2010. Pôdna organická hmota ako indikátor kvality ekosystémov. SPU Nitra, 107 s., ISBN 978-80-552-0459-8. TOBIAŠOVÁ, E. 2013. Biológia pôdy. SPU Nitra, 93 s., ISBN 978-80-552-1003-2. TOMÁŠ, J. - HRONEC, O. a kol. 2007. Poškodzovanie pôd a rastlín ľudskými činnosťami. SPU Nitra, 110 s., ISBN 978-80-8069-902-4. TUTZING PROJECT (1998). Preserving Soil for Life. Proposal for a Convention on Sustainable Use of Soil (Soil Convention), 41 s. UNITED NATIONS, 2008. Trends in sustainable development. UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 34 s., ISBN 978-92-1-104576-5. UNITED NATIONS. Report of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. [cit. 2016-01-05] Available online at 219

http://www.uncsd2012.org/content/documents/814UNCSD%20REPORT%20final%20revs.p df URMINSKÁ, J. - PORHAJAŠOVÁ, J. - ONDRIŠÍK, O. 2008. Toxic metals cadmium and beryllium as arisk factor of Žiar basin territory. In: Acta regionalica et environmentalica, 2, č. 1, s 51 - 56, ISSN 1336-9253. VAN-CAMP, L. - BUJARRABAL, B. - GENTILE, A. R. - JONES, R. J. - MONTANARELLA, L. - OLAZABAL, C. - SELVARADJON, S. R. 2004. Reports of the technical working group established under the thematic strategy for soil protection. Volume III, Organic Matter, EUR 21319EN/3, Official publications of the European communities, Luxembourg, s. 311 – 493. VERNADSKIJ, V. I. 1935. Biosfera, očerk pervyj i vtoroj. Leningrad, 320 s. VILČEK, J. 2011. Potenciály a parametre kvality poľnohospodárskych pôd Slovenska. Geografický časopis/Geographical Journal, 63, 2, s.133 - 154. VILČEK, J. 2006. Energetický potenciál poľnohospodárskych pôd – kritérium hodnotenia a využívania krajiny. VÚPOP Bratislava, 81 s. VILČEK, J. - BUJNOVSKÝ, R. - KOCO, Š. 2010. Index environmentálneho potenciálu poľnohospodárskych pôd. VÚPOP Bratislava, 44 s., ISBN 978-80-89128- 70-9. VILČEK, J. 2010. Poľnohospodárske výrobné oblasti. In: Minimalizačné a pôdoochranné technológie (Kováč a kol.). Agroinštitút Nitra, s.8 – 12, ISBN 978-80-7139-139-5. VILČEK, J. 2013. Bioenergetic potential of agricultural soils in Slovakia. In: Biomas and bioenergy. Sci. Verse Science Direct, Elsevier Ltd., 56, s. 53 - 61. VIĽJAMS, V. R. 1940. Počvovedenie. Nauka. Moskva. VOORHEES, W. B. - NELSON, W. W. - RANDALL, G. W. 1986. Extend and persistence of subsoil compaction caused by heavy axle loads. Soil Sci.Soc. Amer. J. 50, s. 428 - 433. VRÁBLIK, P. 2009. Regenerace brownfieldů oblati Podkrušnohoří a možnost jejich revitalizace. Univerzita J. E. Purkyně, Ústi nad Labem, 97 s., ISBN 978-80-7414-197. WEST, T. O. - SIX, J. 2007. Considering to influence of sequestration duration and carbon saturation on estimates of soil carbon capacity. Climate Change, 80, s. 25 - 41. WISCHMEIER, W. H. - SMITH, D. D. - 1978. Predicting rainfall erosion losses. Guide to conservation panning. Agricultural Handbook, USDA Washington, 537 s. WORKING GROUP DBG, 2002. Functions and models of urban soils. Sym. A.55. Pop 1994. 17th WCSS, Bangkok, Thailand. WORLD BANK, 2009. Agriculture at a Crossroads. IAASTD, Island Press, Washington DC, 590 s., ISBN 978-1-59726-538-6. ZACHAR, D. 1970. Erózia pôdy. SAV Bratislava (2.vyd.), 528 s. ZAUJEC, A. 2003. Rastlinné zvyšky a ich rozklad v pôde. In: Zb. Druhé pôdoznalecké dni v SR. VÚPOP Bratislava, s. 81 - 90, ISBN 80-81128-06-8. ZAUJEC, A. - CHLPÍK, J. - NÁDAŠSKÝ, J. - SZOMBATHOVÁ, N. - TOBIAŠOVÁ, E. 2009. Pedológia a základy geológie. SPU Nitra, 399 s., ISBN 978-80-552-027-0207-5. ZAUJEC, A. - CHLPÍK, J. - TOBIAŠOVÁ, E. - SOMBATHOVÁ, N. 2002. Pedológia. SPU Nitra, 98 s., ISBN 80-8069-090-1.

220

ZAUŠKOVÁ, Ľ. 2011. Kvantitatívne a kvalitatívne hodnotenie zmien vo využívaní krajiny. In: Midriak, R. a kol., Spustnuté pôdy a spustnutie krajiny Slovenska. Univ. M. Bela, B. Bystrica, s. 216-293, ISBN 978-80-557-0110-3. ZRUBEC, F. 1985. Príčiny tvorby sekundárneho zhutnenia podorničnej vrstvy. Úroda, 33, 179 - 180. ZRUBEC, F. 1998. Problémy nadmerného zhutňovania pôd. In: Trvalo udržateľná úrodnosť pôdy a protierózna ochrana. Zb. VÚPOP Bratislava, s. 161 - 169.

Legal acts - Act No. 17/1992 Coll. on environment as amended - Agenda 21 - Declaration of the UN Conference on the Human Environment - Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development - Rio Declaration on Environment and Development www.eur-lex.europa.eu www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/concise www.slov-lex.sk

221

EU Land Policy “The Pathway Towards Sustainable Europe“

Anna Bandlerová – Pavol Bielek - Pavol Schwarcz - Lucia Palšová

Published by: Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra Edition: first Editor: Ing. Kristína Mandalová, PhD. Number: 300 pcs AQ-PQ: 18,64-18,.98

Not edited in Publishing house of SUA in Nitra.

ISBN 978-80-552-1499-3

222