The Scottish Government

Article 1: What are your views on the scope of the proposed Directive, in particular the definition of soil and the soil functions which are listed?

15

Article 1: Do you think the proposed Directive seeks the right level of protection for our soils?

15

Article 1: Do you think it is important for Member States to address natural degradation as well as that caused by human activity?

15

Article 2: Do you have any comments on these definitions? Do you think it is important to clarify any other terms in the proposed Directive?

16

Article 3: Do you consider there is a significant benefit in expanding the duty, as provided by the proposed Directive, to carry out an environmental assessment in so far as soil is concerned, so that it covers all other sectoral policies which may have a significant impact on soil? If so, which particular sectors of policy do you think impact on soil and need to be covered? And what are your views on leaving out the duty to consult in relation to these additional sectors?

17

Article 3: What are your views on how this provision could be improved, for example, should it instead only refer to the SEA Directive in the recitals and include this additional duty in respect of soils only in respect of policies not already covered by the SEA Directive?

17

Article 4: There are a number of ways in which this proposed Article could be adapted. Please let us have your views on how this provision could be amended. Some possibilities you may wish to consider are:

• inclusion of an appropriate de minimis threshold, in terms of area of land affected.
• leaving it to individual Member States to decide which land-users are covered and which activities should be regarded as likely to result in significant harm. This may mean differing levels of care in different Member States but with more flexibility to deal with relevant local issues that may change with time.
• leaving this outcome to be achieved by the EIA and other Directives, and simply requiring Member States to encourageaction by land-users more generally to minimise their impact on soil functions.
• exceptions or limits to the duty to prevent or minimise, for example, because some uses serve important social or economic needs, and minimising adverse effects may be technically infeasible or involve excessive cost?

19

Article 4: What activities, which are not already regulated in the UK, if any, do you consider may have a significant adverse impact on soils?

19

Article 4: Do you have any comments on the issues we have raised, and on our initial analysis of costs and benefits?

19

Article 5: Do you consider there to be significant benefits in having new EC legislation that deals with soil sealing? If so, what are the benefits and do they in your view exceed the potential costs?

23

Article 5: Do you think there would be value in amending the draft Directive, for example, to:

• make it clear that Member States in considering the need to limit soil sealing should do this as part of their overall consideration of a proposed development's environmental, social and economic impacts;
• provide for exceptions to the requirement to limit sealing, for example, where the proposed development/sealing serves an overriding public interest;
• insert de minimis provisions in line with the thresholds in the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive?

23

Article 5: What are your views on amending this provision so that it only requires mitigation of new soil sealing through use of permeable construction materials?

23

Article 5: Do you agree with our concerns and our assessment of the costs and benefits as set out in our initial RIA?

23

Articles 6-7: Do you consider that this risk-area/programme of measures approach is appropriate? How do you consider that this provision could be improved, for example, what are your views on requiring Member States to put in place programmes of measures to address degradation processes with an adequate focus on higher risk areas and higher risk activities (but without requiring formal identification of risk areas) or requiring more clearly harmonised standards?

28

Articles 6-7: Is there a significant benefit, in your view, in having a common EU-wide framework in place?

28

Articles 6-7: Do you consider that the correct degradation processes have been listed for the purpose of identifying risk areas? What are your views on seeking to have compaction removed from this list so that it is dealt with only under the proposed Article 4?

28

Articles 6-7: Do you consider that the definitions of soil erosion, soil carbon and the other degradation processes are correct considering the range of soil functions which the proposed Directive seeks to protect?

28

Articles 6-7: What are your views on the inclusion of salinisation as a threat - do you consider that it should be defined to exclude managed retreat?

28

Articles 6-7: If the proposed Directive were to require detailed risk-mapping, is it important for it to require Member States to use all the Annex I factors or could the methodology be left to individual Member States?

28

Articles 6-7: Do you agree with our concerns and our estimate of the costs and benefits of this provision?

28

Article 8: How important do you think it is for us to be permitted to continue to use existing CAP measures (cross-compliance and agri-environment) to deliver the required Programme of Measures? Do you think such existing measures in their current form are adequate for addressing soils issues in high risk areas?

29

Article 8: Would you like the Government to be able to use a range of measures, from guidance and codes of practice to regulations, to implement this proposed Article?

29

Article 8: Do you agree with our concerns and our estimate of costs and benefits?

29

Article 9: Are there any benefits in having this provision?

31

Article 9: How do you think this proposed Article could be amended to improve it? Examples include:

• So the proposed Directive states that full implementation of existing pollution prevention and waste legislation might be sufficient for implementation.
• So the proposed Directive states specifically what risks or activities must be addressed.

31

Articles 10-11: Do you agree with the costs and benefits identified in our preliminary analysis? How do you think the proposed Directive could be amended to reduce the costs involved whilst achieving the same benefits?

36

Articles 10-11: Should the proposed Directive enable Member States to retain their existing national approaches to the identification of contaminated land, provided these deliver some basic common requirements, or should they be required to follow a common detailed procedure? If so, what are the basic common requirements that can in your view reasonably be included in the proposed Directive?

36

Articles 10-11: What are your views on the Commission's definition of contaminated sites? Is it appropriate?

37

Articles 10-11: What are your views on the list of potentially polluting activities set out in Annex II?

37

Articles 10-11: Do you consider that it is necessary to test for dangerous substances at all sites on which potentially polluting activities have taken place or do you think testing should be targeted based on a risk assessment?

37

Articles 10-11: Do you think the timescales given in the draft Directive for compiling and reviewing the inventory are reasonable?

37

Articles 10-11: How do you think this requirement will affect land values?

37

Article 12: How do you think this provision could best be amended to minimise any possible negative impacts that this proposed Article may have in Great Britain?

39

Article 12: What are your views on the costs and benefits of this provision? What effect do you think this will have on land prices?

39

Article 12: What do you think are the public health/environmental benefits of the requirement to produce Soil Status Reports? Do you consider that they will benefit business activity?

39

Articles 13-14: Do you agree that contaminated sites as defined should be remediated? Do you think these provisions could be amended to make them more proportionate? If so, how?

41

Articles 13-14: Should this provision be aligned with existing European Directives (as outlined in paragraph 5.2), so that where they apply, those Directives' arrangements concerning remedies will operate as now?

41

Articles 13-14: Do you agree with the costs and benefits identified in our preliminary analysis? How do you consider these costs could be reduced whilst achieving the same or similar benefits?

41

Articles 13-14: What are your views on requiring Member States to put in place appropriate mechanisms to fund remediation of orphan sites?

41

Articles 13-14: What are your views on requiring Member States to have a public 'National Remediation Strategy'in place? Do you think this will affect existing national measures such as remediation by developers?

42

Article 15: Do you agree with our concerns and the costs and benefits identified?

44

Article 15: What are your views on this provision and how could it could be improved?

44

Article 16: What are your views on this provision and how could it be improved?

45

Article 17: Do you consider that this platform for the exchange of information would be useful for the Government and stakeholders?

45

Article 17: Is this too narrow a range of information? If so, what else should be included?

45

Articles 18-24: What are your views on these provisions?

48