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

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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

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

7. Website link for European policy paper overviews: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs_en.htm European Soil Strategy – Communication on Soils, 2002

8. 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

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

10.  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

11. Soil Contamination European Soil Strategy – Main threats to European Soils

12. 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

13. 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

14. Contamination Extent of the problem in Europe (local soil contamination)  300.000 to 1.500.000 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: 59.000 – 119.000 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

15. Technical Working Groups European Soil Strategy – Technical Working Groups

16. 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

17. In 2004 all TWG’s delivered their final reports: http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/soil/ library?l=/reports_working&vm=detailed&sb=Title European Soil Strategy – Technical Working Groups

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

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

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

31. 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

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

33. The European Soil Research Agenda European Soil Strategy – The European Soil Research Agenda

34. 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

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

36. 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

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

38. 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

39. 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

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

41. 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

42. 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

43. 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

44. 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

45. 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

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