European Soil Strategy Soil Pollution with Heavy Metals an overview Jan Japenga

Communication on Soils, April 2002 European Soil Strategy – Communication on Soils, 2002

Main threats to soils were defined in a Communication on Soils by the EC, launching the European Soil Strategy: European Soil Strategy – Communication on Soils, 2002

Background of the 2002 Communication on Soils UN Convention to Combat Desertification (1998)  Prevent /reduce land degradation  Rehabilitate/reclaim (partly) degraded land 6 th Environmental Action Programme of the European Commission (2001)  Protection of soils against erosion and pollution EU Sustainable Development Strategy (2001)  Soil loss and declining fertility erode the viability of agricultural land European Soil Strategy – Communication on Soils, 2002

Purpose of the 2002 Communication on Soils  To build political commitment to soil protection  To turn soil protection in Europe more systematic  To describe the actual state of the soil in Europe in terms of eight defined threats to soil quality  To develop a legislative basis for soil monitoring to create a knowledge-based approach for soil protection  To initiate actions to create a comprehensive European Soil Strategy European Soil Strategy – Communication on Soils, 2002

Positioning of the 2002 Communication on Soils Relation with existing/developing EU-policies & regulations:  Environmental policy Nitrates Directive Water Framework Directive Waste Framework Directive etc.  The EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) European Commission: Communication on Sustainable Development (  Regional Policy and Structural Funds  Transport Policy European Soil Strategy – Communication on Soils, 2002

Website link for European policy paper overviews: European Soil Strategy – Communication on Soils, 2002

Main threats cf. the 2002 Communication on Soils  Erosion  Contamination (local & diffuse)  Loss of soil organic matter  Decline of biodiversity  Compaction and other physical soil deterioration  Salinisation  Floods & landslides  Sealing European Soil Strategy – Communication on Soils, 2002

Threats are interrelated European Soil Strategy – Main threats to European Soils

 Erosion  Contamination (local & diffuse)  Loss of soil organic matter  Decline of biodiversity  Compaction and other physical soil deterioration  Salinisation  Floods & landslides  Sealing European Soil Strategy – Main threats to European Soils

Soil Contamination European Soil Strategy – Main threats to European Soils

Contamination Introduction of (naturally occurring or man-made) chemicals in/onto the soil by point sources or by diffuse input sources. Presence of contaminants in soils may cause risks of:  food chain effects & adverse effects on human health  breakdown of soil buffering capacity  deteriorated ecosystem health and biodiversity losses  cross contamination to water bodies (groundwater & surface waters) Risks may enforce or inhibit land use changes as risks vary with land use options European Soil Strategy – Main threats to European Soils

Contamination Local (point) sources  (past & present) mining activities (mine tailings, acid mine drainage)  (past & present) industrial facilities and military sites, mainly in Eastern Europe  waste landfills Diffuse input sources  atmospheric deposition (from industry, traffic, agriculture)  soil acidification, most important in Eastern Europe  heavy metals from fertilisers & manure  pesticides (mainly historic)  waste material applications (sewage sludge, sediments) European Soil Strategy – Main threats to European Soils

Contamination Extent of the problem in Europe (local soil contamination)  to polluted sites in Europe  3000 former military sites in Eastern Europe  high soil clean-up and polluted land management costs in some EU-countries Netherlands: 550 MEuro and Spain 14 MEuro in 2000, which reflects a different perception of contamination severity  total expected clean-up costs in the European Union: – MEuro Extent of the problem in Europe (diffuse soil contamination)  acidification causes release of heavy metals and aluminum in certain areas  radionuclides are persistent in forest areas  wide-spread soil-related water pollution (nitrogen, pesticides) European Soil Strategy – Main threats to European Soils

Technical Working Groups European Soil Strategy – Technical Working Groups

After the 2002 Communication on Soils DG Environment decided to formulate a Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection. Five “Technical Working Groups” (TWG’s) were installed: Monitoring Erosion Organic Matter Contamination Research European Soil Strategy – Technical Working Groups

In 2004 all TWG’s delivered their final reports: library?l=/reports_working&vm=detailed&sb=Title European Soil Strategy – Technical Working Groups

Common approach for all TWG’s:  The eight threats to soils defined by the 2002 Communication on Soils  The DPSIR approach to structure problems and their solution European Soil Strategy – Technical Working Groups

Common approach for all TWG’s:  The eight threats to soils defined by the 2002 Communication on Soils  The DPSIR approach to structure problems and their solution European Soil Strategy – Technical Working Groups

Main threats cf. the 2002 Communication on Soils  Erosion  Contamination (local & diffuse)  Loss of soil organic matter  Decline of biodiversity  Compaction and other physical soil deterioration  Salinisation  Floods & landslides  Sealing European Soil Strategy – Communication on Soils, 2002

Common approach for all TWG’s:  The eight threats to soils defined by the 2002 Communication on Soils  The DPSIR approach to structure problems and their solution European Soil Strategy – Technical Working Groups

Common approach for all TWG’s:  The eight threats to soils defined by the 2002 Communication on Soils  The DPSIR approach to structure problems and their solution European Soil Strategy – Technical Working Groups

The DPSIR approach Driver Pressure State Impact Response European Soil Strategy – Technical Working Groups - DPSIR

RESPONSES: Responses can address D, P, S & I, e.g dependent on soil type /soil use and threat. Examples for contamination:  Industrial/mining soil  Agricultural soil  Contaminated soil European Soil Strategy – Technical Working Groups - DPSIR

RESPONSES – industrial/mining soil ---- contamination threat Response to impacts is extremely expensive Response to drivers to avoid pressures is most adequate (input control, choice of soils, protective measures regarding pollutant accumulation) European Soil Strategy – Technical Working Groups - DPSIR

RESPONSES – agricultural soil ---- contamination threat Response to impacts is extremely expensive Response to drivers to avoid pressures is inadequate. Agiculture unavoidably puts pressures on a soil. Response to soil state is most convenient (input = output, avoiding accumulation) European Soil Strategy – Technical Working Groups - DPSIR

RESPONSES – contaminated soil ---- contamination threat Response to impacts (remediation, polluted land management) is expensive, but anavoidable as the soil state is already changed and already leads to impacts. Impacts include decreased soil fertility, declining biodiversity, health risks. European Soil Strategy – Technical Working Groups - DPSIR

Technical Working Groups (TWG’s): Monitoring Erosion Organic Matter Contamination Research European Soil Strategy – Technical Working Groups

Technical Working Groups (TWG’s): Monitoring Erosion Organic Matter Contamination Research European Soil Strategy – Technical Working Groups

Some conclusions and policy recommendations on soil contamination  Local sources: “point source safety”, environmental liability  Diffuse inputs: need for better regulations on the use of agricultural additives  Contaminated land management: adopt the RBLM approach (“Risk Based Land Management”) European Soil Strategy – Technical Working Groups

Technical Working Groups (TWG’s): Monitoring Erosion Organic Matter Contamination Research European Soil Strategy – Technical Working Groups

The European Soil Research Agenda European Soil Strategy – The European Soil Research Agenda

Research clusters as proposed by the TWG Research 1.Processes underlying soil functions and soil quality 2.Spatial and temporal changes of soil processes and parameters 3.Ecological, economic and social drivers of soil threats 4.Factors (“threats”) influencing soil eco-services 5.Strategies and operational procedures for soil protection Cross-cutting and over-arching issues European Soil Strategy – The European Soil Research Agenda

RESEARCH Soil eco-services European Soil Strategy – The European Soil Research Agenda

Research clusters as proposed by the TWG Research 1.Processes underlying soil functions and soil quality 2.Spatial and temporal changes of soil processes and parameters 3.Ecological, economic and social drivers of soil threats 4.Factors (“threats”) influencing soil eco-services 5.Strategies and operational procedures for soil protection Phytoremediation European Soil Strategy – The European Soil Research Agenda

Phytoremediation of heavy metals The use of plants in soil remediation and polluted land management Phytoremediation of heavy metals

Phytoextraction Plants extract heavy metals from the (moderately polluted) soil and the contaminated plant material is further treated Phytostabilisation/revegetation/ecological restoration Plants, in combination with soil treatment, are used to physically and chemically stabilise (heavily polluted soil) thus reducing the risks for humans and ecosystems Phytoremediation of heavy metals

Phytoextraction of heavy metals Critical Success Factors  High heavy metal uptake rates & high biomass production  Low leaching rates to avoid groundwater pollution Phytoremediation of heavy metals

Phytoextraction of heavy metals Approaches  Use of hyperaccumulators  Use of biodegradable soil additives to temporarily increase heavy metal uptake rates Phytoremediation of heavy metals

Phytoextraction of heavy metals Examples  Use of Miscanthus var. for the transformation of agricultural soil into forest soil (cadmium and phosphate removal)  Use of Berkheya coddii (hyperaccumulator) to remove nickel from soils around a smelter in South Africa. Nickel returned to the smelter Phytoremediation of heavy metals

Phytostabilisation of heavy metals Critical Success Factors  Low heavy metal uptake rates to avoid food-chain contamination  Low leaching rates to avoid groundwater pollution Phytoremediation of heavy metals

Phytostabilisation of heavy metals Approaches  Use of a combination of vegetation and soil treatment (immobilisation of heavy metals, agonomic measures)  Perennial vegetation with good root system and low heavy metal uptake rate  Preference for local plant species (ecological restoration) or cash crops (e.g. energy crops) Phytoremediation of heavy metals

Phytostabilisation of heavy metals Examples  Use of Miscanthus and Vetiver for the stabilisation of copper polluted soil in Tongling, China  Use of local species (Arabidopsis halleri) to stabilise heavy metal polluted dredged sediment in NW France Phytoremediation of heavy metals

Phytostabilisation of heavy metals Phytostabilisation fits into the European Soil Strategy as it is a tool which can be used in “Risk Based Land Management” in combination with socio-economic measures. Phytoremediation of heavy metals

CONCLUSION Phytoremediation fits very well into the European Soil Strategy and in the European Soil Research Agenda. Phytoremediation of heavy metals