Brussels, 15/03/2010 (Agence Europe) - Having failed to make progress on the proposed framework directive on the protection of soil, which has been at deadlock since November 2007, the Spanish Presidency managed, in Brussels on Monday 15 March, more specifically to identify the problems and sticking points, in the hope of being able to move forward. The Environment Ministers of the 27 examined the progress report on a text which has always been held back by a blocking minority made up of the six Member States with national legislation on the issue, and which are therefore the most ambitious (the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Malta and Austria). The public debate confirmed this stalemate situation, despite the emphasis laid by Elena Espinosa, the president-in-exercise of the Council, on defending the purpose of a directive which would make it possible to "consider the soil, which is vital for food safety, the regulation of the climate and biodiversity, as something to be protected in the same way as water and the air". Janez Potoènik, the new Environment Commissioner, tried in vain to stress that in the prolonged absence of agreement, "the degradation of the soil is continuing", and fair competition conditions are not in place for all players, with all parties are sticking to their guns. The Commissioner has given himself six months to find areas of agreement and, if possible, a conclusion.
Summing up his conclusions from the debate, the Commissioner noted "a high level of ambition" and concluded that it would not be a question of scaling down the level of ambition of the text, if the ministers were "sincere". He acknowledged that the reflection on the legal approach (a binding text or not) should be stepped up, although the Commission remains convinced that a binding text offers a greater guarantee of effectiveness (the European Charter of the Council of Europe for sustainable soil use has not borne fruit, he commented). The issue of cost is an extremely important one and particular attention will be paid to it, as "the cost of action and the cost of non-action has been calculated at 38 billion euros a year", said Mr Potoènik. He will also ensure a "balance between the European framework and the flexibility of local conditions".
The Commissioner is not convinced by the argument put forward from certain quarters that action at European level would not be useful, on the basis that, unlike air and water, soil does not cross national borders. The impact of the soil on biodiversity and climate change, he believes, is sufficient to justify the creation of a "solid European framework". As for the sacrosanct principle of subsidiarity, he stressed that he will ensure that this is respected, but that this principle "must not be used as an excuse to do nothing". Finding this argument unconvincing as well, he told the press that he would discuss the issue with each of the ministers making up the blocking minority, to find out exactly "what is behind it".
During the debate, the UK Minister recognized that certain countries have systems which have proved their worth, but stressed that for his country, the directive "would bring considerable costs but no added value". "Soil does not tend to move from one Member State to another", he joked. Casting doubt on the likelihood of an agreement, he called the EU to take a step back and tackle the issue differently.
Germany takes the view that soil is one of the most important environmental issues. Germany has extremely ambitious national legislation to guarantee maintaining the quality of the soil and avoiding irreparable damage. Stressing that at European level, "eco-conditionality is an important issue", this delegation added that the request made of the Member States to cover all arable areas threatened with erosion was inadequate. This country hoped to see "a proper soil protection strategy, with flexibility for the Member States".
Austria reiterated its opposition to the directive, on the grounds that "soil protection should come under national competency". It also questioned the usefulness of a text of this kind, given that the disadvantages in terms of red tape would outweigh the advantages. It therefore suggested that the proposal be dropped altogether. France feels that it is very important to have a soil protection policy in place. "It is not a question of one side wanting this policy and the other not", said the French Minister, pleading in favour of a new approach focusing on the "most efficient specific measures, to be adopted as soon as possible for the problem areas".
Malta said that it agreed with the outlines of the proposal, but takes the view that the text could be improved further because, in practice, the administrative burden imposed in many sectors could override the advantages. Given the differing nature of soils, the need to draw up an inventory of contaminated soils would be "an additional burden within a very short timescale". Differentiated approaches required.
In the opposite corner, the Czech Republic voiced its support for the Presidency, stating that it is in favour of "a common platform on this future framework" to help to hammer out an agreement. Greece expressed its "unswerving support" for the Presidency and stressed the absolute need for adequate legislation at European level, without "sacrificing the environment on the altar of the economic crisis". Belgium said that it was prepared to make the efforts required to get the text out of deadlock. Ireland, Slovakia, Luxembourg, Finland, Portugal and Bulgaria called for progress in order not to hinder further the adoption of ambitious European legislation. (A.N./trans.fl)