The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Part 4 - Chapter II: Articles 6-8 - Risk Prevention, Mitigation And Restoration

Content

4.1 The proposed Article 6 requires Member States to identify all areas in their national territory where there is decisive evidence or legitimate grounds for suspicion that one or more of the following soil degradation processes have occurred or are likely to occur in the near future: erosion; organic matter decline; compaction; salinisation; and landslides. To identify these 'risk areas' Member States must conduct risk assessments using the factors in Annex I of the proposed Directive. Where risk areas are identified, these must be made public and reviewed every ten years.

4.2 The proposed Article 7 sets out the methodology for identifying these risk areas and allows for modelling or the use of empirical evidence.

4.3 The proposed Article 8 requires Member States to adopt programmes of measures in respect of these risk areas including risk reduction targets, appropriate measures for achieving these targets and a timetable for doing so. There is some lack of clarity as to whether these programmes need only aim to reduce the risk of erosion or whether they should also aim to secure some restoration of the land. In drawing up their programmes of measures, Member States are required to take into account the social and economic impacts of the programme of measures. They are also required to ensure that measures introduced are cost-effective.

Existing EC/domestic legislation

4.4 The Water Framework Directive ( WFD) - this requires programmes of measures to achieve water quality targets in relation to bodies of water. Where soil erosion or the condition of the soil is a cause of water quality problems, it will need to be tackled. Programmes of Measures are being developed across the UK to identify priorities for different types of preventative or remedial action, targeted at national, catchments, and specific water body scales. It does not cover soil erosion where this does not impact upon water quality.

4.5 Catchment Sensitive Farming ( CSF)-CSF initiatives, plus Monitored Priority Catchments ( MPCs) in Scotland, have been established to help the UK meet Water Framework Directive objectives, and aim to encourage soil management change at the catchment level. This includes promoting both the soil management planning process and the uptake of agri-environment scheme options.

4.6 CAP cross-compliance - This requires Member States to introduce measures (Good Agricultural Environmental Conditions - GAEC) to deal with erosion, soil organic matter and soil structure (including compaction). The approach taken was to set a baseline for all farmers rather than a risk-area approach as under the proposed Directive. The objective underlying the soil organic matter standard was not the protection of soil carbon for climate change related reasons. In practice this may mean that implementation of the proposed Soil Framework Directive would require a higher standard of protection for soil carbon than cross-compliance. (It may, however, be that this can be done through agri-environment schemes).

4.7 The GAEC soils requirements have been implemented in England, Wales and Scotland, largely by requiring farmers to carry out an assessment of risk on their farms and adopt appropriate measures accordingly.

4.8 CAP Agri-environment - The UK has developed a range of options under agri-environment schemes to encourage farmers to address any threats to soil that demand more specific management than complying with the GAEC standards. Payments are available to encourage farmers to employ management practices which reduce soil erosion and run-off, and improve and protect water and soil quality.

4.9 Habitats Directive - The main aim of the EC Habitats Directive is to promote the maintenance of biodiversity by requiring Member States to take measures to maintain or restore natural habitats and wild species at a favourable conservation status, introducing robust protection for those habitats and species of European importance. In applying these measures Member States are required to take account of economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics. As soils underpin all terrestrial ecosystems and as "peat habitats" which are valuable carbon stores form an intrinsic part of the designated features, the Habitats Directive provides a means to protect soil and its habitat support functions where designated areas are concerned.

Article 6 and 7 - Identification of risk areas

Issues raised

4.10 We are concerned that it may be difficult and potentially expensive to map risk areas for soils to the degree of precision that is required for policy purposes. Mapping risk areas for soil compaction in particular is likely to be expensive and to deliver few benefits as compaction related issues depend mainly on management practices rather than soil type. Farmers may prefer to be outside risk areas and may appeal against any findings. This will add to administrative costs.

4.11 In addition, there may be limited benefits to this exercise if the proposed Article 4 will require a different analysis of risk and possibly measures that cover the whole farming community in any event.

4.12 As well as loss of the soil resource, soil erosion presents a further issue when it leads to sediment in watercourses or on infrastructure including roads. The Water Framework Directive addresses erosion which leads to sediment in watercourses and further mapping of erosion risk beyond what is required by the WFD may not yield significant benefits.

4.13 The importance of protecting carbon stores in our soils is recognised; Article 6 as drafted defines carbon as only including the stable component of carbon in our soils. However, less stable components, such as partly decayed plant material, are relevant to soil structure and fertility, suggesting that the definition should be broader. This component of soil is, however, affected by land use and management practices and soil maps would have to be very detailed to identify risk areas.

4.14 Salinisation is not a risk in Great Britain and we would be concerned about having to map it for this reason. We would also like to be able to continue to use 'managed retreat' to deal with rising sea water levels. Landslides pose risks in many areas of Great Britain and can be important in relation to risks to infrastructure and development. However, a risk assessment of the whole of Great Britain may not be proportionate.

4.15 The proposed Directive is not clear about the level of risk that would make an area a "risk-area". It may be more proportionate for areas at significant or unacceptable risk to be identified.

4.16 The methodology set out in Annex 1 of the proposal, which sets out how Member States must go about mapping risk areas, is unnecessarily prescriptive. This sets out the factors to be taken account of in identifying risk areas.

Initial Regulatory Impact Assessment - costs and benefits

4.17 Our initial RIA suggests that an additional £150k (for England and Wales only) would be required to identify risk areas if definitions currently used in the UK are applied and compaction, landslides and salinisation excluded. A further c.£500k would be required if re-sampling of Soil Organic Matter ( SOM) is required (unclear at present if current UK data on SOM is compatible with requirement under Article 6.1(b) as drafted). Further expenditure would be required to complete the exercise for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Note also that Article 18 of the draft Directive allows the Commission to alter the criteria which Member States are required to use in identifying risk areas - this may result in additional costs. Costs may also be affected by the scale at which Member States are required to identify risk areas.

4.18 The requirement to identify areas at risk of organic matter loss (and implement a programme of measures to respond to this) may deliver slight environmental benefits through improved information allowing for more targeted action to deal with identified soil threats.

4.19 Level playing field - UK land managers may be better able to compete with some other Member States who would have to increase levels of soil protection above current levels to comply with the proposed Framework Directive. Considering the wide discretion that will be allowed in relation to programmes of measures, it is considered that the benefits will not be substantial.

Questions

• Q.14 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?
• Q.15 Is there a significant benefit, in your view, in having a common EU-wide framework in place?
• Q.16 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?
• Q.17 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?
• Q.18 What are your views on the inclusion of salinisation as a threat - do you consider that it should be defined to exclude managed retreat?
• Q.19 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?
• Q.20 Do you agree with our concerns and our estimate of the costs and benefits of this provision?

Article 8 - Programmes of measures

Issues raised

4.20 There is a lack of clarity as to whether all risks need to be addressed and the extent to which risks need to be reduced and whether restoration of soils is required.

4.21 Cross-compliance measures and agri-environment schemes cover the vast majority of UK agricultural land. It is important to avoid adding to existing measures without good cause. In addition, it is important to give farmers some time to understand and learn to comply with existing measures and avoid unnecessary change. Hence, it is important that Member States are given the flexibility to continue to use such schemes, perhaps with some minor modifications if necessary.

4.22 It would be consistent with UK policy to use incentive-based schemes, like environmental stewardship, as well as voluntary codes and other measures as part of the programme of measures. It is anticipated that these can form part of our programme of measures.

Initial Regulatory Impact Assessment - costs and benefits

4.23 Additional administrative burden on the Government in drawing up the 'programme of measures', undertaking research to set targets, monitoring progress against targets and reviewing programmes of measures.

4.24 Potential additional administrative burdens and compliance costs for land managers (in particular small businesses and those in risk areas), in adjusting to changes made to existing soil protection measures.

4.25 Environmental and economic benefits are as explained in relation to the proposed Article 6.

Questions

• Q.21 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?
• Q.22 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?
• Q.23 Do you agree with our concerns and our estimate of costs and benefits?

« Previous | Contents | Next »